Equalize Sides or Not?

[dancingalone]

There is no right or wrong answer. I have been on both sides of the fence at various times in my martial arts journey.

Having said that, do you believe in permitting a favored side to continue? Most people are right handed and can kick better off their right leg. Philosophically, do you work to extinguish the preference completely, realizing of course that it's next to impossible to reach the same level of performance on both sides? Or do you think it is fine to have a 'power' side as long as the other limb(s) are developed to a reasonable level as well?

And for the lefties among us, do you think there should be a difference answer for you corrie-fisted folk?

 

[granfire]

I hate being very obviously right handed to the point that my left is very weak. I train harder on my left to strengthen in.

I find that being onesided - regardless of the side - is a disadvantage. It adds depth to your game when you can kick with either side, as well as punch and present a different looks by switching leads.

 

[Stac3y]

In my opinion, strengthening the weaker side can't hurt, and is likely to be helpful. I encourage my students to work on both sides. Typically, they fall back on the stronger side under pressure (in competition, etc.), but at least they are capable of using both if needed.

Oddly, I'm ambidextrous (hands and feet), and I've found that advantageous. I'm kind of old and rickety, and swtiching leads allows me to keep either knee or ankle from getting so stressed that it gives out. I recently broke a rib on my left side, so I've been fighting right side forward to protect it better. I've found that to be much more tiring than being able to switch.

 

[Earl Weiss]

For 98% of techniques I had trained to eliminate virtulay any superioity on either side. It came by typicaly working the worse side 1.5 times as many reps as the good side. Making sure not to go past a fatigue point since past this point technique will not improve. Often it required working the good side a little less to save energy for the bad side. It also involved working the good side first a few reps so the brain could try and use that muscle memory for the bad side.

At various times I experienced injury where the nominaly good side would become the bad side. So, having the bad side perform as well as the good side avoids having a bad side become really bad as a result of some injury. It also facilitates injury recovery.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

I like to be as equal with both legs as possible but realise that my right side will always be slightly better. I do see a difference though between "favouring" one leg and having one leg that is better. My right leg is slightly better than my left but I dont favour my right. When I watch vids back of my sparring I tend to throw just as many techs with the right foot/fist as the left although my right has a bit more power. Favouring one leg is not a good idea because good black belts figure out within a few seconds that you are favouring one over the other and make you pay for it, whereas at least throwing a heap with the other leg keeps them in two minds.

 

[ETinCYQX]

I've been taught to strike with both sides and they're pretty close. I am more comfortable with a right foot back stance, but it's not a big difference to me. That said, I get more power with my right.

One thing I've been working on in Judo is switching grip; by that I mean becoming comfortable with a left or right handed grip on the Gi so I can take what's given to me rather than force it. Getting my *** kicked by a lefty who was stronger than me and wouldn't let me force a right handed grip prompted this. Of course, when I tried it on him, he let me get the right grip and proved he was just as strong playing right handed.

 

[d1jinx]

I was taught and believe in training BOTH sides. I remember working harder on my "worse" side than my natural side.
Students will always have thier favorite side and techniques, but you are doing them an Injustice if you dont encourage equal and more diversified techniques from BOTH sides...

besides... when you get your favorite leg jacked up by a kick in a match/fight.... what are you gonna do? quit? A fighter is too easy to read if they have 1 leg and 1 technique...

 

[puunui]

In almost every physical endeavor, you only practice to be good on one side. in boxing, few can fight left or right foot forward. in the military, you are not required to fire your weapon using either the left or right hand equally well. In football, quarterbacks throw the ball using their dominant hand only. In ordinary life, we write with only one hand, brush our teeth with the same hand, and so forth.

Even the forms of martial arts have many instances where a particular technique is done only on one side. Many poomsae, hyung or tul have techniques done with both left and right, and so I think that people have naturally extended that to non-form work.

In kenjutsu, you only draw your sword with your right hand, never with the left, even if you are left handed. Also, in Sinmoo Hapkido, we only do spinning kicks with the right leg only. With Dan Bong (the short stick) I asked GM Ji if we should learn to use the dan bong with both hands, and his answer was I could if I wanted to, but he only does dan bong with his right hand.

If your goal is physical fitness, or exercise, then exercising both sides equally makes sense. But from a performance standpoint, it historical and empirical evidence shows that being equally skilled on both sides, while nice, is not necessary.

 

[Cirdan]

Training both sides equally. I think it makes it much more easy to adapt to any situation, not like I will always be in the right position to use my good side. The exception is Kata where I want to reach a good level before doung it Ura, starting to the other side. However if I had limited time to train I`d might favor one strong side.

Actually I think my left side has gotten stronger lately when it comes to striking, people have even asked if I am left handed.

 

[StudentCarl]

The older I get the more it looks like I have two bad sides. On my more natural side I try to perfect technique and speed as much as possible. On my slow-learner side I try to keep up with the neighbor. It takes extra reps, but I need to be able to interchange equally in the flow of a fight as openings usually favor a particular side and I need to be able to hit with whatever is best.

 

[Tez3]

Not all activities are the same so being 'good' with one side is sometimes good, sometimes bad. When I was taught to ride many years ago I was taught to mount from both sides, 'just in case'. it's proved useful over the years. In martial arts I try to do everything from both sides, fighting in the ring/cage for example you may have one side pressed up against the wire or ropes and be unable to use your favoured side so it makes sense to be able to use the other less favoured side, this translates into self defence as well if you were pinned against a wall or surrounded by people and unable to move to your favoured stance.

Boxers with their one stance are at a disadvantage when fighting a martial artist who has two stances. I've seen a few TKOs because a one stance guy was taking all the kicks on the one leg and couldn't continue, his leg buckled.

 

[Earl Weiss]

If your goal is physical fitness, or exercise, then exercising both sides equally makes sense. But from a performance standpoint, it historical and empirical evidence shows that being equally skilled on both sides, while nice, is not necessary.

I think the nature of the situation is important vis a vis having options. In long range activities like shooting which side you use is not really relevant. It is not unusual to see MMApeople switch sides which you never see in boxing.

I think martial arts is about doing more than what is neccessary. Heck, if I only practiced what was mostly neccessary I would throw out a lot of stuff.

Anyway, there are other sports where the better player / athlete has being well skilled. (equal may be a tough goal) helps the player perform better. Basketball is one where being able to shoot with eirther hand is a big plus. Switch hitters may change sides in Baseball depending on what the pitcher is doing.

Then in MA you always have the larger possibility that one side is injured, and you then need to have good functionality on the other side.

Being well skilled with either side gives you kore options.

 

[StudentCarl]

To build on a soccer parallel: a one-footed player is weak because you make them play with their weak foot. If they can't dribble, pass, or shoot with one foot they are only half a threat.

With a weak-footed fighter, you can move more easily to and attack their weak side because it's less of a threat.

So maybe your sides won't ever be equal, but they both need to be as 'dangerous' as you can make them.

 

[WC_lun]

For many years I fought much stronger with my right side forward. The last five years or so I have trained both sides equally, usually starting every drill with left lead forward. Now I don't even think about which lead I am in. My footwork depends on my opponent, not where I am more comfortable. In my opinion, you need to be effective and effecient from either side to be a complete fighter.

 

[puunui]

Being well skilled with either side gives you kore options.

Which takes me to my original point, which is having both sides, while nice, isn't necessary. I like everyone else practice both sides for at least kicking and punching, but when it comes down to it, people depend on their most trusted weapon, on their best side. How many people train their one step sparring against a right and left punch?

 

[chrispillertkd]

Which takes me to my original point, which is having both sides, while nice, isn't necessary. I like everyone else practice both sides for at least kicking and punching, but when it comes down to it, people depend on their most trusted weapon, on their best side.

Yes, which could potentially lead to trouble if a situation comes up where that technique on that side is unable to be used.

How many people train their one step sparring against a right and left punch?

All of my instructors' students do. We do both one step sparring and two step sparring on both the left and the right side. We only practice three step sparring on one side but we also do it moving forward and backwards. (The various types of pre-arranged sparring are used to teach different things and three step sparring is not as immediately applicable to combat as two or one step sparing.) We also use a variety of techniques in all levels of pre-arranged sparring to attack with so we don't spend all of our time countering a right hand middle punch.

While free sparring is quite useful to developing self defense, it isn't combat. It should really be used not to gain expertise in two or three techniques but rather to practice a myriad of techniques so that you are competant at using as many as possible. I've seen many people who can so at will with a single technique, but that isn't the same as being a well rounded martial artist.

Pax,

Chris

 

[puunui]

Yes, which could potentially lead to trouble if a situation comes up where that technique on that side is unable to be used.

Depends on one's perspective I suppose. I am at the point in the journey where defending myself from as many different scenarios or situations is not really a prime concern of mine. I don't frequent too many dark alleys (never did really) and such that I no longer need to train with a staff in the hopes of finding a broomstick in that dark alley I never frequent, just in case. In fact, I personally don't think i will ever get into a self defense situation for the rest of my life, unless I instigate it. And for the majority of taekwondo students (who seem to be under the age of puberty), I don't think it will come up for them either.

All of my instructors' students do. We do both one step sparring and two step sparring on both the left and the right side. We only practice three step sparring on one side but we also do it moving forward and backwards. (The various types of pre-arranged sparring are used to teach different things and three step sparring is not as immediately applicable to combat as two or one step sparing.) We also use a variety of techniques in all levels of pre-arranged sparring to attack with so we don't spend all of our time countering a right hand middle punch.

So for you and your instructor, three, two and one step sparring is a self defense training exercise? What techniques for the basis of your step sparring responses, movements from the tul?

While free sparring is quite useful to developing self defense, it isn't combat. It should really be used not to gain expertise in two or three techniques but rather to practice a myriad of techniques so that you are competant at using as many as possible. I've seen many people who can so at will with a single technique, but that isn't the same as being a well rounded martial artist.

Reading that reminded me of Bruce Lee's comment, wherein he stated that it isn't about daily increase, but rather daily decrease.

But what is "combat" in your opinion? And have you ever been in "combat" yourself wherein you had to use your taekwondo skills?

And what is a well rounded martial artist and why is it important to be one?

I ask these questions because over the years, my own perspective to these issues has evolved.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Depends on one's perspective I suppose.

Not really. The original comment was about relying on a favorite technique (or a few favorites) on a favored side of the body, which I said "could potentially lead to trouble if a situation comes up where that technique on that side is unable to be used." That doesn't depend on one's perspective. It depends on not being attacked in a manner which puts those limited techniques at a disadvantage.

I am at the point in the journey where defending myself from as many different scenarios or situations is not really a prime concern of mine.

I imagine most people who have been training for any extended period of time are in a similar place. But simply because something isn't a prime concern doesn't mean it isn't a concern.

I don't frequent too many dark alleys (never did really) and such that I no longer need to train with a staff in the hopes of finding a broomstick in that dark alley I never frequent, just in case. In fact, I personally don't think i will ever get into a self defense situation for the rest of my life, unless I instigate it. And for the majority of taekwondo students (who seem to be under the age of puberty), I don't think it will come up for them either.

Well, I certainly hope it doesn't come up. Of course, the future is hard to predict.

So for you and your instructor, three, two and one step sparring is a self defense training exercise?

That's not what I said. I said two and one step sparring are more immediately applicable to self-defense than three step sparring. There's a distinction between those two things.

What techniques for the basis of your step sparring responses, movements from the tul?

Often times, yes. But since many Taekwon-Do techniques aren't found in the tuls both attacks and counter attacks in pre-arranged sparring aren't limited to those found in tuls (neither individual techniques nor combinations of techniques).

But what is "combat" in your opinion?

Having to defend yourself against an aggressor. I suppose some people would say "combat" should only be used if one is actually engaged in military combat, but that wasn't my intent.

And have you ever been in "combat" yourself wherein you had to use your taekwondo skills?

Unfortunately, yes.

And what is a well rounded martial artist and why is it important to be one?

I ask these questions because over the years, my own perspective to these issues has evolved.

As have mine.

Pax,

Chris

 

[puunui]

Not really. The original comment was about relying on a favorite technique (or a few favorites) on a favored side of the body, which I said "could potentially lead to trouble if a situation comes up where that technique on that side is unable to be used." That doesn't depend on one's perspective. It depends on not being attacked in a manner which puts those limited techniques at a disadvantage.

I can acknowledge that that is your perspective. Having had been in involved in numerous altercations I can say from experience that most fighting situations follow a relatively predictable pattern, which means that one can with reasonable certainty predict what is coming. That pattern maybe changing with the popularity of mixed martial arts training, at least in my area.

But simply because something isn't a prime concern doesn't mean it isn't a concern.

For me, it isn't a concern. Maybe you have a different perspective.

Well, I certainly hope it doesn't come up. Of course, the future is hard to predict.

Actually, I think the future is very predictable, if you know what to look for. For example, I predicted exactly what would happen to the ITF when General Choi passes away.

That's not what I said. I said two and one step sparring are more immediately applicable to self-defense than three step sparring. There's a distinction between those two things.

Perhaps to you. Not to me.

Having to defend yourself against an aggressor. I suppose some people would say "combat" should only be used if one is actually engaged in military combat, but that wasn't my intent.

So basically a combat situation is a self defense situation then.

Unfortunately, yes.

I find that people who have actual fighting experience, whether self defense, tournament or whatever, have a different perspective than those who have not. It's like having sex. When you have no experience or little experience, then there is a tendency to overly worry about all kinds of scenarios where things can go wrong and so there can be an overpreparation and concern over all these hypothetical situations that may come up. Those who have more experience tend not to worry about such things. And if it does come up, they just roll with it.

But that is just my perspective. You may have a different one.

 

[chrispillertkd]

For me, it isn't a concern. Maybe you have a different perspective.

Apparently so.

Actually, I think the future is very predictable, if you know what to look for. For example, I predicted exactly what would happen to the ITF when General Choi passes away.

That doesn't exactly qualify you as Nostrodamus. What surprised me was that for about 15 minutes things looked like they wouldn't fall apart.

Perhaps to you. Not to me.

If you can't see this distinction there isn't much I can do about it on an internet forum.

I find that people who have actual fighting experience, whether self defense, tournament or whatever, have a different perspective than those who have not. It's like having sex. When you have no experience or little experience, then there is a tendency to overly worry about all kinds of scenarios where things can go wrong and so there can be an overpreparation and concern over all these hypothetical situations that may come up. Those who have more experience tend not to worry about such things. And if it does come up, they just roll with it.

Your rather crass example not withstanding, I don't think I said anything about "worrying." You can be prepared for many things without being worried they will or will not happen. Likewise, you can be prepared for a few things and not worried about whether or not something you're unprepared for happens. Those are just states of mind. They do not necessarily impact what actually happens in reality.

Pax,

Chris