Low stance or higher stances

[terryl965]

At this year AAU TKD National we saw more low stances than ever before, this must be because of the overwhelming TSD participant this year, it was a pleasure seeing people being rooted with a stance and not just going though the motion of standing. So wich do you prefer and why?

 

[IcemanSK]

I'm not sure if I prefer lower stances, but I do appreciate them. As an instructor, I notice my students often aren't completely flat-footed in their front stances during forms. I think it's due to thinking of the next technique in the form. (At least it was when I did them like that as a student). I look at doing an intentionally lower front stance during forms(not Okinawan-style lower, just low enough) a sign of attention to detail in a TKD practioner. Attention to detail is what makes it an art, not just learning to kick & punch.

 

[Kacey]

Well, first I have to ask what you mean by "high" and "low" in regards to stances? I'm not trying to be difficult - but my definition of high and low may not match yours.

As far as stances go, they should be solid, stable, and yet students in them should still be mobile. What that means in terms of high and low is going to vary by art and by stance - some stances are designed to be higher or lower by definition.

 

[terryl965]

Well, first I have to ask what you mean by "high" and "low" in regards to stances? I'm not trying to be difficult - but my definition of high and low may not match yours.

As far as stances go, they should be solid, stable, and yet students in them should still be mobile. What that means in terms of high and low is going to vary by art and by stance - some stances are designed to be higher or lower by definition.

Kacey a low stance to me is when the butt is equal to the knees that are bent and a high stance is one that is barely bending from the knees into a front stance, does that make sense to you. If not I will try to explain even more

.
Looking forward to your input Kacey

 

[Kacey]

Our stances are (predominately) in the middle - so I don't think the question really applies; a stance is determined by the bend in the knees (which determines the height) rather than by the distance between butt and knees.

I'll have to think how to describe them... might need pictures...

 

[Boomer]

This reminds me of another thread....

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39990&highlight=low+stances

 

[zDom]

Attention to detail is what makes it an art, not just learning to kick & punch.

Hear hear!

 

[matt.m]

Even though I have only completed learning the 1st five taegueks and 1st five chang hon tul hyungs I really prefer the chang hon's. I think it has to do a lot with beginning in hapkido and judo before I even thought of beginning tae kwon do. However I do prefer the long deep stances. Much more stable and much more power.

Just a thought.

 

[WMKS Shogun]

I started off in Japanese Karate before switching to Tae Kwon Do so I tend to prefer the lower stances like those practiced classically in the older, more Japanese influenced Chang Hon forms (even the modern renditions of the Chang Hon forms of the ITF feel like that are a bit too high to me). I feel that the low, deep stances aid in the development of strong leg muscles, and the movement from one stance to another serves to help students develop a good grasp on weight changes. Of course, I am sure there are others out there who have as many (or more) reasons for the higher stances, and I am not knocking them, only putting forth my opinion at 3 AM.

 

[DArnold]

At this year AAU TKD National we saw more low stances than ever before, this must be because of the overwhelming TSD participant this year, it was a pleasure seeing people being rooted with a stance and not just going though the motion of standing. So wich do you prefer and why?

Each is a tool and depends on what you are trying to achieve.
Each has its positive and draw backs.

Low stances:
- teach leg strength
- force a student to use their hips
- provide a better base of power by usually forceing the feet on the floor

Conversely they:
- loose mobility
- loose fluid motion
- are more sucseptable to sweeps
- are not as successful in SD or fighting

Higher stances:
- teach mobility
- fluidity
- are very hard to sweep
- faster and more relaxed in a dangerious situation (speed/acceleration comes from relaxation and the deeper the stance, the more tenseness in the legs)

Conversly they loose
- power when students don't finish the stance (with heel off the groung)
- leg strength
- the ability to add hips in power

The optimum is the triad between: balance, power, and mobility
accessiveness in any one area leads to a decrease in another.

But there is always a but...

As human nature (for any student) is always to do what is easiest (lazy) I find that it is easier to train a student who is adept to low stances to raise thiers and have them relax and move faster. Conversly, the student with higher stances can not always lower their stances for better power due to weak legs.

Gotta use both to train with and know where your heading

 

[Muwubu16858]

Higher stances:
- teach mobility
- fluidity
- are very hard to sweep
- faster and more relaxed in a dangerious situation (speed/acceleration comes from relaxation and the deeper the stance, the more tenseness in the legs)

Conversly they loose
- power when students don't finish the stance (with heel off the groung)
- leg strength
- the ability to add hips in power

In my experience, you don't loose the ability to use waist/hip power with a high stance. Give me 3 days, and I will post a video of the Y.M.C.A. style waist twist, as it uses a stance that is not low, but no more than 1 1/2 times your shoulder width.

 

[Kacey]

In my experience, you don't loose the ability to use waist/hip power with a high stance. Give me 3 days, and I will post a video of the Y.M.C.A. style waist twist, as it uses a stance that is not low, but no more than 1 1/2 times your shoulder width.

The basic stances we use are 1 1/2 shoulder widths long... and the twist comes from the hip, not the waist.

 

[DArnold]

In my experience, you don't loose the ability to use waist/hip power with a high stance. Give me 3 days, and I will post a video of the Y.M.C.A. style waist twist, as it uses a stance that is not low, but no more than 1 1/2 times your shoulder width.

Sorry,
You are correct.
ability was the wrong word.
You don't loose the ability to use hips in a higher stance but, there is a propensity to not use hips in a higher stance without a conscious effort.
Where as in lower stances you are forced to use your hips you are not forced to in a higher stance.

None of my observations are absolute.
Just as you can have a student with higher stances have good leg power.
They are mearly observations of the pluses and minuses of exaggerating one over the other.

 

[bluemtn]

I like the looks of the lower stances better; however, we're also told to use deep stances for our forms... A little biased, I guess you could say. However, I think higher stances have their place as well, like sparring.

 

[Laurentkd]

I perfer lower stances. For one, in training it helps to develp more powerful legs. Secondly, if I train with deep stances all the time, I can easily match your high stances, however if I train in high stances all the time, I can't match your lower ones. To me, it just seems more impressive to be able to do both. And like Iceman said, it is a great attention to detail.

 

[stoneheart]

I prefer the right stance for the appropriate situation. For training, as DArnold explains in his excellent post, I prefer the low stances.

 

[Eric7_27]

so far- my stances are dependant mostly on what I want to do when I fight. If I want to cover more groun in moving in on my opponent, then I have a wide low stance. If I'm kicking, or going to counter- 'specially a jump-turn kick, then my stance will be a narrow high stance.

 

[CuongNhuka]

I just sort of sumplted upon this from watching the effectiveness of Tae Kwon Do thread, so i hope you don't mind my input.

Low stances:
- teach leg strength
- force a student to use their hips
- provide a better base of power by usually forceing the feet on the floor

Conversely they:
- loose mobility
- loose fluid motion
- are more sucseptable to sweeps
- are not as successful in SD or fighting

Higher stances:
- teach mobility
- fluidity
- are very hard to sweep
- faster and more relaxed in a dangerious situation (speed/acceleration comes from relaxation and the deeper the stance, the more tenseness in the legs)

Conversly they loose
- power when students don't finish the stance (with heel off the groung)
- leg strength
- the ability to add hips in power

This is generally true, but not always. Anouther 2 advantages of low stances are sweeps/throws and kicks. If you watch expert Judo-ka go at it, alot of the time they use wide deep stances. They spend alot of time developing this stance. By strengthing the stance they make it really hard for them to be swept. Because there center of gravity is lowered it is often easier to throw people. Your center of gravity has to be lower then your opponents to throw them.
Many of the more advanced kicks require a deep stance. There are several kicks I wouldn't dare try outside a wide deep stance. I wont say which because of differnce in terminolgy. But, there are many I wouldn't try. Espcially if you want it to go high.

There is a style of Kung Fu called Hung Gar that is based around a wide deep Horse Stance. Their "beginners training" is to stand in a perfect horse stance for 3 hours. That's also were they fight from. With practice, you can make it a light fluid stance, even if it's wide and deep.

Also, many experts in Judo like to go at with folks who are in a high stance. The reason is because of how easy it is really easy to sweep people from it. But, they spend all day practicing sweeps. Someone who really knows how to root themselves in a good horse stance are almost impossible to sweep. Against someone who doens't really practice rooting, a higher stance would be harder however to sweep.

 

[DArnold]

I just sort of sumplted upon this from watching the effectiveness of Tae Kwon Do thread, so i hope you don't mind my input.


This is generally true, but not always. Anouther 2 advantages of low stances are sweeps/throws and kicks. If you watch expert Judo-ka go at it, alot of the time they use wide deep stances. They spend alot of time developing this stance. By strengthing the stance they make it really hard for them to be swept. Because there center of gravity is lowered it is often easier to throw people. Your center of gravity has to be lower then your opponents to throw them.
Many of the more advanced kicks require a deep stance. There are several kicks I wouldn't dare try outside a wide deep stance. I wont say which because of differnce in terminolgy. But, there are many I wouldn't try. Espcially if you want it to go high.

There is a style of Kung Fu called Hung Gar that is based around a wide deep Horse Stance. Their "beginners training" is to stand in a perfect horse stance for 3 hours. That's also were they fight from. With practice, you can make it a light fluid stance, even if it's wide and deep.

Also, many experts in Judo like to go at with folks who are in a high stance. The reason is because of how easy it is really easy to sweep people from it. But, they spend all day practicing sweeps. Someone who really knows how to root themselves in a good horse stance are almost impossible to sweep. Against someone who doens't really practice rooting, a higher stance would be harder however to sweep.

There are several ways to sweep a person and it looks liky your permisis is only coming from one way (type). If you were to use different sweeps then your theory falls apart!

 

[CuongNhuka]

If you were to use different sweeps then your theory falls apart!

Keep in mind my sweeping experience comes form several styles. Wing Chun includes a version of sweeping, which is more like a reap. Judo includes several sweeps and reaps. Aikido includes what could be called a sweep/reap. Shotokan includes several techniques that are about sweeping/throwing your opponent. Vovinam includes several low spinning kicks, which are basicly just double leg sweeps. Vovinam also includes these things called "scissor kicks", which are basicly just one roundhouse kick, followed by anouther. It is REALLY painful to take, because (while it is techniquelly a sweep) you flip in the air.

Now, if there are other versions of sweeps/reaps that i am unfamliar with, please let me know.