Problems with Blum's Karate Article

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter makamo66
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around concerns regarding Haywood Blum's article "Physics and the art of kicking and punching," focusing on the application of physics principles to martial arts techniques. Participants critique the assumptions made in the article, particularly regarding the modeling of impacts and material properties.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that Blum's use of a beam with a couple applied to the ends is inappropriate, suggesting that a mass impacting the bar in the center would be a more accurate model.
  • There is a question raised about the choice of a beam over a flat plate, with some suggesting that a plate might better represent the anatomy involved in kicking and punching.
  • Concerns are expressed regarding Blum's assumption of isotropic material properties for wood, with participants noting that wood is orthotropic and this simplification could lead to inaccuracies.
  • One participant suggests that Blum may have been simplifying the physics to make a point, although this could overlook important aspects such as injury mechanics.
  • Another participant notes the difficulty in discussing the critiques without access to the original article, which is currently unavailable.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the appropriateness of Blum's modeling choices and assumptions. There is no consensus on the validity of the critiques or the implications of the simplifications made in the article.

Contextual Notes

The discussion is limited by the lack of access to Blum's article, which restricts the ability to fully evaluate the critiques presented. Additionally, the assumptions regarding material properties and impact modeling remain unresolved.

makamo66
Messages
41
Reaction score
10
I have a couple of concerns with Haywood Blum's article "Physics and the art of kicking and punching." First of all, Blum considers a beam with a couple applied to the ends of the bar when he should be considering some kind of mass impacting the bar in the center and second of all, why does he use a beam and not a flat plate? Also, he doesn't take into consideration that wood is orthotropic and simply uses the formulas for an isotropic material. Unfortunately I couldn't find a free PDF of this article online any more but I was able to download the PDF at some time before.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
makamo66 said:
I have a couple of concerns with Haywood Blum's article "Physics and the art of kicking and punching." First of all, Blum considers a beam with a couple applied to the ends of the bar when he should be considering some kind of mass impacting the bar in the center and second of all, why does he use a beam and not a flat plate? Also, he doesn't take into consideration that wood is orthotropic and simply uses the formulas for an isotropic material. Unfortunately I couldn't find a free PDF of this article online any more but I was able to download the PDF at some time before.
Well, those points do make sense. An impact test would indeed better model a punch or a kick. And yes, wood isn't exactly the same in every direction, so isotropic assumption there is rough. But maybe Blum was just simplifying, trying to make a quick point. Beam does give clearer bending moment... though a plate might've been closer to the real shin or the forearm. Do you think he missed out the injury part altogether?
 
The original poster (OP) hasn't been back to PF since summer of 2025. In addition, we didn’t have the article to even discuss the OP’s critique.

@webplodder thank you for your comments. Yes, it could well be true that the article was simplifying things. However, without access to the article it's difficult to say.

In any event, since this is an old and dormant thread, I think it's a good time to close it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K