Walking Stance: Pros & Cons
- Thread starter ajs1976
- Start date
MichiganTKD
Master Black Belt
Walking stances are good for sparring because they encourage and promote mobility. They do not not promote stability or strong legs. As such, their use in forms should be minimized unless the use of a walking stance is integral to the execution of a technique. One of the reasons I dislike the Taegeuk forms.
From a self defense context.
When trying to diffuse a potential attack, do you want to be in aggressive fighting stance, or would you rather be in a neutral stance that you can quickly move from. My personal preference would be to be in a neutral stance that doesn't say bring it on. I view the walking stance as a good example of this, as opposed to a lower forward stance, backstance, or even a free fighting stance.
When trying to diffuse a potential attack, do you want to be in aggressive fighting stance, or would you rather be in a neutral stance that you can quickly move from. My personal preference would be to be in a neutral stance that doesn't say bring it on. I view the walking stance as a good example of this, as opposed to a lower forward stance, backstance, or even a free fighting stance.
A
Andy Cap
Guest
A walking stance is a lazy stance. There is no strength, flexability, or balance involved. I would far prefer a back stance.
The walking stance was implemented because of the military/government involvement in TKD. It is like marching in a pattern. I would not teach a person to defend themselves from a walking stance and I most certainly wouldn't teach them to attack from such a stance - it has no practical use whatsoever.
Of course it is very unlikely you would use a forward stance in self defense, but it generates strength and flexability. horse riding stance generates strength flexability and balance. Back stance is good for strength and balance, and is a useful stance for practical application.
From a traditional perspective, the walking stance didn't come on the scene until Tae guks were created. It is not a traditional stance.
I greatest opposition is that I see no purpose and it is just plain lazy. I often wonder if the walking stance was developed for fat lazy Americans - lol
The walking stance was implemented because of the military/government involvement in TKD. It is like marching in a pattern. I would not teach a person to defend themselves from a walking stance and I most certainly wouldn't teach them to attack from such a stance - it has no practical use whatsoever.
Of course it is very unlikely you would use a forward stance in self defense, but it generates strength and flexability. horse riding stance generates strength flexability and balance. Back stance is good for strength and balance, and is a useful stance for practical application.
From a traditional perspective, the walking stance didn't come on the scene until Tae guks were created. It is not a traditional stance.
I greatest opposition is that I see no purpose and it is just plain lazy. I often wonder if the walking stance was developed for fat lazy Americans - lol
karatekid1975
Master Black Belt
LOL, too funny. I can agree with y'all about the darn walking stance. Like Gemini said, if someone has a "pro" for this stance, let me know (so far, everyone sees the "con" for this one), and I'll try it out.
Tae Geuk 1 is the first form with short stances. We learn Kibon Hyung as white belt form. That has all long stances with no kicking. As a natural progression, TG 1 has a front kick from a walking stance which actually to a newbie with bad balance can be challenging as you see them coming out with a thud coming down wherever instead of walking stance again.. So after this form it progresses further to TG 2, where you kick from walking stance then go in to long stance, bit harder to do it with control. I think it has its purpose in forms and in the last three forms 6,7,8 it isn't used at all. TW
Dear All,
The walking stance of the Kukkiwon seems to differ a bit from the walking stance of the ITF. The ITF replaced the front stance with the walking stance in the early 80's. It is shorter than a traditional front stance allowing more mobility while allowing power and balance. The walking stance of the Kukkiwon (as displayed in the Tae-Geuk Poomse) is much shorter then that of the ITF and is therefore far less stable and balanced.
Why is the walking stance (ITF) a good stance?
Not only does it increase mobility and speed, but it also serves a few other positive theories!
1. If attacked while "walking" you are already in a familiar offensive/defensive posture to deliver a technique
2. From a walking stance you can scientifically deliver a more powerful blow.
Take for instance a reverse punch. When delivered from a stable forward stance one of two things happens. Either you must slip forward to mobilize your mass (which disconnects you from the ground and limits the ability of the rear leg to thrust thus taking away from the power) or you must execute the technique from a static position relying souly on hip twist for power.
The reverse punch can draw power from any of these three means of mass utilization. 1. Rear Leg Thrust 2. Hip Twist 3. Direct Forward Momentum
By utilizing a walking stance you can maximize all three.
-Step into the technique by extending into a front stance
-Hip Twist
-Rear Leg Thrust
However, from a front stance how much further can you extend yourself without loosing balance (therefore loosing the ability to utilize your mass with any merit)?
That is why I prefer the walking stance to the forward stance, the L-Stance to the back stance, etc. I believe the evolution in the mobility of the stances to be the greatest accomplishment in the evolution of TKD!
TAEKWON!
SpooKeY
The walking stance of the Kukkiwon seems to differ a bit from the walking stance of the ITF. The ITF replaced the front stance with the walking stance in the early 80's. It is shorter than a traditional front stance allowing more mobility while allowing power and balance. The walking stance of the Kukkiwon (as displayed in the Tae-Geuk Poomse) is much shorter then that of the ITF and is therefore far less stable and balanced.
Why is the walking stance (ITF) a good stance?
Not only does it increase mobility and speed, but it also serves a few other positive theories!
1. If attacked while "walking" you are already in a familiar offensive/defensive posture to deliver a technique
2. From a walking stance you can scientifically deliver a more powerful blow.
Take for instance a reverse punch. When delivered from a stable forward stance one of two things happens. Either you must slip forward to mobilize your mass (which disconnects you from the ground and limits the ability of the rear leg to thrust thus taking away from the power) or you must execute the technique from a static position relying souly on hip twist for power.
The reverse punch can draw power from any of these three means of mass utilization. 1. Rear Leg Thrust 2. Hip Twist 3. Direct Forward Momentum
By utilizing a walking stance you can maximize all three.
-Step into the technique by extending into a front stance
-Hip Twist
-Rear Leg Thrust
However, from a front stance how much further can you extend yourself without loosing balance (therefore loosing the ability to utilize your mass with any merit)?
That is why I prefer the walking stance to the forward stance, the L-Stance to the back stance, etc. I believe the evolution in the mobility of the stances to be the greatest accomplishment in the evolution of TKD!
TAEKWON!
SpooKeY
so to Summarize so far.
Cons:
Any other pros or cons you can think of?
Cons:
- lack of balance / Stability
- lack of power
- does not help develop leg strength
- Not traditional
- For Sparring because it encourages and promotes mobility
- For Self defense because it is a neutral stance that is not aggresive looking
Any other pros or cons you can think of?
Dear Doc Clean,
Please read my post and dispute my theories. You stated that the walking stance suffers from
:ultracool Folks, let him answer on his own so we can see whether he is thinking for himself or parroting his instructor without understanding!
TAEKWON!
Spookey
Please read my post and dispute my theories. You stated that the walking stance suffers from
:ultracool Folks, let him answer on his own so we can see whether he is thinking for himself or parroting his instructor without understanding!
TAEKWON!
Spookey
Spookey FearlessFreep
Senior Master
I, from a beginner's perspective, can echo TW's point that a walking stance in TG-1, especially doing a front-kick or a 180degree turn, is not easy for a beginner. Doing it is not hard, doing it with balance, control proper power, etc...*is* difficult for a beginner.
I suppose though that one thing that would help would be a good definition of 'walking stance'. What we call a walking stance has the feet at shoulder width apart and the front foot forward enough that the front heel is just in front of the rear toes. Weight is distributed evenly between both feet. This is a very stable position to attack, defend, or move in any direction (note: 'fighting stance' is the same except with the rear foor turned out 45 degrees..and with more flex in the knees so a bit more spread between the feet). Anyway, walking stance..standing in it and moving into and out of it, is a good way to become accustomed to hip and shoulder placement and a position of equal balance. It doesn't require any strength, but I don't use forms for strength...if I want to work on leg strength, I use jump-ropes and squat-jumps ad kicking exercises and etc...I use forms to work on balance, control, 'proper' techqniue, and focus.
I suppose though that one thing that would help would be a good definition of 'walking stance'. What we call a walking stance has the feet at shoulder width apart and the front foot forward enough that the front heel is just in front of the rear toes. Weight is distributed evenly between both feet. This is a very stable position to attack, defend, or move in any direction (note: 'fighting stance' is the same except with the rear foor turned out 45 degrees..and with more flex in the knees so a bit more spread between the feet). Anyway, walking stance..standing in it and moving into and out of it, is a good way to become accustomed to hip and shoulder placement and a position of equal balance. It doesn't require any strength, but I don't use forms for strength...if I want to work on leg strength, I use jump-ropes and squat-jumps ad kicking exercises and etc...I use forms to work on balance, control, 'proper' techqniue, and focus.
without reading all of these, I would say one benefit not mentioned on the first page was that you are quicker dropping into a deeper stance than from in a natural feet toguether position; so it might be good to think of this stance as usefull but transitional.
Sean
Sean
one more pro is the educational stand point. It is easier for less flexible students or students having less muscle development to throw kicks from a walking stance, thus supportin the learning process so that they can get the basics of the kick down before worrying about the extra movement it takes from the more common fighting stances.
I might further add that having maximum power all the time everytime is slower than good enough all of the time.
Sean
Sean
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
Whahuh?Touch'O'Death said:
