Iowa Wrestling Weight Training

Training Powerlifting
41

[quote]blazindave wrote:
If you can do 15 full extension pullups as opposed to 15 half extended pullups then you WILL be stronger.
[/quote]
Yeah, no kidding, but that’s an illegitimate comparison to make. Any kid who does 15 half extension pullups would be doing closer to 5 or 6 full extension pullups. So the real question is, for wrestling, which is better 15 halfsies or 5 or 6 whole? I dont pretend to know the answer, but I can see arguments for both sides.

And yes, I understand that teh point would be to work UP to 15 full pullups, but by htat time the kid could be up to 20, 25, 30 or whatever halfsies.

42

One of the posts on that video is…

“You want to know something about training wrestlers, give Ivan Ivanov a call at the USOEC. He will tell you exactly how to train your guys whether they are freestyle or greco. with respect to this video, this coach is an idiot. If he were on my staff, I would fire him in a second.”

My gawd. Mr. Internet Warrior firing one of the best team coaches out there.

43

[quote]KBCThird wrote:
blazindave wrote:
If you can do 15 full extension pullups as opposed to 15 half extended pullups then you WILL be stronger.

Yeah, no kidding, but that’s an illegitimate comparison to make. Any kid who does 15 half extension pullups would be doing closer to 5 or 6 full extension pullups. So the real question is, for wrestling, which is better 15 halfsies or 5 or 6 whole? I dont pretend to know the answer, but I can see arguments for both sides.

And yes, I understand that teh point would be to work UP to 15 full pullups, but by htat time the kid could be up to 20, 25, 30 or whatever halfsies.
[/quote]

How about this. If you’re trying to pull someone towards you, would you rather be able to do it 15 times but only if your arms are at very bent or 15 times and able to do it with your arms fully extended. I’m sure logic would entail that doing it with your arms fully extended would mean that you are strong.

Just so you know i just went to my pullup bar:
Usually i can do 20 pull ups (not chin ups) with doing pretty much full extension. By doing it till 90 degrees (barely bent really) i could do 20 really easily. Also, when you do something fast, you tend to use that momentum to cheat.

If i do a full real pull up, i need to stop my speed at the bottom and use more effort to get back up. This is because my elbows locks out (kinda) when it’s straight, so i have to redo the work all over again. All the energy is lost and i start back at zero. If i do a quick half (assed) pullup, i can bounce myself up and down really quickly.

So again, you have a lot to lose by doing bad form.
PERIOD.
If you don’t believe it, go try it out.

44

[quote]blazindave wrote:
KBCThird wrote:
blazindave wrote:
If you can do 15 full extension pullups as opposed to 15 half extended pullups then you WILL be stronger.

Yeah, no kidding, but that’s an illegitimate comparison to make. Any kid who does 15 half extension pullups would be doing closer to 5 or 6 full extension pullups. So the real question is, for wrestling, which is better 15 halfsies or 5 or 6 whole? I dont pretend to know the answer, but I can see arguments for both sides.

And yes, I understand that teh point would be to work UP to 15 full pullups, but by htat time the kid could be up to 20, 25, 30 or whatever halfsies.

How about this. If you’re trying to pull someone towards you, would you rather be able to do it 15 times but only if your arms are at very bent or 15 times and able to do it with your arms fully extended. I’m sure logic would entail that doing it with your arms fully extended would mean that you are strong.

Just so you know i just went to my pullup bar:
Usually i can do 20 pull ups (not chin ups) with doing pretty much full extension. By doing it till 90 degrees (barely bent really) i could do 20 really easily. Also, when you do something fast, you tend to use that momentum to cheat.
If i do a full real pull up, i need to stop my speed at the bottom and use more effort to get back up. This is because my elbows locks out (kinda) when it’s straight, so i have to redo the work all over again. All the energy is lost and i start back at zero. If i do a quick half (assed) pullup, i can bounce myself up and down really quickly.

So again, you have a lot to lose by doing bad form.
PERIOD.
If you don’t believe it, go try it out.[/quote]

At this level it’s going to be more wrestling ability than absolute strength. While training with good form is important, most times, there are times that partial movements and ballistic cheating style movments are also important.

But the best wrestler is the best wrestler, not the strongest wrestler. For the greta athletes, training correctly is not the total picture in regards to how well they wrestle.

And do remember, wrestlers use momentum in their pushing pulling and tugging and throwing. they make it easy as possible, not as hard as possible.

Not saying lifting wsould always be that way of course.

45

The main thing is for the most part they just name there exercises wrong so a clean is ok but doing it with the reverse grip isn’t? Every exercise was invented at one point or another they are just doing olympic lifts at all different angles. And they didn’t do lactic acid work that was a warm up you have no idea how well these guys are conditioned. I am not saying the program is perfect or anything but just that the well known exercises haven’t existed forever and if you never saw a clean before you’d react to it the same way as those cheat “curls”.

46

[quote]tom63 wrote:
blazindave wrote:
KBCThird wrote:
blazindave wrote:
If you can do 15 full extension pullups as opposed to 15 half extended pullups then you WILL be stronger.

Yeah, no kidding, but that’s an illegitimate comparison to make. Any kid who does 15 half extension pullups would be doing closer to 5 or 6 full extension pullups. So the real question is, for wrestling, which is better 15 halfsies or 5 or 6 whole? I dont pretend to know the answer, but I can see arguments for both sides.

And yes, I understand that teh point would be to work UP to 15 full pullups, but by htat time the kid could be up to 20, 25, 30 or whatever halfsies.

How about this. If you’re trying to pull someone towards you, would you rather be able to do it 15 times but only if your arms are at very bent or 15 times and able to do it with your arms fully extended. I’m sure logic would entail that doing it with your arms fully extended would mean that you are strong.

Just so you know i just went to my pullup bar:
Usually i can do 20 pull ups (not chin ups) with doing pretty much full extension. By doing it till 90 degrees (barely bent really) i could do 20 really easily. Also, when you do something fast, you tend to use that momentum to cheat.
If i do a full real pull up, i need to stop my speed at the bottom and use more effort to get back up. This is because my elbows locks out (kinda) when it’s straight, so i have to redo the work all over again. All the energy is lost and i start back at zero. If i do a quick half (assed) pullup, i can bounce myself up and down really quickly.

So again, you have a lot to lose by doing bad form.
PERIOD.
If you don’t believe it, go try it out.

At this level it’s going to be more wrestling ability than absolute strength. While training with good form is important, most times, there are times that partial movements and ballistic cheating style movments are also important.

But the best wrestler is the best wrestler, not the strongest wrestler. For the greta athletes, training correctly is not the total picture in regards to how well they wrestle.

And do remember, wrestlers use momentum in their pushing pulling and tugging and throwing. they make it easy as possible, not as hard as possible.

Not saying lifting wsould always be that way of course.

[/quote]

Tom made a lot of good points ie momentum IS used throughout the course of a match. Again dave, you’re comparing apples to oranges - 15 pulls with arms fully extended vs 15 with them half extended. Look at your own example - 20 full extension reps was hard, 20 halfsies was easy - so why the hell did you stop at 20 on the halfsies? The point is to take the mechanical advantage you have in the limited ROM and STILL work hard, both by doing more reps, and by keeping constant tension on the muscle, not locking out the elbow and taking tension off for that split second.

Dont take this the wrong way, but have you ever actually wrestled? I bring this up only because I cant think of a single move where you’d be pulling with a straight arm. Whether a collar tie up or a clinch, your arms are bent, ie in that position of mechanical advantage.

The point is that while iron sports - powerlifting, o-lifting, pullup contests - have strict definitions of what constitutes a lift to prevent a COMPETITIVE advantage, the wrestlers arent COMPETING in these lifts themselves. To put it another way, take two football players who both start off squatting, say 400 lbs to parallel. Have one of them train their squat by going to an inch below parallel, have the other train by stopping at an inch ABOVE parallel. After a given length of time the 1" below guy might be squatting 500 lbs (to an inch below parallel) and the other squatting closer to 600 lbs (to an inch above parallel.)

I’m basing these numbers on something Louie once wrote about every inch you lower your box taking 50 lbs off your squat so these are JUST ROUGH ESTIMATES. Now, these kids are doing two completely different squats, so you cant say which one is the stronger squatter. But, I will tell you for certain that the lifter stopping at an inch above parallel, and therefore using heavier weights, has trained all of his support muscles - abs, low back, upper back - a lot harder than the guy going to an inch below parallel.

It’s a give and take equation, I understand that, and if you take it to the extreme you have guys doing 1/8 squats and moving up and down 2" in the chinups. But a lot of armchair warriors on here have never trained a soul other than themselves, and got CONSERVATIVELY 50% of their knowledge out of a frigging book as opposed to the real world. Dont get me wrong, I’ve cited writings on here dozens of times, the Weightlifting Encyclopedia by Drechsler, Joe Kenn’s Strength Coaches Training Playbook, hell, I cited Louie above. But there has to be some kind of balance.

I feel like perhaps I havent adequately explained myself, so perhaps I can best do that with something that Ryan Brown, an American pro strongman - and a very thoguhtful and intelligent guy to boot - once wrote:

[quote]one more thought on this is that too many times it seems I see a lot of guys who with good intentions want to make everything too hard on themselves. Guys without huge strength wanting to only due full range OL squats for instance. They are trying to avoid being that guy that we see in the gym sometimes who is weak and using a ton of weight on some retard movement like a 4" ROM squat. These guys are “proud” of their technical form and that is admirable to an extent.

But as I explained to someone recently, part of being good at strength sports is figuring out the easiest way to move weight. You can’t get super strong if you are always insisting on doing it the hardest way–like front squatting butt to floor raw with 185 lbs. Those are great, but also throw in some “easier” movements so you can actually use some bigger weight.[/quote]

47

[quote]tom63 wrote:

At this level it’s going to be more wrestling ability than absolute strength. While training with good form is important, most times, there are times that partial movements and ballistic cheating style movments are also important.

But the best wrestler is the best wrestler, not the strongest wrestler. For the greta athletes, training correctly is not the total picture in regards to how well they wrestle.

And do remember, wrestlers use momentum in their pushing pulling and tugging and throwing. they make it easy as possible, not as hard as possible.

Not saying lifting wsould always be that way of course.

[/quote]

Well so doing what i said would be more beneficial since youd have to use more explosive power to get to the top of the bar at full ROM than at half ROM.
Right?
I can even go further and say they should be doing muscle ups.

[quote]KBCThird wrote:
Tom made a lot of good points ie momentum IS used throughout the course of a match. Again dave, you’re comparing apples to oranges - 15 pulls with arms fully extended vs 15 with them half extended. Look at your own example - 20 full extension reps was hard, 20 halfsies was easy - so why the hell did you stop at 20 on the halfsies? The point is to take the mechanical advantage you have in the limited ROM and STILL work hard, both by doing more reps, and by keeping constant tension on the muscle, not locking out the elbow and taking tension off for that split second.

Dont take this the wrong way, but have you ever actually wrestled? I bring this up only because I cant think of a single move where you’d be pulling with a straight arm. Whether a collar tie up or a clinch, your arms are bent, ie in that position of mechanical advantage.

The point is that while iron sports - powerlifting, o-lifting, pullup contests - have strict definitions of what constitutes a lift to prevent a COMPETITIVE advantage, the wrestlers arent COMPETING in these lifts themselves. To put it another way, take two football players who both start off squatting, say 400 lbs to parallel. Have one of them train their squat by going to an inch below parallel, have the other train by stopping at an inch ABOVE parallel. After a given length of time the 1" below guy might be squatting 500 lbs (to an inch below parallel) and the other squatting closer to 600 lbs (to an inch above parallel.) I’m basing these numbers on something Louie once wrote about every inch you lower your box taking 50 lbs off your squat so these are JUST ROUGH ESTIMATES. Now, these kids are doing two completely different squats, so you cant say which one is the stronger squatter. But, I will tell you for certain that the lifter stopping at an inch above parallel, and therefore using heavier weights, has trained all of his support muscles - abs, low back, upper back - a lot harder than the guy going to an inch below parallel.

It’s a give and take equation, I understand that, and if you take it to the extreme you have guys doing 1/8 squats and moving up and down 2" in the chinups. But a lot of armchair warriors on here have never trained a soul other than themselves, and got CONSERVATIVELY 50% of their knowledge out of a frigging book as opposed to the real world. Dont get me wrong, I’ve cited writings on here dozens of times, the Weightlifting Encyclopedia by Drechsler, Joe Kenn’s Strength Coaches Training Playbook, hell, I cited Louie above. But there has to be some kind of balance.

I feel like perhaps I havent adequately explained myself, so perhaps I can best do that with something that Ryan Brown, an American pro strongman - and a very thoguhtful and intelligent guy to boot - once wrote:

one more thought on this is that too many times it seems I see a lot of guys who with good intentions want to make everything too hard on themselves. Guys without huge strength wanting to only due full range OL squats for instance. They are trying to avoid being that guy that we see in the gym sometimes who is weak and using a ton of weight on some retard movement like a 4" ROM squat. These guys are “proud” of their technical form and that is admirable to an extent.

But as I explained to someone recently, part of being good at strength sports is figuring out the easiest way to move weight. You can’t get super strong if you are always insisting on doing it the hardest way–like front squatting butt to floor raw with 185 lbs. Those are great, but also throw in some “easier” movements so you can actually use some bigger weight.
[/quote]

A wrestling move at full ROM? When both guys are locked shoulder to shoulder and one goes for the other guys legs to flip him to the ground.
However, no, i have never done real real wrestling. I’ve tried some a few times but never had the chance to get into it.

I understand your example with the squatters but it also doesnt make sense.
I cant squat very much (i dont even know how much i can squat) but its probably limit to 200 pounds. That being said if i stand up straight and have my knees slightly bent i can probably stand with 300 or so pounds.
The guy who is stronger is the guy who displaces the weight more.
An inch is a stupid example since its too tiny to matter. At this point its like saying they both squat parallel but one has 400 and the other 500.
What if the guy with 400 can do ATG but the guy with 500 can only do parallel? Who is stronger?

I don’t see the point in making something easier to lift more weight.
It’s dilusional. “I can bench 250 but if i use a smith machine and 10 guys spotting me i can lift about 400 pounds”. Your true, real strength is the raw lift.
It’s like saying i can run 100 meters in half a minute but if i build a car and only use the strength of my foot to press down the pedal, to make it “easier”, i can cover 100 meters in 3 seconds.

I know it’s a stupid example but it isn’t exactly off.
Moving a big weight, the hard way as efficiently as possible and as fast as possible will allow you to become stronger and more explosive. This is practically fact.
Moving a big weight, 4 inches up and down, pretending to have a seizure, will not give me anything.
The better i can do something which is hard, the more useful and efficient the “easy” way becomes.

I probably still don’t get “it” though.

In the end, i agree its more abilities than actual (weight) training.
Good luck to them.

48

[quote]blazindave wrote:

A wrestling move at full ROM? When both guys are locked shoulder to shoulder and one goes for the other guys legs to flip him to the ground.
However, no, i have never done real real wrestling. I’ve tried some a few times but never had the chance to get into it. [/quote]

by any chance are you referring to a single leg takedown when you say “flip” him to the ground? Because in that case youre shooting in with your legs, and your upper body is really only operating isometrically

[quote]I understand your example with the squatters but it also doesnt make sense.
I cant squat very much (i dont even know how much i can squat) but its probably limit to 200 pounds. That being said if i stand up straight and have my knees slightly bent i can probably stand with 300 or so pounds.
The guy who is stronger is the guy who displaces the weight more.
An inch is a stupid example since its too tiny to matter. [/quote]

Dont talk about something you know nothing about. An inch CAN make all the difference. Maybe at 200 lbs the percentage difference is too small to be noticeable, but with guys who actually do squat regularly, and with an appreciable amount of weight, making them go an inch deeper will make a noticeable difference in the amount of weight theyre using. Conversely, so will allowing tehm to cut it an inch high.

[quote]At this point its like saying they both squat parallel but one has 400 and the other 500.
What if the guy with 400 can do ATG but the guy with 500 can only do parallel? Who is stronger?[/quote]

Again, the 500lb squatter will have stronger supporting muscles - abs, low back, upper back. I dont care whether you do an 1/8 squat with 400 lbs or a full oly squat, your abs, low back and upper back will only be supporting 400 lbs. It makes no difference

[quote]I don’t see the point in making something easier to lift more weight.
It’s dilusional. “I can bench 250 but if i use a smith machine and 10 guys spotting me i can lift about 400 pounds”. Your true, real strength is the raw lift.
It’s like saying i can run 100 meters in half a minute but if i build a car and only use the strength of my foot to press down the pedal, to make it “easier”, i can cover 100 meters in 3 seconds.

I know it’s a stupid example but it isn’t exactly off. [/quote]

Yes it is. I deliberately pointed out that if you take it to the extreme, you have guys doing 1/8 squats and moving 2" on the pullups.

[quote]Moving a big weight, the hard way as efficiently as possible and as fast as possible will allow you to become stronger and more explosive. This is practically fact.
Moving a big weight, 4 inches up and down, pretending to have a seizure, will not give me anything.[/quote]

I addressed this above, but I’m actually starting to second-guess myself, to take it even further and disagree more. Ever seen strongman? At the arnold this year, the competitors walked about 40’ with a yoke weighing 1100 lbs on their back. picking up a yoke is like doing a squat with your knees bent, I would say, less than 3". So while this is certainly not a full squat, I defy anyway to say that you do not have to monstrously strong to have the isometric strength to support half a metric ton.

And to continue the theme of isometric strength, I’d argue that the wrestlers dont even have to DO a pullup for the movement to be effective, they can simply hang there (at the TOP position, not the bottom) and go for timed holds, hanging weight from a belt, whatever. When two wrestlers are in a collar tie-up, or a clinch, they’re working tremendously hard without actually moving anythign. Theyre tensing their muscles in resistance to the other guy trying to throw him, get him off balance, whatever, and with both of them doing this at the same time, it cancels each other out, and they stand there struggling until one guy fatigues, or lets ups and the other goes for a shot or a throw.

Again, there are plenty of great strength coaches who would do the exact opposite, and treat the weights as gpp and have them perform “standard” exercises. But this keyboard warrior nonsense of a bunch of guys who’ve never trained anyone in their entire life, the enirety of their qualifications being that they work out and log onto this website, and therefore know best, is BS.

49

If his goal is to horse the weight around why not do heavy sandbag, stone, and tire work?

50

[quote]KBCThird wrote:
blazindave wrote:

A wrestling move at full ROM? When both guys are locked shoulder to shoulder and one goes for the other guys legs to flip him to the ground.
However, no, i have never done real real wrestling. I’ve tried some a few times but never had the chance to get into it.

by any chance are you referring to a single leg takedown when you say “flip” him to the ground? Because in that case youre shooting in with your legs, and your upper body is really only operating isometrically

I understand your example with the squatters but it also doesnt make sense.
I cant squat very much (i dont even know how much i can squat) but its probably limit to 200 pounds. That being said if i stand up straight and have my knees slightly bent i can probably stand with 300 or so pounds.
The guy who is stronger is the guy who displaces the weight more.
An inch is a stupid example since its too tiny to matter.

Dont talk about something you know nothing about. An inch CAN make all the difference. Maybe at 200 lbs the percentage difference is too small to be noticeable, but with guys who actually do squat regularly, and with an appreciable amount of weight, making them go an inch deeper will make a noticeable difference in the amount of weight theyre using. Conversely, so will allowing tehm to cut it an inch high.

At this point its like saying they both squat parallel but one has 400 and the other 500.
What if the guy with 400 can do ATG but the guy with 500 can only do parallel? Who is stronger?

Again, the 500lb squatter will have stronger supporting muscles - abs, low back, upper back. I dont care whether you do an 1/8 squat with 400 lbs or a full oly squat, your abs, low back and upper back will only be supporting 400 lbs. It makes no difference

I don’t see the point in making something easier to lift more weight.
It’s dilusional. “I can bench 250 but if i use a smith machine and 10 guys spotting me i can lift about 400 pounds”. Your true, real strength is the raw lift.
It’s like saying i can run 100 meters in half a minute but if i build a car and only use the strength of my foot to press down the pedal, to make it “easier”, i can cover 100 meters in 3 seconds.

I know it’s a stupid example but it isn’t exactly off.

Yes it is. I deliberately pointed out that if you take it to the extreme, you have guys doing 1/8 squats and moving 2" on the pullups.

Moving a big weight, the hard way as efficiently as possible and as fast as possible will allow you to become stronger and more explosive. This is practically fact.
Moving a big weight, 4 inches up and down, pretending to have a seizure, will not give me anything.

I addressed this above, but I’m actually starting to second-guess myself, to take it even further and disagree more. Ever seen strongman? At the arnold this year, the competitors walked about 40’ with a yoke weighing 1100 lbs on their back. picking up a yoke is like doing a squat with your knees bent, I would say, less than 3". So while this is certainly not a full squat, I defy anyway to say that you do not have to monstrously strong to have the isometric strength to support half a metric ton.

And to continue the theme of isometric strength, I’d argue that the wrestlers dont even have to DO a pullup for the movement to be effective, they can simply hang there (at the TOP position, not the bottom) and go for timed holds, hanging weight from a belt, whatever. When two wrestlers are in a collar tie-up, or a clinch, they’re working tremendously hard without actually moving anythign. Theyre tensing their muscles in resistance to the other guy trying to throw him, get him off balance, whatever, and with both of them doing this at the same time, it cancels each other out, and they stand there struggling until one guy fatigues, or lets ups and the other goes for a shot or a throw.

Again, there are plenty of great strength coaches who would do the exact opposite, and treat the weights as gpp and have them perform “standard” exercises. But this keyboard warrior nonsense of a bunch of guys who’ve never trained anyone in their entire life, the enirety of their qualifications being that they work out and log onto this website, and therefore know best, is BS.[/quote]

inch thing: i meant in relation to the guy squatting 500 and the other squatting 400. The B guy goes 2 inches lower than guy A.

The 400-500 pound thing, i was thinking leg strength, not lower back, abs,etc…

As for not having to do a pull up, ive been talking about the best way to train for explosive strength. I mean i assume thats why they are doing those pull ups and hang cleans or whatever. I think i wrote out “explosive” a few times to get that through.

I don’t think you understand what im saying.

So ill rewrite it very clearly. If you dont get this, then theres nothing else i can say or do for you.

“Doing an exercise with weight X with perfect form and full ROM will make you stronger (explosively or otherwise) than doing the exercise with same weight X doing half ROM and shitty form.”

NO ONE argued that carrying 400000 pounds on your back for 40 yards would make you a weakling if you only had your knees bent 3 inches.

NO ONE said that squatting 500 pounds and doing parallel is easy.

What we (I) said is that doing the SAME EXERCISE WITH THE SAME WEIGHT using GOOD FORM and FULL ROM will make you STRONGER/BETTER.

51

[quote]blazindave wrote:
KBCThird wrote:
blazindave wrote:

A wrestling move at full ROM? When both guys are locked shoulder to shoulder and one goes for the other guys legs to flip him to the ground.
However, no, i have never done real real wrestling. I’ve tried some a few times but never had the chance to get into it.

by any chance are you referring to a single leg takedown when you say “flip” him to the ground? Because in that case youre shooting in with your legs, and your upper body is really only operating isometrically

I understand your example with the squatters but it also doesnt make sense.
I cant squat very much (i dont even know how much i can squat) but its probably limit to 200 pounds. That being said if i stand up straight and have my knees slightly bent i can probably stand with 300 or so pounds.
The guy who is stronger is the guy who displaces the weight more.
An inch is a stupid example since its too tiny to matter.

Dont talk about something you know nothing about. An inch CAN make all the difference. Maybe at 200 lbs the percentage difference is too small to be noticeable, but with guys who actually do squat regularly, and with an appreciable amount of weight, making them go an inch deeper will make a noticeable difference in the amount of weight theyre using. Conversely, so will allowing tehm to cut it an inch high.

At this point its like saying they both squat parallel but one has 400 and the other 500.
What if the guy with 400 can do ATG but the guy with 500 can only do parallel? Who is stronger?

Again, the 500lb squatter will have stronger supporting muscles - abs, low back, upper back. I dont care whether you do an 1/8 squat with 400 lbs or a full oly squat, your abs, low back and upper back will only be supporting 400 lbs. It makes no difference

I don’t see the point in making something easier to lift more weight.
It’s dilusional. “I can bench 250 but if i use a smith machine and 10 guys spotting me i can lift about 400 pounds”. Your true, real strength is the raw lift.
It’s like saying i can run 100 meters in half a minute but if i build a car and only use the strength of my foot to press down the pedal, to make it “easier”, i can cover 100 meters in 3 seconds.

I know it’s a stupid example but it isn’t exactly off.

Yes it is. I deliberately pointed out that if you take it to the extreme, you have guys doing 1/8 squats and moving 2" on the pullups.

Moving a big weight, the hard way as efficiently as possible and as fast as possible will allow you to become stronger and more explosive. This is practically fact.
Moving a big weight, 4 inches up and down, pretending to have a seizure, will not give me anything.

I addressed this above, but I’m actually starting to second-guess myself, to take it even further and disagree more. Ever seen strongman? At the arnold this year, the competitors walked about 40’ with a yoke weighing 1100 lbs on their back. picking up a yoke is like doing a squat with your knees bent, I would say, less than 3". So while this is certainly not a full squat, I defy anyway to say that you do not have to monstrously strong to have the isometric strength to support half a metric ton.

And to continue the theme of isometric strength, I’d argue that the wrestlers dont even have to DO a pullup for the movement to be effective, they can simply hang there (at the TOP position, not the bottom) and go for timed holds, hanging weight from a belt, whatever. When two wrestlers are in a collar tie-up, or a clinch, they’re working tremendously hard without actually moving anythign. Theyre tensing their muscles in resistance to the other guy trying to throw him, get him off balance, whatever, and with both of them doing this at the same time, it cancels each other out, and they stand there struggling until one guy fatigues, or lets ups and the other goes for a shot or a throw.

Again, there are plenty of great strength coaches who would do the exact opposite, and treat the weights as gpp and have them perform “standard” exercises. But this keyboard warrior nonsense of a bunch of guys who’ve never trained anyone in their entire life, the enirety of their qualifications being that they work out and log onto this website, and therefore know best, is BS.

inch thing: i meant in relation to the guy squatting 500 and the other squatting 400. The B guy goes 2 inches lower than guy A.

The 400-500 pound thing, i was thinking leg strength, not lower back, abs,etc…

As for not having to do a pull up, ive been talking about the best way to train for explosive strength. I mean i assume thats why they are doing those pull ups and hang cleans or whatever. I think i wrote out “explosive” a few times to get that through.

I don’t think you understand what im saying.

So ill rewrite it very clearly. If you dont get this, then theres nothing else i can say or do for you.

“Doing an exercise with weight X with perfect form and full ROM will make you stronger (explosively or otherwise) than doing the exercise with same weight X doing half ROM and shitty form.”

NO ONE argued that carrying 400000 pounds on your back for 40 yards would make you a weakling if you only had your knees bent 3 inches.

NO ONE said that squatting 500 pounds and doing parallel is easy.

What we (I) said is that doing the SAME EXERCISE WITH THE SAME WEIGHT using GOOD FORM and FULL ROM will make you STRONGER/BETTER.[/quote]

I think the problem is that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You think you might be able to squat less than 200 pounds?

I’ve heard so much from weak people like you about form and such. And often they don’t know what they’re talking about.

Iowa just won the national championship in college D1 wrestling. Once they won 9 or 10 in a row. I don’t train wrestlers, but I know Iowa puts out good wrestlers.

How does that relate to whether or not their form is spot on? That’s for their coach who won the championship with great athletes and I assume great knowledge of wrestling to figure out.

Not some clowns on the nets that could barely squat their bodyweight and have never wrestled.

52

[quote]Scrotus wrote:
If his goal is to horse the weight around why not do heavy sandbag, stone, and tire work?[/quote]

Some people do work like that. Didn’t you ever see Shute in Vision Quest, hahaha!

I couldn’t tell you the best way to train a wrestler and I know more than a lot of people. I trust the program who won the NCAA D1 championship to know what they’re doing.

53

Okay, I finally watched the video in it’s entirety. Their form isn’t hat bad. Yes, the lifts are ballistic, but very little seemed unsafe to me and i could see some of the why to it.

At the end for shoudlrs, i do a similar exercise. I call them seated dumbell power cleans and I got them from Louie Simmons at Westside. I do a very quick lateral similiar to a highpull with the dumbells. This has done more for my traps and upper back than any other exercise.

more than shrugs and more than regular power cleans, which now I won’t do because of other issues, such as possible wrist injury.

As for some of the cleans, I don’t see a problem with them. The rows are a little ballistic, but believe it or not that sometimes works a lot better for strength than your 2up 4 down tempo. Or as Dave Tate and Jim Wendler say, no one pays attention to tempo.

Sometimes this looser form stuff actually promotes strength better than super tight form. go train at Westside some time and watch them do auxillary exercises. Their form would not be considered “good” by very many weak people here.

54

[quote]blazindave wrote:

inch thing: i meant in relation to the guy squatting 500 and the other squatting 400. The B guy goes 2 inches lower than guy A.

The 400-500 pound thing, i was thinking leg strength, not lower back, abs,etc…[/quote]

I couldnt care less what you were thinking. The squat is not an isolation exercise

See above. You think theyre training for explosive strength? I think theyre training to be stronger in movements and muscles that wrestlers use. I dont think they care less about whehter theyre training limit strength, explosive strength, metabolic strength, or strength endurance

[quote]I don’t think you understand what im saying.

So ill rewrite it very clearly. If you dont get this, then theres nothing else i can say or do for you.

“Doing an exercise with weight X with perfect form and full ROM will make you stronger (explosively or otherwise) than doing the exercise with same weight X doing half ROM and shitty form.”

NO ONE argued that carrying 400000 pounds on your back for 40 yards would make you a weakling if you only had your knees bent 3 inches.

NO ONE said that squatting 500 pounds and doing parallel is easy.

What we (I) said is that doing the SAME EXERCISE WITH THE SAME WEIGHT using GOOD FORM and FULL ROM will make you STRONGER/BETTER.[/quote]

You’re so stupid it’s palpable. what on earth makes you think that they would be using the SAME FRIGGING WEIGHT THROUGH A FULL ROM THAT THEY ARE THROUGH A HALF ROM? IT’S NOT GONNA HAPPEN. further more, in the time that it would take them to work back UP to the weight they were using, they would have wasted the opportunity to have gotten even stronger in the limited ROM they were using.

I dont know for certain that this is the best way to train wrestlers. What I do know, is that the unmitigated arrogance displayed by you especially is disgusting. You have the chutzpah to talk about full ROM or perfect form - please tell me the disadvantage FOR AN ATHLETE of doing 1 bd presses rather than full ROM bench presses? What magic occurs between that last 2" to get to parallel in a squat?

You have the gall to talk about wrestling and strength training, two things you obviously know nothing about. I take it that you compete in endurance sports, and for that I commend you. But your 200 lb squat is evidence that your knowledge of strength is vicarious and theoretical only.

55

There’s another thing that keyboard lifters forget about these athletes. they also wrestle or play football. they have limited time to train as mandated by the NCAA. They don’t lift to just lift more, they lift to do better at wrestling, football etc.

I don’t know the exact amount of hours, but for football is was 20 to maybe 25 a week allowed for practice. wrestling might be the same. This will change the how you lift in regards to a few factors. Remember, they must also practice wrestling technique and work on endurance.

56

[quote]tom63 wrote:

I couldn’t tell you the best way to train a wrestler and I know more than a lot of people. I trust the program who won the NCAA D1 championship to know what they’re doing.

[/quote]

Sometimes, it’s not the program that improves the player, but the motivation and dedication that the player puts in the program that improves him or her. Someone earlier in this thread said that the weight training performed by Iowa is working because the players are making this work for themselves.

Using as my high school for example, I can tell you this: we, the freshman football team, only used the school’s workout for 2 and 1/2 months, but we went 9-1. That one loss was a 20-19 score because our coach wanted to go for the two point to win the game instead of the one point to tie it. Well, what has this got to do with anything? Although the coaches trained us in the weight room, we were just good football players, and we made the program work for us.

I have had many complaints about the program at our school, but their are good aspects about it. That is the same with the Iowa program. The hang cleans are good, but that is basically it. I have wrestled, although for only one year, and I still say that technique should be the main priority to prevent injuries; my dad was once a trained wrestler and trained at sambo back when we still lived in Ukraine, and he said that the technique presented in the video was horrible, useless, and dangerous.

Just because someone trains accomplished athletes that work extremely hard and are the best of the best does not automatically make them the best strength coach out their. The way you need to see if he is any good is take an average wrestler and put him through the program. If he makes substantial improvements, than the coach knew what he was doing. But just slightly improving some of the best atheletes is not a respectable accomplishment.

57

[quote]ukrainian wrote:
tom63 wrote:

I couldn’t tell you the best way to train a wrestler and I know more than a lot of people. I trust the program who won the NCAA D1 championship to know what they’re doing.

Sometimes, it’s not the program that improves the player, but the motivation and dedication that the player puts in the program that improves him or her. Someone earlier in this thread said that the weight training performed by Iowa is working because the players are making this work for themselves.

Using as my high school for example, I can tell you this: we, the freshman football team, only used the school’s workout for 2 and 1/2 months, but we went 9-1. That one loss was a 20-19 score because our coach wanted to go for the two point to win the game instead of the one point to tie it. Well, what has this got to do with anything? Although the coaches trained us in the weight room, we were just good football players, and we made the program work for us.

I have had many complaints about the program at our school, but their are good aspects about it. That is the same with the Iowa program. The hang cleans are good, but that is basically it. I have wrestled, although for only one year, and I still say that technique should be the main priority to prevent injuries; my dad was once a trained wrestler and trained at sambo back when we still lived in Ukraine, and he said that the technique presented in the video was horrible, useless, and dangerous.

Just because someone trains accomplished athletes that work extremely hard and are the best of the best does not automatically make them the best strength coach out their. The way you need to see if he is any good is take an average wrestler and put him through the program. If he makes substantial improvements, than the coach knew what he was doing. But just slightly improving some of the best atheletes is not a respectable accomplishment.[/quote]

The technique is not that bad actually. And Iowa doesn’t have average wrestlers so it’s hard to see how an average guy will do with this stuff.

This program seems to put a lot of work into upper back strength which makes sense to me. I’m sure they do other things that we didn’t see.

Now, I did see some guys make some form errors, but the form isn’t bad because it’s quick. It’s bad because they let their shoulders stretch to far on the negative on a seated row, for instance. Some form could be tweaked, but the speed is okay if you do getthe form better for some guys.

But you’re right about the program in that because they’re the best it doesn’t make the program the best. But also, any high level program has the best athletes you can imagine. Like it or not, average guys that work hard don’t make it to this level.

Working hard separates the great from the more great and the more great from the all time great. It doesn’tmake good great.

58

The 200lb squat thing was a guess. Like i said, i dont know how much i squat.
I never said they “had” to use a full weight. I was simply stating that if you can do an exercise in full ROM with good form, as opposed to doing half a ROM with shitty form, it means you are stronger. Same weight is used.
That’s basically all i said.
Am i wrong, yes or no?
I also never stated i knew anything about wrestling or weight lifting. What we’re doing is called discussing, which last time i checked was the point of “forums”. I’ve said it here a few times that im a complete amateur when it comes to weight lifting.
I argue with people, check out what they say, check it with what other people say, and then figure out the best way to train(what the ‘truth’ is) from that.
Get your head out of your ass please, thanks.

59

[quote]blazindave wrote:

The 200lb squat thing was a guess. Like i said, i dont know how much i squat.
I never said they “had” to use a full weight. I was simply stating that if you can do an exercise in full ROM with good form, as opposed to doing half a ROM with shitty form, it means you are stronger. Same weight is used.
That’s basically all i said.
Am i wrong, yes or no?
I also never stated i knew anything about wrestling or weight lifting. What we’re doing is called discussing, which last time i checked was the point of “forums”. I’ve said it here a few times that im a complete amateur when it comes to weight lifting.
I argue with people, check out what they say, check it with what other people say, and then figure out the best way to train(what the ‘truth’ is) from that.
Get your head out of your ass please, thanks.[/quote]

So you argue, THEN check things out, THEN figure the best way to train. It’s pretty clear I’m not the one with his head up his ass. You’re going about this completely bass ackwards. Shut up, observe, conduct some experiments by trial and error. Those should be your first three steps in lifting. The fact that you think there is one single best way to train - the ‘truth’ as you put it - is evidence of how much you have to learn.

The point of “discussion” on the forums is it’s supposed to be done with people who know what theyre talking about. There are many things I dont do well, but you dont see me going to any websites and criticizing how people draw, play the guitar, write computer programs, or whatever.

For the last time, the question is not ‘who is stronger, the guy doing a half ROM or the guy doing the full ROM WITH THE SAME WEIGHT’ Going through a half-ROM gives you a mechanical advantage, so you’re SUPPOSED to be using more weight than you would going full ROM. Using the same weight as a guy with a mechanical DISadvantage would mean you’re weaker. This is nothing ground-breaking

The only question, which is a valid one, is FOR ATHLETES will you derive a greater training effect with a full ROM and isolating the muscles worked (which consequently means using LESS weight) or will you get a great training effect with a restricted ROM, turning everything into a compound exercise (which will allow you to use more weight overall)

60

[quote]blazindave wrote:
I was simply stating that if you can do an exercise in full ROM with good form, as opposed to doing half a ROM with shitty form, it means you are stronger. Same weight is used.
That’s basically all i said.
Am i wrong, yes or no?[/quote]

Well duh… I’m pretty sure everyone in the whole wide world knows that.

KBC is specifically talking about using MORE weight thru a slightly shorted ROM tho. So your example is null and void.