change leading side during sparring?

[sperki]

The thread with the poll about a preferred side forward got me thinking. I was always trained to be able to fight with either side forward, but it looks like some people don't necessarily agree with that approach. I was trained that typically if you're right hand dominant you'll be inclined to put your left foot forward. That makes sense to me, it allows you to put more power / weight behind your strongest attacks. But if you're fighting an opponet that has his or her right side forward it might be beneficial to switch you stance to match theirs. I always just sort of accepted this logic, but know you folks having me asking...why? Is there some benefit or disadvantage to having fighter's torsos facing the same direction, or in opposite directions?

[tallgeese]

There are all sorts of tactical considerations when you move from closed to9 open stances. That I'll agree with, probably more than one can list out easily. It'll be a different set of weapons and different target areas that are presented.

I'm probably in a minority here, but I'm not a big fan of switching stances. I have a few reasons so bear with me.

First up, if you're switching your stance to accommodate another fighters stance, then you're effectively letting him dictate your style and approach to the fight. In all likelihood, you're playing into his game by allowing him to fight out of a stance he's comfortable while you're forced to work from a less comfortable posture. Even the most die hard stance switching advocates will usually admit that they are more comfortable in one stance over another. Why give him this advantage. Work against fighting opponents who face you in both open and closed stances, but don't feel the need to take away an advantage of yours.

That's my major problem with it.

Next, by moving from stance to stance, you give him a chance to capitalize on time that you're moving your feet and not attacking or pressing the fight. Depending on how the switch is done, you might even be presenting him with an opening to take advantage of. If you can fight against him from a single stance this cuts out this possible pit fall.

Further, and related, it's time spent on movements that don't 1) further your game, or 2) prevent him from furthering his. It's a stalemate, he changes, you change, nothing is gained for you. Instead, take the advantage as he switches to push action.

Lastly, it's a training time issue. If I had the ability to train all day everyday and could work on just about everything under the sun, I'd probably get to the point where I'd be just as comfortable out of one as the other. Until that independently wealthy day comes, I have to budget training time very carefully. So, if my body naturally wants to fight left forward, I'm not going to radically spend time to override it. I'm going to go with that and focus on training there and getting back there.

There is a good case for familiarization. So I do a bit of work every now and again so it won't shock me into inaction. That's about it. I claim about a 90/10 split. That's probably about right, I might not be quite as frequent as the 10% on the off side, but that's what I'd advise.

If an injury occurs to your lead side, a question that came up on another thread, then I'd say you need to evaluate how long that's going to keep your lead out of action. If it's short term, no problems. If it's long term, then I'd redefine my training goals or, and more likely, redefine my response patters into a way that my current stance could still work if possible.

Good question and, as always, it will depend on what your training goals are. That's the bulk of my case anyway.

[joesteph]

I think that the higher the belt you are, the more experience you should have acquired using both sides. The lower the belt, or simply the less time you have trained in sparring, the more likely to work one side that's more comfortable, then go for a greater balance as you move up the belt (and experience) ladder.

[ShoriKid]

Mostly I'm a left lead man. Being left handed, I'm an exception, but I put my strong lead forward for other reasons. Not the least is a stiffer jab and good lead hook.

I've started working on fighting as a south paw to see how i would far. I've always trained for the opposing lead, but I'm not a big fan of changing stances mid fight. If I get there due to a change in position or because something changed during the fight, I go with what I've got.

[Rateh]

I find that changing stances can be an effective way to throw off some opponents, particularly lower ranked students, as they don't know what to do when I switch my stance 3 or 4 times in a 1 minute match. This is not effective in my experience against higher ranks, however. Particularly since I tend to throw most of my techniques only in a right fighting stance, rarely do I throw a technique from a left.

The advantage of fighting right side forward, however, is that almost all of my opponents fight left forward, but they almost never fight someone who has the right side forward. I am right handed, but I prefer lead side techniques.

[bushido_man96]

Although I am right handed, I fight southpaw most of the time. One of my instructors early on in my training made the statement that he liked to keep his strongest weapons closer to the opponent, so I kind of adopted that idea early on. Now that I have spent a lot of time fighting right side forward, I find it weird getting to the other side at times.

But if you're fighting an opponet that has his or her right side forward it might be beneficial to switch you stance to match theirs.

If you switch in these situations, then like tallgeese explained, you end up letting the opponent dictate what you do. You should dictate what you do, and by training against others by keeping your comfortable side forward while they switch will let you work your game better. It'll help you learn what you can and should do from each of the stances an opponent can present, as well.

Is there some benefit or disadvantage to having fighter's torsos facing the same direction, or in opposite directions?

This is going to depend on if you fight with rules or not. In my TKD sparring, we can't strike to the back or below the belt, and we can't punch to the face. So, if my opponent and I are in an open fighting position (I lead with right and he lead with left), then my lead leg is limited in kicking. My options are a round kick to the head, maybe a side kick to the body (rib area), or a lead leg twisting or hooking kick to the body or head, which are tough ones to throw, let alone set up. Now, the back leg here can round kick to the body or head, or front kick, on and on. You can see what I am getting at.

Now, from a closed sparring position (both lead with the same side), the targets and attacks can change significantly. So, if rules are what bind you, then which side is forward in comparison to the opponent can dictate your game a bit. So, it is something that you have to prepare for. You should be able to develop your game from your comfortable side, regardless of what side your opponent presents.

Next, by moving from stance to stance, you give him a chance to capitalize on time that you're moving your feet and not attacking or pressing the fight. Depending on how the switch is done, you might even be presenting him with an opening to take advantage of. If you can fight against him from a single stance this cuts out this possible pit fall.

I agree with tallgeese here, but there is a safer way to get into the opposite stance. Instead of just switching for the sake of switching, switch as a result of a finished technique. For example, if you are in a closed position with the opponent, and throw a back leg round kick and land it in front as the result of a combination, then you have your opposite side forward, but got there as a result of your attacking sequence, and can then work from your other side, if you choose to. It occupies your opponent in a way that "just swithing" does not.

[BDPulver]

I'm omni dextrous. In that I can do stuff with both even though I have a stronger right kick but my roundhouse is stronger left side.

Generally when I switch stances its to confuse my oppenent. Really not to give him an advantage since I can fight either. So it forces my oppenent to accomadate my fighting more so then his/hers.

Going up in the rank we use to practice both sides, reasoning was you never know.

[sperki]

So would an open stance limit the potential target areas? Although the kidneys may be open, there aren't a lot of prime targets on the back. If that's true it would be true for your opponent also. Would that make an open stance more defensive and a closed stance more offensive since there might be more areas to strike?

[joesteph]

So would an open stance limit the potential target areas? Although the kidneys may be open, there aren't a lot of prime targets on the back. If that's true it would be true for your opponent also. Would that make an open stance more defensive and a closed stance more offensive since there might be more areas to strike?

I think of an open stance as, say, sparring partner "A" has his left hand forward, while sparring partner "B" has his right hand forward. That would open up their midsections to one another. Closed stance, to me, would be both having their left hands forward, or both having their right hands forward.

Looking at it this way, closed stances would be more protective/defensive, and open stances riskier but more for offense. There's the maneuver of switching stances from closed to open to surprise your opponent with a kick to his now-exposed midsection.

[bushido_man96]

I don't really think that a stance is offensive/defensive. The fighter is offensive or defensive, and he'll likely facilitate his sparring style from either side.