Strength not important [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

Pilgrim

11-20-2005, 08:28 PM

Thanks for the replies
I still think a "I will kill you and whatever happens to me doesn't matter" attitude in a fight, along with skill and softness are more imporatnt ingredients then strength. Peak condition implies the strength comes and goes but softness, skill and attitude can always be present.
Before a fight you don't know who is stronger and when it comes to strength there's all kinds of scenarios such as strong legs guy verse strong upper body guy.
I know it's very hard because I practice but when you can control your opponent you do have every opportunity to give him a kiss or an elbow to the throat-whether he's a big hockey guy or your uncle who drank too much at a party. If you can control your opponent you hopefully can control yourself. The more I train the more inner strenght I have and I don't want to get in a fight.
Focused power is more important then being able to squat or bench a truck.
Strength training I like are doing arm grabs, the body exercise, lifting weights in various ways, sets, tempos, pushups, stance holding. A tough wrist forarm exercise is pinch gripping a wieght plate and doing curls, especially zott curls- 25 pounds for reps is tough.
And yes, there are plenty of old guys out there, especially amongst the group I practice with, who could hurt me easily, if they wanted to-that's why I'm glad I practice with them. Pilgrim.

AndrewS

11-20-2005, 09:57 PM

Strength comes from technique.

Technique feels like greater strength.

'Softness' without body connection is garbage.

Body connection is necessary for optimum strength and effective softness.

Pilgrim, if you have anything yourself, I think RD has nailed- you've forgotten how to develop someone.

FWIW,

Andrew

_William_

11-20-2005, 10:00 PM

Strength underlies all human movement. Attributes such as starting-strength, explosive-strength, and absolute strength are MUSTS. Surely you do not think that you should not improve in these? Improved strength qualities will have carryover to everything you do.

Ford Prefect

11-21-2005, 07:03 AM

All else being equal, the stronger guy wins.

Anthony

11-21-2005, 04:51 PM

I've been a Martial Artist for 20+ years and if I have to choose one most important quality for success in fight it would be strength.

"And yes, there are plenty of old guys out there, especially amongst the group I practice with, who could hurt me easily, if they wanted to-that's why I'm glad I practice with them. Pilgrim."

You need to make a distinction (when you post) between practicing with an old guy and getting into a real fight with one. Also, how "old" are these old guys and how "young" are you. You should be more specific. If youre 13 then of course an "old" guy can kick your a ss but if youre 25 then youre probably just a wimp.

Pilgrim...don't be offended but you sound like the perfect example of an armchair martial artist (or whatever the term may be). You train lightly and rationalize everything to no end but you never really fight. Just my feeling based on your posts. Not that i'm saying you should go out and get into fights. That's something that just happens without you planning it. It just sounds like you don't have that experience.

IronFist

11-21-2005, 06:48 PM

All else being equal, the stronger guy wins.

Ding ding. We have a winner.

This thread is hilaroius. To paraphrase Sifu Allen of Green Dragon Studios (a big advocate of strength training for CMA people), most people do not have the strength to successfully apply the techniques they know.

Then you get the people who are all "well it doesn't take a lot of strength to poke out an eye."

Then you get the people who (correctly) reply that poking out an eye of a resisting opponent is not easy.

If you only have the strength to hurt someone with an eye gouge, but your opponent has the strength to hurt you no matter where he hits you, you're in trouble.

Royal Dragon

11-21-2005, 07:44 PM

One thing I have noticed is it is always the guy with masssive amounts of strength that say you don't need strength. I think that is because they have so much strength that no matter what they do, they only use a small amount of thier total strength %

From thier perspective they aren't useing strength because they have so much of it in reserve (internal guys are perticularly guilty of this IMO) that the percentage of avaliable strength actually being used is really small.

A weaker person has less strength, so the percentage of strength used to accomplish a task is much greater.

FatherDog

11-21-2005, 11:49 PM

Then you get the people who are all "well it doesn't take a lot of strength to poke out an eye."
...

If you only have the strength to hurt someone with an eye gouge, but your opponent has the strength to hurt you no matter where he hits you, you're in trouble.

Best and most sensible response to that.

Pilgrim

11-21-2005, 11:56 PM

I guess it's just the coyote/monkey/prankster in me that thought of that thread, knowing it would cause a lot of blah blah blah

Of course one needs strength, the more the merrier. Of course we get weaker as we age but our softness and skill can continue to grow. I was a big advocate of the stronger the better,the harder the better, the faster the better. Being from C-town Akron I'm familiar with the Sigung Feeman Ong, Sigung Gene Chicoine, Sifu John Allen/ Green Dragon, Sifu John Louie/Northern Wind, and their off-shots. Their dedicated students are definately very strong.

Going from shaolin based arts to Indonesian style I have experienced and felt different energies from my teacher then I have from teachers in the past. I've seen how softness definately overcomes the hard; and also how the hard overcomes softness. My teacher and his teacher are definately very strong but they can do what they want with minimal strength, not cause they are very strong but because they are very skilled.

Let me think,old guys who are really good. The guy who started akido was old and frail and threw young guys all over the place. Like enter, control, and away they go. Paul Eng, Al Dascoscos, Shou Yu Liang, Dan Inosantos, Paul Dethouras, are all in their 60s and are still great teachers who I bet can fight if they had to and I know there are 20 year old football players who are way stronger then them ........but sorry.......I quess conjecture is just bull****.

I'm glad to have been shown the benefits of softness while realizing strength is important. I'm glad for a teacher who knows how to teach and fight and live an honorable life.

Softness and sensitivity seem to be very necessary when it comes to fighting with weapons- try being hard and strong against a knife fighter.

Besides hammer curling wieght plates, my favorite upper body exercise are handstand pushups- facing away from the wall seems harder then facing the wall since I can get into a steeper angle facing away from the wall. And stance training gets to my legs in a more intense way then squats, leg extensions/curls.

All mistakes are mine, no disrespect intended, and opinions are like life-we all have one. Time to train

Pilgrim

Chanwa

11-22-2005, 11:48 AM

Strength is a factor in speed and balance and accuracy.
So if there is no strength, what do you have left?

FooFighter

11-22-2005, 02:14 PM

The argument of softwork and hardwork is really nonsense. Here is a link which explains my POV: http://www.circularstrengthmag.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7912&highlight=jake+ritter

Scott R. Brown

11-22-2005, 08:11 PM

All else being equal, the stronger guy wins.

This platitude is overused and means nothing! Nothing is EVER equal! There is no such thing as “all things being equal”, unless I am Jim Carey and “I’m kicking my A$$!!” (See the movie Liar, Liar!)

If I am significantly bigger or stronger than a prospective opponent I will be inclined to use my size and strength to my advantage. If I am significantly smaller or not as strong I will be inclined to use strategy, tactics, deception and an equalizer (weapon) if possible. If I am bigger and stronger I will attempt to be alert to my opponent’s use of strategy, tactics, deception and a weapon.

Strength is an asset that cannot be denied. I will be a better fighter if I know what I know and I am stronger now than I was last year. But that does not mean a stronger opponent will necessarily defeat me. There are too many variables in a fight. If we are talking about a simple duel, which is how many consider fights, then strength “may” be an advantage, but not necessarily. Royce Gracie repeatedly defeated bigger and stronger fighters in duels when he was competing. Sure he was eventually defeated, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t defeat bigger and stronger fighters in duels. When one’s skill supersedes the skill of an opponent then the chance for success is increased no matter what size or strength an opponent possesses.

Not all fights are duels however. It is simple to win a fight if one is willing to do whatever it takes to win. The one who is the most brutal first will most frequently win.

Anthony

11-22-2005, 09:46 PM

"All mistakes are mine, no disrespect intended, and opinions are like life-we all have one. Time to train

Pilgrim"

If you had a life you wouldn't be trolling :)

Merryprankster

11-23-2005, 08:17 AM

This platitude is overused and means nothing!

Ummm. Nobody is suggesting it has any relationship to the reality between two fighters.

What they are saying is being used to illustrate a point that strength - however much strength training seems to be maligned by the stupid - is a factor in fights.

It matters. And it is therefore useful to increase your strength, since technique is nothing more than a way to capitalize on natural attributes you already possess.

That said, each person has different training emphases in their lives and different strengths and weaknesses.

Strength can certainly be beaten....but so can good technique, speed, accuracy and appropriate mental framework be smashed by superior size and power.

We dismiss attribute training to our own detriment.

IronFist

11-23-2005, 01:53 PM

This platitude is overused and means nothing! Nothing is EVER equal!

Yawn. Would you rather fight yourself, or fight yourself but this time your clone is 5 times stronger than you?

When one oppoent is significantly stronger than the other, it can often overcome a gap in skill.

But the opposite can also be said, too. It depends on the case.

GunnedDownAtrocity

11-23-2005, 02:45 PM

opinions are like life-we all have one.

Pilgrim

opinions are like *******s. we all have one and they're both round

-fixed

......

Scott R. Brown

11-23-2005, 06:46 PM

Ummm. Nobody is suggesting it has any relationship to the reality between two fighters.

Ummm. That is exactly what the platitude says!!

The platitude: "All else being equal, the stronger guy wins", clearly says we are comparing two or more people with "ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL". This circumstance (ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL) will NEVER occur so the platitude is inherently meaningless and says nothing of value worth remembering or living by!

If no relationship between two or more people was meant to be implied then why say it in the first place?

Yawn. Would you rather fight yourself, or fight yourself but this time your clone is 5 times stronger than you?

When one oppoent is significantly stronger than the other, it can often overcome a gap in skill.

But the opposite can also be said, too. It depends on the case.

I'm pretty sure that is what I said. Perhaps it would be of some benefit to read the entire post and not just the introductory point!

There are never circumstances in the real world where things are equal. You may be stronger than me, but I may be smarter than you, or maybe more brutal, or maybe I have a gun!

There is also such a thing as excessive strength. Too much strength will reduce ones endurance, making it nearly impossible to fight for very long. It is a balance of all possible attributes that is the most important thing to attain.

If a person was concerned that a bigger or stronger person was going to attack them a SMART individual would purchase and .357 equalizer (or 9mm) and train themselves in its use. All the years of training by the assailant has just been neutralized by a $700 purchase about $100 dollars worth of specialized training, and the cost of the use of a firing range and bullets. Therefore we may just as easily say:

"All things being equal, the smartest person will win!" or "All things being equal, the one with the gun will win!" or "All things being equal, the one who is most brutal will win!" or "All things being equal, the one without the sun in his eyes will win!"

This is why the PLATITUDE is useless and meaningless. It says nothing worth remembering, yet it is used to justify something within a circumstance that will never occur. All things are NEVER equal.

IronFist

11-23-2005, 11:33 PM

I'm pretty sure that is what I said. Perhaps it would be of some benefit to read the entire post and not just the introductory point!

I tried, but I got bored. :p

There are never circumstances in the real world where things are equal.

But it's still useful for proving a point. "All else being equal" is used all the time in science when demonstrating a principle. In experiments, all variables are kept equal except for the one being tested. It's the only way to directly measure the effect of something.

I'm fine with MAists not caring about strength development. If they just want to work on playing patty-cake and slapping each other a bit with their "perfect technique" that's fine with me. I'd rather get in a fight with some overconfident traditionalist than a boxer who is also a weight lifter or something.

FatherDog

11-24-2005, 01:02 AM

There is also such a thing as excessive strength.

False.

Too much strength will reduce ones endurance, making it nearly impossible to fight for very long.

False.

JaguarWarrior

11-24-2005, 01:55 AM

Yeah I agree, I don't think you can have excessive strength, unless it's "excessive" because you don't know how to use it. (IE throwing yourself off balance.)

If you are strong, you use LESS energy to perform a given action.
If you mean a guy who is big but not well trained and tires out, then I understand your point.

spiralstair

11-24-2005, 02:46 AM

All else being equal, the stronger guy wins.

Scott,

Imagine that the “equal” thing is in your reaction to two very different opponents who are both using the identical strike to the identical spot on your head.

The first opponent is an over-intellectualizing, in-love-with-his-own-keyboard–voice new age Internal martial arts player who is built like a stringbean. He ‘throws’ a right hook at your left cheek which you react to too late and as it makes contact he releases all his ‘intent’ and accumulated ‘stored chi’ into his strike.

The second opponent is a basic moderately ‘pumped’ gym rat with a 90 IQ who regularly works the heavy bag as a way of channelling his lower middle class rage at modern life. He throws a right hook at your left cheek which you react to too late and as it makes contact he ‘puts his weight’ behind it.

So the “equal” thing in this case is you get tagged by each guy. Which one do think ‘wins’(impacts you more), the stringbean or the moderately pumped rat?

Scott R. Brown

11-24-2005, 04:04 AM

False.

So many experts with so little knowledge!

I worked for 12 years for the CA Dept. of Corrections. I have participated in many “take downs” of inmates. It is universally recognized that the inmates with the most strength are the easiest to control. This is because they have the least endurance. They are able to resist for a very short period of time and then they become jello! It is the ones with endurance that cause the most injury to staff and take the longest to control and the most staff to control!

Maybe if we live in a pretend world where ALL THINGS ARE EQUAL we could say “NO SUCH THING AS TOO MUCH STRENGTH”, but since to maximize strength one must minimized their endurance training we CAN”T say that! So too much strength means a decrease in endurance and this is just as detrimental as too little strength.

“All else being equal” is a useful aphorism if it communicates a truth. But in this case it communicates nothing useful, since it is impossible for all things to be equal under these circumstances! As I have already stated it is just as easy to say, “All things being equal the smartest will win, or the most brutal will win”

I prefer to get into a fight with someone on my side that is smart and brutal not someone who is strong. The strong tend to be over confident and rely on their strength over their brains. A smart person will find someway to equalize his disadvantage and a brutal person will use it. A smart person may think of something brutal, but may not be inclined to use it. A brutal person is more inclined to use it, but if he is not smart may not think of it.

Scott R. Brown

11-24-2005, 04:18 AM

Hi spiralstair,

Since we are playing pretend lets imagine this:

Let’s take an in love with his keyboard, new age internal stylist string bean who is a brainiac. He is threatened by a muscle bound 90 IQ, golden gloves boxing champ. His intellectual brainiac mind would tell him he cannot compete with Mr. Golden Gloves on a one-on-one physical basis. So Mr. Brainiac introduces Mr. Golden Gloves to his new best friend, Mr. .357 Magnum. Mr. Brainiac being both smart AND brutal uses his new found friend to demonstrate to Mr. Golden Gloves that all his years of training in the weight room and pounding the bag don’t amount to a pile of sh!t now!!. Mr. Golden Gloves wets his pants just before everything goes forever black!! HURRAY for Mr. Smart and Brutal :) , too bad for Mr. Strong :( !!

;)

Scott R. Brown

11-24-2005, 04:35 AM

We may want to say that it would be better to be strong AND smart AND brutal. I would agree with this. However, we cannot say “if all things were equal”, because all things are NEVER equal. This is a hypothetical that never occurs. Smart will overcome strong under most circumstances. Brutal will as well. I don’t care how strong you are, if I come up behind you and drive a claw hammer to your brain you are going down. My smarts (coming up behind you) and brutalness (claw hammer to the back of the head) overcame your strength.

Too many people in MA think in terms of duels. Mano e mano!! This used to be school yard fighting (not anymore!) and not applicable to the REAL world of criminals. A smart fighter never stands up man to man if he doesn’t have too. The smart fighter always seeks the easy advantage. The point is to win with the least amount of effort expended and damage to oneself. There is no doubt strength may be an advantage, but it is just as easily a disadvantage. Because I see Mr. Strong Guy is bigger and stronger than me, I will find some other way of defeating him other than pitting my puny strength against his super strength. I will use a weapon, sneak up on him unawares, have LOTS of help, etc.

That is why God created men, but Smith & Wesson made them equal. Now in our present day world nukes make them equal too!

spiralstair

11-24-2005, 05:04 AM

Scott

Man, you threw 300 words at it when 50 would do, plus you didn't answer the question.
That's Brutal.

Scott R. Brown

11-24-2005, 05:49 AM

Hi Spiralstair,

Let's be fair: 138 words. 128 if you don't count the introduction. ;)

My writing style is mine and yours is yours. If we are going to nit-pick over how we express ourselves we can't have much a discussion.

It is clear big is more powerful than small by the forumula F= MA, but technique can make up for lack of strength. That is, where mass is less I may increase my force by increasing acceleration. Years ago I watched a test on a 165# boxer. The force of his punch was equal to that of a 250# man. I assumed he was compared to a non-boxer.

The effects I feel comparing the two will vary based upon their ability as well as their size. If we want to enter the land of make believe and pretend their skills are equal the stronger will have more force, but if we take the string bean and turn him into a 300# bowl of jelly and assume he has equivalent skill to the stronger man then Jelly Man has more force due to his greater mass! Mr. Strong Man loses again!!;)

Scott R. Brown

11-24-2005, 05:55 AM

Other examples of smart overcoming strong:

David over Goliath

Greece over Persia at Marathon, 490 BC

Xenophon over the Persians, 401 BC

Alexander over Persia at Issus and Gaugamela, 331 BC

Hannibal over the Romans at Caanae 216 BC

George Washington over the British Empire

Ali over Frazier, Norton and Foreman

Sugar Ray Leonard over everyone he ever fought!

Mr Punch

11-24-2005, 06:20 AM

There are smarter things in my sock drawer than you Scott,:D and I'm sure more brutal. :rolleyes:

The key to this statement and the platitude is: they are not literal.;)

Ummm. Nobody is suggesting it has any relationship to the reality between two fighters.

What they are saying is being used to illustrate a point that strength... is a factor in fights.
Read that again, Scott please. The platitude you're ragging on is what we call an expression. And sure you can say

"All things being equal, the smartest person will win!" or "All things being equal, the one with the gun will win!" or "All things being equal, the one who is most brutal will win!" or "All things being equal, the one without the sun in his eyes will win!"
... but they are so skull-buggeringly obvious nobody would argue the points, whereas it is patently obviously different with the strength point.

There is also such a thing as excessive strength. Too much strength will reduce ones endurance, making it nearly impossible to fight for very long. Frankly, this is a heap of ****. There is no such thing as excessive strength, unless you have excessively built up your muscles in an unbalanced manner and your frame can't take it, leading to slipped discs, joint problems etc which would be very rare. Too much strength will not reduce your endurance. Too little endurance training will reduce your endurance. Bad diet will reduce your endurance. Smoking cigarettes will reduce your endurance. Strength will not reduce your endurance.

The guys you are talking about trained strength or were naturally strong and did not train endurance. Like Bob Sapp or Akebono, big puddings with knackered hearts.

Wong Fei Hong

11-24-2005, 09:36 AM

Strength matters full stop ! Like royal dragon said in the first post, you forgot what it was like to be weak.
I think strength at the higher levels isnt so relative thats why we look at it as not mattering. With the exception of people like bob sapp 90% of all heavyweight fighters have roughly equal strength. Some have more knock out power some havve more knock out resistance. Some have stronger bones. Some are more skillful.
But IF you were to put someone of that build with no fight experience, with a super ninja kid black belt prodigy who is 12 years old then doesnt matter if the kid strikes throat eyes or groin the heavyweight will kill him with one hit . Its only that you notice this because the strength is relative and the gap is huge, whereas at higher levels the strength isnt so noticeable !

Scott R. Brown

11-24-2005, 09:55 AM

There are smarter things in my sock drawer than you Scott,:D and I'm sure more brutal. :rolleyes:

I'm trembling with fright! :p And you must have some pretty unusual socks!!:eek:

The key to this statement and the platitude is: they are not literal.;)

Like I said then it is meaningles!. A platitude and/or aphorism is a short phrase meant to state a truth or to be a satirical witticism! If it isn't to be taken literally then it is meaningless and therefore not true. Which is what I have been saying all along.

Read that again, Scott please. The platitude you're ragging on is what we call an expression. And sure you can say.....Scott
"All things being equal, the smartest person will win!" or "All things being equal, the one with the gun will win!" or "All things being equal, the one who is most brutal will win!" or "All things being equal, the one without the sun in his eyes will win!"
... but they are so skull-buggeringly obvious nobody would argue the points, whereas it is patently obviously different with the strength point.

It is NOT an expression. It is meant to be taken as a truth or at the very least a principle to live by, (which is really the same thing!), which it isn't!

The strength point is not obvious because it is not true, as I have repeatedly demostrated. It is not true because all things are NEVER equal. It is a fantasy proposition that will never happen in reality. Therefore, the truth it is meant to indicate is a fantasy as well. It is unwise to live by a principle built on moonbeams and fantasies.

A fighter who is strong but has no endurance cannot defend himself and is at a very marked disadvantage. It is not true that the strongest boxer or MMA fighter always wins. It takes skill and endurance as well. Many times it is the one with better endurance or skill that wins the day and not the strongest fighter.

Frankly, this is a heap of ****. There is no such thing as excessive strength, unless you have excessively built up your muscles in an unbalanced manner and your frame can't take it, leading to slipped discs, joint problems etc which would be very rare. Too much strength will not reduce your endurance. Too little endurance training will reduce your endurance. Bad diet will reduce your endurance. Smoking cigarettes will reduce your endurance. Strength will not reduce your endurance.

Well, first of all you say it is impossible, but then state a possibility albeit a fanciful one. However, it is true I was not clear enough on this point.

To maximize strength one must limit their aerobic and endurance training. The more one trains for aerobic capacity and endurance the less absolute strength they will acheive. To be well conditioned for fighting an individual must have a balance between strength, endurance and aerobic capacity. Granted there is some variance possible depending upon what form of fighting one is expecting to engage in. You do not find boxers or wrestlers super strong with no endurance or aerobic capacity. Because of this need for endurance and aerobic capacity they must sacrafice strength. This demonstrates the necessity of balance. So when I referred to excessive strength I meant it more specifically:

If one wishes to maximize strength they must limit endurance and aeorobic training, they are then considered by me to be excessively strong. That is strong to the detriment of endurance and aerobic capacity. They are out of balance and this is detrimental when engaging in physcial combat.

The guys you are talking about trained strength or were naturally strong and did not train endurance. Like Bob Sapp or Akebono, big puddings with knackered hearts.

I'm not sure what your point is here!

Let me see your socks top that! ;)

FatherDog

11-24-2005, 12:34 PM

To maximize strength one must limit their aerobic and endurance training.

False. Please provide proof. "Some strong inmates don't have a lot of endurance" doesn't constitute proof.

Merryprankster

11-24-2005, 03:57 PM

Wow Scott.

You're boring. Badly informed and boring.

And just as Mat said, it's an expression. It makes an unlikely assumption (all other things being equal), to illustrate a point (strength matters).

Nobody with half an ounce of sense thinks that two perfectly matched fighters, who know exactly the same stuff, have exactly the same weight and attributes, will ever meet each other - except one of them is stronger. As I said, nobody could possibly think that expression is supposed to reflect a situation that will actually occur unless they are borderline retarded.

Secondly, please check your definitions. If you are going to start lecturing people on the meaning of language, you would be wise to do so. A platitude is a trite, stale or banal phrase. It has nothing to do with the veracity of the statement.

You were closer with aphorism. It can mean a tersely phrased statement of a truth or opinion. However, it can also mean a brief statement/illustration of a principle. And it is the second meaning that seems to have slipped through the seive of your understanding. THIS aphorism is not a statement of truth or opinion, but a brief illustration of a principle.

Continuing, a principle can be something like a principle in physics that absolutely governs certain things. It can also be a generalized statement of belief, opinion, truth or fact. And I think it's clear that's the meaning here.

When a person states a principle, they are not giving you a laundry list of the specific details necessary to realize that principle or to describe effects derived therefrom. Thus, the aphorism was not to outline specifics of a potentially real situation, but rather, to illustrate a principle. That principle does, in fact, apply to reality (since strength is an advantage, albeit not the only, or determining one).

In case you object that I am being petty, I would have to agree. I AM being petty. I'm funny like that. Words mean things, and precision in language is important. Otherwise, we all wind up sounding like you.

Fatherdog - actually, to truly maximize your genetic potential, you have to cut back on your aerobic and endurance training. But understand that I am talking about maxing out on your ability to lift a specific amount of weight. I'm not talking about power, or strength endurance, just being strong.

So it's quite possible that the absolutely strongest inmates have no endurance. They may simply be focused on lifting a very heavy weight. However, this does nothing to support Scott's argument in any way - you can reach a sub-genetic maximal strength, still be quite - even frighteningly strong - and not sacrifice your fight endurance. Fighters, strangely, demonstrate this all the time. Many of them are fantastically strong by even decent athlete standards, and yet possess the endurance to go 20 or even more minutes.

Bottom line: It is possible to be VERY strong, VERY fast, and have plenty of endurance. The idea that we must sacrifice one for the other is only true if we are attempting to max out our genetic potential in any specific attribute.

omarthefish

11-24-2005, 05:51 PM

Scott's got some solid points. Everyone's being too pedantic about it but I kind of see why as obviously strength DOES matter. Even Scott said he agrees with that. He just seems to be making the point that it doesn't matter much . . . or at least as much as many other attributes.

The best comment IMO on the whole thread on this subject was MP's way back at the beggining that all it takes is 30 minutes a day to get a signifigant increase in strength. At that amount, you certainly don't have to worry about cutting into your time spent increasing endurance or technical skill. I go a step further. I spend probably only about 2 hours/week on strength training and it has helped tremendously. My numbers in the gym are modest but they blow the doors off the numbers of the guys who don't strength train at all. I can squat about 1.5 times my weight and I can clean maybe 3/4 of my weight over my head. My bench is embarrasing but getting better. I can almost bench my weight now.

Now while none of that is impressive to anyone who seriously weight trains, I only drop into the gym about twice a week and spend an hour tops each time...probably less if you include the time I spend chatting.

If you can get the gains I did from such a **** poor nothing kind of routine then it's REALLY hard to argue against it's value. Lately I'm trying to step it up a bit and actually start to respect the bench but even still. . . most people I know struggle at the squat rack with a meager half of their bodyweight loaded on. The distance between "total wimp" and "reasonably strong" is so enourmous and takes such a tiny amount of time to accomplish it's incredible. There's no real trade off. It's only when you try to move from "reasonably strong" or even "dude...he's strong..." on up to "freakishly strong" that you have to put in the hours that may impact other attributes.

Squat, bench, deadlift and clean & press can all be done inside of half an hour.

What's the big deal?

Scott R. Brown

11-24-2005, 07:20 PM

False. Please provide proof. "Some strong inmates don't have a lot of endurance" doesn't constitute proof.

I am disinclined to do a web search to find evidence to demostrate this "common knowledge" experience within the correctional field. It is called anecdotal evidence and while it isn't empirical evidence, it is enough for me since I have experienced the truth of it repeatedly and I know many' many correctional officers that have experienced it as well. I don't care if you believe it or not. It is not false, it is a truth as I and many others have experienced it.

Hi MerryPrankster,

I have refrained from personally attacking you, I would appreciate it is you would do the same in regards to me!!

Yes, a platitude is a trite or obvious remark per my dictionary as well. Trite means over used or repeated too often. Obvious means it is a fact that is self-evident or easily apprehended. It being a fact implies it is also a Truth since something may not be a fact without being a truth.

This platitude implies that strength training is valuable. I agreed with this. I also stated that the platitude is useless and meaningless, which I repeat, is true since all things are NEVER equal. If it is so obvious that strength benefits all and the statement should not be taken literally then it is still a useless platitude since it states the obvious which is the defintion of a platitude. It is un-necessary to mention the platitude in the first place and thus it would be more correct or accurate to say something closer too: “Everyone will find benefit from developing strength” since this is a truth based on facts and not on imaginary circumstances!

If the moon was made of cheese we could mine it and eat it! Since the moon is not made of cheese it is a fanciful and meaningless statement. The moon is not made of cheese even though we may eat cheese. Just the same all things are NEVER equal, yet we may all benefit from developing our strenth.

I agree with your assessment of strength, endurance, aerobic capacity for the most part.

So far omarthefish has grasped my point most accurately!

Everyone have a Happy Thanksgiving!

FooFighter

11-25-2005, 07:14 AM

There is a book called 3 Dimensional Physical Preparedness for Combat Athletes by Scott Sonnon which I highly recommend for those who is interested in studying how to structure a martial arts program. I would like you to check out the "Performance Diagonstic Trinity (PDT)" which is a way which a person can improve his or her own performance. I think the arguments here are one or two dimensional. PDT is made up as Practice (skills) / Training (attritubes)/ Competition (mental toughness). These are the factors that separates an average martial artists from a superior martial artists. Coach Sonnon wrote, "According to the PDT model, a combat athlete with superior conditioning and toughness can overcome one of superior skills; one of superior toughnesss and skills can overcome one of superior conditioning; one of superior skills and conditioning can overcome one of superior mental toughness."

Merryprankster

11-25-2005, 10:20 AM

Tell ya what Scott - guilty as charged. However, my annoyance with your posting was not directed at your subject matter - it was at the presentation. You insisted on basically giving an incorrect language lecture, when it's clear what the point is. Scientists work in hypotheticals all the time, in an effort to determine the cause and effect relationship of one factor. They control all the others so they can ensure they are measuring the right thing. Nobody calls their results hypotheticals with no relationship to reality

The statement you take such issue with is nothing more than the rhetorical equivalent.

Instead of embarking down that path, it would have been more useful to simply say "strength is one factor among many in a fight, and does not decide things in and of itself." Which, I think, we both agree on.

As far as Fatherdog's request of proof, dismissing it as common knowledge is somewhat unfair.

The fundamental problem with this entire thread is that people are taking things to logical extremes.

Scott is essentially correct that a person who focuses solely on their strength may not have any more gas in the tank than a couch potato. In fact, if you do NOTHING but try and maximize your genetic potential strength-wise then muscular adaptation occurs in that direction, reducing the physical ability to do endurance work. You CV system can't handle the load anyway because you don't do any CV work. You just lift heavy things. Which is fine, if that is your goal. I have no doubt that Scott's inmates probably didn't have any gas - but that's only because they didn't train for it. Not because something about strength training makes them run out of gas.

However, it is more than possible to be strong, fast, explosive and have the endurance to go 20 or more minutes. The idea that we have to "sacrifice" one for the other is silly. You only have to sacrifice one for the other if you are trying to maximize one aspect entirely - and even then, studies have demonstrated that being stronger improves athletic performance across the board - even marathoners.

The fact is that physical performance is an integrated whole. As omar's results (and mine) indicate, you can certainly get stronger without sacrificing anything. That improves your result with relatively little effort.

So, why not - besides the other obvious health benefits.

AndrewS

11-25-2005, 12:14 PM

Omar,

we seem to keep bumping into each other. . .

Cool to see that you're lifting. I'm very much of the opinion that a well-designed compound lift program gives amazing bang for your buck when it comes to martial carryover, general health and well being, and *injury prevention*. The last part may be the thing which is most important, as if you get banged up less when you train, you can train more consistently and develop more skill.

There's a *major* falacy going on in this thread that has not been pointed out- the distinctions being made between strength and 'other attributes'.

There is not one 'strength', nor is there one 'endurance'. A marathon runner is profoundly unprepared to fight 5 2 minute rounds. Grappling a 10 minute period is a different type of conditioning from those 5 2 minute rounds, as is doing 2 5 minute MMA rounds. There's some cross-over, granted, but each has somewhat different metabolic and strength demands.

'Strength' can be subdivided into multiple categories- speed-strength, strength-speed, absolute strength, speed-strength-endurance, strength-speed-endurance. It's the last two, and the ability to recover which are probably most important in a combat/combat sport context. As I understand it, developing these attributes requires a decent base in both strength and power, first. Initial work on strength and power will have some carryover to the latter mentioned attributes, but eventually, they will most benefit from work dedicated to specifically developing them.

As I understand it, one's goal should be to constantly improve your strength and power while increasing your ability to express these over time using loads significantly less than the >70% rm1 loads used to increase maximal speed and power. This is the nature of GPP/SPP, no?

Andrew

Pilgrim

11-25-2005, 02:23 PM

It's cool reading this stuff. Makes me realize how intellectual one can be. Last time I was hit with a punch (kick, elbow, knee, headbut,etc) it hurt. I'm not sure if they were strong or weak, internal external, escrima or kungfu. I do remember I've had my teeth loosened and my ribs have hurt. It's good to learn from such experiences.
Pavel, Scott Sonnon, Charles Staley, seem to have obtained a lot of their theories on cycling, reps, tempos, and their little charts from writers like Charles Siff and Tudor Bompa and a few other secret eastern European coaches. Or maybe not secret. Human Kinetics is a publishing company that has a lot of books, charts, tapes on all the training that people have been babbling about. (Speed strength,limit strength, for baseball or track or boxers etc,etc) Ian King, Charles Poliquin, and Charles Francis have or had web sites that are good sources of info .I've had a lot of fun adding some of the exercises from Shou Yu Liang's bookKung Fu Elements to my routine. It's Grrrrrreat.
I like what Scot R. Brown had to write. And everyone else. Except Anthony-just kidding Anthony.
My largest gains have occured when I train consistently. THat's for all strength.
Are everyone's sifus young burly, ripped guys in this forum? My teacher has gone through about 5 Chinese zodiac cycles, same for his teachers, maybe more. I imagine if one had older Sifus they would agree with my teacher that strength--YES it's important but strength and speed diminish and softness/sensitivity, technique and attitude will always grow.
Pilgrim

omarthefish

11-25-2005, 04:36 PM

Omar,

we seem to keep bumping into each other. . .

Cool to see that you're lifting. I'm very much of the opinion that a well-designed compound lift program gives amazing bang for your buck when it comes to martial carryover, general health and well being, and *injury prevention*. The last part may be the thing which is most important, as if you get banged up less when you train, you can train more consistently and develop more skill.

Andrew

It was getting over the fear of the olympic lifts that finnaly made lifting both interesting enough for me and developed enough "bang for the buck" as you put it. I've put on about 25 lbs since we met that time and it really didn't happen untill I started squatting. Clean & Jerks turned out to be so technique oriented that they are nearly as interesting to me now as actually training gong fu. I'd say that they ARE gong fu. The only thin I still have a hard time getting motivated for is bench press. Partly because I suck and partly because I can't find any way to really maximize my power through technique and maximizing power through technique is what it's all about.

It's funny. I suppose "strength" really doesn't count for much. It's POWER that most of us want. Strength is obvioulsy in that equation somewhere but there can be a tendency to put the cart before the horse.

Anyways, the real secret to my recent relatice sucess in strength training is that the gym where I lift has a handfull of people who are excited about learning MA from me so after my workout I have guy to take turns holding kicking pads and focus mits and doing drills with so I really get to kill two bords with one stone when I head down to the gym.

AndrewS

11-25-2005, 07:27 PM

Hey Omar,

yeah, the oly lifts are so technical, it's scary. At a certain point, I think there's some diminishing returns- what it takes to be a competetive olympic lifter is a different thing from S&C work for any martial art. There's nice overlap, but the really impressive totals come from people who dedicate themselves to just that sport.

Benching- I don't bench- I've been planning on starting, just as soon as a buddy drops his bench off at my place, but I'm not too worried about it. If you're looking to milk technique, check the EFS bench index. Having seen a bunch of PL bench stuff, it seems that what most of us osmose from high school weight rooms for benching is so far off good technique as to a laughable recipe for shoulder injury. I'm curious what I'll get out of benching, but right now I'm happily plugging away at overhead lifts, enjoying the shoulder stability and core workout they give me.

I think strength and power both have their uses, fwiw. Strength seems to be a prequisite for power, reading the training literature, but isn't something to sneer at in and of itself. Especially in grappling and clinch situations being able to exert maximal force can be a useful skill (as can the ability to exert maximal force over time- power).

BTW- congrads on putting some extra meat on your bones. I've done a bit of that myself and kinda love the feeling. . .

Andrew

Pilgrim

11-25-2005, 08:25 PM

when he knows that he has enough, is abiding contentment indeed. Te-Tao Ching, Chapter 42

Scott R. Brown

11-26-2005, 06:41 AM

Tell ya what Scott - guilty as charged. However, my annoyance with your posting was not directed at your subject matter - it was at the presentation. You insisted on basically giving an incorrect language lecture, when it's clear what the point is. Scientists work in hypotheticals all the time, in an effort to determine the cause and effect relationship of one factor. They control all the others so they can ensure they are measuring the right thing. Nobody calls their results hypotheticals with no relationship to reality

The statement you take such issue with is nothing more than the rhetorical equivalent.

Hi MerryPrankster,

I am willing to agree to disagree!

What you believe is a rhetorical equivalent is to me a nonsensical statement. The statement is overused and doesn’t indicate anything of value that a more direct statement won’t state better.

I refer you back to my comparative statement, “If the moon were made of cheese we could mine it and eat it. Since it is not made of cheese we may not eat the moon even if we may eat cheese. While strength training is beneficial to all, all things are NEVER equal. Therefore my strength being greater than my opponent does not necessitate an advantage in self-defense circumstances. This is my point. Strength may be a benefit, but it does not guarantee advantage in a fight. And once again this makes the platitude useless.

As far as Fatherdog's request of proof, dismissing it as common knowledge is somewhat unfair.

This is simply not true. I qualified my knowledge of this truth within a context and therefore unfair does not apply here. My experience, and that of some 700 other Correctional Officers I have worked amongst, have experientially found this to be a truth. That makes it anecdotal evidence. To those of us who have had experiential knowledge of this truth we do not require empirical evidence to demonstrate what we know. While it is true this does not constitute proof to those without the experience, anecdotal evidence is not completely without merit. Fatherdog and you and anyone else may disregard it if you like, but that does not negate the truth as experienced on a somewhat daily basis amongst those who do not sit around and theorize, but actually DO it!!

I agree for the most part with the rest of your post. My point has been that to maximized strength one must moderate other factors of their training. Further, in my experience, and the experience of MANY others I have known and worked with, endurance (muscular and aerobic) has proven to be of greater benefit in a fight than absolute strength.

Merryprankster

11-26-2005, 09:31 AM

Scott,

The fact that it is anecdotal evidence amongst a particular group of people - ie, correction officers, demonstrates one thing and connotes another.

It demonstrates that it is common knowledge in and amongst correctional officers. It does not demonstrate that it is universally known about outside that group. It is therefore not common knowledge (unless you are a correctional officer). Hence my comment about unfair (especially since anecdotal evidence from the sportive combat world suggests you can be strong and fast and have endurance), unless fatherdog is also a correctional officer. I might also point out that we must also lend weight to others' anecdotal evidence if we are going to start compiling it, if we are to apply that evidence across the board. That brings me to the next point.

The fact that this is anecdotal evidence from a particular group connotes that the anecdotal evidence may not be universally applicable. Let me give you an example. Let's say that the anecdotal evidence is increased athletic performance from high altitude training, and the in group here is distance athletes. Let's say you make the general claim, based on that, that high altitude training improves athletic performance at all altitudes. Well, that's true - amongst a particular group. It is not true amongst other athletes because the high altitude reduces the intensity (the amount of work you can do in a given time period) you can train at.

This is similar in that you are providing anecdotal evidence garnered from the experiences of a particular group. You are then extrapolating that into a general point, and saying that it is true more or less universally, which doesn't necessarily follow. It's POSSIBLE, but not "by necessity." We have to be careful when we start translating personal experience into universality.

Finally, reaching back to the idea of agreeing to disagree - I'm ok with that...but some of the best illustrations of a concept, principle, or idea are nothing more than untestable thought experiments. By your logic, this makes them inapplicable to the real world and thus not having value. Flatland doesn't exist, but there is a book about it to help students cope with the concept of dimensions. Schrodinger's cat, bless its shaggy little heart, is an impossible thought experiment (because the cat is both alive and dead at the same time...) designed to demonstrate Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Neither of these thought experiments reflect reality, but are quite useful for making a point.

Fatherdog and you and anyone else may disregard it if you like, but that does not negate the truth as experienced on a somewhat daily basis amongst those who do not sit around and theorize, but actually DO it!!

And many who "actually DO it," would disagree with parts or all of your truth. The people who are hanging out here may not be theorizing. They might, like you, have their own experiences to draw on. Which brings me right back to the dangers of extrapolating anecdotal experience into a universal point.

These are only to note what I consider logical flaws. I don't happen to disagree with your conclusions very much. Absolute strength is nice, but must be coupled with the ability to not blow your wad in 15 seconds.

Merryprankster

11-26-2005, 09:42 AM

Omar,

I've put on about 25 lbs since we met that time and it really didn't happen untill I started squatting.

LOL one of the great truths of iron! So many people overlook it...

Strength seems to be a prequisite for power, reading the training literature, but isn't something to sneer at in and of itself.

It's a component of power. A person who deadlifts 500lbs in .5 seconds outputs more power than a person who deadlifts 1000lbs, but takes 2 seconds to do it. However, that 500lbs deadlifter might top out at 700lbs, while it still takes 1 second for the 1000lbs deadlifter to lift the same 500lbs.

The 1000lbs guy is stronger, but the 500lbs guy is more powerful (or at least more capable of generating power at those weights....)

Good times...

Mr Punch

11-26-2005, 09:51 AM

Scott,

apart from the fact that you seem to have sigmund freud living up your ass, in terms of literalness (and no, i don't really mean sigmund freud is living up your ass...!) you make some good points.

My experience, and that of some 700 other Correctional Officers I have worked amongst, have experientially found this to be a truth. did you talk to each and every one of these people about fat blooters/big people gassing? did you have a seminar about big strong people gassing? no didnt think so, which means you work among 700 correctional officers, not necessarily that they agree with you, which means in turn you may well be talking out your ass (and i'm afraid i cant hear you - tell sigmund to get the f out the way!).

The guys you are talking about trained strength or were naturally strong and did not train endurance. Like Bob Sapp or Akebono, big puddings with knackered hearts.
I'm not sure what your point is here!
So it's quite possible that the absolutely strongest inmates have no endurance. They may simply be focused on lifting a very heavy weight. However, this does nothing to support Scott's argument in any way - you can reach a sub-genetic maximal strength, still be quite - even frighteningly strong - and not sacrifice your fight endurance. Fighters, strangely, demonstrate this all the time. Many of them are fantastically strong by even decent athlete standards, and yet possess the endurance to go 20 or even more minutes.

plus...

So far omarthefish has grasped my point most accurately!
You mean you could take it that Omar agrees with you...?! I grasped your points, I just didn't agree with all of them!

AndrewS

11-26-2005, 10:44 AM

The big guys in prison gas early?

Hmmm, I wonder what group is more likely to be getting more than their share of the smokes?

Next- how pumping iron in prison *prevents rectal bleeding and STDs*. . .

Andrew

fa_jing

11-26-2005, 02:12 PM

Hey-O.

My (former) sifu is a Cook County Sheriff, works at the prison, controlling dangerous criminals is one of his duties. He has said something similar about the big guys being easier to control. Not because of lack of endurance or speed. I think it was something about them not being able to take a hit but I can't quite remember.

I do remember him showing up one day with a pretty nasty gash on his forearm, said something about being "stupid." The point that someone made about a real fight with a criminal has nothing to do with two people standing up is 100% straight on.

Scott R. Brown

11-26-2005, 07:36 PM

Hi MerryPrankster,

If you are not convinced by my generalized example using anecdotal evidence I am happy to discard it. The falsity of my example (in your opinion) does not necessitate the truth of the platitude, only the inadequacy of the example (in your opinion) to demonstrate its falsity.

Schrödinger’s cat is used to demonstrate an “accepted” fact (truth) of physics. Flatland, by your testament, is used to illustrate “possible” conditions (facts, truth) of the material universe. The truths they seek to illustrate are described as consequences that “actually” occur or may “possibly” occur. The conclusions necessitate, that is “must” follow if the truths they demonstrate are a result of “true" premises. As with all reasoned argument, if the premises are true the conclusion must follow that is it must necessitate! The “strong man winning” does not necessitate because “All things being equal…” cannot occur. The premise is false! Since the “If” cannot occur, the “then” does not necessitate!

If you are presenting the platitude, “All things being equal, the stronger man wins!” as a thought experiment I am greatly amused! The platitude is meant to communicate a truth just as Flatland and Schrödinger’s cat are meant to illustrate truths or possible truths. The problem is the truth is based upon false conditions, that is false premises! The truth our platitude is meant to convey is that, “If” all things were equal, “then” the stronger man wins. Since “If” in this circumstance cannot occur, the “then”, once again, does not necessarily follow.

The problem with the platitude is that strength is NOT important except within a narrow spectrum of circumstances just as you are implying my anecdotal evidence only applies within a narrow spectrum of circumstances. The platitude is used to justify strength training as a necessity. The platitude actually demonstrates my conclusion far better than what others presume it to demonstrate. It is unnecessary to possess strength to win unless “all things are equal”. Since all things are “never” equal, then strength is not necessary. If it were necessary then the stronger man would always win. But strength is not necessary and that is why the stronger man does not always win. There are other condtions that have preeminence over strength.

That is not to say that strength is not a benefit, only NOT NECESSARY! My thought experiment is at least as sound as Schrödinger’s cat!!

Hi Mat,

I have never read Freud and have never been interested either. If you are looking for him I would look up you own…! It is fine if you disagree with me, but it is unnecessary to resort to insults.

I don’t care if you agree with my points or not!! I don’t form my opinions by consensus.

Merryprankster

11-27-2005, 08:35 AM

As with all reasoned argument, if the premises are true the conclusion must follow that is it must necessitate!

Um, no. You can start with true premises and through flaws in reasoning reach incorrect conclusions.

For instance - "strength is not necessary" is an absolute. It is also not true. Yet it is a conclusion you say you have reached via reason.

Some strength is necessary is the correct conclusion. Otherwise, you can't hold yourself up....

Anyway, the subject is sort of irrelevant since we more or less agree on the point.

Scott R. Brown

11-27-2005, 10:19 AM

LOL!! “Strength is not necessary”, in this circumstance, is only an absolute if you take it out of the context of the discussion! Changing the meaning of words or sentences to suit your preconceive notions is not using reason. It is you who insists words mean things, but apparently they only mean what you want them to mean when you want them to mean it and what others intend is disregarded. Many statements may be taken as either absolutes or as qualified depending upon their context. With some statements the qualification is implied, other times it is stated. There is implied meaning within my statement that you are choosing to ignore!

When I say “strength is not necessary” you may take it as an absolute as you please, but a reasonable person would infer it is meant within the context of the discussion. If we had no strength at all we would be nothing more then jello lying on the ground doing nothing. This is a ridiculous assertion! Within the context of the discussion we are referring to one or more individuals having greater strength than another and this being “necessary” to prevail in combat. I should not have to qualify this to a reasonable individual.

Again, you are the one who said words mean things. Yet you are arguing for a platitude that doesn’t say what you purport it too. I have taken the platitude literally, and you take it figuratively. To take it figuratively we must read into it the meaning that you insist it has. This is an imprecise method to communicate a material truth. Metaphoric epigrams are most effective when they are used to indicate truths that cannot be precisely defined using words, that is, to indicate experiences.

So for example: if I were to attempt to communicate the taste of an orange (an experience) I will use comparisons to describe it. I will use other tastes it is similar too in order to point the hearer in the direction of my meaning. When the hearer actually tastes an orange they will have this comparative knowledge with which to understand and hopefully surmise that it is an orange they taste. However, metaphor is an imprecise method of communicating knowledge. The hearer may actually be tasting a tangerine; a similar, but different taste. This makes metaphor an imprecise indicator of truth; therefore it is more efficient to state truths as directly as possible when possible. When speaking about material truths we may be specific; metaphorics cloud the issue in these circumstances. To imply or state that strength (greater than my opponent’s) is “necessary” is a false statement. If I have a gun, or I come up behind an opponent with a claw hammer, or use a bomb, or run away, etc. my having greater strength is not a significant factor in the success of my goal. In these circumstances and, many others, greater strength is “not necessary” and yet I prevail.

“All things being equal, the stronger man will win” is a valid argument. That means that “if” (in the land of make believe) the premise is true, “then” the conclusion will by necessity be true. Since the premise is not possible it can be said to be untrue, therefore the conclusion is not necessarily true and it is an unsound argument. That means the conclusion “the stronger man will win” is untrue!! “Will win” implies a certainty. This certainty only applies in the land of make believe where “All things are equal”! Since “will win” is not a certainty in the real world, the platitude is a false statement!! As I have repeatedly stated, it is better to say that strength can be a benefit, but to say it is a necessity is false. I contend the platitude implies it is necessary, which it is not. The platitude is used to justify strength training. There are other more accurate statements that may be used to make the point than an overused platitude that many blindly repeat without examining what it actually says.

The heading of this thread is: “Strength not important”. Strength is a benefit, but it is “not important” to point where one “must” have superior strength over their opponent(s) to prevail in combat. Within the context of the heading of the thread it should be understood that the implication is that one’s strength “in comparison to one’s opponent” is not important, not that strength is not important at all. I take this statement to imply “not necessary” and this is a true. Strength is not necessary to prevail in combat. To phrase it for the nit pickers and those who choose to redefine the meaning outside of its intended context we could say, “Possessing greater strength than one’s opponent does not guarantee victory in combat!”

I have previously listed historical circumstances that have demonstrated the point that “greater” strength did not ensure the success of the stronger. The platitude as well as your perspective stands as incorrect no matter how you chose to redefine the discussion.

I agree this is merely an exercise in rhetoric!

Scott R. Brown

11-27-2005, 10:21 AM

Um, no. You can start with true premises and through flaws in reasoning reach incorrect conclusion.

This would not be a REASONED argument. It would be invalid AND unsound and not based upon reason, but as you stated, FLAWS in reasoning!

fa_jing

11-27-2005, 09:05 PM

hmm, now that I think about it I think my sifu was talking about ring fighting, not prisoner control. Anyway, I find it strange that people here (esp SAB, but I have seen it from others in other threads way too often at this site) care so much about arguing about arguing. Go make some money, or post a clip. :D

Pilgrim

11-27-2005, 11:35 PM

Besides pinch gripping plates-a 25lber for 5-7 on a preacher bench is my max-try strap curls. Get a thin rope, tie it around a plate, get a gripper, pinch it shut on the thin rope , and do curls. Good for your grip and forearms. Twisting a bunch of thin dowel sticks tied into a bunch is also a forearm fryer. Make sure youshake out your forearms to circulate the Qi and blood, rduce tension.
Pilgrim

Merryprankster

11-29-2005, 06:25 PM

I have taken the platitude literally

Exactly my problem with your line of argument. It is not meant to be taken literally, any more than Schrodinger's cat is meant to be taken literally as an experiment.

This does not render it any less valuable. In fact, by so doing, you miss the point entirely.

I personally find it mildly amusing that you start talking about how OF COURSE you didn't mean that strength isn't necessary to winning a fight at ALL, and that I was taking out of context and on and on and on.

Yet, I was only doing what you yourself were doing - taking something that CLEARLY wasn't meant literally, literally. And lo and behold - you keyed on on something - what I said was really, when you get down to it - kind of dumb with respect to that particular segment of this conversation. And that was precisely what I was trying convey - the absurdity that results when you take something meant figuratively in a literal sense.

Yes, words mean things, along with their context. When you choose to ignore the context (nobody - except you - is taking this statement literally), you miss the point.

Your style of reasoning is why some people claim the earth is 6000 years old, give or take a few. They read the bible, and interpret it "literally."

But you seem to enjoy it, so have fun, go play.

Toby

11-30-2005, 06:27 AM

Benching- I don't bench- I've been planning on starting, just as soon as a buddy drops his bench off at my place, but I'm not too worried about it. If you're looking to milk technique, check the EFS bench index. Having seen a bunch of PL bench stuff, it seems that what most of us osmose from high school weight rooms for benching is so far off good technique as to a laughable recipe for shoulder injury. I'm curious what I'll get out of benching ...Here's how I do it, gleaned from various posts here:

Shoulders down (to prevent aggravating my shoulder injury == no hunching).
Elbows in, usually 45° or less.
Lower back arched, mid back upwards and arse touching the bench. Chest up in the air.
Feet on the ground, pressing upwards lightly (towards the head) to hold the lower back arch.
Tighten the anus and lower abs.
Drop the bar to the bottom of the ribcage, not the pecs.
Tighten lats noticeably before lifting.
Lift in a down/bottom/up 2/0/1 rhythm.

That's about it off the top of my head. Surprisingly technical lift, really, especially towards your 1RM.

fa_jing

11-30-2005, 01:34 PM

Right, correct point of contact of bar on chest is two inches below the (male ;)) nipple line. That was shown to me by a champion powerlifter.

AndrewS

11-30-2005, 03:07 PM

Toby,

thanks, that jibes with the information I've gathered. Even so, I'm still lacking a critical piece of equipment- a bench.

Andrew

Toby

11-30-2005, 06:02 PM

Right, correct point of contact of bar on chest is two inches below the (male ;)) nipple line. That was shown to me by a champion powerlifter.Much lower and the bar tends to be unstable and wants to fall on your stomach - you need to apply lateral force to keep it from falling == too much work. Much higher and the shoulder stress increases. I do find myself unconsciously going a bit higher when approaching maximal lifts, which sucks. Hard to keep good form with heavier weight, much the same as will all lifts when pushing the limit.

Andrew, I've got this one (http://www.bodysolid.com/Item.aspx?ItemID=496&ItemLabel=GFB350%3a+Body-Solid+Flat+Bench). I really like a good solid bench. Mine is very steady with a decent footprint. Notice how the legs extend beyond the length of the bench and are quite wide. It's not bad for a home bench. I really like the benchpress. I like the "make the lift or be crushed" aspect, which is doubly important when lifting alone like me. I rarely use spotter bars, only if I know I'm pushing a limit. After a long while benching you get to know pretty well if you're going to make the next rep or not (like all lifts). If there's any doubt I'll use spotter bars.