Stance Training

[Sapper6]

the premise is the same.

and you are missing our point entirely :idunno:

 

[BlackCatBonz]

no the premise is not the same.you want to make a bunch of analogies how humans are the same as cats and houses. i am stating that they differ immensely.
i state that there is strength in movement.....you state that humans are like houses.

 

[Sapper6]

no the premise is not the same.you want to make a bunch of analogies how humans are the same as cats and houses. i am stating that they differ immensely.
i state that there is strength in movement.....you state that humans are like houses.

the "house" reference was an analogy. sorry i should have been more clear in explaining that reference, but i'll save my breath.

how can strength possibly exist in movement...? check this out: take up a solid stance fire a reverse punch into a heavy bag; note what happens. NEXT, while jumping from one stance to another, fire that same punch, while moving; note what happens. which had the perception of more generated power?

to each his own.

fly like a butterfly, sting like a bee, i suppose :idunno:

 

[Tgace]

All true, but boxers dont stand in their "stances" for extended periods of time. They are taught the stance and then they work from it. I always found standing around in stances as part of training a little silly. There are more effective ways to train balance, stamina, strength etc.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

yep....to each his own

 

[sifu Adams]

Let me put a twist on this. Low stances in my style teachs you to put your body weight into each move. If you train in low stance your body is forced to put body movement into the move. example. If I am in a low stance and I go to throw a kick I have to shift my whole body weigth to get out of the stance and preform the kick. the more you do it the more fluent you get and then it becomes easy and part of the kick. hopfully I explaned it?

 

[MJS]

if i see a boxer who is rooted and weaving.....it's probably because he is in the 12th round and out of steam.
if you are in a stance....(you might be moving if you want to get technical and speak of muscle tone and the minutiae of movement)you are standing still.

The difference here is standing in a stance, in one place with no movement, or being in a stance and having movement. When I spar, I'm in a stance, but certianly not standing still. I'm moving, using footwork, etc. As for standing still...there will always be a slight break in movement. For example: When throwing a jab/cross combo, you're still moving when that jab is coming, and yes, you have a slight break for that cross, but you certianly don't continue to stand there, you start moving again. So, we have 1.............2............. or 1.2

 

[Matt Stone]

i state that there is strength in movement

Less than correct. There is momentum in movement, but not strength. Strength is pushing off one thing into another. Momentum is throwing something into another thing while the thrown thing has no base from which to resist impact. Momentum can have power, as can strength, the difference is the application. Momentum typically relies on its build up, which more often than not is committed fully once it is fired off. Strength isn't quite as bound up with that. Momentum isn't necessarily capable of resisting its own impact - think a ball in the air thrown at a wall. The ball reacts to the impact by bouncing away; it can't push through the wall. A car jack lifting a car is solid, and can produce large amounts of power due to its solid base.

yep....to each his own

If this was fully true, there would be far, far more evidence to show the proof of your theory than there is to prove mine.

Stability generates power far more efficiently than instability and random movement. I never said to "hold" a stance while fighting. You hold stances to train the muscles and joints to be strong in that position. Weak stance may as well not be a stance at all... The stance is used at the moment of impact, just like a boxer's stance is (at the very moment of impact, they are indeed in a stance not dissimilar to a martial arts stance). Then you move on, but not randomly and without purpose.

Move when you need to move, rather than moving just to move. If you move around "randomly," you fall into a pattern, a rhythm. That rhythm can be measured and used against you, as can the "random" moving. Step-space-step-space-bob-step-space... Whatever. You fall into the trap of allowing the other person's movements dictate yours, consciously or unconsciously.

Stance - good.
No stance - bad.

Very simple really.

:asian:

 

[Doc]

Simple:

You are either,

1) in a stance

2) Moving from a stance

3) Moving to a stance

4) or flat on your back.

It's like bouncing a ball. It hits the ground, stops, and bounces. Just because it rebounds when it hits, doesn't mean you can say it doesn't touch the ground.

You may discuss the efficacy of how long you maintain a particular stance, but to ignore that you are supported by your legs and feet, and therefore are in a stance of some kind at least momentarily from one jiffy second to the next would be rediculous.

 

[howardr]

Simple:
You may discuss the efficacy of how long you maintain a particular stance, but to ignore that you are supported by your legs and feet, and therefore are in a stance of some kind at least momentarily from one jiffy second to the next would be rediculous.

And once you grasp that, it's simply a matter of realizing whether one particular stance (and application of said stance) is better than another. In other words, it's all stances. I.e., you can't get away from stances, like Dr. Chapel said. You're always going to be in a stance of some sort (or transitioning to one, etc.). The only question is: is it a good, solid, strong stance, or a weak one?

I think those arguing for "no stances" or for the diminished importance of stances are necessarily removing the basis for almost everything else they should be doing in the martial context (including moving, since movement will be weaker if moving FROM weak stances to weak stances). Therefore, they will necessarily produce dramatically less power in their strikes then they would be otherwise capable of producing, and they will be much less able to withstand strikes, force and pressure exhibited upon them by their opponent.

 

[Doc]

Less than correct. There is momentum in movement, but not strength. Strength is pushing off one thing into another. Momentum is throwing something into another thing while the thrown thing has no base from which to resist impact. Momentum can have power, as can strength, the difference is the application. Momentum typically relies on its build up, which more often than not is committed fully once it is fired off. Strength isn't quite as bound up with that. Momentum isn't necessarily capable of resisting its own impact - think a ball in the air thrown at a wall. The ball reacts to the impact by bouncing away; it can't push through the wall. A car jack lifting a car is solid, and can produce large amounts of power due to its solid base.



If this was fully true, there would be far, far more evidence to show the proof of your theory than there is to prove mine.

Stability generates power far more efficiently than instability and random movement. I never said to "hold" a stance while fighting. You hold stances to train the muscles and joints to be strong in that position. Weak stance may as well not be a stance at all... The stance is used at the moment of impact, just like a boxer's stance is (at the very moment of impact, they are indeed in a stance not dissimilar to a martial arts stance). Then you move on, but not randomly and without purpose.

Move when you need to move, rather than moving just to move. If you move around "randomly," you fall into a pattern, a rhythm. That rhythm can be measured and used against you, as can the "random" moving. Step-space-step-space-bob-step-space... Whatever. You fall into the trap of allowing the other person's movements dictate yours, consciously or unconsciously.

Stance - good.
No stance - bad.

Very simple really.

:asian:

Well said, Mr. Stone.

 

[bdparsons]

Stance or No Stance, either extreme is incorrect.

In my opinion stance training, when properly taught, should teach the balance between stability and mobility and the ebb and flow necessary between the two. Many folks think the process of learning stances is about the snapshot of the stances that we acquire in the mind's eye when in fact it is just as much about how we prepare the body to move and then move between stances. Both factors, stability and mobility, must be dealt with to fully understand the process.

This discussion seems to be equating stability with "power" and mobility with "no power". Which is it? The better question would be: "Which power principle are we talking about?" Each power principle (in relation to stances) actually relies on a combination of stability and mobility to be effective.

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute

 

[BlackCatBonz]

Less than correct.
1. There is momentum in movement, but not strength. Strength is pushing off one thing into another.
2. a.Momentum is throwing something into another thing b.while the thrown thing has no base from which to resist impact.
3.Momentum can have power, as can strength, the difference is the application.
4. Momentum typically relies on its build up, which more often than not is committed fully once it is fired off. Strength isn't quite as bound up with that.
5.Momentum isn't necessarily capable of resisting its own impact - think a ball in the air thrown at a wall. The ball reacts to the impact by bouncing away; it can't push through the wall.
6. A car jack lifting a car is solid, and can produce large amounts of power due to its solid base.



If this was fully true, there would be far, far more evidence to show the proof of your theory than there is to prove mine.

7. Stability generates power far more efficiently than instability and random movement. I never said to "hold" a stance while fighting. You hold stances to train the muscles and joints to be strong in that position. Weak stance may as well not be a stance at all...
8.The stance is used at the moment of impact, just like a boxer's stance is (at the very moment of impact, they are indeed in a stance not dissimilar to a martial arts stance). Then you move on, but not randomly and without purpose.

Move when you need to move, rather than moving just to move. If you move around "randomly," you fall into a pattern, a rhythm. That rhythm can be measured and used against you, as can the "random" moving. Step-space-step-space-bob-step-space... Whatever. You fall into the trap of allowing the other person's movements dictate yours, consciously or unconsciously.

Stance - good.
No stance - bad.

Very simple really.

:asian:

i have numbered the points i wish to address to make it easier/

1.you contradicted yourself by saying strength is created by one thing pushing off of another......movement

2.a. is an inaccurate description of momentum. momentum is a measure of movement.
2.b. this is the optimal time to strike something.

3. this statement is absolute nonsense

4. is more gobbledygook that tries to say something with saying nothing

5. another non sensical statement....you are speaking of potential or stored energy

6. comparing martial arts stances to car jacks is apples and oranges......the car jack is not required to move quickly should the need arrive

7. stability itself does not generate power. but you seem to keep implying that something moving cannot be stable hence unable to have strength.......if you wanna use the car analogy.....is it not capable of generating power while moving? measuring strength is a measure of power, no?

8. did i not state that a stance was a snapshot of time......in transition of movement?

i never once stated that people should not train with stances, nor did i state that stance training was bad......i merely stated that some people put too much focus on them.

you have gone out of your way with so many words to repeat something i said in my first post......thanks so much

 

[arnisador]

1.you contradicted yourself by saying strength is created by one thing pushing off of another......movement

When a weightlifter lifts a large weight, he is stationary for a certain period as he holds it over his head, say. No strength?

Strength, to my mind, comes from pushing off of something. That doesn't mean anything is moving (in the sense of displacement). If I push a wall, it doesn't move. If I'm grounded, I may not move either.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

we seem to have gotten into a big discussion on strength....when the question was about stances. i said some people put too much into training stances......my real intent was that people should practice moving rather than standing still.
i doubt most people want to just stand there and yell "kiai" as they're getting smoked in the chops.what do you see a lot of martial arts people do when they spar or get into a fight......jump into a stance. that comes from training that way.........and it takes some people a long time to break that habit.
the most important thing is to learn how to remain stable in motion.......most people can just stand there and not fall over.
(im sure that statement will bug the heck out of lots of people and they will take it the wrong way)

 

[Doc]

we seem to have gotten into a big discussion on strength....when the question was about stances. i said some people put too much into training stances......my real intent was that people should practice moving rather than standing still.
i doubt most people want to just stand there and yell "kiai" as they're getting smoked in the chops.what do you see a lot of martial arts people do when they spar or get into a fight......jump into a stance. that comes from training that way.........and it takes some people a long time to break that habit.
the most important thing is to learn how to remain stable in motion.......most people can just stand there and not fall over.
(im sure that statement will bug the heck out of lots of people and they will take it the wrong way)

Now that you've restated your perspective, I can say I agree with you as well sir.

 

[The Kai]

While movement is important, stance training traines the body how to adopt the postures when and as needed..

Think of car frame. Does a Car move? yes it it stable, in some ways yes. Can a car hit hard?

 

[Kenpodoc]

While movement is important, stance training traines the body how to adopt the postures when and as needed..

Think of car frame. Does a Car move? yes it it stable, in some ways yes. Can a car hit hard?

I think that this is the wrong metaphor. If we use a car we have to think about it during a wheelie since we are on two legs.

When talking about stances you have to consider both static stability and dynamic stability. I tend to think of stances as frozen transitions, not unimportant but intimately related to the transition to the next stance. Stances have vectors of relative stability and vectors of relative instability. It is important to train the stance both to be able to achieve that stance and to be able to know its strengths and weaknesses. It is also essential to train the transitions between stances to allow efficient stable movement.

Personally, I'm a long way off of having good stances and good transitions. I'm very slow sometimes but I've finally recognized the value of forms for helping me to learn both the stances and transitions.

Respectfully,

Jeff

 

[marlon]

Sorry i have not been able to participate more. But i agree that there most be grounding to strike and motion to fight. The best way to check your stances is to blast through your forms at top speed trying to do the correct stances and see where your balance, mobility and stability is at. Stance training can be done with forms but the comfort level needed for fighting i think requires separate attention and focusing. Overtraining in any part of the art is conter productive. Yet, i see so many BB with crapy stances and not reaching thier fullest capabilities in power due to lack of a straong well trained root.

This is a very good and instruictive discussion. Thank you all

Respectfully,
Marlon

 

[OC Kid]

In my opinion... Stances are transitional.
Example fwd stance used against a attack from the front. If someone attack you could draw nto a cat fire the front kick and land in a fwd bo then continue with the attack using the basic footwork.

The footwork such as pull drag, step drag step threw ect and there are other stances that are used such as the cross over. The stances are and must be used with the footwork for mobility.

but for those stances and the foot work to be effective and work together

they must be practiced and practiced. I believe use it or lose it.

The beginning or every class I teach after the warm ups are punches and kicks from the basic stances then use them with the footwork. Not a lot of time maybe 10 -15 mins of class time for this but it is practiced.