Classical stances during sparring & fighting

[JohnnyCache]

low stances won't protect you from grappling if you are low enough that the power in your legs is compromised -basically, if you'd have to rise out of the stance much to throw a kick, you won't be that much stabler against a grappler. Not that he'd bother shooting in - he'd kick you in the leg.

There's a reason guys in judo and MMA don't crab out in weird low stances.

[Guizzy]

I think there are a few things to mention here...

There is a difference between a power generation stance and a ready stance.

Power generation stances? They're the stuff that doctorhook is probably thinking of; low, stable stances from which you strike.

The thing is, they're not agile, and they're going to have your ass-kicked if you stand in them in front of your opponent.

But are they useless? No. Your ready stance, a more upright, agile position, is really **** for power; you need to plant your foot firmly to generate power, be it by pushing, by turning or by twisting. That's where the "classical" stances come in handy; they're what you drop into just before striking.

Many schools (read: mostly crap ones) never explain to their students the need of a ready stance; so you get tons of fools thinking they're the **** by dropping into low-horse stances in competitions. There's only one reason I can think why the ready stance wouldn't be very necessary: self-defense and its legal implications.

Why is that? Because the line between self-defense and fighting/dueling is thin in the eyes of the law, and that if you've got the time to stand around in a ready stance, it's likely you'd have had the time to run or disengage in some other way; making it a fight rather than self-defense.

Still, everyone should learn a ready stance; it's not exactly rocket-science and it will avoid embarassing situations like the one Ming Loyalist mentionned.

[It is Fake]

Hmm, I'm not sure how to make the question any clearer than it is but I think I can deduce from your post that you have never sparred or fought from the classical stances. Is that correct?

What constitutes your definition of "classical Stance."

Oh, btw, you can't deduce anything from a post when there is no clear cut definition of classical or what context.

[kwoww]

There was a video someone posted of Kung Fu guys sparring using what look like traditional stances and strikes, I'll try to find it.

[Chuan]

One eaxmaple of "classical" stance used in fighting.

You square off against your opponent. You throw a front kick and then put it down in front of you and you are in a high forward/ front stance, then you follow up with a cross.

One I have used : Throw a right (lead ) side kick but don't retract it, put down in fron so that you are in a high horse "stance" nad throw the lead hand punch, then do a left cross.

you don't stay in the "classical" stances for more than a fraction of a second.

Don't watch the stance. Instead watch what the arms and hands are doing.

[It is Fake]

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/show...=1#post1506130
missing posts.

[doktorhook]

What constitutes your definition of "classical Stance."

Oh, btw, you can't deduce anything from a post when there is no clear cut definition of classical or what context.

Though it's a valid question I thought I had covered the ground of what a classical stance was by saying, "Ma Bu" or "Ding Bo". It would also mean any other stance attributed to a TCMA, TJMA, etc.

[Meex]

I was just wondering how many of you have tried to spar like that.

The 'stance' training in most TMA (CMA, FMA, JMA, IMA) are
integral to employing the techniques, and thus, the 'art.'
If one cannot use the 'stances' during a sparring match or
fight, then, there is no wonder why 'your art doesn't werk!'

Proper stance training will include sparring, and such. In
the absence of actually testing your techniques with that
'alive' environment, there is no way to integrate either a
technique, or any stances required of your art. Thus, your
art becomes a 'dance' performed on cue, at your training
facility, and not protection for your family.

All that said, once your stance-work actually translates to
the 'real world,' you will always have them at hand.

Ever notice how the MA studs walk around? Real fighters?
Their movements are calm, slow, and smooth - like cats.
They are always ready to throw down. They are always in
a 'stance.' Not that most would recognize it in any way. . .
at that level it's more of a subtle thing.

A stance that is useable is fluid, and flows with technique,
complimenting it, facilitating it. Thus, it's never as obvious,
nor as static as when you train it.

To answer your question: yes.

`~/


.

[Meex]

I think there are a few things to mention here...
There is a difference between a power generation stance and a ready stance.

Um. . .no.

Power generation stances? They're the stuff that doctorhook is probably thinking of; low, stable stances from which you strike.

Don't know what the good doktorhhook is thinking of, but, if you cannot generate power in each stance in your style, something is wrong.

The thing is, they're not agile, and they're going to have your ass-kicked if you stand in them in front of your opponent.

This statement shows a misunderstanding of why one is in that position, how one got there, and one of the major reasons why other ma are dismissive of CMA techniques and training.

Any 'stance' is a momentary thing. It is the delivery system whereby a technique arrives at a target. Thus, each stance by definition needs to be agile, stable, and power generating.
Stances, like hand techniques, have a basic requirement. They must be adjustable to be useable. Low, medium, high. Short, medium, long. The only variable that counts, is the target. . .and how we get there.

But are they useless? No. Your ready stance, a more upright, agile position, is really **** for power; you need to plant your foot firmly to generate power, be it by pushing, by turning or by twisting. That's where the "classical" stances come in handy; they're what you drop into just before striking.

Uh. . .no. It seems that in your training, you were taught only one type of energy. . .earth.
What you describe here as your ready stance should have the same attributes as the earlier described low, horse stance, just at a different elevation, and distance.

Many schools (read: mostly crap ones) never explain to their students the need of a ready stance; so you get tons of fools thinking they're the **** by dropping into low-horse stances in competitions. There's only one reason I can think why the ready stance wouldn't be very necessary: self-defense and its legal implications.

A 'ready stance' should be how you walk around, in life. Not something you have to 'get into' before an altercation, or training.

`~/

[Guizzy]

I would suspect you're misunderstanding my terminology, Meex. I'll need to butcher the order in which you posted a little to explain, but I think you'll quickly get it.

Any 'stance' is a momentary thing. It is the delivery system whereby a technique arrives at a target.

Momentary thing? I call it power generation stance. It's the position in which you place your legs and in fact your whole body just before you strike.

*EDIT: Actually, forget that. I don't feel like arguing. I don't think you really understood what I was trying to say and I think you could probably understand if you read it once more slowly.

---

This part, however...

Uh. . .no. It seems that in your training, you were taught only one type of energy. . .earth.
What you describe here as your ready stance should have the same attributes as the earlier described low, horse stance, just at a different elevation, and distance.

We're not all cosplaying Avatar: The Last Airbender, you know. I'd really like to hear how you generate any reasonable amount of power without using your base.

*EDIT2: Oh, and I'd like to hear in what way you think the horse stance is agile.