Doing a side kick the "right" way

[Wa-No-Michi]

Sure.. but until then, it helps to have names so you can explain the mechanics...

Stage 1 = Mechanics (simple punch and lick (sorry bushi))

Stage 2 = Interpretation

Stage 3 = Adaptation/modification

Stage 4 = Application

WNM

[JusticeZero]

The problem is that we have several types of kick, which use different mechanics. You can't just pop off a heel thrust kick and think that a crescent kick is the same kick, for instance.

In our case it's fairly important as we have to be able to use techniques in two very different ranges, and be able to seamlessly adjust. How much power will you lose doing an outside crescent kick compared to a spinning roundhouse if both of your hands are on the ground? How would you get the power maximized on each? The two are very, very different down there and they will do radically different things. You need to know how they work instead of being satisfied with lobbing your leg in a general direction.

[bushido_man96]

I think my point is that one shouldn't be bound by a particular "classification". I am not suggesting that the way your school teaches the kick you are describing is not good, or correct for that matter, but the OP's question was "what is the correct way to perform side kick". I knew what he/she was alluding to, but the whole thread has rung a bell with me because you, (bushi, joe, tg) seem to have to have a rather "fixed” idea of what a side kick / kick to the side is, and therefore always performed. That doesn’t sit too well on my karate register.

Michi, when we perform the kick in which the kneecap is up/horizontal, and hit with the ball of the foot, we call it a front kick, no matter if straight ahead, at 45 degrees, or to the side. When we do what we call a side kick, there are two specific ways of doing it (thrust, snap), and so it isn't confused with what we call the front kick.

It's not semantics or a fixed idea; it's that we have these kicks that are executed differently, and it's necessary to give each of them a name to tell one from the other.

Joe...mate, that's the point.

"You" may call it a front kick if the knee cap is upermost even if the kick is performed to the side, but the rest of the karate world call any kick performed to the side... a side kick!!

WNM

If this is the case, then would it be incorrect to perform what we are calling a "side kick" at the beginning of this thread at the 0:36 mark of the kata link, where the "yoko geri" is performed?

[Wa-No-Michi]

I think my point is that one shouldn't be bound by a particular "classification". I am not suggesting that the way your school teaches the kick you are describing is not good, or correct for that matter, but the OP's question was "what is the correct way to perform side kick". I knew what he/she was alluding to, but the whole thread has rung a bell with me because you, (bushi, joe, tg) seem to have to have a rather "fixed” idea of what a side kick / kick to the side is, and therefore always performed. That doesn’t sit too well on my karate register.

Michi, when we perform the kick in which the kneecap is up/horizontal, and hit with the ball of the foot, we call it a front kick, no matter if straight ahead, at 45 degrees, or to the side. When we do what we call a side kick, there are two specific ways of doing it (thrust, snap), and so it isn't confused with what we call the front kick.

It's not semantics or a fixed idea; it's that we have these kicks that are executed differently, and it's necessary to give each of them a name to tell one from the other.

Joe...mate, that's the point.

"You" may call it a front kick if the knee cap is upermost even if the kick is performed to the side, but the rest of the karate world call any kick performed to the side... a side kick!!

WNM

If this is the case, then would it be incorrect to perform what we are calling a "side kick" at the beginning of this thread at the 0:36 mark of the kata link, where the "yoko geri" is performed?

Yes tbh I think it would, as the kick in this particular kata is performed this way for a reason.

As I mentioned in a previous post, it's about where you are in relation to your opponent after completing the technique that precedes the kick, that drives the type of kick that you do, and what you can best follow it with.

Is see this sequence in this kata as more of an exercise in withdrawing from you opponent in order to create distance, defending an attack whilst simultaneously kicking and then being in a good position to be able to move in on your opponent.

All of the above are performed as one sequence, not individual techniques and therefore the kick has to meet both distance and timing requirements along with maneuverability options.

If we do Joe's "Alpha" kick at this stage, whilst it creates more power, it takes longer to deliver, effectively turns the hips / shoulders away from the attacker and therefore limits the options, or speed of options for the techniques that follow.

I am not saying that that sort of kick doesn't have value, it just isn't appropriate for this sequence of the kata.

If on the other hand we try to do this kick as a front kick, we would have to turn our hips/shoulders to face our opponent - which would afford us more power, but again take up more time and then limit the options / power for the technique that follows.

So the yoko geri in question is performed in a knee up position because it's quick, achieves the correct amount of thrust (whilst not over reaching for its purpose), keeps the hips/shoulders slightly shy of perpendicular to your opponent which then gives you a greater amount of maneuverability into the next technique….and beyond.

Bet you wish you hadn't asked now

[bushido_man96]

Oh no, I'm glad I asked.

Your explanation makes very good sense to me. Its just that in my mind, perhaps calling it a front kick that is side facing would tend to shore up any confusions as to calling it a side kick, and then having to guess which side kick it is you have to do there.

Of course, doing and having experience with these katas will nullify these questions. But to the layperson watching, it may not.

[Wa-No-Michi]

Of course, doing and having experience with these katas will nullify these questions. But to the layperson watching, it may not.

I guess so, but then again, I don't think I would attempt to teach the layperson, the finer nuances of Pinan Yondan either.

But I take your point, and hopefully you understood mine also??

WNM

[joesteph]

I think the confusion comes in whether "side kick" is seen as a descriptive term, or a noun. To most people I've spoken with "side kick" is a specific NAME for a specific kick, not a description of a type of kick. . . .

But every one that I have trained in, used the term side kick to reference the same thing. Whether it be thrusting or snapping.

Here are videos that demonstrate what is the common understanding of executing the side kick, whether thrusting or snap versions:

The best one, Tae Kwon Do:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=4j1w--TjqVY

Soo Bahk Do:

http://www.expertvillage.com/video/90392_soo-bahk-do-kicks-side.htm

Tae Kwon Do again:

http://www.expertvillage.com/video/94532_tae-kwon-do-strikes-kicks-side-kick.htm

A Kung Fu combo, both the regular and spinning versions:

http://www.expertvillage.com/video/133940_kickboxing-combos-side-kick-spinning.htm

From Kickboxing:

http://www.expertvillage.com/video/880_kickboxing-technique-side-kick.htm

[bushido_man96]

Of course, doing and having experience with these katas will nullify these questions. But to the layperson watching, it may not.

I guess so, but then again, I don't think I would attempt to teach the layperson, the finer nuances of Pinan Yondan either.

But I take your point, and hopefully you understood mine also??

WNM

I see the point you are making. I don't agree with it, but I see your point.

[Wa-No-Michi]

Of course, doing and having experience with these katas will nullify these questions. But to the layperson watching, it may not.

I guess so, but then again, I don't think I would attempt to teach the layperson, the finer nuances of Pinan Yondan either.

But I take your point, and hopefully you understood mine also??

WNM

I see the point you are making. I don't agree with it, but I see your point.

Ah well, seeing it is a start I suppose.

[tonydee]

When I perform a side kick, I have a tendency to raise the kicking leg in such a manner that there is a resemblance to the roundhouse kick. I can explain better by dividing the leg into upper and lower. The upper leg is raised to a good height, say waist level, but the lower leg is not hanging straight down; it's at a downward angle (think 45 degrees down to visualize it). When I execute the kick, everything else is as a side kick is expected to be.

Hi Joe,

I know you've noticed the posts about side kick in another thread. I can't quite imagine what you're doing - so much depends on whether you're leg's hanging down at 45 degrees before or after a rotation of the supporting foot and/or hips, whether it's pointing sideways or forwards, and whether you're delivering a side thrusting kick or a side piercing kick. Perhaps you can relate it to the two techniques I outline in the other thread, or the side snap kick I link to from there...?

My instructor, and I should include her teacher who taught my class last night, refer to what I would call a stricter placement of that lower leg, that it hangs straight down before firing off the side kick. I do not protest, but I believe that both can be correct, so long as the kick itself doesn't turn into a roundhouse.

...

I prefer my less-strict way, especially for speed, but when my instructor performs that kick, don't blink--she'll have shot it out and already rechambered it.

I can understand you wanting to know, but I do think regardless of what you happen to conclude is better based on information from here or elsewhere, you've got to accept what your instructor tells you when you're in her class. That you're so impressed with her performance also suggests that either you're not ready to judge her, or she's right!

Sometimes we have to consider the totality of things too, our instructor might not be the best at everything, but getting bogged down on one detail can keep your focus off learning what is there and worthwhile. This is especially true when learning a new art as an advanced practitioner of another, but I still find it hard to swallow.

So, if the side kick doesn't feel right in a couple years when you're all over the general curriculum, you can revisit the issue. As I mention in my other thread too, there can be differences between the idealised way a technique is practised slowly and the proper full-speed execution, so think about what you're being asked to do as an exercise if it helps.

Here are three videos I've found online that show the side kick as I prefer:

1 minute long, a young black belt:

Note: my audio's not working right now - so haven't listened to the explanations - only critiquing the performance.

Her in-air performance looked a bit like the "piercing kick" described in the other thread I linked above, delivered at a target perhaps 30 degrees forward of perpendicular to the camera's line of sight (i.e. forward of sideways for her). But, she kicks directly sideways using a very different motion when she breaks the board, and if you watch the knot of her belt you'll see it doesn't rotate into the kick at all - not good. Only her thigh and, to a useful but far from optimal extent her general body weight, were contributing. Her supporting foot is not shown by the camera. It's interesting to note that the board is being held loosely at the sides, whereas - for side kick - a board would normally be held at top and bottom (with the grain still horizontal)... she broke it anyway, but it was a thin board.

4 minutes long, an instructor:

His supporting foot and hip movement is that I recommend for a side piercing kick: both rotating during the extension of the kicking leg. This is at odds with the positioning of the kicking leg, as he brings it across the body to the point where the hip rotation doesn't push the kicking leg through the target. It's kind of twisted on itself in the middle, failing to drive the leg in with full power, and leaving room for some reaction from impact to return through the leg and out the side of his hips, unbalancing him, rather than having the body weight and hip motion fully behind and supportive of the kick.

5 minutes long, instruction including a split screen for right and wrong, and even exercises:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j1w--TjqVY&feature=related

I critiqued this one in the linked thread.

How do other forum members prefer to perform the side kick? Instructors, what do you teach? Is the way of my instructor actually the traditional way, while the way I prefer and see on these videos an evolution of some sort in executing this kick?

I doubt that it's a traditional vs evolutionary difference, but can't be certain without seeing video of your kick and your instructor's.

It's part of many traditional training systems to try to break a kick down into set steps so they can be easily practised. Given the final movement may be seamless, exactly where the steps are places can be somewhat arbitrary. I'm not sure if the difference you're concerned about is as simple as that: that you like pivoting a bit more in anticipation of the kick to come, or whether you're genuinely following a different path through the whole movement.

BTW, my instructor is young, just 25, but often we teach others as we ourselves were taught.

Interesting point. More true in traditional schools, precisely because they do break the technique down into small steps and expect everyone to do them the same way. In many modern schools, people just kick however they first felt comfortable doing, and their instructor has only an incidental influence. Especially common for kicks like turning/roundhouse kick: one of the reasons so many martial sports only retain these kicks is that it doesn't take as much skill or effort to teach them, and they rely a lot of brute strength and speed, which the student knows they can develop through hard work alone - rather than taxing the instructor's ability to discern issues and find useful tips to prevent the student getting frustrated.

If your school is internally consistent - even between your instructor and her's - then it suggests higher standards than average. Requiring someone to learn the textbook form is generally a good idea, as different technique can have consequences re counter-attacks, stability when blocked or grasped, recovery time, and ability to flow into subsequent techniques. These implications might be hard to grasp for a beginner. And, if you learn the technique as suggested, then revert to you're own form afterwards, it will mean a lot more for having come from an informed perspective.

Cheers,

Tony