You can only sweep when your opponent's heel is down. You can't sweep him when his toes is down but his heel is still up. Heel down is "committed". Toes down is "not committed".
Stepping
- Thread starter guy b
- Start date
Correct, toes down allows balance recovery because foot is active
I can't agree entirely with this. It's about weight. If he has about 25% of his weight there (and moving to that foot), then it doesn't matter whether it's heel or toe down - the effect will be the same. Again, for most people, you can likely read their weight distribution by heel vs. toe, but that's not an absolute.
Not an absolute. If we followed that reasoning, someone standing evenly-balanced, on their toes, would be un-sweepable. Weight distribution (and trend) will be more definitive than which part of the foot is touching. I (and anyone else with average balance) can place the entire foot on the ground without committing weight.
Of course it's easier to sweep your opponent's leg when that leg has more weight on. There will be no argument there.
My point was that the part of the foot placed has little impact on sweep-ability, except as a cue to normal usage. For most martial artists (in my experience), the ball of the foot will fall first, so when the heel falls, that is a cue that more weight has been committed - probably past the point of recovery. However, the heel isn't the determiner (just the indicator).
mograph
Master of Arts
Yep. One way to test this would be to keep the weight back, and try sweepability with heel down, then with toe (ball) down. Then commit weight forward, and try sweepability with heel down, then with toe (ball) down.
and
Sorry but from a grappling point of view you would be incorrect. Being on the toes means calf musculature is engaged and the balance is more reactive. Being heel down calf musculature is relaxed and less easy to adapt.
Not unsweepable, just less likely to be swept. This is a major reason why toes first is a good way to step in some situations.
On hot coals you would go toe first because speed of change and maintenance of balance might be a factor. Same applies to certain situations in fighting.
Sorry but from a grappling point of view you would be incorrect. Being on the toes means calf musculature is engaged and the balance is more reactive. Being heel down calf musculature is relaxed and less easy to adapt.
Not unsweepable, just less likely to be swept. This is a major reason why toes first is a good way to step in some situations.
On hot coals you would go toe first because speed of change and maintenance of balance might be a factor. Same applies to certain situations in fighting.
If you are real good at "foot sweep", you can even sweep at your opponent's upper leg to take him down.
I still don't agree. Yes, if you draw the foot back, you tense one side of your leg and relax the other. The opposite happens when the ball is down and the heel up. The latter is more flexible, but still doesn't change the ability to redistribute weight, nor the ability of an opponent to sweep you. In both cases (ball down/heel up, or heel down/ball up), you can put 5% of weight on that foot, which relatively unsweepable (not impossible, but impractical) regardless of which part of the foot is down.
Now, if we assume more weight on the foot, yes, having the flex of the foot available (being on the ball of the foot) provides more options. But that wasn't the point under discussion. I was saying that having almost no weight on a foot makes sweepability roughly equal regardless of which part of the foot is down.
Agreed.
You sweep a foot with weight committed to it, not weight off it. If you are messing around with weight on feet you will just be moved around, pulled onto a foot, and swept or tripped by a decent grappler. If you are standing on one leg with no weight on the other foot then you present a huge osoto gari opportunity, with horrible fall and back of head to floor ko very likely.
This is a non argument. Heel vs toe is talking about a committed weight foot. Toe is better vs sweeps and trips because musculature engaged and easier to react, not fool proof though of course.
Actually, the original question was about which comes down first. Someone posted that putting the heel down first meant you were more easily swept - that's the point I'm discussing. The first part of the foot coming down may or may not have committed weight behind it, and that's what determines the opportunity to sweep, not which part of the foot makes first contact.
But that's what's incorrect. Heel down first is more sweepable than toe down first because the calf musculature is not engaged with heel, weight commitment being the same.
I'll just disagree and leave it at that. I don't think you and I are communicating on this one, so we aren't furthering the discussion.
Ok if you like, sorry I couldn't describe better
No worries. I just felt like we were derailing the thread with miscommunication. This is probably one of those discussions that would be much easier with some mats to discuss on.
