Discussion in 'Strength & Conditioning Discussion' started by matt35750, Aug 11, 2016.
You can't be a fighter unless you have the guns that can turn on nuns.
I move better than that guy tho. I can dance bitch. try me.
He's destroying that bag bro. Dat maximal strenght! 4 sure he benches teh 275
Go take a zumba class then!
for punching power you need fast muscle fibers, and slow fibers for lifting. so the big guy from the gym is not necessary a hard puncher. however, if you get a huge mofo to train specifically for striking for a prolonged time, he'll hit hard. Ubereem and Carwin were jacked and hard-hitting.
Heavy lifting fully activates the fast-twitch fibres. That is why for athletes it is recommended that most of the work is done at 70% plus intensity.
But it's true that if you do a lot of high rep work, you are probably not activating the fast twitch fibres enough
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.
Stuck in the mud
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.
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 not 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 compared to powerlifters, 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.
MechaRippetoe Attacks with.....sets of 5. Secondary attack "Hip Drahve"
Restores all HP with... GOMAD
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.
My main issue is with your statement
which seems to imply that you think that strength training is more valuable than what it is.
This. For fighting. I rather take a fighter who's focused more in endurance than both strength AND speed. Look at Nick Diaz for example. Slow and not necessarily explosively strong, yet he's beat strong/explosive fighters more than the strong/explosive fighters have beat him.
Conversely, Rumble, Woodley, Lawler, Manhoef, Carwin, etc etc etc are all jacked and can knock your head to the third row.
Muscle size and strength dont necessarily equate to knockouts, but they dont hinder them either.
Again, then you should refute it instead of parroting it.
It's exactly as I said. All other things being equal, the stronger person wins. That doesn't overstate the importance of strength. It doesn't say it's not the same for speed or endurance. It doesn't mean training skill is less important.
The only thing you did was agree, and then state these superfluous items that I didn't mention, and then act as if you disagreed with the words you mistakenly added to my post. You're wasting space doing that.
Separate names with a comma.