Practical or Not Practical

From what I have seen from TKD to do techniques like that you have to be in a proper stance first. I'm guessing what you mean is if say they moved back to dodge it, and you kept spinning so your back would be to them anyways, but it would be hard to have THAT much momentum that you would spin a full 360 degrees. And what position would the foot on the ground be in?

 

If you can't visualise this, then you haven't seen much Thai, TKD or anything else for that matter.

 

OMG! All I am saying is that the kick by itself is impractical, and then I asked about using it after you miss with a first kick. I have never seen someone do a roundhouse and then turn in a complete circle and kick again without stopping. That seems more like ballet, unless I am getting a reverse hook kick confused with something else. Bottomline, if you can turn 360 degrees and have enough power to kick again(after the initial miss) why not use another thai kick?

 

And all I'm saying is that I've seen just this, but at the 180 degrees point.

 

Okay so you mean with the other leg than the first kick, okay I get you. I thought you meant use the same leg... sorry I got confused and I guess I was thinking of the wrong kick...I don't know all the names of them

 

Nope, that'd be a 180 roundhouse.

You should try some TKD to expand your ideas on kicking.

 

Okay ignore everything I have posted, I was thinking by reverse he meant spinning hook kick or something, now I know what you guys are talking about sorry

 

Okay first, Chilu, I was not saying you were a noob. I was merely saying a person starting out, a noob, anyone just beginning, not necessarily you. Second, on the note of a year and a half of training, did you completely miss the whole last part of my post? You could not possibly learn everything there is to know about any martial art in a lifetime much less a year and a half. I don't think anyone is qualified to say that any technique in any martial art is useless, while some may not be the most practical for the situation it most certainly could be used.

Also, yes, I was reffering to a reverse hook kick as a 180 degree turn. What you were thinking of was a 360 hook kick.



P.S. You can't just pick a kick and be able to do it properly out of the blue. A kick requires just as much practice to "perfect" as any grappling move.

 

TKD, I think we're thinking the same general thing. My only point is that an art should be structured in such a way that compound/more esoteric techniques come at higher levels, when students are ready to be exposed to them. Teaching spinning (or actually even the hook kick) at a lower level (white or yellow) is giving a student a technique that they don't have the understanding, experience, or even the basic muscle knowledge to use. That's a recipie for frustration and misunderstanding.

Plus, by handling it this way, by the time they get to spinning techniques they have a practical reason for learning them: namely that they need to use them to have an new avenue of attack because other avenues are shut down.

Bottom line: when a technique is taught students should be able to understand or perceive at a minimum the gross application of a technique. If they can't then they aren't ready to learn it.

And you don't just have to take my word for it. Kwan Jang, as usual, has posted a very well thought out reasoning of exactly this (and that's why I dig him so much):

The method of introducing techniques that Kwa Jang mentions is exactly how we handle things in our school. Practical application first and then tease ideas and possibilities. From a learning perspective, the environment is kept challenging (but an achieveable level). What I mean by that is we challenge our students, but not so much that they are frustrated on a continual basis by the fact that they can't access/understand the techniques that are being used.

- Matt

 

In almost every case I have seen, spinning maneuvers have been misapplied within their arts. There is a very real reason for having them, which Andy Murray as already gotten at, and it's not for stand-alone use.

 

When you put it like that, yes, I can understand and agree with your point of view. The only thing that I really disagreed with was that they should never teach anything you can't fully understand at that exact moment. Glad we could have this debate . It's not often that a debate that I'm actually interested in happens on here, it's good when it does though. Hopefully we all came away from this with something useful.

 

Exact right (why I dig The Wastrel and Andy). Again, they are a second tier compound technique. And very useful in that context. But the fact they are a second tier technique means that you need to understand and have the first tier of tecniques down in order to use them effectively. Again, an arguement for giving people techniques that they can immediately apply first. Once you do that folks will get to a point where they need to increase thier toolbox to handle the smaller percentage of situations that can be covered with those basic techniques. And oh, by the way, those second tier responses are almost always built out of combining one or more of the concepts taught by the first tier technqiues. And suddenly we reach the magic idea of skill/learning progression.

- Matt