S
SammyB57
Guest
In TKD, why do they kick with the striking surface of the foot below the ankle opposed to the shin?
Just from a physics stand point, the end of the foot is going to be moving the fastest and therefore have the most power. Also, kicking with your shins can take some conditioning and a lot of people don't do that anymore.
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
Also from a direction of force standpoint, if you kick straight on with the heel (back kick or side kick), the bones are aligned along the direction of their strength, which is not the same angle as shins. The ball or top of the foot (roundhouse) also has considerably more distance/range than the shin. In whipping kicks (roundhouse or heel rakes, for example) you also a longer 'whip and thus more speed, as bignick mentioned
TX_BB
Purple Belt
WTF rules
Zepp
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2003
- Messages
- 1,561
- Reaction score
- 22
To put it simply, kicking with the shin is a trademark of southeast Asian martial arts, and TKD isn't from southeast Asia. 
It's not that you couldn't incorporate kicking with the shin into TKD (as long as it's not against the rules wherever you're sparring), but the shin is a pretty sensitive area unless you've conditioned it not to be. TKD has never been the kind of martial art that puts emphasis on desensitizing part of your body. Instead, more emphasis is put on kickng with precision, and using parts of the leg that are naturally able to take an impact without causing pain, particularly the heel and the ball of the foot. Throwing a roundhouse kick with the instep (top of the foot) developed from sport Tae Kwon Do, for reasons that someone else here can probably explain better than I.
It's not that you couldn't incorporate kicking with the shin into TKD (as long as it's not against the rules wherever you're sparring), but the shin is a pretty sensitive area unless you've conditioned it not to be. TKD has never been the kind of martial art that puts emphasis on desensitizing part of your body. Instead, more emphasis is put on kickng with precision, and using parts of the leg that are naturally able to take an impact without causing pain, particularly the heel and the ball of the foot. Throwing a roundhouse kick with the instep (top of the foot) developed from sport Tae Kwon Do, for reasons that someone else here can probably explain better than I.
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
Throwing a roundhouse kick with the instep (top of the foot) developed from sport Tae Kwon Do, for reasons that someone else here can probably explain better than I.
I don't know the history but it seems to me that kicking with the instep instead of t he toe has a greater margin of error in your aim/placement and a smaller chance of accidentally breaking toes.
Nevertheless, I've been starting to practice a roundhouse with ball of foot mre
I don't know the history but it seems to me that kicking with the instep instead of t he toe has a greater margin of error in your aim/placement and a smaller chance of accidentally breaking toes.
Nevertheless, I've been starting to practice a roundhouse with ball of foot mre
Zepp
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2003
- Messages
- 1,561
- Reaction score
- 22
FearlessFreep said:
It is more of a penetrating kick than hitting with the instep. Especially if you're wearing shoes, which you probably would be if you're ever attacked outside of the dojang.
Hitting with the instep is going to cause a lot less damage than an equally powerful kick delivered with the ball of the foot just because your weapon is larger, diffusing your power out over a larger area. Hitting with the ball of your foot allows you to focus your power into a small area. In my opinion, both ways should be practiced.
Also, in point sparring, kicking with the instep gives you a little extra "reach" to score that point because you are extending the foot.
I also find that the instep decreases the risk of injury to toes. I usually kick with the instep of my foot and change it up to a shin kick if I find that my target is getting to close for a round kick.
For the street, it depends of the situation, but I would be more likly to use the instep of my foot/shin kick. Like it was said earlier, the instep gives you more room for error and if your attacker is moving it is easier for you to miss with the ball of your foot or get a bad angle and break your toes instead.
Just my thoughts.
I also find that the instep decreases the risk of injury to toes. I usually kick with the instep of my foot and change it up to a shin kick if I find that my target is getting to close for a round kick.
For the street, it depends of the situation, but I would be more likly to use the instep of my foot/shin kick. Like it was said earlier, the instep gives you more room for error and if your attacker is moving it is easier for you to miss with the ball of your foot or get a bad angle and break your toes instead.
Just my thoughts.
SammyB57 said:
In sparring situations, the instep offers better speed and range plus a lowered risk of injuring your opponent. It's used because it is safer and faster.
The roundhouse kick itself can use a few different striking tools though. Ball of foot, instep and shin are all viable tools depending on the job.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 4,262
- Reaction score
- 41
FYI not all roundhouse kicks with the instep are the same. We train on makiwara for round kick. Well, not me, I don't want arthritis in my feet either. But alot of our students have broken multiples of 3 boards taped together and a few have done concrete breaking with the instep. So the capability is there for alot of damage when you train for it. TW
Miles
Senior Master
Absolutely-concentration of the power in as small as spot as possible is one of Gen Choi's theories of power. Both weapons have their respective uses.bignick said:
BTW, makiwara is a Japanese term for a "kwon go."
Miles
TX_BB
Purple Belt
bignick said:
That assumes the biomechanics is the same between the kicks.( I believe you'll have differences in power but hopefully I'll have data to say one way or the other) In the change of the foot position you may change the amount of force generated. You also may have differences in the pshycoligical willingness to do the kick.
I agree and I perfer the ball of the foot.bignick said:
celtic bhoy
Orange Belt
For sport reasons and no other. It gives you more distance and it looks tidy if the kick lands.
In reality you couldn't and probably wouldn't be able to kick with the footsword or ball of the foot with a boot or shoe on and neither should you try.
Footswords etc are nice against stationary boards but in a real situation against a moving target you would likely get your ankle broken.
I have practised tkd and I have the commonsense to know that all this theory of power only really works with boards etc. Against an opponent who is high on drugs and adrenaline you will likely just bounce off them.
For real power and fighting effectiveness, I would most definetely use the knee or indeed the shin.
Spookey
Purple Belt
Celtic,
If you kick an enemy and you "just bounce off", you may wish to adjust your training.
As a professional security advisor, I have been forced to physically engage those high, drunk, and enraged combatants. Not everyone of then have instantly fallen as to the effect of my techniques, however, I have NEVER had a technique simply "bounce off"...please give this issue some more thought!
TAEKWON!
Spookey
If you kick an enemy and you "just bounce off", you may wish to adjust your training.
As a professional security advisor, I have been forced to physically engage those high, drunk, and enraged combatants. Not everyone of then have instantly fallen as to the effect of my techniques, however, I have NEVER had a technique simply "bounce off"...please give this issue some more thought!
TAEKWON!
Spookey
celtic bhoy
Orange Belt
I too have worked in the security industry and I can assure you that when an adversary is fired up, most kick and punches do tend to bounce off the opponent.
That is why most of us, as well as police, are trained to use restraints and pressure techniques because kicks and punches are a liability in general.
I personally would want an instant reaction to a technique, we are not there to fight but to end matters quickly and within the limit of the law.
Please don't insult my way of thinking. What I have experienced isn't likely what somebody else has and visa-versa.
That is why most of us, as well as police, are trained to use restraints and pressure techniques because kicks and punches are a liability in general.
I personally would want an instant reaction to a technique, we are not there to fight but to end matters quickly and within the limit of the law.
Please don't insult my way of thinking. What I have experienced isn't likely what somebody else has and visa-versa.
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
I can understand why tactics would not translate from sport to combat. For example, in olympic style TKD, you can't go for the knees, but you trying to score, so checks, feints and misdirection wok. In a real fight situation, all those feints and dancing are useless and you may need to break a knee to take someone down
What I don't understand is how basic techniques would not work the same way. I mean, a sidekick with the heel/blade edge, if that force can break a board, if that force with the body weight behind it can block and push back and wind a sparring opponent, why can it not break a kneecap and push back a 'high' aggessor?
Currently, I can get more force into a target with a instep roundhouse than I can with a shin from a roundhouse, so for me, a shin to the gut is not as damaging as a instep to the gut (even if the shin would be a harder surface) so why in a 'real' situation should I favor a less powerful attack, especially one that brings me much closer to an opponent.
What I'm saying I guess is that I can see that a spinning sidekick to the head might not *tactically* be a good idea in a real fight, but I don't see how the force onto the target is going to be any less effective (espcially given that an 18yo kid did just that in Australia and was charged with manslaughter or murder when the guy who was attacking him died)
What I don't understand is how basic techniques would not work the same way. I mean, a sidekick with the heel/blade edge, if that force can break a board, if that force with the body weight behind it can block and push back and wind a sparring opponent, why can it not break a kneecap and push back a 'high' aggessor?
Currently, I can get more force into a target with a instep roundhouse than I can with a shin from a roundhouse, so for me, a shin to the gut is not as damaging as a instep to the gut (even if the shin would be a harder surface) so why in a 'real' situation should I favor a less powerful attack, especially one that brings me much closer to an opponent.
What I'm saying I guess is that I can see that a spinning sidekick to the head might not *tactically* be a good idea in a real fight, but I don't see how the force onto the target is going to be any less effective (espcially given that an 18yo kid did just that in Australia and was charged with manslaughter or murder when the guy who was attacking him died)
celtic bhoy
Orange Belt
FearlessFreep
I understand your question and in some areas you have answered your own question.
1. You may be in a confined space so a low kick with a shin maybe all thats on offer.
2. A kick with a shin maybe less powerful, but then you don't want kill them. Like the unlucky Australian.
3. Closing the distance is no bad thing, it limits what your attack/opponent can do.
4. There is more chance of kick landing to the body than a kick to the head, whatever the power. So why take a chance and fire at the head?
Maybe you should consider practising shorter range kicks on the heavy-bag if it's short damaging kicks you want.
You are not betraying tkd by refining methods to suit you for the street.
And lastly you are right, any force on the right target won't be less effective. It's hitting the target that's the problem.
I understand your question and in some areas you have answered your own question.
1. You may be in a confined space so a low kick with a shin maybe all thats on offer.
2. A kick with a shin maybe less powerful, but then you don't want kill them. Like the unlucky Australian.
3. Closing the distance is no bad thing, it limits what your attack/opponent can do.
4. There is more chance of kick landing to the body than a kick to the head, whatever the power. So why take a chance and fire at the head?
Maybe you should consider practising shorter range kicks on the heavy-bag if it's short damaging kicks you want.
You are not betraying tkd by refining methods to suit you for the street.
And lastly you are right, any force on the right target won't be less effective. It's hitting the target that's the problem.
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
Um, forgive me if I've missed the point, but I don't think you've answered my question
You may be in a confined space so a low kick with a shin maybe all thats on offer.
OK, that's where you might want to use a shin. That means in that case, a shin is an option it have. No problem with that, it's another tool to use. At that range, though, knees and hands are also options. All that really says is that a shin is a tool to have available, it does not really say why using ball of feet, insteps or heels is not also a good tool.
A kick with a shin maybe less powerful, but then you don't want kill them. Like the unlucky Australian.
That kinda makes no sense. First off, your initial post on the subject said 'for real power...', which this says the opposite, but more importantly, in *any* attack you need to judge appropriate power. I spar lightly, or heavy; it's my self-control that makes the difference. Here your are saying 'use a less powerful too, it's safer' and I think I'd rather have a more powerful tool and scale it's usage as needed. In some situations, I may *need* that power, in others, I may not...regardless of what technique or striking surface I use
3. Closing the distance is no bad thing, it limits what your attack/opponent can do
The closer I am to an opponent, the closer he is to me. Logically, if closing distance limits his options, it also limits mine. Frankly, I'd rather have the option to attack him at range if I can. If he closes, tactics change, but...choice is nice.
There is more chance of kick landing to the body than a kick to the head, whatever the power. So why take a chance and fire at the head?i
That was my point. Tactically, it's probably a bad idea to do it. However, if you do it, it's going to have the same power whether it's against a sparring opponent with pads or a drunk idiot. The power of any attack is going to be the same, regardless of the target (the spinning kick to the head was an example of a move that's not tactically wise in a real street fight, but the point is that the power that can break a board can break a leg)
Maybe you should consider practising shorter range kicks on the heavy-bag
Or practice short and long. Choice of range and choice of power is..again...a nice option to have available.
Also, if I work on short kicks with shins, that still makes my long kicks more powerful. A roundhouse is a roundhouse. If I improve my roundhouse so that kicking with the shin is stronger, that will improve me leg strength, foot speed, and hip snap and make my roundhouse kick even more powerful when striking with the ball of the foot (or instep)
and just as a personal thought, the foot is designed to flex so hits to the instep can flex and aborb, the heel is designed to take force straight on, as is the ball of the foot. The shin is *not* designed to take force from the side as I'll admit it makes me nervous to use it as a striking surface
You are not betraying tkd by refining methods to suit you for the street.
I don't mind refining methods. We train for a lot of things that make no sense in sparring but are used for self-defense and street fighting, including knees and elbows for striking and breaking opponent knees and elbows and drawing some from Hapkido, etc...for joint manipulation and close range strikes
Adding techniques is fine, but this stuff was also developed by people very interested in combat fighting so before I reject a technique, a really want to understand why it's not useful for fighting and why I would reject it.
So far you've said "this technique is good" and I agree being able to add a non-standard technique borrowed from another discipline is a good idea, but you've also said "that technique is bad" and I've asked "why?" because the technique you are saying to reject is something that adds range (physiology) and power (physics) and more options and before I reject those tools I want to really know why and you've explained why to add some tools but not why to reject the others
You may be in a confined space so a low kick with a shin maybe all thats on offer.
OK, that's where you might want to use a shin. That means in that case, a shin is an option it have. No problem with that, it's another tool to use. At that range, though, knees and hands are also options. All that really says is that a shin is a tool to have available, it does not really say why using ball of feet, insteps or heels is not also a good tool.
A kick with a shin maybe less powerful, but then you don't want kill them. Like the unlucky Australian.
That kinda makes no sense. First off, your initial post on the subject said 'for real power...', which this says the opposite, but more importantly, in *any* attack you need to judge appropriate power. I spar lightly, or heavy; it's my self-control that makes the difference. Here your are saying 'use a less powerful too, it's safer' and I think I'd rather have a more powerful tool and scale it's usage as needed. In some situations, I may *need* that power, in others, I may not...regardless of what technique or striking surface I use
3. Closing the distance is no bad thing, it limits what your attack/opponent can do
The closer I am to an opponent, the closer he is to me. Logically, if closing distance limits his options, it also limits mine. Frankly, I'd rather have the option to attack him at range if I can. If he closes, tactics change, but...choice is nice.
There is more chance of kick landing to the body than a kick to the head, whatever the power. So why take a chance and fire at the head?i
That was my point. Tactically, it's probably a bad idea to do it. However, if you do it, it's going to have the same power whether it's against a sparring opponent with pads or a drunk idiot. The power of any attack is going to be the same, regardless of the target (the spinning kick to the head was an example of a move that's not tactically wise in a real street fight, but the point is that the power that can break a board can break a leg)
Maybe you should consider practising shorter range kicks on the heavy-bag
Or practice short and long. Choice of range and choice of power is..again...a nice option to have available.
Also, if I work on short kicks with shins, that still makes my long kicks more powerful. A roundhouse is a roundhouse. If I improve my roundhouse so that kicking with the shin is stronger, that will improve me leg strength, foot speed, and hip snap and make my roundhouse kick even more powerful when striking with the ball of the foot (or instep)
and just as a personal thought, the foot is designed to flex so hits to the instep can flex and aborb, the heel is designed to take force straight on, as is the ball of the foot. The shin is *not* designed to take force from the side as I'll admit it makes me nervous to use it as a striking surface
You are not betraying tkd by refining methods to suit you for the street.
I don't mind refining methods. We train for a lot of things that make no sense in sparring but are used for self-defense and street fighting, including knees and elbows for striking and breaking opponent knees and elbows and drawing some from Hapkido, etc...for joint manipulation and close range strikes
Adding techniques is fine, but this stuff was also developed by people very interested in combat fighting so before I reject a technique, a really want to understand why it's not useful for fighting and why I would reject it.
So far you've said "this technique is good" and I agree being able to add a non-standard technique borrowed from another discipline is a good idea, but you've also said "that technique is bad" and I've asked "why?" because the technique you are saying to reject is something that adds range (physiology) and power (physics) and more options and before I reject those tools I want to really know why and you've explained why to add some tools but not why to reject the others
