CPF was kind enough to squash most of those examples because they were just too complicated to treat with that level of simplicity. I don't want to get too technical with it, but I absolutely don't want to misrepresent a technique for the sake of simplicity either.
I like to think of myself as a fighter first, and a physicist second, and my training as a physicist has helped me immensely to pick up martial arts quickly and apply techniques effectively in live training/sparring. Training and experience are the key to success, but my background really helped me get much more out of every minute I spent training. I would really like to find a way to share that advantage with other fighters. I think the blog is a good start, but I admit I'm still working on finding the right voice, medium, etc.
On that topic, I feel like most of the fight "science" out there comes from one of two places that I hate:
1) Bad science
2) Good science that just ends up being an enumeration and mathematical description of what fighters do
Number 1 is bad for obvious reasons
Number 2 I feel isn't helpful. I remember after searching for a long time for other physicist/fighters, I found an older physicist/karateka who wrote a book on karate years ago and I got very excited about it. When I dug into it, I found that even though he broke everything down in terms of math and angles, it was still just a description of the techniques, as if someone had done a google translate on the descriptions from english to math. All he had done was take a piece of knowledge and make it less accessible. While it might be an interesting problem to tackle, I find this frustrating because I don't think it helps anyone to be a better fighter.
So I am trying to create a third category:
3)Good science that is accessible to most anyone and helps you to get more out of the time you spend training.
...and feedback on Bullshido helps a lot.
I know, because my coach showed me, that grabbing a little lower on the leg and getting a little higher in the armpit with my knee, makes a HUGE difference when going for a 'flower sweep' for example.
Discussing simple concepts in lay terms, like "increasing your leverage by 10% is like being 10% "stronger" has some value, but it all gets lost in the miasma of 'dihedral triangles' and 'AOA' bullshit eventually.
Thus my first post in this thread.
"I originally had no intention to take techniques and break them down scientifically"
So you're going to have "good science" that isn't "scientific"? Or is being "scientific" the same thing as inaccessible? Like it has to be so jargoned up as to be incomprehensible to anyone but a physicist?
I'm sure this can be parsed down to ridiculousness, but I'm not sure why you made such a strong distinction about avoiding "scientific" approaches in a thread that's all about the science of MA. You don't need to take the science out of it to reach your goal, you just need to make the science accessible. You say your background as a physicist really helped you...I'm willing to bet it's not because you oversimplified or avoided scientific method. If you want others to share that benefit then find a way to communicate it in language they'll understand.
The judo stuff I scratched the surface. You have to use techniques as examples; you have to explain what a particular lever is somehow, then give a concrete example using a technique that applies the lever/principle, whatever.
A big problem is that the human body is not a simple rigid body. So on something simple like Juji Gatame (relatively simple), it is still fairly complex. For throws, well, it gets complicated fast...
So, what is the working hypothesis for the physics of Juji Gatame? What experiments are planned to test that hypothesis? Maybe multiple working hypotheses?
Since we are being all scientific and everything...