Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Standup Technique' started by biscuitsbrah, Jan 5, 2017.
Thoughts? Is this common with most right handed southpaws?
Hes an aggressive combination fighter, best when going forward. Guys who box off the back foot look to keep the distance at long range. It is simply a matter of style, not a technical deficiency.
He is no more heavy on his front foot than Pacquiao
Meh, some guys get away with stuff because of how they arrange their offense. My guy Bandito is a Marquez-like counter-puncher and is front-foot heavy. Because he understands the distance compromise and uses it to his advantage, and knows how to create space when needed.
When you learn the rules, then learn how your ideas function, they can be bent or broken. Problem is when people try to begin BY breaking them with little fundamental understanding of why the exist in the first place.
As an example, why did Roy Jones Jr. never bother to learn intricate and subtle defense? In his youth, it's not that he didn't understand distance, but rather that his method of maintaining it wasn't positional. Instead, he'd make you pay so dearly for even TRYING to get close to him, that he talked most guys out of being very aggressive. From there, he could pick you apart. When he has his speed and explosive power, that worked wonders.
I dont think its a issue in boxing as it would be compared to mma etc.
Yeah, he is pretty heavy on it. It used to annoy me very much, but now I got used to his posture.
I wonder if it has to do with the fact that he bases his game around pivots to the right.
He constantly peppers the opponents with jabs and pivots or sidesteps to their left side.
When you pivot on your front foot you have to put weight on it and engage your front hip, so he might have a natural inclination by this point to
put his weight in the front.
I've seen him fighting off his back foot as well from time to time. He can, but he mostly pivots and changes angles by using his footwork.
Usyk, his fellow Ukrainian buddy, fights in a very similar way. Lots of pivots and also heavy footed.
His last match with Thabiso Mchunu was very interesting. You could see Usyk's style pitted against a style very similar to the defensive american one.
Thabiso fights off his back foot and creates angles mostly within his stance, by bending on the hips and using upper-body movement.
Boxing novice question...in the training video, when Lomachenko ducks he widens his stance. Is this common with Eastern European boxers? I thought you weren't supposed to move your legs
didn't notice this before but its really heavy in some instances.. could be a weakness.
It's rarely a good idea to limit yourself to one style of weight distribution.
Broadly speaking, I'd say a slightly front-loaded stance is a more "athletic," like a 2-point stance in football. Lomanchenko uses lots of quick pivots and bobs, which are easier in a front-loaded stance.
I use different back-foot heavy positions on the inside and outside, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they're any more "fundamental" than my lead-hip heavy positions. Even knowing what I'm giving up in optimal distance, I definitely wouldn't say I'm "getting away with something' by fighting off of the front foot.
Favouring the lead hip is just another boxing position with its own set of strengths and weaknesses; you should learn both, and understand when to apply each.
The "fundamental" principal behind rear-leg favoring stances has to do with head proximity to the opponent. Defense should never be a function of athleticism, but rather form. If fighters all fight with their heads over their front feet they compromise optimal head distance to gauge punches coming. Distance gives time, with less distance comes less time. With less time to react or counter, then any fighter who lacks said athleticism is always going to be at a disadvantage to a fighter who has it.
When you can create time and space (say by keeping the head further away and making an opponent have to reach), you can effectively nullify speed, or get out of the way of power. That's the idea when you see old photo's of fighters that look weird because their heads are up and/or back.
It's not required to ALWAYS fight in this position, but if a person fights head-forward without understanding the principal of distance, that's a colossal mistake that will result in either taking more damage to get things done, or relying solely on physical things (speed, occupation of the hands) for defense.
Sinister, I know lomachenko is known for his incredible offense, but he has been compared to sweet pea by commentators for his excellent defense as well. Besides reflexes and a supreme understanding of distance, what exactly is he doing right defensively? (Because he surely isn't getting hit)
I don't think he's all that unhittable. He has a good defensive mode, but he is very good at being in position to make landed punches fairly ineffective. His biggest attribute that's not seen often, though, is his ability to turn (which also does a lot to take steam off punches landed). When is is turning and slightly changing angles, it's very very difficult to land anything particularly meaningful.
But a Sweat Pea he is not.
Do you have any examples? Are these subtle movements with the feet?
And would the heavier and more powerful, albeit past-his-prime pacman fuck loma up?
Angle changes generally are when someone steps off the line that invisibly connects to head-on fighters. Hilario Zapata was excellent at that:
And at 126, it would be an extremely interesting fight. But so would any if the great Featherweight and Lomanchenko. Barrera, Morales, Pac, Marquez, any of them make him look human even in losing efforts.
Thanks for that sinister. That guy is great to watch, never heard of zapata either. I know what angles are, and I know they can be used defensively to actively avoid strikes, but I never heard of the concept of using angles to turn away from strikes while actually getting hit, always thought that was more a function of upper body movement or straight up just moving backwards to lessen the impact.
Watching zapata slide away from strikes makes me see what you are talking about though. I think slickness would be the term
Sickness that's can be employed by anyone. Zapata was a great fighter who did not have dizzying speeds.
Quick note after re-reading your post: I'm not talking about putting my head over my front front. The head is over the lead hip, maybe a bit further, but the lead leg is still well ahead. I relate the difference to the mechanics involved with an outside slip (back-loaded stance) and inside slip (front-loaded stance). This is obviously exaggerated and the mechanics aren't quite right, but I think that paints a better picture - head loaded to lead hip, not head over lead foot. I still have a good amount of weight/control with my rear leg in this position.
Anyway, I agree with your analysis of the benefits of favouring the rear leg. This stance puts your head furthest away and gives you the most time to think vs certain shots. It gives distance and time to react, which is great. I also find it's an easier stance to maintain when I'm tired; everything is stacked on top of itself like I'm in "mountain pose."
However, I disagree that defense from a front-loaded stance relies on athleticism. Defense comes from form and fundamentals - responsible hand positioning, varied head movement, positioning, feinting, trapping and "control." This doesn't change because I choose to work at a different distance.
Both stances have different defensive advantages, but whether one is better or "more fundamental" is subjective. Sure, a rear-loaded stance gives you more distance to gauge long-range punches, but that's not all there is to technical defense. A front-loaded stance gives you more freedom to manipulate range, either with pulls and roomy outside slips, or by smothering. Front-loaded stances also put your head to the left/lead side of the centerline, which forces an orthodox opponent to jab across their body, making that outside slip even easier to pull off. Going back to the 2-point stance analogy, front-loading is a bit more in line with other sports' principles of athleticism, and therefore makes bobs, weaves, and sharp pivots a little easier (I know it's not sport-specific, but nobody's running agility ladder drills with upright posture). Of course, a front-loaded stance also gives you an entirely different set of pre-loaded offensive options.
Ultimately, I don't think it's worth writing off a front-loaded stance as non-fundamental just because one of its "trade offs" is optimal distance. You get a lot of value for that trade.
Isn't that the long and short of it? Sending somebody into the ring without an understanding of the fundamental principle of distance is the real "colossal mistake," whether they load the front hip or the back!
It's not defense from a front loaded stance, it's defense from a position where the head is too far forward. I've come across very few people who have adaptive stances, meaning if they stand with their head too close and don't have the reaction time to nullify a faster fighter, they chang
e the stance to suit it. Instead they fall back on the old "hands up", but now lose considerable counter-punching opportunities. As for the notion of fundamental, for my consideration a thing with a greater historical context of viability is going to be THE fundamental, everything else is merely manipulation of it. Maximum distance is just that, maximum distance. Think of it in a slightly different context, not personal. Not if YOU are doing something right or wrong. But let's say we were discussing angles as mentioned above. Can't you tell amateur fighters because MOST of them with the exception of high level National guys and World level guys almost invariably attack head-on, or stand in front of each other and try to play tag as opposed to the type of turning you see in Lomanchenko, Rigondeaux, and Hilario Zapata up there?
Well, while that is a way to fight, is it an optimal way? Dadi once asked me this: "Why would you NOT want to always be in the most advantageous position?" The logic is simple, if you could get a fighter to almost always have to expose themselves to harm to hit you, why wouldn't you do that? Now, most fighters who understand distance set traps, a slight lean, a shift to the front hip, because they have an idea that's going to come after. Their safety in-part relies on your compliance with that idea, or on you NOT doing something because you think you're going to be trapped. I have a couple fighters whose whole style are based on that notion. But they know to pull up and back when it backfires. Adaptive stances as mentioned before. As for that understanding of distance, man I tell ya...I'm in the boxing mecca and my occupation is to watch fighters every day all day, and I can probably count on my hands how many of them actually understand distance vs. relying on athleticism or hand-cuffing for defense. Or good ole toughness. I'd MUCH rather see them get hit less. Also, the head being to the left of the center-line is only advantageous to another opponent who stands in the same manner. If it's vs. a rear-leg stance, their jab is going to go slightly to the right anyway.
Also, consider this small notion. Finito Lopez and Juan Manuel Marquez are two fighters trained by a legendary trainer who is forgiving of front-foot heaviness. Their stances aren't poor, and they're VERY well-educated and GREAT fighters. Criticism of such fighters always seems lewd, but they have a common flaw which has had the same result. Look up the first fight between Lopez and Rosendo "Bufalo" Alvarez. Finito was floored, and that fight was the closest he ever came to losing (I felt he did lose, he maintained his "0" on a technicality). Bufalo timed a forward shift and blammo, sent Finito down. Marquez, nearly every time he's ever been floored, all of his weight was on the front hip, back foot slightly too far back to absorb force of hard punches. Now, my thing is simple, of both of those legendary counter-punchers had that same flaw that could be counted on consistently, under a guy like Nacho Beritstain, why would I who am nearly nobody by-comparison allow for it in much lesser fighters? As the primary fundamental practice, they first learn to maintain distance and by position, not by giving ground (stepping back) or physical exertion (punching). Once they can do that, they can flirt with removing it.
Thanks for the reply, lots of good information. I'm definitely "taking it personally," but not in a bad way; it's been helpful looking at my own style and experience from your perspective, if indirectly. I have some thoughts/comments that I'll try to address in order.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "It's not defense from a front loaded stance, it's defense from a position where the head is too far forward." I'm talking about defense from a front-loaded stance. Either we're talking about different things, or you're saying that any front-loaded position puts the head too far forward? If it's the latter, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Whatever the case, I'll take another stab at this.
First, I maintain that a front-loaded defense doesn't depend on amazing speed or reflexes; if I can pull it off, anyone can. I also haven't had the same experience as you with the amateurs, though this has been a recent (and welcomed) change after switching to a new ruleset/amateur association and getting deeper into the competitive pool.
To reiterate, a front-loaded position has built-in defense just like a rear-loaded one, it's just different. Your defensive radar changes because certain shots become more available - to you and your opponent. But I don't believe one is better than the other, and I think that's a limiting way to think about boxing (which is maybe unsurprising given that this style is so rooted in tradition).
Besides being a more mobile/athletic posture (arguably, I guess!), "front-loading" also has some positional pros and cons depending on range. Back-loaded stances are best for maintaining optimal distance, but that inherently prohibits other defensive advantages, with the ability to smother being an obvious one.
On the inside, I favour the lead hip when I want to crowd their right hand, either to draw it out or close in and smother. This also puts me in position where I'm almost behind the orthodox opponent's lead shoulder, which means they have to really shorten the shot to land. This makes it easy to change levels and clear the hook at the first sign of turn-over/commitment. I also get on the lead hip when I want to probe with the right hand or cut inside pivots because it makes these things easier. I use both to control which punches my opponent can comfortably throw at a given time, which is an example of technique being used to narrow an athletic gap and help me get hit less.
I agree with Dadi's rhetorical question, but I'd call maximal distance + a rear-loaded position "a sound starting point" rather than the "most advantageous position," which of course depends entirely on what you're trying to accomplish in a given moment. Talking about defense in broad terms, it's a fine starting point. But what if I want to smother a guy? Turn him on the inside? Set up a pull or outside slip and counter? Load my lead hand, either to throw and land or as a decoy? Loading the back hip with upright posture and maximal distance from your opponent might not be optimal for these purposes.
I'm going to have to dig into your film study recommendations, though the JMM reference clicks right away. I'm not going to argue for a second that a front-loaded stance can't get you into trouble. But I've seen a lot of rear-loaded guys get into trouble, too!
Finally, I want to adjust my position on in the "fundamental debate." Rear-heavy stances are definitely fundamental, or else great tools for teaching beginners the fundamentals of distance. Like you said, teach them about distance with a stance built around maximizing it. But developing that understanding of distance into an "adaptive stance" game is crucial. My big contention is when people call anything outside of a rear-loaded stance "incorrect."
Would you agree that elite fighters NEED what you're calling adaptive stances? Using a rear-loaded stance allows you to maintain max distance, but using different stances/hip-loads allows you to manipulate distance, which is one step closer to mastery in my eyes.
Do you mean that your issues are not with a front loaded stance, but rather an excessive one where the head is too far forward? This just occurred to me, and if that's what you mean, I'm on board. The position I'm talking about playing from is basically the front slot in your tile drill.
Love what I'm reading between you two
Thnx for the videos
Gonna watch and do some studying