The Physical Center of the Human Body

[joesteph]

I chose the General Martial Arts forum instead of the Internal Arts, because this is not about chi (qi, ki) energy, but about body balance to perform optimally.

In Philip Starr's Martial Mechanics, Chapter 8 is devoted to footwork, with a particular reference to the "dantien," introducing it in this chapter and then referring back to it here-and-there through the remainder of his book. He says on p. 58:

The dantien . . . is located roughly three finger-widths below the navel and about two finger-widths inside. . . . like a ball that fills up most of the lower abdomen.

The illustration shows not a dot but a softball-sized "mass" within the torso. He continues that:

t really doesn't matter whether you believe in the concept of qi. What is important is that you understand that the dantien is the physical center of a human body and that all movement must originate from there.

 

"t really doesn't matter whether you believe in the concept of qi" frees us from a discussion about its existence. What I'm interested in is the opinions of others regarding this point--which is quite large in the p. 58 illustration and in others that follow which feature it--as "the physical center" and therefore his maintaining that "all movement must originate from there."

 

My own first thought was that he was speaking of the center of a human body according to body structure and weight, but men and women have different such centers. Men tend to have, in a sense, a capital "V" form, while women would be the opposite, like a capital "A" (or just turn the "V" upside down). Simplified, men tend to have wide shoulders and narrow hips, women narrow shoulders and wide hips, excess bodyweight tending to collect around the waistline for men and the hips for women, and so the men a "higher" and the women a "lower" center of bodyweight.

 

Does it make sense for Starr to say that the dantien, or place that is below the navel and within the lower abdomen, is the "physical center" for both men and women? My first thought is that it applies much better to women than men, but the concept is very old and was likely developed by scholars in the past who were themselves men.

 

What do you think?

[bushido_man96]

I think that the center is probably fairly accurately stated as 3" below the navel, even though men and women are built differently. However, I think that there may be some play in there, too, but generally, I think it is close.

It is usually stated that women tend to have a lower center than men do for the most part. Also, taller, lankier people will likely have a higher center than a shorter, stockier person.

I do think that movement coming from this center is a fundamental idea behind efficient movement, both in sport and in regular activity. Learning how to move the center about makes many actions easier.

[Kuma]

Sanchin kata really showed me the value of moving from your center.

[tonydee]

If you look at it from the perspective of physics, and consider the body to be a distribution of mass, then you can talk about the centre of that body, but it's actually a function of distances and relative directions of parts of the body from that centre. Consequently, if you are standing with feet together and arms hanging beside you, your centre may be around the tan tien, but if you lift your arms above your head your centre of mass will move up significantly. If you sit with your legs out straight in front of you - like a two-leg hamstring stretch - and extend your arms horizontally forwards too, then your centre of mass may well be several centimeters forward of your navel, and completely outside your body. My point is just that it's not worth over-analysing male vs female etc because the idea that there's a single centre is a gross simplification anyway. As such, it is indeed more relevant if you happen to believe there's so chi energy relevance of that part of the body....

Still, one should consider how to mobilise body weight behind techniques, and to that end it's unfortunately necessary to consider much more than just where the centre of mass is: you need to understand the relative motion - including rotation - of different fixed segments of the body, the torques applied by different muscles, the timing with which all this comes together etc.. It's much easier, and reasonably effective, to apply a combination of common sense and experimentation with resistances and targets, cross-referencing with powerful, efficient motions used in weight lifting, rowing, tennis, golf, various actions of physical labour etc., and in so doing accumulate a reasonable intuition about it....

Cheers,

Tony

[bushido_man96]

A very nice statement, Tony. I think that the "center" does have a regular "home" in the body, but when you start moving, that center moves, too. Experimenting with different movements, and where you center goes from there, is important in learning how to use your center to your best advantage.

Men tend to have, in a sense, a capital "V" form...

I wish I was built like a V...I look more like an H...

[JusticeZero]

I tend to focus more on the ability to activate the hips abdomen and spine in general, rather than on some simple point within the entire assemblage. People entering my class, including those with martial arts backgrounds, tend to move as a big block from thighs to shoulders; they might 'move from the dantien', but to really get things running well they need to stop 'moving from the dantien' and start wiggling the hips and twisting their spine instead.

[bushido_man96]

Don't you think that by wiggling from the hips, that it is moving the dantien? To me, that is the place where it sits, right down in there.

[Wa-No-Michi]

Strictly speaking there are three dantien or "tanden" (in Japanese) the mind, the heart and the stomach (hara). It is the later (hara and tanden (more strictly speaking "seikatanden") - often used in the same context), that most martial artist refer to as their centre.

It is my understanding that whilst the Hara/Tanden is a good way to "generalise" about the centre of mass, it should more accurately be referred to as the centre of movement, as all movement should at first emanate from the tanden. Sounds obvious, but in fact most of us don't do it, and in fact the guys that do it the best are toddlers that are just learning to walk - watch how they are constantly trying to catch up with their centre of mass.

One of my old Daito-ryu instructors used to have us practice walking in a same arm to leg ratio - called "hitoemi" - really weird feeling at first but without a doubt, taking out the twisting motion of the body does produce better results when trying to learn how to move from the tanden.

That's why understanding the principles of Junzuki/Oizuki is so important in order to understand how Karate ticks.

There are some that get it at many that don't.

WNM

[JusticeZero]

Don't you think that by wiggling from the hips, that it is moving the dantien?

Sure; I just think that people tend to focus too much on "moving from the dantien" and not enough on actually being able to MOVE the dantien.

[joesteph]

I think that what JusticeZero is referring to may actually be a matter of habit, ingrained from hundreds, even thousands, of movements that were performed along with MA drills, and now that the person wants to move "right" or "the best way," even though s/he is interested and can repeat to you exactly what's supposed to be done, the habitual movement pops right back in there.

Just tonight, I was taking my JKD class, and one of the drills was what I would call an infighting position, but it was more "in closure" or "inclosure" to the instructor. Well, I was to cover up my head while he was inches from me, whacking me with two focus mitts, and then, at the right time, there would be a pause for me to take advantage of to pop out a lead punch to one upheld mitt, a cross to the other, and then an elbow to that first mitt.

Habitually, I kept moving forward into him, but that wasn't the drill as it wasn't to crash and seize. I also didn't cover my head as well as I should have, taking a boxer's guard, but being too close for that (my hands had to protect above the eyes [forehead, temple, front top of head]) so I got whacked a good number of times right where I wasn't protecting, even though I knew what I was supposed to do. (But at least I did catch on.) Then, when the opening came, I'd say half the time I punched both focus mitts with proper power, although I think it was a good hit every time I got that elbow shot in.

It was a good session.

I concentrated on keeping the body in alignment for this very close infighting position, and if I didn't have it right, I'd never have been able to punch one, let alone both, focus mitts, but I had to be reminded (verbally) about moving forward, as well as how to cover up when so close (whack!). So much is habitual, and what may be missing from the first martial art you're studying may be exactly what is practiced in another.