You're really not, you know. You're coming across as the kid who plays dress-ups, imagining they're the big bad scary movie character without having the first clue about what reality is. And there's not really any point giving more remarkably appropriate anecdotal "evidence" for your "reality" (which always seems to be a "real life encounter" for any of a hundred thousand things you get questioned on....), as I'm saying it's how you come across in the way you present yourself here. If you don't want that image, change it. Oh boy.... son, you have yet to deal with my first post in this thread. You have yet to even grasp the basic comments made, and come back with any real answer. Tell you what, here it is again. You presented a few videos of the "traditional" way of performing Sword and Hammer. You then presented a few videos of attacks that that technique is not designed to handle, as a way of demonstrating what you think the problems with the "traditional" form is. Then, finally, you presented your video/s, which start with you showing the "traditional" form, before going into a technique which shares practically nothing in common with it as an "improved" version of Sword and Hammer. Through this, you were questioned as to why you believed your technique was a version of Sword and Hammer itself, rather than just your personal take on what you think would work against a different attack (to the one that Sword and Hammer is designed for), to which you have happened to use the same name. In other words, you were asked what makes a technique "Sword and Hammer" in the first place, and how were those aspects seen or manifested in your technique. All you have come back with is "but look how much more effective mine is!", while simultaneously missing the basis of the question itself (and making some huge mistakes along the way, some very questionable assumptions, and riding a path of arrogance that would have made Mohamed Ali blush in his hey-day... and Ali could at least genuinely back it up. It's not about which technique is more effective (although, again, I don't think you understand the traditional one enough to make any kind of comment), it's about what makes your technique a version of Sword and Hammer as you compared it, instead of just it's own technique, separate and distinct. Try again. And dude, I'm "highly opinionated"? No, it's not. See above... or, hell, the last 34 pages. Frankly, I don't know THAT you do that. I question pretty much each technique you've put up, as there are typically a number of issues to each of them. And kid, no matter what you think your skill level is, assuming that you can do things "better, against more scenarios, sooner, more skillfully" etc than myself is a dangerous game for you to play. You really don't have a clue what I can do, or how I can do it... but for the record, you aren't that impressive to me. That might be a clue as to how you compare in the real world. It's really not, you know. At all. The lack of depth of your training approach is shown in this thread, the idea of it being better is a personal opinion, and really of no importance here, you've made claims of "faster" that have been largely ridiculed (appropriately), the breadth of my training somewhat dwarfes yours when it comes down to it, and the idea of your training being "superior" but your comments not being based in ego is just laughable. You are far from the first in what you do, and far from the best. Seriously, get over yourself. You're making some rather bold (and incorrect) assumptions there, Ras. In fact, I'd say that I came to such an understanding years ago, but have since moved on to better understanding which has lead me to be able to look at the "traditional" techniques and see what they're actually teaching, how they're doing it, and why. You aren't anywhere near that level yet from any of your posts or videos here. You have techniques. I have techniques, but I have a hell of a lot more besides, which you aren't even close to. Wait a sec, have you forgotten who you're addressing Ras? I'm not a Kenpo guy, I don't have that technique... so no, I don't "think about it" in any way other than the context of this thread. And isn't this just you going back to the idea of "one technique for all situations" that we've already dealt with (and your flawed approach to that idea)? Garbage. I'm in a better position to handle variations because I'm not trying to fit one technique to everything, I'm applying my art (it's principles, tactics, strategies) to the needs as they arise. But that approach seems to be a fair bit above your pay-grade, as when prompted to discuss it, you couldn't, and came up with things that weren't of any relevance at all. Dude. Not Kenpo. I don't give a damn about showing you that I can "outperform" you in an art I don't train in. And again, that is really nothing to do with what the argument has been about. Not the argument, son. Re-read the thread. Recognise that none of this is what we've been saying, or talking about. You haven't outperformed me, as you have no idea what my performance level is (even leaving off the idea of my performance of an art I don't train in... no idea where your coming from there!), you haven't out-thought me (as you haven't followed anything from the first post onwards, and have instead been arguing something that doesn't address the comments and obervations I made), and you have shown that you absolutely don't understand anything better. How about you take some time to try to understand why the techniques are presented the way they are, rather than just say "that wouldn't work in real life" and ignore the actual point of them. Then you might start to come someway towards my level. At the moment, you are barely at my ankles. Before you come back for the "next", take on board what I've said. Try to understand that you're not being attacked for what your technique does, but for what you're claiming it is (a version of the traditional one), as you can't and haven't offered anything to support that contention. No, you're not. On all counts.