Left jab, right cross, left hook, right (or left) uppercut. Those are the orthodox techniques, but obviously they’re not symmetrical. Does it promote asymmetry?
…
I’m sorry this post isn’t any help, but what do you mean?
Later…
Of course it does. But there’s a reason behind it…
The general feeling in boxing is you will have one strong side and one weak side. The weak side is what you use for speed, keeping your opponent off-balance, and setting up your power-shots (with either hand).
It works because it’s simple, and because the “weak” side, still has power-- there’s just a different primary goal behind it.
Surely you would do the same thing on both sides?
hk mantis is the same way. the theory is we got one strong side. we use the weaker side to set up for the stronger side then we start pounding on them till they run away screaming ahaha
Boxing does not stress “power side” forward or back.
It depends on the boxer himself, his natural ability and savvy.
There are many who do “power side”, generally they are not the elite.
Most of the best boxers can go with either hand in any situation.
There are many boxers, who by the time the reach pro level can
switch from orthodox to south paw (lead) and generate KO power with either hand.
These are the guys that really develop a good toolbox along with
their natural ability.
Symetrical angling may come instictively to boxers, but I doubt that the theory end of it is espoused.
It’s more like when they break down tape: “He’s weak when he throws the straight left, throw the short right to the liver/body etc.”
They train counters, but for the most part do not analyze or preconcieve angles to base their training on.
Of course boxing promotes asymmetry – If you train it that way
It also promotes symmetry – If you train it that way
Water Dragon has taken the correct, raped it with a wet chihuahua, and peed on it.
Drive safe, all.
:eek:
What’s the problem with asymmetry?
It gives you a weakness for an opponent to exploit.
Does it? I’m not sure I buy that. Seems only natural that you’ll have a strong side and a weak one (almost no-one is equally strong and skilled right and left) and if you work too hard on bringing your weak side to strength with your strong side, I bet it’s as much the strong side getting weaker as the weak side getting stronger.
CSN - Respectfully, I’ll disagree. 
When I’m fighting/sparring someone, one of the things I look out for is a preference for one side. If they always favour a lead right, for example, then I’ll constantly work round to their outside and exploit their preference.
I don’t neglect my favoured side training, but I do make a point of training the other side a lot to bring it up to speed. While I’m still a bit in favour of leading with my right, I’m almost just as comfortable leading with my left.
But-but-but–what if you’re fighting an alien with trilateral symmetry?
Okay, scratch that.
Why would I fight anyone with tri-lateral symmetry!? That guy would be way too cool to fight!
(But would I have to buy him three beers!?)
I try to train an equal amount with both sides. the way I see it building on your strengths is all very well, but if you are in a fight and can’t use your right arm for whatever reason, you better hope your left is strong enough to take them down
(having said that, anyone who can win a streetfight only using their off hand is probably on their way to the tekken 5 tournament right now)
My personal preferance is to be in the opposite lead from my opponent (if he is in a left hand lead, I’ll lead with my right) But being a natural southpaw, I’m still slightly more comfortable right lead. I like the opposite lead because it’s easier to get behind my opponent.
Um, there is a lot wrong with asymmetry. Why would you want one side to have different strength/endurance characteristics than the other?
Ok, perhaps I didn’t give enough detail in the question.
What I meant was, does boxing promote asymmetry from a physical development point of view?
Let’s think. Would you want to be able to curl 30lbs with one arm but 40lbs with the other arm?
Would you want one leg noticibly stronger than the other?
There was some talk about this a year or so ago on Pavel’s board. People were talking about the side press (an exercise where you press a barbell overhead with only one arm). People were asking what to do when they realized that one arm was stronger than the other. The opinions were split:
-
Some people said to train each arm to it’s fullest potential. If this results in being able to press 90lbs with your right arm and only 70 with your left arm, then that’s fine.
-
The other people, myself included, said why would you want to promote such a difference? If my right arm could do 80lbs and my left arm only 70lbs, I wouldn’t continue with my right arm until my left arm was closer to the same level.
Where there might be a situation where you would only win if you had developed your right arm more than your left, I figured it more probable that you would encounter a situation where you had to use both arms together, and any asymmetry would create an imbalance in the movement (like if you had to lift something huge over your head for some reason).
So let’s think about this.
-
It would be stupid to have asymmetry with regard to size. Granted, the nature of boxing in and of itself will not add much mass anyway so it’s not like you’re likely to get one huge arm and one small arm from the different punches. Also, MA’s tend to not be as paranoid about symmetry as bodybuilders, but let’s face it, who wants to have one side be a different size than their other side, or be out of proportion in other ways?
-
It might be detrimental somehow to have developed neural pathways (sorry can’t think of the right word) for asymmetrical movement. What I mean is, after training boxing for years, you will throw a left jab one way, and use different body mechanics for a right cross. Since a right jab and left cross do not exist in standard (traditional, whatever you want to call it) boxing, these movements will not be trained and therefore not ingrained in the nervous system. Now let’s look at a left hook. You’re using legs, waist, left shoulder, left pec, and left biceps for the most part. There is no move similar to this on the right, so these muscles will never be trained together in the same way on that side. Multiply this movement by 100’s or 1000’s of times per week times many months or years and you have ingrained assymetrical movement into your nervous system.
Now, if you plan on utilizing asymmetrical movement for the rest of your life, then this is fine. For example, if you can drive a car with manual transmission, you have trained your right foot to do one thing and your left foot to do another thing, but since you will never have to switch the roles of each foot this is fine. Same thing for writing. If you’re right handed, you’ve trained your right arm to know how to write, but if you’ve ever tried to write with your non-dominant hand you see how hard it is when the movements haven’t been ingrained.
Symmetry is important for functioning. Look at a bench press: you need each side to be relatively close to the same strength to bench press properly. I mean, I guess you don’t, but it would probably feel uneven, like benching with more weight on one side than the other. Look at walking… your legs share the load evenly. If one leg was noticibly stronger than the other, walking or running would get messed up. I’m sure there’s other examples I just can’t think of any right now.
Now, look at a baseball pitcher. There is some asymmetry. Compare the number of times he exerts effort with his throwing arm versus his catching arm. Imagine the differences in endurance and stuff that develop throughout the years.
Look at a tenis player. I’ve heard some tenis players have one big forearm and one small forearm. If nothing else, they’ll have one pec and one anterior (front) deltoid that is much more developed than the other side (note: “developed” here does not mean “big”).
Or a bowler. I haven’t bowled that much, but I’ve done it enough to know that one forearm gets a big workout and the other doesn’t.
Now I’ve explained my question and my point better. Please continue the discussion.
No, it doesn’t promote asymmetry.
Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Does it? I’m not sure I buy that. Seems only natural that you’ll have a strong side and a weak one (almost no-one is equally strong and skilled right and left) and if you work too hard on bringing your weak side to strength with your strong side, I bet it’s as much the strong side getting weaker as the weak side getting stronger.
I’m with CSN on this one. I don’t see a problem with training your nondominant side to a point where it’s not completely hopeless. But literal symmetry seems unlikely to me.
The usual argument for symmetry is “what if something happens to your dominant arm?”
Well… like what? If it gets gnawed off by an attack dog or busted up in a fall, I’m pretty sure it’s going to badly affect your performance whether you’re savvy with your nondominant or not. The possibility obviously exists that your dominant hand gets injured so badly that you have to switch leads, but for my training time, I’d rather concentrate on reducing the odds of that happening in the first place. After all, if my right hand gets so damaged that I’m relying on my left hand, that means I have far fewer defensive capabilities on my right side either. And that’s a slippery slope.
As for switching sides as a tactical decision, that’s fine. If you’ve got tactics in place that capitalize on that approach, then good times. But I don’t personally think it’s necessary to have different leads for different opponents. I don’t feel like I have to match leads. Or go with differing leads. Or whatever. I just have a different set of targets, objectives, tactics, etc.
Lastly, boxing isn’t really going to be like asymmetry in bodybuilding, obviously. The latter is going to result in an aesthetic and structural inequality. In boxing, it’s going to result in a particular game plan. That’s all.
And just in case I’ve completely misinterpreted the question, is any part of your question related to the seeming inequality between the roles of the dominant and nondominant hand? Because the nondominant hand may not be dealing out the punishment, but it is setting rhythm, range, and timing, as well as finding and creating holes in an opponent’s defense. So in terms of actual importance, I don’t see an asymmetry there.
Stuart B.
Baseball promotes asymmetry