Why can't we?

[JasonASmith]

I've posted this in the Karate forum, but anyone can chime in, and please do...
I've been hearing a lot of talk about NOT using deep stances in an actual confrontation, and I am wondering why not? I understand the principle of using deep stances in the kata and in the Dojo to train the legs, and then using more shallow stances out in the black...
Why not use deep stances? I've used deep stances in Kumite, and I have found that I get hit LESS when I'm down in it...Granted, Kumite is still in the controlled atmosphere of the Dojo, but Kumite is supposed to be representative of confrontation isn't it? I understand not using deep stances when there isn't room, but even simply lowering oneself seems(to me) to be a good idea...The less target you present to your opponent, the better...right? Please keep in mind before you answer this thread that I have only been back to Karate for about two months, so I am relatively new to this idea(i.e. cut me some slack, I'm an idiot still)
That's it, fire away!

 

[Grenadier]

If it works for you, then more power to you.

I am guessing that in a "real" fight, versus controlled sparring, opponents are going to be shooting in pretty quickly. You're not going to be able to get that first step nearly as quickly, if you're in a deep stance.

 

[Drac]

You're not going to be able to get that first step nearly as quickly, if you're in a deep stance.

Ya beat me to saying it..You are NOT an idiot Jason so don't put yourself down, your a novice plaine and simple...The last thing you want to do is broadcast your intent or that you have some specilaized training to your oppoinent, sinking into a low stance might do that..He just might charge at you like a fast freight train before you get set...My 2 cents...

 

[twendkata71]

I agree with what the others have stated. The only time that I would go into a deep stance in a real confrontation would be to,during the opponents attack to drop below them to get underneath to take them down. This is where learning Jujitsu,and or Judo comes into play.

 

[rutherford]

A low stance can restrict mobility, which can be important for both closing and creating distance.

 

[searcher]

I will make in unanimous in saying that your mobility is hindered a bunch.

 

[exile]

The less target you present to your opponent, the better...right?

Right. But presenting less target usually doesn't mean lowering your profile, but rather, not being there when your attacker's strike lands... meaning, constant quick movement off his line of attack, i.e., maximum mobility. And since---dittoing everything everyone else has already said---low stances hurt mobility, your best chance of presenting less target includes a somewhat higher stance.

 

[Bigshadow]

I would say if you cannot pick up either foot without shifting you hips over the other foot, you are too low. You should be able to pick up either foot without moving your hips for balance. Shifting or redistributing your weight to to take a step takes too long in a real confrontation. Just my opinion, but I don't train in Karate.

 

[Flying Crane]

A lower stance can increase your power when delivering a hand technique, provided you are doing it right. At that moment, a low stance could be appropriate, but would probably only be momentary, in the normal course of shifting your stances during the confrontation.

 

[shoshinkan]

yep agreed that if you are using a low stance as a 'fighting stance' then you will lose mobility, and that is key in conflict, particulary if a weapon is involved.

Now think about using a low stance to transfer energy/weight/force and you have a different story, generally a low stance is useful if you are attached to someone! But then again in shorin ryu we don't really have 'low' stances as the shizentai (natural) principle is consistant within the system, we do have 'lowish' stances though!

 

[MJS]

I've posted this in the Karate forum, but anyone can chime in, and please do...
I've been hearing a lot of talk about NOT using deep stances in an actual confrontation, and I am wondering why not? I understand the principle of using deep stances in the kata and in the Dojo to train the legs, and then using more shallow stances out in the black...
Why not use deep stances? I've used deep stances in Kumite, and I have found that I get hit LESS when I'm down in it...Granted, Kumite is still in the controlled atmosphere of the Dojo, but Kumite is supposed to be representative of confrontation isn't it? I understand not using deep stances when there isn't room, but even simply lowering oneself seems(to me) to be a good idea...The less target you present to your opponent, the better...right? Please keep in mind before you answer this thread that I have only been back to Karate for about two months, so I am relatively new to this idea(i.e. cut me some slack, I'm an idiot still)
That's it, fire away!

Well, first off, you're not an idiot. You're asking a valid question, and IMO, there is no stupid question. So..that being said....if this is something that works for you, thats perfectly fine. For myself, I prefer to use more of a boxing type stance, where I'm more mobile. A deep stance is fine, as you said, as its limiting targets as you stated, but I guess it would depend on what the targets are. If they're above the belt, front of the body and side, it may be suitable, but if some leg kicks were allowed, that deep stance may hinder you.

Best of luck in your training, and keep asking those questions!

Mike

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I forget where I heard this verse but it about sums it up:

"A stance too wide provides you power/but you soon learn you get much slower,
A stance too narrow provides you speed/but leaves you imbalance which you don't need"

 

[bignick]

Just to reiterate what others have said, it's a tradeoff. A deep stance is more stable, while losing mobility. That said, no stance offers you a perfect balance and you can easily show this... Draw a line between your feet in any stance and have someone push you perpindicular to this line. You'll lose your balance no matter how deep your stance is.

I for one, prefer mobility over small gains in stability.

 

[JasonASmith]

Thanks for all of the replies, folks. I am glad that I am here on this forum to get honest and thorough replies to my questions...

 

[Andrew Green]

There is a difference between being low and being in a deep stance. Tyson is a well known example of a guy that stayed low, he often had his head at the other guys mid section level.

Wrestlers also tend to stay very low, but not in a karate stance way.

Low is definately good, but deep stances severly restrict mobility and leave you very open to leg kicks and takedowns (if they are allowed)

But in the end it comes down to what you can make work, and if you can make it work go for it.

 

[Hand Sword]

If it's a real encounter, you've just rooted yourself into the ground, flat footed, and can't move fast enough. You will probably get football tackled, or sme variotion of a takedown, plus, deep stanced, your knees are stuck and exposed. Also, deep down, if you have to kick, you'll have to raise up first, the speed of a real engagement, won't allow for that. You'll basically be tidal waved over, or circled and hit, to bad effects.

 

[Carol]

I've posted this in the Karate forum, but anyone can chime in, and please do...
I've been hearing a lot of talk about NOT using deep stances in an actual confrontation, and I am wondering why not? I understand the principle of using deep stances in the kata and in the Dojo to train the legs, and then using more shallow stances out in the black...

Why not use deep stances? I've used deep stances in Kumite, and I have found that I get hit LESS when I'm down in it...Granted, Kumite is still in the controlled atmosphere of the Dojo, but Kumite is supposed to be representative of confrontation isn't it?

In addition to the great advice given here, I'd like to add something.

Unfortunately in a confrontation, there is a chance that you will not be indoors, supervised, and on a flat surface.

In an actual confrontation, you MAY be on a flat surface...standing on a floor, or on flat pavement or an even stretch of grass.

You also may NOT be on a flat surface. You may be standing in snow, or on ice, or on gravel, or in mud, or on rough, uneven pavement.

In the latter cases, a deep stance may be to your benefit. You may have seen that some Silat moves are done from a deep stance...this is to compensate from the uneven terrain of Indonesia. There is a purpose to it, but it's prolly not the most likely scenario you will face.

You are not an idiot. Keep asking questions :asian:

 

[exile]

There are certain styles of karate, and earlier approaches to TKD, whose katas present very deep stances as the end postures of movement. I think this is partly what has given rise to the impression in certain quarters that exaggeratedly deep stances are good, or traditional. But I think that like most other things about kata, the depth of these stances should not be taken literally. A very deep back stance is probably best seen as a kind of visual post-it note on the technique depicted that reads, `Hey you!!---shift your weight to your back leg for this technique, eh?!!'. It's likely a kind of coded pointer to a weight shift in which you are anchoring the attacker, probably pulling him towards you with the `chambering' fist, while executing some technique---an upper arm, clavicle or throat strike disguised as a `middle knife-hand block'. You're not intended to stay in that position; quick movement is the key to survival.

 

[IWishToLearn]

Just to reiterate what others have said, it's a tradeoff. A deep stance is more stable, while losing mobility. That said, no stance offers you a perfect balance and you can easily show this... Draw a line between your feet in any stance and have someone push you perpindicular to this line. You'll lose your balance no matter how deep your stance is.

I for one, prefer mobility over small gains in stability.

Actually, Kenpo's Neutral Bow is designed to give you both maneuverability and stability (providing it's taught correctly with proper basics), and it's designed to keep you aligned with your opponent.

If you're in a combat situation having someone push you perpendicular to your alignment, you're doing something very, very wrong, as you're thusly presenting every available target to your opponent in the worst way possible.

No matter the stance (except the Horse and the Cat stances - but you'd be dumb to fight in either) they're all designed in varying degrees to put one foot in front of the other, and to begin to lessen or (in the case of some) completely change your defensive profile.

The stance with the most extreme defensive profile change would be a Rear Bow (essentially a front stance -normally done to 12:00 where your opponent is- turned to face either 4:30 [left foot forward] or 10:30 [right foot forward]), or Rear Lunge/Close Kneel (same alignment, but rear leg bent instead of locked out).

The next would be the fighting horse, as you're standing completely perpendicular to your opponent.

The next would be the Neutral Bow, followed by the various cat Stances.

Hopefully I was clear enough for understanding.

Edit: In ANY case - you want a balance between high and low center of gravity - usually I work beginners with a 45 degree bend in the knees to start with. As you get better you'll modify that based on personal preferences.

 

[HKphooey]

I like the stances for training purposes and certain defenses, but the "boys in the nether regions" do not like that stance too much. They tell my brain to adjust my stance.