Stance confusion

[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.

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."

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! )... 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?! 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.