# Stance Training



## marlon

How many shaolin kempo practitioners and teachers continue stance training after the itermediate level?  I find the higher stances of shaolin kempo more effiecient for combat but improper basics leaves the higher stance unstable and unidimensional.  Any thoughts?

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## MJS

Stances/footwork and basics should go hand in hand.  Theres no reason why one should neglect this area at the higher ranks.

Mike


----------



## BlackCatBonz

i think people put too much focus on stances......as they are simply snapshots in time of transitions from one movement to another.
if you're in a stance, you're standing still.....and then you're in trouble.


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> i think people put too much focus on stances......as they are simply snapshots in time of transitions from one movement to another.
> if you're in a stance, you're standing still.....and then you're in trouble.


 
Hmm, interesting perspective considering a cat will stay very still prior to the attack.   I've actually found staying still not only saves energy but gives me the advantage of moving once I see the attack.

DarK LorD


----------



## marlon

Transition and fluidity are essential and only effective if you can strike with sufficient power.  A mobile base is at the heart of shaolin kempo and still we need to be able to root, if only momentarily, in order to strike with sufficient power.  Without proper stance training this cannot be done (imo).  Too many look for the lucky 'tag' and can gain no real control over the aggressor or themselves due to underdeveloped stance training, little knowlegde of the purpose or most useful application of a stance, underdeveloped ability to transit from stance to stance and ability to fight from a given stance logically and effectively, knowing that the base although mobile is still your base.  SK states that you can fight from anywhere, yet you still need to be strong and to root as you transit


Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## BlackCatBonz

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> Hmm, interesting perspective considering a cat will stay very still prior to the attack. I've actually found staying still not only saves energy but gives me the advantage of moving once I see the attack.
> 
> DarK LorD


is the cat standing still while he is fighting?


----------



## Matt Stone

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> is the cat standing still while he is fighting?



Yes, often.

Stances are used to maintain stability and generate power.  They are not held during fighting (unless one uses a "fighting stance" to fire techniques from), but assumed for the split second that a technique lands.

No stance, no stability.  No stability, no power.  No power, well, you get the picture...

Those who neglect their stance training will, undoubtedly, have much weaker technique than those who do not.  The stances are there for a reason.  Picking and choosing what parts of your art you care to practice isn't really an option, regardless of what some folks think nowadays...


----------



## BlackCatBonz

ive never seen a cat stand still while fighting.......ive had cats all my life.
in fact i have 2 right now that fight all the time......and i have never seen them stand still.
funny that


----------



## Doc

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> Yes, often.
> 
> Stances are used to maintain stability and generate power.  They are not held during fighting (unless one uses a "fighting stance" to fire techniques from), but assumed for the split second that a technique lands.
> 
> No stance, no stability.  No stability, no power.  No power, well, you get the picture...
> 
> Those who neglect their stance training will, undoubtedly, have much weaker technique than those who do not.  The stances are there for a reason.  Picking and choosing what parts of your art you care to practice isn't really an option, regardless of what some folks think nowadays...


WELL SAID MR. STONE.


----------



## Matt Stone

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> ive never seen a cat stand still while fighting.......ive had cats all my life.
> in fact i have 2 right now that fight all the time......and i have never seen them stand still.
> funny that



Let's not neglect the silly little fact that you are not, in fact, a cat.

Cats will "grapple," they will bat at each other while standing still and "posing" to intimidate each other.  However, to infer that a human (bipedal with no natural weapons) should physically imitate or even take theoretical guidance form a cat (quadrupedal with claws and teeth and significant differences in physiology) is absurd.

Fight like a person, since that's what you are.


----------



## MJS

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> i think people put too much focus on stances......as they are simply snapshots in time of transitions from one movement to another.
> if you're in a stance, you're standing still.....and then you're in trouble.



Yes and No.  You can still be in a stance and have movement.  Look at a boxer for example.  They are in a stance, so to speak, while they are moving and throwing punches, bobbing, weaving, etc.  

Mike


----------



## BlackCatBonz

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> Let's not neglect the silly little fact that you are not, in fact, a cat.
> 
> Cats will "grapple," they will bat at each other while standing still and "posing" to intimidate each other. *However, to infer that a human (bipedal with no natural weapons)* should physically imitate or even take theoretical guidance form a cat (quadrupedal with claws and teeth and significant differences in physiology) is absurd.
> 
> Fight like a person, since that's what you are.


a human has no natural weapons? that is absurd


----------



## Doc

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> a human has no natural weapons? that is absurd


Homo sapien has evolved to the point where they have no natural weapons per se, but have may use their body as weapons outside the norm of daily existence.

A cats claws, as an example ARE natural weapons, as a dogs teeth, a snakes fangs, and a birds beak, etc. All there and in the evolutionary process designed to be used on a daily basis as a NATURAL weapon to allow the species to survive. Man does not possess the NATURAL strength, agility, or natural weapons of its nearest genetic equivallent. However that does not preclude man from DEVELOPING natural weapons. The difference is animals that possess them, have them naturally and no developement is necessary. Animals fight effectively instinctively, no training necessary. A man's hands MAY punch but is not designed to, and without developemental skills will probably break if used as a weapon, etc.


----------



## BlackCatBonz

Doc said:
			
		

> Homo sapien has evolved to the point where they have no natural weapons per se, but have may use their body as weapons outside the norm of daily existence.
> 
> A cats claws, as an example ARE natural weapons, as a dogs teeth, a snakes fangs, and a birds beak, etc. All there and in the evolutionary process designed to be used on a daily basis as a NATURAL weapon to allow the species to survive. Man does not possess the NATURAL strength, agility, or natural weapons of its nearest genetic equivallent. However that does not preclude man from DEVELOPING natural weapons. The difference is animals that possess them, have them naturally and no developement is necessary. Animals fight effectively instinctively, no training necessary. A man's hands MAY punch but is not designed to, and without developemental skills will probably break if used as a weapon, etc.


well doc.....i will have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. 
animals do no fight "effectively" instinctively. they simply fight because of the need for dominance in the pride, pack, etc.....or the opportunity to mate, the strongest male wins, ensuring a strong pack, pride, etc. they do not study fighting.....but they may playfight as they grow (the same way we humans do in the study of martial arts etc.). the animals use what they have at their disposal, which happens to be teeth, claws or fangs. humans possess teeth which are capable of biting, and hands and feet capable of hitting, which they probably used as the need arose in the same way other animals did, sure they may get broken, but i think animals may suffer the same fate during their own battles with the loser often dying or being ostracized....... obviously the human brain is more capable than other animals which allowed us to make and use tools for survival.....we developed as we did.....and here we are at the top of the land based food chain.


----------



## BlackCatBonz

MJS said:
			
		

> Yes and No. You can still be in a stance and have movement. Look at a boxer for example. They are in a stance, so to speak, while they are moving and throwing punches, bobbing, weaving, etc.
> 
> Mike


if i see a boxer who is rooted and weaving.....it's probably because he is in the 12th round and out of steam. 
if you are in a stance....(you might be moving if you want to get technical and speak of muscle tone and the minutiae of movement)you are standing still.


----------



## Sapper6

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> i think people put too much focus on stances......as they are simply snapshots in time of transitions from one movement to another.
> if you're in a stance, you're standing still.....and then you're in trouble.



stances are THE basic learning tool in any system.  basics are the foundation on which techniques are built.  you neglect the stance training, you neglect your base.  you lack a solid base, you very well may lack power, balance, lower body coordination, or anything else that relates to such.

you ever seen a house that was built upon a poor foundation?  won't last long.


----------



## BlackCatBonz

a house doesnt really need to move......does it


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> a house doesnt really need to move......does it


 
Does an Earthquake count?   


DarK LorD


----------



## BlackCatBonz

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> Does an Earthquake count?
> 
> 
> DarK LorD


lol


----------



## BlackCatBonz

i would just like to say.....we were originally talking about people. not cats, not houses, not animals.


----------



## Sapper6

the premise is the same.

and you are missing our point entirely :idunno:


----------



## BlackCatBonz

no the premise is not the same.you want to make a bunch of analogies how humans are the same as cats and houses. i am stating that they differ immensely.
i state that there is strength in movement.....you state that humans are like houses.


----------



## Sapper6

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> no the premise is not the same.you want to make a bunch of analogies how humans are the same as cats and houses. i am stating that they differ immensely.
> i state that there is strength in movement.....you state that humans are like houses.



the "house" reference was an analogy.  sorry i should have been more clear in explaining that reference, but i'll save my breath.

how can strength possibly exist in movement...?  check this out: take up a solid stance fire a reverse punch into a heavy bag; note what happens.  NEXT, while jumping from one stance to another, fire that same punch, while moving; note what happens.  which had the perception of more generated power?

to each his own.  

fly like a butterfly, sting like a bee, i suppose :idunno:


----------



## Tgace

All true, but boxers dont stand in their "stances" for extended periods of time. They are taught the stance and then they work from it. I always found standing around in stances as part of training a little silly. There are more effective ways to train balance, stamina, strength etc.


----------



## BlackCatBonz

yep....to each his own


----------



## sifu Adams

Let me put a twist on this.  Low stances in my style teachs you to put your body weight into each move.  If you train in low stance your body is forced to put body movement into the move.  example.  If I am in a low stance and I go to throw a kick I have to shift my whole body weigth to get out of the stance and preform the kick.  the more you do it the more fluent you get and then it becomes easy and part of the kick.  hopfully I explaned it?


----------



## MJS

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> if i see a boxer who is rooted and weaving.....it's probably because he is in the 12th round and out of steam.
> if you are in a stance....(you might be moving if you want to get technical and speak of muscle tone and the minutiae of movement)you are standing still.



The difference here is standing in a stance, in one place with no movement, or being in a stance and having movement.  When I spar, I'm in a stance, but certianly not standing still.  I'm moving, using footwork, etc.  As for standing still...there will always be a slight break in movement.  For example:  When throwing a jab/cross combo, you're still moving when that jab is coming, and yes, you have a slight break for that cross, but you certianly don't continue to stand there, you start moving again.  So, we have 1.............2............. or 1.2


----------



## Matt Stone

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> i state that there is strength in movement



Less than correct.  There is _momentum_ in movement, but not _strength_.  Strength is pushing off one thing into another.  Momentum is throwing something into another thing while the thrown thing has no base from which to resist impact.  Momentum can have power, as can strength, the difference is the application.  Momentum typically relies on its build up, which more often than not is committed fully once it is fired off.  Strength isn't quite as bound up with that.  Momentum isn't necessarily capable of resisting its own impact - think a ball in the air thrown at a wall.  The ball reacts to the impact by bouncing away; it can't push through the wall.  A car jack lifting a car is solid, and can produce large amounts of power due to its solid base.



> yep....to each his own



If this was fully true, there would be far, far more evidence to show the proof of your theory than there is to prove mine.

Stability generates power far more efficiently than instability and random movement.  I never said to "hold" a stance while fighting.  You hold stances to train the muscles and joints to be strong in that position.  Weak stance may as well not be a stance at all...  The stance is used at the moment of impact, just like a boxer's stance is (at the very moment of impact, they are indeed in a stance not dissimilar to a martial arts stance).  Then you move on, but not randomly and without purpose.

Move when you need to move, rather than moving just to move.  If you move around "randomly," you fall into a pattern, a rhythm.  That rhythm can be measured and used against you, as can the "random" moving.  Step-space-step-space-bob-step-space...  Whatever.  You fall into the trap of allowing the other person's movements dictate yours, consciously or unconsciously.

Stance - good.
No stance - bad.

Very simple really.

 :asian:


----------



## Doc

Simple:

You are either,

1) in a stance

2) Moving from a stance

3) Moving to a stance

4) or flat on your back.

It's like bouncing a ball. It hits the ground, stops, and bounces. Just because it rebounds when it hits, doesn't mean you can say it doesn't touch the ground.

You may discuss the efficacy of how long you maintain a particular stance, but to ignore that you are supported by your legs and feet, and therefore are in a stance of some kind at least momentarily from one jiffy second to the next would be rediculous.


----------



## howardr

Doc said:
			
		

> Simple:
> You may discuss the efficacy of how long you maintain a particular stance, but to ignore that you are supported by your legs and feet, and therefore are in a stance of some kind at least momentarily from one jiffy second to the next would be rediculous.


And once you grasp that, it's simply a matter of realizing whether one particular stance (and application of said stance) is better than another. In other words, it's all stances. I.e., you can't get away from stances, like Dr. Chapel said. You're always going to be in a stance of some sort (or transitioning to one, etc.). The only question is: is it a good, solid, strong stance, or a weak one?

I think those arguing for "no stances" or for the diminished importance of stances are necessarily removing the basis for almost everything else they should be doing in the martial context (including moving, since movement will be weaker if moving FROM weak stances to weak stances). Therefore, they will necessarily produce dramatically less power in their strikes then they would be otherwise capable of producing, and they will be much less able to withstand strikes, force and pressure exhibited upon them by their opponent.


----------



## Doc

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> Less than correct.  There is _momentum_ in movement, but not _strength_.  Strength is pushing off one thing into another.  Momentum is throwing something into another thing while the thrown thing has no base from which to resist impact.  Momentum can have power, as can strength, the difference is the application.  Momentum typically relies on its build up, which more often than not is committed fully once it is fired off.  Strength isn't quite as bound up with that.  Momentum isn't necessarily capable of resisting its own impact - think a ball in the air thrown at a wall.  The ball reacts to the impact by bouncing away; it can't push through the wall.  A car jack lifting a car is solid, and can produce large amounts of power due to its solid base.
> 
> 
> 
> If this was fully true, there would be far, far more evidence to show the proof of your theory than there is to prove mine.
> 
> Stability generates power far more efficiently than instability and random movement.  I never said to "hold" a stance while fighting.  You hold stances to train the muscles and joints to be strong in that position.  Weak stance may as well not be a stance at all...  The stance is used at the moment of impact, just like a boxer's stance is (at the very moment of impact, they are indeed in a stance not dissimilar to a martial arts stance).  Then you move on, but not randomly and without purpose.
> 
> Move when you need to move, rather than moving just to move.  If you move around "randomly," you fall into a pattern, a rhythm.  That rhythm can be measured and used against you, as can the "random" moving.  Step-space-step-space-bob-step-space...  Whatever.  You fall into the trap of allowing the other person's movements dictate yours, consciously or unconsciously.
> 
> Stance - good.
> No stance - bad.
> 
> Very simple really.
> 
> :asian:


Well said, Mr. Stone.


----------



## bdparsons

Stance or No Stance, either extreme is incorrect.

In my opinion stance training, when properly taught, should teach the balance between stability and mobility and the ebb and flow necessary between the two. Many folks think the process of learning stances is about the snapshot of the stances that we acquire in the mind's eye when in fact it is just as much about how we prepare the body to move and then move between stances. Both factors, stability and mobility, must be dealt with to fully understand the process.

This discussion seems to be equating stability with "power" and mobility with "no power". Which is it? The better question would be: "Which power principle are we talking about?" Each power principle (in relation to stances) actually relies on a combination of stability and mobility to be effective. 

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute


----------



## BlackCatBonz

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> Less than correct.
> *1.* *There is momentum in movement, but not strength. Strength is pushing off one thing into another*.
> *2.* a.*Momentum is throwing something into another thing b.while the thrown thing has no base from which to resist impact*.
> *3.Momentum can have power, as can strength, the difference is the application.*
> *4.* *Momentum typically relies on its build up, which more often than not is committed fully once it is fired off. Strength isn't quite as bound up with that.*
> *5.Momentum isn't necessarily capable of resisting its own impact* - think a ball in the air thrown at a wall. The ball reacts to the impact by bouncing away; it can't push through the wall.
> *6. A car jack lifting a car is solid, and can produce large amounts of power due to its solid base.*
> 
> 
> 
> If this was fully true, there would be far, far more evidence to show the proof of your theory than there is to prove mine.
> 
> *7. Stability generates power far more efficiently than instability and random movement*. I never said to "hold" a stance while fighting. You hold stances to train the muscles and joints to be strong in that position. Weak stance may as well not be a stance at all...
> *8.The stance is used at the moment of impact, just like a boxer's stance is (at the very moment of impact, they are indeed in a stance not dissimilar to a martial arts stance). Then you move on, but not randomly and without purpose.*
> 
> Move when you need to move, rather than moving just to move. If you move around "randomly," you fall into a pattern, a rhythm. That rhythm can be measured and used against you, as can the "random" moving. Step-space-step-space-bob-step-space... Whatever. You fall into the trap of allowing the other person's movements dictate yours, consciously or unconsciously.
> 
> Stance - good.
> No stance - bad.
> 
> Very simple really.
> 
> :asian:


i have numbered the points i wish to address to make it easier/

1.you contradicted yourself by saying strength is created by one thing pushing off of another......movement

2.a. is an inaccurate description of momentum. momentum is a measure of movement.
2.b. this is the optimal time to strike something.

3. this statement is absolute nonsense

4. is more gobbledygook that tries to say something with saying nothing

5. another non sensical statement....you are speaking of potential or stored energy

6. comparing martial arts stances to car jacks is apples and oranges......the car jack is not required to move quickly should the need arrive

7. stability itself does not generate power. but you seem to keep implying that something moving cannot be stable hence unable to have strength.......if you wanna use the car analogy.....is it not capable of generating power while moving? measuring strength is a measure of power, no?

8. did i not state that a stance was a snapshot of time......in transition of movement?

i never once stated that people should not train with stances, nor did i state that stance training was bad......i merely stated that some people put too much focus on them. 

you have gone out of your way with so many words to repeat something i said in my first post......thanks so much


----------



## arnisador

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> 1.you contradicted yourself by saying strength is created by one thing pushing off of another......movement


 When a weightlifter lifts a large weight, he is stationary for a certain period as he holds it over his head, say. No strength?

 Strength, to my mind, comes from pushing off of something. That doesn't mean anything is moving (in the sense of displacement).  If I push a wall, it doesn't move. If I'm grounded, I may not move either.


----------



## BlackCatBonz

we seem to have gotten into a big discussion on strength....when the question was about stances. i said some people put too much into training stances......my real intent was that people should practice moving rather than standing still.
i doubt most people want to just stand there and yell "kiai" as they're getting smoked in the chops.what do you see a lot of martial arts people do when they spar or get into a fight......jump into a stance. that comes from training that way.........and it takes some people a long time to break that habit.
the most important thing is to learn how to remain stable in motion.......most people can just stand there and not fall over.
(im sure that statement will bug the heck out of lots of people and they will take it the wrong way)


----------



## Doc

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> we seem to have gotten into a big discussion on strength....when the question was about stances. i said some people put too much into training stances......my real intent was that people should practice moving rather than standing still.
> i doubt most people want to just stand there and yell "kiai" as they're getting smoked in the chops.what do you see a lot of martial arts people do when they spar or get into a fight......jump into a stance. that comes from training that way.........and it takes some people a long time to break that habit.
> the most important thing is to learn how to remain stable in motion.......most people can just stand there and not fall over.
> (im sure that statement will bug the heck out of lots of people and they will take it the wrong way)



Now that you've restated your perspective, I can say I agree with you as well sir.


----------



## The Kai

While movement is important, stance training traines the body how to adopt the postures when and as needed..

Think of car frame.  Does a Car move? yes it it stable, in some ways yes.  Can a car hit hard?


----------



## Kenpodoc

The Kai said:
			
		

> While movement is important, stance training traines the body how to adopt the postures when and as needed..
> 
> Think of car frame.  Does a Car move? yes it it stable, in some ways yes.  Can a car hit hard?


I think that this is the wrong metaphor.  If we use a car we have to think about it during a wheelie since we are on two legs.  

When talking about stances you have to consider both static stability and dynamic stability. I tend to think of stances as frozen transitions, not unimportant but intimately related to the transition to the next stance.  Stances have vectors of relative stability and vectors of relative instability. It is important to train the stance both to be able to achieve that stance and to be able to know its strengths and weaknesses.  It is also essential to train the transitions between stances to allow efficient stable movement.

Personally, I'm a long way off of having good stances and good transitions. I'm very slow sometimes but I've finally recognized the value of forms for helping me to learn both the stances and transitions.

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## marlon

Sorry i have not been able to participate more.  But i agree that there most be grounding to strike and motion to fight.  The best way to check your stances is to blast through your forms at top speed trying to do the correct stances and see where your balance, mobility and stability is at.  Stance training can be done with forms but the comfort level needed for fighting i think requires separate attention and focusing.  Overtraining in any part of the art is conter productive.  Yet, i see so many BB with crapy stances and not reaching thier fullest capabilities in power due to lack of a straong well trained root.

This is a very good and instruictive discussion.  Thank you all

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## OC Kid

In my opinion... Stances are transitional. 
Example fwd stance used against a attack from the front. If someone attack you could draw nto a cat fire the front kick and land in a fwd bo then continue with the attack using the basic footwork. 

The footwork such as pull drag, step drag step threw ect and there are other stances that are used such as the cross over. The stances are and must be used with the footwork for mobility.

but for those stances and the foot work to be effective and work together 

they must be practiced and practiced. I believe use it or lose it. 

The beginning or every class I teach after the warm ups are punches and kicks from the basic stances then use them with the footwork. Not a lot of time maybe 10 -15 mins of class time for this but it is practiced.


----------



## Doc

OC Kid said:
			
		

> In my opinion... Stances are transitional.
> Example fwd stance used against a attack from the front. If someone attack you could draw nto a cat fire the front kick and land in a fwd bo then continue with the attack using the basic footwork.



Why would you move backwards into a cat stance to move forward?


----------



## marlon

The cat could be escape to the side. then into an attack, ususally moving forwards...Just my thoughts


Respectfuly,
Marlon


----------



## OC Kid

Doc,
In the case of a front attack I would slide backwards as a defensive stance (transitional) in order to gain distance to execute a front kick... Push off with the rear leg and blitz using a step through footwork..
I like that footwork BTW..Big T and Chicken ( remember them)  taught me to use it well.

I made that comment as a example thats all. 

There are many uses for each stance. Its up to the practitioner to decide when to use them to their advantage.

I think you know or heard of Jim Muse. He used to tell me all fighting was based on 3 things....

timeing
distanceing
and footwork

They are all related...they all dictate the stances and the techniques to be used. 
So in my opinion to say that say a cat is for angles or offensive techniques limits the use of them.

I try to teach my students different senarios where the different stances can use used in many different ways.

I still think we ought to get together.. where are you at Im in orange county.


----------



## Sapper6

OC Kid said:
			
		

> Doc,
> In the case of a front attack I would slide backwards as a defensive stance (transitional) in order to gain distance to execute a front kick... Push off with the rear leg and blitz using a step through footwork..
> I like that footwork BTW..Big T and Chicken ( remember them)  taught me to use it well.
> 
> I made that comment as a example thats all.
> 
> There are many uses for each stance. Its up to the practitioner to decide when to use them to their advantage.
> 
> I think you know or heard of Jim Muse. He used to tell me all fighting was based on 3 things....
> 
> timeing
> distanceing
> and footwork
> 
> They are all related...they all dictate the stances and the techniques to be used.
> So in my opinion to say that say a cat is for angles or offensive techniques limits the use of them.
> 
> I try to teach my students different senarios where the different stances can use used in many different ways.
> 
> I still think we ought to get together.. where are you at Im in orange county.



not to be over-critical or anything but i, personally, would never retreat back even during a transition during an advancing frontal attack.  if the attacker has momentum, should there be a collision during your backward transition, it's easy to lose balance and fall backward, then taking the attacker to the ground with you, which is not where i'd prefer to be.

i can see, however, believe it would be practical to use that same stance transition moving to the side/flank of the oncoming advancing attack and using a wheel kick instead.  to me, that is more practical in the way you take yourself out of the line of attack, while presenting more targets of your aggressor.  but that's just me. :asian:


----------



## Kenpo_man

A lot of you guys seem to be saying the same thing in different words (lol). My opinion on stances is that they definitely are more than just "snapshots" (though I understand the analogy). A proper stance is a set thing. You CANNOT hit with power with straight legs, leaning too far forward or back, or with your weight on your heels. Your knees must be bent, the weight should be on the balls of your feet in most cases. In grappling there is even an equivalent to stances in posturing. There is definitely a wrong way to do it that will greatly detriment your balance, speed, power and overall effectiveness in general. I believe that great care should be taken in the early stages of training to make sure that the student can do the stances well and without thought. After this has been attained the focus can be taken off stances to a degree but there should be some attention to make sure they stay clean. It is easy to become lazy with stances.


----------



## Doc

OC Kid said:
			
		

> Doc,
> In the case of a front attack I would slide backwards as a defensive stance (transitional) in order to gain distance to execute a front kick... Push off with the rear leg and blitz using a step through footwork..
> I like that footwork BTW..Big T and Chicken ( remember them)  taught me to use it well.  ... I think you know or heard of Jim Muse...


Old names from the past. I feel older now thanks to you. 


> I still think we ought to get together.. where are you at Im in orange county.


You might find that sans a correcting mechanism, anytime the body moves rearward it slips into an anatomically inefficient and disassociated mode that lacks structural integrity to provide the impetus to overcome significant opposing mass and inertia to prevent a complete collapse of structure. I am in the Los Angeles area when I'm not working on assignment.


----------



## BlackCatBonz

Doc said:
			
		

> Old names from the past. I feel older now thanks to you.
> 
> *You might find that sans a correcting mechanism, anytime the body moves rearward it slips into an anatomically inefficient and disassociated mode that lacks structural integrity to provide the impetus to overcome significant opposing mass and inertia to prevent a complete collapse of structure*. I am in the Los Angeles area when I'm not working on assignment.


this is an excellent statement, doc. while a person may have the ability to move backwards and do so quickly, it is by no means efficient or effective. 
from my perspective, bringing your rear foot forward into a cat posture provides the forward movement necessary to deliver a strong snapping front kick. its all about making use of the right timing and distance.


----------



## Doc

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> this is an excellent statement, doc. while a person may have the ability to move backwards and do so quickly, it is by no means efficient or effective.


While it can be marginally effective at best, (depending on target), what happens next is critical especially if you lack structure and the ability to stop forward body momentum of an attacker - and/or the ability to remain upright on your two feet. A snapping kick to the soft tissue of the testicular groin area can be effective even under the worse circumstances, however if his body momentum carries him into you and knock you down, you may find yourself still in the middle of a fight even though you inflicted pain. Pain is a diversion and deterrent, but not necessarily inconpascitating.


> from my perspective, bringing your rear foot forward into a cat posture provides the forward movement necessary to deliver a strong snapping front kick. its all about making use of the right timing and distance.


I agree completely sir. Given that opportunity, I would not teach it any other way. However we must also allow for circumstances beyond our control that necessitates a rearward step, and be capable of compensating through the proper correcting mechanisms to remain structurally sound and defensively MOST effective and upright.


----------



## Jagdish

Sir:

Would you consider holding a stance for some minutes a practical approach for stance training? I am asking this as it is dismiss as an old method.

And would you consider taking low stances as a part of our training in kenpo?

Yours,

Jagdish


----------



## marlon

For training and strengthening the legs and also to develpo a comfort level in the stance that allows you to root in and out of it quickly and powerfully it is important to train your stances as low as possible.  The same way we stretch and work high kicks into aour practice although high kicks in kemp[o are generally considered poor practice in a fight.

Also, lowering your center of gravity has many uses all of which require you to be stable and strong to be effective

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## eyebeams

Cat to forward, eh?

 Lots of reasons:

 * Shifting the weight backwards while executing a defensive lead strike allows you to move your head out of the way of a tight hook while responding with power. The weight shift combined with shoulder rotation makes this a deceptively powerful shot while the head slips the punch. You can kick from here, but since incorporating Xingyi I prefer to transition into wood fist: a short vertical strike that lands at the same time as the foot drops out of cat.

 * One of the classic applications of Naihanchi can be modified for a cat-step instead of a sweep. The lead leg has next to no weight on it, but the rear leg is in fact driving on a relative 45 degree angle to cut into a round kick or a pivoting body movement. This allows you to grab and sweep in a single beat.

 * You can rake down into a stomp against a slow kicker quite nicely from cat.

 For all of these things, the trick is to learn how to isolate hip rotation from the pelvic girdle so that the lead leg can hold the position you want while you generate power in a different direction.


----------



## Doc

Jagdish said:
			
		

> Sir:
> Would you consider holding a stance for some minutes a practical approach for stance training? I am asking this as it is dismiss as an old method.


No. This type of training simply for the sake of "strengthening the legs" is unnecessary. The amount of time available for "modern warriors" is limited, and time must be spent conservatively and more functionally toward your goals. I however, would find such stance training in conjuction with other activities of the upper platform much more productive and useful in today's environment. The days when a person could stand in a horse for hours "just" to make their legs strong belong to another time and culture.


> And would you consider taking low stances as a part of our training in kenpo?


Only in conjunction sir as I stated above. There are activities that by necessity lower the body into functional low stances, and making these movements functional is enough and all the "low stance" training most need.

Stay well sir.


----------



## SK101

Matt Stone said:


> Let's not neglect the silly little fact that you are not, in fact, a cat.
> 
> Cats will "grapple," they will bat at each other while standing still and "posing" to intimidate each other. However, to infer that a human (bipedal with no natural weapons) should physically imitate or even take theoretical guidance form a cat (quadrupedal with claws and teeth and significant differences in physiology) is absurd.
> 
> Fight like a person, since that's what you are.


 
Don't forget that they leap from the jungle and always try to attack from behind. 

I still like learning from the animals however. Grab someone's hair with both hands and shake them violently and you have a shark kempo. (Please don't actual do this it swells you training partners brain,they don't tend to like that).


----------



## LawDog

For standup everything revolves around good footwork and stances. When on the ground everything will revolve around good floor position,(a floor stance), and transitional technique,(foot work), moves.
For the average person in todays fighting society developing a good horse stace is important so as to develope their "feel" to control these areas,
1) neutral torso position, 
When working out of a forward or like stance the average person will tend to lean a little to far forward or to the rear. Practicing a horse stance position will help a student to develop the feel of a neutral torso position.
2) leg weight,
Again when working in various forward or like stances the average student will tend to place more body weight on one leg than the other and they will not realize it. A neutral horse position will allow a student to "feel" weather is leg weight is equal or more on one side than the other.
3) foot weight pressure,
Again in the various other stances because the body is turned etc. the average student will not learn how to feel the weight pressure on the bottom of his foot. This ability to feel foot weight pressure is very important because where the weight is being placed on the bottom of the foot will determine if you are what is referred to as,
a) light, fast fluid footwork,
b) medium, a general all purpose position,
c) heavy, for applying heavy power of continous rapid strikes.
So for the average lower ranked student some training in the stance is important to develop the above mentioned areas.
I personally do not believe in using the "horse stance" for one vs one fight training. It is a tool that can help the lower ranks to develop their much needed "feel" of wight.
Just my views here and nothing else intended.
:ultracool


----------



## DavidCC

Thanks, that's a great post on why to train using horse stance


----------



## Jdokan

Hi Marlon hope your New Year went well!  
    I still focus on stances, I believe structure is key.....but like anything....it is all open to interpretation....


----------



## Doc

DavidCC said:


> Thanks, that's a great post on why to train using horse stance



Living mammals in general and humans specifically have an innate ability to distinguish weight distribution, and "feel" where they are through various parts of the feet. It is part of the autonomic nervous system and PNF. If we didn't, we'd fall down easily. You cannot train someone to "feel" their own weight anymore than the autonomic sensors will allow. Further, the entire bottom of the foot is utilized and constantly shifts focus from one part of the foot to the other unconsciously from one jiffy-second to the next, in an effort to maintain an upright poster in bipedal stances and movement. A classic example of how biomechanical function is not a philosophy, style, or personal training preference of someone who teaches, but is dictated by the educated sciences of human movement.


----------



## LawDog

The one of the most difficult things to teach a beginner student is footwork and stances. Why? they are aware,feel, their basic sense of balance. Basic levels are not good enough, they have to be brought to a higher level.
Proof, professional sports, lets say football. Do they not work heavily on footwork, low stances etc.? 
To simply have the ability to keep upright and walk does not mean that one can do it to their best ability, they have to be trained properly in order to do it and to correct themselves, by feel, if they have done it wrong.
The average person can pick up and hold things without dropping them naturally. In Jujitsu one must, on a higher level, feel themselves and their opponet. This comes through extensive training, especially in the advanced area of "feeling" your opponets motion.
Perfection in all areas of training should be strived for.
:supcool:


----------



## Doc

"You cannot train someone to "feel" their own weight anymore than the PNF autonomic sensors will allow."

"Biomechanical function is not a philosophy, style, or personal training preference, but is totally dictated by the educated sciences and parameters of human movement."

Dr. Chapél


----------



## LawDog

Let the reader decide their own path in which to follow.
Student Al C.
:asian:


----------



## SL4Drew

LawDog said:


> The one of the most difficult things to teach a beginner student is footwork and stances. Why? they are aware,feel, their basic sense of balance. Basic levels are not good enough, they have to be brought to a higher level.
> Proof, professional sports, lets say football. Do they not work heavily on footwork, low stances etc.?
> To simply have the ability to keep upright and walk does not mean that one can do it to their best ability, they have to be trained properly in order to do it and to correct themselves, by feel, if they have done it wrong.
> The average person can pick up and hold things without dropping them naturally. In Jujitsu one must, on a higher level, feel themselves and their opponet. This comes through extensive training, especially in the advanced area of "feeling" your opponets motion.
> Perfection in all areas of training should be strived for.
> :supcool:


 
In most Chinese Martial Arts, they have some sort of 'stance keeping' training. Historically, standing in a static horse is associated with the Shaolin Temple. It was the major 'martial qigong' used in such systems. And to some extent you still see it in related systems. A major thrust of the martial aspect of such training is to cultivate a mind-body connection (or 'qi' if you'd prefer). On the physical level, the idea is to, at a minimum, teach the student how to harmonize all parts of the body. 

Although there are some postures that are supposed to help the student develop better balance, I have never heard the horse stance counted among those. And I am dubious that a horse stance is an effective vehicle for that. You can develop awareness of your balance and your body's adjustments by standing naturally. I don't see how the horse stance is a superior method to standing naturally to cultivate this awareness. In fact, it is arguably inferior because of the fatigue it is going to create and thus causing an accompanying mental distraction.


----------



## Doc

SL4Drew said:


> In most Chinese Martial Arts, they have some sort of 'stance keeping' training. Historically, standing in a static horse is associated with the Shaolin Temple. It was the major 'martial qigong' used in such systems. And to some extent you still see it in related systems. A major thrust of the martial aspect of such training is to cultivate a mind-body connection (or 'qi' if you'd prefer). On the physical level, the idea is to, at a minimum, teach the student how to harmonize all parts of the body.
> 
> Although there are some postures that are supposed to help the student develop better balance, I have never heard the horse stance counted among those. And I am dubious that a horse stance is an effective vehicle for that. You can develop awareness of your balance and your body's adjustments by standing naturally. I don't see how the horse stance is a superior method to standing naturally to cultivate this awareness. In fact, it is arguably inferior because of the fatigue it is going to create and thus causing an accompanying mental distraction.



Allowing a student to decide their own training comes from the business of the martial arts, and why we have a bunch of unknowledgeable so-called instructors running around today, who couldn't find their own butt with a GPS device and a flashlight.


----------



## LawDog

SL4Drew,
I understand where your point of view comes from. If you viewed the training done at the many different schools with different styles you would see that many do hold to their views.
And Doc I stated to let the "readers" decide their own path.


----------



## SL4Drew

LawDog said:


> SL4Drew,
> I understand where your point of view comes from. If you viewed the training done at the many different schools with different styles you would see that many do hold to their views.
> And Doc I stated to let the "readers" decide their own path.


 
Here is a blog post by a Hung Gar practitioner: http://sunyatanamaskar.wordpress.com/2007/05/22/stance-training/

This post is consistent with my experience, what I have heard CMA students say, and what I have read.  You will see that all the reasons he lists for training in a static horse are consistent with my prior post.  At one point he mentions balance, but it is only a by-product of having a proper stance and the training.  No where does he mention it is to teach the 'feeling' of the weight distribution in your feet.

In the interests of letting the readers decide, my point is your rationale for using the static horse training is inconsistent with the arts in which that training methodology came from.


----------



## Doc

SL4Drew said:


> Here is a blog post by a Hung Gar practitioner: http://sunyatanamaskar.wordpress.com/2007/05/22/stance-training/
> 
> This post is consistent with my experience, what I have heard CMA students say, and what I have read.  You will see that all the reasons he lists for training in a static horse are consistent with my prior post.  At one point he mentions balance, but it is only a by-product of having a proper stance and the training.  No where does he mention it is to teach the 'feeling' of the weight distribution in your feet.
> 
> In the interests of letting the readers decide, my point is your rationale for using the static horse training is inconsistent with the arts in which that training methodology came from.



Unfortunately in modern martial arts, people declare themselves experts in human physiology with absolutely no basis to do so, and develop their own ideas of what should be done and why. When they are confronted by the reality of facts, they stubbornly stick to their ways to comfort their egos, surrounded by the anesthesia of ignorance. It is one thing to argue a point with facts, another to offer unsupported "feelings." Only the students suffer, however putting the art first solves all problems, but unfortunately everybody is a grandmaster these days.


----------



## Jdokan

Doc said:


> "You cannot train someone to "feel" their own weight anymore than the PNF autonomic sensors will allow."
> 
> "Biomechanical function is not a philosophy, style, or personal training preference, but is totally dictated by the educated sciences and parameters of human movement."
> 
> Dr. Chapél


 

I liken it to trying to teach someone to stand in a canoe.....something that experience can only teach....


----------



## Doc

Jdokan said:


> I liken it to trying to teach someone to stand in a canoe.....something that experience can only teach....



Good one.


----------



## DavidCC

Doc said:


> Living mammals in general and humans specifically have an innate ability to distinguish weight distribution, and "feel" where they are through various parts of the feet. It is part of the autonomic nervous system and PNF. If we didn't, we'd fall down easily. You cannot train someone to "feel" their own weight anymore than the autonomic sensors will allow. Further, the entire bottom of the foot is utilized and constantly shifts focus from one part of the foot to the other unconsciously from one jiffy-second to the next, in an effort to maintain an upright poster in bipedal stances and movement. A classic example of how biomechanical function is not a philosophy, style, or personal training preference of someone who teaches, but is dictated by the educated sciences of human movement.


 

_"You cannot train someone to "feel" their own weight anymore than the autonomic sensors will allow"_  but can a person be 'feeling their weight' LESS than the sensors will allow?  I think that is where I was at before I started MA training, unconcious of my posture, always mis-aligned and postured however the chrionic pain in my back led me to stand or sit at that moment.

But since I started MA, and meditation, now I feel like I am paying attention to these things, "taking readings fomr the sensors", and am working towards getting maximum feedback from my proprioceptive sensors, and using them to execute the most efficient / well structured movements.


----------



## LawDog

Using a static horse stance is not done in every class. A few of the reasons that I use this stance for the kyu ranks is so that they will know and better control weight shifting by "feel". A few of the training drills used are,
*bending the knees towards the toes or rearward or back towards the heels will place ones weight on the ball of the foot or over the heel,
*hip tilting either towards the toes or back towards the heel will help shift your weight either on the ball of the foot or on the heel of the foot.
This training drill is done easier from a horse stance than in another stance. A student can develop or learn to be more aware of ones weight displacement, by feel, on his foot.
During any situation one cannot look down to correct a stance one has to feel it and I do not know many kyu ranks or lower dan ranks that can do this.
During one of your classes when you tell a student to correct his stance or posture I would be willing to bet that,
*they had to look down to correct it,
*use a mirror to correct themselves,
*be told by you the Instructor what was wrong and how to correct it.
If you two are really "open minded" Instructors why don't you understand that everyone and every style has their own training methods that work for them.
Now why don't the two of you tell me the training methods that you use to train your kyu ranks on how to be better aware or their own postures and stances. :idunno:


----------



## SL4Drew

DavidCC said:


> _"You cannot train someone to "feel" their own weight anymore than the autonomic sensors will allow"_ but can a person be 'feeling their weight' LESS than the sensors will allow? I think that is where I was at before I started MA training, unconcious of my posture, always mis-aligned and postured however the chrionic pain in my back led me to stand or sit at that moment.
> 
> But since I started MA, and meditation, now I feel like I am paying attention to these things, "taking readings fomr the sensors", and am working towards getting maximum feedback from my proprioceptive sensors, and using them to execute the most efficient / well structured movements.


 
I can't speak for Doc, but the distinction in my mind is between awareness of a normally unconscious feeling and trying to teach your body to 'feel' better. You can do the former but not the latter. As you stated this awareness tends to have a meditative quality. So you are really training your "mind" and no so much your body. Thus, the distinction in my mind.


----------



## SL4Drew

LawDog said:


> Using a static horse stance is not done in every class. A few of the reasons that I use this stance for the kyu ranks is so that they will know and better control weight shifting by "feel". A few of the training drills used are,
> *bending the knees towards the toes or rearward or back towards the heels will place ones weight on the ball of the foot or over the heel,
> *hip tilting either towards the toes or back towards the heel will help shift your weight either on the ball of the foot or on the heel of the foot.
> This training drill is done easier from a horse stance than in another stance. A student can develop or learn to be more aware of ones weight displacement, by feel, on his foot.
> During any situation one cannot look down to correct a stance one has to feel it and I do not know many kyu ranks or lower dan ranks that can do this.
> During one of your classes when you tell a student to correct his stance or posture I would be willing to bet that,
> *they had to look down to correct it,
> *use a mirror to correct themselves,
> *be told by you the Instructor what was wrong and how to correct it.
> If you two are really "open minded" Instructors why don't you understand that everyone and every style has their own training methods that work for them.
> Now why don't the two of you tell me the training methods that you use to train your kyu ranks on how to be better aware or their own postures and stances. :idunno:


 
I was giving you an oppertunity to convince me that the training method is valid.  I expressed doubt and explained the basis for that doubt.  I did not exclude the possibility that it does work. I even suggested that if it did that I still had doubt that it was the best way to achieve what I understand to be your goal.  I submit that my mind is indeed still open.

My 'simple' answer is: move slowly.  A more specific answer is Stance Set 101.


----------



## Doc

LawDog said:


> Using a static horse stance is not done in every class. A few of the reasons that I use this stance for the kyu ranks is so that they will know and better control weight shifting by "feel". A few of the training drills used are,
> *bending the knees towards the toes or rearward or back towards the heels will place ones weight on the ball of the foot or over the heel,
> *hip tilting either towards the toes or back towards the heel will help shift your weight either on the ball of the foot or on the heel of the foot.
> This training drill is done easier from a horse stance than in another stance. A student can develop or learn to be more aware of ones weight displacement, by feel, on his foot.
> During any situation one cannot look down to correct a stance one has to feel it and I do not know many kyu ranks or lower dan ranks that can do this.
> During one of your classes when you tell a student to correct his stance or posture I would be willing to bet that,
> *they had to look down to correct it,
> *use a mirror to correct themselves,
> *be told by you the Instructor what was wrong and how to correct it.
> If you two are really "open minded" Instructors why don't you understand that everyone and every style has their own training methods that work for them.
> Now why don't the two of you tell me the training methods that you use to train your kyu ranks on how to be better aware or their own postures and stances. :idunno:



Well sir, first of all, all of my students are extremely open minded, and they also have carte blanche to challenge me on any topic to prove or disprove its efficacy. I actively encourage it. Most of my students are degreed or credentialed highly educated professionals not prone to be led. In fact they are leaders from law enforcement, to the medical field, and everything in-between. In fact the other "two" in this discussion is a lawyer who talks me to death. My point is, I have to prove my perspective to them constantly and be open to their inquiries. When a student is a thoracic surgeon who literally saves people lives based on his knowledge and skill, asks you a question, you better know what you're talking about because you can't bulls**t him. Same for my cops and federal agents. They have more physical confrontations than anyone, and will test you in a heartbeat. But I love it. It makes me smarter, and I listen to everyone of my students and the knowledge they bring to a discussion. My students make me smarter.

But as I previously stated sir, your method is a philosophical one, built around a style culture, wrapped in your own preferences. What I choose to call a "Training Conundrum" that has more to do with you, than it does the teaching of specific material through educated means firmly based in the science of the art. It is typical of those who do not have the education, and knowledge to do so.

However that being said, as long as you and your students find a satisfactory result in your methodology, there are no forthcoming complaints from me. However the purpose of the forum, as I perceived it, was to share and exchange ideas and information for examination, that we all might become better educated in what we do.

Should you choose to reject that information, I am not offended. It is your choice. If you do not find information valid for you, once again, it is your choice. But, I suggested sound evidence grounded in the physical sciences of human anatomy. You gave me reasons why you "feel" what you are doing is important. Feelings over education. I have no problem with your preference, although it does remind me of arguments I've had with members of my own "estrogen mafia" at home.

As far as my method, I come from an "old school thought," apparently different from your old school. My teacher suggested the best way to learn something, is by doing what it is you need to do. Kinda like was previous stated. You can't learn to stand up in a canoe anyway other than standing up in canoe, or as Mr. Parker stated, 

"If what you do is not what you do, than what are you doing?" 

The best way, in my opinion to get students to "feel" their stances and how to move in them - is to put students in stances and make them move, and correct them. You choose the "static method" of making them stand in a stance they aren't going to use in reality. Your choice. 

My choice can be seen on youtube. It's called oddly enough, "Stance Set 101."

"Pride and ego, are the anesthesia of ignorance." - Ed Parker Sr.

Forest Gump put it another way.


----------



## Doc

DavidCC said:


> _"You cannot train someone to "feel" their own weight anymore than the autonomic sensors will allow"_  but can a person be 'feeling their weight' LESS than the sensors will allow?  I think that is where I was at before I started MA training, unconcious of my posture, always mis-aligned and postured however the chrionic pain in my back led me to stand or sit at that moment.
> 
> But since I started MA, and meditation, now I feel like I am paying attention to these things, "taking readings fomr the sensors", and am working towards getting maximum feedback from my proprioceptive sensors, and using them to execute the most efficient / well structured movements.



What you are doing sir, through your training, is adjusting and being conscious of your posture. By corrective and being sensitive to your posture, you automatically correct and adjust your weight distribution to accommodate the posture mandates in human anatomy. That's what you "feel." The human body has limitations in all aspects of its sensory systems. Some physical things you cannot improve through training. ie reaction times to external stimuli has a functional ceiling, no matter how much we train.


----------



## seasoned

The static horse stance is a great tool that was used in my dojo, by my Sensei. As white belts, we would start with short periods at a time, while punching. By the time we made it to black belt, we were required to hold this position for ½ hour, with someone on our shoulders, of our own weight. At the time, I thought it was some kind of sadistic way of torturing us. Now that I look back, this stance was great for mind conditioning, as well as awesome leg power. When in the static horse stance, the requirement was head straight, shoulders back, arms folded on the chest while we concentrated our breath low. The feeling was trying to sit on a chair that wasnt there, with knees bent so we could not see our toes, if we looked down. Knee tension was out, like there was a horse under us. Our toes gripped the ground while our feet pointing straight ahead. We would concentrate on 9 points on the bottom of our feet, that would tell us if our weight was even. 5 toes, both balls of the foot, outer edge, and heel. If all 9 points were touching, then weight was evenly distributed.


----------



## Doc

seasoned said:


> The static horse stance is a great tool that was used in my dojo, by my Sensei. As white belts, we would start with short periods at a time, while punching. By the time we made it to black belt, we were required to hold this position for ½ hour, with someone on our shoulders, of our own weight. At the time, I thought it was some kind of sadistic way of torturing us. Now that I look back, this stance was great for mind conditioning, as well as awesome leg power. When in the static horse stance, the requirement was head straight, shoulders back, arms folded on the chest while we concentrated our breath low. The feeling was trying to sit on a chair that wasnt there, with knees bent so we could not see our toes, if we looked down. Knee tension was out, like there was a horse under us. Our toes gripped the ground while our feet pointing straight ahead. We would concentrate on 9 points on the bottom of our feet, that would tell us if our weight was even. 5 toes, both balls of the foot, outer edge, and heel. If all 9 points were touching, then weight was evenly distributed.


I can appreciate the perspective, having been subjected to similar training myself under both Chinese and Japanese Instructors. However, those training methods are culturally influenced and date back to a time when warrior training was intentionally hard, and also designed to build strength and endurance in those whose very survival depended upon it.

In a society where every thug has access to firearms, and hand-to-hand fighting is anomalous in the average person, this type of training is a personal choice. My teacher didn't believe in it. He felt a student would get all of the health benefits they needed by simply training in what it is you were trying to learn. Practicing kicks will build leg strength appropriately. Practicing punches will build punch power. Training techniques and sparring will build cardio strength by training what you do because it is what you need. Physical contact among students will build toughness, and resolve. Wasting time on cultural exercises are a product of a different culture and training methods, and/or drives a business that nows spends as much time on fitness as it does the arts, because the market demands it. 

"Cardio kick," and "aerobic punch," go hand-in-hand with stretching, push ups, and jumping jacks that used to permeate training in the old days, and burn up time so so-called teachers don't really teach anything and keep you coming back. My teacher did not do those things. His position is as mine. 

"I have too much to teach to waste time on such things. It is not my job to get you in shape. You're not in my class long enough or often enough to do that, and it is not my job, but yours. You will get a significant benefit physically from training in the arts without standing in stances for endurance. You will lose weight and gain cardio strength without those things." My job is to teach you how to defend yourself. That's what you pay me for. If you want aerobics, go to a health spa. Anybody who wants to be in shape, will be. Those that won't, there's nothing I can do." 

His intent was to teach the Asian Arts from an American perspective not an Asian one. The old Chinese Methods are too complex and too time intensive to waste time, when the average student is only in two or three days a week for a couple of hours. In Asian, students committed to instruction as a way of life. Here people have to go to work the next day, or go pick up milk for the kids, and other assorted honeydo's. Don't get me wrong, the olds ways are not bad, but they come from a different place, a different time, and even the place it comes from doesn't do it anymore.

We live in an American Culture, not and Asian one sir. I teach the Old World arts, but I leave the cultural stuff out, and get to what my students want. The bulk of them do depend (law enforcement) upon it for their lives, and my classes are no cream puff, but standing in a horse for any length of time is something they don't need me for. They can do that at home in the mirror while I'm explaining what they really need to survive.


----------



## seasoned

Doc said:


> I can appreciate the perspective, having been subjected to similar training myself under both Chinese and Japanese Instructors. However, those training methods are culturally influenced and date back to a time when warrior training was intentionally hard, and also designed to build strength and endurance in those whose very survival depended upon it.
> 
> In a society where every thug has access to firearms, and hand-to-hand fighting is anomalous in the average person, this type of training is a personal choice. My teacher didn't believe in it. He felt a student would get all of the health benefits they needed by simply training in what it is you were trying to learn. Practicing kicks will build leg strength appropriately. Practicing punches will build punch power. Training techniques and sparring will build cardio strength by training what you do because it is what you need. Physical contact among students will build toughness, and resolve. Wasting time on cultural exercises are a product of a different culture and training methods, and/or drives a business that nows spends as much time on fitness as it does the arts, because the market demands it.
> 
> "Cardio kick," and "aerobic punch," go hand-in-hand with stretching, push ups, and jumping jacks that used to permeate training in the old days, and burn up time so so-called teachers don't really teach anything and keep you coming back. My teacher did not do those things. His position is as mine.
> 
> "I have too much to teach to waste time on such things. It is not my job to get you in shape. You're not in my class long enough or often enough to do that, and it is not my job, but yours. You will get a significant benefit physically from training in the arts without standing in stances for endurance. You will lose weight and gain cardio strength without those things." My job is to teach you how to defend yourself. That's what you pay me for. If you want aerobics, go to a health spa. Anybody who wants to be in shape, will be. Those that won't, there's nothing I can do."
> 
> His intent was to teach the Asian Arts from an American perspective not an Asian one. The old Chinese Methods are too complex and too time intensive to waste time, when the average student is only in two or three days a week for a couple of hours. In Asian, students committed to instruction as a way of life. Here people have to go to work the next day, or go pick up milk for the kids, and other assorted honeydo's. Don't get me wrong, the olds ways are not bad, but they come from a different place, a different time, and even the place it comes from doesn't do it anymore.
> 
> We live in an American Culture, not and Asian one sir. I teach the Old World arts, but I leave the cultural stuff out, and get to what my students want. The bulk of them do depend (law enforcement) upon it for their lives, and my classes are no cream puff, but standing in a horse for any length of time is something they don't need me for. They can do that at home in the mirror while I'm explaining what they really need to survive.


 
My post, does of course speak of the past. Back in my early days, classes were 2 hours long. Classes now, as a rule are sometimes only 1 hour long, if that. When I started, in the 60s, it was a take it or leave it situation, because there were no other dojos in town. Schools were far and few between, and basically only the strong survived. In this day and age, as you state, you have to give the student a bang for their buck. If you dont, there is always another school close by, where that student can migrate to. The old ways are not always the best, but for my point in time, I am glad I was part of it. You make some good points, and they are well taken.


----------



## Kryshah

Doc said:


> Homo sapien has evolved to the point where they have no natural weapons per se, but have may use their body as weapons outside the norm of daily existence.
> 
> A cats claws, as an example ARE natural weapons, as a dogs teeth, a snakes fangs, and a birds beak, etc. All there and in the evolutionary process designed to be used on a daily basis as a NATURAL weapon to allow the species to survive. Man does not possess the NATURAL strength, agility, or natural weapons of its nearest genetic equivallent. However that does not preclude man from DEVELOPING natural weapons. The difference is animals that possess them, have them naturally and no developement is necessary. Animals fight effectively instinctively, no training necessary. A man's hands MAY punch but is not designed to, and without developemental skills will probably break if used as a weapon, etc.


 I have to admit that it's amusing to me that I found this in a martial arts forum.  

As a student of zoology friend, I'll have to kindly disagree.  Try to pick a fight with another large primate, and see what kind of natural weapons something with similar physiology to our own employs.  

Another point is that our current physical selves aren't much different from the humans that first gained control of fire, or first crafted a spear.  We have weapons, and you need no training to employ them.  The training that martial artists recieve simply make them _better_ at using said weapons.  Ever been bitten by a child?  Ever been hit by someone untrained?  I'm sure it hurt, and put behind it the desire for sheer survival that most wild animals fight for and I'm sure that you can do the math.  

And to use cats in an argument dealing with footing is not only absurd, it's uneducated.  Surf the web a bit, and you'll find that the very reason for cats grace, speed and agility is thier ability to maintain firm footing.  Watch a cat stalking sometime, or walking on some sort of unstable surface you'll find that thier attention to footing is intense.  They test ground with thier front paws, and place thier rear paws directly where the front paws were.  It's really amazing.  Keep in mind that some of the earliest structured martial arts forms were at least loosely based on animal movement.


----------



## Doc

seasoned said:


> My post, does of course speak of the past. Back in my early days, classes were 2 hours long. Classes now, as a rule are sometimes only 1 hour long, if that. When I started, in the 60s, it was a take it or leave it situation, because there were no other dojo&#8217;s in town. Schools were far and few between, and basically only the strong survived. In this day and age, as you state, you have to give the student a bang for their buck. If you don&#8217;t, there is always another school close by, where that student can migrate to. The old ways are not always the best, but for my point in time, I am glad I was part of it. You make some good points, and they are well taken.



I agree with you sir, and my experience is the same as yours, (we're about the same age), but to put things into perspective, my classes are a draining 3 hours minimum, and nobody leaves without "feeling" what they're supposed to learn.  I'm old school, I just toss out the junk, and I don't give a rip if they go down the street. Of course we're not open to the public, and I don't make any money.


----------



## SL4Drew

Kryshah said:


> I have to admit that it's amusing to me that I found this in a martial arts forum.
> 
> As a student of zoology friend, I'll have to kindly disagree. Try to pick a fight with another large primate, and see what kind of natural weapons something with similar physiology to our own employs.
> 
> Another point is that our current physical selves aren't much different from the humans that first gained control of fire, or first crafted a spear. We have weapons, and you need no training to employ them. The training that martial artists recieve simply make them _better_ at using said weapons. Ever been bitten by a child? Ever been hit by someone untrained? I'm sure it hurt, and put behind it the desire for sheer survival that most wild animals fight for and I'm sure that you can do the math.
> 
> And to use cats in an argument dealing with footing is not only absurd, it's uneducated. Surf the web a bit, and you'll find that the very reason for cats grace, speed and agility is thier ability to maintain firm footing. Watch a cat stalking sometime, or walking on some sort of unstable surface you'll find that thier attention to footing is intense. They test ground with thier front paws, and place thier rear paws directly where the front paws were. It's really amazing. Keep in mind that some of the earliest structured martial arts forms were at least loosely based on animal movement.


 
Wow, it's amazing how much you can disagree with stuff that isn't even written there...


----------



## Doc

Kryshah said:


> I have to admit that it's amusing to me that I found this in a martial arts forum.
> 
> As a student of zoology friend, I'll have to kindly disagree.


That's interesting because I find it amusing that you're commenting like you're the expert. I call that "Holiday Express Syndrome." You may study zoology, but martial arts does not seem to be your forté.


> Try to pick a fight with another large primate, and see what kind of natural weapons something with similar physiology to our own employs. Another point is that our current physical selves aren't much different from the humans that first gained control of fire, or first crafted a spear.  We have weapons, and you need no training to employ them.


I said humans do not have natural weapons compared to other animals. Everything is relative. Large and small primates have natural weapons because they ARE primates, and you seem to negate that although there are physiological similarities, the muscle and bone structure is significantly stronger in these primates compared to a human. A medium size chimp is capable of ripping the arms off a human with their bare hands. That and bone density alone might suggest the argument that although they are similar, this disparity in strength of structure IS what makes them a weapon when they choose to use it.


> The training that martial artists recieve simply make them _better_ at using said weapons.  Ever been bitten by a child?  Ever been hit by someone untrained?  I'm sure it hurt, and put behind it the desire for sheer survival that most wild animals fight for and I'm sure that you can do the math.


This is strength and structure comparatively, that humans do not have, and even with training may only develop to a fraction of what they possess "naturally" as part of their survival skill mechanisms. The fact that someone can hit someone, or bite does not make a reasonable comparable comparison in weapons between the two. Theirs ARE natural weapons, while humans MAY try to use them as natural weapons, and even when humans do, the effect is not is nowhere near comparable. You mentioned that humans made spears, so I guess their natural weapons are inferior as I suggested.


> And to use cats in an argument dealing with footing is not only absurd, it's uneducated.  Surf the web a bit, and you'll find that the very reason for cats grace, speed and agility is thier ability to maintain firm footing.  Watch a cat stalking sometime, or walking on some sort of unstable surface you'll find that thier attention to footing is intense.  They test ground with thier front paws, and place thier rear paws directly where the front paws were.  It's really amazing.  Keep in mind that some of the earliest structured martial arts forms were at least loosely based on animal movement.


I didn't use the cat analogy but I can tell you that, it's a combination of several factors and one of them is that they have strength and agility naturally that humans do not, and they are quadripedal and this ability is a part of the survival skill. Humans are bipedal, and, once again compared to primates cannot run, jump, or balance as well. My position is a matter of comparative analysis. From your limited perspective, every living thing has "natural weapons." But of course that is not what we were speaking of, and our focus in this discussion is specific to human capabilities, as I stated up front.

I think you should talk to your friend that studies zoology, and they will tell you humans do not have natural weapons IN COMPARISON to lower primates. Everything is relative.

I find it amusing that a green belt in tae kwon do, is on a Kenpo Forum commenting about zoology and human natural weapons to a bunch of career high ranking black belts, (with at least two in their sixties) when we're talking about martial arts.

Now that's funny.


----------



## Kryshah

Doc said:


> That's interesting because I find it amusing that you're commenting like you're the expert. I call that "Holiday Express Syndrome." You may study zoology, but martial arts does not seem to be your forté.


I don't recall claiming to be an expert in martial arts... just a fan. 


Doc said:


> I said humans do not have natural weapons compared to other animals. Everything is relative. Large and small primates have natural weapons because they ARE primates, and you seem to negate that although there are physiological similarities, the muscle and bone structure is significantly stronger in these primates compared to a human. A medium size chimp is capable of ripping the arms off a human with their bare hands. That and bone density alone might suggest the argument that although they are similar, this disparity in strength of structure IS what makes them a weapon when they choose to use it. This is strength and structure comparatively, that humans do not have, and even with training may only develop to a fraction of what they possess "naturally" as part of their survival skill mechanisms. The fact that someone can hit someone, or bite does not make a reasonable comparable comparison in weapons between the two. Theirs ARE natural weapons, while humans MAY try to use them as natural weapons, and even when humans do, the effect is not is nowhere near comparable. You mentioned that humans made spears, so I guess their natural weapons are inferior as I suggested.


Excellent arguement, I agree completely that it is all relative. But I still believe that it's unfair to give the black and white assessment that humans are without natural weapons. Ours are not quite as effective, but we do have them.



Doc said:


> I didn't use the cat analogy but I can tell you that, it's a combination of several factors and one of them is that they have strength and agility naturally that humans do not, and they are quadripedal and this ability is a part of the survival skill. Humans are bipedal, and, once again compared to primates cannot run, jump, or balance as well. My position is a matter of comparative analysis. From your limited perspective, every living thing has "natural weapons." But of course that is not what we were speaking of, and our focus in this discussion is specific to human capabilities, as I stated up front.


 Fair enough



Doc said:


> I think you should talk to your friend that studies zoology, and they will tell you humans do not have natural weapons IN COMPARISON to lower primates. Everything is relative.


I don't have a friend that studies zoology. I study zoology, and I agree that everything is indeed relative



Doc said:


> I find it amusing that a green belt in tae kwon do, is on a Kenpo Forum commenting about zoology and human natural weapons to a bunch of career high ranking black belts, (with at least two in their sixties) when we're talking about martial arts.


 
Well, I obviously got in over my head here, so I'll respectfully bow out.  Sorry to have given any offense.


----------



## Doc

Kryshah said:


> I don't recall claiming to be an expert in martial arts... just a fan.
> 
> Excellent arguement, I agree completely that it is all relative. But I still believe that it's unfair to give the black and white assessment that humans are without natural weapons. Ours are not quite as effective, but we do have them.
> 
> Fair enough
> 
> 
> I don't have a friend that studies zoology. I study zoology, and I agree that everything is indeed relative
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I obviously got in over my head here, so I'll respectfully bow out.  Sorry to have given any offense.



No one wants you to stop participating. But you have to admit, you waded into some pretty deep waters about issues that were essentially "off topic." I am not an expert in zoology, but I do have a passing working knowledge of the martial arts, and human biomechanics sir.

Keep posting, we need the intelligence around here sir. Don't be shy, just check the depth of the water before you jump into the pool. The only organ size that matters around here is the one between the ears.


----------



## Kryshah

Doc said:


> No one wants you to stop participating. But you have to admit, you waded into some pretty deep waters about issues that were essentially "off topic." I am not an expert in zoology, but I do have a passing working knowledge of the martial arts, and human biomechanics sir.
> 
> Keep posting, we need the intelligence around here sir. Don't be shy, just check the depth of the water before you jump into the pool. The only organ size that matters around here is the one between the ears.


 I appreciate that... and I thought I edited the organ thing out.... I thought better of that post, and figured that the appologetic stance was more appropriate.  I'll definately be more cautious in future posts.  My two cents weren't needed.

On another topic though after this little exchange I looked you up, watched a few of your seminars on Youtube.  You have me interested in Kenpo.


----------



## Doc

Kryshah said:


> I appreciate that... and I thought I edited the organ thing out.... I thought better of that post, and figured that the appologetic stance was more appropriate.  I'll definately be more cautious in future posts.  My two cents weren't needed.
> 
> On another topic though after this little exchange I looked you up, watched a few of your seminars on Youtube.  You have me interested in Kenpo.



No sir, you got me all wrong. Your two cents is ALWAYS needed. Lots of smart people hang out here, and you're family. Don't sweat it, jump in. Just remember you aren't the only one that can swim sir. 

(The Kenpo I teach is strictly scientific. NOT scientific sounding, but in actuality)


----------



## Kryshah

Doc said:


> No sir, you got me all wrong. Your two cents is ALWAYS needed. Lots of smart people hang out here, and you're family. Don't sweat it, jump in. Just remember you aren't the only one that can swim sir.


  I meant that my opinions and points, while being technically true, had little to no bearing on the topic at hand.



Doc said:


> (The Kenpo I teach is strictly scientific. NOT scientific sounding, but in actuality)


As a student of science, I can definately appreciate this.  I like to know how things work biologically, and it excites me to figure out how to use this knowledge in martial arts.  I'm glad to see that there are folks out there teaching accordingly.


----------



## Doc

Kryshah said:


> I meant that my opinions and points, while being technically true, had little to no bearing on the topic at hand.
> 
> 
> As a student of science, I can definately appreciate this.  I like to know how things work biologically, and it excites me to figure out how to use this knowledge in martial arts.  I'm glad to see that there are folks out there teaching accordingly.


All my students are like you. Smart, educated, and have a thousand questions. You need to talk to Bode, our resident computer code stuff geek. It took me 4 years to convince him that all of his questions will be answered if he just wait a few sessions.  With the line up of doctors, lawyers, government computer code writers, and cops, I have to stay on my toes and know what I'm talking about. They actually lay and wait and try to ambush me with info.


----------



## Kryshah

Doc said:


> All my students are like you. Smart, educated, and have a thousand questions. You need to talk to Bode, our resident computer code stuff geek. It took me 4 years to convince him that all of his questions will be answered if he just wait a few sessions.  With the line up of doctors, lawyers, government computer code writers, and cops, I have to stay on my toes and know what I'm talking about. They actually lay and wait and try to ambush me with info.


 They definately sound like my kind of people.  I'm a devout follower of the "knowledge is power" philosophy.  I keep a fortune from a fortune cookie that I got years ago.  "In Vain have you acquired knowledge if you have not imparted it to others."  I'm actually studying biology education so I can feed my love of sharing information.  With emphasis on zoology of course.


----------



## Doc

Kryshah said:


> They definately sound like my kind of people.  I'm a devout follower of the "knowledge is power" philosophy.  I keep a fortune from a fortune cookie that I got years ago.  "In Vain have you acquired knowledge if you have not imparted it to others."  I'm actually studying biology education so I can feed my love of sharing information.  With emphasis on zoology of course.



My teacher taught me, "Knowledge has no value, unless and until it's shared." - Ed Parker Sr.

Time to relocate sir. You'll love it!


----------



## LawDog

As I have said before, each to their own belief and way. 
On my web site I have listed all of the students that I have taken from white belt to the higher ranks. The advanced ranks have been with me only anywhere from 18 - 32 years, most are still active. I still run my school my way and that way is old school. I do not believe in any of these newer "trendy" ways. 
My students are not of lower IQ. It rubs me the wrong way when a statement infers that unless you have higher education you are the type of person that has a lower IQ. Like Mr Chapel my students are, Lawyers, College Professors, State Police supervisors, Municiple P.O.'s, (active and retired), school teachers as well as the good ole down to earth everyday lower people.
Point is this, I still do it the old way and still I have "my own" long term adults, teens, children and not someone elses transfers.
There is nothing wrong with the old way, what matters is how you use it when teaching. At my school I will not sell my standards to make a buck even if this means that I will have to teach out of my garage.
The old ways teach people how to fight and not just to look good.
I will stand behind what I have previously posted about the use of the "horse stance". This is all that I will say on this subject because this thread is going no where.


----------



## SL4Drew

LawDog said:


> As I have said before, each to their own belief and way.
> On my web site I have listed all of the students that I have taken from white belt to the higher ranks. The advanced ranks have been with me only anywhere from 18 - 32 years, most are still active. I still run my school my way and that way is old school. I do not believe in any of these newer "trendy" ways.


 
For my part, I was referencing a training heritage that pre-dates Karate and American Kenpo. I wouldn't call it trendy.



LawDog said:


> My students are not of lower IQ. It rubs me the wrong way when a statement infers that unless you have higher education you are the type of person that has a lower IQ. Like Mr Chapel my students are, Lawyers, College Professors, State Police supervisors, Municiple P.O.'s, (active and retired), school teachers as well as the good ole down to earth everyday lower people.


 
I really don't think this was implied. Maybe you inferred it, but it was not implied.



LawDog said:


> I will stand behind what I have previously posted about the use of the "horse stance". This is all that I will say on this subject because this thread is going no where.


 
It's fine if you don't want to offer an explanation to me. If you are teaching it and feel a strong conviction about its utility, I expected you to be able to elaborate and explain. I invited to you to have a dialog with me about how I was wrong, misunderstood, or was misinformed. I even responded to your request for my method. So, you don't have to participate, sir. But don't try to pass it off as if 'this thread is going nowhere' for any reason other than you.


----------



## LawDog

SL4Drew,
I thought that I had explained it to you before. It is a known fact that your Instructor and I just don't like each other and that is between the two of us.
To me your responses were made just to back your Instructor up, I have seen this sort of thing before. If those responses are truly yours then I was the one who understood you. 
I was not the one who implied anything.
When real martial artists answer any posting they are usually comming from different mind sets.
1) Instructors - a real Instructor / Trainer will usually answer a posting  on the way his / her students, after being trained with this method, have turned out.
2) Students - Their answer will be based if they personally like / dislike this training method.
From which point of view are you from?


----------



## SL4Drew

LawDog said:


> SL4Drew,
> I thought that I had explained it to you before. It is a known fact that your Instructor and I just don't like each other and that is between the two of us.
> To me your responses were made just to back your Instructor up, I have seen this sort of thing before. If those responses are truly yours then I was the one who understood you.
> I was not the one who implied anything.
> When real martial artists answer any posting they are usually comming from different mind sets.
> 1) Instructors - a real Instructor / Trainer will usually answer a posting on the way his / her students, after being trained with this method, have turned out.
> 2) Students - Their answer will be based if they personally like / dislike this training method.
> From which point of view are you from?


 
Doc doesn't need me to back him up.  He has forgotten more things than many have learned.  Rather, I hope he's there to back me up or correct me.  Honestly, I prefer the latter because I learn something that way.

The bottom line, is if you like doing something, I am certainly in no position to tell you to stop, sir.  But if the only reason you do something is because you 'like' it and have no objective reason to do so, then go ahead and tell me.  I really was trying to get you to explain to me why you did something that seemed to have little or no apparent value.  I explained why I thought so, giving you the understanding of where I was coming from so you could formulate your reponse.

To ask it again more broadly and generally:  Why do you think the static horse is a valid method for teaching weighting and balancing?


----------



## RevIV

I like horse stances.  I like making my students do horse stances.  It burns the legs and helps to strengthen them.  thats about it.  I do not fight out of them - I also practice weapons - I do not plan on using a sword in the street either.. should I not train with it?  This just seems odd that you should question what someone else does when it does not effect you.  I know some people who do not like to chamber their hands,  I did not like them the first 15 years I was in either, but i figured a very good reason for them and now have a new respect for the discipline and muscles that I have built by chambering.  If a person can teach effectively by using horse stances then that is how they have adapted their style.
Jesse


----------



## SL4Drew

RevIV said:


> I like horse stances. I like making my students do horse stances. It burns the legs and helps to strengthen them. thats about it. I do not fight out of them - I also practice weapons - I do not plan on using a sword in the street either.. should I not train with it? This just seems odd that you should question what someone else does when it does not effect you. I know some people who do not like to chamber their hands, I did not like them the first 15 years I was in either, but i figured a very good reason for them and now have a new respect for the discipline and muscles that I have built by chambering. If a person can teach effectively by using horse stances then that is how they have adapted their style.
> Jesse


 
It's not at all odd, sir. It's not like I walked in the school uninvited and said 'why are you doing that?' When some one posts a response to a question on a public forum, how raising a question about that post is 'odd' is beyond me. If the criterion on whether to post anything on this forum was whether it 'effected me,' we would hardly have this forum, let alone informative threads.

Enjoying something or liking something a subjective experience, so I really can't take issue with that.  So if you enjoy horse stances and swordplay, then go ahead and enjoy them.  But if you claim something is an effective training method and commend it to others, then I expect you can explain how and why it is effective and worthwhile. The answer 'just because I think so' may fly on the floor with one's own students, but I submit to you that such a response just doesn't cut it in a place like this with people of diverse backgrounds, experience, and understandings.


----------



## RevIV

SL4Drew said:


> It's not at all odd, sir. It's not like I walked in the school uninvited and said 'why are you doing that?' When some one posts a response to a question on a public forum, how raising a question about that post is 'odd' is beyond me. If the criterion on whether to post anything on this forum was whether it 'effected me,' we would hardly have this forum, let alone informative threads.
> 
> Enjoying something or liking something a subjective experience, so I really can't take issue with that. So if you enjoy horse stances and swordplay, then go ahead and enjoy them. But if you claim something is an effective training method and commend it to others, then I expect you can explain how and why it is effective and worthwhile. The answer 'just because I think so' may fly on the floor with one's own students, but I submit to you that such a response just doesn't cut it in a place like this with people of diverse backgrounds, experience, and understandings.


 

If I were to go on about why I use the horse stance the message would be to long and I would get to bored to bother re-reading my own post to check for errors.  The details of touch cannot be expressed on these forums very easily.  You speak of understandings, how can you understand how someone teaches by reading a response?  This may not be someone's expertise, while others on here can write a great story but may move like crap outside the keyboard.


----------



## SL4Drew

RevIV said:


> If I were to go on about why I use the horse stance the message would be to long and I would get to bored to bother re-reading my own post to check for errors. The details of touch cannot be expressed on these forums very easily. You speak of understandings, how can you understand how someone teaches by reading a response? This may not be someone's expertise, while others on here can write a great story but may move like crap outside the keyboard.


 
So you inserted yourself into this thread to say you are not going to participate in this thread? And to suggest that a teacher cannot be expected to explain a single training method and exercise so someone can hear it or read it and then understand it is just hooey. 

"If you aren't doing what you say you're doing, then what are you doing?" Dr. Chap'el.


----------



## RevIV

SL4Drew said:


> So you inserted yourself into this thread to say you are not going to participate in this thread? And to suggest that a teacher cannot be expected to explain a single training method and exercise so someone can hear it or read it and then understand it is just hooey.
> 
> "If you aren't doing what you say you're doing, then what are you doing?" Dr. Chap'el.


 
Your right, you are just to good at this to pick up on any of my humor.  And, I am able to pick up on your sarcasm in previous posts I just tried to be the better person.  I never said I was not participating, just that when people write to much it gets way to boring.  When Ron Chapel writes, I read, when others write to much I just skip over them.  Its like a philosophy course.  Say the same thing 5 different ways until someone believes you.  Horse stance training builds muscle, If that is the only reason I use it then at least I know why its used.  It is not the only reason but it is a great one.  I guess im off to go play with my sword while you play with your board.
Jesse


----------



## SL4Drew

RevIV said:


> Your right, you are just to good at this to pick up on any of my humor. And, I am able to pick up on your sarcasm in previous posts I just tried to be the better person.


 
That wasn't sarcasm.



RevIV said:


> Horse stance training builds muscle, If that is the only reason I use it then at least I know why its used. It is not the only reason but it is a great one.


 
That is a 'traditional' reason to do it. It is not however the reason originally proffered, to which I take exception.



RevIV said:


> I guess im off to go play with my sword while you play with your board.
> Jesse


 
Oh yeah...I'm rubber and you're glue...


----------



## RevIV

SL4Drew said:


> That wasn't sarcasm.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a 'traditional' reason to do it. It is not however the reason originally proffered, to which I take exception.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah...I'm rubber and you're glue...


 
Thank you for taking that well. I was coming back to edit because I realized I was letting my crying baby in the back ground get my emotions going on this.  I just hate when I see people being cut down on these forums.  It seemed like a 2 person attack on Lawdog and I felt the need to jump in,  kindof why i joined the MA in the first place.  And the reason originally proffered I will have to find.. probably in one of the long posts.


----------



## Doc

RevIV said:


> Your right, you are just to good at this to pick up on any of my humor.  And, I am able to pick up on your sarcasm in previous posts I just tried to be the better person.  I never said I was not participating, just that when people write to much it gets way to boring.  When Ron Chapel writes, I read, when others write to much I just skip over them.  Its like a philosophy course.  Say the same thing 5 different ways until someone believes you.  Horse stance training builds muscle, If that is the only reason I use it then at least I know why its used.  It is not the only reason but it is a great one.  I guess im off to go play with my sword while you play with your board.
> Jesse



Put that sword down.


----------



## RevIV

Doc said:


> Put that sword down.


 
how am I going to cut my butter?


----------



## SL4Drew

RevIV said:


> how am I going to cut my butter?


 
You aren't this guy, are you?


----------



## RevIV

SL4Drew said:


> You aren't this guy, are you?


 
No, but did you notice how his horse stance held up well against the bean bag bullets and the water hoses.


----------



## DavidCC

RevIV said:


> No, but did you notice how his horse stance held up well against the bean bag bullets and the water hoses.


 
ROFL

ladder > sword


----------



## punisher73

Doc said:


> I can appreciate the perspective, having been subjected to similar training myself under both Chinese and Japanese Instructors. However, those training methods are culturally influenced and date back to a time when warrior training was intentionally hard, and also designed to build strength and endurance in those whose very survival depended upon it.


 
Just a clarification of standing in the horse stance.  I have read that the purpose of standing in the stance was to fatigue the muscles to get the skeletal structure to align and help support the body instead of just muscle alone.  Does this have merit?  More specifically, you could be taught how to do this from the get-go by a qualified teacher, or you "self-teach" it if you are dedicated enough through trial and error how to find that structural stability.

I also had another observation about "feeling" weight etc.  Is it my understanding that it is a combination of strengthening rarely used muscles and becoming more conscious of the processs?  I watched a show (human weapon I think) and they had a series of poles of various heights that were slightly wobbly.  They had various people and atheletes hooked up to muscular sensors and attempt to jump from one to another.  No one was successful, but there was a "ninjutsu" person who practiced that type of thing all the time and was able to jump from one to another successfully, and the tests showed that many more small muscles were activated around the ankle area that aided in balance.  What would the muscular/mechanical mechanism be in this?


----------



## SL4Drew

punisher73 said:


> More specifically, you could be taught how to do this from the get-go by a qualified teacher, or you "self-teach" it if you are dedicated enough through trial and error how to find that structural stability.


 
Well, you do hear the old tales where the master shows the green student the horse or San Ti Shi and then leaves. And months or years later the master returns, once the student is ready. Based on my experience and anecdotally evidence, you can learn things like this in a 'self-directed' fashion, but you can't be 'self taught' from the first instance.



punisher73 said:


> I also had another observation about "feeling" weight etc. Is it my understanding that it is a combination of strengthening rarely used muscles and becoming more conscious of the processs? I watched a show (human weapon I think) and they had a series of poles of various heights that were slightly wobbly. They had various people and atheletes hooked up to muscular sensors and attempt to jump from one to another. No one was successful, but there was a "ninjutsu" person who practiced that type of thing all the time and was able to jump from one to another successfully, and the tests showed that many more small muscles were activated around the ankle area that aided in balance. What would the muscular/mechanical mechanism be in this?


 
I watched it too. Keep in mind he was successful in large measure because he had done similar training to the task demanded of him. If you want to get good at something, the only real way is to do it. You can't do bench presses and expect to be good at squats. The fact the others failed further demonstrates the point that if you want to "learn to stand up in a canoe," then that's what you have to practice.  Like so much of life, the adaptation occurs because of what is actually demanded.


----------



## Doc

RevIV said:


> how am I going to cut my butter?



*Officer Shoots, Kills Man With Samurai Sword*
January 12th, 2009

A police officer shot and killed a man armed with a samurai sword in downtown Modesto early this morning, authorities said. The officer, who has been identified only as a woman, was not injured.

A Fire Department official called dispatchers to report a man with a sword who was acting "bizarre and unusual." An officer arrived soon after and "within minutes" encountered the man holding a sword that was 2 to 3 feet long. 

Encountering someone with a knife or other "bladed" weapon can be terrifying. "It's a fear of many officers. And your bulletproof vest is not going to help." 

Officers learn in training that someone with a knife or sword can cover more than 21 feet before an officer can draw a weapon. And, if shot, a suspect with a knife can continue to approach. It's not like you shoot someone and they drop down to the ground.

The officer was stabbed in the back with a 6-inch screwdriver at the downtown bus station in 1997 while trying to take someone into custody.

Findlen said investigators are trying to determine why the man had the sword, what he was doing downtown or what led the officer to shoot.

It was reported he was trying to cut some "butter," and the female officer was a recent dyslexic poster on MartialTalk.

"I'm just sayin'"


----------



## DavidCC

punisher73 said:


> Just a clarification of standing in the horse stance. I have read that the purpose of standing in the stance was to fatigue the muscles to get the skeletal structure to align and help support the body instead of just muscle alone. Does this have merit?


 
well, maybe, but who has the time for that?

my program works out to about $9 per hour of class time.  I would seriously not want to spend $36+ / month on standing in a horse stance so tht my legs can get tired... perhaps modern sports science has discovered more efficient ways of finding and training that alignment?


----------



## Ray

DavidCC said:


> perhaps modern sports science has discovered more efficient ways of finding and training that alignment?


Alas my friend, science has found no better way.  The dept of defense spent 3 billion dollars over the last five years doing studies and concluded there is nothing more effective than standing in a horse stance all day.  (just kidding).


----------



## LawDog

Everyone should do what they feel is best for their students. Who is right will be determined down the road by their students abilities. If your students turned out the way you wanted them to then you did it right.
Your students will be your own history, everything else is just talk with big words.


----------



## punisher73

DavidCC said:


> well, maybe, but who has the time for that?
> 
> my program works out to about $9 per hour of class time. I would seriously not want to spend $36+ / month on standing in a horse stance so tht my legs can get tired... perhaps modern sports science has discovered more efficient ways of finding and training that alignment?


 
Who said anything about class time?  I work out on my own FAR more than I am in class.  This is where I fine tune it and do the reps to make it my own.  I also combine standing in the horse with upper body movements.  I know you have said you study Shaolin Kempo, why not work on the blocking sets or do dynamic tension exercises to develop your body.

I agree that JUST standing in a horse stance for no reason is pointless, but there are other things you can do if YOU choose to.  I don't make my students do it all the time, only beginners so they can understand the stance and get used to it's strengths and weaknesses.  But, in my personal workout, I may incorporate it.  I will also point this out to my students if they wish to do so in their personal workouts.


----------



## RevIV

Doc said:


> *Officer Shoots, Kills Man With Samurai Sword*
> January 12th, 2009
> 
> A police officer shot and killed a man armed with a samurai sword in downtown Modesto early this morning, authorities said. The officer, who has been identified only as a woman, was not injured.
> 
> A Fire Department official called dispatchers to report a man with a sword who was acting "bizarre and unusual." An officer arrived soon after and "within minutes" encountered the man holding a sword that was 2 to 3 feet long.
> 
> Encountering someone with a knife or other "bladed" weapon can be terrifying. "It's a fear of many officers. And your bulletproof vest is not going to help."
> 
> Officers learn in training that someone with a knife or sword can cover more than 21 feet before an officer can draw a weapon. And, if shot, a suspect with a knife can continue to approach. It's not like you shoot someone and they drop down to the ground.
> 
> The officer was stabbed in the back with a 6-inch screwdriver at the downtown bus station in 1997 while trying to take someone into custody.
> 
> Findlen said investigators are trying to determine why the man had the sword, what he was doing downtown or what led the officer to shoot.
> 
> It was reported he was trying to cut some "butter," and the female officer was a recent dyslexic poster on MartialTalk.
> 
> "I'm just sayin'"


 
Well this guy def. had no skills and should of practiced more.  In an recent series of one of the coolest new TV shows on the air. "MANswers"  they put the bullet against the blade.  the sword sliced the oncoming bullet in half.


----------



## SK101

marlon said:


> Too many look for the lucky 'tag' and can gain no real control over the aggressor or themselves due to underdeveloped stance training, little knowlegde of the purpose or most useful application of a stance, underdeveloped ability to transit from stance to stance and ability to fight from a given stance logically and effectively, knowing that the base although mobile is still your base. SK states that you can fight from anywhere, yet you still need to be strong and to root as you transit
> 
> 
> Respectfully,
> Marlon


 
   Hello Marlon, your post brings up an interesting subject. Seeing as we are talking stances and transitions how about doing some posts on why we use particular stances and transitions. I'll just kick off with a couple seeing as there so many stances and transitions. Actually it would be good to start a new thread, but for the life of me I still don't see any link for me to click to start a new thread. Maybe I don't have the right member status to do so. 

   Half-moon stance - Designed for offense as all 4 limbs easily attack. Disadvantage is many targets are left open compared to other stances.

   Side horse stance - Designed for defense. Only 2 limbs attack easily. Targets are much more defended compared to a 1/2 moon stance. 

   Tiger stance - Same as the half-moon except the back foot is on the ball of the foot. Designed for offense. It is easier to push off the back foot in order to move forward faster than from a 1/2 moon. Disadvantage is less ability to move backward.


----------



## LawDog

Half Moon stance:
This is a power base strance, one can generate alot of energy from this stance. All of your striking weapons are forward so there is very little foot work or torso motion required apply them.
You do have more open targets how ever when one knows what is open and what is not defense of these open targets is really easy.
Transitional motion from this stance gives one a laterial motion when moving towards or away from your opponent.
Side Horse stance:
Without a lot of foot work or excessive torso motion this stance has only two striking limbs available.
In street confrontations everything is a target so from the Side Horse stance you will be giving your opponent your whole back side. Even if you know what target areas are open on you back side your limbs move towards the front of your torso so it will be very hard to defend the back side.
This stance is best applied from a long range where kicks combinded with long range transitional foot work can be used.
In Line T stance / Neutral Bow stance:
Good all around stance. Since the stance is "in line" or off on a slight angel one can utilize fast footwork that will cover the entire "floor clock". 
All of your primary weapons are in a fairly good position so they can be applied with little footwork or excessive torso motion.
Because this stance in more "in line" than a half moon stance circular type strikes like the, hooks, ridge hands, sword hands etc. will probably be weaker. Your in line strikes can still be very fast.
Your forward leg is more exposed when in this type of stance. Your leg will be venerable to impact attacks and the grapplers love it when your front leg is exposed in a manner such as this. One should practice good defensive techniques that will protect your front leg.
Note: no matter what stance you are in when power is applied the torso must move, especially from the rearward position. The key is to use enough torso motion to generate the required amount of power.
These are my own views on this subject and not a counter to anyone elses.
:ultracool


----------



## kidswarrior

SK101 said:


> Actually it would be good to start a new thread, but for the life of me I still don't see any link for me to click to start a new thread. Maybe I don't have the right member status to do so.


A quick time out from the topic to answer this. You can go to the *MT main page*, *click on the forum* you want to start the thread in (e.g. Ken/mpo Technical), and when it shows the list of threads, *at the bottom of the list is the button to Start New Thread*. Hope this helps.

Now, back to the topic. Excellent discussion, btw.


----------



## marlon

SK101 said:


> Hello Marlon, your post brings up an interesting subject. Seeing as we are talking stances and transitions how about doing some posts on why we use particular stances and transitions. I'll just kick off with a couple seeing as there so many stances and transitions. Actually it would be good to start a new thread, but for the life of me I still don't see any link for me to click to start a new thread. Maybe I don't have the right member status to do so.
> 
> Half-moon stance - Designed for offense as all 4 limbs easily attack. Disadvantage is many targets are left open compared to other stances.
> 
> Side horse stance - Designed for defense. Only 2 limbs attack easily. Targets are much more defended compared to a 1/2 moon stance.
> 
> Tiger stance - Same as the half-moon except the back foot is on the ball of the foot. Designed for offense. It is easier to push off the back foot in order to move forward faster than from a 1/2 moon. Disadvantage is less ability to move backward.


 
Hello SK101,
i prefer a fighting stance in most dynamic situations as a 'home' stance if you will (my fighting stance is a derivative of the san shin stance used in the form san shin and the beginner breathing exercise), similar to a boxing stance but both heels planted.  My take on stances is more functional than traditionall, i think.  A forward stance is to push / strike forward through a target, a dragon stance is a mobility function focusing on turning away from force while still approaching a target, not to mention creating good conditions for generating torque. A cat stance is great for 'getting out of the way and setting a great pre condition to 'srping forwards into a strike.  Also it is quite deceptive in terms of where you are really relative to striking...a back stance and lean stance (as in 5 pinan)also has this benefit. a twist stance for me is purely for motion and barely a stance at all.  the key in all of these of course is central equilibrium and proper rooting.  Stance training with all of these is very important to my thinking because it strengthens the legs and develops the root, and also teaches one proper skeletal alignment so that gravity holds you up and not muscle.  this kind of trainig benefits overall health and strengthens ones entire system.  thanks for this direction in the discussion!

REspectfully,
Marlon


----------

