The relation between kata stances and kumite

[EMitton]

I got into a debate with someone who was asking why the neutral sparring stance that many Shotokan karateka use doesn't show up in kata (like the one pictured below):



He also wondered what use kokutsu-dachi would have in sparring. He also questioned the traditional statement that stances are transitional positions, not something you hold through a fight. Here was my response, but I'm not sure if I'm barking up the right tree. Would some more experienced karateka let me know if I'm thinking about this in the right way, or if I'm missing the point?

(My tentative analysis follows):

I disagree that you never see kokutsu-dachi or other kata stances in kumite. From the "neutral sparring stance" pictured above, if you throw a kizami zuki, your body will momentarily be in a position not unlike back stance (though not nearly as pretty as in kata):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjDgg_npiQM

Now from that beginning neutral position, if you throw a yaku tsuki, you end up in front stance at the moment of impact:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC_xt9RLKEg

You say boxers hold the same stance throughout a fight. I'm not so sure. A boxer wouldn't hold a stance with one of his shoulders all the way forward as if he was mid-punch, would he? The shoulders are in a neutral position and rotate in various manners depending on how he's punching.

A karateka's hips are like a boxer's shoulders. Their rotation is how power is generated. Different stances are various positions you're in at the moment of impact. They're complete extension of hip rotation in one manner or another. They're not meant to be held between techniques, because then you couldn't rotate your hips and body in whatever manner you need to do to power the next technique if you're not starting from a neutral position.

[RenegadeMonk]

This is one of the great paradoxes of karate; why do our fights not resemble our forms? It is one area where Shotokan is one of the most guilt free ryu.

My take on the questions raised:

1) Sparring stance not in kata
Three answers to this one, the complicated, the simple and the "cop-out".
a) The natural stance that we begin and end kata in is the symbolic fighting stance from which the sparring stance is derived, i.e. a weight neutral position that can generate movement in any direction, clenched fists displaying readiness for battle. How one holds a fighting gaurd is based on an assesment of the opponents kamae and his likely lines of attack. Since our opponent is imaginary in kata we have no reference about which to build a gaurd so the hands remain down in the yoi position.
b) The sparring stance is actually just a short zenkutsudachi and so is scattered all through the kata.
c) Karate is not for "fighting" at its heart, i.e. it is not a ring sport where you circle and wear down the opponent. The kata show a system of ending conflicts where the opponent launches attacks with lethal intent and in response you control and destroy him, not a system for dueling.

2) The use of kokutsudachi in sparring
a) Back stance places the body far behind the lead hand. In a sparring match one would adopt back stance to draw in an opponent inviting attack so that you can counter him.
b) Kokutsudachi, as given in the kata, is the platform for much of Shotokan's close quarter striking method, in free fighting it is used for tai sabaki, entering and pressing close range attacks. This method does not occur in regular tournament style sparring because it is largely unknown and the rules of this type of sparring do not accomodate some of the stances most useful applications.

3) Stances as transitional positions or fixed fighting postures
Following on from the discussion of the neutral fighting stance it only makes sense that each stance then represents an expression or burst of energy in a given direction. Stances do not exist seperate from the techniques that they support, i.e. kizami zuki in zenkutsudachi is an entirely seperate technique from kizami zuki in kokutsudachi. Each has its own purpose and requires different dynamics to be effective. This is because if we consider ourselves starting from a neutral position, it is the act of moving into the stance that gives the technique it's flavour. In this way stances are transitional, just as you don't hold out your arm after you've punched for the whole fight, so you don't sit in the stance that supported the punch.

And incidentally, boxers do exactly the same thing, they just never used kata and so never had to name individual positions.

[fujicolt]

David you talk so much THEORETICAL sense that it is actually very intriguing - but your theories might expand a little if you asked questions as a start of a thread rather than just saying - this IS the way it IS!

Stances in the classical sense are merely often just snapshots in time - some of us twigged that a very long time ago

[RenegadeMonk]

Stances in the classical sense are merely often just snapshots in time - some of us twigged that a very long time ago

I believe that is what I said, just in better english and with a more detailed explanation of how and why it is so believed.

Take a look:

3) Stances as transitional positions or fixed fighting postures
Following on from the discussion of the neutral fighting stance it only makes sense that each stance then represents an expression or burst of energy in a given direction. Stances do not exist seperate from the techniques that they support, i.e. kizami zuki in zenkutsudachi is an entirely seperate technique from kizami zuki in kokutsudachi. Each has its own purpose and requires different dynamics to be effective. This is because if we consider ourselves starting from a neutral position, it is the act of moving into the stance that gives the technique it's flavour. In this way stances are transitional, just as you don't hold out your arm after you've punched for the whole fight, so you don't sit in the stance that supported the punch.

i.e. Each stance used during a fight/match exists only as long as the technique that requires it. If you throw 5 techniques from the start of a fight to the end then "snap shots" of the fight will display the stances relevant to the techniques. Much like in kata.

At least that's how I see things. It's nice when we're in agreement Steve.

[fujicolt]

Stances in the classical sense are merely often just snapshots in time - some of us twigged that a very long time ago

I believe that is what I said, just in better english and with a more detailed explanation of how and why it is so believed.

Take a look:

3) Stances as transitional positions or fixed fighting postures
Following on from the discussion of the neutral fighting stance it only makes sense that each stance then represents an expression or burst of energy in a given direction. Stances do not exist seperate from the techniques that they support, i.e. kizami zuki in zenkutsudachi is an entirely seperate technique from kizami zuki in kokutsudachi. Each has its own purpose and requires different dynamics to be effective. This is because if we consider ourselves starting from a neutral position, it is the act of moving into the stance that gives the technique it's flavour. In this way stances are transitional, just as you don't hold out your arm after you've punched for the whole fight, so you don't sit in the stance that supported the punch.

i.e. Each stance used during a fight/match exists only as long as the technique that requires it. If you throw 5 techniques from the start of a fight to the end then "snap shots" of the fight will display the stances relevant to the techniques. Much like in kata.

At least that's how I see things. It's nice when we're in agreement Steve.

Don't let your ambitions get mixed up with your capabilities David - we are not in agreement - i merely speed typed the core factor (as people oft do on forums) rather than spending hours writing an essay.

David - please stop being so confrontational because i really do not want to have to take you on (forum debate wise of course ) Just give your opinions and stop with the personal Jibes - oh sorry is that poor English

Debate away renegade

[RenegadeMonk]

Ok, just debating..

I am unclear over which point we disagree, could you explain please?

[magpie]

Hi renegade

Good to see you on here.

The way i look at it is all the different stances in karate can be looked at as either launching pads or landing strips.

The free sparring stance is an intermediate stance, what we are really looking for is to execute the technique and end up as per the basic form that we practice so much in the final execution.

So you could say that all our basics are the final position we want to achieve, that is we are always practicing the final position of our techniques, from the free fighting stance which is more mobile this is what we are trying to achieve imo.

[fujicolt]

Hi renegade

Good to see you on here.

The way i look at it is all the different stances in karate can be looked at as either launching pads or landing strips.

The free sparring stance is an intermediate stance, what we are really looking for is to execute the technique and end up as per the basic form that we practice so much in the final execution.

So you could say that all our basics are the final position we want to achieve, that is we are always practicing the final position of our techniques, from the free fighting stance which is more mobile this is what we are trying to achieve imo.

I also am pleased renegade is here - if you have ever had to team 'work something out' you will know that debate needs every possible angle/point/opinion being thrown into the 'pot' only then can everything be considered - and experience will show you it is oft the least likely source (maybe the UNI Graduate - stuffed with theory after laudable study but NO/or limited actual experience), that throws in the one point that gives the breakthrough. this creates healthy debates and then a gem comes out - a new way of thinking about something etc

Magpie - being a Pilot i thought - 'launching pads or landing strips' was an excellent analogy because with flight you have to get from your start position - do the 'job' (whatever it may be:everything from flying your neighbor over their house - to a dogfight with enemy planes) and get back and land safely. I think you should patent that analogy NOW cos it describes what stances are very well but would have been perfect if you had stated certain 'positions and procedures' will be required whilst 'In Flight'

but in the view of we launch from A and need B when the technique lands =

[kanku]

Stances in the classical sense are merely often just snapshots in time - some of us twigged that a very long time ago

Short and sweet and very true !

with correct fundemental training they should become like second nature ,in and out of diferrent stances as the need arises ,they become less obvious in apearance with more experienced karateka but their principal never change .