Low stance or higher stances

[DArnold]

Ok,
Types was the wrong word but theory behind them.

If you have a low stance as you say and you are trying to meet force with force then the low stance will win as the base of a low stance is more stable. So in part you are correct.

However if you are using timeing to do your sweep

(the same things we used to do to each other as kids in school where you walk up behind them and kick the back leg so it crosses)

then once the base leg is removed the person in a low stance will go down like a brick as they can not recover their center of gravity. (Just as my above post, you sacrafice mobility for stability)

Conversly,
If you meet a high stance with force and an upper body element then they don't have a chance. But if you use a timeing sweep against a high stance you are more likely to loose some teeth.

Yes everyone uses sweeps but what I should have said is theory behind them. Low stances are no better than high stances if you know which sweeps to use against them.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Ok,
Types was the wrong word but theory behind them.

If you have a low stance as you say and you are trying to meet force with force then the low stance will win as the base of a low stance is more stable. So in part you are correct.

However if you are using timeing to do your sweep

(the same things we used to do to each other as kids in school where you walk up behind them and kick the back leg so it crosses)

then once the base leg is removed the person in a low stance will go down like a brick as they can not recover their center of gravity. (Just as my above post, you sacrafice mobility for stability)

Conversly,
If you meet a high stance with force and an upper body element then they don't have a chance. But if you use a timeing sweep against a high stance you are more likely to loose some teeth.

Yes everyone uses sweeps but what I should have said is theory behind them. Low stances are no better than high stances if you know which sweeps to use against them.

I never said meet force with force. Wide stances have a natural root that makes them harder to sweep.

OK, so you mean kicking someone's leg out from under them? Please explain how you cann't recover your center of gravity form that. I've had that done to me countless times, and it never works. Unless you mean I'm kicking, and you kick my supporting leg.

 

[Kacey]

I never said meet force with force. Wide stances have a natural root that makes them harder to sweep.

OK, so you mean kicking someone's leg out from under them? Please explain how you cann't recover your center of gravity form that. I've had that done to me countless times, and it never works. Unless you mean I'm kicking, and you kick my supporting leg.

If you sweep someone at the right point in their movement - with the proper timing on your part - you can disrupt their balance no matter how good the stance they came from or are going to land in. The person you sweep doesn't necessarily have to be kicking - just at the imbalance point in their stance where the weight is primarily on one leg.

Walking is, effectively, a controlled fall - running even more so - and there is a point in the average person's stride (walking or running) where they cannot stop in mid-stride without losing their balance. You can - and should - train yourself to be on-balance in all of your stances, so that you can stop at any point in your stance and just stay there; if you can't do that at all points in your stance, then at some point you are falling - and that is the point at which you can be swept.

 

[DArnold]

I never said meet force with force. Wide stances have a natural root that makes them harder to sweep.

OK, so you mean kicking someone's leg out from under them? Please explain how you cann't recover your center of gravity form that. I've had that done to me countless times, and it never works. Unless you mean I'm kicking, and you kick my supporting leg.

Simple physics.
It is the energy/ability to recover.

Put both feet about 1 foot away from each other and allow someone to sweep one foot. Simple you can shift your weight/balance to the other leg in a split second.

Now, put your feet, say 5 feet apart and let someone sweep your leg. You will not be able to recover and you will go down like a brick.

Now the stance where your feet are 5 feet apart is a wider base and is more stable against force. However, if the proper type of sweep is used against this stance the width of the base works against the student.

Now I know some will say, well I would never let someone just sweep me. Yes, but that is not the purpose of this demo. It mearly proves that the wider the stance, the less the ability to recover. The next step is to learn the theory behind sweeps and which ones to use in different situations.

 

[CuongNhuka]

If you sweep someone at the right point in their movement - with the proper timing on your part - you can disrupt their balance no matter how good the stance they came from or are going to land in. The person you sweep doesn't necessarily have to be kicking - just at the imbalance point in their stance where the weight is primarily on one leg.

I never said sweeping is a bad idea. In fact, I love to sweep people. I just said that it is NOT easier to sweep people if they are in a wide deep stance.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Simple physics.
It is the energy/ability to recover.

Put both feet about 1 foot away from each other and allow someone to sweep one foot. Simple you can shift your weight/balance to the other leg in a split second.

Now, put your feet, say 5 feet apart and let someone sweep your leg. You will not be able to recover and you will go down like a brick.

Now the stance where your feet are 5 feet apart is a wider base and is more stable against force. However, if the proper type of sweep is used against this stance the width of the base works against the student.

Now I know some will say, well I would never let someone just sweep me. Yes, but that is not the purpose of this demo. It mearly proves that the wider the stance, the less the ability to recover. The next step is to learn the theory behind sweeps and which ones to use in different situations.

Yes, I am aware of this. But you said "There are several ways to sweep a person and it looks liky your permisis is only coming from one way (type). If you were to use different sweeps then your theory falls apart!"
So, I asked what kind of sweep you are talking about. You responded with sounds like somthing differnit entirely. I asked you to better explain it, and you reply with the physics behind sweeps. Which I am aware of. What I want is for you to give me an example of a type of sweep that is more effective against a wide stance.

 

[Miles]

There's a proper time and place for each type of stance. The trick is in knowing when and where.

Miles

 

[DArnold]

Yes, I am aware of this. But you said "There are several ways to sweep a person and it looks liky your permisis is only coming from one way (type). If you were to use different sweeps then your theory falls apart!" So, I asked what kind of sweep you are talking about. You responded with sounds like somthing differnit entirely. I asked you to better explain it, and you reply with the physics behind sweeps. Which I am aware of. What I want is for you to give me an example of a type of sweep that is more effective against a wide stance.

All if properly used.

Any specific example can be picked apart, similare to how I showed you each stance has its pluses and minuses. You can sit here and tell me how wonderful wide stances are, but really no better than narrow stances as in my posting above I showed you how each has its strong side and weakness. So wasting time over any one example thinking it would either prove or disprove either side, is to see a tree but miss the forrest.

Therefore argueing one sweep, as it seems you are looking for a silver bullet, is a waste of time.

This is the same as playing the "what if" game with your students.
I can show you a release and then you can come back with the, "but yeah that doesn't work if they hit you with a grappling hook" and so on and so on. This only proves my point that in any "silver bullet" you can find where it doesn't work.

That is why when you watch an art like Aikido, the masters make it look more like a dance, or flowing water, than individual techniques. For every silver bullet you try to find there is another what if.

Sweeps, as other techniques, are based on principals.

Kacey gave you an example, A proper timing a sweep, at the exact moment the weight is shifted and a split second before the foot touches the ground. (the base with the ground is established) This would work with a boot to boot sweep, a rear leg sweep, a front sweep, a knee sweep... against a high stance, or a low stance. If you understand the principal and situation of when to use each then the type of sweep is a tool.

Just as I can punch you in the temple with a forefist, a backfist, a sidefist, a middle knuckle, a foreknuckle... the theory is the punch and the focus pt. The tool is irrelivant. ( Well, in as much as you use a hard tool and not a soft tool)

So that is why I chose not to banter over a tool.

 

[CuongNhuka]

If you were to use different sweeps then your theory falls apart!

You also said this. My entire reason for posting was because YOU said that wide stances are easier to sweep. I replied with examples and proof that they aren't. I just wanted to see if YOU could back up your point. Yes there are sweeps that work very well aginst wide stances, but they are just as effective aginst narrow stances.
I have no problem with differnit oppions, and am not looking for a "Silver Bullet", but if you take a stand on something that I have seen is largely wrong, please have something to back it up.

 

[DArnold]

You also said this. My entire reason for posting was because YOU said that wide stances are easier to sweep. I replied with examples and proof that they aren't. I just wanted to see if YOU could back up your point. Yes there are sweeps that work very well aginst wide stances, but they are just as effective aginst narrow stances.
I have no problem with differnit oppions, and am not looking for a "Silver Bullet", but if you take a stand on something that I have seen is largely wrong, please have something to back it up.

Sorry, I look at techniques from a theoretical point, not as individual techniques. A strike is a strike wether you use a fist or an elbow. So when I said different sweeps I was referring to timing, rushing...

As the wider stance has less mobility and less recovery time I do find it easier to sweep.

 

[howard]

As the wider stance has less mobility and less recovery time I do find it easier to sweep.

It shouldn't matter whether the attacker's stance is wide or narrow.

What matters is that you take his balance before you try to sweep him.

Unbalance him appropriately, whether he's in a wide or narrow stance, and position yourself appropriately as you do, and the sweep should be successful.

Take him off balance where his "third leg" is... then you can take him down.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Sorry, I look at techniques from a theoretical point, not as individual techniques. A strike is a strike wether you use a fist or an elbow. So when I said different sweeps I was referring to timing, rushing...

As the wider stance has less mobility and less recovery time I do find it easier to sweep.

OK, what ever. I'll just ignore the fact that Judo guys adore wide deep stances since it makes them really to sweep, and I'll just go with your oppion. Also inspit of the fact that one the rare occasion I get swept, I'm not in a wide stance. Now, if you're wide but tall, yah. You'll fall real easy. If you're wide and deep, we got a whole differnit matter.

 

[KevinX]

what do you mean when you say "It is REALLY painful to take" when you were talking about Vovinam's leg technique (or sweep, however you call it)

 

[CuongNhuka]

For mental ease, I'll use Muay Thai termanology. Throw one "Thai Kick" to your opponents abdomenal area. When it lands, throw anouther to your opponents back (level with the first), while leaving the first in place. You should now have both lower legs around your opponent, and you should be just abouve parallel to the ground. Now, with all your might, roll your body in the direction of the first kick. If properly executed, your opponent has to do a small flip in the air. The landing also tends to be ruff because of how you fall.
Answer your question?

 

[TKDmel]

Attention to detail is what makes it an art, not just learning to kick & punch.

I'm with you Iceman. Where I was originally taught, the higher stance was called a "walking stance" and was done in the taguek forms only, and anything other than walking stance was the traditional lower stance.

 

[zDom]

I'm with you Iceman. Where I was originally taught, the higher stance was called a "walking stance" and was done in the taguek forms only, and anything other than walking stance was the traditional lower stance.

Same here — and I think it was a GOOD thing, that mix of high and low stances:

"Higher stances for mobility AND lower stances for stability"

 

[Last Fearner]

At this year AAU TKD National we saw more low stances than ever before,... So wich do you prefer and why?

Before I get to my reply, let me compliment those here who obviously know what they are talking about.

I prefer the right stance for the appropriate situation.

There's a proper time and place for each type of stance. The trick is in knowing when and where.

These two posts (among others) hit the point exactly.

It's like my old High School shop teacher used to say. "Use the right tool for the right job." Don't use a wrench or a screwdriver to pound in a nail, and don't use a hammer to drive in a screw. Each stance serves a different purpose. Who here would get into one stance, and try to remain in that stance during an entire fight?

I'm not sure if I prefer lower stances, but I do appreciate them.

I feel the same way! You have to appreciate something that has so much value to offer, in training as well as real-life application.

However I do prefer the long deep stances. Much more stable and much more power.

Yes, I love to train to have better low stances and increase the power of my hand techniques, but I also love to be mobile and hard to catch. I prefer having a balance between the two.

Stances serve three main purposes - - to hold your body up off the ground (support), allow you to propel yourself in any direction, stop your motion, and change your direction of movement (mobility), and reinforce your balance against outside forces or while exert force in any direction (stability). Clearly, there are many different stances, and each promotes different aspects of these three purposes. Stances can be measured by length (front to back), width (side to side), and depth (how deep you lower your center of gravity).

Each is a tool and depends on what you are trying to achieve.
Each has its positive and draw backs.

Low stances:
- teach leg strength
- force a student to use their hips
- provide a better base of power by usually forceing the feet on the floor

Conversely they:
- loose mobility
- loose fluid motion
- are more sucseptable to sweeps
- are not as successful in SD or fighting

Higher stances:
- teach mobility
- fluidity
- are very hard to sweep
- faster and more relaxed in a dangerious situation (speed/acceleration comes from relaxation and the deeper the stance, the more tenseness in the legs)

Conversly they loose
- power when students don't finish the stance (with heel off the groung)
- leg strength
- the ability to add hips in power

The optimum is the triad between: balance, power, and mobility
accessiveness in any one area leads to a decrease in another.

Gotta use both to train with and know where your heading

As always, DArnold, it is clear to me that you know what you are talking about! Sometimes people vary in phraseology, and terms might confuse things, but I like the way you simplify and break down each stance and talk about the "triad."

The only one that I would phrase differently is this one about low stances:

"- are not as successful in SD or fighting"

We probably are saying the same thing, but a low stance is very effective for self defense when used at the appropriate time, mostly for finishing moves. Herein lies the contradiction of training effectively. For self defense (at least from a striking point of view like TKD), keeping yourself in a medium to high mobile stance (unless you come into contact with an opponent for grappling), is best and used the majority of the time. A low stance in self defense is very effective but used very, very rarely. Yet, the low stances probably need the most time in training because they condition the student more with stronger muscles, and are a foreign concept to most people that has to be drilled into their brains.

If you watch expert Judo-ka go at it, alot of the time they use wide deep stances. They spend alot of time developing this stance.

Well, I am one of those expert Judo-ka you refer to. Besides my training in Taekwondo and Karate, my early training was completely in wrestling and Judo. We use "wide deep stances" for maintaining balance when in contact with another opponent. This is not necessarily applicable to non-grappling, striking stances. Furthermore, when executing a throw, we are either standing on one leg throughout the throw (not typically considered a stable position) or we bring our feet very close together in the middle of the opponent's stance.

By strengthing the stance they make it really hard for them to be swept.

This is only partially accurate. A wide stance makes it difficult to 'off balance' your opponent, and since it is one of the conditions of an effective throw (the first one, in fact), if it is difficult to off balance your opponent, then it might be difficult to throw them. However, a sweep can be used in many ways, even if the person is not off balance. Sweeps and reaps, can be forced on a person who is in a deep stance, taking advantage of the fact that they are "rooted" and bringing them down hard.

Because there center of gravity is lowered it is often easier to throw people. Your center of gravity has to be lower then your opponents to throw them.

This is true mostly for flips (hip and shoulder throws, etc), but sweeps, reaps, knee wheels and so forth rely mostly on the opponent's vulnerable position when off balance. Center of gravity has little to do with these throws except to be stable enough to exert the force needed to execute the throw.

Many of the more advanced kicks require a deep stance. There are several kicks I wouldn't dare try outside a wide deep stance. I wont say which because of differnce in terminolgy. But, there are many I wouldn't try. Espcially if you want it to go high.

OK, you lost me here. I consider myself rather knowledgeable about kicking, and I don't see where "advance kicks require a deep stance." In fact, I don't technically kick while I'm in a stance (unless you count a one-leg crane stance). Now if you mean what stance you are in right before, or after a kick, I think it is more often the opinion of kickers to be up higher, and mobile as you move into a kick, but they can be done from low stances.

Also, many experts in Judo like to go at with folks who are in a high stance. The reason is because of how easy it is really easy to sweep people from it.

I think one of the problems with this discussion on sweeps is the term "easy." This is more of a subjective notion rather than an absolute. What one person deems as "easy," another might think is difficult. The reason Judo experts (and others who know the science of throwing) prefer to go after someone in a high stance is because it is easier to off balance them, not because the throw itself is easier or more effective. If someone is low and rooted in a deep stance, it takes away that crucial aspect of a throw, however their feet can still be ripped out from under them depending on the stance (low front stance, horse stance, etc), and the angle of attack with your sweep or reap.

Someone who really knows how to root themselves in a good horse stance are almost impossible to sweep.

This statement is simply not true. As I said, rooting yourself makes it difficult to off balance you, but a deep horse stance, for instance, is stable from side to side - not front to back. A firm sweep against the heel (from back to front) will take the foot out. Reaping is even easier as the leg is more accessible in a deep stance. Also, distractions by attacks to the face, throat, or groin often break the concentration of those trying to maintain a firmly rooted stance.

I never said sweeping is a bad idea. In fact, I love to sweep people. I just said that it is NOT easier to sweep people if they are in a wide deep stance.

The point is, it might be easier to sweep the foot of a person in a high stance, but it has little affect if they simply shift their weight to the other leg (which is easier for a person in a high stance to do). So, you can sweep them, but they don't go down. High or low stance, their weight must be committed to the foot you are sweeping.

It shouldn't matter whether the attacker's stance is wide or narrow.

What matters is that you take his balance before you try to sweep him.

Unbalance him appropriately, whether he's in a wide or narrow stance, and position yourself appropriately as you do, and the sweep should be successful.

Now there's someone who understands the mechanics of a throw! You are absolutely right, Howard!

Kacey a low stance to me is when the butt is equal to the knees...

For some people, this is true even when they aren't bending their knees!

 

[CuongNhuka]

Wow, somebody doesn't like me, LOL. I'm lazy, so I'm not going to quote the whole thing. but...

First part. Yes, I'm aware that wide stances are less useful for strikeing, if you ignore that lunging into one is a good way to cover ground. They are also good for going into an Kazushi position. If you go to any of the directions in Kazushi, you will unbalance your opponent faster if you go wide.

Yes, but all of the ways I know of to "force" someone down who is rooted, requires a sacrifice technique. Which can be extremely dangerous.

Reaps and knee wheels I'll give you. But, I have never been swept while in a wide stance.

There are serveral Vovinam kicks. Like the sicsor kick/sweep/throw I mentioned. along with a head level side kick, and any jumping kick (jumping, not flying).

I go back to my point on sacrifices.

True, but someone with a good horse stance surely knows how to rotate there hips, then we run into a problem.

Not going to argue with you on that point.

 

[Last Fearner]

Wow, somebody doesn't like me, LOL.

CuongNhuka, I'm glad you put "LOL" because I hope you weren't serious! If you are responding to my post which quoted you so much, it has nothing to do with not liking you! This is just a matter of having different viewpoints, differences of opinions and experiences, and perhaps different ways of expressing our thoughts. It is good to have this kind of friendly discourse, so please don't be offended if I offer counter claims to some things you say. It only means that I value your input, and wish to weigh it fairly against mine.

I agree with you that a person who knows how to firmly root themselves, can be difficult to throw in any fashion. Then again, a proper throw is intended to be against an aggressive attacker, or an opponent who is off balance. To "man-handle" a rooted person and force a throw is contrary to the principles of the art. It can be done, but rooting does make it difficult.

Now from my understanding of the OP, we are looking to compare the reasons and benefits or disadvantages between high or low stances as used in Taekwondo forms. Many schools within TKD have variations on names used, and measurements of the foot positions, and certainly there is more chance of a difference as you cross over to other disciplines.

The following information is to compare terminology, measurements, and assessments of the use of each stance.

Our terminology calls an "Ap Seogi" a "front natural posture" or more commonly, a "Walking Stance." It is taught at our schools as having both feet pointing straight forward and set apart at a width equal to your own hips, measured to the outside of each foot. The front foot is advanced to a "natural stride" similar to that person walking (approximately 1 to 1 1/2 foot lengths from the rear toes to the front heel. The weight distribution is 50/50 (equal on both feet). The knees are only slightly flexed to promote mobility and prevent injury if kicked. This stance would be considered one of the more "higher" stances of Taekwondo.

The terms "Kyorugi Seogi" (sparring stance), or "Pal Chagi Seogi" (kicking stance) are used for an angled posture of about 45 degrees of the torso, hips, and feet. It is a bit more defensive than the Walking Stance, but remains 50/50 in weight distribution for quick mobility (as opposed to the deeper Back Stance). The purpose of these two, virtually identical, stances is similar to that of a fencing "on-guard" posture. You reduce the target area in the mid-section, force your opponent's strikes to become circular so that you can detect them quicker, and block or deflect them easier. Most importantly, you can lift either the front or rear foot equally as well, without shifting your weight (which would be slower, telegraphs your movements, and more dangerous in that you might "shift" right into an attack), and you can retreat as well as advance with ease. These are also considered high stances.

The "Dwi Gubi" (back stance) varies the most in interpretation, in my experience. The feet are placed at right angles (90 degrees) with the lead foot pointing straight at the opponent. Some will align the front foot with the middle arc of the back foot (in a "T" fashion), while others will line it up just behind the heel (in an "L" shape). Some even set the foot one heel's width away from the back heel. The front foot is advance approximately 2 foot intervals forward. The weight distribution might be described as 80/20, 70/30, or 60/40 with the greater weight always on the back leg. The truth is, any of these weight positions can be used. The back stance should not be limited to one set measurement, but most instructors will have a "standard" measurement to start from. Both knees are bent, and the center of gravity is brought lower for more stability, but this reduces mobility to some degree.

Having the weight on the back leg in a Back Stance helps to protect against a front foot sweep by simply lifting the front foot up, but tends to pin you on the back leg momentarily. A skilled thrower can sweep the front foot as a decoy, then move quickly to take the only supporting foot out with a second sweep. A person standing in a Back Stance is not completely vulnerable and helpless, but they need to know the weaknesses of this stance, and use it only momentarily when actually blocking.

The deep front stance is called the "Ap Gubi" (or Ap Koobi), and is one of the lower postures that we use in TKD to deliver power. These stances are very effective, and important to the devastating hand techniques, and can be difficult for students to perfect. Thus, a great deal of training needs to be put into these. Removing them from poomsae practice means that the instructor must teach students other ways to train in the lower front stance. This low stance will give you more support, stability, and reinforcement for power, but limits mobility and makes you very vulnerable to a front leg sweep or reap. The feet point forward (back foot may rotate outward up to 45 degrees), and the width is about the same as your shoulders on the outside of the feet, or your hips as an inside measurement. The length forward is about three steps (measuring two foot lengths from your rear toes to your front heel).

With the front knee bent to make the lower leg vertical, and the back leg locked in this stance, the weight distribution can not be 50/50 like in a walking stance. It is also not likely to be 70/30 as some instructors define it. It is more realistically about 55% on the front leg, and 45% on the back. If you really lean into the front foot, you might reach a 60/40 distribution, but that is pushing it (I have tested these measurements by using two bathroom scales, one for the front foot and one for the back). Now, keep in mind that when the foot first lands, and at the moment of impact, more weight is thrust to the front, but most likely will not be felt on the foot itself (if done right) because there will be a complete support of the impact by the technique (especially with a front punch).

There are other stances I did not cover, but I believe the walking stance would be the most common posture used in real-self defense with slight variations of an angled kicking stance (or sparring posture), and occasionally the more defensive back stance. The front stance, while important to our power and self defense skills, in real-life self defense is one of the most rare postures in actual fighting, and is typically reserved for the finishing moves.

The majority of a fight will often be quick, mobile adjustments while defending and avoiding attacks, then countering with quick, stunning blows. Only after 95+ percent of these evasive movements and initial counter strikes, will you have the opportunity to drop into a deep, fixed front stance to deliver a powerful finishing blow. Therefore, I feel it is appropriate for the Poomsae to reflect this balance. I would just as soon practice my deep stances in One-Step Sparring where we isolate the portion of a street fight which is the quick finish.

This is my opinion

 

[howard]

...wide stances... are also good for going into an Kazushi position. If you go to any of the directions in Kazushi, you will unbalance your opponent faster if you go wide.

What do you mean by "kazushi" position, and directions of kazushi?