Your opinion on the side stance in MMA?

[a guy]

Yea I don't think the side stance is inherently aggressive or used by more aggressive guys generally.

 

[flyingweelkick]

In Karate and TKD "side-stance" it was taught to me as an almost entirely defensive stance. It seems most boxers who utilize it also fight that way.

A guy: Lawler and Hendricks do look somewhat bladed there. Hendricks hips are pretty square-on but as far as legs they are both noticeably turned a bit. Though I just watched Lawler v. Brown and Lawler seems to usually stand a tiny bit more square than that. Still, as you say it's all relative. Both guys are somewhat bladed tho still more "square-on" than Rory. Most of us non-wrestlers naturally turn a bit during exchanges - probably subconsciously protecting our organs/privates.

As far as sprawling - I do agree the ol' fashion sprawl is usually best avoided but it's also the strikers only option if you're being massively outwrestled by a swift double-legger who's always deep. Still a tool one must have. And I also still feel that the underhook>pivot and any kind of standing pivot escape is even a little more effective from a square stance because your pivot has a wider angle, making it a stronger turn to escape with.

 

[Discipulus]

I wouldn't call their stances bladed. Hendricks is almost completely in an L-stance, and Lawler is pretty close as well. Both guys stand with their feet along one line, so they're bladed in that sense, but their feet point different directions.

 

[flyingweelkick]

Perhaps "bladed" isn't the right term. In this pic though, they both have their feet sort of facing to their inside. Hendricks is almost to an "L" but not quite. They're not exactly parallel but still kinda "in-line" as you say. Somewhere in between.

I feel like a true "square" stance (think thai-boxer) would have the lead leg facing almost toward the outside (at least straight forward) and the rear foot facing the other direction toward the inside.

It's all relative and to varying degrees. Disciplus, what would you consider "bladed"?

 

[Forever Changes]

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

Most places I've boxed put it like this: taking tiny litty steps everytime when you punch. Thats why boxers do that excersize where they walk on the balls of their feet with a few heavy dumb bells in each hand. can anyone else weigh in on this?

 

[Azam]

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

I agree it does, but in some instances it's produces a less telegraphed movement precisely because there's no step (when at a certain range/distance). I definitely agree it makes you vulnerable but I don't see it as entirely negative - there are pros/cons & it really depends on your intent & the situation.

 

[a guy]

Most places I've boxed put it like this: taking tiny litty steps everytime when you punch. Thats why boxers do that excersize where they walk on the balls of their feet with a few heavy dumb bells in each hand. can anyone else weigh in on this?

There are some exercises that involve stepping as you punch to get you moving the weight the right way, but when it comes down to it you always hit harder with two feet on the ground. Practically speaking you should only step when you need to adjust for range and angle, and you're better off setting your feet to punch as much as possible.

 

[a guy]

In Karate and TKD "side-stance" it was taught to me as an almost entirely defensive stance. It seems most boxers who utilize it also fight that way.

A guy: Lawler and Hendricks do look somewhat bladed there. Hendricks hips are pretty square-on but as far as legs they are both noticeably turned a bit. Though I just watched Lawler v. Brown and Lawler seems to usually stand a tiny bit more square than that. Still, as you say it's all relative. Both guys are somewhat bladed tho still more "square-on" than Rory. Most of us non-wrestlers naturally turn a bit during exchanges - probably subconsciously protecting our organs/privates.

As far as sprawling - I do agree the ol' fashion sprawl is usually best avoided but it's also the strikers only option if you're being massively outwrestled by a swift double-legger who's always deep. Still a tool one must have. And I also still feel that the underhook>pivot and any kind of standing pivot escape is even a little more effective from a square stance because your pivot has a wider angle, making it a stronger turn to escape with.

I'd say that's a good representation of how both guys stand most of the time. The lead foot is pointed forward and possibly turned in a few degrees, Lawler generally keeps his upper body a little bladed while Hendricks squares his shoulders and hips more. But both guys shift around a decent amount, Lawler especially.

The strikers with the best tdd never go into a full sprawl, they always use lateral movement. Even when a wrestler gets deep on the double they're immediately looking to turn them, and start working an escape if they've lost the standup battle. Full sprawls are for guys with wrestling backgrounds, and abandoning them has been a huge factor in allowing strikers to stuff bigger, stronger, more experienced wrestlers. I don't agree that pivoting is more effective from a square stance, unless by square you mean how Lawler/Hendricks stand, which I still think is just a normal foot position that's neither square nor bladed.

 

[flyingweelkick]

I'd say that's a good representation of how both guys stand most of the time. The lead foot is pointed forward and possibly turned in a few degrees, Lawler generally keeps his upper body a little bladed while Hendricks squares his shoulders and hips more. But both guys shift around a decent amount, Lawler especially.

The strikers with the best tdd never go into a full sprawl, they always use lateral movement. Even when a wrestler gets deep on the double they're immediately looking to turn them, and start working an escape if they've lost the standup battle. Full sprawls are for guys with wrestling backgrounds, and abandoning them has been a huge factor in allowing strikers to stuff bigger, stronger, more experienced wrestlers. I don't agree that pivoting is more effective from a square stance, unless by square you mean how Lawler/Hendricks stand, which I still think is just a normal foot position that's neither square nor bladed.

Lawler does constantly shoulder roll and slip making it hard to find a lot of static images of his "stance". This image is a solid rep - only thing I'm noticing from watching some Hencdricks here is that he usually does have that lead leg a couple degree more "out." Still, you're right the image is mostly conclusive.

I don't entirely agree about the defensive wrestling. Against the cage when he's in on a double or single, absolutely underhook and pivot your way out. There's no room to sprawl there anyway. Same goes if he's trying to lock up your upper body - pivot and get out of there. In the middle of the ring however, against a strong double-legger you really only have the options of A-escape via footwork or B-sprawl hard. Sure you may mostly escape via feet, he grabs a crappy single and you pivot out, but if he gets real deep on the legs with no wall behind you, you kinda have to sprawl.

I don't know too many strikers who will full sprawl a TD and then just lay on top of the guy like in wrestling. Bad call for sure. The whole purpose is to attain a better position/throw off their TD attempt and then get the heck out. Usually involves underhooking and pivoting as well. You can even land a solid shot or two from a sprawled position as you pivot out if you've gotten him to turtle. (Mousasi vs. Munoz, Marlon Moraes also does this beautifully)

There are some really good examples of mixing up all these different TDD techniques we're talking about in A.J. vs. Phil Davis. A.J. utilized all sorts of stuff to frustrate Davis's TD attempts. It was the blending of all of these different techniques plus the constant punishment after every attempt that kept him on his feet the whole fight.


Regarding pivoting - whatever you wanna call this more "neutral" stance, I'll still argue from my experiences that it would be much harder for someone to pivot out of trouble from Rory's more turned stance than from Hendrick's/Lawler's more "neutral" stance. The rotational degree/distance of the pivoting foot is longer for the more "square" guys, giving them a wider angle to turn their foe/hips and escape. Rory's just a beast and has these skills ingrained more than most. I question whether Lawler or Hendricks would have been taken down as much against the cage in the first round against Maia.

 

[a guy]

I don't entirely agree about the defensive wrestling. Against the cage when he's in on a double or single, absolutely underhook and pivot your way out. There's no room to sprawl there anyway. Same goes if he's trying to lock up your upper body - pivot and get out of there. In the middle of the ring however, against a strong double-legger you really only have the options of A-escape via footwork or B-sprawl hard. Sure you may mostly escape via feet, he grabs a crappy single and you pivot out, but if he gets real deep on the legs with no wall behind you, you kinda have to sprawl.

I don't know too many strikers who will full sprawl a TD and then just lay on top of the guy like in wrestling. Bad call for sure. The whole purpose is to attain a better position/throw off their TD attempt and then get the heck out. Usually involves underhooking and pivoting as well. You can even land a solid shot or two from a sprawled position as you pivot out if you've gotten him to turtle. (Mousasi vs. Munoz, Marlon Moraes also does this beautifully)

There are some really good examples of mixing up all these different TDD techniques we're talking about in A.J. vs. Phil Davis. A.J. utilized all sorts of stuff to frustrate Davis's TD attempts. It was the blending of all of these different techniques plus the constant punishment after every attempt that kept him on his feet the whole fight.

The problem here is if a wrestler is deep on your hips in open space you're pretty much going down, you aren't sprawling your way out. The guys with the best tdd (Aldo, Machida, JDS, etc) never full sprawl. They either tie up your arms and turn you or they stuff your head and turn you. Doesn't matter how deep you are, because even if you get them down just them trying to turn and making that effort to stuff the head lets them transition immediately into an escape. It's why Aldo and JDS especially are known for being impossible to hold down even if you get them off their feet. If you pay attention to up and coming fighters, this is mostly how they all do it. The lateral movement is 100% the key to being able to stuff a wrestler without being stuck on the front foot with square hips and shoulders. Sprawling is a losing battle for the striker, the sport has mostly evolved past it. The guys who do sprawl are very good wrestlers, like Mendes and Rory for example.

Regarding pivoting - whatever you wanna call this more "neutral" stance, I'll still argue from my experiences that it would be much harder for someone to pivot out of trouble from Rory's more turned stance than from Hendrick's/Lawler's more "neutral" stance. The rotational degree/distance of the pivoting foot is longer for the more "square" guys, giving them a wider angle to turn their foe/hips and escape. Rory's just a beast and has these skills ingrained more than most. I question whether Lawler or Hendricks would have been taken down as much against the cage in the first round against Maia.

Yea my issue is you calling how Lawler and Hendricks stand square. Square would be if the lead foot was turned out, not facing mostly forward. Also Rory doesn't pivot much, he moves straight back and he sprawls.

 

[flyingweelkick]

The problem here is if a wrestler is deep on your hips in open space you're pretty much going down, you aren't sprawling your way out. The guys with the best tdd (Aldo, Machida, JDS, etc) never full sprawl. They either tie up your arms and turn you or they stuff your head and turn you. Doesn't matter how deep you are, because even if you get them down just them trying to turn and making that effort to stuff the head lets them transition immediately into an escape. It's why Aldo and JDS especially are known for being impossible to hold down even if you get them off their feet. If you pay attention to up and coming fighters, this is mostly how they all do it. The lateral movement is 100% the key to being able to stuff a wrestler without being stuck on the front foot with square hips and shoulders. Sprawling is a losing battle for the striker, the sport has mostly evolved past it. The guys who do sprawl are very good wrestlers, like Mendes and Rory for example.



Yea my issue is you calling how Lawler and Hendricks stand square. Square would be if the lead foot was turned out, not facing mostly forward. Also Rory doesn't pivot much, he moves straight back and he sprawls.

I suppose I agree with everything except this. Check out Mousasi v. munoz and marlon moraes' last few fights. Much less experienced wrestlers making the wrestler pay for that double with a sprawl, head control and some shots as they escape. Pivoting out afterwards of course.

I know some athletic strikers who can sprawl with the best of em. No background in wrestling, can't offensively wrestle to save their lives but a couple hundred sprawls a day for a few years will really make a difference in getting that "instinct".


You are right about pivoting and head-control being a more effective tactic most of the time - especially these days since the cage is utilized so much for TD's. As long as guys are shooting doubles mid-cage though, a well-timed sprawl will always have a place.

 

[a guy]

I suppose I agree with everything except this. Check out Mousasi v. munoz and marlon moraes' last few fights. Much less experienced wrestlers making the wrestler pay for that double with a sprawl, head control and some shots as they escape. Pivoting out afterwards of course.

I know some athletic strikers who can sprawl with the best of em. No background in wrestling, can't offensively wrestle to save their lives but a couple hundred sprawls a day for a few years will really make a difference in getting that "instinct".


You are right about pivoting and head-control being a more effective tactic most of the time - especially these days since the cage is utilized so much for TD's. As long as guys are shooting doubles mid-cage though, a well-timed sprawl will always have a place.

The sprawl has a place but I think it's been widely recognized as the lesser choice for most fighters. The truly elite strikers are using pivoting because it gets you out of the way of whatever's coming while giving you openings to hit back. A fighter with good footwork stops his opponent from even taking most of the shots they want to, then can keep using their footwork if the opponent does shoot to shut them down with less energy and less risk. A ton of wrestlers practice setting their strikes up off level changes, if you try to sprawl in front of them when you're getting faked out then I know plenty of guys who will hook, uppercut, even flying knee you. Hell Tyron Woodley is basically building a career on level changes and a big right hand lol. Also keep in mind Munoz is pretty notorious for not living up to his wrestling credentials in MMA, and Mousasi isn't really known for having the best TDD. Haven't watched much of Moraes and don't know how good his competition is but I'll check him out.

I'd just like to emphasize that pivoting out in the middle of the cage when someone shoots happens all the time. It's the most common way for a shot to get stuffed in modern MMA, it isn't at all more effective against the cage. In fact against the cage guys usually use the cage to defend the shot, then get the grips to escape once the shot has been neutralized.

 

[SummerStriker]

I would personally vastly prefer to pivot instead of sprawl for all the advantages given above.

I would also rather slip and simultaneously strike a punch rather than parry it or jump back, but because of my lack of skill, most of the time I have to parry.

I don't think my scenario would be improved by spending more time practicing slipping or more time practicing sprawling. You can parry when it is too late to slip. You can sprawl when it is too late to pivot.

Your ability to choose to pivot or slip, past the point of the initial education to perform those movements in an uninhibited way, has to do with your emotional sense that they are the better way to go, and your ability to read your opponent well enough to utilize them.

All that by sparring a lot more and praying a lot.

 

[flyingweelkick]

I would personally vastly prefer to pivot instead of sprawl for all the advantages given above.

I would also rather slip and simultaneously strike a punch rather than parry it or jump back, but because of my lack of skill, most of the time I have to parry.

I don't think my scenario would be improved by spending more time practicing slipping or more time practicing sprawling. You can parry when it is too late to slip. You can sprawl when it is too late to pivot.

Your ability to choose to pivot or slip, past the point of the initial education to perform those movements in an uninhibited way, has to do with your emotional sense that they are the better way to go, and your ability to read your opponent well enough to utilize them.

All that by sparring a lot more and praying a lot.

This is, simply put, what I've been trying to say.

Obviously one would not advocate that a striker just belly flop sprawl to the floor the moment they see a level change (then you would get immediately countered as "a guy" suggested). This is sort of mma 101 these days.

Usually a sprawl is required because the wrestler has clinched you up (removing the space needed to pivot and hand/head fight) and then quickly drops for double and gets his hands together. Or he reverse fakes and feints a punch and then double-legs you hard. You should never just sprawl outright unless the choice to move away has been entirely removed (which also means the danger of the "faked shot" is gone).

The comparison to pivoting/slipping that "Summer Striker" makes is a perfect analogy. The slip/counter (akin to pivoting/movement) is a better move because you avoid any damage while immediately attacking your opponent, but you may be facing a guy with better hand speed (or a stronger/faster wrestler in the case of TDD) and you're forced to simply move your feet and parry.

In TDD, obviously you avoid grappling exchanges as a striker and avoid the wrestlers positions, but sometimes you are simply forced to sprawl. That is when you will be glad you (or disappointed that you don't) practice it.

 

[a guy]

I'm not on board with that analogy. If someone is deep enough on me that I can't turn, no way am I forcing my hips heavy enough to stop them. The amount of control needed to stop me from moving laterally at all is about the same as the amount needed to secure my hips. Now sometimes you have to like quarter sprawl, you know where you pop your hips back a little then pivot. But really if you watch the guys I mentioned you won't see a single sprawl. It's a less efficient, less safe defense for the striker. It should only be used by guys who want to work from a front headlock position. The best bet is lateral movement, then if you're going down it transitions fluidly into quick escapes. This is how the guys coming up in MMA are approaching it as the lines between boxing and wrestling are blurring.

 

[devante]

I'm not on board with that analogy. If someone is deep enough on me that I can't turn, no way am I forcing my hips heavy enough to stop them. The amount of control needed to stop me from moving laterally at all is about the same as the amount needed to secure my hips. Now sometimes you have to like quarter sprawl, you know where you pop your hips back a little then pivot. But really if you watch the guys I mentioned you won't see a single sprawl. It's a less efficient, less safe defense for the striker. It should only be used by guys who want to work from a front headlock position. The best bet is lateral movement, then if you're going down it transitions fluidly into quick escapes. This is how the guys coming up in MMA are approaching it as the lines between boxing and wrestling are blurring.

bingo...

u don't want to stay in the range/position where the wrestler/grappler still has hands on u and has the position/range they want to work in; where essentially it becomes ur wrestling against their's.

pivoting/create dist makes him have to work to get back in position/range; an exposes their shortcomings in footwork and def striking

 

[Babba]

^ to my practically speaking untrained eyes, it seems mcconnor is one of the guys better at this type of movement, he seems to get up on the sides and around *while* punching, instead of simply going for the ol' tried and true.

his babbling about human movement and creativity really resonates with me, and i think most ppl on here think the same from what i gather.

 

[Gabicho]

I use a side stance.
Since i have a good jab and i'm usually taller than my opponents (i'm 181 cm and fight at 68kg), the side stance is perfect for me. It IS harder to check leg kicks, but it's easier to just step back and avoid them entirely. I'm not particularly fast and my longer arms leave me at a disadvantage by squaring up and trading combinations. I prefer to pick my shots and go in and out. The side stance allows me to do this.

However, what i've found as a bigger challenge while using the side stance - and this was a recent discovery for me, after training with a World Class wrestler - was the chaining between striking and takedowns. The side stance works great for striking and for judo-sambo type clinching, but other takedowns - particularly double leg and single leg takedowns - were defective, because i was entering "sideways" into them.

This made it easier for my opponents to defend them, because my spine was NOT aligned with the direction of my shot. Of course i was still getting takedowns, but now and then, i had this unpleasant "crashing onto the opponent while not aligned" feeling and they were able to defend (if it has happened to you, you know what i mean). After realizing this mistake, and being corrected on it, whenever i want to shoot for a takedown, i've been working on making my combinations finish with a "square" wrestling-esque stance. This increased my success rate for both takedowns tremendously: like, double the success rate.

Of course, this doesn't mean i have to change my usual "side stance", just need to twist or sidestep out of it when finishing a combination to go for a double or a single.

 

[a guy]

I use a side stance.
Since i have a good jab and i'm usually taller than my opponents (i'm 181 cm and fight at 68kg), the side stance is perfect for me. It IS harder to check leg kicks, but it's easier to just step back and avoid them entirely. I'm not particularly fast and my longer arms leave me at a disadvantage by squaring up and trading combinations. I prefer to pick my shots and go in and out. The side stance allows me to do this.

However, what i've found as a bigger challenge while using the side stance - and this was a recent discovery for me, after training with a World Class wrestler - was the chaining between striking and takedowns. The side stance works great for striking and for judo-sambo type clinching, but other takedowns - particularly double leg and single leg takedowns - were defective, because i was entering "sideways" into them.

This made it easier for my opponents to defend them, because my spine was NOT aligned with the direction of my shot. Of course i was still getting takedowns, but now and then, i had this unpleasant "crashing onto the opponent while not aligned" feeling and they were able to defend (if it has happened to you, you know what i mean). After realizing this mistake, and being corrected on it, whenever i want to shoot for a takedown, i've been working on making my combinations finish with a "square" wrestling-esque stance. This increased my success rate for both takedowns tremendously: like, double the success rate.

Of course, this doesn't mean i have to change my usual "side stance", just need to twist or sidestep out of it when finishing a combination to go for a double or a single.

Great post. I like the final point especially, stance isn't static and if there's a problem built in you can learn to adjust it when you need to.

 

[Babba]

@Gabicho^being youre a sambo guy, do you throw those more 'looping' punches you typically see from fedor, he has fantastic kinetic chain on those swinging punches. is this something you guys on universal level do?