Plato----21/02/2002 7:13 AM----Post Number: 1

Hi guys, nice to meet all of you. I'm a new member
and new to HDGD; this is my first submission to the
club.
My question is about stances.
In the other martial arts I've studied, there were
many stances, some transitional stances (such as soto
se, kum ge pal sang se, pum se, etc.) which aren't
meant to be used as a 'ready for anything' stance, and
then there was the 'fighting stance' (which was).
However, I have never seen a 'fighting stance'
practised in haidong gumdo. Is there one? If so,
what is it?
In kickboxing the stance is roughly: one natural step
between the feet, feet shoulder width apart, weight on
the balls of feet (front foot heel touching lightly,
back foot heel slightly off the ground like a coiled
spring). This seems a good stance for balance and
mobility in any direction. Since I'm a beginner in
sword combat, I'd like to ask: is there a better
stance if you're fighting with a sword? How about the
kendo stance? How do you guys find your stance in
actual sparring?

GoMa----21/02/2002 12:01 PM----Post Number: 2


Hello everyone, this is my first post so hope I don't mess it up.
In your question on stances you said there were "transitional" stances such as "dae do se, so do se, geum ge dok lip pal sang se, jo chun se, jiha se, bum se...". These stances are the basic stances in which you perform almost every cut during motion, and most of all static cuts too. For instance, as I'm watching my Sabum Nim, I really understand that these stances are crutial to perform cuts, as they give you the balance to perform such cuts. Take So do se: it's a very difficult stance to be on at first but it's tremendous stable and allows you to perform very powerfull cuts due to this stability.
As you probably know, in Haidong GumDo, cuts and motion are very mathmatic in terms of angles and lines: you have to describe smoth curves with your sword and you have to use your stance and your target together so that you form certain shapes. Coming back to So do se: you describe a triangle in which the target and your feet are the vertices. In this displacement, your cut will be powerfull and very stable. So I think the main point here is to get on the "fighting stance" which really is your so called "transition stance" and try to articulate all your motions through them because they are the ones that allow you to be more powefull and stable.
To conclude, I think that if your previous experiences in other martial arts gives you that these stances are transitional, then you should change the way you look at them, because they are one of the bases of almost everything you will learn. They are in no way, transitional.
Hope that helped to clear your doubt.

Haidong!

Plato----21/02/2002 7:27 PM----Post Number: 3

Thanks for your reply. It was helpful in my
understanding.
Let me ask one more very simple question, leaving
semantics aside: Could you describe the most
advantageous stance with which to face an opponent at
the moment of engagement (i.e. in that crucial time
before the first blows are made)? All things being
equal, what kind of stance is best for ultimate
readiness? Is it simply Jochunse?

Aaron----21/02/2002 9:52 PM----Post Number: 4


A simple kyun-jok se from chayonse is a good ready stance. Very good for entering to a thrust. If you want to be quick for a downward cut, then maybe chochunse is good. Depends mainly on your strategy.

Plato----22/02/2002 6:44 AM----Post Number: 5

Thanks for the response, Aaron (regarding the
suggestion that Chayonse in kyung jok is a good ready
stance for combat). Okay, but does anyone else feel
that the position of the feet (both pointing straight
forward, one foot breadth between them, one foot
length ahead of each other), is a little tight? I
feel very precarious. Wouldn't a wider stance be more
advisable for balance and movement -- say something in
between chayunse and tedose?
And why the "11" position of the feet (both straight
forward) in chayunse? We don't stand or walk like
this normally. Our feet are angled out a bit for
balance. It feels quite awkward for me to keep them
both staight.

Comments?

Robert----22/02/2002 10:33 AM----Post Number: 6


Plato,
You have some very good questions and concerns. However, if you have ever learned a language very different than your own then you will understand where I am going with this. It seems to be our nature, when learning something new ,like a language, to compare it to what we already know. When we find something in a new language that is opposite,or at best aquard, to what we expect we compare it to the normal rules of our own language. We try to fix it and question its effeciency as a rule or even as an exception to the rule. I did this a lot while learning German. My professor kept telling me to quit expecting it to make sense to me with such little knowledge of the language. Just learn it. It will make sense later. He was right. HDGD is like this for you and I. We do not know enough of the art to decide that it is ineffecient because it does not fit the normal rules of combat that we have formed from previous experiences. It may not make sense at frst. That is OK. It may feel aquard at first. That is OK too. Just do it and it will make sense in it's proper time. My instructor was right. And so was his and so on. Does this make sense?

Anthony_Boyd----25/02/2002 12:38 AM----Post Number: 7


I guess this thread is going to lead us back to the parable of emptying one's cup, which is good; I like that parable.

I definitely agree that one has to trust in one's instructor and that what they are presenting has merit. There's really not much point in taking instruction otherwise. Ha!
I can't imagine sitting at a coffee shop telling your friends that you are taking a stupid martial art from an unqualified instructor...

Plato asked a question about the utility of some of the stances. I had the some problem in reverse when I took up Hapkido. I found it hard to understand why the stances had to be the way they are. After I got into throws it began to make sense and the footwork theories that apply so well in sword combat failed me again and again in unarmed combat. I did my best to learn - to empty my cup as it were.
The thing which occurs to me when I think about our stances is that they are designed to allow the transfer of body weight and momentum to the sword at a precise instant. For that split second the stance is rooted and powerful. After that, one had better get into a more stable ready position. It is that sense which I think Plato was trying to express that the stances are transitional.
It strikes me that a stance like sodosae is actually not stable in the pure sense of that word. It is organized around a principle of instability. We don't expect to lurk on the battlefield in that stance. We wouldn't try to resist or avoid an enemy's charge from that stance. It is the inherent instability which enables us to transfer power into the cut.
At least, it is in my way of thinking.
In a lot of unarmed arts the rear foot is angled outward, and the legs are farther apart in "natural stance" (chayon sae) to facilitate a lot of different things. Why is our natural stance different? I come at like Robert does, that it must be that way for a reason, but, what is the reason?
I think it may have to do with the differing realities of bladed combat and with the requirement that places on movement. It is a more linear stance. It seems to me that HDGD, an art employing the power of the circle, seeks to generate its power by letting the practitioner discover the straight line in the circle and the circle in the straight line. (Doesn't that sound mystical? )
I think the stance lets us deliver powerful actions and reactions in a forward direction with a minimum of hesitation.
Comments?

Plato----25/02/2002 6:14 AM----Post Number: 8

Robert,

Thanks for your input. Your comment completely makes
sense and, no doubt, my experiences in other martial
arts are colouring my perspective. It is quite
interesting, really -- on one hand we need to 'empty
our cup' and come with a fresh mind in order to learn
anything really new, and on the other, we should
retain what we have learned and build on it. The
question is where the new knowledge fits in to our
already established framework. To make a whole new
framework for every new art (as too often the teachers
demand "forget everything") is counterproductive.
But, as you suggest, approaching new things with your
previous mindset really negates the possibility of
achieving a new perspective.
Where is the middle ground? This is a constant
question for me.

GoMa----25/02/2002 1:37 PM----Post Number: 9


Hello again,

I also like that parable... the ones that lead us back to the begining are allways the best (in my opinion).
Regarding the stances, I guess I didn't explain myself acuratelly in the last time. I agree with Anthony as he says that our stances are connected some how to delivering the most power to a certain instant, yet I don't agree when he says for instance that sodo sae is not stable and that you don't expect to lurk on the battlefield in that stance. Sodo sae is a very stable stance, in my opinion, it's only second to daedo sae that is strong as stone as you all agree. To make you think that sodo sae is a very stable stance, I can only recomend you watch a high rank master, as he will for sure inspire you in that way (I guess I'm really lucky in that department because I get often "visited" by a 5th Dan Master that never fails to surprise me and inspires me to become the best as I can). As far as the lurking on the battlefield, things tend to be quite more easy... if you take for instance Psang soo gum bup Ee bun (2) you have 2 series of sodo sae cuts one after the other. This clearly shows that a situation like that could happen. I even say farther, in battle oponent's displacement is completely random and you cannot predict where they're comming. I think that's the purpose of the Psang soo gum bups, to show you that there is not ONE way of responding to a situation. I guess ten years from now, we'll be all improvising and linking techniques so that is our spirit that is reacting and not our "pre-recorded" sequences.
I guess this is comming too far from the initial post so I will end now.

Haidong!

Ryan----27/02/2002 2:48 AM----Post Number: 10


My two cents...

I think Anthony has stuck upon something when he mentioned the mystical straight line in the circle. While Dae-do sae is a fairly "rock solid" position along the plane that you are standing on, (the straight line), it is rather weak perpendicular to that plane. You could say the same thing about so-do sae. My Hapki-do Sa-bum nim illustrated this just last week. While doing my hyung, I had used dae-do sae rather than the wider stance used in Hapki-do out of habit. He saw this and knowing that I also learn Gumdo, demonstrated why the stance is wider. He asked me to stand in dae-do sae and pushed my from the front. I didn't move. Then he pushed me from the side. I had no balance whatsoever. I think the difference has to do with the fact that we are generating force in a different way than a different arts such as Hapki-do or kick boxing and as such our stances will differ.

A stance that I have recently begun to see as a good all purpose ready stance is that used at the begining of all the Bongok series. It is basically a one handed ji-ha sae. From that position there are many possibilities for both attack and defence. I recently spent some time visiting a differnt gumdo jang and the Kwan-jang nim there spent about an hour extolling and demonstrating the virtues of this position. Overall, quite versitile.

Aaron----28/02/2002 4:02 PM----Post Number: 11



HDKD stances generally need to be on a directly straight line and not a diagonal line for cutting reasons (this one is fun to think about, so I won’t spoil it for anyone with my thoughts…). A hint though is that it is not because of the foot positioning when you are in the stance, but rather the path you take to get from narrow stances to wide stances. This is explicitly different than in empty-hand martial arts, in which case the left-right motion is a boon to the technique.
However, as long as humans only have two legs, we will always be unstable in one direction. No matter what the stance, irrespective of body positioning, draw a line between your two feet, you are unstable in the direction that is perpendicular to that line. Also note, you are strongest in the same direction as that line.
Stances are used for particular reasons in particular circumstances. Sodose’s value is not found in the static position, but rather, in what happens when you drop or lunge forward into it. As a ready stance no one stance is good. Which stance you use will depend entirely on your strategy at the moment. Our forms are full of strategies and attacking methods starting in most all of the different stances. In general, in a ready stance, you are not worried about stability, you are worried about mobility. Stability comes into play only when you strike, so your cutting stances must be supportive in the direction you are attacking. However, moving into position is prerequisite to cutting in any stance, and your opponent is not likely to move into position for you. The most "stable" stances will also be the most immobile.
Also, Plato was drawing an analogy to kickboxing ready stances. I think the crucial difference between the two is that attacking the back (tailbone, kidneys, spine, etc) is explicitly disallowed in sport fighting. Thus, to shorten the visible targets to the opponent, the upper body is angled. This also gives a front and back hand to have both quick and powerful weapons. Note that the back is the absolute hardest place to defend. We all intuitively understand that, but we forget sometimes since we don’t have to worry about it in practice. The turned upper body in kickboxing has few drawbacks because our arms and legs can still move effectively, efficiently, and quickly. Try a chun myung begi with the body turned. With two hands, you can’t do it with the body turned.
For sure though, in any-stance-kyunjokse you will force your opponent to make the first move, which if we are looking at this counter-offensively ("ready for anything" implies we are waiting for their attack). If they rush you, they impale themselves. So they will have to either move around you, or move your sword, or draw it away/trick you into moving. Generally, logistics is on your side here as they can’t circle around you if you don’t let them, and trying to fenagle (sp?) themselves into a position where they can go under or around your sword leaves them in a much better position for you to successfully strike than them.
As to the 11 position of the feet as opposed to any other, it seems to have something to do with walking. When in open-handed fighting we turn the back foot (in the styles that do that), it is to gain power for lunging, or to gain some side stability on a transition to a back-stance or derivative thereof (which will often involve a circular tecnique). In HDKD we do turn the back foot for those same reasons. Bomse and daedose for example. But chayonse is a stance for moving into other stances, or walking/running. A turned foot is disadvantageous for running. The feet are relatively close together for the same reason that HDKD tends to have all its stances on a line. If you are square to an opponent, the closest thing to being on a line is being close together.
This is all super interesting to me, and I haven’t explicitly thought about a lot of this before. There are probably lots of holes in what I said, so I look forward to reading responses.

DaeSan_JinHae----28/02/2002 10:47 PM----Post Number: 12


We have a saying in the military "KISS" (Keep it simple studid) All this discussion about what stances are the best for attacking and defending, what is strong, what is not; I haven't heard one simple statement. "Turn in the direction of the attack so your strong side is facing it. I certainly would not take a side attack directly, I'd turn to put my strong side towards the attack. All it is is a quick 90 degree pivot in the direction of the attack or a quick side step (push glide in Gumdo) past it. That's my "two cents"

Anthony_Boyd----28/02/2002 11:42 PM----Post Number: 13


Hmmm, I think (or maybe my not thinking is the problem) that this is drifting away from the original question somewhat. Clare feels that all of us participating in this discussion have too much time on our hands.

I think the question was seeking to ascertain which of our stances was viewed as a stance in which to wait in readiness. The idea being, as Aaron described with chayon-kyunjok-sae, to force him to move against you while you are in a position of advantage. In unarmed styles there are stances for training purposes only and then there are the fighting stances. This is not really discussed in HDGD like it is in unarmed arts.

It seems like some of us oppose the idea of there being a ready stance, or others have a favorite one - perhaps dependent on favored tactics. Aaron's thought about the mechanics of the centre cut make a lot of sense to me. The entire body must face forward to do it so the natural stance evolved as forward facing rather than at 45 degrees. Added to this is the required linearity of movement when trying to generate circular force. Much like a sprinter, we need to line up our feet in the direction we wish to travel. Perhaps the narrow width is for the sake of keeping the target area as small possible?

As far as stances go, I am not sure I am completely clear on what Dae San means. (Could you give us an example?)

I believe the stances are designed to allow us to transfer our momentum and body weight into the cuts while retaining control of our balance. However, if we do remain unmoving (what I meant by "lurking") then we lose all the advantages of that stance. In my mind, many of the set stances were designed for motion, not standing in readiness. In combat however, isn't there a time when it becomes tactically advantageous to wait for the other guy to move? Aren't the kyuk-gum based on this very principle?

Kaveman----01/03/2002 2:37 PM----Post Number: 14

As a beginer in HiaDong I don't have much experience with the stances but my
thoughts are it has been praticed for over 1000 years and these same
discussions were argued many times over the years not to mention tested and
proven in real battle. A bad stance meant death a good one meant life. So I
feel it up to what ever you feel. Test it in sparing and see what happens,
the only true test.
John Kabala
Hia Dong

Ryan----02/03/2002 4:43 AM----Post Number: 15


Clare's right.