Proper stance.

[MrGroundgame]

My friend does just Muay thai and has a stance where his body is squared off to his target. I think that leaves you open to attacks and takedowns and since I plan to do mma fights, and not just muay thai I turn my body to make it less of a target to hit. It's basically a boxing stance. He made it seem like that my stance would take too long to throw a cross because my arm is a lot further back and how my kicks would take longer and all this stuff. So is the squared off stance better? I just prefer the turned body stance.
Thanks

 

[Da Speeit]

i know what youre saying, but i'd have to see said stance to make any judgements.

 

[Zert]

It will be nearly impossible to block low kicks that way.

 

[Keiron]

i think a more square stance is more suitable for MMA. Both for sprawling and defending kicks.

edit: I also remember Bas recommending a square stance in his MMA training videos. Can

 

[MisterT]

By "sideways" stance, do you mean that your foot placement is like this:

Then it's workable for muay thai. Guys like Masato, Petrosyan, Hoost, Dekkers, and Kaman have used it in K1/Kickboxing. Also, if you look at Frankie Edgar when he's boxing in and out (using angles), he'd be in a sideways type stance too.

However, if by "sideways" you mean that your feet are in one line and your toes are facing towards 3 o'clock, then it's wrong.

In essence, the stance pictured above is prevalent in Dutch Kickboxing style of striking. In pure Muay Thai (i.e. The matches at Lumpinee and Rajaderm), your more likely to see the more squared up stance.
Personally speaking, I used to use the more squared up stance, but I'd get tagged too much to the body and defense primarily relied on reflexes or covering up. With the sideways stance that I use now, my body is angled so it presents less of a target, and I can use my shoulder as a line of defense as well.

edit: I also remember Bas recommending a square stance in his MMA training videos. Can

 

[Keiron]

By "sideways" stance, do you mean that your foot placement is like this:

Then it's workable for muay thai. Guys like Masato, Petrosyan, Hoost, Dekkers, and Kaman have used it in K1/Kickboxing. Also, if you look at Frankie Edgar when he's boxing in and out (using angles), he'd be in a sideways type stance too.

However, if by "sideways" you mean that your feet are in one line and your toes are facing towards 3 o'clock, then it's wrong.





meh. Bas also said that he think the jab is useless, so I've stopped holding his opinion in high regard.

You might be right about Bas, I just love the guy so maybe I

 

[MisterT]

However, I think suggesting the stance you posted is a recipe for getting leg-kicked into oblivion. The fighters you mentioned may have utilized it successfully, but that does not mean TS should use it. Blocking a leg-kick should be done with the chin of your leg, not your calf wich is the most likely result with that stance.

That'll only happen if he tries to check a leg kick by simply picking up his leg (which alot of ppl incorrectly do).
In order to properly check a leg kick, you pick up the front leg and rotate your foot till it's facing towards 11 o clock.

And it's not just the fighters I mentioned that used this stance, when I trained in Rotterdam this is the stance all the fighters (both amateur and pro) used.

Then again, I agree that it should be up to the TS. If he feels that using the squared up stance works better for him, then by all means he should go ahead and use it.

My advice: try both out during sparring sessions and judge which is better for yourself.

You might be right about Bas, I just love the guy so maybe I

 

[DiPoet]

By "sideways" stance, do you mean that your foot placement is like this:

Then it's workable for muay thai. Guys like Masato, Petrosyan, Hoost, Dekkers, and Kaman have used it in K1/Kickboxing. Also, if you look at Frankie Edgar when he's boxing in and out (using angles), he'd be in a sideways type stance too.

However, if by "sideways" you mean that your feet are in one line and your toes are facing towards 3 o'clock, then it's wrong.

In essence, the stance pictured above is prevalent in Dutch Kickboxing style of striking. In pure Muay Thai (i.e. The matches at Lumpinee and Rajaderm), your more likely to see the more squared up stance.
Personally speaking, I used to use the more squared up stance, but I'd get tagged too much to the body and defense primarily relied on reflexes or covering up. With the sideways stance that I use now, my body is angled so it presents less of a target, and I can use my shoulder as a line of defense as well.

Can you give a more detailed description of you personal experience with this stance? The pro's & con's compared to the traditional squared up MT stance.

 

[MisterT]

Can you give a more detailed description of you personal experience with this stance? The pro's & con's compared to the traditional squared up MT stance.

Sure.

Pros of using a sideways stance -

1. Presents less of a body target
2. Enables me to use my shoulder as a line of defense (thus making it harder for my opponent to reach my chin)
3. Enables me to get more leverage on my right cross/uppercut/hook
4. Slipping punches is slightly easier (since your shoulders are already bladed to a certain degree)

Cons of using a sideways stance -

1. Your right hand lead is telegraphed significantly.
2. Defending low kicks requires you pick up your leg and rotate your foot until it's at 11 o clock.

Pros of using a squared stance -

1. Makes it easier for sluggers to get throw hooks and uppercuts to the body when they get to the pocket.
2. Easier to throw a right hand lead since your opponent is less likely to see it coming (although, keep in mind, that your right cross will have less leverage/power as a result).

Cons of using a squared stance -

1. Decreased defensive capabilities. Your chin is exposed. Your body is exposed. When you're fighting at mid-range against an opponent using the sideways stance, your likely to get tagged alot considering how you're basically an open book for him.
2. Decreased leverage on your right cross/uppercut/hook.



In short, I don't want to sound like I'm advocating one stance over the other.
In my experience, it's both stance can be used provided that the conditions are right.
I.E. In sparring, I'll use the sideways stance at long/mid range and sometimes use the squared stance when I'm in short/pocket/clinch range.

 

[DiPoet]

Sure.

Pros of using a sideways stance -

1. Presents less of a body target
2. Enables me to use my shoulder as a line of defense (thus making it harder for my opponent to reach my chin)
3. Enables me to get more leverage on my right cross/uppercut/hook
4. Slipping punches is slightly easier (since your shoulders are already bladed to a certain degree)

Cons of using a sideways stance -

1. Your right hand lead is telegraphed significantly.
2. Defending low kicks requires you pick up your leg and rotate your foot until it's at 11 o clock.

Pros of using a squared stance -

1. Makes it easier for sluggers to get throw hooks and uppercuts to the body when they get to the pocket.
2. Easier to throw a right hand lead since your opponent is less likely to see it coming (although, keep in mind, that your right cross will have less leverage/power as a result).

Cons of using a squared stance -

1. Decreased defensive capabilities. Your chin is exposed. Your body is exposed. When you're fighting at mid-range against an opponent using the sideways stance, your likely to get tagged alot considering how you're basically an open book for him.
2. Decreased leverage on your right cross/uppercut/hook.



In short, I don't want to sound like I'm advocating one stance over the other.
In my experience, it's both stance can be used provided that the conditions are right.
I.E. In sparring, I'll use the sideways stance at long/mid range and sometimes use the squared stance when I'm in short/pocket/clinch range.

Thanks alot I'm gonna use the sideways stance now. Since I'm mainly a puncher and my favorite strikers like Masato, Petrosyan, Hoost, Dekkers, and Kaman use it :icon_chee

I have to agree with the body being more of a target in the squared up stance, I feel so vulnerable. If I were to decide between the 3 main boxing styles I would say that I'm an out-boxer. My favorite boxer would have to say is Ricardo "El Finito" Lopez. When you're in clinch range I think you must use a squared off stance.

 

[Aaron Perls]

Thanks alot I'm gonna use the sideways stance now. Since I'm mainly a puncher ...

Love that logic, which is why I love kick-boxing with boxers.

The biggest disadvantage of the sideways stance is the defensive issues it creates. If my movement and checking abilities were top-notch, I might use it more, but a stance like that is just asking for repeated front leg kicks.

I tend to "drop" into a stance more like that at close range, if the fight is taking place within/between punching and clinch range. I feel like for MMA 90%+ of the time you want the front foot facing forward.

 

[DiPoet]

Love that logic, which is why I love kick-boxing with boxers.

The biggest disadvantage of the sideways stance is the defensive issues it creates. If my movement and checking abilities were top-notch, I might use it more, but a stance like that is just asking for repeated front leg kicks.

I tend to "drop" into a stance more like that at close range, if the fight is taking place within/between punching and clinch range. I feel like for MMA 90%+ of the time you want the front foot facing forward.

I guess you would simply have to work better at telling when a kick is coming then. There is slightly more rotation of the lead leg to block kicks correctly, but the time is merely a fraction of a second. In my opinion the stance would be worth it if you like using your hands more and the added defense from punches.

Think of it this way, if the general idea is to leg kick the shit out of that stance, then you already know most people's strategy. Once you pass from kicking range into punching range you now have the advantage to light the person up quickly. Also with the added mobility you can simply step out of range of the kicks then close the gap quickly to punching range.

 

[MisterT]

The biggest disadvantage of the sideways stance is the defensive issues it creates.

Actually, the sideways stance provides more defensive options than it takes away.
Having the ability to use the shoulder for defense and the ability to protect the body via the angled stance makes it worthwhile despite the slight increase in difficulty for checking leg kicks.

If my movement and checking abilities were top-notch, I might use it more, but a stance like that is just asking for repeated front leg kicks.

There are ways to dissuade opponents from repeatedly leg kicking you other than using checks.

For example, in sparring countering a leg kick with a step-in jab can most probably score a knockdown and make the opponent less enthusiastic about low kicking you.

In fact, that's one of the great things about the sideways stance. The front leg is the only major target that the opponent can attack. Knowing this, you can better anticipate his strategy and plan counters.

Now, compare that to the traditional squared-up stance. In that scenario, the opponent now has the option of punching you in the face, hitting you to the body, or kicking you in the legs. At mid/long range, the squared-up stance leaves the fighter more exposed.

I feel like for MMA 90%+ of the time you want the front foot facing forward.

Having the front foot facing forward isn't a big problem. For example, from the sideways stance photo that I posted, just turn your front foot counter clockwise till it's facing 12 o clock. As long as the tip of your rear heel is touching the imaginary center line, you'll still be standing at an angle.

 

[MrGroundgame]

Having the front foot facing forward isn't a big problem. For example, from the sideways stance photo that I posted, just turn your front foot counter clockwise till it's facing 12 o clock. As long as the tip of your rear heel is touching the imaginary center line, you'll still be standing at an angle.

That's the stance I was talking about. Lead foot forward but your body is still on an angle. I often times do find myself standing in the stance that was shown, but I too heard that you have to always have your lead foot forward and facing your opponent.

 

[barnowl]

Can you give a more detailed description of you personal experience with this stance? The pro's & con's compared to the traditional squared up MT stance.

Funny enough this the stance I was taught a very traditional MT coach.

 

[barnowl]

That's the stance I was talking about. Lead foot forward but your body is still on an angle. I often times do find myself standing in the stance that was shown, but I too heard that you have to always have your lead foot forward and facing your opponent.

I don't like having the foot facing straight ahead it leave the knee to weak against straight kicks. It is easier to protect the knee and balance with the lead foot on an angle.

 

[Jecca]

You want to be squared up, with your front foot pointed at your opponent and back foot 45% degrees. Being squared up not only allows you to check kicks properly, but defend takedowns too. Not having your lead leg's foot pointed at your opponent is just asking to get kicked to your lead leg without being able to check kicks and could also effect your sprawls.

But what do I know? I only learned muay thai from some of the best in the world with Jongsanan and Ganyao from Fairtex.

 

[c0r1nth14n]

I believe Bas differentiated between the jab and what he called the straight left, didn't he?

 

[MisterT]

You want to be squared up, with your front foot pointed at your opponent and back foot 45% degrees.

Several posts back I listed the pros and cons of both the squared stance and the angled stance.

Here's an example of the squared stance:

In this stance, you present your opponent with too many targets (head, body, legs).

Here's an example of an angled stance:

In this stance, your body is angled and thus is slightly protected. The only major target is the front leg.

Being squared up not only allows you to check kicks properly, but defend takedowns too. Not having your lead leg's foot pointed at your opponent is just asking to get kicked to your lead leg without being able to check kicks and could also effect your sprawls.

Not necessarily. I explained this in my earlier post. Checking kicks is still possible. Also, there are other ways to deal with leg kicks such as countering with the jab/cross, as seen in the gif:

Alves used an angled stance throughout the fight. Howard tries to attack his lead leg. Alves counters with a right cross. The angled stance entices opponents to throw low kicks. You can use this to your advantage by anticipating and countering them. Alves is one of the best strikers in the WW division. Guys like Frankie Edgar, Junior Dos Santos, Rashad Evans, etc all use an angled stance to great effect. Of course, like anything else in MMA, cross-training is required to effectively deal with low kicks and takedowns, but all else considered, angled stance has more advantages than a squared stance from a mid/long range.

 

[vjvj]

I agree with MisterT, you don't have to be squared up to check kicks. You can't be 100% bladed up of course, but you don't have to be square.

If I had to take a guess, I'd say the reason people feel like they have to square up is because they might have too much weight on their front foot.