Would you label this a spinning back kick or side kick or hybrid?

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Regardless of if they do or not, referencing the encyclopedia without adding the term ITF is ridiculous. That's as if i referenced to a hypothetical Boxing Encyclopedia of techniques, when it only concerned bare knuckle boxing, a minor sport compared to gloved boxing.

I don't get how you don't understand this. It's not ridiculosu as a he literally cites the book. He's basically included a reference with a footnote, like all of academia expects. I think at this point the arguments not worth continuing though as we're just going around in circles.

 

[Earl Weiss]

................................nd people who are learning Taekwondo and open this video will not know that the encyclopedia is ITF specific only, so the GM should make that clear by adding "ITF encyclopedia" . Otherwise he is purposely misleading the viewer to think that the encyclopedia parameters are universal to all of TKD.

I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that videos need to address that level of naivete i.e. that a non ITF person would somehow think anyone is claiming there is a universally accepted standard for TK-D , TKD, or T K D techniques and thereby be mislead, intentionally or otherwise.

 

[dvcochran]

Regardless of if they do or not, referencing the encyclopedia without adding the term ITF is ridiculous. That's as if i referenced to a hypothetical Boxing Encyclopedia of techniques, when it only concerned bare knuckle boxing, a minor sport compared to gloved boxing.

Just curious, are you aware of Any other TKD encyclopedias that exist?
There is something called 'implied knowledge' which would do you good to learn about.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

there the same, if he accelerates, through the available time, thats more time under acxeleration, it still isnt any faster coz not only has the time ibcreased so has the distance it has to travel

More time under acceleration is not the same time as more time available for acceleration. And if you think keeping constant acceleration longer doesn't increase final velocity, I suggest you consider whether it hurts more to fall from one foot or one hundred. The distance and time increase in the second scenario...and so does the velocity.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Most people click on the video without reading the disclaimer. I almost never read them.

It's not the creator's fault if you don't read the sign.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That is not entirely correct. Consider this:

Acceleration/Formula

= average acceleration

= final velocity

= starting velocity

= elapsed time

From the web
Acceleration (a) is the change in velocity (Δv) over the change in time (Δt), represented by the equation a = Δv/Δt. This allows you to measure how fast velocity changes in meters per second squared (m/s^2). Acceleration is also a vector quantity, so it includes both magnitude and direction.

So, δV is always going to be faster than v-sub, that is just physics.
But if a mass is always accelerating (which is not possible) the velocity is null, at any point on a line. This is the reason for the v-sub variable. Yea, it confuses me too but it is a constant.
The easier way for me to think about it is to say an object can neither instantly start moving at a velocity nor can it instantly stop. This is part of being the vector quantity mentioned.

In motion control we often have to calculate final velocity from a 'flying' start. When considering the final destination (if relevant) the vector quantity usually has a higher value than δt since mass is complex and time is constant.

I think what you are saying is defined as ramp. The angle of acceleration. If you look at them on a plane you can much easier understand the difference between v and v-sub.

Hope this makes sense.

***Note: I can never get certain ASCII characters to work on this site.

Did I miss the part of your post that said that something under acceleration for a longer period wouldn't have a higher final velocity as a result?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes but it is unhelpful. Just say ITF encyclopedia and they would understand that it applies only to the ITF.

You really can't be bothered to take any responsibility, can you?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

They would not neccesarily know that the techniques are different though. Just as you wouldn't neccesarily know that the techniques of Shotokan and Kyokushin are different. You could might as well think it's only the sports of the arts that differ

No, they wouldn't. And then it wouldn't matter if they knew it was a different organization, either. So what's your point?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Again, nobody reads disclaimers for Youtube clips, and believe it or not, many people don't know which style they train..

But anyway my objection is principled.

And then no level of disclosure would help them. Your objection is ridiculous, not principled.

 

[Acronym]

Just curious, are you aware of Any other TKD encyclopedias that exist?
There is something called 'implied knowledge' which would do you good to learn about.

Explain to me how anyone would know a priori that there only exists one encyclopedia and that it has no bearing on Kukkiwon Taekwondo

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Explain to me how anyone would know a priori that there only exists one encyclopedia and that it has no bearing on Kukkiwon Taekwondo

I don't accept your assertion that it "has no bearing on Kukkiwon Taekwondo". It's the same art, in a related association. It may not be pertinent to testing for KKW rank, but it's still useful information for those who want to explore.

 

[jobo]

More time under acceleration is not the same time as more time available for acceleration. And if you think keeping constant acceleration longer doesn't increase final velocity, I suggest you consider whether it hurts more to fall from one foot or one hundred. The distance and time increase in the second scenario...and so does the velocity.

falling a 100ft probebly doesnt hurt at all, youl likely be dead faster than your nervious system can react

second your premise is flawed, an object in free fall doesnt accelerate, constantly or beyobd a certain point at all, that nomilarly about three seconds for a human to reach terminal velocity,, you have most certianly started to decelerate before you hit the floor

 

[Gerry Seymour]

falling a 100ft probebly doesnt hurt at all, youl likely be dead faster than your nervious system can react

second your premise is flawed, an object in free fall doesnt accelerate, constantly or beyobd a certain point at all, that nomilarly about three seconds for a human to reach terminal velocity,, you have most certianly started to decelerate before you hit the floor

Um, no, you won't decelerate when falling. You will eventually reach "terminal velocity", at which point you cease to accelerate. That won't happen within 1 foot, so isn't relevant to the difference in final velocity between the two.

 

[jobo]

Um, no, you won't decelerate when falling. You will eventually reach "terminal velocity", at which point you cease to accelerate. That won't happen within 1 foot, so isn't relevant to the difference in final velocity between the two.

no you decelerate progresivly first and then stop acceleraring at all, other wise you would clearly go from 10ms/s to zero ms/ s in one go, which is clearly silly, it would do more damage to you than hittibg the floor, well maybe not quite as much, more like sprinting into a wall,but even so that deceleration in its own right

 

[Acronym]

And then no level of disclosure would help them. Your objection is ridiculous, not principled.

Saying ITF encyclopedia is far less inclusive than TaeKwonDo encyclopedia. It is the encyclopedia of an affiliation that accounts for somewhere around 10-15% of all TKD schools in the world, and I might be generous with those figures. Their world competitions have no international broadcasting, the talent pool is weak, and public awareness of the style is non existent.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

no you decelerate first and then stop acceleraring at all, other wise you would clearly go from 10ms/s to zero ms/ s in one go, which is clearly silly

Decelerating is when you slow down in speed. What you're talking about is a slow down in the rate of acceleration, which is called negative acceleration (the speed is still increase, the rate of its increase is just slower). This does happen before terminal velocity is reached, but deceleration doesn't. Decelerate is one of those words that is commonly used wrong so people don't always realize what it means.

Unless you mean once you finish falling/hit something, at which point if you go to small enough units of time you'll see some deceleration, but for practical purposes you stop all at once.

 

[Acronym]

Would I be wrong based on Jobos understanding of physics that he learned Elvis Karate?

 

[wab25]

Again, nobody reads disclaimers for Youtube clips, and believe it or not, many people don't know which style they train..

But anyway my objection is principled.

So lets apply the principle...

In the OP video, the guy doing the kick did not tell me whether he was doing an ITF or KKW kick. In fact, he didn't even say it was a TKD kick... for all I know he could be doing a Kenkojuku Shotokan kick... Then you asked if it was a side kick, back kick or hybrid... How can anyone know, without knowing the art, the organization, the kwon, the lineage, the school and head instructor...

Maybe we should rip on the guy who made the video in the OP... people might look at that, while trying to train from videos, and since they don't know what style they train, and that guy never said what style he was kicking in... imagine the damage and bad habits these people will form by watching it... if only the guy kicking had announced his art, affiliation, school and lineage first...

 

[jobo]

Decelerating is when you slow down in speed. What you're talking about is a slow down in the rate of acceleration, which is called negative acceleration (the speed is still increase, the rate of its increase is just slower). This does happen before terminal velocity is reached, but deceleration doesn't. Decelerate is one of those words that is commonly used wrong so people don't always realize what it means.

Unless you mean once you finish falling/hit something, at which point if you go to small enough units of time you'll see some deceleration, but for practical purposes you stop all at once.

well people do use it incorrectly, unfortunely your one of them

deceleration is said to occure when velocity and acceleration and in different directions, ie one is postertive and one negative.

the scenrio you give is, one way round, however negative acceleration and posertive velocity, the case im giving also counts as deceleration

 

[Acronym]

Decelerating is when you slow down in speed. What you're talking about is a slow down in the rate of acceleration, which is called negative acceleration (the speed is still increase, the rate of its increase is just slower). This does happen before terminal velocity is reached, but deceleration doesn't. Decelerate is one of those words that is commonly used wrong so people don't always realize what it means.

Unless you mean once you finish falling/hit something, at which point if you go to small enough units of time you'll see some deceleration, but for practical purposes you stop all at once.

well people do use it incorrectly, unfortunely your one of them

deceleration is said to occure when velocity and acceleration and in different directions, ie one is postertive and one negative.

the scenrio you give is, one way round, however negative acceleration and posertive velocity, the case im giving also counts as deceleration

Popcorn*