Why no sidekicks in mma

do you ever stop and think before you post or does what ever silly shit that pops into your mind get posted immediately on here?

Man some of the shit you read on here is so bizarre.:icon_lol:

:icon_lol:

Makes it pretty obvious what the experience level is in either subject doesn't it?
 
you wonder why sanda fighters in china dont use the almighty sidekick in mma also? same thing with a the push kick. i mean its used in mma but not effectively like it would be in a muay thai fight.

especially at the highest level of mma. one little mistake and your done.
 
so i guess you never have. stop watching kung fu flicks. their not real.

128764457140145802.jpg
 
Like I've said before awhile ago side kicks are vulnerable to TDs. Also your back will be towards the opponent if he side steps in against you.
 
Crocop was spamming side kicks vs. Barry
 
Like I've said before awhile ago side kicks are vulnerable to TDs. Also your back will be towards the opponent if he side steps in against you.

any kick exposes you to a possible td or exposes you if your opponent side steps

thats why you learn to throw them correctly and dont throw them haphazardly :icon_chee
 
any kick exposes you to a possible td or exposes you if your opponent side steps

thats why you learn to throw them correctly and dont throw them haphazardly :icon_chee

For sure any kicks are risky if the fighter can time a TD. But personally I rather not use side kicks because

1) somewhat more difficult to defend against being side stepped and countered
2) it's much easier to return to stance from regular leg/ high kicks
3) high risk/low reward

The only fighter so far I know utilizes side kicks well is Cung Le. But he throws a variety of different kicks so it's hard for his opponents to time properly.
 
...i think sanda fighters are gonna transition better into mma than muay thai fighters. they're wild, high pace and will pick you up and dump you on the head. muay thai is more of a thinking, and more technical approach...

My coaches would disagree with you on that one.

And I don't think it's fair to judge San Shou based on Art of War MMA fights. The best of San Shou aren't competing in MMA yet.
 
For sure any kicks are risky if the fighter can time a TD. But personally I rather not use side kicks because

somewhat more difficult to defend against being side stepped and countered

Some what agree on this. Though one must not telegraph the kick by standing completely side ways. Contrary to popular belief you dont have to in order to attack with the kick.

2) it's much easier to return to stance from regular leg/ high kicks

Depends on the stance. I use pretty much a boxers stance and i can return to it quickly from the side kick.

3) high risk/low reward

Lol don't mean to sound like a broken record but it depends.


1. I believe it is wise to set up all of your kicks with the punches including the side kick but i dont believe many people are coordinated enough to do it.

At the very least feints can be used to set up the attack.

2. As some of the comments on here have shown people don't have a proper grasp of how to throw the kick. The missing part in why many side kicks fail miserably is because the kicker telegraphs it or doesn't immediately yank his leg back and down in order to defend or strike again.

Genral chois idea with the lead leg side kick was to try to make it as fast as a boxers jab that means it has to shoot back as quick as it shot out and returning the kick is the hardest part to get down.

Finally of course one must not think he has to launch a spectacular high as possble kick all the time. Thats the problem with many "fancy " kicks. Guys think they have to throw them to the head all the time.

A side kick to the gut or the hip will be hard to counter and one to the shin or knee will be ever more difficult

The only fighter so far I know utilizes side kicks well is Cung Le. But he throws a variety of different kicks so it's hard for his opponents to time properly.


hailong had a beauitful one as well.
 
Side kicks aren't nearly as vulnerable to a takedown as a round kick mainly due to the sidekick being linear; stopping forward motion and a round kick being circular. Back to the original question of the OP: The reason you don't see sidekicks in MMA is because of the lack of technical skill required. Remember that the majority of American fighters come from wrestling backgrounds and don't have the coordination for striking (let alone timing, distance, or reflexes) If there were more guys coming from Sanshou, Sambo, or Kudo who come from arts that train this particular technique then we would see it more. The Wrestlers undergo a crash course in striking and never refine the MT techniques (which are effective, but definitely not as demanding as a sidekick, axe kick, spinning back kick etc.) let alone master something that requires more balance, flexibility, and coordination.
 
Barry is not known for his TDs is he? Also CC's sidekicks werent that effective against Barry either. High risk, low reward.

the one he landed looked solid and may have winded Barry. Plus it didnt seem like Pat really countered them
 
Ok gona start out by saying that I think that side kicks arent used much because they are push kicks mostly and other things can do that well. Also round kicks have more of a whipping motion and are better for damage and knockouts.

So chino you are right about them not being effectivly used much, but we are seeing more of them, and you are wrong about no mma sanda fighters using them alot , Cung le is a huge sanda fighter, its his main style .

Side kicks are taught in self defence because you could be fighting more than one guy so you may not need to set the side kick up, someone could just be standing there, also it is a push kick so gives you room to run like hell if you need to ( what i would do every goddamn time, hit hard, run like a greyhound)
 
Ok gona start out by saying that I think that side kicks arent used much because they are push kicks mostly and other things can do that well. Also round kicks have more of a whipping motion and are better for damage and knockouts.

So chino you are right about them not being effectivly used much, but we are seeing more of them, and you are wrong about no mma sanda fighters using them alot , Cung le is a huge sanda fighter, its his main style .

Side kicks are taught in self defence because you could be fighting more than one guy so you may not need to set the side kick up, someone could just be standing there, also it is a push kick so gives you room to run like hell if you need to ( what i would do every goddamn time, hit hard, run like a greyhound)

It's never taught as a push kick in the traditional Korean, Japanese, or Chinese arts. Can it be? Yes--if you're doing it wrong. I remember always being told growing up that if you're only pushing the target--then you're not properly kicking. Novices to the kick will push with it because they're not able to generate the force and snap that the kick is supposed to have. When you kick a heavy bag with it, the bag shouldn't be just swinging like a pendulum, it should fold and/or bounce. The kick is meant to break ribs, not push people back.

That said, indochina (Muay Thai specifically) does teach the side kick to be done essentially in the same method as the teep, so there it is a push kick from the side. Body mechanics are generally the same as other side kicks but the body is not turned as much (i.e. you're not looking over your shoulder).
 
Last edited:
It's never taught as a push kick in the traditional Korean, Japanese, or Chinese arts. Can it be? Yes--if you're doing it wrong. I remember always being told growing up that if you're only pushing the target--then you're not properly kicking. Novices to the kick will push with it because they're not able to generate the force and snap that the kick is supposed to have. When you kick a heavy bag with it, the bag shouldn't be just swinging like a pendulum, it should fold and/or bounce. The kick is meant to break ribs, not push people back.



not only are people not snapping/chambering correctly, but it is because they havent practice with the kick enough against a real opponent to get the distance down. it is very hard b/c if you use it as an offensive attack he can easily move back or side step.

if they are coming forward it is most effective b/c it adds their momentum into your kick. HOWEVER, this is very difficult to land b/c if you dont get his timing and distance right then he is going to be inside your range for the impact side kick which then results in you being flung back or your opponent depending on who has better kicking balance and strength.

spinning back kick FTW although side kick is great if used sparingly. if you are going to use techniques like these you need to mix up your kicks a lot to make sure they cannot tell what is coming
 
Ok I think before we progress here, we need to establish a couple of things, one I think because we have video evidence of cro cop, cung le and other MMA fighters throwing the side kick at experienced MMA fighters, like frank shamrock etc that the side kick can be thrown without having the thrower completly destroyed, videos prove that, The question is now, is it worth doing in an MMA fight?


anti side kick side has to acknowledge that the video evidence shows that they can land and not have the thrower taken out, at least some times. I could go through and list the videos and the times that they happen but im not going to, seeing is beleiving.

pro side kick side have to acknoledge that very few or no sidekicks seen in MMA result in a knockout. none of the side kicks I have seen in the videos have shown knockouts.

So the question is now, are side kicks not used alot in MMA due to the fact that other attacks that are easier have the same effect, or because they are just not trained to most MMA fighters, or perhaps some other reason I suspect that the low stance of mma fighters mostly mean they have a low centre of gravity and are more stable, so the kicks effect would not be as dramatic as an attack from the side, eg a roundhouse. I think that anyone reasonable person would agree on the above 2 points about the pro and anti camps, if not my opinions in the immediate above
 
Last edited:
Back
Top