Page 4 of 5 First 12345 Last
  1. #31
    It is Fake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,442
    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam View Post
    Yes, but they will break, sprain, and resist different on a live person. Finding how the body works is a plus, but breaking a stiff doesn't really prove that the same thing would happen on a live person.
    STARTING POINT. Did you read my post?

    Medical studies usually use live test subjects after the corpse tests.
    No, apparently you didn't read my post or Daishi's.

    I figure dissecting corpses to study anatomy and apply to technique as being more believable by comparison..
    Nowhere does he say this is the best, only, right or correct. He said this is more believable IN THE CREATION OF AIKIDO than the woo woo stories.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Edmonds, WA
    Posts
    257
    3
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    So that's why all the aikidokas are so smug. They know their techniques will work. They just need to wait for you to die first.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    282
    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Zerstörer90 View Post
    So that's why all the aikidokas are so smug. They know their techniques will work. They just need to wait for you to die first.
    Having better pants adds to the smugness too.

    Story time:
    An old guy was doing his exercises in the park. A young guy starts practising with him but gets annoyed that the exercises won't make him a better fighter. The old man tries to convince him "in the long run these exercise will really pay off." The young guy leaves the old man, scoffing at what he was told. Years later the young man is dead but the old guy is still around. The old man goes up to the grave, places his hand on the ground and says "pinned."

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    282
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam View Post
    Yes, but they will break, sprain, and resist different on a live person. Finding how the body works is a plus, but breaking a stiff doesn't really prove that the same thing would happen on a live person.

    Medical studies usually use live test subjects after the corpse tests.
    Are we talking about the Olsen paper of the DR myth here?
    For the DR myth I don't think anyone's saying that "all we needed was corpse study in my day, none of your new fangle practising on live people" (even if it's alive but without Aliveness).
    For the Olsen paper, only one of the subjects was a cadaver. The other four were all alive. The papers can be found in full and for free here. Click on the "our sensei" link and scroll down.

    PS frames on websites = pet hate

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Shelton, CT
    Posts
    903
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    It was just a series of studies to look at the physiology of these pins, i.e. how do they look inside of the body in terms of tendons, nerves, joints etc. moving around. You specifically can't ethically do that on a live test subject, thats called vivisection. And I don't think they do a lot of grappling inside of x-ray machines. It doesn't prove much about the pins, but one study alone isn't supposed to do that. It answered a simple little question (what goes on with someones joint when I twist it in this way that people have been saying causes pain or injury).

    It's sort of like the issue that a lot of people are ABLE to knock someone out, but some would say science isn't really sure WHY people get knocked out exactly. Another question for basic science.

  6. #36
    DCS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,311
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    FYI, Olson's articles are in scribd since 2010.

    There is a link here.
    Last edited by DCS; 7/18/2012 5:15pm at . Reason: typo

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    808
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I wouldn't get too bent out of shape on this subject. I'm just spitballing here, but I would assume the producer of these studies was just looking for an excuse to do some type of scientific experiment that held a level of personal interest to him....kind of like the lawyer who broke down the legal accuracy of statements pertaining to law enforcement made by Jay Z in the song "99 Problems." Its an interesting and pretty neat thing to do a study on, I would leave it at that. He's not up for a Nobel for it.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Shelton, CT
    Posts
    903
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by daishi View Post
    I wouldn't get too bent out of shape on this subject. I'm just spitballing here, but I would assume the producer of these studies was just looking for an excuse to do some type of scientific experiment that held a level of personal interest to him....kind of like the lawyer who broke down the legal accuracy of statements pertaining to law enforcement made by Jay Z in the song "99 Problems." Its an interesting and pretty neat thing to do a study on, I would leave it at that. He's not up for a Nobel for it.
    I agree with you to a point but these were still peer reviewed studies in a fairly reputable journal.

  9. #39
    The Question's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,593
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    No, the studying was okay it is the application of theories that is incorrect.
    I think the studying was fucked from the start. How the hell is dissecting a cadaver going to tell you something you don't already know from all the other motherfuckers who have previously dissected cadavers. Because I know this article wasn't before Galen and ****.
    Do I need to get ALL of the medical studies, on cadavers, that led to the medical advances for the living? Daishi was trying to make a point and it makes sense. The flaw is that, if true, the latter generations didn't always apply the findings to live trainees.
    You could, but I don't see how that would help the motherfucking point. Pathologists often say the dead work to preserve the living, but that's a different thing all together. Cutting up a ************ and finding clots in his kidney and **** will clue you in on what fucked killed him and how to deal with similar patients who are still alive. But why would the **** could you learn from a corpse that would be of benefit to understanding Aikido.

    Finding out how things break, sprain, resist and move is a good beginning to a martial art.
    I would argue that this is fucking bullshit. Motherfuckers figured out without wasting 6 cadavers that twisting **** how it's not meant to twist damages it. Also, if this is your goal, why not just read a fucking anatomy book? This study is fucking useless.
    Quote Originally Posted by Goju - joe
    being a dick with skill is only marginally better than being a dick without skill.

  10. #40
    goodlun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ramona CA
    Posts
    7,317
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Well this explains all the dead patterns http://instantrimshot.com/index.php?...shot&play=true

Page 4 of 5 First 12345 Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO