Your opinion on the side stance in MMA?

[a guy]

This is also what I was thinking everyone was talking about - TKD/Karate style side-stance...guess I was wrong as well.

On topic: When only hands are involved it's natural to want to turn a little to protect your mid-section, extend that lead arm for range/distance and also load the rear for power. It's a viable strategy and I've sparred guys who do it effectively in boxing-only settings but there's always a trade-off. By extending that lead arm you get more range but you also reduce it's power, and you also reduce the speed of the rear straight since it's farther away. The basic 1-2 and 1-2-3 can't be peppered in during exchanges as quickly when you're sideways as when you square up IMO.

The big question here is - how does it affect your sprawl? If you can't sprawl as effectively it's definitely a risk you might not want to take considering the weight of top-position in modern MMA judging.

The thread is about standing like how Rory Macdonald stands, as specified in the OP. And even in the picture provided in the OP his lead foot is turned in a little more than normal. He has easily the fastest right straight in his division, matched only by Kampmann.

Rory also has zero trouble sprawling.

 

[a guy]

Most boxers don't stand so side on that their feet are in one line, which is what I understand a side stance to be. Like Wonderboy above, his feet are positioned as if riding a surf board.

If we're just talking about having the lead leg turned in, then that's workable, but not ideal for throwing the cross either.

Yea I stand with my lead leg turned in. Before throwing my cross I have to point that foot forward if I want full rotation, but it's a really small adjustment that I don't even think about anymore.

 

[Discipulus]

I know that - but the way you were saying it was like it's a negative or disapproving. That's why I asked what do you mean by that for further clarification lol.

I do see it as a negative. Falling into the punch like that makes you vulnerable.

 

[Forever Changes]

I do see it as a negative. Falling into the punch like that makes you vulnerable.

Aren't you supposed to step with each punch in boxing?

 

[Jukai]

Note that both Wonderboy and McGregor have to compromise themselves to reach the target with their rear hands in those examples. Both of them fall forward considerably.

If you stand bladed and farther back from your opponent, you need to lean in to hit them. But, on the other hand, the reason you need to do that is because they are too far away to hit you--- it's the safety of having your head farther back in that stance that forces you to lean to throw a punch. I guess in a vacuum it's a negative but in my opinion, it's just a negative that you need to do because of the other positives of the stance.

You alternatively could take a big step and keep your head straight but it's more telegraphed that way.

 

[flyingweelkick]

The thread is about standing like how Rory Macdonald stands, as specified in the OP. And even in the picture provided in the OP his lead foot is turned in a little more than normal. He has easily the fastest right straight in his division, matched only by Kampmann.

Rory also has zero trouble sprawling.

You're right, the OP does state that. My bad. Easy mistake to make though - "bladed" is the term we really ought to have been using all along. Completely sideways stance "surfboarding" is usually what 9/10 of trainers mean by "side-stance" in anything other than pure boxing.

Rory does do an excellent job adjusting to sprawls. But you have to remember - he's been doing this for a looong time and was sprawling GSP for years - sprawls are probably nearing college-wrestler-level instinctive for him. As far as someone newer to the game who is playing around with the the bladed/lead foot-in stance for MMA I find it extremely likely that it makes sprawling a good deal harder for most. Especially those without a wrestling base. I know it was an adjustment I made as a teen who was only used to boxing and having to sprawl big wrestlers in class - whenever I would stand bladed the act of sprawling had the extra first step of squaring up which usually resulted in me on my back. Versus if you're square-stanced already which makes the whole sprawling movement a lot faster since you're already in position - just throw back your hips.

As far as Rory's speed with the Cross - He throws a lot of body/hip/step into it which is probably helping. Not to mention the kid is just fast and explosive in general. You mention Kampmann - his cross is much more clinical and square and even tho he doesn't seem quite as fast and athletic as Rory it still seems to get there faster. Especially looking back at a prime-er Kampmann. As Rory begins to get older and slow down we'll probably see that rear cross slow down considerably.

In WW, Hendricks and Lawler also have nice crisp rear straights that come from a mostly square, planted position. They put a lot of them on each other in that title fight. Sneaky and both guys are always in position to lead hook right afterward. Bet we see one of them get a finish by 2 or 2->3 soon.


To respond to the OP: I would check and really pressure-test your sprawl in training. If you feel cozy and can strike well with a bladed stance then try it against the best wrestlers you can and see how well you're able to sprawl. If you can do it comfortably then go for it, if not you may want to play around with squaring up a bit more. You can always try to find an in-between.

 

[a guy]

You're right, the OP does state that. My bad. Easy mistake to make though - "bladed" is the term we really ought to have been using all along. Completely sideways stance "surfboarding" is usually what 9/10 of trainers mean by "side-stance" in anything other than pure boxing.

Rory does do an excellent job adjusting to sprawls. But you have to remember - he's been doing this for a looong time and was sprawling GSP for years - sprawls are probably nearing college-wrestler-level instinctive for him. As far as someone newer to the game who is playing around with the the bladed/lead foot-in stance for MMA I find it extremely likely that it makes sprawling a good deal harder for most. Especially those without a wrestling base. I know it was an adjustment I made as a teen who was only used to boxing and having to sprawl big wrestlers in class - whenever I would stand bladed the act of sprawling had the extra first step of squaring up which usually resulted in me on my back. Versus if you're square-stanced already which makes the whole sprawling movement a lot faster since you're already in position - just throw back your hips.

As far as Rory's speed with the Cross - He throws a lot of body/hip/step into it which is probably helping. Not to mention the kid is just fast and explosive in general. You mention Kampmann - his cross is much more clinical and square and even tho he doesn't seem quite as fast and athletic as Rory it still seems to get there faster. Especially looking back at a prime-er Kampmann. As Rory begins to get older and slow down we'll probably see that rear cross slow down considerably.

In WW, Hendricks and Lawler also have nice crisp rear straights that come from a mostly square, planted position. They put a lot of them on each other in that title fight. Sneaky and both guys are always in position to lead hook right afterward. Bet we see one of them get a finish by 2 or 2->3 soon.


To respond to the OP: I would check and really pressure-test your sprawl in training. If you feel cozy and can strike well with a bladed stance then try it against the best wrestlers you can and see how well you're able to sprawl. If you can do it comfortably then go for it, if not you may want to play around with squaring up a bit more. You can always try to find an in-between.

I think I mostly agree with you but I don't think square is the right word to describe it. Here's a picture that represents Lawler and Hendricks' stances pretty well to clarify:

I wouldn't say the foot position of either of those guys is square, though both are of course square relative to Rory's.

However I have my lead foot turned in a little too, I don't have my feet in a line or my lead foot turned as far as Rory, but I do stand bladed. It doesn't give me any more trouble defending shots, but I also rarely do a full sprawl, that's counterproductive for a striker anyway. I just dig for at least one underhook and pivot, or stuff the head and pivot. Either way I don't try to end up on top, I try to avoid getting into anything that resembles a pure grappling exchange. That's the important thing about MMA, you can stand pretty much however you want as long as you make adaptations and don't try to force things that aren't gonna work out for you.

 

[a guy]

Aren't you supposed to step with each punch in boxing?

No, you're typically better off planting your feet when you punch. Whether or not your opponent will let you is another story.

 

[a guy]

I do see it as a negative. Falling into the punch like that makes you vulnerable.

Agreed. Look where Wonderboy's hips end up, that's a free double if I've ever seen one.

 

[a guy]

If you stand bladed and farther back from your opponent, you need to lean in to hit them. But, on the other hand, the reason you need to do that is because they are too far away to hit you--- it's the safety of having your head farther back in that stance that forces you to lean to throw a punch. I guess in a vacuum it's a negative but in my opinion, it's just a negative that you need to do because of the other positives of the stance.

You alternatively could take a big step and keep your head straight but it's more telegraphed that way.

You can step your feet into range while keeping your head back so you don't have to lean, or make the other guy walk forward into it. It's all about the set up.

 

[Discipulus]

Aren't you supposed to step with each punch in boxing?

There's a difference between stepping and falling. A proper step is a controlled transfer of weight, and helps keep your body balanced over your feet while you drive forward. Falling forward is when you lunge so far that your feet have to move forward to keep up with your upper body.

 

[Babba]

there's very good boxers constantly lunging with intent though. if you are comfortable with it and its an integral part of your style with a purpose and tactic, sure. however, i think in most cases of people that aren't on that level, it can be attributed to bad mechanics.

some people are also very explosive and their body mechanics propel them forward when they get overly aggressive, fedor being a very clear example although he doesn't box hes idolized as a striking phenom

 

[Discipulus]

there's very good boxers constantly lunging with intent though. if you are comfortable with it and its an integral part of your style with a purpose and tactic, sure. however, i think in most cases of people that aren't on that level, it can be attributed to bad mechanics.

some people are also very explosive and their body mechanics propel them forward when they get overly aggressive, fedor being a very clear example although he doesn't box hes idolized as a striking phenom

Choosing to do it is one thing. However, most fighters who fall into their punches don't know how not to do it.

 

[a guy]

That's a great point, there needs to be a distinction between fighters who fall forward out of balance and fighters who lunge forward with control.

 

[Jukai]

You can step your feet into range while keeping your head back so you don't have to lean, or make the other guy walk forward into it. It's all about the set up.

At a certain range, it becomes difficult. You can step forward with your feet but then you telegraph the punch with a step. You can let the other guy walk into it, but most of these sidestance guys in BOTH Karate and Boxing are already masterful at countering.

The lean-in cross is a way of throwing it out immediately and without telegraphing from range, but it involves jutting your head out and putting it at risk. The idea is your opponent won't see it, but if he does, you're obviously in a bad position. There are negatives, but I don't see the entire maneuver as one negative attack, just one with negatives and positives.

Unless you're saying both the boxing GOAT and mixed martial arts GOAT have it wrong.

 

[a guy]

At a certain range, it becomes difficult. You can step forward with your feet but then you telegraph the punch with a step. You can let the other guy walk into it, but most of these sidestance guys in BOTH Karate and Boxing are already masterful at countering.

The lean-in cross is a way of throwing it out immediately and without telegraphing from range, but it involves jutting your head out and putting it at risk. The idea is your opponent won't see it, but if he does, you're obviously in a bad position. There are negatives, but I don't see the entire maneuver as one negative attack, just one with negatives and positives.

Unless you're saying both the boxing GOAT and mixed martial arts GOAT have it wrong.

No it just seemed like you were saying that's the only way to throw it, which I would strongly disagree with.

 

[Jukai]

No it just seemed like you were saying that's the only way to throw it, which I would strongly disagree with.

Yes, it is the only way. And the jab is only used to block people's vision (and doesn't work in MMA) and the hook is just a worse version of the unstoppable overhand right.

 

[a guy]

Agreed.

 

[Tom Cruise]

I think any sort of side stance in unarmed combat is primarily a personal choice, and there are things to advocate why you should and should not do it. Certainly, you get more reach, more power, and depending on your displacement between yourself and your opponent, there are a variety of throws, sweeps, and other techniques that you can implement. However, I am not a personal fan of side stances because of my own methodology of fighting when it comes to striking.

As someone who has been using weapons for a very long time, has been doing unarmed martial arts for just as long, and someone who prefers the practicality of safe techniques in everyday life as opposed to a controlled environment, I just think a 50-50 stance or any stand with you directly facing your opponent is just better. You are not as prone to being sweeped, if you are fighting with a weapon or your opponent has a weapon, you can better control their body as to not be killed, it is easier to close distance, you can better defend yourself against kicks, ect.

Of course, again, this is personal preference. I think being at a side stance is for people who are more aggressive in their fighting and enjoy risk taking to dish out some hurt, but I can't say one is better than the other. Just different stances for different situations.

 

[Fenderson]

^^^
I disagree that its an aggressive stance. Infact id say the opposite. If we're talking about a boxing side stance (orthodox) the left shoulder is pointed, the chin is turned and tucked into the shoulder. You can also have a slight lean back for extra defence and because the body is turned to the side defending punches from the left is easy.

Its a stance that is very closed up and defensive.