Strong side vs weak side sparring

[ACJ]

Perhaps we need to sort out a few basics terms first. What we are discussing has absolutely nothing to do with 'basic physiology'. I doubt even that concepts of advanced striking would even be considered part of 'advanced physiology'. Physiology is the study of the whole body including movement but often at a cellular level.



So perhaps we could call what you are discussing, 'bio mechanics'.

In this case physiology was the more appropriate term, as we were considering not only the biomechanics of the movement such that the most power is generated, but also the neurological ability to activate the required muscles in regard to the dominant side hand, as well as the adaptations to use of the dominant versus dominant hand. I usually choose my phrasing carefully, and a broader term was suitable in this instance.

Normally a right handed person fights with their left foot forward. (I hope we can agree on that.) In a boxing scenario that would probably, not always but most times, mean that the right punch is going to be the most powerful, and it would normally be delivered with the left foot forward.

However, if you look at WC and Okinawan karate and probably other styles that I haven't looked at closely, then the power generated has nothing to do with the foot that is forward.

Then this doesn't contradict what I am saying. I am very specifically saying: that if one was to put their dominant leg forward, for the reason of increasing power generation for forward strikes that I am aware of, then that doesn't make any sense.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Over the years, I have worked to bring my left side's strength and flexibility in line with my right. Challenging work to say the least. In wtf and tang soo do sparring, I try to switch between both sides. This gives me more options and makes me harder to read. That being said, my natural tendency is to lead with my weak side, which is the left. However, I understand Bruce Lee extolled the virtues of leading with the strong side. Please share your experiences. Thoughts?

I like your thread and agree with training both sides of the body (within the limits of things such as injuries). We never know where an attack may occur or what position (or position of disadvantage) we will be in when it happens.

If I could offer a training tidbit, I'm a L.E. instructor in several High Liability areas such as firearms and defensive tactics (basic and advanced). We don't use the term 'weak' hand or 'weak' side. It is considered negative mind set training from a psychological perspective. We use strong side and reactionary side for example. Or simply left and right. We never use weak. May seem trivial, but it is just a small part of an overall philosophy.

For example, one of my 'catch phrases' is, "We NEVER quit and we ALWAYS win". It provides that needed psychological edge in a crisis situation, particularly if injured, wounded or suffering from adrenaline dump. Helps us to focus on the goal of survival.

Just a tidbit

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

training both sides of the body ...

You traing

- general skill such as kicks and punches on both side.
- "special" skill on one side only.

A "special" skill is the skill that requires strength that you don't obtain from your daily life. It can only come from training. Since your training time is limited, you can spend your training time on both sides. You can also spend your training time on one side only. Of course the result will be different. You may have 40% result on both sides or 80% result on oneside and 0% result on the other side. The choice will be yours.

 

[K-man]

In this case physiology was the more appropriate term, as we were considering not only the biomechanics of the movement such that the most power is generated, but also the neurological ability to activate the required muscles in regard to the dominant side hand, as well as the adaptations to use of the dominant versus dominant hand. I usually choose my phrasing carefully, and a broader term was suitable in this instance.

I'm sorry to disagree. You may have chosen your words carefully but what you are saying is not accurate. The neurological ability to activate a particular muscle, in physiological terms, stems from the activity in the brain releasing chemicals that facilitate the transmission of the message to the site of action, namely the muscle. The way that muscle is used is biomechanics.

Then this doesn't contradict what I am saying. I am very specifically saying: that if one was to put their dominant leg forward, for the reason of increasing power generation for forward strikes that I am aware of, then that doesn't make any sense.

I didn't set out to contradict you. I was just stating my position. :asian:

 

[ACJ]

I'm sorry to disagree. You may have chosen your words carefully but what you are saying is not accurate. The neurological ability to activate a particular muscle, in physiological terms, stems from the activity in the brain releasing chemicals that facilitate the transmission of the message to the site of action, namely the muscle. The way that muscle is used is biomechanics.

Which is a part of exercise physiology! The phrasing chosen is quite accurate.

I didn't set out to contradict you. I was just stating my position. :asian:

Thus if you aren't against anything I am saying, then it is fair to call the position I described foolish.

 

[K-man]

Which is a part of exercise physiology! The phrasing chosen is quite accurate.

Obbviously physiology has changed a lot since I studied it at university.

Thus if you aren't against anything I am saying, then it is fair to call the position I described foolish.

No it is not fair to call the position you described as foolish. Power can be generated in a number of ways and if a style uses the body positioning you described to generate power, then so be it. :asian:

 

[Earl Weiss]

In this case physiology was the more appropriate term, as we were considering not only the biomechanics of the movement such that the most power is generated, but also the neurological ability

.

You have re invented the term "Physiology" to include neurologic ability.
As stated above physiology is related to body movement. There is no reason (barring injury) the body could not move the same way on the left side or the right side.

So far the discussion seems to have ignored the issue of injury be it sort or long term. Training the non dominant side sufficiently so that the abilities are equal to the dominant side allows for better use of that side in the event of an injury affecting te over side.

I developed my kicking to be pretty equal on each side, but over the decades injury has cause my "Good Side" to become my "Bad Side" with that being flipped a couple of times.

 

[Thousand Kicks]

I also believe it is important to close the gap between your dominant and no-dominant sides. Understanding that they will probably never be equal. There are numerous ways to generate power for your lead hand/leg through body rotation, lunging or using the weight of your body, etc. So I wouldn't get caught up too much with losing a power advantage because your non-dominate leg or hand is back.

Unlike boxing, TKD doesn't really have orthodox or southpaw stances. We typically talk about stance in relation to your opponent i.e. open stance and closed stance. You can nullify or reduce the effectiveness of the techniques your opponent likes to use by switching from open to closed stance. If you train up both sides so the difference gets smaller you will have more viable options available to you regardless of the situation.

On another note, there are some people who will put there strong or dominant hand/foot forward for two specific reasons. First, since you typically use your lead hand/foot more than your back hand/foot they want to get the most out of the hand/foot they use most frequently. So they will choose to put there strong hand/foot forward so they can use their strongest hand/foot more than their weak hand/foot. Second, your strong/dominant side will also have sharper fine motor skills than your weak/non-dominant side once again allowing you the most benefit out of the hand/foot you will use the most.

Just my two cents.

 

[Mauthos]

For many years I was always the typical right-handed orthodox stance fighter. For some reason this just never felt comfortable to me.

Eventually I switched and became a right-handed southpaw fighter. However, this was mainly because it felt more natural for me, but I also found I could use it to my advantage.

Throughout my martial arts journey I have become known mainly for my hand work (kicks have never been my strong point due to spondylothesis of my spine limiting some of my movement) and I have pretty solid punching ability from both hands. Although, being right handed, yes my right is more powerful.

Once I had swapped into a southpaw stance I found that people automatically circled away from my left hand (assuming they were moving away from my power) which meant they were actually circling into my power, and, as a right handed hook can be thrown with power, speed and accuracy from any stance, it became a very powerful weapon in my arsenal.http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...eLR0QXv3oDgAQ&ved=0CC8QvwUoAA&biw=815&bih=267

I have also found that my covering/blocking ability has improved immensely as my reactions on my right side are slightly quicker than my left, no matter how much I train both sides. Also, front leg kicks have always been easier for me to throw (thanks again to the back problem) and so leading with my power leg was also an advantage.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the traditional boxing, kick boxing, karate mentality and belief that you should always keep the power back and I see the theory in practice often enough to prove it is effective. This does not mean that the arts that specialize with fighting with their strongest side forward are wrong, or as has been mentioned in this post foolish.

As usual with all styles and arts there are pros and cons to each and in all honesty a fighter, well any martial artist whether a fighter or simply sparring, should use the stance they feel is comfortable to them, that benefits their style the best and gives them their advantages.

I used to classify myself as a switch hitter (one who switches stance to suit the situation) and I still swap my stances around if it helps me put off an opponent or simply confuse them. But nowadays I do prefer to fight right side forward.

Simply stated, each to their own, do what you feel is best, what you like and what you feel is more comfortable and improves your ability in a fighting situation.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Over the years, I have worked to bring my left side's strength and flexibility in line with my right. Challenging work to say the least. In wtf and tang soo do sparring, I try to switch between both sides. This gives me more options and makes me harder to read. That being said, my natural tendency is to lead with my weak side, which is the left. However, I understand Bruce Lee extolled the virtues of leading with the strong side. Please share your experiences. Thoughts?

I tend to change lead side through the course of the match, so there is no 'leading' side. In TKD sparring, I found it very beneficial to switch lead sides during the match and to have strong techniques on both sides. I will have to disagree with Bruce Lee on this, at least as it relates to taekwondo. I am not a JKD or WC practitioner, so I don't know what people in those arts would say.

 

[Rumy73]

I tend to change lead side through the course of the match, so there is no 'leading' side. In TKD sparring, I found it very beneficial to switch lead sides during the match and to have strong techniques on both sides. I will have to disagree with Bruce Lee on this, at least as it relates to taekwondo. I am not a JKD or WC practitioner, so I don't know what people in those arts would say.

I switch sides as well. I use it to find openings and keep the opponent guessing.

 

[Jaeimseu]

I switch sides in order to set up favorable situations for counters or to disrupt the other player.