Strength not important

[spiralstair]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.