Training for Power, a Waste of Time?

In my work as a coach for the Swiss national kickboxing team and other international

combat athletes, I have observed a common conceptual framework within the strength and

conditioning environment for combat sports. In particular, the belief that a primary objective

for any striking athlete is to become more “explosive” and “powerful” appears to have

become deeply established and largely unquestioned. These terms are used frequently;

however, their application often seems to reflect a lack of critical reflection and a widespread

conceptual misunderstanding within the industry. This frequently results in a rigid adherence

to textbook periodization models. Athletes are prescribed hypertrophy phases to “convert”

newly developed potential into maximal strength and, ultimately, power. This is often paired

with various weightlifting exercises performed at velocities intended to maximize power

output. Is this anything more than a process of checking boxes? It is a general blueprint,

devoid of context, that likely leads to suboptimal results.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that an athlete’s ability to strike faster and generate

greater power meaningfully contributes to their performance. Even with this assumption, a

problem arises. These terms—"explosive" and "powerful"—are used so frequently within the

field that their precise meanings have become unclear. This ambiguity leaves us without a

clear understanding of what physical qualities we are truly attempting to develop. It is critical

to recognize that these are distinct physical qualities; becoming more explosive does not

necessarily mean an athlete will generate more power, and vice versa. Therefore, a

biomechanical analysis is non-negotiable. It is the only way to understand which specific

training stimuli must be applied to elicit the desired adaptations.

Explosiveness describes the ability to generate force as rapidly as possible. From a

biomechanical perspective, this is quantified as the rate of force development, where a

steeper increase in force over time indicates greater explosive capability. However, the peak

of the force curve—the absolute amount of force generated—is not the decisive factor in this

quality. This implies that an athlete can be highly explosive, demonstrating a rapid onset of

force, without necessarily generating a high peak force. This quality is distinct from the

second common training objective: increasing an athlete’s power output. From a

biomechanical perspective, however, power has a clearly defined meaning, as it describes

the amount of work performed within a given time frame. Therefore, in striking, the objective

is to generate high mechanical power at the moment of impact, thereby maximizing the

transfer of kinetic energy to the opponent.

Let us assume that training for maximal power and explosiveness in the weight room

does, in fact, transfer to an increased ability to generate power during a strike. However,

because power merely describes the product of force and velocity at a given moment, a

powerful strike is not necessarily an effective one. To illustrate this, consider dropping a 1 kg

dumbbell from a safe height onto your foot. Now, imagine repeating the same procedure with

a 1 L plastic bottle of water (which also has a mass of 1 kg) dropped from the same height.

The impact from the rigid dumbbell would be perceived as far more painful and damaging,

despite the fact that neither object fell more explosively nor generated greater mechanical

power during the fall.

Alternatively, this concept of an effective strike can be understood from the perspective of

impulse. Impulse is defined as the change in momentum and is calculated as the area under

a force-time curve. When a punch lands on a target, its velocity is decelerated toward zero.

To achieve this deceleration, an impulse is applied to the fist by the target, and an equal and

opposite impulse is applied by the fist to the target. However, the manner in which this

impulse is delivered—the shape of the force-time curve—is what determines the nature and

effectiveness of the strike. To generate a sharp, damaging punch, the goal is to maximize the

peak force of the impulse while minimizing the duration of force application. Therefore,

striking effectiveness is not just about the momentum of the striking limb (mass × velocity). It

is about how efficiently that momentum is transferred upon impact.

Consequently, striking effectiveness—beyond just technical components—can be

characterized by the amount of mass moving at a given velocity that is decelerated to zero

upon impact. The key, however, is how that deceleration occurs through the application of

force over time. This latter factor, in my opinion, is the more important and is often

overlooked. It may explain a phenomenon familiar to anyone in martial arts: certain

athletes—often those from whom one would least expect it—are capable of striking

exceptionally hard, despite not appearing to punch faster or possess substantially more

mass.

This is commonly observed in experienced fighters with years of training and thousands of

repeated impacts. This long-term, specific loading can lead to adaptations in the body's

passive structures, such as increased bone density and greater stiffness in tendinous

structures. What is often misinterpreted as superior power is, in fact a highly developed

structural stiffness that prevents energy absorption within the striking limb. This enhanced

stiffness, combined with optimized technique, allows the fighter to increase their effective

mass, creating a more rigid, unified striking structure at the moment of impact. It enables a

more efficient transfer of momentum to the target, contributing to a higher peak force within

the impulse.

Furthermore, another crucial component that is largely overlooked is timing. Once a

certain physical level has been reached, timing may become the decisive factor in striking

performance. If an athlete's timing deteriorates, even the most explosive punch will be

ineffective. It becomes irrelevant whether an athlete can punch 20 milliseconds faster than

their opponent if a delay in timing causes the strike to land half a second too late. Therefore,

in my opinion, the primary responsibility of a strength and conditioning coach working with

striking athletes is to improve their ability to maintain timing throughout the duration of a fight.

This means focusing on the athlete's capacity to resist fatigue in all its forms. The ability to

sustain pace across repeated efforts, tolerate metabolic stress, sustain high aerobic capacity

and recover rapidly between rounds are likely more decisive factors for improving sport-

specific performance than the peak power generated in a single strike.

Once a certain threshold of physical capacity has been reached, and given that training

time is always limited—especially when skill practice must remain the priority—it is

reasonable to question the allocation of training resources. Is a continued emphasis on

maximal power development the most effective use of that limited time? In my opinion, this

time could often be invested more effectively. Because timing beats power. Nevertheless, it is

crucial to emphasize that the answer is always a matter of context.

Get Your Endurance Program for Combat Athletes

Tim Schlapbach / Professional Thai-boxer and RWS Fighter