National Geographic: Fight Science

[Andrew Green]

What happens when you mix science with martial arts to bust myths? When your main source of martial arts is theatrical, apparently you reinforce myths...

Some big name appearances, and some really good theatrical work, but I think they fail there objectivee miserably. Still a interesting watch though.


Part 1
[yt]e9EjF9Zlubg[/yt]

Part 2
[yt]MujI1nRaLPY[/yt]

Part 3
[yt]HE3hUAtqyuI[/yt]

Part 4
[yt]gGzr-gkIums[/yt]

Part 5
[yt]vQIyUYJl7LE[/yt]

Part 6
[yt]iU6iRj6sutA[/yt]

Part 7
[yt]c-HqsYf45IE[/yt]

Part 8
[yt]8GgpVJwQQiE[/yt]

Part 9
[yt]4XuZQvZ7dkA[/yt]

Part 10
[yt]mhE-PnTqryc[/yt]

 

[terryl965]

Yea I watched this a couple of times and it amazes me how they can make up anything to be what they want it to be. AT anyrate pretty amazing MA'ers on there

 

[matt.m]

I agree with Terry. The show was not bad though.

 

[Cirdan]

I watched that ... program some time ago. I didn`t think it was possible to rape a katana but that barechested TKD-lumberjack somehow managed it. :disgust: As for the sience part, why didn`t they take the huge difference in body mass into account when measuring striking power? I am disgusted both as a student of the arts and as an engineer.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I enjoyed the part with Rickson Gracie and Dan Inosanto but after that it really lost me.

Here is Rickson's part! Unfortunately the sound is all messed up. Still some great footage particularly the neck crank.

 

[exile]

This is what bothered me the most about `Fight Science': for all the blather about science (implying at least some basic application of scientific methods of investigation), what you mostly had was technology—related to but very distinct from science—in the service of `gee whiz' infotainment. So for example: we are supposed to believe generalizations about whole MA systems on the basis not only of individual exponents—something which many of us persistently debunk on threads here—but on single performances of those individuals. Brian Whatisface, the TKD guy, lands one back kick which outscores everyone else's strikes, and voila, TKD is the hardest hitting art? The Wing Chun guy throws one set of punches faster than the individual practitioners of half a dozen other arts and hey presto, it's the fastest MA of all? And then there's this guy Glenn Levy—who, as far as I can tell from what checking up on him I've done at a couple of other sites, has pretty much admitted that what he does has only a fantasy relation to traditional Ninjutsu—doing... something, can't quite recall what... and that makes Ninjutsu the `deadliest' MA?

This is back-of-the-comic-books level portreyal of the MAs at best. But boy, are those graphics pretty... lightning crackling up from the floor, the same animated skeletons that we saw in the Discovery Channel XMA potboiler, with absolutely no use of the sophisticated imaging technology to show how power is generated biomechanically or small differences in body angle contribute to stability or instability in flowing technique application or... or anything. Most modern sports performance labs routinely do that kind of analysis—the top Olympic athletes from the US and other rich countries have their technique put under incredibly fine imaging microscopes to squeeze the last ounce of effectiveness out of them; the work of modern athletic performance coaches in this respect rivals the computer modeling programs that produce the winning designs of the America's Cup yacht racing competition. Couldn't we see some of that??—some actual science?

I don't mind people being entertained in the least. What I dislike is stuff with minimal content being passed off as though it represented serious analysis. Basically, NG is telling the ordinary viewer that these are real results, representing new and deep insights into what makes the MAs effective, and why. But in the end it's just the same old tripe...

 

[lostinseattle]

This is what bothered me the most about `Fight Science': for all the blather about science (implying at least some basic application of scientific methods of investigation), what you mostly had was technology—related to but very distinct from science—in the service of `gee whiz' infotainment. So for example: we are supposed to believe generalizations about whole MA systems on the basis not only of individual exponents—something which many of us persistently debunk on threads here—but on single performances of those individuals. Brian Whatisface, the TKD guy, lands one back kick which outscores everyone else's strikes, and voila, TKD is the hardest hitting art?

...

I don't mind people being entertained in the least. What I dislike is stuff with minimal content being passed off as though it represented serious analysis. Basically, NG is telling the ordinary viewer that these are real results, representing new and deep insights into what makes the MAs effective, and why. But in the end it's just the same old tripe...

Hey, this is the U.S. you're talking about here. For about the past 10 years logic and reason have flown out the window in the face of fallacious arguments and emotional hype.

They did some study and found that only 28% of Americans knew enough about science to understand reports in the paper (reports which are already extremely simplified), and women had much less understanding than men.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003577591_science180.html?syndication=rss

So if they actually did something with a real scientific basis on T.V., it would probably go over most people's heads.

But yeah, having a show called 'Fight Science', and then it not even following the scientific method and coming to extremely fallacious conclusions was a bit purturbing, to say the least. Not unexpected, however.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Yes it really did leave alot to be desired.

 

[Andrew Green]

Yes it really did leave alot to be desired.

That it did, I was expecting a little more from National Geographic. Using crash test dummies and balistic gell to get some theatrical martial artists to prove all sorts of nonsense was not what I was expecting... ok, maybe it was, but I can have hope.

Very good performances by the martial artists, but once they "confirmed" a death punch I saw a little guy in hollywood style ninja suit and tassles jump over a shark while spinning a toothpick bo.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

That it did, I was expecting a little more from National Geographic. Using crash test dummies and balistic gell to get some theatrical martial artists to prove all sorts of nonsense was not what I was expecting... ok, maybe it was, but I can have hope.

Very good performances by the martial artists, but once they "confirmed" a death punch I saw a little guy in hollywood style ninja suit and tassles jump over a shark while spinning a toothpick bo.

Especially how they put non experts out there like that afformentioned ninjitsu practitioner. The Tae Kwon Do guy demoing the katana and bo, etc. That is what really left a bad taste in my mouth. Plus not taking in weight discrepancies for force, etc.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I watched it.....It's meant as a comedy right? I mean, I've rarely laughed that much.

 

[Andrew Green]

Yeah, no kidding. They had a Japanese Sword guy on there doing test cuts. But got the TKD guy to do the flashy stuff to show how the sword "worked" and explaining how power could come from spinning it around his neck...

They had Dan Inosanto on there, but got the TKD guy demoing a lot of stick stuff. He said he was suprised it broke... I was suprised it lasted as long as it did, not to mention the way he was striking the target...

And as much as I enjoy contemporary Wushu, getting them to talk about fighting is not the best plan. I also have some serious doubts that anyone went onto a battlefield with a blade made of spring steel.

 

[exile]

And, as has been noted before somewhere on an MT thread about this, the Muay Thai guy was allowed to hold onto the target while administering a `kick' —with his knee, yet! None of the other contestants got to do that...

I guess the thing I found so idiotic about the program was the premise that you make universal judgments on the basis of a single set of data points. If I recall correctly, either Mike Chat or Matt Mullins delivered a front snap kick to a target hooked up (I would imagine) to a strain gauge, which registered a higher number than the one that the TKD guy on `Fight Science' achieved when he earned his art the coveted title of `MA with the hardest strikes' or some such drivel. So if those guys, who do Shito-ryu I think, at least as their base art, got a higher number on essentially the same equipment, then by NG's logic, it should be Okinawan karate that wins the `most powerful strikes' sweepstakes, right?—based on the one number posted by the TKD guy as vs the one number posted by the Okinawan karate guys. And over and over again, we're given the same kind of reasoning... of the kind I've seen summarized as, `All Visigoths walk in single file—at least, the one I saw did'!!

 

[lostinseattle]

I guess the thing I found so idiotic about the program was the premise that you make universal judgments on the basis of a single set of data points.

In the news they do that kind of stuff all the time, though. If you ever took science then you know that when you do experiments you have all sorts of data points sometimes all over the place, and you draw a line through it with some sort of fitting method, and call it a result.

Of course, the result isn't necessarily going to match a yes or no answer -- you have outliers and exceptions and stuff, yet in the news all the time they'll say, "This causes this." Well, does that really cause that? If you take 10 different martial artists from various martial arts and compare them, how do you know you have a good sample? Simple answer: you don't.

The sad thing though is that people will believe this special because a lot of people lack basic logic skills so they accept the judgements of experts rather than thinking things through for themselves.

That being said, the show was worth watching just for the cool special effects and gadgetry, and a lot of the performers were very athletic if not realistic in their approach. It's too bad they can't take that and apply it to some better studies with a better representative sampling from different martial arts. Maybe at some point in the future somebody will.

 

[Andrew Green]

because a lot of people lack basic logic skills so they accept the judgements of experts rather than thinking things through for themselves.

So you've noticed this too? Why on earth logic and critical thinking aren't required courses all through high school is beyond me. Ok, not really, I guess teaching high school students to think for themselves while in high school would be a big conflicting message... err.. ok, back to topic

 

[lostinseattle]

So you've noticed this too? Why on earth logic and critical thinking aren't required courses all through high school is beyond me. Ok, not really, I guess teaching high school students to think for themselves while in high school would be a big conflicting message... err.. ok, back to topic

It is kindof on topic though because it directly relates to this show and the conclusions they came up with and if people will believe those conclusions, and how people might be influenced when it comes to martial arts. It could influence people's training methodologies, what classes they choose to take, and what they think is effective for self defense.

For a society to be truly democratic it must have unbiased news and an educated population who can decide issues for themselves through logic and reason. Not to get Ben Bagdikian http://www.benbagdikian.com/ on anybody but it appears the people controlling the media don't want that.

With the extreme commercialization of martial arts and emphasis these days on performance rather than self defense, it appears that a lot of martial arts schools don't want that either.

 

[exile]

In the news they do that kind of stuff all the time, though. If you ever took science then you know that when you do experiments you have all sorts of data points sometimes all over the place, and you draw a line through it with some sort of fitting method, and call it a result.

Of course, the result isn't necessarily going to match a yes or no answer -- you have outliers and exceptions and stuff, yet in the news all the time they'll say, "This causes this."

Post hoc, propter hoc—one of the oldest reasoning fallacies in the book! A lot of what what referred to in classical Greece as `rhetoric' was the exposure of why such reasoning is untenable. Argument construction was a big part of ancient Greek education. The Romans in effect replaced that emphasis with rhetoric as oratory, the achievement of eloquence, and it's been downhill from there....

Well, does that really cause that? If you take 10 different martial artists from various martial arts and compare them, how do you know you have a good sample? Simple answer: you don't.

The sad thing though is that people will believe this special because a lot of people lack basic logic skills so they accept the judgements of experts rather than thinking things through for themselves.

If I had my way, everyone in 9th or 10th grade would have a class in how to reason correctly. And then when they got to university, they would take another class covering the same thing in more depth.

That being said, the show was worth watching just for the cool special effects and gadgetry, and a lot of the performers were very athletic if not realistic in their approach. It's too bad they can't take that and apply it to some better studies with a better representative sampling from different martial arts. Maybe at some point in the future somebody will.

There's certainly room for such a show, LinS! Someday, maybe...

 

[L Canyon]

One aspect that I didn't like about the show was that perhaps to a beginner, they might have the impression that ONLY Thai boxing has elbow and knee strikes, ONLY BJJ has locks and holds, and that Kung Fu (which the show represents as one style) uses jumping kicks exclusively.

But, it could get someone enlisted on the martial arts journey, which is good.