Busted Explanations for Karate Breaking

A karate classmate breaks three boards without spacers

This post updates one that previously appeared on my Rennie’s Last Nerve blog. Did you see it there? I didn’t think so.

Martial arts are my hobby and explaining science is my job, so the appearance of “How karate chops break concrete blocks” on io9.com a few weeks back naturally caught my eye. Unfortunately, not only did it fall far short of my hopes of offering a lucid explanation, it parroted misleading statements from an article on exactly this same subject that has been annoying me every time I remembered it for 10 years. (Oh wonderful Web, is there no old error you can’t make new again?) Indulge me while I try belatedly to set the record straight.

The io9 article starts by asking how the squishy human hands of martial artists can break concrete slabs, wooden boards and other considerably harder objects. Reassuringly, it wastes no time on talk of chi and similar Eastern mysticism but instead goes right to a very loose discussion of the biomechanics of hitting efficiently and striking to vulnerable positions in the target. So far, so good, although the descriptions of what to do are probably too vague to be helpful to readers who don’t already know what they’re doing.

Then the article seems to go off the rails (emphasis added):

It’s also important to strike quickly at the surface of the block. Most blows are part connective smack and part push. This delivers the most damage when fighting flesh, but helps protect concrete or wood. Concrete and wood have a good mix of rigidity and elasticity. The materials will bend, and even flex back like a rubber band would, but the limits of their malleability are much lower. Bending and snapping back can do more damage to them than it can to things that flex easier. By making the blow fast and pulling back, the striker hits the block hardest and allows the material to do the maximum amount of bending. A follow-through push will keep the material from snapping back, and snapping itself.

In my experience, and that of every other martial arts practitioner to whom I’ve ever spoken about this subject, that’s just not right.

When you break a board, or concrete, or a Louisville slugger or anything else routinely used these days in demonstrations of tameshiwari (breaking), you have to follow through on the strike. Indeed, advice commonly given to students learning to break is that they should aim at an imaginary target several inches beyond the actual object, for two reasons. First, doing so helps to make sure that the actual strike occurs closer to the movement’s point of peak biomechanical efficiency. Second, it helps to override our natural tendency (partly psychological, partly reflexive) to slow down ballistic movements such as punches and kicks before they reach full extension, which helps to protect the connective tissues around our joints.

This argument is not theoretical for me. I’m not in the same martial arts galaxy as Mas Oyama, and I am anything but a breaking ace. But I have studied karate for 17 years, and during that time I’ve broken my share of boards, concrete and rocks, and helped out with demonstrations by other karateka executing far more powerful breaks. They all followed through.

The reason this faulty description of breaking jumped out at me is because I had read it 10 years ago in Discover magazine’s “The Physics of … Karate,” which is one of the two articles that the io9 piece listed as a source. (The other was an entertaining and apparently blameless piece by The Straight Dope.) The Discover piece was if anything even more confused because it implied that boxers’ punches could not break boards (believe me, they can) and implied that biomechanical efficiency somehow justified its statement that a karate chop “lashes out like a cobra and then withdraws instantly.”

If you’d like more thorough and quantitative explorations of the physics of breaking, you can get them here and here [pdf]. You can also read what are regarded as a couple of classic papers on the subject:

Walker, J. D. “Karate Strikes,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 43, 10, Oct. 1975

Feld, M. S. et. al. “The Physics of Karate,” Scientific American, pp. 150-158, April 1979

A surprisingly accurate and informative description of the science behind breaking is also available on this page (with video) for the old Newton’s Apple children’s science TV show, which states:

One key to understanding brick breaking is a basic principle of motion: The more momentum an object has, the more force it can generate. When it hit the brick, [karateka Ron] McNair’s hand had reached a speed of 11 meters per second (24 miles per hour). At this speed, his hand exerted a whopping force of 3,000 Newton’s –or 675 pounds–on the concrete. A slab of concrete could likely support the weight of a few people weighing a total of 675 pounds (306 kilograms). But apply that amount of force concentrated into an area as small as a fist and the concrete slab will break.

The io9 article correctly points out that when breaking multiple boards or slabs at once for demonstrations, breakers often put small spacers (wooden pegs, pencils, stacks of coins, etc.) between them at the edges so that they do not sit solidly atop one another. Use of spacers does make breaking a given number of boards much easier (see that Straight Dope article to see how much easier). But then it continues:

Hold a piece of paper by both sides in the air and a knife, applied to the middle, will cut right through it. Put it on a smooth concrete floor, and it will be much, much harder to cut the piece of paper using the same knife.

Like everything else in life, breaking is just a primitive, degenerate form of bending. The paper can’t bend, and so it doesn’t give. A concrete block works the same way.

Trying to explain breaking by drawing analogies with cutting only confuses matters. And although I love a good Futurama reference as much as anyone, citing Bender’s more-funny-than-physicsy line that “breaking is just a primitive, degenerate form of bending” doesn’t help.

Martial arts breaking is filled with practices that, depending on your point of view, are either tricks for fooling observers or techniques for maximizing a strike’s visible effect. You don’t just strike with the power in your arm or leg: you organize the movement of your strike to bring in as much power from your legs, hips and upper body as possible, too. When breaking wooden boards, you use pine (not oak, not mahogany) that isn’t marred by dense knots, cut ¾ inch thick and about 12 inches on the diagonal; you hit them to break along the wood’s natural grain. (It’s not playing by Hoyle but some breakers have been known to bake their boards in ovens before demonstrations to make them more brittle.) One good board, if held securely so that it won’t move on impact, is so easy to break that even those with no training at all can be taught to do it in under five minutes.

When breaking concrete, you use slabs that are relatively narrow and long, so that the strike can hit at a distance from the supports at their edges for best leverage. With some multiple breaks—involving, say, big slabs of stacked, spaced ice—you can count on the weight of the falling, broken pieces on top to help break slabs lower in the stack. And so on.

All these practices are ultimately demonstrations of simple physics, not magical chi, but doing them well—particularly the more demanding ones—also takes strength, training and concentration. The value of tameshiwari to martial arts training is much debated; it has little or no practical relevance to fighting or whatever else people study martial arts for. Done wrong, breaking is an amazingly efficient way of messing up your limbs, potentially permanently. I don’t do it often and I don’t much miss it. But I have seen (and felt firsthand) how much successfully breaking boards can boost a student’s confidence, so who knows.

In closing, Matt, the Skeptical Teacher, demonstrated karate breaking at The Amaz!ing Meeting a couple of weeks ago in Las Vegas, and even showed that he could teach veteran skeptic Joe Nickell to break in under five minutes to prove the lack of mystical woo involved. Here’s a clip of a break he did on the main stage.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Creative Commons License
The Busted Explanations for Karate Breaking by Retort, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This entry was posted in Martial Arts, Physics. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Busted Explanations for Karate Breaking

  1. Scott says:

    There is still a key component missing to explain breaking technique. I teach physics and do the demo each year with my students. When the board or block is struck and only supported on the sides, the center bottom of the board is placed under tension when struck from the top. Neither the wood fibers pulled cross grain nor the cement in the block withstand tension well and a crack forms at the bottom of the block and propagates upward. This upward moving crack is seen in all high-speed photos where the block or board is captured in the process of breaking.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • John Rennie says:

      Interesting, Scott, thanks. Do you have a link handy to some video showing the formation of that crack? I’d be glad to include it in a follow-up post I’m composing because of interest in this one.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      • Scott says:

        Thanks for your positive comments. The key is material science: once a crack forms, the material is greatly weakened. The cool part is that the crack forms NOT at the point of impact but on the opposite side. At 49s into this clip from the science show Brainiac, this is very clearly shown. I have to direct my students to stop watching the hand and face and watch the brick to see the event. The other bit of physics is momentum transfer and impulse. The hand has a fixed amount of momentum at the point of impact and that momentum (p = mass*velocity) must be transferred by an impulse ( force*time) for the hand to stop. Breaking a board is pass/fail. If you pass, the hand slows over a longer time with less force as the board breaks – does not hurt at all. This is why the experts aim for a point beyond the board. If you fail, the hand stops abruptly and a huge force occurs for a short but painful time.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. A Hermit says:

    Good article…the reason students are taught to pull back quickly after a strike is to return to a defensive position when sparring; leaving an arm or leg extended in a fight is a good way to get counterpunched. Breaking efficiently requires a good follow through.

    And spacers are for sissies…;-)

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • John Rennie says:

      Right, the pullback is definitely important in fighting. It’s just odd to me that it even came up in these discussions of breaking because I’ve never heard a (good) teacher on the subject fail to emphasize the importance of following through on a break.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  3. Pingback: Thirty Three Things (v. 13) » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

  4. gregdowney says:

    Fascinating post, John, although I did read the original time you posted!

    As a student of multiple martial arts, I’m really struck by the way that some arts are shaped by understandings of bodily kinematics that are very specific to the tasks that the art focuses upon. For example, the punch-and-pull-back, as the previous comment suggests, is based upon an understanding, not of physics, but on what constitutes good fighting strategy.

    Of course, what constitutes ‘good fighting strategy’ depends very much upon what you’re trying to do; sparring is different from board breaking is different from kick-boxing is different from MMA is different from bar fighting is different from survival fighting against someone who’s high on something that takes pain off the table. The task at hand, whether it’s breaking boards or hitting somebody, with various intents, means that not every technique is equally appropriate.

    The reason I put up this long, rambling discussion is that I’m wondering, is it the same technique from the point of view of the breaker when you’re up against boards, blocks, or ice? For example, do you find that certain hand positions work better depending upon the materials or positioning of the target? I’m more familiar with BJJ and capoeira, so the only things I’m used to breaking, unfortunately, are parts of my own anatomy….

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • John Rennie says:

      Thanks, Greg. And, incidentally, back in the prelaunch days of PLoS Blogs, I was excited to see in your profile that you practice capoeira, since the dynamics of that martial art are so radically different from traditional stand-up Japanese karate. I don’t have experience with it myself, but my Emmy-winning wife, the luscious and terrifying @girlkicks, played as a green cord back in the days before she switched to karate so that she could beat me up on a more consistent basis.
      You’re right, of course, that the punch-and-pull-back form for a strike is best applied to (some) fighting situations, particularly ippon-wazari or other point-fighting matches that are like fencing: the goal is to land a clean, decisive strike first. It’s very much what you want to do when you’re throwing a quick boxing jab or uraken (backfist) snapping strikes, not only because you can’t repeat the technique until you do but because you don’t want to leave the extended arm out for your opponent to control.
      Good question about the relevance of different strikes to different targets. It occurs to me that this may call for a follow-up post! More to come.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  5. Pingback: Open Laboratory 2010 – submissions so far | A Blog Around The Clock

  6. Pingback: Maybe the Time for Revolution has Come? A Real Revolution, for Freedom and Jobs and Economic Justice, not the Teabaggers’ Counter-Revolution? « Out Of My Mind

  7. Pingback: Open Laboratory 2010 – one month left to submit! | A Blog Around The Clock

  8. Pingback: Open Laboratory 2010 – three weeks to go! | A Blog Around The Clock

  9. Pingback: Open Laboratory 2010 – two weeks to go! | A Blog Around The Clock

  10. Pingback: Open Laboratory 2010 – only eight days till the deadline! | A Blog Around The Clock

  11. Pingback: JR Minkel, You Are Missed Already | Retort

  12. Pingback: JR Minkel, You Are Missed Already ReadWrite.US - Something For Everyone... - ReadWrite.US

  13. Pingback: Back in the Gi » Blog Archive » Magical chi powers, debunked.

  14. I may be misreading the comments and if so, just ignore mine. But it sounds as if people are surprised to see that the board, brick, etc that is furthest from the point of impact breaks first? Isn’t that the only way multiple items can break? As the closest item begins to “bend” it will be stopped by the item behind it. So the furthest item must break first, making way for the next furthest, and so on in a kind of reverse domino effect until the closest item has room to expand and break.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  15. Mark Maier says:

    I have been able to break 5 one inch boards with a speed punch. I hold the boards in one hand and punch them with the other hand. I do not bake the boards. I did have a photo taken when breaking 4 boards at one demonstration. I do a complete follow through with the punch.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>