20 posts / 0 new
Last post
Andrew Sheldon-...
Andrew Sheldon-Thomson's picture
Are Karate Stances Actually That Useful?

Hi

I have been thinking about whether or not the karate stances are actually a good way to practice movement.   When I look at them I increasingly feel that the stances are likely to have been altered over time and they increasingly no longer perform the function for which they were intended.

For instance can anyone explain to me the purpose of Sanchin Dachi?   What function does it serve / what situation would you use it in?

The argument in favour of sanchin dachi seems to be that it makes you more stable and mobile.   My problem with this seems to be simply untrue.   The stance encourages you internally rotate your hips which must cause instability.  The internally rotated hips also cause you to drop your knees and stick your butt out.  This is just not a strong position as it encourages you to disengage your core.  In fact people who have naturally internally rotated hips are literally given disability allowance in the UK, so I have not idea why we are choosing to adopt this position.

Now some people can make this position strong through practice but this does not mean it is in any way optimal.   When making themselves strong in this position they usually make themselves completely immobile.

The arm movements in kata suggest that the stance is used close in for grappling but grapplers would not lock the legs in the way we typically practice it in karate.

Is the move intended to symbolise something or is it working on strength or similar?   To be honest I don’t see the value in the stance the way it is typically practiced.

I am also not a fan of zenkutsu dachi.   To my mind we are actually practicing over striding.  This creates instability and means we are not in an optimal position to throw strikes.  There are limited situations where this is useful.   For instance when some one pushes you and you are seeking to step back stabilise yourself against their forward pressure.   But this stance is often used when practicing striking.   People march forward up and down their dojo in the stance and then throw their strikes.   Why?   You are much more stable if you take a normal size step forward.   You can throw your strikes much more effectively from a shorter stance a natural step in length.

When you step forward you are using your ankle as a leaver.  Yet in some styles put all their weight on the forward leg and push their knee forward before moving.   This means you can not use the ankle in the way it is designed and so you end up having to do a convoluted contraction and expansion to move forward.

Again I am not denying some people can through practice do this in a strong powerful way – but this does not mean it is optimal.   To my mind these stances are actually suboptimal ways of moving and this is shown by the fact people pretty much abandon them as soon as they start sparring.

Any thoughts on this are welcome.

Les Bubka
Les Bubka's picture

Hi Andrew

For me positions work, but my stances are much shorter and higher, in relation to sanchin, it depends what sanchin you using I assume you talking about really turned toes in, this one I don't like. my sanchin is created by slightly turning heel out, I use it as most of the boxer when I throw hook.

For zenkutsu I use it for resisting push in grappling, it is natural position for pushing. Not the one where your leg is straight but the one where you have naturally flexed knee just like you stand. Wrestlers especially Greco-Romano use zenkutsu dachi to control.

In the clip below you can see both positions used by wrestlers.

 

Position are not stationary they are fluid, what we see in kata are the snap shots.

Below clip of me using sanchin as a sweep,

 

Kind regards

Les

colby
colby's picture

Stances are a moment in time, man. You go from a natural free flowing stance to a karate stance back to a normal stance.

For instance: https://youtu.be/IXR6lyV_bVY

It's for Wing Chun but the principle is the same. Point being is that all of the stances you see get used but it's only there for a split second and the movement isnt overly pronounced like in the dojo, isnt as big, and is gone in a split second.

For instance in regards to one of the stances you were asking about:

Andrew Sheldon-...
Andrew Sheldon-Thomson's picture

I like that use you make of sanchin as a sweep I can see that being a useful technique.  Although this seems quite different to the way people actually practice it.   It would change how you do the motion.  Using it as sweep you would have two distinct hip motions one out and one back.  Instead people tend to push forward into the stance turning the hips in and locking the legs.   I like your version but I don't see value in the way it is normally practiced.

I get that the movements are only points we pass through.   But unfortunatly this is not how they are typically practiced.  Instead people train them as almost fixed positions and train them in a way that holds little relationship to how you would actually use them in practice.   The enphasis on strength and position actually running counter to the ability to move.

colby
colby's picture
Andrew Sheldon-Thomson wrote:

I like that use you make of sanchin as a sweep I can see that being a useful technique.  Although this seems quite different to the way people actually practice it.   It would change how you do the motion.  Using it as sweep you would have two distinct hip motions one out and one back.  Instead people tend to push forward into the stance turning the hips in and locking the legs.   I like your version but I don't see value in the way it is normally practiced.

I get that the movements are only points we pass through.   But unfortunatly this is not how they are typically practiced.  Instead people train them as almost fixed positions and train them in a way that holds little relationship to how you would actually use them in practice.   The enphasis on strength and position actually running counter to the ability to move.

As with anything it depends on the dojo that you are going to because they may be training it for different reasons. Training to the way you described is a great work out and is needed for beginners to develop their legs but at an certain point there needs to a shift to making the stances more dynamic. And some dojos, some don't, it just depends. But just because people may be training the stances wrong does not mean the stances dont work.

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

e wrote:
You are much more stable if you take a normal size step forward.   You can throw your strikes much more effectively from a shorter stance a natural step in length.

While the crescent step is often over-emphasized, I think you are going off track a bit here. When step forward in pretty much any combative fashion, you do not want to redistribute weight the way you do in normal walking. This is as much true in boxing or whatever else, the point is to move forward without needing to readjust the combative posture, and ideally without needing the "controlled fall" of walking - unless you are using it. So there are some things to criticize with "floor kihon" the way it's often done, but i'm not convinced this is one of them.

There's the stances, then there's the issue of how they are taught.

Without trying to be too controversial, the "forced" way I've seen Sanchin done (and was originally taught to do it) indeed does not seem terribly useful to me. The hip rotation is fine, lots of combative stance involve the hip rotated in, the weight is just held differently. If the butt is sticking out in Sanchin stance, it is done incorrectly. There is a particular spinal alignment for the stance. If you learn it is great for close quarters explosiveness, but not neccessarily other things. It is of very little use at long distance.

Add in the forward movement/stepping, which again only works if you are doing the static part right. -Then- you translate what you've learned in these basic things into direct movements on punching bags, partners, etc. It won't look exactly the same because nothing does once we remove it from isolated practices. Sanchin stance actually contains some serious power generation in the step. If you are just looking at the static stance, you are missing the main utility, in my opinion.

I think the stances as basic postures are all proven, you can watch (for instance) an MMA bout and see almost all the Karate stances used. How they are taught -in Karate- on the other hand, is often a problem because the component of how to move in them is missing, and they are taught in way that divorces them from application. Of course they don't really "work" like that. The stances that cannot be found in MMA are stances which are intended for close range "kick off" because MMA fights start at range. In my opinion this is what Sanchin is, and this is why this sort of upright but rooted posture is mostly found in Traditional Arts.

So, if stances aren't working look at how deep or shallow they are, what part of the foot you are pressing with when you move etc. Upon stepping if you press too much from the heel during the movement it disrupts the entire body. The body should be shifted slightly forward so that the middle part of the foot can sustain the weight and the ball can be used to "steer". The spine should be in a combative posture (shared with other arts/sports), if it is not and you have your natrual upright spine, and your chin jutting out, movement is clunkier, and you are building bad habits.

Karate stances favor stability over mobility. There are real downsides to this if you are (for example) practicing any kind of drilling or sparring that involves no real tactile contact, where you mostly hit/kick and move, and are mostly dealing with long-range, less committed punches and kicks from partners. Traditional Karate stances are not great for this kind of engagement, because they weren't made for it. The optimal stance and movement for that kind of engagement is found in combat sports that emphasizes staying at these ranges.

To determine whether they "work" you have to figure out what you want the stances to do, and whether or not you are using them correctly for that purpose. in my experience they work poorly for some things (again, any practice that heavily emphasizes mobile hitting), and very well for others - for instance anything that involves tactile contact, pulling or pushing, or more committed attacks. Shiko Dachi works great when you are close to someone for uprooting them, crashing into them and for our own stability at close range, but would be insane at longer ranges. It's also often done in kata with a posture that divorces it from the real applications, in which you are usually "hunched" somewhat, but does not look aesthetically pleasing.

e wrote:
Again I am not denying some people can through practice do this in a strong powerful way – but this does not mean it is optimal.   To my mind these stances are actually suboptimal ways of moving and this is shown by the fact people pretty much abandon them as soon as they start sparring.

I would say that is an artifact of how people usually spar, if sparring is done at distance with no tactile component, and nothing that resembles what the Katas address, it is natural that the favored stances will be something closer to boxing or kickboxing, where mobility is the prime concern. Also here people tend to attack in a mostly uncommitted way until flurries begin to happen, at which point you see naturally more rooted stances.

There is no point in evaluating Karate material using modern distance sparring engagements, as Iain and others have pointed out for years, most of the material was not created for this kind of engagement, and does not function well there.

Iain teaches a Kata based Sparring drill where you tie people together with belts or what have you, and have them strike from that distance. I began doing this years ago with my class, it is amazing how quickly all the postures and stances you learn come into play when you just change and maintain the distance, let alone other factors.

Stances definitely do not work for what is now seen as "traditional" Karate-style sparring, but which in fact is probably not terribly traditional. Not to belabor that point, lots of people have written on it for years.

If you want a basic open-ended drill to feel stances, here is one I use:

Instead of working against someone stepping in and trying to hit you, or engaging in another manner at range, have someone step in to grab and "stiff arm" or pull you you as they throw multiple punches. it's a simple, semi-live drill that shows the "why" of Karate stances and postures pretty dramatically, using a common attack found in actual physical violence, rather than symmetrical "chess match" sparring set ups.

Andrew Sheldon-Thomson wrote:
I like that use you make of sanchin as a sweep I can see that being a useful technique.  Although this seems quite different to the way people actually practice it.   It would change how you do the motion.  Using it as sweep you would have two distinct hip motions one out and one back.  Instead people tend to push forward into the stance turning the hips in and locking the legs.   I like your version but I don't see value in the way it is normally practiced.

I get that the movements are only points we pass through.   But unfortunatly this is not how they are typically practiced.  Instead people train them as almost fixed positions and train them in a way that holds little relationship to how you would actually use them in practice.   The enphasis on strength and position actually running counter to the ability to move.

Then your issue is not the content, but how it's being taught and trained. I doubt you'll find much disagreement on this site, as most people here probably at one time or another had the exact same thought about fundamentals being trained strangely, especially people who have been at it a while.

Les Bubka
Les Bubka's picture

Andrew, 

To be honest I don't care too much what other people do. I focus on things that work for me. Karate needs to be funcional for me not others. 

Kind regards

Les 

Andrew Sheldon-...
Andrew Sheldon-Thomson's picture

Your gate cycle when moving has 3 parts.  Heel strike, mid point and toe push off.  You generate the momentum to move from either heel strike or the toe push off.   The ankle is used as lever to propel you forward so needs to be in alignment with the direction of movement.

Your leg has a ball joint at the hip and hinge joints at the ankle and knee.   Ball joints are designed for rotation and hinge joints are not.   So whenever you rotate the leg you must use your hip to do it.     Any time you rotate the leg from the foot or the knee you are putting strain/pressure on your body and creating instability (although if you have practiced it this way for a while it may not feel it). 

The problem with a lot of stances to my mind is that the way they are taught they violate these principles.

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

The gait cycle does not apply to martial movement,  our walking gate is poor for martial movement agenerally. over-rotating in Sanchin that is a big deal, and bad for you. The knees should be roughly over the  middle toe. Past that is pointless for martial arts and bad for knees in my opinion.

I think trying to measure efficacy the way you are doesn't make much sense to be honest, I used to be a massage therapist and had a year of kinesiology by the way, so I'm not ignorant of the mechanics you're talking about.

if you can perform a movement, unless it is actually straining your joints or doing something else pysically harmful, then the mark of efficay in martial arts is just whether or not it works as advertised for martial movement, not whether or not it resembles other physical actions, such as walking.

Beyond trhat, unless someone is somehow trying to rotate from a  hinge joint (i.e. the knee, which if I remember is technically a modified hinge anyway), then I'm not sure what the issue you are describing is. So I think you are starting with the wrong criteria. Abstractions about healthy walking apply from a health standpoint, but if there is no health issue, then the yardstick should be martial effectiveness here.

Andrew Sheldon-...
Andrew Sheldon-Thomson's picture

As far as the gait cycle goes I was really trying to make the point that people have over extended their stances, pushed their feet into odd angles and indoing so compromised their movement.   Well I take your point that what works is ultimately what is efficent - the question is how to get to the optimal method.   The gait cycle would apply any time you push off the ground so I don't see any distinction between martial and non-martial use.

People unwittingly use their foot and knee to turn themselves a lot when performing kata etc.  This causes strain on your body.   Its one of the principle reasons MMA fighters get ACL injuries.  No one would say pro MMA fighters are not martially effective but using methods that don't damage your body is desireable and more mechanically efficent.

I am still unconvinced by sanchin dachi as a stance for close in work - there are just better ways to stand.  I like the idea presented about using it as a sweeping motion.  This makes a lot sence to me and makes me wonder if any time you see a stance which is a bit weird whether it likely has some application implication that is not always immediately apparent.

AllyWhytock
AllyWhytock's picture

Hi Andrew,

In this drill, we use Sanchin Dachi to support a Class 3 lever (tweezers). We've taken the person down, whilst retaining their vertical arm with our hands (the fulcrum). The knees of Sanchin Dachi act as the force.  Also, note the right knee locating the head prior to locating the arm.

We could then change to a Class 1 Lever by using the knees as the fulcrum (between elbow and shoulder) and apply a force angled downward.

Kindest Regards,

Ally

colby
colby's picture

It appears like what everyone is that your too wrapped up in the way of training stances is the way they must be done all the time. Which isnt true, just look at Iains point about stances, specifically how you get a beginner to displace their body weight.

But as you learn and grow you still want that base root but you want to be fluid with your movement and efficient with it.

Here are some examples of what I mean, notice his feet:

 

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Andrew Sheldon-Thomson wrote:

As far as the gait cycle goes I was really trying to make the point that people have over extended their stances, pushed their feet into odd angles and indoing so compromised their movement.   Well I take your point that what works is ultimately what is efficent - the question is how to get to the optimal method.   The gait cycle would apply any time you push off the ground so I don't see any distinction between martial and non-martial use.

I don't think this is correct. The gait cycle applies to "natural" human locomotion, which is quite a bit dfferent from the locomotion taught in martial arts. At this point I have learned the stepping methods in Tai Chi, Goju Ryu, Boxing and Judo, none of them resemble a normal step, because generally speaking a normal step makes one vulnerable and off balance in these various martial contexts, and is also not a good vehicle to deliver strikes, etc. from. At least in Karate, Judo and Boxing stepping as i've learned them, you are trying to eliminate or minimize the the part of the walking gait that is essentially a controlled fall or drop, because it is so vital to control your center of gravity when getting hit, hitting, grappling, etc.

e wrote:
People unwittingly use their foot and knee to turn themselves a lot when performing kata etc.  This causes strain on your body.   Its one of the principle reasons MMA fighters get ACL injuries.  No one would say pro MMA fighters are not martially effective but using methods that don't damage your body is desireable and more mechanically efficent.

What people unwittingly do that?

e wrote:
I am still unconvinced by sanchin dachi as a stance for close in work - there are just better ways to stand.  I like the idea presented about using it as a sweeping motion.  This makes a lot sence to me and makes me wonder if any time you see a stance which is a bit weird whether it likely has some application implication that is not always immediately apparent.

It's hard to respond with much detail to this because earlier you mentioned doing it incorrectly - with the butt sticking out, as if it was a standard method and you aren't giving any detail about how you were actually taught to do Sanchin stance, people teach different things. There is a wide range of what constitutes "correct" in different people's Karate. The things you describe about it are not how I understand it. It definitely wouldn't be optimum with the feet too heavily turned in and the butt sticking out, and if you never really learned the stepping, it also wouldn't be of that much use.

I'm sure for some people it is not an effective stance, and I actually agree that some of the "kihon stance" style training in Karate can be counter-productive. The way I learned it I feel it is particularly effective for explosive close range punching and forward motion. The most similar thing I have learned anywhere else is actually the basic boxing stance I learned recently, where the feet both face forward but the back heel is raised, the body is somewhat curled in, weight is dropped forward and the hands are closer to the body. Stances are not just a "way to stand" in Karate, they are a set of postural preferences or a frame meant to be combined with a movement. If we simply view them as a way to stand or as static postures then indeed they don't make much sense.

My first Karate teachers never taught that much detail on how to move stance to stance, in general I would say stances were almost "PT" in that we weren't really even trying to move efficiently. Later in life my Goju teacher taught me specific methods such as the one in this Paul Enfield video

 

It completely changes the dynamic of how you use stances when you learn to transition quickly between them, they are actually usable. The heel-up "crescent step" (not the over emphasized sloggy variety) is vital to understanding them, but it can get glossed over in favor of reptitious and laborious "floor work" sometimes. So I think I see where you are coming from, but it sounds like a complaint with how they are taught and contextualized more than anything else.

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Here is another interesting video

 

Here he talks about being "flat footed" on the front foot, which is a feature of most Karate stances. Some of the most powerful stuff I've learned in Karate was from an old school Okinawan practitioner who used his feet much the way this video talks about. I think the advice the video is completely spot on for the differences between sport stance vs. a stance focused on the needs of self protection. The issue is that in the "3 K" method of stances, there tends to be very little mobility, it's all stablity, because the drill (floor walking usually) has become it's own goal, and is often divorced from the application.

Conversely, the stance used in most sparring is highly mobile, but typically does not take into consideration the sort of things he talks about in the video. Another example of the details of the "labratory" effecting the results of the experiment.

Andrew Sheldon-...
Andrew Sheldon-Thomson's picture

I don't really agree that the motion is different to the gate cycle in martial arts.   Paul Enfield is esentiall demonstrating the toe push off section of the gate cycle and the flat foot position is the mid point of the gate cycle.   People are not using the gate cycle properly when they have over extended stances which is the reason you would fall forward.   If the length of your stance is correct then you won't do this.   As you point out the knee should not be too far forward - this would be an example of people working against the gate cycle.   Similarly when people put a lot of weight on the leg they are attempting to move they kill the ankles ability to move properly.  

When you turn using the hip your leg will naturally lock.    So for examples of when people turn using their foot or knee just look for people whos leg wobbles after the turn.

Chris R
Chris R's picture

I generally view stances in kata as principles rather than explicit instructions. To me they're standardized positions that convey a message about the intended footwork. Footwork should be dynamic and natural in application, and a static kata position can't accurately represent that. So I take the principles from the static kata position, and apply them in a natural way. I would never move towards someone with stepping zenkutsu dachis as that would be ridiculous, but zenkutsu dachi does a good job of being a standardized position that conveys principles. So it's useful as a part of kata, but I don't use it explicitly when I apply the kata. If that makes sense? So I'd say yes karate stances are useful, just in a different way than you might expect. As for sanchin, its not a part of my style so I'm not very knowledgeable on it. Perhaps someone else knows the stances intended function?

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Andrew Sheldon-Thomson wrote:
I don't really agree that the motion is different to the gate cycle in martial arts.   Paul Enfield is esentiall demonstrating the toe push off section of the gate cycle and the flat foot position is the mid point of the gate cycle.   People are not using the gate cycle properly when they have over extended stances which is the reason you would fall forward.   If the length of your stance is correct then you won't do this.   As you point out the knee should not be too far forward - this would be an example of people working against the gate cycle.   Similarly when people put a lot of weight on the leg they are attempting to move they kill the ankles ability to move properly.  

When you turn using the hip your leg will naturally lock.    So for examples of when people turn using their foot or knee just look for people whos leg wobbles after the turn.

What people are you talking about? What is a correct length of stance to you? For instance my stances are probably much shorter than anyone who practices Shotokan, there is no real unified stance width or length out there, it varies greatly by style. As far as weight on the front leg, it depends on the amount of weight, but one example is that to use (for instance) a Jack Dempsey style drop step (here's a vid example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHy-rG9Pfwk), you have to have enough weight on the leg to actually use gravity to "drop" you forward, otherwise it's just a shuffle forward and not a drop, and you can't attach a meaningful strike to the step. The equivalent would be tsuri-ashi in Karate. If the leg is not bent enough and the knee are far behind the toes of the lead foot, you cannot generate the forward momentum needed, and have to artfiically adjust your position to strike. you can actually test this with a partner, a person who cannot line up their knee and toe and put enough weight forward will have the slower jab, because they have to shift forward before executing it. They effectively also give up reach that way. Take any technique that comes of the lead foor with a tsuri-ashi and it's the same, you actually need weight on the front foot to execute such techniques, the whole posture of this kind of technique relies on it, in fact. Again I can't quite tell what a "bad" stance is in your example, so beyond that it's hard to say much.

It's impossible to converse much more about this without you giving some examples. As far as the gait cycle being like martial arts, we can agree to disagree, trying to use a walking gait in the vast majority of martial arts simply isn't done, for good reason.

I feel like your actual argument could be summed up by simply saying "some Karateka use inefficient stances", a statement which I'm sure a lot of people could get on board with, and isn't real controversial.

The sort of stuff you are describing is not optimal use of Karate stances to me, but bad training of them. I have something like 30+ years now in Karate, so I've seen a wide variety of good and bad stances and stance training. I think at one time the majority of people practicing Karate (say, the 80s and 90s) probably did some weird stuff with stances. The landscape of what people do in the dojo has changed a ton in that time though. To a degree that I'm not even sure one can generalize about how things are done beyond larger organizations with standardized curricula, some of whom  do seem stuck in a sometimes rigid way of doing things.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi All,

As I see it, we can basically divide the combative function of “stances” into three categories:

1) Snapshots of movement, for early learning purposes, that will be flowed to and through in order to generate force in subsequent practise and application.

2) Positions taken to limit the enemy’s options for movement (i.e. putting a leg behind their leg).

3) Positions capable of absorbing force such that balance is maintained (i.e. what we would do to make ourselves stable if pushed or pulled).

It is obviously important to know which one is in being demonstrated.

We also have non-combative functions ascribed to stances i.e. strengthening legs and aesthetic considerations. These “overlays” can lead to the original functions (above) being obscured, possibly even eroded.

In addition, we also have the widespread poor teaching of stances. This is compounded by the fact the logical fallacy of false equivalence is often ascribed to all the various views on “stance” i.e. the false belief that a single given view of “stances” should apply to all discussion on stances.  

In response to the original question of “Are Karate Stances Actually That Useful?”, we have many unknowns that were often assumed to be knowns (i.e. incorrectly thought to be the same for everyone):

What “Karate”? – There are many different systems with many different goals that share that label.

What “Stances”? – What is meant by that term? How do “stances” fit into the wider training process? How are the specific stances performed and practised?

What “Useful”? – What is the stated objective? Combative function? Art? Sport? Exercise? How are the stances employed and practised with the view of achieving that aim?

These elements all play off one another, but there remain many variables in play.

It’s why conversations like this are often difficult because talking at crossed purposes is almost inevitable.

My answer to the question of “Are Karate Stances Actually That Useful?” would be an emphatic “Yes”.  However, that “yes” arises from how my understanding of how our stances fit within our karate, for our stated goals, and with direct experience of how that comes together in practise.

Another karateka could say “yes” for entirely different reasons, and likewise could answer “no” for very different reasons.

Andrew Sheldon-Thomson wrote:
I get that the movements are only points we pass through.   But unfortunately this is not how they are typically practiced.  Instead people train them as almost fixed positions and train them in a way that holds little relationship to how you would actually use them in practice.   The emphasis on strength and position actually running counter to the ability to move.

I think that’s a great paragraph for summing up the problem. We have a stated intent, but also a failure to deliver on that intent in the way training is conducted. However, that could be how a group does typically practise stances. They could be drilled in a structured way were training does match practise. For that group, stances would be very useful. However, there are certainly ways stances can be useless too.

Zach Zinn wrote:
There is no point in evaluating Karate material using modern distance sparring engagements, as Iain and others have pointed out for years, most of the material was not created for this kind of engagement, and does not function well there.

While Andrew’s quote above addressed the need for a defined “stances” and a clearly identified pedagogy for those stances, this quote from Zach is the “what karate” component.

If you do a pure grappling art (i.e. judo) you will see a much higher emphasis on stability i.e. flat feet, low hips, etc. However, if you do a pure striking system (i.e. kick boxing) you will see a much higher emphasis on mobility i.e. weight on the balls of the feet, high hips, short stances etc.

Because “karate” covers a load of disparate pursuits, we need to know which one we are talking about. For the traditional karate of the kata, we are talking about a close-range holistic system (grappling and striking) and I feel the stances we see in kata are entirely relevant for that.

If we are talking about 3K karate, then we may see a kumite based on WKF style rules (in which the traditional stances are not relevant) and a view of kata that is primarily based on athletic challenge and aesthetics (which will see stances divorced from the traditional pedagogy; possibly even modified in line with their new non-combative purposes).   You are therefore going to see a big disconnect between the stances in the kumite and kata of that version of “karate”.

Les Bubka wrote:
I don't care too much what other people do. I focus on things that work for me. Karate needs to be functional for me not others.

This is the “what useful” element. I’m with Les that in our dojo, doing our karate, our understanding of stances is useful. However, in other dojo, doing another karate, their understanding of stance may be not useful.

All the best,

Iain

Philios
Philios's picture

Have a look at this boxer explaining Jack Dempsey's Drop Step (aka the Jolt).  At 1:49 without any karate knowledge, he demonstrates a pretty textbook zenkutsu-dachi.  Clearly this is a natural way to transfer bodyweight to the front leg.

 

Yes, I do agree that the way that many typically teach and practise stances in karate is not ideal for teaching the supposed intended purpose of the stance given a certain context.  We get too caught up in the small details, when it's really the gross motor skills and joint health that we need to primarily concern ourselves with.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Philios wrote:
Have a look at this boxer explaining Jack Dempsey's Drop Step (aka the Jolt).  At 1:49 without any karate knowledge, he demonstrates a pretty textbook zenkutsu-dachi.  Clearly this is a natural way to transfer bodyweight to the front leg.

Nice find and that is indeed a text book front stance … and, more importantly, it is shown in action as a position to move too and through.

Philios wrote:
I do agree that the way that many typically teach and practise stances in karate is not ideal for teaching the supposed intended purpose of the stance given a certain context.

It’s always a problem when a given training method or teaching tool gets divorced from its intent and becomes an end in itself. Kata is done to get “good” at kata. Kihon is done to get “good” at kihon. Stances are done to get “good” at stances. “Good” in that context is arbitrary and divirsed from function. All the parts of karate are there, but they are just scattered across the floor and not connected in a meaningful way. It’s like taking an engine apart and then pointing to a single cog and criticising it in isolation for its lack of function. When we put the parts together in the right way, then it all works as it should.

All the best,

Iain