In both the general and orthodox definitions——stance has been understood to be the position of the feet and the body from which a fighter initiates and operates their offense and defense from.
People often ask, “how do we view the idea of stance?”
I tell them there is nothing wrong with various philosophies on stance. Most fighting sports and martial arts have developed a different take on the idea of stance based on the parameters and rules of the arts and sports which are the products of cultural pressures and influences, including entertainments. After all the spirit of the Panathenaic Stadium of Greece, the Coliseums of both the Persian and the Roman Empires are still alive, but under new socioeconomic and political settings. Still, the longer and the bloodier the fights the more excited the crowd becomes.
Fencing, Boxing, Muay Thai, Wresting, Jiujitsu, and so on, just to name a few, each have their own rational philosophy on what’s considered as stance, and they are all correct in their own arenas.
I myself do not like the word stance. I do not believe that in a self-defense situation one can advocate a set stance, whether it is orthodox or unorthodox. The word stance is outdated in my estimation and in what we do. It is much better, and much more organic to redefine the word stance as:
The infinite number of body configurations which at any given moment can shift and change in order to maintain maximum balance and a comprehensive homeostatic efficiency.
That’s what we mean when someone asks us about “stance”. Much more can be said on this, but there is no time at the moment.
You can directly text or call me about schedule and training at: 480-489-7202