Aikido and Internal MA connected?

“dead art”:rolleyes:

I’m REALLY glad I’ve never trained at your old Dojo, Doug.

Yes, FuXnDajenariht, O-Sensei reportedly said that Aikido is 90% atemi (hitting vital points). This is actually true IME. Every movement in Aikido is a strike or a set-up for a strike to a vital area. Most people don’t figure this out until they’ve been at it awhile (like black-belt level and up). Training for reality as I do tends to quicken the process quite a bit, as does getting belted a few good ones by Sensei on a regular basis!

Do you understand the “dead art” reference, Jack?

And for what reason are you glad you never trained at my old school? I do not think it was all that bad. It was just not as specific as Chinese systems are, which I find quite helpful.

The philosophy was the best for me. It changed me completely. I would have been a very different person if it were not for the example that my teacher provided when I started studying any systematic art. I am forever grateful for his teachings.

Doug M

Originally posted by Doug
Do you understand the “dead art” reference, Jack?

Of course I understand it. It’s rubish.

Originally posted by Doug
And for what reason are you glad you never trained at my old school? I do not think it was all that bad. It was just not as specific as Chinese systems are, which I find quite helpful.

To clarify, I’m glad I never trained at the school where you aquired your misconceptions. If you think misrepresenting a style to the point that former students draw the conclusion that the art is “dead” isn’t a poor way to teach that art, I question the validity of your other comments.

Originally posted by Doug
The philosophy was the best for me. It changed me completely. I would have been a very different person if it were not for the example that my teacher provided when I started studying any systematic art. I am forever grateful for his teachings.

It’s nice that the man changed your life and that you’re grateful. Are you planning on paying him a visit to him to tell him he’s teaching a “dead art”? Maybe you can school him with some of your “built up chi”. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Samurai Jack
Of course I understand it. It’s rubish.

Actually, if you did understand the comment, you would not be so rash in your poor conclusions. If you think about it, you will find I am right. However, you would rather let your damaged ego do the talking.
[B]

To clarify, I’m glad I never trained at the school where you aquired your misconceptions. If you think misrepresenting a style to the point that former students draw the conclusion that the art is “dead” isn’t a poor way to teach that art, I question the validity of your other comments.[/B]

First, Jack, I never said who said it. You are a fool to guess who did. When you assume, you make a jackA-S-S of yourself.

Second, I have no misconceptions about the art. You, howver, do. If you think Aikido is a living art in the tradition of O-Sensei in his later years, prove it. Do exactly as he did; replicate it. One way to tell that you cannot do as he did is because of the way you are acting on this discussion board. O-Sensei would not have allowed himself to get caught in a poor argument like yours. If you cannot copy his mental development, how can you even hope to carry on his physical abilities?

Third, you are a funny person to question the validity of my comments when you have provided nothing of substance to support yours. The fact that you are hiding behind a false name on this discussion board shows more than anything whose “validity” is in question.

Fourth, you missed the point entirely. Get out of your Aiki bubble and think about it in other terms.
[B]

It’s nice that the man changed your life and that you’re grateful. Are you planning on paying him a visit to him to tell him he’s teaching a “dead art”? Maybe you can school him with some of your “built up chi”. :rolleyes: [/B]

You are pathetic. Whatever you are practicing, it is not Aikido. It has, apparently, not gotten to the core of your being, and you are being everything O-Sensei said not to be. Unfortunately, you probably will not realize his philosophy until it is too late. Your disrespect shames the memory of O-Sensei, and as an Aikido practitioner, you should be ashamed of yourself. The fact that you are so brazen shows how minimal your understanding is of your chosen art.

Doug M

I guess this means we aren’t friends anymore.

Originally posted by Doug
Actually, if you did understand the comment, you would not be so rash in your poor conclusions. If you think about it, you will find I am right. However, you would rather let your damaged ego do the talking.

You are wrong. Dosen’t matter how you insult me personally, you’re still wrong.

Originally posted by Doug First, Jack, I never said who said it. You are a fool to guess who did. When you assume, you make a jackA-S-S of yourself.

I don’t care who said it. Don’t try to hide your social indescretion by pretending that you were quoting someone else. The proper thing to do when you fire off a critisizim is to provide some evidence, or apologize for your mistake. You obviously intended to insult me.

Originally posted by Doug Second, I have no misconceptions about the art. You, howver, do. If you think Aikido is a living art in the tradition of O-Sensei in his later years, prove it. Do exactly as he did; replicate it. One way to tell that you cannot do as he did is because of the way you are acting on this discussion board. O-Sensei would not have allowed himself to get caught in a poor argument like yours. If you cannot copy his mental development, how can you even hope to carry on his physical abilities?

You’re right about one thing. In the days before the telephone and internet, people challenged eachother to their face. O-Sensei kicked plenty of a$$, as did his Uchi-deshi in many, many challenge matches. I have used my “dead art” in many real life situations, and know for a fact that it works. As I said before, why don’t you go express your “gratitude” to your former Aikido teacher.

Originally posted by Doug Third, you are a funny person to question the validity of my comments when you have provided nothing of substance to support yours. The fact that you are hiding behind a false name on this discussion board shows more than anything whose “validity” is in question.

I’ve done everything I could to support my opinions, and make it clear that they aren’t facts. Mostly I’ve posted questions. As far as my name goes, lighten up. Alot of people around here need a little anonymity “Doug”, no need to get all excited because you’re “man enough” to give us all your first name. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Doug Fourth, you missed the point entirely. Get out of your Aiki bubble and think about it in other terms.

Okay. Maybe I missed your point. Please grace us all with your point, that we may draw sustenance from your wisdom. What did you mean by “dead art”? How can you qualify this statement: “No other student was doing what he did, and he did not pass it down to the next generation.” Please enlighten me if I misinterpreted the insulting nature of your posts. Or perhaps we can just take a look at your closing comments…

Originally posted by Doug [B]Please
You are pathetic. Whatever you are practicing, it is not Aikido.
It has, apparently, not gotten to the core of your being, and you are being everything O-Sensei said not to be. Unfortunately, you probably will not realize his philosophy until it is too late. Your disrespect shames the memory of O-Sensei, and as an Aikido practitioner, you should be ashamed of yourself. The fact that you are so brazen shows how minimal your understanding is of your chosen art.

Doug M [/B]

I think your intentions have been obvious from the begining, Doug. Your final paragraph full of personal attacks speaks louder than your protests.

Originally posted by Samurai Jack
I guess this means we aren’t friends anymore.

To not be “friends anymore” implies we were friends from the start of something else. You should know better than to assume…no, wait, you do not. My mistake.

You are wrong. Dosen’t matter how you insult me personally, you’re still wrong.

Wow, look at the logical progression of your argument here! “[Y]ou’re still wrong.” I can see how you are providing evidence for your claim. Keep at it–we need the comedy!

I don’t care who said it. Don’t try to hide your social indescretion by pretending that you were quoting someone else.

What? I am not hiding anything, “Samurai Jack.” I have told the truth as I experienced it. Wht truth have you divulged? It certianly has nothing to do with you and your Internet disguise.

The proper thing to do when you fire off a critisizim is to provide some evidence, or apologize for your mistake. You obviously intended to insult me.

Assumption makes a Samurai JackA-S-S out of you once again! Oh, are you going to claim that is an insult again?

I was not insulting you, sir. Had you taken the time to think before you typed, you may have arrived at a different conclusion.

You are the one who needs to apologize.

You’re right about one thing. In the days before the telephone and internet, people challenged eachother to their face. O-Sensei kicked plenty of a$$, as did his Uchi-deshi in many, many challenge matches.

Why not name a few of the “many, many challenge matches” for us?

And if you are insinuating something else beyond your “they used their art a lot” comment, say it plainly.

I have used my “dead art” in many real life situations, and know for a fact that it works.

I am sure you have done this over the Internet plenty of times. This is such a case where you have lost terribly.

And I am also sure that you have become the expert you claim to be with your, what, one or two years of experience?

As I said before, why don’t you go express your “gratitude” to your former Aikido teacher.

Why not talk to me about this in person? I am in Hacienda Heights, CA. If you are a genuine Aiki practitioner, you can talk without losing your center or violating any of the other principles that the founder of Aikido established. If not, you are not practicing Aikido as you should.

I’ve done everything I could to support my opinions, and make it clear that they aren’t facts. Mostly I’ve posted questions.

Not with me you have not. You have been a jerk all the way through.

As far as my name goes, lighten up. Alot of people around here need a little anonymity “Doug”, no need to get all excited because you’re “man enough” to give us all your first name. :rolleyes:

Ha, ha, ha! Why do you need to hide? What are you afraid of?

And there is “no need to get all excited” yourself about your concept of your Aiki bubble bursting. If you can do what O-Sensei did later in life, then do it. If not, own your error and admit you cannot. You took this entirely the wrong way.

Okay. Maybe I missed your point. Please grace us all with your point, that we may draw sustenance from your wisdom. What did you mean by “dead art”? How can you qualify this statement: “No other student was doing what he did, and he did not pass it down to the next generation.” Please enlighten me if I misinterpreted the insulting nature of your posts.

I already made my point. Re-read the post in which I stated it quite clearly. Some day, you may understand it.

I think your intentions have been obvious from the begining, Doug. Your final paragraph full of personal attacks speaks louder than your protests.

  1. I am not protesting anything. You are not equipped to be a judge of my statements because it is quite clear you are unable to grasp very simple points without going on your Aiki slamfest. I am making a point about Aikido as it was when O-Sensei died and still is UNLESS someone seeks to re-create it in similar fashion. If you cannot understand that, well, that is your problem.

As to insults, you may choose to interpret those statements that way. The first is a bit insulting, but so is your prior comment. If you show me contempt, I will not let you get away with it. As far as the other comments go, they are not insults: they are statements of fact as much as you have demonstrated here.

Come back when you can form a sufficient argument or, at least, not make blanket generalizations about things you do not understand. This would have been much different if you had just asked questions to clear things up. Instead, you want to live in your bubble. Bully for you, “Samurai.”

Doug M

Jack, I think you should calm down, take a deep breath, and count to ten.

The assertion that Aikido is a ‘dead art’ is not at all ‘out-there’ or uncommon, in fact it is a comment that I’ve heard from many people, most probably with a hell of a lot more experience in Aikido than you.

It’s not an insult to the art to describe it as such, and for you to get your panties in such a bunch is quite unwarranted.

The fact is, Ueshiba was a freak, much like his teacher, Takeda.

NONE of his students could do the things Ueshiba could do.

MANY, perhaps MOST were great teachers, and could pass on the techniques and philosophy that Ueshiba created.

BUT they still could not DO what Ueshiba could - if they could, why would we have half a dozen different Aikido organisations?

IF any of his students had’ve had his ability, it would have been as easily recognisable as Ueshiba’s ability was, and everyone would’ve wanted to train with him.

Are you actually saying that his student/s were able to do the things Ueshiba could do? Which one/s?? Shioda? Tomiki? Ueshiba Jr.?

I think perhaps you should step down from your high horse and relax, perhaps you’ll actually learn to ENJOY discussing your art in these forums.

Well, the trolls have chased me out. God bless ya’ll.

Jack - I think you’ve invested too much ego into the discussion. Step back and ignore that side of the debate and just answer the points relating directly to the ‘dead art’ statement. It certainly interests me.

I don’t think anyone is saying that there is nothing of value within the system, or that it is useless for self-defence. People were just raising opinions or hearsay for discussion - if you could step away from the personal investment in your art, I think you might find useful discussion here. I had to learn to do the same when Yang style gets a slating, same as Earle’s people have had to do whenever he comes up - it’s just a part of the forum that you can easily side-step and just walk away with what is useful.

No one is chasing you out. And no one here is a troll. Do not treat others with contempt.

You say this: “[O]n the surface it appears that the six harmonies are recognized in Aikido, just not called such per se.” I said the same thing about clear distinctions between how to develop chi and what is perceived as (and not differentiated from) “just” calming exercises. Something else must be studied to bring Aikido as O-Sensei saw it to life again. In line with that, there is no clear way to arrive at O-Sensei’s abilities without re-exploring how he achieved them. In other words, he did not provide his students with his methods of replicating his abilities. Had he done so, the “magic” of Aikido would be far more prevalent today. None of this is insulting or controversial. That is why so many Aikido practitioners speak of the founder with such mysticism: they cannot figure out how he was so powerful for so old a man. But he had real abilities that other people can learn and implement as well. But does Aikido teach this is a clear way? One answer is no.

Doug M

Kaitain said pretty much what I was trying to say.

The notion of Aikido as a ‘dead’ art is not as insulting as it may sound, Jack.

I personally think Aikido’s a great art, with a founder who provided a great ideal to aim for.

The only point I was trying to make is that I’ve also heard from many VERY experienced budoka that they believed that Ueshiba’s Aikido died with him, because none of his students were able to replicate the things he could do. I think the phrase I’ve heard most often is that none could “steal his techniques” - due to his method of teaching; that is, he would just demonstrate and then expect his students to copy, but none of them could - at least not to the same degree of skill.

If you disagree, and think that his students WERE able to continue his art, perhaps you could tell us which ones were able to replicate his level of skill - and who can do so these days.

No-ones trying to chase you out, just looking for some healthy disscussion. You don’t seem to be up for that - that’s ok, just dont blame us.

While he as also studied the three big neija arts, there is one person I have seen film of that reminded me of Usheiba, Peter Ralston. He has developed his own art, Cheng Hsin, but I have seen film clips of him and the only other person I saw that worked as effortlessly and effectively was Usheiba.

Ralston was also a student of aikido.

FWIW

Originally posted by Samurai Jack
Does this sound like anything you’ve experienced in your practice?

Somewhat, yes. But I have not practiced enough aikido to look at it from that perspective.

I brought up the distinction between movement coordinated around the dantien and movement of the dantien because it’s a distinction that’s easy to miss in language; there are some specific exercises to cultivate the latter in the chinese internals, analogs of which I haven’t seen in aikido; and aikidoka tend to look to me, by chinese internal standards, as having ‘stiff’ (or immobile) waists (which leads to a stiffness of shoulder and elbow… or vice-versa, I guess).

Given my inexperience, I wouldn’t be presumptuous enough to suggest that aikido is in any sense inferior in this regard, but merely perhaps different than the chinese internals – but I think that was the topic to begin with.

It’s quite possible, of course, that I’m entirely wrong in this regard. And that would be nice. Or perhaps it wouldn’t – I think, as has been suggested, aikido may be better appreciated for its own unique contributions than for its analogs to the chinese internals.

… as for the claim that some have made here, that none since Ueshiba have achieved his type of skill in/by aikido, I think that is demonstratably false – certainly, the likes of Tomiki and Shioda seem to be representative in this regard. It’s probably true that aikido has not been as successful as many martial arts in producing practitioners that match the skill of its masters, but this seems to be true of the chinese internals as well – so perhaps it’s not a particularly meaningful observation in this specific discussion.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Well, I’ve had some time to cool off. It’s very nice to see such constructive questions and comments being discussed. I particularly enjoy Christopher’s observation:

I think, as has been suggested, aikido may be better appreciated for its own unique contributions than for its analogs to the chinese internals.

I also think that Christopher and Walter have done a wonderful job of answering Finny’s question:

If you disagree, and think that his students WERE able to continue his art, perhaps you could tell us which ones were able to replicate his level of skill - and who can do so these days.

They mentioned Peter Ralston, Tomiki and Shioda. To that short list I would like to add Saito Sensei, Chiba Sensei, and Yamada Sensei, as well as my own teacher, whose name must remain anonymous in order to protect the innocent from my imperfect and sometimes controversial attempts at communication. It is difficult enough to represent myself!

I would venture the opinion that the above mentioned teachers are expressing Aikido in their own unique ways, but at the same time showing the degree of skill necessary for their purposes. To me, the question as to whether or not they are just like O-Sensei is meaningless, and irrelevant, especially from his own enlightened perspective. In that regard, any similarities or lack thereof to any other art is also meaningless.

Someone once said something about the root of the martial arts being more important than the flowers and branches. In actuality, I think they are neither more nor less important, but at once interdependant and unique.

By way of closing, I’d like to relate the following story:

A student once approached Morihei Ueshiba and said, “O-Sensei, I should very much like to practice your Aikido, will you teach me?” Ueshiba replied, “How unique! Everyone else is practicing their own Aikido. I am at a loss as to how you will practice mine.”

The test of any martial art is for it to be applied on fully resisting opponents. When I talk about “opponents” I do not mean their own students!

There is a place for co-operative training methods in martial arts but Training against a fully resistent opponent should be one of the core training principles. If this is absent from the training regime skill cannot be aquired.

end of.

in 1978 Peter Ralston won one of the first modern full contact championships in China.

I’m fairly certain he didn’t defeat any of his students to achieve that honor.

It took me a minute to realize that Internal Boxer was calling into question the master’s skill level whom I mentioned. I’m guessing his point is that if these guys didn’t fight for real, they aren’t the real deal.

Allow me to put that notion to rest. To start with Takeda Sensei, who was Ueshiba Sensei’s teacher, was a notorious gang member who had murdered numerous people with little more than his paper fan as a weapon. He was hunted by various law enforcers and rival gangs and had many, many opportunities to use his art. Strangely, because of his reputation as a fighter, many district police were also his students…

Ueshiba O-Sensei held many challenge matches in which he publicly fought Sumo wrestlers, judo and jujutsuka, an american greco-roman wrestler, and even once fought a skilled ARMED (!) kenjutsuka. He never lost a match.

Chiba Sensei was a rough and tumble young man and retains his reputation for martial austerity to this day. He too accepted challengers from various arts, and even had a very controversial match with Wang Shu Jin, the famous internal stylist. No matter which side of the argument as to who won you go along with, both sides admit that Wang’s wrist was broken, and Chiba was unhurt. (I can’t figure out how Wang’s camp can claim that Wang won with this outcome, but they do)

Tomiki, Shioda, and Yamada have all fought at various times in thier lives. So have I. There is no doubt in my mind that Aikido is an effective martial art.

Originally posted by Samurai Jack
To start with Takeda Sensei, who was Ueshiba Sensei’s teacher, was a notorious gang member who had murdered numerous people with little more than his paper fan as a weapon.

Proof, have you?

Ueshiba O-Sensei held many challenge matches […]. He never lost a match.

According to lore, yes. According to lore, he could also “see the bullets” before they hit during his time in war. He was supposedly 180 pounds of muscle and could rip a tree out of the ground.

Chiba Sensei was a rough and tumble young man and retains his reputation for martial austerity to this day. He too accepted challengers from various arts, and even had a very controversial match with Wang Shu Jin, the famous internal stylist. No matter which side of the argument as to who won you go along with, both sides admit that Wang’s wrist was broken, and Chiba was unhurt. (I can’t figure out how Wang’s camp can claim that Wang won with this outcome, but they do)

Cite this source, please. I am interested in how you arrive at your conclusion, given your expertise in analysis on this discussion board.

There is no doubt in my mind that Aikido is an effective martial art.

Well, perhaps.

Doug M

Wang Shu Jin

Both Aikido and the Chinese internal styles are fully formed martial arts, and can be used effectively by an expert for self defense. So nobody needs to be getting all defensive.

Stories about the Wang Versus Chiba match abound but this is the best version I’ve seen. Since it came from Terry Dobson, who was a direct student of O-Sensei, it seems to me that he’d have no reason to lie.

I’ve met a couple students of Wang Shu Jin and they told me he never lost a challenge. I have reason to believe them.

Sincerley,

Jess O

FROM THE FURTHEST REACHES OF THE INTERNET:

"I will quote the story that Terry Dobson told me, which was corroborated at
another time by Donn Draeger. I also heard Terry tell this story again in
a group with Mitsugi Saotome present, who amidst laughter chimed in and
agreed. I didn’t know that Ken Cottier was present but he was also part of
the group.

First, some context. Wang Shu Chin, for those who don’t know, was
primarily a Pa Kua, Hsing I teacher, who also trained many years in I
Ch’uan. He was a massive man, fat over heavy muscle, in his prime, about
5’6" and about 260 lb, I’d guess. He also did t’ai chi, the syncretic form
created by Chen Pan Ling, which he did in a very different manner from
Chen (this form is, these days, often called the Guo Shu form, the
“national form” of Taiwan). Wang was the head of a neo-Taoist sect, which
strove to harmonize the major religions of the world.

As always, there are debates about how strong he really was, I studied with
him only two months when he was months away from death from melanoma. I
witnessed him knock over a very muscular kyoshinkai champion with a
side-step and belly blow, but that was a a controlled situation, not
free-style. Still, really impressive power, despite his illness. For me,
one of the most interesting measurements of his “power” was that when I
travelled in Taiwan, every teacher who was talking big and trying to
impress with his credentials claimed to have beaten Wang.

Anyway, Wang originally came over to Japan in the '60’s, first to teach his
son-in-law, who had married his adopted daughter. Among the first to study
with him was Sato Kimbei. Sato, among koryu circles, was generally
considered a joke. He collected scrolls and licenses. Otsubo sensei, of
the Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, told in a very public forum, of Sato apporoaching
him, asking how long it would take to get a menkyo kaiden and when Otsubo
was noncommittal, trying to bargain with him. Otsubo allowed him to train
with him and w/in two months, Sato was nowhere to be found, but years
later, he was claiming licensure in the school. Anyway, Sato hooked up
with Wang for some years, and this did give him legitimate claim to being
one of the “pioneers” of Japanese t’ai chi.

Wang used to ask a former student of Sato’s to demonstrate what Sato
taught, and he and his son-in-law would pick it apart, laughing and asking
him to repeat cerain moves over and over. I also happened to be present at
a workshop when the head of the Bejing wushu society, (forgot his name -
the guy who put together the 48 movement syncretic t’ai chi form) and
another practitioner, who has won the Yang t’ai chi competition several
years running and Sato came up and told them that they weren’t allowed to
teach because they hadn’t asked his permission, and they looked at him like
you look at a deranged street person asking to borrow your briefcase, and
walked away shaking their heads. Sato did nothing, and left with his wife
shortly after. Sato is currently claimed as a senior infuence on the
Genbukan and Tanemura - - -Oh well.

Wang started teaching in the grounds of Meiji shrine, and somewhere along
the line a group of non-Japanese around Donn Draeger started training with
him. Draeger learned some pa-kua, Wang would also show some Hsing I, but
mostly he taught t’ai chi. Among this group was Terry Dobson, who was a
live-in student of Morihei Ueshiba of aikido. Terry’s direct senior was
Chiba. Wang was doing demos in Japanese martial arts demonstrations and as
Ken Cottier put it, “here you’d have all these startched Japanese in their
crisp kiekko gi and their crisp snappy movements and then out would come
this fat Chinaman in grey flannel slacks and suspenders and he’d start
doing impossible slow t’ai chi and he’d turn around and this ass as big as
the moon would waft across the stage and then he’d challenge all comers to
have a go at him and the young karate boys would be rabid and he’d let them
punch his stomach or kick him in the groin and he’d just laugh it off but
heaven help you if you tried to punch his head. He made it clear that that
was out of bounds, and if you broke the rules, then he’d become, shall we
say, active.”

Terry stated to me, (I’m quoting as best as I can remember) “the uchi-deshi
at honbu, particularly Chiba, started giving me a raft of **** that I was
being disloyal to O-sensei by studying with Wang, and I asked O-sensei, and
he said, ‘sure, do what you want’ but they wouldn’t let up so I said, “why
don’t you come and check him out for yourself.” So Draeger and me took
Chiba, Saotome and Tamura. Well, we walked in, and Wang scopes out Chiba
right away, like he knows who has the attitude here, takes one look, and
says, ‘come here boy.’ Seriously, Wang’s over sixty, paid lots of dues, is
a religious leader and all, and here comes these punks, as far as he’s
concerned, in their twenties, copping an attitude. So Wang lets Chiba
punch him in the stomach. Nothing. Chiba tries again. Nothing. Well,
now Chiba loses his temper, half turns away, and then tries to sucker punch
him, thinking it’s timing. This time Wang sucks the fist into his belly
and then drops, he gives it back, Chiba’s arm goes shooting back behind his
ear, and he’s shaking his wrist in pain. Wang then let Chiba kick him in
the groin. Nothing. So Chiba loses it, grabs Wang’s wrist and puts a
nikkyo or kote-gaeshi on it, some wrist lock. I don’t know what Wang did,
it was too fast, but Chiba slams on the floor and Wang’s doing something to
him with one hand and he’s screaming in pain. Finally Wang lets him up and
says, “You’ve got a little chi, why don’t you come back when you acquire
more?” Then he turns to Tamura and Saotome, who were standing there with
their backs against the wall, and says, “you want to try.” They both shake
their heads and we all went home. They never gave me **** about Wang
again. . . . Far as I’m concerned, Chiba lost his chance at salvation right
there. He should have quit everything and sat at Wang’s feet.”