Also... feedback thatās too narrow, or feedback thatās based on to many āwhat ifs.ā I really like the guy and respect his knowledge, but thereās a guy here who uses āif your opponent does A, you do B; if he does C you do D; if he does E you do Fā and seemingly keeps going further with it far too much. After reading stuff like that, Iām more confused than when I started and have a hard time remembering what the original thing even was to begin with.
You may address the discussion that we have in the "Judo head lock" thread.
I donāt disagree (You may address the discussion that we have in the "Judo head lock" thread.
If we talk about application, we have to talk about
- technique,
- counters to that technique,
- counters to those counters,
- ...
You cannot say that a technique X is useless because it can be countered by technique Y. When you say that, the other will say but your counter Y can be countered by technique Z and you can use technique X to set up technique Z.
I like to get into this kind of "combo" discussion. I have always believed that MA means "change". You may not like this kind of discussion.
The MA tree discussion can be stopped at the root, at any branch, or even at the individual leaf. How far will that discussion go depend on at least 2 persons who like to go deeper.
A tree root discussion may reach to a tree leaf discussion. If you punch my head and knock me down, the discussion will end right there.
) and I genuinely like reading your replies. But that type of discussion can get into way too many āwhat ifs.ā Thereās a counter to practically everything. Thereās too many things one can do and the other can do to react to that.
To me the more "what ifs", the more personal benefit that I can receive for myself.
So that's what it looks like inside your thought processYou may address the discussion that we have in the "Judo head lock" thread.
If we talk about application, we have to talk about
- technique,
- counters to that technique,
- counters to those counters,
- ...
You cannot say that a technique A is useless because it can be countered by technique B. When you say that, the other will say but your counter B can be countered by technique C and you can use technique A to set up technique C.
I like to get into this kind of "combo" discussion. You may not like this kind of discussion, but I have always believed that MA means "change".
The MA tree discussion can be stopped at the root, at any branch, or even at the individual leaf. How far will that discussion go depend on at least 2 persons who like to go deeper.
A tree root discussion may reach to a tree leaf discussion. If you punch my head and knock me down, the discussion will end right there. But if I can block your punch, the discussion will continue.
It's more fun to discuss how to change from technique A into technique C depending on opponent's respond B.
You and I are almost similar in that way. I'm probably more like a plastic bag full of water. Where the opening appears, is where my technique flows. The size of the opening determines the technique used. Bigger openings allow for bigger flow of techniques, smaller openings have smaller techniques that flow through.
I was a computer programmer until I retired from IBM back in 2003. When I write a computer program, I have to consider all cases. If there is a case that I have not considered, my program won't work.
We spend a lot of time trying to say something that's have no meaning such as:
Several of those aren't actually meaningless, John. I'm not sure what your point is.
IMO, it's better not to say anything than to say some meaningless thing such as, "We have to agree that we disagree."
I don't agree. Sometimes, it's useful to simply acknowledge that a discussion isn't approaching an agreement. By acknowledging that, it lets the other person know that there's probably not much point in continuing at that time. There are probably better ways to do it ("We'll just have to agree to disagree" is often delivered dismissively).
I forgot to finish what I was saying. There were other examples you listed that actually say something. Here are some:
We must be brothers, from another life KF Wang. You totally understand my perspective. I think there is beauty is not knowing. At times having no answer, or anything to add can make you closer with the other person.
well. . okay. I agree?
There are times where it's perfectly valid to disagree. When asked what you value more, money vs. Power, I could say money is more important, and you say power is more important. It's fine that we don't agree on that.
well. . okay. I agree?
