The manipulation of your own body through space in the easiest and most effecient way possible is functional to me. While I agree that all forms of "function" vary largely depending on the goal, I believe that average person would benefit more throughout daily life from being able to perform like these gentlemen rather then benching 350.
Thanks. That is actually the same line of thinking im pursuing. To do what they do, even the smallest wrist tendon, the most insignificant rotator cuff tendon, everything is equally up to par. A physique in perfect balance even from the most awkward angle.
The whole damned 'functional strength' debate is crap. I have a friend who dumps on BBers for their lack of it. He's a Crossfit guy who is training for the Coastguard. In the same way he is training for a specific goal, so do bodybuilders. Who gives a shit about real world strength, or functional strength.
Ah yes, the Alexis brothers. Their parents were circus performers and they started doing this when they were just kids. They tour with Cirque du Soleil, don't they? The picture is what they look like off stage.
As for functional strength, this is a matter of definition. Training to get stronger at some specific task is functional training, which will be different for a swimmer vs. a pole vaulter. This is no such thing as "functional training" just "functional training for X". In this case, while what they do is amazing and they happen to be freakishly strong, I doubt that anyone over about 16 could start cold and learn this. The ratio of strength to bodyweight would be too low. You have to grow into it from a young age (which is also the trick with all of those Chinese acrobats).
Wow that was amazing, but something i would not be comfortable doing with a man.
This functional strength debate is getting quite boring...it is all relative.
This type of strength would do little for me in my pursuit of strength and power in terms of football and rugby, which are more explosive sports where all the power comes from the hips. As far as my MMA training, i would not train like a gymnast. Do you see where this is going?
Your buddy does what a lot of people do, shits on the goals of others to quench their own insecurities.
You can see it here too. Just post about crossfit, curling in the squat rack, people that don't deadlift, etc... Christ read the BB forum for perfect examples of people shitting on the goals of others.
Thing is, some people train to look a certain way, some people train to move as much weight as humanly possible once, some people train to run 6,000,000 miles at a time, some people train to hold another man over their head for 35 seconds. It's all relative and we should be supportive of each other, but we aren't. Such is life.
If someone is working hard at a goal, even if it is different than your own, we should all respect the hard work.
Our desired function as weightlifters is to fight resistance in various ways. So if you look at it from that perspective it is very functional, as every athletic 'function' is a variation of resistance control. Many athletes use weightlifting to advance in their sport, I wouldn't suprised if the acrobats shown did as well as that sport is pretty much a display of defying gravity (resistance) with their musculature.
It did say it was impressive, but having another man's ass and cock like an inch away from your mouth is "gay," even if they are brothers. I don't have a problem with it, just merely stating my opinion.
The problem with functional strength is semantic. The word functional is loaded. People say it like benching 400 lbs. is somehow not functional if you can't do 200 kipping pull-ups. What if the new trend was "real" strength and everyone started saying, "I don't train for functional strength. I train for 'real' strength"? All the Crossfitters would be up-in-arms, "What do you mean REAL strength? Are you trying to say I don't have REAL strength?" Yet, the functional strength crowd does exactly that and tries to portray their ideology as somehow superior.