The repetition effort method for hypertrophy?

Wrestling is slightly different as it is only one aspect of a fight. MMA is the closest thing we are going to get to a no hold barred completely illegal fight and even it has significant rulesets. Bad wrestling could or could not be good enough to win a fight.
That is correct; for the most part, I write about wrestling specifically and to alesser degree other forms of grappling, since my striking knowledge is very limited - for the most part I just read up on boxer's conditioning. But yes, wresling may not be enough to win any fight - even good wrestling, for that matter.
However, wrestling has one thing going for a no rules setting - striking is largely irrelevant in an armed fight, since even a heavyweight boxer's best punch pales in comparison to a knife thrust. That effect becomes even more dramatic in heavy clothing or armour. However, wrestling will always be useful even in that case, and for that reason, it has always been part of military education (striking was only added between the two world wars), no matter if it's conventional, Glima, jiu-jitsu, Bökh or the African styles. It was always stand-up grappling.
 
Start at about 9:10 mins into your own Alexander Bromley Video. He summed it up well enough.

View attachment 1098632
I mean the video is elementary. Ill quote verbatim what he said

Extreme skill and specialization can be nullified provided The differential in size and strength is so big the skill doesn't matter much. Against similarly skilled fighters the stronger guy tends to win. But a stronger guy does not TYPICALLY take out a more skilled an exerienced fighter. Strength like speed and endurance can be an asset but by themselves are not good enough to take you to the next level. A skilled fighter can lose to a less skilled fighter provided the gap in strength is massive. despite what the karate kid would have you believe the 165 pounder is not likely going to take out the starting tight end for his high school football team even if he spent 6 months at a mcdojo. The odds of your bench press saving you in a fight is just about zero.

What he means by "the next level" I dont know.

What is the disagreement?

If everybody is stronger than you in your weight class and vastly so then what are you going to do just drop resistance training and try to outskill them?

Everything that ive said in this thread lines up with everything I said from the beginning.


Here is a better video that will explain even further......you guys act like im the only person in history to say it isn't skill

 
Last edited:
That is correct; for the most part, I write about wrestling specifically and to alesser degree other forms of grappling, since my striking knowledge is very limited - for the most part I just read up on boxer's conditioning. But yes, wresling may not be enough to win any fight - even good wrestling, for that matter.
However, wrestling has one thing going for a no rules setting - striking is largely irrelevant in an armed fight, since even a heavyweight boxer's best punch pales in comparison to a knife thrust. That effect becomes even more dramatic in heavy clothing or armour. However, wrestling will always be useful even in that case, and for that reason, it has always been part of military education (striking was only added between the two world wars), no matter if it's conventional, Glima, jiu-jitsu, Bökh or the African styles. It was always stand-up grappling.
Street fighting isn't a sport there is no martial art that is going to save you from 5 people. Even Jocko the ultimate alpha male would say your best defense is to run. I would venture to say your best defense is to bring friends or a weapon tbh in todays climate.

Striking is definitely not irrelevant in a fight. If you cant strike you cant fight it goes both ways though if you cant grapple you cant fight.

The only problem with wrestling is that there aren't submissions. The training methods are second to none but if you said catch wrestling I would 100% agree. Almost everybody is a natural catch wrestler. They aren't natural strikers.
 
Last edited:
I mean the video is elementary. Ill quote verbatim what he said

Extreme skill and specialization can be nullified provided The differential in size and strength is so big the skill doesn't matter much. Against similarly skilled fighters the stronger guy tends to win. But a stronger guy does not TYPICALLY take out a more skilled an exerienced fighter. Strength like speed and endurance can be an asset but by themselves are not good enough to take you to the next level. A skilled fighter can lose to a less skilled fighter provided the gap in strength is massive. despite what the karate kid would have you believe the 165 pounder is not likely going to take out the starting tight end for his high school football team even if he spent 6 months at a mcdojo. The odds of your bench press saving you in a fight is just about zero.

What he means by "the next level" I dont know.

What is the disagreement?

If everybody is stronger than you in your weight class and vastly so then what are you going to do just drop resistance training and try to outskill them?

Everything that ive said in this thread lines up with everything I said from the beginning.


Here is a better video that will explain even further......you guys act like the only person in history to say it isn't skill


Try again. I will even tag it for you. Don't be cutting out half the summary to pretend he says the opposite.



Your own video. Not mine. You posted it to support your position.


Skinner Out Of Touch - Imgflip
 
......and the video does support my position

I dont even know what your position is. i've stated mine many times over the course of this thread Maximus

I think your position is that skill trumps strength in a fight and I am saying it is the complete opposite of that. The fact that you have to build enough skill to overcome strength and even then you wont be able to do it if as in the video pointed out if the strength level distance are massive.

It is a bit like asking a 15 inch vertical jumper to be able to jump 50 inches over time. It isn't happening.



This next video I posted delves into what I think even further about fighting. I am more or less in line with what he says in that video.
 
The Eddie hall vs pudz fight was interesting being that Eddies all time deadlift and squat were 200 pounds ahead of pudz all time maxes each. Bench was about 30 pounds difference. Kind of goes in line with the bench press quote about it not saving you in a fight.
 
......and the video does support my position

I dont even know what your position is. i've stated mine many times over the course of this thread Maximus

I think your position is that skill trumps strength in a fight and I am saying it is the complete opposite of that. The fact that you have to build enough skill to overcome strength and even then you wont be able to do it if as in the video pointed out if the strength level distance are massive.

It is a bit like asking a 15 inch vertical jumper to be able to jump 50 inches over time. It isn't happening.



This next video I posted delves into what I think even further about fighting. I am more or less in line with what he says in that video.

You responded this to the video:

I mean the video is elementary. Ill quote verbatim what he said

Extreme skill and specialization can be nullified provided The differential in size and strength is so big the skill doesn't matter much. Against similarly skilled fighters the stronger guy tends to win. But a stronger guy does not TYPICALLY take out a more skilled an exerienced fighter. Strength like speed and endurance can be an asset but by themselves are not good enough to take you to the next level. A skilled fighter can lose to a less skilled fighter provided the gap in strength is massive. despite what the karate kid would have you believe the 165 pounder is not likely going to take out the starting tight end for his high school football team even if he spent 6 months at a mcdojo. The odds of your bench press saving you in a fight is just about zero
.

So what did you intentionally miss between:

even if he spent 6 months at a mcdojo.

AND The odds of your bench press saving you in a fight is just about zero.

Watch the video again, understand what quoting verbatim actually means and then come back to me.

20 Funniest Stupid Memes of All Time
 
You responded this to the video:

I mean the video is elementary. Ill quote verbatim what he said

Extreme skill and specialization can be nullified provided The differential in size and strength is so big the skill doesn't matter much. Against similarly skilled fighters the stronger guy tends to win. But a stronger guy does not TYPICALLY take out a more skilled an exerienced fighter. Strength like speed and endurance can be an asset but by themselves are not good enough to take you to the next level. A skilled fighter can lose to a less skilled fighter provided the gap in strength is massive. despite what the karate kid would have you believe the 165 pounder is not likely going to take out the starting tight end for his high school football team even if he spent 6 months at a mcdojo. The odds of your bench press saving you in a fight is just about zero
.

So what did you intentionally miss between:

even if he spent 6 months at a mcdojo.

AND The odds of your bench press saving you in a fight is just about zero.

Watch the video again, understand what quoting verbatim actually means and then come back to me.

View attachment 1098643
Yea you took two points to support your own position and didnt even give the rest of a video a chance because you didnt like what it said.

There it is right there verbatim in front of your face saying the 165 pound is not likely to take out the starting tight end from the high school football team.

So do you agree with the entire video or just the part taken out of context by yourself purposefully so that you can say technique trump strengths and then walk off to wrestle with your Aussie friends.
 
Yea you took two points to support your own position and didnt even give the rest of a video a chance because you didnt like what it said.

There it is right there verbatim in front of your face saying the 165 pound is not likely to take out the starting tight end from the high school football team.

So do you agree with the entire video or just the part taken out of context by yourself purposefully so that you can say technique trump strengths and then walk off to wrestle with your Aussie friends.
It's your own video example, not mine. You put it up and intentionally cut out the bit that doesn't agree with you. Two points? I said refer to the bit you posted and tagged it to start from there to include the full closing statement.

Below is a better logical argument than the one you are putting up to support your position with this video.

Your Argument Is Irrelevant GIFs | Tenor


Just put your hand up, admit you only watched some of it and screwed up by posting it.
 
It's your own video example, not mine. You put it up and intentionally cut out the bit that doesn't agree with you. Two points? I said refer to the bit you posted and tagged it to start from there to include the full closing statement.

Below is a better logical argument than the one you are putting up to support your position with this video.

Your Argument Is Irrelevant GIFs | Tenor


Just put your hand up, admit you only watched some of it and screwed up by posting it.
No I watched the whole thing three times. If what you got out of that was him telling you to not lift weights but do nothing but SPP as in nothing but sparring and drilling and heavy bag work and that is what is going to save you from cheerful Charlie on the wrong side of town welding a machete attacking people at random you might have got something out of both of those videos than I did not.

Applying it to a supposedly sanctioned sport and completely ignoring the examples of fighters like Kayla and Nunes being the strongest women in the sport as well trans males defeating females in sports is complete insanity.

They didnt get strong by boxing for a million rounds and kicking the heavy bag 1000 times a day. They all did something extra and the case of the trans beating females you know exactly why.
 
No I watched the whole thing three times. If what you got out of that was him telling you to not lift weights but do nothing but SPP as in nothing but sparring and drilling and heavy bag work and that is what is going to save you from cheerful Charlie on the wrong side of town welding a machete attacking people at random you might have got something out of both of those videos than I did not.

Applying it to a supposedly sanctioned sport and completely ignoring the examples of fighters like Kayla and Nunes being the strongest women in the sport as well trans males defeating females in sports is complete insanity.

They didnt get strong by boxing for a million rounds and kicking the heavy bag 1000 times a day. They all did something extra and the case of the trans beating females you know exactly why.
Then how did you manage to misquote 1/3 of the summary? Try subtitles.

The rest has been done to death. Leave the poor horse alone man....
 
Strength must exist for technic to be applied. Having zero strength(sick and bedridden)equates to zero technique. Strength is therefore a technique of its own whereas in accordance to each individual sport a given strength attribute is trained for to optimal performance in that sport.

There is not a more efficient way to build strength than free weights. The only reason it wouldnt be efficient is if you did not have access to them. If you didnt have access to free weights or in the case of bodyweight movemenst with a way to load them(sandbags, weights vest etc)then you have an even bigger problem than gaining strength. If you dont have strength to get out of bed then you can't afford to go where free weights are to best acquire strength in the most efficient way possible. If you would rather spend a decade acquiring said strength by doing nothing but bodyweight movements you would still likely never acquire the amount of strength you could acquire by simple using free weights.
That is only necessarily true if the strength built is to be tested by free weights. Gymnasts don't train with freee weights much if at all, instead they train the movements with which they display their strength because they train both specific strength and skill. So do rock climbers. If you defined hand strength by closing the No. 4 COC gripper, you'd prioritize grippers over deadlifts. Or if your game was strandpulling, you'd do that. So if the display of strength is identical with the way of building strength, things are simple.
When the way of displaying strength is different from the way it was built, there can be significant disparities, which become more apparent the higher the technical difficulty level is. The average gymnast will do much better at powerlifting than the average powerlifter will at gymnastics for example, with Olympic lifters it will be the same. I just read that "some champion powerlifters" apparently failed to lift the "fullsterkur" stone in Iceland, weighing a mere 154 kg. While stones can be notoriously different in difficulty to lift based on shape etc., I can add that I was toying with blocks of that and weight at work back and loading them onto platforms when I was 22, fairly early in my lifting time, when my best deadlift was a mere 190 kg. So I wasn't nearly as strong as they were on the bar, but it appears I was able to transfer that strength to odd objects relatively well. There's even a stone block in Olympia, weighing 136 kg with the inscription "Bybon, the son of Phola, lifted me over his head with one hand" - and that guy didn't win any of the events (maybe he ran into Milon of Croton or something, which would confirm that the best free weights for wrestling will kick, squirm and possibly occasionally piss on you). So much for the athletes of yesteryear.
If the skill that is tested is even more complex, priorities may shift. If you want to run fast, jump high or far, you'll prioritze jumping and sprinting, and add some resistance training. If the sport demands rapid change of direction, add that on top. If it demands to run far, you run and make sure you are strong enough for that task (but know you have to carry every ounce of bodyweight, muscle or otherwise). And if you want to punch hard, throw hard etc., you'll prioritize punching and throwing practice, and add in some form of resistance training as well - however, we have seen that the choice wasn't always conventional free weights, even now it isn't. Every form of resistance training has its own benefits and drawbacks. Free weights are arguably the form of resistance that can be scaled the best, making progress the simplest, most measureable, that much is true. But if the exercises you can do are too far from your sport in terms of movement patterns or the direction of force is too different, other forms of resistance training can and will take preference, up to and including "sports specific only" in some cases. In light of the examples cited, I would propose the theory that this may work even better the higher the loads occuring during the sport itelf are, because the forces then are high enough to induce a strength-building response.
 
I always find it hilarious how lifting weights threads always turn into how fighters should lift weights

You never see how thread turns into how volleyball players or triathlon guys should lift weights
 
That is only necessarily true if the strength built is to be tested by free weights. Gymnasts don't train with freee weights much if at all, instead they train the movements with which they display their strength because they train both specific strength and skill. So do rock climbers. If you defined hand strength by closing the No. 4 COC gripper, you'd prioritize grippers over deadlifts. Or if your game was strandpulling, you'd do that. So if the display of strength is identical with the way of building strength, things are simple.
When the way of displaying strength is different from the way it was built, there can be significant disparities, which become more apparent the higher the technical difficulty level is. The average gymnast will do much better at powerlifting than the average powerlifter will at gymnastics for example, with Olympic lifters it will be the same. I just read that "some champion powerlifters" apparently failed to lift the "fullsterkur" stone in Iceland, weighing a mere 154 kg. While stones can be notoriously different in difficulty to lift based on shape etc., I can add that I was toying with blocks of that and weight at work back and loading them onto platforms when I was 22, fairly early in my lifting time, when my best deadlift was a mere 190 kg. So I wasn't nearly as strong as they were on the bar, but it appears I was able to transfer that strength to odd objects relatively well. There's even a stone block in Olympia, weighing 136 kg with the inscription "Bybon, the son of Phola, lifted me over his head with one hand" - and that guy didn't win any of the events (maybe he ran into Milon of Croton or something, which would confirm that the best free weights for wrestling will kick, squirm and possibly occasionally piss on you). So much for the athletes of yesteryear.
If the skill that is tested is even more complex, priorities may shift. If you want to run fast, jump high or far, you'll prioritze jumping and sprinting, and add some resistance training. If the sport demands rapid change of direction, add that on top. If it demands to run far, you run and make sure you are strong enough for that task (but know you have to carry every ounce of bodyweight, muscle or otherwise). And if you want to punch hard, throw hard etc., you'll prioritize punching and throwing practice, and add in some form of resistance training as well - however, we have seen that the choice wasn't always conventional free weights, even now it isn't. Every form of resistance training has its own benefits and drawbacks. Free weights are arguably the form of resistance that can be scaled the best, making progress the simplest, most measureable, that much is true. But if the exercises you can do are too far from your sport in terms of movement patterns or the direction of force is too different, other forms of resistance training can and will take preference, up to and including "sports specific only" in some cases. In light of the examples cited, I would propose the theory that this may work even better the higher the loads occuring during the sport itelf are, because the forces then are high enough to induce a strength-building response.

All training is not SPP nor should it be. If everything you did exactly mimicked the sport then you wouldnt resistance train at all you would just do SPP. You do GPP with general exercises for injury prevention, to be generally stronger and to build muscle mass.

Just because you want to remain a featherweight doesn't mean that you would be less competitive at a higher weight class and be a better athlete overall. Even if you choose to remain the same bodyweight strength training still benefits you.

Of course different sports have different strength requirements.

Here is what Bromley said in the video that amongst similarly skilled competitors the stronger one USUALLY wins. There are of course reason they don't. If i dont feel like competing today but i do it anyways then your strength is already there if you strength training appropriately even if you dont feel like doing it to fall back on.

Simone Biles is the greatest gymnast of all time for the fact that she is stronger than her competitors. It doesnt matter where the strength came from she just is. That is why she can announce to the world today and have some people take her seriously that trans should be allowed to compete against females because everyone recognizes her as the greatest gymnast of all time.

The Milo of criton analogy is completely wrong because strength does not linearly scale anyways as there are peaks and valleys. THis is why linear progression without autoregulation is not the best way to train for strength.

What you are saying about optimal bodyweight in a given sport is true though. If adding strength and muscle mass is a detriment to your actual sport than you are programming badly whether that be the diet or the training program itself.
 
Last edited:
I always find it hilarious how lifting weights threads always turn into how fighters should lift weights

You never see how thread turns into how volleyball players or triathlon guys should lift weights
Endurance athlete figured this out years ago. A few searches will yield endurance athletes training programs.
 
All training is not SPP nor should it be. If everything you did exactly mimicked the sport then you wouldnt resistance train at all you would just do SPP. You do GPP with general exercises for injury prevention, to be generally stronger and to build muscle mass.

Of course different sports have different strength requirements.

The Milo of criton analogy is completely wrong because strength does not linearly scale anyways as there are peaks and valleys. THis is why linear progression without autoregulation is not the best way to train for strength.
Yes, different sports have different strength requirements, and they use GPP to varying extent and through various methods. The same is true for different schools within those sports.

As for the Milo of Croton analogy, Hermann Goerner and Alexander Sass have done that successfully, whether or not their strength progressed in a linear fashion during the process. The Indian wrestlers have done something like that, too, carrying a buffalo calf through a stream. And wrestling lifestock is also not unheard of, the Mongolian wrestlers have been doing that with horses at least occasionally apparently. Wrestling people is easier though if you live in the city, and most of them make less of a mess.
 
That is only necessarily true if the strength built is to be tested by free weights. Gymnasts don't train with freee weights much if at all, instead they train the movements with which they display their strength because they train both specific strength and skill. So do rock climbers. If you defined hand strength by closing the No. 4 COC gripper, you'd prioritize grippers over deadlifts. Or if your game was strandpulling, you'd do that. So if the display of strength is identical with the way of building strength, things are simple.
When the way of displaying strength is different from the way it was built, there can be significant disparities, which become more apparent the higher the technical difficulty level is. The average gymnast will do much better at powerlifting than the average powerlifter will at gymnastics for example, with Olympic lifters it will be the same. I just read that "some champion powerlifters" apparently failed to lift the "fullsterkur" stone in Iceland, weighing a mere 154 kg. While stones can be notoriously different in difficulty to lift based on shape etc., I can add that I was toying with blocks of that and weight at work back and loading them onto platforms when I was 22, fairly early in my lifting time, when my best deadlift was a mere 190 kg. So I wasn't nearly as strong as they were on the bar, but it appears I was able to transfer that strength to odd objects relatively well. There's even a stone block in Olympia, weighing 136 kg with the inscription "Bybon, the son of Phola, lifted me over his head with one hand" - and that guy didn't win any of the events (maybe he ran into Milon of Croton or something, which would confirm that the best free weights for wrestling will kick, squirm and possibly occasionally piss on you). So much for the athletes of yesteryear.
If the skill that is tested is even more complex, priorities may shift. If you want to run fast, jump high or far, you'll prioritze jumping and sprinting, and add some resistance training. If the sport demands rapid change of direction, add that on top. If it demands to run far, you run and make sure you are strong enough for that task (but know you have to carry every ounce of bodyweight, muscle or otherwise). And if you want to punch hard, throw hard etc., you'll prioritize punching and throwing practice, and add in some form of resistance training as well - however, we have seen that the choice wasn't always conventional free weights, even now it isn't. Every form of resistance training has its own benefits and drawbacks. Free weights are arguably the form of resistance that can be scaled the best, making progress the simplest, most measureable, that much is true. But if the exercises you can do are too far from your sport in terms of movement patterns or the direction of force is too different, other forms of resistance training can and will take preference, up to and including "sports specific only" in some cases. In light of the examples cited, I would propose the theory that this may work even better the higher the loads occuring during the sport itelf are, because the forces then are high enough to induce a strength-building response.
Real world strength is probably most useful.

Sandbag or partner training is probably quite useful for that reason.



I always find it hilarious how lifting weights threads always turn into how fighters should lift weights

You never see how thread turns into how volleyball players or triathlon guys should lift weights

Considering this is a MMA forum this isn't so strange ...if you go to a volleyball centric site forum you'd probably have discussions about why supramaximal partial squats are superior to full squats for training vertical or something similar...
 
Yes, different sports have different strength requirements, and they use GPP to varying extent and through various methods. The same is true for different schools within those sports.

As for the Milo of Croton analogy, Hermann Goerner and Alexander Sass have done that successfully, whether or not their strength progressed in a linear fashion during the process. The Indian wrestlers have done something like that, too, carrying a buffalo calf through a stream. And wrestling lifestock is also not unheard of, the Mongolian wrestlers have been doing that with horses at least occasionally apparently. Wrestling people is easier though if you live in the city, and most of them make less of a mess.
Or they could have just used a progressive resistance routine to get stronger generally and practiced the sport?

You are getting basically to the point that barbell training is useless for sports. It couldnt be farther from the truth.
 
Real world strength is probably most useful.

Sandbag or partner training is probably quite useful for that reason.





Considering this is a MMA forum this isn't so strange ...if you go to a volleyball centric site forum you'd probably have discussions about why supramaximal partial squats are superior to full squats for training vertical or something similar...
You shouldn't exclusively train partials because that would create imbalances but quarter squats can absolutely be useful for those sports. I know you know who Isaiah rivera is and he talks about doing quarter squats for running/jumping speed.
 

WTF this dude looks like when he was a lad he ate 4 dozen eggs ev'ry morning to help him get large. And now that he's grown he eats 5 dozen eggs so he's roughly the size of a barge...
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,266,740
Messages
57,422,070
Members
175,700
Latest member
xojeny
Back
Top