CorrectionAugust 14 2008 at 2:11 PM
No score for this post
Michael Miller (Login millhouse23)
from IP address 18.104.22.168
Response to Good stuff Michael, now that you've done that...
"and this is precisely where I was going with this. Notice the definitions you provided define what the concepts entail but spefically do not use the word or any other language suggesting or even pertaining to "range". They are tactics that are not locked to a given range"
This was my fault, James. The first sentence of contact manipulation's definition is this: "The fourth stage of the FOUR STAGES OF RANGE."
I provided the rest of the definition, but left out the first sentence. So this does state it is about range. Control Manipulation does not.
Next: I look at contact penetration as a means of striking through the target (and, yes, you are manipulating his space). I look at contact manipulation as a means of grappling (locks, holds, presses,etc.).
Now you said, "Another attempt to further break something down..although to be blunt this is one of the few examples I'll flatly state does not really work when you take it off of paper and apply it."
What are you saying can't be applied here? And why can't it?
"Contact manipulation - Strike manipulation. To maintain 'control' you have to lock on to him in some way. Strikes are ballistic touch and go..once the strike lands the control is momentarily lost until you touch him again."
That still seems like contact penetration to me. Contact penetration is strike manipulation.
"Control manipulation - Grab manipulation, and I use 'grab' loosely. Grabs, vices, presses, pushes, pins, pulls, etc. Constant control is maintained through a constant application of force, pressure or leverage. You can maintain control because you never stop touching him."
I do appreciate your elaboration, but again, I view this as contact manipulation. I will have to do some research in the "Infinite Insights" books to try to find what Mr. Parker said in there.
I appreciate your time, James.