|
Post by Jacob Hale on Dec 4, 2012 20:30:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Brent Norris on Dec 4, 2012 21:04:12 GMT -5
How do you separate power from technique? Back to the tendon being separate from the muscles? Top level pullers must have both are they're not top level.
|
|
|
Post by Hungry Hippo on Dec 4, 2012 22:37:37 GMT -5
Marvin Berry Harold Owens Ryan Barnett
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Dec 4, 2012 23:17:36 GMT -5
Guys I am seeing names that are not that technical. They have their strengths sure but they aren't that technical. Selearis is a good example of a technical armwrestler. He is very smart on the table and can hold his own even in a hook pretty well. A very technical guy can do it all and do it efficiently against the absolute best. Most of the guys being mentioned are one move guys.
|
|
|
Post by Kent Shepherd on Dec 4, 2012 23:20:22 GMT -5
Ron Bath
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Dec 4, 2012 23:37:11 GMT -5
How do you separate power from technique? ... Top level pullers must have both are they're not top level. This is exactly what I believe, too. I think it is easy to fall into the trap of believing that "Strategic", "Technical", and "Powerful" are different things. No, they are not. They are all forms of technicality but they are specific in application. Technicality, to me, is the understanding of armwrestling principles whether on the table in competition or in training. You cannot have strategy without technical understanding of the dynamics of armwrestling. You cannot build true intelligent armwrestling power without the technical understanding of why you train and practice the way you do. If you are not solving a problem, increasing a certain strength, or training an attribute, then your training is thoughtless and haphazard, and certainly not technical. In my mind, "Strategic", "Technical", and "Powerful" are three cornerstones of the Complete Armwrestler. The fourth cornerstone, in my mind, is "Preparedness" which involves everything from training, rest, and conditioning to diet to mental discipline. Of the four, Preparedness is the cornerstone which presents the most pitfalls which can sabotage any of the other three cornerstones. Or oppositely, Preparedness can compensate for some weaknesses in the other cornerstones. It is not an attribute like the others, it is a condition that an armwrestlers attains or loses to various degrees at any given time. No two armwrestlers have the same combinations of the four cornerstones. Some will be more strategic than powerful, etc. Some will be more dynamically technical than they are powerful, or some may be powerful but less multi-dimensional.
|
|
Jason Gulley
Gold Member
Tennessee Armwrestling Association
Posts: 529
|
Post by Jason Gulley on Dec 4, 2012 23:41:56 GMT -5
Doug Allen
|
|
|
Post by Hungry Hippo on Dec 4, 2012 23:52:22 GMT -5
Guys I am seeing names that are not that technical. They have their strengths sure but they aren't that technical. Selearis is a good example of a technical armwrestler. He is very smart on the table and can hold his own even in a hook pretty well. A very technical guy can do it all and do it efficiently against the absolute best. Most of the guys being mentioned are one move guys. Marvin Berry is one of the US most technical....period
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Dec 5, 2012 0:04:33 GMT -5
Video?
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Dec 5, 2012 0:07:40 GMT -5
Also can he effectively do just about anything against the top guys??
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Dec 5, 2012 0:09:59 GMT -5
Just because a guy typically uses one move doesn't mean he isn't technical. When you have developed a style that works most often, you use it. It goes back to the "magic bullet" approach. Marvin Berry is not one-dimensional. He's just extremely good at what he does and you have to force him out of that approach because he comes to the table with a plan.
Jason Vale, Ron Bath, Christian Binnie, Bill Sinks - these guys are all extremely intelligent and very technical, but they all apply their technicality in different ways. Christian has applied his technicality in his preparation and training. His go-to move only looks simple until you try it, or better yet, until you try to find a way around it. Then you find out he's already answered your move before you began.
Ron Bath. He's got a specific style- which means you can pretty much predict how he's going to set up and pull. But his technicality is in the amount of power he generates and how he applies it. Just because it looks the same doesn't mean for one second that it feels the same when you are on the receiving end. He's not going to come around the back with some karate-kid backflip move. He's going to shift his pressure and dominate you with his power. And he might not even move very much when he does it.
Jason Vale is recognized as technical because he does come up there and do karate-kid type moves and pull rabbits out of his hat. His technicality is obvious. He's a wizard in the straps. Nobody that skinny generates that kind of power without having ten miles of technicality behind what he is doing, so it's very far from just being technically smart.
Bill Sinks- the ultimate strategic tactician. If what he was doing was simple then everyone would do it. And they can't. Many have tried and failed.
The list goes on.
Armwrestling is not about what you see. In our sport, you CANNOT see what is going on. You only see the result of what happened. You may think someone got toprolled because their hand got taken when the truth is both applied side pressure and one had a weaker wrist. You may think someone hooked the other, when what really happened is one did not guard against down pressure and he rolled under as a result.
The guy who can clamp you down and watch you flop around like a fish is the most technical. He has beaten you in every way- with his training which produced his strength, his technical application, and his ability to guard against every pressure or angle you try to use. But the people in the crowd think he's just a dumb ox because he is not doing anything fancy.
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Dec 5, 2012 0:16:14 GMT -5
Also can he effectively do just about anything against the top guys?? Keep in mind, Johnny- when people (like me) mention Marvin Berry, Jason Vale, etc... we're talking about phases of these guys' careers that may be years in the past. These guys have a lot of miles on them now, but they haven't forgotten what they know. Nobody stays on top forever, but they are still technical even if age and injuries, or time away from the sport, mean they can't perform on a given level anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Dec 5, 2012 0:17:42 GMT -5
I agree John. In my mind the best technicians I can think of in no particular order are.
John Brzenk reigns king of course.
Cobra, Selearis, Silvers, Travis, Bath.
My idea of the most technical is someone who can use almost any move to beat you. Doesn't matter how you prepared they are going to take you out of what you wanna do and do what they wanna do to beat you.
Christian is definitely a left handed one to mention. If you mention guys that used to be then of course Dave Patton comes to mind immediately. I am just curious about some guys that are the BEST in that aspect in the whole scene of US armwrestling currently and are able to apply their skills on everyone effectively. I don't really know much about Marvin Berry. That's why I asked if there was any video available.
|
|
Las Botha
Silver Member
South Africa
Posts: 298
|
Post by Las Botha on Dec 5, 2012 6:00:15 GMT -5
The guy who can clamp you down and watch you flop around like a fish is the most technical. He has beaten you in every way- with his training which produced his strength, his technical application, and his ability to guard against every pressure or angle you try to use. But the people in the crowd think he's just a dumb ox because he is not doing anything fancy. Richard Lupkes has watched a fair amount of people flop around like fish in his career, yet he would not traditionally be accused of being a technical armwrestler , which comes back to what we said on the first page of this thread. Else Lupkes has disproportionately developed his "Strength/Power" pillar, as you have above here, only problem with this view is that Lupkes never went out from much of strategic view point in developing this power in the gym. A "gym rat" as Brzenk jokingly called Lupkes. What I want to say continues from Jonny's comment: My idea of the most technical is someone who can use almost any move to beat you. Doesn't matter how you prepared they are going to take you out of what you wanna do and do what they wanna do to beat you. You know, some are one-trick ponies, but some can use almost any move, yet they cannot beat you because they lack strength, as we saw with Sergey Tokarev vs Michael Todd. Tokarev did everything right according to the experts that watched in person, yet he didn't have enough strength to overwhelm Todd. Who was more technical? A lot of anti-monster-under-the-table advocates are going to say that Todd has minimal technique. I I love Todd and his style, just to be clear). The fact of the matter is that Tokarev possessed, in my opinion, the most important of the pillars of technique to beat Todd. Strength is not the most important. You can spend a lifetime developing strength and be respected the world over, and never learn true technique in its application. i.e. Lupkes. With all due respect to Lupkes, a real crowd favourite. Now, I fully agree with John Wilson as my comments on the first page makes clear that preparation forms part of your technicality, but some are applying a less accurate version of using "almost any move" and getting away with looking "technical" since they have strength in abundance. Real technicality is not to expend excess energy to accomplish your goals on the table, and armwrestlers are not exactly ones to be accused of possessing great finesse. ;D My point is raw power is not the foremost pillar in armwrestling technique and can mask it rather, that is why the best pullers beat more powerful pullers than themselves who are technical in their own right too. How about the one-move-beats-all? Lupkes and Pushkar have that their grooves, how often is this used against them by a "technical" armwrestler? Rather we should probably look at who displays the knowledge and ALSO the restraint, control, anticipation and reflexes to apply it correctly. Sorry, I said this all on the first page basically.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Berget on Dec 5, 2012 6:38:40 GMT -5
Marvin was excellent at finding someone's weakness and attacking that. He had the confidence to try almost shy different style against someone if he thought it would work. And most of the time it did.
|
|