I was just curious as I have seen a number of fighters do Olympic training, others doing ultra endurance work, some doing 8/12 rep sets, I would of thought it would be a more universal thing at the top level.
Is it more a what suits your style thing?
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
I was just curious as I have seen a number of fighters do Olympic training, others doing ultra endurance work, some doing 8/12 rep sets, I would of thought it would be a more universal thing at the top level.
Is it more a what suits your style thing?[/quote]
I think it’s more of a “doesnt REALLY fucking matter” thing.
Seriously even in the world of weightlifting, dudes spend a lot of time waxing about bullshit that does not really matter. This and that rep scheme, this and that tempo, this and that split. To the point: no single workout program has ever had a shred of science backing it’s efficacy to produce whatever it claims to produce.
It’s really just dudes putting together what they think will work best based off their experience, and based off some loose supporting evidence from limited science in the area. Every “elite” coach in the world has differing opinions on what works.
For fighters, your strength and conditioning program matters even less. Skill work is number one in a fighter’s tool kit, EVERY TIME. With regards to training, as long as you are getting stronger or better conditioned, does it matter what they do?
People used to say fighters should never train like bodybuilders. Cro cop weight trained with routines and rep schemes that look like they were plucked straight from a muscle mag. It sure as fuck didn’t hurt his explosiveness or speed one iota, why? Probably because that explosiveness was built and refined by hours spent in the gym practicing kicks and what not. Having bigger muscles probably just supplemented his explosiveness.
Floyd mayweather had the dumbest strength work routine I’d ever seen as he moved up in weight. Doesn’t really matter though, the dude was still faster than a taipan, more accurate than a sniper and was still a defense wizard. And he achieved his goal of moving up in weight.
what was his routine?
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
I was just curious as I have seen a number of fighters do Olympic training, others doing ultra endurance work, some doing 8/12 rep sets, I would of thought it would be a more universal thing at the top level.
Is it more a what suits your style thing?[/quote]
I think it’s more of a “doesnt REALLY fucking matter” thing.
Seriously even in the world of weightlifting, dudes spend a lot of time waxing about bullshit that does not really matter. This and that rep scheme, this and that tempo, this and that split. To the point: no single workout program has ever had a shred of science backing it’s efficacy to produce whatever it claims to produce.
It’s really just dudes putting together what they think will work best based off their experience, and based off some loose supporting evidence from limited science in the area. Every “elite” coach in the world has differing opinions on what works.
For fighters, your strength and conditioning program matters even less. Skill work is number one in a fighter’s tool kit, EVERY TIME. With regards to training, as long as you are getting stronger or better conditioned, does it matter what they do?
People used to say fighters should never train like bodybuilders. Cro cop weight trained with routines and rep schemes that look like they were plucked straight from a muscle mag. It sure as fuck didn’t hurt his explosiveness or speed one iota, why? Probably because that explosiveness was built and refined by hours spent in the gym practicing kicks and what not. Having bigger muscles probably just supplemented his explosiveness.
Floyd mayweather had the dumbest strength work routine I’d ever seen as he moved up in weight. Doesn’t really matter though, the dude was still faster than a taipan, more accurate than a sniper and was still a defense wizard. And he achieved his goal of moving up in weight. [/quote]
BINGO.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
I was just curious as I have seen a number of fighters do Olympic training, others doing ultra endurance work, some doing 8/12 rep sets, I would of thought it would be a more universal thing at the top level.
Is it more a what suits your style thing?[/quote]
I think it’s more of a “doesnt REALLY fucking matter” thing.
Seriously even in the world of weightlifting, dudes spend a lot of time waxing about bullshit that does not really matter. This and that rep scheme, this and that tempo, this and that split. To the point: no single workout program has ever had a shred of science backing it’s efficacy to produce whatever it claims to produce.
It’s really just dudes putting together what they think will work best based off their experience, and based off some loose supporting evidence from limited science in the area. Every “elite” coach in the world has differing opinions on what works.
For fighters, your strength and conditioning program matters even less. Skill work is number one in a fighter’s tool kit, EVERY TIME. With regards to training, as long as you are getting stronger or better conditioned, does it matter what they do?
People used to say fighters should never train like bodybuilders. Cro cop weight trained with routines and rep schemes that look like they were plucked straight from a muscle mag. It sure as fuck didn’t hurt his explosiveness or speed one iota, why? Probably because that explosiveness was built and refined by hours spent in the gym practicing kicks and what not. Having bigger muscles probably just supplemented his explosiveness.
Floyd mayweather had the dumbest strength work routine I’d ever seen as he moved up in weight. Doesn’t really matter though, the dude was still faster than a taipan, more accurate than a sniper and was still a defense wizard. And he achieved his goal of moving up in weight. [/quote]
BINGO.[/quote]
Can we just sticky this and put an end to pointless threads asking how much you have to bench press before you are a good fighter?
what is wrong with being interested, fuck if you don’t like the thread don’t fucking answer. People who post in threads to complain about said thread are worse than hitler. At least Hitler had cool leather boots.
If you’d been on this board longer than a week before you stated creating threads, and had used the search function, you’d realize that this has been discussed a trillion times.
Plus we’re all better looking than Hitler. He was an ugly guy.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
what is wrong with being interested, fuck if you don’t like the thread don’t fucking answer. People who post in threads to complain about said thread are worse than hitler. At least Hitler had cool leather boots.[/quote]
Yeah…maybe it was your delivery…had undertones of same regurgitated issues of weightlifting for fighters.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
what is wrong with being interested, fuck if you don’t like the thread don’t fucking answer. People who post in threads to complain about said thread are worse than hitler. At least Hitler had cool leather boots.[/quote]
Does anybody really know what’s absolute best? You’ll see somebody say a champions program was stupid and they just overcame it. Whose to say that it wasn’t that champions program that did it. Did the person who said it was stupid train 10 other elite fighters who were all best of the best except the one guy?
The only training protocol(excluding their fight training) I’ve noticed that the greatest of the greats all seem to have is running. All the experts seem to think it doesn’t work, but everyone from Silva to Pacman to Tyson ran.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
The only training protocol(excluding their fight training) I’ve noticed that the greatest of the greats all seem to have is running. All the experts seem to think it doesn’t work, but everyone from Silva to Pacman to Tyson ran. [/quote]
So fucking true. I loved when everybody jumped on the bandwagon a few years back with the whole “Long distance running is bad for fighters! Muhammad Ali succeeded in SPITE of his training! Do complexes instead!!”
Who said this? A bunch of internet coaches who never trained a fighter in their lives. But every boxing coach in the world makes his fighters run. And those coaches were fighters themselves most of the time, so they know what works.
But nooooo… listen to the internet article writer. HE knows what he’s talking about.
So, so asinine.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
I was watching some video of a guy training for worlds (bjj) awhile back and he was doing everything to 22 reps @ 3 sets.
It would be like chest cable flies/super wide grip bench press/Dumbell press/Chest dips all 3 sets at 22 reps apart from dips.
Legs would be squat/lunges/leg curls and some other stuff and every workout had the same rep and set numbers.[/quote]
Realize that you probably only saw a snippet of training from one dude, and it was outside of the context of knowing his entire program. I’ve seen video of Frankie Edgar benching his bodyweight for 27 reps, but that certainly doesn’t mean it’s a snapshot of his regular workouts.
When a fighter gets to the level where S+C can make a noticeable difference, I’d expect it to be like any other trait - if it can be “outsourced” to a specialist/coach, the plan will be that much more efficiently designed and will free up that much more brain-space/mental energy for the athlete himself.
When Tom Lawlor was here answering questions for a few weeks, he mentioned going to Mike Boyle’s gym for S+C twice a week. I’m no pro fighter, but given the choice between figuring out my own strength and conditioning program or having Mike Boyle or Ben Bruno just tell me what to do, I’m going with plan B.
I don’t understand how there is no one proven method to use. Why can a routines effectiveness for a combat athlete not be measured and stacked aginst other routines?
Like when people say we are all different whatever works for you, well no we are not all different, we are all fundamentally the same, so what works for one should work for all.
In science you have to prove smething for it to be accepted, or provide overwhelming evidence to substantiate a theory that can not technically be proven in a vulgar sense, surely one type of training yields scientifically more pleasing results as far as hypertrophy, athleticism, stamina etc etc go?
Sports science should surely have to pass the same battery of scrutiny as any other scientific field.
I remember reading this book and the dude says how arnold would do a certain excersize that did not fully work a rnage of motion or something, but when challenged people would say, oh you know better than arnold, then why is he huge and your small, this type of attitude is the most redundant thing ever and it must do to the bodybuilding/conditioning/whatever you want to call it community what catholacism did for european enlightenment, slow it down by numerous years.
Having said this I maintain cable flies are the best exersize ever and I love the film the money pitt, i am probably your worst nightmare.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
Like when people say we are all different whatever works for you, well no we are not all different, we are all fundamentally the same, so what works for one should work for all.
[/quote]
Yes…and no.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
Like when people say we are all different whatever works for you, well no we are not all different, we are all fundamentally the same, so what works for one should work for all.
[/quote]
and working out is fundamentally the same. Lift things up and put them down.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
I don’t understand how there is no one proven method to use. Why can a routines effectiveness for a combat athlete not be measured and stacked aginst other routines?
Like when people say we are all different whatever works for you, well no we are not all different, we are all fundamentally the same, so what works for one should work for all.
In science you have to prove smething for it to be accepted, or provide overwhelming evidence to substantiate a theory that can not technically be proven in a vulgar sense, surely one type of training yields scientifically more pleasing results as far as hypertrophy, athleticism, stamina etc etc go?
Sports science should surely have to pass the same battery of scrutiny as any other scientific field.
I remember reading this book and the dude says how arnold would do a certain excersize that did not fully work a rnage of motion or something, but when challenged people would say, oh you know better than arnold, then why is he huge and your small, this type of attitude is the most redundant thing ever and it must do to the bodybuilding/conditioning/whatever you want to call it community what catholacism did for european enlightenment, slow it down by numerous years.
Having said this I maintain cable flies are the best exersize ever and I love the film the money pitt, i am probably your worst nightmare.[/quote]
Because the goal you’re chasing - winning a fight - doesn’t have anything to do with the weights you’re lifting.
So you’re trying to use a given result - whether you won or lost the fight - to indicate that your strength and conditioning program is good.
But what goes into winning a fight (using boxing for the sake of argument because it’s what I know)?
Well, it’s a combination of overall skill, strength of technique, punching power, punching accuracy, defensive prowess, natural reflexes, the ability to find and use range effectively, the ability to control distance, the ability to think in both strategic and tactical ways, the ability to think in both strategic and tactical ways and do it FASTER than your opponent, your overall muscular endurance, your overall cardiovascular endurance, your natural explosiveness, your developed explosiveness, your dedication to craft, your mental stability, your chin, your ability to make adaptations, your corner, what you had for dinner and whether or not your wife pissed you off before your match.
Fighting’s not simple. It’s not easy. Getting good at it isn’t as simple as “Lift X 22 times for four sets.”
The argument could even be made that if a fighter THINKS that 22 reps of cable flys are the best possible thing for him, they ARE the best possible thing for him, because the mental part of fighting is 3.4 million times more important than the physical.
It’s not bodybuilding man. There’s no “One size fits all.”
Also, fighters fight in weight divisions. Never lose sight of that fact. This has two effects:
First: If I am 6’1 boxing at middleweight, I will have different s&c needs to a guy who is 5’9 at the weight. He will likely be carrying more muscle mass, will have to be busier, more aggressive etc. His muscular needs will inevitably be different from mine. So no, one size will not fit all, because I will have different weaknesses to someone with a lower centre of gravity and more muscle mass.
Higher weight divisions tend to have more lucrative paydays. Sometimes fighters are just looking to put on more muscle to weigh more. The increase in pay day is worth a minor loss in athleticism (not that you cant effectively put on weight without compromising athleticism). Fighters outside the elite do not get paid very much by and large. They probably don’t want to splash out on a proper coach. They are also coming from a situation by and large where weight training is new to them. Following the beginner principle - bust your arse, eat a shit load, rest a shit load = grow a lot.
Don’t lose sight of the fact that this is a career. Fighters do what they need to to get ahead, usually placing financial gain ahead of ‘legacy’. If that means adding mass in away that works for them, even if it isnt the best way, then they are probably going to do it.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
I don’t understand how there is no one proven method to use. Why can a routines effectiveness for a combat athlete not be measured and stacked aginst other routines?[/quote]
It’s because it goes beyond athletics. It has a lot to do with style.
It has to do with decisions made during the fight. It has to do with morale.
Also, it has to do with genetics.
Your face looks different than mine, due to genetics. You might be lactose intolerant, whereas I am not.
Would it be so hard to imagine that maybe training a certain muscle group or way may have a different effect/outcome for you than for me?
Look at all those guys that body build. They all put tremendous work and follow the same general principles/guidelines. They’re all huge; however, at the end of the day Johny X is gonna be more vascular, Bob Y is gonna have a more protruding tear drop, etc.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
Surely 22 rep sets is shit for building strength and getting ready for competition?[/quote]
What you aren’t realizing is that building strength and getting ready for a comp are two different things unless you are talking about some sort of strength competition like power lifting.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
I remember reading this book and the dude says how arnold would do a certain excersize that did not fully work a rnage of motion or something, but when challenged people would say, oh you know better than arnold, then why is he huge and your small, this type of attitude is the most redundant thing ever and it must do to the bodybuilding/conditioning/whatever you want to call it community what catholacism did for european enlightenment, slow it down by numerous years.
[/quote]
Bullshit. The beauty of weightlifting is that the results of your program are visible for the world to see. Science does not yet know enough about the human body to sit down at a desk and write the “unified theory of getting strong” without taking said theory to a gym and trying it out. Meanwhile, there are guys who skip the mental masturbation, get in the gym, and by trial and error figure out what works. And we know it works because those guys are big and strong.
So yes, when someone tells me they know better than Arnold how to get hyooooge, I don’t believe them unless they’re onstage at Mr Universe. There’s a reason almost every bodybuilder has at least leafed through “The New Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding.” The guy who wrote it and guys who imitated him have gotten really big, whether or not some chubby kinesiology major thinks their program is optimal.
However, fighting is not bodybuilding. The goal is not to be as strong as possible, it’s to be as strong as possible without harming other essential traits such as weight class, wind, agility, etc. And every minute, calorie, and dollar one puts into S+C is not available to put into additional fight training. 22 reps each lift may not be optimal, even for fighting, but the time and mental energy saved by just getting strong enough through a dirt simple system may result in a more effective fighter than putting 20+ hrs/wk into figuring out the perfect split for getting as strong as possible while still making middleweight. Fighting has a wonderfully simple way of evaluating your training: at the end of the match is your hand up or is someone checking your pulse on the canvas?
Maybe they are not as big as arnold because they do not have godly genetics, don’t inject massive amounts of roids from 15 years of age, don’t have time to train , money to waffle down perfect diet food etc etc.
Maybe Arnold could of got way bigger if he had worked out another way, heck BJ penn was a prodigy and multiple belt champ and mundial winner, guess his diet of cheeseburgers and workouts were the best thing, becuase he is better than most at bjj, so barely doing cardio and eating crap must be the best way, according to your logic?