D1 Training..Success?

[Dlk93]

I was in a conversation recently with a relative about how I thought most training protocols in D1 schools are mostly shit and any, or most, success that athletes have at that level are due to the fact that they are athletes as opposed to anything special about the trainers or their protocols. His objection to that was, How do we explain the fact that athletes have, overall, gotten bigger, stronger and faster in the past few decades?

Assuming the bigger, stronger, faster claim is true...

Discussion?

[John Hanley]

I thought most training protocols in D1 schools are mostly shit

How did you come to think this?

[Dlk93]

How did you come to think this?

Anecdotal evidence.

[Dlk93]

How did you come to think this?

And by looking at what D1 trainers do with they're athletes, applying a rational analysis to them and concluding that they are, indeed, shit.

[John Hanley]

And by looking at what D1 trainers do with they're athletes, applying a rational analysis to them and concluding that they are, indeed, shit.

There are 347 D1 schools in the states. Maybe we should limit discussion to those programs at which you looked and to which you applied your rataional analysis.

When you looked, what'd you see D1 trainers doing?

Step me through the process of your rational analysis.

[Dlk93]

There are 347 D1 schools in the states. Maybe we should limit discussion to those programs at which you looked and to which you applied your rataional analysis.

When you looked, what'd you see D1 trainers doing?

Step me through the process of your rational analysis.

For god's sake nevermind. I had a much more productive conversation on the facebook page.

[Dlk93]

And that's not a dodge, you're just missing the point of my post either deliberatively--to try to find out if I'm just a Rip parrot--or unintentionally.

[John Hanley]

I had a much more productive conversation on the facebook page.

Ah, yes, that haven of rational discourse. Good.

[Dlk93]

Ah, yes, that haven of rational discourse. Good.

Well they seemed to understand, better than you, that I was taking two premises to be true ((1) that D1 training [and basically all high level sports training, and low-level sports training, and training basically ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE THESE DAYS] sucks relative to proper S&C; and (2) that now athletes are bigger, stronger, faster than they used to be) and asking for an explanation for why (2) is true. You think (1) is false, or at the very least you want to argue about it, when that's not what I want to argue about. It's a separate discussion for a separate thread. At least they were rational enough to understand that.

[OCG]

Oh Hanley understands just fine. He can read at like a 4th grade level at least. What he was doing, was questioning your premises. Because it seems like, you don't really have any solid evidence to actually argue from...