# The Proper Horse Stance?



## Ronin74

So it took me a while to ask this question because, quite frankly I couldn't figure out my Kenpo teacher's lineage for the longest time (other than his teacher.) It turned out to be William Chow.

In any case, I needed to be sure since it seems like some techniques may differ slighty, depending on who they were learned from. That said, what is the proper alignment/positioning for the horse stance? I recall it being low to the ground, but with the feet probably about 1-1/2 body with apart, and facing slightly outward. Is this correct?


----------



## MJS

Ronin74 said:


> So it took me a while to ask this question because, quite frankly I couldn't figure out my Kenpo teacher's lineage for the longest time (other than his teacher.) It turned out to be William Chow.
> 
> In any case, I needed to be sure since it seems like some techniques may differ slighty, depending on who they were learned from. That said, what is the proper alignment/positioning for the horse stance? I recall it being low to the ground, but with the feet probably about 1-1/2 body with apart, and facing slightly outward. Is this correct?


 

For myself, its usually a bit wider than shoulder length.  I've heard some use this method as a gauge: Stand with feet together.  Turn your heels out, then your toes, then heels again.  Bend at the knees and there ya go. 

Now, of course, I've seen deeper stances, so I guess it all depends.


----------



## Doc

Ronin74 said:


> So it took me a while to ask this question because, quite frankly I couldn't figure out my Kenpo teacher's lineage for the longest time (other than his teacher.) It turned out to be William Chow.
> 
> In any case, I needed to be sure since it seems like some techniques may differ slighty, depending on who they were learned from. That said, what is the proper alignment/positioning for the horse stance? I recall it being low to the ground, but with the feet probably about 1-1/2 body with apart, and facing slightly outward. Is this correct?



Depending upon your lineage, No.


----------



## Jade Tigress

MJS said:


> For myself, its usually a bit wider than shoulder length.  I've heard some use this method as a gauge: Stand with feet together.  Turn your heels out, then your toes, then heels again.  Bend at the knees and there ya go.
> 
> Now, of course, I've seen deeper stances, so I guess it all depends.



We use the same method for gageing proper distance. Though we are trained to keep our feet forward without any outward point.


----------



## Bill_Hunsicker

NCKKA traces the linage back to William Chow and we teach the following:

Width of the stance is dependant on the length of the persons legs but the 1 1/2 shoulder width is a normal starting place.
Feet facing forward.
Knees should be directly over the feet.
Knees pointed out to the right and left corners (about 45 degrees).
Depth is normaly taught starting with a 45 to 60 degree bend in the knees and adjusting as needed.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Doc

Bill_Hunsicker said:


> NCKKA traces the linage back to William Chow and we teach the following:
> 
> Width of the stance is dependant on the length of the persons legs but the 1 1/2 shoulder width is a normal starting place.
> Feet facing forward.
> Knees should be directly over the feet.
> Knees pointed out to the right and left corners (about 45 degrees).
> Depth is normaly taught starting with a 45 to 60 degree bend in the knees and adjusting as needed.
> 
> Hope that helps.



Ed Parker Lineage is different and traces to Hung Gar.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Pretty much text-book perfect: http://www.jameswingwoo.com/diagrams.html


----------



## punisher73

Doc said:


> Ed Parker Lineage is different and traces to Hung Gar.


 

How does the stance differ?  Is the link to james wing woo's site more in line with Ed Parker's vision of the stance?


----------



## Bill_Hunsicker

Doc said:


> Ed Parker Lineage is different and traces to Hung Gar.


 
Maybe I misrepresented what I meant.  NCKKA traces from Mr LaBounty, thru Mr. Parker back to William Chow.  I know my instructor also teaches Hung Gar forms and this has influenced our system, but I am unsure what you were referring to in your statement.  Are you refeering to the fact that Hung Gar played a part in the teachings that came back from China, thru Japan and thus to Mr Chow?

Respectfully,

Bill


----------



## DavidCC

Ed Parker studied under Ark Wong...


----------



## DavidCC

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> Pretty much text-book perfect: http://www.jameswingwoo.com/diagrams.html


 
I notice in this diagram it indicates rolling the bottom of the pelvis forward.  Doc, how does that effect the anatomical structure, and is that part of how you teach the stance?

-D


----------



## punisher73

DavidCC said:


> I notice in this diagram it indicates rolling the bottom of the pelvis forward. Doc, how does that effect the anatomical structure, and is that part of how you teach the stance?
> 
> -D


 
That was one of my questions, I left mine way too open about the differences.  The pelvic tilt was what I was wondering though. I have seen it both ways and people claim both ways as the 'best' method.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

punisher73 said:


> How does the stance differ? Is the link to james wing woo's site more in line with Ed Parker's vision of the stance?


 
In my own opinion, the pelvis is over-tucked. Backing off about "mental" 15% from either extreme will place you in a better "pelvic neutral" placement. 

For me, the pic is invaluable for the rotation of the feet, and knees. Most horses, either the feet are splayed, or the knees aren't bent enough. Or worse yet, they bend their knees, but fail to create the internal tension in the lower extremities by flaring them outwards, even withle the toes turn slighlty in (depending on point of reference on the foot...i.e., "which toe").

"Toes in, knees out, and sit down" was the chant I heard as a kid. The action will cause some automatic pelvic tuck, but prolly not as much as in Mr. Woos pic.

D.


----------



## Doc

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> Pretty much text-book perfect: http://www.jameswingwoo.com/diagrams.html



Actually this is incorrect. The placement of the feet belies the anatomical distinction in the foot being naturally curved inward and not straight as portrayed in the drawing. This, when the stance is performed correctly, will cause the feet to "appear" to be turned in when they are parallel. The drawing makes no such distinction.


----------



## Doc

DavidCC said:


> I notice in this diagram it indicates rolling the bottom of the pelvis forward.  Doc, how does that effect the anatomical structure, and is that part of how you teach the stance?
> 
> -D



The rolling of the pelvic is merely the result of having an erect posture, including a properly "indexed" head. Nothing more needs be done.


----------



## Ronin74

I thought this might be of interest, since it seems relevant. Here's an image I found on Ralph Castro's website, detailing some of the lineages in Kenpo. Unless I'm reading it wrong, I guess Castro and Parker could be contemporaris, in which case my lineage would branch off to Ralph Castro's side.

That said, I guess the way the horse stance would be taught from that line is how I would have learned it. MJS's sounded pretty close to what we did, but I just can't recall the proper alignment regarding the knees and the feet.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Doc said:


> Actually this is incorrect. The placement of the feet belies the anatomical distinction in the foot being naturally curved inward and not straight as portrayed in the drawing. This, when the stance is performed correctly, will cause the feet to "appear" to be turned in when they are parallel. The drawing makes no such distinction.


 
Hence, why I said...depending on which part of the foot is being referenced. Middle ray pointing to 12:00 will give the appearance of the first ray being internally rotated. But it's onlt illusion, with respect to alignment between the ankle mortise and talus.

D.


----------



## Doc

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> Hence, why I said...depending on which part of the foot is being referenced. Middle ray pointing to 12:00 will give the appearance of the first ray being internally rotated. But it's onlt illusion, with respect to alignment between the ankle mortise and talus.
> 
> D.



All this from a guy who won't answer his dam phone.


----------



## Bill_Hunsicker

DavidCC said:


> Ed Parker studied under Ark Wong...


 

I have not heard that before. My teachings were allways that Mr. Parker was taught by Prof Chow and he was taught by Dr Mitose. Do you have a link somewhere that shows that link in the chain?

Back on topic.


DavidCC said:


> I notice in this diagram it indicates rolling the bottom of the pelvis forward. Doc, how does that effect the anatomical structure, and is that part of how you teach the stance?


 
We teach the pevis tucked. This it to straighten the spine and help force the shoulders back and keep the head up.



Doc said:


> The rolling of the pelvic is merely the result of having an erect posture, including a properly "indexed" head. Nothing more needs be done.


 
Now that I am thinking more about this, it is possible that we only chant "Tuck the pelvis" at our students because they are failing to get the proper erect posture and this forces them into that.  Point well taken Doc.


----------



## punisher73

Bill_Hunsicker said:


> I have not heard that before. My teachings were allways that Mr. Parker was taught by Prof Chow and he was taught by Dr Mitose. Do you have a link somewhere that shows that link in the chain?
> 
> Back on topic.
> 
> 
> We teach the pevis tucked. This it to straighten the spine and help force the shoulders back and keep the head up.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that I am thinking more about this, it is possible that we only chant "Tuck the pelvis" at our students because they are failing to get the proper erect posture and this forces them into that. Point well taken Doc.


 
Prof. Chow was SGM Parker's kenpo instructor and that is really were he got his base material from.  After coming to the US and settling down in Pasadena he looked heavily into the CMA's and Ark Wong was one of those he studied with.  Also, the link posted by Kembudo-Kai Kempoka is actually from the person that helped Parker create many of the early forms.  If you click on the links Master Woo actually tells the story, but only refers to Parker as "an instructor from Pasadena" in reference to their work together including "Secrets of Chinese Karate".


----------



## Doc

Bill_Hunsicker said:


> I have not heard that before. My teachings were allways that Mr. Parker was taught by Prof Chow and he was taught by Dr Mitose. Do you have a link somewhere that shows that link in the chain?


Kwai Sun Chow was one of Parker's teachers. Chow was not taught by Mitose who also was neither a minister nor a doctor. Your information is an erroneous story repeated often and reinforced by splinter kenpo groups to bolster the Mitose Lineage.


> We teach the pevis tucked. This it to straighten the spine and help force the shoulders back and keep the head up.


"Tucking the pelvis" has the effect of "locking" the hip sockets and tightening the buttocks, but it does not straighten the spine. Proper placement of the feet, knees, and head, in conjunction with the proper weight distribution will cause the spine to straighten without the dramatic effects of "forced" postures.


> Now that I am thinking more about this, it is possible that we only chant "Tuck the pelvis" at our students because they are failing to get the proper erect posture and this forces them into that.  Point well taken Doc.


Who knows. There are so many often repeated myths associated with the arts that just get repeated over and over, because it's easier than having a real answer as the last line in my signature suggests sir.


----------



## DavidCC

Bill_Hunsicker said:


> I have not heard that before. My teachings were allways that Mr. Parker was taught by Prof Chow and he was taught by Dr Mitose. Do you have a link somewhere that shows that link in the chain?



No, but I know someone who was in Ark Wong's classes with Mr Parker at the time, I believed him when he pointed at a building once and said "that's where Ed Parker and I took classes form Ark Wong" ... BTW he is posting in this thread ... :angel:


----------



## Doc

DavidCC said:


> No, but I know someone who was in Ark Wong's classes with Mr Parker at the time, I believed him when he pointed at a building once and said "that's where Ed Parker and I took classes form Ark Wong" ... BTW he is posting in this thread ... :angel:



Correct. 302 Ord Street in L.A. Chinatown. Around the corner from "Won Kok," the Chinese Restaurant where Parker and some of the gang would hang out. Also a few blocks from Bruce Lee's School on College St. However Mr. Parker and I were not there at the same time. He was much older than I. I was around when Huamea "Tiny" Lefiti was around though.


----------



## seasoned

Doc said:


> The rolling of the pelvic is merely the result of having an erect posture, including a properly "indexed" head. Nothing more needs be done.


Doc, are you saying that with proper structure body alignment along with a relaxed pelvic area that the hips will naturally tuck under.


----------



## Doc

seasoned said:


> Doc, are you saying that with proper structure body alignment along with a relaxed pelvic area that the hips will naturally tuck under.



What I am saying is, "When all of the postural elements are as they should be, there is no need to project an undo amount of attention on the pelvic area. It will naturally be correct." sir.


----------



## Flying Crane

Doc said:


> Chow was not taught by Mitose who also was neither a minister nor a doctor. Your information is an erroneous story repeated often and reinforced by splinter kenpo groups to bolster the Mitose Lineage.


 
Who do you believe was Mr. Chow's teacher(s), and what was he taught by this person/people?


----------



## Doc

Flying Crane said:


> Who do you believe was Mr. Chow's teacher(s), and what was he taught by this person/people?



According to Mr. Parker, Chow was taught by his Father and Henry Okazaki, as well as others he came in contact with. While some have generated considerable controversy surrounding Kwai Sun Chow's teachers, no one has ever suggested he was anything other than a tremendous fighter and a highly skilled practitioner standing up, or on the ground.


----------



## Flying Crane

Doc said:


> According to Mr. Parker, Chow was taught by his Father and Henry Okazaki, as well as others he came in contact with. While some have generated considerable controversy surrounding Kwai Sun Chow's teachers, no one has ever suggested he was anything other than a tremendous fighter and a highly skilled practitioner standing up, or on the ground.


 
I am familiar with Okazaki and Danzan Ryu jujitsu, and I've seen some self defense techniques in Danzan ryu that are very similar to those found in kenpo.  I understand that the Danzan Ryu crowd in Hawaii knew a lot of the kenpo people so I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Chow had a background of some sort in this.

I've also heard claim of Mr. Chow learning "something" from his father, but I've never seen a clear indication of any truth in that, nor what it would have been that his father taught him.  Any ideas on what that would have been, and any substantiation of that?

Seems I've also seen photos online of James Mitose's class, with Mr. Chow lined up among the students or assistant teachers or something.  I'll have to see if I can figure out where I saw that...


----------



## Doc

Flying Crane said:


> I am familiar with Okazaki and Danzan Ryu jujitsu, and I've seen some self defense techniques in Danzan ryu that are very similar to those found in kenpo.  I understand that the Danzan Ryu crowd in Hawaii knew a lot of the kenpo people so I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Chow had a background of some sort in this.
> 
> I've also heard claim of Mr. Chow learning "something" from his father, but I've never seen a clear indication of any truth in that, nor what it would have been that his father taught him.  Any ideas on what that would have been, and any substantiation of that?
> 
> Seems I've also seen photos online of James Mitose's class, with Mr. Chow lined up among the students or assistant teachers or something.  I'll have to see if I can figure out where I saw that...



I've see photos of classes lined up, but never participation. Most have figured out that Mitose was using Chow to build his own creds as he did with others, and Chow said the same. At best they were short term collaborators, while Chow often boasted that Mitose messed over so many people that he needed "bodyguards," but Chow himself said, "Mitose need bodyguards, I don't need bodyguards, I beat up Mitose's bodyguards."

Mitose never ever displayed anything that resembled significant training, and Mr. Parker often said, "Mitose had nothing." He was a con man, among other things, and that has significant proof.


----------



## Flying Crane

Why would Mr. Chow use the name "kenpo" to describe what he was doing, if his background was Danzan Ryu and something else from his father? Do you know what is father taught him?

I've heard it said that his father was a hung gar man, but I find that hard to believe. Admittedly my own knowledge and experience with traditional hung gar is very limited and superficial, but nothing of the standard kenpo material that I've seen in Tracys and other lineages of kenpo looks even remotely like hung gar. Granted, in Tracys we've got a version of Fu/Hok, but that's openly acknowledged as something brought into the system from an outside source. And even that has  been thoroughly "kenpoized" and has a fairly different flavor from the traditional hung gar method.  Nobody pretends that it was handed down thru Mr. Chow. If Mr. Chow's lineage was hung gar, I would expect to see the traditional hung gar forms in the system, as well as a much stronger hung gar flavor all around.


----------



## still learning

Hello, The HORSE stance is just a training position to develop the body...it is also can be use from one movement to another...

NO one fights in a Horse stance....Do you see professioal Boxes, Kick Boxers, JUDO, or mix martial artist fight this way in the rings? or streets? using the horse stances? as their main techinques?

Wrestlers have a low ground stance that looks like a horse stance....because making your body lower helps from preventing been thrown or taken down....MY daughter wrestles in High School.

Just view Horse stances as a training position..and do it the way YOUR teacher wants you to do it!

Do Cowboys love the horse stances?

Stay in a horse stance? your legs will get kick all the time!

Aloha, Mules stance could be consider the same thing?

PS: most kempo/ kenpo schools teach you to fight like a boxers style - more up right- for mobility


----------



## Flying Crane

still learning said:


> NO one fights in a Horse stance....Do you see professioal Boxes, Kick Boxers, JUDO, or mix martial artist fight this way in the rings? or streets? using the horse stances? as their main techinques?


 
um, WE use the horse stance all the time, as a fighting base. 



> Stay in a horse stance? your legs will get kick all the time!


 
no...



> PS: most kempo/ kenpo schools teach you to fight like a boxers style - more up right- for mobility


 
again, no.


----------



## seasoned

Doc said:


> What I am saying is, "When all of the postural elements are as they should be, there is no need to project an undo amount of attention on the pelvic area. *It will naturally be correct*." sir.


My sentiments exactly.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

For whatever it's worth, I'm a notorious "find the old guys, buy them dinner, and get them talking" fan of old kenpo tales...love the history, and prefer to get it form the horses mouths whenever I can. From more than one Chow lineage guy who has trained with him, Chow was taught kung-fu by his father (I'll press for specifics next time I see one of the guys). He and his half-brother (Chow-Hoon) were often the enforcers of their fathers will for debt and loan issues, so he got a lot of practical experience from early on collecting for his pops. 

He got a form or so from Mitose, but tended to ditch them, preferring to train short, quick combinations...an influence seen today in the systems of his students: SD Techs in Parker system and it's offshoots, Punch Counters and such from kaju. He used numbers instead of names ("Number 22"), and would just train the hell out of them. Strictly, and very hard. Kung-fu, karate, and boxing entries, jujutsu takedowns and finishes, combined with more hitting the guy while he was downed. An approach of his own making, born out of his training and back-alley experiences.

D.


----------



## Doc

Bill_Hunsicker said:


> Maybe I misrepresented what I meant.  NCKKA traces from Mr LaBounty, thru Mr. Parker back to William Chow.  I know my instructor also teaches Hung Gar forms and this has influenced our system, but I am unsure what you were referring to in your statement.  Are you refeering to the fact that Hung Gar played a part in the teachings that came back from China, thru Japan and thus to Mr Chow?
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> Bill



There is no "Japanese" connection, other than those that resided in Hawaii.


----------



## seasoned

still learning said:


> Hello, The HORSE stance is just a training position to develop the body...*it is also can be use from one movement to another...*
> 
> NO one fights in a Horse stance....Do you see professioal Boxes, Kick Boxers, JUDO, or mix martial artist fight this way in the rings? or streets? using the horse stances? as their main techinques?
> 
> *Wrestlers have a low ground stance that looks like a horse stance....because making your body lower helps from preventing been thrown or taken down....MY daughter wrestles in High School.*
> 
> Just view Horse stances as a training position..and do it the way YOUR teacher wants you to do it!
> 
> Do Cowboys love the horse stances?
> 
> Stay in a horse stance? your legs will get kick all the time!
> 
> Aloha, Mules stance could be consider the same thing?
> 
> PS: most kempo/ kenpo schools teach you to fight like a boxers style - more up right- for mobility


Kiba Dachi Horse Stance, Shiko Dachi Sumo Stance are seen in many of the kata of Okinawan GoJu, which is a close quarter fighting art. Not used as much for sparring, but still effective. They are used more for close in fighting.


----------



## still learning

Hello, I know saying "No one fights in a Horse Stance" was going to create some reactions...

Most martial arts teaches you the horse stances from the beginning to forever...

Many of us have been program to believe certain concepts of our training...like the horse stances....is vital

Many of us would like to see more Science Studies done on many parts of the martial arts....like Kata's, horse stances, use of punching bags, etc...

Real, unbias ,Human studies ...what are the best training methods (modern) for today human beings.

Police,FBI,military (around the world)....including us....trying to finding the best training methods...

The future will change alot of old concepts or maybe re-enforce them!

Ever golf in the horse stance?

Aloha,  ( I must be from some place else?)


----------



## Doc

still learning said:


> Hello, I know saying "No one fights in a Horse Stance" was going to create some reactions...
> 
> Most martial arts teaches you the horse stances from the beginning to forever...
> 
> Many of us have been program to believe certain concepts of our training...like the horse stances....is vital
> 
> Many of us would like to see more Science Studies done on many parts of the martial arts....like Kata's, horse stances, use of punching bags, etc...
> 
> Real, unbias ,Human studies ...what are the best training methods (modern) for today human beings.
> 
> Police,FBI,military (around the world)....including us....trying to finding the best training methods...
> 
> The future will change alot of old concepts or maybe re-enforce them!
> 
> Ever golf in the horse stance?
> 
> Aloha,  ( I must be from some place else?)



Actually sir, a Horse Stance may not be the preferred method to begin a confrontation for obvious reasons, but that does not mean it is not used in and during an encounter.


----------



## seasoned

still learning said:


> Ever golf in the horse stance?
> Aloha, ( I must be from some place else?)


 
Cant say that I have, but there are two ways to place the ball on the tee. Conventional way, bend over, or horse stance, gets you close to the ground while still balanced. Hitting the ball is long range requiring close stance while placing the ball on the tee is close in, requiring wider stance to mantain "balance". 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 *it is also can be use from one movement to another*
*Wrestlers have a low ground stance that looks like a horse stance....because making your body lower helps from preventing been thrown or taken down....MY daughter wrestles in High School.*
The above are your words, looks like fighting to me. :asian:


----------



## Bill_Hunsicker

still learning said:


> Ever golf in the horse stance?


 
Yes actually, I have.  When I was first learning to golf the way my father was teaching me didnt really make sense to me.  So for the first game (which I insisted on doing before dad said I was ready), I used the horse stance (slightly modified to be a bit higher) to gain the stability of the lower body so that piviting my upper body did not pull me off line.  While I lost TONS of distance doing this (read only around 150 yards for most clubs), I was able to control the ball and keep it in the fairway or first rough.

As far as using the horse stance in a real situation, there are times when it is the right thing to do.  We teach standard sparing using the neutral bow which is a variation of the horse stance.  Additionally, if I find myself in a situation where I need immediate stability, I might switch to a horse stance and then on into whatever is needed next.


----------



## punisher73

still learning said:


> Hello, The HORSE stance is just a training position to develop the body...it is also can be use from one movement to another...
> 
> NO one fights in a Horse stance....Do you see professioal Boxes, Kick Boxers, JUDO, or mix martial artist fight this way in the rings? or streets? using the horse stances? as their main techinques?
> 
> Wrestlers have a low ground stance that looks like a horse stance....because making your body lower helps from preventing been thrown or taken down....MY daughter wrestles in High School.
> 
> Just view Horse stances as a training position..and do it the way YOUR teacher wants you to do it!
> 
> Do Cowboys love the horse stances?
> 
> Stay in a horse stance? your legs will get kick all the time!
> 
> Aloha, Mules stance could be consider the same thing?
> 
> PS: most kempo/ kenpo schools teach you to fight like a boxers style - more up right- for mobility


 
Yes, I see boxers use the horse stance all the time.  Again, do not misunderstand 'stance training' and working basics from a stance to develop it as fighting that way.  Here is a picture of a boxer using a "horse stance"  You will see them use it all the time to get lower under a punch or while in close for power.






Here is an example of a TRAINING horse stance





here is a picture with SGM Parker posing in a horse stance with Elvis, notice the difference between the actual stance and how people like to elaborate it and turn it into something else.





Yes, grappling styles use a version of the horse stance as well because it lowers the center of gravity to help initiate throws and counter them as well.

There are many uses for a horse stance and there is a time and place for it's use as well.  Understanding the use of stances is one of the key areas in learning to defend yourself.


----------



## Flying Crane

Doc said:


> I've see photos of classes lined up, but never participation. Most have figured out that Mitose was using Chow to build his own creds as he did with others, and Chow said the same.


 
I don't find the lack of classtime photos very compelling; one would be hard pressed to find such a photo of myself with any of my teachers, some of whom I've been with for over a decade.  There are certainly photos with me and my teachers, and in groups and stuff, but not much would come up of actual classtime or training time, even with the modern digital cameras that make it easy to satisfy that instant gratification photo fix.  One could make the accusation that I was simply trying to pad my credentials by setting up opportunities to be photographed with these men who I claim to be my teachers, but it simply wouldn't be true.  We just aren't in the habit of documenting training time thru photos or video.  It just doesn't happen among the teachers and groups I train with.  So I guess the fact that training photos with Mr. Chow and Mr. Mitose don't seem to be in existence isn't something that I find to be unusual, especially for that period in history.




> Mitose never ever displayed anything that resembled significant training,


 
I've heard others say the opposite.



> and Mr. Parker often said, "Mitose had nothing." He was a con man, among other things, and that has significant proof.


 
I don't think anyone disputes Mr. Mitose's legal and criminal troubles.  But that doesn't automatically mean that he never taught Mr. Chow.

I've read the Blackbelt Magazine interview with Mr. Chow from a few years ago.  I know that's been discussed here before and a lot of people weren't real happy with it for various reasons.  But in some ways that interview shed some light on Mr. Chow's personality.  

From that interview, it seemed that Mr. Chow held on to some bitterness from the past.  Whether he was like this throughout his life is something that I obviously don't know.  But from that interview it seems like he certainly had that potential.  He said some pretty derogatory things about Mr. Parker, indicating that Mr. Parker was never very good and didn't learn much, and he left Mr. Chow as a "purple" belt.  This is obviously not true, as purple belt didn't even exist at that time.  But the spirit of the comment is also suspect, as the comment was meant to cast doubt upon Mr. Parker's knowledge and abilities.  It looks like Mr. Chow was still bitter over the success that Mr. Parker had, while he himself still resided in relative obscurity.  So Mr. Chow's comments about Mr. Parker need to be taken with a grain of salt.

I think it's possible that Mr. Chow's comments about Mr. Mitose may also need to be taken with the same grain of salt.  Perhaps Mr. Chow became embarrassed by Mr. Mitose's actions, pushing his religious activities, his questionable business activities, and his ultimate criminal problems.  Given the personality that Mr. Chow exhibited in that interview, I could certainly see him taking steps to distance himself from Mr. Mitose, and downplaying and minimizing whatever relationship they may have had.  The most obvious way to do this would be to deny ever being Mr. Mitose's student, and instead choosing to emphasize relationships he may have had with other teachers.  Just because Mr. Chow made statements that he wasn't Mitose's student, doesn't mean it's true.  After all, Mr. Chow also stated that Mr. Parker learned very little and was only a "purple" belt.  Should we take that as truth?

Having read the Blackbelt interview, I guess I simply take any statements that Mr. Chow may have made about other people with a little salt.



Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> For whatever it's worth, I'm a notorious "find the old guys, buy them dinner, and get them talking" fan of old kenpo tales...love the history, and prefer to get it form the horses mouths whenever I can. From more than one Chow lineage guy who has trained with him, Chow was taught kung-fu by his father (I'll press for specifics next time I see one of the guys). He and his half-brother (Chow-Hoon) were often the enforcers of their fathers will for debt and loan issues, so he got a lot of practical experience from early on collecting for his pops.
> 
> He got a form or so from Mitose, but tended to ditch them, preferring to train short, quick combinations...an influence seen today in the systems of his students: SD Techs in Parker system and it's offshoots, Punch Counters and such from kaju. He used numbers instead of names ("Number 22"), and would just train the hell out of them. Strictly, and very hard. Kung-fu, karate, and boxing entries, jujutsu takedowns and finishes, combined with more hitting the guy while he was downed. An approach of his own making, born out of his training and back-alley experiences.
> 
> D.


 
I would certainly be interested in hearing any further details you might uncover as to the specific system he may have learned from his father.

It seems to me that in the Chinese culture, a family art is something held dear and is seen to be very important.  If his father taught him a method, that would have remained a strong influence in what he did and what he taught.  It's not likely it would have been tossed aside for something else.  So if his father was a kungfu guy and he passed in on to William, I would expect that William would have maintained that method on some recognizable level even if he innovated his own approach to training.  

And again, why would he have settled on the term "kenpo" to describe what he did if it was a mix of kungfu and Danzan Ryu jujitsu?


----------



## searcher

I just re-read Mr. Parker's 2nd Infinite Insights book and he saidit should be just wider than shoulder width.   I suggest you read the entire series.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

searcher said:


> I just re-read Mr. Parker's 2nd Infinite Insights book and he saidit should be just wider than shoulder width. I suggest you read the entire series.


 
No idea who that's aimed at, but there's some outright comedy in the statement if it's targeted at Doc...who's in it, and helped type up and organize the content.

But you are effectively correct in noticing the relationship. Notice in the Elvis Picture...Elvis is down in a deep side-fighting horse. Mr. Parker is higher up in his stance. Deep horses look cool, but kill mobility. 

By the way, if'n you need to make 200-300 bucks, put your copy of II #2 on e-bay; they are currently out of print, and in high demand.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Flying Crane said:


> I would certainly be interested in hearing any further details you might uncover as to the specific system he may have learned from his father.
> 
> It seems to me that in the Chinese culture, a family art is something held dear and is seen to be very important. If his father taught him a method, that would have remained a strong influence in what he did and what he taught. It's not likely it would have been tossed aside for something else. So if his father was a kungfu guy and he passed in on to William, I would expect that William would have maintained that method on some recognizable level even if he innovated his own approach to training.
> 
> And again, why would he have settled on the term "kenpo" to describe what he did if it was a mix of kungfu and Danzan Ryu jujitsu?


 
Trying to find some like-minded, kenpo/kempo-based eclectic polynesian martial artists is a bit of a challenge. Found some up here in Nor Cal, one of whom was a student of Chows in the islands, and is the inheritor of one of his direct lineages, from Chow's brother. Super nice, very mellow man. I see him at organization metings for quarterly business; I'll ask when I see him.

BTW...tell Mr. S to heal.


----------



## searcher

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> No idea who that's aimed at, but there's some outright comedy in the statement if it's targeted at Doc...who's in it, and helped type up and organize the content.
> 
> But you are effectively correct in noticing the relationship. Notice in the Elvis Picture...Elvis is down in a deep side-fighting horse. Mr. Parker is higher up in his stance. Deep horses look cool, but kill mobility.
> 
> By the way, if'n you need to make 200-300 bucks, put your copy of II #2 on e-bay; they are currently out of print, and in high demand.


 

I was never directing it to Doc nor would I EVER.


And I stress EVER, no NEVER would I question Doc.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

searcher said:


> I was never directing it to Doc nor would I EVER.
> 
> 
> And I stress EVER, no NEVER would I question Doc.


 
Yeah...questioning Doc is ground for carefully treading. If you don't make inquiries, he figgers you're dense, lost, or a clingon without a brain. But when he takes a stance on something, it's cuz he can show you. In, like, a minute. And if you're lucky, it hurts.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> Trying to find some like-minded, kenpo/kempo-based eclectic polynesian martial artists is a bit of a challenge. Found some up here in Nor Cal, one of whom was a student of Chows in the islands, and is the inheritor of one of his direct lineages, from Chow's brother. Super nice, very mellow man. I see him at organization metings for quarterly business; I'll ask when I see him.


 
Thanks Dave, I'd appreciate hearing what you find out.



> BTW...tell Mr. S to heal.


 
Not sure what yer saying here?


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Flying Crane said:


> Not sure what yer saying here?


 
Mr. Sumner posted on his San Jose site that he's down with pneumonia.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> Mr. Sumner posted on his San Jose site that he's down with pneumonia.


 

Ah, yes it's true.  I only found out on Tuesday when he wasn't in class.  pneumonia's a real bummer.

I suspect he was sick as far back as last Thursday when he also wasn't in class, altho I wasn't told why.  I actually ended up teaching class that night as our Godan also was unable to be in class and the other Shodans in attendance asked me to do the honors.

I'll let him know you wish him well.  Thanks.


----------



## Doc

searcher said:


> I just re-read Mr. Parker's 2nd Infinite Insights book and he saidit should be just wider than shoulder width.   I suggest you read the entire series.



Infinite Insight is not correct, or even what he taught everyone. Keep in mind the books were written with very broad strokes to appeal to everyone in the arts. Lots of ideas, but very few specifics, and even some of the specifics are either off, or have been misinterpreted sir. Cool.


----------



## Doc

searcher said:


> I was never directing it to Doc nor would I EVER.
> 
> 
> And I stress EVER, no NEVER would I question Doc.



You're supposed to question EVERYBODY, and make sure they have dam good answers sir.


----------



## Ronin74

Ronin74 said:


> In any case, I needed to be sure since it seems like some techniques may differ slighty, depending on who they were learned from. That said, what is the proper alignment/positioning for the horse stance? I recall it being low to the ground, but with the feet probably about 1-1/2 body with apart, and facing slightly outward. Is this correct?


Wow. Maybe I should elaborate more on my question.

The reason I was asking was STRICTLY for training purposes. Personally, I don't fight from a horse stance. However, the leg conditioning it provided was incredibly beneficial to me. When I first did Kenpo, the rate at which my legs were strengthened got me to the point where my kicking was as versatile as my punching.

We had kicking sets we did from a horse stance, and that helped lay a good foundation for me in regards to leg work. Do I fight with it? No. If it matters, I train self-defense techniques from neutral positions, such as standing or sitting, and fighting (sparring) from a boxer's stance, with a few modifcations here and there.

The reason I mentioned lineage was because we had a few other people who came through the school who had done Kenpo elsewhere, and there were always these slight differences that were usually attributed to their prior instructors. It's not to say they were wrong, but sometimes, things change where it branches off, and I was looking for something close to how I was trained.

So far, I'm trying it with my legs a little more than shoulder's width apart, and my spine in neutral alignment. It feels comfortable, but right now, I'm just trying to get used to staying in it for a good period of time.


----------



## Matt

searcher said:


> I was never directing it to Doc nor would I EVER.
> 
> 
> And I stress EVER, no NEVER would I question Doc.



I absolutely would. If he has half the knowledge that he presents to have here, he should have some outstanding answers, and would relish clarifying to an earnestly interested party if it was a well considered question. 

I love when my students question me - if they do not, then they aren't thinking.


----------



## kidswarrior

Doc said:


> Actually sir, a Horse Stance may not be the preferred method to begin a confrontation for obvious reasons, but that does not mean it is not used in and during an encounter.


Doc, why can you always say something -- and well -- before I can even fully formulate the thought? :duh: It gets annoying.


----------



## Doc

kidswarrior said:


> Doc, why can you always say something -- and well -- before I can even fully formulate the thought? :duh: It gets annoying.



Sorry sir. I had a teacher that forced me to do that often and quickly.


----------



## Danjo

Doc said:


> I've see photos of classes lined up, but never participation. Most have figured out that Mitose was using Chow to build his own creds as he did with others, and Chow said the same. At best they were short term collaborators, while Chow often boasted that Mitose messed over so many people that he needed "bodyguards," but Chow himself said, "Mitose need bodyguards, I don't need bodyguards, I beat up Mitose's bodyguards."
> 
> Mitose never ever displayed anything that resembled significant training, and Mr. Parker often said, "Mitose had nothing." He was a con man, among other things, and that has significant proof.


 
Here is what Chow told Sijo Emperado: _"Hey Bruddah, Prof. Mitose just promoted me to tenth degree, So I'm promoting you to fifth degree"_ 

According to Sijo Chow _was_ Mitose's student. At least in name. 

What Chow said of Mitose's ability? He was once asked what he had learned from Mitose and his response was,_ "Kinny garden stuff."_

Chow also took Emperado to Mitose to get his teaching certification. But from what both of them said, Mitose taught very hard style basic stuff that had no flow to it.


----------



## Doc

Danjo said:


> Here is what Chow told Sijo Emperado: _"Hey Bruddah, Prof. Mitose just promoted me to tenth degree, So I'm promoting you to fifth degree"_
> 
> According to Sijo Chow _was_ Mitose's student. At least in name.
> 
> What Chow said of Mitose's ability? He was once asked what he had learned from Mitose and his response was,_ "Kinny garden stuff."_
> 
> Chow also took Emperado to Mitose to get his teaching certification. But from what both of them said, Mitose taught very hard style basic stuff that had no flow to it.


Seems like the more things change, the more they stay the same. It was clearly a symbiotic relationship. Chow couldn't read or write and was not very articulate, so Mitose was the mouthpiece. Mitose was articulate, and slick as flu snot. Chow used him to handle things and business he could not, and in turn Mitose got to claim Chow as a student. Neither I or anyone else I know that saw Mitose in action considered him to be either knowledgeable or especially physically capable. Pathetic would be kind.


----------



## K-man

seasoned said:


> Kiba Dachi Horse Stance, Shiko Dachi Sumo Stance are seen in many of the kata of Okinawan GoJu, which is a close quarter fighting art. Not used as much for sparring, but still effective. They are used more for close in fighting.


 
These two stances are often confused, or at least the names are. 'Kiba Dachi' or Uchi Hachi Dachi has the feet facing forward as in the diagram in a previous post. Shiko Dachi has the feet facing out and the knees pushed out and is much lower. 





This picture posted by *punisher73* is more like Shiko Dachi as the feet are pointing outwards. Also, it is much wider than the normal 2 shoulder widths. This stance is closer to three. The other photos are impossible to judge as you can't see the direction of the feet.
I use Shiko dachi from time to time but rarely Kiba Dachi.


----------



## BonnieBot

I'm brand new to karate and am wondering about the feet forward. It feels unnatural to me. How long does it take for this to go away?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

BonnieBot said:


> I'm brand new to karate and am wondering about the feet forward. It feels unnatural to me. How long does it take for this to go away?


What do you mean "feet forward"?

Usually if your body goes toward one extreme, you may need to push your body to the other extreme so your body will come back to the center.

For example, if you have this problem:







You will need to do more of this:


----------



## BonnieBot

lol Thanks for the visuals. "Feet forward" as in at a 45° angle. I "naturally" want to have them facing outward a tad. I get what you're saying though, so I'll just keep practicing and look forward to it feeling natural!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

BonnieBot said:


> "Feet forward" as in at a 45° angle. I "naturally" want to have them facing outward a tad.


If you walk with feet inward at a 45 degree angle for a period of time, you may be able to fix it.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Doc said:


> Actually this is incorrect. The placement of the feet belies the anatomical distinction in the foot being naturally curved inward and not straight as portrayed in the drawing. This, when the stance is performed correctly, will cause the feet to "appear" to be turned in when they are parallel. The drawing makes no such distinction.


Are you saying that Sifu Woo did not have a correct horse stance?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

punisher73 said:


> Prof. Chow was SGM Parker's kenpo instructor and that is really were he got his base material from.  After coming to the US and settling down in Pasadena he looked heavily into the CMA's and Ark Wong was one of those he studied with.  Also, the link posted by Kembudo-Kai Kempoka is actually from the person that helped Parker create many of the early forms.  If you click on the links Master Woo actually tells the story, but only refers to Parker as "an instructor from Pasadena" in reference to their work together including "Secrets of Chinese Karate".


That is because Sifu Woo and EP had a falling out over a book deal.


----------



## wolfeyes2323

Ronin74 said:


> So it took me a while to ask this question because, quite frankly I couldn't figure out my Kenpo teacher's lineage for the longest time (other than his teacher.) It turned out to be William Chow.
> 
> In any case, I needed to be sure since it seems like some techniques may differ slighty, depending on who they were learned from. That said, what is the proper alignment/positioning for the horse stance? I recall it being low to the ground, but with the feet probably about 1-1/2 body with apart, and facing slightly outward. Is this correct?


As far as I understand, No , that is not correct.     actually the stance you describe , has several names in Okinawan karate,   Shiko-dachi (usually low stance ),  Soto-hachi-ji-dachi (a little higher with feet a bit closer together),   in both cases the back is allowed to arch naturally and is aligned but not straight.  A horse stance is Kiba-dachi   the feet are straight forward,  the back is straightened by un-tilting the pelvis.   This kiba-dachi is the stance most often used kata like Naihanchi/tekki   while Shiko dachi is most often used in kata of Goju-ryu, and Shorin-ryu (other than naihanchi),  Shikodachi is often most used in Kobudo.    Most styles of Kung fu however use  a horse stance , or what the Okinawans would call Kiba-dachi (straight feet and back)


----------



## Doc

wolfeyes2323 said:


> As far as I understand, No , that is not correct.     actually the stance you describe , has several names in Okinawan karate,   Shiko-dachi (usually low stance ),  Soto-hachi-ji-dachi (a little higher with feet a bit closer together),   in both cases the back is allowed to arch naturally and is aligned but not straight.  A horse stance is Kiba-dachi   the feet are straight forward,  the back is straightened by un-tilting the pelvis.   This kiba-dachi is the stance most often used kata like Naihanchi/tekki   while Shiko dachi is most often used in kata of Goju-ryu, and Shorin-ryu (other than naihanchi),  Shikodachi is often most used in Kobudo.    Most styles of Kung fu however use  a horse stance , or what the Okinawans would call Kiba-dachi (straight feet and back)


You are absolutely correct sir. What many call a horse stance is more akin to a "sumo" stance or some variance. The problem with defining a "Horse Stance" from the Chinese perspective as well as any other is in anatomically defining what it means to have your feet "straight" or parallel. For the purposes of a horse stance, anatomically the feet are naturally curved so relatively speaking only the outside of the foot can be used as a measure and perspective. The stance requires this perspective in order to be anatomically sound, efficient, and to support upper body strength and Marriage of Platforms.


----------



## Doc

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Are you saying that Sifu Woo did not have a correct horse stance?


I don't believe I made mention of anyone in particular in my answer. I was speaking of a horse stance and its correct posture.


----------



## geezer

Doc said:


> I don't believe I made mention of anyone in particular in my answer. I was speaking of a horse stance and its correct posture.


In the first martial art I trained (essentially a style of Kempo) we were also taught that a proper horse stance should have _the outsides of the feet parallel and pointing forward. _

This was physically impossible for me since I have a congenital bone fusion in both ankles, severely reducing range of movement in the foot and locking my feet in a splayed out or "duck-footed" position like Charlie Chaplin. When I squat down into a deep horse, my feet point outward. If I try to twist them to point forward that causes severe torque on my knees.  So after a lot of failed effort, I finally settled on the splay footed "sumo" stance you describe. 

A few years later in '79, I took up Wing Chun and have pursued it ever since. Ironically, I had less trouble with the pigeon-toed Wing Chun stance since the knees rotate inwards with the feet. So, I was able to compensate by working on rotational flexibility in the hips. However, when I do the  Wing Chun Long Pole, which requires a deep horse, I have to bastardize the stance and revert to my old "sumo" stance. 

Still, in the WC pole form, or even occasionally practicing old Kempo techiques I seem to be stable and generate good power from this modified "sumo" horse. 

So my question is _why_, other than for _esthetic_ reasons, is the traditional stance with forward-pointing feet so emphasized in some arts? Is there really any functional reason? What is the Kempo perspective on this?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> So my question is _why_, other than for _esthetic_ reasons, is the traditional stance with forward-pointing feet so emphasized in some arts? Is there really any functional reason? What is the Kempo perspective on this?


When you bend your legs and then straight your legs, your body will move toward the direction that your feet are point to. If your use

1. Outward horse (such as the Sumo stance) - left foot point to NW and right foot point NE,
1. Inward horse (such as the WC stance) - left foot point to NE and right foot point NW,

when your straight your legs, your body will move toward N, but pressure will be put on both of your knees. In the long run, this will damage your knee joints.

If you use either Sumo stance or WC stance to drill your hip throw, you will definitely destroy your both knee joints.

This is one example of bad stance. It's not clear which direction that he wants his power to generate into.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you bend your legs and then straight your legs, your body will move toward the direction that your feet are point to. If your use
> 
> 1. Outward horse (such as the Sumo stance) - left foot point to NW and right foot point NE,
> 1. Inward horse (such as the WC stance) - left foot point to NE and right foot point NW,
> 
> when your straight your legs, your body will move toward N, but pressure will be put on both of your knees. In the long run, this will damage your knee joints.
> 
> If you use either Sumo stance or WC stance to drill your hip throw, you will definitely destroy your both knee joints.
> 
> This is one example of bad stance. It's not clear which direction that he wants his power to generate into.
> 
> View attachment 27367


This is only true if your feet naturally point the same direction as your knees. Most people's do. Mine do _*not. *_And while my particular condition is uncommon, being "duck footed" or "splay-footed" is not uncommon. For people with this structure, your "rule" does not apply, and in fact can damage the knees!

Yet I had one instructor who stubbornly insisted that the the human foot _always_ aligns with the direction of the knee and tried to force me into the traditional stance, nearly wrecking my knee joint. When I showed him my problem and explained my medical history, he insisted that I was the one being stubborn.

I came to the conclusion that while he was a great practitioner, he was a crappy teacher or coach _for me_. I respectfully stopped training with him. A shame really. But your health must come first.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Doc said:


> I don't believe I made mention of anyone in particular in my answer. I was speaking of a horse stance and its correct posture.


Sorry, text never sounds the same spoken aloud. I meant to imply my question in regard to that particular picture diagram to which you were referring, respectfully.


----------



## _Simon_

geezer said:


> This is only true if your feet naturally point the same direction as your knees. Most people's do. Mine do _*not. *_And while my particular condition is uncommon, being "duck footed" or "splay-footed" is not uncommon. For people with this structure, your "rule" does not apply, and in fact can damage the knees!
> 
> Yet I had one instructor who stubbornly insisted that the the human foot _always_ aligns with the direction of the knee and tried to force me into the traditional stance, nearly wrecking my knee joint. When I showed him my problem and explained my medical history, he insisted that I was the one being stubborn.
> 
> I came to the conclusion that while he was a great practitioner, he was a crappy teacher or coach _for me_. I respectfully stopped training with him. A shame really. But your health must come first.


Yep I've heard that advice too, that the knee should aaaaaalways travel in the direction that the foot is pointing, but as I've said before my feet are the same as yours. I never knew how to tackle that, but generally angle my feet out slightly.

To me it's less about the feet to be focused on, but that the knees aren't caving in. Knees can still be "inside" or under the body with the feet outside the knees, but as long as they are aligned, and with no excess pressure on the medial aspect of the knee.

Like Sanchin dachi (3-point stance) isn't so much about the angle of the feet or the knee as it is about the slight internal rotation of the front hip, and feeling the strength of that structure. We were always taught to really bend the knees inwards, but I don't think that's really the idea or the focus...


----------



## Doc

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you bend your legs and then straight your legs, your body will move toward the direction that your feet are point to. If your use
> 
> 1. Outward horse (such as the Sumo stance) - left foot point to NW and right foot point NE,
> 1. Inward horse (such as the WC stance) - left foot point to NE and right foot point NW,
> 
> when your straight your legs, your body will move toward N, but pressure will be put on both of your knees. In the long run, this will damage your knee joints.
> 
> If you use either Sumo stance or WC stance to drill your hip throw, you will definitely destroy your both knee joints.
> 
> This is one example of bad stance. It's not clear which direction that he wants his power to generate into.
> 
> View attachment 27367


 The pictured posture is not incorrect. It is perfectly fine when you understand Martial Posture.


----------



## Doc

geezer said:


> This is only true if your feet naturally point the same direction as your knees. Most people's do. Mine do _*not. *_And while my particular condition is uncommon, being "duck footed" or "splay-footed" is not uncommon. For people with this structure, your "rule" does not apply, and in fact can damage the knees!
> 
> Yet I had one instructor who stubbornly insisted that the the human foot _always_ aligns with the direction of the knee and tried to force me into the traditional stance, nearly wrecking my knee joint. When I showed him my problem and explained my medical history, he insisted that I was the one being stubborn.
> 
> I came to the conclusion that while he was a great practitioner, he was a crappy teacher or coach _for me_. I respectfully stopped training with him. A shame really. But your health must come first.


While anatomically correct postures are usually dictated and dedicated to particular actions or functions, there are always anatomical anomalies in nature that cannot be ignored. While "normal" people may find it hard to believe, the direction the feet point does not always line up with the knees, and as such adjustments and allowances must be made for anatomical discrepancies.


----------



## Doc

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you bend your legs and then straight your legs, your body will move toward the direction that your feet are point to. If your use
> 
> 1. Outward horse (such as the Sumo stance) - left foot point to NW and right foot point NE,
> 1. Inward horse (such as the WC stance) - left foot point to NE and right foot point NW,
> 
> when your straight your legs, your body will move toward N, but pressure will be put on both of your knees. In the long run, this will damage your knee joints.
> 
> If you use either Sumo stance or WC stance to drill your hip throw, you will definitely destroy your both knee joints.
> 
> This is one example of bad stance. It's not clear which direction that he wants his power to generate into.
> 
> View attachment 27367


Stances are not created for aesthetic reasons in the Traditional Chinese Arts, and that includes the Horse Stance. The position of the body in its entirety constitutes posture, not just the feet. The alignment of the feet properly has a profound impact on available upper body strength, and an improper Horse Stance can demonstrably be shown to take away available upper body strength in the arms as well as compromise the vertical plane of the structure.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

geezer said:


> This is only true if your feet naturally point the same direction as your knees. Most people's do. Mine do _*not. *_And while my particular condition is uncommon, being "duck footed" or "splay-footed" is not uncommon. For people with this structure, your "rule" does not apply, and in fact can damage the knees!
> 
> Yet I had one instructor who stubbornly insisted that the the human foot _always_ aligns with the direction of the knee and tried to force me into the traditional stance, nearly wrecking my knee joint. When I showed him my problem and explained my medical history, he insisted that I was the one being stubborn.
> 
> I came to the conclusion that while he was a great practitioner, he was a crappy teacher or coach _for me_. I respectfully stopped training with him. A shame really. But your health must come first.


My primary instructor focuses on the direction of the feet (in front stance, "feet parallel, pointed forward). My feet don't align with my knees, so I learned to focus on the direction of the knee. So when I teach students, I teach them in "knee" terms (in front stance, "knees pointed on parallel path if you bend them"). The direction of the knee is what affects structure in most cases.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Sorry, text never sounds the same spoken aloud. I meant to imply my question in regard to that particular picture diagram to which you were referring, respectfully.


That diagram is no longer at that link, apparently. In any case, he referred to an issue with the drawing, didn't he? Or did I misread that?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

gpseymour said:


> That diagram is no longer at that link, apparently. In any case, he referred to an issue with the drawing, didn't he? Or did I misread that?


I have copies of all of that. I have all of Sifu James Wing Woo’s writings and drawings and diagrams. I believe he (doc) was commenting on the diagram of horse stance. These diagrams show direction of internal torques in a static horse stance. In any case, there is no such thing as standard issue when it comes to human body parts. Varus/valgus knee joint angles vary widely. people with a wider hip will typically display a more pronounced medial apex of the knee joint, which may necessitate more attention to the supination of the foot to adequately center the load distribution. Part of why   the Chinese classic is titled the “art” of stacking and folding.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Doc said:


> The pictured posture is not incorrect. It is perfectly fine when you understand Martial Posture.


The only issues I see here is that arms are too high for single whip, and feet are double weighted. All weight should be on one leg here. But, again, results are what really count. This is why pictures of martial arts usually dont look good. It doesn’t mean much because we have all had moments of learning where we do things incorrectly.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you bend your legs and then straight your legs, your body will move toward the direction that your feet are point to. If your use
> 
> 1. Outward horse (such as the Sumo stance) - left foot point to NW and right foot point NE,
> 1. Inward horse (such as the WC stance) - left foot point to NE and right foot point NW,
> 
> when your straight your legs, your body will move toward N, but pressure will be put on both of your knees. In the long run, this will damage your knee joints.
> 
> If you use either Sumo stance or WC stance to drill your hip throw, you will definitely destroy your both knee joints.
> 
> This is one example of bad stance. It's not clear which direction that he wants his power to generate into.
> 
> View attachment 27367


I disagree. The knee is not a load bearing instrument. the thigh carries the weight. If you weight the knee, you will damage it. Thus, grabbing or tightening the knee joint is the cause. Try folding the hip without tucking or


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I disagree. The knee is not a load bearing instrument. the thigh carries the weight. If you weight the knee, you will damage it. Thus, grabbing or tightening the knee joint is the cause. Try folding the hip without tucking or


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

All the stance work takes time and patience. I am continuously working to improve my mobility from a low deep horse stance. It isn’t useful if you can’t move and stay down. I use it to train. Sometimes the secrets are simply right in front of me and I still take years to grasp the foundations I “learned“ 25 years or more ago.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Doc said:


> Stances are not created for aesthetic reasons in the Traditional Chinese Arts, and that includes the Horse Stance. The position of the body in its entirety constitutes posture, not just the feet. The alignment of the feet properly has a profound impact on available upper body strength, and an improper Horse Stance can demonstrably be shown to take away available upper body strength in the arms as well as compromise the vertical plane of the structure.


Well said.


----------



## Doc

Wing Woo Gar said:


> That is because Sifu Woo and EP had a falling out over a book deal.


To be more specific, some of the historical information in the book Secrets of Chinese Karate was information shared with Ed Parker by Sifu Woo. Sifu Woo felt Mr. Parker should have given him credit for that information in the book. To suggest "they had a falling out over a book deal" tends to insinuate a money issue of sorts rather than a misunderstanding. To be fair the information in the book came from a variety of sources, not the least was from Sifu Ark Wong as well as others. The point is as Mr. Parker gathered anecdotal info for the book, he didn't provide "credit" to any of his sources but he also never claimed the information was his exclusively either. It is unfortunate this misunderstanding caused a rift between the two, but it was Mr. Parker's thirst and the quest for information from any and all sources that saw him do this constantly as any scientist would. Sifu Ark Wong never had an issue but could just as easily taken the same road as Sifu Wong. Neither man was right or wrong, but men, friends often miscommunicate and sometimes disagree on things. Both good people and great martial artists.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Doc said:


> To be more specific, some of the historical information in the book Secrets of Chinese Karate was information shared with Ed Parker by Sifu Woo. Sifu Woo felt Mr. Parker should have given him credit for that information in the book. To suggest "they had a falling out over a book deal" tends to insinuate a money issue of sorts rather than a misunderstanding. To be fair the information in the book came from a variety of sources, not the least was from Sifu Ark Wong as well as others. The point is as Mr. Parker gathered anecdotal info for the book, he didn't provide "credit" to any of his sources but he also never claimed the information was his exclusively either. It is unfortunate this misunderstanding caused a rift between the two, but it was Mr. Parker's thirst and the quest for information from any and all sources that saw him do this constantly as any scientist would. Sifu Ark Wong never had an issue but could just as easily taken the same road as Sifu Wong. Neither man was right or wrong, but men, friends often miscommunicate and sometimes disagree on things. Both good people and great martial artists.


Well said. I know more about it from Sifu Woo’s and Simo eve’s stories but those aren’t mine to tell. I only left it at that because I am not here to cause trouble or offend anyone. There was indeed a money element as well as a lack of credit given. Sifu Woo was bitter about it even in his late eighties. Simo was particularly critical of Parker.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Kung Fu Wang said:


> WC stance to drill your hip throw, you will definitely destroy your both knee joints.



The Yi Gi Kim Yeurng Ma Bo should never, ever be used in any drills that involve movement below the waist.  The adduction stance is solely for strengthening the gwot region, which is why it's also considered a "horse stance" of a different color.  Har har har.


----------



## Oily Dragon

geezer said:


> So my question is _why_, other than for _esthetic_ reasons, is the traditional stance with forward-pointing feet so emphasized in some arts? Is there really any functional reason?


Sei ping dai ma bo, 四平大馬步, which means 4 Great Parallels Horse, is the classic Shaolin horse stance.  The general idea is that by creating 4 parallels, you are providing a reference framework for the body.  Ideally this means feet are parallel to each other, lower leg are parallel to each other, upper leg parallel to the ground (or close) and waist and upper body parallel to the lower legs and feet.  It's simply harder to do than having your feet fanned outward, and hard is what kung fu is for.

Obviously many people will not be able to do this comfortably without training which involves both strengthening the legs as well as learning to relax the upper body.  Or possibly not at all if they lack range of motion from body type, disease, whatever.  

But that "perfect" horse stance is the one from Shaolin monastery that influenced many other arts.  The Wing Chun adduction stance is, in a way, the reverse of the 4 parallels, which is also why in a lot of Shaolin stancework, these two stances are combined with transitions such as in the Southern Iron Wire, as a way of exercising all the leg muscles together.  Sitting in these stances for long periods of time is for beginners, because advanced practicioners already have the endurance to hold them for long periods.  Time is better spent moving dynamically between the stances, preferably with a lot of weight packed on, whether that's iron palm bags, brass rings, or even jugs of water.  It all works wonders.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Oily Dragon said:


> Sei ping dai ma bo, 四平大馬步, which means 4 Great Parallels Horse, is the classic Shaolin horse stance.  The general idea is that by creating 4 parallels, you are providing a reference framework for the body.  Ideally this means feet are parallel to each other, lower leg are parallel to each other, upper leg parallel to the ground (or close) and waist and upper body parallel to the lower legs and feet.  It's simply harder to do than having your feet fanned outward, and hard is what kung fu is for.
> 
> Obviously many people will not be able to do this comfortably without training which involves both strengthening the legs as well as learning to relax the upper body.  Or possibly not at all if they lack range of motion from body type, disease, whatever.
> 
> But that "perfect" horse stance is the one from Shaolin monastery that influenced many other arts.  The Wing Chun adduction stance is, in a way, the reverse of the 4 parallels, which is also why in a lot of Shaolin stancework, these two stances are combined with transitions such as in the Southern Iron Wire, as a way of exercising all the leg muscles together.  Sitting in these stances for long periods of time is for beginners, because advanced practicioners already have the endurance to hold them for long periods.  Time is better spent moving dynamically between the stances, preferably with a lot of weight packed on, whether that's iron palm bags, brass rings, or even jugs of water.  It all works wonders.


Excellent articulation


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Oily Dragon said:


> The Yi Gi Kim Yeurng Ma Bo should never, ever be used in any drills that involve movement below the waist.  The adduction stance is solely for strengthening the gwot region, which is why it's also considered a "horse stance" of a different color.  Har har har.


This is true in most cases. in Sifu Woo and Sifu Gale’s kwoon the floor is waxed and polished concrete and we wear cotton soled slippers. This makes for very slippery conditions. It is a training method. Under supervision and after years of hard work one can learn to move the low horse with speed and tremendous torque. We use it for training. It is not a “technique”.  Not everyone can or will be able to do it for myriad reasons.  Additionally, training kicks this way helps teach people not to “throw” the kicking leg, because kicking higher or harder than you can control will end you on your butt on a hard floor. Now before all you armchair quarterbacks go off about your opinions on this, These are James Wing Woo’s methods, not something I heard or made up. I trained this way, on these floors for over 25 years, it has changed me and my body. It is our primary tool. Sifu Woo had a teacher in 1930s Canton that taught this way, they used cooking oil on stone floor to the same effect.


----------



## Doc

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Well said. I know more about it from Sifu Woo’s and Simo eve’s stories but those aren’t mine to tell. I only left it at that because I am not here to cause trouble or offend anyone. There was indeed a money element as well as a lack of credit given. Sifu Woo was bitter about it even in his late eighties. Simo was particularly critical of Parker.


Of course, you and I are only "outsiders" in the sense we only know of the impressions and stories told to us and only the two men involved really know. I respected both of them tremendously and in the end "mom and dad got a divorce that had nothing to do with us kids." It was between them and whatever happened never tarnished these great men or their contributions.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Doc said:


> Of course, you and I are only "outsiders" in the sense we only know of the impressions and stories told to us and only the two men involved really know. I respected both of them tremendously and in the end "mom and dad got a divorce that had nothing to do with us kids." It was between them and whatever happened never tarnished these great men or their contributions.


You have a gift for writing and expression. Well put.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Doc said:


> Of course, you and I are only "outsiders" in the sense we only know of the impressions and stories told to us and only the two men involved really know. I respected both of them tremendously and in the end "mom and dad got a divorce that had nothing to do with us kids." It was between them and whatever happened never tarnished these great men or their contributions.


You obviously knew them both, did you train with them both? Pardon my ignorance, I don’t know your name or who you are. You seem to be very knowledgeable on them and in martial arts. Just curious.


----------



## isshinryuronin

Every style will have its own "proper" horse stance.  What I think is more important is the use of the stance.  It's not how a word is pronounced, but the meaning of the word that's important.

In most all styles of karate horse stance is with parallel feet, vertical and parallel lower legs.  Stance width and thus height varies with style, the Japanese (and Chinese) ones usually wide and deep, the Okinawan styles usually not so much.  

Beginners are drilled in the basic hand strikes while standing in a horse stance, body full on facing front; this used to lead the uninformed observer to think karate is not practical.  This stance is _not_ practical for fighting, IMO, but very practical for beginner's training reciprocating motion of the hands in punching or blocking as well as for hip action development.  Strengthening the legs is also a benefit.

Kata forms were developed in Okinawa by authentic warriors and drilled for practicing _effective_ combat techniques.  But horse stance is not often seen in kata. This leads me to believe it was not thought of as a "fighting" stance.  To this day, you hardly see it in sparring competitions.  

The one form where it is highlighted is _Naihanchi/Naifanchi_ (_Tekki_ in Japanese Shotokan) which is derived from the Shuri-te branch of Okinawan karate.  This form is famously illustrated in photos of Motobu Choki, Okinawa's fierce premier "down and dirty" fighter in the early 1900's.  He likely learned it from "_Bushi"_ (Warrior) Matsumura who served as a security agent/bodyguard for the king.  Motobu thought naihanchi kata was one of the most important forms.

This begs the question:  Why would two great karate masters and accomplished fighters find value in a form stressing the horse stance which most (?) of us would agree is not well suited for combat?  These guys would not waste their time practicing something that's useless.  There seems to be some disconnect here.

I think there is, indeed, a disconnect.  The answer is there is more to the form than meets the eye.  While the kata moves side to side in horse as if your back is against a wall, its "_oyo_" (advanced or hidden bunkai application) goes beyond the shown movement. Stance shifts with pivots and angles (as in other kata) give a new dimension to this static looking stance. These things were part of the oral tradition the masters passed on to their personal students.

Just as important, naihanchi is primarily a grappling kata (though many don't know that, grappling techniques having been de-emphasized in shotokan and other styles over the past century.)  _Horse stance gives the lateral stability needed to pull the opponent to the side_.  So while karate's horse stance may not be well suited for a slug fest or fancy kicking, it can have purpose beyond a beginner's practice stance.

Maybe CMA has other functions of horse stance?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

isshinryuronin said:


> Maybe CMA has other functions of horse stance?


- Hip throw
- Shoulder throw
- Embracing throw
- ...


----------



## Flying Crane

isshinryuronin said:


> Beginners are drilled in the basic hand strikes while standing in a horse stance, body full on facing front; this used to lead the uninformed observer to think karate is not practical.  This stance is _not_ practical for fighting, IMO, but very practical for beginner's training reciprocating motion of the hands in punching or blocking as well as for hip action development.  Strengthening the legs is also a benefit.
> …
> Maybe CMA has other functions of horse stance?


I can only speak to my experience with Tibetan White Crane, but we do not practice punches as you describe above, in a front-facing square horse.  We do not do that at all in our training. 

Instead, we use a rotational foundation, pivoting the torso from side-to-side while punching, developing power from the feet and driving that rotation through the legs.  The square horse is not part of the movement.  This exercise is also taxing on the legs and feet and helps develop strength.

We do use the square horse as a strength-building exercise, but not coupled with punching. Overall, within our system, the square horse does not get a lot of use.  It is not non-existent, and in fact is featured predominantly in our five animals form, but otherwise is not prominent.  I will confess that this required a pretty big change in mind-set for me when I began training in TWC, having come from a kenpo background where the square horse gets a lot more use.  But I have found it to be a method that makes a lot of sense to me and is a good match for me.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

isshinryuronin said:


> Beginners are drilled in the basic hand strikes while standing in a horse stance,


The punch may start from a horse stance, but it won't end with a horse stance.


----------



## dvcochran

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The punch may start from a horse stance, but it won't end with a horse stance.


Styles vary.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The punch may start from a horse stance, but it won't end with a horse stance.


I don’t much care for the look of that, but styles do vary. Those punches and that stance don’t even resemble anything from the cma gyms I trained in. Your mileage may vary. That sort of thing will get you tossed on your head by any judoka student worth his salt.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I don’t much care for the look of that, but styles do vary. Those punches and that stance don’t even resemble anything from the cma gyms I trained in. Your mileage may vary. That sort of thing will get you tossed on your head by any judoka student worth his salt.


They are not training horse stance there. They are using horse stance to bend their legs, they then straight their legs for power generation.

It's a good example that stance is only a temporary body posture that is used to perform a certain function (such as power generation, hip throw, ...).


----------



## Flying Crane

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I don’t much care for the look of that, but styles do vary. Those punches and that stance don’t even resemble anything from the cma gyms I trained in. Your mileage may vary. That sort of thing will get you tossed on your head by any judoka student worth his salt.


I don’t understand your comment.  How do you feel it would get you tossed on your head?  And how more so than if you stand in a square horse and punch, without the stance change?

What is shown in this video is similar, but not identical to, how punches are developed in Tibetan Crane.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Flying Crane said:


> I don’t understand your comment.  How do you feel it would get you tossed on your head?  And how more so than if you stand in a square horse and punch, without the stance change?
> 
> What is shown in this video is similar, but not identical to, how punches are developed in Tibetan Crane.


Ok let me Say this first, I do not claim to be any sort of master of anything at all.  I am a student and hobbyist of martial arts for 39 years,and almost  25 years in Wing Woo Gar. I focus on balance, posture, and coordination when I teach. Speaking to what I saw in that video specifically? First, leaning and reaching with the punch. Second, pushing up out of the horse instead of pulling with the foot and folding the ankle and sitting down on the legs. Third, the fist I see is limp and not properly formed for the punch. I could go on, but I can answer your question starting there. If you put those three things together, you are pushing off and reaching out to full extension with a limp fist while leaning forward. Practically begging someone with even minimal throwing experience to help you along to the floor. This is easy to demonstrate. I do it to my students all the time. Have a friend try it(without actually throwing you). Just sit in your horse stance, shoot your punch to full extension, have a friend grab your fist and pull gently. Did you lose your balance? Have to take a short step forward? Did you resist and pull back? Now do the same thing but push up out Of the horse. The point is this, everything has to come from the bottom of the foot. It’s physics, it’s not jumbo jumbo. How hard can you punch in zero gravity With nothing to push or pull against? So then during practice, (not a fight per se) it makes sense to feel the bottom of the foot and pull against the earth while folding and stacking the bones and internal structures. it is simple to topple a crooked structure.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Kung Fu Wang said:


> They are not training horse stance there. They are using horse stance to bend their legs, they then straight their legs for power generation.
> 
> It's a good example that stance is only a temporary body posture that is used to perform a certain function (such as power generation, hip throw, ...).


Whether it’s horse or not, it doesn’t look good to me, plain and simple.


----------



## Flying Crane

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Ok let me Say this first, I do not claim to be any sort of master of anything at all.  I am a student and hobbyist of martial arts for 39 years,and almost  25 years in Wing Woo Gar. I focus on balance, posture, and coordination when I teach. Speaking to what I saw in that video specifically? First, leaning and reaching with the punch. Second, pushing up out of the horse instead of pulling with the foot and folding the ankle and sitting down on the legs. Third, the fist I see is limp and not properly formed for the punch. I could go on, but I can answer your question starting there. If you put those three things together, you are pushing off and reaching out to full extension with a limp fist while leaning forward. Practically begging someone with even minimal throwing experience to help you along to the floor. This is easy to demonstrate. I do it to my students all the time. Have a friend try it(without actually throwing you). Just sit in your horse stance, shoot your punch to full extension, have a friend grab your fist and pull gently. Did you lose your balance? Have to take a short step forward? Did you resist and pull back? Now do the same thing but push up out Of the horse. The point is this, everything has to come from the bottom of the foot. It’s physics, it’s not jumbo jumbo. How hard can you punch in zero gravity With nothing to push or pull against? So then during practice, (not a fight per se) it makes sense to feel the bottom of the foot and pull against the earth while folding and stacking the bones and internal structures. it is simple to topple a crooked structure.


So, this is a very, very brief clip which makes commentary on the quality of the individual participants somewhat difficult to make.  I see what you mean about a weak fist and wrist.  But honestly I wasn’t even looking at those little details.  Instead I was looking at the overall methodology, as a systematic approach for developing full body connection and driving the punch from the feet, up the legs, through the rotation of the torso, and down the arm.  That is a powerful method, nevermind that every method, no matter how solid, has its share of poor practitioners and it’s share of good practitioners. 

The method works, and gives very good results when done well.  It is a training mechanism for creating that body connection, but is not meant for fighting exacting in that manner.  In application, the stylization is eliminated for a more natural movement, while keeping the full body connection that was built from using the methodology.

It is a bit like building physical strength by engaging in weight lifting exercises, and being a stickler for proper lifting form.  The method builds the strength.  But when you need to use that strength in the real world, such as moving some heavy boxes in the garage, you simply do what you need to do.  You don’t pick up the boxes and lay down on the floor of your garage like and start doing bench presses.  Instead you move the boxes and get the job done.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> The method works, and gives very good results when done well.


I still remember that after only 6 months of this training (60 punches daily), I could

- hear the sound, and
- feel the wind,

that was generated from my punch (with only T-shirt on).

The punch start from a horse stance and end with a bow-arrow stance. The guideline is to end a punch that the punching arm, chest, back shoulder all form a perfect straight line with eyes focus on the punching hand. 

After this training, I could understand how to punch by putting my arms behind my back, and only punch with my body.

It has been a long time that I have not heard the sound and feel the wind from anybody's punch (with only T-shirt).


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Flying Crane said:


> So, this is a very, very brief clip which makes commentary on the quality of the individual participants somewhat difficult to make.  I see what you mean about a weak fist and wrist.  But honestly I wasn’t even looking at those little details.  Instead I was looking at the overall methodology, as a systematic approach for developing full body connection and driving the punch from the feet, up the legs, through the rotation of the torso, and down the arm.  That is a powerful method, nevermind that every method, no matter how solid, has its share of poor practitioners and it’s share of good practitioners.
> 
> The method works, and gives very good results when done well.  It is a training mechanism for creating that body connection, but is not meant for fighting exacting in that manner.  In application, the stylization is eliminated for a more natural movement, while keeping the full body connection that was built from using the methodology.
> 
> It is a bit like building physical strength by engaging in weight lifting exercises, and being a stickler for proper lifting form.  The method builds the strength.  But when you need to use that strength in the real world, such as moving some heavy boxes in the garage, you simply do what you need to do.  You don’t pick up the boxes and lay down on the floor of your garage like and start doing bench presses.  Instead you move the boxes and get the job done.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

It’s that methodology of pushing up instead of pulling down that I disagree with. I saw enough to comment about that and lack of structure. I thought I was fairly specific. I am not trying to insult anyone, just making an observation. Maybe give my comment another read.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Wing Woo Gar said:


> It’s that methodology of pushing up instead of pulling down that I disagree with. I saw enough to comment about that and lack of structure. I thought I was fairly specific. I am not trying to insult anyone, just making an observation. Maybe give my comment another read.


Do you agree with the following statements?

- You need to compress before you can release.
- In the beginner level training, it's wrong that when you punch, your back foot is not connected to the ground (static punch).
- In the advance level training, it's wrong that when you punch, your back foot is still connected to the ground (dynamic punch). This is used to cover the distance when your opponent moves back.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you agree with the following statements?
> 
> - You need to compress before you can release.
> - In the beginner level training, it's wrong that when you punch, your back foot is not connected to the ground (static punch).
> - In the advance level training, it's wrong that when you punch, your back foot is still connected to the ground (dynamic punch). This is used to cover the distance when your opponent moves back.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

I agree that one must compress to release. Much like a spring that must compress or contract before it can expand or release. There are many ways to create pressure or torque in the body, which is exactly my point. As far as foot placement in relation to a strike, I have many options that vary widely for the situation. We train in several different stances, horse, cat, bow, kneeling, etc. There are so many different strike/stance combinations that I have to say that the second two statements are far too broad to agree or disagree with. Perhaps you can narrow it down for me? Again, I mean you no disrespect sir, I see this as spirited discussion and debate.


----------



## Flying Crane

Wing Woo Gar said:


> It’s that methodology of pushing up instead of pulling down that I disagree with. I saw enough to comment about that and lack of structure. I thought I was fairly specific. I am not trying to insult anyone, just making an observation. Maybe give my comment another read.



Fair enough and I know enough about these things to understand that there isn’t only one method that works, to the exclusion of all others.  If this isn’t how you train, yet you get good results from what you do, then you’ve got a good method, regardless of its differences from this one.  But this one still works.  In Tibetan Crane, one of the differences is that we do not rise up as we rotate.  We push the feet into the ground and rotate the torso on a level plain.  But I don’t see the rising with the rotation as an automatically terrible idea.  Granted, I’ve never experimented with it that way, but I suspect it can be functional. 

At any rate, I don’t see how this method of power development suddenly puts one at a distinct disadvantage against a judoka, as you suggested.  It’s just a training mechanism that teaches you how to hit really hard.  Application comes later and, as with most things in life, depends on context and a lot of variables that often cannot be controlled for and are not absolutes.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you agree with the following statements?
> 
> - You need to compress before you can release.


I do not agree with this, but perhaps the definition of what it means to compress needs to be clearly stated.  As I look at our methods, I would not describe it as compressing, and we have never, to my recollection, called it that.


> - In the beginner level training, it's wrong that when you punch, your back foot is not connected to the ground (static punch).
> - In the advance level training, it's wrong that when you punch, your back foot is still connected to the ground (dynamic punch). This is used to cover the distance when your opponent moves back.


I can’t say that the last to are true or not true.  I would say it always depends.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Flying Crane said:


> I do not agree with this, but perhaps the definition of what it means to compress needs to be clearly stated.  As I look at our methods, I would not describe it as compressing, and we have never, to my recollection, called it that.
> 
> I can’t say that the last to are true or not true.  I would say it always depends.


We don’t use the word compress either, but I think I know what he means. Anything can work, we are very fragile creatures. I don’t say you can’t generate power that way, I say that I don’t like the look of that. It was the combination of execution and poor structure added to rising up and turning the hip that would assist someone throwing them. Read my earlier comment on testing it with a friend. The individuals in the video may not be executing the excercise correctly or with  good form, but then why film or use it for example? If they are executing it as taught, then I take issue with the entirety of it.  I am giving my opinion on structure as it relates to training, this is demonstrably poor structure.  Either I am on my legs or I am not. The foot and the root are the key. The bottom moves the top, the back moves the front, the inside moves the outside. Take that to the bank.  Talking about it is fun, but results are what count. Training hard and being brutally honest with myself can make me a rather rough critic. I am a firm believer that what you do in the gym is what you will do in the street. I am not an expert, I do however have some experiences that affect my opinion. In the end, it’s the man, not the style that counts. My opinion is just that, an opinion. Take it for what it’s worth. Try it out, you have nothing to lose.  For my part, I tried this video‘s technique out in the gym, I can see the value in the concept if performed with good form and structure.


----------



## Flying Crane

Wing Woo Gar said:


> We don’t use the word compress either, but I think I know what he means. Anything can work, we are very fragile creatures. I don’t say you can’t generate power that way, I say that I don’t like the look of that. It was the combination of execution and poor structure added to rising up and turning the hip that would assist someone throwing them. Read my earlier comment on testing it with a friend. The individuals in the video may not be executing the excercise correctly or with  good form, but then why film or use it for example? If they are executing it as taught, then I take issue with the entirety of it.  I am giving my opinion on structure as it relates to training, this is demonstrably poor structure.  Either I am on my legs or I am not. The foot and the root are the key. The bottom moves the top, the back moves the front, the inside moves the outside. Take that to the bank.  Talking about it is fun, but results are what count. Training hard and being brutally honest with myself can make me a rather rough critic. I am a firm believer that what you do in the gym is what you will do in the street. I am not an expert, I do however have some experiences that affect my opinion. In the end, it’s the man, not the style that counts. My opinion is just that, an opinion. Take it for what it’s worth. Try it out, you have nothing to lose.  For my part, I tried this video‘s technique out in the gym, I can see the value in the concept if performed with good form and structure.


Well, the way I see it, that full rotation is part of the training methodology that teaches you how to get the full body connection.  But in that learning and drilling phase, the movement is exaggerated and can later be virtually eliminated once you have developed the skill.  You train large, to become small.  That power is still there even with smaller movement.  So I agree, you fight as you train, but I suspect that what I mean by that may be somewhat different from what others mean by it.  

I’m not interested in experimenting with other methods because I believe in the method that I follow.  Consistency is important in how you train, especially on foundational matters, which this is.  But I can look at something like this video and recognize what they are working on and see the value in it.  The details might affect it in some ways.  Maybe it depends on the person, and how good of a “match” it is for that person.  These things matter too.  But it isn’t difficult for me to see the value in the method.


----------



## _Simon_

Flying Crane said:


> I do not agree with this, but perhaps the definition of what it means to compress needs to be clearly stated.  As I look at our methods, I would not describe it as compressing, and we have never, to my recollection, called it that.
> 
> I can’t say that the last to are true or not true.  I would say it always depends.


Or we could even see that there already are subtle compressions within the body occurring even while standing! So capitalising on those and learning to release those into the strikes without doing a precursor action to CREATE a compression might be an interesting trajectory...

Sorry, this line of thought that popped up has now captivated me haha... I will experiment...


----------



## Oily Dragon

isshinryuronin said:


> Maybe CMA has other functions of horse stance?



Goat riding.  Also works on other humans.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Oily Dragon said:


> Goat riding.  Also works on other humans.


That’s baaaaad.


----------

