0
comments
> In a message dated 1/19/08 12:55:18 AM, ubermenschsports@
> You write
>
> "----------- These big burly coaches routinely maintained that Olympic
> Weightlifting was too technical --------Mike'
> the time, -------- her technique was very good. --------- No further excuses
> were forthcoming.
>
> All objections had been overcome, [at least the comments stopped] all
> excuses rendered moot, no more BS reasons for not teaching ---------- these coaches
> simply did not know how to coach Weightlifting. At that time there were
> probably
> three or four prep schools with coaches teaching Olympic Weightlifting
> ------------
> and equipment are BS excuses. Weightlifting is the most time and cost effective
> power training modality extent.
Telle – very impressive. My only first hand anecdotal experience comparing the effectiveness of Olympic lifting was in the John Elway era Bronco's football teams. My introduction to the experience was via Stan Jones the defensive line and strength coach. Stan was a resistance training pioneer during his 13 years as a player in the NFL (7 years as a pro bowl selection -- now hall of famer) and as a strength coach for many years. Stan had a brilliant mind for many things one of which was football specific exercise. His basic exercises included free weight dumbbells and straight bar squats, bench press' and cleans -- using dumbbells as much as possible. He even designed special defensive line apparatus for strength football specific movements. He constantly sought and evaluated training methods and used Olympic lifts in the process.
In the course of events I introduced him to a leaper I had designed. The machine could incorporate both inertial and hydraulic resistance or either one separately. Its primary function was the development of football specific power. A typical training protocol involved performing 10 squat leaps in 13 seconds -- increasing weight when 10 reps were performed in less then 13 seconds. Training was twice a week off season and once in season. I'd like to say this was overwhelmingly better then squats but I cant. I can say that the players who did use it (it was an optional exercise as indeed was most of the weight training) believed it to be a valuable tool. The Broncos soon thereafter hired a fulltime strength coach who was sold on Olympic lifting as the primary vehicle for strength and power.
He had many experts give clinics and so on. One thing I do remember clearly was the trouble most athletes had with limit lifts and fatigue related coordination loss even during free weight squat training. I believe John Elway had the greatest clean and jerk effort -- 340 lbs. At that time, and now, it seems to me that other, much larger and inherently stronger players, would have lifted more than 340 lbs if athletic ability were not a factor.
Bill Johnson wrote:
"As I have previously stated several times in this forum, there is virtually no machine based resistance exercise that can't be done more effectively with free weights by an apparently healthy individual. Machines are beneficial primarily for rehabilitation and essentially unnecessary and inappropriate when training athletes."
Telle writes:
I have to disagree here-- a properly designed leaper is probably as effective or even more so in the expression of and acquisition of power and strength. A properly designed leaper;
1. Has machine shoulder "yoke" interfaces which apparently expedites greater vertical forces. (whatever happened to the power squat bar -- with the shoulder yokes)?
2. Is guided to the point were fatigue related coordination failures are greatly reduced.
3. Is guided to the point where maximal power and strength efforts are not technique constrained as with free weights.
4. Is not limited by hand, shoulder or trunk strengths.
5. Is much easier and safer to eccentrically overload.
I bet if you compared any given lifters ability to perform power and or strength via free squats vs. machine squats that the machine efforts are significantly greater -- which of course is pretty much academic until on field performance is compared -- a much harder measure.
Bill Johnson wrote:
"The one possible exception would be the leg press machine, which I
had occasion to use when I was training the Men's National Volleyball Team in order to increase leg strength while not introducing any further stress to the volleyball players lower backs. They spent 4 hours a day 5 days a week jumping in a very old, cold, mildewed gym with very hard floors. The leg press was expedient and convenient, not necessarily better."
Telle writes:
So I assume you are saying muscle recruitment and strength expression
are relatively similar across squats, jumps and leg press'? I also assume you meant to increase *hip* and leg strength as opposed to just "leg strength"? If so, I have many reservations with your assumptions.
It also seems apparent that your machine exposure is limited to the leg press?
Bill Johnson wrote:
> Johnson "As for the closeness of high level competition, as the strength
> coach of numerous Olympic athletes I am acutely aware that the difference
> between 5th and an Olympic Championship may be minuscule. Further reason to utilize
> the most efficient and effective training modalities available, the single
> most essential modality, in my experience, being Weightlifting.'
Telle writes:
No question there -- if one were constrained to "the single most efficient modality"
Johnson "As for anecdotal evidence, the 150 lb., etc-------"
>
> Telle. Everyone, including Nautilus and associated believers, has such
> examples.
In summary I believe a properly designed squat leaper is more efficient at developing vertical power and strength than free weight equipment.
Cheers,
Jerry Telle
Lakewood CO USA
============
> Jerry,
> About 12 and 13 years ago I assisted Mike Burgener when he put on some
> strength training clinics for prep school football coaches. These big burly
> coaches routinely maintained that Olympic Weightlifting was too technical and time
> intensive to teach to their prep athletes. Mike's daughter Sage was 5 years
> old at the time, and after the coaches would give us the "EXCUSE", Mike would
> have Sage demonstrate the Olympic lifts. She used a special light bar, but
> her technique was very good. It always got very quite after Sage finished
> demonstrating both the snatch and clean and jerk (she would split jerk). Sage
> would get very pumped from all the attention and execute several reps very
> quickly and in rapid succession. Invariably the room got very quiet when Sage
> stopped. No further excuses were forthcoming.
>
> All objections had been overcome, all excuses rendered moot, no more BS
> reasons for not teaching Olympic Weightlifting. The fact was these coaches simply
> did not know how to coach Weightlifting. At that time there were probably
> three or four prep schools with coaches teaching Olympic Weightlifting in
> Southern California. Sage is now a senior in high school and in that time Mike
> has now got dozens of schools on board with Weightlifting and represented in
> the annual High School Clean and Jerk Championship. Schools like Mater Dei
> not only enter their entire football teams, basketball team, wrestling team and
> track athletes, but their cheerleaders compete. Have I made my point? Time,
> energy and equipment are BS excuses. Weightlifting is the most time and cost
> effective power training modality extent.
>
> As I have previously stated several times in this forum, there is virtually
> no machine based resistance exercise that can't be done more effectively with
> free weights by an apparently healthy individual.
>
> Machines are beneficial primarily for rehabilitation and essentially
> unnecessary and inappropriate when training athletes.
> The one possible exception would be the leg press machine, which I had
> occasion to use when I was training the Men's National Volleyball Team in order to
> increase leg strength while not introducing any further stress to the
> volleyball players lower backs. They spent 4 hours a day 5 days a week jumping in a
> very old, cold, mildewed gym with very hard floors. The leg press was
> expedient and convenient, not necessarily better.
>
> Safety is a non issue. Weightlifting is well documented to be very safe
> when, as mentioned many times previously, properly coached and supervised.
>
> As for the closeness of high level competition, as the strength coach of
> numerous Olympic athletes I am acutely aware that the difference between 5th and
> an Olympic Championship may be minuscule. Further reason to utilize the most
> efficient and effective training modalities available, the single most
> essential modality, in my experience, being Weightlifting.
> As for anecdotal evidence, the 150 lb., Rudy/Cartman of his school presented
> himself to me on my first day as strength coach for a small private school
> and insisted he wanted to play football. In four months, through a combination
> of proper nutrition and Weightlifting, he weighed 185 lbs. In 6 months, 200
> lbs. He not only started, but also played both sides of the ball for the next
> three years. Now at 24, he weighs 235 lbs, does 3RM 425 lb ATG squats and
> can press 350 lbs and very successfully participates in MMA.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, machines just don't feed the bulldog,
> W.G. Johnson
> Ubermensch Sports Consultancy
> San Diego CA.
>
>
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
Sign all letters with full name & city of residence if you
wish them to be published!
Earn your degree in as few as 2 years - Advance your career with an AS, BS, MS degree - College-Finder.net.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
March
0 comments: