A new article about pulling mechanics

[Bazarov]

So, here is your opportunity to make your argument FOR a curved bar path, instead of just saying that it MAY be better, or that some very good lifters do it. Tell us how, specifically, a horizontal component to the bar path improves the vertical efficiency of the pull. We can coach a vertical bar path quite easily, and we have been doing so for a long time. Why should we NOT do so, specifically please?

First, I want to make it clear that I'm not really sold one way or the other. I was trying to enter into a dialogue by explaining my understanding of the issue based on what I've read. I'm perfectly willing to admit my understanding is based on limited experience and knowledge and, thus, could be very wrong. Having said that, I think, very much like the double knee bend, the s curve is just a product of a well performed lift; in and of itself, it is not something that should be sought after. As I mentioned, and as someone else mentioned, if you are moving your body in relation to the bar, it seems logical that the bar wont follow a vertical path, given that the two (body and bar) form a system. Am I correct here? Granted, if you are doing things right, the bar's deviation from vertical shouldn't be huge (on the order of a few inches at most), and I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. But if the knees are pushed back during the first pull, and the bar is tucked as close into the hip as possible for the second pull (necessary for the best leverage, and precisely why Dimas shrugs early), then some degree of inward sweep is going to happen.

Even if the above is true, however, and assuming we aren't being unrealistic in our insistence on such, I would imagine there isn't necessarily anything wrong with coaching a vertical bar path, simply because the bar will naturally form an S curve -- it doesn't need to be, and probably shouldn't be taught, especially to a rank novice. The "flatter", or more near vertical, that curve is the better, and encouraging a bar path that is as vertical as possible with the understanding that "vertical" is an ideal that no one is ever going to attain is probably a decent way of mitigating extreme bar path deviations.

I do wonder how much of a role individual anthropometry plays (and in which ways) in determining how close to vertical that path can be.

Finally, if you are going to quote the Level 1 text, then where on earth are you getting the idea that the bar slows or even stops accelerating before the second pull? No. It doesn't. If it does, then you are doing it wrong. Fast-faster-fastest. That's the tempo.

I'm pretty sure it's almost universally acknowledged that there is a loss of acceleration during the double knee bend. So while fast-faster-fastest is the goal, and is definitely what the lifter should be trying to do, the DKB does interrupt things a bit -- those better at minimizing this put up bigger numbers, of course.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I would imagine there isn't necessarily anything wrong with coaching a vertical bar path, simply because the bar will naturally form an S curve -- it doesn't need to be, and probably shouldn't be taught, especially to a rank novice. The "flatter", or more near vertical, that curve is the better, and encouraging a bar path that is as vertical as possible with the understanding that "vertical" is an ideal that no one is ever going to attain is probably a decent way of mitigating extreme bar path deviations.

Your regurgitation of the prevailing wisdom here is not accomplishing anything but causing us both to type more. This is pretty funny: there isn't necessarily anything wrong with coaching a vertical bar path. Let me restate this AGAIN. The curve in the bottom of the bar path is an artifact of having pulled the bar off the floor from in front of the mid-foot. If the bar is pulled off the ground from directly over the mid-foot, the bar path is vertical. This doesn't require an understanding of quantum physics to appreciate. The s-curve in the bar path is NOT the product of a well-performed lift -- it is inefficient, and a straight vertical line with no curves represents less wasted force. It is not only possible to pull in a straight line, but we'd be happy to show you how to coach it this way too.

[Bazarov]

Your regurgitation of the prevailing wisdom here is not accomplishing anything but causing us both to type more....If the bar is pulled off the ground from directly over the mid-foot, the bar path is vertical. This doesn't require an understanding of quantum physics to appreciate. The s-curve in the bar path is NOT the product of a well-performed lift -- it is inefficient, and a straight vertical line with no curves represents less wasted force. It is not only possible to pull in a straight line, but we'd be happy to show you how to coach it this way too.

Fair enough -- I'll stop the regurgitation. If you can get the knees out of the way and get the bar into the optimal position for the second pull by uses a vertical bar path, then I wouldn't have any choice but to concede all of your points. Which I'd be more than happy to do. I've just never seen an example of it (which isn't saying much, obviously, considering my experience). Is there one you could point me towards?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Dimas comes to mind.

[stef]

The s-curve in the bar path is NOT the product of a well-performed lift

Nope. But oddly, it is an example of the poster's original concern:

the human body might have to waste some energy by moving the bar horizontally in order to get the bar, and the body in relation to the bar, to a position from which it can apply the most vertical force. Such movement might not be 100% mechanically efficient, but it might be the most efficient way for a human body to move a loaded barbell (the two aren’t necessarily the same).

The curve shows the human body moving a loaded barbell from a position of inefficient force application (bar forward) to more efficient force application as the system moves into a configuration of greater mechanical efficiency. An even less efficient way to move a barbell that starts too far forward would be to manage to move it vertically. That is, you'd be keeping the load at a position of unfavorable leverage for a longer period of time. But it would be even better to just avoid all the avoidable problems given that the lifts are challenging enough on their own once there's a little weight to be handled.

[Tamara Reynolds]

I'm pretty sure it's almost universally acknowledged that there is a loss of acceleration during the double knee bend. So while fast-faster-fastest is the goal, and is definitely what the lifter should be trying to do, the DKB does interrupt things a bit -- those better at minimizing this put up bigger numbers, of course.

My point was that if you are going to say that what the USAW Level 1 manual says is correct - because it is the weightlifting gospel - then shouldn't you have to agree with all of it?

[Bazarov]

Dimas comes to mind.

I'm sure you have access to better video than I do, but all of the videos I can find of him that make judging bar path even remotely possible (like this one, beginning at 3:20:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5xazOFJ4G0), do not show a vertical path. He definitely has less movement than most (But he's also been criticized for actually moving the bar out around his knees, not to mention the very early shrug and over-extension at the top, all of which make using his technique as an example to emulate a bit strange), but he still exhibits an S curve.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Pull up his 180.5 snatch and his 207 C&J, copy the url into www.keepvid.com, save as an mp4 file. Open in up in quick time, and frame through the floor pull with your keyboard forward button. He's not perfect, but he's very nearly straight and vertical, and he starts -- at least in these two -- over his mid-foot.

[Randle McMurphy]

...First of all, I would like to say this is great article since is amonst one of the most thought provoking articles this site hosts. Thanks for taking the time.

First question:

You have explained that dimas shrugging keeps his shoulders over the bar for longer (ie his torso remains more horizontal for longer), which allows him to get a more powerful 'whip' in the second pull, when he stands tall - i understand this.

Am I right in thinking that the caveat in doing this, is that ones back needs to be sufficiently strong enough that it can remain rigid in this slightly more mechanically disadvantagous position??

And I would assume in some lifters, their lower back is the weakest link in a clean/snatch, so staying over the bar may not be desirable?

I say mechanically disadvantagous because it is harder to keep a horizontal torso in extension, than say keeping a torso in extension with a 30 degree torso angle.

Side point: Is this the reason why the way one pulls a deadlift is different from the way one pulls a rackpull or clean - in the latter, one stays over the bar for as long as possible, and in the former, one tries to get behind the bar as soon as possible?

Second question:

I have tried keeping my shoulders over the bar for longer, and i have found that when my knees have extended, the bar is only just above my knees. At this point i explode, but the bar swings away, because the second pull has begun too low on the thigh.

I assume it is because i have essentially RDL'ed the clean. How can one prevent this from happening?

I think there is another lifter who shoulders are very far over the bar above the knee - Gardev:


He doesn't start in the correct position, but manages to keep the bar very close.

[Bazarov]

Pull up his 180.5 snatch and his 207 C&J, copy the url into www.keepvid.com, save as an mp4 file. Open in up in quick time, and frame through the floor pull with your keyboard forward button. He's not perfect, but he's very nearly straight and vertical, and he starts -- at least in these two -- over his mid-foot.

I'll do that, thanks. And thanks again for the article and discussion; you've all given me something to think about.