NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/martial/16107

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 4.6 KB | 102 lines

Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Path: sparky!uunet!timbuk.cray.com!walter.cray.com!radner
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Radner)
Subject: Re: Describing techniques in words - Yuk!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 90
Nntp-Posting-Host: bushido.cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 92 09:52:59 CST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Gombosi) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lauren Radner) writes:
>>
>>And I'd suggest that we avoid all "buzz words" if at all possible (no
>>"and then you apply an 'atemi wazi uke tensho dai yakuza whizbang'
>>followed by a 'tiger meets crane under the yellow ribbon on the old
>>oak tree in the winter storm' stance" stuff.)
>
>Absolutely, why should we use a compact, precise notational system when
>we can waste bandwidth and storage on systems all over the world ;-).

Because that precise notational system isn't used by all of us. Each
style has its *own* "precise notational system" (and I'd argue how
precise it is, in some cases), and we don't have time or even opportunity
to learn EVERYBODY's style's notational systems.

>In the case of Judo, there's a consistent naming system which allows one
>to describe *really* complex gyrations in very little space. There are any
>number of excellent reference works which can serve as "Judo glossaries".

...but they're not on the net.

>
>Karate presents a different problem - many terms (especially "inside"
>and "outside") are used inconsistently between styles.

.... even more confusing.

>Different
>terms are used for parts of the body ("shotei" vs. "teisho" for "palm heel",
>"enpi"/"empi" vs. "hiji" for elbow). Still, whoever does the "Karate FAQ"
>could provide a cross-reference to terms and how they're used.

..... but that doesn't exist yet.

>
>My impression of the TKD folks is that they've got the terminology problem
>under control.

........ but we don't all do TKD. Some of our moves aren't in their nomenclature.
         And their nomenclature is not readily available unless you saved off their
         glossary a few months ago.

>
>Aikido is easy - if you don't know the name of a technique, just wave
>your hands and use the words "kokyu nage" ;-). If that doesn't work,
>use the word "atemi" and snicker.
>
>Chinese terminology confuses me hopelessly, but I'll bet if I asked *real*
>nice they'd explain what they were talking about ;-). Then again, maybe
>not...
>

.... Steve, you make my point for me. The language used to communicate in
the forum of rec.ma is *english* (whether it is our first language or not).
Therefore, it seems to me, out of courtesy if nothing else, that parenthetical
explanations, no matter how brief, be included when all the style-gibberish
starts erupting in a post. Would it *kill* people to say "Start in 'horse
stance' (a crouched position much like the one you are in when riding a horse)..."
or "Then do an outside cross block (your arm <on your right side> blocks his
right arm <the arm on his right side> by moving from the middle of your body
towards your right side <the "outside">) and then you do a ..."  ????????
If that interrupts the flow too much, then "asterisk-ize" the technical terms
and explain them at the bottom so those who want to can read them and those who
know them aren't distracted.

If such explanations don't appear in a post, people:
1) ask on the net or in private e-mail and there's a flurry of additional
   bandwidth that could have been prevented, and by then, it's not associated
   with the original post anyway.
2) people don't want to post "HUNH????" for the fourteenth time that day and
   just *don't ask*. So they never understand the post and don't learn the
   nomenclature either.

In BOTH cases, the reader's eyes glaze over and they miss what value the post
may have had for them.

I consider using unfamiliar terminology and not explaining it to be needless -
though in most cases accidental - elitism. It excludes those not familiar with
your art. It makes them beg for an explanation and feel ignorant. If their ego
is in a good mood that day and they don't mind expressing their ignorance - which
some on the net are sure to confuse with stupdity - then they *still* have to wait
any number of days to understand the original post. If they're willing to go to
the trouble of asking. Lots of other people have just given up and hit "next".

As Einstein said, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well
enough."

-Lauren