Head/Torso Angle on Over Head Squat/Snatch

[Randle McMurphy]

Hey all,

I am learning to full squat snatch without a coach, and doing over head squats (OHS) is a part of my training.

I have noticed that at the bottom positon of the OHS/snatch my torso angle has A LOT of forward lean, and that I am looking downwards with my head. As a result the bar is FAR behind my head, and the whole position resembles a low-bar squat. It feels secure however. I notice no pro's do this.

I have noticed that I am losing a little depth by doing this, and if I were to have more of a vertical torso and look forward a bit more I could get a bit more depth in the squat, like in a front squat. I notice the pro's do this.

When I try and do this, the bar doesn't feel very secure overhead, as it has the capabilty to roll back to the 'low bar position', and because it is closer to over head it is easier to go forward and lose the bar in front.

-What should I do?
-Should I keep my low bar OHS/squat snatch? Or Should I strive to have a more vertical OHS/snatch?
-What should I do to get more depth, and keep a vertical torso? Are their any cues? Or something I think about?


Many thanks!
R P McMurphy

[Mark Rippetoe]

Lots of "pros" use a low-bar squat back angle to snatch, especially the very strong ones who are snatching enough weight that the squat itself requires a display of strength best accomplished by driving the hips up. The OHS is an exercise and can be done with both an upright torso like a front squat or a more horizontal torso like you do it to incorporate hip drive. Your eye gaze direction facilitates hip drive like in a squat, and if it?s working to do it this way, that?s why. The depth is a concern if you are using it as an exercise as opposed to a snatch recovery, since there is nothing to be gained by squatting deeper than you need to when you snatch. The bar in both forms will be in balance when it is directly over the shoulder joint, so when you use a more horizontal back angle it will seem like it is further back. If it stays in balance, it's where it needs to be.

[Randle McMurphy]

Lots of "pros" use a low-bar squat back angle to snatch, especially the very strong ones who are snatching enough weight that the squat itself requires a display of strength best accomplished by driving the hips up. The OHS is an exercise and can be done with both an upright torso like a front squat or a more horizontal torso like you do it to incorporate hip drive. Your eye gaze direction facilitates hip drive like in a squat, and if it?s working to do it this way, that?s why. The depth is a concern if you are using it as an exercise as opposed to a snatch recovery, since there is nothing to be gained by squatting deeper than you need to when you snatch. The bar in both forms will be in balance when it is directly over the shoulder joint, so when you use a more horizontal back angle it will seem like it is further back. If it stays in balance, it's where it needs to be.

Thanks for the advice!

So I guess there are advantages and and disadvantages to both.

'Low bar' OHS = Allows you to clear more weight, and probably more stable. But you lose a few inches on depth, which means if you are snatching, you have to pull it higher for the snatch catch. And for OHS, there is less range of motion.

'front squat' OHS = Greater range of motion for OHS, and more depth for a snatch recovery, which means you don't have to pull it as high for the snatch catch. The cons are that it is less stable, and harder to clear heavier weights.

So I guess it is just a case of just choosing one as a means to an end.

Or even catching the bar in the front squat OHS position, and standing up with it in the low bar OHS manner, to get the best of both worlds. If that is possible?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Why would you think that the more upright back angle would allow you to catch the bar lower?

[Alex Bond]

In my experience, I think the advantage to the more vertical back is that the shoulders are stronger when they are in the same plane as the torso. Since the arms must be vertical, the closer to vertical the torso is, the closer to the same plane the torso-arm system is, and the stronger the arms are. The original poster is correct that the less vertical back makes the squat easier. So what I would recommend is that you choose based on your weakness - if you are having trouble squatting the weight up, take the more horizontal back, and if you are having trouble supporting the weight overhead, get more vertical. I don't know what this "catching the bar lower" thing is about - regardless of back angle, your shoulders will be at basically the same height above the ground.

Personally, I usually catch my snatches with a pretty vertical back, take a second to make sure I'm stable, then as I ascend I usually end up sticking my butt out some and leaning over to get some hamstring help.

[Randle McMurphy]

Why would you think that the more upright back angle would allow you to catch the bar lower?

I understand your point, I have been questioning this in my head. But no one has ever been able to give me a definitive answer.

In theory, the increase in depth due to acute knee angle in the 'front squat OHS' is cancelled out by an upright torso. And vice versa for the 'low bar OHS'. So in theory the catch height should be the same.

The reason why I don't have confidence in my theory, is that when I watch the olympic clips, a lot of olympic lifters seem to be looking directly ahead for their snatch recovery, and have their torso's fairly upright (The chinese lifters don't - they look down).

There must be some reason why they do this, since the 'low bar OHS' should be better in every way. Yet many still look ahead.

I thought I would include some pics, to illustrate for those who think this may be some wierd esoteric olympic lifting discussion:

Lifters who have a vertical torso:






Lifters who are more horizontal

[theuofh]

What about the stability at the shoulder joint?

It appears to me, the more vertical the back angle, the more the load will be able to be supported by the spine and supporting musculature.

If you have a substantial shoulder lean, it seems as if all the support will be removed from the equation and the load placed directly on the gleno-humeral joint? (where shoulder meets the body) w/o any or minimal skeletal support.

An example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSxxajrTO5w

I notice this a lot in lifting clips I've seen, where the catch/reception of the bar will be pretty vertical, but on the recovery the hips shoot back to recruit more muscle mass.

What I'm trying to get at, is at significant load, it seems that receiving the bar w/ a forward lean will effectively rotate the arms backward. This doesn't seem like the strongest position to receive and stabilize the bar. Is this much of an issue?

The other thing I've seen is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zHnAxOZBV0#t=2m27s ...

...where it looks like an individual with a lot of thoracic spine mobility can get some support, as opposed to a person who has to rotate their shoulders backward.

Am I way off base here or what?

[Randle McMurphy]

What about the stability at the shoulder joint?

It appears to me, the more vertical the back angle, the more the load will be able to be supported by the spine and supporting musculature.

If you have a substantial shoulder lean, it seems as if all the support will be removed from the equation and the load placed directly on the gleno-humeral joint? (where shoulder meets the body) w/o any or minimal skeletal support.

An example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSxxajrTO5w

I notice this a lot in lifting clips I've seen, where the catch/reception of the bar will be pretty vertical, but on the recovery the hips shoot back to recruit more muscle mass.

What I'm trying to get at, is at significant load, it seems that receiving the bar w/ a forward lean will effectively rotate the arms backward. This doesn't seem like the strongest position to receive and stabilize the bar. Is this much of an issue?

The other thing I've seen is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zHnAxOZBV0#t=2m27s ...

...where it looks like an individual with a lot of thoracic spine mobility can get some support, as opposed to a person who has to rotate their shoulders backward.

Am I way off base here or what?

Great post man, it would be great to see Rip's response and people's views

[Mark Rippetoe]

There must be some reason why they do this, since the 'low bar OHS' should be better in every way. Yet many still look ahead.

You're making the mistake of assuming that every aspect of an elite weightlifter's form is the result of careful analysis, world-class coaching (whatever that may mean), and the deliberate omission of ineffective movement, resulting in perfect technical execution at the high levels of competition. Look, these guys are all real fucking strong, and with that comes the ability to get away with less-than-perfect technical execution. That's why strong is good, because technically perfect execution is not usually possible and strong makes up for that. (That's what makes steroids such a perennial favorite -- they're not for technique, you know.) The way you see them do the snatch or the clean or the jerk may very well be due to the fact that they've always done it that way, they had no one else to tell them to do it differently when they were learning the movement, the coach didn't know any better or didn't recognize the inefficiency as a problem, and they're strong enough to repeatedly use what may well be less-than-optimal technique. Hip drive is obviously useful in any form of squat; it's just not possible to use it effectively in a front squat, but it can be used effectively in an OHS if you know how to hold the bar overhead with the back angle that facilitates it.

What about the stability at the shoulder joint?

It appears to me, the more vertical the back angle, the more the load will be able to be supported by the spine and supporting musculature.

If you have a substantial shoulder lean, it seems as if all the support will be removed from the equation and the load placed directly on the gleno-humeral joint? (where shoulder meets the body) w/o any or minimal skeletal support.

What I'm trying to get at, is at significant load, it seems that receiving the bar w/ a forward lean will effectively rotate the arms backward. This doesn't seem like the strongest position to receive and stabilize the bar. Is this much of an issue?

The skeletal components don't hold the bar up by themselves. The bar is held aloft by the arms, and any lateral distance between the bar and the glenoid will be a moment arm that will have to be controlled. Since zero moment between the bar and the point of rotation is the best mechanical situation, a vertical relationship must exist between the bar, the glenoid, and the mid-foot or you are off balance. So the bar is ultimately held up by the muscles that hold up the scapulas, and that means that the traps hold up the bar. The triceps and delts keep the humerus and forearm aligned, but the traps, rhomboids, and their friends are actually the muscles that hold up the bar by hanging the scapulas from the spine. Look up this anatomy for yourself. This is why the "shrug" cue is so important to the rack position of the snatch and the jerk.

This support arrangement can work with any back angle that permits the vertical alignment of bar, glenoid, and mid-foot. There is no requirement that this alignment incorporate a vertical back, and no advantage to having one if you are flexible enough to lean forward a little. Especially if leaning forward a little makes you stronger out of the hole.

[Randle McMurphy]

beautiful Mr Rippetoe, you have given a good definitive answer.

From now on I shall be confident in my low bar OHS, and not switch to front squat version.