Functional Strength?

DPH · June 7, 2006, 10:46pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:
The bottom line is it is a term that was created to somehow put down those who train for size and strength as a goal instead of carrying sand bags and tossing kettleballs. It has gotten stupid. Let the word die completely.[/quote]

unfortunatley, I think we haven’t heard the last of horseshit like ‘functional strength’ and ‘train movement patterns, not muscle groups’…

not by a long shot…

even if these stupid terms fall out of favor, the gurus will start spouting off about some other equally stupid, poorly thought out crap to replace it…and as usual, their legions of followers will eat it up…

jjoseph_x · June 7, 2006, 11:06pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Nicholas F wrote:

Well I think the problem is, is that the term “functional training” has been bastardized and no one even understands what it really is. One persons definition can be completely different than anothers.

And professional athletes training is practically CONSISTED of functional training type exercises. These guys spend alot less time in the gym than you think.

Most professional athletes practice whatever it is they are going to be doing. They don’t need to call that “functional training”. Any training you do makes you better at that activity. To imply that training for sports is the only “functional” way to train is to imply that everyone else is “nonfunctional”. It is a stupid concept. I could care less about training for a specific sport. I no longer play sports. How does that make me “nonfunctional” because my training is now in the gym?

The only “nonfunctional” people are the ones who don’t workout at all.[/quote]

Did some Functional Training guru beat you up and steal your lunch money when you were little?

If you don’t do functional training it doesn’t mean that you’re non-functional… that’d be rediculous. It just means that your training isn’t optimized towards a particular function or movement.

Hell, you might still be EVEN better at same function or movement than someone who does “functional training” for it.

Take away the word functional and replace it with “focused” or “specific” and it’s the same thing.

Sentoguy · June 7, 2006, 11:40pm

Hi DHP,

Well, yes and no. My definition is more geared towards athleticism, which carries over to a wide variety of activities. In other words, someone with exellent strength, balance, coordination, kinesthetic awareness, and power would probably accel in whatever activity they chose to take up.

Obviously different sports require different skill sets, and yes I agree that very few people are capable of mastering several different skill sets (perhaps the only example that I can think of is Bo Jackson). But that doesn’t mean that their success is necessarily dependent on their athleticism.

For instance, Michael Jordan was probably one of the most athletically gifted basketball players of all time. However, he was unable to master the skill sets necessary to make it in professional baseball. This does not mean however that he failed at baseball due to his lack of athleticism. He failed because at the point in his career when he tried to make the switch to baseball, he was unable to master the skills required for baseball.

What I’m trying to get at is that an elite level of performance in any sport requires mastery of the skill sets required for that sport. Athleticism will only get you so far.

Professor X,

Actually it wouldn’t make Terrell owens “unfunctional” for tennis, or Sarina Williams “unfunctional” for pro wrestling.

Both athletes possess a high level of athelticism, therefore if they trained specifically for those sports and were able to master the skill sets required to accel at those sports, then they would most likely succeed.

It simply makes them less skilled at those activities. Skill level is a crucial component to athletic performance.

Good training,

Sentoguy

jtrinsey · June 8, 2006, 12:45am

Sento,

I think you unwittingly (or wittingly perhaps) hit the nail on the head as to why the term “functional training” is retarded. Michael Jordan was an amazing athlete, yet he wasn’t able to be effective as a professional baseball player. His athleticism wasn’t “functional” for baseball… because he just wasn’t a very good baseball player!

Professor_X · June 8, 2006, 12:52am

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Professor X,

Actually it wouldn’t make Terrell owens “unfunctional” for tennis, or Sarina Williams “unfunctional” for pro wrestling.

Both athletes possess a high level of athelticism, therefore if they trained specifically for those sports and were able to master the skill sets required to accel at those sports, then they would most likely succeed.

It simply makes them less skilled at those activities. Skill level is a crucial component to athletic performance.

Good training,

Sentoguy [/quote]

Why would you repeat what I wrote previously? That was the point. No one would call those ATHLETES unfunctional simply because they might not perform well under certain physical demands. That hasn’t stopped the guru-followers from using this term to describe bodybuilders or gym weight lifters as “unfunctional”.

buffalokilla · June 8, 2006, 12:59am

[quote]Nicholas F wrote:
There isnt a person like that alive.
[/quote]

Well, that may technically be true, since I no longer fit that description.

You have a pretty distorted view of how muscles and the nervous system actually work. When I was 17, I weighed 135lbs, could do 120 pushups nonstop without much trouble, and could barely bench 155. I weigh 200 now and can get 225 overhead but can’t do 50 pushups to save my life. Most of the guys on the wrestling team were the same way with the tons of pushups and weak bench.

Many martial artists (unfortunately) are also the same way.

Probably just knows what he’s talking about.

For the record, Serena Williams IS “unfunctional” for pro wrestling. She lacks the skill set (unless she’s hiding something). She’d be ahead of the game if she decided to train (ie practice) for it, though, already being quite strong.

-Dan

Sentoguy · June 8, 2006, 10:16am

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Professor X,

Actually it wouldn’t make Terrell owens “unfunctional” for tennis, or Sarina Williams “unfunctional” for pro wrestling.

Both athletes possess a high level of athelticism, therefore if they trained specifically for those sports and were able to master the skill sets required to accel at those sports, then they would most likely succeed.

It simply makes them less skilled at those activities. Skill level is a crucial component to athletic performance.

Good training,

Sentoguy

Why would you repeat what I wrote previously? That was the point. No one would call those ATHLETES unfunctional simply because they might not perform well under certain physical demands. That hasn’t stopped the guru-followers from using this term to describe bodybuilders or gym weight lifters as “unfunctional”.[/quote]

Hi Professor X,

Well, first off I’m not a guru-follower, nor have I personally ever though bodybuilders or gym weight lifters to be “unfunctionall”. Perhaps you mistook my quoting of what Thibedeau said to mean that I agreed with him. When in reality it was simply an example of someone reputable using the term “functional”.

Like I’ve stated several times. I don’t believe anyone is completely “unfunctional”.

That being said there are some bodybuilders/gym weight lifters who are very one dimensional as far as athleticism goes. Meaning, yeah they’re decently strong, but they don’t train for power, speed, balance, coordination, or any of the other facets of athleticism. On the other hand there are those who do. So, going back to our little debate before, I don’t believe in blanket statements that try to lump entire groups of people into one stereotypical viewpoint.

In truth there is a huge variance between such groups. That however doesn’t change my point. Which is that in order to develop one’s athleticism to it’s peak, one must train all the facets of athleticism that pertain to their chosen activity.

If one’s chosen activity was bodybuilding then obviously one might only need strength and size. But bodybuilding isn’t all that demanding of an athletic activity (in relation to a lot of other athletic activities). So, in this case you really wouldn’t need the other facets of athleticism (although I would urge any bodybuilder to still work on their flexibility, since it will help with lifting form, increase recovery abilities, and prevent injury).

But if one were looking to accel in a more athletically demanding sport, say Football, Basketball, Olympic lifting, Gymnastics, MMA, etc… then it would be imperative to develop all the components of athleticism to their limits.

Once again, I agree with you and the other guys who feel that bodybuilders (or even just lifting heavy weights in general) have gotten a bad rap lately. No, I don’t think it’s right. Those are simply your goals. But I also don’t agree with you (plural) then turning around and making the same mistake by bashing those who have different goals than you.

Both sides need to just accept that the other side simply has different goals and therefore isn’t going to train in the same manner. Neither is more right or more wrong. They are simply different.

Good training,

Sentoguy

V_R · June 8, 2006, 12:44pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Good post. Very few athletes would be great at ALL sports. According to the idiotic use of that term, that would make Terrel Owens “unfunctional” for tennis. Sarina Williams would be “unfuntional” for pro wrestling.

.[/quote]

Couldn’t be more wrong.

Serena is an amazing athlete. Fast and VERY functionally strong. I think with 6 months learning the basics with a wrestling coach, she would make a VERY good pro wrestler. In fact, a younger Serena Williams a few years ago was, IMO, one of the best all around female athletes out there - I think she would excell at any sport she wanted to. Why? Because she is athletically and functionally strong. And she didnt get that way by only being in a gym lifting weights.

Terrel Owens is a bit old to be learning a new sport like tennis to adapt. Age has its limitations. Not only that, but size is an issue as well. He is carrying around to much muscle/weight to have the lateral agility that a tennis star would need. Not only that, but he is quite injury prone as well.

A younger, smaller version of Terrel when he first came into the NFL could have been VERY good at Tennis if he wanted to and would have probably excelled at the collegiate level. He is also an amazingly functional athlete himself, as are most NFL football players at the skill positions, and again, he spent quite a bit of time outside of a gym himself.

V_R · June 8, 2006, 12:49pm

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Professor X,