# My New Stance Habit



## KangTsai (Nov 24, 2016)

These days I tend to stand in a fighting stance with shoulders completely square  with angled hips, which is made better the more mobile my hips get. I've noticed some quirks with standing in such stance.

1) energy spending difference compared to typical 45° stance — usually when throwing punches, the lead hand and the rear hand take about, I would say a 1:3 ratio. Because the lead straight punch is just a pump, while the rear hand is more a lunge or twist. When my shoulders are completely square, I have no lead or rear hand. I spend equal energy no matter what side I throw from. I'm aware of any potential weaknesses with that fact, and I'm fine with them. I'm not much of a jabber.

2) The Scotty Boy is back — I can now make conscious choices to jab with my right hand and throw crosses with my left. Not extraordinary to hear, but it does make some of my combos a lot more interesting.

3) Wound-up core — I've noticed that maintaining open hips while having my body twisted makes my back leg's kicks come out with less effort, and I can kick with the other leg without having to suffle or step. Also a lot more momentum in spinning kicks. Hooks too.

 I've never seen it prior, so it wasn't inspired by anything. I would coin a term for it if it wasn't so mundane.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 24, 2016)

Sounds dangerous to me. If I want to jab with my right, I just switch leads. I don't stand at as big an angle as some do, but I'm not squared up either.


----------



## marques (Nov 24, 2016)

You are the next Ferguson. 
More seriously. Probably no one will say you you had a great idea. But it may work for you, anyway. Keep testing it at come back here with news in the near future.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 24, 2016)

I have four stances that I switch between. Either mostly sideways with my right foot forward, mostly (but not fully) squared up) with my right foot forward, and the same two stances but with the left foot forward. The stance I choose depends on the opponent, and I will switch between right and left side forward throughout the fight.

Mostly sideways with my left foot forward is my least favorite of them though, since my left leg is much weaker/slower than I would like it.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 24, 2016)

KangTsai said:


> These days I tend to stand in a fighting stance with shoulders completely square  with angled hips, which is made better the more mobile my hips get. I've noticed some quirks with standing in such stance.
> 
> 1) energy spending difference compared to typical 45° stance — usually when throwing punches, the lead hand and the rear hand take about, I would say a 1:3 ratio. Because the lead straight punch is just a pump, while the rear hand is more a lunge or twist. When my shoulders are completely square, I have no lead or rear hand. I spend equal energy no matter what side I throw from. I'm aware of any potential weaknesses with that fact, and I'm fine with them. I'm not much of a jabber.
> 
> ...


From what you are saying, it reminds me a bit of the stance @Kung Fu Wang suggested a while back, which is somewhat squared up, but with left food forward and right hand forward or vice versa. 

With that said, and hopefully he can shed light on the benefits, here are my viewpoints on your three benefits.



> 1) energy spending difference compared to typical 45° stance — usually when throwing punches, the lead hand and the rear hand take about, I would say a 1:3 ratio. Because the lead straight punch is just a pump, while the rear hand is more a lunge or twist. When my shoulders are completely square, I have no lead or rear hand. I spend equal energy no matter what side I throw from. I'm aware of any potential weaknesses with that fact, and I'm fine with them. I'm not much of a jabber.



My issue with this statement is that if you are spending less energy into your 'rearhand punch', you're not getting the most that you can out of that strike. your punch will never have all the power that it can because your not putting your entire body with it.



> 2) The Scotty Boy is back — I can now make conscious choices to jab with my right hand and throw crosses with my left. Not extraordinary to hear, but it does make some of my combos a lot more interesting.



The issue with this is that you are calling them a jab or a cross, but if they are being thrown from the same start position, neither one will be a full jab or a full cross. The reason the 'scotty boy' works, IMO, is that it can be thrown intermittently with a cross, so you are expecting a cross when it's thrown. Here, no one will be expecting a cross because you will be incapable of throwing one in that position.



> 3) Wound-up core — I've noticed that maintaining open hips while having my body twisted makes my back leg's kicks come out with less effort, and I can kick with the other leg without having to suffle or step. Also a lot more momentum in spinning kicks. Hooks too.



This point sounds valid to me, and is definitely something worth experimenting with if you are a kicker. My only concern would be that it's easier to telegraph, but without seeing it in action, I don't know if that concern has any validity to it.


With all that said, I'm not knocking the idea. It has potential with kicks, and if you can find a way to still generate all your power in that stance (which would require more energy being spent then you are suggesting) I could definitely see it being useful.


----------



## Buka (Nov 24, 2016)

We used to call stances like that - a "corkscrew stance". 

The more you play with it the more you'll learn about it, and that's going to be both good...and not so good. But I think it's great you're experimenting with these things. Great way to learn a lot of things about your stance - and other peoples stances as well.

Sometimes they'll end up referring to some of your opponents as "The Janitor" because you're going to get swept a whole bunch by savvy fighters.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 24, 2016)

kempodisciple said:


> From what you are saying, it reminds me a bit of the stance @Kung Fu Wang suggested a while back, which is somewhat squared up, but with left food forward and right hand forward or vice versa.
> 
> With that said, and hopefully he can shed light on the benefits, here are my viewpoints on your three benefits.


The left foot forward and right hand forward stance is called "cross stance".

PRO:

- Both of your hands will have the same reach (square shoulder).
- Your back right hand is always in "compress" mode and ready to punch (release).

CON:

- Your chest will face to your opponent in a 90 degree angle. This is the general draw back for the "square shoulder" which compare to the "side stance - left foot forward with left hand forward" that your chest is facing to your opponent only in a 45 degree angle (less area).


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 24, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The left foot forward and right hand forward stance is called "cross stance".
> 
> PRO:
> 
> ...


Any comment on the power of the punch from each hand, compared to a jab or cross?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 24, 2016)

kempodisciple said:


> Any comment on the power of the punch from each hand, compared to a jab or cross?


When you are in a right foot forward with left hand forward "cross stance", your "right jab" is more powerful than the right foot forward with right hand forward "side stance" right jab. But your right hand will need to travel more distance. After that "cross stance" right jab, your jab and cross will be the same as the jab and cross used in the "side stance". The only difference is the initial "jab".


----------



## KangTsai (Nov 24, 2016)

ADD ON —

I feel that bladed legs and square shoulders together, lets me do quicker in-and-out movements while still being able to lean my upper body in different angles efficiently. Also my side kicks have a faster windup.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 25, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Sounds dangerous to me. If I want to jab with my right, I just switch leads. I don't stand at as big an angle as some do, but I'm not squared up either.



Squared up is fine.  You just need to move in 3 dimensions.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 5, 2016)

KangTsai said:


> These days I tend to stand in a fighting stance with shoulders completely square  with angled hips, which is made better the more mobile my hips get. I've noticed some quirks with standing in such stance.
> 
> 1) energy spending difference compared to typical 45° stance — usually when throwing punches, the lead hand and the rear hand take about, I would say a 1:3 ratio. Because the lead straight punch is just a pump, while the rear hand is more a lunge or twist. When my shoulders are completely square, I have no lead or rear hand. I spend equal energy no matter what side I throw from. I'm aware of any potential weaknesses with that fact, and I'm fine with them. I'm not much of a jabber.
> 
> ...


In what self defence situation are you throwing jabs and combo's?  Are the criminals where you live all skilled fighters/martial artists?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 5, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> In what self defence situation are you throwing jabs and combo's?  Are the criminals where you live all skilled fighters/martial artists?


I think it's safe for us to assume he meant to post it in general martial arts, as he didn't mention self defense at all in his original post. Probably everyone but you made that assumption, since no one else made a comment about it and it's been almost 2 weeks. Or he's referring to the instances where fighting in some sort of stance is involved in defending oneself.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 5, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> In what self defence situation are you throwing jabs and combo's?  Are the criminals where you live all skilled fighters/martial artists?


When someone attacks your wife, will you use "jab, cross combo" to knock him down ASAP in order to save your wife's life?

The "compress" jab can be used to set up the "release" cross. You use jab to make arms contact. You then pull your opponent's arm into you, send out your cross to cause a "head on collision". The jab can be a fake punch followed by a "pull".

Self-defense is not just to protect yourself. You have to protect your family members, friends, and strangers as well.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 5, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> In what self defence situation are you throwing jabs and combo's?  Are the criminals where you live all skilled fighters/martial artists?



What? 

Jabs and combos still work against untrained fighters.


----------



## KangTsai (Dec 6, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> In what self defence situation are you throwing jabs and combo's?  Are the criminals where you live all skilled fighters/martial artists?


I don't have much interest in self defence. If it does happen, parkour and spinning back kicks will keep me healthy. More so parkour.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 6, 2016)

drop bear said:


> What?
> 
> Jabs and combos still work against untrained fighters.


Of course they do, I never said they didn't.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 6, 2016)

KangTsai said:


> Because the lead straight punch is just a pump,


 When I see and hear stuff like this, it makes me think that the person hasn't learned how to connect the power of their punches.  I can deliver power in my punches with lead or rear hand.



KangTsai said:


> I'm not much of a jabber.


This statement makes it clear why you aren't getting power out of that lead hand.  Take some time to learn how to connect power into all of your punches and not just the big ones.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 6, 2016)

KangTsai said:


> I don't have much interest in self defence.


 are you doing martial arts for tricking and entertainment purposes?


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 6, 2016)

KangTsai said:


> I don't have much interest in self defence.


You can ask a mod to move your thread to the relevant secion of the forum if you have misposted.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 6, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> Of course they do, I never said they didn't.



Well then we have come up with a self defense situation where you throw jabs and combinations. You throw them against an untrained assailant.

Because of course it works.

Surprised you had to ask to be honest.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 6, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> When I see and hear stuff like this, it makes me think that the person hasn't learned how to connect the power of their punches. I can deliver power in my punches with lead or rear hand.



You are a big guy.  You don't think that factors in somewhat?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 6, 2016)

drop bear said:


> You are a big guy.  You don't think that factors in somewhat?


I don't think it's an issue, because a powerful punch to him would still be a powerful punch to him, regardless of what is powerful to me.  For example, I don't think any of us describes our strong punches as "just a pump."

I'm willing to bet that if we could see the OP jab, we would also see the disconnect in how the power for that lead hand is being generated.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 6, 2016)

If you can coordinate your jab with your front foot landing, your jab can be a knock down punch.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 6, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> You can ask a mod to move your thread to the relevant secion of the forum if you have misposted.


I believe the OP is interested in "fighting" and not in "self-defense". There are many different reasons to train MA besides "self-defense". There are

- fighting,
- sport,
- fun,
- performance,
- health,
- self-cultivation,
- inner peace,
-  ...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 6, 2016)

KangTsai said:


> I don't have much interest in self defence.


The term "self-defense" seems to assume that you are the only good guy on earth. All others are bad guys and try to attack you. IMO, that's not a healthy way to live your life.

When your opponent attacks you, you jump back to obtain distance, you then jump back in and attack your opponent. If this doesn't fit into "self-defense" definition then I don't have much interest in "self-defense" either.

I don't like "If you do ..., I'll do ...". I prefer "If I do ... and you respond as ..., I'll do ...". In other words, I like to play offense and let my opponent to play defense.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 7, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I believe the OP is interested in "fighting" and not in "self-defense". There are many different reasons to train MA besides "self-defense". There are
> 
> - fighting,
> - sport,
> ...


Yes, I am aware of that, thank you.  My question was generated due to the fact that the thread was posted in the self defence section of the forum.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 7, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> Yes, I am aware of that, thank you.  My question was generated due to the fact that the thread was posted in the self defence section of the forum.



Yeah but I answered your question.

Jabs and combinations are a pretty common self defence  move. So regardless whether he has an intrest in self defence or not. That he is endevoring to punch effectively is moving him towards a self defence proficiency.







The advantage of the squared up stance is you can move quickly. which in the street is a factor as you may need to cover more distance than you are used to in the dojo. as there is quite a lot more space in the street to play with.

Squared up allows you to cross step and punch. forwards or backwards.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 7, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So regardless whether he has an intrest in self defence or not.


If you are interested in fighting, you are interested in self-defense by default. The other way around may not be true. IMO, self-defense is a subset of fighting.


----------



## KangTsai (Dec 7, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you are interested in fighting, you are interested in self-defense by default. The other way around may not be true. IMO, self-defense is a subset of fighting.



 I was not aware at all that this was posted in self-defense. Oops, here I was wandering where these comments came from. 

*THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE POSTED IN GENERAL MARTIAL ARTS, SORRY*


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 7, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you are interested in fighting, you are interested in self-defense by default. The other way around may not be true. IMO, self-defense is a subset of fighting.


I would say that fighting is a subset of self-defense.  Fighting is just one component. For the most part when people say fighting they only think fist and not weapons, such as knives and other objects that may be available.





Punching a bad or learning how to just punch harder or kick harder is not the same as fighting.  It could be sports related or just a something a person wants to do, but being able to to punch and kick doesn't = know how to fight.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 7, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I would say that fighting is a subset of self-defense.  Fighting is just one component. For the most part when people say fighting they only think fist and not weapons, such as knives and other objects that may be available.


In

- self-defense, you are the good guy.
- fighting, you can be the bad guy.

When I was young, one midnight someone knocked on my window. It was one of my neighbor. He told me that his young brother was beaten up badly and he needed help to get even. After he had gathered about 10 guys, we walked about 1/2 mile and our enemy (also about 10 guys) were there. I still remember I outrun a motorcycle chasing (one guy on the back seat had a samara sword in his hand) that night. I didn't know I could run that fast. Since then running became an important part of my MA training.

That was not self-defense. It was a get even "fight". There were many against many, and weapon were involved too.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 7, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> self-defense, you are the good guy


Not true. Self-defense does not determine who is good or who is bad.  A person does not need to wait to be attacked in order to use self-defense. 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> That was not self-defense. It was a get even "fight". There were many against many, and weapon were involved too.


The moment you start defending yourself is the exact moment it becomes self-defense.  Having a "get even" fight does not matter.

If you went there to fight and in the process you had to defend yourself, then it's self-defense.  The only way that it wouldn't be self-defense is if you went there to take a beating. With that said you, you have to distinguish between the legal definition of self-defense and the non-legal definition of self-defense, because even if you are defending yourself, you can still go to jail, if your actions do not fit the legal definition.  For example, A person can break into my home and I would be well within my rights to shoot him, stab him, or punch him in his face as he is coming in.  But if I do these things as he tries to escape then I would be the one at risk for going to jail.  In my mind and in a perfect world, I could be rightfully defending myself to take this guy out so he doesn't come back or do the same to someone else.  But depending on when and how I decided to take him out, I could be legally in the wrong.

Being legally in the wrong doesn't make me a bad guy.  It just makes me legally in the wrong.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 8, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but I answered your question.
> 
> .


No you didn't because you are confusing men brawling in the street with self defence.

Criminals do not square off with you and trade jabs for the right to mug/rape/kill you.  The skills required to be successful in a fight (be it in the dojo, competition or street) are not the same as the skills needed to deal with non consensual criminal violence.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 8, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you are interested in fighting, you are interested in self-defense by default.



Only if you are a young male and the sort of violence you are most likely to be a victim of is a drunken bar fight/street brawl/road rage.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> The other way around may not be true. IMO, self-defense is a subset of fighting.


Getting into a fight in the street is illegal, self defence is not.  Agreeing to go outside in the car park and settle an argument spilt beer, a girlfriend, etc is NOT self.  Clearly you are unfamailer with the nature of non consensual criminal violence, otherwise you would not be making this statement.  Criminals do not stand six feet away in a fighting stands with their hands up in a guard.   If you are mugged, beaten , raped, it will not look light a sporting contest between two trained martial artists, and the skills needed to be successful at fighting are NOT the same as the skills needed to dal with non consensual  criminal violence.

You need to read case studies with muggers and other criminals and learn how they go about committing their crimes (aka The Rituals of Violence).  Then tell me how many of them are trained fighters/martial artist who and square off with their victims and trade blows (i.e. "fight" them).

Even if you are dealing with some idiot that wants to fight you (rather than a criminal) you don't do it by squaring off against them and exchanging blows, as this introduces the possibilities that you can lose.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 8, 2016)

7





Paul_D said:


> No you didn't because you are confusing men brawling in the street with self defence.
> 
> Criminals do not square off with you and trade jabs for the right to mug/rape/kill you.  The skills required to be successful in a fight (be it in the dojo, competition or street) are not the same as the skills needed to deal with non consensual criminal violence.



Fighting skills are pretty much universal.






I am not sure what non method of fighting you think is better for street violence. Where you assume they are using some non method of fighting. But I would suggest you pick a method of self defence that works.

All those stances and hands up and stuff you do is not designed to make you look martial arty.  Or be confined to some sort of dojo specific circumstance.

They are designed to give you the best possible mobility,defence and ability to attack you can.

So that when you are attacked regardless as to whether it is consentual or non consentual. Or a mugging or a brawl.  You have a position you can fall back to that allows you to utilize the tools you have developed.


----------



## MaxRob (Dec 11, 2016)

Stance varies with me in accordance with situational forces and it is infinitely variable , an attack is variable and very situational , ones defense  needs to be situationally equated to counter that attack.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 11, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> No you didn't because you are confusing men brawling in the street with self defence.
> 
> Criminals do not square off with you and trade jabs for the right to mug/rape/kill you.  The skills required to be successful in a fight (be it in the dojo, competition or street) are not the same as the skills needed to deal with non consensual criminal violence.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 11, 2016)

drop bear said:


>


More like "Help a Bruh Out" fail.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 12, 2016)

drop bear said:


> They are designed to give you the best possible mobility, defence and ability to attack you can.
> 
> Where you assume they are using some non method of fighting.


Clearly you are unfamiliar with the nature of criminal violence. Criminals do not give you the opportunity to use your footwork or jabs.  They ask you the time/for directions.  As you are distracted they sucker punched you or put a knife to your throat.

"Non fighting" enough for you?



drop bear said:


> Fighting skills are pretty much universal.


Again, fighting and self defence are not the same, yes a good punch is always a good punch, but the skills needed to be successful at fighting are not the same skills needed to be successful at self defence In fact some of the skills needed to be successful at fighting are the exact opposite of the skills needed to be successful at self defence.  Again, listen to the martial map podcast which explains it better than I have the time or patience to do.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 12, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> Clearly you are unfamiliar with the nature of criminal violence. Criminals do not give you the opportunity to use your footwork or jabs.  They ask you the time/for directions.  As you are distracted they sucker punched you or put a knife to your throat.
> 
> "Non fighting" enough for you?
> 
> ...




So you are suggesting i should gain my experience of criminal violence by listening to (An hour long podcast I might add) from some random guy.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 14, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So you are suggesting i should gain my experience of criminal violence by listening to (An hour long podcast I might add) from some random guy.


You are being delibertaly obtuse, but I have one more crack at it before throwing in the towel:-

I am not suggesting it will give you experience of violence at all.  What I am suggesting it will help you understand why fighting and self defence are not one and the same thing.

You stated that you did not understand what "non fighting" methods criminals would use to attack their victims, if you wish to gain experience of that (without being the victim, which is one way but as we know is not the preferred method) then one safer way would be to look into case studies of violent crimes and interviews with the perpetrators where they detail how they select their victims, and how they carry out their crimes.

Although I do not have the time to go into details, some quick examples would be:-

_I: How do you choose your victims?


J and P: Student types, men carrying umbrellas or wearing glasses, usually aged between twenty and thirty, occasionally older. We also look for people who are well dressed; smart clothes means money.


I: Why those particular types of people?


P: Because they always have money or cards, and they don’t give you any hassle.


I: What happens after you have chosen a victim?


P: We follow them, cross the road, walk past them maybe two or three times. Some of them must be thick not to notice what’s going on.


I: What is your next move?


J and P: We wait for them to walk into a side street or walk into a park, anywhere quiet. We walk up to them and ask the time, this distracts them while we pull out our knifes. When they look up we say, ‘Give us your lovely money!’ They usually look blank. Both of us shout at them, ‘Get your lovely wallet out’, and put the knives closer to their face._

-----

_S: “I said if he wanted to go [fight] we should step outside, when he went to stand up I shoved my glass in his face.” 



Interviewer: I heard that you stabbed a guy in the same pub, Steve.


S: Oh yeah. Did you hear about that, then? That was the barman. He grassed on me to the law about the glassing so he had to have some as well. I heard he was a bit of a Karate man so I didn’t take any chances. I walked in to the bar first thing in the morning, while it was quiet, less witnesses see. When he seen me he said I was barred, I said “Look man, I don’t want any grief with you, I know you can motor fight, I just want to tell you that there is no hard feelings on my part, let’s shake on it.’ lovely wanker fell for it. As he grabbed my right hand to shake it I pulled him hard in to me and stabbed him right in the kidneys. He went down like a sack of ****. I booted him a few times and walked out.


I: What would you do against someone like yourself?


S: The main thing is, I wouldn’t let them get close to me, no one gets close to me. And don’t believe anything they say, especially if they say they don’t want to fight. If they say they don’t want it [trouble] and back away, that’s all right, but if they say they don’t want it and try to get closer then you’ve got problems. Especially the ones who try and touch you, you know, put their arm around you all pally, pally like. They’re the worst ones. Oh and never shake hands with any of them. It’s the oldest trick in the book but it suckers them all. B does that, shakes their hands and butts them straight in the face. Don’t trust anyone.
_
I certainly wouldn't classify these as "fighting skills”.  Instead they are classic examples of the four D’s, which criminals employ, Deception, Dialogue, Distraction, and Destructon.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 14, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> You are being delibertaly obtuse, but I have one more crack at it before throwing in the towel:-
> 
> I am not suggesting it will give you experience of violence at all.  What I am suggesting it will help you understand why fighting and self defence are not one and the same thing.
> 
> ...



I could have got that advice from the lonley planet guide. Still not sure what I am going to get out of this hour long podcast.

Just seems silly.

10 tips for preventing theft during travel | Lonely Planet blog

Otherwise nothing there says you cant stance up and throw combinations. Just dont shake hands or accept hugs.


----------

