CLF Diu Mah Alignment

[Subitai]

The golden rooster stance, bow-arrow atance, and horse stance are the 3 most useful stances. The golden roster stance can be used for both offense and defense which is different from the empty stance which is a very conservative defense stance only.

If you have good balance in your golden rooster stance, you can use your front leg to sweep. scoop, hook, cut, sharpen, spring, lift, twist, break, kick, knee, ... You can't do that with your empty stance.

It's very important to have a good balance golden rooster stance in TCMA training. To have a good balance empty stance is not that useful because it's not a useful "offense" stance.

What kind of attack can you issue from your empty stance? If you want to kick, you have to straight your back leg and you can't keep your back leg bending.

My point was...the MT guys are able to fight just fine with a Front empty leg. (even if it's only brief). Nobody said offensive use was a prequisite.

If a MT guy uses this empty stance to Jam In a front kick...who cares if he did it offensively or defensively? Can't the guy just use it to counter or just Jam his opponant?

Don't get caught up in wheather a guy LOOKS like he's doing the "Empty Stance" like the one in the CLF video. What's important is to realize the usage of energy and the distribution of wieght. === Namely most of the wieght being used on the rear leg and very Light on the front foot.

As I read the discussion, the distribution of wieght seemed to be the Crux of the matter. So my point was, when used in "Said Regard" as has been proven to work, then it's possible. We've all seen the videos of awesome MT guys able to use it. Do we really need to start posting YT vids?? I don't think so.

[lkfmdc]

You know...just to be a smart a$$ and for observations sake...

If you look at Muay Thai, in some fights and for some fighters...

They stand off the the rear leg with a VERY lightly wieghted front leg. (sometimes just tapping the front foot)

ALMOST a "Empty Stance" if you will.

1. Nak Muay (Thai boxers to you people) don't do stance work and certainly don't hold empty stances

2. ALMOST is not the SAME

My aunt is ALMOST my uncle, except she doesn't have a dick

[hskwarrior]

My aunt is ALMOST my uncle, except she doesn't have a ****

So your Auntie is a Bull Dagger?

[YouKnowWho]

the distribution of wieght seemed to be the Crux of the matter.

Is stance training important?

The purpose of TCMA stance training is to develop body structure/alignment and weight distributation. A beginner won't be able to tell the difference between 50-50 distributation vs. 40-60 distributation, or 30/70 distributation. If you think that you have 0% weight on your front leg but actually you have 10% weight on it, that just means that you don't understand yourself enough. A beginner also won't be able to stand in a bow-arrow stance that his head, chest, and back leg are all in a straight line. This posture is extream important in the Chinese throwing art. Without the stance training, your body won't be able to achieve this kind of alignment. You may not be able to execute some throws well.

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/580/oldpic211.jpg

The foreign MA system may not emphasis on this kind of stance training but the TCMA does. Is it important? Yes! It's important in the beginner training stage. Is it not important? Yes! It's not important in the intermediate and advance training stage. During the intermediate and advance level TCMA training stage, the "mobility" and "momentum" are much more importat than the static posture.

Sometime people criticise the TCMA just from the beginner training point of view. There are a lot of people who refuse to gradulate from the elementary school and that's a fact (such as doing fix step push hands at the age of 80). The moment that you have moved beyond that, the TCMA training and foreign MA training are not much difference. The goal is "combat effective" no more and no less.

[Subitai]

1. Nak Muay (Thai boxers to you people) don't do stance work and certainly don't hold empty stances

2. ALMOST is not the SAME

My aunt is ALMOST my uncle, except she doesn't have a dick

So it's about getting in the last word now-adays eh??

Well then nice FAIL!

1) I didnt say anything about stance work

2) You're trying to make it about apples and oranges but that's not the point. You just can't stand it that someone has made good observation about wieght distribution.

The problem with coaches like you is that ring (although arguably more tougher than a shouting match) IS REAL life from your point of view. Congrats for that.

You spoke of what you see in real life but San Da or MMA isn't real either. What's real is that a guy sees me from the other side of the bar and waits till i'm not looking before I get stolen to the side of the head. At that point the guy could be in ANY stance and it would work.

So let's not use sports that: Arrange matches months in advance, does wiegh in's, physicals, drug tests and also wears gloves as reference for real life.

[lkfmdc]

wait, wait, so you think beating up an untrained guy in a street fight is a better indication of fighting ability than fighting a trained fighter

FAIL

PS; one thing I have said MANY TIMES is we do tons of different formats and do well in all of them, so it isn't just about playing one game, it is about finding what works against a real person who isn't doing what you told them to do and is resisting

And the point remains, Nak Muay don't do empty stances

[Subitai]

The purpose of TCMA stance training is to develop body structure/alignment and weight distributation. A beginner won't be able to tell the difference between 50-50 distributation vs. 40-60 distributation, or 30/70 distributation. If you think that you have 0% weight on your front leg but actually you have 10% weight on it, that just means that you don't understand yourself enough.

The foreign MA system may not emphasis on this kind of stance training but the TCMA does. Is it important? Yes! It'sportant in the beginner training stage. Is it not important? Yes! It's not important in the intermediate and advance training stage. During the intermediate and advance level TCMA training stage, the "mobility" and "momentum" are much more importat than the static posture.

Sometime people criticise the TCMA just from the beginner training point of view. There are a lot of people who refuse to gradulate from the elementary school and that's a fact (such as doing fix step push hands at the age of 80). The moment that you have moved beyond that, the TCMA training and foreign MA training are not much difference.

Good points, however I wasnt' personally focusing on Stance Training as an issue.

I was just concentrating on finding an example in which: Heavy wieght on rear leg and very little on lead leg was plausable...I think I established that.

You said, "During the intermediate and advance level TCMA training stage, the "mobility" and "momentum" are much more importat than the static posture"

I agree, and from a TCMA point of view...do you know why that should be the goal? Because the "Mah" or Horse is not a static or stationary animal. It's a fast moving, fluid and running one. Only forms hippies and people who don't know how to fight never go beyond static structure.

[YouKnowWho]

Heavy wieght on rear leg and very little on lead leg...

I agree that if one is afraid to stand on his single leg, his leg skill may not be good enough.

Back in the 70th, almost all the TKD guys in the world fought like that (they don't do that any more). Raising the front leg to protect the low part of the body. Use the arm guard to protect the head, and hop in with the back standing leg, the front leg is ready to delieve a front kick, roundhouse kick, or side kick.

[Subitai]

wait, wait, so you think beating up an untrained guy in a street fight is a better indication of fighting ability than fighting a trained fighter

FAIL

PS; one thing I have said MANY TIMES is we do tons of different formats and do well in all of them, so it isn't just about playing one game, it is about finding what works against a real person who isn't doing what you told them to do and is resisting

And the point remains, Nak Muay don't do empty stances

NO fail back to you...I think real fighting away from sport is real fighting...that's why sport is called sport.

See! Again, you try to make it about an "Indication of fighting ability", when the issue I thought being discussed was ultimately the usefullness of being heavy on rear foot and light on the front. You were the one that asked, why train it?

You place so much emphasis on being a well training fighter that you forgot one simple truth. That 99% of the time, it's not well trained fighters that you're going to meet in a real life situation.

I bet you in real life...ROSS is probably the nicest guy you'd ever want to meet and if he became your friend would give the shirt off his back...am I right?

Professionals or at least up and coming journyman (i'll give you that) are actually some of the nicest people you'll ever meet. They almost never allow themselves to be put in a bad situation. Why? Because they're training for the next match and cannot risk being hurt for no reason.

Street savy and being mentally prepared for a match are not the same thing. But that does not mean that an Untrained Assailant is not dangerous. Who are you kidding Ross, you're saying that only trained fighters are worth fighting????? Any fight deserves full respect and attention.

I live one state over in CT. Did you hear about the dude a couple yrs back who had a home invasion and the 2 A-holes that nearly killed him but brutally murdered his wife and 2 daughters? They weren't well trained fighters


BTW, Thai boxers, may not use the CLF empty stance as per the video. But if they use Most or all of their wieght on the back leg and are tapping the front foot. I ask you... what is their weight distribution AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME????

what?......Yeah, that's what I thought.

[lkfmdc]

You were the one that asked, why train it?

May I suggest a reading comprehension course, cause I never said what you think I said, not in the least

I said why train empty stance, and why do stance training at all

Do you need stances to be able to shift your weight from one foot to another. By G'd, you already know the answer don't you?

NO, because Nak Muay never do stance training

I bet you in real life...ROSS is probably the nicest guy you'd ever want to meet

completely irrelevant , as was most of the rest of the post

[hskwarrior]

BTW, Thai boxers, may not use the CLF empty stance as per the video. But if they use Most or all of their wieght on the back leg and are tapping the front foot. I ask you... what is their weight distribution AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME????

CLF's Diu Mah or Cat Stance, or just Tip Top horse like we call it isn't a fighting stance at all. Its just a stance we train. Its usage is evasive and can even provide you with additional space between you and your opponent. It can even give you enough room to do a low kick in a tight space or if he's crowding you.

What is the BIG ISSUE here? Traditional practitioners practicing traditionally? Is this an old school vs new school debate? I'm not really understanding why people are starting to argue about a SINGLE stance, position, transition, or whatever you want to describe the Diu Mah as.

Here is a couple of video's that touch on the cat stance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDBXTezPp8k

In this video, the circling thing he does in the stance is a drill that we in our CLF also do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNWPr-2ce1U

This one give a decent explanation of the Diu Mah and simple usages
http://www.ehow.co.uk/video_2367432_...-children.html


Still, what you see in this picture is what WE SHOULD NEVER DO as a fighting stance

[Brule]

I'm sorry hskwarrior, if you don't train your guys to start a fight like that, then you're not a traditionist as you claim to be.

I take the view, as others have stated, that static stance training is not the best way to practise your stances. There are better ways to use your time while at the same time, improving the stance and using it in a manner designed to be effective.

[hskwarrior]

I'm sorry hskwarrior, if you don't train your guys to start a fight like that, then you're not a traditionist as you claim to be.

you are RIGHT... I am NO Traditionist.......

However, i am a TRADITIONALIST

I take the view, as others have stated, that static stance training is not the best way to practise your stances.

And you are ENTITLED to keep that view.

There are better ways to use your time while at the same time, improving the stance and using it in a manner designed to be effective.

]

Then don't worry about what I do with my students, YOU teach how you feel you want to teach.

Thanks for your input tho.

[nospam]

Originally Posted by lkfmdc
the problem...is taking a mere moment in a real situation and turning it into a static posture.

Originally Posted by YouKnowWho
Agree 100% here. The day that you have just realized that "there exist no stance"..., you have just moved into a higher level. The stance is the beginner level training.

The 1st speaks to the science of martial study:reverse engineering. The 2nd is a truism in any MA style. It was and often still is held as a kung fu secret.

#1 - combat science derived from analysing a mere moment in a real situation or studying the dynamics of action:movement. The whole was broken into parts, points of time were named (static classification: stances/technique), and dummied down so laymen or the uneducated could have points of reference to help understand, while the whole was eventually, painstakingly, re-sequenced. Classical stances are motion studies - it was technology of the time and still is...traditionally speaking.

The above is a tried and tested method of instructing and passing down the science of martial study. The problem with the method developed is in its relation to statement #2 and how knowledge is derived. Knowledge in Kung fu is two fold. It is both implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) and explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject). Many students received the practical skill to varying degrees but were never told or never understood how to re-sequence the parts...in other words they were given only some or incomplete knowledge.

Incomplete knowledge of a kung fu style wasn't uncommon as understanding the knowledge within statement #2 was reserved for senior or disciple students and often held back at times to death by many masters..as the stories are told. Kung fu secrets are held back for many reasons, least of which, is too much knowledge too soon is detrimental. As we're all aware and have experienced, practical skill is accomplished through more practise! Withholding the knowledge of #2 or lack thereof is evident today in how many understand their own patterns.

There is another thread that includes discussion on long arm techniques. What does the explicit knowledge of movement tell us? There is no sau choy or pau choi or upper cut or short arm or long arm technique..to use an over-used phrase..be like water my friend. BUT..we do need to practise each and everyone of these because in the doing we learn proper dynamic form. BUT..in so doing we run the risk of becoming stuck in the tools of implicit learning. We have created 100+ patterns (tools) that only impart the knowledge that if you dig a well too deep, you have dug your own grave...

nospam

[Brule]

blah blah blah blah......

Thank goodness the forums have their resident spell checker, what would we all do without you.

Maybe i should have added a smiley face or some other emoticon to my first statement so you would see i was just kidding...

I was just poiting out how i feel there are better ways to train stances, as i thought this was a place to discuss and present our views. I wasn't saying you should change what you do, no need to get offended. Besides, aren't you on the west coast? WTF you doing up at 6:30 checking KFM