Front snap kick / mae geri / ahp chaki

[DWx]

Works for Machida. In fact his front kick KO's are some of my favourite in MMA:

For me I use it in 2 ways similar to what's already been alluded to. The variation with the heel in a pushing action to check or stop my opponent. Or smashing with the ball of the foot.

In about the first 5 mins, we see a KO from a jumping front kick. That's not the basic snap kick I'm on about.

By 6:50 we've seen several basic front snap kicks. Not a single one of which had any effect. Two of which were effectively blocked with a downward sweeping action. The man doing the blocking seemed to intentionally avoid the toes. I can understand why. Strong toes into the wrist would hurt, but a slight variation on this block would have seen the kickers toes put out of action for a while.

8.23 a KO from a basic front snap kick. Without doubt, it can be effective sometimes.

As a side note, I like how that Machida chap bows to his opponent after the match. It's nice to see some respect in combat sports. Too often that respect seems to be missing.

Overall, the video hadn't convinced me. A very well trained fighter pulled it off, as anyone can. But that same very fighter showed that it is often futile, and quite high risk. I observed from that video that he threw at least as many roundhouse kicks as front kicks, and most of those round house kicks were taken very seriously even though on this occasion they were not decisive. Of the front kicks thrown, most were variants of the basic front snap kick, with most front kicks proving futile. The scissor kick version is devastating, and although fairly high risk to the kicker, carries enough momentum to be much higher risk to the opponent. The decisive front snap kick near the end was flawless. With risk effectively mitigated by the distraction with the hands. Circumstances allowed it to work effectively. That won't happen too many times.

But your original question was "why would we use the front snap kick?". MMA fighters have used this kick with good results in a live high pressure scenario. No technique, not even punches have a 100% accuracy but Machida shows that it can be devastating if used correctly even against trained fighters. Throw some heavy duty shoes on and unleash this on an unsuspecting assailant and you've got a good chance of doing some damage.

[sensei8]

Every technique within ones curriculum are effective; it's the practitioner that's ineffective. If any said technique is in said curriculum, Shotokan, for example, its founder wouldn't have included it.

Imho!!

[OneKickWonder]

OK. To rephrase the question.

How would you train to pull this kick off effectively, while lowering the risk?

This is in much the same way as, for example, a head height roundhouse kick where we train to use it in combos where we distract low first.

As for every technique in the curriculum being effective otherwise it wouldn't be in the curriculum. Sorry, but I disagree with that logic. A quick visit to YouTube shows just how much rubbish there is in some curriculums. But even leaving YouTube out of the equation, to assume that everything in the curriculum is effective is to assume that the person/committee that devised the curriculum has an interview depth understanding, and that all teachers that follow the curriculum have the knowledge to teach it effectively.

When I trained in aikido for a while, there were many techniques that could be effective. Some were useless. In the case of the useless ones, I tactfully raised it with the chief instructor, a big powerful man with many years experience in several styles, and a veteran soldier. He said quite openly once, yeah I'd never trust that to work in a real situation, but it's in the curriculum for the artistic side.

[wildbourgman]

OK. To rephrase the question.

How would you train to pull this kick off effectively, while lowering the risk?

.

In my view a lot of it is common sense.

1. You train to be as fast as possible getting the kick up, out, back and down just like any other kick. Getting it out and on target quickly makes it effective and getting it back and down lowers the risk of either getting your leg caught, or being off balance due to being on one foot.

2. As I alluded to in number one practice getting on target. If you can't hit the target you can't be effective.

3. Know when to and when not to use certain techniques, practice timing and fight scenarios, so your body reacts instinctively when you see the opening. If you have to think about it you are probably too late. You can use faints and other techniques to open your opponent but you have to react to what you see and that takes work.

4. Have humility and know where you are in your martial arts journey and that does mean comparing your self to other people you might have to utilize your training on. I had a 50 something year old white belt with numerous ailments ask me how long before he could defend himself and I told him that if his training simply made it clear to him where he was physically and made him aware of his shortcomings, that in itself is a form of self-defense. In other works if in his first few months he gained the knowledge and wisdom to see a possible situation that possibly pitted himself against a 20 year old muscled up brute and he then took extra actions to prevent a conflict, that is a win. So if you can't perform a front kick in a way that's going to help make a bad situation better or possibly make it much worse you need to know that, accept it, and keep training until that reality changes.

[sensei8]

OK. To rephrase the question.

How would you train to pull this kick off effectively, while lowering the risk?

This is in much the same way as, for example, a head height roundhouse kick where we train to use it in combos where we distract low first.

As for every technique in the curriculum being effective otherwise it wouldn't be in the curriculum. Sorry, but I disagree with that logic. A quick visit to YouTube shows just how much rubbish there is in some curriculums. But even leaving YouTube out of the equation, to assume that everything in the curriculum is effective is to assume that the person/committee that devised the curriculum has an interview depth understanding, and that all teachers that follow the curriculum have the knowledge to teach it effectively.

When I trained in aikido for a while, there were many techniques that could be effective. Some were useless. In the case of the useless ones, I tactfully raised it with the chief instructor, a big powerful man with many years experience in several styles, and a veteran soldier. He said quite openly once, yeah I'd never trust that to work in a real situation, but it's in the curriculum for the artistic side.

To the bold type above...

Do you believe in your core style??

Do you believe in your styles founder??

Do you believe in your styles founders curriculum??

I hope that you do, because you're training in it, and have been doing so for however long you've been. Sure, you might not utilize each and every single technique(s) found in the curriculum, for whatever your reason(s) might be, but you've trained in them. I'm not speaking about techniques you've not been trained in yet, that'll come in time, but I'm speaking about techniques already learned. Time will create that effectiveness IF executed how your styles founder designed it.

If you or anybody can't execute said core styles techniques effectively, as found and taught in said curriculum, then the practitioner is at fault!! After all, the founder can/did/does; otherwise, why would the founder include it in the very first place?!?!? In time, so should you or anyone else.

Our Soke created and founded Shindokan...not me, or anyone else. I can execute every single technique found and taught in our curriculum, which was created by our Soke, very effectively. And whenever I couldn't, it wasn't Soke's fault or Dai-Soke's fault or anyone else's fault...JUST MINE!! However, I did overcome that deficiency in time.

Imho!!

[OneKickWonder]

Do you believe in your core style??

Do you believe in your styles founder??

Do you believe in your styles founders curriculum??

I used to. More recently I've become less sure on this point.

As for the curriculum, I've never been 100% happy with that, but because I had faith in those that devised the curriculum I assumed there was a good reason for everything. Now I find myself wondering about it all.

[JR 137]

Not everything in a curriculum has direct fighting applications. Not that push-ups are in too many curricula I’ve seen, it if they were/are formally in a curriculum, it’s use is quite obvious yet not directly a fighting technique.

At some point, the MAist has to move from seeing things as techniques to seeing them as principles. In Seido we have what we call beginner, intermediate and advanced “self defenses.” 10 beginner (20 if you count right punch coming and left punch coming individually), 10 intermediate, and possibility 10 advanced (those are above my current grade). They’re pretty simple - opponent steps forward and punches. Depending on the one you’re doing, you either step back, forward, or angle; block or lock up; strike, kick, and/or sweep.

When you first learn them, starting at white belt, you think “this is a choreographed response to a punch that would work when I get better.”

You get better and think “this is stupid and would never work; no one punches like that, the block wouldn’t work, and they wouldn’t stand around while I’m countering either.”

Then you realize their intent - they teach posture, footwork, timing, where to aim your block, where to strike, what to strike with, when to strike, etc. Rather than a choreographed sequence to be followed exactly, they become concepts. You start moving a certain way, blocking a certain way, striking certain places with certain weapons, etc.

Then we have “kihon kumite.” They’re basically pre-arranged shadow boxing drills using basics (kihon) in a sparring/fighting sense (kumite). The stances are more natural, hands are kept up to protect the head instead of traditionally chambered, etc. As my teacher says, “they’re designed to bridge the gap between a textbook technique and a natural fighting technique.” No one’s going to throw that exact set of strikes in that order at you and allow you to return the favor that exact way; they’re drilling concepts.

Then there’s yakusoku kumite, or prearranged sparring with a partner. Same stuff as above.

I think the people who think the curriculum doesn’t work, isn’t good, is fantasy, etc. are the people taking these things as actual responses that are supposed to be done the exact way they’re taught. Maybe this is why people leave in the mid-kyu ranks because they lose faith in the system. My CI does a good job explaining why we do these things, but I don’t think he explains it enough sometimes. I don’t know if other CIs are explaining it like that or just going through the curriculum.

But to make a long story short, all techniques taught are mainly principles rather than textbook techniques that should be done exactly as taught. When looking at karate through this lens (don’t forget kata!), it makes a lot more sense.

Just my non-expert opinion.

[OneKickWonder]

JR 137, excellent post. And I agree almost entirely.

But....

Why do so many systems require that students wait potentially years to figure these things out?

We have a similar notion to what you described. Beginner's one step. One of which is so highly impractical if taken at face value. But it teaches principles. And more than that, it teaches how to do something, even if caught in an awkward vulnerable position. One time, working with an adult newbie, I could see the utter scepticism on his face when showing him this technique, which almost requires you to voluntarily give up a strong position to perform a weak counter attack from an even weaker position. Basically it involves turning your back on your attacker so you can elbow them backwards. Ridiculous of course. I could totally understand the newbie's sceptical expression. So instead of stopping my mock attack on the first punch, I threw the punch, moved in, and grabbed him in a head lock to spin him off balance backwards. Suddenly the principles in this silly technique worked. Now it is clear why you give up the string position to elbow backwards from a weak position. But here's the thing. Nobody taught me that application. I figured it out. And I was frowned upon for showing it to a newbie. Apparently what I showed was higher grade stuff not for beginners.

Why?

Because the curriculum in not ideal.

Sure there is value in letting people figure out their own applications. But surely there is also value in sharing learned knowledge and passing it on to newer students. They are after all committing their own time, energy and money to learn martial arts.

It's a bizarre concept that I don't think applies in many other contexts. If you were paying a driving instructor to teach you to drive, and he sat you in a stationery car and got you to press the brake pedal on and off for a year without explaining why, or how it fits into the grand scheme of driving, most people would get quite frustrated and stop giving him their time and money. Yet in martial arts, that's just the way it is. We trust that one day, it will all become clear and we'll figure out for ourselves how it all fits together.

[sensei8]

Whenever I mention the curriculum, I'm referencing MA techniques and nothing else; our curriculum's don't cover anything except MA techniques. The other things that one might find in a curriculum at the dojo level are created and controlled by the dojo's CI's, and not the SKKA. The SKKA carefully and meticulously governs the curriculum with an adamant unforgiveness.

Please don't brush the SKKA with a general brush because we're not from the same palette as other Governing Body's, nor is the our style.

[OneKickWonder]

Please don't brush the SKKA with a general brush because we're not from the same palette as other Governing Body's, nor is the our style.

Is this an example of the open mindedness, humility and respect that martial arts teach us?