Order of importance for workout groups in martial arts
- Thread starter skribs
- Start date
jobo
Grandmaster
3q
putting arm strength last, realy ignores the fact that arm strengh is largly back and chest strengh, is that core? or is it not included.
arm strengh playrs a big part in fast movement with you feet, ( with not of), jumping of the geound leaping running all rely on arm strengh to a fairly large part.
so its false distinction to make between leg strengh and arm strengh.and core strengh that are very largly linked
I dont see why you would prioritise them, when you could do all of them.
putting arm strength last, realy ignores the fact that arm strengh is largly back and chest strengh, is that core? or is it not included.
arm strengh playrs a big part in fast movement with you feet, ( with not of), jumping of the geound leaping running all rely on arm strengh to a fairly large part.
so its false distinction to make between leg strengh and arm strengh.and core strengh that are very largly linked
Headhunter
Senior Master
There’s no set one fir each style. Every practitioner has their own style even if they’re training the same system. If you have 2 kick-boxers they’ll both fight different ways. One may be more of a kicker so his focus will prioritise his legs more whereas the other one may use his hands more so will work his arms.
One might be a more point fighter based (e.g mayweather) and so will prioritise cardio, speed and footwork. Whereas another may be a power fighter who goes for the KO (e,g Tyson) so his focus will be more on his strength and explosiveness. But no matter what style all these things need to be worked on regardless so I see no need to prioritise as you should be doing them all equally. Set different days to work each so you get the best of everything
dvcochran
Grandmaster
In regards to tournament sparring I would swap 2 & 3. In the bigger picture I doubt it makes much difference.
I don’t really separate them for teaching purposes - I try to select exercises that affect more than one of those at a time (burpees, Turkish get-ups, mountain climbers, etc). I’d more or less agree with the priority, but mostly consider them nearly equally important.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
I do agree very much with your first statement; and not only could, but should. I think your logic gets a little murky in the last three. But then I don't know what your art is.
In terms of teaching/training, regardless of the sport, I'd say the group importance is less important than individual importance. In two senses. The first is that if core strength is only moderately important, but one student has no core strength whatsoever, than core strength exercises have a higher priority/importance for that particular student. The second is that it depends on what their style is. This is true in any sport-in basketball, what a point guard works on/what's most important for them is different than a shooting guard or a small forward. In soccer, a goalie and a striker have very different focuses, so they're training should be different. In martial arts, beyond different sports having different focuses, the same is true within a sport. The simplest example popping out to me is boxing-An infighter and outboxer have different things they should be focusing on.
OP
OP
skribs
Grandmaster
I was more looking at what to train at the gym, outside of class time.
jobo
Grandmaster
it doesnt rally matter which art your considering, its fundementaly the same physical requiremnts
your body is a series of interconnecting '' pulleys and levers'. breaking it down in to three or more components to be trained independently of each other is a bodybuilders rather than an athletes mentality.
'' core'' id so generally or specifically applied is becomes meaningless with out clarification, the bulk of your muscle mass should be in the torso, if thats what you are calling the core, then it probably should have a priority,, BUT as most of the muscles in the torso, can only be worked by using your arms and legs, then its a meaningless distinction.
if its the more specific bit consisting of your abs and lower back, then those to get well worked by doing the rest of the torso, so it to becomes a meaning less class of exercise, unless your trying to get a six pack, which is again a body builder mentality of visible rather than efficient muscle mass
full body movements like jumping, walking running kicking punching,are rather obvious are improved by full body strength, so saying legs are more important than arms and then prioritising legs means your loosing out on your max performance with them weedy and flat chest and arms you have
good athletes ( other than extreme endurance) tend to have good all round strength/ muscles mass, there a reason other than aesthetics for that, that being it makes them good aesthetes
then it depends at what point your entering this discussion, if your coming into this with well developed legs and under developed upper torso and arms, then the immediate benefit to performance would be to develop your upper body strength to get balance in your body, generally the exact opposite of the situation body builders find themselves in
Last edited:
Yeah, for your own training, that'd be the priority I'd have. Though, as I said before, the prioritization is more a matter of degrees, and I'll favor exercises that let me do more than one of those, and will focus more on shoring up whichever of the 4 is currently relatively the weakest.
There are some definite grey areas in this. Is the chest "core" or "arms"? It really belongs to both groups. Same for the larger shoulder and upper back muscles, IMO. Obliques, abs, lower back, and lats are clearer to me as belonging in "core", though lats are less clear than the others.
It's worth noting that this isn't a binary choice. He can work all 4, just giving more time to one than the others. While his prioritization is probably a reasonable generalization, it's probably more effective to focus where he personally needs it.
_Simon_
Senior Master
Very interesting question, and also thoughts so far.
I think for TKD you hit the nail on the head, those seem pretty good in terms of priority. But like Monkey Turned Wolf said which is a great point, it depends on your starting point. If your cardio and core are already amazing, best to work on what may be not as developed.
I tend to alternate through different components, if I have a specific goal in mind it will be more tailored to that (eg tournament), but I'd start with what you feel needs more attention. And priorities can shift all the time within the context of martial arts practice. Some aspects need more of a maintenance whereas others could do with improving.
But still it is a good thought to systematise it and see what to devote most of your attention to if it's limited time you have.
That being said, no one ever said I wish my cardio wasn't as good as it is [emoji14]
I think for TKD you hit the nail on the head, those seem pretty good in terms of priority. But like Monkey Turned Wolf said which is a great point, it depends on your starting point. If your cardio and core are already amazing, best to work on what may be not as developed.
I tend to alternate through different components, if I have a specific goal in mind it will be more tailored to that (eg tournament), but I'd start with what you feel needs more attention. And priorities can shift all the time within the context of martial arts practice. Some aspects need more of a maintenance whereas others could do with improving.
But still it is a good thought to systematise it and see what to devote most of your attention to if it's limited time you have.
That being said, no one ever said I wish my cardio wasn't as good as it is [emoji14]
jobo
Grandmaster
that being specific to his needs is largely the point im making, but that requires him to understand the interconnection of muscles and recognising that his kicking power may be being adversely effected by muscle groups above the waist and more so, that over development of some muscles groups at the expense of others can lead to all sort of structural and posture issues
jobo
Grandmaster
thats really why the term core is so problematic, it seems to be a comparatively recent concept, im not aware of it being used much if at all before the Pilates fashion of the late 90s early 2000s.
its just a relatively unimportant bit in the middle that gets well worked doing full body exercise and not a serious muscle grouping of great importance that requires its own specific work out.
that is it is important as strength in other area flows through it, but its very difficult to get strength in other muscle groups with out also increasing your '' core'' strength as that strength flows through it
if all your doing is Pilates then it may have a purpose if your doing full body exercises, weight or body weight then its covered
Last edited:
jobo
Grandmaster
well no, if time is the defining factor in your work out, then the most efficient exercises time wise is to do '' full body'' exercise that hit each and every muscle group and go home, say 15 mins with rest interval
the more you break them down into constituent parts that that require their own work out the more time intensive it becomes
Last edited:
Headhunter
Senior Master
At the end of the day. Do whatever you wish to do. This is a hobby for all of us. If you want to work 100% arms and nothing else that’s your choice. You want 100% cardio that’s fine to it’s your own progress And your own body and your own training not anyone else’s
Standard isolating strength exercises can develop arm and leg strength without core strength. It’s not terribly useful for daily function (hence the “functional fitness” craze), but it can be done. A lot of folks include “core” in their training concept to avoid that problem.
jobo
Grandmaster
no they cant, well maybe do grip exercises, but thats about it, but anyway i said other torso exercises
Everything gotta be an argument?
_Simon_
Senior Master
Do you have to create a perceived limitation or lack within almost every post or sentence that's written?
Not every single thing needs to scrutinised the **** out of. It's okay for people to have a normal conversation without it being "well no".
I'm all for challenging misconceptions and sharing ideas. But geez man it's like you challenge almost every single thing that's said just for the sake of having an opposing view on it.
