new site: www.badmartialarts.com

**Nate1481** · Posted On: 12/10/2006 8:31pm

While from what little I read it seems unlikely, it had been acknowledged that half decent TKD schools exist, even if they are few and far between. Finding out a bit about his school and if it could be classed as such might be worth while.

Bashing TKD is easy but looking as it critically rather than assuming it was bad would be fair, even if we're proved right.

**supercrap** · Posted On: 12/10/2006 10:33pm

Would love to see Bullshido getting some more exposure with some kind of attention from Randi...

**Virus** · Posted On: 12/11/2006 6:42am

It could use a little elaboration on the difference between alive and dead training.

**Phrost** · Posted On: 12/11/2006 7:50am

It wasn't so much about TKD as it was about his complete lack of regard for empirical skill testing.

**nezha** · Posted On: 12/11/2006 3:28pm

I dunno, that website seems like typical "enlightened" RSBD stuff to me. Ooo, listen to my radical ideas on how chi doesn't work, I am smarter than those deluded idiots! Haha! I am grounded in REALITY, please listen to me!

He is a like a friendlier Phil who has a chance at redemption.

**FredGarvinMP** · Posted On: 12/11/2006 5:10pm

[begin rant] Why do people get the notion in their heads that they can use high school physics to explain incredibly complicated physical systems? That web site's "science" section is retarted to say the least. Basic 2-D equations of motion are about 10% of what is required to accurately describe what is really going on. Even on the 9th grade level, I saw no mention of relative velocities and rates of closeure. The dynamics alone keep me from studying that stuff further. You have to like working in multiple reference frames and such. This guy is doing nothing but stroking himself. [end rant]

P.S. Nice letter Frost.

**Phrost** · Posted On: 12/11/2006 5:27pm

Hey if you want to break down his science that'd be great. Peer-review is what keeps Science grounded in the first place.

Unfortunately, too many Martial Artists don't want to subject themselves to peer review when it comes to their skills.

**Doctor X** · Posted On: 12/12/2006 2:12am

Well OBVIOUSLY . . . t00 t3h d34dly. . . .

--J.D.

**nezha** · Posted On: 12/12/2006 2:47pm

Nothing is t00 d34dly for the str33t!

**goosetherumfoodle** · Posted On: 12/12/2006 6:57pm

Originally Posted by FredGarvinMP

[begin rant] Why do people get the notion in their heads that they can use high school physics to explain incredibly complicated physical systems? That web site's "science" section is retarted to say the least. Basic 2-D equations of motion are about 10% of what is required to accurately describe what is really going on. Even on the 9th grade level, I saw no mention of relative velocities and rates of closeure. The dynamics alone keep me from studying that stuff further. You have to like working in multiple reference frames and such. This guy is doing nothing but stroking himself. [end rant]

P.S. Nice letter Frost.

If you want this to mean anything you are going to have to get specific. Any phenomena in physics can be described as "incredibly complicated", but many times the mathematical model used to represent it needn't be complicated. The basic projectile kinematics that you learn in high school actually do accurately predict phenomena, that's why you learn it. Just because something can be explained using a more complicated system doesn't mean that it has to be. Many times the simplest models are accurate enough. I'm not saying that I really saw anything too worthwhile in his science section. I'm just saying that you have to actually point out what he said about what physical situation and why his explanation of the physics involved doesn't suffice. As of yet you haven't made any worthwhile criticism.

Phrost:
Did you say that you had been in contact with Randi before? When and for what? And about your letter, I think you might want to tone down your use of "science". It isn't really necessary and loosely throwing the term around won't get you on Randi's good side. I'm not saying that what you are talking about isn't completely analogous to science, it just isn't exactly science. And I would imagine that people using "science" loosely and often would be a button of Randi's.