Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
I love the word malarkey.
A fist is more powerful than a impact weapon strike. What is going on?
- Thread starter jaime_lion
- Start date
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.
Told ya it would.
skyeisonfire
Blue Belt
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.
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
Grandmaster
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
Last edited:
Yes, that was pretty much my point.
jobo
Grandmaster
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
Last edited:
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?
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
Grandmaster
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
Last edited:
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.
Probably about the same amount of people who would think the slow push would inflict more damage.
jobo
Grandmaster
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
Grandmaster
The energy is transferred to you (as momentum) to move you - a transfer of kinetic energy.
jobo
Grandmaster
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
Grandmaster
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,
Last edited:
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.
