Note that as in previous threads, the most annoying and unproductive posters are posting under pseudonyms designed to conceal their identity.
Speaking as someone who has both been an elite athlete AND coached them, I find this argument back-and-forth over "elite" to be tedious and only occasionally droll.
The other point that I'll make is that there are almost no sports where SVJ actually means anything (other than an indicator of potential performance). Strength, however, is useful in almost every sport.
Pulling out a picture of a high-jumper (which is an extremely specialized sport) to support a general argument is idiotic on its face.
Last edited by Steve Hill; 06-02-2011 at 01:12 PM. Reason: Edited for grammar, in case those Nazis are in this thread also.
Note that as in previous threads, the most annoying and unproductive posters are posting under pseudonyms designed to conceal their identity.
You guys are actually quoting the dictionary?!?!
This has degenerated into one of the most embarrassing Internet "debates" ever.
Wendler was right, the Internet is Lex Luthor...
IDRISCKY, it's pathological for some people.
But at least we have all learnt something...
(haven't we?)
As I understand it, the word "elite", when applied to sports performance, describes the fringes of a given population. If everyone is capable of a 40" SVJ, then that's not very elite, is it?
Are you suggesting Rip is incapable of teaching people of different builds how to squat? Or are you suggesting that people with long legs shouldn't and/or can't properly (full depth) squat? I hope I'm missing something, because both ideas are frankly retarded. Go ahead and get offended now.
While I'm not as freakishly skinny as this girl, I have long femurs and a weird little spine and I PROMISE you, Rip taught me how to squat. Now pay the man.
@ReverseHypertrophy: I have been addressing your statement that "every human organism has the ability to become elite", which I think is logically inconsistent. We have explained in some detail now that being "elite" means someone to be "one of the best" in his event. The problem with your statement is that not everybody can be the best. The phrase "the best" already indicates a higher performance than everybody else. So how can everybody else be "the best" as well or have that potential? If we accept the idea that a human genome exists and that there is variability in this genome, we also accept that some variants are better suited than others. Given equal environments (for example training methodology) those with the "best" genetic make-up for their event will be elite and the rest will be not. Denying that means denying genetic influences on athletic performance in the first place which denies the existence of variability in the human genome or the existence of the human genome in itself.
Thus I think it is only fair to tell people that there are in fact limitations and that those with inferior genetics for a given event cannot be world champion unless everybody else decides not to be (or trains stupidly enough that genetics don't matter, for example kill themselves in the process).
Regarding the issue in how far full-squat performance transfers to high half-squat performance, we might soon have a case study for that which might shed some light onto this.
@HONEYBADGER: Impressive results by that defensive back! I seem to be the perfect fit for replicating some of his success, at least in terms of training history and current performance. With your help, I am committed to give your method an honest try and hopefully proof it to be solid for everyone on this forum. 3-5 weeks for a peaking block is an investment that is justifiable even if the experiment should fail and no gains are being made. It is however enough time to really hurt if it is lost, so I will give it 100% - as usual.
I already made arrangements for the time between June 20th to July 18th in which I will have the weekends for training as well. Those are 4 weeks, a 5th week can be added if results until that point indicate that more can be gained by the SPP phase. With your and Rip's permission I will document progress in this thread by one post per training week to keep this as concise and informative as possible (you and me shall discuss the detailedness of the record since I understand that you are actually coaching for a living and might not want every tiny bit of information about the programing out there for free). I think it would be in the interest of everyone to define beforehand which performance increase in SVJ will count as a success to validate the half-squat method. Given that your defensive back might be more talented than I am and given the fact of my training history which has already involved serious improvements in SVJ, my suggestion would be that a 2"+ increase would count as a great success, 1" increase a success, everything else without serious impact. Does this sound reasonable to everyone?
I will test SVJ after my GPP type training on June 11th and June 13th. The best result from either these dates or my previously performed best of 36" will count as baseline depending on the higher number. I am also open for suggestions in which area of my performance I will have to work on until then should my preparedness for SPP be insufficient. You have P.M. :-).
Rip, do you agree that such a case study might have some merit in determining the usefulness of the half-squat method for someone like me, who has so far been training with full squats as described in your books exclusively?
Hope we can make this a useful learning experience for everyone.
Regards,
s-m
The problem I see with this argument is training a specific ROM for what is primarily a test event. I can only think of a few instances where the SVJ as tested is used in sport, the jump ball and some rebounding in basketball and blocking in volleyball. The majority of jumping in sport is not from a static position and rarely involves only the ROM used in the SVJ test and trained by the half squat. Using the half squat to prepare for testing is fine if you want to produce good test results. If you want to build general ability to perform a sport you need to train the musculature around a joint through its full range of motion. For the hips and legs, this is done most effectively with the full squat. When strength is developed throughout the entire ROM you are better able to apply increased force at the variety of positions you see in your sport. This is what I believe to be the esence of S&C for sport. Develop an athletes ability generate force through the full ROM of all joints, increase work capacity and injury prevention. The benefits of the S&C program are realized during practice and competetion.
The exceptions would be for sports where you do not need to interact with your opponent and movement patterns become very predictable. Track and field events, weightlifting and powerlifting are examples. You are able to dictate the exact movement pattern and can therefore become very specialized in your training. Any sport that directly involves you countering or reacting to an opponent mandates far less specialization because you do not get to choose when and how you will execute a movement. The exact movement pattern can not be trained because you can not predict it. Instead you get stronger through the full range of motion.