New anti Sine Wave pattern deliveries on Youtube

[dvcochran]

My grandmaster is a thing called facts. But my red belt apparently renders them false.

Hmm, a red belt arguing with a well known 9th Dan and other high ranking people. Smart.

For your sake I hope your red belt is legitimate and well earned. You certainly don’t make it sound that way.

 

[Earl Weiss]

If Choi was advocating hip twist with you and other instructors in private, yet removed it from the encyclopedias punching principles, what conclusion is to be drawn about him cognitively then? He is at the very least being inconsistent about a rather straightforward matter. One either twists their hips or they don't.

Sir, I suggest you read my post gain >>>> The quote is from General Choi's encyclopedia Volume II page 33..<<<<<<<< Where I give you volume and page of the text that contains the >>>The large abdominal muscles are twisted to provide additional body momentum. Thus the hip rotates in the same direction as the attacking or blocking tool. ...... "<<< This is the same encyclopedia that contains SW, so your premise is faulty. Sorry I see you admitted error at post #111. I will keep this here in case anyone misses it.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Earl Weiss cherry picking a quote from Choi doesn't change the fact that hip twist was deleted from principles of punching section. A point which used to exist prior to knee spring/SW in the encyclopedias.

And yes, General Choi is the author of them.

Game, set, match.

Sir, Now, I am confused - At post 111 you provide a link to Volume III which again mentions the hip twist yet you still think you are correct?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You do recall that Mr Weiss started the "Sine Wave is boxing rabbit hole"?

Yes, and you may recall that you're replying to someone else, and I didn't tie things to boxing (nor, really, did he tie it to boxing in the manner you're implying).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That in it self reveals that you aren't utiziling proper leverage. Heel up is a huge difference when done right. If all you do is Karate, you won't know that. What you write is to be expected from someone with muscle memory that will overwrite any potential to change the muscle memory, because your body is hard-wired to punch in a certain way no matter what.

And your response tells me much about what you don't understand of those mechanics. I've no idea what's taught in TKD (one of the arts I've never dabbled in), but there's not such a dramatic difference between down and up, when you use good mechanics for each.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Discussion does not mean repeating and insisting on your own opinion over and over and ignoring the objections and explanations of others.

To him, it kinda does.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You asked if It was an ITF school to my thread about my ITF instructor. What do you think the answer to that is?

Probably something like "none of your business".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If Choi was advocating hip twist with you and other instructors in private, yet removed it from the encyclopedias punching principles, what conclusion is to be drawn about him cognitively then? He is at the very least being inconsistent about a rather straightforward matter. One either twists their hips or they don't.

And here we have it. You've decided something. And it doesn't matter what the facts are, nor what anyone else says or has said about it. You believe the sine wave to be one specific thing, and that this is what was meant by the snippets you quote from the manual. If the person mostly responsible for that manual explained it differently than you interpreted the manual, he's the one who's wrong - not you.

Your arrogance is impressive.

 

[Acronym]

Sir, Now, I am confused - At post 111 you provide a link to Volume III which again mentions the hip twist yet you still think you are correct?

It does not mention a hip twist. It says jerk the hip and abdomen.

Please provide the full context for the quote you cherry picked. Page 33 of the free volume online does not have your quote

 

[Acronym]

And here we have it. You've decided something. And it doesn't matter what the facts are, nor what anyone else says or has said about it. You believe the sine wave to be one specific thing, and that this is what was meant by the snippets you quote from the manual. If the person mostly responsible for that manual explained it differently than you interpreted the manual, he's the one who's wrong - not you.

Your arrogance is impressive.

He's wrong, as I'm about to show you all yet again. The victory speech you gave here was premature.

 

[Acronym]

Stuart Anslow makes the following classifications:


Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy

there are now three main variations on the ITF tuls (when I refer to ITF I am not referring to any organisation, but to the style of Taekwon-do, ie. Chang-hon, which is mostly referred to as 'ITF style' whether correct or not)

These three main variations can be seen as:

1.Very old, almost Karate type performance - emphasising lots of hip twist, off-turned shoulders & no knee-spring or sine-wave motions

2.Original, emphasising both hip twist & knee spring, but not sine-wave per se.

3.New, emphasising little or no hip twist or knee spring & lots of sine wave (as it is now taught!)

 

[Acronym]

The quote Earl Weiss cherry picked has the headline: Mass (zilyang). General Choi did lots of writings on physics by simply quoting or paraphrasing someone else, including Newton.

The reference I gave were parameters for the actual punching entitled "common principles".

 

[dvcochran]

And here we have it. You've decided something. And it doesn't matter what the facts are, nor what anyone else says or has said about it. You believe the sine wave to be one specific thing, and that this is what was meant by the snippets you quote from the manual. If the person mostly responsible for that manual explained it differently than you interpreted the manual, he's the one who's wrong - not you.

Your arrogance is impressive.

Calling it arrogance is being nice.

 

[dvcochran]

The quote Earl Weiss cherry picked has the headline: Mass (zilyang). General Choi did lots of writings on physics by simply quoting or paraphrasing someone else, including Newton.

The reference I gave were parameters for the actual punching entitled "common principles".

Physics, while fully accepted as a principal, is still a theory. Anyone applying a part of the principal is 'using Physics'. General Choi was no different.
My best guess with you is that several things have gotten lost in translation, you then made your own conclusions and refuse to listen to sound reason and vast amounts of direct experience.
Compound that with little real world application and it is easy to see how you are lost as a goose.

Refer back to my posts #121 and little lower.

 

[Acronym]

Calling it arrogance is being nice.

I would prefer the term straight-shooter. To single out rank in all of this is morally abhorrent. My attitude is abrasive regardless of who'm I'm addressing, and it doesn't make it any more wrong (if one takes that view) than if I talked this way to a hobo on the street.

 

[Acronym]

Physics, while fully accepted as a principal, is still a theory. Anyone applying a part of the principal is 'using Physics'. General Choi was no different..

My point is that Choi's "Theory of power" was quoting and paraphrasing someone elses formulas and theories. This seems to be a pattern in his line of work, if you know what I'm saying

 

[dvcochran]

My point is that Choi's "Theory of power" was quoting and paraphrasing someone elses formulas and theories. This seems to be a pattern in his line of work, if you know what I'm saying

Exactly my point to referencing physics. Everyone does it when it applies to the topic. That does not create an opportunity to nit pick about it.

 

[dvcochran]

I would prefer the term straight-shooter. To single out rank in all of this is morally abhorrent. My attitude is abrasive regardless of who'm I'm addressing, and it doesn't make it any more wrong (if one takes that view) than if I talked this way to a hobo on the street.

I am much the same way. But I have the good sense to see when I am wrong.

Like I said before, you crossed that line several posts back.

 

[Acronym]

Exactly my point to referencing physics. Everyone does it when it applies to the topic. That does not create an opportunity to nit pick about it.

I do nitpick about people within the ITF saying that he added a theory a power to TaeKwonDo, when he did nothing but reference existing theories. Theories most educated people knew about anyway.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Just try to understand the term SW and hip twist, will you call this SW and hip twist?