Where do you land your lead front kick?

Monkey Turned Wolf

MT Moderator
Staff member
Obviously the answer to this is "it depends".

But I've seen different people practice with a lead front kick or a teep, aiming for either the head, abs/ribs, hips, knees and groin.

Assuming its for the purpose of stopping an incoming attacker, which is your personal preference, and why? How does your form change when you change the target?
 
If my opponent is the overly aggressive type, the type that likes to charge forward and overwhelm his opponents.... I like a lead leg, front snap kick, just above the belt. Nothing like starting off with a good body shot to get their attention.... the harder and faster they come in, the better for me.... its like they are impaling themselves on the ball of my foot.

If I can anticipate that they will charge, I will start in a front stance, even exaggerate it a bit, to be over that front foot.... that way when they come in, and I start to shift to my back foot, they see me "retreating," which is what they expected and they usually over extend to capitalize on my retreat.... the impaling is a lot more fun... for me ;)
 
If my opponent is the overly aggressive type, the type that likes to charge forward and overwhelm his opponents.... I like a lead leg, front snap kick, just above the belt.
Ohh this makes me add a second part to the question. Do people prefer snapping or pushing with this type of kick?

Also since I didn't answer, I like to do a push kick to the hips. Does a good job of getting them caught, losing the momentum of their attack, and lets me close in without them getting too far away.

Or if I want to do damage and not pull in, I pull into essentially a cat stance and aim to the abs (with more of a snap then a push).
 
Do you mean to stop an attacker as in to arrest his momentum, or in to make him physically (or psychologically) unable to continue the attack?

If I'm trying to arrest momentum, I want to kick as low as I can on the torso. It's faster from the ground to the hip than it is from the ground to the head, and it has the least chance of glancing off compared to a higher kick.

If I'm trying to create a physiological stop of the encounter, I want to aim for the solar plexus or the face, depending on how confident I am with my high kick in the moment.

One thing that changes the form of the kick is whether I'm doing an upward kick or a straight kick. An upward kick with the instep works really well if you've got the opponent bent over, if they're mid-shot on a wrestling entry, or if you're going for the groin. The straight kick (teep) works better against a standing opponent.
 
If I can anticipate that they will charge, I will start in a front stance, even exaggerate it a bit, to be over that front foot.... that way when they come in, and I start to shift to my back foot, they see me "retreating," which is what they expected and they usually over extend to capitalize on my retreat.... the impaling is a lot more fun... for me ;)
One thing I think is interesting, which I explored a bit in the past and should look into again, is how your stance can affect your range.

For example, let's say our torsos are 3 feet apart. My stance is 2 feet wide, so I am 2 feet away with my front leg and 4 feet away with my back leg. Any front leg kicks are going to miss unless I close the distance. But if I narrow my stance, so now my torso is still 3 feet from you, but my back leg is only 3.5 feet, then I have less of a gap to close. It throws off your timing for defenses.

What you're describing is similar, but the opposite application of the concept. The range of your front teep is based on your back foot. When you shift your weight back, your torso moves back, but your back foot is still in the same spot, which gives you the same range.
 
Ohh this makes me add a second part to the question. Do people prefer snapping or pushing with this type of kick?
I prefer snapping.... mainly because it works in more situations. Its fast.... and I can throw it at almost any time. Like to keep it low, just above the belt to make it both fast and harder to pick up on. Also, I can control the power a bit more. Now, if I don't really like the other guy and can set him up for it.... full thrust all the way through. But this one is much slower....
 
One thing I think is interesting, which I explored a bit in the past and should look into again, is how your stance can affect your range.

For example, let's say our torsos are 3 feet apart. My stance is 2 feet wide, so I am 2 feet away with my front leg and 4 feet away with my back leg. Any front leg kicks are going to miss unless I close the distance. But if I narrow my stance, so now my torso is still 3 feet from you, but my back leg is only 3.5 feet, then I have less of a gap to close. It throws off your timing for defenses.
Look up Bill Wallace on youtube... (Superfoot Bill Wallace) he does a really good job of explaining how to close distance with your back foot, similar to what you are suggesting.
 
Look up Bill Wallace on youtube... (Superfoot Bill Wallace) he does a really good job of explaining how to close distance with your back foot, similar to what you are suggesting.
I think that may be where I originally got the idea, but that was several years ago now.
 
One thing I think is interesting, which I explored a bit in the past and should look into again, is how your stance can affect your range.

For example, let's say our torsos are 3 feet apart. My stance is 2 feet wide, so I am 2 feet away with my front leg and 4 feet away with my back leg. Any front leg kicks are going to miss unless I close the distance. But if I narrow my stance, so now my torso is still 3 feet from you, but my back leg is only 3.5 feet, then I have less of a gap to close. It throws off your timing for defenses.

What you're describing is similar, but the opposite application of the concept. The range of your front teep is based on your back foot. When you shift your weight back, your torso moves back, but your back foot is still in the same spot, which gives you the same range.
This feels like a fencing principle that I love/have applied throughout martial arts. If you stand in a normal fencing stance (similar to a bladed stance), and parry, the center of your chest is about 3 feet from the other persons arm, limiting your response time.

If you step back with your front foot, you feel like you're getting more distance, but the center of your body actually isn't moving a lot. If you move your back foot, even without moving your front foot back, the same distance, the center of your body moves back a lot further. So if you're pulling back, it does a lot more good to move the back half of your body back to get the range you need, then the front half.
 
Out of curiosity, I went and measured myself in a fencing stance against a tape measure. I was having to look at the tape measure while doing it, so my stances were not 100% perfect, but it should be fine.

First stance: Normal fencing position. Heel of my front foot is at 0" on the tape measure, my back foot is at 20", and my center is at 8".
Second stance: Retreating only my front foot. Heel of my front foot goes to 12" (so moved 12 inches total), Backfoot stays at 20", and my center is now at 13.5".

Third stance: Retreating only my back foot. Heel of my front foot stays at 0", backfoot moved to 32" (also moved 12 inches total), and my center is now at 17.5".

So if I move just my front foot, my center is moving about half the distance my foot actually moved (5.5 vs. 12), while if I move just my back foot, my center is moving about 3/4s the distance (9.5 vs 12).

If I transfer it to unarmed combat, it also means that my weight at that point is on my back leg, which lets me lift my front leg quicker, and that my front leg is 12 inches closer to the attacker, so it has less that it has to travel. In other words, there's a lot less telegraphing occurring.

It also translates well to getting your head out of the way of an upcoming punch while not ceding any actual distance.
 
I can't find the video I remember from a few years ago.... but watch at the beginning of this when he shows how to close the distance. From far, he steps with his lead leg first, then slides the back one under him. From medium, he just slides the back one in to replace the front foot.

The video I am looking for, he explains that part of what he is doing is hiding his movement. When you start, you are out of range. But if you slide the back foot forward, you effectively close the distance, without the front part of you getting any closer.
 
I can't find the video I remember from a few years ago.... but watch at the beginning of this when he shows how to close the distance. From far, he steps with his lead leg first, then slides the back one under him. From medium, he just slides the back one in to replace the front foot.

The video I am looking for, he explains that part of what he is doing is hiding his movement. When you start, you are out of range. But if you slide the back foot forward, you effectively close the distance, without the front part of you getting any closer.
This footwork and kick combos were fairly common in 70's tournaments and were something I drilled on. But no one could execute them like Wallace. In one part of the video, he says not to worry if you can't kick so high with power like him - practice and it'll come to you :D ha ha ha. I could do kicks to the head, but no way could I just freeze and hold them like that and talk at the same time. NO amount of practice would let me do that. Bill was blessed with a certain anatomy that allowed him to be the best ever (front leg) kicker in karate.
 
You are correct. The answer is "it depends".

If you're doing it to stop someone who is trying to close, then the kick should probably be fairly low. The point at which your leg has it's greatest reach is hip level. Because geometry.

As far as snap vs push goes... that also depends. If I just want to stop them from closing or move them back, I'd push.

The other thing I like from this kick is using it to jam an opponents kick. Have a student who really really telegraphed his kicks. So when we were sparring, I made it a point to kick him mid-thigh every time he telegraphed. Pretty soon, he stopped telegraphing.
 
I made it a point to kick him mid-thigh every time he telegraphed. Pretty soon, he stopped telegraphing.
That's good old-time training. You can tell him 10 times, and he'll still make the same mistake. Tag him a couple of times, and he's learned the lesson. When a student had his lead elbow up too high in class, I'd give him a shot to the ribs with a backfist, side kick or with my bamboo shinai, whatever was handy at the time. That's how I learned, and I learned it good. Maybe these days it wouldn't go over too well, but it was effective.
 
Assuming its for the purpose of stopping an incoming attacker, which is your personal preference, and why? How does your form change when you change the target?
So my perspective of stopping may be different.

I rarely think of any of the techniques I use as stopping force. I tend to think of things as damage force and interrupting force. My front kicks are the combination of the two. Any stopping that occurs is as a result of the pain that they feel. With my front kicks I want to cause damage which makes fighting me more difficult than it was before the kick because my attacker's body or mental state is trying to deal with the effects of that kick.

I can fight while moving backwards so "Stopping" an incoming attacker has never been a concern for me. Where some people will use a kick front kick to keep distance. I never use my front kick to manage distance. The goal for my front kicks is to degrade mobility and function so I target places that involve that. Kicks to the ribs to degrade breathing and kicks to the legs to degrade mobility. . I also use front kicks as set up or entry points.
 
Do people prefer snapping or pushing with this type of kick?
I prefer stabbing kicks. at angles that the body is least able to resist. I don't do many push kicks. I don't know if it's by choice or if it's because I was just focused on one type of kick at the time I was working on front kicks, even then. It was probably me working on the timing than the kick as I have never kicked someone full force with that kick. If I'm training the kick itself on the heavy bag then I cycle through all of my front kicks. I don't just train one. But in sparing I'm usually using the stabbing kick since it requires more accuracy and timing than the other kicks.
 
If I attack, I will use my front kick to disable my opponent's kick (such as kick his knee), bate him to drop his guard, so I can punch his face. Since knee is a very small target, front kick accuracy training is required (such as to kick on a small tree).

If my opponent attacks, I want him to run into my front kick, has broken ribs, and drop down.

My target is:

- knee, if I attack.
- chest, if my opponent attacks.
 
Last edited:
Do people prefer snapping or pushing with this type of kick?
I prefer pushing kick than snapping kick. I can use pushing kick to cover the distance. If I use kick to set up punch, I need to cover the distance. The snapping kick doesn't give me that advantage.

IMO, the best front kick path should be an upward and downward curve. It's very hard to develop that "upward and downward curve".

Han-groin-kick-face-punch-1.gif

This is how the long fist system trains the pushing front kick.

Pao-Quan-kick.gif
 
Last edited:
Back
Top