[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Can anybody here actually provide some examples for what they have used to increase their vertical jumps and/or the jumps of others? That would be a lot better than all of this pointless mental masturbation.[/quote]
Agreed.
I increased my vertical by 1-2 inches by increasing my 5RM by 30 pounds from 160 to 190.
My biggest gains were not from going 1xBW to 2xBW squat, but from speeding up squatting with 2xBW. Ofcourse I suppose I have increased my rep-max also, but I think it’s more relevant to me not being explosive enough.
[quote]Desideratus15 wrote:
I found this post over at the CF forum, I thought it was relevant, sorry I don’t know how to bold anything else I would. The paragraph starting with “From the above” is probably most relevant.
"The concept of Lombard’s Paradox has recently been a point of discussion on the Supertraining List. I thought the group would find this interesting.
This is the post I submitted 6-17-2002.
Here is an excerpt from:
Relative activity of hip and knee extensors in sprinting – Implications for training
Klaus Wiemann and Gunter Tidow
New Studies in Athletics
10(1): 29-49, 1995
from page 32-33:
2.3 The hamstrings as knee extensors
The hamstrings (HS; m. semitendinosus, m. semimembranosus, m. biceps femoris caput longum) also act as extensors at the hip joint. The reason for the hesitant consideration of these muscles as prime movers during the sprint seem to be the fact that the biarticular HS are generally considered not only as hip extensors but also as knee flexors, whereas a knee extension is demanded, during the support phase of the sprint.
However, as early as in 1903, LOMBARD drew attention to the â??paradoxicalâ?? function of biarticular muscles. Fischer (1927), Molbech (On the paradoxical effect of some two-joint muscles. Acta Morphologica Neerlando-Scandinavica. 6: 171-178, 1965) and Andrews (A general method for determining the functional role of a muscle. J Biomech Eng. 107(4): 348-353) described this paradoxical function in more detail, and Carlsoo & Molbech (The functions of certain two-joint muscles in a closed muscular chain. Acta Morphologica Neerlando-Scandinavica. 6: 377-386, 1966), Gregor et al. (1985) and Andrews (The functional roles of the hamstrings and quadriceps during cycling: Lombard’s Paradox revisited. J Biomech. 20(6): 565-575, 1987) applied this paradox to the function of the hamstrings in cycling.
According to this principle and provided that the free end of the two-link kinematic chain of the leg is guided (inertia, support reaction), the HS have not only a hip extending function but, paradoxically, also a knee extending function. Apart from a short note made by Donskoi (1961), the so-called LOMBARD paradox has been applied only recently to the function of the HS during sprinting (Wiemann 1989, 1990, and 1991).
By means of vector splitting and model formation, it can be shown that according to the LOMBARD paradox and unless the knee angle is smaller than 145 degrees, the HS during the support phase of the sprint bring about both a hip extension and a knee extension. To this extent, the HS organize exactly that movement â?? namely a synchronous hip and knee extension â?? which is required in the support phase.
The action of the HS becomes especially clear, if one observes the pelvis from below during a leg position corresponding to the front support in the sprint. One can see that the HS extend, like reins, from the ischial bone to the lower leg, exactly in the direction of the pull of the leg under the pelvis during the support phase.
However, in previous cinematographic and electromyographic studies of sprinting, the HS were either given little attention (Simonsen et al. Activity of mono- and biarticular leg muscles during sprint running. Eur J Appl Physiol. 54: 524-532, 1985; Mero & Komi. Electromyographic activity in sprinting at speeds ranging from sub- maximal to supra-maximal. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 19(3): 266-274, 1987) or they were still treated as knee flexors (Bober et al. The mechanics of the leg swing in running. Techniques in Athletics, Cologne, 7-9 June 1990 Conference proceedings, Vol. 2, pp. 507-510; McClay et al. Muscle activity in running. Biomechanics of Distance Running. Chapter 6: 165-186, 1990). Wood (Optimal performance criteria and limiting factors in sprint running.
New Studies in Athletics. 2: 55-63, 1986) who at least regards the contractility of the HS as the limiting factor in the sprint, also identifies the HS as knee flexors. Even Lemaire & Robertson (Power in Sprinting. Track and Field Journal. 35: 13-17, 1989) do not make a clear statement about the contentious function of the HS in the knee joint, although they recommend that more attention should be paid, during strength training for sprinting to the hip flexors and extensors than to the muscles affecting the knee joint.
Only Wiemann, on the basis of electromyographic pilot study (Wiemann. Die Muskelaktivitat beim Laufen. Leistungssport. 4: 27-31, 1986) and the results of vector analysis (Wiemann 1989 and 1991) postulated the extensor function of the HS at the knee in the support phase of the sprint. Jollenbeck et al. (1990), in experiments, revealed a relationship between the length and force of the HS and sprinting speed.
From the above we can assume that, in sprinting, the movement of the support leg, from the moment the thigh begins to move down from the high knee lift position to the completion of the push-off, is caused by two muscle â??reinsâ??, namely
(a) by the HS, which form a long biarticular rein from the ischial bone to the lower leg, the m. semitendinosus and the m. semimembranosus forming the inner rein and the m. biceps femoris caput longum forming the outer rein, and
(b) by a short, uniarticular rein running from the pelvis to the thigh, consisting of the GM as the outer traction rope and the AM as the inner traction rope.
During the support phase these muscle loops produce a force which is directed horizontally backward, the reaction to which propels the body forward. However, the backward rotating torque, in the form of the â??sprinterâ??s forward leanâ??.
It can be assumed that, in the course of the sprint cycle, the activity of the synergistic partners within both reins must be adjusted to one another, in order consistently to direct both the free leg, in the swinging phase, and the knee of the support leg, through the sagittal movement plane.
"[/quote]
Fucking soft-ass nerds!!! A real athlete doesnt have time to read all this crap! He has to train!
Kids learn complex motor skills through play and sports and not thouug bloody kinesiology encyclopedia!
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
This thread has gotten completely retarded. If you don’t think strong quads are helpful in running fast or jumping high than I wonder if you’ve ever even played a sport in your life. Is there a point where you need to be worrying about strength ratios and such?
Yeah probably but we have people who can’t even dunk a basketball worrying about exact strength ratios when at that intermediate level both your strength and your speed-strength levels are in a state of flux such that it would be impossible to even pinpoint such a ratio. I think some people need to be worrying more about head injuries than torn quads.
BTW, Adrian Wilson has been to Pro Bowl and also set an NFL record for a defensive back by recording 8 sacks in a season.
In a last-ditch effort to salvage this thread:
Can anybody here actually provide some examples for what they have used to increase their vertical jumps and/or the jumps of others? That would be a lot better than all of this pointless mental masturbation.[/quote]
Awesome post.
Thanks for the contributions guys.
Gonzalez, you sound a lot like me. When I got to college to play volleyball I could not do a proper squat with 135 anywhere close to parallel and this was at 6’3" and incredibly scrawny at 165 pounds. Fortunately I had a strength coach who introduced me to a lot of the Westside principles. In the beginning I followed the basic template pretty much word for word until he gradually showed me how to adjust it for myself and for my sport.
I have tried a lot of different “programs” or philosphies, inclduding “traditional” Westside, WS4SB, Inno-Sport and CT’s Pendulum Training. They all have great merit and work well and I can’t say what has worked best becasue they all added to my knowledge. The Parisi stuff is fantastic as well. I am now at 220 and increased my standing vertical from 29.5" to 36" over the period of a few years.
For me when I look back at how I’ve made progress it has actually been a fairly simple recipe:
1.) Do explosive stuff year round. This doesn’t have to be intensive, but I never go a week without jumping in some sort. Jumping is a practiced skill and needs to be done at least once a week in some fashion, IMO. Also this is important for keeping work capacity high.
2.) Get stronger. Pretty simple and not necessarily related to the powerlifts. Squats are good but equally important, IMO, are glute-hams, back extensions, good mornings and 1-leg lifts like split squats, lunges and step ups.
3.) Once or twice a year I drop the strength work almost entirely and do around 3 weeks of reactive work. This tends to actually be where I make the most progress but it rarely lasts more than 2 or 3 weeks. For instance for about 6 months I couldn’t get my jump higher than 34" so I contstructed a 3-week block where I did depth drops on one day and reactive squats (freefalling to the hole and bouncing back up) on another day. The depth drops I alternated sets of 3" below my max vert and 3" above my max vert. That is not very high but I don’t have great reactivity so that was the right height for me. On the reactive squats I did 135 pounds on one set and 185 (a bit under 50%) on the other set. After 3 weeks of that I hit 36". After three more weeks of that I couldn’t get over 35" so that is a lesson learned.
Also one thing that I like is 3-week cycles. Louie has talked about this endlessly and I think it is true. One thing that I have found success with, and so have several other guys on my team, is doing box jumps in 3-week waves. We pick one variation and do 10 sets of 3 with our body weight on the first week. The next week we do the same volume but wear a weighted vest with 10% of our bodyweight. The third week we wear a vest with 20% of our bodyweight. The next cycle we pick a different variation of which we have about 10 to choose from. This is a lot of fun as well.
good post
Another great post Jtrinsey, I will be saving it to my hard drive for future reference.
Do you use power cleans or power snatches in your training? Or do you just use exercises such as weighted box jumps, jump squats, DE squats etc to train the qualities that O-lifts can be used to develop (rate of force development etc)?
Here is an interesting post by Glenn Pendlay that I copied from another site. It’s mostly about Micheal Wilson fom the Globetrotters who claims to have a 55 inch vert, but also talks about bullshit vertical jump figures in general.
"hooked, here is the thing about vertical jumping. no offense to animal here, as i am NOT trying to call him a liar and anything is possible, but everyone and their dog claims a high 30’s vertical or a 40+ vertical, and VERY FEW of those claims are accurate. at the olympic training center, they have measured the world record holder in the high jump, and he had a vertical of under 40 inches, thats a fact. thats a standing vertical off of two feet, no step.
i have measured the vertical jumps of many basketball teams, good college teams and also some pro ball players. the normal protocol is that 10 players claim a 40+ jump, and in the end, the best jump on the team is 33 or 34 inches. ive seen guys who could to behind the back michael jordan type dunks and measure 33 on the standing vertical. i doubt there are more than 3 or 4 players in the NBA with standing verticals over 40 inches.
ive measured some of these guys who supposedly have 45 or 46 inch verticals, and in reality they are 38-39. im not saying there arent freaks out there, there probably are, but 99.99% of the guys who claim 40+ verticals are bullting. go to ANY internet forum and there are always 5 guys claiming 40 verticals… in reality ive measured a LOT of top athletes in various sports and ive NEVER seen a 40 inch vertical, although ive measured about 100 people who claimed one prior to testing.
i am not calling anyone a liar. i didnt say that a 40inch vertical was the highest ever recorded, and im sure it isnt in fact. what i did say is that many, many of the very best athletes have had their verticals measured at the olympic training center… and two olympic lifters had the two highest verticals ever measured there, both low 40’s (i think one was 41 and the other was 42, might have been 43).
as for the rest of my post, ill stand behind every work of it. ive been around a lot of really good athletes and ive seeen a LOT of people who claimed big verticals, and without fail when they did a true standing vertical it wasnt as high as they claimed. a true 40 inch standing vertical is really, really rare
as i explained on the other jumping thread in great detail, it would take a 6’5" guy about a mid 40’s vertical to dunk on a 12 foot rim. at that heigth, and with a 55inch vertical, you could get your forehead 12 inches below a 12 FOOT RIM FROM A STANDING NO STEP JUMP!!! and with a running start, a guy with a 55inch vertical could get his head about 6-7 inches below a 12 FOOT RIM!!! now, if this were possible, hed be dunking FAR above 12 feet, as we all know you dont have to get your head that close to the rim to dunk.
well, if that is true then good for him. however, i have measured several people who held “school records” in the vertical jump (thise were major colleges with well respected basketball programs) and found their true standing vertical to be 8-10 inches below their supposed “record”.
now again, just like i NEVER said that 40 inches was an all time best, im not saying that this is impossible… im just saying that in all situations, and there have been a lot of them, when i have personally measured guys like this who claimed fantastic verticals the reality didnt measure up to the claim.
as a point of interest, i am just a bit over 6 feet tall, about 6’2" or so in regular tennis shoes. my flat footed vertical reach is about 8’2". to dunk, you have to be able to touch the rim with a point on your wrist just below the joint, which for me is about 9" below my fingertip. in other words i would have to get 9 inches above the rim to dunk. so this means that i could “dunk” standing flat footed without jumping on a rim about 7’7" tall. so to dunk flat footed with no step on a 10 foot rim id need a vertical of about 29 inches. to do this on a 12 foot rim id need a vertical of about 53 inches.
now, a 6’5" basketball player with long arms would be able to standing reach at least 5 inches higher than me. so hed need a standing vertical of about 48 inches to dunk on a 12 foot rim, thats a standing dunk off of two feet with no step. now, we all know that his dunk was off a running start. most of the good basketball players i have seen who are good jumpers can get at least 4-6 inches higher off a good running start than they can standing flat footed. that means a guy his height probably needs a standing vertical of about 42-44 inches to dunk on a 12 foot rim.
now, if he had a true, standing vertical of 55 inches (which would equate to a close to 60 inch vertical if he tood a running start), i would have to think that he could dunk on a rim FAR higher than 12 feet. in fact, if he had a true vertical of 55 inches, he would be able to dunk well above 12 feet from a standing, flat-footed position!!! and we all know he couldnt do that…
this is why i question these numbers, because in the past i have NEVER found them accurate, and becasue they just dont add up.
a 6foot guy able to get 29 inches in the air with a running start can dunk. this equates to a true vertical of less than 29 inches for almost everyone. a 6’5" guy with a 33 or 34 inch vertical can do crazy, weird dunks, all kind s of crowd pleasing stuff. a 6’5" guy with a 38" vertical can usually get his head even with the rim from a running start. a 6’5" guy with a true 45" inch vertical could get his CHIN ABOVE THE RIM with a running start!!!
to put this another way, a guy with a standing, 55 inch vertical who stands 6’5" tall, with a 4’7" (55 inches) vertical could get his forehead only 12 inches below a 12 foot rim from a 2 feet, standing jump!!! and if you add a few inches for a running start, you could reasonable approximate that a 6’5" guy with a 55" standing vertical could get his forehead about 6-7 inches belwo the rim of a 12 foot goal. now, are you going to tell me that this guy could get his forehead less than 8 inches below a 12 foot goal, yet could dunk no higher than 12 feet??? not likely, to say the least!!!
my guess is that the guy is a true phenomenom that has a standing vertical somewhere in the mid 40’s… and thats truly awesome and more than adequate for a guy his heigth to dunk at 12 feet."
many people/coaches/tester’s have people reach up with both hands on a vertech etc… if they reached up as high as possible with one hand all of their verts would be lower… this is common knowledge…
but some people who get these results have no idea about that, so they just claim a 40 when it’s a 37 (which is nuts) because that’s what they were told.
but ya 40 inch vert is an insane measurement to reach… too many people think it’s easily achievable.
some people dont reach up all the way when they are getting the bottom reach(whatever that is called in real life) and that can add a couple inches to the final measurement. when i reach up its like 8’2" but i can get that five inches lower if i wanted.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Another great post Jtrinsey, I will be saving it to my hard drive for future reference.
Do you use power cleans or power snatches in your training? Or do you just use exercises such as weighted box jumps, jump squats, DE squats etc to train the qualities that O-lifts can be used to develop (rate of force development etc)?[/quote]
I have never done cleans or snatches other than just messing around with them randomly and I have never had any of the athletes I work with (I have trained high school athletes the past couple years and will be starting full time with that soon) do them. I have used power jerks as a main component from time to time for volleyball players but am still undecided on that exercise. I am more more a fan of doing a variety of jumps to develop jumping ability. Louie talks about how doing a wide variety of special exercises for the squat will help make you a better squatter and I think the same is true for jumping, especially for younger kids.
I really like Martin Rooney’s idea (I think this is who I stole it from) of training 4 days a week: one linear speed, one lateral speed and two with weights. For a sport like volleyball which doesn’t have a high linear speed demand I just switch it to one lateral speed day, one day of jumps and two days of weights. I think this sort of structure works really well, at certain times you can emphasize the weights and make the speed/jumping days easier (lower the volume, use less-intensive exercises, etc.) and at certain times you can make the weights easier and pick up the intensiveness of the sprints/jumps and that is the time to use stuff like plyos, etc.
I think oly lifts definitely could be used with great effectiveness, I’ve just never really gotten into them for some reason. I think the key is just to create a template that you can be flexible with and make sure you are addressing the basics. Also I think it is important to be able to progress gradually. Speed-strength can fluctuate so much so what is the point of doing an intensive “plyo” program that might put 4" on your vert in a few weeks but you won’t be able to touch that number again for a year?
[quote]adarqui wrote:
many people/coaches/tester’s have people reach up with both hands on a vertech etc… if they reached up as high as possible with one hand all of their verts would be lower… this is common knowledge…
but some people who get these results have no idea about that, so they just claim a 40 when it’s a 37 (which is nuts) because that’s what they were told.
but ya 40 inch vert is an insane measurement to reach… too many people think it’s easily achievable.[/quote]
That is very true. I measure everybody’s vert with a two-handed reach simply because it is easiest to get a consistent measurement on. You can just have them stand there with both hands up and push their shoulders up. A one-handed reach is a bit harder to measure. To me the actual vert is not as important, what matters is if you progress using the same measurement. I actually don’t even record the vert after the first time, I just measure what height I/they touch.
Agreed about what Pendlay was saying. My 36" vert is “combine-style”, if I am using head height it would be 32" from the stand. I can throw it off the backboard and dunk hard with one or two hands, windmill (when it doesn’t fly out of my hands), jump two-footed and dunk from well outside of the key, etc. I do think there are a few people in the NFL with a legit 40" vert. Every year at the combine there are a couple guys who put up 45" verts and that is going to put them right about 40" legit. Those are some true freaks though! I would say a guy with 32"+ “combine vert” is a good athlete and the same thing for a girl with 20"+.
i do the same exact thing with the people i train… and i use two handed reach so i can compare it easily to combine etc…
That’s where my feet are with 30" vertical jump (the glass of the door starts 31" from the ground, subtract an inch for rounding). Maybe not all of the NFL Combine numbers are exact, but they can’t differentiate with more than 2-3 inches I suppose, so there must be a lot of 40"+ jumpers there. Personally, I’ve seen a guy from Bulgarian Weightlifting team who jumped around forty - it looked like the gravity worked a second or two after he took off the ground 
Yeah, when it comes to tracking your progress, being perfectly accurate is less important than making sure you are consistent in the testing method used each time.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Here is an interesting post by Glenn Pendlay that I copied from another site. It’s mostly about Micheal Wilson fom the Globetrotters who claims to have a 55 inch vert, but also talks about bullshit vertical jump figures in general.
…
[/quote]
If I received a nickel for every person I’ve ever heard claim they can jump 32"+ or run a sub 4.8 40, and gave back a quarter for every person who actually could, I’d still be rich.
Hi jtrinsey, great posts as always.
As for my progress, you basically spelled it out to a “T”. I got my squat up to ~1.5 * bodyweight and gained about 4" with my two foot jump. Then increased it further, but made no real additional gains. What I didn’t do was #1 below since I cared/care more about weight room numbers (I’m a “washed up meathead”, or would be had I actually been good at sports, what can I say?).
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
1.) Do explosive stuff year round. This doesn’t have to be intensive, but I never go a week without jumping in some sort. Jumping is a practiced skill and needs to be done at least once a week in some fashion, IMO. Also this is important for keeping work capacity high.
[/quote]
I think this hits it right on the money. Without practicing being explosive, and more specifically jumping, you will never really progress past a certain point. Everyone has a certain “natural” ability to use their strength in an explosive manner, but you need to practice to improve this.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Here is an interesting post by Glenn Pendlay that I copied from another site. It’s mostly about Micheal Wilson fom the Globetrotters who claims to have a 55 inch vert, but also talks about bullshit vertical jump figures in general.
"hooked, here is the thing about vertical jumping. no offense to animal here, as i am NOT trying to call him a liar and anything is possible, but everyone and their dog claims a high 30’s vertical or a 40+ vertical, and VERY FEW of those claims are accurate. at the olympic training center, they have measured the world record holder in the high jump, and he had a vertical of under 40 inches, thats a fact. thats a standing vertical off of two feet, no step.
[/quote]
This doesn’t surprise me in the least. Highjumpers are all one-foot jumpers with great reactive ability (something that isn’t displayed as much in a standing two foot vert test). I bet his running vert is at least 8" above his two foot standing vert.
I do obviously agree with your/Pendlay’s comments. Standing vert’s over 35" are rare. I remember the dunk comp that Vince Carter won. I don’t think he ever got more than 36" off the ground (although Francis got 40") and that was with several steps.