- Joined
- Jun 23, 2013
- Messages
- 663
- Reaction score
- 0
While watching May-Pac, I remembered something I've been wondering about for a while: Pro boxers often use a very wide stande with their back foot almost 90
[Boxing] Stance question
- Thread starter Combat Squirrel
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2013
- Messages
- 15,285
- Reaction score
- 11,141
Im no expert but im going to guess to reach your target in a real fight youre going to end up leaning anyway. So you teach the hip rotation, drilling into the ground and finding your range without needing to lean first, and then when you add the lean its just that much longer.
I dont think you ever see trainers training their fighter to lean in with a cross like that, unless its to do a quick touch and quickly jump out of range after.
My best guess.
I dont think you ever see trainers training their fighter to lean in with a cross like that, unless its to do a quick touch and quickly jump out of range after.
My best guess.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 47,436
- Reaction score
- 20,858
It's just the difference between training and real life application. You drill perfect movement with the knowledge that applications is going to end up looking different. Ideally, you'd look the same both drilling and fighting/sparring but with an active opponent and with the adrenaline pumping maintaining perfect form isn't always realistic.
Still, great fighters tend to maintain better overall form even if it's not perfect.
Still, great fighters tend to maintain better overall form even if it's not perfect.
I don't agree that it's just what happens in a fight. It isn't like every boxer throws their rear hand or stands that way. The reason for Mayweather to stand like that is just because of his style of defense. Pacquiao lunges with his left because he's always been fast enough that people struggle to control distance against him.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2013
- Messages
- 663
- Reaction score
- 0
I can kind of see it with Floyd. He can reach with his lead hand just fine and usually throws the cross standing or moving backward when his opponent comes in, meaning he doesn't have to reach far.
But for Manny, who had to close the distance on a taller fighter with a big reach advantage, wouldn't it be better to stand and punch the second way, which makes it easier to stay close and follow up after a first punch lands. Mike Tyson seemed to do it that way most of the time:
[YT]R2RxpsS639I[/YT]
Regarding the difference between training and fighting, I think that's a valid point if we're looking at a more or less clean execution of a technique, but what I described in the OP is basically two different techniques.
Compare it to stiff jab vs flicking jab. One is not a less clean execution of the other, it's two different techniques with different purposes.
But for Manny, who had to close the distance on a taller fighter with a big reach advantage, wouldn't it be better to stand and punch the second way, which makes it easier to stay close and follow up after a first punch lands. Mike Tyson seemed to do it that way most of the time:
[YT]R2RxpsS639I[/YT]
Regarding the difference between training and fighting, I think that's a valid point if we're looking at a more or less clean execution of a technique, but what I described in the OP is basically two different techniques.
Compare it to stiff jab vs flicking jab. One is not a less clean execution of the other, it's two different techniques with different purposes.
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
- Messages
- 1,985
- Reaction score
- 148
interesting, i was thinking about something similar to this recently.
i've been training with another coach recently, His record as a pro is not amazing but as an amatuer he was in the olympics twice and apparently beat sven otke somewhere along the line. He came up under the soviet system and trained in cuba. So his credentials are pretty good. Anyway, i tend to stand more angled with my head back over my hip and my hands out in front of me like bernard here;
My right foot has a nasty habit of pointing out at 90
i've been training with another coach recently, His record as a pro is not amazing but as an amatuer he was in the olympics twice and apparently beat sven otke somewhere along the line. He came up under the soviet system and trained in cuba. So his credentials are pretty good. Anyway, i tend to stand more angled with my head back over my hip and my hands out in front of me like bernard here;
My right foot has a nasty habit of pointing out at 90
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2013
- Messages
- 663
- Reaction score
- 0
My coaches are also both short infighters. The foot position I was taught in technical training is very similar to 14B, although with the hands and elbows much tighter.
Similar to a peek-a-boo stance, but with the lead hand a bit more in front of the back hand and not quite as parallel.
Similar to a peek-a-boo stance, but with the lead hand a bit more in front of the back hand and not quite as parallel.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,016
- Reaction score
- 0
Once you reach a certain level you can bend - no pun intended - the rules a little.
In any case, what really matters is that your shoulder doesnt go too far beyond the knee and the knee doesnt go over the toes, or better, it remains straight up. As long one keeps it there - and is as athletic as those masters of the craft - he can retreat more or less quickly - and often safely as the attack was already lunched from long range. A different story when the knee bends beyond the toes, then you got no leverage all of a sudden, and no matter who much squats and dead lifts you do you cant stop your own inertia at once, that creates a small delay in the return to guard where one is heavily exposed to counter...
So they sink the posture, open the stance while steping ahead and lunge from afar... In reality, as you are sinking, you only gain a few cm but those are the ones that make a difference in the top echelons of martial arts.
In any case, what really matters is that your shoulder doesnt go too far beyond the knee and the knee doesnt go over the toes, or better, it remains straight up. As long one keeps it there - and is as athletic as those masters of the craft - he can retreat more or less quickly - and often safely as the attack was already lunched from long range. A different story when the knee bends beyond the toes, then you got no leverage all of a sudden, and no matter who much squats and dead lifts you do you cant stop your own inertia at once, that creates a small delay in the return to guard where one is heavily exposed to counter...
So they sink the posture, open the stance while steping ahead and lunge from afar... In reality, as you are sinking, you only gain a few cm but those are the ones that make a difference in the top echelons of martial arts.
There is no such thing as a perfect stance. Nor are stances rigidly A or B.
Set stances are used as learning tools and even then there will be variability based on anthropometry and even then these set rigid textbook stances are not actually rigid but dynamic. The movement and control of bodyweight is perhaps the single most important in boxing technique and it almost never gets mentioned.
As for stances and their benefits, fundamentally it is very simple;
The plane in which your legs are spread is the one in which you will both have greatest
A; balance
B; ability to move quickly
In a "side on" stance, the fighter can move in and out the most effectively. But lateral movement is very slow and unstable.
In a "square" stance the fighter can move laterally/side ways the most effectively.
But forward and back movement is very slow and unstable.
In a side on stance the profile of the body is narrow plus you have a leg, arm and shoulder in front of you. Meaning it is easier to slip, block and counter at long range while never being hit.
Downfall is that there is almost no power in your punches. Any power in straight punches from the side on stance must come from stepping in. No step in = almost non existent force.
In square stance your body is wide and easy for opponent to hit. Your own reach is poor and it is almost impossible to do catch and counter or punch on punch style boxing.
Benefit is that you are in position to throw maximum force punches from both arms using all the strength of your legs and abs. But these are hooks & uppercuts in mid and close range.
In the dynamic context of a real fight, the fighters move into whatever is appropriate to meet their needs at that moment. Including fighters famous for being "square on" or "side on" fighters. Everyone varies their stance.
The most popular stances in current boxing are tend to be somewhere in middle slightly favouring sideo on. Fighters that favour square stances are rare. Some examples are Tyson, Torres, Patterson, Chavez Sr.
Gaethje at UFC 249 was actually a masterclass at square on fighting. Even though square stances are chosen in MMA for the sake of checking kicks. He was mainly boxing, and slipping every bit as masterfully as Floyd Patterson.
Set stances are used as learning tools and even then there will be variability based on anthropometry and even then these set rigid textbook stances are not actually rigid but dynamic. The movement and control of bodyweight is perhaps the single most important in boxing technique and it almost never gets mentioned.
As for stances and their benefits, fundamentally it is very simple;
The plane in which your legs are spread is the one in which you will both have greatest
A; balance
B; ability to move quickly
In a "side on" stance, the fighter can move in and out the most effectively. But lateral movement is very slow and unstable.
In a "square" stance the fighter can move laterally/side ways the most effectively.
But forward and back movement is very slow and unstable.
In a side on stance the profile of the body is narrow plus you have a leg, arm and shoulder in front of you. Meaning it is easier to slip, block and counter at long range while never being hit.
Downfall is that there is almost no power in your punches. Any power in straight punches from the side on stance must come from stepping in. No step in = almost non existent force.
In square stance your body is wide and easy for opponent to hit. Your own reach is poor and it is almost impossible to do catch and counter or punch on punch style boxing.
Benefit is that you are in position to throw maximum force punches from both arms using all the strength of your legs and abs. But these are hooks & uppercuts in mid and close range.
In the dynamic context of a real fight, the fighters move into whatever is appropriate to meet their needs at that moment. Including fighters famous for being "square on" or "side on" fighters. Everyone varies their stance.
The most popular stances in current boxing are tend to be somewhere in middle slightly favouring sideo on. Fighters that favour square stances are rare. Some examples are Tyson, Torres, Patterson, Chavez Sr.
Gaethje at UFC 249 was actually a masterclass at square on fighting. Even though square stances are chosen in MMA for the sake of checking kicks. He was mainly boxing, and slipping every bit as masterfully as Floyd Patterson.
