Arthur Saxon excerpt

[abenn]

So, I was reading Saxon's book and came across an interesting passage which pretty much sums up the arguments you've made for a long time about weightlifting. I reckon you've read it before, but I thought people here might enjoy it:

“In every other branch of athletics by which relative “strength” can be tested, “skill” enters so extensively into the question of pre-eminence as practically to reduce strength to a secondary consideration.
Now, skill enters into Weightlifting as well. In fact, it dominates the situation quite as fully therein as it does in boxing or wrestling: but then in Weightlifting, and in Weightlifting alone, is skill synonymous with strength.
A really strong man who is unable to lift really heavy weights can only be described as a man who possesses possibilities of strength, while a man who can exceed 250lbs, with either one or two hands (or even 200lbs., supposing him to be a 9 to 10-stone man) is the fortunate possessor of real strength, having been endowed with power itself, which he has further acquired the ability to use”

All those bullshit arguments are nearly a century old, huh?

[Mark Rippetoe]

But I disagree with his first sentence, written from a completely different perspective a century ago. Saxon didn't have the numbers, and we do: strength is never a secondary consideration unless the sport is golf, and maybe not even then.

[Mark E. Hurling]

Well damn, and here I was planning to make reference to Saxon in a lessons learned in my log. Now all those vainglorious aspirations to an original historical reference are shpt to hell. I am so disappointed!

[abenn]

Golf's a sport?

I think it's interesting that so long ago a man was having to argue that weightlifting doesn't make you slow, that technique doesn't "make" the lift, etc. We've come so far.

[JB1981]

What about the notion that speed kills, particularly in basketball ,which is not entirely dependent on strength.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Can you wrap your mind around the idea that speed is improved by strength?

[zephed56]

I'd imagine strength would help a lot with distance in golf, just like it does in baseball. obviously golfers as a whole are weak as shit, but that doesn't mean it's the best way to train for the sport, or not train, I should say.

[Raleighwood]

I'd imagine strength would help a lot with distance in golf, just like it does in baseball. obviously golfers as a whole are weak as shit, but that doesn't mean it's the best way to train for the sport, or not train, I should say.

I've heard multiple times that Tiger Woods benches over 300lbs. Haven't heard if, or what, he squats and pulls.

[Kyle Schuant]

In reference to basketball, not all can wrap their minds around the idea that speed is improved by strength.

I have one client who is a basketballer, she says, "Once I got really strong, my muscles became tight and I slowed down on the court."
"Did you squat below parallel?"
"To here -" she demonstrated a squat to 30 degrees above parallel.
"And did you stretch?"
"No," she smiled.
"So do you think the problem of being stiff was really due to strength, or could it have been due to practising moving over a restricted range of motion and never stretching?"

[Bolla]

I used to play golf some years ago. Played a round last summer after 2 years not touching a golf club (tournament with customers). For some reason I was able to hit the ball 15 yards longer with my driver than when I played three times a week.

Now, either my technique had mysteriously improved because of the long layoff, or perhaps strength does matter in golf.