One good reason for an angled stance.

[Gerry Seymour]

That's true if the knife attack is the classic SD drill straight forward stabby stabby type of thing.

I don't know how often that's a real situation, but I'd guess it's low numbers...

I know that's not how I'd handle a knife.

Stabs are the most common knife attacks. A stab under the front ribs matches the relatively common (so far as such can be said of knife attacks) attack of thrusting forward and up from relatively close range. From the front, that goes under and perhaps to the heart. From the side, the same height attack has to deal with ribs.

 

[hoshin1600]

attack of thrusting forward and up from relatively close range.

affectionately called the Folsom Prison sewing machine.

 

[Martial D]

I am not sure I understand the question, but will try an answer.

I very often try to approach my opponent from the sides, with a stance more squared than sideways (so I can hit without being hit). But it is always changing, especially in mid range.

I prefer more squared stance in short distance and more sideways one at longer distance.

To me, it looks like grapplers very often prefer a squared stance at any distance.

Sometimes a ‘wrong’ angle is just a move in advance to decept and trap your opponent...

If I say ‘this angle is wrong’, eventually I will find out that someone made it work.

I'm not saying any angle is universally wrong, but some are certainly situationally wrong.

 

[wckf92]

the value of any angle would depend on the reference point

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

the value of any angle would depend on the reference point

Agree! It depends on you and your opponent's feet position.

If your opponent's leading leg can reach to both of your legs, either you angle is too big (too close to square stance), or your base is too small.

You don't want to give your opponent a chance by using his leading leg to attack your leading leg and then attack your back leg without having to readjust his back rooting leg.

Also if your opponent can move his back foot for just a "small step", and his back foot can line up with both of your feet, your angle may be too small (too easy for your opponent to reach to your blind side).

 

[wckf92]

If bad guy is weak in the middle...then you should hey diddle diddle just like Sun Tzu "If the enemy leaves a door open, you must rush in"

If bad guy is strong in the middle...or has already occupied the center...Sun Tzu advises "In battle, there are not more than two methods of attack: the direct and the indirect; yet these two in combination give rise to an endless series of maneuvers" and "In all fighting, the direct method may be used for joining battle, but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory"

 

[Anarax]

Taking an angled stance at 45º off the line running perpendicular to central line (straight line connecting your heart to your opponent's) reduces the width of the 6 gates (or 4 depending on lineage) by 31.25%.

View attachment 21662

I like incorporating math, physics and kinesiology into MA too. However, I think you should try to illustrate it better to get your point across clearer. Uploading a piece of paper with shapes and angles on it is one thing. Uploading a video(not necessarily of yourself) or posture images would illustrate your points much better.

 

[lansao]

Really enjoying this dialogue. Cool to see so many perspectives expressed.

 

[lansao]

I like incorporating math, physics and kinesiology into MA too. However, I think you should try to illustrate it better to get your point across clearer. Uploading a piece of paper with shapes and angles on it is one thing. Uploading a video(not necessarily of yourself) or posture images would illustrate your points much better.

Totally, I think a mirror will do the trick. Stand squared off in front of a mirror. Pivot off one heel and send the other foot back so that your shoulders are roughly 45d (or whatever d you prefer). Note the difference in width of your reflection. I just had the thought while in front of my notebook and shared it. Measurements came out to ~30% narrower, pdg’s trig aligned well with that estimate too.

 

[JowGaWolf]

4.) "square stance is more psychologically strong"
I don't believe this to be true.

It's not true. The only difference is that the square stance feels safer than a bladed stance. I use both through out sparring and the only thing that determines how I stand is my strategy and what type of techniques I may be against. Based on what I've heard and have seen from Kung Fu Wang. He'll probably make a person for having their feet in a square stance.

Even though the square stance may feel safe (probably because both hands can reach the same distance) A blade stance has numerous advantage but those advantages require training and quite a bit of skill building. It's definitely not the fastest way to learn how to fight, but if you want a lot of options to choose from then a bladed stance will give you more options than a squared off one.

Taking an angled stance at 45º off the line running perpendicular to central line (straight line connecting your heart to your opponent's) reduces the width of the 6 gates (or 4 depending on lineage) by 31.25%

You are making things too complicated. 45º has less to doe about that and more to do about distance and timing. There are some other benefits of that angle, but they are small in comparison to the distance and time benefits.

The best way to understand 45º is to put gloves on it and use it during sparring. You'll get hit and kicked a bunch of times, but each time you get it correct you'll begin to understand that the math and the triangles over complicates things. Math isn't a good match way to explain the angles and the benefits because it's not constant and none of it is measurable. It doesn't take into context the opponent's ability, behavior, and psychology You can take that math and Kung Fu wang or some of these other guys can do something that forces you to change your angle and all of that would math would just go right out the window.

 

[JowGaWolf]

There's advantages in both squared and angled stances. From a squared stance, you can execute in either direction, reach equally with both hands, use cross-reach to protect against a grip, advance with either foot, and protect against sideways forces. There's another set of advantages to an angled stance.

Correct. I think most people have difficulty because they expect that the same options should be available for both and that's just not true. Some people will say that they have more mobility when squared off. People make this statement because they think an angled stance should have the same type of mobility. They fail to understand that Stance A requires Movement A Stance B requires Movement B. Stance B cannot us Movement A

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

A blade stance has numerous advantage ...

One advantage of the blade stance is you can do a jump kick right from there that you can't do it from square stance.

 

[lansao]

It's not true. The only difference is that the square stance feels safer than a bladed stance. I use both through out sparring and the only thing that determines how I stand is my strategy and what type of techniques I may be against. Based on what I've heard and have seen from Kung Fu Wang. He'll probably make a person for having their feet in a square stance.

Even though the square stance may feel safe (probably because both hands can reach the same distance) A blade stance has numerous advantage but those advantages require training and quite a bit of skill building. It's definitely not the fastest way to learn how to fight, but if you want a lot of options to choose from then a bladed stance will give you more options than a squared off one.

You are making things too complicated. 45º has less to doe about that and more to do about distance and timing. There are some other benefits of that angle, but they are small in comparison to the distance and time benefits.

The best way to understand 45º is to put gloves on it and use it during sparring. You'll get hit and kicked a bunch of times, but each time you get it correct you'll begin to understand that the math and the triangles over complicates things. Math isn't a good match way to explain the angles and the benefits because it's not constant and none of it is measurable. It doesn't take into context the opponent's ability, behavior, and psychology You can take that math and Kung Fu wang or some of these other guys can do something that forces you to change your angle and all of that would math would just go right out the window.

This all makes sense. That said, I feel like there’s a theme across responses and I want to add some more background.

Totally appreciate and respect that angles change and adapt throughout a fight, that timing/rhythm is complex and continuous, that feinting/deceiving movements are par for course, the need to maintain calm when hit to avoid panicking or worse overreacting, the adrenaline rush when the buzzer goes off and I have to deal with the problem in front of me. I won’t pretend I’m a seasoned pro fighter, I make a living by other means.

I, personally, do better with an angled stance in my experience. I used to be overly squared until I found my hips, then I really exaggerated it and over shot. I found my balance at ~45d and like it for mobility (my strafing improved dramatically as I was effectively moving forward and backward relative to center), my lead and rear hand positions improved, my kicks were easier to chamber, my deflections felt sharper/smoother (which I didn’t realize until now was because the gates were narrower, hence the post), and it’s just the game I’ve stacked up on. To each their game.

I love sparring, it’s a rush and incredible workout. It’s made me a better fighter and forced me to check my assumptions over and over again. I’ve had fun sparring with other wing chun guys, a few Muay Thai folk, a few boxers, and this one BJJ guy. I’ve been hit plenty, have hit plenty, and take what I can from it every time.

Also want to make it super clear that the original post wasn’t meant to comment on or insult anyone’s style or thinking at all on this. Really just a very small, very singular, easily reproduced observation, with assumptions baked in of perpendicularity to the target line. It had just occurred to me, when asking myself just how much my gates narrowed, that I could draw it out and get a sense.

I think it’s important to rotate between theory (using paper and pencil), practice (drills/abstract movements), and regular performance (getting in there and sparring with diverse backgrounds). To stay in one always is to never benefit from the vantage point of the others, and to be that much more limited in your growth.

Of course, you don’t just sit at a notebook and say “ok, based on these calculations I’m a great fighter, let me tell everyone what they should do.” I’m truly sorry if that’s what this came across as. But you should use the notebook to track progress, stuff you need to fix, visual aids to seat concepts that much further into memory, and totally bank on the kung fu of math to workout problems that are too complicated to work out in your head.

I’m really proud of this thread and the depth of information everyone shared. I feel like this thread makes for interesting insight for future members who read through it to better understand their own game and why it works.

Blown away by responses from pdg, hoshin, and others. A lot of respect for this community and the wealth of knowledge in it. That’s why I post this kind of ish in the first place.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

the square stance feels safer than a bladed stance.

The square stance is not a stance that you can spring from it. By definition, it's not a good combat stance. The reason is simple. You will need one extra step before you can spring forward. Sometime you just don't have the luxury for that extra step.

In wrestling, you cannot hop in like this if you have a square stance. 1 is better than 1,2.

 

[drop bear]

Yet, Freddie Roach specifically teaches to avoid a squared stance. In straight grappling, there's an advantage to being fully squared (though there are some advantages to not being fully squared, they are fewer, IMO). I don't find a similar situation with striking. Having one side partly back seems to have more advantages than disadvantages in striking.

Both sides have a decent range and it is easier to move 3 dimensionally.

In the streets it is easier to break in to a run either forwards or backwards.

 

[drop bear]

Yet, Freddie Roach specifically teaches to avoid a squared stance. In straight grappling, there's an advantage to being fully squared (though there are some advantages to not being fully squared, they are fewer, IMO). I don't find a similar situation with striking. Having one side partly back seems to have more advantages than disadvantages in striking.

Look up kostya tzu.

 

[drop bear]

Stabs are the most common knife attacks. A stab under the front ribs matches the relatively common (so far as such can be said of knife attacks) attack of thrusting forward and up from relatively close range. From the front, that goes under and perhaps to the heart. From the side, the same height attack has to deal with ribs.

I am not counting on blocking anything with my body. It would be such a small advantage as to be not worth bothering about.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

From a squared stance, you can execute in either direction,

- You are talking about the Judo approach "wait for opportunity".
- I'm talking about the Chinese wrestling approach "create opportunity".

If I want to throw my opponent counter-clockwise, I'll twist him toward the clockwise direction first.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This all makes sense. That said, I feel like there’s a theme across responses and I want to add some more background.

Totally appreciate and respect that angles change and adapt throughout a fight, that timing/rhythm is complex and continuous, that feinting/deceiving movements are par for course, the need to maintain calm when hit to avoid panicking or worse overreacting, the adrenaline rush when the buzzer goes off and I have to deal with the problem in front of me. I won’t pretend I’m a seasoned pro fighter, I make a living by other means.

I, personally, do better with an angled stance in my experience. I used to be overly squared until I found my hips, then I really exaggerated it and over shot. I found my balance at ~45d and like it for mobility (my strafing improved dramatically as I was effectively moving forward and backward relative to center), my lead and rear hand positions improved, my kicks were easier to chamber, my deflections felt sharper/smoother (which I didn’t realize until now was because the gates were narrower, hence the post), and it’s just the game I’ve stacked up on. To each their game.

I love sparring, it’s a rush and incredible workout. It’s made me a better fighter and forced me to check my assumptions over and over again. I’ve had fun sparring with other wing chun guys, a few Muay Thai folk, a few boxers, and this one BJJ guy. I’ve been hit plenty, have hit plenty, and take what I can from it every time.

Also want to make it super clear that the original post wasn’t meant to comment on or insult anyone’s style or thinking at all on this. Really just a very small, very singular, easily reproduced observation, with assumptions baked in of perpendicularity to the target line. It had just occurred to me, when asking myself just how much my gates narrowed, that I could draw it out and get a sense.

I think it’s important to rotate between theory (using paper and pencil), practice (drills/abstract movements), and regular performance (getting in there and sparring with diverse backgrounds). To stay in one always is to never benefit from the vantage point of the others, and to be that much more limited in your growth.

Of course, you don’t just sit at a notebook and say “ok, based on these calculations I’m a great fighter, let me tell everyone what they should do.” I’m truly sorry if that’s what this came across as. But you should use the notebook to track progress, stuff you need to fix, visual aids to seat concepts that much further into memory, and totally bank on the kung fu of math to workout problems that are too complicated to work out in your head.

I’m really proud of this thread and the depth of information everyone shared. I feel like this thread makes for interesting insight for future members who read through it to better understand their own game and why it works.

Blown away by responses from pdg, hoshin, and others. A lot of respect for this community and the wealth of knowledge in it. That’s why I post this kind of ish in the first place.

I’ll just add that brains are not identical. In some ways, they are hardly similar. Some folks need paper/theoretical processing. Some can function without it. I think all benefit from it. I’m probably close to the midpoint in that continuum, and I love exploring thoughts like this. Sometimes I get a great theory that doesn’t work well in application, and that’s good, because I now have something new to learn from. Sometimes I get a great theory that actually is a bit of a game changer, and that’s almost as good as the problematic theory, IMO.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The square stance is not a stance that you can spring from it. By definition, it's not a good combat stance. The reason is simple. You will need one extra step before you can spring forward. Sometime you just don't have the luxury for that extra step.

In wrestling, you cannot hop in like this if you have a square stance. 1 is better than 1,2.

Why are feet less mobile than in a bladed or angled stance? The only difference should be which direction you are mobile in.