Every discipline has its own jargon. Sometimes, even when discussing similar principles. You're well aware of this, but prefer to attempt a pedantic retort to someone else's post when you have nothing better to do, even when the post is quite clear in its communication.
You said they were the same value,so thats your claim, and also indecated that there were other scientific principles that backed that up,
So how did what i said disagree with the substance of his post, i tbough i was agreeing ?
Honestly, I cannot tell what he is doing.
Actually, I said they were roughly equivalent. The second sentence, I'll have to ask you to find where I said that.
The part where you called his post "tripe".
No thats was tripe, im talkibg abiut the other one abiut poweful punches you pulled me up on
Riughly the same value then ?? So ??????
You've meandered more than usual on this one - I'll need you to point me to the post you're actually talking about.
Yes. So?????
Yes, I said there were many principles involved, because you claimed there was one and only one (conservation of momentum) that could be discussed. At no point did I say any of those other principles were necessary for supporting my claim that kinetic energy just prior to impact and force at impact were roughly equivalent - I'd already cleared that one up. You were the one who started bringing up other principles, primarily because you couldn't find anything worth arguing against in my statement.
Depends on what you are doing. Not every technique should be extended to the extreme. Not every technique requires a maximum distance to travel. I think it's the wrong focus in terms of fighting.
And, since that foot is no longer on the ground, the puncher could be collapsed back when his fist impacts if the target is massive or is moving toward him. If the foot were still on the ground it could act as a stabilizer at the least, and continue to drive power into the punch at the best.
What kind of whiskey?
I’m sorry but a lack of evidence that something has been proven in the ring will never convince me one way or the other about it’s viability. It is an argument that has absolutely zero strength to it.
Why? if a person's lights turn out at a certain point then all you need to do is hit to that level of power with the jab. Everything else beyond that is irrelevant. If you get K.O. with a jab, then you know it was powerful enough. It need not knock your head off your shoulders. It's like trying to find out which car is more powerful. All of that is irrelevant if the car is hitting a person.
Can you refere me to the post " where you cleared that up"
This week, it's an Irish I haven't tried before: The Irishman (by Walsh). Not as good as some I've had lately, but not bad.
Sure, though you've absolutely and totally failed to point to the posts you refer to, I'll actually do that. Why? Because I actually have posts to refer to, and the claims you made about my posts are never going to be upheld by quoting one of my posts, so you won't serve your self-serving argument by posting anything I actually said.
