Hard vs. Soft, with a twist

[CuongNhuka]

Thats the basic idea. Do you perfer a strong static stance, or a loose mobile stance. And please explain why.

[Hand Sword]

Depends. What is being done?

[CuongNhuka]

Sparring, fighting, anything. Pick a situation and run with it.

[Hand Sword]

Anything? Then, All of the above come into play.

[CuongNhuka]

Then the next quesiton becomes, which in what situation, and why. Kinda the premise of the thread.

[Hand Sword]

Well....If it's real fighting then you'd probably go for the loose and mobile kind in order to move with the action. Though, deep static ones come into play as well, such as a grappling situation. Hard ones usually come with forms/kata practice and in training to strengthen the legs. You can't go with one over the other really. You have to bounce back and forth, using which is the best at the time. Generally speaking though, people don't like to use the deep, hard, stances and prefer to use loose ones-they are much easier to pull off, and feel more comfortable.

[CuongNhuka]

Let me explain what I mean a little diifernitly. I mean more like, Bruce Lee's stance, or the way alot of MMA fighter stand.
Bruce Lee kept his body moving, constantly shiting the position of his hands, alterning were his feet are placed. Most (I empasise "most" as the key word) MMA fighters only really shift when they're trying to fake their opponent out.

I mean it more like that. Constanly shifting and swaying, or solid. Keep in mind you can do either in a deep strong stance or a light mobile one.

[Hand Sword]

Actually you can't. Standing in a deep horse stance or any stance restricts mobility. MMA fighters use both depending on their orientation. Look at Anderson Silva's fight with Chris Leben. Upright and quick. Kick Boxed him into a knockout. Did the same thing to Rich Franklin. Why? He was a kickboxer. Others take a wider stance to stop the BJJ/wrestler shoots. Fighting them, you can stand deeper because they aren't too into kicking. They're not into boxing either. They only dabble on those skills. The punches are wide and the kicks flick. When they circle the ring, they are loose and fluid. Squared up with each other deeper because of the inevitable shoot. Standing like that helps with sprawling, and preventing the wrap up of both legs. On the other hand,Bruce Lee took the view of real fighting. Fast and mobile. And again, if you're in a street fight, both come into play.

[charyuop]

IMHO strong stance is good for kata and that's it. In a real situation (that can be sparring, real fight or ring) you don't want to be strongly planted. Whatever you do creates a reaction in the opponent or the opponent can start off in an unescpected way. You always have to allow your body the opportunity to move out of a certain situation in any direction it requires.
My Sensei often tells me that when I move I have to avoid to end up keeping the whole weight on one foot so I can change direction in any time, even in the middle of a step...of course that's easy said, but hard to do hee hee.

That is the main difference that I noticed when I added Aikido to my Tai Chi training. They are both soft arts with insode the concept of receiving and leading the opponent energy, but mobility is pretty different. In Tai Chi (well, for what I do of course) you end in a position where your body weight is on one foot (or most of the body weight) so to move rapidaly to avoid an attack first you need to switch foot. In Aikido on the other hand changing rapidly direction doesn't require hard weight shifting because your weight is well centered, thus to shift on one foot or the other the movement required is smaller and it saves time.
I wouldn't like to say (or add LOL) stupid things coz I don't know the Art, but seeing some video it seems to me that BaGua has the same way of centering the weight of Aikido. And, maybe not so much by chance, they are both arts created with the idea of fighting multiple opponents...

[qi-tah]

That is the main difference that I noticed when I added Aikido to my Tai Chi training. They are both soft arts with insode the concept of receiving and leading the opponent energy, but mobility is pretty different. In Tai Chi (well, for what I do of course) you end in a position where your body weight is on one foot (or most of the body weight) so to move rapidaly to avoid an attack first you need to switch foot. In Aikido on the other hand changing rapidly direction doesn't require hard weight shifting because your weight is well centered, thus to shift on one foot or the other the movement required is smaller and it saves time.
I wouldn't like to say (or add LOL) stupid things coz I don't know the Art, but seeing some video it seems to me that BaGua has the same way of centering the weight of Aikido. And, maybe not so much by chance, they are both arts created with the idea of fighting multiple opponents...

I'm probably just going to showing my ignorance here, but here goes anyway... http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

Comparing Ba gua and Aikido, it seems like there are a couple of different ways of being centred. I mainly practice Ba gua, but have dabbled off and on in Aikido (Takemusu) and find the weighting to be quite different, although there is some similarity in the footwork. I find that i've had to make a concious effort to adopt that "hip cocked" slightly forward stance of Aikido, which seems to rely mainly on front foot pivoting and altering the distance between the feet to turn and change direction. Wheras the ba gua footwork seems to be more oriented toward a slightly backfooted stance, using a "searching" front foot to decide at the last split-second how to proceed.But then, Ba gua has a lot of kicks and leg locks and stuff in it, so that seems to make sense.

Apols to the aikido ppl if that analysis is incorrect however... :asian:

Going back to the original question, i'd pretty much stay with a short, fluid base in sparring, only moving into a wider stance when looking to sweep or grapple. But even then, a wide stance is not end point, just another transition.

[tradrockrat]

IMHO strong stance is good for kata and that's it. In a real situation (that can be sparring, real fight or ring) you don't want to be strongly planted.

That's the kind of thinking that causes people to slip and fall on their asses at the worst possible moment. There is a time and place for everything. You find yourself facing a real fight on loose gravel (wet leaves, etc.) or seriously uneven terrain and stances suddenly become "practical". Trust me. A guy light on his feet and bobbing around is just waiting for a good shove and he'll go down - I've seen it way more than once.

[charyuop]

I'm probably just going to showing my ignorance here, but here goes anyway... http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

Comparing Ba gua and Aikido, it seems like there are a couple of different ways of being centred. I mainly practice Ba gua, but have dabbled off and on in Aikido (Takemusu) and find the weighting to be quite different, although there is some similarity in the footwork. I find that i've had to make a concious effort to adopt that "hip cocked" slightly forward stance of Aikido, which seems to rely mainly on front foot pivoting and altering the distance between the feet to turn and change direction. Wheras the ba gua footwork seems to be more oriented toward a slightly backfooted stance, using a "searching" front foot to decide at the last split-second how to proceed.But then, Ba gua has a lot of kicks and leg locks and stuff in it, so that seems to make sense.

Apols to the aikido ppl if that analysis is incorrect however... :asian:



As I said I don't know bagua, even tho I like the style alot, and my opinion was due to videos that I have watched.
As per Aikido, and here I quote I am a beginner, I don't see that leaning forward that you mentioned. It happens sometimes when we do excercises (since you know Aikido you will know Aikido words) of tenkan and irimi, but that has more a training purpose. The idea is to be ready to react with Uke so that he won't walk away and you stay planted on the spot, it is more an idea of connection. Basically the leaning forward has the idea of a continuing along in the direction Uke is going. I have noticed, for what I can remember now, that in every technique we have done so far, everytime I put all the weight on a single foot I cannot finish the technique coz it prevents my movements. But this is just my opinion...

[charyuop]

That's the kind of thinking that causes people to slip and fall on their asses at the worst possible moment. There is a time and place for everything. You find yourself facing a real fight on loose gravel (wet leaves, etc.) or seriously uneven terrain and stances suddenly become "practical". Trust me. A guy light on his feet and bobbing around is just waiting for a good shove and he'll go down - I've seen it way more than once.

I think here it has to do with what you mean hard and soft position. If with soft you mean a sloppy dancing position, then yes that wouldn't be good on good surface either. If with soft we mean a relaxed standing position with close feet ready to spring in any direction, then I think it is good. The person in front of you would have the same chances of falling on a slippery surface that you would in a soft position (as I intend it per soft).
I think it all comes down with timing. With a soft relaxed stance you have more reactivity, thus you can have a better timing. Of course if your main purpose is blocking and hit back at that point even a hard stance can work fine...tho leaving no time to react if the attacker does something unexpected.

[MJS]

Thats the basic idea. Do you perfer a strong static stance, or a loose mobile stance. And please explain why.


Then the next quesiton becomes, which in what situation, and why. Kinda the premise of the thread.


Let me explain what I mean a little diifernitly. I mean more like, Bruce Lee's stance, or the way alot of MMA fighter stand.
Bruce Lee kept his body moving, constantly shiting the position of his hands, alterning were his feet are placed. Most (I empasise "most" as the key word) MMA fighters only really shift when they're trying to fake their opponent out.

I mean it more like that. Constanly shifting and swaying, or solid. Keep in mind you can do either in a deep strong stance or a light mobile one.

I would have to say moving in a more relaxed stance is better IMO than a rooted one. During my forms practice, I stick to the stances that are in the forms. As far as sparring goes, my footwork and stance resembles more of a boxer. You want to be able to have movement, but at the same time, when you're ready to strike, you need to have good body and foot position, otherwise, the strike won't be as effective as it could be. If I'm trying to spar or fight someone in a wide, deep horse stance, my movement is going to be limited, in addition to exposing my leg.

Mike

[tshadowchaser]

it depends on what I am doing.
If I am in a street fight I try to keep moving. I do want to be in a solid stance when I strike
If I am sparring I may take a hard solid stance and decide not to move but to try strength against strength. Or I may take a solid stance then switch to moving when my opponent attacks.

[CuongNhuka]

I think here it has to do with what you mean hard and soft position. If with soft you mean a sloppy dancing position, then yes that wouldn't be good on good surface either. If with soft we mean a relaxed standing position with close feet ready to spring in any direction, then I think it is good. The person in front of you would have the same chances of falling on a slippery surface that you would in a soft position (as I intend it per soft).

OK, you hit the issue, and missed it completely. Ignore width, depth, and weight placement of the stance. Not what I mean, forget it, ignore it, it is irrelevent to this discussion.

I'll try anouther example. Look at pro boxers. At Mini-Fly Weight (lightest weight in pro-boxing). They are constantly shifting their feet in and out, widening and shortening their stance. Shitfing up and down, increasing and decreaseing the depth of their stance. They shift their weight placement, increasing the weight on one foot, and then decrease it. They sway from their hips, in whats called "bobbing and weaving". They shift where their hands are.
Now compare that to Super Heavy Weights (the heaviest). Their foot placement remains reletivly constant. As does depth and weight placement. There is a minimum of bobbing and weaving, and the hands dont really move.
Now do you understand what I mean by loose or static?

[Hand Sword]

The bobbing and weaving comes when both are close enough to exchange combinations. Doing that, yes their stances are wide. however when the action is moving around the ring, or when one at a time they throw punches at the other, the stances are loose. Heavy weight fighters, from what I've seen are too lazy and/or big to go through all of that work as you explained. Though, I have seen some in the past that perform boxing great. Bottom line is: when fighting for real, your stances and movement will go with the flow, so to speak. As the scene changes, your stances, movements change with it. You'll notice that you are loose and fast when in punching/kicking range. Wide and sturdy inclose to grappling range to stabilize and support weight and cover up if necessary.

As for the above, width, depth, and weight placement of stances can't be ignored. That is what determines stances loose, static, etc.. Those issues are indeed relevant to the discussion that you brought up. Perhaps you should have thought out what you wanted to ask better before starting a thread. You kind of left everything open by saying "anything" and "just go with it". Remember there are lots of factors that go into it, just like anything else. When the course is run, you'll have used both types of stances, as well as others.

[qi-tah]

OK, you hit the issue, and missed it completely. Ignore width, depth, and weight placement of the stance. Not what I mean, forget it, ignore it, it is irrelevent to this discussion.

I'll try anouther example. Look at pro boxers. At Mini-Fly Weight (lightest weight in pro-boxing). They are constantly shifting their feet in and out, widening and shortening their stance. Shitfing up and down, increasing and decreaseing the depth of their stance. They shift their weight placement, increasing the weight on one foot, and then decrease it. They sway from their hips, in whats called "bobbing and weaving". They shift where their hands are.
Now compare that to Super Heavy Weights (the heaviest). Their foot placement remains reletivly constant. As does depth and weight placement. There is a minimum of bobbing and weaving, and the hands dont really move.
Now do you understand what I mean by loose or static?

Maybe you just answered yr own question... lighter fighters have to move around a lot and be very mobile, 'cause that's an important part of their strength. Being small myself, i can appreciate this... i can't just stand and deliver like some of the bigger boys in my class can.

[qi-tah]

As per Aikido, and here I quote I am a beginner, I don't see that leaning forward that you mentioned. It happens sometimes when we do excercises (since you know Aikido you will know Aikido words) of tenkan and irimi, but that has more a training purpose. The idea is to be ready to react with Uke so that he won't walk away and you stay planted on the spot, it is more an idea of connection. Basically the leaning forward has the idea of a continuing along in the direction Uke is going. I have noticed, for what I can remember now, that in every technique we have done so far, everytime I put all the weight on a single foot I cannot finish the technique coz it prevents my movements. But this is just my opinion...

Hmm... i think i know what you mean, but that wasn't really what i was trying to say. I said "slightly forward stance: 'cause i didn't know what else to call it, but it really is a centred stance as you say. But it is centered in a different way to what i am used to with ba gua... with the Aikido i was taught, the back hip was cocked, with the weight slightly coming onto the front foot but the grounding coming mainly through the straigtened rear leg. I guess the distribution of weight might be about 40/60 (rear/front)? And the feet are generally fairly close together - certainly not a deep bow stance or anything. It still relys on quick, mobile, circular footwork, like ba gua, but the stances used by both arts seem almost opposite.

ok, going to shut up about this now before i get myself into trouble! http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon10.gif

[FearlessFreep]

Look at pro boxers. At Mini-Fly Weight (lightest weight in pro-boxing). They are constantly shifting their feet in and out, widening and shortening their stance. Shitfing up and down, increasing and decreaseing the depth of their stance. They shift their weight placement, increasing the weight on one foot, and then decrease it. They sway from their hips, in whats called "bobbing and weaving". They shift where their hands are.
Now compare that to Super Heavy Weights (the heaviest). Their foot placement remains reletivly constant. As does depth and weight placement. There is a minimum of bobbing and weaving, and the hands dont really move.
Now do you understand what I mean by loose or static?

You are seeing a dichotomy in what is really a continuum. The light boxers moves one way and the heavy boxer moves... well, really in the same way but to a lesser degree, simply as a function of their weight, not a function of philosophy

[charyuop]

Look at pro boxers. At Mini-Fly Weight (lightest weight in pro-boxing). They are constantly shifting their feet in and out, widening and shortening their stance. Shitfing up and down, increasing and decreaseing the depth of their stance. They shift their weight placement, increasing the weight on one foot, and then decrease it. They sway from their hips, in whats called "bobbing and weaving". They shift where their hands are.
Now compare that to Super Heavy Weights (the heaviest). Their foot placement remains reletivly constant. As does depth and weight placement. There is a minimum of bobbing and weaving, and the hands dont really move.
Now do you understand what I mean by loose or static?

You are seeing a dichotomy in what is really a continuum. The light boxers moves one way and the heavy boxer moves... well, really in the same way but to a lesser degree, simply as a function of their weight, not a function of philosophy

I think, but here boxers could tell me if I am wrong, the difference you just mentioned is a difference of what you want deliver. Lighter weights want to deliver more hits less powerful, while heavy weight are less mobile because they want to deliver with the punch the whole body weight in it. But that is just a way someone is trained to strike. If you take by instance Kassius Clay, he was a heavy weight, but he decided to deliver strong strikes without the need of using his whole body weight, thus he could keep himself pretty mobile. But watch out, because in a ring there are rules. For example boxers can afford of being more planted because they have to defend front and sides. And opponent cannot use speed to flank them and hit behind, coz in boxing hitting the back of the head is not allowed. The same way the do not need to protect the lower part of the body coz you cannot hit under the belt. Thus a more planted stance in that situation has a different meaning than the same stance where you can be hit all over your body.

Just my 2 cents...

[bluemtn]

In TKD, it's important to move around and be light on your feet, so a loose stance is required as opposed to the deep rooted stances. The reason is that there are a lot of kicks that can be thrown out at any time during sparring, so you want to be able to either move out of range or block before you get hit. Some of these kicks can be over your head... Now, I can see a more rooted stance in grappling- you won't get thrown off balance nearly as easily. With boxing, I've only seen short stances, no matter what the opponents weight division is. Sure, some will move around the ring a lot in boxing as opposed to others, but there isn't that need to worry about being kicked in the head or tossed on the floor, either.

[Steel Tiger]

I'm probably just going to showing my ignorance here, but here goes anyway... http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

Comparing Ba gua and Aikido, it seems like there are a couple of different ways of being centred. I mainly practice Ba gua, but have dabbled off and on in Aikido (Takemusu) and find the weighting to be quite different, although there is some similarity in the footwork. I find that i've had to make a concious effort to adopt that "hip cocked" slightly forward stance of Aikido, which seems to rely mainly on front foot pivoting and altering the distance between the feet to turn and change direction. Wheras the ba gua footwork seems to be more oriented toward a slightly backfooted stance, using a "searching" front foot to decide at the last split-second how to proceed.But then, Ba gua has a lot of kicks and leg locks and stuff in it, so that seems to make sense.

Apols to the aikido ppl if that analysis is incorrect however... :asian:

Going back to the original question, i'd pretty much stay with a short, fluid base in sparring, only moving into a wider stance when looking to sweep or grapple. But even then, a wide stance is not end point, just another transition.

I think that the movement in Aikido and Bagua are very similar. There is an illusion of having weight on the back foot in Bagua, but when in motion weight moves back and forth from foot to foot. The motion is supposed to be light and smooth to allow for the rapid redirections and directional changes. In practice the knees are often quite bent, but that is a technique designed to improve the speed and balance of movement in a normal stance. It is said that masters of Bagua can walk the circle with their thighs parallel to the ground. Not very practical in a fight, but it will definitely develop leg strength, and strong legs means a strong art.

[Flying Crane]

OK, let me offer a different perspective.

In Chinese martial arts, stance is considered very important. Everything depends on how strong your stance is. This is why it is common in Chinese arts to practice drills aimed at improving the strength and stability of stances. If you have a strong base with a strong stance, every block or punch or whatever will be much stronger.

However, this doesn't mean that when fighting someone, you just drop into a deep horse and stand there and try to fight the guy from this. You gotta be able to move, so your stance will be higher, loser, and more mobile. But when you actually engage, when you make that block or throw that hand strike, or apply the joint lock, or whatever you are doing, then you hit the deep and rooted stance, to deliver the strongest technique. But you only hold the stance as long as it takes to deliver the technique. Before and after, you are more relaxed and mobile. And having developed that strong stance from hours of deep stance training, then even your higher, loose, mobile stance is stronger.

I see this in Tracy Kenpo as well. I have never trained in the EPAK kenpo, but from discussions here, I am familiar with the concept of the Neutral Bow as the base stance. But in Tracys, we don't do a Neutral Bow. Instead, we do a Fighting Horse. It is a horse stance turned slightly open. My teacher recognizes that it does sacrifice some mobility, but is more solid and rooted, and he feels this merits the sacrifice. In this case, no stance is perfect for all conditions. I think if you recognize the pros and cons and sacrifices and benefits that each stance can offer, then you can make that decision.

[Nomad]

OK, let me offer a different perspective.

In Chinese martial arts, stance is considered very important. Everything depends on how strong your stance is. This is why it is common in Chinese arts to practice drills aimed at improving the strength and stability of stances. If you have a strong base with a strong stance, every block or punch or whatever will be much stronger.

However, this doesn't mean that when fighting someone, you just drop into a deep horse and stand there and try to fight the guy from this. You gotta be able to move, so your stance will be higher, loser, and more mobile. But when you actually engage, when you make that block or throw that hand strike, or apply the joint lock, or whatever you are doing, then you hit the deep and rooted stance, to deliver the strongest technique. But you only hold the stance as long as it takes to deliver the technique. Before and after, you are more relaxed and mobile. And having developed that strong stance from hours of deep stance training, then even your higher, loose, mobile stance is stronger.

This is similar in Japanese karate as well... the idea of Ikken Hissatsu (one punch, one kill) requires a strong rooted stance at the moment of impact - you're basically projecting your entire bodyweight into the opponent through the anchor of the rear foot and the hip. When it lands, it looks and feels remarkably different than a punch using only the arm and shoulder (which, if the body is unrooted, has a tendency to bouce back into the person doing the technique). The trick, and the part that takes a LONG time to get, is to have a loose mobile stance until just before that moment of impact, when everything locks down and delivers.

[Steel Tiger]

OK, let me offer a different perspective.

In Chinese martial arts, stance is considered very important. Everything depends on how strong your stance is. This is why it is common in Chinese arts to practice drills aimed at improving the strength and stability of stances. If you have a strong base with a strong stance, every block or punch or whatever will be much stronger.

However, this doesn't mean that when fighting someone, you just drop into a deep horse and stand there and try to fight the guy from this. You gotta be able to move, so your stance will be higher, loser, and more mobile. But when you actually engage, when you make that block or throw that hand strike, or apply the joint lock, or whatever you are doing, then you hit the deep and rooted stance, to deliver the strongest technique. But you only hold the stance as long as it takes to deliver the technique. Before and after, you are more relaxed and mobile. And having developed that strong stance from hours of deep stance training, then even your higher, loose, mobile stance is stronger.

I see this in Tracy Kenpo as well. I have never trained in the EPAK kenpo, but from discussions here, I am familiar with the concept of the Neutral Bow as the base stance. But in Tracys, we don't do a Neutral Bow. Instead, we do a Fighting Horse. It is a horse stance turned slightly open. My teacher recognizes that it does sacrifice some mobility, but is more solid and rooted, and he feels this merits the sacrifice. In this case, no stance is perfect for all conditions. I think if you recognize the pros and cons and sacrifices and benefits that each stance can offer, then you can make that decision.

Can't agree more about the importance of stances. It is the first thing that new students learn from me. And they are usually practiced in a sequence so that one gets a feel for moving from one fully classical stance to another. From there to forms which basically do the same thing with the addition of combative applications. Once you understand the connections between stances it greatly helps mobility. But this can only come from knowing the stances properly.

There is an old Chinese saying about power coming from the ground, collected by the legs, governed by the waist, and expressed through the hands. This implies that power in a technique comes from good footwork.

[Langenschwert]

In German Longsword, you must move constantly, shifting your guards, attempting to get in the first strike before your opponent does. The rationale is, you do not want your opponent to get a proper angle on your guard before you get one on his. If you stand statically, you will have your guard "broken" by one of the Master Strikes in short order, and you are then in big trouble. You must be able to move your feet very quickly, so the knees cannot be too bent, but they cannot be too straight either, othewise your balance will be broken by your opponent in close combat through "Ringen am Schwert", or "Wrestling at the Sword". You must be agressive and ruthless, but fluid and adaptable. Can't do that hunkering down, standing still and waiting. :)

Best regards,

-Mark

[CuongNhuka]

In German Longsword, you must move constantly, shifting your guards, attempting to get in the first strike before your opponent does. The rationale is, you do not want your opponent to get a proper angle on your guard before you get one on his. If you stand statically, you will have your guard "broken" by one of the Master Strikes in short order, and you are then in big trouble. You must be able to move your feet very quickly, so the knees cannot be too bent, but they cannot be too straight either, othewise your balance will be broken by your opponent in close combat through "Ringen am Schwert", or "Wrestling at the Sword". You must be agressive and ruthless, but fluid and adaptable. Can't do that hunkering down, standing still and waiting. :)

Best regards,

-Mark


OK, let me offer a different perspective.

In Chinese martial arts, stance is considered very important. Everything depends on how strong your stance is. This is why it is common in Chinese arts to practice drills aimed at improving the strength and stability of stances. If you have a strong base with a strong stance, every block or punch or whatever will be much stronger.

However, this doesn't mean that when fighting someone, you just drop into a deep horse and stand there and try to fight the guy from this. You gotta be able to move, so your stance will be higher, loser, and more mobile. But when you actually engage, when you make that block or throw that hand strike, or apply the joint lock, or whatever you are doing, then you hit the deep and rooted stance, to deliver the strongest technique. But you only hold the stance as long as it takes to deliver the technique. Before and after, you are more relaxed and mobile. And having developed that strong stance from hours of deep stance training, then even your higher, loose, mobile stance is stronger.

I see this in Tracy Kenpo as well. I have never trained in the EPAK kenpo, but from discussions here, I am familiar with the concept of the Neutral Bow as the base stance. But in Tracys, we don't do a Neutral Bow. Instead, we do a Fighting Horse. It is a horse stance turned slightly open. My teacher recognizes that it does sacrifice some mobility, but is more solid and rooted, and he feels this merits the sacrifice. In this case, no stance is perfect for all conditions. I think if you recognize the pros and cons and sacrifices and benefits that each stance can offer, then you can make that decision.

Finally, people who get it. OK, this is what I'm talking about. Which do YOU use and why.

[CuongNhuka]

You are seeing a dichotomy in what is really a continuum. The light boxers moves one way and the heavy boxer moves... well, really in the same way but to a lesser degree, simply as a function of their weight, not a function of philosophy

Even if that is true, you're missing something even bigger. That is called an EXAMPLE. Meaning I'm useing that to explain a point. And you even admitted that they while they both do it, lighter weights do it more. Thats the point of an example.
Nextly, what you missed is that I'm not asking why this happens, but which do you use and why. Meaning, more static then mobile, or more mobile then static.

[Em MacIntosh]

I prefer to keep a very loose, fluid stance and to know where I'm keeping my center of balance. At a distance I don't even like to put my dukes up. If you get hit while you're rooted, it's tougher for the force to be re-directed. Personal Preference really. My fighting mode tells me I'm a lot better off adjusting my position based on where he's aiming his 'energy'. My punches have more of the sting effect than a knock down effect. When I get in close enough I have to plant myself for a good elbow. It definitely has to do with the fighting range.

[Hand Sword]

Finally, people who get it. OK, this is what I'm talking about. Which do YOU use and why.



Even if that is true, you're missing something even bigger. That is called an EXAMPLE. Meaning I'm useing that to explain a point. And you even admitted that they while they both do it, lighter weights do it more. Thats the point of an example.
Nextly, what you missed is that I'm not asking why this happens, but which do you use and why. Meaning, more static then mobile, or more mobile then static.

Cuong, the other posters and myself have attempted to answer your question. All have been respectful while doing so. Maybe you should be the same way back. There is no need for any of your sarcasm. Age has nothing to do with respect. If you're not getting the answers you are looking for try rephrasing your question. Don't leave a thread open and vague, saying "whatever" and "go with it", then get answers and down the posters. What you call "EXAMPLES" have been given throughout the thread.

[zDom]

I find myself both in high stances for mobility and low stances for stability (both during giving and receiving).

[CuongNhuka]

4 now who understand how to reply to a topic. Thanks to the four of you.

[MJS]

Finally, people who get it. OK, this is what I'm talking about. Which do YOU use and why.


Even if that is true, you're missing something even bigger. That is called an EXAMPLE. Meaning I'm useing that to explain a point. And you even admitted that they while they both do it, lighter weights do it more. Thats the point of an example.
Nextly, what you missed is that I'm not asking why this happens, but which do you use and why. Meaning, more static then mobile, or more mobile then static.


4 now who understand how to reply to a topic. Thanks to the four of you.

I notice with alot of your posts, you tend to get very rude and snippy with people. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: This is an internet forum. There are many times when people misunderstand what others are trying to say. We have a good discussion going here, so no need to get so huffy. Looking at these posts, a number of folks, including myself, have gave some very good examples.

Chill out a bit dude and lets continue to have a good thread.

Mike

[CuongNhuka]

Can I get an Admin to lock this thread?

[jks9199]

Can I get an Admin to lock this thread?
I'm curious...

Why do you need it locked? There seems to be decent discussion -- just not exactly what you wanted.

And, not too surprisingly, folks got a little annoyed when you decided that nobody got what you were after, so they must all be dumb... Or at least that's how it came across.

I read your next to last post, where you comment that 4 people understand, and figured that you must have had a bad last week or so of school... or someone's been picking on you there, and you're taking it out here.

I love a qoute from one of my communications classes:

You may think you know what I meant, but what you think you heard was not what I said.
In other words -- there are two parts to any communication; the sender and the receiver. My general rule is that if one person misunderstands me -- that's his fault and his problem. If many people misunderstand me, then the problem is ME, not them.

Right now -- I think your question wasn't asked the way you intended, and maybe you ought to re-phrase, and re-try. Not pick up your toys and go home...

[MJS]

Can I get an Admin to lock this thread?


May I ask why? Personally there really is nothing wrong with the thread. I see people giving answers, but it seems to me that they are not the answers that you want to hear, so you're getting frustrated.

BTW, if you find a post that is against the rules of this forum, hit the RTM (Report to Mod) button, which is the little red triangle in the upper right corner of each thread. It'll generate a ticket for the mods of the forum to review.

So...back to the thread. :)

Mike

[CuongNhuka]

I'm mostly just want this thread to die. I want it to end before I'm tempted to get rude. Also, I'm hoping that if it gets locked I will stop getting negitive rep from people who shall remain nameless. Mostly because they're a coward.

[Bob Hubbard]

STAFF NOTE

I don't see a reason to lock this thread.

As to your rep issues, this isn't the place to address them. Our complaint policy is here (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26485).

However, I looked and I don't see anything in there that violates our rules, but is simply opinion.

It is not our policy to lock threads because a member doesn't like the answers in there. If we did that, we'd be locking half the site every day. Threads die when people stop posting on them.

/STAFF NOTE

[MJS]

I'm mostly just want this thread to die.

You start a thread to get an answer to a question. You get replies. The replies are not what YOU like, so you want it to die??? My friend, you're getting advice from people in this thread who've been training alot longer than you. It may be wise to sit back, relax a bit, and listen to what they say, then ask yourself, if your replies to us are justified!



I want it to end before I'm tempted to get rude.

Perhaps you should read the forum rules and think twice about that sir.



Also, I'm hoping that if it gets locked I will stop getting negitive rep from people who shall remain nameless. Mostly because they're a coward.

Nothing in this thread warrents it being locked. Again, you're not getting the replies you want, so you're upset. Why not get back to a good discussion?

As far as rep goes...if you feel like you're being targeted, ask yourself a few questions:

Is the neg rep you're getting due to a rude post that you've made? If so, perhaps changing your attitude would get you some positive rep. :)

If you're having a rep issue, PM an Admin to look at it for you.

Mike

[exile]

The issue this thread raises—the status of low `hard' stances vs. higher `mobile' stances—is inherently interesting, a lot of useful views have been aired, and all in all the discussion seems valuable. Why shut it down at this point??

I think the whole question of `stances' deserves to be aired, and aired again, and again, if only because it is one of those wonderful cases in the MA in which people get sucked in by terminology and develop elaborate and emotionally deeply held positions based on deliberate... trickery, or maybe, more neutrally, `indirection' in the way MA techs have been presented (not trickery by them, but by earlier MAists trying to conceal major discoveries about combat). And stances are a beautiful example.

So far as I can tell, Anko Itosu was the one responsible for introducing the descriptions `front stance' and `back stance' into the karate-variant arts (Shito-ryu, Isshin-ryu, Shotokan, Taekwondo, Tang Soo Do, and all the rest). Well, we know that AI was interested in disguising the nature of the techs involved. There were school kids involved, after all, and the original apps literally involved butchery. So everything is disguised, and today we argue about `stances'. But what AI had in mind was something very different: the projection of weight into a tech.

What I am getting at (my own $.02 as always) is that for Itosu, a `stance' wasn't actually a thing, an entity on its own. In a sense, there is no `stance' in the fighting art that AI learned from Matusumura. But there are two basic fighting situations, where either (i) you project your body-weight full-strength forward into a tech designed to damage your oppo, with the weight playing a crucial rule in that tech, or (ii) you use your body weight to anchor your attacker—root him to the spot, so to speak—while you take him out with a combination of trapping and targetted striking moves as per the kata. In both of these scenarios, low fixed stances don't involve immobility, because you aren't moving freely. Rather, they encode bringing your body weight to bear to `back up' an armbar, a joint lock or a wrist lock to force your oppo into a vulnerable body position where a well-placed followup strike immobilizes him, and ends the fight. The katas, hyungs and other karate-based patterns faithfully record this use of `stances'—body-weight shifts—without any suggesting that these destructive uses of bodyweight are fixed `things' that constitute real, individual modes of movement.

There was a complaint about lack of examples. So OK, here are two examples, based on a very solid realistic bunkai for a basic response to a very common violence-initiation:

(i) Assailant grabs your shirt, expecting to immobilize you to help deliver a roundhouse `haymaker' punch. You place one hand on his (driving your thumb into the region between his thumb and forefinger), turn 90º pulling and twisting the wrist you counterseized, slam your other forearm down on his upper arm just (repeat, just) above the elbow of his now trapped grabbing arm, and... shift your bodyweight forward onto your front leg, bringing all 180 lbs or whatever to bear on that trapped elbow. He goes down fast, believe it!—he has no choice. And low stance here translates into maximum forceful application of bodyweight to the oppo's weak point above his trapped elbow. I've seen this done, and done it, in seminars matched with (very) noncompliant partners and it's scary how little choice they have when you aim you whole bodyweight at that one point on their locked arm, using the bony edge of your forearm to apply pressure. Here's the crucial point: drive your weight down low, and you will wind up in what looks like a classic low Shotokan front stance.

(ii) Assailant throws a straight punch at you. From your `fence' guard position (which you should have been in, in suitably concealed form, as soon as this guy started looking like trouble, probably 10 minutes ago or so) you deflect his punch to your inside, moving foward and taking control of his punching hand. Twist 90º, pulling him in the direction of his punch (he's gonna follow the punch, he doesn't have much choice!), shifting your weight mostly to the back leg as you twist, bring back your other elbow and ram it as hard as you can into his face, while keeping him trapped on that solidly weighted back leg. The lower your stance, i.e., the lower your bodyweight, the more effectively you've `anchored' them in a sitting-duck position waiting for your damaging, end-of-fight strike. The damage will be very impressive... especially to him. Again, I've used this tech in all but the very last detail on mock-fighting partners who were trying hard not to be decked, and it's quite an eye opener.

Now the point is, there are no `stances' here. You aren't assuming any particular position at all; you're moving freely, imposing controls on a hostile and violent attacker and using the positioning of that bodyweight to support the techs you've trained, techs which your kata or hyungs are an incredibly deep and broad library of (both (i) and (ii) are straight out of a number of TKD hyungs). It's not just that there's no either/or, you use both high/mobile and low/firm stances, and so on. It's more that the very notion of `stance' is mistaken: you move into whatever configuration and weight placement will support the combination of controlling and striking moves you are, on the basis of intelligent, realistic bunkai, choosing to apply in the current situation. What you do is based on evasion/deflection of strikes, establishment of control of the attacker based on that evasion, and delivery of maximum-level destructive force to the eyes, neck, throat, mouth, side of head and so on in order to take your assailant out of the aggression game for, um, a long, long time...

In order to respond to the habitual acts of violence which typically initiate a dangerous attack, you need a set of trained responses, a sound, physically realistic strategy which works with intinctive responses, and the willingness to deliver severely damaging force in a very short time interval. `Stances' are just code for how your bodyweight enters into the applications of your strategy.

[Steel Tiger]

The issue this thread raises—the status of low `hard' stances vs. higher `mobile' stances—is inherently interesting, a lot of useful views have been aired, and all in all the discussion seems valuable. Why shut it down at this point??

I think the whole question of `stances' deserves to be aired, and aired again, and again, if only because it is one of those wonderful cases in the MA in which people get sucked in by terminology and develop elaborate and emotionally deeply held positions based on deliberate... trickery, or maybe, more neutrally, `indirection' in the way MA techs have been presented. And stances are a beautiful example.

So far as I can tell, Anko Itosu was the one responsible for introducing the descriptions `front stance' and `back stance' into the karate-variant arts (Shito-ryu, Isshin-ryu, Shotokan, Taekwondo, Tang Soo Do, and all the rest). Well, we know that AI was interested in disguising the nature of the techs involved. There were school kids involved, after all, and the original apps literally involved butchery. So everything is disguised, and today we argue about `stances'. But what AI had in mind was something very different: the projection of weight into a tech.

What I am getting at (my own $.02 as always) is that for Itosu, a `stance' wasn't actually a thing, an entity on its own. In a sense, there is no `stance' in the fighting art that AI learned from Matusumura. But there are two basic fighting situations, where either (i) you project your body-weight full-strength forward into a tech designed to damage your oppo, with the weight playing a crucial rule in that tech, or (ii) you use your body weight to anchor your attacker—root him to the spot, so to speak—while you take him out with a combination of trapping and targetted striking moves as per the kata. In both of these scenarios, low fixed stances don't involve immobility, because you aren't moving freely. Rather, they encode bringing your body weight to bear to `back up' an armbar, a joint lock or a wrist lock to force your oppo into a vulnerable body position where a well-placed followup strike immobilizes him, and ends the fight. The katas, hyungs and other karate-based patterns faithfully record this use of `stances'—body-weight shifts—without any suggesting that these destructive uses of bodyweight are fixed `things' that constitute real, individual modes of movement.

There was a complaint about lack of examples. So OK, here are two examples, based on a very solid realistic bunkai for a basic response to a very common violence-initiation:

(i) Assailant grabs your shirt, expecting to immobilize you to help deliver a roundhouse `haymaker' punch. You place one hand on his (driving your thumb into the region between his thumb and forefinger), turn 90º pulling and twisting the wrist you counterseized, slam your other forearm down on his upper arm just (repeat, just) above the elbow of his now trapped grabbing arm, and... shift your bodyweight forward onto your front leg, bringing all 180 lbs or whatever to bear on that trapped elbow. He goes down fast, believe it!—he has no choice. And low stance here translates into maximum forceful application of bodyweight to the oppo's weak point above his trapped elbow. I've seen this done, and done it, in seminars matched with (very) noncompliant partners and it's scary how little choice they have when you aim you whole bodyweight at that one point on their locked arm, using the bony edge of your forearm to apply pressure. Here's the crucial point: drive your weight down low, and you will wind up in what looks like a classic low Shotokan front stance.

(ii) Assailant throws a straight punch at you. From your `fence' guard position (which you should have been in, in suitably concealed form, as soon as this guy started looking like trouble, probably 10 minutes ago or so) you deflect his punch to your inside, moving foward and taking control of his punching hand. Twist 90º, pulling him in the direction of his punch (he's gonna follow the punch, he doesn't have much choice!), shifting your weight mostly to the back leg as you twist, bring back your other elbow and ram it as hard as you can into his face, while keeping him trapped on that solidly weighted back leg. The lower your stance, i.e., the lower your bodyweight, the more effectively you've `anchored' them in a sitting-duck position waiting for your damaging, end-of-fight strike. The damage will be very impressive... especially to him. Again, I've used this tech in all but the very last detail on mock-fighting partners who were trying hard not to be decked, and it's quite an eye opener.

Now the point is, there are no `stances' here. You aren't assuming any particular position at all; you're moving freely, imposing controls on a hostile and violent attacker and using the positioning of that bodyweight to support the techs you've trained, techs which your kata or hyungs are an incredibly deep and broad library of (both (i) and (ii) are straight out of a number of TKD hyungs). It's not just that there's no either/or, you use both high/mobile and low/firm stances, and so on. It's more that the very notion of `stance' is mistaken: you move into whatever configuration and weight placement will support the combination of controlling and striking moves you are, on the basis of intelligent, realistic bunkai, choosing to apply in the current situation. What you do is based on evasion/deflection of strikes, establishment of control of the attacker based on that evasion, and delivery of maximum-level destructive force to the eyes, neck, throat, mouth, side of head and so on in order to take your assailant out of the aggression game for, um, a long, long time...

In order to respond to the habitual acts of violence which typically initiate a dangerous attack, you need a set of trained responses, a sound, physically realistic strategy which works with intinctive responses, and the willingness to deliver severely damaging force in a very short time interval. `Stances' are just code for how your bodyweight enters into the applications of your strategy.

Very interesting. I can see exactly where you are coming from. Speaking from a CMA background, though, stances are strange hybrid entities that need discussion and explanation. Their origin as individual positions may stem from a similar attempt to hide the actuality of the techniques employing them, or it may not I don't really know.

I have eight basic stances that I teach. These are fundamental to understanding movement and balance. When learning the stances, students move from one to another, usually through a horse stance (ie horse to left mountain-climbing, back to horse, then to right mountain-climbing, or in Mandarin - ma bu, deng shan bu, ma bu, deng shan bu). This allows the student to understand and feel the movement into and between these balanced positions.

Thus when learning the forms they already have an understanding of position and motion.

Of course, when doing application work the classical shape of the forms is contracted, so mountain-climbing becomes a forward step off-line or a forward movement into a strike.

I like your examples, especially the first one. Its a lot like a qinna technique I know called "Placing Incense at the Altar".

[exile]

Very interesting. I can see exactly where you are coming from. Speaking from a CMA background, though, stances are strange hybrid entities that need discussion and explanation. Their origin as individual positions may stem from a similar attempt to hide the actuality of the techniques employing them, or it may not I don't really know.


That wouldn't surprise me in the least, ST. I have the impression, from various sources I've read that struck me as reliable, that the Chinese went furthest of all in concealing the technical apparata that their forms contain. In Okinawa, Japan and Korea, so far as I can tell, MA techs weren't proprietary family secrets. Yes, they might be dojo/dojang secrets in the karate-based arts, and kept relatively secret in that context; but CMAs techs were much more like crown jewels, trump cards that you might have to play against the bozos from next door when 15 of their nastier twelfth cousins showed up to settle that eight-generation-old argument about property boundaries you've had going... settle it at your expense, naturally.


I have eight basic stances that I teach. These are fundamental to understanding movement and balance. When learning the stances, students move from one to another, usually through a horse stance (ie horse to left mountain-climbing, back to horse, then to right mountain-climbing, or in Mandarin - ma bu, deng shan bu, ma bu, deng shan bu). This allows the student to understand and feel the movement into and between these balanced positions.

Thus when learning the forms they already have an understanding of position and motion.

Of course, when doing application work the classical shape of the forms is contracted, so mountain-climbing becomes a forward step off-line or a forward movement into a strike.

I like your examples, especially the first one. Its a lot like a qinna technique I know called "Placing Incense at the Altar".

You can tell, I believe, that I was just talking about the basics of the stance situation in the OJK-MAs... In the perspective I've been developing (none of it original, alas... or maybe, not alas; I wouldn't want too much to hang on the basis of my own still-naive judgments), things like 180º turns in kata/hyungs aren't necessarily simply ways to show how the tech works on the other side (the assumption being that every tech needs to be shown on both the right and left side, that there is some kind of requirement of symmetry in the display of technique). There may well be such a convention in kata structure, but it's also true that the 180º turns correspond to throws: trap your oppo, deck him with a blow to the neck/throat/head, and then, converting the striking hand into a grabbing hand (standard muchimi tech in Okinawan and Japanese practice), turn quickly in the opposite direction to throw the fairly stunned oppo to the ground, or near the ground (but still in the crosshairs of a followup strike to the head on the `new' side).

I'm very interested in what you say about the existence of an explicit CMA technique (the `Incense/Alter' example you mention) which matches the KMA tech I mentioned, which is itself derivative from O/J-MA bunkai. Here's what it suggests to me.... just this: that all fighting arts with any depth have discovered the basic logic of unarmed combat (including the role of `stances', i.e., the way to position bodyweight in support of a specific tech), and have devised ways to express those discoveries. I'd expect it to go back further in the CMAs than anywhere else... after all, Chinese kids were cramming for civil service exams at a time when their counterparts in what is now Europe were, in Disraeli's wonderful phrase, painting themselves blue and howling at the moon.

So I very strongly suspect that if we took the assembled technical content of the O/J/K arts and compared them to the CMAs, we'd find everthing the former has to offer pretty much attested in the latter going back hundreds or thousands of years. But emphasis and training come into it as well: Matsumura's linear karate was probably a specialized development of possibilities in the CMAs never fully developed, which suited the 19th c. Okinawan scene in a way that hadn't been taken advantage of previously...

[Steel Tiger]

That wouldn't surprise me in the least, ST. I have the impression, from various sources I've read that struck me as reliable, that the Chinese went furthest of all in concealing the technical apparata that their forms contain. In Okinawa, Japan and Korea, so far as I can tell, MA techs weren't proprietary family secrets. Yes, they might be dojo/dojang secrets in the karate-based arts, and kept relatively secret in that context; but CMAs techs were much more like crown jewels, trump cards that you might have to play against the bozos from next door when 15 of their nastier twelfth cousins showed up to settle that eight-generation-old argument about property boundaries you've had going... settle it at your expense, naturally.

It is quite explicit in the taiji community. Techniques were changed to remove or obscure elements. All done to protect those valuable family secrets, just in case someone learned the art from somewhere else.


You can tell, I believe, that I was just talking about the basics of the stance situation in the OJK-MAs... In the perspective I've been developing (none of it original, alas... or maybe, not alas; I wouldn't want too much to hang on the basis of my own still-naive judgments), things like 180º turns in kata/hyungs aren't necessarily simply ways to show how the tech works on the other side (the assumption being that every tech needs to be shown on both the right and left side, that there is some kind of requirement of symmetry in the display of technique). There may well be such a convention in kata structure, but it's also true that the 180º turns correspond to throws: trap your oppo, deck him with a blow to the neck/throat/head, and then, converting the striking hand into a grabbing hand (standard muchimi tech in Okinawan and Japanese practice), turn quickly in the opposite direction to throw the fairly stunned oppo to the ground, or near the ground (but still in the crosshairs of a followup strike to the head on the `new' side).

180° turns in the forms I know also represent throws, two I can think of right now are quite explicit (but tiger forms are like that).


I'm very interested in what you say about the existence of an explicit CMA technique (the `Incense/Alter' example you mention) which matches the KMA tech I mentioned, which is itself derivative from O/J-MA bunkai. Here's what it suggests to me.... just this: that all fighting arts with any depth have discovered the basic logic of unarmed combat (including the role of `stances', i.e., the way to position bodyweight in support of a specific tech), and have devised ways to express those discoveries. I'd expect it to go back further in the CMAs than anywhere else... after all, Chinese kids were cramming for civil service exams at a time when their counterparts in what is now Europe were, in Disraeli's wonderful phrase, painting themselves blue and howling at the moon.

The Placing Incense technique is part of the "dividing the muscle" school and the version I know comes from the snake techniques of Western Wu Dang. It develops from a throat grap, but could easily work from a lapel or gi, or kimono grap as well. I don't really know how old it might be, but probably a couple of hundred years. I cannot but agree about all fighting arts with any depth discovering an underlying logic to unarmed combat.

By the way if you want to see an interesting demonstration of this qinna tech, check out Jet Li's film Once Upon a Time in China II. He teaches it to aunt Yee.


So I very strongly suspect that if we took the assembled technical content of the O/J/K arts and compared them to the CMAs, we'd find everthing the former has to offer pretty much attested in the latter going back hundreds or thousands of years. But emphasis and training come into it as well: Matsumura's linear karate was probably a specialized development of possibilities in the CMAs never fully developed, which suited the 19th c. Okinawan scene in a way that hadn't been taken advantage of previously...

My first teacher went to Shaolin in 1984 and was able to train with three little old men. They were the only actual monks at the temple (they were prohibited from teaching Chan Buddhism, however, so the line died with them). He brought back video footage of one performing a form and, for the life of me, I thought I was watching a Karate kata.

[Drac]

I'm mostly just want this thread to die. I want it to end before I'm tempted to get rude. Also, I'm hoping that if it gets locked I will stop getting negitive rep from people who shall remain nameless. Mostly because they're a coward.

Why is it that everytime someone gets a negative rep and the sender refuses to attach their name they get called coward??? I've been neg repped numerous times and no name was attached..I didn't say a word..I figured I did something to earn it

[MJS]

The issue this thread raises—the status of low `hard' stances vs. higher `mobile' stances—is inherently interesting, a lot of useful views have been aired, and all in all the discussion seems valuable. Why shut it down at this point??

I think the whole question of `stances' deserves to be aired, and aired again, and again, if only because it is one of those wonderful cases in the MA in which people get sucked in by terminology and develop elaborate and emotionally deeply held positions based on deliberate... trickery, or maybe, more neutrally, `indirection' in the way MA techs have been presented (not trickery by them, but by earlier MAists trying to conceal major discoveries about combat). And stances are a beautiful example.

So far as I can tell, Anko Itosu was the one responsible for introducing the descriptions `front stance' and `back stance' into the karate-variant arts (Shito-ryu, Isshin-ryu, Shotokan, Taekwondo, Tang Soo Do, and all the rest). Well, we know that AI was interested in disguising the nature of the techs involved. There were school kids involved, after all, and the original apps literally involved butchery. So everything is disguised, and today we argue about `stances'. But what AI had in mind was something very different: the projection of weight into a tech.

What I am getting at (my own $.02 as always) is that for Itosu, a `stance' wasn't actually a thing, an entity on its own. In a sense, there is no `stance' in the fighting art that AI learned from Matusumura. But there are two basic fighting situations, where either (i) you project your body-weight full-strength forward into a tech designed to damage your oppo, with the weight playing a crucial rule in that tech, or (ii) you use your body weight to anchor your attacker—root him to the spot, so to speak—while you take him out with a combination of trapping and targetted striking moves as per the kata. In both of these scenarios, low fixed stances don't involve immobility, because you aren't moving freely. Rather, they encode bringing your body weight to bear to `back up' an armbar, a joint lock or a wrist lock to force your oppo into a vulnerable body position where a well-placed followup strike immobilizes him, and ends the fight. The katas, hyungs and other karate-based patterns faithfully record this use of `stances'—body-weight shifts—without any suggesting that these destructive uses of bodyweight are fixed `things' that constitute real, individual modes of movement.

There was a complaint about lack of examples. So OK, here are two examples, based on a very solid realistic bunkai for a basic response to a very common violence-initiation:

(i) Assailant grabs your shirt, expecting to immobilize you to help deliver a roundhouse `haymaker' punch. You place one hand on his (driving your thumb into the region between his thumb and forefinger), turn 90º pulling and twisting the wrist you counterseized, slam your other forearm down on his upper arm just (repeat, just) above the elbow of his now trapped grabbing arm, and... shift your bodyweight forward onto your front leg, bringing all 180 lbs or whatever to bear on that trapped elbow. He goes down fast, believe it!—he has no choice. And low stance here translates into maximum forceful application of bodyweight to the oppo's weak point above his trapped elbow. I've seen this done, and done it, in seminars matched with (very) noncompliant partners and it's scary how little choice they have when you aim you whole bodyweight at that one point on their locked arm, using the bony edge of your forearm to apply pressure. Here's the crucial point: drive your weight down low, and you will wind up in what looks like a classic low Shotokan front stance.

(ii) Assailant throws a straight punch at you. From your `fence' guard position (which you should have been in, in suitably concealed form, as soon as this guy started looking like trouble, probably 10 minutes ago or so) you deflect his punch to your inside, moving foward and taking control of his punching hand. Twist 90º, pulling him in the direction of his punch (he's gonna follow the punch, he doesn't have much choice!), shifting your weight mostly to the back leg as you twist, bring back your other elbow and ram it as hard as you can into his face, while keeping him trapped on that solidly weighted back leg. The lower your stance, i.e., the lower your bodyweight, the more effectively you've `anchored' them in a sitting-duck position waiting for your damaging, end-of-fight strike. The damage will be very impressive... especially to him. Again, I've used this tech in all but the very last detail on mock-fighting partners who were trying hard not to be decked, and it's quite an eye opener.

Now the point is, there are no `stances' here. You aren't assuming any particular position at all; you're moving freely, imposing controls on a hostile and violent attacker and using the positioning of that bodyweight to support the techs you've trained, techs which your kata or hyungs are an incredibly deep and broad library of (both (i) and (ii) are straight out of a number of TKD hyungs). It's not just that there's no either/or, you use both high/mobile and low/firm stances, and so on. It's more that the very notion of `stance' is mistaken: you move into whatever configuration and weight placement will support the combination of controlling and striking moves you are, on the basis of intelligent, realistic bunkai, choosing to apply in the current situation. What you do is based on evasion/deflection of strikes, establishment of control of the attacker based on that evasion, and delivery of maximum-level destructive force to the eyes, neck, throat, mouth, side of head and so on in order to take your assailant out of the aggression game for, um, a long, long time...

In order to respond to the habitual acts of violence which typically initiate a dangerous attack, you need a set of trained responses, a sound, physically realistic strategy which works with intinctive responses, and the willingness to deliver severely damaging force in a very short time interval. `Stances' are just code for how your bodyweight enters into the applications of your strategy.

Great points as always! :) I agree with not shutting it down. We have a great thread, great replies, so IMHO, if someone chooses not to reply, thats fine.

As far as stances go...I think alot of times when people view stances, they tend to view them as something that are a) static or b) held for a certain amount of time. I feel that many stances are used to flow from one move to the next. During a SD technique, I may 'transition' to a neutral bow stance (Kenpo) during my initial block, but its nothing that I maintain, as I flow to the next move.

As far as sparring goes..again, when I spar, I do my best to stay loose and keep moving. When a strike is thrown, you become static for a brief moment, so to allow proper body mechanics, but then its right back to moving again.

Just my .02 :)

Mike

[Em MacIntosh]

I like to use a shigo dachi (similar to a horse stance) in sparring sometimes. I've never been told not to do it, but most people don't think it's a good idea. I pull my punch when it makes contact but I put the full force of my stance behind it. Often I'll step on someone's foot and they get stuck just long enough for a strike and a takedown. You can move pretty fast in a rooted stance if you practice it enough. Tight but loose...still working on that. As are many you, I imagine.

[Shotgun Buddha]

The only logical answer for this question is this: Whatever the situation demands.
Both static and loose positioning have their uses and are used to accomplish different things.
In order to deal with a grappler, you have to maintain solid stance, but also have the mobilty to shift weight another solid position.
In order to strike and deal with a striker, you have to be light enough on your feet that you can evade and position for striking, but solid enough to correctly deliver weight to your strikes.
Consequently the logical approach would be to always maintain solid connection with the ground, and maintain tight body mechanics, but moving in a loose relaxed manner.

Remember, economy of motion is one of the core principals of combat. You only ever move as much as you need to. This is coupled with the principal of positioning. Always place yourself in the position which places you closest to achieving your objective.
So whatever stance you use should always try use the smallest movement possible to achieve the largest possible gain.
Stances that involve an excessive amount of movement simply leave you vulnerable.

[Nomad]

I think the whole question of `stances' deserves to be aired, and aired again, and again, if only because it is one of those wonderful cases in the MA in which people get sucked in by terminology and develop elaborate and emotionally deeply held positions based on deliberate... trickery, or maybe, more neutrally, `indirection' in the way MA techs have been presented (not trickery by them, but by earlier MAists trying to conceal major discoveries about combat). And stances are a beautiful example.


I cut your quote for the sake of brevity, but wanted to thank you for stating explicitely what one of my earlier posts was trying to get at, in a much more eloquent fashion. I couldn't agree more. :asian:

[Blindside]

As far as stances go...I think alot of times when people view stances, they tend to view them as something that are a) static or b) held for a certain amount of time. I feel that many stances are used to flow from one move to the next. During a SD technique, I may 'transition' to a neutral bow stance (Kenpo) during my initial block, but its nothing that I maintain, as I flow to the next move.


In Pekiti Tirsia Kali, there are no stances, all positions are transitions to the next. There are right and wrong ways of moving, but no "stances."

Lamont

[Steel Tiger]

As far as stances go...I think alot of times when people view stances, they tend to view them as something that are a) static or b) held for a certain amount of time. I feel that many stances are used to flow from one move to the next. During a SD technique, I may 'transition' to a neutral bow stance (Kenpo) during my initial block, but its nothing that I maintain, as I flow to the next move.

Mike, I have made bold the point that really leaped out at me in your post. This is an attitude that has been accentuated by the vast number of MA movies around where adopt a stance before and after delivering a technique. It seems to have seaped into the mindset of many people, that that is what stances are for.

Having said that, I should point out in some of the forms I know there are points called mai (not exactly sure of the spelling). These are places where you pause momentarily, usually after a powerful, or supposedly lethal technique has been delivered.

[jks9199]

I think I'd have rephrased the original topic as being about using solid/rooted stances or more flexible/mobile stances; I don't think that high always means mobile/loose or low always means solid/rooted. Yes -- generally, lower stances are more rooted, but there are people who, through training, are amazingly mobile even in a "low" stance (a recent post that showed a Mantis form is a great example). But -- you've got to root/anchor, however briefly and whether on one or both feet, to generate power beyond your own muscle power. And, unless you've got incredibly fast hands to block with, there are times when you need to be loose and mobile.

The real trick is being able to shift from hard to mobile as you need...

[Steel Tiger]

I think I'd have rephrased the original topic as being about using solid/rooted stances or more flexible/mobile stances; I don't think that high always means mobile/loose or low always means solid/rooted. Yes -- generally, lower stances are more rooted, but there are people who, through training, are amazingly mobile even in a "low" stance (a recent post that showed a Mantis form is a great example). But -- you've got to root/anchor, however briefly and whether on one or both feet, to generate power beyond your own muscle power. And, unless you've got incredibly fast hands to block with, there are times when you need to be loose and mobile.

The real trick is being able to shift from hard to mobile as you need...

Its a good point you make that a low stance is not necessarily a static or immobile one.

Yes, transition is the name of the game.

[exile]

As far as stances go...I think alot of times when people view stances, they tend to view them as something that are a) static or b) held for a certain amount of time. I feel that many stances are used to flow from one move to the next. During a SD technique, I may 'transition' to a neutral bow stance (Kenpo) during my initial block, but its nothing that I maintain, as I flow to the next move.

As far as sparring goes..again, when I spar, I do my best to stay loose and keep moving. When a strike is thrown, you become static for a brief moment, so to allow proper body mechanics, but then its right back to moving again.

Just my .02 :)

Mike


Mike, I have made bold the point that really leaped out at me in your post. This is an attitude that has been accentuated by the vast number of MA movies around where adopt a stance before and after delivering a technique. It seems to have seaped into the mindset of many people, that that is what stances are for.

Having said that, I should point out in some of the forms I know there are points called mai (not exactly sure of the spelling). These are places where you pause momentarily, usually after a powerful, or supposedly lethal technique has been delivered.


Its a good point you make that a low stance is not necessarily a static or immobile one.

Yes, transition is the name of the game.

I think there is a serious consensus reflected in the above posts, from a number of different practitioners with considerable collective experience in a range of martial arts (and many of the other posts above that I didn't post echo the same idea). The problem everyone is getting at is that a stance is a position which you assume and hold, whereas in the MAs, you can't do that in 99% of the cases or you're toast (the 1% being those cases where you've decisively taken out your oppo and are standing above his prone form flexing your biceps...:D)

I've appealed to this analogy from skiing before, so apologies to those who've already seen it, but it just seems so apt for this discussion. I taught and raced alpine skiing in the mid 1970s in Wyoming, and one of the interesting things about skiing in those days was that a whole generation of skiiers and some of their instructors were reared on the mechanically fallacious doctrine that the best, most efficient racing technique involved sitting back on your skis and letting them shoot out ahead of you. To get the needed leverage to pull yourself back onto your skis from that position so that you didn't wind up on your ass when you did this, boot manufacturers had to make ski boots which terminated at the top just below your knees... I'm not kidding! Take a look at some of the old Langs, circa 1978 or so, if you ever come across a museum of downhill ski technology, and you'll see what I mean. So where did people get such a hare-brained idea from??

The short story is that the French team that Killy was a member of was using a technique pioneered by one of their number named Patrick Russel, in which you pulled your legs up under you when you hit a mogul (or the top of a rut in a slalom course), thereby `swallowing' the rut, so the technique was christened avalement; when you do this, of course, you wind up looking like you're sitting back on your skis. But the fact is, at the moment you do this, you've effectively unweighted your skis, and what you do in that split second of unweighting is shift your body position to the new outside ski and then press forward, reweighting the ski so that it starts carving the new turn. Avalement is therefore nothing more than using the legs to `level out' the terrain, making it as two-dimensional as possible, and the key point is, you're only back on your skis at a transition point in the turn, when you're shifting your weight from one ski to the other in anticipation of the upcoming short radius turn. But in the photos, all people could see were racers who looked like they were sitting way back... as though they had assumed a static, sitting-back position and were riding hell-bent-for-lether two feet behind the tails of their Rossignols. It was bad skiing journalism, mostly, because a lot of the mags didn't really understand what was going on. When their own technicians finally figured it out, there were all kinds of articles about how you shouldn't sit back, how the racers weren't really sitting back but were rather unweighting via avalement, but by that point the damage had been done. And you'd see people blasting out of their bindings all over the place on ski hills as a result of slamming out of control into hip-high moguls because they's been sitting back at the beginning of the run.

Sanity returned by the mid-1980s, but it made a big impression on me, how a mistaken graphic image of what was happening—a picture which gave a serious misimpression of what the dynamical situation was—could lead people to take up physical positions that were just all wrong and then try to horse those positions into some semblance of effectiveness in action—in vain, of course. The idea of `assuming a stance' in the MAs and then acting as though that stance were your default, `home' position makes no more sense than the idea that you sit back on your skis because some photo of Killy on the way to another World Cup victory makes it look as though he has his center of gravity well behind the center of his skis. And the outcome is the same... you're gonna wind up bouncing along the ground, all black and blue, in either case! :rolleyes:

[Steel Tiger]

Sanity returned by the mid-1980s, but it made a big impression on me, how a mistaken graphic image of what was happening—a picture which gave a serious misimpression of what the dynamical situation was—could lead people to take up physical positions that were just all wrong and then try to horse those positions into some semblance of effectiveness in action—in vain, of course. The idea of `assuming a stance' in the MAs and then acting as though that stance were your default, `home' position makes no more sense than the idea that you sit back on your skis because some photo of Killy on the way to another World Cup victory makes it look as though he has his center of gravity well behind the center of his skis. And the outcome is the same... you're gonna wind up bouncing along the ground, all black and blue, in either case! :rolleyes:

I like your example my friend. I'm something of a fan of competition skiing, especially downhill, even though I don't ski myself. It is a strong point you make about misimpression of images, whether they be sporting photo stills or pictures in a MA manual, they lose their dynamism and allow people to make assumptions about what is, or should, be happening.

You made me think about some things with this example. The situation with stances and mobility is further complicated, at least in TCMA, by the use of stances to do strengthening and coordination work without reference to forms or applications. It can create confusion as to the nature of a stance when it is used in multiple ways.

[MJS]

Mike, I have made bold the point that really leaped out at me in your post. This is an attitude that has been accentuated by the vast number of MA movies around where adopt a stance before and after delivering a technique. It seems to have seaped into the mindset of many people, that that is what stances are for.

Having said that, I should point out in some of the forms I know there are points called mai (not exactly sure of the spelling). These are places where you pause momentarily, usually after a powerful, or supposedly lethal technique has been delivered.

I agree. I think that while the MA movies are good, as they give exposure to the arts, they're bad in the sense that people take what they see for granted.

As for the forms...yes, there are times while doing a form, that I stop or maintain a stance, however, its just for the purpose of the form. Like the movies, I think people tend to look at a form and think, "Well, if I'm doing it in the form, I probably will and should do it in a fight!" but again, thats a misunderstanding on their part IMHO. Similar those people that bash a kata, thinking that thats how you will fight.

Mike