Rules for main forums
- Be nice
- No advertisement
- No events
- No fundraisers
- No topics asking for votes
- Only posts related to Brazilian Jiu Jitsu
Left or right attack
5 year(s) ago • 2729 views • 30 replies
RRBrown beltVerified
5 year(s) ago
Just a philosophical question on attacking left or right.
Let’s say you are in a position where you can choose to attack his left or right arm, like mount, guard or back mount.
Would it be a good strategy to attack his left arm because most people are right handed. So statistically most people are a little weaker in their left arm. But then their strong arm are there to defend the weak arm from the outside.
Or would it be wiser to attack the strong right arm to leave the weaker left free to the outside defense?
Let’s say you are in a position where you can choose to attack his left or right arm, like mount, guard or back mount.
Would it be a good strategy to attack his left arm because most people are right handed. So statistically most people are a little weaker in their left arm. But then their strong arm are there to defend the weak arm from the outside.
Or would it be wiser to attack the strong right arm to leave the weaker left free to the outside defense?
CGBlack belt 4th degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
Another example is that most people are leading with their right leg and passing to the left side. Most definitely makes sense to practice the opposite.
BMBlack belt 1st degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
For beginners, I think it's a good idea for them to just stick to one side with most offensive techniques (for defense you need to be proficient with both sides).
Personally, I am very one-side dominant, and that probably won't change anytime soon, tbh. It's OK because I usually have other stuff I can do on the other side if the roll goes that way (just not the same technique).
Philosophically though, which was what you were asking, it's really awesome to be able to do everything on both sides, and never have a wonky side. Some people are OCD and have to be exactly as good on both sides, but I think that the majority of us mere mortals tend to do a lot of stuff one-sided.
Personally, I am very one-side dominant, and that probably won't change anytime soon, tbh. It's OK because I usually have other stuff I can do on the other side if the roll goes that way (just not the same technique).
Philosophically though, which was what you were asking, it's really awesome to be able to do everything on both sides, and never have a wonky side. Some people are OCD and have to be exactly as good on both sides, but I think that the majority of us mere mortals tend to do a lot of stuff one-sided.
JBlack belt 4th degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
For beginners, I think it's a good idea for them to just stick to one side with most offensive techniques (for defense you need to be proficient with both sides). Personally, I am very one-side dominant, and that probably won't change anytime soon, tbh. It's OK because I usually have other stuff I can do on the other side if the roll goes that way (just not the same technique). Philosophically though, which was what you were asking, it's really awesome to be able to do everything on both sides, and never have a wonky side. Some people are OCD and have to be exactly as good on both sides, but I think that the majority of us mere mortals tend to do a lot of stuff one-sided.
I agree with this. While it's smart to develop a game place for a "southpaw" approach, I don't agree with the idea of training both during drilling. Why be mediocre on both sides when you can be excellent on one? It's not done at the professional level for multi-million dollar athletes so I there must be a good reason they don't do it.
TPBlack beltVerified
5 year(s) ago
Personally in practice I'm very asymmetric, which I guess is the case for a lot of people. Also has to do with (knee) injuries. On my dominant side I play all kinds of fancy guards and other the other it's a simplistic half guard game. Same with my passing options.
I always drill the new stuff to one side only, until it feels effortless.
My strongest passes are to (my) left, such as the knee cut, from which I typically spin towards the head to coincidentally attack the opponent's left arm (typically starting with a kimura grip). Never even thought about it being their left and potentially weaker arm... :D From my other side the spin is not as common a follow-up for some reason.
Also in sparring/competition I don't recall ever thinking about "shit, they are attacking my left arm!" but often "shit, they are forcing my to play my weak side guard!".
For years I've been also passing to (my) right side because it's weaker for most people, but I also have a few training partners who favor this side guard and tend to force their partners there. Which is great for getting regular practise for it.
For some reason my left arm (I'm very right hand dominant) is superior for collar chokes. It's just finds the correct position/adjustments unlike my right. I vividly recall as a white belt trying the basic cross collar choke from back control for ages with my right hand only (figuring no use to try the left if I can't even make it work with the right) and one time switching for the left and instantly finding the proper way to tightening it up.
Very unphilosophical answer, sorry! :D
I always drill the new stuff to one side only, until it feels effortless.
My strongest passes are to (my) left, such as the knee cut, from which I typically spin towards the head to coincidentally attack the opponent's left arm (typically starting with a kimura grip). Never even thought about it being their left and potentially weaker arm... :D From my other side the spin is not as common a follow-up for some reason.
Also in sparring/competition I don't recall ever thinking about "shit, they are attacking my left arm!" but often "shit, they are forcing my to play my weak side guard!".
For years I've been also passing to (my) right side because it's weaker for most people, but I also have a few training partners who favor this side guard and tend to force their partners there. Which is great for getting regular practise for it.
For some reason my left arm (I'm very right hand dominant) is superior for collar chokes. It's just finds the correct position/adjustments unlike my right. I vividly recall as a white belt trying the basic cross collar choke from back control for ages with my right hand only (figuring no use to try the left if I can't even make it work with the right) and one time switching for the left and instantly finding the proper way to tightening it up.
Very unphilosophical answer, sorry! :D
Edited 5 year(s) ago
MBlack beltVerified
5 year(s) ago
I was forced to use my weak side (left) because of a serious injury in my dominant hand (right). I now depending on the grip will go left or right, it doesn't matter the direction I have to play to my strength. some grips I cannot physically do with my right hand now and some I can. It was an interesting learning process having to keep my right hand basically in my belt so I didn't damage the surgical repair and dislodge the pins.
RBlack belt 1st degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
I have techniques that are strong on one side or the other and a very select few that feel good on both sides. I lead with my left foot because I have spent years training that way in both striking and for my profession and wanting to keep my gun side away for most circumstances. Lately, I've been trying to develop more on my "weak side" to ensure I can bridge the gap between my different "games."
BVBlack beltVerified
5 year(s) ago
For technical drilling I suggest my students practice one side at a time. Physical competence on one side leads to a conceptual understanding that can be applied to the other side. I find the second side is then learned faster. For rolling purposes, there are instances where you will be sequencing both sides (primarily guard passing). In these cases I suggest going to the silly side first, assuming the first attempt is blocked. Then the redirection will be to the strong side for the completion. This can be too conceptual for newer students to apply in live rolling though.
![Slideyfoot [jun]](userimg/5e25cf311adfd.jpg){kind=small}
SJBlack belt 1st degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
Why be mediocre on both sides when you can be excellent on one?
Agreed. The example I always use is that Marcelo Garcia has different attacks depending on the side, from what I vaguely remember of a video years ago, he doesn't bother getting good at both sides for every technique (though as it's Marcelo, I'm sure he's still awesome on both sides).
If you have limited time (which is true for 99% of people training BJJ, as most of us aren't elite BJJers who can dedicate all our time to it), investing that in getting competent on one side is better than being slightly crap on both sides. Ideally you get competent on both sides, but that depends how much time you have.
If you have limited time (which is true for 99% of people training BJJ, as most of us aren't elite BJJers who can dedicate all our time to it), investing that in getting competent on one side is better than being slightly crap on both sides. Ideally you get competent on both sides, but that depends how much time you have.
JMBlack belt 2nd degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
Why be mediocre on both sides when you can be excellent on one?
Because that's not how motor learning and sports games works!
First of all there is bilateral transfer. Meaning that training one side makes the other side better to a certain extent even if you don't train that side.
Meaning that you get the most summary benefit if you train both sides.
Then there is the potential risk of overuse and dysbalance injuries which are mitigated a bit by training both sides.
Then there is strategy, tactics and combinations which all benefit from being more multi-faceted.
Given all that, I see no downsides and only upsides to training both sides long term and I really think this is supported by a strong body of evidence almost without counter-evidence.
First of all there is bilateral transfer. Meaning that training one side makes the other side better to a certain extent even if you don't train that side.
Meaning that you get the most summary benefit if you train both sides.
Then there is the potential risk of overuse and dysbalance injuries which are mitigated a bit by training both sides.
Then there is strategy, tactics and combinations which all benefit from being more multi-faceted.
Given all that, I see no downsides and only upsides to training both sides long term and I really think this is supported by a strong body of evidence almost without counter-evidence.
SJBlack belt 1st degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
I see no downsides and only upsides to training both sides long term
In terms of downsides, the time issue is the big one for me.
JMBlack belt 2nd degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
In terms of downsides, the time issue is the big one for me.
Are you training people to become good in just 1 session they attend or over longer period of time? Are you teaching 1 move once only every year or smth?
If not, then the time issue is a pseudo-issue.
My guesstimate is that if you are teaching a totally new move, starting out with doing dead reps then at about 50+ total reps you are starting to even out beween people who do 25 to both sides or 50 to one side only...
Also with bi-directional ppl you actually start to develop switching sides way quicker during drilling and sparring and the rest of the "non-technique" movements or "glue" between the techniques.
Also in a gym ecosystem that will force people to develop defence to both sides getting rid of the Achilles heel vulnerability that Graugart described etc.
Also it will bring in learning variety and fun without having to overcrowd people with actually new technique etc etc.
If not, then the time issue is a pseudo-issue.
My guesstimate is that if you are teaching a totally new move, starting out with doing dead reps then at about 50+ total reps you are starting to even out beween people who do 25 to both sides or 50 to one side only...
Also with bi-directional ppl you actually start to develop switching sides way quicker during drilling and sparring and the rest of the "non-technique" movements or "glue" between the techniques.
Also in a gym ecosystem that will force people to develop defence to both sides getting rid of the Achilles heel vulnerability that Graugart described etc.
Also it will bring in learning variety and fun without having to overcrowd people with actually new technique etc etc.
SJBlack belt 1st degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
Are you training people to become good in just 1 session they attend or over longer period of time? Are you teaching 1 move once only every year or smth? If not, then the time issue is a pseudo-issue. My guesstimate is that if you are teaching a totally new move, starting out with doing dead reps then at about 50+ total reps you are starting to even out beween people who do 25 to both sides or 50 to one side only... Also with bi-directional ppl you actually start to develop switching sides way quicker during drilling and sparring and the rest of the 'non-technique' movements or 'glue' between the techniques. Also in a gym ecosystem that will force people to develop defence to both sides getting rid of the Achilles heel vulnerability that Graugart described etc. Also it will bring in learning variety and fun without having to overcrowd people with actually new technique etc etc.
Hmm, yeah, those are all good points. At the moment, when somebody asks about drilling on both sides, I just leave it up to them.
JBlack belt 4th degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
Because that's not how motor learning and sports games works! First of all there is bilateral transfer. Meaning that training one side makes the other side better to a certain extent even if you don't train that side. Meaning that you get the most summary benefit if you train both sides. Then there is the potential risk of overuse and dysbalance injuries which are mitigated a bit by training both sides. Then there is strategy, tactics and combinations which all benefit from being more multi-faceted. Given all that, I see no downsides and only upsides to training both sides long term and I really think this is supported by a strong body of evidence almost without counter-evidence.
It's not professional athletes train who make millions of dollars for organizations that make billions of dollars. No American football quarterback is spending an equal amount of time throwing from both sides. Neither is any baseball pitcher or basketball player.
So it IS, actually, how sports games work since the top athletes in the world are not doing it that way.
So it IS, actually, how sports games work since the top athletes in the world are not doing it that way.
JMBlack belt 2nd degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
Joe, straw man. You need to take into account sport specifics as well. Tennis players don't learn to play with the racket in both hands but that's missing the point.
Basketball and soccer players learn to dribble with both hands, making direction changes to both sides. Most of BJJ is like dribbling 1-1 not like "taking the shot/throw".
Look at what's happening in MMA and other striking arts.
Basketball and soccer players learn to dribble with both hands, making direction changes to both sides. Most of BJJ is like dribbling 1-1 not like "taking the shot/throw".
Look at what's happening in MMA and other striking arts.
SJBlack belt 1st degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
Basketball and soccer players learn to dribble with both hands, making direction changes to both sides.Most of BJJ is like dribbling 1-1 not like "taking the shot/throw".
Hmm. I'm not sure if that translates directly to BJJ, as I'd argue things like being able to change direction in terms of footwork is very different to something like "have a great armbar entry on both the left and the right", or even "have an awesome knee cut in both directions."
After all, in football, players definitely tend to have a dominant foot. I'm not sure about basketball, but I'm guessing they also tend to throw with a dominant hand?
After all, in football, players definitely tend to have a dominant foot. I'm not sure about basketball, but I'm guessing they also tend to throw with a dominant hand?
JBlack belt 4th degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
Most of BJJ is like dribbling 1-1 not like 'taking the shot/throw'. Look at what's happening in MMA and other striking arts.
We have an MMA team of fighters as well as a Muay Thai team of fighters. Our current Muay Thai coach has had 35 fights all over the world, our prior coach was a very successful professional Muay Thai fighter named Mark DeLuca who also fought all over the world including a win in Lumpinee stadium in Thailand. Our MMA coaches have including professional fighters Francisco Salguero, Aaron Riley and Yves Edwards. In no striking class that I have ever been in or heard of were we told to make sure that we could strike the same from both stances equally. It is not happening in Muay Thai or boxing which is who we look to for effective striking. I am pretty comfortable standing toe-to-toe with most people, but this site has people that are MUCH better strikers than I am and I can let them speak to whether or not they train striking equally from both stances. It's just not something I have ever heard or seen personally.
As for BJJ, I absolutely have moves that I can perform better from one side or the other. And I don't think I need to ensure that I have the SAME moves from both sides equally. Let's look at guard, specifically. If I'm going to armbar you, it will almost always be your right arm because I'm better on that side for that move. As a result, my counters to the right arm are focused on things like flower sweep and triangles as those are good counters to armbars. But if I'm going to kimura you it will almost always be your left arm and so the counter is more likely to be a hip bump sweep as it feeds well from a kimura.
So I have stuff for both sides, but they are based on moves that I am better at for each side. I could take the time to go make sure my armbars on the left side are just as good. But why would I do that?
As for BJJ, I absolutely have moves that I can perform better from one side or the other. And I don't think I need to ensure that I have the SAME moves from both sides equally. Let's look at guard, specifically. If I'm going to armbar you, it will almost always be your right arm because I'm better on that side for that move. As a result, my counters to the right arm are focused on things like flower sweep and triangles as those are good counters to armbars. But if I'm going to kimura you it will almost always be your left arm and so the counter is more likely to be a hip bump sweep as it feeds well from a kimura.
So I have stuff for both sides, but they are based on moves that I am better at for each side. I could take the time to go make sure my armbars on the left side are just as good. But why would I do that?
JMBlack belt 2nd degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
Let me clarify. I'm not saying one should strive to get exactly as flawless in one side vs the other. I'm saying one should practice deliberately same technique for both sides in deliberate practice and drilling phases where it's possible.
Regarding striking: do one side good has been a folk mantra stemming from boxing. It has been based in anecdotal evidence and unconventional outliers e.g. Hagler have been labeled as anomalies.
Anyway, it's a common thing in modern MMA meta, using stance switching as a tactic, doing stuff off both sides and using switching stances as a technique.
And it's leeching off into kickboxing and mark my words - we are going to see the next generation of boxers in 10 years have ppl who are also more ambidextrous than the previous generations.
Regarding striking: do one side good has been a folk mantra stemming from boxing. It has been based in anecdotal evidence and unconventional outliers e.g. Hagler have been labeled as anomalies.
Anyway, it's a common thing in modern MMA meta, using stance switching as a tactic, doing stuff off both sides and using switching stances as a technique.
And it's leeching off into kickboxing and mark my words - we are going to see the next generation of boxers in 10 years have ppl who are also more ambidextrous than the previous generations.
FFBlack belt 2nd degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
It's making me uncomfortable how many times I could contribute to a thread just with "What Jorgen said" XD
In an attempt to be a bit more detailed in my approach on this topic (even though it's hard to be detailed and precise on this when I'm not been teaching systematically since October last year, and in 2020 I could do it for 7 months out of 12) I SEEM TO REMEMBER to teach in a way where first comes the gamification of the situation, where I let people pretty much sort by themselves which side they do something better, and eventually reach a technique that gets drilled 50/50.
In an attempt to be a bit more detailed in my approach on this topic (even though it's hard to be detailed and precise on this when I'm not been teaching systematically since October last year, and in 2020 I could do it for 7 months out of 12) I SEEM TO REMEMBER to teach in a way where first comes the gamification of the situation, where I let people pretty much sort by themselves which side they do something better, and eventually reach a technique that gets drilled 50/50.
FFBlack belt 2nd degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
In MMA, I definitely push (will definitely push?) for training both stances.
JBlack belt 4th degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
Anyway, it's a common thing in modern MMA meta, using stance switching as a tactic, doing stuff off both sides and using switching stances as a technique. And it's leeching off into kickboxing and mark my words - we are going to see the next generation of boxers in 10 years have ppl who are also more ambidextrous than the previous generations.
Jorgen, I'm suggesting to you that this is incorrect based on the number of MMA people I have and continue to train with. I think you are confusing working on "switch" techniques with working on doing equal amounts of work from your "weak" stance. Switch techniques have always been a part of Muay Thai training. But no Muay Thai or kickboxing class or program I have ever seen or heard of expects a student to have the same speed, power and balance with every technique from their "weak" side.
The first class every new student to a striking class gets is "Are you left or right handed". Then we say "We SUGGEST you start with your strong side back". And we go from there with them in that stance for 98% of their technique. We aren't doing this because we made it up, we are doing this because it makes sense.
The first class every new student to a striking class gets is "Are you left or right handed". Then we say "We SUGGEST you start with your strong side back". And we go from there with them in that stance for 98% of their technique. We aren't doing this because we made it up, we are doing this because it makes sense.
RMBrown beltVerified
5 year(s) ago
It's interesting to see the differing opinions in high-level judo on this question too. Jimmy Pedro strongly prefers that his athletes focus on developing their skills on one side, since he maintains - with a measure of justification, I believe - that if you spend 400 hours practing your left-handed Uchi Mata and 400 hours practicing your right, you'll come up short against a guy who's spent those 800 hours really refining his attack on just his strong side.
Neil Adams, in contrast, is a proponent of being as ambidextrous as possible. For him (paraphrasing here) it's not a question of left or right, but left *and* right.
I'm a bit fucked up when it comes to what counts as my dominant side anyway. I write and throw haymakers with my right hand, but catch a ball and open pickle jars with my left. I jump off my right foot but kick a football with my left etc. My standup striking/grappling is the same. I stand orthodox for boxing and wrestling, but as soon as I take hold of a jacket and hit the "judo" botton, I switch to right hand/right foot forward.
The end result is that I can do things both left and right, but hardly ever the *same* thing. I have my left attacks and my right attacks, and never the twain shall meet.
Neil Adams, in contrast, is a proponent of being as ambidextrous as possible. For him (paraphrasing here) it's not a question of left or right, but left *and* right.
I'm a bit fucked up when it comes to what counts as my dominant side anyway. I write and throw haymakers with my right hand, but catch a ball and open pickle jars with my left. I jump off my right foot but kick a football with my left etc. My standup striking/grappling is the same. I stand orthodox for boxing and wrestling, but as soon as I take hold of a jacket and hit the "judo" botton, I switch to right hand/right foot forward.
The end result is that I can do things both left and right, but hardly ever the *same* thing. I have my left attacks and my right attacks, and never the twain shall meet.
SJBlack belt 1st degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
I'm a bit fucked up when it comes to what counts as my dominant side anyway.
Yeah: I am technically left handed, but I can write with my right too (just slower, but strangely neated). However, I'll kick a football with my right foot, play tennis with my right arm. In BJJ, I think I like to do most things leading with my right (grab a collar with my right hand, knee cut with my right leg). Then there's stuff like a kimura from north south, I think I'm largely happy either side with that.
I focus on just the one side, most of the time. If I've got a whole session to play with one technique, with plenty of drilling time, then I'd get into doing both. Ideal situation is open mat with a reliable training partner who is just as keen on drilling and technique as me, but that's rare. I don't get anywhere near as much drilling time as I'd like (the majority of my mat time is spent teaching), so I think most of my technique is probably heavily one sided due to that restriction.
I focus on just the one side, most of the time. If I've got a whole session to play with one technique, with plenty of drilling time, then I'd get into doing both. Ideal situation is open mat with a reliable training partner who is just as keen on drilling and technique as me, but that's rare. I don't get anywhere near as much drilling time as I'd like (the majority of my mat time is spent teaching), so I think most of my technique is probably heavily one sided due to that restriction.
JBlack belt 4th degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
Right. Handedness is a real thing. People who are ambidextrous make up like 1% of the population. So by telling people to be equally skilled on both sides in all things means you are telling them to be ambidextrous. Which is maybe possible to do through training but would be more difficult and definitely more time consuming.
Like I said, why be mediocre on both sides when you can be excellent on one?
Like I said, why be mediocre on both sides when you can be excellent on one?
RMBrown beltVerified
5 year(s) ago
Fun fact: the majority of people (anywhere from 60-85% depending on which study you read) have a correlation between their dominant hand and dominant eye. I'm (mostly) right-handed but left-eye dominant, which means I am shit at bowling. I tend to wing gutter-balls off to the left all night long.
It's probably for the best that I don't try archery.
It's probably for the best that I don't try archery.
JBlack belt 4th degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
Fun fact: the majority of people (anywhere from 60-85% depending on which study you read) have a correlation between their dominant hand and dominant eye. I'm (mostly) right-handed but left-eye dominant, which means I am shit at bowling. I tend to wing gutter-balls off to the left all night long. It's probably for the best that I don't try archery.
Im the same way. Left eye dominant, right hand dominant.
JMBlack belt 2nd degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
Well Joe, you do you, what can I say :)
We encourage playing with both leads from day one nowadays.
We encourage playing with both leads from day one nowadays.
JBlack belt 4th degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
Well Joe, you do you, what can I say :) We encourage playing with both leads from day one nowadays.
And if you're philosophy ends up being true we should see results. If you end up with some of the most successful BJJ players and MMA fighters at the highest level I will eat my words, admit the error of my ways and jump on board.
I am, after all, results driven.
I am, after all, results driven.
JMBlack belt 2nd degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
You should say you'll eat your words if in 10 years a significant portion of successful BJJ and MMA players deliberately train both leads/sides. Because that's what I'm assuming will happen and that's where IMO the benefit is. Demanding success from my students specifically is just trolling :)
Anyway as I said - deliberately training both leads also yields to (in addition to superior skill and strategy development):
...less risk for dysbalance and overuse injuries.
...people in gym more exposed to attacks coming from different sides and stances.
...more variety and fun from learning without adding "new" techniques.
(Ah, and as a bonus, for adult hobbysts, might well help with additional Alzheimer's prevention in the long run though picking up a social new sport in adulthood is the main benefit one can do for oneself anyway)
Anyway as I said - deliberately training both leads also yields to (in addition to superior skill and strategy development):
...less risk for dysbalance and overuse injuries.
...people in gym more exposed to attacks coming from different sides and stances.
...more variety and fun from learning without adding "new" techniques.
(Ah, and as a bonus, for adult hobbysts, might well help with additional Alzheimer's prevention in the long run though picking up a social new sport in adulthood is the main benefit one can do for oneself anyway)
Edited 5 year(s) ago
JBlack belt 4th degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
You should say you'll eat your words if in 10 years a significant portion of successful BJJ and MMA players deliberately train both leads/sides. Because that's what I'm assuming will happen and that's where IMO the benefit is. Demanding success from my students specifically is just trolling :) Anyway as I said - deliberately training both leads also yields to (in addition to superior skill and strategy development): ...less risk for dysbalance and overuse injuries. ...people in gym more exposed to attacks coming from different sides and stances. ...more variety and fun from learning without adding 'new' techniques. (Ah, and as a bonus, for adult hobbysts, might well help with additional Alzheimer's prevention in the long run though picking up a social new sport in adulthood is the main benefit one can do for oneself anyway)
LOL! Never trolling....
The balance and injury from overuse is true if you are exercising one side more than the other. That is not what I suggested. Also, to be clear, when it comes to drilling something like an armbar or toreando pass for warm ups where it's a set number then I do both sides and have my students do both sides.
But when it comes to the technique portion in BJJ or Judo if someone wants to only work their dominant side nothing wrong with that. They will get it down and be more successful faster that way. Once they are perfect on one side, then if they want to work on the opposite side then I guess they can do that.
Or they can realize it will never be perfect and keep working the one side.
In Muay Thai there is no "switch stances and work the same technique". So it's not even worth being part of the discussion.
The balance and injury from overuse is true if you are exercising one side more than the other. That is not what I suggested. Also, to be clear, when it comes to drilling something like an armbar or toreando pass for warm ups where it's a set number then I do both sides and have my students do both sides.
But when it comes to the technique portion in BJJ or Judo if someone wants to only work their dominant side nothing wrong with that. They will get it down and be more successful faster that way. Once they are perfect on one side, then if they want to work on the opposite side then I guess they can do that.
Or they can realize it will never be perfect and keep working the one side.
In Muay Thai there is no "switch stances and work the same technique". So it's not even worth being part of the discussion.
