• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Studying the Cross-Armed Guard a.k.a. "The Lock"

Discipulus

Black Belt
Joined
Oct 5, 2011
Messages
6,217
Reaction score
2
Recently I started watching videos of fighters who employ the cross-armed guard, a defense that has always intrigued me, but one which I can admit to not understanding all that well.

It looks something like this:

2.jpg


I haven't read the source, but I know from Sinister that the originator of this style was a bareknuckle boxer called Hiawatha Grey. It's difficult to find much about Grey, but if anything the fact that he fought in the days before gloves leads me to believe that this guard was originated as a means of not only defending the opponent's strikes, but actually punishing him for attacking you at all--the raised elbows and outward-turned forearms would do some real damage to incoming bare-fisted blows.

The next notable stop in the lineage is the man featured in the image above, the great Archie Moore, one of boxing's true legends. Archie had great success with the cross-armed guard, which he called "the Lock," as an aggressive counter fighter.

In his boxing comeback, George Foreman made up for his advanced age by adopting the Lock, as taught by Moore himself, and utilized it very well. One of the more interesting of his many dominant performances in that run is this, a fight with Bert Cooper, another (much smaller) heavyweight known for his use of the same guard. We can watch it to get a feeling for its application by two very different fighters.



Here we have Foreman, the pressure fighter, and Cooper, the counter fighter. Two very different approaches; one style of defense.

One of the criticisms of the cross-armed guard is that it leaves the hands in poor positions to counter. Looking only at the arms, this seems to make sense, but given that Archie Moore was an excellent counter fighter, it doesn't add up. There seem to be ways to make the guard work as a means of creating opportunities.

In the above fight, Cooper serves as a convenient example of both how to and how not to use the cross-armed guard as a counter fighter. Bert's early approach seems to be very practical against such a large opponent as Foreman. He doesn't only block punches, but moves his head and his feet to stay out of the semi-circle of destruction that exists in whatever direction Foreman is facing. The cross-armed guard seems to be ideal for guys with good hooks, and that's exactly the counter that Cooper was known for. Like Archie, he would adopt the guard and lean slightly forward at the waist, loading his left hip for a hook. From this squared upper body position, he could wait to defend the right hand of the opponent and then fire back with an immediate left hook.

Try it out: though it's hard to believe just looking at the guard, the position actually feels pretty natural for the start of a nice left hook, but only when the upper body is squared with the head over the lead hip. With the head pulled back over the right hip, the cross-armed guard starts to look a lot more like the "crab" defense of Floyd Mayweather, and just as the left hook was loaded by the head-forward position, this body position lends itself well to an overhand right.

What I'm getting at is that the cross-armed guard, like any kind of blocking-centric defense, is only effective for countering when it's very active.

Which brings us to Bert's downfall in the second round. Once Foreman crushes him with a few bodyshots, Cooper's activity level drops off dramatically. Suddenly he finds himself standing in front of Foreman, trying to catch punches on his forearms, but not adjusting his position to meet each new threat. Foreman was never a dumb fighter, and despite his seemingly sluggish movements he picked his shots very carefully and intelligently. Impassive and waiting too long between counters, Bert became a sitting duck, despite his continued use of the cross-armed guard. This happened to him in several of his fights, like against Evander Holyfield.

moorer-knocks-out-bert-cooper-o.gif


Without making adjustments the cross-armed guard becomes a simple obstacle for a combination puncher to overcome, and the bent forward posture that helps make it such a viable defense to body shots also make it a treat for fighters with good uppercuts, as you can well see.

More from me later. For now, please post any links or videos you have of the cross-armed guard's history, or its use by other notable fighters. Thanks, and I look forward to the discussion.
 
Not to derail this...but is this fairly reminiscent of the skull n bones of 52blocks or is skull n bones descended from that....

Back on topic

Archie Moore tried to teach it to Ali...among other things; but Ali felt he didn't need it as he was too fast and would be retired by the time he wasn't.
 
Ironic how Ali kept fighting long after he wasn't.
 
I believe, Baptist used that style ....

Not 100% sure - watched this fight long time ago and now my internet connection is too slow to rewatch it ...


[YT]5WCnT1HxMDE[/YT]
 
Baptist was trained by Billy Moore, Archie's Son. You can tell Billy not only because they name him in that broadcast, but Billy is the spitting image of Archie.
 
Never fought anyone who used it, buy my natural inclination would be to start high as a set up and then rip the body/liver
 
Baptist was trained by Billy Moore, Archie's Son. You can tell Billy not only because they name him in that broadcast, but Billy is the spitting image of Archie.

All I remember from this fight is the name of the boxer (Baptist), his unique style that intrigued me back then and the fact that he gave pretty tough fight to Hopkins :)
 
Last edited:
Never fought anyone who used it, buy my natural inclination would be to start high as a set up and then rip the body/liver

Fighters who were trained well to use this, also seemed to be trained well on ideas of how to crack it. Meaning what you see isn't always what you got.
 
Id expect counters, naturally, smart money IMO would be to jab the body a lot and try and bring the guard down , jab up top to cover the eyes then drop a straight right hand to the belly a few times, then try the same thing following up with a left hook upstairs. and mix in a lot of feints. THey are giving themselves a disadvantage, and even if they know it (and are preparing for it) its still there to be exploited. Again this is just my inclination ive never actually foguht anyone who uses it so I really wouldn't know but thats what i would go for, initially, and then take it from there
 
i suppose too that the guard surely has to limit mobility? one could just rack up points by hitting the guard, taking what they can get pointfighting style and stay on bike. Isnt that how Morrison beat Big George?
 
I am not trying to discredit the defense btw just looking for its weaknesses, just as every other style has its weaknesses
 
Watch the Hopkins/Baptist fight. It's weaknesses aren't in anything static, they're in getting users of that style to behave as you want them to as opposed to how they intend to. Hopkins beat Baptist. Another good bout that demonstrates this is Holyfield/Foreman.
 
I do this but I always keep my lead arm extended

petro showing it here in this vid @ 2:50

[YT]OekrRzRhjqQ[/YT]
 
Id expect counters, naturally, smart money IMO would be to jab the body a lot and try and bring the guard down , jab up top to cover the eyes then drop a straight right hand to the belly a few times, then try the same thing following up with a left hook upstairs. and mix in a lot of feints. THey are giving themselves a disadvantage, and even if they know it (and are preparing for it) its still there to be exploited. Again this is just my inclination ive never actually foguht anyone who uses it so I really wouldn't know but thats what i would go for, initially, and then take it from there

i suppose too that the guard surely has to limit mobility? one could just rack up points by hitting the guard, taking what they can get pointfighting style and stay on bike. Isnt that how Morrison beat Big George?

I am not trying to discredit the defense btw just looking for its weaknesses, just as every other style has its weaknesses

No need to be apologetic. I started the thread because I wanted to discuss the style, and in any case it's not a block that I use unless I'm just messing around, so you don't have to worry about offending me. :wink:

The thing with the Lock is that, applied well, it wasn't all that different from the Philly Shell. What I mean is that it made a very good defense, but only when combined with bobbing, rolling movements. As a static guard, it was merely an obstacle to be circumnavigated. Which leads to what Luis said...

Watch the Hopkins/Baptist fight. It's weaknesses aren't in anything static, they're in getting users of that style to behave as you want them to as opposed to how they intend to. Hopkins beat Baptist. Another good bout that demonstrates this is Holyfield/Foreman.

This is my understanding. All the fights I've seen of cross-armed guard users getting outworked was because they were forced out of their gameplan. When Bert Cooper stopped moving because of the body shots, he became a static target and the natural vulnerabilities of the guard--uppercuts and body shots--became even more available. Foreman had to force Cooper into a place where he still needed to use his cross-armed guard, but not in the baiting and countering way for which it was intended. Without the right approach, it doesn't appear to be any better than a typical high guard.

An active jab seems to be one of the best ways to deal with this style. If I recall correctly, Morrison beat Foreman with his activity. Every time he wanted to block he'd go to that cross-armed guard--quite a large movement to block something as simple and uncommitted as a jab--and quit moving forward, or lose sight of Morrison long enough for him to get away.

The point is, like any style, the cross-armed guard has answers for the attacks designed to beat it. You might look at Floyd Mayweather and say his head is open to right hands because his left is low, but his style affords him that lowered left hand because he uses the shoulder to defend his head. If he stayed in the same position all the time he'd be vulnerable, but the starting position is merely designed to facilitate the style he uses. And when you try to capitalize on that shoulder roll by throwing at his left ribs, he'll just rotate his body back around and catch your glove on his elbow. "The Lock" is a style, not just a guard.

I do this but I always keep my lead arm extended

petro showing it here in this vid @ 2:50

[YT]OekrRzRhjqQ[/YT]

That's a little different to my eyes, but that is a very common defense in Muay Thai. The extended arm lends itself to posting on guys who want to clinch or step in for close range weapons like elbows/knees.

If you experiment with the cross-armed guard, I'd say that learning to post with the lead as well as learning to fold it against the body would give you a nice array of options.
 
i suppose too that the guard surely has to limit mobility? one could just rack up points by hitting the guard, taking what they can get pointfighting style and stay on bike. Isnt that how Morrison beat Big George?

I didn't see this one, but yes and no.

First things first, Morrison's decision over George was debated. But secondly, scoring in boxing properly indicates that an unobstructed punch is one that is scored. But the the grey areas is, if you hit my shoulder because you hit it, then you get a point. If I deflect your punch with my shoulder, you shouldn't. This is one of the reasons Mayweather almost never gets scored against even when he's doing nothing and an opponent is flurrying, they MIGHT actually land two punches, but your brain tells you "oh he's shelled-up and moving side to side, none of that landed."

The lock is similar in that it's all in how a judge perceives it. If you land 4 punches on my forearms/elbows, but I throw a counter hook and it lands clean, they score against you and for me. I could deflect those same 4 punches, but if I don't offer that counter, or stick my tongue out at you, or wiggle my hips and smile, then they score for you because you're "being the busier fighter."

The art of bullshitting.
 
Love it.

Watching that Hopkins-Baptist fight, it almost seems to me that Baptist isn't built right for the style. He's so internally rotated that Hopkins just continually takes the outside angle on him. I haven't even finished the first two rounds yet and I've lost count of how many times B-hop left hooked his way to the right and then dropped his trademark right hand on Baptist's left ear.

I am definitely inclined to believe that this is a style best suited to guys with big left hooks. You'd almost think that an internally rotated guy would be well served to fight as a converted southpaw to make up for his weaker hook.

Edit: And by the end of that video Baptist has found his left hook, but I can see now that Hopkins is going to use his left hook and jab to force Baptist to roll deeply to his right, allowing himself enough time to step to Baptist's left once again. he's very vulnerable to that side when he either rolls or pulls back.
 
Eh, Moore had an excellent right hand. And Baptist was a very good fighter, top 5 material when he hit his stride. Hopkins' work in there is a nice tribute to Bouie Fisher's ability to advise. Baptist was a big body-puncher, notice Hopkins' trunks up to his solar-plexus.
 
If you land 4 punches on my forearms/elbows, but I throw a counter hook and it lands clean, they score against you and for me. I could deflect those same 4 punches, but if I don't offer that counter, or stick my tongue out at you, or wiggle my hips and smile, then they score for you because you're "being the busier fighter."

The art of bullshitting.

I'd score those situations the same way, knowing that what was happening. I'm not sure how you could score it to the guy who only gyrated his **** rather than attempting to fight. That's not bullshitting, that's the art of seeing through bullshitting and it's one of few skills (the only?) judges possess. All bullshitters run in to it at some point when they don't KO their opponent. I'm thinking of Silva/Maia at the moment, but my mind is trying to remember back to Whitaker or Naseem fights.

Actually I do remember some fights Whitaker lost due to BSing. Naseem presumably lost some rounds due to that but these guys fought so long ago I can't remember.
 
Eh, Moore had an excellent right hand. And Baptist was a very good fighter, top 5 material when he hit his stride. Hopkins' work in there is a nice tribute to Bouie Fisher's ability to advise. Baptist was a big body-puncher, notice Hopkins' trunks up to his solar-plexus.

I just noticed his vulnerability to Hopkins' lateral movement. I don't know near enough about Baptist to assess the weaknesses of his style as a whole, but based on the two rounds I've seen so far, he's really struggling to stop Hopkins from moving to that side. Part of that is Hopkins' exceptional use of angles on the inside, though.

I'd score those situations the same way, knowing that what was happening. I'm not sure how you could score it to the guy who only gyrated his **** rather than attempting to fight. That's not bullshitting, that's the art of seeing through bullshitting and it's one of few skills (the only?) judges possess. All bullshitters run in to it at some point when they don't KO their opponent. I'm thinking of Silva/Maia at the moment, but my mind is trying to remember back to Whitaker or Naseem fights.

Actually I do remember some fights Whitaker lost due to BSing. Naseem presumably lost some rounds due to that but these guys fought so long ago I can't remember.

Effective bullshitting does work on judges, but it's actually funny watching it work on commentators and fans, and then observing their outraged reactions when the judges' scorecards don't reflect their perception of the fight. Mayweather-Alvarez and Bradley-Marquez were both like this. Mayweather and Bradley were both the better bullshitters, and they won by comfortable margins because of it, but everyone thought, to some degree, that the judges were scoring those fights too closely, when in fact it was the fans who were being fooled by the fighters' antics.
 
In the book on Archie 'The Ageless Warrior'. After Archie lost to Ali, he talks about how he would always have had trouble with Ali's style, even when he wasn't past his prime. He says it's because Ali would aim and keep jabbing at the only exposed part of the guard which was his forehead, and this would knock him off balance and disorient him, never allowing him to set.

Very honest and telling.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top