# Stance training in ancient Shaolin styles



## PhotonGuy (Mar 5, 2015)

I read that in the ancient Shaolin styles a student would only learn stances for the first 6 months. They would train in different stances and in transitioning between stances. Only after a good 6 months of stance training would they start to learn techniques. Now days, in most martial arts schools students are learning techniques on their first day, but supposedly in ancient times you wouldn't learn techniques until you developed a good basis in stances.


----------



## clfsean (Mar 5, 2015)

Yeah ... but it wasn't just "shaolin". It was pretty much the way of things in general. There's a saying "bat ma, bat gung fu" or "no horse, no gung fu". What's the point in having "things to do" if you can't stand strong & not be up rooted easily when you go at something or something comes to you. It leads to "fah sao gam toi" or "flower hands and brocade legs", or useless skills. 

But that was then with a different mindset completely. 

Nowadays, 99.9% of the MA consumer base wouldn't do it. So things had to change to keep things from dying out completely. Instead they just get watered down.


----------



## yak sao (Mar 5, 2015)

All of us have heard the old stories of how training was much more difficult in the old days.
Would it have died out completely had training not been altered? How many of us that are training today would be off doing something else entirely had things not been adapted/watered down for the times?
There has been many a time  I have wished I could go back to my youth and train my kung fu harder and smarter, but would I even still be training today if it had been so extreme?


----------



## Elbowgrease (Mar 5, 2015)

There are people who say that things have to be trained for a certain length of time before they can really be learned and used correctly. Two years of static horse stance, then a person might be able to move it correctly, maybe.


----------



## clfsean (Mar 5, 2015)

Two year static horse training & that's all you'd be able to do.  Two years of horse training (static, walking, running, floating) ... then you'd have some serious horse skills to build on. 

But all boils down to the same thing... you gotta have a solid foundation to build on. If you have a weak foundation, then nothing on top of it will matter.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 5, 2015)

Xingyiquan baby....

Some of those old school Xingyiquan sifus would make their students stand in Santi shi for a year before training them anything else. Heck my Shigong, had I stayed with my 2nd sifu, said you were not even a beginner unless you could stand in Santi shi for 20 minutes. I have had many conversations with Xingyi teachers from China and all say the same thing, that 30 minutes per day per side is necessary and that their teachers stood in it for at least an hour per day (per side) when they were training

In the old days there was stance training in Taijiquan too and there still is some in certain styles of Baguazhang.


----------



## qianfeng (Mar 7, 2015)

I think it's just stories people tell to get u to practice stances, I really doubt anyone would do stances for that long without anything else


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 7, 2015)

qianfeng said:


> I think it's just stories people tell to get u to practice stances, I really doubt anyone would do stances for that long without anything else


That isn't all they did, but the stories are true. They usually slapped stone with their hands, at the same time, but you can find pics, of these training areas, with the stone worn down. Maybe they recited prayers  the same time, but it wasn't a situation where you could just leave and train at an easier monastery, down the road. LOL


----------



## Drose427 (Mar 7, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> That isn't all they did, but the stories are true. They usually slapped stone with their hands, at the same time, but you can find pics, of these training areas, with the stone worn down. Maybe they recited prayers  the same time, but it wasn't a situation where you could just leave and train at an easier monastery, down the road. LOL



Could you imagine living back then and hearing stories of Mc-Monasteries? Lol


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 7, 2015)

qianfeng said:


> I think it's just stories people tell to get u to practice stances, I really doubt anyone would do stances for that long without anything else



You can doubt it of you like, but they did it and so did I..... Its called training...


----------



## Elbowgrease (Mar 7, 2015)

Aye.
Sit in the horse stance, and
Practice punches, blocks, anything else you're told to do, anything else you can think of. Then move the horse stance and do all of the same things. 
Then after a couple of years or so, you can actually use the horse stance and shoot punches with power, and you still train the horse stance.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Mar 15, 2015)

Well if you're teaching MA it would be impractical to teach just stances for the first six months, but Im wondering if it would be a good idea to teach just stances and stance movement on the first day or the first few days.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 15, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> Well if you're teaching MA it would be impractical to teach just stances for the first six months, but Im wondering if it would be a good idea to teach just stances and stance movement on the first day or the first few days.




Why is impractical to teach stances for the first six months?


----------



## Danny T (Mar 15, 2015)

Long ago training was, like today, based upon what was the training for, what was the time line for the training, who was being trained, how many were being trained etc.
I trained with a Filipino who as a youngster 6-9 did nothing but stance and footwork drills under his grandfather's tutelage for 3 years. An hour every morning and an hour every evening.
If building a community army that would have to be fighting in the next few months spending the first 3 months doing nothing but stance work or footwork drills would not be a very productive way to spend your training time. I also believe there were a lot of persons as today who have a passing interest in the training and others who were committed to learning.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 15, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Long ago training was, like today, based upon what was the training for, what was the time line for the training, who was being trained, how many were being trained etc.
> I trained with a Filipino who as a youngster 6-9 did nothing but stance and footwork drills under his grandfather's tutelage for 3 years. An hour every morning and an hour every evening....


|
The MMA / boxing audience doesn't understand the foundation being developed here.  They decry the 'fixed' stances used by Karate-based fighters in MMA.  The real truth is that conventional karate practice probably doesn't emphasize stances enough... everybody leans towards boxing or 'natural' stances when sparring.  Randomly pacing around.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 15, 2015)

double post


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 15, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> Well if you're teaching MA it would be impractical to teach just stances for the first six months, but Im wondering if it would be a good idea to teach just stances and stance movement on the first day or the first few days.



Then don't train it if that is how you feel......


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 15, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Why is impractical to teach stances for the first six months?


|
The question you spoke to is the whole cut & paste mentality in commercial martial arts.  Let's learn some nifty, clever, strong punch-dodge and now we are a martial artist.  Now we can take-out any challenger because we have learned a better fighting technology that the other guy doesn't know.
|
 The Art FAIL that others have spoken of....


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 15, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> The question you spoke to is the whole cut & paste mentality in commercial martial arts.  Let's learn some nifty, clever, strong punch-dodge and now we are a martial artist.  Now we can take-out any challenger because we have learned a better fighting technology that the other guy doesn't know.
> |
> The Art FAIL that others have spoken of....



And that post makes no sense and it most certainly does not address the question you quoted


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 15, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> And that post makes no sense and it most certainly does not address the question you quoted


|
You're jumping on me.  I am speaking to the question that you answered with your post.  Certainly.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 15, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> And that post makes no sense and it most certainly does not address the question you quoted


|
The typical karate student in the US doesn't want to be told they have to stand around for six months.  Most are eager to spar and eagerly anticipate doing so.  That's what I've witnessed.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 15, 2015)

It was not a question I asked nor was it an answer...not jumping, just trying understand



ShotoNoob said:


> |
> The typical karate student in the US doesn't want to be told they have to stand around for six months.  Most are eager to spar and eagerly anticipate doing so.  That's what I've witnessed.



Then don't. For the record Karate is not Chinese and this post is in the Chinese MA section and it is talking about Chinese martial arts. Feel free to comment but understand the audience


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 15, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> The typical karate student in the US doesn't want to be told they have to stand around for six months.  Most are eager to spar and eagerly anticipate doing so.  That's what I've witnessed.


I like the "develop" something first and "enhance" it later approach. To me, the horse stance training belong to the "enhancement". I prefer the following MA development order.

1. development - through partner training,
2. test - through sparring/wrestling,
3. polish - through solo drills.
4. enhance - through weight/equipment and static standing.

What's more important, the "fighting experience development" or the "foundation development"? Of course both are important. But there are some "time" issue here. You can still "enhance" your horse stance when you are 60 years old. But you can't enhance your sparring in your old age. So when you are still young, you should spend most of your training time to develop your "fighting skill". You can always enhance your foundation for the rest of your life.

IMO, it's better to drill your "hip throw - dynamic horse stance" 10,000 times than to stand in your "static horse stance" for 6 months. You will get the same result for your "static horse stance" training, but you will get much more.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 15, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I like the "develop" something first and "enhance" it later approach. To me, the horse stance training belong to the "enhancement". I prefer the following MA development order.
> 
> 1. development - through partner training,
> 2. test - through sparring/wrestling,
> ...


The problem with that approach is that people don't want to go back and develop things like stances, once they've tasted something more " exciting" like sparring.  They think that's the highest level of training and they think stance isn't important. But if you allow a student to do it in that order, they never understand how proper stance training can elevate their abilities exponentially.  I for one wish my early teachers hadn't ignored stance training in my instruction.  I'd be much better now than I am.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 15, 2015)

Flying Crane said:


> The problem with that approach is that people don't want to go back and develop things like stances, once they've tasted something more " exciting" like sparring.  They think that's the highest level of training and they think stance isn't important. But if you allow a student to do it in that order, they never understand how proper stance training can elevate their abilities exponentially.  I for one wish my early teachers hadn't ignored stance training in my instruction.  I'd be much better now than I am.


That's quite possible too.

If you can use your hip throw to throw your opponent every time on the mat, your "horse stance" should be much better than those who can sit in their horse stance for 30 minutes. You can use your "partner training" to develop your foundation too. The static horse stance training is not the only method.

Will it be better if you can let your students to develop their foundation through the "fun" part of their application training than through the boring part of their static horse stance training?

Of course the school work of the "partner training" and the home work of the "horse stance training" can be done at the same time.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 15, 2015)

dup, deleted.


----------



## Danny T (Mar 15, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> The MMA / boxing audience doesn't understand the foundation being developed here.  They decry the 'fixed' stances used by Karate-based fighters in MMA.


I don't really care what the audience thinks it know or understands about training. The audience only pays the ticket price and watches.


ShotoNoob said:


> |
> everybody leans towards boxing or 'natural' stances when sparring.


And that is also how they actually fight.



ShotoNoob said:


> |
> Randomly pacing around.


A good fighter Is Not "Randomly pacing around". Good fighters are moving with a purpose, they not moving for the sake of moving.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 15, 2015)

Flying Crane said:


> The problem with that approach is that people don't want to go back and developing things like stances, once they've tasted something more " exciting" like sparring....


Precisely....


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 15, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> It was not a question I asked nor was it an answer...not jumping, just trying understand
> *Then don't.* For the record Karate is not Chinese and this post is in the Chinese MA section and it is talking about Chinese martial arts. Feel free to comment but understand the audience


|
Why do you think I'm looking to you for instruction on what or what not to do?  I was talking about what I had *[observed]*.  It's an observation....
|
See my post above, please....


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 15, 2015)

Flying Crane said:


> They think that's the highest level of training and they think stance isn't important. But if you allow a student to do it in that order, they never understand how proper stance training can elevate their abilities exponentially.


|
Or it's a self-discipline or patience issue.  Expediency over base-building.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 15, 2015)

Flying Crane said:


> The problem with that approach is that people don't want to go back and develop things like stances, once they've tasted something more " exciting" like sparring.


When people find out that their "hip throw" won't work on short opponents, they will go back and work on their low horse stance. After you have understood why you need to train your horse stance, you will have strong motivation to do so. When you just working on your horse stance because your teacher told you so, your motivation won't be as strong.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 15, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When people find out that their "hip throw" won't work on short opponents, they will go back and work on their low horse stance. After you have understood why you need to train your horse stance, you will have strong motivation to do so. When you just working on your horse stance because your teacher told you so, your motivation won't be as strong.


|
I think that's certainly true for some students.  Others will follow the traditional training.  Others will try to short cut it.  Good observation for teaching because a certain group prefers the application, the explanation.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 15, 2015)

Danny T said:


> I don't really care what the audience thinks it know or understands about training. The audience only pays the ticket price and watches.


|
Thanks for proofing reading my post.  I was was generalizing,,,,


----------



## Danny T (Mar 15, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> Thanks for proofing reading my post.  I was was generalizing,,,,


??? 
I must be missing something.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 16, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That's quite possible too.
> 
> If you can use your hip throw to throw your opponent every time on the mat, your "horse stance" should be much better than those who can sit in their horse stance for 30 minutes. You can use your "partner training" to develop your foundation too. The static horse stance training is not the only method.
> 
> ...


I disagree that the "fun" aspect of training will be as effective in that development.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 16, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When people find out that their "hip throw" won't work on short opponents, they will go back and work on their low horse stance. After you have understood why you need to train your horse stance, you will have strong motivation to do so. When you just working on your horse stance because your teacher told you so, your motivation won't be as strong.


I am doubtful of this, for most students.  But I do agree that a good teacher will help the student understand what the stance training is accomplishing, and how that works, and doesn't simply tell the student, do it because I say so.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 16, 2015)

Sorry, I had a couple duplicate posts.  Systems glitch.


----------



## mograph (Mar 16, 2015)

How do you folks define "stance training?' Could you describe the practice as you have experienced it?

(Just trying to get a common definition.)


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 16, 2015)

pick a posture and stand in it properly


----------



## clfsean (Mar 16, 2015)

It's not static for me & mine. It's dynamic. You have to move to use a stance. If you go only completely static, you are incredibly rooted. However the downer is that's all you know. Likewise if you never root, you may be quick as hell, but a strong wind will topple you. You have to learn a moving root. You can't do it standing like a statue or moving like leaf in the breeze. It's a mix of both. At first more static than not, but then it needs to equal out.

Your milage may vary...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 16, 2015)

clfsean said:


> It's not static for me & mine. It's dynamic. You have to move to use a stance. If you go only completely static, you are incredibly rooted. However the downer is that's all you know. Likewise if you never root, you may be quick as hell, but a strong wind will topple you. You have to learn a moving root. You can't do it standing like a statue or moving like leaf in the breeze. It's a mix of both. At first more static than not, but then it needs to equal out.
> 
> Your milage may vary...



Becoming double rooted is always an issue and I will admit after much standing in Santi Shi I came to the conclusion that ultimately you need to me able to move that and maintain structure and root... oh and be relaxed too.

I use to be a big proponent of standing in Santi at least 20 minutes per side, which is light on the Hebei side and heavy on the Shanxi side of XIngyiquan (I was Hebei). But I ended up with ten to 15 minutes was good but you had to know how to move that and maintain it and I began to feel moving was better. But it is much harder to learn the structure when moving so in the beginning of Xingyi training I still recommend at least 15 to 20 minutes per side, but never forget this needs to move and move fast


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 16, 2015)

clfsean said:


> It's not static for me & mine. It's dynamic. You have to move to use a stance. If you go only completely static, you are incredibly rooted. However the downer is that's all you know. Likewise if you never root, you may be quick as hell, but a strong wind will topple you. You have to learn a moving root. You can't do it standing like a statue or moving like leaf in the breeze. It's a mix of both. At first more static than not, but then it needs to equal out.
> 
> Your milage may vary...


Completely agreed, but you and I come from an unusual lineage.

I think the static, rooted training is important to build strength in the legs and to develop a relationship between your feet and the ground, but then the moving stance work is critical in learning how to apply that leg strength and to learn to push off the ground to drive technique.

Standing just to get stronger doesn't do a whole lot of good if you don't know what to do with that strength.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 16, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> pick a posture and stand in it properly


|
My first TMA instructor who started in TKD then went on to cross train other styles of TMA began you with this.  However, and this is true of the traditional karate styles of mine, such a deep horse stance is not required.
|
Movement that others speak about was provided by other components of the curriculum....


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 16, 2015)

mograph said:


> How do you folks define "stance training?' Could you describe the practice as you have experienced it?
> 
> (Just trying to get a common definition.)


IMO, some "stance training" is used to develop your body to fit into certain skill requirement. For example, here is a "stance training" and it's called "*羅漢观天(Luo Han Guan Tian) Lou Han looks at sky": 





*
Here is the application for it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 16, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> My first TMA instructor who started in TKD then went on to cross train other styles of TMA began you with this.  However, and this is true of the traditional karate styles of mine, such a deep horse stance is not required.
> |
> Movement that others speak about was provided by other components of the curriculum....


I used to believe that as well, until I received better instruction and I began to take stance training more seriously.  Then I realized it simply isn't true.  Focused training on stances will elevate everything else.  But like anything , people get different mileage depending on many issues.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 16, 2015)

Flying Crane said:


> I used to believe that as well, until I received better instruction and I began to take stance training more seriously.  Then I realized it simply isn't true. *Focused training on stances will elevate everything else.*  But like anything , people get different mileage depending on many issues.


|
I train traditional karate.  I believe that traditional karate is much simpler than Kung fu(s).  My first TMA instructor did in fact have a couple of exercises focused on stances.  But that was not the real challenge in training stances, IMO.  The illustration presents my understanding of the real challenge.
|
In traditional karate, the BASIC stance training is incorporated into kihon technique training.  But most don't want to spend the time with kihon, but do more 'interesting stuff' like moving around with sparring.  According to the Chinese standards, the latter is blatantly wrong.  By traditional karate standards it is clearly wrong.
|
The quote highlighted speaks volumes about how to properly prepare your TMA marital base, IMO.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 16, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> My first TMA instructor who started in TKD then went on to cross train other styles of TMA began you with this.  However, and this is true of the traditional karate styles of mine, such a deep horse stance is not required.
> |
> Movement that others speak about was provided by other components of the curriculum....



just for the record, that horse stance (Ma bu) is nor karate, that is Wudangquan


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 16, 2015)

I should also add that my Yang Taiji sifu is not big on is not big on stance training. He is not against it and when I talked to him about it his response was "go ahead pick a posture and stand in it if you like" But he fully believes and often says "its all in the form I you do it right".

The Chen I did does recommend stance training but I do not think it is as important as it Xingyiquan


----------



## PhotonGuy (Mar 16, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Why is impractical to teach stances for the first six months?



Because this isn't China back some 1000 years ago.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Mar 16, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Then don't train it if that is how you feel......



With all the places I've been to, none of them do just stance work for the first six months.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 16, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> just for the record, that horse stance (Ma bu) is nor karate, that is Wudangquan


|
horse stance in karate, horse stance in kung fu.  The exact details of the style, the precise technicals, I leave to the more qualified, in this case you...............................
|
That should start to come across....


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 16, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> With all the places I've been to, none of them do just stance work for the first six months.


In the 1st 6 months, I know one CMA school will ask their students to do "front foot steps in, back foot follow" footwork only. In another CMA school, the teacher will only teach "single leg" and nothing else.

So in the 1st 6 month, if school

A - only teach "static horse stance",
B - only teach "front foot steps in, back foot follow" footwork,
C - only teach "single leg",

In the long run, which school will produce the best students?


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 17, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> Because this isn't China back some 1000 years ago.




That's not an answer that's an excuse.

In life the basics are the important things, whether it's martial arts, medicine, building, driving cars etc etc etc. anything. If you don't get the basics right you are wasting your time. That is as true now as it was  a thousand years ago or even five thousand.
Stances are very important, they are worth learning properly. In my karate Wado Ryu we have a lot of different stances for different things, they are different tools if you like. We have three 'horse riding' stances. In Judo your stance has to be correct to enable you to throw, you need to make sure your opponents stance is off to make that throw. In MMA you need to make sure your stance is correct so you are not an easy target for single/double leg take downs.
Whatever style of martial arts you train your stances are important and if someone can take that time to learn them really well, so that they become instinctive and natural they should do so. 'Impractical' can be used as an excuse, there's nothing stopping people doing this for a certain time everyday.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 17, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> With all the places I've been to, none of them do just stance work for the first six months.



Not surprising, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who does "just" stance training for the first 6 months these days, and as far as I can tell no one in this thread said they did. They said "ancient times". Stance training is an important part of many Chinese Martial arts and if you don't like or approve of it...don't train in those places.... but in most places you find Hebei Xingyiquan if they are not training stance training to get you so at least 15 to 20 minutes per side (while also training you Wuxingquan) then they are not training you Xingyiquan...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 17, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> Because this isn't China back some 1000 years ago.



It was still be done in China in my Taijiquan shifu's time and Wang Peishang made his students stand and BP Chan said you were not even a beginner in Xingyi if you could not stand in Santi 20 minutes a side.....

None of them are 1000 years old... you need to up your CMA history knowledge before making statements like this

And again, if you think it is impractical then don't do it..... but just because you say it is impractical does not mean it is nor does it mean anyone is going to listen


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 17, 2015)

Some of the older students who had trained with my Sifu in the past were joking that Sifu must be going soft because he wasn't making us stand in square horse for half an hour.  A lot of this still happens in the modern age but many people simply do not want to put in the effort.  It's a change in priorities, the modern age has too many distractions and people aren't willing to make the same kind of commitment to training.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 17, 2015)

Flying Crane said:


> Some of the older students who had trained with my Sifu in the past were joking that Sifu must be going soft because he wasn't making us stand in square horse for half an hour.  A lot of this still happens in the modern age but many people simply do not want to put in the effort.  It's a change in priorities, the modern age has too many distractions and people aren't willing to make the same kind of commitment to training.



I have seen similar things with my sifu. He was never big on "Stance training" but he use to stop us in mid form, be that 'White Crane Spreads its Wings', ' Single whip', 'Needle at Sea Bottom', 'Golden Rooster Stands on One Leg' or 'Heel Kick' and then walk around the room, expecting you to hold your form, until he got there to see if you needed adjusting or not, and with classes that use to have a dozen or so people it sometimes took awhile. He does not do that anymore and none of the people there (other than me) have any idea he ever did.... but I'm not brave enough to tell him he is getting soft


----------



## mograph (Mar 17, 2015)

I recommend that anyone (thankfully, not many on this thread as far as I can tell) who thinks that stance training is a waste of time try doing Zhan Zhuang for 40 minutes a number of times, with proper visualizations and miniscule force expressions. The result could not have been predicted from just watching someone do it. There's a point where it crosses over from just endurance and muscle training to a real understanding of how your body can integrate and resist force in a distributed way.

But of course, like most stance training, it's difficult and boring. But I wouldn't knock it until I've tried it.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Mar 20, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the 1st 6 months, I know one CMA school will ask their students to do "front foot steps in, back foot follow" footwork only. In another CMA school, the teacher will only teach "single leg" and nothing else.
> 
> So in the 1st 6 month, if school
> 
> ...



Any of those places would have a very high turnover rate. There is a high enough turnover rate in the martial arts as it is. So I would say D, none of the above since in order to produce students of any sort, you have to have students in the first place.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Mar 20, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> That's not an answer that's an excuse.
> 
> In life the basics are the important things, whether it's martial arts, medicine, building, driving cars etc etc etc. anything. If you don't get the basics right you are wasting your time. That is as true now as it was  a thousand years ago or even five thousand.
> Stances are very important, they are worth learning properly. In my karate Wado Ryu we have a lot of different stances for different things, they are different tools if you like. We have three 'horse riding' stances. In Judo your stance has to be correct to enable you to throw, you need to make sure your opponents stance is off to make that throw. In MMA you need to make sure your stance is correct so you are not an easy target for single/double leg take downs.
> Whatever style of martial arts you train your stances are important and if someone can take that time to learn them really well, so that they become instinctive and natural they should do so. 'Impractical' can be used as an excuse, there's nothing stopping people doing this for a certain time everyday.



No its an answer, I don't use excuses. Stance training is important for your entire career in the martial arts. It doesn't matter if you've been doing it for a month, 6 months, 3 years or 20 years you should always train with stances. I never said that stance training isn't important or that a person should stop training in stances after they've reached a certain level. You are making a straw man argument. What Im saying is that its impractical to train in just stances and not even start to learn techniques for the first six months today because times are different today. In ancient China you wouldn't train in a martial arts school like you do today you would train in a monastery. With a monastery, they wouldn't let just anybody in and if they did take you in that meant you were making a commitment to live their full time and to stay there for years. So they wouldn't let just anybody in and they wouldn't let just anybody out. Today most people don't live in monasteries full time. Martial arts training today is anything like it was in the monasteries. Most martial arts schools will take in anybody off the street provided they can pay for the classes and people quit all the time. I seriously doubt most students will stick with it for six months if all they're doing is stances. You especially need to consider that a large part of the martial arts community consists of children and they are usually the ones that drop out the most. So the martial arts has a high enough turnover rate as it is, I seriously doubt teaching just stances for the six months will help with that.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Mar 20, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Not surprising, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who does "just" stance training for the first 6 months these days, and as far as I can tell no one in this thread said they did. They said "ancient times". Stance training is an important part of many Chinese Martial arts and if you don't like or approve of it...don't train in those places.... but in most places you find Hebei Xingyiquan if they are not training stance training to get you so at least 15 to 20 minutes per side (while also training you Wuxingquan) then they are not training you Xingyiquan...



Well that's exactly what I said. I find it to be impractical to "just" teach stance training for the first 6 months like they did in ancient times but I never said that stance training isn't important or that a person should stop training with stances after a certain time period in the martial arts. I just don't think it would work today for a place to not start teaching techniques until after 6 months. I've trained in some Chinese styles but my main styles are Japanese styles and in those stance training is just as important. Indeed stances are highly emphasized in my primary school. So for me stance training is very important.


----------



## mograph (Mar 20, 2015)

PhotonGuy, I can see how the others could have interpreted your statements not as _"stance training for the first 6 months ain't gonna happen because students would bolt" _but as _"stance training for the first 6 months won't lead to martial skill"_ ... because I can see some ambiguity in your post. For example, "impractical" could mean impractical for the student or impractical for the school. 

While your clarification is valuable (thank you), please allow for the possibility of misinterpretation.

It seems we're all on the same page, though: stance training is important for a high level of skill; average students won't, um, stand for it for too long; and schools need to attract average students in order to survive. 
Carry on ...


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 22, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> the martial arts community consists of children



It may be like that where you are but it's certainly not everywhere you know.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Mar 22, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> It may be like that where you are but it's certainly not everywhere you know.



Where Im from the martial arts community consists mostly of children, and they usually don't stick with it long term. They just take it up as an activity for after school or whenever, and after maybe a year they move on into other stuff. You can especially see this at the tournaments, by far most of the people in the tournaments are children under the age of 12.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 23, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> Where Im from the martial arts community consists mostly of children, and they usually don't stick with it long term. They just take it up as an activity for after school or whenever, and after maybe a year they move on into other stuff. You can especially see this at the tournaments, by far most of the people in the tournaments are children under the age of 12.



You should have said that then, not generalise. People on MT come from all over the world and what you experience is only true for you, it doesn't make it true for everywhere and everyone else.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Mar 31, 2015)

So I was talking about how today it would be impractical to just teach stances for the first six months and not start teaching techniques until after six months of just stance work. Some people appeared to have the misconception that I was saying that people should stop working on their stances after six months or after a given period of time. As I said, that's not what I meant. What I meant was, if modern places only did stances for the first six months and didn't start teaching techniques until after that, most people wouldn't stick with it. This isn't old China where people trained in monasteries and being taken in meant you would be there for many years, we're taking about modern places where people go in and out all the time. So that is what I meant.

Anyway, I was thinking, how about teaching just stances for the first day or the first few days, I was wondering how that would work out and if it would be a good idea. It wouldn't be like ancient times where you do just stances for six months but it would be where the first day or the first few days would be just stances. I was thinking how that would work out.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 31, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> This isn't old China where people trained in monasteries and being taken in meant you would be there for many years,



Just to let you know not everyone that did MA in old China trained in monasteries, most didn't actually and many of those did stance training


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 31, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> So I was talking about how today it would be impractical to just teach stances for the first six months



It's not at all impractical, people may just not want to, however it would be very practical to do...not easy though, serious leg strain lol.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Mar 31, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> It's not at all impractical, people may just not want to, however it would be very practical to do...not easy though, serious leg strain lol.


It wouldn't be practical for running a dojo, not if you want students that stay.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 31, 2015)

Some stances are just too wide. What do you guys think about this one? If you "spring" his leg from inside out with just a little bit force, he will fall.


----------



## Drose427 (Mar 31, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> It wouldn't be practical for running a dojo, not if you want students that stay.



Not everyone teaches for money.

A Dojo is simply a location, a training hall. 

Back then, I doubt profit was on the mind of any shaolin monks.

It was about discipline, and fundamentals (among more spiritual pursuits Im sure)


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 31, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> Not everyone teaches for money.
> 
> A Dojo is simply a location, a training hall.
> 
> ...


It was about putting in the hard work necessary, whatever it takes, to get it right and develop some truly devastating and useful skills.  That's what kung fu is, that's what it means: skill through hard work and dedicated practice.  Because back then, your very life could depend on it.  Nobody had a cell phone, calling 911 for help was not an option.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 1, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Some stances are just too wide. What do you guys think about this one? If you "spring" his leg from inside out with just a little bit force, he will fall.



Depends why he's doing it, I doubt he's doing it as a 'fighting' stance' I imagine he's doing it as a strengthening and discipline exercise.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 1, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Some stances are just too wide. What do you guys think about this one? If you "spring" his leg from inside out with just a little bit force, he will fall.



That is a training stance for leg strength and focus, not a fighting stance.


----------



## dboeren (Apr 1, 2015)

I don't think anyone here is saying that stance training is not useful, only that doing nothing BUT stance training (i.e. - not teaching any punches, kicks, forms, or anything else) for an extended time would be a hard sell in today's world and most students would get bored and not stick with it.  But, you can still do stance training in addition to these other things and stances happen to be something that's fairly easy for students to practice on their own time away from class too.


----------



## clfsean (Apr 1, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> That is a training stance for leg strength and focus, not a fighting stance.


That's Jake ... he has issues with his training background.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 1, 2015)

clfsean said:


> That's Jake ... he has issues with his training background.



I thought that was Jake, but I was not sure so I did not say anything, thanks


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 1, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Some stances are just too wide. What do you guys think about this one? If you "spring" his leg from inside out with just a little bit force, he will fall.


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 1, 2015)

Terrible.  well known imitator.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 1, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> That is a training stance for leg strength and focus, not a fighting stance.


Will it be better to train "leg strength" and "fighting stance (or fighting application)" at the same time so you can kill 2 birds with 1 stone? Of course you can train both separately, but why do you want to do that for?



Tez3 said:


> Depends why he's doing it, I doubt he's doing it as a 'fighting' stance' I imagine he's doing it as a strengthening and discipline exercise.


If you start your horse stance as both feet touching together, you will have poor balance. When you make your horse stance wider, your balance will increase. When your horse stance has reached to the shoulder width, you will have the best balance. If you keep increase your horse stance width, your balance will get poorer and poorer.

It's just like the bell curve. The highest point of that curve is the "shoulder width". The same bell curve also apply to the parallel concept as well. When your feet are pointing inward or outward, you will have poor balance. When your feet are parallel, you will have the best balance.






Why didn't he train the horse stance that he can "use" in fighting such as hip throw, shoulder throw, embrace throw, or ...? In all those throws that require the "horse stance", the width of the horse stance should be as wide as the "shoulder width".

If we care about "train as you fight", your horse stance training should be as just like you will use in fighting when you apply hip throw, shoulder throw, embrace throw, or ... If you use your horse stance in the striking art, you should concern your own balance issue.

Your

- "narrow" horse stance will ask for your opponent's "sweep".
- "wide" horse stance will ask for your opponent's "spring".


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 1, 2015)

Your original question was



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Some stances are just too wide. What do you guys think about this one? If you "spring" his leg from inside out with just a little bit force, he will fall.



And it sounded by your question that you felt this was a fighting stance with this part of your original question that is why I said it was a training stance



Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you "spring" his leg from inside out with just a little bit force, he will fall.



Yes he would, if that were a fighting stance, if it were a training stance and you walked in and you ""spring" his leg from inside out with just a little bit force" so he will fall... then you would be rather mean and taking advantage of a person who is not fighting. That is why I said it was a "Training stance"

Now this bit



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Will it be better to train "leg strength" and "fighting stance (or fighting application)" at the same time so you can kill 2 birds with 1 stone? Of course you can train both separately, but why do you want to do that for?
> 
> 
> If you start your horse stance as both feet touching together, you will have poor balance. When you make your horse stance wider, your balance will increase. When your horse stance has reached to the shoulder width, you will have the best balance. If you keep increase your horse stance width, your balance will get poorer and poorer.
> ...



Let me ask you a question, what trains more muscle, taking a lower wider stance, or a higher narrower stance?

Also on what data did you base your Bell Curve?

Add to that you are using a picture of Jake as a point to argue for or against and frankly that is just a plain silly place to argue from...

If you want to argue against training a horse stance then start form a point that is a realistic horse stance for training in Chinese martial arts such as this one of Tony Yang


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 1, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Let me ask you a question, what trains more muscle, taking a lower wider stance, or a higher narrower stance? ... Also on what data did you base your Bell Curve?


I believe the "shoulder width horse stance" should build up strong muscle too. Again, it's the general issue of "training as you fight" or "kill 2 birds with 1 stone". Of course when you do a "floor stretch", you are just doing the stretching and you are not using that posture in fighting. Something just can't fit into "kill 2 birds with 1 stone" model, but the horse stance training should be able to fit into that model nicely.






You can stay in horse stance and let your opponent to sweep/spring your leg and draw your own bell curve. You can also test your own horse stance by lifting double heads weight over your head and find out which horse stance width will give you the most "lifting power". You can draw your own bell curve that way too.

It's easy to see that on both extremes, the balance will be poor (the lowest points of the bell curve). Where will be the highest point of your bell curve, it's not difficult to find it out by yourself.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 1, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you start your horse stance as both feet touching together



I don't like to be obvious but if your feet are touching it is not a 'horse' stance. I'm from Wado Ryu, we have three different horse stances, we don't have poor balance on any of them, feet in, out or straight. But then we don't punch from them.

and that's an incorrect way to do a floor stretch, the back should be straight.


----------



## clfsean (Apr 1, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> I don't like to be obvious but if your feet are touching it is not a 'horse' stance. I'm from Wado Ryu, we have three different horse stances, we don't have poor balance on any of them, feet in, out or straight. But then we don't punch from them.
> 
> and that's an incorrect way to do a floor stretch, the back should be straight.



Tez, in Chinese martial arts, you will hear the term "ma" associated with stances. "Ma" in both Mandarin & Cantonese means "horse". So in Cantonese, it's common for every stance/posture to be a "ma" ... Sei Ping Ma, Duk Lup Ma, Gung Ma, Waan Gung Ma, Ding ji Ma, Diu Ma, etc... There are postures that have nothing common with the notion of "sitting on a horse" ... Wu Dip Ma, Tang Long Ma, Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma ... Butterfly Horse, Praying Mantis Horse, Goat Riding Horse ... 

So not every horse is a horse, of course.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 1, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> if your feet are touching it is not a 'horse' stance.


Usually, the definition of horse stance is the 50-50 weight distribution. It may not have much to do with the width of that stance. The width of the stance is relative but the 50-50 weight distribution of the stance is absolute.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Apr 1, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Some stances are just too wide. What do you guys think about this one? If you "spring" his leg from inside out with just a little bit force, he will fall.



I wouldn't stand like that in a fight but it is a good training stance for conditioning and for building leg and lower body strength.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Apr 1, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> Not everyone teaches for money.
> 
> A Dojo is simply a location, a training hall.
> 
> ...



I never said people always do teach for money but lets face it, if you're going to teach, period, one thing that is essential is students.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Apr 1, 2015)

Flying Crane said:


> It was about putting in the hard work necessary, whatever it takes, to get it right and develop some truly devastating and useful skills.  That's what kung fu is, that's what it means: skill through hard work and dedicated practice.  Because back then, your very life could depend on it.  Nobody had a cell phone, calling 911 for help was not an option.



Exactly. Training in martial arts was much more of a necessity back in those days than it is today, so people wouldn't drop out so easily like they do today.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Apr 1, 2015)

dboeren said:


> I don't think anyone here is saying that stance training is not useful, only that doing nothing BUT stance training (i.e. - not teaching any punches, kicks, forms, or anything else) for an extended time would be a hard sell in today's world and most students would get bored and not stick with it.  But, you can still do stance training in addition to these other things and stances happen to be something that's fairly easy for students to practice on their own time away from class too.



My points exactly. Thank you for clarifying it.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 2, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Usually, the definition of horse stance is the 50-50 weight distribution. It may not have much to do with the width of that stance. The width of the stance is relative but the 50-50 weight distribution of the stance is absolute.




then you should actually qualify your statements so they sound sensible, feet together in a horse stance is illogical.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 2, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> I wouldn't stand like that in a fight but it is a good training stance for conditioning and for building leg and lower body strength.


Except that he is so low his torso is sagging below his knees.  The camera angle hides it a bit, but if you could view him straight on you would see it.  Bad form, bad habit, may be injurious.


----------



## clfsean (Apr 2, 2015)

Glad somebody else mentioned it.


----------



## clfsean (Apr 2, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> then you should actually qualify your statements so they sound sensible, feet together in a horse stance is illogical.



Ding Bu / Haang Ma ... Nail Stance / Elemental Horse ... A horse is a horse. Remember not everybody uses the same terminology.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 2, 2015)

clfsean said:


> Ding Bu / Haang Ma ... Nail Stance / Elemental Horse ... A horse is a horse. Remember not everybody uses the same terminology.



I find it hard to believe though that standing still, knees straight, feet together could ever be described as a horse stance.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 2, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> I find it hard to believe though that standing still, knees straight, feet together could ever be described as a horse stance.



The thing about the Chinese language is they tend to group similar things into one category such as horse stance. If you look at mandarin for wine (jiǔ) there are all sorts of different types of wine which is an alcoholic beverage therefore all alcoholic beverages are lumped into one category

jiǔ 
wēi shì jì jiǔ 
pí jiǔ

But from an English speakers prospective they are far form the same because in order those, to us, are

Wine
Whiskey
Beer

Which is why there are several different stances referred to as "Horse Stance" in CMA, they are similar enough within marital arts to all be a type of horse stance.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 2, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> they are similar enough within *marital arts* to all be a type of horse stance.



Now that I do refuse to believe roflmao!


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 2, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> I find it hard to believe though that standing still, knees straight, feet together could ever be described as a horse stance.


Think of the term "horse" to be synonymous with "stance".  It's not about describing the shape of the stance.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 2, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> feet together in a horse stance is illogical.


Such stance does exist in CMA. Since this training doesn't achieve "kill 2 birds with 1 stone" principle, I prefer the shoulder width horse stance instead.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 2, 2015)

Flying Crane said:


> Think of the term "horse" to be synonymous with "stance".  It's not about describing the shape of the stance.



Mmm however the discussion is in English and therefore to save any confusion the poster (KFW) should have said stance, don't you think?


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 2, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Such stance does exist in CMA.



Knees are bent so not the same as knees straight, feet together is it?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 2, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Knees are bent so not the same as knees straight, feet together is it?


When did I ever said that the horse stance has anything to do with "knees straight"?


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 2, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Mmm however the discussion is in English and therefore to save any confusion the poster (KFW) should have said stance, don't you think?


Well, it all sort of blends together in the discussion.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 2, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When did I ever said that the horse stance has anything to do with "knees straight"?



I said a knees straight, feet together stance and you posted a picture of the gent with the knees bent saying' here you are there is a stance like that'


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 2, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> I find it hard to believe though that standing still, knees straight, feet together could ever be described as a horse stance.





Kung Fu Wang said:


> Such stance does exist in CMA. Since this training doesn't achieve "kill 2 birds with 1 stone" principle, I prefer the shoulder width horse stance instead.




You didn't put my full sentence in when you quoted.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Apr 8, 2015)

So anyway, I was wondering how it would be today for a MA school to only teach stances for the first day or the first few days and not start teaching techniques until after that.


----------



## dlcox (Apr 8, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> So anyway, I was wondering how it would be today for a MA school to only teach stances for the first day or the first few days and not start teaching techniques until after that.


 
My first year of training consisted of stances, footwork, bridges, parries, punches and kicks. Only 4 of each for a total of 24 techniques. This Jibengong combined with basic theory and application was required before any forms or specific "Self Defense" scenario/applications or advanced theory were introduced. Even once training progressed these 24 Jibengong were performed at the beginning of every class after conditioning exercises. If you do the math that's two months for 4 techniques. One technique every two weeks. Three 2 hour classes a week (at a minimum), or 12 hours per technique. I teach in the same manner for any newcomer that has never learned any MA (probably why I don't have many students). For others coming from other systems I generally reduce this time to three months. Take it or leave it, I won't compromise. The foundation is the most important aspect. I know of some traditional CMA schools that follow a similar progression, they too, have a high turnover rate. If quality is the goal there can be no short cuts, if you're just looking for quick progression......


----------



## dboeren (Apr 9, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> So anyway, I was wondering how it would be today for a MA school to only teach stances for the first day or the first few days and not start teaching techniques until after that.



Personally I'd see this as a good sign in a school, and I don't think a few days is enough to drive people away although the instructor should set appropriate expectations for new students.  If they know it's going to be like that and they know (at at least some level) the reason why, I would think people can deal with a short delay before learning more "cool stuff".


----------



## PhotonGuy (Apr 9, 2015)

dlcox said:


> My first year of training consisted of stances, footwork, bridges, parries, punches and kicks. Only 4 of each for a total of 24 techniques. This Jibengong combined with basic theory and application was required before any forms or specific "Self Defense" scenario/applications or advanced theory were introduced. Even once training progressed these 24 Jibengong were performed at the beginning of every class after conditioning exercises. If you do the math that's two months for 4 techniques. One technique every two weeks. Three 2 hour classes a week (at a minimum), or 12 hours per technique. I teach in the same manner for any newcomer that has never learned any MA (probably why I don't have many students). For others coming from other systems I generally reduce this time to three months. Take it or leave it, I won't compromise. The foundation is the most important aspect. I know of some traditional CMA schools that follow a similar progression, they too, have a high turnover rate. If quality is the goal there can be no short cuts, if you're just looking for quick progression......





dboeren said:


> Personally I'd see this as a good sign in a school, and I don't think a few days is enough to drive people away although the instructor should set appropriate expectations for new students.  If they know it's going to be like that and they know (at at least some level) the reason why, I would think people can deal with a short delay before learning more "cool stuff".



I think that learning only a few techniques a year can be good in some ways, after all you only need a few really good techniques to be effective and some MA students, especially brand new ones, get the misconception that more is better when actually its usually the other way around. If a new student learns too many moves too soon they can become watered down as the student tries to focus on all of them. I think that just teaching stances for the first day is a good idea and as for the "cool stuff" from my experience the stuff you learn within the first yeat of taking up a martial art is the stuff you will use about 90 percent of the time in the martial arts no matter how advanced you get. Its all in the basics. The more advanced techniques are just add ons and are good for developing skill and coordination but not stuff you would usually use in a fight. I would also like to say that while its good for students to only focus on a few techniques, it might be good for students to be exposed to many techniques so they can find which ones work best for them and focus on those.


----------



## clfsean (Apr 10, 2015)

Actually most TCMA's have a core of techniques, or seed. Everything else done in that "style" or training method, is a variation on a seed technique. Once you have the core techniques, everything else that happens like "jazz". Ask serious CMA players & the "cool stuff" is the basic stuff done really, really well.


----------



## sinthetik_mistik (Jun 30, 2015)

I took Shaolin Kung Fu a long time ago and I didn't understand it well. Like for instance, they would tell us to do 30 pushups on our fingers. Now how am I supposed to do that as a white belt? That's something you need to build up to until your fingers get super strong. Another thing I didn't understand was the animal dances. I took the crane and the tiger. I can't remember them really well but they weren't like any form of fighting i've ever seen. Now I'm sure if you practice and get really good at Shaolin Kung Fu you can be just as fierce as any martial art, but personally I prefer more down to earth punching, kicking and blocking, which Shaolin probably does at some point, and I guess I can see how the animal forms could build up strength or whatever, but it just wasn't my style, not to bash on it it is a great martial art.


----------



## mograph (Jun 30, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> So anyway, I was wondering how it would be today for a MA school to only teach stances for the first day or the first few days and not start teaching techniques until after that.


I think that the students would have more patience with the stances, if _attempting to resist a force_ while in a stance were emphasized. Of course, the stance would have to be taught properly.


----------



## greytowhite (Jul 17, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Xingyiquan baby....
> In the old days there was stance training in Taijiquan too and there still is some in certain styles of Baguazhang.



Some taiji instructors still do stance training, my Chen teacher was quite insistent I learn eight different stances that he could "load" well before I could start learning the form. I think the taiji zhuang and silk reeling were extremely important.


----------



## Mephisto (Jul 17, 2015)

Are there any scientific studies that can validate the benefits of stance training? it seems stance training could be considered isometric training, and there have been several studies and papers written on isometric training, although I'm not sure there's any studies done on martial arts isometrics specifically. From what I've read, isometrics aren't completely useless and have their value but dynamic sport specific exercises are better for performance. Here's a link on one study: Isometric exercises Good for strength training - Mayo Clinic

I see it as a carry over from a time before sports medicine and scientific study related to fitness. At one time it was the best we had, but now the "technology" and training methods have improved. You also have to know what you're doing and how to get results though. If you're not doing any supplemental exercise routines, or working a regime that doesn't translate to sport specific movements, static stance training may very well be superior. 

Another example is body weight trainjng in boxing. Some trainers and gyms are critical of weight training and favor only body weight exercise and running. Newer trainers disagree with this method and also use specific weight training exercise. Old school trainers argue that their methods have proven results so why change things? I see stance training as a parallel here. It  can give results, but perhaps isn't the best method.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 17, 2015)

greytowhite said:


> Some taiji instructors still do stance training, my Chen teacher was quite insistent I learn eight different stances that he could "load" well before I could start learning the form. I think the taiji zhuang and silk reeling were extremely important.



I have done some Chen Stance training and I would agree that Zhan Zhuang and silk reeling are quite beneficial


----------

