# Would you label this a spinning back kick or side kick or hybrid?



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)




----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2020)

Acronym said:


>


it apears to be a spinning side kick.

in that you spin and then side kick

turning your back on an opponent,  is exyremly risky if he has anticipated your move,  you can generally get a away with it once, next time there is a good chance he will get you as you turn


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> it apears to be a spinning side kick.
> 
> in that you spin and then side kick


----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2020)

Acronym said:


> View attachment 23378


ive no idea what your trying to say with those picures?

you dont appear to be getting any great momentum from the spin, which makes it pointless  other than catching them by suprise, which only works the first time


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> ive no idea what your trying to say with those picures?



It looks like a back kick when I gogle back kick taekwondo, that is with your back facing the target.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> you dont appear to be getting any great momentum from the spin, which makes it pointless  other than catching them by suprise, which only works the first time



I can't side kick that fast so the momentum has to come from somewhere. There is no distinction in Taekwondo between a turn and a spin. "spinning" refers to any technique where you turn your body around.


----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2020)

Acronym said:


> I can't side kick that fast so the momentum has to come from somewhere. There is no distinction in Taekwondo between a turn and a spin. "spinning" refers to any technique where you turn your body around.


depends what you mean by fast, from syart to finish, the kick takes a long time,, longer i would sugest than just kicking, so slow, have you got significantly more kenetic energy in the kick, by virtue of the longer distance and time, no not really

if youbwant to call it a back kick, thats fine with me, i think its a side kick with added spin


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> depends what you mean by fast, from syart to finish, the kick takes a long time,, longer i would sugest than just kicking, so slow, have you got significantly more kenetic energy in the kick, by virtue of the longer distance and time, no not really
> 
> if youbwant to call it a back kick, thats fine with me, i think its a side kick with added spin



The entire sequence takes longer but the actual leg motion has a higher velocity when I turn, so it can't be meaningless to do the turn or else the velocity would be equal


----------



## Jaeimseu (Dec 16, 2020)

I’d call that a spinning/reverse side kick from a  Kukkiwon perspective. With a back kick, the knee of the kicking leg would face down toward the floor. If the knee chambers out toward the side, it’s a sidekick. 

We don’t use the term spinning since that implies a circular motion. We want back kick to be a direct straight line to the target. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2020)

Acronym said:


> The entire sequence takes longer but the actual leg motion has a higher velocity when I turn, so it can't be meaningless to do the turn or else the velocity would be equal


does it have a higher velocity? , it may have more acceleration, but thats not necessarily the same thing

velociity is time devided by distance, the kick is both traveling a long way and taking a long time, when compared with a shorter kick divided by a shorter time

the divining factor would be have you got more of you body mass tranfered into the kick, and the answer is maybe, but not that much, its easy to judge by kicking something, that will give you some feed back and allow you to judge if the elivated time is worth the pay off.

you may of course get an a different answer kicking a bag, which sort of wait for you and a person who may move coz you given them ample warning


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> does it have a higher velocity? , it may have more acceleration, but thats not necessarily the same thing
> 
> velociity is time devided by distance, the kick is both traveling a long way and taking a long time, when compared with a shorter kick divided by a shorter time
> 
> ...



The push off with the supporting foot and support from my back create a greater speed even without a fast spin. When I do it front or side facing, the back does not fascilitate the push off as much


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

Jaeimseu said:


> I’d call that a spinning/reverse side kick from a  Kukkiwon perspective. With a back kick, the knee of the kicking leg would face down toward the floor. If the knee chambers out toward the side, it’s a sidekick.
> 
> We don’t use the term spinning since that implies a circular motion. We want back kick to be a direct straight line to the target.
> 
> ...



But my torso has not fully turned over to side kick, so thats why I view it as a hybrid kick


----------



## Jaeimseu (Dec 16, 2020)

Acronym said:


> But my torso has not fully turned over to side kick, so thats why I view it as a hybrid kick



Are you intentionally throwing a hybrid kick? If so, why? If you have a good reason and it’s solid, I’m not sure it matters what kick it is. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

Jaeimseu said:


> Are you intentionally throwing a hybrid kick? If so, why? If you have a good reason and it’s solid, I’m not sure it matters what kick it is.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



It doesn't matter beyond the fact that I don't know which one it is. So this is would be an interesting poll to conduct.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

To me it looks very similar to the KKW back kick illustration in many regards.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

Jaeimseu said:


> Are you intentionally throwing a hybrid kick?
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



As I recall,.my intention was to do a spinning side kick but my body did not feel the need to turn over fully..Then I learned that spinning side kicks t least in some Systems is when you have turned over the torso exactly into the position you fire off regular side kicks, and I clearly haven't done that. I used to think the that the foot formation was the defining feature but that was not the case


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

I posted it with the label *spinning back kick* on another forum

First reply: "indeed it is", from a Karate expert.

This is starting to look controversial


----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2020)

Acronym said:


> The push off with the supporting foot and support from my back create a greater speed even without a fast spin. When I do it front or side facing, the back does not fascilitate the push off as much


speed is the time between two points , point a) starts when you start the turn, not when you release  the leg,, 

if it was, a round kick you would have considerable more energy in it, but your not, your spinning and then throwing a side kick, it a complely different vector,  to the one for you momentum .

the back kick, is to turn and force your leg out knee down, that not what you ate doing, you just starting your side kick whilst facing the wrong direction,

if you feel this improves it, thats ok with me


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> speed is the time between two points , point a) starts when you start the turn, not when you release  the leg,,
> 
> if it was, a round kick you would have considerable more energy in it, but your not, your spinning and then throwing a side kick, it a complely different vector,  to the one for you momentum .
> 
> ...



I said that I was strictly referring to the leg motion from lift off to point of impact.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> the back kick, is to turn and force your leg out knee down, that not what you ate doing, you just starting your side kick whilst facing the wrong direction,
> 
> if you feel this improves it, thats ok with me



Karate terminology for what constitutes a back kick may not apply in the context of Taekwondo.


----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Karate terminology for what constitutes a back kick may not apply in the context of Taekwondo.


well they are pretty similar,, i dont think thats a back kick in either, i have done a little tkd, back in the day, but if one of our tkd exsperts contradicts me, ok

but thats not really the issue.

one, why is your side kick deficient,, such that a hybrid or at least badly excuted back kick is superior

and b, if the kick works for you, it doesnt matter what it is, unless somethibg else would be better


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> well they are pretty similar,, i dont think thats a back kick in either, i have done a little tkd, back in the day, but if one of our tkd exsperts contradicts me, ok
> 
> but thats not really the issue.
> 
> ...



Well there is a Karateka who views it as a back kick so your opinion is not universal in Karate. It remains to be seen what the TKD folks think.


----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Well there is a Karateka who views it as a back kick so your opinion is not universal in Karate. It remains to be seen what the TKD folks think.


my opinion  is never universal, its a reoccuring theme, thats largely why its my opinion,

if its a back kick, its a poor one, back kicks should floor opponent,  with their power, so something needs work.

i mean really, get a heavy bag and exsperiment, with the best delivery  of a back kick, im pretty sure its not that


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> my opinion  is never universal, its a reoccuring theme, thats largely why its my opinion,
> 
> if its a back kick, its a poor one, back kicks should floor opponent,  with their power, so somethink needs work.
> 
> i mean really, get a heavy bag and exsperiment, with the best delivery  of a back kick, im preety sure its not that



That's a silly statement. There are snapping versions of kicks that are not meant to emphasize power. If I wanted to emphasize power I would hit an actual target so that my leg has some resistance.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Dec 16, 2020)

Acronym said:


> As I recall,.my intention was to do a spinning side kick but my body did not feel the need to turn over fully..Then I learned that spinning side kicks t least in some Systems is when you have turned over the torso exactly into the position you fire off regular side kicks, and I clearly haven't done that. I used to think the that the foot formation was the defining feature but that was not the case



I don’t think there is a universal definition. I’ve seen lots of schools that do spinning side kicks but call it spinning back kick. In my school, they are two distinct techniques. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

Jaeimseu said:


> I don’t think there is a universal definition. I’ve seen lots of schools that do spinning side kicks but call it spinning back kick. In my school, they are two distinct techniques.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



So there is division even within the same style? I noted that you used the word "schools"


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 16, 2020)

In this image I feel there are a few things worth mentioning. 

Breaking down the kick anatomically, the impact of a side kick should always be delivered with the heel. The kick in the image is leading with the ball of the foot and toes, creating a cushion that dampens the impact. This is usually an independent problem that has to be worked out through correct practice and repetition.

See what the right arm is doing? That indicates that you are 'corkscrewing' or not following through with your upper body. In simplest terms, a lot of the energy of the kick was either never created or cancelled out because the upper body was turning or pushing Away from the direction of the kick.

The left hand/arm is in a terrible defensive position leaving the head wide open to a counter. 

Remember, this is still a linear kick. That means the twist or rotation is in the vertical axis. The kicking leg (horizontal axis) is moving linear. It looks like there is a lot of arc in the kicking leg.

Very close but your hips are still a little open. Especially relative to where your shoulders are which may be a little over rotated. This could simply be because you are doing an air kick. 
The exception here would be if you were intending to follow through with a kick moving forward. However, the upper body does not indicate this.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> In this image I feel there are a few things worth mentioning.
> 
> Breaking down the kick anatomically, the impact of a side kick should always be delivered with the heel. The kick in the image is leading with the ball of the foot and toes, creating a cushion that dampens the impact. This is usually an independent problem that has to be worked out through correct practice and repetition.
> 
> ...



But Master Woos right arm is doing the same thing


----------



## Jaeimseu (Dec 16, 2020)

Acronym said:


> So there is division even within the same style? I noted that you used the word "schools"



There is a ton of variance in Taekwondo schools. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

It also looks like I'm not yet making impact in that shot.


This is when I make impact[

 ATTACH=full]23382[/ATTACH]


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

Jaeimseu said:


> There is a ton of variance in Taekwondo schools.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Does this ITf guy differ from what you consider a back kick in KKW?


----------



## Jaeimseu (Dec 16, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Does this ITf guy differ from what you consider a back kick in KKW?



To me, it looks like he’s doing what I’d call back kick when he demonstrates on air, but usually does more what I consider side kick when he hits BOB. 

He also includes several meaningless (IMO) details (arms should be 25 cm from the body) that seem to be based on a picture from General Choi’s encyclopedia, which I tend to think is silly and unnecessary. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

Jaeimseu said:


> To me, it looks like he’s doing what I’d call back kick when he demonstrates on air, but usually does more what I consider side kick when he hits BOB.
> 
> He also includes several meaningless (IMO) details (arms should be 25 cm from the body) that seem to be based on a picture from General Choi’s encyclopedia, which I tend to think is silly and unnecessary.
> 
> ...



 I agree that his appeal to authority via the encyclopedia is irrelevant since General Choi and ITF is irrelevant for the other branches of TaeKwonDo. Especially these days with several generations since the KKW took over in South Korea. In the 70s he might have a point...


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

Jaeimseu said:


> To me, it looks like he’s doing what I’d call back kick when he demonstrates on air, but usually does more what I consider side kick when he hits BOB.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I agree, it looks like the side kick general choi threw in the other thread. This bolsters my point that these distinctions get very muddy.... and it's quite confusing to a learning student.


----------



## paitingman (Dec 16, 2020)

I would agree that it is a hybrid kick if I had to make a call. 
I've become deaf to most kick names tbh because I have come across so much variance in how people characterize and name their techniques.

Personally, I have a hard time judging based on photos. Videos are always better. 
I describe kicks more based on the way it was executed rather than the final pose. I can throw turning side/back kicks with all different sorts of attitudes and trajectories and still end up in the same position as the photos you shared.
I focus more on what they did and how they did it rather than where the kick ended up.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

paitingman said:


> I would agree that it is a hybrid kick if I had to make a call.
> I've become deaf to most kick names tbh because I have come across so much variance in how people characterize and name their techniques.
> 
> Personally, I have a hard time judging based on photos. Videos are always better.
> ...



I think it's more back kick than side kick in both start and finishing pose. It would be a very ugly side kick otherwise.. 

I don't think it's a textbook bad back kick either though. The knee should be pointing down in a textbook back kick.

So I consider it a hybrid between the two. The stars seemed to have finally aligned and we are in agreement for once.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 16, 2020)

Acronym said:


> But Master Woos right arm is doing the same thingView attachment 23381


Think about it. An arm that is low and outside is doing what?


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Think about it. An arm that is low and outside is doing what?



Keeping my balance due to rustiness. That clip is a year old but I had still not trained for a year then and that kick was not one I used to train.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

See here for more confusion. What he labels a standard spinning back kick #1 in contrast to the previous ITF clip, is clearly a side kick turning around. And it looks like he is standing too close to the mitts but that's a separate point

And they are both ITF...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2020)

Acronym said:


>


I'm not TKD, but that's a spinning back kick to me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2020)

Acronym said:


> The entire sequence takes longer but the actual leg motion has a higher velocity when I turn, so it can't be meaningless to do the turn or else the velocity would be equal


I think it might also provide some evasion/recovery options, like the kick in an MMA fight in another recent thread.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I think it might also provide some evasion/recovery options, like the kick in an MMA fight in another recent thread.




I actually can't do the jumping one anymore but that's the one I've used defensively once. Aerial kicks seem very sensitive to inactivity. 

Here's a snap of when I could do it, in jeans no less!


----------



## Acronym (Dec 16, 2020)

I can't really do the flying side kick very well these days either, and I used to get up pretty high with it.

Strange since I could do that one my entire life from. When I was a kid.. Maybe weight gain and inactivity has messed up my muscle memory?


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 16, 2020)

Acronym said:


> See here for more confusion. What he labels a standard spinning back kick #1 in contrast to the previous ITF clip, is clearly a side kick turning around. And it looks like he is standing too close to the mitts but that's a separate point
> 
> And they are both ITF...


The second kick in the combo around the 3:24 mark I would call a back kick. Everything else I saw was a side kick or a variant of. 

Body rotation and foot position give it away the quickest to me. In nearly every kick the striking foot is horizontal and the shoulder/hip rotation is indicative of a side kick.

If you look at the timeframe I mentioned you can see he is mostly looking over his shoulder on the second kick and the toes are down; a back kick.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> does it have a higher velocity? , it may have more acceleration, but thats not necessarily the same thing
> 
> velociity is time devided by distance, the kick is both traveling a long way and taking a long time, when compared with a shorter kick divided by a shorter time
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if it has more acceleration or not, but even if it had the same acceleration (I assume we're talking about average acceleration over the entire movement, to preclude the idea of the acceleration ceasing earlier), and was traveling a longer distance, then (assuming the same static start), it would have to have higher velocity, because it would be under acceleration longer. If it has more acceleration and a longer distance, it has to have a higher velocity at the end.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2020)

Acronym said:


> It doesn't matter beyond the fact that I don't know which one it is. So this is would be an interesting poll to conduct.


It's just terminology. There are "techniques between the techniques), where you're using the principles, but operating between the definitions of "techniques". It could be either, neither, or both, depending how you look at it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2020)

Acronym said:


> I posted it with the label *spinning back kick* on another forum
> 
> First reply: "indeed it is", from a Karate expert.
> 
> This is starting to look controversial


I don't think it's so much controversial (no real controversy) as debatable.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> speed is the time between two points , point a) starts when you start the turn, not when you release  the leg,,
> 
> if it was, a round kick you would have considerable more energy in it, but your not, your spinning and then throwing a side kick, it a complely different vector,  to the one for you momentum .
> 
> ...


The mechanics aren't that simplistic. The hips are moving toward the target more than from a static start, and the rotation generates momentum which can be released toward the target.


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure if it has more acceleration or not, but even if it had the same acceleration (I assume we're talking about average acceleration over the entire movement, to preclude the idea of the acceleration ceasing earlier), and was traveling a longer distance, then (assuming the same static start), it would have to have higher velocity, because it would be under acceleration longer. If it has more acceleration and a longer distance, it has to have a higher velocity at the end.


we are likely to get lost in defintions, again,
ate we talking about back kicks or his back kick?
back kick are a lot more energetic than side kicks largly because of the muscles in volved, in particular your activating the glutes to a greater extent,and any back kick were your facing the tarket has a degree if spin in it.

the issue with his " back kick" is the orintatuon of the leg dorsnt fire the glutes much, so he is robbing him self od energy. coz urs a side kick

what he is tryibg to do is to put that energy back with extra spin.
which he may be doibg to a small degree .

there will definelty be tranfer od momentum into the kick, but how much and is this suffibt to make up for the time lost in doibg the spin? its fine if your kick a static target, or in his case air, less clear cut, if the guys goibg to move, forwards to take yoyr back or out of range, if he did that against me( at that speed ) id take him down, if i had the slightest clue that what he was intending,  and if i niss times abd got hit, its not the end of the world as im a lot closer than what he was aiming at and there is little power in it, and im still in range with forward momentum

the lissue with the acceleration is( mostly) its in the wrong vector, so the best he is getting centrafugal force accelerating his leg faster and he not spinnibg that fast its a notable amount

he would be far better going bqck to basics and lrarnibg the kick than yrying to get points for artistic impression

DC, who is a tkdexspert and an international class competitor,told him uts wrong, im more likely to go with him,than random peopke imon you tube


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> we are likely to get lost in defintions, again,
> ate we talking about back kicks or his back kick?
> back kick are a lot more energetic than side kicks largly because of the muscles in volved, in particular your activating the glutes to a greater extent,and any back kick were your facing the tarket has a degree if spin in it.
> 
> ...


Nothing I said had anything to do with his form. I was replying to a specific comment that seemed confusing to me, where you were pondering whether a longer (timewise) motion with perhaps more acceleration had more velocity.


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Nothing I said had anything to do with his form. I was replying to a specific comment that seemed confusing to me, where you were pondering whether a longer (timewise) motion with perhaps more acceleration had more velocity.


and im applying my comments to his kick and not back kicks in general

henc3 the need to know, exactly what your referibg to

with better form, he may get the extra acceleration he desires, as it is, im far from convinced he  gains any real world benifit from his spin. uts slower with liittle extra energy 

so again are we talking about back kicks in gereral or his specific version of it

back kicks in general are ace, all the piints you made about acceleration are valid, but thats not what he is doing


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 17, 2020)

Jaeimseu said:


> He also includes several meaningless (IMO) details (arms should be 25 cm from the body) that seem to be based on a picture from General Choi’s encyclopedia, which I tend to think is silly and unnecessary.
> 
> Tapatalk


The 25 CM is specified for Bending Ready Stance Type B (Vol II Page 166).


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 17, 2020)

Acronym said:


> I agree that his appeal to authority via the encyclopedia is irrelevant since General Choi and ITF is irrelevant for the other branches of TaeKwonDo. Especially these days with several generations since the KKW took over in South Korea. In the 70s he might have a point...



It's relevant in the context  provided - Chang Hon Bending ready stance B and Back piercing kick.   Not intended for anything else.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 17, 2020)

Earl Weiss said:


> It's relevant in the context  provided - Chang Hon Bending ready stance B and Back piercing kick.   Not intended for anything else.



He did not state ITF specifically and if he were to be completely open, he would say the ITF Taekwondo encyclopedia


----------



## Acronym (Dec 17, 2020)

Earl Weiss said:


> The 25 CM is specified for Bending Ready Stance Type B (Vol II Page 166).



Again, Jamseau does not accept the ITF as authority being that he is KKW affiliated so why write that?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> and im applying my comments to his kick and not back kicks in general
> 
> henc3 the need to know, exactly what your referibg to
> 
> ...


What I'm referring to was your comment about acceleration and velocity. As I said, it seemed confusing. If you didn't mean what I thought, then I'm not sure what your point is in continuing this.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2020)

Earl Weiss said:


> The 25 CM is specified for Bending Ready Stance Type B (Vol II Page 166).


Shouldn't that vary by body size?


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> What I'm referring to was your comment about acceleration and velocity. As I said, it seemed confusing. If you didn't mean what I thought, then I'm not sure what your point is in continuing this.


because longer acceleration time aveaged of a set distance,does not necessary mean a greater speed, between point a and point b,

it can, but it may not, its just wrong to assume it does, unless you can demonstaite its so

in the context of HIS kick o doubt it does, in fact i doubt that he was accelerating for cthe duration of  the turn, and as its his kick i was discussing, not back kicks in general, thats a valid point, i feel


----------



## Acronym (Dec 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> because longer acceleration time aveaged of a set distance,does not necessary mean a greater speed, between point a and point b,
> 
> it can, but it may not, its just wrong to assume it does, unless you can demonstaite its so
> 
> in the context of HIS kick o doubt it does, in fact i doubt that he was accelerating for cthe duration of  the turn, and as its his kick i was discussing, not back kicks in general, thats a valid point, i feel



Acceleration is what creates power and there is fantastic acceleration on my leg.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 17, 2020)

You see this all the time in boxing. Fighters look like they don't hit particularly hard but what they do is employ proper weight transfer and suddenly accelerate with a short hook and that's all it takes.

From the outside it doesn't look like a powerful enough punch to knock someone out, but the devil is in the details, namely acceleration.

The more mass something carries, the less room for acceleration is required.

This is why a lot of boxers throw haymakers, to get that extra travel time. It's harder to knock someone out with petite fists.


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Acceleration is what creates power and there is fantastic acceleration on my leg.


no it isnt, velocity creates kinetic energy

power is work done, divided by time, so that doesnt include acceleration either


----------



## Acronym (Dec 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> no it isnt, velocity creates kinetic energy
> 
> power is work done, divided by time, so that doesnt include acceleration either



A kick or punch travelling at a high but consistent speed rate will be less powerful than a slower kick or punch that accelerated substantially but had slower overall speed


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

Acronym said:


> A kick or punch travelling at a high but consistent speed rate will be less powerful than a slower kick or punch that accelerated substantially but had slower overall speed


you can say that, but its not what science says

they didnt just make these formulars up you know, they checked them and then used them to build the whole world


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 17, 2020)

Acronym said:


> A kick or punch travelling at a high but consistent speed rate will be less powerful than a slower kick or punch that accelerated substantially but had slower overall speed



Wrong. Force = Mass x Velocity. If your hand/foot is still accelerating at the point of impact, it will not have reached it's maximum force yet.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 17, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Wrong. Force = Mass x Velocity. If your hand/foot is still accelerating at the point of impact, it will not have reached it's maximum force yet.



I never said it would accelerate at the point of impact


----------



## Acronym (Dec 17, 2020)

This is all academic anyway because for all intents and purposes, all objects that exhibit speed also exhibit acceleration. You can't have one without the other.


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

Acronym said:


> This is all academic anyway because for all intents and purposes, all objects that exhibit speed also exhibit acceleration. You can't have one without the other.


what about the earth, that has speed with out acceleration


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> because longer acceleration time aveaged of a set distance,does not necessary mean a greater speed, between point a and point b,
> 
> it can, but it may not, its just wrong to assume it does, unless you can demonstaite its so
> 
> in the context of HIS kick o doubt it does, in fact i doubt that he was accelerating for cthe duration of  the turn, and as its his kick i was discussing, not back kicks in general, thats a valid point, i feel


If you have greater average acceleration and a longer time to accelerate, I can't think of a situation where that wouldn't result in higher velocity (speed).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> no it isnt, velocity creates kinetic energy
> 
> power is work done, divided by time, so that doesnt include acceleration either


The scientific term power isn't the same definition as is commonly used when discussing a punch's power.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2020)

Acronym said:


> A kick or punch travelling at a high but consistent speed rate will be less powerful than a slower kick or punch that accelerated substantially but had slower overall speed


That statement doesn't make sense to me. The velocity (both the magnitude and direction) at the moment of contact are what's important in the transfer of momentum and force of impact. How fast it was going a moment beforehand is immaterial. If you can get the same speed in two punches at the moment of impact, backed by the same amount of mass, it's unlikely to matter whether one accelerated gradually over the entire punch and the other put most of the acceleration at the end.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2020)

Acronym said:


> This is all academic anyway because for all intents and purposes, all objects that exhibit speed also exhibit acceleration. You can't have one without the other.


Not necessarily at the time of impact. The acceleration could come much earlier, leaving the object at a nominally constant speed.


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> If you have greater average acceleration and a longer time to accelerate, I can't think of a situation where that wouldn't result in higher velocity (speed).


lets simply the numbers by way of explination

in doing a kick, the distance your foot travels is three feett up and three feet out, in say half a second, in doing a spining kick, the distance your foot travels is 6foot round, 3 foot up and three feett out, in say a second,  so thats twice the distance in twice the time, so thats exactly the same speed, the extra acceleration time has given you no increase in speed, so no increase in kenetic energy, but it has taken twice as long leaving you more vulrable to a coubter attack

it may have given you more momentum, but its acceleration we are discusing


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> lets simply the numbers by way of explination
> 
> in doing a kick, the distance your foot travels is three feett up and three feet out, in say half a second, in doing a spining kick, the distance your foot travels is 6foot round, 3 foot up and three feett out, in say a second,  so thats twice the distance in twice the time, so thats exactly the same speed, the extra acceleration time has given you no increase in speed, so no increase in kenetic energy, but it has taken twice as long leaving you more vulrable to a coubter attack
> 
> it may have given you more momentum, but its acceleration we are discusing


You're talking about available time for acceleration, not more time under acceleration. Under that circumstance, you are correct.


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> You're talking about available time for acceleration, not more time under acceleration. Under that circumstance, you are correct.


there the same, if he accelerates, through the available time, thats more time under acxeleration, it still isnt any faster coz not only has the time ibcreased so has the distance it has to travel


----------



## Acronym (Dec 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> lets simply the numbers by way of explination
> 
> in doing a kick, the distance your foot travels is three feett up and three feet out, in say half a second, in doing a spining kick, the distance your foot travels is 6foot round, 3 foot up and three feett out, in say a second,  so thats twice the distance in twice the time, so thats exactly the same speed, the extra acceleration time has given you no increase in speed, so no increase in kenetic energy, but it has taken twice as long leaving you more vulrable to a coubter attack
> 
> it may have given you more momentum, but its acceleration we are discusing



But I told you that it does accelerate more from the push off and using my back to donkey kick it out


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 17, 2020)

Acronym said:


> I never said it would accelerate at the point of impact



Read it again. Work on comprehension skills.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 17, 2020)

Acronym said:


> He did not state ITF specifically and if he were to be completely open, he would say the ITF Taekwondo encyclopedia


 Well, maybe it's just me, but since it is an ITF GM doing the talking, and it says ITF on his leg, chest and belt along with the ITF crest on the belt, and since the tape specifies TK-D, and all his tapes use the technical specifications from the encyclopedia, I don't see the need for him to  say "the ITF Taekwondo encyclopedia[/"   (But of course GM Nardizzi would specify "Taekwon-Do". )


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 17, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Again, Jamseau does not accept the ITF as authority being that he is KKW affiliated so why write that?


Not really relevant what he accepts as "Authority" only that he accept in the context specified who the authority is just as I would accept KKW authority in KKW context.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 17, 2020)

Earl Weiss said:


> Not really relevant what he accepts as "Authority" only that he accept in the context specified who the authority is just as I would accept KKW authority in KKW context.



Well the hole point he made was that it's irrelevant what the specifications are since the context is not relevant for those in the KKW, and people who are learning Taekwondo and open this video will not know that the encyclopedia is ITF specific only, so the GM should make that clear by adding "ITF encyclopedia" . Otherwise he is purposely misleading the viewer to think that the encyclopedia parameters are universal to all of TKD.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 17, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Well the hole point he made was that it's irrelevant what the specifications are since the context is not relevant for those in the KKW, and people who are learning Taekwondo and open this video will not know that the encyclopedia is ITF specific only, so the GM should make that clear by adding "ITF encyclopedia" . Otherwise he is purposely misleading the viewer to think that the encyclopedia parameters are universal to all of TKD.


This is his disclaimer in his little blurb underneath the video "I recognise Grand Master General Choi Hong Hi as the true authority on Taekwon-Do. The information in my tutorial is based on my interpretation of Taekwon-Do as taught to me by the Founder General Choi Hong Hi and as referred to in his book ‘TAEKWON-DO’ (5th Edition 1999) Published by ITF and printed in Canada. Other Taekwon-Do Masters and Grand Masters may have a different interpretation of Taekwon-Do theory and practice, so if you are a Taekwon-Do student, it is important to check with your instructor if you are not sure about which interpretation you should be following."

It says right in there that it's ITF specific. He could I guess say it in the front of his video, but I can see how that would get annoying for him when he's made at least 47 other videos.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 17, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> This is his disclaimer in his little blurb underneath the video "I recognise Grand Master General Choi Hong Hi as the true authority on Taekwon-Do. The information in my tutorial is based on my interpretation of Taekwon-Do as taught to me by the Founder General Choi Hong Hi and as referred to in his book ‘TAEKWON-DO’ (5th Edition 1999) Published by ITF and printed in Canada. Other Taekwon-Do Masters and Grand Masters may have a different interpretation of Taekwon-Do theory and practice, so if you are a Taekwon-Do student, it is important to check with your instructor if you are not sure about which interpretation you should be following."
> 
> It says right in there that it's ITF specific. He could I guess say it in the front of his video, but I can see how that would get annoying for him when he's made at least 47 other videos.



Most people click on the video without reading the  disclaimer. I almost never read them.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 17, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure if it has more acceleration or not, but even if it had the same acceleration (I assume we're talking about average acceleration over the entire movement, to preclude the idea of the acceleration ceasing earlier), and was traveling a longer distance, then (assuming the same static start), it would have to have higher velocity, because it would be under acceleration longer. If it has more acceleration and a longer distance, it has to have a higher velocity at the end.


That is not entirely correct. Consider this:

Acceleration/Formula










 = average acceleration





 = final velocity





 = starting velocity





 = elapsed time

From the web
Acceleration (a) is the change in *velocity* (Δv) over the change in time (Δt), represented by the equation a = Δv/Δt. This allows you to measure how fast *velocity* changes in meters per second squared (m/s^2). Acceleration is also a vector quantity, so it includes both magnitude and direction.

So, δV is always going to be faster than v-sub, that is just physics.
But if a mass is always accelerating (which is not possible) the velocity is null, at any point on a line. This is the reason for the v-sub variable. Yea, it confuses me too but it is a constant.
The easier way for me to think about it is to say an object can neither instantly start moving at a velocity nor can it instantly stop. This is part of being the vector quantity mentioned.

In motion control we often have to calculate final velocity from a 'flying' start. When considering the final destination (if relevant) the vector quantity usually has a higher value than δt since mass is complex and time is constant. 

I think what you are saying is defined as ramp. The angle of acceleration. If you look at them on a plane you can much easier understand the difference between v and v-sub.

Hope this makes sense.

***Note: I can never get certain ASCII characters to work on this site.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 17, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Most people click on the video without reading the  disclaimer. I almost never read them.


Well I'd assume most people looking up TKD kick tutorials are aware there are multiple styles of TKD. When you realize it's not what you expect, and/or see that the gi/logos there aren't KKW (if you come from a KKW background-if you're ITF reverse all of this), you can figure out why. And the literal minimum amount of research would be to look at the blurb directly underneath the video-honestly if you're looking at a video for any sort of educational purpose and aren't familiar with the channel you should be doing that.

Either way, you're statement that I quoted "Otherwise he is purposely misleading the viewer to think that the encyclopedia parameters are universal to all of TKD." Is untrue since if it was purposeful misleading he wouldn't be putting in a disclaimer pointing it out.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 17, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Well I'd assume most people looking up TKD kick tutorials are aware there are multiple styles of TKD. When you realize it's not what you expect, and/or see that the gi/logos there aren't KKW (if you come from a KKW background-if you're ITF reverse all of this), you can figure out why. And the literal minimum amount of research would be to look at the blurb directly underneath the video-honestly if you're looking at a video for any sort of educational purpose and aren't familiar with the channel you should be doing that.
> 
> Either way, you're statement that I quoted "Otherwise he is purposely misleading the viewer to think that the encyclopedia parameters are universal to all of TKD." Is untrue since if it was purposeful misleading he wouldn't be putting in a disclaimer pointing it out.


Agree. This is still a big point of contention within TKD. I have been in several dojangs that truly thought they were teaching 'traditional' TKD when really all that was taught was one form set (Taegueks) and WT style sparring. 
To compound breaking down the kick in the video even more, it would certainly be slightly different from person to person within the same school/system. I would expect this to be true even with identical twins. 
This is part of my rub with trying to learn a MA from video. There are just way too many omisions.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 17, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Well I'd assume most people looking up TKD kick tutorials are aware there are multiple styles of TKD. When you realize it's not what you expect, and/or see that the gi/logos there aren't KKW (if you come from a KKW background-if you're ITF reverse all of this), you can figure out why. And the literal minimum amount of research would be to look at the blurb directly underneath the video-honestly if you're looking at a video for any sort of educational purpose and aren't familiar with the channel you should be doing that.
> 
> Either way, you're statement that I quoted "Otherwise he is purposely misleading the viewer to think that the encyclopedia parameters are universal to all of TKD." Is untrue since if it was purposeful misleading he wouldn't be putting in a disclaimer pointing it out.



Yes but it is unhelpful. Just say ITF encyclopedia and they would understand that it applies only to the ITF.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 17, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Well I'd assume most people looking up TKD kick tutorials are aware there are multiple styles of TKD. .



They would not neccesarily know that the techniques are different though. Just as you wouldn't neccesarily know that the techniques of Shotokan and Kyokushin are different. You could might as well think it's only the sports of the arts that differ


----------



## Acronym (Dec 17, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Agree. This is still a big point of contention within TKD. I have been in several dojangs that truly thought they were teaching 'traditional' TKD when really all that was taught was one form set (Taegueks) and WT style sparring.
> To compound breaking down the kick in the video even more, it would certainly be slightly different from person to person within the same school/system. I would expect this to be true even with identical twins.
> This is part of my rub with trying to learn a MA from video. There are just way too many omisions.



There is no meaning saying traditional Taekwondo when several kwans existed simultaneously. The taeguk forms are obviously not one of the original ones but the term traditional Taekwondo is meaningless since several branches existed at the same time originally


----------



## Jaeimseu (Dec 17, 2020)

To be clear, it doesn’t matter to me what style Taekwondo the instructor is from. It was clear from the video at least to me that the instructor was talking about ITF Taekwondo and the ITF encyclopedia. I simply find it needless to concern myself with details that have little to no bearing on the technique. I’d have the same opinion if a Kukkiwon instructor did that. 

I don’t remember ever doing a back kick when I learned ITF forms, so where does bent knee ready stance come into play? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Acronym (Dec 17, 2020)

Jaeimseu said:


> I don’t remember ever doing a back kick when I learned ITF forms, so where does bent knee ready stance come into play?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Huh? There are several ITF forms with a back kick. First one is Chong Moo.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 17, 2020)

Here is with bent ready stance


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 17, 2020)

Acronym said:


> There is no meaning saying traditional Taekwondo when several kwans existed simultaneously. The taeguk forms are obviously not one of the original ones but the term traditional Taekwondo is meaningless since several branches existed at the same time originally


I cannot agree with that. If I were forced to set a dividing line to designate traditional, it would be at the peak of the Kwan era. That each Kwan did their own thing to a degree is irrelevant since they were all still under the banner of TKD.

I has always spoke volumes to me that the Masters of that time were able to see the bigger picture, swallow their pride and unify.
It did not really get sideways until the 2nd generation of KKW/WT leadership. That is when the traditional was lost. It is apparent you have been fed the same Kool-aid.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Dec 17, 2020)

Acronym said:


> [QUOTE="Jaeimseu, post: 2022321, member: 25949"
> I don’t remember ever doing a back kick when I learned ITF forms, so where does bent knee ready stance come into play?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Huh? There are several ITF forms with a back kick. First one is Chong Moo.[/QUOTE]

I didn’t learn any ITF forms with back kick. I wasn’t in the ITF, though, so I’m sure I didn’t learn ITF standard. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 17, 2020)

Acronym said:


> They would not neccesarily know that the techniques are different though. Just as you wouldn't neccesarily know that the techniques of Shotokan and Kyokushin are different. You could might as well think it's only the sports of the arts that differ


Then specifying it as ITF instead of KKW wouldn't matter. It's really only you that is having this issue-most people aren't learning from youtube, or if they are, know what style the instructor is teaching when he puts it in the description of each video.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 17, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Then specifying it as ITF instead of KKW wouldn't matter. It's really only you that is having this issue-most people aren't learning from youtube, or if they are, know what style the instructor is teaching when he puts it in the description of each video.



These days a lot of people are learning from youtube and preparing for tests.. It would make a difference since the viewer would learn that it's not the encyclopedia period, but instead for a specific style. And from a principled standpoint, it's silly to refer to an encyclopedia for a style of TaeKwondo which is very obscure compared to the Olympic one, without making it clear it's only for a particular style. WT TaeKwondo outnumbers ITF by such a big number that I can't even quantify it.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 17, 2020)

Acronym said:


> These days a lot of people are learning from youtube and preparing for tests.. It would make a difference since the viewer would learn that it's not the encyclopedia period, but instead for a specific style. And from a principled standpoint, it's silly to refer to an encyclopedia for a style of TaeKwondo which is very obscure compared to the Olympic one, without making it clear it's only for a particular style. WT TaeKwondo outnumbers ITF by such a big number that I can't even quantify it.


Again though, he specifies it in the paragraph right below, and is in full ITF gear/logo on the wall. If someone is trying to study a kick for a test, chooses a random youtube video, doesn't notice that the gi/logo is different than their style, doesn't read the description of the random youtube video, and doesn't notice that the kick is different than what they learned, that's on them. Literally all the clues are there. No deceit is going on. I don't understand why you have such an issue with this.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 17, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Again though, he specifies it in the paragraph right below, and is in full ITF gear/logo on the wall. If someone is trying to study a kick for a test, chooses a random youtube video, doesn't notice that the gi/logo is different than their style, doesn't read the description of the random youtube video, and doesn't notice that the kick is different than what they learned, that's on them. Literally all the clues are there. No deceit is going on. I don't understand why you have such an issue with this.



Again, nobody reads disclaimers for Youtube clips, and believe it or not, many people don't know which style they train..

But anyway my objection is principled.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 17, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Again, nobody reads disclaimers for Youtube clips, and believe it or not, many people don't know which style they train..
> 
> But anyway my objection is principled.


Um, yes they do. 
You leave me with the impression that you truly believe learning from Youtube is the bastion of academics. It can be a useful tool but I would day it can do as much damage as good if a person is not careful.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 17, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Again, nobody reads disclaimers for Youtube clips, and believe it or not, many people don't know which style they train..
> 
> But anyway my objection is principled.


Yes people do and yes people do. If people learn bad info from youtube because they don't bother to see what they're learning that's on them. If people are looking online for information on their style without knowing what their style is, that's also on them. It's not everyone  else's job to cater to the lazy/purposefully ignorant.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 18, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Yes people do and yes people do. If people learn bad info from youtube because they don't bother to see what they're learning that's on them. If people are looking online for information on their style without knowing what their style is, that's also on them. It's not everyone  else's job to cater to the lazy/purposefully ignorant.



Regardless of if they do or not, referencing the encyclopedia without adding the term ITF is ridiculous. That's as if i referenced to a hypothetical Boxing Encyclopedia of techniques, when it only concerned bare knuckle boxing, a minor sport compared to gloved boxing.


----------



## jobo (Dec 18, 2020)

Acronym said:


> These days a lot of people are learning from youtube and preparing for tests.. It would make a difference since the viewer would learn that it's not the encyclopedia period, but instead for a specific style. And from a principled standpoint, it's silly to refer to an encyclopedia for a style of TaeKwondo which is very obscure compared to the Olympic one, without making it clear it's only for a particular style. WT TaeKwondo outnumbers ITF by such a big number that I can't even quantify it.


if your using you tube as a learning siurce for anything, you need to vet the source and be aware

that you tube is an income stream and there a bias toeards telling people, what they want to hear to get views

and anybody can start a you tube channel and call themselves an exspert

if your goibg down that route you need to view multiple videos, to get a selection of views and then make a decision with which is the best source to go with

you may then turn to them again, next time as the validation process has been completed.

its much the same as tsking legal advice of some random bloke you met in a pub,  its rather more your fault than his if it goes badly wrong


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 18, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Regardless of if they do or not, referencing the encyclopedia without adding the term ITF is ridiculous. That's as if i referenced to a hypothetical Boxing Encyclopedia of techniques, when it only concerned bare knuckle boxing, a minor sport compared to gloved boxing.


I don't get how you don't understand this. It's not ridiculosu as a he literally cites the book. He's basically included a reference with a footnote, like all of academia expects. I think at this point the arguments not worth continuing though as we're just going around in circles.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 18, 2020)

Acronym said:


> ................................nd people who are learning Taekwondo and open this video will not know that the encyclopedia is ITF specific only, so the GM should make that clear by adding "ITF encyclopedia" . Otherwise he is purposely misleading the viewer to think that the encyclopedia parameters are universal to all of TKD.


I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that videos need to address that level of naivete i.e. that a non ITF person would somehow think anyone is claiming there is a universally accepted standard for TK-D , TKD, or T K D techniques and thereby be mislead, intentionally or otherwise.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 18, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Regardless of if they do or not, referencing the encyclopedia without adding the term ITF is ridiculous. That's as if i referenced to a hypothetical Boxing Encyclopedia of techniques, when it only concerned bare knuckle boxing, a minor sport compared to gloved boxing.


Just curious, are you aware of Any other TKD encyclopedias that exist? 
There is something called 'implied knowledge' which would do you good to learn about.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> there the same, if he accelerates, through the available time, thats more time under acxeleration, it still isnt any faster coz not only has the time ibcreased so has the distance it has to travel


More time under acceleration is not the same time as more time available for acceleration. And if you think keeping constant acceleration longer doesn't increase final velocity, I suggest you consider whether it hurts more to fall from one foot or one hundred. The distance and time increase in the second scenario...and so does the velocity.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Most people click on the video without reading the  disclaimer. I almost never read them.


It's not the creator's fault if you don't read the sign.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> That is not entirely correct. Consider this:
> 
> Acceleration/Formula
> 
> ...


Did I miss the part of your post that said that something under acceleration for a longer period wouldn't have a higher final velocity as a result?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Yes but it is unhelpful. Just say ITF encyclopedia and they would understand that it applies only to the ITF.


You really can't be bothered to take any responsibility, can you?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2020)

Acronym said:


> They would not neccesarily know that the techniques are different though. Just as you wouldn't neccesarily know that the techniques of Shotokan and Kyokushin are different. You could might as well think it's only the sports of the arts that differ


No, they wouldn't. And then it wouldn't matter if they knew it was a different organization, either. So what's your point?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Again, nobody reads disclaimers for Youtube clips, and believe it or not, many people don't know which style they train..
> 
> But anyway my objection is principled.


And then no level of disclosure would help them. Your objection is ridiculous, not principled.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 18, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Just curious, are you aware of Any other TKD encyclopedias that exist?
> There is something called 'implied knowledge' which would do you good to learn about.



Explain to me how anyone would know a priori that there only exists one encyclopedia and that it has no bearing on Kukkiwon Taekwondo


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Explain to me how anyone would know a priori that there only exists one encyclopedia and that it has no bearing on Kukkiwon Taekwondo


I don't accept your assertion that it "has no bearing on Kukkiwon Taekwondo". It's the same art, in a related association. It may not be pertinent to testing for KKW rank, but it's still useful information for those who want to explore.


----------



## jobo (Dec 18, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> More time under acceleration is not the same time as more time available for acceleration. And if you think keeping constant acceleration longer doesn't increase final velocity, I suggest you consider whether it hurts more to fall from one foot or one hundred. The distance and time increase in the second scenario...and so does the velocity.


falling a 100ft probebly doesnt hurt at all, youl likely be dead faster than your nervious system can react

second your premise is flawed, an object in free fall doesnt accelerate, constantly or beyobd a certain point at all, that nomilarly about three seconds for a human  to reach terminal velocity,, you have most certianly started to decelerate before you hit the floor


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> falling a 100ft probebly doesnt hurt at all, youl likely be dead faster than your nervious system can react
> 
> second your premise is flawed, an object in free fall doesnt accelerate, constantly or beyobd a certain point at all, that nomilarly about three seconds for a human  to reach terminal velocity,, you have most certianly started to decelerate before you hit the floor


Um, no, you won't decelerate when falling. You will eventually reach "terminal velocity", at which point you cease to accelerate. That won't happen within 1 foot, so isn't relevant to the difference in final velocity between the two.


----------



## jobo (Dec 18, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Um, no, you won't decelerate when falling. You will eventually reach "terminal velocity", at which point you cease to accelerate. That won't happen within 1 foot, so isn't relevant to the difference in final velocity between the two.


no you decelerate progresivly first and then stop acceleraring at all, other wise you would clearly go from 10ms/s to zero ms/ s in one go, which is clearly silly, it would do more damage to you than hittibg the floor, well maybe not quite as much, more like sprinting into a wall,but even so that deceleration in its own right


----------



## Acronym (Dec 18, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> And then no level of disclosure would help them. Your objection is ridiculous, not principled.



Saying ITF encyclopedia is far less inclusive than TaeKwonDo encyclopedia. It is the encyclopedia of an affiliation that accounts for somewhere around 10-15% of all TKD schools in the world, and I might be generous with those figures. Their world competitions have no international broadcasting, the talent pool is weak, and public awareness of the style is non existent.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> no you decelerate first and then stop acceleraring at all, other wise you would clearly go from 10ms/s to zero ms/ s in one go, which is clearly silly


Decelerating is when you slow down in speed. What you're talking about is a slow down in the rate of acceleration, which is called negative acceleration (the speed is still increase, the rate of its increase is just slower). This does happen before terminal velocity is reached, but deceleration doesn't. Decelerate is one of those words that is commonly used wrong so people don't always realize what it means.

Unless you mean once you finish falling/hit something, at which point if you go to small enough units of time you'll see some deceleration, but for practical purposes you stop all at once.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 18, 2020)

Would I be wrong based on Jobos understanding of physics that he learned Elvis Karate?


----------



## wab25 (Dec 18, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Again, nobody reads disclaimers for Youtube clips, and believe it or not, many people don't know which style they train..
> 
> But anyway my objection is principled.


So lets apply the principle...

In the OP video, the guy doing the kick did not tell me whether he was doing an ITF or KKW kick. In fact, he didn't even say it was a TKD kick... for all I know he could be doing a Kenkojuku Shotokan kick... Then you asked if it was a side kick, back kick or hybrid... How can anyone know, without knowing the art, the organization, the kwon, the lineage, the school and head instructor...

Maybe we should rip on the guy who made the video in the OP... people might look at that, while trying to train from videos, and since they don't know what style they train, and that guy never said what style he was kicking in... imagine the damage and bad habits these people will form by watching it... if only the guy kicking had announced his art, affiliation, school and lineage first...


----------



## jobo (Dec 18, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Decelerating is when you slow down in speed. What you're talking about is a slow down in the rate of acceleration, which is called negative acceleration (the speed is still increase, the rate of its increase is just slower). This does happen before terminal velocity is reached, but deceleration doesn't. Decelerate is one of those words that is commonly used wrong so people don't always realize what it means.
> 
> Unless you mean once you finish falling/hit something, at which point if you go to small enough units of time you'll see some deceleration, but for practical purposes you stop all at once.


well people do use it incorrectly,  unfortunely your one of them

deceleration is said to occure when velocity and acceleration and in different directions, ie one is postertive and one negative.

the scenrio you give is, one way round, however  negative acceleration and posertive velocity, the case im giving  also counts as deceleration


----------



## Acronym (Dec 18, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Decelerating is when you slow down in speed. What you're talking about is a slow down in the rate of acceleration, which is called negative acceleration (the speed is still increase, the rate of its increase is just slower). This does happen before terminal velocity is reached, but deceleration doesn't. Decelerate is one of those words that is commonly used wrong so people don't always realize what it means.
> 
> Unless you mean once you finish falling/hit something, at which point if you go to small enough units of time you'll see some deceleration, but for practical purposes you stop all at once.





jobo said:


> well people do use it incorrectly,  unfortunely your one of them
> 
> deceleration is said to occure when velocity and acceleration and in different directions, ie one is postertive and one negative.
> 
> the scenrio you give is, one way round, however  negative acceleration and posertive velocity, the case im giving  also counts as deceleration



Popcorn*


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> well people do use it incorrectly,  unfortunely your one of them
> 
> deceleration is said to occure when velocity and acceleration and in different directions, ie one is postertive and one negative.
> 
> the scenrio you give is, one way round, however  negative acceleration and posertive velocity, the case im giving  also counts as deceleration


While I'm about 99% sure you're wrong, will doublecheck when i get home from work to make sure before arguing.


----------



## jobo (Dec 18, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> While I'm about 99% sure you're wrong, will doublecheck when i get home from work to make sure before arguing.


here you go, save you the bother, i have a habbit of checking thibgs before i post, which seems to give me an unfair advantage

What Is Deceleration?


----------



## Acronym (Dec 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> here you go, save you the bother, i have a habbit of checking thibgs before i post, which seems to give me an unfair advantage
> 
> What Is Deceleration?



But you can't bother to check your spelling?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> here you go, save you the bother, i have a habbit of checking thibgs before i post, which seems to give me an unfair advantage
> 
> What Is Deceleration?


I did too and found different results. Want to double check those. Will reply later tonight.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 18, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I did too and found different results. Want to double check those. Will reply later tonight.



My money is on you. Maybe it's the clown avatar and third grade spelling. I don't know.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Saying ITF encyclopedia is far less inclusive than TaeKwonDo encyclopedia. It is the encyclopedia of an affiliation that accounts for somewhere around 10-15% of all TKD schools in the world, and I might be generous with those figures. Their world competitions have no international broadcasting, the talent pool is weak, and public awareness of the style is non existent.


And?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> well people do use it incorrectly,  unfortunely your one of them
> 
> deceleration is said to occure when velocity and acceleration and in different directions, ie one is postertive and one negative.
> 
> the scenrio you give is, one way round, however  negative acceleration and posertive velocity, the case im giving  also counts as deceleration


You are hilarious.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2020)

Acronym said:


> My money is on you. Maybe it's the clown avatar and third grade spelling. I don't know.


That and his frequent self-contradiction.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> here you go, save you the bother, i have a habbit of checking thibgs before i post, which seems to give me an unfair advantage
> 
> What Is Deceleration?


I don’t think that says what you think it says.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> falling a 100ft probebly doesnt hurt at all, youl likely be dead faster than your nervious system can react
> 
> second your premise is flawed, an object in free fall doesnt accelerate, constantly or beyobd a certain point at all, that nomilarly about three seconds for a human  to reach terminal velocity,, you have most certianly started to decelerate before you hit the floor


It takes closer to 12 seconds to reach terminal velocity. I am not certain what you would call a body hitting the floor but it would decelerate really really steep.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 18, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Did I miss the part of your post that said that something under acceleration for a longer period wouldn't have a higher final velocity as a result?


It would be determined by the vsub/time. The smaller the vsub the longer the time it would take to reach delta V. 
Simpler said, the smaller the input the longer the time required.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 19, 2020)

Jaeimseu said:


> To be clear, it doesn’t matter to me what style Taekwondo the instructor is from. It was clear from the video at least to me that the instructor was talking about ITF Taekwondo and the ITF encyclopedia. I simply find it needless to concern myself with details that have little to no bearing on the technique. I’d have the same opinion if a Kukkiwon instructor did that.
> 
> I don’t remember ever doing a back kick when I learned ITF forms, so where does bent knee ready stance come into play?
> 
> ...



There are 2 "Bending Ready Stances"  "A" and "B"  he shows this in the Video. A is for the Side Piercing Kick and B is for the Back Piercing Kick.   A first appears in Won Hyo.  B first appears in appears in Ko Dang and Ju Che.  (With Ju Che having replaced Ju Che in .some official ITF curriculums but still done by some.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 19, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> It's not the creator's fault if you don't read the sign.


  I have a business with signs.  Sometimes I think I need a sign that says "Read the Signs".


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I don’t think that says what you think it says.


well im working from memory,  im reasonaly certain thats what negative acceleration and posative velocity meant in 1981, when i was concerning myself with such things,

perhaps youd like to proffer an alternative explination of the term s and there interrelationship, rather than just snipe


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 19, 2020)

Acronym said:


> I posted it with the label *spinning back kick* on another forum
> 
> First reply: "indeed it is", from a Karate expert.
> 
> This is starting to look controversial



From a karate point of view, indeed it's not. A back kick, as someone has already said would have the knee facing down and the foot wouldn't be 'on it's side' as in a side kick'.

I wouldn't say it's controversial always interesting how different styles see things though. Not sure why a karate definition would be useful on a TKD post though.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 19, 2020)

Deceleration Formula


Deceleration is the opposite of acceleration. It is the rate at which an object slows down. Deceleration is the final velocity minus the initial velocity, with a negative sign in the result because the velocity is dropping. The formula for acceleration can be used, recognizing that the final result must have a negative sign.

deceleration = (final velocity - initial velocity) / time


If you have initial velocity, final velocity, and distance traveled:

deceleration = final velocity² - initial velocity² / distance²


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

its very easy, particularly if your not kicking people very often or at all, to get abstracted from the purpise of a kick into the form of the kick, with out necessarily  considering it purpose as prime.

and 5hats the way this is going.

the purpose of a kick is first to make contact, if that dorsnt happen any thing else is irelivant , and then to hurt them or at least cause enough worry about hurt to distract them whilst you do something else

the problem with spin kicks in general and this one in particular, is the extra movement substanialy reduces the likelyhood of making contract whilst not giving much if any extra umph and extra umph is no use if you dont make contqct.

so the whole question of is this a good spin kick need to be considered against,  why are you doing a spin kick at all

if as seems likely its because of deficiences in his side kick or is it a back kick ? then thats the anwer right there,

now my hip issues means there, are some kicks i cant do, either at all or at least with any thing like good form enough to hurt , so i dont, they are dangerous to me
and other kicks that i do that arnt at all in the karate manual, that i do, just and only because they fit the criteria above

this had lead to some intresting chats with my instructor and other senior students about if they are really poor form karate or not karate at all, i care little, do they hit and do they hurt, yes, they will do for me


----------



## Acronym (Dec 19, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> From a karate point of view, indeed it's not.



He is a Karateka who thought that it was a back kick, probably because my back is turned to the target


----------



## Acronym (Dec 19, 2020)

[


Earl Weiss said:


> I have a business with signs.  Sometimes I think I need a sign that says "Read the Signs".



I am stating what "is", not what ought to be.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 19, 2020)

@jobo
From a lumen learning course


> Deceleration always refers to acceleration in the direction opposite to the direction of the velocity. Deceleration always reduces speed.


This is the one I had read earlier, and had misinterpreted. Seems like you're right-deceleration does not require velocity to start going into the negative direction, just speed. So falling, and decreasing the rate of your velocity increase in the fall, is considered deceleration. I did see, though, in a couple of the sites I went to, that they state this is the scientific definition of the word, and in general vernacular decelerate refers to a decrease in velocity as well. 

But I'm pretty sure you guys were talking about physics before I jumped in.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> It would be determined by the vsub/time. The smaller the vsub the longer the time it would take to reach delta V.
> Simpler said, the smaller the input the longer the time required.


Okay. But that doesn't seem to change my conclusion. If two bodies starting from the same situation experience the same acceleration, and one of them is under that acceleration longer, it will be going faster.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 19, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> @jobo
> From a lumen learning course



Who was right?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> well im working from memory,  im reasonaly certain thats what negative acceleration and posative velocity meant in 1981, when i was concerning myself with such things,
> 
> perhaps youd like to proffer an alternative explination of the term s and there interrelationship, rather than just snipe


Pretty sure it still doesn't say what you think it says.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2020)

Acronym said:


> [
> 
> 
> I am stating what "is", not what ought to be.


No, you're pretty much stating your own view of non-responsibility.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 19, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Pretty sure it still doesn't say what you think it says.



Can everybody stop being pretty and actually refute the bastard?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 19, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Who was right?


That post sent before I finished writing for some reason, I think I hit post instead of the text box. Go back and read it again-jobo was right. It comes down to a difference in scientific vs. regular vernacular, for both the word deceleration, and the word speed.


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Who was right?


me,


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> That post sent before I finished writing for some reason, I think I hit post instead of the text box. Go back and read it again-jobo was right.


thanks, iim not sure abybody has ever said that on here before, thanks for takibg the time


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Can everybody stop being pretty and actually refute the bastard?


Not necessary to refute a claim when the evidence he provided does that for me.

And I'll never stop being pretty.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> thanks, iim not sure abybody has ever said that on here before, thanks for takibg the time



Answer this bobo; Why are back kicks considered more powerful than side kicks? You may find the answer in the words used..


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> thanks, iim not sure abybody has ever said that on here before, thanks for takibg the time


To be fair, I don't think most people admit they're wrong to anyone on here. Just figure out a way to change the argument to something else when they realize it.


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Not necessary to refute a claim when the evidence he provided does that for me.
> 
> And I'll never stop being pretty.


have you bother to read your fellow mmoderaters post where he has agreed with me and posted considerable evidence to that effect? thought not!


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Answer this bobo; Why are back kicks considered more powerful than side kicks? You may find the answer in the words used..


i answer that in one of the many factual posts youve ignored, its  practically a back stamp, that uses the glutes( and the quads) far more efficiently,


----------



## Acronym (Dec 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> i answer that in one of the many factual posts youve ignored, its  practically a back stamp, that uses the glutes( and the quads) far more efficiently,



Which happens regardless of whether I spin or simply turn my back


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Which happens regardless of whether I spin or simply turn my back


as ive said several times, the amount of extra energy from a spin is a low % of the total, as your changing vector,( direction) .

thats if it adds any at all, which is down to technique, ie acceleratibg through the spin  rather than just spinning quickly

the more energy the kick has naturally , the less you gain in % terms from the spin  kick
so your left with somethibg that doesbt add a great deal, but adds a lot of time and if you cant land it as he has moved, then there is no benifit, even a tiny one in doing it at all


----------



## Acronym (Dec 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> as ive said several times, the amount of extra energy from a spin is a low % of the total, as your changing vector,( direction) .
> 
> thats if it adds any at all, which is down to technique, ie acceleratibg through the spin  rather than just spinning quickly
> 
> ...



 I just said *regardless* of whether I spin or not. I can't start from a position with my back towards the opponent. That would make no sense.


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

Acronym said:


> I just said *regardless* of whether I spin or not. I can't start from a position with my back towards the opponent. That would make no sense.


well you can if he is behibd you which happens quite a lot in real world fights, and hardly at all in sparring

 other wise you have to turn to do a back kick, but thats a normal back kick, a spinning back kick is where you add extra spin. hence why they call it that

if your asking  does the half turn make it mire enetgetic, then the same answer applies,  maybe, a bit or maybe not


----------



## Acronym (Dec 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> well you can if he is behibd you which happens quite a lot in real world fights, and hardly at all in sparring
> 
> other wise you have to turn to do a back kick, but thats a normal back kick, a spinning back kick is where you add extra spin. hence why they call it that



Then you agree that it is a back kick and not a side kick since I'm hardly spinning but I do turn around. Good. You refuted yourself.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 19, 2020)

Acronym said:


> He is a Karateka who thought that it was a back kick, probably because my back is turned to the target




I'm a karateka who thinks it's not a back kick because of the position of the leg and foot, the back will turn to the target in a number of spinning kicks, the act of spinning means your back _will_ be to the target at some point hence the gentlemen arguing over the speed etc.
I don't know if that's a back kick in any other style, I'll stick to my 40 years experience in karate.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> if your asking  does the half turn make it mire enetgetic, then the same answer applies,  maybe, a bit or maybe not



The half turn doesn't but the technique does, and the technique is usually drilled turning around rather than already standing with the back to the target


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Then you agree that it is a back kick and not a side kick since I'm hardly spinning but I do turn around. Good. You refuted yourself.


ive been undecided and said so, its either a spinning side kick or a very badly done spinning back kick, the lack of kicking backwards being the main issue


----------



## Acronym (Dec 19, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> I'm a karateka who thinks it's not a back kick because of the position of the leg and foot, the back will turn to the target in a number of spinning kicks, the act of spinning means your back _will_ be to the target at some point hence the gentlemen arguing over the speed etc.
> I don't know if that's a back kick in any other style, I'll stick to my 40 years experience in karate.



Using your back as a main resource for a side kick means you aren't doing it right. That's why it's either a back kick or a hybrid in my book.


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

Acronym said:


> The half turn doesn't but the technique does, and the technique is usually drilled turning around rather than already standing with the back to the target


well that depends on the context of the dojo, for sports application particularly tkd sports, you almost never going to get someone attacking from behind, from an sd concept they its fairly likely  so should be drilled


----------



## Acronym (Dec 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> ive been undecided and said so, its either a spinning side kick or a very badly done spinning back kick, the lack of kicking backwards being the main issue



I am kicking backwards enough for it to be a back recruiting technique


----------



## Acronym (Dec 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> well that depends on the context of the dojo, for sports application particularly tkd sports, you almost never going to get someone attacking from behind, from an sd concept they its fairly likely  so should be drilled



If I simply wrote back kick, I would start with my back towards the target. The english term we use in TKD is spinning back kick or side kick whenever there is a turn.


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

Acronym said:


> I am kicking backwards enough for it to be a back recruiting technique


stand a couple of feet from a wall behibd you and kick it, youl notice your knee is facibg downwards, that is a back kick,


----------



## Acronym (Dec 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> stand a couple of feet from a wall behibd you and kick it, youl notice your knee is facibg downwards, that is a back kick,



 I'm saying it's more a back kick than a side kick 

Your point about the turn not generating power is mute since this is how the technique is drilled in live action and the turn does give a certain momentum that I don't have in a static position pushing it out.


----------



## Acronym (Dec 19, 2020)

I generate considerable amount of pull from the twisting  and pushing off that I don't have if I just stand in the position.. I think we've been through this..


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 19, 2020)

Acronym said:


> If I simply wrote back kick, I would start with my back towards the target. The english term we use in TKD is spinning back kick or side kick whenever there is a turn.



Ah, now in karate we start facing the target (fairly obvious not sure why you'd have your back to the target) and we turn to kick, you can jump as well if you wish. I've no idea what you mean about using your back as a resource? Not what you mean about not doing sidekicks correctly either.  I am confident I do all the kicks correctly

Instead of looking at how you are doing the kick to decide what it is you should be asking 'what is it for'? Ushiro Geri is translated as 'back kick ' but what it means is that it's a kick you use to kick someone behind you. I've said we turn to kick which is usual but we don't have to, the kick can be done as a straight kick to a target behind you. Slightly different technique but still to kick someone directly behind you. What is your kick for, that usually decided what it is.


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

Acronym said:


> I'm saying it's more a back kick than a side kick
> 
> Your point about the turn not generating power is mute since this is how the technique is drilled in live action and the turn does give a certain momentum that I don't have in a static position pushing it out.


but we are not comparing apples and apples,

sort your back kick out so it looks like a back kick, then practice it to increase power, , with out any twists or embelishments it should produce more energy than the present example,, then if you think it helps introduce twist spin or flowers carved out of vegtables what ever you want,

your then embelishing a sound technique rather than trying to make up for poor technque by adding spin


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> stand a couple of feet from a wall behibd you and kick it, youl notice your knee is facibg downwards, that is a back kick,


It depends on whether you intend to turn round and follow with a punch after your kick or not. A knee side way back kick can help your body to turn easily than a knee down back kick. A knee down back kick can slow down your body tuning.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 19, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It depends on whether you intend to turn round and follow with a punch after your kick or not. A knee side way back kick can help your body to turn easily than a knee down back kick. A knee down back kick can slow down your body tuning.



Sure. But once the knee turns sideways it's a sidekick, not a back kick.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 19, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Sure. But once the knee turns sideways it's a sidekick, not a back kick.


By using your definition, this can be called as back kick too.

IMO, if you kick back and then turn, that's back kick. If you turn and then kick, that's side kick. But if you turn and kick at the same time, it's hard to call whether that's a back kick, or a side kick.


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It depends on whether you intend to turn round and follow with a punch after your kick or not. A knee side way back kick can help your body to turn easily than a knee down back kick. A knee down back kick can slow down your body tuning.


maybe, but your giving up power for mobility , which may be a trade off worth making, but thats not why he is doing


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 19, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> By using your definition, this can be called as back kick too.
> 
> IMO, if you kick back and then turn, that's back kick. If you turn and then kick, that's side kick. But if you turn and kick at the same time, it's hard to call whether that's a back kick, or a side kick.



I wouldn't call it a kick at all, in the sense of it being useful for fighting. Would have some benefit as a stretching tool, but not really something you would ever do in sparring or fighting.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> but we are not comparing apples and apples,
> 
> sort your back kick out so it looks like a back kick, then practice it to increase power, , with out any twists or embelishments it should produce more energy than the present example,, then if you think it helps introduce twist spin or flowers carved out of vegtables what ever you want,
> 
> your then embelishing a sound technique rather than trying to make up for poor technque by adding spin



That would be two different techniques though? 

I mean if you are using a spin to generate power that is fine in a spinning technique.

That is the point.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 19, 2020)

The thing is a technique is supposed to have a purpose. 

So with say a front kick. I might snap it out or push it out or I jab with the ball or the heel. Sometimes I will kink it to the wrong side of the body, sometimes I throw a toesy round kick sometimes I do this gumby looking round kick to front kick thing. 

And it all depends on the opening I am trying to create and what I am trying to hit. 

And nothing to do with satisfying some sort of label I have given the technique. 

So if a spinning back kick gets a bit of sideways knee. But can be justified by resisted testing. Then that can be your spinning back kick. 

I don't understand how an image debate trumps a substance debate.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 19, 2020)

To an extent the discussion seems to be akin to debating how many Angels can fit on the head of a Pin.   What has not been addressed so far is perhaps the "Why" . but first we need to define terms. Before an intelligent discussion can be had people first need to agree on how terms are defined.
  There are no universally accepted definitions  as to what constitutes a side kick versus a back kick or delineates one from the other. Perhaps a starting point would be that if your hips are equidistant from the target behind you this is a back kick. If the hips are rotated 90  degree so one is as close as possible to the target and the other as far as possible  so you are facing sideways, this is a side kick.  Now, we can argue (or not) about at what degree of rotation does one become the other, 1 Degree... 11 Degrees etc.    Now with that long intro and naturally falling upon some Chang Hon distinctions the primary application for the side kick is against an opponent to the side and the Back Kick is for an opponent to the rear. all of which is variable by re orienting your body to the opponent to do the kick. BUT we need to keep in mind, unlike sport applications TMA   has a goal of also preparing for the possibility of Multiple opponents anywhere around you, and the body orientation of the Back Kick allows a person to also maintain a focus on an opponent placed in the opposite direction.  This type of scenario - technique after a back kick to someone 180 degrees from the kick target is found in the Chang Hon Patterns.  (I will let others speak to other system. )


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> its very easy, particularly if your not kicking people very often or at all, to get abstracted from the purpise of a kick into the form of the kick, with out necessarily  considering it purpose as prime.
> 
> and 5hats the way this is going.
> 
> ...



For various justifiable reasons, by your own admission you have greatly reduced to selection of kicks available to you. Which is fine and done by everyone for one reason or another. 
But to then arbitrarily bash a kick because it doesn't work well for You it not good. Take the spinning kick in the OP.

If the average person practiced that kick as often as they practiced say a generic front kick it would at the very least be useful.

To drill down a litter further; a person who began training in their earlier years who practiced the same kick with frequency will have made it a very effective kick.

Drill down further still and you can see that competitive and elite fighters use this kick often Because of it's effectiveness. It is a recorded fact that many people can throw a spinning side faster than most people can throw a front kick. The rotational velocity greatly increases speed and power. 
A lot of the refinement is in the spatial alignment. It simply takes some people more time to get comfortable with the spinning motion than others. Some people never really get comfortable with it. 
Add to this the sheer number of variations in just the kick shown in the OP and it has great value in almost every situation. 

Now, it a person never practices the kick or for whatever reason (other than laziness) cannot perform the kick well then by all means it does not need to be in their tool bag if/when they really need a good kick.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 20, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Okay. But that doesn't seem to change my conclusion. If two bodies starting from the same situation experience the same acceleration, and one of them is under that acceleration longer, it will be going faster.


That would be correct. But I am not certain you originally made the comparison of two entities under identical conditions except accel time.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> If I simply wrote back kick, I would start with my back towards the target. The english term we use in TKD is spinning back kick or side kick whenever there is a turn.


???What???


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> maybe, but your giving up power for mobility , which may be a trade off worth making, but thats not why he is doing


Not necessarily. That is where the practice comes into play.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 20, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> By using your definition, this can be called as back kick too.
> 
> IMO, if you kick back and then turn, that's back kick. If you turn and then kick, that's side kick. But if you turn and kick at the same time, it's hard to call whether that's a back kick, or a side kick.


I am not certain what that is but it landed very awkwardly.


----------



## jobo (Dec 20, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> For various justifiable reasons, by your own admission you have greatly reduced to selection of kicks available to you. Which is fine and done by everyone for one reason or another.
> But to then arbitrarily bash a kick because it doesn't work well for You it not good. Take the spinning kick in the OP.
> 
> If the average person practiced that kick as often as they practiced say a generic front kick it would at the very least be useful.
> ...


your argueing with things i havent said, im taking about that kick, vague assurances  that some extremly efficient peopke can make that kick faster  and more effective,  is obviously true, but he isnt one of them. 

or does it appear he started as a young child, so that not applicable,  

really  all yoyr saying is if he practises it he will get better,  again probebly true, but that not to say it will ever meet the standards of these people you quote, so ever be highly effective !

but my comments stand on kicks in general and the back kick isnt one of the kicks i cant do, the front kick is, well a front kick above knee high anyway, which is why ive replaced with a soccer kick, if im kickibg low i may as well as its harder, with boots or shoes on 

the more moving parts a kick has and the longer it takes to exicute the higher the chances that it will fail, if that matters is dependent on where and why you are fighting, who you are fighting and what happens next, 

clearly people who can throw a spinning side quick quickly can also throw a side kick quickly, is the spinnibg version quicker? maybe, but i doubt it commonly is, does it matter? only if they use the tine to move or catch your leg 

and yes i know, you wete supperdupper as a youbg man, but thats not representative


----------



## Acronym (Dec 20, 2020)

For the record, I don't think it was a good delivery and the thread wasn't about that.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> your argueing with things i havent said, im taking about that kick, vague assurances  that some extremly efficient peopke can make that kick faster  and more effective,  is obviously true, but he isnt one of them.
> 
> or does it appear he started as a young child, so that not applicable,
> 
> ...


I am definitely with you and my limited options on kick these days. There are some kicks I used to do very well that I cannot do at all now. Some kicks I can still do but not well. And some kicks I can still count on. 
But I do not want to take those kicks away from anyone else until their own circumstances force that to happen.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> That would be correct. But I am not certain you originally made the comparison of two entities under identical conditions except accel time.


Given that was the only direct variable discussed, I'm not sure how a different assumption would be drawn.


----------



## jobo (Dec 20, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Given that was the only direct variable discussed, I'm not sure how a different assumption would be drawn.


its also a variable that is near impossoble to vary independently (or measure )in either human kinetics or freefall, so not at all a logical conclusion when discusing kinetics or free fall or even balistics come to that


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> its also a variable that is near impossoble to vary independently (or measure )in either human kinetics or freefall, so not at all a logical conclusion when discusing kinetics or free fall or even balistics come to that


Accleration can't be varied in human kinetics???

_EDIT: Had to correct spelling. Jobo, your habits are infecting me! _


----------



## jobo (Dec 20, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Accleration can't be varied in human kinetics???
> 
> _EDIT: Had to correct spelling. Jobo, your habits are infecting me! _


it was two identical objects, where do you get two identical people from, and yes it can be varried but not indepedent of other variables. you change the duration of the acceleration and lots of other things change as well


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> it was two identical objects, where do you get two identical people from, and yes it can be varried but not indepedent of other variables. you change the duration of the acceleration and lots of other things change as well


Nice try. Just admit you made an incorrect statement. We all do it at times, and admitting it is a lot easier than denying that theoretical physics applies to kinesthetics.


----------



## jobo (Dec 20, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Nice try. Just admit you made an incorrect statement. We all do it at times, and admitting it is a lot easier than denying that theoretical physics applies to kinesthetics.


no my state ment was clear and accurate, you cant change the variable on lengh of acceleration with out changibg other variables,

thats clear,

for instance how would you change the variable on the time inder accelation of a push, you cant, your arms are only so long, so you would need to shorten one, push ,which would alter the power curve of the joint

so now you have two variables in play


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 20, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Given that was the only direct variable discussed, I'm not sure how a different assumption would be drawn.


Because using it as you did is an uncommon way to use the formula. Other than in maybe quantum physics there are not many ways to actually use the acceleration formula where the external factors do not have to be considered. That is why I mentioned 'ramp'. Mass and momentum will work against you more than it will work for you in a mechanical environment.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 21, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Because using it as you did is an uncommon way to use the formula. Other than in maybe quantum physics there are not many ways to actually use the acceleration formula where the external factors do not have to be considered. That is why I mentioned 'ramp'. Mass and momentum will work against you more than it will work for you in a mechanical environment.


I didn't use the formula. I simply stated the variable that would be changing: time under acceleration. That's a pretty straightforward statement, and I'm not sure how it confused you.


----------



## jobo (Dec 21, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I didn't use the formula. I simply stated the variable that would be changing: time under acceleration. That's a pretty straightforward statement, and I'm not sure how it confused you.


because its not the only variable that would change, in anything but that which was self propelled by an engine and even then??? your also increasing mometum and wind resistance, which means your parameter of constant uniform acxeleration is impossible to achieve, and of course the power charecteristic of the engine


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 21, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I didn't use the formula. I simply stated the variable that would be changing: time under acceleration. That's a pretty straightforward statement, and I'm not sure how it confused you.



Not confused at all and I agree your statement is true regarding acceleration/time. But in application it has a very limited purpose. Until you do something with it, it is a theoretical fact of physics. Nothing more.
This is exactly the point that I have seen so many college graduates get to but never acquire the ability to cross. Can they set in a chair and learn how to write the formula and get a result on paper? Sure. Can they apply this tool to something in the real world? Not very often. Conversely, I have seen many people who were taught how to cut rafters or stringers for example. Show them the geometry formulas/equations behind this and without exception they will say "yea, I get that".

Again, I made no effort to offend anyone. If I did I apologize.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> because its not the only variable that would change, in anything but that which was self propelled by an engine and even then??? your also increasing mometum and wind resistance, which means your parameter of constant uniform acxeleration is impossible to achieve, and of course the power charecteristic of the engine


You don't understand theoretical physics at all.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 21, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Not confused at all and I agree your statement is true regarding acceleration/time. But in application it has a very limited purpose. Until you do something with it, it is a theoretical fact of physics. Nothing more.
> This is exactly the point that I have seen so many college graduates get to but never acquire the ability to cross. Can they set in a chair and learn how to write the formula and get a result on paper? Sure. Can they apply this tool to something in the real world? Not very often. Conversely, I have seen many people who were taught how to cut rafters or stringers for example. Show them the geometry formulas/equations behind this and without exception they will say "yea, I get that".
> 
> Again, I made no effort to offend anyone. If I did I apologize.


And the statement I made was entirely within the realm of theoretical physics. I didn't apply it to anything real-world. You made an attempt to correct what wasn't incorrect.


----------



## jobo (Dec 21, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> You don't understand theoretical physics at all.


do you under stand any physics accept from grade school, one dimentional round objects in a vacume with no friction and no propulsion,

no,

theoretical physics doesnt support you either,  if that theory includeds real world application or if you insist on beibg torally abstract,even the other theoretical issues youve ignored
or are you really saying that air restance , friction and leverage doesnt exist in theortical physics,

then thats thhe sort of madness that results in people designing perpetual motion machines


----------



## jobo (Dec 21, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> And the statement I made was entirely within the realm of theoretical physics. I didn't apply it to anything real-world. You made an attempt to correct what wasn't incorrect.


well this seems to be a grudgibg acceptance that your statements dont exist as true out side of grade school science class


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 21, 2020)

I just wanted to make the 200th post in this thread.

Edit:  whoa, someone just slipped in ahead of me.

Edit again: I guess I am the 200th reply, but the 201st post.


----------



## jobo (Dec 21, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I just wanted to make the 200th post in this thread.
> 
> Edit:  whoa, someone just slipped in ahead of me.
> 
> Edit again: I guess I am the 200th reply, but the 201st post.


shame, that makes me the 200th poster, which is my achievment for the day, i can sleep soundly now


----------



## stanly stud (Jan 4, 2021)

jobo said:


> do you under stand any physics accept from grade school, one dimentional round objects in a vacume with no friction and no propulsion,
> 
> no,
> 
> ...


_GEEZE................._


----------

