|
Horizontal v. Vertical Punching Conclusions |
Just because grand master “whoever” said something, it does not make it true. The hundreds of believers who drank poisoned Kool-Aid in Jonestown believed their master, Jim Jones, who said they should drink it, and he believed it was the right thing to do. The follower’s of Heaven’s Gate leader, Marshall Applewhite, followed him in suicide believing his hype about a space ship hidden behind the Hale-Bopp comet was coming to get them to be true. One who uses reason, logic, and common sense is seldom lead astray.
Sometimes martial artists who present evidence to explain their theories of fighting methods distort the facts or rearrange the order of the facts to justify their conclusions. The evidence they present is factual; it is just not presented in its intended order or it is taken out of context. To see an example of this, watch this new trailer for the movie "Shining" http://www.ps260.com/molly/SHINING%20FINAL.mov
The easiest and most natural way to do something is usually the best way. Trying to change the natural movements of humans is usually man’s effort to show his superiority over nature or simply to be different from the martial art being taught next door.
Vertical punchers have been preaching their cause for 100 years with virtually no converts. Why? If vertical punching is so much better than twist punching, why are other martial artists not converting to its use? Is it tradition? I think not! Tradition has always been a low priority American society. Change is more the norm; so much so, that some seek change just to be different. This seems to be the case in respect to vertical punching.
Page 3 of 3: NEXT Back First Last | Share | Errors | Last Modified:
Subtopics: NEXT | Preface Punching History Arguments For and Against Conclusions
Topic: Comments: Add View | Sources | Related: None