I get the point of much of what you're saying, but here's where it breaks down. An athlete isn't weaker everywhere than another athlete and then suddenly, magically stronger on his chosen surface. That's skill you're talking about. Performing a movement like the squat in competition is specific, but powerlifters don't just do that movement to strengthen their legs. And again, we're not even talking about powerlifters, just strength training with compound barbell movements and progressive resistance.
The question to ask TS is, are you looking for an effective and efficient way to improve your strength, or are you asking a rather simplistic hypothetical (which combat sport makes people strongest?) knowing that if one wants to get strong, martial arts training isn't the best training methodology. If it's just a fun what-if question, yeah answer wrestling or whatever, there's a reasonable chance that it's correct. But this is a strength and conditioning subforum. People are typically here looking for answers on how to get (wait for it) stronger or in better condition. The answers are often similar, because it's been demonstrated time and again that compound barbell movements done progressively are the way.
Your strongest point is that just because this is true, it doesn't mean that the discussion is over in regards to strength. It's great that we can still talk about which methods of training are more appropriate and efficient for various endeavors.
The weaker point is to say that anything is a better substitute for compound barbell movements for effectively and quickly building strength. It's just demonstrably not true in most cases.
Anyone who says strength doesn't matter isn't really ready to participate in discussions here.
Anyone who says "punching strength" or "mat strength" or "gym strength" misunderstands strength. Strength is just a measure of the amount of force one can exert. Practicing the application of strength leads to skill. Skill often makes a bigger difference in sport than strength, to be sure, but the two terms are not to be conflated. That's the problem with saying someone is "stronger on the mat." No, they are more skilled in wrestling and that is the difference you are mistakenly seeing as strength. Or, they're stronger (or weaker) in general, which will also make a big difference on the mat but also in every other competitive endeavor.
I'm not much of an ice skater. I'd have trouble fighting a hockey player on skates, in an ice rink. It's not because he's "stronger on the ice" than me. It's because he's trained and is skilled at moving on ice. Put us both to actual tests of strength and we'd compare differently.
Anyway, I can agree to disagree, you're half right. You might want to watch who you tell to educate themselves, especially when you're so sorely mistaken in your assessment of this discussion. But thanks for the cut-and-paste stuff, it's easily the high point of your last post.
That's the thing. I know there's a very fine line between skill and strength, and I purposely used the wrestling example with that in mind. I'm not talking about the ability to manipulate leverages, anticipate moves and co-ordinate movements, which we could call skill. I specificly ment strength at variable joint angles.
When you say that strength is the production of force, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean the maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) at a given joint angle, or do you mean the amount of weight you are able to move in say a squat? Because if it's the latter then skill plays a role as well, as it does in wrestling.
Lets go back to using rings as I mentioned earlier. Say one person is able to hold an iron cross on rings and do a planche pushup and the other can bench 400lbs. They both weigh 180lbs. Who is stronger and why? Are they both the strongest, but at different things? Which would transfer better to what sport?
Some muscles would have greater MVIC during the iron cross and some, even some of the same ones, would have greater MVIC during the bench, but at different angles. It's two very distinct feets of strength.
You could benchpress from now untill eternity and you would never be strong enough to hold an iron cross. Same is probably true the other way around in regards to high bench numbers. If strength is strength and strength is force production (which is not very clear), why is that the case? That's because strength adaptions are somewhat specific. Joint angle specific, neuromuscular specific, fiber type specific and so forth. Even the same muscle can adapt with regional hypertrophy, meaning you get stronger at the ROM you are training and your angle of peak torque changes.
The ice skating thing is not really a fair comparison. You've introduced a completely different variable which is an "unstable" surface. Sure you would outlift him in the gym, and sure with his superior proprioceptive balance and ability to co-ordinate synergists, antagonists and agonists as stabilisers he would manhandle you on the ice. Maybe he could even outlift you on the ice too. It's hard to say how much he would improve by doing compounds in shoes, but probably some, depending on his physical abilties and playstyle.
I honestly think you should read the articles I posted. That's not me trying to sound like a smartass, I genuinely think you would find them interesting.
You know, when I read things about getting stronger, period is not the answer or that you should be tailoring your strength training for the sport you play, etc... I feel like this is not relevant to like 99% of people who play sports. And probably 100% of posters in the f13. There is an unbelievably small number of athletes who make it past the ranks of house leagues and finals in the state championships. (Yes even if you made it to the final at the High School state championships in the 100m dash, you're still likely closer to the bottom half than the top half of sprinters in this world). Pretty much any athlete would benefit from just getting stronger in the gym, and working the fuck out of the skills on the mat. Sciencing around with training the basic level athlete to me seems like way more work than required.
Not sure I'm explaining myself clearly, but I get what Sano's saying and I understand Cmart's side as well.
I understand your point of view, but I don't think it has to be something that's complicated to implement. I know it's sounds crazy complicated with all the "sport specific, angle torque blabla" stuff I'm spewing.
What it is, is being a little thoughtful about exercise selection, using pro and regressions and your clinical reasoning. That's the same for any patient or client, athlete or not. You've worked with geriatric cliental right? You do strength training, you do balance training and you do some mobility work. You balance it out depending on their needs. My personal opinion is that the better the the therapist/coach/trainer the more relevant the exercise choices. In regards individual weaknesses but also individual goals. We're not the same.
Going back to barbell training, small things like being deliberate with the eccentric vs concentric, depth, velocity, foot positions and so forth. It doesn't have to be some huge thing. Beyond that, why limit yourself? Bands, dumbbells, bodyweight, barbells, whatever fits the bill and addresses the weakness or dysfunction you want to work with. Want to isolate the glut medius to this unilateral bodyweight exercise, or this one on the floor. Want to work on scapulohymeral rhythm to improve pressing overhead, uses this exercises for serratus with dumbbells or another open chained exercise or this one with bands for the supraspinatus, infraspinatus and teres minor. Want to work on alignment and valgus of the knee during a squat or jump, that isn't caused by glut med weakness or pelvis instability, but rather the ankle and pronation, do this unilateral exercise for balance and foot strength and this band one for tib. post, and so forth. You're improving qualities that will transfer to both sport and barbell training.
I had often referred to a young hockey player who squats 315 for 12+ reps at 16 years old. He's not even giving a shit about PLing or whatnot. He's just banging it out in the gym with basic compound movements, getting huge and strong and fucking shit up on the ice.
I don't know about this one. That kid sound like a genetic freak. That can be hard to attribute to squatting, especially at that age.
To both you and
@Cmart I think I need to summarize and reiterate some of my points:
I love barbell exercises.
I think all people could benefit from doing compounds to a greater or lesser extent.
I think compounds are excellent for "general preparednes", both hypertrophy, neural drive, strenght of the prime movers in healthy movement patterns and strenghtening tissue/tendons/ligaments, preventing injuries and especially being able to absorb eccentric forces.
I don't think they are perfect.
I think their transfer to some movements and sports are limited.
I definitely don't think that they are the only meaningful way of increasing strength (whichever definition we end up choosing).
I don't like the barbell/powerlifting dogma.
I believe strength is specific in nature and strength training for tasks and performance should take that into consideration.
What really started this whole debate is the fact that we can't have a fun thread like this without it getting ruined by the dogmatic followers of the good old iron.
/rant.
