Sanchin

maxwell ainley · Post by **maxwell ainley** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:55 pm

Bill , Yes context is everything .

Yes we also have to start some were in understanding natural movement as pertains to violence and fear ;I think the opening of Sanchin gives us assistance ,plus if you have a personal experience of violence too add in to matters .

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:27 pm

But then we see some people cover up and turn away...and the guy with the dark glasses in the bottom shot...has his arms wide open as to welcome any and all things.

How would Blauer or you explain the discrepancies?

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 12:47 am

Van Canna wrote: But then we see some people cover up and turn away...and the guy with the dark glasses in the bottom shot...has his arms wide open as to welcome any and all things.

How would Blauer or you explain the discrepancies?

I think he was trying to reach out and catch a souvenir with his left hand. Or probably more likely he was trying to protect the lady who seems to be getting hit in the head, as well as the smaller person sitting between them who we cannot see too well because of his arm...his wife and kid maybe? He's leaning over toward the bat while everyone else is leaning away, and his fingers are closer together and his hand flatter than others have theirs. He is stretching out his arm and hand either trying to grab the bat or swat it away.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:40 am

Some responses are more trained than others. Some folks (including yours truly) have had balls hurled by or at them for years. The amygdala's response would be tempered somewhat by a trained response from a body that's "been there, done that."

The pure, unmodulated amygdala response (sans training) can be seen in the tiny child below in pink. There is no learned fear in the face; there is only a response. It's a thing of beauty to someone such as yours truly who loves life and nature.

- Bill

MikeK · Post by **MikeK** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:44 am

Interestingly enough the guy getting hit has his hands down. Guess he didn't get the memo for what he should have done.
Also some people aren't reacting and others are reacting needlessly. I think the "flinch" idea can be taken too far.

mhosea · Post by **mhosea** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:28 am

MikeK wrote:I think the "flinch" idea can be taken too far.

Well, I agree with that much, mainly because anything can be taken too far. As for the reasons you gave, they seem so easy to block--no flinch required.

The bat would have been spinning and traveling fast, which would have given it a more difficult trajectory to predict than a ball, especially given that it is traveling upwards. In mathematics we would call such a problem "ill-conditioned" (intersection of two lines with nearly the same slope). Furthermore, a spinning bat is something to be avoided even after it has struck something first, so even if you're pretty sure that it's going to hit somebody else first, you don't know what's going to happen next. As for the ones with their hands down who ought to have protected themselves--how many simply did not see it coming? My first guess is that the guy who got hit simply didn't see it coming, or maybe he saw it too late. My (distant) second guess would be that he's on one of many medications that can slow reaction time.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:54 am

Good points, Mike.

There are many things to consider.

Why do flinch and reflex responses exist? Well if you skip the whole notion that God gave them to us and "That's The Truth - blblblbl," well there are many considerations.

We humans have a degree of randomness and a lot of variability in our genetic makeup. Why? To be otherwise would mean we'd never survive as a species. What may be the perfect genetic phenotype today may not be so with a sudden and dramatic change in the environment. If there were such a cataclysmic change, variability in the gene pool means the species (as opposed to the individual) has a chance at surviving because some group of wierdos out there will have hit the genetic jackpot. So maybe 98 percent of the species is wiped out. If 2 percent can rally the troops and make it, then they and their recessive genotypes will live on long enough to grow the race once again.

Do you know why the sickle cell "defect" exists? Because carriers survive malaria infections. When malaria was present, this "defect" turned out to be a genetic advantage. Thus it got passed on in the gene pool long enough for Afrikaners to make it out of the hellhole of the jungle. Now the remaining vestiges of the genetic hiccup are there for hematologists to treat when the gene doubles up and the person is afflicted with sickle cell disease.

As I explain to my students, classic flinch responses exist because millions of years ago, a branch fell out of the treetops onto a group of hominids. Maybe 3 of them threw their hands up due to a genetic hiccup, and 7 just looked up at the noise. Guess who was most likely to pass their genes on? These kinds of everyday bad events occurred through millions of years without hominids having the ability to dial 911. Those responses that protected the brain, the heart/lungs, and the genetalia were the ones that were most likely to be passed on - however undignified they may appear when they happen.

But variation still occurs. Most obviously have these protective flinch responses, but some don't. So guess what happens to the green shirt guy whose jaw is in the process of being deformed by the flying bat? Well he very well may be a candidate for The Darwin Award.

Nature STILL has her way!

I agree that some just weren't paying attention to the game and so never saw the bat coming. Perhaps we can go with Mike's explanation about the unpredictable path of a spinning, sailing bat heading towards an uneven surface. Maybe... And then maybe others "overreacted". Is it a bad thing to overreact? Better that I guess than not react at all.

Statistically speaking, the amygdala is constantly engaged in a threat evaluation exercise. There will be false positives (a stick on the forest floor that looks like a snake) and false negatives (the snake on the forest floor that looked like a stick). But if it gets it right most of the time and plays it safe when the situation is equivocal, then your odds of making it to sexual bliss and procreation are greatly improved.

- Bill

fivedragons · Post by **fivedragons** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:01 am

You gotta love the guy with his arms spread out, he has this beatific smile on his face. His hand position looks like he very well could have caught the handle of the bat.

Who is that, Jesus Christ?

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:05 am

fivedragons wrote:

You gotta love the guy with his arms spread out, he has this beatific smile on his face. His hand position looks like he very well could have caught the handle of the bat.

Who is that, Jesus Christ?

Seriously speaking, some folks come to the ballpark HOPING that something (ball, bat) will come flying into the stands. Kids come with their gloves. Grownups come with an autograph pen. Maybe it's skill and confidence that would drive someone to reach for that flying souvenir. Maybe it's stupidity, like the time I impulsively reached out to catch a piece of a broken bottle heading towards the floor. (Ouch!!!) In any case, I think he wanted that bat pretty badly. I hope he got it.

- Bill

fivedragons · Post by **fivedragons** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:29 am

There's something that bugs me about the last picture.

My flinch response would be to cover that child.

maxwell ainley · Post by **maxwell ainley** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:44 am

Van Canna wrote:But then we see some people cover up and turn away...and the guy with the dark glasses in the bottom shot...has his arms wide open as to welcome any and all things.

How would Blauer or you explain the discrepancies?

Every one as great points ,which we learn from ,thats why your forum is one of the most popular ,plus Bills roundtable idea takes some beating too .Critical or in the danger zone time ,as speed variations ,and our individual abilites to apprehend the level of threat,forinstance my own awareness /reactions aren't always on the ball ,And I was a goalkeeper at school ,in our soccer mad culture

I think Bill covers pretty much the practical and scientific aspects .

Back to Kanbun and is methods ,to me it appears he was overtraining a key concept [the opening of sanchin] also the opening is not going straight to a [flinch hands up to protect] our upper control system ,they go down in the total opposite direction ,before entering the upper flinch mechanism .

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:29 pm

Good post Max, thanks.

We all see life through our individual lens filter’s colors. Then one has to have the strength of his convictions and never falter.

The beautiful game of soccer teaches so much about most of what we do and write concerning confrontation dynamics in TMA, if understood, that is.

By the way you have always written, I know you do, and now I see another good reason why you do…you were a goal keeper once, the most difficult position on the soccer field.

The striker and the keeper are always engaged in a mental game along with the physical.

You wrote

Every one as great points ,which we learn from ,that’s why your forum is one of the most popular ,plus Bills roundtable idea takes some beating too .Critical or in the danger zone time ,as speed variations ,and our individual abilities to apprehend the level of threat, for instance my own awareness /reactions aren't always on the ball ,And I was a goalkeeper at school ,in our soccer mad culture.

I was a striker, and a very good one, with a ‘rifle shot’ … I would study the goal keeper and determine what his strong side was, because I knew that when reacting from a surprise shot, long or short range, most goalies would dive to their strong side, and I had the advantage because I was in charge of the aiming angles, as I had the ball.

The ability to read/sense what the other would probably do/move to as you began to shoot was the most studied skill under the guidance of the coach.

In watching these shots here _ http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt--RZJxC ... icks_ever/

We see the concepts very clear for the ones who understand body dynamics…

What we see here are free kicks as opposed to penalty kicks which are at a much shorter range, but we see how it is almost impossible to ‘block’ such speeding action coming your way, even as the goalie may read/guess just right.

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:01 pm

For a penalty kick or a tie-breaking shootout, this is the space the goalie must defend against a single shooter — kicking from the penalty mark 12 yards away.

And a well-kicked ball can travel from the penalty mark to the goal in about a half-second.

"When you consider that a ball can be struck anywhere from 60-80 miles per hour, there's not a whole lot of time for the goalkeeper to react," says Bob Gustafson, professor of health science and men's soccer coach at John Brown University in Siloam Springs, Ark.

As part of his doctoral dissertation in biomechanics in 1997, Gustafson analyzed penalty kicks. He notes that soccer rules have changed since to give the goalie something of a break.

"It used to be the goalkeeper could not move until the ball was actually struck," he says "But (allowing the goalie to move) doesn't make it a whole lot easier because of the speed the ball comes at you and the square footage."

Gustafson says skillful goalies use cues from the kicker. They look at where the kicker's plant foot is pointing and the posture during the kick. Some even study tapes of opponents. But most of all they take a guess — right or left.

"If both are elite players and know their crafts, the one who is kicking the ball is going to win just about every time," Gustafson says.

"Basically, if you kick the ball into either corner, you are going to score. The keeper would just not be able to react fast enough to a ball kicked anywhere over 55 miles per hour if it is kicked within a yard of either goalpost."

When you have 10 teammates praying you can stop a ball hit from 12 yards away traveling up to 60 mph from entering a 24-foot by 8-foot goal, you, as the goalkeeper, feel pressure.

The goalkeeper has to consider an unbelievable number of factors in a matter of seconds.

Is the shooter right-footed or left? Is he a finesse or power player? Will he try to outsmart me, or will he let me outsmart myself? How long of a run up to the ball does he take? High or low? Left or right?

Penalty pressure can mean poor performance.

Taking a penalty kick in soccer can be major pressure. You may have practiced countless times perfecting your penalty during football training but the pressure of a real soccer game is something else again.

The right mind-set for taking penalty kicks

The key to good sports psychology is not I repeat not 'having positive thoughts.' You can be positive generally about your play and before a match but optimum sports psychology for pressure situations like penalty kicks means having no thoughts, just pure focus.

Penalty takers will often try to fool the goalie. But to enter a state of flow or 'being in the zone' when taking a penalty shot you need to stop thought.

Sure you can have a pre-decided idea as to where you are going to blast the ball. But thought or any self consciousness about what you are doing will just block your success.

The state of mind you need to have to take world beating penalties is akin to the purest hypnotic trance state. You need to instinctively know how to make the crowd disappear. At the same time all thoughts of success of failure need to fade away.

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:20 pm

And what do we learn here?

http://www.ganges.com/Top_10_Greatest_K ... _v5221377/

Mary S · Post by **Mary S** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:36 pm

Interesting pictures - I believe that the guy getting hit in the face probably wasn't paying attention. Can't tell you how many games I've been to at Fenway where the ball has been lined into the stands and if you're not watching the game you end up being fair game - it's a natural response to shield yourself when you see (or more likely don't see) something coming at you and even when you're warned by others. Often at my ball games someone will hit a popper into the stands and someone will yell out "HEADS UP!!!" everybody ducks instead.

The child in pink probaby has no idea what is going on...too young to know the bat is a danger, safe with her father (I assume) and it's difficult to tell what the trajectory is of the bat. I would hazard a guess it's coming from the right as opposed to the left given the reactions of those further down the row who are leaning in that direction away from the guy getting hit. Either way, I would suggest the idea is to keep your eyes on the ball...er...bat.

Sanchin

Lots of good stuff here...