I already responded to your above assertion which led to this tangent about technique and tactics (which was beside the point). Now that you see there is a difference my prior response still hasn't changed.
Can't edit for some reason...
Which is why no fighter lifts or cuts weight. Which successful guys are weaker than the average office drone?
How many successful cage fighters can't do 20 pushups?
My position is that while skill is the most important factor, athletes also need reasonable levels of S&C. Again, that doesn't mean that the guy who bench presses more will automatically win, just that it generally helps.
Did Wiedman's size and strength play any role in his recent victory?
419,
I have no idea what you are trying to argue.
Maximum strength has very little transfer to an unloaded movement like punching. Weidmans boxing skills won him that fight, he doubled up with the same hand wich fooled Anderson into rolling right into the punch. Thats skill, not size or strength
419 - My position is that while skill is the most important factor, athletes also need reasonable levels of S&C. Again, that doesn't mean that the guy who bench presses more will automatically win, just that it generally helps.
Did Wiedman's size and strength play any role in his recent victory?
No, because if that was your whole position I don't think anyone would be debating with you.
General strength acclimations only go so far. Beyond those, strength comes from the product of muscle size (at least potentially) and technique. In a weight classed sport, an athlete with adequate GPP, that is at the top of his weight class won't have any advantage with higher numbers in any sort of combine-esque test (for strength anyway...) because that strength comes from technique in the test, not in the sport you're trying to test for.
Outside of that, the variables mount steadily. Within a weight class, does a small size advantage amount to much? Hard to say. I believe you've tried to argue that it does on this thread, but you also posed an intriguing and effective counter argument: dedication. Anyone dedicated enough to cut weight for nothing more than a small, dubious advantage probably approaches all of their training that way. Sure Fighter A cuts weight and wins, so it seems like weight cutting is effective, but Fighter A is willing to cut weight to win. His willingness is the important factor, not the weight. Ergo, confounding factors.
I don't think a test of physical ability beyond GPP has much use. Sure devotion to success is important, but would a physical test be the best measure of that? Maybe... maybe not.
vermonter -419 - My position is that while skill is the most important factor, athletes also need reasonable levels of S&C. Again, that doesn't mean that the guy who bench presses more will automatically win, just that it generally helps.
Did Wiedman's size and strength play any role in his recent victory?
No, because if that was your whole position I don't think anyone would be debating with you.
General strength acclimations only go so far. Beyond those, strength comes from the product of muscle size (at least potentially) and technique. In a weight classed sport, an athlete with adequate GPP, that is at the top of his weight class won't have any advantage with higher numbers in any sort of combine-esque test (for strength anyway...) because that strength comes from technique in the test, not in the sport you're trying to test for.
Outside of that, the variables mount steadily. Within a weight class, does a small size advantage amount to much? Hard to say. I believe you've tried to argue that it does on this thread, but you also posed an intriguing and effective counter argument: dedication. Anyone dedicated enough to cut weight for nothing more than a small, dubious advantage probably approaches all of their training that way. Sure Fighter A cuts weight and wins, so it seems like weight cutting is effective, but Fighter A is willing to cut weight to win. His willingness is the important factor, not the weight. Ergo, confounding factors.
I don't think a test of physical ability beyond GPP has much use. Sure devotion to success is important, but would a physical test be the best measure of that? Maybe... maybe not.
interesting point.
i agree about the advantages in strength and size... i think at this point in MMA, where we are seeing real athletes compete, people cut weight not to give up an advantage. technically, TKO's/KO's do increase by weight division, but again, unless there's a significant weight difference among athletes in a weight class, i doubt there's an advantage, unless one chooses not to cut, and gives up a lot of weight.
http://fightnomics.com/featured/size-matters/
Yeah. A 10 lb difference is substantial when its all muscle in elite athletes. It sort of depends though...If yyou're not at the top of your class, you could spend time and energy building muscle or that same time developing skill. The latter is probably more useful, especially if you drop a class instead and give up no advantage.
So how would you determine if a guy had adequate GPP?
And for the record, 'all else being equal' is a misrepresentation of my position. In the real world, factors are almost never exactly equal. Matchmaking and weight classes make them roughly similar, but they're not exactly the same.
419 - And for the record, 'all else being equal' is a misrepresentation of my position. In the real world, factors are almost never exactly equal. Matchmaking and weight classes make them roughly similar, but they're not exactly the same.
i think it's funny that we (myself included) use that phrase, "all things being equal". because if everything's equal, and one athlete has an advantage anywhere, one would assume that they would win....
i need to stop using that...
BshMstr - Another perspective: http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/fit_enough_to_fight
Seems more like an article for the gym crowd at T-Nation that has no intention of getting punched or slammed but still want to wear the Tapout clothes and say they trane UFC
I mean toughness in training is measured by iso holds? Put that guy in a shark bait drill or in a heavy sparring session and his idea of toughness will broaden a bit
GSPsShadyHandWraps -BshMstr - Another perspective: http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/fit_enough_to_fight
Seems more like an article for the gym crowd at T-Nation that has no intention of getting punched or slammed but still want to wear the Tapout clothes and say they trane UFC
I mean toughness in training is measured by iso holds? Put that guy in a shark bait drill or in a heavy sparring session and his idea of toughness will broaden a bit
yeah, i wasn't real impressed with it...
they have some neat ideas over there every once in a while, but don't seem to grasp the reality of combat.
How does one measure adequate GPP?
How would one know the issue wasn't skill?
419 - How would one know the issue wasn't skill?
Skill and strength are connected.
How do i know my inability to perform a pullup is not an issue of skill? Whatever exercise you wish to measure still has a skill component to it, the more you can do it, the more skilled you have become at doing it
I'm not being facetious 419, but can you state your position and the point you are trying to make instead of just questioning every answer you are given?