Benefits of Horse Stance Training

[wenshu]

Long slow distance work doesn't have to be running.

Just saying.

The idea of steady state cardio as merely a base for high intensity is inaccurate. I went through a phase where I only did high intensity hill sprint intervals for conditioning, when I added steady state cardio back in once/twice a week I saw an almost immediate improvement in terms of quicker HR recovery between intervals, the ability to do more intervals in each session and the potential effort to reach max HR.

They're complimentary and necessary. If you're only doing one you're missing out, but I would definitely not do them both in the same training session.

Forgive the oversimplification but intervals mimic the cycle of max effort-> recovery->max effort. Steady state cardio is what allows you to keep repeating the cycle for longer periods of time.

Grappling is dependent on raw strength and boxing is more dependent on conditioning; power in boxing is more about technique than raw strength, conversely you won't get anywhere in grappling without raw strength that's why it's a different kind of "gassed".

[Lucas]

[wenshu]

Lucas, you probably don't even watch Star Wars.

[Lucas]

Lucas, you probably don't even watch Star Wars.

Are you calling me a poseur? I'm a jedi master. Cuz i trained horse stance.

[wenshu]

It just occured to me. Whenever the old stance training trope gets dusted off a popluar argument is the appeal to authority fallacy, if such and such was such a good method why don't professionals use it today.

The last page of this entire thread was a nearly incomprehensible back and forth about why boxers still do road work. Oh it must be tradition.

So when the training methods of pro atheletes align with your biases its super professionally advanced professional science, when it doesn't oh they're just needlessly adhering to tradition. See the contradiction?

[Bacon]

It just occured to me. Whenever the old stance training trope gets dusted off a popluar argument is the appeal to authority fallacy, if such and such was such a good method why don't professionals use it today.

The last page of this entire thread was a nearly incomprehensible back and forth about why boxers still do road work. Oh it must be tradition.

So when the training methods of pro atheletes align with your biases its super professionally advanced professional science, when it doesn't oh they're just needlessly adhering to tradition. See the contradiction?

Boxers and other pro fighters still do roadwork because it's good conditioning. If it was proven that there was another better way they'd do that instead... An attitude which tends to run contrary to that of most traditional martial artists and those who've been arguining for horse stance training.

The problem is the dogmatic attitude that a certain kind of training is best even when there are better ways of doing things as evidenced by the hundreds of fighters who do it. That's not appeal to authority. That's multiple case study from reliable sources who do this stuff for a living. Professionals do things based on the best data at hand. If a better training method comes along they snap it up.

It's the difference between an evidence based way of doing things and sticking your head in the sand when something contradicts your viewpoint.

[Lucas]

It's also important to note that if you want to study a traditional style of chinese martial arts, you must learn how to do a proper horse (along with all the other stances) so thats definately a benefit, if you want to study chinese martial arts that is. do you need cma? nope. but if you like it and want to do it, guess what? horse stance is a must, just like yoda said.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yep, this thread has confirmed my greatest fears about this forum.

[ginosifu]

Ok so getting away from my david bashing, a serious question for you all.
= if there is a better way to strengthen the legs, build power and endurance in them, a method that they didn’t have full access to back in the old days but we do have access to now, why hang on to those old methods, I’m not saying they are not of use or don’t have some merit BUT if a superior method is available why still do it?

Let me first state that getting stronger is good, however I do not see a tremendous value for MA to have super strong legs. What I am getting at is "How much is too much"

Do you really need all that strength in your legs? Can't you get by with just MA exercises like Horse (whether static or moving etc)? What id them purpose to super leg strength?

I have gotten by without lifting weights. No squats (sorry bawang), no leg press.. nothing. I have won fights in grappling and stand up style... so whats the big deal?

I kick hard, I can pick 250 guys up and slam em ( I'm 5'3" and 155lbs). Help me understand why a MA needs to go beyond the Kwoon for leg strength.

ginosifu

[Bacon]

It's also important to note that if you want to study a traditional style of chinese martial arts, you must learn how to do a proper horse (along with all the other stances) so thats definately a benefit, if you want to study chinese martial arts that is. do you need cma? nope. but if you like it and want to do it, guess what? horse stance is a must, just like yoda said.

I will agree that it's vital for your stance to be good so you can move into using it for footwork. Every martial artist must have a good stance whether it's hung gar, wing chun, boxing or muay Thai. The difference is that the arts which have proven to be highly effective do not spend time standing in their stance for long periods. They learn it and then move on to footwork. For physical conditioning they do dynamic movements using bodyweight and weights as well as plyometrics. They're at the peak of physical condition and they fight for a living and yet boxers, Thai boxers, kickboxers, wrestlers, and mma fighters you will never see wasting time with "stance" training beyond beginner level of learning footwork.

[Lucas]

Yep, this thread has confirmed my greatest fears about this forum.

You fear my power.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You fear my power.

Nah, you've been good.
Its the simple fact that people will read what they WANT to read into something, that is the major cause of conflict and arguments on this forum.
Regardless of what a person will say in a post, another will pick one part that they THINK is wrong based on what they THINK the other person is saying and off they go.
I used to think that happened only in the WC forum.
I now see that it is not restricted to that.
Shame really.

[Lucas]

I will agree that it's vital for your stance to be good so you can move into using it for footwork. Every martial artist must have a good stance whether it's hung gar, wing chun, boxing or muay Thai. The difference is that the arts which have proven to be highly effective do not spend time standing in their stance for long periods. They learn it and then move on to footwork. For physical conditioning they do dynamic movements using bodyweight and weights as well as plyometrics. They're at the peak of physical condition and they fight for a living and yet boxers, Thai boxers, kickboxers, wrestlers, and mma fighters you will never see wasting time with "stance" training beyond beginner level of learning footwork.

And you see a lot of successful sanda full contact fighters doing it. so whats your point? the reason those fighters dont is because it was never even part of the training regime, yet it has always been part of chinese martial arts, who yes, do have successful full contact fighters. and some of these guys compete in muay thai, so your example of people who fight in muay thai is wrong. maybe not the thai guys, because they do thai style, but some chinese fighters who fight in thai rules do train stances.

and if you actually read any of my posts, you will see what i view as stance training, and static stance holding is just a small portion of stance training. never the less, you are wrong, you just choose to not acknoledge sanda, for some reason.

are you saying sanda is not a good full contact sport fighting venue?

[Lucas]

Nah, you've been good.
Its the simple fact that people will read what they WANT to read into something, that is the major cause of conflict and arguments on this forum.
Regardless of what a person will say in a post, another will pick one part that they THINK is wrong based on what they THINK the other person is saying and off they go.
I used to think that happened only in the WC forum.
I now see that it is not restricted to that.
Shame really.

inernet nature...

[Bacon]

and if you actually read any of my posts, you will see what i view as stance training, and static stance holding is just a small portion of stance training. never the less, you are wrong, you just choose to not acknoledge sanda, for some reason.

are you saying sanda is not a good full contact sport fighting venue?

And you can't accept that those methods have been improved upon?

As for sanda being a good full contact venue the rules a little skewed IMO and as much as it is a huge improvement over most of the CMA world... until you show me a sanda fighter who is a champion in Muay Thai or a major MMA organization or multiple organizations.. they just don't rate that highly.

For example take Bas Rutten. He studied Kyokushin and taekwondo and then began competing in muay Thai at age 20 and became the European muay Thai championship contender. Then he became three time King of Pancrase and UFC heavyweight champion.
Add all that together and I'd say his training did him pretty well. I've never seen anything even close from a sanda fighter. They may compete in Muay Thai but show me one who has become a champion at the pro level.
[/off topic]