Many systems have just a little different front stance from the next guys system. How do you do your front stance? Is the back leg locked/bent, is you back foot turned outward/straight , are you centered over a bent front knee, etc.?
Lets see what is the same and what is different and would you please explain why your system dose the stance the way it dose

First of all, can we find out what you consider to be the proper stance?

thats what I am trying to find out about different systems.

Ok In the Sikaran system I learned the front stance has one foot about 1 1/2 shoulder length in front of the other with the feet a little more the 1 shoulder wide. The front knee is bent at a 90 degree angle or slightly more with the toes turned slightly inward. The torso of you body is approximately over the knee with the back straight. The back leg is locked straight with the toes pointed straight ahead. the Knee of the front leg is pushed outward away from the center line of the stance.
(my instructor would often test the stance by kicking the side of the knee of the front leg and stepping on the rear leg at the knee)

Ours is a classic okinawan stance. Its a higher wiht the back leg straight to slightly bent and the front knee is bent so you can't the big toe or very little of it. The back foot can be pointing straight ahead or slightly angled.

Our front stance (TKD) is very deep, back leg locked rigid, fron let deeply bent, and the diagonal line between the feet is betwen 1.5 and 2 shoulder-widths apart, the upper body absolutely perpendicular. It's very similar to the Shotokan front stance, from what I've seen when comparing techs with Shotokan karateka.

What our instructor constantly emphasizes is that what's important about the front stance isn't the stance itself, but the movement into that position, and that that movement corresponds not to a `position' for fighting but rather encodes a forward (and usually downward) shift of body weight, typically in connection with some tech which this shift greatly amplifies—like application of severe pressure to an attacker's locked arm, or shifting from a move whereby you trap the attacker and anchor him (with such a lock, say) using the chambering hand, to a followup strike with that chambering hand (where the other hand, by muchimi, now controls the attacker).

This sequence is a classic realistic bunkai for a number of the Palgwes in TKD, for example. The idea is, you are bringing bodyweight to bear on an attacker's weak point, or you are exploiting your control of the attacker to move in close and deliver the finishish strike. But always, the message of the front stance is the forward/downward weight shift...

Our front stance (TKD) is very deep, back leg locked rigid, fron let deeply bent, and the diagonal line between the feet is betwen 1.5 and 2 shoulder-widths apart, the upper body absolutely perpendicular. It's very similar to the Shotokan front stance, from what I've seen when comparing techs with Shotokan karateka.

What our instructor constantly emphasizes is that what's important about the front stance isn't the stance itself, but the movement into that position, and that that movement corresponds not to a `position' for fighting but rather encodes a forward (and usually downward) shift of body weight, typically in connection with some tech which this shift greatly amplifies—like application of severe pressure to an attacker's locked arm, or shifting from a move whereby you trap the attacker and anchor him (with such a lock, say) using the chambering hand, to a followup strike with that chambering hand (where the other hand, by muchimi, now controls the attacker).

This sequence is a classic realistic bunkai for a number of the Palgwes in TKD, for example. The idea is, you are bringing bodyweight to bear on an attacker's weak point, or you are exploiting your control of the attacker to move in close and deliver the finishish strike. But always, the message of the front stance is the forward/downward weight shift...I believe that exact stance exists in kenpo but its on such a passing through level we don't teach the static. realizing its there was fun.:)
Sean

By "front" stance, are you referring to a "bow and arrow" or simply "bow" stance?

thats what I am trying to find out about different systems.

Ok In the Sikaran system I learned the front stance has one foot about 1 1/2 shoulder length in front of the other with the feet a little more the 1 shoulder wide. The front knee is bent at a 90 degree angle or slightly more with the toes turned slightly inward. The torso of you body is approximately over the knee with the back straight. The back leg is locked straight with the toes pointed straight ahead. the Knee of the front leg is pushed outward away from the center line of the stance.
(my instructor would often test the stance by kicking the side of the knee of the front leg and stepping on the rear leg at the knee)

Got it! In kenpo, that would be a forward bow stance. In Bok Fu Do, we call it a Hard Bow because it's a very rigid stance, not one you want to stay in.

The feet are about shoulder width apart. The front foot is angled in about 45 degrees, with the knee directly above the foot and not caved inward. The back leg is "locked out" and the toes are pointed forward. The body should be located between the front and back foot where you have an even amount of weight on the front and back foot. Your back should be straight and your hips perpendicular to the legs.

Shoulder width or maybe just a little over shoulder width wide; about 2 shoulder widths long.

Both feet pointed straight forward (or as straight as possible with rear foot)

Back leg locked; front lower leg perpendicular to the ground — no lean forward, backward, left or right.

Hips and shoulders square (neither hip nor shoulder farther in front that the other one).

Upper torso perpendicular to the ground — no lean any direction. Shoulders directly over the hips.

Front foot/leg supporting more weight than the rear.

Shoulder width or maybe just a little over shoulder width wide; about 2 shoulder widths long.

Both feet pointed straight forward (or as straight as possible with rear foot)

Back leg locked; front lower leg perpendicular to the ground — no lean forward, backward, left or right.

Hips and shoulders square (neither hip nor shoulder farther in front that the other one).

Upper torso perpendicular to the ground — no lean any direction. Shoulders directly over the hips.

Front foot/leg supporting more weight than the rear.

Only difference from our stance is the front foot. We turn it in for stability and balance.

Only difference from our stance is the front foot. We turn it in for stability and balance.

Yes, I think you'll see it this way more commonly in the Chinese arts. The front foot is turned in, with the knee also turned slightly in, which provides some protection to the groin from the front.

Also, in the Chinese arts, the rear foot is not fully pointed forward.

good response to how it is done . Can we have some of the reasons why the foot is out/in /stright or the back leg bent/stright. I know a few have ansewered these questions so I am just looking for my insite

Flying Crane the stace I am talking about is the bow

Flying Crane the stace I am talking about is the bow

yeah, i'm picking up on that, momma didn't raise no fool! http://martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif


From the perspective of the Chinese arts, if you take a look at the stance done with the feet pointed directly forward, we feel that you lack stability from side-to-side. Your base is only as wide as your foot is narrow. If you compensate for that by widening your stance, then you leave your centerline open to the front. Instead, if you turn your foot in as far as is comfortable, perhaps putting it on about a 45 degree angle, you have now increased the width of your base probably by about 100%, which gives you more lateral stability. Your front-to-back base is already very deep, the full length of your stance, so stability in this direction is not affected. And as I mentioned before, having the front knee pointing in the same direction as the front toes, helps to cover and protect the groin from a frontal attack.

Some people in the kenpo community like to still point the rear foot directly forward. I personally disagree, and my experience in the Chinese arts seems to be in agreement with my thoughts. For myself, unless my bow stance is very high, I cannot confortably point the rear foot completely forward. It seems like it stresses the rear ankle, and feels like it sacrifices some amount of stability. Instead, the rear foot is still on an angle, similar to the front foot, but probably turned somewhat more foreward, but not completely.

Sink and turn thru the hips so the torso is facing forward.

The front toes and rear heel should be in line with each other. Less than that and your centerline is too closed, making it difficult to launch techniques. More than that and you are leaving your centerline open and exposed.

a great answere thanks

I've personally never seen a Kenpo forward bow (what my schools use) anywhere near as deep as a traditional system front stance. In addition - the Forward Bow is kept with both feet roughly inside your own shoulder line, essentially no more than an exaggerated step. All versions of front stances I was ever taught, be it from Korean or Japanese influence emphasized the feet were more than shoulder width apart - which is not necessarily a good thing.

yeah, i'm picking up on that, momma didn't raise no fool! http://martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif


From the perspective of the Chinese arts, if you take a look at the stance done with the feet pointed directly forward, we feel that you lack stability from side-to-side. Your base is only as wide as your foot is narrow. If you compensate for that by widening your stance, then you leave your centerline open to the front. Instead, if you turn your foot in as far as is comfortable, perhaps putting it on about a 45 degree angle, you have now increased the width of your base probably by about 100%, which gives you more lateral stability. Your front-to-back base is already very deep, the full length of your stance, so stability in this direction is not affected. And as I mentioned before, having the front knee pointing in the same direction as the front toes, helps to cover and protect the groin from a frontal attack.

Some people in the kenpo community like to still point the rear foot directly forward. I personally disagree, and my experience in the Chinese arts seems to be in agreement with my thoughts. For myself, unless my bow stance is very high, I cannot confortably point the rear foot completely forward. It seems like it stresses the rear ankle, and feels like it sacrifices some amount of stability. Instead, the rear foot is still on an angle, similar to the front foot, but probably turned somewhat more foreward, but not completely.

Sink and turn thru the hips so the torso is facing forward.

The front toes and rear heel should be in line with each other. Less than that and your centerline is too closed, making it difficult to launch techniques. More than that and you are leaving your centerline open and exposed.

It looks like you are describing the same stance I use and teach. We call the stance Deng Shan Bu, "Climbing the Mountain Stance".

I've personally never seen a Kenpo forward bow (what my schools use) anywhere near as deep as a traditional system front stance. In addition - the Forward Bow is kept with both feet roughly inside your own shoulder line, essentially no more than an exaggerated step. All versions of front stances I was ever taught, be it from Korean or Japanese influence emphasized the feet were more than shoulder width apart - which is not necessarily a good thing.

This is true for us too. When we switch from kenpo into northern chinese forms, the stance becomes deeper and longer. In addition, instead of the shoulders being more, or less square to the front, the shoulder on the side of the strike is extended a little farther so that the shoulders are facing the 45 degree.

It looks like you are describing the same stance I use and teach. We call the stance Deng Shan Bu, "Climbing the Mountain Stance".

Ah, interesting. We take the Bow, or Bow and Arrow, from the perspective that the person takes on the shape of the weapon. The front leg and torso make up the bow, and the rear leg is the arrow drawn back and aimed at about a 45 degree angle up.

I've deliberately stayed out of this technical discussion because my art doesn't use a 'fighting' stance as most people think of it. But I firmly believe in what we practice, so, if a picture is worth a thousand words, here's my contribution (short clip) on how the combat begins:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8jr8pv9Jxg

yeah, i'm picking up on that, momma didn't raise no fool! http://martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif


From the perspective of the Chinese arts, if you take a look at the stance done with the feet pointed directly forward, we feel that you lack stability from side-to-side. Your base is only as wide as your foot is narrow. If you compensate for that by widening your stance, then you leave your centerline open to the front. Instead, if you turn your foot in as far as is comfortable, perhaps putting it on about a 45 degree angle, you have now increased the width of your base probably by about 100%, which gives you more lateral stability. Your front-to-back base is already very deep, the full length of your stance, so stability in this direction is not affected. And as I mentioned before, having the front knee pointing in the same direction as the front toes, helps to cover and protect the groin from a frontal attack.

Some people in the kenpo community like to still point the rear foot directly forward. I personally disagree, and my experience in the Chinese arts seems to be in agreement with my thoughts. For myself, unless my bow stance is very high, I cannot confortably point the rear foot completely forward. It seems like it stresses the rear ankle, and feels like it sacrifices some amount of stability. Instead, the rear foot is still on an angle, similar to the front foot, but probably turned somewhat more foreward, but not completely.

Sink and turn thru the hips so the torso is facing forward.

The front toes and rear heel should be in line with each other. Less than that and your centerline is too closed, making it difficult to launch techniques. More than that and you are leaving your centerline open and exposed.

I'm pretty much on point with what FC has said so far. Probably the biggest difference would be our rear foot which is not in line with the front foot. To help you visualize it better, start in sei ping ma, then take your right foot and place it about a half step from where your left foot is, making your right instep and your left toes inline. Then turn into gung jin ma (bow and arrow) where your front foot is turned slightly inward (45 degree angle) and your rear foot is also at about a 45 degree angle. Your front leg is bent so that when you look down at your front foot you should not be able to see your foot. Torso forward, hips forward, shoulders squared.

Question for you though FC, what would you consider the difference in a "bow" stance and a "bow and arrow" stance?

- ft

Question for you though FC, what would you consider the difference in a "bow" stance and a "bow and arrow" stance?

- ft

Same thing. I was just clarifying that it is "Bow" as in "Bow and Arrow", and not "Bow Tie", or to "Bow Down and Worship Me". Just makeing sure the terminology is understood.

Full name: Bow and Arrow Stance

Commonly shortened to: Bow Stance

To help you visualize it better, start in sei ping ma, then take your right foot and place it about a half step from where your left foot is, making your right instep and your left toes inline.
- ft

Sounds like your stance is slightly more closed off than ours, if you are lining up the toes of the front foot with the instep of the back foot.

My definition of lining up the toes of the front foot with the heel of the back foot is actually from my kenpo instruction, but it seems very close to what I have experienced in the Chinese arts. It seems like a good parameter, so I use it.

Same thing. I was just clarifying that it is "Bow" as in "Bow and Arrow", and not "Bow Tie", or to "Bow Down and Worship Me". Just makeing sure the terminology is understood.

Full name: Bow and Arrow Stance

Commonly shortened to: Bow Stance

Ah. It never occured to me that bow would be anything other than bow and arrow when refferring to stances, but I guess other styles might have a "bow to me" stance. Although, I would pay good money to see a bow tie stance! lol

- ft

Ah. It never occured to me that bow would be anything other than bow and arrow when refferring to stances, but I guess other styles might have a "bow to me" stance. Although, I would pay good money to see a bow tie stance! lol

- ft

yeah, I actually only knew it as "bow" for a long time, didn't know what it meant, and didn't connect to "and arrow" 'till much later. Figured since some others here call it the Forward or Front Stance, it's possible there might be some confusion. Just doing my best to muddy the waters...http://martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon10.gif

Also, in the Chinese arts, the rear foot is not fully pointed forward.

Well, in PRACTICE it is rare to see someone in our local schools with foot pointed straight forward — it is usually angled out slightly.

My right foot (for left foot forward front stance) goes completely forward but by left tends to angle out just a bit (10 degrees?)

good response to how it is done . Can we have some of the reasons why the foot is out/in /stright or the back leg bent/stright. I know a few have ansewered these questions so I am just looking for my insite

As we believe/teach:

Knees are most stable/strong to the front/back. Force from the side or at an angle is more likely to cause injury. So in pushing with that back leg, it is better to push with the knee aligned in the direction of force.

We believe front stance is for generating force to the front and are less concerned with stability to the side. Other stances deal with that.

In addition, instead of the shoulders being more, or less square to the front, the shoulder on the side of the strike is extended a little farther so that the shoulders are facing the 45 degree.

To extend one shoulder forward is to compromise balance, is our belief, which is why we keep shoulders squared.

To extend one shoulder forward is to compromise balance, is our belief, which is why we keep shoulders squared.A relaxed square is different from a stiff square off. There are levels within levels on refinement of your motion.
Sean

To extend one shoulder forward is to compromise balance, is our belief, which is why we keep shoulders squared.


boy, i won't even get started on how we do it in Tibetan White Crane...

boy, i won't even get started on how we do it in Tibetan White Crane...Could clear up some misconceptions...
Sean

Could clear up some misconceptions...
Sean


Well, in Tibetan White Crane we use a full body pivot to generate power, probably most people who don't practice this type of thing would say that we over-pivot. But this gives us a tremendous amount of power, as well as adding to our reach. And we can shorten the movement if appropriate, while still having this power. If you develop it with the full movement, you can later use it in a shortened version. If you only practice the shorter version, you can never switch to the long version.

In a very basic version of how we punch, we would start with the feet squared facing forward, slightly wider than shoulder width, and the stance is pretty high. Not a deep horse at all.

We pivot from the feet and up thru the torso and turn the body until the torso is sideways to the opponent in front. The feet can pivot as much as 45 degrees, but as you develop your technique, your feet may actually stay in place while still driving the pivot thru the waist and the torso. In a way, this is kind of a high bow stance. As we make the pivot, we use that torque to throw the striking hand forward, while whipping the other hand back, which helps develop forward force for the striking hand. We pivot back and forth this way, throwing the strikes forward, but the torso, like I stated, is turned sideways at the time of the strike. At full extension of the strike, you can draw a straight line down the arm, across the shoulders, and down the other arm. And you have turned your torso sideways to the enemy at this point.

Turning like this gives us additional reach, and the pivoting body encourages incoming strikes to pass by or glance off with minimal effect. We pivot back and forth, throwing different kinds of strikes from many directions, very quickly to overwhelm the enemy. There are straight punches, as well as swinging and whipping punches that come in from the sides, over the top, and from below. The arms are relaxed, we rely on the pivot to generate power, and they hit like a wrecking maul.

Now to transition into the bow stance.

Essentially, we run forward while throwing these strikes. The idea is to charge down and overwhelm the bad guy with a blitz of strikes from everywhere. As we charge, we pivot and strike. The stance now is a bit different from an actual bow stance, it's really more like you are in the middle of a running stride. While doing this, we need to close the groin at each stride, so there are still some "bow" similarities. But we don't stop the torso pivot when the shoulders are squared forward, like many arts. We continue the pivot until the torso is again turned sideways. Right hand is striking while left foot is forward, just like you walk or run, only much exaggerated. take another step, pivot the torso and throw another strike. And again. And again...

in our forms, you can often see a more classical "bow" stance. But again, we make the same "extreme" pivot as I described in the running charge.

this is very difficult to describe in writing, hope you all can get a visual.

Depends on the situation and individual I think.
Just like any other part of the MA there's no one size fits all stance.

IMHO Best solution is to not really pay attention to the stances themselves but what they all offer and use the one that works best with your strengths and the situation at hand.

I tend to primarily utilize a FMA/Arnis stance and the JKD stance. which to me seems somewhat the same except the FMA stance tends to be much lower due to expectations of dealing with weapons where as the JKD is a bit higher and the hands are positioned more defensively around the body and offers more mobility for kicks.

If you develop it with the full movement, you can later use it in a shortened version. If you only practice the shorter version, you can never switch to the long version.

We use this principle, too, in other areas. For example, we use very large, exaggerated motions for training kicking. During free sparring, smaller motions are usually used, of course.

Depends on the situation and individual I think.
Just like any other part of the MA there's no one size fits all stance.

IMHO Best solution is to not really pay attention to the stances themselves but what they all offer and use the one that works best with your strengths and the situation at hand.

I tend to primarily utilize a FMA/Arnis stance and the JKD stance. which to me seems somewhat the same except the FMA stance tends to be much lower due to expectations of dealing with weapons where as the JKD is a bit higher and the hands are positioned more defensively around the body and offers more mobility for kicks.

Talking about the front stance in particular for this thread, however.

Our FIGHTING stance is a completely different matter.

Front stance is great for training, and it does come up occassionally during fighting - but briefly. For example, when dropping weight into a solid front punch or power block, but then popping right back up to a fighting stance.

I don't think anybody actually stands around in a front stance fighting; it's impractical, IMO.

Front stance is great for training, and it does come up occassionally during fighting - but briefly. For example, when dropping weight into a solid front punch or power block, but then popping right back up to a fighting stance.

I don't think anybody actually stands around in a front stance fighting; it's impractical, IMO.

That's exactly right, and it means that it's kind of hard to talk about the front stance in isolation from the rest of the tech it's associated with. Abstracting the `front stance' part out of of a wrist/arm lock-throat strike combination on the one hand and a hard neck twist on the other, for example, gives the impression that the rest of each of these moves is somehow `added on' to a stand-alone technical element `front stance', which is the wrong way to look at what is simply the forward weight shift that both of these techniques require as part of their biomechanics.

The idea of a separate entity called `front stance' is a residue of the shift to kihon line training in Japanese karate during the 1930s and goes hand in hand with the abandonment of kata bunkai as the basis of training, I'd guess. It creates the unfortunate misimpression that there is a separate posture that one `assumes' as part of a fight, rather than a by-product of a certain weight transfer to support a set of combat tactics.

Interestingly, exactly the same thing happened in skiing in the late 1960s and 1970s, when legions of alpine skiers misunderstood the photos they'd seen of the French national team avalement pioneers and started sitting way back on their skis. It took many years before people—including some ski instructors who should have known better—figured out what had gone wrong. By that point, ski boots had literally reached knee height in the effort to provide leverage to skiers who got totally off balance sitting back and had to horse themselves back onto the center of skis that were trying like crazy to get out from under them and dump them on their butts, a common sight in those days... :D

I don't think anybody actually stands around in a front stance fighting; it's impractical
actually we make our student fight out of the front stance for a minimum of six months to a year. We feel that if they can fight out of that stance they will be able to block and counter attack from any stance. Plus it gives them great confidence when they go to the next stance.
I find many people use a modified front stance for fighting but that may need to be a different thread

A front stance (forward bow, hard bow) isn't a stance you want to stay in. There is no give and if you get hit, you're going to take all of the energy released. Once you deliver the strike, you want to get out of it.

I fight in a Neutral Bow or a Cross Stance, and I use the forward and rear bows to generate hip rotation for power, but as jdinca said, it's only transitory.