Stepping back and loosening one’s guard in response to an attempted roundhouse kick to the head is far from the only sensible reaction and the defender is not the one left in the vulnerable position.
It’s the most sensible one. Assume closed cover and I’m kicking with the right leg. There are 4 directions to move. If he moves to my left, then I simply continue my kick and hit him. If he moves right, then he still gets hit but the kick might be a little weaker. If he moves back, then it’ll be a clean miss. If he moves forward, then he’s jamming himself as well as me and moving into a punch. If he blocks high, then he’s exposed a good chunk of his chest. And so on. Of these moves, the best one is to move backwards and try to hit me with something when I land.
That said, you did say taekwondo match, and not actual combat. Most of the most effective responses to that move are forbidden in that game.
Yes, that is a very important point and why I specified taekwondo! In a match with grappling, assuming we’re in closed cover, the best move would then be to block high, step forward between my legs, and simply sweep me backwards. (Alternately, block high and then do a push kick to knock me down even more spectacularly; but there might not be enough room to chamber your leg.) There would be more than enough time to do that before I could bring my leg back down.
Your point stands even though I prefer your chess analogy.
I tried to offer multiple analogies so people could pick the one they like best. The idea of forcing via feints is a general one and so we should expect to see it frequently.
Roundhouses to the head are fun and they make you feel (and look!) badass but they are definitely not very strong.
I disagree. In one tournament, I ran out of wind (aerobic endurance is my weakest point), my guard fell apart, my opponent won with 1 roundhouse to my head, and I walked away with a concussion. At least, I think that’s what happened; my memory of the match is very hazy.
I disagree. In one tournament, I ran out of wind (aerobic endurance is my weakest point), my guard fell apart, my opponent won with 1 roundhouse to my head, and I walked away with a concussion. At least, I think that’s what happened; my memory of the match is very hazy.
Being a relatively weak move doesn’t preclude it being effective against an opponent incapacitated by both fatigue and rules that preclude all the most appropriate responses. In the same way it would work against an untrained opponent, a baby that you were trying to steal candy from or someone who was kneeling down and bound hand and foot. It remains trivially true that trying to kick that far above the waist sacrifices much of your power.
The one feature avada kedavra has could be seen as analogous to a roundhouse to the head is a high syllable count; it is vulnerable to a stupify interrupt..
Definitely. Can you think of something better than stupify for a crippling strike that could interrupt an avada kedavra, or even the stunner itself? I don’t recall too many of the names.
Being a relatively weak move doesn’t preclude it being effective against an opponent incapacitated by both fatigue and rules that preclude all the most appropriate responses.
I think you’re equivocating on ‘weak’ and ‘strong’. Your first comment clearly was using it in a sense of physical or mechanical force measure, which struck me as deeply implausible given the length of the leg-lever and the long time period in which one can power up a roundhouse kick, and given my own personal experiences with being kicked in the head. But now you seem to be using it in some sort of strategic or game-theoretic sense and claiming a roundhouse to the head is dominated by other moves in most situations.
I think you’re equivocating on ‘weak’ and ‘strong’.
On that you are mistaken (and there is nothing that I have said that implies such meaning). Of course, I did also discuss strategic relevance—because that was the whole point of the analogy.
which struck me as deeply implausible given the length of the leg-lever and the long time period in which one can power up a roundhouse kick
You appear to be leaving off the to the head part, which is precisely what ensures that the move is not a strong one. I am surprised that this is even remotely controversial, particularly among those who profess personal expertise. Every instructor I have trained under has taken care to point out how much power is lost when trying to kick so high and I have no particular qualms in suggesting that if you have been advised to the contrary you need a better instructor.
and given my own personal experiences with being kicked in the head.
I refrained from mentioning my own experience being kicked in the head because I didn’t consider it particularly strong evidence. I had a saw jaw for days after I won that bout. I’m lucky he didn’t hit me in the head with a solid punch instead, I would quite probably have been hospitalised or worse!
I am surprised that this is even remotely controversial, particularly among those who profess personal expertise. Every instructor I have trained under has taken care to point out how much power is lost when trying to kick so high and I have no particular qualms in suggesting that if you have been advised to the contrary you need a better instructor.
I think we have gone as far as we can here, and there’s no point discussing it further without citations.
and there’s no point discussing it further without citations.
But now that you mention it, I took a glance at the old faithful reference. Brief, but it seems well balanced. This part in particular seemed spot on:
On the other hand, the high kicks practised in traditional martial arts or the flying/jumping kicks performed in synthesis styles are primarily performed for conditioning or aesthetic reasons.
It’s the most sensible one. Assume closed cover and I’m kicking with the right leg. There are 4 directions to move. If he moves to my left, then I simply continue my kick and hit him. If he moves right, then he still gets hit but the kick might be a little weaker. If he moves back, then it’ll be a clean miss. If he moves forward, then he’s jamming himself as well as me and moving into a punch. If he blocks high, then he’s exposed a good chunk of his chest. And so on. Of these moves, the best one is to move backwards and try to hit me with something when I land.
Yes, that is a very important point and why I specified taekwondo! In a match with grappling, assuming we’re in closed cover, the best move would then be to block high, step forward between my legs, and simply sweep me backwards. (Alternately, block high and then do a push kick to knock me down even more spectacularly; but there might not be enough room to chamber your leg.) There would be more than enough time to do that before I could bring my leg back down.
I tried to offer multiple analogies so people could pick the one they like best. The idea of forcing via feints is a general one and so we should expect to see it frequently.
I disagree. In one tournament, I ran out of wind (aerobic endurance is my weakest point), my guard fell apart, my opponent won with 1 roundhouse to my head, and I walked away with a concussion. At least, I think that’s what happened; my memory of the match is very hazy.
Being a relatively weak move doesn’t preclude it being effective against an opponent incapacitated by both fatigue and rules that preclude all the most appropriate responses. In the same way it would work against an untrained opponent, a baby that you were trying to steal candy from or someone who was kneeling down and bound hand and foot. It remains trivially true that trying to kick that far above the waist sacrifices much of your power.
The one feature avada kedavra has could be seen as analogous to a roundhouse to the head is a high syllable count; it is vulnerable to a stupify interrupt..
Syllable count should be an important principle of Battle Magic.
Definitely. Can you think of something better than stupify for a crippling strike that could interrupt an avada kedavra, or even the stunner itself? I don’t recall too many of the names.
I think you’re equivocating on ‘weak’ and ‘strong’. Your first comment clearly was using it in a sense of physical or mechanical force measure, which struck me as deeply implausible given the length of the leg-lever and the long time period in which one can power up a roundhouse kick, and given my own personal experiences with being kicked in the head. But now you seem to be using it in some sort of strategic or game-theoretic sense and claiming a roundhouse to the head is dominated by other moves in most situations.
On that you are mistaken (and there is nothing that I have said that implies such meaning). Of course, I did also discuss strategic relevance—because that was the whole point of the analogy.
You appear to be leaving off the to the head part, which is precisely what ensures that the move is not a strong one. I am surprised that this is even remotely controversial, particularly among those who profess personal expertise. Every instructor I have trained under has taken care to point out how much power is lost when trying to kick so high and I have no particular qualms in suggesting that if you have been advised to the contrary you need a better instructor.
I refrained from mentioning my own experience being kicked in the head because I didn’t consider it particularly strong evidence. I had a saw jaw for days after I won that bout. I’m lucky he didn’t hit me in the head with a solid punch instead, I would quite probably have been hospitalised or worse!
I think we have gone as far as we can here, and there’s no point discussing it further without citations.
That had been my conclusion.
But now that you mention it, I took a glance at the old faithful reference. Brief, but it seems well balanced. This part in particular seemed spot on:
Buyer beware.