This is another post on a subject similar to the bouncy-bouncy post. I have observed the vast difference of practitioners performing kata vs. sparring in regards to stance application.
Watch a sparring match, dojo or tournament, and you may notice that if a person is not stuck in the bouncy-bouncy thing they assume, set stoically, a specific stance. Every time for all occasions as if it were this one unique multi-purpose never miss anything goes well stance. I knew visiting practitioners that would take a naihanchi type deep stance with either the left or right side facing you for sparring. Every time, no change and no other stance utilized.
This, in my humble opinion, rooted that person into only one type of sparring. Back and forth in a straight line and usually the very fast but point-oriented back fist to the head or chest, etc. Apparently a sport oriented get the point so the judge can see it thing.
I quote, "Stances give us base, structure, and mobility. They provide choices and options. They allow us to control range, cover distance, safely put our body weight into a move, keep us balanced, allow for effective offense and defense, and keep our retreats organized and secured, instead of becoming routs. All this comes from knowing how to move from stance to stance in reaction to what is happening at the moment." - Marc MacYoung, Tristan Sutrisno, and Dianna Gordon: see bibliography below.
Stances are a critical fundamental to any fighting system. Yet, do practitioners today spend the time to learn them in and out; forward and backward?
Example or Comment: Did you know that there is a stance assumed to be ready to fight and all the other stances are for when your in the fight? Think a natural stance for every day activity, i.e. hands are usually down by your side. Now, consider a possible fight is brewing (hope you practice avoidance and don't get to this point) simply raise your hands up in front of your body now your ready. If the fight begins then transition into the stance and techniques, multiple, to deal with and end the fight. Just my example or comment on what I see as the differences, make sense? If you are in a natural stance then move to a ready stance you have projected, body language, a non-aggressive posture yet your ready to instantly move, in any direction, and take a fight kamae and strike, punch, etc., any one appropriate to the moment, and be done with it. Or, am I full of it? ;-)
Bibliography:
Sutrisno, Tristan, MacYoung, Marc and Gordon, Dianna. "Becoming a Complete Martial Artist: Error Detection in Self Defense and the Martial Arts." Lyons Press. Connecticut. 2005.
I remember Musashi's position on stances and movement, basically the way to move and stand in battle should not be much different than how we move and stand in daily life. Granted, some stances and body movements are better suited to perform certain techniques or allow better mobility, grounding, or transition; however, in civilian defense these should be trained so as to complement natural movement and be nothing more than transitions in effecting techniques.
ReplyDeleteHi, JoRoman: Thank you for your input/comment.
ReplyDeleteWhy it is so important to make sure one understands the basics/fundamentals.
Each technique applied has the optimal stance that goes with it and all of it as a result of stimuli for a given moment.
Too many gloss over the basics/fundamentals for the glory of the glitzy flashy thingy.
Thanks!