Hard vs. Soft, with a twist

[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...

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.

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