The Bunkai of Stances

[isshinryuronin]

Stances are leg positions in 5-D: Depth, width and height are the obvious three. The 4th dimension is weight distribution/center of gravity placement. The 5th is hip position/body angle. These 5 elements determine various capabilities in getting out of the stance. In other words, the value of stance is not the stance itself, but what body motion it allows. Stances are static, combat is dynamic. A stance is the beginning and ending point of a dynamic motion. This motion may be simply shifting from one stance to another while essentially staying in one spot by changing one or more of the 5 D's, or the motion can result in moving to another spot by stepping. Both kinds have combat applications (bunkai). I'll leave stepping for later.

Shifting from a back stance into a forward stance the body mass/center of gravity is moved forward. This provides power in a reverse punch. If you are in very close range, the front knee moving forward as a result of this shift can make contact with the opponent's lead leg and break his balance.

Pivoting rear foot outward from a neutral stance to a seiuchin (open toed horse) stance will change body angle, moving the rear hip back. If your rear hand is engaged with the opponent's arm, his arm will be pulled (providing your arm is structurally connected to your hip), extending it for an elbow break. This stance shift will also lower your height and center of gravity to add extra power and provide stability while grappling. (More than one "D" can be put into play with a single shift.)

These are just a few examples of how simple stance changes have bunkai. By noting stance changes in kata new interpretations may be discovered in the accompanying technique. "Why is there a stance change here?" A few years ago, I re-visited all my kata with this question in mind and was surprised a couple of times at what I found.

 

[Badhabits]

Good post! You hit on a subject I've felt for a long time gets somewhat neglected by karateka even though it's a central concept. Definitely would like to hear more of your thoughts on the subject

 

[skribs]

I think there's a lot more details that you can go into. Feet X width, Feet Y length, vector of each foot, vector of each knee, angle of bend in each knee, vector of the hip centerline, vector of the shoulder centerline are all details of the stance. (Or more details in stances like cat stance or crane stance).

An example of why I separate these is the stances in the Kukkiwon TKD Taegeuk forms typically leave the feet in place while shifting the hips and shoulders. Some styles of forms keep the hips square and have the shoulders express their range of motion, others have the shoulders and hips stay square, or have the shoulders and hips stay linked during the movement. (With kicks you also have the opposite, sometimes it's better to pivot your whole body, sometimes you keep your shoulders square and just adjust your hips to hit the specific target you're aiming for).

I'll add that a stance doesn't necessarily need to be a beginning or ending point of a technique, it can also be a midpoint.

A couple of interesting details about stances and shifts:

1. If you keep your feet in the same position and shift your right hip back, your left hip will come forward. For example, transition from a left-leg-forward front stance to a back stance will add power to the left hand, in the same way that shifting from a left-leg-forward back stance to a front stance will add power to the right hand.
2. Power is generated in different ways with different movements. A drop in level uses weight and gravity. A rise in level uses leg muscles to base off of the ground. Pivoting into a strike adds more momentum. Striking from a static base has a stronger frame.

 

[Badhabits]

I think there's a lot more details that you can go into. Feet X width, Feet Y length, vector of each foot, vector of each knee, angle of bend in each knee, vector of the hip centerline, vector of the shoulder centerline are all details of the stance. (Or more details in stances like cat stance or crane stance).

An example of why I separate these is the stances in the Kukkiwon TKD Taegeuk forms typically leave the feet in place while shifting the hips and shoulders. Some styles of forms keep the hips square and have the shoulders express their range of motion, others have the shoulders and hips stay square, or have the shoulders and hips stay linked during the movement. (With kicks you also have the opposite, sometimes it's better to pivot your whole body, sometimes you keep your shoulders square and just adjust your hips to hit the specific target you're aiming for).

I'll add that a stance doesn't necessarily need to be a beginning or ending point of a technique, it can also be a midpoint.

A couple of interesting details about stances and shifts:

1. If you keep your feet in the same position and shift your right hip back, your left hip will come forward. For example, transition from a left-leg-forward front stance to a back stance will add power to the left hand, in the same way that shifting from a left-leg-forward back stance to a front stance will add power to the right hand.
2. Power is generated in different ways with different movements. A drop in level uses weight and gravity. A rise in level uses leg muscles to base off of the ground. Pivoting into a strike adds more momentum. Striking from a static base has a stronger frame.

Not trying to pick on you, but your post sort of illustrates the point of my post- there is a lot of emphasis put on power generation in shifting stances, moving around the opponent etc...But... what Isshinryuronin was referring to is how stances are used to break/affect an opponents posture, manipulate their structure etc. Something that is pretty intrinsic to karate at least, but tends to get neglected in favor of the before mentioned aspects. At very close range, shifting from one stance to another can have extremely useful effects on the opponent aside from generating power for a strike.

 

[Badhabits]

Another good example is what some styles call a side punch (I believe taekwondo has this one). Instead of looking at is as purely a punch, the movement can be used to step through an opponent, then as the legs and body are twisted, this action can be used to affect the legs and upper body of the opponent, basically toppling them backwards over your leg. The snapping of your legs into the side position after you step forward can drive your knee into their leg while your extended arm pushes their upper body backwards. Probably not a good explanation but it works

 

[isshinryuronin]

You hit on a subject I've felt for a long time gets somewhat neglected by karateka

I agree. "Standing" is not as exciting as flying kicks. While all schools put a lot of emphasis on stance, it's usually centered on its important function in balance and position, and often on how it looks rather than its dynamic potential.

Feet X width, Feet Y length, vector of each foot, vector of each knee, angle of bend in each knee, vector of the hip centerline, vector of the shoulder

These things have importance in the integrity of stances such a balance, mobility, vulnerability, etc. But getting too concerned about the "exactness" in terms of visual parameters often comes with a price. How it looks can degrade what it does, or at least where we place our priority in training.

Set angular/distance/etc. parameters can evolve into subjective ideals judged by appearance. These ideals may be different from what is actually important from an MA viewpoint. The further back in karate history we look, the less important the way a stance looks becomes. Looks were not a consideration at all. There was no judging based on this criterion. As long as the stance allowed the technique to be effective and give the desired result, it was all good.

General guidelines are OK, but one problem with set and rigid criteria is that one size does not fill all. The way one's mass is distributed on the skeleton, length of one's limbs, and many subtle idiosyncrasies of our individual biomechanics don't guarantee the "approved" set criteria will enhance execution. When I practice, my physical and mental attention is on execution of the technique more than exactness of the stance. I adjust my stance based on how it makes my technique feel - strong? fast? smooth? balanced?

IMO, the stance cannot be judged apart from the technique executed from it. It is part of the technique. It's where it finds its purpose in life. (There are times stance does have value on its own as the first sentence of this response to skribs suggests, but that's a bit off my topic in this post)

Note: This post is from a martial execution perspective. From TMA as self-development or competition perspective, having "perfect" positioning is desirable, requiring much practice and even a higher level of body control perhaps than in fighting. All TMA execution will vary based on the specific purpose one has in mind.

 

[skribs]

Isshinryuronin was referring to is how stances are used to break/affect an opponents posture, manipulate their structure

And how are you going to do that without proper application of power?

 

[isshinryuronin]

And how are you going to do that without proper application of power?

 

[isshinryuronin]

And how are you going to do that without proper application of power?

No one is saying this, or that stances don't form a foundation for power generation. The main point is that stance changes can play an integral role in the dynamic function of the technique and indeed, the stance change can itself be a technique.

 

[skribs]

No one is saying this, or that stances don't form a foundation for power generation. The main point is that stance changes can play an integral role in the dynamic function of the technique and indeed, the stance change can itself be a technique.

"No one is saying this" is such a gaslighting phrase. Especially when I replied to a comment that was implying it.

My comment was replying to the idea that because I'm focused on power generation, the concept I am describing doesn't apply to grappling.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

the stance change can itself be a technique.

In this form at 0.38 - 0.41, the jump down has no meaning in the striking art. It's used to grab your opponent's leading leg, pull his ankle, and take him down.

The stance change plays a big role when the striking art and throwing art are integrated. You can use your stance to control your opponent's leading leg, and back leg if you move in close enough.

 

[Prince_Alarming]

In this form at 0.38 - 0.41, the jump down has no meaning in the striking art. It's used to grab your opponent's leading leg, pull his ankle, and take him down.

View attachment 32784

The stance change plays a big role when the striking art and throwing art are integrated. You can use your stance to control your opponent's leading leg, and back leg if you move in close enough.

I'm totally using that as a pinan godan bunkai

 

[jks9199]

Stance is a positioning of the body for a purpose. In the martial arts, we lean towards combative uses -- so stance becomes a positioning of the body for combat. And a stance is a momentary pause in the body's motion in combat. If you don't move -- you're dead. Stances have to provide sufficient stability for the purpose, such as generating power or absorbing or redirecting impact, but not be so rigid that you can't move out of them to different stances that support your goals.

We tend to start with strict definitions of stance -- front stance is feet positioned this way, weight positioned over the front leg thus, but back stance positions the feet this way, and the weight goes there... and so on. But that rigid defintion only works when things are very stable; in real application, we have to move and seldom can hit perfect positions. Instead, we have to understand the principles of structure that underlie the stance, so that we can create a structure that will support our intent. Think of our formal stances as writing exercises or musical scales that serve to teach and develop the skills to play "real" music.