# Spinning Side Kick versus Spinning Back Kick



## FearlessFreep (Dec 21, 2004)

OK, I understand...I think...the difference between the two.  Both start with a spin on the front foot and bring tha back foot through close to the body.  

 The back kick ends up being out with the toes down and you still have your back to the opponent, looking over your shoulder at the target, at point of impact, striking with the heel.

 The sidekick ends up being like a normal sidekick, out from the hip, striking with the side of the foot.


 My question is, what's the difference, in terms of when you would use them and what their tactical advantages or disadvantages would be


----------



## terryl965 (Dec 21, 2004)

Back kick will generate more power but done incorrectly it leaves you open, sidekick has power and helps to cover you up for the roundhouse.


----------



## stoneheart (Dec 21, 2004)

They're both usually thrown as counterattacks in response to something like a roundhouse kick.  The back kick is quicker to get off, but it requires strength in a different part of the leg than the spinning side kick does.  I find the back kick more difficult myself, and I don't throw it that often when sparring.  The spinning sidekick is a staple for me, though.


----------



## TigerWoman (Dec 21, 2004)

Huh?  That's that the same kick. 

A back kick done during sparring is just a side kick. When you spin a back kick it is a spinning side kick. Both have the remaining leg with the foot pointed the way you are facing.  Both have toes pointed down on the kicking leg.  Both you hit with the heel.  Why use the side of the foot when the heel is much more powerful.  We use the side edge for crescents and that's it. TW


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 21, 2004)

I asked my sabomnim the question at tonight's class and got an informative response.

 Assuming a fighting stance or back stance, a spinning back kick only turns your hips about 90 degress, the side kick turns your hips roughly 180. This means the back kick is faster to get off. However, the extra half turn in the side kick also closes distance with the target and can be launched at targets a bit further further away. Simularly, a back-kick can be used against closer targets where the target would be too close to get around on a side-kick.

 Also, since the back kick keeps the kicking foot vertical, it's tougher to use against vertical targets, like someone with their side to you, or against a thigh (in non-sparring situations) as the kick has a higher tendancy to glance off to the side. The sidekick uses a horizontal foot (and we strike with the side of the foot, but only at the back, under the heel and ankle) so it's less likely to slide off a vertically oriented target.

 Another point is that since the back kick is swung under the hip, it can pick up momentum through the swing that the sidekick does not, giving it more power (I think there is also a difference in power based on general mechanics and muscle groups involved, but I'm not sure)

 That's what I mostly remember. What I came away with is, like most techniques, what and when you use it depends on the target, the distance, and the desired outcome (and desired next move)


----------



## jfarnsworth (Dec 21, 2004)

FearlessFreep, I agree with what you said. I like it as that's a good analogy.  :asian: 

Let's make it a little simpler and say that the back kick is a front kick in reverse. Meaning, let's throw a front kick then immediatley retract it directly into a back kick. This will show us the difference between the 2 kicks.


----------



## TigerWoman (Dec 21, 2004)

On a spinning sidekick the front supporting leg rotates 180° facing the opposite direction from a fighting or back stance.  Your hips/back have rotated only 90° to become square with the target and the sidekick is made toes down, heel striking.

On a spinning back kick if you rotate only 90° on the front leg (half the previous rotation) from a fighting or back stance then you would have your
hips facing the left direction not backward to your target and no way would you be able to strike the original target without an additional twist to 180° --which is the same as the first description. 

We only do these (as they are the same to me) close to the body with a snap.  There is no "swing". TW


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 21, 2004)

I think we have a terminology clash, your description of a spinning sidekick is exactly as I would think of as a spinning back kick 

 What I'm calling a spinning side-kick is just a straight side kick out from the hip, but with a spin to close distance and gain energy


----------



## TigerWoman (Dec 21, 2004)

jfarnsworth said:
			
		

> FearlessFreep, I agree with what you said. I like it as that's a good analogy.  :asian:
> 
> Let's make it a little simpler and say that the back kick is a front kick in reverse. Meaning, let's throw a front kick then immediatley retract it directly into a back kick. This will show us the difference between the 2 kicks.



Yes a back kick is a front kick in reverse but the striking area is the heel not the ball of the foot as in a front kick.  Note though, we weren't just talking about a back kick, it was a _spinning_ back kick. TW


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 21, 2004)

_Yes a back kick is a front kick in reverse but the striking area is the heel not the ball of the foot as in a front kick_

 Agreed 

_Note though, we weren't just talking about a back kick, it was a spinning back kick_

 Which, I think, is the same thing, except in a spinning back kick you start out facing the target and spin around to face away from them as you kick


----------



## TigerWoman (Dec 21, 2004)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> I think we have a terminology clash, your description of a spinning sidekick is exactly as I would think of as a spinning back kick
> 
> What I'm calling a spinning side-kick is just a straight side kick out from the hip, but with a spin to close distance and gain energy



Okay, if you are throwing a straight out thrusting sidekick from the hip (from your lead front leg I would imagine)  how does the spin come into it?

If you rotate the front leg/ball of the foot as it stands, turning your front foot around 180° counter-clockwise for perfect form-line and power-for the foot to face back and then sidekick. That is just a back leg sidekick plain and simple, no spinning. And you can go in on that if you step before positioning your foot.  

If you do spin sidekick you, you are rotating on the front but turning toward your back, clock-wise 180°.

If it is a 360° spin sidekick, you step forward with your back leg, spin on it 180° and sidekick to the back. Maybe that's too far down the line though for you.

I like the spin sidekick for speed and stopping power.  The back leg side kick as Terry I think said, leaves you open as it is slower. 

I hope I have been clearer.  Yes it is a terminology problem. I experience it frequently between ITF and WTF.  Sorry, TW


----------



## jfarnsworth (Dec 21, 2004)

TigerWoman said:
			
		

> Yes a back kick is a front kick in reverse but the striking area is the heel not the ball of the foot as in a front kick.  Note though, we weren't just talking about a back kick, it was a _spinning_ back kick. TW



Regardless of whether or not you are stationary or spinnning the mechanics will still be the same. I would never attempt a spinning back kick and hit withe the ball of the foot either. I was making the analogy so everyone was on the same page. 
When performing the spinning back kick your groin is not exposed as in the spinning side kick. It's safter for covering your groin. It could be used close in. You can also recover quicker from a spinning back kick in case something goes wrong.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 21, 2004)

_how does the spin come into it?_

Bad choice of words on my part in trying to describe that I'm talking about the normal hip/knee/foot motion of a sidekick but with a spin

_That is just a back leg sidekick plain and simple, no spinning._

Yup!

_If you do spin sidekick you, you are rotating on the front but turning toward your back, clock-wise 180°._

*That's* what I was calling a spinning sidekick   It still comes from the rear leg (from where you started.  Assuming fighting stance, left foor forward.  Your still going to kick with the right(back) leg, but instead of turning in counterclock-wise, you turn backward clockwise as you pull the kicking leg up.  You still end up in the same position as a rear-side sidekick, you just got there going the other way

_
If it is a 360° spin sidekick, you step forward with your back leg, spin on it 180° and sidekick to the back. Maybe that's too far down the line though for you._

Cool


_I hope I have been clearer._

I think so, thanks for the patience


----------



## TigerWoman (Dec 21, 2004)

Spinning back kick = spinning side kick   to me. Sorry, just don't understand your terminology. TW


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 21, 2004)

_When performing the spinning back kick your groin is not exposed as in the spinning side kick. It's safter for covering your groin. It could be used close in. You can also recover quicker from a spinning back kick in case something goes wrong._

Agreed on all counts.

One thing I like about the spinning sidekick, though, although this is an advanced technique that I've only barely practiced against a pad, is intentionally missing off to the side, and then using a heel-rake to come into the side.  I've never done this, but my sabomnim did it to me last week   Except he was very controlled and just tapped my chin with the ball of his foot rather than truly striking my head with his heel  (it was this particular sparring session that led to discovery of the difference between a spinning sidekick, a jumping/spinning back kick, and adding the heel-rake to the end of the sidekick)

My head knows a lot more than my legs have caught up to


----------



## jfarnsworth (Dec 21, 2004)

It appears as though he was nice to you on his spinning hook kick. My instructor used to teach us both ways with the heel and the ball of the foot. The ball of the foot for (obviously being nice) just being a little out of range and for taking it easy on the other students in the class during sparring. 
There's more but I didn't know if we wanted to get into the spin back kick/side kick/hook kick :idunno: thing. My terminology is different maybe because of Kenpo being my primary art.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 21, 2004)

_It appears as though he was nice to you on his spinning hook kick. _

He was, I've only been sparring a few weeks (and we don't put a strong emphasis on it in terms of class time) and I've gotten lucky because he normally only allows yellow belts and above to even start doing sparring exercises and I'm only orange (for some trange reason, he puts orange below yellow).  Anyway, my kids made yellow belt so I started to take them to the class that the more experienced students were sparring in to help them out and he let me slowly start joining in as well (partially because I'm in class four to six times aweek as opposed to two or three for most others at the school and partially because I'm a fast learner) 

So anyway, he sparred with me last week and by his moves and mine I could tell very much that he was being very instructional and very controlled.  He did hit me hard enough to wind me so it was not all shadow boxing, but most of his moves were designed to teach me something (the foot to the chin was to remind me to keep my hands up in guard position)

Mostly, I had to overcome my fear...I was so nervous about getting hit back that I launched all my attacks form too far away, or backed off before they'd really landed.  I'm still very new at this and there are a lot of natural inclinations (like self-preservation) to overcome


----------



## XxTKDPenguinxX (Dec 22, 2004)

We do not teach a "back kick" persay.  The way our side kicks are taught, they resemble a back kick (in other MA styles).  Our technique to a side kick is to pivot the base foot so that the heel is pointed in the direction of the target, thus turning your hips to expose part of your rump at the target.  Bring the knee up to your chest (or as high as you can without bending or hunching over) while the lower leg and foot are lifted to point the bottom of your heel at the target.  Extend your leg to force your heel into the target and retract (or rechamber) the leg before placing it back to the floor.

  Being from another MA style in the past, the way that we do this technique would be closer to a back kick.  The whole principle here is to use your heel as a type of "battering ram".

  As far as a "spinning back or side kick... To me, they are virtually the same.  However, we call them _reverse side kicks_ since they usually come from the back leg with your body rotating backwards into your target.  

  I recommend, in sparring, to work on making it appear more as a back kick... meaning the leg is chambered and starting its path to the target before your shoulders turn past 180 degrees and your dropping the kicking leg to allow for a counter attack from your opponant.

  We were working on this very thing last night with a 6th Dan and soon to be Master (my instructor's instructor:asian

  Either way, they are effective as an offensive or defensive weapon.


----------



## jfarnsworth (Dec 22, 2004)

I think this just has to be one of those things where we all have to be in the same room together.


----------



## bignick (Dec 22, 2004)

jfarnsworth said:
			
		

> I think this just has to be one of those things where we all have to be in the same room together.


 I think you called this one


----------



## Zepp (Dec 23, 2004)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> My question is, what's the difference, in terms of when you would use them and what their tactical advantages or disadvantages would be?



Hi Freep,

You seem to have a very good technical understanding of how both kicks work already, so I'll just try to give you my opinion under K.I.S.S. rules.  (K.I.S.S. = Keep It Simple Stupid   )

With a spinning sidekick, you more or less need to finish the spinning motion before you throw the kick, and it requires chambering your leg as you would for a normal sidekick.  (Chambered while still spinning of course.)  It's the slower of the two, but I believe it has more potential power.

With the back-kick, whether spinning or not, it may be helpful to think of it also as the "mule-kick," because the leg motion is pretty much the same as a horse or mule would make kicking (just with one leg instead of both).  You chamber your leg underneath yourself, and you throw the kick at the very second you get your head around to see your target.  It's definitely the faster of the two.

Now as far as when to use each one, it comes down to personal preference.  In any case, if you're going to be using either one on a person, you probably won't be spinning a full 360 degrees.  In sparring, they both tend to come in handy when sparring mutiple opponents, or if someone is trying to move around to attack your back.  In self-defense, you could use either to attack someone coming up behind you.  Personally, I spend more time practicing the back-kick for its speed.  Hope I've been helpful in some way.



			
				jfarnsworth said:
			
		

> I think this just has to be one of those things where we all have to be in the same room together.



Tru dat.


----------



## jfarnsworth (Dec 23, 2004)

Zepp said:
			
		

> With a spinning sidekick, you more or less need to finish the spinning motion before you throw the kick, and it requires chambering your leg as you would for a normal sidekick.  (Chambered while still spinning of course.)  It's the slower of the two, but I believe it has more potential power.
> 
> With the back-kick, whether spinning or not, it may be helpful to think of it also as the "mule-kick," because the leg motion is pretty much the same as a horse or mule would make kicking (just with one leg instead of both).  You chamber your leg underneath yourself, and you throw the kick at the very second you get your head around to see your target.  It's definitely the faster of the two.



Right on!


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 23, 2004)

Zepp, your summation of the two kicks is pretty much on line with my understanding.  I like the 'mule kick' description for the back kick, and the difference in how the two are chambered matches my understanding

_I think this just has to be one of those things where we all have to be in the same room together._

I agree    I admit that TW still confuses me a bit on this  

Thanks all.  I really appreciate the different perspectives on the kicks as well as the different viewpoints on the strengths, weaknesses, and usages...


----------



## TigerWoman (Dec 23, 2004)

Sorry, if I confused you.  I think we are all on the same page.  It was your description of spinning that threw me. Pivoting your standing foot slightly in to a sidekick position is not spinning.  Back kick/mule kick=no spinning because then it becomes a spinning sidekick.  TW


----------



## Hwoarang_tkd26 (Dec 23, 2004)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> My question is, what's the difference, in terms of when you would use them and what their tactical advantages or disadvantages would be


I agree with every thing that has been stated above concerning the advantages/disadvantages between the two similar kicks.
However, I feel that it ultimately depends on which kick you feel the most comfortable with using, like in a sparring match for example.
I personaly tend to use 'em both, but Im probaby just a little bit more comfortable with the spinning back kick.

- Hwoarang_tkd26


----------



## jfarnsworth (Dec 23, 2004)

I like them both. I use them both. Each have their own respective place and time to be used.


----------



## Flamebearer (Dec 23, 2004)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> I asked my sabomnim the question at tonight's class and got an informative response.
> 
> Assuming a fighting stance or back stance, a spinning back kick only turns your hips about 90 degress, the side kick turns your hips roughly 180. This means the back kick is faster to get off. However, the extra half turn in the side kick also closes distance with the target and can be launched at targets a bit further further away. Simularly, a back-kick can be used against closer targets where the target would be too close to get around on a side-kick.
> 
> ...


 
That's the way I learned it!
-Flamebearer


----------



## Miles (Dec 24, 2004)

Zepp said:
			
		

> With a spinning sidekick, you more or less need to finish the spinning motion before you throw the kick, and it requires chambering your leg as you would for a normal sidekick. (Chambered while still spinning of course.) It's the slower of the two, but I believe it has more potential power.
> 
> With the back-kick, whether spinning or not, it may be helpful to think of it also as the "mule-kick," because the leg motion is pretty much the same as a horse or mule would make kicking (just with one leg instead of both). You chamber your leg underneath yourself, and you throw the kick at the very second you get your head around to see your target. It's definitely the faster of the two.
> 
> ...


Good descriptions Zepp.  This is an example where standardization of terms would be helpful.

I respectfully disagree with you as far as the spinning side kick being more powerful of the two.  With speed comes power and the back kick is more linear so it is the faster of the two.

As far as using it while sparring, the back kick (when I use the term I am referring to a kick which contains the spin already), is rarely used offensively in Olympic sparring.  It is a counter-attack to a back leg round or axe kick when the contestants are in "open stance" (belly-buttons facing the same way).  It is a counter-attack to a fast kick (front leg roundhouse kick) when the contestants are in "closed stance" (both have same side leg in front or, as I say to the kids-belly buttons facing away from each other).

Miles


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 24, 2004)

The other place I've heard of the (spinning) back kick used is as a second strike.  Such as throw a roundhouse and then spin into a back kick.  Thespinning kicks seems slow to develop in their own, so it's hard to use them as a first move attack, but I think they can be used well as the second blow in a mulitple-move attack


----------



## jfarnsworth (Dec 24, 2004)

Always use them in a combination. Most often the only time you can use them as/on the first strike is if someone is moving in on you. Defensively I'd say use the back kick. I recently taught a class to my fellow Kenpoist's & part of it I focused on using the turning back kick or spinning side kick defensively. The reason I used both kicks were because some were better at one kick over the other.  :asian:


----------



## Tae Kwon Doughboy (Dec 24, 2004)

In our school they are both called spinning back pierce kick. We are taught to do it both ways. It doesn't make sense to me because the really are two different kicks. I think it would be easier to understand if they called them what they are!

I have trouble doing the spinning back side kick with only a 180 degree turn. I have to get another 60 to 90 degrees or I'd be kicking way off target. For some reason I'm not able to do a side kick with my weight bearing foot straight in line with the kick, ie. heal facing target.

I'm having a bugger of a time with spinning back hook. Maybe for the same reason. My momentum just stops at the point of the spinning back side kick.


----------



## Zepp (Dec 26, 2004)

Tae Kwon Doughboy said:
			
		

> I'm having a bugger of a time with spinning back hook. Maybe for the same reason. My momentum just stops at the point of the spinning back side kick.



Hey Doughboy, if you're interested, here's a thread where we discussed the mechanics of the spinning hook: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15689 

I think a lot of what we talked about can be applied to most spinning kicks.


----------



## Tae Kwon Doughboy (Jan 2, 2005)

Thanks, Zepp. I'll check it out.


----------



## Kenpoist (Feb 13, 2005)

Same motion but the side kick is the sword edge of your foot - good for softer targets and covers a larger area of the body. The back kick (or Mule Kick) is with the heel  of the foot - more powerful, but you must be more accurate or you may miss target.


----------



## LT2002 (Feb 13, 2005)

Kenpoist said:
			
		

> Same motion but the side kick is the sword edge of your foot - good for softer targets and covers a larger area of the body. The back kick (or Mule Kick) is with the heel of the foot - more powerful, but you must be more accurate or you may miss target.


Though I typically use a blade edge for a side kick I wouldn't say that is the case 100% particularly with a spinning kick.

As are as being more accurate or one may miss target.....I dare say that is true for most strikes


----------



## MichiganTKD (Feb 14, 2005)

They are almost the same kick. The only real difference is that a spinning back kick uses slightly less rotation than a back side kick, resulting in more of the kidney/spinal area facing the opponent. Very popular with WTF fighters because of its quickness. However, it does tend to leave the kidneys and spine more vulnerable to accidental or otherwise contact.
However, in each case the contact point is the same-the heel. The bottom of the foot is also used if no hard contact is desired.
Incidentally, the mechanics of back side and back roundhouse or spinning hook kicks are different. In a spinning back or back side kick, the hip rotation is much tighter or more linear relative to the target. In other words, your hips are focused more toward the opponent. With a back roundhouse/hook kick, you are executing a complete circular action with the hips. If you do that with a side kick, your foot will slide past the opponent instead of hitting him.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 14, 2005)

Interestingly, I was messing around with a friend of mine from a different school and I noticed that his side-kick was a bit different than mine.

We learn that a sidekick is done with the shoulders square to the body so that the line from shoulder, hip, knee, foot is a straight line and you are looking down your shoulder  to the target.  The blade edge of the foot is the striking surface.  

His sidekick involved more shoulder rotation so his back was more turned to target.  He was almost halfway between what I would call a side kick and a back kick.  I can't remember what he struk with but it would not surprise me at all if it was the heel


----------



## DuneViking (Feb 22, 2005)

Greetings all! Wonderful discussion!
Our rear kick, what was described as comming from a fighting, back, rear, T or L stance, with the rear foot , spinning across the back, impacts like the mule kick description, foot verticle or perpindicular to the ground, back to target, looking over kicking shoulder, impacting with the heel. It uses a 1/4 turn. I do not use it in sparring at all, but would definately in self defense. 

Our spinning side kick interpretation continues the rotation a full 1/2 turn so the rear hip and leg executing the kick are facing the target before the thrust, impacting with either the bottom of the heel or side edge of the foot held horizontally. I use that mostly when sparring multiple opponents and have one trying to sneak up on me and can suprise them. 

I tend not to attack with spinning techniques, _unless_ the target is unable to jam or close, or is retreating. I continuously close in on unsupported spinning techniques whenever I can. I figure if an opponent wants to turn his back on me, I'll take advantage of it. I tend to think of the power of spinning strikes more as finishing techniques. I don't see how one can spin faster than I can come straight in, not that I will always do that, but when I see a spin comming, I move and at least get out of the way. What do y'all think?


----------



## TKD USA (Feb 24, 2005)

DuneViking said:
			
		

> ..... I don't see how one can spin faster than I can come straight in,....


You should be careful of that I've seen many sparrers who can spin faster than the opponent can react.


----------



## DuneViking (Feb 25, 2005)

TKD USA said:
			
		

> You should be careful of that I've seen many sparrers who can spin faster than the opponent can react.


Excellent point!

My experience has been that against those super-fast spinners, I must judge to _either_ retreat or close. Obviously, if I screw up on the judgement call, I get clocked!! My point is that if you can get it right, you can close even on a fast person who _leads_ the attack with a spin, and either jam with your own leg, or get inside theirs and counter. In application, my first choice is to evade and look for an opening after you get a feel for your opponent, unless that opening is obvious. Also, another point, they may _fake_ the spin to draw you in  so one must understand this idea works best on a level playing field and should be adapted to your experience, as with everything else.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 25, 2005)

At this point in my sparring training, I will rarely lead with a spinning attack unless I'm sure that I'm fast enough to beat my opponent.  I tend to use it a lot more as a follow on strike. Use a fast strike initially to get my opponent moving and come around with a spinning side or spinning back kick to follow up.  The first kick seems to keep them busy so the spinning kick can comes as more of a suprise.


----------



## Yeti (Feb 25, 2005)

I've been able to use spinning side/back kicks successfully as I'm retreating.  As my opponent comes at me, I take a step or two back (more to bait my opponent into thinking I'm a bit timid) and if I think they're still attacking, I'll immediately spin and deliver the kick.  Usually only works once per match though!

-Mike


----------

