Fighting stance

[Tom R]

This started as a derail of this thread: "Got the First Video" http://www.wle.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1700

...in BSL #1 and the hand sparring set, there are times when a "fighting stance" is adopted, which is either a horse or a reverse bow - hips facing sideways in both cases - with the hands up and extended forward. It's a pretty terrible fighting stance, to be blunt, especially in the sparring climate of today, in which your front knee/leg will be kicked or grabbed for a takedown (yes, one could do it as an invitation, but it shouldn't be adopted for a general fighting stance). They're both also way too inflexible and turning almost completely sideways to one's opponent isn't wise. I'm guessing this isn't how our predecessors sparred, but that's very hard to judge. Sifu told me that fighters would just move around each other and use the traditional stances once they're in, which sounds similar to what I'm advocating here. I'm not sure why we have horse and reverse bow ready positions in sets... show?

You can see both the horse and reverse bow versions of this ready position in the BSL sparring set video here (first time at 00:35): http://www.wle.com/products/VSL09D.html

By the way, it sort of sounds like it, but I'm not attacking BSL here. I was a BSL student of Sifu Wing Lam for years and I enjoy it greatly. I was mostly trying to emphasize (a) that form and application are not always the same, requiring that the student think critically about the movements and put them to the test, and (b) that I believe a flexible ready position is vital. The traditional footwork is still essential to the the fighting techniques, though. The original thread puts all of this is context.

I agree with your comments about turning your side to your opponent in the ring. On the other hand, we have to remember that competition rules protect fighters from below-the-belt attacks. My assumption has been that the developers of the BSL style were very concerned with defending against that particular type of attack, so the horse stance was a preferred stance.

I think a sideways facing horse opens us up more to low attacks. We'd be essentially be offering our knee for a low side or stomping kick. Throws and sweeps would be harder to defend against and the kidneys are less protected, too. Also, turning as far sideways as we do in the sparring set and #1, limits the ability of either hand to attack efficiently. The front hand is too far extended (and the hips are turned completely sideways), so generation of power is very hard. The rear hand is very far back and would take too long to reach its target. An extended forward hand invites grabbing and other manipulations. Lastly, a horse is very flat-footed and hard to move around in freely, or at least it is for me.

I could be wrong, but I also assume that the BSL style doesn’t use the round-house kick, because it invites a particularly unwelcome counter attack.

So does the hooking punch. We have plenty of circular attacks in BSL, which some say are easy to counter with a linear strike, but, in my experience, circular techniques work well because they're sometimes hard to see coming. Also, if the roundhouse is easily defeated, then our high sweep, which looks very similar, is also easily defeated. We had a big debate on the roundhouse in a thread a few years ago, if I remember correctly.

Some have added the roundhouse to their BSL, I've heard. I haven't yet seen a BSL set with them, though.

I actually don’t see a lot of difference in your views and mine, but the debate is fun anyway.

Mutual respect is a good thing.

Yes, I agree that we should save it for another thread.

Here you go.

[Dan C]

Tom,

I'm sorry that it has taken me three days to find this new thread. Thank you for setting it up. During those months when you were away from this message board there was a serious lack of material for debate. Weeks would go by without a post. It's getting more interesting now.

Let me start with the hotly debated roundhouse kick.

So does the hooking punch. We have plenty of circular attacks in BSL, which some say are easy to counter with a linear strike, but, in my experience, circular techniques work well because they're sometimes hard to see coming. Also, if the roundhouse is easily defeated, then our high sweep, which looks very similar, is also easily defeated. We had a big debate on the roundhouse in a thread a few years ago, if I remember correctly.

Actually, I love the roundhouse kick and MMA competitions provide ample evidence that it's effective. Even so, BSL doesn't use it, and I have to assume there must be a good reason. Once again, I think that it's reasonable to speculate that the developers of the BSL style didn't use the roundhouse kick, because they weren't protected by the same rules that protect competitive fighters today. I think that the disadvantage of the roundhouse kick is that it leaves you standing in an exposed position similar to that of a male dog at a fire hydrant. If rules are in place to protect the fighter against the obvious counter attack, then the roundhouse kick is great. Without those rules you better be sure that the kick lands on target and ends the fight.

I agree with your comments concerning circular attacks.

I also agree with your comments on the horse stance.

I think a sideways facing horse opens us up more to low attacks. We'd be essentially be offering our knee for a low side or stomping kick. Throws and sweeps would be harder to defend against and the kidneys are less protected, too. Also, turning as far sideways as we do in the sparring set and #1, limits the ability of either hand to attack efficiently. The front hand is too far extended (and the hips are turned completely sideways), so generation of power is very hard. The rear hand is very far back and would take too long to reach its target. An extended forward hand invites grabbing and other manipulations. Lastly, a horse is very flat-footed and hard to move around in freely, or at least it is for me.

On the other hand, the developers of the BSL style did use that stance, and I have to assume that there must be a good reason. I think that VP's comments in the other thread provide a good explanation of why the monks didn't mind giving up some mobility. When you know that your attacker won't hesitate to come to you, then you don't need to go to him. Professional fighters in the ring are willing to wait patiently for an opportunity to step in quickly and take a few shots, but I think that BSL was developed as a response to attackers that lack patience. For example, we know that the Shaolin Temple was often attacked by the army, so I'm sure that those fights involved people that were in a real hurry to kill each other. I think that a fighter's intent has a big impact on how they fight.

You mentioned throws. Are you referring to Jiujitsu style single and double leg take downs? This is just a guess, but I don't think those moves were used much in the day when fighters typically used weapons. An armed attacker will certainly prefer to use the weapon rather than a Jiujitsu style take down. Similarly, an armed victim of a take down attempt would use his weapon on the attacker's back when the attacker shots in for the take down. When weapons are involved, I think that fighters usually prefer to remain upright.

I think that the horse stance allows for an easy defense against sweeps, because you can just lift the foot that is being swept. The BSL forms include a lot of examples of that.

I'm sure that I still have a lot of things to respond to, but I have to go now.

I have a lot to learn about this style, and I think that discussions such as this are a great opportunity to do that.

[Tom R]

My arguments about ready positions and roundhouse kicks aren't limited to the ring. I'm making them from the perspective of unarmed fighting in general.

I think that the disadvantage of the roundhouse kick is that it leaves you standing in an exposed position similar to that of a male dog at a fire hydrant.

I don't find this to be the case. A round kick, even like the one in Thai boxing, is usually thrown pretty tightly, not so wildly that it begs for a kick in the balls. Also, since it can operate at a relatively close range, it can easily slip under an opponent's radar, particularly when buried in a combination. In my opinion/experience, it's no more vulnerable to counter than the circular strikes that are included in BSL and I'd go so far as to say it's harder to counter than several of them.

On the other hand, the developers of the BSL style did use that stance, and I have to assume that there must be a good reason. I think that VP's comments in the other thread provide a good explanation of why the monks didn't mind giving up some mobility. When you know that your attacker won't hesitate to come to you, then you don't need to go to him.

Actually, I think you do. You don't have to chase him around, but once he is in range to attack, it would be a mistake to just wait for it. When I talk about a mobile stance, I don't mean I'm jumping around or anything. I'm just talking about a stance from which I can react quickly. When my opponent is close enough to hit me, I need to act. A horse stance is too flat-footed for me to do this effectively.

The horse stance ready position is used in sets, but because of its drawbacks as a static fighting stance (vulnerability to knee kicks and takedowns, inability to generate power in the forward hand without a step because of the hip angle, etc), I don't personally think that's how our predecessors fought. As I've mentioned, Sifu once told me that fighters would just move around each other until they got into range, and that's where the stances and techniques came in.

You mentioned throws. Are you referring to Jiujitsu style single and double leg take downs?

The single and double-leg shoots found in many grappling styles are definitely a concern, but I'm talking about takedowns in general. I know some derived from our sets that would be much easier to pull off against someone in a horse.

This is just a guess, but I don't think those moves were used much in the day when fighters typically used weapons. An armed attacker will certainly prefer to use the weapon rather than a Jiujitsu style take down. Similarly, an armed victim of a take down attempt would use his weapon on the attacker's back when the attacker shots in for the take down. When weapons are involved, I think that fighters usually prefer to remain upright.

Well, that's on a battlefield. I was talking about an unarmed fight. But even so, some weapons are effective from a distance and getting close is the best strategy against them if you are unarmed or have a shorter weapon.

I think that the horse stance allows for an easy defense against sweeps, because you can just lift the foot that is being swept. The BSL forms include a lot of examples of that.

Well, that can be said for any double-leg stance, but the horse stance less so because the weight distribution is 50/50 and the feet are flat.

In the ring or out of the ring, I would consider it a gift if an oppenent faced off against me in a horse. Sideways and/or set stances are just easier to work off of.

[Dan C]

My arguments about ready positions and roundhouse kicks aren't limited to the ring. I'm making them from the perspective of unarmed fighting in general.

I think that the disadvantage of the roundhouse kick is that it leaves you standing in an exposed position similar to that of a male dog at a fire hydrant.

I don't find this to be the case. A round kick, even like the one in Thai boxing, is usually thrown pretty tightly, not so wildly that it begs for a kick in the balls. Also, since it can operate at a relatively close range, it can easily slip under an opponent's radar, particularly when buried in a combination. In my opinion/experience, it's no more vulnerable to counter than the circular strikes that are included in BSL and I'd go so far as to say it's harder to counter than several of them.

As I mentioned earlier, MMA competitions have proven that the kick is effective. I also agree that combining hand techniques with kicks increases the probability of landing the kick on target. BSL forms include a lot of examples of those combinations. I also agree that Thai style round house kicks are particularly good at close range, because the striking surface is actually the shin rather than the foot. Even so, all of those "open-hip position" kicks do use that dog-at-the-fire-hydrant hip position. I agree that if the kick lands on target the hip position isn't a problem. If the opponent grabs the kick, then the hip position might be an invitation for a counter attack.

On the other hand, the developers of the BSL style did use that stance, and I have to assume that there must be a good reason. I think that VP's comments in the other thread provide a good explanation of why the monks didn't mind giving up some mobility. When you know that your attacker won't hesitate to come to you, then you don't need to go to him.

Actually, I think you do. You don't have to chase him around, but once he is in range to attack, it would be a mistake to just wait for it. When I talk about a mobile stance, I don't mean I'm jumping around or anything. I'm just talking about a stance from which I can react quickly. When my opponent is close enough to hit me, I need to act. A horse stance is too flat-footed for me to do this effectively.

The horse stance ready position is used in sets, but because of its drawbacks as a static fighting stance (vulnerability to knee kicks and takedowns, inability to generate power in the forward hand without a step because of the hip angle, etc), I don't personally think that's how our predecessors fought. As I've mentioned, Sifu once told me that fighters would just move around each other until they got into range, and that's where the stances and techniques came in.

Wasn't Sifu referring to unarmed street fights in Hong Kong? I agree that such a fight would be a great application for CMA, but I think that the Shaolin monks were most interested in surviving attacks by armed opponents that wanted to kill them. I don't think those sorts of attacks included a lot of hesitation or walking around.

I think that a key difference between BSL and modern competition styles is that BSL was developed as a defence against armed and unarmed attackers while competitions match two unarmed opponents of similar skill levels. I think that even the BSL hand sets were developed based on the assumption that the opponent might be armed. For example, BSL forms and the introductory form, Tan Tui, includes techniques where you grab an opponents raised arm and attack the shoulder joint through the arm pit or you do a low snap toe in combination with a downward hand strike. When learning that technique I wondered how you would manage to get your opponent to raise his arm. Later, I realized that an opponent that is striking downward with a weapon is very likely to be in a position where those techniques can be very effective.

Maybe the sideways horse stance offers some advantages when facing an armed attacker. There's no question that it offers a minimal target. It also allows you to cover most of your torso with a single arm while your best arm remains protected behind your body. Of course, I'm making this up as I go along, but I think it's a reasonable possibility.

This is just a guess, but I don't think those moves were used much in the day when fighters typically used weapons. An armed attacker will certainly prefer to use the weapon rather than a Jiujitsu style take down. Similarly, an armed victim of a take down attempt would use his weapon on the attacker's back when the attacker shots in for the take down. When weapons are involved, I think that fighters usually prefer to remain upright.

Well, that's on a battlefield. I was talking about an unarmed fight. But even so, some weapons are effective from a distance and getting close is the best strategy against them if you are unarmed or have a shorter weapon.

Yes, I agree that when you are facing an armed attacker you don't want to be within the effective range of the weapon. Instead, you want to be either too far or too close.

I think that the horse stance allows for an easy defense against sweeps, because you can just lift the foot that is being swept. The BSL forms include a lot of examples of that.

Well, that can be said for any double-leg stance, but the horse stance less so because the weight distribution is 50/50 and the feet are flat.

Sweeps are very fast, so you don't need to raise your foot for very long to avoid the sweep. I'm not sure that the 50/50 distribution is a problem.

In the ring or out of the ring, I would consider it a gift if an oppenent faced off against me in a horse. Sideways and/or set stances are just easier to work off of.

Yes, and that exposes the apples and oranges nature of our discussion. The Shaolin monks had a pretty good idea of how their attackers usually fought and they developed a style that would be effective against those sorts of attacks. Today, people that have been training for sparring competitions fight differently. It's easy to see how set stances are applicable when the opponent attacks aggressively and without hesitation, but it's less obvious to see how a flat footed stance is helpful if the opponent fights like a western style boxer. There might be some good answers to those questions, but I still have a lot to learn about CMA.

[JamesC]

Even so, all of those "open-hip position" kicks do use that dog-at-the-fire-hydrant hip position. I agree that if the kick lands on target the hip position isn't a problem. If the opponent grabs the kick, then the hip position might be an invitation for a counter attack.

This applies to every kick that is within reaching height. Front kicks, side kicks, jumping kicks, back kicks, all of 'em. It doesn't matter which path the kick is taking, if they get a hold on your leg or foot, your groin is exposed.

This also brings up a good point about kicking above the waist. Most styles don't encourage it unless it is used after a feint or attack by drawing.

[Dan C]

Good point. If your opponent grabs your kick, then you're in trouble regardless of the type of the kick. On the exposure issue, we could also say that you're exposed anytime you're in front of an opponent, and that's true even when you are not kicking. Even so, I think that the "open-hip" position kicks result in a little more exposure than other techniques.

I agree with your comments on the risks associated with high kicks, but I have seen a lot of MMA fights ended with a round house kick to the head. I think that it's a good kick if you're certain that you can land it on target without being caught. I think that the probability of hitting the target depends on your own offensive skills and your opponent's defensive skills. I've noticed that high kicks in MMA fights seem most likely to occur when there's a mismatch between the striking skills of the two fighters.

Based on the BSL forms, it seems to me that the Shaolin monks favored the low snap toe kick to the groin. When the opponent is wearing body armor and a helmet, the low snap toe kick is probably far more effective than attempting to hit other areas that are better protected. Did Chinese soldiers wear helmets? If so, then that low snap toe kick becomes more valuable.

[Tom R]

[...]all of those "open-hip position" kicks do use that dog-at-the-fire-hydrant hip position. I agree that if the kick lands on target the hip position isn't a problem. If the opponent grabs the kick, then the hip position might be an invitation for a counter attack.

Granted. All I meant was that it does not leave one all that open. The follow through for the roundhouse, like the follow through from the high sweep is either immediate retraction of the leg or a full spin around to a guard position.

Wasn't Sifu referring to unarmed street fights in Hong Kong?

Specifically, he was talking about lei tai matches, but yes, I'm talking unarmed fighting.

I agree that such a fight would be a great application for CMA, but I think that the Shaolin monks were most interested in surviving attacks by armed opponents that wanted to kill them. I don't think those sorts of attacks included a lot of hesitation or walking around.

Once again, a mobile and unrooted guard stance doesn't mean hesitation or walking around (though circling does happen in real confrontations, judging from real footage I've seen). It just means that I'm ready to move in any direction at any time, which I don't feel is possible in a horse stance - at least, not with the same speed. This is, if anything, of even more importance while fighting an armed attacker, which is of course a terrible situation in the first place.

I think that a key difference between BSL and modern competition styles is that BSL was developed as a defence against armed and unarmed attackers while competitions match two unarmed opponents of similar skill levels. I think that even the BSL hand sets were developed based on the assumption that the opponent might be armed.

Granted, but I don't see any benefits of the horse stance guard against armed opponents. As I mentioned, I'm going to be even more active/mobile against these people. Ideally, I'm looking for an opportunity to grab something to fight with or run.

Maybe the sideways horse stance offers some advantages when facing an armed attacker. There's no question that it offers a minimal target. It also allows you to cover most of your torso with a single arm while your best arm remains protected behind your body.

I'll cede the point of the minimal target, but with a weapon, all one needs to do is make contact to cause damage. In that case, I'd prefer the mobility to slip, duck, and dodge. Yes, the single arm can cover the torso, but it's also easier to get around to your back because you're sideways. When an opponent is more square, it's harder to find a vulnerable angle from which to attack.

In the broadsword vs. spear set, when the broadsword fighter has been disarmed, he sets in a cat stance, shoulders square and hands up, and searches for an opportunity to close the distance. Turning sideways would make it harder to defend against the stabs as we try to close in. This kind of defensive stance is closer to what I'm advocating and, interestingly, turns up in an unarmed vs. spear situation. I think Sifu either forgot or never learned the unarmed vs. spear two-person set, so unfortunately we can't reference that... and I haven't learned unarmed vs. daggers.

Of course, I'm making this up as I go along, but I think it's a reasonable possibility.

Foam padded sticks and other weapons are available for weapon sparring. I'm planning on getting some soon for my own practice/fun. When in doubt, try it out.

Geez, that wasn't supposed to rhyme. Now it sounds lame...

Sweeps are very fast, so you don't need to raise your foot for very long to avoid the sweep. I'm not sure that the 50/50 distribution is a problem.

True, but an unrooted ready position allows one to lift the foot quicker than in a rooted one, no? As an added bonus, one only needs to shift his weight off the front foot, since sweeping a foot holding no weight is inneffective.

Yes, and that exposes the apples and oranges nature of our discussion. The Shaolin monks had a pretty good idea of how their attackers usually fought and they developed a style that would be effective against those sorts of attacks. Today, people that have been training for sparring competitions fight differently. It's easy to see how set stances are applicable when the opponent attacks aggressively and without hesitation, but it's less obvious to see how a flat footed stance is helpful if the opponent fights like a western style boxer. There might be some good answers to those questions, but I still have a lot to learn about CMA.

I think you are correct that the fighters in China had limited exposure to other nations' styles, so the BSL style developed pretty much enclosed in the CMA "sphere." As we encounter other styles with approaches new to BSL, we must test and adapt in order to survive as an applicable fighting system.

However, despite CMA's relative isolation for most of BSL's development, I still don't see the benefits to a horse stance on-guard position, unarmed or armed. I'm open to hearing about them, and if I'm unsure about something in particular, I'll try it out in sparring, since I spar several times a week. I'll even try to use the horse stance guard on Wednesday in san shou and see how it goes. I'll report here on my findings.

I don't think our discussion is entirely apples vs. oranges, because if the horse stance guard is as problematic as I think it is, I don't think our predecessors would use it, except possibly as an invitation. Since I'm assuming the developers of BSL had more fighting and sparring experience than myself, I also assume that they would discover the problems that I have. Maybe they solved them, but if so, the solution has never been passed down to me. I admit that assumptions aren't proof of anything, but it's all I can go on right now.

That's why I try to test my theories and applications in sparring to see what really works. At the same time, I learn to adapt my BSL to different styles of fighting. I'm not the greatest fighter ever, but I'm learning more sparring than if I ever could without it. It's a long road...

[Tom R]

This applies to every kick that is within reaching height. Front kicks, side kicks, jumping kicks, back kicks, all of 'em. It doesn't matter which path the kick is taking, if they get a hold on your leg or foot, your groin is exposed.

This also brings up a good point about kicking above the waist. Most styles don't encourage it unless it is used after a feint or attack by drawing.

Just what I was thinking, brother. Training counters to kicks via catching is essential to fighting arts and sports that allow catching. Catches are a major consideration when setting up and preparing to throw any kick.

[Dan C]

Tom,

I haven’t been advocating using the sideways horse stance for modern sparring. My point has been that it’s a part of the BSL system, so the monks must have found it to be useful as a defense for the sorts of attacks that they faced. The question is how was the stance used?

What are the advantages of the stance?

1. Smaller target
2. Minimal exposure of vital organs
3. Good mobility for controlling range
4. Good stability in direction facing your opponent
5. Only one side gets bloody when weapons are involved
6. Generates a lot of power when shifting to a bow stance

What are the disadvantages?

1. Limits the use of one side of the body
2. Very poor mobility to your opponent’s left and right
3. Difficult to generate power without shifting your stance
4. Circling requires stance changes

There are probably a lot of disadvantages that I overlooked.

I agree that the disadvantages are significant, but the fact that the stance frequently appears in the forms suggests that they had some success with it. Did they use it for a ready position or did they only using it after the fight gets started? It sure would be nice if the monks had passed down a manual along with the forms. Some footage from a monk reality show would also be helpful.

My sparring partner will have to grow a few more inches before I can make use of any stances other than kneeling. Just yesterday, she pointed out that her eyebrow height staff is no longer eyebrow height. I suppose it won't be long before I can get back on my feet.

[Tom R]

Haha, yes, Andrea's a little bigger now but you'll have to wait for awhile on that one.

I hope it doesn't seem like I'm down on the horse in general. I just don't advocate it as a static position.

Most of the other stuff just has us running around in circles.

As an interesting note, there is a BSL manual, which Sifu hand-copied from YSW (that's where we get the poems, I think). Sifu had plans to put a fair amount of it into print as part of the BSL book he was writing. I did some work on it a while back. When I left, that book was supposed to be almost finished, but I don't know what happened. Ditto with the Ha Say Fu HG book.

The classical fighting principles are in there, but I don't recall a specific entry for an on-guard position.

[JamesC]

The major disadvantate to a sideways horse stance on-guard position is the exposure of the lead leg, especially when a bladed weapon is involved.

This position allows for easier access to the femoral artery that runs along the inner thigh. One good swipe with a blade, or even a sharp spearhead, could be fatal.

This also provides an exposed knee for your opponent. Although the knee joint is a hard joint to injure when it comes to circular kicks, such as the round kick, it is definitely in danger of it. I don't know about BSL, but in JKD and Kali we have a kick called the Dum Tek. The execution is different between the styles, but the translation should give you a good idea of it's purpose. Dum Tek = Stomp Kick. Used with the instep of the rear foot. The path is straight through the knee joint as you close the gap to trapping range.

[Dan C]

Haha, yes, Andrea's a little bigger now but you'll have to wait for awhile on that one.

Yes, but she’s a tough sparring partner. Those short arms and little fists don’t have to travel very far to hit their target, and her relentless giggling is a constant distraction.

[Dan C]

This position allows for easier access to the femoral artery that runs along the inner thigh. One good swipe with a blade, or even a sharp spearhead, could be fatal.

On the history channel they have shows such as Wild West Technology, Wild West Justice, Wild West Shoot-outs, etc. On one of those shows there was a story of a guy that murdered a lawyer by stabbing him in the groin with the intent of opening the femoral artery. It worked.

In Newsweek there was a story about a doctor in Iraq that saved a lot of lives. The first person that he treated was a guy that had been shot through the femoral artery. That was one of the soldiers that he couldn't save.

[Dan C]

As an interesting note, there is a BSL manual, which Sifu hand-copied from YSW (that's where we get the poems, I think). Sifu had plans to put a fair amount of it into print as part of the BSL book he was writing. I did some work on it a while back. When I left, that book was supposed to be almost finished, but I don't know what happened. Ditto with the Ha Say Fu HG book.

I hope that Sifu publishes the BSL book soon. Without it, I feel a little like Jade Fox on Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. She was the character that learned the moves, but hadn’t read the book.

The market for a book on BSL might be small, so print-on-demand publishing might be a good choice. I used booksurge.com for my book on the Java programming language.

http://www.booksurge.com/

I don’t recall exactly how much I payed for the setup, but I think it was only a few hundred dollars.

Booksurge is now owned by Amazon. Each time a person orders a copy from the Amazon web site a single copy of the book will be printed and will be sent directly to the customer. The author doesn’t have to spend any money to print thousands of copies that might or might not be sold. At the end of each month Amazon will mail a royalty check.

[Tom R]

James,
We have that kick, too. A low side kick works as well...

Dan,
I remember you mentioning that site a while back, I think. Thanks for the link.

Actually, the audience for a BSL book would be pretty large. Not as large as for HG, but ours is actually a pretty popular style.

Don't feel bad about not having "the book." It deals with a lot of theoretical stuff, which, while helpful and does provide insight, isn't very useful until later on. At one point, I was working on a basics section for Sifu's book, which wasn't a part of the manual and expands on the student manuals that we've had since the early 90's. Unfortunately, the manual isn't much like an "Idiot's Guide" (which I'd love to have )... more esoteric.