Stance confusion

[Mr Punch]

As for the marathon runner or the weightlifter...

I'd run away from the weightlifter

and chuck weights at the marathon runner!

[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.

[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."

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! )... 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?! 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?

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

BTW, 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!

[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!