# Solid Stances



## MJS (Jun 17, 2008)

Stances are, IMHO, our foundation for pretty much everything we do. Without good stances, pretty much anything we do, won't be as effective compared to if our stance was solid.

In another thread, DavidCC posted this, and I think its a good point and worthy of more in-depth discussion. Here is his post, but the part I want to focus on is this:



> "But if you have real stability, you change the expected point of contact (earlier), and you initiate contact in such a way as to misalign the shooter, you'll disperse and absorb his momentum, he feels like he's shooting on a tree, and that can't feel good. "


 
So, what exactly does everyone do to ensure that they have solid stances?

Mike


----------



## Danjo (Jun 17, 2008)

We use a fighting stance unless we're doing forms. Much more like the MMA stances you see in the UFC etc. Something solid enough not to get taken down by a grappler, but high enough to still kick etc. Stances are transitional at any rate.


----------



## DavidCC (Jun 17, 2008)

teach'em, test'em, dril'em, rinse, repeat 

visually insepct for good foot alignment, width and depth

then physically test the stance by putting a "load on" - that is, pushing them off their stance!  My 8 yr old can support my weight (220) leaning against her horse stance (when she is doing it right).


----------



## Danjo (Jun 17, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> teach'em, test'em, dril'em, rinse, repeat
> 
> visually insepct for good foot alignment, width and depth
> 
> then physically test the stance by putting a "load on" - that is, pushing them off their stance! My 8 yr old can support my weight (220) leaning against her horse stance (when she is doing it right).


 
Actually, I prefer to test them in sparring when people are free to mix stand-up and grappling rather than have someone come along to give you a shove. The reason is that going from a stand-up position to a sprawl or at least a wider base can happen very quickly and the ability to go from one to the other quickly is what I feel is important.


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 17, 2008)

As a general concept, stances need to provide structural integrity for what you are trying to accomplish.  All stances are transitory and are only used to accomplish your goal and then to move on.

Some general things for a good stance is:

1)  Proper skeletal alignment.  Let your body do it's work
2)  Proper weight distibution.  Each stance is going to have a maximum effect for what it was designed for based on certain weight distributions.  For example, you would not want to load up your cat stance all on the front leg, this would be an improper weight distribution and would take away the tactical use of what the stance is for.
3)  Understanding what/when/how your stance is to be used.  All stances have a strong point (what it was designed to do) and they all have a weakness.
4)  Control your own center.  All of them should maximize the use of your center to your advantage.  By taking the center you can control your opponent.
5) Stance should be a balance of stability and mobility.  You want to be able to move and adapt to changing conditions.  A very stable stance is a good thing if you are in tight and need more balance.  If you need to move quickly to evade or close the distance you are going to want more mobility.  Each stance should take into consideration which it is designed for.  You should also understand moving into and out of each stance fluidly so you aren't sitting there like your feet are caught in mud, or knocked over at the slightest push.

Since each stance is different, you could have a checklist of what a good "X stance" is, but some of those might not translate to what a good "Y stance" would be.


----------



## DavidCC (Jun 17, 2008)

Danjo said:


> Actually, I prefer to test them in sparring when people are free to mix stand-up and grappling rather than have someone come along to give you a shove. The reason is that going from a stand-up position to a sprawl or at least a wider base can happen very quickly and the ability to go from one to the other quickly is what I feel is important.


 
Me too, eventually; if they can't get to it, they can't get to it quickly. I was thinking more of teaching it to beginners.


----------



## DavidCC (Jun 17, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> As a general concept, stances need to provide structural integrity for what you are trying to accomplish. All stances are transitory and are only used to accomplish your goal and then to move on.
> 
> Some general things for a good stance is:
> 
> ...


 
that all sounds good to me.  #5 do you mean something like "move between stability and mobility as needed"?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 17, 2008)

Given you always have a strongest and weakest base of support, and the enviornment is always changing around you, you are only neutral to a situation for an instant.
Sean


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jun 17, 2008)

The stances I end up training the most are the Horse stance and the flamingo stance. Not necessarily toward fighting, though both have improved my kicks greatly. The primary reason I train these stances is because they strengthen my knee. i don't have a meniscus in my right knee, so keeping the muscles around my knee strong allow me to still be able to move around without a cane.


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 18, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> that all sounds good to me. #5 do you mean something like "move between stability and mobility as needed"?


 
Yes.  But, I do think that all stances should have a little bit of one in the other as well.


----------



## MJS (Jun 23, 2008)

Just to continue on with the discussion, here are a few questions:

1) What do you do, to make the stance to stable?

2) When you're testing it, do you include movement, such as Danjo suggested, or are you testing just from a static position?

3) If it is possible to make your stance immune to a take down, where did the MMA fighters go wrong?


----------



## DavidCC (Jun 23, 2008)

MJS said:


> Just to continue on with the discussion, here are a few questions:
> 
> 1) What do you do, to make the stance to stable?
> 
> ...


 
1) heels out, etc everything matters.
2) I start with testing the horse stance 3-9 in static horse stance.  Then we do it moving backwards in "45 degree horse stances facing 12" (or you might call it a neutral bow depending on yoru dictionary).  Applying continuous pressure to the front shoulder, the student aligns the feet 12-6, steps back, re-aligns to 45.
3) I don't know if there is immunity or if they are 'wrong' but mobility is much easier to learn and train.


----------



## KenpoDave (Jun 23, 2008)

1) What do you do, to make the stance to stable?

Test it.  There are hundreds of ways, and the preferred method will change with the preferred outcome of the moment.  Deconstruct, reconstruct...

2) When you're testing it, do you include movement, such as Danjo suggested, or are you testing just from a static position?

Yes.  Both.  I test more often with movement, but I study my stances while static or moving slowly.  

3) If it is possible to make your stance immune to a take down, where did the MMA fighters go wrong?

Maybe to a particular takedown, but not to takedowns in general.  Anyone "immune" to takedowns is likely using more than the stance, although the stance would be centrally important.  We used to play a game like this about 15 years ago, a kenpo version of what was once called "Smear the (rhymes with Smear)."  I wouldn't say we were immune to being taken down, but those who were not regulars in the game eventually gave up trying.


----------



## JamesB (Jun 24, 2008)

MJS said:


> Just to continue on with the discussion, here are a few questions:
> 
> 1) What do you do, to make the stance to stable?


 
We utilize a PAM and other corrective footwork to stablize our stances. We pay particular attention to the direction the head is looking, and the alignment of the outside of each foot (i.e. must be parallel when in horse/neutral bow). 



MJS said:


> 2) When you're testing it, do you include movement, such as Danjo suggested, or are you testing just from a static position?


 
Yes but in two different ways. When practising self-defence techniques such as bear-hugs, pushes etc, we teach and practice how to stablize our stance once the attack is on. So how to gain a stable position.

But when testing foot manouvres / stance transitions (i.e. moving from a stable position) we apply pressure (in the direction the stance is designed to be strong in) during the transition. This helps the practitioner develop a feeling for how it feels to have a strong stance.



MJS said:


> 3) If it is possible to make your stance immune to a take down, where did the MMA fighters go wrong?


 
I'd say it isn't possible to make your stance immune to takedown, as stances are specific things - they are designed to be strongest in one direction only at a time, so there is no single 'super stance' that can thwart all takedowns attempts. But specific takedowns, committed and aimed at a particular area of your body can be stopped. And if the grappler backs off, comes at you at a different angle, you assume the appropriate stance/posture at the moment it matters most. Timing is important.

You wouldn't just stand there statically with a 10-foot gap between you, but I don't think that's what's being suggested. But just in case readers are assuming that is the case, it isn't.


----------



## Danjo (Jun 24, 2008)

JamesB said:


> We utilize a PAM and other corrective footwork to stablize our stances.


 
Hmmm...I never thought of using non-stick cooking spray to keep people from being able to take you down, but whatever works I guess.


----------



## DavidCC (Jun 24, 2008)

Danjo said:


> Hmmm...I never thought of using non-stick cooking spray to keep people from being able to take you down, but whatever works I guess.


 
spray it all over your legs and hips, works great, and smells better.


----------



## Danjo (Jun 24, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> spray it all over your legs and hips, works great, and smells better.


 
Better than what? Crisco?


----------



## marlon (Jun 24, 2008)

Danjo said:


> Hmmm...I never thought of using non-stick cooking spray to keep people from being able to take you down, but whatever works I guess.


 

that was funny!!


----------



## marlon (Jun 24, 2008)

MJS said:


> Just to continue on with the discussion, here are a few questions:
> 
> 1) What do you do, to make the stance to stable?
> 
> ...


 

1. train yourself to root.  knees bent and not locked, wieght downward which means  body alignment

2. all stances are transitory, the important part of stability is in skeletal alignment when moving and striking.  Every stance has a weak point.  Its strengnth is always relational vis a vis your opponent and what you are seeking to accomplish at the time.  Leg strength and skeletal alignment trains stances
3. there is no such immunity found in a stance...response to the attack is the key

just my thoughts.

marlon


----------



## JamesB (Jun 25, 2008)

Danjo said:


> Hmmm...I never thought of using non-stick cooking spray to keep people from being able to take you down, but whatever works I guess.


 
It's a new style of martial-art, but not many people have heard of it yet. It's called 'Ketchup Karate'. Simply smother yourself in the stuff, and your attacker will be unable (or unwilling) to get any kind of hold on you!!


----------



## Danjo (Jun 25, 2008)

JamesB said:


> It's a new style of martial-art, but not many people have heard of it yet. It's called 'Ketchup Karate'. Simply smother yourself in the stuff, and your attacker will be unable (or unwilling) to get any kind of hold on you!!


 
Ah, you Brits are always one step ahead of us!


----------



## Doc (Jun 25, 2008)

marlon said:


> 2. all stances are transitory,


Actually a minor correction with major implications. All stances are not transitional. Stances are transitional in application. However, every stance has the capacity to be solid in and of itself. The applications of stances and the act of transitioning from one to another is a separate issue.


----------



## Mark L (Jun 25, 2008)

Doc said:


> Actually a minor correction with major implications. All stances are not transitional. Stances are transitional in application. However, every stance has the capacity to be solid in and of itself. The applications of stances and the act of transitioning from one to another is a separate issue.


Excellent observation!

Stance: The manner, posture, or pose in which one stands (from Wiktionary). Static.

But our techniques move from stance to stance.  Dynamic.  The stance(s) are component parts of the techniques, just like the blocks, strikes, traps, locks, etc.  I don't think we'd classify those as transitory?


----------



## marlon (Jun 25, 2008)

Doc said:


> Actually a minor correction with major implications. All stances are not transitional. Stances are transitional in application. However, every stance has the capacity to be solid in and of itself. The applications of stances and the act of transitioning from one to another is a separate issue.


 

Thank you, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that stances are all functional?  By this i want to highlight that training a stance and using one is not an end in and of itself, rather a function of self defense.

respectfully,
marlon


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 25, 2008)

Doc said:


> Actually a minor correction with major implications. All stances are not transitional. Stances are transitional in application. However, every stance has the capacity to be solid in and of itself. The applications of stances and the act of transitioning from one to another is a separate issue.


_Of course!_  I've been struggling to articulate this duality since this thread began...unsuccessfully. Thanks for doing the thinking for me.


----------



## Doc (Jun 26, 2008)

kidswarrior said:


> _Of course!_  I've been struggling to articulate this duality since this thread began...unsuccessfully. Thanks for doing the thinking for me.



You are waaay tooo kind sir.


----------



## Doc (Jun 26, 2008)

marlon said:


> Thank you, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that stances are all functional?  By this i want to highlight that training a stance and using one is not an end in and of itself, rather a function of self defense.
> 
> respectfully,
> marlon



I'm sorry sir, I have no idea what you're saying.


----------



## bowser666 (Jun 26, 2008)

Like any MA ,  IMO , stance training is mandatory, it helps build a strong foundation , as well as strengthens legs.  I study Chang Chuan and we do a lot fo stance work, and I never knew that there was so much muscle in my legs waiting to pop out !  Its a great stregthening excercise.  Yeah all stances have their impracticalities for the purpose of fighting etc......  but you need strong roots !


----------



## Doc (Jun 26, 2008)

bowser666 said:


> Yeah all stances have their impracticalities for the purpose of fighting etc......


Well, actually all stances have a practical purpose in "fighting," not the other way around as you state. Stances are like "words," if they are used out of context, than the purpose of their use may be obscured and misunderstood.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 26, 2008)

If a CMA interloper can be tolerated for a moment; stance, IMO, are very important

One of the styles I train is Hebei Style Xingyiquan and stances are the basis and the root of all forms and all fighting applications. Without a proper stance or proper stance training you have nothing, no root, no speed and no power.


----------



## Doc (Jun 26, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> If a CMA interloper can be tolerated for a moment; stance, IMO, are very important
> 
> One of the styles I train is Hebei Style Xingyiquan and stances are the basis and the root of all forms and all fighting applications. Without a proper stance or proper stance training you have nothing, no root, no speed and no power.



You're preaching to the choir here brother.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 26, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> If a CMA interloper can be tolerated for a moment; stance, IMO, are very important


Sheesh, they let anyone in here now, huh? :rofl: 

Just kidding, don't hurt me. 



> One of the styles I train is Hebei Style Xingyiquan and stances are the basis and the root of all forms and all fighting applications. *Without a proper stance or proper stance training you have nothing, no root, no speed and no power.*


No root, no speed, no power. Love it. :bangahead:

Took me years to understand what my old San Soo sifu meant when he said, the eight basic foot movements (stances/postures) are the foundation of the art, and every time I teach or workout, seem to learn another shade of meaning to these simple movements. :yoda:


----------



## KenpoDave (Jun 27, 2008)

Doc said:


> Actually a minor correction with major implications. All stances are not transitional. Stances are transitional in application. However, every stance has the capacity to be solid in and of itself. The applications of stances and the act of transitioning from one to another is a separate issue.


 
In application, I teach that stances are reference points.  They have to be able to be solid in and of themselves, but in application, the amount of time you remain in the solid stance is not the issue, it is that you are in the correct stance at the correct point in time.

End point focus/timing indicates that one is not really in the stance fully until that point, but, just as important, one does not remain in the stance beyond that point.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 27, 2008)

kidswarrior said:


> Sheesh, they let anyone in here now, huh? :rofl:


 
There goes the neighborhood


----------



## MJS (Jun 30, 2008)

Thanks to all that took the time to reply!   Like I said, IMO, stances are the key to pretty much everything we do.  Even when moving, we're in a stance, so obviously making sure its stable is important.


----------



## marlon (Jul 1, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> If a CMA interloper can be tolerated for a moment; stance, IMO, are very important
> 
> One of the styles I train is Hebei Style Xingyiquan and stances are the basis and the root of all forms and all fighting applications. Without a proper stance or proper stance training you have nothing, no root, no speed and no power.


 

you see i agree completely and perhaps it is merely semantics but stance and rooting are two different things.  where as a stance imo, is either where you are and your anatimocal structure in relation to your attacker(s) and / or the goal you wish to accomplish; or, stance is to train rooting.  Fighting applications can be executed by different stances even to accomplish different things but to root is to root.  As you have said no root , no power, no speed, no viable stance

respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 1, 2008)

marlon said:


> you see i agree completely and perhaps it is merely semantics but stance and rooting are two different things.


 
I agree they are 2 different things. 

But proper stance training also trains rooting but rooting should not be dependant on the stance. And there can be times in any stance you do not want to be rooted.


----------



## Doc (Jul 1, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> In application, I teach that stances are reference points.  They have to be able to be solid in and of themselves, but in application, the amount of time you remain in the solid stance is not the issue, it is that you are in the correct stance at the correct point in time.
> 
> End point focus/timing indicates that one is not really in the stance fully until that point, but, just as important, one does not remain in the stance beyond that point.



Excellent description sir.


----------



## marlon (Jul 1, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> In application, I teach that stances are reference points. They have to be able to be solid in and of themselves, but in application, the amount of time you remain in the solid stance is not the issue, it is that you are in the correct stance at the correct point in time.
> 
> End point focus/timing indicates that one is not really in the stance fully until that point, but, just as important, one does not remain in the stance beyond that point.


 

What do you mean "reference points"?

marlon


----------



## marlon (Jul 1, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> I agree they are 2 different things.
> 
> But proper stance training also trains rooting but rooting should not be dependant on the stance. And there can be times in any stance you do not want to be rooted.


 
agreed.

marlon


----------



## KenpoDave (Jul 2, 2008)

marlon said:


> What do you mean "reference points"?
> 
> marlon


 
An example would be the point in a technique when a strike has been delivered.  At the "end point" of that execution, if a snapshot were taken of your position, you would be in a particular stance.

Right before that, and right after that, you would not.  The stances are points in time, and points of application, which ties application to timing.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 2, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> An example would be the point in a technique when a strike has been delivered.  At the "end point" of that execution, if a snapshot were taken of your position, you would be in a particular stance.
> 
> Right before that, and right after that, you would not.  The stances are points in time, and points of application, which ties application to timing.


I agree.


----------



## Doc (Jul 3, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> An example would be the point in a technique when a strike has been delivered.  At the "end point" of that execution, if a snapshot were taken of your position, you would be in a particular stance.
> 
> Right before that, and right after that, you would not.  The stances are points in time, and points of application, which ties application to timing.



Dam , that was good.


----------



## marlon (Jul 3, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> An example would be the point in a technique when a strike has been delivered. At the "end point" of that execution, if a snapshot were taken of your position, you would be in a particular stance.
> 
> Right before that, and right after that, you would not. The stances are points in time, and points of application, which ties application to timing.


 
yes thank you!  that is where i would see the stance also i tried to say something like this earlier and it came out as gibberish to some and definitely lacked clarity.  excellent point!!

marlon


----------



## marlon (Jul 3, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> An example would be the point in a technique when a strike has been delivered. At the "end point" of that execution, if a snapshot were taken of your position, you would be in a particular stance.
> 
> Right before that, and right after that, you would not. The stances are points in time, and points of application, which ties application to timing.


 

So you must apply this to your forms.  Do you see when peopel are not applyuing this to thier forms.  to my thinking it would change almost everything for some people in how they do thier forms.  as a reference point it would also lead one to discover what the form is intending as application, no?  the  would this 'fix' application or would you simply change the reference point to show a different application?

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------

