# The "ki drop"



## theletch1 (Jun 12, 2008)

When we are doing technique there comes a time when we "send" uke to the ground by projecting our ki to the ground through what ever part of uke we happen to have a hold on.  There are also times when we have uke in a position almost directly under our center (irimi nage comes to mind) where we drop our center ever so slightly to drop uke to the ground.  This is, IMHO, dropping ki.  How would you describe this to a new student?  Would you even bother getting very in depth on this concept with, say, a white belt?


----------



## kwaichang (Jun 12, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> When we are doing technique there comes a time when we "send" uke to the ground by projecting our ki to the ground through what ever part of uke we happen to have a hold on.  There are also times when we have uke in a position almost directly under our center (irimi nage comes to mind) where we drop our center ever so slightly to drop uke to the ground.  This is, IMHO, dropping ki.  How would you describe this to a new student?  Would you even bother getting very in depth on this concept with, say, a white belt?


The principle can be mentioned but I wouldn't go into too much detail with a beginner. Seika Tanden of course should be mentioned but over explanation tends to confuse most beginners.


----------



## charyuop (Jun 12, 2008)

Why don't you just tell him what to do? I still after 2 years get a nice "WTF you talking about Sensei" look on my face when he tells me those phrases including center, sphere and esotheric things like that.
I got to the conclusion that the reason why Aikido takes longer than other arts to learn is the way it is taught. After 2 years I still mimic my Sensei and Senpai without actually knowing what the heck I am doing, except learning that they can kick my a$$ pretty easily hee hee.


----------



## kwaichang (Jun 12, 2008)

Well, perhaps you should ask more questions.:wavey:

Indeed, after a short period; certainly not 2yrs; students should know the basics and the terminology even if their performance isn't up to high kyu level.

Basically you can tell the junior student that the center is near the belly button and that is is the fulcrum upon which many techniques hinge.  
A demonstration of how this affects a particular throw might also help them to understand.


----------



## theletch1 (Jun 12, 2008)

kwaichang said:


> Well, perhaps you should ask more questions.:wavey:
> 
> Indeed, after a short period; certainly not 2yrs; students should know the basics and the terminology even if their performance isn't up to high kyu level.
> 
> ...


Ah, but so much of the art of aikido is about "feeling" energy or the way it's moving (or not moving) that telling one that their center is approximately two inches behind the navel is telling them how to move from their center.  This is exactly what I was hoping for when I started this thread.  Those of use who have been in the art long enough to teach often forget how hard some of these theories can really be to grasp.  There wasn't really any single explanation that worked for me on ki drops, flowing ki, moving from the center etc.  They are just theories that kinda gelled for me over time.  The same concept needs to be explained differently to different students so that it gets a little clearer on an individual basis.  So, my question is:  What is a ki drop and how do you execute it.  I doubt I see any "wrong" answers here.  Everyone that's posted in the aikido forum seems very knowledgeable.  I'm just looking for different answers to add to my repertoire.


----------



## kwaichang (Jun 12, 2008)

Think "down", this will help.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 12, 2008)

Again I am out of my element and should likely just not try and talk about something like aikido since I do not train it but I sometimes do not know when to shut up. 



charyuop said:


> I got to the conclusion that the reason why Aikido takes longer than other arts to learn is the way it is taught. After 2 years I still mimic my Sensei and Senpai without actually knowing what the heck I am doing, except learning that they can kick my a$$ pretty easily hee hee.



There are no short cuts to arts like Aikido that use Ki. If it were taiji I would say after 2 years you are just about in the right place. And asking questions is always a good way to get through those WTF moments in Taiji but asking and getting an answer are 2 different things. A good sifu (in your case a sensei) know better than you do as to what you are ready for. 



theletch1 said:


> Ah, but so much of the art of aikido is about "feeling" energy or the way it's moving (or not moving) that telling one that their center is approximately two inches behind the navel is telling them how to move from their center. This is exactly what I was hoping for when I started this thread. Those of use who have been in the art long enough to teach often forget how hard some of these theories can really be to grasp. There wasn't really any single explanation that worked for me on ki drops, flowing ki, moving from the center etc. They are just theories that kinda gelled for me over time. The same concept needs to be explained differently to different students so that it gets a little clearer on an individual basis. So, my question is: What is a ki drop and how do you execute it. I doubt I see any "wrong" answers here. Everyone that's posted in the aikido forum seems very knowledgeable. I'm just looking for different answers to add to my repertoire.



Well I am not all that knowledgeable and less so in things Aikido but here goes

If this were taiji (and I know it is not) I believe you are talking about what we call sinking the Qi and there was not one thing my Sifu ever said, even when I asked, that made this perfectly clear for me as it applies to any applications. It was not until the last fast form that a lot of things just seemed to click all at once and make a whole lot of since. Before that I had kind of a dictionary or encyclopedia understanding but after it was rather clear. I will say when he explained things that &#8220;simply&#8221; was better for me. No mention of Qi at all just sink your dantian (that is the point near the naval you are talking about in CMA terms) root, don&#8217;t stop, one movement flows into the next, etc. kind of thing. 

I would not get too deeply into it verbally with a beginner, to much detail will, IMO, tend to derail and confuse. I might do some things by example but in Taiji if you start talking Qi to early people tend to cross over into the &#8220;Magical Martial Art&#8221; area and they miss the point all together. 

But to get back on track, that is if I understand what is being said here, we would find the other persons center and take advantage of that to uproot and use our Qi to basically throw them off, down, over whatever you happen to need to do at the time. Because once you have their center you can do pretty much whatever you want to do.


----------



## morph4me (Jun 12, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> When we are doing technique there comes a time when we "send" uke to the ground by projecting our ki to the ground through what ever part of uke we happen to have a hold on. There are also times when we have uke in a position almost directly under our center (irimi nage comes to mind) where we drop our center ever so slightly to drop uke to the ground. This is, IMHO, dropping ki. How would you describe this to a new student? Would you even bother getting very in depth on this concept with, say, a white belt?


 
Jeff,

I wouldn't go too far into it with white belts, it's something that you have to feel and it's very difficult to explain. Keep it simple, and purely physical, it's something that comes in time. Nothing you can say will make it come any faster.  Think back, how long was it before you figured it out? I'll tell you something though, if you think you understand it now, wait a couple of more years, and then when you really think you've got it, wait a couple of more. You'll be amazed at how ignorant you were when you thought you finally got it. I can't wait until my next epiphany


----------



## charyuop (Jun 13, 2008)

kwaichang said:


> Well, perhaps you should ask more questions.:wavey:
> 
> Indeed, after a short period; certainly not 2yrs; students should know the basics and the terminology even if their performance isn't up to high kyu level.
> 
> ...


It's funny coz it happened right the other day. I don't remember what I was doing, but it was a katadori technique. Sensei notice I got stuck (as usual LOL) and he asked me what I was doing. I said I was going to Uke's center. So Sensei asked me to show him where the center was and I pointed exactly where you described...wrong, it was not there. Going there I was going straight into Uke's strength, coz Sensei showed me that the center I was looking for was no longer there where the famous "2 fingers under the belly button" theory describes.
Take a Shihonage for example. When you are done with the whole movement if you cut down towards the hara I experienced that you actually give everything back to Uke. His center in that case is more behind him, that's where his balance will break.
But this is just my opinion, I might be completely wrong and it might be that  my way to reason is different and what doesn't work for me works for thousands of people. Anyway if you start talking to me about center, triangles and spheres you will get the result that as soon as I start doing the same exercise after your explaination I will do exactly the same thing.

And as per asking questions, I used to till Sensei said he prefers me to learn by watching instead of asking. And actually it is better watching sometimes...


----------



## slink (Jun 13, 2008)

Speaking as a white belt aikidoka I've been primarily introduced to ki through the methodology that morph4me described and I feel that I have a decent grasp of the concept.  I'm sure that more experienced practicioners know more than I do but I know enough for the material that I'm being exposed to at this time.


----------



## kwaichang (Jun 13, 2008)

Sensei's do like students to watch, however, American students always ask.
Tanden, Seika Tanden, hara,  or what ever name used in your art, is important and "your" center doesn't change.  Body positioning may change the "bodies central fulcrum" but not your overall meaning for the concept.
Domo Arigato Guzaimasu.:yoda:


----------



## morph4me (Jun 13, 2008)

kwaichang said:


> Sensei's do like students to watch, however, American students always ask.
> Tanden, Seika Tanden, hara, or what ever name used in your art, is important and "your" center doesn't change. Body positioning may change the "bodies central fulcrum" but not your overall meaning for the concept.
> Domo Arigato Guzaimasu.:yoda:


 
Personally I like students who ask, it makes me a better instructor, but you're dead on on the rest of your post :asian:


----------



## kwaichang (Jun 13, 2008)

morph4me said:


> Personally I like students who ask, it makes me a better instructor, but you're dead on on the rest of your post :asian:


Oh, yes, I too like them to ask.  I should have said "traditional Sensei's or non-American Sensei's.
a tip o' the hat to the land of S.S.

:boing1:


----------



## Yari (Jun 14, 2008)

I belive that the "ki-system" was "made" becasue that was the way a person could understand why things worked as they did. It's an easy way to understand the mechanices, specialy since you dont need a masters grade to describe something (or maybe you do need a black belt ;-) . By saying this I think the concept of "ki-droping", which has nothing to do with birds, can be describe by your "normal" set of words. The difficult part being if you dont have words for things, then you get the mix og understanding and language.

Concering questions from students, I don't mind, I encourage it. But sometimes I feel that it's easier for students to ask than understand, and that the question it self stands in the way of there own understanding. The questions becomes more important than the understanding, and alot of times the student can't even see this himself(reminds of my self for many years ago.... maybe that's why I can see it...... hmmmm).

/Yari


----------



## theletch1 (Jun 14, 2008)

I like the idea that the question is sometimes more important than the answer.  It made something click for me.  

Morph, again it's like you are looking straight into my head (scary stuff in there) as I was trying to explain the ki drop in jacket grab to a new student the other night in purely mechanical terms.  "Look, it's just a matter of keeping your back straight and dropping your hips down and back like a big letter J".  He never did catch on to it, but, like I said he's brand new and it will take a while before even things that are explained in a mechanical way click.

As to the epiphanies that you encounter, man, do I know where you're coming from there.  It has always amazed me that I can have so many A-HA moments about the same thing over a period of time.  It's one of the many things that keeps me training as I never know when I'm gonna have the next one.


----------



## Jenna (Jun 14, 2008)

Jeff, I think that the concept you are teaching is indeed a difficult one for novices, still I think you are *exactly right* to at least tip a nod to it in your initial teaching.  I feel there is too much teaching Aikido by its mechanics alone.  Aikido is not impulse, momentum and gravity.  Although as Yari says, we have contrived the language of ki to rationalise movements in Aikido, I think nevertheless that ki will always be something unexplainable by Newton's Laws of Motion!!  I think it is akin to learning to drive, yes you need to know how to steer, accelerate, brake, change gear.  However we would assume the driving tutor to have at least made the student aware of concepts such as reading the road, anticipation, defensive driving etc.  Sorry, I mean, IMO, I think you are bang on in referencing this abstract concept while teaching the mechanics of it.  The two aspects will eventually "click" for the student in that epiphany moment someone alluded to earlier..  Sorry - I meandered a bit there 
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## theletch1 (Jun 14, 2008)

Jenna, thank ye kindly, ma'am.  Much appreciated.  Where ya been?  Haven't seen you around lately.


----------



## morph4me (Jun 14, 2008)

Jenna said:


> Jeff, I think that the concept you are teaching is indeed a difficult one for novices, still I think you are *exactly right* to at least tip a nod to it in your initial teaching. I feel there is too much teaching Aikido by its mechanics alone. Aikido is not impulse, momentum and gravity. Although as Yari says, we have contrived the language of ki to rationalise movements in Aikido, I think nevertheless that ki will always be something unexplainable by Newton's Laws of Motion!! I think it is akin to learning to drive, yes you need to know how to steer, accelerate, brake, change gear. However we would assume the driving tutor to have at least made the student aware of concepts such as reading the road, anticipation, defensive driving etc. Sorry, I mean, IMO, I think you are bang on in referencing this abstract concept while teaching the mechanics of it. The two aspects will eventually "click" for the student in that epiphany moment someone alluded to earlier.. Sorry - I meandered a bit there
> Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
> Jenna


 
I don't think you meandered at all, and I've used the driving anolgy myself, many times. That being said, I think that ki is really just a merging of proper timing, physiology and phyics, so by my definition mechanics is only one part of it, but we have to take baby steps so why not start there?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 14, 2008)

Again I am stepping out of my element across a sea and into another country, but this simple Taiji guy is missing something here or maybe my direct translation of Qi to Ki is confusing me.

If in fact Ki = Qi then it is not a system or mechanics it is internal energy that is used to move the body instead of using hard muscular force. This is why my sifu can through me around with little or no effort on his part. I do realize that mechanics and physics are part of it but Qi is not mechanics or physics, that is if my translation of the Japanese Ki to the Chinese Qi is correct. And sinking your qi is one way of lowering your center and rooting. Now I will admit I am making an assumption here that dropping ki is the same a sinking Qi and that may also be part of the problem in my understanding here. 
The definition of Ki that I am seeing here would then be a westernized definition in an attempt to understand an eastern concept and although it is not entirely wrong it does miss the mark. 

Now if I am WAAAAAY off here feel free to tell the CMA guy he is clueless about Aikido and I will leave and not feel any insult or slight since I am in fact a CMA guy trying to understand Aikido using my CMA definitions and I realize things can get a bit mucked up in translation. 

But then again if you are trying to figure out how to explain this to a beginning student I believe I might be a good test subject since in fact I do not train Aikido but Taijiquan, It is the concept of Ki/Qi I feel is similar but form what I am reading here they may not be.

And lastly hello Jenna how have you been


----------



## morph4me (Jun 14, 2008)

I don't think you're wrong in that ki = qi, or that dropping ki and sinking qi are the same thing, I think they're identical, just in different languages. I just don't think of it as an internal system but a synergy of body mechanics ( posture, relaxation, position, balance, etc.), the laws of physics,  timing, and intent. I think it's more a matter of what we believe qi/ki to be that is adding to the confusion.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 14, 2008)

morph4me said:


> I don't think you're wrong in that ki = qi, or that dropping ki and sinking qi are the same thing, I think they're identical, just in different languages. I just don't think of it as an internal system but a synergy of body mechanics ( posture, relaxation, position, balance, etc.), the laws of physics, timing, and intent. I think it's more a matter of what we believe qi/ki to be that is adding to the confusion.


 
In CMA to properly use Qi you need to have proper posture and be relaxed otherwise bad  alignment and muscle tension impede the flow of Qi and make your movement more based on external muscular strength than on Internal power aka Qi. I think, or at least this is my view, that is it is a pretty simplistic system that we here in the west tend to over complicate and over analyze it, but that is to be expected since we really have no concept that is like it in western medicine or science. 

In Taijiquan (Or at least my branch of it &#8211; Yang style from Tung Ying Chieh) you need Sandao which are 3 important tasks you need to practice Taijiquan properly and they must be worked on first before you start working with Qi.

First one must complete your Shen (Spirit &#8211; not religious spirit more like mind) and you must unify your Shen with the movement. Second you must make your Yi (thought, intension) an important part of every move and third is Shi (posture, position) it must be correct and comfortable. 

Without these you cannot be relaxed and you cannot use Qi properly in Taijiquan.

Then, since Taiji is considered an internal style you get to Yi, Qi, Li; Yi moves Qi and Qi moves Li. Where Li is muscle but without Sandao you never get to Yi, Qi, Li. 

Qi is Qi that is all if you talk to my Sifu or my wife (OMD) it is simply internal energy. That from my wife&#8217;s POV if you have strong flow of Qi you are healthy, weak flow of Qi you are sick and no flow of Qi you are dead, body mechanics does not really enter in to it. From my sifu POV it is much the same except you can use Qi to move and it generates more power than simple muscle contraction and in order to do this you need to have Sandao which includes proper body mechanics. But if you have too much muscle tension and qi flow is impeded and without Shen, Yi, Shi you will have to much muscle tension. I will add that both my sifu and my wife are born in raised in China and Qi is just accepted as what it is, energy. There is not a whole lot of debate about Qi as far as definition as far as they are concerned. 

Basically you cannot sink Qi without Sandao it just will not happen, you may think it does but from my perspective it can&#8217;t. You cannot force Qi to sink.

I agree with you that body mechanics is important but it is through the proper use of body mechanics that you are able to properly use Qi.

Now again I will say I am not an Aikido guy, I have sparred Aikido people but I have never trained it so what I am saying may not apply to the Aikido way of thinking. It also may not apply to the Japanese philosophy and way of thinking that Aikido comes from since I am talking from the perspective from which I learned and that is Chinese.


----------



## theletch1 (Jun 14, 2008)

I can see where you are coming from Xue.  I think that for some styles of aikido your explanation is perfect.  The style that Morph and I study really doesn't have a spiritual component to it so part of the way that you understand and explain Qi is foreign to us.  If I sit and think on it deeply enough I can see that you and Morph are discussing the same thing.  You are simply visualizing it in two slightly different ways.  I'll be interested to see how our members from different styles of aikido relate to your explanation.

As always, Xue, your contributions in the aikido sub are very much appreciated and you are not at all being seen as an "interloper".  Having someone from another internal style converse gives us a great way to analyze and discuss our own art.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 14, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> I can see where you are coming from Xue. I think that for some styles of aikido your explanation is perfect. The style that Morph and I study really doesn't have a spiritual component to it so part of the way that you understand and explain Qi is foreign to us. If I sit and think on it deeply enough I can see that you and Morph are discussing the same thing. You are simply visualizing it in two slightly different ways. I'll be interested to see how our members from different styles of aikido relate to your explanation.
> 
> As always, Xue, your contributions in the aikido sub are very much appreciated and you are not at all being seen as an "interloper". Having someone from another internal style converse gives us a great way to analyze and discuss our own art.


 
I would not call my way spiritual but I do see the difference and I can see why many would think it was, I may be American but as my wife says I'm more Chinese than she is sometimes and I am just thinking about from a Chinese view... I think... oh and she says I'm martial arts crazy too  

But I honestly do not think that Morph and I are that far off in our thinking.


----------



## theletch1 (Jun 14, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> I would not call my way spiritual but I do see the difference and I can see why many would think it was, I may be American but as my wife says I'm more Chinese than she is sometimes and I am just thinking about from a Chinese view... I think... *oh and she says I'm martial arts crazy too  *
> 
> But I honestly do not think that Morph and I are that far off in our thinking.


Heh, mine just says I'm crazy.


----------



## morph4me (Jun 14, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> I would not call my way spiritual but I do see the difference and I can see why many would think it was, I may be American but as my wife says I'm more Chinese than she is sometimes and I am just thinking about from a Chinese view... I think... oh and she says I'm martial arts crazy too
> 
> But I honestly do not think that Morph and I are that far off in our thinking.


 
I think you're right, it seems that the only real difference is that, what I think of as ki/qi, is what you see as mechanism necessary to use what you see as being ki/qi.


----------



## Jenna (Jun 15, 2008)

morph4me said:


> I don't think you're wrong in that ki = qi, or that dropping ki and sinking qi are the same thing, I think they're identical, just in different languages. I just don't think of it as an internal system but a synergy of body mechanics ( posture, relaxation, position, balance, etc.), the laws of physics,  timing, and intent. I think it's more a matter of what we believe qi/ki to be that is adding to the confusion.


Hey Tom, I think you encapsulated the idea of ki really nicely - I like that description a lot! 

In my experience, I have encountered many outside Aikido who still refute the existence of ki / qi at all, even having it demonstrated with whatever poor variant of Aiki subtlety I can muster and but despite that, I have always taken the view that ki not only exists but is far more than gravity + f=ma.  Whether it is is a psychosomatic response or not, I feel that taking the view, as you have, that ki is a bigger concept than just physics, allows any practitioner to utilise it to greater effect.  But yes, I will stop veering before I come over all ethereal or spiritual, pffft. 

But *Jeff*, I think another issue here is patience - or maybe lack of - in the novice.  Until the student experiences that peculiarly Aikido epiphany moment for themselves, I think we have to ground teaching in the realm of physics but still with directing the student's outlook firmly towards the realm of good ki.  Blimey - I sound like a badly written Aiki e-book hehe...  But you know what I mean maybe.  I think your method is the right balance.
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------

