This was sent to me by my good friend Adam Benn who was reading through some old Arthur Saxon texts and found the following;
“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”
– Arthur Saxon
I found this very intriguing so I went through a old Saxon book of my own and found a very interesting (yet long) passage worth a read as I think it helps us understand what we do and we we do it. I personally have struggled (currently and in the past) with deciding – what is fitness and strength for myself personally? I have bounced back and forth many times on the topic and am sure I will continue to, but the following passage is an interesting point of view from Saxon (originally published in 1906).
The usual idea about strength – I mean the idea of the average reader of health magazines – is generally a wrong one. Although a weight-lifter (and weightlifters are supposed to be very narrow minded in the view of the subject), I hope that I, personally, am broad minded enough to recognize that a man does not prove himself an all-round strong man just because he is able to lift a heavy weight, especially when the weight is lifted once only. the following is my diagnosis of REAL strength:-
Genuine strength should include not only momentary strength, as proved by the ability to lift a heavy weight once, but also the far more valuable kind of strength known as strength for endurance. This means the ability , if you are a cyclist, to jump on your machine and ride 100 miles at any time without undue fatigue; if a wrestler, to wrestle a hard bout for half an hour with a good man without a rest, yet without becoming exhausted and reaching the limit of your strength……
The man who can miss a night’s rest or miss a meal or two without showing any ill effect or without losing any physical power, is better entitled to be considered a strong man than the man who is only apparently strong, being possessed of momentary strength, which is, after all, a muscle test pure and simple. Int eh latter case, where a man raises, once only, heavy weight, all that he proves himself to possess is muscular control and great contractile power, but this does not guarantee sound internal organs, nor does it prove that a man would come out well in an endurance test. The man capable of long feats of endurance should live longest, and such a man will find his powers of more avail in every-day life than the man who has sacrificed vital strength for an extra few eights of an inch of muscle, and perhaps the ability to raise pounds more in a certain position in a weight-lifting test……
Therefore is a weight-lifting competition were held, I should like to see quite a number of lifts attempted, as is the method on the Continent, and to see each man go on with the lifting without too many opportunities for rest, so that we should not only ascertain who is possessed of the greatest momentary strength but also who is possessed of the enduring strength as well, and it is a combination of these two which makes real strength.
neither do I consider a man a really strong man if he is in certain parts developed out of proportion to others. If a man has tremendous arms and chest and weak legs then he is only half a strong man. If he should have strong legs and arms and weak lungs or a weak heart, then again he is by no means entitled to be called a strong man, and some day the inevitable breakdown will occur which will cause carping critics, always ready to attack physical culture to point to such a broken-down athlete and say “Here is a proof of the harm done by physical culture and weight-lifting”, the cause really being that this man has not properly understood physical culture, and has developed one part at the expense of another. So you see that is a thorough examination could be made of all so-called “strong men” before the public, that only one is twenty is really deserving of the name “strong man”.
– Arthur Saxon (1906)
