Roundhouse kick=useless on street?

[The BB of C]

I believe anything can be useful in street defense if learned how to apply properly. I think we must remember that martial artists used to use all of the super-fancy movie-looking moves in defending themselves and they lasted like that for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years (depending on the style).

I am not sure to what extent even the super-fancy moves seen in movies would have worked in self-defense; even hundreds of years ago. Hundreds of years ago, techniques were accompanied by a weapon on a battlefield, and flash would really have no place. Keeping it simple is how to stay alive.

I see what you're getting at. My thoughts are why would it have been invented into the style if it was completely useless for self defense back in the days when that's why the martial arts were created in the first place?

Allow me to try to explain my opinion one more time but differently. Imagine you're a Tae Kwon Do artist 900 years ago, walking along side of the Korean streets and suddenly you're attacked. What are Tae Kwon Do artists famous for? What have you been trained to do most of your life being a Tae Kwon Do artist? What's going to be your first reaction as soon as you realize what's going on if you're not already dead? Probably a super-fast, head level roundhouse kick or tornado kick straight to his face.

Way I see it; it's there for a reason and I'm sure it's served it's purpose before if it's still being taught. Do you understand what I am saying?

[cross]

Is the roundhouse kick useless for defending?

It can be applied effectively in some cases, more often low-line like others have mentioned. However keep in mind any time you lift a foot off the ground to kick their will always be some compromise to balance and mobility or that moment in time.

But if an attacker on the street grabbed my arms or grappled with me standing...the first thing I'd do is do a roundhouse kick to the inside of his knee. Bigger they are...the harder they fall.

Im not sure if the adequate distance is present at clinch range to pull of a round kick to the thigh, not to mention the added problems with balance when your already being grabbed. From clinch range you have access to many more useful and higher percentage tools than a round kick, IMO.

[bushido_man96]

Allow me to try to explain my opinion one more time but differently. Imagine you're a Tae Kwon Do artist 900 years ago, walking along side of the Korean streets and suddenly you're attacked. What are Tae Kwon Do artists famous for? What have you been trained to do most of your life being a Tae Kwon Do artist? What's going to be your first reaction as soon as you realize what's going on if you're not already dead? Probably a super-fast, head level roundhouse kick or tornado kick straight to his face.

Way I see it; it's there for a reason and I'm sure it's served it's purpose before if it's still being taught. Do you understand what I am saying?

I see what you are saying here, but I don't think those kinds of kicks have been around all that time. TKD is not even that old as art itself. It was "formed" in 1955, and the other Korean Kwans were probably popping up 20 to 40 years prior to this. Many of these spinning/head level techniques were probably not used that long ago, especially on a battlefield. Some of the moves are useful now in certain types of sparring competition (hence, the tornado kick), but I don't really think they have been around that long.

[dragonwarrior_keltyr]

What about the legal ramifications of using kicks in a fight? Somebody told me a long time ago that punching someone is assault, but kicking them is assault with a deadly weapon. Of course, this could just be myth. Can anybody clarify this?

I've never heard. I know a couple police officers and I'll try to remember to ask them. That's interesting. I personally don't see the difference, but I'm not the law.

As for roundhouse kicks, I think it's been covered, they would be more useful low, as in to the knee area than head hight in the streets but they aren't completely useless - at least I hope not, I have a good strong roundhouse (though I usually throw high)

[gzk]

I would use them: low, to the inside of the leg, to knock the attacker off balance, or mid-thigh, to the outside of the leg, to compromise their mobility and encourage them to drop their guard to protect the leg. Mid-thigh to the inside of the leg is probably even more effective for this since you're delivering serious force to a target near the groin

You might also want to consider whether you can round-kick hard enough to do damage, or only hard enough to distract. Both are useful, but know that you're not going to give the guy a dead leg with a little slap kick.

Oh, and unless you're very fast, keep your hands up

[lordtariel]

What about the legal ramifications of using kicks in a fight? Somebody told me a long time ago that punching someone is assault, but kicking them is assault with a deadly weapon. Of course, this could just be myth. Can anybody clarify this?

I've never heard. I know a couple police officers and I'll try to remember to ask them. That's interesting. I personally don't see the difference, but I'm not the law.

I think it's because you can cause significantly more damage with a kick than with a punch.

[bushido_man96]

What about the legal ramifications of using kicks in a fight? Somebody told me a long time ago that punching someone is assault, but kicking them is assault with a deadly weapon. Of course, this could just be myth. Can anybody clarify this?

I've never heard. I know a couple police officers and I'll try to remember to ask them. That's interesting. I personally don't see the difference, but I'm not the law.

I think it's because you can cause significantly more damage with a kick than with a punch.

I don't think that can actually stick. I have never heard of it before. It may just be somebody talking without really knowing the situation.

[dragonwarrior_keltyr]

What about the legal ramifications of using kicks in a fight? Somebody told me a long time ago that punching someone is assault, but kicking them is assault with a deadly weapon. Of course, this could just be myth. Can anybody clarify this?

I've never heard. I know a couple police officers and I'll try to remember to ask them. That's interesting. I personally don't see the difference, but I'm not the law.

I think it's because you can cause significantly more damage with a kick than with a punch.

I don't think that can actually stick. I have never heard of it before. It may just be somebody talking without really knowing the situation.

I'm not sure because some people can kick harder and do more damage than if they punched but others can't kick worth a darn but could do significant damage with a punch. It wouldn't be valid to me. No matter which body part did it I think courts would look at if the force was justified - not which body part did it.

[ps1]

What about the legal ramifications of using kicks in a fight? Somebody told me a long time ago that punching someone is assault, but kicking them is assault with a deadly weapon. Of course, this could just be myth. Can anybody clarify this?

I've never heard. I know a couple police officers and I'll try to remember to ask them. That's interesting. I personally don't see the difference, but I'm not the law.

I think it's because you can cause significantly more damage with a kick than with a punch.

No. That's completely incorrect. Assult is assult. You will be charged with what ever is appropriate in the district you're arrested. It's up to the courts to decide what happens after that. Remember, being arrested is not being convicted. The courts will decide what to do only after hearing all the evidence. In general, if there was cause for you to defend yourself, you're going to be ok. Legally, kicking someone in the leg is alot better than punching them in the throat. It's not what part of your body you use. It's the intent of the technique that must be proven. That in addition to the situation you were in, number of attackers, weapons, possibility of escape and so on.

If a guy pushes you and you gouge out his eyes, you're in trouble.

If you're in a secluded place and someone attacks you and starts pounding on you and you defend the same way, it may be justified.

In the end you'll have to check your local and state law books. But kicking is not differnt than punching.

[gamedweeb]

I've never heard of any legal difference for punching vs kicking. Most of the aftermath depends on the situation.

I was told by one classmate who used to be a cop that if the guy had a weapon you could pound on him until he dropped it.

There was a guy that went to another school in BLK that was harassed by a group of guys at a fair or carnival or something, and it ended up getting physical and he beat the crap out of them. But a witness told the cops that he was the worst of them so they cited him and he had to have his day in court for defending himself. I believe he was acquitted in the end but he still had to go to court.

I think there's a precedent called Justifiable Force or something like it. I'll have to look the Black Belt article up. Personally I find it kind of backwards to expect someone to justify the amount of force that was used when you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.