Reverse Gravitational Marriage?
- Thread starter Kembudo-Kai Kempoka
- Start date
Doc
Senior Master
That was the uninhibited vicodin talking. Sorry.Doc said:
kenpoworks
Purple Belt
Yeh!...I read that 1st time around Doc, and well it didn't seem like you, the limited vocabulary is not your style.
Rich
ps I only PM'd you because it was easier at the time.....in future I will e-mail you personally.
Rich
ps I only PM'd you because it was easier at the time.....in future I will e-mail you personally.
Doc
Senior Master
With the volume of PM's I get from forum participants, its easier for people I know personally to shoot me a line. I get to those first. My PM box fills up fast and often.kenpoworks said:
China
Doc
Senior Master
English Cockney Rhyming slang for mate.Jagdish said:
Doc
Senior Master
I had a plethora once. It was a red 1964 six cylinder, with a stick. Ran great and got really good gas mileage.DavidCC said:[/i]
Yes I was sure it was but I really just wanted to poke a little fun at the plethora of vocabulary permutations in AK
My preferred technique illustrating this concept is Flashing Mace :
After you have delivered the right inward bracing check against opponent's right arm and followed-up with a left outward check - the waiter check, your right hand circle's clockwise from about 6 o'clock striking upward to the attacker's face. It is like pitching a softball with you knuckles coming into a full circular rotation. Your feet may even come up on the toes slightly to gain power.
Now some schools may teach the strike with a looping motion, applying another power principle (like throwing a lasso around the attacker).
After you have delivered the right inward bracing check against opponent's right arm and followed-up with a left outward check - the waiter check, your right hand circle's clockwise from about 6 o'clock striking upward to the attacker's face. It is like pitching a softball with you knuckles coming into a full circular rotation. Your feet may even come up on the toes slightly to gain power.
Now some schools may teach the strike with a looping motion, applying another power principle (like throwing a lasso around the attacker).
Doc
Senior Master
Are you sure sir that is your understanding of "RGM?" As for coming up on your toes, I suggest an examination of basics would indicate there are no "Toe stances."Kenpoist said:
No toe stances
- Just stating the rising power from the strike may bring your weight distribution upward and make your feet feel a little lighter (but not light in the loafers). Yes this was my understanding of RGM.
Doc
Senior Master
In my understanding, whenever you strike, you should never "feel lighter." You should do quite the opposite and feel "rooted." From my perspective, the example you gave does not meet the critirior for a "Reverse Marraige of Gravity" application. It should be noted however, in spite of my understanding of the terms, we do not find them particularly relevant and instead insert much more specific and less conceptual terminology in the methodology descriptions.Kenpoist said:No toe stances- Just stating the rising power from the strike may bring your weight distribution upward and make your feet feel a little lighter (but not light in the loafers). Yes this was my understanding of RGM.
Sir,Doc said:Everything you do has a "gravitational and "mass" component to it - if that is how you wish to approach the discussion. Every time you take a step or sit down you utilize "gravitational marriage," 'back up mass," body alignment," "stance changes," etc. None of these conceptual terms are mutually exclusive of each other, and many more are inclusive or actually contradict each other. So what? The "outer rim" contradicts the "box." Isn't a "scoop" a "hook" on a vertical plane? Isn't a "whip" the tail end of a "snap?"
If we were to shift our focus to actual mechanics of execution there would be less room for misunderstandings and misinterpretations. We must be grounded in the reality of and the understanding of actual physics as it applies to human anatomy. We never "disengage" from gravity so how can we "marry" something already present? It is simply the expression of an idea of how, and the various ways we might utilize our own mass, and an attackers mass to our advantage and his disadvantage. That is the real discussion.
I was taught to create terms to describe function and stay away as much as possible from conceptual descriptive terms. They will always be subject to extreme interpretations. Most of us would be comfortable that everyone would "conceptually" understand the term "kick." The argument is in the specifics of actual function. We most certainly will disagree with "how" we execute a specific kick.
What you ultimately decide "Gravitational Marriage," or its "Reverse" actually means and how its utilized is up to you. Make it work and you can do what the Chinese did and call it, "weight falling from the sky that really **** Edited to conform to MT's Profanity Rules with you up."
This is why conceptual arguments are ultimately silly. It is all about the study of ideas and how they can be utilized to enhance ones understanding of what they do. Discussing the the theory of relativity, the speed of light, and its relationship to the possibility of time travel is an interesting discussion. When talking about someone trying to kick your butt, you need to get more real.
Hey let's talk about the conceptual differences between a "leap," a "jump" and a "hop?" - NOT! Show me you can get out of the way, and then you give it a name.
Didn't I already say, "Conceptually, everyone is right?"
See you gonna make me say it again. "Duh!"
The question about using your opponents weight, asking if this was just borrowed force, was from teej I just responded saying the same as you! or at least tried to.
I agree with you, a more mechanical definition of each movement is better, rather that broader conceptual phrases leading to misinterpretation
Sorry If I made you say Duh! for the second time I was just joining in with a discussion
jonah
Doc
Senior Master
No it's my apology because I used your quote to illustrate my point. It was clear that you were not in disagreement. I should have been more clear sir.jonah2 said:
