Las Botha
Silver Member
South Africa
Posts: 298
|
Post by Las Botha on Dec 5, 2012 10:02:12 GMT -5
I'm getting frustrated. I doubt I'm the only one. Hi Mike, I'm not sure what has given reason for your frustrations to arise, but there may be a pharmaceutical solution for you out there. Or is it these third-world amateurs that seem to be willingly ignorant? Thank you John but it is hard to get a big head when you are in a perpetual state of existential crisis. Oh, and add Benji Dwyer and Cvetan Gashevski. Las, technique in armwrestling is gradually being replaced. Devon once described armwrestling as a martial art form but the art and many of the other qualities of the sport are going the way of the buffalo. That was disheartening to read... I do suppose, and I will say it again, that an aspect of technical ability that is rarely touched upon and in most ways almost impossible to measure; is that you could hypothetically have two pullers identical in knowledge and experience, but there is no chance that they'd possess equal control over their respective bodies and temperament. This will make for a greater degree of success for one or the other and differentiation into styles. There really isn't all that much to do in armwrestling on a more macroscopic scale,and we will have to get our hairsplitter glasses out. It's part of the beauty of the sport though, and adds an element of wonder. So good on us.
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Dec 5, 2012 10:06:55 GMT -5
John Brzenk answered your question about fifteen years ago, Las. (Ask John Brzenk on Armwrestling.com)
"Armwrestling is not Chess. Knowing what to do is very different from being able to do it, and even more different from being able to do it against someone who does not want to let you do it."
Knowledge in armwrestling is just a starting point. It's the "doing it" that separates champions from theoreticians such as myself.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Laton on Dec 5, 2012 10:08:18 GMT -5
Currently, Corey Miller and Matt Harris. Old school, Les Whims was NEVER and I mean NEVER out of a match until you actually pinned him. He had the best hand control of anyone I ever saw. He knew when to regrip, when to come up and press and most importantly, when to do nothing at all but sit and wait on you to make a mistake.
|
|
Las Botha
Silver Member
South Africa
Posts: 298
|
Post by Las Botha on Dec 5, 2012 10:26:50 GMT -5
Just looking at Engin's reply above, Engin seems to indicate that he believes that Larratt is the no.1 because of his weight class, possibly meaning that he is only technical enough so as to be able to dominate with the strength he possesses being a heavyweight. Furthermore, Engin emphasizes a winning gameplan that will allow you to assume dominance, which is true technique. Yes, strength and technique to a certain degree are inseparable. But I think it would be useful to define the level of a puller in A) how he or she applies their "educated strength" in their "best technique" winning gameplan approach whichever style of puller, and B) how broad their knowledge and experiential database is in dealing with situations that are less than ideal for them. There is a very fine distinction here, and I know that those who can maintain A) have had to qualify themselves to a great degree through B). But, there are still those who could possibly have a better understanding of B) and not be A) pullers, even if we would give more respect to A) pullers. Forgive me for being a bit tedious, but Engin refers to my quote "Real technicality is not to expend excess energy to accomplish your goals on the table" and replies that in that he recognizes my lack of experience, and that he believes I am citing speed and explosiveness. What I said there, I believe to be a general truth in armwrestling. I do understand that it is of course to any puller's advantage to train a strength in any component that is off the charts. But for the purpose of the reference, every puller will meet his or her match, and the ability to only, merely contend with bare sufficient effort in the components that are being fought for around the table is an underrated art that I believe few will ever master and why I specifically mentioned Devon Larratt and how it relates to his perceived "endurance".
|
|
Las Botha
Silver Member
South Africa
Posts: 298
|
Post by Las Botha on Dec 5, 2012 10:32:30 GMT -5
John Brzenk answered your question about fifteen years ago, Las. ( Ask John Brzenk on Armwrestling.com) "Armwrestling is not Chess. Knowing what to do is very different from being able to do it, and even more different from being able to do it against someone who does not want to let you do it." Knowledge in armwrestling is just a starting point. It's the "doing it" that separates champions from theoreticians such as myself. ;D Thank you for that Mr. Wilson! I've read that a few times before. It wasn't really a question by me, this is just complimentary to what I said. Knowledge is not just a starting point, and it will be everchanging and adapting (if you're a good student of the sport) with your development, naturally. And some knowledge can only be acquired through competing against a higher level opponent/s.
|
|
Las Botha
Silver Member
South Africa
Posts: 298
|
Post by Las Botha on Dec 5, 2012 10:33:45 GMT -5
Les Whims was NEVER and I mean NEVER out of a match until you actually pinned him. He had the best hand control of anyone I ever saw. He knew when to regrip, when to come up and press and most importantly, when to do nothing at all but sit and wait on you to make a mistake. +1
|
|
Jon Brown
Silver Member
New Hampshire
Posts: 283
|
Post by Jon Brown on Dec 5, 2012 10:36:21 GMT -5
now: Cobra/Harris/Larratt recent past: James Smith/Selearis past: Dave Patton/Aaron Lengyel
if i sit here long enough 20 more names will pop up.
|
|
Las Botha
Silver Member
South Africa
Posts: 298
|
Post by Las Botha on Dec 5, 2012 10:36:29 GMT -5
Matt Harris is another guy that does not get his just due as a technition. The list of guys who don't get the credit they deserve as technicians is longer than the list of great bands who have been left out of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Neil Pickup Luke Reimer Aaron Lengyel Mike Shalhoub Kevin Bongard Tony Villa James Retarides Simon Berriochoa Omer Bennurken Durson Ondar Kyle Knapp David Randall Wayne Burns Mike West Totraz Tamaev Pascal Girard Doug Allen John Milne This is by no means an exhaustive list. I'm just listing some people I personally have learned key things from- either by talking to them or watching them. I can hear it now. People will point to someone on that list and say that these guys didn't do exciting, high risk moves. Well, that's the point. Technicality isn't always high-wire act. Excuse me?! Modesty forbids John Milne, but have you ever heard of "The Can Opener" ;D I think Pushkar might have heard of it, I'm not sure now...
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Dec 5, 2012 10:37:26 GMT -5
I think you have missed Engin's point. You are making this much more difficult than it is.
Engin is saying that a perfect technical armwrestler does not have to react to his opponent. He has the ability to implement his move and impose his will at all times. Whatever his opponent throws at him is contained and does not move the perfect armwrestler away from his own move. (no need to counter, since his opponent is never in control)
Engin is saying this is the highest kind of technical perfection. Anything other than this shines a light on a given weakness, whether that weakness is physical, mental, strength or technical weakness.
I don't know how anyone can argue against this logic.
|
|
Las Botha
Silver Member
South Africa
Posts: 298
|
Post by Las Botha on Dec 5, 2012 10:38:46 GMT -5
now: Cobra/Harris/Larratt recent past: James Smith/Selearis past: Dave Patton/Aaron Lengyel if i sit here long enough 20 more names will pop up. I think if we all sit on this thread long enough, the whole amrwrestling fraternity will pop up.
|
|
Las Botha
Silver Member
South Africa
Posts: 298
|
Post by Las Botha on Dec 5, 2012 10:43:18 GMT -5
I think you have missed Engin's point. You are making this much more difficult than it is. Engin is saying that a perfect technical armwrestler does not have to react to his opponent. He has the ability to implement his move and impose his will at all times. Whatever his opponent throws at him is contained and does not move the perfect armwrestler away from his own move. (no need to counter, since his opponent is never in control) Engin is saying this is the highest kind of technical perfection. Anything other than this shines a light on a given weakness, whether that weakness is physical, mental, strength or technical weakness. I don't know how anyone can argue against this logic. I have read and re-read Engin's replies, John. With all due respect, I think perhaps you have missed my point. It's a very subtle point, and I hear what you and Engin are saying. But to just ask crudely: "who are the most technical armwrestlers..." really won't get us far without definition and hairsplitting and taking these subtle points into account. Please forgive me, I'm not trying to disagree for the sake of disagreeing.
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Dec 5, 2012 10:47:16 GMT -5
Are you implying the list of stupid armwrestlers should be longer than the the list of smart ones?
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Dec 5, 2012 10:51:08 GMT -5
I have read and re-read Engin's replies, John. With all due respect, I think perhaps you have missed my point. It's a very subtle point, and I hear what you and Engin are saying. But to just ask crudely: "who are the most technical armwrestlers..." really won't get us far without definition and hairsplitting and taking these subtle points into account. You have gotten very good answers. If you are unsatisfied, then perhaps the problem lies in the question. Or better yet, maybe you are finding that your definition of "technical" is not the same as everyone else's. It is not important that we agree. If two people agree, but both are wrong, does that make them right? Agreement does not define truth.
|
|
Las Botha
Silver Member
South Africa
Posts: 298
|
Post by Las Botha on Dec 5, 2012 10:59:45 GMT -5
Engin Terzi wrote: I do not know when such test were implemented, and there is to this day still not enough screening, of course, there are many problems some of which Larratt has brought up in this thread recently: teammaine.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=25074&page=10I feel that that reflects some of my thoughts on that, but no doubt the overall quality of teaching and training is improving (not least due to efforts of legends such as yourself, Engin), and the player pool is increasing. Tournaments and matches would logically then seem to increase in competitivity as well then. I'm not saying that you didnt have it tough, and I am in no way trying to detract from any of your accomplishments. That said, I have no problem questioning any authority, but I do have a big problem with being an idiot, so I try not to be an idiot, and I try to learn fast, and for this I am very grateful and indebted toward you, Engin, amongst others. And to be clear, Engin, I have no perverse need for you to prove yourself to me or anyone else for that matter. Also, South African champion Terrance Opperman's achievements have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my own esteem. I regret that you perhaps feel that way. I do feel that being one Turkish and another Afrikaans, we might have a slight communication problem in English through this medium. But it was to some degree nonetheless insightful, and I thank you very much for you time.
|
|
Las Botha
Silver Member
South Africa
Posts: 298
|
Post by Las Botha on Dec 5, 2012 11:12:09 GMT -5
Are you implying the list of stupid armwrestlers should be longer than the the list of smart ones? I'm not sure to whom this is directed. I have read and re-read Engin's replies, John. With all due respect, I think perhaps you have missed my point. It's a very subtle point, and I hear what you and Engin are saying. But to just ask crudely: "who are the most technical armwrestlers..." really won't get us far without definition and hairsplitting and taking these subtle points into account. You have gotten very good answers. If you are unsatisfied, then perhaps the problem lies in the question. Or better yet, maybe you are finding that your definition of "technical" is not the same as everyone else's.
It is not important that we agree. If two people agree, but both are wrong, does that make them right? Agreement does not define truth. I'm not unsatisfied, if it involves a discussion of armwrestling and we get an opportunity to hear the views of the experts, it is in no way a waste. I made a couple of initial statements, then responded to replies that were directed to me for what it's worth. I think they've been quite reasonable. I do not see this as an issue of mutual agreement, but that a good discussion could augment our understanding either way. I never attempted to intimate that an expert could learn anything from me that could benefit his own game. Regarding definitions; it could only be to the benefit of this discussion to expand on all aspects of technique, even the less glamorous ones. For those who aren't interested, I trust they are familiar with the scroll function on their keyboards, mouses (or mice), mobile devices....etc.
|
|