Found: the only vertical bar path since 1964

[Rachel Crass]

.

[tertius]

No shit, Sherlock. In order for that to happen at the HIP, the bar has to start over the ball of the foot. If the bar starts over the mid-foot, then any attempt to bring the bar toward the lifter's center of mass to counteract the fact that a lifter is standing up with his mass entirely behind the barbell will NOT result in the bar being over the midfoot WHILE the lifter is in an athletic stance.

You need 2 things in the power position: bar over the midfoot and vertical back, slightly bent knees, ready to explode. THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS TO ALLOW THE BAR ENOUGH ROOM TO SWEEP BACK INTO THE HIP.

Why would you sweep the bar back into the hip to be over midfoot, if it was already over your midfoot?
I also don't understand why you need to bring the bar back to counter the fact that the center of mass of the system is forward of the lifter. This is pretty much always going to be the case in the first part of a clean, no matter how you attempt to move the bar. If you pull with the bar closer to the body to begin with, you don't need to make that adjustment.
But perhaps I am misunderstanding your argument.

Also, I believe Rip has cited this man as an excellent example of how he teaches performing the quick lifts.


It appears to me the bar begins over midfoot, shins touching the bar, with his hips high, and his bar path is quite vertical (not the best quality video, unfortunately, but a good angle).

[tertius]

And to really geek out on the physics, the reason the bar needs backward horizontal momentum going into the hip harkens back to vector forces. The lifter's center of mass shifts forward and s/he stands up from a start position in which the butt and legs are behind the shoulders.

If the barbell travels vertically while the lifter's COM moves forward, then the resultant vector force moves FORWARD. (Which is why lifters with a vertical pull tend to lose lifts forward.)

If the barbell travels back while the lifter's COM moves forward, then the resultant vector force moves UP. (So that whole thing Rip was talking about with moving the opposite direction of gravity? yeah....it happens with the resultant force vector of the S curve, because, as we've stated multiple times, Olympic lifting is comprised of a SYSTEM of lifter + bar, not just bar.)

So, if you REALLY want to move vertically, stop looking at only the fucking barbell.

You're correct that a lifter with a vertical bar path has the opportunity to shoot the bar forward if they don't get their positioning right, or can't correct for that additional horizontal momentum imparted into the bar.

But that's not actually how vector addition works. You add the horizontal and vertical components separately. The two horizontal components cancel each other (hopefully), and since the lifter is elastic, and the bar is relatively inelastic, and the transmission of force occurs over an non-zero time interval, the lifter is ultimately getting compressed backwards by bar in a way that could, in theory, interfere with the transfer of vertical momentum into the bar.

[Rachel Crass]

.

[Rachel Crass]

.

[tertius]

1) Open a physics book or a math book or google "vector addition".
2) If you see "vertical" in Kakhi's pull, no one can help you anymore.
3) Notice that Rip NEVER uses side angles of these lifters. Ask him why. (Hint: Because if he did, then you'd notice the 3-7cm of horizontal displacement that you--being a relatively untrained eye--are obviously unable to see in videos filmed from a 45 degree angle in front.)Goodnight.

I don't know if you realize it, but the way you talk about these things suggests that Rip is actively attempting to deceive people in an attempt to forward his views. Which is pretty fuckin' shitty, I have to say.

Also, you failed to address any of this:

It appears to me the bar begins over midfoot, shins touching the bar, with his hips high

At least some of which you claim make entering the "power position" and using an "s" shaped bar path impossible.

Oh my fucking christ. Do you not realize that if the bar moves 100% vertically that THERE IS NO FUCKING HORIZONTAL COMPONENT TO COUNTERACT THE FORWARD HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT OF THE LIFTER'S COM? Holy shit, you're stupid. (When it comes to lifting mechanics.)

Er, that's entirely the point. With a strictly vertical bar path, there is no energy wasted slinging the bar backwards and forwards.

And yes, you are talking about horizontal movement:

If the barbell travels back while the lifter's COM moves forward, then the resultant vector force moves UP. (So that whole thing Rip was talking about with moving the opposite direction of gravity? yeah....it happens with the resultant force vector of the S curve, because, as we've stated multiple times, Olympic lifting is comprised of a SYSTEM of lifter + bar, not just bar.)

So, if you REALLY want to move vertically, stop looking at only the fucking barbell.

If you sum two horizontal vectors (the first two bold bits), their product is not vertical. The pulls on the bar upwards are what move it up. Not some summing of forward and backwards. Only forces with vertical components can produce vertical displacement.

[Dragar]

I really have no viewpoint in this discussion and am speaking from a position of very marginal knowledge of olympic lifting, but now that the discussion has actually moved into mechanics I'm not following your logic Rachel.

As Tertius said, the vertical and horizontal forces are resolved separately -> yes you put the two overall vectors in a diagram together and use the trigonometry to solve, but horizontal forces don't get translated to vertical in the absence of a ramp.

As I understand it no-one disagrees that the bar should be adjacent to the hip prior to the main vertical acceleration. However, if you have to bring two bodies close together, you're most efficient from an energy expenditure point of view moving the less massive body, which for any decent competitive lifter will mean their own body, rather than the hopefully much heavier barbell.

Bar physics aside, most of your argument rests on establishing body positions from which the athelete is most productive, which would be great to get some more detail on.

A vertical pull requires the lifter to shift his or her weight too far forward in order to meet the bar at the hip. This forward-leaning position is neither athletic nor conducive to changing directions quickly under the bar. The S-curve, however, places the bar in a trajectory such that the bar comes to the lifter and meets the hip at the same time the lifter assumes an athletic, powerful stance

My understanding here is that you are saying that a more vertical posture is more effective. Is it more effective in its capacity to apply a vertical force to the bar (don't see how this could be, but happy to be wrong), or because it's easier to get down into the catch position quickly because you don't take any time adopting a more vertical orientiation? The latter would seem to make sense, at which point it becomes a trade-off between bar acceleration upwards and lifter acceleration downwards. If it is such a trade-off I'd expect individual characteristics would determine which is better for any given lifter.

[Rachel Crass]

.

[Rachel Crass]

.

[tertius]

Again, if you intend to play with the big dogs then you need to find some critical thinking skills. Vertical movement of a lifter standing up is a given. So, given also equal and opposite horizontal displacement, the resultant vector is vertical.

Yes, but your argument as to why the horizontal displacement is necessary in the first place doesn't make sense, at least to me.

Further, you have admitted that you can't even execute a proper vertical pull correctly, so aren't you a little out of your pay grade to suggest that you know more than I do about weightlifting?

I'm not suggesting I know more about weightlifting than you do, and I'm sure you out lift me, though it makes me sad.
None of that is relevant, though.