Posted by: tom.guerry (tom.guerry@kp.org) on Sat Feb 15 10:01:06 2003

So be it...my apologies. If you took it as an outburst. But it has nothing to do with fear. I welcome any comments related to seeking the truth.
> >
> >
> Fair enough.
>
> Mark H.

Zig-

Thanks for sticking with this.

I think you would really enjoy Ron Wolforth's approach to continuously improving how we teach depending on what we learn.As you move forward with instruction,you can always do better.Tom House is an excellent example.The question is what do you add to how you teach an what do you take out.What's "a teach",whats "not a teach",what's a "no teach".

In general,cues that are for the most part opposed to reality are "bad teaches".Once you have the "aha" and think you may see more accurately how things work,you have to re-evaluate your method and what was once "a teach" may be discarded as "what not to teach".As Brent Strom says(House follower) "don't teach what's impossible"(or words to that effect.

Along these lines,I currently believe any pushing from the back side/squish the bug/push with the back foot are "bad teaches".As Epstein explains,this prevents adequate torque/separation/x-factor.The hips and torso come together and lunging can not be prevented.

I agree with the internal rotation of the back leg and how the more proximal big muscles are necessary to move the back leg as well as the importance of scissoring,but most of this is a "no teach"."weight shift" is very difficult to assess visually because it is so indirect.