Talk:Reverse roundhouse kick

A reverse roundhouse kick starts with the same move as a back straight kick and ends with a regular roundhouse kick. It's called a reverse roundhouse kick since you spin in the opposite or reverse direction of a standard back leg roundhouse kick. This kick can hit with either the ball of the foot for power or the top of the foot for additional range.

---

A reverse roundhouse kick is actually basically a roundhouse kick, but aimed in the opposite direction, i.e., a kick that starts out much like a front snap kick, but before snapping the kick out, making the kick turn outwards (as opposed to inwards like the normal roundhouse kick). This kick is not very commonly seen, but is included in certain styles, including Tang Soo Do and Tae Kwon Do.

The term "reverse roundhouse kick" may refer to two different kicks: a long back spinning kick or a nonspinning kick where a roundhouse kick circles to strike the opposite side of the body. The latter kick is sometimes known as Pete Cha Gi and was popularized by HC Hwang Kwan Jang Nim of Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan. It can be seen on the cover of Black Belt Magazine 2005-10.

merge

360 Crescent kick should be merged into here as it describes the same thing under a less descriptive name. --MarSch 14:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I do see your point. I think the basic information in the reverse roundhouse kick is related to the 360 crescent kick article. However, the two are different types of kicks that simply share similar variations. The main differences are in the position of the foot and the rotation of the hips. A crescent kick has the toes pointed upward (which cause the foot to hit with the side instead of the heel) which is because the hips rotate more than a reverse roundhouse. A reverse roundhouse kick hits with the heel of the foot and has the toes pointed sideways. Because of these differences, the body is more upright during a crescent kick, giving the kick a different appearance and shorter range of attack. Looking over the 360 crescent kick article again, I do see that these fact are omitted from the opening paragraph. I will try to add that content in to improve the descriptions. (Guyinblack25 21:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

I was also going on the "This kick is sometimes called, 360 kick, Jumping reverse roundhouse kick, or Jump spin kick", but your explanation has convinced me of the difference. The article also mentions the "360 Hook" though, which seems to be exact same kick as described here. I think that I know the 360 kick by the name lotus kick which for some reason is now a redirect to foot sweep. How shall we proceed? --MarSch 10:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the 360 hook kick being basically a jump reverse roundhouse kick. The fact the information crosses over the two articles makes this a bit difficult. Perhaps another way to do this would be to instead of merging the 360 crescent kick into the reverse roundhouse article, the reverse roundhouse should be merged with the generic kick article. The kick article could also use a section of jump kicks as well and there a couple other jumping type kicks that could be linked to it. I'm not sure if this will solve the problem that well, but it's another alternative. What do you think? Also, I'm still thinking about what content to include in the 360 crescent article to explain it better, any ideas that would help? (Guyinblack25 02:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

I am afraid you folks are confusing the issue-

While some styles have a type of front kick that hits with the heel, the motion that is used for a roundhouse negates the use of the heel as a striking surface. Think about the physics of a roundhouse kick and you'll see that to strike with the heel would be, well, silly.

As for what a reverse roundhouse is, basically, you spin as if you are doing a back straight kick and execute a roundhouse kick at the end of it. Done correctly, you can generate good power, with the ball of the foot.

Here's a link to a good reverse roundhouse kick used to break 1 pine board (12x12x1)

"Reverse Roundhouse Kick"

The spinning hook, spinning crescent, etc are totally different kicks. Thus the reverse roundhouse kick requires a separate entry and the video currently posted does not show a reverse roundhouse but a spin hook. Also, the reverse roundhouse is common in TKD and is a required kick and break for testing. (Spewgilist 18:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

While you are correct in that a variant of such a roundhouse kick exists. The reverse roundhouse kick in question is actually referring to a spinning hook kick or wheel kick. The Japanese term refers to a rotating kick going backwards. Much like the Japanese term for a roundhouse kick refers to a rotating kick. "Roundhouse" in this case I believe is referring to the spinning nature of the kick rather than the standard roundhouse kick most everyone knows.
I think the main confusion is that some people create a distinction between a spinning hook kick and a wheel kick and some people do not. The main difference is that one has the leg straight throughout most of it and the other does not. I think that's why the page was created in the first place, to try to emphasize that difference. Given the amount of confusion the information on this page is causing, I still propose that it be merged back into Kick. (Guyinblack25 21:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

Though I understand the point you are trying to make, the original intention, if any, of the page is not in question. This is a matter of facts. Whoever first identified the reverse roundhouse kick as similar in nature to the spinning crescent kick was incorrect. The reverse roundhouse kick is a distinct kick unto itself. While some people may give various names to various kicks, it does not remove the basic facts that kicks; front, side, sngle, hook, axe, round, etc are all seperate items and should be identified as such.(Spewgilist 19:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

While I agree with you that the two are separate kicks, but I personally feel that the two are similar in nature, and I'm sure that there are those that would agree with me. Because of the similarity, I think it would be easier to make that distinction on one page rather than on separate pages. That and this page has remained a stub for over a year. I think the information can be put to better use on the kick page. (Guyinblack25 21:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

What you're saying is that they are different kicks but becuase some people confuse a reverse roundhouse kick with a spinning hook kick, they should be classed as the same kick. That's just wrong. The purpose of information is to inform, not to confuse and encouraging consolidation of information for conveniences sake is contrary to the purpose of a site like Wikipedia.

If this remains a stub for the next 5 years, what's the harm, as long as the correct informaiton is given in the stub. You might as well define a brick as a airplane since they are both made of matter and can both fly once sufficient force is applied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spewgilist (talk • contribs) 10:50, July 11, 2007

Ok first off, I'm not saying that because people get them confused they should be treated as the same kick. I'm agreeing with you, they are two different kicks with some subtle differences. But in order to help people understand that, I think it should be on the same page as the rest of the kicks. We're both trying to accomplish the same thing, get the right information to any interested party that happens to be reading.
Unfortunately, that's not the only thing we have to concern ourselves with as editors on Wikipedia. Whether an article stays on Wikipedia or not, is not whether it's true, accurate, or different. Verifiability and notability are the main criteria we have to adhere to. According to WP:VERIFY, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." This article has no citations and is a small stub. If an administrator wanted to delete this article they could very easily do so and Wikipedia would side with them. Merging it into the Kick article gives it a chance to expand better than it would on its own. Even if it's harmless, if it doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, it can be deleted, see: WP:HARMLESS.
This article was created a year and a half ago and it's still a stub and will probably stay one. So what do say, merge it into kick? Otherwise, this article won't be able to stand on its own and it might get deleted. (Guyinblack25 17:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

My apologies. I misundeerstood your point. I agree that it would be better to have the information concerning a Reverse Roundhouse Kick merged with other Kick articles, thus preserving an accurate definition of what a Reverse Roundhouse Kick is and noting that it differes from other kicks. Spewgilist 20:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I'll try to get this article to be merged into Kick if not today then sometime this week. This page will be redirected to the appropriate section in the kick article and the talk page will be left here. Happy editing. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC))