Facing the center line:

How does this theory apply to orthodox fighting a southpaw? In the video you see the guy with his foot pointing towards the opponents centerline losing each exchange.

Not trying to debunk, just don't fully get the idea.

[YT]NEXq48gI-a0[/YT]

Jack Slack's a good dude, and he does good analysis, but his writing on southpaw vs. orthodox tactics is always a bit too simplified for my tastes. Those clips do not show someone controlling the center line. They show someone giving up the outside angle. Subtle, but huge difference.

Don't pay so much attention to the placement of the lead foot as much as to the direction it points and the orientation of the hips behind it. Watch the last forty seconds or so of the Adrian Broner clip that Sinister posted. His opponent has the outside position constantly, but because Broner's body is turned in the right way, he's able to land his rear hand at will. Boxing is more complicated than "put your foot outside his foot." And facing the opponent is more complex than it sounds!
 
Never said anything was incorrect, just wanted to know why. Good info though

I wasn't meaning you directly with all of my comments when responding to your question. I took that opportunity to address other issues. There seems to be a growing trend around here of being argumentative for fashion and not function.

After thinking more about this topic and approaching an experienced fighter in my gym about this he gave an obvious anwser that I was thinking from the start...if you're not so bladed and completely facing their centerline, isnt your body an easy target to hit? That's one of the main reasons the say "angle up" is so your body and face is more naturally protected instead of a square stance to where you're open...anyone see where Im coming from?

And also if this is such an underutilized tactic then why dont you see the top modern day fighters using this on a daily basis? Anyone have examples?

also im talking all boxing reference

I'm not fully understanding the question. Being bladed helps to face the center line, but it's not mandatory exactly. I don't know of any fighters who fight EXACTLY square and do well, so when anyone gets an angle to their stance at all, facing the center line in the manner referenced here is pretty elementary. A lot of fighters do it by accident, then have trouble maintaining it.

Sinister

Ive quoted you here "It simply means beyond the effective scope of their peripheral vision. This is where you want to go when we say "get an angle"...idealistically. You can get angles from within the field of vision, but that's another thread"

I find that interesting I know you obviously said thats another thread but care to elabarote on what you mean here? I just cant seem to get a visual on what you're saying

There are very subtle ways of procuring angles from right in front of a fighter without moving to either side of their center. it's just very difficult. But I'll give you a hing, Broner did it A LOT to DeMarco in their bout.

This reminds me of when I was talking about angles way back when and you mentioned threatening the center line. Now I know what you mean by that. Do you feel like ali's footwork is too flimsy and could have been a little more balanced?, I mean within the context of his stance, I know how you feel about his weight not being back enough. I always felt like lead hooks along with the jab are the two best weapons in boxing because lead hooks are so powerful inside.

Ali's footwork was only flimsy by comparison to smaller fighters. For a heavyweight it was exceptional. However when you take the guys he was emulating...Rodriguez, Napoles, Pastrano, Dupas, he definitely seems flimsy. As far as lead hooks, that's relative to whether or not it's the person's power hand (and by hand I mean facilitated by hip-rotation) or not. For instance, I'd much rather get hit by Carlos Monzon's left hook than his right hand.

thanks for posting a video of muay thai fighter using the centre line theory , i dont see what you are talking about at all , but it will just have to be one of those things we disagree about .

there isnt any other way to track someone down than to go directly at them , the centre line is the best place to start with if you are going to chase someone ,my football coach taught me that .

i was looking more for a muay thai practitioner with his foot in line and lead hand in line with his opponents centre all the time as part of his stance, not only when he is in pursuit and isnt really concerned with the other guys offense as is usually the case with sancheai
perhaps you guys are talikng about fighting from a bladed stance . in that case the foot and hand are indeed in the centre , in tkd it is used frequently when setting up back kick or any of the lineal kicks , a bladed stance gives you the luxury od darting in and out , like a fencer , but with it comes some disadvantages .

anyway , carry on with your discussion fellas .

I'm not sure what you're having trouble seeing. From the onset, Senchai has his lead toe aimed directly at Pinca's center, and he works from there. It's evident within the first 30 seconds of that video. Every time he steps directly in towards Pinca that way (without doing anything fancy) Pinca has a hard time keeping him off and is forced to disengage. Pinca becomes reactive and panicky when advanced upon. Perhaps panicky is a strong word, but sensitive. When Pinca tries to attack, his lead foot is way outside of Senchai's, but it doesn't serve him well. It effectively neutralizes his left side and gives him ONLY his right side to attack with effectively (without moving too much). It puts him in a position of having to try to hit Senchai with the furthest available weapon, and without putting him in position to be hit by it in the first place.

Mind-you, this doesn't always directly change the outcome of a fight, there are ways people can and have overcome this principal. But when used correctly, it's a very strong thing to have in place.
 
in the De La Hoya-Pacquiao clips De La Hoya is quite clearly not threatening Pacquiao's center line with his lead hip-foot-hand whenever Pac steps out and in to land his left straight. Pac's center mass has already shifted outside and Oscar either throws a jab that misses because he's facing the wrong direction or tries to throw a right straight across his own body while turning towards Pacquaio, no angle to land the punch, and no power even if it lands.

i have some doubts about the consistent application of this principle to muay thai but for boxing it seems spot on. Pacquiao is not threatening Oscar's center line with his lead side because he deliberately takes the outside angle to land his power hand, which is tried and true and fine technique, but De La Hoya's defense fails almost every time (and Pacquiao feels free to use the technique with impunity) because he fails to establish any threat whatsoever to Pac whenever Manny takes that angle.
 
I wasn't meaning you directly with all of my comments when responding to your question. I took that opportunity to address other issues. There seems to be a growing trend around here of being argumentative for fashion and not function.



I'm not fully understanding the question. Being bladed helps to face the center line, but it's not mandatory exactly. I don't know of any fighters who fight EXACTLY square and do well, so when anyone gets an angle to their stance at all, facing the center line in the manner referenced here is pretty elementary. A lot of fighters do it by accident, then have trouble maintaining it.



There are very subtle ways of procuring angles from right in front of a fighter without moving to either side of their center. it's just very difficult. But I'll give you a hing, Broner did it A LOT to DeMarco in their bout.



Ali's footwork was only flimsy by comparison to smaller fighters. For a heavyweight it was exceptional. However when you take the guys he was emulating...Rodriguez, Napoles, Pastrano, Dupas, he definitely seems flimsy. As far as lead hooks, that's relative to whether or not it's the person's power hand (and by hand I mean facilitated by hip-rotation) or not. For instance, I'd much rather get hit by Carlos Monzon's left hook than his right hand.



I'm not sure what you're having trouble seeing. From the onset, Senchai has his lead toe aimed directly at Pinca's center, and he works from there. It's evident within the first 30 seconds of that video. Every time he steps directly in towards Pinca that way (without doing anything fancy) Pinca has a hard time keeping him off and is forced to disengage. Pinca becomes reactive and panicky when advanced upon. Perhaps panicky is a strong word, but sensitive. When Pinca tries to attack, his lead foot is way outside of Senchai's, but it doesn't serve him well. It effectively neutralizes his left side and gives him ONLY his right side to attack with effectively (without moving too much). It puts him in a position of having to try to hit Senchai with the furthest available weapon, and without putting him in position to be hit by it in the first place.

Mind-you, this doesn't always directly change the outcome of a fight, there are ways people can and have overcome this principal. But when used correctly, it's a very strong thing to have in place.


maybe my mind doesnt break things down to the smallest detail , who knows .

i just watched the fight again , and the only time i see his foot in the centre is when his opponent is circling him ,, in just not seeing sanchaei pressing to get that position , im not saying it doesnt happen occasionally , but it seems to happen by circumstance rather than design , but hey , what do i know .

i do agree that when it comes to boxing the foot placement and hand placement you guys are discussing would be useful in getting the proper angle and move the fellow around in the desired direction .

perhaps i have a different philosophy when it comes down to stance and position than most , i try to relate it to martial arts and you are relating it to boxing , even though they are different some things transfer over well .

i will experiment with the idea and if i like will use it , or discard if i dont .
 
maybe my mind doesnt break things down to the smallest detail , who knows .

i just watched the fight again , and the only time i see his foot in the centre is when his opponent is circling him ,, in just not seeing sanchaei pressing to get that position , im not saying it doesnt happen occasionally , but it seems to happen by circumstance rather than design , but hey , what do i know .

i do agree that when it comes to boxing the foot placement and hand placement you guys are discussing would be useful in getting the proper angle and move the fellow around in the desired direction .

perhaps i have a different philosophy when it comes down to stance and position than most , i try to relate it to martial arts and you are relating it to boxing , even though they are different some things transfer over well .

i will experiment with the idea and if i like will use it , or discard if i dont .

I think you're over-complicating things a bit. He doesn't need to press to get into the position, when he starts, that's how he faces. How he faces may or may not be by design (I can't speak for who taught him or if it's something he thinks about), but when at range, he always goes back to it.

Optimally, it would be used as an initial practice of attempting to control the space between yourself and an opponent. If you have control of that from the beginning of a match, the opponent is always having to struggle to hit you with any real consequence (damage).
 
You're so fixated on the silly phrase "old school boxing" and hating on Nuke that you really don't know what you're looking at.

Can you or anyone explain to me in clear simple terms how having a lead toe pointed at the oponents centerline is advantages in Muay Thai? How does that put the oponent out of position where he can't attack?
 
Can you or anyone explain to me in clear simple terms how having a lead toe pointed at the oponents centerline is advantages in Muay Thai? How does that put the oponent out of position where he can't attack?

He can't up kick you in the nuts with his rear leg.
 
Can you or anyone explain to me in clear simple terms how having a lead toe pointed at the oponents centerline is advantages in Muay Thai? How does that put the oponent out of position where he can't attack?

Leg checking can be done whether you face the center line or not. You always want to fully face your opponent. The threat of the leg attack isn't going to nullify the fact that you want to fully face your opponent. Fully facing your opponent allows you to fully be able to take advantage of any little mistake they make.

If you are fully facing your opponent you are more able to throw kicks, or any strike for that matter or do any technique at all because you are already aligned properly with your opponent. The way the human body is designed you need to have your opponent exactly in front of you to be able to react or act to them, and to have them be fully in front of you need to have that lead foot face their center mass.

I have a question for sinister, why is being bladed make it easier to face the centerline?
 
I think you're over-complicating things a bit. He doesn't need to press to get into the position, when he starts, that's how he faces. How he faces may or may not be by design (I can't speak for who taught him or if it's something he thinks about), but when at range, he always goes back to it.

Optimally, it would be used as an initial practice of attempting to control the space between yourself and an opponent. If you have control of that from the beginning of a match, the opponent is always having to struggle to hit you with any real consequence (damage).

strangely enough , the system i have been trained under is not complicated at all ,

its all about live side / dead side , range and attacking and countering , what you do and when you do it depends on what your oppopnent is doing and when he is doing it .the stance used and method of attack are circumstantial , practicing a wide variety of attacks and counters as well as having a game plan going in and tweeking it you go along .doesnt get more simpler than that .

i dont really think about what hand or leg in striking with , i think of what target i want to strike and which hand or leg to use to strike that target .

i do realize that things change when pure boxing only is to be used , as i do train with boxers and muay thai guys , although its in an mma atmosphere
 
Can you or anyone explain to me in clear simple terms how having a lead toe pointed at the oponents centerline is advantages in Muay Thai? How does that put the oponent out of position where he can't attack?

I'll do my best.

I asked you to define "standing square" and you did not. I wanted to make this distinction because when someone says "standing square" to me, what I envision is their feet precisely side by side with no depth (and thus, no angle of the hips), and their entire chest facing the opposition. I've never seen a successful Muay Thai fighter who stands square for very long. However, if you read my opening post I made sure to cover that upper-body positioning specifically can be compromised depending on the method of attack to be used. In other words, if you rotate your torso, it's okay, as long as your feet remain positioned well with regards to the opponent. In other OTHER words, if you square your upper-body (like modern fighters tend to do) it's not the end of the World.

In ANY form of combat, you MUST control distance. Otherwise you have to work twice as hard to get things done. In the videos I posted, this is demonstrated with Miguel and Rolando. Rolando has to do a WHOLE LOT to hit Miguel with any consequence, whereas when Miguel attacked, he had a relatively easy time getting where he needed to be. Where he needed to be, is the center of the opponent. Now, I'm not sure if you're arguing that the center line doesn't have to be the intended target, but having done both Muay Thai and Boxing I can say this: going for the center line or towards it, you're more likely to hit something. Getting very particular beyond that without first establishing control of distance, you're far more likely to hit nothing, to be made to miss.

One very distinct advantage facing the center allows for, regardless of the art. Is seeing the attacks coming easier. It gives the opponent the physical impression that you are ready, that you are IN position to defend yourself. Why would I attack someone who is ready to be attacked if I'm not cognizant of this? I would have to think harder, do something else, work harder (which is why both McLarnin and Canzoneri in the video I initially posted are both working very hard). Meanwhile you're either just standing there, or have the initiative to do as you please so long as you're representing a threat to me. And I'm not particularly sure anyone said the opponent wouldn't be able to attack at all, what we're talking about, is attacking with efficiency.
 
I'll do my best.

I asked you to define "standing square" and you did not. I wanted to make this distinction because when someone says "standing square" to me, what I envision is their feet precisely side by side with no depth (and thus, no angle of the hips), and their entire chest facing the opposition

Yes. This was what I was talking about. Chest facing opponent.

And just to clarify, and before I comment on the rest of your post, you are advocating standing more at an angle for MT correct?
 
Yes. This was what I was talking about. Chest facing opponent.

And just to clarify, and before I comment on the rest of your post, you are advocating standing more at an angle for MT correct?

Please define: "at an angle."
 
Please define: "at an angle."

lol.

Like this i guess

3586634-boxer-in-fight-stance.jpg
 
lol.

Like this i guess

Wow, and KP has a problem with the photos I chose?

I'm still not quite sure what you're trying to get at. But let's just say if by "at an angle" you mean one foot more forward than the other, one hip more towards the opponent than the other, then yes. All of these stances work just fine for the notion in this thread:

Screen-shot-2009-10-19-at-7.23.56-AM.png


chai_stance.jpg


frontkick1.jpg


sagat_adon.jpg


KOF_Orochi_Joe.png
 
LoL
Sinister, is it "have an angle on your opponent" means that you are able to outmaneuver your opponent so that you are facing his centreline directly BUT he doesnt face your own centreline? Just want a bit of clarification on this.
 
LoL
Sinister, is it "have an angle on your opponent" means that you are able to outmaneuver your opponent so that you are facing his centreline directly BUT he doesnt face your own centreline? Just want a bit of clarification on this.

Yes.
 
Here we have 2 examples of Giorgio Petrosyan and Buakaw's usage of the concept of "facing the centreline" in a MODERN kickboxing scenario where kicks, knees and clinching are allowed.


First, this is Giorgio Petrosyan's destruction of Vitali Hurkov. Look at their lead foot. Petrosyan always have his foot pointing at Vitali's centreline, thus allow him to face his opponent most of the time while Vitali's lead foot always pointing forward but not to the direction of Giorgio's centreline. Not only that, look at how desperate and panicky Vitali becomes throughout the fight as Giorgio use the angle he secured to take the initiative and overwhelm him.


Look at Buakaw's dismantling of Nieky Holtzken. Both of these guys track each other's centreline very well, but Buakaw is the one that actively attack Nieky's centreline with numerous teep and probing jab, which gave ways to other attacks such as his signature step up knee. His tracking and attack to the centreline also allow Buakaw to control the range, fighting at the range he prefers and dismantling his opponent apart while Nieky was having a very difficult time to do anything at all.

Note that they never get their lead leg kicked apart, either. And they fought in K-1, where leg kicks are dime a dozen.
 
Back
Top