The Proper Horse Stance?

[Ronin74]

So it took me a while to ask this question because, quite frankly I couldn't figure out my Kenpo teacher's lineage for the longest time (other than his teacher.) It turned out to be William Chow.

In any case, I needed to be sure since it seems like some techniques may differ slighty, depending on who they were learned from. That said, what is the proper alignment/positioning for the horse stance? I recall it being low to the ground, but with the feet probably about 1-1/2 body with apart, and facing slightly outward. Is this correct?

 

[MJS]

So it took me a while to ask this question because, quite frankly I couldn't figure out my Kenpo teacher's lineage for the longest time (other than his teacher.) It turned out to be William Chow.

In any case, I needed to be sure since it seems like some techniques may differ slighty, depending on who they were learned from. That said, what is the proper alignment/positioning for the horse stance? I recall it being low to the ground, but with the feet probably about 1-1/2 body with apart, and facing slightly outward. Is this correct?

For myself, its usually a bit wider than shoulder length. I've heard some use this method as a gauge: Stand with feet together. Turn your heels out, then your toes, then heels again. Bend at the knees and there ya go.

Now, of course, I've seen deeper stances, so I guess it all depends.

 

[Doc]

So it took me a while to ask this question because, quite frankly I couldn't figure out my Kenpo teacher's lineage for the longest time (other than his teacher.) It turned out to be William Chow.

In any case, I needed to be sure since it seems like some techniques may differ slighty, depending on who they were learned from. That said, what is the proper alignment/positioning for the horse stance? I recall it being low to the ground, but with the feet probably about 1-1/2 body with apart, and facing slightly outward. Is this correct?

Depending upon your lineage, No.

 

[Jade Tigress]

For myself, its usually a bit wider than shoulder length. I've heard some use this method as a gauge: Stand with feet together. Turn your heels out, then your toes, then heels again. Bend at the knees and there ya go.

Now, of course, I've seen deeper stances, so I guess it all depends.

We use the same method for gageing proper distance. Though we are trained to keep our feet forward without any outward point.

 

[Bill_Hunsicker]

NCKKA traces the linage back to William Chow and we teach the following:

Width of the stance is dependant on the length of the persons legs but the 1 1/2 shoulder width is a normal starting place.
Feet facing forward.
Knees should be directly over the feet.
Knees pointed out to the right and left corners (about 45 degrees).
Depth is normaly taught starting with a 45 to 60 degree bend in the knees and adjusting as needed.

Hope that helps.

 

[Doc]

NCKKA traces the linage back to William Chow and we teach the following:

Width of the stance is dependant on the length of the persons legs but the 1 1/2 shoulder width is a normal starting place.
Feet facing forward.
Knees should be directly over the feet.
Knees pointed out to the right and left corners (about 45 degrees).
Depth is normaly taught starting with a 45 to 60 degree bend in the knees and adjusting as needed.

Hope that helps.

Ed Parker Lineage is different and traces to Hung Gar.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Pretty much text-book perfect: http://www.jameswingwoo.com/diagrams.html

 

[punisher73]

Ed Parker Lineage is different and traces to Hung Gar.

How does the stance differ? Is the link to james wing woo's site more in line with Ed Parker's vision of the stance?

 

[Bill_Hunsicker]

Ed Parker Lineage is different and traces to Hung Gar.

Maybe I misrepresented what I meant. NCKKA traces from Mr LaBounty, thru Mr. Parker back to William Chow. I know my instructor also teaches Hung Gar forms and this has influenced our system, but I am unsure what you were referring to in your statement. Are you refeering to the fact that Hung Gar played a part in the teachings that came back from China, thru Japan and thus to Mr Chow?

Respectfully,

Bill

 

[DavidCC]

Ed Parker studied under Ark Wong...

 

[DavidCC]

Pretty much text-book perfect: http://www.jameswingwoo.com/diagrams.html

I notice in this diagram it indicates rolling the bottom of the pelvis forward. Doc, how does that effect the anatomical structure, and is that part of how you teach the stance?

-D

 

[punisher73]

I notice in this diagram it indicates rolling the bottom of the pelvis forward. Doc, how does that effect the anatomical structure, and is that part of how you teach the stance?

-D

That was one of my questions, I left mine way too open about the differences. The pelvic tilt was what I was wondering though. I have seen it both ways and people claim both ways as the 'best' method.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

How does the stance differ? Is the link to james wing woo's site more in line with Ed Parker's vision of the stance?

In my own opinion, the pelvis is over-tucked. Backing off about "mental" 15% from either extreme will place you in a better "pelvic neutral" placement.

For me, the pic is invaluable for the rotation of the feet, and knees. Most horses, either the feet are splayed, or the knees aren't bent enough. Or worse yet, they bend their knees, but fail to create the internal tension in the lower extremities by flaring them outwards, even withle the toes turn slighlty in (depending on point of reference on the foot...i.e., "which toe").

"Toes in, knees out, and sit down" was the chant I heard as a kid. The action will cause some automatic pelvic tuck, but prolly not as much as in Mr. Woos pic.

D.

 

[Doc]

Pretty much text-book perfect: http://www.jameswingwoo.com/diagrams.html

Actually this is incorrect. The placement of the feet belies the anatomical distinction in the foot being naturally curved inward and not straight as portrayed in the drawing. This, when the stance is performed correctly, will cause the feet to "appear" to be turned in when they are parallel. The drawing makes no such distinction.

 

[Doc]

I notice in this diagram it indicates rolling the bottom of the pelvis forward. Doc, how does that effect the anatomical structure, and is that part of how you teach the stance?

-D

The rolling of the pelvic is merely the result of having an erect posture, including a properly "indexed" head. Nothing more needs be done.

 

[Ronin74]

I thought this might be of interest, since it seems relevant. Here's an image I found on Ralph Castro's website, detailing some of the lineages in Kenpo. Unless I'm reading it wrong, I guess Castro and Parker could be contemporaris, in which case my lineage would branch off to Ralph Castro's side.

That said, I guess the way the horse stance would be taught from that line is how I would have learned it. MJS's sounded pretty close to what we did, but I just can't recall the proper alignment regarding the knees and the feet.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Actually this is incorrect. The placement of the feet belies the anatomical distinction in the foot being naturally curved inward and not straight as portrayed in the drawing. This, when the stance is performed correctly, will cause the feet to "appear" to be turned in when they are parallel. The drawing makes no such distinction.

Hence, why I said...depending on which part of the foot is being referenced. Middle ray pointing to 12:00 will give the appearance of the first ray being internally rotated. But it's onlt illusion, with respect to alignment between the ankle mortise and talus.

D.

 

[Doc]

Hence, why I said...depending on which part of the foot is being referenced. Middle ray pointing to 12:00 will give the appearance of the first ray being internally rotated. But it's onlt illusion, with respect to alignment between the ankle mortise and talus.

D.

All this from a guy who won't answer his dam phone.

 

[Bill_Hunsicker]

Ed Parker studied under Ark Wong...

I have not heard that before. My teachings were allways that Mr. Parker was taught by Prof Chow and he was taught by Dr Mitose. Do you have a link somewhere that shows that link in the chain?

Back on topic.

I notice in this diagram it indicates rolling the bottom of the pelvis forward. Doc, how does that effect the anatomical structure, and is that part of how you teach the stance?

We teach the pevis tucked. This it to straighten the spine and help force the shoulders back and keep the head up.

The rolling of the pelvic is merely the result of having an erect posture, including a properly "indexed" head. Nothing more needs be done.

Now that I am thinking more about this, it is possible that we only chant "Tuck the pelvis" at our students because they are failing to get the proper erect posture and this forces them into that. Point well taken Doc.

 

[punisher73]

I have not heard that before. My teachings were allways that Mr. Parker was taught by Prof Chow and he was taught by Dr Mitose. Do you have a link somewhere that shows that link in the chain?

Back on topic.


We teach the pevis tucked. This it to straighten the spine and help force the shoulders back and keep the head up.



Now that I am thinking more about this, it is possible that we only chant "Tuck the pelvis" at our students because they are failing to get the proper erect posture and this forces them into that. Point well taken Doc.

Prof. Chow was SGM Parker's kenpo instructor and that is really were he got his base material from. After coming to the US and settling down in Pasadena he looked heavily into the CMA's and Ark Wong was one of those he studied with. Also, the link posted by Kembudo-Kai Kempoka is actually from the person that helped Parker create many of the early forms. If you click on the links Master Woo actually tells the story, but only refers to Parker as "an instructor from Pasadena" in reference to their work together including "Secrets of Chinese Karate".