Recently, a friend of mine who is a black belt, suggested I get some breaking boards to work with the next time I get some friends together to work out. I was expecting to him to say that, before the day was over. Perhaps the first image that one has upon hearing the words "martial arts" or "Karate" is that of a practitioner breaking through a stack of boards or bricks with a powerful side kick or reverse punch. It's become such a basic facet of martial arts lore and tradition that few people stop to consider what it's for or whether it's even useful. And that's the point of this blog post.
Board breaking is used to demonstrate a practitioner's perfection of technique: form, power, balance, etc. One person holds the board, or several in a stack, if the practitioner is really good, and the other executes a specific strike in attempt to break it.The boards are usually made of pine and vary in thickness. This practice, along with Kata, has become one of the most important facets of most classical martial arts curriculum. Instructors and students alike will swear by it and it is required in all belt testing.
There are certain issues I must take up against board breaking. First, it's a gimmick. Breaking a board only means one thing: you can break a board. Boards do not move, hit back, or even feel like a real opponent. If someone stacks up ten boards and side kicks through them all in one shot, that same person might miss an opponent who can only break two boards but spent more time on footwork. It's not a coincidence that few champion board breakers become champion full contact fighters. If board and brick breaking were proof of real life technique mastery, then why doesn't the world champion brick and board breaker enter into the UFC and break Anderson Silva or Frankie Edgar in half with the same move they used to split ten cinder blocks? All they would have to do is hit them once, right?
Consider this: If a fighter becomes undisputed world champion by using fast techniques with a little power, deceptive speed and good timing and can break three or four boards with the same moves, is he less advanced than other practitioners who can break ten boards with their classical methods? Is their technique "better", or is there more to technique development than how many boards you can break? Why are we judging techniques that were designed to enforce our will over our opponent by how well they damage the fibers found in one inch slats of American pine? How does "enforcement of will" relate to "disruption of cellulose"?
Board breaking is used to demonstrate a practitioner's perfection of technique: form, power, balance, etc. One person holds the board, or several in a stack, if the practitioner is really good, and the other executes a specific strike in attempt to break it.The boards are usually made of pine and vary in thickness. This practice, along with Kata, has become one of the most important facets of most classical martial arts curriculum. Instructors and students alike will swear by it and it is required in all belt testing.
There are certain issues I must take up against board breaking. First, it's a gimmick. Breaking a board only means one thing: you can break a board. Boards do not move, hit back, or even feel like a real opponent. If someone stacks up ten boards and side kicks through them all in one shot, that same person might miss an opponent who can only break two boards but spent more time on footwork. It's not a coincidence that few champion board breakers become champion full contact fighters. If board and brick breaking were proof of real life technique mastery, then why doesn't the world champion brick and board breaker enter into the UFC and break Anderson Silva or Frankie Edgar in half with the same move they used to split ten cinder blocks? All they would have to do is hit them once, right?
Consider this: If a fighter becomes undisputed world champion by using fast techniques with a little power, deceptive speed and good timing and can break three or four boards with the same moves, is he less advanced than other practitioners who can break ten boards with their classical methods? Is their technique "better", or is there more to technique development than how many boards you can break? Why are we judging techniques that were designed to enforce our will over our opponent by how well they damage the fibers found in one inch slats of American pine? How does "enforcement of will" relate to "disruption of cellulose"?
No comments:
Post a Comment