which would be that inner leg kick aimed at the groin.
now you wanted a cool name for it. So you got one.
(but just between you and me it is the same kick)
An inner leg kick will be angled around towards the inner leg… which would not be "vertical"… in fact, if it was vertical, it can't be a "roundhouse" kick… that was the point people were making.
Oh, and between you and me, they aren't the same kick.
ok lets look at the arm bar thing. I have arm barred a lot of people in fights and have only ever broken one guys arm. And dislocated a few shoulders here and there.
The arm bar works resisted exactly in training as it does in self defence in that it controlled the opponent and hurts like hell. From there you can attach a theory from evidence of arms being broken in arm locks that you could possibly break an arm with it.
Yeah… you missed the point. What I was saying was that your argument that you needed to train to the full application is a false equivocation, and I was using the fact that you don't train an arm bar to a break each time to highlight that.
so it is not really like a strike that has not controlled an opponent working because of theory.
A strike isn't to "control" an opponent… and frankly, your logic is flawed here. You're advocating kicking to a different target, with a different kick (no matter how much you think they're the same) to show how another kick works without relying on "theory"? Uh… no. You still have theory that the actual target would be hit, and that it would have the effect you're after… so… no.
this is why if you can it is beneficial to train things resisted. Training power is not the same thing as being able to land a powerful strike. There is more involved.
Resisted training is, and this'll shock you a bit, rather unrealistic.
And, yeah, I am more than aware of what is needed and involved to train something to application… for one thing, you need to come to an understanding of what application means in this sense… and in what context that application would take place…
ok this different kick idea. When an inside leg kick hits the groin without any alteration at all. It is effective. As shown in the video. That kick is no different to the inside leg kick. That kick was an inside leg kick. Same timing. Same opening.same combinations.
Look, to be blunt, that video is rather terrible. It shows a sloppy, poorly executed attempted low roundhouse, thrown lazily, which missed it's target entirely. Now, I don't know if this was in the closing moments of a five-round fight, but the kick itself was lacklustre, rather powerless (in the grand scheme of things), and thrown so badly it completely missed it's target, only landing (fairly softly, really) on a more sensitive target by accident rather than design. It's relative "effectiveness" took a fair amount of time to really take effect as well, it must be noted.
In other words, a badly done, poorly and lazily thrown round kick is not the same as a dedicated, trained, specific, or deliberate technique. It is not a groin kick, therefore the same as an inner leg kick, it's a messy low round kick that missed entirely, and was simply lucky to catch another target to have done anything at all. If it had landed where it was supposed to, it would have had little to no effect at all.
Not impressed with that one.
in resisted training it is a requirement to adjust the angle of every kick you throw because your target and yourself are moving. You physically could not train resisted if you could not aim kicks where you wanted them to go.
As it is in scenario training, Japanese-style kata geiko, drills, one-steps, and many, many more. And, as far as "you could not train resisted if you could not aim kicks where you wanted them to go", then why are you advocating kicking to a different target than the intended one? Surely that's exactly what you're doing there…
(and as a side note it is harder to consistently aim a kick at that inner leg moving under stress than to hit the groin)
Can be, yeah… that's mainly as the groin is part of the trunk, which doesn't move as much… but there are tricks to getting the inner leg more consistently, if you look for them…
The difference would be if you were looking purely at the target, or if you were looking at the optimal execution of the kick (and it's mechanics). A round kick is not optimal for attacking the groin, therefore it's not what most will consider a "groin kick".
but there is a counter theory that a groin kick is a different kick. Trained separately and called something cool in Japanese.
The Japanese name was not to make it "cool", it was to establish firstly what (mechanical) kick you were talking about, and secondly to demonstrate that it already had an established name.
i don't think you need separate kicks unless you have some unique situation where you cant land the inner leg.
Okay, how about if you're on the outside of their leg, and their knee is turned inwards? Do you need a separate kick then? How about if you don't want to kick the inner leg, do you need a different kick then? Can you really not see where separate kicks can be needed, or desired?
yeah i have said that as well. Pretty much why you can train that kick to a body part that wont get you kicked out of a gym. And then have a real chance of hitting a body part that will.
So what are you saying, people shouldn't bother with groin kicks at all, as inner-thigh kicks are just as good, or that inner thigh kicks are a good training substitute for groin kicks, as you can't kick people in the groin all training? You seem to be going back and forth between these…and they're not the same thing.
