Here HiThere. I revised the diagram in the picture for you.
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a393/MEGALEF/overview_scientific_method21.gif

OH INDEED SIR

INDEED

who the **** let happeh out of his box ?

somebody is seriously dropping the ball.

megalef *standing ovation* we all agree 100%

Quick quick! someone call a doctor!

he's infected with elmoretheroeticalballoneyium - which is of course, t3h de4d3ly!

wow, this is just awful. This is akin to using e=mc^2 to explain why muscles take power away from your kick.


At first this looks legitimate, I bet you thought to yourself, "Hey I am using triangles, this means I'm practicing trigonometry."


Ok. So this is actually about structural engineering because trigonometry says f&*% all about the strength of a triangle. But that is a minor error and one that you can be forgiven for.

My problem is with this sentence here:

This would be true if the human body were a structure made out of metal with uniform thickness whose primary purpose was lying down with outstretched arms AND BEARING LOADS ON OUR GODDAMN FINGERTIPS. Which, last I checked, was not a major goal in my life.

Moving on:

Almost every great fighter in history has favored one hand over the other. Even Miyamoto Musashi, the famous duel wielding swordsman, had a more powerful left swing. The rest of your post is based on this axiom, which means I should probably stop here. But the rest of your post is also so wrong it's hard to stop.


This is almost true. If you assume that you are not moving your hips or rotating your body (which is f&*^ing stupid) and both arms can generate the same amount of power then one arm will hit the peak of the triangle at less force than the other ALONG THE VERTICAL VECTOR. If you are talking about absolutes than the arms will hit with the same momentum. The only difference between them is the angle at which they hit the target and if you've ever been hit before you know that being hit on the chin at a 20 degree angle compared to straight on feels about the same. In fact I would say that the 20 degree angle feels worse.

Ok, one more and then I'll stop, I promise.

I have no idea where what this means in regard to the human body. I asked a structural engineer at NASA what this means and she didn't know either.

If you are referring to the way an arm should be aligned to create the greatest possible power then wouldn't it be advantageous to include the body in that scenario as well?

I am all for science in martial arts, but so far, excluding bjj and anatomy, I've only seen bad science used to affirm bad technique. I would love to see someone base a martial art on scientific principles, but that someone would have to be a genius capable of incorporating all factors of fighting into equations. I'm afraid such a man has not yet been born, but when he is be sure that his brain will eclipse planets.
So many words. What you just did is called Cherry picking. You chose certain out of context sentences to prove your point. You then backed some of it up with an appeal to authority (NASA person mom or dad?).



It must hurt to get completely destroyed by two sentences.

The name you're looking for is Jigoro Kano. Remember, it doesn't have to be quantifiable to be scientific - repeatable and falsifiable goes a long way.

Welcome to bullshido, you are in for a treat.

Keep telling yourself that.

Or you could be a man and admit you have realized you are in the presence of someone with much more knowledge than yourself. Why don't you want to admit you have no idea of what I am talking about?

Explain what in the post is stupidity. If you even read it.

No one with a grain of common sense has any idea of what you are talking about. You are demented, delusional, thinking of yourself as some sort of intellectual paragon. But instead, you are just a quack, a hack, a snakeoil pseudo-intellectual wall-street-like speculator.

There is nothing to explain, you don't deserve anything beyond being called stupid. You are so beyond intellectual salvation than trying to explain anything to you is hopeless. Not to come off as sounding my own horn (well, actually, I do), I've actually used the scientific method for a living. Want to rub credentials, let's do it... or not... you are just too much of a hack to even deserve any form of consideration on that subject.

So don't even talk to me (or anyone for that matter) about the subject, much less accuse anybody of pseudoscience. And if indeed feel you have a point on which theory is right, then I suggest a field experiment to see which is right, just like good ol'scientists would. Let's find someone in your vicinity of equivalent size and conduct a fist-to-face field experiment.

That's how you separate real science from quackery. Real scientists do this. Hacks and frauds do not. Roll the fucking dice roll and let them fall as they may.









On separate news for the non-retarded people who appreciate the quality of this thread (thanks to the OP for making it), I found this link in another thread which I found excellent for this topic.

This is how you do your trigonometry!!eleven!

http://www.matratz.com/2008/10/01/xande-ribierio-showing-some-preferred-moves/

This is that happeh cat? Man I avoided that thread like the plague, and here I got sucked into responding to that idiot!

How can you say this,


Because a punch is more than just your arm. At least a proper punch with any actualy power is. It is concerted effort of your arm, chest, hips, and legs.

then say:


Yes, if we threw shitty slap punches like in _ing _un

Do you know anything about Wing Chun? Why do you say that?



then your theory would hold out that centerline punches are the best. However, even you admit that boxing is far superior in its punches because it doesn't rely on the stupidity of centerline attacks.

I did not say that boxing was far superior. I said that boxing would give a Wing Chun person trouble. If you understood Centerline Theory, you would be able to clearly explain why a boxer gives Wing Chun people trouble.

If you thought about it for a minute, and you used your common sense, you could come up with the answer. If you knew something about physics, your generalized knowledge of physics would give you the answer.

What shape is a boxer's punch? The arm of a boxer is curved. That is why it gives Wing Chun People trouble. Centerline Theory was developed to counter long arm attacks that are a trademark of another popular kung fu style in China. Centerline Theory was NOT developed to deal with a fighting system using curved arm punches. That is why Wing Chun people have trouble with boxers.

Science will help a fighter understand why things work in a fight, and what is good to do against a particular style of fighter.



BTW, would you mind telling me how "A westerner would throw a punch that, according to how the human body is constructed and behaves, will hurt his own heart, liver, spleen, etc." without the mystical unproven chi flow BS that I KNOW you will employ to explain this rank idiocy? God you are either stupid or brainwashed, although the two are not mutually exclusive.
Answer me a question. Do you believe that your arm is the part of your body from the tip of your fingers to your shoulder?

unnecessary thread clutter

This would be true if the human body were a structure made out of metal with uniform thickness whose primary purpose was lying down with outstretched arms AND BEARING LOADS ON OUR GODDAMN FINGERTIPS. Which, last I checked, was not a major goal in my life.

You make no sense. What difference to the laws of physics and the principles of engineering does the construction material make? Of course you must take into account the properties of those materials. Of course a hard material will react differently than a soft material, but the basic laws of physics and priniciples of engineering apply to any physical object in this universe.



Moving on:

I bet you are moving on. You just realized how nonsensical your statement was.



Almost every great fighter in history has favored one hand over the other. Even Miyamoto Musashi, the famous duel wielding swordsman, had a more powerful left swing. The rest of your post is based on this axiom, which means I should probably stop here. But the rest of your post is also so wrong it's hard to stop.

Interesting fact isn't it? Most people are right handed, but a really famous Japanese Swordsman was left handed.

I wonder why?
------------------------------------------

Did you ever wonder why you were told that "the left hand is evil"?

Couldn't have anything to do with World Domination lies to make you weak. Could it?



This is almost true. If you assume that you are not moving your hips or rotating your body (which is f&*^ing stupid)

Mr Brown. You talk like you know something about Kung Fu. I want to know something. Do the people you usually meet know what you do? Do the usual off the street people you meet know they are supposed to put their shoulders and hips into a punch?

I think you have knowledge that most people don't. But you are still at that stage of life where you think that if you know something, so does everyone else.

Everyone else does not know that the shoulders and hips should be in a punch. They don't know how to do that even if you told them. Most people do not even have any real control over their shoulders and hips.

You need to act like you are special person with special knowledge, until someone else tells you "Oh ya. I already knew that".



and both arms can generate the same amount of power then one arm will hit the peak of the triangle at less force than the other ALONG THE VERTICAL VECTOR. If you are talking about absolutes than the arms will hit with the same momentum.

See? You know more than anyone else here at BullShido in my experience. In over three months here, you are the first person I recall using the words "vector" and "momentum"

You and I are the only ones publicly talking about things like that. That means you and I are special. We know things that no one else here talks about publicly.



The only difference between them is the angle at which they hit the target and if you've ever been hit before you know that being hit on the chin at a 20 degree angle compared to straight on feels about the same. In fact I would say that the 20 degree angle feels worse.

It does not matter what you feel. When you plug different numbers into the equations of physics and engineering, you will get a different answer. And those equations are all dependent on the angle of whatever force is under discussion.



Ok, one more and then I'll stop, I promise.

Why do you keep saying that? Does someone shut you up all the time, so you expect me to shut you up?



I am all for science in martial arts, but so far, excluding bjj and anatomy, I've only seen bad science used to affirm bad technique. I would love to see someone base a martial art on scientific principles,

Wing Chun is based on scientific principles. The laws of physics will tell anyone exactly why the moves of Wing Chun are made the way they are.

The problem is, if you do not understand how the human body is constructed and behaves, you cannot properly apply the equations. That is what western science does. They apply the proper laws of physics and engineering, to a flawed view of the human body, which of course results in a flawed answer.

Unnecessary thread clutter

Jalon, you do realize that my unilateral ceasefire only applies in the thread with your name on it, right?

So many words. What you just did is called Cherry picking. You chose certain out of context sentences to prove your point. You then backed some of it up with an appeal to authority (NASA person mom or dad?).

Though I did copy and paste from the post I don't think I took any of the sentences out of context. Because HiThere's response did not contain any objections regarding my choice of sentences I can only assume the he/she thinks that they remain within context. If you disagree feel free to point out which sentences you believe i am taking out of context.

You're right that i probably should not have put the appeal to authority in there (she's a mentor by the way, no relation). But the fact that you didn't know whether the authority was a man or woman suggests that you did not actually read my post in any detail.

If you're going to attempt to undermine a post by posting broad statements about it, please read the post first, you will come off as much less of a dick.



You make no sense. What difference to the laws of physics and the principles of engineering does the construction material make? Of course you must take into account the properties of those materials. Of course a hard material will react differently than a soft material, but the basic laws of physics and priniciples of engineering apply to any physical object in this universe.
You're right, I should not have specified the material. so i offer this revision:
This would be true if the human body (specifically the arms) was a rigid structure whose primary purpose was lying down with outstretched arms AND BEARING LOADS ON OUR GODDAMN FINGERTIPS. Which, last I checked, was not a major goal in my life.

I would like to respond to the rest of the post but i can't really understand it.

Oh Yeah?

Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate

Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate

Hate Hate Hate Hate

Oh yeah, are you willing to carry the scientific field experiment? Pseudoscience, a word that you freely applied to this thread, is all about talk without field experiments and collect data and experience for examining what when right and wrong and why.

Science, real science forces you to take those fields experiments and make observations.

Yeah yeah, hate hate blah blah. Do the field experiment, or just hunker down behind your keyboard.

Jalon, you're a moron. I tried asking you questions before, and you avoid them. These nice people asked you to answer the same basic questions you asked them, and you avoided those questions too. Is there any wonder why we'd rather choose to make fun of you? You can't just pick and choose which questions to answer, then ramble on about your fake science.

So once again, I will quote your very own questions, and ask that you answer them. If you don't, then I suggest that anything else you say will be either completey ignored or made fun of. In the end, you will have done it to yourself, don't you see?


Could you please state your age, how many years of schooling you have, what your major is, what classes you have taken that you feel apply to this subject, and the grades you recieved these classes.

I think the article made some good points. The initial criticism made some too, but was hypocritical in that, despite all the 'Sir' injunctions, the continual deprication of 'child' and 'young'un' smacked of ageist elitism which greatly lessened m desire to look past that to see any value in the criticism.