How Important is Strength

Training
41

[quote]Loftearmen wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Well I’m not trying to talk past you at all, and you’re of course entitled to your opinion.

All I am saying is that you only have so much time in the day and gas in your CNS. So it’s not about getting stronger without compromising other abilities - skills don’t fall in correlation with your strength increases, of course.

But if your goal is to hone your fighting skills as sharply as possible, then there are things that you could be doing with your time that are of more value to fighting than lifting weights in pursuit of maximal strength.

42

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
If you are pressing, squatting… at 75%+ your max weight your body may not be fully recovered for 2 weeks, even if you feel ok.[/quote]

what are you talking about[/quote]

Being physically prepared to apply a large amount of your strength at maximum force and maintain the endurance to compete. A hardcore lifting routine is going to have a certain effect on the body on everything from mental concentration to hormones to synaptic activity down to the physical muscle. Depending on the level you are competing at the amount of recovery you will want from a weight lifting workout is going to vary.

Most muscle tears happen when the muscle feels good but the body didn’t fully recover.

43

[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]

I agree.

There are of course outliers at the low end of the spectrum who’s base level of strength is so low that focusing purely on maximal strength will bring them up into the average range of strength and will this notice a significant increase in their fighting ability, and those at the high end who are going to steam roll you unless you are in the same ball park AND significantly more skill (assuming a fair/sporting fight). But the truth is that most of us don’t fall into either of these outlier categories and thus should devote the majority of our time to developing our activity specific skill and conditioning.

44

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[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]

Both of you are right.

Power/kinetic energy/momentum is pretty much just a function of the mass of an object and the speed at which it is traveling. So in that sense, the more mass you have, and the faster you can transfer that mass into your target the harder you will hit; essentially this is why heavyweight boxers’ jabs will feel like a lightweights power punches.

There is more to punching power than just this; there is the correct timing of multiple body parts during the punching motion, the correct musculoskeletal alignment at and through impact to maximize leverage and biomechanics for power, etc… But to be honest it’s not that difficult to teach this to people if you know what you are doing and if someone already has high amounts of limit strength and size, you can get them punching very hard in a relatively short period of time.

But, hitting pads and bags is a very different thing than hitting a thinking breathing opponent who is trying not to get hit and is trying to hit you back. Developing the timing, judgement, speed, and accuracy necessary to be able to apply those ideal punching mechanics and land the punch/strike on the desired target (say chin) in live combat takes much, much longer, and it is these skill sets which allows those light and welterweight fighters to KO bigger less skilled fighters or the lack of them which is why bigger stronger fighters often fail to effectively translate that superior force potential when it counts.

45

[quote]furo wrote:
Hi chaps,

I don’t post on here often, but it is my favourite subforum and I feel that for the most part you guys have goals that are the most in line with my own. I don’t currently participate in any combat sports, but I’ve done boxing and MMA in the past and I’m very interested in both self-defence and MMA.

I train at home with kettlebells and my primary goal is to be physically capable in a survival situation (be that combat, becoming lost in the mountains, falling into a river etc). My secondary goal - not that it matters - is physique-oriented.

I feel that certain aspects of my current strength training are working well - one-arm swings and rows with my 40kg do a great job of strengthening my pulling muscles, and I feel that before long I’ll be ready to progress to the 48kg. Unfortunately I’ve done a lot of trial and error and haven’t found exercises that work as well for my pushing muscles: with the equipment I have I’ve only found exercises more suited to higher reps/conditioning work (lunges/goblet squats/push-ups).

My question is: how essential is it for me to be working at a high percentage of max on those movements? By neglecting to hit my pushing muscles with heavy weights am I markedly reducing my potential with regards to my goals?

Basically what I’m asking is - would doing a high volume and density of 40kg goblet squats/lunges be adequate for my goals, or should I make the trip to my local gym and hit front squats with heavier weights? It seems that a lot of websites push strength as the most important athletic quality - I’d like to hear your thoughts on this: how important is pure strength?

Thank you for your time.[/quote]

um… from what u said in ur goals it sounds like u aren’t part of a club or fighting regularly, so i don’t think it really matters what you choose to do?? if a fight comes to you, and as fighting irish also said, u can be a massive guy, but someone smaller and lighter with fighting experience could bop you with technique > strength… then again, u can also be a massive guy and steamroll over that same person with fighting experience because they just can’t stand against such overwhelming power (e.g, trained in tae kwon do LOL (jk))…

it’s a tough one mate, but it’s definitely a safe bet to get bigger and stronger with packing on the poundage and lifting heavy. ur kettlebells are great for squatting and lunges like u said, you will be conditioning yourself to no end, but if you arent going through the motions of leg drills or working the bag, sparring and what have you, i dont see the point in it just conditioning with kettlebells, i say you should get yourself to the gym.

i train in muay thai but before i did i spent a year in the gym sqautting and deadlifting and all that and when i got back into practise, a lot of my agility was lost, i was much slower and couldn’t even kick the pads for a full round without gassing

go to the gym imo

sorry for massive, long winded post… have fun though :smiley:

46

I agree with LB and Irish skill goes along way, maximum strength has nothing to do with boxing or combat sports in general. And if your not careful it is a detrimental in many ways. Twelve years ago I fought heavyweight in a Toughman at 202 I was the lightest fighter by 25 lbs. The first night I did well and went three for three all my opponents outweighed me by 75 or more pounds. On the second night I was pretty much toast CNS was not in good shape and I assume this was true of anybody fighting. I can say for sure that had I not been beat up the night before I would not have lost. But fighting toughman is brutal and cumulative.

The point is the big tough farmboy (6’5" and 285lbs) I faced in the semi’s appeared better rested than I was, I think that in the case of multipul fights the big guys CNS reserves are not taxed as much. So the further into a fight a big man can go and not get gased will work in his favor. Farmboy tried to steam roll me at the bell but I lasted till round 2 when I didn’t respond correctly for the ref on the count. All I remember is all the big trees on the second night looked a lot better than me. Taken one at a time with ample recovery I think I could have beaten each of them. As with everything in fighting you have to play to your strengths.

47

being stronger is always better than being weaker. Its a no brainer. Regarding size etc. I have no comments. For myself,I think the ideal is to be big strong and master technique,not in that order. These things are not mutually exclusive. I personally find that a lot of martial artists should work on getting stronger and rely too much on technique. To be a warrior,we should train our bodies and our minds to be the best they can. IMO

48

[quote]confusion wrote:
being stronger is always better than being weaker. Its a no brainer. Regarding size etc. I have no comments. For myself,I think the ideal is to be big strong and master technique,not in that order. These things are not mutually exclusive. I personally find that a lot of martial artists should work on getting stronger and rely too much on technique. To be a warrior,we should train our bodies and our minds to be the best they can. IMO[/quote]

^This is what I was saying earlier as well.

I think a lot of people assume that when a fighter is big that they will be dumb or slow or have bad technique (which is true a lot of the time) but what happens when you have a fighter who is huge, strong AND has great skills? Well then you wind up fighting someone like Lennox Lewis, George Foreman or Brock Lesner and they knock your teeth down your throat.

49

[quote]Loftearmen wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:
being stronger is always better than being weaker. Its a no brainer. Regarding size etc. I have no comments. For myself,I think the ideal is to be big strong and master technique,not in that order. These things are not mutually exclusive. I personally find that a lot of martial artists should work on getting stronger and rely too much on technique. To be a warrior,we should train our bodies and our minds to be the best they can. IMO[/quote]

^This is what I was saying earlier as well.

I think a lot of people assume that when a fighter is big that they will be dumb or slow or have bad technique (which is true a lot of the time) but what happens when you have a fighter who is huge, strong AND has great skills? Well then you wind up fighting someone like Lennox Lewis, George Foreman or Brock Lesner and they knock your teeth down your throat.[/quote]

I think we’re all really on the same page at the end of the day. I’m with both of you that anyone should strive to be the biggest strongest, fittest, most skillful and resilient fighter they can be. The only discussion is in regards to the minutiae of the hierarchy of those attributes.

50

[quote]Dude623 wrote:
I agree with LB and Irish skill goes along way, maximum strength has nothing to do with boxing or combat sports in general. And if your not careful it is a detrimental in many ways. Twelve years ago I fought heavyweight in a Toughman at 202 I was the lightest fighter by 25 lbs. The first night I did well and went three for three all my opponents outweighed me by 75 or more pounds. On the second night I was pretty much toast CNS was not in good shape and I assume this was true of anybody fighting. I can say for sure that had I not been beat up the night before I would not have lost. But fighting toughman is brutal and cumulative.

The point is the big tough farmboy (6’5" and 285lbs) I faced in the semi’s appeared better rested than I was, I think that in the case of multipul fights the big guys CNS reserves are not taxed as much. So the further into a fight a big man can go and not get gased will work in his favor. Farmboy tried to steam roll me at the bell but I lasted till round 2 when I didn’t respond correctly for the ref on the count. All I remember is all the big trees on the second night looked a lot better than me. Taken one at a time with ample recovery I think I could have beaten each of them. As with everything in fighting you have to play to your strengths.[/quote]

Great point that I didn’t think of.

We all look at these intangibles like maximal strength or conditioning in relatino to how they’d affect the pros - but pro boxers fight what, once or twice a year?

In reality, though, WE here on this board are more likely to be amateurs, and if you know anything about amateur boxing, it’s that you never, ever know when you’re gonna fight. Sometimes you’ll prepare for one bout for three weeks only to have the guy not show up on fight night, and sometimes your coach will ask you three days before - “Hey man … we could REALLY use a 151 lber here… you wanna go?”

And if you’re in Golden Gloves or other tournaments, it could be three fights in a weekend, two fights a day, one fight every week for eight weeks, or three fights in eight weeks - it’s such a cluster fuck.

So then it becomes a matter of not only staying in fighting shape to deal with that kind of thing, but also knowing how to manage your stress levels and recover quickly so you can fight when you need to.

51

Another thing I was thinking about maximal strength is in the application of said strength. Have you ever looked at the top contenders in a weight class. For me one aspect of the top contenders is that they are very similar in height weight and proportion. There are always exceptions of course but in general there is a sweet spot where the top athletes in the class congregate. And they tend to be taller, with long reach and generally are not the strongest guys in the weight class.

They strike just as hard with less muscle. I am talking about the guys that dominate a weight class for years. I think the taller and lankier you are the greater your ability to adapt and over come the multitude of body types you find in your weight class. And yes there will be a upper limit to this where the extreme end of the spectrum is just not effective.

52

[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.

Not trying to kick up an argument in here. I just watched this video and there were a couple good examples of where having massive amounts of brute strength was a big advantage.

First off, I would like to point out that Mariusz Pudzianowski has some of the shittiest form and crappiest fighting skills possible. His kicks looked slow, were sloppy and didn’t land with a lot of power (especially considering how RIDICULOUSLY strong he is), he didn’t know how to defend against basic, predictable punch combos and his Jiu Jitsu/wrestling skills were basically non-existent. Not to mention the fact that he had almost zero conditioning and was out of breathe faster than Michael Moore climbing a staircase. However, he still gets the takedown on an opponent who is far more skilled than he is at 1:00 (although he expends a ridiculous amount of energy to do so). In the end it didn’t work out well for him but he did exponentially better than he would have if he wasn’t super, super powerful. (although strength was really the ONLY attribute he had going for him in that fight)

Disclaimer: I am not trying to be a keyboard warrior. I’m aware that either of these guys could beat the shit out of me and leave me crying.

53

I think Mariusz is a good example of someone with boat loads of strength, but very remedial skills. Tim Silvia, while once the UFC HW champ, was never a very highly skilled MMA fighter IMO (though definitely much better tha Pudz) and at the time this fight happened had long since past his physical prime and as such would probably barely make anyone’s top 20 (or possibly even 25-30) active HW’s in professional MMA (which is why he is being matched against Pudz).

If they matched Mariusz against someone like Overeem, Lesnar, Carwin, Mir, or any other big, strong and skilled HW’s at that time he would have gotten murdered. A hugely powerful guy like that is always going to pose a threat for about the first minute or two of a fight, but a well trained fighter will know this, whether the storm (or take that person out of the range that they need to utilize that strength) and eventually destroy them. I think that at the professional level, there is going to have to be a huge size and strength disparity for someone with very little skill and all strength to come in and win.

I think a better example would be someone like Lesnar. While Brock had a solid wrestling pedigree upon entering the UFC, his striking and submission skill sets were quite remedial. Yet, with only 2 fights under his belt (1 a submission loss to a then much smaller Frank Mir), he was able to defeat then Champ Randy Couture. He then went on to manhandle Mir in their rematch. Both of those fights and even his fight with Herring were won primarily due to his superior strength and size, though unlike Mariusz Brock did have legitimate skill in at least one of the primary MMA skillsets (wrestling).

54

There are many times when brute force will overwhelm good technique. I think its something that a lot of technical fighters don’t like to admit. Guess what? Talking,typing,arguing about what is best is a big waist of time IMO. What matters most is how you apply what you know and if you have the eye of the tiger. I assure you that with the sort of strength you have,you do not need to punch nor kick with perfect technique.

After you kick someone’s butt,the arm chair analysts can come in and pick apart your performance. You still won. This is where a lot of the bjj guys get into trouble. They think they know a bunch of submissions etc and that they will always work. If one of those types went to the ground with you,they had better be REALLY good,or you will overpower them and there will be no escape. Keep going hard

55

I watched that fight many times and the take away is pudge has to much mass, it slows him down. Silva who is not near the athlete and prone to gassing himself easily controlled the fight and put a whooping on the pudge, had Randy couture been in the ring , pudge would look like a bloody pulp. To big to slow, all that muscle put his system into debt about thirty seconds into the first round.

I used to have a sparring partner that was 300 plus, squatted 600, benched just shy of 500 and was able to fight without gassing. I would fight him at a weight of 190lbs. I learned never to get caught in his wheel house, he torn my intercostal muscles to make that point. 2 weeks later to the day I gave him a class one laforte fracture with my right hand to make my point. He’s the one that had to sit out the rest of the season.

The point is develop one facet of your game until your detracting/inhibiting something else. Only you know here that is for you, if you don’t it will become painfully obvious in a fight. I am a big fan of strength when in combat, there are no weight classes. But if you can’t do it without gassing against a smaller more agile foe then what is the point.

56

[quote]confusion wrote:
There are many times when brute force will overwhelm good technique. I think its something that a lot of technical fighters don’t like to admit. Guess what? Talking,typing,arguing about what is best is a big waist of time IMO. What matters most is how you apply what you know and if you have the eye of the tiger. I assure you that with the sort of strength you have,you do not need to punch nor kick with perfect technique.

After you kick someone’s butt,the arm chair analysts can come in and pick apart your performance. You still won. This is where a lot of the bjj guys get into trouble. They think they know a bunch of submissions etc and that they will always work. If one of those types went to the ground with you,they had better be REALLY good,or you will overpower them and there will be no escape. Keep going hard[/quote]
Quoted for the truth.

57

[quote]Dude623 wrote:
I watched that fight many times and the take away is pudge has to much mass, it slows him down. Silva who is not near the athlete and prone to gassing himself easily controlled the fight and put a whooping on the pudge, had Randy couture been in the ring , pudge would look like a bloody pulp. To big to slow, all that muscle put his system into debt about thirty seconds into the first round.

I used to have a sparring partner that was 300 plus, squatted 600, benched just shy of 500 and was able to fight without gassing. I would fight him at a weight of 190lbs. I learned never to get caught in his wheel house, he torn my intercostal muscles to make that point. 2 weeks later to the day I gave him a class one laforte fracture with my right hand to make my point. He’s the one that had to sit out the rest of the season.

The point is develop one facet of your game until your detracting/inhibiting something else. Only you know here that is for you, if you don’t it will become painfully obvious in a fight. I am a big fan of strength when in combat, there are no weight classes. But if you can’t do it without gassing against a smaller more agile foe then what is the point.[/quote]

You’re right about this. If you can’t apply that strength over 5, 5 min rounds (or 12, 3 minute rounds, etc…) then it doesn’t matter how strong you are because you’re only showing power right out of the gate.

[quote]confusion wrote:
There are many times when brute force will overwhelm good technique. I think its something that a lot of technical fighters don’t like to admit. Guess what? Talking,typing,arguing about what is best is a big waist of time IMO. What matters most is how you apply what you know and if you have the eye of the tiger. I assure you that with the sort of strength you have,you do not need to punch nor kick with perfect technique.

After you kick someone’s butt,the arm chair analysts can come in and pick apart your performance. You still won. This is where a lot of the bjj guys get into trouble. They think they know a bunch of submissions etc and that they will always work. If one of those types went to the ground with you,they had better be REALLY good,or you will overpower them and there will be no escape. Keep going hard[/quote]

I guess I was just being one of those armchair analysts huh? lol I didn’t mean any offense to either of the fighters. I have a lot of respect for both of them, especially considering my background in strongman, so I understand exactly what Pudzianowski is capable of doing as a strength athlete and it’s mind boggling. The ring wasn’t the place for him though which we just saw.

58

No bud,I didn’t mean that. I think you have the capability of being an ass kicker and was encouraging you to not worry too much about having your technique picked apart.

59

[quote]confusion wrote:
No bud,I didn’t mean that. I think you have the capability of being an ass kicker and was encouraging you to not worry too much about having your technique picked apart.[/quote]

Oh hahaha, I completely took that the wrong way. Thank you for the encouraging words; however, I don’t mind if people pick my technique apart.

I have a lot to learn and appreciate the constructive criticism. If I can take my strength and apply it to an opponent with precise technique then I could slaughter someone and I only have the strength as of now so technique and conditioning are all that are standing between me and some bloody opponents.

60

[quote]confusion wrote:
No bud,I didn’t mean that. I think you have the capability of being an ass kicker and was encouraging you to not worry too much about having your technique picked apart.[/quote]

Not calling you out mate, but what is your own experience with combat sports/martial arts?

I ask, because I would say Loftearman is exactly the kind of guy who should worry a lot about having his technique (skills) analysed. As a big, powerful, athletic bloke, with a solid attitude, my impression is that if he humbles himself and is meticulous about technique, he could go on to become a very competent fighter, even given his relatively advanced age for starting. Perhaps you weren’t trying to suggest otherwise and I’ve misunderstood you, in which case I apologise.

My own experience is that, at 6’1 and weighing between 180-190lbs over the last 8 years or so, I’ve often been deemed ‘big enough’ to go and get some rounds in with the 220lb+ guys. Now, I appreciate Loftearman is a lot bigger than that, but even at 250lbs (if he cuts to that), size and strength alone, in a combat sport, isn’t going to see him through against a seasoned, highly skilled fighter. I’ll gladly step into a ring with guys 30lbs heavier than me, so long as I’m confident I’m the more skilled fighter.

Put me in with a guy 30lbs heavier with equal skill and conditioning, and it suddenly becomes a match up I don’t fancy nearly as much. Again, perhaps you don’t mean to suggest otherwise. It just read to me like you were advising Loftearman to just be the big man and steamroll all the 250lb toothpicks he came up against. If that is the case, I believe it is bad advice, for the reasons given above.