I am curious why kung fu/CMA follow the clasical structures (hands on hip in some cases) and stances such as horse stance. Are these just more sound for delivering they types of strikes they practice and/or throws?
I uderstand that when used for self defense they attack out of natural postures. Is the rigidity of stances, in some cases, a 'smoke screen' as most styles as fans of secrecy?

It is to develope a strong feeling and sense of "rooting" into the ground.

Standing in ancient CIMA isn't for the sake of standing, and even less it should be seen as a pure training of fighting postures: would anybody believe that a boxer/wrestler/kickboxer etc. is doing his squats in the gym thinking to fight directly from down there in an actual brawl?

Deep stances are used to develop leg strength.
Holding a proper deep horse-stance for 3 minutes is the equivelant of doing 100 proper squats.

[or, translated for all THE chi huggers-
"it's good for rooting ability"]

Shane

Shane,
I agree that leg strengh is also developed when practicing a Horse stance. However the idea of getting in a low stance is not the difficult part, neither is holding the stance for 3 minutes, it is being able to lock yourself into the ground to maximize solidity and not being able to be moved which comes into play.
Not to create confusion.
Proper squats work out different areas of the leg (you might want to try both exercises for yourself). So when compared to a horse stance, the two are not necessarily equivelant.

THE-

1- I have tired both exercises.

2- why would anyone want to lock into the ground?

3- where/when does being immobile come into play
in martial arts?

what about practising counters to attacks from hips. Why do aot of CMA do double man sets or attacks by punching from their hips instead of in front of their face?

what the heck are you talking about.

Dear Shane,

1- I am glad you have tried both exercises
2- To prevent from being thrown, swept, grabbed, pulled etc. Rooting into the ground will also assit in many of you attacks, especially in Bagua and Tai Chi.
3- I assume that you have recently started studying Bagua/Tai Chi since you are not familiar with "rooting" into the ground. I recommend books on San He Chuan to explain the basics of rooting to anyone who is unfamiliar with the concept.

Im talking about karate style punches.

"Deep stances are used to develop leg strength. Holding a proper deep horse-stance for 3 minutes is the equivelant of doing 100 proper squats."

Uh, yes and no. While it is true that you do develop strength while holding a deep horse-stance, it is by no mean equivalent to squats. The muscle action while holding a stance is isometric, while the muscle action during squats are concentric and eccentric. That is, squats will work the muscle in a full range of motion.

In order for isometric exercises to duplicate the same effect, you have to hold a position at various points throughout the entire range of motion.

In other words, a deep horse-stance will only build strength at that specific depth that you hold it at. Thus, if you want strong leg muscles throughout the entire range of motion, then you have to spend time training your stances at different points (i.e. different height/level).

So if you want the equivalent of "100 proper squats", then you will have to at least hold your stance for 3 minutes from a "quarter-squat" position, 3 minutes from a "half-squat" position, and 3 minutes from a "full-squat" position. Of course, you could also break down the positions even further like 1/8th position, 1/16th position, etc.

Simply doing deep horse-stance will only give you strength in one fraction of your full range of motion. Frankly, that's a lot of time wasted, especially now that we have equipments that can give you the same results in a much shorter amount of time.

Actually, recent research (by Sisco and Little in a double blind, static contraction research study) shows the strength developed by an isometric exercise (static hold at the strongest point in a muscles ROM) has about a sixty percent carryover to the strength in the full range of motion for the muscle exercised.

Interesting. Where is this information published? What's the title of their research/article? Date of publishing? Is it available online? Thanks.

Jones- go to 'www.google.com' or 'www.metacrawler.com' and type in "Sisco and Little" or "static contraction research study"

Jones,
There is an extensive discussion of the study in Sisco and Little's book, "Static Contraction Training."

Tim,

if memory serves, the stats on Sisco and Little's study are kind of sketchy with self-reported data and little direct observation in one study and a little bit better control in another (the thing with the golfers). The study by its very nature couldn't be double-blind; it's kinda hard to not notice the 1000lb weight across your shoulders.

An aside- they also make a distinction between statics and isometrics though I can't remember it off the top of my head.

I've got the book at home, I'll give it another look this weekend. I'd like to see someone not affilliated with the authors replicate their work in more rigorous fashion.

Anecdotally, two friends of mine have had decent results with workouts incorporating statics. I did some of Sisco and Little's power factor stuff with small range of motion years ago, and got minimal improvement on my full-range squat.

All this being said, I was initially tempted to extrapolate the static stuff to stance holding, but I think this breaks down physiologically (aside from the lack of data). Statics are working at insanely high intensity levels for very brief periods (<15 seconds)- far higher than stance holding by several orders of magnitude, with times much lower by several orders of magnitude. Interestinglg, the times they're using should provoke only neural responses- the hormonal responses which they claim, are thought by present conventional training wisdom to require significantly different parameters to achieve. Whether 20rep breath squats, tempo based 8-12 rep sets, or Pavel's 10x5 'bear' with 1min RI, a common theme seems to depleting the phosphogen system to cause GH and testosterone release, and subsequent trophic responses, with much shorter time under tension and higher intensity levels leading to neural adaptation.

Basically, I don't know if I buy the static stuff. It sounds too good to be true, and that always sets off warning lights for me.

Andrew

I would suggest that static stance training develops some strength, but mostly endurance. That being said, what is most benificial to a strength-trainer is that it could deliver as much as 60% carryover, with out the actual movement. Some people have problems with their knees which contra-indicate lots of deep squatting, but some people are not adversely affected by static postures that do not include lots of torsion on the joints caused by moving thru the ROM. Thusly, they gain some strength without the risk of injury, and any training protocol should always be evaluated as a cost/benifit equation. I'd say horse stance training pays off all right. And when every master of the past swears by it as a foundation to further training, that says to me that there has to be something to it. I will add this though. Chinese martial arts teachers aren't really up on the latest developments in sport science either. But I trust results, and a lot of these guys do some pretty crazy ••••.

I smell something rat like...

Hi Tim,regarding the 'rooting' aspect of the internal arts, does it not make a person even more clumsy and very limited in mobility, especially when you are faced with multiples etc.?

rooting does not make you clumsy if you do it right. and it will not interfere with your mobility either. on the other hand, doing excercises that are said to improve your root, have to be performed correctly in order to achieve good results. simply standing in a horse stance is not enough, you have to understand certain concepts of balance and ways to stay rooted while in motion. plus visualization techniques and other stuff like that, all in all i think it just comes down to practicing the right stuff, and applying it in real time against a resisting opponent.

and can someone tell me what a 60% carryover is?

Daniel,

"Root" doesn't have to be stationary. Think of it as "balance."

ima dude,

A 60% carryover means that 60% of the strength aquired in one range of motion will carry over to the entire range of motion.

Hi Tim,have you heard of Systema?If so what do you think of there movement principles?

ah, thanks for clarifying that tim. you da man

Daniel,

I've heard of Systema. From what I've seen, the body method and a good part of the training seems to be akin to the Chinese IMA. I don't know exactly what the principles of the art are, maybe someone with Systema experience could give more information.