The "other" way to do a clean. The "other" way to do a clean. - Page 4

starting strength gym
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 56

Thread: The "other" way to do a clean.

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    4,915

    Default

    • texas seminar date
    • wichita falls texas march seminar date
    • woodmere new york april seminar date
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    I had heard that he squatted 800 x 2. But I heard that a long time ago.
    Well, I would say that makes him pretty fucking strong. Where have we heard THAT'S important for a lifter, too?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Update: My source says 375k front squat.
    At first I thought to reply "That's admirable," but understatement does not cut it. That's fucking scary is what that is.
    Last edited by Steve Hill; 11-17-2010 at 09:34 PM.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Springfield, VA
    Posts
    945

    Default

    But what did he low-bar squat?

    Just to play devil's advocate, can we name a lifter who performs well BECAUSE of what he's doing? Everything is so negative in OL these days!

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Dastardly, what might make it all confusing is that "triple extension" seems to be interchangeable in debates as both a technique and a result of technique.
    The triple extension happens as a result of technique, and is not a technique in and of itself. Don knows this. What he doesn't seem to know is how to use a slow motion camera. I've watched his seminar on the "triple extension vs the catapult" and all of his lifters triple extend. Even all of the examples of top oly lifters he shows triple extend, some just more exaggerated than others. Unless I am completely misguided when it comes to what triple extension is. What I think is really going on is that different lifters vary their timing when it comes to initiating the pull under the bar. This is just my own opinion, but I would wager that as weight gets heavier the ankle extension simply cannot be as extreme as it is at lighter weights.
    Last edited by Mark Rippetoe; 11-17-2010 at 07:33 PM. Reason: link removal. Look them up yourselves.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    4,915

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RRod View Post
    Just to play devil's advocate, can we name a lifter who performs well BECAUSE of what he's doing? Everything is so negative in OL these days!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9_ly...eature=related

    I really like how he lifts, so there you go. Probably about as close to technically perfect as you can get. Rip has a running joke about "technique steroids," which don't actually exist (and that's the joke), but if there was a chance that they did exist, they'd need to test Dimas first.

    On the point of negativity, what's so negative is that a lot of people seem to exhibit a willful ignorance of this stuff, or a denial of reality.

    So you tell me. Why this start position:



    If it results in this 0.2s later:



    Hmm?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    The Squat Rack
    Posts
    293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve in ATL View Post
    So you tell me. Why this start position:



    If it results in this 0.2s later:



    Hmm?
    For the sake of playing devils advocate, while it is slightly difficult due to the angle of the camera an argument could be made that in fact in that second image his shoulders are still not over the bar and his arms are more vertical then slanted in. That would make the bar still forward of the spine of his scapulae. His back angle has deteriorated a bit, but not completely to a DL angle.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    39,876

    Default

    An argument could be made that Krastev is not very strong. But that would be wrong too.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Fremont, CA
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve in ATL View Post
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9_ly...eature=related

    So you tell me. Why this start position:


    If it results in this 0.2s later:

    Hmm?
    Short arms?

    I don't see how the particulars of the start position are all that important. Relative to a lifters deadlift, the weight is (or should be) light.

    As illustrated by Steve's pics, he ends up in the proper pulling position anyway. I seems like whatever works to get you there should be fine.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Springfield, VA
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Steve,

    I did say at one point: "I see no reason why you couldn't just start more bent-over to begin with."
    So I agree with you.

    But the fact remains that Krastev a) gets the bar off the ground in the upright position and b) is pretty much 1/3 of the way into the lift before he finishes adjusting his back angle. WHY he does it? That's what I want to find out! I postulated a couple of reasons: "My gut is that the more upright take-off takes just a bit of strain off the low back and guards against leaning over TOO much. That is, start low and come up as much as you need, rather than start high and make sure you don't lean over any more."

    What do you say on these points? Certainly every second he is less horizontal means less torque on the low back muscles. And as Robert points out, he is arguably still a bit off from a true deadlift position even at 0.2s. Basically I'm asking the question, could there be benefits from starting low and adjusting?

    As far as Dimas: isn't he the most common example of a high caliber lifter who wins medals despite having a not-completely-optimal-early-shrug technique, because he is really strong? At what point does a "despite" become a "because". I mean what world am I in where Krastev has anything less than wonderful snatch technique!?

    And I just realized the joking-smiley-face I put after my low-bar squat comment got dropped; damn HTML!

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    39,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mlentzner View Post
    Short arms?

    I don't see how the particulars of the start position are all that important. Relative to a lifters deadlift, the weight is (or should be) light.

    As illustrated by Steve's pics, he ends up in the proper pulling position anyway. I seems like whatever works to get you there should be fine.
    So you're banking on the fact that a snatch is light relative to deadlift to make the case that efficient pulling mechanics is a secondary consideration? A good point. What about the clean? What about lifters that are not a strong as Krastev? And what about its effect on the bar path above the knee?

    Quote Originally Posted by RRod View Post

    But the fact remains that Krastev a) gets the bar off the ground in the upright position and b) is pretty much 1/3 of the way into the lift before he finishes adjusting his back angle. WHY he does it? That's what I want to find out!
    He does it for the same reason that everybody else does it with every pull from the floor, the heavier the pull the more so. The barbell is in equilibrium with the musculoskeletal system when the bar is in vertical alignment with the mid-foot and the scapula, shoulders just in front of the bar and arms hanging at an angle of about 7-10 degrees off the vertical. Here is an excerpt from my new material explaining this, prepared for the 3rd edition of BBT:

    The non-vertical arm angle is perhaps the most poorly explained phenomenon in weightlifting. Why does the back angle become stable for the first part of the pull when the shoulders are in front of the bar and the arms assume their characteristic angle of 7-10 degrees from vertical? Our working theory here is that the interaction between the lats, the teres major, and the triceps – the lat complex – and the humerus is the critical relationship. The humerus is suspended from the scapula by lots of muscle and ligament, and it would seem as though the arms should just hang vertically like a normal pendulum behaves – a weight on the end of a rope hanging from the ceiling hangs vertically, or “plumb” as it is called. But it doesn’t, not with a weight that is actually heavy. If you want that rope to hang from the ceiling at any other angle than vertical, you would have to apply another force to the system from a different direction – you’d have to tie another rope to the one hanging plumb. And that second rope works best against the first one if you pull at right angles to the loaded rope, since right angles is the configuration that allows the force to be applied most efficiently.

    As it turns out, there is another rope; there are actually several of them. The teres major and the triceps provide control of the angle between the scapula and the humerus. The teres connects the inferior part of the scapula to the proximal end of the humerus on the anterior side, only millimeters away from the lat attachment under the armpit on the arm-side. The triceps attaches the superior scapula, up high on the shoulder side of the armpit, to the elbow, although its leverage position is weak. More importantly, the lats tie their large origin along the low back directly to the shaft of the humerus up under the armpit on the anterior side, so it pulls across the full thickness of the shaft. This lat complex provides a transfer of force from the trunk to the arms that adds to the large number of attachments coming from the shoulder joint area, and they all pull the humerus back when they tighten.

    This posterior pull is responsible for the non-vertical angle of the arms as they hang from the shoulders under a loaded spine, which must equal the tendency of the weight to rotate the arms forward to a plumb configuration. If this happened, it would place the bar forward of the mid-foot and thus off-balance, and the bar path could not be precisely controlled. The angle of the lat complex attachment averages out to approximately 90 degrees, since this is the angle at which the force required to produce a rotation force equal and opposite to the force produced by the weight is minimal. It is the angle at which these muscles can exert their tension on the humerus most efficiently and thus provide the maximum force transfer and stability during a pull from the floor in which the bar needs to stay over the mid-foot (see figure 4-XX)(which demonstrates the trigonometric proof of this assertion). And the back angle adjusts to produce the 90-degree lat complex angle.

    The fact that several muscles are contributing to this posterior pull makes the precise angle hard to calculate, and some variation with anthropometry would be expected, but the lat appears to be the major factor in the system, and its angle of attachment in a stable configuration is probably very close to 90 degrees. What is absolutely clear is that there exists a back angle through the bottom of the pull in which the shoulders are in front of the bar, the arms are in a non-vertical relationship with the system, and pulling the bar off the floor in this position results in a vertical bar path in which maintaining the balance point over mid-foot and stabilizing the bar path with the lat complex is performed with the least amount of work.


    We detail this explanation in our seminar quite thoroughly. Maybe you should attend if you're really curious.

    Quote Originally Posted by RRod View Post
    As far as Dimas: isn't he the most common example of a high caliber lifter who wins medals despite having a not-completely-optimal-early-shrug technique, because he is really strong?
    Who says he's not displaying optimal technique? Maybe the people that actually coach a non-vertical bar path. Krastev was strong enough to compensate for some lower barpath inefficiency. Dimas doesn't have to, since he pulls off the floor in a nearly straight vertical line.
    Last edited by Mark Rippetoe; 11-18-2010 at 05:22 PM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    4,915

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    So you're banking on the fact that a snatch is light relative to deadlift to make the case that efficient pulling mechanics is a secondary consideration? A good point. What about the clean? What about lifters that are not a strong as Krastev? And what about its effect on the bar path above the knee?
    What about the point that it's still a metric fuckton of weight to move around laterally during a dynamic lift?

    What about the point that any lateral force imparted to the bar has to be reacted out by the mass of the lifter, which is less than what he's lifting, and thus will be translated (moved) more?

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •