Breaking your boards, blocks, and BONES!

[exile]

It seems to fall in the middle of what you were saying about focus and what i was sayng about bones....
PEACE.

Peace to you also, Odin—good post, and thanks much for the reproduced article. Notice though that the important point here is that there seems to be a linear relationship between the force required to break a board and the force required to break a bone; that means that regardless of the size of the coefficient, the more force you can deliver effectively to a stack of boards, the more likely you are to break an assailant's bone. Now that may still not be enough to break any given bone, but hear me out: it's not bone-breaking per se, but anatomical destruction, that's the payoff. So for example, you can seriously incapacitate an attacker without breaking a single bone by striking him so hard that he can no longer use the attacked limb. A hard palm-heel strike or knifehand to the throat or head doesn't have to break bone; all it has to do is transmit a massive enough shock wave to rupture enough tissue, in the first instance, or induce a concussion in the second. And board breaking, by training your ability to deliver force effectively, ensures that each strike you deliver has the greatest chance of terminating the fight then and there by achieving effect like these. If you are trying to break a two or three board stack with a knifehand strike, and you can't do it, it means that there's something wrong with the physics of your motion: you're not executing the strike along the optimal lines the article you were kind enough to reproduce describes. So now you know: I'm doing something wrong, because it's possible to break stacks like these, and I'm not doing it! By training on those-size stacks, with proper guidance, you'll get to the point where you can, and that, of course, means that your focused power delivery skill have improved correspondingly, so that in a strike on the attacker's body, you'll have a much better chance of immobilizing him and walking away safe, which is the whole point of the enterprise. That to me makes board breaking, as a diagnostic and training tool, well worth considering.

 

[Em MacIntosh]

I'm self taught and haven't hurt myself yet. I imagine I will someday. When that day comes I have no one to blame but myself. Until then I will continue to take the risk.

 

[Last Fearner]

Also there seem to be a couple jibes in your post which i shall ignore also ( since if i respond i can sense an argument will brew up )

Well, first I will apologize if there were jibes in my post. It is hard to convey correct emotion in the written word sometimes, and perhaps I did get a little over zealous in my defense of the subject. Sorry if I offended you!

To answer your question I am a thaiboxer I have been subjected to quite a few broken bones,some of which i have delivered and some of which i have been unfortunate to suffer, and to be honest because of the amount of full contact fighting i am involved in I do have quite a good knowledge of what the Human body can withstand.

Of course, I did not know if you had first-hand experience with broken bones, which is why I posed the question, but now that you explained that you do, then I accept that you are speaking from personal experience on bone breaking from what you have observed.

your statment of '' you lack advance training, thus why you dont understand'' is lame i would have thought better of you, that sounds like a real mcdojo response, i will give the benifit of the doubt since you did explain what breaking consists of later in your posts.

I think you might notice that my actual statement is a bit different from the way you quoted me. What I said was, "I would not expect someone who lacks advanced training in this skill to understand how it compares." Since you seem to oppose board breaking as a beneficial practice, I am presuming (perhaps incorrectly) that you have not gone very far into the practice of board breaking, and that you might not have had very "advanced" instruction on the skill of board breaking by an instructor who is very skilled in it.

I did not mean to imply that "YOU lack any advanced training, but simply that your advanced skills are built on the type of practice you prefer (ergo: bag work) rather than the other advanced skill of board breaking. This is why I felt you were having a difficult time understanding the comparison between what it feels like to break 5 or 6 boards as to your known experience on the force it takes to separate or crack ribs, dislocate a knee or elbow joint, or break the clavical, sternum, ulna, radius, humerus, fibula, tibia, or femur.

I still dont think you fought a good enough case of how like bones boards are and after having a quick read i found this...

Perhaps one reason my case is not strong enough in comparing bones to boards (or bricks) is because, in all my years of study and researching this question, I have found very few accurate, thorough, and to the point research studies that specifically answer the exact question of "this board equals that bone." There have been some research of peripheral studies that examine bone density, resilience, and the amount of pounds per square inch (or newtons) that it should take to break a bone, but these studies are often generalized, and don't address each and every bone. They also rely on some of the only data available which is testing on animals, or dead people, which is going to have some differences in results.

The only exact study that can be done is to use a measuring device that calculates not only pressure, but striking force, and actually break the bones of live subjects (not recommended). The second closest research would be an educated guess as to the approximate force it would take to break any given bone through tissue, muscle, tendon, etc. and then try to duplicate that with artificial materials in the shape, and relative protection of a human body. I don't know of any research that has gone this far.

On the subject of the article you posted - - I find it very interesting! There is one thing to note about how durable the human body is as mentioned in the article. They seem to be talking about the amount of force the body can withstand when dishing out the power to cause a brick to break. In other words, the foot (or hand) hitting the brick. I don't see where they were considering what if the brick was thrust down to hit the foot (or the hand). In that case, I believe the brick would win, and you would have a broken bone.

It is like taking two, square pine boards - placing one horizontal and supported on two sides by bricks on the floor. Then place the other board of equal size and strength in a vertical position in the center of the other board. If you strike down rapidly with the vertical board, along the center line of the grain on the horizontal board, the stationary horizontal board will snap in half. Why does only one board break when they are both the same? Because of the angle of impact, and the fact that one board is driving the force, while the other is receiving the impact.

The human body is much the same way. Small bones of the hand can break larger bones of the arm, ribs, and legs if the angle of the hand is held properly, and the force is driven across the weakest position of the bone. Even the femur will snap if struck directly perpendicular at the mid-point.

One other important question is brought up in this article. It seems that their hypotheses is that "When a boxer throws his fist, he usually ends the movement with follow-through" whereas "A karate chop, on the other hand, has no follow-through at all."

I wonder how many Martial Artists here at MT would agree with the above statement. Is this consistent with the way we have all been trained in Karate and Taekwondo??? Not me personally. They even use the follow through of a "golf swing" for an analogy, just like I did, only they attribute it to a Boxer's punch. This is quite the opposite of my training.

Boxers tend to jab for stinging effect, throw their upper torso into a strong cross-punch, and utilize the whipping effect of a hook or upper-cut to the chin in order to snap the head, and slosh the brain for a knock-out.

The "Karate strike" or Taekwondo punch are the techniques that demonstrate "follow through" more than anything else.

Of all those here who are skilled at breaking, how many of you feel you are successful because you "poke" at the boards (or bricks) and withdraw quickly like a cobra strike? I would love to hear some responses to that allegation! How many believe that you break boards by being supported in your stance, and driving the reaction force back into the boards as you "follow through" to the other side. If I am right on this, and others here agree with me, how did these MIT PhD's get it wrong?

Looking forward to some responses on this! :ultracool

CM D.J. Eisenhart

 

[Hand Sword]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Hand Sword-
-MT Moderator-

 

[Hand Sword]

Here are the original questions of the post. Just in case they got lost a bit.

Last night I watched a TKD class instructed by one of my soon to be new instructors (he's older <52> and a 2nd dan). I'm still injured/reinjured so I didn't partake, I just watched.

Although I would someday like to achieve a higher degree of martial arts knowledge, it's not important to me to wear a 'black' belt. I'm content starting a new school as white belt again. I can still do more than some of those little elementary school kids! Anyway...

My new instructor was telling me about all the injuries he got during his 2nd dan test breaking blocks and boards. So my questions are...

1. What's the point of breaking inanimate objects? I understand demonstrating power punches and kicks, but isn't there a better way to do it then risking SERIOUS injury?

2. Is this more of a tradition thing then a demonstration of power?

3. Do you make your 12 year old kids testing for their 1st dan break the same number of boards and blocks as adults doing the same test? If not, why?

4. What kind of condition can one do to prepare for their breaking portion of their tests? Some peoples bones are just not as strong as others so serious injury is more likely than others.

I just don't get it (yet) but maybe someday I will with your help.

What did that famous guy say? "Boards don't hit back!"

Thanks!

 

[Em MacIntosh]

My hands have been getting so sore lately and it's been keeping me up at night. Try tearing an unsuspended piece of paper in mid-air. It's easier on the hands and requires a lot of skill. I haven't been able to do it yet. It's a way for me to ease up on the breaking and still be training the speed/penetration aspect of striking, however, it's unorthadox. Just a suggestion for you guys to try.

 

[zDom]

One other important question is brought up in this article. It seems that their hypotheses is that "When a boxer throws his fist, he usually ends the movement with follow-through" whereas "A karate chop, on the other hand, has no follow-through at all."

I wonder how many Martial Artists here at MT would agree with the above statement. Is this consistent with the way we have all been trained in Karate and Taekwondo??? Not me personally. They even use the follow through of a "golf swing" for an analogy, just like I did, only they attribute it to a Boxer's punch. This is quite the opposite of my training.

Boxers tend to jab for stinging effect, throw their upper torso into a strong cross-punch, and utilize the whipping effect of a hook or upper-cut to the chin in order to snap the head, and slosh the brain for a knock-out.

The "Karate strike" or Taekwondo punch are the techniques that demonstrate "follow through" more than anything else.

Of all those here who are skilled at breaking, how many of you feel you are successful because you "poke" at the boards (or bricks) and withdraw quickly like a cobra strike? I would love to hear some responses to that allegation! How many believe that you break boards by being supported in your stance, and driving the reaction force back into the boards as you "follow through" to the other side. If I am right on this, and others here agree with me, how did these MIT PhD's get it wrong?

Looking forward to some responses on this! :ultracool

I definately follow through, strike deep into the target, looking for full extension.

So I agree: I think they got it wrong when it comes to the retraction part.

But the SPEED is definately a significant component &#8212; I think they got that right.

Does anyone else do "speed breaks" in which the board is unsupported, just dangled by someone's fingertips? Now THAT is breaking

 

[exile]

I definately follow through, strike deep into the target, looking for full extension.

So I agree: I think they got it wrong when it comes to the retraction part.

You know, I'm not sure they actually did get it wrong; I think they may simply be expressing what they intend unclearly.

When I first read the article, it struck me that no, this isn't right, you should be aiming at a point about two inches or so below the bottom of the stack, as my instructor explains it, with the boards themselves just an annoyance that's getting in between you and the actual target. But then I started thinking about this particular passage:

To understand how this works, Jearl Walker, a former tae kwon do student who now teaches physics at Cleveland State University, set up a study much like Feld's and McNair's. A well-thrown fist, he found, reaches its maximum velocity when the arm is about 80 percent extended. "That's exactly what my tae kwon do master had taught me," Walker says. "You learn to focus your punch in your imagination so that it terminates inside your opponent's body, rather than on the surface. To deliver the maximum power, you want to make contact before the slowdown begins."

The business about your punch `terminat[ing] inside your opponent's body' and `mak[ing] contact before the slowdown begins' suggest to me that these guys are also assuming that your target is lower than the board you're trying to break, that you're aiming at a point such that the surface of the stack will be reached when your arm is `about 80% extended'. And that they assume that there will be a slowdown but that it will occur on the other side of the stack, so to speak. In other words, the phrasing here seems to me entirely compatible with the idea that you do deliver a full-range strike to the target, just the target isn't the surface of the stack but a point past it. I don't think it's overwhelmingly clear that they're saying that you aim for the surface and then withdraw immediately, because if it were, that would mean that your arm was 100% extended at the point of contact, which they're explicitly contradicting. So let's at least consider the possibility that the source of the problem is very unclear expression, either by the writer or the physicists, rather than the major technical gaffe it looks like at first.

Does anyone else do "speed breaks" in which the board is unsupported, just dangled by someone's fingertips? Now THAT is breaking

I try this occasionally. But I'm not good enough yet. Someday.

I couldn't agree more exile. For myself, doing things that seemed almost beyond belief, was part of the draw to the martial arts in the outset. I wanted to be able to do... I guess more? Finding that absolute nothing right before I break, that odd state of quiet, then that explosion into that tiny point of impact... Even after so long, I find myself in wonder.

I know... the `how the hell did I do that???' phenomenon. Back in my skiing days, I sometimes had a brilliant run through a steep, icy mogul field and it felt exactly the same... looking back up at the vertical-seeming wall of bumps at the bottom that I had glided through and thinking. `Me??That???!! Very good feeling, eh?

II found this river rock, about 16-18 inches across, about 4 inches thick... I'm going to break that thing heh, but we'll see when. I think I'll go back and read Mas Oyama's section on stone breaking. Might not hurt to find a longer/thinner stone first heh. Get used to the transition and how the materials speed/power/mass transfer feels.

Hardest break in the world, I'll bet&#8212;a smooth round stone. My hand hurts just thinking about it...

My hands have been getting so sore lately and it's been keeping me up at night. Try tearing an unsuspended piece of paper in mid-air. It's easier on the hands and requires a lot of skill. I haven't been able to do it yet. It's a way for me to ease up on the breaking and still be training the speed/penetration aspect of striking, however, it's unorthadox. Just a suggestion for you guys to try.

And a good suggestion too... wish I had had the skill. That's a real technician's test... eventually, I keep telling myself, eventually...

 

[zDom]

I agree, Exile, that they did a great job describing penetration in the portion of text you quoted.

I meant, specifically, the passage in which they talk about snapping back after impact — I think they kind of veered off on that part.

I mean, if you are penetrating, going through the target, etc., the retraction is all "after the fact," and hence irrelevant to delivering the force, right?

 

[exile]

I agree, Exile, that they did a great job describing penetration in the portion of text you quoted.

I meant, specifically, the passage in which they talk about snapping back after impact — I think they kind of veered off on that part.

I mean, if you are penetrating, going through the target, etc., the retraction is all "after the fact," and hence irrelevant to delivering the force, right?

Exactly, zD. That's what threw me off, and still seems wonky to me. The `snapback' part is irrelevant. So it seems as though they're sending double signals, eh?

 

[Dave Leverich]

...
Hardest break in the world, I'll bet—a smooth round stone. My hand hurts just thinking about it...
...

Mine too heh.
What I'm doing is setting that up as a 'goal' state. And searching out smaller stones (I really should say 'thinner' stones) that I can approach that goal with. I'm thinking most of the time spent will be in searching out stones, as well as conditioning.

 

[Hand Sword]

Anyone care to give these questions a try?

Last night I watched a TKD class instructed by one of my soon to be new instructors (he's older <52> and a 2nd dan). I'm still injured/reinjured so I didn't partake, I just watched.

Although I would someday like to achieve a higher degree of martial arts knowledge, it's not important to me to wear a 'black' belt. I'm content starting a new school as white belt again. I can still do more than some of those little elementary school kids! Anyway...

My new instructor was telling me about all the injuries he got during his 2nd dan test breaking blocks and boards. So my questions are...

1. What's the point of breaking inanimate objects? I understand demonstrating power punches and kicks, but isn't there a better way to do it then risking SERIOUS injury?

2. Is this more of a tradition thing then a demonstration of power?

3. Do you make your 12 year old kids testing for their 1st dan break the same number of boards and blocks as adults doing the same test? If not, why?

4. What kind of condition can one do to prepare for their breaking portion of their tests? Some peoples bones are just not as strong as others so serious injury is more likely than others.

I just don't get it (yet) but maybe someday I will with your help.

What did that famous guy say? "Boards don't hit back!"

Thanks!

 

[Cirdan]

Never saw the need for breaking.. if i want to test my striking power I use the wavemaster or ask a big training partner to hold a pad against his body. The distance my strikes make them move backward a meter as good as any.

 

[Dave Leverich]

1. What's the point of breaking inanimate objects? I understand demonstrating power punches and kicks, but isn't there a better way to do it then risking SERIOUS injury?

There are other ways true, but I would say breaking is akin to a testing, rather than a practicing? If that makes sense, it's really break or no make (make or break? heh). But you can do bagwork, padwork etc. The break is a different kind of strike generally, faster, much more intense power put into the technique than your general bag techniques.
I do both, and feel both have a definite place in training for me.

2. Is this more of a tradition thing then a demonstration of power?

It _is_ traditional, but I see it as a demostration of accurate and controlled power.

3. Do you make your 12 year old kids testing for their 1st dan break the same number of boards and blocks as adults doing the same test? If not, why?

The size of the boards (or board difficulty if using rebreakables) is based upon the childs age and size. Children are also not allowed to do much 'bone impact' (aka punches etc) as their bones are still developing, and the punching style breaks actually cause microfractures in the bones which then heal making the bones more dense. NOT something you want while the bones are still growing.

4. What kind of condition can one do to prepare for their breaking portion of their tests? Some peoples bones are just not as strong as others so serious injury is more likely than others.

There are the obvious torture methods, makiwara boards etc. Or the old bowls of sand, small pea gravel, larger gravel etc. Those methods actually physically change the hands (and I've only seen them used on fists in regards to the latter ones). Myself, I simply practice the breaks, do them until I'm confident my technique is correct, power, and timing etc.

I just don't get it (yet) but maybe someday I will with your help.

I'd say, breaking isn't for everyone, some people never 'get into it' so to speak. Myself, It's been a love of mine since before I began training.

What did that famous guy say? "Boards don't hit back!"

Thanks!

Hehe, Bruce did, but he also broke boards heh. And, apparently never had them fall on his feet, or land on a pile of them hehe. That wasn't a bad speed break either, although it felt 'sped up'.

 

[jks9199]

Has anybody ever come across any actual medical documentation about microfractures and hardening the hands? I'm just curious...

 

[exile]

I think that a lot of the answers to these questions are at least implicit, and in some cases quite explicit, in the in-thread discussion. David_L did a terrific job of hooking the points made in the conversation to the item-by-item format of geocad's post; here's my take, which I think is pretty much exactly on the same page as Dave's.

1. What's the point of breaking inanimate objects? I understand demonstrating power punches and kicks, but isn't there a better way to do it then risking SERIOUS injury?

The point isn't demonstration per se, I think. The real point is self-assessment of focused power (force/time) delivery using a fixed unit of measurement (1x10x12 pine board) which provides a training criterion for improved technique (better power delivery).

2. Is this more of a tradition thing then a demonstration of power?

I don't really know how traditional it was. What documentation do we have for the time-depth of this training criterion? I strongly suspect that it wasn't practiced in antiquity&#8212;but that suspicion plus a buck fifty will get you a ride down to OSU on the High Street #2 line hereabouts. The point is moot without serious documentary evidence. And as I say, while breaking may be impressive as a demo tech, that's not the actual benefit for the practitioner. The benefit, as I suggested earlier, is the same as that of a free weight stack: an objective quantification of technique and a training tool for improvement of technique&#8212;in the case of MAs, focused power delivery. That, to my way of thinking, is the only reason to adopt breaking into your training, and I think it's a very good reason.

3. Do you make your 12 year old kids testing for their 1st dan break the same number of boards and blocks as adults doing the same test? If not, why?

I myself would under no circumstances have a 12 year old testing for dan rank. There's a lot of discussion of this in the TKD forum archives. A lot of people have given cogent reasons why they think dan rank for a 12 year old is inappropriate, and I'm pretty much in agreement with their posts.

4. What kind of condition can one do to prepare for their breaking portion of their tests? Some peoples bones are just not as strong as others so serious injury is more likely than others.

You will only risk your bones if you use bony surfaces to break. I no longer do. I use knifehand strikes for my hand breaks, and the heel of my foot as the striking surface for kicks. I did injure my hand badly doing a punching break a while back, but that was my error&#8212;I'd done the break many times on a three-board stack, but this time I just got careless and didn't concentrate on aligning my fist correctly.

I just don't get it (yet) but maybe someday I will with your help.

What did that famous guy say? "Boards don't hit back!"

Thanks!

I hate to say it, but that was one of the more obtuse things that Lee ever said. It makes as much sense to say, in response to someone's 315+ bench press, `Oh yeah, well, iron weights don't lift you, now, do they?!'. Does that sound a bit, um, peculiar as an observation? To my ear, Lee's comment sounds just as peculiar. Who would suggest that you're fighting the board you break??? A board-break is a unit of efficient, accurate force delivery in a fixed period of time, hence a unit of focused power delivery. It isn't about you taking advantage of a poor defenseless little board less than a square foot in area, though that's what Lee's comment makes it sound like. It's about how much force you can deliver to a small surface area, which will have the effect of breaking the board if you do it right, and will have the effect, if applied to your attacker, of damaging that person to a certain degree; the more boards you can break, the more force you can deliver accurately and hence the greater the effectiveness of your technique in striking an attacker. In order for Lee's comment to make any sense, it would have to be the case that both he and the person taking in his comment believed that the board was the attacker. Did Lee believe this? Did he believe that we, the average working MAist, believe this?

As I say, not the sharpest observation BL ever made...

 

[Steel Tiger]

In order for Lee's comment to make any sense, it would have to be the case that both he and the person taking in his comment believed that the board was the attacker. Did Lee believe this? Did he believe that we, the average working MAist, believe this?

As I say, not the sharpest observation BL ever made...

I thought I'd just point out that BL did say this in a movie inresponse to someone basically breaking aboard in his face. Did he believe it? I don't know.

As a practitioner of an internal style I don't break boards, never have. We develop and assess power in a different way I think, though it is probably all the same in the end.

 

[exile]

I thought I'd just point out that BL did say this in a movie inresponse to someone basically breaking aboard in his face. Did he believe it? I don't know.

If he did break boards himself, then probably not. Maybe it's not BL's fault, but the way his comments are taken out of context by devotees who think everything he said was meant to be universally applicable. This unfortunately is the fate of icons a lot of the time...

As a practitioner of an internal style I don't break boards, never have. We develop and assess power in a different way I think, though it is probably all the same in the end.

Absolutely, it's not the only way. It seems to fit the bill for external styles, but there's always another route to the top of the mountain. I think the important thing is that people not mistake board breaking for something to do with simulated combat, or with the ability to break bones. Bones are irrelevant; what counts is measuring how much potential damage your strike did, and working on improving your striking technique so that that damage progressively increases. But certainly it's only one of the ways....

 

[Steel Tiger]

If he did break boards himself, then probably not. Maybe it's not BL's fault, but the way his comments are taken out of context by devotees who think everything he said was meant to be universally applicable. This unfortunately is the fate of icons a lot of the time...



Absolutely, it's not the only way. It seems to fit the bill for external styles, but there's always another route to the top of the mountain. I think the important thing is that people not mistake board breaking for something to do with simulated combat, or with the ability to break bones. Bones are irrelevant; what counts is measuring how much potential damage your strike did, and working on improving your striking technique so that that damage progressively increases. But certainly it's only one of the ways....

Breaking is another interesting aspect of MAs. By this I mean it is interesting to see what people think they do it for. Now, I understand, remember I've never done this, that the main reason for breaking is to develop precision and focus. Developing these attributes will improve power. But reading through the various posts on this thread I have seen a number of different positions taken by people as to why they break.

I just find it very interesting. Must be the social scientist in me.

 

[Last Fearner]

On a tangent, do you know the correct Hangul for Kyupka? I've been a avid fan of brick breaking for over 20 years and I'd love to do some artwork based around that. Also, do you know if there is reference made to specific materials, or if it is all covered by the single word?

I believe the term you are thinking of is "Kyeokpa." (or Kyukpa)

&#44201;&#54028;​

&#12593; = k
&#12629; = yeo (sometimes yu)
&#12593; = k

&#44201; = Kyeok (or kyuk prononounced "kyawk" or "kyuhk")

&#12621; = p
&#12623; = a (prounounced "ah")

&#54028; = Pa (pronounced "pah")


&#44201;&#54028; = Kyeokpa - "Breaking" - It means "defeat; crush; overthrow; destroy; smash up; beat out." (Dong-A's New Little English-Korean Dictionary)

Kyeokpa refers to breaking in general. You could associate it with specific words for the materials such as &#54032;&#51088; : Panja = "board" (wooden board)

&#54032;&#51088; &#44201;&#54028; = Panja Kyeokpa - "Board Breaking"

__________________________________________
Back on topic as to why we break, and how we break correctly​

I definately follow through, strike deep into the target, looking for full extension.

So I agree: I think they got it wrong when it comes to the retraction part.

Absolutely. They specifically stated that boxers follow through, and Karate does not. That is incorrect.

They also stated that the "karate chop" board break is like a "cobra strike." We all know that a cobra lashes out, strikes the target, and returns quickly. While some initial fighting blows are like this, a board break definitely does not employ this "cobra" tactic. You might get a way with that with one board, possibly two, but three or more requires a deeper penetration and drive through.

This 'poke and pull away' technique can also work with the infamous free standing brick break where two or more bricks are held vertical about an inch apart, and struck with a punch or inward knife hand. The "breaker" doesn't even break either of the bricks with the impact. The first brick is slammed into the second brick and the two shatter. Without this 'brick on brick' impact, that type of break would never work. You might as well just slap two bricks together.

I think the PhD's theory on this vibrating effect that they believe is the reason for successful board breaks is flawed. They need to go back to the lab for some more accurate tests on this subject.

But the SPEED is definately a significant component &#8212; I think they got that right.

Yes, they were correct on this aspect. However, more important than speed is acceleration - - an element of breaking that they did not seem to cover.

Does anyone else do "speed breaks" in which the board is unsupported, just dangled by someone's fingertips? Now THAT is breaking

Yes! I have been doing various speed breaks for decades. I particularly like speed breaks with the outward knife-hand, the ridge hand, spin hook kick, jump spin hook, thunder hook kick, and tornado roundhouse.

I wouldn't just say "THAT is breaking," but that is ONE specific kind of breaking. Speed breaks require the rapid acceleration, and pinpoint accuracy as well as the follow through that good techniques should possess. However, the muscular contraction, anatomical rotations, and physical support (especially for grounded strikes) are much different in a speed break than in a power break. To me, they are two different applications of the same technique and each requires an advanced skill unique unto themselves.

Also, for the novice audience, don't be fooled by the two board speed break where the holder spreads the two boards an inch apart in his fingertip grasp. The impact on the first board might snap it, but the second board is broken more from the impact of the first board rather than the technique itself (kind of like the two-brick speed-break I described earlier). Only if the two boards are held together, with no gap, will it be a true speed break - - then you must really have the maximum acceleration directed at the pinpoint target because 'power tactics' still won't break it. Speed break means that you are accelerating the center of the board faster than the ends can catch up - thus it snaps in half.

CM D.J. Eisenhart