From Foundation to Freedom - From Martial Journal

[Xue Sheng]

From Foundation to Freedom: Rethinking Stance in Martial Arts​

 

[isshinryuronin]

This article was quite shocking to me. (I'm fully recovered now, thank you.) The conclusion that one's "posture" or guard position can be paired with most any stance seems to me to be so self-evident I'm surprised it's a topic.

My shock resulted from learning that, in at least some kung fu styles, postures are regulated/determined by what stance you're in - like a certain color of wine should be matched to the particular entree or appetizer being served. I'd be interested in learning where this notion came from (re: kung fu, not wine).

I have a theory, however. Unification of upper and lower body is a main concept in karate, but only in regard to structure, not tactical positioning. Most karate styles generally work from a more neutral position, as opposed to the comparatively extreme (but beautiful) stances I observe in many kung fu styles. Being in a certain "extreme" stance limits one's possible effective movements and techniques. In this case the stance may well influence and dictate upper body positioning.

I'm glad the article's author has discovered that the "mix or match" approach can work, and there are times in his style that he can be freed of the notion, "one stance - one posture."

 

[JowGaWolf]

Most karate styles generally work from a more neutral position, as opposed to the comparatively extreme (but beautiful) stances I observe in many kung fu styles. Being in a certain "extreme" stance limits one's possible effective movements and techniques. In this case the stance may well influence and dictate upper body positioning.

Kung fu does the same thing, but most of the "extreme stances" that you see are done outside of sparring in fighting. You can watch any of my sparring videos and you will see that I use the low stance for certain things and not for others. People say that I lose mobility in a low stance and if you look at my videos of when I'm in a low stance, I'm not seeking mobility. Does this look like I'm trying to be mobile? More mobility exists than what people think, but it's not the same type of mobility that my opponent has in a higher stance.

It's not just me, other people do it too. They pop in and pop out. We can look at the image and just guess which one is going to be the one most likely to flee. The guy in a bent over horse just needs "short mobility" and not "long mobility"

In this case the stance may well influence and dictate upper body positioning.

Opponent ducks my verticle backfist. This is actually the extreme stance.

Vertical back fist flows into an long fist uppercut. First stance is too high and I'm reaching, my rear foot must come down first and on the surface that action caused me to slide backwards.

Long fist uppercut in low stance. Design to hit someone ducking. This looks like the extreme stance but the first one where my back foot comes off the ground is the guilty party. There are some things that just can be done in a higher stance. To do this same technique in a higher stance is better suited for close range and not long range.

But if you look at various people sparring and fighting. When that drop into that low horsestance, it's clear that they aren't seeking mobility. What would be flawed is to seed mobility in a stance that isn't designed for that.

It's a horse stance. How much mobility do you think this person seeking while in it? I'm pretty sure there's a lot of short range mobility.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Unification of upper and lower body is a main concept in karate,

Also just about every Chinese martial art too

 

[isshinryuronin]

I just had another thought on a particular stance requiring a particular posture/limb position in some kung fu. It does make sense in the context of "animal styles" found in the art. If one is trying to fight like a monkey or tiger it is logical the stance and posture would mimic that particular animal (as well as its tactics and spiritual attitude) to make the "transformation" more complete and effective.

While I understand this concept of "animal styles" of fighting and can find some value in it, putting it into a formalized structure I think is taking it too far as it can become restrictive. I'd rather just fight using all different stuff without having to worry about what animal I am at any given moment. I'll just fight like a human. That animal style offers plenty of options and variety.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I'd rather just fight using all different stuff without having to worry about what animal I am at any given moment.

For me, this is a scholar issue. In application I flow in and out of the different styles and I couldn't tell you when one begins and when one ends unless I'm going back to look at my sparring videos. "Animal Style" is not always tiger. For me to only use tiger would be like being in MMA and saying that I'm only going to beat someone with boxing skills. A person would have to be very confident in their ability to do something like that.

For people like me who aren't on a Professional Level. There's no need to showcase such a claim. When If fight and when I spar, it's just me trying to land successful fights and takedowns. I've used Jow Ga so much that even that doesn't register as Kung Fu. I don't remember how I used to spar before Jow Ga.