… oh
You were talking about the vampire. My bad.
I blame the brain damage.
Roguevampire
The new Charlie Zelenoff?
My new routine=
1.dozen hard-boiled eggs every day for breakfast
2.chopping wood for a living & also in free time
3.long distance running as much as it takes to make my legs thin
Happy New Year to everybody & yout families and God bless you all! :))
[quote]SKELAC wrote:
My new routine=
1.dozen hard-boiled eggs every day for breakfast
2.chopping wood for a living & also in free time
3.long distance running as much as it takes to make my legs thin
Happy New Year to everybody & yout families and God bless you all! :))[/quote]
Way to go cherry picking peoples words. But your trolling for responses I guess
And a Happy New Year to you as well.
[quote]lucidfuel wrote:
Well to answer the original posters question. Nearly every school I train it 50% of the time is dedicated to conditioning and endurance. Everything from mc dojo’s to hardcore schools that train fighters. It’s all spent on conditioning and endurance. The other haft is spend working on actual combat skills.
Over time training became less like TMA and more like wrestling practice. Less kicks to the air and more sledgehammer and sandbag work. But the ratio of 50/50 always remains the same.
The amount of misinformation in some of these posts are amazing. Jaw dropping. I find it amazing how much some people have to say about something they have obviously never tried a day in their life.
Fighting is an endurance sport. Any REAL fighter will tell you that. Also size doesn’t win fights. If not the Anderson Silvia’s, frankie’s, and bones wouldn’t be top guys and Brock and sharks would all be champs. You can win fights by being a much better athlete. Not just by being strong. I sparr and grapple with the heavyweights. You don’t need to be stronger or even as strong as them. You just need to be strong enough! If your not bullied and if they can’t easily impose their will. If you have better cadio you can win fights.
[/quote]
Fighting is NOT endurance sport.Its power endurance sport and its a world of difference between the two.Any fighter will tell you that.
But how to achieve it is a different matter.
I ,personaly,always strived not to be close-minded in my pursuit of more effective training and so I firmly stand by principle =* IF IT WORKS,IT WORKS,DESPITE WHAT ANYBODY SAYS.*
There is undisputed evidence that endurance work was a big factor in training of some great fighters.Tyson ran and did lots of calistenics and he was the power house.
Rocky Marciano was throwing about 200 very heavy punches a round for all rounds it took him to win.He ran a lot.
Jerry Rice did crazy long uphill running,Herscell Walker did thousands of push-ups & sit-ups a day.They lasted long in a speed-power sport.
And lets not forget that you also got to condition for training in order to be able to endure high level training sessions needed for great performance in your sport.
[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:
[quote]SKELAC wrote:
My new routine=
1.dozen hard-boiled eggs every day for breakfast
2.chopping wood for a living & also in free time
3.long distance running as much as it takes to make my legs thin
Happy New Year to everybody & yout families and God bless you all! :))[/quote]
Way to go cherry picking peoples words. But your trolling for responses I guess
And a Happy New Year to you as well.[/quote]
I dont understand what does phrase * cherry picking peoples words* mean?
[quote]yarni wrote:
this thread is now making NO sense[/quote]
The no sense is the New Sense! :))
obesity is the new athleticism :)))
[quote]SKELAC wrote:
[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:
[quote]SKELAC wrote:
My new routine=
1.dozen hard-boiled eggs every day for breakfast
2.chopping wood for a living & also in free time
3.long distance running as much as it takes to make my legs thin
Happy New Year to everybody & yout families and God bless you all! :))[/quote]
Way to go cherry picking peoples words. But your trolling for responses I guess
And a Happy New Year to you as well.[/quote]
I dont understand what does phrase * cherry picking peoples words* mean?
[/quote]
“Cherry Picking”
This usually means selecting something from a group for having the traits most desirable to you. Like if we had a bowl of cherries. We would try to go after the good, non-bruised, ripe, non spoiled cherries first. We would not, generally close our eyes and randomly take a cherry. I mean, you wouldn’t want to just reach in and take your chances of getting substandard cherries while I ate all the good ones, would you? Think opposite of a random sample.
It could also be an allusion to a fallacy where only some facts/data are used to form an opinion or support a conclusion while others are purposely ignored. “Cherry picking” can form the basis of many incorrect conclusions or logical fallacies because it allows the picker to select only the results that are wanted and ignore the rest.
An example of “cherry picking words” would be if I quoted you as saying:
[quote]SKELAK wrote:
I dont understand.[/quote]
And offered the statement as proof of your “self confessed” ignorance. I selected the words to try and paint a picture that is different in meaning/intent than what the entirety of your posts convey.
Happy New Year to you as well.
Regards,
Robert A
[quote]Robert A wrote:
[quote]SKELAC wrote:
[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:
[quote]SKELAC wrote:
My new routine=
1.dozen hard-boiled eggs every day for breakfast
2.chopping wood for a living & also in free time
3.long distance running as much as it takes to make my legs thin
Happy New Year to everybody & yout families and God bless you all! :))[/quote]
Way to go cherry picking peoples words. But your trolling for responses I guess
And a Happy New Year to you as well.[/quote]
I dont understand what does phrase * cherry picking peoples words* mean?
[/quote]
“Cherry Picking”
This usually means selecting something from a group for having the traits most desirable to you. Like if we had a bowl of cherries. We would try to go after the good, non-bruised, ripe, non spoiled cherries first. We would not, generally close our eyes and randomly take a cherry. I mean, you wouldn’t want to just reach in and take your chances of getting substandard cherries while I ate all the good ones, would you? Think opposite of a random sample.
It could also be an allusion to a fallacy where only some facts/data are used to form an opinion or support a conclusion while others are purposely ignored. “Cherry picking” can form the basis of many incorrect conclusions or logical fallacies because it allows the picker to select only the results that are wanted and ignore the rest.
An example of “cherry picking words” would be if I quoted you as saying:
[quote]SKELAK wrote:
I dont understand.[/quote]
And offered the statement as proof of your “self confessed” ignorance. I selected the words to try and paint a picture that is different in meaning/intent than what the entirety of your posts convey.
Happy New Year to you as well.
Regards,
Robert A[/quote]
Thanks,Robert! Have a great 2012. ;))
I mean, the best athletes have a better “B” gear, and are more comfortable in the “B” gear, than “A” gear it seems, and always have more energy for their “A” gear because they are so efficient in their “B” gear, while most of their opponents alternate between the A gear and a “C” gear, and short of small instances are consistently outmatched on average and dominated in crunch time.
It’s like the Oakland raiders, a bunch of great “A” gear players who spend most of the game in “c” gear and occasionally break out that “A” gear. Their better players, like Nnamdi (I know) and Seymour (I know, not home grown) are both players with a superb “B” gear and a superior “A” gear.
[quote]Kanada wrote:
I mean, the best athletes have a better “B” gear, and are more comfortable in the “B” gear, than “A” gear it seems, and always have more energy for their “A” gear because they are so efficient in their “B” gear, while most of their opponents alternate between the A gear and a “C” gear, and short of small instances are consistently outmatched on average and dominated in crunch time.
It’s like the Oakland raiders, a bunch of great “A” gear players who spend most of the game in “c” gear and occasionally break out that “A” gear. Their better players, like Nnamdi (I know) and Seymour (I know, not home grown) are both players with a superb “B” gear and a superior “A” gear.[/quote]
what do you mean by A,B and C gear exactly?
Intensiveness?
When I roll, it’s either B or C gear (75% or 50%). Once or twice a week, I’ll go A (100%). Competition gear depends on the number of matches, but given that I’m a nervous wreck half the time, I bring out the A gear and gas out in two matches.
[quote]SKELAC wrote:
[quote]Kanada wrote:
I mean, the best athletes have a better “B” gear, and are more comfortable in the “B” gear, than “A” gear it seems, and always have more energy for their “A” gear because they are so efficient in their “B” gear, while most of their opponents alternate between the A gear and a “C” gear, and short of small instances are consistently outmatched on average and dominated in crunch time.
It’s like the Oakland raiders, a bunch of great “A” gear players who spend most of the game in “c” gear and occasionally break out that “A” gear. Their better players, like Nnamdi (I know) and Seymour (I know, not home grown) are both players with a superb “B” gear and a superior “A” gear.[/quote]
what do you mean by A,B and C gear exactly?[/quote]
Usually, quotations indicate you are making a non literal analogy. Great players spend more time “coasting” at close to their top level. Mayweather allowing his opponent to tire himself out, matching his opponents energy but not unleashing his full capacity. Pacquio dancing in and out, knowing he can comfortably land punches but even though every shot is damaging not every shot is his best shot. Jerry rice runnin a slant pattern, knowing he will get open thus not “trying” to get open but doing what needs to be done to get open. So, when Jerry sees that he has an extra couple yards of separation for whatever reason, he still has a trump card, his full intensity, to utilize.
I consider B level, an intensity in which you are relaxed and comfortable with your opponents possible output as the most dominant. The athlete who has a B level will often be victorious, as he manages energy output more efficiently. The Diaz brothers, from what I understand, are supremely confident in the ring, do not overexert themselves because they are not afraid of missing a chance to end a fight because they are confident enough in their abilities that they assume they will get another chance. Shane carwin and brock lesner seem to only have that A level, outside of that they are very vulnerable, they cannot coast in a fight, they are not comfortable exchanging attacks.
[quote]Kanada wrote:
[quote]SKELAC wrote:
[quote]Kanada wrote:
I mean, the best athletes have a better “B” gear, and are more comfortable in the “B” gear, than “A” gear it seems, and always have more energy for their “A” gear because they are so efficient in their “B” gear, while most of their opponents alternate between the A gear and a “C” gear, and short of small instances are consistently outmatched on average and dominated in crunch time.
It’s like the Oakland raiders, a bunch of great “A” gear players who spend most of the game in “c” gear and occasionally break out that “A” gear. Their better players, like Nnamdi (I know) and Seymour (I know, not home grown) are both players with a superb “B” gear and a superior “A” gear.[/quote]
what do you mean by A,B and C gear exactly?[/quote]
Usually, quotations indicate you are making a non literal analogy. Great players spend more time “coasting” at close to their top level. Mayweather allowing his opponent to tire himself out, matching his opponents energy but not unleashing his full capacity. Pacquio dancing in and out, knowing he can comfortably land punches but even though every shot is damaging not every shot is his best shot. Jerry rice runnin a slant pattern, knowing he will get open thus not “trying” to get open but doing what needs to be done to get open. So, when Jerry sees that he has an extra couple yards of separation for whatever reason, he still has a trump card, his full intensity, to utilize.
I consider B level, an intensity in which you are relaxed and comfortable with your opponents possible output as the most dominant. The athlete who has a B level will often be victorious, as he manages energy output more efficiently. The Diaz brothers, from what I understand, are supremely confident in the ring, do not overexert themselves because they are not afraid of missing a chance to end a fight because they are confident enough in their abilities that they assume they will get another chance. Shane carwin and brock lesner seem to only have that A level, outside of that they are very vulnerable, they cannot coast in a fight, they are not comfortable exchanging attacks.[/quote]
I guess its mostly down to being confident enough.
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
I know more about mma than anybody here. [/quote]
You sure about that? I’m a sanctioned MMA judge and I coach pro fighters and I wouldn’t say I know more than anybody here.
^^ dude is a troublemaking trollfest. At best he is a fanboy who knows all the stats on his favorite fighters and the rest he draws from articles on the web.
Damn…I was hoping for some good discussion on this…lol. I guess I haven’t been gone long enough…sigh lol. Nah…I’ve been gone too long. Anybody mentioned efficiency of motion with striking yet?
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Damn…I was hoping for some good discussion on this…lol. I guess I haven’t been gone long enough…sigh lol. Nah…I’ve been gone too long. Anybody mentioned efficiency of motion with striking yet? [/quote]
At the level Diaz brothers compete,everybody has efficiency of motion with striking.
[quote]SKELAC wrote:
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Damn…I was hoping for some good discussion on this…lol. I guess I haven’t been gone long enough…sigh lol. Nah…I’ve been gone too long. Anybody mentioned efficiency of motion with striking yet? [/quote]
At the level Diaz brothers compete,everybody has efficiency of motion with striking.[/quote]
Oh really?? So no varying degrees of that?? So no fighters are more “efficient” than others?? Does Jiffy taste better than Peter Pan?? After all…at that level,all peanut butter taste the same right??
Hmm…I think Kanada touched on what I’m getting at with “efficiency of motion” with striking. The A,B,C gear thing makes sense.