# A fist is more powerful than a impact weapon strike. What is going on?



## jaime_lion (Jun 22, 2019)

So I saw this video and the guy was able to produce more force with a back-fist that with two types of sticks. A beefy Chinese flute and an Indian weighted club. 

Does anyone know why this is? 

Here is the video.


----------



## geezer (Jun 23, 2019)

Yeah. He covered it pretty well in his discussion. The only thing is he didn't show the initial empty hand strike he was using as a base of comparison. I'd like to see that as well.


----------



## jaime_lion (Jun 23, 2019)

geezer said:


> Yeah. He covered it pretty well in his discussion. The only thing is he didn't show the initial empty hand strike he was using as a base of comparison. I'd like to see that as well.



Here is the video showing his backhand strike. He had this video linked in the description.






So do you agree with his conclusion that a fist can hit harder than a stick?


----------



## Buka (Jun 23, 2019)

I’m not going to get my thirty minutes back, am I?


----------



## jobo (Jun 23, 2019)

jaime_lion said:


> Here is the video showing his backhand strike. He had this video linked in the description.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


well it can hit harder than a stick, it depends how hard you hit with the stick  try hitting a base ball with a bat and then with your fist and see which provides the most force. I'm puting a $ the bat wins


----------



## jaime_lion (Jun 23, 2019)

jobo said:


> well it can hit harder than a stick, it depends how hard you hit with the stick  try hitting a base ball with a bat and then with your fist and see which provides the most force. I'm puting a $ the bat wins



So can you explain what you are saying with your baseball analogy?


----------



## jobo (Jun 23, 2019)

jaime_lion said:


> So can you explain what you are saying with your baseball analogy?


I'm saying stick are better, or rather sticks are irrelevant,for,  any like for like movemen, increasing the mass and the lever arm, will as long as you don't increase them to much to a point that you cant accelerate them adequately, increase the kenitic energy of your arm and therefore the force experienced by the object.

ie there's an optimum size and weight for a baseball ball, just as there is an optimum size and weight for a club, to long or to heavy and the kinetic energy is reduced, comparing movements that are not the same, is completely point less as to the benefits or otherwise of a force multiplyer, he is clearly putting more effort and swing in to his fist strike than his club strike, its almost like he wanted to prove his fist was more forceful, unconscious bias or otherwise


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 23, 2019)

density and mass of the objects and speed you can propel them.    I personally wouldn't want to back fist someones skull as i think it presents the weakest part of your hand to the strongest part of the head. 

And above, pending what material the weapon is made out of, plenty produce more force than a fist and can easily shatter and break bone. 

also hit harder isn't all there is to this discussion, where you can hit and risk to your own body is as well.   If you break your fist i believe its really hard to get it to go back to normal (pending break)   if you break a stick you just get another stick.    And you can hit more with a weapon as it doesn't literally damage your body as much.  unless you mess up your wrist or hand tendons you should be able to fight for longer than beating people with your fists. 

Anyway, bottom line, material matters, speed which you can propel matters and you cant generally just get a new part of your own body.  and where you hit matters more with your fist than with a stick. 


I quote someone doing TKD wood breaking "i can break boards x thickness your thickest bone is less thick"  completely ignoring density matters more than thickness and bone is probably more dense than the wood they use or they should all have broken fists.

edit:  But a blade is better than a stick, not going to dispute that, a blade has better killing potential than a stick.  just in case it comes up, and a blades ability is about cutting and putting holes in people not about breaking bones.


----------



## pdg (Jun 23, 2019)

I haven't watched the video, because the comments remind me of that "which kick is more powerful" video where they fudged the results to get the answer they wanted.

Depends how you measure which force as to which item will end up delivering more "power".

And there's usefulness to consider too.

Expanding on what @jobo said - I'd use a type of club to put a fence post in (sledgehammer). I'd use a type of club to put a nail in (hammer). I'd use a sharp club to chop a log...

If a fist could produce more absolute power than a club, why were so many types of club invented?


----------



## Danny T (Jun 23, 2019)

Damn...
Should have paid attention to those who viewed before I did...I'm with Buka.


----------



## jaime_lion (Jun 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> I haven't watched the video, because the comments remind me of that "which kick is more powerful" video where they fudged the results to get the answer they wanted.
> 
> Depends how you measure which force as to which item will end up delivering more "power".
> 
> ...




Those are not clubs per-say but mace's. A club would be less powerful than a mace. 

Also a fist will feel pain even if you punch tree's. A club or weapon does not.


----------



## jobo (Jun 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> I haven't watched the video, because the comments remind me of that "which kick is more powerful" video where they fudged the results to get the answer they wanted.
> 
> Depends how you measure which force as to which item will end up delivering more "power".
> 
> ...


yes indeed, if that guy was to challenge me, his best punch against my best swing with on of those clubs, then id best him easy, I'm quite adapted at hitting things with a club, if he was to be more prescriptive and insist it was a back swing, then its a completely new movement pattern for me, I just don't knock walls down that way, and id need half an hour practice the movement pattern then id beat him easy


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 23, 2019)

Oh yeah, i didnt watch the video, thought that would be worth noting, i may or may not watch them but as i am not specifically responding on the basis of which generates more force it doesn't seem that important.   




pdg said:


> If a fist could produce more absolute power than a club, why were so many types of club invented?



As far as i recall if you take two materials exact same toughness and density and thickness, both arent going to break. In reality one probably has some innate defect in it, so the one with the defect in it probably is going to give and break.     If we then take a club made of a material that can break bone, it then reduces the chance of breaking your own body breaking someone else's body and then also increases the chance of you breaking their body with it.     Plus you can replace said club if it breaks you cant your hand if it stops working, you arnet getting that back once it breaks. 

Economy/logic of fighting seems more important than on paper how much force  something produces.  Same with material science, not all material is equal and design of material helps.   Like lead can float if you shape it right.  Small surface area makes cutting and puncturing easier etc. 

I may have forgot what force means, more than likely.    anyway not really arguing, more just expanding why so many clubs and weapons exist, more due to logic/economy of fighting to kill people.  And everyone is made of the same materials.      And such like that.  



jaime_lion said:


> Also a fist will feel pain even if you punch tree's. A club or weapon does not.



I think the main point was, thats a factor in why weapons are superior and if fists were in anyway superior than weapons in killing why would so many weapons exist in history and be used as extensively.   the only things your hands have is, they are with you 24/7 and quite dextirious.


----------



## jobo (Jun 23, 2019)

jaime_lion said:


> Those are not clubs per-say but mace's. A club would be less powerful than a mace.
> 
> Also a fist will feel pain even if you punch tree's. A club or weapon does not.


a mace is just a refined club, it may well be better than some clubs, but not as good as others dependent on how you use it, my club weapon of choice in a fight to the death even against a knife a, would be a 14 oz claw hammer, it's the perfect weight and length to allow fast movement and to give devastating blows, as that is exactly what it was designed for


----------



## pdg (Jun 23, 2019)

The other thing with these numbers games...

Using my fist I'm quite sure I can get more "force" than say a 10" long steel pipe.

But area over which the force is applied.

The "higher force" backfist to your head, might get a knockout and/or concussion.

The lower force (but much more concentrated and harder) steel pipe - say hello to a depressed skull fracture. That's going to ruin your day.


So, whether you can produce a higher measured force with one item vs another item is pretty much irrelevant. It's only one (relatively small) variable in the list.


----------



## jobo (Jun 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> The other thing with these numbers games...
> 
> Using my fist I'm quite sure I can get more "force" than say a 10" long steel pipe.
> 
> ...


The other numbers issue here, is he is claiming  5500 Newton of force for his strike, that well over a 1000 lbs of force, thats in the same class as an elite heavy weight boxer can generate, which makes me doubt the accuracy of his set up some what


----------



## Buka (Jun 23, 2019)

The gentleman in the video is trying to set up people's opinion so they may reach a conclusion that he wants them to reach.

He does so in framing different questions,  referring to the weight of the objects in grams, in the different angles in which he videos his body - which is almost completely out of frame in the weapon swings so you won't notice he is purposely hitting softly, in applying his malarkey to his hypothesis, and in the assumption that if he bores you to death you won't notice what complete and utter BS he is spewing.

If you're further bored today, and don't mind spending more time with Brother Love's Travelling Salvation Show, go to his backfist video and freeze frame it on the wind up. On the set-up for the strike, his back is nearly completely turned to the target so he can generate power. Not only is that NOT what we all here think of when we hear the word "backfist", it's just plain dishonest. But it's conveniently located on a second video separate from the club strike one so I guess he thinks it won't be noticed. 

I could go on, I really could, but I won't. My only real question is why he is doing this?


----------



## pdg (Jun 23, 2019)

Cheers @Buka - saved me watching it 

I did skip through the first vid, the 7 or 8 times I randomly chose all I saw was a guy at a table talking to the camera... I'm in no way bored enough to actually watch it, I have ironing to do.


----------



## JP3 (Jun 23, 2019)

Rat said:


> density and mass of the objects and speed you can propel them.    I personally wouldn't want to back fist someones skull as i think it presents the weakest part of your hand to the strongest part of the head.
> 
> And above, pending what material the weapon is made out of, plenty produce more force than a fist and can easily shatter and break bone.
> 
> ...


I had an instructor say to me one time, "I try to hit hard things with soft things, and vice versa."  Meaning, he would strike the bony surfaces of the head with open-hand strikes, palm heels etc, forearms, like that. He would punch with fist to the neck, belly, sides and back, like that.  It makes a sort of sense when you think about it.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jun 23, 2019)

Buka said:


> I’m not going to get my thirty minutes back, am I?


But you did save me 30 minutes. I appreciate that.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 24, 2019)

Buka said:


> The gentleman in the video is trying to set up people's opinion so they may reach a conclusion that he wants them to reach.
> 
> He does so in framing different questions,  referring to the weight of the objects in grams, in the different angles in which he videos his body - which is almost completely out of frame in the weapon swings so you won't notice he is purposely hitting softly, in applying his malarkey to his hypothesis, and in the assumption that if he bores you to death you won't notice what complete and utter BS he is spewing.
> 
> ...


I love the word malarkey.


----------



## pgsmith (Jun 24, 2019)

Buka said:


> My only real question is why he is doing this?


  For the same reason that the majority of people put things on Youtube ... to get people to notice and pay attention to them. Based on your review (thanks for saving me from having to watch any of it!), he's obviously not going to get anyone to pay attention to him for his martial prowess.


----------



## Buka (Jun 24, 2019)

JP3 said:


> I had an instructor say to me one time, "I try to hit hard things with soft things, and vice versa."  Meaning, he would strike the bony surfaces of the head with open-hand strikes, palm heels etc, forearms, like that. He would punch with fist to the neck, belly, sides and back, like that.  It makes a sort of sense when you think about it.



It makes a whole lot of sense when I think about it.


----------



## JP3 (Jun 28, 2019)

Buka said:


> It makes a whole lot of sense when I think about it.


Told ya it would.


----------



## skyeisonfire (Jun 28, 2019)

I personally love back fists and hammer type fists, but I spend a whole lot of time conditioning them as much as the knuckles, but I think it all depends on what you are using it for.  Conditioning and strengthening is always king but knowing when to apply it can be more difficult and there's always too many variables to plan it out.  Introducing and comparing weapons is entirely a different thing.  I would rather run screaming away from a weapon like a knife or bat then face someone with a weapon with the *intent* on poking/or striking me repeatedly with it.  Although running may not be an option sometimes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 29, 2019)

Without even looking at the video, I can agree with the comments about what's being measured and what kind of stick is used. I can hit with much more impact speed using a rattan stick than my fist, but if we measure momentum transfer, the fist is always going to deliver more (a reversed lever action happens when the stick makes impact, so not much momentum is transferred). In fact, I can probably transfer more momentum with a spinning backfist (what @Buka described) than with a one-handed swing of a baseball bat. I'd still much rather get hit with my spinning backfist than that one-handed bat swing.


----------



## jobo (Jun 29, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Without even looking at the video, I can agree with the comments about what's being measured and what kind of stick is used. I can hit with much more impact speed using a rattan stick than my fist, but if we measure momentum transfer, the fist is always going to deliver more (a reversed lever action happens when the stick makes impact, so not much momentum is transferred). In fact, I can probably transfer more momentum with a spinning backfist (what @Buka described) than with a one-handed swing of a baseball bat. I'd still much rather get hit with my spinning backfist than that one-handed bat swing.


I'm not sure momentum transfers is the most useful un it to consider this, as it is clearly dependent on the momentum of the striking object, but also on the mass of the thing struck, if  strikeing a wall( or a measurement pad stuck on a wall) , of any other object with significant mass,with your fist, or a bat will result in no momentum transfer at all, as you can't over come the inertia and the thing won't move resulting in zero momentum transfers. there will of course be significant energy transfer, which really should be the unit of choice for such comparisons as the mass of the target object and  its resultant inertia  has a far lower effect


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 29, 2019)

jobo said:


> I'm not sure momentum transfers is the most useful un it to consider this, as it is clearly dependent on the momentum of the striking object, but also on the mass of the thing struck, if  strikeing a wall( or a measurement pad stuck on a wall) , of any other object with significant mass,with your fist, or a bat will result in no momentum transfer at all, as you can't over come the inertia and the thing won't move resulting in zero momentum transfers. there will of course be significant energy transfer, which really should be the unit of choice for such comparisons as the mass of the target object and  its resultant inertia  has a far lower effect


Yes, that was pretty much my point.


----------



## jobo (Jun 29, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Yes, that was pretty much my point.


just agreeing, but changing units to make it a more useful comparison,in the instant case of a like for like swing of a back hand with and with out a base ball bat, its reasonable that the fist may carry move eenergy, as 1) the body mechanics are wrong for the reverse leverage, and 2) the greater mass, multiplied by the extra lenth  will make acceleration harder and so reach a e lower  velocity i, which may or may not be off set by the greater mass. someone needs to get a calculator out. a shorter less weighty object, like a purpose made one handed fighting stick will however all most certainly exceed the energy of the fistk, in a like for like swing

however if you change the mechanics of the bbb swing to one more optimum for the length/ mass, I'm pretty confident that the bat wil,  carry more energy. than either, but take longer to get there, making it a lot easier to avoid, need one if them testing pads and some sticks


----------



## pdg (Jun 29, 2019)

Even a testing pad won't tell the whole story though - unless all you're interested in is that single variable.

Just energy transfer doesn't indicate whether, or how much, damage might be inflicted.

Amongst other things you need duration and area.

For instance, I could push you along with both hands for 10 yards while you resist - that's far more energy transferred than, say, if I poke you hard in the eye with one finger.

Which will hurt more?


----------



## jobo (Jun 29, 2019)

pdg said:


> Even a testing pad won't tell the whole story though - unless all you're interested in is that single variable.
> 
> Just energy transfer doesn't indicate whether, or how much, damage might be inflicted.
> 
> ...


that'have interesting  hypothesis  you may have to prov, youve definetly expend  more energy, but how much has been transfer to me   I havt any more energy contained in my body than before,if you stop pushing and I keep moving then clearly there's been a transferre. if I stop dead then it's statis. all that's happen is I've burn my energy resisting you, so I've have less energy than before you started pushing

if we simplify it slightly and say you lift me over head , then you've transferred mygravitational energy in to kinetic energy, you havent transfer any energy gain in to my body at all. if you drop me, then it's my energy that's going to hurt me, not yours .all your energy has been transferred to the ground, much as in the pushing scenario, only with a few more complications


----------



## pdg (Jun 29, 2019)

I think there are very few people that I'd have to present proof to in order to demonstrate that a double handed slow push is more 'powerful' than a single finger poke...

Probably about the same amount of people who would think the slow push would inflict more damage.


----------



## jobo (Jun 29, 2019)

pdg said:


> I think there are very few people that I'd have to present proof to in order to demonstrate that a double handed slow push is more 'powerful' than a single finger poke...
> 
> Probably about the same amount of people who would think the slow push would inflict more damage.


it's your hypothesis mate,  but you've changed the terms in this post, power? is work done, which you have definitely done more of, your energy expenditure is considerable. however the main point that pushing transfers! more energy tO my body than a punch, is far from proven, as above the energy transferred to me is very very low, the bulk of which will be heat generated by the friction of my shoes


----------



## pdg (Jun 29, 2019)

jobo said:


> it's your hypothesis mate,  but you've changed the terms in this post, power? is work done, which you have definitely done more of, your energy expenditure is considerable. however the main point that pushing transfers! more energy tO my body than a punch, is far from proven, as above the energy transferred to me is very very low, the bulk of which will be heat generated by the friction of my shoes



I haven't changed the terms at all.

And if it's far from proven then you obviously missed primary school physics.


----------



## jobo (Jun 29, 2019)

pdg said:


> I haven't changed the terms at all.
> 
> And if it's far from proven then you obviously missed primary school physics.


well you clearly have changed the terms, you said energy transfer in one and power in the next, its almost like you don't know that these are separate and distinct terms for completely different things


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 29, 2019)

jobo said:


> that'have interesting  hypothesis  you may have to prov, youve definetly expend  more energy, but how much has been transfer to me   I havt any more energy contained in my body than before,if you stop pushing and I keep moving then clearly there's been a transferre. if I stop dead then it's statis. all that's happen is I've burn my energy resisting you, so I've have less energy than before you started pushing
> 
> if we simplify it slightly and say you lift me over head , then you've transferred mygravitational energy in to kinetic energy, you havent transfer any energy gain in to my body at all. if you drop me, then it's my energy that's going to hurt me, not yours .all your energy has been transferred to the ground, much as in the pushing scenario, only with a few more complications


The energy is transferred to you (as momentum) to move you - a transfer of kinetic energy.


----------



## jobo (Jun 29, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> The energy is transferred to you (as momentum) to move you - a transfer of kinetic energy.


ok you provide some calcs then to prove out then,  if a body stops moving as soon as the force is released then it hasnt got momenum its got inertia which is the exact opposite of momentum, if I was to fly off when the pushing stops, that would indeed be momentum,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 29, 2019)

jobo said:


> ok you provide some calcs then to prove out then,  if a body stops moving as soon as the force is released then it hasnt got momenum its got inertia which is the exact opposite of momentum, if I was to fly off when the pushing stops, that would indeed be momentum,


True in a frictionless environment, which we don't live in.


----------



## jobo (Jun 29, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> True in a frictionless environment, which we don't live in.


true in any environment, apart from outerspace, friction may be the force that slows and then stop a body, but if if the friction or effective mass is so great it stopped dead, then it never had any momentem in the firsplace for friction to act upo, any attempt to measure its momentum would return a zero result
human bodies if course have a much greater ability to increase effective mass by pushing back, any friction be digging in, than the average rock,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 30, 2019)

jobo said:


> true in any environment, apart from outerspace, friction may be the force that slows and then stop a body, but if if the friction or effective mass is so great it stopped dead, then it never had any momentem in the firsplace for friction to act upo, any attempt to measure its momentum would return a zero result
> human bodies if course have a much greater ability to increase effective mass by pushing back, any friction be digging in, than the average rock,


So, if friction overcomes momentum, there was no momentum???????

And then you add the bit about active resistance as if that means there's no transfer of energy. You usually get overly concerned with technical accuracy, requiring folks to use physics terms rather than effective communication. In this case, you've just wandered off and ignored most of physics.


----------

