[quote]Professor X wrote:
sugarfree wrote:
Cool video, but can we stop using the term functional for things that serve little purpose or function.
I can tell you how many times I’ve been forced in a situation where I had 1 hand stuck behind my back, lost use of my fingers on the other hand so I only had the use of my thumb to lift myself off the floor.
Zero times.
I can only imagine how easy it is to use your thumb for push ups when you only weigh 130lbs with clothes on.[/quote]
I doubt he weighs that much!
WTF was up with the dude who stood on his stomach at the end?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
sugarfree wrote:
Cool video, but can we stop using the term functional for things that serve little purpose or function.
I can tell you how many times I’ve been forced in a situation where I had 1 hand stuck behind my back, lost use of my fingers on the other hand so I only had the use of my thumb to lift myself off the floor.
Zero times.
I can only imagine how easy it is to use your thumb for push ups when you only weigh 130lbs with clothes on.[/quote]
Very hard if you don’t train, but it is obviously a lot easier than doing thumb or one-armed push-ups at 240lbs.
But that’s why people talk about relative strength: most 130lbs guys can’t do thumb push-ups (if you’re an MMA fighter, you’re only really concerned about being stronger than people in your weight class… of course for a real street fight none of that matters).
But that’s why people talk about relative strength:
[/quote]
No, that’s why small people talk about relative strength. Unless you are actually a COMPETITOR in a sport with a weight class, worrying excessively about “relative strength” before you worry about “overall or absolute strength” makes little sense.
But that’s why people talk about relative strength:
No, that’s why small people talk about relative strength. Unless you are actually a COMPETITOR in a sport with a weight class, worrying excessively about “relative strength” before you worry about “overall or absolute strength” makes little sense.[/quote]
Or unless you’re trying to run fast or jump high. Actually I would say that every sport is concerned with relative strength to some sort of degree, although obviously almost every sport concerns some elements/positions where absolute strength and bulk is more important than relative.
So while it is stupid to dismiss absolute strength because that person can’t do 1-finger pullups, it would be equally foolish to dismiss relative strength completely as well.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Professor X wrote:
jjoseph_x wrote:
But that’s why people talk about relative strength:
No, that’s why small people talk about relative strength. Unless you are actually a COMPETITOR in a sport with a weight class, worrying excessively about “relative strength” before you worry about “overall or absolute strength” makes little sense.
Or unless you’re trying to run fast or jump high. Actually I would say that every sport is concerned with relative strength to some sort of degree, although obviously almost every sport concerns some elements/positions where absolute strength and bulk is more important than relative.
So while it is stupid to dismiss absolute strength because that person can’t do 1-finger pullups, it would be equally foolish to dismiss relative strength completely as well.[/quote]
Relative strength is important for sports that involve moving yourself through space. The greater percentage of your bodyweight you can move, the faster you are. Relative strength is key in just about every sport except throwing events in track & field, bodybuilding, being a linebacker, or any other sport that is focused solely on moving stuff besides your person. Those events are focused on absolute strength.
Relative strength gets a bad rap on this site because here the term “relative strength” is always associated with 150 pound Bruce-Lee fan club types who don’t posses any of the athleticism Bruce Lee had but think they’re badass for using a dip-belt.
You know who should come to mind when we talk about relative strength? Franco Columbo, Terrell Owens, Mariusz Pudzianowski, and even skinny Michael Phelps. All these guys can move themselves lighting fast or move multiple times their own bodyweight. Hell, even Ronnie Coleman has “relative strength.” He curls his bodyweight.
But relative strength only matters if it brings an athlete sucess on the playing field. The guy in that video will be a badass once he puts his finger strength to the test and stabs his opponent with an open palm hand-stab.
[quote]FightingScott wrote:
But relative strength only matters if it brings an athlete sucess on the playing field. [/quote]
Agree. An underweight offensive tackle could have all the relative strength he wants, but still get knocked on his ass if he the man across from him is simply too big. Likewise an athlete could squat 600 pounds, but if he weighs 330 himself, he probably ain’t movin too fast.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
<<< So while it is stupid to dismiss absolute strength because that person can’t do 1-finger pullups, it would be equally foolish to dismiss relative strength completely as well.[/quote]
I think what he’s saying is that until you have some strength at all, worrying about what kind it is is counterproductive. At least that’s what it sounds like to me.
But that’s why people talk about relative strength:
No, that’s why small people talk about relative strength. Unless you are actually a COMPETITOR in a sport with a weight class, worrying excessively about “relative strength” before you worry about “overall or absolute strength” makes little sense.[/quote]
Athletes and trainer (some who write articles for this site) talk about it a lot too.
If you’re a rock-climber, your weight is the biggest hinderance. The best rock-climbers in the world typically weigh somewhere around 140-150lbs.
Also if you play tennis, volleyball, if you snowboard or swim… being bigger will not help you at all. So you’d want to be as strong as possible while still staying as light as you can.
Though obviously you’re right, lots of people make excuses about training for relative strength only because they aren’t able to get any bigger or stronger (usually because they’re training wrong).
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
jtrinsey wrote:
<<< So while it is stupid to dismiss absolute strength because that person can’t do 1-finger pullups, it would be equally foolish to dismiss relative strength completely as well.
I think what he’s saying is that until you have some strength at all, worrying about what kind it is is counterproductive. At least that’s what it sounds like to me.[/quote]
That is exactly what was meant. There are no doubt guys on this site who are holding back their own progress because they refuse to gain body weight.
They don’t eat enough and have fallen for “relative strength” as being the goal even though DO NOT COMPETE in any type of sport where this would be that much of an issue. I truly wonder how many people are true athletes and actually are on college or pro sports teams or in competitive powerlifting or fighting where this is an issue.
I am betting there are far more talking about it than are actually doing any of it.
It becomes an excuse for guys who make little to no progress as an explanation for why that is.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I truly wonder how many people are true athletes and actually are on college or pro sports teams or in competitive powerlifting or fighting where this is an issue. [/quote]
In lifting for collegiate swimming sprint events I’ve never really had an issue with becoming “too big.” No surprise there. In the competing summer and winter seasons I burn too many calories to make significant weight gain.
And whether I’m lifting out of season or in season I’m still training in a way that is designed primarily to make me a better sprint-swimmer.
I’ll never find myself saying “Oh Shit! I gained 40 pounds from doing a season-long periodized powerlifing program!” because I’ll never start a training program like that.
Losing your desired body-type for your sport is a non-issue if your weight training program is designed to help you become better at your sport. Even if your taking in 5,000 calories a day. I can’t understand how it would ever become an issue for any serious athlete.
The back bridge was sick… i don’t care how much that “concentration camp” guy weighed(prolly more than you think b/c he was tall). To do a backbridge w/ no head support and a person standing on your abdomen can’t be easy. It makes Matt Fury’s pale in comparison.
[quote]zooropa1150 wrote:
The back bridge was sick… i don’t care how much that “concentration camp” guy weighed(prolly more than you think b/c he was tall). To do a backbridge w/ no head support and a person standing on your abdomen can’t be easy. It makes Matt Fury’s pale in comparison.[/quote]
I don’t have a Bosu ball so I am going to start core training functional one armed overhead barbell squats on my training partner while he holds a bridge like that.
Aren’t powerlifting and Olympic meets relative strength? They have weight classes don’t they?
Aren’t powerlifting and Olympic meets relative strength? They have weight classes don’t they?[/quote]
Yes, but a good percentage of powerlifters(I don’t know about O-lifting) “settle” into a weight class. This happens with many years of training and deciding where you will strongest and most competitive. It doesn’t usually happen by just randomly choosing a weight class and trying to stay there for an entire career. In fact, most lifters move up weight classes as their career progresses.
[quote]lepermessiah wrote:
i bet that kung fu guy would get his ass kicked in a fight.[/quote]
I bet that i could take him in less than ten seconds…
I know the type though, “Bruce Lee was god”, “functional training is the best”, “weight training will make you slow”, “sparring is not the best way to become good at sparring”, “if you want to fight out on the street, you have to learn the secret monkey eye stab”
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
lepermessiah wrote:
i bet that kung fu guy would get his ass kicked in a fight.
I bet that i could take him in less than ten seconds…
I know the type though, “Bruce Lee was god”, “functional training is the best”, “weight training will make you slow”, “sparring is not the best way to become good at sparring”, “if you want to fight out on the street, you have to learn the secret monkey eye stab”
etc…
[/quote]
haha i know exactly the sort they come to my submission grappling classes and usually leave with their tails between their legs. i weigh 240lbs and get sneered at by 140lb bruce lee types who lecture me at length about the benefits of 500 pushups a day and eatting Udon noodles.
[quote]Wayland wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
lepermessiah wrote:
i bet that kung fu guy would get his ass kicked in a fight.
I bet that i could take him in less than ten seconds…
I know the type though, “Bruce Lee was god”, “functional training is the best”, “weight training will make you slow”, “sparring is not the best way to become good at sparring”, “if you want to fight out on the street, you have to learn the secret monkey eye stab”
etc…
haha i know exactly the sort they come to my submission grappling classes and usually leave with their tails between their legs. i weigh 240lbs and get sneered at by 140lb bruce lee types who lecture me at length about the benefits of 500 pushups a day and eatting Udon noodles. [/quote]
Yup!
I have a film-clip of these 17 year old norwegian kung-fu guy “fighting” a shootfighter from norway. It is hilarious, I’ll try to find it online and post it here… it is very descriptive…
Nevertheless, after not being able to defend himself at all OR do anything offensive, he afterward stated: “I could have taken him at any time, I just didn’t wnat to”…
