WOTT - Flying Sidekicks
Rabid_Weasel
So what *is* the real purpose of Flying Sidekicks?
OK, the old Saw that a Flying Sidekick is for knocking a person off his
horse has been debunked more times than I can recall. But if it's not for
unhorsing riders, what *IS* it for?
Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk
Joao
>
> OK, the old Saw that a Flying Sidekick is for knocking a person off his
> horse has been debunked more times than I can recall. But if it's not for
> unhorsing riders, what *IS* it for?
Chicks dig it.
Julien Le Gall
In Yoseikan budo, we learn that kind of stuff because it helps to understand
the mechanics behind the basic kicks.
Ju
Rabid_Weasel
And that's the important part anyhow!
kirks...@yourclothesoperamail.com
Are you sure that - in fact - it isn't some kind of plyometrics /
attribute training?
Them 'ye olde' folks were kinda crafty with their conditioning
methods.
*****************************************************
Remove "YOURCLOTHES" to email me
*****************************************************
Rabid_Weasel
How so? As far as I can tell from personal experience, the two are only
peripherally related and are more dissimilar than similar.
T
Chas had that Stupid Human Tricks to Impress Girls hypothesis.
Rabid_Weasel
Why would it be codified as part of the curriculum then?
T
Allegedly, sometime after you can squat double bodyweight plyometrics become
useful. I do an easy set of tuck jumps once in a while just in case.
Robert Low
> OK, the old Saw that a Flying Sidekick is for knocking a person off his
> horse has been debunked more times than I can recall. But if it's not for
> unhorsing riders, what *IS* it for?
Exercise.
Looking cool.
Impressing the ladies.
Maybe more importantly, impressing
the impressionable with the idea that you *can* kick people
off a horse.
Just possibly, kicking people off Shetland ponies.
And there was a clip on bullshido if a tkdin knocking
a kyokushinkai guy right into the audience with one,
so maybe they occasionally work on people who aren't on
top of a horse.
Shuurai
Rabid_Weasel wrote:
> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>
> So what *is* the real purpose of Flying Sidekicks?
>
> OK, the old Saw that a Flying Sidekick is for knocking a person
> off his horse has been debunked more times than I can recall.
> But if it's not for unhorsing riders, what *IS* it for?
Chicks dig flying kicks.
Aside from that, I suppose they might be used to quickly close
distance, but there are better ways to do that. I don't like
high kicks in general - much less high flying kicks. I don't
mind low flying side kicks (aimed at say, the knee) but that's
relative. I prefer my kicks low with the other leg firmly on
the ground :b
h...@nospam.com
<lawson__NO...@dayton.net> wrote:
>Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>
>So what *is* the real purpose of Flying Sidekicks?
>
>OK, the old Saw that a Flying Sidekick is for knocking a person off his
>horse has been debunked more times than I can recall.
Debunked how? Because the majority thought it ridiculous? Yes, of
course, rma logic at work. While apparently impossible to prove
historically as used or effective on the battlefield, it pretty much
is in general agreement that physically it is clearly possible to
perform such a feat, particularly in light of the small height of the
horses (ponies) they used in those days. The mere fact that it is
possible to achieve physically, makes it certainly possible that is
was used functionally. Now effectively is a different matter.
So, IOW, of course it is intended, if not actually used, for
dismounting riders.
Hal
Shuurai
h...@nospam.com wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:30:08 -0400, "Rabid_Weasel"
> <lawson__NO...@dayton.net> wrote:
>
> >Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
> >
> >So what *is* the real purpose of Flying Sidekicks?
> >
> >OK, the old Saw that a Flying Sidekick is for knocking a person
> >off his
> >horse has been debunked more times than I can recall.
>
> Debunked how?
Common sense? The complete lack of evidence that it ever happened?
A basic understanding of physics - the size of an actual real life
horse being a major part of that? An understanding of how one
actually rides a horse - and that a bulk of the training is about
not falling off?
Ever watch a joust? These guys hit one another at full gallop
with lances and usually aren't dismounted. If you actually
believe that a man jump-kicking has *near* the force of a joust
impact, you are obviously a graduate of the Richman School of
Unadvanced Physics.
> Because the majority thought it ridiculous?
Sometimes the majority believes something for a reason. Can you
cite a *single* study that shows any evidence whatsoever that this
was ever done? I've seen it debunked in several martial arts
publications, by many different researchers - I've never seen
anything to actually support it. If you can provide a link that
does support it, please do so.
> Yes, of course, rma logic at work.
I can see how someone like you might have a certain disdain for
the use of logic and reason.
> While apparently impossible to prove historically as used or
> effective on the battlefield, it pretty much is in general
> agreement that physically it is clearly possible to perform such
> a feat, particularly in light of the small height of the horses
> (ponies) they used in those days.
Actually no, it is not in general agreement that this was physically
possible. Can you cite a reference that says otherwise?
Kicking an armed and armored, experienced rider, off of a horse.
In battle. Cite your reference.
> The mere fact that it is possible to achieve physically, makes it
> certainly possible that is was used functionally.
Lots of things are "possible" if you're willing to stretch. But
possible isn't the point - the question is were these kicks really
actually *intended* to do this. You don't create a technique that
takes time and effort to master because it's "possible" that it
might work. It's possible that closing your eyes and spinning like
a top with your sword stretched out might work - not something you'd
base your system (and your life) on, is it?
> Now effectively is a different matter.
Actually, effective *is* the matter.
> So, IOW, of course it is intended, if not actually used, for
> dismounting riders.
How exactly, in your world, does your contention that it might
be phyically possible, might be functional, and might (to a far
lesser degree) be effective somehow lead you to conclude that
these kicks were "of course" intended to dismount riders? I ask
only out of some strange Lovecraftian desire to understand the
unworldly miasma that is your mind.
h...@nospam.com
wrote:
>
>
>h...@nospam.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:30:08 -0400, "Rabid_Weasel"
>> <lawson__NO...@dayton.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>> >
>> >So what *is* the real purpose of Flying Sidekicks?
>> >
>> >OK, the old Saw that a Flying Sidekick is for knocking a person
>> >off his
>> >horse has been debunked more times than I can recall.
>>
>> Debunked how?
>
>Common sense? The complete lack of evidence that it ever happened?
Logical fallacy. The lack of evidence it did happen is not evidence
it didn't.
>A basic understanding of physics - the size of an actual real life
>horse being a major part of that?
The height off the ground of course.
>An understanding of how one
>actually rides a horse - and that a bulk of the training is about
>not falling off?
Wanna bet who has more times on a horse? I'm willing to bet I've
hundreds if not thousands more than you. For one thing, they did not
have stirrups.
>
>Ever watch a joust? These guys hit one another at full gallop
>with lances and usually aren't dismounted. If you actually
>believe that a man jump-kicking has *near* the force of a joust
>impact, you are obviously a graduate of the Richman School of
>Unadvanced Physics.
Apples and oranges. We are not talking about head on attacks of
riders bracing themselves for you.
>
>> Because the majority thought it ridiculous?
>
>Sometimes the majority believes something for a reason.
Argumentum ad populum.
> Can you
>cite a *single* study that shows any evidence whatsoever that this
>was ever done?
No.
> I've seen it debunked in several martial arts
>publications, by many different researchers - I've never seen
>anything to actually support it. If you can provide a link that
>does support it, please do so.
>
How did they prove it was not possible or ever done?
>> Yes, of course, rma logic at work.
>
>I can see how someone like you might have a certain disdain for
>the use of logic and reason.
Actually I love logic and reason, but clearly you provide none. You
have no proof whatsoever. I can tell you can can be done because I
have seen people perform the same physical accomplishment in
demonstrations (re height and distance, no, sorry, no horse involved)
>
>> While apparently impossible to prove historically as used or
>> effective on the battlefield, it pretty much is in general
>> agreement that physically it is clearly possible to perform such
>> a feat, particularly in light of the small height of the horses
>> (ponies) they used in those days.
>
>Actually no, it is not in general agreement that this was physically
>possible. Can you cite a reference that says otherwise?
Never seen anyone do breaks with flying sidekicks? You need to get
out more.
>
>Kicking an armed and armored, experienced rider, off of a horse.
>In battle. Cite your reference.
Already answered that.
>
>> The mere fact that it is possible to achieve physically, makes it
>> certainly possible that is was used functionally.
>
>Lots of things are "possible" if you're willing to stretch. But
>possible isn't the point - the question is were these kicks really
>actually *intended* to do this
You have a better explanation? Besides impressing the chicks. (in
your case the guys)
>. You don't create a technique that
>takes time and effort to master because it's "possible" that it
>might work.
Wow. Like totally amazing. You just screwed the pooch on that one
shuurai honey, because that is exactly what martial arts is,
completely and totally.
Nice one. You shoot your foot off alot don't you?
> It's possible that closing your eyes and spinning like
>a top with your sword stretched out might work - not something you'd
>base your system (and your life) on, is it?
>
>> Now effectively is a different matter.
>
>Actually, effective *is* the matter.
>
>> So, IOW, of course it is intended, if not actually used, for
>> dismounting riders.
>
>How exactly, in your world, does your contention that it might
>be phyically possible, might be functional, and might (to a far
>lesser degree) be effective somehow lead you to conclude that
>these kicks were "of course" intended to dismount riders? I ask
>only out of some strange Lovecraftian desire to understand the
>unworldly miasma that is your mind.
Occam's razor.
Hal
Strider
<lawson__NO...@dayton.net> wrote:
A flying side kick is in case you ever get picked for a part in a low
budget karate movie, you'll be ready. ;-)
Strider
Fraser Johnston
"Rabid_Weasel" <lawson__NO...@dayton.net> wrote in message
news:cf4ca21916e955f8...@localhost.talkaboutsportsnetwork.com...
> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>
> So what *is* the real purpose of Flying Sidekicks?
>
> OK, the old Saw that a Flying Sidekick is for knocking a person off his
> horse has been debunked more times than I can recall. But if it's not for
> unhorsing riders, what *IS* it for?
Wasting time. Or kicking someone on the other side of a table that you
don't particularly like.
Fraser
GreenDistantStar
<h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4pceb1d185np8k75r...@4ax.com...
> On 20 Jun 2005 14:02:12 -0700, "Shuurai" <Shuu...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>h...@nospam.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:30:08 -0400, "Rabid_Weasel"
>>> <lawson__NO...@dayton.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>>> >
>>> >So what *is* the real purpose of Flying Sidekicks?
>>> >
>>> >OK, the old Saw that a Flying Sidekick is for knocking a person
>>> >off his
>>> >horse has been debunked more times than I can recall.
>>>
>>> Debunked how?
>>
>>Common sense? The complete lack of evidence that it ever happened?
>
> Logical fallacy. The lack of evidence it did happen is not evidence
> it didn't.
clipped
Oh, Hal, you know so little philosophy. A lack of evidence is just that, a
lack of evidence. There is no evidence there is not a pink Volkswagen in an
elliptical orbit around the earth, but most sane people think it unlikely
enough not to take it into account.
It *is* possible that someone could use a flying sidekick to knock a man off
a horse....but it's clearly not a high percentage proposition, else it would
have been seen frequently on the battlefield.
Perhaps you have read different.accounts of the Battle of Agincourt than I
have, ones in which flying sidekicks were effectively used? Can you cite one
such medieval battle ? What about a more recent battle where horses were
still used? The Crimean War? The Charge of The Light Brigade perhaps?
Now can't we just see Private Hal suggesting to the General Liprandi,
Russian Commander of the Cossacks...."We should flying sidekick kick them
off their horses, sir!"
And so why didn't Alfred, Lord Tennyson write.....
"Cannon to the right of them,
Cannon to the left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volleyed and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell,
Rode the six hundred.
Into the tumult came the flying kickers,
Smash'd the riders from their mounts,
Shattered and sundered by flashing foot from hell,
Stormed at with shot and shell and heel,
While horse and hero fell."
You are a witless goof, Hal.
GDS
YoJimbo
lawson__NO...@dayton.net says...
You got me, Kirk.
I could see somebody knocking a guy off a horse with it, actually.
We should try.
Somebody get a horse, an old one, perferably, because
if the critter has any energy, we're all sunk.
Somebody needs to volunteer to jump up and try to knock off the rider.
I'll volunteer to be the rider; not the jumper, because I can't jump
that high. I think we're talking about a black guy here, because all
you white guys are automatically out of this. Perferably a TKD guy.
We got anybody in here that meets these minimum qualifications?
JS1
Robert Low
> Perhaps you have read different.accounts of the Battle of Agincourt than I
> have, ones in which flying sidekicks were effectively used?
Those warhorses are fucking *huge* compared to the ponies
that were used in the Orient, as far as I know. And, unlike
the riders against whom the mythology says that flying kicks
were used, not only were they very high up, but they had
stirrups. It's an entirely different situation.
If you want to argue it on the grounds of
physical difficulty, and least argue about what the
guys would actually have been trying to do.
Robert Low
> that high. I think we're talking about a black guy here, because all
> you white guys are automatically out of this. Perferably a TKD guy.
> We got anybody in here that meets these minimum qualifications?
My skin may be white, but my soul is as black as yours.
Bushido
the kick and nothing more.. the height of the kick is not really an issue. A
flying side kick to someones knee would be extremely effective, especially
more so cos of the body weight included within the power of the kick
"Robert Low" <mtx...@coventry.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3hpu1bF...@individual.net...
Karim
> because all
> you white guys
We've all seen your photo; you *are* a white guy...
--
Karim <remove SPAMFREE: karimSrPaAsMhFaRdEE at gmail dot com>
laszlo_...@freemail.hu
>
> Into the tumult came the flying kickers,
> Smash'd the riders from their mounts,
> Shattered and sundered by flashing foot from hell,
> Stormed at with shot and shell and heel,
> While horse and hero fell."
Bravo! *golf clap*
Laszlo
Chas
>.....And, unlike
> the riders against whom the mythology says that flying kicks
> were used, not only were they very high up, but they had
> stirrups. It's an entirely different situation.
Of course they had stirrups- before stirrups, they had toe-loops, coupla
thousand years now. If you go back far enough that they don't, you'll have
trouble finding TKD as well.
Chas
Chas
>> because all
>> you white guys
> We've all seen your photo; you *are* a white guy...
Gee; murder little baby ducks, why don't'cha?
*we* all knew that.
He thought the injections......
Chas
Robert Low
> "Robert Low" <mtx...@coventry.ac.uk> wrote
>>.....And, unlike
>>the riders against whom the mythology says that flying kicks
>>were used, not only were they very high up, but they had
>>stirrups. It's an entirely different situation.
> Of course they had stirrups- before stirrups, they had toe-loops, coupla
> thousand years now.
Oh bugger. Still the horses were a damn sight smaller
than a European war-horse, weren't they?
If you go back far enough that they don't, you'll have
> trouble finding TKD as well.
You'll have trouble recognizing what I know as TKD if
you go back more than a few decades :-)
I can't believe it's not a Badger!
> Chas wrote:
> > "Robert Low" <mtx...@coventry.ac.uk> wrote
> >>.....And, unlike
> >>the riders against whom the mythology says that flying kicks
> >>were used, not only were they very high up, but they had
> >>stirrups. It's an entirely different situation.
> > Of course they had stirrups- before stirrups, they had toe-loops, coupla
> > thousand years now.
>
> Oh bugger. Still the horses were a damn sight smaller
> than a European war-horse, weren't they?
Everyone says this but I've not yet seen any real data on actual
heights of the animal. I mean, sure, Draft/War Horses are bigger than
Mustangs, but a man sitting astride a Mustang is still a fair piece up
off the ground. No one contests that it's theoretically possible for
someone to get knocked off of a small enough horse but I doubt that the
Koreans were riding Shetland Ponies as war horses.
So what *are* the dimensions of a historic korean breed horse?
Robert Low
> No one contests that it's theoretically possible for
> someone to get knocked off of a small enough horse but I doubt that the
> Koreans were riding Shetland Ponies as war horses.
Why pick on just the Koreans? I've heard similar claims for
Japanese and (Northern) Chinese flying kicks.
In any case, a quick google picks up the claim that
the Mongol is between 11 and 13 hands. Presumably that
was pretty standard in Asia. Still a long way
up for a kick, though. If you have a long stick, a
pole vault would be good---but then, if you have
a long stick, there are better ways of using it
against a horseman.
Robert Low
> someone to get knocked off of a small enough horse but I doubt that the
> Koreans were riding Shetland Ponies as war horses.
Why pick on just the Koreans? I've heard similar claims for
Japanese and (Northern) Chinese flying kicks.
In any case, a quick google picks up the claim that
the Mongol pony is between 11 and 13 hands. Presumably that
was pretty standard in Asia. Still a long way
up for a kick, though. If you have a long stick, a
pole vault would be good---but then, if you have
a long stick, there are better ways of using it
against a horseman.
--
Rob
Karim
>>> because all
>>> you white guys
>> We've all seen your photo; you *are* a white guy...
>
> Gee; murder little baby ducks, why don't'cha? *we* all knew that.
> He thought the injections......
Hehe. Jim Storey, the anti-Michael Jackson :-)
I can't believe it's not a Badger!
Robert Low wrote:
> I can't believe it's not a Badger! wrote:
> > No one contests that it's theoretically possible for
> > someone to get knocked off of a small enough horse but I doubt that the
> > Koreans were riding Shetland Ponies as war horses.
>
>
> Why pick on just the Koreans? I've heard similar claims for
> Japanese and (Northern) Chinese flying kicks.
>
> In any case, a quick google picks up the claim that
> the Mongol pony is between 11 and 13 hands. Presumably that
> was pretty standard in Asia. Still a long way
> up for a kick, though.
Particularly if your average height is between 4'11" and 5'4" for
Korean men (5'5" for Japanese men).
ref:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/H/Hu/Human_height.htm
> If you have a long stick, a
> pole vault would be good---but then, if you have
> a long stick, there are better ways of using it
> against a horseman.
Well, yeah.
But according to what I could find on Google, Korean Ponies (Cheju
Ponies) were so foul tempered un resistant to training that they
required a handler to lead them and could not be stabled near another
Cheju Pony unless it were restrained in some way since they'd
immediately attack each other. Sounds pretty unsuitable for a Cavalry
mount. In fact, I've not been able to find *any* reference to Cheju
Ponies being used as Cavalry nor any reference to Korean Cavalry prior
to the introduction of Western breeds.
h...@nospam.com
Um, sorry? Wrong time wrong place dude. Obviously.
>
>Now can't we just see Private Hal suggesting to the General Liprandi,
>Russian Commander of the Cossacks...."We should flying sidekick kick them
>off their horses, sir!"
>
>And so why didn't Alfred, Lord Tennyson write.....
>
>"Cannon to the right of them,
>Cannon to the left of them,
>Cannon in front of them
>Volleyed and thunder'd;
>Storm'd at with shot and shell,
>Boldly they rode and well,
>Into the jaws of Death,
>Into the mouth of Hell,
>Rode the six hundred.
>
>Into the tumult came the flying kickers,
>Smash'd the riders from their mounts,
>Shattered and sundered by flashing foot from hell,
>Stormed at with shot and shell and heel,
>While horse and hero fell."
>
>You are a witless goof, Hal.
Well you're being just plain silly now, because you are talking about
completely different cultures and times.
Hal
>
>GDS
>
>
Shuurai
> >> Debunked how?
> >
> >Common sense? The complete lack of evidence that it ever
> > happened?
>
> Logical fallacy. The lack of evidence it did happen is not
> evidence it didn't.
No, it's not evidence either way - it's a *lack* of evidence.
In and of itself it means nothing. It's when you combine it
with common sense and the rest of that stuff you're missing :b
> >A basic understanding of physics - the size of an actual
> >real life horse being a major part of that?
>
> The height off the ground of course.
It's more than just height. The horse has width as well - it's
not like you're knocking the guy off a fence.
> >An understanding of how one actually rides a horse - and that
> >a bulk of the training is about not falling off?
>
> Wanna bet who has more times on a horse? I'm willing to bet
> I've hundreds if not thousands more than you. For one thing,
> they did not have stirrups.
Who has more time on a horse is irrelevant. I have more than
enough experience for the discussion at hand. Oh, and while
they may not have had stirrups, they did use loops. It's not
like they were holding on for dear life.
> >Ever watch a joust? These guys hit one another at full gallop
> >with lances and usually aren't dismounted. If you actually
> >believe that a man jump-kicking has *near* the force of a joust
> >impact, you are obviously a graduate of the Richman School of
> >Unadvanced Physics.
>
> Apples and oranges. We are not talking about head on attacks of
> riders bracing themselves for you.
And you don't think a rider who was being kicked could brace
himself? You don't understand that these *head on* attacks
involve far, far greater levels of force than someone kicking
could ever generate?
> >> Because the majority thought it ridiculous?
> >
> >Sometimes the majority believes something for a reason.
>
> Argumentum ad populum.
It always tickles me when you throw latin around to try and
appear smart. You obviously don't know what the term means.
I'm not claiming it's true because the majority believes it,
I'm simply pointing out that sometimes the majority is right.
> > Can you
> >cite a *single* study that shows any evidence whatsoever
> >that this was ever done?
>
> No.
Why not?
> > I've seen it debunked in several martial arts
> >publications, by many different researchers - I've never
> >seen anything to actually support it. If you can provide
> >a link that does support it, please do so.
> >
>
> How did they prove it was not possible or ever done?
Can you prove that I don't have a time machine in my garage?
> >> Yes, of course, rma logic at work.
> >
> >I can see how someone like you might have a certain disdain for
> >the use of logic and reason.
>
> Actually I love logic and reason, but clearly you provide
> none. You have no proof whatsoever. I can tell you can can
> be done because I have seen people perform the same physical
> accomplishment in demonstrations (re height and distance, no,
> sorry, no horse involved)
If there was no horse involved then you didn't see them
demonstrating the *same* physical accomplishment. Not to
mention armor, and a rider intent on not being killed.
> >> While apparently impossible to prove historically as used or
> >> effective on the battlefield, it pretty much is in general
> >> agreement that physically it is clearly possible to perform such
> >> a feat, particularly in light of the small height of the horses
> >> (ponies) they used in those days.
> >
> >Actually no, it is not in general agreement that this was
> >physically possible. Can you cite a reference that says
> >otherwise?
>
> Never seen anyone do breaks with flying sidekicks? You need
> to get out more.
My neice does breaks with flying side kicks. She's into that
sort of thing. I wouldn't put her in battle against mounted
warriors. At least not without a spear.
> >Kicking an armed and armored, experienced rider, off of
> >a horse. In battle. Cite your reference.
>
> Already answered that.
Yes, we can agree that you have no evidence whatsoever.
> >> The mere fact that it is possible to achieve physically,
> >> makes it certainly possible that is was used functionally.
> >
> >Lots of things are "possible" if you're willing to stretch.
> >But possible isn't the point - the question is were these
> >kicks really actually *intended* to do this
>
> You have a better explanation? Besides impressing the chicks.
> (in your case the guys)
Kicking an opponent at a distance. Flying kicks are good for
covering a lot of space in a very short time. The *high* flying
kicks are an acrobatic trick to impress people. They've surfaced
in almost all popular martial arts because it impresses the
easily impressed. Ie. people like you.
> >. You don't create a technique that
> >takes time and effort to master because it's "possible" that it
> >might work.
>
> Wow. Like totally amazing. You just screwed the pooch on
> that one shuurai honey, because that is exactly what martial
> arts is, completely and totally.
No, that isn't what martial arts is, dumbass. That may well
be the type of thinking that drives your TKD, but it's not
martial arts. You don't focus on high risk, low percentage
technique just because it's "possible" it could work.
> Nice one. You shoot your foot off alot don't you?
Yeah, sure thing Hal.
> > It's possible that closing your eyes and spinning like
> >a top with your sword stretched out might work - not
> >something you'd base your system (and your life) on, is it?
> >
> >> Now effectively is a different matter.
> >
> >Actually, effective *is* the matter.
> >
> >> So, IOW, of course it is intended, if not actually used, for
> >> dismounting riders.
> >
> >How exactly, in your world, does your contention that it might
> >be phyically possible, might be functional, and might (to a far
> >lesser degree) be effective somehow lead you to conclude that
> >these kicks were "of course" intended to dismount riders? I ask
> >only out of some strange Lovecraftian desire to understand the
> >unworldly miasma that is your mind.
>
> Occam's razor.
Occam is probably turning over in his grave right now. Please,
for the sake of us all, actually look these terms up before you
try using them in conversation.
Grey Mouser West
h...@nospam.com wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2005 14:02:12 -0700, "Shuurai" <Shuu...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >h...@nospam.com wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:30:08 -0400, "Rabid_Weasel"
> >> <lawson__NO...@dayton.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
> >> >
> >> >So what *is* the real purpose of Flying Sidekicks?
> >> >
> >> >OK, the old Saw that a Flying Sidekick is for knocking a person
> >> >off his
> >> >horse has been debunked more times than I can recall.
> >>
> >> Debunked how?
> >
> >Common sense? The complete lack of evidence that it ever happened?
>
> Logical fallacy. The lack of evidence it did happen is not evidence
> it didn't.
Lack of evidence is not a reason to believe. You are always raging
against religion but when it comes time for you to prove your point the
best you can come up with is accepting an idea that doesn't have
anything to support it which isn't any better than taking it on faith.
He was listing off all the things wrong with you ideas and the fact
that you have no evidence is something wrong with it. Since he goes on
to mention actual evidence against it this is not the fallacy you claim
it to be. No surprise there.
> >A basic understanding of physics - the size of an actual real life
> >horse being a major part of that?
>
> The height off the ground of course.
Hal you have no clue. You can't even keep what is said in a thread
strait.
> >An understanding of how one
> >actually rides a horse - and that a bulk of the training is about
> >not falling off?
>
> Wanna bet who has more times on a horse? I'm willing to bet I've
> hundreds if not thousands more than you. For one thing, they did not
> have stirrups.
I am sure you have thousands of hours in the saddle. Unfortunatly you
are stupid so you probably have not learned as much as the average
person does after a hundred hours. Better yet you should conduct an
expiriment. You should pick out a pony. Have someone ride that pony
and try to hit you with a sword. As they come up to you try to jump
kick them. Let us know how it goes.
> >Ever watch a joust? These guys hit one another at full gallop
> >with lances and usually aren't dismounted. If you actually
> >believe that a man jump-kicking has *near* the force of a joust
> >impact, you are obviously a graduate of the Richman School of
> >Unadvanced Physics.
>
> Apples and oranges. We are not talking about head on attacks of
> riders bracing themselves for you.
Ah yeah, it is not like he is comparing the Bush White House with Nazi
Germany like you do all the time. He is comparing two very differnt
things like attacking a mounted rider and attacking a mounted rider.
> >
> >> Because the majority thought it ridiculous?
> >
> >Sometimes the majority believes something for a reason.
>
> Argumentum ad populum.
>
> > Can you
> >cite a *single* study that shows any evidence whatsoever that this
> >was ever done?
>
> No.
Yet we should believe anyway?
> > I've seen it debunked in several martial arts
> >publications, by many different researchers - I've never seen
> >anything to actually support it. If you can provide a link that
> >does support it, please do so.
> >
>
> How did they prove it was not possible or ever done?
>
> >> Yes, of course, rma logic at work.
> >
> >I can see how someone like you might have a certain disdain for
> >the use of logic and reason.
>
> Actually I love logic and reason,
You just don't know what they look like even when you are getting
whacked over the head with them.
> . . . .but clearly you provide none.
Yes *you* would think that which is my point.
> You
> have no proof whatsoever.
But he offered support for his ideas. You should try that sometime.
> I can tell you can can be done because I
> have seen people perform the same physical accomplishment in
> demonstrations (re height and distance, no, sorry, no horse involved)
So you have never seen it done but you have only seen it simulated.
> >> While apparently impossible to prove historically as used or
> >> effective on the battlefield, it pretty much is in general
> >> agreement that physically it is clearly possible to perform such
> >> a feat, particularly in light of the small height of the horses
> >> (ponies) they used in those days.
> >
> >Actually no, it is not in general agreement that this was physically
> >possible. Can you cite a reference that says otherwise?
>
> Never seen anyone do breaks with flying sidekicks? You need to get
> out more.
See what I mean? You have already lost track of the question. It
wasn't about breaking.
> >Kicking an armed and armored, experienced rider, off of a horse.
> >In battle. Cite your reference.
>
> Already answered that.
And your answer was none! LOL!!!
> >> The mere fact that it is possible to achieve physically, makes it
> >> certainly possible that is was used functionally.
> >
> >Lots of things are "possible" if you're willing to stretch. But
> >possible isn't the point - the question is were these kicks really
> >actually *intended* to do this
>
> You have a better explanation? Besides impressing the chicks. (in
> your case the guys)
Ah yes, attack his motives. He did all this to impress the guys. Your
argument falls flat so you think your ad hominids will help? ROFL!!!
Thanks Mr. 'Actually I love logic and reason'.
> >. You don't create a technique that
> >takes time and effort to master because it's "possible" that it
> >might work.
>
> Wow. Like totally amazing. You just screwed the pooch on that one
> shuurai honey, because that is exactly what martial arts is,
> completely and totally.
Yeah right. Musashi killed 60 men in single combat because he was
serious about learning how to fight while they being Martial artists
only cared about creating moves that take a lot of time and effort to
master but only have a possibility that they might work. Take that
attitude to the UFC.
> Nice one. You shoot your foot off alot don't you?
I agree with Shuurai. McDojos don't count.
> > It's possible that closing your eyes and spinning like
> >a top with your sword stretched out might work - not something you'd
> >base your system (and your life) on, is it?
> >
> >> Now effectively is a different matter.
> >
> >Actually, effective *is* the matter.
> >
> >> So, IOW, of course it is intended, if not actually used, for
> >> dismounting riders.
> >
> >How exactly, in your world, does your contention that it might
> >be phyically possible, might be functional, and might (to a far
> >lesser degree) be effective somehow lead you to conclude that
> >these kicks were "of course" intended to dismount riders? I ask
> >only out of some strange Lovecraftian desire to understand the
> >unworldly miasma that is your mind.
>
> Occam's razor.
You are an idiot.
h...@nospam.com
<lkla...@gmail.com> wrote:
Here's one blurb on them:
http://rapidttp.com/milhist/vol013gt.html
Presumably the most satisfactory mount for large scale (world wide
would be a better term) warlike operations is the still unchanged
Mongol pony of Genghiz Khan's armies of seven or more centuries ago.
Standing under fourteen hands, thickset, and presumably a cross of
Eastern sires with a primitive type of Far Eastern Asia, this pony
once took his masters from Mongolia to China, India, the Near East and
on to the gates of Vienna. These incredibly tough mounts were used in
both cavalry fighting with the arme blanche and as a moving platform
for highly skilled archery. They were considered by Frederick the
Great, one of the leading cavalry commanders and organisers in
history, as of the very greatest value. Writing in about 1 760 he
tells us that "large horses are completely useless for cavalry", they
should not exceed fifteen hands three inches, that the third rank of
his Dragoon Regiments -- we should class them as Medium Cavalry --
always rode Tartar ponies, that some Dragoon units had all Tartar
ponies, as "they can be used every day" and that the Hussar troop
horses were the same. These Tartar ponies were what we should call
Cossack ponies and were the direct descendants of the Mongol ponies.
In parenthesis it may be noted that the Mongol pony of this century
when exported to Hong Kong, trained and raced, is called quite
incorrectly, the China Pony. They have always had a good turn of
speed.
Whatever their precise size, these clearly were not the huge
drafthorses used by medievel armored knights.
Hal
h...@nospam.com
wrote:
>
>Occam is probably turning over in his grave right now. Please,
>for the sake of us all, actually look these terms up before you
>try using them in conversation.
Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is probably the correct
one. This really is quite simple:
1. means: It is physically possible for a human being to perform
such a feat with proper training. Proof: we have all seen flying
sidekick breaks. Horses proven to be very small at the time/place
means the height of the strike is well within human limitations.
2. motive: In battle a mounted rider has a considerable advantage.
It is paramount to dismount your enemy whenever possible. It other
means are not possible (pike, spear etc) then this provides a last
ditch method to use maximum power against a mounted rider (see #1)
3. historical accuracy: while specific anecdotes not documented, the
weaponless fighting techniques which included flying kicks developed
at the time and in the same culture mounted riders were using small
stature horses in battle. (see #2)
4. logical fallacies: you cannot claim something is false because it
has not been proven true.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ig.htm
5. There has not been a more plausible explanation offered, therefore
it is the most probable explanation.
Hal
I can't believe it's not a Badger!
I don't see the words "Korea" or "Korean" anywhere in this text. Nor
any reference the the foul tempered and intra-breed hostile Cheju Pony
used by Koreans.
According the the Korea Times, Cheju Ponies were so hostile to each
other that when stabled together they were caught up in horse slings so
that they couldn't move from the exact position they were in and attack
their stable-mates.
(IH)
Robert Low
> any reference the the foul tempered and intra-breed hostile Cheju Pony
> used by Koreans.
That's not entirely relevant, though, is it? The story that
flying side-kicks were developed to attack horsemen is not exactly
unique to tkd. (Of course, it's always possible that that's
exactly what they were for, but they didn't work---like a
Ouija board is for talking to the spirits of the deceased.)
Grey Mouser West
h...@nospam.com wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2005 07:49:48 -0700, "Shuurai" <Shuu...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Occam is probably turning over in his grave right now. Please,
> >for the sake of us all, actually look these terms up before you
> >try using them in conversation.
>
> Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is probably the correct
> one.
Which is why you are making him turn over in his grave you moron.
>This really is quite simple:
>
> 1. means: It is physically possible for a human being to perform
> such a feat with proper training. Proof: we have all seen flying
> sidekick breaks. Horses proven to be very small at the time/place
> means the height of the strike is well within human limitations.
You have proved nothing. You have not shown that a break has enough
force to dismount a rider and you have not shown that a man who stands
between 4'11" and 5'4" could reach a rider on a 13 hand horse.
> 2. motive: In battle a mounted rider has a considerable advantage.
> It is paramount to dismount your enemy whenever possible. It other
> means are not possible (pike, spear etc) then this provides a last
> ditch method to use maximum power against a mounted rider (see #1)
So they couldn't make spears in Korea? You are too much Hal.
> 3. historical accuracy: while specific anecdotes not documented, the
> weaponless fighting techniques which included flying kicks developed
> at the time and in the same culture mounted riders were using small
> stature horses in battle. (see #2)
We are talking 11 to 13 hands right? Lets not use descriptive words
like tiny, very small or small stature. Lets use mesurments. You
claimed they would be under 15 hands three inches.
> 4. logical fallacies: you cannot claim something is false because it
> has not been proven true.
Yet you can claim he did this when he did not? You are such a moron.
> 5. There has not been a more plausible explanation offered, therefore
> it is the most probable explanation.
But there has been a more plausible and more simple explanation
offered. Now use Occam's Razor and abandon your position on side
kicks.
h...@nospam.com
<lkla...@gmail.com> wrote:
Isn't that kinda besides the point? This technique was not limited to
Korea.
Hal
>
>(IH)
I can't believe it's not a Badger!
It wouldn't have been relevant if brought up earlier in the thread.
However, I specifically said:
But according to what I could find on Google, Korean Ponies (Cheju
Ponies) were so foul tempered un resistant to training that they
required a handler to lead them and could not be stabled near
another
Cheju Pony unless it were restrained in some way since they'd
immediately attack each other. Sounds pretty unsuitable for a
Cavalry
mount. In fact, I've not been able to find *any* reference to Cheju
Ponies being used as Cavalry nor any reference to Korean Cavalry
prior
to the introduction of Western breeds.
So when hal responds to a post about Korean Cavalry with a reference to
the suitability of non-Korean horses, I kinda want to know where the
"Korean" part is.
If hal wanted to say, "let's not restrict this to *just* Korean" then
he would need to have said, "let's not restrict this to *just* Korean."
Grey Mouser West
But you are forgetting that it is Hal so when he says 'This technique
was not limited to Korea.' on the 27th post it retroactively effects
the 26 previous posts.
h...@nospam.com
<calvin...@ocsnet.net> wrote:
>
>
>h...@nospam.com wrote:
>> On 21 Jun 2005 07:49:48 -0700, "Shuurai" <Shuu...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Occam is probably turning over in his grave right now. Please,
>> >for the sake of us all, actually look these terms up before you
>> >try using them in conversation.
>>
>> Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is probably the correct
>> one.
>
>
>Which is why you are making him turn over in his grave you moron.
Once again you must resort to the name calling because you can't make
a logical argument.
>
>
>
>>This really is quite simple:
>>
>> 1. means: It is physically possible for a human being to perform
>> such a feat with proper training. Proof: we have all seen flying
>> sidekick breaks. Horses proven to be very small at the time/place
>> means the height of the strike is well within human limitations.
>
>
>You have proved nothing. You have not shown that a break has enough
>force to dismount a rider and you have not shown that a man who stands
>between 4'11" and 5'4" could reach a rider on a 13 hand horse.
1 "hand" = 4 inches. 13x4=52 inches. That's barely over 4 feet. I
have personally seen Koreans smaller than 5'4" land flying kicks on
boards greater 6 feet high. I personally can land side kicks on a
target 6 feet high and I am not particularly athletic. Performed
properly a flying sidekick has your entire body weight behind it. I
personally have hit heavy bags with flying side kicks and sent the
heavy bags flying backwards so hard they swung up and knocked panels
out of the ceiling (man did I ever catch hell from Sensei over that
one)
>
>
>
>> 2. motive: In battle a mounted rider has a considerable advantage.
>> It is paramount to dismount your enemy whenever possible. It other
>> means are not possible (pike, spear etc) then this provides a last
>> ditch method to use maximum power against a mounted rider (see #1)
>
>
>
>So they couldn't make spears in Korea? You are too much Hal.
Spears are lost in battle. Warriors typically don't want to stop
fighting simply because the lose their weapon. These are weaponless
fighting techniques after all.
>
>
>
>> 3. historical accuracy: while specific anecdotes not documented, the
>> weaponless fighting techniques which included flying kicks developed
>> at the time and in the same culture mounted riders were using small
>> stature horses in battle. (see #2)
>
>
>We are talking 11 to 13 hands right? Lets not use descriptive words
>like tiny, very small or small stature. Lets use mesurments. You
>claimed they would be under 15 hands three inches.
Typical war ponies of the time were around 11 to 13 hands which is a
mere 44-52 inches.
>
>
>
>> 4. logical fallacies: you cannot claim something is false because it
>> has not been proven true.
>
>
>Yet you can claim he did this when he did not? You are such a moron.
Actually yes he did.
>
>
>> 5. There has not been a more plausible explanation offered, therefore
>> it is the most probable explanation.
>
>
>But there has been a more plausible and more simple explanation
>offered. Now use Occam's Razor and abandon your position on side
>kicks.
Which one? The only one I've seen is "impress chicks" and that is not
historically accurate.
Hal
Robert Low
>
> Robert Low wrote:
>>I can't believe it's not a Badger! wrote:
>>>I don't see the words "Korea" or "Korean" anywhere in this text. Nor
>>>any reference the the foul tempered and intra-breed hostile Cheju Pony
>>>used by Koreans.
>>That's not entirely relevant, though, is it?
Well, OK. I was still living in my own private world where
I'd mentioned a couple of times that the same story appears
in other Oriental MAs, and I thought it was in this sub-thread.
I can't believe it's not a Badger!
Mid-Atlantic Ferret wrote:
> Also sprach Fraser Johnston:
>
> : "Rabid_Weasel" <lawson__NO...@dayton.net> wrote in message
> : news:cf4ca21916e955f8...@localhost.talkaboutsportsnetwork.com...
> :> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
> :>
> :> So what *is* the real purpose of Flying Sidekicks?
> :>
>
> : Wasting time. Or kicking someone on the other side of a table that you
> : don't particularly like.
>
> Why not just throw a beer mug at him? (grab one from the waitress if you
> don't have an empty, wouldn't want to waste any!)
>
> ND
>
> --
> Andrew Maddox, remove spamtrap to reply
> DC-area martial artist? Come join my new group at
> http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/martialarts_dc
Good point.
So then, umm..., what is the real purpose of Flying Sidekicks?
Grey Mouser West
h...@nospam.com wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2005 09:03:50 -0700, "Grey Mouser West"
> <calvin...@ocsnet.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >h...@nospam.com wrote:
> >> On 21 Jun 2005 07:49:48 -0700, "Shuurai" <Shuu...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Occam is probably turning over in his grave right now. Please,
> >> >for the sake of us all, actually look these terms up before you
> >> >try using them in conversation.
> >>
> >> Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is probably the correct
> >> one.
> >
> >
> >Which is why you are making him turn over in his grave you moron.
>
> Once again you must resort to the name calling because you can't make
> a logical argument.
No the name calling is a conclusion. You have earned the title 'moron'
and you still have no idea what a logical argument looks like.
> >>This really is quite simple:
> >>
> >> 1. means: It is physically possible for a human being to perform
> >> such a feat with proper training. Proof: we have all seen flying
> >> sidekick breaks. Horses proven to be very small at the time/place
> >> means the height of the strike is well within human limitations.
> >
> >
> >You have proved nothing. You have not shown that a break has enough
> >force to dismount a rider and you have not shown that a man who stands
> >between 4'11" and 5'4" could reach a rider on a 13 hand horse.
>
> 1 "hand" = 4 inches. 13x4=52 inches. That's barely over 4 feet. I
> have personally seen Koreans smaller than 5'4" land flying kicks on
> boards greater 6 feet high.
Using numbers is better don't you think?
> I personally can land side kicks on a
> target 6 feet high and I am not particularly athletic. Performed
> properly a flying sidekick has your entire body weight behind it.
So this is enough force to dismount someone?
> I
> personally have hit heavy bags with flying side kicks and sent the
> heavy bags flying backwards so hard they swung up and knocked panels
> out of the ceiling (man did I ever catch hell from Sensei over that
> one)
Have you knocked a heavy bag away when it was holding on to a horse
with its legs? Men have legs and they can see when the are about to
get kicked. The men in question would also have swords for swating
down stupid unmounted fools who might try to kick them. The horse can
also move. If the horse turns his head or rears up the fool who chose
to become a balistic object is screwed. You are not going to knock out
a horse by kicking him in the head.
> >> 2. motive: In battle a mounted rider has a considerable advantage.
> >> It is paramount to dismount your enemy whenever possible. It other
> >> means are not possible (pike, spear etc) then this provides a last
> >> ditch method to use maximum power against a mounted rider (see #1)
> >
> >
> >
> >So they couldn't make spears in Korea? You are too much Hal.
>
> Spears are lost in battle. Warriors typically don't want to stop
> fighting simply because the lose their weapon. These are weaponless
> fighting techniques after all.
Seems like their time would be better invested learning how to use that
spear more effectivly and learning how to retain the weapon. You could
master the spear in a fraction of the time it takes to learn how to
jump that high.
> >> 3. historical accuracy: while specific anecdotes not documented, the
> >> weaponless fighting techniques which included flying kicks developed
> >> at the time and in the same culture mounted riders were using small
> >> stature horses in battle. (see #2)
> >
> >
> >We are talking 11 to 13 hands right? Lets not use descriptive words
> >like tiny, very small or small stature. Lets use mesurments. You
> >claimed they would be under 15 hands three inches.
>
> Typical war ponies of the time were around 11 to 13 hands which is a
> mere 44-52 inches.
And the center mass of the rider would be at least 18 inches higher.
So basicaly the kicker must make a great comitment involving a lot of
movement and the guy on the horse with a spear or sword only needs to
make a slight adjustment and he will have a Flying Sidekick Kabab. A
little peanut sauce and an open fire is all he will need to have
Mongolian BBQ.
> >> 4. logical fallacies: you cannot claim something is false because it
> >> has not been proven true.
> >
> >
> >Yet you can claim he did this when he did not? You are such a moron.
>
> Actually yes he did.
No he claimed you have not proven it because it has not been proven
true. He offered reasons to think it is false, a fact you choose to
ignore.
> >> 5. There has not been a more plausible explanation offered, therefore
> >> it is the most probable explanation.
> >
> >
> >But there has been a more plausible and more simple explanation
> >offered. Now use Occam's Razor and abandon your position on side
> >kicks.
>
> Which one? The only one I've seen is "impress chicks" and that is not
> historically accurate.
Like yours is? LOL!!
You responded to the post where Shuurai explained it so how could you
miss it? Let me cut and paste:
Kicking an opponent at a distance. Flying kicks are good for
covering a lot of space in a very short time. The *high* flying
kicks are an acrobatic trick to impress people. They've surfaced
in almost all popular martial arts because it impresses the
easily impressed. Ie. people like you.
That is 2 explanations (covering distance and impressing people) and
both are more simple and strait forward than your idea. Now you
brought up Occam's Razor so use it.
Badger_South
<mads...@yaspamhootrap.com> wrote:
>Also sprach Fraser Johnston:
>
>: "Rabid_Weasel" <lawson__NO...@dayton.net> wrote in message
>: news:cf4ca21916e955f8...@localhost.talkaboutsportsnetwork.com...
>:> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>:>
>:> So what *is* the real purpose of Flying Sidekicks?
>:>
>
>: Wasting time. Or kicking someone on the other side of a table that you
>: don't particularly like.
>
>Why not just throw a beer mug at him? (grab one from the waitress if you
>don't have an empty, wouldn't want to waste any!)
>
I try never to waste a waitress...er, well at least not when she's on duty.
Shuurai
>
> >
> >Occam is probably turning over in his grave right now. Please,
> >for the sake of us all, actually look these terms up before you
> >try using them in conversation.
>
> Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is probably the
> correct one. This really is quite simple:
Ah, I see your confusion... You think when Occam said "simple"
he was talking about you personally.
> 1. means: It is physically possible for a human being to perform
> such a feat with proper training. Proof: we have all seen flying
> sidekick breaks. Horses proven to be very small at the time/place
> means the height of the strike is well within human limitations.
As long as we assume that a flying sidekick break has the force
required to knock an adult warrior off of a horse. However, the
idea that breaking requires a great deal of power is yet another
fallacy. Try again, Hal.
> 2. motive: In battle a mounted rider has a considerable
> advantage. It is paramount to dismount your enemy whenever
> possible. It other means are not possible (pike, spear etc)
> then this provides a last ditch method to use maximum power
> against a mounted rider (see #1)
So your theory is that these folks thought it was a better idea
to spend years developing a high risk, low percentage technique,
than to stock up on spears before a battle?
Again, this is assuming that the ability to break a dried piece
of lumber amounts to the ability to dehorse a man in the midst
of mortal combat.
> 3. historical accuracy: while specific anecdotes not
> documented, the weaponless fighting techniques which included
> flying kicks developed at the time and in the same culture
> mounted riders were using small stature horses in battle.
> (see #2)
Cite? Can you offer evidence that flying kicks - at the height
required - were being trained extensively by actual soldiers
in this time period?
As an aside, these "small horses" you keep alluding to are
still quite large. Those soldiers fortunate enough to get
one would be well versed in riding, and in mounted combat.
> 4. logical fallacies: you cannot claim something is false
> because it has not been proven true.
You're trying to claim it's true because it hasn't been proven
false. Prove to me that there isn't an invisible dragon in
my garage.
> 5. There has not been a more plausible explanation offered,
> therefore it is the most probable explanation.
A far more plausable explanation is that these techniques were
initially developed as closing techniques, and then progressed
for aesthetic reasons. Much like the jumping and spinning
found in modern wushu, it's intended to impress and entertain.
There is no real evidence that flying kicks above the head
were widely practiced in the timeframe we're talking about, much
less that they were used to dehorse soldiers.
I can't believe it's not a Badger!
Fair enough.
In that context, yes, information on non-Korean asian cavalry horse
dimensions is relevant as related to the proposed explanation that
non-Korean asian martial arts usage of the Flying Sidekick was intended
to dismount cavalry.
Rabid_Weasel
Mid-Atlantic Ferret wrote:
> Also sprach I can't believe it's not a Badger!:
>
> : Mid-Atlantic Ferret wrote:
> :> Also sprach Fraser Johnston:
> :>
> :> : "Rabid_Weasel" <lawson__NO...@dayton.net> wrote in message
>
> :> :> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
> :> :>
> :> :> So what *is* the real purpose of Flying Sidekicks?
> :> :>
> :>
> :> : Wasting time. Or kicking someone on the other side of a table that
you
> :> : don't particularly like.
> :>
> :> Why not just throw a beer mug at him? (grab one from the waitress if
you
> :> don't have an empty, wouldn't want to waste any!)
> :>
>
> : Good point.
>
> : So then, umm..., what is the real purpose of Flying Sidekicks?
>
> : Peace favor your sword (IH),
> : Kirk
>
> Well, ignoring the Hal-related blather in this thread, the answers I've
> seen that make some sense are
> 1: cover extra distance
> 2: add bodyweight for a stronger kick
> and
> 3: looks cools to impress a MOTAS
>
> I hated jumping/flying kicks back when I had to do them for TKD (one of
many
> reasons I escaped into other arts), and always sucked at them, but I
never
> did buy the "kick people off horses" line.
>
> Now, what's the real reason for the Jump Back Spin/Crescent kicks,
that's
> one *I'd* like to know!
>
> ND again
>
> --
> Andrew Maddox, remove spamtrap to reply
> DC-area martial artist? Come join my new group at
> http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/martialarts_dc
Sounds good to me.
:-)
h...@nospam.com
<calvin...@ocsnet.net> wrote:
>
>> >>This really is quite simple:
>> >>
>> >> 1. means: It is physically possible for a human being to perform
>> >> such a feat with proper training. Proof: we have all seen flying
>> >> sidekick breaks. Horses proven to be very small at the time/place
>> >> means the height of the strike is well within human limitations.
>> >
>> >
>> >You have proved nothing. You have not shown that a break has enough
>> >force to dismount a rider and you have not shown that a man who stands
>> >between 4'11" and 5'4" could reach a rider on a 13 hand horse.
>>
>> 1 "hand" = 4 inches. 13x4=52 inches. That's barely over 4 feet. I
>> have personally seen Koreans smaller than 5'4" land flying kicks on
>> boards greater 6 feet high.
>
>
>Using numbers is better don't you think?
The numbers had already been established. I didn't realize you needed
them repeated again.
>
>
>> I personally can land side kicks on a
>> target 6 feet high and I am not particularly athletic. Performed
>> properly a flying sidekick has your entire body weight behind it.
>
>
>So this is enough force to dismount someone?
Yes, most definately, especially when you have the element of surprise
on your side as in the case of a rider presently engaged by another
warrior.
>
>
>> I
>> personally have hit heavy bags with flying side kicks and sent the
>> heavy bags flying backwards so hard they swung up and knocked panels
>> out of the ceiling (man did I ever catch hell from Sensei over that
>> one)
>
>
>Have you knocked a heavy bag away when it was holding on to a horse
>with its legs? Men have legs and they can see when the are about to
>get kicked. The men in question would also have swords for swating
>down stupid unmounted fools who might try to kick them. The horse can
>also move. If the horse turns his head or rears up the fool who chose
>to become a balistic object is screwed. You are not going to knock out
>a horse by kicking him in the head.
In reality it is extremely easy to fall off or become "dislodged" from
your horse. People have severe horse->ground accidents all the time,
and they aren't even in battle.
>
>
>
>> >> 2. motive: In battle a mounted rider has a considerable advantage.
>> >> It is paramount to dismount your enemy whenever possible. It other
>> >> means are not possible (pike, spear etc) then this provides a last
>> >> ditch method to use maximum power against a mounted rider (see #1)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >So they couldn't make spears in Korea? You are too much Hal.
>>
>> Spears are lost in battle. Warriors typically don't want to stop
>> fighting simply because the lose their weapon. These are weaponless
>> fighting techniques after all.
>
>
>Seems like their time would be better invested learning how to use that
>spear more effectivly and learning how to retain the weapon. You could
>master the spear in a fraction of the time it takes to learn how to
>jump that high.
Spears were frequently broken or left impaled in your first victim.
>
>
>
>> >> 3. historical accuracy: while specific anecdotes not documented, the
>> >> weaponless fighting techniques which included flying kicks developed
>> >> at the time and in the same culture mounted riders were using small
>> >> stature horses in battle. (see #2)
>> >
>> >
>> >We are talking 11 to 13 hands right? Lets not use descriptive words
>> >like tiny, very small or small stature. Lets use mesurments. You
>> >claimed they would be under 15 hands three inches.
>>
>> Typical war ponies of the time were around 11 to 13 hands which is a
>> mere 44-52 inches.
>
>
>And the center mass of the rider would be at least 18 inches higher.
>So basicaly the kicker must make a great comitment involving a lot of
>movement and the guy on the horse with a spear or sword only needs to
>make a slight adjustment and he will have a Flying Sidekick Kabab. A
>little peanut sauce and an open fire is all he will need to have
>Mongolian BBQ.
Sure. Shit happens. I never said the technique didn't possibly fail
miserably.
First of all we will forget impressing people because that is cleary
not the origin of fighting arts. And using the technique to cover
distance is not mutually exclusive with targeting a mounted rider.
Hal
Robert Low
> Now, what's the real reason for the Jump Back Spin/Crescent kicks, that's
> one *I'd* like to know!
The real reason I see most people do spinning crescent kicks is that
they are incapable of doing spinning hook kicks, but a spinning crescent
looks a bit like one. (Spinning hook kick is a bloody nasty thing
to be on the wrong end of---and a bloody hard thing to get somebody
on the wrong end of.)
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Rabid_Weasel wrote:
> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>
> So what *is* the real purpose of Flying Sidekicks?
>
> OK, the old Saw that a Flying Sidekick is for knocking a person off his
> horse has been debunked more times than I can recall. But if it's not for
> unhorsing riders, what *IS* it for?
>
> Peace favor your sword (IH),
> Kirk
I suggest that jump kicks had at least one martial purpose, or there
wouldn't be so many arts that do them. I also am of the opinion that
many teachers, several generations away from real, pre-gun, fights,
believe common urban legends about their own techniques.
There are weapons and techniques that work well in duels that are not
suitable for battle, and vice-versa. *If someone can actually pull off
a jump kick, perhpas it was used on occasion against someone who was
not watching behind him because he was too busy dodging blades in front
of him?
I have been taught several uses for jump kicks, none of them to get
high:
1. They can cover a fair bit of ground horizontally in a hurry.
2. They can be a deceptive attack to an approaching shin or ankle. This
would be more of a cross step and angled stomp than the TKD leap into
the void.
3. Switching feet, left to right horse. E.g. I am clinching with
someone in front of my right shoulder, and I have a thought to drive
him down into the ground. If I am in a left horse, I simply right knee
him in the ribs, then stomp his knee back and down. But what if I am in
a right horse, weight on my right foot? A double knee, starting with my
left knee into his ribs, then as the right knee slams into his torso,
my left foot is touching the ground. I can then right stomp on him,
driving him back and down.
I can see moves like this being taught, perhaps in a form, and being
distorted by someone who doesn't understand the applications of a move,
and wants to be as impressive as possible.
Kermit
Grey Mouser West
h...@nospam.com wrote:
<snip>
> >Using numbers is better don't you think?
>
> The numbers had already been established. I didn't realize you needed
> them repeated again.
My complaint was that you keep using descriptives like 'very small' in
place of numbers. It can be misleading. If you keep calling the
horses very small then you should remind everyone that the people were
very small too.
> >> I personally can land side kicks on a
> >> target 6 feet high and I am not particularly athletic. Performed
> >> properly a flying sidekick has your entire body weight behind it.
> >
> >
> >So this is enough force to dismount someone?
>
> Yes, most definately, especially when you have the element of surprise
> on your side as in the case of a rider presently engaged by another
> warrior.
Notice how your idea is getting even more complicated? Use Occam's
razor.
> >> I
> >> personally have hit heavy bags with flying side kicks and sent the
> >> heavy bags flying backwards so hard they swung up and knocked panels
> >> out of the ceiling (man did I ever catch hell from Sensei over that
> >> one)
> >
> >
> >Have you knocked a heavy bag away when it was holding on to a horse
> >with its legs? Men have legs and they can see when the are about to
> >get kicked. The men in question would also have swords for swating
> >down stupid unmounted fools who might try to kick them. The horse can
> >also move. If the horse turns his head or rears up the fool who chose
> >to become a balistic object is screwed. You are not going to knock out
> >a horse by kicking him in the head.
>
> In reality it is extremely easy to fall off or become "dislodged" from
> your horse. People have severe horse->ground accidents all the time,
> and they aren't even in battle.
Sure they might fall off on their own and you don't have to do anything
at all. Fat chance of that happening at just the right moment every
time. But was a flying sidekick intended to try and force people off a
horse under normal conditions? That means not when you have lost or
broken your spear and he has lost his sword and he is distracted, and
the horse isn't moving, and he is about to fall off without help and on
and on and on.
> >> >> 2. motive: In battle a mounted rider has a considerable advantage.
> >> >> It is paramount to dismount your enemy whenever possible. It other
> >> >> means are not possible (pike, spear etc) then this provides a last
> >> >> ditch method to use maximum power against a mounted rider (see #1)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >So they couldn't make spears in Korea? You are too much Hal.
> >>
> >> Spears are lost in battle. Warriors typically don't want to stop
> >> fighting simply because the lose their weapon. These are weaponless
> >> fighting techniques after all.
> >
> >
> >Seems like their time would be better invested learning how to use that
> >spear more effectivly and learning how to retain the weapon. You could
> >master the spear in a fraction of the time it takes to learn how to
> >jump that high.
>
> Spears were frequently broken or left impaled in your first victim.
Boy you are dense. The spear is unreliable so lets spend the next few
years learning a technique that might work if the mounted guy isn't
paying attention and lost his sword, and his horse doesn't move and he
was about to fall off anyway and on and on and on. People who risk
their lives on low percentage techniques, weapons and tactics don't
pass their genes *or their ideas* on to the next generation.
> >> >> 3. historical accuracy: while specific anecdotes not documented, the
> >> >> weaponless fighting techniques which included flying kicks developed
> >> >> at the time and in the same culture mounted riders were using small
> >> >> stature horses in battle. (see #2)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >We are talking 11 to 13 hands right? Lets not use descriptive words
> >> >like tiny, very small or small stature. Lets use mesurments. You
> >> >claimed they would be under 15 hands three inches.
> >>
> >> Typical war ponies of the time were around 11 to 13 hands which is a
> >> mere 44-52 inches.
> >
> >
> >And the center mass of the rider would be at least 18 inches higher.
> >So basicaly the kicker must make a great comitment involving a lot of
> >movement and the guy on the horse with a spear or sword only needs to
> >make a slight adjustment and he will have a Flying Sidekick Kabab. A
> >little peanut sauce and an open fire is all he will need to have
> >Mongolian BBQ.
>
> Sure. Shit happens. I never said the technique didn't possibly fail
> miserably.
And between a spear and a flying sidekick one is much more effective,
reliable, harder to counter and easer to use than the other. Use
Occam's Razor. Those who used spears would have to burry those who
tried flying sidekicks.
> >> >> 4. logical fallacies: you cannot claim something is false because it
> >> >> has not been proven true.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Yet you can claim he did this when he did not? You are such a moron.
> >>
> >> Actually yes he did.
> >
> >
> >No he claimed you have not proven it because it has not been proven
> >true. He offered reasons to think it is false, a fact you choose to
> >ignore.
What no contest? I thought for sure you would deny this despite a lack
of support.
> >> >> 5. There has not been a more plausible explanation offered, therefore
> >> >> it is the most probable explanation.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >But there has been a more plausible and more simple explanation
> >> >offered. Now use Occam's Razor and abandon your position on side
> >> >kicks.
> >>
> >> Which one? The only one I've seen is "impress chicks" and that is not
> >> historically accurate.
> >
> >
> >Like yours is? LOL!!
> >
> >You responded to the post where Shuurai explained it so how could you
> >miss it? Let me cut and paste:
> >
> >Kicking an opponent at a distance. Flying kicks are good for
> >covering a lot of space in a very short time. The *high* flying
> >kicks are an acrobatic trick to impress people. They've surfaced
> >in almost all popular martial arts because it impresses the
> >easily impressed. Ie. people like you.
> >
> >That is 2 explanations (covering distance and impressing people) and
> >both are more simple and strait forward than your idea. Now you
> >brought up Occam's Razor so use it.
>
> First of all we will forget impressing people because that is cleary
> not the origin of fighting arts.
But the Flying Sidekick could have been a non-combat move developed
from a less impressive combat move. That possibility has at least as
much going for it as your idea and it is much simpler.
> And using the technique to cover
> distance is not mutually exclusive with targeting a mounted rider.
It is in this case. The target is different. Of course a flying side
kick always covers ground regardless of the target. Your claim is that
the target is on a horse while the target in the other claim isn't.
The idea that the technique was developed to close the distance against
an unarmed man on foot has at least as much going for it as your idea
and it is much simpler.
You are a hypocrite because you cite Occam's Razor when you think it is
to your advantage but you won't use it when your ideas are at a
disadvantage.
Chas
> Oh bugger. Still the horses were a damn sight smaller
> than a European war-horse, weren't they?
One half the size; think 'Cornish' or maybe Shetland; 'Prijofsky's
(?sp;memory)'. They are short enough that some men can almost touch the
ground with their legs dangling.
The big warhorses ran maybe 1600 lbs., ims. Even the ones you see in
equestrian statues in Italy and Germany must have gone 1200.
That's one of the reasons such riders could cling to the animal like
leeches- you can actually *reach* to hold on- a big war horse, draft horse,
is like an aircraft carrier.
Chas
Chas
> Well, OK. I was still living in my own private world where
> I'd mentioned a couple of times that the same story appears
> in other Oriental MAs, and I thought it was in this sub-thread.
One of the skills that is being lost is pole-vaulting as a mechanism for
using a staff to get about. I think a leap, off of a pole, against a light
cavalry 'archer', might be viable- particularly from ambush. If you don't
have a pole, the flying side-kick seems a natural evolution.
I've seen illustrations of the period that show pole-vaulting applications
for europeans- in some 'survey' 'coffee table' book on combat history.
Chas
Chas
> So then, umm..., what is the real purpose of Flying Sidekicks?
I think it goes back to the Headkick Game.
Korean nobles had a sporting, fighting, mechanism.
The ultimate insult is to have to make the Great Kowtow; down on your belly
with the enemy's sole on the side of your face.
Getting a foot sole on the face was not only 'painful', it's
insulting/shameful.
'Fighting' (a formalized rite for settling disputes between young bucks) is
not really 'combat'; it's mitigated.
Chas
Shuurai
> >Using numbers is better don't you think?
>
> The numbers had already been established. I didn't realize
> you needed them repeated again.
The point was that using numbers in this case offers a much more
accurate description than "very small" which is rather subjective
and intended to mislead. A "very small" riding horse is still
quite large compared to a human.
> >> I personally can land side kicks on a
> >> target 6 feet high and I am not particularly athletic. Performed
> >> properly a flying sidekick has your entire body weight behind it.
> >
> >
> >So this is enough force to dismount someone?
>
> Yes, most definately, especially when you have the element of surprise
> on your side as in the case of a rider presently engaged by another
> warrior.
Most definately based on what? And what makes you think you're
going to have the element of surprise? And if you do have the
element of surprise, why is kicking better than just grabbing the
guy and pulling him off the horse? Or hitting him with a weapon?
> >> I
> >> personally have hit heavy bags with flying side kicks and sent the
> >> heavy bags flying backwards so hard they swung up and knocked panels
> >> out of the ceiling (man did I ever catch hell from Sensei over that
> >> one)
> >
> >
> >Have you knocked a heavy bag away when it was holding on to a horse
> >with its legs? Men have legs and they can see when the are about to
> >get kicked. The men in question would also have swords for swating
> >down stupid unmounted fools who might try to kick them. The horse can
> >also move. If the horse turns his head or rears up the fool who chose
> >to become a balistic object is screwed. You are not going to knock out
> >a horse by kicking him in the head.
>
> In reality it is extremely easy to fall off or become "dislodged" from
> your horse. People have severe horse->ground accidents all the time,
> and they aren't even in battle.
Very small... extremely easy... You're really reaching here.
It doesn't take much riding experience at all to figure out how to
stay on the horse. The type of fighters who'd even *have* a horse
on the battlefield would be accomplished riders.
> >> >So they couldn't make spears in Korea? You are too much Hal.
> >>
> >> Spears are lost in battle. Warriors typically don't want to stop
> >> fighting simply because the lose their weapon. These are weaponless
> >> fighting techniques after all.
> >
> >
> >Seems like their time would be better invested learning how to use that
> >spear more effectivly and learning how to retain the weapon. You could
> >master the spear in a fraction of the time it takes to learn how to
> >jump that high.
>
> Spears were frequently broken or left impaled in your first victim.
And the best thing these folks could think of was to jump up and kick
their opponents off of their horses...
> >> Typical war ponies of the time were around 11 to 13 hands which is a
> >> mere 44-52 inches.
> >
> >
> >And the center mass of the rider would be at least 18 inches higher.
> >So basicaly the kicker must make a great comitment involving a lot of
> >movement and the guy on the horse with a spear or sword only needs to
> >make a slight adjustment and he will have a Flying Sidekick Kabab. A
> >little peanut sauce and an open fire is all he will need to have
> >Mongolian BBQ.
>
> Sure. Shit happens. I never said the technique didn't possibly fail
> miserably.
It would be a high risk, low percentage technique even under the best
of circumstances. Not something any serious soldier would waste time
learning.
> >That is 2 explanations (covering distance and impressing people) and
> >both are more simple and strait forward than your idea. Now you
> >brought up Occam's Razor so use it.
>
> First of all we will forget impressing people because that is cleary
> not the origin of fighting arts.
But it clearly *is* the basis of many modern variations of the martial
arts, such as wushu, taekwondo, etc. These systems, while perhaps
based on earlier combat system, are not and have never been focused
on battlefield combat.
> And using the technique to cover distance is not mutually exclusive
> with targeting a mounted rider.
One makes more sense than the other. Can you pick which one?
You'll get a cookie if you do!
Jacob Andersen
> Rabid_Weasel a écrit (wrote)
>> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>>
>> So what *is* the real purpose of Flying Sidekicks?
>>
>> OK, the old Saw that a Flying Sidekick is for knocking a person off his
>> horse has been debunked more times than I can recall. But if it's not for
>> unhorsing riders, what *IS* it for?
>>
>> Peace favor your sword (IH),
>> Kirk
>
> In Yoseikan budo, we learn that kind of stuff because it helps to understand
> the mechanics behind the basic kicks.
>
> Ju
I would think that a flying kick uses a fundamentally different principle
than a "basic" kick.
/Jacob
Jacob Andersen
> Logical fallacy. The lack of evidence it did happen is not evidence
> it didn't.
But the fact that it is conceivably possible is proof that it was "of
course" the intention?
Get real idiot.
/Jacob
Jacob Andersen
>>How exactly, in your world, does your contention that it might
>>be phyically possible, might be functional, and might (to a far
>>lesser degree) be effective somehow lead you to conclude that
>>these kicks were "of course" intended to dismount riders? I ask
>>only out of some strange Lovecraftian desire to understand the
>>unworldly miasma that is your mind.
>
> Occam's razor.
You're insane if you really think that your horse theory is the most likely
theory AND! Occam's razor can never prove anything.
/Jacob
T
> 5. There has not been a more plausible explanation offered, therefore
> it is the most probable explanation.
I thought my explanations (showing off, plyometrics) were way more plausible.
Badger_South
Memo to B.North: Eyes Only:
Select members of the Northern Badger clan have developed this into high
Art. The development of those those Rocky-like skin flaps under the arms
can take several hard winters.
It must be noted that some of our Australian branch members report
significant progress, however they were fortunate eough to have studied
with ex-patriot, B.J.Moose, noted Canadian expert.
-B.South
Jacob Andersen
> t Kowtow; down on your belly
> with the enemy's sole on the side of your face.
> Getting a foot sole on the face was not only 'painful', it's
> insulting/shameful.
> 'Fighting' (a formalized rite for settling dispute
This makes a lot of sense actually.
/Jacob
T
> The point was that using numbers in this case offers a much more
> accurate description than "very small" which is rather subjective
> and intended to mislead. A "very small" riding horse is still
> quite large compared to a human.
Hey...
Imagine a cavalry guy, sword and shield. I'm to his left behind him. I jump
up, grab his shield with both hands, plant both feet on the horse and kick off
as hard as I can. Either I take his shield or I unhorse him, maybe both.
Now imagine how stupid it would look in a form. 'Flying double front kick?!
That would *never* work!'
Badger_South
<Pointer Sisters>
"I'll take you down, I'll take you down
Where no one's ever gone before
And if you want more, if you want more
More, more, more
Then, Jump "
</Pointer Sisters>
YoJimbo
>
>On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 06:39:37 -0600, Chas wrote:
>>>> because all
>>>> you white guys
>>> We've all seen your photo; you *are* a white guy...
>>
>> Gee; murder little baby ducks, why don't'cha? *we* all knew that.
>> He thought the injections......
>
>Hehe. Jim Storey, the anti-Michael Jackson :-)
>
>--
>Karim <remove SPAMFREE: karimSrPaAsMhFaRdEE at gmail dot com>
Let's just say I'm not as white as Michael Jackson.
JS
Fraser Johnston
"Mid-Atlantic Ferret" <mads...@yaspamhootrap.com> wrote in message
news:11bgjbv...@corp.supernews.com...> news:cf4ca21916e955f8...@localhost.talkaboutsportsnetwork.com...
> :> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
> :>
> :> So what *is* the real purpose of Flying Sidekicks?
>
> : Wasting time. Or kicking someone on the other side of a table that you
> : don't particularly like.
>
> Why not just throw a beer mug at him? (grab one from the waitress if you
> don't have an empty, wouldn't want to waste any!)
Beer mugs are a sacred part of my religion. They should only be used to
smash across someones head while holding onto the handle. This technique is
reserved for special ceremonies known as "glassing arseholes".
Fraser
Fraser Johnston
"I can't believe it's not a Badger!" <lkla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119375806.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Good point.
>
> So then, umm..., what is the real purpose of Flying Sidekicks?
>
To give Hal another opportunity to look stupid.
Fraser
Scary
horseback?
I did see a Cossack performance where they leaped of horses!
Scary.
Chas
> Didn't they invent the poleax for knocking - pulling people off
> horseback?
There are a bunch of them, of which the poleax is one.
Chas
Strider
Are you a member of the Holy Order of the Bar Stool?
Strider
Fraser Johnston
"Strider" <str...@usit.net> wrote in message
news:edjhb1ht1o5bt7beq...@4ax.com...
Nah. The holy order of athiests. It all happened after I died in hospital
and only saw blackness.
Fraser
Rabid_Weasel
Sure. I hear all the time that this-or-that MA stance was actually used
for muscular/endurance/physical training. Particularly in Kung Fu arts.
This is usually quickly folowed by a flury of "yeah, maybe, but we've got
better methods now so stop wasting time with it" replies.
Matthew Weigel
wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2005 14:02:12 -0700, "Shuurai" <Shuu...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >Common sense? The complete lack of evidence that it ever happened?
>
> Logical fallacy. The lack of evidence it did happen is not evidence
> it didn't.
So the same argument applies to flying kicks being developed because in
Korea, UFO abductions were particularly common - and kicking the saucer
out of the air as it swung to the ground was the best defense.
> >A basic understanding of physics - the size of an actual real life
> >horse being a major part of that?
>
> The height off the ground of course.
Same same.
> Wanna bet who has more times on a horse? I'm willing to bet I've
> hundreds if not thousands more than you. For one thing, they did not
> have stirrups.
I'm willing to bet you've spent more time with an alien probe up your
ass, too.
> > Can you
> >cite a *single* study that shows any evidence whatsoever that this
> >was ever done?
>
> No.
Same same.
> Actually I love logic and reason, but clearly you provide none. You
> have no proof whatsoever. I can tell you can can be done because I
> have seen people perform the same physical accomplishment in
> demonstrations (re height and distance, no, sorry, no horse involved)
Same same.
> You have a better explanation? Besides impressing the chicks. (in
> your case the guys)
The UFO defense is more plausible.
> >. You don't create a technique that
> >takes time and effort to master because it's "possible" that it
> >might work.
>
> Wow. Like totally amazing. You just screwed the pooch on that one
> shuurai honey, because that is exactly what martial arts is,
> completely and totally.
See? Koreans didn't even need to have more UFOs, they just needed to
fear UFOs more.
Kirk, have I answered it satisfactorily for you?
--
Matthew Weigel
Matthew Weigel
wrote:
> Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is probably the correct
> one. This really is quite simple:
>
> 1. means: It is physically possible for a human being to perform
> such a feat with proper training. Proof:
Insufficient. We have access to appropriately sized mounts, kickers who
you claim can do the necessary feat, and still no evidence.
> 2. motive:
This isn't CSI.
> 3. historical accuracy: while specific anecdotes not documented, the
> weaponless fighting techniques which included flying kicks developed
> at the time
According to whom? The same people who disclaim any Japanese influence
in their modern Korean martial art?
> 5. There has not been a more plausible explanation offered, therefore
> it is the most probable explanation.
Yes, there has - that it was developed in modern times without any
grounding in history and the people involved are dead, leaving us only
with third hand accounts.
--
Matthew Weigel
Matthew Weigel
"I can't believe it's not a Badger!" <lkla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert Low wrote:
> > I can't believe it's not a Badger! wrote:
> > >
> > > Robert Low wrote:
> > >>I can't believe it's not a Badger! wrote:
> > >>>I don't see the words "Korea" or "Korean" anywhere in this text. Nor
> > >>>any reference the the foul tempered and intra-breed hostile Cheju Pony
> > >>>used by Koreans.
> > >>That's not entirely relevant, though, is it?
> > > It wouldn't have been relevant if brought up earlier in the thread.
> >
> > Well, OK. I was still living in my own private world where
> > I'd mentioned a couple of times that the same story appears
> > in other Oriental MAs, and I thought it was in this sub-thread.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> In that context, yes, information on non-Korean asian cavalry horse
> dimensions is relevant as related to the proposed explanation that
> non-Korean asian martial arts usage of the Flying Sidekick was intended
> to dismount cavalry.
Then again, the Mongols used stirrups; certainly as soon as you're
talking about archery from horseback, your rider has some way other than
his hands to stay mounted.
--
Matthew Weigel
I can't believe it's not a Badger!
> See? Koreans didn't even need to have more UFOs, they just needed to
> fear UFOs more.
>
> Kirk, have I answered it satisfactorily for you?
Yup. I'll go with that!
I can't believe it's not a Badger!
Sure. It doesn't discount the other noted problems of the
dismount-the-rider theory. It just offers a plausible solution to the
problem of ornery *Korean* horses. Just dicount Korean connection all
together and expand to include Chinese Kung Fu. Korean horses then are
not a problem. :-)
h...@nospam.com
I don't believe they were exactly stirrups as we know them, rather
loops of leather they put their foot or toe through. While certainly
adding lots of stability on the horse, stirrups still don't keep you
mounted under all circumstances. And certainly, if someone managed to
land a solid flying side kick to your kidneys, and if it didn't
dismount you, it sure would do a bit to fuck you up pretty bad. Also,
the force of someone's body weight landing sideways on the rider,
would possibly even topple the horse. There were lots of battlefield
techniques for taking out horses. It is not unreasonable to consider
that this may be one of them.
Hal
I can't believe it's not a Badger!
h...@nospam.com wrote:
> Also,
> the force of someone's body weight landing sideways on the rider,
> would possibly even topple the horse. There were lots of battlefield
> techniques for taking out horses.
Name three that don't include a weapon or tool.
(IH),
Kirk
Chas
> I don't believe they were exactly stirrups as we know them, rather
> loops of leather they put their foot or toe through.
Stirrups for about 2000 years; loops for another, maybe, 1,000 years before
that- the oldest that I know of are from Russian excavations of 'Altaic'
graves. Chinese stirrups go back about that far as well, so the technology
was pretty pervasive.
I think they also used loops attached to the girth at one point.
The other thing is that the horse is actually small enough to get a leg hold
on, so loops and stuff are a better choice in that circumstance than would
be with a much larger animal.
The reality is also that people rode on a pad, without stirrups, right up
into the twentieth century, and maybe today.
--
Chas
http://warriorschest.com/pals.htm
http://www.kuntaosilat.com
www.willemdethouars.com
h...@nospam.com
<lkla...@gmail.com> wrote:
For one thing, simply jumping up and grabbing the rider. You can grab
a horse's reins and pull it hard to the side and back turning it's
neck and you can wheel it right around in a circle. If you got the
cajones, you can keep wheeling it around in circles and it usually
falls over. For smaller horses as we see in cavalry uses, it is
trivial to simply jump on the horse's back behind the rider. A
loaded, tired horse will usually collapse under the suddenly added
weight and go down on it's belly. All of these could be used by a
ground warrior to unseat a mounted fighter. Unseating mounted
warriors is paramount to gaining an edge in battle and any and all
techniques would be employed by well trained and capable warriors
trained and experienced in the art of anti-cavalry warfare. Of
course, any weaponless technique of attacking a mounted warrior would
most likely only be possible with the element of surprise, however
such an opportunity could be possible in the chaos of a widespread
battle.
And before you bullshit any more about horses, or think I am
bullshitting you, my mother had me on a horse when I was 2. We had
horses all over the place all the time and I grew up riding a horse.
We did western gaming including barrel racing, poll bending, bareback
racing, and nifty cool shit like flag races (two barrels of sand each
end of arena, one flag in one far barrel, run down get flag, run back
stick in barrel, best time wins, you get the picture), and probably my
favorite: the rescue race: One horse, two riders. One rider on one
end of arena, one rider on the horse at other end, ride down, pick up
other rider, carry them back to finish. Best time wins. So you see,
I've jumped on the backs of plenty of horses. Secret to winning the
rescue race is you never stop the horse and the rescuee must jump on
while it is turning quickly at a full gallop. Not too bad if you're
on the inside actually. So you see, I've seen horses pulled over,
wheeled in circles till they drop, and collapsed under the weight of
someone jumping on their backs. I've seen people grab a horse's ear
and take it to it's knees. I've seen people grab a foot and literally
flip it over on it's back by pulling up and back on the foot while the
horse is moving forward making it fall over forward then use the
leverage on the leg to start it rolling sideways. All is possible
and I am certain all were exploited if at all possible by warriors
experienced with horses, and believe me the ancient Asians knew their
horses.
To think that a technique such as a flying side kick, which I have
seen with my own eyes to achieve necessary height and distance AND
power to accurately target and displace a human sized target , would
exist evolving at the same time as unarmed combat and horse based
fighting and not be used to attack a rider if the possibility arose,
simply does not seem logical. It is clearly a logical, practical, and
historically accurate application of the technique.
Hal
>
>(IH),
>Kirk
h...@nospam.com
<chasclem...@comcast.net> wrote:
><h...@nospam.com> wrote
>> I don't believe they were exactly stirrups as we know them, rather
>> loops of leather they put their foot or toe through.
>
>Stirrups for about 2000 years; loops for another, maybe, 1,000 years before
>that- the oldest that I know of are from Russian excavations of 'Altaic'
>graves. Chinese stirrups go back about that far as well, so the technology
>was pretty pervasive.
>I think they also used loops attached to the girth at one point.
>The other thing is that the horse is actually small enough to get a leg hold
>on, so loops and stuff are a better choice in that circumstance than would
>be with a much larger animal.
>The reality is also that people rode on a pad, without stirrups, right up
>into the twentieth century, and maybe today.
Yep. Sure do. We did as kids. Bareback pads they called them.
Saved the time of dragging the saddle out of the tackroom. Stirrups
certainly were part of the technology at the time, but never saw much
about how universally they were used by poverty stricken armies of
horse soldiers. I suspect more often than not they weren't more than
loops of leather made out of the hides of the last horse that dropped
dead under you. Whatever the type of stirrup, it doesn't change the
fact that riding a horse is a kinda a balancing act. No matter how
firm your footing in your stirrups, your center of gravity is really
damned high, and horses and riders combined can be made to fall over
by someone knowing how and having the power to hit them right.
Hal
Chas
>.....Stirrups
> certainly were part of the technology at the time, but never saw much
> about how universally they were used by poverty stricken armies of
> horse soldiers.
Horse soldiers aren't 'poverty stricken', and stirrups flourished once
anybody saw them.
> ......No matter how
> firm your footing in your stirrups, your center of gravity is really
> damned high, and horses and riders combined can be made to fall over
> by someone knowing how and having the power to hit them right.
I agree-
and the bottom line is; there's the kick, and that's the story. To refute it
would take a lot of familiarity with horses, martial arts and the culture
itself.
Chas
Matthew Weigel
wrote:
> I don't believe they were exactly stirrups as we know them, rather
> loops of leather they put their foot or toe through. While certainly
> adding lots of stability on the horse, stirrups still don't keep you
> mounted under all circumstances.
They sure do make it possible to hold on to your mount without your
hands, though.
> And certainly, if someone managed to
> land a solid flying side kick to your kidneys, and if it didn't
> dismount you, it sure would do a bit to fuck you up pretty bad.
I would pay you if you could land that.
> techniques for taking out horses. It is not unreasonable to consider
> that this may be one of them.
According to you, the *king* of "unreasonable."
--
Matthew Weigel
Rich
> Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is probably the correct
> one.
No it doesn't, it says that one should not increase, beyond what is
necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
> This really is quite simple:
>
> 1. means: It is physically possible for a human being to perform
> such a feat with proper training. Proof: we have all seen flying
> sidekick breaks. Horses proven to be very small at the time/place
> means the height of the strike is well within human limitations.
As a quibble - there's no evidence that the power in a board break is
enough to unseat a rider with stirrups.
> 2. motive: In battle a mounted rider has a considerable advantage.
> It is paramount to dismount your enemy whenever possible. It other
> means are not possible (pike, spear etc) then this provides a last
> ditch method to use maximum power against a mounted rider (see #1)
Given some years training. Why not learn to dismount the rider by tying
up his weapon arm and unseating him or joining him on the horse? Why
not take out the horse's legs with kicks? These both seem simpler
solutions.
> 4. logical fallacies: you cannot claim something is false because it
> has not been proven true.
> http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ig.htm
Logical fallacies deal with possibilities, not probabilites. "For
all.." and "there exists..." are the clues here.
Assume one concedes that it is possible for a well-trained athlete to
dismount a stationary man mounted on a small horse with a flying kick.
Would you not call it a logical fallacy to conclude that flying kicks
were therefore invented to dismount armed agressors on horseback?
With my knife I can skin a dead chicken. Does it therefore follow that
knives were designed to skin live chickens?
> 5. There has not been a more plausible explanation offered, therefore
> it is the most probable explanation.
Exercise and aesthetics.
Rich
Robert Low
>>land a solid flying side kick to your kidneys, and if it didn't
>>dismount you, it sure would do a bit to fuck you up pretty bad.
> I would pay you if you could land that.
If he landed that, you'd probably be in no position to
stop him from helping himself to your coat and boots as
well as your wallet :-)
Chas
>> Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is probably the correct
>> one.
> No it doesn't, it says that one should not increase, beyond what is
> necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
However it doesn't automatically discount complex problems with complex
answers.
> As a quibble - there's no evidence that the power in a board break is
> enough to unseat a rider with stirrups.
People fall off horses for little or no reason at all- keeping your butt on
a moving platform is already hard.
> Given some years training. Why not learn to dismount the rider by tying
> up his weapon arm and unseating him or joining him on the horse? Why
> not take out the horse's legs with kicks? These both seem simpler
> solutions.
It isn't the only technique, and surely not the only one taught.
There's a little repousse` gold ornament- Greek-made for the Scythians- that
shows a man 'earing down' a horse (could be the lip, could be a nostril)
from 400BCE or so. American Plains indians took down horses off of any leg,
the tail, the neck, the face, and so on.
Horses are a bunch of weight up on stilts- they go down pretty hard, pretty
easy.
> Assume one concedes that it is possible for a well-trained athlete to
> dismount a stationary man mounted on a small horse with a flying kick.
> Would you not call it a logical fallacy to conclude that flying kicks
> were therefore invented to dismount armed agressors on horseback?
Foot-man against mounted-man has been a problem for a long time. It's not
like nobody ever worried about it before.
A 'flying kick' has a lot of applications- the immediate answer when asked
by some gawping yokel in idle chatter is that you could use it to kick his
stupid ass off a horse.
> With my knife I can skin a dead chicken. Does it therefore follow that
> knives were designed to skin live chickens?
You mean 'only'?
nah.
>> 5. There has not been a more plausible explanation offered, therefore
>> it is the most probable explanation.
> Exercise and aesthetics.
Dire need and necessity-
Fraser Johnston
"Rich" <rlanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119597297.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Given some years training. Why not learn to dismount the rider by tying
> up his weapon arm and unseating him or joining him on the horse? Why
> not take out the horse's legs with kicks? These both seem simpler
> solutions.
A horses legs would be pretty hard to kick out from under them. It's not
like they aren't carrying around the weight of a horse all day and there is
4 of them.
Fraser
I can't believe it's not a Badger!
So, no "Flying Sidekick" in this "list'???
:P
(IH)
Chas
> A horses legs would be pretty hard to kick out from under them. It's not
> like they aren't carrying around the weight of a horse all day and there
> is 4 of them.
Do you have any idea how easily, and how often, a horses' legs are injured
badly enough to have to put them down? It's almost like they're walking on
tiptoe, and the area immediately above the hoof is very vulnerable. That's
why you see a good horseman check his animal often.
h...@nospam.com
<lkla...@gmail.com> wrote:
Did you read as far as the last paragraph? You asked for examples of
how to take down a horse without weapons. I gave you a few.
Hal
>
>:P
>
>(IH)
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Eloquently put. This does not mean, of course, that unhorsing riders
was the only use of, or even the primary use of the flying sidekick. I
assume it was used far more often for people on foot, and not
necessarily to gain height.
> >
> >(IH),
> >Kirk
Kermit
Fraser Johnston
"Chas" <chasclem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XqudnbWqd5i...@comcast.com...
> "Fraser Johnston" <fra...@jcis.com.au> wrote
>> A horses legs would be pretty hard to kick out from under them. It's not
>> like they aren't carrying around the weight of a horse all day and there
>> is 4 of them.
>
> Do you have any idea how easily, and how often, a horses' legs are injured
> badly enough to have to put them down? It's almost like they're walking on
> tiptoe, and the area immediately above the hoof is very vulnerable. That's
> why you see a good horseman check his animal often.
Sure. I spent a lot of time on the farm as a kid. Horses mainly hurt their
hooves with shit like stones stuck in the shoe. But kicking ones legs out
from them would be a spotty proposition at best.
Fraser
Rich
> "Rich" <rlanc...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >> Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is probably the correct
> >> one.
> > No it doesn't, it says that one should not increase, beyond what is
> > necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
>
> However it doesn't automatically discount complex problems with complex
> answers.
Absolutely not, pedantic correction is just a nervous tic I have.
> > Given some years training. Why not learn to dismount the rider by tying
> > up his weapon arm and unseating him or joining him on the horse? Why
> > not take out the horse's legs with kicks? These both seem simpler
> > solutions.
>
> It isn't the only technique, and surely not the only one taught.
> There's a little repousse` gold ornament- Greek-made for the Scythians- that
> shows a man 'earing down' a horse (could be the lip, could be a nostril)
> from 400BCE or so. American Plains indians took down horses off of any leg,
> the tail, the neck, the face, and so on.
> Horses are a bunch of weight up on stilts- they go down pretty hard, pretty
> easy.
A sight easier than jumping over one and landing a foot on an armed
rider, I'd guess. I'm not familiar with Korean art - is there any
decoration showing people being unseated from their mounts by a flying
kick? Even if it's from mythology, it seems like great subject matter.
> >> 5. There has not been a more plausible explanation offered, therefore
> >> it is the most probable explanation.
> > Exercise and aesthetics.
>
> Dire need and necessity-
... call for dire solutions?
:P
Rich