Here's a topic usually left out of most national referee seminars, but now and again is brought up at our local tournaments. Lets say two competitors compete in breaking, the first punches through a board cleanly on the first try while the other breaks on their second try with a roundhouse kick.
Should the first player be given superiority for breaking the first time or should the second player because of a more difficult technique? As it appears in the USAT rules, althought it is not explicitly stated, it appears the criteria for difficulty (roundhouse above a punch) is ranked higher than accuracy (break on the first try rather the second). However, poom-sae judging is based on the proficiency of ten criteria in any order, which is not explicitly stated either, but is usually announced as such when covered in seminars.
So who wins and for what reason?
Thank you for the speedy reply doctor. On one hand I think it's too bad breaking is happily forgotten at most tournaments, but if it means finishing an eight hour tournament an hour early then usually I wouldn't object.
I too agree that a successful foot technique, regardless of which try it was completed should be considered the superior technique. I also agree that more difficult techniques, not the number of boards, should give a player superiority. I would much rather award the gold to a player who breaks one board with a 720 hook kick than another who punches three boards at once.
With the topic at hand, any chance of seeing an overhaul of the guidelines for judging breaking similar to the changes the WTF is attempting to implement this fall with the 1st World Poom-Sae Championships?
I'm delighted to see posts from many fellow referees on a topic I didn't think would spark much interest at all.
Years ago, we never allowed any variation in breaking competition at our local tournaments. Everyone was required to complete a flying side kick and the winner was declared by who jumped further without crossing the fixed 'jumping line'. Needless to say, it was a more objective way to judge breaking, but interest and participation was lost quickly.
I am not against timing the players who otherwise might take 5 minutes to break at 10 stations while another completes 4 breaks in under a minute. The players should be timed according to the current USAT rules (1 minute setup, 1 minute break) and are disqualified if they go over. I think fairest way to judge breaking is to follow the order of the printed criteria: Difficulty of Technique, Number of Stations and Boards; Accuracy, Speed, and Power; and finally Balance, Rhythm, and Manner. By following this order, we reward players who complete a difficult technique over an inferior. If both players complete the same difficulty level of techniques (both spinning kicks for example), then the number of stations and boards is considered and so on.
I do not forsee anybody winning their breaking division because they only had great balance, but when we need to decide superiority in the bonus round of a match tied after sudden death, we judge based on a given criteria (in order): Initiative Attacking, Applied More Techniques, More Advanced Techniques, and Better Attitude. Why not incorporate the same idea to breaking? Perhaps it will be something to consider when the next updates are made to the referee handbook.