Hey, Steve, Always good talking with you as well. I think the issue here isn't that there isn't an understanding of "what", it's that we're both looking at different "what's" in the first place. You're addressing the application of specific technical approaches, whereas I'm looking at the overall approach of the system, which includes the technical aspects in a general sense. It can get into the nitty-gritty technical details of movement to movement (that's how each of the actions developed, really), but that's a different area. I only used it as an example for Tez and Wado's throws because it came up in the conversation. So we're agreed that the first question is "what", otherwise you have nothing to ask "why" about, but what the "what" is we're both looking at is different. And that was kinda my point above, really. In a gentle, smiling, happy for intelligent conversation way, I'd say you're looking at the wrong "what", which is why you're not seeing what I'm saying about understanding the history. So, uh, with all due respect, Steve, yeah, I'm saying you're wrong. But only in what you're looking at. Oh, and in that vein, the last part there, "because if we had more kicks, it would be something else" isn't really correct either. "Because they have no place here" is, and that comes down to the history. I know that sounds rather tied up in semantics, but the thing I'm trying to get across here is that the different systems are what they are due to their history. If there are other things in there, that's not necessarily an indication of "it's something different", it's an indication of not understanding the system in the first place.