- Joined
- Jul 9, 2013
- Messages
- 17,757
- Reaction score
- 4,362
You can't be a fighter unless you have the guns that can turn on nuns.The tank top adds at least an extra 50psi. Gunshow!!!
You can't be a fighter unless you have the guns that can turn on nuns.The tank top adds at least an extra 50psi. Gunshow!!!
He's destroying that bag bro. Dat maximal strenght! 4 sure he benches teh 27510/10 form
Go take a zumba class then!I move better than that guy tho. I can dance bitch. try me.
for punching power you need fast muscle fibers, and slow fibers for lifting.
All other things being equal, a stronger person will outperform a weaker one. But when skill is the major factor, a skilled person outperforms a novice. So a skilled bowler, golfer, boxer, diver, etc. beats a strong novice. But take two equally skilled people, and the stronger one will prevail.
I know this is a tough concept for the old school "musclebound athletes can't perform" myth crowd, but please set aside your preconceived notions for a moment and use common sense. It will all become clear to you.
I was about to post the exact same thing. There are many attributes on par with, or more important than, max strenght for a fighter. If two are equally skilled, strenght might not be the determining factor. Rather, endurance, speed, timing, toughness, the ability to conserve energy and use it at the right time (this is overlooked), reflexes and so forth, might be.All other things being equal, a faster athlete will outperform a slower athlete.
All other things being equal, the athlete with better endurance will outperform the athlete with worse endurance.
The same can be said for pretty much any quality or skill involved in sport. I'm a little tired of hearing this argument used for that reason. Excessive focus on maximal strength development can be detrimental to other athletic qualities, and for most combat sports the point of diminishing returns for strength gains isn't very advanced at all.
All other things being equal, a stronger athlete will outperform a weaker one. But that athlete will suffer if investing time on returns on strength comes at the cost of other athletic abilities.
pokerandbeer will rage upon seeing this.I was about to post the exact same thing. There are many attributes on par with, or more important than, max strenght for a fighter. If two are equally skilled, strenght might not be the determining factor. Rather, endurance, speed, timing, toughness, the ability to conserve energy and use it at the right time (this is overlooked), reflexes and so forth, might be.
This hypothetical "all else being equal" argument is fantasy land. Yes, strenght training is great for an athlete, no, max strenght is the most prioritized attribute. Max strenght might make you more powerful, but it might not make you that much faster. Some guys are strong, but not fast. Others are weaker, but fast. Some guys are strong but have a weak punch, others are weaker but punch like Thors hammer. Obviously everything is relative, very few fighters and high level athletes are weak by average standards. They might not be hitting big numbers, but they are well conditioned, mentally tough, explosive, powerful, agile, fast and technical. One fighter having a 1,5xBW squat and another a 2xBW squat will not be the thing that decides the fight.
The big three are not the end all be all of combat sports. They have diminishing returns and don't necessarily translate to whatever quality you want to foster for martial arts. They are one of many tools. Also, many fighters have done well without compounds lifts. They still train their ass off. They don't just sit around and not train. It's not like if they are not part of your program you are doomed to fail, that's been proven not to be the case. That being said, I like compound lifts. I think they are great strenght builders, and fun too. Just give it a rest with the overshadowing importance of them.
pokerandbeer will rage upon seeing this.
Restores all HP with... GOMADMechaRippetoe Attacks with.....sets of 5. Secondary attack "Hip Drahve"
Are you trying to argue? It so, you might want to make a point contrary to mine. Acting like you're having an original thought while parroting what I've just said is nothing but a waste of space.All other things being equal, a faster athlete will outperform a slower athlete.
All other things being equal, the athlete with better endurance will outperform the athlete with worse endurance.
The same can be said for pretty much any quality or skill involved in sport. I'm a little tired of hearing this argument used for that reason. Excessive focus on maximal strength development can be detrimental to other athletic qualities, and for most combat sports the point of diminishing returns for strength gains isn't very advanced at all.
All other things being equal, a stronger athlete will outperform a weaker one. But that athlete will suffer if investing time on returns on strength comes at the cost of other athletic abilities.
Are you trying to argue? It so, you might want to make a point contrary to mine. Acting like you're having an original thought while parroting what I've just said is nothing but a waste of space.
I know this is a tough concept for the old school "musclebound athletes can't perform" myth crowd, but please set aside your preconceived notions for a moment and use common sense.
My main issue is with your statement
which seems to imply that you think that strength training is more valuable than what it is.
My main issue is with your statement
which seems to imply that you think that strength training is more valuable than what it is.