Stand by your stances?

[brianhunter]

Originally posted by satans.barber



Yeah, these things seem to govern the way schools are run more and more these days (which is why I was on about insurance and that...), I just hope it doesn't get to the point where it's so easy to sue someone (especially in America *) that instructor's daren't let people spar anymore.

Ian.

* there was a story on the news here last week about a couple of big American lads who were taking McDonald's, BK and KFC to court in some sort of joint trial or something because they'd both had two heart attacks from fast food they were knowingly sold, and that is classed as a legitimate case over there?? Made me laugh anyway (the ridiculousness of the legal precident, not the fact they'd had heart attacks..)!

Hey Ian....did you ever read about the lady who went through a McDonalds drive thru burnt her own mouth drinking hot cofee and was awarded a few million dollars for it???? Our civil litigation courts do need some reworking currently there are alot of grass roots movements to put some integrity back into it...it shouldnt be a get rich quick scheme it should be an honest means of recovery...lawyers have taken it wayyyy too far.

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by brianhunter



Hey Ian....did you ever read about the lady who went through a McDonalds drive thru burnt her own mouth drinking hot cofee and was awarded a few million dollars for it???? Our civil litigation courts do need some reworking currently there are alot of grass roots movements to put some integrity back into it...it shouldnt be a get rich quick scheme it should be an honest means of recovery...lawyers have taken it wayyyy too far.

It was her inner thighs, she was in her 80's, and it was QUITE a
few million dollars. The initial award was for something like 75
million ..of course there was an appeal, but she still walked away
a millionaire.

Then there's the story about a guy who sued his neighbor
because his dog bit him. He was only awarded $75,000 because
the jury felt the one biten was PARTIALLY at fault since the dog
was tied up in the owners fenced in yard, while the one bitten
was shooting it with b.b.'s.

 

[fanged_seamus]

Originally posted by kenpo3631

I find myself using a high wide kneel allot. I see allot of the seniors doing the same. I think it is a more natural stance - allowing greater mobility. I think it is something you pick up on as you grow in the art though. :asian:

"Inside Kung Fu" in the September 2002 issue has an article about reasons to keep your rear foot's heel raised in your stance ("The Rear Heel: Driving JKD's Fighting Machine"). When you look at a high wide kneel, it looks a lot like a neutral bow with your rear heel raised -- much like the fighting stance mentioned in the article. The raised heel allows for great mobility and explosiveness when moving. In fencing, you'll see the same thing (at least for foil and epee, I don't know about saber).

Personally, I think keeping the heel raised gives great mobility, and it can be dropped quickly to allow for bracing. It seems to be a little more "natural" when sparring.

Tad Finnegan

 

[jeffkyle]

Originally posted by Kirk



It was her inner thighs, she was in her 80's, and it was QUITE a
few million dollars. The initial award was for something like 75
million ..of course there was an appeal, but she still walked away
a millionaire.

Then there's the story about a guy who sued his neighbor
because his dog bit him. He was only awarded $75,000 because
the jury felt the one biten was PARTIALLY at fault since the dog
was tied up in the owners fenced in yard, while the one bitten
was shooting it with b.b.'s.

But i get fired, for a very lame reason and they had no solid proof, and i can't get my job back, or become a millionaire for it!
It all depends on what state you are in I guess.

 

[Robbo]

Time to try your hand at teaching Kenpo for a living.

 

[satans.barber]

Originally posted by brianhunter



Hey Ian....did you ever read about the lady who went through a McDonalds drive thru burnt her own mouth drinking hot cofee and was awarded a few million dollars for it???? Our civil litigation courts do need some reworking currently there are alot of grass roots movements to put some integrity back into it...it shouldnt be a get rich quick scheme it should be an honest means of recovery...lawyers have taken it wayyyy too far.

I hadn't no, but's that the kind of thing I was talking about! You just can't get away with stuff like that here, even no-win-no-fee solicitors wouldn't bother with it.

It's the amounts that get me! I mean if it was a few thousand quid then fair enough, but millions and million of dollars!?

We all love to hear these stories from accross the pond though! Always good for a laugh!

Ian.

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by jeffkyle




But i get fired, for a very lame reason and they had no solid proof, and i can't get my job back, or become a millionaire for it!
It all depends on what state you are in I guess.

Yeah... no idea what state it's in, I just read about it when it
happened. A friend of mine lost his job, for b.s. reasons too ...
no lawyer will look at him, even though they all said he has a
case .. just not one they think would pay huge amounts in a
short amount of time.

 

[jeffkyle]

Originally posted by Kirk



Yeah... no idea what state it's in, I just read about it when it
happened. A friend of mine lost his job, for b.s. reasons too ...
no lawyer will look at him, even though they all said he has a
case .. just not one they think would pay huge amounts in a
short amount of time.

It is like they say....99% of the bad lawyers give the other 1% a bad name.

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7



All the time.
:asian:

Same here. if you aren't using your stances then what are you doing? Of course the better you get the less your stances are discernable in a combat situation, but if they aren't there, then you won't be either.

 

[jazkiljok]

Originally posted by Doc



Same here. if you aren't using your stances then what are you doing? Of course the better you get the less your stances are discernable in a combat situation, but if they aren't there, then you won't be either.

EXACTLY. less discernable perhaps but still there. I posted the question because in some past discussions with other AK'ers i have heard how some felt that stances "disappeared" during street confrontations and that some contemporary self defense systems that didn't use stances were training "more realistically"- One went as far as to point out that he had vid tape of Ed Parker himself and his stances were hardly "discernable":shrug:

T’was simply curious as to others experience and viewpoints.

peace.

 

[jeffkyle]

Originally posted by Robbo

Time to try your hand at teaching Kenpo for a living.

I am working on it!

 

[OZman]

Originally posted by Blindside

Hi Tess,

Do you guys use leg kicks in your sparring?

Just curious, people in really deep stances often suck up lots of damage to their legs if they are allowed. Do you think that would be a problem for you given your stated "low base stance?"

thanks,

Lamont

I don't think we in Kenpo use "Really Deep" stances like the Okinowans, but correct stances; and the use of them in transitions is one of the things that makes Kenpo "Unique" IMO.

 

[WilliamTLear]

Originally posted by OZman



I don't think we in Kenpo use "Really Deep" stances like the Okinowans, but correct stances; and the use of them in transitions is one of the things that makes Kenpo "Unique" IMO.

Sounds like you don't have a firm understanding as to the reason why the deep stances were developed in Okinawa... The environment they were born in made it quite necessary for their "correct" use.

Do you have any information that you can offer to support your implication of the Kenpo Way being the correct way? Do you know why the use of deep stances came about? And perhaps why they don't apply to everyday self defense situations today?

I'm not trying to be a smart ***, just trying to understand your point of view. Your statement seemed a little shallow, but perhaps I mis-understood the source.

Sincerely,
Billy Lear :asian:

P.S. I'm an avid Kenpo practitioner too, I just don't like discrediting something without investigating it first.

 

[Sigung86]

Stances in Martial Arts are really as much cultural as they are technical. Today, we use higher stances in Kenpo than we did back in the late 60s and early 70s. Our culture is acclimated to having more room to move, and less discipline to stand in developmental stances for the length of time required to develop the deep strong stances, and the ability to move in them.

Dan

 

[brianhunter]

So since weve gone onto deep stances.....I think they are great for development of strength and building power, but sometimes would seem not practical (at my job for instance) How many use them in practical applications such as SD techniques?

 

[Sigung86]

As I started out last post. Stances are cultural, as are the various methods of applied self defense. Deep stances are not practical for a self defense that is not attuned to the uses of stances like that. In Kenpo, in the US, we have, perhaps, culturally, evolved, in this case, to a higher stance and more mobility. American Kenpo types of blocks have evolved to fit that type of stancing and mobility, as well as have the attack weapons.

If we begin to involve modifications that change zones, balance, and bases for attack, and defense, then the techniques will have to follow suite. They too will have to change. Blocking will have to be different, more along the lines of Tracy's Kenpo or Sub-Level 4 (which also uses stancing and base in a different and highly interesting and enlightening manner).

Why is that? Because when you go to a denser or more solid, and lower base, you change the zones that you have to defend, and how you defend them... You change areas of attack on the opponent's body that you have access to and how you get that access. You also change the availability and accessibility of your natural weapons.

Since the door has been opened ... Even though we have higher stances, as it were, we still depend on those stances to provide a base for balance, and delivery of power both in defense and offense. If you don't have a good solid base, and I've said this before, you aren't delivering your power. It then follows that you aren't in a position to defend as well. Granted, there are many other pieces that have to be fit in there, as well. But the base or stance, if you will, is the ... base ... Gotta have a good one.

And I won't go into kicking applications here, as I'm running out of room.... :lol:

But on a serious note ... You ought to really investigate the physiology of stances and balance, and the advanced concepts that are contained therein. Free up your head a little bit in how you move into and out of stances. For instance, just as a suggestion ... What happens in a cat stance (use Delayed Sword), if instead of pulling back to the cat stance, you move your left leg up the required space to come to the cat stance? Particularly in the area of balance, distancing, speed of power application and almost as importantly, your base and mobility?
This is, of course, assuming, that you move back to a neutral bow as you perform the initial block. If you don't, then this won't apply, and you are not using your distancing capabilities correctly.

Now, having said that, you don't have to use the stances. You don't have to flow through the stances, but you are missing a large part of your capability if you don't.

To the person who said he didn't think SGM Parker went through his stances, I would like to suggest that you watch the films with a little more of a weather eye. You will see, I think, that he flowed smoothly and quickly through his stances, and preserved his base. If the stances aren't important, why would the system have them in it?

Just some thoughts on stances.

Dan

 

[Robbo]

To the person who said he didn't think SGM Parker went through his stances, I would like to suggest that you watch the films with a little more of a weather eye. You will see, I think, that he flowed smoothly and quickly through his stances, and preserved his base. If the stances aren't important, why would the system have them in it?

I've seen a few video clips of SGM Parker moving in forms and with SD techs. Trust me, even with my inexperianced eye his base looked stabilized when he hit. He just didn't hold it and scream out a kiai, he used it to get the job done and not impress anybody.

Rob

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by Robbo



I've seen a few video clips of SGM Parker moving in forms and with SD techs. Trust me, even with my inexperianced eye his base looked stabilized when he hit. He just didn't hold it and scream out a kiai, he used it to get the job done and not impress anybody.

Rob

Very, very true. The stances were there. Ed Parker emphasized stances for those who would listen, but like everything else, if you didn't listen he let you do it your way. Many interpreted this incorrectly. He would show you something once, twice, maybe thrice. After that he would walk away and say, "that's fine." Many thought that meant they were doing it correct. It only meant you were doing the best you could do.

Additionally the comment regarding "stances being culturally influenced" is right on. The myth is the deep stances had to do with standing in rice paddys etc. More accurate would be the fact they were "training vehicles" misinterpreted from the Chinese. The Chinese did have applications for low stances mostly as fluid avoidance mechanisms. But when exported the Okinawan's and others seized onto the low training stances and attempted to find applications for them that didn't exist.

Look to classic Hung Gar and Chinese Kenpo forms like "Tiger and the Crane" for examples of training and exrcise forms. It contains deep low stances for strengthening the legs combined with breathing exercises, with repetitive hand movements in place for dynamic upper body developenent as well. A "training form" dropped from Kenpo by Ed Parker from all of his evolutionary interpretations of his art long ago.

 

[Goldendragon7]

Originally posted by Robbo
I've seen a few video clips of SGM Parker moving in forms and with SD techs. Trust me, even with my inexperianced eye his base looked stabilized when he hit. He just didn't hold it and scream out a kiai, he used it to get the job done and not impress anybody.Rob

LOL, correct. Remember, stances are only "snapshots" of motion and not supposed to be "posed" as we do in the learning and development of basics or for the taking of pictures.

In the usage of the material it runs at a much faster speed and appears smooth and fluid so you may visually miss a specific detail until you slow it down and view it "frame by frame".

Good observations.

:asian:

 

[Doc]

Originally posted by jfarnsworth

I think the most practical of the stances become the kneel's. When you start to progress (my opinion) your mind and body just start using the close & wide kneel stances. I have found for myself that it just becomes more mobile and natural of the stances plus the upper belt material your neutral & forward bow start getting less and less. Just an opinion though.
Jason Farnsworth

The kneeling stances are for height adjustments and are not for lateral or linear offensive stability. It is a common mistake because it is easier than putting your heels properly down. With the heels up your strikes rely almost completely on momentum and lack the Bracing Angle present with a properly rooted stance. Therefore this heels up position fits well with competition reverse punches and lead hand techniques. This popular use of the heels up position is a testiment to how much sport qapplication has dictated and corrupted the use of basics.