sanchin and the phalanx
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:30 pm
i just wanted to post something i think about and teach quite often. i feel it might be best suited for this forum and would like to hear others opinions and comments.
the traditional sanchin stance that i was shown orients the shoulders and hips square to the front. i feel there is a combat reason for this. studies have shown ( though can be disputed) that in C.Q.B the normal offensive reaction is to take a squared position as opposed to the weaver stance.
the Greeks and Romans used the phalanx (rows and colums) in different ways to help accomplish this "squared' position. in combat we know the fight or flight patterns. i belive this head on method helps diffuse the flight while reinforcing the fight. on the battlefield the best way to gain the moral advantage is to take his flanks. so why then would you want to use a stance that gives the opponent your flank! as the physical and moral pressure increases a bladed stance will give way to a side position and then a cover and run moral reaction. once you start running you cant stop without "giving" and impaling yourself on the enemys pike or sword.
i do understand the blading concept in a firearms confrontion ,to make a smaller target zone, however in actual hand fighting i belive this concept falls short. useing the phalanx gave the Romans a method to fight in a controlled manner that the babarians did not have. it can be argued that the phalanx did not work , that the front rows fell to the ground in fear and the last rows ran long before they came in contact with the enemy. love to hear comments.
Hoshin
~~~~
the traditional sanchin stance that i was shown orients the shoulders and hips square to the front. i feel there is a combat reason for this. studies have shown ( though can be disputed) that in C.Q.B the normal offensive reaction is to take a squared position as opposed to the weaver stance.
the Greeks and Romans used the phalanx (rows and colums) in different ways to help accomplish this "squared' position. in combat we know the fight or flight patterns. i belive this head on method helps diffuse the flight while reinforcing the fight. on the battlefield the best way to gain the moral advantage is to take his flanks. so why then would you want to use a stance that gives the opponent your flank! as the physical and moral pressure increases a bladed stance will give way to a side position and then a cover and run moral reaction. once you start running you cant stop without "giving" and impaling yourself on the enemys pike or sword.
i do understand the blading concept in a firearms confrontion ,to make a smaller target zone, however in actual hand fighting i belive this concept falls short. useing the phalanx gave the Romans a method to fight in a controlled manner that the babarians did not have. it can be argued that the phalanx did not work , that the front rows fell to the ground in fear and the last rows ran long before they came in contact with the enemy. love to hear comments.
Hoshin
~~~~