# The Origin of "Fancy" Kicks



## Makalakumu

I wanted to discuss the origin of "fancy" kicks with this thread.  By "fancy" kicks, I want to group some of the more high risk kicks like high kicks, jump kicks, and jump spinning kicks into an easy to talk about catagory.  My thought is that since these kicks are not very practical, I am very skeptical that they had a place on the battlefield or that they were even a central part of a real self defense scheme.  If that is the case, then where do they come from and why do we practice them?


----------



## Gemini

There will be replies from those who know considerably more than myself, as I am no authority, but I'll chime in from what I know.

 From anything I've ever heard from any viable source, high spinning kicks never had a place on the battlefield. That's not what they were designed to do. Certainly,like everyone else, I've heard such things, but never from any source that could be substantiated. They were conceived for contact sport and demonstrations, nothing more. I could be wrong, but I've never seen any substantial proof to the contrary. If anyone can offer proof, I'm all ears. My opinion isn't set in stone, only based on what I've read from reputable sources. Not hear-say.

 That being the case, first, there is no such thing as an impractical kick. Any kick that is used in the wrong circumstance or at the wrong time is an impractical kick. Any kick that surprises your opponent and scores is very practical. By impractical I can only assume you are referring to the fact that they take so long to develop as opposed to say, a mid-section roundhouse. True. They don't generally work well when your opponent is fully ready. They do however, work VERY well once your opponent is commited to an action or is off guard or balance. It's all in the timing. Because they take longer to execute, you have to be able to time your opponent farther out. More difficult? Absolutely. Impractical? Not if you know what you're doing.

  Regards,


----------



## punisher73

I have seen various stories as to why there are fancy kicks.

1) The old story about being designed to kick a man off of a horse
2) The hands were highly prized and so to not damage them kicks were designed to attack the head.
3) Variation of #2 was that it was a korean game played not using the hands (kind of like various wrestling games for kids) and then the kicks were incorporated.

I'm NOT saying any of these are true or that it really answers your question, just these are things I have heard along the way as to why.


----------



## Makalakumu

Gemini said:
			
		

> That being the case, first, there is no such thing as an impractical kick. Any kick that is used in the wrong circumstance or at the wrong time is an impractical kick. Any kick that surprises your opponent and scores is very practical. By impractical I can only assume you are referring to the fact that they take so long to develop as opposed to say, a mid-section roundhouse. True. They don't generally work well when your opponent is fully ready. They do however, work VERY well once your opponent is commited to an action or is off guard or balance. It's all in the timing. Because they take longer to execute, you have to be able to time your opponent farther out. More difficult? Absolutely. Impractical? Not if you know what you're doing.


I disagree.  I think there are impracticle kicking techniques.  As a seasoned tournament fighter, I know what gives me a higher chance of scoring and I know what is probably going to get me into trouble.  If I spent an equal amount of time developing high-percentage kicks that I would developing lower percentage techniques, I would develop a degree of excellence with my high percentage moves that would _far_ outstrip the effectiveness of the lower percentage techniques.

With that being said, I think we can wheedle out which high kicks, jump kicks and jump spinning kicks are higher percentage and lower percentage.  Those are the ones we should focus on...shouldn't we?


----------



## Makalakumu

punisher73 said:
			
		

> I have seen various stories as to why there are fancy kicks.
> 
> 1) The old story about being designed to kick a man off of a horse
> 2) The hands were highly prized and so to not damage them kicks were designed to attack the head.
> 3) Variation of #2 was that it was a korean game played not using the hands (kind of like various wrestling games for kids) and then the kicks were incorporated.
> 
> I'm NOT saying any of these are true or that it really answers your question, just these are things I have heard along the way as to why.


I believe the game you are referring to is Tae Kyon, but I could be wrong.  Yet, that is an interesting angle.  Do the Fancier kicks derive from that game?  If so, how does that effect the practice of our martial art?  How does it effect our training for self defense?


----------



## Whitebelt

I heard somewhere that the jumping back kick was deigned to glance away a lunge with a sword and simultainiously knock back the attacker without damaging knuckles on armour.
I'm not sure if this is true though.


----------



## searcher

Two words: sport karate!!!!


----------



## swiftpete

Whitebelt said:
			
		

> I heard somewhere that the jumping back kick was deigned to glance away a lunge with a sword and simultainiously knock back the attacker without damaging knuckles on armour.
> I'm not sure if this is true though.


Would that be a good idea? If someone was coming at me with a sword i wouldn't like to knock him away from me to let him get a second swing. Get in there instead!


----------



## dohap

Most of them came from older tradition of playing/competing with feet only. Taek Kyon is also based on this tradition, not to forget about Kyokushinkai's sparring (no hand attacks to face).
Some sources claim jumping kicks were designed against man on the horse ("..they were trained to kick the man off the horse..."), unfortunatelly there are no evidence about real/historical situations ("...knights X, Y and Z were using these kicks against A, B and C during the battle of E...").
Take a friend with sharp sword or spear and try to kick him to the head with spinning dora chagi...


----------



## Gemini

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I disagree.


  LOL! That's why we have tournaments. :cheers:


----------



## MountainSage

Hate to jump in the middle, but when a person starts comparing sport sparring and military/self-defense you missed the point of both.

Mountainsage
Mike Wood


----------



## Makalakumu

searcher said:
			
		

> Two words: sport karate!!!!


I wouldn't use some of these techniques in a tournament.  I'd get my butt kicked.  In fact, in most tournaments I've been too, the only people who use some of the fancy kicks are the inexperienced and the desperate.  In all cases, they lost.


----------



## bignick

All of the fanciest, spinny, jumpy, flippy dippy kicks I've seen lately look more like they came from gymnastics or figure skating than anything else...


----------



## Marginal

I'm not entirely sold on the idea that they had a serious historical context. Considering that most of the arts that employ fancy kicks are relatively modern reformulations, I'd bet that the bulk of the fancier kicks were initally developed in the point sparring arena, then evolved from there as someone or another thought, "Hey that was cool. Wonder if I can get in another rotation later in practice..." 

For example, a jumping side kick's not a difficult technique. It does allow you to deliver a kick high with an optimal deployment or range and power (a high kick by comparison sacrifices power and reach) If you like that and are trying to focus on the development of the legs in an arena frequented by people who favor their hands, disguising the kick and/or altering its timing by developing a spinning side kick etc will come naturally from favoring a more side on stance enabled by a rules heavy sparring envorinment. Once you do a 180 jumping side kick, someone's going to either by accident or design attempt a 360. Once that's done, it snowballs from there.

*Edit* I'm naturally going to be fairly TKD centered in my outlook, but looking at HKD's general kicks etc, it seems there was either a concurrant evolution, or heavy borrowing going on from all sides during the early formulation of the various KMA's, and differentiating between a double side piercing kick or a double side kick is a waste of time.


----------



## bustr

They came from the arts of savate and kapwara. These kicks are absent from traditional katas and kuens and show up in NO far eastern combat manuals.


----------



## tsdclaflin

I suspect that the "fancy" kicks were designed to teach balance, timing, accuracy, etc.  

There are also fitness advantages to the jumping kicks, id. strengthening, aerobic, etc.

The "fancy" kicks are "normal" kicks with a twist.  For example, practiciing a jump back kick helps your back kick.  Practicing a spin round kick (one of my favorite, somewhat obscure), helps my speed and form of my round kick (at least my lead-leg one).

From a self-defense point of view, it important to practice the basic kicks at self-defense targets as well as at high, sparring targets.  If you always round kick to the face, it will difficult in a self-defense situation for you to kick to the back of the knee unless you have practiced it like that.

My 2 cents.


----------



## Han-Mi

If I can hit a black belt with a jump spin hook kick a good percentage of the time, and knock them on the ground with most of those, then I am sure that i could use one in a real fight if I wanted to. I'm also pretty damn sure that I never will, doesn't hurt to have the option though, eh?


----------



## Makalakumu

Try a jump spinning hook on Chuck Liddel.  What would be the outcome?  I would hope that Korean stylists could come together and evolve...


----------



## Marginal

So you want TKD to be MT? MMA?


----------



## Gemini

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Try a jump spinning hook on Chuck Liddel.


Personally, I wouldn't try ANYTHING on Chuck Liddel.

I'm not really sure where you're going with this. The majority (not all) have pretty much agreed there is no viable proof that these "fancy" kicks were created for a true combat situation. That being the case, many have questioned why they exist at all. What purpose do they serve? 

Some offered possible reasons. Some have said that they would, in a situation where they felt comfortable with it, use these kicks such as a competition. I myself will sparingly use a jumping back kick but limit my "fancy" kicking solely to that kick. Otherwise I'm pretty main stream and do not believe it's in my best interest to have both my feet off the ground at the same time. I have however, seen competitors use these kicks with great success. And no, not just inexperienced or desperate fighters, though I certainly agree they're out there, but also just the opposite. Very experienced and extremely confident fighters. Others have stated they have no problem using them anywhere at anytime. Not my cup of tea, but to each their own. I certainly understand your hesitation to use these types of kicks if you're not comfortable with them, but I do not understand why it bothers you that others practice and use them. Maybe they are not nor ever were intended for a self defense situation. Maybe they were created, as someone stated above, with the intention of increasing a MA's capabilities as an exercise. Maybe for demonstration. Maybe they never were intended for competition but someone somewhere along the line used them and they worked. Wala. a new take on an old game. 

I don't know why. But they exist. I agree that it's a good idea to go with the higher percentage. I know of some that do not. Some people strike with their knuckles. Some their palm. Which is right? The one that works for you. Use them or not as you see fit.

Regards,


----------



## Makalakumu

Gemini

I don't want anyone to think that this thread has any malicious intent.  I'm not trying to bash anyone's art.  I'm just questioning some of my own training and I'm contemplating dropping many of the fancy kicks in the curriculum at my dojang.  

Also, I recently injured my back attempting one of these kicks.  If I seem a little cranky, that is part of the cause.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Gemini

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Gemini
> I don't want anyone to think that this thread has any malicious intent. I'm not trying to bash anyone's art. I'm just questioning some of my own training and I'm contemplating dropping many of the fancy kicks in the curriculum at my dojang.
> 
> Also, I recently injured my back attempting one of these kicks.  If I seem a little cranky, that is part of the cause.
> 
> upnorthkyosa


 At no time did I think you had any malicious intent. You've always seemed to be of the highest character to me. But it did seem from your initial post to your last that there was definately something bothering you and some under lying reason for the discussion. Your last post would explain alot. Because writing does not always convey ones mood, I apologize if I seemed in any way short in my last post. That was most certainly not my intent. I hope you find the answers you're looking for.

  Regards,


----------



## Shu2jack

I don't know about any of the other TKDists here, but my side (and other "regular") kicks got a lot better from practicing them while jumping and/or spinning.

Adding jumping and spinning to a kick;

1) Helps improving physical conditioning.
2) Helps improve accuracy. If you can hit with a jump reverse side kick, you can hit with a "regular" one.
3) Helps put variety into your training. I know about 9 or 10 variations to the side kick. Each variation required an increasingly greater understanding and skill level with the basic technique. Thus as I made the kick fancier, the basic kick became better and easier.

I said this in another thread, but not everything a MA or Boxer or Kickboxer does applies directly into fighting. A boxer does jog in a ring and a Muay Thai fighter does imitate a bench press motion in the ring. But they still jog and bench press because those things improve the techniques they will use. Same with the "fancy kicks". They are fun, but in the end they have helped me improve what I will use.

Another angle to consider is that a lot of martial arts are a "way of life". Some of what we do will not have practical applications in combat, but serve a purpose for other goals that practioners want met.


----------



## Makalakumu

Shu2jack said:
			
		

> I don't know about any of the other TKDists here, but my side (and other "regular") kicks got a lot better from practicing them while jumping and/or spinning.


I believe that if one practices combos with more basic kicks and drills them all of the time, their kicks will become very good.  I wish there was a way to put this to the test and see which method produces better results.



			
				Shu2jack said:
			
		

> Another angle to consider is that a lot of martial arts are a "way of life". Some of what we do will not have practical applications in combat, but serve a purpose for other goals that practioners want met.


I understand this. However, I believe that time spent training should produce the best results in skill.  I, personally, would like my training and teaching to focus on the practical aspects of kicking.  I believe that my students will become better fighters because of this.  

The bottom line is this...I have sprained my ankles, twisted my knees and wrenched my back doing these kicks in the course of my training.  I'm beginning to question the value of the time spent practicing these techniques because I feel that the practical returns just aren't there.  This is just my opinion, FWIW.

Maybe some higher ranked, more experienced, MT members could give me some insight regarding this...


----------



## Shu2jack

> I believe that if one practices combos with more basic kicks and drills them all of the time, their kicks will become very good. I wish there was a way to put this to the test and see which method produces better results.


I agree, but jumping and spinning adds more variety into your training. I think doing both methods would yield positive results.




> I understand this. However, I believe that time spent training should produce the best results in skill. I, personally, would like my training and teaching to focus on the practical aspects of kicking. I believe that my students will become better fighters because of this.


Not all students are training to fight. 

I do believe that jumping and spinning can help perfect the practical aspects of kicking. In order to do a jump front or side kick you have to very quickly chamber, execute, and rechamber the kick in mid air. If you don't you fall on your butt or the kick stinks. I believe jump kicks help my chamber for my regular kicks as well as strengthen my legs. It also helps teach students to generate power from speed and snap as you are in no stance in mid-air.  

Just like how "traditional" arts seperate fighting and practice cultivating different aspects of it (forms=technique, board breaking= power, one-steps=distance/timing, sparring=realism/reaction/mental preparation), I believe jump and spin kicks take different aspects of a "basic" kick and work on improving the foundation.



> The bottom line is this...I have sprained my ankles, twisted my knees and wrenched my back doing these kicks in the course of my training. I'm beginning to question the value of the time spent practicing these techniques because I feel that the practical returns just aren't there. This is just my opinion, FWIW.


I feel the practical returns are there. I also know a friend who severly damaged her knee because she wasn't able to pivote correctly on the floor for a back leg round kick. A "basic" kick. I believe anything done incorrectly will result in injury. Are jump and spin kicks more dangerous? If you ask your body to do more than what it is capable of or if you do something incorrectly, then yes. The same will ALL techniques.


----------



## searcher

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I wouldn't use some of these techniques in a tournament. I'd get my butt kicked. In fact, in most tournaments I've been too, the only people who use some of the fancy kicks are the inexperienced and the desperate. In all cases, they lost.


I have used them with very good results in sport tourneys.   I have even used them a few time in knockdown.   It is all in your training.   It is also very good at making the more "basic" version of the technique easier.   It kind of helps students "dumb-down" their technique on the basics.


----------



## Makalakumu

searcher said:
			
		

> I have used them with very good results in sport tourneys. I have even used them a few time in knockdown. It is all in your training. It is also very good at making the more "basic" version of the technique easier. It kind of helps students "dumb-down" their technique on the basics.


Which techniques have been successful?  I'm curious as to the degree of "fanciness" in the technique.


----------



## tsdclaflin

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Try a jump spinning hook on Chuck Liddel. What would be the outcome?


I wonder if Chuck Norris could have done it 20 years ago?


----------



## searcher

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Which techniques have been successful? I'm curious as to the degree of "fanciness" in the technique.


A 540 is the "fanciest" that I have used successfully.   I have also used Au Batido from the Capoiera style.    I guess maybe my idea of fancy and others may be different.   I regularly use jump spinning back and jump spinning hook to score.   Not very fancy, but effective.    

I have seen others use things like vaulting axe to score.   Pretty fancy, but I do not want to try it myself.

Working on more complex techniques makes the more basic version easier.   That is why I train them in the first place, but have used them also.


----------



## DuneViking

I have no idea about the origins of the "fancy" kicks, so I won't pretend I do by speculating- I simply have no idea based on facts. I do see a practicle application of adding spins and jumps to basic kicks to 1) extend reach, 2) add power, 3) add speed. These may be accomplished by refining the techniques and using them in a practicle way, depending on the circumstances of the individual engagement. Using a jump spin cresent kick to disarm a gun toting assailant would probably get one shot. Using a jump side kick to finish a stunned opponent may be practicle.


----------



## Hapkid0ist

Well I'm not sure about the origin of the Higher fancy kicks, but I'll tell you why in my opinion why they are taught today.

THEY ARE COOL TO SEE AND DO! We teach and do them for 2 primary reasons. The first being, They are what people want to see at demos. People like them and want to be able to do something thats seems to be more than normal, almost super human to people. It makes people feel special.
Second they do help to work the muscles of the leg. They help to strengthen them and help with better flexability for better power, speed and less chance of injury. 

It is that simple.


----------



## InvisibleFist

Thanks, DW

 I was wondering how long it would take before somebody made that point!


----------



## Raewyn

I was watching the Discovery Channel and they had a series of different styles of Martial Arts, and i did manage to see the art of Tae Kwon Do, and they did mention the fact of why all those fancy kicks.  According to the discovery channel the reason why they did those kicks was because of the high degree of difficulty. And if they could acheive them the more difficult they became!  It didnt really seem like they were doing them for a practical purpose it was just really to see if they could do them or not.


----------



## Flying Crane

bustr said:
			
		

> They came from the arts of savate and kapwara. These kicks are absent from traditional katas and kuens and show up in NO far eastern combat manuals.


Did you mean to say Capoeira?  it is true, Capoeira has some very unusual kicks, and in recent years I have noticed some other arts adopting them.  I have also seen some of the Chinese arts have kicks that, while not exactly the same, are somewhat similar.  If one art is doing it, chances are another has come up with it as well, and not necessarily borrowed one from the other.


----------



## Flying Crane

maybe in general, they were developed as a means to push the athletic envelope.  Maybe not necessarily useful in a martial sense, but can make one stronger, more limber, faster, etc., and those can be useful traits in a general sense.


----------



## MountainSage

I have been lurking on this thread for some time and feel it is now time to comment.  Any technique beyond just enough to get the job done is about ego.  Fancy kicking and other techniques that are not part of basic techniques is pure and simple ego building.

Mike Wood
Mountainsage


----------



## FearlessFreep

As a musician, one thing you learn to do is to play beyond your ability, to stretch yourself beyond what you would normally play, because it stretches you mentally and physically and helps make what you do play that much easier and stronger.  I rarely if every play scales as fast as I physically can, at least not when playing live in a group.  But years of practicing scales at high speeds has made me able to play them at slowers speed much more comfortably.  Music is full of such exercises, things you do that make no sense from a musical sense that stretch you, mentally and physically, to go 'beyond yourself' that have the effect of make you much more confident and assured and graceful and musical at the playing you actually play to make music.

 A perfect example is Miles Davis "Kind Of Blue", it's not a technical endeavor by any means; John Coltrane is one of the featured soloists and I've heard him do stuff much more physically demanding, but he could make his playing on "Kind Of Blue" so powerful because of the chops he has, even if the music is not a raw demonstration of those chops.  A musician of lesser chops would not be able to play what he played, even if it was technically with that person's grasp.

 In music, there are often three kinds of musicians: 

 Those who show disdain for chops, for technique, as being unimportant.  Those are often the ones who don't want to put the time into practicing stuff that's hard to do, or just can't do it, so instead they put it, and people who do it, down as a way of protecting their own ego.

 Those who practice long and hard at their chops and theyfall in love with  their own raw technical ability to the point that it's all they really notice and it's the yardstick by which themeasure themselves and everyone else.  They are often yound and musically immature and don't have the experience to now how to harness their talent into something  that people actualy will enjoy listening to

 Those who spend hours and years of hard practice to perfect ther chops, their technique, but who then use their talent as just a tool to make music that people enjoy.


 So yeah, I set my metronome to 40bpm and practice just hitting whole notes, half notes, and triplets.  It sounds really stupid but...it perfects my timing and my ability to play with positive and negative sound space and open space.  I'll sit in my room and play scales a lot faster than I'll every need to, or even do totally atonal finger exercises at high speed, totally ugly sounding stuff that no one will ever want to hear.  They strengthen my fingers, they loosen my hands, they increase my familiarity with my instrument, and occasionaly I stumble on something that actually sounds fun and could be musically useful.

 I guess if I were to evver hear a musician saying "well I don't do scale exercises fast because I'll never need to play that fast" or "I don't practice with a metronome because we don't use a metronome on stage anyway" I'd be thinking to myself "well, you ain't goin' far, kid".

 You always go beyond were you need to be so you can bring it back to where you need to be with confidence and precision and strength.

 At least....that's the way music training works, and I've so far a lot of simularities between music training and martial arts training


----------



## Flying Crane

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> As a musician, one thing you learn to do is to play beyond your ability, to stretch yourself beyond what you would normally play, because it stretches you mentally and physically and helps make what you do play that much easier and stronger. I rarely if every play scales as fast as I physically can, at least not when playing live in a group. But years of practicing scales at high speeds has made me able to play them at slowers speed much more comfortably. Music is full of such exercises, things you do that make no sense from a musical sense that stretch you, mentally and physically, to go 'beyond yourself' that have the effect of make you much more confident and assured and graceful and musical at the playing you actually play to make music.
> 
> A perfect example is Miles Davis "Kind Of Blue", it's not a technical endeavor by any means; John Coltrane is one of the featured soloists and I've heard him do stuff much more physically demanding, but he could make his playing on "Kind Of Blue" so powerful because of the chops he has, even if the music is not a raw demonstration of those chops. A musician of lesser chops would not be able to play what he played, even if it was technically with that person's grasp.
> 
> In music, there are often three kinds of musicians:
> 
> Those who show disdain for chops, for technique, as being unimportant. Those are often the ones who don't want to put the time into practicing stuff that's hard to do, or just can't do it, so instead they put it, and people who do it, down as a way of protecting their own ego.
> 
> Those who practice long and hard at their chops and theyfall in love with their own raw technical ability to the point that it's all they really notice and it's the yardstick by which themeasure themselves and everyone else. They are often yound and musically immature and don't have the experience to now how to harness their talent into something that people actualy will enjoy listening to
> 
> Those who spend hours and years of hard practice to perfect ther chops, their technique, but who then use their talent as just a tool to make music that people enjoy.
> 
> 
> So yeah, I set my metronome to 40bpm and practice just hitting whole notes, half notes, and triplets. It sounds really stupid but...it perfects my timing and my ability to play with positive and negative sound space and open space. I'll sit in my room and play scales a lot faster than I'll every need to, or even do totally atonal finger exercises at high speed, totally ugly sounding stuff that no one will ever want to hear. They strengthen my fingers, they loosen my hands, they increase my familiarity with my instrument, and occasionaly I stumble on something that actually sounds fun and could be musically useful.
> 
> I guess if I were to evver hear a musician saying "well I don't do scale exercises fast because I'll never need to play that fast" or "I don't practice with a metronome because we don't use a metronome on stage anyway" I'd be thinking to myself "well, you ain't goin' far, kid".
> 
> You always go beyond were you need to be so you can bring it back to where you need to be with confidence and precision and strength.
> 
> At least....that's the way music training works, and I've so far a lot of simularities between music training and martial arts training


Well said, Jay, very good analogy.


----------



## Flying Crane

MountainSage said:
			
		

> I have been lurking on this thread for some time and feel it is now time to comment. Any technique beyond just enough to get the job done is about ego. Fancy kicking and other techniques that are not part of basic techniques is pure and simple ego building.
> 
> Mike Wood
> Mountainsage


I disagree completely.  Using the example of Capoeira, we use some crazy kicks and acrobatics that you would never use in a real fight, but this is part of what makes the art of Capoeira so unique.  It can be very playful and fun, as well as an effective fighting art.  You need to understand what aspects of the art are meant for what circumstances.  You need to understand the context before making such a sweeping generalization.


----------



## MountainSage

If a person needs to believe there is similarities between two things to justifiy their belief in either then so be it.  Fighting arts are Fighting arts and Musical art is Musical Arts.  The two have diffrent mean to their ends.  It is unfortunate that we spend to much time dance in the grey areas, when so much of the world function in balck and white.  This is not a value judgement.

FLying Crane, read more closely, I stated that techinque that are not part of the systems basic technique is ego.  Using the exception to prove you point is poor quality debating.  Learning to play traditional African musical intruments is a basic skill for Capoeira, does that mean all other fighting arts are lacking. No, it is a basic skill required for this particular fighting art.

The true measure of a master of a particular art is not how well he does the extreme techniques, yet how he perfects the simplist technique.

Mike Wood
Mountainsage


----------



## Flying Crane

MountainSage said:
			
		

> If a person needs to believe there is similarities between two things to justifiy their belief in either then so be it. Fighting arts are Fighting arts and Musical art is Musical Arts. The two have diffrent mean to their ends. It is unfortunate that we spend to much time dance in the grey areas, when so much of the world function in balck and white. This is not a value judgement.
> 
> FLying Crane, read more closely, I stated that techinque that are not part of the systems basic technique is ego. Using the exception to prove you point is poor quality debating. Learning to play traditional African musical intruments is a basic skill for Capoeira, does that mean all other fighting arts are lacking. No, it is a basic skill required for this particular fighting art.
> 
> The true measure of a master of a particular art is not how well he does the extreme techniques, yet how he perfects the simplist technique.
> 
> Mike Wood
> Mountainsage


You have some good points, esp. your last point.  However, different arts develop under different circumstances and influences.  The arts are constantly changing and there really is no such thing as a "pure" art.  They are always being influenced by other arts and by innovators (sometimes for better, sometimes for worse).  Given this, it can be very difficult to determine what techniques are part of the system's basic techniques, which would be considered advanced, and which are considered outlandish.  This is a judgement that has been made by people, and in these cases, few people can agree on anything.  Where is the line drawn, and how can we get the rest of the world to agree to our own definitions?  We cannot, so make your own decisions on this and be content with it.

While I do believe it is extremely important to recognize that most, if not all, of the fancy and outlandish techniques, including the fancy kicks, have little or no real combat value, I think it is overly simplistic to equate their practice to little more than ego-building.  Sometimes there can be a good reason to practice some of these techniques, even if direct combat application is not that reason.  I only used Capoeira as an example, and did not mean to imply that other arts that do not incorporate the various aspects of Capoeira are somehow deficient.  My meaning was simply to show that under the right circumstances, these techniques can be appropriate.


----------



## Marginal

MountainSage said:
			
		

> If a person needs to believe there is similarities between two things to justifiy their belief in either then so be it.  Fighting arts are Fighting arts and Musical art is Musical Arts.  The two have diffrent mean to their ends.


Not if you're shooting evil sword waving demons out of your stringed instrument like in Kung Fu Hustle.  :jedi1:


----------



## Jonathan Randall

MountainSage said:
			
		

> I have been lurking on this thread for some time and feel it is now time to comment. Any technique beyond just enough to get the job done is about ego. Fancy kicking and other techniques that are not part of basic techniques is pure and simple ego building.
> 
> Mike Wood
> Mountainsage


I think you're making a flawed assumption that Martial Arts are simply about being able to "kick butt". True, you must have self-defence (the Martial), but the art (Art) is important, also. Let's face it, we'd all be a bunch of paranoids if all we did was go to class to prepare for "that confrontation". Also, as other posters have mentioned, if you can do something difficult, then when you do the "easy" stuff, you'll do it with greater competence.

I think there are many benefits to be derived from kicking styles such as TKD and TSD. They are great conditioners and teachers of balance and control and, let's face it, would you want to be kicked with a low kick by someone who has the proficiency of a TKD or TSD master at high kicking? I bet both their low kicks and physical conditioning are better than of those who simply practice low kicks. I think you are doing them a disservice by projecting "ego building" onto their study of impressive martial art's systems.


----------



## MountainSage

J. Randell, you use the term art in western terms.  The definition of a word from a symbolic language to a alpha-numeric language is tricky at best.  Example being that the Chinese used the term "boxing" for most fighting arts that involved striking and kicking, so the term art is highly subjective. 
If you need high kick to work on balance, then maybe there is a bigger problem the fighter needs to work on. You also misunderstand Classic TKD and TSD and are fixed on the showy modern forms of these arts.  Most military application, the only true practical application we have at this time, do not favor the use of kick above the ribcage area, contrary to what is in the movies.  I would enjoy taking on any Master of TKD or TSD for the learning experiance alone, plus any high kicker because they are an easy target for a grappler/striker especally if they are tournament fighters.
IF high and /or fancy kicks were the only and best way to train balance and conditioning there would be a lot more atheletes doing fancy high kick training.  This arguement for fancy kicks is poor at best.  As a result of lacking in practical application and minimal training application, my origninal statement still stands, "High and/ or fancy kicks are about ego".(IMO)


Mountainsage
Mike Wood


----------



## Flying Crane

MountainSage said:
			
		

> my origninal statement still stands, "High and/ or fancy kicks are about ego".(IMO)
> 
> Mountainsage
> Mike Wood


I don't think too many people here would argue with you about whether high/fancy or low kicks are useful or practical, or dangerous to use in a real fight.  I think most everyone would agree, in a real fight the simple, low kicks are much safer and effective to use, and the high/fancy kicks are very risky and not to be trusted or attempted.  

But I still disagree with your position that practicing high/fancy kicks is about nothing more that ego building.  I think you have taken a rather short-sighted position regarding this.  If you believe it is all about ego building, then it looks to me like you have attempted to psychoanalyze a whole group of people through a very brief contact in a martial arts discussion forum.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  That's very presumptive of you.


----------



## FearlessFreep

I'm going to agree with Mr Crane here.  I practice high kicks for what I feel to be valid reasons for training, conditioning and potential combat.  You can say I'm wasting time and have a valid argument.  You could say  I'm an idiot for doing so, and possibly be right, but my reasons for doing so have nothing to do with ego and I think it's off base to characterize all those who do them or practice them in such a manner as begin motivated by  ego.


----------



## Shaolinwind

tsdclaflin said:
			
		

> I suspect that the "fancy" kicks were designed to teach balance, timing, accuracy, etc.


I'm with you there. 

I say, why not practice something that tests us to the limit? And besides.. Fancy kicks are fun. That's enough for me to get started on something! 

I try to do tornado kicks every time I practice on my own. I haven't done one right yet, and if my master saw me trying to fu this far out of my league he'd kill me. But I keep trying, not because I'm afraid they'll be a Manchu on a horse behind me, but because they are cool, and I like them. Simple as that.


----------



## Jonathan Randall

MountainSage said:
			
		

> J. Randell, you use the term art in western terms. The definition of a word from a symbolic language to a alpha-numeric language is tricky at best. Example being that the Chinese used the term "boxing" for most fighting arts that involved striking and kicking, so the term art is highly subjective.


I use it in BOTH senses - Eastern and Western. The Martial Arts as a discipline that teaches, first of all, self-mastery. We live in the age of firearms and unarmed techniques, at best, are limited against many modern assaults.



			
				MountainSage said:
			
		

> If you need high kick to work on balance, then maybe there is a bigger problem the fighter needs to work on. You also misunderstand Classic TKD and TSD and are fixed on the showy modern forms of these arts. Most military application, the only true practical application we have at this time, do not favor the use of kick above the ribcage area, contrary to what is in the movies. I would enjoy taking on any Master of TKD or TSD for the learning experiance alone, plus any high kicker because they are an easy target for a grappler/striker especally if they are tournament fighters.


Sir, I do not misunderstand "modern" TKD and TSD. My first TKD instructor's study pre-dated the formation of the ITF and, by implication, the WTF. The first forms that I learned contained no kicks whatsoever. Of course we LEARNED and PRACTICED them.



			
				MountainSage said:
			
		

> IF high and /or fancy kicks were the only and best way to train balance and conditioning there would be a lot more atheletes doing fancy high kick training. This arguement for fancy kicks is poor at best. As a result of lacking in practical application and minimal training application, my origninal statement still stands, "High and/ or fancy kicks are about ego".(IMO)
> Mountainsage
> Mike Wood


Nobody ever said they were "the best" - only one method. Speak for yourself, sir. The idea that our fellow martial artists in TSD and TKD are "egotists" or "about ego" is patronizing at best. Why are you so concerned with what others do? In my experience, so many martial artists are involved in bickering over what's the "most bestest style" or "who could beat who" and forget that their greatest self-defence threat isn't from a BJJ UFC champion, rather it is from a 15-16 year old with a handgun and no sense of consequences or from some form of domestic violence. The solution to this is a master of Situational Awarenes, not low kicks.

Different strokes for different folks. If you don't like high kicks DON'T PRACTICE THEM, it is not necessary to insult those who do by telling them that their art is all about "ego".


----------



## Hand Sword

I think the "practical origin" came from Billy Jack!!! The way he could kick you in the head and there's nothing you can do about it!

Once that flew to audiences--there you go!


----------



## Andy Moynihan

"Watch his feet.....he can kill you with his feet...."


----------



## zDom

What is fancy to YOU may be basic to ME.

And, what I find to be fancy may be easy for someone else.

It seems some people assume that because a kick is difficult and risky for THEM that it must be so for everybody.

What makes you think that low kicks are ALWAYS better and safer?

For example, I see people in UFC throw low kicks and get thrown to the ground (which, on a hard surface, is a fight ENDER) while I see high kicks ENDING fights after a SINGLE kick.

I have no doubt that jump kicks and spin kicks and high kicks are "fancy" to some people and only have worth to them as training tools. But there ARE OTHERS out there for whom these are useful, practical tools that are as easy to use as ringing a bell.

*Who is to say these kicks weren't developed by THOSE sort of people?*

I don't know why I bother to post in yet another rehash of this tired, old subject.

By the reasoning I've read here, I could say that swinging a bat at a baseball is a worthless technique as I can never seem to make contact. The only DEPENDABLE technique is using a catcher's mit.

Ah well, the more people that believe these kicks don't work, the better it is for me while I am still able to do them. Go tell it on a mountain: fancy kicks don't work!!


----------



## Twin Fist

wow, talk about dredging up old threads....

BUT

Tell Chung Le those kicks dont work.........


----------



## Makalakumu

Twin Fist said:


> wow, talk about dredging up old threads....
> 
> BUT
> 
> Tell Chung Le those kicks dont work.........


 
I don't see Cung Le doing 720 jump spin hook kicks in the octogon...

Also, not everyone is Cung Le...


----------



## Twin Fist

the 720 was only invented about 10 years ago. it isnt a technique taught in any style I know of. thats just XMA crap.

but i was referring to high kicks and spinning kicks


----------



## Makalakumu

Oh, well then, sometimes high kicks work really good.  I think we can agree on that.  I'm talking about the crazier ones...


----------



## YoungMan

Where did they come from (as far as Korean arts are concerned)?

Well, I've watched videos produced by the Korean Taekkyon Association, as well as TK videos made in Korea and narrated in Korean. You could hardly say they were made by Americans or for American audiences. The Korean TK Association was founded by a student of Sung Duk Ki, considered a national treasure by the Korean government.
The Taekkyon students I watched did jumping front kicks, jumping side kicks, jumping back sidekicks, jumping back roundhouse kicks, and jumping wheel kicks. In short, every jumping and jump spinning kick we associate with Taekwondo. I don't know if that is a definitive answer, but maybe it helps.
Why? A number of reasons. Difficulty, aesthetics, trying to be bird-like, showing grace etc. Historically, Koreans have always valued mastering difficult activities. Jumping and jump spinning kicks certainly qualified.
And the Korean arts have always been about evolution and change. If you practice strictly for confrontation and self defense, you reach a certain level and never get higher because there is no need to.


----------



## Twin Fist

upnorthkyosa said:


> Oh, well then, sometimes high kicks work really good.  I think we can agree on that.  I'm talking about the crazier ones...



yeah, i totally get what your saying and i agree.


----------



## exile

YoungMan said:


> Where did they come from (as far as Korean arts are concerned)?
> 
> Well, I've watched videos produced by the Korean Taekkyon Association, as well as TK videos made in Korea and narrated in Korean. You could hardly say they were made by Americans or for American audiences. The Korean TK Association was founded by a student of Sung Duk Ki, considered a national treasure by the Korean government.
> The Taekkyon students I watched did jumping front kicks, jumping side kicks, jumping back sidekicks, jumping back roundhouse kicks, and jumping wheel kicks. In short, every jumping and jump spinning kick we associate with Taekwondo. I don't know if that is a definitive answer, but maybe it helps.



Well, it certainly shows that modern TK, which grew from a base of three or four practitioners in the mid-20th century at a time when there were thousands of TKD practitioners and hundreds of TKD dojangs in the country, to its current rather modest numbers at the present time, has certainly mimicked the complex kicks that developed in TKD from the Kwan days&#8212;not one of whose founders, as Mark Pederson in his current state of the art overview of Taekkyon in the 2002 _Encyclopædia of Martial Arts of the World_ can be securely linked to any of the know taekkyon teachers alive at the time. And the Taekkyon Research Association, the  TK body pursuing the history of Taekkyon, agrees with this assessment, as Robert Young reports in his 1993 _Journal of Asian Martial Arts_ assessment.  And the head of this very selfsame Taekkyon Reseach Association, Song Duk Ki's surviving senior student, Lee Yong-bok, emphasized that real taekkyon's kicks were aimed at the opponent lower body and feet, and consisted of mostly stoming and unbalancing moves. Surviving photographs of Song Duk-ki himself from the early 1960s make the same point: they show leg-blocks of low kicks, mid/high body _pushing_ kicks used at close range as part of a combination with arm grabs, in order to push the defender over, and a range of other kicking techs   that look nothing at all like TKD. As the World Taekkyon Headquarters site puts it here,

_The kicks are so legendary that, for hundreds of years the name of the art was synonymous with foot-fighting. However, the kicks bear little resemblance to the typical spinning and jumping maneuvers glorified in tournaments and film. Instead, Taekkyon leg techniques are simple and direct, focusing on linear moves but including limited usage of circular and spinning kicks. *Taekkyon has traditionally emphasized stepping and stamping techniques directed at the opponent's lower legs and feet.*​_
There is absolutely no need to posit the origins of TKD's high or `fancy' kicks in a skill set that was all but extinct at the time that the Kwan founders were learning their MAs via years of training in Shotokan and Shudokan karate dojos. The one thing, the only thing we need to make sense of this is the assumption that Koreans like kicking, and the more spectacular, the better. Much more to the point is the question of TKD's influence on Taekkyon. Taekkyon was originally a village competition game, with heavy gambling, probably mostly of interest to the participants. In fact, Taekkyon has come to be a tournament sport (e.g., here), and one thing we've seen with karate as well: the more tournament-based a MA has become, with tournaments televized and increasingly enacted as a ring spectator sport, with emphasis on spectacle,  the more likely it is to develop flashy athletic kicks. David Mitchell, in the _Overlook Handbook of Martial Arts_, argues that many of TKDs more spectacular kicking techniques have begun to appear in karate tournaments, precisely because they are highly visible to the judges and represent athletically demanding, quasi-gymnastic skills which play well with audiences. It's no surprise that the kinds of traditional kicks that Lee Yong Bok and the World Taekkyon site talk about, and that Song Duk-ki demo'd in the early 1960s, have been supplemented by more acrobatic spinning/flying kicks as the tournament effect starts applying to taekkyon as well...


----------



## YoungMan

Ah exile, I was waiting for your "valued" input.

In an interview, Won Kuk Lee told of three different schools of Korean martial arts, each claiming to be Taekkyon. Who is to say that what we saw Sung Duk Ki doing was but one variation of that? Korean temples were well known as repositories of Korean culture.
Anyway, I've seen too much with my own eyes (albeit on video since I don't have the money for a trip to Korea) to really put much stock in what you say. I know you mean well, but you really should stop giving credence to these American and British writers, many of whom are karate-based, for your Taekkyon and Taekwondo information.
Anyway, Taekkyon must have gotten those kicks from somewhere-they didn't just magically appear. I truly believe the answer is not nearly so cut and dried as you make it out. You make it sound like Taekkyon was simply the Korean version of karate. Based on who you cite as references, I suppose it would be easy to believe that. I don't. Not for a minute. I've seen too much otherwise to believe that.
Watching those Taekkyon students move and execute those jumping and jump spinning kicks, it just looked so natural and part of what they do-like it just fit the art. I don't believe for a second that those kicks were imported recently from other styles. It just looked too natural for them to be doing them.


----------



## Sukerkin

Would you like your knife back, mate?  

I know that you were good enough to stay away from obviously hectoring word choices but subtle sniping is still sniping.  

Given that your profile claims a 5th Dan, I'd expect rather better of you and I'm sure that you can structure an argument without seeking to belittle those with whom you disagree.  Indeed, the meat of your post above did just that :tup:.

You're not new here and have a couple of hundred posts to your name, so I'm sure you're aware of the general policies that govern interactions on MT's fora.

I'm not trying to be the 'heavy' here, just waving a "Careful, thin ice" flag *before* things get heated and require firmer reaction.


----------



## exile

YoungMan said:


> Ah exile, I was waiting for your "valued" input.



YM, I don't like to have to say this, because your own attempt at sarcasm here in no way justifies an intemperate response on my part, and I think most readers know when someone has nothing to fall back on except clumsy snideness. Just a word to the... wise: it makes _you_ look bad, not me; sarcasm generally doesn't work unless you have already really strong arguments and evidence on your side, and you have neither, as we're going to see in some detail. But, in any case, first check your rep line, and then check mine, and then let's talk about "value(d)", yes? 



YoungMan said:


> In an interview, Won Kuk Lee told of three different schools of Korean martial arts, each claiming to be Taekkyon. Who is to say that what we saw Sung Duk Ki doing was but one variation of that? Korean temples were well known as repositories of Korean culture.



You are, persistently, failing to address the point that the official Taekkyon bodies I cited specifically identify the core techniques of Taekkyon as low kicks aimed at the opponent's legs and feet. Repeat: the official Taekkyon agencies, including the Taekkyon Research Association founded by Song Duk-ki's senior student, Lee Yon-bok, deny categorically the claim that you're making: that high complex kicks à la Taekwondo were ever part of the Taekkyon core repertoire. In passing, note again that n_one of the Kwan founders were students of Song Duk-ki._ The only Gm. I am aware of who _did_ study with SDK&#8212;and who, according to his student and our own member, Rob McLain, was largely responsible for his receiving 'Living Cultural Asset' status&#8212;was none other than Gm. Kim Pyung-soo, the man who has, in both _Black Belt_ (January issue) and in our own MT Magazine, most emphatically denied the sources of TKD in 'ancient' KMAs. Repeat: only Gm. Kim Pyung-soo, among TKD grandmasters, has actually studied the art with its sole 20th century 'source'. And KPS has attributed the origin of TKD's technique set exclusively to the karate that the Kwan founders brought back from Japan. And you're saying that you know better than LYB, KPS and Song-Duk Ki himself? :lol:



YoungMan said:


> Anyway, I've seen too much with my own eyes (albeit on video since I don't have the money for a trip to Korea) to really put much stock in what you say.



Let me get this straight... your eyes, seeing two people use similar techniques to solve an equation, drop a basketball into a basket, or parallel park, can tell which of the two learned those skills from the other. That's what you're saying? Because, whether you know it or not, that's what you're saying. 




YoungMan said:


> I know you mean well, but you really should stop giving credence to these American and British writers, many of whom are karate-based, for your Taekkyon and Taekwondo information.



Oh yes: those American and British karateka writers such as Lee Yon-bok, Gm. Kim Pung-soo, Gm. S. Henry Cho, and Song Duk Ki himself.  Yanks and Brits, every one of 'em!  And which of the people I've cited is karate-based? Mind being a little bit explicit? Robert Young? Stan Henning (TKD dan ranking). Manuel Adrogué? (fifth dan TKD). Eric Madis? (Tang Soo Do dan-ranked, 25+ years in the art). Please... tell us who you're talking about here, OK? I'm very curious... :EG:



YoungMan said:


> Anyway, Taekkyon must have gotten those kicks from somewhere-they didn't just magically appear. I truly believe the answer is not nearly so cut and dried as you make it out. You  Based on who you cite as references, I suppose it would be easy to believe that.
> 
> I don't. Not for a minute.



(i) Let me put it as nicely as I can, YM: what you happen to believe is an item for your (auto)biography, having nothing whatever to do with the truth, or otherwise, of the content of your belief. A lot of people believe that a bomb dropped out of a B-52 bomb bay moving at the speed of a rifle bullet,  at 35,000 feet, over spot X, will land on X. A lot of people once sincerely believed that the earth was flat. A lot of people believe that  walking under a ladder brings bad luck. That's a fact about _them_, not where bombs land, the shape of the earth, or the relationship between ladders and misfortune. Your personal beliefs are absolutely irrelevant until they're supported by some argumentation and expertise. The people who I've cited have been up one side of Taekkyon and down the other: they've read every bit of available material and assessed it, they've interviewed Song Duk-Ki and the current leaders of Taekkyon, they've investigated lineages and a hundred other things that you haven't even bothered to find out about yourself, let alone carried out.  And in some cases, they've been 'present at the creation': they were there when it happened. The question isn't what you believe; and it's not what I personally believe either. I've no interest in your beliefs, per se, apart from _what kind of, and how much, evidence you can adduce in support of those beliefs. _ So far, all you've given is your observations about the parallelism in techniques between Taekkyon practioners who weren't even born when SDK was photographed doing Taekkyon in the 60s, and 'fancy' kicks which were already recorded in photos of TKD masters in the late 1960, when tournament TKD was getting under way and virtually no one was doing Taekkyon except for SDK and one or two of his very small number of students. If the best you can come up with is that 'evidence of your eyes', then you've lost the argument long, long ago.

(ii) Once again, you seem to have lost the thread of what you're objecting to, just as you once went on at length about comments I made about Eunbi/Empi, which you somehow managed to turn into comments about _Koryo_. In this case, I was saying nothing, absolutely nothing, that would&#8212;let me quote you&#8212;



			
				YoungMan said:
			
		

> '...make it sound like Taekkyon was simply the Korean version of karate.



What you _apparently_ were trying to say, so far as I can make out, but which you got rather seriously wrong in actually saying it,  is that _I_ am saying that _Taekwondo_ is the Korean version of karate. Whether or not that's my position, it has nothing to do with the present discussion, which is about the claim that TKD's 'fancy kicks' came from Taekkyon. I've presented evidence from a variety of well-documented historical sources that they do not. Your comments would perhaps have more credibility if you were a bit more accurate about the statements you're objecting to :wink1:  It would also help if you actually addressed the evidence, instead of complaining (incorrectly, as noted) that it originates with British and American karateka, but we've already covered that ground, I think. 



YoungMan said:


> I've seen too much otherwise to believe that.



This is probably futile, but I'll try again: you cannot possibly have _seen _anything which establishes the _direction of transmission_ of the techniques in question. The visual sense is wonderful, but it has no time machine capability. You keep repeating your impression of what you've seen as something like a mantra, but apparently cannot, or will not, recognize that what you've seen does not have any bearing on the point at issue: _the direction of transmission_. I cannot understand why you don't recognize the fact that seeing that X and Y look similar has no bearing whatever on whether X comes from Y or Y from X. For that, you need historical documentation, sources, records. And in this case, the _very people_ who you're claiming taught TKDers to kick high and fancy _deny_ that TKD and Takkyon have any technical connection. Do you not have any idea how much credibility your claims lose in view of that denial, apart from the independent documentation that supports it,  given that your sole source of evidence is, 'Well, they look pretty similar to _me_'? 




YoungMan said:


> Watching those Taekkyon students move and execute those jumping and jump spinning kicks, it just looked so natural and part of what they do-like it just fit the art. I don't believe for a second that those kicks were imported recently from other styles. It just looked too natural for them to be doing them.



'Too natural for them to be doing that'... too natural for _what??_. My son ties his shoes like a pro. He learned that from _me_. 'Just fits the art'... and you are trying to make a _historical_ claim on on the basis of this kind of reasoning??

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Makalakumu

YoungMan said:


> I don't believe for a second that those kicks were imported recently from other styles. It just looked too natural for them to be doing them.


 
It doesn't matter what you believe.  If the oldest surviving practicioners of Taekkyun say that these kicks were not part of the original art, how can you contradict that?  Simply seeing some videos on Youtube certainly is not going to provide equal or better evidence then first hand accounts from the sole person who preserved Taekkyun for the world!  Thus, I think I can safely say that these kicks did NOT come from Taekkyun...unless you can provide some evidence from an equal or better source.

With that being said, I agree with this part of your earlier post...



> Why? A number of reasons. Difficulty, aesthetics, trying to be bird-like, showing grace etc. Historically, Koreans have always valued mastering difficult activities. Jumping and jump spinning kicks certainly qualified.


 
I think there may be a cultural component to these kicks that many Americans, who are steeped in a religion of pragmatism, may have difficulty understanding.  I don't know exactly why these kicks developed.  Maybe they are the Korean equivolent of the Peacock's tail?


----------



## exile

upnorthkyosa said:


> It doesn't matter what you believe.  If the oldest surviving practicioners of Taekkyun say that these kicks were not part of the original art, how can you contradict that?  Simply seeing some videos on Youtube certainly is not going to provide equal or better evidence then first hand accounts from the sole person who preserved Taekkyun for the world!  Thus, I think I can safely say that these kicks did NOT come from Taekkyun...unless you can provide some evidence from an equal or better source.
> 
> With that being said, I agree with this part of your earlier post...
> 
> 
> 
> I think there may be a cultural component to these kicks that many Americans, who are steeped in a religion of pragmatism, may have difficulty understanding.  I don't know exactly why these kicks developed.  Maybe they are the Korean equivolent of the Peacock's tail?




Nicely put, UpN... 

....here's an idea that might be relevant. We know&#8212;from the work of Henning on the ancient Korean MAs, from the origins of 'subak' in _shoubo_, the Chinese generic term for boxing, from the demonstrated Chinese source of the _Muye Dobu Ton Ji_ in a Chinese military manual written 250 years earlier by a Han general (whose text the MBTJ is an almost word for word translation of (as meticulously detailed in Henning's 2000 and Adrogué's 2003 _Journal of Asian Martial Arts_ articles)&#8212;that for centuries, the KMAs adopted the techique sets of Chinese martial arts almost literally (and who wouldn't, given the overwhelming effectiveness of those techniques in subjugating a good chunk of the Asian continent?))Well, consider Long Fist ch'an fa (ch'uan fa itself being the source of the Korean term kwan bop, just as shoubo was borrowed as subak). The original graphics for the sole empty-hand technical chapter in the MDTJ depict, as Adrogué shows, what are almost certainly representations of Long Fist ch'uan fa. And what do we know about Long Fist?

_The forms within the Long Fist style emphasize *fully extended kicks and striking techniques, and by its appearance would be considered a long range fighting system. * ...t he Long Fist style is considered to contain a good balance of hand and foot techniques, but *the Long Fist practitioner is also renowned for devastating acrobatic kicks. Long Fist&#8217;s arsenal of kicks covers everything from a basic front toe-kick to a jumping back-kick, from a low sweep to a tornado-kick. *_​
(my emphases; see here). Instead of desperately trying to accomodate (against the pitiless verdict of careful historical analysis and the documentary evidence itself) the carefully crafted propaganda that the ROK instituted in the aftermath of Rhee dictatorship (and which went on forever after; see Madis' article in _Martial Arts in the Modern World_) about 'ancient' sources of TKD's technique set, why not investigate the possibility that the complex kicks of TKD represent, in part at least, the influence of northern CMA technique sets, which Hwang Kee and Won Kuk Lee, founder of the Chung Do Kwan, among others, are known to have studied? My suggestion: a constructive line of research would involve investigating the relationship between CMAs, on the one hand,  and the modern KMA arts, such as TKD, on the other, where the CMAs emphasize complex, athletically difficult kicking techs. We might find that the sources of these kicks, like so much else in the KMAs, originate in the CMAs themselves...


----------



## Twin Fist

pretty simple in my mind, Jhoon Rhee, the first TKD black belt to come to america didnt do those kicks. None of the first gen TKD bb's knew those kicks.

why?

they hadnt been invented yet


----------



## zDom

Twin Fist said:


> pretty simple in my mind, Jhoon Rhee, the first TKD black belt to come to america didnt do those kicks. None of the first gen TKD bb's knew those kicks.
> 
> why?
> 
> they hadnt been invented yet




They had been invented. They were borrowed from hapkido.

Hapkido got them from Kim, Moo-hyung and Jin Han Jae who went to a temple to learn/develop hapkido's dynamic kicking.

Going out on a limb of speculation here, I imagine those kicks were learned by the monks from Chinese buddhists.


----------



## Twin Fist

Hapkido's kicking standards were not finalized until at the earliest 1961. if you mean to say that TKD took spinning and jumping kicks from Hapkido in the 60's you may well be right.


----------



## exile

Twin Fist said:


> zDom said:
> 
> 
> 
> They had been invented. They were borrowed from hapkido.
> 
> Hapkido got them from Kim, Moo-hyung and Jin Han Jae who went to a temple to learn/develop hapkido's dynamic kicking.
> 
> Going out on a limb of speculation here, *I imagine those kicks were learned by the monks from Chinese buddhists.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hapkido's kicking standards were not finalized until at the earliest 1961. if you mean to say that TKD took spinning and jumping kicks from Hapkido in the 60's you may well be right.
Click to expand...


This would then tie those 'fancy kicks' ultimately to the CMAs, and most probably then to the closest regional styles of the latter, which would likely be Northern external systems, such as Long Fist, which we have documentary evidence (specifically, the _Muye Dobu Tong Ji_) that the Koreans had been exposed to. But with a slightly more indirect line of transmission. 

Great line for further investigation... very promising, given the evidence we already have. Good work, guys!


----------



## SageGhost83

I'd hate to resurrect a dead thread, but I saw something interesting today. I was searching through old Karate pictures at the library and I found something quite odd - a pic of Pat Nakata using a flying kick in a karate tournament. I also saw a pic of Tatsuya Naka performing a roundhouse kick to the head. It appears that Japanese Karate did contain a lot of the "fancy kicks" that some claim are TKD originals that are ultimately connected to Taekkyon. I also found a list of Japanese Karate kicking techs:

Mae Geri Keagi: Front Snap Kick 
Mae Geri Kekomi: Front Thrust Kick 
Mae Aahi Geri: Front Kick With The Front Leg 
Mawashi Geri: Roundhouse Kick 
*Gyaku Mawashi Geri: Reverse Roundhouse Kick* 
*Ushiro Mawashi Geri: Inside-out Roundhouse Kick* 
Hiza Geri: Knee Kick 
*Mikazuki Geri: Crescent Kick* 
*Tobi Geri: Jumping Kick* 
*Ushiro Geri: Back Kick* 
Yoko Geri Keage: Side Snap Kick 
Yoko Geri Kekomi: Side Thrust Kick 
*Yoko Tobi Geri: Flying Side Kick* 
*Fumikomi: Stomping Kick* ​ 
It also appears that, contrary to popular belief, Japanese Karate had a large number of versatile kicking techniques in its repetoire which destroys the notion that Japanese Karate didn't really contain a lot of kicking in it. It also shows that TKD is more indebted to Japanese Karate in the kicking department than previously thought. Now, as far as the Axe Kick is concerned, that may very well be a TKD exclusive, at least, to the best of my knowledge thus far. The roundhouse kick/hook kick combo is also present in Shotokan Karate. This establishes that a lot of TKD kicks were indeed part of Japanese Karate. Perhaps Japanese Karate, depending on who you train with, just doesn't emphasize the kicking techs as much, or maybe, in a similar way to TKD, it has the techs present but chooses to emphasize hands over feet instead of vice versa. I posted this because I was reading back through this old thread and noticed that Exile made mention of tournament Karate featuring high kicks, plus I remembered the pics that I saw at the local library while browsing the martial arts section this afternoon.​


----------



## iron_ox

zDom said:


> They had been invented. They were borrowed from hapkido.
> 
> Hapkido got them from Kim, Moo-hyung and Jin Han Jae who went to a temple to learn/develop hapkido's dynamic kicking.
> 
> Going out on a limb of speculation here, I imagine those kicks were learned by the monks from Chinese buddhists.



Hello all,

I assume this is written tongue in cheek - because there is NO evidence that Ji or Kim ever went to a temple to train in kicking - they were in Seoul - at a time when TKD was gaining some momentum - and from all accounts I have seen and talked to Koreans about, there was a great desire to continue the work of separating the art from its Japanese Karate roots.  As a result, the kicks got higher and more dynamic, and with a very different and (dare I say) "fuller" use of the hip and rotation of the supporting foot - a style not unlike a blending of Chinese influences - although there is little evidence that anything from the MBTJ survived into modern times, other than the book itself.


----------



## iron_ox

Twin Fist said:


> Hapkido's kicking standards were not finalized until at the earliest 1961. if you mean to say that TKD took spinning and jumping kicks from Hapkido in the 60's you may well be right.



Hello all,

I am somewhat lost here.  Hapkido has had 10 kicks since its inception in 1948 - and only ten - the others were added by students who moved away from the root of the style to start their own organizations.

Tang Soo Do appears to have had a spinning kick for quite some time before it became a staple in TKD. (Just going by their own histories - no personal experience here).

Although this is fodder for another thread, Hapkido teachers like Ji, who moved to Seoul at the age of 20 or so, only ever reached the rank of 6th Dan in Hapkido (and that is speculative - the last KNOWN rank is 3rd Dan).  He started to teach in a huge city, in direct competition with TKD and other already established arts - so it is no wonder he absorbed more kicking from other sources (even if for the most part it violates the basic tenets of the art) to gain more "eye appeal" to an art that to the bystander is, well, down right boring looking - especially when you compare it (at the time) with guys sparring, doing a variety of offensive kicks and strikes etc.  So I do understand how it was easy in Ji's mind to add things to get more appeal.

The kicking standard in the art however has never changed from the original 10 kicks - even if the high kicks can be "more fun" to train with...


----------



## SageGhost83

It would seem that they took the original kicks that were already present in karate, sans the axe kick, and added their own variations to them such as spinning, jumping, etc. where there was no spinning, jumping, etc. As iron ox pointed out, there was a desire to move the art away from the Japanese roots, so it was inevitable that they would take what was already there and modify it to reflect their own personal tastes and/or intentionally change it for no other reason than to try to move it away from the source and make it their own. The kicks became higher and more dynamic in TKD, but they already were becoming higher and more dynamic in Japanese Karate via tournament Karate, so exactly how much of it is a strictly Korean convention is not known. All that we know is that Koreans love kicking and they tailored their brand of the art to emphasize the feet over the hands. The axe kick is the one tech that remains an enigma in my view. Perhaps it was imported from CMA or perhaps it actually is a holdover from an indigenous KMA?


----------



## SageGhost83

iron_ox said:


> He started to teach in a huge city, in direct competition with TKD and other already established arts - so it is no wonder he absorbed more kicking from other sources (even if for the most part it violates the basic tenets of the art) to gain more "eye appeal" to an art that to the bystander is, well, down right boring looking - especially when you compare it (at the time) with guys sparring, doing a variety of offensive kicks and strikes etc. So I do understand how it was easy in Ji's mind to add things to get more appeal.


 
Now this I found to be very interesting. I was not aware that Hapkido and TKD came into direct competition with each other (yeah, I know it is common sense, lay off of me :lol. This would definitely explain why a lot of flashy kicks made their way into a style that was not originally known for its flash.


----------



## SageGhost83

Actually, Check that - I am chatting with a friend and she tells me that the Axe Kick actually was a Japanese Karate technique called "Kakato Geri", so I guess that the enigmatic technique actually is accounted for in Japanese Karate. Another one down. Ok, she also tells me that the hook kick was in Japanese Karate, too - "Ura Mawashi Geri". Then there is what she calls "Ren Geri", turbo kicking(in her words, not mine). I guess that she means repeating or multiple kicks in succession, her broken english can be so confusing at times . So, every basic kick in TKD is found in Japanese Karate, and a lot of the advanced kicks are found in Japanese Karate, too (sans the new mods made by the kwan founders, of course). The origin of the fancy kicks in TKD is becoming clearer and clearer, and they apparently derive from Japanese Karate and not from Taekkyon or Hapkido.


----------



## SageGhost83

So, the updated list:

Mae Geri Keagi: Front Snap Kick 
Mae Geri Kekomi: Front Thrust Kick 
Mae Aahi Geri: Front Kick With The Front Leg 
Mawashi Geri: Roundhouse Kick 
*Gyaku Mawashi Geri: Reverse Roundhouse Kick* 
*Ushiro Mawashi Geri: Inside-out Roundhouse Kick* 
Hiza Geri: Knee Kick 
*Kakato Geri: Axe Kick*
*Mikazuki Geri: Crescent Kick* 
*Tobi Geri: Jumping Kick* 
*Ura Mawashi Geri: Hook Kick*
*Ushiro Geri: Back Kick* 
Yoko Geri Keage: Side Snap Kick 
Yoko Geri Kekomi: Side Thrust Kick 
*Yoko Tobi Geri: Flying Side Kick* 
*Fumikomi: Stomping Kick* 

It is no coincidence that these techs are found in TKD when these techs were in TKD's mother style/set of styles - Japanese Karate.​


----------



## exile

SageGhost83 said:


> So, the updated list:
> 
> Mae Geri Keagi: Front Snap Kick
> Mae Geri Kekomi: Front Thrust Kick
> Mae Aahi Geri: Front Kick With The Front Leg
> Mawashi Geri: Roundhouse Kick
> *Gyaku Mawashi Geri: Reverse Roundhouse Kick*
> *Ushiro Mawashi Geri: Inside-out Roundhouse Kick*
> Hiza Geri: Knee Kick
> *Kakato Geri: Axe Kick*
> *Mikazuki Geri: Crescent Kick*
> *Tobi Geri: Jumping Kick*
> *Ura Mawashi Geri: Hook Kick*
> *Ushiro Geri: Back Kick*
> Yoko Geri Keage: Side Snap Kick
> Yoko Geri Kekomi: Side Thrust Kick
> *Yoko Tobi Geri: Flying Side Kick*
> *Fumikomi: Stomping Kick*
> 
> It is no coincidence that these techs are found in TKD when these techs were in TKD's mother style/set of styles - Japanese Karate.​



As they say on late night TV 'not sold in stores' ads, 'But wait&#8212;there's more!!'. The axe kick is _also_ part of certain Northern CMA styles, apparently: we have _Fu tou tui_, Mandarin for 'axe kick' (as per here) and present, I _believe_, in Chin Na, among others. We need to check with our friends in the Northern Styles CMA forum. I suspect that something like the familiar TKD axe kick was used across a fairly wide band of northern Asian MA styles.


----------



## SageGhost83

exile said:


> As they say on late night TV 'not sold in stores' ads, 'But waitthere's more!!'. The axe kick is _also_ part of certain Northern CMA styles, apparently: we have _Fu tou tui_, Mandarin for 'axe kick' (as per here) and present, I _believe_, in Chin Na, among others. We need to check with our friends in the Northern Styles CMA forum. I suspect that something like the familiar TKD axe kick was used across a fairly wide band of northern Asian MA styles.


 
Absolutely! And thanks for pointing that out! I think that, seeing as how karate itself has roots in CMA, the bigger picture is that the techs ultimately all are derived from CMA. I am using Japanese Karate as more of a convenient reference point here due to the more recent ties between the two styles. I think that it is interesting that Japanese Karate, ultimately derived from CMA and Okinawan te, found its way into Korea while Chinese fighting methods were also finding their way into Korea over the years. Kind of like, I dunno, the underlying Chinese influence still flowing back into Korea, albeit from another source (Japanese Karate). So, even if the techs derive from Japanese Karate, tracing them further back will reveal that they ultimately derive from CMA in the end, so we can technically still say that TKD kicks have their roots in CMA. Kind of a weird way for me to arrive at such a theory .


----------



## exile

SageGhost83 said:


> Absolutely! And thanks for pointing that out! I think that, seeing as how karate itself has roots in CMA, the bigger picture is that the techs ultimately all are derived from CMA. I am using Japanese Karate as more of a convenient reference point here due to the more recent ties between the two styles.* I think that it is interesting that Japanese Karate, ultimately derived from CMA and Okinawan te, found its way into Korea while Chinese fighting methods were also finding their way into Korea over the years. Kind of like, I dunno, the underlying Chinese influence still flowing back into Korea, albeit from another source (Japanese Karate). So, even if the techs derive from Japanese Karate, tracing them further back will reveal that they ultimately derive from CMA in the end, so we can technically still say that TKD kicks have their roots in CMA.* Kind of a weird way for me to arrive at such a theory .



Great way to put it, SG, and this is very much my picture as well. I see a lot of the story of the KMAs as involving the ebb and flow of Chinese influence, and more generally, northern Asian techniques&#8212;stuff that shows up in lots of different places&#8212;into and out of Korea. While it's the 'intimate details'&#8212;the really fine grained stuff&#8212;that we get into all sorts of historical debates and controversies about, the overarching fact seems to be that there are a number of 'key ideas' or technical themes that you see over and over again in the northern Asian systems, and these represent something like a common distinctive profile of those systems, in contrast to others. For example&#8212;this is strictly impressionistic, but looking at, say, the Filipine arts, or the little bit I've seen of subcontinental Indian systems, there seem to be very significant differences in the overall 'look' of those arts as vs. the northern Asian systems.  Fundamentally, I guess, it looks to me like northern China/Manchuria, Korea and Japan are, in some stylistically deep, basic way, on the same page. Given its geopolitical relationship to China, possibly the world's oldest superpower, it's not surprising in the least that the Koreans have long been influenced by the martial thinking of their ridiculously powerful neighbor...


----------



## SageGhost83

exile said:


> Fundamentally, I guess, it looks to me like northern China/Manchuria, Korea and Japan are, in some stylistically deep, basic way, on the same page.


 
Yes, I agree 100%! Chinese kung fu (White Crane, to be exact, although there were probably many more styles) spreading outside of China to Okinawa (leading to the formation of Te), Japan (leading to Japanese Karate and even Kenpo), and Korea (Subak, Kwonbup, Tang Soo Do, and Taekwondo) represents a small example of what I like to call "a martial unity" between the cultures with CMA being the base. I find the prominence of the Yin Yang symbol and it's accompanying philosophy within the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean systems to be another good example of martial (or in this case, philosophical) unity. Perhaps it really is just the same thing interpreted differently according to its new cultural home and practiced differently with emphasis placed on different areas of the tool set according to the tastes and fancies of the new cultural homes.


----------



## zDom

With all due respect, Mr. Sogor,

a) Ignorance or lack of proof or evidence shows neither truth or falsity (for that matter, there is no evidence Choi, Yong Sul had ANY training  maybe he just watched a couple demos and made it all up, eh? )

b) It is the opinion of many, including myself, that hapkido is NOT limited to the 10 kicks Choi, Yong Sul taught.

We could discuss our different opinions on what authentic hapkido is, but I think that would best be done in a different thread.

As for origins of these kicks, it all comes down to conjecture and opinion.

One thing is clear though: it is the Korean arts that embraced and emphasized these kicks.


----------

