Spinning Side Kick versus Spinning Back Kick

[Zepp]

My question is, what's the difference, in terms of when you would use them and what their tactical advantages or disadvantages would be?

Hi Freep,

You seem to have a very good technical understanding of how both kicks work already, so I'll just try to give you my opinion under K.I.S.S. rules. (K.I.S.S. = Keep It Simple Stupid )

With a spinning sidekick, you more or less need to finish the spinning motion before you throw the kick, and it requires chambering your leg as you would for a normal sidekick. (Chambered while still spinning of course.) It's the slower of the two, but I believe it has more potential power.

With the back-kick, whether spinning or not, it may be helpful to think of it also as the "mule-kick," because the leg motion is pretty much the same as a horse or mule would make kicking (just with one leg instead of both). You chamber your leg underneath yourself, and you throw the kick at the very second you get your head around to see your target. It's definitely the faster of the two.

Now as far as when to use each one, it comes down to personal preference. In any case, if you're going to be using either one on a person, you probably won't be spinning a full 360 degrees. In sparring, they both tend to come in handy when sparring mutiple opponents, or if someone is trying to move around to attack your back. In self-defense, you could use either to attack someone coming up behind you. Personally, I spend more time practicing the back-kick for its speed. Hope I've been helpful in some way.

I think this just has to be one of those things where we all have to be in the same room together.

Tru dat.

 

[jfarnsworth]

With a spinning sidekick, you more or less need to finish the spinning motion before you throw the kick, and it requires chambering your leg as you would for a normal sidekick. (Chambered while still spinning of course.) It's the slower of the two, but I believe it has more potential power.

With the back-kick, whether spinning or not, it may be helpful to think of it also as the "mule-kick," because the leg motion is pretty much the same as a horse or mule would make kicking (just with one leg instead of both). You chamber your leg underneath yourself, and you throw the kick at the very second you get your head around to see your target. It's definitely the faster of the two.

Right on!

 

[FearlessFreep]

Zepp, your summation of the two kicks is pretty much on line with my understanding. I like the 'mule kick' description for the back kick, and the difference in how the two are chambered matches my understanding

I think this just has to be one of those things where we all have to be in the same room together.

I agree I admit that TW still confuses me a bit on this

Thanks all. I really appreciate the different perspectives on the kicks as well as the different viewpoints on the strengths, weaknesses, and usages...

 

[TigerWoman]

Sorry, if I confused you. I think we are all on the same page. It was your description of spinning that threw me. Pivoting your standing foot slightly in to a sidekick position is not spinning. Back kick/mule kick=no spinning because then it becomes a spinning sidekick. TW

 

[Hwoarang_tkd26]

My question is, what's the difference, in terms of when you would use them and what their tactical advantages or disadvantages would be

I agree with every thing that has been stated above concerning the advantages/disadvantages between the two similar kicks.
However, I feel that it ultimately depends on which kick you feel the most comfortable with using, like in a sparring match for example.
I personaly tend to use 'em both, but Im probaby just a little bit more comfortable with the spinning back kick.

- Hwoarang_tkd26

 

[jfarnsworth]

I like them both. I use them both. Each have their own respective place and time to be used.

 

[Flamebearer]

I asked my sabomnim the question at tonight's class and got an informative response.

Assuming a fighting stance or back stance, a spinning back kick only turns your hips about 90 degress, the side kick turns your hips roughly 180. This means the back kick is faster to get off. However, the extra half turn in the side kick also closes distance with the target and can be launched at targets a bit further further away. Simularly, a back-kick can be used against closer targets where the target would be too close to get around on a side-kick.

Also, since the back kick keeps the kicking foot vertical, it's tougher to use against vertical targets, like someone with their side to you, or against a thigh (in non-sparring situations) as the kick has a higher tendancy to glance off to the side. The sidekick uses a horizontal foot (and we strike with the side of the foot, but only at the back, under the heel and ankle) so it's less likely to slide off a vertically oriented target.

Another point is that since the back kick is swung under the hip, it can pick up momentum through the swing that the sidekick does not, giving it more power (I think there is also a difference in power based on general mechanics and muscle groups involved, but I'm not sure)

That's what I mostly remember. What I came away with is, like most techniques, what and when you use it depends on the target, the distance, and the desired outcome (and desired next move)

That's the way I learned it!
-Flamebearer

 

[Miles]

With a spinning sidekick, you more or less need to finish the spinning motion before you throw the kick, and it requires chambering your leg as you would for a normal sidekick. (Chambered while still spinning of course.) It's the slower of the two, but I believe it has more potential power.

With the back-kick, whether spinning or not, it may be helpful to think of it also as the "mule-kick," because the leg motion is pretty much the same as a horse or mule would make kicking (just with one leg instead of both). You chamber your leg underneath yourself, and you throw the kick at the very second you get your head around to see your target. It's definitely the faster of the two.

Now as far as when to use each one, it comes down to personal preference. In any case, if you're going to be using either one on a person, you probably won't be spinning a full 360 degrees. In sparring, they both tend to come in handy when sparring mutiple opponents, or if someone is trying to move around to attack your back. In self-defense, you could use either to attack someone coming up behind you. Personally, I spend more time practicing the back-kick for its speed. Hope I've been helpful in some way.



Tru dat.

Good descriptions Zepp. This is an example where standardization of terms would be helpful.

I respectfully disagree with you as far as the spinning side kick being more powerful of the two. With speed comes power and the back kick is more linear so it is the faster of the two.

As far as using it while sparring, the back kick (when I use the term I am referring to a kick which contains the spin already), is rarely used offensively in Olympic sparring. It is a counter-attack to a back leg round or axe kick when the contestants are in "open stance" (belly-buttons facing the same way). It is a counter-attack to a fast kick (front leg roundhouse kick) when the contestants are in "closed stance" (both have same side leg in front or, as I say to the kids-belly buttons facing away from each other).

Miles

 

[FearlessFreep]

The other place I've heard of the (spinning) back kick used is as a second strike. Such as throw a roundhouse and then spin into a back kick. Thespinning kicks seems slow to develop in their own, so it's hard to use them as a first move attack, but I think they can be used well as the second blow in a mulitple-move attack

 

[jfarnsworth]

Always use them in a combination. Most often the only time you can use them as/on the first strike is if someone is moving in on you. Defensively I'd say use the back kick. I recently taught a class to my fellow Kenpoist's & part of it I focused on using the turning back kick or spinning side kick defensively. The reason I used both kicks were because some were better at one kick over the other. :asian:

 

[Tae Kwon Doughboy]

In our school they are both called spinning back pierce kick. We are taught to do it both ways. It doesn't make sense to me because the really are two different kicks. I think it would be easier to understand if they called them what they are!

I have trouble doing the spinning back side kick with only a 180 degree turn. I have to get another 60 to 90 degrees or I'd be kicking way off target. For some reason I'm not able to do a side kick with my weight bearing foot straight in line with the kick, ie. heal facing target.

I'm having a bugger of a time with spinning back hook. Maybe for the same reason. My momentum just stops at the point of the spinning back side kick.

 

[Zepp]

I'm having a bugger of a time with spinning back hook. Maybe for the same reason. My momentum just stops at the point of the spinning back side kick.

Hey Doughboy, if you're interested, here's a thread where we discussed the mechanics of the spinning hook: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15689

I think a lot of what we talked about can be applied to most spinning kicks.

 

[Tae Kwon Doughboy]

Thanks, Zepp. I'll check it out.

 

[Kenpoist]

Same motion but the side kick is the sword edge of your foot - good for softer targets and covers a larger area of the body. The back kick (or Mule Kick) is with the heel of the foot - more powerful, but you must be more accurate or you may miss target.

 

[LT2002]

Same motion but the side kick is the sword edge of your foot - good for softer targets and covers a larger area of the body. The back kick (or Mule Kick) is with the heel of the foot - more powerful, but you must be more accurate or you may miss target.

Though I typically use a blade edge for a side kick I wouldn't say that is the case 100% particularly with a spinning kick.

As are as being more accurate or one may miss target.....I dare say that is true for most strikes

 

[MichiganTKD]

They are almost the same kick. The only real difference is that a spinning back kick uses slightly less rotation than a back side kick, resulting in more of the kidney/spinal area facing the opponent. Very popular with WTF fighters because of its quickness. However, it does tend to leave the kidneys and spine more vulnerable to accidental or otherwise contact.
However, in each case the contact point is the same-the heel. The bottom of the foot is also used if no hard contact is desired.
Incidentally, the mechanics of back side and back roundhouse or spinning hook kicks are different. In a spinning back or back side kick, the hip rotation is much tighter or more linear relative to the target. In other words, your hips are focused more toward the opponent. With a back roundhouse/hook kick, you are executing a complete circular action with the hips. If you do that with a side kick, your foot will slide past the opponent instead of hitting him.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Interestingly, I was messing around with a friend of mine from a different school and I noticed that his side-kick was a bit different than mine.

We learn that a sidekick is done with the shoulders square to the body so that the line from shoulder, hip, knee, foot is a straight line and you are looking down your shoulder to the target. The blade edge of the foot is the striking surface.

His sidekick involved more shoulder rotation so his back was more turned to target. He was almost halfway between what I would call a side kick and a back kick. I can't remember what he struk with but it would not surprise me at all if it was the heel

 

[DuneViking]

Greetings all! Wonderful discussion!
Our rear kick, what was described as comming from a fighting, back, rear, T or L stance, with the rear foot , spinning across the back, impacts like the mule kick description, foot verticle or perpindicular to the ground, back to target, looking over kicking shoulder, impacting with the heel. It uses a 1/4 turn. I do not use it in sparring at all, but would definately in self defense.

Our spinning side kick interpretation continues the rotation a full 1/2 turn so the rear hip and leg executing the kick are facing the target before the thrust, impacting with either the bottom of the heel or side edge of the foot held horizontally. I use that mostly when sparring multiple opponents and have one trying to sneak up on me and can suprise them.

I tend not to attack with spinning techniques, unless the target is unable to jam or close, or is retreating. I continuously close in on unsupported spinning techniques whenever I can. I figure if an opponent wants to turn his back on me, I'll take advantage of it. I tend to think of the power of spinning strikes more as finishing techniques. I don't see how one can spin faster than I can come straight in, not that I will always do that, but when I see a spin comming, I move and at least get out of the way. What do y'all think?

 

[TKD USA]

..... I don't see how one can spin faster than I can come straight in,....

You should be careful of that I've seen many sparrers who can spin faster than the opponent can react.

 

[DuneViking]

You should be careful of that I've seen many sparrers who can spin faster than the opponent can react.

Excellent point!

My experience has been that against those super-fast spinners, I must judge to either retreat or close. Obviously, if I screw up on the judgement call, I get clocked!! My point is that if you can get it right, you can close even on a fast person who leads the attack with a spin, and either jam with your own leg, or get inside theirs and counter. In application, my first choice is to evade and look for an opening after you get a feel for your opponent, unless that opening is obvious. Also, another point, they may fake the spin to draw you in so one must understand this idea works best on a level playing field and should be adapted to your experience, as with everything else.