23 posts / 0 new
Last post
nielmag
nielmag's picture
Heel down or up Oi Zulu-Gyaku zuki

While teaching kids/underbelts “traditional” shotokan, I noticed I am a super stickler about keeping their heel down when moving in zen kutsu dachi. But in practical application I really lift my heel especially in doing gyaku Zulu reverse punch similar to right cross in boxing. My first instructor explained keeping heel down was keeping connection w the ground helps to generate more power. While trying to hit mitts/heavy bag had a difficult time trying to hit w power and keeping heel down. Is this just practitioner error on my part, or is this mainly a stylistic preference thing?  Curious to hear everyone’s thoughts

Elmar
Elmar's picture

IMO, the problem is not so much that heel-down seems to reduce power, it is HOW you keep your heel down, i.e. ankle flexibility is critical. Further the question also revolves around a pure ballistic impact vs one with more mass behind it that allows no recoil or bounce-out from the target. For the ballistic type of hit, heel up allows a faster and more complete torso rotation (witness baseball batting and golf swings). But if you want to shove a spear through a door, you need to brace the back leg strongly against the floor, i.e. heel down.

Chris R
Chris R's picture

The only time I would consider using the heel down method is once some kind of grip has occurred (eg. from trapping). The heels are kept down for maximum stability so you won't get thrown around, and you now have a stable base to pull with your hikite hand as you strike. In any other situation, I would use the heel up method as it is far superior for fighting in general. Every successful fighter uses the heel up method for a reason. In my opinion, the main advantages are superior mobility and smoother ballistic style punching, among other benefits.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Chris R wrote:
The only time I would consider using the heel down method is once some kind of grip has occurred (eg. from trapping). The heels are kept down for maximum stability so you won't get thrown around, and you now have a stable base to pull with your hikite hand as you strike. In any other situation, I would use the heel up method ...

That’s largely how I see it too. Go to any boxing gym – where grappling is not a concern – and they will tell you to keep your weight in the balls of your feet as you move and to rotate on the ball of the foot as you punch.  However, judo coaches will extol the virtues of having the feet flat, so you have maximum stability. As karateka we need both i.e. heels up for mobility and maximum power and feet flat for stability. We need both and neither is inherently superior to the other. It’s always the situation that dictates what is optimum at that time.

All the best,

Iain

Chris R
Chris R's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

As karateka we need both i.e. heels up for mobility and maximum power and feet flat for stability. We need both and neither is inherently superior to the other. It’s always the situation that dictates what is optimum at that time

However it seems that keeping the heel down is the method shown in kata. I think this is worth considering when doing bunkai for kata sequences involving punches. Considering the use of both hikite and the heel down position during punches in kata, I think this is strong evidence in support of the theory that punches in kata were intended to be used at close range once a grip had occurred.

Patrick
Patrick's picture

This is an good thread for me....we practice both heel down and heel up in the dojo where I train. Heel up has been a learning experience for me. Just my own observation, but heel up never felt very stable to me at first. I have a couple of different I guess makiwara style pieces of equipment at home, one of which is just a half inch thick plank about head high from the ground. We do alot of hitting mits and pads in class, which felt fine. But due to it not feeling especially stable, I tried the heel up right cross on that flexible plank......first time I threw the puch and pulled it back to guard, no problems. Then I threw the punch and tried to hold it out there at full extension. Plank pushed back of coarse and I got pushed backwards out of stance. Really had to work on that back foot placement to stop that from happening. Working the punch in slow motion on the makiwara has helped immensely to work out the details of using foot placement, bone alignment, and muscles throughout the body rather than just arm speed to generate power with this punch. Have noticed that after having worked that style punch on the makiwara a good bit, overall stability and power has increased. Our sensei will often have us hold certain punches and kicks out at full extension and then he will push his body against our extended fist or foot to check stability and structure. Makiwara always seems to be a very good way for me to work these details at home without having another person present to check structure!

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Chris R wrote:
it seems that keeping the heel down is the method shown in kata. I think this is worth considering when doing bunkai for kata sequences involving punches. Considering the use of both hikite and the heel down position during punches in kata, I think this is strong evidence in support of the theory that punches in kata were intended to be used at close range once a grip had occurred.

Obsoletely. Add in the lack of passive guards, in favour of active hands, and it is clear the kata is focussed on close-range civilian self-protection; as opposed to the ever-changing range of martial dulling. It’s when people try to get kata to fit into martial duelling that they declare it “does not work” i.e. no guards, no duelling style footwork, etc.

Rory Miller is not a karateka, but this observation is bang on (my highlight):

The duelling paradigm.  Other than for fun or sport or balancing things within a social group, people don't square off.  Because it's dumb.  If you had to take out the biggest, scariest martial athlete you can imagine, how would you do it?  Exactly.  From behind with a weapon.  And maybe friends.

This has a lot of implications for MA/SD.  The paradigm sets you up to expect distance, time and warning, none of which will exist unless you are monkey dancing.  People who are successful at duelling or sparring believe (sometimes, I hope rarely) that the skills will transfer to ambush survival...and they don't …

… When people don't have a reality check they have this really stupid tendency to make up a reality check.  'Make up' and 'reality' rarely belong in the same thought.  I almost always pick on karate for this.  When I look at their kata and kihon, they have possibly the best body mechanics for infighting that I've seen... then they choose to test it at sparring range, where it sucks.  Or, worse, point contact range where it sucks AND it screws up everybody's sense of distance and time.

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Patrick wrote:
heel up never felt very stable to me at first.

Heel up is definitely more unstable that heel down. That does not mean it is automatically “bad” though.  One of the simplest way to cover this is an analogy I heard Ticky Donavan use in the 1980s:

If you imagine pushing a car, and the car is moving, then you will have your heels off the ground for maximum forward drive. If the car started to roll back, then stability is an issue, so you lock the back leg and drop the heel. Same in karate.

There is no universal right or wrong when it comes to heel up or down. It depends what you need. If stability is needed, then you are better with the feet flat. If stability is not an issue at that moment, then heel off will give you more power and forward drive.

Patrick wrote:
We do a lot of hitting mitts and pads in class, which felt fine …

… I have a couple of different I guess makiwara style pieces of equipment at home …

… Plank pushed back of coarse and I got pushed backwards out of stance.

I know it is tantamount to martial blasphemy for a traditional karateka to critique the makiwara, but here goes … :-)

The makiwara is not a good analogue for the human body. In real combat people move when you hit them. They don’t behave as a firmly secured piece of wood. The makiwara also does not permit changes in angles and distance during combinations. However, for now I’d just like to focus on it’s unnatural stability.

If it is the only piece of kit people use, they will develop a punching style well suited for hitting static and well secured bits of wood; but not that appropriate for hitting people. You can tell such people because they always emphasise the need for a “rooted” stance when it comes to generating power. The reality is you need bodyweight to be in motion to generate power. You also hear talk about absorbing the “back shock”. However, people move when you hit them. There is no back shock and to say there will be reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about combat and physics (as covered here:  https://iainabernethy.co.uk/comment/11854#comment-11854).

Now that’s not to say the Makiwara has no role …

Patrick wrote:
Makiwara always seems to be a very good way for me to work these details at home without having another person present to check structure!

It can be very useful for checking structure as you describe. That can be helpful in developing stability when dealing with an incoming force. It’s also good for checking alignment of the knuckles, wrist, etc. However, the makiwara is not good for true power generation or realistic striking. It therefore needs to be a part of impact training. It should not be the primary methods and certainly not the only method. The past masters didn’t have focus mitts, kick shields, thai-pads, etc so they used what they had. There are better things to use today in my view.

Those who do emphasise the makiwara above all also tend to be the ones most opposed to taking the heel off. They are right that it’s always better to keep the heel down when it comes to hitting well secured planks of wood.  They are wrong to say that the same always applies when hitting people.

All the best,

Iain

Patrick
Patrick's picture

Mr Abernathy what you said above about being "rooted" rang a bell with me. .....I do get told from time to time that I need to be more light on my feet. Thanks for your post, gave some things to think about and work on. Thinking now for at home training I should maybe give more time to the double end bag and less on makiwara. This forum is great. Get something good out of just about every thread here.

Anf
Anf's picture

Mr Funakoshi is quite clear that in karate, we 'thrust' as opposed to 'punch'. If I interpret that correctly, it's more an explosive pushing action. We're also routinely told to aim to go through the target rather than aiming at it. This further supports the violent pushing action idea. Taken out of the context of martial arts or fighting, if I want to push a large mass with enough force to move it, I want my feet well anchored so that I can channel force through my legs and hips and back and everything else in the chain.

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

I'm in agreement with the general consensus on the heel being up or down. The way we describe it is that driving off the ball of the foot is for mobility, while the heel is for stability. If you're going to be moving that foot, or trying to cover distance, then it makes sense to lift the heel and drive off the ball of the foot. If you're at close range, where you don't really need to cover any distance but you do need to worry about your balance, driving the heel down is a good plan. As an interesting note, Motobu Udundi (supposedly derided by Matsumura Sokon for being too dance-like) emphasizes keeping the heels up, with the weight on the balls of their feet, for pretty much everything. KishimotoDi pivots and enters on the balls of the feet, but tends to drop to the heels once in close, and actually does not have neko-ashi-dachi (which we know that Motobu disliked, given the "floating foot" idea).

Now, in regards to the makiwara, I have to say that I do partially (although not entirely) disagree with Iain. As he says, it's very good at pointing out issues with structure, since it pushes the energy of your strike back into your body, and if your structure is weak or misaligned, you will find out very quickly. The problem comes from having a makiwara that is too stiff, and unfortunately many people use makiwara that are too stiff. A nigh-immovable board does not a makiwara make, but it does give the illusion, because by its very nature it will push you back. The key to a makiwara's functionality is the fact it should function like a spring, providing progressive resistance--it should flex a good amount when hit, but also provide resistance through the entire range of its motion, and you should have to put in effort to hold it back. This not only provides the feedback necessary to highlight flaws in structure, but also the resistance necessary to build strength, as well as taking out the sudden jarring of hitting a solid object that can damage joints.

In other words, I see it as being an excellent teaching tool for developing structure, but also a tool for developing power, when used properly. That said, I do agree that it isn't a good human analog (though it isn't really meant to be), and you are a bit more limited in the ways you can strike it because it is a flat surface and is in a fixed location--interestingly, various Okinawan masters of the modern age (Higaonna, Maeshiro, and Onaga, just to name a few) point out that because the makiwara doesn't move, you should, which makes practice interesting and gets around the issue of making karateka too rooted and immobile. Personally, for a tool that develops both structure and power for striking, I haven't found a better alternative. Resistance bands come close, but obviously lack the actual impact component. Heavy bags are awesome, and we use them frequently, but because they swing away from you they don't provide the same progressive resistance.

Of course, the idea of varying your training methods to make up for compromises is nothing new, and we know the Okinawans were doing it. The makiwara developed structure and power, but doesn't have the same feel/give as a person, and doesn't move, but they had hanging makiwara and sandbags to make up for that, but that didn't toughen and condition the body quite enough, so they had taketaba (bamboo bundles) and sunabukuro (sand boxes) specifically for conditioning, although none of that accounted for dealing with an opponent's limbs, so they used the kakiya/kakete-biki training dummy to make up for that, and so on. I completely agree that they would have incorporated modern striking pads and heavy bags, had they been available, as well. We can see this even in the hojo undo kigu (supplementary training tool) examples shown in various books, like Konishi Yasuhiro's Karate-Do Nyumon:

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Patrick wrote:
Thanks for your post, gave some things to think about and work on. Thinking now for at home training I should maybe give more time to the double end bag and less on makiwara.

I’m pleased that was of some use. The Makiwara has its place, but I do prefer the bag for impact development. To me, the number 1 piece of kit are focus mitts because you can hit them from any angle, in combinations and they can move. Again, they are not perfect, and they rely on a skilled holder, but I’d still emphasise them the most. For solo training, I’d place the highest emphasis on the bag. A long one is best because you can practise you kicks and knees to the leg. A “BOB dummy” is also good if you have the funds. It’s not as good for power generation as a bag, but the anatomical accuracy means you can add in the holding, locating, squeezing and gouging.

Anf wrote:
if I want to push a large mass with enough force to move it, I want my feet well anchored so that I can channel force through my legs and hips and back and everything else in the chain.

I don’t really agree there. We can hit with force with one or both feet off the ground (i.e. https://youtu.be/6JPIdZpCLrI?t=2m). We don’t need the feet rooted to generate power. What we need is the transfer of bodyweight.  

Wastelander wrote:
interestingly, various Okinawan masters of the modern age (Higaonna, Maeshiro, and Onaga, just to name a few) point out that because the makiwara doesn't move, you should, which makes practice interesting and gets around the issue of making karateka too rooted and immobile.

To my way of thinking, the karateka moving does not really get us around the flaw of the makiwara being fixed. As I joke to my students, “There are only two things still in a fight: unconscious people, and people who are about to be unconscious”. There is nothing but motion from both you and the enemy. Focus Mitts and Thai-Pads can replicate the enemy moving and hence they will develop power in a more realistic fashion. Even if we move, the Makiwara is still static (unlike a real enemy).

Wastelander wrote:
Heavy bags are awesome, and we use them frequently, but because they swing away from you they don't provide the same progressive resistance.

I may be misunderstanding you, but I would say the mobility of the bag is one of its great virtues. The bag should displace (warp) before it swings. If it just swings, it was not a strike, but a push. A push just moves people and won’t do damage. The strike needs to be delivered in way that it distorts the bag before it swings. Unless it distorts the target, it will not be an effective punch. The bag's inertia will provide resistance for the duration of the punch. The bag should never swing away from an unfinished punch (sign of a pushy "punch" if it does). It is mainly the retuning of the bag to its shape that will see it move. So, I do think you get resistance, and a more realistic resistance to boot.

We can see the bag distortion in this image: 

The same should happen when we hit an actual person

Each bit of kit has its strengths and flaws. No one piece is perfect and gives us all we need; so, it will be the mix of kit that is key. For my money, the makiwara is overemphasised and given undue prominence because of its traditional role. When looked at objectively, I feel the modern kit has more to offer when it comes to developing power. I would therefore place a much grater emphasis on that kit and a lesser emphasis on the makiwara. My belief is that the past masters would have done too if they had the access to the high-density material that makes modern equipment possible. Either way, that’s the route I have taken.

All the best,

Iain

AllyWhytock
AllyWhytock's picture

Hi, I've gone through similar as nielmag.

nielmag wrote:
While teaching kids/underbelts “traditional” shotokan, I noticed I am a super stickler about keeping their heel down when moving in zen kutsu dachi. But in practical application I really lift my heel especially in doing gyaku Zulu reverse punch

I require heel up (ball pivot) during bag or pad work because I can feel from other martial arts how hard they can punch - speed, mass and balance. For solo Kihon I teach heel down and point out the differences. It is a practical introduction for a learner to spot and analyse the mechanics of their anatomy. I use the rugby scrum as an example of pushing forward (ball) and resisting backward (heel). A tool difference based on anatomy (no escaping that). I prefer ball (heel up) because I get more drive through my hip and the pad holder atests to the difference. Similar is Kizami tsuki. I now prefer jab with a front foot turn and likewise Mawashi tsuki (hook) with back heel up. Note that heel up the knee is bent.

Kindest Regards,

Ally

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

I was always taught both from Day 1. As a kid, my 8th kyu belt exam required I perform two reverse punches: one with the hand on the hip with the heel down (streight back leg), and the other with a guard up and the heel off (bent back leg). I obviously still have beginners learn both today too.

All the best,

Iain

Philios
Philios's picture

Good discussion so far!  I agree with many of the points mentioned above, regarding the great debate (heel up or down).  As a Shotokan practitioner myself, my observation is that the back heel naturally rises as one reaches the extremes of a stance.  The mobility that lifting the heal provides us is not really needed until you are extending yourself outside of your "normal" stance.  We see this often in point sparring where mobility is much more important than stability, and covering a large distance in a short amount of time is the name of the game.  As kata's purpose is for civilian self-protection, the distance is much closer and thus you do not require the extra mobility of lifting the heel.  I can still deliver short distance striking power from a flat-footed stance.  The benefit is that I am more stable, and can better handle a resisting opponent who has grabbed onto me.

The problem of keeping the heel down "because Sensei said so" is that students may not understand the context of the instruction.  For pretty looking kihon or kata in order to pass a test, you may be required to keep your heel down.  However doing so all the time "because Sensei said so" is simply wrong.  Outside of a certain range, instead of the rear heel staying down to generate drive, it becomes an anchor, and inhibits full and free movement.  Any student need simply observe their sensei in a sparring match and count the number of times the rear heel rises off the floor when striking.

As for the makiwara being a useful tool, I do enjoy hitting the makiwara as I find clacking away at it to be extremely cathartic.  However, I do know its purpose, and I believe that is primarily as a tool for checking structure, and reinforcing correct technique.  It should not be the only tool in the toolbox for training striking.  Rob Redmond, the author of the now defunct 24fightingchickens.com website had a post (pun intended) on the makiwara and its flaws.  For me, the big issue he raised was that the resistance is backwards compared to actually hitting a person.  The makiwara has light resistance at the beginning of impact and heavy resistance at the end of impact (followthrough), whereas a body will provide heavy resistance at the beginning of impact and less resistance at the end of impact.  This is Newton's First Law of Motion at work.  In this sense, a heavy bag reacts more like a person than the makiwara.

Makiwara practice can also create bad habits with those who never go beyond the practice of pushing and structure testing.  If after you hit the board you are pushed back, you are needlessly maintaining muscle tension instead of training your body to relax immediately after delivering the strike.  Certainly finding correct alignment is important, but once you do, you should not be actively pushing the makiwara on the rebound.  Imagine punching someone and then holding your tensed arm out after impact for no reason.  Unless your plan is to use it to keep the person away, it seems completely absurd as you would most likely want to bring it back in order to use again for defense or offense.  

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Wastelander wrote:
interestingly, various Okinawan masters of the modern age (Higaonna, Maeshiro, and Onaga, just to name a few) point out that because the makiwara doesn't move, you should, which makes practice interesting and gets around the issue of making karateka too rooted and immobile.

To my way of thinking, the karateka moving does not really get us around the flaw of the makiwara being fixed. As I joke to my students, “There are only two things still in a fight: unconscious people, and people who are about to be unconscious”. There is nothing but motion from both you and the enemy. Focus Mitts and Thai-Pads can replicate the enemy moving and hence they will develop power in a more realistic fashion. Even if we move, the Makiwara is still static (unlike a real enemy).

I meant the general flat-footedness of many karateka, insistent on rooting because that's all they do in front of the makiwara. Obviously, the makiwara is not representative of a real fight. The statement is really about being able to move around and still strike effectively, without locking yourself down into a static position.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Wastelander wrote:
Heavy bags are awesome, and we use them frequently, but because they swing away from you they don't provide the same progressive resistance.

I may be misunderstanding you, but I would say the mobility of the bag is one of its great virtues. The bag should displace (warp) before it swings. If it just swings, it was not a strike, but a push. A push just moves people and won’t do damage. The strike needs to be delivered in way that it distorts the bag before it swings. Unless it distorts the target, it will not be an effective punch. The bag's inertia will provide resistance for the duration of the punch. The bag should never swing away from an unfinished punch (sign of a pushy "punch" if it does). It is mainly the retuning of the bag to its shape that will see it move. So, I do think you get resistance, and a more realistic resistance to boot.

That's the trouble with text conversations--it's hard to get ideas across sometimes :P. From my perspective, the mobility of the bag is BOTH good and bad. I completely agree that it is more like hitting a person, and the fact that it presents a somewhat moving target is good. I only meant that from a structure-testing and progressive resistance perspective, the makiwara is a better fit. The bag does provide resistance during the delivery of the blow, and should be distorted as you say. The moving away just means it doesn't continue providing resistance for the structure-testing and development of musculature along that structure. It still gives you the opportunity to hit something very hard, which is still a good way to get better at hitting things very hard.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Each bit of kit has its strengths and flaws. No one piece is perfect and gives us all we need; so, it will be the mix of kit that is key. For my money, the makiwara is overemphasised and given undue prominence because of its traditional role. When looked at objectively, I feel the modern kit has more to offer when it comes to developing power. I would therefore place a much grater emphasis on that kit and a lesser emphasis on the makiwara. My belief is that the past masters would have done too if they had the access to the high-density material that makes modern equipment possible. Either way, that’s the route I have taken.

All the best,

Iain

No disagreement on everything having strengths and flaws, and needing to mix it up. I just tend to think that the makiwara is misused more often than not, and that misuse is highly overemphasized. If it's any consolation, though, we DO hit the bags and pads more than the makiwara :P

Patrick
Patrick's picture

Does anybody know if lifting the heel was common in karate " back in the day "? We know Choki Motubu said lifting the heel wasnt true Budo, and I've got another book at home that states lifting the heel became popular due to eastern arts integrating western sports style biomechanics. Same book insinuates that the adoption of western biomechanics went a long way towards leading karate away from other methods of power generation that were previously relied upon. ( not arguing the efficacy of lifting the heel, but curious now ) I'll look through my books and see if I can find the one that talked about this subject.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Wastelander wrote:
I meant the general flat-footedness of many karateka, insistent on rooting because that's all they do in front of the makiwara.

I’m with you! That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

Wastelander wrote:
The moving away just means it doesn't continue providing resistance for the structure-testing and development of musculature along that structure.

Yep, that makes sense too. I originally thought you were referring to resistance during the punch. You’re right that the bag does not “push back” after the fact in the way a makiwara does.

Wastelander wrote:
I just tend to think that the makiwara is misused more often than not, and that misuse is highly overemphasized.

That’s a true observation … just like so much of karate generally :-)

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Philios,

That’s an excellent post! Lots of very valid points there!

The only point I’d like to add something to is this one:

Philios wrote:
As kata's purpose is for civilian self-protection, the distance is much closer and thus you do not require the extra mobility of lifting the heel.

The raising of the heel is more about power generation than mobility for me and hence is does have a role at close range BUT only when stability is not an issue. For example, I will happily lift my back heel when elbowing (the third hit):

If the enemy was solidly latched on, then I’d want more stability. However, I am still happy to lift the heel at close-range of the power it gives if appropriate.  It would be a fair observation that kata generally assumes stability is an issue though.

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Patrick wrote:
Does anybody know if lifting the heel was common in karate "back in the day"?

There are some movements in kata where the back heel is off (i.e. dropping back fist Pinan Yodan), but I think it would be fair to say feet flat was the general rule. Which makes sense as the emphasis was on close-range conflict.

Patrick wrote:
We know Choki Motubu said lifting the heel wasn’t true Budo …

He was indeed against the feet being anything but flat. He was talking about the instability of cat stance in that quote and it was in relation to stability:

“Neko-ashi is a form of “floating foot” (ukiashi) which is considered very bad in bujutsu. If one receives a body strike, one will be thrown off balance.”

While that’s fair observation, it only holds true if you freeze the stance. Kicking can be seen as extreme example of “floating foot” and while Motobu also has his reservations on kicking, it did not stop him using them. The key, as we know, is to minimise the time you are on one foot. Just as we would not hold the leg up in the air when kicking, we should transition though the heel up position … as we do with all stances.

Slightly off topic, but to me cat stance is a fast shift in weight. Like all stances, it is a transitory position. Also, worth noting Motobu was against front stance and back stance too. In those cases, because “they limit free movement”. Again, this is only true if the stance is seen as the start position. If viewed as a transitory position at the end of a method, to ensure the shift of weight either forward or backward, then that problem goes way … AND Motobu can be clearly seen using front stance to add power in photographs of him performing his methods.

All the best,

Iain

nielmag
nielmag's picture

Great discussion and insights everyone!  Quick question, my judo experience is very small, however one of the things I do remember is that on spinning throws such as  seo nage, o goshi, tai otoshi, etc the foot we pivoted on the pivot was done on ball of the foot?  

karate10
karate10's picture

Before doing Karate, I was in Hakko Ryu jujutsu for a few years and the art incorporated judo throws. In my experience, for example in tai otoshi, I use the ball of my foot to spin turn(Using hips all at once) into a zenkustu dachi position to throw my partner kind of like resembles kihon kata in some ways....I hope this makes sense to a degree...Gerald.

DW
DW's picture

karate10 wrote:

Before doing Karate, I was in Hakko Ryu jujutsu for a few years and the art incorporated judo throws. In my experience, for example in tai otoshi, I use the ball of my foot to spin turn(Using hips all at once) into a zenkustu dachi position to throw my partner kind of like resembles kihon kata in some ways....I hope this makes sense to a degree...Gerald.

Coming from japanese jiu jitsu I have had the same experience as you, Gerald. I always imagine the third turn in Heian Shodan (the big 270 degree) as a tai otoshi or a ashi guruma.

Regards Daniel