An ode to the deep stance: Contrarian thoughts on physics

[JusticeZero]

Exactly. We focus on mobility, and we do it all with low stances; some low stance using styles' forms have students moving a lot, but people seem to just accept that the low stances cannot move for some reason. The movement style isn't exactly the same as the high stances, yes.

Furthermore, the lower stances have advantages that make it worthwhile to try to research this - lower c/g for grappling and countergrappling, and the ability to remove a large portion of the penalty of lower body mass thanks to the vectors of force being able to be kept inside of the base.

[sperki]

Clearly a low stance doesn't mean you can't move, and it's definitely better for getting leverage, but I'm inclined to argue that a high stance is more mobile. At least if there's much ground to cover.

[JusticeZero]

Do you have any evidence for that assertion, though, that counters what i've posted up? As noted, I am in the position of having to hear people assert that it is physically impossible for anyone to do something I and my low level students do every day. The other day on a lark, I substituted in L-shaped long bow and arrow stances and then did some of my footwork exercises. My mobility failed to vanish. I'm not completely clear where it is that i'm getting results that are completely opposite to yours.

Is it because you are mistaking steps for distance? If you are taking two steps for every one of mine, then saying "But i'm taking almost twice as many steps - clearly i'm covering more distance!" then that would be a glitch in measurement. It would not be the first time; it is hard to measure speed when sizes of objects differ, this is why people think that very large ships are moving slowly when in fact they are actually very fast - they are measuring by the distance from bow to stern, which is very large.

[lit-arate]

On the complete opposite end of the spectrum from your original post, I'm 6'6" and built like a flagpole (well, okay, not completely opposite). As a result, if I want to hit anyone with any kind of power, my stances have to be low--otherwise, I'm either punching at an awkward angle contrary to my forward motion, or kicking without a stable base.

I was also probably the third most mobile person in our Kenpo dojo back in CA--and the other two (my sensei and the sempai) fought from relatively lower stances than I did.

So, proof from on high in your favor. Literally.

[SamsIAmz]

I think you need enough flexibility for the stance you are taking. If you are not flexible enough, you will not be comfortable in a deep stance and you won't be very mobile either. For most people this means a deep stance is not practical, but can be improved upon.

[bushido_man96]

I think you need enough flexibility for the stance you are taking. If you are not flexible enough, you will not be comfortable in a deep stance and you won't be very mobile either. For most people this means a deep stance is not practical, but can be improved upon.

I think most of the stances we see in the Martial Arts, front stance, back stance, horse stance, etc, should be achievable by just about anyone who can walk normally. Some performers get really deep into front stances or back stances; those guys are doing that for show for the most part, and I don't think that is what is practical. But I think with your standard variety of MA stances, anyone should be ok moving in them, with the right amount of practice.

[sensei8]

Deep stances...up-righted stances?!?!? Methodologies/ideologies will vary depending on whom one asks. Shindokan favors stances that are more up-righted/narrow: it's our way.

The idea behind the narrow stance is mobility and speed, whereas the wider/deeper, where stability and straight ahead, deep lunging attacking capability is favored. What works for one isn't going to work for another; both style and practitioner.

I, personally like both, I've trained them both, they have their uses across the board, and imho, neither are just for show.