Originally Posted by dhester23
Also Sinister, I did switch my stance because of the many benefits I have seen you post about on here about the bladed stance and how the old time fighters had it more as opposed to more recent squared stance and I wanted to ask, I have been watching a lot of videos of fighters like archie moore, charles burley and james toney and have noticed they don't slip the right cross too often or at all and usually when they slip the jab and the cross is coming they just basically bend up or down or in toney's case, shoulder roll the cross. Is what they do better than trying to slip it when fighting out of a more bladed stance? Thanks a lot
This is something I have been curious about too, as I'd like more versatility to my head movement than just slipping to my (I'm orthodox) right, pulling back or bobbing/flexing down in response to right hands.
I analysed James Toney and found he almost exclusivly slips/rolls to his right, using head movement to his own left very rarely/ just enough to remind his opponents that he can still do it. Even then though, I can't recall him slipping outside a cross and drilling them with a liver hook- and I've looked.
More often, these bladed fighters tend to duck or bob down completly as an alternative to slipping to the right, and they seem to forego their left hooks as an outside-counter to a right-cross.
George Benton in his fights that I have seen was another example of almost exclusivly slipping and shoulder rolling to his own right. Occasionally, if Benton was squared up against the ropes he might slip outside a right cross- but he would be more square at such a point and even then it was rare. So it generally seems that this defensive manouvere (slipping outside a right cross) is largely taken out of the equation by the bladed stance, or at least made difficult to the point were even its most adept practitioners don't use it.
That said, I'm sticking with my bladed stance, but I got thinking about this because I was watching some Orlin Norris- another cagey 'cute' fighter from the 90's. His style is not bladed like a Toney or Benton- in fact he is often fairly square on- but he moves his head around alot and slips outside right crosses to use counter left hands very well so far as I can see.
Curiously, his pet defensive move is to lean forward and to his own left- apperently giving up his own liver. Why don't more bladed-stanced fighters do this? The obvious answer- they don't want their livers pulped is probably the reason, yet I've not seen Norris' liver been crushed in the way that I 'feel' mine would be if I tried this! Watch Norris responding to Tony Tucker's jabs here in the opening round at 5:20- 5:35 for an example, plenty more further in.
Tony Tucker | Orlin Norris 1/5 - YouTube
So my question is, does blading yourself mean that to a large extent your giving up on slipping outside right crosses, to instead fade with or shoulder roll or slip to your own right? It just seems more natural to move with the force of the punch, especially if your opponent is throwing a quick right hand or so close that it doesn't give you much reaction time. Getting snotted by a right hand you've moved into isnt fun when dissapating its force is so much easier- but I keep trying to bring back the counter liver hook that i had in my repetoir when I was less bladed. Back then, it was just a matter of flexing onto the left foot and slipping the right hand, and whipping in my favourite punch.
So, thoughts on the above?
Am I too 'bladed' (I don't think so) or is it jsut a matter of learning how these motions in the new stance (I don't think so either).
Or, is the reason that James Toney, George Benton, Walcott, Burley and other bladed stance fighters don't slip outside right hands is because thats just a part and parcel of the stance. Am I being too greedy in wanting to have an Orlin Norris-esque range of motion to my left as well as a Toney-esque range of motion to my right!!
Let me know your thoughts and experiences.