# Basics



## MJS (May 5, 2006)

How much time is spent on this area during your class time? Probably not the most exciting area, but then again, its probably the most important, due to the fact that without proper basics, the foundation for learning other material is going to be pretty weak. I tend to notice that many people are more interested in getting to the 'meat' of the learning, ie: techniques, kata, etc. rather than spending some quality time understanding proper footwork, stances, proper execution of punches, kicks, etc.

Mike


----------



## Rick Wade (May 5, 2006)

For us where most classes do jumpin jacks and push up etc etc  We do Basics to open the clas including all sets.

V/R

Rick


----------



## mantis (May 5, 2006)

ah, i was reading a book last night that discussed this question.
it is some master who was explaining why he taught the forms first then he taught the basics.  his student questioned that, and he said if i started with the basics then you would think i have nothing much to give, and you would be bored, but after showing you the forms and showing you that you cannot execute them properly without the basics only now i can teach you the basics.

to answer your question now, we started with basic punches and kick and lots of horse stance... a couple of months later they added to that some "conditioning forms" which are forms intended to teach stances, basics of transitioning, and the punch/kick combo's (tan tui's, or tom toys). you pretty much have to spend an entire year before you are introduce to the style-specific forms.


----------



## green meanie (May 5, 2006)

We practice at least some aspect of our basics every night . Even if all it does is serve as a warm up, its the foundation of what you're doing and you never want to get too far away from that.


----------



## Kenpobuff (May 5, 2006)

After a short warm up we go through a few sets that emphasize the basics that takes up the first half of class.  Then we split up and work techs, other sets, and forms for the second half.  Saving sparring for last for those that are interested.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 5, 2006)

We attempt to adhere to a base lesson, for instance posture, and no matter where the class goes each student is responsible for keeping that lesson in mind. That way basics are covered, all be it individually.
Sean


----------



## Carol (May 7, 2006)

Not enough.  

The quote from the seminar with Mr. Planas is really echoing in my mind.

"Strong Basics, Strong techniques.  Weak Basics, Weak techniques."


----------



## evenflow1121 (May 7, 2006)

When I trained a half hour was dedicated to, but classes were 90 min long.  So about 100 jumping jacks, followed by 50 pushups, 50 sit ups, then some basic drills in horse stance such as the basic blocks and punches, and stretching.


----------



## Ross (May 8, 2006)

This is a very important part of training and as you originally correctly mentioned, something that people want to fast forward to the more 'meaty' stuff. 

Just because they are called basics doesnt mean that they are simple. Maybe we should rename them 'super secret moves' or 'deadly finish off moves' and then everyone will want to practice them indefinitely. LOL

In our lessons basics are integral to the structure of the class, and even in the senior grades we can always learn something. There is a tendenancy to get into a habit of executing a basic that works best for the individual, however, this is not necessarily the correct way to do a basic to make it most effective. This includes, correct alignment, positioning, structure, etc. We all tend to slip into bad habits - just need to make sure that we slip out of them.

Following up on this thread, how many people execute an inward block (when standing in a horse stance facing 12) so that the arm finishes across the body, covering the centre line? Now consider that do we ever actually do this block in any technique or form? Why not do this from a neutral bow thus ensuring correct body alignment? Alternatively, why not execute an inward block so that the arm finishes in front of the same shoulder (ie right inward block finishing aligned to the right shoulder) after all surely the only difference between a horse stance and a neutral bow is the direction that your head is facing?

Sorry if I've described this badly.

Just for your thoughts.............


----------



## michaeledward (May 8, 2006)

Ross said:
			
		

> . . . . after all surely the only difference between a horse stance and a neutral bow is the direction that your head is facing?
> 
> .............


 
Ross, I have seen this description recently several times from MartialTalk members from the UK. And, I would like you to explain this further. 

You see, I don't believe that a training horse stance and a neutral bow stance are the same thing, save for the head direction.

A training horse stance is used to isolate the body from the waste up, when we are working our upper body (such as the Finger Set).

A neutral bow aligns our lower body in three dimensions. One of the measures is width ... the heel of our rear foot should be on the same line as the toe of our front foot. If our toes are correctly facing the corner, this stance, to me, is not parallel in the manner of a training horse.

If we are standing in a training horse, facing the wall, and we turn our head toward the corner, the width of the stance is too great to be a proper neutral bow and arrow stance.

I don't want to be terribly confrontation about this ... but, I'ld like some insight into your beliefs on this topic.


----------



## MJS (May 8, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Ross, I have seen this description recently several times from MartialTalk members from the UK. And, I would like you to explain this further.
> 
> You see, I don't believe that a training horse stance and a neutral bow stance are the same thing, save for the head direction.
> 
> ...


 
I'm thinking along the same lines as you are on this.



> Originally posted by Ross
> This is a very important part of training and as you originally correctly mentioned, something that people want to fast forward to the more 'meaty' stuff.
> 
> Just because they are called basics doesnt mean that they are simple. Maybe we should rename them 'super secret moves' or 'deadly finish off moves' and then everyone will want to practice them indefinitely. LOL




Personally, I like going back over the basic material.  Too often, we find ourselves caught up in learning something new, never going back to review the foundation of the 'new' things we're doing.  This can also apply to our techniques as well as forms.

Mike


----------



## Ross (May 8, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Ross, I have seen this description recently several times from MartialTalk members from the UK. And, I would like you to explain this further.
> 
> You see, I don't believe that a training horse stance and a neutral bow stance are the same thing, save for the head direction.
> 
> ...


 
Hi Michael,

That's fine about your question.

Ok, what I mean is that a neutral bow is a modified horse stance. The only difference being that the head is facing a different direction.

For example, we all know how to stand in a horse stance, but for arguements sake, I am in a stance with both feet parallel pointing to 12, knees over feet, shoulders and hips aligned, head facing 12.

A neutral bow is exactly the same but your attacker is coming at you from a different direction. If you step back into a right neutral bow for example, you should still be in a horse stance facing roughly 10-11 o'clock but your head is facing 12. 

There is no difference between a neutral bow and a horse stance other than the direction that you are moving into to defend yourself. It may be necessary for you to adjust your angle with your opponent to be in correct alignment.

If you are are moving your body to more 'face' your opponent when you step back then you are immediately misalign yourself and lose your structural integrity.

I think (please correct me if I am wrong) but re reading your post it seems that your feet are not in alignment with your legs? Ie they are at a slight angle to the rest of your body?


----------



## Ray (May 8, 2006)

Ross said:
			
		

> There is no difference between a neutral bow and a horse stance other than the direction that you are moving into to defend yourself. It may be necessary for you to adjust your angle with your opponent to be in correct alignment.


From what I've been taught, I have to disagree. In a horse stance, and a fighting horse: there is an imaginary line that runs in front of both feet--the toes of both feet are even and in a straight line. Just about the only difference I know between a horse and a fighting horse is the direction of the head. In a horse stance, if your face faces 12:00, then your feet are on the 9:00 - 3:00 line. In a fighting horse, if your face is turned to face 12:00, then your feet are on the 12:00 - 6:00 line.

In a neutral bow, the heel of the rear foot is in line with the toes of the front foot. And your feet are facing a 45 degree angle instead of on the 90 degree lines (as described in the above paragraph).

I have been to a few seminars lately where the {well-known} teachers have thought it important enough to review stances.


----------



## michaeledward (May 8, 2006)

Ross said:
			
		

> If you are are moving your body to more 'face' your opponent when you step back then you are immediately misalign yourself and lose your structural integrity.
> 
> I think (please correct me if I am wrong) but re reading your post it seems that your feet are not in alignment with your legs? Ie they are at a slight angle to the rest of your body?


 
To my understanding, my upper body and my legs are in the same alignment. 

Assumption: I am in a square room, with four walls, and four corners.

When I am in a right neutral bow and arrow stance, facing the 12 O'Clock wall; my toes, legs, hips, and shoulders are facing the left front corner of the room. 

If I were in a horse stance, my feet would be in opposing corners of a square. This opens my center line considerably. If I were to bring my toe-heel alignment together, my centerline would be more closed, and I would have effective use of both front and rear weapons. 

The x's in the first diagram represent where I understand your feet are. The x's in the second diagram represent where I understand my feet are. In both cases, the feet would be facing the corner. I tried to represent a square as best I could in ASCII.

Do you agree?

_______x
| . . . . . |
| . . . . . |
| . . . . . |
x_______|

vs

____x___
| . . . . . |
| . . . . . |
| . . . . . |
___x____|


----------



## Ross (May 8, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> To my understanding, my upper body and my legs are in the same alignment.
> 
> Assumption: I am in a square room, with four walls, and four corners.
> 
> ...


 
Ah I see what you think I'm saying. Yes sir, I agree that the second diagram is correct (or near enough). That is what I was trying to get at, apologies if it didnt come across like that.

What I am saying is that in that position you are in a horse stance with your face turned to 12. Agreed?


----------



## Ross (May 8, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> From what I've been taught, I have to disagree. In a horse stance, and a fighting horse: there is an imaginary line that runs in front of both feet--the toes of both feet are even and in a straight line. Just about the only difference I know between a horse and a fighting horse is the direction of the head. In a horse stance, if your face faces 12:00, then your feet are on the 9:00 - 3:00 line. In a fighting horse, if your face is turned to face 12:00, then your feet are on the 12:00 - 6:00 line.
> 
> In a neutral bow, the heel of the rear foot is in line with the toes of the front foot. And your feet are facing a 45 degree angle instead of on the 90 degree lines (as described in the above paragraph).
> 
> I have been to a few seminars lately where the {well-known} teachers have thought it important enough to review stances.


 
Yes Ray, I agree and that is what I do - you are describing the toe-heel line.


----------



## Ross (May 8, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> From what I've been taught, I have to disagree. In a horse stance, and a fighting horse: there is an imaginary line that runs in front of both feet--the toes of both feet are even and in a straight line. Just about the only difference I know between a horse and a fighting horse is the direction of the head. In a horse stance, if your face faces 12:00, then your feet are on the 9:00 - 3:00 line. In a fighting horse, if your face is turned to face 12:00, then your feet are on the 12:00 - 6:00 line.
> 
> In a neutral bow, the heel of the rear foot is in line with the toes of the front foot. And your feet are facing a 45 degree angle instead of on the 90 degree lines (as described in the above paragraph).
> 
> I have been to a few seminars lately where the {well-known} teachers have thought it important enough to review stances.


 
By the way Ray, if you get the chance to train with Dr Chapel, Mr Angell or Mr Perez ask them about stances - it is fascinating!


----------



## michaeledward (May 8, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> ____x___
> | . . . . . |
> | . . . . . |
> | . . . . . |
> ___x____|


 



			
				Ross said:
			
		

> What I am saying is that in that position you are in a horse stance with your face turned to 12. Agreed?


 
Ross, I do not agree that the image above is the equivilant of a horse stance. It goes to the width of the stance. A horse stance, with my face pointed to the corner has greater width than a nuetral bow stance. 

But, that might just be a terminology thing. If we are doing the same thing, but describing it with different terms, I have no problem with that.


----------



## Ross (May 8, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Ross, I do not agree that the image above is the equivilant of a horse stance. It goes to the width of the stance. A horse stance, with my face pointed to the corner has greater width than a nuetral bow stance.
> 
> But, that might just be a terminology thing. If we are doing the same thing, but describing it with different terms, I have no problem with that.


 
It might be that.

Are you saying that the distance between your feet for a horse stance and a neutral bow is different?


----------



## michaeledward (May 8, 2006)

Ross said:
			
		

> It might be that.
> 
> Are you saying that the distance between your feet for a horse stance and a neutral bow is different?


 
The term distance in this sentence could be referencing either of two measurements - depth or width. This is where my confusion is coming from. 

As I understand it:
A Neutral bow is measured in three dimensions; Depth, Width, Height.
Depth - From the correct stance, bring your rear knee to the ground on the 6-12 line; the knee of the rear leg should touch the ground on a 3-9 line drawn from the heel of the front foot.
Width - From the correct stance, the toe of the front foot should be on the 6-12 line to the heel of the rear foot.
Height - The knees should tend over the ankles. 

Further - The weight distribution should be equal between both feet. Body weight should tend toward the outside of the foot. The toes my tend toward each other, just slightly less than parallel.

A horse stance has little depth. The toes and heels should be on the same 3-9 line.
The width of a horse stance is measure from an attention stance. 

Pivot your feet on your toes; each heel moving away from the center line, such that the feet from a 90 degree angle (each foot 45 degrees off center).
Repeat this pivot a second time from the heel. Your toes are now are now facing the respective corner (right foot pointed to right corner / left foot pointed to left corner).
Pivot your feet for a third time, with the toes remaining stationary. Your heels now move out so that your are now standing "pidgeon toed'.
Square your toes on your heels. Both feet should now be facing 12 O'Clock. Settle into the horse stance by moving your knees out over your ankles, keeping your backside tucked in.
From this horse stance, if you lay a bow staff on your toe-heel line, on the standard clock reference, the line would be beyond the 8-2 line (Unless you wear at size 15 shoe). Perhaps at the 8:15 - 2:15 line.


----------



## KenpoDave (May 8, 2006)

We utilize a combination of private instruction supplemented by group instruction.

It is safe to say that in a standard group class, ALL of our time is spent on basics.  In privates we teach everything, and in group, we drill the basics in repetition.  Often, techniques are used to show an application of a basic.  As far as technique work and sparring, we have separate classes for that.

So, if you come to a private lesson, 3 workouts, and a sparring class each week, 3 of the 4 1/2 hours of that will be devoted to drilling the basics.


----------



## JamesB (May 8, 2006)

Seeing as the discussion moved onto how to form neutral-bows, I posted a poll with diagrams, so maybe move the discussion over here?

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33725

james


----------



## Ray (May 8, 2006)

Ross said:
			
		

> By the way Ray, if you get the chance to train with Dr Chapel, Mr Angell or Mr Perez ask them about stances - it is fascinating!


Ross, surprisingly I went to one of Doc's seminars and we spent a lot of time going over stances (and PAMs and BAMs and much more).  After dinner, I thanked him and commented "20 years in the MA and I finally learned how to do a proper neutral bow."  Mr. Angell was also there.  Great people!


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The term distance in this sentence could be referencing either of two measurements - depth or width. This is where my confusion is coming from.
> 
> As I understand it:
> A Neutral bow is measured in three dimensions; Depth, Width, Height.
> ...


 
Hi Michael, 

James B has posted a new thread - hopefully, this explains what I was struggling to get out better.

Thanks


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> Ross, surprisingly I went to one of Doc's seminars and we spent a lot of time going over stances (and PAMs and BAMs and much more). After dinner, I thanked him and commented "20 years in the MA and I finally learned how to do a proper neutral bow." Mr. Angell was also there. Great people!


 
Ray, I know exactly what you mean!


----------

