SevenStar Posted March 29, 2004 Posted March 29, 2004 not sure about that one... I can head kick with no warm up, but how many people can hold their leg out above head height, even with warm up? That's not really a display of leg strength anyway... I squat over 400 lbs, but I can't do it.
Ironberg Posted March 30, 2004 Posted March 30, 2004 You're confusing raw strength with "full motion strength", which includes dynamic flexibility (a thing talked about by Thomas Cruz). It's about torque (torque = mass X lever-arm). Doing 400 lbs squats is good, but it is also necessary to work on strength that includes a very large degree of motion. Take people who can hold a head-level sidekick for over a minute (myself included). I've never squated 400 lbs, but I have better technique and form than anyone I've met who does all that weight lifting. Does that mean I'm a better fighter than you are - hell no - I just took a different apporach. The best way to descibe this kind of strengh is to get a heavy bo staff and lift it with two fingers by one of the edges. Now take those same two fingers and lift it closer to the center of the staff. Easier, huh! Applying this to kicking means stressing sets of muscle groups that effectively make dynamic strength and flexibility possible. Take the person who can do 400lbs squats and ask him to hold the sidekick out until fatigued - then do multiple fast sidekicks at the same level and repeat. The squats will help with power while the exercise I just described will help with range of motion, flexibility, and speed. "An enlightened man would offer a weary traveler a bed for the night, and invite him to share a civilized conversation over a bowl of... Cocoa Puffs."
SevenStar Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 That's not really strength, but endurance. Similar to TMA who do stance training - holding deep, solid stances for several minutes at a time. Doing that will build strength initially, but resistance is not progressive, therefore it becomes an endurance exercise. that exercise you talked about sound pretty good though - I may start doing that one. I've never hard of tom cruz... are you talking about tom kurtz?
Ironberg Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 Think again, a sidekick primarily requires two important muscles: glutius maximus, and the center of the outter thigh abductors (there is a bit of quadricept action going on as well, but lesser noticed the higher you kick). A heavy squat works just about all the thigh muscles TO A LIMITED DEGREE OF MOTION. It's kinda like the martial arts freak who thinks that riding his bike everywhere is gonna help him. The peddling will not give him anything more than a bit more endurance because it doesn't do two things: train technique, and give any more motion required to do a simple shin kick. The exercise I described could become more effective if done still more slowely with ankle weights on (the only problem with that idea is an extreme balance difference that one wouldn't be use to). Just make sure you are plenty flexible or it won't work to your expectation. I've noticed that getting very flexible and weight training at the same time is exceedingly difficult. Yes, I got the last name wrong (not Cruz, but something with a K in it). "An enlightened man would offer a weary traveler a bed for the night, and invite him to share a civilized conversation over a bowl of... Cocoa Puffs."
SevenStar Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 That doesn't disprove that it's an endurance exercise. ANY exercise that isn't done with progressive resistance becomes an endurance exercise as the body has no heavier stimulus to place on it. Pretty much any exercise, weight bearing or not is going to have a limited range of motion. the kicking exercise included. This will range from static exercises like static stance training to weight bearing exercises.
SevenStar Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 I've noticed that getting very flexible and weight training at the same time is exceedingly difficult. I haven't noticed that. I can do head level kicks, my head height and over with no prob, and I have very strong legs. I can't do the splits, but then, I'm not training to either...
Ironberg Posted April 1, 2004 Posted April 1, 2004 You have a point, but in sparring, I need all that endurance to kick as consistently as I should. If it wasn't for all that endurance, I wouldn't be able to train into good form either. But yeah, I have noticed a problem with gaining both flexibility and stength at the same time - perhaps it's just genes. One problem with my argument is this: the most acclaimed method of stengthening up the inner and outter abductors (needed for lots of TKD kicks) is very limited in it's range of motions (I'm thinking about the abductor machine). I've not seen one that lets the user set a level of flexibility that suits him. "An enlightened man would offer a weary traveler a bed for the night, and invite him to share a civilized conversation over a bowl of... Cocoa Puffs."
SevenStar Posted April 1, 2004 Posted April 1, 2004 the designers of machines are likely not thinking of the needs of those that are already fit and flexible. The avg. person typically doesn't have such flexibility.
silentblade8 Posted April 16, 2004 Posted April 16, 2004 I think the most effective is a side kick to just about any where u can put it. But any kick to be effective needs to be powerful enough to hurt the opponent any where u send it. A round house is easy to block but probably just as powerful.
SevenStar Posted April 16, 2004 Posted April 16, 2004 I would say the roundhouse is more powerful, or at least capable of generating more power... how powerful it is will vary from person to person. I've broken somone's ribs with a roundhouse before, never with a sidekick though - In my case, I generate more with the roundhouse. Also, since the roundhouse is a flanking kick, It may be easier to a wider variety of targets. I tend to use the sidekick as a defensive kick.
Recommended Posts