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.
Welcome to bullshido, you are in for a treat.
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,
then say:
Do you know anything about Wing Chun? Why do you say that?
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.
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
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.
I bet you are moving on. You just realized how nonsensical your statement was.
Interesting fact isn’t it? Most people are right handed, but a really famous Japanese Swordsman was left handed.
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?
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”.
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.
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.
Why do you keep saying that? Does someone shut you up all the time, so you expect me to shut you up?
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, 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.
No, it didn’t.
Because he was left handed, perhaps? I see your problem. Its very simple, and a failing on our part really. How can we exspect you to grasp basic science when your mind has yet to manage common sense.
Please educatate, and then kill yourself. Really, its the least you could do.
Which arm of this monk is wrapped up by his clothes?
Which arm of these monks is wrapped up by their clothes?
Which arm of the statue is wrapped up by it’s clothes?
As you said this:
That is all the help you will get from me. I am certain your superior intellect can figure the rest out with the clues I have generously provided you.
EDIT: I never could keep my mouth shut. Even with abusive people
Which leg of the boy is missing?
At the risk of receiving a pummel of flames…
I agree with the idea that if the arm stays on the centerline, a faster hit that curves like a boxer would throw would never be intercepted and the wing chun practitioner would never be able to defend. I also agree that the geometry is only one half of the equation, certainly something that moved faster along a curve could beat a punch that came along a shorter path with no power or less speed.
What I always practiced though, was maintaining a wedge with the elbows by holding them as a pentagon with the elbows out rather than a triangle as a way of defending against punches that curved around, and the elbow in when I was clear as a way of fitting in a hole in the defense (or to defend against attacks that were inside rather than outside) and to add power to the punches, and the important part of the centerline was keeping the wrist on center, not necessarily the whole arm, especially if doing so would give the opponent a clear path to you. This would have to be practiced quite a bit, since it requires some anticipation of an opponents hit and doesn’t simply rely on “chi sao” reflexes, so I’ll agree with the constant criticism that wing chun practitioners who don’t practice their art with real sparring probably won’t get it to work against another trained fighter.
So, he’s using pictures of religious monks (who are not martial artists) using their religious garments in a specific manner to prove his scientific claims? Oh yay.
A few pictures of monks with thier left arms covered niether prooves they nor Musashi himself where right handed. Thier is also no evidence the boy actually has a leg missing. You’re an elaborate troll, or mentally ill. Get help.
And yes, im alot smarter than you either way.
Highthere, I hate to break it to you but Wing Chun sucks. Deal with it.
everyone else is already doing a pretty good job of that. i did ask you a question in my next post though:
i’ll add - have you ever even sparred with someone?