Here's a good one - ( although I'm sure this topic has probably been discussed before)

- How do you cope with training on slippery floors? You know the type of floor that I mean, that really smooth, worn, scratched, dirty wooden floor that your feet slip slide all over when trying to set a stance.

I'm finding that in order to not end up in the splits, my stance is getting very short - not good. My alternative training floor is hard, cracked concrete which is just the opposite; I have to really put some oomph into moving from stance to stance as the surface has no slip at all.

Is there anything I can do to my feet to make them sticky? (!) Or do I just need to get my legs stronger?

A very serious topic.

Oh blimey.... good question! Since I train on a carpeted floor I can't really offer you any suggestions.
I do remember when I used to train with GKR, the hall we used had a very slippy floor - I managed to get the RM to find us another place citing health and safety.....
But that doesn't really help you. Is there some form of floor coating or covering you can find to put down?

How short is short? But this all suggests to me that there is maybe something wrong with your stance to begin with, or with the way you're trying to move, only because it should be easier to move if you don't slip.


Mick

Why not good? Not a trick question, just one intended to make you think about why you do the stances you do?



Not sure I follow that.

If self-defence is your goal, or one of them, then ultimately you need to be able to do what you do on any surface. You can't say to a mugger "I'm sorry, this floor is too slippy". You also need to be able to do what you do in different footwear, as well as bare feet. You need to understand the difference between these different environmental conditions and adjust accordingly without pausing for thought.

The Japanese way of training is on a polished wooden floor (or tatami in some arts). Sliding the feet along the floor as you step works well in this environment. Historical Okinawan training would more likely be in your sensei's back yard, which might be dusty or muddy depending on the weather. Such conditions require quite a different way of stepping.

Try practising your kata in long grass wearing boots - if you step in the usual karate manner you'll sprain your ankle before you finished the first kata.

Mike

Good (and not entirely unexpected) points.

You ask how short is short? Probably about 3/4 of what it 'should' be. Its mainly kokutsu and zenkutsu datchi that I have noticed have become shorter to cope with the floor. That said, I have also returned to karate training after eight months of doing taekwondo, and I am well aware that that training affected my stances, so yes there is probably a lot wrong with how I am moving at the moment.

Mike asked 'why not good?' which again is a good question. At the moment, the stances 'feel' wrong. That is, they don't hurt and are easy to move in - so I know that I know they aren't good! Isn't the purpose of a 'good' stance strength, support and grounding?

I actually don't mind the concrete for training, in terms of moving in stance and yes, I agree that it is important to be able to adapt to any surface. I have trained on all sorts of surfaces from carpet to bitumen to grass, and I think the one I disliked the most was the beach. Its only saving grace was that it was soft to fall on which I did several times.

My post wasn't meant to be too serious - I was really just asking to see if anyone has any tricks or ways of dealing with very slippery floors? (other than finding a new venue)

Kim

How short is short... our zenkutsu dachi (front stance), if you were to place the back knee on the ground there's about a fist distance between the front of the knee and the heel of the other foot, and when standing is about as wide as your shoulders (or hips). Consequently our kokutsu (back) stance is the same.
Similarly our sanchin dachi (triangular or pigeon-toed) stance, the toes of the back foot are level with the heel of the front foot, and you should be able to place the knee of the back leg into the hollow just behind the ankle bone on the other leg to determine the width. The front foot only turns in so that the outside edge of the foot points forward. That helps set a stance that suits the person rather than trying to set a stance the way some people think it ought to be based on how it looks.

Every stance the knees point the same way as the feet - that's how our bodies are designed. There shouldn't really be any discomfort or pain associated with stances, aside from muscle pain as you get tired which is normal. Twisting of joints that causes pain indicates a problem with the stance.

We really only use stances in terms of how you get from one place to another - if you take a larger step forward then you would be stepping into zenkutsu dachi but only for that moment before you move the other foot to where it needs to be. Support and grounding in stances I think depends very much on how you train. If you're doing something that involves lifting - a throw or upwards lock then you need the support for that technique. I've come across a few people who are very much proponents of solid stances for grounding but they were invariably bigger, stronger people who could set a stance where you couldn't move them. What happens if you're smaller and lighter and can't set a stance where someone stronger can't move you? Perhaps then the answer is to be more mobile which then means long, low stances aren't the answer?


Mick

From your description of your forward and back stances, that's about what I have been doing that I have assessed as too short (based on my previous training). This begs the question then of what is 'correct'. I can understand variations of stances for different martial arts, but if we are all karateka, shouldn't our stances all be pretty much the same?

"What happens if you're smaller and lighter and can't set a stance where someone stronger can't move you? Perhaps then the answer is to be more mobile which then means long, low stances aren't the answer?"

Does that mean that smaller, lighter people should stick to martial arts styles that don't have these long low stances? And what if you are small and light, but not fast, wouldn't it be best to develop the strongest, most grounded stance you could?

These are good issues for me to think about - I am training on my own at the moment, so need to develop a better understanding of what I want my karate to be.

Cheers

Kim

... and while you're thinking about all that... you can get those non-slip mats, designed for kitchen use (I think?) for around $2 from the cheapie, bargain shops. You could try stitching or gluing some of that on to a pair of old socks to wear like tabi maybe.

Now why didn't I think of that??

I did a stint of Taekwondo in my youth and I felt my stances worsening as result. Not so much a question of depth but one of the correct shape. Its a bad habit it many TKD people to have the front leg too straight in forward stance - a criticism which I know some (but not all) TKD instructors would agree with.



I'm not suggesting that you completely change the stances you use, just something to muse on. Prior to the 1920s karate stances weren't generally that deep. The deepening came primarily during the developed of modern (or what people call 'traditional') Shotokan. Its really not that old a tradition. Take Sanchin stance as a contrast - its not deep but it does provide the "strength, support and grounding" you're looking for.

For me, I'd say the main purpose in a stance is to provide a stable platform from which power can be generated in specific direction(s). Shape is generally more important than depth.



Understood, but its certainly a topic worth exploring.



You might think, but the reality is that there are many styles of karate and they all have differences in their stances, the main differences are usually in terms of size, but shape does vary too. I don't like to get too locked in stone - a stance needs to be as deep as it needs to be for the given situation that you're in. So my forward stance can be very short (what in Taekwondo they call walking stance) or it could be more than twice as long as that. Its all dependent on application.

Similarly with back/cat stances. Most styles have a back stance and a cat stance, and each style's are a little different. But the reality is that these are merely points on a continuum of moving the weight to the rear leg and turning the hips somewhere between forward and side-facing. What's needed is to understand why you're doing the stance (other than to look cool) in a particular situation. If you truly understand that then you don't need to ask if the stance is the right shape/size - it will be apparent whether its the optimal stance.



I think there's some truth in this - in that smaller/lighter people shouldn't expect to be immovable when struggling with a rather heavier opponent. But everyone needs to be able to cope with opponents who are lighter and opponents who are heavier than themselves. I think karate has ways to deal with both situations.

Bottom line for me is that the deep stances have their uses, but many modern styles employ them indiscriminately, out of context. Its like a carpenter who keeps trying to use the same tool for everything. He just keeps bashing with his hammer when he should be using his saw/chisel/whatever...

Mike

Hi Mike,

I fundamentally agree with everything you have said.

But.... how does this then apply to kihon and kata training? Do we set and strive for a standard, even though that standard will not be applicable in all circumstances - or is near enough good enough?

There is another purpose for stances - leg strengthening. So if we do train for deep stances, our legs are strong for whatever application may arise. Train hard, fight easy?

Kim

Good question. I resolve this dilemna by practising different stances in different kata. Specifically I practice with - for me - quite a deep forward stance in the 5 Pinan kata. In the older kata I use a different dynamic, one that includes the use of a shorter stance. Forward stance is really the only one where this is an issue for me.

Other stances I practice at a fairly fixed size:
- Straddle stance (shikodachi) - if you use straddle stance for the same purpose I do (dropping the bodyweight) there is a size that is more or less optimal.
- Horse stance (kibadachi/naihanchi-dachi) - this is a fairly narrow stance anyway, shoulder width or a little wider. The wide horse stance typically seen is I believe a modern invention and does not - in my experience - appear in the older versions of kata.
- Cat and back stance (nekoashidachi & kokutsudachi) - I practice what I consider the two endpoints of this continuum. My cat stance is fully forward facing, which constrains the length & width of the stance within fairly narrow parameters. My back stance is more or less side-facing with the legs as wide apart as can be while still fulfilling the requirements of a back stance - I consider that in back stance the rear buttock must be directly over the rear foot, if not the weight distribution is incorrect. So the large back stance of Shotokan and similar styles falls outside the limits I consider appropriate.

We could consider other stances but (hopefully) you get the idea - in order to achieve what each stance is aiming to do there are relatively narrow parameters iin terms of size that allow that objective to be achieved.



I don't buy the leg strengthening explanation of deep stances. Such stances are a woefully sub-optimal way of strengthening the legs. To get any real benefit this way you have to use such deep stances that there's a significant risk of damaging the knees in the process. If you want to strengthen your legs go weight-training. You'll find it far, far more effective. I've tried both approaches so I know there's just no comparison between the two.

So why use such deep stances? I believe they were added to karate in the early 20th century with the aim of making it more dynamic and challenging for the student. The goal of self-defence was being downplayed as part of the old feudal past - an unnecessary (and 'crude') anachronism out of step with the new spirit of progress that was pervading every aspect of Japanese society. Therefore it didn't matter that the new stances were not practical as long as they gave the student a challenge, an arbitrary ideal to strive for. What the modernisers of karate at that time didn't know was how much such practice could damage the knees in the long term. They were conducting an experiment which was, in many ways, highly successful but also had its shortcomings. FWIW, that's my view anyway.

Mike

In case anyone cares, I found a solution to my slippery floor issue - hair mousse! Makes the feet nice and sticky and a bonus is my toes are nicely curled back for kicking....

Hair mousse? That's certainly a new use for it! I hope you've got a plentiful supply

Does it keep the feet soft and bouncy too? Interesting idea!