Oh and Im not talking about the worlds best light weight boxer either so dont play that card.
[quote]n3wb wrote:
Sliver wrote:
here’s a real world example of skill vs size.
I hope the link works.
We are talking about some one who knows how to throw a punch. not some one who knows Brazilian jiu jitsu.
Terms are Big guy who dosent box little guy who boxes who would win in a all out knock down drag out fight. THE BIG GUY[/quote]
Exactly, plus that vid was just grappling it proves nothing.
…This thread has gone fucking retarded.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Thats grappling.[/quote]
I wonder who would have won if they were playing football.
GEEEEZ I’m at work for a day and all hell breaks loose again on this much belabored topic.
The whole who can thrash who sub topic here is ridiculous in my opinion. Like so many other things a whole host of aspects come into play and deny us a formulated universally correct answer.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
<<< I do question the way some train even though I’m not a big or strong as them . Many people get away with sloppy form or crap exercise selection, but many more get injured. I’m just looking for more ways to avoid the injuries while maximizing gains.
Its part of my job to have an opinion on this. So the why do you care question is answered.
[/quote]
Good grief man, it’s impossible to spend 90 seconds in any forum like this without questioning how somebody trains. I just find it presumptuous and tacky to question somebody who has not only advanced far beyond myself, but is clearly succeeding on their chosen path.
I question guys who have put 5 times as much effort into formulating the microscopically ideal routine and supplement schedule before they’ve done one month of serious training.
I question guys who allege themselves to have been training hard for 8 years and haven’t gained 10 pounds of muscle yet.
I question guys who need to wear weighted boots to keep from blowing away in a stiff breeze, but want to cut for the summer.
I question guys who prescribe upright rows with an olympic bar and a weight sufficient to require straps.
I do not question guys who are clearly achieving what they set out to no matter how outlandish what they are doing seems to me unless they were to ask which is doubtful.
I especially do not use a proprietary definition of a single word to belittle someone who simply doesn’t share my goals.
I’m sorry for your injuries, they suck and bring a ton of grief. I hope your rehab continues to be successful, I really do.
I go out of my way to believe the very best of people the evidence will allow, but I think Professor X is right in that you are envious of those who have achieved what you haven’t. I also think there is truth in the notion that solid pragmatic success threatens guys like you by making them question the usefulness of their education and philosophy.
If you’re good at what you do and your clients are happy then more power to ya bro. Life will be much more enjoyable if would simply allow those who don’t do it your way their success as well whether you consider it functional or not.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
GEEEEZ I’m at work for a day and all hell breaks loose again on this much belabored topic.
The whole who can thrash who sub topic here is ridiculous in my opinion. Like so many other things a whole host of aspects come into play and deny us a formulated universally correct answer.
Andrew Dixon wrote:
<<< I do question the way some train even though I’m not a big or strong as them . Many people get away with sloppy form or crap exercise selection, but many more get injured. I’m just looking for more ways to avoid the injuries while maximizing gains.
Its part of my job to have an opinion on this. So the why do you care question is answered.
Good grief man, it’s impossible to spend 90 seconds in any forum like this without questioning how somebody trains. I just find it presumptuous and tacky to question somebody who has not only advanced far beyond myself, but is clearly succeeding on their chosen path.
I question guys who have put 5 times as much effort into formulating the microscopically ideal routine and supplement schedule before they’ve done one month of serious training.
I question guys who allege themselves to have been training hard for 8 years and haven’t gained 10 pounds of muscle yet.
I question guys who need to wear weighted boots to keep from blowing away in a stiff breeze, but want to cut for the summer.
I question guys who prescribe upright rows with an olympic bar and a weight sufficient to require straps.
I do not question guys who are clearly achieving what they set out to no matter how outlandish what they are doing seems to me unless they were to ask which is doubtful.
I especially do not use a proprietary definition of a single word to belittle someone who simply doesn’t share my goals.
I’m sorry for your injuries, they suck and bring a ton of grief. I hope your rehab continues to be successful, I really do.
I go out of my way to believe the very best of people the evidence will allow, but I think Professor X is right in that you are envious of those who have achieved what you haven’t. I also think there is truth in the notion that solid pragmatic success threatens guys like you by making them question the usefulness of their education and philosophy.
If you’re good at what you do and your clients are happy then more power to ya bro. Life will be much more enjoyable if would simply allow those who don’t do it your way their success as well whether you consider it functional or not.[/quote]
/End of story.
Only a moron would believe someone who is extremely developed is training “wrong” especially if their training has caused no injury and also allowed them to pass up the guy doing the critiquing by miles.
Many bodybuilders use “loose” form in exercises. If it works for them and doesn’t cause injury, how off is it that some guy who hasn’t progressed in two years at all and has injured himself is judging them to all be wrong in approach?
Results matter. Theory may give you lots to talk about but at the end of the day, if all of that theory produces LESS results, it is useless…other than to give those lacking results something to be pissed off at.
I wouldn’t even laugh at the guy who has been lifting for years but has made no progress that anyone would notice. I might pity him or think he simply doesn’t try very hard, but laugh? What’s funny about stagnation?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
But its fun to laugh at the big strong bodybuilder who struggles to do a chin up.
______________________________________________>>
I wouldn’t even laugh at the guy who has been lifting for years but has made no progress that anyone would notice. I might pity him or think he simply doesn’t try very hard, but laugh? What’s funny about stagnation?[/quote]
This guy has had some posts that were constructive, not quackery and got me to liking him despite our differences.
This statement disappointed me.
The only people I laugh at are deluded know it alls for whom no other attitude is appropriate or certain types who just “have it comin”.
Even tender noobs make themselves fair game by arguing against common sense advice when it’s excruciatingly obvious they have no idea whatsoever what they are doing.
I’ll confess to spending some time watching youtube videos of crossfit type guys doing things I probably will never be able to do. Partially because I have no desire to and partially because I’m not endowed with that kind of ability. I find myself ooing and ahhing because it’s impressive whether it’s my particular thing or not.
Why would I laugh because they almost certainly can’t lift as much as I can? The fact that I can’t do it doesn’t make it a meritless achievement. In fact, to the contrary, it’s impressive to me because I can’t do it.
I don’t hear the bodybuilder/strength guys ridiculing the “functional” guys here. It always seems to be instigated the the other way around.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t hear the bodybuilder/strength guys ridiculing the “functional” guys here. It always seems to be instigated the the other way around.[/quote]
That’s because we’re confident that our training get’s the job done.
Confidence, true confidence breeds nothing but quiet calm and reflection.
(Well, AFTER the training session is over at least!)
The only guys that act like little yippy dogs are those guys that “can’t”.
From a Shugart article earlier this year that I like d a lot.
[quote]Chris Shugart wrote:
The biggest dudes in my gym train like morons. They use the Smith machine for everything. They use incomplete ranges of motion, add weight, then use even shorter ROMs to lift it. Their exercise choices suck. They do kickbacks instead of close-grip benches. And I’ve never seen any of them deadlift.
And they are bigger and more muscular than everyone else in the gym. They’re probably bigger than you too…
…and you do everything “right.” [/quote]
There is much more to it than that, but it addresses this part of the discussion. His point is that hard, intense, consistent work overshadows all the sound theory in the world.
[quote]n3wb wrote:
Sliver wrote:
here’s a real world example of skill vs size.
I hope the link works.
We are talking about some one who knows how to throw a punch. not some one who knows Brazilian jiu jitsu.
Terms are Big guy who dosent box little guy who boxes who would win in a all out knock down drag out fight. THE BIG GUY[/quote]
And many have shown in NHB matches that size without skill is defeated by skill.
I really think that you folks who have never trained to fight should keep your mouths shut. One of you dumbasses even suggested you could get out of a properly applied submission using strength. LOL. I weigh 240 and have been submitted by people weighing 80 pounds less than me when I first got started. Sorry guys.
Strength and size benefits a fighter. But like all sports and competitions practicing the actual skills is more important.
Besides, this is tangential to the whole thread. Saying that you train “functionally” is nonsense if you do not have a training goal. Given the goal the only question is whether youre training methods are ideal for achieving your chosen function. Then you simply observe how well you perform in your sport. Simple as that.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Only a moron would believe someone who is extremely developed is training “wrong” especially if their training has caused no injury and also allowed them to pass up the guy doing the critiquing by miles.
Many bodybuilders use “loose” form in exercises. If it works for them and doesn’t cause injury, how off is it that some guy who hasn’t progressed in two years at all and has injured himself is judging them to all be wrong in approach?
Results matter. Theory may give you lots to talk about but at the end of the day, if all of that theory produces LESS results, it is useless…other than to give those lacking results something to be pissed off at.
[/quote]
Which actually brings up an interesting point. If the goal of the workout is to induce hypertrophy, then whatever exercise “form” produces the most hypertrophy is the most “correct” form. To relate it to this completely beaten to death topic, it would be the most “functional” method of training for achieving big muscles.
When I was still in the process of earning my degree in Exercise Science, and earning my personal trainer/fitness counselor certificate I used to look at people using “loose” form and think to myself “if only they knew how to do the exercise right, then they’d really get big”. But, in time I noticed something; nearly every big guy I’ve ever seen workout uses “loose” form.
My problem had been, like you stated professor, that my head had been filled with theory. But, theory based on the theoretical “most correct” way of doing things, rather than theory based on actual experience in achieving the desired goal. And, honestly I’d have to say that I would place a large amount of the blame on the governing Exercise Science bodies (ACSM, NSCA, AFFA, ACE, etc…) for the whole “incorrect” form issue.
Every trainer who comes through those programs is being taught that the form bodybuilders use to actually achieve those big muscles is wrong. And thus, they teach their clients “correct” form (and often point out how the big guys are doing things “wrong”), thus perpetuating the problem.
Eventually of course they either realize the truth of the matter (as I have), or they stagnate, and perhaps become bitter like several people have eluded to.
Good training,
Sentoguy
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Every guy under 160 lbs. wrote:
Royce Gracie!
Why does every thread about functional strength end up having big names in MMA being thrown around? Oh, that’s right: You guys watch The Ultimate Fighter and thus are prepared to take on people twice your body size!
[/quote]
The funny thing is, when Gracie got bombed on and got his soul took, it was by a bigger and stronger guy: Shamrock.
And when Gracie, came back again recently he got the shit beat out of him again by a bigger, more muscular, stronger guy Hughes.
Like someone else said, I’ll take the bigger stronger guy to have my back anyday. You can practce technique all day, but there is something to be said for size, strength, and power.
You see it all the time when boxers keep moving up in weight too much. There comes a point when their punches aren’t effective as the naturally bigger, stronger guy.
[quote]adubswils wrote:
And many have shown in NHB matches that size without skill is defeated by skill.
I really think that you folks who have never trained to fight should keep your mouths shut. One of you dumbasses even suggested you could get out of a properly applied submission using strength. LOL. I weigh 240 and have been submitted by people weighing 80 pounds less than me when I first got started. Sorry guys.
[/quote]
Not to play devil’s advocate or anything, but I have actually seen examples where superior size and strength did beat superior skill. But, I’ll also admit that the examples are few and far between.
Years ago there was a guy who came to train at the school I trained at who came up through the Football ranks with Mark Chmura. This guys was huge and incredibly strong. He could actually muscle his way out of correctly applied submissions. Technically he shouldn’t have been able to since most submissions utilize superior leverage techniques that are designed to allow a smaller person to overpower a larger one. But, because he was just so much stronger than the people he was working with, he could.
Now, could he have muscled his way out of a submission put on by someone with superior skill and similar strength? No, probably not. In fact I’m pretty damn sure that if Shihan Charlie put him in a submission, he would have got tapped out quick. But, then again Shihan Charlie is freakishly strong himself.
Strength is important for nearly every type of athlete. Practicing the necessary skill set involved in their sport is what will make that strength “functional”.
[quote]
Besides, this is tangential to the whole thread. Saying that you train “functionally” is nonsense if you do not have a training goal. Given the goal the only question is whether youre training methods are ideal for achieving your chosen function. Then you simply observe how well you perform in your sport. Simple as that. [/quote]
Right on.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Not to play devil’s advocate or anything, but I have actually seen examples where superior size and strength did beat superior skill. But, I’ll also admit that the examples are few and far between.
Years ago there was a guy who came to train at the school I trained at who came up through the Football ranks with Mark Chmura. This guys was huge and incredibly strong. He could actually muscle his way out of correctly applied submissions. Technically he shouldn’t have been able to since most submissions utilize superior leverage techniques that are designed to allow a smaller person to overpower a larger one. But, because he was just so much stronger than the people he was working with, he could.
Now, could he have muscled his way out of a submission put on by someone with superior skill and similar strength? No, probably not. In fact I’m pretty damn sure that if Shihan Charlie put him in a submission, he would have got tapped out quick. But, then again Shihan Charlie is freakishly strong himself.
[/quote]
That must have been one enormous guy. I think skill/techniques closes the gap, but like I always say, “You put a gorilla on the mat and tell the best submission guy on the planet to steal his banana and my money is on the gorilla. And that gorilla doesnt know shit about grappling.”
I know that to some degree I was a handful for some of the smaller training partners at my gym even when I was brand new. But they are often very good at getting to the back (in a submission wrestling/bjj context) and so could choke me out from that position. At the time I didnt have a clue how to protect myself in that position and much of the groundwork was foreign to me. Where strength helped me was avoiding submissions in the first place. Afterall, once the arm is extended for an armbar or the kimura is fully locked in you are pretty much doomed. But before that point you have lots of room to work. But skill is still an emormous part of the game and reduces the strength required to apply the techniques.
Of course, its the skilled big man to really watch out for. If you can train that gorilla… watch out! 
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Strength is important for nearly every type of athlete. Practicing the necessary skill set involved in their sport is what will make that strength “functional”.
[/quote]
I totally agree. I think athletes have to be considered as whole organisms. You do not neglect skill or strength (or any other attributes). Neglect in any of the important areas of athletic development builds exploitable weaknesses into your game.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Right on.[/quote]
Best of luck with your training.
[quote]adubswils wrote:
…
Sentoguy wrote:
Strength is important for nearly every type of athlete. Practicing the necessary skill set involved in their sport is what will make that strength “functional”.
I totally agree. I think athletes have to be considered as whole organisms. You do not neglect skill or strength (or any other attributes). Neglect in any of the important areas of athletic development builds exploitable weaknesses into your game.
…[/quote]
Right one the $$ on this one!!
The issue with the people who argue in favor Functional Training is that they don’t have the above mentioned definition. Instead they use the term “Functional” to excuse themselves from lifting hard and heavy, and allow themselves to do exercises that bring in little strength and muscle gains yet makes them “believe” they are better becaue they are more “Functional”.
The so called Functional Training has its place in the general training scheme of an individual, because it complements with the other exercises to help the individual reach his/her goal.
Below is an example of Phil Pfister doing some so called “Functional Training” as part of his general training program.
p.s for those who don’t know this is Phil:
[quote]NeoSpartan wrote:
adubswils wrote:
…
Sentoguy wrote:
Below is an example of Phil Pfister doing some so called “Functional Training” as part of his general training program.
p.s for those who don’t know this is Phil:
his achievement is amazing. Body comp nuts would say he looks a little soft, a little on the fat side. He isn’t a body builder however
You know something…This forum can turn me into a fucking moron sometimes. I cant blame anyone for that, but when Professor X comes out swinging I can’t help but attack back.
I say stupid things like laughing at a dude who cant do a chin up. While I’ve seen this guy, I never laughed. It’s the big muscle dude who cant stop looking at himself in the mirror and thinks everyone else is pathetic who cant do a chin up who is to be laughed at(or felt sorry for or whatever).
In all honesty don’t want to be like professor X. Its great what he’s achieved, but I’m not a bodybuilder. My goals are performance first(more recently rehab).
I’m all for strength and power, but not at the cost of agility, balance, the ability to kick some butt go karting, etc. You can dispute weather lots of muscle costs performance, but I never see big motocross, snowboarder, skater, rock climbers, etc. It just doesn’t work as well.
I used to aim to get big and the best I did was 206lbs at 6". I cant be eating every 2 hours, I struggle to eat 4 meals when working. That was 5 years ago and my goals are different now.
I know at the end of the day results are what counts. Corrective exercise is my biggest passion and I’ve managed to help my clients with what I’ve learnt so far.
Shoot me down for that if you like, I don’t give a shit.
[quote]NeoSpartan wrote:
adubswils wrote:
…
Sentoguy wrote:
Strength is important for nearly every type of athlete. Practicing the necessary skill set involved in their sport is what will make that strength “functional”.
I totally agree. I think athletes have to be considered as whole organisms. You do not neglect skill or strength (or any other attributes). Neglect in any of the important areas of athletic development builds exploitable weaknesses into your game.
…
Right one the $$ on this one!!
The issue with the people who argue in favor Functional Training is that they don’t have the above mentioned definition. Instead they use the term “Functional” to excuse themselves from lifting hard and heavy, and allow themselves to do exercises that bring in little strength and muscle gains yet makes them “believe” they are better becaue they are more “Functional”.
The so called Functional Training has its place in the general training scheme of an individual, because it complements with the other exercises to help the individual reach his/her goal.
Below is an example of Phil Pfister doing some so called “Functional Training” as part of his general training program.
p.s for those who don’t know this is Phil:
This is awesome. His training looks like a lot of fun. Good post.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t hear the bodybuilder/strength guys ridiculing the “functional” guys here. It always seems to be instigated the the other way around.[/quote]
Oh. So you must’ve gotten here without either reading the title of this thread, or the original post then.
If anything I think it’s the other way around. It seems the bodybuilding guys get very upset when anyone questions their training style.
[quote]Fulmen wrote:
<<< I told one of the personal trainers working there that I used split routines, wanted to get big, and wanting to be strong as fuck. Nothin’ wrong with that, right? …Right?
Wrong.
My ideology was severely wrong. “Man, you should be training for functionality”, he told me. This 5’7", 155lb, 10% body fat trainer went on, >>>[/quote]
He was responding to being reprimanded for not having “functionality” goals. The point is you never hear about big strong guys telling the little guys in the matching jump suits how to train because they don’t care how they train.