How can people not comprehend something this simple?
It is near-impossible to get a person to understand a thing when their entire argument depends on them not understanding it.
How can people not comprehend something this simple?
You must be getting some great stretching from all the reaching you're done. As a boxing fan, you really chose the wrong subject to try to lift words off of and claim they have no meaning. Read Klaus's more detailed comments of the words.JohnSnow said:*AHEM*
It's called "sarcasm."
And still, a roundhouse has nothing to do with houses. A good "upper cut", while it moves upward, still doesn't "cut" the lip of your opponent, it splits it open. Blunt objects, by definition, don't "cut."
To be truly and properly "descriptive," a "roundhouse" ought to be called a "half circle punch" and an "Upper cut" ought to be called an "upwards reverse punch."
Obviously, in the proper context, they make perfect sense. But in context, things like "long tail guard" (for the record, that's the English translation for a type of longsword guard) make perfect sense. The sword is low and sticks out behind the swordsman like, well, a tail.
What if a "Tornado Strike" is a sweeping blow that hurls someone back? That's reasonably descriptive of the effect of the blow. In your view, would something called "skull-splitting strike" have to split the skull? Or is it enough if it just hits it and dazes the target?
People are getting far, far, too hung up on naming conventions, with little to no justification other than "they don't like it." Not liking it is fine, but that doesn't mean that the decision is "wrong." Evocative names, as many people have shown, have their place, even in the European martial tradition. You're entitled to think they're confusing, or to prefer flavorless mechanical descriptions, but you are NOT entitled to complain on a basis that's incorrect.
How can people not comprehend something this simple?