- Joined
- Nov 28, 2013
- Messages
- 15,369
- Reaction score
- 11,287
Thoughts? Is this common with most right handed southpaws?
Last edited:
It's rarely a good idea to limit yourself to one style of weight distribution.
Broadly speaking, I'd say a slightly front-loaded stance is a more "athletic," like a 2-point stance in football. Lomanchenko uses lots of quick pivots and bobs, which are easier in a front-loaded stance.
I use different back-foot heavy positions on the inside and outside, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they're any more "fundamental" than my lead-hip heavy positions. Even knowing what I'm giving up in optimal distance, I definitely wouldn't say I'm "getting away with something' by fighting off of the front foot.
Favouring the lead hip is just another boxing position with its own set of strengths and weaknesses; you should learn both, and understand when to apply each.
Good posts.The "fundamental" principal behind rear-leg favoring stances has to do with head proximity to the opponent. Defense should never be a function of athleticism, but rather form. If fighters all fight with their heads over their front feet they compromise optimal head distance to gauge punches coming. Distance gives time, with less distance comes less time. With less time to react or counter, then any fighter who lacks said athleticism is always going to be at a disadvantage to a fighter who has it.
When you can create time and space (say by keeping the head further away and making an opponent have to reach), you can effectively nullify speed, or get out of the way of power. That's the idea when you see old photo's of fighters that look weird because their heads are up and/or back.
It's not required to ALWAYS fight in this position, but if a person fights head-forward without understanding the principal of distance, that's a colossal mistake that will result in either taking more damage to get things done, or relying solely on physical things (speed, occupation of the hands) for defense.
Do you have any examples? Are these subtle movements with the feet?I don't think he's all that unhittable. He has a good defensive mode, but he is very good at being in position to make landed punches fairly ineffective. His biggest attribute that's not seen often, though, is his ability to turn (which also does a lot to take steam off punches landed). When is is turning and slightly changing angles, it's very very difficult to land anything particularly meaningful.
But a Sweat Pea he is not.
Angle changes generally are when someone steps off the line that invisibly connects to head-on fighters. Hilario Zapata was excellent at that:
And at 126, it would be an extremely interesting fight. But so would any if the great Featherweight and Lomanchenko. Barrera, Morales, Pac, Marquez, any of them make him look human even in losing efforts.
The "fundamental" principal behind rear-leg favoring stances has to do with head proximity to the opponent. Defense should never be a function of athleticism, but rather form. If fighters all fight with their heads over their front feet they compromise optimal head distance to gauge punches coming. Distance gives time, with less distance comes less time. With less time to react or counter, then any fighter who lacks said athleticism is always going to be at a disadvantage to a fighter who has it.
When you can create time and space (say by keeping the head further away and making an opponent have to reach), you can effectively nullify speed, or get out of the way of power. That's the idea when you see old photo's of fighters that look weird because their heads are up and/or back.
It's not required to ALWAYS fight in this position, but if a person fights head-forward without understanding the principal of distance, that's a colossal mistake that will result in either taking more damage to get things done, or relying solely on physical things (speed, occupation of the hands) for defense.
It's not defense from a front loaded stance, it's defense from a position where the head is too far forward. I've come across very few people who have adaptive stances, meaning if they stand with their head too close and don't have the reaction time to nullify a faster fighter, they change the stance to suit it. Instead they fall back on the old "hands up", but now lose considerable counter-punching opportunities. As for the notion of fundamental, for my consideration a thing with a greater historical context of viability is going to be THE fundamental, everything else is merely manipulation of it. Maximum distance is just that, maximum distance. Think of it in a slightly different context, not personal. Not if YOU are doing something right or wrong. But let's say we were discussing angles as mentioned above. Can't you tell amateur fighters because MOST of them with the exception of high level National guys and World level guys almost invariably attack head-on, or stand in front of each other and try to play tag as opposed to the type of turning you see in Lomanchenko, Rigondeaux, and Hilario Zapata up there?
Well, while that is a way to fight, is it an optimal way? Dadi once asked me this: "Why would you NOT want to always be in the most advantageous position?" The logic is simple, if you could get a fighter to almost always have to expose themselves to harm to hit you, why wouldn't you do that? Now, most fighters who understand distance set traps, a slight lean, a shift to the front hip, because they have an idea that's going to come after. Their safety in-part relies on your compliance with that idea, or on you NOT doing something because you think you're going to be trapped. I have a couple fighters whose whole style are based on that notion. But they know to pull up and back when it backfires. Adaptive stances as mentioned before. As for that understanding of distance, man I tell ya...I'm in the boxing mecca and my occupation is to watch fighters every day all day, and I can probably count on my hands how many of them actually understand distance vs. relying on athleticism or hand-cuffing for defense. Or good ole toughness. I'd MUCH rather see them get hit less. Also, the head being to the left of the center-line is only advantageous to another opponent who stands in the same manner. If it's vs. a rear-leg stance, their jab is going to go slightly to the right anyway.
Also, consider this small notion. Finito Lopez and Juan Manuel Marquez are two fighters trained by a legendary trainer who is forgiving of front-foot heaviness. Their stances aren't poor, and they're VERY well-educated and GREAT fighters. Criticism of such fighters always seems lewd, but they have a common flaw which has had the same result. Look up the first fight between Lopez and Rosendo "Bufalo" Alvarez. Finito was floored, and that fight was the closest he ever came to losing (I felt he did lose, he maintained his "0" on a technicality). Bufalo timed a forward shift and blammo, sent Finito down. Marquez, nearly every time he's ever been floored, all of his weight was on the front hip, back foot slightly too far back to absorb force of hard punches. Now, my thing is simple, of both of those legendary counter-punchers had that same flaw that could be counted on consistently, under a guy like Nacho Beritstain, why would I who am nearly nobody by-comparison allow for it in much lesser fighters? As the primary fundamental practice, they first learn to maintain distance and by position, not by giving ground (stepping back) or physical exertion (punching). Once they can do that, they can flirt with removing it.
It's not defense from a front loaded stance, it's defense from a position where the head is too far forward.