# The distaste for strength in martial arts



## Ivan (Feb 28, 2022)

Hi. I am writing an article on the attitudes towards physical strength in martial arts, and would like to get your perspective on this issue (if it is an issue, I personally feel that it is) in martial arts, since you're all much more experienced than me. Every since I started training, I saw that there were many students and professors alike that seemed to have a sort of chip on their shoulders when it came to physical strength. I specifically noticed this in traditional martial arts; while my professors in Jiujitsu seemed to have an issue with strong people, my professors in more modern arts and combat sports seemed to lean towards it. This issue was most prevalent during my fleeting time in Shorinji Kempo, and it was one of the main reasons I quit.

People there seemed to have this sense of superiority towards me because I spend a lot of time working out at the gym and lifting weights, and many jokes and mockery and criticism by both students and senseis aside at people who spend their time training at the gym. Much of it came from the idea that using strength to fight was brutish and perhaps even a little uneducated or simply stupid. Although modern combat sports and martial arts tend to supplement (and in some cases even rely on) strength training for their techniques, this is not to say that they are bereft of such attitudes. I have come across one or two individuals that have this mentality of superiority in my BJJ gym too, and there is even the running joke amongst the online BJJ community where calling someone strong is an insult in a way, as they have no technique worthy of a compliment.

Personally however, I dislike this mentality a lot. I would even go as far as to argue that strength is a technique too - I wasn't born with my strength, and I worked a very long time to get to the level I am in terms of weightlifting today. If it just so happens that it helps me against my opponent, of course I'll use it. I think it is very important to incorporate strength training, whether traditional iron-body type stuff, or modern muscular hypertrophy and development. What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## skribs (Feb 28, 2022)

Strength multiplies technique.  If you have only strength and no technique, then it doesn't matter how strong you are.  If you have only technique and no strength, it doesn't matter how good you are.  You're probably not going to win much.

With that said, being stronger does tend to lead to people cutting corners in training, often unintentionally.  If you are stronger than your training partners, you can often succeed against them by using strength instead of technique.  Your success reinforces that your technique is "correct", so you don't see much reason to improve it.  

As an example, let's use the above formula.  Strength multiplies technique.  If you need an 8 in order to be successful, and you have 3 strength and 3 technique, then you have 9 technique and will succeed.  If you have 5 strength, you only need 2 technique to succeed, and so you will convince yourself that your technique is good, because it succeeded, even though it is worse than the other person.

In order to fix this, one must consciously assess themselves whether they're using strength or technique, and when technique can be improved *even if they already succeeded with it.*  Then you run into the other problem, which is adding strength back in, when you've built a habit of keeping it in reserve.

There is another aspect.  I see this question on reddit every once in a while: "*If a bigger/stronger person will beat a smaller/weaker person, what is the point of training martial arts?*"  You'll see any art that includes grappling (everything from aikido to BJJ) will claim to work on bigger, stronger opponents.  The reality is that it's going to be very difficult, especially if they have any idea how to fight.  But we also don't want to discourage people from training.  I think there's a fine line between being realistic and turning people away.


----------



## WaterGal (Feb 28, 2022)

skribs said:


> There is another aspect.  I see this question on reddit every once in a while: "*If a bigger/stronger person will beat a smaller/weaker person, what is the point of training martial arts?*"  You'll see any art that includes grappling (everything from aikido to BJJ) will claim to work on bigger, stronger opponents.  The reality is that it's going to be very difficult, especially if they have any idea how to fight.  But we also don't want to discourage people from training.  I think there's a fine line between being realistic and turning people away.



I think it's useful to keep in mind that a bigger/stronger person will beat an _equally trained _smaller/weaker person. Good technique and skill can make up for some amount of size/strength disparity.

I think that's maybe part of the answer to OP's question. If you can defeat someone who's stronger than you, than that means your skill level is probably fairly high. There's a certain bragging rights to that, you know? It's impressive to beat someone bigger and stronger than you. But if you're the stronger one, people aren't impressed by you winning.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 28, 2022)

Ok There's quite a bit in this and in reality it's not as simple as I'm going to try to make it.



Ivan said:


> attitudes towards physical strength in martial arts, and would like to get your perspective on this issue


There's no issue. To sum up the perception is that a lot of TMA teachers want you to have good technique that doesn't rely on you being super strong in order for the technique to work.  

If you have good punching technique, then you can probably knock someone out with 20% - 30% power.  Technically this means you should throw a faster punch with less effort and get good results.  If you rely on strength too much then you'll gas out very quickly because you are muscling through everything.  This doesn't mean they frown upon getting strong.  They just don't want you to over rely on it.  TMA martial arts strength training is some of the most brutal training out there in therm of strength development.




Ivan said:


> Much of it came from the idea that using strength to fight was brutish and perhaps even a little uneducated or simply stupid.


I never hear anyone form the martial arts schools that I train in, make such a statement.  I think this is on of those rare things people may hear out there.  



Ivan said:


> I would even go as far as to argue that strength is a technique too - I wasn't born with my strength, and I worked a very long time to get to the level I am in terms of weightlifting today. If it just so happens that it helps me against my opponent, of course I'll use it. I think it is very important to incorporate strength training, whether traditional iron-body type stuff, or modern muscular hypertrophy and development. What are your thoughts on this?


Don't think of strength as a technique.  It will send you down the wrong path and if you go this path then a lot of people will correct you on it.  Strength is conditioning.  Conditioning is what you need in order to be effective with using techniques.  You will be come weaker if you start putting your strength ahead of your technique.  


Ivan said:


> I think it is very important to incorporate strength training, whether traditional iron-body type stuff, or modern muscular hypertrophy and development.


This is true but you have to go about strength the right way.  The fact that this is an issue for you makes me think you may have made some assumptions about weight lifting, strength, and maybe powerful strikes.  Like what is the reason you've been telling people why you weight lift?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 28, 2022)

I agree with just about everything Skribs wrote, but I’ll add on a bit.

The trap of students being sloppy with technique when they can prevail with superior strength is a real phenomenon, but it’s not really a problem with strength - it’s a problem of strength + a bad attitude. A lot of the best technicians I know personally or have observed are also remarkably strong. They’re just smart enough in their training to follow the advice Skribs gives above about analyzing your performance and understanding how their technique can be improved even if they were able to “win” with superior athletic attributes.

There’s a common myth in certain segments of the jui-jitsu community that you shouldn’t need or use strength in your techniques. This is false. The correct formulation (in my opinion) is that you shouldn’t *waste* your strength. You want to polish your technique so you can get the maximum results from whatever degree of strength you have available and use only as much strength as necessary in the moment so that you have it available when you really need it. You also don’t want to rely on a technical approach which only works when you are stronger than your opponent. (That said, being stronger is always a good thing.)

As far as why some teachers denigrate the development and use of strength … there are a variety of reasons. Sometimes it’s just a reasonable warning not to let it get in the way of developing good technique, but often there are less legitimate motivations.

Sometimes it’s a marketing approach. You can attract students with a sales pitch of being able to easily defeat bigger, stronger opponents. But when those students come in and get manhandled in sparring by someone who is bigger and stringer, then they realize the path to being able to defeat strength with technique is long and hard.

Sometimes it’s a matter of protecting the instructor’s ego. If the teacher feels the need to be able to demonstrate physical dominance over the students, but their current level of strength x technique isn’t high enough to easily defeat the student’s strength x technique, they may be tempted to discourage the student from using his superior strength.

Sometimes the instructor just doesn’t comprehend how strength works. They may think it’s just a matter of big biceps and muscular tension. They don’t understand that strength is also technique. (If you don’t think this is true, check out the lightweight women’s records in Olympic weightlifting. 49 kg women explosively snatching twice their own body weight.) They might think that their technique will easily overpower stronger opponents because they’ve never really fought anyone who is much stronger and has any degree of skill. (Demonstrating a technique on someone who feeds you exactly the setup you tell them to is not the same thing.) 

I know that I’m not nearly as strong as I could be if I put the consistent effort into it that I should. I also know that if I did put in that effort then I would be that much more effective on the mat. When it comes down to it, I’m training for my own personal satisfaction, I don’t enjoy strength training as much as I enjoy training technique and sparring, and I’m pretty effective on the mats as it is. That’s my own personal trade off, but I would recommend that anyone who wants to maximize their ability as a fighter and a martial artist to put the time into building strength.


----------



## skribs (Feb 28, 2022)

WaterGal said:


> I think it's useful to keep in mind that a bigger/stronger person will beat an _equally trained _smaller/weaker person. Good technique and skill can make up for some amount of size/strength disparity.


While this is true, the greater the disparity, the greater the technique required.  At some point, it won't really matter.  

I'm 5'5", 5'6" on a good day.  I know people that are more than a foot taller than me.  It would take a lot for me to overcome that disadvantage.  Lots of people (especially women) are shorter than me, and would have an even worse time.  Then you factor in some teenagers have such a high metabolism they can't put on any muscle, or someone who starts around age 30 or 40 and isn't in the best of shape already.  It can be easy to be discouraged.


----------



## skribs (Feb 28, 2022)

To add on to what @Tony Dismukes said, another reason an instructor might denigrate strength is they think strength will actually get in the way.  They think strength means you will be slower, have less stamina, and/or be less flexible.  While all of those are certainly possible, quite often someone with more muscle mass is going to move quicker and with less effort.  They're only going to be slower and inflexible compared to people who have maximized those traits (a body builder is not going to sprint like a sprinter, but they might outsprint a layman).


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 28, 2022)

skribs said:


> They think strength means you will be slower, have less stamina, and/or be less flexible.


If the person builds strength in the context that it must be used then none of this will happen.  Just like everything else strength building is not a one size fits all.  It must always be developed within the context that it will be used for it to be of benefit that specific activity.


----------



## skribs (Feb 28, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> If the person builds strength in the context that it must be used then none of this will happen.  Just like everything else strength building is not a one size fits all.  It must always be developed within the context that it will be used for it to be of benefit that specific activity.


Yes and no.  If you're min/maxing, then yes.  If you're talking about stabilizing muscles, then yes.  But there are enough muscles that are going to be pretty useful in any situation.  It's hard to think of a martial art where having strong calves, quads, or core is not going to make your techniques stronger.  It's hard to think of an art outside of Taekwondo where having a strong chest and triceps isn't going to help.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 28, 2022)

I can imagine how strength trainers feel about martial artists hanging around in weight lifting gyms talking about how their techniques are better than being strong. Think that would go over well?

Strength is fine. I doubt many have an actual attitude against it. But maybe when doing MA training, do MA training.  Same for a martial artist in the weight lifting gym. Get on the bench and stop talking about your belt level maybe.

Bottom line, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. In the dojo, we do martial arts. Glad you're strong. Yippee ki aye. Now do kata.


----------



## Unkogami (Feb 28, 2022)

Who exactly has "distaste for physical strength"?


----------



## skribs (Feb 28, 2022)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I can imagine how strength trainers feel about martial artists hanging around in weight lifting gyms talking about how their techniques are better than being strong. Think that would go over well?
> 
> Strength is fine. I doubt many have an actual attitude against it. But maybe when doing MA training, do MA training.  Same for a martial artist in the weight lifting gym. Get on the bench and stop talking about your belt level maybe.
> 
> Bottom line, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. In the dojo, we do martial arts. Glad you're strong. Yippee ki aye. Now do kata.


I don't think there are martial artists in the weigh room saying weight training isn't important.  Just like I don't think there are weight lifters in the martial arts room saying technique isn't important.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 28, 2022)

skribs said:


> I don't think there are martial artists in the weigh room saying weight training isn't important.  Just like I don't think there are weight lifters in the martial arts room saying technique isn't important.


Let me put it this way. We've had weight trainers and power lifters in our dojo. One was exceedingly cocky about his raw strength, which he valued more than learning what was being taught. 

Another, who posts videos of himself in the weight room as he tries to improve himself, does martial arts in the dojo and weight lifting in the gym. We get along great. 

The difference is when he's in the dojo, he's a karate student.

When in Rome, do as Romans.


----------



## MetalBoar (Feb 28, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> Who exactly has "distaste for physical strength"?


It's not usually physical strength per se that I hear people complain about, but having larger muscles and/or doing resistance training with weights that gets a fair amount of criticism.  And by "larger muscles" I'm not talking huge, competitive body builder, muscles, just bigger than you'd have if you didn't lift weights.  

I've heard it from _lots_ of different people:

Boxers, especially old school boxers, have told me:

It'll make you slow.
You'll gas out too quick if you have too much muscle.
The muscles you get from weight lifting don't make you stronger (I kid thee not).

TKD and karate practitioners:

It'll make you slow.
You'll gas out too quick if you have too much muscle.
You'll get muscle bound and not be flexible enough.

Aikidoka:

You'll use muscle for your techniques and never learn proper Aiki.
It'll ruin your sensitivity.

CMA practitioners:

It'll make you slow.
The muscles you get from weight lifting don't make you stronger (I kid thee not).
It will prevent you from using your qi properly. (????)
It'll ruin your sensitivity.
You'll get muscle bound and not be flexible enough.

A certain type of left wing intellectual regardless of style (and hey, I'm kind of a lefty intellectual, but I've got no patience for this one):

A bunch of BS that comes down to "Weight lifting is anti-intellectual and having larger muscles would make me look like some kind of Neanderthal so I'm going to go jog for a while".

About the only groups that I've never heard complain about weight lifting are grapplers (not counting Aikido) and western fencers, which makes the boxers and others who complain it will make you slow seem particularly clueless. I also want to be clear that I've known plenty of people who fit into all of these categories who lift weights and don't believe these things, but there are definitely plenty who do.

I think Tony and Skribs have done a good job of explaining why some people may not approve of resistance training.  The only thing I'd add is that I've definitely encountered at least a couple of distinct groups that have a classist view of weight lifting and or large(er) muscles and are more concerned about what weight lifting might say about them than they are whether it's effective or not.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 28, 2022)

skribs said:


> Yes and no.  If you're min/maxing, then yes.  If you're talking about stabilizing muscles, then yes.  But there are enough muscles that are going to be pretty useful in any situation.  It's hard to think of a martial art where having strong calves, quads, or core is not going to make your techniques stronger.  It's hard to think of an art outside of Taekwondo where having a strong chest and triceps isn't going to help.



None of this will help a person learn Jow Ga.  This is strength building that's not suitable for Jow Ga.  He's strong butnot withing the right context for Jow Ga.  None of this will make Jow Ga techniques stronger.   There's a reason why the best fighters don't look like this.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 28, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> None of this will help a person learn Jow Ga.  This is strength building that's not suitable for Jow Ga.  He's strong butnot withing the right context for Jow Ga.  None of this will make Jow Ga techniques stronger.   There's a reason why the best fighters don't look like this.  Just like training has to be done within the context of what you want to achieve, muscles must be built the same way.
> View attachment 28116


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 28, 2022)

Bill Mattocks said:


> One was exceedingly cocky about his raw strength, which he valued more than learning what was being taught.


I'm so glad that I haven't come across anyone like this

When I'm in the weight room. I train like a martial artists.  People see me hitting myself with a stick lol  I also do horse stances and grip exercises.  My "MMA Rival" does traditional martial arts grip strengthening exercises using the dumbbells.


----------



## skribs (Feb 28, 2022)

@MetalBoar I think part of the idea that the muscles you get don't make you stronger is that a lot of punching power comes from the legs.  (I'll argue that the follow-through comes from the legs, but the impact comes from the chest and arms).  

I also think a lot of this is true in theory, but there are specific conditions for that theory to be correct.  In general, more muscle means more athleticism.  However, if all you do is strength and don't do any stretching or cardio, then your gains will only be in strength, and you likely will lose flexibility and stamina.  By doing the martial art, you are probably at least getting some cardio and stretching.

The other possibility is at the extreme end.  If you weight train so you can look like Michael Jai White, or as Scott Adkins in Boyka, then those muscles won't affect your flexibility and stamina.  But you get some guys who get so big they can't even touch their own back.  If you get this big, there's probably some diminishing returns.  

That's why I said "theory".  In that there are cases where training muscle might become a hindrance.  But these are very specific cases that you're not likely to encounter.


----------



## MetalBoar (Mar 1, 2022)

skribs said:


> @MetalBoar I think part of the idea that the muscles you get don't make you stronger is that a lot of punching power comes from the legs.  (I'll argue that the follow-through comes from the legs, but the impact comes from the chest and arms).


Yeah, a lot of people hear weight lifting and seem to assume all you do is bench press and bicep curls.  If you're doing it right (by my definition anyway) you ought to be getting a complete, full body workout when you lift; arms, legs, glutes, chest, back, neck, grip strength, etc.  You certainly can do strength training with a limited focus, and some body builders do train for an aesthetic rather than functional results, but body building is just one small subset of weight lifting.  



skribs said:


> However, if all you do is strength and don't do any stretching or cardio, then your gains will only be in strength, and you likely will lose flexibility and stamina. By doing the martial art, you are probably at least getting some cardio and stretching.


In general, barring genetic anomalies like muscles bellies that are so long that they extend around the joint, a stronger muscle is a more flexible muscle.  This is especially true if your weight lifting program requires you to utilize a full range of motion in your training.  If you lift with some protocol that utilizes a limited range of motion you'll get less (perhaps little to no) benefit to your flexibility, but it's still unlikely to reduce it.  I guess the other exception is the injured or over worked muscle is less flexible than the healthy, properly recovered muscle, and there are definitely body builders and some people who are obsessive about their exercise who reduce flexibility through chronic overuse and injury. 

Now, if you stretch and work directly to increase your flexibility you're going to be more flexible than if you just lift, and for high kicks and a lot of other MA techniques a good stretching program is essential for most people to perform at a high level.  For me, if I'm going to kick above my waist, it's a necessity to perform at a low level, but that was even more true before I ever lifted weights.

As far as cardio is concerned, I could write pages, but I'll try to keep it short and to the point.  Outside of extremes, like running marathons, stronger muscles should only benefit one's endurance.  Still, that being said, I agree completely that you need to train your endurance for the activities you want to participate in.  If you just lift and don't put any work into conditioning yourself for your sport you're going to be sucking wind in short order when you compete, but the weight lifting isn't what's hurting you, it's the lack of proper conditioning.



skribs said:


> But you get some guys who get so big they can't even touch their own back. If you get this big, there's probably some diminishing returns.





JowGaWolf said:


> None of this will help a person learn Jow Ga. This is strength building that's not suitable for Jow Ga. He's strong butnot withing the right context for Jow Ga. None of this will make Jow Ga techniques stronger. There's a reason why the best fighters don't look like this.


Yep, it's possible to get big in ways that are detrimental to your martial art.  That's probably most true for competitions that have weight divisions.  The thing is, no one looks like Arnie (from JowGaWolf's picture) in his heyday without 3 things:

A whole lot of work focusing on that aesthetic
Really unusual genetics
Steroids, and not small doses of them either
Some people, with really, really, long muscle bellies can get big enough that it limits mobility, and a lot more people can put on enough fat and muscle combined to limit mobility, but that's not going to happen to you unless you are a bit of a genetic freak and/or you are vastly overeating while doing a lot of lifting.

Most people, even if they take lifting really seriously, aren't going to get anywhere near as big as Mike Tyson at the peak of his boxing career, unless they're juicing, and probably not even then.  They definitely aren't going to get as big as Arnie.  They don't have the genes for it.  I haven't heard anyone say that Mr. Tyson was too big or too muscular to box and I doubt many people would say he was too big for TKD or Jow Ga either.  Are there other body types that might be more ideal for those arts? Sure, there probably are, but I bet Ol' Iron Mike could have been better at most martial arts than most people on this forum could be at any martial art.


----------



## skribs (Mar 1, 2022)

@MetalBoar This is what I'm talking about:


----------



## skribs (Mar 1, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> None of this will help a person learn Jow Ga. This is strength building that's not suitable for Jow Ga. He's strong butnot withing the right context for Jow Ga. None of this will make Jow Ga techniques stronger. There's a reason why the best fighters don't look like this.


Why wouldn't it make his Jow Ga stronger?  What would?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 1, 2022)

MetalBoar said:


> haven't heard anyone say that Mr. Tyson was too big or too muscular to box


His build is better suited for boxing than Jow Ga,.  In Jow Ga you have to be big with your movements. Mike Tyson was an inside fighter he made a lot of use of that short range power.  His shoulders look tight to me.  He would have to do arm circles in order for me to see what type of flexibility he has.

He wouldn't have problems with the shuffling that Jow Ga does.  I think a younger Tyson would do better in Jow Ga. He looks like he had more flexibility in those shoulders when he was in the olympics.


----------



## MetalBoar (Mar 1, 2022)

skribs said:


> @MetalBoar This is what I'm talking about:


Yep, I'm familiar with the type.  That dude has some freaky genetics and I'd bet the entirety of my bank account he's juicing.  There are thousands of guys in the bodybuilding world who'd kill to be that big and are putting in huge amounts of work, many of them taking roids, and still aren't achieving anything like his size.  I'm sure if he put work in to increasing his flexibility it would be better, but with the structure his genes have given him he's not ever going to be super flexible, especially carrying that much muscle.  

Between us we might have a couple of distant acquaintances who could get that big if they really worked at it and had "help".  Over 20 years of very dedicated (drug free) weight lifting and I'm a twig in comparison to that guy.  Essentially no one has to worry about that from weight lifting. In the modern world, computer use and a sedentary lifestyle are the things that are going to destroy their flexibility.


----------



## skribs (Mar 1, 2022)

MetalBoar said:


> Yep, I'm familiar with the type.  That dude has some freaky genetics and I'd bet the entirety of my bank account he's juicing.  There are thousands of guys in the bodybuilding world who'd kill to be that big and are putting in huge amounts of work, many of them taking roids, and still aren't achieving anything like his size.  I'm sure if he put work in to increasing his flexibility it would be better, but with the structure his genes have given him he's not ever going to be super flexible, especially carrying that much muscle.
> 
> Between us we might have a couple of distant acquaintances who could get that big if they really worked at it and had "help".  Over 20 years of very dedicated (drug free) weight lifting and I'm a twig in comparison to that guy.  Essentially no one has to worry about that from weight lifting. In the modern world, computer use and a sedentary lifestyle are the things that are going to destroy their flexibility.


Like I said, this is "theory" in which the application is a very select few individuals who are extreme outliers.  There's always some fact behind a myth.


----------



## Cynik75 (Mar 1, 2022)

As we say in Poland: strenght * strenght = technique.


----------



## Ivan (Mar 1, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> Like what is the reason you've been telling people why you weight lift?


Well to be the “big guy”. But it certainly helps. Especially in striking as it facilitates me to dominate the space. I’m very good at cutting off rings and staying in the centre, as well as pressuring forwards. It’s not just the strength that helps but the size too - it really puts a lot of stress on some opponents and makes me seem more intimidating than I really am. Of course, much more experienced opponents might not care, but that doesn’t mean people should completely forego it.


----------



## Ivan (Mar 1, 2022)

skribs said:


> Strength multiplies technique.  If you have only strength and no technique, then it doesn't matter how strong you are.  If you have only technique and no strength, it doesn't matter how good you are.  You're probably not going to win much.
> 
> With that said, being stronger does tend to lead to people cutting corners in training, often unintentionally.  If you are stronger than your training partners, you can often succeed against them by using strength instead of technique.  Your success reinforces that your technique is "correct", so you don't see much reason to improve it.
> 
> ...


I certainly agree with this. I find it very difficult in BJJ to not just straight up bench press my opponents off of me from side control. I like smaller and faster opponents because I can feel the “pressure” they exert through technique rather than force.

That being said, strength also opens up a lot of alleyways that wouldn’t be there if I didn’t have my level of it. For example, it helps keep me on my feet when someone is attempting to sweep me, or defend armbars and also allows me to absorb shots with my body in striking.

My reasoning in my original post in which I say that strength is a form of technique is that anyone can attain at the very least some level of it. Whether you’re a woman or an old man, there is always something you can do that will make you physically stronger and give you an advantage.


----------



## Ivan (Mar 1, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> If the person builds strength in the context that it must be used then none of this will happen.  Just like everything else strength building is not a one size fits all.  It must always be developed within the context that it will be used for it to be of benefit that specific activity.


I would agree to some extent but that’s not necessarily the case. I don’t need to train my biceps in a specific way to help me defend armbars, or to help lift bigger weights. Regardless of your goal, bicep curls will still get you there. 

I think this only applies to muscles that are there to absorb strikes, or stabilisers. For example, I like to slam medicine balls against my ribs and stomach to get me used to tightening my core as much as I can on impact. But deadlifting will help me build a strong trunk and base and back just as much as any grappling exercises for that specific muscle group.


----------



## Ivan (Mar 1, 2022)

skribs said:


> I don't think there are martial artists in the weigh room saying weight training isn't important.  Just like I don't think there are weight lifters in the martial arts room saying technique isn't important.


Do you guys remember that guy we had on this forum about a year ago who said his aim was to become so physically strong and big that no technique would work on him xD


----------



## Ivan (Mar 1, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> None of this will help a person learn Jow Ga.  This is strength building that's not suitable for Jow Ga.  He's strong butnot withing the right context for Jow Ga.  None of this will make Jow Ga techniques stronger.   There's a reason why the best fighters don't look like this.
> View attachment 28116


Some of them do look like that, they just haven’t trained in Jow Ga. Look at Liston, Tyson, Brock Lesnar, Holyfield. Brock Lesnar specifically was bigger than Arnold I believe.


----------



## Ivan (Mar 1, 2022)

MetalBoar said:


> Yep, I'm familiar with the type.  That dude has some freaky genetics and I'd bet the entirety of my bank account he's juicing.  There are thousands of guys in the bodybuilding world who'd kill to be that big and are putting in huge amounts of work, many of them taking roids, and still aren't achieving anything like his size.


Unfortunately, the social media and fitness industry have skewed people’s perspectives on body types that are naturally attainable and those that are not. Having done bodybuilding and powerlifting type training for 5 years, I am nowhere even close to such levels of hypertrophy, but I do not aim to be either.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 1, 2022)

The thing is even strength sports are technique driven. You can't be a power lifter on strength alone.

So the dichotomy is that to harness strength the most effectively you have to not use it. Instead relying on good form.


----------



## Unkogami (Mar 1, 2022)

MetalBoar said:


> ...
> 
> About the only groups that I've never heard complain about weight lifting are grapplers (not counting Aikido) and western fencers,......


You're not going to hear that nonsense from many wrestlers.


----------



## Unkogami (Mar 1, 2022)

drop bear said:


> .....
> 
> So the dichotomy is that to harness strength the most effectively you have to not use it. Instead relying on good form.


????????????????

How about both?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 1, 2022)

One of my friends got rejected from a fencing camp back in senior year of HS because he was "too muscular". He was a foil fencer and they apparently thought he must be a slow fencer and he wouldn't have the flexibility needed because of it. It's been a decade so don't remember specifically, but I'd be surprised if they didn't also think he was bruteforcing his techniques.

This happened before they got to the actual training portion of tryouts, just conditioning. He conditioned too well? And he was far from what any of us would consider if we thought "too big for martial arts", but most fencers don't have much muscle. The stigma is real.


----------



## Unkogami (Mar 1, 2022)

Cynik75 said:


> As we say in Poland: strenght * strenght = technique.


Is that how everyone in Poland spells "strength"?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 1, 2022)

Ivan said:


> Some of them do look like that, they just haven’t trained in Jow Ga. Look at Liston, Tyson, Brock Lesnar, Holyfield. Brock Lesnar specifically was bigger than Arnold I believe.


I think you are making the assumption that they didn't develop the skill before the muscle.  You seem to put muscle before the skill building and if you look at their younger pictures you will see that it was the opposite.  With the exception of Arnold.  You look at the end result of what they look and seem to make assumptions. That the end game was to get bigger to be a better fighter /wrestler.  The guys you named were dedicated to training skills and conditioning for the sport that they were involved in. To them the focus wasn't about getting bigger.  Take a look at Brock Lesnar pre WWE

You may not notice, but when you talk about your own skills,  you tend to "hang your hat" on things like, I'm stronger, I hit harder, I can knock someone out.  I have yet to hear you state that you out skill someone.  I hit like a truck but you'll always hear me talk about technique and that I'm working on my technique or working on endurance and it seems that you often fall back to the physical strength when things don't go your way.

What I have heard a lot of from you is people beating you with skill and not muscle.  Maybe it's something you should reflect on.


----------



## O'Malley (Mar 1, 2022)

Ivan said:


> Hi. I am writing an article on the attitudes towards physical strength in martial arts, and would like to get your perspective on this issue (if it is an issue, I personally feel that it is) in martial arts, since you're all much more experienced than me. Every since I started training, I saw that there were many students and professors alike that seemed to have a sort of chip on their shoulders when it came to physical strength. I specifically noticed this in traditional martial arts; while my professors in Jiujitsu seemed to have an issue with strong people, my professors in more modern arts and combat sports seemed to lean towards it. This issue was most prevalent during my fleeting time in Shorinji Kempo, and it was one of the main reasons I quit.
> 
> People there seemed to have this sense of superiority towards me because I spend a lot of time working out at the gym and lifting weights, and many jokes and mockery and criticism by both students and senseis aside at people who spend their time training at the gym. Much of it came from the idea that using strength to fight was brutish and perhaps even a little uneducated or simply stupid. Although modern combat sports and martial arts tend to supplement (and in some cases even rely on) strength training for their techniques, this is not to say that they are bereft of such attitudes. I have come across one or two individuals that have this mentality of superiority in my BJJ gym too, and there is even the running joke amongst the online BJJ community where calling someone strong is an insult in a way, as they have no technique worthy of a compliment.
> 
> Personally however, I dislike this mentality a lot. I would even go as far as to argue that strength is a technique too - I wasn't born with my strength, and I worked a very long time to get to the level I am in terms of weightlifting today. If it just so happens that it helps me against my opponent, of course I'll use it. I think it is very important to incorporate strength training, whether traditional iron-body type stuff, or modern muscular hypertrophy and development. What are your thoughts on this?


If you beat the other guys at your BJJ gym, the smart ones will change their minds. The stupid ones will give you easy rolls to improve your technique.


----------



## Cynik75 (Mar 1, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> Is that how everyone in Poland spells "strength"?


No. Only me.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 1, 2022)

skribs said:


> Why wouldn't it make his Jow Ga stronger?  What would?


I have an opinion on this.

Bigger means slower.  So all that extra mass isn't very helpful if it makes you slow enough that someone else who is smaller can dance around you, checking you at will.

So there's a balance somewhere between muscle mass and speed, and sure you can train to max out your own agility, but even then, if someone is smaller but a little faster that can make all the difference, even if you're stronger.  I speak from experience.

In the weight room, or in front of a mirror, speed doesn't matter.  Sparring, competing, its critical.


----------



## Unkogami (Mar 1, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I have an opinion on this.
> 
> Bigger means slower.  ...


That's a dangerous, and false, assumption.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 1, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> That's a dangerous, and false, assumption.


It's physics.  More mass means slower to accelerate, slower to decelerate, slower to shift weight, and slower to get off the ground.

Heavyweights are much slower than lightweights.

Why is it a false assumption?  I didn't say big means slow.  Just slower.


----------



## J. Pickard (Mar 1, 2022)

I personally have never seen this mentality in person, weight training and general strength building has always been a part of my training. Even BJJ school I train at does a strength training class twice a week. However I have seen enough of the "woo woo" type martial artists to believe it exists. Strength training has always been a part of martial arts as near as I can tell. The only difference is that we have better tools to accomplish gaining strength now and can do it better. Some TMA practitioners might consider this "cheating" and just stick to the old way with clay jars and stuff purely for the sake of tradition but it's still strength training either way.


----------



## Ivan (Mar 1, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> I think you are making the assumption that they didn't develop the skill before the muscle.  You seem to put muscle before the skill building and if you look at their younger pictures you will see that it was the opposite.  With the exception of Arnold.  You look at the end result of what they look and seem to make assumptions. That the end game was to get bigger to be a better fighter /wrestler.  The guys you named were dedicated to training skills and conditioning for the sport that they were involved in. To them the focus wasn't about getting bigger.  Take a look at Brock Lesnar pre WWE
> 
> You may not notice, but when you talk about your own skills,  you tend to "hang your hat" on things like, I'm stronger, I hit harder, I can knock someone out.  I have yet to hear you state that you out skill someone.  I hit like a truck but you'll always hear me talk about technique and that I'm working on my technique or working on endurance and it seems that you often fall back to the physical strength when things don't go your way.
> 
> What I have heard a lot of from you is people beating you with skill and not muscle.  Maybe it's something you should reflect on.


Liston and Tyson were specifically known for their size before they took up boxing. Liston was abused and treated like a mule by his own father before being disowned, and thus had a huge physique and a very bad reputation on the streets and amongst police, mostly from his size and his skin colour, but not his actions. As for Tyson, he fought at the 17-years old age class at 13 because no one believed that was his actual age.

The reason why I say that is because that's what I place a lot of value on. I have good technical skill, and I polish it a lot and I am proud of my technical boxing style in the ring. I might be a slugger, but that does not mean I don't have technical tricks and skills in my repertoire. However, I like to focus on power and strength as well, because, in a real fight, I believe landing one clean, strong and flush shot is better than landing 30 shots with perfect technique and little power - of course, power and technique come hand in hand, but when it comes to striking, I have found it much harder to develop my body for being able to take and give out shots, than to develop my technique.

Developing technique is easy; I take the technique, I repeat it thousands of times, film it, ask for criticism, drill it again, rinse and repeat. Strength is much more difficult - I need to simulate the situation that my body will be put through in real life scenarions without injuring myself; it takes much longer to develop, it's much more painful, and it also requires a good diet and rest. One rep wrong of any exercise could possibly prove very damaging and injure me.

And plus, this is a kind of survivor's bias. I very rarely will make a post about someone dominating me in sparring because they're physically stronger, even though it has happened - the reason for this is because there is only ever two answers to this situation; get stronger or get more skillful. But when beaten with skill, there is many areas that skill can be applied to. Was he more skillful at dodging shots, making angles, technique variety? Strength in martial arts is arguably one-dimensional, skill is not.


----------



## Ivan (Mar 1, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I have an opinion on this.
> 
> Bigger means slower.  So all that extra mass isn't very helpful if it makes you slow enough that someone else who is smaller can dance around you, checking you at will.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but I must disagree. Mass just makes it harder to move at faster speeds. Bigger does not mean slower. Being smaller certainly helps, but just because someone is big doesn't mean theyre instantly slower than you. It's a very dangerous assumption to have. I have fought guys with more than 20kg mass than me that were faster than me at that point in time. Speed is also developed through muscles.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 1, 2022)

Ivan said:


> The reason why I say that is because that's what I place a lot of value on. I have good technical skill, and I polish it a lot and I am proud of my technical boxing style in the ring. I might be a slugger, but that does not mean I don't have technical tricks and skills in my repertoire. However, I like to focus on power and strength as well, because, in a real fight, I believe landing one clean, strong and flush shot is better than landing 30 shots with perfect technique and little power - of course, power and technique come hand in hand, but when it comes to striking, I have found it much harder to develop my body for being able to take and give out shots, than to develop my technique.


This will be your next lesson to learn.  I'll give you another year and a few more coaches to run through and you'll learn on your own what others have been telling you about technique.  



Ivan said:


> Developing technique is easy;


You are the first person I've ever heard say this.  


Ivan said:


> Strength is much more difficult


And you don't wonder why this is the case?  After all you are doing it your way right? Chasing power?  When you get tips from boxing coaches, what do they give you tips on?  Technique or Power?



Ivan said:


> I very rarely will make a post about someone dominating me in sparring because they're physically stronger, even though it has happened


Again.  And you don't wonder why this is the case?  Did they really dominate you with Power or was it skill?



Ivan said:


> Strength in martial arts is arguably one-dimensional, skill is not.


Not sure how you got this, but I don't know any Martial Artist that thinks this.


----------



## Ivan (Mar 1, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> Not sure how you got this, but I don't know any Martial Artist that thinks this.


This is my entire reason for making this thread. It sounds like you find it inconceivable to be beaten by physical strength. Also, chasing power in a physical and internal sense are two different things. Skill comes with time and practice and hard work with good guidance. As for being the first person you've heard to say it was easy, I stand by that - you've seen my development throughout my years on this forum. My skill and technique was much easier to attain than my conditioning, because I will always find it easier to do 500 punches daily focusing on technique, than a two month regime in which I eat the same gruelling meals in three day cycles with 5-6 days weekly with heavy weights for the most meager of improvements. The 500 punches get easier with time, and eventually, they become 750 punches. But those circuits only get harder everyday - not physically, mentally.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 1, 2022)

Ivan said:


> Sorry, but I must disagree. Mass just makes it harder to move at faster speeds. Bigger does not mean slower. Being smaller certainly helps, but just because someone is big doesn't mean theyre instantly slower than you. It's a very dangerous assumption to have. I have fought guys with more than 20kg mass than me that were faster than me at that point in time. Speed is also developed through muscles.


Like I said, there's a point where people with a certain mass can find balance with speed through training.  

But ultimately the more massive you are, the slower you are.  And for the topic, the distaste for strength training, it has to be said that too much mass without sufficient physical control leads to poor control.  Another way of saying if you have 150 lbs of muscle mass, but you are also as stiff as a board, you're not going to fight well.

Do you disagree with that?


----------



## Damien (Mar 1, 2022)

People with a don't get strong mindset are just wrong. Muscle size and strength doesn't slow you down and it doesn't stop you being flexible, unless you get so big that your body literally gets in the way of itself, but then you could say the same thing of being morbidly obese.

If you continue to stretch and continue to practice speed, you wont get inflexible and you wont get slow. If you only ever train really slow movements, you will develop more slow twitch muscle fibres, and so get slower. If you never stretch you will tighten up. But these are easy to overcome. Plyometrics, stretching dynamically and statically all parts of much MA training.

There's a reason Olympic athletes do a lot of weights, it makes them stronger, and therefore more able to apply force. More force equals faster running, longer throws, higher jumps. Elite sprinters do weighted squats and they are sure as hell faster than anyone you know!

Some styles like Shaolin put a strong emphasis on body conditioning, mainly with bodyweight and a few simple tools. But we do have better tools these days. Outdated suppositions in traditional martial arts is one of my bug bears. TMAs are great, but we need to come into the 21st century. I love a good form, and training 9 sets of deep squats a week at around 20 reps is going to let me train that form for much longer.


----------



## Damien (Mar 1, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> If you have good punching technique, then you can probably knock someone out with 20% - 30% power.  Technically this means you should throw a faster punch with less effort and get good results.  If you rely on strength too much then you'll gas out very quickly because you are muscling through everything.


True, but if you are stronger, you could do it with 10% or, you could do it more consistently with 20-30%. Some of the hardest hitters in boxing are strong. Sure they have technique too, but the two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

You can be super strong and still look to learn good technique, and any good coach will spot when you're not using it and slap it out of you. We shouldn't pretend that we learn technique so we don't have to rely on strength, and that building strength means we'll just not bother. If you care about being a good martial artist and if your instructor cares about you doing things right then the technique will still come.

Plus when we think about going to the body or kicking the leg, knockouts aren't a factor. It's how much you can tire and damage the opponent. Generating more force because you have more and stronger muscle fibres means you hit harder and hurt them more. 

You can also have huge muscles and still have energy to keep going; these are different systems in your body. Just check out Ross Edgley as an example, he is jacked, but swam all the way round Great Britain, did a triathlon carrying a tree and did a marathon pulling a car. He definitely doesn't have a problem with gassing out.


----------



## Damien (Mar 1, 2022)

Ivan said:


> I would agree to some extent but that’s not necessarily the case. I don’t need to train my biceps in a specific way to help me defend armbars, or to help lift bigger weights. Regardless of your goal, bicep curls will still get you there.
> 
> I think this only applies to muscles that are there to absorb strikes, or stabilisers. For example, I like to slam medicine balls against my ribs and stomach to get me used to tightening my core as much as I can on impact. But deadlifting will help me build a strong trunk and base and back just as much as any grappling exercises for that specific muscle group.


I would disagree slightly. Your body adapts to what you put it through (to an extent). So if you want to build explosive power, you need to move explosively. If you want maximum ability to exert force over time, lift heavy and few reps, if you want to have more endurance, lift light and lots. To build size, go in between. Of course size helps with maximum force. 

So a bit of size training (hypertrophy), a bit of maximum power, a bit of explosive and some endurance training for martial arts. Easy right!? 😂 That's why we need periodisation, focussing on different elements in our training at different times, because we can't adapt to everything at once. 

So I guess you could say just doing middle of the road strength training won't help you with martial arts too much. As you build size, you will build strength, but you could get more out of it with a tailored approach.


----------



## Damien (Mar 1, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I have an opinion on this.
> 
> Bigger means slower.  So all that extra mass isn't very helpful if it makes you slow enough that someone else who is smaller can dance around you, checking you at will.
> 
> ...


Big muscles don't make you slow, training slow makes you slow. Muscle isn't just dead weight hanging around needing to be moved like extra fat. Muscle is what does the moving for you, more of that the more you can move. Train fast for fast twitch fibres and your muscles will grow big and quick. It's just how physiology works.

Ever seen Yohan Blake or Dwayne Chambers? These guys are fast and definitely big in the legs, arms, chest etc. Compare them to long distance runners who are running much slower, none of them have this level of muscle because what they need is maximum endurance and indeed different running mechanics.


----------



## skribs (Mar 1, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I have an opinion on this.
> 
> Bigger means slower.  So all that extra mass isn't very helpful if it makes you slow enough that someone else who is smaller can dance around you, checking you at will.
> 
> ...


Speed is about strength-to-weight ratios.  Where does that strength come from?


----------



## Damien (Mar 1, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> It's physics.  More mass means slower to accelerate, slower to decelerate, slower to shift weight, and slower to get off the ground.
> 
> Heavyweights are much slower than lightweights.
> 
> Why is it a false assumption?  I didn't say big means slow.  Just slower.


Applying physics to the movement of the human body doesn't work as a one to one correlation with moving an inert mass. A 100kg cart takes more force to accelerate than a 50kg cart. But when 80kg of that first cart is an engine, and 20kg of the second is an engine suddenly the 100kg cart is going to accelerate a lot faster, because a lot of its weight is actually generating force, not just dead weight.

Sure if you use your arm or leg like a baseball bat and just swing from your core it will be slower if you have more muscle, but if you actually throw a half decent punch.... and we're back to needing technique again. But anyone who has trained MA for more than a few weeks who uses their arms like a baseball bat probably has bigger things to worry about than being too big....


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 1, 2022)

Damien said:


> We shouldn't pretend that we learn technique so we don't have to rely on strength, and that building strength means we'll just not bother. I


I agree. My perspective is that technique allows power to flow.  I don't buy into the learn technique so you don't have to be strong.  Without technique, a person is just brute forcing everything. This why I like to spar against brawlers.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 1, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> It's physics.



No it isn't.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 1, 2022)

drop bear said:


> No it isn't.


Is that all?  Do you have anything of substance to add?

Isn't everything physics?


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 1, 2022)

skribs said:


> Speed is about strength-to-weight ratios.  Where does that strength come from?


There seems to be a miscommunication.  I never said anything about muscle.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 1, 2022)

Damien said:


> Big muscles don't make you slow, training slow makes you slow. Muscle isn't just dead weight hanging around needing to be moved like extra fat. Muscle is what does the moving for you, more of that the more you can move. Train fast for fast twitch fibres and your muscles will grow big and quick. It's just how physiology works.
> 
> Ever seen Yohan Blake or Dwayne Chambers? These guys are fast and definitely big in the legs, arms, chest etc. Compare them to long distance runners who are running much slower, none of them have this level of muscle because what they need is maximum endurance and indeed different running mechanics.


I think you and the others misunderstood me. When I said mass makes you slower, I meant mass.

I never said _muscles_ make you slow.  I lift, I dance, I like my gains.

So please put me in the "muscles good" column.  Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Damien (Mar 1, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> There seems to be a miscommunication.  I never said anything about muscle.


You kind of did...

"Bigger means slower. So all that extra mass isn't very helpful if it makes you slow enough that someone else who is smaller can dance around you, checking you at will.

So there's a balance somewhere between muscle mass and speed, "

But misspeaking is easy enough. I appreciate you being on side with the muscles good team!


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 1, 2022)

Damien said:


> You kind of did...
> 
> "Bigger means slower. So all that extra mass isn't very helpful if it makes you slow enough that someone else who is smaller can dance around you, checking you at will.
> 
> So there's a balance somewhere between muscle mass and speed, "


Do you disagree with what I said there?  About extra mass not being helpful IF it makes you slow?  I thought that was what we were discussing.  

I thought that was common sense, before we get to the science stuff.  You can be big but if you can't handle moving your weight around.


----------



## Damien (Mar 1, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Do you disagree with what I said there?  About extra mass not being helpful IF it makes you slow?  I thought that was what we were discussing.
> 
> I thought that was common sense, before we get to the science stuff.  You can be big but if you can't handle moving your weight around.


The joys of discussing on forums, easy to talk yourselves in circles if you don't read with the right inflection!

Yes, if you put on mass and don't train for speed at all, then that mass will likely slow you down due to the extra weight and lack of fast twitch fibres. So in that sense I do agree, the extra mass of muscles CAN slow you down and IF IT DOES then it does offer a disadvantage.

The implication from some of the earlier posts from various people was that muscle mass automatically makes you slower than you would be without it. But that certainly isn't true.

Right, that's that problem solved. What next? World hunger?


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 1, 2022)

Damien said:


> The joys of discussing on forums, easy to talk yourselves in circles if you don't read with the right inflection!
> 
> Yes, if you put on mass and don't train for speed at all, then that mass will likely slow you down due to the extra weight and lack of fast twitch fibres. So in that sense I do agree, the extra mass of muscles CAN slow you down and IF IT DOES then it does offer a disadvantage.
> 
> ...


Yes, lets.

I'm definitely of the mind that strength should be functional, to that end I prefer exercises like battle rope training, and weighing myself down when doing fist sets.  I use vests, rings, wristbands, and leg weights. I Iecently started using a kettlebell during slow dynamic tension Qigong routines.  It's fun and I've gotten some decent gains.

But pushups and curls, yeah.  Let's.


----------



## skribs (Mar 1, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> There seems to be a miscommunication.  I never said anything about muscle.



Please enlighten me on how "So there's a balance somewhere between *muscle mass* and speed," doesn't say anything about muscle.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 1, 2022)

skribs said:


> Please enlighten me on how "So there's a balance somewhere between *muscle mass* and speed," doesn't say anything about muscle.


Well, I think we established muscle mass doesn't mean it's fast muscle mass.

Right?


----------



## MetalBoar (Mar 2, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Well, I think we established muscle mass doesn't mean it's fast muscle mass.
> 
> Right?


I'm not sure we've established this in a clear cut way.  For a given individual the stronger they are the faster they will be, at the same skill level.  Now, the relationship between muscle mass and strength is a bit complicated, but in general, the more muscle a person has the stronger they are.  One exception to this is when the individual is over training or injured and those muscles aren't healthy or something of that sort.  There may be other exceptions but I can't think of any right now.  

There are individuals who are extreme genetic outliers that may get slower once they achieve extremely large muscles, but that isn't me and it probably isn't you or anyone else reading this either.  There are also extremely specialized sports, like running marathons, where weight of any kind is detrimental and strength is of little to no benefit (for the sport, it's still of great benefit for daily life).

Notice I'm only comparing individuals to themselves.  There may very well be people who, due to variations in muscle fiber type distribution and other genetic factors, are stronger at a smaller size than other, more muscular people.  These people would be stronger still if they carried more muscle.


----------



## Gyakuto (Mar 2, 2022)

Taken from a a university, Sports Physiology textbook:

_‘The number of myosin motors is proportional to muscle fiber length. The number of myosin filaments is proportional to the cross-sectional area of the muscle. Thus, muscle force is proportional to muscle volume, and therefore to muscle mass.’_

The bigger the muscle, the more force it can produce. A large-armed person will be able to expert more force than a ‘wiry-armed‘ person. Since Force = mass x acceleration, acceleration = Force/mass. Thus a bigger muscled person will be able to accelerate a fist or foot more quickly than a smaller-muscled person.

Whether being able to exert more force will make you a more affective fighter depends on multiple other factors, but all things being equal….well, I’ll allow you to make your own conclusions. Does being able to exert more force make you a better martial artist? That is a debate that probably has no clear conclusion, but I’d suggest it can’t hurt if it’s not too extreme and compromises flexibility.


----------



## skribs (Mar 2, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Well, I think we established muscle mass doesn't mean it's fast muscle mass.
> 
> Right?


Wrong.


----------



## Unkogami (Mar 2, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> It's physics.  More mass means slower to accelerate, slower to decelerate, slower to shift weight, and slower to get off the ground.
> 
> Heavyweights are much slower than lightweights.
> 
> Why is it a false assumption?  I didn't say big means slow.  Just slower.


There are hundreds of thousands of professional athletes in the world who I would wager a great deal are bigger, stronger, and faster than you.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 2, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> There are hundreds of thousands of professional athletes in the world who I would wager a great deal are bigger, stronger, and faster than you.


I'm not sure why you're making this about me.  Did I say anything about my own strength?  I don't think I did.  I have pretty average strength..


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 2, 2022)

MetalBoar said:


> I'm not sure we've established this in a clear cut way.  For a given individual the stronger they are the faster they will be, at the same skill level.  Now, the relationship between muscle mass and strength is a bit complicated, but in general, the more muscle a person has the stronger they are.  One exception to this is when the individual is over training or injured and those muscles aren't healthy or something of that sort.  There may be other exceptions but I can't think of any right now.
> 
> There are individuals who are extreme genetic outliers that may get slower once they achieve extremely large muscles, but that isn't me and it probably isn't you or anyone else reading this either.  There are also extremely specialized sports, like running marathons, where weight of any kind is detrimental and strength is of little to no benefit (for the sport, it's still of great benefit for daily life).
> 
> Notice I'm only comparing individuals to themselves.  There may very well be people who, due to variations in muscle fiber type distribution and other genetic factors, are stronger at a smaller size than other, more muscular people.  These people would be stronger still if they carried more muscle.


Yes, we've established more muscle = stronger, that's easy. What I'm interested in is speed, and whether all that extra muscle, at some point, gives a diminishing return with respect to movement.

I was referring to how bigger fighters move more slowly than smaller fighters, generally.  When I watch pro combat sports, I see generally see the smaller competitors are just quicker.  Maybe it's just my eyes but I always assumed it was because they weighed a lot less.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 2, 2022)

Gyakuto said:


> acceleration = Force/mass. Thus a bigger muscled person will be able to accelerate a fist or foot more quickly than a smaller-muscled person.


I'm terrible at math, but if mass gets bigger in that equation, doesn't that make the number on the right smaller, and acceleration on the left goes down, not up?  You're dividing by mass..

So if more muscle = more force, but more mass = lower acceleration....doesn't that there's some point where mass would be too big?  Is there a fine line with respect to fast mobility?  That's all I'm asking.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 2, 2022)

There are a few JKD guys out there that are into building muscle that are awfully fast. Even the founder was into various types of weight training. Jason Scott Lee is also JKD and he lifts. But I think what might be getting confused here is what is meant by Muscle mass

This





or this





And I can tell you I would not want to be hit by either of them

My Taijiquan Shifu, now in his 80s, was really into body weight training that worked muscle groups. The Chen family things lifting weights is ok, but they also want muscle groups not isolations.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 2, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I'm terrible at math, but if mass gets bigger in that equation, doesn't that make the number on the right smaller, and acceleration on the left goes down, not up?  You're dividing by mass..
> 
> So if more muscle = more force, but more mass = lower acceleration....doesn't that there's some point where mass would be too big?  Is there a fine line with respect to fast mobility?  That's all I'm asking.


Just to help the equation out, here's an example equation. 
If f=5(N) and m=10(kg), then acceleration =.5(m/s^2)
if f=5(N) and m=20(kg), then acceleration =.25(m/s^2). 
So yes, as mass increases, if there is no change in force (or a smaller change in force), acceleration decreases. 
If muscle increases force as well, then it depends on which it increases more quickly (ratio-wise). So if it doubles force, the equation would be: 10N/20kg=.5, so no change. 
But if it quadruples force as mass doubles, then 20N/20kg=1, meaning an increase in acceleration.

I'm bad at abstract things are applying it to biomechanics (not sure how muscle impacts force), and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be a direct ratio of 2:1, 3:1, as at some point there's bound to be diminishing returns, just wanted to lay out the math with numbers.


----------



## skribs (Mar 2, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I'm terrible at math, but if mass gets bigger in that equation, doesn't that make the number on the right smaller, and acceleration on the left goes down, not up?  You're dividing by mass..
> 
> So if more muscle = more force, but more mass = lower acceleration....doesn't that there's some point where mass would be too big?  Is there a fine line with respect to fast mobility?  That's all I'm asking.



The average person is 40% muscle and 60% everything else (bones, organs, blood, etc).  If I weigh 200 pounds, it's fair to assume I have around 80 pounds of muscle.  If I work out and add on 50 pounds, I add on 50 pounds of muscle.  I'm not adding on 20 pounds of muscle, 5 pounds of brain tissue, 10 pounds of bones, 5 pounds to my heart, etc.  My organs and skeleton are pretty much set in their weight.

In this equation, my weight goes up by 25%, but my strength goes up by 62.5%.  My strength-to-weight ratio goes up by 30%.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 2, 2022)

skribs said:


> The average person is 40% muscle and 60% everything else (bones, organs, blood, etc).  If I weigh 200 pounds, it's fair to assume I have around 80 pounds of muscle.  If I work out and add on 50 pounds, I add on 50 pounds of muscle.  I'm not adding on 20 pounds of muscle, 5 pounds of brain tissue, 10 pounds of bones, 5 pounds to my heart, etc.  My organs and skeleton are pretty much set in their weight.
> 
> In this equation, my weight goes up by 25%, but my strength goes up by 62.5%.  My strength-to-weight ratio goes up by 30%.


The problem though is in where did the muscle mass get added, and so specifically what kinds of strength is being increased.  I think I the true picture has a lot more nuance going on, and these kind of simple numbers have a real danger of being used to justify something that may well not be true.  In fact, depending on specifics, the exact opposite could be true. 

Example: if all of that new muscle mass were added to the torso and arms, and none of it was added to the legs, it would be hard to justify the argument that this newly added muscle has made the fellow into a faster runner.  In this case, he is probably slower because he is running with another fifty pounds on him, none of which is increasing his leg strength.


----------



## MetalBoar (Mar 2, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> The problem though is in where did the muscle mass get added, and so specifically what kinds of strength is being increased.  I think I the true picture has a lot more nuance going on, and these kind of simple numbers have a real danger of being used to justify something that may well not be true.  In fact, depending on specifics, the exact opposite could be true.
> 
> Example: if all of that new muscle mass were added to the torso and arms, and none of it was added to the legs, it would be hard to justify the argument that this newly added muscle has made the fellow into a faster runner.  In this case, he is probably slower because he is running with another fifty pounds on him, none of which is increasing his leg strength.


I'm about as pro weight lifting as it gets and I would agree with this.  In all my posts on the subject I've specified that for best overall functional ability you have to do a full body workout, if you neglect or overemphasize certain body parts your benefits will be reduced.  There may be cases where this is desirable, to some small extent, such as with fencing where leg strength is much more important than upper body strength. Even then the benefit is unlikely to be particularly large, outside of extremely specialized activities like arm wrestling.


----------



## Gyakuto (Mar 2, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I'm terrible at math, but if mass gets bigger in that equation, doesn't that make the number on the right smaller, and acceleration on the left goes down, not up?  You're dividing by mass..
> 
> So if more muscle = more force, but more mass = lower acceleration....doesn't that there's some point where mass would be too big?  Is there a fine line with respect to fast mobility?  That's all I'm asking.


Ah, it’s the mass being moved…the fist or the foot so it remains constant.


----------



## Damien (Mar 2, 2022)

We have to consider two things here:

1) Acceleration= Force/Mass means that the acceleration is proportional to the force being applied to the mass being moved. This is an external force on an inert mass. When the force generated and the mass change together due to it being an increase in muscle size, it gets complicated. When you consider that force is generated from lots of muscles, not just the limb being moved, it gets more complicated, add in biomechanics, technique etc.... there's a reason people do PhD's in sports science... It just isn't as simple as A=F/M 

See the cart with an engine analogy above- we could expand that to include gearing and tuning of the engine- a lorry engine can have the same power as a sports car, but be preferentially designed to pull lots of weight rather than go fast. Which leads into point 2.

2) There are 3 types of muscle fibre. Type 1 are slow twitch and have more endurance so are good for long distance running, type 2b are fast twitch and are good at exerting maximum force quickly, e.g. sprinting. Type 2a are also fast twitch, but have more endurance than 2b, making them good for medium levels of exertion, e.g. a 1km run.

Depending on how you train, you will preferentially increase different muscle fibre types. Lots of marathons, you get proportionally more type 1. Sprinting, type 2b. Type 2 fibres are generally more preferentially recruited in lifting weights due to the force requirements, but there are nuances. If you do lots of explosive weight training, you're going to get more type 2b than 2a or 1. If you do really low weight high rep count sessions you are going to build endurance and more type 2 fibres. Doing heavier weights but with very slow reps, you are probably going to be building more type 2b. 

All of these activities will make you more muscular, stronger and have more muscle endurance (due to other adaptations than muscle fibre type), however you will have different proportions of each type of muscle fibre. How fast you can move comes down to your proportion of fast twitch muscle fibres. This is why some people are naturally fast without any training, they have a larger proportion of their muscle as fast twitch, whereas other people are better long distance runners naturally, they have a higher proportion of slow twitch.

So, we can weight train and get very muscly and end up being faster, just as fast, or slower than we were before based on our method of training. More muscle doesn't automatically make you faster or slower, but trained in the right way it can do both.

As with most things in training, it all comes down to intent. Know what your end goal is and train appropriately for that. You want to be strong and fast, train those fast twitch fibres. You want to be able to hold a horse stance til you can claim squatters rights, train those slow twitch fibres.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 2, 2022)

MetalBoar said:


> I'm about as pro weight lifting as it gets and I would agree with this.  In all my posts on the subject I've specified that for best overall functional ability you have to do a full body workout, if you neglect or overemphasize certain body parts your benefits will be reduced.  There may be cases where this is desirable, to some small extent, such as with fencing where leg strength is much more important than upper body strength. Even then the benefit is unlikely to be particularly large, outside of extremely specialized activities like arm wrestling.





My thoughts on body building and muscles.   Build muscle according to function of the activity.  Failure to do so may cause a decrease in performance.  By the way, I'm not sure if that picture has been edited, but I've seen people like this in real life.




Does anyone really think that the muscles in his legs will make him a faster or slower runner?  

Muscles get in the way.  You can get stronger without getting bigger.






Maybe this guy is the exception?  Probably not





Full video.






Maybe this?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 2, 2022)

I prefer this one.  Only because they have my 1 minute front kick drill lol.   But get big if you want to.  If your muscles are being build for the function of the activity, then they won't be of any use to you.


----------



## Unkogami (Mar 2, 2022)

Olympic sprinters.......


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 2, 2022)

By the way, here's a good training tip.  If you really want to know which muscles you should be targeting for your activity then do the following.

1. Do a lot of reps of the movement that you are wanting to improve in and do it for 1 minute, non stop.   If you can't tell then take a 15 second break and do that same motion. 

2# Get as many reps as you can.  Don't be lazy with #1 above.  Try to get a lot of repetitions within a minute. Do go so fast that you are out of breath and you have no control.  

Do this for 3 or 4 rounds and you'll feel exactly what's involved in making that motion work.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 2, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> Olympic sprinters.......
> View attachment 28129


Yep, they are built like sprinters.  The muscles that you see will naturally develop that way as they are used for running.  Once a person understands what's needed then they can lift weights according to what improves the function of sprinting.  If you want a sprinter's body then do a bunch of sprints for 3 to 6 years.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 2, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> Olympic sprinters.......
> View attachment 28129


These guys aren't fighters though.  Their speed worries are pretty simple compared to a combat athlete.  They literally have one direction to worry about, and they just go.

In MMA, you need to be able to move in any direction, at any time, fast.  And you don't need a huge amount of muscle to KO somebody, just enough force.  On the ground, it's a different story: oxygen wins.

So...there does seem to be a trade off, or something, between musculature and combat effectiveness.  Let's face it, most great MMA guys are not supermen in the body building department.  They're regular guys, some tone, some not, but the key to winning (to me at least) always seems to be their speed not their force.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 2, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Well, I think we established muscle mass doesn't mean it's fast muscle mass.
> 
> Right?





skribs said:


> Wrong.


Then let's just do that. The statement that muscle mass does not equal fast twitch muscle mass is 100% true and correct. This is a well established fact.
Most muscles contain a mixture of both, but the percent of each varies and can be changed somewhat by training. There are some muscle groups, such as those in the back that maintain posture, which are almost entirely slow twitch muscle. And some, such as those that control eye movement, that are almost entirely fast twitch.


----------



## MetalBoar (Mar 2, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> View attachment 28127
> My thoughts on body building and muscles.   Build muscle according to function of the activity.  Failure to do so may cause a decrease in performance.  By the way, I'm not sure if that picture has been edited, but I've seen people like this in real life.
> 
> View attachment 28128
> ...


The thing is, as I've been saying, you don't get big like that without a combination of very unusual genetics, fanatic, specialized training, and (almost always) steroids.  In the case of the chicken leg dude, it's just the super specialized training, with maybe some freakish genetics on top.  So, it's close to irrelevant to tell martial artists who don't have those funky genetics and don't juice that weight lifting will make you slow, inflexible, or muscle bound.  If you tell them they need to do well balanced, full body, strength training then there's essentially no risk they'll turn out this way.  

I think you're making an unintentional straw man here.  You're pointing at a thing (getting enormously muscular) that isn't what the OP was talking about and that isn't what the vast majority of people doing martial arts have any interest in, and saying that it's likely to happen.  It's not likely to happen to anybody who _*wants *_to look that way, much less people who train for functional ability.    

The chicken leg thing is a little more common, but again, it's not a risk if you train for function and not aesthetics.  I guarantee you that chicken leg dude in your picture only cares about bug guns, hates leg work, and may have freakish genetics on top.  If he were doing any kind of serious martial arts training, that by itself would give him bigger calves than that, assuming more or less normal genes.

It's also true that muscle only gets you so far.  Without any training and practice at striking or grappling it won't magically make you a great fighter.  It will give you an advantage (in most cases) over a similarly experienced, weaker opponent, but that's about it.


----------



## MetalBoar (Mar 2, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Then let's just do that. The statement that muscle mass does not equal fast twitch muscle mass is 100% true and correct. This is a well established fact.
> Most muscles contain a mixture of both, but the percent of each varies and can be changed somewhat by training. There are some muscle groups, such as those in the back that maintain posture, which are almost entirely slow twitch muscle. And some, such as those that control eye movement, that are almost entirely fast twitch.


Sure, it's true that muscle mass is not 100% fast twitch fiber, but as I said in another post, that's mostly irrelevant on the individual level.  You've got the genes that you were born with and we haven't gotten gene therapy anywhere near a point where that's going to change any time soon.  You can have more or less muscle, and your training can have a small impact on fiber type distribution, but for the most part that's where things sit on an individual level.  Even if you're genetically predisposed to have a higher than average ratio of slow twitch fibers your type I fibers will still be stronger if you lift weights, as will your type IIa & b fibers, and weight training may shift some of your type IIa fibers to type IIb.  Barring unlikely extremes, more muscle, gained from a quality, full body, balanced, weight lifting program is very unlikely to make you slower, unless you have very unusual genes.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 2, 2022)

MetalBoar said:


> In the case of the chicken leg dude, it's just the super specialized training, with maybe some freakish genetics on top


Not with the guy I knew in college.  He only worked out the upper part of the body lol.  I still see the same thing in the gym today.  People get super focus and sometimes that puts them on a singular track. It always amazes me.  That's my normal gym entertainment.  There's one guy who is big, he must be about 6'5".  My first thought is usually "Man that guy is big."  My second thought "I wonder if I could beat him in the fight." lol  go figure.  Out of all of the people there it's the biggest one that I want to throw fist with.  The MMA guy however is my same size.  He hits hard.  My thoughts about that is "I don't want to get hit full force with those punches."  My second thought is "Train harder" lol.   

But the guys with big upper bodies and tiny legs makes me wonder "does he know how strange he looks"



MetalBoar said:


> The thing is, as I've been saying, you don't get big like that without a combination of very unusual genetics, fanatic, specialized training, and (almost always) steroids.


The reason why I post pictures of body builders is because there seems to be an assumption that more muscle = better performance and that's not true.  Blindly increasing size without understanding the muscles involved in the function is just a waste of time in terms of martial arts and any physical activity.



MetalBoar said:


> If you tell them they need to do well balanced, full body, strength training then there's essentially no risk they'll turn out this way.


I agree with this as strength training (from how I understand it ) is different then body building (muscle building) where the focus is often on trying to get the muscles bigger.  Strength training often focuses on function, which is why I prefer strength training over body building.   Strength training can be done with or without weights. Body building? well not so much.



MetalBoar said:


> You're pointing at a thing (getting enormously muscular) that isn't what the OP was talking about and that isn't what the vast majority of people doing martial arts have any interest in, and saying that it's likely to happen.


The OP has red flags that make me think that he's focused on getting bigger.  Here's what I see from the OP:


"*attitudes towards physical strength in martial arts*":  I don't know any martial arts school that doesn't talk about doing something that will make the student stronger.  I don't know of any physical activity that avoids making the participant stronger.
"*many students and professors alike that seemed to have a sort of chip on their shoulders when it came to physical strength*" : Again. I don't know of any Martial Art school that gets upset about students getting stronger.  We are more likely to hear instructors, coaches, and teachers tell students "to keep at it and you'll eventually get stronger." Those are the words that most students here in Martial Arts schools.
He OP goes on about being strong.  But I have never heard anyone in my life complain about strong.  Even in this thread the debate isn't about being strong, but about being Big.

Now here's the rub.  I asked.  "*Like what is the reason you've been telling people why you weight lift*?"
His reply was this. " Well to be the “*big guy*”. But it certainly helps. Especially in striking as it facilitates me to dominate the space. I’m very good at cutting off rings and staying in the centre, as well as pressuring forwards. *It’s not just the strength that helps but the size too* - *it really puts a lot of stress on some opponents and makes me seem more intimidating than I really am*. Of course, much more experienced opponents might not care, but that doesn’t mean people should completely forego it."

I've highlighted the red flags here.  None of this has anything to do with strength.  A person can be freakishly strong without being "big."  As far as size in the ring, 1 word: Weight Class (yes I know lol).  In the ring the person standing in front of him is going to be around the same weight.    Even in professional boxing they don't focus on the size like they do about the power.  Because after all it's the power of the punch that hurts not the size of the person. 

So what is real issue for the OP?  Being bigger? or being stronger?  I honestly think being Bigger is what he wants.  
1. Every martial artists and fighter that I know want to be stronger. That has never been an issue.
2. Some people think being stronger means being bigger which is where the discussion is now.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 2, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> Not with the guy I knew in college.  He only worked out the upper part of the body lol.






Never skip leg day...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 2, 2022)

Ivan said:


> Hi. I am writing an article on the attitudes towards physical strength in martial arts, and would like to get your perspective on this issue (if it is an issue, I personally feel that it is) in martial arts, since you're all much more experienced than me. Every since I started training, I saw that there were many students and professors alike that seemed to have a sort of chip on their shoulders when it came to physical strength. I specifically noticed this in traditional martial arts; while my professors in Jiujitsu seemed to have an issue with strong people, my professors in more modern arts and combat sports seemed to lean towards it. This issue was most prevalent during my fleeting time in Shorinji Kempo, and it was one of the main reasons I quit.
> 
> People there seemed to have this sense of superiority towards me because I spend a lot of time working out at the gym and lifting weights, and many jokes and mockery and criticism by both students and senseis aside at people who spend their time training at the gym. Much of it came from the idea that using strength to fight was brutish and perhaps even a little uneducated or simply stupid. Although modern combat sports and martial arts tend to supplement (and in some cases even rely on) strength training for their techniques, this is not to say that they are bereft of such attitudes. I have come across one or two individuals that have this mentality of superiority in my BJJ gym too, and there is even the running joke amongst the online BJJ community where calling someone strong is an insult in a way, as they have no technique worthy of a compliment.
> 
> Personally however, I dislike this mentality a lot. I would even go as far as to argue that strength is a technique too - I wasn't born with my strength, and I worked a very long time to get to the level I am in terms of weightlifting today. If it just so happens that it helps me against my opponent, of course I'll use it. I think it is very important to incorporate strength training, whether traditional iron-body type stuff, or modern muscular hypertrophy and development. What are your thoughts on this?


I'm just now getting to this, and much of what I'm about to say may have already been said by others. I'll try to keep my thoughts organized, but it's late and I'm tired, and that's when my brain has the least cohesive chain of thinking.

Firstly, yes, it is an issue in at least some areas. Some of it, I suspect, is a misunderstanding of teachings brought over from Japan. Learning to use technique well is difficult if you use strength to overcome your opponent, so it's a good idea to coach stronger students to avoid using their strength, so they are forced to improve their technique. I think that got twisted into "Strength is bad. Technique is good." The truth is that if you have excellent technique without using strength, and then train how to add the strength in, the effectiveness of your technique improves. Basically, I teach to hold the strength in reserve (so you learn to execute technique without depending on strength), then add the strength in as needed.

Strength is obviously good. If you are stronger than your opponent, you have an advantage in that area. Well all know this instinctively - we would expect the stronger of two equally untrained people to be more likely to win in most combat situations. How that strength is used, however, matters a lot. General strength is good, but strength trained for specific techniques/approaches is much better. So someone who happens to have good grip strength from work will have an advantage in fighting. But that advantage will be less than the advantage gained from grip strength developed during grappling. Of course, the grappling skill gained during that training also makes a difference.

One fallacy often heard in TMA and SD-oriented programs is that technique negates strength. It doesn't. If you're familiar with spider-web charts, I think that makes a good visual for what I'm trying to describe. There are several factors that give an advantage in combat. Thes include (but are not limited to) experience, toughness, aggression, strength, skill, stamina, and flexibility. So, if all the other factors are equal, except one combatant has more (applicable) strength and the other has more (applicable) skill, if those two measures are roughly equal (in terms of applicability and effectiveness in that combat), the two combatants remain equal. But it's possible for the stronger person to be _more "more stronger" _than the skilled guy is _"more skilled"_. In that case, the strength outweighs the skill. Of course, it's possible for it to go the other way, as well.

I think some groups (I have seen this sometimes among BJJ, as well, but I feel like it's a minority of jujiteros) do tend to make fun of strength - but this, I think, started as making fun of people who were too proud of their strength and thought it universally outweighed skill. I don't think most folks in BJJ believe strength isn't a useful tool against an equally-skilled opponent.

Personally, I think skill is an important asset in training for any sport. And it's an important asset in training for combat. I try to structure classes to help develop some strength (minor strength work during warm-up, and some drills tailored to help develop strength). I also intermittently teach students exercises they can use away from class, and explain how strength is important both within MA and in everyday life.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 2, 2022)

You initial premise - that MA has a "distaste" for strength is not just wrong, it's completely ridiculous. 
Not as ridiculous as soaking in pickle juice, but it's pretty high on the list.

Strength matters  It doesn't matter how skillful you are if you can barely stand up, your strikes feel like a fly landing, and a toddler can break your holds.

Skill matters. It doesn't matter how strong you are if your range of motion is limited, you telegraph your strikes 10 minutes before you launch them, and you don't know a blood choke from an air choke.

I'd say skill is generally slightly more important. And it's inevitable that your strength will drop off as you age. Skill, not necessarily so. Skill can continue to be built as you age.


----------



## skribs (Mar 2, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> You initial premise - that MA has a "distaste" for strength is not just wrong, it's completely ridiculous.


I don't think the premise was that martial arts has a distaste, but that a lot of martial artists (especially instructors or promoters) do.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 2, 2022)

skribs said:


> I don't think the premise was that martial arts has a distaste, but that a lot of martial artists (especially instructors or promoters) do.


OK, I'll grant that. Since MA isn't a living thing, it can't have a taste, distaste, preference, or anything of the sort. I did think the context made the intent of the statement clear.
However, this changes nothing. The premise is ridiculous. I am quite confident that no meaningful number of competent practitioners, instructors, or promoters, can be found who will seriously say they don't think strength is good. 
If further clarification is needed, just let me know.


----------



## MetalBoar (Mar 3, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> Not with the guy I knew in college.  He only worked out the upper part of the body lol.  I still see the same thing in the gym today.  People get super focus and sometimes that puts them on a singular track. It always amazes me.


I guess I think limiting your training to upper body only is super specialized (or perhaps more accurately, hyper-focused) training.  In general, most people who just work the upper body are trying to achieve an aesthetic that appeals to them.  They aren't interested in functional strength, or if they are, it takes a big back seat to their desire to achieve a particular look.  They probably also want to do as little work as possible to get that look.  Those who say otherwise are either fooling themselves of tragically ignorant.



JowGaWolf said:


> The reason why I post pictures of body builders is because there seems to be an assumption that more muscle = better performance and that's not true. Blindly increasing size without understanding the muscles involved in the function is just a waste of time in terms of martial arts and any physical activity.


I find it to be more common that someone will be told not to weight lift because it will make them slow, than it is for them to be told, "Hey, you need to do follow a good, full body training protocol so that you get the best results for your martial arts".  A poor weight lifting routine isn't as efficient as a good one but it's unlikely to produce big and slow, unless the person is genetically unusual and probably juicing to boot.  I think it far more likely that someone needs to be told to get good sleep, take enough rest days to recover, and eat enough quality food, than that they need to be told they're going to get too big.  Too big just doesn't happen to people who aren't bodybuilders and it doesn't happen for a lot of people who really want and try to be bodybuilders.

A poor martial arts program is going to be much more detrimental than an inefficient strength training program.  Almost any weight training, even mediocre weight training, is going to provide some benefit, it just may not be as much as it could be and it might take too much time.  I think the focus should be on telling people to make sure they work everything, they don't over train, and they do what they need to recover, not worrying about size.

Continuing on the rest and food track, I do completely agree that even young, healthy, people can only handle so much physical activity before it becomes counter productive.  Most people, especially as they get older, can't do 20 hours a week of martial arts drills, plus spar, do road work, jump rope, do calisthenics, and do a full body, weight lifting routine every other day.  Most people don't have time for all of that, even if their body could handle it.  You have to choose your priorities, experiment to see how well your recover, and find the best path for your goals. 

If your goal is to be fantastic at martial arts it probably makes sense to limit the weight training to make room for technique development.  It probably also makes sense to limit the road work, calisthenics, and rope jumping for the same reason.  If you compete, then there will be times when you need to focus on conditioning more than strength training and vice versa, but it all needs to balance out such that you are able to recover.



JowGaWolf said:


> I agree with this as strength training (from how I understand it ) is different then body building (muscle building) where the focus is often on trying to get the muscles bigger. Strength training often focuses on function, which is why I prefer strength training over body building. Strength training can be done with or without weights. Body building? well not so much.


Yeah, there's a lot of lore and myth on this front, but in general, body builders are usually focused on appearance goals rather than functional goals.  A lot of them over train, a lot of them hyper focus on things they think will make them look "better".  As I keep saying (and I apologize if I'm beating a dead horse), even those who train like body builders don't tend to get all that big, the ones who do are just super obvious, because they stand out, because most people don't get that big.  (Horse puree time now) No matter what your training protocol, the average person, even the slightly unusual person, won't get bodybuilder big, even if they train just like a Mr. Olympia, including the steroids.   

Regardless, I'd agree that the body building approach to muscular development isn't the ideal for developing functional strength for a variety of reasons.  That being said, for a given individual, a bigger muscle is a stronger muscle, barring injury, inflammation or scar tissue and assuming identical body composition in terms of body fat, etc.  As a general rule, muscles increase in strength without increasing size until it becomes more efficient to get bigger.  Again, in general, this means that strength gains will always precede size increases.  Still, assuming that your strength training program is producing positive results, at some point your muscles will get bigger, no matter how you're stimulating that strength increase, body weight, free weights, machines, isometrics, whatever, doesn't matter.  If they don't, you probably aren't actually getting a lot of positive results.

Some people, almost entirely due to genetics, get very strong without putting on much size at all.  Others, again genetics, will get fairly large without seeming to be proportionally strong.  Training doesn't change this a whole lot, other than regardless of your genes, lifting weights, or whatever form of strength training they choose to do, will make them stronger and, to some degree, bigger than they would have been without it, even if it doesn't make them as big or as strong as some other individual using the same training methodology.

It's true that strength training can be done with body weight.  The reason most bodybuilders don't use body weight exercises exclusively (many do at least some body weight work) is the same reason I don't recommend that you, or my clients, or anyone else do only body weight exercise.  That is because weights are a lot more efficient, easier, and safer. 

On one end of the spectrum, a lot of my clients (when I owned a gym) were at first too deconditioned to do more than the most limited of body weight exercises, but I could always make weight training light enough for them to do the movements properly (though in some cases I still had to assist with the lightest weight I could supply).  Many of them had little coordination and even if they were strong enough they would have had a very hard time maintaining reasonable form and safety with anything more challenging than machine weights.  Besides giving them a reasonable place to start, training with weights allows for gradual, manageable increases to resistance, which is hard to accomplish with body weight. 

On the other end of the spectrum, I've worked with some really gifted and strong athletes for whom it was simply far more efficient and effective to provide sufficient resistance with weights than to try to piece together a body weight routine that would provide an adequate challenge to stimulate an adaptive response.  For some people, once they have achieved significant strength gains, it can be tough to find any body weight routine that will work efficiently.  The advanced strength training client also benefits from gradual and manageable increases to resistance as well. 

This isn't to say that one can't get good results from body weight training, I think it's a great supplement to weight training, but it's not as safe, it's not as efficient, it's not as simple to manage, and it requires greater skill and knowledge.  It does have the advantage that it doesn't require a gym membership or any equipment, though a pull up bar sure is nice to have.

The main thing to remember is that your muscles don't know if they're moving free weights, a machine weight, your body weight, or something else.  If you deeply inroad the muscles (short of injury), within a reasonably short time, you'll stimulate strength increases no matter how you go about it.  Some means of providing this stimulus are just faster, safer, or cheaper than others.  Again, assuming you're doing a quality, full body, strength training routine you should get good results from any of them.



JowGaWolf said:


> The OP has red flags that make me think that he's focused on getting bigger.


You may be right about this but I'm not going to try to tease out whether he's just driven to succeed, if he's got a case of bigorexia, or something else.  I'm not qualified to make that call or do anything about it. 



JowGaWolf said:


> So what is real issue for the OP? Being bigger? or being stronger? I honestly think being Bigger is what he wants.
> 1. Every martial artists and fighter that I know want to be stronger. That has never been an issue.
> 2. Some people think being stronger means being bigger which is where the discussion is now.


There are a lot of benefits to bigger for fighting, up to a point, depending on your goals.  As you say, weight classes can make it somewhat irrelevant, unless you are going to be fighting in the top weight class regardless. 

The main thing though is that your body is going to respond to any effective strength training program by getting bigger and (again barring injury, inflammation, etc.) for the most part, the size and strength are going to be directly correlated for a given individual.  To oversimplify, if you get x amount stronger you have to get y amount bigger because a given muscle mass can only get so much stronger before it has to increase in size to progress further, and that size to strength ratio is largely genetically determined.  Some people will have to get relatively big before they get relatively strong, others don't.  The training program will not influence this very much.

I have run across a number of people in the martial arts over the years, several of them instructors, who were against weight training, period.  It didn't matter to them what the purpose and perhaps they couldn't distinguish the difference between strength development and bodybuilding for an aesthetic.  Some of this, I'm sure, is because I'm old-ish.  It wasn't until the late '80's that weight lifting was common for professional athletes.  A lot of my early instructors were old enough that weight lifting wasn't part of their experience, and even now some of those attitudes seem to remain.


----------



## Unkogami (Mar 3, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> These guys aren't fighters though.  Their speed worries are pretty simple compared to a combat athlete.  They literally have one direction to worry about, and they just go.
> 
> In MMA, you need to be able to move in any direction, at any time, fast.  And you don't need a huge amount of muscle to KO somebody, just enough force.  On the ground, it's a different story: oxygen wins.
> 
> So...there does seem to be a trade off, or something, between musculature and combat effectiveness.  Let's face it, most great MMA guys are not supermen in the body building department.  They're regular guys, some tone, some not, but the key to winning (to me at least) always seems to be their speed not their force.


LOL


----------



## drop bear (Mar 3, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Is that all?  Do you have anything of substance to add?
> 
> Isn't everything physics?



No. 

In this specific case it is kenesiology.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 3, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Well, I think we established muscle mass doesn't mean it's fast muscle mass.
> 
> Right?



Doesn't mean it isn't.

OK so a bigger engine gives more speed but is heavier and so requires more power. 

So you can get that equation wrong and be slow. Or you can get it right and be fast.

You are kind of confusing speed with endurance. A sprinter is generally pretty bulky. And endurance athlete is generally pretty lean.

Fighters are kind of all over the place due to there being a whole host of variables.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 3, 2022)

drop bear said:


> No.
> 
> In this specific case it is kenesiology.


Genuine question, not meant to nitpick spelling but just curious. In America it's spelled Kinesiology, and spelling it kenesiology looks really weird to me. Was that a typo, or is the word spelled differently in Australia?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 3, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> OK, I'll grant that. Since MA isn't a living thing, it can't have a taste, distaste, preference, or anything of the sort. I did think the context made the intent of the statement clear.
> However, this changes nothing. The premise is ridiculous. I am quite confident that no meaningful number of competent practitioners, instructors, or promoters, can be found who will seriously say they don't think strength is good.
> If further clarification is needed, just let me know.


I've encountered this attitude before both in real life and online, even occasionally on this forum. I won't say it's super common, but it definitely does exist.

To clarify, it's not exactly "being strong is bad" so much as "being strong can slow your learning process" or "strength is irrelevant once you learn the proper technique" or "our art doesn't use the power which comes from big muscles contracting, but we instead generate power though relaxing and lengthening our muscles."


----------



## Steve (Mar 3, 2022)

I remember being told I wasn’t in class to learn to be strong. I was also told before my first competition to rely on technique but to be heavy and make sure my opponent felt my strength.  For what that’s worth.  Telling someone strength is bad is like telling them that speed or endurance is bad.  Makes no sense.  But in training, relying on things you already have can short circuit your progress.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 3, 2022)

Steve said:


> I remember being told I wasn’t in class to learn to be strong. I was also told before my first competition to rely on technique but to be heavy and make sure my opponent felt my strength.  For what that’s worth.  Telling someone strength is bad is like telling them that speed or endurance is bad.  Makes no sense.  But I’m training, relaying on things you already have can short circuit your progress.


Yup. Being told not to rely on your strength, is the same as being told not to rely on your speed or natural athleticism, especially for beginners. Doesn't mean you don't want those things, just means you have to learn how to make everything work in case you come across someone stronger/faster than you. 

But the reverse is also true, and I feel like that gets left out in a lot of places. You do need to increase those other aspects, as you need a way to make things work if the opponent has better technique than you. And it doesn't mean you shouldn't build everything up.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 3, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> LOL


Such a high quality post!

You know there's a little emote button for LOL, right?  

Come on dude, use your words.  We're having a good discussion, don't ruin it.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 3, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Doesn't mean it isn't.
> 
> OK so a bigger engine gives more speed but is heavier and so requires more power.
> 
> ...


I get you.

Ok we've beaten speed to death now.  But you got me thinking in another angle..endurance.  Another thing about lots of muscle is that it takes more fuel to run.  More oxygen, more glycogen.  So in any endurance situation, does that suggest the person with less muscle to fuel has an advantage?

Would you agree someone with a lot of muscle will potentially gas out faster than someone who is leaner?  I've definitely seen this in sparring, bigger guys struggling after a while, whereas the lighter peeps seem to have endless reserves of spunk.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 3, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Yup. Being told not to rely on your strength, is the same as being told not to rely on your speed or natural athleticism, especially for beginners. Doesn't mean you don't want those things, just means you have to learn how to make everything work in case you come across someone stronger/faster than you.
> 
> But the reverse is also true, and I feel like that gets left out in a lot of places. You do need to increase those other aspects, as you need a way to make things work if the opponent has better technique than you. And it doesn't mean you shouldn't build everything up.


I think the issue in telling someone to rely on technique rather than their strength, is in working to develop a higher quality in the technique.  If technique quality is poor, you can still make it work if you put a lot of muscle into it.  If technique quality is high it is more efficient and can be more effective even with less effort and less muscling of it.  So when training, you want a student (and yourself) to focus on quality of technique, for better efficiency and better effect, with less effort. 

But that is not meant as an indictment of strength or stamina or speed or whatever natural and athletic attributes one might have.  When facing a real opponent, whether in the ring or on the street, in the chaos of combat, quality will diminish.  Now is when athleticism becomes important, when the conflict is real. 

So, of course athleticism in all of its parts is important.  It goes together with technique, but it is important to give appropriate attention to technical development in order for optimal use of that athleticism.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Mar 3, 2022)

Strength, speed, endurance, technique.  All of these are good and have a place in being successful in combat.  All should be worked on and developed since they all come into play and aid one another.  Synergy.

But in what proportion?  Our bodies differ from one another in dimension, bulk, natural musculature and reaction time, and even personal style inclination.  So the right mix of these ingredients will differ from one another.  Like an artist mixing colors to get just the right hue, or Edison tying to get the right combo of gases in his incadescent light bulb, experimentation is needed.  It took Edison thousands of tries to get it right.

So getting the right mix for our personal recipe should be kept in mind while practicing.  One of the main reasons my skill has improved is that late in life I found the recipe that works for me, or perhaps the recipe found me.  This alone has improved my karate, allowing me to get to the next level.

Some may stumble on to the best proportion after just a few years, others may take decades for each element to be worked on, distilled and blended into the mix.  When this does happen, and_ it's not necessarily a conscious process,_ an "Aha" moment (though may be months before we actually notice we're different than before) happens and our Art jumps a level and feels "juuust right" for us.

This is one way our martial art journeys provide continual challenges, discoveries, and development.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 3, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> If technique quality is poor, you can still make it work if you put a lot of muscle into it.  If technique quality is high it is more efficient and can be more effective even with less effort and less muscling of it.


This is the chicken and egg issue. Sometime your technique quality is poor because your strength/muscle is weak.

For example, a good head lock technique require you to have your locking arm's elbow to point straight down to the ground. When you do that, your opponent's head would be twisted and attach on your chest. When your opponent's body structure is like that, it's difficult for him to counter you.

In order to do your head lock technique correctly, you do need to have strength to support it.

Here is an example that his left elbow is pointing side way (not straight down).


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 3, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> I think the issue in telling someone to rely on technique rather than their strength, is in working to develop a higher quality in the technique.  If technique quality is poor, you can still make it work if you put a lot of muscle into it.  If technique quality is high it is more efficient and can be more effective even with less effort and less muscling of it.  So when training, you want a student (and yourself) to focus on quality of technique, for better efficiency and better effect, with less effort.
> 
> But that is not meant as an indictment of strength or stamina or speed or whatever natural and athletic attributes one might have.  When facing a real opponent, whether in the ring or on the street, in the chaos of combat, quality will diminish.  Now is when athleticism becomes important, when the conflict is real.
> 
> So, of course athleticism in all of its parts is important.  It goes together with technique, but it is important to give appropriate attention to technical development in order for optimal use of that athleticism.


I don't disagree with any of that. When doing technique, technique should be the focus. But that doesn't mean that you also shouldn't build up strength/stamina/speed/agility/etc. when possible, for exactly the reason you mention in the second paragraph. And that's where my experience is that people focusing on technique tend to fall short.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 3, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is the chicken and egg issue. Sometime your technique quality is poor because your strength/muscle is weak.
> 
> For example, a good head lock technique require you to have your locking arm's elbow to point straight down to the ground. When you do that, your opponent's head would be twisted and attach on your chest. When your opponent's body structure is like that, it's difficult for him to counter you. In order to do so, you do need a strong head lock that you can put your opponent's head on your chest with your elbow pointing straight down to the ground.
> 
> ...


Ultimately, superior application will be affected by both.  I do not see it a chicken and egg issue, nor as an either/or issue.  They work together.  Develop quality technique.  That will be optimally applied when strength is appropriate.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 3, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Ultimately, superior application will be affected by both.  I do not see it a chicken and egg issue, nor as an either/or issue.  They work together.  Develop quality technique.  That will be optimally applied when strength is appropriate.


Technique is the 1st 50%. Ability (strength) is the other 50%. Both are important.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 3, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I don't disagree with any of that. When doing technique, technique should be the focus. But that doesn't mean that you also shouldn't build up strength/stamina/speed/agility/etc. when possible, for exactly the reason you mention in the second paragraph. And that's where my experience is that people focusing on technique tend to fall short.


I think there is truth in that.  For most people, training time and energy is limited, and one thing may hold our interest more than the other.  I find martial training to me more interesting than strength training, so I spend most of my limited training time there.  

I was unemployed for much of Covid, so I took advantage of that time to work more on strength training and running, in addition to my martial training.  Even with that extra time available, my strength and running activities took time away from my martial training, because I didn’t have the energy for it all.  Now that I am working again, I find that I need to be content with only martial training, because my time is more limited again.  

In a perfect world, I would train martial arts six days a week, run four days, strength train three, swim four, bike two…but that would be a full-time job for which I do not have the time, and definitely do not have the energy to withstand that many hours of physical exercise.  So we make choices.


----------



## Steve (Mar 3, 2022)

Are we now speaking theoretically or practically?  Are real opponents actually involved in the discussion at this point, or are some folks speculating?  I ask because I'm starting to suspect the latter.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 3, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Technique is the 1st 50%. Ability (strength) is the other 50%. Both are important.


That is what I am saying.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 3, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I get you.
> 
> Ok we've beaten speed to death now.  But you got me thinking in another angle..endurance.  Another thing about lots of muscle is that it takes more fuel to run.  More oxygen, more glycogen.  So in any endurance situation, does that suggest the person with less muscle to fuel has an advantage?
> 
> Would you agree someone with a lot of muscle will potentially gas out faster than someone who is leaner?  I've definitely seen this in sparring, bigger guys struggling after a while, whereas the lighter peeps seem to have endless reserves of spunk.



Potentially. 

It is complicated.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 3, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> So in any endurance situation, does that suggest the person with less muscle to fuel has an advantage?


This is what my weight training is based on. Endurance, which is why everything is done for a minute.  I don't lift heavy because I'm not trying to increase in size.  I'm not trying to have big arms and big shoulders.  I already have those and they make the training more difficult.  So I weight train for endurance.  As a result, I'm becoming tone, I'm getting smaller but I'm also getting stronger. My muscle density has increase, once I reach a certain size and weight, I'll start doing yoga and some gymnastic exercises for strength building.  This will probably happen once I'm able to push weight for 2 minutes non-stop.


----------



## MetalBoar (Mar 3, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> This is what my weight training is based on. Endurance, which is why everything is done for a minute.  I don't lift heavy because I'm not trying to increase in size.  I'm not trying to have big arms and big shoulders.  I already have those and they make the training more difficult.  So I weight train for endurance.  As a result, I'm becoming tone, I'm getting smaller but I'm also getting stronger. My muscle density has increase, once I reach a certain size and weight, I'll start doing yoga and some gymnastic exercises for strength building.  This will probably happen once I'm able to push weight for 2 minutes non-stop.


If you're getting smaller and you're getting stronger it isn't because your muscles are shrinking.  You're either losing fat, reducing inflammation, or quite possibly both, but if you're losing healthy muscle tissue you aren't getting stronger.  If you really are losing healthy muscle it still may _seem_ like you're getting stronger as skill plays a big role in everything, including things as seemingly devoid of skill development like chest press with machine weights.  Other forms of exercise are much more skill dependent and skill increases can masquerade as strength increases for quite a while.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 3, 2022)

MetalBoar said:


> Other forms of exercise are much more skill dependent and skill increases can masquerade as strength increases for quite a while.


There are better training equipment than others. You can use:

1. dumbbell - train arm strength.
2. KB - train arm strength + wrist strength.
3. square bag - train arm strength + wrist strength + fingers strength.

IMO, 1 < 2 < 3.


----------



## MetalBoar (Mar 3, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There are better training equipment than others. You can use:
> 
> 1. dumbbell - train arm strength.
> 2. KB - train arm strength + wrist strength.
> ...


I wasn't trying to comment one way or the other about whether highly skill dependent exercises were better or worse than very easy to learn exercises.  Just pointing out that skill improvements can look and feel a lot like strength increases and the longer it takes to get proficient with an exercise the longer your skill development may deceive you with regards to your actual strength building progress.

I personally prefer to do something like a single full body, extremely high intensity, strength training workout to complete failure, with machines, every week and then do several less intense exercise sessions using other protocols.  They might be body weight, or based on MA strength training methods like you've posted.  I find that the machine based training allows me to safely work to a much deeper level of inroad than can be achieved with any other method and that the body weight and MA focuses training supplements that and does more to improve mobility and assures that I'm not missing anything.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 3, 2022)

MetalBoar said:


> I find that the machine based training allows me to safely work to a much deeper level of ...


There are some strength training that no machine can be used to replace it. How do you use machine to develop your

- fingers grip strength?
- both arms rotation strength?
- head lock squeeze strength?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 3, 2022)

MetalBoar said:


> If you're getting smaller and you're getting stronger it isn't because your muscles are shrinking. You're either losing fat, reducing inflammation, or quite possibly both,


I'm losing fat. The muscle isn't shrinking.  It's becoming more compact.  I do what I refer to as Mastering the weight.  Basically, when a weight gets easy to lift then I'll rotate the various parts working.  So if I'm doing dumbell press then I'll change how lift it by switching my arm position.  I'll use my workout as an example. My bench press and workout in general is always 1 minute rounds.  I do a wide bench press for reps 1-3.  For reps 4 -6 it's narrow press (like a military press) for reps 7-9  I twist the weights.  for 10-14 wide press and so on.  I crease the number of reps for a specific movement time I go through the full set of 3 positions.  I do this instead of increasing the starting weight.  At the moment my starting weight is 15 lbs and I'm debating if I want to increase beyond 30 lbs.

In a single session of the dumbell press I probably do a little more than 360 reps total in 5 days I would have done that lift 1800 times.

It seems like it's extreme but it's not.  It's less weight than my push ups.


----------



## MetalBoar (Mar 3, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There are some strength training that no machine can be used to replace it. How do you use machine to develop your
> 
> - fingers grip strength?
> - both arms rotation strength?
> - head lock squeeze strength?


Grip strength is easy. Of the exercises I do with regularity, both pull down and seated row directly inroad the hands and forearms.  A number of other machine exercises do so less directly, but meaningfully, when you work with heavy loads to full, momentary muscular failure.  I did pull down just last night and my forearms, hands and fingers are all still feeling it today.

As far as arm rotation strength, as presented in the first video, that takes several machines because there's a lot more going on than just arm rotation.  With a quality pull down machine you can engage pretty much every upper body muscle involved in that movement.  If you include a quality declined chest press and a shoulder press you definitely have them all.  If you really want to hit the obliques more, there are dedicated machines for that, but I've never found it necessary, as long as the pull down and declined chest press machine are good, and assuming you're training with heavy weight to failure.

For the lower body muscles utilized for that movement, between hip extension and leg press (again, assuming quality machines) you've got everything in the lower body covered as well as the pelvic muscles and the muscles of the lower back.  If you really feel like you need to have an exercise focusing directly on everything you could add in an ab/ad machine, leg curl, or calf raise, but again, I think that's generally unnecessary for most people.

Head lock squeeze?  Again, pull down and chest press should target all of the associated muscles used for that.

So, to sum up, with a quality pull down, declined chest press, hip extension and leg press machine you should be able to effectively train all the muscles used in the videos you posted.  So, 4 machines to do the job.  If you wanted to add in shoulder press, that would be worth while.  You could add in a few more machines if you really, truly, felt like you needed more focused work on a few, smaller, muscle groups, but it's going to be unnecessary for most people.

Now, that's not a complete picture if you want to apply those muscles to martial arts, or any other specific activity.  You need to develop the skills and perhaps in some cases the neurological brain/body connection to most effectively apply those muscles to a specific task.  I think this is what you find lacking from machine weight training.

I completely agree that machine weights don't provide much, if any, useful skill transfer.  That's not the point.  They are just really efficient for strengthening all the muscles in the body.  If you want to be able to most effectively apply that strength you need to practice the things you want to do with your muscles.  Your barrel twisting video or the melon squeeze are good examples of how you might do that, some calisthenics are good for this purpose, doing martial arts drills and/or actually sparring are too.  I just think they are a supplement, for the purpose of specializing, the solid, general, strength improvements that are developed by doing high intensity, machine based, strength training.


----------



## skribs (Mar 3, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> OK, I'll grant that. Since MA isn't a living thing, it can't have a taste, distaste, preference, or anything of the sort. I did think the context made the intent of the statement clear.
> However, this changes nothing. The premise is ridiculous. I am quite confident that no meaningful number of competent practitioners, instructors, or promoters, can be found who will seriously say they don't think strength is good.
> If further clarification is needed, just let me know.


By the very virtue of seriously saying strength isn't good, you are probably not a competent practitioner.  But you don't need to be competent to be a good salesman.


----------



## Mider (Mar 4, 2022)

Ivan said:


> Hi. I am writing an article on the attitudes towards physical strength in martial arts, and would like to get your perspective on this issue (if it is an issue, I personally feel that it is) in martial arts, since you're all much more experienced than me. Every since I started training, I saw that there were many students and professors alike that seemed to have a sort of chip on their shoulders when it came to physical strength. I specifically noticed this in traditional martial arts; while my professors in Jiujitsu seemed to have an issue with strong people, my professors in more modern arts and combat sports seemed to lean towards it. This issue was most prevalent during my fleeting time in Shorinji Kempo, and it was one of the main reasons I quit.
> 
> People there seemed to have this sense of superiority towards me because I spend a lot of time working out at the gym and lifting weights, and many jokes and mockery and criticism by both students and senseis aside at people who spend their time training at the gym. Much of it came from the idea that using strength to fight was brutish and perhaps even a little uneducated or simply stupid. Although modern combat sports and martial arts tend to supplement (and in some cases even rely on) strength training for their techniques, this is not to say that they are bereft of such attitudes. I have come across one or two individuals that have this mentality of superiority in my BJJ gym too, and there is even the running joke amongst the online BJJ community where calling someone strong is an insult in a way, as they have no technique worthy of a compliment.
> 
> Personally however, I dislike this mentality a lot. I would even go as far as to argue that strength is a technique too - I wasn't born with my strength, and I worked a very long time to get to the level I am in terms of weightlifting today. If it just so happens that it helps me against my opponent, of course I'll use it. I think it is very important to incorporate strength training, whether traditional iron-body type stuff, or modern muscular hypertrophy and development. What are your thoughts on this?


Sounds silly, it’s important to use strength and speed.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 5, 2022)

Mider said:


> Sounds silly, it’s important to use strength and speed.


If you are a MA instructor, someone challenges you arm wrestling in the public, will you accept that challenge?

If you lose in that challenge, your students may lose faith in you. IMO, strength is one thing that you must have if you are a MA instructor.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 5, 2022)

When my teacher was young, he would ask his students to bite on his arm. None of his student's teeth could bite into his arm muscle. He had the most powerful head lock that I have ever experienced in my life.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 5, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you are a MA instructor, someone challenges you arm wrestling in the public, will you accept that challenge?
> 
> If you lose in that challenge, your students may lose faith in you. IMO, strength is one thing that you must have if you are a MA instructor.


I would let the challenger win the arm wrestling match.  After my challenger says "be serious" the I would say "ok I'll be serious this time " then I would let him win again.  His victories would be hollow and he would be frustrated that I didn't acknowledge himself.  My students will see that and would see that I was playing a much bigger game and was successful in denying my opponent the victory that he wanted.  Challenges are strange because the main goal is that the person can dominate you.  That means physically and mentally.  So it's important to pick the right battle field to fight on.

There are more than one way to show strength.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 5, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you are a MA instructor, someone challenges you arm wrestling in the public, will you accept that challenge?


What world do you live in that these sort of things happen?
I mean, reading your posts, it seems like you get challenged at least twice a week.
Personally, I've never had someone come in and challenge me.


Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you lose in that challenge, your students may lose faith in you. IMO, strength is one thing that you must have if you are a MA instructor.


I give my students more credit for intelligence than that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 5, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> What world do you live in that these sort of things happen?
> I mean, reading your posts, it seems like you get challenged at least twice a week.
> Personally, I've never had someone come in and challenge me.


Have you ever had a guy who

- knocked on your front door and challenge you in your living room?
- walked into your class in front of your students and asked for a challenge fight?
- changed you right after you have finished your workshop (in front of all of your students) with punch/kick only (no throws because the challenger was bad in wrestling)?
- walked into your school and challenged you punch only (because the challenger had back kicking skill)?
- challenged you in arm wrestling (because the challenger thought he was stronger than you)?
- challenged you by using a bear hug from behind in a parking lot just to see if you can get out?
- ...

I have experienced all of the above.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 5, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Have you ever had a guy who
> 
> - knocked on your front door and challenge you in your living room?


Nope. As described, that's not a challenge, it's a home invasion. My response is likely to be loud, messy, and involve a handgun and a cadaver.


Kung Fu Wang said:


> - walked into your class in front of your students and asked for a challenge fight?


Nope.


Kung Fu Wang said:


> - changed you right after you have finished your workshop (in front of all of your students) with punch/kick only (no throws because the challenger was bad in wrestling)?


Nope.


Kung Fu Wang said:


> - walked into your school and challenge you punch only (because the challenger had back kicking skill)?


Nope.


Kung Fu Wang said:


> - challenged you in arm wrestling (because the challenger thought he was stronger than you)?


Nope.


Kung Fu Wang said:


> - challenged you by using a bear hug behind in a parking lot just see how you might be able to counter him?


Nope. As described, that would be an assault, not a challenge, and would result in a response that would not be intended to inflict minimal injury.


Kung Fu Wang said:


> - ...
> 
> I have experienced all the above.


Welcome to America in the 21st Century.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 5, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Welcome to America in the 21st Century.


All those challenges happened in US. Only the workshop challenge happened in Wilhelmshaven, Germany. The challenger just won the Europe champion that year.


----------



## Mider (Mar 5, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you are a MA instructor, someone challenges you arm wrestling in the public, will you accept that challenge?
> 
> If you lose in that challenge, your students may lose faith in you. IMO, strength is one thing that you must have if you are a MA instructor.


Um what? Why would I have an arm wrestling challenge as an MA instructor...


----------



## Mider (Mar 5, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Have you ever had a guy who
> 
> - knocked on your front door and challenge you in your living room?
> - walked into your class in front of your students and asked for a challenge fight?
> ...


No, I’d say leave or ill call the police...

no again as I’m not an instructor, second it’s illegal to fight, you can be sued if you cause injury or death unless you have a release.

if I did have a release I likely wouldn’t fight either, I am not a violent person. If I was in a horrible mood I may tell him if he wants to fight it would be no rules and likely hurt the guy very badly..


----------



## Mider (Mar 5, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Nope. As described, that's not a challenge, it's a home invasion. My response is likely to be loud, messy, and involve a handgun and a cadaver.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> ...


Not even worth having these fights and get sued. Even if you get a release why fight and hurt someone over  bravado


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 5, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Have you ever had a guy who
> 
> - knocked on your front door and challenge you in your living room?
> - walked into your class in front of your students and asked for a challenge fight?
> ...


I've never been formally challenge before.  Probably because of how I look. I never had anyone doubt what I teach either.  I'm living the good life as far as martial arts challenges go.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 5, 2022)

Mider said:


> Not even worth having these fights and get sued. Even if you get a release why fight and hurt someone over  bravado


Sometime it's difficult to tell a challenge is friendly or unfriendly. The risk is always there. But do you think the challenge fight can be an excellent chance to test your MA skill? I do believe street fight can be worse.

If I challenge someone that if he can hit my

- head within the initial 20 punches, or
- body within the initial 20 kicks,

he wins, otherwise I win. Why is it not a good idea for that person to accept my challenge? There is no risk for him to accept my challenge. All he needs to do is attack. He doesn't even have to worry about defense. This is what I will call the friendly challenge.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 5, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> I've never been formally challenge before.  Probably because of how I look. I never had anyone doubt what I teach either.  I'm living the good life as far as martial arts challenges go.


May be you and I do live on a different planet.  

Believe it or not, I even have 7 of my own students who challenged me. One of my students went to train MT for 1 year and half. He then came back and challenged me.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 5, 2022)

Mider said:


> it’s illegal to fight, you can be sued if you cause injury or death unless you have a release.


The praying mantis master Brendan Lai once accepted a challenge. The fighting rule was simple. Brendan was going to throw only 1 punch. If his opponent could block it, his opponent won, otherwise Brendan won.

My senior brother David C. K. Lin once accepted a challenge. The fighting rule was also simple. David would attack 3 times. If in any one of David's 3 attack, his opponent could remain standing, his opponent won, otherwise, David won.

Most of the challenge fights won't cause serious injury, death, or law sue. It's just a chance to test your MA skill against a stranger.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 5, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> May be you and I do live on a different planet.
> 
> Believe it or not, I even have 7 of my own students who challenged me. One of my students went to train MT for 1 year and half. He then came back and challenged me.


Yep.  I'm pretty sure I'm on a different planet 

I probably don't get many challenges because I spar to learn.  Even when I teach, I don't look amazing.  If you look at my videos,  hitting me or kicking me 20 times doesn't look like a worth while challenge.  I'll be the first to say that for the most part, I look like an easy win lol. 
Instead of people challenging me that they can pull my finger.  I offer people to pull my finger and almost everyone says no


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 5, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The praying mantis master Brendan Lai once accepted a challenge. The fighting rule was simple. Brendan was going to throw only 1 punch. If his opponent could block it, his opponent won, otherwise Brendan won.
> 
> My senior brother David C. K. Lin once accepted a challenge. The fighting rule was also simple. David would attack 3 times. If in any one of David's 3 attack, his opponent could remain standing, his opponent won, otherwise, David won.
> 
> Most of the challenge fights won't cause serious injury, death, or law sue. It's just a chance to test your MA skill against a stranger.


Challenge fights for me are different.  For me, a challenge fight is someone who wants to prove that what I teach is trash by beating me up in a fight.  If I lose, then he will get to brag about how he beat the kung fu teacher up.  Then my students will lose confidence in my ability.  If I can't protect myself with Kung Fu then how can they protect themselves. 

Challenge fight to me is like the MMA vs Kung Fu Master stuff.  

The things that you describe are more like skill challenges.  For example, I can challenge you to see who can kick more times in a minute and you may win that one.  Then you can challenge me to see who can do more punches in a minute then I may win that one.  These type things are good for training.  The way that I think of challenges isn't.  If I had a school and someone came in to challenge me, then I would have them sign the wavier for sparring, and then I would have them sign another wavier stating that they wanted to spar with me  to see if I knew how to use my techniques.  This would be an unfriendly challenge.

A friendly challenge for me would be just 2 people working their skills on each other and giving tips when big costly mistakes are made.  For example, when your sparring partner could have knocked your head off your shoulder because you dropped your guard, but instead of hitting you he let you know that you were dropping the guard in a bad way.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 5, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> For me, a challenge fight is someone who wants to prove that what I teach is trash by beating me up in a fight.  If I lose, then he will get to brag about how he beat the kung fu teacher up.


There are challenge fights like that too.

One day I just started my class. A guy walked in. He bowed to me, and said, "May I have a sparring with you?" I had my 50 students all watched at me. My SC teacher also was with me too. There was no way that I could turn down that challenge. The match lasted for only 5 seconds. I jumped in, took him down, I then started my class. Back in, a take down, or knock down is the end of a fight (no ground game during those years).

As far as I remember, I have not turned down any challenge fights in my life. When I was young, I wanted to accumulate as much fighting experience as I could. 

 I had also challenged other people too. The challenge fight is always a 2 ways street.


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 6, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There are challenge fights like that too.
> 
> One day I just started my class. A guy walked in. He bowed to me, and said, "May I have a sparring with you?" I had my 50 students all watched at me. My SC teacher also was with me too. There was no way that I could turn down that challenge. The match lasted for only 5 seconds. I jumped in, took him down, I then started my class. Back in, a take down, or knock down is the end of a fight (no ground game during those years).
> 
> ...


Ah...but have ever had a real fight outside the comfort of your Dojo grasshopper?


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 6, 2022)

Gyakuto said:


> Taken from a a university, Sports Physiology textbook:
> 
> _‘The number of myosin motors is proportional to muscle fiber length. The number of myosin filaments is proportional to the cross-sectional area of the muscle. Thus, muscle force is proportional to muscle volume, and therefore to muscle mass.’_
> 
> ...


Definitely jobo. Show us this amazing hard core physique bro. Theory and copy and paste from books is all well and good but the real proof we haven't seen yet.


----------



## Mider (Mar 6, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The praying mantis master Brendan Lai once accepted a challenge. The fighting rule was simple. Brendan was going to throw only 1 punch. If his opponent could block it, his opponent won, otherwise Brendan won.
> 
> My senior brother David C. K. Lin once accepted a challenge. The fighting rule was also simple. David would attack 3 times. If in any one of David's 3 attack, his opponent could remain standing, his opponent won, otherwise, David won.
> 
> Most of the challenge fights won't cause serious injury, death, or law sue. It's just a chance to test your MA skill against a stranger.


So what?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 8, 2022)

drop bear said:


> The thing is even strength sports are technique driven. You can't be a power lifter on strength alone.
> 
> So the dichotomy is that to harness strength the most effectively you have to not use it. Instead relying on good form.


Which is exactly the same in MA - you get the most out of your strength if you learn to not use it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 8, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> ????????????????
> 
> How about both?


You learn to not use the strength, then learn to add it in. If you depend on the strength from the start, you cover up areas where better technique helps. So, you put the strength aside, so to speak, until you have reasonable technique, then you get strength + technique.


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 8, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> Which is exactly the same in MA - you get the most out of your strength if you learn to not use it.


i think Oyama would disagree with you !


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 8, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> Is that how everyone in Poland spells "strength"?


It's certainly how my fingers always want to type it. Every. Danged. Time.


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 8, 2022)

Master Oyama was powerful & weight trained. He killed a Bull with only technique ? no .. watch a video of it he wrestled with it. now if that is not power then what is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 8, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> It's physics.  More mass means slower to accelerate, slower to decelerate, slower to shift weight, and slower to get off the ground.
> 
> Heavyweights are much slower than lightweights.
> 
> Why is it a false assumption?  I didn't say big means slow.  Just slower.


More mass means slower to accellerate under the same amount of force. I guarantee you an elite heavyweight boxer who outweighs me by 60+ lbs. is going to be faster on his feet and have much faster hands than me. Because he's using that heavy muscle to move that heavy muscle.


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 8, 2022)




----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 8, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Well, I think we established muscle mass doesn't mean it's fast muscle mass.
> 
> Right?


I think in the interest of brevity, your statement just didn't carry your full meaning.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 8, 2022)

MetalBoar said:


> I'm not sure we've established this in a clear cut way.  For a given individual the stronger they are the faster they will be, at the same skill level.  Now, the relationship between muscle mass and strength is a bit complicated, but in general, the more muscle a person has the stronger they are.  One exception to this is when the individual is over training or injured and those muscles aren't healthy or something of that sort.  There may be other exceptions but I can't think of any right now.
> 
> There are individuals who are extreme genetic outliers that may get slower once they achieve extremely large muscles, but that isn't me and it probably isn't you or anyone else reading this either.  There are also extremely specialized sports, like running marathons, where weight of any kind is detrimental and strength is of little to no benefit (for the sport, it's still of great benefit for daily life).
> 
> Notice I'm only comparing individuals to themselves.  There may very well be people who, due to variations in muscle fiber type distribution and other genetic factors, are stronger at a smaller size than other, more muscular people.  These people would be stronger still if they carried more muscle.


I don't know that it's true that the stronger a person is, the faster they are. If they are developing strenght in slow muscle, I think that muscle won't make them faster. How muscle is trained likely has more impact on speed than how generically strong the person is. For instance, I'd be curious to see if powerlifting squat champions as a group are very fast, at all, in their footwork.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 8, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I'm terrible at math, but if mass gets bigger in that equation, doesn't that make the number on the right smaller, and acceleration on the left goes down, not up?  You're dividing by mass..
> 
> So if more muscle = more force, but more mass = lower acceleration....doesn't that there's some point where mass would be too big?  Is there a fine line with respect to fast mobility?  That's all I'm asking.


It's possible, but certainly not inevitable. If the force scales at the same rate the mass scales, you'd have a net change of 0. If the mass scales faster, change is negative. If force scales faster, change is positive.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 8, 2022)

Gyakuto said:


> Ah, it’s the mass being moved…the fist or the foot so it remains constant.


Well, if you're doing it right, you're never striking with just an arm or leg (and certainly never just a hand or foot). The mass of much of the body is shifted, and is part of the equation. Of course, the equation would be horribly complicated, since we have different parts moving in different directions at different speeds for different periods. But the concept is understandable.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 8, 2022)

SgtBarnes said:


> i think Oyama would disagree with you !


I doubt it. He was - from what I've seen - an advocate for knowing how to add strength to technique, not for learning to substitute strength in place of technique.


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 8, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> I doubt it. He was - from what I've seen - an advocate for knowing how to add strength to technique, not for learning to substitute strength in place of technique.


i have to disagree Gerry. His art is very fitness/Strength orientated. Oyama was known to weight train.  do you think wrestling with a bull (although not a big one) is just technique?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 8, 2022)

SgtBarnes said:


> i have to disagree Gerry. His art is very fitness/Strength orientated. Oyama was known to weight train.  do you think wrestling with a bull (although not a big one) is just technique?



He was also big on cold weather training wearing only Gi pants, and sitting under waterfalls meditating too....


----------



## Steve (Mar 8, 2022)

SgtBarnes said:


>


That poor bull just wanted to pull a plow and make baby cows.


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 8, 2022)

Steve said:


> That poor bull just wanted to pull a plow and make baby cows.


i hope they at least ate it


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 8, 2022)

Xue Sheng said:


> He was also big on cold weather training wearing only Gi pants, and sitting under waterfalls meditating too....


yeah he was a real mans man.


----------



## Unkogami (Mar 8, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> You learn to not use the strength, then learn to add it in. If you depend on the strength from the start, you cover up areas where better technique helps. So, you put the strength aside, so to speak, until you have reasonable technique, then you get strength + technique.


It is impossible to move the human body without using strength.


----------



## ThatOneCanadian (Mar 8, 2022)

I occasionally get roasted for spending too much effort on strength training and being too slow. However...

...they're usually the ones getting tired after 5 pushups while I'm breezing through 30. They're usually the ones reeling over from a body shot while I just carry on from it. They're usually the ones hurting their wrists on the heavy bag while I'm making clean shots on it.

I'm not claiming to be a tough guy, nor the strongest guy ever (I look like a starving rat), but anyone who tells you that strength isn't important in martial arts is speaking from their rectal cavity.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 8, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> It is impossible to move the human body without using strength.


Mostly true but if it were totally true, weak people couldn't move.  Which is sometimes true, but not always.

If you said muscles instead of strength, I agree.


----------



## Unkogami (Mar 8, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Mostly true but if it were totally true, weak people couldn't move.  Which is sometimes true, but not always.
> 
> If you said muscles instead of strength, I agree.


Semantics. Strength is not an on/off switch.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 8, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> Semantics. Strength is not an on/off switch.


It can be.  We all have low strength days.  Some days I can lift the whole world, some days I just want to sit and use as little strength as possible.  A few of those days, I don't seem to have a choice. Today is one of those. 

When it comes to using your strength in combat, it'll be highly dependent on the time, day, year, and your relative muscle fatigue.

Imagine getting jumped the night you lifted for hours.  That's my worst martial arts nightmare, dude.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 8, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> Semantics. Strength is not an on/off switch.



You do not need to lift a cup of coffee with the same amount of strength you lift a 50 pound weight. 

And it is not semantics....

Strength -  the quality or state of being physically strong. he capacity of an object or substance to withstand great force or pressure.

Muscle - a band or bundle of fibrous tissue in a human or animal body that has the ability to contract, producing movement in or maintaining the position of parts of the body.

With that said, one can use muscle and mean strength, but is is an informal definition, "They muscled the engine into place"
however the reverse is not possible. One should not use strength and expect it to be understood as muscle.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 8, 2022)

Xue Sheng said:


> You do not need to lift a cup of coffee with the same amount of strength you lift a 50 pound weight.
> 
> And it is not semantics....
> 
> ...


I thought the BJJ people figured this out well, they call it "gassing out" for a good reason.  What does that even mean?  Well, it had to do with how much oxygen you need to fuel all that beautiful muscle, during combat.


----------



## Hyoho (Mar 8, 2022)

I could write a lot about it but simply put. Fifty eight years of practice tells me it's not strength I am using to win against young Sixth Dan's It's not about how strong you are or how fast. It's all about timing. Watching a younger guy buzz around like a mosquito before you swat him.


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 8, 2022)

Hyoho said:


> I am using to win against* young Sixth Dan's* It's not about how strong you are or how fast. It's all about timing. Watching a younger guy buzz around like a mosquito before you swat him.


honestly so funny


----------



## super saiyan 4 (Mar 8, 2022)

We


Ivan said:


> Hi. I am writing an article on the attitudes towards physical strength in martial arts, and would like to get your perspective on this issue (if it is an issue, I personally feel that it is) in martial arts, since you're all much more experienced than me. Every since I started training, I saw that there were many students and professors alike that seemed to have a sort of chip on their shoulders when it came to physical strength. I specifically noticed this in traditional martial arts; while my professors in Jiujitsu seemed to have an issue with strong people, my professors in more modern arts and combat sports seemed to lean towards it. This issue was most prevalent during my fleeting time in Shorinji Kempo, and it was one of the main reasons I quit.
> 
> People there seemed to have this sense of superiority towards me because I spend a lot of time working out at the gym and lifting weights, and many jokes and mockery and criticism by both students and senseis aside at people who spend their time training at the gym. Much of it came from the idea that using strength to fight was brutish and perhaps even a little uneducated or simply stupid. Although modern combat sports and martial arts tend to supplement (and in some cases even rely on) strength training for their techniques, this is not to say that they are bereft of such attitudes. I have come across one or two individuals that have this mentality of superiority in my BJJ gym too, and there is even the running joke amongst the online BJJ community where calling someone strong is an insult in a way, as they have no technique worthy of a compliment.
> 
> Personally however, I dislike this mentality a lot. I would even go as far as to argue that strength is a technique too - I wasn't born with my strength, and I worked a very long time to get to the level I am in terms of weightlifting today. If it just so happens that it helps me against my opponent, of course I'll use it. I think it is very important to incorporate strength training, whether traditional iron-body type stuff, or modern muscular hypertrophy and development. What are your thoughts on this?


Weights and strength are great keep doing it but understand carrying excess muscle is a drawback.I teach jkd so it's important but focus on developing technique first do weights towards the end of the week as a seprate session.


----------



## Steve (Mar 8, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> It is impossible to move the human body without using strength.


Ryan does a great job of explaining the salient point.  Good job, Ryan:


----------



## Unkogami (Mar 8, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> It can be.


Then the "off" switch means you're dead.


----------



## eastpaw (Mar 8, 2022)

Ivan said:


> Hi. I am writing an article on the attitudes towards physical strength in martial arts, and would like to get your perspective on this issue (if it is an issue, I personally feel that it is) in martial arts, since you're all much more experienced than me. Every since I started training, I saw that there were many students and professors alike that seemed to have a sort of chip on their shoulders when it came to physical strength. I specifically noticed this in traditional martial arts; while my professors in Jiujitsu seemed to have an issue with strong people, my professors in more modern arts and combat sports seemed to lean towards it. This issue was most prevalent during my fleeting time in Shorinji Kempo, and it was one of the main reasons I quit.
> 
> People there seemed to have this sense of superiority towards me because I spend a lot of time working out at the gym and lifting weights, and many jokes and mockery and criticism by both students and senseis aside at people who spend their time training at the gym. Much of it came from the idea that using strength to fight was brutish and perhaps even a little uneducated or simply stupid. Although modern combat sports and martial arts tend to supplement (and in some cases even rely on) strength training for their techniques, this is not to say that they are bereft of such attitudes. I have come across one or two individuals that have this mentality of superiority in my BJJ gym too, and there is even the running joke amongst the online BJJ community where calling someone strong is an insult in a way, as they have no technique worthy of a compliment.
> 
> Personally however, I dislike this mentality a lot. I would even go as far as to argue that strength is a technique too - I wasn't born with my strength, and I worked a very long time to get to the level I am in terms of weightlifting today. If it just so happens that it helps me against my opponent, of course I'll use it. I think it is very important to incorporate strength training, whether traditional iron-body type stuff, or modern muscular hypertrophy and development. What are your thoughts on this?


Functional strength matters a lot in fighting, actually. It might not even be a stretch to say that sufficiency of strength is the most important single determinant of success. This is not to say that strength beats everything else, but rather that unless you have enough strength _for your current opponent given your current combat circumstances_, you aren't likely to triumph.

Of course, there are different sorts of strength. In my Ma Weiqi Bagua school, we focus on strength from tendon/fascia transformation and body integration. This is a fundamental requirement of our practice, incidentally. After all, techniques don't work if the body isn't conditioned enough to power them correctly.

All that said, strength alone is not enough. A typical industrial robot is far stronger than just about any human could ever hope to be but it would have almost no chance of beating any of us in a fight unless we get really stupid.

But yea, strength is important. Many of the people who sneer at you for working out are possibly fantasy martial artists.


----------



## Unkogami (Mar 8, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I thought the BJJ people figured this out well, they call it "gassing out" for a good reason.  What does that even mean?  Well, it had to do with how much oxygen you need to fuel all that beautiful muscle, during combat.


BJJ did not coin that phrase.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 8, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> Then the "off" switch means you're dead.


Haven't you ever gassed out?  It's pretty similar to feeling dead.


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 8, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> BJJ did not coin that phrase.


This... people have been ranting on about strength training since the 50s.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 8, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> BJJ did not coin that phrase.


Who did?


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 8, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Haven't you ever gassed out?  It's pretty similar to feeling dead.


you´re clinging onto one part of fitness. I am guessing you hate weight training so see no point in it.


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 8, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Who did?


coaches back in the 40s & 50s in athletics however later American football coaches saw the reality.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 8, 2022)

SgtBarnes said:


> you´re clinging onto one part of fitness. I am guessing you hate weight training so see no point in it.


Have you ever gassed out?


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 8, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Have you ever gassed out?


after a 20 rep squat session  yes but have you ever fought a strong fighter? i think not.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 8, 2022)

SgtBarnes said:


> after a 20 rep squat session  yes but have you ever fought a strong fighter? i think not.


Have you ever gassed out training against another human, I meant.  5, 10 minutes of moving around etc.

This is about muscles and martial arts.


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 8, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Have you ever gassed out training against another human, I meant.


you´re being silly here as everyone gasses out in any sport or in a fight however using this as you do as an excuse is not a serious argument in my eyes.  You have never been in a fight.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 8, 2022)

SgtBarnes said:


> you´re being silly here as everyone gasses out in any sport or in a fight however using this as you do as an excuse is not a serious argument in my eyes.  You have never been in a fight.


Have you?

Not everyone gasses out equally.  How do squats help you not gas out?  How is your cardio?


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 8, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Have you?


unlike you i have been in boxing and some street fights. 
Now you can continue to sit and troll behind your pc screen but no one takes you serious. 
Thank you and good night or what ever the case may be


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 8, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Have you?
> 
> Not everyone gasses out equally.  How do squats help you not gas out?  How is your cardio?


haha...  oh man


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 8, 2022)

Do you actually answer questions or just respond with not so veiled sarcastic insults? Shows you might be covering up something... .just sayin'


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 8, 2022)

Xue Sheng said:


> Do you actually answer questions or just respond with not so veiled sarcastic insults? Shows you might be covering up something... .just sayin'


I'm awed by his presence.  Truly.

Anyways, I always thought muscles needed cardio attunement in order to make them most effective.  I hadn't considered the "tag 'em and bag 'em" Barnes method.  I'd think about that.


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 8, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I'm awed by his presence.  Truly.
> 
> Anyways, I always thought muscles needed cardio attunement in order to make them most effective.  I hadn't considered the "tag 'em and bag 'em" Barnes method.  I'd think about that.


come on guys he was being one sided.  no problem from me but i just can´t argue or discuss fighting with a twig who clearly has no idea about muscles or anatomy.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 8, 2022)

SgtBarnes said:


> i just can´t argue or discuss fighting with a twig who clearly has no idea about muscles or anatomy.


Why not?  Here I am, ready to discuss muscles and anatomy.  

I'm very curious how your 20 reps of squats improve your cardio endurance for starters.  It's not like you're doing it for more than a handful of minutes per day, total.

Of all the muscle health exercises you could have mentioned, why that one?


----------



## Steve (Mar 8, 2022)

I gas out sometimes and blame it on the dog.  What were we talking about again?


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 8, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Why not?  Here I am.


how much do you squat?
how much do you Bench?
How much do you deadlift?
what is your bodyweight?


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 8, 2022)

SgtBarnes said:


> how much do you squat?
> how much do you Bench?
> How much do you deadlift?


It's been a while but I'd guess, 300, 300, 300.  That's a guess, right now.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 8, 2022)

SgtBarnes said:


> come on guys he was being one sided.  no problem from me but i just can´t argue or discuss fighting with a twig who clearly has no idea about muscles or anatomy.



Thanks for answering my question..... it is as I thought

*Discussion - *the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.

...have a nice day


----------



## Steve (Mar 8, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> It's been a while but I'd guess, 300, 300, 300.  That's a guess, right now.


What is your favorite color?
Are skittles are all the same flavor, but the color makes us think they taste different?
Why do you drive on the parkway and park on the driveway?


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 8, 2022)

Steve said:


> What is your favorite color?
> Are skittles are all the same flavor, but the color makes us think they taste different?
> Why do you drive on the parkway and park on the driveway?


Is it farther to Florida than it is to drive?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 8, 2022)

Steve said:


> *What is your favorite color?*
> Are skittles are all the same flavor, but the color makes us think they taste different?
> Why do you drive on the parkway and park on the driveway?


1) paisley
2) I hate Skittles, almost as much as bacon.. but I do not want to eradicate skittles from the face of the earth..as I do bacon
3) come on, you tell me, obviously you have never driven or parked, sheesh


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 8, 2022)

Xue Sheng said:


> 1) paisley
> 2) I hate Skittles, almost as much as bacon.. but I do not want to eradicate skittles from the face of the earth..as I do bacon
> 3) come on, you tell me, obviously you have never driven or parked, sheesh


can you bench say 200lbs?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 8, 2022)

SgtBarnes said:


> can you bench say 200lbs?



Sure I can...I speak English.... anyone who does can say it......can you say "Wǒ méiyǒu bèi dǎdòng"  "我没有被打动" [translate: I am not impressed]

And you still are not answering questions...well you are...but you answer them with questions and sarcasm


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 8, 2022)

Xue Sheng said:


> Sure I can...I speak English.... anyone who does can say it......can you say "Wǒ méiyǒu bèi dǎdòng"  "我没有被打动" [translate: I am not impressed]
> 
> And you still are not answering questions...well you are...but you answer them with questions and sarcasm


OK just say you can´t . a dead weight is a dead weight you can do it or you can´t.


----------



## Steve (Mar 8, 2022)

Ivan said:


> Hi. I am writing an article on the attitudes towards physical strength in martial arts, and would like to get your perspective on this issue (if it is an issue, I personally feel that it is) in martial arts, since you're all much more experienced than me. Every since I started training, I saw that there were many students and professors alike that seemed to have a sort of chip on their shoulders when it came to physical strength. I specifically noticed this in traditional martial arts; while my professors in Jiujitsu seemed to have an issue with strong people, my professors in more modern arts and combat sports seemed to lean towards it. This issue was most prevalent during my fleeting time in Shorinji Kempo, and it was one of the main reasons I quit.
> 
> People there seemed to have this sense of superiority towards me because I spend a lot of time working out at the gym and lifting weights, and many jokes and mockery and criticism by both students and senseis aside at people who spend their time training at the gym. Much of it came from the idea that using strength to fight was brutish and perhaps even a little uneducated or simply stupid. Although modern combat sports and martial arts tend to supplement (and in some cases even rely on) strength training for their techniques, this is not to say that they are bereft of such attitudes. I have come across one or two individuals that have this mentality of superiority in my BJJ gym too, and there is even the running joke amongst the online BJJ community where calling someone strong is an insult in a way, as they have no technique worthy of a compliment.
> 
> Personally however, I dislike this mentality a lot. I would even go as far as to argue that strength is a technique too - I wasn't born with my strength, and I worked a very long time to get to the level I am in terms of weightlifting today. If it just so happens that it helps me against my opponent, of course I'll use it. I think it is very important to incorporate strength training, whether traditional iron-body type stuff, or modern muscular hypertrophy and development. What are your thoughts on this?


Some people think of strength as a kind of cheat... a way to overcome poor technique through sheer brute force.  So, I don't think it's as much as distaste for strength as much as it's a distaste for the idea of settling for poor technique.

In BJJ, it's great to be strong.  But the idea is that to develop, you should be working on the weaknesses.  So, if you're big, try to work a small guy's game... work on your guard, focus on mobility and the scramble and don't just lock dudes down in a brutal side mount.  If you're little, try to play a big guy's game.  Use good technique to control position, keep your game tight, and don't always rely on your speed or flexibility to get you out of a jam.  If you're strong, don't depend on that to allow you to shortcut techniques by hulking through a solid defense. 

It's not just physical traits, either.  If you're an experienced wrestler, work on your guard, where you're least comfortable.  And so on.


----------



## Damien (Mar 8, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I get you.
> 
> Ok we've beaten speed to death now.  But you got me thinking in another angle..endurance.  Another thing about lots of muscle is that it takes more fuel to run.  More oxygen, more glycogen.  So in any endurance situation, does that suggest the person with less muscle to fuel has an advantage?
> 
> Would you agree someone with a lot of muscle will potentially gas out faster than someone who is leaner?  I've definitely seen this in sparring, bigger guys struggling after a while, whereas the lighter peeps seem to have endless reserves of spunk.


Not necessarily, amount of muscle and the size of the gas tank are not related, it depends on the exercise you do.

Jacked guys can run marathons or do triathlons, or long rows, that smaller people would completely fail at. You can be big and have muscular endurance, and have the cardio system to support it. Weight training (which over time always comes with at least some increase in muscle size) also increases the number of mitochondria in the muscles that produce energy.

Now in a purely hypothetical situation where you had two identical people, doing identical training and one had much much more muscle mass, then maybe they would gas out faster because they have more weight to shift around, and there comes a point of diminishing returns on power vs mass. However in the real world this would never happen, because if you are identical and have trained identically, you will have the same amount of muscle.

In two separate people there are too many variables to count, but if one person doesn't train their work capacity and another does, it doesn't matter how much muscle they have. If a skinny guy and a muscle bound guy both train work capacity (i.e. cardiovascular and muscular endurance) for 6 months, except in extreme body builder type situations, my money would be on the more muscley guy building a greater work capacity. They have more muscle so are able to work harder, and this is a significant factor in work capacity.

The real question here shouldn't be is getting big muscles bad (I think we have firmly established strength is good). It is clear that trained in the right way big muscles are a good thing, in that they are a natural biproduct and a facilitator of being strong. Yes you can have a certain amount of strength and endurance strength without getting huge, but the larger your muscle mass, the greater the number of possible muscle fibres contracting and therefore the more force that can be exerted. It's why you don't see skinny powerlifters, slim and strong only goes so far.

The real question then should be how should we balance our training time. You can only spend so much time each week training, how much of that should be dedicated to technique, how much to endurance/work capacity, and how much to pure strength. We can't put 100% effort into all of it. So at what point does training strength start to detract from our other training, not because we are too big, but because we lack the time, energy and adequate recovery to make our training effective.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 8, 2022)

SgtBarnes said:


> OK just say you can´t . a dead weight is a dead weight you can do it or you can´t.



You're not very good at this goading folks into an argument are you.....


----------



## MetalBoar (Mar 8, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> If they are developing strenght in slow muscle, I think that muscle won't make them faster. How muscle is trained likely has more impact on speed than how generically strong the person is.


The ratio of slow twitch to fast twitch muscle fibers that an individual has is mostly genetically determined.  Training can have a small impact on the proportion of type IIa to type IIb fibers and perhaps some smaller impact on overall muscle composition (last I looked the research wasn't entirely clear on that last bit).  Still, about all you can really do to isolate which type of muscle fibers you train is to neglect the faster twitch fibers by never doing anything that requires enough muscular effort to significantly inroad them.  If you work the muscles hard enough to inroad the fast twitch fibers the slow twitch fibers will also be significantly engaged.

So, if all you do for exercise is slow jogging and high reps, low weight, nowhere near failure, resistance training, you might fail to significantly develop your faster twitch muscle fibers and bias the fibers that do have plasticity towards type IIa.  If you want to strengthen your fast twitch fibers, and bias those that can shift one way or the other towards type IIb, you want to do activities that require significant muscular recruitment and deeply inroad your muscles.  As to the absolute, final, one direction or the other, difference your training will make in fiber type ratio is completely, individually, genetically determined and the practical ratio of one fiber type to another is largely genetically determined.



Gerry Seymour said:


> For instance, I'd be curious to see if powerlifting squat champions as a group are very fast, at all, in their footwork.


Power lifters are generally very fast, all things considered.  Even the world strong man competitors are pretty fast on their feet.  For example, Usain Bolt ran the 40 yard dash in 4.22 seconds on turf during the Super Bowl festivities in 2019.  World Strongest Man competitor Martins Licis, at over 350 lbs., did a 40 yard dash in 4.89 seconds, in sand, with no sprint training.  NFL offensive lineman (also huge guys, averaging 314 lbs.) do it in under 5 seconds all the time.



Gerry Seymour said:


> I don't know that it's true that the stronger a person is, the faster they are.


There are other things besides strength that go into speed, skill being one huge factor, how symmetrical you are and how well suited your individual anatomy is to the specific activity are also big factors.  You can't change your leg or arm length in any useful fashion, but you can develop strength and skill.  How much you should focus on strength and how much on skill to get the ideal outcome is the most interesting question.  Sill, if you were to take two identical twins with equal skill, but one has 10 lbs. more healthy muscle than the other, I'm going to bet on the more muscular one in a speed competition in just about every circumstance.


----------



## AIKIKENJITSU (Mar 8, 2022)

Ivan said:


> Hi. I am writing an article on the attitudes towards physical strength in martial arts, and would like to get your perspective on this issue (if it is an issue, I personally feel that it is) in martial arts, since you're all much more experienced than me. Every since I started training, I saw that there were many students and professors alike that seemed to have a sort of chip on their shoulders when it came to physical strength. I specifically noticed this in traditional martial arts; while my professors in Jiujitsu seemed to have an issue with strong people, my professors in more modern arts and combat sports seemed to lean towards it. This issue was most prevalent during my fleeting time in Shorinji Kempo, and it was one of the main reasons I quit.
> 
> People there seemed to have this sense of superiority towards me because I spend a lot of time working out at the gym and lifting weights, and many jokes and mockery and criticism by both students and senseis aside at people who spend their time training at the gym. Much of it came from the idea that using strength to fight was brutish and perhaps even a little uneducated or simply stupid. Although modern combat sports and martial arts tend to supplement (and in some cases even rely on) strength training for their techniques, this is not to say that they are bereft of such attitudes. I have come across one or two individuals that have this mentality of superiority in my BJJ gym too, and there is even the running joke amongst the online BJJ community where calling someone strong is an insult in a way, as they have no technique worthy of a compliment.
> 
> Personally however, I dislike this mentality a lot. I would even go as far as to argue that strength is a technique too - I wasn't born with my strength, and I worked a very long time to get to the level I am in terms of weightlifting today. If it just so happens that it helps me against my opponent, of course I'll use it. I think it is very important to incorporate strength training, whether traditional iron-body type stuff, or modern muscular hypertrophy and development. What are your thoughts on this?


Don't let it get to you; there is nothing wrong with working out with weights! They probably envy you.
I have been in martial arts for 50 years and I still lift weights. All it does is make my strikes strong and to apply joint locks more effectively.
I have learned at many studios and eventually studying up to black belt in American Kenpo and Tracy Kenpo and some Aikido.
Sifu
   Yes, weights are excellent to build power in martial arts. You keep working out with weights, just make sure you keep your body's ability to do martial arts. That is, stretch after lifting weights and before working out with martial arts.
Sifu
Puyallup, WA


----------



## drop bear (Mar 8, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> Semantics. Strength is not an on/off switch.



The problem is if you are physically strong you may not seek good timing or mechanical advantage.

And then you have to be stronger than everyone you go up against for any of your stuff to work. Which is a weakness.


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 8, 2022)

MetalBoar said:


> The ratio of slow twitch to fast twitch muscle fibers that an individual has is mostly genetically determined.  Training can have a small impact on the proportion of type IIa to type IIb fibers and perhaps some smaller impact on overall muscle composition (last I looked the research wasn't entirely clear on that last big).  Still, about all you can really do to isolate which type of muscle fibers you train is to neglect the faster twitch fibers by never doing anything that requires enough muscular effort to significantly inroad them.  If you work the muscles hard enough to inroad the fast twitch fibers the slow twitch fibers will also be significantly engaged.
> 
> So, if all you do for exercise is slow jogging and high reps, low weight, nowhere near failure, resistance training, you might fail to significantly develop your faster twitch muscle fibers and bias the fibers that do have plasticity towards type IIa.  If you want to strengthen your fast twitch fibers, and bias those that can shift one way or the other towards type IIb, you want to do activities that require significant muscular recruitment and deeply inroad your muscles.  As to the absolute, final, one direction or the other, difference your training will make in fiber type ratio is completely, individually, genetically determined and the practical ratio of one fiber type to another is largely genetically determined.
> 
> ...


outstanding post


----------



## Damien (Mar 8, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm losing fat. The muscle isn't shrinking.  It's becoming more compact.  I do what I refer to as Mastering the weight.  Basically, when a weight gets easy to lift then I'll rotate the various parts working.  So if I'm doing dumbell press then I'll change how lift it by switching my arm position.  I'll use my workout as an example. My bench press and workout in general is always 1 minute rounds.  I do a wide bench press for reps 1-3.  For reps 4 -6 it's narrow press (like a military press) for reps 7-9  I twist the weights.  for 10-14 wide press and so on.  I crease the number of reps for a specific movement time I go through the full set of 3 positions.  I do this instead of increasing the starting weight.  At the moment my starting weight is 15 lbs and I'm debating if I want to increase beyond 30 lbs.
> 
> In a single session of the dumbell press I probably do a little more than 360 reps total in 5 days I would have done that lift 1800 times.
> 
> It seems like it's extreme but it's not.  It's less weight than my push ups.


Hey @JowGaWolf , a tip for you based on exercise science for improving muscle endurance. There's a lot of false beliefs and misinformation out there on exercise, I always try to look at what the science actually demonstrates for us; much better than anecdotes.

It sounds like you are doing some crazy high volume, you would probably see better results with heavier weight and fewer reps. More weight is not automatically a bad thing for endurance, provided you aren't dropping into low rep ranges. As you get stronger and more have endurance, you can lift heavier weights for a long time.

It's pretty well established that the optimal zone for building muscular endurance is failure (i.e. can't do any more reps) between 20 and 30 reps. Much more than that and you aren't really working the muscle endurance optimally and so are being far less efficient with your time than you could be.

On number of sets, there is some debate and individuals vary, but around 10-20 sets for a particular muscle per week is an agreed range (i.e. Monday 3 exercises that work chest, Wednesday, 3 exercises that work chest and triceps, Friday 4 exercises that work both would be 10 sets of chest and 7 sets of triceps).

You can still do variations on grip and angles to target different parts of the muscle, but these still fall within the overall volume considerations. I tend to block the variations by set, to avoid having to adjust mid set.

Try upping the weight until you are failing somewhere between 20 and 30 rep range.


----------



## Damien (Mar 8, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you are a MA instructor, someone challenges you arm wrestling in the public, will you accept that challenge?
> 
> If you lose in that challenge, your students may lose faith in you. IMO, strength is one thing that you must have if you are a MA instructor.


Why not, arm wrestling and martial arts are 2 different skills and require different attributes. I'm sure Mike Tyson would lose to the world's top arm wrestlers.

Never have too much pride and never assume you can't make a fool of yourself.

Ultimately being a good teacher is different from a good practitioner. It's important that students learn this too. Some of the best fighters out there would be terrible coaches.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 8, 2022)

SgtBarnes said:


> i have to disagree Gerry. His art is very fitness/Strength orientated. Oyama was known to weight train.  do you think wrestling with a bull (although not a big one) is just technique?


You seem to have misunderstood my posts on this. I never said you don't use strength. I said you train to not use it, so you can add it on top of technique. This allows you to develop technique that would work without the strength in limited situations, and it's amplified by proper use of the strength.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 8, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> It is impossible to move the human body without using strength.


I don't think anyone here is implying you execute technique with zero strength.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 8, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> Semantics. Strength is not an on/off switch.





Oily Dragon said:


> It can be.  We all have low strength days.  Some days I can lift the whole world, some days I just want to sit and use as little strength as possible.  A few of those days, I don't seem to have a choice. Today is one of those.
> 
> When it comes to using your strength in combat, it'll be highly dependent on the time, day, year, and your relative muscle fatigue.
> 
> Imagine getting jumped the night you lifted for hours.  That's my worst martial arts nightmare, dude.


This appears to be one of those situations where we aren't all using the same definition - or perhaps even concept - when we use the word "strength".

If we use it to mean "the force created by muscle activity", then nothing that we do to move our bodies is absent strength.

If we use it to mean something like "powerful force generated by effective muscle use", then there are many things that don't require strength.

For clarity, I'm mostly referring to a combination of these concepts. So, yes, when we move, we use some strength. But when we say someone is "strong", we don't mean they have muscles that work. We mean they have muscles that are capable of considerable work - usually more than average or more than expected. So when I say "practice to not use strength", it's that second concept I'm talking about.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 8, 2022)

Steve said:


> I gas out sometimes and blame it on the dog.  What were we talking about again?


Geez, I hope you're not as bad as my pitbull.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 8, 2022)

MetalBoar said:


> The ratio of slow twitch to fast twitch muscle fibers that an individual has is mostly genetically determined.  Training can have a small impact on the proportion of type IIa to type IIb fibers and perhaps some smaller impact on overall muscle composition (last I looked the research wasn't entirely clear on that last bit).  Still, about all you can really do to isolate which type of muscle fibers you train is to neglect the faster twitch fibers by never doing anything that requires enough muscular effort to significantly inroad them.  If you work the muscles hard enough to inroad the fast twitch fibers the slow twitch fibers will also be significantly engaged.
> 
> So, if all you do for exercise is slow jogging and high reps, low weight, nowhere near failure, resistance training, you might fail to significantly develop your faster twitch muscle fibers and bias the fibers that do have plasticity towards type IIa.  If you want to strengthen your fast twitch fibers, and bias those that can shift one way or the other towards type IIb, you want to do activities that require significant muscular recruitment and deeply inroad your muscles.  As to the absolute, final, one direction or the other, difference your training will make in fiber type ratio is completely, individually, genetically determined and the practical ratio of one fiber type to another is largely genetically determined.



This is why I said "developing strength in", rather than just "developing". It's my understanding that - as you said - the mix of slow/fast fibers is mostly fixed (some evidence it can be nudged a bit over time, but only a bit). But having that muscle fiber doesn't mean it's developed - that's easy enough to see in the fact that anyone who works on a given activity that calls on muscle will develop in that activity. And if that activity calls for strength, over time they'll see a change in muscle mass (but not significantly in the proportion of types of fibers).


MetalBoar said:


> Power lifters are generally very fast, all things considered.  Even the world strong man competitors are pretty fast on their feet.  For example, Usain Bolt ran the 40 yard dash in 4.22 seconds on turf during the Super Bowl festivities in 2019.  World Strongest Man competitor Martins Licis, at over 350 lbs., did a 40 yard dash in 4.89 seconds, in sand, with no sprint training.  NFL offensive lineman (also huge guys, averaging 314 lbs.) do it in under 5 seconds all the time.



That is very cool. As I said, I was curious about that. They're developing strength that calls on those fast-twitch muscle fibers, which should apply. Yet what they do doesn't train anything about moving at speed. This leads to all kinds of questions I'm hoping exercise science is working to answer (or has answered, and I just haven't found out yet).


MetalBoar said:


> There are other things besides strength that go into speed, skill being one huge factor, how symmetrical you are and how well suited your individual anatomy is to the specific activity are also big factors.  You can't change your leg or arm length in any useful fashion, but you can develop strength and skill.  How much you should focus on strength and how much on skill to get the ideal outcome is the most interesting question.  Sill, if you were to take two identical twins with equal skill, but one has 10 lbs. more healthy muscle than the other, I'm going to bet on the more muscular one in a speed competition in just about every circumstance.


Agreed. This is the "technique" part of speed. And agreed on the twins....assuming that muscle is either equally distributed or focused in the lower body. If dude skipped leg day, I'm betting on the other guy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 8, 2022)

Damien said:


> Hey @JowGaWolf , a tip for you based on exercise science for improving muscle endurance. There's a lot of false beliefs and misinformation out there on exercise, I always try to look at what the science actually demonstrates for us; much better than anecdotes.
> 
> It sounds like you are doing some crazy high volume, you would probably see better results with heavier weight and fewer reps. More weight is not automatically a bad thing for endurance, provided you aren't dropping into low rep ranges. As you get stronger and more have endurance, you can lift heavier weights for a long time.
> 
> ...


Man, I really miss the old "informative" rating.


----------



## Damien (Mar 8, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> Man, I really miss the old "informative" rating.


You'll just have to post 5 replies in a row quoting it so that people can't miss it! 😆


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 8, 2022)

Damien said:


> It sounds like you are doing some crazy high volume, you would probably see better results with heavier weight and fewer reps. More weight is not automatically a bad thing for endurance, provided you aren't dropping into low rep ranges. As you get stronger and more have endurance, you can lift heavier weights for a long time.


It only sounds like crazy high volume.  If you were to compare the number of steps that you take to sprint 110 meters with the number of steps that you take to run a mile.   You would think that sounded crazy as well. 

 I lift heavier weights.  My current weight increase for dumbbell press is as follows:

15lbs three 1 minute rounds  - Fresh arms all 3 rounds
20lbs three 1 minute rounds  - Fresh arms the 1st round.  2nd and 3 rounds Fatigue is on the horizon.  Not fresh but not totally spent
25lbs three 1 minute rounds  - Fatigue visits on the 1st round muscles begins to burn. 2nd and 3rd rounds I'm on fire, with pauses and a drop in reps.  Still higher than 10. but I take some mini breaks

The total number of reps that I do by the time I get to 25lbs is lower than what I can do at 15lbs.  I will increase the weight once I'm able to do 25lbs without filling the burn and without taking breaks while keeping the rep high.



Damien said:


> It's pretty well established that the optimal zone for building muscular endurance is failure (i.e. can't do any more reps) between 20 and 30 reps. Much more than that and you aren't really working the muscle endurance optimally and so are being far less efficient with your time than you could be.


Yep this is where I am at 25lbs on the 3rd round.  Sometimes it starts in the 2nd round depending on how fast I start off.  The 15 lbs is my warm up weight.  It allows me to focus on the technique and I can extend the range of motion a bit more here.  In the past I've found it difficult to just go into lifting without a warm up of some sort.


Thanks for the advice by the way.  I appreciate it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 8, 2022)

Damien said:


> Never have too much pride and never assume you can't make a fool of yourself.


I pretty much embrace that the possibility between decision and action, that I will make a fool of myself.  It's not a high percentage but it's there lol.  I just kinda of roll with it, so long as I don't look like the biggest fool.


----------



## Damien (Mar 8, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> It only sounds like crazy high volume.  If you were to compare the number of steps that you take to sprint 110 meters with the number of steps that you take to run a mile.   You would think that sounded crazy as well.
> 
> I lift heavier weights.  My current weight increase for dumbbell press is as follows:
> 
> ...


Ah that's cool. Yeah warm up sets are definitely important. 

Especially as we get older! Gone are the days where I could just jump straight into things. Though I definitely still felt worse after for not doing it!

I still occasionally hear people ask why we spend so much time warming up. They'll learn one day! The place I'm training at at the moment I always show up early to do some extra warm up and mobility work to make sure I'm ready to go.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 8, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> This appears to be one of those situations where we aren't all using the same definition - or perhaps even concept - when we use the word "strength".


Correct.  That has been the case for pages now.   I know for me I don't see "Strong" and "Strength" in the same light.  

For me strong = body builder someone who can lift some heavy stuff.  However, strength = what people who do yoga and gymnast often master.





Not saying it's an accurate definition.  It's just how my mind understands the 2 words


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 8, 2022)

drop bear said:


> The problem is if you are physically strong you may not seek good timing or mechanical advantage.
> 
> And then you have to be stronger than everyone you go up against for any of your stuff to work. Which is a weakness.


If your "hear hug" is strong enough to squeeze your opponent to death, what else do you need?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 8, 2022)

Damien said:


> I still occasionally hear people ask why we spend so much time warming up. They'll learn one day!


That's the truth.  I need that old car warm up.  I can't just turn the switch and drive lol. Gotta do that "preflight check" lol


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 8, 2022)

Damien said:


> I still occasionally hear people ask why we spend so much time warming up. They'll learn one day! The place I'm training at at the moment I always show up early to do some extra warm up and mobility work to make sure I'm ready to go.


I always wonder, if I always do warm up before serious work out, what will happen if I have to get into a fight studently when I won't have any time to do my warmup?


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 8, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I always wonder, if I always do warm up before serious work out, what will happen if I have to get into a fight studently when I won't have any time to do my warmup?


That's my second worst martial arts nightmare, right after getting jumped after a harsh weight session.

The line between hard training and readiness is important.  Hopefully if I'm ever mugged, it'll be on recovery day that I've had at least one decent carbohydrate.


----------



## Steve (Mar 8, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> Geez, I hope you're not as bad as my pitbull.


“The pitbull”.  Right.  😒


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 8, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I always wonder, if I always do warm up before serious work out, what will happen if I have to get into a fight studently when I won't have any time to do my warmup?


You'll probably will be fine and the adrenaline will make things easier for you while you are fighting.  I can't promise what the next day will bring, but I'm sure you'll feel it. 

The good news about your question is that it applies to your attacker as well, unless he did his warm up before attacking you.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 8, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> That's my second worst martial arts nightmare, right after getting jumped after a harsh weight session.
> 
> The line between hard training and readiness is important.  Hopefully if I'm ever mugged, it'll be on recovery day that I've had at least one decent carbohydrate.


This is why I have always believed that we should reserve 25% energy to prepare for the unexpected. It's a bad idea that we get totally exhausted through work out.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 8, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> That's my second worst martial arts nightmare, right after getting jumped after a harsh weight session.


I rather deal with not having a pre fight warm up than to deal with trying to fight on Empty  I've done that before and it's a no win situation.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 8, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> You'll probably will be fine and the adrenaline will make things easier for you while you are fighting.  I can't promise what the next day will bring, but I'm sure you'll feel it.
> 
> The good news about your question is that it applies to your attacker as well, unless he did his warm up before attacking you.


If I had a plan to jump someone, I'd absolutely be doing some stretching and light warm up beforehand. If for nothing else than to relieve some boredom and tension. 

I'm also probably not the normal attacker in these situations though.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 8, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> I rather deal with not having a pre fight warm up than to deal with trying to fight on Empty  I've done that before and it's a no win situation.


That's my real fear. Whenever I'm out running, In the last bit I wonder how screwed I'd be if someone were to attack me right then.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 8, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> You'll probably will be fine and the adrenaline will make things easier for you while you are fighting.  I can't promise what the next day will bring, but I'm sure you'll feel it.
> 
> The good news about your question is that it applies to your attacker as well, unless he did his warm up before attacking you.


This just remind me one day I hiked in a national park in Alaska. I walked on the ice surface. Suddenly I lost my footing and I got into a forward and backward split on the ice surface. I didn't know that I could do that without any warm up.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 8, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> That's my real fear. Whenever I'm out running, In the last bit I wonder how screwed I'd be if someone were to attack me right then.


ha ha ha.. you would be screwed. I almost had a fight with someone like that.  He had been running and I was pretty much fresh.  He backed down.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 8, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If your "hear hug" is strong enough to squeeze your opponent to death, what else do you need?



Is this against weaker or stronger opponents?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 8, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Is this against weaker or stronger opponents?


Assume you can use your bear hug to squeeze everybody to death on this planet.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Mar 8, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> It's possible, but certainly not inevitable. If the force scales at the same rate the mass scales, you'd have a net change of 0. If the mass scales faster, change is negative. If force scales faster, change is positive.


I'm positive I have negative understanding of mechanical engineering/physics.


----------



## Unkogami (Mar 8, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Haven't you ever gassed out?  It's pretty similar to feeling dead.


I've felt both. Not very similar.


----------



## Unkogami (Mar 8, 2022)

I think we should consider the ridiculously high price of gas these days.


----------



## Unkogami (Mar 8, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why I have always believed that we should reserve 25% energy to prepare for the unexpected. It's a bad idea that we get totally exhausted through work out.


Don't save anything while training or you'll lack something when you really need it.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 8, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> I've felt both. Not very similar.


Have been knocked out or put to sleep then?  When I say dead I'm being relative, not literally dead.

Wait, you've been literally dead???


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 8, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> I think we should consider the ridiculously high price of gas these days.


I like your style.  $4.00 where I live.  It's it's that high here then I know everyone else is about 2 steps from taking out a loan for gas.  

It will get worse before it will get better.  Normally I would be upset, but this time I don't mind as much.  I like some of the new electric cars coming out.  I think the mileage is a rip compared to some of the other cars that are out there, but I'm looking for a future investment once there is more competition.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 8, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> I like some of the new electric cars coming out.


My son has 3 Telsa cars now. I believe the gasoline car will be just like the video tape. It will soon disappear from the face of the earth.


----------



## Unkogami (Mar 9, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Have been knocked out or put to sleep then?  When I say dead I'm being relative, not literally dead.
> 
> Wait, you've been literally dead???


Very close.


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 9, 2022)

Early this morning I was training back & biceps. Just love preacher curls with a barbell.  Also do reverse Ez bar curls for forearms.


----------



## OLD DOG NEW TRICKS (Mar 9, 2022)

Ivan said:


> Hi. I am writing an article on the attitudes towards physical strength in martial arts, and would like to get your perspective on this issue (if it is an issue, I personally feel that it is) in martial arts, since you're all much more experienced than me. Every since I started training, I saw that there were many students and professors alike that seemed to have a sort of chip on their shoulders when it came to physical strength. I specifically noticed this in traditional martial arts; while my professors in Jiujitsu seemed to have an issue with strong people, my professors in more modern arts and combat sports seemed to lean towards it. This issue was most prevalent during my fleeting time in Shorinji Kempo, and it was one of the main reasons I quit.
> 
> People there seemed to have this sense of superiority towards me because I spend a lot of time working out at the gym and lifting weights, and many jokes and mockery and criticism by both students and senseis aside at people who spend their time training at the gym. Much of it came from the idea that using strength to fight was brutish and perhaps even a little uneducated or simply stupid. Although modern combat sports and martial arts tend to supplement (and in some cases even rely on) strength training for their techniques, this is not to say that they are bereft of such attitudes. I have come across one or two individuals that have this mentality of superiority in my BJJ gym too, and there is even the running joke amongst the online BJJ community where calling someone strong is an insult in a way, as they have no technique worthy of a compliment.
> 
> Personally however, I dislike this mentality a lot. I would even go as far as to argue that strength is a technique too - I wasn't born with my strength, and I worked a very long time to get to the level I am in terms of weightlifting today. If it just so happens that it helps me against my opponent, of course I'll use it. I think it is very important to incorporate strength training, whether traditional iron-body type stuff, or modern muscular hypertrophy and development. What are your thoughts on this?


Hello Ivan, first I want to say that is toughest Black Belt Bear that I could imagine. I fully agree with your assessment of the issue of attitude towards lifting and strength training. I have felt the prejudice for over 40 years of Martial arts training. I attribute this to an  underlying Lack of self confidence with these people. More than likely they entered Martial arts training because of a great feeling of inadequacy. And are still fearful of larger stronger individuals even after they have obtained a high degree of efficiency in their chosen art. This is a mental weakness we just have to look past and hope they mature enough mentally to enjoy the Martial arts and not look down on others for bettering themselves.  My experience is that strength will change the outcome of any actual fighting situation. This comes from hundreds of actual not fictional confrontations in real life from being in law enforcement, bouncing in inner city bars, and many other situations in my life. I hope this helps. Take care my friend and keep on lifting.   Ron


----------



## SgtBarnes (Mar 9, 2022)

a stronger athlete is a better athlete.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 9, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Assume you can use your bear hug to squeeze everybody to death on this planet.



So then against weaker guys.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 9, 2022)

drop bear said:


> So then against weaker guys.


If you are the strongest person on earth, everybody are all weak guys. That should be your goal.

At the age of 74, my teacher still had 45 inches chest (I measured it myself). I don't have his muscle at his age.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 9, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you are the strongest person on earth, everybody are all weak guys. That should be your goal.



Are you the strongest person on earth?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 9, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Are you the strongest person on earth?


That's my goal even if I will never reach it. I did train triathlon once. But my swimming speed could not meet the requirement. 

Before my last Shuai Chiao tournament, I spent 3 months by moving a 200 lb rock daily. In that tournament, I competed in super heavy weight. I was 180 lb, my opponents were all over 220 lbs. I had no problem to handle all of them.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 9, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Are you the strongest person on earth?


You can probably beat the strongest person in the world.  Their bodies aren't built for fighting.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 9, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That's my goal even if I will never reach it. I did train triathlon once. But my swimming speed could not meet the requirement.
> 
> Before my last Shuai Chiao tournament, I spent 3 months by moving a 200 lb rock daily. In that tournament, I competed in super heavy weight. I was 180 lb, my opponents were all over 220 lbs. I had no problem to handle all of them.



See. Everyone in my environment is strong. That is basically a given. 

So it is not the super poer it is supposed to be.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 9, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> You can probably beat the strongest person in the world.  Their bodies aren't built for fighting.


The key point is to use the strong part of your body to deal with the weak part of your opponent's body.

If you can put right hand on your opponent's forehead, put left hand behind his neck, by pressing his forehead back, you can take him down even if he may be the strongest person on earth.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 9, 2022)

Steve said:


> “The pitbull”.  Right.  😒


I really shoulda seen that coming, Steve.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 9, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> If I had a plan to jump someone, I'd absolutely be doing some stretching and light warm up beforehand. If for nothing else than to relieve some boredom and tension.
> 
> I'm also probably not the normal attacker in these situations though.


I'm adding that to my danger cues to scan for. Some dude over by that corner, doing calesthenics? Get him before he gets me!


----------



## voodoo820 (Mar 10, 2022)

I know I'm late to the party on this but I thought I'd throw in my couple cents. I have zero problem with strength training to go along with any martial arts training. It's great to be strong in general and to be stronger than an opponent in combat if you find yourself in that situation is of great benefit. One of my earliest training partners and friends is a hulk and is as light on his feet as anyone I know. 

There is something to the idea of sometimes stronger students making something work because they can muscle it. I've had students like this and you have to stay on them to not muscle their opponent but to use technique as if they weren't as strong. Of course, then the question comes, "If I can do it using strength, then why not do it that way?" The answer is, you may not always be as strong. Martial arts for me is a lifetime practice. Two of my mentors are now in their late 70s. They are not as strong as they once were but their technique is on point.

I guess I agree with others on this post. Build those muscles all you want, it's great, but when in your dojang, dojo, wherever, on your training mat, learn the technique as if you had no strength. It will only make you that much better.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 10, 2022)

voodoo820 said:


> Of course, then the question comes, "If I can do it using strength, then why not do it that way?" The answer is, you may not always be as strong.


This is where it helps to have a gym full of people who are working both technique and athleticism. That way the student with this attitude is likely to encounter both sparring partners who can match him for strength and sparring partners who can overcome his strength with technique. Competing outside the gym will also add to that probability.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 10, 2022)

voodoo820 said:


> Of course, then the question comes, "If I can do it using strength, then why not do it that way?" The answer is, you may not always be as strong. Martial arts for me is a lifetime practice. Two of my mentors are now in their late 70s. They are not as strong as they once were but their technique is on point.
> 
> I guess I agree with others on this post. Build those muscles all you want, it's great, but when in your dojang, dojo, wherever, on your training mat, learn the technique as if you had no strength. It will only make you that much better.


You may not always be as strong..today.  I made this point before but anybody who's done maximal fitness tests before like Wingate knows what "Peak Power" is, and what "Anaerobic Fatigue" is and how it affects strength, quickly.

That's another point in the bucket for technique over strength.  Strength is not a constant, it diminishes during any encounter (training, sparring, competing, fighting). And with age.  And if I don't have my yogurt in the morning.


----------



## Unkogami (Mar 10, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> You may not always be as strong..today.  I made this point before but anybody who's done maximal fitness tests before like Wingate knows what "Peak Power" is, and what "Anaerobic Fatigue" is and how it affects strength, quickly.
> 
> That's another point in the bucket for technique over strength.  Strength is not a constant, it diminishes during any encounter (training, sparring, competing, fighting). And with age.  And if I don't have my yogurt in the morning.


Speed is the first thing to do. Strength is the last.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Mar 10, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> View attachment 28130
> 
> Never skip leg day...


No leg no punch.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Mar 10, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> I think the issue in telling someone to rely on technique rather than their strength, is in working to develop a higher quality in the technique.  If technique quality is poor, you can still make it work if you put a lot of muscle into it.  If technique quality is high it is more efficient and can be more effective even with less effort and less muscling of it.  So when training, you want a student (and yourself) to focus on quality of technique, for better efficiency and better effect, with less effort.
> 
> But that is not meant as an indictment of strength or stamina or speed or whatever natural and athletic attributes one might have.  When facing a real opponent, whether in the ring or on the street, in the chaos of combat, quality will diminish.  Now is when athleticism becomes important, when the conflict is real.
> 
> So, of course athleticism in all of its parts is important.  It goes together with technique, but it is important to give appropriate attention to technical development in order for optimal use of that athleticism.


Well said!


----------



## Unkogami (Mar 10, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> Speed is the first thing to do. Strength is the last.


Speed is the first thing to GO. Strength is the last.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 10, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> Speed is the first thing to GO. Strength is the last.


Agree! When you are 80 years old, you may still be able to bench press 200 lb, but you can't run 100 meters within 10 seconds.

I believe jumping ability will be the first thing to go.


----------



## Unkogami (Mar 10, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! When you are 80 years old, you may still be able to bench press 200 lb, but you can't run 100 meters within 10 seconds.
> 
> I believe jumping ability will be the first thing to go.


When I'm 80, I'll be trying to bench press however much dirt is in the 6 feet above me.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 10, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> When I'm 80, I'll be trying to bench press however much dirt is in the 6 feet above me.


My long fist teacher is 95 and still going strong.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 10, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> Speed is the first thing to GO. Strength is the last.





Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! When you are 80 years old, you may still be able to bench press 200 lb, but you can't run 100 meters within 10 seconds.
> 
> I believe jumping ability will be the first thing to go.


Those can leave me so long as my joints are still in good condition.


----------



## Unkogami (Mar 11, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> My long fist teacher is 95 and still going strong.


That is great for him. When I'm 95 I'll be kicking the devil's *** in hell.


----------



## Unkogami (Mar 11, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> Those can leave me so long as my joints are still in good condition.


My joints were all but gone before I was 30.


----------



## Unkogami (Mar 13, 2022)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! When you are 80 years old, you may still be able to bench press 200 lb, but you can't run 100 meters within 10 seconds.
> 
> I believe jumping ability will be the first thing to go.


I used to be so damn fast, but I can still put 18 year olds on their knees just by putting a hand on them.


----------



## Bigmoose70 (Mar 13, 2022)

Ivan said:


> Hi. I am writing an article on the attitudes towards physical strength in martial arts, and would like to get your perspective on this issue (if it is an issue, I personally feel that it is) in martial arts, since you're all much more experienced than me. Every since I started training, I saw that there were many students and professors alike that seemed to have a sort of chip on their shoulders when it came to physical strength. I specifically noticed this in traditional martial arts; while my professors in Jiujitsu seemed to have an issue with strong people, my professors in more modern arts and combat sports seemed to lean towards it. This issue was most prevalent during my fleeting time in Shorinji Kempo, and it was one of the main reasons I quit.
> 
> People there seemed to have this sense of superiority towards me because I spend a lot of time working out at the gym and lifting weights, and many jokes and mockery and criticism by both students and senseis aside at people who spend their time training at the gym. Much of it came from the idea that using strength to fight was brutish and perhaps even a little uneducated or simply stupid. Although modern combat sports and martial arts tend to supplement (and in some cases even rely on) strength training for their techniques, this is not to say that they are bereft of such attitudes. I have come across one or two individuals that have this mentality of superiority in my BJJ gym too, and there is even the running joke amongst the online BJJ community where calling someone strong is an insult in a way, as they have no technique worthy of a compliment.
> 
> Personally however, I dislike this mentality a lot. I would even go as far as to argue that strength is a technique too - I wasn't born with my strength, and I worked a very long time to get to the level I am in terms of weightlifting today. If it just so happens that it helps me against my opponent, of course I'll use it. I think it is very important to incorporate strength training, whether traditional iron-body type stuff, or modern muscular hypertrophy and development. What are your thoughts on this?


I agree with everyone who expressed technique over strength. I learned Isshinryu in the teens(1980’s). 
Currently learning for the past 20 plus years an old Wudang system. We use (my approximate guess) 30% or less strength and the rest is combination of energy and technique. 
The other day I moved like Korra tha avatar learning air bending navigating through those spinning things, according to my daughter’s.

To rely on strength when 70 years old or older will not help anyone in real fight/battle. 
It’s important to me is breath, be aware, relax, and move naturally. With many years of practicing almost any situation in YOUR training was introduced. Who cares who says anything negative.  Be the better “practitioner” and find humility in yourself.


----------



## krowe (Mar 13, 2022)

Athletic training is a core part of martial arts training if you want to maximize your ability to use it for fighting. It is very easy to train in a way that makes your martial arts less effective however so it is important to go about it intelligently. Like body building/bulking up a lot can get in the way of range of motion and slow you down. Because there is more weight it becomes easier for the opponent to use your own strength against you in some circumstances. Alternatively I have found strength compliments internal styles a lot. Here is what gets people stuck: use skill and energy to move. Where people mess up is when they use their strength in place of skill. Strength compliments skill because it gives you a larger stronger vessel which means more potential energy which equates to greater force and impact during strikes and grappling plus you can take more punishment. People who lack skill and rely on strength end up having poor control of their body. What it means to have good control of your Qi and energy is that you have suuuuper smooth control of how kinetic energy flows through your body and transitions across the kinetic chain. If you are good at this you are using what is referred to as internal skill. It will create the feeling of almost flowing like water which is why people who focus entirely on technique feel that muscles are bad for martial arts. What is really happening is that if you have less strength you will develop better technique because that is all you habe to rely on and if you have more strength you may accidentally begin to rely on muscle contractions in a way that produces poor technique and lack of internal skill. If you want to get stronger while retaining your internal skill you have to be careful and train your internal skill so that you can move the same way with the added weight and strength. It requires a lot more control because there is more mass. Also weight training trains your motor nerves to act differently because it is resistance training. So it will ruin your technique silently without you even realising it if you hit the gym a lot and forget to train your internal skill to adapt to your physique.
Part of why this happens is that internal skill requires the body to he relaxed and involves much more subtle and dynamic control of the body than what weight training or calisthenics usually produces. Consider how a person moves when they lift weights. Consider isometrics and even polymetrics with exercise equipment. This is a movment pattern designed to target and strengthen specific muscle groups against weighted resistance. Resistance training draws tension into the body as a side effect and the recovery phase between workouts can retain tension in the body and mess with skillful movement if you train hard. I find this more common with untrained or mediocre fighters. It becomes very easy to pull their arm and make them off balance or in a super vulnerable position. Also for part of the week your body is in suboptimal condition due to muscle recovery.
I spar against some individuals who have much more muscle than me but they lack certain skills that are more common in chinese kungfu. That, combined with their larger muscles and slower speed, make it easy for me to parry their attacks and keep control them with double jabs to the face and quick strikes to the arms and body. I strike with equal or more power than them because they have no internal skill. And am faster because my body is relaxed while they are tense. I also do strength training, but i do it correctly which puts us on a more even playing feild. So the fighters skillset and knowledge of body and movement conditioning is a factor too. I have met people with similar physiques who fare much better because of the WAY they use their strength. These people have found a way to use their added bulk effectively and retain their skill as formidible opponents. Another consideration is if you bulk up too much you need to change the way you fight and techniques to accommodate the increased strength and decreased speed. The same is true for if you prefer to stay lean and lighter on your feet. If a light and fast guy fights like a larger stronger person would they will not fare as well. So the style of fighting needs to match the way you train your body and vice versa. Its not about whether stremgth is bad or not. Strength and more importantly the neuromotor training which relates to control and precision of movement as well as regulation of kinetic force through the musculature should reflect the style of fighting you intend to use. If you blend styles or switch styles, it would be prudent to consider how you would ideally want to train your body to more effectively compliment the way you want to be able to move/attack/defend for the style of martial arts you intend to employ. Hope this was helpful.


----------



## Hyoho (Mar 13, 2022)

krowe said:


> Athletic training is a core part of martial arts training.


As a professional instructor teaching in Japan I would agree if is for younger people. As we mature the actual practice is most of what we require. But even that should be done to a level that brings us to our knees on a "daily" basis. I used to practice at least ten times a week. Real fighters are good because they have natural ability. We hand pick them as we watch them come up from elementary school and rise through he ranks. One can clearly separate the fighters from those that do things more as a hobby.


----------



## Gyuki (Mar 15, 2022)

Adding on to all that has been mentioned, I have encountered various people in Martial Arts that are simply jealous. I am not a big guy by any means (I am 5'9'' and weight about 180 185 mix of fat and muscle, average joe) but have good martial sense, skills and ability.

When going for a new class or tryout with new people, it seems there are always a few (and yes sometimes the coaches) higher graded students that act jealous or unconfortable because I have a white belt on my hips but can literally destroy them in a combat situation. My kicks are strong, flexible and can be high, I am naturally a good kicker... My hand strikes are driven by core power and proper body mechanics and I have been thought as a child to not hold back during training without a partner... So I do. 

The amount of technical details they come up with to "correct" my technique is always incredible. Of course I am not perfect and there are things I need to improve and want to work on.  I wish to learn from certain styles to perfect MY martial art. What I mean by that is the way I fight and act in combat. I am not trying to become a copy of them and their master and those before that. It is my body and I will move it how I see fit. If I go to a Muay Thai class it seems that it is not something that they will take issue with... I don't hear oh please hit the bag less hard. When you are doing something incorrectly you are being told. And yes to correct something you need to take the power or focus behind it down and re add it when it is correct. Not to mention that most instructors in traditional martial arts are unable to make the transfer from forms to actual combat.... I have to come up with that on my own so yes correcting the "Oh you need to turn your fist exactly as its passing the other hand, not before not after" is useless to me. What is important is how I need to move my hips, arms and shoulders to generate power with as less movement as possible and once that is integrated, how to use that same technique in a fight stance while keeping the principles and concept.... 

Seems to me like they were the "nerdy" type of person in their high school life, got into martial arts and liked it. Became "good" in the system they learned in a historical and presentation manner. So for them when the foot is 45 degree its 45 not 43 not 44 not 46 or 47 based on wtv medical condition or discomfort one may experience from that specific stance.... I can understand and appreciate the value of historical keeping and tradition. But then again, I simply learned that these schools were not the ones for me. If the teacher is going to be intimidated by a student (who is NOT trying to intimidate anyone) who wishes to learn their style and adapt it into combative situations or add a lot more live drills or sparring. And when not mentioning those interest of mine and simply training the way they wish but with more focus or intention behind my strikes they still see it as a problem....

Strength is not a problem of it's own. It is an issue for those who do not wish to be challenged and actually progress, and as it has been mentioned before, it can hinder technique if one chooses to uses only their strength and not properly learn.

And that's the issue, I always question myself as was I using too much muscle and not enough technique or am I just actually good and ok to proceed. I like to think that most of time, I muscle my way out so I need to work more on techniques.... But then again, my technique is usually more clear, direct and with focus then most Brown Belt and even Shodan... I am really not trying to claim I am the best in the world or anything.  Non TMA coaches have nothing to say or correct on my technique, they want to add more and combos and drills and simply move forward and I tell them that my strikes can still be worked on as my technique is not perfect yet. They throw me in the ring and I do prevail against others who have been at it for longer and never even bothered with technicality...

Martial arts seems to be where intellectuals and "meathead" intersect and they both seem to have issues with each other. It seems to be hard to have actual balance between both in 1 individual. Because both come with stereotypes and preconceptions as well. I would like to think I am flat in the middle but that is not true. Definitely more on the nerdy side, but nerdy for effectiveness and power if that makes sense. I sure am not a powerlifter, but am not into martial arts to be a historical re creator of the Japanese takeover of Okinawa and roleplay as one of them.... (Lots of historical inaccuracies in that statement but it's more for the effect). I want to learn to be stronger and more able to fight/ deal with self defense (even if fighting and combat are but a small part of self defense, pre and post combat is where self defense truly is at).

Thank you


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 16, 2022)

Gyuki said:


> So for them when the foot is 45 degree its 45 not 43 not 44 not 46 or 47 based on wtv medical condition or discomfort one may experience from that specific stance.... I can understand and appreciate the value of historical keeping and tradition.


45° is always a reference. It makes no sense that someone is going to be exactly 45° in a point.   I'm glad I didn't have to deal with classmates and teachers like you experienced.  People like that give people the wrong idea about the importance of technique.

The best lesson to understand the importance of technique is to simply punch a burlap heavy bag really hard.  After 3 or 4 hard punches,  one will soon appreciate technique.   Some of you guys have met some really arrogant people in martial arts.  Out of all my years in martial arts I only have 2 that stand out as a horror story, but I don't blame TMA for it.  The attitude that they had was always there. They brought that to TMA, they didn't learn it from TMA.  But that's how life is.  Some people are just jerks.

The one thing that I enjoy most about technique is that it allows me to maximize my strength.  Even strong people use proper techniques for lifting heavy boxes.  If they don't they will soon realize the penalty for bad lifting technique.lol


----------



## Damien (Mar 16, 2022)

JowGaWolf said:


> They brought that to TMA, they didn't learn it from TMA. But that's how life is. Some people are just jerks.


Well said!

I've met a few in the MA world in my time. Sometimes there students even celebrate themselves for it. One particular teacher springs to mind who boasted about beating up another instructor about 20 years older than him, and on his website advertising his classes told a story about how he used to teach in a spare room at his work in exchange for free classes for other employees. In one person's first ever martial arts class he broke their wrist because they didn't tap out. And he called them an idiot...

People like that are everywhere, but it is a real shame when they end up in positions of authority and influence others.

More common (thankfully??) is just people that aren't very good or very good at teaching. At least they aren't hurting people, apart from maybe over training or sprains etc from poor jumping technique.


----------



## Gyuki (Mar 16, 2022)

Damien said:


> Well said!
> 
> I've met a few in the MA world in my time. Sometimes there students even celebrate themselves for it. One particular teacher springs to mind who boasted about beating up another instructor about 20 years older than him, and on his website advertising his classes told a story about how he used to teach in a spare room at his work in exchange for free classes for other employees. In one person's first ever martial arts class he broke their wrist because they didn't tap out. And he called them an idiot...
> 
> ...


On that last part. I seem to have encountered few that as you say were simply not good. And that influences the way they teach or ability to teach to people who may have natural abilitirs that makes them simply better. 
And I can understand that after 5 years working on your roundhouse kick (pick whichever technique) a person who is a beginner (at least in your eyes) can achieve better results than yourself with almost no effort put into it as that person simply catches it and is able to incorporate it right away. I can understand where a jealous feeling may come from. 
Being able to even recognise it is one thing. After it is about choosing on how to act about it. Does one choose to be motivated in their own practice and work harder or does one choose to take it out on the other person?

And the problem with people like that in position of authority is that they are in a position to build a culture of likeminded individuals that "require" hard work and belittle or disregard natural abilities that may make them (in their own mind) look bad. 
I think my issue with unqualified teachers lies there more then anything. Stopping the progress of those who might be naturals in order to favor the cultivation of meeker individuals that follow them blindly and do not have either the knowledge, skill or ability to challenge them. Kind of the "Invincible, Untouchable Sensei" that can only teach you the right way or secret techniques after a certain level and the high rank students also do not make physical contact with anyone or accept to share those "secret" technique yet still can't move a heavy bag with a sidekick without injuring themselves... (This exemple is quite very extreme I know)

Again, I think it may simply be a question of attitude and culture and sometimes (most places at least where I live) are simply unconfortable with people that are naturally strong or just very intense in their martial practice. I understand that the average "new student" is usually more compliant and not necessairly already in a physical state that enables them to defend themselves. 

Sad part is that I appreciate technique more than anything myself. All that others have mentioned is correct, technique is a strength multiplier and energy saver. And proper body posture ensures balance. Technique always needs to be worked on and refined yes, but the extent of proper technique in combat is to ensure you are able to keep a relative form/position and be as efficient as possible with your attacks and defenses. Because (and I hate to quote this as an exemple as it is a flawed argument) most pro fighters regardless of style or sport discipline DO lose composure, form and techniques when under lot of pressure. Wild punches flailing wildly is not uncommon. And these are the people who train for a living... So of course they can always be worked on more and perfected even more. But in the end is it the main component of what will help one win a fight? I don't think so. I also don't think strength is that factor either. Mentality and dedications are.


----------



## Gyakuto (Mar 16, 2022)

Gyuki said:


> Martial arts seems to be where intellectuals and "meathead" intersect and they both seem to have issues with each other. It seems to be hard to have actual balance between both in 1 individual. Because both come with stereotypes and preconceptions as well. I would like to think I am flat in the middle but that is not true. Definitely more on the nerdy side, but nerdy for effectiveness and power if that makes sense. I sure am not a powerlifter, but am not into martial arts to be a historical re creator of the Japanese takeover of Okinawa and roleplay as one of them.... (Lots of historical inaccuracies in that statement but it's more for the effect). I want to learn to be stronger and more able to fight/ deal with self defense (even if fighting and combat are but a small part of self defense, pre and post combat is where self defense truly is at).
> 
> Thank you


I think Gyuki makes a _really_ good point here. 

I have noticed an ‘anti-intellectual attitude’ in the martial arts (the pandemic has also highlighted this attitude more generally in society, but that’s another debate…). Many years ago, discussions of the technical minutiae of my art on a now defunct forum, were often met with ridiculous comments such as, “shut up and train”, “take a cement pill” (not sure what that even means) etc. Luckily there was one, articulate, lucid _and_ high-graded practitioner on the board that directly answered my questions and by _sheer_ good fortune, he is now my teacher and his classes are enthralling to all who attend. 

Within historical Japanese Zen, there was what could be regarded as, anti-intellectualism…the disdain for study, debate, questioning etc, but this was due to the idea of _experiential_ learning….where the practise was regarded superior to ‘ideological dissection’. I wonder if this attitude has bled over to Budo.

Could the martial arts be the _one_ place where ‘thinkers’ are able to fully encroach upon the domain of the ‘sports jocks’? Effectively take them on at their physical game, by applying theory as well as practise. If greater power will produce greater acceleration and kinetic energy of a fist, foot or block and the source of that power is muscle tissue, then having more muscle tissue will facilitate this, perhaps to a point…but this requires empirical as well as experiential data.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 16, 2022)

Gyakuto said:


> “take a cement pill” (not sure what that even means)



And harden up.


----------



## Gyakuto (Mar 16, 2022)

drop bear said:


> And harden up.


That makes sense, but the context was - 

Me: How might the timing of application of the little finger contribute to the force applied to the tsuka of the sword in kirioshori?
MA ‘Drill Sergeant’: Just take a cement pill
Me: Thank you for your useful contribution…I will consult with my physician.

😂🤣


----------



## drop bear (Mar 16, 2022)

Came across this.


----------



## geezer (Mar 16, 2022)

Unkogami said:


> Speed is the first thing to do. Strength is the last.


Technique first! ....get the movement down, the structures and positioning, the energy, the flow... then add speed and power. If you really have the first part, adding in the last two will be easier.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 16, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Came across this.


Sounds familiar and not far off what many of us have been saying


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 16, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Came across this.





JowGaWolf said:


> The one thing that I enjoy most about technique is that it allows me to maximize my strength.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 16, 2022)

Hyoho said:


> As a professional instructor teaching in Japan I would agree if is for younger people. As we mature the actual practice is most of what we require. But even that should be done to a level that brings us to our knees on a "daily" basis. I used to practice at least ten times a week. Real fighters are good because they have natural ability. We hand pick them as we watch them come up from elementary school and rise through he ranks. One can clearly separate the fighters from those that do things more as a hobby.


Everyone has the natural ability to become a real fighter?

I agree.


----------



## Hyoho (Mar 19, 2022)

Everyone has the opportunity, not the ability. But still essential members of a dojo pushing the best and natural fighters to an even higher level.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 20, 2022)

Hyoho said:


> Everyone has the opportunity, not the ability. But still essential members of a dojo pushing the best and natural fighters to an even higher level.


This is a chicken and egg dilemma.

Were the Williams sisters born tennis masters because of natural abilities, or was it because their father pushed them to excel while nurturing their natural gifts?  You could argue that without their driver, the girls would never have ended up being world champions.

I'm on the fence.  I like to believe everyone can learn kung fu, but most won't because they're not driven enough, which if you know anything about kung fu, is the most important part.

Strength training is a great example of something everyone says they want to do, but few actually do, and even fewer do well.


----------



## Damien (Mar 20, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I'm on the fence.  I like to believe everyone can learn kung fu, but most won't because they're not driven enough


100%

When most people start they realise they can barely control their body and are super uncoordinated. Stick with it long enough and most get through that. I've only ever seen a few people that remain uncoordinated and sloppy after years of training and being shown different ways to correct the same techniques.

When I first started I was terrible, but I trained hard absorbed information like a sponge and in time my body caught up with my brain.


----------



## Gyuki (Mar 20, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I'm on the fence. I like to believe everyone can learn kung fu, but most won't because they're not driven enough, which if you know anything about kung fu, is the most important part.


So in the end not everyone can do it. I understand what is meant by everyone can learn it physically (physical disabilities should not prevent one to learn martial arts as they can and should be adapted for such situations). It seems to be a mental component and the not giving up attitude that is the issue.

On one hand there is the mental state of the individual and how dedicated or invested they are into learning an art and making their body develop accordingly.

On the other hand, there is natural talent and abilities. I could train for the rest of my life to run faster than Usain Bolt but the man is naturally more talented then I am in that department. Yes training can bring people to great heights that they would not attain on their own. However, they can never become more then what/whom they truly are. It will help develop ones potential to it's full ability yes. But the potential bank of everyone is definitely not the same.

Hence why and how we end up with various arts that produce Black Belts that barely can handle themselves in non scripted or non tournament rules combat... They get promoted on the difference in potential they developped since they started. Not an arbitrairy set of skills or standards (physically) that need to be met. Only criterias or standards seems to be on an intellectual level such as knowing names of techniques. How they are executed is judged on form not efficiency of the user making the technique. 

Too many Martial Arts based "re enactment acting" classes in TMA or sticking to tournament rules (closest is Full contact but there are still rules) then actually be Martial Arts...


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 20, 2022)

Gyuki said:


> So in the end not everyone can do it. I understand what is meant by everyone can learn it physically (physical disabilities should not prevent one to learn martial arts as they can and should be adapted for such situations). It seems to be a mental component and the not giving up attitude that is the issue.
> 
> On one hand there is the mental state of the individual and how dedicated or invested they are into learning an art and making their body develop accordingly.
> 
> ...


It's not fair to ever compare yourself with Usain Bolt.  

First of all, his last name is Bolt.


----------



## Gyakuto (Mar 21, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> This is a chicken and egg dilemma.


The egg came first…


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 21, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> This is a chicken and egg dilemma.
> 
> Were the Williams sisters born tennis masters because of natural abilities, or was it because their father pushed them to excel while nurturing their natural gifts?  You could argue that without their driver, the girls would never have ended up being world champions.
> 
> ...


Relevent research in Psychology suggests a significant portion of our personality (not all of it, by any means) is heritable - meaning it is demonstrably influenced by genetics. I don't recall specifics off the top of my head, but I recall there was significant heritability in factors that probably contribute: aggresssion, emotional regulation, tolerance for pain, high motivation, etc.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 21, 2022)

Damien said:


> 100%
> 
> When most people start they realise they can barely control their body and are super uncoordinated. Stick with it long enough and most get through that. I've only ever seen a few people that remain uncoordinated and sloppy after years of training and being shown different ways to correct the same techniques.
> 
> When I first started I was terrible, but I trained hard absorbed information like a sponge and in time my body caught up with my brain.


Just for clarity, what @Hyoho is talking about goes beyond the ability to become technically proficient. I think the vast majority of folks have the ability to do that, if they prioritize it (most have other priorities that take precedence).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 21, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> It's not fair to ever compare yourself with Usain Bolt.
> 
> First of all, his last name is Bolt.
> 
> View attachment 28257


And, oddly, there's an actual correlation of last names to professions. I need to dig up the research I saw on that. Of course, he could also have become an assembly line worker.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 21, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> This is a chicken and egg dilemma.
> 
> Were the Williams sisters born tennis masters because of natural abilities, or was it because their father pushed them to excel while nurturing their natural gifts?  You could argue that without their driver, the girls would never have ended up being world champions.
> 
> ...


Along with what Gerry said about even the personality aspects being heritable, there is definitely a level that dedication can't take you, but talent/genetics can. Even if you take out things like a person below 6ft is much likely to make it in the nba, less obvious stuff exists. 

An example came up at dinner yesterday with my brother actually. We were talking about music, and he was dedicated to piano. Playing hours a day, started young, and we had a really good piano teacher. He even went to a competitive college for it. He met people that were a lot better than him, and probably practiced an equal amount or less as him.

No one in our family has played a musical instrument to our knowledge. A few have tried, found they were bad and stopped, so we don't have a genetic component. He probably reached the limit of what someone without the genes for music can reach, and he is _really good. _Anyone I've met that heard him play will talk about how amazing he was...except those people that went to the college with him, where he met many people better. 

Similarly, there are tennis players who have probably put in the same effort as the Williams sisters, until they realized they would not be world champions. And you (if you're not naturally talented) can reach a certain level in your kung fu (as a martial art, not the literal meaning of the word LOL), with hard work, that's leagues above the average person. But still a league behind those who have both talent and determination.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Mar 21, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> Relevent research in Psychology suggests a significant portion of our personality (not all of it, by any means) is heritable - meaning it is demonstrably influenced by genetics. I don't recall specifics off the top of my head, but I recall there was significant heritability in factors that probably contribute: aggresssion, emotional regulation, tolerance for pain, high motivation, etc.


Sure, you can see that I certain types of working dogs… some are born with the herding ability already downloaded at a level above what a non herding breed could even be trained to. Best thing is, I get to blame my parents for my distemper.


----------



## Steve (Mar 21, 2022)

While some folks may not have the combination of physical and non-physical traits to be an elite performer, most can become competent experts if they have good training and a way to gain experience to apply the skills they’re learning.  

Pretty much anyone can learn to play the piano or to play tennis. Only a few have it in them to be elite.  

And really, isn’t that okay?  I always scratch my head when someone asks a question like, “Can anyone learn king fu?” And we end up talking about the Williams sisters.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 21, 2022)

Steve said:


> While some folks may not have the combination of physical and non-physical traits to be an elite performer, most can become competent experts if they have good training and a way to gain experience to apply the skills they’re learning.
> 
> Pretty much anyone can learn to play the piano or to play tennis. Only a few have it in them to be elite.
> 
> And really, isn’t that okay?  I always scratch my head when someone asks a question like, “Can anyone learn king fu?” And we end up talking about the Williams sisters.


Never gets old.  My favorite pandemic meme of all.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 21, 2022)

Steve said:


> While some folks may not have the combination of physical and non-physical traits to be an elite performer, most can become competent experts if they have good training and a way to gain experience to apply the skills they’re learning.
> 
> Pretty much anyone can learn to play the piano or to play tennis. Only a few have it in them to be elite.
> 
> And really, isn’t that okay?  I always scratch my head when someone asks a question like, “Can anyone learn king fu?” And we end up talking about the Williams sisters.


Yup. To use my brother again, it's perfectly fine that he's not elite or going to be in a renowned orchestra. He could even become a professional piano player with just the hard work, either through something like a dueling pianos, or as a piano teacher.

And if anyone asked me if they could learn piano, my answer would be yes. Regardless of talent, regardless of age. I was just replying to the point that got brought up with the william's sisters and "masters".


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 21, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Along with what Gerry said about even the personality aspects being heritable, there is definitely a level that dedication can't take you, but talent/genetics can. Even if you take out things like a person below 6ft is much likely to make it in the nba, less obvious stuff exists.


Dedication, personality, talent, genetics, sure.

What about what I said about "driver".  That's an external human being, dude.  Family, teacher, muse, inspiration, whatever.

You left out environment!  Just think about all that raw talent out there lost forever in the wasteland.  Not every natural born talent gets a break or a helping hand.  It really does require a meeting of minds.  Even virtuosos have their muses.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 21, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Dedication, personality, talent, genetics, sure.
> 
> What about what I said about "driver".  That's an external human being, dude.  Family, teacher, muse, inspiration, whatever.
> 
> You left out environment!


I think I mentioned in the example I provided that we had a really good teacher. That's your driver I guess. Yes, you need someone who knows what you're trying to do to teach it, but motivation doesn't have to come from an external locus of control.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 21, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I think I mentioned in the example I provided that we had a really good teacher. That's your driver I guess. Yes, you need someone who knows what you're trying to do to teach it, but motivation doesn't have to come from an external locus of control.


Are we sure it doesn't?  I added some meat to my last post but this is a great topic.  Strength training, is it best done on your own or with a coach?  Do people who go en solo excel best?  I doubt it.

It's a basic question anybody can ask themselves "what's driving you today".  For me it's always family, I train a million things every day so that I stick around the longest (because nobody I know has the patience I do).

Going back to the Williams sisters, I think it's safe to say that if their dad had been a deadbeat, we'd never hear of either of them, and no amount of natural skill OR dedication would have changed that.

Can we name a single person who became an elite strength trainer/trainee and/or fighter who didn't sit on the shoulders of giants?  I can't.


----------



## Steve (Mar 21, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Yup. To use my brother again, it's perfectly fine that he's not elite or going to be in a renowned orchestra. He could even become a professional piano player with just the hard work, either through something like a dueling pianos, or as a piano teacher.
> 
> And if anyone asked me if they could learn piano, my answer would be yes. Regardless of talent, regardless of age. I was just replying to the point that got brought up with the william's sisters and "masters".


Yes.  Exactly.  And there is a lot of value in the activity.  I’m very curious and game to try just about anything.  As a result, I’m “pretty good” at a lot of stuff.  Not elite level at anything, but I still derive a lot of pleasure and satisfaction from the effort.


----------



## Steve (Mar 21, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Are we sure it doesn't?  I added some meat to my last post but this is a great topic.  Strength training, is it best done on your own or with a coach?  Do people who go en solo excel best?  I doubt it.
> 
> It's a basic question anybody can ask themselves "what's driving you today".  For me it's always family, I train a million things every day so that I stick around the longest (because nobody I know has the patience I do).
> 
> ...


Good training and/or mentorship are like a force multiplier.  You can learn to do things on your own, and if you have exceptional aptitude, you might even become pretty darned good at it.  But good training and mentorship can raise your ceiling. 

What you can’t get by without is experience.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 21, 2022)

Steve said:


> Good training and/or mentorship are like a force multiplier.  You can learn to do things on your own, and if you have exceptional aptitude, you might even become pretty darned good at it.  But good training and mentorship can raise your ceiling.
> 
> What you can’t get by without is experience.


Then if exceptional aptitude is rare, most people can't rely on that.  I know I can't.

Even if they _think _they can, Gerry just pointed out, dedication isn't enough.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 21, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Can we name a single person who became an elite strength trainer/trainee and/or fighter who didn't sit on the shoulders of giants?  I can't.


The original post you made was about whether or not someone needed a "driver" to become a "real fighter". People need a coach yes, but they don't have to be any sort of inspirational person or mentor beyond teaching them the mechanics. At least if their goal is to learn how to fight. 

Or did you change the question from "real fighter" to "elite fighter" (or do those mean the same to you)? If you want to be the best of the best, I'd argue that you need all the things mentioned and can't be lacking in any.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 21, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> The original post you made was about whether or not someone needed a "driver" to become a "real fighter". People need a coach yes, but they don't have to be any sort of inspirational person or mentor beyond teaching them the mechanics. At least if their goal is to learn how to fight.
> 
> Or did you change the question from "real fighter" to "elite fighter" (or do those mean the same to you)? If you want to be the best of the best, I'd argue that you need all the things mentioned and can't be lacking in any.


Well going back even further we started discussing nature vs. nurture, some comments about genetics being a dominant factor vs. things like dedication, motivation, parenting, etc.  Personality, that's a can of worms all to itself. 

I think the "real" vs "elite" equivocation is importance, because to untrained people, is there a difference?  Anybody reasonably skilled in strength or combat training is going to appear elite to the laypeople, and that's like 99% or something else close to made up but really big.

With respect to strength training in particular, we seem to agree that coaching is necessary on some level.  The inspiration part can come from anywhere too.  I find great inspiration in a cartoon character, in fact, it helps me pick instructors...


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 21, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Well going back even further we started discussing nature vs. nurture, some comments about genetics being a dominant factor vs. things like dedication, motivation, parenting, etc.  Personality, that's a can of worms all to itself.
> 
> I think the "real" vs "elite" equivocation is importance, because to untrained people, is there a difference?  Anybody reasonably skilled in strength or combat training is going to appear elite to the laypeople, and that's like 99% or something else close to made up but really big.
> 
> With respect to strength training in particular, we seem to agree that coaching is necessary on some level.  The inspiration part can come from anywhere too.  I find great inspiration in a cartoon character, in fact, it helps me pick instructors...


I'm not sure we actually are disagreeing on anything here. My whole point with the example with my brother was that to pretty much everyone, he seems elite in piano playing. It's only when you reach that 99.x% that you can see he's not. And where you need to have all the ducks fully. Up until that point, and what most people will be impressed by, you can be missing/lacking in some of those factors and still be good.


----------



## Hyoho (Mar 21, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Dedication, personality, talent, genetics, sure.
> 
> What about what I said about "driver".  That's an external human being, dude.  Family, teacher, muse, inspiration, whatever.
> 
> You left out environment!  Just think about all that raw talent out there lost forever in the wasteland.  Not every natural born talent gets a break or a helping hand.  It really does require a meeting of minds.  Even virtuosos have their muses.


Yes. We need someone to push us to level we did not know we could actually reach ourselves. I used to get that once a day. Go to the top end of the dojo and get my "medicine". in Japan we call this Uchidachi.  To initiate the action and govern the tempo keeping oneself just above the level of the student.


----------



## Hyoho (Mar 21, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> This is a chicken and egg dilemma.
> 
> Were the Williams sisters born tennis masters because of natural abilities, or was it because their father pushed them to excel while nurturing their natural gifts?  You could argue that without their driver, the girls would never have ended up being world champions.
> 
> ...


I have done this professionally for years in Japan. We do our best work when we are dog tired. To educate the body that speed/success does not come from strength. To squash that subliminal message that associates aggression with strength and tension. Done on a daily basis. If I remember it took me around eight months practicing ten times a week before things started to drop into place.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 21, 2022)

Hyoho said:


> I have done this professionally for years in Japan. We do our best work when we are dog tired. *To educate the body that speed/success does not come from strength*. To squash that subliminal message that associates aggression with strength and tension. Done on a daily basis. If I remember it took me around eight months practicing ten times a week before things started to drop into place.


Huh.

How about "from genetics"?  That's something else that was posited.


----------



## Gyuki (Mar 21, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> Relevent research in Psychology suggests a significant portion of our personality (not all of it, by any means) is heritable - meaning it is demonstrably influenced by genetics. I don't recall specifics off the top of my head, but I recall there was significant heritability in factors that probably contribute: aggresssion, emotional regulation, tolerance for pain, high motivation, etc.


Off Topic for most, 

I would like to thin that this is not necessairly true. I think most of these traits are picked up by memetics and not genetics. Up to a point yes there is a lot we inherit (part unknown) but more we pick from mimetics.

Having never known any of my biological parents, I can guarantee you that I still talk, walk and act like my adoptive parents (based on memetics) then people I have never met. 

On the other hand, there is clear distinction in way of being between me and anyone else in my family (twin sisters from adoptive parents and a brother and sister also adpoted but genetically tied, I am tied to no one) and the rest of them do have certain things in common (outside of the memetics and way we were raised) that I do not. I can assume that this is the inherited part but it is quite minimal in the overall makeup.

Basically, I am saying that the psychological study itself may be flawed if they only tested people with biological links to each other vs people living together or raised by someone else not biologically related and what is the effect or what is inherited vs what is memetics. And from there have a proper and true assessment....


----------



## Steve (Mar 21, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Then if exceptional aptitude is rare, most people can't rely on that.  I know I can't.
> 
> Even if they _think _they can, Gerry just pointed out, dedication isn't enough.


Not enough to become elite.  But probably enough to become competent or better.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 22, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> This is a chicken and egg dilemma.


Actually, there is not. The egg was first. An egg laid by a near-chicken can hatch a chicken. But the chicken cannot exist prior to that egg being laid.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 22, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Actually, there is not. The egg was first. An egg laid by a near-chicken can hatch a chicken. But the chicken cannot exist prior to that egg being laid.


That's why they call it evolution.  It existed a lot earlier than logic.  Do genetics rule the future, with regard to strength training?  Or is it something else.  Genes are sauce for the goose.

Early on I was trying to make a point or two about speed.  I can't outrun Usain Bolt, and definitely not the dog, but most people?  You bet.

Nasal breathing, dude.  Under pressure.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 22, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> That's why they call it evolution.  It existed a lot earlier than logic.  Do genetics rule the future, with regard to strength training?  Or is it something else.  Genes are sauce for the goose.


As with most things, the answer is yes. Because both matter.


Oily Dragon said:


> Early on I was trying to make a point or two about speed.  I can't outrun Usain Bolt,


I can. I just need to kick him once first...


Oily Dragon said:


> and definitely not the dog,


Again, it depends. I am not going to outrun a Greyhound, but a Corgi? I think I have a pretty good shot. And I'm totally confident I can outrun a Chihuahua.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 22, 2022)

How about a ...had me at "oh great, the Winter Soldier".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 23, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Along with what Gerry said about even the personality aspects being heritable, there is definitely a level that dedication can't take you, but talent/genetics can. Even if you take out things like a person below 6ft is much likely to make it in the nba, less obvious stuff exists.
> 
> An example came up at dinner yesterday with my brother actually. We were talking about music, and he was dedicated to piano. Playing hours a day, started young, and we had a really good piano teacher. He even went to a competitive college for it. He met people that were a lot better than him, and probably practiced an equal amount or less as him.
> 
> ...


There definitely is some strong evidence for the heritability of some kinds of genius. It's complex (I can't dredge up the right terms in my brain at the moment) - almost certainly multiple chromosomes/alleles involved. I can't see any reason to suspect that's not true of sports, as much as it is for music.

And there are other obvious advantages that can exist. Until I was in my late 20's, I couldn't really put on muscle mass. I was always a skinny guy, even when I was going to the gym for a bit more than an hour every morning, training body building style (some friends who had a lot of success with it were helping me out). But then again, I also never had to worry about fat. I could eat as much of whatever I wanted, and it just didn't matter. Genetic factors like those have to figure in there somewhere, too.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 23, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Well going back even further we started discussing nature vs. nurture, some comments about genetics being a dominant factor vs. things like dedication, motivation, parenting, etc. Personality, that's a can of worms all to itself.


Let me clarify, as you (and probably others) may have misunderstood what I meant. Heritability doesn't mean genetics is the dominant factor, much less the only factor. It just means it is _a_ factor. Heritability is measured on a scale of 0-1, where 0 means there no genetic involvement in the trait, and 1 means the trait is entirely determined by genetics. Many personality traits have heritability between .3 and .6, so some are mostly developed (with significant genetic influence) while others are mostly genetic (with significant environmental influence).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 23, 2022)

Gyuki said:


> Off Topic for most,
> 
> I would like to thin that this is not necessairly true. I think most of these traits are picked up by memetics and not genetics. Up to a point yes there is a lot we inherit (part unknown) but more we pick from mimetics.
> 
> ...


The research shows there are some traits that are mostly determined by genetics. Oddly, where environment matters, it's mostly about what you and your siblings (for instance) experienced differently, rather than about what you experienced similarly. I have trouble wrapping my head around that.

Studies typically look at things like siblings, step-siblings (no genetic relation), and twins (both identical and fraternal). So they examine both sides of the question. It's worth knowing that a few decades ago, the dominant position in psychology was that behavior was almost entirely learned. Research over the last 30 years has largely debunked those theories.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Mar 23, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> But then again, I also never had to worry about fat. I could eat as much of whatever I wanted, and it just didn't matter.


Give it time, Gerry.  This _will_ change!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 23, 2022)

isshinryuronin said:


> Give it time, Gerry.  This _will_ change!


Oh, it did. Sometime after I broke my leg at 41. That downtime, and less time spent in the dojo, got it started. I'm still pretty lucky, compared to what other folks have to deal with, though.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Mar 24, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> It's worth knowing that a few decades ago, the dominant position in psychology was that behavior was almost entirely learned. Research over the last 30 years has largely debunked those theories.


I believe there is another influencer in behavior/personality development - Individual free will.  One can retrain oneself as to how we perceive and react to various stimuli and situations.  This might even be a major factor in one's martial art development through dedicated practice, self-perception and the will to become something different.  In part, this is one of the goals of MA, is it not?

Regardless of one's hereditary and instinctual inclinations or past learned behavior, we have the ability to mould ourselves into something different.  So even twins raised in the same environment, sharing many experiences, can become different from each other.  We have some ability to change our behavior patterns because we set our minds to it.  We can, to some extent, transform ourselves and become the person we want to be.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 24, 2022)

isshinryuronin said:


> I believe there is a third influencer in behavior/personality development - Individual free will.  One can retrain oneself as to how we perceive and react to various stimuli and situations.  This might even be a major factor in one's martial art development through dedicated practice, self perception and the will to become something different.  In part, this is one of the goals of MA, is it not?
> 
> Regardless of one's hereditary and instinctual inclinations or past learned behavior, we have the ability to mould ourselves into something different.  So even twins raised in the same environment can become different from each other.  We have some ability to change our behavior patterns because we set our minds to it.  We can, to some extent, transform ourselves and become the person we want to be.


If you're rejecting B.F. Skinner, I agree.

Forget _programming_, humans aren't programmed.  Humans are _alive_!  Self aware and hungry, like the wolf.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Mar 24, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> If you're rejecting B.F. Skinner, I agree.
> 
> Forget _programming_, humans aren't programmed.  Humans are _alive_!  Self aware and hungry, like the wolf.


Only partially rejecting him.  Our desire for reward and aversion to punishment has a lot in common to Skinner's animals in a box.  It helps us survive.  Conditioning/programming is good most of the time.  It allows us to execute responses that usually benefit us without having to analyze and go thru a decision process.

But, we are not just lab rats.  We ARE self aware as you said and can override much of our conditioning/programming.  We do often accept pain to accomplish our mission.  And we can (with varying degrees of success) turn down pleasures for the same mission.  Though one can argue that accomplishing our mission is Skinner's positive reinforcement.  But often it is a thankless job and any positive reinforcement we enjoy from it is of OUR making.  We can _self_ program when and where we decide, _IF_ we have the inspiration and will to do so.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Mar 24, 2022)

isshinryuronin said:


> Only partially rejecting him.  Our desire for reward and aversion to punishment has a lot in common to Skinner's animals in a box.  It helps us survive.  Conditioning/programming is good most of the time.  It allows us to execute responses that usually benefit us without having to analyze and go thru a decision process.
> 
> But, we are not just lab rats.  We ARE self aware as you said and can override much of our conditioning/programming.  We do often accept pain to accomplish our mission.  And we can (with varying degrees of success) turn down pleasures for the same mission.  Though one can argue that accomplishing our mission is Skinner's positive reinforcement.  But often it is a thankless job and any positive reinforcement we enjoy from it is of OUR making.  We can _self_ program when and where we decide, _IF_ we have the inspiration and will to do so.


That's the funny thing about strength.  The daily grind.  Rats will never conquer the earth. They don't have the stomach for it.

This will, though.  This you can trust.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Mar 25, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> That's the funny thing about strength.  The daily grind.  Rats will never conquer the earth. They don't have the stomach for it.
> 
> This will, though.  This you can trust.


Ah the riddle of steel! Steel is strong, but flesh is stronger. What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 25, 2022)

isshinryuronin said:


> I believe there is another influencer in behavior/personality development - Individual free will.  One can retrain oneself as to how we perceive and react to various stimuli and situations.  This might even be a major factor in one's martial art development through dedicated practice, self-perception and the will to become something different.  In part, this is one of the goals of MA, is it not?
> 
> Regardless of one's hereditary and instinctual inclinations or past learned behavior, we have the ability to mould ourselves into something different.  So even twins raised in the same environment, sharing many experiences, can become different from each other.  We have some ability to change our behavior patterns because we set our minds to it.  We can, to some extent, transform ourselves and become the person we want to be.


You're talking about reactions, which can be changed to some extent. And the work done there would fall under environmental factors. There's signficant evidence that we can only change so far from our personal baseline, and that may include early development influences (which may be encoded in brain development, if they precede the "pruning" events in brain development). And learned behavior can be changed.

It's also worth noting that how we experience an event is subjective, so two people can be in the same event and experience it differently. This makes a single event have different influences on those two people.

EDIT: To be clear, there is no evidence that we can, for instance, change from being fairly introverted to fairly extroverted. We can learn to mimic the behavior of an extrovert, but it won't change the personality trait.


----------



## OLD DOG NEW TRICKS (Apr 5, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Are you the strongest person on earth?


Only if I'm the last person on earth. Lol


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 6, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Are you the strongest person on earth?


As far as you know...


----------

