Stance Training

[SL4Drew]

The one of the most difficult things to teach a beginner student is footwork and stances. Why? they are aware,feel, their basic sense of balance. Basic levels are not good enough, they have to be brought to a higher level.
Proof, professional sports, lets say football. Do they not work heavily on footwork, low stances etc.?
To simply have the ability to keep upright and walk does not mean that one can do it to their best ability, they have to be trained properly in order to do it and to correct themselves, by feel, if they have done it wrong.
The average person can pick up and hold things without dropping them naturally. In Jujitsu one must, on a higher level, feel themselves and their opponet. This comes through extensive training, especially in the advanced area of "feeling" your opponets motion.
Perfection in all areas of training should be strived for.
:supcool:

In most Chinese Martial Arts, they have some sort of 'stance keeping' training. Historically, standing in a static horse is associated with the Shaolin Temple. It was the major 'martial qigong' used in such systems. And to some extent you still see it in related systems. A major thrust of the martial aspect of such training is to cultivate a mind-body connection (or 'qi' if you'd prefer). On the physical level, the idea is to, at a minimum, teach the student how to harmonize all parts of the body.

Although there are some postures that are supposed to help the student develop better balance, I have never heard the horse stance counted among those. And I am dubious that a horse stance is an effective vehicle for that. You can develop awareness of your balance and your body's adjustments by standing naturally. I don't see how the horse stance is a superior method to standing naturally to cultivate this awareness. In fact, it is arguably inferior because of the fatigue it is going to create and thus causing an accompanying mental distraction.

 

[Doc]

In most Chinese Martial Arts, they have some sort of 'stance keeping' training. Historically, standing in a static horse is associated with the Shaolin Temple. It was the major 'martial qigong' used in such systems. And to some extent you still see it in related systems. A major thrust of the martial aspect of such training is to cultivate a mind-body connection (or 'qi' if you'd prefer). On the physical level, the idea is to, at a minimum, teach the student how to harmonize all parts of the body.

Although there are some postures that are supposed to help the student develop better balance, I have never heard the horse stance counted among those. And I am dubious that a horse stance is an effective vehicle for that. You can develop awareness of your balance and your body's adjustments by standing naturally. I don't see how the horse stance is a superior method to standing naturally to cultivate this awareness. In fact, it is arguably inferior because of the fatigue it is going to create and thus causing an accompanying mental distraction.

Allowing a student to decide their own training comes from the business of the martial arts, and why we have a bunch of unknowledgeable so-called instructors running around today, who couldn't find their own butt with a GPS device and a flashlight.

 

[LawDog]

SL4Drew,
I understand where your point of view comes from. If you viewed the training done at the many different schools with different styles you would see that many do hold to their views.
And Doc I stated to let the "readers" decide their own path.

 

[SL4Drew]

SL4Drew,
I understand where your point of view comes from. If you viewed the training done at the many different schools with different styles you would see that many do hold to their views.
And Doc I stated to let the "readers" decide their own path.

Here is a blog post by a Hung Gar practitioner: http://sunyatanamaskar.wordpress.com/2007/05/22/stance-training/

This post is consistent with my experience, what I have heard CMA students say, and what I have read. You will see that all the reasons he lists for training in a static horse are consistent with my prior post. At one point he mentions balance, but it is only a by-product of having a proper stance and the training. No where does he mention it is to teach the 'feeling' of the weight distribution in your feet.

In the interests of letting the readers decide, my point is your rationale for using the static horse training is inconsistent with the arts in which that training methodology came from.

 

[Doc]

Here is a blog post by a Hung Gar practitioner: http://sunyatanamaskar.wordpress.com/2007/05/22/stance-training/

This post is consistent with my experience, what I have heard CMA students say, and what I have read. You will see that all the reasons he lists for training in a static horse are consistent with my prior post. At one point he mentions balance, but it is only a by-product of having a proper stance and the training. No where does he mention it is to teach the 'feeling' of the weight distribution in your feet.

In the interests of letting the readers decide, my point is your rationale for using the static horse training is inconsistent with the arts in which that training methodology came from.

Unfortunately in modern martial arts, people declare themselves experts in human physiology with absolutely no basis to do so, and develop their own ideas of what should be done and why. When they are confronted by the reality of facts, they stubbornly stick to their ways to comfort their egos, surrounded by the anesthesia of ignorance. It is one thing to argue a point with facts, another to offer unsupported "feelings." Only the students suffer, however putting the art first solves all problems, but unfortunately everybody is a grandmaster these days.

 

[Jdokan]

"You cannot train someone to "feel" their own weight anymore than the PNF autonomic sensors will allow."

"Biomechanical function is not a philosophy, style, or personal training preference, but is totally dictated by the educated sciences and parameters of human movement."

Dr. Chapél

I liken it to trying to teach someone to stand in a canoe.....something that experience can only teach....

 

[Doc]

I liken it to trying to teach someone to stand in a canoe.....something that experience can only teach....

Good one.

 

[DavidCC]

Living mammals in general and humans specifically have an innate ability to distinguish weight distribution, and "feel" where they are through various parts of the feet. It is part of the autonomic nervous system and PNF. If we didn't, we'd fall down easily. You cannot train someone to "feel" their own weight anymore than the autonomic sensors will allow. Further, the entire bottom of the foot is utilized and constantly shifts focus from one part of the foot to the other unconsciously from one jiffy-second to the next, in an effort to maintain an upright poster in bipedal stances and movement. A classic example of how biomechanical function is not a philosophy, style, or personal training preference of someone who teaches, but is dictated by the educated sciences of human movement.

"You cannot train someone to "feel" their own weight anymore than the autonomic sensors will allow" but can a person be 'feeling their weight' LESS than the sensors will allow? I think that is where I was at before I started MA training, unconcious of my posture, always mis-aligned and postured however the chrionic pain in my back led me to stand or sit at that moment.

But since I started MA, and meditation, now I feel like I am paying attention to these things, "taking readings fomr the sensors", and am working towards getting maximum feedback from my proprioceptive sensors, and using them to execute the most efficient / well structured movements.

 

[LawDog]

Using a static horse stance is not done in every class. A few of the reasons that I use this stance for the kyu ranks is so that they will know and better control weight shifting by "feel". A few of the training drills used are,
*bending the knees towards the toes or rearward or back towards the heels will place ones weight on the ball of the foot or over the heel,
*hip tilting either towards the toes or back towards the heel will help shift your weight either on the ball of the foot or on the heel of the foot.
This training drill is done easier from a horse stance than in another stance. A student can develop or learn to be more aware of ones weight displacement, by feel, on his foot.
During any situation one cannot look down to correct a stance one has to feel it and I do not know many kyu ranks or lower dan ranks that can do this.
During one of your classes when you tell a student to correct his stance or posture I would be willing to bet that,
*they had to look down to correct it,
*use a mirror to correct themselves,
*be told by you the Instructor what was wrong and how to correct it.
If you two are really "open minded" Instructors why don't you understand that everyone and every style has their own training methods that work for them.
Now why don't the two of you tell me the training methods that you use to train your kyu ranks on how to be better aware or their own postures and stances. :idunno:

 

[SL4Drew]

"You cannot train someone to "feel" their own weight anymore than the autonomic sensors will allow" but can a person be 'feeling their weight' LESS than the sensors will allow? I think that is where I was at before I started MA training, unconcious of my posture, always mis-aligned and postured however the chrionic pain in my back led me to stand or sit at that moment.

But since I started MA, and meditation, now I feel like I am paying attention to these things, "taking readings fomr the sensors", and am working towards getting maximum feedback from my proprioceptive sensors, and using them to execute the most efficient / well structured movements.

I can't speak for Doc, but the distinction in my mind is between awareness of a normally unconscious feeling and trying to teach your body to 'feel' better. You can do the former but not the latter. As you stated this awareness tends to have a meditative quality. So you are really training your "mind" and no so much your body. Thus, the distinction in my mind.

 

[SL4Drew]

Using a static horse stance is not done in every class. A few of the reasons that I use this stance for the kyu ranks is so that they will know and better control weight shifting by "feel". A few of the training drills used are,
*bending the knees towards the toes or rearward or back towards the heels will place ones weight on the ball of the foot or over the heel,
*hip tilting either towards the toes or back towards the heel will help shift your weight either on the ball of the foot or on the heel of the foot.
This training drill is done easier from a horse stance than in another stance. A student can develop or learn to be more aware of ones weight displacement, by feel, on his foot.
During any situation one cannot look down to correct a stance one has to feel it and I do not know many kyu ranks or lower dan ranks that can do this.
During one of your classes when you tell a student to correct his stance or posture I would be willing to bet that,
*they had to look down to correct it,
*use a mirror to correct themselves,
*be told by you the Instructor what was wrong and how to correct it.
If you two are really "open minded" Instructors why don't you understand that everyone and every style has their own training methods that work for them.
Now why don't the two of you tell me the training methods that you use to train your kyu ranks on how to be better aware or their own postures and stances. :idunno:

I was giving you an oppertunity to convince me that the training method is valid. I expressed doubt and explained the basis for that doubt. I did not exclude the possibility that it does work. I even suggested that if it did that I still had doubt that it was the best way to achieve what I understand to be your goal. I submit that my mind is indeed still open.

My 'simple' answer is: move slowly. A more specific answer is Stance Set 101.

 

[Doc]

Using a static horse stance is not done in every class. A few of the reasons that I use this stance for the kyu ranks is so that they will know and better control weight shifting by "feel". A few of the training drills used are,
*bending the knees towards the toes or rearward or back towards the heels will place ones weight on the ball of the foot or over the heel,
*hip tilting either towards the toes or back towards the heel will help shift your weight either on the ball of the foot or on the heel of the foot.
This training drill is done easier from a horse stance than in another stance. A student can develop or learn to be more aware of ones weight displacement, by feel, on his foot.
During any situation one cannot look down to correct a stance one has to feel it and I do not know many kyu ranks or lower dan ranks that can do this.
During one of your classes when you tell a student to correct his stance or posture I would be willing to bet that,
*they had to look down to correct it,
*use a mirror to correct themselves,
*be told by you the Instructor what was wrong and how to correct it.
If you two are really "open minded" Instructors why don't you understand that everyone and every style has their own training methods that work for them.
Now why don't the two of you tell me the training methods that you use to train your kyu ranks on how to be better aware or their own postures and stances. :idunno:

Well sir, first of all, all of my students are extremely open minded, and they also have carte blanche to challenge me on any topic to prove or disprove its efficacy. I actively encourage it. Most of my students are degreed or credentialed highly educated professionals not prone to be led. In fact they are leaders from law enforcement, to the medical field, and everything in-between. In fact the other "two" in this discussion is a lawyer who talks me to death. My point is, I have to prove my perspective to them constantly and be open to their inquiries. When a student is a thoracic surgeon who literally saves people lives based on his knowledge and skill, asks you a question, you better know what you're talking about because you can't bulls**t him. Same for my cops and federal agents. They have more physical confrontations than anyone, and will test you in a heartbeat. But I love it. It makes me smarter, and I listen to everyone of my students and the knowledge they bring to a discussion. My students make me smarter.

But as I previously stated sir, your method is a philosophical one, built around a style culture, wrapped in your own preferences. What I choose to call a "Training Conundrum" that has more to do with you, than it does the teaching of specific material through educated means firmly based in the science of the art. It is typical of those who do not have the education, and knowledge to do so.

However that being said, as long as you and your students find a satisfactory result in your methodology, there are no forthcoming complaints from me. However the purpose of the forum, as I perceived it, was to share and exchange ideas and information for examination, that we all might become better educated in what we do.

Should you choose to reject that information, I am not offended. It is your choice. If you do not find information valid for you, once again, it is your choice. But, I suggested sound evidence grounded in the physical sciences of human anatomy. You gave me reasons why you "feel" what you are doing is important. Feelings over education. I have no problem with your preference, although it does remind me of arguments I've had with members of my own "estrogen mafia" at home.

As far as my method, I come from an "old school thought," apparently different from your old school. My teacher suggested the best way to learn something, is by doing what it is you need to do. Kinda like was previous stated. You can't learn to stand up in a canoe anyway other than standing up in canoe, or as Mr. Parker stated,

"If what you do is not what you do, than what are you doing?"

The best way, in my opinion to get students to "feel" their stances and how to move in them - is to put students in stances and make them move, and correct them. You choose the "static method" of making them stand in a stance they aren't going to use in reality. Your choice.

My choice can be seen on youtube. It's called oddly enough, "Stance Set 101."

"Pride and ego, are the anesthesia of ignorance." - Ed Parker Sr.

Forest Gump put it another way.

 

[Doc]

"You cannot train someone to "feel" their own weight anymore than the autonomic sensors will allow" but can a person be 'feeling their weight' LESS than the sensors will allow? I think that is where I was at before I started MA training, unconcious of my posture, always mis-aligned and postured however the chrionic pain in my back led me to stand or sit at that moment.

But since I started MA, and meditation, now I feel like I am paying attention to these things, "taking readings fomr the sensors", and am working towards getting maximum feedback from my proprioceptive sensors, and using them to execute the most efficient / well structured movements.

What you are doing sir, through your training, is adjusting and being conscious of your posture. By corrective and being sensitive to your posture, you automatically correct and adjust your weight distribution to accommodate the posture mandates in human anatomy. That's what you "feel." The human body has limitations in all aspects of its sensory systems. Some physical things you cannot improve through training. ie reaction times to external stimuli has a functional ceiling, no matter how much we train.

 

[seasoned]

The static horse stance is a great tool that was used in my dojo, by my Sensei. As white belts, we would start with short periods at a time, while punching. By the time we made it to black belt, we were required to hold this position for ½ hour, with someone on our shoulders, of our own weight. At the time, I thought it was some kind of sadistic way of torturing us. Now that I look back, this stance was great for mind conditioning, as well as awesome leg power. When in the static horse stance, the requirement was head straight, shoulders back, arms folded on the chest while we concentrated our breath low. The feeling was trying to sit on a chair that wasn’t there, with knees bent so we could not see our toes, if we looked down. Knee tension was out, like there was a horse under us. Our toes gripped the ground while our feet pointing straight ahead. We would concentrate on 9 points on the bottom of our feet, that would tell us if our weight was even. 5 toes, both balls of the foot, outer edge, and heel. If all 9 points were touching, then weight was evenly distributed.

 

[Doc]

The static horse stance is a great tool that was used in my dojo, by my Sensei. As white belts, we would start with short periods at a time, while punching. By the time we made it to black belt, we were required to hold this position for ½ hour, with someone on our shoulders, of our own weight. At the time, I thought it was some kind of sadistic way of torturing us. Now that I look back, this stance was great for mind conditioning, as well as awesome leg power. When in the static horse stance, the requirement was head straight, shoulders back, arms folded on the chest while we concentrated our breath low. The feeling was trying to sit on a chair that wasn’t there, with knees bent so we could not see our toes, if we looked down. Knee tension was out, like there was a horse under us. Our toes gripped the ground while our feet pointing straight ahead. We would concentrate on 9 points on the bottom of our feet, that would tell us if our weight was even. 5 toes, both balls of the foot, outer edge, and heel. If all 9 points were touching, then weight was evenly distributed.

I can appreciate the perspective, having been subjected to similar training myself under both Chinese and Japanese Instructors. However, those training methods are culturally influenced and date back to a time when warrior training was intentionally hard, and also designed to build strength and endurance in those whose very survival depended upon it.

In a society where every thug has access to firearms, and hand-to-hand fighting is anomalous in the average person, this type of training is a personal choice. My teacher didn't believe in it. He felt a student would get all of the health benefits they needed by simply training in what it is you were trying to learn. Practicing kicks will build leg strength appropriately. Practicing punches will build punch power. Training techniques and sparring will build cardio strength by training what you do because it is what you need. Physical contact among students will build toughness, and resolve. Wasting time on cultural exercises are a product of a different culture and training methods, and/or drives a business that nows spends as much time on fitness as it does the arts, because the market demands it.

"Cardio kick," and "aerobic punch," go hand-in-hand with stretching, push ups, and jumping jacks that used to permeate training in the old days, and burn up time so so-called teachers don't really teach anything and keep you coming back. My teacher did not do those things. His position is as mine.

"I have too much to teach to waste time on such things. It is not my job to get you in shape. You're not in my class long enough or often enough to do that, and it is not my job, but yours. You will get a significant benefit physically from training in the arts without standing in stances for endurance. You will lose weight and gain cardio strength without those things." My job is to teach you how to defend yourself. That's what you pay me for. If you want aerobics, go to a health spa. Anybody who wants to be in shape, will be. Those that won't, there's nothing I can do."

His intent was to teach the Asian Arts from an American perspective not an Asian one. The old Chinese Methods are too complex and too time intensive to waste time, when the average student is only in two or three days a week for a couple of hours. In Asian, students committed to instruction as a way of life. Here people have to go to work the next day, or go pick up milk for the kids, and other assorted honeydo's. Don't get me wrong, the olds ways are not bad, but they come from a different place, a different time, and even the place it comes from doesn't do it anymore.

We live in an American Culture, not and Asian one sir. I teach the Old World arts, but I leave the cultural stuff out, and get to what my students want. The bulk of them do depend (law enforcement) upon it for their lives, and my classes are no cream puff, but standing in a horse for any length of time is something they don't need me for. They can do that at home in the mirror while I'm explaining what they really need to survive.

 

[seasoned]

I can appreciate the perspective, having been subjected to similar training myself under both Chinese and Japanese Instructors. However, those training methods are culturally influenced and date back to a time when warrior training was intentionally hard, and also designed to build strength and endurance in those whose very survival depended upon it.

In a society where every thug has access to firearms, and hand-to-hand fighting is anomalous in the average person, this type of training is a personal choice. My teacher didn't believe in it. He felt a student would get all of the health benefits they needed by simply training in what it is you were trying to learn. Practicing kicks will build leg strength appropriately. Practicing punches will build punch power. Training techniques and sparring will build cardio strength by training what you do because it is what you need. Physical contact among students will build toughness, and resolve. Wasting time on cultural exercises are a product of a different culture and training methods, and/or drives a business that nows spends as much time on fitness as it does the arts, because the market demands it.

"Cardio kick," and "aerobic punch," go hand-in-hand with stretching, push ups, and jumping jacks that used to permeate training in the old days, and burn up time so so-called teachers don't really teach anything and keep you coming back. My teacher did not do those things. His position is as mine.

"I have too much to teach to waste time on such things. It is not my job to get you in shape. You're not in my class long enough or often enough to do that, and it is not my job, but yours. You will get a significant benefit physically from training in the arts without standing in stances for endurance. You will lose weight and gain cardio strength without those things." My job is to teach you how to defend yourself. That's what you pay me for. If you want aerobics, go to a health spa. Anybody who wants to be in shape, will be. Those that won't, there's nothing I can do."

His intent was to teach the Asian Arts from an American perspective not an Asian one. The old Chinese Methods are too complex and too time intensive to waste time, when the average student is only in two or three days a week for a couple of hours. In Asian, students committed to instruction as a way of life. Here people have to go to work the next day, or go pick up milk for the kids, and other assorted honeydo's. Don't get me wrong, the olds ways are not bad, but they come from a different place, a different time, and even the place it comes from doesn't do it anymore.

We live in an American Culture, not and Asian one sir. I teach the Old World arts, but I leave the cultural stuff out, and get to what my students want. The bulk of them do depend (law enforcement) upon it for their lives, and my classes are no cream puff, but standing in a horse for any length of time is something they don't need me for. They can do that at home in the mirror while I'm explaining what they really need to survive.

My post, does of course speak of the past. Back in my early days, classes were 2 hours long. Classes now, as a rule are sometimes only 1 hour long, if that. When I started, in the 60s, it was a take it or leave it situation, because there were no other dojo’s in town. Schools were far and few between, and basically only the strong survived. In this day and age, as you state, you have to give the student a bang for their buck. If you don’t, there is always another school close by, where that student can migrate to. The old ways are not always the best, but for my point in time, I am glad I was part of it. You make some good points, and they are well taken.

 

[Kryshah]

Homo sapien has evolved to the point where they have no natural weapons per se, but have may use their body as weapons outside the norm of daily existence.

A cats claws, as an example ARE natural weapons, as a dogs teeth, a snakes fangs, and a birds beak, etc. All there and in the evolutionary process designed to be used on a daily basis as a NATURAL weapon to allow the species to survive. Man does not possess the NATURAL strength, agility, or natural weapons of its nearest genetic equivallent. However that does not preclude man from DEVELOPING natural weapons. The difference is animals that possess them, have them naturally and no developement is necessary. Animals fight effectively instinctively, no training necessary. A man's hands MAY punch but is not designed to, and without developemental skills will probably break if used as a weapon, etc.

I have to admit that it's amusing to me that I found this in a martial arts forum.

As a student of zoology friend, I'll have to kindly disagree. Try to pick a fight with another large primate, and see what kind of natural weapons something with similar physiology to our own employs.

Another point is that our current physical selves aren't much different from the humans that first gained control of fire, or first crafted a spear. We have weapons, and you need no training to employ them. The training that martial artists recieve simply make them better at using said weapons. Ever been bitten by a child? Ever been hit by someone untrained? I'm sure it hurt, and put behind it the desire for sheer survival that most wild animals fight for and I'm sure that you can do the math.

And to use cats in an argument dealing with footing is not only absurd, it's uneducated. Surf the web a bit, and you'll find that the very reason for cats grace, speed and agility is thier ability to maintain firm footing. Watch a cat stalking sometime, or walking on some sort of unstable surface you'll find that thier attention to footing is intense. They test ground with thier front paws, and place thier rear paws directly where the front paws were. It's really amazing. Keep in mind that some of the earliest structured martial arts forms were at least loosely based on animal movement.

 

[Doc]

My post, does of course speak of the past. Back in my early days, classes were 2 hours long. Classes now, as a rule are sometimes only 1 hour long, if that. When I started, in the 60s, it was a take it or leave it situation, because there were no other dojo’s in town. Schools were far and few between, and basically only the strong survived. In this day and age, as you state, you have to give the student a bang for their buck. If you don’t, there is always another school close by, where that student can migrate to. The old ways are not always the best, but for my point in time, I am glad I was part of it. You make some good points, and they are well taken.

I agree with you sir, and my experience is the same as yours, (we're about the same age), but to put things into perspective, my classes are a draining 3 hours minimum, and nobody leaves without "feeling" what they're supposed to learn. I'm old school, I just toss out the junk, and I don't give a rip if they go down the street. Of course we're not open to the public, and I don't make any money.

 

[SL4Drew]

I have to admit that it's amusing to me that I found this in a martial arts forum.

As a student of zoology friend, I'll have to kindly disagree. Try to pick a fight with another large primate, and see what kind of natural weapons something with similar physiology to our own employs.

Another point is that our current physical selves aren't much different from the humans that first gained control of fire, or first crafted a spear. We have weapons, and you need no training to employ them. The training that martial artists recieve simply make them better at using said weapons. Ever been bitten by a child? Ever been hit by someone untrained? I'm sure it hurt, and put behind it the desire for sheer survival that most wild animals fight for and I'm sure that you can do the math.

And to use cats in an argument dealing with footing is not only absurd, it's uneducated. Surf the web a bit, and you'll find that the very reason for cats grace, speed and agility is thier ability to maintain firm footing. Watch a cat stalking sometime, or walking on some sort of unstable surface you'll find that thier attention to footing is intense. They test ground with thier front paws, and place thier rear paws directly where the front paws were. It's really amazing. Keep in mind that some of the earliest structured martial arts forms were at least loosely based on animal movement.

Wow, it's amazing how much you can disagree with stuff that isn't even written there...

 

[Doc]

I have to admit that it's amusing to me that I found this in a martial arts forum.

As a student of zoology friend, I'll have to kindly disagree.

That's interesting because I find it amusing that you're commenting like you're the expert. I call that "Holiday Express Syndrome." You may study zoology, but martial arts does not seem to be your forté.

Try to pick a fight with another large primate, and see what kind of natural weapons something with similar physiology to our own employs. Another point is that our current physical selves aren't much different from the humans that first gained control of fire, or first crafted a spear. We have weapons, and you need no training to employ them.

I said humans do not have natural weapons compared to other animals. Everything is relative. Large and small primates have natural weapons because they ARE primates, and you seem to negate that although there are physiological similarities, the muscle and bone structure is significantly stronger in these primates compared to a human. A medium size chimp is capable of ripping the arms off a human with their bare hands. That and bone density alone might suggest the argument that although they are similar, this disparity in strength of structure IS what makes them a weapon when they choose to use it.

The training that martial artists recieve simply make them better at using said weapons. Ever been bitten by a child? Ever been hit by someone untrained? I'm sure it hurt, and put behind it the desire for sheer survival that most wild animals fight for and I'm sure that you can do the math.

This is strength and structure comparatively, that humans do not have, and even with training may only develop to a fraction of what they possess "naturally" as part of their survival skill mechanisms. The fact that someone can hit someone, or bite does not make a reasonable comparable comparison in weapons between the two. Theirs ARE natural weapons, while humans MAY try to use them as natural weapons, and even when humans do, the effect is not is nowhere near comparable. You mentioned that humans made spears, so I guess their natural weapons are inferior as I suggested.

And to use cats in an argument dealing with footing is not only absurd, it's uneducated. Surf the web a bit, and you'll find that the very reason for cats grace, speed and agility is thier ability to maintain firm footing. Watch a cat stalking sometime, or walking on some sort of unstable surface you'll find that thier attention to footing is intense. They test ground with thier front paws, and place thier rear paws directly where the front paws were. It's really amazing. Keep in mind that some of the earliest structured martial arts forms were at least loosely based on animal movement.

I didn't use the cat analogy but I can tell you that, it's a combination of several factors and one of them is that they have strength and agility naturally that humans do not, and they are quadripedal and this ability is a part of the survival skill. Humans are bipedal, and, once again compared to primates cannot run, jump, or balance as well. My position is a matter of comparative analysis. From your limited perspective, every living thing has "natural weapons." But of course that is not what we were speaking of, and our focus in this discussion is specific to human capabilities, as I stated up front.

I think you should talk to your friend that studies zoology, and they will tell you humans do not have natural weapons IN COMPARISON to lower primates. Everything is relative.

I find it amusing that a green belt in tae kwon do, is on a Kenpo Forum commenting about zoology and human natural weapons to a bunch of career high ranking black belts, (with at least two in their sixties) when we're talking about martial arts.

Now that's funny.