daniel pfister wrote:Of course the lean is compensated for. If a lean isn't compensated somehow then you just fall over. Now what exactly is perpendicular to the ground? I don't see it.
The line from the top of his head to between the middle of his feet. His back goes behind this line and his knees go in front of it, but these two points are aligned. The difference from some IMA stances is that his perineum is ahead of this line and pointing forward, like a scorpion's tail.
If he were 'leaning' in the sense that I'm talking about, his center of gravity would rise; his body would become fragmented and you could push him over with nearly no effort. In the picture his body is unified. Although you might be able to push him with sufficient effort (unlike some IMA stances which can be virtually immovable), you would move his as one solid chunk, like rolling a shopping cart. His structure wouldn't change. It's a stance built for mobility, not for stability. I see some of the same ideas employed in Systema.
This relates to the old tucking-untucking debate which I won't get back into here.
I could argue this point further but it's a hard distinction to convey without a physical demonstration. If you don't see it the way I see it, that's all right.