Strength vs Technique
Posted by: BigRod
Strength vs Technique - 11/06/05 05:39 PM
In traditional MA's we're typically taught to avoid the use of raw strength and instead focus more on technique. I think that's sound advice.
HOWEVER...
I think ignoring strength is a mistake. Strength is as much of a tool as any technique you learn. Any edge you can get over your opponent you should take. And IMO, this is true not only in sport competetion, but in SD. Even more important in SD, because your life or someone else's may be at stake.
In all honesty, it's just been in the last 2-3 years that I realized how important strength is. I used to spar with a guy who would occassionally muscle me into bad positions/submissions. Now, of course an improvement in my technique would have eliminated my problems, but the bottom-line is he used muscle to gain an advantage. And I have occassionally done the same in recent years. Guess what? Not only does it work, it's a nice option to have. Being able to power through your opponents techniques and/or defenses is great. And if you've trained long enough with enough people, you've had someone use their power (successfully) against you.
Let's hear your thoughts on the subject
Posted by: BrianS
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/06/05 05:54 PM
I agree Bigrod. Strength definately matters. Why not try to be as strong and in as good physical shape as you possibly can?
If someone is stronger than you your technique better be that much better or more,but there will always be people stronger than you out there.
Posted by: Cord
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/06/05 06:05 PM
In the animal world, the alpha male is the biggest and strongest in his group. We are animals and obey the same instincts. That is why size acts as a naturaly intimidating stimulus to many.
Where we differ, is in that our brains allow us to recognise and distill things such as 'technique' so that those without natural physical gifts can upset the natural order (or at least not become victim to it).
I have a t-shirt that proudly states 'I may not be clever, but I can lift heavy things' This self depracating humour can easily highlight the struggle in outlook in the MA.
MA appeals to many initialy looking to escape bullying and gain self confidence, for these students the 'Bruce would kill Bolo' principle is music to their ears, this is good for buisness as well as bolstering the students self confidence.
Coming from the standpoint of a big strong guy, with poor MA skills, I am more likely to be a flag waver for strength, power and aggression in a SD situation. That is because they are my attributes, and my reality.
I am honest enough to acknowledge that improving my fighting skill and technique will help bolster my natural attributes. Its common sense to want to elimanate weaknesses in any form.
This is why smaller MAists flat refusing to acknowledge that getting stronger will help supplement their techniques seems so daft to me, and somewhat arrogant.
The idea of deftly redirecting the clumsy punch of a big slow goon is fantastic, till you find youself on the recieving end of a real world beating from a fast powerful guy who comes on like Tyson in a bad mood.
Skill up, and power up. Its my advice, and its common sense.
Posted by: eyrie
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/06/05 06:07 PM
In a contest of strength against strength, obviously the stronger person is going to have the advantage. Having better technique can level the playing field.
And then there's strength and there's strength. I think you need to define what you mean by "strength".
Posted by: Raul Perez
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/06/05 06:10 PM
BigRod,
I think perhaps that the phrase "use technique not strength" was taken out of context by westerners. Perhaps it was a language barrier misinterpretation.
I say this because many traditional Okinawan styles and Japanese styles have weight training as part of their training regime. I know for a fact that Goju Ryu practitioners perform a majority of their training in Hojo Undo for body hardening and to obtain power. Shotokan as well as many other styles focus on Makiwara training which developes power and focus (not to mention that the old school Shotokan pracitioners were completely ripped). Don Draeger who studied judo and kendo in Japan (as well as many other styles) weight trained a tremendous amount to supplement his martial training.
I believe that you need to weight train as part of your conditioning. If your physically fit you recover from injuries faster and absorb more punishment. Not to mention you inflict more damage on your opponent.
In training you have many tools. The most essential are speed, timing, accuracy, strength, and technique. Of those, strength is the easiest to develop. However as you get older and into your fifties and above most of those attributes deteriote except for technique, timing, and accuracy. In fact those (if worked on) actually get better.
Kind regards,
Raul
Posted by: bo-ken
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/06/05 06:14 PM
I think technique is very important. With that being said that doesn't mean you can't have good strength. I believe that your strength is only as good as your technique. So you should work on your skills but not forget strength. I weight lift 3 times a week and getting stronger has helped me in Karate. I don't know how good of a martial artist I would be if I didn't weight train.
Posted by: Trarup
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/06/05 06:31 PM
Two people get into a fight. Both are the same height, same length of limbs, same weight, have the same reflexes, and are at the same skill level. One happens to be stronger than the other. My money would go on the stronger of the pair.
Technique is there to supplement strength, and strength to supplement technique. either on thier own can be devastating. Why not condition the body and mind to have both?
Posted by: Mark Hill
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/06/05 06:49 PM
Quote:
Two people get into a fight. Both are the same height, same length of limbs, same weight, have the same reflexes, and are at the same skill level. One happens to be stronger than the other. My money would go on the stronger of the pair.
Technique is there to supplement strength, and strength to supplement technique. either on thier own can be devastating. Why not condition the body and mind to have both?
Indeed. Strength is like the motor and running gear, technique is like a race driver's skills.
Posted by: h2whoa
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/06/05 07:23 PM
Strength is important, I think the more important of the two in any confrontation. With all the technique in the world a punch from a 300 pound gorrila, is still going to hurt a 150 pound man/woman with solid technique, and good luck trying to get a lock on them.
Strength with no skill is not all that it is cracked up to be, as strong as you are, you will still crumble if hit in the right places (groin kicks....the great equilizers)!
The thing to do is to realise that without either you are only half complete as a MAist.
Strength is paramount, strength will keep you alive, technique is simply learning how to direct that force to its most devestating effect. Its like the body only functioning with smooth muscles, you have no control, you need both types of muscles to run the body efficiently.
I think I need to throw into this fray a third element MAists are a bit reluctant to talk about (only because they train so hard to be lethal), that is of course luck!!
I train for strength, I train for airtight technique....I also like a little luck, hey it cant hurt.
*bows respectfully*
Posted by: JohnL
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/06/05 08:02 PM
I certainly beleive that strength is important, but not more so as h2whoa would believe.
In the first place strength has to be specific to what the person is trying to acheive.
Secondly, if this were the case, the strongest person would always win Which they clearly do not.
I think h2whoa needs to reassess his judgement.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/06/05 08:22 PM
Quote by Raul Perez -
Quote:
I believe that you need to weight train as part of your conditioning. If your physically fit you recover from injuries faster and absorb more punishment. Not to mention you inflict more damage on your opponent.
Beautifully put, Raul. Technique + strength. I have been lifting weights for 22 years. While I work my technique so I don't have to use my strength, be certain that I will use muscle if I have to.
Posted by: BrianS
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/06/05 08:26 PM
Quote:
Quote by Raul Perez -
Quote:
I believe that you need to weight train as part of your conditioning. If your physically fit you recover from injuries faster and absorb more punishment. Not to mention you inflict more damage on your opponent.
Beautifully put, Raul. Technique + strength. I have been lifting weights for 22 years. While I work my technique so I don't have to use my strength, be certain that I will use muscle if I have to.
Good observations! I was in good shape when I found out about the cancer. The doctors commented that that would make it much easier on me than someone who was out of shape and that recovery would be faster.
Matt! Put those weights down! 22yrs is a long time,you must be tired!!! 
Posted by: Bushi_no_ki
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/06/05 08:55 PM
Are we talking strength as opposed to power? Muscle strength is indeed a good source to derive power from, and therefore should not be ignored. It is strength in combination with good technique that makes good MA. Muscle strength or body weight aren't the only sources of power generation. Just a point to remember.
Posted by: h2whoa
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/06/05 10:29 PM
Quote:
In the first place strength has to be specific to what the person is trying to acheive.
It doesnt have to be that specific to hit a man in the head and break his jaw, or to snap limbs, if you went out into the street everyone knows the rudimentries of doing this, or of fighting in general.
Quote:
Secondly, if this were the case, the strongest person would always win Which they clearly do not.
But they do alot more often. Perhaps you could show us where a 150 pound man lays the smack down on a 300 pound gorrila. You see I am the 300 pound gorrila, many times the light wieghts try to kick my legs out from under me (pretty standard technique), I think it is a pretty sound theory, however it is flawed, when the adrenaline is pumping hitting the appropriate target is quite difficult, I also am not satnding still, I absorb the blow, come in and use brute strength to floor them (they use me as a training tool all the time in the dojo).
There are exceptional people like bruce lee, who could defeat big guys, but how mant bruce lees do you know. While small beating big is not impossible, it is just more improbable than probable.
Strength is a major deciding factor in any form of combat, if this wasnt the case, why are there weight classes in sport combat. To make it fair, because the heavier, stronger combatant has the advantage.
Fights between stronger and weaker, almost always go towards strength. A technique with out power is useless, but power without training is still deadly. I think the technique will defeat strength train of thought, was made to make the weak feel better, more secure. If you want to save your life, get into a gym and hit the iron, do the situps, run for your endurance, build your core. Its not hard, well not any harder than a MA and uses alot less brain power. But wouldnt you feel better if you had a "Packed Punch" behind all your movements. I know I would!
Quote:
I think h2whoa needs to reassess his judgement.
I hope I have adequately explained why I cannot rethink my position on this!
A wise man once said "the strong persistent will overcome the many weak"
*bows respectfully*
Posted by: BrianS
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/06/05 10:38 PM
Quote:
Perhaps you could show us where a 150 pound man lays the smack down on a 300 pound gorrila.
Emmanuel Yarborough (6'8" 680 lbs) vs. Keith Hackney (6'0" 215 lbs) Keith certainly laid the smackdown on him thirty some-odd unanswered times! (breaking his hand)
Did we forget Royce Gracie? (6'1" 180 lbs) Laying the smackdown on several people much larger than him!
Quote:
You see I am the 300 pound gorrila
Can I quote you on that? 
h2 is a 300lb gorilla!!
I see what you are getting at though and for the most part I agree. When someone is bigger and stronger the smaller person has to BE THAT MUCH BETTER to defeat him.
However,how many people have the potential to be a 300lb gorilla? Not that many.It'll never happen to me. I would like to get up to 205 by the end of next year though hmmm.......
Posted by: h2whoa
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/06/05 11:23 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps you could show us where a 150 pound man lays the smack down on a 300 pound gorrila.
Emmanuel Yarborough (6'8" 680 lbs) vs. Keith Hackney (6'0" 215 lbs) Keith certainly laid the smackdown on him thirty some-odd unanswered times! (breaking his hand)
Did we forget Royce Gracie? (6'1" 180 lbs) Laying the smackdown on several people much larger than him!
Can I just mention, that i have said in my post:
Quote:
There are exceptional people like bruce lee, who could defeat big guys, but how mant bruce lees do you know. While small beating big is not impossible, it is just more improbable than probable.
Quote:
Quote:
You see I am the 300 pound gorrila
Can I quote you on that? h2 is a 300lb gorilla!!
Okay but not to often, and only because you asked nice
Quote:
I see what you are getting at though and for the most part I agree. When someone is bigger and stronger the smaller person has to BE THAT MUCH BETTER to defeat him.
Well some strenght would go aways to helping him out, Right!
Quote:
However,how many people have the potential to be a 300lb gorilla? Not that many.It'll never happen to me. I would like to get up to 205 by the end of next year though hmmm.......
Bro, you beat cancer, how many people have the potential to do that, I wasnt always the sexy silverback I am now , but with hardwork and sticking to a regular workout and diet. In just seven days I can make you a MAAAAA-AAA-AAAAA-AAAAAA-AAANNNNNNN!!!
Seriously though good luck with the 205, if you can get your hands on some taro, kumala, or tavioka it would help heaps. Theres a reason these things are called the polynesian steroids!
*bows respectfully*
Posted by: eyrie
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/06/05 11:53 PM
Quote:
taro, kumala, or tavioka it would help heaps. Theres a reason these things are called the polynesian steroids!
Off-topic. These are carbs. I would think that protein and essential amino acids more importantly is what you need to build BMI, not carbohydrates.
Posted by: Dereck
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 12:33 AM
Strength, definitely an ally of mine and have used it successfully. As time when on the people I easily beat because of strength learned more technique ... the same technique learned by myself as well ... but when getting at it I fell into the same old routine. The gap between my strength and their technique was getting smaller. Now I'm putting the ego aside and using those techniques thus making the gap bigger again.
I wish I had more technique and this is why I train. But strength is still my biggest ally and why I still continue to train. Plus I like all of the added benefits such as larger muscles, better physique, etc. Vain ... yes ... but I earned it.
Posted by: Cord
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 03:10 AM
Quote:
Vain ... yes ... but I earned it.
darn right you did Buff-boy! 
Another aspect of this is that the training involved in MA and strength work compliment one another very well, both physicaly and psychologicaly.
With MA we all are trying to achieve a change in our instinctive reactions, through hours and hours of practice we are trying to make controlled specific movements our 'knee jerk' response to aggressive stimuli. This is a physiological change, or at least an adaption of our 'fight or flight' crisis systems.
To increase your strength and power takes more than merely lifting weights, its learning the correct form, assessing your self to learn best how to improve, finding out what works for you. Its eating right, looking after yourself, applying your self with patience, dilligence, keeping one eye on the minutae of the task at hand and the other on the bigger picture so you dont get lost or distracted from your long term goals.
Both activities require discipline, self awareness of body and mind and dedication.
The mindset you take to the gym will help your MA, and vice versa.
Quote:
Strength is a major deciding factor in any form of combat, if this wasnt the case, why are there weight classes in sport combat. To make it fair, because the heavier, stronger combatant has the advantage.
In sport fighting, both contestants are trained, there rarely is a huge skill difference between contestants. In other life situations, the smaller guy can outskill the bigger by 1208120937129478 %, maybe allowing him to get the smackdown on his opponent.
But I'll agree that if you take a random 200 lbs guy vs a random 150 lbs guy, the bigger has a better chance of winning.
Anyway, strength or skill is nothing without the proper mentality. No technique or size will help you if you choke when the [censored] hits the fan.
Quote:
I have a t-shirt that proudly states 'I may not be clever, but I can lift heavy things'
That's okay. Being smart is overrated anyway. All I need out of life is sex, drugs, rock 'n roll and MA. Fortunately for me, none of these things require any intelligence.
Seriously, I'd rather be stupid with a decent personnality than be a smart dips--t.
Posted by: Belnick
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 06:18 AM
Quote:
Quote:
I have a t-shirt that proudly states 'I may not be clever, but I can lift heavy things'
That's okay. Being smart is overrated anyway. All I need out of life is sex, drugs, rock 'n roll and MA. Fortunately for me, none of these things require any intelligence.
:P
all I need is sex, MMA, food, sex, sleep
and I will always bet on strenght over technique if there is a size diff
I can take my self as an example, in the start I won by using brute force alone, neckcranks, bearhugs, etc..
but it is easier now, why?
because I have become better with techniques, so I know got both, I would not say I am good with technique, but ok, and my added strenght to that makes it alot easier than to just crush
Posted by: Leo_E_49
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 08:53 AM
Quote:
In traditional MA's we're typically taught to avoid the use of raw strength and instead focus more on technique. I think that's sound advice.
I disagree, I think the majority of TMAs have been taught with weight lifting and muscle training through out history. A lot of arts preach the concept of strengthening body, mind and soul. Ignoring body weakens the individual and diminishes their potential.
This whole TMA without strength training thing is a new idea. I know that various styles of Karate used to have an exercise where they carried jars full of sand/gravel/rock to increase their muscular strenth, the "ancient" equivalent to modern weight lifting.
Posted by: Tsujin
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 09:56 AM
I believe you need a clearer definition of the kind of strength your talking about. In physical strength there are categories. For example a man has the bodily strength to take a hit yet, he does not have the ability to deliever a signifigant blow in order to subdue his attacker. He is physically stronger then the man is terms of the fact that he can take a hit, yet the man is stronger in the terms that he can punch (assuming he's only punching) harder.
My point is when you say strength do you mean defensive strength, offensive strength, mental strength or strength in the fact that your faster.
Also there's strength in specified body parts. You see if you have two men exactly the same in every way except one is stronger with hiw legs, the other with his arms. Then who will win?
So techinique (to me) does matter far more then having strength. You could be the strongest man in the world but not know how to fight. Then you face an opponent who's technique is by far greater then your's. Because you don't know how to defend against him, you lose. You see anyone can throw punches. But, having a technique allows you to help you punches to be more effective.
Posted by: Trefathell
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 10:19 AM
Wow, I really enjoyed reading this thread.
As a newcomer I'd like to contribute my own humble opinions though...
I can't help thinking that MAs that rely on raw muscular strength are low down the evolutionary scale. What seperates us from the animals is that we have a brain that allows us to construct systems based upon accumulated experience going back beyond our own lifetimes. This wisdom of the ancients works well as long as transmission is working efficiently.
Some people are quite happy with an all muscle approach and find it really rewarding. It's particualrly good for youngsters. Also it gets results really quickly - if you have built up the muscle and the mass you can acheive an effective combat efficiency, up to a certain level. But some systems are on a much slower burn, they get tremendous results but take the long way round to get there. I suppose it depends how much time you have on this earth.
The muscle conditioning of some very old systems are not about anything cosmetic, they are more about hardening and toughening the body so it can withstand the demands of the training necessary to pick up the skills, as well as surviving confrontations. Also, if you are a teacher/Sifu who is training fighters to be effective convoy guards for example,(as they did in China 100 years ago) you're not going to invest your precious time and effort to someone who is going to stumble at the first hurdle, even if that hurdle is during training. They have to be made of the right stuff.
Some of the stories of mythical, superhuman martial artist are no doubt exaggeration and fantasy, but it is my feeling that very highly developed technical skills can produce effects that are extremely difficult to explain, unless you have the same level of skill yourself, by that time it may not be in your interest to try and explain it to all and sundry - maybe keep that knowledge for those who are skilled enough to make it work, or only release that knowledge to your designated successors?
Lets not get too hooked on the ideas behind "modern weight lifting" the rationale is different. Some modern weight lifting/weight training is actually counterproductive, in that muscles used to stabilize the weight lifted develop a body habit that works against the way we move our limbs etc. in MA fighting, can result in stiffness and limit fluidity because the muscle memory wants to kick into its old weight training habit. Guys who rely on this type of muscle tend to reach a ceiling and have terrific problems breaking the habit, unless the system they are part of is quite content to pitch it at that level. Sometimes I find that women martial artists have a better time of it because they don't tend to be fooled by their muscles (or masculine ego).
Trefathell
Posted by: funstick5000
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 10:31 AM
As the japanese would say:
wisdom should fear the strength of youth.
i can't say i've really heard about MA training without body conditioning and building. most will do at the very least push-ups and sit-ups which can build strength quite well but obviously not to the strength of weight training can do.
Posted by: Chanters
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 10:42 AM
If the two fighters are equal in skill but one is stronger than the other, I would think the stronger one had the advantage. However if one had more skill while the other wasn't as skilled but was stronger, I think the one with more skill but less strength would win.
I have experienced this whilst practicing with stronger people. Whilst I am 5'8", 68kg Female and I am quite strong, there is no way I can compete with the strength of many if not all of the males I practice with. But I have however managed to pin a guy who used to practice jujitsu (not a very hight level tho) and is rather big and very strong. I have also managed to surprise my fiancee with a hold I got him in whilst play fighting. He is by far physically stronger than me but with the hold I had him in he wasn't able to use his strength to overpower me. If the technique is carried out perfectly, no amount of strength can beat it in my opinion.
Posted by: 1neikoot
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 10:54 AM
I think that technique is strength as well, because it allows you to use maximum efficiency with minimal effort. Adapting to the situation is more important to me than going against it, if I lose, than I did not adapt correctly, if I win then I must have adapted correctly. Strength is one thing, but then there is also speed, agility, and ofcourse the mind which are even greater factors than just strength. Does'nt matter how strong you are, you can still get hit in the throat, and die as easily as anyone else. When you talk about grappling and ground fighting with rules, than I am sorry to say that the stronger opponent will win probably 9 out of 10 times. A good example would be the diego fight on Friday, he just outpowered a BJJ black belt and threw him around like a rag doll, and because he had so much strength he won the fight, what can you do against a guy like that who is so absessed with taking you down and ground pound. If I see that someone is stronger than me on, then I try to be as fast as possible, its a better approach than going against the train. Thats just my opinion
Posted by: Cord
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 10:54 AM
Quote:
Lets not get too hooked on the ideas behind "modern weight lifting" the rationale is different. Some modern weight lifting/weight training is actually counterproductive, in that muscles used to stabilize the weight lifted develop a body habit that works against the way we move our limbs etc. in MA fighting, can result in stiffness and limit fluidity because the muscle memory wants to kick into its old weight training habit. Guys who rely on this type of muscle tend to reach a ceiling and have terrific problems breaking the habit, unless the system they are part of is quite content to pitch it at that level.
Welcome to the forums 
Now would you like to verify this nonsense with some scientific proof?
What you have actualy said here is 'weights make you slow and muscle bound' this is absolute outdated hogwash, no matter how eloquently you put it.
Go and ask a 100meter sprinter how weight lifting has slowed them and made them unable to run smoothly. They will look at you like you are all kinds of crazy.
Strength is one ingredient of the 'clay' of our physical ability. Skill training then determines what shape of 'sculpture' we create with it.
Posted by: JohnL
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 11:36 AM
As I said in my response, I believe strength to be important but not more so than technique.
There are any number of combat events where the strongest guy has lost. These can be found in MMA, Sumo, Judo, wrestling, etc. In fact just about any sport.
In addition, from my own experience, I handle people with more strength than I all the time. (Given the weak, feeble, wannabee that I am.) Whereas I have significantly more problems with people who are more skilled than I am.
I also see very strong people come into the dojo that pick up technique slower than people without the strength. Because they have the strength they rely on it. When it doesn't work they try to force it through, when an adaption of technique would make it more effecient. As such I sometimes find that strength gets in the way of learning.
Posted by: Dereck
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 11:56 AM
Quote:
I also see very strong people come into the dojo that pick up technique slower than people without the strength. Because they have the strength they rely on it. When it doesn't work they try to force it through, when an adaption of technique would make it more effecient. As such I sometimes find that strength gets in the way of learning.
I can agree with this as I've gone through this. As noted above it is to a point that the gap between my strength and others technique has growen smaller and why technique is becoming more important. TOGETHER they are better ... apart ... one sometimes can best the other and vise versa.
In the David Meyer seminar I took last Sunday I learned this even more. There were certain holds he showed us that required very little effort on his/our part that our opponent could not get out of ... or they weren't shown the technique as of yet to get out of it. I was greatly surprised by this and if you read the BJJ/MMA Forum regarding this seminar ... I ate it up. David at the end then took me aside to show me when to not use stength and when to use it for a particular exercise and low and behold I was amazed.
Again strength can be a dominating factor and technique can be a dominator factor ... but strength plus technique is better then both separate.
Posted by: KiDoHae
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 12:51 PM
Hmmmm.... lets see, in asking the question I think there is an implication that "technique" is inherently not equal to "strength". Put aonther way, is strength
trumped by a person of
somewhat less strength and
greater fighting skills, i.e. technique? IMHO, yes.
That being said, I do think that the bigger and stronger an opponent is the more the scales eventaully tip toward him. For the most part, skills and technique can eliminate certain physical disadvantages to a degree.
Who would you pick in a contest between Arnold Schwartzenager (in his prime) and a demure Japanese martial arts Master (also in his prime)?
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 01:00 PM
Quote:
Who would you pick in a contest between Arnold Schwartzenager (in his prime) and a demure Japanese martial arts Master (also in his prime)?
KiDoHae, Vs. threads are not allowed per forum rules. Please read the stickies.
Just kidding, man. Couldn't help it!
Posted by: roniwankan
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 01:01 PM
In SD do u need strengh?
The parts in SD we should hit the more are threads, solar plexus, sexual organs, I do not think we need to much strengh to hit this parts
Posted by: Tsujin
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 01:19 PM
You know, the more I think about it the more all of you have excellent responses. However, I have one other thing to mention before I go. In theory (my theory) strength has a disadvantage. If a guy who can bench about 500 (theory don't forget) fights a guy who has trained and mastered one or more martial art(s) then surely the guy who has martial arts will win. If of course he hits points one Mr. 500 body which cripple him from using strength. Just like a person can't kiss his elbow, then strength can't overcome certain techniques. Yet, strength can be techinique depending on the amount of knowledge one has. If your knowledge one the technique is poor, then you cannot win. If your technique depends on speed and agility, and you have very little of both, you also lose.
Long story short, It depends on the person. Not their technique, strength, agility, or speed. If a person has the ability to beat another, then that is because he/or she is the better person. Nothing more.
(Sorry if I accidentially repeated what another had already said, I didn't complete reading the responses)
Posted by: KiDoHae
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 01:20 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Who would you pick in a contest between Arnold Schwartzenager (in his prime) and a demure Japanese martial arts Master (also in his prime)?
KiDoHae, Vs. threads are not allowed per forum rules. Please read the stickies.
Just kidding, man. Couldn't help it!
My bad! 
Posted by: Prometej
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 01:48 PM
If strength and weight are the most important part why the hell are we sweating in our dojo ,let`s go eat
I think that we again ended up in a circle. It`s up to the individual and we can`t make a rule out of it that would apply to everyone.
Some gorilla can take more hits from skilled MAist and with luck take him out with one punch, other can`t.
Posted by: Trefathell
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 02:07 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Lets not get too hooked on the ideas behind "modern weight lifting" the rationale is different. Some modern weight lifting/weight training is actually counterproductive, in that muscles used to stabilize the weight lifted develop a body habit that works against the way we move our limbs etc. in MA fighting, can result in stiffness and limit fluidity because the muscle memory wants to kick into its old weight training habit. Guys who rely on this type of muscle tend to reach a ceiling and have terrific problems breaking the habit, unless the system they are part of is quite content to pitch it at that level.
Welcome to the forums Now would you like to verify this nonsense with some scientific proof?
What you have actualy said here is 'weights make you slow and muscle bound' this is absolute outdated hogwash, no matter how eloquently you put it.
Go and ask a 100meter sprinter how weight lifting has slowed them and made them unable to run smoothly. They will look at you like you are all kinds of crazy.
Strength is one ingredient of the 'clay' of our physical ability. Skill training then determines what shape of 'sculpture' we create with it.
Thank you for the welcome. And thank you for the complement.
I was disappointed that you couldn't come up with a better counter than the sprinter comparison. You'd have to be a complete dunderhead to think that 'specific' targetted weight and resistance training would not be of assistance to a sprinter.
I had to read through my posting again to check if I'd written, "weights make you slow and muscle bound", which I did not (far too much of a generalization).
"Strength is an ingredient of the clay", So obvious that you don't have to say it.
I suggest you read the posting again.
But to make it clear to you, pushing weights ain't fighting and unless you work the muscles (and the reactions) for fighting by intelligently using supplementary training, ensuring that it is not detrimental to your desired aim then you are going to reach a ceiling you'll have difficulty getting beyond.
Look at the guys who have been doing this for years, professional boxers use weights, but very, very selectively.
I've trained guys who have come to me from a serious weight training background and they have struggled to get over the necessary hurdles to get beyond a very basic level (could havebeen my fault I suppose?).
Trefathell
Posted by: Lokkan-Do
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 02:57 PM
I did not read all of your comments but here is my take on this...technique should be used with strength to compliment it.
Consider a construction worker lifting a heavy load, if he keeps the load close to his body and lifts with his knees as apposed to his back he can accomplish alot more.
Same thing with a punch when the weight of the body is behind the technique because the hips twisted and a firm stance is taken the punch will weight alot more than if brute strength or the arm was used alone.
Posted by: Trefathell
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 03:29 PM
Quote:
I did not read all of your comments but here is my take on this...technique should be used with strength to compliment it.
Consider a construction worker lifting a heavy load, if he keeps the load close to his body and lifts with his knees as apposed to his back he can accomplish alot more.
Same thing with a punch when the weight of the body is behind the technique because the hips twisted and a firm stance is taken the punch will weight alot more than if brute strength or the arm was used alone.
I dunno, perhaps I'm not being precise enough.
I'm not talking about strength as it equates to muscle size, mass, resistance. From an MA perspective it is possible to use strong muscles in the wrong way, so that they actually create resistance and hinder the action being performed. If the body has been used to working in a particualr way it'll be hard for it to work differently.
In a stress situation the body can be pretty dumb it goes for an outcome that has been panicked, that is unless it has been trained/conditioned to do otherwise. This is why just stupidly training your muscles to do one thing because you want to look good in a Polo shirt is not necessarily going to help your MA training.
From my limited experience good martial arts, effective martial arts looks really simple, it looks small, it even LOOKS weak, but be on the receiving end of it and you know you been hit! And when you ask about how it's done the answers you get are not the ones you expect.
Trefathell
Posted by: Neko456
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 03:32 PM
I think strength is a important aspect in having effective techniques but strength by its self is not what makes an effective fighter. For example there are weight lifters that are fit and almost every muscle in their bodies toned/over built. But placed on the mat against a skilled Martial artist of near the same size/weight or smaller most time he will be trashed. Place this same muscular person on a heavy bag set the timer for three minutes and he probably won't make past two (unless he trains for stamina). The sames trues for a football players when I use to wrestler in high/college the football came out for extra fitness they were strong but because they didn't train stamina (mostly 40yards 100yards dashes) they tired quickly, then they were easy to handle.
Regradless of training or fitness. Tenacity, heart/toughness and will power makes the better fighter, these are aspect that can not be trained though they can be mimicked?? For every Mike Tyson/Bolo there 50 muscular guys with no heart or technique that are strong but not fighters.
But techniques helps notice what happened to Mike when his started to faded muscles didn't help, maybe in recovery. But you still see my point.
My 2nd point is you fight how you train, Muscle building and Football training doesn't teach U to fight, it teaches fitness for the purpose that you train. Now combined this fitness with technical skills, tenacity, toughness and you got a excellent fighter take out any other factor but tenacity and toughness and you still got a fighter.
Notice strength and techniques can be factored out, with just these two you have a sound technical fighter but you don't know what will happen it he get hit hard or the fights tougher then he ever fought???? on on, with no heart and tenacity he may quit.
The MA doesn't teach use no strength (early on probably),(as you develop) it teaches use strength properly and effienctly at end of the strike or joint lock, or to crash through a person fence or guard, power out a lock, or at the apex of a throw. Have you noticed lifting/body slaming (with just strength) takes more out of you then when using seionage/ogashi/osoto-gari, or sweeping them. I could probably do 30-35 good throws to maybe 5-10 body slams guys my same weight.
There are various types of strengths I know guys thin built guys 150lbs (with slant shoulders) that hit like a 200lb man, I short built beer belly guys that can toss men like gallon jugs of water strength doesn't have to mean fitness.
But as M.Artist we train for both fitness and power in our techniques. Don't let mistaken ideas or philosophies hurt your personal delevlopment.
Posted by: Dereck
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 04:30 PM
Quote:
I dunno, perhaps I'm not being precise enough.
I'm not talking about strength as it equates to muscle size, mass, resistance. From an MA perspective it is possible to use strong muscles in the wrong way, so that they actually create resistance and hinder the action being performed. If the body has been used to working in a particualr way it'll be hard for it to work differently.
I'm just curious; can you give me some specific examples?
The reason I ask is I weight lift. I was weight lifting before I joined a martial art. Take for instance the bench press ... very effective for pushing with the upper body in grappling. Biceps ... another effective strength for when somebody is performing an arm bar and to fight it off while looking for an escape ... not to mention that combined with upper body strength for pulling back a resisting partner especially if weaker. I won't even mention how working the shoulders, back, chest, abs, arms and legs are all beneficial for grappling, kicking and punching.
Quote:
In a stress situation the body can be pretty dumb it goes for an outcome that has been panicked, that is unless it has been trained/conditioned to do otherwise. This is why just stupidly training your muscles to do one thing because you want to look good in a Polo shirt is not necessarily going to help your MA training.
Whether you worked with weights prior to martial arts or you didn't, your body is going to respond one way or the other and hence why you train now so that you will react differently later. I'd rather be the one training with weights and training a martial art then the person only training the martial art. Again please explain the stupid ways I and others are training our muscles in doing one thing. Maybe I can improve upon this or I can back this up to show you that you are incorrect.
Not only to mention that my many years of training with weights have showed dedication and commitment … the same dedication and commitment that I show when training martial arts. I would have a better chance at sticking it out and continuing my training then somebody that has shown no commitment in the past. Plus I'm used to the hard work and am self motivated and haven't needed to be pushed … because working with weights you don't have coach/instructor/master training you … not unless you've got cash to burn and you hire a professional trainer. So with an instructor I'm even more motivated.
Quote:
From my limited experience good martial arts, effective martial arts looks really simple, it looks small, it even LOOKS weak, but be on the receiving end of it and you know you been hit! And when you ask about how it's done the answers you get are not the ones you expect.
With your limited experience of good martial arts … how limited are you on strength training or muscle building? I don't claim to know everything but anybody with even a lick of sense knows that strength combined with martial arts is a much better formula … or should I call the UFC and all of the others and tell them to throw out their weights?
Posted by: h2whoa
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 07:02 PM
EYERIE SAYS
Quote:
Quote:
taro, kumala, or tavioka it would help heaps. Theres a reason these things are called the polynesian steroids!
Off-topic. These are carbs. I would think that protein and essential amino acids more importantly is what you need to build BMI, not carbohydrates.
Not unless you are eating more calories than your body uses for the day. Let's say that you've eaten all the calories that your body requires for the day and you decide to eat a bowl of pasta. In this case, yes - the pasta will be applied as fat, stored in your fat cells - those little resoivores of energy that you don't have an immediate need for.
As far as fat goes, even the extra calories from a carrot that your body doesn't use (burn as energy), becomes stored in your fat cells. So whether it's fat from pasta or fat from carrots, stored fat is just that - stored fat!
Examples of complex (unrefined) carbohydrate foods are cereals and vegetables that contain sugars, starch and cellulose, as well as vitamins and protein.
About 50 - 60% of the daily diet should consist of complex carbohydrates.
The theory behind low-carbohydrate diets is that if dieters avoid foods containing carbohydrate—that is, starches or sugars—they will shed pounds. Such diets eliminate or dramatically restrict the intake of fruit, fruit juice, starchy vegetables, beans, bread, rice, cereals, pasta and other grain products, and all other foods containing carbohydrate, leaving a limited diet of foods that contain primarily fat and protein: meat, cheese, nonstarchy vegetables, and very little else. As the diet proceeds, the carbohydrate restriction relaxes somewhat, but fatty, high-protein foods continue to dominate the dieter’s plate.
Carbs are slower to digest, so you will fell full longer.
*bows respectfully*
Posted by: Fletch1
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 07:21 PM
The idea behind using technique over strength in training should be obvious. It is to maximize efficiency IN TRAINING and DEVELOP SKILL. To those who claim that they use their physical attributes to overcome skill deficits in training? This is great until you have to fight or compete with someone just as big and strong as you are.
No one is saying not to train for strength, but skill training tends to yield more in the long term. A balance of both is best but I would favor technique if you had to pick one. I am the smallest guy in my class and am out weighed by over 100 lbs at times. Attempting to gain a strength advantage over my students would be a waste of time especially with added factor of aging.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but what about speed?? Speed in my opinion is more important than strength. Speed = Velocity and Velocity = Power. In my personal opinion I would rate Speed first, technique second and strength third. The reason i rate them in this order is because as i stated above velocity equals power and with proper training and technique one can learn to put ones body into their techniques on top of velocity. Strength is important, but those two i believe have more significance, u can be a walking mountain of muscle but without speed or technique ur chances of winning against a fast skilled fighter lower significantly. Don't get me wrong i train with weights because i nkow strength is important but without speed and technique, ur strength isn't much help.
Posted by: chickenchaser
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/07/05 10:53 PM
i agree with shotokanwarrior to a certain point. except that i don't think they should go in any order. i think speed,techinque and strength go hand in hand. they can make up for each other but when combined you have......well bruce lee!!! i know not everybody will be like bruce lee but if we work on all three things and not bother with which is the "best" to have as a martial artist we will be that much better for it.
5 pages and I haven't posted yet? Forshame....
Alright, time for the bboy to get his say in...
As far as I'm concerned, good technique= strength. I have never considered the two to be exclusive in any way.
I was teaching some new people tonight while dancing, and they were practicing a new move. One of them said he didn't have the strength to do it, I said strength wasn't necessary. It's all about technique and balance/flexibility.
Now there are gymnasts who are physically HUGE and can do some good power moves, but it's the good technique that keeps them going. Skinny dudes have outperformed gymnasts in flairs and handstands (1 or 2 hands) in many occasions, because they weren't using muscle to force the move, but rather using balance and good technique. The best breakers in the world are skinny short guys, trust me on this one, the bigger you are, the less flexible you are, the less mobile you are.
On the opposite side, there are a select few ripped breakers who can simply heave their way along, and while their technique is sloppy, it is their strength that enables them to perform well. I think, however, this tends to be the exception.
Now I'm not even close to a big guy, 5'3, 130 lbs, skin, bones, and a few muscles, but I can outperform bigger and stronger guys in a lot of cases. Why? My technique is superior, they use their muscles to hold themselves up, I use balance and technique, and as a consequence, I can stay up longer.
Heading back to the pro-stength side, some people have an easier time learning new techniques because they are a little more muscular than others. It seems to be a trend among new students, but most of the veterans will tell you it's all about balance over strength.
That's my Wing Chun/ Breaker type philosophy in a nut shell....
In saying all this, it semi-relates to MA, as there are many similarities between the two. While we still several differences that may negate most of my post, there are a few similarities that might help....then again, I'm kinda an idiot....
Posted by: Cord
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/08/05 02:00 AM
Quote:
The idea behind using technique over strength in training should be obvious. It is to maximize efficiency IN TRAINING and DEVELOP SKILL. To those who claim that they use their physical attributes to overcome skill deficits in training? This is great until you have to fight or compete with someone just as big and strong as you are.
No one is saying not to train for strength, but skill training tends to yield more in the long term. A balance of both is best but I would favor technique if you had to pick one. I am the smallest guy in my class and am out weighed by over 100 lbs at times. Attempting to gain a strength advantage over my students would be a waste of time especially with added factor of aging.
Here Fletch we have a perfectly reasonable opinion. You are naturaly smaller, and are a good technician. Age and presumably inclination to increase your strength are somewhat against you so you work with what you have got.
This is a founding principle of the MA- use what you have to your advantage. Good fast kicker?- you will reflect that in your style. Awesome on the ground- ditto. Fighting to survive a SD situation?- you have the presence of mind to use a weapon of opertunity (pub ashtray, maglight, rock, whatever). Physical strength is a weapon of opertunity. It may not play a part in all aspects or techniques within the MA, or SD for that matter, but as a MA our goal is to have as many options available, and as many situations 'covered' by our knowledge and skill. Ignoring the chance to improve our strength, is as remiss as not working on footwork, not pressure testing our teritorial fencing techniques, not keeping our guard up as we throw a right cross. An oponent will take advantage of any weakness they percieve, including weakness.
Posted by: JasonM
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/08/05 08:30 AM
I can see both sides or this after reading everyones posts. Everyone presented great pros and cons.
In my opinion, I started in MA, got out of it and have started to train again. I also have started lifting weights on a more serious level too. After tailoring my weight lifting towards stength, I feel it has added, immensely to my MA skill. This might be because I already trained and had good technique, for the most part.
I definitely agree that both compliment each other very well....
Posted by: Trefathell
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/08/05 10:24 AM
Hi,
I am beginning to wonder if I should put sections of my postings in Capitals, as it seems there’s an awful lot of selective reading going on here. As a newcomer to the forum I am finding it difficult to get to grips with the protocol and etiquette normally used. It certainly is very different from the type of good manners found in face to face conversations.
But here goes anyway.
Dereck you seemed to have missed the bit where I was saying that selective weight training can be beneficial, and seem to be of the opinion that I said ALL weight training was detrimental.
Also you missed the bit where I was saying that there are different types and different methods of MAs some of which are quite content to work on a pure strength basis – fine, I have no problem with that.
In some martial arts the emphasis is on educating the muscles and the reactions in a very different way. An example being that a few years ago I did some training with another system, working particularly on punching. When I went back to training with my regular instructor he spotted that something had changed and he had to retrain my striking action to make it more compatible with the system I was working within. I also worked with weights for a while but had it pointed out to me that the stabilizing of the weight (loose weights) caused muscle groups to kick in that would counteract the actions associated with the type of strike I was trying to educate my body to perform under pressure. To me it made perfect sense. I did not stop my weight training I got advice and changed it.
Dereck, it seems from what you write that your understand/experience of MA is very different from mine.
Trefathell
Posted by: Cord
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/08/05 10:33 AM
Firstly, my welcome to the boards was genuine, please dont read any sarcasm into that.
May I say that what you have with Dereck is a good old fashioned difference of opinion, there was no insult or poor manners included in his text or demeanor. If your definition of correct manners is having people agree with you regardless of their own opinion, then you are going to find all of us very rude here based on that expectation.
Dereck is a consistently valued member of these boards, he is respectful, informed and a realy cool guy, as are many of the people who, with your current outlook you are going to pour attitude on.
As for myself, I have many failings, but speaking my mind is my only vice, and I assure you i never post what I wouldnt say face to face.
Step back a little, assess the forum a little better, I think you will find there are people worthy of better than you are giving them.
Cord.
Posted by: Trefathell
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/08/05 01:47 PM
Gosh 'n' I thought I was being a sensitive soul.
I read through my posting again and thought hard about it...nope, nothing I would change there.
I thought it was all quite reasonable and a fair match for the comments made.
And I'm sure Dereck's a big boy and can swap opinions quite coherently, after all, isn't that what all this is about, swapping opinions? He has his views I have mine, some of his I agree with, but not all, but it's much more interesting to chew over our differences based upon our varying experiences.
A common feature of some forums is to have someone come in with the argument that if X has a difference of opinion with Y and X tries support/defend his opinions then X is not playing fair, or is stuck in a rut, wrapped up in his own opinions. I'm sorry I don't buy that. At what stage am I expected to roll over?
I'd sooner just chat about MAs, so lets just move on shall we. After all it's only talk isn't it, and I'm sure that all of us would prefer to be in our Dojang, Kwoon, Dojo, Gym, whatever.
Trefathell
Posted by: Dereck
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/08/05 01:54 PM
Quote:
Trefathell - 11/08/05 10:24 AM:
Dereck, it seems from what you write that your understand/experience of MA is very different from mine.
Trefathell, this I would agree to as well and honestly I've meant no disrespect. I only want to better understand where you are coming from as I am confused with some of what you said.
Quote:
Trefathell - 11/07/05 03:29 PM:
This is why just stupidly training your muscles to do one thing because you want to look good in a Polo shirt is not necessarily going to help your MA training.
If all you want to do is look good then weight lifting is great. If you incorporate martial arts but also weight train the exact same way then this weight training is only an added benefit. The MA training is just that … training! It will teach you how to use your body to its full potential and the added strength is a positive. This is no different if you had learned to box prior to joining a martial art … or learning boxing while taking a martial art. It is another skill that may not compliment the art exactly but can be modified to be a positive. The same also can be said for wrestling or grappling being trained prior or during training for a stand up art such as Taekwondo. In most systems today these are rarely taught and I see them as holes … but as our system incorporates them this fills the holes and it is a positive thing. Lack of strength is also a hole that if filled is a positive.
I'd still like to know some examples of "stupid training" so I can better understand where you are coming from.
Quote:
Trefathell - 11/07/05 03:29 PM:
I dunno, perhaps I'm not being precise enough.
I'm not talking about strength as it equates to muscle size, mass, resistance. From an MA perspective it is possible to use strong muscles in the wrong way, so that they actually create resistance and hinder the action being performed. If the body has been used to working in a particualr way it'll be hard for it to work differently.
I will agree that muscle size can hinder some performances in the martial arts … I have experienced it myself, but this is no different then being obese, too thin, too weak, too short, too tall, etc. These are things that you have to modify the art to fit yourself. They should really never be looked at as a negative but rather obstacles to work around.
Again your comment about "If the body has been used to working in a particular way it'll be hard for it to work differently." I can't get my head around this. Before you start any martial art you are used to doing things in a particular way … that is why you train to improve upon this. Being muscle bound is no different … you're training now to become a better martial artists and with added strength … because muscles do go hand and had with strength … this is only a benefit and you are ahead of the game.
Quote:
Trefathell - 11/08/05 10:24 AM:
Dereck you seemed to have missed the bit where I was saying that selective weight training can be beneficial, and seem to be of the opinion that I said ALL weight training was detrimental.
I'm sorry I must have missed it. I've re-read everything again but see as you wrote this clearly here we can agree that weight training is beneficial. Excellent we are getting closer to understanding each other.
Quote:
Trefathell - 11/08/05 10:24 AM:
I also worked with weights for a while but had it pointed out to me that the stabilizing of the weight (loose weights) caused muscle groups to kick in that would counteract the actions associated with the type of strike I was trying to educate my body to perform under pressure. To me it made perfect sense. I did not stop my weight training I got advice and changed it.
The "loose weights" I believe that you are referring to "free weights" and not machine weights. Free weights do incorporate many stabilizer muscles that machine weights cannot target … but that is the best thing about free weights. Building these stabilizer muscles is one of the most positive things about weight lifting with free weights and I can only see as a positive for martial arts.
Just think of all of the stabilizer muscles used when doing squats or deadlifts. Think of all of the stabilizer muscles used to bench press, or do military presses, or bent-over rows, or bicep curls, tricep curls, etc. If you want to make your body stronger why would you neglect such needed muscles? They stabilize the body to do perform these feats which when either stand up fighting or ground fighting can only add to the game.
Again I won't pretend I know everything … and I also understand everybody's bodies react differently and develop differently. I have said this many times that may work for one person may not work for another so find what works for you. We all train differently, we all learn differently, we all understand and interpret differently … we are all different. I was just looking for better clarification to better understand your statements so that I could learn. I have to ask questions when I don't understand … this is how I learn. No offense was meant.
Posted by: Cord
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/08/05 03:53 PM
Quote:
I'm sure that all of us would prefer to be in our Dojang, Kwoon, Dojo, Gym, whatever.
Trefathell
On this we can agree, You have no idea how much I wish you were back in your dojang right now.
Posted by: BrianS
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/08/05 06:37 PM
I'll bet most of the middleweights and light heavy weight ufc champions could whoop any of the heavyweights on the ultimate fighter,think?
Posted by: Trefathell
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/08/05 07:07 PM
Thank you for that Dereck.
Yes you are right, we do seem to be working closer to an agreement on this.
It's late for me, I will endeavour to look through your posting again tomorrow and give it some more thought.
I will say for now that with regards to supporting muscle groups kicking in being detrimental, I believe that the way you train your body and condition it with weights should complement the movement you are working towards. Sometimes the moves that we as martial artists are expected to perform are counter-intuitive, I mentioned the panic response, we can only tap into those ways of working that are against our cruder, deeper gut reactions by using every tool available to reinforce the 'right' reaction (according to the demands of our system) if certain weight training practices reinforce the wrong reaction (i.e. a reliance on strength and pure muscle over technique) then this surely has to be wrong?
Thank you for your reasoned response (no need of the 7th cavalry)
Trefathell
Posted by: Trefathell
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/09/05 04:21 AM
Dereck, I said I’d get back to you on one or two extra points:
When you say, “This is no different if you had learned to box prior to joining a martial art … or learning boxing while taking a martial art. It is another skill that may not compliment the art exactly but can be modified to be a positive.” Yes, you can take some positive knowledge from boxing, particularly strategy and angles. Many years back I did some boxing but the trainer I was working under tried to get me to change my punching style, in particular where my body rotation was coming from. This came out of the type of mobility needed to work the ring. The style of movement and mobility I was more used to involved the addition of getting the range and angles to employ my kicks. Hence the limitations of the boxing rules dictated the technique. Within Jujutsu a well conditioned body is important but some of the Jujutsu people I have worked with are very technical and love it when you try and use strength, they just turn it against you, the more effort you put in the quicker your own downfall.
Trefathell
Posted by: Ironfoot
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/09/05 06:34 AM
Quote:
...Who would you pick in a contest between Arnold Schwartzenager (in his prime) and a demure Japanese martial arts Master (also in his prime)?
I'll take the martial artist in a heart beat.
Strength is nice. Hell, if I spar someone say 25 lbs lighter than me and he goes flat-footed, I'm not above running him over, but as I believe JohnL said, if you rely on strength, you're imposing a ceiling on your ability. A ceiling that gets lower every day over say age 32. And what do we say to the smaller man or woman?
I believe in this formula: Force = Stength times Technique squared (maybe cubed!). I taught my 8 year old, petite daughter how to throw her 200 lb dad to the ground using one finger. Could she have done it if she hit the weights for 10 years and added a hundred lbs? Maybe not.
Posted by: NEAS
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/09/05 07:23 PM
Quote:
Hmmmm.... lets see, in asking the question I think there is an implication that "technique" is inherently not equal to "strength". Put aonther way, is strength trumped by a person of somewhat less strength and greater fighting skills, i.e. technique? IMHO, yes.
That being said, I do think that the bigger and stronger an opponent is the more the scales eventaully tip toward him. For the most part, skills and technique can eliminate certain physical disadvantages to a degree.
Who would you pick in a contest between Arnold Schwartzenager (in his prime) and a demure Japanese martial arts Master (also in his prime)?
Hi Cant quite see what you mean? From my point of view the CORRECT and i realy mean the correct technique and weight training correctly done and fitness and after 1000s of repetitions of the said technique=fast accurate powerfull technique. Some of mine are!!!!!!!!!
I know weight trainers who are realy strong (250kg plus free squats,,,, mine was 240 kg) who had not so good fighting
techniques. After they trained with me for a lenth of time they can(in the case of punching) hit very fast very hard and very accurate.
I know people who had a good technique who without weight training their blows just bounced off me.
Perhaps one can draw their own conclusions
Posted by: NEAS
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/09/05 07:52 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Hmmmm.... lets see, in asking the question I think there is an implication that "technique" is inherently not equal to "strength". Put aonther way, is strength trumped by a person of somewhat less strength and greater fighting skills, i.e. technique? IMHO, yes.
That being said, I do think that the bigger and stronger an opponent is the more the scales eventaully tip toward him. For the most part, skills and technique can eliminate certain physical disadvantages to a degree.
Who would you pick in a contest between Arnold Schwartzenager (in his prime) and a demure Japanese martial arts Master (also in his prime)?
Hi Cant quite see what you mean? From my point of view the CORRECT and i realy mean the correct technique and weight training correctly done and fitness and after 1000s of repetitions of the said technique=fast accurate powerfull technique. Some of mine are!!!!!!!!!some are being worked on.
I know weight trainers who are realy strong (250kg plus free squats,,,, mine was 240 kg) who had not so good fighting
techniques. After they trained with me for a lenth of time they can(in the case of punching) hit very fast very hard and very accurate.
I know people who had a good technique and didnt do weight training. Their blows just bounced off me and other weight trainers i know.
Perhaps one can draw their own conclusions
Which japanese martial arts expert? Hope you dont mean the ones i see with faulty techniques? I would gladly let some of them legally fight full contact against me in a paid venue.
Thats how much i rate their techniques.
The others,,,, well,,,, we would have to see.
Again draw your own conclusions
Arnold wasnt interested in fighting so why compare him to technique merchants?Perhaps if your looking for a muscle man, compare a either fictional or none fictional person with a 234kg bench press no formal fight training,,who it has allegedly been reported(people say it) and said by others that he /she might have or there again might not have depending what you do for a living and who is reading this,,allegedly knocked out 34 so called hard men allegedly including 6 shall we say members of the
people resposable for people getting striped sun tans and lack of access to the the opposite gender as they decided to do a mid night raid.
Draw your own conclusions.
Posted by: NEAS
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/09/05 08:13 PM
Quote:
BigRod,
I think perhaps that the phrase "use technique not strength" was taken out of context by westerners. Perhaps it was a language barrier misinterpretation.
I say this because many traditional Okinawan styles and Japanese styles have weight training as part of their training regime. I know for a fact that Goju Ryu practitioners perform a majority of their training in Hojo Undo for body hardening and to obtain power. Shotokan as well as many other styles focus on Makiwara training which developes power and focus (not to mention that the old school Shotokan pracitioners were completely ripped). Don Draeger who studied judo and kendo in Japan (as well as many other styles) weight trained a tremendous amount to supplement his martial training.
I believe that you need to weight train as part of your conditioning. If your physically fit you recover from injuries faster and absorb more punishment. Not to mention you inflict more damage on your opponent.
In training you have many tools. The most essential are speed, timing, accuracy, strength, and technique. Of those, strength is the easiest to develop. However as you get older and into your fifties and above most of those attributes deteriote except for technique, timing, and accuracy. In fact those (if worked on) actually get better.
Kind regards,
Raul
Hi Paul... see your point.I agree with some of your comments but i dont agree that all people 50 or 50 plus lose the attributes you mentioned.
I havent.
In fact im faster,,, harder now than years ago
and I have had the legal fights against younger people to prove it?( Yep i won)
The only thing that getting older has done is to make me see that being humble and passive and looking older invites attack in the western world, perhaps not in the far east.Or did the Japanese attempt to install their virtues on westerners to feed us all crap?Another virtue from the then learned sensie was dont weight train untill dan grade. From a guy who taught judo,,, Muscles makes a person slow??? As the japanes sensie gets demolished in a ufc fight against a guy with muscles.?I read the dont weight train bit when i was very young. Utter crap. Means dont weight train because a person will get stronger and perhaps beat the teacher?
I apollagise for mouthing it off but felt it needed said.
Posted by: NEAS
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/09/05 08:24 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps you could show us where a 150 pound man lays the smack down on a 300 pound gorrila.
Emmanuel Yarborough (6'8" 680 lbs) vs. Keith Hackney (6'0" 215 lbs) Keith certainly laid the smackdown on him thirty some-odd unanswered times! (breaking his hand)
Did we forget Royce Gracie? (6'1" 180 lbs) Laying the smackdown on several people much larger than him!
Why did he break his hands? I can break blocks with my hands and my hands dont break? One way to break hands when fighting or even hitting is to hit with the wrong part of the hand ,,, the outer two knuckles. Ahhh sensie taught me to break my hands grasshopper,,,,,,find new sensie grasshopper
Can I just mention, that i have said in my post:
Quote:
There are exceptional people like bruce lee, who could defeat big guys, but how mant bruce lees do you know. While small beating big is not impossible, it is just more improbable than probable.
Quote:
Quote:
You see I am the 300 pound gorrila
Can I quote you on that? h2 is a 300lb gorilla!!
Okay but not to often, and only because you asked nice
Quote:
I see what you are getting at though and for the most part I agree. When someone is bigger and stronger the smaller person has to BE THAT MUCH BETTER to defeat him.
Well some strenght would go aways to helping him out, Right!
Quote:
However,how many people have the potential to be a 300lb gorilla? Not that many.It'll never happen to me. I would like to get up to 205 by the end of next year though hmmm.......
Bro, you beat cancer, how many people have the potential to do that, I wasnt always the sexy silverback I am now , but with hardwork and sticking to a regular workout and diet. In just seven days I can make you a MAAAAA-AAA-AAAAA-AAAAAA-AAANNNNNNN!!!
Seriously though good luck with the 205, if you can get your hands on some taro, kumala, or tavioka it would help heaps. Theres a reason these things are called the polynesian steroids!
*bows respectfully*
Posted by: NEAS
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/09/05 08:42 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps you could show us where a 150 pound man lays the smack down on a 300 pound gorrila.
Emmanuel Yarborough (6'8" 680 lbs) vs. Keith Hackney (6'0" 215 lbs) Keith certainly laid the smackdown on him thirty some-odd unanswered times! (breaking his hand)
Did we forget Royce Gracie? (6'1" 180 lbs) Laying the smackdown on several people much larger than him!
Why did he break his hands? I can break blocks with my hands and my hands dont break? One way to break hands when fighting or even hitting is to hit with the wrong part of the hand ,,, the outer two knuckles. Ahhh sensie taught me to break my hands grasshopper,,,,,,find new sensie grasshopper
Can I just mention, that i have said in my post:
Quote:
There are exceptional people like bruce lee, who could defeat big guys, but how mant bruce lees do you know. While small beating big is not impossible, it is just more improbable than probable.
Huhmmm grasshopper Bruce Lee beat bigger guys???
who???
in films???
Films aint real ,,,,Bruce Lee is and was good to motivate,,
Im not going to knock Bruce Lee but well he was good at what he did. Smaller humans can beat bigger humans,,, depends on lots of things,,, a bully is a prime example,,, they want easy wins,,,if they are untrained and bigger there is a big chance they are going to lose against a smaller trained (and weight trained) person. But thats only one scenario.
Quote:
Quote:
You see I am the 300 pound gorrila
Can I quote you on that? h2 is a 300lb gorilla!!
Okay but not to often, and only because you asked nice
Quote:
I see what you are getting at though and for the most part I agree. When someone is bigger and stronger the smaller person has to BE THAT MUCH BETTER to defeat him.
Well some strenght would go aways to helping him out, Right!
Quote:
However,how many people have the potential to be a 300lb gorilla? Not that many.It'll never happen to me. I would like to get up to 205 by the end of next year though hmmm.......
Bro, you beat cancer, how many people have the potential to do that, I wasnt always the sexy silverback I am now , but with hardwork and sticking to a regular workout and diet. In just seven days I can make you a MAAAAA-AAA-AAAAA-AAAAAA-AAANNNNNNN!!!
Seriously though good luck with the 205, if you can get your hands on some taro, kumala, or tavioka it would help heaps. Theres a reason these things are called the polynesian steroids!
*bows respectfully*
Posted by: BrianS
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/09/05 08:43 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps you could show us where a 150 pound man lays the smack down on a 300 pound gorrila.
Emmanuel Yarborough (6'8" 680 lbs) vs. Keith Hackney (6'0" 215 lbs) Keith certainly laid the smackdown on him thirty some-odd unanswered times! (breaking his hand)
Did we forget Royce Gracie? (6'1" 180 lbs) Laying the smackdown on several people much larger than him!
Why did he break his hands? I can break blocks with my hands and my hands dont break? One way to break hands when fighting or even hitting is to hit with the wrong part of the hand ,,, the outer two knuckles. Ahhh sensie taught me to break my hands grasshopper,,,,,,find new sensie grasshopper
Can I just mention, that i have said in my post:
Quote:
There are exceptional people like bruce lee, who could defeat big guys, but how mant bruce lees do you know. While small beating big is not impossible, it is just more improbable than probable.
Huhmmm grasshopper Bruce Lee beat bigger guys???
who???
in films???
Films aint real ,,,,Bruce Lee is and was good to motivate,,
Im not going to knock Bruce Lee but well he was good at what he did. Smaller humans can beat bigger humans,,, depends on lots of things,,, a bully is a prime example,,, they want easy wins,,,if they are untrained and bigger there is a big chance they are going to lose against a smaller trained (and weight trained) person. But thats only one scenario.
Quote:
Quote:
You see I am the 300 pound gorrila
Can I quote you on that? h2 is a 300lb gorilla!!
Okay but not to often, and only because you asked nice
Quote:
I see what you are getting at though and for the most part I agree. When someone is bigger and stronger the smaller person has to BE THAT MUCH BETTER to defeat him.
Well some strenght would go aways to helping him out, Right!
Quote:
However,how many people have the potential to be a 300lb gorilla? Not that many.It'll never happen to me. I would like to get up to 205 by the end of next year though hmmm.......
Bro, you beat cancer, how many people have the potential to do that, I wasnt always the sexy silverback I am now , but with hardwork and sticking to a regular workout and diet. In just seven days I can make you a MAAAAA-AAA-AAAAA-AAAAAA-AAANNNNNNN!!!
Seriously though good luck with the 205, if you can get your hands on some taro, kumala, or tavioka it would help heaps. Theres a reason these things are called the polynesian steroids!
*bows respectfully*
Quote:
Posted by: chickenchaser
Re: Strength vs Technique - 11/09/05 10:36 PM
HOLY QUOTATING QUOTES BATMAN!!!!