Ideas to work on stamina

[bakxierboxer]

*shudders*, some things never change

Awwww.... that's just my deceased younger brother's blog.

His sense of humor was a little bit stranger than mine.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Awwww.... that's just my deceased younger brother's blog.

His sense of humor was a little bit stranger than mine.

*shudders to the power of 10* !

Back on topic...

Many fighters still train more like endurance athletes than explosive ones and that is a combination of factors:
Old guard doesn't give up easy
You DO need endurance
Its time consuming and gives you room for thought ( roadwork)
There is some transference, its not pointless.

[bakxierboxer]

*shudders to the power of 10* !

?????
You come back from "back east" with a case of the shudders?

Many fighters still train more like endurance athletes than explosive ones and that is a combination of factors:
Old guard doesn't give up easy

Different Old Guards?

You DO need endurance

Especially when "in durance vile"......

Its time consuming and gives you room for thought ( roadwork)

"TV, or not TV!
Consumption become of it?"

There is some transference, its not pointless.

Yeh, you do need them transfers when going from say the Red Line to the Blue Line
(nowadays, they come with no guarantees that they won't run into something)
((although I hear that they're considering instituting a point system for survivors))

[sanjuro_ronin]

LOL !

[bakxierboxer]

LOL !

Uproariously funny it ain't......
But, still...... talk to one of those enviro-types and they'll start quoting fatality stats atcha..... and prove (to their own satisfaction) that you're gonna be safer dying in a mass-transit conveyance than a personal car....... or something like that.




Hmmm.... maybe they mean you'll be "more relaxed" when you meet your maker whilst comfortably ensconced in their latest and greatest cattle-car, scheduled at their convenience, of course.

[JGTevo]

Let's make up our minds here!
It either "can be done more anaerobically" (and it's an "absolute") or "that's theoretical".

It's theoretical that it can be done almost entirely anaerobically, because it has yet to be proven in modern times. There's no irrefutable evidence of it working against skilled opponents, anywhere.

It looks to me that your "real situation" is actually a "non-real situation".... competitive/ring sport-fighting.

The funniest thing is, MMA/Boxing uses rules to make everything even, which makes the results as close to the real thing as possible. In a real fight you could be a 120lb guy going up against a 300lb guy, or a 300lb guy going up against a 120lb guy. WTF does that prove??? Obviously you don't need stamina if the odds are so heavily in your favor. Obviously you can use just about anything to end a fight in a couple seconds if your opponent doesn't know what the hell they're doing. But MMA/Boxing is great because they provide even matchups. As even as it gets in terms of experience, weight, height, etc, so where it really does matter who is the better actual fighter, who has the better skill. These results mean a hell of a lot more than most so-called "real" fights.

More or less pointing out that aerobic conditioning can help/aid in anaerobic activities, but cannot achieve the same results on its own.

It cannot achieve the same results on its own in regards to anaerobic activity. I never said it couldn't???

Conserving energy is a requirement to "go the distance".... which assumes that there IS a distance to go.

A fighter should ALWAYS assume there IS a distance to go, no? Hope for the best, prepare for the worst?

"counter fighting" is more or less the definition of "self-defense".

In the loosest terms. Counter-Fighting in terms of how it is used in boxing/mma is very different than just "He punches, I block and punch back".

An "adrenaline dump" is often mistaken for "performance anxiety".

I never said it wasn't??

[bakxierboxer]

It's theoretical that it can be done almost entirely anaerobically, because it has yet to be proven in modern times. There's no irrefutable evidence of it working against skilled opponents, anywhere.

By the same token, it's gonna take quite a bit of proof to show that anyone can defeat a highly skilled opponent while "laying back" and using less than their utmost/highest level of output.

The funniest thing is, MMA/Boxing uses rules to make everything even, which makes the results as close to the real thing as possible.

and

In a real fight you could be a 120lb guy going up against a 300lb guy, or a 300lb guy going up against a 120lb guy. WTF does that prove???

Other than that you now have two (2) definitions for what I assume is "a fight";
"the real thing" vs "a real fight"?

Obviously you don't need stamina if the odds are so heavily in your favor. Obviously you can use just about anything to end a fight in a couple seconds if your opponent doesn't know what the hell they're doing.

And now you're adding two (2) conditions that should produce "a foregone conclusion"
as "odds" ("chance"/probability):
(a) in the form of a size/strength advantage
vs
(b) an opponent who doesn't know what they're doing.

But MMA/Boxing is great because they provide even matchups. As even as it gets in terms of experience, weight, height, etc, so where it really does matter who is the better actual fighter, who has the better skill. These results mean a hell of a lot more than most so-called "real" fights.

An "even match-up" of this sort is an artificial contrivance.... not "natural".
I have no question that such an event is probably the "best determinant" of the "better skill" criteria.... although you still have to "make allowances" for "the breaks of the game".

In such a controlled situation, survival itself is seldom at risk and the risk of debilitating injury is minimized as much as is practical.

In a "natural"/"uncontrolled" situation, the risks are of a much higher order.
Some folks will be bound to think that this type of situation has a hell of a lot more meaning for them.

It cannot achieve the same results on its own in regards to anaerobic activity. I never said it couldn't???

OK.
That said, how is it that you can put apparently equal weight on two distinctly different qualities/abilities, when only one of them seems at all likely to win for you by itself?

A fighter should ALWAYS assume there IS a distance to go, no? Hope for the best, prepare for the worst?

You're entitled to use whatever expectations you like.
I prefer a "more definitive" "outlook".

In the loosest terms. Counter-Fighting in terms of how it is used in boxing/mma is very different than just "He punches, I block and punch back".

That statement doesn't do much for defining "counter fighting".... not even "loosely".

[JGTevo]

By the same token, it's gonna take quite a bit of proof to show that anyone can defeat a highly skilled opponent while "laying back" and using less than their utmost/highest level of output.

Sure. Here's your proof. Go check out fights from
MMA
Kickboxing
Boxing
Muay Thai

To name a few. Then go ask a trainer or expert from any of these how important aerobic endurance is to their fighters.

Other than that you now have two (2) definitions for what I assume is "a fight";
"the real thing" vs "a real fight"?

This is getting ridiculous. You're avoiding the facts by side-stepping my points. Even if I was defining it as such, it'd still be irrelevant. My definition of a fight has nothing to do with proof of any all-anaerobic fighting styles being effective.

Find me proof of it. I'll throw ya one more definition too, testimony from a friend of a dude who did it, or a couple of low quality videos of people fighting no-name jerks, doesn't count.

And now you're adding two (2) conditions that should produce "a foregone conclusion"
as "odds" ("chance"/probability):
(a) in the form of a size/strength advantage
vs
(b) an opponent who doesn't know what they're doing.

Again, you're either avoiding my points intentionally or you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. That was an example of the uncertainty of a street fight. There are no checks and balances to make sure it is as fair as possible. You can take a video of an SPM guy destroying another guy but unlike MMA/Boxing, we have no idea what the other guy was capable of in the first place. Thus it is irrelevant. Even if they were both amazing, it provides no proof whatsoever as we have no idea who these people are and we've never seen them fight before.

In such a controlled situation, survival itself is seldom at risk and the risk of debilitating injury is minimized as much as is practical.

In a "natural"/"uncontrolled" situation, the risks are of a much higher order.
Some folks will be bound to think that this type of situation has a hell of a lot more meaning for them.

Depends entirely on the person and the situation. Many boxers/MMA fighters throughout the years have talked about their feelings before a fight. It's usually very intense. I'm not a psychologist but it seems a little ridiculous to me to think that there is a dramatic difference in the experience.

OK.
That said, how is it that you can put apparently equal weight on two distinctly different qualities/abilities, when only one of them seems at all likely to win for you by itself?

I put equal weight between them based on documented evidence of use. Compubox stats alone will prove this. We have no documented evidence of street fights to include in this.

You're entitled to use whatever expectations you like.
I prefer a "more definitive" "outlook".

So you prefer to predict an unpredictable future? Beautiful. I'm sure you know everyone whom you'll ever have to fight. Ever.
Clairvoyance now, hmm? Meditate some lottery numbers for me, please.

That statement doesn't do much for defining "counter fighting".... not even "loosely".

I wasn't going to define it except to establish the line between counter-fighting being a seperate concept than "self-defense".

[sanjuro_ronin]

Lets make it clear, BOTH aerobic and anerobic is crucial for a well rounded fighter.
Fighting is not considered an endurance event.
Certainly MMA with its 5 min rounds is more stamina-oriented than a 3 min boxing or MT match.
Still, there is no denying the anerobic energy used in the vast majority of the techniques, particularly striking.
I do believe that trainers tend to over focus on the aerobic part, especially with road work.
You get enough aerobic conditoning with the time spend doing bag work and pad work and sparring, road work adds very little to all that.

[iron_leg_dave]

That's a hokey answer, Iron Leg.

We use different variations of Tabata (20 second on, 10 second off) intervals. For example:

1st set (20 secs): Jumping jacks

break 10 secs

2nd set (20 secs): Punch heavy bag

break 10 secs

3rd set (20 secs): Kettlebell cleans

break 10 secs

4th set (20 secs): Punch and sprawl

break 10 secs

5th set (20 secs): Knees on Heavy bag

break 10 secs

Repeat this 3 times.

Lol hokey?

What is hokey?

You can't gain stamina without training mental endurance. Most atheletes train the two simultaneously and the latter quite incidentally.

When it comes to gong fu, for centuries atleast, it has been concidered important to have more mental endurance than you should need.

It's not hokey, it's one approach.

[bakxierboxer]

Sure. Here's your proof. Go check out fights from
MMA
Kickboxing
Boxing
Muay Thai

To name a few. Then go ask a trainer or expert from any of these how important aerobic endurance is to their fighters.

The only "problem" with that is that I couldn't possibly care less about those venues.

This is getting ridiculous. You're avoiding the facts by side-stepping my points. Even if I was defining it as such, it'd still be irrelevant. My definition of a fight has nothing to do with proof of any all-anaerobic fighting styles being effective.

I'm "avoiding" nothing.
I'm simply highlighting the elements and inherent conflicts of what you write.

Find me proof of it. I'll throw ya one more definition too, testimony from a friend of a dude who did it, or a couple of low quality videos of people fighting no-name jerks, doesn't count.

By the same token, I don't know you, your friend, or his dude that did it.
That doesn't even qualify as second-hand "info", let alone "proof".

Again, you're either avoiding my points intentionally or you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

I'm not sure how you get the idea that I'm "avoiding" your points when I'm "confronting" them/you with their inconsistencies.

That was an example of the uncertainty of a street fight. There are no checks and balances to make sure it is as fair as possible.

I believe that was a point that I elaborated.

You can take a video of an SPM guy destroying another guy but unlike MMA/Boxing, we have no idea what the other guy was capable of in the first place.

It would be reasonable to assume that the guy who got destroyed was "less capable" than the SPM guy who destroyed him.

Thus it is irrelevant. Even if they were both amazing, it provides no proof whatsoever as we have no idea who these people are and we've never seen them fight before.

It's not irrelevant as to seeing just who won that particular encounter.

Depends entirely on the person and the situation.

"That's my line!" (already used it twice in this thread)

Many boxers/MMA fighters throughout the years have talked about their feelings before a fight. It's usually very intense. I'm not a psychologist but it seems a little ridiculous to me to think that there is a dramatic difference in the experience.

Interesting?.... Not.

I put equal weight between them based on documented evidence of use. Compubox stats alone will prove this. We have no documented evidence of street fights to include in this.

Try hitting your next opponent with that box of stats.

So you prefer to predict an unpredictable future? Beautiful. I'm sure you know everyone whom you'll ever have to fight.

I don't believe that I've ever known anyone I've fought, although a few have decided to "make my acquaintance" or take lessons afterwards.

I wasn't going to define it except to establish the line between counter-fighting being a seperate concept than "self-defense".

Okay, although it implies giving the opponent the initiative.
Counter-attacking is a bit more specific.

[bakxierboxer]

Lets make it clear, BOTH aerobic and anerobic is crucial for a well rounded fighter.

I can easily "agree" with that.... although there might be a bit of a quibble over the relative weight that should be given to each.

Fighting is not considered an endurance event.

100% agreed.

Certainly MMA with its 5 min rounds is more stamina-oriented than a 3 min boxing or MT match.

Matters of intense interest for those who are interested by them.

Still, there is no denying the anerobic energy used in the vast majority of the techniques, particularly striking.

I'll never try to deny that.
I've been known to occasionally jabber about anaerobics over the last 40 or so years.

I do believe that trainers tend to over focus on the aerobic part, especially with road work.

There's got to be "a reason" they do that.... I'm not sure it's a good one.

You get enough aerobic conditoning with the time spend doing bag work and pad work and sparring, road work adds very little to all that.

Agreed.

[sanjuro_ronin]

We have to be specific in our training and as such, a person training for 3 x 5 minute rounds trains with a more aerobic context, a person training for 2-3 min rounds will probably have a well balanced anerobic/aerobic ratio, whereas someone training to end a fight in as quick as possible manner must focus on explosive power and anerobic conditioning.

HIIT is ideal for the short burst fighter and in a modified way for the moderate and endurance fighter too.
Its just the ratio that changes in the training depending of the specific goals in mind.

[cjurakpt]

We have to be specific in our training and as such, a person training for 3 x 5 minute rounds trains with a more aerobic context, a person training for 2-3 min rounds will probably have a well balanced anerobic/aerobic ratio, whereas someone training to end a fight in as quick as possible manner must focus on explosive power and anerobic conditioning.

HIIT is ideal for the short burst fighter and in a modified way for the moderate and endurance fighter too.
Its just the ratio that changes in the training depending of the specific goals in mind.

if you consider why HIIT "works", it seems to have to do with the fact that it requires the physiology to work in a non-habituating capacity; in other words, if you do a 3 mile run, assuming you are capable of it, after a certain point, the cardiorespiratory system "gets" what is happening, and acclimates; once it does this, in a way, the system has become more efficient, it can expend less energy to achieve the desired outcome - it's kinda like the difference in gas use accelerating up to 60 and then maintianing it at 60; by doing HIIT, you are never allowing for habituation, you are "forcing" the system to "improvise" each time; by analogy, when doing neuromuscular re-ed work with clients, I subjectively find that by keeping the number of reps low (3-5 for kids, 8-12 for adults), whatever we are doing doesn't loose it's edge, so to speak: it maintains a certain degree of "newness", which is what forces the system to actively learn each time as opposed to relying on some sort of "recall" (assuming the task is neither too hard or too easy to begin with, of course) - once the system understands what it is doing, it can start to use other compensatory patterns to cut corners; in a way, this approach can be tiring because of the degree of mental focus required, and as such it's a good way to simulate the reality of unpredictable stressors that one may encounter in the "real world"

[JGTevo]

The only "problem" with that is that I couldn't possibly care less about those venues.

Then you're ignoring the only comparable evidence out there.

I'm "avoiding" nothing.
I'm simply highlighting the elements and inherent conflicts of what you write.

Such conflicts are entirely irrelevant to the main argument.

By the same token, I don't know you, your friend, or his dude that did it.
That doesn't even qualify as second-hand "info", let alone "proof".

The credibility and experience of the people involved is important when it comes to scientific data, whether you know these people or not. They have documented credentials.

I'm not sure how you get the idea that I'm "avoiding" your points when I'm "confronting" them/you with their inconsistencies.

It's basically like you're changing the entirety of the subject to focus on misinterpretations of less important points, instead of the major point which I made - Which was that fighting is both an aerobic and anaerobic exercise.

It would be reasonable to assume that the guy who got destroyed was "less capable" than the SPM guy who destroyed him.

When it comes to style-vs-style, all things being equal, the technique wins out. Realistically all things cannot be equal, but one of the things competitions do, is try to make it as equal as possible - which usually makes it so that the better technique wins out.

It's not irrelevant as to seeing just who won that particular encounter.

Without factual data for comparison, it is not yet relevant.

Interesting?.... Not.

Then don't respond to it?

Try hitting your next opponent with that box of stats.

The statistics are a great representation of how a boxing match works. When you factor in the amount of punches per three minute round, you get a good idea of how much time is spent not punching. It's scientific data to assess how much of boxing is anaerobic.

You should be very concerned with the scientific method, if you're a teacher or trainer in the martial arts.

I don't believe that I've ever known anyone I've fought, although a few have decided to "make my acquaintance" or take lessons afterwards.

Oh geez, you're just a badass aren't you.
Then how exactly is the "More definitive" "outlook" possible, when you don't prepare for the worst possible opponent you can face?