NO to low kicks! Yes to high kicks!

[NightOwl]

The okinawans traditionally practiced only low kicks... highkicks are a gambit, and best are pulled off if your opponent isn't expecting it I think (which is why I don't advocate kiaing as it kind of tells them that you are going to throw kicks.)

[The BB of C]

To pull off a high kick you require distance. In a real situation, this is rarely something you have. The majority of fights start and finish within arms reach, From this distance you can still drive lowline kicks into the attacker but head kicks would be near impossible to perform without moving back first, and to do this just gives your attacker more opportunity to hit you.

I've pulled off a kick to the head a couple times from that distance.

Futhermore, it's a matter of physics. Kicking high requires the leg to travel further, thereby taking more time and energy to do so.

True, it can be physics. But if you watch "Fight Science", you see they demonstrate the Escrima stick verses the Bo-staff. They talk about the physics. They say the Bo-staff travels twice the distance in the same amount of time as the Escrima stick. This means it builds up twice more momentum along the way as the Escrima stick did. Keeping this in mind, the high kick, because it's longer and has to travel further, could deliver more damage, and to the head (a way weaker area than the leg) could actually end a fight. The trick after that is doing it right.

I'm just defending what seems to me to be a lost technique. Everyone discredits the high kick. They call it ineffective which I don't believe is true for one moment. I think the deal is that it may be ineffective because people often don't know how to use it. And everyone wants to always debunk this technique, that one, or the other one for whatever reason.

What it really boils down to is - Why say one technique, kick, punch, stance, style, anything martial arts related, is superior or more effective to the other? It's like the age-old saying; "It's not what you've got, it's how you use it."

[cross]

I'm just defending what seems to me to be a lost technique. Everyone discredits the high kick. They call it ineffective which I don't believe is true for one moment. I think the deal is that it may be ineffective because people often don't know how to use it. And everyone wants to always debunk this technique, that one, or the other one for whatever reason.

It depends on how you define effective and ineffective. In my opinion, for something to be considered an effective self defense tactic or tool it must pass some certain criteria:

(see http://www.karateforums.com/technique-assessment-vt32506.html point 4 and 5 specifically).

You personally may have done a head kick and its worked. Thats not an automatic indication of effectiveness. Under what circumstances was it performed? Can you replicate it without failure in various conditions against various attackers? Can it be taught to the mass majority of people without them requiring some special ability to perform the move? Is it worth performing this technique when there are a large number of other techniques that not only have been proven to have a high success rate in violent confrontations but also follow logic and sound combat strategy?

What it really boils down to is - Why say one technique, kick, punch, stance, style, anything martial arts related, is superior or more effective to the other? It's like the age-old saying; "It's not what you've got, it's how you use it."

Because some things have a higher chance of working than others. Just because a technique or a system exists doesnt ensure its effectiveness. If your doing it for arts sake, then teach and do whatever techniques you want. But if your doing it for self defense purposes you need to look at what has the best chance of working for most people, to do anything different is providing a disservice to not only yourself, but students if you start teaching it.

[bushido_man96]

I guess that if its selfdefense, things like groinkicks and such would go, I however can not see my self having the heart to do that, and not once in my life have I seen a fight where someone kicks somebody to the balls , I would not want to be the first, but then again self defense is self defense, so yeah you can do that.

Most fights here where im from, are over some beef between people, or just people that get drunk a saturday night and want you to become victime to their terror. I dont know if these count as selfdefense, but in these situations I would not throw groinkicks or such, however if im in a dark alley by my self and nobody else there, and someone comes up and threatens me, I would without a doubt throw a groinshot, but this happens very rarely here, so selfdefense for me is the first thing I mentioned 9 out of 10 times.

Ultimatly the groin kick is the best weapon you can use, and it alone could be enoughe to defend one self, but if we do martial arts and learn all kinds of other stuff that can be considered more "moral" defense, why not use it if you are confidant in it.

When you start making these kinds of assumptions when going into a fight on the street, you are setting yourself up for problems. You have to be willing to do what you have to do to get out of the situation. Discounting a technique because it could be viewed as "dirty" or "dishonorable" can likely leave you on the bad end of the stick. Most likely, your attacker is not holding such compassion or upholding such ideals for your sake.

[NightOwl]

Sometimes I think groin kicks are overrated...kind of like eye gouges. If they are drunk they will be able to get in a few more swings as well because it is a delayed pain. I am going to have to respectfully disagree however that high kicks are useless...they have worked at times in MMA (which is as close as you can get to a real fight). Of course if you miss the stakes are losing a round- in real life you may loose more. Then again I still hold that if they don't have their hands up AND you are good at them the choice is yours. Personally, I usually don't use kicks at all.

[username8517]

I guess that if its selfdefense, things like groinkicks and such would go, I however can not see my self having the heart to do that, and not once in my life have I seen a fight where someone kicks somebody to the balls , I would not want to be the first, but then again self defense is self defense, so yeah you can do that.

*snip*

bushido_man pretty much summed up my thoughts.

True, it can be physics. But if you watch "Fight Science", you see they demonstrate the Escrima stick verses the Bo-staff. They talk about the physics. They say the Bo-staff travels twice the distance in the same amount of time as the Escrima stick. This means it builds up twice more momentum along the way as the Escrima stick did.

In a round-about way this is my point. Traveling in twice the distance requires twice the time to reach the target and then it twice as long for the high kick to return to the ground.

But the examples of weapons has no correlation to the high kick issue. You're comparing apples to oranges.

The difference here is that the staff and escrima are inanimate objects and the energy they deliver will be significantly more than our body. The energy generated for these to travel is generated from our body (hips and arms) and transferred to the weapons in a pushing and pulling manner to create an arcing manner. This is the principle of centrifugal energy. On top of this, weilding a weapon allows for both our feet to remain planted on the ground in order to maintain balance while still attacking our opponents head.

However, when executing kicks we are not transferring energy generated into anything else. The energy generated by our body (hips and legs) is not applied into an animate object, which thereby doesn't apply the centrifugal force to our attack. Therefore we have to exert more energy (energy for the attack + energy to maintain balance) to achive lesser of an impact (when compared to weapons) as well as taking half of our stability (our kicking foot) off the ground and shifting balance to the remaining foot, thereby relying solely on that remaining foot to provide balance for our entire body.

Keeping this in mind, the high kick, because it's longer and has to travel further, could deliver more damage, and to the head (a way weaker area than the leg) could actually end a fight. The trick after that is doing it right.

I agree that a kick to the head can deliver more damage than a punch, however there are more than one factor to consider when throwing a kick to the head, most of which I outlined in my last post--it's these factors that make the high kick impractical in most situations. Also I disagree that a high kick is superior due to the head being a weaker target. You're ignoring the fact that lower kicks are to often directed to knees and groins. The groin is significantly more sensitive than the head. To test this out, have someone smack you in the side of the head with only 1/3 of their power and see how you feel. Now have them do the same thing to your groin and tell me which is more sensitive (i.e.--weaker). And yes, a kick to the groin is no gauranteed fight ender, but neither is a head kick.

I'm just defending what seems to me to be a lost technique. Everyone discredits the high kick. They call it ineffective which I don't believe is true for one moment. I think the deal is that it may be ineffective because people often don't know how to use it. And everyone wants to always debunk this technique, that one, or the other one for whatever reason.

First off, it's not a lost technique, it's just not executed often due to the impracticallity of it. I will fully agree that it's an effective technique if you manage to connect with it properly and managed to regain your balance properly. As I mentioned, it's not that it's an invalid technique, just not logical in most situations when you think about all the factors involved in what is required in a successful execution in a setting that has countless variables that can affect your outcome. To get an idea of what I'm talking about, think about why you don't punch to the groin (as I illustrated in my last post).

What it really boils down to is - Why say one technique, kick, punch, stance, style, anything martial arts related, is superior or more effective to the other? It's like the age-old saying; "It's not what you've got, it's how you use it."

Never heard that saying before in relation to martial arts. And the ability to say what is superior or effective can be made about any type of attack or block if you have both logic behind your statement and a reasoning as to why (i.e.--support). That's what fuels debate.

Sometimes I think groin kicks are overrated...kind of like eye gouges. If they are drunk they will be able to get in a few more swings as well because it is a delayed pain. I am going to have to respectfully disagree however that high kicks are useless...they have worked at times in MMA (which is as close as you can get to a real fight). Of course if you miss the stakes are losing a round- in real life you may loose more. Then again I still hold that if they don't have their hands up AND you are good at them the choice is yours. Personally, I usually don't use kicks at all.

This is exactly my point Nightowl. High kicks are not useless, just a high risk maneuver with potentially higher consequences if it fails. However, I will disagree with one thing--high kicks in MMA are not like kicking in the street fight. MMA rings have removed all environmental aspect of what might increases the risk of kicking high, such as debris, slick spots, and changes in elevation of the ground. Even in MMA fights, I have seen fighters throw high kicks and fall on their butt when they miss.

[bushido_man96]

Even in MMA fights, I have seen fighters throw high kicks and fall on their butt when they miss.

Ken Shamrock comes to mind. It cost him a fight, too.

[gzk]

I think a high kick could work but it would be the sort of thing where you could take the opportunity if it was presented to you rather than looking for it all the time. Kicking a guy in the head when he's careful about his ranging and mistakenly steps into your kicking range is one thing, kicking a guy in the head who is charging at you throwing haymakers is another.

[bushido_man96]

Yeah, you are right, gzk. You have to pick your spots, and take the opportunities when they arise. Really, they are just like any other technique; you have to set it up; but head kicks are just tougher to work in.

[tke010]

do both.

1st kick the knee cap. once he falls, kick him in the head.

distance is no longer an issue.

I don't know too many people that will remain standing after a good roundhouse to the knee.