Talk:Breaking (martial arts)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Breaking (martial arts) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

	This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Martial arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts articles

Bottles are an item that people break. However, it is usually a fraudulent affair, accomplished only by putting the bottles in a furnace and upon taking them out, immediately placing them in snow.

My teacher's teacher lived in Korea for many of his younger years. He went to a demonstration where they were braking bottles. He was fascinated by it. When he went home he practiced trying to brake bottles everyday. He would place the bottle on a stump and kick it. Over and over, relentlessly. Sometimes the bottle would hit the tree in the distance and brake, but he could never brake it himself.

When the next demonstration came up, about 6 months later, he went and asked the people how they did it. They told him how they had cheated and he got understandably angry. Apparently he was so angry he wanted "to kill them". That's his way of saying he was very angry.

Well, just thought I'd share that bit of info. Quietmartialartist 22:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! I've actually seen that done before. I'm pretty sure that the no cheating was involved. The bottle was obviously empty. But when I saw it, the breaker took the bottle, grabbed the neck of it in one hand, and squeezed the top with another hand. It was actually very amazing. -Ddawg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawg2007 (talk • contribs)

Demonstrations are different than competitions. Although not always the case, demonstrations could use materials that are specially prepared to facilitate ease in breaking demonstrations. At sanctioned competitions, such as those run by the United States and World Breaking Associations USBA/WBA, materials are standard and inspected. Boards are standard USBA/WBA boards shipped directly from the mill and concrete blocks are purchased from suppliers in the vacinity of the event. Ects2000 (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i've actually met someone who specialized in making cinder blocks and wood made for martial arts events. they're structurally designed to break easily. the wood is the same kind they use in professional wrestling tables. it has a weak point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.160.154 (talk • contribs)

It is true that some martial artist use boards that are easier to break but those are usually only for events as you said, such as demonstrations. Otherwise normal unaltered boards are fairly hard to break depending on your skill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.175.156 (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I often saw martial artists breaking large blocks of bricks with moderate effort, sometimes block of 8 or 9(often with spacers between bricks, but sometimes no).

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-8629321730063150584

So, does this mean that if they hit the arm of a normal person with the same knife strike, that one's arm will be cut in half, for there's no way a person's arm can be as thick as a brick block. Or is it that brick blocks designed for breaking is no match for human's bones? I've had this question for years, can anyone explain to me? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.147.248 (talk) 06:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some key differences. First of all, the concrete blocks were solidly supported and couldn't go anywhere. Either they were going to break, or they weren't; they couldn't move even a fraction of an inch. Secondly, bone and concrete do have different properties; concrete is fairly brittle, whereas bone has more resilience. Thirdly, you also have muscle and other tissue surrounding the bone (though it depends on where the bone is struck). Omnedon 13:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where the information in this article came from, but a great deal of it seems totally wrong to me. I'm no physicist, but I've read a half-dozen so articles on the physics of breaking and they all seem to contradict the claims about pegged vs unpegged boards. I plan to come back with some references soon, but I wanted to see if I was the only one having these concerns. Contrary to the article, my understanding is that pegged boards are much easier to break than unpegged boards. I also find the claim that a single brick equals 6-7 unpegged boards equally unlikely (depending on board size, which ought to have been specified). Anyone have any thoughts on this? Bradford44 18:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that in general, a pegged stack of boards would be easier to break than an unpegged stack. It would depend partly on the thickness of the boards compared to the size of the pegs; and it's true that the principle is not quite the same as with concrete because of the "flex factor". So, the article has some parts of it right; but, for example, I did remove the assertion that adding bricks to an unpegged stack increases the difficulty exponentially, which isn't literally true.

In any case, though, let's say you're breaking a stack of four boards. Without the pegs, you have to break all four boards at virtually the same instant, almost as if they were one thick board. Pegging stretches it out, whether it's wood or concrete. You still have to travel all the way through the stack, since one broken board won't do much to break the next one in the stack (as with concrete), but in my opinion it does make the break easier as long as you have sufficient follow-through. The assertion that you have to "physically touch" each board in the stack isn't really true either.

As to the question of "X boards = 1 concrete", it would depend on the wood (since even with pine boards, one will find some to be harder or tougher than others), the thickness of the concrete, et cetera. However, in general, I think that breaking 7 unpegged boards would be much more challenging than breaking a single piece of concrete (which is really quite easy, as long as it's done right, due to the brittleness of the material). Breaking concrete is a whole different game. Omnedon 13:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, what you have written confirms what I have read. I actually went to the library today (at the University of Florida, which I live very close to) and was reading some old science articles about the physics of martial arts and breaking. I plan to go back and make some copies of what I read, so I can use it as a reference here. If you live near a good library, you might want to check out the following article:

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

It was very interesting, and at least somewhat written for a non physicist/engineer. Bradford44 22:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking boards without spacers, "Pegs", is much more difficult than breaking boards with spacers. Think about it this way: You have 5 boards separated by spacers, when you go to strike the first board, how many boards are you breaking? One. The first one. True, you need a decent amount of speed, but the required power to break 5 boards at once is completely diminished. Quietmartialartist (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it only me that picked up on the statement that unpegged bricks are easier to break than pegged bricks, but then the author goes on to say that two unpegged bricks equals 6 pegged bricks! This does not make sense! Either pegging is easier or harder with bricks, can anyone say which is true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.185.149 (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Velocity cannot be the determining factor in any board break. Do a simple experiment: Take a whip, and whip any collection of bricks, boards, sticks, whatever. The whip (if you get a nice creak out of it) is moving supersonically, that is, over 700 miles per hour. The board will not break. What is required to break a board (in an unsupported break) is stress-loading it above the maximum for the material. For a supported break, things are a bit trickier. Loading quickly can still rupture the board, but loading slowly with a greater final force can break the board through bending it past its maximum deformation. RogueNinja_talk 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The crack of a whip occurs when the tip changes direction at the end of travel. It's not travelling at supersonic speed during the downstroke... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.85.67 (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Velocity is the determining factor based on the fact that the mass of the tool is static. You cannot make your hand more massive more during a break, but you can increase it's speed. As the velocity of a strike has a magnifying effect on the mass when it comes to calculating the amount of force (force = mass * (velocity * velocity) I think), then the speed of your strike could be considered the determining factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.231.220.128 (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed that Breaking be renamed and moved to Breaking (disambiguation). Based on the article traffic tool, Breaking should be move to Breaking (disambiguation) and Breaking (martial arts) should be moved to Breaking. Please comment at Talk:Breaking.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bricks and cinder blocks they use are made with a high concentration of sand. They're MUCH different than the kinds used to build houses and other stuff. Real bricks can hardly be broken with a sledgehammer let alone a chop. 70.89.165.91 (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about real bricks. But these guys can hit harder than a sledgehammer in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omwX3cK3G4k The snare (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. As a matter of fact, I've seen both bullshidokas using the stuff you're writing about (including woodboards preheated and pre-dried in an oven, to make it more fragile), as well as the real guys. For example, a colleague of mine here breaks solid concrete blocks, bought in a building goods store. But people still don't believe him :) So I guess the only way is to either use the cheapest stuff and go for quantity, or try to find something standardized, but this is quite difficult, though. Pundit|utter 21:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrations are different than competitions. Although not always the case, demonstrations could use materials that are specially prepared to facilitate ease in breaking demonstrations. At sanctioned competitions, such as those run by the United States and World Breaking Associations USBA/WBA, materials are standard and inspected. Boards are standard USBA/WBA boards shipped directly from the mill and concrete blocks are purchased from suppliers in the vacinity of the event. Ects2000 (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, in the video, you'll see they must conditioner (thicken and harden) their hand bones, kinda of like muscle. They cause micro-tears in their bones which heal over thicker, anyone who doesn't have their hands bones conditioned will just break them when they hit the bricks.

As I understand it, wood boards are normally broken along the grain (that is, the line of breakage is parallel to the grain of the wood). This of course makes a tremendous difference to the physical properties of the wood. Is this true? If so I think it would be valuable to mention it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.126.133 (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---This is true as it is much harder to break a board against the grain. However when talking about cinder and ceramic plate it is much harder to break. I am personally training with people who I have seen literally but blocks from a store and break it with their fists (or elbows, knees, you name it.)

I want to see a video of it, including them buying it from the store. The snare (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

> As said before it is true that it is much harder to break a board against the grain. But it is also safer to break it with the grain i know personally because I train in breaking boards and almost broke my foot once because one of the boards was not lined up properly with grains.

Seems to me that TheTruthiness has violated the 3 revert rule. In addition, this user continuously insists that information not present in the "source" supports claims that he makes. He refuses to provide quotes AND timestamps that support each statement. Quotes are important as not every version will have identical timing due to intros, etc. He thinks that because a wikipedia guideline doesn't require quotes for citing, that means he can claim the the source contains anything without any potential for dispute. Here are the list of statements that he wishes to add:

1. "the most commonly seen breaking involves spaced, softwood boards" Nothing in the entire source or timestamp section states that the most commonly seen breaking uses spaced boards.

2. "The use of spacers means instead of breaking the entire stack at once, they break one at a time- each one helps break the next as little momentum is lost and gravity is helping" Here he insists on saying the "use of spacers" as if that's the only method and continuously removes the qualifier "if spacers are used". Maybe he does this because he thinks he needs to describe one particular breaking event in the video shown right before the quote and that should be used in the lead on the subject of a general subject. As if someone in a video saying "the car can't move because it doesn't have wheels" referring to one specific car should be put in the lead of an article about cars to imply that no cars can move because they don't have wheels. Additionally "each one helps break the next" doesn't make any sense whatsoever unless breaking one somehow increases your momentum. A revolutionary find if true, but I think more evidence should be provided for it in the form of peer-reviewed scientific studies. I think it's better to say that when using spacers, breaking one board barely hinders the next. And "gravity is helping" either implies that all breaking is done in a downward direction, or that there is a significant amount of gravity acting parallel to the surface of the Earth. This is nearly a direct quote from the "source", but it's clear in the video that they're showing a downward break when stating this quote and not intending it for all breaks. Again, what he insists on keeping refer to particular events in the video instead of the general subject. Are wikipedia articles supposed to be video summaries? Maybe this is why he's confused why I'm asking for quotes and timestamps. It's because he's describing several events in the video quite well, but I'm actually asking for quotes that supports claims about the entire subject.

3. "Because of this, breaking is primarily used as an advertising gimmick to woo potential customers" This is a bold statement that implies ALL breaking is done as advertising gimmick, combined with previous misinformation continues to imply and relies on the statement that all or most breaking is done with spacers. Additionally, it's somewhat of a paraphrase of a one-liner where a guest states his opinion. I don't think this should be referred to as an objective statement when there are no supporting remarks whatsoever and considering the quality of the video.

The source states that breaking 1 board is easy with the grain, "Still, even with soft pine, breaking a stack of 5 takes a hell of a whack, unless you put pencils chopsticks or some separators between them." At 24:39 from my version of the source Yet TheTruthiness insists on removing the statement "which requires little skill or strength for a single board, but still a significant amount for multiple boards without spacers" which complies exactly with the source.

Finally, can some authority review this "source" and determine if it's a valid source for this article? From what I've seen, the "source" is intended as entertainment, and does not even pretend that it should be used authoritatively. Although several of the points in the video are correct (with regards to martial arts in general, not just this breaking subject), the video itself doesn't provide reliable evidence for them, but instead relies on straw men and mockery for entertainment purposes.

67.166.34.5 (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So many things wrong with your post, not only your article title which is defamatory. One- I have not broken 3RR (An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page...within a 24-hour period), but 24.8.199.42 has. Yet you completely ignore that, that fact that you also put the word source in quotation marks and mention later "I'm asking for quotes and timestamps" makes me think that you may be the same editor as 24.8.199.42, who has made 4 edits in a 24-hr period (even after getting a warning) just with that IP address...5 if you are the same person. Two, I DID INCLUDE TIMESTAMPS (which you later even mention, so how can you claim I'm not using them??) which is one of the things suggested (but not required) in WP:CITE, transcribing quotations are NOT.

My "insisting" on talking about spacers is because the part goes on to talk about breaking stacked, spaced boards. Yes there are other kinds (non-spaced, using bricks, etc) but since vertically-stacked, spaced wood is the most common type, that's what's being discussed in the lead section since it's the most common and not the exception. Your car metaphor is invalid because the most common car has wheels- a car article wouldn't talk about wheel-less cars in the lead. Almost all horizontal breaking (and all shown in the source) is with a single item. The basic laws of physics are also not "revolutionary" in 2013. I honestly don't understand how you can be mad at me for being too specific and being too general at the same time.

Primarily /= all. It's not "a bold statement that implies ALL breaking is done as advertising gimmick", it's a statement from a martial arts expert about MOST breaking. It only implies that if you don't know what words mean. --TheTruthiness (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title is not defamatory. I see 4 reverts by you, one of those is while you're logged out. It's funny that you try to pretend that's not you or someone associated with you. It's also funny that you think the exact numbers matter and you're not equally culpable for edit warring "(even after getting a warning)", no matter whether you claim 3 or 4 reverts.

I explain why I put source in quotations marks. It's because I consider it to be trash. Also, I see one original edit by 24.8.199.42 and 3 reverts.

"so how can you claim I'm not using them??[???????]"

Did you have trouble reading this? "He refuses to provide quotes AND timestamps" That means both. As in, timestamp is not enough to fathom how you come to the conclusions that you do especially with variance between versions in editing, intros, etc. leading to different timings, but I'm repeating myself, so why don't you just reread the first comment.

Again, I'll repeat that I'm not asking for quotes for the citation, I'm asking them to guess how you claim the video supports your statement. Should I just copy paste my first comment and hope you read it this time?

The fact is that the lead you reverted to 4 times is misleading and implies things that the video doesn't even imply. The other option provides a fair description for both spaced and non-spaced breaking including support from the "source" that breaking a stack of non-spaced wood is non-trivial. Respond to each point in first comment if you wish. State what you think is wrong with the fair and balanced lead rather than the one you prefer. Provide where in the "source" that it states that breaking using spacers is the most common (and now you add vertically stacked)... You know what, I'm not going to repeat my comment. Just reread the first comment and provide the necessary evidence.

"Almost all horizontal breaking (and all shown in the source) is with a single item" More unfounded claims from you? Provide source for this statement. All breaking of that type shown in the source are with single item, but also all showed in the source are done with spacers. Also, Penn and Teller hand-selected three foolish people to represent martial arts that are easy to mock. That just furthers the points of how trashy the source is. Nowhere does the video even say that these are the most common. How are you coming to these conclusions?

"The basic laws of physics are also not "revolutionary" in 2013." Breaking a board will not help break the next board. Breaking a board provides resistance that will hinder breaking of the next board. In the case of breaking using spacers, it's very minimal amount of resistance, but I'm not sure how you think a small negative number equals a positive number. Relearn (or learn for the first time) physics if you think that it does.

That breaking is a gimmick is not an objective statement. It's the opinion of one martial arts author who chose to take part in a video that's basically just makes a mockery of true skepticism for entertainment and titillation.

67.166.34.5 (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a list of spelling errors here. Another option is to make one edit to fix spelling errors and another edit to add the statements that are unsupported by the source that you desperately want.

SimilarName (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An episode of Penn and Teller's show hardly qualifies as a reliable source. Also, the lead of an article is supposed summarize the article as a whole. The cited material doesn't belong here. Omnedon (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there seems to be no interest in discussion on this. Yet it needs to be discussed; edit warring is not a solution. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, yet the third paragraph summarizes nothing that appears in the body of the article. A Penn and Teller television episode is also not a reliable source for the cited material. Simply stating the opposite doesn't deal with the issue. Omnedon (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is the accurate referenced contents I had added which some lurkers kept deleting.

There are clingy people lurking on this article keep deleting legitimately referenced facts & logical corollaries from those facts. They delete the legitimately referenced facts (like the existence of Kihapsul doing hand breaking) for no reason. They delete the logical corollaries (there is a difference between an opinion & something that has to be true as a consequence from the newly inserted facts) for no reason. Opinion & logic are 2 different things.

Referenced facts are plain facts; the references are qualified when they are authentic & they meet the purpose of proving facts or perception what was heard, what was seen, what was done. Also, there is a difference between an opinion & something that has to be true as a consequence from the newly inserted facts. Opinion & logic are 2 different things.

If you feel that a specific content is not referenced because you can't read the language or because I really did skip that reference, be specific which part.

Let's see the controversies about the nature of Breaking.

There is a stance that claims Breaking has to be done by a fighting martial art. This view is not traditional. Korea is the one with tradition (at least 1000 years old) in Breaking. There is another traditional perception in Korea that fighting martial art is irrelevant for Breaking; it is just that Korean fighting martial arts have borrowed Breaking from Kihapsul. ^[1]

Japan adopted this cross-training culture from Korea. There are many facts that have to be cleared on Breaking Game. First, it is false that Breaking Game started originally as a testing method of striking for fighting martial arts. There is no such historical record. This needs a reference. Also, Karate historically didn't have Breaking Game before the time of Mas Oyama (1950's). Any perception or theory Karate insists is invalid especially when it contradicts the historical records saying otherwise. Whether Breaking can be used in fighting or in testing strike or on an animal (like butchering) is irrelevant how it was actually established that way. That is a logical fallacy "affirming the consequent".

Second, Korean has had many fighting martial arts that hit with any body part including Muyedobotongji Kwonbub, Nalparam, Taekyun (it was recorded in 1930's to include Kwonbub which hits with any body part). ^[2]

Third, Kihapsul existed anyway; it did Breaking Game including hand breaking anyway; this predates Japan & Karate anyway with written records. Neither Kihapsul nor Kooksundo teaches a fighting martial art. They learn how to strike in Breaking Game; they don't learn striking separately. It is possible that the first generation in Kihapsul & Kooksundo trained in some fighting martial art to import the striking techniques into their breaking game. However, it is logically false that Kihapsul & Kooksundo couldn't have created such striking on their own when fighting martial arts can apparently create such strikes on their own. Without such specific records, claiming that they couldn't have created such strikes on their own is taking away credit wrongfully.

Also, breaking strikes through like common sense, Korean fighting martial arts or Okinawan Te. Okinawan Te strikes through; this is called Chinkuchi. Japanese Karate stops strike at the moment of impact, calling it Kime. Breaking strikes through especially when breaking more than 1 object.

Let's see the history of Breaking in Japan.

Karate's Tameshiwari originates from Mas Oyama. ^{[3] [4] [5] [6]} The game concept was introduced by Mas Oyama. Before then, breaking was not a formal curriculum nor system for Karate. Mas Oyama introduced Karate the game concept & the striking techniques. Japanese Tameshiwari's striking techniques are very different from the traditional Japanese strikes.

For example, Karate has stationary square shoulders when punching. Tameshiwari is the opposite; its shoulder whirls forward. Mas Oyama emphasized the use of body reserves in his book Mas Oyama's Essential Karate. This technique originates from Korean as Korean already had such concept of using body reserves to strengthen strikes as visible from many references like Muaydobotongji Kwonbub. There are pictures with wild swings clearly showing the contorted shoulder & leg leverage. ^[7] Since Mas Oyama was a Korean, it is false to claim that he created this striking technique coincidentally similar as he had such inputs already. This trait is common for the European sports like boxing, but such is rare in East Asia although common for Korean.

Let's see the history of Breaking in Korea.

Breaking game has a long history in Korea. One of the earliest records goes to 1000 years ago by Heemok Kim who was invited by China to show the miraculous feat of breaking a rock by a hand strike.^[8] Unless found otherwise, breaking game in East Asia originated in Korea. Whether Breaking Game originally started by a fighting martial art or by a strongman feat (Kihapsul), someone & something started Breaking instead of Breaking always having existed from the start. Even if Breaking Game started by a fighting martial art, not all fighting martial arts had such culture; 1 specific fighting martial art (or 1 specific person playing multiple sports) must have started it, which was done by Korean. Also, Korean's traditional perception has placed Breaking as Kihapsul.

As for the striking techniques in Kihapsul, without taking any credit away from Kihapsul & Kooksundo when there is no such specific record historically referenced, they use the same striking techniques as other Korean sports such as fighting martial arts with or without any relationship. For example, for hand strikes, they contort shoulder & lean with legs just like historically recorded in Korean Muyedobotongji Kwonbub's pictures hundreds years ago. Even other Korean fighting games like Gitxaum (Flag Fighting) also shows such traits. This Xilem (Korean wrestling) type of shoulder emphasis shows in many different Korean sports. Korean strikes today use those same techniques today as before including hand strikes. Aside from the techniques, as for the games ongoing, the 1934's newspaper reference recorded Hand Breaking heard, seen, done at the time. Also, Korean Kihapsul was recorded in Japanese pronunciation Kiaijutsu as well.

Aside from how Breaking was started in Korea anyway, if focusing on which specific part of Korean, Breaking is not from a fighting martial art but from a strongman feat. That is the traditional Korean perception whilst Breaking originated in Korea for East Asia as it didn't always exist; 1 specific sport or person (playing multiple sports) started Breaking instead of all sports always having had such or all sports starting them at the same time. Regardless of the nature of Breaking (fighting martial art or strongman feat), Korea started Breaking Game for East Asia, and the traditional Korean perception places Breaking as Kihapsul which is a set of many strongman feats including but not limited to Breaking Game. The game concept is Korean as well as striking techniques like contorted shoulder.

There has been various medieval records of hand breaking in Korea even since Heemok Kim. These weren't myth; they were recorded by history books recording historical events. For the modern era, a Korean art called Kihapsul (called Kiaijutsu in Japanese) has been recorded, proving what was seen, heard, done at the era especially Hand Breaking on roof tiles & beer bottles. William Bankier, Bob Hoffman, Japanese American Courier reported Kiaijutsu performing Hand Breaking in 1905~1940. ^[9] Korean newspaper Dongailbo (1934 November 18th) recorded of a Charyuk performers Kyuhyun Lee & Naksun Kim sponsored by Central Sport Research Institute. Naksun Kim & Kyuhyun Lee performed in Konghoidang including Hand Breaking beer bottles & roof tiles. ^[10] Kihapsul was flourishing in that era such that there were even independent research institutes dedicated to Kihapsul. ^[11]

Korean fighting martial arts such as Kyuksul, Nalparam, Taekyun Yetbub, etc also do breaking. North Korean Kyuksul is particularly famous for rigorous breaking according to North Korean refugees. ^[12] However, essentially, breaking game is perceived to be Kihapsul (called Kiaijutsu in Japanese) also called Charyuk, Yukki, Yukye. Kihapsul is not a fighting martial art. It is a set of strongman feats like circus. It's a performance art; its players are performance artists.

Korean Breaking hits with any body part including Hand Breaking whether done in Kihapsul or in Fight Games. Also, they hit powerful with contorted shoulder & such. As for hand shape, Korean typically slaps with the pinky half of palm heel (this is also called Knife Hand) or hammer fist. The use of palm heel & the edge of hand predating Karate was recorded in Kiaijutsu by William Bankier. ^[13]

Kihapsul has been historically adopted by many Korean fighting martial arts for cross-training, but it is also passed down on its own as a performance art. It is a unique Korean culture that the rest of East Asia is not familiar with. (objective qualified authentic references still existed 100 years ago nonetheless.) A unique trait of Kihapsul is its love for cold water. This trait is visible even for Mas Oyama, but Charyuk/Kihapsul is known to soak the body in cold water. Kooksundo is a traditional Korean Yoga art; they also do Kihapsul including hand breaking even today.

As for the quality, Kooksundo's Chungsan has been seen on Japanese Fuji TV to perform breaking a natural rock of 15cm height. This is the best result in breaking in the modern history far beyond anyone else in comparison. ^[14] There are many legendary stories about Chungsan like how he can break a rock even before touching the rock, but the accomplishments he has shown stand nonetheless. There are video materials available.

Wikibreaking (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Fix these 4 subsections.

Wikibreaking (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking objects with strikes predates the introduction of karate in the 1920s. William Bankier, the strongman "Apollo", wrote about some Jiujitsu people breaking stone with hand strike his 1905 book "Jiu-Jitsu. What It Really Is". He also described how the heel or the side of hand was developed for this show. ^[1] Before the time of Karate, Breaking/Tameshiwari already existed, but it was not related to striking martial arts but correlated with Qigong, circus performance art, wrestling. In 1940 the "Japanese American Courier" reported the Tacoma (judo) dojo holding its annual tournament Sunday afternoon at the Buddhist Church auditorium. Masato Tamura's rock breaking demonstration via the ancient Japanese art of "kiai jutsu" was shown. Tamura was a well known judoka in 1938 (third dan during Jigoro Kano's visit to America in 1938).^[2]

Japanese Karate's Breaking/Tameshiwari was not invented by Karate but existed before that as Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu. Kiaijutsu is pronounced as Kihapsul (also called Charyuk) in Korean by using the same 3 Chinese letters.^[3] Bob Hoffman, the founder of "Strength and Health" magazine, saw Japanese sidewalk performer performing Breaking before the time of Karate during World War 1.^[4] Such kind of sidewalk performance art (power circus, power magic show) is the Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu/Charyuk, which was the original Breaking/Tameshiwari predating Karate.

Mas Oyama devised his own Breaking method when he introduced Tameshiawri/Breaking to the modern practice of Karate. Mas Oyama's book "This is Karate" talks about devising his own Breaking method. "After we had devised our own breaking methods we showed them to a very famous Chinese kempo master, who was awe-struck with admiration."^[5] In the early 20th century, Kiaijutsu/Kihapsul was popular in Japan. It was a power circus that existed in both Korea & Japan. This power performance art had Breaking as corroborated by Masato Tamura in 1940. Later in the middle 20th century, this Breaking was formally adopted by Karate through Korean Mas Oyama including specific Korean traits like Yongryuk stacking speed, power, mass for strikes & rotating shoulder for hand strike. "Among Mas Oyama’s many accomplishments, he is perhaps best known for introducing tameshiwari or “stone breaking” into the practice of modern karate."^[6] It is also corroborated by other sources, "it was the kyokushinkai school under the direction of Masutatsu (Mas) Oyama which did an in-depth study into tameshiwari (the technique in which hard substances are broken with the bare hands)."^[7]

Mas Oyama taught a new hand strike which didn't exist in Karate. He introduced rotating shoulder (as opposed to stationary & squared shoulders in Karate after hip rotation) beyond its own waist past squared shoulders. In Mas Oyama's techniques, the striking hand side's shoulder protrudes forward beyond squared shoulders. He also introduced acceleration in strike motion, stacking speed & power in motions from slow to fast (as opposed to traditional Karate's impulse implosion & explosion at the beginning of punch) in hand strike. Such techniques for extra mass in motion & for extra strength were seen in traditional Korean hand strikes. This new hand strike technique spread in Karate by his teaching and by his book "Mas Oyama's Classic Karate" for his Tameshiwari/Breaking diagram. These Korean techniques were observable in 1927's Gitssaum Flag Fight rotating shoulder for punching chest, 300 years old Korean record using Yongryeok (Yong means stacking speed & power in motion) for Breaking/Tameshiwari, 300 years old Korean Gwonbeop picture rotating shoulder for punching front.^[8][9][10]

Kokyushin Karate & Mas Oyama (Choi) spread this Korean hand strike into the modern Karate's Tameshiwari/Breaking. (Kyokushin is known as the strongest Karate even today.) In the book "Mas Oyama's Classic Karate" page 157, it shows shoulder rotation for hand strike in Tameshiwari/Breaking.^[11] This is different from regular Karate punch which the shoulders do not protrude (the striking side's shoulder does not rotate beyond its waist) but be squared at the termination of punch. According to the Karate textbook "Black Belt Karate" by Jordan Roth (p 100), "It is important also that the shoulders be squared at the termination of this punch. The punching arm should be thrust forward (perhaps only an inch) without breaking this alignment so that the shoulder blade ceases to protrude."^[12] Karate punch does not rotate shoulder beyond its own waist after hip rotation; the shoulders end up squared in Karate punch. Also, Karate punch is associated with explosion & implosion at the beginning of the punch in a jerky motion. The hand strike Mas Oyama taught to Karate's Tameshiwari/Breaking is like Korean hand strike historically documented.

According to the book "The fighting spirit of Japan and other studies" by Ernest John Harrison published in 1913, Japan also had had a sport called Kiaijutsu. Kihapsul/Charyuk/Kiaijutsu is not solely a Korean sport but also existed in Japan, including Breaking/Tameshiwari, before the time of Karate and Mas Oyama. Breaking/Tameshiwari concept existed in all China, Korea, Japan. However, Kamesuke Higashioona's Breaking shows hand strike techniques identical to Karate but different from Mas Oyama & Korean hand strike, which rotate shoulder while stacking speed & power without any implosion & explosion. Mas Oyama introduced such Korean strike into Karate's Tameshiwari/Breaking while he introduced Breaking to be a culture & curriculum of modern Karate practice.

File:Kamesuke Higashioona 1933 Hand Breaking without shoulder-push.jpg

Karate was seen Tameshiwari/Breaking in 1933 by Kamesuke Higashioona. Because this was before the time when Mas Oyama taught Korean striking techniques, his shoulders are squared instead of the striking side's shoulder being protruded (pushed, turned, rotated) forward. This was also before the time that Mas Oyama introduced Tameshiwari/Breaking to be a modern Karate's culture and curriculum.

Gichin Funakoshi was also videotaped for performing Tameshiwari as well as rotating hip for hand strikes. However, his shoulder does not rotate beyond squared shoulder after his hip rotation. This is different from Mas Oyama's hand strike technique which rotates shoulder beyond its own waist past squared shoulders. The level of Breaking/Tameshiwari was also inferior. Gichin Funakoshi & Kamesuke Higashioona managed to break only 3 wooden boards or a couple roof tiles. This is far below the level of Karate Breaking/Tameshiwari the world got used to since Oyama's Tameshiwari/Breaking era. Historically, Korean hand strikes were seen rotating shoulder beyond its waist (shoulder protruding beyond its own waist by rotation towards front) as well as stacking (Yong means stacking speed & power) speed in motion. The hand strike technique Mas Oyama taught resembles Korean hand strike technique. As for Karate performing Tameshiwari/Breaking before the time of Mas Oyama, it could be either from how Japan also had had Kiaijutsu (this is not a solely Korean sport) or from Chinese Iron Palm's Breaking/Tameshiwari culture (Iron Palm also has shown Breaking).

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (February 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Must be presented in a more concise manner. Please help improve this section if you can.

In 1934's reputable Korean newspaper, there's a sport called Yuk-ki breaking soft shingles (roof tiles) with fist strike.^[1] There are many reputable & old Korean newspaper records that show the derivations of the name Charyuk (like Yuk-ki) as well as the explicit name Kihapsul together.^[2] In 1692, Korean Ikmyung Yang broke a stone with hand strike using Yongryuk (stacking speed, power, mass in the entire body).^[3] 400 years ago, there were many Korean history books all recording the same event of Korean Hand Breaking a large stone as big as a Soban table.^[4]

In today's Korea, Breaking/Tameshiwari is often done by Taekwondo, Kooksundo (Korean Taoist Qigong), Charyuk/Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu, Taekkyeon, Gyeoksul, etc. Charyuk/Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu is a power circus, power performance art, power magic show, sidewalk performance art which had Breaking/Tameshiwari before Karate, predating Karate & Karate's Breaking. It is correlated with Chinese Qigong & Korean Kooksundo, Seonsul. Chinese Iron Palm is also known to have shown breaking layers of cinder blocks with a straight palm slap 100 years ago (photographed) as well as driving a car across a human belly lying on the ground (Charyuk shows such feats of strength as well, not just Breaking). Shoulder-push means turning (pushing, rotating) shoulder forward when punching instead of the shoulders being stationary & square. Yong means stacking speed, power, mass in an accelerating manner instead of impulse explosion & implosion at the beginning of punch.

Kooksundo (Seonsul) is also correlated with Kihapsul/Charyuk; Kooksundo's Qigong Yoga has striking motion including hand strikes. However, Charyuk/Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu itself comes from trial & error as feats of strength. Chinese Iron Palm also has been photographed 100 years ago for showing Breaking/Tameshiwari of layers of cinder blocks. Charyuk/Kihapsul's Breaking/Tameshiwari originally had no relation to striking martial art. Strikes were created in the power circus by trial & error trying with common sense strikes from everyday-life to improve, then to teach what's already been created & improved including various hand shapes like Knife Hand. (From common sense hitting, techniques are developed & more variety is added. Charyuk/Kihapsul's Breaking had no relation to striking martial art in concept nor techniques before the time of Karate.) Charyuk/Kihapsul Breaking typically uses everyday-life motions like headbutt, punching, Knife Hand (like massaging), stomping (no special kicking), etc rather than martial art exclusive motions such as roundhouse kick. After striking martial arts adopted Breaking/Tameshiwari from power circus, they added Breaking objects with more various moves which are not done in typical power circus Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu/Charyuk today or before.

Korean had martial arts (or Fight Game, pseudo-martial arts) like Subak which had frontal slap & punch like Taekkyeon (including Yetbub), Gwonbeop, Gitssaum (Flag Fight), Pyunssaum, Sibak. However, Breaking's strikes were created in the power circus Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu by trial & error trying with common sense strikes from everyday-life. The strikes improved; they started teaching what's already been created & improved (from common sense hitting, techniques are developed & more variety is added) including various hand shapes like Knife Hand. They teach the power circus (including Breaking's strikes) already created & improved without starting over the creation process at each generation. Strikes are learned by learning power circus including Breaking; martial arts were not involved. This is how Charyuk/Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu has worked in Korean society. Regardless of how Breaking's system and structure were for China & Japan (Iron Palm's Breaking culture or feats of strength like Charyuk/Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu), it was that way for Korea. This power performance art had Breaking as corroborated by Masato Tamura in 1940. Strikes were practiced by practicing Breaking. Not by practicing martial arts then doing Breaking. This is the nature of Charyuk/Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu. After the techniques are created, they have been passed down by teaching power circus including Breaking/Tameshiwari.

For hundreds of years, Korean has had a power circus (power magic show, power performance art) called Charyuk/Kihapsul which is pronounced Kiai-jutsu in Japanese for reading the same 3 Chinese letters in a different dialect. Breaking Game already existed before Karate in the category of power circus performance art, not a part of striking martial art but correlating with wrestling, circus, Qigong (also called Kooksundo, Seonsul).^[5] Korean had Taoist Qigong Kooksundo/Seonsul already in 1922 as historically recorded by newspaper. Kooksundo has many Yoga motions which include hand strikes.^[6]

As for the difficulty of this creation process which some people object (they claim Breaking must have gotten its strikes from martial arts), the difficulty level is about the same whether people invent powerful strikes in martial arts then adopt them in Breaking or whether people invent powerful strikes in Breaking/Tameshiwari power circus. The process & the difficulty of creating powerful strikes are the same whether it's done for martial arts or for circus. Mas Oyama is also famous for using dogs & cows as a target of Breaking/Tameshiwari, which doesn't necessarily involve Karate for hitting or fighting animals.

Charyuk/Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu does not train callus specifically. Instead, it strikes with the body parts with muscle pads such as the heel or edge of hand. Muscle pads are hard enough to break stone but bendy enough to protect the skin from being squashed even without callus. Typical Charyuk/Kihapsul/Kiaijutsu does not hit with boney body part but delivers collision impacts with muscle fiber pads. Also, callus develops naturally if practicing Breaking/Tameshiwari often enough.