The science of chi?

Users who are viewing this thread

It's never happened in Pro-Baseball, where the ball moves a lot quicker and KO and concussion have been known, do you really think a bunch of kids are going to manage it?
I feel that a dumb shmuck like myself is a lot more likely to die in baseball than a pro
You aint from arounds here, is ya? :lol:
Nope I used to hang out on arma and armourarchive, you guys should check those places out if your really interested in medieval martial arts & history.
 
Sir Savage said:
I feel that a dumb shmuck like myself is a lot more likely to die in baseball than a pro
Hey, if you know someone who can hurl the ball as fast or as well as a pro, why aren't they earning the huge cash and stardom from the leagues? :lol:
 
Archonsod said:
I believe your talking absolute bull****. That story is so old it was an urban myth when I was a kid. Back then it was a cricketball and the victim died due to a fractured skull, which is at least slightly more believable. Unfortunately, there isn't a single case of death from ball impact recorded in the world to my knowledge, not without the ball causing the unfortunate to fall off a cliff or similar anyway.
It's not the least bit implausible. People have survived much worse and died from much less; luck of the draw seems to be a deciding factor in many cases. It didn't take me long to find this article, though it was not the one I was even looking for:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hockey/news/2002/03/20/puck_death_ap/

"The puck struck her in the forehead, causing a skull fracture and some bruising of the brain in the area,"
Of course, the full picture is always necessary:
"But that wasn't what led to her death. It was the snapping back of the head and the damage to that artery."
That could just as easily have happened with a baseball.
 
Archonsod said:
A puck is somewhat differently shaped to a ball though. Rather like saying basketballs are dangerous because javelins can cause severe injury...
The shape of the puck or the ball has nothing to do with it. For chances of fracture, yes, but that was not what killed her. It was snapping her head back, which is quite independent of the impacting object's shape. A baseball is every bit as capable of knocking someone's head back.

The comparison you made was way off base, though. "Two somewhat different objects are just like two COMPLETELY different objects." Kind of like when women compare giving birth with squeezing a bowling ball through the penis.
 
Yes it does. Most of the energy of a ball is not transferred to the object it hits. A ball hitting hard is more likely to bounce off in another direction due to the roll effect than cause any kind of damage. A puck will manage to transfer a lot more, since it can only 'roll' along one axis, and of course tends to have better aerodynamics.
Interesting also to note that the injury is sufficiently rare as to not have occurred in over 25 years, making it about as likely as being killed by a freak lightning strike while playing football (although actually, I think that may be more common).
In theory, anything impacting the head will usually send you somersaulting before it actually causes damage to the neck. I'd suspect that she couldn't do that for some reason.

 
Kissaki said:
The comparison you made was way off base, though. "Two somewhat different objects are just like two COMPLETELY different objects." Kind of like when women compare giving birth with squeezing a bowling ball through the penis.
Sigged!
 
Compression isn't a big factor there though, due to the shape a ball would expend most of it's energy actually travelling across the obstacle rather than trying to go through it. Like I said however, it's impossible to push the neck (or head) back far enough to cause damage without first anchoring the body. Whiplash and the like in car accidents is caused primarily because of the seatbelt restraining the body. Without the seatbelt, whiplash is incredibly rare, although since the test subject is usually either being scraped off the road or else having their head cut free of the dashboard the seatbelt (and the whiplash it causes) is considered the more acceptable solution.
 
A quote from my brother on chi (After researching it a bit):

"What Easterns call chi, is what Westerns call callouses."
 
chi is one thing. one-hit-kills is another.
dunno with chi, but them one-hits are for real!.
 
Archonsod said:
Compression isn't a big factor there though, due to the shape a ball would expend most of it's energy actually travelling across the obstacle rather than trying to go through it.
And thus increase the amount the head is pushed back. All of the energy is absorbed by the head regardless, but the puck will spend some of its energy actually penetrating the skull. The fatality with the hockey puck here had nothing to do with the impact itself, but how the head was pushed back as a result of it. A baseball of the same mass impacting with the same speed would certainly not have LESS effect in forcing the head back.
 
Um, yes it does, unless we can remove the laws of thermodynamics and have the ball change spin and direction without needing to expend energy (not sure, but I suspect that would result in flames at some point). The projectile will always take the easiest route, the easiest route is usually defined as the one requiring the least expenditure of energy. In the case of a ball, it's always going to send most of it's energy sideways whatever it hits.
 
Which means the ball has less of chance of penetrating, but the head will not be pushed back less as a result. Quite the opposite, in fact. The more intact the target is, the more it will be compelled to move.
 
Back
Top Bottom