The Elementary
Observation: The Human Animal when engaged in
feats of power, combat [armed & unarmed], and a preponderance of sports must
make the initial engagement with the enemy, the ball, the obstacle to be
overcome while on two feet.
While on two
feet the Human Animal almost overwhelmingly offsets the dominant side to the rear.
That is, if you
are right-handed, the right foot slightly to the rear—sub-dominant hand/foot
[here the left] to the fore.
A Few Scattered Examples—
·
The boxer’s strong hand to the rear.
·
The batter at home plate with the strong
foot to the rear, bat over rearward shoulder.
·
The lumberjack with a dominant foot to
the rear using a facing offset for the power-strokes.
·
The right-handed quarterback, or
baseball pitcher—dominant hand to the rear.
·
The Spartan hoplite with the xiphos
or kopis to rear [the same for all sword wielding forces—save fencing.]
·
The Marine on Bataan with the M1-Garand
rifle tucked into that rearward dominant shoulder.
We could expand
this list for pages, as I am sure you could as well with your own examples.
The human animal,
when extraordinary focus is required [combat, competitive game, or hard task]
seems to all fall into this default of dominant to the rear stance.
The Question:
Why Is This An Almost Universal Preference?
It would seem
that placing the most coordinated limb to the fore would be the default as we
see with fine motor tasks.
When we reach
for a measuring cup while in the midst of a complicated recipe we do not reach
with the dominant hand while taking a step back.
When signing the
dotted line on the car loan papers, one reaches for the pen with the dominant hand
and shifts the dominant side of the body to the fore.
Why do we
abandon this seemingly “sensible” dominant side to the fore stance/positioning when
stakes are raised?
In the past I
offered a possible “explanation” connected to the transition from sword and
buckler play to the advent of coordinated boxing instruction in the 18th-century.
I now think that
argument is wrong.
[You can read my
plausibly “wrong” historical “argument” here; it still holds some valid points
in particulars but…overall…. Kittens,
Hoplites, & Combat Stances.]
Question 2: Why
Have I Changed My Mind?
In short, I
thought with too much containment. I “reasoned” to my conclusions from inside
my domain of fight science/fight history.
I did not look
enough at outside impingements.
It seems I made
the common error of “reasoning from my biases” “pleading for my party.”
Or as Emerson
says in his immortal “Self-Reliance”
“If I know your sect, I anticipate your argument. I hear a preacher
announce for his text and topic the expediency of one of the institutions of
his church. Do I not know beforehand that not possibly can he say a new and
spontaneous word? Do I not know that with all this ostentation of examining the
grounds of the institution he will do no such thing? Do I not know that he is
pledged to himself not to look but at one side, the permitted side, not as a
man, but as a parish minister? He is a retained attorney, and these airs of the
bench are the emptiest affectation. Well, most men have bound their eyes with
one or another handkerchief, and attached themselves to some one of these
communities of opinion... Meantime nature is not slow to equip us in the
prison-uniform of the party to which we adhere.”
Our jobs as human thinkers, be that in our role as combat historians,
members of a civilization, or just folks who desire to be pleasant to one another
is to be as clear thinking as we can—examine our own arguments with just as
much [no, scratch that—More] criticism than we do others.
It is only by self-examination and correction that we can get closer to
the meat of matters and not merely add more garnish to long stale meals.
ArtiFacts
In many endeavors, not just combat study, there is a tendency to mistake
the artifact for a fact.
An artifact may be tangible—as in a spear point that tells us about
relative heft and perhaps cues as to shaft length and how it was wielded, or an
artifact may be a physical tactic, as in why do boxer’s toe-in the lead foot
and toe-neutral the rear, or why do Western riders mount their horses from the
left, while almost every tribe in the same Frontier territories mount from the
right? Same geography—same animal—copious exposure to one another’s methods—but
why the difference?
Yes, we must curate artifacts. Make surmises from the artifacts but…we must
never mistake [or over-inflate] the artifact. In other words, we must be wary
of making a capital F Fact out of a lower-case fact.
“Archaeology is often defined as the study of antiquities. A better
definition would be that it is the study of how men lived in the past. It is
true that your archaeologist is compelled by circumstances to rely upon the
material remains surviving from the people he is studying to arrive at any idea
of their daily life; yet, however much he may appear to be preoccupied with
things, often in themselves unattractive, he's really interested all the time in
people. In this and many other ways he resembles the criminologist. He has to
rely upon circumstantial evidence and much of his time is taken up with the
details which may appear to be trivial, although as clues to human actions they
can be of absorbing interest.”—Grahame Clark, Archeology
and Society [1939]
Now, you may be asking, “What does all this have to do with the origin
of combat stances?”
The
Answer is Another Question.
What if, what if, combat stances, athletic stances, power stances under
pressure are a pre-existing condition?
That is, not a deliberate bit of strategic or tactical lore handed down
from coach to coach as in… “Before you swing an axe, son, hit your facing
line.”
Yes, there is that component involved—the small f fact—the artifact.
But what if [again, what if] our strategic artifact is a kluge [a clumsy but
useful add-on] to highlight a pre-existing inherent neurological bias that allows
for better performance from this dominant side off-setting?
In essence, a quirk of neural anatomy that is brought more online by particular
positioning and specific gazing.
Well, that’s enough words for today.
I’ll leave my thoughtful Warriors to cogitate.
In Part Two, we’ll delve into a bit of neurological science that
seems to answer the stance question definitively.
I will also offer the interesting outside-combat domain overlay that may
explain why so many Warrior Cultures have a deep meditation/religious/spiritual/vision
quest tradition. From Knights Templar to Samurai, to Osage Warriors to Fighting
Priests to Modern Bushido—there does indeed seem to be a neurological overlay
between stance-enhancement and meditative [“spiritual”] enhancement.
Along the way, we’ll also sojourn with a fascinating study of paintings
by the Old Masters that also seems to shed some light on this whole stance origin.
Intrigued? Oh, if you’re anything like me this in-the-weeds get to the
meat of the matter sends your Soul.
Part
2—Only in Next week’s free newsletter. [If you’re not
subscribed, the 1st link below can cure that deficit.]
As for Training Materials Historically Accurate, Scientifically Examined,
and Viciously Verified in the Comancheria Living Laboratory, well, see the following
resources!
Resources for
Livin’ the Warrior Life
The Black Box
Store
https://www.extremeselfprotection.com/
The Indigenous
Ability Blog
https://indigenousability.blogspot.com/
The Rough ‘n’
Tumble Raconteur Podcast
Comments
Post a Comment