Talk:Breaking (martial arts)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Martial arts (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 


Breaking Bottles[edit]

Bottles are an item that people break. However, it is usually a fraudulent affair, accomplished only by putting the bottles in a furnace and upon taking them out, immediately placing them in snow.

My teacher's teacher lived in Korea for many of his younger years. He went to a demonstration where they were braking bottles. He was fascinated by it. When he went home he practiced trying to brake bottles everyday. He would place the bottle on a stump and kick it. Over and over, relentlessly. Sometimes the bottle would hit the tree in the distance and brake, but he could never brake it himself.

When the next demonstration came up, about 6 months later, he went and asked the people how they did it. They told him how they had cheated and he got understandably angry. Apparently he was so angry he wanted "to kill them". That's his way of saying he was very angry.

Well, just thought I'd share that bit of info. Quietmartialartist 22:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I've actually seen that done before. I'm pretty sure that the no cheating was involved. The bottle was obviously empty. But when I saw it, the breaker took the bottle, grabbed the neck of it in one hand, and squeezed the top with another hand. It was actually very amazing. -Ddawg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawg2007 (talkcontribs)

fake cinder blocks[edit]

Demonstrations are different than competitions. Although not always the case, demonstrations could use materials that are specially prepared to facilitate ease in breaking demonstrations. At sanctioned competitions, such as those run by the United States and World Breaking Associations USBA/WBA, materials are standard and inspected. Boards are standard USBA/WBA boards shipped directly from the mill and concrete blocks are purchased from suppliers in the vacinity of the event. Ects2000 (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

i've actually met someone who specialized in making cinder blocks and wood made for martial arts events. they're structurally designed to break easily. the wood is the same kind they use in professional wrestling tables. it has a weak point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.160.154 (talkcontribs)

It is true that some martial artist use boards that are easier to break but those are usually only for events as you said, such as demonstrations. Otherwise normal unaltered boards are fairly hard to break depending on your skill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.175.156 (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Real life application[edit]

I often saw martial artists breaking large blocks of bricks with moderate effort, sometimes block of 8 or 9(often with spacers between bricks, but sometimes no).

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-8629321730063150584

So, does this mean that if they hit the arm of a normal person with the same knife strike, that one's arm will be cut in half, for there's no way a person's arm can be as thick as a brick block. Or is it that brick blocks designed for breaking is no match for human's bones? I've had this question for years, can anyone explain to me? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.147.248 (talk) 06:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There are some key differences. First of all, the concrete blocks were solidly supported and couldn't go anywhere. Either they were going to break, or they weren't; they couldn't move even a fraction of an inch. Secondly, bone and concrete do have different properties; concrete is fairly brittle, whereas bone has more resilience. Thirdly, you also have muscle and other tissue surrounding the bone (though it depends on where the bone is struck). Omnedon 13:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Serious problems[edit]

I don't know where the information in this article came from, but a great deal of it seems totally wrong to me. I'm no physicist, but I've read a half-dozen so articles on the physics of breaking and they all seem to contradict the claims about pegged vs unpegged boards. I plan to come back with some references soon, but I wanted to see if I was the only one having these concerns. Contrary to the article, my understanding is that pegged boards are much easier to break than unpegged boards. I also find the claim that a single brick equals 6-7 unpegged boards equally unlikely (depending on board size, which ought to have been specified). Anyone have any thoughts on this? Bradford44 18:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that in general, a pegged stack of boards would be easier to break than an unpegged stack. It would depend partly on the thickness of the boards compared to the size of the pegs; and it's true that the principle is not quite the same as with concrete because of the "flex factor". So, the article has some parts of it right; but, for example, I did remove the assertion that adding bricks to an unpegged stack increases the difficulty exponentially, which isn't literally true.
In any case, though, let's say you're breaking a stack of four boards. Without the pegs, you have to break all four boards at virtually the same instant, almost as if they were one thick board. Pegging stretches it out, whether it's wood or concrete. You still have to travel all the way through the stack, since one broken board won't do much to break the next one in the stack (as with concrete), but in my opinion it does make the break easier as long as you have sufficient follow-through. The assertion that you have to "physically touch" each board in the stack isn't really true either.
As to the question of "X boards = 1 concrete", it would depend on the wood (since even with pine boards, one will find some to be harder or tougher than others), the thickness of the concrete, et cetera. However, in general, I think that breaking 7 unpegged boards would be much more challenging than breaking a single piece of concrete (which is really quite easy, as long as it's done right, due to the brittleness of the material). Breaking concrete is a whole different game. Omnedon 13:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Good, what you have written confirms what I have read. I actually went to the library today (at the University of Florida, which I live very close to) and was reading some old science articles about the physics of martial arts and breaking. I plan to go back and make some copies of what I read, so I can use it as a reference here. If you live near a good library, you might want to check out the following article:
  • Feld, M.S. et. al. "The Physics of Karate," Scientific American, pp. 150-158, April 1979.
It was very interesting, and at least somewhat written for a non physicist/engineer. Bradford44 22:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Breaking boards without spacers, "Pegs", is much more difficult than breaking boards with spacers. Think about it this way: You have 5 boards separated by spacers, when you go to strike the first board, how many boards are you breaking? One. The first one. True, you need a decent amount of speed, but the required power to break 5 boards at once is completely diminished. Quietmartialartist (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it only me that picked up on the statement that unpegged bricks are easier to break than pegged bricks, but then the author goes on to say that two unpegged bricks equals 6 pegged bricks! This does not make sense! Either pegging is easier or harder with bricks, can anyone say which is true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.185.149 (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Impulse vs Velocity[edit]

Velocity cannot be the determining factor in any board break. Do a simple experiment: Take a whip, and whip any collection of bricks, boards, sticks, whatever. The whip (if you get a nice creak out of it) is moving supersonically, that is, over 700 miles per hour. The board will not break. What is required to break a board (in an unsupported break) is stress-loading it above the maximum for the material. For a supported break, things are a bit trickier. Loading quickly can still rupture the board, but loading slowly with a greater final force can break the board through bending it past its maximum deformation. RogueNinjatalk 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The crack of a whip occurs when the tip changes direction at the end of travel. It's not travelling at supersonic speed during the downstroke... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.85.67 (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Velocity is the determining factor based on the fact that the mass of the tool is static. You cannot make your hand more massive more during a break, but you can increase it's speed. As the velocity of a strike has a magnifying effect on the mass when it comes to calculating the amount of force (force = mass * (velocity * velocity) I think), then the speed of your strike could be considered the determining factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.231.220.128 (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

It has been proposed that Breaking be renamed and moved to Breaking (disambiguation). Based on the article traffic tool, Breaking should be move to Breaking (disambiguation) and Breaking (martial arts) should be moved to Breaking. Please comment at Talk:Breaking.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Breaking is bull[edit]

The bricks and cinder blocks they use are made with a high concentration of sand. They're MUCH different than the kinds used to build houses and other stuff. Real bricks can hardly be broken with a sledgehammer let alone a chop. 70.89.165.91 (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. As a matter of fact, I've seen both bullshidokas using the stuff you're writing about (including woodboards preheated and pre-dried in an oven, to make it more fragile), as well as the real guys. For example, a colleague of mine here breaks solid concrete blocks, bought in a building goods store. But people still don't believe him :) So I guess the only way is to either use the cheapest stuff and go for quantity, or try to find something standardized, but this is quite difficult, though. Pundit|utter 21:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Demonstrations are different than competitions. Although not always the case, demonstrations could use materials that are specially prepared to facilitate ease in breaking demonstrations. At sanctioned competitions, such as those run by the United States and World Breaking Associations USBA/WBA, materials are standard and inspected. Boards are standard USBA/WBA boards shipped directly from the mill and concrete blocks are purchased from suppliers in the vacinity of the event. Ects2000 (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Direction of wood boards[edit]

As I understand it, wood boards are normally broken along the grain (that is, the line of breakage is parallel to the grain of the wood). This of course makes a tremendous difference to the physical properties of the wood. Is this true? If so I think it would be valuable to mention it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.126.133 (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

---This is true as it is much harder to break a board against the grain. However when talking about cinder and ceramic plate it is much harder to break. I am personally training with people who I have seen literally but blocks from a store and break it with their fists (or elbows, knees, you name it.)

I want to see a video of it, including them buying it from the store. The snare (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


> As said before it is true that it is much harder to break a board against the grain. But it is also safer to break it with the grain i know personally because I train in breaking boards and almost broke my foot once because one of the boards was not lined up properly with grains.

User spreading misinformation and violating revert rules[edit]

Seems to me that TheTruthiness has violated the 3 revert rule. In addition, this user continuously insists that information not present in the "source" supports claims that he makes. He refuses to provide quotes AND timestamps that support each statement. Quotes are important as not every version will have identical timing due to intros, etc. He thinks that because a wikipedia guideline doesn't require quotes for citing, that means he can claim the the source contains anything without any potential for dispute. Here are the list of statements that he wishes to add:

1. "the most commonly seen breaking involves spaced, softwood boards" Nothing in the entire source or timestamp section states that the most commonly seen breaking uses spaced boards.

2. "The use of spacers means instead of breaking the entire stack at once, they break one at a time- each one helps break the next as little momentum is lost and gravity is helping" Here he insists on saying the "use of spacers" as if that's the only method and continuously removes the qualifier "if spacers are used". Maybe he does this because he thinks he needs to describe one particular breaking event in the video shown right before the quote and that should be used in the lead on the subject of a general subject. As if someone in a video saying "the car can't move because it doesn't have wheels" referring to one specific car should be put in the lead of an article about cars to imply that no cars can move because they don't have wheels. Additionally "each one helps break the next" doesn't make any sense whatsoever unless breaking one somehow increases your momentum. A revolutionary find if true, but I think more evidence should be provided for it in the form of peer-reviewed scientific studies. I think it's better to say that when using spacers, breaking one board barely hinders the next. And "gravity is helping" either implies that all breaking is done in a downward direction, or that there is a significant amount of gravity acting parallel to the surface of the Earth. This is nearly a direct quote from the "source", but it's clear in the video that they're showing a downward break when stating this quote and not intending it for all breaks. Again, what he insists on keeping refer to particular events in the video instead of the general subject. Are wikipedia articles supposed to be video summaries? Maybe this is why he's confused why I'm asking for quotes and timestamps. It's because he's describing several events in the video quite well, but I'm actually asking for quotes that supports claims about the entire subject.

3. "Because of this, breaking is primarily used as an advertising gimmick to woo potential customers" This is a bold statement that implies ALL breaking is done as advertising gimmick, combined with previous misinformation continues to imply and relies on the statement that all or most breaking is done with spacers. Additionally, it's somewhat of a paraphrase of a one-liner where a guest states his opinion. I don't think this should be referred to as an objective statement when there are no supporting remarks whatsoever and considering the quality of the video.

The source states that breaking 1 board is easy with the grain, "Still, even with soft pine, breaking a stack of 5 takes a hell of a whack, unless you put pencils chopsticks or some separators between them." At 24:39 from my version of the source Yet TheTruthiness insists on removing the statement "which requires little skill or strength for a single board, but still a significant amount for multiple boards without spacers" which complies exactly with the source.

Finally, can some authority review this "source" and determine if it's a valid source for this article? From what I've seen, the "source" is intended as entertainment, and does not even pretend that it should be used authoritatively. Although several of the points in the video are correct (with regards to martial arts in general, not just this breaking subject), the video itself doesn't provide reliable evidence for them, but instead relies on straw men and mockery for entertainment purposes.

67.166.34.5 (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

So many things wrong with your post, not only your article title which is defamatory. One- I have not broken 3RR (An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page...within a 24-hour period), but 24.8.199.42 has. Yet you completely ignore that, that fact that you also put the word source in quotation marks and mention later "I'm asking for quotes and timestamps" makes me think that you may be the same editor as 24.8.199.42, who has made 4 edits in a 24-hr period (even after getting a warning) just with that IP address...5 if you are the same person. Two, I DID INCLUDE TIMESTAMPS (which you later even mention, so how can you claim I'm not using them??) which is one of the things suggested (but not required) in WP:CITE, transcribing quotations are NOT.

My "insisting" on talking about spacers is because the part goes on to talk about breaking stacked, spaced boards. Yes there are other kinds (non-spaced, using bricks, etc) but since vertically-stacked, spaced wood is the most common type, that's what's being discussed in the lead section since it's the most common and not the exception. Your car metaphor is invalid because the most common car has wheels- a car article wouldn't talk about wheel-less cars in the lead. Almost all horizontal breaking (and all shown in the source) is with a single item. The basic laws of physics are also not "revolutionary" in 2013. I honestly don't understand how you can be mad at me for being too specific and being too general at the same time.

Primarily /= all. It's not "a bold statement that implies ALL breaking is done as advertising gimmick", it's a statement from a martial arts expert about MOST breaking. It only implies that if you don't know what words mean. --TheTruthiness (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Title is not defamatory. I see 4 reverts by you, one of those is while you're logged out. It's funny that you try to pretend that's not you or someone associated with you. It's also funny that you think the exact numbers matter and you're not equally culpable for edit warring "(even after getting a warning)", no matter whether you claim 3 or 4 reverts.
I explain why I put source in quotations marks. It's because I consider it to be trash. Also, I see one original edit by 24.8.199.42 and 3 reverts.
"so how can you claim I'm not using them??[???????]"
Did you have trouble reading this? "He refuses to provide quotes AND timestamps" That means both. As in, timestamp is not enough to fathom how you come to the conclusions that you do especially with variance between versions in editing, intros, etc. leading to different timings, but I'm repeating myself, so why don't you just reread the first comment.
Again, I'll repeat that I'm not asking for quotes for the citation, I'm asking them to guess how you claim the video supports your statement. Should I just copy paste my first comment and hope you read it this time?
The fact is that the lead you reverted to 4 times is misleading and implies things that the video doesn't even imply. The other option provides a fair description for both spaced and non-spaced breaking including support from the "source" that breaking a stack of non-spaced wood is non-trivial. Respond to each point in first comment if you wish. State what you think is wrong with the fair and balanced lead rather than the one you prefer. Provide where in the "source" that it states that breaking using spacers is the most common (and now you add vertically stacked)... You know what, I'm not going to repeat my comment. Just reread the first comment and provide the necessary evidence.
"Almost all horizontal breaking (and all shown in the source) is with a single item" More unfounded claims from you? Provide source for this statement. All breaking of that type shown in the source are with single item, but also all showed in the source are done with spacers. Also, Penn and Teller hand-selected three foolish people to represent martial arts that are easy to mock. That just furthers the points of how trashy the source is. Nowhere does the video even say that these are the most common. How are you coming to these conclusions?
"The basic laws of physics are also not "revolutionary" in 2013." Breaking a board will not help break the next board. Breaking a board provides resistance that will hinder breaking of the next board. In the case of breaking using spacers, it's very minimal amount of resistance, but I'm not sure how you think a small negative number equals a positive number. Relearn (or learn for the first time) physics if you think that it does.
That breaking is a gimmick is not an objective statement. It's the opinion of one martial arts author who chose to take part in a video that's basically just makes a mockery of true skepticism for entertainment and titillation.

67.166.34.5 (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

To user claiming "correction of spelling mistakes"[edit]

Please provide a list of spelling errors here. Another option is to make one edit to fix spelling errors and another edit to add the statements that are unsupported by the source that you desperately want.

SimilarName (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Penn and Teller?[edit]

An episode of Penn and Teller's show hardly qualifies as a reliable source. Also, the lead of an article is supposed summarize the article as a whole. The cited material doesn't belong here. Omnedon (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I see that there seems to be no interest in discussion on this. Yet it needs to be discussed; edit warring is not a solution. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, yet the third paragraph summarizes nothing that appears in the body of the article. A Penn and Teller television episode is also not a reliable source for the cited material. Simply stating the opposite doesn't deal with the issue. Omnedon (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)