More boxers should fight unorthodox

[Manassamaulerx]

Cotto and Oscar did great with it. But some trainers say your left hook is more important than your overhand or straight right to begin with so why not have your dominant hand throwing the hook?

 

[mozfonky]

not a good idea, delahoya is a converted southpaw, he had a useless right hand, it was one of the major weaknesses he had, a one handed fighter has his work cut out for him. He isn't the only one, joe frazier and gerry cooney are converted southpaws, rumours were that tyson was too, that one seems a little doubtful though. No, it's better to have the weaker hand forward to use as a jab, to develop the power punches that it can and then have the full body power of the dominant hand.

 

[Manassamaulerx]

Yes but Freddie Roach says a good hook is more important than the straight right. Of course if the jab/hook are with the dominant hand that will give you a headstart on developing them.

 

[moosaev]

I could see both sides. Also depends on how rangy you are. A money right hand for a tall fighter can be devastating. Hitman Hearns as an example.

 

[Popsaregood230]

Being a southpaw always give you an advantage as well, unless its southpaw vs southpaw.

 

[moosaev]

Being a southpaw always give you an advantage as well, unless its southpaw vs southpaw.

As Red Smith once observed "All fighters believe southpaws should be drowned at birth"

Southpaws are evil. I spar with a southpaw, i hate him

 

[mozfonky]

As Red Smith once observed "All fighters believe southpaws should be drowned at birth"

Southpaws are evil. I spar with a southpaw, i hate him

you should hit him with your lead right and step outside his lead foot.

 

[City_Lights]

You should be able to get good power with a left hook despite it not being your dominate hand. I don't think standing the other way is necessary.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

Being a southpaw always give you an advantage as well, unless its southpaw vs southpaw.

Certainly not "always" true. The "southpaw advantage" 100% boils down to experience gained from sparring and fighting other boxers, particularly orthodox fighters. There is zero natural or stylistic advantage that a southpaw inherently has over an orthodox/conventional fighter other than experience. That said, their presumed advantage (in experience) against orthodox fighters is a relatively safe assumption to make more often than not considering that roughly 87% of the world is right-handed. Factor in fighters that converted to southpaw and there's definitely more than 12%-13% in boxing, but, their numbers would still be quite low in total and in proportion to the number of orthodox fighters.

you should hit him with your lead right and step outside his lead foot.

You'd step outside with the lead foot first to establish lead foot dominance (aka lead leg control/the L-position), optimally to a strong degree, and then shoot the straight right lead in the orthodox's case. If you did this the other way around then you're either stuck in the neutral position (no angular advantage) or your opponent may have outright taken or otherwise managed to establish lead foot dominance on you instead. All of this only applies if we go by conventional wisdom, which is purely textbook.

 

[mozfonky]

Certainly not "always" true. The "southpaw advantage" 100% boils down to experience gained from sparring and fighting other boxers, particularly orthodox fighters. There is zero natural or stylistic advantage that a southpaw inherently has over an orthodox/conventional fighter other than experience. That said, their presumed advantage (in experience) against orthodox fighters is a relatively safe assumption to make more often than not considering that roughly 87% of the world is right-handed. Factor in fighters that converted to southpaw and there's definitely more than 12%-13% in boxing, but, their numbers would still be quite low in total and in proportion to the number of orthodox fighters.



You'd step outside with the lead foot first to establish lead foot dominance (aka lead leg control/the L-position), optimally to a strong degree, and then shoot the straight right lead in the orthodox's case. If you did this the other way around then you're either stuck in the neutral position (no angular advantage) or your opponent may have outright taken or otherwise managed to establish lead foot dominance on you instead. All of this only applies if we go by conventional wisdom, which is purely textbook.

interesting thing was, willie pep said leading with the right hand was a fallacy, i thought that was an interesting statement.

 

[Manassamaulerx]

I could see both sides. Also depends on how rangy you are. A money right hand for a tall fighter can be devastating. Hitman Hearns as an example.

Agree but I think it's easier to train your left hand to throw a straight punch off the back foot as opposed to a good hook which when really effective is a more complex snappy arm involved motion. The straight right/ left almost needs no actual coordination as it's just straighten your knuckles and twist and use your body. In fact even the jab seems to require more actual arm coordination in some cases in my opinion.

 

[Manassamaulerx]

As Red Smith once observed "All fighters believe southpaws should be drowned at birth"

Southpaws are evil. I spar with a southpaw, i hate him

So why don't more people start unorthodox?

 

[Manassamaulerx]

You should be able to get good power with a left hook despite it not being your dominate hand. I don't think standing the other way is necessary.

Of course not necessary, but is it possible some people would have more success if they had learned that way? I think so.

 

[aries]

You'd step outside with the lead foot first to establish lead foot dominance (aka lead leg control/the L-position), optimally to a strong degree, and then shoot the straight right lead in the orthodox's case. If you did this the other way around then you're either stuck in the neutral position (no angular advantage) or your opponent may have outright taken or otherwise managed to establish lead foot dominance on you instead. All of this only applies if we go by conventional wisdom, which is purely textbook.

Good post. I would also add that if you want to land the jab against an opposite stance opponent you most likely want to have your foot on the inside position. You can jab over the top of course if you keep your lead foot outside but it's generally easier to defend. This (having the front foot inside) also works out for the lead hand hook.

 

[Popsaregood230]

Certainly not "always" true. The "southpaw advantage" 100% boils down to experience gained from sparring and fighting other boxers, particularly orthodox fighters. There is zero natural or stylistic advantage that a southpaw inherently has over an orthodox/conventional fighter other than experience. That said, their presumed advantage (in experience) against orthodox fighters is a relatively safe assumption to make more often than not considering that roughly 87% of the world is right-handed. Factor in fighters that converted to southpaw and there's definitely more than 12%-13% in boxing, but, their numbers would still be quite low in total and in proportion to the number of orthodox fighters.

That's what I meant really. Southpaws spar conventional fighters far more than conventional fighters spar southpaws. I guess I was talking a little more casual when I said always. I didn't mean that there is an absolute irrefutable advantage that all southpaws hold over conventional fighters at all times lol.

 

[aries]

Lomachenko is a converted southpaw. He uses it pretty well to his advantage. That's what lets him get so quickly to the outside flank against orthodox fighters so he can launch a blind side attack.

Being to switch between orthodox and southpaw is a useful skill to have. Terrence Crawford makes good use of his southpaw stance when he switches. Kid Galahad also switches his stance a lot and it really confuses his opponents because they don't know where the next attack is coming from.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

interesting thing was, willie pep said leading with the right hand was a fallacy, i thought that was an interesting statement.

That's interesting. I mean, if we go by the book strictly and just follow it then everything is supposed to come off the jab or be set up in some fashion. In a closed stance fight leading with the straight right would be ill advised because you don't have any angular advantage there on the outside to throw it safely like you would against a southpaw if you were an orthodox. In an open stance fight it's used all the time and many fighters will still lead with the straight right in a closed stance fight if they have a long reach, they go to the body with it, set it up with a feint (jab feint, shoulder feint, etc), or are way off to the side as they turn their opponent. If you target the body then you can push them back with it and really deter them if it's thrown hard enough from trying to catch you with a counter assuming you can get there first. You could lead and immediately smother their return fire by ducking under/level changing and clinching after you land it, as we've seen many top fighters do. There are lots of ways to cheat with it, really. There will always be exceptions to the rule with calculated risks being taken as long as they understand the potential consequences for bending or breaking the "rules".

Good post. I would also add that if you want to land the jab against an opposite stance opponent you most likely want to have your foot on the inside position. You can jab over the top of course if you keep your lead foot outside but it's generally easier to defend. This (having the front foot inside) also works out for the lead hand hook.

Yep. I like to go over the top until they start defending my jab and then I step in just enough to land it and get out in open stance sparring.

That's what I meant really. Southpaws spar conventional fighters far more than conventional fighters spar southpaws. I guess I was talking a little more casual when I said always. I didn't mean that there is an absolute irrefutable advantage that all southpaws hold over conventional fighters at all times lol.

I didn't mean to come off snippy if I did. A lot of people parrot the southpaw advantage thing without actually understanding why they're assumed to have an advantage against an orthodox fighter. Obviously it'll come down to each guy and how much the orthodox has sparred with southpaws especially slick ones in knowing how to deal with them in a fight.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

Lomachenko is a converted southpaw. He uses it pretty well to his advantage. That's what lets him get so quickly to the outside flank against orthodox fighters so he can launch a blind side attack.

Being to switch between orthodox and southpaw is a useful skill to have. Terrence Crawford makes good use of his southpaw stance when he switches. Kid Galahad also switches his stance a lot and it really confuses his opponents because they don't know where the next attack is coming from.

Yeah. Most just think "offense" when he's stepping around opponents but obviously it grants him excellent defensive advantages as well. Once he's stepped around you then you can't hit him and he can hit you. If he can't step around because the opposite stance fighter is smart enough to hook his body to prevent him from taking the outside dominant angle then he'll just step feint in that direction and get them worried about it, threatening with it like he did to Walters. It will absolutely screw with your mind and your gameplan. Even then, he can get low enough to duck under the hook and pop up behind them. He got really low against Rodriguez and made turning him look effortless. He's amazing to watch and break down on film.

 

[Popsaregood230]

I do wonder if its possible to create the kind of angles lomenchenko does but while fighting orth vs orth. It's seemingly alot easier for him being a southpaw since he can slip into that grey area outside the lead hand. But, being orth vs orth, I just don't see there being an easy way to get there without stepping out of stance or using alot of energy to get there.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

I do wonder if its possible to create the kind of angles lomenchenko does but while fighting orth vs orth. It's seemingly alot easier for him being a southpaw since he can slip into that grey area outside the lead hand. But, being orth vs orth, I just don't see there being an easy way to get there without stepping out of stance or using alot of energy to get there.

Yeah, it would be awkward and far harder to do. The easiest way would be from the clinch by turning or spinning them. There'd be several ways to get outside their lead shoulder without having to clear their lead leg from there if that was your goal. Their stance will be broken and you could manipulate their foot placement and body positioning by turning them along with their posture with head & arm control. They could easily stop it though once they're hip to it just by maintaining a clinch or holding you until the ref breaks you cleanly if they're outmuscled and getting outmaneuvered. A clever fighter with a decent wrestling background could likely do it consistently against an opponent that they can easily control from inside the clinch.