![]() |
Triple Extension Movements for Football
From Elitefts this AM. Food for thought.
Quote:
|
Interesting...but as so often, the author turns it into an "either/or" argument, when a sensible combination may be best...
|
Quote:
|
I never played football. I was what you might call "skinny" or "unathletic" most of my life. Perhaps still?
From an implementation standpoint, the article makes perfect sense. I can imagine telling a group of 16 year old kids "See that heavy shit over there? (Pointing to keg, log, axle, or stone) Let's see who can shoulder it/put it overhead first" works better than discussing the intricacies of oly. But.. in terms of training effectiveness, I'm not sure I ever get close to reproducing the speed or power when in shouldering a stone, sandbag, keg, or racking a log as I do with a clean or power clean. At near max weights, I attempt a slow, incomplete triple ext, and then begins the death march as I roll said object up my torso. Maybe squats aren't appropriate for football because I'm not able to ask the big fellow across from he if he could kindly sit squarely on my shoulders so I can squat him properly? hah. No doubt, SM movements could round out a solid S&C program, teach guys to apply force in less than ideal situations. But to replace o-lifting? |
For training athletes, I agree 100% that more simple movements are better. There's no debate; the olympic lifts are hard to learn and this takes time. Athletes in sports like football, rugby or whatever will gain more benefit from exercises that don't take long to learn. Removing the limiting factor of 'skill necessary to correctly perform the lift' means that you can ramp the weight up to where 'pure strength' becomes the limiting factor and thus gives you a training effect.
As to whether one style is better than the other in general terms, I agree with Garrett, it is a pointless debate. Why not use both? It obviously depends on your goals. Ultimately the body doesn't know whether it has to lift a barbell, a tyre or anything else. Explosive contraction is trained regardless. I like variety in my training because my sport is crossfit, so I try to make use of strongman, olympic lifting, powerlifting, gymnastics etc to give me broader athleticism. So for me it is about choosing the movements that I feel will give me most carry-over to all other disciplines. Doing the olympic lifts will make me stronger at the olympic lifts and also benefit strongman and crossfit. Doing strongman will make me better at strongman and crossfit, but is less likely to improve my olympic lifts. It makes sense for me to perform the high-skill movements often, as I get carry over to other things. Strongman, powerlifting etc is good for variety and to increase all-out strength, but if I can potentially realise improvement in these without training them, I then have more time to train other exercises (which require more practice, such as the olympic lifts). Likewise, gymnastics are likely to improve other aspects of fitness due to the incredible strength they build. But you just aren't going to get good at gymnastics without training it. So it seems logical, to me at least, that you perform the exercises which give you greatest carry-over to ALL other things, as well as that thing itself. Does that make sense? |
More food...
http://www.sandbagfitnesssystems.com...the_masses.pdf Quote:
Quote:
|
I love training SM, but the BFS article you posted Garrett seems spot on.
Makes a good point about grip if I understand it correctly. |
The BFS article takes pretty safe road. be careful, be skeptical, don't throw the babay out....Also, I have a strong desire to disregard anything that includes the following words.
CNS Fast twitch fibers motor units neuromuscular modal domain Given that the article is about football, it is safe to assume that we are not contemaplating how SM will make you a better olympic lifter, croquet player, gymnast or taxpayer...but a football player? Yes. Here are some other observations.
|
Time to be really annoying and say that the take-away point is, there's more than one way to get strong and fast.
The one issue that has only just been picked up on, is that strongman movements are just as capable of injuring an athlete as anything else. I don't where this idea has come from, that flipping a tyre or whatever is somehow safer and won't increase risk of injury. That is absolute nonsense. Furthermore, odd object lifting often requires technique. To say that you can lift a keg or a tyre etc anyway you like is wrong. That's no different to explaining the power clean by saying 'just pick it up to your shoulders'. Rounded backs, etc, it's going to be ugly and probably do more harm than good. The useful thing about barbell lifts is they teach an athlete to move properly by making the moving of weight as efficient as possible. If you know how to brace, keep a straight back and drive through the heels in a DL, then when you come to pick up a sandbag or keg you will be in a better position to do it without injury. If you just take people with no idea how to lift and get them to pick up a heavy bag or tyre, it's going to be a sorry mess. |
I call bullshit on an article that implies that oly lifting is inherently unsafe without a bazillion years of training and in preference people should be lifting odd objects with maximum aggression with little emphasis on technique and training.
I'm just really fucking tired of people anywhere that spend more energy hating on system X than spreading the love of system Y, whether X and Y be oly lifters, powerlifters, strongman trainers, Crossfitters. Vegetarians are fine to hate on, however. |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.