Breaking down the spinning wheel kick

pdg

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Messages
3,568
Reaction score
1,033
I enjoy the discussion. Helps me map the semantics.
I am not a big forum poster so I do not know what iirc means.
I think what you call a vertical kick is commonly called a front or front snap kick. Facing target, body and toes up. Another kick where both the body and foot is vertical are crescent kicks. Outside (inside to outside leg motion)crescents strikes with the blade of the foot. Inside (outside to inside leg motion) strikes with the ball of foot.

iirc is shorthand for "If I Remember Correctly".

From my understanding of the terminology we use:

Front snap kick is knee up, foot swings forward, hitting with ball of the foot (or instep if the target is the groin).

A variation of that is a front pushing kick, which is identical except for having a "push" motion instead of a "snap"...

Then there's a front rising kick, where the leg is kept almost straight and lifted to the front - either as a flexibility exercise or a defensive manoeuvre.

Crescent kick and variations - I actually had a discussion after class about this the other day.

What used to be called an inward crescent (foot is vertical and comes in toward, possibly crossing, centerline from it's own outside) is now just a crescent kick.

What used to be called an outward crescent kick (foot is vertical and moves toward it's own side, away from centre, can start from the other side of centre) is now a horizontal kick - the trajectory is horizontal.

These are all loosely classified as vertical kicks because the foot is vertical, but the only one currently named "vertical kick" is the horizontal kick (names are apparently interchangeable, I'm trying to ascertain as to what extent), ex-outward crescent.


Just for fun, the horizontal kick (outward crescent) can be changed into other kicks...

If you angle your toes toward the direction of travel and move in an arc, you can use that to defend against an incoming kick or punch with the footsword/blade of the foot (if you're flexible and fast enough) - then it's a hooking kick (note, not a hook kick, that's different).

If you do almost the same, but use the ball of the foot (or sometimes instep) as the tool for an attack, it's a twisting kick.

If you do an "inner crescent" but turn your foot horizontal and use the ball of the foot, that's a turning kick (roundhouse).



Some of these the body will be vertical due to skeletal mechanics, but that's unimportant as to the name of the kick...
 

pdg

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Messages
3,568
Reaction score
1,033
We never teach a reverse hook kick (right leg back and going forward). It would be very impractical, hell you the knees and just would not work.

It can work very well, but not if you don't move the rest of your body to support it.

To use the front leg, you bring your leg to the target area and hook - to accomplish that you mechanically must turn your hip with your attacking leg, pivot on your standing foot if it's facing forward and pull in (heel to glute motion).

From a walking stance (somewhat akin to 'karate' front stance, but with square full facing hips and shoulders, both feet facing mainly forward) the action is the same for front or rear leg but the application can be different - front leg your centre mass moves backwards so range is limited but it's good for a close opponent or one moving toward you. Rear leg gives extra range (at the expense of a tiny amount of extra time) and centre mass moves forward so better for a slightly more distant opponent or one you are advancing on.

From other stances where you are half facing (L, fixed, etc.) you have to introduce an extra initial twist to the motion to set up the body lines.
 

Earl Weiss

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
3,260
Reaction score
641
And this is different, depending on locale. In Korea, a reverse punch is the front hand. What most of the world calls a jab.
Can't help but wonder if there is some connection to Chang Hon terminology. (or Vica Versa) In the Chang hon system a stance is named for the lead leg if weight distribution is equal and if not for the leg with the most weight on it. I.E. Walking stance - equal weight - Right leg forward is "Right Walking Stance" L stance, right leg forward has more weight on the left leg and is called a " Left Walking stance. If the punch is with the hand from the side the stance is not named after it is a Reverse Punch. So this would be the rear hand for the walking stance, and the lead hand for the L stance.
 

pdg

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Messages
3,568
Reaction score
1,033
I.E. Walking stance - equal weight - Right leg forward is "Right Walking Stance" L stance, right leg forward has more weight on the left leg and is called a " Left Walking stance

Should the bolded part not read "left L stance"?
 

Dirty Dog

MT Senior Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
19,976
Reaction score
6,612
Location
Pueblo West, CO
Can't help but wonder if there is some connection to Chang Hon terminology. (or Vica Versa) In the Chang hon system a stance is named for the lead leg if weight distribution is equal and if not for the leg with the most weight on it. I.E. Walking stance - equal weight - Right leg forward is "Right Walking Stance" L stance, right leg forward has more weight on the left leg and is called a " Left Walking stance. If the punch is with the hand from the side the stance is not named after it is a Reverse Punch. So this would be the rear hand for the walking stance, and the lead hand for the L stance.

I'm sure there must be a connection, though I've never really given it any thought.
This convention for naming the "direction" of a stance seems to be the same, at least in ITF/KKW/MDK systems. It would be interesting to know if any other styles do it differently.
The stances themselves certainly don't share names, though. An ITF L stance is closest to what the MDK and KKW call a back stance. I think the major difference is the distance between the feet - the ITF version has the longest distance between the feet, the MDK the shortest. What the KKW and MDK call a horse stance, the ITF calls chair sitting.
I always find it interesting how much terminology varies, given the relatively short history and common roots of the carious TKD styles.
 

pdg

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Messages
3,568
Reaction score
1,033
An ITF L stance is closest to what the MDK and KKW call a back stance. I think the major difference is the distance between the feet - the ITF version has the longest distance between the feet, the MDK the shortest

From a swift look, I'd say the "ITF" L stance is pretty much equal to the KKW back stance - an extra foot length and it becomes a fixed stance (and switches 'hand').

What the KKW and MDK call a horse stance, the ITF calls chair sitting

Take out 'chair' - it's just "sitting stance".
 
OP
dvcochran

dvcochran

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Messages
7,047
Reaction score
2,290
Location
Southeast U.S.
It can work very well, but not if you don't move the rest of your body to support it.

To use the front leg, you bring your leg to the target area and hook - to accomplish that you mechanically must turn your hip with your attacking leg, pivot on your standing foot if it's facing forward and pull in (heel to glute motion).

From a walking stance (somewhat akin to 'karate' front stance, but with square full facing hips and shoulders, both feet facing mainly forward) the action is the same for front or rear leg but the application can be different - front leg your centre mass moves backwards so range is limited but it's good for a close opponent or one moving toward you. Rear leg gives extra range (at the expense of a tiny amount of extra time) and centre mass moves forward so better for a slightly more distant opponent or one you are advancing on.

From other stances where you are half facing (L, fixed, etc.) you have to introduce an extra initial twist to the motion to set up the body lines.

As you said yourself, you are describing a FRONT leg kick, not a back leg kick. It is just that, using your front leg to attack. We are mostly in agreement with the mechanics. I assume when you say rear leg walking stance you are spinning. This is not a reverse kick as you are spinning. A hook kick is never intended for long range. The mechanics do not allow it. As you said, shifting your weight back can make the kick even closer. We also practice picking up the back leg and stepping back before kicking the front leg, timing it as an opponent is stepping forward.
 

pdg

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Messages
3,568
Reaction score
1,033
As you said yourself, you are describing a FRONT leg kick, not a back leg kick. It is just that, using your front leg to attack. We are mostly in agreement with the mechanics. I assume when you say rear leg walking stance you are spinning. This is not a reverse kick as you are spinning. A hook kick is never intended for long range. The mechanics do not allow it. As you said, shifting your weight back can make the kick even closer. We also practice picking up the back leg and stepping back before kicking the front leg, timing it as an opponent is stepping forward.

I'm describing a kick with either leg, directed to the way you are facing.

Here's walking stance:

leftgunnunsogiside.jpg

To lift and use the front leg you need to get your centre of gravity (the dotted line) over the rear leg - either by moving your body backwards in space, or by moving your rear foot foward on the ground. To lift and use the rear leg, the opposite.

If you don't, you fall over.

So, from that stance you can get your body over your rear leg and hook with the front, or get your body over your front leg and hook with the rear (rear leg effectively becomes the front leg as it's moving toward chamber/target).

That's the range I was describing too - absolute relative to the position of your body at the start.

At the time of impact, the range between your body and your target is identical irrespective of which leg you use and whether it came from the front or rear starting position.


What you call a spinning hook (I assume) is what we'd call a reverse hook - you turn fully, with your back being presented to your opponent (at least briefly).

From the left walking stance pictured above, for a reverse hook kick with the rear leg: you turn/spin clockwise, pivoting on the front foot - it'd look much like the upper body mechanics of the wheel kick in the video.

You can do the same with the front leg, but it's really awkward.

I'll see if I can find some sort of video reference...
 

Earl Weiss

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
3,260
Reaction score
641
This convention for naming the "direction" of a stance seeAn ITF L stance is closest to what the MDK and KKW call a back stance. I think the major difference is the distance between the feet - the ITF version has the longest distance between the feet, the MDK the shortest. What the KKW and MDK call a horse stance, the ITF calls chair sitting.
FWIW in General Choi's 1965 Book L Stance was Back Stance and Sitting Stance was Riding Stance.
 

Jaeimseu

3rd Black Belt
Joined
Jun 19, 2011
Messages
923
Reaction score
271
Location
Austin, Texas, USA
I dont use the word reverse or spinning. I use back kick and back hook kick. So theres some more difference in terminology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Dirty Dog

MT Senior Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
19,976
Reaction score
6,612
Location
Pueblo West, CO
I dont use the word reverse or spinning. I use back kick and back hook kick. So theres some more difference in terminology.

I've never much liked the term 'spinning back kick' because I think it's confusing. If you're spinning while you kick, it won't be a back kick. It'll turn into more of a sloppy hook kick, usually. It's more of a turn, then a back kick.

So we confuse each other by using 1,473 different terms for the same thing, some of which are misleading to begin with.
 

Jaeimseu

3rd Black Belt
Joined
Jun 19, 2011
Messages
923
Reaction score
271
Location
Austin, Texas, USA
I've never much liked the term 'spinning back kick' because I think it's confusing. If you're spinning while you kick, it won't be a back kick. It'll turn into more of a sloppy hook kick, usually. It's more of a turn, then a back kick.

So we confuse each other by using 1,473 different terms for the same thing, some of which are misleading to begin with.

Agreed. I hate the term spinning, because I dont think of those kicks as circular.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Gnarlie

Master of Arts
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
1,913
Reaction score
442
Location
Germany
Agreed. I hate the term spinning, because I dont think of those kicks as circular.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Me either. They both move through 180 from stance to target. How can that be a spin?

Add in that the back kick path is linear moving out from the kickers centre. Where is the spin?


Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 
OP
dvcochran

dvcochran

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Messages
7,047
Reaction score
2,290
Location
Southeast U.S.
Agreed. I hate the term spinning, because I dont think of those kicks as circular.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE
I'm sure there must be a connection, though I've never really given it any thought.
This convention for naming the "direction" of a stance seems to be the same, at least in ITF/KKW/MDK systems. It would be interesting to know if any other styles do it differently.
The stances themselves certainly don't share names, though. An ITF L stance is closest to what the MDK and KKW call a back stance. I think the major difference is the distance between the feet - the ITF version has the longest distance between the feet, the MDK the shortest. What the KKW and MDK call a horse stance, the ITF calls chair sitting.
I always find it interesting how much terminology varies, given the relatively short history and common roots of the carious TKD styles.
Did you accidentally transpose ITF and MDK when mentioning distance between feet? Way back when we were MDK only, (no WTF, KKW affiliation), long, deep stances were a staple. To me more modern KKW stances a very short (walking stance), do not "look" as good, and have no value for conditioning.
You guys ever use the term horse riding stance?
 
OP
dvcochran

dvcochran

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Messages
7,047
Reaction score
2,290
Location
Southeast U.S.
Did you accidentally transpose ITF and MDK when mentioning distance between feet? Way back when we were MDK only, (no WTF, KKW affiliation), long, deep stances were a staple. To me more modern KKW stances a very short (walking stance), do not "look" as good, and have no value for conditioning.
You guys ever use the term horse riding stance?


Cool! I have never been a Orange belt.
 

pdg

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Messages
3,568
Reaction score
1,033
Did you accidentally transpose ITF and MDK when mentioning distance between feet? Way back when we were MDK only, (no WTF, KKW affiliation), long, deep stances were a staple. To me more modern KKW stances a very short (walking stance), do not "look" as good, and have no value for conditioning.
You guys ever use the term horse riding stance?

"Our" ITF stances are much deeper than the KKW alternatives, but not as deep as the comparable versions from something like Shotokan.

In the members in motion section @Azulx posted videos of him performing some patterns (form progression) which are the same patterns we practice. His stances are a bit deeper (more bend to the knee) than how we do them.

I think overall ITF (or Chang Hon derivatives in general) are longer and deeper than KKW, I have no frame of reference for MDK though.
 

Earl Weiss

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
3,260
Reaction score
641
Add in that the back kick path is linear moving out from the kickers centre. Where is the spin?
Because the body turns / Spins. Those words are synonyms.
spin
spin/
verb
  1. 1.
    turn or cause to turn or whirl around quickly.
    "the girl spun around in alarm"
    synonyms: revolve, rotate, turn
 

Earl Weiss

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
3,260
Reaction score
641
"Our" ITF stances are much deeper than the KKW alternatives, but not as deep as the comparable versions from something like Shotokan.
.
I will leave it to Shotokan experts to elaborate but have seen much discussion about original Shotokan stances and those who feel they follow those parameters s being much shorter than what is often currently practice. Some Allude to Funakoshi's son as having lengthened them.
 
Top