As Hard as you F*cking Can.

[Sea.Wolf.Forge]

I only use 85 lb dummy. One of my students uses 110 lb dummy. I think it's too heavy. I still have my 220 lb rock next to my driveway that I used to move it around. Every time I saw it, I hate it. That's not a good sign. Too much weight is not a good idea in the long run. We train because we enjoy of training and not because we force ourselves to train.

The Suples dummy comes in two types, one for speed and one for power. The benefits of high repetitions and the benefits of high loads are both necessary, finding the space and time to train them is always the issue. I've found since working with the 85lb dummy a 185lb human felt light with the same throw because the kuzushi affected them and they were half-throwing themselves. The "upper limit" of what strength is needed to reliably throw someone is an interesting question, what is easy on someone of similar weight could be near impossible on someone larger.

If a 220lb rock is unpleasant to train with and gives us the ability to move around a super heavyweight, but an 85lb dummy is enjoyable to train with and ensures we can likely throw an "above average" sized human in most situations - is that not sufficient for recreational martial practice where wellbeing is the primary goal and self-defense is a rare, if ever, occurrence?

In combatives, unless I'm competing in the Absolute division I am usually within 10-15lb of who I fight, is extreme strength necessary or useful in this context, is it a nice advantage or even a disadvantage depending on how it affects my strategy?

[origami_itto]

whatever the top pros do sounds like what amateurs would look toward (but lower level)?

If they are training the full spectrum of things, sure, that's the point I was making. If anyone is seeing a full scope of "physical" practice, it is professional fighters, comes with the territory and all.

To ask if recreational practitioners are attempting, approaching or even aware of that scope of practice was my interest. If your personal practice only includes "easy strength," or 70% efforts then the answer is probably no, and my interest would be in how you feel about whether that is complete training, you hadn't considered this concept or if having an accepted "elephant graveyard" of practice that isn't explored is preferable for you.

Look at the data, not emotional satisfaction.

https://maxshank.com/strength-conditioning/the-80-rule/
https://www.trainingbeta.com/training-i ... oad-range/
https://runnersconnect.net/80-easy-makes-you-23-faster/

[johnwang]

If a 220lb rock is unpleasant to train with and gives us the ability to move around a super heavyweight,

That was the year I competed in super heavy weight (I was in heavy weight). When I walked into that tournament, I did know that I was the strongest person in that tournament. That confidence by itself made me won the tournament that year.

[Sea.Wolf.Forge]

Look at the data, not emotional satisfaction. Oh you Cheeky Fucker.

https://maxshank.com/strength-conditioning/the-80-rule/
https://www.trainingbeta.com/training-i ... oad-range/
https://runnersconnect.net/80-easy-makes-you-23-faster/

In addition to years of combatives, I'm also an NCCP Rowing coach and an NCCP2 Triathlon coach. There are no easy "gotcha" points to be had citing my "emotional satisfaction" and linking me to the generic 80/20 methodology articles. Assuming that is the motivation got a laugh at least.

With regards to endurance training there's more to it than that and requires quantifying your "time in Zone" by hours per week and allocating sessions accordingly, something I'm going to guess you don't do. Periodization of training for improvement is the whole point of what I'm talking about and misrepresenting 80/20 as "do 80% ad nauseum" is not in line with the research.

My run training had long runs of 60-90 mins, short runs 10-20mins of sprint effort, my swim training was long swims up to 2hrs (5-6km), pool sprints of 30 minutes effort total. Bike training? long rides from 2-4hrs, hill repeats? barely 40 mins. There's a pattern, it's easy to spot.

It isn't spending time at 80% effort, it is spending "roughly" 80% of my training time in a specific HR zone, and "roughly" 20% of it sprinting my face off at the track or in the pool then supplementing that training with strength and conditioning. Increasing ones baseline cardio capacity is fundamental, using high intensity efforts and S&C to train better musculature and connections are essential to become competitive outside of even local events. Training for rowing? Long sessions (90-120 mins) of low intensity technical training, and short sessions (15-40 minutes) of wanting to scream, puke and pass out. This balance is, in my experience as a coach and athlete, true for all high-level competitors.

The 80% concept in relation to lifting is not in line with the efforts of competitive lifting athletes outside of crossfit, and I'd wager the competitive ones don't do it either. I'm not a lifter, bodybuilder or a crossfitter, so I'll leave them to whatever they do.

At the end of the day 80/20 is a clumsy catch all for anything it tries to represent, in fitness it's not an exact ratio, only an approximation of periodizing intensity to allow effective recovery. It does not accommodate the cycling required to peak at multiple events through a season (or at a fight at the end of a training camp). I use it when I'm coaching because most athletes want to go too hard too often and get injured, but similarly I think it's important for someone who does it often but never hard. One will reach competition injured, the other will reach competition slow. Neither will represent themselves as well as they could have had they followed a more balanced ratio of intensities.

If you're comfortable training "comfortable," that's all that is, nothing wrong with it. Don't pretend to have tapped into the secret methodology of progress though, it mostly sounds like you half read some quick-fix lifter articles.

I asked this question because I noticed that my sparring and padwork had become what I would call a "comfortable" effort over time, and I've chosen to explore the upper range of intensity in the same controlled manner as I have done it in my other competitive outlets. You are welcome to disagree with my approach, or say it's not for you, but don't give me the "follow the data not emotional satisfaction" diatribe. Don't make me make you a spreadsheet on it bud, I did the math and I fuckin' LOVE spreadsheets.

[Sea.Wolf.Forge]

If a 220lb rock is unpleasant to train with and gives us the ability to move around a super heavyweight,

That was the year I competed in super heavy weight (I was in heavy weight). When I walked into that tournament, I did know that I was the strongest person in that tournament. That confidence by itself made me won the tournament that year.

I like this anecdote a lot.

[origami_itto]

Look at the data, not emotional satisfaction. Oh you Cheeky Fucker.

https://maxshank.com/strength-conditioning/the-80-rule/
https://www.trainingbeta.com/training-i ... oad-range/
https://runnersconnect.net/80-easy-makes-you-23-faster/

In addition to years of combatives, I'm also an NCCP Rowing coach and an NCCP2 Triathlon coach. There are no easy "gotcha" points to be had citing my "emotional satisfaction" and linking me to the generic 80/20 methodology articles. Assuming that is the motivation got a laugh at least.

With regards to endurance training there's more to it than that and requires quantifying your "time in Zone" by hours per week and allocating sessions accordingly, something I'm going to guess you don't do. Periodization of training for improvement is the whole point of what I'm talking about and misrepresenting 80/20 as "do 80% ad nauseum" is not in line with the research.

My run training had long runs of 60-90 mins, short runs 10-20mins of sprint effort, my swim training was long swims up to 2hrs (5-6km), pool sprints of 30 minutes effort total. Bike training? long rides from 2-4hrs, hill repeats? barely 40 mins. There's a pattern, it's easy to spot.

It isn't spending time at 80% effort, it is spending "roughly" 80% of my training time in a specific HR zone, and "roughly" 20% of it sprinting my face off at the track or in the pool then supplementing that training with strength and conditioning. Increasing ones baseline cardio capacity is fundamental, using high intensity efforts and S&C to train better musculature and connections are essential to become competitive outside of even local events. Training for rowing? Long sessions (90-120 mins) of low intensity technical training, and short sessions (15-40 minutes) of wanting to scream, puke and pass out. This balance is, in my experience as a coach and athlete, true for all high-level competitors.

The 80% concept in relation to lifting is not in line with the efforts of competitive lifting athletes outside of crossfit, and I'd wager the competitive ones don't do it either. I'm not a lifter, bodybuilder or a crossfitter, so I'll leave them to whatever they do.

At the end of the day 80/20 is a clumsy catch all for anything it tries to represent, in fitness it's not an exact ratio, only an approximation of periodizing intensity to allow effective recovery. It does not accommodate the cycling required to peak at multiple events through a season (or at a fight at the end of a training camp). I use it when I'm coaching because most athletes want to go too hard too often and get injured, but similarly I think it's important for someone who does it often but never hard. One will reach competition injured, the other will reach competition slow. Neither will represent themselves as well as they could have had they followed a more balanced ratio of intensities.

If you're comfortable training "comfortable," that's all that is, nothing wrong with it. Don't pretend to have tapped into the secret methodology of progress though, it mostly sounds like you half read some quick-fix lifter articles.

I asked this question because I noticed that my sparring and padwork had become what I would call a "comfortable" effort over time, and I've chosen to explore the upper range of intensity in the same controlled manner as I have done it in my other competitive outlets. You are welcome to disagree with my approach, or say it's not for you, but don't give me the "follow the data not emotional satisfaction" diatribe. Don't make me make you a spreadsheet on it bud, I did the math and I fuckin' LOVE spreadsheets.

Please tell me more about how qualified and unemotional you are about this.

[everything]

everyone here is clearly an expert, and "everyone else" is clearly a bunch of dumbasses.

[origami_itto]

everyone here is clearly an expert, and "everyone else" is clearly a bunch of dumbasses.

I'm a proud and self admitted dumbass.

[Doc Stier]

everyone here is clearly an expert, and "everyone else" is clearly a bunch of dumbasses.

Hahaha! Of course, everyone is an expert online, but live and in person, usually not so much. Go figure.

[Sea.Wolf.Forge]

Hahaha! Of course, everyone is an expert online, but live and in person, usually not so much. Go figure.

I assure you I am an insufferable know-it-all in person too.
It's the burden of being incredibly talented, good looking and well-endowed.

[Sea.Wolf.Forge]

Please tell me more about how qualified and unemotional you are about this.

How much more do you want to know? I did offer to make a spreadsheet, it can easily include columns for my qualifications and fee-fees.

[yeniseri]

everyone here is clearly an expert, and "everyone else" is clearly a bunch of dumbasses.

Quite the contrary! We all have varied degrees of experience and for me, just offereing points to consider while offereing objective criteria, names and youtube stuff so
people can check themselves against what others have said and done.

When you throw or hit someone, you make sure theat if they get up, they will think twice about 'touching you'.
I have done that only about 3 times with 2 instances while in the Marine Corps
and once when I actually stepped on someone's foot to prevent him from bussin' ma head. And this was about 30 years ago.

Things are so strange now that (believe me ) that it is best to stay away from trouble and I believe I have done such a good job that it irks me
because there are times when you just want to level the mofo and slam him to the ground.
We are just offereing insights and strategiee that can help and/or broaden the vision of some and make a realistic association with CMA!

[Sea.Wolf.Forge]

Quite the contrary! We all have varied degrees of experience and for me, just offering points to consider while offering objective criteria, names and youtube stuff so
people can check themselves against what others have said and done.

When you throw or hit someone, you make sure that if they get up, they will think twice about 'touching you'.
I have done that only about 3 times with 2 instances while in the Marine Corps
and once when I actually stepped on someone's foot to prevent him from bussin' ma head. And this was about 30 years ago.

Things are so strange now that (believe me ) that it is best to stay away from trouble and I believe I have done such a good job that it irks me
because there are times when you just want to level the mofo and slam him to the ground.
We are just offereing insights and strategiee that can help and/or broaden the vision of some and make a realistic association with CMA!

Super diplomatic intro, welcome to the chat - the original question seems to be getting lost in the shuffle - Do you currently allocate portion of your training for maximum impact/amplitude for strikes and throwing?

[RobP3]

Super diplomatic intro, welcome to the chat - the original question seems to be getting lost in the shuffle - Do you currently allocate portion of your training for maximum impact/amplitude for strikes and throwing?

Yep that's what seems to happen here
An important aspect of training to us is learning to be "comfortable" when things are not. There's a variety of ways to achieve this - upping the intensity, breath holds, placing limitations, and taking people into spaces they may not normally go to. Naturally, this all needs to be done in a progressive way and, here's the major thing - you have to give people the tools to be able to cope.
I see a lot of "adrenalised" training that just leaves people...adrenalised, and also prone to injuries, severe in some cases. The irony is, in many of those cases, the actual levels of contact with partners are relatively light, people usually injure themselves. So for me it always comes back to that question of testing skills and attributes in a challenging but reasonably safe way. Which is where I was going with my recent clip until... well, that's another thread.

Depends on people's goals of course but, for me, if I'm not getting uncomfortable at any time in training, then something is lacking.

[origami_itto]

Super diplomatic intro, welcome to the chat - the original question seems to be getting lost in the shuffle - Do you currently allocate portion of your training for maximum impact/amplitude for strikes and throwing?

Yep that's what seems to happen here
An important aspect of training to us is learning to be "comfortable" when things are not. There's a variety of ways to achieve this - upping the intensity, breath holds, placing limitations, and taking people into spaces they may not normally go to. Naturally, this all needs to be done in a progressive way and, here's the major thing - you have to give people the tools to be able to cope.
I see a lot of "adrenalised" training that just leaves people...adrenalised, and also prone to injuries, severe in some cases. The irony is, in many of those cases, the actual levels of contact with partners are relatively light, people usually injure themselves. So for me it always comes back to that question of testing skills and attributes in a challenging but reasonably safe way. Which is where I was going with my recent clip until... well, that's another thread.

Depends on people's goals of course but, for me, if I'm not getting uncomfortable at any time in training, then something is lacking.

Like I said. As hard as you can... correctly. No point doing harder wronger. Don't know why the professor can't understand that.