Why do most super muscular guys punch weak?

...You've given some examples of fighters who did well and had decent power all things considered, yet I could list countless of examples of guys who were a lot less "strong" (again, measured by compounds I'm guessing) who punched infinitely harder and with more success...

Yes. Skilled strikers hit well. I've covered that.

I'm not fond of repeating myself, but I'll reiterate one last time. The TS mentions that myth that big, muscular, strong guys can't hit. This is said as if strength (muscular size as a byproduct of strength development or vice versa, it doesn't matter) is a detriment to punching power. It is not. It doesn't matter what guy you mention that looks like a couch potato but hits like a freight train, if he was a little stronger, he'd hit a little harder.

Even the same guy does, I bet. Take a fighter like Rumble or McGregor or Cerrone, I bet they'll tell you that they hit harder when they have more mass. So this Rumble:

2aa541e2-d63c-11de-a2b0-001cc4c002e0.image.jpg


...didn't hit as hard as this Rumble:

035_Anthony_Johnson_and_Glover_Teixeira.0.0.jpg


...even though it's the same guy.

Making a guy bigger and stronger does not make him punch worse. If you think that's not what was said in the O.P., here it is:

You have super muscular, very strong guys like brock lesnar and mariusz "worlds strongest man" pudzianowski who do not have knock out power and have not knocked a single guy out cold in their entire career. Then you have smaller guys down to 170 lb like Robbie lawler who is not that muscular and knocks people out very easily.

Muscular, strong guys = no knockout power, while smaller guys knock people out easily? It's just a misconception. A myth. Or just an idiotic leap to a conclusion, based on faulty evidence. Like saying fighters with dark mouthguards knock people out more often, based on fighter A and B having dark mouthguards and lots of KO's, and fighters C and D with light colored mouthguards, but no knockouts. The evidence doesn't support the conclusion.

So I've made my point. You want to go off on a tangent about defining strength, etc.... go make a separate thread if you want to stray off topic.
 
I think I've been very clear that power development comes from speed and limit strength. Proper strength training doesn't necessarily increase mass, it increases your CNS ability and strengthens your muscles. Again, strength training increases power in all your movements and punching is no different. You get stronger, you hit harder. That isn't the same statement as saying just do flat bench and never train proper technique.
No you don't understand rate of force development. Limit strength training is not enough, ballistic training is much more useful for striking power. You can get as strong as you want but if you can't express it as rapidly as is needed then it's all for naught.

And you don't seem to understand that power as expressed in sports science has quite a different mean to 'power' as it relates to striking. You can get as powerful as you want in terms of strength training but that doesn't mean the carry over to power in striking will be anything other than negligible. Again it comes back to high rate of force development. This is why you can see scrawny looking boxers like Thomas Hearns who have very powerful punches. They aren't particularly strong individuals but clearly their rate of force development is extremely high.
 
Last edited:
No you don't understand rate of force development. Limit strength training is not enough, ballistic training is much more useful for striking power. You can get as strong as you want but if you can't express it as rapidly as is needed then it's all for naught.

And you don't seem to understand that power as expressed in sports science has quite a different mean to 'power' as it relates to striking. You can get as powerful as you want in terms of strength training but that doesn't mean the carry over to power in striking will be anything other than negligible. Again it comes back to high rate of force development. This is why you can see scrawny looking boxers like Thomas Hearns who have very powerful punches. They aren't particularly strong individuals but clearly their rate of force development is extremely high.


"ballistic training" as you call it is simply technique work and other explosive training. That's equally as important in striking, but it doesn't mean you should ignore limit strength. Increasing limit strength gives you a bigger pot to fill up. Rate of force is increased by strength training. The science very clearly supports that. Who would be a harder striker.... Thomas Hearns or Stronger and just as fast Thomas Hearns?
 
"ballistic training" as you call it is simply technique work and other explosive training. That's equally as important in striking, but it doesn't mean you should ignore limit strength. Increasing limit strength gives you a bigger pot to fill up. Rate of force is increased by strength training. The science very clearly supports that. Who would be a harder striker.... Thomas Hearns or Stronger and just as fast Thomas Hearns?

Striking wise, punches are with a snap. The technique isn't a push, its very lose. Its like a whip. Can you crack a bigger, heavier whip just as fast (or faster) as a lighter whip?
With MT kick you may have support to this, as the kick is more like a baseball bat swing and not a snap. But at the end of the day, the technique uses the kinetic chain.

A similar discussion was brought up earlier this year in the striking forum. I'm not sure if it was you, but a poster thought that if Pacquiao took on heavy barbell work, he'd still be hitting with the same volume and speed he does. That's a stretch.
 
Striking wise, punches are with a snap. The technique isn't a push, its very lose. Its like a whip. Can you crack a bigger, heavier whip just as fast (or faster) as a lighter whip?
With MT kick you may have support to this, as the kick is more like a baseball bat swing and not a snap. But at the end of the day, the technique uses the kinetic chain.

A similar discussion was brought up earlier this year in the striking forum. I'm not sure if it was you, but a poster thought that if Pacquiao took on heavy barbell work, he'd still be hitting with the same volume and speed he does. That's a stretch.


Punches aren't a special motion. You are accelerating your fist as fast as possible to create the most kinetic energy. You don't need to "snap" back to have a powerful punch. The snap is useful for keeping your hands in position and getting ready for follow up strikes, but does nothing special to increase power.

Strength training isn't synonymous with mass increase. Proper strength training can keep you at the exact same mass and increase your CNS and muscle strength. If you crack a whip harder, it whips harder does it not? Strength training allows you to do things harder.

But look if you want to ignore all known sports science, be my guest. It just makes it easier for me to have less people in the ring that are a real challenge.
 
Punches aren't a special motion. You are accelerating your fist as fast as possible to create the most kinetic energy. You don't need to "snap" back to have a powerful punch. The snap is useful for keeping your hands in position and getting ready for follow up strikes, but does nothing special to increase power.

Strength training isn't synonymous with mass increase. Proper strength training can keep you at the exact same mass and increase your CNS and muscle strength. If you crack a whip harder, it whips harder does it not? Strength training allows you to do things harder.

But look if you want to ignore all known sports science, be my guest. It just makes it easier for me to have less people in the ring that are a real challenge.

Getting the snap is the acceleration. A "pushing" punch will not carry the same acceleration as a snapping punch. The snap (jab/cross) is what gets the pop in your strike and rocks the person's head, it also cuts but thats another part entirely. A slow push (compared to the snap) is not going to do that.

No one here is denying sports science. Most of the posters in this thread, lifts. We just don't happen to dedicate 90% of the training regiment to heavy barbell work. More barbell work on the off-season is fine, but in camp more time has to be dedicated to skill work.
 
"ballistic training" as you call it is simply technique work and other explosive training. That's equally as important in striking, but it doesn't mean you should ignore limit strength. Increasing limit strength gives you a bigger pot to fill up. Rate of force is increased by strength training. The science very clearly supports that. Who would be a harder striker.... Thomas Hearns or Stronger and just as fast Thomas Hearns?
Depends how Hearns got stronger.If he trained just limit strength and stopped doing his ballistic training i.e. bag work he could well end up punching with less power not more. He has to keep his speed and technique while increasing strength. But beyond a certain point he doesn't need any more limit strength he needs a higher rate of force development.
 
Getting the snap is the acceleration. A "pushing" punch will not carry the same acceleration as a snapping punch. The snap (jab/cross) is what gets the pop in your strike and rocks the person's head, it also cuts but thats another part entirely. A slow push (compared to the snap) is not going to do that.

No one here is denying sports science. Most of the posters in this thread, lifts. We just don't happen to dedicate 90% of the training regiment to heavy barbell work. More barbell work on the off-season is fine, but in camp more time has to be dedicated to skill work.

I would love to see a scientific article on this "snap" bullshit because it's bullshit. There's no special snapping motion that increases the kinetic energy behind a bunch. You accelerate forwards. That's it. A punch is absolutely a pushing movement. It's simply a high velocity pushing movement. No different than any other high velocity sports movement, all of which directly benefit by limit strength work.

Why you guys always pretend like saying increase limit strength means neglect everything is beyond me. There are many important fitness aspects to being a good striker, and limit strength is one of them. A person can easily fulfill that training need with 2 or 3 hours a week. It's not a substantial amount of time you need to dedicate in order to reap the benefits.

Depends how Hearns got stronger.If he trained just limit strength and stopped doing his ballistic training i.e. bag work he could well end up punching with less power not more. He has to keep his speed and technique while increasing strength. But beyond a certain point he doesn't need any more limit strength he needs a higher rate of force development.

If he took steroids and drank alien cum juice it might change something for him too, but that wasn't my question. I asked a specific question. If they are identical, but one has higher limit strength, the one with higher limit strength will win every time. It's that simple. There's no reason whatsoever to neglect any other training to do limit strength work. Nobody in S&C has ever fucking said stop doing bag work and just bench and squat. So I don't even know why you bring that up. It's not what anyone is saying to do. It's a stupid hypothetical. The reality is you can fulfill that need with a couple hours a week and there's nothing you have to cut from your training to do it. "Ballistic training", if you actually look into how sports science suggests you train, you'll be doing high speed, heavy barbell movements like power clean and other lifts. There's a reason why strength and conditioning typically has blocks. You have power blocks, strength blocks, recovery blocks. It teaches your body to apply the most force possible in movements.
 
Yes. Skilled strikers hit well. I've covered that.

I'm not fond of repeating myself, but I'll reiterate one last time. The TS mentions that myth that big, muscular, strong guys can't hit. This is said as if strength (muscular size as a byproduct of strength development or vice versa, it doesn't matter) is a detriment to punching power. It is not. It doesn't matter what guy you mention that looks like a couch potato but hits like a freight train, if he was a little stronger, he'd hit a little harder.

Even the same guy does, I bet. Take a fighter like Rumble or McGregor or Cerrone, I bet they'll tell you that they hit harder when they have more mass. So this Rumble:

2aa541e2-d63c-11de-a2b0-001cc4c002e0.image.jpg


...didn't hit as hard as this Rumble:

035_Anthony_Johnson_and_Glover_Teixeira.0.0.jpg


...even though it's the same guy.

Making a guy bigger and stronger does not make him punch worse. If you think that's not what was said in the O.P., here it is:



Muscular, strong guys = no knockout power, while smaller guys knock people out easily? It's just a misconception. A myth. Or just an idiotic leap to a conclusion, based on faulty evidence. Like saying fighters with dark mouthguards knock people out more often, based on fighter A and B having dark mouthguards and lots of KO's, and fighters C and D with light colored mouthguards, but no knockouts. The evidence doesn't support the conclusion.

So I've made my point. You want to go off on a tangent about defining strength, etc.... go make a separate thread if you want to stray off topic.
Why do you keep quoting only parts of my sentences, leaving out the entire context? I've never argued against strength training. TS said MOST SUPER MUSCULAR guys, it's in the title. He is not talking about the guys you mentioned. Funny you did though, Conor doesn't lift heavy as I said earlier. He also mentioned that gaining weight for his first fight with Nate slowed him down, ergo, diminished his punching ability. I'm not going to argue if that is true or not, but that's what he said.

Obviously someone who is draining themselves will not perform. Also adding reasonable mass to an undersized frame will give them more weight behind their punches, but again it's TO A POINT. There is a point where mass becomes a hindrance. Rumble has equally impressive knockouts below the LHW class, but that was against smaller guys and is besides the point.

I'll like to reiterate what I actually have said this entire thread:

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. One fighter having a 1,5xBW squat and another a 2xBW squat will not be the thing that decides the fight.

And yes, size can hinder you at a certain point. Not that anyone natural would likely reach that point. I'm not saying that the OP is right, but my post is more in line with the rest of the thread. More strenght does not necessarily equal more punching power and working on that attribute too much might even be detrimental to the overall game of a fighter.

EDIT: I think it's important to put this discussion in the context of the obsession with focusing on/prioritizing the compound lifts. As I mentioned earlier, obviously being weak is no bueno, but I have yet to train with a high level MMA fighter who is not strong, regardless of if they do compounds or not. Surprisingly strong actually.

Is max strength useful for a fighter? Yes. Can you build strength in many ways? Yes. Are there diminishing returns? Yes.

You claim that fighters are "special" but let's take a few other sports. Would you advice a swimmer to "just keep working on your PL total"? Would he need a 2xBW squat and 3xBW DL to be "good enough"? Would it be smart at all?

For a fighter, I'd grant you that it has to do with style. Someone like Lesnar, who needs to overpower people and take them down, has a lot of use for his freakish strength. Let's not forget he is a very good wrestler too, but I'll grant you that. Style has a lot to do with it. Now, as it pertains to this thread, let's look into size/strenght and punching power.

The amount of size and strength wont help the other guys. More barbell strength does not necessarily equal more punching power.


Again, this argument that "all else being equal" is ridicules. Obviously that is true. You could say that with every attribute. The question is, will focusing too much on strength diminish other abilities? It might. There is recovery time to consider, and time to hone your other abilities. Anyway, that's really besides the point.

The point isn't that big and strong guys can't hit hard. The point is that a heavy benchpress and DL doesn't necessarly transfer to hitting harder, more than other forms of training do. The point is that there are diminishing returns on doing that kind of strength work as well, which should be considered. You've given some examples of fighters who did well and had decent power all things considered, yet I could list countless of examples of guys who were a lot less "strong" (again, measured by compounds I'm guessing) who punched infinitely harder and with more success. That tells me that there might be other factors who are equally, or more, important. Again, no one is argueing for fighters being weak. I don't believe they are either. Especially not within the realm of their sports. It's about creating a nuanced picture.

You see? So to boil it down for you what I've argued.

1. Strength is important for a fighter
2. Fighters are strong
3. Style has a lot to do with how important max strength is
3. Max strength has diminishing returns and is not top priority
4. Adding mass puts more weight behind the punches, but could result in a loss of speed
5. There is a point where too much mass on a certain frame becomes a hindrance
6. There is more to punching power than max strength
7. Having high max strenght doesn't necessarily transfer to punching power (in that case the strongest fighters would ALWAYS punch the hardest)
8. Fighters with less max strenght in cases punch harder, meaning there are more attibutes to consider equally, or perhaps more, important (I'm not talking about technique here, I'm talking about physical attributes)
 
"ballistic training" as you call it is simply technique work and other explosive training. That's equally as important in striking, but it doesn't mean you should ignore limit strength. Increasing limit strength gives you a bigger pot to fill up. Rate of force is increased by strength training. The science very clearly supports that. Who would be a harder striker.... Thomas Hearns or Stronger and just as fast Thomas Hearns?

When the thing you are moving fast is relatively light, the influence of limit strength decreases, particularly limit strength in movements that aren't joint or angle specific.

This interacts with training status too- a novice who has done literally no boxing training that concurrently increases their squat will see big improvements (because they had a relative deficit), but Deontay Wilder saw no quantum jump in his punching power when he started to take weight lifting seriously to fill out for heavyweight

Bondarchuk's Transfer of Training is probably the best book about it.
 
I think I know what the Op is talking about. Slow speed and bad punching mechanics, imo. There's a lot of force leakage from the shoulders to the legs. A guy who knows how to punch is like an iron bar from his toes to his knuckles on the moment of impact and entirely driving INTO his knuckles. A guy who doesn't know how to punch has a lot of recoil going on in his torso, so the force of his blow is weakened. A muscular guy with strong arms will have great tension in his arm, but, like untrained guys, will leak force all over the place in the rest of his body.

similarly, grappling with oly / kb lifters is different than grappling with bodybuilders. A guy who's used to putting weight overhead has his entire body working as a unit, but a guy who trains as a collection of body part feels different, and is easier to manipulate physically. Imo, at least. Bro science at its finest in this post.
 
Another thing to consider, brocks hands are so damn big that the point of impact is spread out more, which causes more of the blow to be absorbed.
Cool you said it, I have small hands for my size and almost no little finger and my coach always said I punched very hard so I didn´t feel so bad after all xD ---

Maybe this is not the norm but when I had more mass in the chest I found blocking harder, I am naturally big in the chest and I think takes away some fluidity to throw punches too---
 
Strength converts to power.

Power is important for striking.

Strength training doesn't have to lead to increased mass.

Increased muscle mass can lead to increased strength but not necessarily proportionate to what strength-only training might lead to.

Strength is important for fighters because power is "converted" from strength with the proper transition training/drills.

Fighters can be big AND strong (powerful/powerful punchers)

Fighters can be small AND strong (powerful punchers like Prince Naseem).

Fighters can be big but not as proportionately strong (powerful punches)

Fighters can be small and not strong (powerful punches).
 
I'm going to presume when you say strength training you are talking about the big three and a few other presses. I'm going to presume that you think any fighter not doing that is stupid. I believe you have claimed this before, but correct me if I'm wrong. Otherwise this post is dedicated to anyone else with that opinion, if not only to create a little nuance.

If we are talking about resistance training, obviously every martial artist is doing resistance training. As I said, I've never sparred with or rolled with a high level figher who wasn't very strong. Fighters have been doing strength training since the dawn of fighting.

Karatekas used to carry each other on their backs and use their surroundings to punch or kick or carry.

Wrestlers, grapplers and Judokais use each other as resistance and gymnastic like training.

MT guys and boxers do a lot of BW stuff and explosive work.

Just because it's not barbell work, doesn't mean it's not strenght work. They do thousand and thousand of resisted repetitions. It's not that fighters think they are special, they just know fighting.

Is max strength useful for a fighter? Yes. Can you build strength in many ways? Yes. Are there diminishing returns? Yes.

You claim that fighters are "special" but let's take a few other sports. Would you advice a swimmer to "just keep working on your PL total"? Would he need a 2xBW squat and 3xBW DL to be "good enough"? Would it be smart at all?

For a fighter, I'd grant you that it has to do with style. Someone like Lesnar, who needs to overpower people and take them down, has a lot of use for his freakish strength. Let's not forget he is a very good wrestler too, but I'll grant you that. Style has a lot to do with it. Now, as it pertains to this thread, let's look into size/strenght and punching power. Let's delve into striking:

Joe Fraizer was one of the hardest punchers all time in the HW division. Have you seen the video of him not being able to OHP 170lbs?



What about someone like Joe Lous? One of the hardest hitters ever too, but his training didn't include a heavy bench or DL. What about Marciano?

Let's take a look at Foreman. Now Foreman was a big guy. Let's compare him to a few big and strong guys.

foreman_george_0.jpg

Brock-Lesnar-Bio11.jpg

Arnold-Schwarzenegger-Chest-1.jpg


Who do you think has the biggest bench, squat, deadlift, OHP and so forth? And who hits harder? I know it's very pidgeonholed, but bear with me. Foreman is one of the biggest hitters all time, obviously he hits harder. The amount of size and strength wont help the other guys. More barbell strength does not necessarily equal more punching power. Now, let's take it a step further. Let's hypothetically say that Arnold and Brock could train boxing for years and years on end, without loosing their mass. Could they ever hope to hit as hard as Foreman in that case? Not a chance. This is only in the HW division, it's even easier to make a case in the lighter weight classes. Conor McGregor has more power in that left hand than anyone in the FW and LW division, yet he doesn't lift very heavy and isn't very muscular. He's strong no doubt though, but this again pertains to the one kind of training many of you guys deem sacred, heavy compounds. I know I'm cherry picking a little, but it's adding up to an argument.

I could go on with boxers for ages, but I wont. But I'd like to mention Thai fighters. How is it, that the Thais are the best in the world yet they are notorious for not doing any heavy strength training? Would that imply, that any foreigner could just add some heavy squats in their program and they would suddenly start beating them? Then why hasn't it happened yet? Surprise, surprise, the greatest Thai fighter ever didn't need to use heavy barbell training. If only he knew and didn't think he was "special":



You see where I am getting at?

I agree that grappling is a different beast, but even then there are many ways to Rome. Yes, strength is great, but as I said earlier, guys grappling and wrestling ARE strong. They are not some fragile weaklings. Not MMA fighters. We could lower the numbers are say that perhaps a 1,5xBW Squat and 2xBW DL would be reasonable before diminishing returns, but a lot of MMA fighters would be at that strength level already. Compounds are not some magic formula that works better than everything else in the world! It might not seem like it, but I actually like compounds. I do them myself, I think they are great tools! Easy to adjust and very straight forward. I'm not opposed to fighters doing them within reason at all. Quite the contrary. BUT the arrogance of claiming that it's the only way and that you know better than these guys who's been there is not something I can agree with. I do both, so I know both worlds.

I am amazed that can lift more than Smokin Joe ...actually I am doing pilates and yoga to complement judo and I feel has helped me more than when I used to do weights, ecerybody is different I guess---
The unloaded nature of striking plays into this a lot. When the gloves weigh 1 lb, having advantages in rate of force development matters a lot more than peak force. If human fists weighed as much as shot puts, the impact of maximum strength on punching power would be more direct.

Similarly, the impact of maximum strength on say, Judo or wrestling is a lot greater than it is on boxing. (This isn't a hard theory to test. Check the maximum force that an average elite judoka can produce vs an average elite boxer, and it's night and day)
Totally, in Judo there´s a lot isometric moments where a strong guy with poor technique can defend a little bit before he gasses ...
 
I would love to see a scientific article on this "snap" bullshit because it's bullshit. There's no special snapping motion that increases the kinetic energy behind a bunch. You accelerate forwards. That's it. A punch is absolutely a pushing movement. It's simply a high velocity pushing movement. No different than any other high velocity sports movement, all of which directly benefit by limit strength work.

Why you guys always pretend like saying increase limit strength means neglect everything is beyond me. There are many important fitness aspects to being a good striker, and limit strength is one of them. A person can easily fulfill that training need with 2 or 3 hours a week. It's not a substantial amount of time you need to dedicate in order to reap the benefits.



If he took steroids and drank alien cum juice it might change something for him too, but that wasn't my question. I asked a specific question. If they are identical, but one has higher limit strength, the one with higher limit strength will win every time. It's that simple. There's no reason whatsoever to neglect any other training to do limit strength work. Nobody in S&C has ever fucking said stop doing bag work and just bench and squat. So I don't even know why you bring that up. It's not what anyone is saying to do. It's a stupid hypothetical. The reality is you can fulfill that need with a couple hours a week and there's nothing you have to cut from your training to do it. "Ballistic training", if you actually look into how sports science suggests you train, you'll be doing high speed, heavy barbell movements like power clean and other lifts. There's a reason why strength and conditioning typically has blocks. You have power blocks, strength blocks, recovery blocks. It teaches your body to apply the most force possible in movements.

You are purposefully limiting the discussion to something that doesn't reflect reality. IF Hearns had a choice between working 2-3 hours a week on limit strength vs. ballistic strength he'd be much better off imho working on his ballistic strength because that best represents the type of strength he needs for his sport. And no high speed barbell movements wouldn't be what I mean by ballistic training. Again I'll explain it to you so you can grasp the concept: a punch is about accelerating a light object at very high speeds so ballistic training would be with light loads accelerated at high speeds, stuff like plyo pushups and med ball throws. Not power cleans. Different load (too high) and speed (too low). Make sense now?
 
When the thing you are moving fast is relatively light, the influence of limit strength decreases, particularly limit strength in movements that aren't joint or angle specific.

This interacts with training status too- a novice who has done literally no boxing training that concurrently increases their squat will see big improvements (because they had a relative deficit), but Deontay Wilder saw no quantum jump in his punching power when he started to take weight lifting seriously to fill out for heavyweight

Bondarchuk's Transfer of Training is probably the best book about it.
Someone who understands the concept of rate of force development.
 
You are purposefully limiting the discussion to something that doesn't reflect reality. IF Hearns had a choice between working 2-3 hours a week on limit strength vs. ballistic strength he'd be much better off imho working on his ballistic strength because that best represents the type of strength he needs for his sport. And no high speed barbell movements wouldn't be what I mean by ballistic training. Again I'll explain it to you so you can grasp the concept: a punch is about accelerating a light object at very high speeds so ballistic training would be with light loads accelerated at high speeds, stuff like plyo pushups and med ball throws. Not power cleans. Different load (too high) and speed (too low). Make sense now?

It absolutely reflects reality because your "ballistic training" is accomplished through skills training. Heavy bag work. Drills. That's where that's handled. Strength training is used to increase the potential for power development. It gives you a bigger pot to fill up. There's plenty of time for both, and if there isn't for you then you're not dedicated enough to be a serious fighter. You are not better served doing plyo pushups than bringing your max deadlift up 100lbs until you reach a certain level of strength. On top of that, just bringing up that main lift will absolutely increase your ability to perform the little "ballistic movement" you love.
 
I would love to see a scientific article on this "snap" bullshit because it's bullshit. There's no special snapping motion that increases the kinetic energy behind a bunch. You accelerate forwards. That's it. A punch is absolutely a pushing movement. It's simply a high velocity pushing movement. No different than any other high velocity sports movement, all of which directly benefit by limit strength work.

Why you guys always pretend like saying increase limit strength means neglect everything is beyond me. There are many important fitness aspects to being a good striker, and limit strength is one of them. A person can easily fulfill that training need with 2 or 3 hours a week. It's not a substantial amount of time you need to dedicate in order to reap the benefits.



If he took steroids and drank alien cum juice it might change something for him too, but that wasn't my question. I asked a specific question. If they are identical, but one has higher limit strength, the one with higher limit strength will win every time. It's that simple. There's no reason whatsoever to neglect any other training to do limit strength work. Nobody in S&C has ever fucking said stop doing bag work and just bench and squat. So I don't even know why you bring that up. It's not what anyone is saying to do. It's a stupid hypothetical. The reality is you can fulfill that need with a couple hours a week and there's nothing you have to cut from your training to do it. "Ballistic training", if you actually look into how sports science suggests you train, you'll be doing high speed, heavy barbell movements like power clean and other lifts. There's a reason why strength and conditioning typically has blocks. You have power blocks, strength blocks, recovery blocks. It teaches your body to apply the most force possible in movements.

Snap refers to the chain of actors accelerating one after the other, from feet up, so that the peak force of one is conveyed to the next and that the final delivery is at almost peak power/speed so that the limb has nothing to do but return after the blow is delivered. Each stage has to exist within the peak force of the previous stage so as to not suffer from its deceleration.

Strikers are just very bad at explaining it.

The whip analogy is because of the wave being accelerated. It feels very much like the use of a whip. It does not actually mean that it will snap back just that peak force will be delivered like in the final crack or snap of the whip.

The problem is that the language used is that which conveys the matter to the uneducated and not the scientific.
 
I think where strength training detriments striking is that peak force is achieved later than is desired. So the greater weight works against you before your force can be relevant.

I believe that my striking certainly hasn't gotten any stronger as my numbers have increased, but that subjectivity means little.
 
It absolutely reflects reality because your "ballistic training" is accomplished through skills training. Heavy bag work. Drills. That's where that's handled. Strength training is used to increase the potential for power development. It gives you a bigger pot to fill up. There's plenty of time for both, and if there isn't for you then you're not dedicated enough to be a serious fighter. You are not better served doing plyo pushups than bringing your max deadlift up 100lbs until you reach a certain level of strength. On top of that, just bringing up that main lift will absolutely increase your ability to perform the little "ballistic movement" you love.
You can call ballistic training skills training but that is overly simplistic. If you have been hitting the heavy bag for years then it's likely that you got all you can out of doing it. If you aren't doing med ball throws, plyo pushups e.t.c. then you are missing out. Sure you could improve your limit strength but you'd likely find you won't get much return on investment as you are improving your strength in a region that you just don't use in a striking sport. Focusing on ballistic strength movements will give you the most bang for your buck if you want to have real immediate improvements in striking power.
 
Back
Top