Toe Kick Stunner

ugh you're missing the point GE, what I meant was that there is really no exact science in the actual execution(i.e. the player performing the move) of the move. oh well its kinda nitpicky and pointless for me to get into it anymore.

 

[ QUOTE ]
ugh you're missing the point GE, what I meant was that there is really no exact science in the actual execution(i.e. the player performing the move) of the move. oh well its kinda nitpicky and pointless for me to get into it anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's not at all too "nitpicky and pointless" for me to keep involved though. I didn't miss your point at all but perhaps you couldn't express your point fully.

this is what you wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
The way I do it is get a rhythm down of when to press P+G after doing b+K+G, so you don't have to watch for the move to hit. I think the best way to start out with it though is to just go into free/command training and watch for it to hit and try pressing P+G then. There really isn't an exact science to doing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your new take on your initial dumb statement makes as much sense as it did before (which you responded to in the way I "interpreted" it). If you can't express yourself correctly (through lack of time or wit) refrain from telling people they've missed the point.

GE

 

I'll flip flop on what I said earlier because I think your reply was a bit harsh GE. I did not intend to offend you.

"and to clear up, I wasn't advocating "counting frames" but dismissing the idea that there ins't an exact science to the move. There is and it is best illustrated in the frame data."

This implies to me that you're not taking into consideration the player performing the move, but the move itself. So you can understand why I responded in that way. But after I went over your earlier posts I realized the point you were trying to make is that the "science" to the move is the 3 frame window the player has to input P+G. So it was just a simple minsunderstanding based on my ambiguous usage of the word science.