The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 12, 2000, 08:49 PM   #26
oberkommando
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 1999
Posts: 1,155
Skorzeny, maybe you should take on someone like Franco Columbu in his prime in a back strenght event. Anyone who can dead lift 800 lbs isnt full of jello. And or maybe (Greg Kovacks?) incline pressing 675lbs. Check out the espn strong man and see that most guys look pretty pumped up (must be high protien jello) and have a lot of strenght. If someone like Dorian can do 405 revese grip bent rows and he isnt even trying to work on strenth that tells me there is more that just jello in there.I agree that powerlifting is a different breed of animal and they also look different because they have a lot more fat than body builders, but to say all the bodybuilders are weak is a little much. Those russians better be strong they,ve done more roids then anyone else on earth, except for maybe the chinese swimmers of a few years ago.

Coronach you think you had it bad at academy by not gaining much my brother is there now and he is getting weaker. Too bad the police know very little about physical conditioning.
There is more to it than running and doing a million push ups.

[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited September 12, 2000).]
oberkommando is offline  
Old September 13, 2000, 02:28 PM   #27
Matt VDW
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 27, 1999
Posts: 1,315
Skorzeny, what are "Hindu push-ups"?
Matt VDW is offline  
Old September 14, 2000, 05:44 PM   #28
LOBO
Member
 
Join Date: October 5, 1999
Posts: 21
Combat Conditioning
by Matt Furey http://www.dragondoor.com/yangsheng/books/d84.html
LOBO is offline  
Old September 16, 2000, 12:40 AM   #29
Skorzeny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 1999
Posts: 1,938
oberkommando:

You either misunderstood me or did NOT get the point of "functional" strength.

The point of functional strength is not being able to lift a lot once, regardless of one's weight. Crudely speaking, functional strength means ability to do work per your body weight (or per your muscle weight) ESPECIALLY over time.

I was NOT suggesting that bodybuilders lack strength. I was suggesting that bodybuilders lack strength considering the size of their muscles BECAUSE much their muscle mass is from sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. This is a part of the reason why most bodybuilders do poorly in athletic contests (other than those "staged" events). Their bodies burn energy inefficiently (because of high muscle weight, low efficiency) and they usually "gas" or "tank" in a few minutes of continuous exertion. In a fight, it does not matter if you can do 800lb. of deadlifting if you weight 350lb. and become easily exhausted in 3 minutes of continuous boxing or grappling.

The most efficient form of functional strength does not come from increasing your muscle size - it comes from neurological conditioning. High strength from neurological condtioning means that you can keep your body/muscle weight low (meaning energy consumption low as well) at the same time, so that you can, for example, move more effortlessly and perform strenuous activites (like kicking, punching or grappling) with less fatigue over time.

Bodybuilding and weight training for combat sports (or fighting for that matter) are two entirely different things.

Anyway, if you get a chance, check out Pavel's book.

Skorzeny

------------------
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu
Skorzeny is offline  
Old September 16, 2000, 06:14 AM   #30
oberkommando
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 1999
Posts: 1,155
Skorzeny, didnt mean that you should fight franco just was talking about one rep strenght as I thought was what your book was about. And he was IIRC 210-220 with that 800lbs dead.

Yes I understand about strenth to weight ratio, for the body builder they have all the muscles built up so when one group is isolated they have to move the rest of them with that one group. Say doing sit ups for instance they have to move those arms shoulders chest and back that have a lot of mass on them. If you were to take joe blow and give him a few plates on the chest the builder would easily win in a test, as would he in a strength/endurance test that employed all the major/minor muscle groups.
Also most BB types loath cardio vascular training as it tends to be catabloic. So if you cant supply the O2 you will tank. You are right about that, most tank.
But then again most others cant lift two cylindeers weighing around 300lbs each let alone race to a finish line with them. They are too weak in the first place.
Talking more about the strongmen then B Builders here, with some being both powerlifters/and/or former bodybuilders. Once the weight becomes so extreme it doesnt matter how good your conditioning is you will tank eventually, because it is on the edge of human ability.

Just as a sprinter will beat all normal people even though they have huge quads, its the fact that they dont have a large upper body, same with bicyclist big quads and calves but little upper body mass, and those quads have great indurance. Depends on what you want to do.

Ken shamrock seems to be an exception yes? Lots of endurance and lots of mass. If grappling at least.

Also guy like magnussen and taylor seem to have high strenth to weight ratios and weigh quite a bit. But maybe not compared to olymipic lifters in their "specialized" moves, but I think the olympians would crumble in lifting awkward things like cement balls and such.

As to fighting, at least in boxing the bigger fighter, if of the same skill will ususally beat the smaller fighter. Kinda like a heavy weight v a lightweight, no contest in boxing.
Sorta like a tractor trailer and a geo metro, the metro is way more efficeient but the diesel can do a great deal of damage in a short period of time.
In the natural world the prey species are usually more efficient than the predators, but a lion will shredd a wildebeest if it lays paws on one.
And I think the goal of fighting is to end it as quickly as possible, as bruce lee found out when he took on a sensai from another kung fu dojo that didnt want him teaching "round eyes" After that exhausting battle he changed his technique to his own so he could end a fight quickly.
So I think you ideal maybe someone like him, very light, very strong, and very fast.Heard of him holding a 135lb barbell straight out with arms locked.Pretty dang impressive!

I will try to get the book, as I could use more stength IMO. More mass wouldnt hurt either as I like the fact that it takes a lot of calories to maintain.

BTW isnt neurological of/or relating to "mental conditioning"?

Thanks for posting the book, see you around.



[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited September 16, 2000).]
oberkommando is offline  
Old September 16, 2000, 04:49 PM   #31
Skorzeny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 1999
Posts: 1,938
Oberkommando:

We should NOT (as you did) compare an "average" person training in Pavel's methods with a serious bodybuilder. Even with the latter's inefficiency, if he has more training, he may exceed the "average" person with very little volume of training (obviously).

As you know, that wouldn't be a fair comparison. We should compare two average human beings spending similar amount of time training in Pavel's methods and "bodybuilding" methods and see who comes out "better," especially in regards to "combat conditioning." In that case, it will be pretty clear who the winner would be.

And, yes, given all the other variable constant (including the same level of skills), GENERALLY a stronger (not necessarily heavier) fighter will beat a weaker partner. However, the other variable will not always be constant when there is an absolute strength disparity. There will also be disparities in weight, cardio-vascular conditioning and such (not to mention SKILL).

In other words, "bigger is better" only applies to a certain extent. A 200 pounder may indeed pound a 120 pounder in boxing. But will a 500 pounder slob beat a well-conditioned 225 pounder? Probably not. Weight IS a factor, but one among several.

BTW, Bruce Lee is NOT my ideal. What my ideal is whatever allows me to approach the theoretical peak efficiency for fighting skills given my circumstances and in-born factors (including my genetic pre-dispositions).

I will say this. There is, in this country (USA), a certain love affair with the looks of an Arnold Schwartzenegger as the "ultimate fighter" body type. The reality is actually much different. In UFC and similar NHB contests, the fighters with "bodybuilder" body types have not done well in general.

Ken Shamrock is an interesting case. But, he made an extensive use of steroids. If you want to see a superbly conditioned fighting athelete look to his adopted brother Frank Shamrock or Egan Inoue (Enson Inoue's brother). They didn't takeup "bodybudiling" routine, let me tell you.

Sometimes, what I find really amusing is that some of the bodybuilding types around the gym I used to belong to would hulk around acting like tough guys. Some of these guys weighed about 225-275lb. (with huge muscles) and acted like they could crush little me (170-175lb. with moderate size muscles) Any of them who bothered to show up on the mat to wrestle with me ("that Jujitsu **** won't work on me") alway squealed like little girls when I submitted them (usually with an ankle lock or an arm lock). And I don't even use a full repertoire of my fighting techniques or weapons (like knives) on the mat.

Some of my immature friends still make remarks like "Wow, look at that big guy. I don't care what you study. You won't beat that guy in a fight." I always reply, "Maybe or maybe not, but whether I win or lose is NOT going to depend on how muscular he looks. It's going to depend on his level of "combat" traninig, his mentality, his conditioning and, yes, his strength. There are other variable as well."

Skorzeny

------------------
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu
Skorzeny is offline  
Old September 16, 2000, 05:05 PM   #32
Skorzeny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 1999
Posts: 1,938
Oh, one more thing...

Neurological conditioning is NOT the same as mental conditioning.

The idea is that the human body is actually much more capable of bearing extreme tension (weight) than is normally seen or understood.

What prevents us from lifting huge amount of weight is NOT usually from lack of muscle size. It is from a "safety margin" that our neurological conditioning built into us. What goes on internally (again, neurologically) is that when you lift some heavy weight you are not used to, the body automatically shuts down and "fails" to lift to "protect" you from the "unknown" tension/weight.

Neurological conditioning involves progressively subjecting one's body to higher and higher tension to condition the body's automatic mechanism to reduce that "safety margin" and to allow the body to not shut down when tested to a certain amount of tension.

Anyhoo, check out the book. Pavel does a much, much better job of explaining much of the science behind it.

BTW, flexibility works in a similar fashion. Most people pull muscles when they are subjected to a sudden stretch. It's from something called "stretch reflex." What the body is doing is that when a sudden force is applied to a part of the body, the body (the neurological conditioning) automatically tries to protect the vulnerable bones and joints by contracting rapidly (almost violently). That of course "pulls" the muscles involved (it's a sacrifice - hurt the easily healed muscle to protect the really vulnerable bones and joints).

For most people (not used to sudden force), this automatic safety margin is excessive, thus limiting their "flexibility." The body just won't let the muscles to "stretch" without violent contracting back.

This is NOT improved by "stretching" the muscle (which may indeed increase the range of motion, but will weaken the muscle the same way over-stretched rubber band is now longer, but weaker-tensioned).

It is improved by PNF (Priprioceptive Pneumomuscular Facilitation), in which antagonistic muscle tension (as in, if you tense one muscle group, the antagonistic muscle group cannot be tense at the same time and must be relaxed automatically by the body), combined with proper breathing control, is used to condition the body neurologically to allow the body parts to "go farther" and reduce that safety margin. Of course, it helps to improve mobility in your joints (not just muscles) by practicing what are called mobility drills.

It's all really about "re-wiring" the neurological setup at a different level.

Check out Pavel's "Beyond Stretching" or Kurz' "Stretching Scientifically."

Skorzeny

------------------
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu
Skorzeny is offline  
Old September 16, 2000, 05:33 PM   #33
crobrun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2000
Posts: 139
Try this place for some fun body weight workouts. http://www.webfects.com/hea/routine.htm#
Also, look into olymic lifts for some serious speed strength development. I second Dr. Squat as a great place to go.
Home equipment - get a weightlifting cage that is tall enough for you to do pullups, and ( with dumbells and weight) you have just about all you really need.
good luck, stay safe out there

------------------
Rob
From the Committee to Use Proffesional Politicians as Lab Animals
-------------------------------------------------------------------
She doesn't have bad dreams because she's made of plastic...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
bad Kiki! No karaoke in the house!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Flynt is right. You guys stink!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter McWilliams - Murdered by the DEA
crobrun is offline  
Old September 17, 2000, 06:06 AM   #34
fubsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 20, 1999
Posts: 1,361
ah yes....Dr. squat, of course his muscles are jello..lol....but joking aside, there is a liablility with mass over perfomance, the odds that you will lift to that point are probably not likely.
The information that Dr. Hatfield (aka Dr. Squat) makes available allows each individual to taylor his workouts to the specific needs of the individual. He gives the sientific/medically proven reasons or he will debunks beliefs, for the gains and what you can do to help your self.
Dr. Hatfield was the weight strength guide for Holyfield(sp) in his come back after he suffered medical problems.
His work will allow you to integrate different strategy's (type of workouts, flexibility, strength, endurance), inside the same frame work.
"WE"(royal "we" here..lol) come on the net and dissect the perfect pistol, the perfect martial art, the perfect knife, the perfect whatever...lol....and I think we've found there is nothing perfect. Everybody has a reason for why "theirs" is the best....and it has to be for someone...lol...what ever you do dont stop evaluating. later.....fubsy.
fubsy is offline  
Old September 18, 2000, 09:22 AM   #35
Matt VDW
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 27, 1999
Posts: 1,315
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Heard of him holding a 135lb barbell straight out with arms locked.Pretty dang impressive!
[/quote]

Unless he [Bruce Lee] was wearing skis or a 200 pound backpack, I don't see how he could do that without falling forwards. Think about where the center of mass of the Lee/barbell system would be in relation to the tips of Lee's toes.
Matt VDW is offline  
Old September 20, 2000, 07:36 AM   #36
Danger Dave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 21, 1999
Location: Dallas, GA, USA
Posts: 791
Skorzeny,
I take it you like "Power to the People". While I'm generally skeptical of "breakthrough" research (like we all haven't seen or bought into some snake oil), but I have to say, his "Beyond Stretching" is the cat's meow. As a relatively inflexible TKD stylist who has only recently recovered from a recurring adductor muscle injury, his credibility is way up there with me. My leg went from hurting all the time and being inflexible to being pain-free and more flexible & stronger than it was before I injured it in about 2 months. I have to add, though, that Thomas Kurz's "Stretching Scientifically" follows many of the same principals, and has some flexibility workout plans specifically geared for different sports, something Pavel doesn't cover in his text. I recommend them both, for sure. Check Amazon.com for both.

My questions for you -
1) What equipment do you need for the PTP workout?
2) Have you done any STI stretching?
3) Have you tried Furey's Combat Conditioning?

I think I'll invest in PTP soon. I'm still fine tuning my flexibility routine right now.

[This message has been edited by Danger Dave (edited September 20, 2000).]
Danger Dave is offline  
Old September 20, 2000, 02:15 PM   #37
Skorzeny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 1999
Posts: 1,938
Danger Dave:

"Beyond Stretching" was the first of Pavel's books that I bought. It is the book that really convinced me of Pavel's ideas.

Well, actually, they are not quite "Pavel's" ideas. Pavel was a PT trainer for the Soviet Spetznaz, a Soviet national kettlebell lifting champion (a big, folk strength contest in the former Soviet Union) AND is a Master of Sports in the former Soviet Union. His ideas are not "breakthrough" or "revolutionary." They may SEEM so in this country (the USA), because we have been sold the "buy-new-equipment-it-will-make-you-look-like-this" fitness snake oil since the 60s.

For example, I still see some (not all, not even most, but some) American Olympic athletes doing slow and static stretches. Most countries with any modicum of serious fitness research have moved to dynamic stretches and plyometrics for "warm-ups."

Pavel merely summarizes the relevant scientific research regarding flexibility and strength and drew the necessary conclusions and came up with some practical routines.

I have an associate who is a strength coach for a national-caliber football team and he verified most of "Pavel's" ideas as being sound and in line with current research.

As for needing equipment for "Power to the People," the only thing you need is an Olympic weight set ($139 at your local sports store). Or you can get a barbell and some weights. That's it.

Skorzeny

------------------
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu
Skorzeny is offline  
Old September 20, 2000, 02:20 PM   #38
Skorzeny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 1999
Posts: 1,938
Oh, sorry, forgot respond to the following:

2. STI: No, I do not do STI's. As Pavel points out, you don't really need extreme flexibility unless your athletic endeavours require it. PNF is more than enough for me.

3. Matt Furey's routines: I cycle speed-strength routines with PtP routines every 2-4 weeks. My speed-strength routines are similar to Furey's, but not quite the same. I do Hindu push-ups, Pistols (one-legged squats), pull-ups and some punches and kicks with rubber bands and some sprints here and there.

Skorzeny

------------------
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu
Skorzeny is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10291 seconds with 7 queries