Talk:Kip-up

Good article
I always wondered what that was called. Rich Farmbrough, 09:07 5 October 2006 (GMT).

Hop Back to a Kip-up
It seems to me like the first and last description in Hop Back to a Kip-up could well be the same thing. If so we should merge the two descriptions and if not we should clarify their difference. --MarSch 14:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * After rereading the descriptions, I see your point. However, the two are different techniques are different. One hops backward in more of a back handspring and rebounds quicker like a spring. The Ditangquan variation jumps directly upward and then falls directly downward to the ground and lands as a breakfall. The practitioner pauses on the ground momentarily and then hops back up. The help distinguish the two I have tried to elaborate more on the descriptions. Please check back to see if is more clear. (Guyinblack25 20:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC))


 * the difference seems to be the same as between kip-up with hands and no-hand kip-up, although this difference is magnified by starting from a standing position. Is that correct? --MarSch 10:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes and no, you've got the right idea. The execution is actually the main difference. The first one is executed like a back handspring, in which the person will essentially sit down on an imaginary chair and then hop backwards. The impact on the body is less as well because as you pointed out, the hands are there absorb some of it and help the body spring back. The Ditang one jumps straight up into the air and coils while in the air. If the body coiled while it hit the ground like in the first one, the impact would be lessened. But it doesn't, it falls straight down and the person throws their arms out as they hit to simulate a breakfall. I'll try to add more content about the hands to make it clearer. Also I'd just like to say thank you for the input, it's nice to get some feedback on articles like this that need to be very descriptive to illustrate actions. (Guyinblack25 14:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC))


 * What about a Ditang kip-up without the jumping up part? Do you think we should mention it, maybe just as a practice form for full Ditang kip-up? And split off Ditang kip-up from Hop Back to a Kip-up into its own subsection? Ideally we shall have a movie for each of the variants worth mentioning. Words can say only so much. I absorb your thank you and retaliate with a thank you too of my own. --MarSch 15:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I reorganized the content a little bit, if you think it doesn't help convey the information appropriately, we can revert it. Also, it would be really nice if we had the actual Chinese name of that ditang breakfall. I guess we'll add that to the list of questions to ask the Wikipedia Martial Arts Project. (Guyinblack25 00:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC))


 * No, I like it. I've massaged the text a bit. --MarSch 10:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not Practical?
"In reality, the move is not practical in actual self defense situations." Why, exactly? I have a decent number of years of self defense training under my belt, and I fail to see how a fast, relatively efficient method of getting to one's feet would not be practical, particularly since it is a core element in many martial arts, including, perhaps most famously, Wushu. Xiphe 04:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While I do see your point, I'm inclined to believe that it is not the most efficient method of getting to one's feet in a self defense situation. Also, the most often I've seen a kip-up in is in open-form divisions at martial arts tournaments and in the forms of contemporary wushu, but not in too many sparring or actual fight/self-defense applications. Regardless of where it is used, the fact still remains that it, like most every other martial arts based technique, is a tool, and the effectiveness of a tool is determined by the user. Since not everyone is capable of doing such a maneuver, its effectiveness as a whole is diminished. While I can't argue that it is not an option to get up, even for those that are capable are successfully executing it, there are safer, and more effective ways of getting up in a self-defense situation. (Guyinblack25 05:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC))


 * it would be great if you have a source that compares different methods of getting up for practicalness. --MarSch 09:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it would. As a compromise, I'd be willing to remove the statement so long as no other unsourced statement, good or bad, about its effectiveness is put in place. How does that sound? In the mean time, I'll see if i can find a source to back up my statement. (Guyinblack25 14:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Sounds good. Good luck on finding a source, though: as five minutes of looking at the comments on martial arts videos on Youtube will tell you, what "is and isn't effective" in martial arts is one hell of a powder keg.
 * Unfortunately, MarSch, such a source, I expect, doesn't exist. It's like that infernal argument between "striking" and "grappling." There really isn't a "correct" answer, as a lot depends on many variables. Does it work? It gets you to your feet and it's fast (which is why its valued in Capoeira and some of the other more acrobatic arts), but it does leave you vulnerable for a few fractions of a second. Compared to rolling to your feet, getting up with a helicopter kick/windmill/whatever you want to call it, or simply pushing yourself up off the ground? I don't know. Like I said, there are a lot of considerations for "practicality." I don't know if I'd do it (I can't at the moment; it's tough to get the "trick" to it) but for those who have the inclination, more power to them. And now I'll stop wating everyone's time. =p Xiphe 02:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Observations and questions
YungHam (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Firstly, there are absolutely no references in the first two paragraphs, there should be a reference to a fitness or acrobatic source that validates this explanation of a kip up.
 * Next, although the article is indeed immediately relevant, the terminology is obfuscating the definition of a kip up, as it is unnecessarily wordy.
 * If you do decide to use complex terms to describe the positions that body parts should be in, then say the simplified meaning in parenthesis, so the reader doesn't have to search every single new word up, for example: "supine" is used, but it should look like this: "supine (facing up)". That makes it a lot better.
 * The author of this article is actually very good with maintain a neutral tone. The terms and amount of strength needed is very objectively stated.
 * A large problem with the citations is that there are no sources that are cited at the bottom of the article. This article simply lacks validity as a result of that.
 * A viewpoint that is underrepresented, or not stated at all to be specific, is how the person doing the kip up move will look from another person's perspective. For example, the person directly in front of the person doing the kip up can only see the the bottom half of the practitioner's body until the end of the move.
 * The Wikipedia links all work, but there should be Wikipedia links for the terms that help describe the position that the person should be in at a certain time: prone, aerial, dorsal, supine, etc.

Two questions I have for the author of this article:
 * 1) 1 Why isn't the GIF, or moving image of a kip up, on the top of the article? Shouldn't the visualization be there to help the reader get a better understanding of the topic as soon as possible?
 * 2) 2 Why don't you cite any sources in the first two introductory paragraphs, or have any sources at the bottom of the article?

Good observations and questions! Understanding the state of this article begins with knowing that its "author" is not one person: the article was created by 122 different editors over the course of 11 years. No image appears at the top because a variety of different acrobatic movements are covered, and therefore it is not possible to have a single representative image. As for the lack of citations, I suspect that "kip-up" is an unofficial, popular name for nip-up and various other movements, which have been lumped together here on the basis of opinions and original research. Welcome to the imperfect world of Wikipedia! Lambtron (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW, please sign your username at the end of your comments (vs. at beginning). Thanks, Lambtron (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)