Switching stance in kumite

[shortyafter]

Specifically talking about Kyokushin full contact kumite here, but I suppose it applies to just about any style of kumite. I also do Shotokan, and of course it would be nice to know for a self-defense type situation also. In the dojo we practice all techniques from both stances (left/right leg). However, I am much more comfortable firing from my right side (left leg forward, right leg back).

So my question is - what are the benefits of switching stances? Obviously to switch it up on the opponent, etc. And I get there's no reason to train only one side, that would be foolish. But what's the trick to switching up your stance in kumite? Why do it? When do it? I always assumed it was something you just do, but I'm watching some MMA guys and they don't seem to change for anything or anyone.

Any insight? Thanks.

[Jesi Boy]

There are a few advantages of fighting in the opposite stance to your opponent.

The first thing that comes to mind, is that you will be able to attack their front leg a lot more. If you are someone who likes to do foot sweeps, you will find that it is much easier when fighting toe-to-toe.

Another factor that may play to your advantage, is that you will be able to use different techniques that involve breaking the line. It is hard to describe these through words, but you may find that you will be able to kick them in the back a lot easier having broken the line from an opposite stance.

Many people do not like fighting toe-to-toes, so they will more than likely switch their stance. This could mean that the person will now be on their WEAKER side, meaning their techniques will not be as good and they will be more uncomfortable, which ultimately will play in your advantage (assuming you are equally as good on both sides).

Regardless of the advantages of fighting in the opposite stance, a good fighter should be able to do it anyway.

I hope this has helped!

-Jesi Boy

[singularity6]

Looking outside Asian martial arts, you'll notice boxers will switch stances up.

Switching stances is more of a suggestion, then a hard-fast rule. I'm still fairly new at sparring. When I first started, my heart rate went through the roof, and I really couldn't do much. My instructors worked with me on breathing, and paying attention to the stance. At first, me switching stances was was very much a conscious effort. Now it's a bit more of a reflex, so I feel there's a lesson in awareness of your opponent build in here.

Another thought: Most people are right handed, so their stances will favor their right side. Switching to the left will (hopefully) force the opponent into a less comfortable position. It's all about you maintaining balance and control while taking it away from your opponent.

[sensei8]

what are the benefits of switching stances?

In a nut shell...

It's a personal choice. Do it or don't do it; there's no universal answer...there's no universal protocol whatsoever.

[Zaine]

I agree with sensei8. I will only add that being able to switch stances and let that feel natural will make you more flexible as a fighter. Switching your stance might throw your opponents off if they are inexperienced with sparring, but my experience is that the more experienced fighters know how to handle it.

[shortyafter]

There are a few advantages of fighting in the opposite stance to your opponent.

The first thing that comes to mind, is that you will be able to attack their front leg a lot more. If you are someone who likes to do foot sweeps, you will find that it is much easier when fighting toe-to-toe.

Another factor that may play to your advantage, is that you will be able to use different techniques that involve breaking the line. It is hard to describe these through words, but you may find that you will be able to kick them in the back a lot easier having broken the line from an opposite stance.

Many people do not like fighting toe-to-toes, so they will more than likely switch their stance. This could mean that the person will now be on their WEAKER side, meaning their techniques will not be as good and they will be more uncomfortable, which ultimately will play in your advantage (assuming you are equally as good on both sides).

Regardless of the advantages of fighting in the opposite stance, a good fighter should be able to do it anyway.

I hope this has helped!

-Jesi Boy

Hi Jesi Boy. Yes, this is quite helpful. It makes sense why someone would want to go toe-to-toe. However, my question is more specifically - when and why would someone switch from an opposite stance to toe-to-toe within a single fight? Just to mess with the opponent? I'm not totally clear.

In a nut shell...

It's a personal choice. Do it or don't do it; there's no universal answer...there's no universal protocol whatsoever.

Sensei8, your practical approach is always refreshing. Never looked at it this way. Thanks.

Thanks to the other guys as well for your insight. All of this makes sense.

[DWx]

I'm speaking from a predominantly TKD background but I think the same logic applies...

I prefer to think of stances as a more fluid thing. You transition through them but they are not fixed positions. What stance you are in at any given point is as a result of where you've just been, and where you want to go next. This is especially true of kicking styles. If you roundhouse someone with your right leg, you may just as well put it in front of you and land in a southpaw stance as pull it behind and land in orthodox. Whichever stance you take will give you different options to work with; it all depends on your current situation and what you want to do next.

The choice of stance can also be a conscious decision based on how your opponent is standing. Do you want to go toe-to-toe, or do you want to be their mirror image? It'll impact on how you can respond to an attack and what you can initiate with.

I will say training one side only limits your options and you'll be forced to return to the same stance each time. Of course there are some who have had very successful fighting careers fighting off of one side only such as Bill Superfoot Wallace however he fought this way because of an old injury. If you have the ability, why limit yourself?

[shortyafter]

I'm speaking from a predominantly TKD background but I think the same logic applies...

I prefer to think of stances as a more fluid thing. You transition through them but they are not fixed positions. What stance you are in at any given point is as a result of where you've just been, and where you want to go next. This is especially true of kicking styles. If you roundhouse someone with your right leg, you may just as well put it in front of you and land in a southpaw stance as pull it behind and land in orthodox. Whichever stance you take will give you different options to work with; it all depends on your current situation and what you want to do next.

The choice of stance can also be a conscious decision based on how your opponent is standing. Do you want to go toe-to-toe, or do you want to be their mirror image? It'll impact on how you can respond to an attack and what you can initiate with.

I will say training one side only limits your options and you'll be forced to return to the same stance each time. Of course there are some who have had very successful fighting careers fighting off of one side only such as Bill Superfoot Wallace however he fought this way because of an old injury. If you have the ability, why limit yourself?

Hi, thanks. For sure! I absolutely want to train both sides. And even in jyu kumite or light kumite I want to be practicing both sides. I guess I was just wondering, like, when we're doing full contact or find ourselves in real life self-defense situation, what reasons would I have to be changing up my stance? You and the others have done a great job answering this. Thanks!

[Alan Armstrong]

Toe to toe (mirroring) works against an un-experienced fighter, so as to attack their outside/blind side.

An experienced fighter however, will not go toe to toe and will step out a little and pivot from the leading front foot; that leaves the opponent open for attack and secures an effective line of attack and defense simultaneously.