So it's common in MMA to see fighters with a stance that has their hips relatively square to their opponent. I suspect this is largely due to the influence of wrestling and Muay Thai, at least from the defensive end- it's easier to sprawl and check kicks to the leg when the hips (and therefor toes, in most cases) are facing forward. However, there seems to be an increasing trend in fighters, particularly those from classical martial arts backgrounds (Cung Le, John Makdessi, etc) to adopt a more side-facing stance. Even those who prefer punches over kicks, like the Diaz brothers and GSP, use this stance to increase their reach. Now I was told for years (and accepted it without really looking for too much evidence) that a side-on stance was bad for MMA because it would inevatibly lead to you getting your back taken. At this point, I think we can safely assume that it's not the case, since I don't recall that being a particular weakness of that stance. However, the most notable detriment seems to be a susceptibility to leg kicks from the outside, because to assume a more side-on stance, you have to turn your front foot inward. The flip side seems to be that, in addition to the increased range of front-hand strikes, it seems to me that it deliberately feeds your opponent a single-leg. Though getting the single-leg position is easier than the double, it's also harder to finish, because the opponent can still hop around on one leg while defending it. My hypothesis is that, if you've got the tools to go with it (reach advantage, good single-leg defense, solid lead-leg kicking skills), the more side-on stance could be advantageous against fighters with a pretty good double leg and/or poor ranged striking skills. The more squared-up stance might be better suited for an opponent who throws leg kicks or prefers the single leg. Thoughts?
Cung Le does adopt a bit more of a side facing stance at times but that is likely because he is from a san da back ground. You can see this more in san da, particularly as there is no ground game. Think the vid shows him doing it a few times. See 2:40 and 3:27 for example [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=av1aM_91a5w#[/ame]! LFD
I think the single leg is more easily defended if they're not the wrestling based single leg where the angle is cut simultaneously as the leg is captured and the drive with the head and shoulder laterally makes short work of most takedown defense. Not everyone has a good single leg - but wrestlers usually seem to have it pretty well ironed out. I think that often if one can deal with attacks to the front leg - whether single leg or kicks to that forward leg - then it's got some interesting benefits. If you're up against someone who has a solid Muay Thai background... good way to get your front leg kicked to bits. Or if you're up against a qualified wrestler.... the single-leg or the ankle pick are all to easy to get caught with. But things come and go and they often ride a wave of popularity then fall into disuse once the buzz has died down. Certain stances in boxing go through the same thing. While the side on or more side on stance can work for keeping your opponent at a distance... it pretty much changes the instance you're in a clinch situation as there is no way to maintain the side on stance. You then have to square up. Interesting topic.
Agree! The clinch will be a total different ball game. In kicking range, if you stand in a square stance, your opponent's fake groin kick can put you in defense mode. http://www.youtube.com/v/a86cQobU-n4&fs=1&source=uds&autoplay=1 Old saying said, "Get both if you can, get one after another otherwise". It's not a good idea to let your opponent to be able to reach to your both legs at the same time. If one of your legs is off the ground, you can still play the sticking game. If both of your legs are off the ground, the stand up game is over. When you are in a - square stance, in order to advance, you have to move either your right leg or your left leg. The distance between you and your opponent is reduced. Your opponent can attack your advanced leg right at that moment. - side stance, when you move your back leg next to your front leg, since the distance between you and your opponent hasn't change, there is no danger in that. You can then decide whether to kick your front leg or just step in your front leg. The side stance can give you that intermediate safe zone that the a square stance won't be able to offer you. Of course all these are just "theory". If your opponent is not a good shooter, foot sweeper, groin kicker, ... your square stance will be just fine.
Are you talking about turning the corner with a single-leg? It's a much more common finish with the double. Generally to turn the corner, your head has to be on the outside. And here's a good explaination of why you don't want to do that: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT99k6OJzhs"]How To Do The Single Leg Take Down or Shot - JiuJitsuMap.com - YouTube[/ame] Except for the grip, that's pretty much how I've been taught the single leg by a few different folks. While it can be finished many ways, the most basic is the dump/"run the pipe" (I post this a bit out of vanity- I was Mark's uke, or whatever that term in WMA is... grimacer?): [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqbK6RLCTDA"]Single Leg Run the Pipe - YouTube[/ame] I'm also wondering if, when you're talking about the "ankle pick", you're talking about what I learned as a "low single": [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV-xbx3NtP8"]The Low Single Leg Take Down. - YouTube[/ame] This is what I learned as an "ankle pick"- is this what you're referring to? [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpBTFoHLsEM"]Ankle Pick Takedown - YouTube[/ame] The difference, at least how I learned it, is that the ankle pick uses an established upper-body control (collar tie, underhook, etc) and the free arm reaches down, as opposed to the low single, which is an outside shot where your shoulder is driving into his knee and both hands are on his lower leg. As for the low kick, absolutely. If you've been following Jack Slack's articles (and if you haven't... WHY NOT? Dude is genius!) he's noted several times that Penn, Diaz, and others who turn their lead foot in are very vulnarable to leg kicks. Fake groin kicks aren't an issue in MMA; groin kicks are illegal in all the MMA rules I'm familiar with. On the other hand, some guys look for inside leg kicks, which have a similar path to groin kicks. Good wrestlers (Urijah Faber, Chad Mendez, Ben Askren, etc) usually see that as a chance to grab the leg and hit a single-leg takedown.
I personally think a side facing stance is way too risky (you are far more vulnerable to low kicks and foot sweeps) and it takes one half of your body out of the equation thus reducing what you can do combination-wise. Not to mention your power side is usually back. Daido Juku Kudo allows them if you're a smaller fighter facing a bigger one (determined by Physical Index score).
I'd agree if we're talking about the completely side-on stance, like that often seen in point sparring. The kind where, if you drew a line between the rear heel and the opponent, you'd cut across the front heel as well. But the fighters I listed really don't fall into that category. The hips are just turned more sideways than the typical wrestling/Muay Thai hybrid. The two best examples of the "square" stance that I can think of are Wanderlei Silva and Sean Sherk, both of whom use it for different reasons. For Silva, it's used to throw powerful rear kicks, to sprawl, and to get good torque into his hooks. For Sherk, it's used primarily to shoot. Now compare that with Penn. Pretty side-on with his hips to extend his jabbing range; he also rarely gets taken down, in large part due to his balance, which can only be helped by the fact that his opponents can rarely grab a double due to the position of his rear leg. Or compare it with Le, who throws out side kicks and spin kicks like he gets a bonus for every one he lands. He hasn't really faced a good wrestler yet (and probably never will), but his stance works well for those options. I'd also add Dan Henderson into the mix, and he uses that inside lead round kick to set up that tremendous overhand- while his rear hand travels farther to connect with the target, I think that, instead of being "out of the equation", it actually benefits from being loaded up. Again, I'm not talking about these side-stances: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUu6npSxGg8"]Point Fighting - Ross Levine - YouTube[/ame] ...but rather, simply turned MORE to the side, maybe at a 45-60 degree angle, as opposed to having the belly button pointed at the opponent. There's some debate as to whether Kudo is MMA, and I'd further suggest that groin kicks still don't play much of a factor; I can't imagine the "bigger vs. smaller" comes up all that often. Interrestingly, back when groin shots were legal, we hardly saw them used.
Didnt Diaz get his front legged kicked (and punched) to bits in his last fight against henderson? not to mentioned singled legged a fair bit simply because as you say it offers up the front let for all kinds of abuse? The problem with the lead leg stance is that the front leg is not the most powerful for delivering kicks, even cung lee (probably the best kicker) only uses the lead leg side kick as a jab and range finder, he doenst get many knockdowns with it, and it also means your jab becomes a range finder and not a power shot, in MMA when you can only land so many strikes until you get clinched you what to be able to throw power shots with both hands, and the square stance allows you to do this As for the whole double leg v single leg takedown, their are more ways to finish the single than the double and only really BJ has shown a freaky bility not to be taken down off the single, bottom line is the lead leg foward negates power off one side of your body, limites your ability to check kicks (see Diaz) limites your lateral movement and actively offers up a single leg (again see diaz) whilst the square stance allows power off both sides, allows better movement and defence to the double and makes your opponent work harder for a takedown, if you are willing to take the risks of the lead leg for the benefits it gives you, all well and good ut thres a reason only a few fighters use that stance
The follow did happen many years ago. A and B got into clinch. A used a fake groin kick. B moved his lower body back to dodge it. A then dragged B down to the ground. B: Dear referee! He used illegal groin kick at me. A: Dear referee! I used a "fake" groin kick and he was stupid enough to think it was real. That was his problem and my mine. Referee: .... If your pull your groin kick back 6 inch away from your opponent's groin, will you call that "groin kick". If your "eye poking" finger just stop 6 inch away from your opponent's eyes, will you call that illegal? Sometime even the best referee in the world will have problem to judge this interest situation. IMO, we should not build up bad habit to open our legs for groin kick (in the kicking range) even if the sport rule set may not allowed.
Icefield, you're basically repeating everything I've already said. The exception is that you're making a judgement call by saying that the side-on stance is inherently "bad", in so many words. Some points: -the lead tools become range-finders and not power weapons. Fine. Not everyone has a style that's designed for the KO. Look at the fighters I listed: Penn, GSP, Le, Makdessi. They have some of the best lead weapons in MMA, and it works for them. Most of Le's victories have come by KO, actually, and if he had the gas tank to support his style, he'd have only one loss. -the square stance allows you to throw power from both sides. Not really. If you square your hips to your opponent, most of the range of motion for your rear hand strikes is gone. -there are more ways to finish a single than a double. Yes. But a single is still generally easier to defend. You have one leg to support you, you have more control of where your body is going, it's easier to scramble, etc. Not to mention that if your opponent isn't good at transitioning between single-leg finishes, the number of ways there are to finish becomes moot. -in MMA, you only get a few punches before you're subject to the clinch. This is entirely dependent upon the styles of the fighters involved, but these days is hardly ever true. I actually just finished watching Condit-Diaz, and there weren't a whole lot of extended clinches in that match, just as an example. -a side-on stance limits your lateral movement. Very good point, but guys like GSP and Machida are able to dart in, then circle away. True lateral movement doesn't seem to be a big part of their game plans. Not every fighter fights the same way. If you're more reliant on a lead hook than a rear straight, if you hardly ever throw lead-leg kicks, if your sprawl is better than your ability to hop around on one leg, then standing more square works better for your style. But if you've got a good reach, a good jab, good single-leg defense, maybe some side kicks and spin kicks, then a side-on stance can be more advantageous than a square stance. That's what I'm seeing, anyway. A great example of a more sideways stance (maybe I should just call it an angled stance, since it isn't exactly sideways) being used well against a very square stance was Penn vs. Sherk. "Dear referee"? Alright... Could you tell me what fighters those were? The closest I could find was this, which involved an actual groin strike that the ref simply didn't call. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa2XlxOJBY4"]Matt Hughes vs Frank Trigg 2 [UFC 52] - YouTube[/ame] It was a case of bad refereeing, not a guy faking an illegal technique. It's not a problem for the best referee in the world, or even a competent one. If a fighter is threatening with an illegal technique, even if it doesn't land, he should get a warning. It's pretty cut and dry. If I were his opponent, I'm not sure I'd be above "gaming the system" and taking an illegal shot if the guy kept faking it. He was deliberately breaking the rules, after all. And since the context we're talking about is exactly a sporting one, whether it's a "bad habit" or not outside of that context is a non-issue. Though to be honest, I haven't seen a whole lot of guys throw groin strikes in acts of civilian violence. Most seem content to throw wild swings at the head.
Some very good points however... "If the referee didn't see it, it didn't happen" Fighter's already breaking rules left/right/centre with certain rules. Grabbing the fence, grabbing the shorts, grabbing the gloves and they already get warnings, with potential points deductions. "Faking" an illegal move is not illegal, because its something that has not happened. When you listen to refs all you hear is "Watch those fingers, push off the fence-dont grab it" you'll even see refs push/hit hands away from the fence/ropes. Its a judgement call on each one as well. For example, many fighters grab the fence, but are simply warned verbally and nothing further. This is mainly because the fighter grabbing the fence actually (at the time) did not or would not advance their position. I could only name one time when Donald Cerrone in WEC was shot on, he grabbed the fence and obtained a dominant position. Herb Dean (i think) stood them up because it helped Cerrone in a big way (namely not taken down). Its a hard thing to call.
I have seen some dirty trick used back in the Karate tournament date. Since most of the Karate fight won't allow face contact. If you pull your punch right in front of my face, I can turn my head, bite my lips, and drop some blood. I can make you disqualify for the tournament. The most common dirty trick used in the SC tournament is people use their forearm to hay-maker punch on the back of their opponent's head. When they get head lock on their opponents, their opponents may be half way knocked out already. If you execute your head lock in fast speed, even the best referee won't be able to tell whether it was just a simple head lock, or a hay-maker before the head lock. In the following 2 clips, we can see some SC dirty tricks used back in the ancient time. It's in Chinese but we can still see how the teacher tried to teach his students. At the end of the 2nd clip you can see how the teacher designed his "combat shoes". [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5Uvgl6JJak"]sc dirty trick1 - YouTube[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--bWLwez2mw"]sc dirty trick - YouTube[/ame]
what you are seeing are the top of the tree guys in terms of athletic skills doing pretty much what they want, Penn has freaky takedown defence and freaky flexibility not to mention world class BJJ he can throw away most of the rules and do what he likes, GSP the best wrestling in MMA, Cung Le was hands down the best sanda fighter in the west for a decade and so on if you dont have those skills and abilities its probably better to play the percentages game. What you should be doing is looking at what the non gifted athletes do, what the high percentage things are because thats whats important to all but the top 1% in the fight game By this i mean we have two stances to choice from: one limits both the ability for your opponent to hit a single leg takedown and make the double harder (lower stances better to sprawl from etc) allows power punches off both hands (the rear is still powerful it doesnt have the range but you can still pivot on the back front and come through the hips with the strike), and allows hooks and uppercuts of both hands. The same stance allows better lateral movement and ability to check and move out of the way of low kicks, The other basically telegraphs which side you will be throwing shots from, offers up your lead leg for both kicking (see Diazs last fight and BJ Penns) and takedowns again see their last fights. But the trade off is better front leg kicking and a longer jab, So which stance plays the percentages game better? And suits most peoples MMA game better? I mean one stance basically makes a single leg easier for your opponent to hit, now you might be better at defending that than they are at attacking, but why put yourself on a defensive mode playing catch up from the start, who not choice a stance which makes any leg attack hard from the beginning? As for le being a traditional fighter, its a stretch to call him that: i mean he spent 6 hours a day for decades training modern sanda with no traditional background (basically kickboxing with throws) and their stance is different because the single leg isnt used that much other than off a kick catch: the gloves make a snatch single etc hard, the low single is not used nor the ankle pick because you cant have three points of contact with the floor in sanda so no knee touching the floor on any takedown, add in the fact theirs no ground game and his favourite takedown is the flying scissors and you can see why his stance looks like that. And in MMA he has never been put against a better wrestler so he doenst need to change his style, and most of his knock outs come from rear leg round kicks or hooks after he squares up his hips. And again you are talking about what a world class striker is doing again lesser opponents. he question should be if its a valid stance for MMA why arent more low level tier teams teaching it, i mean their are a lot of mid level MMA guys (and coaches) with traditional backgrounds (TKD and so on) their must be a reason they switch to a Thai or wrestling based stance no?
I'd agree that Le is far from a *traditional fighter as he was also an amateur wrestler. Allegedly a state champion in folk-style. And he uses a ton of wrestling in his Sanshou bouts [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWjh4HTiDBk"]Cung Le vs Na Shun - YouTube[/ame] As far as traditional background, Cung has also trained in Tae Kwon Do *unless we're going with the wrestling is traditional argument, but let's ignore that.
he was Californian state champion two times i believe, and has very good wrestling for combat sports, his throws in sanda were very good but in MMA he prefers to keep it standing
Just realised I havent chimed in. Although I rarely do MMA now (injuries and time being a factor), my stance remained the same as if I was in striking art. Essentially a boxer's stance, I would probably stand a touch lower in anticipation for any grappling, especially if I'm aware the person I'm up against is a very good grappler. I dont feel comfortable standing completely square on. When I was competing in Freestyle Wrestling, I was taught to stand a little more square, with one foot a touch forward, knees bent and back straight, head up. Elbows in and depending on whose training/coaching, either hands out or like in a "T-rex" position. I tried it, didnt like it, stayed low but still in a wider sideish kinda stance. (it probably explains my very poor record in comps ) In a previous grappling thread, I mentioned that I was ankle picked a lot. Possibly because of my sidish stance and whenever I did counter it, it became a DL. I think the best description I can give is Koschek/GSP I, when GSP constantly went for a single leg, but transferred into a double. I've been told I'm a good wrestler because of my flexibility, but for the life of me I couldnt balance right when I'm square on. I'm a decent striker, but I'm no Cung Le and there is no way I'm good enough to stand as side on as he can. So I have to find a middle ground and for me its a lowered boxing stance. I rarely kick anyway, due to my knees and when I do its either low or off a hands combo.
The best stance is the stance that you can "spring": - forward (attack), - backward (retreat), - side way (dodge), anytime you want to. With - side stance, you can move fast forward and backward. - square stance, you can move fast side ways. I like side stance. If my front leg is outside of my opponent's kicking range, no matter how I move my back leg, as long as my back leg doesn't move beyond my leading leg, I'm in a safe distance. Since the side stance is a "spring ready" stance, when I move my back leg forward and jump up with my front leg, I can move forward fast enough to surprise my opponent (such as a jump front kick or flying side kick). If my opponent attacks me in fast speed, I can move my front leg across and behind my back leg and then jump back 10 feet if needed. Again, my side stance can offer me that advantage.
I dont think its a simple as one or the other..its a combination of both at the same time. This is the something still evolving in MMA. And as its a fight and ever changing there is no fixed stance or fixed way to stand,there are just certain fundamentals to follow.
