Angled Stance vs Squared Stance

That Frazier quote makes alot of sense to me, but then again I'm that kind of fighter..

I'm pretty sure Ali would say something different lol

 

When you're using the angled stance your body can truly balance itself more. When you use the square stance and take a shot to the body/face what are you falling back on? Nothing, thats what. When both your feet are parallel to each other the force that's excerted upon your body/head will make it easier for you to be knocked down or keep you off balance. When your stance is angled you will have better balance because not only do you have more power to fall back on with your right leg (if you're orthodox) but there will be less of an impact absorbed. The best analogy I can give is this: Think about if you had to knock a board down flat to to the ground. You could either push the board down from one of the very skinny sides or you could choose to push it down from one of the very broad front or back sides. Now while both are possible to achieve its much more likely that you will knock the board down by choosing one of the broader sides. This is because the force thats exerted has less distance to travel when using the broad side as compared to using one of the skinnier sides.

However, like many on here have said it all really depends on your style. If something is working really well for you then why change it? If your style is working terribly or mediocre for you then you may want to make some adjustments.

Also, you're in muay thai aren't you? You probably know more about the sport then I do but I would never suggest using an angled stance when kickboxing because you would obviously get your front leg kicked out from underneath you. But then again you probably already knew this, just adding in case you didn't.

 

True, but my point is that you want to be as angled as much as you can be comfortable with. It's all about finding that happy medium. You don't want to be to completely squared up because of the reasons I mentioned but then at the same time you wouldn't want to have a completely parallel vertical stance either because this would make things exremely difficult. Also with an angled stance you have better options when throwing punches. With your left foot forward (orthodox stance) your jab has less distance to travel so it will be easier to suprise your opponent. It will also make it so your right hand can generate more power. Think about which you would rather have: a squared stance with less suprise from the jab and less power from the right or an angled stance with more suprise from the jab and more power from the right. The more that you compromise your stance to be squared the less you will lose of these abilities.

 

Anyone care to post diagrams or vids highlighting the differences? I generally understand squared vs angled stances, but a breakdown would help understanding the small technical differences and identify the advantages/disadvantages. I'm not sure if my idea is the same as others, so pointing to individual fighters would help as well. Who has the archetypical stance of each?

 

I prefer the angled stance. I know when I fight a person who is squared up, I find it real easy to connect, especially with body punches.

 

I disagree here.

The reason I changed back to peekaboo is because I have more weapons that way.

When I'm up against an angled guy I know exactly what is coming, a straight shot. So I'm usually ready to slip (or block if I **** it up) and get inside for what I want to do.
A left hook from someone who boxes side on is usually pretty weak on its own unless they twist before to their left or set it up with a right hand so often you don't have to worry about that either.

The angled stance is good for the amatuers, because the amatuers is about scoring a point per punch, so a jab is effectively a fight winning tool. That is fine, and it's a clear advantage in that respect. However, to say that the angled stance has more weapons or a more surprising jab isn't necessarily true.

The basic generalisation would be:

• Angled = defensive
• Square = offensive

Of course this fails to take into account aggressive boxer/punchers, and the fact that Tyson's style was an odd aggressive/defensive style, but basically it's on the money.

You also have to take into account that guys using the squared stance are usually pretty strong for their weight and can hit hard. If you aren't a banger you shouldn't really be standing square imo

 

Yeah see that's what I'm talking about though. What works for you probably won't work for me and vice versa. As far as straights go though it all really depends on how you set it up. What angle you're punching at,head feints,punching feints,ect. Also you would obviously consider how fast the person is as well. But I still stand by what I say. If you stand in the angled stance your jab will have less distance to travel and therefore catch your opponent more off gaurd when compared to a squared stance. You sound more like a slugger/in fighter to me so for you this probably doesn't matter but to me it does. And with the right, let me give yet another analogy: if you had to crack the cement with a baseball bat which would you choose to do. Crank your bat just almost up to your shoulder and then swing or crank it way past your shoulder and then swing. I think that we both know the answer, the same goes for the right. The farther you crank it back the power more you generate.

You're right about the left hook having less power though with an angled stance. That I can agree with you on. Although I have knocked down (not knocked out,both guys got right back up) two guys in sparring with my left hook and I was using an angled stance so it still has plenty of power. If I were in a street fight or in the pros I would probably compromise my stance to be a little more squared but like you said for amateurs it works better to have an angled stance so that's what I use.

 

i think both stances are useful....and really its impossible not to use both stances as you square up when you slip rights or throw rights along with when your on the inside.

my opinion is that the angled stance should be the main stance, as you can tuck your chin better and defend better, but you should still train to use a squared stance and to know when a squared stance is better for yourself by sparring pratice and talking to your coach.

 

Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Perfect a stance between the 2 and then you will have all the advantages.

Very few coaches teach a correct stance.

 

IMO both have thier advantages...angled stance makes less of a target which is why they teach it in boxing...square stance you have more power in your left hand (if youre orthodox)...but i think square stance is more suitable for mma cause you have to worry about takedowns kicks etc.
But boxing is "hit without getting hit" so angeld stance would be best IMO

 

As people have said, I think that it really depends on your body type and style. A short, stocky fighter who likes to pressure should square up more, putting him in a beter position to through bent-arm punches on the inside. A taller boxer/boxer puncher should be more angular. A complete boxer should know how to do both.

 

There are arguments for both. But it depends on the RULE SET

For pure boxing, ANGLED is the only way to go. why? Being angled makes you alot harder to hit, harder to clinch, and sets you up for better counters...

For real fighting, squared up is much better....