Re: Flexibility before Strength?

[Guest guest]

Mcsiff@... wrote:

> Bompa, in his book, " Periodization of Strength " , states that one

> should develop joint flexibility before muscle strength, yet

> Russian research by Iashvili (1982) and Tumanyan & Dzhanyan (1980) indicate

> that the most effective way of training is to do both types of

> training concurrently.

>

> A very simple and natural way of enhancing flexibility in the gym

> is to carry out one's normal exercises over a progressively

> increasing range and then use a progressively heavier load over a

> progressively increasing range in combined static and dynamic

> patterns of action.

Just to add a few data points, I've seen that work just fine, and it

definitely worked for me.

> Why is it at all necessary to execute flexibility exercises before

> strength exercises?

There's some special Mr. Miyagi (or Master Po) allure to telling

people they need to train very indirectly for long periods of time

( " wax on, wax off " ) before they're ready to just do what they're

supposedly training to do.

Russian fencing instructors want you to to practice footwork for a

year before touching a sword; Japanese judo instructors want you to

do breakfalls for months before getting to throw someone; weight

training " experts " want you to stretch and use light weights for

months before doing a squat or power clean.

It all gets really silly really quickly. Just because zero

preparation and zero technical training and all sparring or

scrimmaging is sub-optimal does NOT mean all technical training with

no practical experience is better.

Matt Madsen

__________________________________________________

- Free email you can access from anywhere!

http://mail./

[Guest guest]

Since you mentioned Mr. Miyagi (or Master Po) I feel a need to comment here.

I tend to find myself on the Miyagi side of things. Having done it both

ways I find I still prefer to teach in a rather segmented manner. I learned

martial arts in the old ways. It was several months before I got to spar

with another individual. Until then it was all technique and drills. Dull

as dishwater. It is no great surprise that I ended up teaching much the

same way I was taught. When I moved to a new club where things are done

differently, I decided to give it a good try and see for myself which way I

want to teach. Students were urged to get into the fray at a much earlier

date. They were trying to use techniques they hadn't mastered the mechanics

of yet.

I have always told my students that technique is everything. If you throw a

bad technique very hard it is still a bad technique. If you throw a good

technique more softly it can still be improved upon. Bad form is really

hard to break. This becomes more difficult when you are trying to teach a

technique while in the middle of the activity. (Sparring) There is so much

else going on around the competitor that something usually gives. Unless

technique is second nature to the athlete, that goes first. To that end, I

have the students spend a great deal of time just punching, just kicking,

just moving and just falling. Thus armed with these, they are less likely

to get that " deer in the headlights " look when they finally do face off with a

real opponent. The individual now has to devote less brain power on how to

do something while, at the same time, trying to figure out what, why and

where.

I have seen enough cases of the student sensing an opening, the kick starts

to fly, he decides if, where and how hard, and the kick lands in the blink

of an eye. The student goes wow with the dawn of realization and suddenly

all those months of basics become worth it. I love that look.

Having said all that...I do think it unforgiveable to let the training

become dull. I think it is our duty as instructors to keep things fresh,

interesting and relevent. If you want to kick someone in the head, here,

kick this balloon. About the right size and you won't get your own head

kicked in while being humbled with how difficult it is. Go stand against

the wall and I'll chuck some tennis balls at you till you move. A whiffle

ball bat works much better than someone's fist (at first).

I can't comment on how this compares to other disciplines such as lifting,

running or football, but I guess that is what diversity in the list is all

about.

> It all gets really silly really quickly. Just because zero

> preparation and zero technical training and all sparring or

> scrimmaging is sub-optimal does NOT mean all technical training with

> no practical experience is better

I guess a shorter answer to this is that I have seen it both ways and, after

several years, the people I have seen and trained in the technical aspects

for a longer period of time demonstrated better ability than those who

learned as they went.

Jeff Gullett

----------------------

Mcsiff@... wrote:

> > Bompa, in his book, " Periodization of Strength " , states that one

> > should develop joint flexibility before muscle strength, yet

> > Russian research by Iashvili (1982) and Tumanyan & Dzhanyan (1980)

> > indicate that the most effective way of training is to do both types of

> > training concurrently.

> >

> > A very simple and natural way of enhancing flexibility in the gym

> > is to carry out one's normal exercises over a progressively

> > increasing range and then use a progressively heavier load over a

> > progressively increasing range in combined static and dynamic

> > patterns of action.

" Matt Madsen " <mmadsen@...>

> Just to add a few data points, I've seen that work just fine, and it

> definitely worked for me.

> > Why is it at all necessary to execute flexibility exercises before

> > strength exercises?

>

> There's some special Mr. Miyagi (or Master Po) allure to telling

> people they need to train very indirectly for long periods of time

> ( " wax on, wax off " ) before they're ready to just do what they're

> supposedly training to do.

>

> Russian fencing instructors want you to to practice footwork for a

> year before touching a sword; Japanese judo instructors want you to

> do breakfalls for months before getting to throw someone; weight

> training " experts " want you to stretch and use light weights for

> months before doing a squat or power clean.

>

> It all gets really silly really quickly. Just because zero

> preparation and zero technical training and all sparring or

> scrimmaging is sub-optimal does NOT mean all technical training with

> no practical experience is better.

[Guest guest]

Jeff Gullett <prostar@...> wrote:

> Since you mentioned Mr. Miyagi (or Master Po) I feel a need to

> comment here. I tend to find myself on the Miyagi side of things.

As you might imagine, I find myself on the other side of the fence.

Boxing, wrestling, muay thai, and judo all involve active competition

against game opponents and all mix free sparring with drills. And

none of them involve static " kata " (rehearsed forms).

> Having done it both ways I find I still prefer to teach in a rather

> segmented manner. I learned martial arts in the old ways. It was

> several months before I got to spar with another individual. Until

> then it was all technique and drills. Dull as dishwater.

I've done it both ways too. I learned roughly nothing in the first

few years of traditional training (except for a beautiful, high

side-kick); I learned an absolutely amazing amount in the first few

weeks of hands-on self-defense (kickboxing mainly) and later in the

first few weeks of jiu-jitsu.

No comparison whatsoever.

> They were trying to use techniques they hadn't mastered the

> mechanics of yet.

And they sure had an incentive to learn those mechanics. And an

understanding of why to perform the move that way.

> This becomes more difficult when you are trying to teach a

> technique while in the middle of the activity. (Sparring)

You obviously teach technique against a cooperative partner, then a

partner offering slight resistance, then one offering a bit more

resistance (so the student has to choose the right technique to

counter the counter), then in free sparring.

> I can't comment on how this compares to other disciplines such as

> lifting, running or football, but I guess that is what diversity in

> the list is all about.

Really, I can't think of any other sport that takes it to the extreme

of traditional martial arts. Boxers and wrestlers drill A LOT, but

not to the exclusion of light and heavy sparring. If you don't get

on the mat, you can't wrestle.

The traditional martial arts also continue their static training much

longer than any other sport. How many pro baseball players still

practice batting balls off a tee?

Matt Madsen

[Guest guest]

>From: Matt Madsen <mmadsen@...>

>How many pro baseball players still practice batting balls off a tee?

A ton of them. My last several years in Arizona for spring training have

been, in a distorted way, really quite funny. Several teams (led by their

S/C coach!) also " teach " throwing by the " 1-2-3 method " .

Billions of dollars and no clue.

Joe Alden

_________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

http://profiles.msn.com.

[Guest guest]

Re: Flexibility before Strength?

>

> Jeff Gullett <prostar@...> wrote:

>

> > Since you mentioned Mr. Miyagi (or Master Po) I feel a need to

> > comment here. I tend to find myself on the Miyagi side of things.

>

>

> As you might imagine, I find myself on the other side of the fence.

> Boxing, wrestling, muay thai, and judo all involve active competition

> against game opponents and all mix free sparring with drills. And

> none of them involve static " kata " (rehearsed forms).

>

> > Having done it both ways I find I still prefer to teach in a rather

> > segmented manner. I learned martial arts in the old ways. It was

> > several months before I got to spar with another individual. Until

> > then it was all technique and drills. Dull as dishwater.

>

>

> I've done it both ways too. I learned roughly nothing in the first

> few years of traditional training (except for a beautiful, high

> side-kick); I learned an absolutely amazing amount in the first few

> weeks of hands-on self-defense (kickboxing mainly) and later in the

> first few weeks of jiu-jitsu.

>

> No comparison whatsoever.

Matt, I've read many of your posts with great interest and I find it

difficult to see how you could spend several years in a martial arts program

and only come away with a great side kick. Incidentally, I consider the

side kick to be the most technically difficult of them all. I would bet

that there was a bit more in your arsenal than that. Looking at it that

way, I read your post and saw a portrait of an individual who got a REALLY

solid round of basics. Actually, I tend to agree that several years would

be too much. To quote another passage in my last post...

>> Having said all that...I do think it unforgiveable to let the training

>> become dull. I think it is our duty as instructors to keep things fresh,

>> interesting and relevent.

However, walking into self-defense, kickboxing and jiu-jitsu, you were much

better prepared than the average beginner off the street. I think you were

thouroughly primed for that next step in your training. Lets just say that

I would never have used you, given your background, as a test subject to

verify the effectivness of those other systems. And I don't even doubt for

a moment that they were good.

> You obviously teach technique against a cooperative partner, then a

> partner offering slight resistance, then one offering a bit more

> resistance (so the student has to choose the right technique to

> counter the counter), then in free sparring.

I run a great three ring circus. Beginners are never out of sight of more

advanced individuals performing tasks that they will soon be doing.

Incentive is there. A bit more subtle, perhaps, but it works. After a

short (few months) period of time getting grounded in basics, they have done

the moves, seen the moves and are better prepared to use the moves. > The

traditional martial arts also continue their static training much

> longer than any other sport. How many pro baseball players still

> practice batting balls off a tee?

I seem to recall hearing about batters, golfers and whatnot, losing their

edge. Their coaches took them back to basics. I have a great side kick but

I occasionally break it down to make sure I'm still doing it right.

At least this is how I teach karate. Of course, this may not be applicable

to all sports. Come on group...any thoughts here?

Jeff Gullett

[Guest guest]

Jeff Gullett <prostar@...> wrote:

> Matt, I've read many of your posts with great interest and I find

> it difficult to see how you could spend several years in a martial

> arts program and only come away with a great side kick.

Well, I came out of my McDojo training with a pretty side kick (good

for point sparring and looking good), a snappy little front-leg side

kick (also good for point sparring and looking good), a goofy hammer

strike (ugly, but it worked in point sparring and later gave boxers

fits), and an uncanny ability to grab slow-moving wrists

(theoretically for delivering a blow to the extended elbow, but only

against playful, half-speed " punches " ).

When I showed up in a reality-oriented class (think kickboxing for

the street), I was light on my feet and had tremendous flexibility.

Nothing I did hurt anyone though, and I had zero defense once someone

landed the first shot in a combo. I could " fence " nicely, gliding in

and out of range, but one stiff jab dropped my hands, then I'd take a

beating. If I did, say, land my purty li'l side kick, I had no

follow-through skills. I had no skills for really mixing it up. Oh,

and don't think for a second that any of the clever combinations I

learned were going to counter a stiff jab or an overhand right.

" First grab his wrist, then... " Um, no.

Soon though, I learned how to throw a real roundhouse kick, like a

baseball bat from the hip. Then I learned to really drill through

someone with a front kick and follow through on it. I can't even

explain how much better my boxing skills got. No time wasted on

punches from the hip -- just jabs, crosses, upper cuts, and hooks,

all while bobbing, weaving, and covering up. Then there were the

elbows and knees.

Again, I won't deny that the flexibility carried over nicely, but

virtually all the specifics went out the window.

When I started in jiu-jitsu, I finally found an art where the better

fighters really seemed to be working magic -- all while seeming very

prosaic and extremely down-to-earth. Little 140-lb guys felt like a

ton of bricks, I evidently felt about as heavy as a helium balloon,

the other guy never seemed to get tired, the chokes and arm-bars came

out of nowhere, etc.

Again, flexibility carried over somewhat, but I think football skills

carried over more than any kicking and punching skills did. In fact,

my tendency to stay light on my feet just made me...light on my feet.

In grappling, there's a time to be light and a time to be heavy.

Anyway, it was an amazingly technical system, and the hands-on

learning was on another level. I couldn't believe how many moves I

learned the hard way (don't let him get two hands on your collar,

don't stick your arm out, don't stick one one arm over and one under

his guard, etc.).

> Looking at it that way, I read your post and saw a portrait of an

> individual who got a REALLY solid round of basics.

Not really. There was no comparison between my techniques then and

my techniques after learning how to do them against a live opponent

who'd just laugh them off. Oh, and those blocks don't work. And

they don't cripple his arm either. Or lead to a takedown or

arm-lock.

> > You obviously teach technique against a cooperative partner, then

> > a partner offering slight resistance, then one offering a bit

more

> > resistance (so the student has to choose the right technique to

> > counter the counter), then in free sparring.

>

> I run a great three ring circus. Beginners are never out of sight

> of more advanced individuals performing tasks that they will soon

> be doing. Incentive is there.

But is the progress there? Or are they stuck mastering tee-ball?

You definitely want to start simply trying to perform the movement,

learning what exactly you're supposed to do. Then you want to try it

against no real resistane until you get it right.

But that's just the beginning (much like a black belt...). It's very

important that you move on to using it against some resistance, and

then into free sparring.

The only techniques I really learned in my early days were the ones I

used in sparring, those quick kicks and that funny hammer strike --

and I learned how to perform them in the context of an elaborate game

of tag. I was excellent at pulling punches. I was terrible at

mixing it up on the inside.

Matt Madsen

__________________________________________________