Does boxing promote asymmetry?

[IronFist]

Left jab, right cross, left hook, right (or left) uppercut. Those are the orthodox techniques, but obviously they're not symmetrical. Does it promote asymmetry?

[Nick]

I'm sorry this post isn't any help, but what do you mean?

Later...

[CrippledAvenger]

Of course it does. But there's a reason behind it...

The general feeling in boxing is you will have one strong side and one weak side. The weak side is what you use for speed, keeping your opponent off-balance, and setting up your power-shots (with either hand).

It works because it's simple, and because the "weak" side, still has power-- there's just a different primary goal behind it.

[Serpent]

Surely you would do the same thing on both sides?

[Xdr4g0nx]

hk mantis is the same way. the theory is we got one strong side. we use the weaker side to set up for the stronger side then we start pounding on them till they run away screaming ahaha

[BAI HE]

Boxing does not stress "power side" forward or back.
It depends on the boxer himself, his natural ability and savvy.
There are many who do "power side", generally they are not the elite.
Most of the best boxers can go with either hand in any situation.

There are many boxers, who by the time the reach pro level can
switch from orthodox to south paw (lead) and generate KO power with either hand.
These are the guys that really develop a good toolbox along with
their natural ability.

Symetrical angling may come instictively to boxers, but I doubt that the theory end of it is espoused.

It's more like when they break down tape: "He's weak when he throws the straight left, throw the short right to the liver/body etc."

They train counters, but for the most part do not analyze or preconcieve angles to base their training on.

[Water Dragon]

Of course boxing promotes asymmetry -- If you train it that way

It also promotes symmetry -- If you train it that way

[Vash]

Water Dragon has taken the correct, raped it with a wet chihuahua, and peed on it.

Drive safe, all.

:eek:

[Chang Style Novice]

What's the problem with asymmetry?

[Serpent]

It gives you a weakness for an opponent to exploit.

[Chang Style Novice]

Does it? I'm not sure I buy that. Seems only natural that you'll have a strong side and a weak one (almost no-one is equally strong and skilled right and left) and if you work too hard on bringing your weak side to strength with your strong side, I bet it's as much the strong side getting weaker as the weak side getting stronger.

[Serpent]

CSN - Respectfully, I'll disagree. ;)

When I'm fighting/sparring someone, one of the things I look out for is a preference for one side. If they always favour a lead right, for example, then I'll constantly work round to their outside and exploit their preference.

I don't neglect my favoured side training, but I do make a point of training the other side a lot to bring it up to speed. While I'm still a bit in favour of leading with my right, I'm almost just as comfortable leading with my left.

[Chang Style Novice]

But-but-but--what if you're fighting an alien with trilateral symmetry?

Okay, scratch that.

[Serpent]

Why would I fight anyone with tri-lateral symmetry!? That guy would be way too cool to fight!

(But would I have to buy him three beers!?)

[Ikken Hisatsu]

I try to train an equal amount with both sides. the way I see it building on your strengths is all very well, but if you are in a fight and can't use your right arm for whatever reason, you better hope your left is strong enough to take them down

(having said that, anyone who can win a streetfight only using their off hand is probably on their way to the tekken 5 tournament right now)

[Cheese Dog]

My personal preferance is to be in the opposite lead from my opponent (if he is in a left hand lead, I'll lead with my right) But being a natural southpaw, I'm still slightly more comfortable right lead. I like the opposite lead because it's easier to get behind my opponent.

[IronFist]

Um, there is a lot wrong with asymmetry. Why would you want one side to have different strength/endurance characteristics than the other?

Ok, perhaps I didn't give enough detail in the question.

What I meant was, does boxing promote asymmetry from a physical development point of view?

Let's think. Would you want to be able to curl 30lbs with one arm but 40lbs with the other arm?

Would you want one leg noticibly stronger than the other?

There was some talk about this a year or so ago on Pavel's board. People were talking about the side press (an exercise where you press a barbell overhead with only one arm). People were asking what to do when they realized that one arm was stronger than the other. The opinions were split:

1. Some people said to train each arm to it's fullest potential. If this results in being able to press 90lbs with your right arm and only 70 with your left arm, then that's fine.

2. The other people, myself included, said why would you want to promote such a difference? If my right arm could do 80lbs and my left arm only 70lbs, I wouldn't continue with my right arm until my left arm was closer to the same level.

Where there might be a situation where you would only win if you had developed your right arm more than your left, I figured it more probable that you would encounter a situation where you had to use both arms together, and any asymmetry would create an imbalance in the movement (like if you had to lift something huge over your head for some reason).

So let's think about this.

- It would be stupid to have asymmetry with regard to size. Granted, the nature of boxing in and of itself will not add much mass anyway so it's not like you're likely to get one huge arm and one small arm from the different punches. Also, MA's tend to not be as paranoid about symmetry as bodybuilders, but let's face it, who wants to have one side be a different size than their other side, or be out of proportion in other ways?

- It might be detrimental somehow to have developed neural pathways (sorry can't think of the right word) for asymmetrical movement. What I mean is, after training boxing for years, you will throw a left jab one way, and use different body mechanics for a right cross. Since a right jab and left cross do not exist in standard (traditional, whatever you want to call it) boxing, these movements will not be trained and therefore not ingrained in the nervous system. Now let's look at a left hook. You're using legs, waist, left shoulder, left pec, and left biceps for the most part. There is no move similar to this on the right, so these muscles will never be trained together in the same way on that side. Multiply this movement by 100's or 1000's of times per week times many months or years and you have ingrained assymetrical movement into your nervous system.

Now, if you plan on utilizing asymmetrical movement for the rest of your life, then this is fine. For example, if you can drive a car with manual transmission, you have trained your right foot to do one thing and your left foot to do another thing, but since you will never have to switch the roles of each foot this is fine. Same thing for writing. If you're right handed, you've trained your right arm to know how to write, but if you've ever tried to write with your non-dominant hand you see how hard it is when the movements haven't been ingrained.

Symmetry is important for functioning. Look at a bench press: you need each side to be relatively close to the same strength to bench press properly. I mean, I guess you don't, but it would probably feel uneven, like benching with more weight on one side than the other. Look at walking... your legs share the load evenly. If one leg was noticibly stronger than the other, walking or running would get messed up. I'm sure there's other examples I just can't think of any right now.

Now, look at a baseball pitcher. There is some asymmetry. Compare the number of times he exerts effort with his throwing arm versus his catching arm. Imagine the differences in endurance and stuff that develop throughout the years.

Look at a tenis player. I've heard some tenis players have one big forearm and one small forearm. If nothing else, they'll have one pec and one anterior (front) deltoid that is much more developed than the other side (note: "developed" here does not mean "big").

Or a bowler. I haven't bowled that much, but I've done it enough to know that one forearm gets a big workout and the other doesn't.

Now I've explained my question and my point better. Please continue the discussion.

[Merryprankster]

No, it doesn't promote asymmetry.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Does it? I'm not sure I buy that. Seems only natural that you'll have a strong side and a weak one (almost no-one is equally strong and skilled right and left) and if you work too hard on bringing your weak side to strength with your strong side, I bet it's as much the strong side getting weaker as the weak side getting stronger.

I'm with CSN on this one. I don't see a problem with training your nondominant side to a point where it's not completely hopeless. But literal symmetry seems unlikely to me.

The usual argument for symmetry is "what if something happens to your dominant arm?"

Well... like what? If it gets gnawed off by an attack dog or busted up in a fall, I'm pretty sure it's going to badly affect your performance whether you're savvy with your nondominant or not. The possibility obviously exists that your dominant hand gets injured so badly that you have to switch leads, but for my training time, I'd rather concentrate on reducing the odds of that happening in the first place. After all, if my right hand gets so damaged that I'm relying on my left hand, that means I have far fewer defensive capabilities on my right side either. And that's a slippery slope.

As for switching sides as a tactical decision, that's fine. If you've got tactics in place that capitalize on that approach, then good times. But I don't personally think it's necessary to have different leads for different opponents. I don't feel like I have to match leads. Or go with differing leads. Or whatever. I just have a different set of targets, objectives, tactics, etc.

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.

And just in case I've completely misinterpreted the question, is any part of your question related to the seeming inequality between the roles of the dominant and nondominant hand? Because the nondominant hand may not be dealing out the punishment, but it is setting rhythm, range, and timing, as well as finding and creating holes in an opponent's defense. So in terms of actual importance, I don't see an asymmetry there.


Stuart B.

[Water Dragon]

Baseball promotes asymmetry

[CrippledAvenger]

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:

[neit]

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?

[Ford Prefect]

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.

[neit]

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.

[Water Dragon]

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?

[fa_jing]

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.

[IronFist]

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.

[apoweyn]

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?!

:)

[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.

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 :D

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.

[Chang Style Novice]

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.

[fa_jing]

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.
:)



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.

[yenhoi]

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

:eek:

[yenhoi]

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:

[Ford Prefect]

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.

[Ford Prefect]

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.

[yenhoi]

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..?

[neit]

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.

[Ford Prefect]

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.

[apoweyn]

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 :D

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


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. ;)


Good discussion.

Seconded.


Stuart B.

[Serpent]

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

[yenhoi]

orthodox = right handed person standing left hand and left leg leading.

southpaw = left handed person standing right hand and right leg leading.

Usually.

Then there are people who stand power hand forward and weak hand rear - right handed person standing right hand and right leg leading. Like me.

The "Small-phasic-bent-knee position."

:eek:

[Serpent]

Originally posted by yenhoi
orthodox = right handed person standing left hand and left leg leading.

southpaw = left handed person standing right hand and right leg leading.

Usually.

Then there are people who stand power hand forward and weak hand rear - right handed person standing right hand and right leg leading. Like me.

The "Small-phasic-bent-knee position."

:eek:

Oh man, I'm almost more confused. OK, I'm right handed and definitely have more power in my right hand. I constantly try to train up my left side to account for this. I'm fairly comfortable both sides, as mentioned earlier, but will usually start off at least with my right hand forward. I guess that makes me like you, Yenhoi. So am I a north-paw or an unorthodox!? ;)

[omarthefish]

YES! Boxing promotes assymetry and so freakin what?

Examples of physical tasks where excellence is better achieved through asymettrical training have been noted! :

baseball
virtually all musical instruments.
bowling

WE ARE NOT SYMETRICAL.
Once you've flayed a man you realize that our bodies aren't symmetrical anyways. It's just not a very efficient use of resources to make sure everything can do everything elses job.

I switch leads compfortably BUT my tactics change along with the lead.

The idea that one side is 'stronger' and one weaker is a myth as is the idea someone (WaterDragon?) mentioned that one side of the brain tends to be used more. The sides are just used differently. I was a waiter for 10 years and never once met a righty who could carry a tray steadily on his right hand. We all carry trays with out left and serve of of them with our right. It seems like mky right is more nimble but my left more steady.

Strangely, my right jab SUCKS! I can land a good stiff lead right but not a real jab. Consequently, when I am in an orthodox lead, I fight more like a boxer. I use the jabs to set up or cover my footwork and then shoot in with the power side. Fighting southpaw, I tend more to let my lead hang out there making contact with my opponents lead and use much more classical gong-fu techniques to 'open the door' or to turn them enough to enter the 'side door'. I use much more stickyness with my lead right.

[CrippledAvenger]

Well, first things first.

As Fa_jing said, boxers aren't lopsided (excepting pershaps Sonny Liston), but they throw punches differently from one hand to the other. It's simply a question of goal-- do I want to use the jab to gauge distance, to stop an incoming attack, or to do heavy damage? If I can get away with it, I'll throw a jab with lots of torque and drop step into it, which is a power punch. But since most boxers will read that a mile away, I'm forced to use my jab in a more speedy fashion to set up my right cross, right uppercut, and rear hook. This is what I mean by lopsided, tactically. I can hit hard with my left, but I hit hard more effectively by setting up a strong right hand with a speedy (but weaker) punch from my left to open the door. Since it's more tactically sound (for boxers) to fight this way, this idea becomes ingrained pretty quickly. It's not that I won't be able to hit hard with my left without a setup should the need arise, but unless I'm sure I can get away with it, I tend not to do it.

This tactical view point is part of the problem with boxers who decide to "switch" stances from orthodox to southpaw in the fact that your defense and tactics completely change when you change it up. You have to dodge differently, change your combos, watch your footwork, etc. It's not simply a matter of doing mirror images of your orthodox stancework. It's about learning new tactics, new footwork, new combos, and new bearings in the ring.

Personally, I've been playing around with fighting southpaw because it makes my Shuai Chiao throws easier to get; however, if I was to try to enter on a pure orthodox boxer southpaw, I'm sure I'd get eaten alive. If I slip a jab, I'd have to worry about moving right into the path of my opponet's cross, rear hook, overhand right, etc-- in other words, his power hand. I'd have a better lead hook and maybe a slightly heavier jab, but I sacrifice a lot of familiar training and tactics for two dubious advantages.

However, as a final point, lemme stress that there ARE boxers who can switch it up, or fight strong-side forward. Paul Spadafora (yay Pittsburgh!) comes to mind, especially. If taught this way early on, I think it makes for an easier time switching between the two. Unfortunately, most people cannot make it work for whatever reason and tend to fall back into the strong/speed divide.

[CrippledAvenger]

Man, I spent all that time writting a longass response, and Omar beat me to it. Well said, well said.

:D

ps. I still say Dempsey is pound-for-pound better than Tunney. ;)

[Water Dragon]

Originally posted by omarthefish

The idea that one side is 'stronger' and one weaker is a myth as is the idea someone (WaterDragon?) mentioned that one side of the brain tends to be used more. The sides are just used differently. I was a waiter for 10 years and never once met a righty who could carry a tray steadily on his right hand. We all carry trays with out left and serve of of them with our right. It seems like mky right is more nimble but my left more steady.


Yay! I get to prove someone wrong today. We do use oneside of our brain more that the other. I am currently reading "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" <-- Excellant book, which states that the left side of the brain is responsible for the analytical process while the right side is associated with imagination and creativity. As a society (Western), we use our left side much more often than the right.

What I'm not sure, but I think is true, is that the left side of the brain controls the right hand while the right side controls the left hand.

*pats self on the back for being intelligent today

[Serpent]

WD has the correct by the scruff of its neck and is spanking its ass.

[shinbushi]

Here's part of an abstract for an article written by Susan L. Puretz, State University of New York found in Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, Vol 54(1), Mar 1983. pp. 48-54.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The customary teaching methodology for dance classes is for the teacher to demonstrate the simple or complex motor pattern on the right side and for the students to practice and perform it on the right side. Then, without practice, the students perform the movement on the left side. ... Results suggest that dance teachers have been correct in expecting students to bilaterally transfer complex movements that they have learned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


She continues by recommending that

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

teachers should teach to the nonpreferred side (i.e., the left side) to maximize learning through bilateral transfer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The fact that it is not *necessary* implies that if one is trying to master a great deal of material that it may be more efficient to practice on one side and wait for transfer to occur.

[omarthefish]

Originally posted by CrippledAvenger
Man, I spent all that time writting a longass response, and Omar beat me to it. Well said, well said.

:D

ps. I still say Dempsey is pound-for-pound better than Tunney. ;)

Acgtually.... I think your right. Dempsey IS ..er WAS better. I just thought that particular fight was brilliant and liked how Tunney solved the puzzel that was Dempsey.

Water Dragon,

YOU OTOH, are still wrong.

Yeah, I read "7 habits..." too. That left/right brain thingy goes back to the 60's when. I think, a lot of that sort of research was first done. "Drawing From the Right Side of The Brain" was my into. REgardless, that just says that YOU think we are all pencil pushing nerds here in "The West". Us touchy feely artist types would be using the 'non-dominant' side quite a bit more. I recently saw an article about how people who speak Chinese, because it is a tonal language, acess both hemispheres more.

So if the argument says that we are westerners and therefore more analytical and THERFORE use the left heisphere more . . .

SPEAK FOR YOURSELF!!! :p

[omarthefish]

p.s.

Yes, the left brain controlls the right hand and vice-versa. But, the crossover happens right about where the spine leaves the scull which means that if you are right handed you are left eyed. :confused: Apparently we have 'eyedness' too. We generally sight things straight ahead with one eye and then the other one triangulates in. (Collag anatomy. One's you've flayed a man, you'll never go back!)

[Water Dragon]

****** Omar. You're not supposed to prove me wrong in public. Now I'm going to have to delete this thread and have you banned with my uber-moderatoer powers. :mad:

[Shaolin-Do]

Its ok. Just try some of my pimp juice™ and youll be just fine.
Man... That gas is back again... Wheres a hose leading to serpents house when you need it?
:eek: