The Myth of Side-to-Side Movement

**greynotsoold** · 08-27-2007 08:31 PM

This is another one of my pet peeves, and it has bothered me for so long that I often forget to include it on the list. Still, I think it may be the most important because it does so much damage to the fight itself, not just to the individual fighter.
I know we can all agree on two things. First, a boxing ring is a square. Second, you don't want to get trapped in corners or on the ropes. Fair enough? Now if you and a rival begin, squared up in center ring and you move laterally ("side-to-side") to the right, what happens? Two things. You move yourself out of punching range and you hit the ropes. This is why you circle, not move laterally.
You can circle with a tight arc, in order to maintain punching distance while still avoiding the punches of your foe. You can make a larger circle to keep out of range, but still be only a slight move away from landing your own punches. This is moving in and out. If you watch Trinidad, especially the Barnes and Carr fights you will see this, how he tightens the circle. Same with Ricardo Lopez. The old-timers, older than me even, referred to the ring as the squared circle, and boxers like Archie Moore, Charly Burly and Billy Conn spoke about how controlling the circle meant controlling the fight.

**Chris Nagel** · 08-27-2007 08:36 PM

You couldn't catch them on the ropes, and if you did you couldn't keep them there. They controlled the circle which in turn controlled the angles.

I think in some instances you need to circle left, part of the reason just to stay unpredictable, but you'd have to mind their right hand.

**Trainer Monkey** · 08-27-2007 08:40 PM

You should allways be circling
But a variation of that train of thought
Stalking
I stress heavily going to where they will get to,instead of following
If someone is running rabbit scared they usually take at least 3 steps in a direction
Be where they are going to end up,rather then just following them straight in

**greynotsoold** · 08-27-2007 08:43 PM

Yes, when going left you need to keep the left in position to accept his right. Braddock neutralized Baer's right while moving left by jabbing his shoulder- jab to draw the right, the second jab to disrupt it. Remember, too, what Haislet said about this. That circling right is the safest and should be most often used. If you consider the course of boxing, it has gone down a road where fighters circled this way and that to where they only circled left, to where they don't circle at all.
Another way Norton had success against Ali was by making Ali move to his own right- Ali's right. Ali, other than for the right against Liston, rarely if ever punched while moving right. Today, 99% of the time you see an orthodox fighter kove right, he is bailing out with no intention of punching. This is a result of poor footwork.

**Scrap** · 08-27-2007 11:21 PM

Greys Youre right about right side movement I thought Ray Robinson had the same problem, a lot of the time its about whose doing the running and whose chasing. But its the first thing I look at when assesing a fighter. A lot of the time its where the back foot is after the jab making the posture unsound.

**greynotsoold** · 08-27-2007 11:40 PM

I think I know what you mean- so often they get the feet in a line after they jab. Can't punch from there.
Robinson...I see that too. Against guys that were serious about cutting him off, and not afraid of his punches, he spent a lot of time pinned.
The thing that gets at me is how much guys want to punch back and are unable to fight off the ropes, but consistently put themselves in a position where they cannot reach the foe, and are laying on the ropes.

**Scrap** · 08-28-2007 12:07 AM

They think they are safe, they see it work for someone, we know who. Who had nowhere to go and was fortunate the other guy left his brain in the locker room and got away with it. Mind some fighters use to take a walk to the ropes and use them as they should but if youre not fresh and not sure dont go there, dangerous territory.

**donnydarkoIRL** · 12-20-2007 03:29 PM

Does this post disuade against the use of straight forward aggression?

**Howlin Mad Missy** · 12-20-2007 04:36 PM

hmm depends, if your opponent pulls back in a straight lines you can follow, if they pivot, shift angles on them, imo, you have to have flexibility.

**donnydarkoIRL** · 12-21-2007 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Missy

hmm depends, if your opponent pulls back in a straight lines you can follow, if they pivot, shift angles on them, imo, you have to have flexibility.

Good point Missy.
You recall what Hatton was doing in the dressing room before the Mayweather fight? (Because he didn't dot it in the fight?)
Well I've been practising that for slick moving guys.

**Sharla** · 12-26-2007 01:57 AM

Originally Posted by Missy

hmm depends, if your opponent pulls back in a straight lines you can follow, if they pivot, shift angles on them, imo, you have to have flexibility.

I see your point. Someone who can pivot is probably on balance and ready to take advantage of their angles. Someone who moves straight back may or may not be balanced. If they're not balanced it's a good time to attack moving foreward.

It's a tricky one though - I personally do best if my opponents follow me moving back for more than one or two steps. I find I can counter them easily and can sometimes get them to put their own weight into my punches. I have more trouble with someone who will only follow me a step or two at a time because their balance is still at it's best.

I'd actually like more input into how to stalk successfully myself though. Especially against taller people. If they are moving towards me at least it's easier for me to go in off of their punches and find my range. If they are taller and moving around out of my range and refuse to come foreward I guess the only solution is to be really good at cutting the ring? Frustrating! I don't like waiting too long to get a shot off!