Triangular Footwork

[GodofGamblers]

I was wondering if anyone had any good links about triangular footwork.

Are there are boxers who use triangular or unconventional footwork to open up unexpected avenues/angles of attack? What drills do they do to develop such skills?

Thanks

[doubleouch]

I don't think you'll see that much in boxing because it will get you knocked out. You may find a boxer or two who could pull it off but it will never be fundamental to the art.

[ezzthetic]

Triangular footwork lends itself to switch-hitting and the only school of boxing that specializes in switch-hitting is Brendan Ingle's gym in Sheffield, England. Check out fighters like Herrol Graham and Junior Witter.

I've practiced this type of footwork myself, having become curious from watching Shane Mosley employ it several times. He's especially effective in his lightweight bouts and uses it both for offense and defense. I don't really do any drills for it and don't imagine others to do it either (though Ingle might be an exception), I simply played with it and learned to observe certain key principles.

In this clip (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mjd6N81xqwU) I use it a little at the end of the round, making the guy miss with a few punches before I get off the ropes. I score with my right hand from a momentary orthodox position. It's hardly the best example, but an example of triangular footwork adapted to boxing none the less.

I also use switching to smother him on the inside by getting my body parallel with his, something I learned from watching Roy Jones fight David Telesco.

Again, this is not something I'd teach my fighters, but it's fun to dabble with if you have plenty of time and are not fighting regularly anyway. Most of my unorthodox moves are just something I played with after studying it on tape. Comes in handy when you are sparring a younger, stronger, fresher, more aggressive guy on an off-day.

[GodofGamblers]

I don't think you'll see that much in boxing because it will get you knocked out. You may find a boxer or two who could pull it off but it will never be fundamental to the art.

Why is that?

Is it because it is predictable? or because you move into the right arm of the adversary? Please elaborate. thx

[GodofGamblers]

Triangular footwork lends itself to switch-hitting and the only school of boxing that specializes in switch-hitting is Brendan Ingle's gym in Sheffield, England. Check out fighters like Herrol Graham and Junior Witter.

I've practiced this type of footwork myself, having become curious from watching Shane Mosley employ it several times. He's especially effective in his lightweight bouts and uses it both for offense and defense. I don't really do any drills for it and don't imagine others to do it either (though Ingle might be an exception), I simply played with it and learned to observe certain key principles.

In this clip (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mjd6N81xqwU) I use it a little at the end of the round, making the guy miss with a few punches before I get off the ropes. I score with my right hand from a momentary orthodox position. It's hardly the best example, but an example of triangular footwork adapted to boxing none the less.

I also use switching to smother him on the inside by getting my body parallel with his, something I learned from watching Roy Jones fight David Telesco.

Again, this is not something I'd teach my fighters, but it's fun to dabble with if you have plenty of time and are not fighting regularly anyway. Most of my unorthodox moves are just something I played with after studying it on tape. Comes in handy when you are sparring a younger, stronger, fresher, more aggressive guy on an off-day.

What is switch hitting, Dadi? When I googled it, it looks like a reference to baseball? I'm afraid I don't know anything about baseball.

One interesting difference between kickboxing and boxing in terms of footwork is that kickboxing tends to put the weight on the back leg; this way, the lead leg can be raised as a block, feinte, front kick, etc. but you can't get off a strong punch, so boxing would avoid this. And this is exactly how Holyfield beat Tyson, if you remember. No one thought Holyfield had a chance going into the fight against the younger TYsn who was at the top of his game at the time. But he managed to neutralize Tyson. Every time Tyson came in, Holyfield would block the punch without giving ground. THen he would push Tyson back. Tyson would fall back with his weight on his back leg, unable to throw anything meaningful. Then Holyfield would throw a few punches, mostly jabs. This way he won on points. If you can get a boxer to put his weight on his back leg, you can stop him.... or at least stall him!

I'm working on my footwork now. Trying to come up with some new solutions.

I'll check out the youtube later; looks interesting! Can't open it at work. thx

[GodofGamblers]

Food for thought:

"The clock theory is based on the idea of always keeping your opponent directly in front of you in your fighting stance. (If you read my attacking on angles report, you might be wondering why I would say this is wrong. Don’t worry, wait and see, and you’ll see that it’s included in Frank Shamrock’s own definition.) Imagine that you’re standing on a clock. The clock theory simplifies the idea of striking and defense. Your opponent should always remain in front of you at 12 o’clock. To attack safely with maximum power: maintain fighting stance, step to a new time on your clock; either 10 or 2 o’clock and strike. This new time or angle will move your body and head out of the way and allow you to strike without getting hit.” – Shamrock Submission Fighting Manual

[DragonMind]

I was wondering if anyone had any good links about triangular footwork.

Are there are boxers who use triangular or unconventional footwork to open up unexpected avenues/angles of attack? What drills do they do to develop such skills?

ThanksLook at the Silat info or Filipino Boxing. I believe Ron Balicki has a video out on it.

[ezzthetic]

What is switch hitting, Dadi? When I googled it, it looks like a reference to baseball? I'm afraid I don't know anything about baseball.

Switch-hitting means switching from southpaw to orthodox and vice versa interchangeably.


One interesting difference between kickboxing and boxing in terms of footwork is that kickboxing tends to put the weight on the back leg; this way, the lead leg can be raised as a block, feinte, front kick, etc. but you can't get off a strong punch, so boxing would avoid this.

You actually SHOULDN'T put too much weight on the front foot. If your weight is too much on the front foot you won't have any slack when you actually need to put more weight on that leg, such as when throwing a right hand. You will also be off balance and be too close to your opponent. Even an aggressive fighter like Tyson will squat on his back leg and then only lean in slightly once up close (not necessarily in a way I'd approve of in my own fighters). Obviously, the weight distribution is different in kick-boxing, which is mostly incomparable to boxing anyway. You'd have no reason to keep 100% of your weight on the back foot if you are boxing. The weight is centered or slightly more on the back leg, but shouldn't be too much on the lead leg in any case.


If you can get a boxer to put his weight on his back leg, you can stop him.... or at least stall him!

Depends on the fighter. Some are good at fighting off their back leg, some are not. It's rarely that simple. I would never use 'boxer' so generically and neither would I use 'kick-boxer' or any other term. Each fight genre will have various styles that require different tactics.


Food for thought:

"The clock theory is based on the idea of always keeping your opponent directly in front of you in your fighting stance. (If you read my attacking on angles report, you might be wondering why I would say this is wrong. Don’t worry, wait and see, and you’ll see that it’s included in Frank Shamrock’s own definition.) Imagine that you’re standing on a clock. The clock theory simplifies the idea of striking and defense. Your opponent should always remain in front of you at 12 o’clock. To attack safely with maximum power: maintain fighting stance, step to a new time on your clock; either 10 or 2 o’clock and strike. This new time or angle will move your body and head out of the way and allow you to strike without getting hit.” – Shamrock Submission Fighting Manual

This is just a clever way of teaching people angles... nothing new really.

[GodofGamblers]

Thanks, Dadi.

[GodofGamblers]

Look at the Silat info or Filipino Boxing. I believe Ron Balicki has a video out on it.

Yes, it's a big thing in SEAsian martial arts, but if you don't have a weapon in your hand, i wonder if it's useful and if it can be applied to boxing. It makes good sense to have the weapon in the lead hand; you want the weapon to be between your body and the opponent. If you have the weapon in the rear hand, it's the body that's in between the weapon and the opponent.

But unarmed, switching back and forth doesn't make that much sense to me, unless, as Dadi says, it's to confuse them. I'm not ambidetrexous, so not a good option for me. However, I'm still looking into it because the idea of non linear (i.e. not strictly back and forth) movement is interestng.

thx man

[TonyU]

However, I'm still looking into it because the idea of non linear (i.e. not strictly back and forth) movement is interestng.

thx man
Then think angles and cutting your opponent in half.
While facing your opponent (assuming you are both righty) take a half a step to you right, then turn to face him. This way you are working the angles. Also instead of going straight back or in, you go in at an angle.

[GodofGamblers]

Gotcha. Thx Tony

[ezzthetic]

To clarify, I certainly think that these are skills that COULD be taught and I even might if I ever work with a high enough caliber fighter. It's just not a high priority in the development of a fighter.

[DragonMind]

Yes, it's a big thing in SEAsian martial arts, but if you don't have a weapon in your hand, i wonder if it's useful and if it can be applied to boxing. It makes good sense to have the weapon in the lead hand; you want the weapon to be between your body and the opponent. If you have the weapon in the rear hand, it's the body that's in between the weapon and the opponent.

But unarmed, switching back and forth doesn't make that much sense to me, unless, as Dadi says, it's to confuse them. I'm not ambidetrexous, so not a good option for me. However, I'm still looking into it because the idea of non linear (i.e. not strictly back and forth) movement is interestng.

thx manThe material I was talking about is unarmed work. The Silat folks have a set of stepping patterns based on triangles (male and female) that teach you to change perspectives just as Tony was talking about. Ron's stuff is boxing based on Filipino theories of motion.

[FunSPE]

Yes, it's a big thing in SEAsian martial arts, but if you don't have a weapon in your hand, i wonder if it's useful and if it can be applied to boxing. It makes good sense to have the weapon in the lead hand; you want the weapon to be between your body and the opponent. If you have the weapon in the rear hand, it's the body that's in between the weapon and the opponent.


Ive been using my Filipino and Silat footwork in boxing and muay thai for years. For me it has never mattered if I had a weapon in my hand or not.

[GodofGamblers]

That's a weakness I have, though: I can't fight off both sides. I can only fight orthodox. However, I like the idea of a triangular movement rather than backing up. Backing up is a mistake, though I sometimes back up a couple steps to draw in my opponent then come forward unexpectedly as he's attacking to sneak in a speed jab or jam his attack. I think there could be something to triangular movement though I'm not a convert yet. Glad to see some people can use it effectively: gives me hope.

Speaking of footwork, what does everyone think about bouncing back and forth on the balls of the feet to present a 'moving target'. The theory is great, but I notice that in most bouts, it doesn't last beyond the first few rounds. Perhaps due to fatigue. Does anyone here advocate that sort of 'stance'? Why or why not?

[ezzthetic]

That's a weakness I have, though: I can't fight off both sides. I can only fight orthodox. However, I like the idea of a triangular movement rather than backing up. Backing up is a mistake, though I sometimes back up a couple steps to draw in my opponent then come forward unexpectedly as he's attacking to sneak in a speed jab or jam his attack. I think there could be something to triangular movement though I'm not a convert yet. Glad to see some people can use it effectively: gives me hope.

Speaking of footwork, what does everyone think about bouncing back and forth on the balls of the feet to present a 'moving target'. The theory is great, but I notice that in most bouts, it doesn't last beyond the first few rounds. Perhaps due to fatigue. Does anyone here advocate that sort of 'stance'? Why or why not?

Didn't notice you had made this comment until now, "doing my rounds".

I'm hardly ambidextrous myself, so I don't think this is actually necessary. I can force an orthodox stance and fight out of it for a while with some success, but I don't think that's necessary for the type of footwork we've been discussing. What's of value is really the ability to transition between the stances themselves and perhaps score with single shots as a result of the often unexpected opportunities created by positioning. Another school of switch-hitting I had forgotten is that of Phil Borgia, who trained Kevin Kelley. Kelley's famous come-from-behind victory over Derrick Gainer in their first match came as a result of a move Borgia calls "the Switch".

As far as bouncing goes, like anything else it has it's place. I personally stress more relaxed, yet constant footwork. It's useful to know I you need to run for some reason (if you are hurt or as a part of a tactic). This type of bouncing around can also be done in an aggressive manner to force yourself into range and land some good shots. You sort of create sensory overload for your opponent that enables you get close and nail him. There are many good fighters who bounce around all the time, but I don't think it's of vast importance.

[loki]

Might any of the boxers here, who are also familiar with FMA's, explain for me the differences between Triangular foot work as it is applied in boxing to the way it is applied in FMA's.

I'm curious to see if there is a difference.


I was wondering if anyone had any good links about triangular footwork.

Are there are boxers who use triangular or unconventional footwork to open up unexpected avenues/angles of attack? What drills do they do to develop such skills?

Thanks

[ezzthetic]

Might any of the boxers here, who are also familiar with FMA's, explain for me the differences between Triangular foot work as it is applied in boxing to the way it is applied in FMA's.

I'm curious to see if there is a difference.

I do not believe that the technique of the actual stepping is so different, but from my perspective, in FMA the objective is more oriented towards gaining better position for limb destruction and progressing to continuous flowing attack, etc. In boxing the objective is more to do with evasion/confusion and/or single counter-shots. You certainly wouldn't want to attack continuously with punches flying back at you. So I definitely think it boils down to these different objectives. What limits this type of footwork when applied to boxing is the relative lack of tools and target areas compared to FMA. It just doesn't pay off to commit to it in a sustained fashion.

I had a discussion with Jeff Burger a few years ago regarding the differences between boxing and street type altercations and one of the assertions he made was something along the lines of: "In a boxing match you know and anticipate that there will be an exchange of punches." (sorry if I'm misquoting you on that!) I maintained, and still do, that this isn't necessarily true. A fighter can learn to control completely when there will be an exchange, if any. My point here is that for those fighters who never learn to control range and initiative properly will be more susceptible to getting in many exchanges due to the fact that he has so few tools to deal with so few viable targets. This is not necessarily a common anticipation with FMA with its many tools and targets.

Another related thing is that since there are fewer targets, hiding behind the shoulder is a valid defense in boxing, and so you can for example lead more with your shoulder and turn your hip to the inside when using a lateral triangle.

[Jeff Burger]

I was going to say look into Kali or Silat but Kerisna does Silat.

You should be familiar with triangle footwork.
Maybe you just know it by another name.