View Single Post
Old 02-04-2009, 07:07 PM   #11
Derek Maffett
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 150

Originally Posted by Brian Lawyer View Post
I think I understand what you are saying about ankle extension but I also believe you are thinking in terms of that I am doing the ankle extension in order to somehow mimic or practice that which occurs in an actual snatch or C&J which I don't think is the case.

I believe my coach was having me initiate the movement with ankle extension simply as a means to create a slight separation from the bar in order to drop into the snatch recieving position, as opposed, to the more dramatic dip and go that is shown on the demo vids (i.e. like a mini-jerk or "heave" as Emily described). So like emily was saying, it is kind of an cross between the two (i.e. a middle progression) of simply dropping into a recieving position and doing the heaving version.

I realize you're trying to just elevate the bar a little, but your COG is shifting forward along with the ankle extension. It might not be necessary to shift forward just because the ankle extension is all on its own, but it seems considerably more difficult and perhaps coming up on pointless to extend the ankles dynamically without shifting COG forward.

I suppose it makes some sense if you consider that the moment the heels lift, your COG is driving you down with your ankles not cooperating with the descent. Kind of like if you were to cut two adjacent corner legs off the Eiffel Tower. The other legs refuse to buckle and allow the tower to fall straight, so the COG in the middle of the tower (or over the heel) would make the tower fall the only way it can - in the human parallel, that would be backwards, and it's exactly what was happening to me when I attempted it.

Okay, now let's take the Eiffel Tower's two remaining legs, hinge joint them, and set the whole thing down on the ground. If the two legs (ankles) start to rise up extremely quickly, the tower would just pop into the air and gravity wouldn't be able to cause much of that backwards tumble. (Note that we're also imagining that the two hinged legs have been slid closer to the middle of the Eiffel Tower.) Now, if the tower were raised slowly, it would fall because gravity affects the whole thing.

Now we add 100,000 tons of anti-matter underneath the tower. The explosive force sends it sky-high, but the hinged feet underneath the tower push up at that time. Free of much of the weight of the tower, the feet can push up powerfully instead of using a slow elevating force. The feet would then help more for high power production and would likely not unbalance the tower much if at all. Furthermore, when the tower starts to fall down (as it already kind of was when the feet were just slowly raising the tower), the feet will be able to fully retract and thus avoid unbalancing the tower.

Unfortunately, the tower is made of metal and cannot squat. It lands with locked knees and falls apart. Which probably isn't a bad thing because a two-legged Eiffel Tower exposed to large quantities of anti-matter isn't of very much use to anyone. Even the French.

Make sense?

So with that in mind, do you still think I am looking at problems in the future? If so, do you think Greg Everett's method of Snatch balance with the mini-jerk to create separation is better or should I go with Emily's suggestion of simply dropping into a recieving position.

Personally, I wouldn't try to use ankle extension if that's all I'm using. It works fine in conjunction with knee and hip extension, but it sounds problematic on its own and you seem to be taking the weight-shifty-forward-problem thing. You can always make use of a dip/jerk with less power. It will definitely be a problem if you get into the habit of shifting your COG forward.

I am thinking for this particular routine, Power Snatch + Snatch Balance + MH Snatch, I would opt for the dipping or heaving snatch balance so that I can use a weight that is still challenging for the power snatch and hang snatch. I will probably have to use lighter weight if I was simply going to drop into a recieving position.

Ew, that's programming. Ask Greg. Heavier sounds good.
Derek Maffett is offline   Reply With Quote