Thread: The Fallacy of Training Machines
11/28/2005 10:23pm, #131
Originally Posted by KungFuDoesWork
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Hapkido & TKD
11/28/2005 10:42pm, #132Originally Posted by JFS USA
After reading this breakdown, what you're getting at sounds entirely reasonable. I do believe in the point of deminishing returns factor when it comes to rehashing certain methods of training. I have had this gripe about the training my coaches have me do as they seem to have us spend more time than I would like on "noob exercises".
I don't question them because "Ross knows best", but I can see how certain things that we're doing, as they are not geared towards the individual, are not the most efficient practices for excelling as fighters. In fact, I will admit to being a coach traitor, since I will train with the women's boxing team coach whenever I get the chance as the training she provides is more centered around live excercises that are just a step below actual sparring and it's much more centered around each individual.
11/28/2005 10:48pm, #133
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- none currently
(Lets take this one step further)
No one can fight full contact all out all the time as the only means of training. It would just never happen...you'd look like ali inside of a couple years not to mention the blown out knees and arthritis...obviously, JFS and crew are advocating something more moderate that doesn't push one nearly that much. Fine.
What about grapplers? It's easy to roll constantly as a sole method of training once you've got enough of the basics. It's easy to roll for a long time at a level that doesn't push you to exhaustion too once you're in grappling shape. Perhaps this is one reason that grapplers consistently own people who train solely as strikers. Grapplers consistently train the way they fight whereas many strikers have too many distractions.
Does this invalidate bag training or padwork altogether? Doubtful. Does this mean that training the way you fight is crucial? Absolutely.
Anyone on here specialize in exercise phys? I'd love to hear from someone who actually has an educated viewpoint on the science behind this...
11/29/2005 12:35am, #134
Why do you think we used those funny looking helmets in my early fight videos? Because its the only way to not go brain fucked.
11/29/2005 12:54am, #135Originally Posted by xingyifa
Note: These are my personal opinions and observations. I'm not trying to be a know-it-all here.
It is generally easier for a grappler to take a pure stand-up striker out of his game than vice versa. People that do not train to work on the ground generally do not know what to do there. Watch a newbie in his first grappling class and that becomes obvious. Part of it is most likely what you suggested: grapplers generally train just how they fight--close the distance, go for the takedown, get position, end the fight. A big part of it is the inexperience of a pure striker with a ground game. He is now being pinned to the ground, limiting his mobility. He no longer knows how to generate power in his punches (he might have the skills, but he probably has not been in the situation before, making it hard for him to apply them). He is not sure what to do here, and any little mistake he makes is going to be seized upon by the grappler.
My reasoning behind it being harder for a pure striker to make a pure grappler play his game:
A striker generally wants distance, a good base, and freedom of movement. A grappler actively seeks to deny the striker all these things. It is very hard for a striker to maintain these things against someone so used to fighting the way a grappler does (A point for Xingyifa). No strike from a human limb is a guaranteed KO. Some people might come close, but they are not ALWAYS going to get the win from a single hit. A single RNC is pretty much always going to make someone drift off to sleepyland. In otherwords, a grappling solution to a fight is probably higher-percentage.
So I guess you could say that a grappler being more highly trained for what he is doing is part of why he tends to have success against a pure striker, but that is only half the equation. The grappler is always playing a much higher-percentage game than a striker. In other words, his strategy is the other major key.
You will often hear that a big, hard-hitting lug of a man has a "puncher's chance" against a more technical beast, even at ridiculously high levels of performance.
This is generally not so when comparing grapplers at high levels. There is a reason for this. Grappling is all about minimizing the random elements of a fight.
Whew, sorry for the long-winded tirade.
Great thread, by the way, JFS. I don't think you've butchered any of my horses, but you've definitely put words with concepts I had never really thought to define. Thanks.
Edit -- In no way am I endorsing training in only grappling here. I do not believe in this at all.
Last edited by Cassius; 11/29/2005 12:58am at .
11/29/2005 12:58am, #136Originally Posted by Kidspatula
The Kid can do it! Must be a woman thing - you guys would never have admitted to 'seeing' someone else's 'perspective' without fifty pages of high octane dick beating."You know what I like about you, William? You like guns AND meditation."
11/29/2005 1:08am, #137Originally Posted by Zendetta
I don't really think anyone can disagree with the assertion that training hard, properly, and intelligently is a lot better than just training hard. It seems to me that most people here are just disagreeing on what proper and intelligent training are, not whether or not they should be used. Beyond that, there is so much context left out in posts that it is likely that a lot of people's views on this matter are more similar than they would like to admit.
Last edited by Cassius; 11/29/2005 1:10am at .
11/29/2005 1:10am, #138Originally Posted by garbanzobean
I was arguing with the fact that he proclaimed speed bag and skipping rope as "useless" training tools, which is entirely seperate from the whole drills thing. I still believe in their use as it relates to fighting.
11/29/2005 1:11am, #139
I'm learnin' stuff."You know what I like about you, William? You like guns AND meditation."
11/29/2005 1:19am, #140Originally Posted by Kidspatula
I am conflicted about this opinion myself. I've always looked at strength and endurance training as ways to give yourself better tools to work with. I'm not sure if "increasing your potential" is the proper term here, but it seems to fit. I don't necessarily see these "dead" drills as ways to improve your martial arts so much as I see them as ways to improve the body that does the martial arts.
This is a more "broken down" approach, whereas JFS' seems more holistic. He wants to do both at once. At the very least, his arguments might give you something to think about while you are training. "How can I make this exercise more like what I experience during a practice/fight/whatever?"
Just some food for thought. Hopefully I didn't screw this up too badly.
Edit -- Hear that JFS? I am accusing you of being a completely reasonable person. I feel like I just threw water on the wicked witch. Just kidding. Sort of.
Last edited by Cassius; 11/29/2005 1:24am at .