A way to beat unbeatable opponents?

[Bob Paradis]

Oct 3, 2009 6:09:02 GMT -5 @samscott said:

I figured, let's say your next opponent was Devon Larratt, wouldn't it seem possible to note which lifts he struggles in the gym with and attack those areas on the table? For instance, say if Devon's Rolling Thunder lift wasn't that crash hot, would striking his fingers with hard backpress open him up?

I know what you are getting at, but I don't think Devon has any weaknesses. He might be working on improving some areas on his own, but to the rest of us, they really aren't weaknesses. JMO

[Bob Paradis]

Oct 3, 2009 7:26:10 GMT -5 John Milne said:

just my opinion

Research the matches that your opponent has lost in. Find out how they lost. Build up your strength and technique in that area. Attack your opponent in the same way.

Sometimes armwrestling comes down to brute strength. Sometimes it comes down to smarts, technique and exploitation.of weaknesses.

Remember this. Every move has a counter. Find the best counter to your opponent and work on that.



btw... Devon is pretty weak in the hook. I'd try to attack him there ;D

LOL....There you go....free info....lol

[chrislydman]

As Engin has aptly said, knowing a way to beat someone, and being strong enough to execute it, are two separate entities There's strong, and then there's 'armwrestling' strong!

[Garrett Stepsis]

Oct 3, 2009 7:26:10 GMT -5 John Milne said:

btw... Devon is pretty weak in the hook. I'd try to attack him there ;D

Nice!

[John Wilson]

LOL. Yeah, hooking Devon isn't a smart move. Then again, neither is toprolling him.

Sam,

Once you begin pulling people on a top level it's no longer about knowing where he is weakest. It comes down to how to use your own strengths to find opportunity. It may be a 3 step process to get Devon separated from his arm before you can force him low enough to try to attack his hand. This isn't dependant on Devon, it's dependant on your ability to get him where you want him. But all the while it is about executing YOUR move to get him there because he sure as hell isn't going to go there willingly for you.

[John Milne]

This boils down to the basic philosophy of "silver bullet" vs. "well roundedness". Obviously both styles are effective and can work well. Devon and John Brzenk are great examples of being well rounded, Travis Bagent is a good example of having one awesome move and making it the best in the world.

I've often struggled with which way to go with my training and always came back to working all areas and trying to become well rounded. I then have many options when facing an opponent. This could explain why I'm usually better after I've competed against someone at least once. After a while (both through watching matches and getting the feel of an opponent at the table) I can get a general idea of where he is going and can adjust accordingly.

It's my opinion that the lions share of armwrestlers have one main attack that they use more than 90% of the time and only occasionally use a backup attack. This makes these armwrestlers easy to prepare for (in terms of predictability). The only thing left is to strengthen myself... but that is the same with both philosophies isn't it?

If I may address this : If you are planning to react to a move, then you have wasted your only opportunity off the go to execute your own move first before he does. You have lost the element of surprise.

Armwrestling tactics are no different from actual warfare. You take the fight to the enemy. You make him react to you. He has to be ready everywhere for everything and you only have to think of your own single attack"

Perhaps I'm being misunderstood. I dont mean to wait on the go and react to your opponent. I'm saying select your move and hit it like hell on the go, not just try to react to what your opponent is trying to do. Through research and experience you can accurately predict your opponent and select a move accordingly.


I'm not attempting to say which style is best. As we all know, everyone is unique in this sport and we all need to find our own path.

btw, nice posts Mr. Wilson. I dont doubt that you are right when you speak about competing at the highest level. Myself, along with most of the readers on this board are not there yet and are just trying to claw our way there.

[John Wilson]

Oct 4, 2009 18:47:17 GMT -5 John Milne said:

Perhaps I'm being misunderstood. I dont mean to wait on the go and react to your opponent. I'm saying select your move and hit it like hell on the go, not just try to react to what your opponent is trying to do. Through research and experience you can accurately predict your opponent and select a move accordingly.

quote]

You are right, John. I don't disagree with one thing you have said. Not at all. My posts were directed at Sam who I understand to be a very new armwrestler. That's why my answers are indeed incorrect for someone who is experienced.

I think we are saying the same thing, only you are saying it better and more clearly than I have.

I am trying to say two things and I jumbled them into one thought. There are two things going on here: How to teach someone who is a brand new armwrestler, versus what you would teach someone who is experienced.

1. For a BEGINNER: The biggest trap to fall into is thinking defensively. Mr. Milne, you are absolutely right that everyone must be well rounded. A beginner has to be clear that the idea of being well rounded is to be effective in all forms of attack, not to be well-rounded so that "when my oppononent does this to me I'll do this in return." That's what I meant by losing the one opportunity to attack. In my experience, most beginners think defensively because they lack the confidence to be offensive. They don't previsualize the win. Instead they focus on not losing.


2. For an experienced armwrestler who has a firm foudation of technical basics and has the strength to execute, the advice I would give a beginner is not the same advice I'd give this individual. But this individual has a different mindset. I assume that an experienced puller is now travelling around and his / her goal is to win. Without a doubt this person should be well rounded and should vary his / her tactics and even tailor them to the opponent on the other side of the table.


Both ideas are correct but only in the correct context of the skill level of the person being advised.

My posts are so longwinded it's painful for me to even read them. It's hard to be clear and succinct at the same time.