Does boxing promote asymmetry?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
21

Well, the asymetrical aspects of boxing aren’t really physical, but tactical.

Let’s look at it this way-- most boxers can punch hard with either hand, which stems from the training. However, the way you fight, leaves you with certain punches getting more power and torque than others-- hence your power side. It’s not so much a thing of the training but that most people will favor a side to deliver that final punch with and a different side to lead with.

You play to your strengths-- if your right is stronger, use those punches to finish off combos. If your right is speedy and your left is stronger, fight southpaw. It’s not a literal unbalancing of the body, and some do train both sides, but that’s not as ubiquitous as some have suggested. (I only know of a handful of successful converted southpaws-- one of whom has a decided lack of punching power.)

I think this thread is entirely too cerebral and is merely an intellectual excercize anyway. :rolleyes:

22

there are many assymetrical arts. most of them leaning toward being right handed. but the question is, are we forcing our body to be assymetrical? or just accepting the fact that we are like that?

23

I doubt it. I boxed a lot for a while and I played baseball for 13 years. The activity is too low intensity to premote any significant phsyical changes in regards to muscles.

24

try playing baseball, but switch the glove hand and throwing hand. i don’t think the assymetry is usually noticably physical, but it has to do with what you have taught your muscles.

25

Actually, I think it has to do more with the actual wiring in the brain. There have been a lot of studies on this, but I think it boils down to we tend to use 1 side of our brain more than the other. The actual musculature is nearly identical.

Any scientifical types that can expand on this?

26

Boxing does not promote assymetry. Look at the body of a boxer. They are entirely symetrical.

Tennis, on the other hand is completely assymetrical, especially if you play with a one-handed backhand, as I did. I’m still assymetrical from tennis and it’s been about 12 years since I played.

27

Um, the cliffnotes version of my long post up there was that I was talking more about asymmetry of neural conditioning rather than muscular size.

apoweyn said:
The usual argument for symmetry is “what if something happens to your dominant arm?”

That doesn’t make any sense to me. If your symmetrical in every way and something happens to your dominant arm your other one could take over. Unless you meant to say “the usual argument for asymmetry is…” Then the quote would make sense.

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

Yes, obviously. But as I said above I’m talking about ingrained motor skills and endurance of said muscles as opposed to hypertrophy.

fa_jing said:
Boxing does not promote assymetry. Look at the body of a boxer. They are entirely symetrical.

Again, I’m not talking about asymmetry in size.

If you think about it, your left and right arms really shouldn’t have much difference in strength. If you’re a normal person, your strength and endurance (with reference to weight lifting) is most likely about the same in each arm. If you’re a weight lifter this is even more likely to be true (again I’m not talking about size).

So I’m talking about the endurance and coordination that results from boxing training. A baseball pitcher cannot pitch very well with his left arm. They may both be the same size, but this is still a form of asymmetry.

I don’t think the fact that someone can punch harder with their right (dominant) arm has very much to do with strength. I think it has to do with coordination. Because like I said above, most people’s strength is nearly identical on each side.

So taking two identical punches done on each side, for example, a right handed person doing a right cross and then a right handed person doing a left cross, the right cross will likely be harder, but not because of strength. It will be because of neural effeciency and other stuff along these lines. I think.

28

Originally posted by IronFist

apoweyn said:
The usual argument for symmetry is “what if something happens to your dominant arm?”

That doesn’t make any sense to me. If your symmetrical in every way and something happens to your dominant arm your other one could take over. Unless you meant to say “the usual argument for asymmetry is…” Then the quote would make sense.

Er, no. It’s an argument in favour of symmetry. If you have symmetry AND something happens to your dominant arm, your nondominant arm can take over. That’s an argument FOR symmetry. As opposed to an argument AGAINST symmetry.

Yes, obviously. But as I said above I’m talking about ingrained motor skills and endurance of said muscles as opposed to hypertrophy.

Okay, okay. Don’t get your knickers in a twist. That’s what I thought you meant, but I was covering my bases.

If you think about it, your left and right arms really shouldn’t have much difference in strength. If you’re a normal person, your strength and endurance (with reference to weight lifting) is most likely about the same in each arm. If you’re a weight lifter this is even more likely to be true (again I’m not talking about size).

So I’m talking about the endurance and coordination that results from boxing training. A baseball pitcher cannot pitch very well with his left arm. They may both be the same size, but this is still a form of asymmetry.

I don’t think the fact that someone can punch harder with their right (dominant) arm has very much to do with strength. I think it has to do with coordination. Because like I said above, most people’s strength is nearly identical on each side.

So taking two identical punches done on each side, for example, a right handed person doing a right cross and then a right handed person doing a left cross, the right cross will likely be harder, but not because of strength. It will be because of neural effeciency and other stuff along these lines. I think.

Sounds right to me. But here’s the part I wonder about. (And I don’t know the answer here myself.) The nondominant hand is used for jabbing. And it’s not like jabbing is a throwaway task. It’s really important. So if the nondominant hand is less coordinated, it has to be trained to be moreso. And if it can be trained to throw jabs efficiently, it can be trained to do pretty much anything efficiently. So I’m a little unclear on the rationale of dominant and nondominant hands.

What havoc have I just wrought on my own thought processes?!

:slight_smile:

29

apoweyn said:
Er, no. It’s an argument in favour of symmetry. If you have symmetry AND something happens to your dominant arm, your nondominant arm can take over. That’s an argument FOR symmetry. As opposed to an argument AGAINST symmetry.

Oh yeah. When you said “the argument for symmetry” I thought you meant “the argument you bring up to attack symmetry.” My bad.

Okay, okay. Don’t get your knickers in a twist. That’s what I thought you meant, but I was covering my bases.

You said “obviously” first. I was agreeing with you :smiley:

The nondominant hand is used for jabbing. And it’s not like jabbing is a throwaway task. It’s really important. So if the nondominant hand is less coordinated, it has to be trained to be moreso. And if it can be trained to throw jabs efficiently, it can be trained to do pretty much anything efficiently.

Hmm. I forgot what I was going to say.

Good discussion.

30

Throwing another goofy wrench into the equation is division of labor when playing stringed instruments. As far as I’m concerned, picking/bowing is much less demanding than fretting, yet 90% of players use the dominant hand for the less strenuous task.

31

Wrong! Picking and especially bowing are more demanding and more important than fretting. Also, finger picking is more demanding than just picking. Tone is important.
:slight_smile:

Back to what IF was saying, what Ap said. I’ll bet that boxers are more ambidextrous than the average person or athlete. Sure the stuff is slighty different on one side than the other, but they train both sides regardless. I’ll bet the differences don’t come down to much when your dealing with non boxing-specific motions, like say, weight lifting.

32

good material by crafty dog…

http://www.dogbrothers.com/nlp.htm

:eek:

33

I bet, like ap was saying, that maybe a “boxer” of little expierence (2 years?) will probably only have developed a game from one lead (right or left, gee wiz) - “boxers” of more years (like 5-10??) should at least have a game out of both leads, even if its not the same game.

?

:eek:

34

Iron,

I don’t see where you are going with this. In boxing and most MA, power is generated from the hips up. It’s be pretty silly to take a right handed traditional boxer and ask him to perform the same moves south path because the neural pathways and physical coordination won’t be there for 1,000’s and 1,000’s of repetitions of the exercise. (greasing the groove if you will)

If you started this guy off fighting south paw, the same thing can be said about when you tried to get him to fight straight up. There won’t be any difference in the musculature, his physical appearance, or attributes. All it is about is coordination of movement that is directly tied to neural efficiency and repetitions of a movement. If that worries you, then you better start writing with both hands, change the position of your hands when you type, etc.

35

Yen,

While most boxers will develop ways to strike out of many situations, angles, and positions it really makes no sense for one to try and develop a weak side game.

36

Thats what having your weak hand forward is… weak side game.

Put your power side forward and now you have to have a power side game.

Weak hand setting up power shots from the rear side, for example is just one strategy.

etc..?

37

in any case, i nolonger worry about assymetry. i used to try and be exactly the same on both sides. now i accept that it is okay to assign certain “jobs” to different sides.

38

Yen,

They still won’t develop a lead game with both hands. It would waste their time and the risks would far outweigh the rewards.

39

Originally posted by IronFist
apoweyn said:
Er, no. It’s an argument in favour of symmetry. If you have symmetry AND something happens to your dominant arm, your nondominant arm can take over. That’s an argument FOR symmetry. As opposed to an argument AGAINST symmetry.

Oh yeah. When you said “the argument for symmetry” I thought you meant “the argument you bring up to attack symmetry.” My bad.

Feh. If my writing was unclear, that’s probably MY bad. But no worries, one way or another.

Okay, okay. Don’t get your knickers in a twist. That’s what I thought you meant, but I was covering my bases.

You said “obviously” first. I was agreeing with you :smiley:

Then I shall unbunch my knickers with all due haste. :slight_smile:

The nondominant hand is used for jabbing. And it’s not like jabbing is a throwaway task. It’s really important. So if the nondominant hand is less coordinated, it has to be trained to be moreso. And if it can be trained to throw jabs efficiently, it can be trained to do pretty much anything efficiently.

Hmm. I forgot what I was going to say.

In all likelihood, I said something so irredeemably stupid that it actually dampened all intelligent thought in the vicinity. :wink:

Good discussion.

Seconded.

Stuart B.

40

Wow, lots of bunched up knickers around here.

Can someone just clarify for me what is southpaw, what is orthodox, etc.

I just know right hand lead (i.e. right hand and right foot in front) and left hand lead (i.e. left hand and left foot in front).

Cheers