High Kicks to the Head

[Yeti]

As mom always said...

There's a place for everything and everything in it's place.

It's always good to have another tool in the toolbox. As others have said, however, unless trained consistently, it's probably going to be hard to pull off - especially since most arts that kick high (TKD, TSD, etc.) train in bare feet. Throw on some shoes and try to do that.

Plus, one thing that I have noticed in those arts (I spent 6 yrs in TKD so I know at least a little of what I speak), is that most people will tend to pick up the heel of their support foot in order to get a little more height on their high kicks - not so muh on a back kick, but on roundhouse and front kicks (FK's especially). While that enables you to kick a little higher, the moment your heel comes up, you lose your grounding (i.e. stability) and you lose power - two things I think you'd need if you tried to pull that off on the street.

Again though, if properly trained and trained consistently, it's another tool to keep in the shed. Like any tool though, it needs to be properly taken care of so that it works when it needs to.

 

[Last Fearner]

I find this kind of thread to be both amusing, and a shame at the same time. Firstly, it is amusing because many of the posters are saying basically the same thing in different ways, thus it sounds like they are disagreeing. Also, some of the "changing parameters" are comical if you take a closer look at them.

However, before I address the amusement in detail, I would like to say why I think this is a shame. We are going to have a wide range of opinions and experiences contributed here. The shame of it is that some of the posters (on both sides of the discussion), are not showing respect to others. Perhaps unconsciously, without intention, they are belittling one another with jabs and insults. Sometimes it is a subtle comment that refutes the other person's belief or the way they phrased their argument.

Yes, we are in pursuit of knowledge and we want to get our facts straight, but at what price? At the price of insulting our friends and respected colleagues. In this thread, I have seen Kacey (a respected and well-liked member of MT) brought to task over the difference of a few inches in her story. Does that really matter as to what she was trying to say? I don't mean to speak on behalf of Kacey, but I have a right to express my opinion, and I think a few people owe Kacey an apology (Don't bother excusing your behavior because you had "good reason" for challenging the specifics of her story - - the way it was done was inexcusable - IMHO!)

As to the comical progression of the question at hand (and I have no intention of doing any back-tracking into another thread for the story where this originated because this thread stands on its own, and the question posed is clearly stated in the OP), let's look at what was asked.

the effectiveness of high kicks to the head. What are your thoughts about high kicks on the street?

Then comes the amusing adjustments of the parameters....
(I'm not going to quote who said what, because that is not really important.)

*seems to me to be rather indicative of the singular weakness of thee as CQ tactics for self defense.

*wants to pursue them in a nasty confrontation in a bar.

*The question is whether they are useful in a close-quarters self-defense situation against an unsought attack by a dangerous, but likely street-savvy assailant who's probably not much more than a foot away from you, and when every other avenue of escape from the situation has failed.

*But not when the target's 14" or less away from me hand has just grabbed my shirt or thown a haymaker at me from that distance.

*We aren't discussing the feasibility of a kick to the head per se. We're discussing the feasibility of doing a standing split, in an upright position, on a bad surface surrounded by tables/trashcans/jostling bodies/etc. in the fraction of second you need to terminate the fight.

*What is at issue is not the possibility of executing high kicks, even high kicks at relatively close range, but the practicality of training for these very risky, difficult moves whose execution at CQ ranges requires, however you slice it, a practitioner's kicking leg to reach a position very near a standing split, whether driven by momentum or anything else, in the context of a streetfight.

*What is being debated here is not if a high kick would be effective.

*I'm sorry but within 18" is not the appropriate range for a high kick much the same way standing 3' to 4' away is not the appropriate range for grappling.

Kosho's question was about high kicks in the street. I would assume he's asking about it's practicality. Is this what you're asking Kosho?

yes.

_Don Flatt

Boy! I'm glad we got that straight - :lol:

Yes, Exile, many of the quotes were yours, but I'm not really intending to pick on you or argue the valid points you made. It just amuses me how the general topic of "high kicks" and their "effectiveness in the street" can become so restricted in the scenarios. :ultracool

This reminds me of an experience I had when I was a young instructor (about 19 years old in 1979). A rough bully at a bar, and his buddy were threatening me, and provoking a fight. I ran the security at this bar, but it was my night off and I was there with a date. The security on duty were Black Belt students of my instructor. After relentless annoyances, I agreed to meet this guy off property in a parking lot. This guy's friend was so confident he told me the fight would be over in a few seconds (actually, I agreed).

At the end of the evening, we each drove to the pre-determined destination (My Black Belt friends came to cover my back in case of foul play). He pulled in riding in his friends van, but the tough talking bully wouldn't step out (I think he believed I wouldn't show). He had found out I was a Black Belt, and told me he wouldn't get out unless I agreed not to use my kicks. I said "you threaten me, challenge me to a fight, then you're going to tell me how to fight?" I knew this would be no match, so I agreed not to kick. He wouldn't get out. Then, I said I would tie one hand behind my back and agree not to kick. He wouldn't get out. His friend became embarrassed and drove the van away. :lfao:

The point is, if we are going to discuss the use of "high kicks," I think it should be left to the kicker as to when, where, and how they would use them. "Scenario: kicks are not effective in self defense because if you try to balance on one leg on a snow covered hill of greater than 35 degree incline, while wearing rubber soul tennis shoes, and carrying 52 lbs of groceries, while facing West, into an Easterly wind of 23 mph or greater...."

Reality check - - almost any Martial Artist of significant knowledge is going to use the appropriate technique (hand, foot, knee, elbow, head, stance, takedown, etc) at the proper time, on the proper terrain, so let's dispense with the "it is not a good idea because a,b, or c could go wrong."

As to crowded bars, I have worked this environment for many years, and was the director of security at a nightclub for seven years. I have seen lesser skilled Martial Artists who were trouble makers use high kicks successfully against other people in fights (and no, they weren't drunk). I have also used high kicks quite successfully (a couple of them were drunk, but still dangerous).

My introduction to kicking in Taekwondo came from an assistant instructor I had in my early training. He was a 16 year old 2nd Dan, and was phenomenal with his kicks. He was short, and slight in build (a real bully target) One night, at a McDonald's a guy the size of football lineman picked a fight with him in the parking lot. The guy punched, my friend blocked with a forearm, and did a jump-spin wheel kick that passed the guys nose by less than an inch (intentionally missing), and landed in a fighting stance. The guys eyes got real wide, turned white as a ghost, then turned and walked away (I did not witness the event, but trust those who did).

I'm trained as a kicker, but I will agree with much of what has been said that l would only use a high kick in the street if the situation was right, and the opportunity presented itself. Being very good at kicking, I can usually make the opportunity present itself. One misconception that has been brought up is the ease, and safety of punching over kicking. Here, I would disagree, but it does depend on the person defending. If your muscles do not stretch well, or you have not trained to kick high, then a "high section kick" in the street would be out of the question (setting aside the reality of preferring to kick low to cause the opponent to bend over first, or taking them down then kicking the head - - I prefer that method too!)

On the other hand (or foot), one can only speak to one's own abilities and personal preferences. To say that kicking to the head at a high level target in the street is "too risky," "dangerous," "impractical," etc., is not to understand the skill involved as well as an expert. A fight is "risky" but any technique thrown makes you vulnerable, but kicks are not more risky because risk is reduced when expert knowledge is applied at the optimum timing. Now, I don't disagree with the "experts" that exile quotes, because I do not know them personally, and I have no knowledge of what their full training in kicking might entail.

However, if someone says that kicking high is a bad idea, then I would agree that "their experience" of kicking high was a bad one. Did they actually try it, and it failed? If so, how many times before they said this isn't working? Why wasn't it working? Did they use the wrong kick at the wrong distance, or kick on a poor surface and fell, or had too many objects or people around them and couldn't get their leg up to the target? Were they great street-fighters/bar bouncers/cops/military soldiers, but not truly "experts" at kicking? I know this is possible - - I have had a few like that as students of mine (I train bouncers/LEO/military/executive protection personnel).

If a person is in a wheel chair with legs amputated, then they will say that kicks are not a good idea (at least not for them). If a person can kick, but trains more to kick low, then High Kicks are not a good idea. If they are experts at kicking high, but don't have much training or experience at how to use it in real-life, then they might not do well at its application. It does not take a world-class athlete, or a "Chuck Norris" type to be successful. It takes the proper training, and the proper application.

Ok, Don, I enjoyed your tongue-in-cheek approach to stating the obvious...

CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ALLOW FOR KICKING HIGH TO THE HEAD

1. Fight someone else who is also trying to kick high to the head.

2. Become a world class grappler so that people will be weary of getting too close to you then surprise them with that flashy high kick finish you've been working on.

3. You are Chuck Norris.

4. Fake them out. Use hand gestures. Kick them in the legs a few times so they think the high kick is gonna be to the legs. Make a funny face.

5. Your opponent is drunk.
(As long as they're drunk and you're not, you should have time for your high kick to the head.)

6. Your opponents back is turned.

7. Use a throw, a takedown, or some pesky hand techniques to get them down to the ground then wait for them to get back up and as soon as they do--- Kick them high to the head!!! This way you won't have to worry about those pesky throws, takedowns, or hand techniques.

(note my red highlight. Just how much time do you think it takes for a kick to the head? Mine are not super-human, but get there faster than a block.)

Yes, there are many situations which aide in the application of a High Kick, and they all make sense (especially #4) Isn't that what we're supposed to do - - distract them first? You know, there are really skilled pick-pockets who can remove your wallet, watch, jewelry, etc., without you even knowing it. Now, they don't say to you, "I'm going to take your valuables, see if you can detect it, and stop me." Yet, millions of people fall victim to their skills every year.

In a real fight, not every opponent is an "expert at hand-to-hand." In all my years of training (45+), I have encountered very few opponents who were Martial Artists at all, and have yet to face an "expert." Perhaps the real experts know better than to fight unnecessarily. The vast majority of opponents, I could have told them what I was going to do, and they still would not have succeeded in avoiding it. Opponents in the street don't know I'm going to kick, and they certainly don't know when it is coming to the head.

Unless you have a unique set if circumstances, where all of your street encounters are against sober, muscular, combat hardened, Martial Art experts, my guess is that the "average opponent" is not going to see a kick coming unless you just don't know what you are doing. It is my experience that a poor kicker, kicks poorly. An expert kicker knows how to apply his craft, and does not need a specific set of circumstances to do it successfully in most street fights (parking lots, bowling alleys, bars, theaters, etc). I have found that when a fight breaks out in a wall-to-wall crowded bar, there is still the phenomenon that people back off and form a circle with enough room for a fight to take place, but if not - - then don't kick high there (also - don't go there anymore - lol).

As to "close quarters" High Kicks, I have used them, and it is not risky if done right. One example (which has been alluded to) can be seen in "A Force of One" with Chuck Norris and Bill "Superfoot" Wallace. Bill is fighting another opponent in the ring, and is against the ropes. He leans back, flings the hook kick up and nails the guy in the back of the head. This does work in the street. Another scenario is when I was being punched rapidly by a guy at close range. I blocked, and stood within arms reach as I brought my right roundhouse over his shoulder and smacked him in the side of the head. He never saw it coming, I was never off balance, and I could have used those "pesky hand techniques" of his as a control option if I wanted.

The risky think about punching is that you have to get your own face close to your opponent. If you miss, you are vulnerable to a counter-strike. Kicking (even to the head) is designed to "reach" an opponent who is still out of range of the hands, thus you remain relatively safe. As to comparing the speed of a punch to a kick, remember that an opponent knows to stand outside your arms reach, thus any punch has to be accompanied by closing the distance (telegraphing), so not likely to land.

Conversely, a kick can be within range without the opponent realizing it, and reach the head before the brain can react. You don't pose, and stand for long, and you don't risk balance unless you are slow and don't know how to strike effectively. Plus, a kick that goes "south" is not the end of all things. I can think of a hundred things an opponent can do against my kick, and I prevent most of them, but even if they are lucky, I can think of a hundred ways to hurt them "bad" as a counter to whatever they do during my kick.

Ok,
This has got to be one of the funniest threads I have ever read.

DArnlod - the points you made in your post were absolutely, without question, brilliant (and not just because I agree with them). I saw that your profile says you are a "VI Dan" and I was not surprised. Not to throw the issue of rank around here (tacky), but it sometimes takes a high ranking expert of a subject to fully grasp the insights as you presented them, even if others don't see it the same way (I don't mean that in a demeaning way to anyone else, so keep cool everyone).

The only problem is that you did so with the harshness of an "expert" imparting their knowledge on the "less knowledgeable" (an offense that I repeat far too often). Although I believe you have a lot to offer here, and I would like to get to know you better, it is a fact that survival in this forum means that you might want to tone down the brash approach and sarcastic quips. I, for one, would like to see you stick around and share your knowledge with all of us, and compare it with what I have experienced.

CM D.J. Eisenhart

 

[MJS]

I'm still unclear how a person may kick upward without the shin, ankle and foot extending past the knee. The knee is a hinge joint; wherever you raise it to, and whatever you call it -- if you're kicking forward, the lower portion of the leg has to arc outward. I can place a front kick into a person's chest at surprisingly close range; namely, inside my own arm length. But I've not seen anyone able to deliver that motion above the chest.

I just threw a few kicks prior to typing this post. The results: just what you typed.

Right now, it appears to me that you're locked on a "we're talking high kicks; we must be talking TKD" mindset, and that anyone who doesn't do TKD or doesn't feel that high kicks are automatically and perfectly acceptable for real use doesn't know what they're talking about.

This is the impression I was getting earlier in the thread as well. I've been training for 21yrs so I feel that I'm very comfortable executing kicks. Do I train the TKD way? Nope, because I'm not TKD. So, unless there is some secret out there I'm missing. Doesnt mean I am clueless on kicking. There are still factors that seem to be getting either missed or avoided. Timing of the kick, speed of the kick, telegraphing of the kick, as well as environmental factors. Grass, pavement, sand, rocks, rain, snow and ice come into play.

It seems to me if a vast number of people with real world experience feel that high kicks are seldom an ideal choice for the real world situations -- they might be onto something. If it were only one person, or only a group of people who train together, I'd suspect maybe it was only their experience. But that's not the case. It's lots of people, from many systems, who say that.

I said the same thing back at post #67.

Yet, even then, I didn't say that they were absolutely impractical and never useful. Nor did I discount anyone's personal experience. But -- my experience, my professional training, and what I've been taught in more than 20 years of martial arts training all say that, in the real world, the utility of high kicks is limited. When you don't have a safety net of rules, they leave you vulnerable to multiple defenses and counterattacks. They rely on stable footing, and, should they miss, they very likely will leave you off balance. They expose numerous vulnerable targets on your own body. Now, perhaps you're comfortable training and preparing only to defend against drunken frat boys and homeless bums. I'm not; my world says that I have every likelihood of having to defend myself who has trained at least as much as I have, in a much harder school than almost any of us here have trained in. And who feels no hesitation about doing serious bodily harm to me.

Likewise, I have said countless times, that every art has something to offer. I'm not a cop, but I'd much rather gear my training without the safety nets.

Mike

 

[Adept]

My thoughts on high kicks in a real-life situation:

Appropriate times to be kicking to someones head are far fewer than appropriate times to be striking someones head with another tool.

For example:

A head high kick takes longer to reach it's target than the equivalent hand technique. This gives your opponent more reaction time.

A head high kick places you in a vulnerable position, standing on one leg within 'shoot' range of your opponent.

A head high kick often requires some kind of twist of the grounded foot, which increases the risk of falling or slipping.

A head high kick has a slower recovery time, and until the kicking foot is planted on the ground your balance and mobility is limited.

A effective head high kick, for most people, requires warming up and loose pants.

A head high kick limits the ability to move and strike simultaneously, unlike handstrikes.

Having said all that, I won't say you should never kick someone in the head.

Simply that it is rarely the best option and should always be a fail-safe strike where even if it goes pear shaped, you don't end up eating asphalt.

 

[tshadowchaser]

After reading through this thread I must say that good points have been made by those that think they would use a high kick in the street and those that would never do so.
That being said I will say that I have personaly seen head high kicks used against unsuspecting opponets in bars and on the street. The fact that the kick was not expected made the difference plus the fact that the kicker was fast as hell. I know of a case where jaws where broken by a spinning kick even.
Now will these things work against an experenced stret fighter Maybe ,Maybe not, it all depends on the timeing and the circumstances. For the most part I would say anyone trying these kicks that has not done them for many years would be foolish to do so. A good low kick to the groin or knees would be more effective for most people, however that is not to say that someone who hasd practiced these kicks for years would not be able to pull them off.
It all comes down to your training and the opponents ability.

 

[Kosho Gakkusei]

Ok, Don, I enjoyed your tongue-in-cheek approach to stating the obvious...

I'm glad someone got it. My objective in starting this thread was to discuss the effectiveness of high kicks in SD. That is not to discount them altogether but to intelligently discuss how they could be utilized as well as debunk myths associated with this technique. Unfortunately for some people this technique seems to be a sacred cow to some and this debate has degraded to a debate of the use of kicks in close range. Please, note the amount of times I've stated a high kick could work.

Relevant post on TKD Forms/Poomse thread.
Originally Posted by Kosho Gakkusei
Stating my opinion without the wit. Successful use of a high kick not only requires the appropriate training to do so ie. flexibility, balance, power, speed, & timing but also requires an appropriate set up to work. The range of the move is very particular and the movement is easily jammed in chamber.

Can it work? Yes, depends on the skill level of both parties.

We have an apparrent scenario where the high kick worked. My posts have not been to say that a high kick won't work but that for the reasons I've mentioned on this thread & the TKD forms thread, I don't think it is the strategy of choice. I practice kicking high to develop balance, flexibility, and power and will use the high kick if the opening is present. What your friend had was the element of surprise. His attackers did not expect him to defend himself this is more critical than the choice of weapon he made.

Kacey,
What is being debated here is not if a high kick would be effective. I think it could be effective given the right set of circumstances - that was the point of my original post. I even reposted to this effect a less humorous but more technical analysis.

Retell me the story and substitute 26" to 30" for the distance and I will no longer have a dispute. Please stop trying to pass off a high kick to the head as a close range defense.

High kicks can work under the right circumstances but in close (18" or less) is not one of them.

(note my red highlight. Just how much time do you think it takes for a kick to the head? Mine are not super-human, but get there faster than a block.)

I don't agree with this statement. The arm has less distance to travel and is innately faster.

Yes, there are many situations which aide in the application of a High Kick, and they all make sense (especially #4) Isn't that what we're supposed to do - - distract them first? You know, there are really skilled pick-pockets who can remove your wallet, watch, jewelry, etc., without you even knowing it. Now, they don't say to you, "I'm going to take your valuables, see if you can detect it, and stop me." Yet, millions of people fall victim to their skills every year.

In a real fight, not every opponent is an "expert at hand-to-hand." In all my years of training (45+), I have encountered very few opponents who were Martial Artists at all, and have yet to face an "expert." Perhaps the real experts know better than to fight unnecessarily. The vast majority of opponents, I could have told them what I was going to do, and they still would not have succeeded in avoiding it. Opponents in the street don't know I'm going to kick, and they certainly don't know when it is coming to the head.

Unless you have a unique set if circumstances, where all of your street encounters are against sober, muscular, combat hardened, Martial Art experts, my guess is that the "average opponent" is not going to see a kick coming unless you just don't know what you are doing. It is my experience that a poor kicker, kicks poorly. An expert kicker knows how to apply his craft, and does not need a specific set of circumstances to do it successfully in most street fights (parking lots, bowling alleys, bars, theaters, etc). I have found that when a fight breaks out in a wall-to-wall crowded bar, there is still the phenomenon that people back off and form a circle with enough room for a fight to take place, but if not - - then don't kick high there (also - don't go there anymore - lol).

Some very good points here pertaining to the successful application of high kicks in SD.

As to "close quarters" High Kicks, I have used them, and it is not risky if done right. One example (which has been alluded to) can be seen in "A Force of One" with Chuck Norris and Bill "Superfoot" Wallace. Bill is fighting another opponent in the ring, and is against the ropes. He leans back, flings the hook kick up and nails the guy in the back of the head. This does work in the street. Another scenario is when I was being punched rapidly by a guy at close range. I blocked, and stood within arms reach as I brought my right roundhouse over his shoulder and smacked him in the side of the head. He never saw it coming, I was never off balance, and I could have used those "pesky hand techniques" of his as a control option if I wanted.

The hook kick you describe would be viable in close range and has been mostly overlooked so far in the discussion. Personally, I would not be comfortable on one leg for even .1 seconds that close to an attacker.

The risky think about punching is that you have to get your own face close to your opponent. If you miss, you are vulnerable to a counter-strike. Kicking (even to the head) is designed to "reach" an opponent who is still out of range of the hands, thus you remain relatively safe. As to comparing the speed of a punch to a kick, remember that an opponent knows to stand outside your arms reach, thus any punch has to be accompanied by closing the distance (telegraphing), so not likely to land.

Conversely, a kick can be within range without the opponent realizing it, and reach the head before the brain can react. You don't pose, and stand for long, and you don't risk balance unless you are slow and don't know how to strike effectively.

LF, it seems you are one of the 1st pro-high kick posters to acknowledge range as a critical issue in the use of kicks. I think it is unwise for someone who uses a technique that is dependant on range due to physiological restrictions not be a big student of distance and timing.

The use of a Hook Kick to the head or a Crescent Kick is possible within close range but the high front (don't debate me on terms) as has been discussed on the majority of this thread up to know in my view only applies to close range in mythology and Power Rangers. Anyone who disagrees with me is free to prove me wrong with a tape measure and a video camera.

As far as the "treatment" of Kacey you find shameful. I don't see it the same way. Some of the details of the story were being called into question - not in the sense of accusing her to be lying but in that details were not making sense but she has since acknowledged that the distances may have been different than she described initially.

Could I be off on the distance? Certainly. Does that change the fact that a high kick to the head was effective in a self-defense situation? Not at all - and that was the original question, sparked in the thread this came from - could kicks to the head really work in a self-defense situation. All of the discussion about distance and angles and everything else saying why it couldn't have worked does not change the fact that it did work... and therefore I see no reason to respond further to those who say it can't.

I think it's been agreed by most that given the right set of circumstances they can work even if it's not the strategey we would chose. Perhaps we could elaborate on right and wrong circumstance as well as how to spot and create opportunities. I'd be interested in what those of you who train & prefer head kicks would have to say about this.

_Don Flatt

 

[MJS]

I find this kind of thread to be both amusing, and a shame at the same time. Firstly, it is amusing because many of the posters are saying basically the same thing in different ways, thus it sounds like they are disagreeing. Also, some of the "changing parameters" are comical if you take a closer look at them.

However, before I address the amusement in detail, I would like to say why I think this is a shame. We are going to have a wide range of opinions and experiences contributed here. The shame of it is that some of the posters (on both sides of the discussion), are not showing respect to others. Perhaps unconsciously, without intention, they are belittling one another with jabs and insults. Sometimes it is a subtle comment that refutes the other person's belief or the way they phrased their argument.

Yes, we are in pursuit of knowledge and we want to get our facts straight, but at what price? At the price of insulting our friends and respected colleagues. In this thread, I have seen Kacey (a respected and well-liked member of MT) brought to task over the difference of a few inches in her story. Does that really matter as to what she was trying to say? I don't mean to speak on behalf of Kacey, but I have a right to express my opinion, and I think a few people owe Kacey an apology (Don't bother excusing your behavior because you had "good reason" for challenging the specifics of her story - - the way it was done was inexcusable - IMHO!)

Yes, this happens from time to time. We (The mods) strive to keep this place as friendly as possible. While there have been some snippy posts, I'd say for the most part, things are civil.

As to the comical progression of the question at hand (and I have no intention of doing any back-tracking into another thread for the story where this originated because this thread stands on its own, and the question posed is clearly stated in the OP), let's look at what was asked.[/




Then comes the amusing adjustments of the parameters....
(I'm not going to quote who said what, because that is not really important.)

*seems to me to be rather indicative of the singular weakness of thee as CQ tactics for self defense.

*wants to pursue them in a nasty confrontation in a bar.

*The question is whether they are useful in a close-quarters self-defense situation against an unsought attack by a dangerous, but likely street-savvy assailant who's probably not much more than a foot away from you, and when every other avenue of escape from the situation has failed.

*But not when the target's 14" or less away from me hand has just grabbed my shirt or thown a haymaker at me from that distance.

*We aren't discussing the feasibility of a kick to the head per se. We're discussing the feasibility of doing a standing split, in an upright position, on a bad surface surrounded by tables/trashcans/jostling bodies/etc. in the fraction of second you need to terminate the fight.

*What is at issue is not the possibility of executing high kicks, even high kicks at relatively close range, but the practicality of training for these very risky, difficult moves whose execution at CQ ranges requires, however you slice it, a practitioner's kicking leg to reach a position very near a standing split, whether driven by momentum or anything else, in the context of a streetfight.

*What is being debated here is not if a high kick would be effective.

*I'm sorry but within 18" is not the appropriate range for a high kick much the same way standing 3' to 4' away is not the appropriate range for grappling.

I would say that the parameters, what ifs or whatever else we may choose to call them, are in fact very important. As I said in another post, target availability and environment dictate what I do. Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but I get the impression that you're saying these factors are not important. So someone wearing a suit, a dress, jeans, sneakers, work boots, high heels is going to be able to execute these kicks without any issues? I have heard the "Well, if need be, I'll just take my shoes off." comment. So in the middle of winter and I know that CO can get some whopper snow storms, as I used to live there, people are going to take off their boots? Even if this happened during warm weather, what about the pavement? Unless the bottoms of ones feet are so dry and crusty, that one wouldn't feel anything, the pavement isn't that forgiving.

The point is, if we are going to discuss the use of "high kicks," I think it should be left to the kicker as to when, where, and how they would use them. "Scenario: kicks are not effective in self defense because if you try to balance on one leg on a snow covered hill of greater than 35 degree incline, while wearing rubber soul tennis shoes, and carrying 52 lbs of groceries, while facing West, into an Easterly wind of 23 mph or greater...."

Reality check - - almost any Martial Artist of significant knowledge is going to use the appropriate technique (hand, foot, knee, elbow, head, stance, takedown, etc) at the proper time, on the proper terrain, so let's dispense with the "it is not a good idea because a,b, or c could go wrong."

Well, now where getting somewhere. Looks like we're in agreement with this.

As to crowded bars, I have worked this environment for many years, and was the director of security at a nightclub for seven years. I have seen lesser skilled Martial Artists who were trouble makers use high kicks successfully against other people in fights (and no, they weren't drunk). I have also used high kicks quite successfully (a couple of them were drunk, but still dangerous).

In another post here, I had comment how this weekend I was at a casino watching a show. When it was done, it was literally wall to wall people. Everyone walking in every direction. In a situation like that, I can't imagine a high kick even being thought of. Goes back to my environment theory.

I'm trained as a kicker, but I will agree with much of what has been said that l would only use a high kick in the street if the situation was right, and the opportunity presented itself. Being very good at kicking, I can usually make the opportunity present itself. One misconception that has been brought up is the ease, and safety of punching over kicking. Here, I would disagree, but it does depend on the person defending. If your muscles do not stretch well, or you have not trained to kick high, then a "high section kick" in the street would be out of the question (setting aside the reality of preferring to kick low to cause the opponent to bend over first, or taking them down then kicking the head - - I prefer that method too!)

Depending once again on the situation, punching my be the best option. In a clinch or if you're grabbed, I dont think anything other than knees and stomps would be coming into play.

On the other hand (or foot), one can only speak to one's own abilities and personal preferences. To say that kicking to the head at a high level target in the street is "too risky," "dangerous," "impractical," etc., is not to understand the skill involved as well as an expert. A fight is "risky" but any technique thrown makes you vulnerable, but kicks are not more risky because risk is reduced when expert knowledge is applied at the optimum timing. Now, I don't disagree with the "experts" that exile quotes, because I do not know them personally, and I have no knowledge of what their full training in kicking might entail.

However, if someone says that kicking high is a bad idea, then I would agree that "their experience" of kicking high was a bad one. Did they actually try it, and it failed? If so, how many times before they said this isn't working? Why wasn't it working? Did they use the wrong kick at the wrong distance, or kick on a poor surface and fell, or had too many objects or people around them and couldn't get their leg up to the target? Were they great street-fighters/bar bouncers/cops/military soldiers, but not truly "experts" at kicking? I know this is possible - - I have had a few like that as students of mine (I train bouncers/LEO/military/executive protection personnel).

If a person is in a wheel chair with legs amputated, then they will say that kicks are not a good idea (at least not for them). If a person can kick, but trains more to kick low, then High Kicks are not a good idea. If they are experts at kicking high, but don't have much training or experience at how to use it in real-life, then they might not do well at its application. It does not take a world-class athlete, or a "Chuck Norris" type to be successful. It takes the proper training, and the proper application.

Ok, Don, I enjoyed your tongue-in-cheek approach to stating the obvious...



(note my red highlight. Just how much time do you think it takes for a kick to the head? Mine are not super-human, but get there faster than a block.)

Out of curiosity, how do you position your hands? Do you primarily throw these high kicks from the front or rear leg? How much telegraphing or weight adjustment do you notice when you're kicking?

Yes, there are many situations which aide in the application of a High Kick, and they all make sense (especially #4) Isn't that what we're supposed to do - - distract them first? You know, there are really skilled pick-pockets who can remove your wallet, watch, jewelry, etc., without you even knowing it. Now, they don't say to you, "I'm going to take your valuables, see if you can detect it, and stop me." Yet, millions of people fall victim to their skills every year.

Good point.

In a real fight, not every opponent is an "expert at hand-to-hand." In all my years of training (45+), I have encountered very few opponents who were Martial Artists at all, and have yet to face an "expert." Perhaps the real experts know better than to fight unnecessarily. The vast majority of opponents, I could have told them what I was going to do, and they still would not have succeeded in avoiding it. Opponents in the street don't know I'm going to kick, and they certainly don't know when it is coming to the head.

Yes, I've said the same thing, many times. Chances are, we're not going to face a UFC fighter. Then again, I dont want to assume that I know this persons skill.

As to "close quarters" High Kicks, I have used them, and it is not risky if done right. One example (which has been alluded to) can be seen in "A Force of One" with Chuck Norris and Bill "Superfoot" Wallace. Bill is fighting another opponent in the ring, and is against the ropes. He leans back, flings the hook kick up and nails the guy in the back of the head. This does work in the street. Another scenario is when I was being punched rapidly by a guy at close range. I blocked, and stood within arms reach as I brought my right roundhouse over his shoulder and smacked him in the side of the head. He never saw it coming, I was never off balance, and I could have used those "pesky hand techniques" of his as a control option if I wanted.

Well, at least we're admitting there is a potential risk involved.

The risky think about punching is that you have to get your own face close to your opponent. If you miss, you are vulnerable to a counter-strike. Kicking (even to the head) is designed to "reach" an opponent who is still out of range of the hands, thus you remain relatively safe. As to comparing the speed of a punch to a kick, remember that an opponent knows to stand outside your arms reach, thus any punch has to be accompanied by closing the distance (telegraphing), so not likely to land.

Conversely, a kick can be within range without the opponent realizing it, and reach the head before the brain can react. You don't pose, and stand for long, and you don't risk balance unless you are slow and don't know how to strike effectively. Plus, a kick that goes "south" is not the end of all things. I can think of a hundred things an opponent can do against my kick, and I prevent most of them, but even if they are lucky, I can think of a hundred ways to hurt them "bad" as a counter to whatever they do during my kick.

Ultimately there is a risk with everything.

DArnlod - the points you made in your post were absolutely, without question, brilliant (and not just because I agree with them). I saw that your profile says you are a "VI Dan" and I was not surprised. Not to throw the issue of rank around here (tacky), but it sometimes takes a high ranking expert of a subject to fully grasp the insights as you presented them, even if others don't see it the same way (I don't mean that in a demeaning way to anyone else, so keep cool everyone).

The only problem is that you did so with the harshness of an "expert" imparting their knowledge on the "less knowledgeable" (an offense that I repeat far too often). Although I believe you have a lot to offer here, and I would like to get to know you better, it is a fact that survival in this forum means that you might want to tone down the brash approach and sarcastic quips. I, for one, would like to see you stick around and share your knowledge with all of us, and compare it with what I have experienced.

CM D.J. Eisenhart

I think, for the sake of the thread, I'll refrain from further comment on that.

Mike

 

[exile]

Then comes the amusing adjustments of the parameters....
(I'm not going to quote who said what, because that is not really important.)

*seems to me to be rather indicative of the singular weakness of thee as CQ tactics for self defense.

*wants to pursue them in a nasty confrontation in a bar.

*The question is whether they are useful in a close-quarters self-defense situation against an unsought attack by a dangerous, but likely street-savvy assailant who's probably not much more than a foot away from you, and when every other avenue of escape from the situation has failed.

*But not when the target's 14" or less away from me hand has just grabbed my shirt or thown a haymaker at me from that distance.

*We aren't discussing the feasibility of a kick to the head per se. We're discussing the feasibility of doing a standing split, in an upright position, on a bad surface surrounded by tables/trashcans/jostling bodies/etc. in the fraction of second you need to terminate the fight.

*What is at issue is not the possibility of executing high kicks, even high kicks at relatively close range, but the practicality of training for these very risky, difficult moves whose execution at CQ ranges requires, however you slice it, a practitioner's kicking leg to reach a position very near a standing split, whether driven by momentum or anything else, in the context of a streetfight.

*What is being debated here is not if a high kick would be effective.

*I'm sorry but within 18" is not the appropriate range for a high kick much the same way standing 3' to 4' away is not the appropriate range for grappling.

LF, you've made some interesting and useful points in the discussion, and I appreciate the tone of your post very much!

But I think that you have a misimpression of what the different statements about the parameters—the conditions that those of us who remain skeptical about high kicks at close range in the opening phase of a streetfight in a complex environment, i.e., pretty much anything that's not a dojang floor or an open field—actually represent. You're taking the various numbers and qualifications specified as though they came from a single poster and were intended to be fixed and literal each time, so that the poster in question keeps changing his or her story. In fact, what they represent are several different posters, all of whom are trying (i) to outline a combat range, corresponding to their various experiences of the distance at which a physical attack begins and (ii) to indicate the kind of conditions which hold for the original question about the practicality of the kind of kicks the OP asked about. As the discussion proceeds, people bring in different numbers or sets of conditions as a way to fine-tune their response to what previous posters have been saying. People are using different numbers because they are approximating the conditions—that's hardly changing the parameters! So far as I can see, those of us who remain unconvinced of the wisdom of high kicks in close-range, all-in fighting are talking about the same general range and the same set of conditions:

Range: at or closer than 12"–18". A foot correspnding to a double handed grab with a head butt coming (very popular in the UK especially and other parts of the Commonwealth, but far from unknown in North America), or someone trying to set you up for a sucker punch, always more effective delivered close in, to a foot and a half (arm grab with left hand to anchor you for the John Wayne with the right). We're talking order of magnitude here, LF. What you don't note is that all of these numbers are comfortably smaller than the length of the average person's lower leg—from the knee hinge down—let alone that length plus the distance of the maximally raised knee. Regardless of what the description is, the kicking leg, travelling up, has got to get past the assailant's body en route to his head, which puts us in a significantly different fighting range. If I kick someone to the head at that range, say 26"–30"—and yes, I can comfortably crack the jaw of someone my own 6'+ height with a front kick held in close to my body—that is not going to be a response to an attempted head butt, grab-and-punch, or shove. That is going to be a preemptive strike, which I will happily deliver if someone who seems menacing comes into my roughly 2' away `line in the sand' distance (again, LF, an approximation ) after I've warned them not to get any closer. It's going to be a hard and accurate kick and they will hurt. But that is not what the OP was about.

Conditions: Every streetfight is different. But the ones I have had the misfortune to be involved in, and those I've witnessed, have invariably taken place in very chaotic environment: inside a bar (several of these), once on a very densely trafficked main street in Victoria, B. C. (I'm still a little confused on what actually happened) and on subway cars in NYC back in the pre-Giuliani days. People are approximate in their descriptions of these because the conditions are wildly variable. People in the environment, the nature of the ground (moving, in the case of subways), tables and chairs, glass, gravel bits... in other words, non-dojang conditions.

Now, the topic of the original post is the feasibility of high kicks `on the street.' The purpose of specifying `on the street' is, if I understand Kosho's intentions correctly (as borne out by his subsequent posts) to distinguish high head kicks under sparring conditions in normal dojos from those attempted in streetfights. I have made the critical assumption in my posts that the fight has been initiated, so preemptive striking is not at issue, and I've made that explicit repeatedly. I think anyone who reads the posts carefully, without any particular view or agenda on the subject, will see that the skeptics are all talking about a particular range—a range, by definition, is a set of numbers, not a single fixed number—and the kind of conditions which hold in the streetfights we've either witnessed or been involved in.

It just amuses me how the general topic of "high kicks" and their "effectiveness in the street" can become so restricted in the scenarios.

The restrictions in question are not arbitrary, however, but are rooted in facts about the body, in relation to the situation and the enviroment that the OP is asking about. This is why the scenario Kacey described—a nearly vertical kick delivered from very close to the defender's body—became the focus of discussion at one point. The OP, and the background discussion in the thread this one split off from, are about a very specific technique which requires certain specific configurations to deliver—a fact that has lead Mike, jks, Kosho, me and various other to express bafflement at just how the techs described could be physically realized, given the way bone and muscle work in relation to certain absolutely nonnegotiable facts about geometry. And people who've spent considerable time effort studying the actual `habitual acts of physical violence', like Patrick McCarthy, have identified a typical range of attack initiation. Finally, the kinds of environments that represent specific problems for real-world self-defense—constraining the defender much more than the attacker, who can pick his time, angle and approach, whereas the defender has to work with where he is and what else is around once the fight begins—are implicit in the notion `street', as most of us seem to understand the term in a MA context. Put them together—the fighting range implicit in the OP, the anatomical constraints on, specifically, high kicking movement (again as per the OP), and the kind of environments in which that kind of fighting takes place most problematically from the defender's point of view—and yes, you're going to be talking about a restricted range in the general case.

However, if someone says that kicking high is a bad idea, then I would agree that "their experience" of kicking high was a bad one. Did they actually try it, and it failed? If so, how many times before they said this isn't working? Why wasn't it working? Did they use the wrong kick at the wrong distance, or kick on a poor surface and fell, or had too many objects or people around them and couldn't get their leg up to the target? Were they great street-fighters/bar bouncers/cops/military soldiers, but not truly "experts" at kicking? I know this is possible - - I have had a few like that as students of mine (I train bouncers/LEO/military/executive protection personnel).

The people I've cited are experimentalists, LF; they work on SD techs in live training that very few people would wish to experience themselves. They are rather nonsectarian in their toolkit, and try to construct technique sets for every range. I don't know what your experience has been; I know that Geoff Thompson, for example, has been in hundreds of fights, and Lawrence Kane, part of Abernethy's extended research newtwork, estimates that a security consultent, operative and enforcer at NFL football games for many years he's been personally involved in in excess of 300 violent conflicts. These guys regularly get together at seminars with each other with people from BJJ and other JJ styles, various reality-based systems similar to Brian van C.'s Instinctive Response Training, TKD, various Okinawan/Japanese karate styles, wrestling, and FMAs (our own Don Anderson of MT has participated in Abernethy's elite-groups training seminars; he's actually got a post somewhile back about the most recent one he attended). They haven't said, hmmm, this probably won't work, I won't train it; if it works, they'll add it to their toolkit, and if it doesn't in their scenario training—live, noncompliant and hard enough that people get bones broken during them, even with protective gear—they won't. The people of cited, as I've said before, are violence professionals, as I am not and would not want to be; I find their credentials bona fide and impressive, am glad they do what they do to make the results available for those of us who's just as soon do something a little less dangerous for a living, and am happly not to do things that, from their vastly greater experience, they've judged to be, in most cases, a serious mistake.

Taking my cue from their expertise—please note, I'm claiming nothing along those lines for myself, eh?—I have to look at stories about high kicks that were successful in confrontations in the following way: there is little doubt now that smoking is heavily implicated causally in lung cancer incidence. The death rate for women who smoke ~1.5 packs per day is on the order of twenty times that of women who do not smoke; as I recall, if you then remove women who are regularly subject to serious second-hand smoke from the `non-smoker' pool, you will wind up with a still more lopsided ratio. But as we also know, not everyone who smokes develops lung cancer over the course of a lifetime. The numbers are hard to obtain; I believe I saw an estimate that something like six out of ten long-term heavy smokers will develop lung cancer. That means that four out of ten, though they may well develop other life-threatening/terminating conditions as a result of smoking, never develop what we think of as the `signature dish' of a lifetime of smoking. Does that mean that given the choice, smoking is a health-wise thing to take up? The inherent risks of exposing yourself to that kind of danger make it unlikely. And analogously, the people whose work in this area I take seriously are saying that given the inherent risks and inherent difficulties in executing a head high kick at close range in a `street'-style conflict and environment your odds are worse if you opt to do so, and that you're probably much better off training other weapons than trying to train high head kicks as way to improve your odds. If I'm discussing smoking with a nonsmoker and a 90-year old smoker and urge the former not to take it up, and the latter chips in with, `Oh yes, you say what you like, and those of us who smoke and enjoy it and know it's safe, because here we still are, will just puff away happily', I think most of us would shake our heads; the SD people I've mentioned have come to the same conclusions about the risk of high kicking, based on their repeated, constant involvement in serious dangerous fights on a regular basis, but just as with the older smoker who never develops lung cancer, there are going to be MAists who make comparable retorts based their own experience in which they didn get hurt. But I myself think the two cases are quite comparable, if the people I've referred to are right in their assessment. The 90-year old is off there chuckling, `Oh yes, you go ahead and listen to those doctors, they don't know anything.' And I'm sure there are people whose views are the same about high kicks. Adept's point nonetheless seem to me to correspond to the doctors' best advice:

My thoughts on high kicks in a real-life situation:

Appropriate times to be kicking to someones head are far fewer than appropriate times to be striking someones head with another tool.

For example:

A head high kick takes longer to reach it's target than the equivalent hand technique. This gives your opponent more reaction time.

A head high kick places you in a vulnerable position, standing on one leg within 'shoot' range of your opponent.

A head high kick often requires some kind of twist of the grounded foot, which increases the risk of falling or slipping.

A head high kick has a slower recovery time, and until the kicking foot is planted on the ground your balance and mobility is limited.

A effective head high kick, for most people, requires warming up and loose pants.

A head high kick limits the ability to move and strike simultaneously, unlike handstrikes.

Having said all that, I won't say you should never kick someone in the head.

Simply that it is rarely the best option and should always be a fail-safe strike where even if it goes pear shaped, you don't end up eating asphalt.

In connection with this last point, LF, you mentioned that you find arm techs risky because you have to be in vulnerable range to apply them. But again, the assumption is that the fight has already come to you, your best effort to avoid it notwithstanding. If an attacker throws a close-up round house or jab at you, you are already in that range. As to whether you should let that happen, there are a couple of threads running now on preemptive strikes; that's not, if I understand the OP correctly, what's at issue. So the assumption of this whole thread is that you're involved in an unsought close range attack already; what's your best shot at ending it quickly?

Finally, I think it would be best to avoid the issue of who has been rude to whom, who owes whom an apology for what, and so on for the rest of this discussion; just as Kosho's previous post suggests, there are very different view on this depending on who you ask. The Mods have spoken to us discussants and we need to adhere to their directives. Henceforth, speaking strictly as a participant in this discussion, it would probably be much better for the health of the thread to try to avoid charged personal topics and issues, and stick to the issues raised in the OP.

 

[kaizasosei]

Granted High kicks and spinning are risky and sometimes practically sacrifice moves.
however, aside from that, as far as flexibility and agility permit i say ANY KICK, ANY ANGLE,ANY TARGET,ANY HEIGHT.
A kick is a kick...but let it be a solid good and nice one!!!


j

 

[LawDog]

High kicks in a street situation, not with standing a surprise attack, can be done if,
1) the kicking range is correct,
2) your opponent is either in a stationary position or moving forward much like a heavy footed boxer / kickboxer. Note, I am not saying that all boxers / kickboxer are heavy footed.
3) the lead in / setup technique is proper for the situation,
4) the follow up technique is proper for the situation,
5) the kicker is flexible enough to execute a high kick when he is not fully warmed up,
6) the ground surface is not slippery or does not have a high friction factor,
7) the kickers surroundings will allow for a wide radius for either horizontal or verticle high kick,
8) and the kicker has the nades to do it.
:boxing:

 

[Sukerkin]

Eck! What a long thread, packed to gunnels with good posts from various points of view.

To those who have contributed positively, regardless of stance (yeah, Martial Arts pun attack :lol:!), many hearty 'well dones'.

'Axe grinding' has little place in serious discourse so kudos to those that rise above it :rei:.

My own puny tuppence on this is that I trained for more than a decade in Kung Fu (a style not reknowned for the conservativeness of it's kicking techniques ) and from almost day one was advised that high kicks were probably not your best option in 'street fighting' (Lord, how I hate that term ).

We sparred using head kicks, indeed it was one of my favourite tecniques to put a wrist lock on as I evaded a punch and follow that with a roundhouse to the head whilst I still had hold of the opponent (sighs with memory of ever being that flexible ). We trained them into reflex just like all the other techniques.

When the time came for me to put it into practical use, it never even entered my head to try a head kick (wet cobbles, alley-way, cowboy boots, tight jeans) - after all, a low kick that breaks a leg is just as effective at stopping someone than a more flamboyant high kick and I think is lower risk.

To those that have opined that they can employ such kicks with ease in a fight in a pub, then I'm not going to argue as you obviously have reason to believe so. I can only speak fo rmyself when all is said and done.

 

[MJS]

Well, hopefully I can get a sincere answer to these questions and not one hidden with sarcasm. My questions are as follows:

1) When faced with a situation, do you always opt for a high kick or do you base your response to the conditions present at that time?

2) Would you describe the encounter(s) in which you used the high kick?

Mike

No problem, I would be happy to share with you offline.

Hi Doug,

Just wondering if I could get some feedback on these questions. I asked here, you said you'd rather take it offline. I took it to PM, but still no reply.:idunno:

 

[DArnold]

My thoughts on high kicks in a real-life situation:

.

Last Fearner,
You are correct for chideing me and I am deserving of that.

Adept,
All that you post here are myths that could be dispeled by working out with a good TKD instructor.

You are playing the "what if" game with kicks and assumeing that kicking posture is stagnent or absolute. Using the logic in your assumptions above even hand techniques falls apart also.

Like the assumption (which you did not make) where someone said, "Well, what if your in shoes and street cloathes". As if no one who practices high kicks ever thought to practice in shoes or steet cloaths, or outside, or on uneven surfaces. Could you really conceive that no one who does high kicks every really thought about this? Man, if these questions were followed to their natural conclusions then everyone in TKD or that uses high section kicks would be a moron and deserve to have their butt kicked.

Appropriate times to be kicking to someones head are far fewer than appropriate times to be striking someones head with another tool.

This is your preference for fighting. In TKD, our theory is that we would rather be at legs lenght than at hands length. I don't like the thought of someone else getting their hands on me. So this is just fighting preference. Is it absolute, no. But just as it sounds like you perfer hands, a grappler would perfer taking you to the gournd and does not agree whith what you think appropriate either.

A head high kick takes longer to reach it's target than the equivalent hand technique. This gives your opponent more reaction time.

Myth, Is the distance longer. Sure. But there are more factors at play than distance, sure. If trained your legs can be faster than your arms. I know people who could kick you in the head three times before your hand could be raised from your shoulder level to cover your face. It was Bill Wallace who taught me to work out with a speed bag with my kicks. I think he knew what he was doing!

A head high kick places you in a vulnerable position, standing on one leg within 'shoot' range of your opponent.

Shoot range? Ok, yes, and punching puts you within that range also??? So run in and let me use my knees on you like MT. Or as anyone knows when you start to attack you will open up and I can kick you agian. Any time you go on offence you are in a vulnerable position. Unless you have figured out a way to attack and not open up. This is what most call coming-and-going at the same time. Not possible.

A head high kick often requires some kind of twist of the grounded foot, which increases the risk of falling or slipping.

Every technique be it hand or foot derives its power from the ground.
A boxer can not do a knock out punch without twisting their feet on the ground. Many make it sound like when you kick you leave your leg up and stand like a stork. When you walk you lift your foot off the ground and based on this could fall or slip. When you kick at mid section or at low section (Knee, groin...) do you also fall over or just stand there and let your opponent decimate you? Can you do multiple techniques when kicking lower or follow with hands? If not their then why not when kicking high?
When applied to high section , do all natural laws of physics and fighting stop applying? The basis of your mass is approximately where your hips are and in order to maximize power in any technique you use your hips, which in most all cases requires you to move/pivot your feet. It again narrows down to if you practice this.

A head high kick has a slower recovery time, and until the kicking foot is planted on the ground your balance and mobility is limited.

Slower recovery time, maybe in milliseconds, but the deliverance of power is based on your base which can be controlled by many factors, of which muscle size is not one. It is basically dependent on your base, how you connect to the earth, and once again, when you do a knock out punch you must increase your base, and WALLA, your mobility is limited. But does a boxer only throw one punch? Must a kicker only throw one kick?
As with anything your base will be controlled by the angle(lean) of the base leg. And basic physics dictates that if you wish to increase your balance you simply lower you center of gravity (bend your knee(s)). Also read below about skipping, jumping, sliding...

A effective head high kick, for most people, requires warming up and loose pants.

Why? can you not thow a full lenght punch without warmups and a loose shirt? I don't know many MA's who have reverted to disco pants as they understand this. Also, as most injuries do not occure in the muscles (they will usually stretch 150% before tearing) This means you must be more aware of the joints and your extension as this is where most injuries occure. However, this is the same as punching, jumping, spinning... I have never heard anyone say, "Wait you can't attack me until I warm up"
What amount of injuries occure fighting vs. moving around in your home?

A head high kick limits the ability to move and strike simultaneously, unlike handstrikes.

So are you saying you must be stationary to throw a high section kick?
100 lbs hitting you in the temple is really irrelivant if its moving or stationary. What is your logic?

Sliding kicks
Jumping kicks
Running kicks
Reflex kicks
Pushing kicks....

Having said all that, I won't say you should never kick someone in the head.

Based on your training!

Simply that it is rarely the best option and should always be a fail-safe strike where even if it goes pear shaped, you don't end up eating asphalt

The "option" depends on how you train and the tools you are trained in. As many have said, if all you train in is mostly hand techniques, then yes, kicking seems unreasonable. But conversly, if your primary tools are kicking, then getting in and letting someone put their hands on you also seems unreasonable. Having both tools is the optimum war chest.

I need to make clear that I am not proposing that high section kicks are the end-all-be-all of anything. They are mearly one more tool in my arsenal of weapons.

Ditto,
And I also would agree with you that most people would not use this as part of their arsenal. If just for the simple reasons, the larger majority of people are not skilled or trained this way. You go with how you are trained, and then usually what you like which is also what you practice. So if you train with a 45 and I train with a 9mm I fail to see how either of us could discount the others training and have the odacity to call it FACT.

When I refer to the what if game I mean where you show a student a technique, say a release from a straight across grab to the wrist. You use the most basic Hapkido release. Then the student says, yeah, well that doesn't work because what if I grabbed both wrist. Then your technique doesn't work. No, it works, I simply use a different variation.

Therefore, based upon the logic (what ifs) people are using to refute kicking this would mean that releases from grabs were useless because your opponent could use two hands.

No Martial art or Style is that shallow and unthought out. All styles account for this where the scenarios and possibilitys are as flowing and as beautiful as an Aikido 5 on 1 defense.

But the what ifs usually range from the unthought out to the absure.
What is your standing on Ice, I bet you wouldn't kick him in the head. No, and I probably wouldn't punch either. As in any case you have lost your base of power.

Where I bristled is when someone came on and said, High kicks do not work. AND THAT IS A FACT.

 

[Kosho Gakkusei]

Exile,
In all fairness to people who favor the High Kicks we should allow discussion on pre-emptive High Kicks because that's probably the area of SD they'd be the most useful.

All,
I think that even in that context there are questions that need to be answered to make a pre-emptive high kick useful.
How do you set up the kick to gain the necessary element of surprise?
Which kicks are easiest to throw with the least amount of telegraphing?
Which kicks are most applicable in different terrains, environments, attire, & with cold unstretched muscles?
In the event you've missed the kick or it didn't knock the attacker out, now what?

Since the majority of us agree that most kicks can not be performed in close range and those that can are too risky for most of us. I'd also like to hear how those whose first choice of weapon would be a kick to the head regain the necessary range and how they deal with an attacker's momentum once they've gotten too close.

_Don Flatt

 

[DArnold]

High kicks in a street situation, not with standing a surprise attack, can be done if,
1) the kicking range is correct,
2) your opponent is either in a stationary position or moving forward much like a heavy footed boxer / kickboxer. Note, I am not saying that all boxers / kickboxer are heavy footed.
3) the lead in / setup technique is proper for the situation,
4) the follow up technique is proper for the situation,
5) the kicker is flexible enough to execute a high kick when he is not fully warmed up,
6) the ground surface is not slippery or does not have a high friction factor,
7) the kickers surroundings will allow for a wide radius for either horizontal or verticle high kick,
8) and the kicker has the nades to do it.
:boxing:

Law dog,
I'm baffled by your logic.

Let's say #1. Would you punch if the punching range were not correct?

Let's say #2. why does someone have to be moving toward you? Why do they have to be heavy footed? Is this your logic for punching also? You can only punch someone in the head if they are moving toward you and heavy footed? I've seen thousands knocked out who were small and moving away. What am I missing?

# 3 is true of any technique so I'm not sure what this has to do with kicking?

#4 you lost me here. Ok, I knock them out. does that mean that the proper follow up is????

#5 Only logic I can not disagree with!

#6 And standing on a slipper surface does not affect hand techniques????
Or a high friction factor would not stop you from moving your feet to do a punch?

#7 If these are the only two high section kicks you know of and are trained in!

#8 I don't know, do you have the nads to punch someone???? What is the difference?

Like Mushashi, if you can hit your point then everything else is irrelivant.
What are we all missing here other than it's not your perfered way?

 

[DArnold]

Ok,
I hit post and it said you must wait to post.
I waited then hit post again and it posted my reply twice.
And now it's gone?

 

[Carol]

Ok,
I hit post and it said you must wait to post.
I waited then hit post again and it posted my reply twice.
And now it's gone?

Hi Mr. Arnold...sometimes glitches happen. I tossed the duplicate post for you :asian:

- Carol Kaur -
- MT Moderator -

 

[Kacey]

Ok,
I hit post and it said you must wait to post.
I waited then hit post again and it posted my reply twice.
And now it's gone?

The duplicate was tossed by another moderator; sorry, she must have thought you didn't notice. Tossing duplicate posts is a standard action on this board, because everyone double posts from time to time, generally without meaning to.

***EDIT*** Just like Carol posted while I was writing this...

 

[LawDog]

DArnold,
I am at work right now, I will respond later after I close my school for the evening and get home.

 

[Kosho Gakkusei]

DArnold,

I'm baffled that a man of your experience doesn't see the difference between a punch and a kick. How come you don't see how a kick can magnify concerns over risks associated?

Your claims about people that can kick someone in the head three times before they can raise their hand sound like they belong in a full page ad in Black Belt Magazine titled KICKING SECRETS where you charge $175 for the course. That would be 2 pages after the ad about the Nebraska Mountain Man with the magnetic chi powers that sells his secrets too.

Forgive my skepticism but I'd need to witness claims like this before I'd give them any credulity.

_Don Flatt