Not so sure it was the PhDs that were wrong, the article read more like a journalist that didn't understand the science behind what he was writing about...which happens, even in an educational media outlet such as Discovery.
The journalist describes how a boxer's punch has follow through and a karate chop does not...but then goes on to describe a punch with follow through with the martial artist saying "imagine a point inside the person" - a concept that illustrates follow-through, not retracton.
I don't know what study it is that they were referring to, nor was it quoted...but given the structure of the article, it seems to me that this is not necessarily bad science, but more of a bad description of science.
The journalist describes how a boxer's punch has follow through and a karate chop does not...but then goes on to describe a punch with follow through with the martial artist saying "imagine a point inside the person" - a concept that illustrates follow-through, not retracton.
I don't know what study it is that they were referring to, nor was it quoted...but given the structure of the article, it seems to me that this is not necessarily bad science, but more of a bad description of science.
