« Is the Peace Corps any good? | Main | The Limits of Tying »
The progress of science
In one experiment, experts in karate, boxing, kung fu, and tae kwon do all took turns striking the dummy in the face.
The researchers were surprised to find that boxing is the fighting style capable of delivering the most force in a single punch.
Boxer Steve Petramale delivered about 1,000 pounds (453.6 kilograms) of impact force, the equivalent of swinging a sledgehammer into someone's face...
The tae kwon do spinning back kick delivered more than 1,500 pounds (680.4 kilograms) of force, while the kung fu flying double kick produced about 1,000 pounds (453.6 kilograms) of force.
But the undisputed winner practices a discipline known for its ability to deliver a knockout: Muay Thai, also known as Thai boxing.
Melchor Menor, a former two-time Muay Thai world champion, uses a simple technique to incapacitate his opponents: a knee to the chest at close quarters [TC: I guess that doesn't count as a "punch" Oh well.].
Menor himself was surprised at how powerful this move can be.
"I wasn't expecting to have the highest force. When he said the power of the knee [kick] was equal to the power of a 35-mile-an-hour [56.3-kilometer-an-hour] car crash, it was humbling."
It also turns out that a kung fu punch is as fast as a snake. Who would have known? Here is the full story, which perhaps explains why I prefer tennis.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 15, 2006 at 02:20 PM in Science | Permalink
Comments
Tyler,
Your post is making a mistake somewhere. First you say
"The researchers were surprised to find that boxing is the fighting style capable of delivering the most force in a single punch."
BUT THEN YOU provide evidence that Tae Kwon Do is the most powerful:
"Boxer Steve Petramale delivered about 1,000 pounds (453.6 kilograms) of impact force, the equivalent of swinging a sledgehammer into someone's face...
The tae kwon do spinning back kick delivered more than 1,500 pounds (680.4 kilograms) of force. . . "
I'd be surprised if Tae Kwon Do wasn't the most powerful.
Posted by: jim at Aug 15, 2006 2:44:17 PM
It's the punch/kick distinction. The article says that a boxing punch is more powerful than a punch from any other measured style of martial arts, but that the Thai-boxing knee-to-the-chest kick was the most powerful blow of any sort.
Posted by: LizardBreath at Aug 15, 2006 2:54:16 PM
The post contains a basic phsyics mistake that is covered in the first month of most general physics classes: pounds measure force, kilograms measure mass. Thus, "1,000 pounds (453.6 kilograms)" is incorrect. The correct metric unit is the Newton. The original article commits an additional sin by taking a number with one significant digit ("1,000 pounds") and re-expressing with with four significant figures ("453.6").
More importantly a physical analogy would be more useful than the metric mis-conversion: "1,000 pounds, the equivalent of having two Harley Davidons on your face...."
Posted by: Tylerh at Aug 15, 2006 3:32:51 PM
I'm surprized Tae Kwon Do recorded as much power as it did given its proven ineffectiveness in the laboratory that is modern mixed martial arts. . .
Posted by: Jerry Read at Aug 15, 2006 3:52:14 PM
Jerry, that's not surprising at all. The techniques with the most force aren't necessarily the most effective. Spinning back kicks create huge force but they are slow to execute, easy to dodge, and easy to counter.
Posted by: Alfred at Aug 15, 2006 4:05:58 PM
Alfred - very true. In mixed martial arts, grappling and some throw styles (jujitsu, akido/hapkido, etc.) are quite effective, and they involve very little force. Similarly, krav maga is not a high force style, but it is extremely effective. Punching through a brick wall != winning a fight.
Posted by: Alex at Aug 15, 2006 6:12:33 PM
A comment on your post concerning martial arts: In the sport of "mixed martial arts," participants can use any technique they want, with a few exceptions. Over time, the most competitive MMA athletes use a combination of boxing, thai kick boxing & grappling/wrestling (either brazilian ju-jistu or Greco-roman). Kung fu, tae kwon do & karate techniques are not considered as affective as
these alternatives. Thus, the "real world" test of what is the most effective combat technique matches the scientific experiments you reported on today's MR.
Posted by: Fabio Rojas at Aug 15, 2006 6:37:34 PM
This is interesting. I just got back from a trip to Thailand and was struck by how many locals insisted one of their Muay Thai fighters could destroy any karate expert or kung fu master. It seems this bit of national chauvinism has some truth to it!
Posted by: Mark at Aug 15, 2006 6:45:16 PM
Cool to se fellow mma fans here, i allso train mma though and for what its worth the most painfull technique (by far) are the Muay Thai low kicks, those are nasty! For the non initiated, a muay thai low kick is a kick that strikes with the chin bone and is aimed at your thigh.
As for Marks post, yeah its been proven again and again that Muay Thai / Kyokoshin karate and San sho aswell as western boxing tend to be the best styles for standup fighting.
Posted by: David at Aug 15, 2006 6:59:25 PM
"a muay thai low kick is a kick that strikes with the chin bone and is aimed at your thigh."
Yeah, but you have to train for years to be able to kick effectively with the chin bone.
Was I missing something, or did they evaluate each style based on N = 1 practitioners?
Posted by: Bill Gardner at Aug 15, 2006 7:07:53 PM
Tae Kwon Do and Kung Fu can generate a lot of force, but that force is seldom useful in combat. Almost every fight goes to the ground almost immediately, and it's there that wrestling and jiu-jitsu dominate.
Interestingly enough, I studied aikido for a while and learned the misdirection and blocking techniques. After becoming a fan of MMA, I asked my sensei, "If these techniques are useful, why don't the world's best fighters use them?" He gave me some mystical crap which basically said, "They don't work." I never did see the aikido defence for a football tackle.
- Josh
Posted by: Wild Pegasus at Aug 15, 2006 7:08:15 PM
Everyone who played StreetFighter2 back in the 80s and early 90s already knew that the 2 most powerful "boss villians" were muy thai fighters.
Posted by: michael vassar at Aug 15, 2006 7:15:32 PM
"Interestingly enough, I studied aikido for a while and learned the misdirection and blocking techniques. After becoming a fan of MMA, I asked my sensei, "If these techniques are useful, why don't the world's best fighters use them?" He gave me some mystical crap which basically said, "They don't work." I never did see the aikido defence for a football tackle."
I studied both Tiajitsu and Hapkido for a while, and both Aikido and jujitsu for a few months. My take is that arts like Aikido are more for fighting multiple attackers. A excellent ground fighter that tries to fight 2 people will be demolished. Against one person, ground fighting rules. 2x1 or 3x1, going to the ground will insure that the 1 loses. The kick to the head is so hard to defend against, when you have someone else grappling with you.
Additionally, Aikido and other arts like it, are useful when you get old and slow, or if you are weak or small. Learning how to wrestle as a 130 pounder is great, but when you go up against the 250 pounder, you'll lose unless you are college skill level.
Posted by: mickslam at Aug 15, 2006 8:42:00 PM
I'm surprised that an economist posting this article didn't add that the result that boxers have the strongest punch is to be expected, since boxers specialize in punching.
Posted by: Douglas Knight at Aug 15, 2006 9:23:30 PM
Actually, I believe there was a study done a few decades ago where Thai kickboxers paired off against karate and kung fu experts. Unsurprisingly, the very linear Thai practioners easily defeated their more fancy pants opponents.
What styles of karate or kung fu were involved in the study above, I don't know. Some styles of kung fu, such as Wing Chun, are rather simple and linear and might be as effective as Muay Thai.
I am singularly unimpressed by Tae Kwon Do, in spite of the constant claims of superiority made for it by its practioners. I once saw a Tae Kwon Do expert fight against a guy practicing Shotokan karate. The Shotokan guy drilled the Tae Kwon Do guy in the back of the head when he attempted to execute some sort of roundhouse-style kick knocking him unconscious.
It seems like a lot of martial arts theory hasn't been street tested for effectiveness.
Posted by: mike at Aug 15, 2006 10:42:06 PM
Thus, the "real world" test of what is the most effective combat technique matches the scientific experiments you reported on today's MR.
MMA isn't "the real world". An MMA fighter knows what he had for breakfast the morning of the fight, knows how many opponents he will face, knows the boundaries of the fight, knows the fighting area will be clear of improvised weapons, obstacles, and hazards, and knows his opponent's fighting style and tendencies (he's probably seen his opponent fight before!). He also knows his opponent will be unarmed.
Almost every fight goes to the ground almost immediately, and it's there that wrestling and jiu-jitsu dominate.
Ask any urban police officer whether his fights go to the ground "almost immediately" and he will tell you it ain't so. The #1 thing to avoid on the street is having the fight go to the ground. This is another example of how MMA differs from 99% of real world combat situations. The poster who made the point that in any multiple-opponents scenario, going to the ground is almost always immediate defeat, is bang on.
Posted by: asg at Aug 15, 2006 10:45:15 PM
Rather than kneeing a man in the chest, I'd suggest kneeing him in the groin.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Aug 16, 2006 12:39:47 AM
Was the boxer wearing his gloves when he punched? I understand they are ever so useful for keeping
hand bones intact and causing them to remain inside your actual hand when you punch something.
Posted by: Ronald Brak at Aug 16, 2006 1:58:28 AM
I think it's worth pointing out that in general, a boxer or thai boxer will be in *much* better physical condition than someone who does other martial arts, and I would be surprised if this simple fact did not end up being much more important than stylistic differences.
Posted by: dsquared at Aug 16, 2006 2:46:20 AM
I think that too much time is spent arguing over the various flavors of martial arts. Many have their subtle advantages in different situations. The early UFC competitions were probably the best practical real world test of martial art effectiveness. And we can see how the sport has evolved. I believe a combination of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Kenpo/Kung-Fu, and Muay-Thai are probably the most practical amalgamation.
Chris
Posted by: Chris Meisenzahl at Aug 16, 2006 8:37:29 AM
Dsquared also makes a good point. Boxers have a saying: "90% of fighting is conditioning, and 90% of conditioning is running." Boxing obviously has fewer techniques to master, and there's only so much polish on your footwork you can do. So when you open up a contest to more than just a few types of punches, that 90% might become 80%, but 80% is still a lot.
Posted by: asg at Aug 16, 2006 10:11:26 AM
"The early UFC competitions were probably the best practical real world test of martial art effectiveness"
UFC or Pride are great tests of fighting styles given that the fight is one on one, unarmed, and won't be interrupted. Those conditions don't normally happen outside of a tournament. As asg said, ask a bouncer or a police officer or a military soldier that have seen many real fights and they can tell you how different conditions require different behaviors.
Posted by: Alfred at Aug 16, 2006 11:59:10 AM
I did tkd for 13 years, competed nationally. I can say with no hesitation that I have never done anything as hard as dropping in on a boxing class. Jesus, boxing works you. I don't understand why they chose to fight with their short little limbs, but they are in incredible shape.
Also, that tkd guy from the article? He is HUGE! I've never seen a tkd guy that big. The high-level tkd guys I saw were all tall, skinny and long limbed, to have a long range in their weight classes. Maybe there is a new look to the sport since I left it ten years ago.
(Also, I totally believe the force estimates. I've seen people kicked through the sheetrock on the walls.)
Posted by: Megan at Aug 16, 2006 12:40:59 PM
Force measurements, not force estimates.
Posted by: Megan at Aug 16, 2006 12:45:30 PM
On the Aikido front, I am used to seeing folks (in UFC, etc) who have Aikido training as part of their other training (along with Gracie/etc).
Personal background is aiki-jujitsu (infinitely many techniques) & shotokan karate, where I got the impression that you only really want to know 1 punch, 1 kick, a couple blocks...then get good at it.
Posted by: kyle at Aug 16, 2006 2:10:30 PM
