Boxing off the back foot/front foot

[thugpoet]

Well Sinister is 0-1 by KO in boxing... Does that then mean backfoot heavy doesn't have built-in defense? By your logic yes.

The problem with "this fighter uses this stance or technique and he wins" is it discounts all the other things, sometimes not easily discernible, that cause the competitor to win or lose and it's also a very simplistic way of analysis.

Another problem is you've chosen the wrong guy to be your guru, but that's beside the point.



I'll exit this sub-forum again so you all can get back to your circle jerk.

Its not about gurus, or following this guy or that guy, its about knowing what kinda fighter you want to be.

In all honesty have you ever seen a " boxer" be front foot heavy ?

Its because usually they are guys with alot of power, good to great motors and alot of " heart"

How do you want to fight? What kinda fighter do you want to be?

 

[nvs1985]

Pardon me, but isn't front foot vs backfoot is more about movement instead? It seemed to me "backfoot boxer" is often refers to guys that able to box while moving BACKWARD, while "frontfoot boxer" is refers to guys that box while moving FORWARD. Basically it talked about how aggressive/conservative they are. Under that logic, Pac is a front foot boxer (very aggressive) while Mayweather is a back foot boxer (very conservative)

This is what i think so too.

 

[Goat Meal]

Its not about gurus, or following this guy or that guy, its about knowing what kinda fighter you want to be.

In all honesty have you ever seen a " boxer" be front foot heavy ?

Its because usually they are guys with alot of power, good to great motors and alot of " heart"

How do you want to fight? What kinda fighter do you want to be?

I've not seen any good strikers use a front foot heavy stance. Or I should say, not heavy enough on the front food that it is detectable with the naked eye. I've never said front foot heavy is optimal so I don't know what your point is. All I've said is, and for some reason it's so controversial on this forum, is that no stance has built-in defense. Obviously stances are better than others. If I were to adopt a 90/10 front foot to back foot weight distribution, carry my hands low and my chin up, that's a worse stance than a typical muay thai stance, for example.

So if by built-in defense it is meant that the stance is inherently better than most, then sure. I agree; in general it is a much more sound stance for combat sports and self-defense. But, if it is meant that by adopting such a stance that it provides any degree more protection than the handful of other sound stances then I'd say we've officially landed in martial arts mysticism territory as I am of the opinion that most usable fighting stances, due to each's pros and cons and trade-offs, are about the same and it is ultimately situational and up to the fighter in terms of which one should be used.

 

[Goat Meal]

Wow... Goat really doing his best to make this forum worse... I thought most people still here since 2005 were a bit more... useful.

Isn't it odd that what constitutes making a forum worse is just a differing opinion? This is a discussion forum. Maybe you're looking for a sewing circle.

 

[Nuclearlandmine]

Stop trying to be a contrarian. Everyone who frequents here know your gripes. There's no need to trying to do the same thing again just to get a rise out of other people.

 

[Goat Meal]

But you guys get to post your same opinions again and again.

 

[Nuclearlandmine]

And...? Opinions only get repeat because it is the one that make most sense and true (in most of the cases anyway). Remember how last time you tried to pull the same thing and end up leaving the sub forum with your asses as people called out your contrarian arguments? Just stop.

 

[Goat Meal]

And...? Opinions only get repeat because it is the one that make most sense and true (in most of the cases anyway). Remember how last time you tried to pull the same thing and end up leaving the sub forum with your asses as people called out your contrarian arguments? Just stop.

No, that's not my recollection at all. I do often leave in the midst of arguments when they reach a certain point but that doesn't necessarily mean you've won anything. Actually, often times, it's quite the contrary.

Opinions only get repeated if they make the most sense and are true?

So if as a forum we all agreed on the opinion that 1+1=3, that would make it true?

Now this is where I will stop responding to you because I've won and you lost.

 

[Nuclearlandmine]

If you really have to convince yourself that you won in an internet forum...then i have nothing else to add.

 

[Discipulus]

But you guys get to post your same opinions again and again.

I'll say this to you because it seems your mother never did: it's not what you say, it's how you say it. You're allowed to have as many contrary opinions as you like, but you tend to express yourself like a dick. You come into threads complaining about people, saying they'll probably argue with you, as if that very sentiment isn't what starts the arguments. You're a straight-up contrarian, and it's hard to take you seriously when you seem so often to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, and take umbrage at anyone who disagrees with you in turn.

 

[Goat Meal]

I'll say this to you because it seems your mother never did: it's not what you say, it's how you say it. You're allowed to have as many contrary opinions as you like, but you tend to express yourself like a dick. You come into threads complaining about people, saying they'll probably argue with you, as if that very sentiment isn't what starts the arguments. You're a straight-up contrarian, and it's hard to take you seriously when you seem so often to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, and take umbrage at anyone who disagrees with you in turn.

I don't understand how I'm being a contrarian when in my history of posting on this subforum the only thing I've ever disagreed with anyone about is this notion of a built-in defense. I've provided well reasoned arguments and never gotten personal, so you can't say I'm trolling. I highly doubt I'd pay to post on Sherdog if I was looking to get banned and if I ever wanted to get personal the information is out there. In fact, all my posts have been striking related.

This really isn't the appropriate thread. If you guys want to call me out in another forum, free feel, but I'm done addressing these baseless claims because you all can't handle a different opinion.

 

[Goat Meal]

If you really have to convince yourself that you won in an internet forum...then i have nothing else to add.

I don't have to do much convincing. It was you who equated opinion with fact, which is both equal parts fallacious and hilarious.

As you were, gentlemen.

 

[Nuclearlandmine]

It is rather convenient for you to ignore the rest of my reply and only focused on one part that made your argument sounds. But go on. Wait, i thought you leave already? Why are you still even here?

 

[thugpoet]

I've not seen any good strikers use a front foot heavy stance. Or I should say, not heavy enough on the front food that it is detectable with the naked eye. I've never said front foot heavy is optimal so I don't know what your point is. All I've said is, and for some reason it's so controversial on this forum, is that no stance has built-in defense. Obviously stances are better than others. If I were to adopt a 90/10 front foot to back foot weight distribution, carry my hands low and my chin up, that's a worse stance than a typical muay thai stance, for example.

So if by built-in defense it is meant that the stance is inherently better than most, then sure. I agree; in general it is a much more sound stance for combat sports and self-defense. But, if it is meant that by adopting such a stance that it provides any degree more protection than the handful of other sound stances then I'd say we've officially landed in martial arts mysticism territory as I am of the opinion that most usable fighting stances, due to each's pros and cons and trade-offs, are about the same and it is ultimately situational and up to the fighter in terms of which one should be used.

So then you arnt even arguing about front foot heavy vs back foot heavy?

I agree champions come from all kinds of styles. However a style that relays on the hands for defense is handicapping your offense.

Of course there are times when you will use your hands for defense but that's a last resort. ( usually)

Is it just situational that the greatest of fighters didn't primarily use a ear muff system?

 

[Goat Meal]

So then you arnt even arguing about front foot heavy vs back foot heavy?

I mean, not really. I think a guy's article on it said it best. I mentioned in either my first or second post that the OP should seek it out because it gives an apt break-down of quite a few stances, replete with animated gifs. I'm also not big on "this vs. this" in terms of stances or technique. In BJJ people get caught up on this thinking too. Should I play open guard vs. closed guard? I don't know, why not get good at both? Why not use both?

Is it just situational that the greatest of fighters didn't primarily use a ear muff system?

I don't know if you'd define him as great, but I really liked Joshua Clottey's defense. Personally, I think an optimal defense includes footwork, head movement, parries, and blocking.

 

[thugpoet]

I mean, not really. I think a guy's article on it said it best. I mentioned in either my first or second post that the OP should seek it out because it gives an apt break-down of quite a few stances, replete with animated gifs. I'm also not big on "this vs. this" in terms of stances or technique. In BJJ people get caught up on this thinking too. Should I play open guard vs. closed guard? I don't know, why not get good at both? Why not use both?



I don't know if you'd define him as great, but I really liked Joshua Clottey's defense. Personally, I think an optimal defense includes footwork, head movement, parries, and blocking.

He didn't get hit "clean alot" I'll give you that, but his defense was mostly "wait till you are down". Good not great fighter though

 

[Discipulus]

Fair enough. I'm gonna go through your assessment bit by bit.

I've not seen any good strikers use a front foot heavy stance. Or I should say, not heavy enough on the front food that it is detectable with the naked eye.

This right here tells me that you don't know how to analyze a fight. I can name dozens of great fighters who fight with their weight situated over the lead foot. Any weight distribution is detectable with the naked eye if you know what to look for.

I've never said front foot heavy is optimal so I don't know what your point is. All I've said is, and for some reason it's so controversial on this forum, is that no stance has built-in defense. Obviously stances are better than others. If I were to adopt a 90/10 front foot to back foot weight distribution, carry my hands low and my chin up, that's a worse stance than a typical muay thai stance, for example.

Again, you only come across as a contrarian here. You basically admit that you don't advocate any specific techniques, and yet you're happy to tell everyone what techniques don't work. Worse, you can't tell anyone why. The phrase "built-in defense" does not imply that the stance does all of your blocking, dodging, and negating for you, and to say so is simply asinine. In fact, the phrase "built-in defense" is generally used, by me at least, when discussing offensive techniques that are designed to protect the person using them.

Regardless, I can't believe in good faith that you honestly read the phrase "built-in defense" and assumed that the person using it was implying that defense was literally effortless via the technique in question. Might as well assume that a fighter described as having "knockout power" knocks out every opponent with his first punch. Apply a little critical thinking to the things you see on this forum and you'll find yourself disagreeing a lot less.

So if by built-in defense it is meant that the stance is inherently better than most, then sure. I agree; in general it is a much more sound stance for combat sports and self-defense.

That's exactly what is meant. I'd be happy to agree with you here, but then you go on...

But, if it is meant that by adopting such a stance that it provides any degree more protection than the handful of other sound stances then I'd say we've officially landed in martial arts mysticism territory as I am of the opinion that most usable fighting stances, due to each's pros and cons and trade-offs, are about the same and it is ultimately situational and up to the fighter in terms of which one should be used.[/QUOTE]

...to completely contradict yourself. So we agree that the stance is better than most, but somehow that "better" doesn't apply to any of the "other sound stances."

People on this forum who advocate a back-weighted fighting stance do so because it is very defensively viable. However, I don't think anyone who knows what they're talking about has ever claimed that all other stances are bunk. And once again, to assume that that is what advocates of the stance mean when they talk about it's benefits is completely asinine.

Having read your post a little more carefully, it's pretty clear that you're simply disagreeing with things because A) you don't understand them, and B) you enjoy disagreeing. That, right there, is the very definition of contrarianism.

 

[Fire of Youth]

No, that's not my recollection at all. I do often leave in the midst of arguments when they reach a certain point but that doesn't necessarily mean you've won anything. Actually, often times, it's quite the contrary.

Opinions only get repeated if they make the most sense and are true?

So if as a forum we all agreed on the opinion that 1+1=3, that would make it true?

Now this is where I will stop responding to you because I've won and you lost.

Check this video out: http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_h_cohen_for_argument_s_sake.html

It might help with how you argue. I suspect that you say things so loud that people miss what you are actually trying to say. Try a different approach to communicating your argument.

 

[Goat Meal]

This right here tells me that you don't know how to analyze a fight. I can name dozens of great fighters who fight with their weight situated over the lead foot. Any weight distribution is detectable with the naked eye if you know what to look for.

Or it could mean that you watch more fighters than me. My quote was that I have not seen any good strikers who put most of their weight on the front foot. I never said none exist.

Again, you only come across as a contrarian here. You basically admit that you don't advocate any specific techniques, and yet you're happy to tell everyone what techniques don't work. Worse, you can't tell anyone why. The phrase "built-in defense" does not imply that the stance does all of your blocking, dodging, and negating for you, and to say so is simply asinine. In fact, the phrase "built-in defense" is generally used, by me at least, when discussing offensive techniques that are designed to protect the person using them.

What technique did I say doesn't work? If you're referring to my obvious exaggeration of a fighting stance, note: I didn't say it doesn't work. I said it was a worse stance. I don't see anything wrong with this. I can think there is an application for most everything under the sun but also realize there are varying degrees of value and effectiveness.

Regardless, I can't believe in good faith that you honestly read the phrase "built-in defense" and assumed that the person using it was implying that defense was literally effortless via the technique in question. Might as well assume that a fighter described as having "knockout power" knocks out every opponent with his first punch. Apply a little critical thinking to the things you see on this forum and you'll find yourself disagreeing a lot less.

If you can find me a lexicon definition of built-in defense that would probably help clear this whole thing up. The thing is, it's a very nebulous notion. In the Charlie Burley video it states the stance has a built-in defense and that the head being off the center line and weight on the back hip provides such.

It's funny that you mention critical thinking. That is precisely what I think this forum needs and hates about my presence here, however I'm sure it's because I'm just a dumb dumb contrarian who doesn't think popular opinion means fact. I'm almost certain I've heard that somewhere.

...to completely contradict yourself. So we agree that the stance is better than most, but somehow that "better" doesn't apply to any of the "other sound stances."

How is this a contradiction? "Better than most" means exactly that. The stance is better than many striking stances. I'd say the cat stance in karate is inferior to the classic boxing stance, but the latter's net value (figuring pros and cons) isn't better than some of the other common stances. I think you're under the impression that because I said many things are situational that I'm not allowed to point out degrees of value.

Having read your post a little more carefully, it's pretty clear that you're simply disagreeing with things because A) you don't understand them, and B) you enjoy disagreeing. That, right there, is the very definition of contrarianism.

There's no doubt you believe this. People like being around others who think just like they do. It's much easier to simply disregard someone as being dumb, or being inferior in another way when their ideas are challenged because it's uncomfortable to have to change the way you think. It's part of cognitive dissonance.

I think you've made more of an effort than most, but by and large you've only tried to diminish me personally (I don't analyze fights very well, I don't comprehend well, etc) and not discuss the topic that I've been trying to discuss all along. When you tried, all you did was succeed in pointing out that built-in defense means something different to you, and the creator of the Charlie Burley video, thus demonstrating that it truly might be a notion worthy of some discussion and I might not be just some contrarian bullying the forum with his opposing views.

For what it's worth, even though you don't like me around, I think you're one of the better posters around these parts and I appreciate your time with this, even though it ultimately didn't go very far.

 

[WillW]

Man the hate is strong here.

Not really sure what you are even arguing.

Yes most people in the boxing community would agree about the principles in a typical rear legged stance, and at the same time know there are other ways to go about it and mix up different guards and stances together situation-ally.

Ward also spends some good time on his lead leg.