Turning Kick in Taegeuk 6

[chrispillertkd]

Yes, the knee is used with the leg bent. It's a very close-range kick when using the knee.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Dirty Dog]

I think most of us just call that a knee strike rather than a roundhouse kick with the knee.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

[skribs]

Yeah, but a lot of places consider any attack with the leg to be a "kick". I'm with you, though. Sharp knee strikes = knee, not kick.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Yeah, but a lot of places consider any attack with the leg to be a "kick". I'm with you, though. Sharp knee strikes = knee, not kick.

Odd. Since the definition of "kick" is to strike with the foot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

[Thousand Kicks]

As usual in a question of which is the right way the answer is "It depends"

When striking with the ball of the foot
1. The striking area is smaller resulting in in a more concentrated striking area that can do more localized damage
2. I was always taught to position my foot like a side kick when striking with the ball of the foot. This causes you to loose range on the kick. I have never tried pointing the foot and hitting with the ball; I will have to experiment.
3. The toes are at risk of damage should they inadvertently strike something in the process of the kick

When striking with the instep
1. In my opinion, it is a more natural position of the foot and should feel easier and more comfortable to perform
2. Increased range. At least compared to the 90 degree foot position
3. The surface area is larger and so the localized damage is less
4. You also take the risk of hyperextending your ankle should your hit too far out on your foot

Both options are vialble and saying you shouldn't practice one way versus the other can limit your understanding of the technique. It is similar to using a palm heel versus a knuckle punch, both work but there are reasons you would do one over the other in a given situation.

 

[chrispillertkd]

I think most of us just call that a knee strike rather than a roundhouse kick with the knee.

Indeed, but almost anything done with the foot or parts of the leg in ITF Taekwon-Do was designated as a "kick" by Gen. Choi. Even sweeps are actually "sweeping kicks."

A "strike" is a type of attack performed with the hand or, sometimes, elbow (as opposed to a "punch" or "thrust").

Pax,

Chris

 

[skribs]

I said "in many places." Arguing whether or not it's technically a kick is arguing over semantics. I specified I do not consider it a kick for clarity on what I'm talking about

I see the advantages for using the ball of foot (essentially a denser impact, like using a hammer instead of a paddle), but I think the toes are right there. Compared with a front kick, where your foot can more easily angle to get the ball of the foot onto the target. I also wonder if the round kicks that use ball of foot are thrown more like front kicks (there are a few people I've seen who throw it almost straight when aiming high).

I'd think you'd hurt the foot or toes before the ankle kicking with the instep.

 

[andyjeffries]

The turning kick in this video is so much more linear (i.e., no arc) than I've ever seen. I'm not sure whether a turning kick that linear could be effective in hitting the side of an opponent. Comments?

Sure, my comment is that you don't hit the side of the opponent, you hit the front of the face with the ball of the foot.

 

[andyjeffries]

Wow, I have never seen a turning kick executed like you described (until I watched the video - and I think it's performed that way in the second video posted, too; hard to tell). I find it hard to visualize the attacking tool actually being the ball of the foot when the ankle is held straight even if the toes are pulled back. How have you found hitting with the ball of the foot in this position? Can you get as much power as when your ankle is at a 90 degree angle? What is the trajectory of the attacking tool when you're foot is in this position (hitting with the ball of the foot when your ankle is bent is quite natural since your leg is making a semi-circle; with the position you mention I'm not sure how you're supposed to be hitting your opponent)?

To be honest, I've never hit anything like that. If I'm breaking a board I go for the full foot-and-toes-pulled-back position, if I'm sparring I use the instep. It's only during this specific pattern that I do as the Kukkiwon instructors recommended.

That said theoretically I don't think it's a problem. If you can kick with a front kick with your foot in this position, it's exactly the same kick but rotated through a 90 degree plane.The extension momentum and the striking surface is then identical. So I don't think it would be a problem.

 

[Gwai Lo Dan]

Sure, my comment is that you don't hit the side of the opponent, you hit the front of the face with the ball of the foot.

Wow, that totally changes the thinking behind the kick. I've never seen that kick in practice, but I will have to try it.

 

[SJON]

To be honest, I've never hit anything like that. If I'm breaking a board I go for the full foot-and-toes-pulled-back position, if I'm sparring I use the instep. It's only during this specific pattern that I do as the Kukkiwon instructors recommended.

That said theoretically I don't think it's a problem. If you can kick with a front kick with your foot in this position, it's exactly the same kick but rotated through a 90 degree plane.The extension momentum and the striking surface is then identical. So I don't think it would be a problem.

Andy,

If I understand you correctly, you had never seen this variation previously (which makes it one of those "new changes" I keep going on about), you never use it except in that pattern context, you're not really convinced by it and you did not obtain an satisfactory answer regarding this execution from KKW instructors in Korea. I was always taught to kick with the ball of the foot in this pattern, although I have heard that the instep may be acceptable.

Is this not an obvious case of a rather absurd variation that has been proposed just to be different? Does it not call into question the current generation of KKW instructors' motivation and their understanding of the forms? Bear in mind that the KKW and the 1967/1972 KTA Poomse Committee are not analogous.

Serious question, not looking to criticise just for the sake of it.

Cheers,

Simon

 

[andyjeffries]

If I understand you correctly, you had never seen this variation previously (which makes it one of those "new changes" I keep going on about)

It may have just been that there is better education on the correct standards now than there used to be.

you never use it except in that pattern context

Correct

you're not really convinced by it

I'm convinced what they told me is accurate according to current Kukkiwon standards. I'm convinced that it's a plausable explanation of a correct technique (as I posted earlier, kicking with this part in a front kick is perfectly normal, so why it would be incorrect/implausible for a turning kick is beyond me).

you did not obtain an satisfactory answer regarding this execution from KKW instructors in Korea.

I felt I did receive a satisfactory answer. I wasn't convinced I understood the first guy correctly, I was willing to assume it was my mistake in understanding. However, after getting a consistent view from two high level Kukkiwon instructors I believe the answer was satisfactory.

I was always taught to kick with the ball of the foot in this pattern, although I have heard that the instep may be acceptable.

This is correct, but it just depends on the shape when you kick with the ball of the foot

Is this not an obvious case of a rather absurd variation that has been proposed just to be different? Does it not call into question the current generation of KKW instructors' motivation and their understanding of the forms? Bear in mind that the KKW and the 1967/1972 KTA Poomse Committee are not analogous.

That's correct, but Taekwondo is a changing martial art. ITF Taekwon-do has tried to stay true to its roots and not change too much, Karate (in particular Shotokan) tries to stay true to the way it was originally done. Kukki-Taekwondo has always been a changing martial art. From the starting positions in blocks, kicking shapes, everything is open to changing.

I think it's wrong of people to be concerned over "new changes", I think the art changing to improve over time is a good thing - and it's also a good thing for all practitioners and instructors to undergo Continuing Professional Development, including attending courses to learn the current standards in our art.

 

[skribs]

I think with a front kick it's easier to get the toes out of the way. With a round kick, you have to really angle your foot and toes to keep the toes out of the way.

 

[SJON]

I'm convinced what they told me is accurate according to current Kukkiwon standards. I'm convinced that it's a plausable explanation of a correct technique (as I posted earlier, kicking with this part in a front kick is perfectly normal, so why it would be incorrect/implausible for a turning kick is beyond me).

I felt I did receive a satisfactory answer. I wasn't convinced I understood the first guy correctly, I was willing to assume it was my mistake in understanding. However, after getting a consistent view from two high level Kukkiwon instructors I believe the answer was satisfactory.

Let me rephrase the question. Why in the world would you want to kick like this (other than to appease some Korean fellows)? Can you personally see any practical justification for kicking like this rather than with the ball of the foot and 90º ankle position? What I mean is, objectively speaking, can you give any reason why this way of kicking should be taken seriously?

That's correct, but Taekwondo is a changing martial art. ITF Taekwon-do has tried to stay true to its roots and not change too much, Karate (in particular Shotokan) tries to stay true to the way it was originally done. Kukki-Taekwondo has always been a changing martial art. From the starting positions in blocks, kicking shapes, everything is open to changing.

I think it's wrong of people to be concerned over "new changes", I think the art changing to improve over time is a good thing - and it's also a good thing for all practitioners and instructors to undergo Continuing Professional Development, including attending courses to learn the current standards in our art.

Wait a minute. Didn't we have another conversation in which I was insisting that changes had been introduced over the years and you were adamant that the standard has been the same since 1972 and there had been no changes, just that only recently the KKW has become stricter about encouraging conformity?

Cheers,

Simon

 

[chrispillertkd]

To be honest, I've never hit anything like that. If I'm breaking a board I go for the full foot-and-toes-pulled-back position, if I'm sparring I use the instep. It's only during this specific pattern that I do as the Kukkiwon instructors recommended.

Are there other KKW patterns with turning kicks in them? If so are they performed like the kicks in this pattern or differently (with the instep or the ball of the foot with the ankle bent)?

That said theoretically I don't think it's a problem. If you can kick with a front kick with your foot in this position, it's exactly the same kick but rotated through a 90 degree plane.The extension momentum and the striking surface is then identical. So I don't think it would be a problem.

The ITF has a somewhat similar kick which hits with the ball of the foot while the leg is "on its side" (as opposed to its orientation in a front snap kick). A side thrusting kick is executed like a side piercing kick but instead of the footsword the ball of the foot is used and the preparation position for the kick has the leg lifted so it is horizontal to the floor. The leg is then thrust forward towards the target, hitting with no rotation (unlike a side piercing kick).

My question about this particular turning kick is, how effective is it since you still have an arcing trajectory (albeit, judging from the video, a small one)? If the target is, as you said, the front of someone's face then a kick with no arc would seem more logical to me.

Do you know of any video showing this kick's application, by any chance?

Pax,

Chris

 

[SJON]

Unless I am much mistaken, there are only two round kicks in the whole of the current (i.e. Taegeuk & BB forms) KKW pattern corpus, which are the ones in Taegeuk Youk Jang. This in itself is rather a surprise, given that the high round kick has become one of TKD's signature techniques. Further evidence, to my mind, of the disconnect between the largely Okinawan-based "traditional" martial art for fighting and self-defence on the one hand, and the distinctly Korean perhaps-Taekkyon-influenced recreational/educational activity on the other.

I'm really having trouble visualising under what circumstances I would want to turn sideways and poke at my opponent with my foot, when I could just front or side kick him, or even better, close in and hit him with my hands. Perhaps it's a very specialised technique as a simultaneous counter to an opponent's round kick (his legs must be no longer than yours) in which you use those critical extra 6" of reach to poke him in the eye

Meanwhile I'm going to stick with the applications I teach for these two pattern sequences, which involve a shin kick to the leg and a ball-of-foot kick to the liver area.

Cheers,

Simon

 

[SJON]

Now that I think of it, I'm fairly sure I've seen videos of Taekkyon competition in which the round kick is more of a sideways-on forward face poke with a very minimal curve than the circular TKD round kick. Can anyone comment on the correct execution of the Taekkyon version? Could this variation to the TKD pattern version be a new attempt to link to Taekkyon?

Best regards,

Simon

 

[Dirty Dog]

Are there other KKW patterns with turning kicks in them? If so are they performed like the kicks in this pattern or differently (with the instep or the ball of the foot with the ankle bent)?

No. Taegeuk Yook Jang is the only one. There was a form developed a few years ago called "hanryu" that was intended to be a yudanja competition form that included a front/round/spinning back kick combo but it never caught on and wasn't ever "Officially" implemented (although it was demonstrated a few times). The demos of hanryu I've seen have the roundhouse done with the instep.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=oJQjNHSuJ-c&feature=vm[/video]

 

[WaterGal]

Breaking a thin board doesn't require the ball of the foot. Even a 3/4 - 1 inch thick board can be done pretty easily with the instep if you've done any significant target kicking.

Sure, sure. My concern with top of foot breaks is with kids, or if you're trying to break multiple boards. I've had 8-year olds want to break a 1-inch board that way, and it's just not a good idea.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Sure, sure. My concern with top of foot breaks is with kids, or if you're trying to break multiple boards. I've had 8-year olds want to break a 1-inch board that way, and it's just not a good idea.

We require a roundhouse break of at least one 1" board. But we also require that it be done properly, with the ball of the foot. We allow instep roundhouses only in forms or against soft targets.