Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Firstly, you can leave off the passive-aggressive attitude.
Secondly, no, you didn't. The only mention of the term "decide" in any of your posts is this:
You don't state that it means "to decide", you say that it refers to "mentally decid(ing)… a set distance". And there is absolutely nothing in the concept of kime, the application of the term, or any of the sources and links you provided that even hints at such a thing.
You know… maybe I was a bit too subtle earlier when I said that I hadn't come across that usage of the term kime in relation to distance… I was trying to be less overt considering your recent rant against me. I'll stop that now.
You are, without doubt or second consideration, completely wrong in your definition of kime. The fact that members who have no major exposure to Japanese systems are thinking that you are correct is enough for me to come along and point out that, frankly, you are, once again, wrong. I heartily recommend that Geezer and others who think you were accurate look further int o the topic.
I'd already read Jesse's blog post, but let's look at it again, shall we? Here it is again: http://www.karatebyjesse.com/kime-putting-the-nail-in-the-coffin/
So, what's said there? Well… it's pointed out that the term is a derivative of the jisho form "kimeru" (決める), which refers commonly to deciding, fixing, or setting (in place). However, it's also pointed out that the term "(probably breaks) 10 or 12 different world records in terms of ambiguity"… highlighting that, as with much of the Japanese language, the meaning changes (in cases, quite dramatically) based on the context.
Next, Jesse goes through a range of comments he's come across that he says aren't representative of kime… all of which actually focus on a very similar interpretation of the concept; namely that the concept of kime is related to the execution of a powerful strike. Jesse disagrees… interestingly without disagreeing with any of it… by saying that kime is something that can be seen in any technique at all (well, yeah)… and that it is found specifically when you tense certain muscles. Which is the opposite of your claim that tensing is never kime… and has absolutely nothing to do with distance.
But here's the thing… Jesse is still off. Kime is not a single action, or event. It's a concentration of your entire effort… the focus put into the strike… how you co-ordinate your body… how you breath… what all of your muscles are doing, not just the antagonists… and is often checked/represented by exactly what Jesse is saying kime isn't. In a way, he's right… such external observations aren't kime itself, per se… you can only know yourself if you have kime or not… but they are an indication.
I'd consider him a flawed source, honestly. He tends to rely on his own ideas over learning the actual history and definitions in places… which can be very interesting, but can also be rather misplaced.
On his ideas of what made a system, yeah.
You're free to think that. Simply going through his "about" page raises a couple of red flags, inaccurate terminology and grasp on Japanese martial concepts and history, and a few other things… of course, the major point here is that nothing Jesse says, nor in the linked video you posted, actually supports anything you've said.
As said, I was being kind earlier. I'm a bit past that now. So…
That is absolutely not the "essence of kime", as distance has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Yes, an instant of tension at the completion of the strike (the decisive moment that the strike is focused on, on impact) is a fundamental external indication of good kime.
Right, that's done, I hope.
Er… okay. You make no sense to me, or, it seems, anyone else here. And you really do show no clue about anything to do with actual traditional martial arts… at all.
