Talk:Fight Science

Best Kicking Style

Where in the show did they mention that capoeria was the best kicking style? In fact throughout the whole show capoeria had what I would call a "cameo appearance". If anything didn't they decide that the best leg strike was the knee done by the Muay Thai fighter? I'm not sure where you got that thing on best overall style being Ninjitsu, but it might just be me. Shardakar (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Questionable Science

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)

Questions over Results section

This section seems to contain original research because:

1. 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.
2. 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)

The most practical way one could isolate the martial art from the individual would be by weight or take weight as a factor in calculating their strength. Also, if they were going to be scientific about this, they wouldn't just pick one person from each art. It wouldn't be very representative of anything that way, you don't see a 1 person survey because anormalies always crop up and they only way to sufficiently account for that is with a large enougth group. In order to have any kind of proper conclusive "evidence" or "findings", they would have to have taken a decent sample size from each martial art and test their strength and preferable weight should have been taken into account. Its like a featherweight going at a heavyweight, chances are the heavyweight can generate considerably more power than the featherweight Shardakar (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2008 (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)

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)

Ninjutsu Punch

I watch it and it's not 0.8, it's 8.0 VC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.138.87.182 (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Bogusness

As for adding "kung fu" in the series, it doesn't really mean anything. For one, there are many styles of kungfu just as there are many styles of japanese or korean martial arts. there's no umbrella art called kungfu. One thing that does come close to it is wushu, which is the background of the guy who does "kung fu". But adding this guy is a joke. It's like adding a dancer. There is a simple explanation for why his punch was the weakest. It's because he *was* the weakest. Wushu guys never train hitting anything. If they were better educated they should have included a "sanda" fighter to represent kungfu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.31.199 (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Episodes per season

I noticed the episode list is quite arbitrary. How many episodes did this show have? How many episodes were there per season? Alphapeta (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Measuring Equipment

Does anyone know the name of the tools used in the show? Specifically, what machines were used to determine how weight is tranferred throughout the body in the episode where the fight science team was testing kicking power. Was this the same machine used to show the shifting gravity point when the ninja was walking up the "lotus" poles?

Any other measuring devices used on the show, and its purpose, would be a helpful reference as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuantumFist (talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fight Science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100414201425/http://channel.nationalgeographic.com:80/series/fight-science/all/profile-amir-perets to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/fight-science/all/profile-amir-perets

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)