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?
Strong side vs weak side sparring
- Thread starter Rumy73
- Start date
Everything I've seen in karate, aikido, Krav and Systema has trained both sides pretty much evenly. In terms of an attack, probably about 90% of people are right handed, but from a fighting point of view I'm happy either side. Nothing to do with being harder to read. Anyone attacking me has misread me in the first place. 
(Weapons can be a whole different thing.) :asian:
(Weapons can be a whole different thing.) :asian:Leading with the dominant side for strength/power reasons is foolish, as most of the power tends to come from the rear leg anyway, for the majority of striking and grappling techniques that I am aware of; and the off-side tends to be better at gross motor actions in contrast to the dominant side's fine motor skills. Consider carrying the shopping to your front door in both hands; you need to get out your keys, which hand gets the keys and which hand carries the entirety of the load of shopping?
Leading for dexterity reasons makes sense in a number of situations.
As for being equally able on both sides, this is probably a waste of time when it comes to sparring. Rather than knowing a hundred techniques pretty well, you should instead learn a few high percentage techniques that complement each other and become exceptional at them. The same thing goes for both sides. Learn your front foot techniques that give you the most opportunity and set ups and do the same for the back leg, some techniques will be worth learning on both sides, some will not.
Leading for dexterity reasons makes sense in a number of situations.
As for being equally able on both sides, this is probably a waste of time when it comes to sparring. Rather than knowing a hundred techniques pretty well, you should instead learn a few high percentage techniques that complement each other and become exceptional at them. The same thing goes for both sides. Learn your front foot techniques that give you the most opportunity and set ups and do the same for the back leg, some techniques will be worth learning on both sides, some will not.
In
- grappling, you will need to put your strong side forward. This way your strong hand and strong leg will be "closer" to your opponent to do your job.
- sword fight, you also hold your sword with your strong hand and put it forward so your sword will be "closer" to your opponent.
Should you put your strong side forward in the striking art? If you think
- speed is more important than power, you will put your strong side forward (closer to your opponent).
- power is more important than speed, you will put your strong side backward (more distance to generate power).
- grappling, you will need to put your strong side forward. This way your strong hand and strong leg will be "closer" to your opponent to do your job.
- sword fight, you also hold your sword with your strong hand and put it forward so your sword will be "closer" to your opponent.
Should you put your strong side forward in the striking art? If you think
- speed is more important than power, you will put your strong side forward (closer to your opponent).
- power is more important than speed, you will put your strong side backward (more distance to generate power).
I tend to be strong side lead, it puts me on a pretty common platform between different weapons and ranges. I am right handed, so right hand forward is important for weapon work (knife, stick, machete, sword etc) and I keep the platform for unarmed so that my grappling and striking bases are the same. Right hand puts my power hand forward and gives my off-hand the benefit of maximum power from the hip twist off the rear hand. I can fight orthodox, but when I do I have a very different game.
For firearms I and left eye dominant so my rifle work is done off-hand, so also keeps be right handed forward , my pistol work (right handed) is done from modern isosceles, so the feet are pretty even.
For firearms I and left eye dominant so my rifle work is done off-hand, so also keeps be right handed forward , my pistol work (right handed) is done from modern isosceles, so the feet are pretty even.
Not taekwondo, but I honestly dont really have a 'forward' side. i've spent most of my life training both sides, so i switch randomly in the middle of sparring. Sometimes I do it to have fun with people or help them get used to people starting with 'wrong side forward' (generally right side forward), but for the most part, there's no tactical purpose. Whichever side happens to be forward when i move a certain way, thats the 'forward' side for the moment. If I move a different way, take a step back, or kick and land the foot where I kicked, the other side is now my forward side.
ATC
Senior Master
I really don't care what side is leading. I teach to never switch sides just for the sake of switching. Once in a stance, stay that way unless kicking or punching switches you. Anything I that is done in an open stance can still be done in a closed stance. Only switch sides because you have attacked and your attack or counter for that matter has forced you to switch.
Earl Weiss
Senior Master
If power was his reasoning, then yes, that is a stupid idea, not a lot of Bruce Lee's stuff is that fantastic. His abilities to theorise on the martial arts were heavily overrated.
grumpywolfman
Black Belt
grumpywolfman
Black Belt
1
Last edited:
If you consider me not taking JKD and thinking that certain ideas of the founder are founded on incorrect hypothesises is an insult, then you need to learn to take things less personally. One should be able to analyse and discuss every idea in martial arts, and be free to call out the ones that are crap for what they are, and one should feel free to dismiss an art in its majority for not having a solid base of practicality.
grumpywolfman
Black Belt
If you put your right strong side back, and if your opponent keeps moving toward your left side door, forces your leading left arm to jam your back right arm, your "powerful" back right arm will become useless. Boxers do that all the time.
In Maham Ali's last 2 fights, his opponent kept doing that (moved toward his side door), in all 15 rounds Ali only had chance to throw his single jab. He didn't have chance to throw his 1, 2 jab and cross.
In Maham Ali's last 2 fights, his opponent kept doing that (moved toward his side door), in all 15 rounds Ali only had chance to throw his single jab. He didn't have chance to throw his 1, 2 jab and cross.
Last edited:
No; YOU consider leading with the strong side foolish. Others arts and styles have reasons why they may well choose to lead with the strong side. There are even a few that don't lead with either side, but fight truly squared up...
However, I do agree that trying to be truly equal with both sides is at best unrealistic. But that doesn't mean only practice with one side, either...
No; any style or art that puts the strong side forward for reasons of power generation should be considered foolish for anyone who has a grasp on pretty basic physiology, at least for talking about delivering power forward (i.e not turning the body so you face the other way,) with conventional style striking. Do note that I never said leading with the dominant hand/foot is a bad idea, just for those specific reasons.
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.
Oxford Companion to the Body:
Physiology is defined by dictionaries as ‘the science of the normal functions and phenomena of living things’. The physiology of animals emerged in Europe out of the Renaissance nterest in the experimental method, as exemplified by the work of William Harvey (doctor to Charles I). Harvey's book of 1628 on the Motion of the Heart, ‘Exercitationes Anatomicae de Motu Cordis’, brilliantly analyses structural and functional observations (quantitative as well as qualitative), which remorselessly led him, and similarly lead the present day reader, to the conclusion that the blood circulates, in man as well as in other animals. This volume remains central to our current understanding of the word ‘physiology’ because of its emphasis on experiment, data analysis, and hypothesis testing. Harvey's work also exemplifies the natural symbiois between physiology (‘function’and anatomy (‘structure’
Historically, the subsequent meaning of ‘physiology’ is well illustrated by the way in which the word is used in the two following quotations. The first is from 1704 (J. Harris, Lexicon Technica): ‘Physiology, is by some also accounted a Part of Physick’ (i.e. Medicine), ‘that teaches the Constitution of the Body so far as it is sound, or in its Natural State; and endeavours to find Reasons for its Functions and Operations, by the Help of Anatomy and Natural Philosophy’. The second (a definition of Charles Darwin's colleague T. H. Huxley), 150 years later, is virtually identical to current usage: ‘whereas that part of biological science which deals with form and structure is called Morphology; that which concerns itself with function is Physiology’.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/physiology#ixzz2KpJEpWUA
So perhaps we could call what you are discussing, 'bio mechanics'.
You statement, without embellishment is ...
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. (Tournament point sparring is a whole different issue and doesn't require power, just speed.)
So, I don't think it's fair to label anything in this thread 'foolish'. There are many ways of delivering a powerful punch and having your dominant side foot forward is one of them. :asian:
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'.
You statement, without embellishment is ...
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. (Tournament point sparring is a whole different issue and doesn't require power, just speed.)
So, I don't think it's fair to label anything in this thread 'foolish'. There are many ways of delivering a powerful punch and having your dominant side foot forward is one of them. :asian:
I explore both approaches and find each has advantages. I just like to have options. One day, I thought about sparring right side forward, which led my to read about how fighters applied this tactic. I also like to employ front leg kicks, because of the shorter distance it has to cover.
