From Russia With Love

Posted In: Blog Discussion

  • Carl Valle
    Participant
    Carl Valle on #15577

    For those joining us late in this discussion in regards to the use of the olympic lifts, The Thinker, has shared facts and opinions regarding the olympic lifts. What I liked about The Thinker is that he joined us and was polite on the discussion board and addressed all that he could in his spare time. The Thinker is a great addition to our forums as he places a lot of effort into sharing his opini

    Continue reading…

    Avatar
    Participant
    James Smith on #80909

    Part 1
    Thanks again for the kind words Carl. I appreciate the fact that you reference my use of my spare time as in most instances throughout the annual plan I have very little.
    I’ve just spent the last 5 ½ hours working on a book that I’m writing for UFC legend Randy Couture so I thought I’d take a break and respond to this most recent blog of yours.

    You are right on with respect to the loss of focus/direction that occurred on the Glasnost thread. Thus, I am going to direct every component of this response to only the main points you’ve listed:
    Elite Athletes:

     While it’s no mystery that performance enhancing drugs are popular amongst the worlds elite; I’m sure I don’t have to remind anyone that the abuse of these pharmaceuticals is undoubtedly more wide spread and rampant amongst the less than elite. Thus, I’d just assume leave the discussion of drug use to the wind

     Regarding using the world’s elite as a reference and a model for discussion/comparison- I’ve always found that this provides, acknowledging the drug topic, a much more stable platform for discussion as the farther down the preparation/qualification ladder we descend the more nebulous the discussion becomes. We know that the lesser evolved motor apparatus is much more receptive to a wider spectrum of training irritants. Thus, it’s very challenging to impart consistency to discussions for or against the use of particular training means.

     The ‘S&C’ industry is a great example as I’m convinced that many programs throw stack of cards against a wall, each one with the name of an exercise on it, and the ones that stick are the ones that are used in the program; and due to the stage of biological maturation of the athletes- almost anything works. While this is a sarcastic analogy, in contrast, I’m sure I don’t have to explain to anyone here that the selection of means and methodologies that are to be directed towards attaining world class results, or even an individuals limit of human performance, demands a great deal more scrutiny.

     Perhaps most important, I’m sure that none of your readers are interested in what types of training are most beneficial in assisting athletes towards mediocre results. Thus, while the degree of drug use is surely varied (in terms of type, dosage, and duration) these numbers cannot be certain amongst large groups of highly qualified sprinters. Taking this into account, I’ll speak for everyone in stating that we are all more interested in what occurred along the path of realizing sub 10sec in comparison to a futile debate surrounding what ‘might’ be more effective in attaining 10.5

     After all, this is “Elite” Track. (If I weren’t diametrically opposed to the use of emoticons I would insert a happy face here.)

     This brings me to the topic of selection and how important it is, especially concerning disciplines with less of a tactical component such as T&F in comparison to American Football.

     Proper selection ensures that the athlete is predisposed to excel in the discipline and, thus, inherently allows for the streamlining of the training process

     Faulty or haphazard selection, welcome to America, in most cases does not ensure that the athlete is predisposed for high results in the discipline that he/she may or may not be well suited for and the lesser the predisposition for high results………………………………………….the more effective a wider spectrum of training irritants is in improving results; although never to a high level. Hence the ongoing debates.

     The disciplines with a strong tactical component, such as American football, leave themselves so wide open for debate, in terms of which exercises are the most beneficial, that it hurts my head to even think about it. This is because one can attain the high stage of mastery (NFL) and be far from elite in terms of absolute motor task development. You won’t find such exceptions to the rule in the 100m, for instance.

    The weightlifts or the powerlifts aren’t necessary in the training:

     Certainly some form of strength and power development, aside from the competitive exercise, is needed in the training; however, these are not limited to barbell exercises.

     Regarding the squat and bench in comparison to the Olympic lift variants, however, specifically with respects to results in the shot put:

     readers will appreciate the data collected by Anatoly Bondarchuk (whose coached more medalists in international competition than any other coach in the history of the games):

     Correlational Interrelationship Between Preparatory Results in Several Specialized-Preparatory, Specialized-Developmental Exercises, Exercises with Lighter and Heavier Implements with Results in the Shot Put in Women Athletes Having Various Qualifications- revealed that the bench press and 7 different forms of throwing various weighted shots all correlated higher than the snatch with respect to results in the 19-20m range and the bench press, barbell squat, vertical jump, standing triple jump, standing long jump, and 8 different forms of throwing various weighted shots all correlated higher than the powerclean with respects to results in the 19-20m range

     Correlational Interrelationship Between Preparatory Results in Several Specialized-Preparatory, Specialized-Developmental Exercises with Lighter and Heavier Implements with Results in the Shot Put Throw by Athletes Having Various Qualifications revealed that standing triple jump, 30m sprint from blocks and 7 different forms of throws with varied weight shots all correlated higher than the barbell snatch with respects to results in the 20-21m range and the bench press, barbell squat, vertical jump, standing broad jump, standing triple jump, 30m sprint from blocks, and 9 different forms of throwing varied weighted shots all correlated higher than the powerclean with respects to results in the 20-21m range

     I could go on to quote much more regarding the other throwing events and the means that transfer more positively than the Olympic lift variants

    Avatar
    Participant
    James Smith on #80910

    Part 2

    Regarding the pro day results of the athletes I worked with,

     the fastest time I’ve seen printed so far is 4.36 for one athlete and the same athlete jumped 37in in the vertical in training; however he pulled a hamstring during his second 40 on pro day so this negatively affected his subsequent vertical in which he jumped 33in. Another athlete of mine jumped 37.5 on the pro day, however, and I took 2 tenths of a second off of his 40 time in comparison to when he returned from the lousy combine training camp that his agent sent him to. He returned from this place in Florida running mid 4.8 and he was timed at 4.63/4.64 on Pro Day

     Other note worthy improvements came from a 300lb d-tackle who I trained that was clocked at a high 4.9-5.1 on Pro Day and when I began training him 12 weeks prior I timed him running low 5.4. Another linebacker I worked with was clocked between 4.59-4.63 on Pro Day and when I began training him 12 weeks prior I timed him at mid 4.8-low 4.9

     Last year one of my pro day athletes ran 4.44 and jumped 40in

     Of course many of my current athletes on the team continue to improve on their measurables to include 3 athletes who jump over 40in and 6 or 7 over 37in

    Regarding med ball throws, MU involvement, power development, etcetera:

     Carl, perhaps I may be off assistance to you, with respect to the training of your athletes, in stating the importance of understanding that improvements on one area of the F(t) curve tend to improve results at the other.

     No doubt that the Olympic lifts register higher wattages than the more basic strength exercises such as squats and presses; however, this is essentially meaningless unless we are drawing a comparison to results in weightlifting.

     What I must respectfully remind you of is the fact that no discipline other than weightlifting requires comparable wattage values specifically in linear/curvilinear patterns in the vertical plan and this is precisely why we are able to effectively improve the maximal, explosive, and speed strength of athletes without the use of Olympic lifts.

     All we need do is hit a few points along the curve in a more general fashion (ergo squat, jump, and throw) and, most importantly, address the training of specialized prepatory and specialized developmental means due their far greater degree of transfer to the competitive exercise.

     I’m glad you made this blog Carl because not only will my response benefit those who read it; but I feel confident that if you take a long look at what I’ve stated that I will be able to greatly assist you in streamlining the training of your own athletes.

     If we are discussing the value of cleans and snatches relative to Olympic weightlifting or the lifting of comparably weighted implements in the vertical plane, or even movements in the vertical plan at comparable wattages, than I am in 100% agreement with you in stating that med ball throws, jump squats, back squats, and sprints won’t cut it.

     However, regarding all other sport disciplines it is my pleasure to inform you and the readers here that as long as the specialized prepatory and specialized developmental needs are addressed- that the more general training may be reduced to non-specific strengtheners of the knee/hip extensors, non-specific strengtheners of the shoulder girdle, and jumps, throws, and other auxiliary training for preventative maintenance and joint mobility

     Carl, in my view, the issue that is bringing you some confusion is rooted in your reference to the ‘power’ that is developed via the weightlifts. This is what I’ve found to be the commonality between coaches who share your disposition.

     As I stated, the weightlifts are relevant to the wattages that are generated via their performance and specific to linear/curvilinear movement in the vertical plan.

     What you are forgetting is that the relevant quantitative/qualitative markers for speed and power are sprints, jumps, and throws- whether we are talking American football combine or Track and Field.

     Thus the question is not how much can the athlete clean or snatch; but rather, how fast can they sprint, how high/far can they jump, and how far can they throw.

     So, Carl, to you and the readers, I say this:

     The Olympic lifts are not required to train athletes in sprinting fast, jumping high/far, and throwing far.

     Please take my word for it because I’ve trained hundreds of varied gene pools and the results speak

     So remember, when we use the word ‘power’ we are really speaking ambiguously. We must speak more specifically and as it stands- all sport disciplines, other than weightlifting, require different quantitative/qualitative F(t) and biodynamic/bioenergetic characteristics that are much more efficiently met via addressing the specialized prepatory, specialized developmental, and general needs. None of which require the Olympic lifts.

     The Olympic lifts simply aren’t needed

     Carl I urge you and the readers to take my words to heart because we all agree on one thing and that is that our objectives are the same:to assist our athletes in reaching the height of their sporting potential.

    Take what is useful and discard what is not.

    Avatar
    Participant
    davan on #80917

     While it’s no mystery that performance enhancing drugs are popular amongst the worlds elite; I’m sure I don’t have to remind anyone that the abuse of these pharmaceuticals is undoubtedly more wide spread and rampant amongst the less than elite. Thus, I’d just assume leave the discussion of drug use to the wind

     Regarding using the world’s elite as a reference and a model for discussion/comparison- I’ve always found that this provides, acknowledging the drug topic, a much more stable platform for discussion as the farther down the preparation/qualification ladder we descend the more nebulous the discussion becomes. We know that the lesser evolved motor apparatus is much more receptive to a wider spectrum of training irritants. Thus, it’s very challenging to impart consistency to discussions for or against the use of particular training means.

    I think it would be important then to realize that the very elite i a certain area will likely be predisposed to have certain characteristics that may not even need additional training that those of “lower classifications” (to use your terms) may not have. If you are born with great elastic strength and a good body type for sprinting, but perhaps weak(er) in static strength and maximal strength, you are going to benefit from and need much different training from a person that is not born with those same characteristics.
    [/quote]

     Perhaps most important, I’m sure that none of your readers are interested in what types of training are most beneficial in assisting athletes towards mediocre results. Thus, while the degree of drug use is surely varied (in terms of type, dosage, and duration) these numbers cannot be certain amongst large groups of highly qualified sprinters. Taking this into account, I’ll speak for everyone in stating that we are all more interested in what occurred along the path of realizing sub 10sec in comparison to a futile debate surrounding what ‘might’ be more effective in attaining 10.5

    How many people of non-West African descent have gone sub 10? How many people in sports that aren’t called track and field can go sub 10.5? How many of your football players can run at that level? Your friends at EliteFTS have said numerous times that the training that gets you to one point will not get you to another, so I’m sure you have thought about this to an extent.

     readers will appreciate the data collected by Anatoly Bondarchuk (whose coached more medalists in international competition than any other coach in the history of the games):

    How many people really throw the hammer world wide? I don’t know of any state that even offers it at the high school level. Let’s talk about shotput, kinda similar to the 100m of throwing. How many athletes has Bondarchuk coached to medal in those events and were they using Olympic lifts to a significant degree during their development?

     Correlational Interrelationship Between Preparatory Results in Several Specialized-Preparatory, Specialized-Developmental Exercises, Exercises with Lighter and Heavier Implements with Results in the Shot Put in Women Athletes Having Various Qualifications- revealed that the bench press and 7 different forms of throwing various weighted shots all correlated higher than the snatch with respect to results in the 19-20m range and the bench press, barbell squat, vertical jump, standing triple jump, standing long jump, and 8 different forms of throwing various weighted shots all correlated higher than the powerclean with respects to results in the 19-20m range

    I personally find it ironic that you are mentioning this because of the disbelief and lack of respect (in that you didn’t take it very serious) you showed regarding the very high correlation of the OHB and 100m results for Pfaff/LSU/others.

    Avatar
    Participant
    johnstrang on #80920

    I think Rhode Island throws hammer, and usually NY has a good source of hs hammer throwers to college.

    Avatar
    Participant
    James Smith on #80935

    I think it would be important then to realize that the very elite i a certain area will likely be predisposed to have certain characteristics that may not even need additional training that those of “lower classifications” (to use your terms) may not have. If you are born with great elastic strength and a good body type for sprinting, but perhaps weak(er) in static strength and maximal strength, you are going to benefit from and need much different training from a person that is not born with those same characteristics.

    How many people of non-West African descent have gone sub 10? How many people in sports that aren’t called track and field can go sub 10.5? How many of your football players can run at that level? Your friends at EliteFTS have said numerous times that the training that gets you to one point will not get you to another, so I’m sure you have thought about this to an extent.

    I personally find it ironic that you are mentioning this because of the disbelief and lack of respect (in that you didn’t take it very serious) you showed regarding the very high correlation of the OHB and 100m results for Pfaff/LSU/others.

    1)No question that what leads to point A may or may not be as meaningful as what leads to point B; however, the gradation tends to lie much more heavily in the direction of programming, versus exercise selection, once results have surpassed the middle zones (as ambiguous as ‘middle zones’ is I think you understand my point)

    2)My first year coaching at the high school level I began training a Long jump/100m athlete and after 3 months training him his 100m time dropped a tenth of a second from 10.5mid to 10.4 mid (both FAT) and his long jump increased from 24mid to 25high (I can’t remember the specifics) and at a meet at SAC State, even though this doesn’t count, he fowled by the smallest of margins (about 1inch over the board) and landed in the 27low area of the tape (the entire crowd when wild). He was Caucasian.

    I am very confident that I have at least two players that I could coach to sub 10.5 FAT if they ran track and I coached it. But that’s neither here nor there.

    3)Regarding me quoting Bondarchuk’s correlations and not putting too much stock into the LSU findings, if you’ll remember our phone discussion, I pointed out how the OHB throw is so distant bioenergetically/biodynamically than the 100m sprint, especially in comparison to the 30m sprint, which is why I could only believe that the correlation was high do to the OHB throw being a primary training means that only coincidentally improves along with sprint times; whereas me quoting Bondarchuk is simply to reinforce my point in so far as what Bondarchuk’s results prove is that the means of highest transference are those which, in contrast to the LSU findings, meet more criteria of dynamic correspondence.

    In both studies of Bondarchuk’s that I quoted, by far the highest transference to the highest level shot throws in competition were 7-9 different forms of throwing a shot of various weights and then came the jumps, and barbell exercises.

    So again, me quoting him only serves to fortify the points I am making and it’s 100% consistent with my questioning the LSU findings in so far as the wildly questionable findings of an OHB throw showing a higher correlational value, than a 30m sprint, to the 100m.

    That’s just wacky to the tenth power.

    Avatar
    Participant
    davan on #80936

    1)No question that what leads to point A may or may not be as meaningful as what leads to point B; however, the gradation tends to lie much more heavily in the direction of programming, versus exercise selection, once results have surpassed the middle zones (as ambiguous as ‘middle zones’ is I think you understand my point)

    True, but exercise selection will inherently change programming if it is giving a qualitatively different stimulus. Olympic lifts would fit this.

    2)My first year coaching at the high school level I began training a Long jump/100m athlete and after 3 months training him his 100m time dropped a tenth of a second from 10.5mid to 10.4 mid (both FAT) and his long jump increased from 24mid to 25high (I can’t remember the specifics) and at a meet at SAC State, even though this doesn’t count, he fowled by the smallest of margins (about 1inch over the board) and landed in the 27low area of the tape (the entire crowd when wild). He was Caucasian.

    I am very confident that I have at least two players that I could coach to sub 10.5 FAT if they ran track and I coached it. But that’s neither here nor there.

    I think you missed the point of this. My point is that you are talking about not looking at programs that get people to 10.5 (or any other time) and instead look to sub 10, which is fairly arbitrary in itself since it is already selecting parts of the population to a great extent (ie very specific region and socio-economic background).

    I would hope you would have a couple guys under 10.5 because you have some guys that ran around that time with minimal to no sprint-specific training. Tommie Campbell ran 10.69 his first year out without basically training (team doesn’t even have a track and I am not even sure blocks to practice with). That is another issue though.

    3)Regarding me quoting Bondarchuk’s correlations and not putting too much stock into the LSU findings, if you’ll remember our phone discussion, I pointed out how the OHB throw is so distant bioenergetically/biodynamically than the 100m sprint, especially in comparison to the 30m sprint, which is why I could only believe that the correlation was high do to the OHB throw being a primary training means that only coincidentally improves along with sprint times; whereas me quoting Bondarchuk is simply to reinforce my point in so far as what Bondarchuk’s results prove is that the means of highest transference are those which, in contrast to the LSU findings, meet more criteria of dynamic correspondence.

    So the transference between an OHB and a 100m holds less weight and significance (in spite of the literally thousands of data points to go from, along with results) than a 30m sprint and a shotput throw (the study you just quoted)? Think about that for a second.

    In both studies of Bondarchuk’s that I quoted, by far the highest transference to the highest level shot throws in competition were 7-9 different forms of throwing a shot of various weights and then came the jumps, and barbell exercises.

    That is kind of like saying running with a 5lb weight vest has a higher cross-over because it would relate more to sprint results than an OHB. I wait for the training programs that use that as a foundational component of their training.

    Avatar
    Participant
    davan on #80938

    Also remember the tests are considering sprinters versus sprinters not just anyone (can’t compare shotput throwers’ correlations with a sprinters’).

    Avatar
    Participant
    James Smith on #80946

    1. True, but exercise selection will inherently change programming if it is giving a qualitatively different stimulus. Olympic lifts would fit this.

    2. I think you missed the point of this. My point is that you are talking about not looking at programs that get people to 10.5 (or any other time) and instead look to sub 10, which is fairly arbitrary in itself since it is already selecting parts of the population to a great extent (ie very specific region and socio-economic background).

    3. I would hope you would have a couple guys under 10.5 because you have some guys that ran around that time with minimal to no sprint-specific training. Tommie Campbell ran 10.69 his first year out without basically training (team doesn’t even have a track and I am not even sure blocks to practice with). That is another issue though.

    4. So the transference between an OHB and a 100m holds less weight and significance (in spite of the literally thousands of data points to go from, along with results) than a 30m sprint and a shotput throw (the study you just quoted)? Think about that for a second.

    5. That is kind of like saying running with a 5lb weight vest has a higher cross-over because it would relate more to sprint results than an OHB. I wait for the training programs that use that as a foundational component of their training.

    1. No arguement here, other than the fact that Olympic lifts aren’t necessary nor is the need to ‘fit’ any other means into the training that is not necessary.

    Instead of ‘fit’ I encourage you to ‘minimize’. Remember, the higher the qualification the more inherently stressful the competitive act becomes as a result of the higher intensisites. thus, optimization, in this case, characterizes taking the opportunity to relieve stress where it is not needed.

    Adaptive reserves are finite and as you know the Olympic lifts, while characteristically different enough, still pull from similar reserves in terms of MU recruitment thus their removal from the program leaves those reserves, that would otherwise be expended, for use elsewhere (ergo via the competitive act)

    2. Not my point either. I’m more curious as to what programs lead to sub 10 versus what programs lead to 10.5, regardless of the gene pool.

    After all, if the selection of the athlete is poor in so far as they have no shot at qualifying for the B standard than why waste the athlete or the coaches time in scheming how to get meaningless results (meaningless being defined as the inabilty to compete at the international level).

    now, if we are talking about the training for speed for other sports that do not require world class times I still hold to my points because in this case there are obviously other tasks that have very high priority and, thus, the reserves arguement still holds weight.

    3. No doubt, however, I don’t know the specifics as to what some of these guys ran, whether times were FAT, and so on, and I’d really not like to make aggressive speculations as far as saying I could get him to 10.3 or 10. 2 and so on because it’s neither here nor there. My point is that I get them faster in the very short sprints without the weightlifts and they are already, as you point out, quite fast when they arrive here.

    4. I disagree with the way you’ve used the data I quoted to make your point. The 30m sprint, while correlating more highly than one of the Olympic lifts, still paled in comparison to the means of higher transfer (ergo those more bioenergeticaly/biodynamically similar to the competitive event). Thus, again, this fits perfectly in my arguement as the sprint satsisfies greater criteria of correspondence, relative to the throw, than that particular barbell exercise.

    In contrast, the LSU findings suggest that the OHB throw, which is no where near as bioenergetically/biodynamically similar to the 100m as the 30m sprint, showed a higher correlation to improved results in the 100m; which is why this, to me, throws major red flags.

    5. to my knowledge, Vittori and certainly other Soviet and Eastern European coaches, did make use of various means of externally loading (ergo customized weighted belts) the thighs or waist, during short sprints, as a specific strength training means and from a biodynamic/bioenergetic standpoint this surely, all things equal, would correlate more highly than a medicine ball throw to 100m sprint performances. As far as this training means, or any other, forming a foundational element in the program- I should hope this is never the case as this would imply that some other means has superceded the practice of the actual competitive event in the training.

    Again, I would wager that the LSU study is more indicative of the fact that the improved results in the (weights, jumps, throws) all follow, and not lead, the improved results in the sprints. The fact that the OHB throw correlated more highly than the 30m sprint could only, in my mind, reference how improved max V and SE, while not mentioned, is what lead to improved 100m times and the fact that the OHB throw improved all the way along is more incidental.

    Avatar
    Participant
    James Smith on #80947

    Also remember the tests are considering sprinters versus sprinters not just anyone (can’t compare shotput throwers’ correlations with a sprinters’).

    No question. My using the throws reference was in direct response to Carl’s reference to Werner Gunthor and to further illustrate how the means that correlate most highly to improved contest performances are, in fact, those that are more biodynamically, bioenergetically similar to the competitive act (ergo various throws correlating higher than barbell exercises to throwing)

    If you’re interested I will site Bondarchuk’s tables that reference the transference of various means to the sprints.

    Avatar
    Participant
    JeremyRichmond on #80949

    4. I disagree with the way you’ve used the data I quoted to make your point. The 30m sprint, while correlating more highly than one of the Olympic lifts, still paled in comparison to the means of higher transfer (ergo those more bioenergeticaly/biodynamically similar to the competitive event). Thus, again, this fits perfectly in my arguement as the sprint satsisfies greater criteria of correspondence, relative to the throw, than that particular barbell exercise.

    In contrast, the LSU findings suggest that the OHB throw, which is no where near as bioenergetically/biodynamically similar to the 100m as the 30m sprint, showed a higher correlation to improved results in the 100m; which is why this, to me, throws major red flags.

    Please, what was the level of correlation between the 30m sprint and Olympic lifts?

    Also, was OHB implemented in the training program? I’m curious because some published data reveals an improvement only in the 10 and 20m zone in sprinting for concentric heavy jump squats. These measurements were not noticed by the researchers and warranted further study in my opinion. Whilst not biomechanically specific to that zone of sprinting it may have represented a neural stimulus that could be fundamental to the production of maximum power in that zone essential to be a top class sprinter as per the Newtonian model.

    Avatar
    Participant
    James Smith on #80952

    Please, what was the level of correlation between the 30m sprint and Olympic lifts?

    Also, was OHB implemented in the training program? I’m curious because some published data reveals an improvement only in the 10 and 20m zone in sprinting for concentric heavy jump squats. These measurements were not noticed by the researchers and warranted further study in my opinion. Whilst not biomechanically specific to that zone of sprinting it may have represented a neural stimulus that could be fundamental to the production of maximum power in that zone essential to be a top class sprinter as per the Newtonian model.

    Jeremy, I only have data which sites the correlation between various training means and the competitive T&F event. Thus, any data reflective of the 30m sprint and snatch or clean is relative to performance in one of the jumps, sprints, or throws in T&F.

    The backward overhead shot (competition weight) throw (as well as forward throw and shot throws with varied weights) is a training means that is sited in many of the data tables, however.

    You are absolutely correct in stating the varying degrees via which a training means may transfer to the competition even or some portion of the competition event.

    hence, my previous statements regarding the importance of understanding postive, negative and neutral as well as indirect and direct transfer.

    Avatar
    Participant
    burkhalter on #80962

    [quote author="davan" date="1239266747"]

    3)Regarding me quoting Bondarchuk’s correlations and not putting too much stock into the LSU findings, if you’ll remember our phone discussion, I pointed out how the OHB throw is so distant bioenergetically/biodynamically than the 100m sprint, especially in comparison to the 30m sprint, which is why I could only believe that the correlation was high do to the OHB throw being a primary training means that only coincidentally improves along with sprint times; whereas me quoting Bondarchuk is simply to reinforce my point in so far as what Bondarchuk’s results prove is that the means of highest transference are those which, in contrast to the LSU findings, meet more criteria of dynamic correspondence.

    James here’s the deal with the OHB correlating to the 100m. When I first heard Pfaff say he had observed this I kind of scoffed at it as well. Because it does not make much sense. But what you are not taking into account is the fact that this is being compared among a group of sprinters and so very similar training. You cannot debate what Pfaff observed and noted. It is a fact that he observed in his training groups that the best 100m people had the best OHB throws. Whether it is bioenergetically/biodynamically similar is irrelevant. Whether it meets a Bondarchuk or Verkoshansky definition of dynamic correspondence is irrelevant. In Pfaff’s groups and in groups that follow training plans very similar to his (LSU) it is significant and you cannot debate that as it is something Pfaff observed in his group or similar groups of athletes.

    The same can be said of Bondarchuk’s observation or theory or whatever you want to call it. In the groups he observed or trained he noted less significance among Oly variations with regard to their correspondence to the hammer throw. Fine. We cannot debate that. That is Bondarchuk’s observation based on his athletes. So, to him the countless hours of studying his athletes has “proven” that the Oly lifts and variants are useless for increasing the hammer throw. Great. He does not do them. I do not think anyone on here feels that you HAVE to do the OHB or Power Cleans, etc. in order to increase your results in different sports, however in some training groups they actually prove, surprisingly or not, that they are significant. I do not have to read a journal or analyze how statistically significant something is on paper if I observe something in the real world. I fall into the trap of reading and wanting to understand the theory and why’s of training, however I just do not see how we can force the human body in to fitting a definition or a percentage or an equation or statistical analysis. I just does not work that way.

    Many have similar discussions in the weightlifting world. There is the Abadjiev/Bulgarian based guys (Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, etc.) that for the large part only do Sn, CJ, and FS (of course there are times when other things are done) and there are those that use more variation like the Chinese (even though they lift around the 90% range at least weekly on the comp lifts and well over on assistance lifts for the most part). You can read in transcribed lectures Abadjiev discuss his observation that certain lifts correspond better to the competitive lifts in the Master of Sport lifters (those with 7 or more years lifting and at a certain world class level) so he began to omit various assistance lifts over time until and we can see where that led to in the programs of a lot of those lifters who follow that philosophy – Sn, CJ, FS. He also mentions similar reasons for that as you state Bondarchuk does for his list of dynamically corresponding exercises. To Abadjiev, in his groups he has narrowed it down to the above exercises as being the most significant. Even though the developing lifters from Bulgaria certainly do/did do pulls, lifts from the hang, etc.

    Then you look to the Chinese. They do many more variations, probably not as many as some of the classic Russian programs and often heavier than those as well, but they are still doing many more assistance lifts than the Abadjiev groups would do. Abadjiev would look at them doing clean pulls (really a Deadlift+Shrug) at 130+% at times and think they were idiots, yet in the Chinese group they feel that it works. I am told the Chinese feel the snatch high pull where they reverse direction is one of the most important assistance exercises for them. Is it the most efficient? Maybe not. Would it work in a Bulgarian philosophy program? Probably not. But it certainly is not hurting China.

    Avatar
    Participant
    James Smith on #80977

    Brook, I appreciate your thoughts; however, I should point out that I possess my own understanding of the situation. What I object to is the idea that seems to be shared by many that suggests that a far throw is indicative of a fast 100m.

    I’m certainly not disputing what was observed, recorded, etcetera by the LSU findings.

    what I’m disputing is the claim that a particular means leads, as opposed to follows, improved sprint times- and especially when the means is so distant from a biodynamic/bioenergetic standpoint.

    If, for example, over a 4 year period I observe 20 male sprinters improve from 10.8 to 10.3 and their backward ball throw improves along the way, I would never be so naive as to state that the improved 100m times are reflective of the performance/training of the ball throw- to the exclusion of the rest of the means in the complex.

    I also suspect that this is not what the LSU people are saying either. What I gather is that they are simply sharing what they recorded.

    To think that hordes of sprinters might become hell bent on improving their ability to throw a ball backwards overhead, at the expense of spending more time on the track, for instance, in hopes that their sprint times will plumet, is amusing at best.

    Now, what is wise to state is that the ball throw, for instance, existing as part of a complex of means, will serve its role as a meaningful stressor on the F(t) curve (farther to the left) and positively assist in the improvement of a particular sport result. This statement is absolutely valid and this is how I rationalize this version of the throw in the training of my athletes.

    Regarding the LSU findings, what I would state is that the the complex of training means that was utilized contributed to the improved 100m times and the fact that the farther ball throws correlate highly to the fastest 100m times is reflective of the improved state of the neuromuscular apparatus- as a result of the entirety of training.

    So where you and I must disagree lies in the fact that I determine the ‘why’ behind the results as being, to the contrary of your view, extremely relevent.

    Nothing happens by accident; but rather all entirely on purpose- even if the coach practioners are not aware enough to recognize it.

    Remember, I am the The Thinker.

    Don’t let that mislead you, however. I’ve trained more athletes than most of the ‘well read’ internet theoreticians out there, since being here at the University I have been given complete autonomy with training nearly all quarter backs, kickers/punters, running backs, recievers, linebackers, and dbacks and I have as much empirically rooted evidence based findings as the next guy.

    Avatar
    Participant
    davan on #80982

    James, you still have not addressed why there is a positive correlation with throws and olympic lifts :: 100m times but not with squats :: 100m times. You keep saying that the throws just follow the sprinting, yet it is pretty clear that not everything is following the sprinting and certain exercises have much higher correlations than others. Notice SLJ is often left out in this even though it is quite similar (on the surface, there are some not so obvious features) to an OHB, but doesn’t have the same sort of correlation.

    Just to clarify the aside from before, Campbell ran 10.69 fat, basically no training, first season doing T&F, out late the night before. There are a number of other athletes who has ran comparable times and they are still running 4.4-4.5s.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 34 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.