Scott P. Phillips wrote:I have to admit that I find it funny that there are people on this forum who think they need to strengthen their legs ... Chinese Internal Martial Arts are just a way to make people really strong.
Void wrote:Scott P. Phillips wrote:As to me being condescending, well, I prefer to think of myself as having an arrogant streak. I think I'm right, and I suppose it shows, but I'm here to learn.
Scott - the arrogance won't help you learn, neither will thinking you're right. Seeking dissonance and insincere motives in discourse will only stand in the way of being a good man. You might be generous and sincere in real life - if so why not be congruent and extend it through your whole life. I think Shawn Segler once said something along the lines of 'If you're an asshole to the waiter - but good to your friends - you're still an asshole'
So, not that you are asking for any advice (to paraphrase a recent post of yours) - but I'd work on emptying your cup and being a good simple man.
SINCERE words are not sweet,
Sweet words are not sincere.
Good men are not argumentative,
The argumentative are not good.
The wise are not erudite,
The erudite are not wise.
The Sage does not take to hoarding.
The more he lives for others, the fuller is his life.
The more he gives, the more he abounds.
The Way of Heaven is to benefit, not to harm.
The Way of the Sage is to do his duty, not to strive with anyone
He who should record my idle talk as being to the prejudice of the pettiest law, opinion, or custom of his parish, would do himself a great deal of wrong, and me much more; for, in what I say, I warrant no other certainty, but that 'tis what I had then in my thought, a tumultuous and wavering thought. All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice:
"Nec me pudet, ut istos fateri nescire, quod nesciam;"
["Neither am I ashamed, as they are, to confess my ignorance of what
I do not know."—Cicero, Tusc. Quaes., i. 25.]
I should not speak so boldly, if it were my due to be believed; and so I told a great man, who complained of the tartness and contentiousness of my exhortations. Perceiving you to be ready and prepared on one part, I propose to you the other, with all the diligence and care I can, to clear your judgment, not to compel it.
~ Michel de Montaigne
MartialDev wrote:Drop the Kung Fu Panda act plz...
ChiBelly wrote:johnwang wrote:Huge leg is not strong leg. A strong leg a leg that has nice shape, slim but not bulky.
In my opinion, her legs must be very strong.
meeks wrote:Well if this is Scott Phillips way of marketing to the chee huggers about relaxation will create chee will create skill, then he's feeding the sheep what they want to hear - those that actually read his blog, and I wish him well for that. The points raised have poor substance - the photo is that of a body builder that has developed large muscles as the PURPOSE of his training by using isolation exercises. Most fu zhu gong fa (supplementary exercises) are used to condition/strengthen areas of the body by coordinating/unifying the movement (as opposed to isolating the movement). Power does not equal huge muscle tissue - but come on - you don't really need US to tell you that... *silence*... do you?
But, he's preening to the readers that want to agree with him like Rush Limbaugh only preens to his extreme right wing groups.
My training in bagua left me unable to walk for the first few months from pain, tension and lactic acid - it eventually went away by working through it and learning lots of tui na which involved hitting parts of my legs with a rubber mallet.
Scott - I wish you the best while you're on your soap box. Hopefully the only people that put your skills to the test are those that buy in to what you say.
wiesiek wrote:ChiBelly wrote:johnwang wrote:Huge leg is not strong leg. A strong leg a leg that has nice shape, slim but not bulky.
In my opinion, her legs must be very strong.
+1
best post so far
middleway wrote:After all a Bridge arc is 'strong' but has no muscle .. it is completely aligned and using gravity to maintain itself ... yet it is extremely STRONG.
We have 'structural strength' ... that is STRONG. None of those things are 'weak' at all!!!!
so what your arguing is in fact .. body builder style muscularly strong legs vs CIMA structurally STRONG legs. The whole 'you dont need strong legs' is refuted entirely by most of what your saying ... if we define strength just as the arch or as structural ...
Bridge arcs don't maintain themselves - you have to have cement between each stone, and at the top of the arc, there is usually a keystone which is bigger than the rest of the stones.
The strength of an arc is due to its shape, but you have to ask, what maintains its shape? Arc bridges still collapse when their foundations become weak, because they are no longer strong enough to maintain their shape.
middleway wrote:this isnt correct. The keystone is what makes an arch stable as i discussed with a architect friend of mine only the other day ... it is stable due to its shape ... not the connection of the stones together by cement. There is a clip he showed me of someone who build an arch out of wood and stood on it with no connection between the blocks at all. Its the geometry of the arch that holds it together.
s
The keystone only makes the arch stable in one direction. The arch made out of wood will not stand for long, nor will an arch of stones with no cement. All you have to do is bump into it or have the ground shake a little and it will all fall down. Even structures that are not "arch" shaped can be stable due to the way gravity causes items above to press on those below, but they are not maintainable structures if there is any force other than from above. If you have played Jenga, you'd know what I mean.
Return to Been There Done That
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests