One good reason for an angled stance.

[dvcochran]

i am again going to go back to my concept from your other thread. your looking at the problem from an engineering perspective and it is limiting your field of understanding. your missing factors that need to be entered into the equation.

It often happens that those who discuss war, taking the weapon for the starting point, assume unhesitatingly that the man called to serve it will always use it as contemplated and orders by the regulations. But such a being, throwing off his variable nature to become an impassive pawn, is a creature born of the musing of the library, and not a real man. Man is flesh and blood; he is body and soul. And , strong as the soul often is. It cannot dominate the body to the point where there will not be a revolt in the face of destruction.
Ardant Du Picq 1870 French Army

in the same way your starting point is one of physics not of psychology. on paper your thesis looks sound but in real practice it has been proven through out history that in combat a bladed stance often fails because the attacker can press you into turning away and giving your back. Du picq documents battle after battle where the statistics show most deaths occured by wounds to the back.
it has been my belief that a more square stance is more psychologically strong even though you do have more exposed area.

Well yea but the area of a triangle an be infinite like any other geometric shape. Haha. If you think of rise and run equation and torque then the greater the run the greater the torque. Like @hoshin1600 said, this isn't always true in application. There are too many variables. It may simply be that the 45° stance works better for you build. As long as it works. I would recommend trying other stances just for the sake of proof.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

i am again going to go back to my concept from your other thread. your looking at the problem from an engineering perspective and it is limiting your field of understanding. your missing factors that need to be entered into the equation.

It often happens that those who discuss war, taking the weapon for the starting point, assume unhesitatingly that the man called to serve it will always use it as contemplated and orders by the regulations. But such a being, throwing off his variable nature to become an impassive pawn, is a creature born of the musing of the library, and not a real man. Man is flesh and blood; he is body and soul. And , strong as the soul often is. It cannot dominate the body to the point where there will not be a revolt in the face of destruction.
Ardant Du Picq 1870 French Army

in the same way your starting point is one of physics not of psychology. on paper your thesis looks sound but in real practice it has been proven through out history that in combat a bladed stance often fails because the attacker can press you into turning away and giving your back. Du picq documents battle after battle where the statistics show most deaths occured by wounds to the back.
it has been my belief that a more square stance is more psychologically strong even though you do have more exposed area.

Yet, Freddie Roach specifically teaches to avoid a squared stance. In straight grappling, there's an advantage to being fully squared (though there are some advantages to not being fully squared, they are fewer, IMO). I don't find a similar situation with striking. Having one side partly back seems to have more advantages than disadvantages in striking.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I do believe stance should adapt with range and footwork although I'm not sure I'd say the closer the more square you should be. It depends on whether or not you are "squared off" with your opponent versus cutting in on the outside.

I should also have clarified that the post is not about saying one is better than the other (squared vs angled). Just sharing an interesting new attribute of the angled stance I hadn't realized before (namely the ~30% reduction in width).

I'd say if grappling is in your skill set, it's more or less true. Nothing absolute, but if I can easily touch him, I want a closer-to-squared stance, to open up more grappling options. It also reduces his options for getting to my blind side to take my back, even partially, which is a risk as distance closes.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

for firearm training this debate has been going on for a really long time; weaver VS isosceles

No debate for me. I'm cross-dominant (right hand, left eye) so an offset stance is much better for me. Plus, it fits with my MA training, which more often uses an offset stance.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

In straight grappling, there's an advantage to being fully squared ...

What's the advantage to be "fully squared"? In order to apply a "leg lift" throw, to achieve your back to touch on your opponent's chest.

When you are in fully squared stance, you will need to

1. move in your attacking leg,
2. spin in your rooting leg,
3. apply your attacking leg.

When you are in forward and backward stance, you only need to

1. spin in your rooting leg,
2. apply your attacking leg.

You have 1 less move to apply. In MA, this is called "hide your preparation in your previous move."

1,2 is always better than 1,2,3.

I don't see any advantage for the "square stance" in both the striking art and the wrestling art.

 

[lansao]

Your numbers are slightly off...

If you do the calculation properly you'll see the difference is actually 29.29%.

(Your width becomes the hypotenuse, square that figure, divide by two, the square root of the result is your new apparent frontal width. Because it's effectively a right angle triangle we can skip trig and dive straight in with Pythagorean theory - but I can trig the crap out of it if you like )

But the story doesn't end there.

There is a secondary issue too, a person is not two dimensional.

The physical property of having depth affects the reduction of apparent frontal area - you might be getting as low as a 20% reduction depending on build, and even less if arm position varies.

This is perfect. Thank you for making these corrections. I was going off of eyeing the grid paper and went out looking for this math after realizing this must be generally solvable.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What's the advantage to be "fully squared"? In order to apply a "leg lift" throw, to achieve your back to touch on your opponent's chest.

When you are in fully squared stance, you will need to

1. move in your attacking leg,
2. spin in your rooting leg,
3. apply your attacking leg.

When you are in forward and backward stance, you only need to

1. spin in your rooting leg,
2. apply your attacking leg.

You have 1 less move to apply. In MA, this is called "hide your preparation in your previous move."

1,2 is always better than 1,2,3.

I don't see any advantage for the "square stance" in both the striking art and the wrestling art.

That's a single, specific situation, and your math ignores that you are actually farther from the same technique on the other side. There's advantages in both squared and angled stances. From a squared stance, you can execute in either direction, reach equally with both hands, use cross-reach to protect against a grip, advance with either foot, and protect against sideways forces. There's another set of advantages to an angled stance.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

From a squared stance, you can execute in either direction, ...

You assume someone can execute a throw on both sides. Are you going to wait for your hand grips as well since you are not sure which side that you are going to attack?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You assume someone can execute a throw on both sides. Are you going to wait for your hand grips as well since you are not sure which side that you are going to attack?

Yeah, I assume they can execute the throw on both sides. Why wouldn't they be able to do that? And I'm not sure what you mean by waiting for the hand grips. I'm never sure which side I'm going to attack until an opening presents, then I use what opening is there. Even if I'm trying to manufacture an opening, I can't be sure it'll be the opening I'm trying to create - I have to react to what opening actually happens.

 

[hoshin1600]

Yet, Freddie Roach specifically teaches to avoid a squared stance. In straight grappling, there's an advantage to being fully squared (though there are some advantages to not being fully squared, they are fewer, IMO). I don't find a similar situation with striking. Having one side partly back seems to have more advantages than disadvantages in striking.

To clarify my own stance on this topic (pun fully intended )
I didn't say 100 % squared was better. I personally use a 70/ 30 degree angle but like others have said the angle is in direct proportion to distance. The further away the more bladed, the closer the more squared. My point was that using geometry with an engineer eye is only one piece of the puzzle and without factoring in other bits of data your actually creating a confirmation bias. The OP had a concept and was using geometry to confirm his belief while putting aside other factors, which to my thinking are much more relevant and impactfull.
EDIT . I was also trying to point out that maybe a 45 angle was not really optimal if you add in other factors, like the fight or flight decision.

 

[hoshin1600]

The next big flaw I see with the OP concept is the reduction in targets. Blading only works for firearms at a distance with a projectile that has a single vector.
People don't dissappear when they turn sideways. People are essentially a round punching bag with appendages. So we are cylinders with square inches of surface area. That surface area doesn't change when we blade our stance. Also my attacks are not on a single vector. I can hit with hooks and round kicks ect..
So I can attack on a 180 degrees.

 

[pdg]

This is perfect. Thank you for making these corrections. I was going off of eyeing the grid paper and went out looking for this math after realizing this must be generally solvable.

No worries

This is the sort of stuff schoolkids complain about - "when am I ever going to use this, why should I learn it?"

The next big flaw I see with the OP concept is the reduction in targets. Blading only works for firearms at a distance with a projectile that has a single vector.
People don't dissappear when they turn sideways. People are essentially a round punching bag with appendages. So we are cylinders with square inches of surface area. That surface area doesn't change when we blade our stance. Also my attacks are not on a single vector. I can hit with hooks and round kicks ect..
So I can attack on a 180 degrees.

That's what I was hinting at - it reduces the centre mass frontal area.

But the head is arguably the primary target - doesn't change that.

It also increases the side area, going all the way to 90° does this more - so a hook punch or round kick toward the body has a bigger target.

 

[lansao]

No worries

This is the sort of stuff schoolkids complain about - "when am I ever going to use this, why should I learn it?"



That's what I was hinting at - it reduces the centre mass frontal area.

But the head is arguably the primary target - doesn't change that.

It also increases the side area, going all the way to 90° does this more - so a hook punch or round kick toward the body has a bigger target.

This is great stuff. The scope of the observation is definitely limited.

Good point about the head and radial strikes.

 

[hoshin1600]

That's what I was hinting at - it reduces the centre mass frontal area.

But the head is arguably the primary target - doesn't change that.

It also increases the side area, going all the way to 90° does this more - so a hook punch or round kick toward the body has a bigger target.

blading is a good thing to a point but the reason is not so simple as limiting the front exposure. in sport the rule set often limits strikes to the back of the head and rear of the body. this is why you see extreme blading; using a side stance in TKD. it works well in that context.
in self defense the number one reason for blading is power generation. another reason is the limiting of exposed targets but not in the square inches of surface area. its about closing off vectors to the internal organs. so if i stand perfectly square a knife will hit my heart without much trouble but the evolution of the body developed a rib cage. by turning slightly i can close off the vulnerable organs and the knife will be hindered by the ribs.

the number one rule for self defense is not to let the assailant take your back. there is a switch in the brain that triggers the fight or flight response. in many cases you really dont have much of a conscious decision to make the body seems to do it on its own. if your bladed to much your instinct will be to turn and run rather then fight. also you are never able to hold that degree pitch exactly so there is a plus and minus factor. a 45 degree will often go over, it is at this point that your angled too far and the attacking pressure can turn you to take your back. this is why i prefer a 30 degree.

 

[pdg]

its about closing off vectors to the internal organs. so if i stand perfectly square a knife will hit my heart without much trouble but the evolution of the body developed a rib cage. by turning slightly i can close off the vulnerable organs and the knife will be hindered by the ribs.

That's true if the knife attack is the classic SD drill straight forward stabby stabby type of thing.

I don't know how often that's a real situation, but I'd guess it's low numbers...

I know that's not how I'd handle a knife.

 

[marques]

So you would stand square to an opponent, or keep them on your outside gate where they can hit you but you can't hit them? I dunno about ALL angles..

I am not sure I understand the question, but will try an answer.

I very often try to approach my opponent from the sides, with a stance more squared than sideways (so I can hit without being hit). But it is always changing, especially in mid range.

I prefer more squared stance in short distance and more sideways one at longer distance.

To me, it looks like grapplers very often prefer a squared stance at any distance.

Sometimes a ‘wrong’ angle is just a move in advance to decept and trap your opponent...

If I say ‘this angle is wrong’, eventually I will find out that someone made it work.

 

[Marnetmar]

I think something important to remember is that the reason conventional WC footwork is the way it is is because it assumes you're already hip-to-hip with, stepping through or tripping your opponent. At a longer range it stops making any practical sense. In which case, why not just use boxing footwork at long range?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

To clarify my own stance on this topic (pun fully intended )
I didn't say 100 % squared was better. I personally use a 70/ 30 degree angle but like others have said the angle is in direct proportion to distance. The further away the more bladed, the closer the more squared. My point was that using geometry with an engineer eye is only one piece of the puzzle and without factoring in other bits of data your actually creating a confirmation bias. The OP had a concept and was using geometry to confirm his belief while putting aside other factors, which to my thinking are much more relevant and impactfull.
EDIT . I was also trying to point out that maybe a 45 angle was not really optimal if you add in other factors, like the fight or flight decision.

I think the OP was purposely keeping it to a single factor, particularly to foster this kind of discussion. It kind of leaves the floor open for all kinds of thoughts, rather than folks having to target any specific assertion.

And I agree with you. I teach a 45-ish degree angle as a starting point for a fighting stance, because it matches the most common transition stance we use. But the actual angle varies a lot for me - I suspect I vary it too much, and actually communicate some of my intentions by my stance angle. A good opponent would probably figure that out after a few exchanges. That's all beside the point, though - far away, I'm probably beyond 45 degrees at times, and closer in, I'm heading toward square for a number of reasons.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The next big flaw I see with the OP concept is the reduction in targets. Blading only works for firearms at a distance with a projectile that has a single vector.
People don't dissappear when they turn sideways. People are essentially a round punching bag with appendages. So we are cylinders with square inches of surface area. That surface area doesn't change when we blade our stance. Also my attacks are not on a single vector. I can hit with hooks and round kicks ect..
So I can attack on a 180 degrees.

The principle applies somewhat, as straight attacks have fewer targets (or, more accurately, smaller target areas). Round attacks have different targets, and the angle means they are behind the front shoulder line, so are easier to defend. Of course, we start to open opportunities behind the front arm, at the same time, especially to round attacks. If we are talking a left-forward stance, we should also include that the liver becomes less exposed when we angle the stance.

 

[DaveB]

I think something important to remember is that the reason conventional WC footwork is the way it is is because it assumes you're already hip-to-hip with, stepping through or tripping your opponent. At a longer range it stops making any practical sense. In which case, why not just use boxing footwork at long range?

Again, non chunner here, but in terms of footwork at distance I had thought that it was one of the things they wing chun pole form was meant to impart.

Also I don't think boxing really has long ranged footwork in that it doesn't need to deal with weapons that can be launched from greater than one step away.

The best long range work I've seen is in TKD but put to use best by Thai boxers who adapt it to facilitate entry and escape from hand range.