Stance confusion

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Ok, in past discussions about stance work, people seem to say it is relatively useless for martial arts, and the development is limited to the specific position being held.

Did I get that right?

Ok, assuming I understand this, why is it I have really different results when I train stances heavily?

I have been doing less stances, but loner times, like Horse 3-5 minutes, followed by bow, twisted stance, Cat stance etc.. for as long as I can untill I fall over and can't get up (About 2 minutes). I rest between each stance, and hold the last stance as another horse as long as I possibly can. I often rest extra long before I do the last stance, so I can hold it longer than the others.

Now, I have been doing this, and just body weight conditioning for about 6 weeks and little else. Today I did my forms for the first time in a long time, and found I was exceptionally loose, agile and moved with a much greater smoothness precision and balance. I'm talking a HUGE improvement over the last time I did my forms 6 + weeks ago.

If stances only develop you in a very limited way, and restrict your development to a limited range and position. If they develop only muscular endurance, and little strength, why is it I have such marked improvement in EVERY possible position through out all my form? How did my transitions get so much smoother all of a sudden? I haven't done ANY form work in almost 7 weeks, JUST stance work, and pushups, pull ups, ab work etc.

Why is it my agility is showing such an improvement? Why am I suddenly so much smoother?

I am really confused here, because according to all the experts here, I should not be experiencing such results, especially not to such a noticable degree.

What is going on here?

[street_fighter]

Seems to me, your improved on HOLDING, and USING stances, not much else. You practice stances, so your stances are better, period. Strength improvements are limited from stance work as mentioned here before, but of course practicing something means reaping improvements in that something. I dont' think anyone is saying that practicing stances won't help you in your FORMS, but skill in forms doesn't really translate to anything... seems pretty simple to me.

[WinterPalm]

I have noticed the exact same thing!
Putting in extra time for JUST stances makes a very large difference. While squats may give you that extra strength, stances do something entirely differently to your ability to move.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Seems to me, your improved on HOLDING, and USING stances, not much else.

Reply]
What I am trying to tell you is I am showing noticable improvement across the board. Even my footwork has improved.

You practice stances, so your stances are better, period. Strength improvements are limited from stance work as mentioned here before, but of course practicing something means reaping improvements in that something. I dont' think anyone is saying that practicing stances won't help you in your FORMS, but skill in forms doesn't really translate to anything... seems pretty simple to me.

Reply]
But I am seeing improvements everywhere, even footwork, agility, cardio.

The improvements are not limited to the specific stances either, they are across my ENTIRE range of motion...how can this be happening when stances only develop you in a narrow range dictated by the shape of the specific posture?

[kwaichang]

There is another thread and as I said there stances are an important part of MA training. To answer your question, from a biomechanical view stance work strengthens the joint as well as the muscle "see other thread". The proprioception is improved from holding stances the longer the hold the greater the fatigue the more difficult it is to control the stance and angles of the joints thus improving endurance and placement awareness. This will help with transitionary movements as all movement is is movement with proprioception emphasis. KC

[Knifefighter]

There is another thread and as I said there stances are an important part of MA training. To answer your question, from a biomechanical view stance work strengthens the joint as well as the muscle "see other thread". The proprioception is improved from holding stances the longer the hold the greater the fatigue the more difficult it is to control the stance and angles of the joints thus improving endurance and placement awareness. This will help with transitionary movements as all movement is is movement with proprioception emphasis. KC

Kung fu is filled with so much bullsh!t.

[Knifefighter]

Now, I have been doing this, and just body weight conditioning for about 6 weeks and little else. Today I did my forms for the first time in a long time, and found I was exceptionally loose, agile and moved with a much greater smoothness precision and balance. I'm talking a HUGE improvement over the last time I did my forms 6 + weeks ago.

For an answer to your question, you might look up two concepts:
- Periodization of training.
- Placebo effect.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

For an answer to your question, you might look up two concepts:
- Periodization of training.
- Placebo effect.

Reply]
I doubt it is placebo. This is an unexpected result. i was dong stance work to strengthen my structure. All these other benefits were totally unexpected. In order for something to be a placebo, you have to expect the result before hand, and I wasn't. I got more stability, and stronger structure over the last 6 weeks, as expected, all the other results were not on the menu, so the placebo effect does not apply.

[Water Dragon]

What I am trying to tell you is I am showing noticable improvement across the board. Even my footwork has improved.


Well yeah, you would expect that. Bu even translates better as step than stance.

[lkfmdc]

TCMA still clings to a lot of outdated thinking on training.... boxers 100 years ago trained differently, but since they wanted to get better (not follow "tradition") they evolved as science evolved. Judo used to think lifting weights was counter to their philosophy, now it is standard supplementary training....

TCMA also clings to things they don't even understand the original purpose of, having people stand in stances for ridiculous periods of time was to "test them" and to weed out students.....

[Lee Chiang Po]

I am curious. I know that stance is important in all styles and systems of Kung Fu and Karate. Even in other forms of fighting art. But I have to wonder if a stance that is painful is also effective. Would you not be more able to launch from a more natural and comfortable stance? After all, if it is difficult to hold for more than a few minutes you will one day not be able to do it any more.

[lkfmdc]

Riddle me this, why do we hear so much about how the deep, immovable stances of southern kung fu were overwhelmingly DROPPED in favor of more narrow and mobile stances????

Old Hung style gave way to Wong Fei Hung style Hung fist

Even Wong Fei Hung style Hung fist was deemed to stationarry and impractical, leading to fusions like Jow Ga, Hung Fut, Hung Mok, etc

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Well yeah, you would expect that. Bu even translates better as step than stance.

Reply]
But I am not actually stepping, I have just been standing in deep stances till I fell over and could not gte up anymore. Yet suddenly I have become much more agile? How does that work?

Doesn't common logic state that stance work only develops you over a VERY limited and restricted plane?

Riddle me this, why do we hear so much about how the deep, immovable stances of southern kung fu were overwhelmingly DROPPED in favor of more narrow and mobile stances????

Old Hung style gave way to Wong Fei Hung style Hung fist

Even Wong Fei Hung style Hung fist was deemed to stationarry and impractical, leading to fusions like Jow Ga, Hung Fut, Hung Mok, etc

Reply]
well, that is the common logic. It's also why I am so confused? How did I get this sudden boost in agility by standing in deep immovable stances...shouldn't the OPPOSITE have happened?

I was thinking to do this for 6-8 weeks, and then hit it heavy with foot work drills and such to get my mobility back after I *Thought* I would lose it...instead I actually got MORE agile and mobile?

What happened here? Why did it not work like all the experts on the forum say it should? Why were my result the opposite of everyone's expertise?

I really don't get it.

[kwaichang]

Because all the so called experts arent like Knife fighter and others "see other thread on same sub". Im happy for you man glad to see someone can use the old "outdated traditional methods" and make progress. Too bad you didnt have a modern trainer with all that cra p to tell you it wouldnt work. haha. These guys hate "see I told ya so".. Amazing what a little hard work can do, KC

[Mr Punch]

RD, what tests are you using to establish that your 'agility' has improved? Your 'footwork'? Your endurance and balance?

In what way have they improved?

If you're just saying your forms feel more agile etc etc, that's probably a result of your body having been bored sh!tless... If I hold a heavy bag of shopping motionless for twenty minutes and put it down, I feel lighter...! And then if I move I feel more agile! Well, of course I do, cos I was doing **** all before, so in comparison...

Get my drift.

I'm not definitely saying that some stance work doesn't have limited benefits in those areas: but I am saying holding heavy shopping bags could have the same effect! :p

Also, the benefits and functional limitations of isometrics are well-documented. Why are you insisting on coming back to this conversation based on your own anecdotal observation?

KF, what's up with you today? Abel been seeing to your old lady again? :D

[kwaichang]

Mr Punch, the studies on Isometrics I read and posted does not support your point of view. Why cant you guys just admit you were wrong and stance training does make you better by improving speed power etc as RD has said it does for him? I applaud him for putting in thr effort to show us all ST works. KC

[Water Dragon]

[I]

But I am not actually stepping, I have just been standing in deep stances till I fell over and could not gte up anymore. Yet suddenly I have become much more agile? How does that work?


Increased stability in the rooted or weighted leg.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

If I hold a heavy bag of shopping motionless for twenty minutes and put it down, I feel lighter...! And then if I move I feel more agile! Well, of course I do, cos I was doing **** all before, so in comparison...

Get my drift.

Reply]
No, you would feel like your arms were about to fall off. after just 3 minutes of horse stance, I'm dy'n, but by the time i do 5 horse, and 2 more of Bow stance each side, and then 2 more of twisted horse stance, and then 2 more in empty stance, THEN 3 more in Horse I can't even walk or stand for a good 20 minutes. I just sit there and do Xi Xue Jing. Even then, the walk back to the car is tough as I am pretty spent.

Oh, and i forgot to mention I just held the ball for like 10 minutes before I even started all that.

This increase in agility did not occur right after I did *A* stance, it happened over 6 weeks of heavy stance work. It is a perminant state of improvement. I can rip though my form COLD, no warm up and it's still smoother, more controlled and far easier than before. My foot work has lightened. I can move faster, cover more ground and change directions on a dime, where as before i cold not perform this well.

I have improved enough to where I am better even cold, no warm up, than i was fully warmed up before...and I show even more improvement fully warmed up.

[Mr Punch]

Mr Punch, the studies on Isometrics I read and posted does not support your point of view. Why cant you guys just admit you were wrong and stance training does make you better by improving speed power etc as RD has said it does for him? ... KCWould you like to repost them on this thread...? I can't remember which ones you're talking about and I don't want to trawl through that train wreck again!

While you're at it, perhaps you'd like to highlight the parts that don't agree with my PoV: since my PoV has always just been that while stance training is good for you the effects will plateau fairly short-term... If you have any studies that will contradict that please let me see them (again?) and I'll stand (for a long time in horse stance!) corrected! :D

[Shaolin Wookie]

It seems you're stressing structure. We all have to start that way. When we begin kung-fu (more recent for me than you, by far) it's all structure. Over time, you get distracted by motions of hands, applications, practicality.....but when you go back and stress your stance work after it all, you get back to your mobility, balance, coordination, and root. I've been doing the same thing RD, (although I haven't tried them until I fall down, but just might if I can keep from *****ing out....ahahaha.....) and I've noticed the same. Granted, my forms look like crap later on in my classes, b/c my legs are worn out from capoeira, kung-fu, and stance training in my off time, but when I'm 100%, it's a world of difference.

Plus my girlfriend says my ass looks great.;)

[kwaichang]

We call it Hua Butt. KC:D

[Shaolin Wookie]

Hahahaha......I'll get there sooner or later.....hahaha....

[Black Jack II]

In that clusterhump of an old post, I asked Kwai to show me ONE SCIENTIFIC STUDY pertaining to martial arts stance work and any truth to the specific malarky he is trying so hard to sound authorative about in this post.

......................still waiting.:rolleyes:

[kwaichang]

Not malarky any more RD has done the study on himself. You should try it too maybe you will improve as well. So let me think the MA are over 1600 years old and have been doing stance training for a while. All of a sudden you and others are going to come in and say it doesnt work because............. oh yeah you want a study to prove it works. Give me a break. KC Again I applaud RD well done.

[Mr Punch]

I don't recall being rude to you. Maybe kidding around but...

You don't seem to have seen this:
Would you like to repost them on this thread...? I can't remember which ones you're talking about and I don't want to trawl through that train wreck again!

While you're at it, perhaps you'd like to highlight the parts that don't agree with my PoV: since my PoV has always just been that while stance training is good for you the effects will plateau fairly short-term... If you have any studies that will contradict that please let me see them (again?) and I'll stand (for a long time in horse stance!) corrected! :DIt's kind of the same as what BJ II was asking for, except I'm even willing to consider what you've written without even direct references to specific studies, since you are qualified in whatever it was (not being disrespectful - just can't remember!).

So post them here, and let's have a look.

If, in the meanwhile, you're claiming that because RD says his agility and footwork have improved due to stance training without quantifying his improvement, that that is strong evidence in favour of stance training in some way, I might have to question the quality of your scientific education!

Don't get me wrong - I'm still hedging my bets and saying we don't know the extent of the benefits. However, if you are going to categorically state that however many hundred years of possibly erroneous and time-wasting training philosophy and one geezer on an internet forum prove your point... :rolleyes:

[kwaichang]

In the old days 1971-1977 my teacher taught us a form calling out move by move until we had the form and the moves , we would hold the stance for approx 20-30 seconds each then we would shorten the stance time and add speed over time. Not only was the form better rooted but our speed was better because I guess we didnt have to think about stance. I long for those days again it was fun learning that way. Students of today learn 180 deg opposite theyu learn a form start to finish and then add stance work fast to slow instead of the other way around. Maybe this explains the shallow ability of those trained in modern times and ways. KC:)

[kwaichang]

You are wanting studies on stance training to my knowledge there arent any persay so I posted studies on isometrics as this is a parallel to stance work in my opinion i even posted new concepts to the same. by 2 doctors forgot their name. BTW I didnt think I was being rude if I was, sorry. But all you guys seem to want to see are studies for this and that and not just you. KC

[Mr Punch]

Reply]
... OK, so it's hard stance training: I know what that entails, I've done it myself.


...Xi Xue Jing.BTW, what's that?


Even then, the walk back to the car is tough as I am pretty spent. ...I have improved enough to where I am better even cold, no warm up, than i was fully warmed up before...and I show even more improvement fully warmed up.The rest of your post is interesting, but is pretty much the definition of anecdotal evidence. Now, I'm not saying anecdotal evidence doesn't have its place, but it also has its credible limits.

I asked you by what yardstick you measured your improvement: you came back with stuff like: I can turn on a dime. This is not evidence. Even assuming that we take the (not particularly difficult or defined) skill of 'turning' as some kind of criteria: what was it you could turn on before? A frisbee? A bus steering wheel? Without a previous frame of reference, you're not making any quantifiable statement.

Sounds pedantic I know. But like I said, if all you're doing for weeks is concentrating on static, rooted feeling, then when you start moving again of course you're going to feel like it's lighter!

You haven't provided us with any evidence. Even anecdotal evidence from someone else you train with who says, 'Yeah, I sure have noticed RD's looking spry/packing a better punch these days - must be all that stance training, cos he sucked royal ass before then...!' would be better than you just saying, 'Well, I feel better!'!

Now, do you get my drift?

[Mr Punch]

You are wanting studies on stance training to my knowledge there arent any persay so I posted studies on isometrics as this is a parallel to stance work in my opinion i even posted new concepts to the same. No, that's fine - studies on isometrics would be OK. But you said you had something which you'd posted before that disproved my point (whatever you held that to be)...? I'd be more than happy to see that.
by 2 doctors forgot their name.Again, it'd be nice if you could remember/check, as I'd be interested to read up on it.
BTW I didnt think I was being rude if I was, sorry. No offence taken - I know it's difficult to reply to everything :)... but I was bit concerned that you were lumping me in with BJII - much as I like him (like a rude, incontinent uncle you just can't shut up!) he has different posting style and different questions. Some of what we are saying overlaps, but if you fall into the trap of replying to 'what you guys are saying' it can be just another way of avoiding the issue - we are not all saying the same thing: though we do all seem to want some evidence. I don't think that's so bad.

But all you guys seem to want to see are studies for this and that and not just you. KCCase in point.

[Merryprankster]

I'm going to go with the structural argument here.

When you do a bunch of stance work, you don't get any stronger. However - and especially if you've laid off for awhile - your structure improves.

When your structure is good, it takes less muscular effort to do it. Kinda like when you haven't squatted or benched in a while, and you spend a great deal of time just getting the muscle memory to "lock" your frame and movement groove in place.

That seems pretty straightforward and obvious to me.

I'd say there's certainly a diminishing return on investment here though.

[kwaichang]

This section describes the application of the IBX-H101 exercise ... www.mdsystems.com/evidenc.htm thuis study shows a decrease in BP with Isometrics
AthleticQuickness.com this is on quickness and speed with athletes
www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/csa/vol21/morrisse.htm this one is interesting
www.cttaichi.com/articles/kneestrength.htm This one is close. KC

There is so much out there but these support my argument for the most part.
KC

[TenTigers]

"why do we hear so much about how the deep, immovable stances of southern kung fu were overwhelmingly DROPPED in favor of more narrow and mobile stances????

Old Hung style gave way to Wong Fei Hung style Hung fist"

I have to dissagree with you on that. From what I have seen of old Hung Kuen, and from what alot of Sifus have told me, Hung Kuen was originally a narrower more upright horse, and the deep immovable stances are actually a more recent development. In fact, if you look at photos of Lam Sai-Wing-still in his prime, his stances were not the deep exagerrated stances you see many people today using.
Usually, that story is heard from alot of WC guys telling their version of the development of the style.
I guess it depends whose stories and "Traditional History" you want to go with. I have heard so many versions, each contradicting the other, at this point, who really cares?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

...Xi Xue Jing.
BTW, what's that?

Reply]
It is the seated Marrow, Brain Washing Qi Gong. I do it to recover from the heavy stance work...since I have exhausted my ability to stand. I sit and do Xi Xue Jing to help speed up the recovery a bit.

It's like a seated slow, deep breathing exercises with various hand postures.

[Merryprankster]

KC,

I'm not trying to be a contrarian, mostly because I don't much care about this argument (whatever people want to do is fine by me, as long as they aren't kidding themselves about what they are accomplishing), BUT...

The first 2 sites are basically advertisements for products. The second is a review of training research that is over a decade old, and the last talks about the effect of taichi on old, probably inactive, people. Of COURSE there's going to be improvement for them! It doesn't address the effects on highly trained athletes or on active healthy not old people.

I think there is probably some benefit to stance training, but I'm betting it has to do with structure and "grooving" the movement to go from one trained structure to the next. So, it seems to me that you of course will experience improvement - especially if, as RD did, you are starting again after taking time off.

My real point thoughb, is that the sites you posted are not especially compelling.

Current, peer reviewed articles focused on healthy, active adults or highly trained athletes would be far more persuasive, IMO.

[kwaichang]

Yeah I know but there were so many I thought these would pacify. KC

[Merryprankster]

Why would you think these would pacify? If anything, they detract from your argument because it makes it seem as though your sources are not terribly credible/applicable.

[Christopher M]

Why are people still arguing about the strength benefits of doing stance training? Are people being told that the traditional chinese way of building strength is to stand still in various stances? That seems a little silly. Traditional chinese martial artists practice stances to practice coordinating the opening and closing of the hips, the movement of the lower back, the settling of the pelvic bone, sinking of the weight, extension and rotation of the spine, and the pressing of the feet against the ground, just to mention the most obvious movement principles involved here. They are doing so in the context of a systematic training regime to learn how to use these principles to produce and to handle force against an uncooperative opponent. Right? And if they want to efficiently build leg strenght, they will do squats, lunges and extensions like everyone else. There's no "modern" versus "traditional" or "Chinese" versus "Euro-American" arguments here, and traditional chinese martial artists are doing their traditions a disservice in pretending otherwise.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

traditional chinese martial artists are doing their traditions a disservice in pretending otherwise.

Reply]
But the MMA nutriders bring it.

[cjurakpt]

There is another thread and as I said there stances are an important part of MA training. To answer your question, from a biomechanical view stance work strengthens the joint as well as the muscle "see other thread". The proprioception is improved from holding stances the longer the hold the greater the fatigue the more difficult it is to control the stance and angles of the joints thus improving endurance and placement awareness. This will help with transitionary movements as all movement is is movement with proprioception emphasis. KC

"joints" are not strengthened - only the muscles around the joints are; joints are passivestructures consisting of non-contractile tisse (capsule, ligaments); the role of ligmaents and capsule are to protect the joint at end range from disruption in the event that the muscles don't contract in time or strongly enough; if put under repetative direct stress, tey actually get weaker; as for stengthening the muscle, holding a stance at a single position does nothing more than strengthen the muscle at that position via an isometric contraction - which has minimal bearing on the way the muscle functions when moving concentrically or eccentrically (typically the more important for joint protection) - and studies have conclusively shown that you get about only a 20? spill-over in each direction from isometric training, so to get a full muscle effect you'd have to do it at several points in the range

functional proprioception (e.g. - dynamic) is not going to be trained by standing in a stance, for the main reason that you are doing it on a level, stable surface with your eyes open; if you really want to train proprio, stand on an uneven, unstable surface with your eyes closed (heck, try standing on a level stable surface on one foot with eyes closed - good luck with that);

training under increased fatigue is not optimal, especially if you are doing any sort of neuromuscular education - cliniclaly, having pele train a movement when they are physically and mentally fresh gets you the best results, because they are optimally prepared to perform it; when you get tired, you get sloppy and compensate more readily - so you actually want to aoid this

if you want to train transitions, do transitions - you don't need isometric strength for that, you need well-baalanced co-contractions between the various mucles agonist / antagonist force coupled surrounding the joints that are involved in whatever functional transition you need to perform

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

that was a nice dissertation there...now explain why 6 weeks of almost exclusive hard stance work yielded a wide range of results, WHICH INCLUDE a reduction in joint pain left over from damage caused by previous bad gout attacks, if your point that "if put under repetative direct stress, tey actually get weaker" is true? ?

How come I have more agility? why do I have more ease of movement in ALL ranges of motion if the stance work is such a narrow, and specific practice?

If I was engaged in some other practice maybe you could say it was that, but all I did additionally was pushups, pull ups etc...

The next 6 weeks will be all footwork and mechanics drills. The only stance work will be holding the ball for 10-20 minutes prior to my workout. I was expecting the results of the LAST 6 weeks to come then.

[cjurakpt]

This section describes the application of the IBX-H101 exercise ... www.mdsystems.com/evidenc.htm thuis study shows a decrease in BP with Isometrics
AthleticQuickness.com this is on quickness and speed with athletes
www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/csa/vol21/morrisse.htm this one is interesting
www.cttaichi.com/articles/kneestrength.htm This one is close. KC

There is so much out there but these support my argument for the most part.
KC
you're kidding, right? none of these studies deal with muscle strength relating to isometircs

the first study shows a change in blood pressure - what does that have to do with strength in a muscle?

the second is essentialy what I posted above in regards to specificity of training in terms of type and at a given angle of ROM; there is the statement regarding the lack of strong evidence for dynamic versus static training in terms of muscle hypertrophy being similar, but what it ignores is the motor learning data that shows that practicing what you actually want to do is better than practicing something else and looking for transfer (give me e few days, I can dig up the references...)

the third shows that people doing something involving weightbearing (in the case taiji) get stronger in their quads than people who do noting (control group); nothing about isometrics per se; and this is geriatric population, so they probably were deconditioned to begin with, so of course they will have strength gains

[cjurakpt]

that was a nice dissertation there...now explain why 6 weeks of almost exclusive hard stance work yielded a wide range of results, WHICH INCLUDE a reduction in joint pain left over from damage caused by previous bad gout attacks, if your point that "if put under repetative direct stress, tey actually get weaker" is true? ?

How come I have more agility? why do I have more ease of movement in ALL ranges of motion if the stance work is such a narrow, and specific practice?

If I was engaged in some other practice maybe you could say it was that, but all I did additionally was pushups, pull ups etc...

The next 6 weeks will be all footwork and mechanics drills. The only stance work will be holding the ball for 10-20 minutes prior to my workout. I was expecting the results of the LAST 6 weeks to come then.

the reduction in jooint pain can be explaned by a sort of generalized adaptative response to any sort of input; this is why most people with low back pain of a non-structural nature get better doing almost any kind of gentle non-specific exercise;

in other words, give the system something to do that is not inherently damaging and it will use it to move towards homeostatis; that includes resolution of of previously unresolved chronic inflammation;gout is build up of uric acid crystals in the joints leading to inflammation - so no surprise it got better

and I didn't say that stance training exposed the joints to direct repetative stress, BTW - I was explaining that unlike muscles, that when stressed over time get stronger, joint structures do the opposite - stance trianing does not occur at the end of range, so that's not a concern

as for an increase in agility, that may or may not be a subjective feeling - you would need to have been tested in some sort of objective framework to determine if in fact you are more agile; at the same time, doing stances, you have been working quads and glutes a lot (even isometically); this has likely caused a reciprocal inhibition in the hamstrings and adductors, muscles that are typically hypertonic and therefore "tight"; emphasizing the quads / glutes you have decreased the resting tone in the antagonist muscles, and thererfore have greater extensability and ease of motion in general throughout the lower quarter

[Lee Chiang Po]

I guess my question was not worth answering. I will ask again. Why work from a stance that requires constant training to be able to use? As we get older and our personal obligations change we might not be able to spend the time to keep ourselves physically fluid. The body suffers age. Why not a stance that is more natural to work from? One that does not require you to work hard continually just to be able to use it? For instance, a gun is one heck of a weapon until it is out of bullets, and then it is still a gun but not quite as effective.
Your stance is a constant. Every move you make you try to do from a stance. As you move or flow from one technique or move to the next you try to maintain yourself in some form or version of that same stance. This is what gives you power and structure. Your stance is pretty much everything. The best way I have found to practice my stance work is to do it in conjunction with training my footwork. You need to be able to shift and move about quickly and with fluid motion, and in doing so you also need to be able to maintain some form or version of that stance. A stance should be such that you can hold it for as long as you want to. Not just a few minutes.

[Water Dragon]

I guess my question was not worth answering. I will ask again. Why work from a stance that requires constant training to be able to use? As we get older and our personal obligations change we might not be able to spend the time to keep ourselves physically fluid. The body suffers age. Why not a stance that is more natural to work from? One that does not require you to work hard continually just to be able to use it? For instance, a gun is one heck of a weapon until it is out of bullets, and then it is still a gun but not quite as effective.
Your stance is a constant. Every move you make you try to do from a stance. As you move or flow from one technique or move to the next you try to maintain yourself in some form or version of that same stance. This is what gives you power and structure. Your stance is pretty much everything. The best way I have found to practice my stance work is to do it in conjunction with training my footwork. You need to be able to shift and move about quickly and with fluid motion, and in doing so you also need to be able to maintain some form or version of that stance. A stance should be such that you can hold it for as long as you want to. Not just a few minutes.

I know what you're referring to. If you want to discuss that here, call it holding stake or holding post, not stance training. We've been discussing a whole nuther anuimal in this thread.

[kwaichang]

PT I said i just posted them to passify the BP one was talked about from the other thread so I included it. As far as geriatric is concerned I pondered that to see who would jump on it and most did. Iwould research the effect of long duration low intensity stress on non -contractile tissues. BTW transitional is predominantly neurological in nature as far as the brain being plastic and all you know old dog new trick sort of. BTW about the angle during Isometrics that theory has been rebuked with later studies , dont ask me to post any look them up for your self. It seems you are just repeating what you were taught in PT school . KC PS anyone can poke holes in a study even the dbl blind ones.

[Black Jack II]

No,

The problem is when people act like something fabled to be 1,600 years old, that in itself is another discussion, is better than current sports science and modern sport training practices.

[Fu-Pow]

Now, I have been doing this, and just body weight conditioning for about 6 weeks and little else. Today I did my forms for the first time in a long time, and found I was exceptionally loose, agile and moved with a much greater smoothness precision and balance. I'm talking a HUGE improvement over the last time I did my forms 6 + weeks ago.

So let me get this straight....holding stances made your stances in your forms better. Shocking!!!;)

I don't think that anyone questions whether practicing stances makes your stances better or easier to hold.

I think what is questioned is the utility of stance training at all...and for that matter forms.

I tend to think that weight bearing exercises that move your leg through the full range of motion would be preferable to holding a static position.

And this gets to larger issue. Holding low stances is extremely inefficient. You cannot fight that way and not tire quickly no matter how much you practice it.

It would preferable to train your legs in a more general way and then work on being as efficient and economical in your fighting movements as possible.

In other words, practice specifically to be efficient, practice generally as though you are inefficient.

FP

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

So let me get this straight....holding stances made your stances in your forms better. Shocking!!!

Reply]
Actually, that is the funny part...They got a little more stable, and a little deeper, but that is about it. I don't seem to have made any progress so far as the length of time I can hold them, and they certainly don't seem to have gotten easier in the last 6 weeks. I still hit a wall around the same holding times as when I started 6 weeks ago. You'd think by now, the 5 minute horse stance would have improved to at least 6 minutes...but it hasn't.

I still start shaking uncontrollably somewhere around 4 minutes (Kills me when i used to be able to go almost 20), and I actually start falling over no matter how hard I fight not to, at or near the 5 minute mark.

In 6 weeks, I improved my hold time by only 8 seconds on the first stance...6-7 seconds on the last one. When I was young, in my 20's this very same routine tripled my holding time in the same period. I went from 3 minutes to NINE...(God age sux!!)

All the progress is in areas NOT related to stances...like the ability to move smoothly in between the stances..which is something I didn't practice at all.

I held the stance till I fell over, and then stood up walked around or sat, or layed down for a minute or two and then did the next stance on the list, and the next, and then the next and so on etc... untill I could no longer stand at all, and it took 20 minutes of sitting there recovering before I was capable of getting up and walking back to the car. I repeated this process 3 times a week, for 6 weeks and did nothing else but pushups, pull ups and on rare inconsistent occasion a bit of bench pressing. I didn't even go near the transitions from one stance to another...yet that seems to be where some of the best improvement occurred.

I don't think that anyone questions whether practicing stances makes your stances better or easier to hold.

Reply]
That is just it, other than I got more able to sink a bit lower, they really didn't get easier to hold.

I think what is questioned is the utility of stance training at all...and for that matter forms.

Reply]
Well, I seem to have gotten a surprising amount of extra agility, in just 6 weeks, so that alone shows fantastic utility. I bet it would have been even better if I had done foot work drills as a cool down too.

I tend to think that weight bearing exercises that move your leg through the full range of motion would be preferable to holding a static position.

Reply]
I would too, BUT with this recent experience, I'd have to say that the Stance work is as good, or maybe even superior in many ways.

And this gets to larger issue. Holding low stances is extremely inefficient. You cannot fight that way and not tire quickly no matter how much you practice it.

Reply]
If it is so inefficient, then explain all these unexpected results I am having?


It would preferable to train your legs in a more general way and then work on being as efficient and economical in your fighting movements as possible.

Reply]
Well, I think I am going to have to say the common perception must be wrong here. Stances must not be highly specific training, in actuality they must give a wide range of development..much more than previously thought anyway. How else can we explain what happened to me? I wasn't looking to do anymore then shore up my structure and rooting here. I never expected all this other stuff too.

In other words, practice specifically to be efficient, practice generally as though you are inefficient.

Reply]
I think with all the side benefits I have seen, maybe stance work gives more over all development in a lot of previously unseen ways. Specific training might be to work footwork drills that are specific to your style.

[PangQuan]

I'm going to go with the structural argument here.

When you do a bunch of stance work, you don't get any stronger. However - and especially if you've laid off for awhile - your structure improves.

When your structure is good, it takes less muscular effort to do it. Kinda like when you haven't squatted or benched in a while, and you spend a great deal of time just getting the muscle memory to "lock" your frame and movement groove in place.

That seems pretty straightforward and obvious to me.

I'd say there's certainly a diminishing return on investment here though.

Nice post. Especially the aspect of diminishing returns. So true.

I would like to add my thoughts.

Though we may recieve less and less as we do stance training, or we plateu(sp). This is where I like to see much cross training. For me stance training is part of my leg program, BUT it is only a part. Running, Cycling, Weights/squats/etc. Kicks, as well as many various fun exersizes (tiger crawling, horse hopping on stairs, and other traditional methods)

For instance, one aspect of my stance training is: Standard heel kick from rear leg in deep bow stance, with a syncronized palm/fist strike.

I like to do this kick from a solid very low stance, work it till i cant do it anymore, then raise my stance accordingly.

When you get the ability to throw a very fast and powerful kick from a drop bottom bow stance, doing it from a relaxed upright posture is so much easier. So i use the low stance often to improve my high stances.

though we may not recieve any more benefits from low standing because we have plateued(sp) this doesnt mean to stop, or you will lose all that conditioning you have recieved.

Maintinence is the key. As well as solid cross training. dont get to stuck on doing things the same way all the time.

[PangQuan]

I would like to add for the record.

I dont like doing low standing...i hate it.

BUT, the only reason i still do it is because i have WITNESSED first hand benefits from the training.

IE: ME


actually seeing, touching, smelling, tasting, experiencing something is worth way more to me than all the words one could type on the INTERNET or "supportive scientifical documents" could ever be.

it may not be a lot of change the training will give, but there is an aspect that it helps in, this is why it has benefit to me.

but everyday for hours??? H3LL NO

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

though we may not recieve any more benefits from low standing because we have plateued(sp) this doesnt mean to stop, or you will lose all that conditioning you have recieved.

Reply]
LOL!! Ur tell'n ME!! I used to be able to hold a deep Horse for 20 minutes! 15 of which seemed effortless almost!!

Now I am dying at 3-5....:(

[PangQuan]

though we may not recieve any more benefits from low standing because we have plateued(sp) this doesnt mean to stop, or you will lose all that conditioning you have recieved.

Reply]
LOL!! Ur tell'n ME!! I used to be able to hold a deep Horse for 20 minutes! 15 of which seemed effortless almost!!

Now I am dying at 3-5....:(

I feel your pain bro :o

[kwaichang]

The bottom line is most of the guys posting here dont want ST to work it is too hard for them and they are inherently lazy. So let them do there stuff or try to wave away the stance training as un scientific, thats OK those of us that do it will reap the benefits and thay wont. KC

[street_fighter]

The bottom line is most of the guys posting here dont want ST to work it is too hard for them and they are inherently lazy. So let them do there stuff or try to wave away the stance training as un scientific, thats OK those of us that do it will reap the benefits and thay wont. KC

lol :rolleyes:

[Merryprankster]

The bottom line is most of the guys posting here dont want ST to work it is too hard for them and they are inherently lazy. So let them do there stuff or try to wave away the stance training as un scientific, thats OK those of us that do it will reap the benefits and thay wont. KC

1. Just because something is hard doesn't mean it's any use to your specific goal. Playing chess like a grandmaster is hard, but it won't make you a better cook.

2. Lots of the guys here who are questioning the value of stance work have busted their ass to reach where they are at. Classifying them as lazy is not a very good argument.

[Christopher M]

Again, if stances are being approached as a method for training mechanics, why are there so many questions about the depth of a stance or whether you can fight from it? If you are opening your rear inguinal fold and closing the front one to enter a bow stance, the shape of the stance is dictated by those movements -- there's no question about it, other than how your degree of tension or flexibility might come into play. And if you don't have the prorioceptive awareness to understand this, you've got a teacher showing it to you. And what does it matter whether you can "fight out of" the stance that results? Fights don't happen "out of" a stance in the first place, they happen through the production and management of force -- for example, by the methods you're learning in your martial arts training.

I don't think the chinese martial art community can fault "mma nutriders" on this topic when there is so much confusion and misinformation in the community itself.

[Merryprankster]

Disagreement? Confusion?

None!

Sifu said!

End of Thread.

[Mr Punch]

I guess my question was not worth answering. ...Why work from a stance that requires constant training to be able to use? ...It was a good question, but not directly relevant to RD's question. However, since this is KFM and 'not directly relevant' is not completely unusual... :rolleyes:

I think a lot of traditionalists would say that when you're younger you practice the stances deeper and when you've really ingrained the stance into your structure, you can then get the benefits without hitting the really low stance: train low, fight high.

My Japanese internals teacher taught me (and trains himself) in really low hardcore stances but he has done this to such a degree that when he stands normally in a natural stance and I push/kick/punch him his way of absorbing it is uncanny… like he was in a full horse. He trains his stance to change his structure and his way of standing/moving (I should add his stance training is always moving).


Reply]
Well, I seem to have gotten a surprising amount of extra agility, in just 6 weeks, so that alone shows fantastic utility. I bet it would have been even better if I had done foot work drills as a cool down too.
…
If it is so inefficient, then explain all these unexpected results I am having?

OK:
like I said, if all you're doing for weeks is concentrating on static, rooted feeling, then when you start moving again of course you're going to feel like it's lighter!

Then, like I said:

You haven't provided us with any evidence. Even anecdotal evidence from someone else you train with who says, 'Yeah, I sure have noticed RD's looking spry/packing a better punch these days - must be all that stance training, cos he sucked royal ass before then...!' would be better than you just saying, 'Well, I feel better!'!

Now, do you get my drift?

KC


The bottom line is most of the guys posting here dont want ST to work it is too hard for them and they are inherently lazy. So let them do there stuff or try to wave away the stance training as un scientific, thats OK those of us that do it will reap the benefits and thay wont. KCI’ll second streetfighter with a big fat :D and I’ll raise him a :rolleyes:

Is there really any need to come out with that BS? And furthermore, can you really be that stupid?! You post a couple of bits of half-related evidence, say, ‘I thought that would be enough because of all the real evidence out there,’ then change it to, ‘Oh well, I only posted it cos I knew you lot would criticize it and anyone can criticize anything…’… and now you think you know what everyone else is doing in their training, and accuse people who do train differently of being lazy? I’m afraid, you’re starting to sound like an ass.

FTR and FWIW, I’ve trained lots of deep, rooting stance work, and found… no improvement in anything other than deep stance work. I’ve also trained lots of slow-moving deep stepping, and found a lot of improvement in a lot of things, including then using those same motions at speed in sparring. I’ve reached plateaux, and sometimes worked through them by other good old-fashioned traditional work: like bagwork, full contact sparring, lifting weights, and then when those have plateaued back to stancework… and thus it goes: improvement, training and development cycles. There’s some anecdotal evidence for you.

Now, I’ve done this with legitimate (and rogue!) teachers in ‘legitimate’ traditional arts for 17 years… so surely that makes my anecdotal evidence as valuable as RD’s, who’s trained from video with no partners for the past god knows how long…? But, wait, sorry eh, it doesn’t agree with you, therefore it’s worthless and I’m lazy? You may even be worse than an ass.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

, who’s trained from video with no partners for the past god knows how long…? But, wait, sorry eh, it doesn’t agree with you, therefore it’s worthless and I’m lazy? You may even be worse than an ass

Reply]
I have learned from and trained under real people plenty...infact all my core material was taught to me one on one from actual live teachers...that includeds all my core curriculem, over all training methodology, basics, fundemental structure and mechanics, drills techniques, applications etc...

Mostly what I got from video and books are just form choreography to play with during times I had no teachers or training partners and a few neat conditioning exercises or new insite into stuff I already knew. All my real working knowledge and core practice comes from actual real teachers though...but you'd know that if you paid attention, now wouldn't you.

So please excuse me if I haven't spent 18 years learning from one obscour, famous Chinese master who's only ingrish is being able to say "awwww, berrry gooood!" because I studied in the ubber styles under him in a well known secret society/ Temple/chinese resturaunt controlled by theTongs...... like you obviously did....:rolleyes:

[tattooedmonk]

That we need both static and dynamic forms of training to gain our total fitness goals. ( yin yang principle) All training should be done from the inside ( stabilization system) to the outside( movement system).

If the core's movement system is strong and the stabilization system is weak , the kinetic chain( nervous system, muscle-tendon system and skeletal system) senses imbalances and forces are not being transfered and /or utilized properly. This will result in compensation, synergistic dominance and inefficient movement.


In personal training we use the drawing in manuever which is the samething we do in martial arts training and Qi Gong by tucking the hips up and under.

This helps us find equalibrium, our center of gravity , aligns our skeletal structure, gives us proper posture, connect the du and ren meridians, etc.

If you can not see the value of static stance trainig in your martial arts then you do not know enough about anatomy , physiology,or real martial arts training.

[tattooedmonk]

Disagreement? Confusion?

None!

Sifu said!

End of Thread. Are you serious??

[tattooedmonk]

Muscle Action Spectrum; eccentric ( deceleration, force reduction) concentric ( acceleration, force production) and isometric ( stabilization , dynamic support).

Isometric: exercise in which muscles are briefly tensed in opposition to other muscle or to an immoveable object.

No visable movement with or against resistance. Dynamically stabalizes forces.

Isometric contraction:a muscle maintaining a certain length.

How can a muscle maintain a certain length if it is moving eccentrically or concentrically??

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

In personal training we use the drawing in manuever which is the samething we do in martial arts training and Qi Gong by tucking the hips up and under.

This helps us find equalibrium, our center of gravity , aligns our skeletal structure, gives us proper posture, connect the du and ren meridians, etc.

If you can not see the value of static stance trainig in your martial arts then you do not know enough about anatomy , physiology,or real martial arts training.

Reply]
This can't possibly be true...it aggrees too much with Traditional Chinese training methodology!! I mean, it would be like practicieng stances, and getting all sorts of great results like I did the last 6 weeks!! ! ;)

[tattooedmonk]

In personal training we use the drawing in manuever which is the samething we do in martial arts training and Qi Gong by tucking the hips up and under.

This helps us find equalibrium, our center of gravity , aligns our skeletal structure, gives us proper posture, connect the du and ren meridians, etc.

If you can not see the value of static stance trainig in your martial arts then you do not know enough about anatomy , physiology,or real martial arts training.

Reply]
This can't possibly be true...it aggrees too much with Traditional Chinese training methodology!! I mean, it would be like practicieng stances, and getting all sorts of great results like I did the last 6 weeks!! ! ;)Exactly.;)

[tattooedmonk]

The Chinese have known a lot more about our existance for a lot longer based on the teachings we have absorbed .....but most of them just do not have the scientific backround to substantiate it or articulate it.

[Yum Cha]

Tatooed Monk,

Well said. It occured to me that some guys are comparing apples to apple pie.

Firstly, there are several issues involved in a system of training, strength, mobility, focus, intent, and techniques. Lots of systems fall apart when you pull out single elements and examine them in isolation.

You can't debate the strength and skill of the MMA player, using modern techniques and sport combat training. That's not the intent - more than one way to skin a cat.

The question is, why does the "old way" work in the way it works. Static training, like stance, builds strength, aligns the body, builds physical memory and reinforces fundamentals. Dynamic training, like form, applies the lessons to a moving format.

The two together profide a foundation upon which to develop fighting skills. They are NOT the fighting skills, just the foundation.

I think it is foolish to think that long deep stance trainig means that you only learn that one single position and only have strength in that position. The System simply uses that as one building block in the foundation, a system. It can't be considered in isolation.

Another issue that comes of Stance training is the pain training, the hardening and the development of resolution, comittment and focus.

The saying is that the young man starts with the deepest stance, and as you get older it gets higher - like, no surprises there... But its not just about age and strength, it also reflects having the foundation already in place.

Again, this is only in reference to strength and mobility, not to the actual application of the skills, that may be an issue, but not this one.

Proper stance leads to proper structure, proper structure leads to good footwork. Same for boxing, kickboxing, BJJ, and Kung Fu.

The question that started the thread was "Why am I more flexible, mobile, etc" Isn't it fair to say. "Better footwork?"

He didn't say, Why can I all the sudden tear the heads off my opponents in the local MMA tournement."

As for the static "Isometric" training, well, during this training, the joints don't move. Muscle and tendon repair themselves, joints don't, or at least, they can, but they do so much more slowly. If you're in it for the long term, this becomes an issue.

Look at the move towards 'low impact' training in modern circles. Is this vindication of traditional 'low impact' training?

A mix of low and high impact training certainly is less taxing on your consumable components than a strictly high impact alternative?

[Mr Punch]

, who’s trained from video with no partners for the past god knows how long…? But, wait, sorry eh, it doesn’t agree with you, therefore it’s worthless and I’m lazy? You may even be worse than an ass

Reply]
I have learned from and trained under real people plenty...infact all my core material was taught to me one on one from actual live teachers...that includeds all my core curriculem, over all training methodology, basics, fundemental structure and mechanics, drills techniques, applications etc...

Mostly what I got from video and books are just form choreography to play with during times I had no teachers or training partners and a few neat conditioning exercises or new insite into stuff I already knew. All my real working knowledge and core practice comes from actual real teachers though...but you'd know that if you paid attention, now wouldn't you.

So please excuse me if I haven't spent 18 years learning from one obscour, famous Chinese master who's only ingrish is being able to say "awwww, berrry gooood!" because I studied in the ubber styles under him in a well known secret society/ Temple/chinese resturaunt controlled by theTongs...... like you obviously did....:rolleyes:Relax, pal. I wasn't slating your ability. I just mentioned that my anecdotal evidence may just be equal to yours.

So don't use petty quibbles to avoid the main points. Which is that you still haven't said how you're measuring these results...

And I don't know what your final reference is supposed to be to... I've never intimated my teachers were the sh!t.

But incidentally, when was the last time you trained regularly with other people? With live resistant training? Using the stances you've been training?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Last thursday actually. We were doing some takedowns that used deep horse stance.

I haven't doen fully resisting in a while, but my guy is getting clse to it, so it should be soon. Right now I'm starting twoman footwork drills with him this comming week.

[Black Jack II]

Stance training is all well and good but to spout off like Kwai does that it actually has some modern relevance in self defense just because it is "old" means much of little.

I much more believe that you can get better rewards spent on developing actual usefull "stance work" by hitting the bag, sparring, freeweight training with squats and lunges, pylo's in combination with weight training, ladder drills, and even just by playing sports such as basketball and soccer.

But again the world is a big place, if not anything else you are getting a workout in, building up that endurance.

[Yum Cha]

I much more believe that you can get better rewards spent on developing actual usefull "stance work" by hitting the bag, sparring, freeweight training with squats and lunges, pylo's in combination with weight training, ladder drills, and even just by playing sports such as basketball and soccer.


I'll agree, but remember, some stance training is done with weight encumberance.

Some stance training is done dynamically, moving from one to the other, like many of "stepping" forms that are half way between a full form and static stance training.

Some forms work involves moves comparable to lunges and other calesthenics. Some of those "eccentric" moves aren't as much fighting moves as they are conditioning moves.

Some TCMA does train hitting things, believe it or not. Wooden Man, Paper bark and palm trees, sand pads, and even good old heavy bags.

I think the fair differentiation is between intensity, and detailed focus of the exercise. Some stance training is rather 'overall' in nature, whereas some of the weight training can focus on individual muscles or muscle groups.

So is it better to have an overall focus, or focus on individual groups, one after the other?

It doesn't sound to me like there's really anything more being said than he who works hardest is fittest.

[Mi Hou Tao]

Perhaps i missed it,
but has nobody asked what he was doing before he started this programme of stances, push-ups and pull-ups?

If he was on a training regime of bruce lee flicks and lifting beer cans, even playing nintendo would probably improve his performance. Conversely, if he was training extremely hard perhaps a reduced training load could have made a difference, like a tapering for competition.

just some thoughts.

[Fu-Pow]

And what does it matter whether you can "fight out of" the stance that results? Fights don't happen "out of" a stance in the first place, they happen through the production and management of force -- for example, by the methods you're learning in your martial arts training.

We tend to fight as we train. You are training your body to move in a really inefficient way. Traditional stances are too much work when something more mobile and flexible would do the trick....which is ultimately how most people fight anyways.

If you want to make your legs stronger then lift weights or at least move your legs through a full range of motion...not just sitting in a static stance.

If you want to get good at forms then do lots of stance training. If you want to get good at fighting then how is it relevant?

FP

[Christopher M]

And if they want to efficiently build leg strenght, they will do squats, lunges and extensions like everyone else.

You are training your body to move in a really inefficient way... If you want to make your legs stronger then lift weights or at least move your legs through a full range of motion...not just sitting in a static stance.
I think you're confusing my remarks with someone elses.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Perhaps i missed it,
but has nobody asked what he was doing before he started this program of stances, push-ups and pull-ups?

Reply]
The pull ups and pushups were not a core part of the 6 week program, but more what I did in between sessions.

For most of the winter prior I was doing a mix of weights and circute training. Below is the exact routine I did since late last fall to about a month before the 6 week stance program.

1 Bent over rows 12 reps

2. bench press 6-8 reps followed by knocking out another 6-8 reps of pushups

3. Hollow Holds for 36-54 seconds followed by that one abb excercise where you lay on your back and push your legs up to the ceiling, then down and out towards the wall keeping your feet about 6-12 inches off the ground. I did 12 reps of that.

4. A back exercise that looks like you are swimming on the land.


Circute #2

1 Barbell curles 12 reps

2 Benchpress 6-8 reps followed by Triangle pushups 6-8 reps.

3 cross crunchies (Elbow to opposite knee) with a center crunchie in between 12 reps

4 the land swimming exercise from above.


Circute #3

1. I do a thing with a wooden dowel that has a weight on it. I roll it up, then down. Its a great forearm workout.

2. Bench press followed by Dive Bomb pushups

3. Hollow Holds followed by cross crunchies with the feet pointing up to the ceiling, legs locked and together.

4. Land swimming exercise 12 reps


Circute #4

Same as number one, only done at 8-9 reps, and the back exercise is Arch Rocks and a back extension exercise 12 reps each. I also use Dumbbells, instead of bar bells. No Bench, just pushups.


Circute #5

Same as #2, only I do Dirty Dog's for the back exercise (Or some sort of variation followed by kicking backwards from the kneeling position after each one. The Curls are Hammer Curls with Dumbbells. No bench, just Triangle pushups.

Circute number 6 last one;

Same as number 3, only no bench, just dive bomb pushups and I finish with one of the back thereapy exercises from the old routine (usually one of 3 favorites)

I also did a number of various mechanics drills in high stances looking to improve the open close of Kua, core body movement (Like LHBF guys do), and timing of the 9 joints when I move. It was all really slow Tai Chi speed stuff.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

For those of you curious about the method to my maddness here, I am doing 6 weeks of structure work (Stances) followed by 6 weeks of mechanics (Drills, and heavy form work), and 6 weeks of skills as my partner should be ready by then. The stance portion is now done.

After that I will be integrating Structure, Mechanics, Skills and conditioning into each week, or even each day as i see fit.

[PangQuan]

That we need both static and dynamic forms of training to gain our total fitness goals. ( yin yang principle) All training should be done from the inside ( stabilization system) to the outside( movement system).

If the core's movement system is strong and the stabilization system is weak , the kinetic chain( nervous system, muscle-tendon system and skeletal system) senses imbalances and forces are not being transfered and /or utilized properly. This will result in compensation, synergistic dominance and inefficient movement.


In personal training we use the drawing in manuever which is the samething we do in martial arts training and Qi Gong by tucking the hips up and under.

This helps us find equalibrium, our center of gravity , aligns our skeletal structure, gives us proper posture, connect the du and ren meridians, etc.

If you can not see the value of static stance trainig in your martial arts then you do not know enough about anatomy , physiology,or real martial arts training.


Muscle Action Spectrum; eccentric ( deceleration, force reduction) concentric ( acceleration, force production) and isometric ( stabilization , dynamic support).

Isometric: exercise in which muscles are briefly tensed in opposition to other muscle or to an immoveable object.

No visable movement with or against resistance. Dynamically stabalizes forces.

Isometric contraction:a muscle maintaining a certain length.

How can a muscle maintain a certain length if it is moving eccentrically or concentrically??

applaud.

i suppose this is the base of the argument now, since your a learned individual.

but wait....i thought science was suppose to tell me stance training was completely useless????

whats going on here? is the sky falling?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Isometric: exercise in which muscles are briefly tensed in opposition to other muscle or to an immoveable object.

Reply
What about when they are contracted for a long time?

[PangQuan]

Isometric: exercise in which muscles are briefly tensed in opposition to other muscle or to an immoveable object.

Reply
What about when they are contracted for a long time?

it hurts more? :p

[bodhitree]

All training should be done from the inside ( stabilization system) to the outside( movement system).





If you can not see the value of static stance trainig in your martial arts then you do not know enough about anatomy , physiology,or real martial arts training.

If you do see the value please read up on how anatomy and physiology pertain to athletic performance.

Also read up on the types of muscle fibers and the energy systems.

Stance training can have some base level value (for beginners) and some fitness value, but beyond that, I can't really see any point.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Maybe if your only focus is muscle development, but stance work is for developing a good structural alignment..and THAT has major impact in everything we do, not just fighting.

Just look at the mechanics of a golf swing. Before you even start to move, you are taught the structural alignment of the skelatal system..where the shoulders must be held, where the feet are put, where to place the elbows so you have maximum effectiveness when you move (mechanics)

Now, a Golfer does not need stance work, because he does not have an opponent trying to forceably break his structure, but in a fight we do.

Stance training is a great tool to help you develop a difficult to break structure. Since your structure is the underlying support for your mechanics, it has great bennift no matter what level you are at...it's so much more than developing simple Quad endurance. It's really not just for beginners. Infact if you quit stance work as a beginner, then you will never really get the intended benefits.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Stance training can have some base level value (for beginners) and some fitness value, but beyond that, I can't really see any point.

Reply]
Could the point possibly be all the unexpected benefits I got in the last 6 weeks?

[PangQuan]

One of the aspects regarding stance training that a lot of people dont seem to understand is that stance training is just a small portion of a total package.

On average, Chinese Martial Arts will be very in depth, with many many aspects to the training.

Many of these aspects only will effect small portions of your training and each, individually, may not seem worth the effort.

It is the combined total effects of various outlets in the training that, when combined, actually create a very large over all effect in your training.

Stance Training is one such element. It is not meant to be your "total leg workout"

Its just one aspect of traditional Chinese Martial Arts....if you cannot understand this concept, that may be why you do not understand what the benefits of Stance Training in Chinese Martial Arts are....

[SevenStar]

Stance training can have some base level value (for beginners) and some fitness value, but beyond that, I can't really see any point.

Reply]
Could the point possibly be all the unexpected benefits I got in the last 6 weeks?

the benefits you got weren't anything that shouldn't be expected - they were all structure based. Going back to the comment you responded to, he said "base level value" - perhaps there were some errors in your structure initially anyway. Just a theory.

[SevenStar]

Maybe if your only focus is muscle development, but stance work is for developing a good structural alignment..and THAT has major impact in everything we do, not just fighting.

Just look at the mechanics of a golf swing. Before you even start to move, you are taught the structural alignment of the skelatal system..where the shoulders must be held, where the feet are put, where to place the elbows so you have maximum effectiveness when you move (mechanics)

Now, a Golfer does not need stance work, because he does not have an opponent trying to forceably break his structure, but in a fight we do.

Stance training is a great tool to help you develop a difficult to break structure. Since your structure is the underlying support for your mechanics, it has great bennift no matter what level you are at...it's so much more than developing simple Quad endurance. It's really not just for beginners. Infact if you quit stance work as a beginner, then you will never really get the intended benefits.


nobody said it can't be helpful at all, only that there are more efficient means. Judoka and wrestlers not only have someone trying to break their structure, but also have to support someone else's weight on it - yet they do no stance training.

we mention the leg endurance thing in response to all of the quacks who say strance training builds strength.

[SevenStar]

Isometric: exercise in which muscles are briefly tensed in opposition to other muscle or to an immoveable object.

Reply
What about when they are contracted for a long time?

when they are held longer, the nature of it changes - IT BECOMES AN ENDURANCE EXERCISE, and is no longer building strength - like prolonged stance training.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Not what I was asking. If it's called "isometric" if the contraction is short, is it still called isometric when the contraction is long? If not, then what is it called?

[SevenStar]

Not what I was asking. If it's called "isometric" if the contraction is short, is it still called isometric when the contraction is long? If not, then what is it called?

gotcha. it's still an isometric exercise - the exercise doesn't change, only it's benefits. Iso = same and metric = distance, so the "same distance" exercise is not affected by time. time changes the benefit you receive, be it strength or endurance.

[SifuAbel]

when they are held longer, the nature of it changes - IT BECOMES AN ENDURANCE EXERCISE, and is no longer building strength - like prolonged stance training.


Yeah, who needs endurance. :rolleyes:

[Black Jack II]

Yeah, who needs endurance

Wrong type of endurance training if endurance is your goal. Maybe you fight people holding a horse stance for 15 minutes but those here on planet Earth tend not to.

[bodhitree]

Wrong type of endurance training if endurance is your goal. Maybe you fight people holding a horse stance for 15 minutes but those here on planet Earth tend not to.

Bingo!


Endurance training for fighting should be done with intervals of high intensity (HIIT or Tabata intervals) because fighting is bursts of explosive movement. Anaerobic activity does increase indurance and recovery.


This is why I would rather fight a marathon runner than an olympic weightlifter.

[SifuAbel]

I really don't argue with people who don't have much first hand knowledge of the subject.

I'll add before I go, that you don't work the position just to gain strength. You do the work to have strength in the position. To have a solid platform to move through.

Holding a ma bo for 5 minutes in a fight is ludicrous. Its ridiculous to even use it as a point of arguement. But I can't even say how many times have I seen people fight where they can't keep their legs bent for more than a minute without failing. Or Walking in stalk straight either on their tip toes or bow legged holding melon balls.

Do some stance work, then come talk to me about it.

[Black Jack II]

I really don't argue with people who don't have much first hand knowledge of the subject.

The arguement, if that is what it is, is about using stance training as a endurance boosting agent. In a static platform I can agree with that, I have also said static work is not all bad, but as a method of endurance building through a 360 degree model it is something else.

HIIT would get you far more end results if a full range of endurance is your key goal then just stance work alone. Hell, it makes no sense to even argue the subject, add other methods of cardio performance to your static training, and everyone can shut up.

[Merryprankster]

This is why I would rather fight a marathon runner than an olympic weightlifter.

Then you're smoking crack, unless you're planning on getting into a 2 hour long fight.

RD...on the subject of your golf comment.... you ever played golf? Stance work is quite a bit of it.

[Black Jack II]

Your saying Merry, if given this odd choice of two fantasy combatants that you would rather fight the weightlifter than the marathon runner???

[Merryprankster]

Provided we're talking stereotypes, you bet!

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I'd fight the marathon runner. He may have more endurance than I do, but he's going to have far less ability to hurt me.

Of course, I could use good footwork to tire the weight lifter first, and then kick his ass...unless he's also a marathon runnner...then I ma screwed.

[PangQuan]

"youth and skill will always be overcome by age and treachery"

just saw this on a t shirt. pretty good one

what can stance training offer us in the way of avoiding the treachery of old people?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Or in my case, aid in perpetrating the treachery of old people ('Cause I'm gett'n old)

[SevenStar]

"youth and skill will always be overcome by age and treachery"


I disagree with that.

[SevenStar]

Yeah, who needs endurance. :rolleyes:

there's the monkey, swinging on my vine again...did you read that whole post before you took it out of context?

[SevenStar]

Then you're smoking crack, unless you're planning on getting into a 2 hour long fight.


I think his point here was that the weight lifter is used to performing in short, very explosive bursts - like you see in a fight. the marathon runner is not. the marathoner is great if it's a 15 minute fight, but what happens when the marathoner has to sprint, or in this case, fight hard and explosively - he's out of his element.

[Water Dragon]

I see Merry's point, and I agree. If I can last 30 seconds with the lifter, I'll probably start getting a lot stronger than he is very quickly. The marathon runner has better cardiom and could throw more blows for a longer time. Better odds of a lucky punch sliding in there.

I'm also thinking Merry's strategy is gonna be along the lines of smothering the guy until he gasses.

[PangQuan]

I disagree with that.

rofl...ya me too.

mainly because I am still quite young.

once I'm old ill agree with it :P

[Merryprankster]

Well sort of. It's actually more along the lines of, of the two guys not optimally trained for the rigors, who would I rather fight?

I'd rather fight the marathoner on the simple fact that he, by stereotype, is unlikely to be able to generate a significant amount of power. Muscle fibers are slow twitch and their system is optimized for aerobic exercise, which means that they are going to get REALLY TIRED REALLY QUICKLY because of the level of intensity of the exercise (not used to that level of effort & not used to anaerobic exercise).

An olympic style weight lifter is among the most powerful people on the planet, by contrast, assuming some level of competency. That power is dangerous, even if the person is tired, as we have seen in many a match. Further, although their lactic acid threshold is probably low, it's probably not much worse than the marathoners. On top of that, their core stability is likely to be incredibly high, AND they've learned to use their body as a single unit.

There is a guy in my office that does strongman competitions. We both feel the same way about each other "I might win, but it's gonna hurt." :D

Ironically I would fight both about the same way: Attempt to overwhelm each with constant attacks and movement. The marathoner would get tired due to lack of anaerobic training and the weightlifter would get tired due to lack of lactic acid threshold training.

[Mr Punch]

Science tells us...
That we need both static and dynamic forms of training to gain our total fitness goals. Agreed.
( yin yang principle)Just saying 'yin/yang principle' after a scientific statement does not connect the two! You are dualizing the yin-yang principle (it's NOT a dual principle: you're forgetting the tapering shape of the two halves merging into each other and the spots of the opposite colour contained within - yin-yang is a principle of constant flux, change and cycles with parts of one thing being intrinsic to its opposite number - it is only 'dual' because the ancient logo designers didn't have graduation effects! :D )... similarly scientifically based training cannot be just broken into static and dynamic... well, it can, but if I practise moving from one stance to another very very slowly this is different to totally stationary stance work as espoused by RD and KC on this thread.


All training should be done from the inside ( stabilization system) to the outside( movement system). Is this a scientific description?! 'Inside' training is training what? The muscles inside? The tendons inside? I don't have many of either outside...! ... Therefore 'outside' training is what? Are you saying we move from our epidermis?! :D Your use of inside/outside and stabilization/movement is completely arbitrary in this sense.


If the core's movement system is strong and the stabilization system is weak , the kinetic chain( nervous system, muscle-tendon system and skeletal system) senses imbalances and forces are not being transfered and /or utilized properly. This will result in compensation, synergistic dominance and inefficient movement.OK. Doesn't support anything else you've said though,if we take your description of inside/outside etc as arbitrary.


This helps us find equalibrium, our center of gravity , aligns our skeletal structure, gives us proper posture, connect the du and ren meridians, etc.You're mixing the scientific with the pseudo scientific again... equilibrium means what in this context? Sure sounds scientific to me but...! Centre of gravity: again a scientific word but so what? In a dynamic situation your CoG changes! It's how you manipulate that CoG that counts, and that of your opponent. As the old adage goes: there's point reaching enlightenment in the mountains if you lose it in the city! Aligns our skeletal structure...! Again, this is nonsense! unless you have disclocated something, are a mutant or have a serious illness our skeletal structure is always aligned!


If you can not see the value of static stance trainig in your martial arts then you do not know enough about anatomy , physiology,or real martial arts training.You mean, if we disagree with you?! You haven't demonstrated any knowledge of anatomy or physiology yet, and what real martial arts training is is as ever a moot point!


Muscle Action Spectrum; eccentric ( deceleration, force reduction) concentric ( acceleration, force production) and isometric ( stabilization , dynamic support).

Isometric: exercise in which muscles are briefly tensed in opposition to other muscle or to an immoveable object.

No visable movement with or against resistance. Dynamically stabalizes forces.

Isometric contraction:a muscle maintaining a certain length.

How can a muscle maintain a certain length if it is moving eccentrically or concentrically??A string of Uni fresher notes does not make a connected argument!

I'm not saying that what you're saying has no value (like the fact that I, like many other 'naysayers' on this thread, have not actually said that static training has no benefit...) but you're gonna have to do better than that!



Static training, like stance, builds strength, aligns the body, builds physical memory and reinforces fundamentals. Dynamic training, like form, applies the lessons to a moving format.Again, how much strength is one of the cases in point here... and like with the skeletal alignment malarkey above, you're not actually saying anything with your other three principles outlined. E.g., builds physical memory... how? The memory of standing in one place... :)


I think it is foolish to think that long deep stance trainig means that you only learn that one single position and only have strength in that position. The System simply uses that as one building block in the foundation, a system. It can't be considered in isolation. Why is that foolish? It's one position in isolation, so you should consider it in isolation, no!? If my stance training is moving from one stance to another, then how it relates to the other stances and that movement is precisely the point!


The saying is that the young man starts with the deepest stance, and as you get older it gets higher - like, no surprises there... But its not just about age and strength, it also reflects having the foundation already in place.totally agreed: see my latest couple of posts on Samurai Jack's blog in the health forum. But these are plateauing benefits, which is another reason the old guys don't bother after a while.


applaud.

i suppose this is the base of the argument now, since your a learned individual.

but wait....i thought science was suppose to tell me stance training was completely useless????

whats going on here? is the sky falling?No. Some people with no scientific background are taking pseudoscientific statements from someone else which agree with what they believe and lauding them. That is all.

[Mr Punch]

As for the marathon runner or the weightlifter...

I'd run away from the weightlifter

and chuck weights at the marathon runner!

;)
:D

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

You got it!!

If you run from the weight lifter, his lack of cardio will cause him to tank out quickly, and he will no longer be a threat.

The marathon runner may have lots of staying power, BUT he's not very strong, and will be suseptable to damage if barbell plates hit him in the head. :D

[SevenStar]

Well sort of. It's actually more along the lines of, of the two guys not optimally trained for the rigors, who would I rather fight?

I'd rather fight the marathoner on the simple fact that he, by stereotype, is unlikely to be able to generate a significant amount of power. Muscle fibers are slow twitch and their system is optimized for aerobic exercise, which means that they are going to get REALLY TIRED REALLY QUICKLY because of the level of intensity of the exercise (not used to that level of effort & not used to anaerobic exercise).

An olympic style weight lifter is among the most powerful people on the planet, by contrast, assuming some level of competency. That power is dangerous, even if the person is tired, as we have seen in many a match. Further, although their lactic acid threshold is probably low, it's probably not much worse than the marathoners. On top of that, their core stability is likely to be incredibly high, AND they've learned to use their body as a single unit.

There is a guy in my office that does strongman competitions. We both feel the same way about each other "I might win, but it's gonna hurt." :D

Ironically I would fight both about the same way: Attempt to overwhelm each with constant attacks and movement. The marathoner would get tired due to lack of anaerobic training and the weightlifter would get tired due to lack of lactic acid threshold training.

yeah, that's about what I said

[tattooedmonk]

Science tells us...Agreed. Just saying 'yin/yang principle' after a scientific statement does not connect the two! You are dualizing the yin-yang principle (it's NOT a dual principle: you're forgetting the tapering shape of the two halves merging into each other and the spots of the opposite colour contained within - yin-yang is a principle of constant flux, change and cycles with parts of one thing being intrinsic to its opposite number - it is only 'dual' because the ancient logo designers didn't have graduation effects! :D )... similarly scientifically based training cannot be just broken into static and dynamic... well, it can, but if I practise moving from one stance to another very very slowly this is different to totally stationary stance work as espoused by RD and KC on this thread.

Is this a scientific description?! 'Inside' training is training what? The muscles inside? The tendons inside? I don't have many of either outside...! ... Therefore 'outside' training is what? Are you saying we move from our epidermis?! :D Your use of inside/outside and stabilization/movement is completely arbitrary in this sense.

OK. Doesn't support anything else you've said though,if we take your description of inside/outside etc as arbitrary.

You're mixing the scientific with the pseudo scientific again... equilibrium means what in this context? Sure sounds scientific to me but...! Centre of gravity: again a scientific word but so what? In a dynamic situation your CoG changes! It's how you manipulate that CoG that counts, and that of your opponent. As the old adage goes: there's point reaching enlightenment in the mountains if you lose it in the city! Aligns our skeletal structure...! Again, this is nonsense! unless you have disclocated something, are a mutant or have a serious illness our skeletal structure is always aligned!

You mean, if we disagree with you?! You haven't demonstrated any knowledge of anatomy or physiology yet, and what real martial arts training is is as ever a moot point!

A string of Uni fresher notes does not make a connected argument!

I'm not saying that what you're saying has no value (like the fact that I, like many other 'naysayers' on this thread, have not actually said that static training has no benefit...) but you're gonna have to do better than that!

Again, how much strength is one of the cases in point here... and like with the skeletal alignment malarkey above, you're not actually saying anything with your other three principles outlined. E.g., builds physical memory... how? The memory of standing in one place... :)

Why is that foolish? It's one position in isolation, so you should consider it in isolation, no!? If my stance training is moving from one stance to another, then how it relates to the other stances and that movement is precisely the point!

totally agreed: see my latest couple of posts on Samurai Jack's blog in the health forum. But these are plateauing benefits, which is another reason the old guys don't bother after a while.

No. Some people with no scientific background are taking pseudoscientific statements from someone else which agree with what they believe and lauding them. That is all. HUH ?? BLAHBLAH BLAH ....what is your question??
you expect anyone to sort through this mess ??

[Mr Punch]

Sorry, I didn't realize you had reading comprehension problems, I thought you were here for a discussion.

Which parts did you not understand? Perhaps I should use a bigger font, or you could ask your mom to help you with the tricky parts...

*sigh* another 'scientist's' argument ****ed... *shrugs*

[Mr Punch]

Wait, let me give you the Cliff Notes... what I was saying, in the politest possible way while trying to keep the conversation going, was...

Your post was fake-scientific bullsh!t

Is that easier for you to understand?

If you want me to cut out some more syllables, please go ahead and ask.

[tattooedmonk]

Wait, let me give you the Cliff Notes... what I was saying, in the politest possible way while trying to keep the conversation going, was...

Your post was fake-scientific bullsh!t

Is that easier for you to understand?

If you want me to cut out some more syllables, please go ahead and ask. What part of what I posted is bull$hit ??

[tattooedmonk]

Lets see yin /yang dualistic aspects of our existance just like static/dynamic ...hmmm

what part of that is hard to figure out?? They are two sides to the same coin. Inside/outside , stabilization muscles/ movement muscles, slow twitch I / fast twitch II, etc...or this??

You can not find your postural equalibrium or your center of gravity while you are moving( dynamic) if you have not found it in a stationary ( static) position.

I was refering to Proper alignment of your skeletal structure.

Anything more you need to know ?? Your post was more rant than anything else .

You can save your negativity and hostility for someone else .

You obviously do not know what you are talking about.

[Mr Punch]

Right, so sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I wrote a post asking you to clarify lots of things that you'd stated as fact, peppered with smileys and light comments, and you accused me of ranting and negativity.

I find your posts interesting though, so I'm gonna try again, and say sorry for coming across like a twat.
what part of that is hard to figure out?? They are two sides to the same coin. Inside/outside , stabilization muscles/ movement muscles, slow twitch I / fast twitch II, etc...or this?? Thank you, this part of your post clarifies a lot of what you said at first.

If you look at your post before, you said something vague about 'moving from the oustide/moving from the inside'. You obviously haven't been around this board long enough to know just the extent of some of the crackpottery we've had on here! Look up posts by the infamous, legendary 'Blooming Lotus' to find where people have made claims like that, with no reference at all to any anatomy/physiology.

Hence my accusation of your post being full of BS: you hadn't answered my clarification questions which made it look like you were just spouting.


You can not find your postural equalibrium or your center of gravity while you are moving( dynamic) if you have not found it in a stationary ( static) position.Agreed. But there is also a limited rate of return relying on finding your equilibrium when moving by practising finding it when stationary.


I was refering to Proper alignment of your skeletal structure.Yep. I know what you were saying. I still don't undertsand what you mean.

Different arts have different 'proper' alignments, so we can say that there is no one proper alignment. Furthermore, many arts seem to develop effective fighting techs (with, one assumes, some degree of 'proper' skeletal alignment) without practising any stationary stance work.

Any chance of any clarification sir, without spitting blood? :D


Lets see yin /yang dualistic aspects of our existance just like static/dynamic ...hmmmBTW, not particualrly related to the subject, but IMO yin-yang is NOT a dualistic concept. It is a mutually balancing cycle. That fits in even better with your idea of inside/outside muscle systems however. The dualism is a western way of thinking superimposed on it.


You obviously do not know what you are talking about.I seem to agree with you on many things... so no, probably not! :p :D

[tattooedmonk]

...about core training with some anatomy and physiology to substantiate the need for stance training.

The core is defined as the lumbo-pelvic-hip complex, thoracic and cervical spine The core is where the bodies center of gravity is located and where all movement begins.

An efficient core is neccesary for proper balance throughout the kinetic chain ( nervous , muscle-tendon, and skeletal system).

There are 29 muscles that attach to the lumbo -pelvic- hip complex. Optimal lengths( or length--tension relationships ) and joint motions ( artho-kinematics) in the muscles of the lumbo-pelvic-hip complex establish neuro-muscular efficiency through out the entire kinetic chain. This allows for efficent acceleration, deceleration and stabilization during dynamic movements, as well as , the prevention of possible injuries.

The muscularture of the core is divided into two catigories: the stabilization system and the movement system. The stabilization system is primarily responsible for the stability of the lumbo -pelvic- hip complex, whereas the movement system is responsible for the movement of the core.

The core operates as integrated functional unit, whereby the stabilization system must work in concert with the movement system. When working optimally, each structural component distributes weight , absorbs force and transfers ground -reaction forces. As such, these interdependant systems must be trained appropriately to allow the kinetic chain to function efficiently during dynamic activities. This means that we must move from the inside ( stabilization system ) to the outside ( movement system).Training muscles of the movement system prior to the muscles of the stabilization system would not make structural, biomechanical or logical sense. This would be analogous to building a house without a foundation. The foundation must be developed first to provide a stable platform for the remaining components of the house to be built upon. One must be stable first in order to move more efficiently.

[SevenStar]

that post is so much better than your posts on the groundfighting thread, but I digress.

I don't disagree with the above post, but from a combat sports perspective - judoka and wrestlers support their opponent's weight on them. They are hard to take down. They generally have great structure and stabilization - and they do no stance training. That would tell me that there are things ingrained into their training - like uchi komis in judo - that do the same thing (or similar) as stance training, but they are actually developing their combat skill at the same time, as opposed to separating the two.

[Yum Cha]

Nice Post Tattooed monk.

Once again 7, Punch, the issue is not alternative methods of training a skill, but the effectiveness of a given technique as part of a system to train the same skill.

When you talk about core strength, internal strength, structural strength, rooting, grounding, stability, centering, etc, much is common skill, and much is significantly overlapping skill.

What I find about grappling is that the constant struggle forces you to address the stability and strength issue in a constant manner. Striking requires more training in fundamentals, so that when you do apply the strength, it all comes together properly.

Now, personally speaking, Hakka styles have un-natural structure for most western athletes. You have to make that un-natural structure natural if you want to play that game. If you don't, don't bother.

Remember, we are talking about fundamental skills, building good form and structure upon which to execute your techniques and exercise focussed powerful exertion. We are not talking about advanced techniques, ring craft or spirit. Of course, any master worth his salt will tell you fundamental skills are the advanced skills.

If you have developed good form and structure in one pursuit, be it grappling, striking, ballett or yoga, you have that skill. It may need adaptation to the new sports, but your fundamental training will carry, and further develop.

Cross training comes into play here, I believe? Come on, this is fundamental sport training, why is it so hard to accept that traditional chinese stance training is effective?

I'm just under 6 foot, and used to play short forward in B-ball. I was great at boxing out much bigger heavier guys and rebounding. Of course, I had no shot, few ball skills and only a passable lay-up and put-back. But, I had stability and springs. Of course, I'm not hailing my average hoop skills, just pointing out that skills in one sport transfer into another.

I once had a girlfriend that was a Ballett dancer, <sigh> another much more plesant example of crossover skills....and I mean skills.

[PangQuan]

I once had a girlfriend that was a Ballett dancer, <sigh> another much more plesant example of crossover skills....and I mean skills.

lol, excellent!

Now thats some good use of stance training! :eek: