The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Combat
 
Squatting For MMA
 

Xen Nova
Level 1

Join date: May 2004
Posts: 5847

Robert A wrote:
WHAT

THE

HELL

I know you are one of Bravo's people so I get you may have a more flexible view on weed for fighters, but suggesting people drop acid and go for a jog is just cruel. Sure, you can go an extra mile when you think giant spider snakes who talk like Rush Limbaugh are trying to eat you, but what about traffic?

What's next Salvia and thai pad drills?

Are you only in it for the youtube videos?

Damn it man, think of the children.

Regards,

Robert A



Well I was on netflix and came across (not literally mind you) a documentary entitled "Crank". The gentleman under review happened to experiment with various nootropics and stimulants in an effort to keep his heart going. After many experiments... Crack, Weed, Meth, PCP, Shrooms, I found the best running 'aid' happened to be good ol lucy in the sky with diamonds.

Joey "coco" Diaz told me, "If it's 2 in the afternoon and you aint high, go fuck yourself! I want you around me like I want cancer in my ballsack!"

I'm not sure how that's relevant to this discussion but...

wait

pause for the cause

*sound of bubbles*

anyway what I was saying is that I like to run in 3-d

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/...wiki/Dock_Ellis


His best season was 1971, when he won 19 games for the World Series champion Pirates and was the starting pitcher for the National League in the All-Star Game. However, he is perhaps best remembered for throwing a no-hitter in 1970 and later stating that he had done it while under the influence of LSD.






;)

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Xen Nova
Level 1

Join date: May 2004
Posts: 5847

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>COME RUN WITH ME<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Robert A
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2167

Xen Nova is more winning than Charlie Sheen.

That is all.

Regards,

Robert A

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Whelanj
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2010
Posts: 44

Xen Nova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>COME RUN WITH ME<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Psychedelic drug legalization, and marijuana legalization in particular, is the major human rights challenge facing my generation. War 10th Plantet!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Schwarzfahrer
Level

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3525

Xen,

surely it's not a good idea to just badmouth a coach.

However, 'Whelanj' specifically asked for what this one coach recommended as "target weights".
Curiously enough, this one coach had a target weight in mind.
And there goes that little dispute.

My martial background (mainly striking arts) is different to a lot of users here in so far that weights were like antimatter - completely exotic stuff.
According to senior athletes, Bodybuilders used them to pump their useless, steroid fed muscles as well as their tiny egos. Sure, some guys like pro judo players used them too, but won't a well placed strike always nullify any muscly advantage?
?
"Pushups give you power, not benchpress; deadlifts will kill your back, but if you do them you should do them "wrong" by rounding your back..;

If I look back, the sheer amount of idiocies and downright hostility towards the good weights I encountered in Germany is just astounding.
There are no broad-shouldered quarterbacks banging the prettiest maid in highschool, there is no equivalent to "how much you bench?".

Through the internet, this had changed, of course.
Still, I hear the old myths all the time.

No matter how one looks at it, a modern man playing with weights will often experience an significant rise in
strength all around. Bodybuilders call that newbie gains.
If you rise early to work in the fields, chop firewood at noon and throw javelins at invading vikings in the afternoon, this principle might not work for you.

It may be that you, Xen, correct me if I'm wrong, are so used to most athletes around you being in top shape (doesn't have to include weights) that this aspect of weights is seen too critical by you, probably BECAUSE of guys who throw around HUGE numbers.
So perhaps this is the other side of the extreme, overexposure to weights as a tool.
Maybe a guy like Lauzon is just that, a maverick and a guy like Guillard is just too much in love with the iron?

My martial background definitely suffered because of an overly hostile attitude towards wights.

Yes, I'll say it: I wish I'd have enjoyed at least a brief exposure with just a simple barbell +100kg in my late teens. T'would have been for the better.

Wrapping it up:
So if some random german martial artist dude asks me if he should lift at all, I'll tell: why not?
And if some random internet dude asks if he should deadlift triple his bw - I lol
And I don't feel bad.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

FightinIrish26
Level

Join date: Feb 2005
Posts: 17202

Schwarzfahrer wrote:

If you rise early to work in the fields, chop firewood at noon and throw javelins at invading vikings in the afternoon, this principle might not work for you.



So that's why I never really gain a lot of mass huh?


Great post otherwise.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Sentoguy
Level 3

Join date: Nov 2005
Posts: 6153

Whelanj wrote:
Xen Nova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>COME RUN WITH ME<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Psychedelic drug legalization, and marijuana legalization in particular, is the major human rights challenge facing my generation. War 10th Plantet!


Well I don't know that I'd go that far, but it is a pretty silly prohibition. Especially considering that alcohol and tobacco are easily as physically and/or psychologically damaging and cause exponentially more fatalities on a yearly basis, yet are both legal.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

devildog_jim
Level

Join date: Jun 2007
Posts: 696

Sentoguy wrote:
Whelanj wrote:
Xen Nova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>COME RUN WITH ME<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Psychedelic drug legalization, and marijuana legalization in particular, is the major human rights challenge facing my generation. War 10th Plantet!


Well I don't know that I'd go that far, but it is a pretty silly prohibition. Especially considering that alcohol and tobacco are easily as physically and/or psychologically damaging and cause exponentially more fatalities on a yearly basis, yet are both legal.


I hate this line of argument, because it concedes the point that the government may tell you what you may and may not put into your body. A free person should be allowed to poison themselves if they so desire, and therefore it shouldn't matter whether caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco are better worse, or just different than other drugs.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Whelanj
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2010
Posts: 44

devildog_jim wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Whelanj wrote:
Xen Nova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>COME RUN WITH ME<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Psychedelic drug legalization, and marijuana legalization in particular, is the major human rights challenge facing my generation. War 10th Plantet!


Well I don't know that I'd go that far, but it is a pretty silly prohibition. Especially considering that alcohol and tobacco are easily as physically and/or psychologically damaging and cause exponentially more fatalities on a yearly basis, yet are both legal.


I hate this line of argument, because it concedes the point that the government may tell you what you may and may not put into your body. A free person should be allowed to poison themselves if they so desire, and therefore it shouldn't matter whether caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco are better worse, or just different than other drugs.


Thus the human rights aspect. Most of the people in our jails are there illegitimately based on the fact that our government has assumed a power that it shouldn't have. These laws also ban the mental states that can only be reached by using these drugs. A ban on mind expanding drugs is a ban on thought.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

devildog_jim
Level

Join date: Jun 2007
Posts: 696

I would hardly call most of these drugs "mind expanding." But again, that's not the point. So long as we hold the person responsible for what they do while on the drug, or to get the drug, there is no reason to forbid the use of the drug.

Same goes for performance enhancers. So long as you're not breaking the rules of an organization in which you compete, why not allow them and allow companies to research newer and better ones explicitly for performance enhancement. We can even have new "unlimited leagues" to test them out.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Whelanj
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2010
Posts: 44

devildog_jim wrote:
I would hardly call most of these drugs "mind expanding." But again, that's not the point. So long as we hold the person responsible for what they do while on the drug, or to get the drug, there is no reason to forbid the use of the drug.

Same goes for performance enhancers. So long as you're not breaking the rules of an organization in which you compete, why not allow them and allow companies to research newer and better ones explicitly for performance enhancement. We can even have new "unlimited leagues" to test them out.


That would be awesome! Right now we're in a situation where lies have clouded the issue to the point where we can't even be sure how effective these drugs are. I've gotten to the point where if I see an athlete with an "enhanced performance" I knee jerk the suspicion that he's on "performance enhancing drugs"

Not mind expanding? Even listening to someone talk about this stuff is mind expanding. God bless Eddie Bravo for putting Marijuana advocacy is the introduction to his books, and for being brave enough (unlike myself) to defy these bans.


Speaking of controversial ideas. Doesn't anybody think that a double body-weight squat is a reasonable goal for an aspiring martial artist? You'll find people saying the a 165 lbs bjj black belt couldn't beat a 500lbs dead lifter, but nobody want's to encourage that 165 lbs guy to squat or dead-lift the same weight himself to even things up? I mean this might not be a great argument but I'm surprised that the consensus seems to be so much in favor of light weights or pure calisthenics.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Sentoguy
Level 3

Join date: Nov 2005
Posts: 6153

devildog_jim wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Whelanj wrote:
Xen Nova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>COME RUN WITH ME<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Psychedelic drug legalization, and marijuana legalization in particular, is the major human rights challenge facing my generation. War 10th Plantet!


Well I don't know that I'd go that far, but it is a pretty silly prohibition. Especially considering that alcohol and tobacco are easily as physically and/or psychologically damaging and cause exponentially more fatalities on a yearly basis, yet are both legal.


I hate this line of argument, because it concedes the point that the government may tell you what you may and may not put into your body. A free person should be allowed to poison themselves if they so desire, and therefore it shouldn't matter whether caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco are better worse, or just different than other drugs.


If that's what you got from my post then I must have been unclear. My point is that it's ridiculous that the government prohibits the use of some substances, even going so far as to spend millions of tax payer dollars to both attempt to prevent the distribution of such substances and incarcerate citizens who utilize them, while allowing the use of other (equally dangerous and in some cases less medically beneficial) substances.

Like you said, if they are going to control some substances, then control all substances (wouldn't be my choice btw), or don't control any of them. It's all about money, not morality or politics. The alcohol and tobacco industries don't want the competition that they know they'd get and are willing to pay big sums of money to the Federal government in lobbying to keep it like it is.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Robert A
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2167

devildog_jim wrote:
it shouldn't matter whether caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco are better worse, or just different than other drugs.


I got two for this.

1.) Caffeine and alcohol, specifically coffee and bourbon, are SOOOOO way much better than other drugs.

2.) Alcohol is better because I am far funnier and more attractive when SHE is drunk.

Regards,

Robert A

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Robert A
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2167

Actual serious post:

I apologize for derailing this thread with a joke.

There is a forum for discussing political topics.

Since this is a forum that often deals with topics about self defense / defense against criminal assault I would like to offer a statement with regards to illicit substances. This is not a comment on the morality or justice regarding our laws and penal system. This is an amoral statement in recognition of an often immoral world.

Catching a charge is a good way to alter your options in life. Even a drug conviction can effect licensure for a variety of jobs or prevent success in certain occupations. Felony convictions are even more serious and can result in long term loss of legal rights and privileges. Not rolling dirty is an excellent step in pro active self defense. Avoiding catching any serious charges will likely have a far better effect on long term health and safety than improvements made to your knuckle game.

If you feel strongly about the substance question one way or another, by all means participate in the political system. Donate. Vote. However please pay the decision to commit willful civil disobedience the consideration it deserves. That way you can own your choices and the results with a full heart and clear conscience.

Final note, there is nothing to gain by memorializing any past, present, or future acts of said disobedience on an internet forum. I would also note that several members of this forum are LEO's and many others may have jobs that put them in an unenviable position with regards to specific, as opposed to theoretical and abstract, statements about illegal acts.

Regards,

Robert A

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Robert A
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2167

Whelanj wrote:
Speaking of controversial ideas. Doesn't anybody think that a double body-weight squat is a reasonable goal for an aspiring martial artist? You'll find people saying the a 165 lbs bjj black belt couldn't beat a 500lbs dead lifter, but nobody want's to encourage that 165 lbs guy to squat or dead-lift the same weight himself to even things up? I mean this might not be a great argument but I'm surprised that the consensus seems to be so much in favor of light weights or pure calisthenics.


I think you are miss understanding the consensus.

Again, I would like to state how fucking elegant kmcnyc's position on this is. Get as strong as you can, until it interferes with getting skillful, or not getting exhausted during the demonstration of said skills.

No one is saying not to be strong, or that being stronger isn't a benefit. Be the strongest you can be, while still coming in sharp and with cardio. Tired is always weak. Shitty technique is gonna need a lot of strength. When the statement is made that lifting is General Physical Preparation (GPP) for a fighter it is an acknowledgement that it is being done only to benefit the ability to develop and display the SPECIFIC skills of fighting. If the lifting beats the athlete up and takes away from training or sends them into the cage already injured it didn't serve its purpose.

There is a big difference between a 2X and a 3X bodyweight squat or deadlift. It was the 3X figure that was being roundly doubted/criticized. Assuming you are talking about a 165 at time of lift weight and not a day before weigh in this is the difference between squatting or pulling 330lbs and 495lbs at 165.

Talented individuals may make it to the 330lb level with effort and consistent work while still making improvements across the board. I will venture a guess that very few 165lb men are going to legit squat or deadlift 495lbs with out dedication to lifting technique and programming. It is well in the realm or "video or it didn't happen/show me the competition results" because it is such an achievement. This means fighter will have to be prioritize lifting, not fighting. The strength, stability, and range of motion it takes to move 10 fucking wheels would certainly be a boon to a fighter. However, the juice is likely not worth the squeeze.

My position is that fighters generally fight better than athletes in other sports. Deep thinker that I am. Being a physically strong FIGHTER tends to confer a good chance of success in a fight. Being a tremendously strong LIFTER does so less consistently.

Regards,

Robert A

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Whelanj
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2010
Posts: 44

Robert A wrote:
Whelanj wrote:
Speaking of controversial ideas. Doesn't anybody think that a double body-weight squat is a reasonable goal for an aspiring martial artist? You'll find people saying the a 165 lbs bjj black belt couldn't beat a 500lbs dead lifter, but nobody want's to encourage that 165 lbs guy to squat or dead-lift the same weight himself to even things up? I mean this might not be a great argument but I'm surprised that the consensus seems to be so much in favor of light weights or pure calisthenics.


I think you are miss understanding the consensus.

Again, I would like to state how fucking elegant kmcnyc's position on this is. Get as strong as you can, until it interferes with getting skillful, or not getting exhausted during the demonstration of said skills.

No one is saying not to be strong, or that being stronger isn't a benefit. Be the strongest you can be, while still coming in sharp and with cardio. Tired is always weak. Shitty technique is gonna need a lot of strength. When the statement is made that lifting is General Physical Preparation (GPP) for a fighter it is an acknowledgement that it is being done only to benefit the ability to develop and display the SPECIFIC skills of fighting. If the lifting beats the athlete up and takes away from training or sends them into the cage already injured it didn't serve its purpose.

There is a big difference between a 2X and a 3X bodyweight squat or deadlift. It was the 3X figure that was being roundly doubted/criticized. Assuming you are talking about a 165 at time of lift weight and not a day before weigh in this is the difference between squatting or pulling 330lbs and 495lbs at 165.

Talented individuals may make it to the 330lb level with effort and consistent work while still making improvements across the board. I will venture a guess that very few 165lb men are going to legit squat or deadlift 495lbs with out dedication to lifting technique and programming. It is well in the realm or "video or it didn't happen/show me the competition results" because it is such an achievement. This means fighter will have to be prioritize lifting, not fighting. The strength, stability, and range of motion it takes to move 10 fucking wheels would certainly be a boon to a fighter. However, the juice is likely not worth the squeeze.

My position is that fighters generally fight better than athletes in other sports. Deep thinker that I am. Being a physically strong FIGHTER tends to confer a good chance of success in a fight. Being a tremendously strong LIFTER does so less consistently.

Regards,

Robert A


Okay, that makes sense. You can't point to a single ratio, on account of the fact that their might be a guy out there who couldn't squat double his body weight without sacrificing too much training time, and another guy who can.

Caffeine will always be my drug of choice, and alcohol is probably irreplaceable as a date rape drug, but also I wouldn't mind hearing the occasional color or seeing the occasional sound if it was legal and affordable to do so, if you know what I mean.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

archieandfriends
Level

Join date: Feb 2011
Posts: 14

Ok I know I'm really, really late for this thread, but I'll just give my two cents. I train fighters and I get the question "how much should I squat?" quite often. It becomes easier just to throw an answer there that you know won't do too much harm than go the long route and explain to every athlete what they should and should not do.

I usually get my guys/girls when they are around 15-17 years old. Until they are around 20 to 22, I somewhat limit the amount of competitions that they do, just to get more proper training. This gives us around 10 weeks every summer to work on things like strength and some more weeks to transfer that strength into techniques.

For this reason, I like to throw an answer to the question: "how much should I squat?" and my answer is 1.7 times your bw for males. Very few actually reach that, but some that do are already over 25 years old and have had plenty time to work on their lifts, without really sacrificing any technique or sparring. Ant the ratio 1.7? Yeah, I just made that up and cannot change it anymore because so many have heard me.

But then again: I fought for 14 years and have only one time written on my log that the dude I fought was just too goddamn strong for me. I continued to compete until my thirties and could snatch 100kg and clean 135kg and got my ass handed to me by guys who could not squat 100kg to save their life.

So there. I like that my guys train and lift. I don't really care how much if I don't think that would improve the person in question. Sometimes they benefit a lot from improved lifts (I'm not even calling it strength because sometimes the effect is psychological), most times it's just beneficial to train from all angles.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

666Rich
Level 1

Join date: May 2006
Posts: 844

I laud the eloquent discussions that predate my response.

I can merely give my own personal anecdotes:

FWIW, I have always been a strong/explosive type athlete, even in my formative years. Strength and speed came naturally to me.

I did mostly bodyweight training and running (sprints, distance etc, pushups, pullups, abwheel) in highschool while competing in martial arts and boxing. I usually hit harder than most in my weight class, but also got tooled by some guys nowhere near my strength.

In college i started some minimalistic strength training for 4 years, 2x a week. I got stronger... and it helped my taekwondo alot. I could beat alot of people with strength and speed alone. I also trained technique and conditioning around 3 hours a day though (god bless college free time).

Post college I got into powerlifting and am now alot stronger. The returns that i get to my striking are minimal. IE my back kick is marginally harder at a 500+ squat than a 400.

I have started boxing again 1 day a week, and already tendonitis is creeping in. If I was boxing more than 1 day a week I would drastically alter my pressing volume.

2x a week is adequate for fighters, bare bones. Work technique and conditioning a ton. You still may not hit "hard" genetically as some do, but can work on timing and other attributes that facilitate putting people down. This also depends on which fight sport you choose, and the schedule of competitions.

Boxers fight frequently and on short notice. Taekwondo/judoka fight less frequently and can more effectively periodize their training.

and for the record, coffee+bourbon is the shit.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

FightinIrish26
Level

Join date: Feb 2005
Posts: 17202

666Rich wrote:
I laud the eloquent discussions that predate my response.

I can merely give my own personal anecdotes:

FWIW, I have always been a strong/explosive type athlete, even in my formative years. Strength and speed came naturally to me.

I did mostly bodyweight training and running (sprints, distance etc, pushups, pullups, abwheel) in highschool while competing in martial arts and boxing. I usually hit harder than most in my weight class, but also got tooled by some guys nowhere near my strength.

In college i started some minimalistic strength training for 4 years, 2x a week. I got stronger... and it helped my taekwondo alot. I could beat alot of people with strength and speed alone. I also trained technique and conditioning around 3 hours a day though (god bless college free time).

Post college I got into powerlifting and am now alot stronger. The returns that i get to my striking are minimal. IE my back kick is marginally harder at a 500+ squat than a 400.

I have started boxing again 1 day a week, and already tendonitis is creeping in. If I was boxing more than 1 day a week I would drastically alter my pressing volume.

2x a week is adequate for fighters, bare bones. Work technique and conditioning a ton. You still may not hit "hard" genetically as some do, but can work on timing and other attributes that facilitate putting people down. This also depends on which fight sport you choose, and the schedule of competitions.

Boxers fight frequently and on short notice. Taekwondo/judoka fight less frequently and can more effectively periodize their training.

and for the record, coffee+bourbon is the shit.


haha great post! Especially the coffee and bourbon part.

But I completely agree. I can bench press maybe 75's for 4 reps at this point, and my strength levels are nowhere near elite. Or even good. According to Dave Tate, I suck.

My boxing coach, however, tells me that I hit as hard as anyone he's ever seen - and he's sparred with the absolute best.

I've always been the "punchers are born, not made" guy, and I stand by that. Squat a fucking planet for all I care, you're not going to punch harder because of it.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Aragorn
Level 10

Join date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9430

FightinIrish26 wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
What sort of periodization do you use on those pulling exercises/what sort of progress have you made?


I do 5/3/1 twice a week, so much of my assistance work is not really the 5 x 10 that Wendler prescribes, but somewhere thereabouts.

Mostly it's a pretty straightforward way of doing things - i.e., 3 x 15 or more for band pull aparts, higher rep rows, pullups, etc.

I've wrestled with a few different injuries this year, and I was making pretty good progress on bent over rows until I fucked my forearm up. Only recently, after months of pain, am I beginning to be able to do as much pulling as I should and want to.

It's tough, because I only lift for my upper body once a week, so getting enough work to counteract days of boxing inside of 7 or 10 sets of pulling is hard to do.

That's my log:

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/...geNo=17#5159236



There's also technique to consider (very important here to both avoid further injury and get the right training effect as well as allow for progression)... I'd like to discuss this more, but the thing is... I don't train fighters either... Not the kind who use their fists etc anyway. So take what I say for what it's worth...



I welcome all opinions.


YGPM. Also, you can handle more than 7-10 sets of back work in a week for weight training, even if you are boxing 7 days a week. It's all in the type of training you do. For instance a number of specific corrective exercises you can do for this would not even come close to impinging on your work capacity for boxing...they're corrective exercises. And they can be done every other day, so they help counteract the overall volume of punching.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Aragorn
Level 10

Join date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9430

Xen Nova wrote:
For what it's worth...

........then lots of good shit.....

Let's not bad mouth any coaches, especially on a public forum. Let us instead (yes collectively if necessary) speak to him together, directly, or
The "get a bigger gas tank" analogy is often used by strength and conditioning coaches to sell products... How about we change it up... You're both going to be the same size engine/weight, so why are you trying to get a bigger gas tank? That is really just added weight. Why not improve your gas mileage as well? THEN your bigger tank means a LOT more.



QFT. This gets my vote for post of the thread. Xen, coming in and dropping some bombs!

This is a fantastic perspective and one that I certainly adhere to with regards to almost everything you've said. Thank you for taking the time to write all that out and thank you for articulating it better than I ever could!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Ambugaton
Level 4

Join date: Apr 2011
Posts: 714

FightinIrish26 wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
p.s. out of fairness-

CW backpedaled quite a bit since he threw his recommendations out there.
Depending on the article, his recommendations are now way lower.
Around 2.5xbw for deadlift IF you are talented.


Yea he did, but he did lose a lot of credibility with me on that one.

Once again, this is what happens when you have someone who doesn't fucking train fighters, writing about how to train fighters.

I rarely read anything of his after that "series."


Can anyone recommend a good online source of information concerning training for combat sports? It's hard to find much on T-Nation with the exception of these forums. I'm between coaches at the moment. Thank you.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Xen Nova
Level 1

Join date: May 2004
Posts: 5847

This really is like a unifying theory of Combat Sport Preparation:


Robert A:
Again, I would like to state how fucking elegant kmcnyc's position on this is:


THE KMCNYC:
Get as strong as you can, until it interferes with getting skillful, or not getting exhausted during the demonstration of said skills.





  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Xen Nova
Level 1

Join date: May 2004
Posts: 5847

Ambugaton wrote:

Can anyone recommend a good online source of information concerning training for combat sports? It's hard to find much on T-Nation with the exception of these forums. I'm between coaches at the moment. Thank you.


This would be a great thread, give me some time to think about it

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

brotard012
Level

Join date: Apr 2012
Posts: 24

here is one all the cool kids like

adrenalineperformancecenter

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report