Lifting kicks

[David O'Daniel]

What are lifting kicks actually called; if you have them or rather are
aware of them, in your system?

They are, when you use a kick to pick up an opponent's leg, throw them
off balance & distract them for another technique or simply to fully
overtun them. One double-kick sequence of front-kick round-house that is
sometimes interpreted as front-kick side-kick, is to lift the front leg,
then knock the back leg out from under them. Also, it seems the main
useage of an "S-kick"/inside-round-house or whatever your call it.

I speculate that they may be called something like, upsetting kicks
overturning kicks or something like that. Or maybe just simply "lifting
kicks".

There is a chin na techique on youtube where you catch under a kick at
you, with your hands, and lift it higher to cause the opponent to fall.
However, I doubt that this would work in real life with a serious
opponent unless you were super fast to catch any kick. The more
traditional or widespread at least, catching or hooking opponent legs
from their stances seems much more workable.


Bo

[gemjack]

I've only done them to help warm up before a class. Other than a
cartoonish dirty groin kick I imagine they could resemble an ax kick,
sorta.
-gj

[Mighty Wannabe]

On May 21, 3:17 pm, gemjack <geminijackso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:46:17 -0500, Bojut...@webtv.net (David

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> O'Daniel) wrote:
> >What are lifting kicks actually called; if you have them or rather are
> >aware of them, in your system?
>
> >They are, when you use a kick to pick up an opponent's leg, throw them
> >off balance & distract them for another technique or simply to fully
> >overtun them. One double-kick sequence of front-kick round-house that is
> >sometimes interpreted as front-kick side-kick, is to lift the front leg,
> >then knock the back leg out from under them. Also, it seems the main
> >useage of an "S-kick"/inside-round-house or whatever your call it.
>
> >I speculate that they may be called something like, upsetting kicks
> >overturning kicks or something like that. Or maybe just simply "lifting
> >kicks".
>
> >There is a chin na techique on youtube where you catch under a kick at
> >you, with your hands, and lift it higher to cause the opponent to fall.
> >However, I doubt that this would work in real life with a serious
> >opponent unless you were super fast to catch any kick. The more
> >traditional or widespread at least, catching or hooking opponent legs
> >from their stances seems much more workable.
>
> >Bo
>
> I've only done them to help warm up before a class.

That's true. It is a good exercise in a kata to train the muscles
responsible for lifting the leg that way. It is a lot more strenuous
lifting the whole straightened leg than just lifting the knee.

> Other than a
> cartoonish dirty groin kick I imagine they could resemble an ax kick,
> sorta.
> -gj

That too. It is not cartoonish, especially when you are dealing with
traditional wide stance which leaves the groin wide open.


The lifting kick in Wing Chun is in the second form (Chum Kiu), which
precedes stepping forward. My interpretation of lifting your leg
before you step forward is to lift your leg and jam your leg into your
opponent's stance when you close in.

In Muay Thai, I lift my straightened leg to deflect a roundhouse
kick.

If the incoming roundhouse kick comes in high, then you raise your leg
toward the incoming roundhouse kick and and turn your torso away from
the incoming roundhouse kick to let the incoming roundhouse kick
glance and rise up on the side of your torso, while at the same time
you jam your raised leg into the knee of the opponent's supporting
leg.

IF the incoming roundhouse kick comes in low, then you raise your leg
toward the incoming roundhouse kick and turn your torso away from the
incoming roundhouse kick to let the roundhouse kick glance and rise up
on you raised leg and catch it between your arm and the side of your
torso.

Raising your leg and turning your torso away from the incoming
roundhouse kick to let your opponent's roundhouse kick glance at your
leg, your arm or the side of your torso is a standard practice in Muay
Thai.

And of course the ignorant and delusional mofo leg humping fools,
Fraser Johnston and Peter Dellys (a,k,a, GDS GreenDistantStar), would
say they can "take 'em to the ground" and hump their leg. I'd really
like to see the two ignorant mofo leg-humping fools learn what a real
Muay Thai elbow strike is like.

[Mighty Wannabe]

On May 21, 3:17 pm, gemjack <geminijackso...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:46:17 -0500, Bojut...@webtv.net (David

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> O'Daniel) wrote:
> >What are lifting kicks actually called; if you have them or rather are
> >aware of them, in your system?
>
> >They are, when you use a kick to pick up an opponent's leg, throw them
> >off balance & distract them for another technique or simply to fully
> >overtun them. One double-kick sequence of front-kick round-house that is
> >sometimes interpreted as front-kick side-kick, is to lift the front leg,
> >then knock the back leg out from under them. Also, it seems the main
> >useage of an "S-kick"/inside-round-house or whatever your call it.
>
> >I speculate that they may be called something like, upsetting kicks
> >overturning kicks or something like that. Or maybe just simply "lifting
> >kicks".
>
> >There is a chin na techique on youtube where you catch under a kick at
> >you, with your hands, and lift it higher to cause the opponent to fall.
> >However, I doubt that this would work in real life with a serious
> >opponent unless you were super fast to catch any kick. The more
> >traditional or widespread at least, catching or hooking opponent legs
> >from their stances seems much more workable.
>
> >Bo
>
> I've only done them to help warm up before a class.

That's true. It is a good exercise in a kata to train the muscles
responsible for lifting the leg that way. It is a lot more strenuous
lifting the whole straightened leg than just lifting the knee.

> Other than a
> cartoonish dirty groin kick I imagine they could resemble an ax kick,
> sorta.
> -gj

[Timo]

On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 22:46:17 UTC+10, David O'Daniel wrote:
> What are lifting kicks actually called; if you have them or rather are
> aware of them, in your system?

We have two types. There are the ones that hit close to the foot, usually achilles tendon with a scooped foot. We just call them sweeps, and only the fine print distinguishes them from the more horizontal sweeps.

Then there are turning/roundhouse kicks to the inside of the thigh, going upwards, which we just call turning kicks.

> There is a chin na techique on youtube where you catch under a kick at
> you, with your hands, and lift it higher to cause the opponent to fall.
> However, I doubt that this would work in real life with a serious
> opponent unless you were super fast to catch any kick.

It can work, but usually only if your opponent lets you see it coming in time, and you step in close. Your opponent shouldn't give you the opportunity. But some will. Easiest against turning/roundhouse and spinning kicks.

[David O'Daniel]

Timo's sounds closer to the concept I was trying to ask about. I think
that there is a terminology confusion with a stretching kick = front
-kick-stretch, straight leg f ront kicking, etc. Just lifting your leg
to stretch, though a start of an axe kick, may be called a lifting kick
in some systems. It is not a specific single kick though but a technique
concept of any kick that lifts the opponent's leg(s), generally to
distract, throw off balance (leading to opportunity for a 2nd attack to
connect unchallenged) OR purely to overturn the opponent by a single or
multiple kicks not as striking-kicks but as lifting "their" leg/legs.

Such as: a normal roundhouse to the lead leg of a back-stance, under the
thigh or at least the back of the calf, then pivoting hips & perhaps
hopping of shuffling i, to do a roundhouse, side-kick or hook-kick to
their back leg. It could be horizontal but yes, if you can do a little
of an upward angle, ideally it would lift them off the ground to not
only fall off balance but to fall from a slightly greater height than
just from where they were standing.

Yes, the S-kick may be called "turning kick" or other terminology. I
like "inside-roundhouse" or "reverse-roundhouse". I suspect that the
sideways Taichi kicks are not truly sideways but mis-seen versions of
this kick, to lift an opponent's leg not just up but then away to their
outside, to overturn them. While such kicks are perhaps hidden or
changed/simplified out to just standard front-kicks, roundhouses, etc.
ironically, TKD seems to have kept the lifting kicks, where at lest
Japanese & even popular (perhaps modern) Okinawan karate have phased
them out.

Off the top of my head; ITF's 4th & 3rd to last moves in Kodan, Kicks in
So-San, Juche, etc. NTF is perhaps actually a local creation and also
mixed with Hung Gar & Si Lum so their kicks may be from the kung fu
stles, rather than TKD from the Karate background roots. I'm not fully
familiar with Hung Gar nor Si Lum other than being aware of them &
knowing that Hung Gar was from a mix of Tiger & Crane styles, mostly
from a Shaw Brother's movie about it's origine.


Bo

[Mark T]

On May 21, Timo <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > What are lifting kicks actually called; if you have them or rather are
> > aware of them, in your system?
>
> We have two types. There are the ones that hit close to
> the foot, usually achilles tendon with a scooped foot. We
> just call them sweeps, and only the fine print distinguishes
> them from the more horizontal sweeps.

But I'll lay odds you don't know how to do them
properly. I didn't, unitl I learned some judo; de ashi
bara. And neither did any of my karotty playmates.
Though their sweeps were often successful, in a
crude sense. But they weren't taught right, or done right.

> >There is a chin na techique on youtube where you catch
> >under a kick at you, with your hands, and lift it higher to cause
> >the opponent to fall. However, I doubt that this would work
> > in real life with a serious
> > opponent unless you were super fast to catch any kick.
>
> It can work, but usually only if your opponent lets you see it
> coming in time, and you step in close. Your opponent
> shouldn't give you the opportunity. But some will. Easiest
> against turning/roundhouse and spinning kicks.

Actually, it's not difficult to catch a kick, it's mainly a
matter of focus. One's instinct is to block or move,
and that's what's primarily taught in karate schools.
But if you're in a defensive stance, and say
"if he kicks, I'm going to catch it,", it's feasible.

"catch the foot" is poor phrasing, better is "trap his
leg". Of course if you get caught off balance, you get
hit. But otherwise, it's a mental thing, a matter of
training yourself. And another example of defective
karate teaching, as players discover this by themselves,
so what good is sensei?


Mark

[David O'Daniel]

I didn't know Judo did sweeps with kicks that went at least as high as
the opponent's shoulders, to throw them...?
Are you sure its the same?

Bo

[Timo]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 1:58:30 PM UTC+10, Mark T wrote:
> On May 21, Timo <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > We have two types. There are the ones that hit close to
> > the foot, usually achilles tendon with a scooped foot. We
> > just call them sweeps, and only the fine print distinguishes
> > them from the more horizontal sweeps.
>
> But I'll lay odds you don't know how to do them
> properly.

I'd agree. I see people have trouble doing them against an opponent who is standing still for target practice, let alone a fully resisting opponent.

I don't think I've ever seriously tried such in sparring, and rarely other longer-ranged sweeps). Occasionally I have been swept in sparring; one memorable time it was beautifully done (memorable mostly because my opponent had to visit the hospital shortly afterwards, but it was also a memorably beautiful sweep).

> Actually, it's not difficult to catch a kick, it's mainly a
> matter of focus. One's instinct is to block or move,
> and that's what's primarily taught in karate schools.
> But if you're in a defensive stance, and say
> "if he kicks, I'm going to catch it,", it's feasible.

Hmm. I won't do a front kick to the torso if there is a good chance my opponent's elbows can intercept. Which means that usually their arms are out of position to catch it. Similarly, the time to do a side kick to the torso is when the arms are out of position for such. A back kick is good if they have parried a jab and gone to your outside/blind side, aiming close range and low.

A turning/roundhouse kick to the torso can be easy to catch. Your opponent shouldn't feed you such kicks to catch. They should drop them into your thighs, they should come high at the head when your hands are going low, they should punch high, and if you back off with hands high, then maybe put a turning/roundhouse kick into your torso. Of if they catch you asleep.

A feinted turning/roundhouse kick to the torso can be good - get those hands and arms out of the way by getting them to block (or attempt to catch), and then punch them in the face.

If your opponent does an attack you can catch easily, they're doing the wrong attack (or you are much, much better than them).

[Mark T]

On May 23, Mark T <marktanne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, it's not difficult to catch a kick, it's mainly a
> matter of focus.  One's instinct is to block or move,
> and that's what's primarily taught in karate schools.
> But if you're in a defensive stance, and say
> "if he kicks, I'm going to catch it,", it's feasible.

I meant, kicks above the waist.

[Mark T]

On May 23, Timo <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > > We have two types. There are the ones that hit close to
> > > the foot, usually achilles tendon with a scooped foot. We
> > > just call them sweeps, and only the fine print distinguishes
> > > them from the more horizontal sweeps.
>
> > But I'll lay odds you don't know how to do them
> > properly.
>
> I'd agree. I see people have trouble doing them against an
> opponent who is standing still for target practice, let alone
> a fully resisting opponent.

Thanks for making my point. A proper foot sweep
is not targeted against an opponent standing still.
"use his momentum against him"... I presume
you've heard that maxim...

Corectly done, a foot sweep is effortless,a matter
of timing and footwork (soccer training is ideal).
"chop him like a tree" seen in karate, is horrid.
Probably there are players who can do it right,
but the vast majority don't, and I've never seen
it taught properly.

There is a legend of Hayward Nishioka, at that
time the #1 ranked USA judo player, who
entered an open karate tournament, with no
training. He won his division with just foot sweeps
(presumably white belt).

Mark

[Timo]

On Saturday, 25 May 2013 04:26:25 UTC+10, Mark T wrote:
> On May 23, Timo <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > > > We have two types. There are the ones that hit close to
> > > > the foot, usually achilles tendon with a scooped foot. We
> > > > just call them sweeps, and only the fine print distinguishes
> > > > them from the more horizontal sweeps.
> >
> > > But I'll lay odds you don't know how to do them
> > > properly.
> >
> > I'd agree. I see people have trouble doing them against an
> > opponent who is standing still for target practice, let alone
> > a fully resisting opponent.
>
> Thanks for making my point. A proper foot sweep
> is not targeted against an opponent standing still.

"Standing still for target practice" is elementary drill to start learning the technique, not a fighting/competition application (just like they start with standing-still target dummies in judo). My point is that they (lots of students where I train) don't get enough practice to even be fluent in such a basic drill. So of course they can't do it properly (reliably) for real.

They also don't get to use such in sparring at the lower belt levels, or have it used against them, so they don't get alive practice. Those who do get to use them often don't, either because they forget, or they haven't done it enough in basic drill, or the tactical situation doesn't arise.

One of our BBs made it his goal in a sparring session to sweep me (or do some other takedown, I think). In the end he succeeded, but I brought him down too before he could get out of range. It was not the ideal time to do the technique; if he wasn't working on doing it specifically, he would have just gone for a kick into the thigh, which would probably have landed.

> Corectly done, a foot sweep is effortless,a matter
> of timing and footwork (soccer training is ideal).

Timing, footwork, and proper technique.

> "chop him like a tree" seen in karate, is horrid.

If it works, it isn't horrid. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work (and might well be horrid).

> Probably there are players who can do it right,

There certainly are.

> but the vast majority don't, and I've never seen
> it taught properly.

I've never seen it drilled enough, or alive enough, for students to grok it reliably.

[Timo]

Kicks above the waist should go in when they _will_ hit the target, rather than elbows/arms. I don't like the trade of broken ribs for an attempt to catch a kick when on the broken rib side. Kicks at the wrong target, or badly telegraphed kicks: catch those (or take advantage of the opportunity in some other way).

If you can't kick with sufficient safety, why kick? (Fighting, not practice.)

[Mark T]

On May 24, Timo <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > > > > We have two types. There are the ones that hit close to
> > > > > the foot, usually achilles tendon with a scooped foot. We
> > > > > just call them sweeps, and only the fine print distinguishes
> > > > > them from the more horizontal sweeps.
>
> > > > But I'll lay odds you don't know how to do them
> > > > properly.
>

> > > I see people have trouble doing them against an
> > > opponent who is standing still for target practice, let alone
> > > a fully resisting opponent.
>
> > Thanks for making my point.  A proper foot sweep
> > is not targeted against an opponent standing still.

> > Corectly done, a foot sweep is effortless,a matter

> > of timing and footwork.

>
> Timing, footwork, and proper technique.
>
> > "chop him like a tree" seen in karate, is horrid.
>
> If it works, it isn't horrid.

Thank you for making my point.

> I've never seen it drilled enough, or alive enough,
> for students to grok it reliably.

They don't know how to drill it.
Imperfect practice does not perfect through repetition.

Mark

[Timo]

On Saturday, 25 May 2013 11:50:12 UTC+10, Mark T wrote:
> On May 24, Timo <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > > "chop him like a tree" seen in karate, is horrid.
> >
> > If it works, it isn't horrid.
>
> Thank you for making my point.

If "If it works, it isn't horrid. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work (and might well be horrid)." makes your point, your point is too cryptic for me.

I don't know what you mean by "chop him like a tree", but whatever you mean by it, if it works, what's wrong with it? If it doesn't work, then it's a failure. Isn't functionality what counts in this kind of thing?

> > I've never seen it drilled enough, or alive enough,
> > for students to grok it reliably.
>
> They don't know how to drill it.
> Imperfect practice does not perfect through repetition.

What is your recipe for drilling it?

I wouldn't claim that students I haven't seen drilling, or even heard details about how they drill, "don't know". Your ESP is clearly better than mine. I do know that the students I mentioned don't drill it enough or often enough to be good at it, even with an ideal drill.

[David O'Daniel]

I consider what I call lifting kicks to be not sweeps or at least a
different catetory of sweeps NOT knocking their foot/feet at east
horizontally from under them & let them fall straight down, sweep. But
at least angled up if not vertically up, overtrning them, lifting them a
bit higher than they were from standing position, and perhaps fall head
first if combat, not on their butt or back.

I'm all for catching kicks, done at the right tme & opportunity & with
the right continuing followup. Karate kicks & that is the secret of the
otherwise pontless corckscrew punch, ae designed to retract & even twist
to excape any grabbing. These uses were forgotten when they had sports
variationas trying to take grappling/catching out of karate. I know TKD
makes a big deal about their SLOW but thigh-powered roundhouse from all
the way in the back, rather than the point-the-nee then pivot the hip to
snap the kick AND pivot back, not just sit the foot down. This was to
escape from a possible grab so that it would become 2nd nature, like
turning a doorknob without thinking. Kennith Funakoshi & perhaps lots of
Shotokan schools have the power over technique thigh-swung roundhouse.
Looks impressive for breaking lots of boards that don't catch or hit
back.

Yes, trapping is better than trying to catch. The escape kicks can be
trapped if you trap with a wide net, as it were, not a small, accurate
grab & assuming that you avoidd the initial kick. When usual escaping
rechambers don't work, there's the standard desporate cartwheeling out
of it, escape.


Bo

[Timo]

On Saturday, 25 May 2013 16:09:39 UTC+10, David O'Daniel wrote:
> I consider what I call lifting kicks to be not sweeps or at least a
> different catetory of sweeps NOT knocking their foot/feet at east
> horizontally from under them & let them fall straight down, sweep. But
> at least angled up if not vertically up, overtrning them, lifting them a
> bit higher than they were from standing position, and perhaps fall head
> first if combat, not on their butt or back.

In my practice, there is a distinction between lifting sweeps and horizontal sweeps. The horizontal sweeps are mostly to take out a foot that is about to have weight put down on it. Done well, and they go down easily.

We don't usually do the lifting sweeps to take the opponent down. One can (and judo kouchi gari or deachi harai, at least if done with a lifting motion, are like our lifting sweeps), but usually aimed at disrupting the opponent's balance, to stop them from retreating, to open them up to groin kicks, to open them up to other takedowns.

The judo techniques with big lifts, like osoto gurami and osoto gari, I wouldn't call kicks. We don't do anything like that with forward motion of the "kicking" leg, so nothing I'd call a "kick". Our bread-and-butter easy-for-beginners takedown is similar to osoto otoshi; not a kick (or sweep) at all.

[David O'Daniel]

Thanks Timo.

There seems to be double kicks that I wonder if some source, apparently
not Jujutsu, that seems to have been indeed done to 1 leg, then the
other leg with all the weight on it then, to topple an opponent. Some
may be where the opponent is grabbed & arms tied up, not so much to
throw them as to split their legs OR not only open their legs too wide
but to twist the held upper body or at least head, in oppoiste
directions.

But that is actually from another thing that I had been looking into in
2011, in trying to research the wide horse-stance wide full W-block or
both arms up like high outside blocks to the side & shoulder height.
Like in Jitte, them moving around, usually in a big stomping step or
seeping. But anyway, again a different thread. I don't remember for sure
but I at least "think" that I did discuss that once a while back. The
applications of twisting the spineor breakng the neck while moving the
opponent's legs in the opposite direction was not taken from the modern
Shotokan, TKD or other wellknown styles thohg & I don't remember where I
first got that bunkai idea from. That would include horizontal sweeps
too though. There are lots of Okinawan leg maneuvers, hidden in the kata
though.


Bo

[Mark T]

On May 25, Timo <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> In my practice, there is a distinction between lifting sweeps and
> horizontal sweeps. The horizontal sweeps are mostly to take
> out a foot that is about to have weight put down on it. Done well,
> and they go down easily.

So you do know the right way, hallelujah! You fooled me.

That's de ashi barai. In my experience, the large
majority use G. Washington and the cherry tree
as their model.

Sorry, I reject your your "if it works, it isn't bad"
apology. There's a reason why correct technique
is correct.

hey, there was a big winner in the Powerball lottery
last month! I guess a lottery ticket isn't necessarily
a bad investment, it CAN work! I'm going to advise
my friends to invest in the lottery. And if that bloke
plays again, I want to back him, he's clearly a proven
talent!

"whatever works, dude!" 6 billion hominids on
this rock, and they ALL think that way. Whcih
raises an evoultuon question: why should
irrationality be selected, Prof. Darwin? What's
the advantage?

I've been reading Nassin Taleb's' book, he beats
these ideas to death. He primarily focuses on the
finance industry, but it's broadly applicable.

Mark

[Timo]

On Friday, May 31, 2013 10:44:01 AM UTC+10, Mark T wrote:
> On May 25, Timo <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > In my practice, there is a distinction between lifting sweeps and
> > horizontal sweeps. The horizontal sweeps are mostly to take
> > out a foot that is about to have weight put down on it. Done well,
> > and they go down easily.
>
> So you do know the right way, hallelujah! You fooled me.
>
> That's de ashi barai. In my experience, the large
> majority use G. Washington and the cherry tree
> as their model.

I don't see people doing anything like a G. Washington + cherry tree footsweep, so I don't know what you mean by it. I don't see it, so I suspect it doesn't work.

> Sorry, I reject your your "if it works, it isn't bad"
> apology. There's a reason why correct technique
> is correct.

Yes, and the reason why correct technique is correct is that it works. For a _technique_ to work, as opposed to a single use of the technique to work on a single occasion, the technique must work reliably enough to justify its use considering risk taken and lost opportunity. Benefits versus costs is not a great mystery.

> hey, there was a big winner in the Powerball lottery
> last month! I guess a lottery ticket isn't necessarily
> a bad investment, it CAN work!

Benefits versus costs is not a great mystery, and neither is the statistical idea that you want to know _expected_ performance, not performance in a single example. If you want to use the superstitious method rather than the scientific method, then ignore statistics.

If G. Washington + cherry tree doesn't work reliably, it doesn't work as a technique. If it does work reliably and sufficiently safely, then what would be wrong with it?