The distaste for strength in martial arts

[JowGaWolf]

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

 

[Unkogami]

Olympic sprinters.......

 

[JowGaWolf]

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

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

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

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

 

[JowGaWolf]

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

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

 

[Oily Dragon]

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

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

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

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

 

[Dirty Dog]

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

Right?

Wrong.

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

 

[MetalBoar]

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

View attachment 28128
Does anyone really think that the muscles in his legs will make him a faster or slower runner?

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

Maybe this guy is the exception? Probably not

Full video.

Maybe this?

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

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

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

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

 

[MetalBoar]

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

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

 

[JowGaWolf]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. "attitudes towards physical strength in martial arts": I don't know any martial arts school that doesn't talk about doing something that will make the student stronger. I don't know of any physical activity that avoids making the participant stronger.
2. "many students and professors alike that seemed to have a sort of chip on their shoulders when it came to physical strength" : Again. I don't know of any Martial Art school that gets upset about students getting stronger. We are more likely to hear instructors, coaches, and teachers tell students "to keep at it and you'll eventually get stronger." Those are the words that most students here in Martial Arts schools.

He OP goes on about being strong. But I have never heard anyone in my life complain about strong. Even in this thread the debate isn't about being strong, but about being Big.

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

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

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

 

[Dirty Dog]

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

Never skip leg day...

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Dirty Dog]

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

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

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

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

 

[skribs]

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

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

 

[Dirty Dog]

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

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

 

[MetalBoar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Unkogami]

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

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

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

LOL

 

[drop bear]

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

Isn't everything physics?

No.

In this specific case it is kenesiology.

 

[drop bear]

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

Right?

Doesn't mean it isn't.

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

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

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

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

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

No.

In this specific case it is kenesiology.

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

 

[Tony Dismukes]

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

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

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