Just want to ask everyone's opinion on the worth of mobility vs. stability. I ask this mainly because the differences in TKD deal alot with this, long deep stances vs the higher stances narrower stances. What does everyone feel is more important. How do you train each to compliment each other rather than getting to used to one or the other? Pros/cons of either Dave
IMHO mobility should be of primary importance. You must be able to evade and counter attack. It is possible to generate good power through good technique. If you really do need to ground yourself for high power it can be done after you have unsettled your opponent with a few fast techniques therebye buying yourself the slight time you need. Only my tuppence worth of course.
I think stability in patterns and mobility elsewhere. Whenever we train kicking or sparring, we are always encouraged to bounce on the balls of our feet, this helps stop telegraphing and keeps ya on your toes litterally.
Definitely mobility, being very stable is overated when your a sitting duck that will become very unstable after being picked off!
First of all Hi to all of you from Slovenia and mainly from me, Hwoarang! My opinion is that mobility is the key to the victorry, because a moving target is harder to hit and if you move quick enough you can also evade the hits. I also readed some of the Bruce Lee's tehniques, and I have to say that he wasa really the God of fighting. From the lecture I also realized that the "nontelegraphic" moves about which he spoke of are really useable and can be of a great help in a real fight.
Okay I here mobility is most important right now, but lets factor in some stability. Wider stances you are less likely to be taken to the ground, at least on the bottom. I'ts much easier to sprawl if someone does get ahold of you, whereas if you are higher and someone grabs you they can have their way with you easier. Another point is that power generation is greater from a more stable base. Not saying that you can't generate power while moving around, just saying that it is greater from stable position. I do agree though right now that I think mobility is greatly important and I do train footwork much more than I train my lower stances. How do some of you train to be able to pop from one to the other quickly? How do you integrate both into your trainig?
Here's a better question: are the two mutually exclusive terms? Why can't you be stable in motion? If you're sacrificing structure and stability for movement then you aren't in a position to generate any power. - Matt
I think it depends on how you like to fight, and your body structure. If you are light, I think you should concentrate more on footwork and mobility. If you are strong and heavy, you should use stability, and generate a lot of power. Some heavy (by heavy, I don't mean fat, I mean weighs a lot) fighters I know aren't good at evading and dodging, but they like to block, or do direct counter attacks.
we use proper stance - proper as in, for example forward stance, long and low, only in patterns and step sparring everywhere else, for speed and mobility, we take these proper stances and adapt them so that our stance is more relaxed, higher, and our feet closer together - more effective for faster techniques and quick reaction we do a lot of work on footwork and positioning in training also
I am very moble and like to circle around opponets and strike at different angles. I go for mobility. You need both though. When I get trapped I use stability and punch my way out.
Movement: Both stability & mobility are essential to defence & attack. Centre of gravity plays the pivotal role. Lowering your centre of gravity increases stability while raising centre of gravity improves mobilty. Movement between one & the other efficiently is essential, providing a balance. Moving on the balls of the feet with knees slightly bent will provide a spring base which can be lowered or raised helping the overall freedom of motion. Defending/Attacking: All movement must be simple & direct, with speed, fluidity & power. Style & complexity have no part to play, survival is everything. To achieve these things you must be able to ACT quickly, on instinct. Instinct can be instilled through training the basic techniques over & over - as mentioned before - until they become natural for you. We can practice our base of stability & mobility whilst learning other important skills such as striking & kicking. We have to be able to perform these tech's at lightening speed, so the opponant does not have the time to react. The most efficient way will be by using minimal movement, but this may affect the power of the end product. So, we try to use minimum movement by utilising the bodies own natural strength, flexibilty & fluidity coupled with speed, put sequentially in optimum order, the body is capable of producing devastating speed & power. Strength, we all have in some degree just as we do flexibility, speed will come with practice, but it's the order in which we fire them, the sequential order in that determines the efficiency. We have to co-ordinate our body's effort, by building a technique. ALL techniques from ALL arts are constructed with this process, it will vary from art to art just exactly how the techniques are put together & the end result may be quite different but the general process is much the same. Mobility & stability are essential for any technique to work 100% or anywhere near. My thoughts anyway.
for the modern day style of TKD i say mobility due to the fast pace needed in competitions and self defence. obviously you will need speed and mobility for these. the stability of long deep stances is mostly done when practicing the tradisional style of tkd.
I prefer a deeper stance. I can move back with one sweep backwards, and I have a longer range. I suck though, so I'm probabaly wrong. PL
There seems to be a misconception that stability is only for the long deep stances. This is not true, you can have high stances that are stable. It is just a question of training and kinesthetic perception if you can achieve them. Remember that without any stable stance, no strike would have any sort of power.
That was the point of my eariler post. It very dangerous to talk about mobility and stability as mutually exclusive terms. It's possible to be unstable stances and very stable motion. Perhaps the question should have been phrased as: stationary stance vs. motion. - Matt
