the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

First off, I know nothing about boxing and have never had a lesson, so feel free to back way up to some basic comments.

I was just wondering - especially if you have some boxing or JKD experience behind this opinion - if you prefer an orthodox weak hand forward jab or a JKD type of strong lead hand and why? If you have no experience, feel free to wildly speculate, too. I always imagined I would prefer the JKD unorthodox method, but then my weak hand shoulder is pretty messed up.

No preference.

I do both, mostly for tactical reasons. But also I am left footed and right handed. That means if I have my so called "stronger" hand forward, that means my weaker leg is forward and vice versa. I feel that's worth pointing out as I use my legs for fighting too..

Both my hands are equally weak and equally strong. I tend to hit with whatever is closest at the time. If the opportunity is there I would line the attacker up for one or two favoured methods, but none of those use a boxing stance

edited

With that in my do you guys use a fighting stance to square off like a typical boxing or JKD stance?

I always learned to stay neutral in front of an opponent so neither leg leads. Then both hands needs to be equally strong so you can work on whatever situation from where you are.

sorry, while it should've probably been obvious, I will clarify the assumption that the question is mostly about boxing/kickboxing/sport striking contexts such as sparring for fun or a sport competition, and - especially if you have participated in such contexts - what your opinion may be about orthodox vs. strong hand forward and why you have this opinion.

I do not care about this question so much in super hypothetical unarmed self defense, military, leo, bouncer, the mean streetz, etc., etc. contexts, though that is a different interesting topic. If you prefer to wax philosophical or wildly speculate based on no experience in that context, or go off on tangents, feel free though. Hint: there are various other threads for that and you could start your own. There is also OTT.

everything wrote:sorry, while it should've probably been obvious, I will clarify the assumption that the question is mostly about boxing/kickboxing/sport striking contexts such as sparring for fun or a sport competition, and - especially if you have participated in such contexts - what your opinion may be about orthodox vs. strong hand forward and why you have this opinion.

I do not care about this question so much in super hypothetical unarmed self defense, military, leo, bouncer, the mean streetz, etc., etc. contexts, though that is a different interesting topic. If you prefer to wax philosophical or wildly speculate based on no experience in that context, or go off on tangents, feel free though. Hint: there are various other threads for that and you could start your own. There is also OTT.

Are you going in for a boxing match then, or is your question hypothetical? Perhaps some context may have made your OP clearer

No wild speculation here, no need for toy throwing

not throwing my toys, lol. sorry if my rant came off that way. just trying to keep the thread on topic (I do love OTT fwiw).

no, absolutely zero plans to take up the sport. hypothetical. just wondering based on watching boxing more lately and messing around with friends and family. I welcome wild speculation but I already have plenty of that in my mind. Yes, I suppose I could join a boxing forum but I already prefer RSF.

When I competed, I used a left-hand lead. However, that's mostly because I was brought up that way and it feels the most comfortable in that format. Switching to a right hand lead is possible, but there's an obvious reason why all boxers don't just do it. It's the same reason "southpaws" often give orthodox boxers the most problem. I.e., most people are right handed and are taught to use a left hand lead. One can get thousands of hours practicing with them in that way. It's not so much a matter of technique.

Bruce Lee's theory of a right hand (or strong hand) lead is the opposite of boxing theory. His is a specific set of tactics for using the strongest weapon against the closest target. Another reason is that he wasn't focusing uniquely on the issue with regard to striking. Grapplers often use a strong hand forward.

When it comes to push hands, otoh, there can be no preference, though there is always a stronger and weaker side (whether physically or because of the amount of training time).

Soupaws give right handlers a hard time because they are no as prevalent
If left handlers mainly fought left handlers they would have the problem when meeting a right hander
Tai chi is right hand lead
Those that think both hands are equal I am sure I could give you some drills that would make you rethink that
It is a thing in boxing these days amongst some trainers to use a strong arm lead
I feel either is good it is more about how you train
Saying that I do all my weapon work equally left and right
To observers they appear equal ,I know they are not
To make them equal you would have to change you whole environment to train equal use
I am going to put all my doorknobs in the centre of the door

I would love to be ambidextrous, but it seems like it requires training from a very young age + talent.

I train my left foot double the amount of my right foot for (recreational) football (soccer), and it's probably 1/8th as good, and used about 1/20th as much for primary movements.

I'm right handed and box orthodox: left hand first.

But let me ramble a little bit. I guarantee it will be worth what you paid.

I think about the larger question of which side leads in terms of Western fencing. Bruce Lee said that is where he got the right hand lead. I'm right handed and fence in the usual manner: right hand first. I'll discuss this from a fencing standpoint because fencing is the most developed martial art from the standpoint of analysis and logic.

Now, the fencing Lee was seeing and borrowing from was of late era, when the sword was your defensive and offensive weapon. Let's fire up the Wayback Machine and go back to former times when Western fencing involved a sword and shield.

If you have a shield now your left is in front again. The Imperial Romans were real, real good at this: you engage the foe with your shield and use your sword from behind your shield in short fast attacks that were intended to be lethal. It worked so well that it was common to use a shield up to the Elizabethan period; using a sword with at least a buckler (small shield) was still somewhat a thing as late as George Silver's time.

That's where boxing still is, attacking with the deadler weapon in reserve: fighting from behind a guard.

klonk wrote:I'm right handed and box orthodox: left hand first.

But let me ramble a little bit. I guarantee it will be worth what you paid.

I think about the larger question of which side leads in terms of Western fencing. Bruce Lee said that is where he got the right hand lead. I'm right handed and fence in the usual manner: right hand first. I'll discuss this from a fencing standpoint because fencing is the most developed martial art from the standpoint of analysis and logic.

Now, the fencing Lee was seeing and borrowing from was of late era, when the sword was your defensive and offensive weapon. Let's fire up the Wayback Machine and go back to former times when Western fencing involved a sword and shield.

If you have a shield now your left is in front again. The Imperial Romans were real, real good at this: you engage the foe with your shield and use your sword from behind your shield in short fast attacks that were intended to be lethal. It worked so well that it was common to use a shield up to the Elizabethan period; using a sword with at least a buckler (small shield) was still somewhat a thing as late as George Silver's time.

That's where boxing still is, attacking with the deadler weapon in reserve: fighting from behind a guard.

That is fascinating rambling for sure, thanks. Sorry to seem like such a hardass on rambling and tangents. Not normally the case.

So for installment 2, would you care to compare/contrast why you would now fence with your strong hand forward, but still prefer to box with weaker hand forward, given you know the entire evolution and Lee's theory adapted from it? What IF (hypothetical) you decided to change the front hand in boxing? How do you think you would like it? Why/why not? (Doesn't seem like a viable question for fencing unless there is a shield; I'm assuming most people would not be very skilled with the sword in weaker hand but that would be a really interesting tangent).

If I had a shield when I fence, I would put it forward, not the sword. But I fence saber, none too well mind you, which is a style of the late era, and so I get no shield. You are supposed to protect yourself with the sword: parry with it and attack too. That is why it is in front.

There is a rather thrilling chance you can take in fencing, and it looks spectacular if you pull it off. That is to attack with seemingly little thought of defense. It is called "single tempo" but really what you want to do is attack in a way that makes a parry at the same time. My cut just happens to knock your blade aside as I strike. Olympian saber fencer Mariel Zagunis excels at this. I can, myself, show you all the ways I can screw that up: Better for me if I parry first, then worry about how to hit you back.

Back to unarmed combat: If you have a shield, why not use it? I regard Bruce Lee as an actor. I should tread carefully in what I say. He still has many admirers. There is also the delicate issue of "rice bowl," into which one ought not piss indiscriminately. People are still trying to look at what he did on movie screens all over the world and translate that into practical and useful martial art.

A karateka named Trias, iirc, wrote a book titled "The Hand is My Sword."