# Point Sparring Kick



## OldKarateGuy (Aug 5, 2014)

This forum is dead, and this is a question which interests (= irritates) me, so I'll post it. At a recent major tournament, I see that it has become popular to score points with a kind of one-legged hop, with the front leg high up, cocked in a round-house kick look, snapping the front leg from the knee. One hops forward, popping those little snappy kicks, until you get a point. Under the rather restrictive point-sparring rules, trying to defend against that tactic is tough, because you are limited in terms of grabbing, blocking, etc. However, the rules are pretty clear that a scoring technique is supposed to clearly be something which would be a crippling or disabling technique if allowed to land. I maintain that these stupid little snappy kicks are useless in terms of a real technique and/or a real fight, and could safely be absorbed if necessary, and thus, should not be awarded a scoring point. Further, I think they encourage a dilution of skill and proper technique and represent a step backwards.  
Not meaning to show a lack of respect for anyone in it, but like the first few seconds of this video (nothing to do with my association or the tournament I was referring to) but only cited as an example of the kick I don't like. 





Thoughts? Comments?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 5, 2014)

OldKarateGuy said:


> This forum is dead, and this is a question which interests (= irritates) me, so I'll post it. At a recent major tournament, I see that it has become popular to score points with a kind of one-legged hop, with the front leg high up, cocked in a round-house kick look, snapping the front leg from the knee. One hops forward, popping those little snappy kicks, until you get a point. Under the rather restrictive point-sparring rules, trying to defend against that tactic is tough, because you are limited in terms of grabbing, blocking, etc. However, the rules are pretty clear that a scoring technique is supposed to clearly be something which would be a crippling or disabling technique if allowed to land. I maintain that these stupid little snappy kicks are useless in terms of a real technique and/or a real fight, and could safely be absorbed if necessary, and thus, should not be awarded a scoring point. Further, I think they encourage a dilution of skill and proper technique and represent a step backwards.
> Not meaning to show a lack of respect for anyone in it, but like the first few seconds of this video (nothing to do with my association or the tournament I was referring to) but only cited as an example of the kick I don't like.
> 
> 
> ...


Circle them.


----------



## OldKarateGuy (Aug 5, 2014)

I wasn't really looking for a tactic, but thanks. I was wondering what anyone thought of the kick itself, considering it as legitimate. Or cr*p...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 5, 2014)

OldKarateGuy said:


> I wasn't really looking for a tactic, but thanks. I was wondering what anyone thought of the kick itself, considering it as legitimate. Or cr*p...


That too.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 5, 2014)

I don't think a kick like that can really be considered "crippling or disabling". Probably not even bruising.


----------



## jezr74 (Aug 5, 2014)

Just for show imo.

But it looked like she dropped it quick sticks once she was getting behind on points.

How would you deem any strike crippling or disabling in a points fight, is that the verbiage of the rules or does it require only a firm landing?


----------



## OldKarateGuy (Aug 5, 2014)

I don't have the rule book right in front of me but it is something to the effect that the technique must be such that it could have been completed with disabling or crippling delivery but was arrested under control. In other words, it wasn't a tap or an incomplete technique, one that would have fallen short, been too weak, etc. Every form of point sparring has some room for criticism, some far more so than others, but generally, I think most contain similar language. Adherence to the spirit and letter of the language is an altogether different thing. I think this kick is a clear deviation from the concept of a genuine strike arrested before serious contact, though. But I am soliciting opinion on that, and maybe on the idea of point sparring philosophy generally.


----------



## OldKarateGuy (Aug 5, 2014)

Compare that clip in the OP to say, this




or this 




I'm trying to picture someone at either style's tournament doing that front leg thing. Why are we allowing this? it's demeaning and it's teaching our students slovenly martial arts. Sorry, I'm trying to get something going here, and instead, I'm ranting. Mea culpa.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 5, 2014)

Back in the 70th, if you use this kind of kick in any Karate tournament, you won't get any point. A valid kick is a kick that has potential to cause damage. That mean you need to have your body weight behind your kick and not just to use your "limb motion" only. A "limb motion only" move is a move that you separate your arm/leg from your body, and only use your arm/leg motion without your body involved. 

A modern term is called "muscle group isolation" instead of the traditional term "body unification - all body parts move and stop at the same time".


----------



## Runs With Fire (Aug 5, 2014)

I haven't wittnesed this before, but from what I can see in the video clip, the fighters hip is in the wrong posttion entirely to kick with any power and controll. The hip is all turned out as a setup to the kick, there is no body momentum. The only force generated in that kick is derived from the weight of the leg below the knee.  Try as I might I can see zero combat value to that technique.  I have only participated in one tournament, but should I try that kick in my federation I do not believe it would be considdered a clean technique.


----------



## Tiger-eye (Aug 5, 2014)

I'm guilty of this. I train itf taekwondo. I do it to take control of the ring, corner my opponent. But my kick that actual hits, and actually is what I try to score on is much more powerful and proper technique(following through, hips turned all the way, etc). Do I expect all the little ones before it to count even if they tap? NOPE.


----------



## Gnarlie (Aug 6, 2014)

Only works as a hold off technique against people with no answer. 

One answer is to heavily block the knee from closed stance, unbalancing the opponent while they are on one leg, making them unable to kick momentarily, simultaneously delivering a stretched low back kick under their chin area.

It only takes one valid response attempt and they either a) won't try it anymore or b) will be open to similar counters again and again. 

The great thing is that the only counters to this tippy tap kick are extremely destructive heavy kicks. From a scoring perspective, the counter is way more likely to score.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Aug 6, 2014)

This kind of kicking is likely to become more common with extra points for head kicks and  heavy contact unnecessary in WTF competition. It's been around in point sparring for a loooong time.


----------



## Buka (Aug 6, 2014)

There was a time when groin contact was legal in sport  tournaments. What that did was keep kickers honest. You couldn't hang  kicks, you couldn't pose - you couldn't skip to the Lou, my darling. If  you wanted to kick, you had to know how to kick like a fighter.

Immediately following that, they took away sweeps. Why these things happened is beyond me. But it created what we have today.

I  imagine punching will be next. Then, probably, kicking. Tournaments  will then be video game contests with the "fighters" sitting at a table  with joy sticks. I imagine they'll dress nice, though.

Like Kung Fu Wang, said, you wouldn't get a point for something like that back then. You'ld get killed. And that was a damn good thing.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 6, 2014)

Buka said:


> There was a time when groin contact was legal in sport  tournaments. What that did was keep kickers honest. You couldn't hang  kicks, you couldn't pose - you couldn't skip to the Lou, my darling. If  you wanted to kick, you had to know how to kick like a fighter.
> 
> Immediately following that, they took away sweeps. Why these things happened is beyond me. But it created what we have today.
> 
> ...


It was my understanding that if you sweep a guy off his feet, you had better catch him. Is this TKD specific?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 6, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> It was my understanding that if you sweep a guy off his feet, you had better catch him. Is this TKD specific?



I've never seen a Tae Kwon Do tournament with that rule...  In those that allow sweeps, the person hit the floor.


----------



## Buka (Aug 6, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> It was my understanding that if you sweep a guy off his feet, you had better catch him. Is this TKD specific?



I'm not sure, I never fought in a TKD tourney. In open tournaments back then you had to sweep with the body structure as opposed to against it. You had "one second" to follow up with a kick/whatever to a downed opponent. How they determine one second always remained a mystery to me, but you had to move in fast to get him.

We never had to catch the guy, although you would sometimes if he kind of fell into your lap. We did all the standard sweeps. But the "iron broom", at least as we knew it, a Kung Fu technique if I recall, where you drop and spin to take his feet out, or his base leg if he's in the middle of a kick, was big for a while, but it was impossible to catch the guy. You wouldn't throw it against new guys, or guys who didn't look like they could take a fall on a hard floor, because you just wouldn't. But to other fighters, if it happened to be there - you let it fly. Even if you couldn't scramble to hit him in that "one second". You did it because it shook him up. And it was kind of fun. But, again, you never did it to someone you knew couldn't take it.

There were a lot of great sweepers back then. In almost every part of the country someone was know as "The Janitor".


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 6, 2014)

Dirty Dog said:


> I've never seen a Tae Kwon Do tournament with that rule...  In those that allow sweeps, the person hit the floor.


The idea is that if you hurt someone you get disqualified, but if he is open, sweep him, catch his fall and follow up. Every one is happy except his mom.


----------



## donnaTKD (Aug 6, 2014)

jezr74 said:


> Just for show imo.
> 
> But it looked like she dropped it quick sticks once she was getting behind on points.
> 
> How would you deem any strike crippling or disabling in a points fight, is that the verbiage of the rules or does it require only a firm landing?



they wear pad under their tops that automatically registers if it's been hit with sufficient force (whatever that is) - they use them a lot in tkd tournaments too..........


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 6, 2014)

OldKarateGuy said:


> This forum is dead, and this is a question which interests (= irritates) me, so I'll post it. At a recent major tournament, I see that it has become popular to score points with a kind of one-legged hop, with the front leg high up, cocked in a round-house kick look, snapping the front leg from the knee. One hops forward, popping those little snappy kicks, until you get a point. Under the rather restrictive point-sparring rules, trying to defend against that tactic is tough, because you are limited in terms of grabbing, blocking, etc. However, the rules are pretty clear that a scoring technique is supposed to clearly be something which would be a crippling or disabling technique if allowed to land. I maintain that these stupid little snappy kicks are useless in terms of a real technique and/or a real fight, and could safely be absorbed if necessary, and thus, should not be awarded a scoring point. Further, I think they encourage a dilution of skill and proper technique and represent a step backwards.
> Not meaning to show a lack of respect for anyone in it, but like the first few seconds of this video (nothing to do with my association or the tournament I was referring to) but only cited as an example of the kick I don't like.
> 
> 
> ...



Block it so that the kicker is knocked off balance, then move in and score.  Yeah, in a kick-dominated point competition, you probably won't really get the point, they'll just call a clash... but you do that a few times, and they'll stop kicking at you that way.

From a judging/officiating standpoint -- if it's not delivered with power and focus, I don't see the point.  (See what I did there? )


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 6, 2014)

jezr74 said:


> How would you deem any strike crippling or disabling in a points fight, is that the verbiage of the rules or does it require only a firm landing?



Generally speaking, in a point tournament setting, the rules I'm familiar with look for a strike (punch or kick) delivered with focus, balance, and sound body mechanics, but controlled so that, were it delivered with full power, it would have done injury.  That includes a reasonable or appropriate target.


----------



## jezr74 (Aug 6, 2014)

donnaTKD said:


> they wear pad under their tops that automatically registers if it's been hit with sufficient force (whatever that is) - they use them a lot in tkd tournaments too..........



That would make it fair game then right? Most sports will have tactics that are seen as less sportsman like.

But I guess it would have to be unanimous in the sports organization to deem it not in the good will of the sport.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 6, 2014)

Asking to judge a light contact competition on what could be seen as heavy contact would have to be an issue though. 

I am not sure how you could do that and get it right.


----------



## OldKarateGuy (Aug 7, 2014)

Some styles - JKA comes to mind - allow sweeps (but not necessarily throws, since grabbing may not be not allowed). The sweep itself counts for nothing, but you unbalance or knock the opponent down and then score while he/she is on the deck or falling. And no, you don't catch them or try to break the fall. Generally, that's their problem. It would probably discourage this kind of one-legged stuff, which would invite a sweep I think. This one-legged hopping also would seem to call for some hard blocks (knock-down or unbalance hard) were they allowed, but the evolution to less and less allowable contact is part of why we are seeing this stupid looking stuff in the first place. My sense is that we are creating something no longer a martial art but instead, something like a performance art, since it increasingly has no practical application.


----------



## Buka (Aug 7, 2014)

This is probably old fashioned of me, but if somebody threw those types of kicks my way, I'd either be amused or insulted. More than likely the latter.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Aug 7, 2014)

I am not a fan of any kicks or tournaments where the hands are always at the side not protecting the body/face.
No offense to anyone but the original post was from an ISKA tournament and ISKA seems to be more about show than actual martial arts 
As has been said when people actually fought in tournaments sweeps, blocks, some times throws and punches where allowed and the kick in the viedo would have been met with something that made that kicker think about never doing that hoppy kick again
and for the answer to the original question : NO i do not think this kind of technique should ever be allow without the opponent being allow to counter with something devastating


----------



## donnaTKD (Aug 7, 2014)

they did this in muay thai competitions too -- they took out the throws and use of the head and outlawed some of the strikes too --- sort of defeats the object of the fight tbh..............

awudt muay boran stripped to make way for competitive muay thai.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 7, 2014)

OldKarateGuy said:


> Some styles - JKA comes to mind - allow sweeps (but not necessarily throws, since grabbing may not be not allowed). The sweep itself counts for nothing, but you unbalance or knock the opponent down and then score while he/she is on the deck or falling. And no, you don't catch them or try to break the fall. Generally, that's their problem. It would probably discourage this kind of one-legged stuff, which would invite a sweep I think. This one-legged hopping also would seem to call for some hard blocks (knock-down or unbalance hard) were they allowed, but the evolution to less and less allowable contact is part of why we are seeing this stupid looking stuff in the first place. My sense is that we are creating something no longer a martial art but instead, something like a performance art, since it increasingly has no practical application.


You attitude is all well and good until some kids end up in the hospital with head injuries.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 7, 2014)

This sort of move is why when I do light-contact sparring I prefer to do it with people who have full-contact experience. The folks with full-contact experience know what real range is and what an effective strike looks like. They aren't bouncing around trying to play tag with ineffective techniques from out of range.


----------



## 40th Alabama (Apr 22, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Circle them.


I'm thinking, change to right side forward, touch the kick (block) and spinning back kick or back swing king off the block.  Back leg should go right in.


----------



## Stac3y (Apr 24, 2015)

This technique has a name: pump(ing) side kick. It's used to advance by sliding and meant to a) prevent the opponent from directly attacking (functioning almost as a block) and b) have the leg up and chambered to deliver a side kick. The power part of this is not the actual pump kick, it's the final part of the kick, the one that actually makes contact. At that point, the technique requires the hip to rotate and open (I tell my juniors to point their butts at the target), locking out the knee and thrusting the heel through the target. This is called "sticking" the kick. The power comes from the rotation of the hip and the push against the floor (that's poorly worded, but WTH) of the base foot. Sport karate fighters (and Chelsey Nash is one of the top women) in NASKA/ISKA are supposed to use light contact (little or no penetration) to the face and head, and light-moderate contact to the body, but if the sticking portion of the kick isn't pulled by softening the knee, you can break ribs very easily.

In essence, it's almost a distraction technique, allowing you to get set up for a good, strong side kick with hip rotation and a solid base. Of course, there are a lot of people who do it incorrectly, kicking with their bellies pointing forward, which is awkward and creates an ugly, weak kick.

That being said, I fight in this style, and I only pump once or twice, not over and over--just enough to close distance quickly and set up the offensive side kick. I love to fight people who pump a lot, because you can use your angles (someone up there said "circle them") to get around the leg, and it's hard to change direction quickly with one foot in the air. I also tend to go for economy of motion more--I'm old.

I will also say that a front leg side kick, delivered correctly, is hella powerful. Just check out old videos of Bill Wallace's full contact fights. I've kicked women who outweighed me by 50 pounds right out of the ring--this is Texas. A point in Texas is a felony anywhere else.


----------

