Birdbrained ideas

Ian · Post by **Ian** » Sun Jun 30, 2002 9:41 pm

Sounds like the scientists and the curious are trying to come up ideas of what to test...

1) A no-touch KO could be tested much as was the empty force. If there's someone who feels they can reliably KO people without touching them and thinks they'll be able to do it if the tested person isn't aware of the desired outcome, then super.

However to avoid the response to the empty test results (Just wasn't my day, but I already knew it worked anyway), I would have a pre-test demonstration of the technique performed as it usually is, so that when the blinding is applied, we can compare what happens.

2) Instead of the kyusho testers coming up with things to test, why don't we have the kyusho people provide a list of testable kyusho tenets? We're supposed to be testing their ideas and skills, why don't we get a list of potentially testable ideas and skills and see which are most conducive to a test?

stephen mcnally · Post by **stephen mcnally** » Mon Jul 01, 2002 1:29 pm

Hi all,

If I may submit my humble opinion, I’m a little concerned about how this discussion might appear to those who aren’t aware of the relationship between this forum and the Kyusho community. It is possible that Uechi could be seen as trying to take the position as the arbiter of universal truth, when actually it could be argued that there are no absolutes in martial arts. I’m sure you would all agree that no matter how hard you train and how well you practice, you cannot guarantee the effectiveness of any given technique in a real situation, you can of course increase the odds. Sensei Canna’s forum is littered with evidence and discussion of how motor skills etc, are severely impaired in situations of stress and adrenal heightening.

Whilst scepticism is healthy, it is necessary to maintain a balance. I’m not suggesting that anybody here is closed minded about the possibilities, indeed Sensei Mattson says earlier in this discussion, "No question basic Kyusho works", however it may appear to some that the tone of the discussion is somewhat negative. Negativity would naturally impede the objectivity which you are striving to establish for the test conditions. If basic Kyusho works, it would appear to suggest that it would not be untenable that more complex Kyusho could work.

Maybe this could be paralleled with advances in the Uechi community. As Sensei’s Maloney and Summers have taught the use of pressure points, this has been pursued and improved Kyusho practitioners in arguably the same way in which the instruction of Sensei’s Mattson, Canna, Campbell et al have been taken on by the likes of Joe Pomfret and Gary Khoury.

Respectfully yours,

Steve McNally.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Jul 01, 2002 3:29 pm

To all

The sequence that has been proposed involves two techniques, each of which I have seen applied effectively before.

* The first is one I first saw taught by Bruce Siddle circa 1985 (way before any of the kyusho experts were selling videos), and it is a favorite of Jim Maloney at camp. It tweaks a nerve that is well known to common science. Just about everyone has had that point tweaked accidentally in the course of horseplay.

* The second is one I saw demonstrated by Jim Thompson at one of our Mid Atlantic regionals about 3 years ago. For those that don't know, Jim is a very knowledgeable karate master who studied under Uechi Kanei in Okinawa for about 10 years. Jim has a very broad background in karate and kobudo from his years of experience in the martial arts. He is also a wonderful human being, with both feet firmly planted on the ground. However...when he demonstrated that technique, he had a twinkle in his eye that only a few of us (who understand his sense of humor) know.

Jim didn't demonstrate this technique as a KO. Rather, he demonstrated how one could change someone's trunk and shoulder tension by doing it. The way he did it, it appeared (to those that didn't "get it") like magic. A few in the group got very wide-eyed when he did it. Frankly it made me smile, and when Jim looked at me, he also broke into a smile.

Does anyone have Gary Khoury's sparring video? Check out his lesson on "checking" an opponent. To make a long story short, people respond to visual cues - period. If they didn't, then they wouldn't be able to defend themselves. What would YOU do if someone you didn't care for reached for a part of your body that you didn't care to have them touch?

In the specific example, we see the kyusho practitioner tweaking a nerve that - if tweaked severely enough - would itself put someone on their duff. I've seen Jimmy Malone do it with a smile on his face. So you have this person being tweaked in such a fashion, and then another hand reaches out... It would make anyone lose their balance. KO-ed? I don't know...

jorvik

I think your original idea about blindfolding the uke would be perfect for this "test."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

another perspective that we may ignore completely that of "influence" which, in the end may prove more beneficial.

Jorvik, I think that about sums it up here. A little bit of the good stuff, and a little bit of "psyche" thrown into the witches brew.

Steve

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Whilst scepticism is healthy, it is necessary to maintain a balance. I’m not suggesting that anybody here is closed minded about the possibilities, indeed Sensei Mattson says earlier in this discussion, "No question basic Kyusho works", however it may appear to some that the tone of the discussion is somewhat negative. Negativity would naturally impede the objectivity which you are striving to establish for the test conditions.

There are several important issues here.

First of all, negativity per se will not impede a proper investigation. If it did, then the technique isn't worth a darn, is it? Problem is, most of the bad guys out there are filled with negativity. If I need the bad guy to believe in me to make my technique work, then I am in a heap of trouble.

The whole purpose of the scientific method is to bring objectivity into a human discussion. It is natural for humans to form opinions about things before they test their ideas. We call these "hypotheses." There is an objective way to go about testing hypotheses so that we can accept or reject them.

The problem here is that someone like me doesn't get anything out of showing someone to be fooled (or perhaps more). Fine...one more idea about invisible energy fields shot down. But that's not why people like me got into science in the first place. I spend all my professional life MAKING things, and THEN proving that they WORK. Sure, I have a lot of failures. But - like Michelangelo - I have the picture of "David" in my head, and eventually my hands come up with the creation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

What we are trying to test, are those KOs that rely on multiple point strikes to areas not already commonly accepted as KO points.

We aren't going to get there by starting with someone who claims to be manipulating an energy field outside the body that nobody has proven exists. If we can't even characterize what is going on in the technique with sound principles of measurement, then we are left with nothing more than a "trick" at the end if we ARE able to prove it works. Frankly in this case I believe I know how to make it not work.

Big deal... Bill Glasheen, master of negativity.

However... I do believe we can demonstrate the concept of sequential striking (or point manipulation), and show WHY it is working. Isn't that the next step anyhow? Isn't this the next step that Steve speaks of?

I'm thinking I may just have to come up with my own example. Imagine that! But whatever it takes to get people headed in the right direction.

- Bill

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Jul 01, 2002 6:51 pm

And we can also demonstrate when/how techniques rely heavily on the principles of energy and matter (physics).

Sorry, Van, almost forgot!

- Bill

Stryke · Post by **Stryke** » Mon Jul 01, 2002 9:32 pm

Beleif is not a critical part of a karate technique .

Truth is the esential ingrediant in a karate technique .

from truth comes beleif never the other way .

Hence this excellent study

Post by **gmattson** » Tue Jul 02, 2002 1:30 am

Sounds like everyone is in accord on this. At least no one is saying "You can't test this. . . you must do it yourself so you can feel the effects!"

Yes, confidence in yourself is important when executing a technique. . . especially when defending yourself. That is why it is so important to understand as much as possible about the art you are studying.

Encouraging students to come up with new and exotic multiple touch and no touch KOs might be great for building confidence. . . after all motivational speakers have seminar attendees walk on fire to make a point. But if the KOs fall into the same category as seminar fire walking, students should be told this so they don't make the mistake of actually trying to walk on real fire or to think they can defend themselves by KOing a BG with non-effective technique.

I hope the Kyusho community will take the high ground and support this effort. Although a lot of entertaining confidence building demonstrations may suffer short term, the art will become better and stronger for being honest and open about what is real and what is entertainment.

------------------
GEM

stephen mcnally · Post by **stephen mcnally** » Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:11 am

Hi Bill,

Thanks for your reply.

Your point about negativity not precluding objectivity is a fair one. I accept that it is natural to hypothesize about the outcome of tests prior to their performance, however there is also the consideration of “confirmation bias”, whereby somebody can ( unwittingly and sub-consciously ) seek to confirm their own view of a hypothesis at the expense of other possible conclusions. Again, I stress that I'm making no accusations here, just raising issues to debate.

Negativity can however affect the appearance of objectivity which is vital, in the sense that justice must be done and must be SEEN to be done, I could possibly have phrased it slightly better !

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Problem is, most of the bad guys out there are filled with negativity. If I need the bad guy to believe in me to make my technique work, then I am in a heap of trouble.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, I would agree with this sentiment, however belief is an important weapon. Regardless of what the assailant believes, the defender must have belief in their technique. A good example being board breaking demonstrations, you must believe that you can break the board or you seriously diminish you chances of being successful.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
But - like Michelangelo - I have the picture of "David" in my head, and eventually my hands come up with the creation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would imagine that Michelangelo required belief in his ability to achieve this success.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
However... I do believe we can demonstrate the concept of sequential striking (or point manipulation), and show WHY it is working. Isn't that the next step anyhow? Isn't this the next step that Steve speaks of?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree again, I also believe it can be demonstrated effectively, and yes, that is the next step I was considering.

Thanks again.
Respectfully,
Steve.

LeeDarrow · Post by **LeeDarrow** » Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:13 am

Mattson-Shihan and Pantazi-Shihan,

One way to lower the possibility of the (not necessarily likely) placebo effect, is to do the experiment without anyone in the room other than the Kyusho-ka knowing that the strike is a kyusho point, if possible.

Do the strike as a demonstration of the effects of various strikes and mix the kyusho strike into a mix of other demonstrated techniques.

To limit liability, all participants in ANY "effects of strikes" demos should be warned and even sign consent forms, that state that they understand that the possibility of this hurting or even causing unconsciousness is possible and that they will hold harmless the instructor(s) and camp management. ( I know - I'm preaching to the choir on this one, but I like covering my own assets)

By mixing the kyusho technique into a batch of other "this is what happens when you do thus" strikes, you lower the probability that expectation will cause someone to fall down based on the expectation that this is what is supposed to happen (and can actually CAUSE unconsciousness in and of itself - psychosomatic effects are so interesting and so little understood).

The only other way (and one sure to get someone into a LOT of legal trouble) would to be to use someone off the street who had never heard of kyusho, dim mak, etc. and try the techniques on them - without mentioning the expected results, of course.

I admit, to those priming their keyboards, this this is a gross oversimplification of a set of controls for such an experiment. We must remember that this amounts to a pilot study and is not meant as a full-blown, double blind, controlled study.

As I understand it, it is meant to be an exploration to determine what further controls could be placed on such a study and to help design more rigorous controls for the future.

Unless I have missed the point entirely - which is certainly possible, I readily admit.

Let's face it, the more this can be can verified, the better these applications can be taught and applied to others.

Respectfully,

Lee Darrow, C.Ht.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:55 am

I think a lot of people are on the right page here.

Steve, my personal ethics are such that I would want maximal objectivity involved in any testing. Any scientist worth his salt behaves in such a way. Those that don't are eventually shown to be the lesser humans that they are, and nobody believes them any more. Reputation is everything in the world of research. To be shunned in science is as serious as being shunned in any other community where individuals depend heavily on each other. The process of peer review is such an environment.

Furthermore, any decent piece of work in science MUST be capable of being reproduced by others. If it cannot, then it can't be considered valid work.

Yes, there are A-holes in all fields. But like I tell my contemporaries that graduated from UNC, time wounds all heels.

As for "belief" being a critical part of any karate technique, well...then it should be characterized as such. A point that I am repeatedly making here is that good piece of science work must do two things: 1) show "it" (whatever "it" is) works (or not), and 2) if it works, demonstrate the reason why it works. Sorry, I don't believe anyone can demonstrate someone manipulating an external energy field (never mind what I think of the concept). But we can demonstrate elements of behavior (psychology). We can also demonstrate a vasovagal response (physiology).

- Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited July 01, 2002).]

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Tue Jul 02, 2002 9:55 pm

My, this came faster than I expected.

I am not aware of the "public" nature of any information.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

you folks are getting in way over your heads no matter how many letters follow your name

Ooohhh, please don't tease me like that, Evan. Sounds like too much fun to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

If you test something without adequate information or skills to bring forth proper validation, then efforts will be mute and inconsequential. Instead of continually hiding from Practical Hands On Application - Just Do It!

A few questions if I may...

1) What information are "we" lacking?

2) Who has the information? What qualifications must one have to be considered possessing such information? Since letters after the name don't count, what does? How will we know such an individual when we see one?

3) Whose experience is practical, and whose is not?

4) Will such a qualified person have the courage to be examined? If not...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I have been working with Uechi Ryu Kata since 1997 and have literally KO a couple hundred folks...including Uechi Ryu practioners, with these techniques around the world including skeptics, even at your own camp.

No, karate "KO shows" don't count. As Tony Blauer says in the April 2002 issue of Black Belt, this is what we might call a "cooperative environment." Heck...it isn't even a COMPETITIVE cooperative environment like a sport tournament.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I wouldn't let a Surgeon "TEST" my electrical system!

Virtually any doctor "tests" someone's electrical system at some point in time. When a surgeon does that, it's generally in the form of an electrocardiogram. Without it, the cardiothoracic surgeon has no idea that your ticker is working when he jump-starts your heart after a CABG. Even your family doctor tests your electrical system when doing reflex testing and other elements of the physical exam. No biggie!

So...what WAS the point you intended to make? Can only YOUR people test your techniques? Would any other test be "mute and inconsequential?" What happens when the bad guy wants to test the technique? Is his test "mute and inconsequential?"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Now as for the "Scientific" approach, I don't see how a Martial Arts Summer Camp would not validate a "Scientific" anything...actually rather corny.

Too bad you feel that way, Evan. Without external validation (by friendly or unfriendly parties), it's all just entertainment.

I'm not very encouraged by this response, Evan.

You can keep doing seminars and KO demonstrations. At some point in the VERY near future, folks interested in developing an art with a credible foundation will be working with the tools you are "dissing" today. When the publications come out supporting ANY body of knowledge - no matter how "inconsequential" in your eyes - it will elevate the standard of discussion. Anyone not measuring up to that standard will have a lot of catch up work to do (and perhaps a bit of back tracking).

My door remains open to you, Evan. Your move. But the world won't be waiting...

- Bill

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Tue Jul 02, 2002 10:07 pm

A few more questions... What makes you think you or your immediate peers are the only ones in the world doing kyusho? Why is what YOU do kyusho and what the other guys do "not" or "theoretical" or some such other label? What exactly is your definition of kyusho?

- Bill

Ian · Post by **Ian** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 2:42 am

I've met a lot of artists who thought that analyzing art wasn't their cup of tea, but I haven't met many that their preference for, say, the brush over the typewriter, meant that there was no place for the latter.

There have been many-times confirmed skills that amounted to ... emptiness when studied objectively.

I don't think that understanding how something works is going to impair how we do that something, so I don't see what's wrong with doing AND investigating what we're doing.

Roundhouse kicks don't fall into the same category because they deal with everyday understanding of how the body works, and everyday physics. That they might not always produce the desired effect in the street has not been a secret. Kyusho on the other hand predicts what is not intuitive, and deals with forces and physiologies not well characterized or explained. What are we supposed to do, randomize people to roundhouse kicked and not and measure bruises after?

I don't think "Uechi" ius trying to be the arbiter of truth in this arena, but I do think the style attracks a more erebral than average martial artist, and some have gotten together to try to advance a scientific understanding of kyusho a bit. They're only going to add to the discussion, and certainly couldn't control it if they wanted to, with so many people ecxploring it in other ways.

Evan Pantazi · Post by **Evan Pantazi** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:36 am

Mattson Sensei,

I did not ask who to get anyone in trouble, I am nobodies mother. I have since been in contact with the individual and learned that the original intent of that specific "Test Vehicle Technique" was blown out of it's original intent. As a matter of fact it was supposedly for private information now turned out in public, a shame.

Et al.

From a discussion on a book to a test of sequential striking sequences, to a study of a "you can't hit these points, then on to testing No Touch energy disruption (by the way if you can't work the basics, you probably can't work the advanced either...of course this is just opinion), you folks are getting in way over your heads no matter how many letters follow your name, I wouldn't let a Surgeon "TEST" my electrical system! Besides there is nothing that even seems to indicate what is proposed to test for starters.

Now as for the "Scientific" approach, I don't see how a Martial Arts Summer Camp would validate a "Scientific" anything...actually rather corny. It would be like testing the effectiveness of a roundhouse kick, front kick, reverse punch, or whatever, on a select group. Should that technique have the same effect each and every time on each individual it should be considered a valid technique, if not, maybe it should be dismissed outright. If it is effective in this control group, does that mean that it will naturally work every time in a real situation? Or how about a Ju Jitsu practitioner performing a shoulder throw on specified group. Again, presuming that the results are uniform are we to accept that this technique is universally effective and therefore will always work the same way in every circumstance or yield the same result?

I have been working with Uechi Ryu Kata since 1997 and have literally KO a couple hundred folks...including Uechi Ryu practioners, with these techniques around the world including skeptics, even at your own camp. I have tried to teach it and only a handful have actually worked it, with great results as well. If the information was just worked on it would already be understood, as hands on WILL give you the results and information as opposed to inexperienced folks "scientifically" experimenting and no doubt writing a docterine on the findings. "Show me!" you say my reply, we have.

If you test something without adequate information or skills to bring forth proper validation, then efforts will be mute and inconsequential. Instead of continually hiding from Practical Hands On Application - Just Do It!

------------------
Evan Pantazi
www.kyusho.com

[This message has been edited by Evan Pantazi (edited July 02, 2002).]

Evan Pantazi · Post by **Evan Pantazi** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 12:06 pm

Glasheen Sensei,

The point was, is and will always be, if you have no experience and can't make it work, then how are you going to qualify any test.

1. The information lacking is the practical experience of making a a Kyusho strike work.

2. Who has it is the person that actually practiced it until success was achieved.

3. Qualifications would be both #1 & #2.

4. Letters don't count because they don't give you any skill unto themselves...practical hands on will, just theory till then. Belt Ranks won't count as well.

5. You will recognize one when you see them actually be able to do it.

4. I suspect as has happened in the past a qualified individual will be willing to be tested under correct and qualified testing.

As for Blaurs staement read the part of the post where several friends and LEO have used this under real circumstances...folks don't forget that part.

As for the Surgeon he still would not touch my electrical panel in my home as the degree, skill and letters after his name will not make him any more qualified in a different arena.

In short we do do the seminars, we don't wait for the world to catch up, we went to them. The back tracking is those that originally stated that Kyusho dosn't work period, but now admit to the "Basic Kyusho", and so it will be with more advanced concepts...5 years, more, who knows.

All I am stating here folks is if you can't do it, you can't test it...theory and book knowledge dosn't mean you can. Also coming in from a negative standpoint is rather a bad method.

There is nothing personal here sir, just stating an opinion, based on many years of research, hands on application and observation of history (recent)...this is my perogative.

------------------
Evan Pantazi
www.kyusho.com

Post by **gmattson** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 1:11 pm

I believe that we all should continue to follow the rule of discussing issues and not personalities here.

A fair topic is someone questioning the validity of a technique and attempting to discuss methods for testing it. In testing certain controversial kyusho techniques, no one is questioning the sincerity or ethics of the person who created the technique or who demonstrates the technique to the world.

I absolutely believed that Sifu Mooney was sinceer when he volunteered to have his ability to demonstratre "empty energy" on students, tested at camp. However, at the conclusion of the test, I question how Sifu Mooney could continue to defend his ability in this area. At the very least, I would think that the test would have caused Sifu to volunteer for more tests of a double blind nature, to make sure that he wasn't diluting himself (and his followers) with what rational people would consider a "parlor trick".

Since Sensei Pantazi chose to attack our efforts of testing a kyusho technique, I must at least reply:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Mattson Sensei,

I did not ask who to get anyone in trouble, I am nobodies mother. I have since been in contact with the individual and learned that the original intent of that specific "Test Vehicle Technique" was blown out of it's original intent. As a matter of fact it was supposedly for private information now turned out in public, a shame.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't feel that it was relevant that the individual's name be released. We are discussing a kyusho technique, not the person. However, the person did suggest that Van Cann sensei test the technique within his school. I won't reprint the whole letter, but just the portion relating to this point: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

However, I have been following the current discussion regarding Mr. Steve Stewart on your "Mindset" Forum. I realize that many people in the West (notably in the > Forum discussion, Mr. Laur) do not understand the Traditional Chinese Medicine ("TCM") paradigm and revert their perspective to a more Modern Western Medicine ("MWM") philosophy or psychology (e.g. hypnosis). That is fine with me. I am not looking to start a "mine is better than yours" discussion, only trying to offer some evidence of qi flow as understood in TCM. Perhaps you could do me the favor of trying this little experiment within your school and provide me with a MWM explanation of why this technique works so well. (I have a TCM explanation.) Here is my technique:

I consider that invitation to "test" the technique as sincere and without restrictions. Now back to Evan's comments:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Et al.

From a discussion on a book to a test of sequential striking sequences, to a study of a "you can't hit these points, then on to testing No Touch energy disruption (by the way if you can't work the basics, you probably can't work the advanced either...of course this is just opinion), you folks are getting in way over your heads no matter how many letters follow your name, I wouldn't let a Surgeon "TEST" my electrical system! Besides there is nothing that even seems to indicate what is proposed to test for starters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well here I detect some animosity and unfair remarks towards the idea of an outsider questioning a simple technique. The person who submitted the technique didn't have the same reservation or fear of failure:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Perhaps you could do me the favor of trying this little experiment within your school and provide me with a MWM explanation of why this technique works so well.

This sounds like a sinceer desire to share something spectacular with an outsider who hasn't had the opportunity to experience what the writer knows to be true.

Now back to Evan's comments:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Now as for the "Scientific" approach, I don't see how a Martial Arts Summer Camp would validate a "Scientific" anything...actually rather corny. It would be like testing the effectiveness of a roundhouse kick, front kick, reverse punch, or whatever, on a select group. Should that technique have the same effect each and every time on each individual it should be considered a valid technique, if not, maybe it should be dismissed outright. If it is effective in this control group, does that mean that it will naturally work every time in a real situation? Or how about a Ju Jitsu practitioner performing a shoulder throw on specified group. Again, presuming that the results are uniform are we to accept that this technique is universally effective and therefore will always work the same way in every circumstance or yield the same result?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would place the techniques mentioned into the same category of "accepted" as those of basic kyusho, and pressure points taught by Bruce Siddle and others. I don't think your comparing a punch to the head is the same as passing one's hand over an opponent, without touching the person.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I have been working with Uechi Ryu Kata since 1997 and have literally KO a couple hundred folks...including Uechi Ryu practioners, with these techniques around the world including skeptics, even at your own camp.

We are not trying to dispute your or other people's ability to make things work under "non-controlled" situations. If a hypnotist created a martial art system, claiming that he could make people fall over by snapping his fingers, and hypnosis was not understood (as it wasn't a hundred years ago), I would want to perform the same type of test on "hypnosis-ryu" that I want to perform on certain kyusho techniques.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I have tried to teach it and only a handful have actually worked it, with great results as well. If the information was just worked on it would already be understood, as hands on WILL give you the results and information as opposed to inexperienced folks "scientifically" experimenting and no doubt writing a docterine on the findings. "Show me!" you say my reply, we have.

According to the person submitting the technique, these are non-issues. If you feel that a special talent or power is necessary to perform the two movements in question, than your interpretation of kyusho application and expertise differs from what was submitted. Since the person is a high ranked kyusho practitioner from the Dillman system, he apparently has some knowledge, skill and expertise.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

If you test something without adequate information or skills to bring forth proper validation, then efforts will be mute and inconsequential. Instead of continually hiding from Practical Hands On Application - Just Do It!

Here I must again compare your remarks with our hypnotist martial artist who tells me "come up on the stage and feel my power"!

I have already admitted that under the conditions you wish to "show" me, I would probably "feel" what you want. If you believe that the technique submitted has any merit whatsoever, you should not object to having it tested under controlled conditions. We are not looking for a KO, just that in-combination, the two movements have any promised or desired results.

------------------
GEM