I would consider myself a very casual MMA fan watched a few cards and if its on im partial to having a little peruse. Anyway what occured to me the other day when watching an MMA fight was that striking is generally conducted from an upright orthodox stance similar to boxing. Is this not completely the wrong tactic? This upright stance is very rigid and to me seems to leave you fairly prone to a takedown attack wouldnt a more crouched almost hunched stance be preferable one that you could explode out of to punch and kick and this would surely leave you in a much better position to defend against takedowns? Opinions?
I'm not sure I agree with the premise; they are upright in the sense they are standing up, rather than crouched like a pure wrestler, but it is usually a compromise between the two.
boxers shouldn't be upright and good ones aren't. like beebs say, they aren't in mma. they tend to be in a good boxing stance where bent knees allow you to activate quickly for a takedown.
The fact that the MMA stance is typically more square than a boxing stance helps greatly in preventing takedowns.
There are generalisations but fighters aren't sticking to them i.e. BJ stands very angled off, more so than many boxers. Its easy to touch or catch the single but no one could ever follow throgh on BJ with it. Some fighters are overly squared. There are pros and cons to it. Personally, I advocate a text book boxing stance and would argue you get the perfect blend for boxing, movement and wrestling. The stance of many boxers is not text book just cos a boxer is doing it. When Malignaggi, Mayweather and other fighters are fighting too side on they are doing it cos they could get away with it in boxing against the right opponent. Otherwise it is just an incorrect stance.
