question about stance and 20 principles

[martial sparrer]

I have come to know that whatever I think I know about karate is false, is not enough....so therefore forgive me. what I do is more mma type stuff. I coach soccer and one of my students is brown belt going for testing for black. so today I asked her to show me her stance in karate, and it was with hands up, almost like a classic boxing stance. at this I was surprised. my question is, does stance differ from school to school? when did they start teaching karate with this formation of hands? many other stances of karate I have seen in person and on the internet show different formation of hands. also, when I asked her about fukinoshi's(spelling wrong I think) 20 principles she said she did not know what I was talking about. is the 20 principles commonly taught at karate schools? she is 12 years old so maybe in the child classes they don't get into this stuff. she goes to a northern karate club. I remember seeing the website awhile ago and thought it looked very commercial. thanks rocco.

 

[SPX]

Usually a karateka's free fighting stance is different from any of the stances that are seen in kata. A lot of karatekas will tell you that those stances are supposed to be transitional stances that you temporarily move into to perform certain techniques rather than neutural "fighting stances." My own teacher has shown me some of the various stances he's experimented with for sparring. Some look like a kickboxing stance, others are wider and deeper and more like what most people probably think of when they think of a "karate stance."

As for the 20 principles, I really doubt you're going to find them referenced in most karate schools, especially the more commercial dojos. I actually found out about the 20 principles while browsing in B&N and I found a book on the subject.

 

[Chris Parker]

I have come to know that whatever I think I know about karate is false, is not enough....so therefore forgive me. what I do is more mma type stuff. I coach soccer and one of my students is brown belt going for testing for black. so today I asked her to show me her stance in karate, and it was with hands up, almost like a classic boxing stance. at this I was surprised. my question is, does stance differ from school to school? when did they start teaching karate with this formation of hands? many other stances of karate I have seen in person and on the internet show different formation of hands. also, when I asked her about fukinoshi's(spelling wrong I think) 20 principles she said she did not know what I was talking about. is the 20 principles commonly taught at karate schools? she is 12 years old so maybe in the child classes they don't get into this stuff. she goes to a northern karate club. I remember seeing the website awhile ago and thought it looked very commercial. thanks rocco.

There are many dozens of different forms of karate, each with their own methodology, approach, concepts, principles, teachings, and more. While there will be commonality across many systems (particularly those that come from a "common root"), there will be many differences. Japanese systems are different to Okinawan systems... and modern, Western "freestyle" karate forms are incredibly different again. Even within the Japanese systems (for example), there are large differences, in stance, movement, emphasis, guiding principles, and more. Wado Ryu takes from Shotokan (early Shotokan, at that), Shorin Ryu, and Shindo Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu, making it fairly removed from other forms. Goju Kai, which is a Japanese form of the Okinawan Goju Ryu, is different again... my old system of Tani-ha Shito Ryu Shukokai Karate differed even from it's parent art of Shito Ryu in postural, striking, and training concepts. When it comes to the "20 principles", bear in mind that they were something that Funakoshi believed were important to his expression of karate... that doesn't mean that they're considered as important for others. And, if the young girl in your post is not in a Shotokan school, there's no real reason for them to be even referencing the 20 principles of Funakoshi, other than if the instructor felt they were important.

There is no one single art called "karate". They're all different... which is why you can't learn a generic "karate" from books... it doesn't exist.

 

[punisher73]

The question about stance and guard in karate comes up quite frequently. "Karate" is an umbrella of various styles stemming from Okinawa. If we look at the styles from there, they are all based on civilian self-defense. One of the aspects of that is you don't know ahead of time you are going to be in a fight so the postures reflect that idea. It wasn't until later that the sport style sparring really took hold and the artificial distancing that creates more of the need for the types of preplanned guard positions. Here is an article by Iain Abernathy that discusses this and says it better than I can.

http://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/use-karate-guard-kata-and-combat

 

[rframe]

How much an individual school teaches about martial arts history will obviously vary, but I would be very surprised to meet a brown/black belt karateka who didn't know who Funakoshi was or what the 20 precepts are about though... it might make me a little suspect about their training. You'd think at least at some point they would've done a few minutes of Googling on their art's history?

Fighting stances vary more by individual than they do by school, and vary by someones fighting experience. You mention Funakoshi's 20 precepts, number 17 is "Postures (formal stances) are for the beginner; later they are natural positions".

Ignorant karate-bashers will often say stupid things like, "they waste time having people stand around in horse stances and I've never seen anyone fight in one". Well the formal stances teach concepts, build flexiblity and strength, and even in an natural fighting stance, when certain attacks or defenses are launched you'll see the karateka transition right into something like many of the formal stances.

Martial arts is a huge bag full of building blocks, when you look at each block it might seem overly simple or overly complex... but as you gain mastery over each building block and they become natural, you are able to assemble them into something very useful and meaningful.

 

[Chris Parker]

How much an individual school teaches about martial arts history will obviously vary, but I would be very surprised to meet a brown/black belt karateka who didn't know who Funakoshi was or what the 20 precepts are about though... it might make me a little suspect about their training. You'd think at least at some point they would've done a few minutes of Googling on their art's history?

Fighting stances vary more by individual than they do by school, and vary by someones fighting experience. You mention Funakoshi's 20 precepts, number 17 is "Postures (formal stances) are for the beginner; later they are natural positions".

Ignorant karate-bashers will often say stupid things like, "they waste time having people stand around in horse stances and I've never seen anyone fight in one". Well the formal stances teach concepts, build flexiblity and strength, and even in an natural fighting stance, when certain attacks or defenses are launched you'll see the karateka transition right into something like many of the formal stances.

Martial arts is a huge bag full of building blocks, when you look at each block it might seem overly simple or overly complex... but as you gain mastery over each building block and they become natural, you are able to assemble them into something very useful and meaningful.

While I'd expect them to at least know who Funakoshi was, that doesn't follow that they'd know about his 20 precepts... after all, who was Funakoshi to Goju Ryu? Or Shorin Ryu? Besides that, why would other lineages have any reason to teach his precepts? They have their own lessons to pass on.

 

[rframe]

While I'd expect them to at least know who Funakoshi was, that doesn't follow that they'd know about his 20 precepts... after all, who was Funakoshi to Goju Ryu? Or Shorin Ryu? Besides that, why would other lineages have any reason to teach his precepts? They have their own lessons to pass on.

True, that's why I said a little suspect. No need to know these things, but I'd think most people with an interest may have read up a bit on karate history.

 

[K-man]

Fighting stances vary more by individual than they do by school, and vary by someones fighting experience. You mention Funakoshi's 20 precepts, number 17 is "Postures (formal stances) are for the beginner; later they are natural positions".

Ignorant karate-bashers will often say stupid things like, "they waste time having people stand around in horse stances and I've never seen anyone fight in one". Well the formal stances teach concepts, build flexiblity and strength, and even in an natural fighting stance, when certain attacks or defenses are launched you'll see the karateka transition right into something like many of the formal stances.

I'm afraid that I must disagree with some of this. The stances you learn right across the karate spectrum are similar because the origins in Naha and Shuri were blurred. In the early days there was a lot of cross training and the guys learned the same basic katas, even though these developed and changed with each style.

It is possible to "see the karateka transition right into something like many of the formal stances", but I would suggest that is a bit like seeing images in clouds. In sport karate you mainly see a natural fighting stance similar to boxing. And, the karate bashers are being ignorant if they talk about not seeing people fight in 'horse stance'. That is because the formal stances of karate have nothing to do with sport sparring (and nothing to do with flexibility and strength). The stances taught are all used in close fighting. They facilitate the leg traps and takedowns and the way you move into those stances in close combat is exactly the way they are taught in the 'basic' karate class. The problem is the 'basic' karate instructor who has not the first idea of what he/she is teaching, and that is one of my pet gripes! :asian:

 

[rframe]

If stances dont build flexibility, balance and strength, I sure have seen a lot of beginner to intermediate belts who apparently are making up their struggles as they learn and then develop a strong stable base and offensive/defensive stances.

As for application in fighting, I dont think it has anything to do with seeing images in clouds. Stances provide a base suitable to certain situations, stability, offense, defense... when they have been practiced that's where people go when fighting. When they haven't been practiced, people fumble around.

I think there is a parallel to stand-up fighting and ground fighting. If you watch someone get taken to the ground who has no training in grappling they look absolutely ridiculous, they flop around helplessly with nothing to do. If you watch a skilled BJJ practitioner in the same situation they transition quickly and efficiently to positions of control and submission. The stand up game is similar, when you watch guys with minimal striking and footwork training they just sort of stand and rock back and forth but guys with a lot of stand up karate/tkd/kf/boxing experience are moving and changing stances appropriate to give them the most stability, speed, and leverage for that moment in the fight.

The reference to Iain's article above is excellent. He also has several videos showing the practical use of stances and how they are quite natural to fighting, they are used in the moment as needed to properly support the fighter.

 

[K-man]

If stances dont build flexibility, balance and strength, I sure have seen a lot of beginner to intermediate belts who apparently are making up their struggles as they learn and then develop a strong stable base and offensive/defensive stances.

As for application in fighting, I dont think it has anything to do with seeing images in clouds. Stances provide a base suitable to certain situations, stability, offense, defense... when they have been practiced that's where people go when fighting. When they haven't been practiced, people fumble around.

Stances can be for whatever reason you want. If you want then as a tool to help flexibility, fine. If you want to stand around in lower stance to built leg strength, fine. If you believe what you have written above, that is your prerogative. It took twenty years for me to be shown the meaning behind the stances and during that time I was fed the biggest load of BS by high profile instructors. Open your eyes and see or close your mind and keep doing the same things over and over. As I said, it is one of my pet gripes that most instructors don't teach the stances as they are deigned to be used, and you can lay the blame for that squarely on the shoulders of sport based karate and the sparring from distance that that entails. :asian:

 

[Touch Of Death]

Stances can be for whatever reason you want. If you want then as a tool to help flexibility, fine. If you want to stand around in lower stance to built leg strength, fine. If you believe what you have written above, that is your prerogative. It took twenty years for me to be shown the meaning behind the stances and during that time I was fed the biggest load of BS by high profile instructors. Open your eyes and see or close your mind and keep doing the same things over and over. As I said, it is one of my pet gripes that most instructors don't teach the stances as they are deigned to be used, and you can lay the blame for that squarely on the shoulders of sport based karate and the sparring from distance that that entails. :asian:

Preach it Brother!
The Choir

 

[rframe]

It took twenty years for me to be shown the meaning behind the stances and during that time I was fed the biggest load of BS by high profile instructors. Open your eyes and see...

Well, I'm curious about these meanings, if it took you 20 years to learn them then what you are suggesting is there are purposes behind them that are not as obvious/intuitive as I (and apparently most people) think, so can you elaborate and give some examples?

 

[K-man]

Well, I'm curious about these meanings, if it took you 20 years to learn them then what you are suggesting is there are purposes behind them that are not as obvious/intuitive as I (and apparently most people) think, so can you elaborate and give some examples?

Well first can I ask you what you see as the use of, say, Sanchin dachi or 'hourglass stance'?

 

[seasoned]

Butting in then butting out.

Front leg in a close in fighting encounter is hooking the opponents leg for a take down, or a leg strike. While our hands attack high, (our legs attack low) with stances. One in many principles.

 

[EddieCyrax]

True, that's why I said a little suspect. No need to know these things, but I'd think most people with an interest may have read up a bit on karate history.

Didnt the OP mention the girl was 12? Not sure how much research kids do beyond what they are taught in class from her instructor. Depends on the kid, but I am doubtful many kids will dive too deeply beyond what is required for testing. You are placing your adult interest and frame of reference on a child.

 

[Kframe]

Non Tma guy here, and I actually agree with K man. I have only seen TMA stances from my father and what I saw on the internet and my own brief(3 month) stint in Shorin Ryu. I had no idea what they were for and to me the looked un natural. Only when I started doing the grappling(standing grappling primarily) did I start to reckognize some of the stances I had seen.(and shortly practiced) That hour glass stance, looks like it would be good for trapping with the front leg and then hip tossing. I notice in my own training, I move into what to me looks like a front stance(think that's what its called) when im doing some throws. Other throws have me moving in to other stances to do the throws. So, now I find my self watching youtube to see if I can spot more things I can add to my own personal training.

 

[K-man]

Non Tma guy here, and I actually agree with K man. I have only seen TMA stances from my father and what I saw on the internet and my own brief(3 month) stint in Shorin Ryu. I had no idea what they were for and to me the looked un natural. Only when I started doing the grappling(standing grappling primarily) did I start to reckognize some of the stances I had seen.(and shortly practiced) That hour glass stance, looks like it would be good for trapping with the front leg and then hip tossing. I notice in my own training, I move into what to me looks like a front stance(think that's what its called) when im doing some throws. Other throws have me moving in to other stances to do the throws. So, now I find my self watching youtube to see if I can spot more things I can add to my own personal training.

And of course, that is the answer. (My wily old mate, seasoned​, knew exactly where I was coming from ) The reason it took me so long to get to that point was because all our sparring was tournament based. In the early days of my training my teacher was in the Australian team for kumite so you can imagine his focus on sparring. Most students really don't think beyond what they are told because the teacher has the knowledge, right? It was only when my students started asking questions that I realised just how many of the answers just didn't make sense.

The most simple things, like the stances, are actually quite complex ... if you explore them from a grappling point of view.

 

[dancingalone]

As a further thought, what's most important about stances are the bodily actions performed in transition to and from them. You can 'cheat' to an extent on the outward appearance (toe/heel angle slightly awry), but so long as the other parts are true, like shoulder/hip alignment, etc, you can still have a very stable and powerful delivery platform for your strikes and such.

 

[K-man]

As a further thought, what's most important about stances are the bodily actions performed in transition to and from them. You can 'cheat' to an extent on the outward appearance (toe/heel angle slightly awry), but so long as the other parts are true, like shoulder/hip alignment, etc, you can still have a very stable and powerful delivery platform for your strikes and such.

If that is true, why do we have so many different stances? How do you know which is the best stance to use at a particular time? Why doesn't, say, boxing have more stances? They are all about powerful strikes. If I am standing two metres from you, what stance should I adopt? What does it matter at that range if my toes are pointing in or out? Why, when I step in Sanchin dachi, do I use a crescent step but not when I step in the other stances?

Sure, you can train in a particular stance to do all that you say, but that to me is like saying that the iceberg you see floating is all there is. Beneath the surface there is a whole new world. :asian:

 

[dancingalone]

If that is true, why do we have so many different stances?

They all have their advantages depending on the current context (positioning, angle, goal...). It's the same reason why we have so many different strikes instead of just training one punch only.

How do you know which is the best stance to use at a particular time?

Hopefully from receiving good instruction and then having the extended opportunity to train with multiple partners and thus gain knowledge of what works individually for us.

Why doesn't, say, boxing have more stances? They are all about powerful strikes.

Some stances are more conducive to certain activities than others. Like shifting quickly to a cat stance to avoid a strike before lashing out with a kick. A boxer wouldn't need to train a cat stance since he doesn't have to worry about his opponent kicking him. In short, because boxing confines each participant to what they can or can't do, it likewise puts them on a path to specialization in a smaller subset of skills, rather than arguably a more generalist perspective that a karate-ka would have. There are surely other examples as well.

If I am standing two metres from you, what stance should I adopt? What does it matter at that range if my toes are pointing in or out?

At 2 meters or indeed at any range, it depends first on what we train and then on situational context with what the immediate goal at the time is. For example, I suspect someone in Isshinryu would stand in that high short stance they call seisan dachi since they can fire all their techniques from that range. A judo-ka might assume a shoulder length stance with his feet sprayed 45 degrees apart called natural stance or sometimes shizen-hontai as it would give him some degree of stability as he considers how to close if needed.

Why, when I step in Sanchin dachi, do I use a crescent step but not when I step in the other stances?

One answer is because in sanchin dachi we train our Naha-te derived method of creating bursting power in our strikes while also having fast/efficient movement in a supremely stable position.

I'll also play the Jedi mind trick here and state that actually a bunch of non-Goju stylists crescent step in zenkutsu dachi as well. It might be fun examining why they do it and think about the correlation if any to sanchin dachi.

Sure, you can train in a particular stance to do all that you say, but that to me is like saying that the iceberg you see floating is all there is. Beneath the surface there is a whole new world. :asian:

To be sure, I wasn't trying to imply that we can substitute one stance for another willy-nilly. I was saying the transitional movements and what we are doing as part of creating the platform are more important IMO than the final posture itself.