…
Thank you Kelly… saving me typing…well said, and much more concise than I would have put together.
All great points here and it seems as though we are coming to a consensus on a couple of things.
-
It is of paramount importance to not only train in a sport-specific manner, but also in an individual manner. Identification of strengths and weaknesses is the first step and then training must be designed with this in mind.
-
There is an identified general approach to the way that we construct the programs of athletes in relation to the needs of the athlete. Where the athlete falls on the continuum of development is what determines where we start them out, but at that point it is still pretty much the same process- maintain or increase current quality attributes and work like hell to bring up problem areas.
I say this because the recurring themes in everybody’s posts are evident. Nuttal, Kelly, Jumanji, and others are in agreement here. Not to try to ride you guys lightning here, but my own methods in the past were based around the themes of individuality and trying to maximize the total curve of an athlete’s expression of force. Strength to rate to speed and let the body comp, weight, etc. fall where it may. Some exceptions are noted, i.e. very thin or overweight athletes, but the point is not to look like a player but to be a player.
All this is to say, many of the same methods are being employed by all of the coaches posting here and maybe the differences are brought about by the subtle variances among the athlete pools we work with. In other words, there can never be a single “right way”.
One of my sayings with regard to skill work is that, “no two great pitchers look exactly alike, but they all do a few things the same way.” I think Nuttall brought up a point that was very similar.
For the record, my past work (in terms of system construct at least) was very similar to what I have read of Kelly’s work. I am certain that we were not employing the same exercises, methods of movement, etc., but the flow and modalities of force and rate manipulation are very much alike.
I think this is where I start falling behind. First of all, my understanding of the process of plyometric, elastic, tendon dominant action is limited. I am now getting the point that a certain amount of relative strength (stiffness) is necessary before the muscles can be counted on to lock up and allow the elastic action of the tendons to create maximum RFD. This is the main reason why sprinters must be strong.
I see this as being extremely important to elastic throwing and hitting with my athletes and realize now that there is no mystery as to why a relatively weak guy throws 100 and a powerful guy (as measured by traditional methods) throws 80. The problem doesn’t always just lie in the lack of power (although it definitely could), it sometimes lies in the lack of a reliable means of assessing specific power. In other words, some generate a great VJ through great relative strength and a longer application and others generate less force but at a greater rate. It is obvious what we need for pitchers- the latter or speed based expression. So we must identify a way to assess the specific elastic qualities that a skill utilizes. The most obvious one is actual performance, but we need others to test the effectiveness of the methods employed in order to make adjustments to them as well. Any ideas?
It is obvious that these qualities are specific to certain movements, joints, muscles, etc. and this is where skill identification begins to come in. Find the athletes who already exhibit the required traits to succeed in a given activity and maximize from there. In other words, don’t try to make a shot putter into a long jumper. Scouts look for the fastball because it is the most talent dependant attribute a pitcher expresses and therefore is the hardest thing to improve on. That is precisely the job of the performance specialist.
Here are my questions:
Is there any referenceable data on the subject of quantifiable necessary relative strength levels that must be present in order to begin maximizing rate qualities?
I know from Kelly’s writing that there are general guidelines as to the bench press for 1RM and % of 1RM for 3 reps in 3 seconds(60%+ I seem to recall) that are intended to help identify RFD deficiency. Are there recommendations for other movements? Are there any other diagnostic methods that can be employed to identify deficiencies on the force curve?
What are some methods for teaching the GTC inhibition in order to allow “lock up”?
If there are specific resources out there that contain this and any other info you guys feel is pertinent, please guide us to them. I am not looking for a free lesson here, just a road map.
Whoever brought up the point about there being a general lack of learning and education resources out there- GREAT POINT! I get people asking me all the time how to become a strength coach and I have only one answer: READ, READ, READ. Most college programs of study are over-glorified gym teacher prep. I say this and consider myself lucky to have gotten as good an education as I did, but I tell people all the time that the most important thing that college did for me was give me access to a great library and internet access (this was before everybody had a pc- way back in the early 90’s).
Anyway, any thoughts you guys have are greatly appreciated and sorry about the length of the post.
Ti
You also have to weave the individual specific plan with the yearly plan and that’s where a lot of people make mistakes. In other words, the one thing that might increase your abilities the most RIGHT NOW, may not lead to the best long term results.
For example, Verkhoshansky gives this example of sequencing training. One group, we’ll call group A, did 6 weeks of shock training (depth jumps), 6 weeks of heavy barbell exercises, and 6 weeks of jumps with weights followed by 6 weeks of jumps or something similar.
Another group we’ll call B did 6 weeks of basic jumps, 6 weeks of heavy barbell exercises, 6 weeks of jumps with weights, followed by shock training (depth jumps).
In the short term group A smoked group B yet stagnated after the first six week period. Group B improved gradually over the entire course of the 24 week cycle and ended up smoking group A by a long shot overall. In group A, the most intense and specific training was the 6 week block of shock training. By introducing this block too early it caused the body to adapt to this threshold of intensity and thus the other training blocks were unable to generate a response.
Other experiments demonstrate the same thing. Introduce highly intense specific means too early and you may gain a lot in the short term but stagnate early and not gain much in the long term.
The careful sequencing of training allows the functional abilities to gradually increase as one introduces more and more direct means. In fact in group B absolute strength continues to increase through the final 2 phases.
This is just something to consider. The one thing that will produce the best results for you right now may not be what you necessarily need to produce your best results X months from now.
Well I put up a $100 bounty 6 months ago for the first person that could show me a guy with a 35 + inch vertical who couldn’t squat at least 1.5 x bodyweight and haven’t heard from anybody yet :). Having said that, it’s hard to give any hard and fast rules because structural differences change everything. A 200 lb bench for a guy with an 8 foot wingspan is a lot different then a 200 lb bench for a guy with a 4 foot wingspan.
There are a ton of them. You’ll never need them all but here’s some to get you started…First take al ok at relative strenght levels since these are the easiest to correct…the ability to do basics like pullups, pushups, bodyweight squats, dips etc…Compare the first 20 yards of a sprint to the 2nd 20. The first 10 yards to the rest…compare the bounce depth jump to a countermovement jump…compare a running bilateral jump to a running unilateral jump. Compare standing single leg triple jump to standing broad jump (look for SLJ to be ~3x broad jump), the 1 rep per second bench press test, drop and catch bench press test, compare the snatch to the front squat (providing one has experience with both - look for snatch to be 75% of fs, compare speed squat at 60% to max squat. Compare the ability to turn the system on and off at low forces (the speed at which one can tap the hands or feet in place) vs the ability to do it when you add force such as their bodyweight. With a tendo or something similar you can eliminate a lot of the guesswork in the weight room.
eccentric strength is the main factor responsible for the muscles ability to “lock up” in plyometric movemetns. Obviously anything that makes one stronger along with enhanceing the rate the muscles turn on…Depth drops are also a direct high tension exercise that will enahnce this as well especially the rate of the “lock up”.
Great response Kelly! Thanks for the info. I am reading everything on your site right now, so I am sure there is more great info to come.
I couldn’t tell you the times that I have had conversations with athletes and parents concerning the long range effects of training and not rushing specificity until the general base of skill and fitness is built. (note that I am not referring to linear periodization here- just that one must be strong to be powerful)
I even see this in all of the skill training that I do. I always get parents who want their ten year old daughter to throw hard and have four pitches. They just don’t get it that maybe she will be more effective now if she throws 55 with no control because little kids swing at everything. However, in two or three years, when the hitters have learned the strike zone, she won’t win anything no matter how hard she throws. Not to mention the fact that a kid that age has neither the fine motor skill nor the resiliency in the joint structures to safely and effectively throw moving pitches.
More specific to the discussion, I get kids all the time who throw hard but are heading down the road to injury due to poor mechanics. The first thing I have to do is to convince them that when we start correcting mechanics, it’s okay that their velocity decreases. They are learning new movement patterns and they simply can’t relax long enough to “let it fly”. In time, they always get comfortable and throw harder than before due to better efficiency. This is an extreme example, but I had one girl gain 9 mph on her fastball in two months at 14 years old. The first month, I spent a bunch of time trying to convince the parents to be patient because she had already been training with a famous pitching coach who puts out a lot of videos and is well known. he told them that she couldn’t get any faster and they were worried about her first month slow down. After the second month, her dad bought me a steak dinner and started bringing in more clients!
Sorry I got off topic a bit there, but your points concerning being more far sighted in the planning of programs are well taken.
This thread should go down as a golden example of what the performance enhancement world should be- coaches cooperating to enhance the efforts of other coaches. The athletes are the most important thing here- not our reps or our wallets. If you help the kids, everything else will fall into place. I even share pitching info with other instructors when they ask. Most would rather argue and try to beat the other coaches out of their business. Greed is an ugly thing.
Ti
[quote]Kelly Baggett wrote:
You also have to weave the individual specific plan with the yearly plan and that’s where a lot of people make mistakes. In other words, the one thing that might increase your abilities the most RIGHT NOW, may not lead to the best long term results.[/quote]
Is following Verkhoshanky’s recommendation here the best idea? I think this goes against the principle of working on you weaknesses.
Ex: You train a basketball player with a terrible vertical, but his weight room numbers are great. Your season is 6 months or so away. Should you follow the recommended progression and continue to use weights, then jumps, jumps with weights, plyos, etc.(not really working you weaknesses but following the best results given by the data)? Or should you address the vertical jump immediately with jumps, plyos, etc., then once that is up to par find a new weakness and address it (not following the order recommended). Obviously appropriate maintenance loads would be used for things not being emphasized, but which way would be better?
I tend to think that a Westside or Inno-Sport style would advocate addressing the weakness immediately then finding a new one and tackling it.
Is my logic sound?
[quote]Yoda-x wrote:
Kelly Baggett wrote:
You also have to weave the individual specific plan with the yearly plan and that’s where a lot of people make mistakes. In other words, the one thing that might increase your abilities the most RIGHT NOW, may not lead to the best long term results.
Is following Verkhoshanky’s recommendation here the best idea? I think this goes against the principle of working on you weaknesses.
Ex: You train a basketball player with a terrible vertical, but his weight room numbers are great. Your season is 6 months or so away. Should you follow the recommended progression and continue to use weights, then jumps, jumps with weights, plyos, etc.(not really working you weaknesses but following the best results given by the data)? Or should you address the vertical jump immediately with jumps, plyos, etc., then once that is up to par find a new weakness and address it (not following the order recommended). Obviously appropriate maintenance loads would be used for things not being emphasized, but which way would be better?
I tend to think that a Westside or Inno-Sport style would advocate addressing the weakness immediately then finding a new one and tackling it.
Is my logic sound?[/quote]
Here are my thoughts on the above example, and I am assuming we are talking about an experienced male athlete, who has well developed legs and no apparent knee, ankle or hip problems, and who has proper jumping and landing technique. Further, I generally encourage athletes to work on their strengths and manage their weaknesses, but that’s just me. Vertical jump is something that does need to be worked on for b’ball or v’ball. Not only does it increase the vert, but helps develop explosive movement.
At six months out, I may consider having him do some basic jumping exercises, while seriously continuing the strength work.
At four months out, I would have him intensify his jumping exercises, stil no plyo at this time. This would include a pre-weight workout doing three or four basic jumps, ones involving gross motor skill, with a good number of reps and do this 3x/week. All this with the same strength exercises.
At three months out, I would intensify even further the jumping by adding different exercises, incorporating both gross and complex motor skills, up the reps and make the jumping routine a workout in itself. Then to the weight room where I would work on specific “jumping” lifts, probably several of which he has already been doing. I would continue this for two months, upping the reps on the jumps with each workout.
At 4-6 weeks out, I would incorporate some plyos, ease off on some of the leg exercises and just focus on jumping for the legs.
The reason I wait for the plyos, is because on a standard jump, the male athlete will land with approximately 3 times his body weight of force on his ankles, knees, and hips. This obviously intensifies when jumping off boxes or with weighted jumps, putting added stress on the three main joints. If I want to look forward to the season, and I do, and want my athletes to remain as healthy as possible throughout, then I wait for the plyos, weighted jumps, etc., until later in the post season/early pre-season. Those are my thoughts.
I have used this method with athletes in the past with success, based on a twelve week program. In fact, the first time I put my jumping program together, I did the jumping and weights myself, with good results, and I am in my mid 40’s with not so good ankles, knees or hips, though I didn’t do any weighted jumps for that reason.
Hope this helps.
Tyler
No it doesn’t go against the principle of working on your weaknesses. You have to remember Vekhoshansky and the like are the ones who invented all these examinations of strenghts and weaknesses and such 40+ years ago.
However you decide to approach it, you have to sequence the training so that you produce the best results over a 6 month period of time, not a one month period of time. That’s what the conjugate sequence system is all about. Training is introduced so that each subsequent phase builds off the rest…so a sum greater then it’s parts. So let’s say you have 3 or 4 phases that you like to work with:
- Movement efficiency/GPP
- Strength
- Explosive Strength/Shock
Now in this situation with 6 months to work with you’d most likely have time to go through more then one complete power development cycle. You’d also have a lot of flexibility and may in fact decide to back off a bit onthe strenght work. But that sure doesn’t mean you’d go straight into the most direct thing, a shock phase, without considering all of this.
One other thing. Weaknesses tend to remain weaknesses and strengths tend to remain strengths. Focusing on weaknesses is well and dandy and will help bring everything up over time…but when the money 's on the line you want to play towards your strengths. That’s why Ben Johnson blew everybody away by performing 500 lb squats and literally being explosively stronger then everyone out there - despite the fact that if you looked at his “weakness” in this sense he should’ve been training a lot different. I hope that makes some sense.