stances. Side on vs front on vs whatever else you have.
- Thread starter drop bear
- Start date
OP
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,373
- Reaction score
- 8,109
- Thread Starter
- #2
I like front on by the way one reason is it gives you head movement this allows an extra level of defence that I don't think you get from side on.
I can't see people slipping and bending over their own back. Because you cannot take a hit from that position. Side on will take out one direction of four direction evading.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qSX0PCQXiO4
I can't see people slipping and bending over their own back. Because you cannot take a hit from that position. Side on will take out one direction of four direction evading.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qSX0PCQXiO4
In a sparring situation I have used both very well. I did like having someone in a side stance as it was easier to take their front leg out with a sweep. As with my side stance I would wait for their move into me as I would bury my devastating side kick into much rib.
As I got older I do prefer front stance (sanchin) for the reasons you give above.
As I got older I do prefer front stance (sanchin) for the reasons you give above.
Not sure I understand what "side stance (or side on)" and "front stance (or front on)" mean. Can someone define it first?
Body positioning in relationship to your opponent
Side stance.
Front stance.
The weight distribution may be different but both have one leg forward and one leg backward. I'll call your side stance as 4-6 stance (40% weight on front leg and 60% weight on back leg). I will call your front stance as either 3-7 stance (30% weight on front leg and 70% weight on back leg), or empty stance (0% weight on front leg and 100% weight on back leg).
For a while, I though you call the WC stance as "front stance".
Like the video. :s81:
My preference is square. Gives more opportunity to move quickly off line either side and allows better reach with the rear hand.
The exception might be defending against a knife.
:asian:
That's my concern as well. When you stand like that, you will have one long arm and one short arm. The "cross stance - right leg forward, left hand forward" in the following clip is my favor. I can reach my opponent with both of my hands at the same time.
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,373
- Reaction score
- 8,109
- Thread Starter
- #11
The weight distribution may be different but both have one leg forward and one leg backward. I'll call your side stance as 4-6 stance (40% weight on front leg and 60% weight on back leg). I will call your front stance as either 3-7 stance (30% weight on front leg and 70% weight on back leg), or empty stance (0% weight on front leg and 100% weight on back leg).
For a while, I though you call the WC stance as "front stance".
Either way.
Any stance is kind of OK and why you adopt it pretty much.
mook jong man
Senior Master
In your lineage maybe.
A stance which is more square is better for defending takedowns.
A stance which is more bladed (side-on) is better for defending strikes to the body and groin.
A stance which is completely side on is more limited in terms of lateral footwork, head movement, punching with the rear hand or kicking with the rear leg, and defending leg kicks. On the other hand, it can be used for setting up spinning techniques and a certain style of lead-leg kicking (see: Bill Wallace).
I adjust my stance according to the needs of the moment, but it's generally somewhere in-between fully square and fully side on.
A stance which is more bladed (side-on) is better for defending strikes to the body and groin.
A stance which is completely side on is more limited in terms of lateral footwork, head movement, punching with the rear hand or kicking with the rear leg, and defending leg kicks. On the other hand, it can be used for setting up spinning techniques and a certain style of lead-leg kicking (see: Bill Wallace).
I adjust my stance according to the needs of the moment, but it's generally somewhere in-between fully square and fully side on.
As my college psych teacher told me on the first day of class, the universal answer to any question is ...
"it depends"
"it depends"
RTKDCMB
Senior Master
Also one arm will be less powerful and the other more powerful than if they were the same length (or rather distance from opponent) and also one faster arm and one slower arm.
wingchun100
Senior Master
I like front on because then I can easily shift to whatever side I need. If I am in a left side stance, then it takes too long to shift ALL the way over to the right, and vice versa.
I favor a more sideways stance at range and more forward stance up close.
From the grapplier point of view, there exist no perfect fighting stance. when you stand in
- side stance, you are vulnerable for "single leg".
- forward stance, you are vulnerable for "double legs".
Old saying said, "Get both if you can, otherwise get one first and then get the other afterward." To have both feet that's so close to each other is not a good idea. To have both feet far apart from each other is also not a good idea. The best fighting stance is to "move around" non-stop. You should not stand still to wait for your opponent to come in.
- side stance, you are vulnerable for "single leg".
- forward stance, you are vulnerable for "double legs".
Old saying said, "Get both if you can, otherwise get one first and then get the other afterward." To have both feet that's so close to each other is not a good idea. To have both feet far apart from each other is also not a good idea. The best fighting stance is to "move around" non-stop. You should not stand still to wait for your opponent to come in.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Side... front on.... whatever... doesn't matter......Police/Military Sanda point of view; any way you happen to be standing is your "ready stance" and, IMHO, that is how it should be
