# Why can't we?



## JasonASmith (Oct 9, 2006)

I've posted this in the Karate forum, but anyone can chime in, and please do...
I've been hearing a lot of talk about NOT using deep stances in an actual confrontation, and I am wondering why not? I understand the principle of using deep stances in the kata and in the Dojo to train the legs, and then using more shallow stances out in the black...
Why not use deep stances? I've used deep stances in Kumite, and I have found that I get hit LESS when I'm down in it...Granted, Kumite is still in the controlled atmosphere of the Dojo, but Kumite is supposed to be representative of confrontation isn't it? I understand not using deep stances when there isn't room, but even simply lowering oneself seems(to me) to be a good idea...The less target you present to your opponent, the better...right? Please keep in mind before you answer this thread that I have only been back to Karate for about two months, so I am relatively new to this idea(i.e. cut me some slack, I'm an idiot still)
That's it, fire away!


----------



## Grenadier (Oct 9, 2006)

If it works for you, then more power to you.  

I am guessing that in a "real" fight, versus controlled sparring, opponents are going to be shooting in pretty quickly.  You're not going to be able to get that first step nearly as quickly, if you're in a deep stance.


----------



## Drac (Oct 9, 2006)

Grenadier said:


> You're not going to be able to get that first step nearly as quickly, if you're in a deep stance.


 
Ya beat me to saying it..You are *NOT *an idiot Jason so don't put yourself down, your a novice plaine and simple...The last thing you want to do is broadcast your intent or that you have some specilaized training to your oppoinent, sinking into a low stance might do that..He just might charge at you like a fast freight train before you get set...My 2 cents...


----------



## twendkata71 (Oct 9, 2006)

*I agree with what the others have stated. The only time that I would go into a deep stance in a real confrontation would be to,during the opponents attack to drop below them to get underneath to take them down. This is where learning Jujitsu,and or Judo comes into play. *


----------



## rutherford (Oct 9, 2006)

A low stance can restrict mobility, which can be important for both closing and creating distance.


----------



## searcher (Oct 9, 2006)

I will make in unanimous in saying that your mobility is hindered a bunch.


----------



## exile (Oct 9, 2006)

JasonASmith said:


> The less target you present to your opponent, the better...right?



Right. But presenting less target usually doesn't mean lowering your profile, but rather, not being there when your attacker's strike lands... meaning, constant quick movement off his line of attack, i.e., maximum mobility. And since---dittoing everything everyone else has already said---low stances hurt mobility, your best chance of presenting less target includes a somewhat higher stance.


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 9, 2006)

I would say if you cannot pick up either foot without shifting you hips over the other foot, you are too low. You should be able to pick up either foot without moving your hips for balance.  Shifting or redistributing your weight to to take a step takes too long in a real confrontation.   Just my opinion, but I don't train in Karate.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 9, 2006)

A lower stance can increase your power when delivering a hand technique, provided you are doing it right.  At that moment, a low stance could be appropriate, but would probably only be momentary, in the normal course of shifting your stances during the confrontation.


----------



## shoshinkan (Oct 9, 2006)

yep agreed that if you are using a low stance as a 'fighting stance' then you will lose mobility, and that is key in conflict, particulary if a weapon is involved.

Now think about using a low stance to transfer energy/weight/force and you have a different story, generally a low stance is useful if you are attached to someone! But then again in shorin ryu we don't really have 'low' stances as the shizentai (natural) principle is consistant within the system, we do have 'lowish' stances though!


----------



## MJS (Oct 9, 2006)

JasonASmith said:


> I've posted this in the Karate forum, but anyone can chime in, and please do...
> I've been hearing a lot of talk about NOT using deep stances in an actual confrontation, and I am wondering why not? I understand the principle of using deep stances in the kata and in the Dojo to train the legs, and then using more shallow stances out in the black...
> Why not use deep stances? I've used deep stances in Kumite, and I have found that I get hit LESS when I'm down in it...Granted, Kumite is still in the controlled atmosphere of the Dojo, but Kumite is supposed to be representative of confrontation isn't it? I understand not using deep stances when there isn't room, but even simply lowering oneself seems(to me) to be a good idea...The less target you present to your opponent, the better...right? Please keep in mind before you answer this thread that I have only been back to Karate for about two months, so I am relatively new to this idea(i.e. cut me some slack, I'm an idiot still)
> That's it, fire away!


 
Well, first off, you're not an idiot.  You're asking a valid question, and IMO, there is no stupid question.  So..that being said....if this is something that works for you, thats perfectly fine.   For myself, I prefer to use more of a boxing type stance, where I'm more mobile.  A deep stance is fine, as you said, as its limiting targets as you stated, but I guess it would depend on what the targets are.  If they're above the belt, front of the body and side, it may be suitable, but if some leg kicks were allowed, that deep stance may hinder you.

Best of luck in your training, and keep asking those questions! 

Mike


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 9, 2006)

I forget where I heard this verse but it about sums it up:

"A stance too wide provides you power/but you soon learn you get much slower,
A stance too narrow provides you speed/but leaves you imbalance which you don't need"


----------



## bignick (Oct 9, 2006)

Just to reiterate what others have said, it's a tradeoff.  A deep stance is more stable, while losing mobility.  That said, no stance offers you a perfect balance and you can easily show this...  Draw a line between your feet in any stance and have someone push you perpindicular to this line.  You'll lose your balance no matter how deep your stance is.  

I for one, prefer mobility over small gains in stability.


----------



## JasonASmith (Oct 9, 2006)

Thanks for all of the replies, folks.  I am glad that I am here on this forum to get honest and thorough replies to my questions...


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 9, 2006)

There is a difference between being low and being in a deep stance.  Tyson is a well known example of a guy that stayed low, he often had his head at the other guys mid section level.

Wrestlers also tend to stay very low, but not in a karate stance way.

Low is definately good, but deep stances severly restrict mobility and leave you very open to leg kicks and takedowns (if they are allowed) 

But in the end it comes down to what you can make work, and if you can make it work go for it.


----------



## Hand Sword (Oct 9, 2006)

If it's a real encounter, you've just rooted yourself into the ground, flat footed, and can't move fast enough. You will probably get football tackled, or sme variotion of a takedown, plus, deep stanced, your knees are stuck and exposed. Also, deep down, if you have to kick, you'll have to raise up first, the speed of a real engagement, won't allow for that. You'll basically be tidal waved over, or circled and hit, to bad effects.


----------



## Carol (Oct 9, 2006)

JasonASmith said:


> I've posted this in the Karate forum, but anyone can chime in, and please do...
> I've been hearing a lot of talk about NOT using deep stances in an actual confrontation, and I am wondering why not? I understand the principle of using deep stances in the kata and in the Dojo to train the legs, and then using more shallow stances out in the black...
> 
> Why not use deep stances? I've used deep stances in Kumite, and I have found that I get hit LESS when I'm down in it...Granted, Kumite is still in the controlled atmosphere of the Dojo, but Kumite is supposed to be representative of confrontation isn't it?


 
In addition to the great advice given here, I'd like to add something.

Unfortunately in a confrontation, there is a chance that you will not be indoors, supervised, and on a flat surface.

In an actual confrontation, you MAY be on a flat surface...standing on a floor, or on flat pavement or an even stretch of grass.

You also may NOT be on a flat surface.  You may be standing in snow, or on ice, or on gravel, or in mud, or on rough, uneven pavement.

In the latter cases, a deep stance  may be to your benefit.  You may have seen that some Silat moves are done from a deep stance...this is to compensate from the uneven terrain of Indonesia.   There is a purpose to it, but it's prolly not the most likely scenario you will face.

You are not an idiot.  Keep asking questions :asian:


----------



## exile (Oct 9, 2006)

There are certain styles of karate, and earlier approaches to TKD, whose katas present very deep stances as the end postures of movement. I think this is partly what has given rise to the impression in certain quarters that exaggeratedly deep stances are good, or traditional.  But I think that like most other things about kata, the depth of these stances should not be taken literally. A very deep back stance is probably best seen as a kind of visual post-it note on the technique depicted that reads,  `Hey you!!---shift your weight to your back leg for this technique, eh?!!'. It's likely a kind of coded pointer to a weight shift in which you are anchoring the attacker, probably pulling him towards you with the `chambering' fist, while executing some technique---an upper arm, clavicle or throat strike disguised as a `middle knife-hand block'. You're not intended to stay in that position; quick movement is the key to survival.


----------



## IWishToLearn (Oct 12, 2006)

bignick said:


> Just to reiterate what others have said, it's a tradeoff. A deep stance is more stable, while losing mobility. That said, no stance offers you a perfect balance and you can easily show this... Draw a line between your feet in any stance and have someone push you perpindicular to this line. You'll lose your balance no matter how deep your stance is.
> 
> I for one, prefer mobility over small gains in stability.


 
Actually, Kenpo's Neutral Bow is designed to give you both maneuverability and stability (providing it's taught correctly with proper basics), and it's designed to keep you aligned with your opponent.

If you're in a combat situation having someone push you perpendicular to your alignment, you're doing something very, very wrong, as you're thusly presenting every available target to your opponent in the worst way possible.

No matter the stance (except the Horse and the Cat stances - but you'd be dumb to fight in either) they're all designed in varying degrees to put one foot in front of the other, and to begin to lessen or (in the case of some) completely change your defensive profile.

The stance with the most extreme defensive profile change would be a Rear Bow (essentially a front stance -normally done to 12:00 where your opponent is- turned to face either 4:30 [left foot forward] or 10:30 [right foot forward]), or Rear Lunge/Close Kneel (same alignment, but rear leg bent instead of locked out).

The next would be the fighting horse, as you're standing completely perpendicular to your opponent.

The next would be the Neutral Bow, followed by the various cat Stances.

Hopefully I was clear enough for understanding.

Edit: In ANY case - you want a balance between high and low center of gravity - usually I work beginners with a 45 degree bend in the knees to start with. As you get better you'll modify that based on personal preferences.


----------



## HKphooey (Oct 12, 2006)

I like the stances for training purposes and certain defenses, but the "boys in the nether regions"  do not like that stance too much.  They tell my brain to adjust my stance.


----------



## IWishToLearn (Oct 12, 2006)

Yah. Me no likey sack-taps either.


----------



## searcher (Oct 12, 2006)

I teach them from time to time for training purposes, ie. conditioning and I have some students who compete that use them in forms competition.   As for a use during a fighting application I only teach them for when in a fight you lose your balance it helps you re-center and not go down.   I learned that from a boxing coach I had, then re-applied it to the other styles I study/teach.   It can have its uses just like any other technique, whether they are limited or not.


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 12, 2006)

Andy Moynihan said:


> "A stance too narrow provides you speed/but leaves you imbalance which you don't need"



I totally disagree with that!  If your head is centered over your shoulders, your shoulders centered over your hips, your hips centered over your heels, then you will be balanced.  Often people don't keep this in mind when moving, they either lead with their head or their feet, not their hips.  If you move any of these things out of alignment, you will be structurally imbalanced.  If you have all these aligned, no matter whether the stance is natural or deep, you will be balanced.


----------



## IWishToLearn (Oct 12, 2006)

There is a difference between stable and balanced. Balanced means you can move without having to realign yourself, stable means if you needed to you can take a hit without major damaged.

Head-Shoulders-Hips is a great checklist.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 12, 2006)

IWishToLearn said:


> There is a difference between stable and balanced. Balanced means you can move without having to realign yourself, stable means if you needed to you can take a hit without major damaged.
> 
> Head-Shoulders-Hips is a great checklist.




I think being stable in the sense of being hard to move is a bad idea when someone hits you.  You take the whole force of the impact, which usually hurts.  Leading to the phrase "Roll with the punches"


----------



## JasonASmith (Oct 12, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> I totally disagree with that! If your head is centered over your shoulders, your shoulders centered over your hips, your hips centered over your heels, then you will be balanced. Often people don't keep this in mind when moving, they either lead with their head or their feet, not their hips. If you move any of these things out of alignment, you will be structurally imbalanced. If you have all these aligned, no matter whether the stance is natural or deep, you will be balanced.


 
That's actually one of the reasons why I even posted this thread in the first place...From a practical standpoint, it seems to me that you would want to be as stable/balanced as possible during a confrontation...


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 12, 2006)

JasonASmith said:


> That's actually one of the reasons why I even posted this thread in the first place...From a practical standpoint, it seems to me that you would want to be as stable/balanced as possible during a confrontation...



Yes I agree.  Every movement should be done balanced.  Just as BigNick pointed out though, all stances have weak points.  If you draw a line between the heels, the person will be weak perpendicular to that line, no matter whether they are standing naturally or in a deep stance or how the torso is turned, they will always be weak in those directions.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 12, 2006)

Mobility, mobility, mobility.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 12, 2006)

IWishToLearn said:


> There is a difference between stable and balanced. Balanced means you can move without having to realign yourself, stable means if you needed to you can take a hit without major damaged.
> 
> Head-Shoulders-Hips is a great checklist.


Balance is an ability.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 12, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> I totally disagree with that! If your head is centered over your shoulders, your shoulders centered over your hips, your hips centered over your heels, then you will be balanced. Often people don't keep this in mind when moving, they either lead with their head or their feet, not their hips. If you move any of these things out of alignment, you will be structurally imbalanced. If you have all these aligned, no matter whether the stance is natural or deep, you will be balanced.


 
Good points.

Man, if that had been my original quote I'd be red faced embarrassed right now........


----------



## IWishToLearn (Oct 12, 2006)

By the same token, if your weight is above your heels and you are pushed, you're every bit as vulnerable to the same type of attack.


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 13, 2006)

IWishToLearn said:


> By the same token, if your weight is above your heels and you are pushed, you're every bit as vulnerable to the same type of attack.



Your weight is always above your heels (except in a very few, let's say stances)...   Remember this isn't static.  Balanced movement is very dynamic.  Certainly one's resistance to force is relative to where the force is exerted on their body and the magnitude of the force.  As an extreme example, it doesn't matter how deep of a stance you get, you are not going to take a hit from a speeding car and still be standing.  It is all relative and dynamic.


----------



## IWishToLearn (Oct 13, 2006)

Ok, now I see where you're going with it. I had a feeling we were approaching the same end result from different angles, now I'm sure of it.

And btw - speak for yourself with the car- I have one of them yellow and red S shields under my shirt---errrr wait I wasn't sposed to say that...

Heh.


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 13, 2006)

IWishToLearn said:


> Ok, now I see where you're going with it. I had a feeling we were approaching the same end result from different angles, now I'm sure of it.
> 
> And btw - speak for yourself with the car- I have one of them yellow and red S shields under my shirt---errrr wait I wasn't sposed to say that...
> 
> Heh.




You still wear superman underoos?    :rofl:


----------



## IWishToLearn (Oct 13, 2006)

UndertheSHIIIIRRRT dernit the SHIRT! 


And no - I wear those OUTSIDE my pants.


ACK!


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 13, 2006)

When you center of gravity falls within your base you are stable not balanced.
Sean


----------



## kingkong89 (Oct 18, 2006)

the reason we do not use deep stances because of the matter of time, sure in a kumite match there is a time period. But the results are points, in real life the result is hospitalor grave. Sometimes we do not have time to get into a deep stance. HICH


----------



## Robert Lee (Oct 25, 2006)

I read in 1 post That related to stance and ground type. This post was very correct. Stance in different styles deals with the type of ground you were fighting on many times. Low deep stance give good balance on uneven ground where high stance work well on more even ground. Then also stance in any fight can be ever changeing depend on the fight. You can drop to a lower stance and rise fast during a defence or offence motion. Skill trains this. Now most styles deal with several stances. You will find a key fighting postion You will primarly fight out of and the other postion/ stance are a moment in time. Then you remember that fighting leads to glapple and ground where things are agin much different. As most places here in the U S you would use a higher stance and few times a lower stance. You will find what works well for you But remember you can drop to a low stance then high stance in a blink of an eye During a fight motion. You just have to add the springing action to your movements.


----------



## Em MacIntosh (May 30, 2007)

Always be a moving target.  Take a 'fighting stance' that lets you move like a boxer (not that you'll necessarilly be moving like a boxer), relax but keep your center of gravity low.  Your fighting stance should be able to let you take a deep stance when you need to to add power to a hand/arm strike, but your deep stance should let you resume your fighting stance easily.  In sparring, I've found the deep, long stance to be intimidating to some opponents but on the street when someone is intent on hurting you, it's more likely he's got you intimidated.  The softest thing cannot be broken.


----------



## chinto (May 30, 2007)

you have several stances in your system i would think, and some are high and some are lower. so select the one that workes for that instant. its not as if you can not change stance in the altercation.  but I agree, I personaly would tend to start in a nutral stance that looks like I may have no training or very little to begain with and move from there.


----------



## Callandor (May 30, 2007)

I don't know in a real fight but during sparring, I find that when I use a low stance, my head gets kicked quite a bit more.


----------



## Em MacIntosh (May 31, 2007)

Some people have practiced the gyaku zuki from a zenkutsu dachi so well that they can easily incapacitate an opponent with one blow.  My money's on the other guy though.  Some people can use a front thrust kick well too.  Not me.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 31, 2007)

JasonASmith said:


> I've posted this in the Karate forum, but anyone can chime in, and please do...
> I've been hearing a lot of talk about NOT using deep stances in an actual confrontation, and I am wondering why not? I understand the principle of using deep stances in the kata and in the Dojo to train the legs, and then using more shallow stances out in the black...
> Why not use deep stances? I've used deep stances in Kumite, and I have found that I get hit LESS when I'm down in it...Granted, Kumite is still in the controlled atmosphere of the Dojo, but Kumite is supposed to be representative of confrontation isn't it? I understand not using deep stances when there isn't room, but even simply lowering oneself seems(to me) to be a good idea...The less target you present to your opponent, the better...right? Please keep in mind before you answer this thread that I have only been back to Karate for about two months, so I am relatively new to this idea(i.e. cut me some slack, I'm an idiot still)
> That's it, fire away!


I don't know what size you are but just because they work for you doesn't mean you want everyone to to use them. The bigger you are, the more you can get away with. If you a facing a kicker whom is larger than you, your deep stances ain't going to help.
Sean


----------



## Em MacIntosh (May 31, 2007)

We need some good demonstration videos of oi-zuki, mae-te-zuki and gyaku-zuki.


----------



## SageGhost83 (Jun 2, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> A lower stance can increase your power when delivering a hand technique, provided you are doing it right. At that moment, a low stance could be appropriate, but would probably only be momentary, in the normal course of shifting your stances during the confrontation.


 

Yes, I agree. The purpose of the stances are not to remain in them for a long period of time, they are mainly transitions and you go from one to the other rather quickly. I would just say do what works best for you. Different people are proficient at doing different things, and this would apply to the chaotic and unpredictable nature of "real" fighting, too. One person may not be able to pull it off in that situation, but someone else may be able to do it perfectly in that situation. We are all different, so I don't buy into the across-the-board generalizations about what can or cannot be done in a "real" fight. We all have different abilities. Find out what you do best, and do it. If low stances work for you, then go for it.


----------



## SageGhost83 (Jun 2, 2007)

SageGhost83 said:


> The chaotic and unpredictable nature of "real" fighting, too.


 

And that also depends on what we mean by "real" fighting. Are we talking harmless romp in the schoolyard, free-for-all in a bar, suckerpunch on the street, being rushed by a gang on the steet, being confronted by an armed mugger, or being the poor sap who happens to be standing there when a hardcore criminal is having a bad day? With the exception of the first two, I wouldn't even bother, I would just use my head and try to get out of the situation as best I could. The third? You would probably be immobilized because you never saw it coming. Just do what you do best because you are ultimately going to revert to doing that anyways. That's the survival instinct for ya.


----------



## Zero (Jun 4, 2007)

I agree with Twendkata, the only time I go low is to get under someone to either do a sacrifice throw/flip or to pick them up to slam them to the ground - this is a good move if someone throws a sloppy kick - but never pre-empt to do this or you will loose your face!!

Mate, I would never drop into a wide, low stance in a street/defence (or in competition actually) situation (never should say never but there you go!) As others have said - you highlight you have some training or that you intend to defend/attack - you give up your 'wa' to the opponent/agressor. If someone comes in just smash them in the head with a fist or elbow and then get into fighting if this doesn't finish it. Once you're in a fight of any prolonged nature (does happen on the street at times) or in a ring match the favoured position for myself is much akin to a boxer's stance, but not so square on so I can effectively execute quick head kicks and powerful leg attacks - things not easy to effect when in a low stance.

On the street you never want to be on the ground and a low stance is already bringing you half way there for someone with a committed charge or with wresting experience.


----------



## chinto (Jul 1, 2007)

Robert Lee said:


> I read in 1 post That related to stance and ground type. This post was very correct. Stance in different styles deals with the type of ground you were fighting on many times. Low deep stance give good balance on uneven ground where high stance work well on more even ground. Then also stance in any fight can be ever changeing depend on the fight. You can drop to a lower stance and rise fast during a defence or offence motion. Skill trains this. Now most styles deal with several stances. You will find a key fighting postion You will primarly fight out of and the other postion/ stance are a moment in time. Then you remember that fighting leads to glapple and ground where things are agin much different. As most places here in the U S you would use a higher stance and few times a lower stance. You will find what works well for you But remember you can drop to a low stance then high stance in a blink of an eye During a fight motion. You just have to add the springing action to your movements.


 

yes I have to agree that there are diferent stances and hights for diferent reasons.  You may change your stance and hight depending on what you are doing and what the attacker is doing.  what I study teaches changing hights as part of the style and as a technique to help you do other things.


----------



## truth_seeker87 (Jul 14, 2007)

I believe stances are a bit relative in some cases. I don't agree with the super wide Zenkutsu-Dachis, but not the paper thin ones either. I think a good middle ground is good so you can properly use your feet as well as your hands in Tai Sabaki as well as throwing kicks and strikes. You can have it wide and deep or high and narrow, you just need to know why. Its always a good question


----------



## Karatedrifter7 (Jul 15, 2007)

I do know somebody that once got into a deep stance like that and he was a practioner of Isshinryu. This was at a bar and he knocked the guy on his *** when the guy tried to kick him in the balls. He said "He was crazy to go after me once I got into my stance," So yin and yang with that.
Dave


----------



## chinto (Jul 16, 2007)

Karatedrifter7 said:


> I do know somebody that once got into a deep stance like that and he was a practioner of Isshinryu. This was at a bar and he knocked the guy on his *** when the guy tried to kick him in the balls. He said "He was crazy to go after me once I got into my stance," So yin and yang with that.
> Dave


 

yep, well again its up to the individual. some people like to be deeper then others.  diferent stances and hights are there for diferent things. you have to use your training and also what has worked for you.


----------

