# How do you rate this jeans and boots roundhouse kick?



## Acronym

Not easy





Chuck Norris invented kicking jeans for a reason! This was a round kick.

Side kicks are pretty much impossible to do with any sort of conviction...

1/10 where do you have it?


----------



## Acronym

Here's Chucky my with jeans to compare..


----------



## Acronym

Anybody?


----------



## jobo

Acronym said:


> Not easy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck Norris invented kicking jeans for a reason! This was a round kick.
> 
> Side kicks are pretty much impossible to do with any sort of conviction...
> 
> 1/10 where do you have it?


baggy Jean's are a thing I understand


----------



## dvcochran

Acronym said:


> Not easy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck Norris invented kicking jeans for a reason! This was a round kick.
> 
> Side kicks are pretty much impossible to do with any sort of conviction...
> 
> 1/10 where do you have it?


1 to 1-1/2. 
I hope this was supposed to be funny.


----------



## Acronym

dvcochran said:


> 1 to 1-1/2.
> I hope this was supposed to be funny.



It wasn't.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Should a roundhouse kick be similar to swing a stick in a circle (at 0.20 - 0.30)? You rotate your body. Your body then pull your leg.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> baggy Jean's are a thing I understand


And jeans with stretch.


----------



## Acronym

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Should a roundhouse kick be similar to swing a stick in a circle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 0.20 - 0.30.



Are you asking or being sarcastic?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Acronym said:


> Not easy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck Norris invented kicking jeans for a reason! This was a round kick.
> 
> Side kicks are pretty much impossible to do with any sort of conviction...
> 
> 1/10 where do you have it?


If your jeans are that restrictive, I’d just plan on not kicking.


----------



## Acronym

gpseymour said:


> If your jeans are that restrictive, I’d just plan on not kicking.



In what way was my kick restrictive?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Acronym said:


> In what way was my kick restrictive?


I said you jeans. The kick looks like either your jeans or your muscles/tendons are too tight for the kick. I’m giving the benefit of the doubt that it’s the jeans.


----------



## Acronym

gpseymour said:


> I said you jeans. The kick looks like either your jeans or your muscles/tendons are too tight for the kick. I’m giving the benefit of the doubt that it’s the jeans.



I did not feel any range of motion restriction, so no. If I don't feel any, there probably isn't, or do you decide that?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Acronym said:


> Are you asking or being sarcastic?


This is the way that I train my roundhouse kick.


----------



## Acronym

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is the way that I train my roundhouse kick.



That's a terrible kick.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Acronym said:


> That's a terrible kick.


Why?


----------



## Acronym

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why?



Because her hip is completely static. Think of how the hip looks when a golfer does his swing, it's rubbery, right? Then compare it to hers


----------



## Martial D

Acronym said:


> Not easy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck Norris invented kicking jeans for a reason! This was a round kick.
> 
> Side kicks are pretty much impossible to do with any sort of conviction...
> 
> 1/10 where do you have it?


It looks as though you have never trained kicking a day in your life.


----------



## Acronym

Martial D said:


> It looks as though you have never trained kicking a day in your life.



6 years. Grandmaster Yeo Chin Huat graded me.


----------



## Martial D

Huh.

No pivot. No follow through. No chamber. No extension. No drive. No snap. No flexibility. Off balance.

I guess whatever style grand master whoever represents does it.. different.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Acronym said:


> I did not feel any range of motion restriction, so no. If I don't feel any, there probably isn't, or do you decide that?


If the jeans didn’t restrict your motion, then the range of your kick (your kicking flexibility) appears poor.


----------



## Acronym

Martial D said:


> Huh.
> 
> No pivot. No follow through. No chamber. No extension. No drive. No snap. No flexibility. Off balance.
> 
> I guess whatever style grand master whoever represents does it.. different.



I did pivot.  Are you blind?


----------



## Acronym

gpseymour said:


> If the jeans didn’t restrict your motion, then the range of your kick (your kicking flexibility) appears poor.



So all you base a good kick on is degree of flexibility?


----------



## Acronym

The musashi quote is a truism that a 5 year old realizes.. Not sure why it's worthy to have on ones profile.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

The roundhouse kick is to use your body to pull your leg. Your body go first, your leg then follow.


----------



## Paul Smith

I wouldn't even class that as a kick.


----------



## Paul Smith

Why isn't she snapping back and why is she exposing herself to her opponent? I have so many questions about this "Kick"







[/QUOTE]


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Paul Smith said:


> Why isn't she snapping back and why is she exposing herself to her opponent? I have so many questions about this "Kick"


Why do you want to snap back your kick?

If your kick

- land, you want to put your body behind it.
- miss, that kick has helped you to close in the distance.

As far as she exposes herself, her

- right side kick.
- left spin hook kick.
- left spin back fist, right hook punch.
- ...

can all be be a good follow up.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Paul Smith said:


> Why isn't she snapping back and why is she exposing herself to her opponent? I have so many questions about this "Kick"


[/QUOTE]
I'm guessing you train at a JMA/KMA school? That snap back is seen in karacte, but not so much in arts from different origins. As for the exposing herself-I personally like to see more sway with the head, but the front hand swing is common with the idea that if you need to you can use your shoulder to guard, while your rear hand comes up to guard. It looks very weird from styles that don't do this; took me a while to wrap my head around it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

In CMA, you try to land you kicking leg as close to your opponent as possible.

If you pull your leg back, your punch won't be able to reach to your opponent's face.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Paul Smith said:


> Why isn't she snapping back and why is she exposing herself to her opponent? I have so many questions about this "Kick"


You have to keep in mind that you are only seeing the kick in that clip. You aren't seeing the follow up (what comes next).  Generally speaking.  When the kick lands your leg will not land as you see in the clip. By allowing the kick to rotate completely you are allowing the kick to land with full power.  Snapping the kick means that you will eventually pull power away from your kick.   Snapping punches and kicks are used for different reasons.

As for being exposed. It only looks like she is exposed. You can watch any Muay Thai or MMA fight to see how quickly someone can recover from when they don't land the kick.  Slow motion and demo strikes often make it look as if you are open for longer than what you really are.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Acronym said:


> So all you base a good kick on is degree of flexibility?


Nice straw man you have there.


----------



## Martial D

Acronym said:


> I did pivot.  Are you blind?


Well, admittedly my eyes aren't what they once were.

But not so bad as to not notice you were retracting it at or before the point of theoretical impact. There's nothing there.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In CMA, you try to land you kicking leg as close to your opponent as possible.
> 
> If you pull your leg back, your punch won't be able to reach to your opponent's face.


I think CMA has a different philosophy / approach to fighting.  I've notice that those who aren't familiar with it tend to lend more toward the western thinking of striking and defending.  They only see the opportunity for the strike and not the opportunity for a follow up strike /defense.   So the landing foot of a kick is always a kick and never an advancing step.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> I think CMA has a different philosophy / approach to fighting.  I've notice that those who aren't familiar with it tend to lend more toward the western thinking of striking and defending.  They only see the opportunity for the strike and not the opportunity for a follow up strike /defense.   So the landing foot of a kick is always a kick and never an advancing step.


Well that depends. At my old mma club we would do a lot of drilling on roundhouse kick to offline step.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> Well that depends. At my old mma club we would do a lot of drilling on roundhouse kick to offline step.


 Not sure how it looks but it could fall under either one depending on if the that offstep resets you or guides you into the next strike or next defense. 

If it's resets you then it would be Western Thinking.  1-2-3- reset.
If it guides you to the next strike or block then it's more Eastern thinking. 

I personally use both methods of thinking.  But I lean more towards the Eastern thinking by default, because long fist pretty much requires it, unless you want to take frequent unplanned naps during training .


----------



## Flying Crane

Acronym said:


> 6 years. Grandmaster Yeo Chin Huat graded me.


I was graded by Jurgen the Brutal after FIVE years.  That's One faster. 

What grade did you receive, by the way?


----------



## Flying Crane

Acronym said:


> Anybody?





Acronym said:


> That's a terrible kick.





Acronym said:


> I did pivot.  Are you blind?





Acronym said:


> The musashi quote is a truism that a 5 year old realizes.. Not sure why it's worthy to have on ones profile.



Are you confused why you might not get the discussion you hope for?  Does someone need to explain this to you?


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In CMA, you try to land you kicking leg as close to your opponent as possible.
> 
> If you pull your leg back, your punch won't be able to reach to your opponent's face.


Like all things, it depends.  Sometimes you can step down close to the enemy.  But there are risks involved.  Sometimes you definitely do not want to step down like that and you had better retract the foot.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> Like all things, it depends.  Sometimes you can step down close to the enemy.  But there are risks involved.  Sometimes you definitely do not want to step down like that and you had better retract the foot.


When your opponent catches your kicking leg, if you pull your leg back, it won't work. If you drop all your weight on your leading leg and step down (follow with a hammer fist on top of his head), your opponent may not be able to hold on your entire body weight.

So to step down after kicking instead of to pull your kicking leg back is a training to counter a leg catching.

In CMA, a kick is a step, a step is a kick.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When your opponent catches your kicking leg, if you pull your leg back, it won't work. If you drop all your weight on your leading leg and step down (follow with a hammer fist on top of his head), your opponent may not be able to hold on your entire body weight.
> 
> So to step down after kicking instead of to pull your kicking leg back is a training to counter a leg catching.
> 
> In CMA, a kick is a step, a step is a kick.


Sure, this is one scenario.  It depends.  It isn’t always one way.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When your opponent catches your kicking leg, if you pull your leg back, it won't work. If you drop all your weight on your leading leg and step down (follow with a hammer fist on top of his head), your opponent may not be able to hold on your entire body weight.
> 
> So to step down after kicking instead of to pull your kicking leg back is a training to counter a leg catching.
> 
> In CMA, a kick is a step, a step is a kick.


not sure if you two are talking about the same kick


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> If it's resets you then it would be Western Thinking.  1-2-3- reset.


If a clinch can be established during 1-2-3, the reset won't be possible. If your goal is to establish a clinch, the reset is a waste of effort.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> Not sure how it looks but it could fall under either one depending on if the that offstep resets you or guides you into the next strike or next defense.
> 
> If it's resets you then it would be Western Thinking.  1-2-3- reset.
> If it guides you to the next strike or block then it's more Eastern thinking.
> 
> I personally use both methods of thinking.  But I lean more towards the Eastern thinking by default, because long fist pretty much requires it, unless you want to take frequent unplanned naps during training .


Well, I understand both sides as my initial training was in WC. 

But to answer your question, both. Sometimes we would still say, roundhouse plant reset offline.
Sometimes roundhouse plant offline hook cross etc.

It all depended on what our instructor came up with for us that day.

The main difference being in cma the sequences were set and memorized(cma), or dynamic and variable (mma)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Well that depends. At my old mma club we would do a lot of drilling on roundhouse kick to offline step.


I'd been working on something similar. We (at the NGA dojo) were taught kick-and-retract, but I don't find I use that as much as kick-and-enter. I've been playing with other options, like that offline step. It just feels better than retracting every time, especially with a roundhouse kick.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> The main difference being in cma the sequences were set and memorized(cma), or dynamic and variable (mma)


When you see an opening created on 

- your opponent, you attack it. 
- yourself, you close it.

It's common sense. Both CMA and MMA use the same strategy.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I'd been working on something similar. We (at the NGA dojo) were taught kick-and-retract, but I don't find I use that as much as kick-and-enter. I've been playing with other options, like that offline step. It just feels better than retracting every time, especially with a roundhouse kick.


The roundhouse kick is like the foot sweep, I have never heard anybody retracts a foot sweep.

You want your leg to go through your opponent's body. Going through is the opposite of retracting.












Even the front kick, if you kick on a target all the time, pretty soon, you will forget about to retract your kick. You just want your kicking power to go as deeper as possible into the target.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> I'd been working on something similar. We (at the NGA dojo) were taught kick-and-retract, but I don't find I use that as much as kick-and-enter. I've been playing with other options, like that offline step. It just feels better than retracting every time, especially with a roundhouse kick.


Position is everything. It's always best to be where you can attack and they can't. I think this might be one of the few points all martial artists of all stripes could actually agree on.


----------



## Martial D

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you see an opening created on
> 
> - your opponent, you attack it.
> - yourself, you close it.
> 
> It's common sense. Both CMA and MMA use the same strategy.


Well. We all agree that's a good idea. The strategies for getting it done can certainly vary wildly as can the results.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> Well. We all agree that's a good idea. The strategies for getting it done can certainly vary wildly as can the results.


This is why when you throw a roundhouse kick and expose your back to your opponent, you will follow with a spin back fist.

The interest thing is if the spin back fist doesn't exist in your MA style, will you use it?

In other words, will you train MA according to your MA system, or will you train MA according to your common sense?

A: I was taught to retract my roundhouse kick.
B: How will you be able to use a right roundhouse kick to set up a right side kick if your opponent steps back?
A: In my MA style, we don't chase our opponents.
B: But it makes common sense. Your opponent steps back, you step in.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> Position is everything. It's always best to be where you can attack and they can't. I think this might be one of the few points all martial artists of all stripes could actually agree on.


I disagree

forgot to add the lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In my MA style, we don't chase our opponents.
> B: But it makes common sense. Your opponent steps back, you step in.


I don't chase. # 2 is more reliable
1. Your opponent steps back, you step in.  (Your opponent controls)
2. You step in, your opponent steps back (You control)


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't chase. # 2 is more reliable
> 1. Your opponent steps back, you step in.  (Your opponent controls)
> 2. You step in, your opponent steps back (You control)


In 2, You step in, your opponent steps back (You control), you then step in again.

You attack your opponent's leading right leg, when he steps back, you attack his left leg. When your opponent shifts weight from one leg to another, opportunity has been created. If you don't chase your opponent, you may miss that opportunity.


----------



## Flying Crane

Every time you speak in absolutes, you are wrong.  

See what I did there?


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> I'd been working on something similar. We (at the NGA dojo) were taught kick-and-retract, but I don't find I use that as much as kick-and-enter. I've been playing with other options, like that offline step. It just feels better than retracting every time, especially with a roundhouse kick.


In terms of time,  successful strikes are determined by split seconds.  Not all retracting of a kick is bad. So using the OP's video.  If I were sparring him, I know  2 things.  
1. The power of his kick won't flow through.  It will travel 180 degrees and then then will retract.  I can do a quick shuffle to the right or lean to the right a few inches so I can be at 190 degrees from the beginning of that kick.  The kick will not hit me or it won't land with power because he trains to snap it back at 180 degrees.

2. His foot will take longer to reach the ground because the kick must be retracted in a way that takes longer.  So I'll plan my attack to occur during the retraction of your kick. If I time the attack you will not be able to regain your root in time.  I only need to travel as fast as your retraction because my distance that I need to travel is shorter than the distance that the kick has to retract + return to root.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You attack your opponent's leading right leg, when he steps back, you attack his left leg. When your opponent shifts weight from one leg to another, opportunity has been created. If you don't chase your opponent, you may miss that opportunity.


This is not chasing to me, because you are the one who is controlling your opponent's movement.  You move forward because you know your opponent will move back and when he does you will do Technique A.   This is what I call guiding / positioning your opponent to where you need them to be to use Technique A.

If my kick miss, and then I'm forced to make adjustments because of his retreat, Now I'm the one changing.  All of my adjustments are reacting to how he retreats.

If I want my opponent to move left, then I can make him move left.  If I want my opponent to move right then I can make him move right.  If I want him to retreat then I can make him retreat and take advantage of that retreat  because I know that he will retreat and in which direction.

Think of it like Retreating vs Luring, which is the same thing but from the defender's point of view.
1. Retreating = ( Your opponent controls his advance towards your)
2. Luring = (You control your opponent's advance)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The roundhouse kick is like the foot sweep, I have never heard anybody retracts a foot sweep.
> 
> You want your leg to go through your opponent's body. Going through is the opposite of retracting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even the front kick, if you kick on a target all the time, pretty soon, you will forget about to retract your kick. You just want your kicking power to go as deeper as possible into the target.


I see the front kick like a punch. Sometimes, it's like a jab (used to set something else up or to control distance), so not so concerned about power. Other times, it's about power. Side kick would be the same to me if my side kick had any real speed....or power.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> Every time you speak in absolutes, you are wrong.
> 
> See what I did there?


Something I've said in both management and MA training:

"There are absolutely no absolutes. Including this one."


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I see the front kick like a punch. Sometimes, it's like a jab (used to set something else up or to control distance), so not so concerned about power. Other times, it's about power. Side kick would be the same to me if my side kick had any real speed....or power.



I ham having a lot of success with a quick stabby front kick. Rather than trying to push the guy too much.

I almost don't even chamber it much. Just snap it up and dig my big toe in to their liver. 

I have dropped people with it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> I ham having a lot of success with a quick stabby front kick.


I rarely say this, but this is the best way to use the front kick.  Just make sure you pull your toes back so they don't jam or ribs or elbows.

The way that you made it possible for me to kick someone while I was moving backwards and I didn't miss a step.  I can move forward with ease as well or to the side.  The pushing front kick takes too long for me.   I need something I can set off when someone is throwing punch combos at me. Push kicks you have to have your weight behind it. If you are using the same kick that I use, then you should be able to do this kick at an angle too.

If it's the same kick then I got a nice trick you can do in sparing using that kick.   They'll hate you for it, but you'll have fun with it, because you can do it in a way that is safe for your sparring partner.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> Something I've said in both management and MA training:
> 
> "There are absolutely no absolutes. Including this one."


Are you saying that "There are no absolutes" isn't an absolute?  If that's so, then that would mean that there are absolutes?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> "There are absolutely no absolutes. "


A: You should love your parents.
B: It depends.
A: You should be honest to your friend.
B: It also depends.
A: You should not kill.
B: It still depends.
A: ...
B: ...

Sometime "no absolute" means you just want to be "grey".


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sometime "no absolute" means you just want to be "grey".


Grey is the same color of light when I put the switch in between on and off.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I ham having a lot of success with a quick stabby front kick. Rather than trying to push the guy too much.
> 
> I almost don't even chamber it much. Just snap it up and dig my big toe in to their liver.
> 
> I have dropped people with it.


I'm still working to build my speed back up to have some real power in it. I was pretty good with it once upon a time, but I got away from using kicks for a long time. Kinda rediscovered them when I got back to teaching after we moved here.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A: You should love your parents.
> B: It depends.
> A: You should be honest to your friend.
> B: It also depends.
> A: You should not kill.
> B: It still depends.
> A: ...
> B: ...
> 
> Sometime "no absolute" means you just want to be "grey".


Life is rarely black and white. And getting back to MA, I teach advanced students (in my base art) how to find the stuff I refer to as "in the grey area between Techniques" (the capitalized Technique refers to the formal curriculum in NGA).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Are you saying that "There are no absolutes" isn't an absolute?  If that's so, then that would mean that there are absolutes?


And that's kinda how it works.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> I'm still working to build my speed back up to have some real power in it. I was pretty good with it once upon a time, but I got away from using kicks for a long time. Kinda rediscovered them when I got back to teaching after we moved here.


That sounds like my complete plan for 2021.  Rediscover.  Take a look a t some new and old things with a new set of eyes.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> And that's kinda how it works.


Sounds like something life would throw at someone.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Life is rarely black and white.


In the computer world, there is only 0 and 1. There is no 0.5. When you write a computer program IF A THEN ... ELSE ..., A can either be true or false.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the computer world, there is only 0 and 1. There is no 0.5. When you write a computer program IF A THEN ... ELSE ..., A can either be true or false.


If only life worked like that.


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> That sounds like my complete plan for 2021.  Rediscover.  Take a look a t some new and old things with a new set of eyes.


Damn, I could use a new set of eyes.  Where can I buy a pair?  Mine aren’t as good as they used to be.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

gpseymour said:


> If only life worked like that.


It sorta does. There's just a mile long of if else statements for each decision, and how those statements are interpreted/what they are depends on the individual.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> It sorta does. There's just a mile long of if else statements for each decision, and how those statements are interpreted/what they are depends on the individual.


Me and this conversation lol


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> It sorta does. There's just a mile long of if else statements for each decision, and how those statements are interpreted/what they are depends on the individual.


You are right!

If A then ...
else
If B then ...
else
If C then ...
...

The else part can have many If in it. No matter how complicate a thing can be, you can always isolate it down to a small "absolute" set.

A: Do you like the blue color?
B: I like blue color.
C: I only like blue color 75%.
D: I only like blue color 50%.
E: I only like blue color 25%.
F: I don't like blue color.

I can understand B and F. I just can't understand C, D. and E.

When someone said, "There are fine people on both sides." I truly don't understand what he was talking about. 

In theory, there should be no bad people in heaven, and no good people in hell.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You are right!
> 
> If A then ...
> else
> If B then ...
> else
> If C then ...
> ...
> 
> The else part can have many If in it. No matter how complicate a thing can be, you can always isolate it down to a small "absolute" set.
> 
> A: Do you like the blue color?
> B: I like blue color.
> C: I only like blue color 75%.
> D: I only like blue color 50%.
> E: I only like blue color 25%.
> F: I don't like blue color.
> 
> I can understand B and F. I just can't understand C, D. and E.
> 
> When someone said, "There are fine people on both sides." I truly don't understand what he was talking about.
> 
> In theory, there should be no bad people in heaven, and no good people in hell.


I can understand liking something 75% or liking something 25%

I like wearing heavy coats. 50%  Here's why.  If I ask you this question when the temperature is below freezing, then you are going to really enjoy your coat.  It will be your best friend and you will like it 100%  If I ask you this question when the temperature is really hot, you will like it less.

To prove it. You would only need to wear a heavy coat year round everyday.  There will be days that you like that you have it and days where you like it less and you wish you could get rid of it.  So ultimately,  The question would be.  Do you like heavy coats?  If you can only choose YES or NO.  If you choose No, then I won't give you a heavy coat when it gets freezing cold.  If you say yes, then you cannot take the coat off.  Computers can be binary because they do not analyze or interpret the concept of liking someone or something.   Liking something or not liking something is a "life component" that is not binary.

Choosing when you put on a coat and when you take off a coat is Binary.  You can program that.  What you can't program is.  "I like Wang or I don't like Wang"  Even if you were to break it down into "If A, then ....else"   you still could not get to that point.  The things that make you like a heavy coat may be things that make another person not like it.  For example, a person may not like a heavy coat even in winter, because they can't show off their muscles.  Or a person may not like shorts in the summer because they like the way winter clothes make them look.

"A person may not like their in-laws, but they love them."  If Love is supposed to be stronger than like, then how can you love someone that you don't like?  Grey area. Neither 0 nor 1.

Punching with strong had forward vs strong hand back.  If your right is your strongest side then why would one put their weakest side forward to deal with an incoming threat?

Strong hand back protects the arm you value the most.  Again Grey Area.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In theory, there should be no bad people in heaven, and no good people in hell.


In terms of Christianity, I don't remember anything in the Bible that speaks about only Good people being in heaven.  There's a lot of talk about people who put their faith in God being in heaven vs people who were against God not being in heaven.  There are quiet a lot of stories in the bible of people doing the wrong thing and still "have favor with God". 

Many Christian Churches will tell you that being Good is not enough to get in heaven.  The Devil can do good things and still not be good.  This is possible because Life is neither On or OFF.  There are many people who have done good in this work but had a dark secret that eventually came out.  The entire Concept of Good and Bad, and Evil are grey areas.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Life's grey area is why creating quality AI is so difficult.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> In terms of Christianity, I don't remember anything in the Bible that speaks about only Good people being in heaven.  There's a lot of talk about people who put their faith in God being in heaven vs people who were against God not being in heaven.  There are quiet a lot of stories in the bible of people doing the wrong thing and still "have favor with God".
> 
> Many Christian Churches will tell you that being Good is not enough to get in heaven.  The Devil can do good things and still not be good.  This is possible because Life is neither On or OFF.  There are many people who have done good in this work but had a dark secret that eventually came out.  The entire Concept of Good and Bad, and Evil are grey areas.



Yeah. Working on a Sunday is against the ten commandments. 

Pretty sure those guys go to hell.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In theory, there should be


There are many things we can suppose "should be" in theory, that are not so cut and dried in reality.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> There are many things we can suppose "should be" in theory, that are not so cut and dried in reality.


I don't fully disagree with you, I also don't fully agree with you either.


----------



## Paul Smith

I'm Japan Karate Association. We would be trying to land facing the opponent. The way she started to turn away exposes her to an attack from her opponent. The other guy moves back I would be straight in with a counter attack. We dont follow through with the kick. We make contact & retract the kick to land forward so we still face our opponent & continue the attack if needed unless there is a follow up with an ushiro geri (rear kick) or similar. A properly executed Mawashi that snaps back at the knee, not pulled back then steps down with a follow up technique is our usual way.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Paul Smith said:


> We dont follow through with the kick. We make contact & retract the kick to land forward so ...


Let's talk about common sense and stay away from style difference.

When you

- stab a spear at your opponent, do you want your spear to go through his body?
- chop a tree down, do you want your knife to go through the tree?

Why do you want to "retract" and not to "go through"?

When you hold a stick on one end with another end on the ground, if you step through, you can break it. If you step and retract, that stick will act like a spring and bounce you back. I just don't see any value for that "retract".

The Karate spin hook kick is a good examples. There is no "retract" when you do that.

You spin your body

- backward in spin hook kick.
- forward in roundhouse kick.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Let's talk about common sense and stay away from style difference.
> 
> When you
> 
> - stab a spear at your opponent, do you want your spear to go through his body?
> - chop a tree down, do you want your knife to go through the tree?
> 
> Why do you want to "retract" and not to "go through"?
> 
> When you hold a stick on one end with another end on the ground, if you step through, you can break it. If you step and retract, that stick will act like a spring and bounce you back. I just don't see any value for that "retract".
> 
> The Karate spin hook kick is a good examples. There is no "retract" when you do that.
> 
> You spin your body
> 
> - backward in spin hook kick.
> - forward in roundhouse kick.


You are presenting a false dichotomy.  It isn’t an absolute.  It is a maybe and a sometimes and sometimes not.  It depends.  Really, it does.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> You are presenting a false dichotomy.  It isn’t an absolute.  It is a maybe and a sometimes and sometimes not.  It depends.  Really, it does.


How do you "retract" when you chop down a tree or split firewood?

IMO, "retract" is a bad habit that developed through the solo form training. When you kick into the thin air, it may make sense to retract your kick. But when your foot land on a solid object, the "retract" just make no sense to me.

It's similar to the light contact sparring that you pull your punch. The more that you pull your punch, the less that you understand "go though" power.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Paul Smith said:


> We make contact & retract the kick to land forward so we still face our opponent & continue the attack if needed unless there is a follow up with an ushiro geri (rear kick) or similar.


 If the kick makes contact then you'll end up in this position regardless of if you follow through or not. 





If you miss the kick then you should always have a recover plan for what to do next when you miss. The follow through is what is why these kicks are so damaging.





Had the bats not broken then his leg would have ended in the position that you describe. If I were to block that kick with my arm then it wouldn't matter if his back is turned to me, because I wouldn't have a working arm to take advantage of it.





If you have a predetermined point in which you will retract your leg then all I have to do is move beyond that point. For example, if you kick me with your right leg and you pull back when your leg gets to 180 degrees then I only need to stand at 185 degree.  So I move to my right a few inches to avoid the full power of your kick.  However if you follow through that 5 inches to my right isn't going to save me.

If you only pull back after you make contact,  then it sounds like you are following through.  Because if I move to the right, your leg will still follow through seeking to make contact.  Keep in mind this is only for the round house kick that doesn't snap. 

The snap kicks are like jabs, totally different kick.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> The snap kicks are like jabs, totally different kick.


If you use roundhouse kick as a fake kick, you may not care about power generation.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How do you "retract" when you chop down a tree or split firewood?



These are definitely not the same thing.



> IMO, "retract" is a bad habit that developed through the solo form training. When you kick into the thin air, it may make sense to retract your kick. But when your foot land on a solid object, the "retract" just make no sense to me.



I can absolutely penetrate with a kick, and still retract it before I put it down.  Training on a heavy bag is key to understanding this.


> It's similar to the light contact sparring that you pull your punch. The more that you pull your punch, the less that you understand "go though" power.



I understand your point, but this is not the same thing.  Light contact in sparring means you pull back on power.  Retracting a kick means you deliver power through the target first, then you retract before the kick can be caught if the enemy guarded in such a way that it didn't land solidly and didn’t do as much damage as you intended.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How do you "retract" when you chop down a tree or split firewood?
> 
> IMO, "retract" is a bad habit that developed through the solo form training. When you kick into the thin air, it may make sense to retract your kick. But when your foot land on a solid object, the "retract" just make no sense to me.
> 
> It's similar to the light contact sparring that you pull your punch. The more that you pull your punch, the less that you understand "go though" power.


I don't think the retract by itself is a bad thing.  The leg has to return home for this type of kick.  If it lands then you want to retrieve it after it had done it's works.  Even the guy chopping a try has to retract the axe.  I think the difference is if a person has a predetermined point where the leg will retract or if the person only retracts the leg after it has made contact.

This is a karate round house kick.   It follows through.  If you look at the position of the bat holder's hands you can see where the kick has followed through.  But in the video it doesn't follow through like a muay thai kick.  The mechanics of this kick are different from the Muay Thai round house kick as this one doesn't turn the hip over, evident by the upper Torso.

I'm still a believe that it should follow through.  How far it goes through will depend on the mechanics of the kick and how much that hip is turned over.  I'm all for a quick return of a kicking leg.  I'm not fond of a snapping kicking.  I don't want my kick to whip like a towel.  I want it crash like I'm trying to break something.  My reasoning behind his is because there's no guarantee that my kick will land for a second time, so I don't want to waste it by doing something that doesn't cause damage.  Competition sparring (not fighting) will be different because at that point you aren't trying to land critical blows like you would in a real fight.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you use roundhouse kick as a fake kick, you may not care about power generation.


And you may not get a second chance to land that same kick.  Kick me too light in the head and I may prevent all other round house kicks from reaching my head.  That means the only round house kick that landed was actually wasted. This is the mentality of why people say (Make every shot count).

I understand this is not the case for many but I think from the perspective that you and I often look at martial arts,  It' just better not to do things that won't cause harm to your attacker.   In sports, it's going to be different.  In training it's going to be different.  If a fight full contact like MMA or a street fight, everything should count. Things like Jabs and snap kicks should be hard enough that your attacker fears it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> Retracting a kick means you deliver power through the target first, then you retract before the kick can be caught if the enemy guarded in such a way that it didn't land solidly and didn’t do as much damage as you intended.


 This is how I see it.  Deliver power. After it's gone the return the leg.  Power is like a peak.  It quickly increases then decreases.  Follow through should be done during the increase phase of that peak.  The decrease phase serves no benefit so it's best to take your leg back instead of just letting it sit on your opponent.

The range of that peak increase will vary depending on the mechanics of the kick.  Some kicks have shorter peaks meaning they don't travel as far.  Say a kick to the groin, or a front kick.  With these kicks there's no way to extend the power beyond the full extension of the leg.  Round house kicks are different and can continue that power increase even after the leg is extended.  But they all should follow that same rule.  Once that power increase drops off, quickly retract that leg.

Missing a kick is something different. 

This kick is considered to be a round house kick,  But I wonder if that's an accurate translation as it does not hit with the same part of the leg as other round house kicks use.  If I were to turn my front kick (using the ball of my foot) horizontally then this is the type of kick it would produce and to me that's a different kick than a round house kick.  This is more of a stabbing kick and not a breaking kick


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Do anybody believe that to quick pull a punch back can cause more damage than to let your punch to go through your opponent's body?


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you use roundhouse kick as a fake kick, you may not care about power generation.



Question mark kicks generally retract. But they also knock people out.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Question mark kicks generally retract. But they also knock people out.


These kicks have the shorter power peak.  You can see that they still follow through, fully extended.  But after that there's no more power, so no need to try to get more out of the kick beyond that point. 

If this was a round house kick then he would have already used the majority of the power for this kick.  This kick is still good enough to cause damage even though it's no where near the power of a round house kick  (not the one with the toe).  You aren't breaking any bats with this power, but it's still enough "to turn off the lights" when it lands on the right spot.  We know that the kick follows through because we can see the impact of the head as the neck bends side ways. 




The problem that we are currently running into is that we have different definitions of what qualifies a kick as a round house kick.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Nobody has answered my question yet. Has anybody ever retracted a 

- behind ankle foot sweep, or 
- spin back hook kick?


----------



## dvcochran

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do anybody believe that to quick pull a punch back can cause more damage than to let your punch to go through your opponent's body?


Not on its own I do not thing so. When you consider how it sets up or leads to other strikes then yes.


----------



## Buka

News flash - everybody's correct.


----------



## Flying Crane

Buka said:


> News flash - everybody's correct.


Oh, you mean it depends?  What a novel concept!


----------



## wab25

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Nobody has answered my question yet. Has anybody ever retracted a
> 
> - behind ankle foot sweep, or
> - spin back hook kick?


Not sure I could even do a spin back hook kick... but I do retract my foot sweeps. Once I have swept the foot, delivered the power, I retract my foot. See below:


----------



## JowGaWolf

wab25 said:


> Not sure I could even do a spin back hook kick... but I do retract my foot sweeps. Once I have swept the foot, delivered the power, I retract my foot. See below:


You follow through on this.  Even beyond the point of contact.  You didn't retract your leg until the power of your sweep reached it's power peak.   You can see in this picture just how much you followed through

Your leg starts outside his center line, then you sweep through his centerline beyond contact.  You did not retreat upon contact.




You continue to sweep because your sweep is still increasing in power and it hasn't reduced yet.  The picture below shows your power peak, at this point, there's no need to follow through and you return your leg.  At this point I like the term "Return."  Retract makes me think of something I do so that my opponent doesn't  catch my leg or it's something I do when I'm pulling power from my punches or kicks.  When I do light sweeps, I'll still follow through but at a lighter force so that I'm not actually able to move the leg too far beyond the center line.    But back to your sweep. Look at the height of your leg.  Good follow through by the way.




Here you can see your foot return so you can regain your root (on two feet) and to transition into your next technique.  




This position is why I prefer the term "return"  because you weren't just retracting it, you return your leg so that you can use it to transition into your next technique.  Sort of like how a punch "returns" to chamber so that it can be ready to go back out..  Your leg was never in danger after the sweep.  Technically if your root on one leg is strong enough, then you could just leave your leg up and your opponent would still fall. But if you leave your leg up you wouldn't be able to move to transition to the next technique.)




I think the retract that Wang is talking about is is where your leg makes contacts and doesn't send power all the way through.  It retracts shortly after making contact like what you see in many point sparring events and light sparring.


----------



## Flying Crane

With a snap kick such as a front snap kick and some kinds of roundhouse kicks, people can become too focused on snapping it back as quickly as possible, to the point where they fail to penetrate and deliver power before snapping it back.  That is a problem.

But the antidote does not need to be to drop the foot directly down where it could be in danger of a sweep, if the enemy is not injured and has managed to read you.

Instead, you work on a heavy bag and learn to deliver good penetration and power before you retract.  Then you can place your foot where you want, including foreword if appropriate.

So it depends.

This problem tends to occur when people spend too much time practicing their kicks in the air and little or no time on a heavy bag.  In the air, they are quick and snappy and visually appealing.  But it is very easy to not develop power and penetration that way and never even suspect you have a problem.  I suspect kicking some of the hand-held pads may also contribute to the problem.  That stuff can be part of the training, but you really need regular time on a heavy bag in order to develop power and penetration.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> And you may not get a second chance to land that same kick.  Kick me too light in the head and I may prevent all other round house kicks from reaching my head.  That means the only round house kick that landed was actually wasted. This is the mentality of why people say (Make every shot count).
> 
> I understand this is not the case for many but I think from the perspective that you and I often look at martial arts,  It' just better not to do things that won't cause harm to your attacker.   In sports, it's going to be different.  In training it's going to be different.  If a fight full contact like MMA or a street fight, everything should count. Things like Jabs and snap kicks should be hard enough that your attacker fears it.


If my roundhouse makes you guard your head more (so no others land) then the defense somewhere else is somewhat lessened. In general, a testing kick (one with less power) is used when you have little expectation of it landing, but want to see what the defense is. It's like a quick jab, which also has little chance of doing damage in a single strike.


----------



## wab25

JowGaWolf said:


> You didn't retract your leg until the power of your sweep reached it's power peak.





JowGaWolf said:


> You did not retreat upon contact.





JowGaWolf said:


> I think the retract that Wang is talking about is is where your leg makes contacts and doesn't send power all the way through. It retracts shortly after making contact like what you see in many point sparring events and light sparring.



Thats the point though. You can retract or return your leg either before you make contact, as you make contact or after you have delivered the power. Just because the kicker or sweeper retracts or returns their leg along the same path does not determine how much power they deliver with the technique. Its the timing of when you switch directions, before contact, at contact or after full power delivery.

Now whether you step forward after the kick, step your foot down after the kick or replace it behind you after the kick... thats all about style and context when you use it.

In that same sweep in the video above, sometimes I keep the sweeping foot up in the air as the other guy falls, as part of the transition. You can wait until he is down and step down and forward a bit, so that your sweeping foot comes down across and in front of his neck. From there, there are a couple of arm bars that you can drop into. (note that you only hold your foot up long enough for the guys head to get lower than your foot. Your foot should land as he lands so that your drop into the arm bar happens immediately after) The reason I bring up this transition is because whether I retract / return the leg under me or step forward after the sweep is based on context.

I do appreciate the break down of my technique... it was very generous.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do anybody believe that to quick pull a punch back can cause more damage than to let your punch to go through your opponent's body?


Not everything is about the most potential damage. Pulling a punch back after a sharp delivery allows for a quicker follow-up. It depends what you are setting up for.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do anybody believe that to quick pull a punch back can cause more damage than to let your punch to go through your opponent's body?


I have seen discussions in the forums where people have taken the position that it is true.  They have used physics to backup their position.  I believe it is a misapplication and misunderstanding of physics dealing with impact and energy delivered during a short impact vs. a longer duration impact.  

So yes, some people seem to believe that quickly pulling a punch back results in greater damage to the target.  I believe they don’t properly understand the physics that they use to justify their position.


----------



## JowGaWolf

wab25 said:


> Its the timing of when you switch directions, before contact, at contact or after full power delivery.


This is how I see it as well and understood it when Wang was discussing it. This holds true to punches as well. But it will vary from technique to technique where that full power delivery begins and where it ends.


----------



## JowGaWolf

wab25 said:


> In that same sweep in the video above, sometimes I keep the sweeping foot up in the air as the other guy falls, as part of the transition. You can wait until he is down and step down and forward a bit, so that your sweeping foot comes down across and in front of his neck. From there, there are a couple of arm bars that you can drop into. (note that you only hold your foot up long enough for the guys head to get lower than your foot. Your foot should land as he lands so that your drop into the arm bar happens immediately after) The reason I bring up this transition is because whether I retract / return the leg under me or step forward after the sweep is based on context.


This I agree with. The context in which we do things matters.



wab25 said:


> I do appreciate the break down of my technique... it was very generous


lol.  sorry about that.  I have a habit of analyzing video.  I slow it down and watch it in slow motion to understand what's going on.  At this point it's habit since it's become more and more of a training tool for myself.   If I get something wrong with the analysis people can point exactly where I'm not seeing things accurately which is a big help of me with understanding the techniques.

The other thing I notice is that only cool people do sweeps.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wab25 said:


> Not sure I could even do a spin back hook kick... but I do retract my foot sweeps. Once I have swept the foot, delivered the power, I retract my foot. See below:


That's not "behind ankle sweep".  You use the inside edge to sweep the front (or side) of your opponent's foot. You are not using the instep to sweep behind your opponent's ankle.

That's a sweep followed by a downward pull. Since you need to pull your opponent down, after the sweep, you retract your foot. You retract your sweeping leg for the purpose of your pulling, and not for the purpose of your sweeping.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Not everything is about the most potential damage. Pulling a punch back after a sharp delivery allows for a quicker follow-up. It depends what you are setting up for.


"It depends" can make all discussion meaningless.

A: Should we ...?
B: It depends.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> "It depends" can make all discussion meaningless.
> 
> A: Should we ...?
> B: It depends.


Well no.  It recognizes reality and doesn’t force a false dichotomy.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> "It depends" can make all discussion meaningless.
> 
> A: Should we ...?
> B: It depends.



Depends.. lol.
I think the only way to not factor Depend is to talk about the exact same thing.  For example.
A.  If cooking pot is on fire then pour water on it.
B. Depends on what's in the pot.  Stuffing or Oil

So if you don't want to have Depend factor in then you have to be specific.
A. If cooking pot with oil is on fire then  pour water on it.
B. Everyone will agree, that A is incorrect.  There is no depends.

Sweep is General = Lots of "depends" statements.
Sweep is Specific = near zero "depends" statements.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> And you may not get a second chance to land that same kick.  Kick me too light in the head and I may prevent all other round house kicks from reaching my head.  That means the only round house kick that landed was actually wasted. This is the mentality of why people say (Make every shot count).
> 
> I understand this is not the case for many but I think from the perspective that you and I often look at martial arts,  It' just better not to do things that won't cause harm to your attacker.   In sports, it's going to be different.  In training it's going to be different.  If a fight full contact like MMA or a street fight, everything should count. Things like Jabs and snap kicks should be hard enough that your attacker fears it.



Sort of. The problem with fakes in street fights is quite often the guy is too dumb to react to it.

Head kicks don't have to be super hard. Just on target. The left switch kick is a ko kick because it catches people off guard.

Especially if you throw a jab and get them leaning in to it. Or get them circling towards it.






The very first one is a great example.

So I tend to heave shots at the leg and flick to the head. Which i think sneaks the kick in a bit better.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Sort of. The problem with fakes in street fights is quite often the guy is too dumb to react to it.
> 
> Head kicks don't have to be super hard. Just on target. The left switch kick is a ko kick because it catches people off guard.
> 
> Especially if you throw a jab and get them leaning in to it. Or get them circling towards it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The very first one is a great example.
> 
> So I tend to heave shots at the leg and flick to the head. Which i think sneaks the kick in a bit better.


You can see where the fundamentals of defense break down.  Bad blocks, leaning into kicks. Trying to block phantom low kicks. (I used to have problem with this)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> "It depends" can make all discussion meaningless.
> 
> A: Should we ...?
> B: It depends.


Trying to draw absolutes where they do not exist can make a discussion irrelevant to the facts.


----------



## Acronym

Perfect form


----------



## dvcochran

Acronym said:


> Perfect form
> View attachment 23721


Camera angle and range is everything. At blush that looks like a better kick but rather hard to tell from that shot.


----------



## Acronym

dvcochran said:


> Camera angle and range is everything. At blush that looks like a better kick but rather hard to tell from that shot.


.[/QUOTE]

It think it's the best angle.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Acronym said:


> Perfect form


Something I've never said about myself.  Application focus and Form focus live in 2 different worlds.


----------



## dvcochran

Acronym said:


> .



It think it's the best angle.[/QUOTE]
Well, that is rather subjective. If you want a glamour shot to look your 'best' doing the kick, then I suppose so. If you want constructive criticism to improve that is not going to work. What do you want us to do with that photo?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Acronym said:


> It think it's the best angle.


Everything ok on your end?  Just wondering because you posted "Perfect Form" and then posted " I think it's the best angle" when someone comments that it's hard to tell.


----------



## Acronym

JowGaWolf said:


> Everything ok on your end?  Just wondering because you posted "Perfect Form" and then posted " I think it's the best angle" when someone comments that it's hard to tell.



Yes I am ok, thank you for asking. I don't kick for his sake.


----------



## Acronym

dvcochran said:


> It think it's the best angle.


Well, that is rather subjective. If you want a glamour shot to look your 'best' doing the kick, then I suppose so. If you want constructive criticism to improve that is not going to work. What do you want us to do with that photo?[/QUOTE]

Well I was told I look like I never kicked a day in my life....


----------



## dvcochran

Acronym said:


> Well, that is rather subjective. If you want a glamour shot to look your 'best' doing the kick, then I suppose so. If you want constructive criticism to improve that is not going to work. What do you want us to do with that photo?




???
What are you looking for? You have posted videos that prove otherwise. If you are looking for help/improvement then ask questions. That photo with no commentary is just tacky.


----------



## Acronym

dvcochran said:


> ???
> What are you looking for? You have posted videos that prove otherwise. If you are looking for help/improvement then ask questions. That photo with no commentary is just tacky.



*Tacky*
Vulgar, of bad taste, loud, flashy, stupid and ugly.

I'm quite proud that a kick could accomplish that. 

Maybe work on your language..


----------



## JowGaWolf

Acronym said:


> Well I was told I look like I never kicked a day in my life....


I wouldn't worry about comments like that  "It comes with the meal".  If you show what you can do then you are going to get comments that you won't agree with.  Best thing is not to let the comments get you.  You'll also hear things that are true but you don't want to believe it.  Best thing is not to let the comments get to you.


----------



## dvcochran

Acronym said:


> *Tacky*
> Vulgar, of bad taste, loud, flashy, stupid and ugly.
> 
> I'm quite proud that a kick could accomplish that.
> 
> Maybe work on your language..


That is great to hear. If you feel you are improving that is awesome. 
Doesn't change the fact that posting a photo with no query or explanation is weird and/or tacky. I can choose plenty of words; just rolled with tacky. 

Seriously, it is hard to tell much from the photo.


----------



## wab25

Acronym said:


> Perfect form
> View attachment 23721


You are right. That kick is perfect. Wow... I wish I could kick like that.

Can you teach me to kick like that?


----------



## Acronym

wab25 said:


> You are right. That kick is perfect. Wow... I wish I could kick like that.
> 
> Can you teach me to kick like that?



Since you do Karate I would advice you to stop turtling your back and straighten your posture


----------



## jobo

Acronym said:


> Yes I am ok, thank you for asking. I don't kick for his sake.


there getting your leg in to that position and then there is the mechanics of the kick, you know,  speed and power which is impossible to ascertain from a best angle still, in fact any still!


----------



## wab25

Acronym said:


> Since you do Karate I would advice you to stop turtling your back and straighten your posture


Excellent! I will work on that right away. What about my footwork? How do I make my footwork as clean as yours?


----------



## Acronym

It also helps to visualize a good blueprint in your head while doing the motion.


----------



## wab25

Acronym said:


> It also helps to visualize a good blueprint in your head while doing the motion.


Wow! The difference in my kicks is huge now. I stopped turtling my back and I am visualizing a good blue print... it even cleaned up my footwork. How are my kicks now? Are they getting closer to the quality of your kicks yet? How is my speed and power?


----------



## Acronym

wab25 said:


> Wow! The difference in my kicks is huge now. I stopped turtling my back and I am visualizing a good blue print... it even cleaned up my footwork. How are my kicks now? Are they getting closer to the quality of your kicks yet? How is my speed and power?



Let's see.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Acronym said:


> Perfect form
> View attachment 23721



Not really. You're leaning WAY back for a kick that's not all that high, and your supporting foot isn't pivoted as far as it should be.
Also, make your bed, ya slob...


----------



## Acronym

Dirty Dog said:


> Not really. You're leaning WAY back for a kick that's not all that high, and your supporting foot isn't pivoted as far as it should be.
> Also, make your bed, ya slob...



My supporting foot has the toes pointing to the side, that is a pivoted supporting foot.


----------



## Acronym

but yeah I was just trolling, it's OK, not perfect


----------



## Dirty Dog

Acronym said:


> My supporting foot has the toes pointing to the side, that is a pivoted supporting foot.



It's not pivoted far enough. And you're leaning way too much. Between them, that tells me this kick is higher than you can kick effectively (even though it's not particularly high) and is going to leave you off balance, slow to recover, and lack power.
So, not perfect.


----------



## Acronym

Dirty Dog said:


> It's not pivoted far enough.




More pivot is double edged. It's very bad for mobility, since you get stuck in the mud.. Try kicking instantly off the KKW extreme pivot.


----------



## Acronym

Dirty Dog said:


> It's not pivoted far enough. And you're leaning way too much. Between them, that tells me this kick is higher than you can kick effectively (even though it's not particularly high) and is going to leave you off balance, slow to recover, and lack power.



Do you think this guy leans too much also?


----------



## jobo

Acronym said:


> Do you think this guy leans too much also? View attachment 23725


but he has quite a pivot on his standing foot and he is 18 inches higher than you


----------



## Dirty Dog

Acronym said:


> Do you think this guy leans too much also? View attachment 23725



A more than ideal, perhaps, but he's pivoted properly, and he's kicking quite a bit higher than you. Higher kicks will usually require more of a lean. However, the more you lean, the longer it will take for you to recover after the kick. A rapid recovery requires incredible core strength.






Notice the pivot. 






Notice the pivot. And how little he leans for a kick that is MUCH higher than yours.

Do you think you know more about kicking than these two? 

The picture you posted shows what I would consider an acceptable kick from a medium to high geup ranked student. But perfect? Please. Not even close.


----------



## Acronym

Dirty Dog said:


> The picture you posted shows what I would consider an acceptable kick from a medium to high geup ranked student. But perfect? Please. Not even close.



Which picture are you referring to?


----------



## Acronym

[


Dirty Dog said:


> A
> 
> Notice the pivot.
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the pivot. And how little he leans for a kick that is MUCH higher than yours.
> 
> Do you think you know more about kicking than these two?
> 
> .



Interesting you referenced Bill Wallace, I have always thought that he leans way too much when it comes to forms analysis. 

Chuck Norris below pivots less than I do.


----------



## wab25

Acronym said:


> Interesting you referenced Bill Wallace, I have always thought that he leans way too much when it comes to forms analysis.


Just think how much better of a martial artist he would have been, had you been there to instruct him in the proper way to kick... I can't believe these people here, picking apart your kick. What is there to pick on? That kick is perfect!


----------



## Acronym

wab25 said:


> Just think how much better of a martial artist he would have been, had you been there to instruct him in the proper way to kick... I can't believe these people here, picking apart your kick. What is there to pick on? That kick is perfect!



Point is that he leans more than me...


----------



## Acronym

Dirty Dog said:


> A more than ideal, perhaps, but he's pivoted properly, .



World champion in forms here pivoting less than me


----------



## Dirty Dog

Acronym said:


> Point is that he leans more than me...



If you were kicking more than  half as high as him, you might have a point. As it is...


----------



## Acronym

Dirty Dog said:


> If you were kicking more than  half as high as him, you might have a point. As it is...



I wouldn't lean that much even If I did. Bill Wallace did not have great "form form"


----------



## Acronym

Btw, I've noticed that when I haven't done dollyo chagi in a long time, say 8 months... then I need to pivot the basefoot more than if I do it every day, to get the proper rotation.

I think it's stiffness related. The brain doesn't need the extra command if one is rotating daily.

So I recommend to pivot more than neccessary if I were to instruct learning students. 

Just my 5 cents..


----------



## dvcochran

Acronym said:


> World champion in forms here pivoting less than meView attachment 23729


I have no idea who that is a picture of. What is his name and what is he a world champion of? None the less, let's assume that is true. I have stated many times some people can get by with less lean and rotation due to their flexibility. This is not you. And I am certain most all of them learned correct form initially and morphed into something different as they progressed and made their own unique changes. This only works when a person knows what correct and effective technique is. This is not you. 
Now, that is okay and not a bad thing. You just have to admit to yourself that is where you are and keep working (with a quality school/gym/instructor, not just youtube). If you keep getting your feedback from the internet you will continue to get the same feedback as you have in this thread.

In regards to Bill Wallace, part of the beauty to his kick was his ability to lean back as a defense and still pop back up quicker than most other fighters. He has an unusual body to leg length ratio with long legs and a short body which he has freely admitted helps. 
What is important to understand is that he leans as a Choice, not a necessity.


----------



## Acronym

dvcochran said:


> I have no idea who that is a picture of. What is his name and what is he a world champion of? None the less, let's assume that is true. I have stated many times some people can get by with less lean and rotation due to their flexibility. This is not you. And I am certain most all of them learned correct form initially and morphed into something different as they progressed and made their own unique changes. This only works when a person knows what correct and effective technique is. This is not you.



It's jaroslaw Suska, record world champion in ITF forms.




dvcochran said:


> In regards to Bill Wallace, part of the beauty to his kick was his ability to lean back as a defense and still pop back up quicker than most other fighters.



That's why I said that when it comes to forms, he is NOT a great reference, and he is a product of a different time when people knew less about body mechanics. And you can see based on how much I lean at my current height, that I would lean less than him at higher heights.


----------



## Acronym

dvcochran said:


> What is important to understand is that he leans as a Choice, not a necessity.



So do I. That is not a critical height for me.


----------



## dvcochran

Acronym said:


> So do I. That is not a critical height for me.


You forget we have seen your kicks in picture and video. 
Yeah, that is as high as you can get. And I am not sure you have enough  control to do anything with it at that height either.


----------



## Acronym

dvcochran said:


> You forget we have seen your kicks in picture and video.
> Yeah, that is as high as you can get. And I am not sure you have enough  control to do anything with it at that height either.



Stay tuned


----------



## drop bear

Acronym said:


> I wouldn't lean that much even If I did. Bill Wallace did not have great "form form"



The lean gets your head out of the way of punches though. So it is pretty common in application.




Or they go kind of sideways.


----------



## Acronym

drop bear said:


> The lean gets your head out of the way of punches though. So it is pretty common in application.
> View attachment 23730
> 
> Or they go kind of sideways.
> View attachment 23731



Yes it is, but it's penalized in forms


----------



## Acronym

I am pivoting properly as per ITF form standards, but the old man hasn't done ITF in 30 years so I'll give him a break


----------



## Martial D

Acronym said:


> I am pivoting properly as per ITF form standards, but the old man hasn't done ITF in 30 years so I'll give him a break


Based on that original video, I would be very surprised if you were capable of throwing a high kick with any sort of form. Prove me wrong.


----------



## Acronym

Martial D said:


> Based on that original video, I would be very surprised if you were capable of throwing a high kick with any sort of form. Prove me wrong.



I seem to recall kicking temple height as a beginner. I didn't know how but I could do it. That was 6 years ago. I will turn 32 this year so it's possible I lost it. 

I'll settle with nose height for the purposes of this refutation.


----------



## Acronym

I'll put up a new one but just out of curiousity, which height would you guys say this is?


----------



## Acronym

That's a stronger kicking posture than Mr Wallace, @Dirty Dogs hero

But like I said, we shouldn't compare different generations. It's just not fair.


----------



## Acronym

This is ITF legend Jong Soo Park in 1959.


----------



## Buka

Acronym said:


> It's jaroslaw Suska, record world champion in ITF forms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I said that when it comes to forms, he is NOT a great reference, and he is a product of a different time when people knew less about body mechanics. And you can see based on how much I lean at my current height, that I would lean less than him at higher heights.



In my opinion, with a degree in Physical Education and a Masters in Kinesiology he's forgotten more about body mechanics than most Martial Artists will ever take the time to learn.

As far as forms go, both Bill Wallace and Joe Lewis did forms as well as anyone I've seen in the Arts to this day. Honest. They chose not to for their own reasons.


----------



## Acronym

Buka said:


> In my opinion, with a degree in Physical Education and a Masters in Kinesiology he's forgotten more about body mechanics than most Martial Artists will ever take the time to learn.
> 
> As far as forms go, both Bill Wallace and Joe Lewis did forms as well as anyone I've seen in the Arts to this day. Honest. They chose not to for their own reasons.



You kiddin me? Joe Lewis's side kick was like a hot knife cutting through butter..... It was also fast and incredibly powerful.


----------



## wab25

Acronym said:


> That's a stronger kicking posture than Mr Wallace, @Dirty Dogs hero
> 
> But like I said, we shouldn't compare different generations. It's just not fair.



If Mr Wallace and you were offering lessons in kicking... I would pay good money to take lessons with one of the two... but since we are not comparing... you will have to guess which one.


----------



## Acronym

wab25 said:


> If Mr Wallace and you were offering lessons in kicking... I would pay good money to take lessons with one of the two... but since we are not comparing... you will have to guess which one.



Are you cranky that it was a stronger posture from some weasel online?


----------



## Buka

Acronym said:


> You kiddin me? Joe Lewis's side kick was like a hot knife cutting through butter..... It was also fast and incredibly powerful.



Joe's sidekick was like stepping in front of a speeding car. Really. I once said to him, "Let me grab some kicking shields, I want you to kick them with a step up side kick as hard as you can."

He replied, "Naw, you really don't." I said, yeah, I really do. He was right, I was wrong, lesson learned. I had plenty of time to ponder my fate as I was traveling through the air.

I've seen him do a few forms, too. Spot on. Kind of crazy watching him do them. I knew him for a few years before I saw that. My buddy, standing beside me said, "What, did you think they were going to suck?"

Wallace had such incredible form it was like somebody drew his movements. I remember at a tournament back in the day, he was being interviewed by Karate Illustrated Magazine. They were taking some photos. Wallace throws this slow side kick well over his head. The photographer runs out of film, has to reload the camera, asks Wallace to wait a minute. Wallace says, "take your time, I'll wait." And holds that damn sidekick over his head while the photographer changes film, all the while talking to us. He never wavered, didn't wobble, didn't look at the photographer, just talked to a bunch of us standing there. Kind of mind blowing if you try it. Kind of funny, too.


----------



## Acronym

Buka said:


> Joe's sidekick was like stepping in front of a speeding car. Really. I once said to him, "Let me grab some kicking shields, I want you to kick them with a step up side kick as hard as you can."
> 
> He replied, "Naw, you really don't." I said, yeah, I really do. He was right, I was wrong, lesson learned. I had plenty of time to ponder my fate as I was traveling through the air.
> 
> I've seen him do a few forms, too. Spot on. Kind of crazy watching him do them. I knew him for a few years before I saw that. My buddy, standing beside me said, "What, did you think they were going to suck?"
> 
> Wallace had such incredible form it was like somebody drew his movements. I remember at a tournament back in the day, he was being interviewed by Karate Illustrated Magazine. They were taking some photos. Wallace throws this slow side kick well over his head. The photographer runs out of film, has to reload the camera, asks Wallace to wait a minute. Wallace says, "take your time, I'll wait." And holds that damn sidekick over his head while the photographer changes film, all the while talking to us. He never wavered, didn't wobble, didn't look at the photographer, just talked to a bunch of us standing there. Kind of mind blowing if you try it. Kind of funny, too.



is the story about him lifting up Muhammed Ali true?

You don't regularly hear about powerlifters making great martial artists, but IF they do make that transition and have a knack for it... hold on to your hat...


----------



## Martial D

Acronym said:


> I'll put up a new one but just out of curiousity, which height would you guys say this is? View attachment 23734


A video would have been better. All this shows is you can lift your leg to an average-ish height.

From the placement of the rear leg though(forward pointing toes) I can't imagine there could be much on this side kick. (I thought you were gonna show a higher roundhouse?)


----------



## Acronym

Martial D said:


> A video would have been better. All this shows is you can lift your leg to an average-ish height.
> 
> From the placement of the rear leg though(forward pointing toes) I can't imagine there could be much on this side kick. (I thought you were gonna show a higher roundhouse?)



It's a roundhouse kick about .0.5 sec passed the target.


----------



## Acronym

Martial D said:


> From the placement of the rear leg though(forward pointing toes) I can't imagine there could be much on this side kick. (I thought you were gonna show a higher roundhouse?)



 If you can't tell that's a ball of the foot roundhouse kick, the embarrassment is on your part.


----------



## Martial D

Acronym said:


> If you can't tell that's a ball of the foot roundhouse kick, the embarrassment is on your part.


I'd say it's on whoever taught you(if anyone) if you're being serious right now. I think everyone that has actual training in kicking has seen what needs to be seen lol.

Isn't it kind of odd to you all of these people with combined hundreds of years doing this are telling you the same thing?


----------



## Acronym

Martial D said:


> I'd say it's on whoever taught you(if anyone) if you're being serious right now. I think everyone that has actual training in kicking has seen what needs to be seen lol.
> 
> Isn't it kind of odd to you all of these people with combined hundreds of years doing this are telling you the same thing?



Nobody besides you are saying that it was a side kick.


----------



## Acronym

But thank you for exposing yourself. I know which one I will not bother with from now on.


----------



## dvcochran

Acronym said:


> I'll put up a new one but just out of curiousity, which height would you guys say this is? View attachment 23734


All I am going to say is you need to quit worrying about height and work on form.


----------



## Acronym

dvcochran said:


> All I am going to say is you need to quit worrying about height and work on form.



 it depends on which era you are comparing it to..

This is Chuck Norris roundhouse kicking in the 60s. If he tried higher,  his knee would be pointing down... And his hips would get closed.

The hand up in the sky is both poor form and poor control.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Acronym said:


> Nobody besides you are saying that it was a side kick.


It looks like a messed up side kick to me too. But that could easily just be from the way the picture is taken/picture quality (and head on pictures aren't the best to showcase kicks in general).


----------



## Acronym

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> It looks like a messed up side kick to me too. But that could easily just be from the way the picture is taken/picture quality (and head on pictures aren't the best to showcase kicks in general).



Side kick or roundhouse kick here.. ?


----------



## Martial D

Acronym said:


> Nobody besides you are saying that it was a side kick.


Yes, that's probably for the best. Even though you didn't show the kick, and instead just a still shot of your leg up, with you toes on both feet pointing in the complete wrong direction for a round kick, showing both that you are trying to impact with your toes(ouch, have you ever kicked anything) and that your rear leg is not engaged and there is no power mechanic, (toes pointed forward), I'm sure you are better at kicking than all of us.

Have a great day Mr Kung fu master.


----------



## Acronym

Martial D said:


> Yes, that's probably for the best. Even though you didn't show the kick, and instead just a still shot of your leg up, with you toes on both feet pointing in the complete wrong direction for a round kick, showing both that you are trying to impact with your toes(ouch, have you ever kicked anything) and that your rear leg is not engaged and there is no power mechanic, (toes pointed forward), I'm sure you are better at kicking than all of us.
> 
> Have a great day Mr Kung fu master.



Ok, mr Wing Chun/MMA. I'm sure you know the parameters of ITF TaeKwondo. Can you even get your leg up passed your johnson?


----------



## Acronym




----------



## Acronym

And here is the very solid reference used


----------



## Martial D

Acronym said:


> Ok, mr Wing Chun/MMA. I'm sure you know the parameters of ITF TaeKwondo. Can you even get your leg up passed your johnson?


I understand mechanics and power generation. And this ain't it.


----------



## Acronym

Martial D said:


> I understand mechanics and power generation. And this ain't it.



Yes, Wing Chun people do very well in TKD competitions.


----------



## Martial D

Acronym said:


> And here is the very solid reference used
> View attachment 23744


Yes. Notice where the rear foot is pointed. Notice the heel is forward. That's a side thrust kick.

A round kick will impact with the instep or the shin, which is why the toes are pointed in line with the shin, not perpendicular to it, unless you like broken toes.


----------



## Acronym

Martial D said:


> Yes. Notice where the rear foot is pointed. Notice the heel is forward. That's a side thrust kick.
> 
> A round kick will impact with the instep or the shin, which is why the toes are pointed in line with the shin, not perpendicular to it, unless you like broken toes.



No it's for the roundhouse kick you dummy.


----------



## Martial D

Acronym said:


> Yes, Wing Chun people do very well in TKD competitions.


I did start out with wing chun, sure. Like many tma guys I realized traditional systems don't cut it for live exchange though. It's a whole different world when the other guy fights back.


----------



## Martial D

Acronym said:


> No it's for the roundhouse kick you dummy.
> 
> View attachment 23745


Ok then, prove it and shut me up. Let's see you kick a bag with your amazing technique and generate anything resembling speed power or mechanics.


----------



## Acronym

Martial D said:


> Ok then, prove it and shut me up. Let's see you kick a bag with your amazing technique and generate anything resembling speed power or mechanics.



I can throw a bomb on a kicking shield with a soccer kick. Power doesn't prove anything. Power is innate.


----------



## Acronym

But if I throw a soccer kick in sparring, I will end up banging on a shoulder. This is why we work on flexibility/form to go around the target. To make the hips rubbery.


----------



## Acronym

Side kick or roundhouse kick? Hands behind my back for full clarity

I have no faith in the Wing Chun fellow who failed 2 out of 2 but @Dirty Dog and Kempo must pass this, or I am out of this members in motion


----------



## Buka

Acronym said:


> is the story about him lifting up Muhammed Ali true?
> 
> You don't regularly hear about powerlifters making great martial artists, but IF they do make that transition and have a knack for it... hold on to your hat...



Ali was training in L.A, (Olympic Auditorium I think ) for the Inoki farce. He had a press conference promoting the fight. Joe was there. There were questions and answers and Joe asked him a "what would you do" question.

Joe picked him up with a fireman's carry and placed him on his back. Twice. But they were just messing around. But to your power lifting statement, I do remember reading that Ali said to him, "You must have done a lot of lifting when you were younger." And Joe did, he was a workout fanatic.


----------



## Acronym

Buka said:


> Ali was training in L.A, (Olympic Auditorium I think ) for the Inoki farce. He had a press conference promoting the fight. Joe was there. There were questions and answers and Joe asked him a "what would you do" question.
> 
> Joe picked him up with a fireman's carry and placed him on his back. Twice. But they were just messing around. But to your power lifting statement, I do remember reading that Ali said to him, "You must have done a lot of lifting when you were younger." And Joe did, he was a workout fanatic.



What was the feud he had with Bruce Lee about? Joe was supposed to play Chuck Norris's role.


----------



## wab25

Acronym said:


> Can you even get your leg up passed your johnson?


Nope... thats why I do foot sweeps... I need the clearance.


----------



## Acronym

wab25 said:


> Nope... thats why I do foot sweeps... I need the clearance.



 I lost all motivation for kick heights once I quit sparring. I would never use it for self defense and I feel better in-tune with my body at mid or high mid section. Since it's the same technique,  all I'm doing is training safer on my body. Who cares about heights..


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Acronym said:


> Side kick or roundhouse kick? Hands behind my back for full clarity
> 
> I have no faith in the Wing Chun fellow who failed 2 out of 2 but @Dirty Dog and Kempo must pass this, or I am out of this members in motionView attachment 23748


Just for fun, roundhouse. Although personally the planted foot should have its heel up a bit at that point in time, though that may be a stylistic difference.


----------



## JowGaWolf

OMG... 10 PAGES!?!?!? too funny.  I'm going to post a picture of me holding out a Jab and I'm going to be like "Perfect jab.. You never seen anything so perfect." lol.. please throw gas on this thread, light it, and let the wind carry the ashes away.

Freaking #195 posts lol    



Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Just for fun, roundhouse. Although personally the planted foot should have its heel up a bit at that point in time, though that may be a stylistic difference.


  Just for fun?!?!?  you know better  ha ha ha.  



Acronym said:


> or I am out of this members in motion


And then this?   ha ha ha.. is that a promise? lol.  

Yall are silly.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Acronym said:


> Side kick or roundhouse kick? Hands behind my back for full clarity
> 
> I have no faith in the Wing Chun fellow who failed 2 out of 2 but @Dirty Dog and Kempo must pass this, or I am out of this members in motion



Too much lean for such a low kick. And you still need to learn how to make your bed.


----------



## drop bear

Acronym said:


> Side kick or roundhouse kick? Hands behind my back for full clarity
> 
> I have no faith in the Wing Chun fellow who failed 2 out of 2 but @Dirty Dog and Kempo must pass this, or I am out of this members in motionView attachment 23748



So you are just holding it there? Like is that the competition?


----------



## drop bear

Acronym said:


> But if I throw a soccer kick in sparring, I will end up banging on a shoulder. This is why we work on flexibility/form to go around the target. To make the hips rubbery.



Throw a right hand right soccer kick. If they are the kind of person who likes to slip punches you will basically kill the guy.


----------



## Acronym

Dirty Dog said:


> Too much lean for such a low kick. And you still need to learn how to make your bed.



So you don't know?


----------



## Acronym

Dirty Dog said:


> Too much lean for such a low kick.



Is this your perfect student?


----------



## Acronym

I don't blame anyone for failing the picture above,  because those are side kick hips(I'm generous now)  for a roundhouse kick.....


----------



## Acronym

drop bear said:


> Throw a right hand right soccer kick. If they are the kind of person who likes to slip punches you will basically kill the guy.



I meant elbow, not shoulder.

 I actually threw a soccer kick  on an elbow (three times in a row) when I didnt know anything about body mechanics, timing, etc...

my foot and ankle swelled up like a bee sting and I was on pain killers for 2 weeks straight. I also had nerve damage on my foot, making me unable to kick without twitching the foot in the air..

makes me wonder why blocks arent taught with the elbows... That's the first thing a beginner does


----------



## Acronym




----------



## Gerry Seymour

Acronym said:


>


Um....?


----------



## Acronym

gpseymour said:


> Um....?



Got any tips what I can replace it with? I can't hang a bag.


----------



## Martial D

Acronym said:


>


Ok you gotta be trolling us? 

Lol you got me


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Acronym said:


> Got any tips what I can replace it with? I can't hang a bag.


Im just not at all sure what the point of the clip was supposed to be.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> Im just not at all sure what the point of the clip was supposed to be.


Probably that he's a better puncher than mike tyson


----------



## Dirty Dog

Martial D said:


> Probably that he's a better puncher than mike tyson



I think it was meant to show that he's a better singer than Freddy Mercury.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> Ok you gotta be trolling us?
> 
> Lol you got me


ha ha ha.. yeah I think that happened around the page that comes before page 2 lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Acronym said:


> Got any tips what I can replace it with? I can't hang a bag.


door way. using a heavy bag frame, Works similar to door frame chin up bars.


----------



## Acronym

I'll tell you guys a funny anecdote.

A boxer wanted to meet up after I posted that jab. "We should meet". I of course avoided him, thinking he's a loon. Either that or he asked me out on a date....

Well, there's another one who is a tough guy persona online, constantly threatening other users how he would beat them up and that he can meet up.

These two soulmates (both around 35-45 age old) intertwined and a fight was about to be booked,  people put money up, when the tough guy/"hired assasin" pulled out, blaming it on not having a drivers license.

The internet. Connecting idiots since 1995.


----------



## Acronym

Dirty Dog said:


> I think it was meant to show that he's a better singer than Freddy Mercury.




I thought you were going to give me props for the bed.. You seem interested in furnitures and decoration. Not implying anything with that!


----------



## Martial D

Acronym said:


> I'll tell you guys a funny anecdote.
> 
> A boxer wanted to meet up after I posted that jab. "We should meet". I of course avoided him, thinking he's a loon. Either that or he asked me out on a date....
> 
> Well, there's another one who is a tough guy persona online, constantly threatening other users how he would beat them up and that he can meet up.
> 
> These two soulmates (both around 35-45 age old) intertwined and a fight was about to be booked,  people put money up, when the tough guy/"hired assasin" pulled out, blaming it on not having a drivers license.
> 
> The internet. Connecting idiots since 1995.


Wait that was supposed to be a jab?


----------

