Thanks for the reply, lots of good information. I'm definitely "taking it personally," but not in a bad way; it's been helpful looking at my own style and experience from your perspective, if indirectly. I have some thoughts/comments that I'll try to address in order.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "It's not defense from a front loaded stance, it's defense from a position where the head is too far forward." I'm talking about defense from a front-loaded stance. Either we're talking about different things, or you're saying that any front-loaded position puts the head too far forward? If it's the latter, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Whatever the case, I'll take another stab at this.
First, I maintain that a front-loaded defense doesn't depend on amazing speed or reflexes; if I can pull it off, anyone can. I also haven't had the same experience as you with the amateurs, though this has been a recent (and welcomed) change after switching to a new ruleset/amateur association and getting deeper into the competitive pool.
To reiterate, a front-loaded position has built-in defense just like a rear-loaded one, it's just different. Your defensive radar changes because certain shots become more available - to you and your opponent. But I don't believe one is better than the other, and I think that's a limiting way to think about boxing (which is maybe unsurprising given that this style is so rooted in tradition).
Besides being a more mobile/athletic posture (arguably, I guess!), "front-loading" also has some positional pros and cons depending on range. Back-loaded stances are best for maintaining optimal distance, but that inherently prohibits other defensive advantages, with the ability to smother being an obvious one.
On the inside, I favour the lead hip when I want to crowd their right hand, either to draw it out or close in and smother. This also puts me in position where I'm almost behind the orthodox opponent's lead shoulder, which means they have to really shorten the shot to land. This makes it easy to change levels and clear the hook at the first sign of turn-over/commitment. I also get on the lead hip when I want to probe with the right hand or cut inside pivots because it makes these things easier. I use both to control which punches my opponent can comfortably throw at a given time, which is an example of technique being used to narrow an athletic gap and help me get hit less.
I agree with Dadi's rhetorical question, but I'd call maximal distance + a rear-loaded position "a sound starting point" rather than the "most advantageous position," which of course depends entirely on what you're trying to accomplish in a given moment. Talking about defense in broad terms, it's a fine starting point. But what if I want to smother a guy? Turn him on the inside? Set up a pull or outside slip and counter? Load my lead hand, either to throw and land or as a decoy? Loading the back hip with upright posture and maximal distance from your opponent might not be optimal for these purposes.
I'm going to have to dig into your film study recommendations, though the JMM reference clicks right away. I'm not going to argue for a second that a front-loaded stance can't get you into trouble. But I've seen a lot of rear-loaded guys get into trouble, too!
Finally, I want to adjust my position on in the "fundamental debate." Rear-heavy stances are definitely fundamental, or else great tools for teaching beginners the fundamentals of distance. Like you said, teach them about distance with a stance built around maximizing it. But developing that understanding of distance into an "adaptive stance" game is crucial. My big contention is when people call anything outside of a rear-loaded stance "incorrect."
Would you agree that elite fighters NEED what you're calling adaptive stances? Using a rear-loaded stance allows you to maintain max distance, but using different stances/hip-loads allows you to manipulate distance, which is one step closer to mastery in my eyes.
Alright, so let's first address the personal issue (not in a bad way). I'm an instructor, but you especially know this. You saw me when I wasn't. You've seen video of me NOT abiding by half this stuff. Since then, in accepting an instructor's role it's become my primary function to insure the safety of students. Now, of course there is always more than one way to skin a cat, but some ways are a bit easier than others. I often do encounter a certain sensitivity among experienced fighters, no one wants to think of anything they're doing as "wrong" if it brings them a modicum of success. In your case, these are not
personal criticisms I'm relaying. I haven't even seen you fight or spar in a long time, and earlier in this thread I made concessions for front-loaded stances and even told of a fighter I have that uses one, but what I keep reiterating here is there's a basic foundation of principals behind the idea. If your head is closer to your front foot than your rear, then you ARE closer to hitting range. That's not an opinion, it's just the nature of distance. In a stance something like this:
The head is closer to center and the front foot/left side than this:
In the above image, a person is going to have a bitch of a time getting past the guy's left hand and shoulder granted he knows how to use this position well. Now, if he does and can get the person respectful of HIS optimal distance, then he can do what he wants. As you mention above, you have
ideas for which you may use a closer head-position, that's fine, so long as those ideas are mindful of tentative consequences and you know to make space when you need it.
If a fighter never learns to create optimal distance through positioning, then they'll always have to do work to get it, OR block punches by occupying their hands.
Do you mean that your issues are not with a front loaded stance, but rather an excessive one where the head is too far forward? This just occurred to me, and if that's what you mean, I'm on board. The position I'm talking about playing from is basically the front slot in your tile drill.
My main issue is with suggesting that having the head closer to the front foot is a generally good idea without the context of being trained by a VERY good trainer. If you took two guys who knew absolutely nothing and made them bend slightly forward and fight, both would definitely get hit. You take them and put their feet closer to each other but heads further away, at the very least neither guy who knows nothing is likely to be taken away in an ambulance:
Whether by accident or by design, either of these kids will have to first figure out how to get to the head of the other.
Earlier in the thread I mentioned my fighter Joseph (Bandito). I posted this video in another thread, but check out his stance when I first got him:
Know why he's wearing the headgear with the bitch-bar? Because he'd eat jabs and get nosebleeds a lot.
Here's Joseph now, with me still being more forgiving of his stance than I typically like:
The ONLY reason I'm forgiving of it is because I am in charge of his education. And that would be the same for anyone, if I am assured of their education, then cool, do what you want. Lomanchnko comes from a boxing program that churns out Olympic medalists and some of the most feared current fighters, his been analyzed by qualified trainers out the yin yang.
