Talk:Kick

"Practicality of kicks" sections against NPOV rule?

There are two long paragraphs talking about how kicks should be executed with no references whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.65.198.210 (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This page needs help

In fact, all of the pages involving strikes, such as punches, kicks, and the Strike article itself needs to be cleaned up. There's a lot of misinformation without citing and signs of self-promotion of particular martial arts styles. I've tried to clean it up a bit, but I don't have the patience at the moment to finish the job. DRaGZ 08:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article has many problems, especially on a fundamental, conceptual level regarding the uses of the kicks. I will try to get around to making it more informed. (cameraoli)

Isn't there a bit too much emphasis on kicks in martial arts? - Redmess 19:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge 'reverse roundhouse kick' back into article

There seems to be a bit of confusion regarding what the actual definition of a reverse roundhouse kick actually is and it has effected a few other pages. Because of the little amount of information on that page and in the section on this kick page, I think that it would be best to merge the reverse roundhouse kick back into the kick article where it can be better solidified. This is by no means a permanent solution, just a solution until there is more concrete information on a reverse roundhouse kick. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 18:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

Further discussion has also taken place on Talk:Reverse roundhouse kick#merge (Guyinblack25 17:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

After much discussion and misunderstanding on my part, I agree. It would be better to clean up the kick section and have legitimate martial artists police the sections. I would be happy to submit my 1st and 2nd degree black belt certificates for verification. Spewgilist 20:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Chinese?

This article mentions things in Japanese and Korean, but what about Chinese, as it is also the country alot of people associate with martial arts. 70.55.201.213 09:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Chinese terms are a bit complex, as although there are ways to say "kick" (like ti (踢) or deng (蹬)), most kicks are named something-"leg" (jiao (腳) or tui (腿)) as a suffix); plus, each style often has different names for its kicks. (This may be true for older Japanese and Korean styles as well, but this article seems to be written from the (very similar) viewpoint of the (mainstream) karate and taekwondo styles.) Edededed (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

More examples (pics/vids) of side kicks please

I really need help with my side kick and I'd like to see a variety of pictures/videos on here of different styles doing side kicks. I know there is a good amount of variety between styles. Tkjazzer 01:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm

This article seems to have been taken over by modern martial arts enthusiasts, i'm sure throughout history man must have and will always use kicks unorthodoxly in countless do-or-die situations. --AnYoNe! 20:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Side kick brilliantly countered by..."

It says reverse kick, but many different styles use the term for different kicks and the page has no listing for a simple reverse kick. This needs to be clarified. It seems like alot of the info is biased, I tried cleaning it up some too--Hakageryu 03:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverse kick is kicking from the back leg, front leg kick is done with the foot that's forward. In karate, a simple reverse kick would be called a front kick, in muay thai, it would be called a thrust kick. --CNGK april 30, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.92.122.10 (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Soccer

This page only references martial arts and kicking. What about soccer and american football. THese things have kicking. Include them, or you will feel awful about your lack of information about kicking. I think kicking is great, go kicking, let's make kicking the best page ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.143.96 (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

They are covered in Kick (football) which is listed on the disambiguation page linked at the top. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The "back kick" animation is wrong

In my opinion (I am a taekwondo instructor) the animation of this Brennan-guy using a "back kick" pretty clearly shows what is here called a "reverse side kick" (I know it as mom dollyo yap chagi, or parryo yap chagi), a kick which is also listed in this article, but below the back kick. I say this because he is very clearly completing the kick with his side, not his back, facing the opponent, and his kicking knee is clearly not even close to his other leg. This looks like a kind of "loose" (with regards to the gap between his legs) turning side kick to me. In taekwondo we use the "back kick" (dwit chagi) a lot, in fact it's one of taekwondo's claims to fame, so I believe I know what I'm talking about here. In a pure dwit chagi your kicking foot passes the leg you are standing on with just a tiny gap to spare (in fact it is quite possible to kick the foot you are standing on, something I have done many times over the years), and you don't turn all the way around (you look over your shoulder with your back to the opponent as the kick hits). This means the knee on your kicking leg can't fly way up away from the leg you are standing on either, it stays close. This makes the kick very fast (in fact too fast for most, as it's tricky to aim), and stronger than the side kick version, although both have their strengths and weaknesses. Anyway, the animation very clearly does not show this. It shows what looks like a karate guy throwing a wide turning side kick, which I think is exactly what it is. I suggest either the text or the animation be changed, as this is misleading. Ravstein 06:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My only comment it I know that different styles use different names for the same kick, so it would need to be based on what the style demonstrating called it--Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in terms of Tae Kwon Do, that is definitely a "back side kick" or "back turning side kick", not a true "back kick". Basically, he makes about a 3/4 turn while throwing the kick instead of about a 1/2 turn, and the foot comes out as it would in a side kick, instead of more vertical. As to the relative power of the two kicks, the back kick is indeed a very powerful kick; but the turning adds to the power of this side kick. I'd say they are both very powerful, and differences would depend largely on the person doing them. Omnedon (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In my karate program, we'd call that a spinning side kick. (horizontal foot = side kick; vertical foot with toes downward = back kick). Nevertheless, no one here is right or wrong, terminology is always style-specific. What we need to do here, in my opinion, is begin by clearly defining the anatomical positions of the various kicks without naming the kick, then discuss (using references!) what various major martial arts would call that kick. This comment applies to the next section, also. Bradford44 (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

👍 105.113.104.85 (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, we all seem to agree here. Since the text describing the two kicks in the article make sense, and the animation clearly shows what in the article is dubbed "reverse side kick", I am going to change the animation text. I'm not trying to argue which style or kick is better here, but we seem to have a textual clarification now with regards to the two different kicks, so I am going to make sure the image matches the description we've given. Ravstein 00:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to mention on a side note that I agree that we should focus on the human body as providing classification of different kicks, rather than styles providing them. What I mean by that is that even though you can use many different names for a roundhouse kick (I would for instance feel more comfortable right now writing "dollyo chagi"), and you can roundhouse kick in different ways (large motion vs. knee straight up in front, shin vs. some part of the foot, etc.), it's all basically the same kind of thing as far as where the foot is thrown by the human body. I'll give a sugggestion under a new header. Ravstein 00:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

How kicks are viewed in taekwondo

There might be several places in the article this goes for, but I just noticed this one now, so this will be a start for this discussion theme. According to the article: "In taekwondo, the front kick is regarded a push kick, a very powerful kick that pushes the opponent away or onto the ground, as well as a rapid strike on the opponent's groin or chin." Now, I've been teaching taekwondo professionally for more than 6 years, and to me that just looks wrong. We have a push kick, that's true, in fact you could say we have at least a couple (counting the side kick variant). However, that has a seperate name. At least in all the terminology I have come across, the push kick is called "mira chagi". And there is a clear distinction between mira chagi and ap chagi, simply because the kicks are executed and used differently. Ap chagi is a front kick like the common one in karate. You may strike upwards with the instep, or forward (or upwards, if aiming high) with the front base of the foot (toes lifted). But it is definately a kick, not a push. Anyone disagree? Ravstein 06:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravstein (talk • contribs)

For Taekwondo specific is I assume correct, (not an art I've studied) the problem comes in generalising if you can correct bits that refer specifically to TKD that would be a great help, especially if you could reference them to a book on technique as the article is currently severely lacking in sources. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in my experience, "ap chagi" is usually executed as a snap kick. A push kick, to me, involves bringing up the heel and pushing it forward; one can break with it, especially concrete, but it doesn't have "snap". Omnedon (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To me, there is a difference between a front snap kick, (strike with the ball, upward angle), and a front thrust kick (knee comes up first, angle is forward, and the strike is with the ball or the heel). Also, I agree with Omnedon that "front kick" (in any language) usually refers to the snap variation. I think this is in virtue of the fact that it is usually taught as the primary variation, so people use the simplest term for it, not because the term "ap chagi" or "mae geri" or whatever actually carries any connotation of one version or the other. Bradford44 (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The clear difference is when the point of impact is made. With kicking strikes for impact and injury, impact is made nearer to full extension when momentum has built up and the foot jars the person. A push kick, contact is made earlier when the leg is more flexed so that the person can muscle and accelerate the person's body off balance instead of abruptly impacting it. Tyciol (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Roundhouse kick

I see no reason for the roundhouse kick to be in the advanced kicks section. Actually, I'm not sure I agree on most of the entries in the "advanced kicks" category being there, or there being an "advanced kicks" classification to begin with, but that's another story.... Roundhouse kick is a basic kick if there ever was one, so I'm going to move it up one section if there are no objections. Ravstein 01:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in the kung fu studio that I attend its known as a turn kick and its one of our warm up kicks along with the front stretch kick, front snap kick, and side kick. It definitely isn't "advanced." KevinKung (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This page is wrong

This page is wrong on more than one issue and is not written like a proper entry. "Some arts do not utilize kicks at all, such as judo and boxing." This comment is incorrect, although no kicks are used the legs are vital to winning a boxing match. Someone else needs to rewrite this entire thing. 2/18/08 Jesse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.195.239 (talk • contribs) 14:50:21, 2008-02-18

No one is saying boxing or Judo foot work isn't important, but you are explicitly not allowed to kick. Martial arts footwork would be a different article. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What about footsweep or kanzetsu geri (stomp kick)? Judo-ka use these foot techniques for take downs. I don't see how a butterfly kick has any less martial application than an ashi barai... One could argue that any technique in which the practitioner takes both feet of the ground has questionable defensive value. CNGK 30apr08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.92.122.10 (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take the rules of judo up with the Kodokan institute. --Nate^t/_c 09:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Practicality

This section is misleading but informative at the same time. In particular i'm talking about statement concerning Bruce Lee and kick. Kicks have been scientifically test to deliver more power than a hand strike. However Bruce Lee outlined in his martial arts system Jeet Kune Do that kicks should not be targeted above the groin. This is due to the fact that kicks leave you in a comprimised stance and a high kick can be caught easily posing a great risk. Now im sure that Bruce Lee didn't think that one should never kick to the body or head, just that there is greater risk and this should be taken into account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.4.80 (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

partly shameless, partly unknowing but forgivable :)

I. "kicking can be a form of defence. but it can also be illigal to other forms not just australia. by ? it starts with b" ->The last sentence of the "side kick" section

What is he trying to tell us I wondered myself seriously, "kicking can be a form of defence" (only that? oh really.. ).

What is meant with "to other forms" in context?

Besides that, I want to know if it is or is not illegal , and not "can be ill-i-gal"

Further, i didn't know wikipedia is a quizshow, where I have to guess which country stated the side kick as "illigal". "it starts with b"... (Great) Britain? Brazil? Bahamas? Botswana?...

II.a. "Advanced kicks Axe kick"

1. it is not "mae keage geri", but "mae geri keage" 2. It's not meant as an axe kick at all, although you could use it in this way but then only unconventionell or by a - bad execution of the technique - 3. it's basically already listed in the "Basic kick" section as "mae geri" (without keage). There are mainly 2 Mae-geris in execution, namely kekomi (hard punching) and Keage (snapping), the same as with Yoko-geri kekomi/keage... Yet this doesn't legitimate to seperate them into basic and advanced techniques...

II.b. Reverse roundhouse/heel kick The "Ura mawashi geri" is NOT a "reverse roundhouse" kick as shown in the animation because completely different in execution. That's just a cruel generalisation. Seems today every kick from the side is a "roundhouse kick". Damn you Chuck Norris *crouching in fear *

II.c Vertical kick (thrust kick/push kick/side kick) Again the sentence " This is called a yoko geri keage in karate" is partly wrong. It is unimportant if it is keage or kekomi, both are "sidekicks". In fact, "kekomi" is delivering more power to the opponent than "keage", fitting better to the rest of the description.

=> I am only relating to Karate-do techniques as for I have trained only this art ( at least for 10 Years). So I can't determine if the Korean terms are correct.

05:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.104.225.140 (talk)

Where is the Spartan kick?

It is the most effective kick one can have in their arsenal. 184.96.236.54 (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Early evidence

I am trying to locate early evidence of kicking techniques in historical martial arts. I seem to be able to find evidence of low kicks from the Middle Ages, but even this only sporadically. I find literally no example of a high kick to the head predating the 19th century. Perhaps somebody can help me there? Even moderately high kicks, above waist level but below the head, are very difficult to find in historical imagery. I manage to find a single example in 15th century German tradition. There also seem to be Asian examples dating to approximately the same period. My intuition is that high kicks developed early (i.e. at least by the high medieval period) in Indochina and/or South India, and of course practitioners will be very happy to agree that their techniques are "ancient", but so far I have failed to find any positive evidence of this. --dab (𒁳) 10:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking around further, I must question whether there have been any kicks to the head in any martial art prior to the 19th century. I can well imagine that high kicks developed in Indochinese kickboxing during the 19th century (say, Rama V), in the context of sportive stand-up competitions. This would mean that this is a Southeast Asian innovation that spread almost immediately to the new styles developed elsewhere (Karate). By extension, I must question whether the flying kick has any background prior to the 19th century, or indeed the 20th. I am by no means claiming these are facts, merely that this is a "minimal hypothesis" against which I have so far not found any compelling evidence.

Another "suspect", especially for flying kicks, would be Kalaripayattu, a "martial art" which is very fond of the most improbable jumping around the place, apparently without any interest in practicability in combat. But again, this is the art as it is practiced today and seen in recent videos. As soon as you try to figure out how things looked before 1800, or indeed before 1900, you essentially draw a blank. --dab (𒁳) 11:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no action.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Spinning heel kick I think should be merged here as it nothing more than a stub. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done. I'm wondering if we shouldn't audit a series of merges of other stubby articles on individual kicks, as they are very unlikely to expand beyond a paragraph or two that would fit in just fine in these lists. oknazevad (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree the 360 Crescent kick I feel could be merged. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. oknazevad (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

This looks dead in the water - I think I will remove the merge tags.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Expert?

This article mentions Marc MacYoung as an expert?!?! What qualifies him as an expert? He runs a website (nononsenseselfdefense.com), and makes certain claims but what credentials does he have to back up any of them? He has one article about reality vs. actuality - which is just pure semantic nonsense. RyanDanielst (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)