The distaste for strength in martial arts

[Steve]

I remember being told I wasn’t in class to learn to be strong. I was also told before my first competition to rely on technique but to be heavy and make sure my opponent felt my strength. For what that’s worth. Telling someone strength is bad is like telling them that speed or endurance is bad. Makes no sense. But in training, relying on things you already have can short circuit your progress.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I remember being told I wasn’t in class to learn to be strong. I was also told before my first competition to rely on technique but to be heavy and make sure my opponent felt my strength. For what that’s worth. Telling someone strength is bad is like telling them that speed or endurance is bad. Makes no sense. But I’m training, relaying on things you already have can short circuit your progress.

Yup. Being told not to rely on your strength, is the same as being told not to rely on your speed or natural athleticism, especially for beginners. Doesn't mean you don't want those things, just means you have to learn how to make everything work in case you come across someone stronger/faster than you.

But the reverse is also true, and I feel like that gets left out in a lot of places. You do need to increase those other aspects, as you need a way to make things work if the opponent has better technique than you. And it doesn't mean you shouldn't build everything up.

 

[Oily Dragon]

LOL

Such a high quality post!

You know there's a little emote button for LOL, right?

Come on dude, use your words. We're having a good discussion, don't ruin it.

 

[Oily Dragon]

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.

I get you.

Ok we've beaten speed to death now. But you got me thinking in another angle..endurance. Another thing about lots of muscle is that it takes more fuel to run. More oxygen, more glycogen. So in any endurance situation, does that suggest the person with less muscle to fuel has an advantage?

Would you agree someone with a lot of muscle will potentially gas out faster than someone who is leaner? I've definitely seen this in sparring, bigger guys struggling after a while, whereas the lighter peeps seem to have endless reserves of spunk.

 

[Flying Crane]

Yup. Being told not to rely on your strength, is the same as being told not to rely on your speed or natural athleticism, especially for beginners. Doesn't mean you don't want those things, just means you have to learn how to make everything work in case you come across someone stronger/faster than you.

But the reverse is also true, and I feel like that gets left out in a lot of places. You do need to increase those other aspects, as you need a way to make things work if the opponent has better technique than you. And it doesn't mean you shouldn't build everything up.

I think the issue in telling someone to rely on technique rather than their strength, is in working to develop a higher quality in the technique. If technique quality is poor, you can still make it work if you put a lot of muscle into it. If technique quality is high it is more efficient and can be more effective even with less effort and less muscling of it. So when training, you want a student (and yourself) to focus on quality of technique, for better efficiency and better effect, with less effort.

But that is not meant as an indictment of strength or stamina or speed or whatever natural and athletic attributes one might have. When facing a real opponent, whether in the ring or on the street, in the chaos of combat, quality will diminish. Now is when athleticism becomes important, when the conflict is real.

So, of course athleticism in all of its parts is important. It goes together with technique, but it is important to give appropriate attention to technical development in order for optimal use of that athleticism.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Strength, speed, endurance, technique. All of these are good and have a place in being successful in combat. All should be worked on and developed since they all come into play and aid one another. Synergy.

But in what proportion? Our bodies differ from one another in dimension, bulk, natural musculature and reaction time, and even personal style inclination. So the right mix of these ingredients will differ from one another. Like an artist mixing colors to get just the right hue, or Edison tying to get the right combo of gases in his incadescent light bulb, experimentation is needed. It took Edison thousands of tries to get it right.

So getting the right mix for our personal recipe should be kept in mind while practicing. One of the main reasons my skill has improved is that late in life I found the recipe that works for me, or perhaps the recipe found me. This alone has improved my karate, allowing me to get to the next level.

Some may stumble on to the best proportion after just a few years, others may take decades for each element to be worked on, distilled and blended into the mix. When this does happen, and it's not necessarily a conscious process, an "Aha" moment (though may be months before we actually notice we're different than before) happens and our Art jumps a level and feels "juuust right" for us.

This is one way our martial art journeys provide continual challenges, discoveries, and development.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If technique quality is poor, you can still make it work if you put a lot of muscle into it. If technique quality is high it is more efficient and can be more effective even with less effort and less muscling of it.

This is the chicken and egg issue. Sometime your technique quality is poor because your strength/muscle is weak.

For example, a good head lock technique require you to have your locking arm's elbow to point straight down to the ground. When you do that, your opponent's head would be twisted and attach on your chest. When your opponent's body structure is like that, it's difficult for him to counter you.

In order to do your head lock technique correctly, you do need to have strength to support it.

Here is an example that his left elbow is pointing side way (not straight down).

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I think the issue in telling someone to rely on technique rather than their strength, is in working to develop a higher quality in the technique. If technique quality is poor, you can still make it work if you put a lot of muscle into it. If technique quality is high it is more efficient and can be more effective even with less effort and less muscling of it. So when training, you want a student (and yourself) to focus on quality of technique, for better efficiency and better effect, with less effort.

But that is not meant as an indictment of strength or stamina or speed or whatever natural and athletic attributes one might have. When facing a real opponent, whether in the ring or on the street, in the chaos of combat, quality will diminish. Now is when athleticism becomes important, when the conflict is real.

So, of course athleticism in all of its parts is important. It goes together with technique, but it is important to give appropriate attention to technical development in order for optimal use of that athleticism.

I don't disagree with any of that. When doing technique, technique should be the focus. But that doesn't mean that you also shouldn't build up strength/stamina/speed/agility/etc. when possible, for exactly the reason you mention in the second paragraph. And that's where my experience is that people focusing on technique tend to fall short.

 

[Flying Crane]

This is the chicken and egg issue. Sometime your technique quality is poor because your strength/muscle is weak.

For example, a good head lock technique require you to have your locking arm's elbow to point straight down to the ground. When you do that, your opponent's head would be twisted and attach on your chest. When your opponent's body structure is like that, it's difficult for him to counter you. In order to do so, you do need a strong head lock that you can put your opponent's head on your chest with your elbow pointing straight down to the ground.

Here is an example of "weak" head lock. His elbow is pointing side way (not straight down).

View attachment 28132

Ultimately, superior application will be affected by both. I do not see it a chicken and egg issue, nor as an either/or issue. They work together. Develop quality technique. That will be optimally applied when strength is appropriate.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Ultimately, superior application will be affected by both. I do not see it a chicken and egg issue, nor as an either/or issue. They work together. Develop quality technique. That will be optimally applied when strength is appropriate.

Technique is the 1st 50%. Ability (strength) is the other 50%. Both are important.

 

[Flying Crane]

I don't disagree with any of that. When doing technique, technique should be the focus. But that doesn't mean that you also shouldn't build up strength/stamina/speed/agility/etc. when possible, for exactly the reason you mention in the second paragraph. And that's where my experience is that people focusing on technique tend to fall short.

I think there is truth in that. For most people, training time and energy is limited, and one thing may hold our interest more than the other. I find martial training to me more interesting than strength training, so I spend most of my limited training time there.

I was unemployed for much of Covid, so I took advantage of that time to work more on strength training and running, in addition to my martial training. Even with that extra time available, my strength and running activities took time away from my martial training, because I didn’t have the energy for it all. Now that I am working again, I find that I need to be content with only martial training, because my time is more limited again.

In a perfect world, I would train martial arts six days a week, run four days, strength train three, swim four, bike two…but that would be a full-time job for which I do not have the time, and definitely do not have the energy to withstand that many hours of physical exercise. So we make choices.

 

[Steve]

Are we now speaking theoretically or practically? Are real opponents actually involved in the discussion at this point, or are some folks speculating? I ask because I'm starting to suspect the latter.

 

[Flying Crane]

Technique is the 1st 50%. Ability (strength) is the other 50%. Both are important.

That is what I am saying.

 

[drop bear]

I get you.

Ok we've beaten speed to death now. But you got me thinking in another angle..endurance. Another thing about lots of muscle is that it takes more fuel to run. More oxygen, more glycogen. So in any endurance situation, does that suggest the person with less muscle to fuel has an advantage?

Would you agree someone with a lot of muscle will potentially gas out faster than someone who is leaner? I've definitely seen this in sparring, bigger guys struggling after a while, whereas the lighter peeps seem to have endless reserves of spunk.

Potentially.

It is complicated.

 

[JowGaWolf]

So in any endurance situation, does that suggest the person with less muscle to fuel has an advantage?

This is what my weight training is based on. Endurance, which is why everything is done for a minute. I don't lift heavy because I'm not trying to increase in size. I'm not trying to have big arms and big shoulders. I already have those and they make the training more difficult. So I weight train for endurance. As a result, I'm becoming tone, I'm getting smaller but I'm also getting stronger. My muscle density has increase, once I reach a certain size and weight, I'll start doing yoga and some gymnastic exercises for strength building. This will probably happen once I'm able to push weight for 2 minutes non-stop.

 

[MetalBoar]

This is what my weight training is based on. Endurance, which is why everything is done for a minute. I don't lift heavy because I'm not trying to increase in size. I'm not trying to have big arms and big shoulders. I already have those and they make the training more difficult. So I weight train for endurance. As a result, I'm becoming tone, I'm getting smaller but I'm also getting stronger. My muscle density has increase, once I reach a certain size and weight, I'll start doing yoga and some gymnastic exercises for strength building. This will probably happen once I'm able to push weight for 2 minutes non-stop.

If you're getting smaller and you're getting stronger it isn't because your muscles are shrinking. You're either losing fat, reducing inflammation, or quite possibly both, but if you're losing healthy muscle tissue you aren't getting stronger. If you really are losing healthy muscle it still may seem like you're getting stronger as skill plays a big role in everything, including things as seemingly devoid of skill development like chest press with machine weights. Other forms of exercise are much more skill dependent and skill increases can masquerade as strength increases for quite a while.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Other forms of exercise are much more skill dependent and skill increases can masquerade as strength increases for quite a while.

There are better training equipment than others. You can use:

1. dumbbell - train arm strength.
2. KB - train arm strength + wrist strength.
3. square bag - train arm strength + wrist strength + fingers strength.

IMO, 1 < 2 < 3.

 

[MetalBoar]

There are better training equipment than others. You can use:

1. dumbbell - train arm strength.
2. KB - train arm strength + wrist strength.
3. square bag - train arm strength + wrist strength + fingers strength.

IMO, 1 < 2 < 3.

I wasn't trying to comment one way or the other about whether highly skill dependent exercises were better or worse than very easy to learn exercises. Just pointing out that skill improvements can look and feel a lot like strength increases and the longer it takes to get proficient with an exercise the longer your skill development may deceive you with regards to your actual strength building progress.

I personally prefer to do something like a single full body, extremely high intensity, strength training workout to complete failure, with machines, every week and then do several less intense exercise sessions using other protocols. They might be body weight, or based on MA strength training methods like you've posted. I find that the machine based training allows me to safely work to a much deeper level of inroad than can be achieved with any other method and that the body weight and MA focuses training supplements that and does more to improve mobility and assures that I'm not missing anything.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I find that the machine based training allows me to safely work to a much deeper level of ...

There are some strength training that no machine can be used to replace it. How do you use machine to develop your

- fingers grip strength?
- both arms rotation strength?
- head lock squeeze strength?

 

[JowGaWolf]

If you're getting smaller and you're getting stronger it isn't because your muscles are shrinking. You're either losing fat, reducing inflammation, or quite possibly both,

I'm losing fat. The muscle isn't shrinking. It's becoming more compact. I do what I refer to as Mastering the weight. Basically, when a weight gets easy to lift then I'll rotate the various parts working. So if I'm doing dumbell press then I'll change how lift it by switching my arm position. I'll use my workout as an example. My bench press and workout in general is always 1 minute rounds. I do a wide bench press for reps 1-3. For reps 4 -6 it's narrow press (like a military press) for reps 7-9 I twist the weights. for 10-14 wide press and so on. I crease the number of reps for a specific movement time I go through the full set of 3 positions. I do this instead of increasing the starting weight. At the moment my starting weight is 15 lbs and I'm debating if I want to increase beyond 30 lbs.

In a single session of the dumbell press I probably do a little more than 360 reps total in 5 days I would have done that lift 1800 times.

It seems like it's extreme but it's not. It's less weight than my push ups.