PDA

View Full Version : GE, for the record,


Danny John
06-23-2008, 05:36 AM
"In short, to say that fitness is an essential component, let alone the most important, of athletics/sport is inaccurate. "

I was led to this point from another site. It's absolutely right. I read on another site yesterday all this Pooh and blather about this and that and once again, someone noted something along the lines of "if a coach in this or that sport would let us/me take over, we could..."

It's just not true. I gave a workshop on this at the San Jose RKC, but you are right. And, as a side note, you will often find that athletes that dominate the scores on your "fitness" tests, like maxs or whatever, often are back ups. There are probably five billion reasons for this, but sports performance should never be confussed with health or the ability to do another task. There are some fun exceptions to this (that odd thing about 40 yard times and pullup tests), but most sports coaches will tell you that it is rare that simply improving this or that number in a test carries over to the field of play.

Greg Everett
06-23-2008, 07:37 AM
It's easy to believe if you're focused on a sport like MMA. But once you branch out, you quickly realize that the role fitness plays in an athlete's success ranges quite widely and to think otherwise is to allot limited training time and recovery capacity incorrectly and fail to maximize potential.

josh everett
06-23-2008, 01:04 PM
It has been my experience that those athletes who dominate the fitness tests are the ones who deeply care about the fitness tests. Often times the best athlete or athletes (or specifically player/s) on the team do not care to do well on fitness tests or care to work hard in strength and conditioning. Often times they would in fact dominate in these areas as well... they just do not have the desire to. Many times the benchwarmers need something to hang thier hat on and often it's in the wt room... old fashioned want too counts a whole lot in anything in life.
I do believe that improving ones power clean/front squat/ pullups/ fitness will indeed help them in their sport (of course there is the law of diminishing returns) the problem in saying if we (insert your fitness program of choice) took over a team that team would dominate is you'll never get 100% of the team (or even the majority) to commit to the program like they need to to get the results. generally the most gifted athletically or gifted specifically in thier skill will only work hard enough to stay 1 step ahead...they will only work as hard as they have to not as hard as they can.
Josh Everett with a 350lb PC beats Josh Everett with a 250lb pc in most sports.
If we don't believe this why do we do S&C at all?

Greg Everett
06-23-2008, 03:17 PM
We do S&C because the goal is not necessarily fitness - it's preparation of an athlete for a specific sport.

100 lbs more on a power clean may translate into a better thrower, but it won't do much for an archer. A faster 5K will help a marathon runner, but it won't help a football player.

My point in the original post is that we can't approach all sports as if they have the same requirements of possible physical abilities, the summation of those abilities in equal doses being "fitness". We have to pick which to focus on for each athlete.

josh everett
06-23-2008, 03:38 PM
Ok I get it. yes i agree that the chief role of S&C for sport is improving in that sport not improving an athletes "fitness". In many cases improving an athletes fitness (as defined by crossfit) would actually hamper them in thier sport. This is ecspecially true where in sports such as weightlifting, marathon, ect.
On another note it's great to see Dan John post here. I realize there is some bad blood between DJ & crossfit and the Pm is a crossfit affiliate but this in 1 of 3 forums I check regularilly and I miss his insight & wisdom. I want to publically thank Dan for over the years always personally answering my phone calls & e-mails. I have learned allot from you & your web site.

Danny John
06-23-2008, 04:40 PM
I appreciate that, Josh. For the record, I did what I could to "make things right," but, as I found out later, there were a lot of other issues. Like Pavel said about the internet, "No body said anything to my face."

A lesson there, I think.

And I would add that using the archer versus thrower is an excellent "scroll" across sports performance as any team sport is far too fuzzy and there is a need for control in both examples. Combat sports are a tough read, too (I remember my dad and uncles discussing "punchers" versus "boxers" versus...).

So, I think using these two "extremes" targets the appropriate discussion.

And, as Josh will tell you, screwing up scholarship athletes gets you fired as a S and C coach...

Allen Yeh
06-24-2008, 04:48 AM
What was the original post by Greg?

Garrett Smith
06-24-2008, 08:14 AM
Daily comments: http://www.crossfit.com/mt-archive2/003760.html

Dave Van Skike
06-24-2008, 08:51 AM
sig line......

Allen Yeh
06-24-2008, 09:31 AM
Wow, I'm sorry I asked.

I now remember why I don't try to follow the discussions on the comment pages.

John Alston
06-24-2008, 11:49 AM
Sometimes I think something gets lost in the S&C coaching world, something lost in paying so much attention to the things we can measure that we lose the amazing beauty of sport.
Sports are such wonderful exhibitions of skill. The S&C world likes to overemphasize the fitness element of sport, with some self interest there, but success is so much more. Skill is harder to measure.
If you've played sports you've seen this. I remember taking my beatings from older, smaller, and sometimes drunk, fighters in the ring. Skilled guys who'd been boxing since they were adolescents working a twentysomething with just a couple years experience.
But then there were some wrasslin' / MMA guys coming down to the gym. Stronger than me, could crush me in a street fight, but one didn't last a round, and the other wouldn't even get in with me. I had a couple years of ringtime on them, that's it.

Garrett Smith
06-24-2008, 01:02 PM
We should totally start a skillz seminar, where people could come and get certified to be awesome at everything in one weekend...

Chris Forbis
06-24-2008, 01:04 PM
If you've played sports you've seen this. I remember taking my beatings from older, smaller, and sometimes drunk, fighters in the ring. Skilled guys who'd been boxing since they were adolescents working a twentysomething with just a couple years experience.
But then there were some wrasslin' / MMA guys coming down to the gym. Stronger than me, could crush me in a street fight, but one didn't last a round, and the other wouldn't even get in with me. I had a couple years of ringtime on them, that's it.

The name for this... "The Crafty Veteran."

John Alston
06-26-2008, 06:44 AM
I prefer "cagey" but it's all there.

Paul Findley
06-26-2008, 03:30 PM
We should totally start a skillz seminar, where people could come and get certified to be awesome at everything in one weekend...

Will pwnage be covered, cauz if so, I am so there!

Derek Weaver
06-26-2008, 05:22 PM
Will pwnage be covered, cauz if so, I am so there!

I believe pwnage should actually be it's own seminar... following the development of skillz