Facing the center line:

[Discipulus]

Does this still work in a short v tall scenario?

It works in every scenario. It's a universal principle of fighting.

 

[yodave]

It works in every scenario. It's a universal principle of fighting.

it's a universal principle of sports. Anybody who's played a lot of sports knows this.

 

[Discipulus]

it's a universal principle of sports. Anybody who's played a lot of sports knows this.

Clearly not, because it's rarely stressed in martial arts schools, and the majority of people on this forum disagree with it.

 

[sourdiesel209]

it's a universal principle of sports. Anybody who's played a lot of sports knows this.

no no NO!!! it's a universal principle of the cosmos... its like gravity

 

[yodave]

Clearly not, because it's rarely stressed in martial arts schools, and the majority of people on this forum disagree with it.

I guess their "reflexes" aren't good enough if you know what I mean.

What I mean by that is a lot of spectacular plays were actually made because they knew how to align themselves amongst other technical aspects.

 

[Nuclearlandmine]

I guess their "reflexes" aren't good enough if you know what I mean.

What I mean by that is a lot of spectacular plays were actually made because they knew how to align themselves amongst other technical aspects.

Technical abilities and knowledges are always under-appriciated as physical attributes like speed, power or strength is much more visible, thus easier to see and appriciate it.

 

[cajun2099]

It works in every scenario. It's a universal principle of fighting.

So why was this principle moved away from?

 

[Nuclearlandmine]

So why was this principle moved away from?

It is not moved away from as much as it become less and less stressed in class, or not explained properly, or not mentioned at all as history progress.

 

[Bay Area]

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.

Ok. Got it. Agree to disagree then. For muay thai I was taught to stand like Bass advocates. Totally square. Both sides of hip facing square at the opponent. Chest facing opponent. It makes it a hell of alot easier to fire off round houses using either leg. It makes the teep more effective. It makes your checks more effective and your base stronger.

 

[Sinister]

Yeah, cant get on board with that.

 

[devante]

is it possible people/fighters today are lazier in regards to their mental-tech-strategical prep for fights, an trainers can't get guys to do the fine tuning, the subtle work; as guys either go to other trainers or lack the iq to really take it all in.

So they dumb it down so they can get results in the meantime or maximize what that person does best and try to add touches to get them to a top level, example tim tebow (the spread option) or the triangle off (the bulls/lakers) or rgIII-colin kapernick (spread option) the princeton off (college bball/nba) or small ball in baseball.

you run offenses bases on your teams phys abilities, tendencies and limited iq; on the highest level they can't really succeed or dominate, but can be more than competitive because of the scheme or system they have in place.

think about how many guys who train to fight for a living, they don't want to spend the time to go over details, modify their game or diversify their game; so how the hell can u expect the casual guy to. Basically people either go w/what their coach teaches them or just fig out what works for him/her and goes from there...most people don't seek to really dev their games..

so u show people doing certain things and succeeding, so it becomes more popular, i.e. the spread option in college and now in pro ball; which is why guys like harbaugh/chip kelly got jobs in the pros...because of the success of their style, even though there are some decided holes/shortcomings in it...people fall in love w/the success those styles had.

 

[Bay Area]

Yeah, cant get on board with that.

Thankfully there are no roundhouses in boxing.

 

[Goat Meal]

Ok. Got it. Agree to disagree then. For muay thai I was taught to stand like Bass advocates. Totally square. Both sides of hip facing square at the opponent. Chest facing opponent. It makes it a hell of alot easier to fire off round houses using either leg. It makes the teep more effective. It makes your checks more effective and your base stronger.

That's the basic stance any MT school teaches. This "foot must point toward the center line or you'll be destroyed" nonsense here is just one way to skin a cat and IME it's limited to boxing, regardless of the few MT videos that will undoubtedly be posted after this.

 

[Strykerx]

That's the basic stance any MT school teaches. This "foot must point toward the center line or you'll be destroyed" nonsense here is just one way to skin a cat and IME it's limited to boxing, regardless of the few MT videos that will undoubtedly be posted after this.

You know you can have your foot pointed toward the center line yet still be in a square stance.

 

[Goat Meal]

You know you can have your foot pointed toward the center line yet still be in a square stance.

Only if you're a step or step-and-a-half to the right (assuming both fighters are orthodox and in a squared stance). I don't see any point in that but if a fighter wants to position him/herself that way to "face the center line" then fine.

 

[Bay Area]

That's the basic stance any MT school teaches

Of course it is. I was having my doubts about this forum until this post.

 

[Goat Meal]

Of course it is. I was having my doubts about this forum until this post.

I know. Like with everything on the internet, just take what you read here with a grain of salt. I don't think anyone here is purposely misleading anyone but you know how the internet is: everyone's an expert.

 

[Strykerx]

Only if you're a step or step-and-a-half to the right (assuming both fighters are orthodox and in a squared stance). I don't see any point in that but if a fighter wants to position him/herself that way to "face the center line" then fine.

I've seen some Muay Thai taught like that. Not saying I agree but just saying it's not ridiculous sounding as it seems.

 

[Goat Meal]

I've seen some Muay Thai taught like that. Not saying I agree but just saying it's not ridiculous sounding as it seems.

That may be. Personally, I don't agree with it. Assuming a traditional squared stance on both fighters, what are some of our advantages? One is that, without some movement by our opponent, he/she cannot threaten us with most of his/her arsenal because hooks and leg kicks can be easily deflected/checked. If we adjust over so our foot is "attacking the center line", great, but we've given our opponent many angles from which to attack us.

If you want to play that game, you're better off using the stance Sinister and others have shown.

 

[Strykerx]

That may be. Personally, I don't agree with it. Assuming a traditional squared stance on both fighters, what are some of our advantages? One is that, without some movement by our opponent, he/she cannot threaten us with most of his/her arsenal because hooks and leg kicks can be easily deflected/checked. If we adjust over so our foot is "attacking the center line", great, but we've given our opponent many angles from which to attack us.

If you want to play that game, you're better off using the stance Sinister and others have shown.

So what you're telling me is your effective against circular attacks in that stance. But I think straight attacks will get you, like teeps, front kicks, jabs and straights. Correct?

Is it not simply a matter of a mili second to bring the shin up to check the kick? I haven't had problems in my stance doing this, However I switch my weight to adjust to the ranges (kicking and punching). Having train in Muay Thai myself.