The problem with "traditional" martial arts.

Yes your missing something, possibly from my description, isometric increase strength for about 15 degrees each side of the point of hold,but increase muscle size over the whole muscle, so you Then have the potential to be stronger at all angles, but that's not fundamentally what I'm trying to describe, I start with my arms tucked up close
Tp to my body and my leg tucked up toWards my chest, and then force the leg outwards whilst resisting with my arms, which are dragged forwards as my leg straightens, so not quite the full range of motion but not far off, and very much in the useful , drag someone over zone, I do this very slowly so there is a Significant contraction right through the range in moving, mean while my core is in a isometric contraction Durring the whole exercise, so you get an additional benefit from that,

It's really my lazy day to hOt to do much exercise, excersise, I'm also Fond of throwing the rope over a branch, turning my body so it's swinging horizontal to the ground, and then doing pull ups, which also hits the Core very hard, but doesn't have a leg components.
Ah! Yeah, I missed that in the original description. Your "15 degrees" fits my understanding. As I was typing that, I was actually thinking it would be more useful if you only used what was necessary to barely be able to move through the range of motion - which is what you're actually doing. Thanks for clarifying.
 
You're one of the ones I'd look to for an informed answer on this. I seem to remember reading about results of partial-motion exercises (doing only part of a bench press, for instance - the part that's easiest to do), and that it didn't produce strength across the full range of the exercise, as doing the full-range exercise would do. The article I remember was something preliminary - is there more complete information on that now?
I havenā€™t looked for nor seen anything about that. I remember seeing some stuff in the past about starting your lift at maximum tension yielding better results though, so that may or may not feed into what youā€™re asking.

Maximum tension in this instance (and I might be using the wrong terms here) meaning like bench press - people tend to bounce the weight off their chest a bit to get some momentum, or cut the downward phase short a bit. The most effective way is to lower it completely, pause, then press. Basically like starting from a dead stop on your chest every rep.

Same for every exercise - pull-up, dip, squat, curls, etc. Rather than getting into a rhythm where motion never stops, treat every rep like itā€™s the first rep from a standstill.

Kettlebell swings and the like are probably exceptions to this, as their focus is on constant motion.

Iā€™ve also seen many studies saying after a certain point in the lift, the resistance decreases significantly due to momentum. So the first 2/3 of a bench press motion is where 90% of the work is done, and the last 1/3 doesnā€™t do much for you. Donā€™t hold me to specific numbers by any means. The entire range of motion is very important, but the final however much doesnā€™t get much resistance. Thatā€™s where those isometric machines PTs used to love work their magic - they had a constant resistance throughout the entire ROM. They were wildly popular and desired in the 80s-mid 90s, but the machines were huge, only did one motion, and were absurdly expensive, so most PT clinics only had one or two different machines at most.

Hope this somewhat answers your question. Wait, what was your question exactly? :)
 
I havenā€™t looked for nor seen anything about that. I remember seeing some stuff in the past about starting your lift at maximum tension yielding better results though, so that may or may not feed into what youā€™re asking.

Maximum tension in this instance (and I might be using the wrong terms here) meaning like bench press - people tend to bounce the weight off their chest a bit to get some momentum, or cut the downward phase short a bit. The most effective way is to lower it completely, pause, then press. Basically like starting from a dead stop on your chest every rep.

Same for every exercise - pull-up, dip, squat, curls, etc. Rather than getting into a rhythm where motion never stops, treat every rep like itā€™s the first rep from a standstill.

Kettlebell swings and the like are probably exceptions to this, as their focus is on constant motion.

Iā€™ve also seen many studies saying after a certain point in the lift, the resistance decreases significantly due to momentum. So the first 2/3 of a bench press motion is where 90% of the work is done, and the last 1/3 doesnā€™t do much for you. Donā€™t hold me to specific numbers by any means. The entire range of motion is very important, but the final however much doesnā€™t get much resistance. Thatā€™s where those isometric machines PTs used to love work their magic - they had a constant resistance throughout the entire ROM. They were wildly popular and desired in the 80s-mid 90s, but the machines were huge, only did one motion, and were absurdly expensive, so most PT clinics only had one or two different machines at most.

Hope this somewhat answers your question. Wait, what was your question exactly? :)
It does, sort of. I'll see if I can remember where I saw that article about partial motion (interestingly, it was about doing something like the first 1/3 of bench press) not developing strength for the full range.
 
It does, sort of. I'll see if I can remember where I saw that article about partial motion (interestingly, it was about doing something like the first 1/3 of bench press) not developing strength for the full range.
They needed a scientific study to determine that? :)

Seriously though, if you can find it, Iā€™d like to read it. Iā€™m sure there was something genuinely useful in it. I guess itā€™s the nerd in me hidden behind this ultra-cool exterior ;)
 
They needed a scientific study to determine that? :)

Seriously though, if you can find it, Iā€™d like to read it. Iā€™m sure there was something genuinely useful in it. I guess itā€™s the nerd in me hidden behind this ultra-cool exterior ;)
It was in response to a fad in bodybuilding at the time - doing the easiest part of the exercise at max x-rep weight, rather than the lower weight you could do the full range. They found that doing max weight for the reduced range didn't have as much impact on full-range development as doing the full range on lower weight. Seems logical, but had to be established since someone was pushing the short-range exercise as a better alternative.
 
Specifically, what makes MMA less than ideal outside of a ring when compared to classical Wing Chun? This is of particular interest to me as a long time WC guy that trains in MMA now.
I don't want to compare it to WC specifically. I just feel that MMA is taught/pushed toward competition, one on one. While aspect of mixing your martial training to cover a wide variety of areas is a good thing: different ranges; standing; ground. Focussing on just one opponent could be a problem. This could be even more of an issue if your training emphasized ground fighting. A second opponent in that situation might be disastrous.
 
I don't want to compare it to WC specifically. I just feel that MMA is taught/pushed toward competition, one on one. While aspect of mixing your martial training to cover a wide variety of areas is a good thing: different ranges; standing; ground. Focussing on just one opponent could be a problem. This could be even more of an issue if your training emphasized ground fighting. A second opponent in that situation might be disastrous.
A second Opponent in most cases is disastrous, unless you can knock people over very quickly, which is not a noted part of wc,
 
Last edited:
I don't want to compare it to WC specifically. I just feel that MMA is taught/pushed toward competition, one on one. While aspect of mixing your martial training to cover a wide variety of areas is a good thing: different ranges; standing; ground. Focussing on just one opponent could be a problem. This could be even more of an issue if your training emphasized ground fighting. A second opponent in that situation might be disastrous.
This is a bit of logic that eludes me, yet a point I have seen come up many many times.

Apparently the world is full of martial artists that cant beat a single opponent yet when there are two or more can win with some regularity.
 
This is a bit of logic that eludes me, yet a point I have seen come up many many times.

Apparently the world is full of martial artists that cant beat a single opponent yet when there are two or more can win with some regularity.

well the logic is sound if you look at it in the way im sure he intended.
if you are in someones guard or are mounted it is quite easy for someone you didnt see before, to walk up and hit you over the head with a chair or knife you. so i think his point was that pure focus on the ground work has its drawbacks.
 
A second Opponent in most cases is disastrous, unless you can knock people over very quickly, which is not a noted part of wc,

Other people can get really brave once they see the person on the floor, then jump in the fight themselves. Typically though this argument shouldn't prevent anyone from doing the ground styles they enjoy.
 
This is a bit of logic that eludes me, yet a point I have seen come up many many times.

Apparently the world is full of martial artists that cant beat a single opponent yet when there are two or more can win with some regularity.

Where are these martial artists at? I've never seen anyone say they can beat more than one but never just one.
 
well the logic is sound if you look at it in the way im sure he intended.
if you are in someones guard or are mounted it is quite easy for someone you didnt see before, to walk up and hit you over the head with a chair or knife you. so i think his point was that pure focus on the ground work has its drawbacks.
Sure, I mean if you are shooting doubles against a guy that has buddies around you could be in for a soccer kick or two.

But on the other hand, is a trained grappler more or less likely to get taken down against his will?

And if you are on the ground against your will, would you rather know how to escape from there or no?

I still don't see the disadvantage.
 
Where are these martial artists at? I've never seen anyone say they can beat more than one but never just one.
Never? This is a decades old criticism of bjj and MMA, I'm surprised it's new for you.

You know...ya but multiple opponents. It's usually accompanied by ya but eye gouges and groin kicks.
 
Where are these martial artists at? I've never seen anyone say they can beat more than one but never just one.
Ive heard it. The argument generally goes "mma is good for one on one, but not for a group in the street. That's why (x style) is better, it trains you for the street against multiple attackers." Followed by some sort of reasoning about why you don't see it in the ring.
 
well the logic is sound if you look at it in the way im sure he intended.
if you are in someones guard or are mounted it is quite easy for someone you didnt see before, to walk up and hit you over the head with a chair or knife you. so i think his point was that pure focus on the ground work has its drawbacks.

Yup...this happened to a buddy of mine who was keen on the grappling stuff. He saw a guy in a fight, figured he'd go lend a hand...but while he was on the ground doing his grappling stuff, a second and third bad guy showed up and showed him the error of his BJJ game.
After this, he had a different opinion of ground stuff.
 
Yup...this happened to a buddy of mine who was keen on the grappling stuff. He saw a guy in a fight, figured he'd go lend a hand...but while he was on the ground doing his grappling stuff, a second and third bad guy showed up and showed him the error of his BJJ game.
After this, he had a different opinion of ground stuff.
To be able to beat two guys, it's a pre requirement that you can beat just one of them, if you can't it's pointless discussing which art you are going to use for the best results with two bad guys, totally pointless, if there are THREE bad guys you have lost anyway round, so it's even more pointless discussing which art is best,
 
Yup...this happened to a buddy of mine who was keen on the grappling stuff. He saw a guy in a fight, figured he'd go lend a hand...but while he was on the ground doing his grappling stuff, a second and third bad guy showed up and showed him the error of his BJJ game.
After this, he had a different opinion of ground stuff.
Would he have been able to handle both or all 3 on his feet? If not, would he have criticized his standup skills/style and say he shouldā€™ve taken them to the ground?

Just trying to keep it balanced here. This isnā€™t a grappling fanboy post. I wrestled and coached wrestling for quite some time. Iā€™ve been in karate for quite some time as well. Knowing what I know, Iā€™d do everything to stay on my feet. Once Iā€™m on the ground, Iā€™m locked into that position without much hope of a quick escape regardless of how in control I am of the situation. On my feet, I can at least try to scramble a bit if Iā€™m lucky.

But letā€™s be serious... either way, on the ground or on my feet, 3 guys will eventually have their way with me. Itā€™s just a matter of time. Unless of course theyā€™re 10 year olds, then I like my chances a bit better :)
 
Back
Top