[quote]bpbob wrote:
Your goals are silly. [/quote]
Said no highly successful person ever…
Seriously, even if this was meant tongue in cheek, shooting other people’s goals down is one of the least productive things you can do.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]bpbob wrote:
Your goals are silly. [/quote]
Said no highly successful person ever…
Seriously, even if this was meant tongue in cheek, shooting other people’s goals down is one of the least productive things you can do.
[/quote]
Agreed.
Strength is very important IMO.
I haven’t fought in over 10 years. During that 10 years I have been training for powerlifting and strongman. Although slower, less coordinated and less conditioned, I’m pretty sure my current self could beat the crap out of me 10 years ago when I was kickboxing full-time simply because I’m so much bigger and stronger now.
[quote]Loftearmen wrote:
Strength is very important IMO.
I haven’t fought in over 10 years. During that 10 years I have been training for powerlifting and strongman. Although slower, less coordinated and less conditioned, I’m pretty sure my current self could beat the crap out of me 10 years ago when I was kickboxing full-time simply because I’m so much bigger and stronger now. [/quote]
I understand where you’re coming from, but I think this is one of those situations where comparing yourself to an older version of yourself can be misleading. I am bigger, stronger and in someways better conditioned than I was when I was boxing 4 or 5 days a week, and I don’t think I’d fare any worse against ‘old me’ as a result. That said, the comparison is obviously purely hypothetical. ‘Old me’ was still a very competitive, successful light heavyweight boxer, with the power and skill to drop heavyweights who had considerable size and strength on me.
That’s really what I mean when I say in some of my posts that strength and size are extremely useful, but there becomes a point of diminishing returns. Once you’re already one of the bigger guys, it doesn’t matter all that much whether you’re the biggest or strongest of all, because you’re big enough and strong enough to do enough damage to put an end to the situation.
Of course, there are some freaks out there, the WSM competitors etc, who are literally the size of two of me, and of course, that sort of giant size is a game changer, but realistically, against someone like that, it doesn’t matter if you’re 185lbs and a big fit bloke, or 225 and a big fit bloke, you’re still going to get squashed unless you find yourself an equaliser. Strength is useful, but only up to the point that it can be brought to bear in a manner that will let you prevail, and to my mind, it doesn’t make sense to train to try to bee outliers.
For example: since you, who are no doubt bigger and stronger than me, would none-the-less get crushed for strength and sheer mass and inertia by a WSM competitor in a ‘fair’ one-on-one, it becomes academic to suggest strength is an extremely important attribute. What you actually need is enough strength to swing an appropriate improvised weapon, which is probably well under the level of strength you actually already possess.
[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:
[quote]Loftearmen wrote:
Strength is very important IMO.
I haven’t fought in over 10 years. During that 10 years I have been training for powerlifting and strongman. Although slower, less coordinated and less conditioned, I’m pretty sure my current self could beat the crap out of me 10 years ago when I was kickboxing full-time simply because I’m so much bigger and stronger now. [/quote]
I understand where you’re coming from, but I think this is one of those situations where comparing yourself to an older version of yourself can be misleading. I am bigger, stronger and in someways better conditioned than I was when I was boxing 4 or 5 days a week, and I don’t think I’d fare any worse against ‘old me’ as a result. That said, the comparison is obviously purely hypothetical. ‘Old me’ was still a very competitive, successful light heavyweight boxer, with the power and skill to drop heavyweights who had considerable size and strength on me.
That’s really what I mean when I say in some of my posts that strength and size are extremely useful, but there becomes a point of diminishing returns. Once you’re already one of the bigger guys, it doesn’t matter all that much whether you’re the biggest or strongest of all, because you’re big enough and strong enough to do enough damage to put an end to the situation.
Of course, there are some freaks out there, the WSM competitors etc, who are literally the size of two of me, and of course, that sort of giant size is a game changer, but realistically, against someone like that, it doesn’t matter if you’re 185lbs and a big fit bloke, or 225 and a big fit bloke, you’re still going to get squashed unless you find yourself an equaliser. Strength is useful, but only up to the point that it can be brought to bear in a manner that will let you prevail, and to my mind, it doesn’t make sense to train to try to bee outliers.
For example: since you, who are no doubt bigger and stronger than me, would none-the-less get crushed for strength and sheer mass and inertia by a WSM competitor in a ‘fair’ one-on-one, it becomes academic to suggest strength is an extremely important attribute. What you actually need is enough strength to swing an appropriate improvised weapon, which is probably well under the level of strength you actually already possess. [/quote]
I’m actually about the same size as the average WSM competitor lol there are some outlandish freaks like Brian Shaw though who look like Goliath. But I see your point and I agree with it. Raising your squat from 600lbs to 700lbs isn’t going to help you in a ring since 600lbs is already enough strength to do some serious damage.
[quote]Loftearmen wrote:
[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:
[quote]Loftearmen wrote:
Strength is very important IMO.
I haven’t fought in over 10 years. During that 10 years I have been training for powerlifting and strongman. Although slower, less coordinated and less conditioned, I’m pretty sure my current self could beat the crap out of me 10 years ago when I was kickboxing full-time simply because I’m so much bigger and stronger now. [/quote]
I understand where you’re coming from, but I think this is one of those situations where comparing yourself to an older version of yourself can be misleading. I am bigger, stronger and in someways better conditioned than I was when I was boxing 4 or 5 days a week, and I don’t think I’d fare any worse against ‘old me’ as a result. That said, the comparison is obviously purely hypothetical. ‘Old me’ was still a very competitive, successful light heavyweight boxer, with the power and skill to drop heavyweights who had considerable size and strength on me.
That’s really what I mean when I say in some of my posts that strength and size are extremely useful, but there becomes a point of diminishing returns. Once you’re already one of the bigger guys, it doesn’t matter all that much whether you’re the biggest or strongest of all, because you’re big enough and strong enough to do enough damage to put an end to the situation.
Of course, there are some freaks out there, the WSM competitors etc, who are literally the size of two of me, and of course, that sort of giant size is a game changer, but realistically, against someone like that, it doesn’t matter if you’re 185lbs and a big fit bloke, or 225 and a big fit bloke, you’re still going to get squashed unless you find yourself an equaliser. Strength is useful, but only up to the point that it can be brought to bear in a manner that will let you prevail, and to my mind, it doesn’t make sense to train to try to bee outliers.
For example: since you, who are no doubt bigger and stronger than me, would none-the-less get crushed for strength and sheer mass and inertia by a WSM competitor in a ‘fair’ one-on-one, it becomes academic to suggest strength is an extremely important attribute. What you actually need is enough strength to swing an appropriate improvised weapon, which is probably well under the level of strength you actually already possess. [/quote]
I’m actually about the same size as the average WSM competitor lol there are some outlandish freaks like Brian Shaw though who look like Goliath. But I see your point and I agree with it. Raising your squat from 600lbs to 700lbs isn’t going to help you in a ring since 600lbs is already enough strength to do some serious damage.
[/quote]
Haha, fair enough mate, I’d probably just hit you with a brick and run away then. That sort of size, assuming it’s mostly functional, makes you an outlier though, in my view, which means it only really makes sense for outliers to consider a ‘fair’ match with you. Most people do not possess the inherent genetic traits to have that kind of size/strength. For me, as a 13 1/2 stone bloke, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to trying to reach a point where I out weigh/muscle a guy whose natural starting point is 4+ stone heavier than mine. The fight is absolutely winnable, assuming I have spent my time developing the kind of skills (agility, endurance, WEAPONS) that will help me. So strength is great up to the point that you can use it to apply techniques/brute force against a resisting combatant, but it makes little sense for 99% of the population to chose a fight based around pure physicality against the 1% that can pull their limbs off like wings off a fly.
[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:
it makes little sense for 99% of the population to chose a fight based around pure physicality against the 1% that can pull their limbs off like wings off a fly.
[/quote]
Yet some people never learn.
Hapfthor Bjornson is another one of the freaks I was mentioning earlier. That guy should get into MMA!
The issue is that there are weight classes in MMA. No matter how heavy you are, your skull and spine still remain vulnerable and I’d imagine fighting a 265 guy who can make you gas within minutes must be a nightmare for anyone.
[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
The issue is that there are weight classes in MMA. No matter how heavy you are, your skull and spine still remain vulnerable and I’d imagine fighting a 265 guy who can make you gas within minutes must be a nightmare for anyone.
This is the thing, and a very good point that has cross over to more ‘real world’ applications.
There are tradeoffs in all these different areas, and your training should be individual to maximise all the areas you can be strongest in, an minimise the vulnerabilities caused by your weaknesses.
As you point out, your spine and skull are (relatively) still pretty vulnerable, even as a 250+lb bloke. That means that anyone big enough to generate the requisite concussive force, is big enough to be a threat. That said, not everyone is able to carry 250lbs the same way. For me, with my physical structure and genes, even with drugs I seriously doubt my ability to reach 250lbs lean-ish. Doing so would require all of my efforts, and a single minded dedication to achieving a scale based/size based goal.
This would have to be at the expense of conditioning, and even if I were able to reach that weight, I suspect conditioning would be near impossible for me, as my joints and physical structure simply aren’t designed to carry that kind of weight. Any sustained conditioning efforts would most likely lead to injuries.
Loftearman, for example, may well have a much easier time of being 250lbs than I would, being bigger boned/ naturally broader. This would open up greater opportunities for conditioning and skill work than would be available to me were I trying to hit the same weight. The upshot of that is obviously that Loftearman would be a more effective fighter at 250lbs than I would.
Since we are talking about ‘real world’ application, however, there are far more variables at play, that don’t automatically mean ‘you’re smaller, you’re going to lose’. Certain non-sporting moves are what you might term ‘force multipliers’, such as gouging the eyes, twisting balls/ears etc, snapping fingers. There are also opportunities for the judicious use of weapons. Whilst size and strength are undoubtedly an advantage, particularly in my view as they allow you to sustain more damage before you are out of the fight, there are enough ways to fuck a guy up that size and strength are unlikely to be the deciding factors, unless you yourself have made a very poor tactical decision.
All of that said, the bigger stronger and fitter you are, the less likely you are to need to escalate the level of force being applied through weapons or techniques that may be looked upon unfavourably in court. (If you’re in front of a jury, and you’ve ripped a man’s eye from his skull, they are unlikely to look to sympathetically on the fact that he outweighs you by 70lbs, even if he did ‘put hands on you first’.)
[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:
Since we are talking about ‘real world’ application, however, there are far more variables at play, that don’t automatically mean ‘you’re smaller, you’re going to lose’. Certain non-sporting moves are what you might term ‘force multipliers’, such as gouging the eyes, twisting balls/ears etc, snapping fingers. There are also opportunities for the judicious use of weapons. Whilst size and strength are undoubtedly an advantage, particularly in my view as they allow you to sustain more damage before you are out of the fight, there are enough ways to fuck a guy up that size and strength are unlikely to be the deciding factors, unless you yourself have made a very poor tactical decision.
[/quote]
I generally agree with this. If I’m in a row with someone with that, I’m going to rip their ear off, gouge their eyes, hit the trachea and latch onto it, and that’s only if I can’t immediately get to a knife. At that point, it’s combat, and really the winner is going to be the person that escalates most harshly, quickest - size and strength are indeed unlikely to be deciding factors IF the guy you’re fighting knows what he’s doing.
If you’re just drunk in a bar and get into a punch up, size and strength will have a much greater part to play.
Londonboxer: Those are all very good points. I think it is safe to say that becoming as strong and powerful as you can within the ball park of your natural size is beneficial to all fighters though. “All other things the same, the stronger athlete prevails” is a popular mantra among strength coaches (although one could insert “faster”, “more skilled” or “better conditioned” in place of “stronger” and that statement would still be true).
I would also imagine that strength is more of an advantage to combatants that roll with each other since, in a wrestling or grappling situation, there is more opportunity to exert your leverages against your opponent than there are if y’all are striking only.
[quote]Loftearmen wrote:
Londonboxer: Those are all very good points. I think it is safe to say that becoming as strong and powerful as you can within the ball park of your natural size is beneficial to all fighters though. “All other things the same, the stronger athlete prevails” is a popular mantra among strength coaches (although one could insert “faster”, “more skilled” or “better conditioned” in place of “stronger” and that statement would still be true).
I would also imagine that strength is more of an advantage to combatants that roll with each other since, in a wrestling or grappling situation, there is more opportunity to exert your leverages against your opponent than there are if y’all are striking only.[/quote]
Careful. This depends GREATLY on what art you’re talking about. It’s true in grappling and wrestling and MMA depending on your style, but in boxing and muay Thai, it’s not.
No fighters I know work with maximal loads, and many of the best have negligible “weight room” strength. These sports are all about conditioning and skill, and most of the great fighters have become great while never letting their gaze roam to a weight set.
I won’t even sugarcoat here - being very strong and powerful weightroom wise is pretty useless in boxing, and actually a misallocation of very valuable time.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Loftearmen wrote:
Londonboxer: Those are all very good points. I think it is safe to say that becoming as strong and powerful as you can within the ball park of your natural size is beneficial to all fighters though. “All other things the same, the stronger athlete prevails” is a popular mantra among strength coaches (although one could insert “faster”, “more skilled” or “better conditioned” in place of “stronger” and that statement would still be true).
I would also imagine that strength is more of an advantage to combatants that roll with each other since, in a wrestling or grappling situation, there is more opportunity to exert your leverages against your opponent than there are if y’all are striking only.[/quote]
Careful. This depends GREATLY on what art you’re talking about. It’s true in grappling and wrestling and MMA depending on your style, but in boxing and muay Thai, it’s not.
No fighters I know work with maximal loads, and many of the best have negligible “weight room” strength. These sports are all about conditioning and skill, and most of the great fighters have become great while never letting their gaze roam to a weight set.
I won’t even sugarcoat here - being very strong and powerful weightroom wise is pretty useless in boxing, and actually a misallocation of very valuable time. [/quote]
Ye this, in my view too. Any excess weight is also weight that fucks with your ability to walk around at or near a natural, easy weight.
I think perhaps, with no disrespect to your karate, what Irish and I are saying may become a little bit clearer once you’ve got a few hundred rounds of boxing/muai Thai under your belt. When it comes to knocking mother fuckers out, being a bad dude is a lot more about mechanics, transfer of momentum, timing etc, than it is about weightroom strength. See Dempsey vs Willard for a glaring example - 6’1, 182lb Dempsey knocks 250+lb Jess Willard down 7 times in the first 3 minutes. Dempsey was most likely a powerful bloke from a life time of labouring and wrestling/generally being a bad dude, but I doubt he ever went close to a barbell.
[quote]LondonBoxer123 wrote:
Ye this, in my view too. Any excess weight is also weight that fucks with your ability to walk around at or near a natural, easy weight.
I think perhaps, with no disrespect to your karate, what Irish and I are saying may become a little bit clearer once you’ve got a few hundred rounds of boxing/muai Thai under your belt. When it comes to knocking mother fuckers out, being a bad dude is a lot more about mechanics, transfer of momentum, timing etc, than it is about weightroom strength. See Dempsey vs Willard for a glaring example - 6’1, 182lb Dempsey knocks 250+lb Jess Willard down 7 times in the first 3 minutes. Dempsey was most likely a powerful bloke from a life time of labouring and wrestling/generally being a bad dude, but I doubt he ever went close to a barbell. [/quote]
I’ve just seen too many big, white, ex-college football players who deadlift volkswagons and bench press boulders get their asses absolutely beaten to a bloody pulp - doubled over and KO’d - by skinny fuckin Mexicans who have been boxing since they were 6.
You only have to see that a couple times before it leaves an imprint haha.
Eh, I actually disagree with you guys in that if we are truly talking about “all things being equal” (same timing, same conditioning, same experience, same technical skill, same “chin”, etc…), then being the strongest, most powerful you (which doesn’t always equate to the “biggest” you) is an advantage, although I do acknowledge the reality of weight classes and the influence that they have in striking only combat sports. Dempsey knocked Willard down because he had more skill than Willard and enough strength and great mechanics that allowed him to do so, so I don’t really think that is an apples to apples comparison.
The hardest punchers that I know are/were all very strong men, and although they are/were all genetically predisposed to being extremely powerful athletes, they all also utilize(d) resistance training to maximize their abilities. So, in my experience, although having big weight room numbers does not equal huge punching power, if combined with knowledge of the proper mechanics and development of the sport specific skills required for striking, it can translate.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Eh, I actually disagree with you guys in that if we are truly talking about “all things being equal” (same timing, same conditioning, same experience, same technical skill, same “chin”, etc…), then being the strongest, most powerful you (which doesn’t always equate to the “biggest” you) is an advantage, although I do acknowledge the reality of weight classes and the influence that they have in striking only combat sports. Dempsey knocked Willard down because he had more skill than Willard and enough strength and great mechanics that allowed him to do so, so I don’t really think that is an apples to apples comparison.
The hardest punchers that I know are/were all very strong men, and although they are/were all genetically predisposed to being extremely powerful athletes, they all also utilize(d) resistance training to maximize their abilities. So, in my experience, although having big weight room numbers does not equal huge punching power, if combined with knowledge of the proper mechanics and development of the sport specific skills required for striking, it can translate.[/quote]
^This is pretty much the same perspective that I had. It seemed to get turned into something else by the other folks in the thread here though.
Limit strength definitely does open the gate to allow one to develop power. We see this in a most straight-forward format with shot putters. Most shot putters could go lb for lb on the bench press, squat and deadlift with competitive powerlifters.
Power is the exertion of force over a specific period of time. If the amount of force increases or the amount of time decreases then power output has increased. Therefore it can be concluded that power consists of 2 things: strength and speed. Because of this, without a high amount of limit strength a high amount of power cannot be achieved.
So, only taking into consideration punching power, strength is important. Obviously it wouldn’t win a fight on its own and I’m not saying that you have to be super strong to fight, either. I’m just saying that, from a purely S and C point of view, it’s better for athletes to be strong regardless of the sport that they compete in.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Eh, I actually disagree with you guys in that if we are truly talking about “all things being equal” (same timing, same conditioning, same experience, same technical skill, same “chin”, etc…), then being the strongest, most powerful you (which doesn’t always equate to the “biggest” you) is an advantage, although I do acknowledge the reality of weight classes and the influence that they have in striking only combat sports. Dempsey knocked Willard down because he had more skill than Willard and enough strength and great mechanics that allowed him to do so, so I don’t really think that is an apples to apples comparison.
The hardest punchers that I know are/were all very strong men, and although they are/were all genetically predisposed to being extremely powerful athletes, they all also utilize(d) resistance training to maximize their abilities. So, in my experience, although having big weight room numbers does not equal huge punching power, if combined with knowledge of the proper mechanics and development of the sport specific skills required for striking, it can translate.[/quote]
Right - but all things are NEVER equal, and that’s a faulty way of setting a premise. Especially in boxing (again, the only thing I can speak to). With Dempsey - Willard, of course Dempsey was more skilled! In boxing, the more skilled fighter nearly always wins, and if he loses, it’s only because he gassed. The “puncher’s chance” bullshit rarely happens in real life.
Boxing is about implementing game plans, being in position, being accurate, not winding, and setting shots up. It’s all in “the game.” Training for absolute strength - maybe it makes you punch a hair harder, maybe it doesn’t. But that is just a minimal benefit when compared to the overall thing.
That’s just my 2 cents, take it as you want.
Also, I really fucking hate when people say “All things being equal.” Such a nonsense saying.
[quote]Loftearmen wrote:
^This is pretty much the same perspective that I had. It seemed to get turned into something else by the other folks in the thread here though.
Limit strength definitely does open the gate to allow one to develop power. We see this in a most straight-forward format with shot putters. Most shot putters could go lb for lb on the bench press, squat and deadlift with competitive powerlifters.
Power is the exertion of force over a specific period of time. If the amount of force increases or the amount of time decreases then power output has increased. Therefore it can be concluded that power consists of 2 things: strength and speed. Because of this, without a high amount of limit strength a high amount of power cannot be achieved.
So, only taking into consideration punching power, strength is important. Obviously it wouldn’t win a fight on its own and I’m not saying that you have to be super strong to fight, either. I’m just saying that, from a purely S and C point of view, it’s better for athletes to be strong regardless of the sport that they compete in.
[/quote]
Don’t take this to mean that I’m arguing with you for the sake of it - I’m absolutely not. But it is my opinion that you can’t compare those sort of things with punching power - there are different dynamics in play.
When you’re going for an ME lift, or throwing the shot put, or pushing something heavy, you’re simply putting as much as you can into it. Every muscle is tensed, every fiber recruited, and you’re rigid as can be.
When punching, it’s the EXACT opposite - if you are tense, you’re slow and weak. It’s only when you’re extraordinarily loose that you are truly hitting with power, and the looser you are, the harder you hit. It’s much more like hitting a baseball than it is throwing a shot put.
This is why plenty of boxers who DON’T have a high amount of limit strength can still generate tremendous punching power. There are plenty of light-and-welterweight fighters that can lay full-sized men down quickly with one or two shots, but it doesn’t correlate to how much they can bench press.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Eh, I actually disagree with you guys in that if we are truly talking about “all things being equal” (same timing, same conditioning, same experience, same technical skill, same “chin”, etc…), then being the strongest, most powerful you (which doesn’t always equate to the “biggest” you) is an advantage, although I do acknowledge the reality of weight classes and the influence that they have in striking only combat sports. Dempsey knocked Willard down because he had more skill than Willard and enough strength and great mechanics that allowed him to do so, so I don’t really think that is an apples to apples comparison.
The hardest punchers that I know are/were all very strong men, and although they are/were all genetically predisposed to being extremely powerful athletes, they all also utilize(d) resistance training to maximize their abilities. So, in my experience, although having big weight room numbers does not equal huge punching power, if combined with knowledge of the proper mechanics and development of the sport specific skills required for striking, it can translate.[/quote]
Right - but all things are NEVER equal, and that’s a faulty way of setting a premise. Especially in boxing (again, the only thing I can speak to). With Dempsey - Willard, of course Dempsey was more skilled! In boxing, the more skilled fighter nearly always wins, and if he loses, it’s only because he gassed. The “puncher’s chance” bullshit rarely happens in real life.
Boxing is about implementing game plans, being in position, being accurate, not winding, and setting shots up. It’s all in “the game.” Training for absolute strength - maybe it makes you punch a hair harder, maybe it doesn’t. But that is just a minimal benefit when compared to the overall thing.
That’s just my 2 cents, take it as you want.
Also, I really fucking hate when people say “All things being equal.” Such a nonsense saying.
[/quote]
Lol, I think you’re kind of missing the point of our statements. I actually agree with everything you’ve said. It’s just that one cannot properly discuss a specific variable without separating it from all of the other variables. That’s why people say “with all other things being the same” I guess it would be easier to say it this way:
If you became stronger without compromising any of your other abilities, you would be a better fighter.