Lol, exactly. I was sparing KPM another round of that argument
You do realize he was referring to WSL???
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Lol, exactly. I was sparing KPM another round of that argument
Perhaps if you don't want others joining in be more specific about the topic. When I entered this conversation it was concerning cutting/exclusion/gate punching not specifically about WSL VT/YM VT elbow ideas.
Does your WC include this method in question? If so please provide example how it is different. If you don't, then I don't see the need to argue with others about it.
It's not my fault you assumed I was comparing Gate Punching to concepts present or not in YMWC. You either have it or don't. If you don't, no big deal. If you do have something similar please post it. I've already stated I've seen it present in PB videos. Whether intentional or simply coincidental and spontaneous I don't know. But it has yet to be verified by you or Guy as existing, if so I would like to know how the elbow is used differently. Because in YCW WC it's just a plain old straight punch.It's not my fault if you didn't read from the start of the conversation. We did restate the original claim several times.
The elbow ideas can be part of a punch, but are not a specific technique per se. The technique of "excluding" punches was presented as an example of YMVT elbow ideas existing in other systems, but there's no such elbow idea in it.
showing this punch and explaining what is so unique about it in WSLVT.
It's not my fault you assumed I was comparing Gate Punching to concepts present or not in YMWC.
I've already stated I've seen it present in PB videos. Whether intentional or simply coincidental and spontaneous I don't know. But it has yet to be verified by you or Guy as existing.
Typical, you need a tissue, a hug or both?What punch?
Next time don't join the discussion if you don't even know what it's about. It's a waste of everyone's time.
I don't know what "gate punch" you're talking about. Post the video and let's have a look.
You do realize he was referring to WSL???
It's not my fault if you didn't read from the start of the conversation. We did restate the original claim several times.
It seems we are still waiting for either you or Guy to post a video of PB (since you always refuse to post any videos of yourselves) showing this punch and explaining what is so unique about it in WSLVT.
It's beginning to become a bit of a habit for you two to start a conversation on one subject (leaving an escape plan for when it goes south on you) then flip the subject. Never providing any details, yet pointing out where others fail according to your belief. You also have a hard time staying on point, you'd rather deflect or attempt to insert a back door or simply go to the old stand by "This conversation doesn't deal with mainland WC" when things don't go your way.It's getting to be a bit of a habit for Nobody to barge into a conversation, get the wrong end of the stick, then get offended and storm off again. Oh well, at least it wasn't 12 pages this time
Then why haven't you posted one containing the technique in question?Suggest you check the internet, there are quite a few clips of PB around
Quick correction: "The start of the Bil Gee incorporates elbow striking." should read "elbow deflection and/or striking."
Separate thought, I think I've demonstrated a fair amount of patience with you LFJ. Throughout our conversation, you've seemed combative and defensive. I've shared openly and in fairly great detail even providing video demonstrations to support statements. I'm asking you now, as a fellow martial artist, to understand I'm not coming from a place of criticism of your lineage when replying to you. I do, however, feel like there is an undertone of criticism coming from you and unfortunately, it's not possible to prove an empirical truth with theory.
I disagree with your interpretation of the "little idea" being "all about" or solely focused on the elbows. I think it's limited and naive. I think the use of elbows as a defense mechanism bipasses a perfectly valid line of defense. I think use of the elbow increases risk of having that elbow captured. I think walking straight into a person who's twice your weight is a dumb thing to do. I think the wrists are useful devices and so are the finger tips.
~ Alan
It's beginning to become a bit of a habit for you two to start a conversation on one subject (leaving an escape plan for when it goes south on you) then flip the subject. Never providing any details, yet pointing out where others fail according to your belief. You also have a hard time staying on point, you'd rather deflect or attempt to insert a back door or simply go to the old stand by "This conversation doesn't deal with mainland WC" when things don't go your way.
The reason we have page after page is because you two ask questions in a manner as if you don't understand in an attempt to spring some stupid "gotcha" moment. Neither of you has addressed the question as it applies to your lineage, yet another habit of yours, the unwillingness to provide example/description for clarification.
Everyone else here attempts to post without an agenda. Why is it everytime you two post that there has to be an ulterior motive?
Suggest you check the internet, there are quite a few clips of PB around
.
The reason we have page after page is because you two ask questions in a manner as if you don't understand in an attempt to spring some stupid "gotcha" moment. Neither of you has addressed the question as it applies to your lineage, yet another habit of yours, the unwillingness to provide example/description for clarification.
Everyone else here attempts to post without an agenda. Why is it everytime you two post that there has to be an ulterior motive?
What punch?
.
Then why haven't you posted one containing the technique in question?
Then why haven't you posted one containing the technique in question?
So, once again, you are refusing a simple request? That's not exactly the way to carry on a "friendly discussion."