Caviar Dreams

Posted In: Blog Discussion

  • Carl Valle
    Participant
    Carl Valle on #15592

    No question that all information must be closely scrutinized; however, we must not forget that Bondarchuk has created more world champion and Olympic medalists than any coach, of any discipline, in the history of the Olympic games.- The Thinker23 Medals is a lot of hardware. Too bad it’s half of what James “Doc” Counsilman did in the 60s and 70s for the sport of swimming. The above quote is ano

    Continue reading…

    Avatar
    Participant
    Matt Norquist on #81073

    This discussion is an interesting one – particularly as to whether Bondarchuk’s principles are applicable outside the hammer… He’s coached some pretty solid shot-putters in recent years as well – and they’ve made big gains. My friends who trained with him really felt they made solid gains with him – though in the shot put, it seemed to me that the sacrifice of raw strength because of the different lifting program was not conducive to bigger throws..

    That said, it seems like the high volume throwing and varied throwing weights could be a great way to do sport specific training for younger and less technically proficient throwers.

    Avatar
    Participant
    James Smith on #81081

    Carl, a trend is developing here.

    I appreciate you taking the devils advocate role, with respect to much of what I share; however, at this point I think it would be prudent to allow readers to draw their own conclusions based upon shared information versus opinion.

    also, the kool-aid comment is beneath what I suspect the expectations as a staff writer here at Elite Track encompasses.

    I’ll be the first to admit that I have taken my own liberties in getting my point across at other internet venues; however, I have been operating under the rule that Elite Track is interested in presenting a more formal interface.

    Regarding Counsilman, Issurin speaks very highly of him and repeatedly uses him as a reference. Though, I’d like to think that we wouldn’t incorporate the swim events into a discussion rooted in the particular statements I’ve made regarding Bondarchuk’s accomplishments, as the dynamics that characteristically distinguish the swim events from one another are essentially unseen in the remainder of the T&F disciplines.

    some analogies might be:

    100m:
    – sprinting 100m sideways
    – back pedaling 100m
    – bounding 100m
    – carioca 100m

    or Hammer:
    – throwing the hammer with the right hand
    – throwing it with the left hand
    – spinning to the right
    – spinning to the left
    – spinning it above the head

    and so on.

    Taking nothing away from the swimming disciplines; just providing some perspective as to why I think it is unwise to compare what happens in swimming, versus other disciplines. this is why I think its very difficult to compare an athlete like Phelps to Usain Bolt, for instance.

    Avatar
    Participant
    Daniel Andrews on #81122

    Carl:

    I think you are right on the money and go ahead and keep using the Kool-Aid comments. The warnings need to be passed before people become all consumed with the rhetoric of prophets ala James Jones which is why I feel the comment is both fitting and apt.

    James:

    Those analogies don’t fit and never will outside the realm of variability and bilateralism. I could make some of the same analogies for these sports:

    Freestyle Swimming
    – kick 100m
    – pull 100m
    – backstroke 100m
    – sidestroke right side 100m
    – sidestroke left side 100m

    Basketball
    – Shoot 100 baskets right hand set shot
    – Shoot 100 baskets left hand set shot
    – Shoot 100 baskets right hand off dribble
    – Shoot 100 baskets left hand off dribble
    – Shoot 100 baskets right hand off screen

    Baseball
    – 100 Swings right hand fastball
    – 100 Swings left hand fastball
    – 100 Swings right hand curve ball
    – 100 Swings left hand curve ball
    – 100 Swings right hand varied

    I could on

    So lets not overhype what amounts to basic principles in physical training about maintaining bilateral and varied movements within a training regime. Every good coach has these in their training programs, but skill development and learning occurs doing the appropriate skill at speed.

    Avatar
    Participant
    James Smith on #81124

    Carl:

    I think you are right on the money and go ahead and keep using the Kool-Aid comments. The warnings need to be passed before people become all consumed with the rhetoric of prophets ala James Jones which is why I feel the comment is both fitting and apt.

    James:

    Those analogies don’t fit and never will outside the realm of variability and bilateralism. I could make some of the same analogies for these sports:

    Freestyle Swimming
    – kick 100m
    – pull 100m
    – backstroke 100m
    – sidestroke right side 100m
    – sidestroke left side 100m

    Basketball
    – Shoot 100 baskets right hand set shot
    – Shoot 100 baskets left hand set shot
    – Shoot 100 baskets right hand off dribble
    – Shoot 100 baskets left hand off dribble
    – Shoot 100 baskets right hand off screen

    Baseball
    – 100 Swings right hand fastball
    – 100 Swings left hand fastball
    – 100 Swings right hand curve ball
    – 100 Swings left hand curve ball
    – 100 Swings right hand varied

    I could on

    So lets not overhype what amounts to basic principles in physical training about maintaining bilateral and varied movements within a training regime. Every good coach has these in their training programs, but skill development and learning occurs doing the appropriate skill at speed.

    Daniel, having reviewed your post a few times over I am unsure as to what point you are attempting to make other than encouraging Carl to continue to make jokes.

    In order to ensure that you didn’t miss the point I made, the swimming events are distinguished from one another, biodynamically, via the different articulations of the arms and legs yet each discipline, even those which cover the same distances, have one commonality and that is propulsion through the water in the same direction at the highest possible speed; regardless of the orientation of the swimmers body or the movement dynamics of the arms and legs.

    This is why I do not view it as being reasonable to compare the accomplishments of swimmers with that of athletes who participate in other disciplines which, characteristically, do not provide for the same amount of opportunity for success after success (ergo Phelps’ recent achievements are simply unattainable in any Olympic discipline other than swimming due to not only the multitude of swim variants but also the relays)

    While Phelps’ accomplishments are momentous I’m sure we would all view, by analogy, a T&F athlete who might be able to Gold medal in the 100m, 110H, 200m, 400m, 400H, 4×100, 4×200, and 4×400 (all in the same meet) as being superior to the tenth power, as infinitesimal the possibility may be.

    Mike Young
    Keymaster
    Mike Young on #81139

    I’m in the middle on this one. I definitely don’t think we can compare swimming and track quantitatively and have the outcome be fair for track. I detailed this in the following 2 blogs:

    *Why all sports aren’t created equal[/url]

    *Swimming world records[/url]

    At the same time I’m curious to get a better understanding of what the Russian system has produced in more talent saturated events like the sprints and long jump. I’ve long held similar skepticism over holding up Bondarchuk as the ideal model because I wasn’t certain of what the results were outside of hammer throwing which I think requires unbelievable athleticism but like javelin is somewhat of a niche event as far as training goes. I was under the impression that Borzov actually did something dramatically different and I’m not too familiar with what the current crop of ridiculously successful Russian women jumpers are doing.

    ELITETRACK Founder

    Avatar
    Participant
    cccp21 on #81208

    Hello,

    Correct me if i am wrong but was not Borzov one of the first athletes to use the so called “plyometric”
    drills as coined by Fred Wilt. From what i understand he had started as a long jumper and according to Tabachnick was quite talented.The Ussr was far ahead of the West in biomechanics,planning and periodization
    recovery measures(including pharmacological protocols). I was told that he could run 16 100 meters in a row
    (rest between i don’t know)at 95-97% of max speed.
    Brandon Green

    Avatar
    Participant
    James Smith on #81209

    Hello,

    Correct me if i am wrong but was not Borzov one of the first athletes to use the so called “plyometric”
    drills as coined by Fred Wilt. From what i understand he had started as a long jumper and according to Tabachnick was quite talented.The Ussr was far ahead of the West in biomechanics,planning and periodization
    recovery measures(including pharmacological protocols). I was told that he could run 16 100 meters in a row
    (rest between i don’t know)at 95-97% of max speed.
    Brandon Green

    Brandon, to my knoweldge, Verkhoshansky is the founder of the ‘shock’ method and the events surrounding his formalized use of this training means is quite interesting.

    The story is actually illustrated in Verkhoshansky’s soon to be completed coaching manual so I’d rather not give it away in any detail.

    What I will state is that Verkhoshansky was working with T&F jumpers at the time of his discovery and the shock means came as a result of necessity.

    Necessity being the mother of invention.

    I recall reading something to the tune of what you referenced regarding Borzov’s physical condition.

    Avatar
    Participant
    cccp21 on #81210

    I’m in the middle on this one. I definitely don’t think we can compare swimming and track quantitatively and have the outcome be fair for track. I detailed this in the following 2 blogs:

    *[url=https://elitetrack.com/blogs-details-3958/]Why all sports aren’t created equal[/url]

    *[url=https://elitetrack.com/blogs-details-3977/]Swimming world records[/url]

    At the same time I’m curious to get a better understanding of what the Russian system has produced in more talent saturated events like the sprints and long jump. I’ve long held similar skepticism over holding up Bondarchuk as the ideal model because I wasn’t certain of what the results were outside of hammer throwing which I think requires unbelievable athleticism but like javelin is somewhat of a niche event as far as training goes. I was under the impression that Borzov actually did something dramatically different and I’m not too familiar with what the current crop of ridiculously successful Russian women jumpers are doing.

    ******** I agree. All the more reason to have tremendous variability,CNS recovery and anti
    inflammatories.
    Brandon Green

    Avatar
    Participant
    cccp21 on #81211

    [quote author="cccp21" date="1239513074"]Hello,

    Correct me if i am wrong but was not Borzov one of the first athletes to use the so called “plyometric”
    drills as coined by Fred Wilt. From what i understand he had started as a long jumper and according to Tabachnick was quite talented.The Ussr was far ahead of the West in biomechanics,planning and periodization
    recovery measures(including pharmacological protocols). I was told that he could run 16 100 meters in a row
    (rest between i don’t know)at 95-97% of max speed.
    Brandon Green

    Brandon, to my knoweldge, Verkhoshansky is the founder of the ‘shock’ method and the events surrounding his formalized use of this training means is quite interesting.

    The story is actually illustrated in Verkhoshansky’s soon to be completed coaching manual so I’d rather not give it away in any detail.

    What I will state is that Verkhoshansky was working with T&F jumpers at the time of his discovery and the shock means came as a result of necessity.

    Necessity being the mother of invention.

    I recall reading something to the tune of what you referenced regarding Borzov’s physical condition.[/quote]
    ******** I agree. But was not Fred Wilt the one(American)to call these “shock” drills “plyometrics”? From what i understand that is why to this day we(U.S)
    call these “plyo’s”.
    Brandon Green

    Avatar
    Participant
    James Smith on #81212

    [quote author="James Smith/The Thinker" date="1239513393"][quote author="cccp21" date="1239513074"]Hello,

    Correct me if i am wrong but was not Borzov one of the first athletes to use the so called “plyometric”
    drills as coined by Fred Wilt. From what i understand he had started as a long jumper and according to Tabachnick was quite talented.The Ussr was far ahead of the West in biomechanics,planning and periodization
    recovery measures(including pharmacological protocols). I was told that he could run 16 100 meters in a row
    (rest between i don’t know)at 95-97% of max speed.
    Brandon Green

    Brandon, to my knoweldge, Verkhoshansky is the founder of the ‘shock’ method and the events surrounding his formalized use of this training means is quite interesting.

    The story is actually illustrated in Verkhoshansky’s soon to be completed coaching manual so I’d rather not give it away in any detail.

    What I will state is that Verkhoshansky was working with T&F jumpers at the time of his discovery and the shock means came as a result of necessity.

    Necessity being the mother of invention.

    I recall reading something to the tune of what you referenced regarding Borzov’s physical condition.[/quote]
    ******** I agree. But was not Fred Wilt the one(American)to call these “shock” drills “plyometrics”? From what i understand that is why to this day we(U.S)
    call these “plyo’s”.
    Brandon Green[/quote]

    You are correct

    Carl Valle
    Participant
    Carl Valle on #81214

    Read the post again. If you need to reread the post.

    The point is that facts that James Smith shares are wrong in regards to medal count. His first response is to judge the worth of medals he has yet to be part of. If he is going to judge the value of a swimmming medal then the value of the Hammer must be in question as well.

    Ironically James shares how easy it is for one American to gather a medal haul yet no Russian has done that.Spitz and Phelps, not Markus Spitzov and Mikail Phelpsov.

    Two Americans have done it yet no Russian has.

    Also the win in 1972 is more likely to be from Ray and Eddie not showing up then his methodics. He would have got 4th in 1968 in the 100m.

    Avatar
    Participant
    James Smith on #81216

    Read the post again. If you need to reread the post.

    The point is that facts that James Smith shares are wrong in regards to medal count. His first response is to judge the worth of medals he has yet to be part of. If he is going to judge the value of a swimmming medal then the value of the Hammer must be in question as well.

    Ironically James shares how easy it is for one American to gather a medal haul yet no Russian has done that.Spitz and Phelps, not Markus Spitzov and Mikail Phelpsov.

    Two Americans have done it yet no Russian has.

    Also the win in 1972 is more likely to be from Ray and Eddie not showing up then his methodics. He would have got 4th in 1968 in the 100m.

    Carl, what are you referring to specifically with respect to me citing medal counts and you stating that I am wrong in this regard?

    I made no statement indicating that Phelps or any other swimmer’s accomplishments were easy. My point was that it is unwise to compare the accomplishments with a swimmer with that of an athlete of any other discipline. Mike Young shared a similar sentiment.

    Your continued sarcasm that you demonstrate by morphing names into slavic ‘looking/sounding’ ones, as well as the cool-aid comments and so forth, are unprofessional.

    I would appreciate it if you would impart more maturity and professionalism to the posts and blogs in which you criticize my words.

    As a formalized ‘blog’ member of this site you would certainly add more credibility to Elite Track by adopting a more professional on-line persona.

    It is incidental whether we are to agree with one another or not.

    I certainly do not agree with much of the content that you have used to in an effort to disprove and criticize my work; however, I am not interested in making fun of you; nor would any sarcasm or disrespect initiated on my behalf serve to liberate any part of these discussions.

    Avatar
    Participant
    Daniel Andrews on #81217

    Daniel, having reviewed your post a few times over I am unsure as to what point you are attempting to make other than encouraging Carl to continue to make jokes.

    In order to ensure that you didn’t miss the point I made, the swimming events are distinguished from one another, biodynamically, via the different articulations of the arms and legs yet each discipline, even those which cover the same distances, have one commonality and that is propulsion through the water in the same direction at the highest possible speed; regardless of the orientation of the swimmers body or the movement dynamics of the arms and legs.

    This is why I do not view it as being reasonable to compare the accomplishments of swimmers with that of athletes who participate in other disciplines which, characteristically, do not provide for the same amount of opportunity for success after success (ergo Phelps’ recent achievements are simply unattainable in any Olympic discipline other than swimming due to not only the multitude of swim variants but also the relays)

    While Phelps’ accomplishments are momentous I’m sure we would all view, by analogy, a T&F athlete who might be able to Gold medal in the 100m, 110H, 200m, 400m, 400H, 4×100, 4×200, and 4×400 (all in the same meet) as being superior to the tenth power, as infinitesimal the possibility may be.

    James:

    Articulations never change, the sequencing of muscles crossing articulations change between strokes. Every track and field event is designed to create an optimal propulsion in a singular direction. Every baseball swing, golf shot, baseball pitch, basketball shot, football pass, slapshot, punch, kick, etc… you name it and a sporting movement has to have an optimal propulsion in singular direction. The analysis of such movements to produce a propulsion is called mechanics. The way those movements are derived are from sequencing, summation, and rate coding characteristics available to those muscles involved to include any elastic properties of bone, tendon, muscle, fascia, etc… involved as well. How are these movements learned? Do we learn to run forward by running backwards,sideways,etc..? No we learn to move forward by moving forward, we can develop muscular characteristics which enhance the ability to move forward by moving in any direction, but the learning part comes when we are actually moving forward. Assessing these characteristics in a movement pattern are called balance and stability. Lastly, while some wish to talk about translation of skill from one skill to another, the translation of skill doesn’t occur because of similarity in the skill in kinematic movement patterns but to changes in every mentioned above and a few others.

    Your resume is impressive in depth and breadth, but you spill cyanide Kool-Aid out your spout like your James Jones, because you wish to praise the Eastern Bloc training methods which was pouring PED Kool-Aid at the times of James Jones in roughly the same volumes.

    As for plyometrics, no one invented them, plyometric or shock exercises have been around since man started moving which was a long time ago.

    Avatar
    Participant
    James Smith on #81218

    [quote author="James Smith/The Thinker" date="1239453156"]
    Daniel, having reviewed your post a few times over I am unsure as to what point you are attempting to make other than encouraging Carl to continue to make jokes.

    In order to ensure that you didn’t miss the point I made, the swimming events are distinguished from one another, biodynamically, via the different articulations of the arms and legs yet each discipline, even those which cover the same distances, have one commonality and that is propulsion through the water in the same direction at the highest possible speed; regardless of the orientation of the swimmers body or the movement dynamics of the arms and legs.

    This is why I do not view it as being reasonable to compare the accomplishments of swimmers with that of athletes who participate in other disciplines which, characteristically, do not provide for the same amount of opportunity for success after success (ergo Phelps’ recent achievements are simply unattainable in any Olympic discipline other than swimming due to not only the multitude of swim variants but also the relays)

    While Phelps’ accomplishments are momentous I’m sure we would all view, by analogy, a T&F athlete who might be able to Gold medal in the 100m, 110H, 200m, 400m, 400H, 4×100, 4×200, and 4×400 (all in the same meet) as being superior to the tenth power, as infinitesimal the possibility may be.

    James:

    Articulations never change, the sequencing of muscles crossing articulations change between strokes. Every track and field event is designed to create an optimal propulsion in a singular direction. Every baseball swing, golf shot, baseball pitch, basketball shot, football pass, slapshot, punch, kick, etc… you name it and a sporting movement has to have an optimal propulsion in singular direction. The analysis of such movements to produce a propulsion is called mechanics. The way those movements are derived are from sequencing, summation, and rate coding characteristics available to those muscles involved to include any elastic properties of bone, tendon, muscle, fascia, etc… involved as well. How are these movements learned? Do we learn to run forward by running backwards,sideways,etc..? No we learn to move forward by moving forward, we can develop muscular characteristics which enhance the ability to move forward by moving in any direction, but the learning part comes when we are actually moving forward. Assessing these characteristics in a movement pattern are called balance and stability. Lastly, while some wish to talk about translation of skill from one skill to another, the translation of skill doesn’t occur because of similarity in the skill in kinematic movement patterns but to changes in every mentioned above and a few others.

    Your resume is impressive in depth and breadth, but you spill cyanide Kool-Aid out your spout like your James Jones, because you wish to praise the Eastern Bloc training methods which was pouring PED Kool-Aid at the times of James Jones in roughly the same volumes.

    As for plyometrics, no one invented them, plyometric or shock exercises have been around since man started moving which was a long time ago.[/quote]

    Daniel, for some reason, it is clear to me that you are misinterpreting my posts.

    Based upon your description of the biodynamics that characterize different sports movements, and process via which motor learning and so forth occurs, you and I have no argument.

    I agree with what you’ve stated.

    Also know that your statements that are articulated in the vein of “this is called so and so and when this happens it is known as so and so” are entirely unnecessary as I require no clarification in this regard. Your style of articulating yourself in this manner is patronizing to say the least.

    Permit me to be clear in stating once again in the most simple terms that it is unwise to compare swimming accomplishments with, for instance, track and field accomplishments.

    I ask you to refrain from the childish remarks and sarcasm as well.

    I have no interest in insulting you or anyone else here and I would appreciate it if you would reciprocate my professional courtesy.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 24 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.