That bought me to a question: I saw guys like Andre Ward have their front foot and back foot set a lot like a riding a skateboard. While afaik i understand it is to get a bit more reach on the jab but in all they still very much threaten and facing the centre line the entire time yes?
Ward doesn't usually have the skateboard feet, in fact it was Dawson who did more so when they fought. Which is why Dawson got beaten up, he wasn't facing Ward effectively for almost that entire fight. But it also depends on HOW these guys throw their punches, or what they do once you ARE in close. Guys who step around well despite their lead foot pointing away from you have an easier time compensating for it.
sinister, what's your opinion of the jab in context with the centerline? Do you think the jab should be thrown while facing their centerline or do you think it's better to get an angle before throwing it? And I'm referring to footwork angle, not angle created from stance.
I think it's better to establish the jab as a threat to the center line. Once the opponent is threatened and responding to said threats, theoretically, you're controlling the pace of the fight.
Yes! I've been waiting for this thread.
Sinister, my boxing coaches are obsessive with me going to my right outside their lead foot (southpaw). Personally i find I'm very successful working from inside of their foot with jabs and countering any right hands they throw since i don't have to worry about their lead hand anymore.
The main problem i have when i move to the outside is exactly what this thread is about. I take a step with my right foot to the right with the intention of pivoting my back foot around to face their centre line again. but for that brief moment they have me at a disadvantage (their foot facing my centre line, mine off).
I've been caught a few times this way, what would you suggest the best way for me to move to the outside would be? I though of moving the rear leg around first but doesn't that break a cardinal rule of footwork? (foot closest to the direction i want to go should move first to prevent feet crossing).
This is difficult to explain, because you can move around the rear leg first and not lose footing, but you'd have to use your heel to pivot and not your front toe in order to keep your head safe.
My question about the old timey pictures: it seems like a lot of them are posed pictures, similar to the pictures taken today at weigh ins. We know for the modern pics, these poses aren't how the guys look when they actually fight.
So what is your reasoning behind picking these pictures?
Here's the thing. First of all we shouldn't always assume that what we're looking at is incorrect. It's kind of embarrassing for anyone claiming to be a student of the game to assume such a thing without possibly first inquiring why something is different than they're used to seeing. So, moving on...the first photo, each of those men are getting ready to punch. But they seem far apart! Well, that would have to do with how boxing back then more resembled fencing. Attacking from afar was done using lunging motions:
It's possible one of those guys was planning to attack, and one defend. But HOW they did each was a bit different than what we'd see today. Not incorrect and stupid. The lunging motions they used back then began with exaggerated movements. A long time ago we examined this piece, look at the film clip in here with Jim Corbett and Gene Tunney:
http://orphanfilmsymposium.blogspot.com/2008/05/pathex-95-mm-fight-picture.html
Note the winding of the arms, particularly when throwing the straight left (which was later simplified into a jab). This was a deceptive tactic, for all basic purposes a feint, only built into the way they move.
The second and third photos are simply poses. The second photo squaring off. Though judging just by their postures, I'd wager the guy on the left is more of a counter-puncher and the guy on the right is more of an aggressor. The last photo is a pose of closer combat. But in the footage provided above, that should answer questions about how they moved, which in-turn would answer questions about how they stood. Finally, I provided footage of McLarnin and Canzoneri, two greats, who both used motions seen in the footage above, and they didn't fight THAT long ago.
I find nit-picking stuff like this simply because A) one lacks understanding and B) one has a problem with the term "old school" simply because a guy they don't like says it a lot to be insufficient reason to attempt to degrade things like this. Especially considering that not only did I include a VERY modern fighter in Broner in the demonstrations, but also young fighters being trained today. It's not about "old school"...it's about correct and incorrect.
you can still face your opponent without having your lead toe pointing at his centerline right? would the concept be the same?
Sort of, but you lose the element of threat. Threatening to punch someone isn't enough. Threatening to hurt them is the idea. When your attacks are aimed in the right direction, and applied with good leverage, you can and will hurt them. However, this is only a beginner's concept. Once you get it down, you can then play with manipulation of the center line, which is a whole other game.
