# Is ball of the foot roundhouse outdated with modern shoes?



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 17, 2021)

I have a new found love for ball of the foot as the dollyo chagi kicking tool and I'm curious If you guys think it’s too artificial when wearing modern shoes?


It looks pretty violent to me... I'm sure it would hurt?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 17, 2021)

Here's a crazy idea... maybe you should kick something with it? 
How effective it will be in use varies from one person to another. Kicking air is fine, as far as it goes, but you should also be kicking actual things.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 17, 2021)

Why does he adress a straw man? You don't need to pull back any toes with shoes, correct, so why not just kick with the same target ?






						Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy
					

Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy, dedicated to teaching Taekwon-do as it was originally perceived



					www.raynerslanetkd.com
				



*One of the most common questions you get with this techinique is, how are you supposed to curve your toes when you have shoes on? You are not. Since Gen. Choi's TKD was designed for the military, the roundhouse kick while wearing combat boots is to kick the opponent's target with the shoe tip.  *


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 17, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Here's a crazy idea... maybe you should kick something with it?
> How effective it will be in use varies from one person to another. Kicking air is fine, as far as it goes, but you should also be kicking actual things.


I am confused. Please read my post above


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 17, 2021)

I don't have a strong opinion about it.  I think utility depends a lot on the type of show you are wearing.  Flip-flops not so much.  Running shoes probably would work.

Many years ago I had cause to use a roundhouse kick when wearing wingtip shoes.  I instinctively adapted and used the pointed top tip of the shoe to good effect.  I think it is important to be versatile.  If you have a good roundhouse kick, it doesn't take too much extra time to train using the ball or instep depending on situation.


----------



## Buka (Sep 17, 2021)

I taught roundhouse with both the instep and the ball of the foot. Students threw them both ways but chose which was best for them. Barefoot, with shoes, sneakers etc. Bag work, shields and sparring.

I honestly can't remember even one student that chose the ball of the foot. Mainlly because it's slower
and has less reach

But I'm sure a lot of people love it. It's all good if it works for you.


----------



## Buka (Sep 17, 2021)

dancingalone said:


> I don't have a strong opinion about it.  I think utility depends a lot on the type of show you are wearing.  Flip-flops not so much.  Running shoes probably would work.
> 
> Many years ago I had cause to use a roundhouse kick when wearing wingtip shoes.  I instinctively adapted and used the pointed top tip of the shoe to good effect.  I think it is important to be versatile.  If you have a good roundhouse kick, it doesn't take too much extra time to train using the ball or instep depending on situation.


Man, wingtips are great for kicking people. It should be against the law to sidekick someone with wingtips.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 17, 2021)

dancingalone said:


> I don't have a strong opinion about it.  I think utility depends a lot on the type of show you are wearing.  Flip-flops not so much.  Running shoes probably would work.
> 
> Many years ago I had cause to use a roundhouse kick when wearing wingtip shoes.  I instinctively adapted and used the pointed top tip of the shoe to good effect.  I think it is important to be versatile.  If you have a good roundhouse kick, it doesn't take too much extra time to train using the ball or instep depending on situation.



I have always used instep in sparring to avoid jamming my toes.  But I am curious to see how well I do with the ball of the foot now that I've gotten so much better.


Buka said:


> I taught roundhouse with both the instep and the ball of the foot. Students threw them both ways but chose which was best for them. Barefoot, with shoes, sneakers etc. Bag work, shields and sparring.
> 
> I honestly can't remember even one student that chose the ball of the foot. Mainlly because it's slower
> and has less reach
> ...



Why would ball of the foot be slower? It's the same chamber and release..


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 17, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Here's a crazy idea... maybe you should kick something with it?
> How effective it will be in use varies from one person to another. Kicking air is fine, as far as it goes, but you should also be kicking actual things.



I'm gonna come out of the closet here... 
I've only thrown bit chagis in sparring due to the speed advantage. 'Ive never layed on them a "full" turning kick.

But if a thug on the street wants it, he can have it. He will not be getting any bit chagis.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 17, 2021)

I use it more like a front kick than a round kick. Just at a weird angle.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 17, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> I'm gonna come out of the closet here...
> I've only thrown bit chagis in sparring due to the speed advantage. 'Ive never layed on them a "full" turning kick.
> 
> But if a thug on the street wants it, he can have it. He will not be getting any bit chagis.


So your plan is to rely on a strike without knowing if you can actually use it effectively?
And this seems like a good idea to you?


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 17, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> So your plan is to rely on a strike without knowing if you can actually use it effectively?
> And this seems like a good idea to you?



"Ball of the foot for basics, instep for sparring" is a dogma inprinted in our souls from day 1 in class. It's hard psychologically to go against someone who started training TKD 1966

But there are have been Japanese Kyokushin fighters in K1 using ball of the foot, so why should I be any worse!


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 17, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> "Ball of the foot for basics, instep for sparring" is a dogma inprinted in our souls from day 1 in class. It's hard psychologically to go against someone who started training TKD 1966


That's about when I started. And I teach ball of the foot, arch of the foot, toes, shin...


InfiniteLoop said:


> But there are have been Japanese Kyokushin fighters in K1 using ball of the foot, so why should I be any worse!


Ummm.... because they've trained it on something other than air?


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 17, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> That's about when I started. And I teach ball of the foot, arch of the foot, toes, shin...
> 
> Ummm.... because they've trained it on something other than air?



My instructor says that ball of the foot is more devastating and so I just assumed that I shouldn't use it in sparring sessions since we aren't looking to hurt each other. Have you been hit with it?


----------



## Buka (Sep 17, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> I have always used instep in sparring to avoid jamming my toes.  But I am curious to see how well I do with the ball of the foot now that I've gotten so much better.
> 
> 
> Why would ball of the foot be slower? It's the same chamber and release..


I'm not entirely sure, but I believe it's because of the contraction of the calf and quad muscles when bending back the foot to use the ball of your foot.

But it is definitely slower.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 17, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> My instructor says that ball of the foot is more devastating and so I just assumed that I shouldn't use it in sparring sessions since we aren't looking to hurt each other. Have you been hit with it?


Your instructor doesn't know how to strike with less than full power? Seems odd.
After this long, I think it's reasonably safe to say I've been hit at least twice by any strike you care to mention. Maybe even three times.
Of course, just because someone else can use a technique effectively doesn't mean you can. So as I said in the first place... go kick something other than air.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 17, 2021)

Buka said:


> I'm not entirely sure, but I believe it's because of the contraction of the calf and quad muscles when bending back the foot to use the ball of your foot.
> 
> But it is definitely slower.



This doesn't exactly encourage one to try it on a heavy bag.... His punches had more power....

1:02:12


----------



## paitingman (Sep 17, 2021)

IMHO, the ball of the foot is not for friends lol. 
I don't throw it at my training partners, but I love roundhouse with the ball of the foot. 
It really depends on the shoes tho.

I can do it in my sneakers (basically Keds) no problem.
I cannot in my dress shoes. 
I'm picky about shoes so I buy the same shoes again and again once I find one I like. 
This has allowed me to always have an old pair for training and I have always stayed pretty in tune with what I can and cannot do inside my shoes


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 17, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Your instructor doesn't know how to strike with less than full power? Seems odd.
> After this long, I think it's reasonably safe to say I've been hit at least twice by any strike you care to mention. Maybe even three times.
> Of course, just because someone else can use a technique effectively doesn't mean you can. So as I said in the first place... go kick something other than air.



Practically nobody uses it in sparring.. .. It's not even legal in Olympic TaeKwonDo. Kickboxing has a much slower pace, closer range, is in a ring...  etc


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 17, 2021)

paitingman said:


> IMHO, the ball of the foot is not for friends lol.
> I don't throw it at my training partners, but I love roundhouse with the ball of the foot.
> It really depends on the shoes tho.
> 
> ...


Ball of the foot is more of a stab, wheras instep is a whip.


Buka said:


> It is definitely slower.


1:30..... Not saying his technique is great but you can't  kick much faster than that with any tool.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 17, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> So as I said in the first place... go kick something other than air.



I haven't asked but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be up to sparring me with Nike shoes on....


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 17, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Why does he adress a straw man? You don't need to pull back any toes with shoes, correct, so why not just kick with the same target ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True enough, but combat boots and tennis shoe could not be more different.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 17, 2021)

Buka said:


> I taught roundhouse with both the instep and the ball of the foot. Students threw them both ways but chose which was best for them. Barefoot, with shoes, sneakers etc. Bag work, shields and sparring.
> 
> I honestly can't remember even one student that chose the ball of the foot. Mainlly because it's slower
> and has less reach
> ...


I have a recorded TKO using a ball of the foot roundhouse to the solar plexus. Great for slipping right between the blocks.
Guy had a hogu on and I had exposed toe shin/instep pads on. Later found it out a broke a rib at the sternum.

I also had a KO in a Shotokan tournament with ball roundhouse kick to the off button. But got kicked out of the tourney for it. That guy had really pissed me off.

I do not think it is any slower (or faster) than the top of the foot since the mechanics are the same. Less reach but that can be factored out some with the hips and lean in. 

Someone mentioned the part of the foot used should be the kickers choice. I could not agree more.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 17, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> True enough, but combat boots and tennis shoe could not be more different.



But his point wasn't about the boot but the toes... which is a mute point regardless of what shoe you wear and it doesn't impact using the same surface


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 17, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> I have a recorded TKO using a ball of the foot roundhouse to the solar plexus. Guy had a hogu on and I had exposed toe shin/instep pads on. Later found out it broke a rib at the sternum.
> Someone mentioned the part of the foot used should be the kickers choice. I could not agree more.


Ball of the foot is illegal these days in Olympics. Or more correctly: "non scoring"


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 17, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> But his point wasn't about the boot but the toes... which is a mute point regardless of what shoe you wear and it doesn't impact using the same surface


Not correct. I have kicked hard enough in tennis shoes to hurt my foot. Even in 'combat boots' if a person gets on top of the boot at all it could still hurt; steel toes being the exception.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 17, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Not correct. I have kicked hard enough in tennis shoes to hurt my foot. Even in 'combat boots' if a person gets on top of the boot at all it could still hurt; steel toes being the exception.



 There is always a risk that the foot angle won't be optimal at impact. If the foot angle lands correctly, it will hit the same target.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 17, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Ball of the foot is illegal these days in Olympics. Or more correctly: "non scoring"


How so? It has always been legal in certain areas to my knowledge. It would score with an e-hogu I think. 
In the days of the 3-score rules (shutter/knockdown/knockout) where knock downs were common it was definitely an effective kick.
Sad too because it is a very, very effective SD tool.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 17, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> How so? It has always been legal in certain areas to my knowledge. It would score with an e-hogu I think.
> In the days of the 3-score rules (shutter/knockdown/knockout) where knock downs were common it was definitely an effective kick.
> Sad too because it is a very, very effective SD tool.



What do you mean how? A decision was made that It's not a scoring technique anymore.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Sep 17, 2021)

Buka said:


> I honestly can't remember even one student that chose the ball of the foot. Mainlly because it's slower
> and has less reach
> 
> But I'm sure a lot of people love it. It's all good if it works for you.


I was initially taught exclusively to use the ball for front and roundhouse kicks and the best I remember, that was what I got hit with in competitive sparring most of the time.  I don't agree it's slower or has less reach.

Throwing an instep roundhouse, the foot is pointed so the instep is on the same line as the leg. Pulling the foot up and using the ball, the impact point is 4 or 5 inches in front of the line of the leg, being perpendicular to it.  It's closer to the opponent by those 4 or 5 inches, so should arrive quicker.  As far as linear range, I think they are about the same.

Considering power, even conceding (for argument's sake) the instep kick may have more power behind it, this is offset by the smaller surface area of the ball of the foot, thus giving more force psi than the instep and better penetration, though the ball is softer than the instep bone.  So, I'd call this point a draw.

Other thoughts:  Sometimes when using the instep, my ankle would get tweeked.  Having the foot pulled up locks the ankle and makes the joint structure stronger.  I also hated taking a pointed elbow on my instep!  Those that do body conditioning (_ashi kitai_) can break 2x4's with instep or shin.  A few Okinawan styles  used to stress the toe kick (barefoot).  This kick can be deadly as penetration into a nerve/blood nexus is deep.

With hard shoes, point of the toe is definitely the way to go


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 17, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> I was initially taught exclusively to use the ball for front and roundhouse kicks and the best I remember, that was what I got hit with in competitive sparring most of the time.  I don't agree it's slower or has less reach.



From what I've seen of the old point karate JKA footage from the 70s, they seem to exclusively use ball of the foot roundhouse kicks, and it worked out well. It surprised me that instep was completely absent though


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 17, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> What do you mean how? A decision was made that It's not a scoring technique anymore.


Sure, but it is not illegal either. Every kick is not going to score.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 17, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Sure, but it is not illegal either. Every kick is not going to score.


It probably is if the taken to an extreme in which the receiver gets hurt by somebody who repeatedly does it, and he points it out more than once. But anyway, it has resulted in the technique being extinct. 

It is legal and scoring in ITF, I believe, but I have yet to see it in an ITF competition.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 17, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> It probably is if the taken to an extreme in which the receiver gets hurt by somebody who repea.tedly does it, and he points it out more than once. But anyway, it has resulted in the technique being extinct.
> 
> It is legal and scoring in ITF, I believe, but I have yet to see it in an ITF competition.


As much as they have softened up the scoring in the sport I  would not be surprised to find a ball of the foot roundhouse is illegal. 
But how do you account for a good, solid heel from a head shot side kick scoring? Or the devastating wheel kicks that still occur?
I still think it would score on an e-hogu.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 17, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> As much as they have softened up the scoring in the sport I  would not be surprised to find a ball of the foot roundhouse is illegal.
> But how do you account for a good, solid heel from a head shot side kick scoring? Or the devastating wheel kicks that still occur?
> I still think it would score on an e-hogu.



I don't believe that it has to do with softening the sport. More that the technique isn't considered relevant anymore. It was already so rare. Just a final nail in the coffin.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 17, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> I don't believe that it has to do with softening the sport. More that the technique isn't considered relevant anymore. It was already so rare. Just a final nail in the coffin.


I can't agree with that. The only exception would be in the pure sport environment of WT sparring, which is very bound by a ruleset. Saying it is an irrelevant kick is crazy talk IMHO. 
From my experience, the sport has softened considerably. 
Do you only spar?


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 17, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> I still think it would score on an e-hogu.



It will obviously score on a machine but the coach can protest and they take back the point.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 17, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Do you only spar?



No. I was referring to the sparring only. It wouldn't surprise me though if ball of the foot gets taken out of the KKW patterns too in the distant future. The fact that they have instep as an option in patterns these days is radical. And the patterns look to have been influenced by the sparring of KKW more so than the ITF.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 19, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> I have a new found love for ball of the foot as the dollyo chagi kicking tool and I'm curious If you guys think it’s too artificial when wearing modern shoes?
> 
> 
> It looks pretty violent to me... I'm sure it would hurt?


 Bottom line, no. The instep and ball of the foot kicks are different kicks, which serve different purposes. Impact with the instep is meant to transfer the power of the kick across a broader area. It is often taught in karate as a 'sticky' kick, meaning it doesn't immediately recoil. The ball of the foot is a penetrating kick, and it recoils instantly.

If the foot is encased in a shoe, the toe of the shoe can substitute for the ball of the foot.

The instep kick is very loud when applied to a bag, and this can be mistaken for it being more powerful. It is not. Kicking power is measured by force of the kick and the surface area to which it is applied. Two kicks with the same force, the smaller surface area will penetrate more. Which is why knives are used to stab and not baseball bats.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 19, 2021)

Bill Mattocks said:


> power is measured by force of the kick and the surface area to which it is applied. Two kicks with the same force, the smaller surface area will penetrate more. Which is why knives are used to stab and not baseball bats.


You are neglecting the fact that the instep is hard, ball of the foot is soft...
Hardness of the tool affects penetration.

Ball of the foot is obviously harder with shoe surface though.


----------



## seasoned (Sep 19, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> You are neglecting the fact that the instep is hard, ball of the foot is soft...
> Hardness of the tool affects penetration.
> 
> Ball of the foot is obviously harder with shoe surface though.


Correct. But still positioning your foot for a ball of the foot strike will not effect a rigid shoe, but it will support the foot itself as the point, "tip of the shoe" delivers a, as Bill mentioned......_.(the ball of the foot is a penetrating kick, and it recoils instantly)  _


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 19, 2021)

seasoned said:


> Correct. But still positioning your foot for a ball of the food strike will not effect a rigid shoe, but it will support the foot itself as the point, "tip of the shoe" delivers a, as Bill mentioned......_.(the ball of the foot is a penetrating kick, and it recoils instantly)  _



The main reason ball of the foot is advocated for self defense (regardless of shoe or not shoe) is to avoid breaking your foot, which you will do with an instep to a human skull at full force, or at least damage it considerably. 

Either one is fine to the body.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 19, 2021)

And Yes, Olympic TaeKwonDo guys who do injure their feet.. they tend to use techniques that land with the bottom part of their foot, like axe kick crescent kick, side kick.

In ITF we have old school american Kickboxing shoes. But I have still blown up my instep like a bee sting when I hit an elbow.......


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 19, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> You are neglecting the fact that the instep is hard, ball of the foot is soft...
> Hardness of the tool affects penetration.
> 
> Ball of the foot is obviously harder with shoe surface though.


I beg your pardon, but you are mistaken. The ball of the foot is hard. Or it should be. The instep is much more surface area, less pounds per square inch. It's really down to basic math.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 19, 2021)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I beg your pardon, but you are mistaken. The ball of the foot is hard. Or it should be. The instep is much more surface area, less pounds per square inch. It's really down to basic math.



The ball of the foot is a thick layer of skin, instep is bone


----------



## Buka (Sep 19, 2021)

Anyone that injures their foot hitting with a sidekick has no idea how to kick.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 19, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> What do you mean how? A decision was made that It's not a scoring technique anymore.


Can you reference a link supporting this? I find nothing on it.
This is the closest thing I have found and would not be relevant for a roundhouse motion:

"Contestants also have to watch out how they deliver their kicks to the trunk PSS, as one can lose a point for attacking with the side or bottom of the foot while the knee is pointed out in clinch position."

Ref:

WT Scoring Rules






						Know your sport: Olympic Taekwondo rules, scoring and equipment
					

A rundown of Olympic taekwondo rules, equipment, scoring and the different belts.




					olympics.com


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 19, 2021)

Buka said:


> Anyone that injures their foot hitting with a sidekick has no idea how to kick.



Did anyone say differently?


----------



## andyjeffries (Sep 20, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Ball of the foot is illegal these days in Olympics. Or more correctly: "non scoring"





> What do you mean how? A decision was made that It's not a scoring technique anymore.



Just to be clear, I don't think it was ever decided that it's not a scoring technique per se. I think you're confusing a side effect of another change with an intentional decision.

WT had to move to electronic scoring to appease the IOC after a number of non-scoring scandals (Sarah Stevenson in Beijing being the most popular one). I agree with the decision (it's fairer to have it done by electronics, even though it's lead to players playing to the system).

Knowing where the magnets are in the foot protectors (aka socks) there's no magnet under the ball of the foot, so you won't score with it. That said I don't think it was an intentional decision to stop the ball of the foot being a scoring kicking surface, but more of a "who wants to be turning on the ball of their foot all match/session long with a magnet under it".


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 20, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> Just to be clear, I don't think it was ever decided that it's not a scoring technique per se. I think you're confusing a side effect of another change with an intentional decision.
> 
> WT had to move to electronic scoring to appease the IOC after a number of non-scoring scandals (Sarah Stevenson in Beijing being the most popular one). I agree with the decision (it's fairer to have it done by electronics, even though it's lead to players playing to the system).
> 
> Knowing where the magnets are in the foot protectors (aka socks) there's no magnet under the ball of the foot, so you won't score with it. That said I don't think it was an intentional decision to stop the ball of the foot being a scoring kicking surface, but more of a "who wants to be turning on the ball of their foot all match/session long with a magnet under it".



So it's still scoring in lower level regional competition? I'm guessing the electronics isn't part of all levels


----------



## andyjeffries (Sep 20, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> So it's still scoring in lower level regional competition? I'm guessing the electronics isn't part of all levels


I'd guess so. I haven't been to any competitions that don't use electronics in YEARS.

The official WT rules still list "any part of the foot below the ankle bone" as a permitted technique (Article 11) and scoring is done when a permitted technique is delivered to a scoring area (Article 12), so the intricacies of electronic scoring aside - I'd say if you're at a competition without electronic scoring then they'd score it.



			http://www.worldtaekwondo.org/att_file/documents/WT%20Competition%20Rules_Interpretation%20(October%201,%202020).pdf


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 20, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> I'd guess so. I haven't been to any competitions that don't use electronics in YEARS.
> 
> The official WT rules still list "any part of the foot below the ankle bone" as a permitted technique (Article 11) and scoring is done when a permitted technique is delivered to a scoring area (Article 12), so the intricacies of electronic scoring aside - I'd say if you're at a competition without electronic scoring then they'd score it.
> 
> ...



I watched a regional competition in my country and it looks like a different sport without the electronics. Similar to 90s WTF


----------



## jmf552 (Sep 21, 2021)

Buka said:


> I'm not entirely sure, but I believe it's because of the contraction of the calf and quad muscles when bending back the foot to use the ball of your foot.
> 
> But it is definitely slower.


Right you are. A really fast round kick is more like whip than a bat. We went over this last night in my Muay Thai class. Ideally, the kick uses minimal leg muscles. It is all hip. The hip lifts the loose leg into the chamber and the power comes from the support foot pivoting, causing the hip and the shoulder to "whip" towards the target. Tension in the leg, which would be required to use the ball of the foot, slows it down. And even though my original training was in Karate', I have to admit that Muay Thai has the best tradeoff of speed and power with round kicks of any art. I watch the competitors training on the heavy bag and their kicks sound like thunderclaps when they hit. The range is not as good, as a Karate' kick, but range can be managed.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 21, 2021)

jmf552 said:


> Right you are. A really fast round kick is more like whip than a bat. We went over this last night in my Muay Thai class. Ideally, the kick uses minimal leg muscles. It is all hip. The hip lifts the loose leg into the chamber and the power comes from the support foot pivoting, causing the hip and the shoulder to "whip" towards the target. Tension in the leg, which would be required to use the ball of the foot, slows it down. And even though my original training was in Karate', I have to admit that Muay Thai has the best tradeoff of speed and power with round kicks of any art. I watch the competitors training on the heavy bag and their kicks sound like thunderclaps when they hit. The range is not as good, as a Karate' kick, but range can be managed.



So my round kick failed to intimidate you?


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 21, 2021)

jmf552 said:


> Right you are. A really fast round kick is more like whip than a bat. We went over this last night in my Muay Thai class. Ideally, the kick uses minimal leg muscles. It is all hip. The hip lifts the loose leg into the chamber and the power comes from the support foot pivoting, causing the hip and the shoulder to "whip" towards the target. Tension in the leg, which would be required to use the ball of the foot, slows it down. And even though my original training was in Karate', I have to admit that Muay Thai has the best tradeoff of speed and power with round kicks of any art. I watch the competitors training on the heavy bag and their kicks sound like thunderclaps when they hit. The range is not as good, as a Karate' kick, but range can be managed.


I like this comment. It has a ton of sound logic in it. I love the description of making power. While slightly different from my TKD description, they are very close. Core strength, rotation, and leg position are the three main pillars of making strength for the roundhouse. 

I would counter somewhat since the mechanics should stay the same for both kicks until the last moments of the kick. No, I do not think this is true 100% of the time but it is ideal.  I would also add there is a reduction since tip speed is slightly  different. FPM=RPM x 262 x blade diameter. In our application we would use a measurement from the knee down. Keeping it easy let's say that is 20" flat footed and 25" foot extended.
1(used for RPM) x 262 x 20 = 5,240fpm - In a 20" motion this equals 4.3" at the tip.
1(used for RPM) x 262 x 25 = 6,550fpm - In a 25" motion this equals 5.4" at the tip.

Yes, in the moment an inch is equal to a mile but in the sparring dynamic this is not hugely repeatable. But the bigger value in my opinion is using the right part of the foot at the right time. So, speed it not that huge of a factor. 

One very effective strategy I remember using is to set up an opponent by throwing several kicks at slightly slower speed.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Sep 21, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> The ball of the foot is a thick layer of skin, instep is bone


If you put a thick layer of padding on a hammer head, I think the hammer head would still do more damage than striking something with the side of the shaft.  It is the axial loading vs. transverse loading.  Transverse loading increases sheer force, leading to fracture.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 21, 2021)

SahBumNimRush said:


> If you put a thick layer of padding on a hammer head, I think the hammer head would still do more damage than striking something with the side of the shaft.  It is the axial loading vs. transverse loading.  Transverse loading increases sheer force, leading to fracture.


I do not feel you could ever apply axial loading to a roundhouse kick because of the rotational nature of the motion and the hinge affect of the ankle and to a degree even the knee. 
Here is the shortest video I could find. 

axial vs. transverse


----------



## isshinryuronin (Sep 21, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> a reduction since tip speed is slightly different. FPM=RPM x 262 x blade diameter. In our application we would use a measurement from the knee down. Keeping it easy let's say that is 20" flat footed and 25" foot extended.
> 1(used for RPM) x 262 x 20 = 5,240fpm - In a 20" motion this equals 4.3" at the tip.
> 1(used for RPM) x 262 x 25 = 6,550fpm - In a 25" motion this equals 5.4" at the tip.





SahBumNimRush said:


> It is the axial loading vs. transverse loading. Transverse loading increases sheer force, leading to fracture.


So, in other words:  Get in range and kick him in the nuts hard and fast.  Did I get all the math right?


----------



## J. Pickard (Sep 21, 2021)

I use ball of the foot, shin, and instep depending on what I am trying to accomplish and who I am hitting. I have used all 3 in sparring safely but definitely have to be more aware of my opponent with the ball of the foot to make sure they don't move into it and get hurt. As far as kicking with shoes; I have also kicked heavy bags, bob, trees ( I get bored when I'm outside with my kid and start kicking random things, its an odd quirk but oh well) with the ball of the foot and found that most athletic sneakers are fine. They usually have an inclined sole at the toe making it pretty easy to hit with the ball of the foot or they are such firm rubber that even if you hit with your toes it doesn't really hurt. However, this does not work with flip-flops and sandals (owch!). I would say if you want to know how well it works just start kicking something.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Sep 21, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> I do not feel you could ever apply axial loading to a roundhouse kick because of the rotational nature of the motion and the hinge affect of the ankle and to a degree even the knee.
> Here is the shortest video I could find.
> 
> axial vs. transverse



Anatomically, you are axially loading the 1st metatarsal in a roundhouse kick in which you pull the toes back and strike with the ball of the foot.  If striking with the instep or top of foot, it would be transverse loading the 1st metatarsal, as well as maybe the navicular bone.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 21, 2021)

J. Pickard said:


> I use ball of the foot, shin, and instep depending on what I am trying to accomplish and who I am hitting. I have used all 3 in sparring safely but definitely have to be more aware of my opponent with the ball of the foot to make sure they don't move into it and get hurt. As far as kicking with shoes; I have also kicked heavy bags, bob, trees ( I get bored when I'm outside with my kid and start kicking random things, its an odd quirk but oh well) with the ball of the foot and found that most athletic sneakers are fine. They usually have an inclined sole at the toe making it pretty easy to hit with the ball of the foot or they are such firm rubber that even if you hit with your toes it doesn't really hurt. However, this does not work with flip-flops and sandals (owch!). I would say if you want to know how well it works just start kicking something.



Did you kick bare feet in sparring with be ball of the foot and how did it feel? Did you generate solid power?


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 21, 2021)

SahBumNimRush said:


> Anatomically, you are axially loading the 1st metatarsal in a roundhouse kick in which you pull the toes back and strike with the ball of the foot.  If striking with the instep or top of foot, it would be transverse loading the 1st metatarsal, as well as maybe the navicular bone.


I would argue that because of the right angle nature foot portion in a ball of  the ball of the foot kick, it would be the transverse load.  But really both because both strike perpendicular to the leg in regards to length (rod).
If you consider the leg the rod an axial kick would come from a side kick or a flat footed front kick where the load is on the bottom of the foot.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 21, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> I would argue that because of the right angle nature foot portion in a ball of  the ball of the foot kick, it would be the transverse load.  But really both because both strike perpendicular to the leg in regards to length (rod).
> If you consider the leg the rod an axial kick would come from a side kick or a flat footed front kick where the load is on the bottom of the foot.



The reason I believe most people don't use ball of the foot in fast paced sparring is because it needs to be thrown horizontally to make any sense, wheras the instep can travel any angle.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 21, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> The reason I believe most people don't use ball of the foot in sparring is because it needs to be thrown horizontally to make any sense, wheras the instep can spring from any angle


Not correct. See my previous post about how I used the ball of the foot. Believe me, it works very well.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 21, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Not correct. See my previous post about how I used the ball of the foot. Believe me, it works very well.



Anything can be made to work, but if you throw the ball of the foot 45 degree, it's more a front kick dynamic to it and toes are in danger.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 21, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Anything can be made to work, but if you throw the ball of the foot 45 degree, it's more a front kick dynamic to it and toes are in danger.


Haha!!! Tell that to an experienced KKW fighter.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 21, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Haha!!! Tell that to an experienced KKW fighter.


. They don't use ball of the foot


----------



## Minkia (Sep 21, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Here's a crazy idea... maybe you should kick something with it?
> How effective it will be in use varies from one person to another. Kicking air is fine, as far as it goes, but you should also be kicking actual things.


 I must have been taught wrong. Or perhaps it was my own misunderstanding that's to blame, however I thought a roundhouse was more a follow through using utilizing the top of the foot. Which is greatly disappointing because I was awarded my black belt, for Okinawan Goju. Smh.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Sep 21, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> I would argue that because of the right angle nature foot portion in a ball of  the ball of the foot kick, it would be the transverse load.  But really both because both strike perpendicular to the leg in regards to length (rod).
> If you consider the leg the rod an axial kick would come from a side kick or a flat footed front kick where the load is on the bottom of the foot.


 I understand what you are saying, but the axial loading of the bony surface of impact is what I am referring to.  The metatarsals are long bones ( meaning a hollow shaft)  you are, effectively striking with the metatarsal head (not the shaft), which by definition is axially loading the 1 metatarsal.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 21, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Haha!!! Tell that to an experienced KKW fighter.


I'm not a Tkd person but I don't have problems kicking with the ball of my foot.  I'm confused with where the issues exists.  I originally learned how to kick with the heel, but distance and my opponent's body position determines if I kick with the ball of my foot..

I also use it in sparring a lot. This tread is confusing.


----------



## brian k (Sep 21, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> I have a new found love for ball of the foot as the dollyo chagi kicking tool and I'm curious If you guys think it’s too artificial when wearing modern shoes?
> 
> 
> It looks pretty violent to me... I'm sure it would hurt?


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 21, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not a Tkd person but I don't have problems kicking with the ball of my foot.  I'm confused with where the issues exists.  I originally learned how to kick with the heel, but distance and my opponent's body position determines if I kick with the ball of my foot..
> 
> I also use it in sparring a lot. This tread is confusing.



Depends on the sparring rules, tactics, pace,  level of opposition, if you always are in a position to throw horizontal round kicks


----------



## seasoned (Sep 21, 2021)

Buka said:


> Anyone that injures their foot hitting with a sidekick has no idea how to kick.


Exactly, a perfectly placed side kick was meant to brake many ribs.


----------



## john_newman (Sep 21, 2021)

No!! It will not hurt.. Just need a little practice..


----------



## AIKIKENJITSU (Sep 21, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> I have a new found love for ball of the foot as the dollyo chagi kicking tool and I'm curious If you guys think it’s too artificial when wearing modern shoes?
> 
> 
> It looks pretty violent to me... I'm sure it would hurt?





Dirty Dog said:


> Here's a crazy idea... maybe you should kick something with it?
> How effective it will be in use varies from one person to another. Kicking air is fine, as far as it goes, but you should also be kicking actual things.


I have trained and taught for fifty years and we have always used shoes. I think the ball of the foot is in the past, where people used to walk barefooted. The front tip of the shoe is a great argument stopper. I've used the upward instep to strike the groin.
Sifu
Puyallup, WA


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 21, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> The reason I believe most people don't use ball of the foot in fast paced sparring is because it needs to be thrown horizontally to make any sense, wheras the instep can travel any angle.


I beg your pardon once more, but that is not correct. The Isshinryu mae geri is thrown vertically, specifically as a vertical kick. It's intended target is the groin, and it is intended as a penetrating kick. This is done with the ball of the foot. 

I realize that you have a preconceived notion about what the ball of the foot can be used for and an agenda, but with respect, you are wrong.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 21, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not a Tkd person but I don't have problems kicking with the ball of my foot.  I'm confused with where the issues exists.  I originally learned how to kick with the heel, but distance and my opponent's body position determines if I kick with the ball of my foot..
> 
> I also use it in sparring a lot. This tread is confusing.


We use the front kick with heel as a push kick (mae konate). The ball of the foot is a penetrating kick. The may look similar to casual observation.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 21, 2021)

AIKIKENJITSU said:


> I have trained and taught for fifty years and we have always used shoes. I think the ball of the foot is in the past, where people used to walk barefooted. The front tip of the shoe is a great argument stopper. I've used the upward instep to strike the groin.
> Sifu
> Puyallup, WA


If you train to strike with the ball of the foot, a shoe will still work.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Sep 21, 2021)

I have to say, this has been a lively expression of how everyone uses or doesn't use their foot, in relation to a roundhouse kick.  I think the general consensus seems to be, "if you train it properly, and understand where and how to execute it, either striking surface has merits."  

Personally, we spar with the instep (for the roundhouse, it's still the ball for front kicks, and the heel for back and side kicks).  We NEVER break with the instep; we always break with the ball of the foot on roundhouse kicks.  I have always assumed it was due to the ball of the foot being stronger and a more resilient striking surface than the instep.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 21, 2021)

There is a good reason that the roundhouse kick is also called "whip kick". If you also train foot sweep, you will appreciate the instep contact point. By using instep, you can perform

- shin bite,
- scoop,
- scoop kick,
- sticky kick,
- foot sweep,
- whip kick.

So you can only use the ball of your foot to do one thing. But you can use your instep to do many things.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 22, 2021)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If you train to strike with the ball of the foot, a shoe will still work.


I train kung fu with my shoes on.  I spar with my shoes on.  Kicking with the ball of foot is still valid. maybe this is why some of the comments here confuse me.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 22, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> I train kung fu with my shoes on.  I spar with my shoes on.  Kicking with the ball of foot is still valid. maybe this is why some of the comments here confuse me.


Most combat sports are fought without shoes.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 22, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Most combat sports are fought without shoes.


That's true but outside of the sports arena people have always worn some sort of foot protection.
Footwear is one of the greatest components of both ancient and modern military.  Even poor people who couldn't afford shoes would be able to craft at a minimum a sandal.

I think a lot of theories will fall short if you only look at martial arts from a sports perspective. Especially when it comes to "Why things are done a certain way."   Kicking with the ball of the foot is simply a safer kick and it can withstand more force and weight than the other option of kicking with toes.

Think of it this way.  When you jump you land on the ball of your foot.  That same bend in the toes as you land is often the same bend in the toes when people kick with the ball of their feet.  You can land on your toes if you like but I don't recommend it. 





I personally think training with shoes on is more realistic than training with shoes off.  All the street fights I've had I had shoes on.  All the conflicts and heated arguments I've been in were with shoes on.  Some people wear shoes almost as long as they wear underwear.  Some people wear shoes to work and then come home and slip on a different pair of shoes.  At the time of this message I've been wearing boots since 6:30 am.  it's now 7:45 pm.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 22, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> That's true but outside of the sports arena people have always worn some sort of foot protection.
> Footwear is one of the greatest components of both ancient and modern military.  Even poor people who couldn't afford shoes would be able to craft at a minimum a sandal.
> 
> I think a lot of theories will fall short if you only look at martial arts from a sports perspective. Especially when it comes to "Why things are done a certain way."   Kicking with the ball of the foot is simply a safer kick and it can withstand more force and weight than the other option of kicking with toes.
> ...



There are pros and cons to everything and it doesn't change with shoes. The cons to ball of the foot round kick is that it's less flexible to modifications. You better do it thorough and accurate or leave it be. Imagine what happens if you get spacially suffocated when trying to throw a front kick.. not very effective now is it? That's what happens with the roundhouse ball of the foot mechanically. With the instep, you can just turn your hip over at any time and hit a spot. It doesn't need to be circular, pointed in a precise way, etc and that's the advantage it has over the ball of the foot. The disadvantage of the instep alternative is that the instep is more fragile than the ball of the foot as a tool, especially on hard surfaces.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 22, 2021)

SahBumNimRush said:


> .  We NEVER break with the instep; we always break with the ball of the foot on roundhouse kicks.  I have always assumed it was due to the ball of the foot being stronger and a more resilient striking surface than the instep.



You never break with the instep because it's less a less practical surface to hit with. It is bone though unlike the ball of the foot, so I'm confident that the power generated is far greater. 

If it isn't, then this TKD practitioner did himself a disfavour, and I don't think he did.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 22, 2021)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I realize that you have a preconceived notion about what the ball of the foot can be used for and an agenda, but with respect, you are wrong.



I am wrong about what? I never said that it can't be used for it, I said that it's suboptimal if you get forced into an angle throwing a vertical front kick-ish kick, with a technique that was supposed to be a round kick. How often that happens depends on your footwork and adjustments, but it can't be ruled out.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 22, 2021)

AIKIKENJITSU said:


> I have trained and taught for fifty years and we have always used shoes. I think the ball of the foot is in the past, where people used to walk barefooted. The front tip of the shoe is a great argument stopper. I've used the upward instep to strike the groin.
> Sifu
> Puyallup, WA



Makes no sense why you would prefer the tip, even if you are wearing regular shoes. Why hurt your toes when you don't have to? The ball of the foot is designed precisely to avoid hitting with the toes or the instep since these parts are sensitive. Ball of the foot is not sensitive by comparison


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 22, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Makes no sense why you would prefer the tip,


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 22, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> There are pros and cons to everything and it doesn't change with shoes. The cons to ball of the foot round kick is that it's less flexible to modifications. You better do it thorough and accurate or leave it be. Imagine what happens if you get spacially suffocated when trying to throw a front kick.. not very effective now is it? That's what happens with the roundhouse ball of the foot mechanically. With the instep, you can just turn your hip over at any time and hit a spot. It doesn't need to be circular, pointed in a precise way, etc and that's the advantage it has over the ball of the foot. The disadvantage of the instep alternative is that the instep is more fragile than the ball of the foot as a tool, especially on hard surfaces.


In my competition days I could kick you in the head with a front kick from the clinch. 
Being “spatially suffocated” was never a problem and I loved working the clinch. 
I have never heard that phrase but have to say it can make a lot of sense in some cases.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 22, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> In my competition days I could kick you in the head with a front kick from the clinch.
> Being “spatially suffocated” was never a problem and I loved working the clinch.
> I have never heard that phrase but have to say it can make a lot of sense in some cases.



We have the data. There is only one competition that frequently employed ball of the foot roundhouse with regularity that I know of, and that's Old School, JKA Point Karate. Let's analyze for a minute why that is.

Point Karate is a stop format, meaning you clash for just one strike and are then separated. This means that you can get set and plan a shot, how to angle your foot, the trajectory of the leg, etc., Perfect conditions for a ball of the foot roundhouse kick.

All that said, it's phased out from that competition too.

And .. when there's continuous fighting, we almost never see it. You can kick the neck, meaning instep works just as well, you can kick the body easier. So ball of the foot got phased out due to overall impracticality.

And if you almost never use a variant it's better to supplant it with a variant used for every other situation, because you will throw that one better, since you use it more often.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 22, 2021)

When Machida knocked out Randy Couture with a jumping front kick, Couture thought it was a punch that Koed him, and I imagine that's what it feels like with ball of the foot even if a front kick travels differently.

It will probably feel like a highly concentrated punch. Wheras the instep feels like a whip.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 22, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> I am wrong about what? I never said that it can't be used for it, I said that it's suboptimal if you get forced into an angle throwing a vertical front kick-ish kick, with a technique that was supposed to be a round kick. How often that happens depends on your footwork and adjustments, but it can't be ruled out.


I think you like to argue. Have a nice day.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 22, 2021)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think you like to argue. Have a nice day.



No I am here to hold hands.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Sep 22, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> InfiniteLoop said:
> 
> 
> > Point Karate is a stop format, meaning you clash for just one strike and are then separated.
> ...






InfiniteLoop said:


> .


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 23, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> The cons to ball of the foot round kick is that it's less flexible to modifications.


It's flexible enough.  It doesn't need to do everything.  A screw driver isn't flexible, but the job that it was made for, it does it really well.


InfiniteLoop said:


> Imagine what happens if you get spacially suffocated when trying to throw a front kick.. not very effective now is it?


There are many ways to do a front kick.  Use it when you are supposed to use it and it will always be effective.  This statement is like me saying "What happens if you try to to catch a ball with your fists.. not very effective now is it?


InfiniteLoop said:


> With the instep, you can just turn your hip over at any time and hit a spot. It doesn't need to be circular, pointed in a precise way, etc and that's the advantage it has over the ball of the foot. The disadvantage of the instep alternative is that the instep is more fragile than the ball of the foot as a tool, especially on hard surfaces.


You can still stuff this up, by using the kick at the wrong time.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 23, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> You can still stuff this up, by using the kick at the wrong time.



You have more windows of opportunities


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 23, 2021)

Ball of the foot roundhouse  to the body is ideally thrown from an an angle since it ideally travels horizontally. This is a point my instructor made since day 1 when holding mitts, that you should always kick from an angle.

The head can however be kicked straight on because it's not a flat surface like a stomach or a mitts, it sticks out.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 23, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Ball of the foot roundhouse  to the body is ideally thrown from an an angle since it ideally travels horizontally. This is a point my instructor made since day 1 when holding mitts, that you should always kick from an angle.
> 
> The head can however be kicked straight on because it's not a flat surface like a stomach or a mitts, it sticks out.


I've never heard of this and I'm wondering if you may have the wrong idea.  The body isn't flat either, especially for some of us older guys. lol.
The body moves around, it changes angles, and position.  It doesn't stand like someone holding mitts.

I have heard of the concept of striking off the center line but that doesn't have anything to do with a "flat body" or a round head.  In this case "striking from an angle" Makes it less likely that you'll get hit by something coming from your opponents center.  

Out of all of my years of martial arts and sparring.  I have never calculated "round head" and "Flat body."  I have however calculated "Pointy stuff" like elbows and knees.

Edit: and pointy fingers.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 23, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> "striking from an angle"


By using the ball of your foot to deliver a right roundhouse kick, it's easier if your opponent is at your northwest direction than at your north direction.

When you use the

- ball of your foot, most of the time you only use your leg muscle without using full body rotation.
- instep, you will always use your full body rotation.

If we consider the "body push/pull limbs" principle, the instep roadhouse kick meet that requirement better.

A back fist is faster, but a hammer fist is more powerful.


----------



## J. Pickard (Sep 24, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Did you kick bare feet in sparring with be ball of the foot and how did it feel? Did you generate solid power?


I almost exclusively use the ball of the foot when sparring. Occasionally I use the shin for light leg kicks or the instep for kicks to the head but I personally prefer the ball of the foot when barefoot. It definitely has power for me, but you won't know what works for you until you try it 1000+ times against various opponents.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 26, 2021)

J. Pickard said:


> I almost exclusively use the ball of the foot when sparring. Occasionally I use the shin for light leg kicks or the instep for kicks to the head but I personally prefer the ball of the foot when barefoot. It definitely has power for me, but you won't know what works for you until you try it 1000+ times against various opponents



As for barefoot. Can I throw a ball of the foot without pulling my toes back and still be OK when it makes contact in sparring?..isn't it all down to angle of the foot, and less so about toes pulled back?


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 27, 2021)

Dvcochrans expert opinion based on snap shots was that this kick lacked power. 

Just goes to show you that photos don't mean anything.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 27, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Dvcochrans expert opinion based on snap shots was that this kick lacked power.
> 
> Just goes to show you that photos don't mean anything.


Well, what little bit of power you did make hit nothing. Your foot did not even make it to the center of your body so you clearly under rotated, you were corkscrewing, hips & shoulders were out of place, chamber was all wrong, hands/arms all wrong. 
I could keep going but.... why?


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 27, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Well, what little bit of power you did make hit nothing. Your foot did not even make it to the center of your body so you clearly under rotated, you were corkscrewing, hips & shoulders were out of place, chamber was all wrong, hands/arms all wrong.
> I could keep going but.... why



"Hips and shoulder out of place". Man, chill out on the technical terms! 

I threw a corkscrew alright, and I don't need to do it fast since my technique is sound....


----------



## Earl Weiss (Sep 29, 2021)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If the foot is encased in a shoe, the toe of the shoe can substitute for the ball of the foot.


FWIW General Choi's text says much the same in his text when addressing "Turning Kick"   "Toes. The principle of kicking procedure is exactly the same as the Ball of the foot , and the use of it becomes broader when  wearing shoes...."   I would add that just as the shoes make it difficult to flex the foot to hit with the ball of the foot sparring safety gear often presents the same issue.   Have had the pleasure of being kicked in the head By Bill Wallace doing the roundhouse kick and thought  my guard was positioned to prevent this.  It was only after i saw him do it to someone else I realized he was using the toes and the   foot being at 90 degrees to his leg allowed it  go behind my arm and still make contact with the toes.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 29, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> FWIW General Choi's text says much the same in his text when addressing "Turning Kick"   "


There's a lot of rubbish in his textbook.

For instance saying in common principles section for kicking: "every move should, with few exceptions begin with a backward motion", which is not correct and just confused.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 29, 2021)

Nr 10 below. No real martial artist would prescripe that, so I'm guessing it was a confused General Choi .


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 29, 2021)

Any non spinning kick that begins with a backward motion would look quite comical...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 29, 2021)

Many roundhouse kicks have been used in this clip. I believe those are all "instep" roundhouse kicks.


----------



## andyjeffries (Sep 30, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Nr 10 below. No real martial artist would prescripe that, so I'm guessing it was a confused General Choi .


I'd definitely be interested in GM @Earl Weiss's thoughts on that, as he's trained more with General Choi than anyone else I know (and General Choi's senior students).

Feels 100% wrong to my brain, but I'm coming from a Kukkiwon point of view.

Is this something General Choi stood by, or did he put it in one book and then realise that it wasn't right and removed it from others?

Thanks.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 30, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> I'd definitely be interested in GM @Earl Weiss's thoughts on that, as he's trained more with General Choi than anyone else I know (and General Choi's senior students).
> 
> Feels 100% wrong to my brain, but I'm coming from a Kukkiwon point of view.
> 
> ...



 It's not the first edition.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Sep 30, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> There's a lot of rubbish in his textbook.
> 
> For instance saying in common principles section for kicking: "every move should, with few exceptions begin with a backward motion", which is not correct and just confused.


""FWIW General Choi's text says much the same in his text when addressing "Turning Kick" "" 

First address the quote above your respsonse. 

Do you think that is Rubbish? 

Next address the "Backward motion"   comment   you think is rubbish understanding that rear leg front snap kick was an explicit exception when he taught as well as explaining "Backward Motion"   was meant to mean "Opposite direction" as well. 

Please give examples of kicks where the leg / foot does not move backward or opposite direction  before traveling toward the target.   Then compare how many of those there are versus exceptions.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Sep 30, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Any non spinning kick that begins with a backward motion would look quite comical...


So, all your non spinning kicks go directly from the ground to the target without any chamber whatsoever?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Sep 30, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> I'd definitely be interested in GM @Earl Weiss's thoughts on that, as he's trained more with General Choi than anyone else I know (and General Choi's senior students).
> 
> Feels 100% wrong to my brain, but I'm coming from a Kukkiwon point of view.
> 
> ...


Sir, when he taught the "Backward Motion"   was  further described as "Opposite Direction"   or what some might call a chamber.   So, basically with one of his favorite exception examples being rear leg front snap kick, I would say many kicks do not go from the foot being on the ground in a direct line to the target with always decreasing distance from foot to target and no chamber s opposed to  where the  distance from foot to target initially increases (As part of the Chamber and knee flexion)  and then travels toward the target.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 30, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> So, all your non spinning kicks go directly from the ground to the target without any chamber whatsoever?



Any "non spin kick chamber" travels forward, not backward. Regardless of it being semi circular or straight/front chamber.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 30, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> ""FWIW General Choi's text says much the same in his text when addressing "Turning Kick" ""
> 
> First address the quote above your response.
> 
> Do you think that is Rubbish?


The quote about using the toes is not rubbish but pretty odd... I can't  flex my toes in these shoes. Do you see any difference to my technique that warrants a change to toes as kicking tool?


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 30, 2021)

There's more rubbish in the encyclopedia...

All side kick extentions are Illustrated with a straight stand leg. Yet the instructional references standing leg straight as "incorrect".

Standing leg straight for side kick extention is *correct* for forms, *optional* for sparring.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 30, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many roundhouse kicks have been used in this clip. I believe those are all "instep" roundhouse kicks.


You can tell they really train to put the kick right on the Carotid artery. Ouch.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Sep 30, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Any "non spin kick chamber" travels forward, not backward. Regardless of it being semi circular or straight/front chamber.


The knee may move forward but it also bends so the foot moves in the opposite direction.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 30, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> The knee may move forward but it also bends so the foot moves in the opposite direction.



That's not the beginning movement. The foot doesn't tuck until well up in the air. 

He wrote: every movement must *begin* with a backward motion.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Sep 30, 2021)

And bending the knee does not increase mass and velocity...

There will only be an increased acceleration if the entire body part moves back and then forward.... Such as if you throw a haymaker punch and move the entire arm back and then forward.

But of course, you aren't supposed to do that since it telegraphs the motion.

The mass being increased by chambering is also rubbish. Mass is decreased since chambering halts the progressive travel time of the leg and then releases it again.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Sep 30, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> The mass being increased by chambering is also rubbish. Mass is decreased since chambering halts the progressive travel time of the leg and then releases it again.


Are you critiquing some actual statement  "The mass being increased by chambering"   Where is this stated?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 30, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> And bending the knee does not increase mass and velocity...


Mass? No. Velocity? Knee movement will most certainly affect velocity.


InfiniteLoop said:


> There will only be an increased acceleration if the entire body part moves back and then forward.... Such as if you throw a haymaker punch and move the entire arm back and then forward.
> 
> But of course, you aren't supposed to do that since it telegraphs the motion.


Except when you are supposed to, of course.


InfiniteLoop said:


> The mass being increased by chambering is also rubbish. Mass is decreased since chambering halts the progressive travel time of the leg and then releases it again.


Well, those are all words, certainly. I wonder if you know what they mean? Because what you've written is just so much gibberish.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Mass? No. Velocity? Knee movement will most certainly affect velocity.
> 
> Except when you are supposed to, of course.
> 
> Well, those are all words, certainly. I wonder if you know what they mean? Because what you've written is just so much gibberish.



Imagine throwing a boxing right hand all the way from your waist to a target. The arm will reach maximum acceleration until it hits a target. Why? Because it will never be stopped in its tracks until it hits.

Now if you do that but tuck the arm in the middle of the travel you have stopped the velocity of the tool travelling, and then restarted it when releasing it from its chamber. There's still acceleration from the arm but you cut off a major part of it, namely the hand that is going to land.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Mass? No. Velocity? Knee movement will most certainly affect velocity.



It doesn't matter if it does or not. A free leg is more effective mass... And mass is a bigger equation than speed (which is why HW hit harder but move slower).


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 1, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> It doesn't matter if it does or not. A free leg is more effective mass... And mass is a bigger equation than speed (which is why HW hit harder but move slower).


" And mass is a bigger equation than speed"    Explain please.    Bigger equation? Bigger factor?


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> " And mass is a bigger equation than speed"    Explain please.    Bigger equation? Bigger factor?



Yes, bigger factor. There are benefits to chambered roundhouse kicks and there are obviously lots of external variables that effect how hard you kick. I am talking now in terms of all else equal


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Here's a crazy idea... maybe you should kick something with it?


Your wish has been granted

First time ever.... Felt alright


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> " And mass is a bigger equation than speed"    Explain please.    Bigger equation? Bigger factor?



One more thing. If I throw a rock the size of a penny to your head, it will damage you more than a heavier softy bench boll.

The reason for that is that the lighter but harder object penetrates you deeper, and this means you actually get more mass transfered to your skull from a lighter object, than the softy but heavier bench boll that simply tapped you on the outside.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

So extra mass can be "converted"  depending on penetration. 

It's not just the measurements of the object and the speed it travels.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

Speaking of power..  if I throw the exact same kick to the bag with sneakers on, would it be less or more powerful?.. It's harder surface now.. So the main question will be if I get the same or better penetration into the bag.

Slightly more default mass due to the weight of the shoes, although it might slow me down.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> Are you critiquing some actual statement  "The mass being increased by chambering"   Where is this stated?


You said he was referring to chambering as the backward motion.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 1, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> You said he was referring to chambering as the backward motion.


"
Earl Weiss said:
Are you critiquing some actual statement "The mass being increased by chambering" Where is this stated?" 

Again, where is this in any way, shape or form tied to any increase in Mass?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 1, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Yes, bigger factor. There are benefits to chambered roundhouse kicks and there are obviously lots of external variables that effect how hard you kick. I am talking now in terms of all else equal


"" And mass is a bigger equation than speed" Explain please. Bigger equation? Bigger factor?" 

Well, call al the physics journals and tell them you have now  corrected the error of the centuries and re written the equation for kinetic energy   KE=1/2Mass X Velocity Squared.   Someone needs to go to Isaac Newton's grave and turn him back over. 

Let us know when your theory is accepted . Until then I will stay with "speed" (velocity)  being a bigger (But of course not the sole) factor.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> "" And mass is a bigger equation than speed" Explain please. Bigger equation? Bigger factor?"
> 
> Well, call al the physics journals and tell them you have now  corrected the error of the centuries and re written the equation for kinetic energy   KE=1/2Mass X Velocity Squared.   Someone needs to go to Isaac Newton's grave and turn him back over.
> 
> Let us know when your theory is accepted . Until then I will stay with "speed" (velocity)  being a bigger (But of course not the sole) factor.



I did not rewrite it. We can bring in a physicist here to shame you for thinking speed is more crucial than mass for power. Typical General Choi nonsense. 

The speed a lightweight requires to hit like a heavyweight is stupendous.

A heavyweight on the other hand can lose more speed than he gains in mass and still hit much more powerful than a light weight. 

A heavyweight who has both a lot of speed and mass equals Deontay Wilder..  One punch is all it takes then.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> "
> Earl Weiss said:
> Are you critiquing some actual statement "The mass being increased by chambering" Where is this stated?"
> 
> Again, where is this in any way, shape or form tied to any increase in Mass?


It is stated in point 10 of his principles about the backward motion that he wants kicks to begin with, which I refuted and you now ignore.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

Here it is again... I highlighted it in red since it's ********


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 1, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Here it is again... I highlighted it in red since it's ********





InfiniteLoop said:


> Here it is again... I highlighted it in red since it's ********


Got it - I see your misunderstanding now.    it would have to do with weight transfer from the support leg to the Kicking foot  (as the weight is transferred to the support foot and them off that foot to the kicking foot)  but since you say Isaac Newton is wrong  (He is credited with the KE=1/2M x Velocity squared equation.)  there isn't any point in debating further.    I would also agree that as the gearheads used to say "There is no substitute for Cubic Inches"   your analogy of comparing a lightweight to a heavyweight fails and if you don't see why I have no cure for your blindness.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> Got it - I see your misunderstanding now.    it would have to do with weight transfer from the support leg to the Kicking foot but since you say Isaac Newton is wrong  (He is credited with the KE=1/2M x Velocity squared equation.)  there isn't any point in debating further.    I would also agree that as the gearheads used to say "There is no substitute for Cubic Inches"   your analogy of comparing a lightweight to a heavyweight fails and if you don't see why I have no cure for your blindness.



The light weight vs heavy weight  analogy was used by Choi and it’s wrong.. Light weights are blindingly fast yet nowhere near as powerful as even slow heavyweight.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> Got it - I see your misunderstanding now.    it would have to do with weight transfer from the support leg to the Kicking foot  (as the weight is transferred to the support foot and them off that foot to the kicking foot)  but since you say Isaac Newton is wrong  (He is credited with the KE=1/2M x Velocity squared equation.)  there isn't any point in debating further.    I



What does weight from supporting foot to kicking foot have to do with his backward motion theory ?


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

Btw, if Choi was referring to chambering as the backward motion(which would still be wrong since that's not the beginning motion), why not just write chamber then? How is the reader supposed to know what he means by backward motion?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 1, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Imagine throwing a boxing right hand all the way from your waist to a target. The arm will reach maximum acceleration until it hits a target. Why? Because it will never be stopped in its tracks until it hits.


Um, no. Maximum acceleration is at the start of the movement, and the hand may or may not accelerate through the entire distance from start to impact, depending on other factors. It will reach it's highest VELOCITY at some point towards the end of the movement, however.
Words have meaning. If you don't understand the words, it's not likely you understand the subject.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 1, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> It doesn't matter if it does or not. A free leg is more effective mass... And mass is a bigger equation than speed (which is why HW hit harder but move slower).





InfiniteLoop said:


> One more thing. If I throw a rock the size of a penny to your head, it will damage you more than a heavier softy bench boll.
> 
> The reason for that is that the lighter but harder object penetrates you deeper, and this means you actually get more mass transfered to your skull from a lighter object, than the softy but heavier bench boll that simply tapped you on the outside.





InfiniteLoop said:


> So extra mass can be "converted"  depending on penetration.
> 
> It's not just the measurements of the object and the speed it travels.


I can only assume you never passed Jr High physics. 

Kinetic energy is directly proportional to the mass of the object and to the square of its velocity: K.E. = 1/2 m v2. If the mass has units of kilograms and the velocity of meters per second, the kinetic energy has units of kilograms-meters squared per second squared.

Source


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> I can only assume you never passed Jr High physics.
> 
> Kinetic energy is directly proportional to the mass of the object and to the square of its velocity: K.E. = 1/2 m v2. If the mass has units of kilograms and the velocity of meters per second, the kinetic energy has units of kilograms-meters squared per second squared.
> 
> Source


I have a physicist/martial artist on my side who said the following: Ground and pound is more devastating than punching someone standing, because with ground and pound you choke the reaction (if the head is planted down) from the target. So even though you are throwing arm punches, they are more devastating than if both of you stood up. 

The same principle is true of a rock hitting you, the penetration is deeper, that's why a light rock or a small ice cube that falls can kill.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 1, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> I have a physicist/martial artist on my side who said the following: Ground and pound is more devastating than punching someone standing, because with ground and pound you choke the reaction (if the head is planted down) from the target. So even though you are throwing arm punches, they are more devastating than if both of you stood up.


Ground and pound relies on the ground removing the ability of the head to recoil and lessen impact. That has nothing (zip, zero, zilch, nada, bumpkiss) to do with your claims.
Keep on digging that hole...


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Ground and pound relies on the ground removing the ability of the head to recoil and lessen impact. That has nothing (zip, zero, zilch, nada, bumpkiss) to do with your claims.
> Keep on digging that hole...



Yes it does. The reason I punch harder slow and deep, compared to fast but pulled, is due to the chocking mechanism by not pulling away my punch. 

And the reason that it generates more power is because the choking of the reaction induces more effective mass into the target.

Now if you then add the fact that heavyweights also hit with literally more mass carried on them, you can see how mass is far more important factor than high speed for power, although both combined is ofc optimal.


----------



## J. Pickard (Oct 1, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> he reason for that is that the lighter but harder object penetrates you deeper, and this means you actually get more mass transfered to your skull from a lighter object, than the softy but heavier bench boll that simply tapped you on the outside.


The mass of an object is fixed unless you physically change the object itself since mass is simply a measurement of the matter within any given object.


InfiniteLoop said:


> . We can bring in a physicist here to shame you for thinking speed is more crucial than mass for power.


speed and mass are irrelevant to "power" from a physics standpoint since power is a measurement of work over time. colloquially when fighters refer to power they are really referring to a fighters ability to cause maximum damage with a minimal number of strikes.  When looking at damage caused by a strike or kick or something similar it is more beneficial to look at Kinetic energy/momentum and how it relates to the force distributed by a punch/kick/etc. But as many kinesiologist will tell you, getting perfectly accurate measurements on this from humans is near impossible due to the expansive factors to take into account. That's why they usually use static inanimate targets to measure these things. 


InfiniteLoop said:


> The light weight vs heavy weight analogy was used by Choi and it’s wrong.. Light weights are blindingly fast yet nowhere near as powerful as even slow heavyweight.


This is a tough statement to accurately measure. When testing against inanimate static targets it is possible for lightweights to hit with as much force as a slow heavy weight. However, this does not translate directly into causing damage to a living target as many other factors need to be taken into account such as an opponents ability to "absorb" the strike and cause a negative acceleration, or the amount and density of various tissue covering vital target areas, distribution of force across the striking surface, and much much more. In most cases a lightweight fighter has less mass so will need more acceleration to deliver the same force as a heavyweight but additionally a heavyweight likely has more tissue mass covering vital areas allowing the to take more/heavier hits than a light weight would which would give most heavyweight fighters a slight advantage over light weight (not taking into account other factors such as reach).


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

. 


J. Pickard said:


> This is a tough statement to accurately measure. When testing against inanimate static targets it is possible for lightweights to hit with as much force as a slow heavy weight. However, this does not translate directly into causing damage to a living target as many other factors need to be taken into account such as an opponents ability to "absorb" the strike and cause a negative acceleration, or the amount and density of various tissue covering vital target areas, distribution of force across the striking surface, and much much more. In most cases a lightweight fighter has less mass so will need more acceleration to deliver the same force as a heavyweight but additionally a heavyweight likely has more tissue mass covering vital areas allowing the to take more/heavier hits than a light weight would which would give most heavyweight fighters a slight advantage over light weight (not taking into account other factors such as reach).



No. I don't care who you name, Manny Pacquiao for instance does not hit as hard as say a George Foreman, and Foreman hit like a zoombie.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

J. Pickard said:


> The mass of an object is fixed unless you physically change the object itself since mass is simply a measurement of the matter within any given object.



I didn't say that their masses changes. I said that mass transferred changes.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 1, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Btw, if Choi was referring to chambering as the backward motion(which would still be wrong since that's not the beginning motion), why not just write chamber then? How is the reader supposed to know what he means by backward motion?


Because the text was never meant to be a substitute for an instructor.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 1, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> What does weight from supporting foot to kicking foot have to do with his backward motion theory ?


Example: If you are standing with your weight equally distributed and you are going to do a lead leg front snap kick as you raise and chamber your lead leg, bringin the foot "Backward'  the weight distribution goes from 50/50 to 100% on the support leg.   Now as you  extend your leg for the kick you can shift your weight forward into the kick.


----------



## J. Pickard (Oct 1, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Yes it does. The reason I punch harder slow and deep, compared to fast but pulled, is due to the chocking mechanism by not pulling away my punch.
> 
> And the reason that it generates more power is because the choking of the reaction induces more effective mass into the target.
> 
> Now if you then add the fact that heavyweights also hit with literally more mass carried on them, you can see how mass is far more important factor than high speed for power, although both combined is ofc optimal.


If you stand up against a wall and get hit it is the exact same effect as ground and pound. What causes more damage in ground in pound is not relative to you having more or less mass thrown into the punch, you can throw just as much mass into a punch standing and cause a higher acceleration due to being able to push with your feet effectively hitting with a greater force. What makes ground and pound dangerous is that the person is literally getting hit twice with one punch. If you hit a person causing their head to accelerate into the ground the ground hits back with an equal force. So one punch equals two hard hits and not being able to recoil defensively because you are on the ground means the bulk of that force is delivered to vital areas in the head. I would question your "physics" friends credentials a bit. I've never heard of choking as a scientific term outside of electrical current (in electrical engineering, choking is the process of blocking high frequency AC while still allowing DC and low frequency currents to pass through a circuit) If he is simply saying that you are "choking" the flow of the technique (kinda like the choke on a carburetor) then all you have to do is get closer or punch further into your target. And as stated previously "power" is a vague non-descript word that does not effectively convey the point you are trying to get across, as power is W/t.


InfiniteLoop said:


> I didn't say that their masses changes. I said that mass transferred changes.


no, it's all the same mass. The energy transferred changes. You can shift more mass and accelerate it at a higher velocity but again this is changing the Kinetic energy end of the equation not the mass. I think your wording is just a bit off and that's why it's hard to get your ideas across.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

J. Pickard said:


> If you stand up against a wall and get hit it is the exact same effect as ground and pound. What causes more damage in ground in pound is not relative to you having more or less mass thrown into the punch, you can throw just as much mass into a punch standing and cause a higher acceleration due to being able to push with your feet effectively hitting with a greater force. What makes ground and pound dangerous is that the person is literally getting hit twice with one punch. If you hit a person causing their head to accelerate into the ground the ground hits back with an equal force. So one punch equals two hard hits and not being able to recoil defensively because you are on the ground means the bulk of that force is delivered to vital areas in the head. I would question your "physics" friends credentials a bit. I've never heard of choking as a scientific term outside of electrical current (in electrical engineering, choking is the process of blocking high frequency AC while still allowing DC and low frequency currents to pass through a circuit) If he is simply saying that you are "choking" the flow of the technique (kinda like the choke on a carburetor) then all you have to do is get closer or punch further into your target. And as stated previously "power" is a vague non-descript word that does not effectively convey the point you are trying to get across, as power is W/t.
> 
> no, it's all the same mass. The energy transferred changes. You can shift more mass and accelerate it at a higher velocity but again this is changing the Kinetic energy end of the equation not the mass. I think your wording is just a bit off and that's why it's hard to get your ideas across.



I asked a physicist: *why do I hit harder slow but deep and highly tensed, compared to relaxed and ultra fast. *

His explanation was first that I am indeed punching harder the first way, and second that it is due to the fact that I'm choking the reaction of the bag, and he use ground and pound in MMA *as an analogy.*


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 1, 2021)

If you pull your knee to touch your chest as your daily training, if will help your chambering.

You should be able to do better than this.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> Example: If you are standing with your weight equally distributed and you are going to do a lead leg front snap kick as you raise and chamber your lead leg, bringin the foot "Backward'  the weight distribution goes from 50/50 to 100% on the support leg.   Now as you  extend your leg for the kick you can shift your weight forward into the kick.



 Lead leg kicks are rarely displayed in the book and a lead front kick would be an exception. A default kick is thrown off the rear leg and it doesn't matter which technique it is, it will begin by travelling forward.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> Because the text was never meant to be a substitute for an instructor.



If I have to ask an instructor, get rid of the middle man, that is the book, and have the instructor speak sensible English. His point about beginning backward motion is both wrong  and incomprehensible. His point about standing leg bent for side kick is Karate residuals and wrong in his own ITF. 

 The only possible reason you could have for understanding what the hell he meant was by putting together the dots through various lectures. I still argue that Choi has a misconception. You can define leg recoil as a backward motion,  but that's not the beginning of the movement. The beginning of the movement the leg gets up, not backward. And your body certainly doesn't lean backward


----------



## J. Pickard (Oct 1, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> I asked a physicist: *why do I hit harder slow but deep and highly tensed, compared to relaxed and ultra fast. *
> 
> His explanation was first that I am indeed punching harder the first way, and second that it is due to the fact that I'm choking the reaction of the bag, and he use ground and pound in MMA *as an analogy.*


that is a very wrong and unscientific explanation of things. The amount of force delivered by an object directly correlates to velocity and mass. you can hit just as deep by not pulling your punch which takes a conscious effort. The fast punches will without any doubt hit harder than a slow punch. This is not to say that they will cause more damage because they won't necessarily. When you hit an object you apply a force and if the force is great enough it will cause an acceleration on it. when the object is unable to accelerate any further because there is another object behind it, like when doing ground and pound, the force the object applies on the ground also gets applied by the ground to the object. This becomes measured as a compression force on each side. This is why ground and pound can cause more damage with a weaker punch.  But I digress, as this has nothing to do with your initial post. If you really want to know the science behind how to throw an effective kick, the math involved in kinematic studies is a bit tricky but here is a general study that can give you an idea. Kinematics is messy and rarely gives anything conclusive but it does help improve performance.








						A biomechanical analysis of the roundhouse kicking technique of expert practitioners: A comparison between the martial arts disciplines of Muay Thai, Karate, and Taekwondo
					

The purpose of this study was first, to determine whether there were differences in the roundhouse kicking leg kinematics performed by highly skilled Muay Thai, Karate and Taekwondo practitioners (n = 8 per group). Next, analysis aimed to identify the ...




					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				



This is in no way definitive but explores possible methods for delivering an effective round kick (that's why it has "discussion" at the end instead of "conclusion")


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

J. Pickard said:


> that is a very wrong and unscientific explanation of things. The amount of force delivered by an object directly correlates to velocity and mass. you can hit just as deep by not pulling your punch which takes a conscious effort. The fast punches will without any doubt hit harder than a slow punch. This is not to say that they will cause more damage because they won't necessarily. When you hit an object you apply a force and if the force is great enough it will cause an acceleration on it. when the object is unable to accelerate any further because there is another object behind it, like when doing ground and pound, the force the object applies on the ground also gets applied by the ground to the object. This becomes measured as a compression force on each side. This is why ground and pound can cause more damage with a weaker punch.  But I digress, as this has nothing to do with your initial post. If you really want to know the science behind how to throw an effective kick, the math involved in kinematic studies is a bit tricky but here is a general study that can give you an idea. Kinematics is messy and rarely gives anything conclusive but it does help improve performance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You get more mass into the target from something that digs deep, rather than simply scrape on the outside, which is why a slap doesn't hurt you and why a soft beach boll thrown, no matter how heavy, won't hurt you, but a lighter rock will.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 1, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> You get more mass into the target from something that digs deep, rather than simply scrape on the outside, which is why a slap doesn't hurt you and why a soft beach boll thrown, no matter how heavy, won't hurt you, but a lighter rock will.







Nope. You're absolutely correct. That doesn't look like it hurts at all. I think you need to fire off an email to the physics department at every major university and let them know they've been wrong all these years.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 1, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> . You can define leg recoil as a backward motion,  but that's not the beginning of the movement. The beginning of the movement the leg gets up, not backward. And your body certainly doesn't lean backward


You are focusing on the leg and not the foot.


----------



## J. Pickard (Oct 1, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> You get more mass into the target from something that digs deep, rather than simply scrape on the outside, which is why a slap doesn't hurt you and why a soft beach boll thrown, no matter how heavy, won't hurt you, but a lighter rock will.


the rock vs ball thing is because of kinetic energy, more specifically the velocity part (and elasticity which is a whole other mess of math to add) , not mass. For ground and pound, the mass is the same, what you are changing is the compression force applied to the target not the mass. If you increase the mass of a beach ball enough it will, in fact, hurt you. You can also increase the velocity of a normal sized beach ball and hurt someone up to a point. This is basic physics that has been explained on this thread repeatedly. How are you not getting this?


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

J. Pickard said:


> the rock vs ball thing is because of kinetic energy, more specifically the velocity part (and elasticity which is a whole other mess of math to add) ,


No it isn't. Velocity can be exactly the same.. The beach boll won't hurt you even though it has more weight because it doesn't transfer that mass effectively. The rock however does by default.

It doesn't need to involve stone vs plastic material. It's  the same thing if I tap you with a fast round kick compared to if I dig into you with a slower but more tensed round  kick. The slow one will transfer more mass even though it's the exact same object hitting you in both instances.  The second one is slower but more impactful


----------



## J. Pickard (Oct 1, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> No it isn't. Velocity can be exactly the same.. The beach boll won't hurt you even though it has more weight because it doesn't transfer that mass effectively. The rock however does by default.
> 
> It doesn't need to involve stone vs plastic material. It's  the same thing if I tap you with a fast round kick compared to if I dig into you with a slower but more tensed round  kick. The slow one will transfer more mass even though it's the exact same object hitting you in both instances.  The second one is slower but more impactful


FFS, this is not how physics works! You are so far beyond wrong it is causing me physical pain! If you make a beach ball out of a literal tonne of plastic it will crush you no matter what. If it is 600kg directly on top of you it will hurt you. if you accelerate a beach ball to a speed just before it shatters it will hurt you. Pain from an object hitting you, what we will call impact force is measured using Kinetic energy, momentum, and compression among other things because biophysics is complicated. In fact her, here is a link to a video showing how the mass andvelocity of a beach ball effects the force it delivers. What you described as a "tap" with a kick vs "diggin in" is literally the difference in KE and compression as I explained and both are a product of mass and VELOCITY!




I can't with you anymore.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 1, 2021)

At this point, a quote from Austrian Physicist Wolfgang Pauli seems appropriate.
"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> At this point, a quote from Austrian Physicist Wolfgang Pauli seems appropriate.
> "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."



I take that as an honor


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

J. Pickard said:


> FFS, this is not how physics works! You are so far beyond wrong it is causing me physical pain! If


Velocity 
*the speed of something in a given direction.*

That has nothing to do with the fact that my consistently slower punch that I don't let go off, is harder than the one I snap at the bag.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

J. Pickard said:


> FFS, this is not how physics works! You are so far beyond wrong it is causing me physical pain! If you make a beach ball out of a literal tonne of plastic it will crush you no matter what. If it is 600kg directly on top of you it will hurt you. if you accelerate a beach ball to a speed just before it shatters it will hurt you. Pain from an object hitting you, what we will call impact force is measured using Kinetic energy, momentum, and compression among other things because biophysics is complicated. In fact her, here is a link to a video showing how the mass andvelocity of a beach ball effects the force it delivers. What you described as a "tap" with a kick vs "diggin in" is literally the difference in KE and compression as I explained and both are a product of mass and VELOCITY!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


. I exaggerated about the volley boll. It will eventually do  damage but it takes soo much .  And that's due to the fact that penetration affects mass transfer into someone.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

Sorry speed, not weight...it takes so much speed that it's silly.

But also weight...


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 1, 2021)

Velocity is delta x over delta t.

It has zero to do with your argument about the area of the striking member. 
However, in  the case of two members of the same mass traveling at the same velocity where one has a smaller area striking the same material, the penetration would be greater for the smaller member.

I suspect this is the argument you were trying to make but failing at poorly. 

So, IF all things are equal, then yes, a correct ball of the foot kick will do more ‘damage’.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 1, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> However, in  the case of two members of the same mass traveling at the same velocity where one has a smaller area striking the same material, the penetration would be greater for the smaller member.
> 
> ’.



 No. Ball of the foot is skin ,instep is *Bone. * Again discounting the fact that Hardness of the material affect penetration...and penetration affects power.


----------



## andyjeffries (Oct 4, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> If I have to ask an instructor, get rid of the middle man, that is the book, and have the instructor speak sensible English. His point about beginning backward motion is both wrong  and incomprehensible. His point about standing leg bent for side kick is Karate residuals and wrong in his own ITF.


This is always the case. The book is extra detail for those that understand it. No one is really intending to teach Taekwondo via book, the book is there as a help for those that can understand it.

I often have students say "shall I learn my next pattern from this book or YouTube" after testing, the answer is hell no!!! You learn from an instructor, books and videos are memory aids for most and details for those that can get them.

In this case the book potentially is badly worded (or at least not explained fully) so the best case is to have an instructor that does know (e.g. GM Weiss) explain how that was intended based on their experience at training with seniors.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 4, 2021)

andyjeffries said:


> This is always the case. The book is extra detail for those that understand it. No one is really intending to teach Taekwondo via book, the book is there as a help for those that can understand it.
> 
> I often have students say "shall I learn my next pattern from this book or YouTube" after testing, the answer is hell no!!! You learn from an instructor, books and videos are memory aids for most and details for those that can get them.
> 
> In this case the book potentially is badly worded (or at least not explained fully) so the best case is to have an instructor that does know (e.g. GM Weiss) explain how that was intended based on their experience at training with seniors.



It's not just that. He writes "toes of the stationary foot should point 45 degrees outward in the turning kick" , yet he uses a picture with an 180 degree pivot.

If you can't distinguish a 180 degree pivot from a 45 degree, you have no business writing a TKD textbook.

I wouldn't trust Choi about anything. He's the Donald Trump of TaeKwonDo. He just put his name on it as founder.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 4, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> I wouldn't trust Choi about anything. He's the Donald Trump of TaeKwonDo. He just put his name on it as founder.


So why do you train in a system founded by someone you hold in such contempt? How does your instructor feel about your attitude?


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 4, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> So why do you train in a system founded by someone you hold in such contempt? How does your instructor feel about your attitude?



I don't hold innocent ignorance in contempt. I highlighted the fact that his 87 textbook is riddled with either inaccuracies or inconsistencies, and anyone considering Choi a reliable technical authority on ITF TaeKwonDo parameters really hasn't looked through this carefully.

 It's evident that he copy and pastes parameters,  then puts up illustrations in violation of them... Repeatedly...

Make up your own mind what that tells you about his knowledge.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 4, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> It's not just that. He writes "toes of the stationary foot should point 45 degrees outward in the turning kick" , yet he uses a picture with an 180 degree pivot.
> 
> If you can't distinguish a 180 degree pivot with a 45 degree, you have no business writing a TKD textbook.
> 
> I wouldn't trust Choi about anything. He's the Donald Trump of TaeKwonDo. He just put his name on it as founder.


Your mistake again seems to be lack of sufficient information (unable to determine if you received the information and failed to understand or never received it) from a competent instructor. Every serious student of the system and using the texts knows the photos in the text are not always accurate. (keep in mind this was done before the age of digital photography)  - there is even a disclaimer in the text - "The angle of the feet may appear out of position" but it only mentions stances that photos are not always accurate) Further -   you have chosen the first photo but ignore 6 more showing the more appropriate angle.

Additionally serious students   are aware that while General Choi his system just as body types vary so to will the standards on an individual basis.

As far as your  trust in General Choi - no one cares.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 4, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> Your mistake again seems to be lack of sufficient information from a competent instructor. Every serious student of the system and using the texts knows the photos in the text are not always accurate. (keep in mind this was done before the age of digital photography - there is even a disclaimer in the text - "The angle of the feet may appear out of position" but it only mentions stances that photos are not always accurate) Further -   you have chosen the first photo but ignore 6 more showing the more appropriate angle.
> 
> As far as your  trust in General Choi - no one cares.



Yes there are also pictures with the 45 degree base foot pivot. A blind chicken finds a piece of corn every now and then. 

He just random picked turning kick photos, which is a bit inappropriate for a book about parameters.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 4, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> - there is even a disclaimer in the text - "The angle of the feet may appear out of position"



What kind of language is that? It either is or isn't out of position.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 4, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> So why do you train in a system founded by someone you hold in such contempt?


I thought you said I don't do TKD since I just kick and punch.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 4, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> Your mistake again seems to be lack of sufficient information (unable to determine if you received the information and failed to understand or never received it) from a competent inst


No mistake. Choi uses as his *main* *picture* a 180 degree pivot, instead of  45, cause he's clueless.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 4, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> I thought you said I don't do TKD since I just kick and punch.


I don't believe I said that. I do know that you claim ITF training while while displaying nothing but ignorance and disrespect.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 4, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't believe I said that. I do know that you claim ITF training while while displaying nothing but ignorance and disrespect.



I call a spade a spade. If that's disrespectful then so be it. Would you list a parameter of 45 degree pivot to a technique, yet select an 180 degree pivot as your big picture illustration next to it?

Probably not, right?


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 4, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> I do know that you claim ITF training while while displaying nothing but ignorance and disrespect.



I do TaeKwonDo, period. I don't subscribe to tribalism. There are bigger differences between practitioners than styles.

The current example of an ITF practitioner doing a KKW 180 degree turning kick pivot is case in point.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 4, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> No mistake. Choi uses as his *main* *picture* a 180 degree pivot, instead of  45, cause he's clueless.


Interesting that you would use the "Clueless" term since I was thinking the same as you.    Perhaps you would care to share the texts or articles you have written since I would have used the same term about someone who thinks they can learn MA from a book.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 4, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> What kind of language is that? It either is or isn't out of position.


It's a nice way of saying - Photos aren't necessarily correct.  It's no secret the text, especially the earlier ones had lots of wrong pictures.  and other mistakes.   Some were corrected in later editions and  there were "Technical correction" bulletins issued by the ITF before it imploded.  Other errors were addressed at courses but never made it into print in later editions.   digital photography makes things easier nowadays.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 4, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> I would have used the same term about someone who thinks they can learn MA from a book.



You were the one who began by referencing to General Chois textbooks.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 4, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> It's a nice way of saying - Photos aren't necessarily correct.  It's no secret the text, especially the earlier ones had lots of wrong pictures..



87 is not exactly the first edition and the Chang Hon system never had formal 180 degree turning kicks. Old or new pictures has no bearing on this.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 4, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> It's a nice way of saying - Photos aren't necessarily correct.  It's no secret the text, especially the earlier ones had lots of wrong pictures.  and other mistakes.   Some were corrected in later editions and  there were "Technical correction" bulletins issued by the ITF before it imploded.  Other errors were addressed at courses but never made it into print in later editions.   digital photography makes things easier nowadays.



Very poor wording in that case. "May appear wrong" and "May be wrong" are two different things.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 4, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> You were the one who began by referencing to General Chois textbooks.


No, you started it - Seriously?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 4, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> 87 is not exactly the first edition and the Chang Hon system never had formal 180 degree turning kicks. Old or new pictures has no bearing on this.


1983 was the first edition.   As I said "Some" errors  and photos were corrected in later editions. Some were corrected throught Technical correction bulletins and some were never corrected. So, once again your point seems meaningless.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 4, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> You were the one who began by referencing to General Chois textbooks.


Correct - it's a reference.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 5, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> 1983 was the first edition.   As I said "Some" errors  and photos were corrected in later editions. Some were corrected throught Technical correction bulletins and some were never corrected. So, once again your point seems meaningless.



The date of the picture is irrelevant and I already explained to you why.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 5, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> The date of the picture is irrelevant and I already explained to you why.


I already explained to you why it's unimportant and you are about 20 years late in your comments. First and foremost based upon photos you posted of yourself  it's likely you never experienced the days before electronic word processing and digital photography so you have no concept of the enormity of the task  to produce the 15 Volume encyclopedia.   Next, those who are familiar with the encyclopedia have long been  aware of dozens if not hundreds of inconsistencies and errors, but it's "News to you."   There are processes in place to deal with those issues.   When General Choi was alive it was simpler.   You could simply ask if it was an error he would simply say "Book Wrong".   Sometimes this was followed by Technical correction bulletins and  / or   revisions in later editions. Sometimes  that never happened.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 5, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> I already explained to you why it's unimportant and you are about 20 years late in your comments. First and foremost based upon photos you posted of yourself  it's likely you never experienced the days before electronic word processing and digital photography so you have no concept of the enormity of the task  to produce the 15 Volume encyclopedia.   Next, those who are familiar with the encyclopedia have long been  aware of dozens if not hundreds of inconsistencies and errors, but it's "News to you."   There are processes in place to deal with those issues.   When General Choi was alive it was simpler.   You could simply ask if it was an error he would simply say "Book Wrong".   Sometimes this was followed by Technical correction bulletins and  / or   revisions in later editions. Sometimes  that never happened.



I'm a simpleton who browsed through the book and I noticed it. He's the "founder" and either failed to notice it or was clueless. 

The difference between 45 and 180 is not exactly subtle.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 5, 2021)

Btw, who is the guy throwing the kick?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 6, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Btw, who is the guy throwing the kick?


I have no idea. Do you?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 6, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> I'm a simpleton who browsed through the book ........


Kudos to you for your honesty.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 6, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> I have no idea. Do you?



No but a very fine kick. I would put it in a generic kicks section, in which all parameters aren't set in stone. 


Earl Weiss said:


> Kudos to you for your honesty.


Thank you.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 6, 2021)

Btw @Earl Weiss Why is there no chamber in the hooking version of the reverse turning kick in the 87 encyclopedia picture illustration? And no mention of it in the description either

Isn't that an error too?


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 6, 2021)

This is version A with no chamber and no hooking.







Because we've only kicked shields, my ITF school never drilled the hooking version (and the pattern(s) using it aren't trained because we had a mixed group and that pattern was high Dan .

So is chamber optional for the hook version or is it a demand if you compete in forms?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 6, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Btw @Earl Weiss Why is there no chamber in the hooking version of the reverse turning kick in the 87 encyclopedia picture illustration? And no mention of it in the description either
> 
> Isn't that an error too?


If the text was meant to be instructional it might be considered an omission.   However, since not intended as such it is not an error.   Not every step of the kicks are shown or explained.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 6, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> This is version A with no chamber and no hooking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


IMO the reverse hook kick is generaly trained with a target paddle rather that a heavy bag or stationary object so it can travel through the target.   This is not to say it can't be done as shown.   The text references the "Dual purpose"  of the kick.   One to kick and the other to hook the opponent who moves in. (Not a fan of the latter and it would seem that requires less of a chamber.) )


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 6, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> If the text was meant to be instructional it might be considered an omission.   However, since not intended as such it is not an error.   Not every step of the kicks are shown or explained.



What is it intended as then?


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 6, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> IMO the reverse hook kick is generaly trained with a target paddle rather that a heavy bag or stationary object so it can travel through the target.


That's why I threw the regular heel kick. I.  asked about the specifics since I have never done a hooking one  because you can't hook a flat kicking shield surface

I can hook that heavy bag, but  it won't be pleasent


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 6, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> IMO the reverse hook kick is generaly trained with a target paddle rather that a heavy bag or stationary object so it can travel through the target.   This is not to say it can't be done as shown.   The text references the "Dual purpose"  of the kick.   One to kick and the other to hook the opponent who moves in. (Not a fan of the latter and it would seem that requires less of a chamber.) )


Not a fan? Yon-Gae Tull prescripes a hooking reverse turning kick... As does Choi Yong..


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 6, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Not a fan? Yon-Gae Tull prescripes a hooking reverse turning kick... As does Choi Yong..


You seem to misunderstand " (Not a fan of the latter and it would seem that requires less of a chamber.) . The latter being the second one mentioned "  "the other to hook the opponent who moves in. "  Which of course has nothing to do with the patterns that have the move.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 6, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> You seem to misunderstand " (Not a fan of the latter and it would seem that requires less of a chamber.) . The latter being the second one mentioned "  "the other to hook the opponent who moves in. "  Which of course has nothing to do with the patterns that have the move.



I think the point you are trying to make is that chambering is slower and that you don't have time for that if someone moves in, but I think it’s the opposite. Not chambering makes the leg heavier to swing, even though it's a less involved movement.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 6, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> I think the point you are trying to make is that chambering is slower and that you don't have time for that if someone moves in,


Not at all  the point I was trying to make.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 7, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> Not at all  the point I was trying to make.



Then you will have to clarify what you mean with less requirement of a chamber


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 7, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Then you will have to clarify what you mean with less requirement of a chamber


If you want the foot to be moving as quickly as possible at moment of impact to increase destructive force, chamber will facilitate this.  If you want the leg to pull someone in the speed will be less of a factor so the chamber is not  as important.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 7, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> If you want the foot to be moving as quickly as possible at moment of impact to increase destructive force, chamber will facilitate this.  If you want the leg to pull someone in the speed will be less of a factor so the chamber is not  as important.



This goes back to the discussion we had before. When one chambers, he is halting the acceleration of the foot. So what you have to do is make up for that by engaging your quads when the chamber is released, to make something useful out of the tucking motion.

This results in chamber versions requiring more relative speed and full body integration than a mere leg swing, because a non chambered leg swing has no stop to its momentum from take-off all the way to impact.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 8, 2021)

If I roundhouse kick and let the standing foot decide for itself, here's how much it rotates by instinct. What would you guys say this base foot pivot degree is? 50?


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 8, 2021)

45°


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 8, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> 45°



I am the perfect student.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 8, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> I am the perfect student.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 8, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> I am the perfect student.


Umm.....


----------



## J. Pickard (Oct 8, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> If I roundhouse kick and let the standing foot decide for itself, here's how much it rotates by instinct. What would you guys say this base foot pivot degree is? 50?


relative to what? Relative to the direction of the kick/direction you are looking then it looks like 1 quarter full rotation which is 90degrees, relative to the wall it's pointing at then it's 0 degrees, relative to the room behind you then about 270. Consider that 45 degrees is 1/8 of a full 360 degree circular rotation which isn't much at all.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 8, 2021)

J. Pickard said:


> relative to what?



angle of the toes of the stationary foot


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 8, 2021)

J. Pickard said:


> relative to what? Relative to the direction of the kick/direction you are looking then it looks like 1 quarter full rotation which is 90degrees, relative to the wall it's pointing at then it's 0 degrees, relative to the room behind you then about 270. Consider that 45 degrees is 1/8 of a full 360 degree circular rotation which isn't much at all.


That is right sir and I stand corrected. 
I hurriedly used the wrong value. 
If he knows the ‘4 quadrants it is easy to dissect.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Oct 9, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> When one chambers, he is halting the acceleration of the foot.


Only if you're not doing it correctly.  It's a matter of redirecting the chamber movement into the kick without halting or losing momentum.  Transitioning from the chambering line to the kicking line (or arc depending on the kick) requires a subtle circular element to maintain momentum.  This idea also applies to hand techniques traveling in multiple directions.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 9, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> If I roundhouse kick and let the standing foot decide for itself, here's how much it rotates by instinct. What would you guys say this base foot pivot degree is? 50?View attachment 27376


Are you kicking a target that is positioned directly to the front or to the side front.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 9, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> angle of the toes of the stationary foot


If we use a clock dial for reference and the foot started pointing at 12, and now points to 9  that would be 90 degrees.


----------



## J. Pickard (Oct 9, 2021)

So I have a hypothesis on where the 45 degrees comes from. I may be completely wrong but here me out; If you are in a traditional TKD back stance for your fighting stance and you do a round kick with the *lead* leg then the back foot may only have to rotate 45 degrees. Your back foot would be 90 degrees relative to your front foot and another 45 degree rotation from that point would allow you enough rotation to kick moderately high and strong with the lead leg. Just a thought.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 9, 2021)

There is a problem here with discussing the 45 degree angle for the ITF / Chang Ho "Turning kick" vs the ITF / Chang Hon "side turning kick"   This is explained as follows: 

The side turning kick is the typical roundhouse kick where  if you are at the center of the clock dial the target is at 12:00  with the person say in a sideways (more or les stance)   that is NOT the "Turning kick" with 45 degree support foot turn stipulation.   
  If you start in the same position  right foot back and then  lets say there is a line thru 12 O'clock parallel to a line thru 3-9   and intersecting with that line at 90 degrees is a line thru  2-4   at the point of intersection is a person standing with shoulders in line with the line thru 12 parallel to the 3-9 line that position is referred to as the "Side front"   The turning kick to that target is where the support foot has a stipulated 45 degree angle.    There is a pattern where the target is directly ahead and you   step with your left foot to the left to align the turning kick with this target.   
The "Side turning" has you turn more "Sideways" .   I know, perhaps terminology could have been better.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 18, 2021)

@Earl Weiss With regards to my reverse hook kick inquiry...There appears to be an inconsistency within the ITF whether to chamber these or not in forms.

It is always chambered in competitions but lots of schools posting patterns online do it stiff legged, like the first version, and then rechamber.

Are the  exact parameters for competition patterns outlined somewhere?


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 18, 2021)

Then we have guys who chamber when they are supposed to do it straight legged version...  So the other way around...


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 18, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> @Earl Weiss With regards to my reverse hook kick inquiry...There appears to be an inconsistency within the ITF whether to chamber these or not in forms.
> 
> It is always chambered in competitions but lots of schools posting patterns online do it stiff legged, like the first version, and then rechamber.
> 
> Are the  exact parameters for competition patterns outlined somewhere?


The video you linked at post 199 is no longer available.

Technical parameters are contained in the text and inconsistencies need to be addressed. (Such as photo angle of foot not matching text)   " Reverse hooking Kick - Basic Principles ....2. Bend the kicking leg properly during the kick"  No specification as to what degree of "bend"   for a chamber is specified.   "Reverse Turning Kick... Keep the Kicking leg straight always. "      As to what some people do in competition does not make it correct. That is why some score higher than others.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 19, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> The video you linked at post 199 is no longer available.
> 
> Bend the kicking leg properly during the kick"  No specification as to what degree of "bend"


"During the kick"could mean when the leg hooks, or it could mean when the leg chambers and then hooks. No way of knowing which of the two it refers to


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 19, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> The video you linked at post 199 is no longer available.


It works for me


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 19, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> "During the kick"could mean when the leg hooks, or it could mean when the leg chambers and then hooks. No way of knowing which of the two it refers to


True, that is why the text is not meant to be a substitute for an instructor. Extremely hard, especially in pre digital photography times for a 2 dimensional medium to show and explain 3 dimensional action.   Back in the 970's we were totally confused by text depictions  of hooking kick in Ko Dang and in the 980's by the Pick shape kick in Ju Che.   Once actually seen the confusion evaporated.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 19, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> It works for me


Interesting - Still says "Video not available"  for me.  In any event the Yon Gae Video you posted has what I consider to be an accurate depiction of reverse Hooking Kick" in the pattern.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 19, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> True, that is why the text is not meant to be a substitute for an instructor. Extremely hard, especially in pre digital photography times for a 2 dimensional medium to show and explain 3 dimensional action.   Back in the 970's we were totally confused by text depictions  of hooking kick in Ko Dang and in the 980's by the Pick shape kick in Ju Che.   Once actually seen the confusion evaporated.



That's why I ask if the parameters are listed elsewhere specifically for forms competition.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 19, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> True, that is why the text is not meant to be a substitute for an instructor.



That's circular reasoning. The instructor needs an authority to know himself what he teaches is correct. And he can't get it from his instructor since that instructor has the same issue with his instructor.


----------



## Tman (Oct 19, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> Interesting - Still says "Video not available"  for me.  In any event the Yon Gae Video you posted has what I consider to be an accurate depiction of reverse Hooking Kick" in the pattern.


If you try viewing it on the YouTube site it is marked private.


----------



## Tman (Oct 19, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> That's circular reasoning. The instructor needs an authority to know himself what he teaches is correct. And he can't get it from his instructor since that instructor has the same issue with his instructor.


Usually you ask your instructor for guidance. If there is disagreement on a proper technique then a group of Masters will be gathered to make a decision on what is correct.  

The way I have been taught to throw a reverse hook or any hook kick, is to think of it as a side kick that hooks.  You chamber like side kick extend you kick to the side of the target then hook the target.  You can chamber into a round kick and follow up with that.  Hook kick into round kick is a great combo.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 19, 2021)

Tman said:


> Usually you ask your instructor for guidance. If there is disagreement on a proper technique then a group of Masters will be gathered to make a decision on what is correct.
> 
> The way I have been taught to throw a reverse hook or any hook kick, is to think of it as a side kick that hooks.  You chamber like side kick extend you kick to the side of the target then hook the target.  You can chamber into a round kick and follow up with that.  Hook kick into round kick is a great combo.



This is not about what you do or what your instructor says. There are two reverse roundhouse kicks in TaeKwonDo, one is chambered, one isn't.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 19, 2021)

Here is the non chambered. However, some people do no chamber for the hooking version as well. And some chamber for the version below


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 19, 2021)

Tman said:


> If you try viewing it on the YouTube site it is marked private.



It's not private for me


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 19, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> It works for me


I just checked, and getting the video not available as well. Not sure what the video is, so not sure how relevant/important it is, just thought I'd let you know a 3rd person can't access. Could it be some sort of country restriction the video poster and/or youtube added?


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 19, 2021)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I just checked, and getting the video not available as well. Not sure what the video is, so not sure how relevant/important it is, just thought I'd let you know a 3rd person can't access. Could it be some sort of country restriction the video poster and/or youtube added?


 Yes it must be a country restriction.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 19, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Yes it must be a country restriction.


Cool, that's what I figured. Just didn't know the context of the video to say for sure.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 19, 2021)

In ITF, When you stop with the heel in the center, the leg is supposed to swing straight. Yet even in World championships, they sometimes chamber these, as if it was a hook kick. And that includes the poster of the clip. 

See here below...


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 19, 2021)

The reason that this technique is supposed to be unchambered is because it is swung like a log, wheras the reverse hook is a whipping motion, thus using a chamber....

These guys at elite forms events still confuse the techniques


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 19, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> That's circular reasoning. The instructor needs an authority to know himself what he teaches is correct. And he can't get it from his instructor since that instructor has the same issue with his instructor.


Instructors typically belong to groups such as the "ITF"  and those groups either have a technical committee or technical director and that is who they should look to if their respective instructor does not have an answer.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 19, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> This is not about what you do or what your instructor says. There are two reverse roundhouse kicks in TaeKwonDo, one is chambered, one isn't.


This is not correct. There are not "two reverse roundhouse kicks"   in fact there is nothing by that name. There is a reverse turning kik which specifies straight leg and a reverse hook kick where leg is bent. See post # 226.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 19, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> In ITF, When you stop with the heel in the center, the leg is supposed to swing straight. Yet even in World championships, they sometimes chamber these, as if it was a hook kick. And that includes the poster of the clip.
> 
> See here below...


So you have discovered that even at world championships some people are not technically accurate?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 19, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> That's circular reasoning. The instructor needs an authority to know himself what he teaches is correct. And he can't get it from his instructor since that instructor has the same issue with his instructor.


Another reason to attend IICs . To address what perhaps your instructor or even there instructor does not know.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 19, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> So you have discovered that even at world championships some people are not technically accurate?



This particular fault is due to poor systematization in the ITF, not inability of the practitioner.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 19, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> and a reverse hook kick where leg is bent. See post # 226.



That is incorrect. The Reverse hook kick has the leg bent at initiation and recoil, not at point of impact. The leg is fully extended at impact.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 19, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> Another reason to attend IICs . To address what perhaps your instructor or even there instructor does not know.



I had a GM instructor and technical advisor appointed by the ITF.  Hence why I can point out these flaws that are glaring


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 19, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> This is not correct. There are not "two reverse roundhouse kicks"   in fact there is nothing by that name. There is a reverse turning kik which specifies straight leg and a reverse hook kick where leg is bent. See post # 226.


Sir, do you ever reference a rear leg kick (non spinning/turning) as a 'reverse kick'? Just curious. 
It is not common but I have heard the term used in reference to a rear leg kick, similar to saying 'reverse punch'.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 19, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> That is incorrect. The Reverse hook kick has the leg bent at initiation and recoil, not at point of impact. The leg is fully extended at impact.


According to who?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 19, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> I had a GM instructor and technical advisor appointed by the ITF.  Hence why I can point out these flaws that are glaring


Please note that when I referenced "Your instructor" it was NOT in relation to you and your instructor but a generic use of the term "You" in response to the comment you made  "The instructor needs an authority to know himself what he teaches is correct. And he can't get it from his instructor since that instructor has the same issue with his instructor."    The answer to your critique of circular reasoning was that if the instructor did not know, and their instructor did not know there are other resources to provide the answer. .


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 19, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Sir, do you ever reference a rear leg kick (non spinning/turning) as a 'reverse kick'? Just curious.
> It is not common but I have heard the term used in reference to a rear leg kick, similar to saying 'reverse punch'.


Sir, the terminology I use is what the text contains, not my reference . I adopt the terminology for ease of reference to those who use the system.   Across the system "Reverse " is often used to mean opposite of the the other one.  Example -Knifehand is the Pinky side of the hand and thumb side is reverse Knifehand.   Footsword is the small toe side of the foot and reverse footsword is the large toe side.   Turning kick is what many would call a roundhouse and the kick going the opposite way is reverse turning but with straight leg, and  the similar kick flexing the knee is reverse hooking.  Granted it's not perhaps the best all around naming convention but it's widely understood and used by those who train the system.   By the way we also have obverse punch   same hand as lead foot an reverse punch which is the opposite hand,  Similarly other hand techniques use this convention as well where the rear foot side is performing the technique (In a stance where weight is equally distributed between your feet)  but the you have the anomaly of this for things where more weight is on the rear foot and since the stance is named for the side (Right or left)   with the most weight a right foot back L stance is a Right L Stance and a Right or rear hand technique is obverse since it is the side the stance is named for.   Yep, it's goofy.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 20, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> Sir, the terminology I use is what the text contains, not my reference . I adopt the terminology for ease of reference to those who use the system.   Across the system "Reverse " is often used to mean opposite of the the other one.  Example -Knifehand is the Pinky side of the hand and thumb side is reverse Knifehand.   Footsword is the small toe side of the foot and reverse footsword is the large toe side.   Turning kick is what many would call a roundhouse and the kick going the opposite way is reverse turning but with straight leg, and  the similar kick flexing the knee is reverse hooking.  Granted it's not perhaps the best all around naming convention but it's widely understood and used by those who train the system.   By the way we also have obverse punch   same hand as lead foot an reverse punch which is the opposite hand,  Similarly other hand techniques use this convention as well where the rear foot side is performing the technique (In a stance where weight is equally distributed between your feet)  but the you have the anomaly of this for things where more weight is on the rear foot and since the stance is named for the side (Right or left)   with the most weight a right foot back L stance is a Right L Stance and a Right or rear hand technique is obverse since it is the side the stance is named for.   Yep, it's goofy.



The hook version is also called reverse turning kick in the encyclopedia


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 20, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> The hook version is also called reverse turning kick in the encyclopedia


If that is what your edition says it is a mistake.   First Edition 1983 Vol IV page 72.
"*Reverse Hooking Kick*
This is a variation of the reverse turning kick, and has a dual purpose; one is to kick, and the other is to hook the opponent who moves in during the execution of kicking.

Basic principles to be born in mind:
1. Bring the heel close to the body soon after the kick.
2. Bend the kicking leg properly during the kick.   "

The terms are distinct and used to specify one or the other, not either one.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 20, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> According to who?



According to its own principles. You can't hook without extension. It doesn't have to be hyperextended like the reverse turning kick, but straight enough. Sort of like the straightness of a leg when you walk.

When everybody I've seen at a high level do it, they extend it to the fullest.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 20, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> According to its own principles. You can't hook without extension. It doesn't have to be hyperextended like the reverse turning kick, but straight enough. Sort of like the straightness of a leg when you walk.
> 
> When everybody I've seen at a high level do it, they extend it to the fullest.


To refresh the issue the above is a response to the following: 


> InfiniteLoop said:
> That is incorrect. The Reverse hook kick has the leg bent at initiation and recoil, not at point of impact. The leg is fully extended at impact.


According to who?

So, your conclusion is based on your wealth of experience.   At the end of the day we may be quibbling about what constitutes "Fully extended"   Less than a 5 degree bend or something else.   Not really important.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 20, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> According to its own principles. You can't hook without extension. It doesn't have to be hyperextended like the reverse turning kick, but straight enough. Sort of like the straightness of a leg when you walk.
> 
> When everybody I've seen at a high level do it, they extend it to the fullest.


Are sure you are not thinking about a wheel kick?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 20, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Are sure you are not thinking about a wheel kick?


Sir, not directed to me buy the Chang Hon "reverse turning kick" is probably what is most like what is often called a "Wheel Kick" or spinning heel kick.   Watched a Walker Texas Ranger  and he seemed favor those a bit.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 20, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> Sir, not directed to me buy the Chang Hon "reverse turning kick" is probably what is most like what is often called a "Wheel Kick" or spinning heel kick.   Watched a Walker Texas Ranger  and he seemed favor those a bit.


I miss Walker.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 21, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> This particular fault is due to poor systematization in the ITF, not inability of the practitioner.


Above in response to " So you have discovered that even at world championships some people are not technically accurate?"

The ITF conducts IICs particularly to alleviate the issue. Now if students and / or their instructors choose not to attend that is not the fault of the organization.    History has shown that system works. Of course part of that historic proof long predates your existence..


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 21, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> To refresh the issue the above is a response to the following:
> 
> According to who?
> 
> So, your conclusion is based on your wealth of experience.   At the end of the day we may be quibbling about what constitutes "Fully extended"   Less than a 5 degree bend or something else.   Not really important.



Yeah maybe. If you feel it's bent, it's too much IMO


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 21, 2021)

Toes is better!


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 21, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> Above in response to " So you have discovered that even at world championships some people are not technically accurate?"
> 
> The ITF conducts IICs particularly to alleviate the issue. Now if students and / or their instructors choose not to attend that is not the fault of the organization.    History has shown that system works. Of course part of that historic proof long predates your existence...



Yes, no confusion at all.. This world champion consuders turning kick and reverse hook synonymous. 
How to / Tutorial: Reverse Turning Kick AKA Spinning Hook Kick. 반대돌려차기. 後ろ回し蹴り.​


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 21, 2021)

Just face it Earl. The ITF is a disjointed mess. They can barely agree on anything


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 21, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Just face it Earl. The ITF is a disjointed mess. They can barely agree on anything


Sir, having not been a member of any ITF for 11 years I am not really in touch with what is going on. I also have no idea if you are referring to one or all organizations using the ITF moniker.   Suffice it to say, aside from you I am not aware of any disagreement vis a vis reverse turning and  reverse hook kick.   As far as the video above, it is clear Mr. Van Roon is not even attempting to use technical terms  since there is no such term as "Spinning Hook Kick" in the Chang Hon system. .  Also, I have no idea who created the video title but I suspect it was not him since I have never seen him use Hangul.   Further - You need to watch at 8:30 where he references "Reverse Turning" as ITF Terminology, and the Spinning Hook as WTF terminology.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 21, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> Sir, having not been a member of any ITF for 11 years I am not really in touch with what is going on. I also have no idea if you are referring to one or all organizations using the ITF moniker.   Suffice it to say, aside from you I am not aware of any disagreement vis a vis reverse turning and  reverse hook kick.   As far as the video above, it is clear Mr. Van Roon is not even attempting to use technical terms  since there is no such term as "Spinning Hook Kick" in the Chang Hon system. .  Also, I have no idea who created the video title but I suspect it was not him since I have never seen him use Hangul.   Further - You need to watch at 8:30 where he references "Reverse Turning" as ITF Terminology, and the Spinning Hook as WTF terminology.



Reverse turning kick according to yourself is improper terminology for reverse hook since RK denotes non chambered heel kicks and should be made distinct from reverse/spin hook kicks. Roon demonstrated reverse hook kicks, not reverse turning kick.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 21, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> . I also have no idea if you are referring to one or all organizations using the ITF moniker.



Case in point


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 21, 2021)

Just a quick point. I meant write *reverse* turning kick 


InfiniteLoop said:


> Yes, no confusion at all.. This world champion consuders turning kick and reverse hook synonymous.
> How to / Tutorial: Reverse Turning Kick AKA Spinning Hook Kick. 반대돌려차기. 後ろ回し蹴り.​


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 21, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Just a quick point. I meant write *reverse* turning kick


Please provide the time stamp from the video where he states this.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 21, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Just face it Earl. The ITF is a disjointed mess. They can barely agree on anything


Sir, please  explain what this has to do with your incorrect statement at post 254 "The hook version is also called reverse turning kick in the encyclopedia"


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 21, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> Sir, please  explain what this has to do with your incorrect statement at post 254 "The hook version is also called reverse turning kick in the encyclopedia"



"This is a variation of the reverse turning kick". That's what it says.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 21, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> Please provide the time stamp from the video where he states this.


First thing he says. "Reverse turning kick or spinning hook kick" .


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 21, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> "This is a variation of the reverse turning kick". That's what it says.


Exactly - Not what you said or claimed.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 21, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> First thing he says. "Reverse turning kick or spinning hook kick" .


Winner winner chicken dinner - You get the prize for taking something out of context in an attempt to support your erroneous contention. particularly since he explains further at 8:30


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 21, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> "This is a variation of the reverse turning kick". That's what it says.


Again - what does that have to do with your ITF being a disjointed mess comment?


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 21, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> Winner winner chicken dinner - You get the prize for taking something out of context in an attempt to support your erroneous contention. particularly since he explains further at 8:30



I did not take it out of context. At 8:30 He erroneously states that a flying reverse hook kick is called a flying reverse turning kick in ITF. Just like he does the rest of the clip about the grounded versions.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 21, 2021)

The reason Roon is guilty of performing a reverse hook and claiming that it's called a reverse turning kick in ITF is most likely because he is one of those competitors who incorrectly chamber their reverse turning kicks, read the rubbish encyclopedia, and thus don't know that the reverse turning kick and the reverse hook kick are completely different techniques. One being chambered and rechambered, the other not.

If that's not a disjointed mess, I don't know what is.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 22, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> I did not take it out of context. At 8:30 He erroneously states that a flying reverse hook kick is called a flying reverse turning kick in ITF. Just like he does the rest of the clip about the grounded versions.


Sir, you then have a comprehension problem. He explores various terms not only from ITF and WT but also from Karate. It is clear he is not making any attempt at using specific technical language to name the technique. He explicitly elaborates at 8:30 and your comment about him being confused is insulting to say the least.   Once again - you should simply admit your error, the encyclopedia does not have 2 different types of reverse turning kicks, and if you want to claim saying A is  variation on B, so they are 2 different types of the same thing shows a language comprehension problem.   .   At this point I will leave it to others to determine whether they think your claims are accurate or not.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 22, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> The reason Roon is guilty of performing a reverse hook and claiming that it's called a reverse turning kick in ITF is most likely because he is one of those competitors who incorrectly chamber their reverse turning kicks,
> 
> If that's not a disjointed mess, I don't know what is.


Sir, no - the reason is because h is using terms generically, is because he is addressing a general audience  and using   the kick generically for sparring as opposed to following any technical parameters. 

If you don't know what a disjointed mess is ............. I will let others finish the sentence.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 22, 2021)

> InfiniteLoop said:
> "This is a variation of the reverse turning kick". That's what it says.


Again - what does that have to do with your ITF being a disjointed mess comment?


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 22, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> Sir, no - the reason is because h is using terms generically, is because he is addressing a general audience  and using   the kick generically for sparring as opposed to following any technical parameters.
> 
> If you don't know what a disjointed mess is ............. I will let others finish the sentence.


He is not using generic language,  he says "ITF calls it reverse turning kick," , when he in fact throws reverse hooks.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 22, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> He is not using generic language,  he says "ITF calls it reverse turning kick," , when he in fact throws reverse hooks.


Irrespective of what he says - If he said it. (Please provide Time stamp for what he purportedly said and what you claim he did. ) The text is clear and you are in error. vis a vis being 2 types of reverse turning kick. 

And I ask again what does any of this have to do with your statement of the ITF being a disjointed mess?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 22, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> He is not using generic language,  he says "ITF calls it reverse turning kick," , when he in fact throws reverse hooks.


Sir, it's unfortunate that you find confusion where none exists.    Patterns and classical fundamental exercises have certain technical parameters whether it is punching while pulling your hand to the hip or any number of other things.    Sadly you seem to find the fact that techniques are adapted for sparring, self defense, breaking or any number of things a source of confusion.   Perhaps you will find an instructor who can enlighten you since I most definitely have not been able to .


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Oct 29, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> Sir, it's unfortunate that you find confusion where none exists.    Patterns and classical fundamental exercises have certain technical parameters whether it is punching while pulling your hand to the hip or any number of other things.    Sadly you seem to find the fact that techniques are adapted for sparring, self defense, breaking or any number of things a source of confusion.   Perhaps you will find an instructor who can enlighten you since I most definitely have not been able to .



That has nothing to do with this. If my instructor in ITF says it's reverse turning kick time, you damn well know he means straight legged.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 30, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> That has nothing to do with this. If my instructor in ITF says it's reverse turning kick time, you damn well know he means straight legged.


Of course, seems your instructor is not confused at all.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Nov 1, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> Of course, seems your instructor is not confused at all.



No but General Choi was naming it reverse turning kick....


----------



## Earl Weiss (Nov 1, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> No but General Choi was naming it reverse turning kick....


I have no idea what your point is.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Nov 2, 2021)

Earl Weiss said:


> I have no idea what your point is.



The only way reverse turning kick would be an actual reverse turning kick would be if taekwondo roundhouse kicks were unchambered. Choi confused, as was often the case


----------



## Earl Weiss (Nov 2, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> The only way reverse turning kick would be an actual reverse turning kick would be if taekwondo roundhouse kicks were unchambered. Choi confused, as was often the case


You are getting your knickers in a twist over "Semantics" / technique names.   Heck you then have plenty to get upset about . The "U Shape" Block and grab looks more like a "C" -  just ask the Village People.   The "Turning"  / "Reverse Turning"   follows the Knifehand / reverse Knifehand, Footsword / reverse Footsword Naming convention.   Is the "Walking stance really how you walk?    Is a "Mountain block"  in other systems in case you get attacked by a mountain?    The confusion is yours alone.


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 2, 2021)

InfiniteLoop said:


> The only way reverse turning kick would be an actual reverse turning kick would be if taekwondo roundhouse kicks were unchambered. Choi confused, as was often the case


So now you are smarter than General Choi. All I can say is "here's your sign".

General Choi was fastidious with details and identification. Maybe to a fault in some instances but it has worked well for decades.

A classless line you have crossed here. To question is one thing (we all should do that); but you have arbitrarily claimed knowledge superiority. Dude.


----------

