That’s not exactly what I said.
Am I right to thing you mean that you don’t have to be in a deep stance to be rooted?
Yes.
Or are you stating that you don’t thing a deep stance is rooted?
[/quote]
No.
It doesn not follow that:
If deep stance =/= rooted Then deepstance = not rooted.
depth of stance has little to do with root? I assume one is not refering to a resisting or pushing state for such. For example, compare high bow and arrow to low bow and arrow, back is aligned straight with the back heel.
one who is 150 LBS pushing one who is 200lbs. From high bow and arrow stance is more difficult to push straight and resist or move the 200 pounder back. From lower stance is easier. Similar to pushing a car that’s stuck or out of gas. standing higher it is difficult, in a lower stance the body has a better angle for resistance in a straight line. Another example would be a football running back resisting a tackle. They often dip into the tackle, lowering their center of gravity. by leaning forward, in order to stay on feet, one foot comes forward ****her, hence a deeper stance.
No.
It doesn not follow that:
If deep stance =/= rooted Then deepstance = not rooted.[/QUOTE]
Ah. I get what you are saying. But I have to disagree. I find the lower my stance, the better my root.
“Sticky” and “body vibration” are defense against takedowns. Strong root has little to do with takedowns resistence.
Strong root has to do with “the ability to rejust balance” and has little to do with high stance or low stance. If you have high stance then it’s easy to pick you up. If you have low stance then it’s easy to push you down. If you can destroy your root and then regain your root then that’s the true root.
A turtle has good balance but a cat has even better balance. If you flip a turtle over then that turtle has to spend a lots of time to regain her root. If you throw a cat in the air; the cat will flip herself and land on her feet. That’s true root. So root is dynamic not static.
How long that you can fight depending on how strong root that you have. In fighting the first thing that you may notice is that your leg start to get tired and you also lost your mobility. So root and mobility is two things in one and cannot be separated.
I would answer that you are more “stable” but that this is a different idea than what is traditionally called “root” in Chinese. The idea comes mainly from IMA and it is very subtle. The depth of your stance is not related at all the way I see it. This very topic title is an interesting irony for me since as I understand it, true “root” is dynamic. To quote someone else for a moment:
From high bow and arrow stance is more difficult to push straight and resist or move the 200 pounder back. From lower stance is easier. Similar to pushing a car that’s stuck or out of gas. standing higher it is difficult, in a lower stance the body has a better angle for resistance in a straight line.
This is totally not a good example of rootedness. In fact, when you get down low and lean in to your broken down car as you push with both legs at that very slight engle to the ground so you can push with more hozizontal strength…you have no root at all. If the car were to suddenly vanish, you would fall on your ass…or your face, depending on wether you were facing the car or away from it.
Root is a very subtle thing that has more to do with some very subjective things, sensitivity, impulse vectors within your body and your relationship to someone else along with your ability to redirect energy rather than some kind of static stability based on the crude physics of your stance. Stance training definately helps develop root but in more subtle ways than simple leg strength.
p.s.
This is what I am getting at:
The biggest reason you have to be mobile and rooted in a street fight when you strike is if you have to fight multiple opponents. That adds a whole other dynamic to the fight situation. You have to have a better sharper sense of timing, when to move, when to root and strike and how to work against your opponents for a favorable outcome. Odds are against multiple fighters your going to get your butt handed to you anyway(unless of course they are untrained).
Then you get into the many theorys for fighting multiple opponents from there.
-Will
Like I said, I get what you are saying. I just don’t agree. 
Not everyone’s low stances are easy to knock over. Not everyone’s high stances are easy to lift of the ground. It hsa everything to do with A) how well the root is held, B) how stiff thier footwork is, and C) wether their opponant is sensitive enough to spot a break in thier root and exploit it before the root can be re-attained.
I disagree as well - a deep stance does not indicate root. it CAN be rooted, but it also may not be.
using this logic, boxers are not rooted…
the lower your stance is, the wider your legs will be, typically. this means that you are ALOT easier to off balance - just in a different direction from your current strong point. it’s hard to push you backward, but quite easy to take you at a diagonal angle. How quickly can you readjust your feet? that’s when we start talking about how rooted you are…
Deeper means better root for beginners. Structurally, certain deep postures automatically align you better with gravity - so it seems ‘natural’ that this means there is an automatic correlation between deep stances and ‘rootedness.’
Which there both is and isn’t. As your training advances, you learn to maintain ‘rootedness’ even when upright - and it the actions of force upon you or an action you are taken that determines the ‘direction’ of rootedness.
Being able to sustain this feeling into reality means coordinating your structure, breath, mind, in a plethora of different ways. I make no bones about being out of shape due to my work responsibilities, yet this ‘root’ gives me a strength that is deceiving compared to how I look right now.
In my school, ‘root’ is not to be confused with compression. Boxers, FWIW don’t have ‘root’ in the same sense - at least not on purpose. Compression does take advantage of the root path, but is not ‘rootedness’ - at least how my school defines it.
Then you need to consider substantia and insubstantial. Personally, I’m a big beleiver in footwork to control distance. Wether you wait and bait, or dance and confuse depends more on your oponnent than on your personal reference. But from my experience, you can maintain ‘structural alignment’ without having to be fully ‘rooted.’ - nor is it always advantageous to be so.
I’m splitting hairs here, so i hope it makes sense…
In my school, ‘root’ is not to be confused with compression. Boxers, FWIW don’t have ‘root’ in the same sense - at least not on purpose. Compression does take advantage of the root path, but is not ‘rootedness’ - at least how my school defines it.
Actually I like that explanation. Soemthing hasn’t completely sat right with me and the idea that boxers “root”
If his stanace is
There is no root that cannot be destroyed. The only root that cannot be destroyed is when “you lie down on the ground” then even the best throwing master won’t be able to throw you.
something like what? the fact that they don’t know they do it? sport guys do alot of things you see tma do - peng, borrowing, yielding, etc. but they are not named, merely part of good technique.
Yes and no.
It all comes down to varying degrees. Although I agree with your statement overall. There are many things that are just the way they are, but at the same time there can be significant differences.
This is absolute true. Sport fighters never talk about theory and principle. They just do it and not talk about it. Just like the boxer said, “put your whole body into the punch”. They don’t use the fnacy words such as “structure”, “rooting”, “connect”, “body unification”, “Fajin”, “Ting Jin”, “Peng Jing”, “yielding”. All those fancy words were invented in the past 200 years by those Chinese schodiers who don’t like to sweat but just like to talk.
why do you say the boxer example is more of a demonstration of compression, rather than root?
Okay, here is how I use the jargon:
Root: maintaining a connection to the ground, via a state of 'relaxed tension, and specific skelatal structure alignments, enabling you to draw movement from the gua.
Compression: “squeezing, or gripping” the ground so you can work against it - expand to create force. EVERYBODY in almost every sport uses compression in some way or another.
Boxers use it all the time in almost every punch - if they were trained well. But boxers do not use ‘root’. To me ‘root’ is the building block for ‘peng’.
You can argue it, but I had a pro boxing gym in my old club. I love boxing. But boxing does not have this idea… it isn’t relevant to what they are trying to do.
Mind you, this is jargon from my teaching… I try to create a consistent, defineable set of language based on the stuff I’ve been taught, so others might have different ideas.
okay - I can see why you said compression. initially, when I read that, I was thinking about the spine.
as for movements of the gua though, what is this structural alignment? throwing the cross and hook involve opening and closing the gua. would you say they root somewhat when they punch?