the front stance

[Flying Crane]

Question for you though FC, what would you consider the difference in a "bow" stance and a "bow and arrow" stance?

- ft

Same thing. I was just clarifying that it is "Bow" as in "Bow and Arrow", and not "Bow Tie", or to "Bow Down and Worship Me". Just makeing sure the terminology is understood.

Full name: Bow and Arrow Stance

Commonly shortened to: Bow Stance

 

[Flying Crane]

To help you visualize it better, start in sei ping ma, then take your right foot and place it about a half step from where your left foot is, making your right instep and your left toes inline.
- ft

Sounds like your stance is slightly more closed off than ours, if you are lining up the toes of the front foot with the instep of the back foot.

My definition of lining up the toes of the front foot with the heel of the back foot is actually from my kenpo instruction, but it seems very close to what I have experienced in the Chinese arts. It seems like a good parameter, so I use it.

 

[funnytiger]

Same thing. I was just clarifying that it is "Bow" as in "Bow and Arrow", and not "Bow Tie", or to "Bow Down and Worship Me". Just makeing sure the terminology is understood.

Full name: Bow and Arrow Stance

Commonly shortened to: Bow Stance

Ah. It never occured to me that bow would be anything other than bow and arrow when refferring to stances, but I guess other styles might have a "bow to me" stance. Although, I would pay good money to see a bow tie stance! lol

- ft

 

[Flying Crane]

Ah. It never occured to me that bow would be anything other than bow and arrow when refferring to stances, but I guess other styles might have a "bow to me" stance. Although, I would pay good money to see a bow tie stance! lol

- ft

yeah, I actually only knew it as "bow" for a long time, didn't know what it meant, and didn't connect to "and arrow" 'till much later. Figured since some others here call it the Forward or Front Stance, it's possible there might be some confusion. Just doing my best to muddy the waters...

 

[zDom]

Also, in the Chinese arts, the rear foot is not fully pointed forward.

Well, in PRACTICE it is rare to see someone in our local schools with foot pointed straight forward — it is usually angled out slightly.

My right foot (for left foot forward front stance) goes completely forward but by left tends to angle out just a bit (10 degrees?)

good response to how it is done . Can we have some of the reasons why the foot is out/in /stright or the back leg bent/stright. I know a few have ansewered these questions so I am just looking for my insite

As we believe/teach:

Knees are most stable/strong to the front/back. Force from the side or at an angle is more likely to cause injury. So in pushing with that back leg, it is better to push with the knee aligned in the direction of force.

We believe front stance is for generating force to the front and are less concerned with stability to the side. Other stances deal with that.

 

[zDom]

In addition, instead of the shoulders being more, or less square to the front, the shoulder on the side of the strike is extended a little farther so that the shoulders are facing the 45 degree.

To extend one shoulder forward is to compromise balance, is our belief, which is why we keep shoulders squared.

 

[Touch Of Death]

To extend one shoulder forward is to compromise balance, is our belief, which is why we keep shoulders squared.

A relaxed square is different from a stiff square off. There are levels within levels on refinement of your motion.
Sean

 

[Flying Crane]

To extend one shoulder forward is to compromise balance, is our belief, which is why we keep shoulders squared.

boy, i won't even get started on how we do it in Tibetan White Crane...

 

[Touch Of Death]

boy, i won't even get started on how we do it in Tibetan White Crane...

Could clear up some misconceptions...
Sean

 

[Flying Crane]

Could clear up some misconceptions...
Sean

Well, in Tibetan White Crane we use a full body pivot to generate power, probably most people who don't practice this type of thing would say that we over-pivot. But this gives us a tremendous amount of power, as well as adding to our reach. And we can shorten the movement if appropriate, while still having this power. If you develop it with the full movement, you can later use it in a shortened version. If you only practice the shorter version, you can never switch to the long version.

In a very basic version of how we punch, we would start with the feet squared facing forward, slightly wider than shoulder width, and the stance is pretty high. Not a deep horse at all.

We pivot from the feet and up thru the torso and turn the body until the torso is sideways to the opponent in front. The feet can pivot as much as 45 degrees, but as you develop your technique, your feet may actually stay in place while still driving the pivot thru the waist and the torso. In a way, this is kind of a high bow stance. As we make the pivot, we use that torque to throw the striking hand forward, while whipping the other hand back, which helps develop forward force for the striking hand. We pivot back and forth this way, throwing the strikes forward, but the torso, like I stated, is turned sideways at the time of the strike. At full extension of the strike, you can draw a straight line down the arm, across the shoulders, and down the other arm. And you have turned your torso sideways to the enemy at this point.

Turning like this gives us additional reach, and the pivoting body encourages incoming strikes to pass by or glance off with minimal effect. We pivot back and forth, throwing different kinds of strikes from many directions, very quickly to overwhelm the enemy. There are straight punches, as well as swinging and whipping punches that come in from the sides, over the top, and from below. The arms are relaxed, we rely on the pivot to generate power, and they hit like a wrecking maul.

Now to transition into the bow stance.

Essentially, we run forward while throwing these strikes. The idea is to charge down and overwhelm the bad guy with a blitz of strikes from everywhere. As we charge, we pivot and strike. The stance now is a bit different from an actual bow stance, it's really more like you are in the middle of a running stride. While doing this, we need to close the groin at each stride, so there are still some "bow" similarities. But we don't stop the torso pivot when the shoulders are squared forward, like many arts. We continue the pivot until the torso is again turned sideways. Right hand is striking while left foot is forward, just like you walk or run, only much exaggerated. take another step, pivot the torso and throw another strike. And again. And again...

in our forms, you can often see a more classical "bow" stance. But again, we make the same "extreme" pivot as I described in the running charge.

this is very difficult to describe in writing, hope you all can get a visual.

 

[variance]

Depends on the situation and individual I think.
Just like any other part of the MA there's no one size fits all stance.

IMHO Best solution is to not really pay attention to the stances themselves but what they all offer and use the one that works best with your strengths and the situation at hand.

I tend to primarily utilize a FMA/Arnis stance and the JKD stance. which to me seems somewhat the same except the FMA stance tends to be much lower due to expectations of dealing with weapons where as the JKD is a bit higher and the hands are positioned more defensively around the body and offers more mobility for kicks.

 

[zDom]

If you develop it with the full movement, you can later use it in a shortened version. If you only practice the shorter version, you can never switch to the long version.

We use this principle, too, in other areas. For example, we use very large, exaggerated motions for training kicking. During free sparring, smaller motions are usually used, of course.

Depends on the situation and individual I think.
Just like any other part of the MA there's no one size fits all stance.

IMHO Best solution is to not really pay attention to the stances themselves but what they all offer and use the one that works best with your strengths and the situation at hand.

I tend to primarily utilize a FMA/Arnis stance and the JKD stance. which to me seems somewhat the same except the FMA stance tends to be much lower due to expectations of dealing with weapons where as the JKD is a bit higher and the hands are positioned more defensively around the body and offers more mobility for kicks.

Talking about the front stance in particular for this thread, however.

Our FIGHTING stance is a completely different matter.

Front stance is great for training, and it does come up occassionally during fighting - but briefly. For example, when dropping weight into a solid front punch or power block, but then popping right back up to a fighting stance.

I don't think anybody actually stands around in a front stance fighting; it's impractical, IMO.

 

[exile]

Front stance is great for training, and it does come up occassionally during fighting - but briefly. For example, when dropping weight into a solid front punch or power block, but then popping right back up to a fighting stance.

I don't think anybody actually stands around in a front stance fighting; it's impractical, IMO.

That's exactly right, and it means that it's kind of hard to talk about the front stance in isolation from the rest of the tech it's associated with. Abstracting the `front stance' part out of of a wrist/arm lock-throat strike combination on the one hand and a hard neck twist on the other, for example, gives the impression that the rest of each of these moves is somehow `added on' to a stand-alone technical element `front stance', which is the wrong way to look at what is simply the forward weight shift that both of these techniques require as part of their biomechanics.

The idea of a separate entity called `front stance' is a residue of the shift to kihon line training in Japanese karate during the 1930s and goes hand in hand with the abandonment of kata bunkai as the basis of training, I'd guess. It creates the unfortunate misimpression that there is a separate posture that one `assumes' as part of a fight, rather than a by-product of a certain weight transfer to support a set of combat tactics.

Interestingly, exactly the same thing happened in skiing in the late 1960s and 1970s, when legions of alpine skiers misunderstood the photos they'd seen of the French national team avalement pioneers and started sitting way back on their skis. It took many years before people—including some ski instructors who should have known better—figured out what had gone wrong. By that point, ski boots had literally reached knee height in the effort to provide leverage to skiers who got totally off balance sitting back and had to horse themselves back onto the center of skis that were trying like crazy to get out from under them and dump them on their butts, a common sight in those days...

 

[tshadowchaser]

I don't think anybody actually stands around in a front stance fighting; it's impractical

actually we make our student fight out of the front stance for a minimum of six months to a year. We feel that if they can fight out of that stance they will be able to block and counter attack from any stance. Plus it gives them great confidence when they go to the next stance.
I find many people use a modified front stance for fighting but that may need to be a different thread

 

[jdinca]

A front stance (forward bow, hard bow) isn't a stance you want to stay in. There is no give and if you get hit, you're going to take all of the energy released. Once you deliver the strike, you want to get out of it.

 

[IWishToLearn]

I fight in a Neutral Bow or a Cross Stance, and I use the forward and rear bows to generate hip rotation for power, but as jdinca said, it's only transitory.