Ricardo Lopez stance...

[Ogata]

I have noticed that he has a distinct side stance. I love his style but for some reason trainers in My town say it's incorrect and squaring up is the right way becauseof balance.

But Ricardo Lopez is perfect. Flawless record but most importantly he never took damage in his career.

It seems like modern fighters are squaring up more and more. But is the side stance really wrong?

 

[toogreen]

there is no right and wrong in boxing

 

[Mr2urbo]

Its Nacho Beristain taught, Daniel Zaragoza and Juan Manuel Marquez had that similar stance

 

[Ogata]

there is no right and wrong in boxing

I hear you and agree with you. But when I go to different gyms they keep saying that standing side way is wrong.

I have seen there different ways:

1. Squaring up which is great for head movment and infighting.

2. 45 degree angle stance which seems like a hybrid.

3. Side stance for lead hands and counter punching.

This is how American trainers teach but these knuckleheads in my town insist on squaring up at all times. If I go sideways they stop the sparring because they worry about me developing bad habits.

 

[Reyesnuthugr]

Square is a close-in Mexican style. It's good for super close up. It's very aggressive, good for cornering and trapping the other guy if you're tougher than him. It's also (not coincidentally) what brawlers use. No use for blading when you're up close because straight shots take more room to deploy. When the other guy is trapped you can unload on him with a never-ending barrage of short hooks and uppercuts which are hard for him to see or react to because they're way too close to avoid easily.

Bladed is the style you'll see most black guys do. It gives you longer reach AND it puts your head farther away at the same time. The other guy's face is closer to your hands and yours is farther from his, double advantage. Plus you get more time to react, triple advantage.
It's also better for footwork. Because of the footwork and extra distance/reaction time, this makes it easier to read shots coming and counter a guy who's reach is restricted and comes aggressively at you..

From what I've seen in every single pro event where a square guy meets a bladed fella, the square one gets methodically jabbed into a sad meaty mess over the rounds and it's not even close at the end, if he even makes it that far (50/50 chance (T)KO/UD loss). All the best technicians today use bladed. Most of the best in previous decades used bladed.

ODH was one who made square work for him but his reflexes and power were unholy, there aren't any copies of him then or now. I think bladed would have worked better for him anyway because he didn't rely on smothering infighting.


Unless you have incredible power and toughness, I wouldn't use squared up style. It leaves your head wide open to jabs and straights and puts you closer to their weapons, while gifting the opposite (restricting your reach and quickness) for your opponent.

Bladed stance takes advantage of most of boxing's mechanical advantages while squared neutralizes most of your advantages in favor of a more one-dimensional bullying style.

----

You don't want to go sideways even though it seems like an ok idea. The other guy will end up behind you (or even just sideways to you) and you'll be eating hands while you can't see him or do anything about it.

 

[aries]

Use both. When you get close you can square up and when you are at range use bladed. Loads of top fighters do both.

 

[Ogata]

Square is a close-in Mexican style. It's good for super close up. It's very aggressive, good for cornering and trapping the other guy if you're tougher than him. It's also (not coincidentally) what brawlers use. No use for blading when you're up close because straight shots take more room to deploy. When the other guy is trapped you can unload on him with a never-ending barrage of short hooks and uppercuts which are hard for him to see or react to because they're way too close to avoid easily.

Bladed is the style you'll see most black guys do. It gives you longer reach AND it puts your head farther away at the same time. The other guy's face is closer to your hands and yours is farther from his, double advantage. Plus you get more time to react, triple advantage.
It's also better for footwork. Because of the footwork and extra distance/reaction time, this makes it easier to read shots coming and counter a guy who's reach is restricted and comes aggressively at you..

From what I've seen in every single pro event where a square guy meets a bladed fella, the square one gets methodically jabbed into a sad meaty mess over the rounds and it's not even close at the end, if he even makes it that far (50/50 chance (T)KO/UD loss). All the best technicians today use bladed. Most of the best in previous decades used bladed.

ODH was one who made square work for him but his reflexes and power were unholy, there aren't any copies of him then or now. I think bladed would have worked better for him anyway because he didn't rely on smothering infighting.


Unless you have incredible power and toughness, I wouldn't use squared up style. It leaves your head wide open to jabs and straights and puts you closer to their weapons, while gifting the opposite (restricting your reach and quickness) for your opponent.

Bladed stance takes advantage of most of boxing's mechanical advantages while squared neutralizes most of your advantages in favor of a more one-dimensional bullying style.

----

You don't want to go sideways even though it seems like an ok idea. The other guy will end up behind you (or even just sideways to you) and you'll be eating hands while you can't see him or do anything about it.

I agree with you on bladed stance. But sideway works as good if the boxer has exceptional balance. Ricardo Lopez stands pretty sideways as do lots of ingle fighters as well as Zab Judah and Michael Page.

Regarding squared up, it just happens by itself, the moment you throw the cross you square up anyways and so to me its a natural body mechanics. So it doesn't make sense to start off that way,

Mike Tyson and Roy Jones show cased that you can be extremely effective and defensively sound while squared up. Although Roy could mix it up like crazy. Truly a once in a lifetime athlete.

Use both. When you get close you can square up and when you are at range use bladed. Loads of top fighters do both.

True, squaring up is natural. The moment I throw the cross the body turns and I end up squared up anyways. Any punch delivered by the backfoot puts me in a squared up position.

 

[zapataxiv]

are you sure you are doing it right @Ogata

having a more bladed stance is usally succeful because you have ben trained on how to box off your rear hip.

if you dont have that discipline the stance loses alot of the science that makes it so sweet.

if you cant throw a right without squaring up you probably werent schooled in a way that utilizes proper rear hip mechanics.

if you really wanna learn the style you gotta seek out the ones who have the knowledge.

 

[Ogata]

are you sure you are doing it right @Ogata

having a more bladed stance is usally succeful because you have ben trained on how to box off your rear hip.

if you dont have that discipline the stance loses alot of the science that makes it so sweet.

if you cant throw a right without squaring up you probably werent schooled in a way that utilizes proper rear hip mechanics.

if you really wanna learn the style you gotta seek out the ones who have the knowledge.

You and I are on the same side. I also agree with you that bladed is the best. Side way puts your back leg/power hand far from opponent while squaring up makes your reach shorter and a bigger target.

This is the ideal way to box and I think this is what you mean by blade stance.

 

[zapataxiv]

You and I are on the same side. I also agree with you that bladed is the best. Side way puts your back leg/power hand far from opponent while squaring up makes your reach shorter and a bigger target.

This is the ideal way to box and I think this is what you mean by blade stance.

I am not attacking you

What I am saying is you might not be doing it right. So the guys at the gym might not know what a good rear hip back foot heavy stance looks like, but they know what a bad one looks like as they see so many juicy bits hanging out.

Also I disagree about the right. It literally is farther but if you are taught to throw it from someone who knows it actually is pretty effective because it is harder to see and is more accurate especially if you use proper hip rotation it achieves more power.

 

[Ogata]

I am not attacking you

What I am saying is you might not be doing it right. So the guys at the gym might not know what a good rear hip back foot heavy stance looks like, but they know what a bad one looks like as they see so many juicy bits hanging out.

Also I disagree about the right. It literally is farther but if you are taught to throw it from someone who knows it actually is pretty effective because it is harder to see and is more accurate especially if you use proper hip rotation it achieves more power.

Trainers in my town are morons. They will interrupt the sparring session if someone doesn't square up. This pretty much wastes my time and these guys get smoked when they fight American boxers who do blade their stance.

Agree with the right. Farther but it is very effective. Ultimately I believe that bladed stance and the side stance have a learning curve that requires patience but it has a great pay off.

I also have nothing against squaring up but just squaring up alone is a horrific idea.

 

[eternaldarkness]

Square is a close-in Mexican style. It's good for super close up. It's very aggressive, good for cornering and trapping the other guy if you're tougher than him. It's also (not coincidentally) what brawlers use. No use for blading when you're up close because straight shots take more room to deploy. When the other guy is trapped you can unload on him with a never-ending barrage of short hooks and uppercuts which are hard for him to see or react to because they're way too close to avoid easily.

Bladed is the style you'll see most black guys do. It gives you longer reach AND it puts your head farther away at the same time. The other guy's face is closer to your hands and yours is farther from his, double advantage. Plus you get more time to react, triple advantage.
It's also better for footwork. Because of the footwork and extra distance/reaction time, this makes it easier to read shots coming and counter a guy who's reach is restricted and comes aggressively at you..

From what I've seen in every single pro event where a square guy meets a bladed fella, the square one gets methodically jabbed into a sad meaty mess over the rounds and it's not even close at the end, if he even makes it that far (50/50 chance (T)KO/UD loss). All the best technicians today use bladed. Most of the best in previous decades used bladed.

ODH was one who made square work for him but his reflexes and power were unholy, there aren't any copies of him then or now. I think bladed would have worked better for him anyway because he didn't rely on smothering infighting.


Unless you have incredible power and toughness, I wouldn't use squared up style. It leaves your head wide open to jabs and straights and puts you closer to their weapons, while gifting the opposite (restricting your reach and quickness) for your opponent.

Bladed stance takes advantage of most of boxing's mechanical advantages while squared neutralizes most of your advantages in favor of a more one-dimensional bullying style.

----

You don't want to go sideways even though it seems like an ok idea. The other guy will end up behind you (or even just sideways to you) and you'll be eating hands while you can't see him or do anything about it.

I will add that being side on lends more power to the right, also.

 

[eternaldarkness]

I agree with you on bladed stance. But sideway works as good if the boxer has exceptional balance. Ricardo Lopez stands pretty sideways as do lots of ingle fighters as well as Zab Judah and Michael Page.

Regarding squared up, it just happens by itself, the moment you throw the cross you square up anyways and so to me its a natural body mechanics. So it doesn't make sense to start off that way,

Mike Tyson and Roy Jones show cased that you can be extremely effective and defensively sound while squared up. Although Roy could mix it up like crazy. Truly a once in a lifetime athlete.




True, squaring up is natural. The moment I throw the cross the body turns and I end up squared up anyways. Any punch delivered by the backfoot puts me in a squared up position.

Old timers called the squared up position after throwing the cross the "hourglass position". It was considered very dangerous to get caught in this position and they would encourage finishing your combos with the left to "close" the stance back up.

 

[Ogata]

Old timers called the squared up position after throwing the cross the "hourglass position". It was considered very dangerous to get caught in this position and they would encourage finishing your combos with the left to "close" the stance back up.

Yes!

This is how I was trained by a proper boxing trainer. I was told to make myself as small as possible which is standing sideways and to develop a lead hand that is very active.

Now everyone stands open and squared up. It doesn't work for me and I hate how a trainer who runs a gym are so intrusive to the point that they will pause the sparring to "correct" it.

 

[Yehudim]

It’s all about trade offs. One stance is better for defense, one is better for power punches. Not really wrong.

 

[BoxingMMA]

Nacho fighters fight similarly, even D level (with A level power punch) Jhonny Gonzalez sometimes resembled a nacho fighter and he didn’t do much.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

Both stances, bladed and square, are generally accepted and neither is necessarily ‘wrong.’ I prefer bladed myself but not overly bladed. There is such a thing as too side-on (over-bladed) just as there is too square, too narrow, too wide, too tall, and/or too low in your stance. You should never be completely sideways as an opponent can sidestep you with ease to get behind you and they'll have no problem at all turning you endlessly in the ring (while turning you into shots). A completely sideways stance would also heavily limit side-to-side (lateral) movement and make it far more difficult to smother & clinch an opponent.

Both bladed & square stances have their benefits and drawbacks. You have to weigh the trade-offs as another poster said. In general most defense-oriented fighters, who typically operate on the back foot, tend to prefer the bladed stance while most offense-oriented fighters, who typically operate on the front foot, tend to go with the square stance. Typically out-fighters (boxers/stylists) prefer the bladed stance as their body isn't exposed nearly as much as it is with the square stance, so their attack surface is significantly reduced, which obviously makes it ideal for defense. The bladed stance increases the usable reach of your lead hand but reduces the usable reach of your rear hand. However, the rear hand benefits from having more space (punching room) and the additional space for extension often translates to more power for bladed stance fighters but at the expense of losing a bit of speed compared to a rear hand punch thrown from a square stance. The bladed stance is a perfect fit for a back foot fighter (often a boxer or counterpuncher style) who just wants to sit back at range on the end of their jab and potshot while laying back when punches come in or catching them with their shoulder and countering.

Square stance fighters can shoot their rear hand shots more quickly, but usually with slightly reduced power, as their rear hand is closer to the target than from a bladed stance. They can also move more freely side-to-side than fighters in a bladed stance. On the other hand, bladed stance fighters can move a bit more quickly and freely in-and-out (linearly). Offense-oriented fighters that engage a lot as the aggressor, such as swarmers, brawlers, and pressure fighters in general, usually prefer the square stance as it allows them to work at closer range (mid range & up close on the inside) with both hands quickly and with a more balanced power distribution between their lead & rear hand. With both hands they can punch with a more even mixture of speed & power and more readily in succession with rapidity. The square stance also makes it easier to more quickly smother and clinch an opponent as it doesn't take as long and less work has to be done to close the space between them and an opponent in order to tie-up.