question about the pros and cons of a square vs narrow stance

[donnydarkoIRL]

To quote Scrap;

"We're all square, It's just how you look at it; think about it."

[Andre]

To quote Scrap;

"We're all square, It's just how you look at it; think about it."

That is so true and if you can think about it in relation to where your opponent is or where they are heading to, you can fight better knowing both yours and their limits.

[The Fightfan]

Either or the square stance I always felt gives you more power but it is easier to get hit. Were as too narrow you are harder to hit but you don't generate enough power especially in your power hand.

My problem was I used to use my lead shoulder to set up with my oppenent making me too narrow. When I was told to open my stance abit more by sliding my back foot out. I felt I did get hit a little bit more but my right hand was able to get in a bit easier and stronger. With a little bit more work I think I can kind of mesh them together to become heavyweight champ. Anyway I will just leave now.

[jahmez]

I've found that fighting square has more disadvantages. I suffered from Tyson syndrome when I first started. Peek-a-boo this peek-a-boo that. Started visiting this forum and read about the advantages of having a more "narrow" stance. Straight away I noticed the power in my rear hand improved and that my jab had more reach. I've also found it alot easier to defeat a squared opponent by simply circling to my left setting up the jab to the solar plexus. I've found that squared up oppenets tend to be left hook happy fighters who need you to move in a straight line jabbing so that they can slip to your inside.Their gut is wide open when you circle left and they cannot gain leverage because they are constantly trying to re-arrange their feet. Even if you do find yourself straight in front of them all those jabs to the gut should have taken their mind off slipping just that little bit to help you unload a straight right to the head that is neatly hidden behind your left shoulder.

[El Kabong]

It depends on your style...as was pointed out by jahmez, if you want to fight like Tyson and use the crouch then you will be easier to reach, easier to hit, and you'll have difficulty vs someone that can move. If you have a more upright style you're going to sacrifice some of the speed in which you can throw combinations, you're going to sacrifice time when you're throwing punches, and to use height effectively you have to be VERY active with the jab and the cross and you must beware of counterpunches.

I think there are pros and cons to both, the main idea is that you use what puts yourself in a better position to win rounds. It's never a bad idea to at least LEARN both styles...I always tried to merge the way Tyson fought and the way Lennox Lewis/The Klitschko's fought in my mind when I fought. If I was in close quarters I could slip a punch rip off a combo and tie up(Mike Tyson)...if I needed to keep someone off of me I would use the 1-2, hook out and circle (Lewis/Klitschko's). I wanted to use the best of both worlds when I sparred anyone and once I start going back to the gym agin I'm going to try and add more defense and counter punching in the mix ( I never really focused on it until now).

[Andre]

If you visualize you got your feet around shoulder width apart, you got three opponents around you, one in the centre of your legs facing you ,one by your right shoulder one by your left shoulder. If you know what stance you are in without moving your legs by simply just turning the hips and shoulders and replacing the lead hand with the rear hand as you face each opponent only slighlty adjusting the feet for when you end up in south or natural on each outer opponent.You should be able to work out very fast what the benifits and the openings are on each man and on your self.

So to tranfer that knowledge into a single fight with one man moving around you, should help you to know when you can get away with square and when you cant, also how to shift in and out with ecconomy of movment and when it pays to be able to attack equally with two hands and when it doesn't pay.

[DBadMoodM]

Hey all this is my first post here.

Interesting topic about the stances. As a fairly new fighter, I've only had one bout, and been training for about 12 months; my next is in March.

I personally use the squared stance. Im tall and have long arms, but found the side on stance for me made me move away from punches and caused me to struggle landing the right due to novice foot work.

I imagine in years to come ill be more competent at both, but find the advantages to my improved delivery and speed and range of shots in a sqaured stance far out weigh the small drop in reach. It allows me to hold the middle of the ring better which as a jabber is paramount. Well its paramount to everyone but you catch my drift.

I guess the moral here is; what ever works best for you. There is no right and wrong when it comes to best for you in protecting your brain box

Good luck buddy

David