Raise your heel or not?

[jsteczko]

These of you who train Shotokan know that it is totally forbidden to lift your heel. They must touch the ground almost all the time. In that way you're more stable and your punches are more powerful.

But if you have trained boxing or muay thai you know that they say to actually lift your heels. In that way you gain more power in your strikes.

I think they lift heels in kyokushin too but I'm not 100 % sure because I haven't trained kyokushin.

Did you also hear about that difference before?

What do you think, is it better to lift your heel or not? Who is right?

[tallgeese]

Lifting the heel allows for hip rotation and a more natural, athletic posture. This aligns everything in a posture that allows for contact follow thourgh and penetration.

Additionally, it shifts your weight forward a hair into a more aggressive posture. Futher, it will automatically bend the knees. This will give you that athletic posture that will be useful for movement and powerful strikes.

Lifting the heel is actually a must for us.

[unknownstyle]

its two different things completlt, lifting the heel is more often used in an offensive attack, where as keeping your heel down would lend better purpose to a defensive counter ie they are moving in when you throw the punch, therefore when it hits it does not take away from the punch or your stability

[Jay]

When punching much more rotation in your hips and trunk are aquired if you are able to pivot on the balls of your feet, its much harder to do so when your foot is flat.

From a purely scientific point of view the raised hell allows more weight and momentum to be put into the punch because of the added 'springyness'. It enables your calf mucle to be used more because it contracts when your heel is lifted. It also adds a little bit extra reach.

In shotokan (I did shotokan for many years) although they say not to lift your rear foot off the floor many actually do. Usually this is only in sparring though when the shorter stance is employed.

I think the reason you don't lift in a long front stance is it does make you slightly unbalanced.

There isn't any right or wrong its what one suits your particular structure that you use. For my structure the advantages of the lifted heel work well.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Jay

[KarateGeorge]

unknownstyle says basically how I would think of it as well. It really all depends on the intention of the stance I'm in at the moment. When the heel is up, it allows more mobility and speed, which is good when I'm on the offensive. However, if I need to go into a defensive stance, I will drop my heels so that my feet are flat, as that gives me a more stable connection to the ground.

I think both ways have a time and a place to use. To me, its a matter of knowing when to use them and switching between them as appropriate.

[bushido_man96]

I think not lifting the heel comes from a kata standpoint, is likely more of a technical appearance thing than anything else. We are told the same in TKD basics and forms, too.

That said, I think lifting the heel is better, mainly for the reasons that tallgeese mentions, and I think it lends to being more mobile.

I think the difference also comes in the nature with which strikes are done in Boxing/Thai Boxing and in Shotokan/TKD. In Boxing, the punches are sent out and back, whereas in Shotokan, especially in forms work, the punch is driven out, and then left in that position until the next move, which is usually then done with the alternate hand/arm. Where in Boxing, the succeeding move may be done with the same hand.

[DWx]

We lift the heel in ITF TKD. For the same reasons already mentioned: hip rotation and pivoting. If you watch our forms we do a funny thing we call "sine wave" which is used to ingrain this movement. In short, you soften the knees and raise the back heel to aid in pivoting on that foot so you can turn the hip. You have to have the heel on the floor at the end of each technique in order to ground yourself though. All this translates directly over to our sparring: heels up and knees softened whilst between strikes/blocks, heels down to ground the technique (or yourself).

[joesteph]

I think not lifting the heel comes from a kata standpoint, is likely more of a technical appearance thing than anything else. We are told the same in TKD basics and forms, too.

I found this also in Soo Bahk Do, but only in forms and striking against air. When I was studying Jeet Kune Do, that rear heel was up--but there was no kata; it was target work, instead.

In Martial Mechanics by Phillip Starr, on pp. 33-37, keeping the rear foot, as the driving one, on the floor is presented as delivering more shock, even being more stable if striking a larger opponent. This contradicts Western-style boxing, as well as target work I've done in both SBD and JKD.

I don't see the hip rotating enough for maximum power with the heel down.

[tonydee]

I keep the heel down unless I need to move forwards in a way that prevents it (e.g. reaching a little with a reverse punch). I'd still rather step forward and land the heel before punching if possible. A few thoughts...

In those moves that require turning/stretching away followed by a slinging back into the move - like punches, knife hands, ridge hands, side thrusting kicks, turning/roundhouse kicks - excessive stiffness means there's not enough time and distaince to store/unleash a lot of power, but too little means there's no pressure building up to plyometrically sling you back into the move. For my punch, I'm quite flexible in the calves, and ok in the ankles and knees, so I can turn my hips and "sit back" towards my rear foot with my rear leg bent without having to lift my rear heal or turn it outwards. I can form a position where that back leg is perfectly chambered to explode forwards such that I can complete my punch - bringing the back-leg's hip well past the front's, without needing to move either foot on the ground throughout the movement. Still, it's stiff enough to provide a solid core for the looser stretches through the torso and shoulders. If I loosen the base further by turning my feet around during the movement, it makes the overall performance slopier. Whether this is true for other people will partly depend on how flexible they are in the various parts of their body. In the above, I think I'm pretty typical, but some people might be much stiffer or looser in various spots.

So, while lifting the heel allows more hip rotation, that's not necessarily good: you just need to reach the right angle with enough stiffness that by the time you've rotated there the body's screaming out to thrust that hip forwards again. Similarly, you only want so much follow-through: if you're able to focus your power, you'll have unleashed it quickly into the target, and any further forced follow-through is needless over-commitment that can get you in big trouble if your strike is blocked, dodged, insufficiently effective, or countered in time.

I believe that a landed heel provides better stability during a strike, better ability to resist reaction forces from the target, sweeps or unbalancing blocks, better ability to twist against the ground to help start another movement or begin a step or turn. As soon as I contract the thigh, I want the foot getting a reaction force from the ground: with the heel grounded it's guaranteed, with the heel up, if depends on whether the calf is a weak link in the chain.

I also focus on the forwards movement behind the strike. I don't believe in up-down movements for their own sake, as I think a horizontally-forwards hip rotation and a strong reaction force from the floor is much more important in generating power.

Cheers,

Tony

[sensei8]

We lift the heel in ITF TKD. For the same reasons already mentioned: hip rotation and pivoting

Absolutely, but it's at a infinitesimal degree. Right before the kicking foot returns from its target, the heel MUST be down; heel's not up.