Posted On:6/17/2003 7:44pm
Style: Liu Seong Gung Fu
"In this thread you first said "never let him attack first". You previously defended a Tai Chi instructor who indicated he preferred to wait for an attack and use the energy, etc. Your initial post on this thread apparently did not convey your real position (based on your post above and previous posts), yet you indicate that my confusion shows my lack of knowledge. Great logic."
i am really failing to see why you cant understand the difference in these methods. they on dependant on the TIMING of the relative actions of each fighter. if you telegraph your motions and my various speeds are cumulatively greater than yours, i will preempt you. if you 'launch' first and control the centerline then i must blend/contribute, and use your momentum against you, either to hit you or offbalance. this isnt even a debatable. it is the way it is. period.
"lso your statement above doesn't make much sense. You are going to attack the slower person & counterattack the faster person ?
are you brain dead? if someone is not prepared, has an open guard, out of position and has inferior processing and execution speed, they get hit first.
How about getting a jump on the faster person ?
how in the hell do you do that? this remark shows that you are sorely lacking in your understanding of TIMING, as well as how it differs from SPEED. please give your definition of these two terms.
How do you know they are faster or slower before the fight starts ? Must be their Ki energy."
when they are incoming first it is more than obvious who is faster. as well if your perception of their telegraph is lacking, you will interpret this as superior speed on their part. and some people just plain have a greater execution speed than you, when this is coupled with excellent timing and reading skills, you better know how to blend or overextend.
i judge your responses, just as you judge mine. your ideas/concepts seem to be somewhat limited imho.
"I do. So what ? Almost everyone here is."
care to specify more. i have been in ma for over 30 yrs. primarily peokulan kuntao silat, but training as well in karate,judo,jujutsu,chaunfa, and capoiera.
"Why do you assume I'm being dismissive ? A bit sensitive about your made up phrases ?"
KInetic energy is the proper terminology to use in reference to the subject of POWER in the martial arts. do you use different terms? try me, lets see if i can follow you. i make no apologies for my terms and label them as such, along with an honest attempt to explain as clearly as possible. you just cry.
"! You have 0 respect for SCARS. Kungfools is the essence of SCARS"
my problems with SCARS and Kungfoolss personal proclivities does not cloud my judgement of the material he posts. you best believe i scrutinize it with a highly skeptical eye. he generally passes with flying colors. i just dont like his attitude or the touting of SCABS as something 'new' and 'superior' to the TMA that forged the way and passed this info down through the ages. unfortunately many of the central points he makes about the state of martial arts in general are quite correct.
in the face of certain realities, emotions have no place.
"I suggest you take your own advice (from your profile) and find a teacher - they know **** - take writing & logic classes this year ! Kunfools was right about 1 thing - I am getting emotional, because I'm sick of reading stupid **** like this."
i assure you, i have a most excellent teacher. perhaps it is your teacher who is lacking,...hmmm?
now you can flame back, or you can lay down something intelligent and we can discuss it. fair enough?
"Well, since you are making up a LOT of different terms here, it's hard to say. However, since the statement doesn't follow from your last sentence, I'll have to assume you are at least partially wrong."
interruption- i hit you first before you can achieve striking posture or distance.
collisive impact- i strike into your momentum to increase my kinetic damage. i do this because for whatever reason you are currently in the process of striking.
overextending- i snatch you off balance as you attack, extending your momentum beyond what you intended, and then capitalize on your vulnerability, often by using collisive impact.
is that clear enough?
<marquee> INDONESIAN GUNG FU</marquee>
I restore the Balance
Posted On:6/20/2003 2:35pm
Style: I wear pants
I didn't say dire, I said last resort.
When you use the term "last resort" it means a restriction of options for which the net result for failure is often dire.
I have never seen you post a scenario where your goal was to go to the ground.
Should I have? Within what context may I ask? This line of reasoning absolutely makes zero sense.
No - the context of the piece was some strikes that knock people out and your complaints were generally about the scope of the piece. They didn't include fists, they didn't include elbows, they didn't include ground work, their focus is too simplistic and linear. Then Kuntao simply called it garbage as shown and ranted about the elbows some more.
There is practically no penetration utilized in the strikes portrayed, making the classification of a "knockout" unlikely, that is why the validity of the "techniques" are questionable.
PS. I'm still waiting for all those people in the earlier part of this thread that were praising the techniques, explain the validity of the anti-shoot/tackle knockouts. Where did all you guys run off to? (Smirks)
Kungfoolss, Scourge of the theory-based stylists, Most Feared man at Bullshido.com, and the Preeminent Force in the martial arts political arena
Posted On:6/24/2003 9:46am
Foolish stylist, fear me!
Hard work, Patience, Dedication.
"I'd rather lie in a pool of sweat, than a pool of blood."
Surfing Facebook at work? Spread the good word by adding us on Facebook today! https://www.facebook.com/Bullshido
Articles and Reviews
Tools and Info