|
|
| Hello fellow teachers. My name is Linda and I have been teaching a Vinyasa Yoga class for approximately 2 years at a local gym. My training is from a year and a half long Hatha program here in San Diego and my passion has always been Ashtanga, so I teach my class from that passion. I tend to have students stay in their postures for approximately 5 breathes for alignment, etc, rather than flowing quickly from one pose to another as is typical in some Vinyasa style classes. But, we do Vinyasas to get into each pose.
My question is in regards to Virabhadrasana 1 (Warrior 1). Recently a very good student of mine started taking a yoga class with another teacher at my gym and she started changing her foot alignment in Warrior 1 in my class. I teach to have the back foot turned in a little more than 45%, putting pressure along the back edge of the foot, lifting the arch. Legs are spread approx. 3 feet apart. So, my student recently started turning her back foot almost 90% (similar to her front foot, but heel still on the ground, not in Crescent), shortened her stance substantially, and lost a lot of bend in her front leg. At first I thought she was injured and asked her about it and she said that her other teacher teaches her Warrior 1 this way and said that it is so she can turn her hips more squarely toward the front leg. I had never heard of or seen this alignment before and felt that the point of keeping the back foot turned slightly more than 45% and putting pressure along the back edge while turning your hips toward the front was to have the opposing pull (for a lack of a better term) to open up the hips. I tried this version she was taught myself and just found it strained my lower back and did not seem to open my hips.
My question is, is this a different version of Warrior 1 that I am not familar with that maybe you teach or have taught? If so, could you tell me the benefits of teaching the pose this way opposed to the way I explained that I teach it. I'm always trying to learn new things about all the poses I teach and want to expand my knowledge and learn why something works better than something else.
I plan to approach the other teacher about it (non-confrontationally of course), but would like to get some other input before I do. Thank you in advance.
Namaste,
Linda |
|
| |
|
| Personally, I teach Viradhadrasana I with the back heel facing straight back and only the ball of the foot and toes on the floor. I do this because many students cannot square their hips otherwise and I consider twisted hips together with a back bend to be potentially dangerous for the lower back. For the students that can do it with squared hips facing forward, I teach the back foot at about a 45 degree angle, pushing the outer edge of the foot into the floor, front knee directly over front ankle and back leg straight (lifted knee and quad, not locked or hyper extended). |
|
| |
|
| Hello Linda,
You've already got a veteran reply (above) but I'll add my perspective on the pose.
Virabhadrasana I is not an open pelvis pose (as Vira II is) therefore the back hip or ASIS is not moving away from the front inner ankle bone. It is instead moving toward it.
Now, when we as teachers ask students in this pose to bring the waist of the back leg around to the front of the mat/wall/pose AND we do not have them turn the back foot in enough, we place the energy (torque) of the back leg rotation into the knee joint and this leads to a lack of ligament integrity (read: injury). We cannot have the hip coming forward, the foot planted AND turned out (not in) with the expectation that the knee will not bear the brunt of the action. The turning must go somewhere and the knee is the somewhere.
If the pose is sloppy and the back hip does not come around and the teacher does not ask for it or correct it or bring it around then it is not such a big deal. But then the pose is not the pose (it is something else) and the benefits of rooting and recoil, of grounding and aspiration, they are, at very least, minimized.
I personally ask students to turn the back foot in "a lot" and look for at least 60ยบ. And there are times where I not only allow the back heel to lift but mandate it. A trained eye can see the vector forces and make individualized corrections based on bodies rather than poses. For this, I would err on the side of caution (always) as the knees, especially in standing poses of any sort, are an "at risk" segment of the physical body.
gordon
Edited by purnayoga 2010-07-07 1:12 AM
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
    
| I teach this pose to beginners from standing in tadasana on the front edge of the mat and stepping the left leg well back. Most people naturally will turn the left leg slightly out. This helps keep the hips aligned. Teaching it with the back heel up the wall (especially good when there is a nice baseboard to dig the heel into) or on a rolled mat or slant board (left foot slightly turned out) helps deal with grounding the heel but without so much strain on the achilles and hamstrings.
I had a nightmare last night in which half of the class I was teaching started doing some crazy vinyasa on their own and the rest were goofing off.  Not sure I have ever had a yoga nightmare before, even in the run up to assessment for certification. I am certain there is some big deep message in this for me.  |
|
| |
|
| Thank you for your replies. I must admit, that most of the time when I, as a student, am asked to do Warrior 1 with the heel up, I feel it is Crescent Pose and not Warrior Pose. In the pose I am describing, my student is not lifting her back heel, but has both heels grounded, but both feet facing at 90%. Her legs are very close together like in Intense Side Stretch or Parshvottanasana with not much bend in the front knee. I know she can do true Warrior 1 very well so it is somewhat hard to watch her do this pose now when the rest of the class is practicing it the other way. But, I've asked her about it and she seems to feel this is how she wants to do the pose, and since it's her practice ultimately, I can only advise and then release. Thanks again for your thoughtful answers. Namaste, Linda |
|
| |
|
| Linda,
The Warrior I modification that I was talking about is often referred to as Crescent pose. The name does not really matter. What you are doing to your back knee and your lower back does matter.
I think the following "rules" apply:
It is best not to twist the lower back (unsquared hips) when doing a back bend.
It is best to extend and elongate, not hinge and compress the lower back.
It is best if your back knee faces the same direction as the foot below it.
It is best if the front knee is directly over the front ankle.
(The first two protect the lower back and the next two the knees.)
Other than these safety "rules", it all depends what you want to work and what you want to stretch. This has to do with intent. If she is doing the pose differently to stand out or to go against authority, that is bad. If she is doing it thus to stretch a very tight muscle that needs it, that is good. Your intent is also important here. Why do you want her to do the pose differently? When you discussed it with her, what did she say her reasons were?
Your own advise "advise and then release" is good.
Namaste,
Jim
|
|
| |
|
| Hello Linda,
Of course you are welcome for the replies.
I want to tread carefully on the issue of the poses, their names, from whence they come, their lineage, and their efficacy etcetera. However that tippy-toeing often doesn't suit me and I'm pretty poor at it. So let me just say that not all "modern" postures are adopted by all systems.
Personally I learned "crescent" as part of a power yoga practice about ten years ago and it is not in my current curriculum or the lineage in which I teach - though Vanarasana, in the classical surya namaskar, is.
Students are certainly free to do as they choose at home or in their own practice. They may misplace the head in Sirsasana, they may place their shoulders at risk with repetitions of Chaturanga, they may compress the lower back or collapse in the knee - AT HOME. When attending my class I am charged with the responsibility of keeping them safe in the practice and this is why my continued education is so critical along with proper insurance. Though the first often mitigates the need for using the second.
When I see students doing something different AND the cause is not my communication as a teacher, THEN to me it is respectful to the student to inquire why they are doing the pose in this way. Jim alludes to this with his point about intention, which I agree with up to the point of "bad" and "good". If she is able to do the pose and do so without injury then I'd like her to do that when in my class. If her response is "I practice in a different way" then we are moving toward separation.
A student who comes to my class to practice their own way, or in a way of another instructor should likely not be coming to my class (for instruction, which is what I offer) for a myriad of reasons. Just as all teachers are not for all students, all students are not for all teachers.
Classically, of course, she's not doing Vira I as in that pose the front thigh bone is moving to a position parallel to the floor in order to create a rooting from which recoil can spring (no pun intended) such that the student can feel the sense of grounding and aspiration, a duality which is critical in the process of evolving as a human being. Vira I is a pose of personal power (not fighting power) and so the down must be powerful and the up must be powerful, not really possible with the legs as you paint them.
Edited by purnayoga 2010-07-12 11:17 AM
|
|
| |
Question re: back foot position in Virabhadrasana 1
