At this year AAU TKD National we saw more low stances than ever before,... So wich do you prefer and why?
Before I get to my reply, let me compliment those here who obviously know what they are talking about.
I prefer the right stance for the appropriate situation.
There's a proper time and place for each type of stance. The trick is in knowing when and where.
These two posts (among others) hit the point exactly.
It's like my old High School shop teacher used to say. "Use the right tool for the right job." Don't use a wrench or a screwdriver to pound in a nail, and don't use a hammer to drive in a screw. Each stance serves a different purpose. Who here would get into one stance, and try to remain in that stance during an entire fight?
I'm not sure if I prefer lower stances, but I do appreciate them.
I feel the same way! You have to appreciate something that has so much value to offer, in training as well as real-life application.
However I do prefer the long deep stances. Much more stable and much more power.
Yes, I love to train to have better low stances and increase the power of my hand techniques, but I also love to be mobile and hard to catch. I prefer having a balance between the two.
Stances serve three main purposes - - to hold your body up off the ground (support), allow you to propel yourself in any direction, stop your motion, and change your direction of movement (mobility), and reinforce your balance against outside forces or while exert force in any direction (stability). Clearly, there are many different stances, and each promotes different aspects of these three purposes. Stances can be measured by length (front to back), width (side to side), and depth (how deep you lower your center of gravity).
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.
Gotta use both to train with and know where your heading
As always, DArnold, it is clear to me that you know what you are talking about! Sometimes people vary in phraseology, and terms might confuse things, but I like the way you simplify and break down each stance and talk about the "triad."
The only one that I would phrase differently is this one about low stances:
"- are not as successful in SD or fighting"
We probably are saying the same thing, but a low stance is very effective for self defense when used at the appropriate time, mostly for finishing moves. Herein lies the contradiction of training effectively. For self defense (at least from a striking point of view like TKD), keeping yourself in a medium to high mobile stance (unless you come into contact with an opponent for grappling), is best and used the majority of the time. A low stance in self defense is very effective but used very, very rarely. Yet, the low stances probably need the most time in training because they condition the student more with stronger muscles, and are a foreign concept to most people that has to be drilled into their brains.
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.
Well, I am one of those expert Judo-ka you refer to. Besides my training in Taekwondo and Karate, my early training was completely in wrestling and Judo. We use "wide deep stances" for maintaining balance when in contact with another opponent. This is not necessarily applicable to non-grappling, striking stances. Furthermore, when executing a throw, we are either standing on one leg throughout the throw (not typically considered a stable position) or we bring our feet very close together in the middle of the opponent's stance.
By strengthing the stance they make it really hard for them to be swept.
This is only partially accurate. A wide stance makes it difficult to 'off balance' your opponent, and since it is one of the conditions of an effective throw (the first one, in fact), if it is difficult to off balance your opponent, then it might be difficult to throw them. However, a sweep can be used in many ways, even if the person is not off balance. Sweeps and reaps, can be forced on a person who is in a deep stance, taking advantage of the fact that they are "rooted" and bringing them down hard.
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.
This is true mostly for flips (hip and shoulder throws, etc), but sweeps, reaps, knee wheels and so forth rely mostly on the opponent's vulnerable position when off balance. Center of gravity has little to do with these throws except to be stable enough to exert the force needed to execute the throw.
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.
OK, you lost me here. I consider myself rather knowledgeable about kicking, and I don't see where "advance kicks require a deep stance." In fact, I don't technically kick while I'm in a stance (unless you count a one-leg crane stance). Now if you mean what stance you are in right before, or after a kick, I think it is more often the opinion of kickers to be up higher, and mobile as you move into a kick, but they can be done from low stances.
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.
I think one of the problems with this discussion on sweeps is the term "easy." This is more of a subjective notion rather than an absolute. What one person deems as "easy," another might think is difficult. The reason Judo experts (and others who know the science of throwing) prefer to go after someone in a high stance is because it is easier to off balance them, not because the throw itself is easier or more effective. If someone is low and rooted in a deep stance, it takes away that crucial aspect of a throw, however their feet can still be ripped out from under them depending on the stance (low front stance, horse stance, etc), and the angle of attack with your sweep or reap.
Someone who really knows how to root themselves in a good horse stance are almost impossible to sweep.
This statement is simply not true. As I said, rooting yourself makes it difficult to off balance you, but a deep horse stance, for instance, is stable from side to side - not front to back. A firm sweep against the heel (from back to front) will take the foot out. Reaping is even easier as the leg is more accessible in a deep stance. Also, distractions by attacks to the face, throat, or groin often break the concentration of those trying to maintain a firmly rooted stance.
I never said sweeping is a bad idea. In fact, I love to sweep people. I just said that it is NOT easier to sweep people if they are in a wide deep stance.
The point is, it might be easier to sweep the foot of a person in a high stance, but it has little affect if they simply shift their weight to the other leg (which is easier for a person in a high stance to do). So, you can sweep them, but they don't go down. High or low stance, their weight must be committed to the foot you are sweeping.
It shouldn't matter whether the attacker's stance is wide or narrow.
What matters is that you take his balance before you try to sweep him.
Unbalance him appropriately, whether he's in a wide or narrow stance, and position yourself appropriately as you do, and the sweep should be successful.
Now there's someone who understands the mechanics of a throw! You are absolutely right, Howard!
Kacey a low stance to me is when the butt is equal to the knees...
For some people, this is true even when they aren't bending their knees!
