The GTF-Talk Archive.

From: owner-gtf-talk@more.net on behalf of Charles Horn

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 09:14:48 -0600

Subject: The sine-wave

From owner-gtf-talk@more.net  Mon Oct 27 16:14:38 1997
Received: from vortex.more.net (vortex.more.net [198.209.253.70]) by iq.pvv.ntnu.no (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA29071 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 16:14:37 +0100 (MET)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
	by vortex.more.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA24501;
	Mon, 27 Oct 1997 09:14:16 -0600 (CST)
Received: by more.net (bulk_mailer v1.5); Mon, 27 Oct 1997 09:14:16 -0600
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by vortex.more.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA24492
	for gtf-talk-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 09:14:15 -0600 (CST)
X-Authentication-Warning: vortex.more.net: majordomo set sender to owner-gtf-talk@more.net using -f
Received: from coins0.coin.missouri.edu (coins0 [198.209.253.1])
	by vortex.more.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA24488
	for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 09:14:13 -0600 (CST)
Received: from catspaw.apg.more.net (catspaw.apg.more.net [198.209.250.115])
	by coins0.coin.missouri.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA23252
	for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 09:14:10 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971027091448.007b2100@pop.coin.missouri.edu>
X-Sender: mwhalen@pop.coin.missouri.edu
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 09:14:48 -0600
To: gtf-talk@more.net
From: Melissa Whalen 
Subject: Resend - RE: The sine-wave
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-gtf-talk@more.net
Reply-To: gtf-talk@more.net

Due to a bit of a address problem, this posting was bounced on the first send.

Melissa


>To: gtf-talk@more.net
>Subject: RE: The sine-wave
>
>I have been thinking about this sine-wave question ever since Mr. Horn got
it 
>posted.  I have been waiting for someone to answer it because I am not
sure I 
>can.  Howver, I will take the risk of embarrassing myself and take a stab at 
>this, fully expecting someone to say "Gee Rick, that's stupid."  
>
>Perhaps the increase in mass is independent of motion.  For instance, the
fact 
>that I am dropping my weight increase may increase my mass, which adds power 
>to my technique--whatever the technique might be.  The motion, placement,
and 
>direction of the technique may be a separate and distinct variable to mass.  
>It would not make much sense to rise up while executing a rising block for a 
>few reasons:  1) you're off balance  2) knee spring, which is the primary 
>contribution to the sine wave, also plays a major factor in hip twist,
another 
>major contribution to power  3) we know that in studying theory of power,
mass 
>and equilibrium are primary components.  
>
>However, this explanation may not answer the most simple aspect of Mr.
Horn's 
>question--How do we generate power in a technique when our body is moving 
>opposite of the technique.  This has been a major criticism that the USTF
and 
>CTF have verbalized about the GTF style.  I feel it is of primary importance 
>to view TaeKwon-Do as a defensive art.  To sacrifice balance in place of 
>power, especially while blocking, would be preposterous.  Therefore, we need 
>to recognize that not all techniques are to be executed with maximum power
in 
>mind.  If that were the case, we would all be throwing our shoulders in 
>pattern.
>
>I welcome criticisms.  My self-esteem can handle it.  Please remember,
this is 
>only an attempt to answer a question.
>
>Rick Balkin
>Barnabus_B @msn.com.     
>
>----------
>From: 	owner-gtf-talk@more.net on behalf of Charles Horn
>Sent: 	Wednesday, October 22, 1997 9:36 AM
>To: 	gtf-talk@more.net
>Subject: 	The sine-wave
>
>Dear Taekwon-Doists:
>
>In my attempts to apply the sine-wave movement to my techniques I have not
>been able to fully understand it's use in many techniques.  To begin with
>perhaps my understanding of what the sine-wave is used for is faulty.  My
>current belief is that it is used to increase one's mass (thus increasing
>power) at the critical point of contact using a strike or block.  I can see
>why this would be effective for hand movements at shoulder level and below.
> However, when hand techniques are above this level, such as when doing a
>high section punch or a rising block, I do not comprehend how dropping the
>body can increase the power of these techniques because the body mass is
>being moved away from the strike/block instead of being put behind it.  One
>possible answer to this is that execution of these techniques should occur
>during the rise of the sine-wave after the drop--but this is just my own
>speculation.  
>I have the same question concerning kicks.  And I also have a related
>point. When doing some technique like the inner forearm block from an
>L-stance power is applied to the side.  But if you are dropping down at the
>same time wouldn't this reduce the power of the technique--in the sense
>that the dropping motion is diverting mass away from the technique that is
>being executed to the side.  I guess this is also true of techiques that
>are executed to the front, i.e., walking stance obverse punch.  If any of
>you could enlighten me on these questions I would greatly appreciate it.
>You can either reply to the entire list (since this discussion may be
>beneficial to everyone) or to me personally.
>
>Sincerely,
>Charles Horn
>cch27@columbia.edu
>
>
>
>
>

[GTF-Talk Archive]