LF, you've made some interesting and useful points in the discussion, and I appreciate the tone of your post very much!
No problem! I knew you really liked me, you've just had a difficult time expressing it! :ultracool
But I think that you have a misimpression of what the different statements about the parameters...
Not really, I'm only joking with you a bit about that. I'm just amused by the specifics that really speak for themselves. Example: “Would you drive your car at night if both your headlights were burned out?” No, not unless it was an emergency. Conclusion: Driving at night is inherently dangerous and shouldn't be done. That just doesn't make sense. Create a set of restrictive parameters that don't exist in every fight, and say that kicking high is too risky because of those parameters. If your headlights are out - don't drive at night. If it is not safe to do so, don't kick high. I say it can be safe when the parameters are right, so change the parameters during the fight, or don't kick high, but the kicks are still viable if you know how to change the parameters.
As the discussion proceeds, people bring in different numbers or sets of conditions as a way to fine-tune their response to what previous posters have been saying. People are using different numbers because they are approximating the conditions—that's hardly changing the parameters!
I'm not really suggesting that anyone was “changing their story” and not following a logical train of thought as to what range kicks are used. The funny thing to me is when a general question is posed (if you go by the OP in this thread), it seems that this general topic of “high kicks in street fights” is discounted because of specifics that only exist in certain cases (not all, or even the majority of scenarios I have encountered have those parameters), in which it is obvious that the high kick is not practical. I say I might kick someone's head if the situation is right, and someone says something like “that's foolish, high kicks don't work in real-life defense.”
“After all,” they say, “how are you going to kick a 7' tall guy in the head as he climbs over the bathroom stall door where you are sitting on the toilet in a public restroom, with a slippery-wet floor, and he drops down on you from above?” Wait a minute!!! When did my opponent become a basketball player, and how did we get in a public john? If someone asked, “would you kick the head of a tall guy jumping you in the toilet,” I might answer, “probably not.” However, if someone says that kicks to the head are too risky because the bathroom floor might be wet, then I say don't kick in that situation. However, there are plenty of smooth, dry surfaces where people actually have to defend themselves.
Another argument is, “Kicks won't work because 300 people are pressing against you in a bar with two tables on your left, and a trash can on your right.” I just start chuckling when I hear these kinds of “what ifs.” Ok, I won't kick then, but that wasn't the original question. What about when there is only 200 people and the fifty or so who are actually around you, clear back enough, and the tables are far enough to allow your leg to go up with ease? Or, what about when the fight spills out into the parking lot, or the angry guy you walked away from in the bar (and five of his friends) jump you outside. Hmmmm, let's see - - check for loose gravel on the ground, wet pavement, uneven surfaces, curbs and cars and other obstacles, then proceed with caution. In other words, be aware of your environment, and act accordingly. Can I safely use a kick to the head in this parking lot scenario? Yes (been there - done that).
Then comes the “what ifs.” What if his friend punches you from behind? What if he charges you and tackles you? What if the wind blows and a tree branch falls on your head, and bird feathers get in your eyes? All answers are the same. Respond to the situation, and use stable stances, counter defenses to their attacks. For close quarters, use hand strikes and elbows to the head, and low kicks if available. Nothing changes between what you would do, and what I would do, except that I might occasionally find the glimpse of a safe opportunity and smack the guy in the head with a kick or two.
Range: We're talking order of magnitude here, LF. What you don't note is that all of these numbers are comfortably smaller than the length of the average person's lower leg—from the knee hinge down—let alone that length plus the distance of the maximally raised knee. Regardless of what the description is, the kicking leg, traveling up, has got to get past the assailant's body en route to his head, which puts us in a significantly different fighting range.
Range is always in issue. Are they out of range? Are they too close to execute this kick or that strike? Range is usually, constantly changing throughout a street fight. Kickers tend to prefer to kick before the range is closed (preemptive if you will). However, the idea that most attackers will “zoom” right in to that CQ range and make all high kicks null and void is not what I have experienced. If someone charges in, they are likely to run into a low kick, or a fast hand or elbow, then they are likely to back off (if they are not already seriously injured on their first foolish attempt to rush in).
There is the argument that kicking is risky, but is the Close-quarters tie up really less risky? How about the shoot in and take-down. I spent many years wrestling, and know how to take a person down quickly, and how to prevent it. No matter how good a guy is on the mat, there are usually several attempts to shoot that fail. What then? In a wrestling match, the rules prevent a dangerous counter-attack, but in the street, I am going to hurt anyone who goes for the shoot.
You say standing on one leg (for a brief fraction of a second) is too risky? What about lowering your body near their legs, charging in head first with your back to the sky and no protection of the spine and other vital targets? CQ range is only good against a person who does not know what to do in close. I don't want to be close to my attacker, for good reason, but the last place they want to be is close to me. You don't shoot on an opponent in the street if they are standing there ready for you, and you don't kick them in the head if they are ready and waiting to defend against it.
Conditions: Every streetfight is different. People in the environment, the nature of the ground (moving, in the case of subways), tables and chairs, glass, gravel bits... in other words, non-dojang conditions.
This is absolutely correct. Every street-fight does present different conditions. Therefore, no rule of, “this will work and that won't” applies to
any technique. Use the right one at the right time. Training regularly for “non-dojang conditions” is
exactly what students (and young Black Belts) need.
I have made the critical assumption in my posts that the fight has been initiated, so preemptive striking is not at issue...
In connection with this last point, LF, you mentioned that you find arm techs risky because you have to be in vulnerable range to apply them. But again, the assumption is that the fight has already come to you, your best effort to avoid it notwithstanding. If an attacker throws a close-up round house or jab at you, you are already in that range. As to whether you should let that happen, there are a couple of threads running now on preemptive strikes; that's not, if I understand the OP correctly, what's at issue. So the assumption of this whole thread is that you're involved in an unsought close range attack already; what's your best shot at ending it quickly?
Well, exile, there is the problem when you make “assumptions.” You, and others might have moved the discussion to the specifics of “unsought close range attack,” but to claim (or assume) that this is the subject of the OP, please copy and paste the part of the OP that states that (in this thread only, not others you are involved in). This thread was an open question about kicks to the head in the street - - in general, with no parameters set. If you want to add into that a discussion including parameters, fine!
However, common misleading statements includes “kicks are not a good idea for the street because they don't work at close range. Well, the do work at close range under certain circumstances which we could discuss, but to use the CQ argument to blanketly discount kicking to the head in street fights is unfounded, and a matter of personal opinion, personal experiences, and not based in fact. Neither is saying that the OP here does not include discussions of either preventing CQ attacks, or breaking free of them during the fight. Let's get to reality, and stop trying to restrict the fighter with “what if” parameters just so you can “prove” kicks are too risky.
The incorrect argument that I see represented in the
CQ fight has already started so no preemptive discussion is allowed, is that, first of all, that was not part of the OP's stated question, and secondly, ranges change. I can very well deal with an initial rush to CQ and then regain distance - - so we are right back to the original long distance kicking range. Even if someone maintains a close range on me, my training is designed to block, parry and redirect attacks, release from grabs and apply my own controls, and off balance my opponent so that I can move around and do what I want, including kicking to the head when the opportunity presents itself.
The cardboard-like description of those rejecting close quarter high kicks makes it sound (to my ears) like we kickers are just standing there on one leg while this super-skilled close-quarters grappler is all over us with stuff we don't know how to deal with. It sounds as though we are going to be nose to nose and try to do a front kick up the middle, and you say “that's impossible!” Well, of course it is!!! But no one says that this is how a kicker is going to respond. Common sense! The leg from the knee down has a set measurement for each person. If the opponent is closer than that distance, the front kick (or high kick) is not going to fit between.
The preemptive forward high kick to the chin is impressive if the opponent is charging in, and the kick reaches appropriate height while the distance is closing so that the impact of the chin drives the head back just as the attacker is laying hands on your chest. That is not the same as standing toe to toe and bringing the forward high kick up between two bodies where there is no room. So everyone is thinking, “that's what I've been saying!” Well, yes, of course. Common Sense!
Conversely, when my opponent is within a few inches, all is not lost for head kicks. It has been mentioned that you can quickly step back, or push your opponent away and create the distance needed to kick the chin. This is still using high kicks in CQ street fighting, it's just that you don't have to lock yourself into this 18” range, and stay there. I can also be at CQ, and bring the roundhouse kick over the side of the shoulder and strike the head as I described before.
The argument seems to be that once my attacker has started the fight, we are already at close quarters (not always true), and that once we do reach CQ range, we are going to stay there for the rest of the fight (absolutely not true). I am not an amateur at street fighting, and I don't train my students to be. My opponent does not control me, nor the range at which we fight, no matter how good they are. Every time they choose to get close, they take the risk of getting hurt, and I have the option of moving to increase the range.
It is foolish if they want to relentlessly pursue me to a close range because I am very dangerous there as well. So, if they want to last long in the fight, their best bet is outside of my kicking range, and far away from my hands, elbows and knees. The only safe thing for them to do is to turn and walk away (does that sound arrogant, or what!!!). It's not just true about me, but should be for anyone who knows how to kick, AND use their hands.
The people I've cited are experimentalists, LF; they work on SD techs in live training that very few people would wish to experience themselves.
...as I've said before, are violence professionals, as I am not and would not want to be; I find their credentials bona fide and impressive, am glad they do what they do to make the results available for those of us who's just as soon do something a little less dangerous for a living,
....the people whose work in this area I take seriously are saying that given the inherent risks and inherent difficulties in executing a head high kick at close range in a `street'-style conflict and environment your odds are worse if you opt to do so, and that you're probably much better off training other weapons than trying to train high head kicks as way to improve your odds.
I can appreciate your confidence and trust in professionals who have trained with a variety of other experts, “experimented” in hundreds of real-life situations, drawn conclusions, and published books. However, I think you should keep an open mind to opposing points of view from other experts. I don't want to come off here looking like I'm bragging, but I am also an “expert” with many years of experience in real-life combat, security and police work, military training (non-combat), and practical, Reality-based, Martial Art training with many other experts.
Many of the security and LEO professionals in my area, who do the kind of work of violence in the workplace, Executive Protection for major corporations, international oversees bodyguards for political diplomats and VIPs, come to me for training. I have not yet published a book, but that does not make me any less knowledgeable on the subject as those with whom you are familiar. I am just less famous! :ultracool
There will always be groups of experts in any field that disagree on major points, and often times, you can not accurately say that one group has a better argument than the other simply because one group has not had success where the other group has, or because one group publishes books.
Finally, I think it would be best to avoid the issue of who has been rude to whom, who owes whom an apology for what...
You're right! It is difficult for people who have been rude to a friend to see their rudeness, let alone apologize for it. Among my friends, instead of trying to defend why we shouldn't have to apologize, we just apologize anyway so as to ensure we did not unintentionally offend someone we care about. My apologies for suggesting that anyone apologize to Kacey.
Henceforth, speaking strictly as a participant in this discussion, it would probably be much better for the health of the thread to try to avoid charged personal topics and issues, and stick to the issues raised in the OP.
Yes, lets stick to that OP....
I was checking out the thread in the TKD forum about Forms/Pooms and it morphed into a debate about the effectiveness of high kicks to the head. What are your thoughts about high kicks on the street?
_Don Flatt
