25 posts / 0 new
Last post
Marc
Marc's picture
Gyaku-Zuki - back foot sliding or not?

Hi, I just had a conversation with some other karatekas about the correct form of gyaku-zuki.

When I say gyaku-zuki I'm talking about those that can be found, for example, in Kanku Dai, where you have a turn into uchi-uke (in-to-out) followed by gyaku-zuki. For the purpose of this question it does not necessarily have to be a tsuki, it could as well be a gyaku-empi, as in Kanku Dai after the koshi-kamae/yoko-geri when you put your foot back down and then bring your hip in to gyaku-empi hitting your own palm. Anyway, it's a reverse side technique delivered in zenkutsu-dachi and without moving further in the direction of the strike.

As we have seen in the forum thread on power generation, we basically want to thrust our back hip forward while pivoting at the front hip. This motion throws forward the back hand/arm.

Now here comes my (probably pedantic) question...

There seem to be (at least) five options of what your back foot should do:

  1. Nothing, the foot stays exactly where it was before the technique.
  2. Pivot on the ball of the foot (the heel moves backwards and a little to the outside).
  3. Pivot on the heel (the ball of the foot moves forward and a little to the inside) and make sure the heel is planted firmly to the ground so it stays in the same spot.
  4. Pivot on the heel (the ball of the foot moves forward and a little to the inside) and allow the back foot to slide forward a bit. In other words, the leg and foot are kind of drawn forward a little by the hip after the hip has been pushed forward forcefully by the leg and foot.
  5. Lift the heel while the ball of the foot remains in the same spot. This can often be seen in sports Kumite for example.

What do you do and why?

All the best

Marc

Chikara Andrew
Chikara Andrew's picture

An interesting point and one that I had a discussion with at length with some of my students this week.

Performing a kata and similarly khion there is a drive to achieve a perfection in technique rather than impact.

So this week some of my students were practicing gyaku-zuki on impact pads and were surprised when I demonstracted that I allow my back heel to lift as the hip comes forward. They were trying to maintain the heel on the ground as they would in khion or kata. The key difference I explained is that I want impact on the pad, but also more importantly I have resistance on the pad. If I threw my punches into fresh air the way I do against impact equipment I would overshoot into an unusual looking position but also potentially injure myself.

I do keep my heel on the floor when performing kata but still allow my hips to travel. I think that one area of modern karate practice that has led to this problem is the elongation of stances. Shukokai (my style) tends to have higher stances than most allowing the hips to move, some styles are so long that they will struggle to move the hips without allowing the back foot to move.

I think it is down to your interpretation and wether or not you are using your kata for grading or competition.

I often practice kata keeping my understanding of its application in mind, aswell as the effectiveness of its technique (as in letting the heel move) and it is often interesting where you end up in terms of embusen, and also how the body position and stances differ. 

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

 

The bodyweight should always be moving (fully) in the direction of the strike. In this instance, the ideal would therefore be pivot on the heel, and, if distance requires, continue to roll onto the ball of the foot and lift the heel.

We pivot on the heel first, because to pivot on the ball of the foot would have the heel and the hip moving away from the target. That’s the “ideal” that the kata – as I practise it – shows.

If the enemy’s head was a little further away, then lifting the heel, after pivoting on it, to continue to pivot on the ball of the foot to allow the hip to continue rotating would be the right move. However, the rough and tumble of live conflict could see other options be necessary depending on angle and distance. For example, if the enemy’s head was close to my chest (i.e. when I kick the knee, they fall toward me) then I will need to adjust distance by stepping back ward a little. Just like how I may need to elbow higher than the kata tells me if the enemy is taller.

As a kata ideal, pivot on the heel, and perfect distance should mean the heel will not need to lift. However, in application you do whatever will get you the most power and is tactically most appropriate for the situation as is.

Funakoshi’s 18th precept is, “Always perform kata exactly; combat is another matter”. In his explanation of the precept for the book ‘Karate-Do Taikan’, Genwa Nakasone elaborated to say, “Never be shackled by the rituals of kata, but instead move freely according to the enemy’s strengths and weaknesses.”

So the kata shows an “ideal”, while karate as a whole, acknowledges that we need to adapt and vary to the circumstances of a live situations. Hence, we may need to vary from that ideal in detail if not in essence.

All the best,

Iain

Th0mas
Th0mas's picture

There is also another contextual perspective. When in close range(I.e hands on) having a more solid rooting makes more sense when you are wanting to apply mechanical advantage to a resisting opponent who will be pushing, dragging and generally disrupting you. 

So when applying something from kata the assumption is that you are in close range, rather than at a perfect distance, where maximising power is not the only consideration.

cheers

Tom

Ian H
Ian H's picture

Marc wrote:
... Anyway, it's a reverse side technique delivered in zenkutsu-dachi and without moving further in the direction of the strike.

As we have seen in the forum thread on power generation, we basically want to thrust our back hip forward while pivoting at the front hip. This motion throws forward the back hand/arm.

Now here comes my (probably pedantic) question...

There seem to be (at least) five options of what your back foot should do:

  1. Nothing, the foot stays exactly where it was before the technique.

Not pedantic at all ... very practical.  

I do the front-hand block in an "open" hip stance,  and then close the stance with the punch from the back hand, that gives the hip rotation (using the front leg as the pivot point to bring the back leg forward) as it were.  The beginning stance is "reversed engineered" so to speak, so that you can move your "striking" hip forward without having to move the back foot.  

I speak, of course, in the form-perfect world of solo kata ... bearing in mind Funakoshi's precept about "fighting being another matter" quoted above by Sensei Abernethy.  

ezzi91
ezzi91's picture

I have always been taught to pivot on the ball of my foot in karate. Is gyaku-zuki somehow different from rest of the techniques and moving?

I get the feeling that the whole pivoting thing is controversial in the karate world. For example, sensei Lucio Maurino thinks that we should not pivot on heels (http://www.karatebyjesse.com/why-karates-classic-heel-turn-is-scientific...), but then again sensei Inoue emphasises pivoting on heels (http://www.karatebyjesse.com/42-secrets-of-inoue-yoshimi-kata-coach/).

Who should I believe or are both methods good, but on different cases?

ezzi91
ezzi91's picture

http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.fi/2013/11/7-basic-rules-for-pivoting.html

More about pivoting. Includes a word about gyaku-zuki, saying that you shoud pivot on the ball of the foot.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

One of my personal martial mantras is:

Whenever someone says “always” or “never” they are wrong.

The thinking being that universal absolutes run contrary to the uniqueness of every single situation and the innumerable variables that exist in combat.

The trouble is that “traditional” martial thinking indoctrinates us into this idea that there is a right way and a wrong way to do everything. The right way is always right. The wrong way is always wrong. This can hold true if you are using arbitrary dictates i.e. Sensei X said it should be done that way, etc. However, in conflict – which is very variable and where we always measure by effect – then the context of the situation is what will determine what is right and wrong. And because the situation can change, what is right or wrong can change.

If my enemy was very close, and my foot was out to the side, then pivoting on the ball of the foot would be wrong as it would have my heel moving away from the target and it would partially reduce hip rotation. But that does not mean pivoting on the heel is always right. If the enemy was further way, keeping the heel down would limit rotation and drive through the target. But that does not mean pivoting on the ball of the foot is always right.

There’s also the stability issue too. If we were clinched when hitting, I may wish to keep the feet flat to help ensure stability. When moving generally, boxers always want the heels off (punching at distance – mobility is the primary consideration); Judoka always want the heels down (grappling at close range – stability is the primary consideration). As karateka who span the ranges, we need to accept that there are times when we need the heels off, and times when we need them down. This is because of variables such as distance, position, gripped / un-gripped, direction of movement, being pushed / pulled, etc, etc.

Speaking generally, combative tactics can also mean that what may be “right” from a physics point of view would be wrong tactically. I can get a harder punch with a huge wide up, but such excessive motion – while right from a physics perspective where power = (force X distance) / time taken – would be wrong tactically because it would be easy to avoid.

We could end up listing endless scenarios where one method is better than the other, but that does not prove one method is universally better. It’s always good to avoid absolutes too, because they rarely stand up to testing.

I practice and teach both heel up and heel down because both have their uses and both can be the optimum answer depending on circumstance.

It’s also possible to hit with both feet in the air – i.e. fast retreat or advance – so in that case we are not pivoting at all.

“It depends” may not be a satisfactory answer, but it is the right one.

All the best,

Iain

Roman P
Roman P's picture

Iain, I have to disagree with you on whether pivoting on the heel allows better rotation of hips. First, pivoting on the ball of the foot allows greater range of motion for internal rotation of the moving knee. This directly allows the hip of the rear leg to travel further and with greater speed. Second, it allows the rear leg to better push off the ground, pushing whole pelvic girdle forward (possibly with posterior tilt). It quite simply feels more natural to pivot on the ball of the foot for the rear-hand cross. I also disagree that rotation on the heel is preferable because it moves bodymass in a single direction. The weight of the foot is very small compared to the rest of the body and contributes little to momentum of the punch compared to the hips, trunc and shoulders. It's better to have a greater range of motion for these segments, I feel.

Ian H
Ian H's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

One of my personal martial mantras is:

Whenever someone says “always” or “never” they are wrong.

...

I practice and teach both heel up and heel down because both have their uses and both can be the optimum answer depending on circumstance.

It’s also possible to hit with both feet in the air – i.e. fast retreat or advance – so in that case we are not pivoting at all.

“It depends” may not be a satisfactory answer, but it is the right one.

All the best,

Iain

In one kata, I have a particular move which is done specifically rotating on the back heel, moving body mass foreward into the attack.  In another, I have a particular move done specifically rotating on the back ball of the foot, moving body mass backward to avoid an attack, and then countering.  Senior senseis are very clear on those specifics, but also (to the extent necessary as a lot of it is self-explanatory once you think about the moves in context) good to explain the "why".  

So, basically "turn this way in this situation, and that way in that situation".  

The cheeky monkey in me wants to ask if you realy mean ...

Iain Abernethy wrote:

One of my personal martial mantras is:

Whenever someone says “always” or “never” they are always wrong.

... but I think we get your intended point.  

wink

Marc
Marc's picture

Hey, thanks everybody for your great replies. I love this forum. It seems I'm not the only one who sometimes likes to be pedantic. wink

So the answer is, as always: It depends.

To narrow the question down a little, please allow me to rephrase it... (This could get a bit lengthy, so if you want to back out, now is your chance. ;-)

Let's consider the following move:

  1. Assume Kokutsu-Dachi with Shuto-Uke, left foot forward (both heels are more or less on the same line, forming an "L" shape).
  2. Move your left foot a little to the left to facilitate the switch to Zenkutsu-Dachi (so we don't just fall into it). Be sure not to rotate your hips at this point.
  3. Straighten your right leg to push the right hip forward, pivoting at the left hip, and thus assume the Zenkutsu-Dachi. With the forward rotation of the hip your right hand is propelled forward into a Gyaku-Zuki.

We're talking kihon here. We want to train the ideal form of this move in solo practice. The aim is, of course, to maximize power in the Gyaku-Zuki.

As Iain has pointed out:

Iain Abernethy wrote:
The bodyweight should always be moving (fully) in the direction of the strike.

For that to happen we should certainly not pivot our right foot on the ball (turning our heel back and a little to the outside, heel on the floor), because that takes the right leg backwards by 1 foot-length. I can't even see how we can keep the left hip in place (remember we want to pivot our hip rotation there). At least when I try it the left hip always goes back a little. Thus we would take body weight out of the technique. - There goes option 2.

We also don't want to leave our right foot cemented where it was when we were in Kokutsu-Dachi, because that would mean that we'd straighten our right leg with the knee pointing sideways. The weight of our body would kind of press down on the side of our knee. This could injure our knee. - There goes option 1.

I can see how we could pivot on the ball and lift the heel. The leg turns knee-down, which is healthy. The right hip goes forward, which is what we want. But for me this feels like I'm sacrificing stability since I'm less connected to the ground. I also feel I will have to flow on into the next technique. Of course stances (like Zenkutsu-Dachi in this case) are ment to be only "freeze-frames", and we want to move on quickly. But I don't want my posture to require me to move on. - It's hard to describe, and maybe that's just me. - So somebody else might, but I don't like option 5.

That leaves us with options 3 and 4:

Marc wrote:

  1. Nothing, the foot stays exactly where it was before the technique.
  2. Pivot on the ball of the foot (the heel moves backwards and a little to the outside).
  3. Pivot on the heel (the ball of the foot moves forward and a little to the inside) and make sure the heel is planted firmly to the ground so it stays in the same spot.
  4. Pivot on the heel (the ball of the foot moves forward and a little to the inside) and allow the back foot to slide forward a bit. In other words, the leg and foot are kind of drawn forward a little by the hip after the hip has been pushed forward forcefully by the leg and foot.
  5. Lift the heel while the ball of the foot remains in the same spot. This can often be seen in sports Kumite for example.

So we want to pivot on the heel, as most of you suggested.

We push our hip forward by straightening the right leg. This in turn results in almost your entire body weight to go forward.

Now only one detail of the question remains: Right after you've accelerated your hip into forward motion, do you keep your right foot planted firmly in the ground or do you allow it to be dragged forward a little by the hip (keeping the leg straight and not actually lifting your foot from the floor)?

Let me clarify what i mean by comparing it to jumping: If you jump into the air, you bend your knees and then straighten them (and your feet) quickly. This pushes your body upwards. If you accelarate your body enough, it will rise so high that it will drag your legs with it into the air, and your feet will leave the ground. You are not bending your knees to actively pull the feet into the air. It's just that the thrust from your legs was strong enough to lift your entire body into the air, including your feet.

The alternative would be to kind of jump but to make sure that your feet remain firmly planted on the ground (as in weight lifting, I suppose).

Remember we are talking kihon. So there is no actual resistance to your Gyaku-Zuki.

So, do you allow your back foot to be dragged forward by the rest of the body or do you make sure it remains on the spot?

Thanks for your patience.

Marc

Marc
Marc's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
The bodyweight should always be moving (fully) in the direction of the strike.

I agree.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
Whenever someone says “always” or “never” they are wrong.

But you don't?

devil

Have a good day everybody!

Roman P
Roman P's picture

Marc, I am not a karate practitioner (though I trained in quasi-Shotokan TJJ club for a year). I refreshed myself a bit in the terminology and I hope I was able to properly visualize what you described. The deeper your stance, the less you are able to rotate your hips and trunc. In a scenario you described, this very deep zenkutsi dachi stance is not very conductive for generating power for rear (let's say 'right' from now on) cross. You can square hips a bit by just straightening the right leg and tilting pelvis, but the range of motion this produces is still not very big. Pivoting on right heel better alignes the motion and the knee, but I do not feel this contributes to the motion of the rest of the body much. Pivoting on the ball of the foot will still allow a greater range of motion with the caveat that lower the stance, worse the results. I think that the question of sliding a foot or not depends on what type of punch you are trying to do. You can plant the right foot on the ground and by pushing with it move yourself linearly forward - but this will be more of a rear-hand jab. For this type of punch you need to lunge forward, sink weight down and push off the planted right foot (possibly by taking a small step forward with the left foot). Or you can pull the right side of the body forward by planting the left foot and pulling the right side by the action of oblicques and left hip (how we walk) - then in the right moment plant the right ball of the foot, push off the ground with both legs, rotate the body from hips to shoulders and do the right cross. Both a very different punches, but my guess is that the second method will be much more powerful.

Chikara Andrew
Chikara Andrew's picture

Marc wrote:

Now only one detail of the question remains: Right after you've accelerated your hip into forward motion, do you keep your right foot planted firmly in the ground or do you allow it to be dragged forward a little by the hip (keeping the leg straight and not actually lifting your foot from the floor)?

Kokutsu-dachi doesn't feature much in Kata's in Shukokai or Shito-ryu style (opening of Neiseishi being the only example I can think of) however we do use it in Kihon from time to time.

In transitioning from one stance to another I am seeking to generate movement in both hips, in your example reaching forward for a pivot point with the left before bringing the right around it to deliver the strike.

So from the back stance as I move the front leg across to give width to the Zenkutsu-dachi I'm going to push forward off my back leg to start moving bodyweight forward. Once that has happend my fixed point has moved to my left foot and left hip, the right hip will naturally correct the foot position as it comes forward (as you mention if you try to keep it in an unnatural position you are going to stress the knee joint), I think its inevitable that it will slide forward slightly, otherwise as Iain has mentioned the only other was is for some force to go backwards, away from the strike.

Caveat - I have re-read this post serveral times to ensure I have not used "always" or "never" !

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
The bodyweight should always be moving (fully) in the direction of the strike.

Marc wrote:
I agree.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
Whenever someone says “always” or “never” they are wrong

Marc wrote:
But you don't?

Absolutes are always wrong … even absolutes about absolutes ;-) I’m going to drop this point before it becomes more philosophical than I’m qualified for!

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Roman P wrote:
Iain, I have to disagree with you on whether pivoting on the heel allows better rotation of hips …

I hope I made clear that I did not say that? I said that it depended on the specific circumstance and hence I did not make the universal claim that the heel was better.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
I practice and teach both heel up and heel down because both have their uses and both can be the optimum answer depending on circumstance.

It’s also possible to hit with both feet in the air – i.e. fast retreat or advance – so in that case we are not pivoting at all.

“It depends” may not be a satisfactory answer, but it is the right one.

As regards the points you make in favour of the heel turn, if you are talking about a “boxing range” cross then I agree the ball of the foot is best for the reasons you state. However, if you are very close turning in on the heel will have every part of the body (including leg, foot and hip) moving in the direction of the strike. If you were to twist on the ball of the foot, then the impact (which would come earlier in the motion doe to the close proximity) would happen while the heel, leg and the hip (partially) are moving away from the target.

This is easily demonstrated on a bag, but maybe not so easy to get across in words when people may be visualising a specific type of strike and applying the two methods to that exact same strike. Differing strikes require differing methods. As already mentioned, we can’t dismiss tactical and stability considerations too.

There will be time where it will be totally on the ball of the foot, times where it will be total with the heel, times were we do heel then ball of foot, time where both feet are off the ground, times were we will be moving off line as we punch (which will affect the way the legs and feet move because they are generating both power and body shifting), there will be times were we’ve changed levels (i.e. ducked or slipped) such there is so much weight on the back foot as we hit that its simply not possible to turn on the ball of the foot due to the tight angle between the foot and shin, and so on.

There is no universally better method. It truly does just depend on circumstance.

I’m therefore not universally saying “pivoting on the heel allows better rotation of hips”. My point is that it’s wrong to seek a universal “one size fits all solution” because what is right in one scenario is not right in another.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
We could end up listing endless scenarios where one method is better than the other, but that does not prove one method is universally better. It’s always good to avoid absolutes too, because they rarely stand up to testing.

I think this thread may be in danger of doing down that route. So for my contribution to the thread, I hope I’ve made clear that I think both methods have value, that the choice is always dependent on combative circumstance, and that we should avoid extrapolating an academic example to a universal truth.

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Marc wrote:
So, do you allow your back foot to be dragged forward by the rest of the body or do you make sure it remains on the spot?

It depends :-) Distance, angle, the relative motion of both combatants, etc.

We have kihon for reverse punch going forward, backward, at angles, with a grip, without a grip, static, etc.

I’d avoid choosing just one because that limits you to one specific example with no ability to adapt to circumstance.

It’s “modern traditional” thinking that leads us to want a universally “right” way of doing things. True traditional thinking accepts the fluid nature of conflict and the need to fight in a “principle based” manner such that we can adapt to circumstance.

A good recent sports example of this is Ronda Rousey’s arm lock in UFC 184. In post-fight interview she said she’d never done the arm-lock in that way from that position before … and yet the execution was flawless. This is because she intuitively gets arm-locks (and then some). She’s not limited to specific examples, but has moved beyond that. We need to do the same with our strikes.

If we stick to the idea that one way – irrespective of circumstance – is the one true way, then we get limited by that example. If, however, we practise the many ways (which all adhere to common core principles which manifest in the optimum way for the specific situation) then we become versatile and adaptable.

Back to the specific question, there are times when the foot will go back (i.e. skipping back to avoid being swapped by a quickly advancing enemy), times when it will go to the side (i.e. shifting off-line to gain a tactically better position), times where you will move the foot so far forward that is becomes a step (i.e. the punch causes the enemy to rapidly stagger back and hence you need to move in to maintain distance and hence avoid giving them a chance to recover), and on and on.

Function should dictate from. Rigid adherence to a specific example of form will limit function.

All the best,

Iain

Roman P
Roman P's picture

Iain, sorry, I checked the thread again and you indeed did not write on heel pivoting and hip rotation advantages. Guess I got my wires crossed or something o_0

Chris Hansen
Chris Hansen's picture

The idea has been brought up a few times that pivoting on the ball of the foot will have the heel and the hip moving away from the target. This is true if the heel is kept down but isn't really the case if the heel comes up like in boxing. I'm just wondering if this method is used much in traditional arts?

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Roman P wrote:
Iain, sorry, I checked the thread again and you indeed did not write on heel pivoting and hip rotation advantages. Guess I got my wires crossed or something o_0

Not a problem. It made sure I clarified with an additional post which may have added something to the thread :-)

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Chris Hansen wrote:
The idea has been brought up a few times that pivoting on the ball of the foot will have the heel and the hip moving away from the target.

Sometimes :-) Pivoting on the ball of the foot won’t do that if we have distance.

Chris Hansen wrote:
This is true if the heel is kept down but isn't really the case if the heel comes up like in boxing. I'm just wondering if this method is used much in traditional arts?

It is. Both are. We won’t keep the back heel permanently off the floor as boxers would though. Nor will be keep the feet permanently flat as judoka are prone to. It just depends what we are doing.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
There’s also the stability issue too. If we were clinched when hitting, I may wish to keep the feet flat to help ensure stability. When moving generally, boxers always want the heels off (punching at distance – mobility is the primary consideration); Judoka always want the heels down (grappling at close range – stability is the primary consideration). As karateka who span the ranges, we need to accept that there are times when we need the heels off, and times when we need them down. This is because of variables such as distance, position, gripped / un-gripped, direction of movement, being pushed / pulled, etc, etc.

All the best,

Iain

Marc
Marc's picture

Thanks everybody for all your knowlegable replies.

I learned a great deal again. The main thing being, as often, that there is no single answer to how to do something in kihon. Because kihon is out of context refinement of technique, there's many possible ways to perform the technique. Add context and the options narrow down. There are however more effective and less effective ways of performing each of the different options.

Thank again. Take care, train safely

Marc

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Marc wrote:
The main thing being, as often, that there is no single answer to how to do something in kihon. Because kihon is out of context refinement of technique, there's many possible ways to perform the technique. Add context and the options narrow down. There are however more effective and less effective ways of performing each of the different options.

Awesome summation! That effectively says what it took me 1000s of words to say in the recent podcast on Kihon. I like it lots!

Marc
Marc's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Marc wrote:
The main thing being, as often, that there is no single answer to how to do something in kihon. Because kihon is out of context refinement of technique, there's many possible ways to perform the technique. Add context and the options narrow down. There are however more effective and less effective ways of performing each of the different options.

Awesome summation! That effectively says what it took me 1000s of words to say in the recent podcast on Kihon. I like it lots!

LOL.

Iain, I really enjoy listening to your podcasts, and it would certainly be a bit disappointing if they were only 4 sentences long. ;-) Keep up the great work.

All the best

Marc

swdw
swdw's picture

It depends. The situation will determine what you do.