Re: Internal Power: taming the dragon

hal@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 8 Dec 2005 11:03:58 -0800, "Shuurai" <Shuurai11@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> any questions?
> >
> >Sure, I have a question: What do you think this has to do with
> >anything we were talking about?
> >
> >I know what you're thinking, Hal... you found some "internal power"
> >information that proves that Xiaou was right and (more importantly) the
> >rest of us were wrong and just picking on him. But see, the problem is
> >that what you've posted above has NOTHING to do with what Xiaou was
> >claiming, even if you include the various changes his position
> >underwent during the discussion.
>
> He never changed his position, only tried a simpler explanation since
> you so clearly were not grasping the concepts. You went about
> misrepresenting and distorting what he said to put him on the
> defensive.

You clearly don't understand what he was saying, what we were saying,
what the article you posted said; and I doubt you fully understand what
YOU'RE saying right now.

> >The fact that you don't realize this, while certainly not unexpected,
> >is very telling of your qualification to be part of that discussion,
> >and of your reasons for wanting to take part in it. You aren't even
> >interested enough in the discussion to actually READ it and find out
> >what's being debated.
>
> I went back and read as much as I could find and didn't find anything
> out of the ordinary. Some of his descriptions could have been better,
> but they are difficult concepts to put into words. He did the best he
> could, and I understood perfectly what he was saying because I
> understand the concepts. You clearly don't.

Like hell you do. The fact that you posted information about how
abdominal muscles are used in a punch *clearly* demonstrates, all by
itself, that you have no earthly idea of what the rest of us have been
discussing.

After reading more from Xiaou and some of the other responses, I
believe I know what he's trying to get at... he's wrong about some
fairly important details. You on the other hand have NO FUCKING CLUE
what is even being discussed, let alone have anything to add to the
discussion. So as much as I disagree with Xiaou, I have to give him
credit for at least being more coherent than you are. At least he
knows what subject he's discussing.

> >Xiaou was talking about using "internal muscles" to increase the
> >*hardness* of the body, the idea being that a rigid body will transfer
> >more energy into the opponent by preventing the energy from being
> >bounced back into the striker.
>
> Yes, of course, which is exacty what happens. That's why so many hard
> styles are hard styles, and why so many soft styles "go hard" at the
> instant of the strike. Do you even understand the concept of "going
> hard"?

Firstly, that is not "exactly what happens" because - and pay attention
now - there aren't any "internal muscles" to use. Tension of the
muscles on impact isn't what defines a system as hard or soft. Lastly,
having a rigid body does NOT prevent energy from "bouncing back" into
the body as he's describing.

> > The article you posted has NOTHING to
> >do with that. Your article describes how the abdominal muscles drive a
> >punch - which is EXACTLY what myself and several others have been
> >saying all along.
>
> The obliques drive the punch, and harden the body against the relected
> force. Yes, of course. Which is exactly correct.

That isn't what he was arguing, and it isn't even accurate. The
obliques drive the punch, but the effect they have on energy reflected
back is negligible. Your muscles are never, ever going to become tense
enough to have any kind of significant effect in that regard.

Keeping your arm tense at the moment of impact will reduce the amount
of energy absorbed by your arm. Putting the mass of your body behind
your arm will also assist in punching power. But the tension of your
obliques does little - your body is DESIGNED to absorb impact before it
reaches your middle torso, and for good reason. If you absorbed the
impact as the two of you are suggesting you'd basically do as much
damage to yourself as your opponent.

What he - and now you - are describing is a fallacy. It's a common
fallacy, but a fallacy nontheless. It shows a remarkably shallow
understanding of physics, and of the human body.

> The obliques are
> the internal muscles that cause the rotation of the hips which drives
> the punch, but also must be able to withstand the relected force or
> else your opponent is just going to force your hips backwards
> nullifying the effect of your punch.

If you hit *anything* and it forces your hips backwards, you've thrown
a piss-poor punch. Where in the hell do you get this ***?

> >The two have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
>
> Only in your clouded twisted widdle mind.

Apparantly everyone is wrong but you then...

> > And yes,
> >unlike you I actually did READ the entire thing you posted. There is
> >nothing in there that supports any position that Xiaou was taking; nor
> >was there anything that contradicts any position we were taking. It
> >doesn't even address the discussion, from either side.
>
> Are you high? Every site talked about generating internal power, and
> some applied to martial technique. What is it you are missing?

Well, ***... if it had the words "internal power" and "martial arts"
then it MUST address every possible discussion on internal martial
arts... are you REALLY this dense?

> >Once again, you've posted something that fails to support - or even
> >address - the position you are trying to take.
>
> Where the *** are you getting all your stupid pills? You ought to
> stop those.

You ought to try reading.

> > Assuming you even read
> >what you posted, you obviously didn't understand it; nor do you
> >understand the discussion you are trying so desperately to crash. The
> >truth is, you don't care about the discussion - you only care about
> >contradicting those of us who you see as enemies here on RMA. You are
> >a sad, pathetic little troll with nothing to offer.
>
> Ah yes, you can go on slamming and deriding, and misrepresenting
> others claims all you want, but this is where you always end up.

Putting up with your bull***?

> Just like the turning back kick thread. You still don't get it, you
> still don't understand you can kick without even moving your head
> first but you ended up putting me down big time rather than admit your
> martial science knowledge is so very rudimentary and limited.

First off, I didn't put you down until YOU started making personal
attacks. Several of us tried to have a civilized discussion with you -
which, on hindsight was pretty fucking stupid of us - and as usual you
turned into a whining little bitch the moment the discussion didn't go
your way.

> >At the very least, Xiaou seems to at least believe in what he's saying.
> > That by itself puts him above you.
>
> Oh, now you are claiming I don't believe. Any lame excuse fits for
> you, doesn't it.

You didn't even take the time to find out what the discussion was ABOUT
before chiming in, and you admitted that yourself. At this point
you've skimmed through enough that you *think* you know what we were
discussion; but you obviously do not.

Who do you think you're kidding? The ONLY reason you're in this
discussion at all is because you saw my name, and Kirks name, and
whoever else is on your little list of targets. You're here to take a
contrary position no matter what. That is the only possible
explanation for you to chime in on a discussion when you admittedly
didn't even know what was being discussed.

> I'm visualizing one of my triggers right now. Damn, the energy is
> wonderful. Almost as good as sex. Thanks. I feel like I owe you five
> bucks or something, like the whore you are.

A lot of us have long suspected that you get off on the abuse you
receive here... just make sure you clean that "energy" off your
keyboard before it gums up the keys.

.

Loading