Author Topic: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead  (Read 18227 times)

oldtimer1

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17112
  • Getbig!
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #25 on: August 09, 2006, 04:18:39 PM »
Those are really good numbers for a guy that weighs under 175 lbs.  Power is speed combined with strength.  Power Lifting illustrates strength and Olympic Lifting illustrates power.  I bet a lot of light weight boxers can't bench 200.  I bet they can punch harder than a lot of guys that bench  350 lbs.  They are generating more power with their speed.  If Hughes combines those respectable numbers with speed, endurance, and skill he is one scary guy to fight.  Some MMA guys are really strong but have little power.  Somes MMA guys are strong but have no endurance. Some MMA guys are strong but they have poor skills.  Matt Huges has all of those attributes.  He will be defeated like all the rest in time but it doesn't take away how good of a fighter he is right now.   

Some one said it before.  How many guys that size have you seen putting up those numbers?  If you have then how many of them can keep up with Hughes when he does his cardio runs?  I bet the list gets smaller.  How many are explosive rather than slow?  Lastly how many are versed in submissions and escapes? 

I'm off my soap box.  For you kids a soap box is, oh, forget about it.

slacker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5179
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #26 on: December 12, 2006, 03:58:59 PM »
Hes supposed to be the strongest guy in the UFC lb for lb but his numbers arent that impressive at all IMO. The way he was hyped as a strength mutant kinda makes me think that, whilst the numbers are good, hes waaaaaaaaaaay overhyped. OK so hes the strongest guy in the division, but thats as far as it goes

bench - 310, squat - 375, deadlift - 425

so he is a little stronger than my 3 year old
I

BEAST 8692

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3545
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #27 on: December 13, 2006, 04:11:39 AM »
numbers mean very little. i'm sure if he put a suit on and got p/lifting coach he could present some bigger numbers. would that make you happy?

the guy is fucking strong + speed + power + stamina.

i love the fact that he hasn't tried to inflate his numbers. gives him more credibility in my mind. these days there are a ton of guys with 400+ bench. get 'em on the mat and they're as weak as kittens. ;D.

as for punching power. show me a guy that places such a priority on weights that he is benching 500 - 600lbs and i'll show you a guy with no pop in his punch whatsoever.

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #28 on: December 13, 2006, 01:37:43 PM »
I bet Arona, Rampage, Silva and some of those PRIDE guys juiced to their gills can sling some poundages as well as fight.

Thin Lizzy

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18364
  • It’s all a fraud
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #29 on: December 13, 2006, 05:02:07 PM »
I don't think those particular exercises represent the types of strength most often used in grappling: twisting and pulling strength.

BigNBloated

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 663
  • Always bet on Duke.
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #30 on: December 14, 2006, 03:30:17 PM »
The strength on the weights doesnt translate well to the mat as far as how strong he actually is as a fighter. Frank Trigg said when he faught Matt and tried to clinch that his neck felt like he was grabbing a cement wall. Its all about how well your body translates the strength to the abilities of fighting. If you cant utilize the power your muscles generate it means nothing. I hate to say functional strength but It has its own ground here. The same gos for when Rich Franklin faught anderson silva. Id say physique wise Franklin makes Silva look small and he is probably more impressive in the weight room, but he claimed he had never faught anyone like that especially in the clinch with that technique or strength. The results were Silva dominating franklin. Looks and numbers can be deceiving.

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #31 on: December 14, 2006, 05:01:16 PM »
The strength on the weights doesnt translate well to the mat as far as how strong he actually is as a fighter. Frank Trigg said when he faught Matt and tried to clinch that his neck felt like he was grabbing a cement wall. Its all about how well your body translates the strength to the abilities of fighting. If you cant utilize the power your muscles generate it means nothing. I hate to say functional strength but It has its own ground here. The same gos for when Rich Franklin faught anderson silva. Id say physique wise Franklin makes Silva look small and he is probably more impressive in the weight room, but he claimed he had never faught anyone like that especially in the clinch with that technique or strength. The results were Silva dominating franklin. Looks and numbers can be deceiving.

I think the role that technique plays in these fights is highly overlooked. But take two fighters with similar fighting abilities and the one who pushes the weights is going to have the better chance of winning. If it wasn't the case, these guys fighting 185+ wouldn't be as big and shredded as they are. At the level of competition in PRIDE and the UFC, strength is going to play a big factor in deciding some of these fights. I look at Arona as the perfect example. He's a big guy who supposedly walks around near 230. Part of his ground dominance comes from his strength and size. The guy is a very shredded 205. Couple that with great grappling ability and he can control almost anyone on the ground.

realkarateblackbelt

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2095
  • Numero UNO!!!!!!!
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #32 on: December 14, 2006, 11:05:41 PM »
Those numbers are very good for a 170 - 190 pound guy that doesn't even train weights all day. Dude is very strong PERIOD. Like someone said...How many people his size can put up those numbers?

btw, strength with weights DOES translate to punching power. There's no such thing as strength that isn't functional. I think people like to say that all the time because it makes them feel better about being small. Look at the guys known as the strongest punchers - Tyson, Tank, Sapp, etc.. All can put up some big weights. It's not the end all of course, but don't fool yourself into thinking strength isn't VERY important in fighting. Hell, Sapp is relatively untalented, yet he can beat the crap out of tremendously skilled fighters like Hoost relying on sheer brute force.

"But he's not functional"

LMAO
TEAM REPTILIAN

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #33 on: December 14, 2006, 11:38:37 PM »
Those numbers are very good for a 170 - 190 pound guy that doesn't even train weights all day. Dude is very strong PERIOD. Like someone said...How many people his size can put up those numbers?

btw, strength with weights DOES translate to punching power. There's no such thing as strength that isn't functional. I think people like to say that all the time because it makes them feel better about being small. Look at the guys known as the strongest punchers - Tyson, Tank, Sapp, etc.. All can put up some big weights. It's not the end all of course, but don't fool yourself into thinking strength isn't VERY important in fighting. Hell, Sapp is relatively untalented, yet he can beat the crap out of tremendously skilled fighters like Hoost relying on sheer brute force.

"But he's not functional"

LMAO

This is exactly what I'm saying. Look at the fighters in the UFC and PRIDE especially. If strength and size didn't mean shit, these guys wouldn't look like they do. It's just people justifying why they're small and can't lift.

realkarateblackbelt

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2095
  • Numero UNO!!!!!!!
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #34 on: December 14, 2006, 11:50:26 PM »
This is exactly what I'm saying. Look at the fighters in the UFC and PRIDE especially. If strength and size didn't mean shit, these guys wouldn't look like they do. It's just people justifying why they're small and can't lift.

That's right.

That's part of why Bruce Lee was very popular... He was this very lightweight guy kicking ass everywhere.

But yes, look at the champions and they are all pretty damn built.

Even Royce Gracie wasn't small at 6'2'' 180 he would be considered a lightheavyweight in boxing. He won at a time when most people had no clue about ground fighting. As soon as he fought a muscular guy that was skilled in both ground and standup(Shamrock), he was sent into retirement battered and bruised.

I think his win over Severn was a "work" personally. The Gracies were behind the original UFC. The whole thing was about marketing Gracie jiu jitsu to the world so they could get rich. Helio was the son of a business man afterall. Really "Brazilian" jiu jitsu is no different from certain styles of Japanese Jiu Jitsu.
TEAM REPTILIAN

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #35 on: December 14, 2006, 11:55:04 PM »
That's right.

That's part of why Bruce Lee was very popular... He was this very lightweight guy kicking ass everywhere.

But yes, look at the champions and they are all pretty damn built.

Even Royce Gracie wasn't small at 6'2'' 180 he would be considered a lightheavyweight in boxing. He won at a time when most people had no clue about ground fighting. As soon as he fought a muscular guy that was skilled in both ground and standup, he was sent into retirement battered and bruised.

I think his win over Severn was a "work" personally. The Gracies were behind the original UFC. The whole thing was about marketing Gracie jiu jitsu to the world so they could get rich. Helio was the son of a business man afterall. Really "Brazilian" jiu jitsu is no different from certain styles of Japanese Jiu Jitsu.

I agree. The best way to look at it is by taking two equally skilled guys who are basically on the same level. The bigger guy is going to win the majority of the time. Shit happens but on a consistent basis the fighter who busts his ass in the gym putting muscle on will come out on top.

realkarateblackbelt

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2095
  • Numero UNO!!!!!!!
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #36 on: December 14, 2006, 11:57:37 PM »
I agree. The best way to look at it is by taking two equally skilled guys who are basically on the same level. The bigger guy is going to win the majority of the time. Shit happens but on a consistent basis the fighter who busts his ass in the gym putting muscle on will come out on top.

Yes. Of course! That's why they have weight classes. A strong guy has a huge advantage over a weakling. If I fought of 10 year old with 10 black belts in 10 different styles I'm still going to win. It's like playing your dad in basketball...no matter how skilled you are you ain't gonna win.

Of course there are exceptions, but generally this is true. The exception just proves the rule.
TEAM REPTILIAN

realkarateblackbelt

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2095
  • Numero UNO!!!!!!!
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #37 on: December 15, 2006, 12:02:38 AM »
Heck the current K-1 champ is like 6'9'' 270+ or something. He's a karate fighter.

The WBA boxing champion is 7' tall 330 pounds, and he's not terribly skilled.

Like I says...

It's not the end all, but size and strength are very important. Weight training should not be neglected in fighting.
TEAM REPTILIAN

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #38 on: December 15, 2006, 12:48:14 AM »
Yes. Of course! That's why they have weight classes. A strong guy has a huge advantage over a weakling. If I fought of 10 year old with 10 black belts in 10 different styles I'm still going to win. It's like playing your dad in basketball...no matter how skilled you are you ain't gonna win.

Of course there are exceptions, but generally this is true. The exception just proves the rule.

I meant more of guys in the same weight class. But yes.  ;D

BEAST 8692

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3545
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #39 on: December 15, 2006, 09:10:21 AM »
i absolutlely believe in lifting weights. it's amazing how many times i've been told fighters should chop wood, lift rocks, bells, anything but free weights. it never made sense to me then and still doen't now. old timers with their phobias.

however, what adding alot of bulk can do is kill your technique, turn you into a muscle puncher, lose flexibility and kill your agility and stamina.

if you take it to it's logical extreme, how well do you think jay cutler or ronnie coleman would go in a mma or boxing match? can you imagine what their punches would look like? how long they'd last? elbows sticking out 45 degrees and legs so big they can't even rotate through the hips. adding muscle weight for the sake of muscle weight is suicide for a fighter.

a good big man beats a good little man, yes, but a good big man does not mean a middleweight that has done so much bbing and juice that he has puffed himself up to hweight, but is so stiff that his rom is gone and he gasses quick. show me someone successful that has gone this route?


Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #40 on: December 15, 2006, 10:26:24 AM »
i absolutlely believe in lifting weights. it's amazing how many times i've been told fighters should chop wood, lift rocks, bells, anything but free weights. it never made sense to me then and still doen't now. old timers with their phobias.

however, what adding alot of bulk can do is kill your technique, turn you into a muscle puncher, lose flexibility and kill your agility and stamina.

if you take it to it's logical extreme, how well do you think jay cutler or ronnie coleman would go in a mma or boxing match? can you imagine what their punches would look like? how long they'd last? elbows sticking out 45 degrees and legs so big they can't even rotate through the hips. adding muscle weight for the sake of muscle weight is suicide for a fighter.

a good big man beats a good little man, yes, but a good big man does not mean a middleweight that has done so much bbing and juice that he has puffed himself up to hweight, but is so stiff that his rom is gone and he gasses quick. show me someone successful that has gone this route?



I don't think anyone is talking about someone that bulked. I'm talking about people like Wandy, Arona, CroCop. They're big guys and built like amateur bodybuilders. They're big guys who are shredded but they aren't Cutler big, and there's no reason to be.

americanbulldog

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2681
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #41 on: December 15, 2006, 02:45:36 PM »
Those numbers are very good for a 170 - 190 pound guy that doesn't even train weights all day. Dude is very strong PERIOD. Like someone said...How many people his size can put up those numbers?

btw, strength with weights DOES translate to punching power. There's no such thing as strength that isn't functional. I think people like to say that all the time because it makes them feel better about being small. Look at the guys known as the strongest punchers - Tyson, Tank, Sapp, etc.. All can put up some big weights. It's not the end all of course, but don't fool yourself into thinking strength isn't VERY important in fighting. Hell, Sapp is relatively untalented, yet he can beat the crap out of tremendously skilled fighters like Hoost relying on sheer brute force.

"But he's not functional"

You can't be that clueless.  Tyson, and even Tank to an extent are strong but both will turn their hips, rotate their torso while throwing punches.  So both of these fighters do have technique to go along with their power.  All Cus D'Amato trained fighters were vicious body punchers (which a young Iron Mike was).  Tank throws vicious hooks and uppercuts.  Sapp is an arm puncher, and he is definitely functional.  He was an offensive lineman at the University of Washington, and O lineman must be able to exert force in more than one plane.  The only reason Sapp is able to hang with Hoost, Big Nog, is because of his "functional strength."  Good technique coupled with strength and athleticism makes good fighter. 

Matt Hughes, whom this thread is about, is commonly referred to as the strongest P4P athlete in MMA.  He may not be weight room strong, but he can move a body from point A to point B in a vicious, fast method.  And as far as Japanese Jiujitsu being the same as BJJ, you must be kidding. 

I work out with a third degree black belt in Kodenkan jiujitsu.  He came to workout at my garage because he wanted to get better at his newaza.  He can name the technique, and even apply it as well as some of my buddies in BJJ class.  He is terrible at transitions, and set ups for the exact same technique.  BJJ is specialised after it was altered by Carlos and later Relio.  I am only a blue, and I can call the sub I will catch my buddy Eric in EVERTIME.  Not to say BJJ is superior to Kodenkan, but it is much more specialised for grappling. 

The reason Royce beat Severn is because Severn was clueless on how to pass the guard.  If you watch early UFCs, competitors had no idea what they were doing, and Royce was able to easily transition from position to position to obtain a favorable position to strike and open an opportunity to submit his bigger and stronger opponents.  In the Hughes/Gracie fight, Hughes used BJJ to put Royce in bad positions, passed his guard twice, and defended three sweep attempts, then took his back!  A Kodenkan JJ practioner who doesn't get mat time would not be able to do this.  I am still a student of Relson Gracie, and I am sure both the Kodenkan camp and the Gracie camp would take exception to the comment that they are the same. 


LMAO

BEAST 8692

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3545
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #42 on: December 16, 2006, 12:53:11 AM »
spot on, americanbulldog.

realkarateblackbelt

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2095
  • Numero UNO!!!!!!!
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #43 on: December 16, 2006, 08:33:07 AM »
Spot on my foot.

I say it was a work.

Dan could have smashed his face with his fist anytime he wanted to...

The same way Ken Shamrock smashed Gracie's face.
The Gracies were running the show, using it as a vehicle to market their particular brand of Jiu Jitsu.

I'm taking BJJ right now, but the fact is, it's no different from Japanese styles.

"He is terrible at transitions, and set ups for the exact same technique."

You proved my point.

The techniques are the same. In fact, some jiu jitsu styles go so far as to teach weapons...

That particular guy you trained with probably just wasn't as naturally skilled as you are. Like I said though, there's nothing taught in BJJ that isn't taught in many styles of Japanese Jiu Jitsu. The main difference is the greater time spent practicing ground technique, exluding standing locks that aren't frequently used. The actually techniques are the same though.
TEAM REPTILIAN

Thin Lizzy

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18364
  • It’s all a fraud
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #44 on: December 16, 2006, 10:17:46 AM »
Spot on my foot.

"He is terrible at transitions, and set ups for the exact same technique."

You proved my point.

The techniques are the same. In fact, some jiu jitsu styles go so far as to teach weapons...


In which other system can I learn about the De La Riva guard, the X-guard, the Butterfly guard, the Sitting-Up guard, the Turtle guard or the Spider guard.

You happen to be right about the techniques, but you're obviously a beginner if you think BJJ is all about techniques. It's about positioning and transitions. Once you get someone in a compromising position, any technique will get the job done.

In my ten years at Renzo's, I've seen scores of traditional Jiu Jitsu guy come through. They ALL get owned on the mat.

Actually the styles that do the best against BJJ are Judo and wrestling. Those guys always have good bases and are hard to sweep.


americanbulldog

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2681
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #45 on: December 17, 2006, 03:16:44 PM »
Spot on my foot.

I say it was a work.

Dan could have smashed his face with his fist anytime he wanted to...

The same way Ken Shamrock smashed Gracie's face.
The Gracies were running the show, using it as a vehicle to market their particular brand of Jiu Jitsu.

I'm taking BJJ right now, but the fact is, it's no different from Japanese styles.

"He is terrible at transitions, and set ups for the exact same technique."

You proved my point.

The techniques are the same. In fact, some jiu jitsu styles go so far as to teach weapons...

That particular guy you trained with probably just wasn't as naturally skilled as you are. Like I said though, there's nothing taught in BJJ that isn't taught in many styles of Japanese Jiu Jitsu. The main difference is the greater time spent practicing ground technique, exluding standing locks that aren't frequently used. The actually techniques are the same though.

I know you are smarter than this, perhaps I am gullible to fall for a troll attempt.

1.  Severn was attempting to punch Royce, he knew naught how to navigate a good guard, and used hammer fists. 

2.  Shamrock hit Royce with a straight right, which caused the mouse, not within Royce's guard.  So see number 1, and see your explanation of Shamrock smashing Royce's face.

3.  Who are you taking BJJ from.  There are a lot of drills within BJJ (depending upon the method) that will teach you better positioning, pressures to set up your subs.  I KNOW that traditional Japanese Jiujitsu's NEWAZA is extremely limited.  They attempt to cover all bases and aren't specific in any one range.  Like you said, they have weapons and weapons defense. 

As far as the SEG/WOW connection, Rorion sold their share after UFC 5.  But prior to this Carlos and Relio were fighting Vale Tudo to prove the effectiveness of their art versus other styles.  The UFC was simply an extension of this philosophy.  I saw Gracies in Action 1 and 2 way before the UFC.  I experienced a Kwoon storming as well.  The fighters may have been hand picked, but there were certainly no works. 

As far as Matt Hughes goes, he was the better athlete when he fought Royce who made Royce fight his game, and used BJJ against Royce.  All things being equal, the better athlete wins.  We saw the same thing in the GSP/Hughes fight.  GSP disrupted Hughes "Riddum"  (coudln't resist) and beat him to the punch pummeled out of the bodylock, prevented a takedown with great Greco, and consistently set the pace and set up the high kick that ended the fight. 

To further illustrate my point, a third degree Judoka showed up at our school yesterday.  Did a Rampage slam out of a triangle.  Ron, the guy he slammed, swept him and inverted heal hooked him.  Same techniques, but a BJJ purple cathes and easily submits a third degree black who outweighed him by 65 lbs.  So although it is the same, BJJ has proven to be the superior vehicle to translate ground fighting over Japanese Jiujitsu. (and it's sportified version, Judo) 

Judo is much better at grip fighting, sweeps, takedowns, throws etc....

realkarateblackbelt

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2095
  • Numero UNO!!!!!!!
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #46 on: December 17, 2006, 05:25:27 PM »
I couldn't find a link to the fight on Youtube. I want to see it again. I'm not saying you're wrong for certain, but it's questionable to me. The Gracie in Action tapes are weird for some reason. The guys they challenge don't fight right. They just stand there and don't do anything lol. There's really no way to prove they aren't working for the Gracies. When money is at stake - and especially in fighting, all kinds of gangsters run things behind the scene.
TEAM REPTILIAN

americanbulldog

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2681
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #47 on: December 17, 2006, 06:46:57 PM »
I couldn't find a link to the fight on Youtube. I want to see it again. I'm not saying you're wrong for certain, but it's questionable to me. The Gracie in Action tapes are weird for some reason. The guys they challenge don't fight right. They just stand there and don't do anything lol. There's really no way to prove they aren't working for the Gracies. When money is at stake - and especially in fighting, all kinds of gangsters run things behind the scene.

Initial UFCs had very limited monies.  Rorion had an open challenge to anyone, most of which showed up on GIA I and II.  The guys don't fight because they were clueless as far as the ground was concerned.  One of they guys Rickson submits was Hayward Nishioka, gold medalist in Judo at the Pan Ams.  Mark Shultz, olympic wrestler is also on it.  I think those guys know how to fight.  Hugo Duarte is featured in the fight on the beach. 

realkarateblackbelt

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2095
  • Numero UNO!!!!!!!
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #48 on: December 17, 2006, 06:49:46 PM »
I'm talking about gambling, but more importantly the marketing of Gracie Jiu Jitsu. The UFC was the greatest marketing tool they had.
TEAM REPTILIAN

americanbulldog

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2681
Re: Matt Hughes Bench, Squat and Dead
« Reply #49 on: December 17, 2006, 07:00:12 PM »
I'm talking about gambling, but more importantly the marketing of Gracie Jiu Jitsu. The UFC was the greatest marketing tool they had.

That is the reason why WOW was formed.  Don't discount the method because of the marketing.  I do believe all MMA athletes train the ground because of the UFC.