There are a lot of very tenuous links going on here.....Lots of "this looks a bit like that so it is a valid training method for that....." Like, for example, the "Horse stance is the same as training whilst sitting down" in another thread. This is one example, there are others.
Lets examine that one to illustrate my point. It is not the same.
If you genuinely want to learn how to defend yourself whilst sitting down, then sit down whilst you learn to defend yourself. How can the Horse sance teach you that? OK, you loook a bit like you're sitting down when in the Horse stance..... but what about use of the legs? Your legs sitting on a real chair are far more adaptable than if they are actually supporting your weight. How about learning quick and tactical ways to get back up? The Horse stance is irrelevant to this. How about learning how to use the chair itself? Again, irrelevant.
That is just one example. Here, and in other threads, it seems that the claims of effectivenes of various traditional training methods are being stretched beyond credibility.
Keep things simple. Don't claim "hidden" meanings in movements (where the interpretations can add up to almost anything). Use your mind to creatively simulate the environments and scenarios you will face - not to creatively interpret out of date methods in ways that help you pretend they are still relevant.
No offence intended.
