"Much said and nothing cognitive to absorb."
"So, a non static attack would be what exactly if not a catalyst? Why is purposeful compliance taught?"
I consider purposeful compliance a useful tactic - and techniques like Raking Mace and Twin Kimono are good examples and teaching instruments of said tactic. "Catalyst" just isn't a term I use.
"That being said, you are forgetting the techniques such as Attacking Mace, which addresses the exact same punch. Why so many techniques for a simple straight right punch? There's bound to be more of a reason than Cat Com."
I presume there are so many techniques against a right punch because of the high percentage of fist fights that start out that way and something called "variable expansion." Cat Com dictates that, at the least, we are going to be given an example of an answer that addresses the attack from the inside, outside, top, and bottom.
"Have you considered that ARMMing is why? Realistically, if I'm slightly out of range for the first strike in Leaping Crane, I haven't cancelled any dimensions. ARMMing tells me I need to close the gap fast and take out at least one while in a semi zone of sanctuary."
I don't think there's anything to ARMMing that isn't covered in position recognition - except for an attempt at re-inventing the wheel.
"If you'll notice, going through the system that techniques are built on failure of one to the next, as well as success of others. That there can be no standard "answer" to the "question" your opponent asks."
See...now this seems to me to contradict much of what you are always saying. If there is no standard answer, why are you always espousing the notion that every catalyst dictates a...well, standard answer/ideal phase technique?
"Our task is simply to remove the dialogue and begin the monologue."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.