Major Strongman Strategy and Tactics - Episode VIII: Strategy Based on Opponents

In a Strongman contest, you never compete only against the weight. You compete inside a system where your performance has value relative to the performances of others. An event can be won with a result that looks modest in isolation, while a huge performance can have limited strategic value if it does not change the standings. The opponent is therefore not simply the athlete beside you. The opponent is information, a strategic variable and sometimes the reason the same attempt should be executed differently.

Pacing and competitive decision-making research shows that athletes regulate effort not only according to internal state but also according to opponent behavior. A review of 75 papers identified opponent behavior as an important determinant of intensity regulation, while experimental research shows that changing opponent behavior can alter pacing and energy investment. These are not direct Strongman studies, but they provide a useful framework for tactical decisions in a competition with visible opponents.

1. The opponent is information, not merely an obstacle

The first tactical mistake is to view an opponent only through the final result. A good Strongman also observes the process: how the athlete warms up, which weight is selected, how quickly the implement moves, where the movement slows, how the athlete reacts to a missed attempt and how much effort is invested in each event. Each of these observations can change the estimate of your own risk.

The opponent therefore becomes a calibration tool. If a very strong competitor struggles with a weight, that does not automatically mean you cannot make it. It means you should reassess the probability of success, technical demands and energy cost. The correct response is not to copy the opponent, but to interpret the information.

2. Not every opponent matters equally

In a large field, it is impossible and unnecessary to monitor every athlete with equal attention. Strategy should focus on opponents relevant to your objective: the athlete who can overtake you, the athlete you need to overtake, or the group that can change the podium.

A leader may mainly monitor the places immediately behind. An athlete in fourth may need to focus on the gap to third. An athlete fighting for the win should not spend attention on a position that can no longer affect the objective. Attention is itself a competitive resource.

3. Build an opponent profile, not a caricature

A useful tactical profile should answer: where is the opponent exceptionally strong, where are they vulnerable, which events cost them energy, what type of effort affects their grip, how well do they handle technical events, how consistent are they and how do they respond under pressure?

These observations should not become absolute labels. An athlete who is usually weak at an event can have an exceptional day. A specialist can produce a poor execution. Strategy should use tendencies, not rigid assumptions. Modern sport decision-making research emphasizes the importance of context and available information at the moment of decision.

4. Identify the direct opponent

The direct opponent is the athlete whose points gap and performance in the current event can change your objective. This athlete deserves closer monitoring than the rest. The question is not “How much will he do?” but “What result does he need to change my position?”

That distinction is enormous. If an opponent must win the event to overtake you, you do not necessarily need to win the event. It may be enough to produce a result that limits his advantage. Efficient strategy searches for the required threshold, not the maximum possible performance in every situation.

5. When to copy an opponent and when not to

Copying makes sense when objectives are nearly identical and the overall outcome depends directly on the comparative result. If a direct opponent attacks a weight and succeeds, a response may be necessary. But if your standings situation is different, copying can become a trap.

Imagine an opponent needs to overtake you and chooses a very heavy weight. If you are already ahead and your next event is one of your strongest, you do not automatically need to follow the attack. You may accept a local loss to protect the global advantage. In head-to-head competition, opponent behavior influences the decision, but does not automatically dictate it.

6. Use the opponent to calculate the minimum threshold

One of the strongest tactical applications is calculating the minimum threshold. If you lead by four points and the opponent has an advantage in the current event, you may not need to win. It may be enough to stay within a range that keeps the overall gap favorable.

The minimum threshold turns an apparently lost event into a manageable event. Instead of fighting the absolute result, you fight the consequence for the standings. This change in perspective can save energy and reduce unnecessary risk.

7. Read opponents' attempts as a stream of information

Before your own attempt, opponents provide information about the implement, surface, judging standard and pace. Observe where movement is lost, how body position changes, how long a lockout or pause is tolerated and how aggressively the event needs to be approached.

Information must still be filtered. One missed attempt does not prove that a weight is impossible. One successful attempt does not prove that it is easy. Look for patterns across several executions. Research on competition between opponents supports the idea that athletes use information about others to adjust behavior, making observation part of decision-making rather than a separate activity.

8. Do not let an opponent's performance change your physical capacity

An opponent can lift an enormous weight. You do not become weaker because of it. You can, however, become tactically worse if you react emotionally. A huge performance can create the impulse to increase the weight abruptly, accelerate the pace or abandon the original plan.

The rule is simple: the opponent can change the tactical objective, but cannot rewrite your physiology. If your probability of success has not changed, you should not pretend that it has changed merely because someone else produced a spectacular performance.

9. The leader needs a different strategy from the pursuer

The leader has a structural advantage: he does not necessarily need to create a gap, but to protect it. The opponent becomes an indicator of the minimum result required to maintain control. Unnecessary risk becomes more dangerous as the lead grows.

The pursuer has the opposite problem. If the gap cannot be recovered through conservative results, the athlete must identify the events where attacking is worthwhile. Research on direct competition shows that pacing and energy-investment decisions change when athletes receive information about their relative position against opponents.

10. Sometimes you should ignore the opponent completely

This is one of the hardest psychological decisions. If your strategy is already clear and the opponent cannot change your objective, monitoring every move can add noise without value. An athlete who knows the required result may perform better by executing the plan than by reacting to every change in the standings.

In practical terms, you need to know when information stops being useful. Not every new piece of information deserves a new plan.

11. Psychological pressure works in both directions

An opponent can create pressure without saying a word. A fast execution, a huge weight or a sequence of wins can change the other athlete's perception of the situation. Research on the social environment of pacing suggests that opponents can influence goal setting, strategy selection, action monitoring and self-reactions.

Pressure should not be confused with obligation. The fact that an opponent attacks does not mean you must attack. Sometimes the best response to pressure is to reduce the number of decisions and execute exactly what was established beforehand.

12. When the opponent forces a plan change

Adaptation becomes necessary when new information materially changes the problem. If a direct opponent scores far more points than expected, if a favorite fails and opens the standings, or if the gap changes abruptly, the original plan may no longer be valid.

The change should not be emotional. First recalculate the gap, then the required result, then probability of success and energy cost. Only then choose the new action. Pacing can be viewed as continuous decision-making, and that idea is highly relevant to Strongman strategy.

13. Exploit the opponent's strategy through later events

Do not analyze an event in isolation. If an opponent is exceptionally strong in deadlift but tends to struggle after heavy posterior-chain work, an aggressive investment in an earlier event may have a cost that becomes useful later. Conversely, if you have a major strength immediately after a demanding event, conserving now may maximize your later advantage.

This is chain strategy: you are not merely trying to win one event, but to create a sequence of outcomes that favors your profile and exposes the opponent's limitations.

14. Do not try to beat the opponent at his own game

If the opponent is superior in a category, you do not need to prove that you can beat him there. You need to maximize your advantage where your profile is stronger and limit the damage where his profile is stronger.

This is one of the central ideas of sports strategy: the overall result is built from the distribution of advantages, not from an obligation to win every local confrontation. In Strongman, this matters especially because events have very different physiological and technical demands.

15. Practical model: Observe, Calculate, Decide, Recalculate

Step 1, Observe: what are opponents doing and what information does it provide? Step 2, Calculate: what result do you need relative to your objective and the standings? Step 3, Decide: conserve, attack or choose an intermediate option. Step 4, Recalculate: after every important result, check whether the problem has changed.

This model prevents two extremes: completely ignoring opponents and becoming dependent on them. Good strategy sits between the two. You observe the environment, but remain the owner of the decision.

16. Tactical example: the leader and the pursuer

Suppose the leader has 52 points, the pursuer has 48, and the next event is one where the pursuer has an advantage. The leader does not necessarily need to win. If the leader can produce a result that limits the recovery to two points, the gap remains large enough for later events to matter.

The pursuer does not have the same luxury. If two points are not enough to change the contest, he must search for a larger recovery opportunity, but only when probability and cost are acceptable. The same event therefore produces two different strategies even though the rules are identical.

17. The Failure Point of opponent-based strategy

The Failure Point appears when reacting to the opponent begins to destroy your own strategy. It may be the moment you increase the weight only because he increased his. It may be the moment you accelerate in an event to respond to a rival even though your original pace was more efficient. Or it may be the moment you sacrifice a future event to win a local confrontation that does not change the standings.

A practical indicator is this: if you can no longer explain the decision without saying “because he did that,” the opponent may have taken control of your strategy. Observation is useful. Dependence is not.

18. Opponent tactical sheet

For each direct opponent, before the contest you can build a sheet containing: strengths, vulnerabilities, events where he can beat you, events where you can beat him, likely risk tolerance, behavior after a miss, pacing tendencies, events that tax his grip or posterior chain, and the point gap at which you need to react.

During the contest, update the sheet with real data. It is not a psychological label. It is a temporary tactical map that must be abandoned if reality contradicts it.

19. Conclusion: the opponent changes the problem, not the athlete's identity

An intelligent Strongman does not compete blindly, and does not compete according to the opponent's every move. He observes, interprets and adapts. He knows who matters, what result is required, when to respond and when to ignore.

Opponent-based strategy does not mean becoming reactive. It means using external information to make a better internal decision. Sometimes the opponent shows you that you need to attack. At other times, he shows you exactly why you should remain calm.

Ultimately, the goal is not to win every duel. The goal is to win the contest or achieve the result you came for. Opponents are variables in the equation. You must remain the person solving the equation.

Selected references

1. Konings MJ, Hettinga FJ. Pacing Decision Making in Sport and the Effects of Interpersonal Competition: A Critical Review. Sports Med. 2018;48(8):1829-1843. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-018-0937-x.
2. Smits BLM, Pepping GJ, Hettinga FJ. Pacing and decision making in sport and exercise: the roles of perception and action in the regulation of exercise intensity. Sports Med. 2014;44(6):763-775. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-014-0163-0.
3. Hettinga FJ, Konings MJ, Pepping GJ. The Science of Racing against Opponents: Affordance Competition and the Regulation of Exercise Intensity in Head-to-Head Competition. Front Physiol. 2017;8:118. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00118.
4. Konings MJ, Foulsham T, Micklewright D, Hettinga FJ. Athlete-Opponent Interdependency Alters Pacing and Information-Seeking Behavior. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2020;52(1):153-160. DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002101.
5. Johnson JG. Decision making in sports. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2025;80:102919. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2025.102919.
6. Winwood PW, Pritchard HJ, Wilson D, Dudson M, Keogh JWL. The Competition-Day Preparation Strategies of Strongman Athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2019;33(9):2308-2320. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003267.