© COPYRIGHT 2009 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – August 2009 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
http://www.americancombato.com
http://seattlecombatives.com
OUR position, with apologies to no one, is that modern lethal weapons are properly integral to all close combat and self-defense training that is worthy of the name. Weapons have always been part and parcel of the martial arts, with unarmed combat being, in reality, the least desirable way in which one would be expected to engage an enemy. After all, to remind anyone who may have forgotten, MARTIAL arts are ARTS OF WAR. To exclude the appropriate weaponry of the times — whether those weapons be swords, maces, spears, or bows and arrows (during feudal times), or handguns, fighting knives, and shotguns (un this 21st century) — is absurd. The martial arts (NOT THE MARTIAL "SPORTS") have as their purpose survival in combat. For the military man, this means the battlefield. For the law enforcement officer, this means street patrol. For the private citizen this means anywhere trouble may find him — at home, at work, at play, or ANYWHERE!
A very popular item today is that category of so-called "weapons" that go by the designation "non lethal weapons". They are extraordinarily popular with precisely that type of individual who needs to become trained and educated in LETHAL weaponry; i.e. the rather soft yuppiesh soul who finds violence so vulgar and crass, yet who believes that the ever-present threat of its perhaps intervening into his own "non violent life" these days, makes it desirable for him to do something . . . "just in case". But he could never, mind you, actually "kill" or "cripple" anyone! No. Not him.
The absurdity that passes for acceptable "self-defense" measures in the statistically average adult's mind(?) today is startling. "Non injurious unarmed defense skill", "Humane tactics of controlling assailants", and "Non-lethal weaponry". What foolishness.
When a predatory felon targets his prey he hardly gives a moment's thought to being "careful" and "considerate" about the amount of injury he inflicts. His concern is to GET WHAT HE WANTS, AND THEN TO GET AWAY!
The victim of any violent atrocity whose concern is both to defend himself and not to "hurt" the individual against whom he is conducting the defensive action "too badly" is — putting it as politely as possible — UNREALISTIC, IN THE EXTREME.
First and foremost, everyone should understand that "non lethal weapons" of the type that are available to private citizens over the counter or through the mail (and even, in most cases, of the type that law enforcement organizations utilize!) ARE NOT RELIABLE OR EFFECTIVE AGAINST THE MOST DANGEROUS AND DETERMINED PHYSICAL ATTACKERS. And these types are, let us hasten to remind everybody, the ones against whom a means of defense is most critical.
"But what about those demonstrations I've seen where big, strong cops are totally rendered helpless by a MACE or pepper type spray?" one might ask. Or, "Gee whiz! I got a demonstration of being tasered, and I dropped like a rock and couldn't do a damn thing!"
The answer to such questions or comments is: "YES INDEED, BUT YOU WERE NOT AN INSANE, ENRAGED, DRUG-INFLUENCED KILLER WHO WAS FANATICALLY BENT UPON DOING MURDER, WHEN YOU WERE ‘TASERED'. AND WHEN YOU SAW THAT ‘BIG, STRONG COP' CRUMPLE UP AFTER BEING SPRAYED, IT WAS DURING A DEMONSTRATION, WHEN THE COP WAS NOT MURDEROUSLY AROUSED TO A LETHAL FIGHTING PITCH, AND OR WHEN HE WAS DRIVEN BY THE INFLUENCE OF NARCOTIC SUBSTANCES, LIQUOR, OR LITERAL MADNESS."
We have been shown actual police reports where large canisters of some damn spray failed to stop a felon. The cops used the stuff because they were MANDATED TO DO SO, before — finally — resorting to more realistic measures to bring the dangerous freak that they were battling to a halt. We have also seen reports where tasering went UNNOTICED by madmen who were determined in their insane path of destructiveness, and who finally needed to be dropped by more effective means, after law enforcers "followed policy" and zapped the murderous nut before moving on to "step two".
Private citizens almost never have the luxury of acting in concert with others in order to stop their attackers; and they do not have an array of followup weapons that may be resorted to if or when their "lesser means" should fail to work effectively. The police (sometimes at the cost of injuries to themselves) do have and use these options, after their "lesser means" fail.
But the truth is that non-lethal weapons are a scam.
If you wish to be capable of offering serious resistance to armed, dangerous, potentially deadly felonious attack, then you want to be armed with firearms, knives, hardwood clubs, or tomahawks. These are the modern weapons of personal, individual close combat, and there is not a single reason on earth why sensible private citizens should not avail themselves of these protective tools.
Unarmed combat skills are necessary, and critically so. Their study boosts self-confidence through the roof, improves physical coordination and the ability to use all other hand held weapons. Their study also fosters courage and the will to fight and to prevail — vitally necessary for the self-defense student. Additionally, by mastering unarmed combat you will not see any weapon as a "crutch", and you will be much more amenable to proper, responsible weapons usage because you know that, even if you are without any manufactured weapon, you can still make good use of the equipment provided you by Nature!
But do not make the mistake —no matter what you may be told by others or read — of believing that non-lethal gadgets make sense, and that if you "don't happen to like" guns, for instance, all you need is some pepper spray or a taser device. YOU ARE PREPARING TO DIE, IF YOU BUY INTO SUCH IDIOCY.
If real weaponry intimidates you, overcome your personal weakness. Believe it: YOU WILL BE A LOT MORE INTIMIDATED IF YOUR HOME IS EVER INVADED BY TWO OR THREE SEWER RATS WHOSE INTENTION IT IS TO ROB AND KILL YOU. The sprays and the taser device won't help. A .45 automatic or a 12 gauge shotgun WILL, providing you now how to use it.
No sane human being wants to have to use a deadly weapon or deadly force in any form on another person. However, when we advocate firearms, fighting knives, and other lethal weapons for personal defense we do so precisely for that purpose and that purpose only: LAWFUL, MORAL, LEGITIMATE, ABSOLUTELY JUSTIFIABLE AND UNAVOIDABLE SELF-DEFENSE. The same reasons we advocate unarmed self-defense and the application of weaponless combatives. We personally abhor violence, do not condone it or advocate its use ever, save when circumstances not of the individual's choosing make it necessary for defense and survival.
In all honesty we remain unable to fathom how or why any intelligent, peaceful, law-abiding adult would have any problem or point of disagreement with our position. If you do, please understand that the only possible beneficiary of your timidity and reluctance will be an egregious, dangerous, violent criminal. And we believe that you do not want that ever to be the case. Neither would your loved ones, should you oe day be the bulwark standing between them and death.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
10 Overlooked And Misunderstood Facts About Ab Training (Part Two)
By Charles Staley, B.Sc, MSS
Director, Staley Training Systems
http://www.staleytraining.com
Last article we discussed a number of common fallacies about ab training, including belt use, diet, and force production.
Click here to read that article if you missed it. [link to part 1 on your site here]
This week I'll continue with more little-known facts about your elusive six-pack.
Enjoy!
4. Training Your Abs Correctly Helps Your Back. Training Them Incorrectly Hurts Your Back
The average fitness wannabe will gravitate toward doing dozens, maybe hundreds of crunches per day. After all it worked for Brittney, right? There are at least two problems with this not so innocent approach to ab traning:
1) The reason you can't see your abs is- you're too fat. Why then, would you focus your training on one small muscle group that will not result in significant caloric expenditure? It's a waste of time.
2) Actually, it's worse than a waste of time- it could increase your chance of spinal injury. Here's how: Over weeks, months, and years of sit-ups and crunches, your rectus abdominus is likely to chronically shorten as an adaptation to said training. Stand up right now and contract your abs, like you're doing a standing crunch. Notice how it takes the curvature out of your lower back?
That's what can happen when you do too many crunches and sit-ups. And when you can't maintain a neutral spine, you're much more likely to injure yourself the next time you lift something heavy.
A better approach is to focus more on static training for your rectus abdominus, as well as rotational ab drills, which don't have the same potential to shorten your abs. Here are a few examples from our You Tube Channel (these links will open in new windows).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRCb3syDYos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meZfHqsab9Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWUBMXPzs2g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwzLoYuIzFQ
5. You May Be Training Your Abs More Than You Think
Most people under-estimate how much work their abs receive through their regular training schedule. Squats, cleans, deadlifts, snatches, farmer's walks, kettelebell work, and even heavy dumbbell upper-body exercises result in very high levels of abdominal activation. And honestly, probably as much as you really need.
6. Your Abs Don't Need High Reps
If and when you do decide to do direct ab training, just use normal loading scenarios, just like you would with any other exercise. Where did the high-rep myth come from? Hard to say, but I suspect is has something to do with the (also) mistaken notion that you can "melt" fat off of your midsection through lots of reps- I guess people think that since high reps make them sweat, that heat helps to burn their fat off.
This myth may also stem from the idea that the abdominal muscles are composed mostly of slow-twitch fibers, and therefore benefit most from high-repetition training. While this is at least a plausible premise, I'd also suggest that muscles should be trained based on what they need to do, as opposed to what they're composed of. If you should happen to slip on some ice, your abs need to explosively contract to keep your spine in neutral. If you're a discus thrower, a golfer, a tennis player, or any other rotational athlete, you need explosive abdominal functionality.
7. There Is No Direct Metabolic Pathway Between Your Abs And The Fat That Covers Them
Or to use more conventional language, there's no such thing as isolating a muscle or sport reduction. I covered this in an earlier point, but it bears repeating: Your pattern of bodyfat deposition is genetically pre-determined. Guys tend to carry fat on their midsections (android fat deposition) and women tend to carry it on their hips and thighs (gynoid deposition). You'll always have this pattern, no matter how lean or fat you become. So just train the large muscle groups using "big" exercise and heavy weights, and maybe add some heavy cardio (if you're in the mood), and you should create the caloric deficit you'll need to get leaner.
8. The Best Way To Train Abs Is With A Stability Ball
Obviously you already know part of my argument against this idea from my earlier comments, but given the popularity of stability balls lately, I thought I'd add a few remarks on the topic here. First, I actually like the ball for certain exercises, because it 1) increases the range of motion you can employ, and 2) because it's more comfortable than the floor.
Also, the ball allows for some creative exercises, such as the ball scissors that I provided a video of earlier. With that said however, stability balls are a tool, and like all tools, they provide benefits as well as drawbacks, depending on how you use them. If, for example, you labor under the mistaken impression that you need to do thousands of crunches per week, and that the ball is better because it provides greater range of motion, all you'll do is end up shortening your trunk flexors and lose your lordodic curvature. SO the ball's OK, as long as you keep things in context.
9. The Best Ab Exercises Are The Ones You Can Really FEEEELLL…
Uhh, wrong. Muscles respond to the training stress they experience, not how that stress feels. Just like any other muscle. Whether or not you feel a particular exercise is inconsequential. Perhaps one of the most productive ab exercises is heavy squats while wearing a belt, but I doubt that you consciously feel your abs while doing those squats.
10. Your Abs Can Get Too Big If You Train Them Too Much
Unlikely. Actually, let's just go with nearly impossible. The structure and function of the abdominal musculature makes this scenario highly unlikely. If you happen to subscribe to this myth based on seeing lean bodybuilders with big guts, relax: you're looking at enlarged livers from GH and other drug use. Unless you use these substances, you won't suffer the same fate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About The Author
Charles Staley...world-class strength/performance coach...his colleagues call him an iconoclast, a visionary, a rule-breaker. His clients call him “The Secret Weapon” for his ability to see what other coaches miss. Charles calls himself a “geek” who struggled in Phys Ed throughout school. Whatever you call him, Charles’ methods are ahead of their time and quickly produce serious results.
Click here to visit Charles' site and grab your 5 FREE videos that will show you how to literally FORCE your body to build muscle, lose fat and gain strength with "Escalating Density Training," Charles' revolutionary, time-saving approach to lifting that focuses on performance NOT pain.
http://www.staleytrainingprograms.com
Director, Staley Training Systems
http://www.staleytraining.com
Last article we discussed a number of common fallacies about ab training, including belt use, diet, and force production.
Click here to read that article if you missed it. [link to part 1 on your site here]
This week I'll continue with more little-known facts about your elusive six-pack.
Enjoy!
4. Training Your Abs Correctly Helps Your Back. Training Them Incorrectly Hurts Your Back
The average fitness wannabe will gravitate toward doing dozens, maybe hundreds of crunches per day. After all it worked for Brittney, right? There are at least two problems with this not so innocent approach to ab traning:
1) The reason you can't see your abs is- you're too fat. Why then, would you focus your training on one small muscle group that will not result in significant caloric expenditure? It's a waste of time.
2) Actually, it's worse than a waste of time- it could increase your chance of spinal injury. Here's how: Over weeks, months, and years of sit-ups and crunches, your rectus abdominus is likely to chronically shorten as an adaptation to said training. Stand up right now and contract your abs, like you're doing a standing crunch. Notice how it takes the curvature out of your lower back?
That's what can happen when you do too many crunches and sit-ups. And when you can't maintain a neutral spine, you're much more likely to injure yourself the next time you lift something heavy.
A better approach is to focus more on static training for your rectus abdominus, as well as rotational ab drills, which don't have the same potential to shorten your abs. Here are a few examples from our You Tube Channel (these links will open in new windows).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRCb3syDYos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meZfHqsab9Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWUBMXPzs2g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwzLoYuIzFQ
5. You May Be Training Your Abs More Than You Think
Most people under-estimate how much work their abs receive through their regular training schedule. Squats, cleans, deadlifts, snatches, farmer's walks, kettelebell work, and even heavy dumbbell upper-body exercises result in very high levels of abdominal activation. And honestly, probably as much as you really need.
6. Your Abs Don't Need High Reps
If and when you do decide to do direct ab training, just use normal loading scenarios, just like you would with any other exercise. Where did the high-rep myth come from? Hard to say, but I suspect is has something to do with the (also) mistaken notion that you can "melt" fat off of your midsection through lots of reps- I guess people think that since high reps make them sweat, that heat helps to burn their fat off.
This myth may also stem from the idea that the abdominal muscles are composed mostly of slow-twitch fibers, and therefore benefit most from high-repetition training. While this is at least a plausible premise, I'd also suggest that muscles should be trained based on what they need to do, as opposed to what they're composed of. If you should happen to slip on some ice, your abs need to explosively contract to keep your spine in neutral. If you're a discus thrower, a golfer, a tennis player, or any other rotational athlete, you need explosive abdominal functionality.
7. There Is No Direct Metabolic Pathway Between Your Abs And The Fat That Covers Them
Or to use more conventional language, there's no such thing as isolating a muscle or sport reduction. I covered this in an earlier point, but it bears repeating: Your pattern of bodyfat deposition is genetically pre-determined. Guys tend to carry fat on their midsections (android fat deposition) and women tend to carry it on their hips and thighs (gynoid deposition). You'll always have this pattern, no matter how lean or fat you become. So just train the large muscle groups using "big" exercise and heavy weights, and maybe add some heavy cardio (if you're in the mood), and you should create the caloric deficit you'll need to get leaner.
8. The Best Way To Train Abs Is With A Stability Ball
Obviously you already know part of my argument against this idea from my earlier comments, but given the popularity of stability balls lately, I thought I'd add a few remarks on the topic here. First, I actually like the ball for certain exercises, because it 1) increases the range of motion you can employ, and 2) because it's more comfortable than the floor.
Also, the ball allows for some creative exercises, such as the ball scissors that I provided a video of earlier. With that said however, stability balls are a tool, and like all tools, they provide benefits as well as drawbacks, depending on how you use them. If, for example, you labor under the mistaken impression that you need to do thousands of crunches per week, and that the ball is better because it provides greater range of motion, all you'll do is end up shortening your trunk flexors and lose your lordodic curvature. SO the ball's OK, as long as you keep things in context.
9. The Best Ab Exercises Are The Ones You Can Really FEEEELLL…
Uhh, wrong. Muscles respond to the training stress they experience, not how that stress feels. Just like any other muscle. Whether or not you feel a particular exercise is inconsequential. Perhaps one of the most productive ab exercises is heavy squats while wearing a belt, but I doubt that you consciously feel your abs while doing those squats.
10. Your Abs Can Get Too Big If You Train Them Too Much
Unlikely. Actually, let's just go with nearly impossible. The structure and function of the abdominal musculature makes this scenario highly unlikely. If you happen to subscribe to this myth based on seeing lean bodybuilders with big guts, relax: you're looking at enlarged livers from GH and other drug use. Unless you use these substances, you won't suffer the same fate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About The Author
Charles Staley...world-class strength/performance coach...his colleagues call him an iconoclast, a visionary, a rule-breaker. His clients call him “The Secret Weapon” for his ability to see what other coaches miss. Charles calls himself a “geek” who struggled in Phys Ed throughout school. Whatever you call him, Charles’ methods are ahead of their time and quickly produce serious results.
Click here to visit Charles' site and grab your 5 FREE videos that will show you how to literally FORCE your body to build muscle, lose fat and gain strength with "Escalating Density Training," Charles' revolutionary, time-saving approach to lifting that focuses on performance NOT pain.
http://www.staleytrainingprograms.com
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
10 Overlooked And Misunderstood Facts About Ab Training (Part One)
By Charles Staley, B.Sc, MSS
Director, Staley Training Systems
http://www.staleytraining.com
Here are 10 of the most overlooked and misunderstood facts about abdominal training - some of these may fly in the face of what you THINK you know to be facts! Keep an open mind and read the explanations.
You may still not agree but it might just change your ideas on how your abs should be trained.
This is Part 1 - keep your eyes peeled for Part 2, coming soon!
1. Using A Belt Makes Your Abs Stronger, Not Weaker.
This is perhaps on of the most pervasive myths that people hold about abdominal training, and about training in general. Let's apply some simple common sense to the issue: if you can lift more weight with a belt than without (and virtually all people can), are your abs "asleep" as many people who have you believe? Or, are they working harder than they would be without a belt?
The reason you're stronger with a belt is that it gives your abs something to contract against. Imagine you want to train your legs and all you have is two primitive options:
1) You can "leg press" a heavy box by pushing against it with your feet while sitting on a slick floor. Or…
2) You "leg press" a heavy box by pushing it with your feet while sitting on the floor with your back against a solid wall.
Which option do you think will result in more tension for your leg muscles? Obviously the second option is far preferable, because by wedging yourself between an immovable object and a heavy moveable object, you can create a high level of tension on the muscle's you're trying to train.
Using a belt during heavy squats, deadlifts, or Olympic lifts works the same way- by giving your abs something to push against, they can create greater intra-abdominal pressure, allowing you to 1) lift more and 2) lift more with less chance of spinal injury.
Just having a belt however, doesn't ensure success- you've gotta use it properly. The three key things to remember are:
1) Wear the belt high enough so your abs can exert pressure against it- many people wear a belt too low and rob themselves of the potential benefit
2) Don't wear the belt too tight- a looser fit allows your abs to get better leverage against the belt. And finally…
3) Get a high quality belt- some nylon/Velcro belts won't stand up to heavy use. Case in point: I recently purchased such a belt from my local Sports Authority and broke the buckle the first time I used it (must be my weakened abs from excessive belt use). Thinking it was a fluke, I returned the belt for a new one, and once again, broke it the first time I used it.
2. Having A 6-Pack Is About Diet, Not Training
You can train abs, all abs, nothing but abs, all the time, and still not have a six pack UNLESS- and here's the kicker- unless you're below 10% bodyfat. And probably you'll need to be below 8% bodyfat. The truth is you already have abs- you just can't see them. Since this isn't a nutrition article, I won't elaborate on how you should eat, so if you need help in that area, you might consider an expert nutrition consultation.
Now of course, you can drop bodyfat through training as well, but not "ab training per se:" instead, focus your efforts on challenging the largest possible muscle groups. My favorites include heavy weight circuits including a mix of Olympic lifts, power lifts, and strongman lifts.
3. The Main Function Of Your Abs Is Not Force Production
Although the abdominal muscles can and do function to flex and rotate the trunk, I'd argue that their primary function is to prevent unwanted motion. Specifically, strong abs help to protect the spine in two ways:
1) They create intra-abdominal pressure which helps to counteract compressive forces resulting from axial loading (e.g., squats, deadlifts)
2) They help to prevent forces that take the spine out of its preferred neutral position. More on this in the second installment next week….
Stay Tuned For Part 2!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About The Author
Charles Staley...world-class strength/performance coach...his colleagues call him an iconoclast, a visionary, a rule-breaker. His clients call him “The Secret Weapon” for his ability to see what other coaches miss. Charles calls himself a “geek” who struggled in Phys Ed throughout school. Whatever you call him, Charles’ methods are ahead of their time and quickly produce serious results.
Click here to visit Charles' site and grab your 5 FREE videos that will show you how to literally FORCE your body to build muscle, lose fat and gain strength with "Escalating Density Training," Charles' revolutionary, time-saving approach to lifting that focuses on performance NOT pain.
http://www.staleytrainingprograms.com
Director, Staley Training Systems
http://www.staleytraining.com
Here are 10 of the most overlooked and misunderstood facts about abdominal training - some of these may fly in the face of what you THINK you know to be facts! Keep an open mind and read the explanations.
You may still not agree but it might just change your ideas on how your abs should be trained.
This is Part 1 - keep your eyes peeled for Part 2, coming soon!
1. Using A Belt Makes Your Abs Stronger, Not Weaker.
This is perhaps on of the most pervasive myths that people hold about abdominal training, and about training in general. Let's apply some simple common sense to the issue: if you can lift more weight with a belt than without (and virtually all people can), are your abs "asleep" as many people who have you believe? Or, are they working harder than they would be without a belt?
The reason you're stronger with a belt is that it gives your abs something to contract against. Imagine you want to train your legs and all you have is two primitive options:
1) You can "leg press" a heavy box by pushing against it with your feet while sitting on a slick floor. Or…
2) You "leg press" a heavy box by pushing it with your feet while sitting on the floor with your back against a solid wall.
Which option do you think will result in more tension for your leg muscles? Obviously the second option is far preferable, because by wedging yourself between an immovable object and a heavy moveable object, you can create a high level of tension on the muscle's you're trying to train.
Using a belt during heavy squats, deadlifts, or Olympic lifts works the same way- by giving your abs something to push against, they can create greater intra-abdominal pressure, allowing you to 1) lift more and 2) lift more with less chance of spinal injury.
Just having a belt however, doesn't ensure success- you've gotta use it properly. The three key things to remember are:
1) Wear the belt high enough so your abs can exert pressure against it- many people wear a belt too low and rob themselves of the potential benefit
2) Don't wear the belt too tight- a looser fit allows your abs to get better leverage against the belt. And finally…
3) Get a high quality belt- some nylon/Velcro belts won't stand up to heavy use. Case in point: I recently purchased such a belt from my local Sports Authority and broke the buckle the first time I used it (must be my weakened abs from excessive belt use). Thinking it was a fluke, I returned the belt for a new one, and once again, broke it the first time I used it.
2. Having A 6-Pack Is About Diet, Not Training
You can train abs, all abs, nothing but abs, all the time, and still not have a six pack UNLESS- and here's the kicker- unless you're below 10% bodyfat. And probably you'll need to be below 8% bodyfat. The truth is you already have abs- you just can't see them. Since this isn't a nutrition article, I won't elaborate on how you should eat, so if you need help in that area, you might consider an expert nutrition consultation.
Now of course, you can drop bodyfat through training as well, but not "ab training per se:" instead, focus your efforts on challenging the largest possible muscle groups. My favorites include heavy weight circuits including a mix of Olympic lifts, power lifts, and strongman lifts.
3. The Main Function Of Your Abs Is Not Force Production
Although the abdominal muscles can and do function to flex and rotate the trunk, I'd argue that their primary function is to prevent unwanted motion. Specifically, strong abs help to protect the spine in two ways:
1) They create intra-abdominal pressure which helps to counteract compressive forces resulting from axial loading (e.g., squats, deadlifts)
2) They help to prevent forces that take the spine out of its preferred neutral position. More on this in the second installment next week….
Stay Tuned For Part 2!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About The Author
Charles Staley...world-class strength/performance coach...his colleagues call him an iconoclast, a visionary, a rule-breaker. His clients call him “The Secret Weapon” for his ability to see what other coaches miss. Charles calls himself a “geek” who struggled in Phys Ed throughout school. Whatever you call him, Charles’ methods are ahead of their time and quickly produce serious results.
Click here to visit Charles' site and grab your 5 FREE videos that will show you how to literally FORCE your body to build muscle, lose fat and gain strength with "Escalating Density Training," Charles' revolutionary, time-saving approach to lifting that focuses on performance NOT pain.
http://www.staleytrainingprograms.com
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Mining Gold From The Art Of Boxing
© COPYRIGHT 2009 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – May 2009 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
American Combato
Seattle Combatives
NO doubt about it, Western boxing is an immensely underrated combative discipline. While there is no question about the fact that boxing is a sport, there is also no question that a professional boxer is considered to be in possession of deadly weapons (ie his HANDS) because of the incredible power and devastation that his hands can produce. This does not mean that the clenched fists are the most effective natural weapons (they are not). It does not mean that boxing is the "best" martial art (there is no "best" martial art). And it does not mean that a person who wishes to learn how to defend himself — or prevail in a military close combat engagement — should depend upon boxing as his hand-to-hand method (he should not). It does mean, when you analyze the art of Western boxing, how boxers train, the way they utilize their weapons, etc., that there are priceless PRINCIPLES OF USING THE BODY IN MAN-TO-MAN BATTLE THAT BOXING OFFERS, AND THE HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT STUDENT WILL BENEFIT BY LEARNING THOSE PRINCIPLES, AND THEN APPLYING THEM TO HIS OWN THINKING, TRAINING, AND APPLICATION OF COMBAT SKILLS.
In a number of ways, Western boxing is superior to the art of karate. Malcolm Harris, a well respected police instructor in England (and a black belt in both judo and karate) opined that without its techniques of kicking, karate is inferior to Western boxing. We vigorously agree. (Note: Harris' book, Unarmed Close Combat — also published as Lethal Unarmed Combat — is one of the finer presentations of real world, practical close-in combatives. This book is, unfortunately, out of print. If the reader can locate a copy on line or at a used bookshop, we certainly would recommend its purchase).
We do not have space here to delineate all that Western boxing offers the combat arts pupil, but we would like to mention a few of the most valuable and adaptable principles, and let the reader ponder how he might begin to utilize them with the skills that he is learning in order to make those skills more effective for actual hand-to-hand combat.
No "counterbalancing" when a boxer punches:
The corkscrew punching action, accompanied by a snapping of the opposite arm and hand back, as the punch is delivered, which is typical karate form, is never done by boxers. The truth is that counterbalancing actually serves to negate the true delivered force of the blow, not to mention drastically delays action for the second blow.
Punching is a secondary kind of hand strike in close combat. But if the combative arts pupil will emulate the manner in which the boxer delivers his punch, and if he will follow that same method of delivery with the handaxe chop, the chinjab smash, the fingertips thrust/jab, and so on, and if he will cultivate more of a whiplashing delivery of his basic kicks (something that will, to a degree. make his kicks approach the old school la savate method of French footfighting in form) instead of employing the "chamber-and-then-kick-and-retract-to-chamber-then-return-foot-to-floor" style of strict karate type kicking, he will be amazed at how fluidly fast and more practically versatile his blows become. And they will always be more powerful.
No focusing on minutiae:
Boxers drill incessantly on four basic blows. They realize that they must adapt those blows to an infinite number of situations and occurrences, and that only ongoing practice, practice, and more practice of those simple punches will give them this adaptive capability. If the unarmed combat student would take half a dozen key blows and drill them the way a boxer does, he would be ASTOUNDED at how effective he became. But "martial artists" like complexity, acrobatics, detailed step-by-step choreography, and — ahem! — bullshit. Hence, they often end up knowing a thousand techniques and being realistically able to do not a single one under combat conditions!
Simple, basic stance and movement:
Boxers train to stand and to move easily, naturally, in perfect balance, and so as to be able both to withstand punishment and be able to dish it out. So practical and efficient is the basic stance and movement concept of Western boxing that it provided the basis for the United States Marine Corps' original bayonet fighting stance. We adopted boxing's footwork and stance concepts to unarmed combat, and while we do not go to any obvious "fighting position", we do stand in a manner approximating how a boxer positions himself, and our footwork follows the time-honored boxing mandates: 1) Never cross your feet, and 2) Never face a man head-on.
Combat trainees do not use a "boxer's stance" per se. But that which typifies how a boxer stands and moves is all but "required doctrine" for any hand-to-hand combat course.
Boxers train to HIT, not to block:
"Karate begins and ends with blocking". That's an old adage, and those of our readers who are highly experienced in any of the karate disciplines have doubtless heard it. "In ju-jutsu we do not attack, we defend." Another venerable adage. And both these old adages have something in common: They teach the individual who applies them to abandon one of the most important principles of real combat; a principle that — to a Western boxer — is and always has been, self-evident: In order to win in hand-to-hand combat you must attack, and you must keep on attacking!
Many years ago we ran a rather large gym in New York City. Attending that gym were all sorts of athletes, including martial arts people, wrestlers, police officers, and boxers. We taught a series of programs in unarmed self-defense at that gym and we were incessantly interested in garnering whatever information we could from any members who knew anything about any form of barehanded or armed close combat. Among the friendliest and most generously helpful people we ever approached were boxers. These terrific athletes were in many ways like judo men: tough, accomplished, rugged, and without pretensions.
We learned pronto that one CANNOT use karate and/or ju-jutsu type "blocks" and counters against a boxer's punches! Even a rank amateur boxer who has been at training seriously for only six months can whip a series of speedy punches into a black belt's face and body before the black belt can say, "Rising block!" (let alone even begin to apply a block)! We developed our counterattacks against boxing by working with these wonderful fellows, and we remain grateful to every single one of them for what they taught us.
Streetfighters too, just hit. They aren't afraid of your blocking a punch they throw, and they certainly don't waste time waiting to block your blows! They HIT.
Boxers hit expertly. That's how they fight. That's how they win. Don't use boxing in hand-to-hand combat; but do use the boxer's wisdom and train to defeat a dangerous enemy by going after him and attacking. Forget about emphasizing blocks.
Boxers train hard:
You will not walk into a boxing gym and smell burning incense, or see groups of yuppies sitting in the zazen posture. (One of our back belts once visited a dojo where a young lady sat in a corner playing a flute — presumably providing background music with an authentic Japanese "flavor" so that the dojo's clientele felt assured that they were getting their tuition's worth).
Now we understand that people have a perfect right to train as they wish, and to conduct their programs and arrange their facilities as they please. Our only point here is that, despite whatever "charm" or "ambiance" classicism and its trappings may have for the Westerner who dabbles in the Eastern arts of combat, these things are not relevant to the matter of hand-to-hand warfighting. And boxers know this; and boxers' training reflects their knowing this.
Go into any boxing gym and you will smell sweat, see people pounding heavy bags, rope skipping, shadow boxing, sparring, and whipping away at speed bags. They are training and they are training HARD.
Obviously, hand-to-hand combat requires training that is quite different than that of a boxer's. However, few people are willing to train ON THEIR HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT SKILLS with the intensity that a boxer trains on what he does. We freely acknowledge that commercial schools must not demand that everyone follow a program that requires "boxer-like" adherence to a vigorous, demanding training regimen. The dropout rate is high enough as it is from the necessarily rather mild training that is generally demanded in self-defense programs!
Smart students compensate by drilling themselves fanatically away from class, as well as going as all-out as they are able when in class. And good teachers will encourage those students who really want to develop, to TRAIN HARD.
Boxers train as INDIVIDUALS:
Boxing is perhaps the simplest and least "technique-inundated" martial sport on earth. (It is possible that I am incorrect, and that Japanese sumo wrestling is . . . but since I know little or nothing about sumo, and only observe that it seems to have only a few techniques, I prefer not to make a statement about the Art). Boxers utilize four basic punches, some simple footwork, and a couple of simple strategies — like dodging, slipping, etc., and that's it. Yet, no two boxers train exactly alike, and no two boxers' styles are exactly alike. Boxers train and workout individually, and their coaches invariably work on their (ie the boxers') personal and individual capabilities, talents, and propensities. The combinations that are worked out for the boxer are designed for his unique boxing "style" and capacities. Result: In short order a boxing student can box! And he can apply his boxing, to a limited extent, in unarmed combat — often far better than a lot of "martial artists" with ten times the amount of training behind themselves than the boxers possess.
None of this is said to denigrate the martial arts. Nor do we wish to give the false impression that boxing is viable, across the board, as a "combat system". It isn't. But the sensible and excellent manner in which boxing training cultivates the individual and encourages him to maximize the
manner in which he becomes able to express his renderings of a select few techniques, is a lesson that — hopefully — combatives practitioners will begin to heed. The classical/traditional way of martial arts training (ie there is one right way to "do it", and you've got t do it that way) just does not make sense when preparing for actual hand-to-hand close combat and self-defense.
Boxers really know how to hit live opponents:
Not that all martial arts people are completely lacking in this regard, but many are. It is obviously not feasible to train by hitting human partners using the blows of unarmed combat. Such would be insane. However, combatant trainees should emphasize the loose, cat-quick fluidity of motion that so typifies the boxer when he hits, and in our opinion they would be well advised to train in striking posts, bags, and dummies, by utilizing this style of power transference.
Boxers punch in a manner superior to that of the martial arts men. We recall seeing this actually proven scientifically on a cable TV show titled, if we recall correctly, "Fight Science".
Boxers never loose site of reality:
Not all martial arts people are guilty of living in a kind of misty never-never-land where fantasy either overtakes or mingles with fact, but those of us who go back a ways know for damn sure that a hell of a lot of them do live in their own little world of non-reality.
Boxers do not.
Boxers get pounded hard and knocked unconscious routinely. They cannot afford the luxury of indulging in mysterious, foolish, unrealistic flights of fancy wherein they imagine that they are supermen, or that they are privy to "secrets", "mysteries", and knowledge that enables them to defeat all comers with ease.
Those who train for self-defense could learn something from boxers on this score.
Boxers train to stay in tough, hard shape — and they always appreciate the role that conditioning plays in being prepared:
A boxer's conditioning is much more combat-specific than that of the classical/traditional martial artist. Boxers emphasize the acquisition of practical, usable, effective bodyweight and strength, and they endlessly work to harden and to toughen themselves. They expect to get hit (and hit hard) and they learn almost to disregard being hit!
The closest that martial arts people come to the boxer's "kind" of conditioning is in the art of Kodokan Judo — in our opinion KING of the competition Asian martial sports. A judo man in his 20's and 30's who is in hard competitive training is a tough, rugged, rock hard individual. Like the boxer, the judo man's techniques are not ideally suited to unarmed combat when the battle is for real — in war, or on the street. However, the judo man and the boxer are physically tough individuals.
Boxing training's type of toughening (ie being hit, pounded, and subjected to endless drills in tempering his natural weapons against targets that condition those weapons) should serve as the combat trainee's model. The combatant will forge his hand edge, heel of hand, fingers, elbows, knees, feet, and arms, and give only perfunctory attention to clenched fist work. But his body needs the same kind of toughening and hardening that the boxer's body needs — and for the same reason. In the street or on the battlefield, the combatant is GOING TO GET HURT no matter how good he is. And he must be able to "take it", as well as dish it out.
We actually could go on, but we'll call a halt at this point. We feel that we've gotten our message across to anyone who's paying attention.
Take a long, hard look at what boxing teaches. It has a lot to teach you, if you're a serious student of self-defense and close combat!
Postscript: It has always been our opinion that the finest introduction to self-defense for young boys (say, between the ages of eight and fifteen) is a combination of Kodokan Judo and Western Boxing. Those fabulous arts teach a wealth of things, and do so in a venue that does not instill the kind of "warfighting" attitude and genuinely mayhemic, over-the-top violence that a pure combat curriculum must — if it is to be worth anything — teach and emphasize. Responsible adults can and should train in unlimited, unrestrained, all-out skills for emergency self-defense. Children should not do so, but they do need to be introduced to skills with which they can avoid the encroachments upon themselves that their contemporaries sometimes impose.
Sword and Pen – May 2009 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
American Combato
Seattle Combatives
NO doubt about it, Western boxing is an immensely underrated combative discipline. While there is no question about the fact that boxing is a sport, there is also no question that a professional boxer is considered to be in possession of deadly weapons (ie his HANDS) because of the incredible power and devastation that his hands can produce. This does not mean that the clenched fists are the most effective natural weapons (they are not). It does not mean that boxing is the "best" martial art (there is no "best" martial art). And it does not mean that a person who wishes to learn how to defend himself — or prevail in a military close combat engagement — should depend upon boxing as his hand-to-hand method (he should not). It does mean, when you analyze the art of Western boxing, how boxers train, the way they utilize their weapons, etc., that there are priceless PRINCIPLES OF USING THE BODY IN MAN-TO-MAN BATTLE THAT BOXING OFFERS, AND THE HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT STUDENT WILL BENEFIT BY LEARNING THOSE PRINCIPLES, AND THEN APPLYING THEM TO HIS OWN THINKING, TRAINING, AND APPLICATION OF COMBAT SKILLS.
In a number of ways, Western boxing is superior to the art of karate. Malcolm Harris, a well respected police instructor in England (and a black belt in both judo and karate) opined that without its techniques of kicking, karate is inferior to Western boxing. We vigorously agree. (Note: Harris' book, Unarmed Close Combat — also published as Lethal Unarmed Combat — is one of the finer presentations of real world, practical close-in combatives. This book is, unfortunately, out of print. If the reader can locate a copy on line or at a used bookshop, we certainly would recommend its purchase).
We do not have space here to delineate all that Western boxing offers the combat arts pupil, but we would like to mention a few of the most valuable and adaptable principles, and let the reader ponder how he might begin to utilize them with the skills that he is learning in order to make those skills more effective for actual hand-to-hand combat.
No "counterbalancing" when a boxer punches:
The corkscrew punching action, accompanied by a snapping of the opposite arm and hand back, as the punch is delivered, which is typical karate form, is never done by boxers. The truth is that counterbalancing actually serves to negate the true delivered force of the blow, not to mention drastically delays action for the second blow.
Punching is a secondary kind of hand strike in close combat. But if the combative arts pupil will emulate the manner in which the boxer delivers his punch, and if he will follow that same method of delivery with the handaxe chop, the chinjab smash, the fingertips thrust/jab, and so on, and if he will cultivate more of a whiplashing delivery of his basic kicks (something that will, to a degree. make his kicks approach the old school la savate method of French footfighting in form) instead of employing the "chamber-and-then-kick-and-retract-to-chamber-then-return-foot-to-floor" style of strict karate type kicking, he will be amazed at how fluidly fast and more practically versatile his blows become. And they will always be more powerful.
No focusing on minutiae:
Boxers drill incessantly on four basic blows. They realize that they must adapt those blows to an infinite number of situations and occurrences, and that only ongoing practice, practice, and more practice of those simple punches will give them this adaptive capability. If the unarmed combat student would take half a dozen key blows and drill them the way a boxer does, he would be ASTOUNDED at how effective he became. But "martial artists" like complexity, acrobatics, detailed step-by-step choreography, and — ahem! — bullshit. Hence, they often end up knowing a thousand techniques and being realistically able to do not a single one under combat conditions!
Simple, basic stance and movement:
Boxers train to stand and to move easily, naturally, in perfect balance, and so as to be able both to withstand punishment and be able to dish it out. So practical and efficient is the basic stance and movement concept of Western boxing that it provided the basis for the United States Marine Corps' original bayonet fighting stance. We adopted boxing's footwork and stance concepts to unarmed combat, and while we do not go to any obvious "fighting position", we do stand in a manner approximating how a boxer positions himself, and our footwork follows the time-honored boxing mandates: 1) Never cross your feet, and 2) Never face a man head-on.
Combat trainees do not use a "boxer's stance" per se. But that which typifies how a boxer stands and moves is all but "required doctrine" for any hand-to-hand combat course.
Boxers train to HIT, not to block:
"Karate begins and ends with blocking". That's an old adage, and those of our readers who are highly experienced in any of the karate disciplines have doubtless heard it. "In ju-jutsu we do not attack, we defend." Another venerable adage. And both these old adages have something in common: They teach the individual who applies them to abandon one of the most important principles of real combat; a principle that — to a Western boxer — is and always has been, self-evident: In order to win in hand-to-hand combat you must attack, and you must keep on attacking!
Many years ago we ran a rather large gym in New York City. Attending that gym were all sorts of athletes, including martial arts people, wrestlers, police officers, and boxers. We taught a series of programs in unarmed self-defense at that gym and we were incessantly interested in garnering whatever information we could from any members who knew anything about any form of barehanded or armed close combat. Among the friendliest and most generously helpful people we ever approached were boxers. These terrific athletes were in many ways like judo men: tough, accomplished, rugged, and without pretensions.
We learned pronto that one CANNOT use karate and/or ju-jutsu type "blocks" and counters against a boxer's punches! Even a rank amateur boxer who has been at training seriously for only six months can whip a series of speedy punches into a black belt's face and body before the black belt can say, "Rising block!" (let alone even begin to apply a block)! We developed our counterattacks against boxing by working with these wonderful fellows, and we remain grateful to every single one of them for what they taught us.
Streetfighters too, just hit. They aren't afraid of your blocking a punch they throw, and they certainly don't waste time waiting to block your blows! They HIT.
Boxers hit expertly. That's how they fight. That's how they win. Don't use boxing in hand-to-hand combat; but do use the boxer's wisdom and train to defeat a dangerous enemy by going after him and attacking. Forget about emphasizing blocks.
Boxers train hard:
You will not walk into a boxing gym and smell burning incense, or see groups of yuppies sitting in the zazen posture. (One of our back belts once visited a dojo where a young lady sat in a corner playing a flute — presumably providing background music with an authentic Japanese "flavor" so that the dojo's clientele felt assured that they were getting their tuition's worth).
Now we understand that people have a perfect right to train as they wish, and to conduct their programs and arrange their facilities as they please. Our only point here is that, despite whatever "charm" or "ambiance" classicism and its trappings may have for the Westerner who dabbles in the Eastern arts of combat, these things are not relevant to the matter of hand-to-hand warfighting. And boxers know this; and boxers' training reflects their knowing this.
Go into any boxing gym and you will smell sweat, see people pounding heavy bags, rope skipping, shadow boxing, sparring, and whipping away at speed bags. They are training and they are training HARD.
Obviously, hand-to-hand combat requires training that is quite different than that of a boxer's. However, few people are willing to train ON THEIR HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT SKILLS with the intensity that a boxer trains on what he does. We freely acknowledge that commercial schools must not demand that everyone follow a program that requires "boxer-like" adherence to a vigorous, demanding training regimen. The dropout rate is high enough as it is from the necessarily rather mild training that is generally demanded in self-defense programs!
Smart students compensate by drilling themselves fanatically away from class, as well as going as all-out as they are able when in class. And good teachers will encourage those students who really want to develop, to TRAIN HARD.
Boxers train as INDIVIDUALS:
Boxing is perhaps the simplest and least "technique-inundated" martial sport on earth. (It is possible that I am incorrect, and that Japanese sumo wrestling is . . . but since I know little or nothing about sumo, and only observe that it seems to have only a few techniques, I prefer not to make a statement about the Art). Boxers utilize four basic punches, some simple footwork, and a couple of simple strategies — like dodging, slipping, etc., and that's it. Yet, no two boxers train exactly alike, and no two boxers' styles are exactly alike. Boxers train and workout individually, and their coaches invariably work on their (ie the boxers') personal and individual capabilities, talents, and propensities. The combinations that are worked out for the boxer are designed for his unique boxing "style" and capacities. Result: In short order a boxing student can box! And he can apply his boxing, to a limited extent, in unarmed combat — often far better than a lot of "martial artists" with ten times the amount of training behind themselves than the boxers possess.
None of this is said to denigrate the martial arts. Nor do we wish to give the false impression that boxing is viable, across the board, as a "combat system". It isn't. But the sensible and excellent manner in which boxing training cultivates the individual and encourages him to maximize the
manner in which he becomes able to express his renderings of a select few techniques, is a lesson that — hopefully — combatives practitioners will begin to heed. The classical/traditional way of martial arts training (ie there is one right way to "do it", and you've got t do it that way) just does not make sense when preparing for actual hand-to-hand close combat and self-defense.
Boxers really know how to hit live opponents:
Not that all martial arts people are completely lacking in this regard, but many are. It is obviously not feasible to train by hitting human partners using the blows of unarmed combat. Such would be insane. However, combatant trainees should emphasize the loose, cat-quick fluidity of motion that so typifies the boxer when he hits, and in our opinion they would be well advised to train in striking posts, bags, and dummies, by utilizing this style of power transference.
Boxers punch in a manner superior to that of the martial arts men. We recall seeing this actually proven scientifically on a cable TV show titled, if we recall correctly, "Fight Science".
Boxers never loose site of reality:
Not all martial arts people are guilty of living in a kind of misty never-never-land where fantasy either overtakes or mingles with fact, but those of us who go back a ways know for damn sure that a hell of a lot of them do live in their own little world of non-reality.
Boxers do not.
Boxers get pounded hard and knocked unconscious routinely. They cannot afford the luxury of indulging in mysterious, foolish, unrealistic flights of fancy wherein they imagine that they are supermen, or that they are privy to "secrets", "mysteries", and knowledge that enables them to defeat all comers with ease.
Those who train for self-defense could learn something from boxers on this score.
Boxers train to stay in tough, hard shape — and they always appreciate the role that conditioning plays in being prepared:
A boxer's conditioning is much more combat-specific than that of the classical/traditional martial artist. Boxers emphasize the acquisition of practical, usable, effective bodyweight and strength, and they endlessly work to harden and to toughen themselves. They expect to get hit (and hit hard) and they learn almost to disregard being hit!
The closest that martial arts people come to the boxer's "kind" of conditioning is in the art of Kodokan Judo — in our opinion KING of the competition Asian martial sports. A judo man in his 20's and 30's who is in hard competitive training is a tough, rugged, rock hard individual. Like the boxer, the judo man's techniques are not ideally suited to unarmed combat when the battle is for real — in war, or on the street. However, the judo man and the boxer are physically tough individuals.
Boxing training's type of toughening (ie being hit, pounded, and subjected to endless drills in tempering his natural weapons against targets that condition those weapons) should serve as the combat trainee's model. The combatant will forge his hand edge, heel of hand, fingers, elbows, knees, feet, and arms, and give only perfunctory attention to clenched fist work. But his body needs the same kind of toughening and hardening that the boxer's body needs — and for the same reason. In the street or on the battlefield, the combatant is GOING TO GET HURT no matter how good he is. And he must be able to "take it", as well as dish it out.
We actually could go on, but we'll call a halt at this point. We feel that we've gotten our message across to anyone who's paying attention.
Take a long, hard look at what boxing teaches. It has a lot to teach you, if you're a serious student of self-defense and close combat!
Postscript: It has always been our opinion that the finest introduction to self-defense for young boys (say, between the ages of eight and fifteen) is a combination of Kodokan Judo and Western Boxing. Those fabulous arts teach a wealth of things, and do so in a venue that does not instill the kind of "warfighting" attitude and genuinely mayhemic, over-the-top violence that a pure combat curriculum must — if it is to be worth anything — teach and emphasize. Responsible adults can and should train in unlimited, unrestrained, all-out skills for emergency self-defense. Children should not do so, but they do need to be introduced to skills with which they can avoid the encroachments upon themselves that their contemporaries sometimes impose.
Are You An Exerciser Or An Athlete - Part II
By Charles Staley, B.Sc, MSS
Director, Staley Training Systems
http://www.staleytraining.com
Last week I differentiated between the "exerciser" mindset and the athletic paradigm. I equated exercisers with an amateur approach, and athletes with a professional attitude toward fitness. Most importantly, I demonstrated how the fundamental distinction between these two divergent perspectives is one of attitude: exercisers hate what they do, they do it begrudgingly, and they wouldn't do it at all except for their certainty that they have to do it.
Athletes, on the other hand love to train. In fact, they tend to overtrain, because their work ethic has become so ingrained that they live and die by a productivity-based ethos.
Becoming an athlete doesn't require advanced pedigree, a nasty steroid habit, bulging biceps, or even jaw-dropping talent. What it does require is a commitment to a set of practices that define the athletic lifestyle. People who consistently practice these habits can call themselves athletes, while those who do not continue to reside in the exerciser caste.
As you continue to read, take a self-assessment to see how many of these five habits you already practice, and which ones are missing from your dossier.
1) Process Orientation:
The athlete pursues goals, but the bulk of his day-to-day attention is focused on processes. A premise is first developed which states "If I do this process, it should lead me to this end." Once the premise is established, the athlete trusts the premise (much like a pro golfer must trust his stroke under competitive conditions).
The athlete shifts his sights away from the long-term goal and devoted his entire energy toward the day-to-day practices and habits that will give him the best chance for success. These practices encompass everything from training tactics, to nutritional and recuperative strategies.
2) Delayed Gratification:
The desire for instant results is the hallmark of an exerciser. Athletes know that the big payoff is worth the wait. One telltale sign of maturity can be found in sound nutritional practices: many people can commit to an exercise program, because there are immediate benefits- endorphin production, muscle pumps, greater energy, etc. However, there are little to no short-term benefits to be gained from a sound nutritional program - the payoff takes time to accrue.
3) Systemization:
Athletes record, document, and analyze their training, and often, their food intake. In other words, they keep records. When you don't have systems, you need to reinvent the wheel every time a unique situation presents itself. Athletes tend to know their maximum capacities in various exercises, they know how they react to various nutritional practices, and they're also familiar with the psychological states that produce superior performances. All of this knowledge is gleaned through the process of record keeping. After all, the best way to predict future performance is to study the past.
4) Professionalism:
The previous three practices are all components of professionalism, but here, I'd like to discuss a "root" habit that gives birth to all of them: distancing. This practice is perhaps best personified in the old weightlifter's credo "There is no joy in victory, no agony in defeat." Athletes maintain a certain impassionate distance from their craft. They know that if they identify too closely with their role, they'll be less likely to put themselves on the line, in the competitive arena.
Instead, they simply put in the work, do the right things, and resign themselves to whatever outcome might occur. Athletes know that commitment to the effort means more than the outcome produced by the effort. Exercisers on the other hand, are typically unwilling to put in the time, and instead resort to pills, powders, plastic surgery, and various other shortcuts that inevitably lead to failure.
5) Functionalism:
Exercisers are concerned exclusively with "form:" an improved appearance. Athletes are concerned exclusively with "function," which results in better form than what exercisers typically achieve. Put simply: form follows function. When you train like an athlete, you'll look like an athlete
---
I hope you'll notice the consistent parallels between these 5 practices. They all stress means over ends, practices over outcomes, long-term growth over immediate gratification. All of which are expressions of maturity. If you're currently living an exerciser lifestyle, you're ahead of the curve, but why not set your sights higher and join the athletic community? All it takes is making a decision- taking action, right now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About The Author
Charles Staley...world-class strength/performance coach...his colleagues call him an iconoclast, a visionary, a rule-breaker. His clients call him “The Secret Weapon” for his ability to see what other coaches miss. Charles calls himself a “geek” who struggled in Phys Ed throughout school. Whatever you call him, Charles’ methods are ahead of their time and quickly produce serious results.
Click here to visit Charles' site and grab your 5 FREE videos that will show you how to literally FORCE your body to build muscle, lose fat and gain strength with "Escalating Density Training," Charles' revolutionary, time-saving approach to lifting that focuses on performance NOT pain.
http://www.staleytrainingprograms.com
Director, Staley Training Systems
http://www.staleytraining.com
Last week I differentiated between the "exerciser" mindset and the athletic paradigm. I equated exercisers with an amateur approach, and athletes with a professional attitude toward fitness. Most importantly, I demonstrated how the fundamental distinction between these two divergent perspectives is one of attitude: exercisers hate what they do, they do it begrudgingly, and they wouldn't do it at all except for their certainty that they have to do it.
Athletes, on the other hand love to train. In fact, they tend to overtrain, because their work ethic has become so ingrained that they live and die by a productivity-based ethos.
Becoming an athlete doesn't require advanced pedigree, a nasty steroid habit, bulging biceps, or even jaw-dropping talent. What it does require is a commitment to a set of practices that define the athletic lifestyle. People who consistently practice these habits can call themselves athletes, while those who do not continue to reside in the exerciser caste.
As you continue to read, take a self-assessment to see how many of these five habits you already practice, and which ones are missing from your dossier.
1) Process Orientation:
The athlete pursues goals, but the bulk of his day-to-day attention is focused on processes. A premise is first developed which states "If I do this process, it should lead me to this end." Once the premise is established, the athlete trusts the premise (much like a pro golfer must trust his stroke under competitive conditions).
The athlete shifts his sights away from the long-term goal and devoted his entire energy toward the day-to-day practices and habits that will give him the best chance for success. These practices encompass everything from training tactics, to nutritional and recuperative strategies.
2) Delayed Gratification:
The desire for instant results is the hallmark of an exerciser. Athletes know that the big payoff is worth the wait. One telltale sign of maturity can be found in sound nutritional practices: many people can commit to an exercise program, because there are immediate benefits- endorphin production, muscle pumps, greater energy, etc. However, there are little to no short-term benefits to be gained from a sound nutritional program - the payoff takes time to accrue.
3) Systemization:
Athletes record, document, and analyze their training, and often, their food intake. In other words, they keep records. When you don't have systems, you need to reinvent the wheel every time a unique situation presents itself. Athletes tend to know their maximum capacities in various exercises, they know how they react to various nutritional practices, and they're also familiar with the psychological states that produce superior performances. All of this knowledge is gleaned through the process of record keeping. After all, the best way to predict future performance is to study the past.
4) Professionalism:
The previous three practices are all components of professionalism, but here, I'd like to discuss a "root" habit that gives birth to all of them: distancing. This practice is perhaps best personified in the old weightlifter's credo "There is no joy in victory, no agony in defeat." Athletes maintain a certain impassionate distance from their craft. They know that if they identify too closely with their role, they'll be less likely to put themselves on the line, in the competitive arena.
Instead, they simply put in the work, do the right things, and resign themselves to whatever outcome might occur. Athletes know that commitment to the effort means more than the outcome produced by the effort. Exercisers on the other hand, are typically unwilling to put in the time, and instead resort to pills, powders, plastic surgery, and various other shortcuts that inevitably lead to failure.
5) Functionalism:
Exercisers are concerned exclusively with "form:" an improved appearance. Athletes are concerned exclusively with "function," which results in better form than what exercisers typically achieve. Put simply: form follows function. When you train like an athlete, you'll look like an athlete
---
I hope you'll notice the consistent parallels between these 5 practices. They all stress means over ends, practices over outcomes, long-term growth over immediate gratification. All of which are expressions of maturity. If you're currently living an exerciser lifestyle, you're ahead of the curve, but why not set your sights higher and join the athletic community? All it takes is making a decision- taking action, right now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About The Author
Charles Staley...world-class strength/performance coach...his colleagues call him an iconoclast, a visionary, a rule-breaker. His clients call him “The Secret Weapon” for his ability to see what other coaches miss. Charles calls himself a “geek” who struggled in Phys Ed throughout school. Whatever you call him, Charles’ methods are ahead of their time and quickly produce serious results.
Click here to visit Charles' site and grab your 5 FREE videos that will show you how to literally FORCE your body to build muscle, lose fat and gain strength with "Escalating Density Training," Charles' revolutionary, time-saving approach to lifting that focuses on performance NOT pain.
http://www.staleytrainingprograms.com
Whew!
I made it out to run today. Interesting because I wasn't even considering skipping this session. I actually made it down to the trail a bit earlier than usual. I was sure that I'd have to play the usual game. Given how sore I was by the end of the work day I had a "reason" for taking it easy.
Good run... good time. I finished a little further in today so either the gait was quicker or my stride was a bit longer. I had expected to end well short since my legs are still so stiff from the squats last night.
I'll know tomorrow if this helped in recovery at all. I'm supposed to lift again tomorrow. I feel great right now but I'm still fairly sore. I do think that the legs have lossened up somewhat however.
Good run... good time. I finished a little further in today so either the gait was quicker or my stride was a bit longer. I had expected to end well short since my legs are still so stiff from the squats last night.
I'll know tomorrow if this helped in recovery at all. I'm supposed to lift again tomorrow. I feel great right now but I'm still fairly sore. I do think that the legs have lossened up somewhat however.
"Roid" Rant
Why is it that whenever some neophyte hears than someone is involved in weight training they have to make the obligatory comment on steroids, roid rage and all other associated ills? If the trainee in question were actually using steroids... then I could perhaps see making some EDUCATED comment, recommendation or warning.
These comments NEVER come from someone who's actually involved in the iron game to any degree. It is ALWAYS from some twiddle-dink with 11" upper arms and no sense of originality. These are the same jagoffs who claim to "workout five days a week" and have absolutely NOTHING to show for it.
Naturally, they spend a ridiculous amount of money on barrel after barrel of SUPER GAIN WHEY PROTEIN POWDER... and have lost weight in the process. Most of it from their wallets. Brace yourself! They'll counter with "I don't want to get big." Congratulations! You've found the secret formula. Ironically, you'd get the same exact results by doing nothing at all.
These will be the very same nitwits who criticize those of us who promote sensible, basic routines for mass building. These are the types of routines that successfully built some of the strongest and most balanced physiques in the history of modern iron. They'll undoubtedly tout the usual barrage of finishing exercises and mention how they spent hours on curls the previous evening... while standing in front of the gyms "wall o' mirrors".
You're not "finishing" anything! You cannot "finish" what hasn't been started. Build the foundation first. Get the walls and roof up before you start applying the paint and the wallpaper for crying out loud.
The core exercises are necessary to build that foundation. That fluff, finishing stuff isn't going to put on mass. That's the crap you do once you HAVE the mass! Hence the label finishing exercises. The basic, compound exercises are what are needed.
The reason these compound exercises are not popular... is because they are HARD WORK! Working your way up from the mere weight of the bar to squatting or dead lifting your body weight or better is WORK! Most people are apparently not up to the task. It’s a common phenomenon with our culture. Everyone wants the reward but nobody wants to do anything onerous.
I’ve read half-dozen posts this week alone on various forums. All of these individuals were commenting that the basics are all fine and good “for beginners” but these guys had a few years of training and were ready for the “more advanced stuff”. Oh really? One of them weighed a whopping 150-pound with a body fat percentage of 20%. Listen junior; take it from someone who knows ALL of the excuses. If you’re not squatting or dead-lifting 150% of your own body weight… you aren’t ready for the “advanced stuff”.
If you’ve been doing that same candy-assed routine for you lengthy 2.5 years of “training” then you’re an idiot. It should have occurred to you a long time ago that it wasn’t working. Fix your training scheme or get the hell out so that someone a bit more serious gets a shot at the equipment. You’re taking up space. There are plenty of us out there willing to help you but you’re going to need to shut the hell up and actually listen for a change.
You’re going to have to break a sweat. You may puke a few times. You may work those squats so hard that your legs give out after you’ve racked the bar and you end up on the floor. People are going to stare at you when you hit rep 15 and keep going on that 20-rep set of squats. They’ll think you’re insane when you’re doing overhead presses with an Olympic bar… and 135-pounds.
In around six months… maybe less… you’re going to begin noticing a transformation though. Suddenly you’ll have shoulders… a chest… and legs. All from those out dated compound exercises. All without steroids. After two to three years of this kind of work, you'll have reached your apex. All without steroids. You're not going to be the next Mr. Olympia... but you're going to look AND FEEL better than 95% of the people out there.
These comments NEVER come from someone who's actually involved in the iron game to any degree. It is ALWAYS from some twiddle-dink with 11" upper arms and no sense of originality. These are the same jagoffs who claim to "workout five days a week" and have absolutely NOTHING to show for it.
Naturally, they spend a ridiculous amount of money on barrel after barrel of SUPER GAIN WHEY PROTEIN POWDER... and have lost weight in the process. Most of it from their wallets. Brace yourself! They'll counter with "I don't want to get big." Congratulations! You've found the secret formula. Ironically, you'd get the same exact results by doing nothing at all.
These will be the very same nitwits who criticize those of us who promote sensible, basic routines for mass building. These are the types of routines that successfully built some of the strongest and most balanced physiques in the history of modern iron. They'll undoubtedly tout the usual barrage of finishing exercises and mention how they spent hours on curls the previous evening... while standing in front of the gyms "wall o' mirrors".
You're not "finishing" anything! You cannot "finish" what hasn't been started. Build the foundation first. Get the walls and roof up before you start applying the paint and the wallpaper for crying out loud.
The core exercises are necessary to build that foundation. That fluff, finishing stuff isn't going to put on mass. That's the crap you do once you HAVE the mass! Hence the label finishing exercises. The basic, compound exercises are what are needed.
The reason these compound exercises are not popular... is because they are HARD WORK! Working your way up from the mere weight of the bar to squatting or dead lifting your body weight or better is WORK! Most people are apparently not up to the task. It’s a common phenomenon with our culture. Everyone wants the reward but nobody wants to do anything onerous.
I’ve read half-dozen posts this week alone on various forums. All of these individuals were commenting that the basics are all fine and good “for beginners” but these guys had a few years of training and were ready for the “more advanced stuff”. Oh really? One of them weighed a whopping 150-pound with a body fat percentage of 20%. Listen junior; take it from someone who knows ALL of the excuses. If you’re not squatting or dead-lifting 150% of your own body weight… you aren’t ready for the “advanced stuff”.
If you’ve been doing that same candy-assed routine for you lengthy 2.5 years of “training” then you’re an idiot. It should have occurred to you a long time ago that it wasn’t working. Fix your training scheme or get the hell out so that someone a bit more serious gets a shot at the equipment. You’re taking up space. There are plenty of us out there willing to help you but you’re going to need to shut the hell up and actually listen for a change.
You’re going to have to break a sweat. You may puke a few times. You may work those squats so hard that your legs give out after you’ve racked the bar and you end up on the floor. People are going to stare at you when you hit rep 15 and keep going on that 20-rep set of squats. They’ll think you’re insane when you’re doing overhead presses with an Olympic bar… and 135-pounds.
In around six months… maybe less… you’re going to begin noticing a transformation though. Suddenly you’ll have shoulders… a chest… and legs. All from those out dated compound exercises. All without steroids. After two to three years of this kind of work, you'll have reached your apex. All without steroids. You're not going to be the next Mr. Olympia... but you're going to look AND FEEL better than 95% of the people out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)