Breaking

[terryl965]

What are the pro's and con's of breaking and what is the main objective for you if you break.

I mean Bruce Lee said it best board does not hit back so why is it so popular?

 

[still learning]

Hello, It is a great tool for "demo's". It does build some confidence. You will have more pieces of wood for the fire. More for show!

Good for practing forcus and learning to punch with the proper muscles and knuckles, (when you hit with wrong ones...ouch!)

Other than that.....? ......Aloha

PS:anyone need wood?

 

[Touch Of Death]

Its important; but, in the face of the totality of your art, how important could it be?

 

[fnorfurfoot]

I had heard that breaking a board is roughly the equivilant to breaking a collar bone or a rib. I don't know how accurate that is but we use board breaking for focus. Mainly, learning how to strike through your target rather than stopping at the surface.

 

[still learning]

I had heard that breaking a board is roughly the equivilant to breaking a collar bone or a rib. I don't know how accurate that is but we use board breaking for focus. Mainly, learning how to strike through your target rather than stopping at the surface.

To break a collar bone on an average person (on the right spot) requires about 7lbs of pressure on the hit. For boards not sure how many lbs pressure for the hit. (read this somewhere).....Aloha

 

[Brandon Fisher]

I think it is a fair measure of someones power as long as the boards have not been tampered with at all. It is a good confidence builder but not something I encourage a lot of. I was breaking a patio block a couple times in the last few weeks and the block won (it was wet and I didn't notice) man does that hurt. Its very impressive to see when things get broke in demos as long as they do break and haven't been tampered with.

 

[Bigshadow]

On the flip side, I have seen people have to do breaking for their black belt rank (not my art) and when it doesn't break, you can feel and see them lose their confidence very fast.

We don't have any use for breaking. Although, I used to break alot when I was a kid, but I didn't have any formal training. Just it had a feeling to it and I knew when I had that feeling I was going to break whatever it was. I was showing off.

 

[exile]

Terry, I recall a very interesting thread on just this point from a few years back on MT; the thread title had `breaking' in it---came across it during the months I spent lurking before joining MT (feels like a zillion ago now...). As I recall, the main point of contention which was volleyed back and forth between the two main participants in the thread was whether or not breaking boards had any useful relation to strikes on a human body, so far as information about the striker's ability to do damage in real combat. One of the two people involved pointed out that a board is a very poor model of human skelatal/muscular anatomy---instead, he suggested, picture a structure involving long dowels made of some hard but flexible wood, covered with foam-like material and held together with stretchy tape-like material. Now go ahead and give one of those dowels your best three-board breaker and see how far you (don't) get. And the other person's response was, sure, but that's not the point of breaking. The point of breaking is really to find a way to quantify you ability to deliver force to a given surface, and is an objective check on your technique. As your technique, power generation and focus improve, you'll be able to break more boards. Nothing is guaranteed about the relation between the number of boards you break on the one hand and specific effects on your assailant's body on the other; what is guaranteed is that the more boards you can break, the better your force delivery in a strike will be, and that has to correlate with improved fighting effectiveness.

The latter point struck me as very persuasive (I'm probably not doing justice to the original phrasing of it, but it's kind of hazy in my memory now). It's like, if your job requires you to lift very, very heavy smooth irregularly shaped objects, and you go to the gym and lift very, very heavy weights---which of course are designed to be easy to manipulate while you're trying to lift them. You could say, well, the fact that you can bench 360lbs of barbell isn't going to tell you how heavy a wet wooden barrel filled with flour you can lift, because the latter is gonna be way, way harder, and that's true. But if you work out steadily and see your performance with barbells increase, it has to translate into greater effectiveness in lifting wet barrels, simpley because it means you're really getting stronger. The guy advocating breaks in the previous thread was saying that if you don't break, and don't have access to fancy machinery of the sort that sport training labs have, you really don't have any way to measure how much force your strike is delivering, or whether or not your ability to generate and deliver force is improving. I found that take on it quite reasonable...

 

[donald]

I think that breaking can be a great tool to teach concentration, and to reinforce confidence in skill. I do not think that its something that should be a major focus of training, but a part of the procedure.
By GOD's Grace,
(1stJohn1:9)

 

[Bigshadow]

and that has to correlate with improved fighting effectiveness.

I don't agree with that person. I think he is asserting something that is not proven. Fighting effectiveness is about tactics, not techniques. Yes, it involves techniques, but it is always about tactical advantage. I don't think breaking improves tactical advantage. Additionally, lifting weights in the gym is not necessarily going to improve one's power. A good example, is the little chinese kung fu master than can deliver a devistating blow (unless of course that is a myth? ).

The guy advocating breaks in the previous thread was saying that if you don't break, and don't have access to fancy machinery of the sort that sport training labs have, you really don't have any way to measure how much force your strike is delivering, or whether or not your ability to generate and deliver force is improving.

That may be true to some extent. However, IMO delivering force isn't all about muscles. It is about structural alignment, stored energy in the body as the ligaments, tendons, and bones are twisted and unleashed delivering a very powerful force that muscles alone cannot deliver. So even if one has all that equipment, the results they see may not be derived from the source they think.

 

[exile]

I don't agree with that person. I think he is asserting something that is not proven. Fighting effectiveness is about tactics, not techniques. Yes, it involves techniques, but it is always about tactical advantage. I don't think breaking improves tactical advantage. Additionally, lifting weights in the gym is not necessarily going to improve one's power. A good example, is the little chinese kung fu master than can deliver a devistating blow (unless of course that is a myth? ).

That may be true to some extent. However, IMO delivering force isn't all about muscles. It is about structural alignment, stored energy in the body as the ligaments, tendons, and bones are twisted and unleashed delivering a very powerful force that muscles alone cannot deliver. So even if one has all that equipment, the results they see may not be derived from the source they think.

Bigshadow, what you say is true, but it really isn't incompatible with what the chap I mentioned was saying. His idea would be (if I'm remembering correctly) that for a given level of tactical skill, the more power you can deliver from a strike---regardless of how that's generated---the more effective you'll be as a fighter because your strikes will be more damaging. But unless you have some way of quantifying the energy you can deliver, you won't have an external measure to use as a guage of your progress in striking ability. My weight-lifiting analogy wasn't about where the power of a strike comes from---a lot of things come into that besides raw strength, that's for sure---but just as a parallel kind of case: lifting barbells of increasing weight is a way of quantifying strength gains, even though hoisting barbells may not be directly comparable to the problem of lifting wet barrels, just as boards are a way of quantifying power delivery, even though the body is probably a lot tougher and more resiliant (in a lot of places, anyway) than a pine board or stack of boards.

It seems to me that you could in fact use board breaking as a way of monitoring problems with you power generation technique. Say you can't break more than two boards with a knife hand strike, even after months of training... this probably means you're doing something technically wrong, assuming that you have the necessary strength. It's a kind of warning to you that you need work on something about your striking that you're not aware of. If you just practice for power by striking a bag, say, you probably won't be aware that you're `stuck', technically.

 

[Bigshadow]

Bigshadow, what you say is true, but it really isn't incompatible with what the chap I mentioned was saying. His idea would be (if I'm remembering correctly) that for a given level of tactical skill, the more power you can deliver from a strike---regardless of how that's generated---the more effective you'll be as a fighter because your strikes will be more damaging. But unless you have some way of quantifying the energy you can deliver, you won't have an external measure to use as a guage of your progress in striking ability. My weight-lifiting analogy wasn't about where the power of a strike comes from---a lot of things come into that besides raw strength, that's for sure---but just as a parallel kind of case: lifting barbells of increasing weight is a way of quantifying strength gains, even though hoisting barbells may not be directly comparable to the problem of lifting wet barrels, just as boards are a way of quantifying power delivery, even though the body is probably a lot tougher and more resiliant (in a lot of places, anyway) than a pine board or stack of boards.

It seems to me that you could in fact use board breaking as a way of monitoring problems with you power generation technique. Say you can't break more than two boards with a knife hand strike, even after months of training... this probably means you're doing something technically wrong, assuming that you have the necessary strength. It's a kind of warning to you that you need work on something about your striking that you're not aware of. If you just practice for power by striking a bag, say, you probably won't be aware that you're `stuck', technically.

I see what you are saying, I misunderstood the intent. Although, I still think it is unnecessary. But that is just my take on it.

 

[exile]

I see what you are saying, I misunderstood the intent. Although, I still think it is unnecessary. But that is just my take on it.

Believe me, I've had that same thought too---especially last Christmas, when I misaligned a three-board downard punching break so my little finger knuckle made contact instead of just my first two big knuckles. It's a break I'd done successfully before many times, and it worked this time too---the stack broke... but so did my hand, LOL. Spent four months in a splint (drove me up the walls), and left me with a distinct lack of desire to do any more punching breaks. These days I stick to knifehand breaks and stop when it begins hurting... duhhh!

 

[Last Fearner]

Bruce Lee said it best board does not hit back so why is it so popular?

"Boards do not hit back"

An apple does not bite back, but I still eat them.
(Bruce Lee didn't know everything!)

If a baseball player wants to improve his home run hitting abilities, he could have a pitching machine lob balls while he sees if he can knock them out of the park. The ball does not hit back, and the pitching machine is not the same as a live pitcher, but if he can not get the ball past 2nd base, there is a problem.

Many deer hunters will target practice before going hunting each year to improve their aim. A deer does not always stand perfectly still like a target, but if you can't hit a stationary target, you probably will have trouble with hitting a live deer. If you are using a ten pound bow with target arrows while hunting, you probably won't kill the deer even if you hit it.

Testing the strength, power, and accuracy of your tools is useful in any physical activity, and that is what board breaking is for. Will it guarantee a victory - - no, but if you lack the skills to break boards, you probably lack the skills to damage your opponent, even if you have good tactical strategy. For some students, their percentage of successful breaking is a hit and miss ratio. Your self defense accuracy will be the same. The more you practice, the more consistent you will become with hitting your target with accuracy and power each and every strike.

CM D.J. Eisenhart
____________________
Last Fearner

 

[terryl965]

"Boards do not hit back"

An apple does not bite back, but I still eat them.
(Bruce Lee didn't know everything!)

If a baseball player wants to improve his home run hitting abilities, he could have a pitching machine lob balls while he sees if he can knock them out of the park. The ball does not hit back, and the pitching machine is not the same as a live pitcher, but if he can not get the ball past 2nd base, there is a problem.

Many deer hunters will target practice before going hunting each year to improve their aim. A deer does not always stand perfectly still like a target, but if you can't hit a stationary target, you probably will have trouble with hitting a live deer. If you are using a ten pound bow with target arrows while hunting, you probably won't kill the deer even if you hit it.

Testing the strength, power, and accuracy of your tools is useful in any physical activity, and that is what board breaking is for. Will it guarantee a victory - - no, but if you lack the skills to break boards, you probably lack the skills to damage your opponent, even if you have good tactical strategy. For some students, their percentage of successful breaking is a hit and miss ratio. Your self defense accuracy will be the same. The more you practice, the more consistent you will become with hitting your target with accuracy and power each and every strike.

CM D.J. Eisenhart
____________________
Last Fearner

Sir love the sating about the apple and you are right Bruce Lee did not know everything and either do I just making converstation and seeing other people opinions.

 

[IWishToLearn]

I think it is a fair measure of someones power as long as the boards have not been tampered with at all. It is a good confidence builder but not something I encourage a lot of. I was breaking a patio block a couple times in the last few weeks and the block won (it was wet and I didn't notice) man does that hurt. Its very impressive to see when things get broke in demos as long as they do break and haven't been tampered with.

Ouch! I've done that. I had four of them and the wise*** holding them slipped a wet one in as #3. Jerk.

 

[Block]

When studying Taekwondo it was explained to me that breaking originated from the earlier days. Taekwondo had to use a lot of jumping kicks to knock off riders on horseback, then trained in breaking boards because the enemy wore armor made our of wood. I haven’t verified this, however.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Remember that "Bionic Woman" episode that dealt with breaking?... "My Father can break four boards at a time!"

 

[searcher]

We break for tests and for demos. About a year ago I stopped breaking boards and have gone to concrete pavers. They make for a good display. The pros are that it is fun and is a good test of focus and power. The con is the potential of breaking bones. I broke my pinky metacarpal going through a 4x4. It hurt for months.

A tip for everyone thinking of breaking is to condition yourself prior to breaking.

 

[still learning]

Hello, It is better to learn how to break "Blocks". Because today we have so many blockheads around. Not as many boards as before. Just my thoughts on this.....Aloha