[PaladinVC]

It seems to me that this discussion is incapable of going anywhere. The only real benefit of discussing it here is that you might be introduced to a stance you were previously unaware of. I agree that people shoot what they practice, but I wonder why people only practice one stance.

Okay, for a civilian, like me, a "gunfight" will involve myself and a terrible threat. The threat will *probably* be under seven yards away and aligned at my approximate 12 o'clock. I'll pull out my gun, aim it toward the approximate center of the shape in front of me, fire it to slidelock, then pass out and wait for my date to call the police. This will require me to have a fairly fast draw, some decent motor skills, and a date with a cell phone. All of these things can be acquired easily, with the exception of the date. I should practice "combat shooting" in a comfortable stance that allows me to get to my weapon swiftly.

If I'm going to find myself in more complex scenarios, possibly in a law enforcement or military capacity, I think I have an obligation to myself to be a fighter. If I'm using a gun, I should be a gunfighter. Learn a bunch of stances, train a bunch of scenarios, and study a bunch of weapons. Optimally, my stance should be determined by my unconscious competence (an Ayoob term? Sounds like his sort of thing), or, as Miyamoto Musashi called it, emptiness. If stance is important enough to you that you want to analyze it to this degree, then you shouldn't have a name for it. You should have "stance without stance" (Miyamoto Musashi again), and you should train exhaustively to maintain this level of proficiency.

Instead of discussing which stance is "better" or "outdated", you should compare and comtrast their merits and shortcomings in a variety of scenarios, and decide which combinations are best for you. Chioce of stance, as has been stated before in this thread, is a very personal decision.