Best stance to face an armed threat?

[NRAhab]

That's odd, I don't see a reference to my favorite stance for dealing with an armed threat - sprinting in the opposite direction as fast as my nikes can carry me.

I kid, I kid. I do remember when I was first taught the Weaver, and told that the "bladed" stance would present a much smaller target to any opponent; and then I was taught the isosceles and told that the squared up stance would allow me to engage my target faster, and that if I was wearing body armor that I'd be more likely to catch any incoming fire on areas that were protected.

One of the things though that I'd like to address is this statement though:

However, I can't get past the lack of balance and mobility (in isosceles)

I do have to take issue with that; as the isosceles is very balanced and stable, and is almost exactly as the stance that I boxed out of for 10 years. I also wouldn't say that it lacks mobility, since all the top game shooters uses isosceles, and they're pretty fast at getting around.

That being said, the best stance is the one from which you can effectively engage your targets in such a way that you live and they don't pose a threat.

 

[WC145]

Ah! Finally!...a clear and concise counter argument to the isosceles. Thanks for your reply, WC145.

I understand your preference to "quarter". Have you trained with anyone else in the martial arts who squares up to face a threat?

Also, what is it about quartering that makes it more balanced for you?

To my knowledge there isn't any martial art that suggests squaring yourself to a threat. Some use strong side forward, most weak side forward, but all use a stance that is bladed to some degree. I use and teach a shoulder width, approx. 45 degree stance with a slight forward weight bias on the balls of your feet. Try taking a position like this and putting your hands together in front of your chest, with your thumbs touching your sternum, and have someone push on you from the front, back, and each side. You'll find that you can maintain your balance with no glaring weak spots and that if pushed hard enough to break your balance you can easily step or pivot away from the force and reposition yourself to counter.

On the other hand, take a shoulder width squared stance and position your hands the same way and have someone push on you. You'll find that your strong from side to side but very weak front and rear and that when you are pushed off balance your natural reaction is to step into a 45 degree stance to regain your balance before you can move. Also, the isosceles stance requires you stand flat footed for balance which works against your mobility.

My take on fighting/self defense, whether it is armed or unarmed, is that you need to be very aggressive and once the threat has escalated to the point that it requires a physical or armed response from you then you pull out all the stops and take the fight to the threat, and either beat or shoot it down until it is neutralized. I like to keep things simple and be able to get the most impact from everything I do so economy of movement and effort are my goals. If I am facing someone in a quartered stance with my hands up, palms out or loosely clasped in front of me, I am presenting a non-threatening, concerned looking, "I didn't do it" image. In reality I am poised to move in any direction and to respond to any threat without having to make changes to my positioning to defend myself. I can move quickly in any direction. I can punch, kick, block, grab, throw, stab, slash, pivot, sweep, draw and fire my sidearm, or shoulder my rifle or shotgun and fire, all with minimal, if any, change to my stance.

I cannot accomplish any of that from a squared stance. I can draw and drop into an isosceles position or I can shuffle to one side or the other and my energy/strength is being directed toward the ground in order to maintain my stance and balance rather than toward the threat. It is just too weak and limiting in my opinion. Also, you are most vulnerable to, and weakest against, the most common physical attack - a straight on assault, from the front or rear, either tackling or striking.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

I do have to take issue with that; as the isosceles is very balanced and stable, and is almost exactly as the stance that I boxed out of for 10 years. I also wouldn't say that it lacks mobility, since all the top game shooters uses isosceles, and they're pretty fast at getting around.

I must respectfully disagree with the isosceles being balanced. Of all the years I've been alive, I haven't seen 1 boxer's stance with the same foot pattern as the isosceles. The only martial art that I know to even come close is Muy Tai. However, that's only their stance in distance. Once they close in, their body position is different.

Side to side mobility MAY go to isosceles, but it's negligible from my viewpoint.

Where's your foot pattern when you attempt a jab, hook, or uppercut? Where's your foot pattern when you take a hit? Isosceles is absolutely terrible in stabilizing yourself fore and aft.

Top game shooters use stances for speed, nothing else.

 

[WC145]

I do have to take issue with that; as the isosceles is very balanced and stable, and is almost exactly as the stance that I boxed out of for 10 years. I also wouldn't say that it lacks mobility, since all the top game shooters uses isosceles, and they're pretty fast at getting around.

The isosceles stance is balanced and stable as long as you're not being touched and your not trying to move against an opponent. If you stand squared against any force you are in the weakest possible position. That is why fighters are taught a lead - strength, balance, and mobility. An opponent that presents themselves in a squared stance is a gimme, they present the largest target and the weakest offense. You may have squared your shoulders to an opponent when you boxed, but did you actually square your feet as well? If so, how did you move and generate power in your punches?

I think that the term "game shooter" says almost all there is to say about their use of the isosceles position. It's easy to move and maintain your stability when your targets are not advancing on you or engaging you physically.

 

[NRAhab]

There also appears to be a general misconception about what the isosceles stance actually is with regards to foot placement. The feet in isosceles are not placed side by side, but the weak side foot is placed forward of the strong side foot, which gives the shooter the balance and speed that you're looking for.

To illustrate, observe the following images.

In image 1, professional MMA fighter Ryan Gruhn demonstrates the fundamental "boxing stance". Note that the fighter is squared up towards the target, with the weak side leg (for a right handed shooter) advanced and the strong side to the rear. From this position, Ryan can advance, retreat, and deliver punches and knee strikes with power and precision.

In image 2, Jim Wilson is demonstrating the "combat" or "modern" isosceles stance. Note the similarity to the MMA fighter's stance - the shooter's hips are square to the target, the weak side foot is advanced, the knees are bent - all of these are combined to give the shooter the ability to deliver fast, accurate shots, while maintaining the ability to be mobile in a hurry.

 

[Creature]

Excellent post and pics, NRAhab. Thanks for posting them.

Great points you bring up as well. Those illustrations (especially as demonstrated by Jim) are exactly what I was talking about. To me, the isosceles seems to offer the best of all worlds: good balance, maximum protection from multi-organ bullet traversal, and ability to move in all directions.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

There also appears to be a general misconception about what the isosceles stance actually is with regards to foot placement. The feet in isosceles are not placed side by side, but the weak side foot is placed forward of the strong side foot, which gives the shooter the balance and speed that you're looking for.

I see where you're coming from. Most isosceles stances that I've seen have their feet almost squared up to the opponent. The strong side foot may be 1/2 foot length forward. The description that you posted feet wise I can understand, but for personal preference I don't like my body squared to the assailant.

Actually, in the pic of Gruhn, he is still slightly bladed on his upper body.

Thanks for the explaination.

 

[NRAhab]

Most isosceles stances that I've seen have their feet almost squared up to the opponent

That's the "classic" isosceles, iirc. The article that I snagged that picture of Jim Wilson from also shows him demonstrating the "classic", which does have the feet squared up like that - and I would agree 100% that it's a lousy way to fight, because you don't have that balance or speed.

 

[WC145]

My assumption was that the discussion was about the "classic" isosceles and that is what my responses were based on. I was unaware of the new "modified weaver footing with isosceles grip and shoulder positioning" isosceles stance. Modifying your stance in such a manner will certainly make a difference in your ability to maintain your balance and move effectively.

 

[BikerRN]

This is a very interesting topic, and one I've been wrestling with myself for years.

For years I've shot at the Range in a Weaver Stance. One night, when the SHTF I went in to an Isocoles Stance. I guess there is some truth to what they say about "squaring up to the threat".

Since that night, and because I can't get in to my Weaver Stance when I'm wearing my IIIA BRV, (Bullet Resistant Vest), I shoot in Isocoles now. No, not the Isocoles of old, but the Isocoles that Sheriff Wilson is pictured doing.

There is truth to the Weaver Stance providing some protection for your torso, and offering a smaller target to your opponent if you don't wear a BRV. If you do wear a BRV you are offering your opponent a viable opportunity to put a bullet in your heart. The BRV is designed to take bullets facing the target, and the "weak spot" is the side panels. I won't go in to more detail than that in a public forum.

When the SHTF, I'm moving. I'm no longer young and dumb and I'm getting to cover before I concern myself with shooting back.

Biker

 

[AZAK]

Note that the fighter is squared up towards the target

His body is still slightly "bladed", including his hips. Difficult to make much power with hips squared before starting a technique.

I have been shot at before, and my first "best stance" was always to find cover now!

I have always believed that you can't do much more good in this world if you aren't in it.

I personally don't want to "swap lead" mano e mano. If anything needs shooting, I want the advantage. I kind of have gotten used to sleeping in my bed.

To directly answer the OP, I practice different stances, but still tend to start out "bladed". The further out the target, the "squarer"/more static I get; the closer in the target, the more "bladed"/mobile.