Talk:Fight Science
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project.
Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article You may also wish to read the project's Notability guide. |
|
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
Fight Science is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Did anyone else watch this show and find the science to be a little questionable? I noticed it especially when a pair of professional brick-breakers were talking about breaking bricks with their elbows. One man shows how "hard" it is to break blocks with a sledgehammer, seemingly not trying much at all, and a measurement is announced of "only 700 pounds of force!" The audience would then seemingly assume that this force can be compared to the punches in the show, which ranged between 500 and 1000 pounds, with some kicks at 2000. This seems to show that the sledgehammer is a less effective weapon, despite the common sense alternative. This becomes confusing, though, because at the same time, the blow from the crowbar was about 3500 pounds, and the baseball bat rang with 7000 or so pounds. I believe that by varying the measurement methods, which may be dissimilar enough to cause serious error, and underswinging the sledgehammer, the performer et. al. deceived the audience into thinking that these men were performing some superhuman feat. Anyone else feel the same way?shoez 06:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC) yeah.. Warfwar3 17:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, when I watched the program, I thought they weren't trying very hard on the sledgehammer, possibly to make themselves look better. However, all the other data seem accurate. Being an Electrical Engineer, I know what load cells are capable of, and those are what they used for measuring all the forces. But minus the sledgehammer and the two brothers who break bricks, everything else seem to follow science. --Wirbelwind 04:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Questions over Results section
This section seems to contain original research because:
- It makes the argument that the the mass of each martial artist has to be taken into account for the punch test to be scientific. Since it didn't happen, the authors conclude that the test is unscientific.
- No source is cited for the argument.
The author(s) of this section claim that the mass of each puncher was not taken into account. While this is true, the point of the test is to see which martial art best trains its practitioners to punch. In the show, it turns out that the boxer had the strongest punch. It's no surprise since boxing uses punches exclusively when attacking. So not only does the section contain an unverified claim, I argue that this claim is irrelevant to how scientific the test is.
It's true that each individual would vary in the amount of strength he could develop, but I don't see how it would be possible in a practical sense to isolate the martial art from the individual. You'd need identical clones and train each one in a different martial art or something like that. Darren Lee 00:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Although I agree with the point about the boxers, I have to concur with the author about the weight issue. This was exactly what was playing on my mind as I watched the show. Actually if anyone has seen Discovery's "Extreme Martial Arts", just about everything from that show was copied into this National Geographic documentary. I also found it badly researched and terribly narrated. And after a certain point everything was just compared to car crashes (like in XMA when they compared Mike Chat's kick to a car crash). Also, the show just demonstrated the power of certain techniques while ignoring more subtle techniques, and failed to highlight the practical (and impractical) aspects of some styles of fighting. Dessydes 05:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
What is this weapon called:? it looks like a metal object tied to a rope. I saw a clip of a guy using it in this show.
- Meteor hammer? Rope dart? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unreferenced Tag Added
No sources = unreferenced tag. MastaFighta (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The tag definitely applies to the criticism section. What about the intro and the results portions of the article, though? Aren't those parts referencing Fight Science by default?
- I also removed "The test was preformed by a Tae Kwon Do practitioner with seemingly little training in Japanese Swordsmanship" from the criticism of the katana test. Bren Foster's actually a blackbelt in three different disciplines (http://www.kenshusei.com.au/trainer%20bios/BrenFosterBio.asp), has a bunch of training in several others, and as is evidenced in the show and footage at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsgvKLxaTlY , he knows his way around a backsword. It's not evidence by itself that he's a true kendo master, but it seems to me that he was more than equal to the task of cutting into ballistics gel (and yes, to be an accurate test, it would've needed more than just gel). RemiCogan (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
