Total body equality in training.

In martial arts there tends to be a dangerous trend among practitioners that is cutting there power in half. There accuracy and speed are lessened by half also. What could cause such drastic changes?

In most arts, there tends to be the training of the one side. Picking either a right hand or left hand lead, the practitioners only work their dominant side. Bruce said let your strong side go forward to greet the opponent, but he never said forget the rear.

Being able to throw good accurate combinations with power and accuracy and speed means you must train both sides equally. If you use your right punch niety percent of the time, when you throw the left you'll look like a pitcher on a baseball mound. Telegraphed and sloppy. Often even if there is speed and power its negated because the shot misses or glances the target. Not to mention that variety in attack and stance should be a good part of your training as well. You should be able to flow from right to left side lead while combo-ing smoothly and without telegraph. Your weak side front should be so strong, fast, and accurate that it appears to be the strong side to your opponent. Until you put the strong side on him. This is the way boxers and Wing Chun practices. These are the best hand techniques and they are pert of JKD curriculum. Also it helps to be able to kick well with both feet as it will help your kicking and your footwork. To be able to attack and defend from all angles you must have equality on each side of the body. Drill, Drill,Drill.

Well, I have been trying to reverse this trend lately.

That is, by switching sides in sparring. My left hand side's bones and muscle is thicker, and can take more, my right techniques are more powerful, the left is weaker, but faster. I fight left foot foward normally and my right hand dominates.

My left leg is weaker due to an old injury. I don't know wether it can be as coordinated or as flexible as the right anymore.

What about reviewing your entire set of techniques, and changing them and training the body equally in your new techniques? My right hand still dominates, maybe because when I write my right does it, as so with longer kicking in soccer, and all kicking in rugby league and union I used to play when I was younger.

Wehn I try out a new technique, instinctively, the right will do it slowly to a partner, and try and use it in fighting. I wonder then, if the growing use of keyboards and tyoping will make the dominant writing hand less of a problem? Maybe I type more with my right hand fingers as well?

Would anyone recommend or pracitce specific strenghtenging exercises to improve coordination or strenght of a paticular arm or leg? (e.g, some of the poses from yoga or the "eagle claw grip")

Then there is the other theory, that you should develop your dominant hand and foot, they will be much more powerful than an ambidexterous fighter. I do not agree with this theory as proper MA punches and kicks are a learned skill and are not natural - Ithink everyone can remember how awkward a proper punch or kick felt at first. I beleive I have a dominant side because I was lazy and did not attempt to balance out my sides.

Thats the problem exactly. I trained traditionaly for almost ten years before coming to JKD six years ago. The traditional art made me a one side fighter, as did my own laziness. Theres only so much that one side can do, however. Good counters, slips, and parries almost always come from the rear so that the forward arm can attack with a stronger blow.

If you have trained consistently for years in one good lead (right or left), then and maybe then you can safely start training your other side.

But, for beginners or people with less than a few years of training under their belts training against people actually punching their faces, it's better for them to pick a lead and stay with it for several years, instead of flipping back and forth, and never developing solid, functional skill within that particular lead.

A skilled boxer or kick boxer will eat a person alive who doesn't have a skilled lead. I'm saying this so that beginners don't think that it's ok to just jump back and forth.

But don't take MY word for it. Test it. In fact, test EVERYTHING you've ever done or been told.


-John

[This message has been edited by JKogas (edited 08-14-2004).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JKogas:
If you have trained consistently for years in one good lead (right or left), then and maybe then you can safely start training your other side.

But, for beginners or people with less than a few years of training under their belts training against people actually punching their faces, it's better for them to pick a lead and stay with it for several years, instead of flipping back and forth, and never developing solid, functional skill within that particular lead.

A skilled boxer or kick boxer will eat a person alive who doesn't have a skilled lead. I'm saying this so that beginners don't think that it's ok to just jump back and forth.

But don't take MY word for it. Test it. In fact, test EVERYTHING you've ever done or been told.


-John

[This message has been edited by JKogas (edited 08-14-2004).][/QUOTE]

Im not so sure. To me, if you only have a strong lead then you can become limited to only those attacks and it becomes very predictable and easy to counter. I think instead one should train so that he is fluid from both sides so that he can attack and defend from more angles. Also if he can switch the lead he can confuse the opponent, even if he only has a few good attacks. There are many more variables to the outcome of a fight but I think that your chances for survival are better if you have the option to switch the lead.

Ultimately, I think its best if one can use BOTH sides equally. I think I understand what John is saying. For the person with little or no knowledge of fighting or training whatsoever, its best to have a few good techniques with a strong lead, than it is to have several okay techniques with a weak lead, much like the saying quality over quantity. When he has a developed a powerful lead, then he can start developing his other hand....because he will have his strong side to fall back on so to speak.

A good, strong, skilled lead can keep people at bay, set up for combinations, and even ko someone under the right circumstances (moving in, meeting a lead hook to the jaw)

It's not so much as needing to have a few good techniques -- it's about being able to FIGHT from one lead. What people don't often realize is, it takes TIME to learn to fight effectively. It takes TIME to become a good fighter. This isn't something that just happens overnight or when you "learn a few moves".

When you start jumping back and forth between leads, you effectively DOUBLE the amount of time it's going to take to learn to fight.

Bear in mind that having a lead means, having one leg in front of the other. This is going to have more of a bearing on the free movement range. It's not so much of a concern when you're in the clinch and definitely not a concern on the ground.

You have to spend hours training and sparring in each of the ranges in order to become good. There are reasons why you don't see BOXERS just switching leads in a fight.

-John

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JKogas:
It's not so much as needing to have a few good techniques -- it's about being able to FIGHT from one lead.

When you start jumping back and forth between leads, you effectively DOUBLE the amount of time it's going to take to learn to fight.

-John[/QUOTE]

Point well made.

Hey John, how much $$$ would we be talking to train at the crucible gym? I noticed your email address in your profile, I assume you are an instructor there? And lastly, have you ever heard of or met a Raymond "Odie" O'Dell?

I run the gym (owner/director/head coach). Tuition is $50 monthly for unlimited training. We're not in it for the money, only to pay the bills. I try and keep the class sizes as small as possible while still being able to meet expenses.

I've never heard of Mr. Odell. Is he in my area?


-John

While I'm not totally sure of his location now, he used to live in my area, Mobile AL. It might be the only shot I have at getting some quality BJJ instruction. There is really not a lot to choose from around here. And until I'm able to relocate somewhere, I will have to make do.

Raymond Odell has an article(s) published in BB magazine, however, that alone doesn't prove he is a good teacher though. He has conceived an idea known as "Satori Jiu-Jitsu
" You can read the philosophy of it here:
http://www.angelfire.com/ma3/satorijitsu/philosophy.htm

I will attempt to get in contact him and go from there I guess.

Thanks for the info about your gym.

John,
I often wondered how come boxers didnt switch more, then I realize that they are trained like traditional MA, one sided. Also, as effective as it is, it is sport. Now look at Wing Chun, they move freely from one lead to the other. Of course this takes TIME, however, I feel its better to take the time to perfect it than not take the time and be half a fighter. Like you said John no one turns into a fighter overnight, so why rush it?

I've yet to see a Wing Chun fighter who could actually fight. I've yet to see a whole lot of actual sparring within the wing chun camps. I've rarely seen them spar outside of their own studios as well.

I HAVE seen a few spar against skilled punchers. It wasn't a pretty sight. There are definite reasons why I dropped the whole wing chun/Jun Fan curriculum. It all relates to sloppy mechanics.

When I actually SEE or experience a wing chun guy who can actually FIGHT, I'll change my mind.

Nothing against them (wing chun guys)personally mind you, but I have subscribed only to empiricism when training to fight and not theory.


-John

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JKogas:
Test EVERYTHING you've ever done or been told.[/QUOTE]

*wishes for a "Thumbs Up" smiley icon thingie*

Some of William Cheungs students are very good. Quite good in fact. I used to spar regularly with one. The ideas behind the Wing Chun/Jun Fan curriculum are efeective, I think it just requires more from the teacher and from the practitioner. The Jun Fan curriculum is the hard version of JKD. It requires more "finesse". For instance, if you can do a pak sao and slip an attack it is very effective. Also very pretty. [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG]

Can someone explain in detail what a skilled lead would look like.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chen Zen:
Some of William Cheungs students are very good. Quite good in fact. I used to spar regularly with one. The ideas behind the Wing Chun/Jun Fan curriculum are efeective, I think it just requires more from the teacher and from the practitioner. The Jun Fan curriculum is the hard version of JKD. It requires more "finesse". For instance, if you can do a pak sao and slip an attack it is very effective. Also very pretty. [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]

I’m sure there are some wing chun guys who might offer a challenge, but I’ve simply not met any of them. Many of them adopt the same exact excuses that many martial artists of other styles use, namely; “My technique is too deadly to spar”.

What they are saying in a sense is, “I can’t beat you with rules, but without rules, I’d be a dangerous opponent”. This isn’t rational thinking. But it’s what I’ve heard many times.

My mind is open to anyone who can prove themselves and their technique. It doesn’t matter what style it is, or where on earth it’s from. I value empiricism over theoretical postulations any day of the week. In other words, I like to be shown rather than told. Perhaps one day a wing chun practitioner (or from any art for that matter that tends to operate mostly in the theoretical realm) can show me his technique in such a way that I’ll believe it to be high percentage. When that day comes, I’ll take another look at those methods and maybe even embrace them.

Within my gym, I don’t have any particular attachments to the curriculum. Our program is where it is today, because we base how we train only on one critical thing: empirical evidence. If someone can come in and perform his technique against resisting opponents, I’ll embrace it. I’ll become a student of anything, providing that it works and can be repeated against such resistance. This goes for any traditional/Eastern martial art. After all, who doesn’t want high performance technique?!! I certainly do, and I’ll be the first person in line to learn it.


Good training all.


-John

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JKogas:
I’m sure there are some wing chun guys who might offer a challenge, but I’ve simply not met any of them. Many of them adopt the same exact excuses that many martial artists of other styles use, namely; “My technique is too deadly to spar”.

What they are saying in a sense is, “I can’t beat you with rules, but without rules, I’d be a dangerous opponent”. This isn’t rational thinking. But it’s what I’ve heard many times.

My mind is open to anyone who can prove themselves and their technique. It doesn’t matter what style it is, or where on earth it’s from. I value empiricism over theoretical postulations any day of the week. In other words, I like to be shown rather than told. Perhaps one day a wing chun practitioner (or from any art for that matter that tends to operate mostly in the theoretical realm) can show me his technique in such a way that I’ll believe it to be high percentage. When that day comes, I’ll take another look at those methods and maybe even embrace them.

Within my gym, I don’t have any particular attachments to the curriculum. Our program is where it is today, because we base how we train only on one critical thing: empirical evidence. If someone can come in and perform his technique against resisting opponents, I’ll embrace it. I’ll become a student of anything, providing that it works and can be repeated against such resistance. This goes for any traditional/Eastern martial art. After all, who doesn’t want high performance technique?!! I certainly do, and I’ll be the first person in line to learn it.


Good training all.


-John[/QUOTE]

I can understand feeling limited by rules, however, that should never keep you from sparring and testing your technique. I too have run across this same attitude from others before. Maybe Ill make it north again one day and give you first hand experience with it. [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/cool.gif[/IMG]

Although I have never taken any formal classes beyond some Kempo as a 10 year old, I am no stranger to fighting and have ALWAYS been fascinated with fighting techniques.

There was a story of a great fighter who was traditionally a one handed fighter who could deliver powerful blows and take quite a beating but still lost to the champ. After some time away he trained his other arm to become slightly below equally effective as his other arm and defeated the champ in there second meeting.

Haha...although this story is from Rocky I and II , it does prove true.

In my novice opinion I would say that becoming fully developed with one lead is, purhaps, a FASTER way to reach the level of an effective street brawler, because you do have technique and experience (I hope) over the Average street fighters lone experience.

However I believe that if you were on the quest of champions the most effective and valuable way to do so is by training both sides. Of course this would take close to Double the amount of time to develop both sides equally however you would also be , in my opinion, AT THE LEAST 2.5 x as effective as a figher. For example, look at the fighting style of Klitzkove ( spelling? ) The heavy one handed boxer that lost to CHAMPION Lenox Lewis who incorporates both hands into his style far more than his opponent.

Once again I am a novice and these stories are of Boxers however I feel the examples are perfectly valid.

[This message has been edited by Polyrhythmic Soul (edited 09-29-2004).]