For those who say upper body strength is somehow unimportant for fighting...

[Turtlejuice]

upper body strength is somehow unimportant for fighting...

and

upper body strength is no indicator of fighting ability.

are 2 completely different statements. Of course upper body strength is important, but someone having good upper body strength doesn't make them a good fighter, and is not an indicator that someone is a good fighter.

 

[barnowl]

Some people say the word 'strength' but honestly I don't think they even know what they mean when they say it.

I will tell you one thing, the number one factor of conditioning for combat sport performance, whether its throwing punches or throwing bodies, is anti-rotation.

If your core is not rock solid and can't hold your spine rigid in place, your kinetic chain is fucked, every bit of squish means power lost in transmission.

(Yes, this does mean that sit ups are a terrible exercise and in fact can be actively harmful).

Uhm, situps/crunchs actively train one half the muscle groups needed to maintain tight core. By argument they are very good exercise, if you mean situps can have cause problems when done wrong then yes can be harmful.

 

[rmongler]

Uhm, situps/crunchs actively train one half the muscle groups needed to maintain tight core. By argument they are very good exercise, if you mean situps can have cause problems when done wrong then yes can be harmful.

The most important function of core muscles is not movement, but the prevention of movement. Movement should come from the ball and socket joints; hips and shoulders. Poor mobility in one area of the body is often 'compensated' for with hypermobility in another. In particular, people with poor hip mobility usually have spinal hyper mobility, this leads to injuries and reduced ability to develop power.

So yeah, sit ups are a counter intuitive movement that should not be a regular part of a protective or productive conditioning regime.

 

[TheyAllFloat]

I have consistently heard throughout these forums that upper body strength is no indicator of fighting ability. So I'm told, a skinny guy with average or below strength will allegedly be at no disadvantage fighting a guy with above average strength, all else equal.

But in my somewhat limited experience this seems false. When I've trained clinch-work in a thai boxing setting, I can literally feel when my training partner is physically weaker than I am. I've been paired up with guys who have a good amount more experience training than I do and I have easily dealt with them in the clinch basically because they were weaker in the back/shoulders/chest area.

I don't think this can be attributed to my superior technique, for, as I said they have more experience than I do and their technique doesn't look bad (and mine is nothing spectacular). Can anyone else testify that strength does matter at least in some cases or what am I missing here?

What do you mean you 'dealt' with them in the clinch? Are you breaking their posture? dumping them? or just moving them around a lot?

IMO the importance of upper body strength in the clinch comes well after core strength and technique.

 

[RexChapmanFan]

What do you mean you 'dealt' with them in the clinch? Are you breaking their posture? dumping them? or just moving them around a lot?

IMO the importance of upper body strength in the clinch comes well after core strength and technique.

All of the above. And I categorize core strength as part of upper body strength, though maybe that's not the officially correct classification.

And I think if two fighters have similar technique levels, the stronger will likely win a clinch battle more often than not, from what I can tell.

 

[j123]

What do you mean you 'dealt' with them in the clinch? Are you breaking their posture? dumping them? or just moving them around a lot?

IMO the importance of upper body strength in the clinch comes well after core strength and technique.

Depends, sometimes when grinding out in pummelling, or trying resisting your opponent / partner's pummelling attempts, strength is used

 

[Bataz]

Of course strength gives you an advantage, otherwise why would 99% of the MMA world waste their time doing strength training.

 

[NAKMUAY18]

(Speed + Strenght) x Technique = Effect
Your gym propably doesn't have a good clinch program by the sounds of things. If you can have basic technique and toss people around, they probably dont have good technique either

 

[Sano]

The most important function of core muscles is not movement, but the prevention of movement. Movement should come from the ball and socket joints; hips and shoulders. Poor mobility in one area of the body is often 'compensated' for with hypermobility in another. In particular, people with poor hip mobility usually have spinal hyper mobility, this leads to injuries and reduced ability to develop power.

So yeah, sit ups are a counter intuitive movement that should not be a regular part of a protective or productive conditioning regime.

Being able to brace ones core is extremely important yes, and antiflexion/extension/rotation/lateral flexion and so forth is something that everyone should be working on. That being said, there has been a pretty dramatic shift in the last few years away from any movement in the spine. Neutral spine is not the end all be all that it is made out to be.

A lot of athletic abilities require a certain spine mobility and you need to work any synovial joint, which includes the facet joints, to have a healthy body. It's meant to move. Also the discus needs dynamic exercise to be nourished.

It's a balance.

I do agree that situps are pretty terrible though, especially for people with lower back pain, which is pretty much everyone at some point.

On topic, upper body strenght is secondary to technique and leverage in the clinch, unless you are a weak individual. People often forget that you get a pretty strong clinch by practicing clinching against good clinchers. There are so many variables. Is the other person taller than you? How well do they manipulate their weight? Where is their center of mass?

I have a hard time seeing how shoulder strenght and pec strength matters, but strong lats seems to help with the pull and strong legs/core with not getting moved around too much. Still, who are the best clinchers in the world? The Thais. How much weight training do the Thais do? Not much.

Not saying you shouldn't.

 

[ssullivan80]

Some of that is crappy body mechanics. Not understanding how to optimize leverage and energy output.

Exactly, is upper body strength important...... of course. But it's only as good as a fighters ability to utilize it effectively and efficiently. Often the problem with big and physically strong guys is that because of that physical strength advantage, they become overly reliant on it. Same is true of guys with exceptional speed. Absent the technical refinement, a skilled fighter can easily make an opponents strength or speed work against them and to his advantage.

So It's not that having upper body strength isn't important. It's that it's far less important than all the accompanying technical skills and by becoming reliant on it, it can just as easily become a "crutch" that will create a disadvantage. When all the other technical skills are equal, that's when strength and speed can really become an advantage.

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

Exactly, is upper body strength important...... of course. But it's only as good as a fighters ability to utilize it effectively and efficiently. Often the problem with big and physically strong guys is that because of that physical strength advantage, they become overly reliant on it. Same is true of guys with exceptional speed. Absent the technical refinement, a skilled fighter can easily make an opponents strength or speed work against them and to his advantage.

So It's not that having upper body strength isn't important. It's that it's far less important than all the accompanying technical skills and by becoming reliant on it, it can just as easily become a "crutch" that will create a disadvantage. When all the other technical skills are equal, that's when strength and speed can really become an advantage.

Well said

 

[aries]

I have consistently heard throughout these forums that upper body strength is no indicator of fighting ability. So I'm told, a skinny guy with average or below strength will allegedly be at no disadvantage fighting a guy with above average strength, all else equal.

But in my somewhat limited experience this seems false. When I've trained clinch-work in a thai boxing setting, I can literally feel when my training partner is physically weaker than I am. I've been paired up with guys who have a good amount more experience training than I do and I have easily dealt with them in the clinch basically because they were weaker in the back/shoulders/chest area.

I don't think this can be attributed to my superior technique, for, as I said they have more experience than I do and their technique doesn't look bad (and mine is nothing spectacular). Can anyone else testify that strength does matter at least in some cases or what am I missing here?

Yeah you are missing something. You are talking about grappling. No one says strength isn't an advantage to grappling. Upper body strength isn't nearly as important for striking.

 

[RexChapmanFan]

Yeah you are missing something. You are talking about grappling. No one says strength isn't an advantage to grappling. Upper body strength isn't nearly as important for striking.

Clinch is part of muay thai, a striking art.

 

[cakemuncher]

If both people are equally skilled in clinching, the strength is going to be important, but not THAT important because the weaker person will still be able to use his skills to disrupt the other person.

If someone has a bodybuilder upper body strength but poor clinching technique, then the weaker but skilled person will be able to completely control them, rotate them, toss them around, free from the clinch and take over etc.

 

[Paradigm]

Clinch is part of muay thai, a striking art.

Which is essentially standup grappling...

 

[RexChapmanFan]

Which is essentially standup grappling...

Well, I didn't say it was important to effective punches and kicks (though it may be). I just said it seems important to stand up fighting, which includes muay thai clinch. I hear all the time people say strength is not important to fighting in any capacity, but the point of the thread is that the evidence seems to be against that, based on what I can tell from my limited experience in muay thai.

 

[MandirigmaFit]

Being able to brace ones core is extremely important yes, and antiflexion/extension/rotation/lateral flexion and so forth is something that everyone should be working on. That being said, there has been a pretty dramatic shift in the last few years away from any movement in the spine. Neutral spine is not the end all be all that it is made out to be.

A lot of athletic abilities require a certain spine mobility and you need to work any synovial joint, which includes the facet joints, to have a healthy body. It's meant to move. Also the discus needs dynamic exercise to be nourished.

It's a balance.

I do agree that situps are pretty terrible though, especially for people with lower back pain, which is pretty much everyone at some point.

On topic, upper body strenght is secondary to technique and leverage in the clinch, unless you are a weak individual. People often forget that you get a pretty strong clinch by practicing clinching against good clinchers. There are so many variables. Is the other person taller than you? How well do they manipulate their weight? Where is their center of mass?

I have a hard time seeing how shoulder strenght and pec strength matters, but strong lats seems to help with the pull and strong legs/core with not getting moved around too much. Still, who are the best clinchers in the world? The Thais. How much weight training do the Thais do? Not much.

Not saying you shouldn't.

This.

Also, in regards to "Shoulder and Pec" strength, it's actually very inefficient to isolate strength in synergistic muscles like this. Rather, strengthen specific movement patterns.

For example:

Clinching involves shoulder extension, adduction and horizontal adduction, amongst other things, which include shoulders (and I use the term "shoulders" very loosely) and pecs.

To break it down more:
shoulder extension involves the lats, the sternal head of the pec major and the posterior deltoid;
shoulder flexion involves the medial and anterior deltoid, costal and clavicular fibers of the pec major.

I hope that makes sense and helps you guys think of training in a different way.

Edit*

Generally, I do prefer a neutral spine when I have the strength and mobility to maintain it, and only in certain instances will I ever allow it to deviate. Neutral spine is still the safest position under load.

 

[aries]

Clinch is part of muay thai, a striking art.

Correction Muay Thai is predominantly a striking art that has some grappling.
Clinching is not striking it is grappling. Muay Thai has both striking and grappling. I'm pointing out that strength isn't nearly as important for the striking element.

 

[RexChapmanFan]

Correction Muay Thai is predominantly a striking art that has some grappling.
Clinching is not striking it is grappling. Muay Thai has both striking and grappling. I'm pointing out that strength isn't nearly as important for the striking element.

Putting aside the semantics (I disagree with your semantic usage, as I've never heard anyone categorize muay thai fighters as grapplers; they are universally referred to as strikers. But if we follow your lead, that widely-accepted terminology is inaccurate, which I think is the wrong result), my point stands that it's apparently false to say upper-body and/or "core" strength is irrelevant to an art like muay thai. I just don't agree with those who say this, which is surprising to me personally since I've heard that claim so much.

Some on this thread have said that the Thais are the best clinchers and yet are the smallest in stature out there generally. But of course they are fighting predominantly other Thais and smaller people who don't train in heavy weight lifting, etc. That does nothing to undermine my belief that if you pair up two muay thai fighters with similar technique and prowess, the guy who is stronger will have an advantage. A great technician with terrible strength would seemingly (to me) lose to a great technician who is a ball of muscle more often than not.

 

[rmongler]

Being able to brace ones core is extremely important yes, and antiflexion/extension/rotation/lateral flexion and so forth is something that everyone should be working on. That being said, there has been a pretty dramatic shift in the last few years away from any movement in the spine. Neutral spine is not the end all be all that it is made out to be.

A lot of athletic abilities require a certain spine mobility and you need to work any synovial joint, which includes the facet joints, to have a healthy body. It's meant to move. Also the discus needs dynamic exercise to be nourished.

It's a balance.

I do agree that situps are pretty terrible though, especially for people with lower back pain, which is pretty much everyone at some point.

On topic, upper body strenght is secondary to technique and leverage in the clinch, unless you are a weak individual. People often forget that you get a pretty strong clinch by practicing clinching against good clinchers. There are so many variables. Is the other person taller than you? How well do they manipulate their weight? Where is their center of mass?

I have a hard time seeing how shoulder strenght and pec strength matters, but strong lats seems to help with the pull and strong legs/core with not getting moved around too much. Still, who are the best clinchers in the world? The Thais. How much weight training do the Thais do? Not much.

Not saying you shouldn't.

I feel what you mean, i would say though that the take away is if your sport invlves those movements to some degree, you can train them by actually training your sport, they dont have to be a part of a more 'generalized' fitness program.