Striking Defense: Stance and Guard

[KampfHund]

Love this video! How do you fair this stance for mma? Im finding it harder to execute my punch kick combos. Seems you may be more susceptible to takedowns as well.

Standing side-on, or anywhere near that angle, in MMA is a great way to get single-legged. You'll also have a decreased ability to defend leg kicks.

 

[panamaican]

Standing side-on, or anywhere near that angle, in MMA is a great way to get single-legged. You'll also have a decreased ability to defend leg kicks.

I'm no takedown or side-on expert but is mobility so compromised in a side-on stance that you can't pivot the lead leg out of danger or into a sprawl?

 

[Discipulus]

I actually think that the problems posed by a bladed stance in MMA are a bit overstated. There are plenty of fighters who stand in a bladed stance, with the lead foot turned as well as the upper body. Still, it's actually not necessary to turn the lead foot to fight out of a crouch--a modified crouch at least--and you can profile your upper body without having to turn your hips to much to the side. Look at the way Somluck stood, for example.



Sometimes he's square, but when he's in boxing range he's bladed, crouched, and ready to evade whatever comes his way and counter, either with killer punches or some of the best elbows you'll see in Muay Thai.

I admit I have not sparred MMA rules, however. Why is it that the crouched stanced makes you more susceptible to a single leg? The fact that your weight isn't over your lead leg? There are disadvantages to fighting this way as well, wouldn't you agree? Having one's weight situated over the front leg lends itself well to being leg kicked to a TKO.

Anyway, this thread shouldn't be about speculation. How about some guys with experience. Have you used a similar boxing stance in kickboxing or MMA, and what have been your experiences with it?

 

[KampfHund]

I'm no takedown or side-on expert but is mobility so compromised in a side-on stance that you can't pivot the lead leg out of danger or into a sprawl?

It's not that mobility is compromised, it's that their striking will bring them closer to your lead leg than if you weren't using that stance. The result is that, while your defence may be better, him jabbing into range usually gives him your leg, especially at lower/mid levels of skill.

With a squarer stance, they have to aim their (head) strikes further from your leg, meaning you have more time to react and sprawl if you use striking to set up the takedown.

Of course you can still sprawl either way, but there's a lot smaller margin for error with a side-on stance.

 

[Sinister]

The classic stance isn't "side-on" or at least, not as much so as being advertised. And it also was born from the days where boxers trained with wrestlers to enhance their strength. In fact, John L. Sullivan's trainer was a professional catch-wrestler. Boxers would have wrestlers TRY to take them down in these exercises, and being that this stance was so close to a traditional wrestling stance, they were able to learn the concept.

As for kicks, every kick has a punch counter. If you want to throw a lot of kicks there's a bit of difference, but there are also good defensively liable stances in Muay Thai, that don't require being squared up, head in the middle, and a reactive defense.

Besides, if a competent MMA fighter learns to box correctly AND bothrs to have a good ground game, then if you manage to take them down because you can't stand with them, all that'll end up happening is after getting beaten-up, you'll get choked-out.

 

[SAAMAG]

I actually think that the problems posed by a bladed stance in MMA are a bit overstated. There are plenty of fighters who stand in a bladed stance, with the lead foot turned as well as the upper body. Still, it's actually not necessary to turn the lead foot to fight out of a crouch--a modified crouch at least--and you can profile your upper body without having to turn your hips to much to the side. Look at the way Somluck stood, for example.



Sometimes he's square, but when he's in boxing range he's bladed, crouched, and ready to evade whatever comes his way and counter, either with killer punches or some of the best elbows you'll see in Muay Thai.

I admit I have not sparred MMA rules, however. Why is it that the crouched stanced makes you more susceptible to a single leg? The fact that your weight isn't over your lead leg? There are disadvantages to fighting this way as well, wouldn't you agree? Having one's weight situated over the front leg lends itself well to being leg kicked to a TKO.

Anyway, this thread shouldn't be about speculation. How about some guys with experience. Have you used a similar boxing stance in kickboxing or MMA, and what have been your experiences with it?

The cautiousness is overrated. Yes, if you stick your leg out there's a chance you can get single legged. You know what? If you stand square with your hands up there's a chance someone is going to punch you in the gut!

I move in and out of various stances when I spar, sometimes it'll be a traditional boxing stance, sometimes a muay thai stance, sometimes a karate stance, sometimes a gung fu stance. It really depends on the skills I'm trying to apply. Those things aren't static. If someone goes to take you down, you move. That's that.

I'll tell you what though...in boxing...a good stance goes a LONG way to keeping you safe. That and footwork.

 

[lukewall]

The 'boxing/bladed stance is bad for mma/takedown defense' argument is totally bogus. If you can wrestle, you can wrestle. It's not like a fundamentally sound boxing stance gets you off balance or causes you to cross your feet. Honestly, the fundamental footwork of a traditional wrestling stance is very similar to the fundamental footwork of a boxing stance. You can still move in all directions & pivot from both stances.

As far as defending against kicks, defensively minded muay thai fighters fight off the back foot anyway to keep the lead leg light to check kicks. The reason boxers don't check kicks well is because they don't regularly check kicks in training. It takes a lot of time to condition you body to check kicks. Even if a boxer fought out of a pure MT stance, he'd get starched by low kicks because they're not conditioned for it and a good low kicker is good at breaking down opponents.

 

[devante]

The 'boxing/bladed stance is bad for mma/takedown defense' argument is totally bogus. If you can wrestle, you can wrestle. It's not like a fundamentally sound boxing stance gets you off balance or causes you to cross your feet. Honestly, the fundamental footwork of a traditional wrestling stance is very similar to the fundamental footwork of a boxing stance. You can still move in all directions & pivot from both stances.

As far as defending against kicks, defensively minded muay thai fighters fight off the back foot anyway to keep the lead leg light to check kicks. The reason boxers don't check kicks well is because they don't regularly check kicks in training. It takes a lot of time to condition you body to check kicks. Even if a boxer fought out of a pure MT stance, he'd get starched by low kicks because they're not conditioned for it and a good low kicker is good at breaking down opponents.

bingo

fighting off the back foot helps take some of the sting off lead leg kicks, cus your not weighted.

and as u said if you can wrestle/def takedowns you can, the stance won't hurt that ability unless the guy your facing is that much better applying takedowns than you are defending them.

also having active footwork, lots of mobility will assist you as the person trying to kick or shoot or clinch is going to have to work more to setup attempts, while not getting picked apart coming in and have to work hard to reset when you pivot/sidestep/stepback. Otherwise they come in wide and get blasted...or countered.

 

[KampfHund]

Besides, if a competent MMA fighter learns to box correctly AND bothrs to have a good ground game, then if you manage to take them down because you can't stand with them, all that'll end up happening is after getting beaten-up, you'll get choked-out.

Yeah, because all takedowns land you in guard. that, and your hypothetical opponent is apparently a wrestler with no stand-up or ground game. [/sarcasm]

EDIT: While in my last post I didn't outright say the more side-on stance wasn't viable (I said it leaves lower margin for error), I do wonder how many people here regularly test their theories in full MMA sparring. I say this because, when strikes are mixed in, having your weight on the back foot, or leaving your leg out there often result in being taken down. Not always, but often. Especially if the guy trying to take you down is of a similar skill level in striking.

I should also point out that, in the same way that a more side-on stance does not instantly mean you'll be smashed my a wrestler, a squarer stance does not mean instantly mean you'll be outstruck. Plenty of famous boxers have worked out of a squarer stance, and many of these would appear to be the ones with styles more directly applicable to MMA (I'm thinking Tyson, Frazier, Foreman, Tua, Hatton). If those guys knew how to wrestle they'd be a force.

 

[aries]

Sinister pretty much answered the first part of your question but I'd like to chime in for the second part. My coach insists that beginner boxers "keep the hands up" in an effort to reduce the distance the punches travel.

This is why the Diaz brothers have been so successful and flumoxed so many MMA fighters with their boxing. Their reach is good but all their opponents seem to really struggle with that. And they seem to be a lot faster than they look. The reason? They keep their hands well out so that they have very little distance to travel. Apart from Condit, no one seems to be able to deal with this strategy. But even condit didn't deal with it directly he just chose to stick and move.

 

[lukewall]

This is why the Diaz brothers have been so successful and flumoxed so many MMA fighters with their boxing. Their reach is good but all their opponents seem to really struggle with that. And they seem to be a lot faster than they look. The reason? They keep their hands well out so that they have very little distance to travel. Apart from Condit, no one seems to be able to deal with this strategy. But even condit didn't deal with it directly he just chose to stick and move.

I think it has a lot less to do with having their hands up and lessening the distance their punches travel and a lot more to do with their opponents not being able to effectively use lateral movement. In mma there are plenty of boneheads that want to 'stand and bang' and those guys will make the Diaz brothers look like a million bucks.

As far as condit is concerned, what was he supposed to do? Stand in front of a pressure fighter and exchange, effectively playing into nick's strengths? Dude applied a little strategy & movement against a pressure fighter and made diaz look like a bumbling amateur.

 

[Brando]

From the perspective of an orthodox boxer...

It is very important to keep your shoulders bladed i.e. left extended, right shoulder back. There are many passive defensive benefits that this stance grants you. Your left shoulder becomes a shield from right-handed attacks, and is especially effective to tuck your chin behind when pivoting clockwise away from an orthodox opponent's right hand.

From this stance, your right hand is given a more clearly defined purpose for defense. You can choose to position it on the right side of your face (more traditional) to shut down the left hook, or just can place it in front of your face to shut down one jabbing lane for your opponent. If you choose to defend the jabbing lane, you must be aware that there is an opening on your defensive radar for an incoming left hook. However, it is a VERY easy and compact movement to roll your shoulders as if you're throwing a cross and slide your right hand up high to catch the hook. This also sets up a loaded left hook counter for you, or you just shift your shoulder positioning back to normal and get back to work. You're not as open to the hook as you think from here, however... using this type of shoulder positioning puts your chin a few precious inches further away which means they either have to reach more for that hook, or commit their feet to it and really close range.

Fun trick associated with the last point on right hand positioning:
If you prefer to keep your hand in front of the face to close their jab lane as I often do, it can set you up very nicely to counter the jab. When you are ready to counter your opponent's jab, just move your hand back to the 'traditional' spot beside your face. After frustrating your opponent with a closed jabbing lane, they will find it very hard to resist this opening. Once you move that right hand, anticipate their jab and act accordingly... whether it is a parry into a counter jab, a slip into a counter, whatever. Just know that it is YOUR jabbing lane, and you get to choose when it is open.

This type of shoulder positioning opens an entire range of "shoulder play" which sets up different counters and active defenses. Offensively, it can also create some opportunities. If you keep the elbows in in conjuction with a leading left shoulder, you can discreetly line your jabbing hand up inside of their guard, inside of their punches, etc from the relative safety your hand positioning grants you. From here, drive off of the back foot and emphasize a slight turn of the upper body for the jab. The arm is completely taken out of the equation, and what you get is a ruler-straight jab that you can pop into any holes you see. I don't think I'm articulating this well!

Also, Sinister, while I appreciate the emphasis on the basics in your drilling video, your boy is jabbing directly at your glove and his partners glove!

 

[devante]

I think it has a lot less to do with having their hands up and lessening the distance their punches travel and a lot more to do with their opponents not being able to effectively use lateral movement. In mma there are plenty of boneheads that want to 'stand and bang' and those guys will make the Diaz brothers look like a million bucks.

As far as condit is concerned, what was he supposed to do? Stand in front of a pressure fighter and exchange, effectively playing into nick's strengths? Dude applied a little strategy & movement against a pressure fighter and made diaz look like a bumbling amateur.

your partly right, as most guys want to stand and exchange until they start getting hit; an quite honestly some/most lack the finer points to counter, i.e. head/upperbody movement and footwork. We won't even get into the lack of balance, hand positioning and spacing.

but aries is right, the diaz bros and keith jardine benefit from the extended hands; it basically shortens the dist between you and your opp, which really helps when your a fighter who moves forward. Its harder to gauge the dist, counter or def when you put those things together; not to mention the extended hand acts as a line of def from your opp. As it makes your opp having to work harder to close the dist and to get their offense off because they have to get around that lead hand, knowing that power hand is ****ed and ready, me and sullivan discussed this in a thread about having extended lead hands/etc.

 

[Discipulus]

From the perspective of an orthodox boxer...

It is very important to keep your shoulders bladed i.e. left extended, right shoulder back. There are many passive defensive benefits that this stance grants you. Your left shoulder becomes a shield from right-handed attacks, and is especially effective to tuck your chin behind when pivoting clockwise away from an orthodox opponent's right hand.

From this stance, your right hand is given a more clearly defined purpose for defense. You can choose to position it on the right side of your face (more traditional) to shut down the left hook, or just can place it in front of your face to shut down one jabbing lane for your opponent. If you choose to defend the jabbing lane, you must be aware that there is an opening on your defensive radar for an incoming left hook. However, it is a VERY easy and compact movement to roll your shoulders as if you're throwing a cross and slide your right hand up high to catch the hook. This also sets up a loaded left hook counter for you, or you just shift your shoulder positioning back to normal and get back to work. You're not as open to the hook as you think from here, however... using this type of shoulder positioning puts your chin a few precious inches further away which means they either have to reach more for that hook, or commit their feet to it and really close range.

Fun trick associated with the last point on right hand positioning:
If you prefer to keep your hand in front of the face to close their jab lane as I often do, it can set you up very nicely to counter the jab. When you are ready to counter your opponent's jab, just move your hand back to the 'traditional' spot beside your face. After frustrating your opponent with a closed jabbing lane, they will find it very hard to resist this opening. Once you move that right hand, anticipate their jab and act accordingly... whether it is a parry into a counter jab, a slip into a counter, whatever. Just know that it is YOUR jabbing lane, and you get to choose when it is open.

This type of shoulder positioning opens an entire range of "shoulder play" which sets up different counters and active defenses. Offensively, it can also create some opportunities. If you keep the elbows in in conjuction with a leading left shoulder, you can discreetly line your jabbing hand up inside of their guard, inside of their punches, etc from the relative safety your hand positioning grants you. From here, drive off of the back foot and emphasize a slight turn of the upper body for the jab. The arm is completely taken out of the equation, and what you get is a ruler-straight jab that you can pop into any holes you see. I don't think I'm articulating this well!

Also, Sinister, while I appreciate the emphasis on the basics in your drilling video, your boy is jabbing directly at your glove and his partners glove!

Great post.

I've been trying this out, too. I really like the right hand in front of the face. I've even started just putting it there when I jab, a la Joe Louis. He sometimes would just straight up grab the opponent's lead hand and hit them with his jab, negating their counter entirely. B-Hop drops some shoulder defense knowledge on Rashad in this video. Very insightful, and he demonstrates the hook defense/set-up you were talking about. MMA fighters can learn so much from old-school boxers like B-Hop, Mike McCallum, and Larry Holmes. I'd say Toney as well, but he's too disrespectful, and I can't imagine ol' Mushmouth ever being a good coach.

On your last point, I noticed that too, and at one point you can actually hear him correct the kid, so I'm sure he's not unaware. I always make sure when I'm doing partner drills with a head movement aspect to let them get in rhythm throwing at me, and then leave my head in place one time instead of moving it. If their punch goes past my head still, I make sure to tell them that they should be trying to hit my head. I don't want to have false confidence in my defense and avoid punches that aren't coming at me anyway.

 

[panamaican]

bingo

fighting off the back foot helps take some of the sting off lead leg kicks, cus your not weighted.

and as u said if you can wrestle/def takedowns you can, the stance won't hurt that ability unless the guy your facing is that much better applying takedowns than you are defending them.

also having active footwork, lots of mobility will assist you as the person trying to kick or shoot or clinch is going to have to work more to setup attempts, while not getting picked apart coming in and have to work hard to reset when you pivot/sidestep/stepback. Otherwise they come in wide and get blasted...or countered.

See, this is more in line with my understanding and experience. The problem isn't the side-on stance so much as the mobility of the fighter using the stance. Active footwork addresses a lot of the supposed flaws with it.

 

[Sinister]

Yeah, because all takedowns land you in guard. that, and your hypothetical opponent is apparently a wrestler with no stand-up or ground game. [/sarcasm]

EDIT: While in my last post I didn't outright say the more side-on stance wasn't viable (I said it leaves lower margin for error), I do wonder how many people here regularly test their theories in full MMA sparring. I say this because, when strikes are mixed in, having your weight on the back foot, or leaving your leg out there often result in being taken down. Not always, but often. Especially if the guy trying to take you down is of a similar skill level in striking.

I should also point out that, in the same way that a more side-on stance does not instantly mean you'll be smashed my a wrestler, a squarer stance does not mean instantly mean you'll be outstruck. Plenty of famous boxers have worked out of a squarer stance, and many of these would appear to be the ones with styles more directly applicable to MMA (I'm thinking Tyson, Frazier, Foreman, Tua, Hatton). If those guys knew how to wrestle they'd be a force.

Thanks for isolating one aspect of my post and building a reply off of it. However, I'm no advocate of fearing any portion of an opponent's game, when one is well-prepared. Apprehensiveness of that sort doesn't belong in combat sports. You're behaving as if anyone is implying to be negligent of takedown defense, which is not the case. Rather, what's being discussed is that takedown defense does not necessitate sacrificing striking defensive liability. For one thing, timing is what allows most good shooters to get a leg. Timing can be off-set by numerous things.

And you don't really need to wonder. A little exploration around here will alert you to the fact that many of us actually work with and help train MMA fighters.

But again, the classic stance isn't as "sideways" as is being implied here. I think one of the problems is people are only looking at it from the side. As an example, here's a frontal view of a guy in a classical stance:

And here's a traditional wrestling stance:

The difference in weight-balance is subtle, again, the classic boxing stance was designed that way.

P.S. - This isn't the first time this has been argued around here, either.

 

[devante]

See, this is more in line with my understanding and experience. The problem isn't the side-on stance so much as the mobility of the fighter using the stance. Active footwork addresses a lot of the supposed flaws with it.

exactly...most guys i see getting handled as far as takedowns when using that stance, are the guys who are stationary or like to come forward; which eff highlights (any) weaknesses that stance has.

def takedowns is a matter of legit skill, but it also has to do w/angles-range-timing; rarely do you see mobile guys get taken down (regardless of stance) often or as often as others.

faber-liddel-lyoto-cruz-jimmo-larkin-evans-edgar-pettis-florian..etc, not saying wrestling def doesn't help; but being able to change angles-spacing-etc reinforces that or limits the necessity of high caliber wrestling. Cause alot of these guys have limited takedown attempts or lessen the eff of a takedown cus of that constant movement, where guys take bad shots (i.e. out of range, off balance, reaching, rushing in). And often it helps them def tds from bigger and better wrestlers...(couture/liddel-faber/cruz-cruz/jorgensen-machida/ortiz-machida/heath-evans/davis-machida/jackson-larkin/rossbrough-larkin/vilante-florian/guida-florian/huerta-jimmo/forbes-jimmo/cummings-jimmo/gouivea and so on).

its the same w/the stance we are discussing..

 

[Sinister]

Also, Sinister, while I appreciate the emphasis on the basics in your drilling video, your boy is jabbing directly at your glove and his partners glove!

Yeah I do correct Vini in the one with me. However, you know why it continues even after corrections. It's the deception of the rear-hand defense. It makes the opponent unconsciously jab at the glove and not the face when you catch a few of their jabs. Keeping the punch aimed precisely at the target isn't easy when it's consistently being shut down. That's part of the drill, and they're not advanced at it.

 

[Jukai]

In my opinion, a 'classical' boxing stance is much different from a true 'bladed' stance. The former can probably do quite well, the latter...

 

[Sinister]

The one system that is TRULY bladed is the crab style. Jim Jeffries made this style visible on the World Level during his reign as Heavyweight Champion:

Often times he'd tuck that left hand and turn his shoulders for defense, or use his rear hand similarly to the way the classic stance did:

But does that posture look familiar to anyone? I'll give you a hint:

And another example of similarity: