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.
Stance training in ancient Shaolin styles
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
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
Master of Arts
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 ...
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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
All weight is underside
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
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.
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.
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
Sr. Grandmaster
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.
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
All weight is underside
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
White Belt
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.
That's Jake ... he has issues with his training background.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
I thought that was Jake, but I was not sure so I did not say anything, thanks
Vajramusti
Master Black Belt
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
Master Black Belt
Terrible. well known imitator.
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.
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".
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
-
éåæ ZhĆ²ngxÄ«n center of gravity
- Latest: Wing Woo Gar
-