# question about stance and 20 principles



## martial sparrer (Mar 25, 2013)

I have come to know that whatever I think I know about karate is false, is not enough....so therefore forgive me.  what I do is more mma type stuff.  I coach soccer and one of my students is brown belt going for testing for black.  so today I asked her to show me her stance in karate, and it was with hands up, almost like a classic boxing stance.  at this I was surprised.  my question is, does stance differ from school to school?  when did they start teaching karate with this formation of hands?  many other stances of karate I have seen in person and on the internet show different formation of hands.  also, when I asked her about fukinoshi's(spelling wrong I think) 20 principles she said she did not know what I was talking about.  is the 20 principles commonly taught at karate schools?  she is 12 years old so maybe in the child classes they don't get into this stuff.  she goes to a northern karate club.  I remember seeing the website awhile ago and thought it looked very commercial.  thanks rocco.


----------



## SPX (Mar 25, 2013)

Usually a karateka's free fighting stance is different from any of the stances that are seen in kata.  A lot of karatekas will tell you that those stances are supposed to be transitional stances that you temporarily move into to perform certain techniques rather than neutural "fighting stances."  My own teacher has shown me some of the various stances he's experimented with for sparring.  Some look like a kickboxing stance, others are wider and deeper and more like what most people probably think of when they think of a "karate stance."

As for the 20 principles, I really doubt you're going to find them referenced in most karate schools, especially the more commercial dojos.  I actually found out about the 20 principles while browsing in B&N and I found a book on the subject.


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 25, 2013)

martial sparrer said:


> I have come to know that whatever I think I know about karate is false, is not enough....so therefore forgive me.  what I do is more mma type stuff.  I coach soccer and one of my students is brown belt going for testing for black.  so today I asked her to show me her stance in karate, and it was with hands up, almost like a classic boxing stance.  at this I was surprised.  my question is, does stance differ from school to school?  when did they start teaching karate with this formation of hands?  many other stances of karate I have seen in person and on the internet show different formation of hands.  also, when I asked her about fukinoshi's(spelling wrong I think) 20 principles she said she did not know what I was talking about.  is the 20 principles commonly taught at karate schools?  she is 12 years old so maybe in the child classes they don't get into this stuff.  she goes to a northern karate club.  I remember seeing the website awhile ago and thought it looked very commercial.  thanks rocco.



There are many dozens of different forms of karate, each with their own methodology, approach, concepts, principles, teachings, and more. While there will be commonality across many systems (particularly those that come from a "common root"), there will be many differences. Japanese systems are different to Okinawan systems... and modern, Western "freestyle" karate forms are incredibly different again. Even within the Japanese systems (for example), there are large differences, in stance, movement, emphasis, guiding principles, and more. Wado Ryu takes from Shotokan (early Shotokan, at that), Shorin Ryu, and Shindo Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu, making it fairly removed from other forms. Goju Kai, which is a Japanese form of the Okinawan Goju Ryu, is different again... my old system of Tani-ha Shito Ryu Shukokai Karate differed even from it's parent art of Shito Ryu in postural, striking, and training concepts. When it comes to the "20 principles", bear in mind that they were something that Funakoshi believed were important to his expression of karate... that doesn't mean that they're considered as important for others. And, if the young girl in your post is not in a Shotokan school, there's no real reason for them to be even referencing the 20 principles of Funakoshi, other than if the instructor felt they were important.

There is no one single art called "karate". They're all different... which is why you can't learn a generic "karate" from books... it doesn't exist.


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 26, 2013)

The question about stance and guard in karate comes up quite frequently.  "Karate" is an umbrella of various styles stemming from Okinawa.  If we look at the styles from there, they are all based on civilian self-defense.  One of the aspects of that is you don't know ahead of time you are going to be in a fight so the postures reflect that idea.  It wasn't until later that the sport style sparring really took hold and the artificial distancing that creates more of the need for the types of preplanned guard positions.  Here is an article by Iain Abernathy that discusses this and says it better than I can.

http://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/use-karate-guard-kata-and-combat


----------



## rframe (Mar 26, 2013)

How much an individual school teaches about martial arts history will obviously vary, but I would be very surprised to meet a brown/black belt karateka who didn't know who Funakoshi was or what the 20 precepts are about though... it might make me a little suspect about their training.  You'd think at least at some point they would've done a few minutes of Googling on their art's history?

Fighting stances vary more by individual than they do by school, and vary by someones fighting experience.  You mention Funakoshi's 20 precepts, number 17 is "Postures (formal stances) are for the beginner; later they are natural positions".

Ignorant karate-bashers will often say stupid things like, "they waste time having people stand around in horse stances and I've never seen anyone fight in one".  Well the formal stances teach concepts, build flexiblity and strength, and even in an natural fighting stance, when certain attacks or defenses are launched you'll see the karateka transition right into something like many of the formal stances.

Martial arts is a huge bag full of building blocks, when you look at each block it might seem overly simple or overly complex... but as you gain mastery over each building block and they become natural, you are able to assemble them into something very useful and meaningful.


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 26, 2013)

rframe said:


> How much an individual school teaches about martial arts history will obviously vary, but I would be very surprised to meet a brown/black belt karateka who didn't know who Funakoshi was or what the 20 precepts are about though... it might make me a little suspect about their training.  You'd think at least at some point they would've done a few minutes of Googling on their art's history?
> 
> Fighting stances vary more by individual than they do by school, and vary by someones fighting experience.  You mention Funakoshi's 20 precepts, number 17 is "Postures (formal stances) are for the beginner; later they are natural positions".
> 
> ...



While I'd expect them to at least know who Funakoshi was, that doesn't follow that they'd know about his 20 precepts... after all, who was Funakoshi to Goju Ryu? Or Shorin Ryu? Besides that, why would other lineages have any reason to teach his precepts? They have their own lessons to pass on.


----------



## rframe (Mar 26, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> While I'd expect them to at least know who Funakoshi was, that doesn't follow that they'd know about his 20 precepts... after all, who was Funakoshi to Goju Ryu? Or Shorin Ryu? Besides that, why would other lineages have any reason to teach his precepts? They have their own lessons to pass on.



True, that's why I said a _little_ suspect.  No need to know these things, but I'd think most people with an interest may have read up a bit on karate history.


----------



## K-man (Mar 26, 2013)

rframe said:


> Fighting stances vary more by individual than they do by school, and vary by someones fighting experience.  You mention Funakoshi's 20 precepts, number 17 is "Postures (formal stances) are for the beginner; later they are natural positions".
> 
> Ignorant karate-bashers will often say stupid things like, "they waste time having people stand around in horse stances and I've never seen anyone fight in one".  Well the formal stances teach concepts, build flexiblity and strength, and even in an natural fighting stance, when certain attacks or defenses are launched you'll see the karateka transition right into something like many of the formal stances.


I'm afraid that I must disagree with some of this. The stances you learn right across the karate spectrum are similar because the origins in Naha and Shuri were blurred. In the early days there was a lot of cross training and the guys learned the same basic katas, even though these developed and changed with each style. 

It is possible to "_see the karateka transition right into something like many of the formal stances", _but I would suggest that is a bit like seeing images in clouds. In sport karate you mainly see a natural fighting stance similar to boxing. And, the karate bashers are being ignorant if they talk about not seeing people fight in 'horse stance'. That is because the formal stances of karate have nothing to do with sport sparring (and nothing to do with flexibility and strength). The stances taught are all used in close fighting. They facilitate the leg traps and takedowns and the way you move into those stances in close combat is exactly the way they are taught in the 'basic' karate class. The problem is the 'basic' karate instructor who has not the first idea of what he/she is teaching, and that is one of my pet gripes!      :asian:


----------



## rframe (Mar 26, 2013)

If stances dont build flexibility, balance and strength, I sure have seen a lot of beginner to intermediate belts who apparently are making up their struggles as they learn and then develop a strong stable base and offensive/defensive stances.

As for application in fighting, I dont think it has anything to do with seeing images in clouds.  Stances provide a base suitable to certain situations, stability, offense, defense... when they have been practiced that's where people go when fighting.  When they haven't been practiced, people fumble around.

I think there is a parallel to stand-up fighting and ground fighting.  If you watch someone get taken to the ground who has no training in grappling they look absolutely ridiculous, they flop around helplessly with nothing to do.  If you watch a skilled BJJ practitioner in the same situation they transition quickly and efficiently to positions of control and submission.  The stand up game is similar, when you watch guys with minimal striking and footwork training they just sort of stand and rock back and forth but guys with a lot of stand up karate/tkd/kf/boxing experience are moving and changing stances appropriate to give them the most stability, speed, and leverage for that moment in the fight.

The reference to Iain's article above is excellent.  He also has several videos showing the practical use of stances and how they are quite natural to fighting, they are used in the moment as needed to properly support the fighter.


----------



## K-man (Mar 26, 2013)

rframe said:


> If stances dont build flexibility, balance and strength, I sure have seen a lot of beginner to intermediate belts who apparently are making up their struggles as they learn and then develop a strong stable base and offensive/defensive stances.
> 
> As for application in fighting, I dont think it has anything to do with seeing images in clouds.  Stances provide a base suitable to certain situations, stability, offense, defense... when they have been practiced that's where people go when fighting.  When they haven't been practiced, people fumble around.


Stances can be for whatever reason you want. If you want then as a tool to help flexibility, fine. If you want to stand around in lower stance to built leg strength, fine. If you believe what you have written above, that is your prerogative. It took twenty years for me to be shown the meaning behind the stances and during that time I was fed the biggest load of BS by high profile instructors.  Open your eyes and see or close your mind and keep doing the same things over and over. As I said, it is one of my pet gripes that most instructors don't teach the stances as they are deigned to be used, and you can lay the blame for that squarely on the shoulders of sport based karate and the sparring from distance that that entails. :asian:


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 26, 2013)

K-man said:


> Stances can be for whatever reason you want. If you want then as a tool to help flexibility, fine. If you want to stand around in lower stance to built leg strength, fine. If you believe what you have written above, that is your prerogative. It took twenty years for me to be shown the meaning behind the stances and during that time I was fed the biggest load of BS by high profile instructors.  Open your eyes and see or close your mind and keep doing the same things over and over. As I said, it is one of my pet gripes that most instructors don't teach the stances as they are deigned to be used, and you can lay the blame for that squarely on the shoulders of sport based karate and the sparring from distance that that entails. :asian:


Preach it Brother!
The Choir


----------



## rframe (Mar 26, 2013)

K-man said:


> It took twenty years for me to be shown the meaning behind the stances and during that time I was fed the biggest load of BS by high profile instructors.  Open your eyes and see...



Well, I'm curious about these meanings, if it took you 20 years to learn them then what you are suggesting is there are purposes behind them that are not as obvious/intuitive as I (and apparently most people) think, so can you elaborate and give some examples?


----------



## K-man (Mar 26, 2013)

rframe said:


> Well, I'm curious about these meanings, if it took you 20 years to learn them then what you are suggesting is there are purposes behind them that are not as obvious/intuitive as I (and apparently most people) think, so can you elaborate and give some examples?


Well first can I ask you what you see as the use of, say, Sanchin dachi or 'hourglass stance'?


----------



## seasoned (Mar 26, 2013)

Butting in then butting out.  

Front leg in a close in fighting encounter is hooking the opponents leg for a take down, or a leg strike. While our hands attack high, (our legs attack low) with stances. One in many principles.


----------



## EddieCyrax (Mar 27, 2013)

rframe said:


> True, that's why I said a _little_ suspect.  No need to know these things, but I'd think most people with an interest may have read up a bit on karate history.



Didnt the OP mention the girl was 12?  Not sure how much research kids do beyond what they are taught in class from her instructor.   Depends on the kid, but I am doubtful many kids will dive too deeply beyond what is required for testing.   You are placing your adult interest and frame of reference on a child.


----------



## Kframe (Mar 27, 2013)

Non Tma guy here, and I actually agree with K man.  I have only seen TMA stances from my father and what I saw on the internet and my own brief(3 month) stint in Shorin Ryu. I had no idea what they were for and to me the looked un natural.  Only when I started doing the grappling(standing grappling primarily)  did I start to reckognize some of the stances I had seen.(and shortly practiced)   That hour glass stance, looks like it would be good for trapping with the front leg and then hip tossing.  I notice in my own training, I move into what to me looks like a front stance(think that's what its called)  when im doing some throws. Other throws have me moving in to other stances to do the throws.   So,  now I find my self watching youtube to see if I can spot more things I can add to my own personal training.


----------



## K-man (Mar 27, 2013)

Kframe said:


> Non Tma guy here, and I actually agree with K man.  I have only seen TMA stances from my father and what I saw on the internet and my own brief(3 month) stint in Shorin Ryu. I had no idea what they were for and to me the looked un natural.  Only when I started doing the grappling(standing grappling primarily)  did I start to reckognize some of the stances I had seen.(and shortly practiced)   That hour glass stance, looks like it would be good for trapping with the front leg and then hip tossing.  I notice in my own training, I move into what to me looks like a front stance(think that's what its called)  when im doing some throws. Other throws have me moving in to other stances to do the throws.   So,  now I find my self watching youtube to see if I can spot more things I can add to my own personal training.


And of course, that is the answer. (My wily old mate, *seasoned*&#8203;, knew exactly where I was coming from  ) The reason it took me so long to get to that point was because all our sparring was tournament based. In the early days of my training my teacher was in the Australian team for kumite so you can imagine his focus on sparring. Most students really don't think beyond what they are told because the teacher has the knowledge, right?  It was only when my students started asking questions that I realised just how many of the answers just didn't make sense. 

The most simple things, like the stances, are actually quite complex ... if you explore them from a grappling point of view.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 27, 2013)

As a further thought, what's most important about stances are the bodily actions performed in transition to and from them.  You can 'cheat' to an extent on the outward appearance (toe/heel angle slightly awry), but so long as the other parts are true, like shoulder/hip alignment, etc, you can still have a very stable and powerful delivery platform for your strikes and such.


----------



## K-man (Mar 27, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> As a further thought, what's most important about stances are the bodily actions performed in transition to and from them.  You can 'cheat' to an extent on the outward appearance (toe/heel angle slightly awry), but so long as the other parts are true, like shoulder/hip alignment, etc, you can still have a very stable and powerful delivery platform for your strikes and such.


If that is true, why do we have so many different stances? How do you know which is the best stance to use at a particular time? Why doesn't, say, boxing have more stances? They are all about powerful strikes. If I am standing two metres from you, what stance should I adopt? What does it matter at that range if my toes are pointing in or out? Why, when I step in Sanchin dachi, do I use a crescent step but not when I step in the other stances? 

Sure, you can train in a particular stance to do all that you say, but that to me is like saying that the iceberg you see floating is all there is. Beneath the surface there is a whole new world.  :asian:


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 27, 2013)

K-man said:


> If that is true, why do we have so many different stances?



They all have their advantages depending on the current context (positioning, angle, goal...).  It's the same reason why we have so many different strikes instead of just training one punch only.



K-man said:


> How do you know which is the best stance to use at a particular time?



Hopefully from receiving good instruction and then having the extended opportunity to train with multiple partners and thus gain knowledge of what works individually for us.



K-man said:


> Why doesn't, say, boxing have more stances? They are all about powerful strikes.



Some stances are more conducive to certain activities than others.  Like shifting quickly to a cat stance to avoid a strike before lashing out with a kick.  A boxer wouldn't need to train a cat stance since he doesn't have to worry about his opponent kicking him.  In short, because boxing confines each participant to what they can or can't do, it likewise puts them on a path to specialization in a smaller subset of skills, rather than arguably a more generalist perspective that a karate-ka would have.  There are surely other examples as well.



K-man said:


> If I am standing two metres from you, what stance should I adopt? What does it matter at that range if my toes are pointing in or out?



At 2 meters or indeed at any range, it depends first on what we train and then on situational context with what the immediate goal at the time is.  For example, I suspect someone in Isshinryu would stand in that high short stance they call seisan dachi since they can fire all their techniques from that range.  A judo-ka might assume a shoulder length stance with his feet sprayed 45 degrees apart called natural stance or sometimes shizen-hontai as it would give him some degree of stability as he considers how to close if needed.



K-man said:


> Why, when I step in Sanchin dachi, do I use a crescent step but not when I step in the other stances?



One answer is because in sanchin dachi we train our Naha-te derived method of creating bursting power in our strikes while also having fast/efficient movement in a supremely stable position.

I'll also play the Jedi mind trick here and state that actually a bunch of non-Goju stylists crescent step in zenkutsu dachi as well.  It might be fun examining why they do it and think about the correlation if any to sanchin dachi.  



K-man said:


> Sure, you can train in a particular stance to do all that you say, but that to me is like saying that the iceberg you see floating is all there is. Beneath the surface there is a whole new world.  :asian:



To be sure, I wasn't trying to imply that we can substitute one stance for another willy-nilly. I was saying the transitional movements and what we are doing as part of creating the platform are more important IMO than the final posture itself.


----------



## K-man (Mar 27, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> They all have their advantages depending on the current context (positioning, angle, goal...).  It's the same reason why we have so many different strikes instead of just training one punch only.
> 
> Do you really believe that? We have different strikes because we are striking specific points. Some points like the side of the neck are best attacked by a Shuto or Haito uchi, the temple with Tetsui or Ureken uchi, ribs with ippon ken etc. etc. How I have my feet is of no consequence as long as I have a strong centre.
> 
> ...


OK. When I was Japanese Goju I would probably have supported everything that you have posted. Since changing to the Okinawan form, and training with people from the Jundokan, my understanding has changed substantially. With regard to having a sound base for striking, you might like to chase up Russell Stutely's material on power hitting. He is from a Shotokan background. His approach is more to do with weight transfer than a fixed base.

As to the stance for sparring at a distance of two metres, I have only ever seen a natural stance (Moto dachi). (My teacher in the early 80s was in the Australian team and his teacher was Australia's team coach.) Certainly in those days when I sparred I liked to drop back into Neko because it made it very easy to score with a snap kick. But in reality Neko has much more going for it in a close combat situation.     :asian:


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 27, 2013)

_They all have their advantages depending on the current context (positioning, angle, goal...). It's the same reason why we have so many different strikes instead of just training one punch only.

Do you really believe that? We have different strikes because we are striking specific points. Some points like the side of the neck are best attacked by a Shuto or Haito uchi, the temple with Tetsui or Ureken uchi, ribs with ippon ken etc. etc. How I have my feet is of no consequence as long as I have a strong centre.

I didn't think we were in disagreement going off what we both wrote.  Perhaps I was too vague in referring to context?  Indeed, target and desired outcome are factors in picking the strike and goes hand in hand with what I mean by 'context'.  As for the feet, that is exactly what i mean.  The fine details like exactly the angle in which your toes or your heel points is unimportant to a degree... so long the more salient concepts are still present such as centering and muscular relaxation and contraction, keeping in mind that those fine details do help put together the final picture in the first place.

Hopefully from receiving good instruction and then having the extended opportunity to train with multiple partners and thus gain knowledge of what works individually for us.

Once again, I disagree. Multiple partners are not required. 

It is always useful to practice with a multitude of people of differing height, size, and strength.  I have also found it useful to practice with differing experience levels and indeed varying types of experiences too.  While it is true that possessing optimal technique means all those things are lessened as factors when vying with another, I believe it a good thing to calibrate my own understanding continually against as much physical variety that I can find.  For the same reason, we mix up partners in my classes so everyone gets the same opportunity to change things up.

Depending on the take down I will step in with Sanchin or Zenkutsu dachi. Zenkutsu may transition into Shiko or Kokutsu dachi. But these are all close range stances. The crescent step takes the foot behind the opponent's leg. That doesn't apply to any of the deeper stances.

Again, I don't know that I am disagreeing with you.  I don't see anything in opposition with what you wrote above when I first said, "As a further thought, what's most important about stances are the bodily actions performed in transition to and from them. You can 'cheat' to an extent on the outward appearance (toe/heel angle slightly awry), but so long as the other parts are true, like shoulder/hip alignment, etc, you can still have a very stable and powerful delivery platform for your strikes and such."   


Some stances are more conducive to certain activities than others. Like shifting quickly to a cat stance to avoid a strike before lashing out with a kick. A boxer wouldn't need to train a cat stance since he doesn't have to worry about his opponent kicking him. In short, because boxing confines each participant to what they can or can't do, it likewise puts them on a path to specialization in a smaller subset of skills, rather than arguably a more generalist perspective that a karate-ka would have. There are surely other examples as well.

This sounds more like a sport based application than RBSD. Not saying you can't step off the line into Neko to launch a counter but I would call that an additional benefit.

<shrugs>  Everything has a purpose.  I imagine you're approaching this from the idea that nekoashi dachi like kokutsu dachi puts your weight and center onto the back leg with the accompanying implications for both sinking force and then a recoil/springing action forward.  If so, OK.  But I don't know that I would call the idea of catting to avoid an attack sport-based.  Isn't this very application sometimes interpreted from Gekisai Dai Ni before mawashi uke?  Also, there's nothing wrong with finding multiplicity where it is both useful and effective. If I use one of my shoes to swat a mosquito, I might still find the effect satisfactory regardless of the shoe's intended purpose.

At 2 meters or indeed at any range, it depends first on what we train and then on situational context with what the immediate goal at the time is. For example, I suspect someone in Isshinryu would stand in that high short stance they call seisan dachi since they can fire all their techniques from that range. A judo-ka might assume a shoulder length stance with his feet sprayed 45 degrees apart called natural stance or sometimes shizen-hontai as it would give him some degree of stability as he considers how to close if needed.

Seisan dachi is basically the same as our Sanchin dachi. Why would anyone stand like that at sparring distance? 

Feet are pointed forwards in Isshinryu seisan dachi.  They also don't always crescent step in this stance and often use it as a standard sparring stance.  Not sure how much exposure you have to Isshinryu karate-ka or whether the folks I know are an exception, but I kid you not - I have definitely seen them use seisan dachi as a neutral stance from medium to long range.  They can push off either the front leg or rear leg to advance or retreat quickly and thus can close the gap within it.  And once they are in close range, it becomes just like sanchin dachi as you've said.  It is a versatile stance for them.

And the Judo-ka will certainly choose a stance like that because he is about to grapple. Once he is grappling he will change his stance when appropriate.

Yes.  In general, different stances have different purposes.  Again, I don't think I have said otherwise.

One answer is because in sanchin dachi we train our Naha-te derived method of creating bursting power in our strikes while also having fast/efficient movement in a supremely stable position.

I might suggest that if you are locked in Sanchin dachi you won't be moving anywhere in a hurry.  

OK, you've got me here.  Fast enough in the context of CQB I should say.  


I'll also play the Jedi mind trick here and state that actually a bunch of non-Goju stylists crescent step in zenkutsu dachi as well. It might be fun examining why they do it and think about the correlation if any to sanchin dachi. 

I think they do it because at some stage someone decided that it looked like a good thing to do. I think it is a flawed technique, but that is just my opinion. 

A Shotokan shihan once told me 1) it's because they take such a wide stance in zenkutsu that they actually need the crescenting to stay balanced as they move formally and 2) they sometimes do it partially to train foot sweeps.  <shrugs>  Maybe it works for them.

To be sure, I wasn't trying to imply that we can substitute one stance for another willy-nilly. I was saying the transitional movements and what we are doing as part of creating the platform are more important IMO than the final posture itself.

I think we are eating the pie from opposite sides. You are looking at stances as a platform for delivering a technique where I am looking at them more as an integrel part of a grappling technique.

Some would say the two are the one and the same and I lean towards that perspective these days myself.

_

OK. When I was Japanese Goju I would probably have supported everything that you have posted. Since changing to the Okinawan form, and training with people from the Jundokan, my understanding has changed substantially. With regard to having a sound base for striking, you might like to chase up Russell Stutely's material on power hitting. He is from a Shotokan background. His approach is more to do with weight transfer than a fixed base.

Weight transfer as the primary factor?  I'll definitely look him up out of interest, but as you know that's surely not the Goju-ryu method. 

As to the stance for sparring at a distance of two metres, I have only ever seen a natural stance (Moto dachi). (My teacher in the early 80s was in the Australian team and his teacher was Australia's team coach.) Certainly in those days when I sparred I liked to drop back into Neko because it made it very easy to score with a snap kick. But in reality Neko has much more going for it in a close combat situation. :asian:

I don't disagree with your last sentence.  Getting sleepy or I would try to write a more concise summary here... Peace.


----------



## K-man (Mar 28, 2013)

dancingalone said:


> _<shrugs>  Everything has a purpose.  I imagine you're approaching this from the idea that nekoashi dachi like kokutsu dachi puts your weight and center onto the back leg with the accompanying implications for both sinking force and then a recoil/springing action forward.  If so, OK.  But I don't know that I would call the idea of catting to avoid an attack sport-based.  Isn't this very application sometimes interpreted from Gekisai Dai Ni before mawashi uke?  Also, there's nothing wrong with finding multiplicity where it is both useful and effective. If I use one of my shoes to swat a mosquito, I might still find the effect satisfactory regardless of the shoe's intended purpose.
> 
> __Neko, for me is mainly for breaking my opponent's balance, normally from behind or at least the side. Because 90% of our training is kata based we normally don't go springing anywhere because we are hanging off our attacker giving him a hard time.
> __
> ...


Just a bit of Jundokan training in Carlsbad.

[video]www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqAacYVcXZs[/video]


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 28, 2013)

I was trying to find a thread to link to it, but I couldn't find it on kung fu forums.  So I'll summarize.  The thread starter runs a well known San Da gym in New York and also has training in traditional chinese arts.  He posted a thread that showed pictures from an old kung fu book illustrating a form.  He then posted pictures from a chinese wrestling manual and showed how many of the steps and hand positions of the form were the same as the grappling moves taught to students.

We must always remember that the forms we have left in any martial art are kind of like the game "Jeopardy".  We have the answer, NOW we need to find the right questions.


----------



## K-man (Mar 28, 2013)

punisher73 said:


> I was trying to find a thread to link to it, but I couldn't find it on kung fu forums.  So I'll summarize.  The thread starter runs a well known San Da gym in New York and also has training in traditional chinese arts.  He posted a thread that showed pictures from an old kung fu book illustrating a form.  He then posted pictures from a chinese wrestling manual and showed how many of the steps and hand positions of the form were the same as the grappling moves taught to students.
> 
> We must always remember that the forms we have left in any martial art are kind of like the game "Jeopardy".  We have the answer, NOW we need to find the right questions.


Great analogy. That is why I love it when the WC guys post their vids.  I also have a couple of books of Chi Na for that very reason.     
:asian:


----------



## chinto (Mar 28, 2013)

OK two cents worth here... and no refunds... lol.

I was in a standing throw seminar, and found with out thought, or intent when the person tried to throw me, I was suddenly finding myself in one of the classic Karate stances.
It gave my partner fits! I was very very difficult to throw, and found that I usually had a lot of very nasty targets available and could in turn if not strike often throw him!  Karate teaches ( at least the two Okinawan styles I train in, to get close and finish it!! ) 

There are two distances to work in in a fight. at longer distance, where its harder to get hurt and to hurt some one, and often where you see sport sparring.  And close in, were you can do a lot of damage fast, and end it quickly, but also be badly hurt fast to.  Karate on Okinawa developed with the second distance, as if you lost well you were dead anyway! also it might be a satsuma samurai you fought and he would definitely be armed! With that armed man being close and ending it fast was the best way to stay alive!


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 29, 2013)

punisher73 said:


> We must always remember that the forms we have left in any martial art are kind of like the game "Jeopardy".  We have the answer, NOW we need to find the right questions.



Ha, not left in "any martial art".... it's a rarity to have any such gaps in the old Japanese systems.... just so you know....


----------



## K-man (Mar 29, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Ha, not left in "any martial art".... it's a rarity to have any such gaps in the old Japanese systems.... just so you know....


Mmm! It's what makes karate unique.


----------

