Quote:
Originally Posted by
Si 
No hyperbole intended and I don't think that's the issue. My goal was to make the point that using the same term to refer to the rotation of a joint and rotation of a body segment (which may involve numerous combinations of joint movements) only leads to confusion. I see people continuing to do this. To talk about rotation of a joint I think we should try to specify the movement of a bone within the joint socket. If I am going to talk about rotation of body segment I try to specify the body segment and the plane it is rotating in.
As I look back, yours was one of posts that is confusing (at least to me) when you say "Leg steering does not cause the hips to rotate." If I think about rotation of the hip joint (rotating femur in the hip socket/acetabulum) I understand that that is exactly what you use to create leg steering? Are you using hip rotation here to mean the rotation of the pelvis through a vertical axis?
I called it "hyperbole" because you were clearly exaggerating in an effort to discredit my definition. You said,
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Si 
I'm afraid that your nomenclature is then contrary to every medical, biomechanical, physiological, and anatomical definition in the world.
"...every...in the world." is clearly hyperbole (and, as I showed in my previous post, also clearly false).
The irony here is that I was doing the same thing with my definitions that you profess to be intending. I took the word "hips" from Rick's initial post and read it as the hip bones, not the femurs.
As a reminder, here's what he said:
Quote:
A countered pelvis can't be maintained while leg steering, because leg steering causes the hips to rotate. For that reason you can't hold an edge when leg steering either.
Because of the juxtaposition of the terms "pelvis" and "hips" I made the assumption here that they were referring to the same body part, and that if they weren't the statement would be "A countered pelvis can't be maintained while leg steering, because leg steering causes the femurs to rotate." That would make it obvious that the two phrases are completely independent rather than cause and effect, rending it even more obviously a
non sequitur. I assumed that the statement was intending to say that you can't maintain a countered pelvis because leg steering causes the hip bones to rotate (i.e., the pelvis) and since it's rotating, you can't maintain counter. To imply that you can't maintain a countered pelvis because the femurs are rotating below it is nonsensical.
