Thread: Switching Stance

Crawford is best at it at the moment and even I think he puts himself in equal danger. I think real disciplined fighters select their best stance and remain in it. Crawford when put in against elite opposition will not get away with this. I think he is just show boating while he is still fighting b level fighters.

Don't forget vision plays a major part in fighting and switching stance will confuse the mind during mid fight. It make look like a cool idea for amateurs but this is a cardinal sin for elite boxers.

Junior witter is another one that loves to change stance.

Miguel Cotto had tremendous success fighting southpaw.

I think there are guys that can do it and do it seamlessly but it takes a lot of training, a lot of skill, and it's not for everyone.

I don't know why Tyson Fury switched up vs Chisora unless it was to carry him 10 rounds. Tyson boxed well enough in the orthodox stance to beat Chisora soundly....don't know if he hurt his hand, had doubts about his ability, or was feeling like a showoff but whatever the case was it was unnecessary for him to do that unless he was truly injured. If a pro boxer that far along has to switch stances in order to void a left hook then that is big trouble.

Originally Posted by Master

Quality fighters will get anyone anytime even if they are switch hitting.

Did hagler ever fight a whole bout in an orthodox stance?

Theres a difference between switch fighting and switch hitting.
Like turning to the opposite stance and remaining in it as a natural in the opposite stance (which is what some people here are talking about).
Then theres a switch hitter that mixes it up each round totally different animals which is what we are talking about.
Lot of people talking cross purposes here.

Originally Posted by Julius Rain

Crawford is best at it at the moment and even I think he puts himself in equal danger. I think real disciplined fighters select their best stance and remain in it. Crawford when put in against elite opposition will not get away with this. I think he is just show boating while he is still fighting b level fighters.

Don't forget vision plays a major part in fighting and switching stance will confuse the mind during mid fight. It make look like a cool idea for amateurs but this is a cardinal sin for elite boxers.

Yeah, I'm interested to see what will become of Crawford. Tremendous hype about him from HBO. He is obviously a smart boxer with tremendous skill and seems like a truly nice guy in his interviews. As he moves up in wait it will be interesting to follow him. He really has great movement and is able to use his freakishly long arms to great advantage. I had a hard time giving Beltran any rounds and I wanted him to win. Maybe he will be one of the next big thing but I think it is too early to give him that crown as Lampley, Kellerman and Jones seem to have done.His first fight at one fourty should be interesting.

Originally Posted by Master

Quality fighters will get anyone anytime even if they are switch hitting.

Did hagler ever fight a whole bout in an orthodox stance?

No don't think he ever did, he looked comfortable on his right or left foot, he switched hit with
ease , great fighter.

Originally Posted by Julius Rain

Originally Posted by beenKOed

Originally Posted by Julius Rain

I've always thought this is for undisciplined boxer/fighters or showing off. It is a cardinal sin IMO. You can get away with doing it against lesser fighter but you are putting yourself in danger and it is only a matter of time a quality opponent proves this to you.

You are wrong, Crawford does it flawlessly. It's a great advantage, to switch up gives your opponent another thing to think about, especially if you are really effective in either stance. Another tool in a fighters toolbox.
Great hand and foot speed, decent power, excellent boxing, and the ability to switch stance is a dynamite combination. In my opinion, of course!

Your opinion doesn't make anybody wrong.

I'm not trying to make you wrong, I'm trying to get you to see the light. I'm trying to change your mind, to get you to take another look.
Last I was watching boxing on FOX Sports 1, Paulie Malignaggi was behind the mic and doing his usual great job. One of the fighters was having a bad time so he started switching stance which made things worse for him. Even his corner was telling him to stop switching because he not effective when he switched.
Paulie being a fighter went right to the heart of the problem when he said something like this, "Anybody can throw effective punches from either stance, but most can't defend as well from either stance." He went on to say switching stance makes you a better fighter, if you can defend well from either stance.
Think about it, sir.

Originally Posted by walrus

Crawford seemed comfortable changing up but he was able to keep Beltran at a distance it gave him a lot of latitude. Shiming does it every other punch but as soon as he faces a worthy opponent I think that will change.

That right from the southpaw stance looked pretty amazing to me against Beltran. It was way faster and had more power than when he used his left as lead. I noticed his left had nothing on it in the Gamboa fight. He didn't seem to be able to sit down and throw the left with anything on it and certainly didn't turn his hips. I also dont recall him thowing any good lefts from that southpaw stance against Beltran which he used most of the fight but I'd have to take another look.

Bit of a rant but I'm all for switching stances. I wish I could see more fighters, doing it more often.

IMO it just seems like a terrible lack of skill that 95% of fighters aren't comfortable with it. It's an incredibly useful component of boxing.

The way I see it, you should be taught from the very start. No excuses. You have to work the angles... angles form different lengths. So many instances where switching, if only briefly, is the next logical step.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that to me - when you consider what makes boxing, boxing, it belies logic that a fighter won't attempt to switch... But then I guess it's in the same reasoning as to why most fighters won't fight with a low left hand (for example). The 'importance' as well as the constraints of it, just needs to be taught, fully.

Anyway, it would appear that most fighters that come out of the Ingle camp are usually very proficient fighting out of both stances.

Their latest little star Kid Galahad is amazing at it. Not very strong, not very quick but definitely a highly skilled Ingle fighter.

Originally Posted by beenKOed

Originally Posted by Julius Rain

Originally Posted by beenKOed

Originally Posted by Julius Rain

I've always thought this is for undisciplined boxer/fighters or showing off. It is a cardinal sin IMO. You can get away with doing it against lesser fighter but you are putting yourself in danger and it is only a matter of time a quality opponent proves this to you.

You are wrong, Crawford does it flawlessly. It's a great advantage, to switch up gives your opponent another thing to think about, especially if you are really effective in either stance. Another tool in a fighters toolbox.
Great hand and foot speed, decent power, excellent boxing, and the ability to switch stance is a dynamite combination. In my opinion, of course!

Your opinion doesn't make anybody wrong.

I'm not trying to make you wrong, I'm trying to get you to see the light. I'm trying to change your mind, to get you to take another look.
Last I was watching boxing on FOX Sports 1, Paulie Malignaggi was behind the mic and doing his usual great job. One of the fighters was having a bad time so he started switching stance which made things worse for him. Even his corner was telling him to stop switching because he not effective when he switched.
Paulie being a fighter went right to the heart of the problem when he said something like this, "Anybody can throw effective punches from either stance, but most can't defend as well from either stance." He went on to say switching stance makes you a better fighter, if you can defend well from either stance.
Think about it, sir.

Valid point and is actually part of my argument about why switching stance is a bad idea. You can't defend very well in both stances. I think you sacrifice maximizing your effectiveness on both offense and defense when you are not disciplined enough to commit to one stance.

I disagree with Paulie, switching stance doesn't make you a better fighter. It just concedes you were not good enough with your original stance. It is a desperate move. Boxing has always been about maximizing effectiveness. This isn't Kung Fu, where optional stances are glorified as secret weapons.

Nothing is set in stone in boxing and all fighters are different its mind less to put every fighter into a should do or dont do category.

Thats why some fighters who have an extra strong side through what Scrap calls a dominant eye are stuck with their body compensating for it. People are not all the same in make up, their are some rare blessed people who are ambidextrous ad their are some well trained fighters who know when allow it.

There are degrees of switching in boxing there always has been like or not it occurs naturally an when it does you can use it or waste time by getting back into your 'chosen stance".

That situation is when you dont actually switch feet, but your opponent moves from one side of you to the other side of you.

If you dont adjust your feet fully and turn your upper body to follow them from their point of view you have switched without even moving. A great boxer can use that to his advantage by shuffling forward into their center line while they move and it cuts them off faster and catches them dead square as you close on them.

Watch Tyson very close in his prime he did that all the time right on the opponents reaction to being hit or swarmed, he as good as switched feet to cut off the ring and cut off their escape routes he did more than go dead square, watch his feet closer next time.In relation to where the opponent was heading, he would move into someones center line and knock them clean off balance catching them flat footed right at the right time, left foot forward or right forward no care to him at all, the job was getting done when it had to be done.

Originally Posted by Julius Rain

Originally Posted by beenKOed

Originally Posted by Julius Rain

Originally Posted by beenKOed

Originally Posted by Julius Rain

I've always thought this is for undisciplined boxer/fighters or showing off. It is a cardinal sin IMO. You can get away with doing it against lesser fighter but you are putting yourself in danger and it is only a matter of time a quality opponent proves this to you.

You are wrong, Crawford does it flawlessly. It's a great advantage, to switch up gives your opponent another thing to think about, especially if you are really effective in either stance. Another tool in a fighters toolbox.
Great hand and foot speed, decent power, excellent boxing, and the ability to switch stance is a dynamite combination. In my opinion, of course!

Your opinion doesn't make anybody wrong.

I'm not trying to make you wrong, I'm trying to get you to see the light. I'm trying to change your mind, to get you to take another look.
Last I was watching boxing on FOX Sports 1, Paulie Malignaggi was behind the mic and doing his usual great job. One of the fighters was having a bad time so he started switching stance which made things worse for him. Even his corner was telling him to stop switching because he not effective when he switched.
Paulie being a fighter went right to the heart of the problem when he said something like this, "Anybody can throw effective punches from either stance, but most can't defend as well from either stance." He went on to say switching stance makes you a better fighter, if you can defend well from either stance.
Think about it, sir.

Valid point and is actually part of my argument about why switching stance is a bad idea. You can't defend very well in both stances. I think you sacrifice maximizing your effectiveness on both offense and defense when you are not disciplined enough to commit to one stance.

I disagree with Paulie, switching stance doesn't make you a better fighter. It just concedes you were not good enough with your original stance. It is a desperate move. Boxing has always been about maximizing effectiveness. This isn't Kung Fu, where optional stances are glorified as secret weapons.

Have it your way. By the way, you are almost as hardheaded as I am. In my opinion, of course. Lol

Originally Posted by beenKOed

Originally Posted by Julius Rain

Originally Posted by beenKOed

Originally Posted by Julius Rain

Originally Posted by beenKOed

Originally Posted by Julius Rain

I've always thought this is for undisciplined boxer/fighters or showing off. It is a cardinal sin IMO. You can get away with doing it against lesser fighter but you are putting yourself in danger and it is only a matter of time a quality opponent proves this to you.

You are wrong, Crawford does it flawlessly. It's a great advantage, to switch up gives your opponent another thing to think about, especially if you are really effective in either stance. Another tool in a fighters toolbox.
Great hand and foot speed, decent power, excellent boxing, and the ability to switch stance is a dynamite combination. In my opinion, of course!

Your opinion doesn't make anybody wrong.

I'm not trying to make you wrong, I'm trying to get you to see the light. I'm trying to change your mind, to get you to take another look.
Last I was watching boxing on FOX Sports 1, Paulie Malignaggi was behind the mic and doing his usual great job. One of the fighters was having a bad time so he started switching stance which made things worse for him. Even his corner was telling him to stop switching because he not effective when he switched.
Paulie being a fighter went right to the heart of the problem when he said something like this, "Anybody can throw effective punches from either stance, but most can't defend as well from either stance." He went on to say switching stance makes you a better fighter, if you can defend well from either stance.
Think about it, sir.

Valid point and is actually part of my argument about why switching stance is a bad idea. You can't defend very well in both stances. I think you sacrifice maximizing your effectiveness on both offense and defense when you are not disciplined enough to commit to one stance.

I disagree with Paulie, switching stance doesn't make you a better fighter. It just concedes you were not good enough with your original stance. It is a desperate move. Boxing has always been about maximizing effectiveness. This isn't Kung Fu, where optional stances are glorified as secret weapons.

Have it your way. By the way, you are almost as hardheaded as I am. In my opinion, of course. Lol

I disagree

It is a tactical thing, if your opponent is weak, or unsuitable against a southpaw stance, then you would be foolish to not box in a south paw stance.
Many ppl take more than 4-5 rounds to adjust to a southpaw stance, by then you have won those rounds.

Personally I find it untidy but very effective when I have used it myself.

Originally Posted by Master

Quality fighters will get anyone anytime even if they are switch hitting.

Did hagler ever fight a whole bout in an orthodox stance?

Leonard fight, I think,