It doesn't take much smarts to do that with some techniques - it just looks like a lot if you can't.
pj
chgo
John Schmidt's and Corey Deuel's comments on aiming systems
- Thread starter PoolSharkAllen
- Start date
pj
chgo
Ha, ha! A 5" thick board???? Forget the pool, that's a feat I'd like to see on video. lol
For all I know about martial arts he might be able to break a single 5" thick board, but to be fair he said "boards" (plural). That sounds to me like it might make a difference.
pj
chgo
.
.
.
He's capable of taking cursory looks at techniques and knowing if they're legit or not (without trying them). That's how smart he is.
No, I think he just doesn't like when a step in the explanation is missing:
nor do I.
Last edited:
No, I think he just doesn't like when a step in the explanation is missing:
nor do I.
There were no steps missing. I took a cursory look at what CJ said and totally understood it (as did many others). It was fascinating to see "the usual guys" on here act totally lost.
If someone didn't physically SHOW some of these guys which button to press on a blender (and why) based on how much ice when added to the certain liquids of different viscosity and how the mix would ultimately be affected by alcohol of different strengths and finally "FOR HOW LONG" --- these guys couldn't make a frickin' PINA COLADA.
Well, just as your post was about the broader context of PJ's commentary on these threads, my post was also meant to be taken more generally. Yes, CJ's posting wasn't missing steps.
My own position on matters such as these is that if I don't see, or haven't been provided with a theoretical basis for why something, anything, works, my skeptic meter begins clicking. Once it's activated, I can't turn it off, period. Now that may be a shortcoming, but, at least for me, it is built in to what I am and I can't change it.
When someone makes a statement, as fact, that goes against other established facts, and says, "Look, don't think about it, just try it, and you'll see", my skeptic meter just goes off-scale.
Ditto!!! I really enjoy you're honest, non-posturing Champion's insights. I hope you stay on here indefintely or at least for as long as your time permits. Please do not leave prematurely, other than on your terms, for your own reasons.
Sincerely & Respectfully,
Rick
To get an idea of what CJ is doing, check out this video clip to see a karate expert breaking five 1" thick boards multiple times: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeWQxI15aaw
The feat looks impressive but there are variables that affect the outcome: Spacers between boards make it easier to break the individual boards, the type of wood used (pine, for example breaks very easily), the thickness of the board is actually 3/4" not 1", etc.
This article from the wikipedia is actually very interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_(martial_arts)
Here's the physics behind board breaking:
"Both the speed and power breaks deliver the energy required to overcome the tensor and flexion forces of the board through mass displacement, where the kinetic energy is given by 1/2 m*v2. That is, either the speed of the striking implement (hand/foot/etc) has to be high enough, or the striker must be strong enough to increase effective mass brought into the break (i.e. his or her body weight) to exceed the brick/board's threshold. For single boards, it is generally easy (as in the casual person has a sufficient reserve of mass) to reach this threshold through a power break.
Though fundamentally different, the third kind of break—the impulse break—is often confused with a speed break, because the striking implement can (but need not) reach a high speed. But that is where the similarity ends. The energy transmission from an impulse break derives not from mass displacement, but from wave transmission. (As an ocean wave hits a beach) The mass of the hand/foot/etc does not travel much further than necessary to deliver the wave—this results in an extremely brief contact with the brick or board face (as opposed to going "through it"), and the wave itself causes the striking surface to flex and buckle. The less flexible the striking surface, the more likely to break."
Last edited:
Living Legend
Banned
No, I think he just doesn't like when a step in the explanation is missing:
nor do I.
What did Pj do? he told us there is spin involved in the technique or whatever he is saying
you think because he told us that we were all shit out of luck on learning this? I did not pay attention to any of his post and i figured it out. He relentlessly debated a point that in reality, we did not have to know. He frustrated Cj to the point that he is thinking it is not worth posting on here! You can see up until yesterday Pj did not even understand the purpose of the system and how to apply it and most likely still doesn't. We seen this all in the cte threads also, his relentless posting about something of little value frustrates an entire thread into surrender! Pj has learned a lot off dr daves site but he has to know when to apply it in his posts on here and when not too and when to move on past a point.
Last edited:
..........
Last edited:
You apparently don't know what I was saying, but are convinced it's irrelevant...?What did Pj do? he told us there is spin involved in the technique or whatever he is saying
More importantly, even with the back and forth about some details, this thread hasn't been particularly acrimonious - so why are you and Spidey trying to make it so now?
pj
chgo
I think you are correct. Often, in fact, too many times we are simply 'speaking' in a different vernacular & it turns into an 'argument' to see who is more technically correct. No offense meant to anyone. It may simply be a by-product of why & what we are doing here, which is to either better our own game or to help someone else better theirs. We are pursuing perfection even if we know we will never obtain it. That pursuit spills over into our communication in a form, texting in the english language, where perfection is also probably not obtainable. Then bring peoples feelings & perceptions into the equation & you have a formula for disaster. I call myself a dyslexic typist because I transpose letters in words so often ( from almost always turns into form ) That is not a technicaly correct description but it is a fairly good one when explained.
I do not think anyone really doubts that Mr. Wiley's 3 part pocket premise does not have merit or do they doubt the way that he executes it. What is being put in doubt is whether or not he has explained it 'perfectly'. The answer to that is probably not as well as he can execute the principles.
Just my two(2) nickels. I'm a bit long winded so I have to 'charge' more.
Rick ( I'm NOT an instructor )
Ditto ! ! ! I'm a bird of your feathers even if mine may be a different shape.
Well, I haven't beaten this horse in awhile (don't get me started!), but I still think it's the same as aiming center pocket with sidespin.
And I don't mind if some disbelieve or ignore that - call it "alternative info" that you can take or leave without hurting my feelings.
pj
chgo
Living Legend
Banned
your a very knowledgeable guy PJ and we can all learn off you but the way you go about it is so frustrating its just not worth it.
I get what you are saying, but... sometimes analysis or over thinking inhibits a 'feel' type athlete. If it is not broken do NOT try to fix it. Some Pro Golfers have ruined their games by trying to improve by analysing the golf swing to better understand it & then they can not play a lick. Mr. Wiley is aware of that & perhaps being a bit cautious as he does not want to ruin his game.
Just my $0.02
Rick
Dr. Dave, have you ever tried th McD i3 & if so how does it compare to your Z-2?
Thanks in advance,
Rick
It's also possible that such a slight amount of inside spin is mostly "erased" by contact with the OB, which tends to put a little outside spin on the CB.
So with this particular kind of shot there might be no sidespin effect (with an "e", Joey
pj
chgo
I think you may have put your finger on Mr. Wiley's perception.
Last edited:
But it often helps other types. There isn't just one type here.
Of course, but Mr. Wiley isn't the only person reading this thread. I'm sure that some are able to benefit from some analysis, even if some others aren't.
pj
chgo