Stances

[JimHawkins]

WEll I disagree with that ..I believe that a stance IS a static phenomena and that most folks don't know that.

True, especially in many karate styles where the form is the goal.

Well I'm not so sure about this, nor do I know what "form as a goal" means..

Could someone site an example?

BTW, I've grown to dislike the Asian terms for stance as they're not descriptive to what is happening. I much prefer ideas like move into base rather than horse stance as it tells a Western student what they are doing.

IME horse stance is just a particular stance.. But it may have come from how it is used in CMA I've done..

We say stay in your horse.. This does not mean stay in a horse stance.. As the word "ma" means stance but also means horse.. Horse in this context means the shape you need at the moment, is not static and only means that you are using supportive structure down below (your horse, which moves you and/or keeps you connected to the ground) so that you can move or not as is needed and maintain correct position and alignment to manage energy and motion... Strictly speaking there is no such thing as no motion because even while in a "static stance" you ARE in motion....

[fivedragons]

I think the word "stance" can be misleading, kind of like the word "block".

I practice a set of "asian stances", but what I'm actually practicing is more like posture and balance through a range of motion. Also leg conditioning through a range of motion. Sinking into the floor through a range of motion.

[fivedragons]

I've found it helps in strengthening not just the leg muscles, but also all the connective tissues.

Importantly, it strengthens everything from the hips down, in balance. Brings out bits of muscle that you might never know you had.

Good for kicking.

[TSDguy]

Wouldn't you need to be explosive in your stance work for it to benefit your kicking? I'm guessing standing in a deep horse stance for 6 hours does nothing for your kicks (not saying that's what you're doing.)

[fivedragons]

I think there different but maybe overlapping and complimentary benefits between moving and static exercises.

Probably mainly in the mental focus of what you're doing.

Where it all comes together is when you actually practice kicking explosively, of course.

Using what you've gained from the boring and painful stuff that no one likes to do.

Also as you know, there's more out there besides the reviled horse stance.

I think it has to do with "connectivity".

[fivedragons]

Even the word "kicking" can be misleading I guess, because evryone has their own mental image or way of conceptualizing what they do.

It occurs to me that when I say kicking, I'm thinking more in terms of stomping. Maybe halfway between kicking and stomping. A kimp or a stock.

[Stryke]

The concept of loosing your stance as you move baffles me , it merely shifts , the individual stances are no more than propertys and directions of force .

I was under the impression the reason we trained so much was to never loose our stance/alignment which at the end of the day is our advantage in being trained .

until we get past seeing karate as a sequence of poses , we`ll always be playing catch up .

[JimHawkins]

The concept of loosing your stance as you move baffles me, it merely shifts , the individual stances are no more than properties and directions of force.

Well loosing your "stance" while moving certainly can happen.. When we move we move our CG and depending how we move we can loose our structure and center.. When we generate momentum--choose a vector, we are more vulnerable to certain kinds of outside forces.. Arguably the longer that line the longer we are vulnerable.

This is why we have short bursts of movement and long lines of movement.. Often folks think of these longer lines as entry, but the greater vulnerability of a long time in linear motion--pre contact--should make one question this notion IMO--what else could it be?

Also not the case in what I learned.

Anyway I agree that seeing any martial art in terms of frozen poses or even as sequential actions, that's 1, 2, 3, etc, then the nature of the art--alive and dynamic--can become lost and obfuscated amid time itself having come to a stop or a fit of hiccups.

Once again we have the river as the shining example...

[jorvik]

Quote
"the advantage comes from the mechanics of the stance , if your good , you can keep those mechanics and function while you move , I thought youd understand that coming from Tai chi , it is about alignemnt , were back to the harmonies , this is very much what Sanchin can teach !!!
standing still only makes you functional in one microcosim , its so easy to take advantage of that it`s ridicuolous , but now I see where the low stance and hand on hips confusion comes from , if veiwed in the static way they are next to useless .

What I mean is pretty much what Jim said, and when I say it I'm thinking more on the lines of sticking and pushing hands...to be effective at either of them then you need to be aware of your stance and it is pretty much a static thing, by static I mean you move a little and not like 20 feet as in some of those bad karate/aikido vids,,,,,,,,and after a bit of instruction you will realise that the stances are extremly important and in most martial arts overlooked. In bog standard karate there is no reason to use stances because they don't accomplish anything but in Tai-Chi and in Wing-chun ( and probably most Kung-fu styles which use pushing/sticking hands,,,,,and I believe most do ) stances are something more akin to a stratagey than a technique, and as I've said before in the Tai-Chi classics it talks of " beating movement with stillness" I think most folks think this is something metaphysical....I don't I just see it as using good stances

[Stryke]

What I mean is pretty much what Jim said, and when I say it I'm thinking more on the lines of sticking and pushing hands...to be effective at either of them then you need to be aware of your stance and it is pretty much a static thing, by static I mean you move a little and not like 20 feet as in some of those bad karate/aikido vids,,,,,,,,and after a bit of instruction you will realise that the stances are extremly important and in most martial arts overlooked. In bog standard karate there is no reason to use stances because they don't accomplish anything but in Tai-Chi and in Wing-chun ( and probably most Kung-fu styles which use pushing/sticking hands,,,,,and I believe most do ) stances are something more akin to a stratagey than a technique, and as I've said before in the Tai-Chi classics it talks of " beating movement with stillness" I think most folks think this is something metaphysical....I don't I just see it as using good stances

thats a case of internalising movement and weight shifts , and by no means Is what I`d consider a static pose , small movements and weight transfer are still alive and to me are miles away form the thought of assuming one pose and there it is . The transitions and weight shifting(grounding) is what its about IMHO . And yes you can do more with less .

so maybe on that line of thought we are agreeing .

Well loosing your "stance" while moving certainly can happen.. When we move we move our CG and depending how we move we can loose our structure and center.. When we generate momentum--choose a vector, we are more vulnerable to certain kinds of outside forces.. Arguably the longer that line the longer we are vulnerable.

Agreed Jim probably didnt explain myself well , there very much is the chance to loose your mechanics , but the ideal must be to keep structure throughout the motion , not having inherently powerfull snapshots , but continous structure and power , what perplexes me is looking at transitions as something you do between stances , where to me thats is actually where the usefull learning comes in , being able to adapt and maintain the alignment or to my mind keep the integrity of the stance . I dont get the go from this stance to that stance mindset .

I think five dragons may have nailed it , it`s confused terminology like blocks , what your seeing are not individual stances but exspressions of the rules of movement for the particular style . It should be continuous and adaptable .

[jorvik]

Quote
"thats a case of internalising movement and weight shifts , and by no means Is what I`d consider a static pose , small movements and weight transfer are still alive and to me are miles away form the thought of assuming one pose and there it is . The transitions and weight shifting(grounding) is what its about IMHO . And yes you can do more with less .

so maybe on that line of thought we are agreeing . "


I think we are...........I am not saying no movement, I am saying undiscernable movement. like in the Tai-Chi clip I posted......

[JimHawkins]

Agreed Jim probably didnt explain myself well , there very much is the chance to loose your mechanics , but the ideal must be to keep structure throughout the motion.

Well it's very tough to put into written words..

I'm just thinking in terms of certain changes.. Sometimes we can change for the better. Sometimes for the worse. Sometimes during the middle of any change we can get 'caught'..

So I guess I see, timing, position, energy and "structural arrangement" (stance is too simplistic) as a kind of blur. At any one moment the changes may be "correct" but one missing part of all those things in terms of fitting in with the opponent and it all can go to hell..

[Stryke]

Yeah its a complex topic , of course you always compromise base when you take a biped and take one leg off the ground to move . bu theres so much more to it than snapshots .

I think everyone should do some wrestling judo sumo etc and then start thinking about stances again .

[JimHawkins]

And it's not even only about a "stance" but how that position engages with the opponent's "stance" or position, really all structure against structure--and still more.

The grappling and connected arts show how critical exact positioning is.

It is a powerful weapon.