weights/springs, pull/push, rocking/rolling
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:28 pm
I´ve read that the original patent for the Universal Reformer was designed with weights.
But, Joe actually seems to have preferred springs, as well for all the others machines, for resistance/assistance.
I wonder if Joe had explained why.
Was it mainly because of convenience (no need for a tower with stacked weights)?
Or, because of the feel of the springs themselves, better mimicking and eliciting the elastic energy inside the body?
Perhaps also, because of the "clean" direction of the force vector?
What do you think?
Javier, have you experimented a reformer connected with weights?
As an example, I can think of the Gyrotonic Tower that uses light weights.
[by the way, Juliu Horvath had made, long ago, a cheapier version with springs instead of weights (from Stamina), but it seems that he had not liked the feel of the springs, among other aspects]
Another question is about the push and pull actions.
It seems to me that there is more emphasis on the push action, particularly on the reformer.
Except when pulling the straps facing the pulleys.
[on the contrary, Lagree, a "fitness take" on a modified reformer emphasizes the alternation of the two modes, pulling being the most demanding one]
Do you consider that it is correct to state like that?
If so, the Pilates technique could it be said emphasizing the push of the arms and legs over pulling?
Push would facilitate the lengthening of the spine better than pull?
I feel that there is always lengthening even in the pulling action, but the motion of the arms/legs seems always in expansion in both as its destination.
Perhaps the push better manifests that dynamic?
If considered as kind of circular motion, even when apparently linear, the path never really shortens (in the spine).
Other questions.
In the "classical school" (that I´ve came to know a little), the theory of human psycho-motor developmental phases is the reference to explain the logic of the Mat, from flexion to extension, etc...
I know that Joe used to refer to babies and to animals, particularly cats.
So, it makes sense to correlate with science.
However, when practicing rolling and rocking motions (for example on rocker boards), I feel that these movements are not (only) there for retracing the human psycho-motor development.
They have their own merits that go beyond a prerequisite, a kind of re-patterning for more complex motions.
From the point of view of movement, they express a very special dynamic quality, coordination, and feeling from the doing.
They have the same "functionality" that can also be seen in yoga, gymnastics, martial arts... but precisely NOT in the more usual fitness methods.
Do you agree that rolling and rocking movements are particularly important in Pilates?
Something that departs from the rationale for most fitness and bodybuilding methods.
But, Joe actually seems to have preferred springs, as well for all the others machines, for resistance/assistance.
I wonder if Joe had explained why.
Was it mainly because of convenience (no need for a tower with stacked weights)?
Or, because of the feel of the springs themselves, better mimicking and eliciting the elastic energy inside the body?
Perhaps also, because of the "clean" direction of the force vector?
What do you think?
Javier, have you experimented a reformer connected with weights?
As an example, I can think of the Gyrotonic Tower that uses light weights.
[by the way, Juliu Horvath had made, long ago, a cheapier version with springs instead of weights (from Stamina), but it seems that he had not liked the feel of the springs, among other aspects]
Another question is about the push and pull actions.
It seems to me that there is more emphasis on the push action, particularly on the reformer.
Except when pulling the straps facing the pulleys.
[on the contrary, Lagree, a "fitness take" on a modified reformer emphasizes the alternation of the two modes, pulling being the most demanding one]
Do you consider that it is correct to state like that?
If so, the Pilates technique could it be said emphasizing the push of the arms and legs over pulling?
Push would facilitate the lengthening of the spine better than pull?
I feel that there is always lengthening even in the pulling action, but the motion of the arms/legs seems always in expansion in both as its destination.
Perhaps the push better manifests that dynamic?
If considered as kind of circular motion, even when apparently linear, the path never really shortens (in the spine).
Other questions.
In the "classical school" (that I´ve came to know a little), the theory of human psycho-motor developmental phases is the reference to explain the logic of the Mat, from flexion to extension, etc...
I know that Joe used to refer to babies and to animals, particularly cats.
So, it makes sense to correlate with science.
However, when practicing rolling and rocking motions (for example on rocker boards), I feel that these movements are not (only) there for retracing the human psycho-motor development.
They have their own merits that go beyond a prerequisite, a kind of re-patterning for more complex motions.
From the point of view of movement, they express a very special dynamic quality, coordination, and feeling from the doing.
They have the same "functionality" that can also be seen in yoga, gymnastics, martial arts... but precisely NOT in the more usual fitness methods.
Do you agree that rolling and rocking movements are particularly important in Pilates?
Something that departs from the rationale for most fitness and bodybuilding methods.