Go Back   Olympic Weightlifting Forums - Catalyst Athletics > Olympic Weightlifting > Other

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-08-2009, 12:59 PM   #11
Arien Malec
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,030

Originally Posted by Chris H Laing View Post
No one should be mad at each other, but instead learn and keep advancing the knowledge that people have built off of others ideas.
No doubt. My question was not directed at the CFSB approach, which may or may not be an advance over Gant's and Garrett's approaches, but at the lack of credit given to what is pretty obviously a very similar template (except, as noted, the lack of power movements and the positioning of the gymnastics skill work).
Arien Malec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 05:39 PM   #12
Leo Soubbotine
Senior Member
Leo Soubbotine's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 779

Weird kind of article.
CrossFit Evolution
Leo Soubbotine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 05:52 PM   #13
Robert Callahan
Robert Callahan's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Nevada
Posts: 94

Originally Posted by Leo Soubbotine View Post
Weird kind of article.
Why do you say that?
"I swear by my life and by my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine"
Robert Callahan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 10:31 PM   #14
Kevin Perry
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,669

it is weird. The way I see it, there have been so many threads on the CF boards about strength integration that so many variety of training approaches have already been developed so it makes the creation of a journal article on the subject kind of pointless.

It's just taking everything thats already been said and done and printing it to a paper and slaping a name on it for credit... like MOD said.
Kevin Perry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2009, 12:43 AM   #15
Blair Lowe
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 607

I think you could do gymnastics work after heavy lifting and metcon's if it was the typical CF gymnastics which is very basic. Not any decent gymnastics sessions for us gymnasts. It's basic playing with simple, easy stuff. L-sit hold, big deal. Muscle-up, big deal. Handstand stuff, big deal. It all depends on where the individual stands with this stuff. They are not going to be able to do anything that really taxes them unless that muscle group wasn't used in the lifting or metcon. Even then, they may be just out of energy to do it well.

I personally liked alternating Oly and PL days of lifting each workout and finishing off with a metcon. Some gymnastics strength training was subbed for bench and overhead lifting but not always. Between Oly days I switched between cleaning and jerking and snatching days broken down into working different progressions and assistance exercises. A clean and jerk day might work FS as assistance as well as push jerks, PC, tall clean, working from hang, etc. PL days switched between BS and DL. Typically FS and OHS were put into the Oly days and I would switch between snatch and clean grip DL or SLDL and such. Thrusters and SDHP would be put into the Oly assistance group and short metcons would be the end, followed possibly by some stability/mobility stuff ( glute ham/reverse hyper though GM and SLDL were generally in the PL assistance ).

I adjusted whatever WOD at the end so not to work something twice like doing HSPU and dips in the WOD.

I miss doing that.
Blair Lowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2009, 04:42 AM   #16
Anthony Bainbridge
New Member
Anthony Bainbridge's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20

Nothing against Gant, because I think he's a great guy, but he's not the first to mix strength and metcon for a more strength biased workout. I was doing it instinctively since I started CrossFit (3.5 years). Jeff Martin has been doing it for 5 years. Rut and Bagwell both have articles published on a strength biased plan. Several BBers with articles on CF+Strength/Hypertrophy concepts. And the list goes on. Gant made it popular on the forums about a year ago - which is great - but it wasn't a revolution to the rest of us who have been experimenting for years.

And I don't think the authors are bagging on anyone. They are simply demonstrating that you can improve both strength and metcon at the same time (within reason). So really, everyone is agreeing on basic principles, just slightly different angles.

PS - I also do my "basic" gymnastics practise after strength/metcon.
If you don't get nervous before you train - you don't train hard enough.
CrossFit Fredericton
Anthony Bainbridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2009, 10:31 AM   #17
Dave Van Skike
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: PNW
Posts: 1,708

Yeah Gant! where do you get off inventing a things that was already invented like 50 times already???? Next thing you know we'll need a pass to read Gant's log and he'll patent protect our own memories of HS Wrestling.

I'll be the first to Say it here......Gant Grimes is a despot!!!
Practical Strength
Dave Van Skike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2009, 04:00 PM   #18
Andew Cattermole
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 40

Thought this was a good reply from Craig Massey
Posted on the CF forum

"What I find funny is that The Community means the people on this board, for the main part home CrossFitters. The Affiliates, who are too busy training people to have time to post here with great regularity and many of whom have given up doing so through being shouted down by the vocal minority ("keyboard ninjas" one called them), are quietly getting on taking people from zero fitness to as far as they want to go using scaled CrossFit and nothing else.

A bunch of us standing around and agreeing that stopping CrossFit to do SS is the only way to way to address a strength deficiency can't really match hundreds professional coaches training thousands of people all over the world and completely ignoring us. We're a bunch of guys sitting around in the backyard with beers in our hands deciding how the military or building construction or information technology or any other activity that requires specialised knowledge should be run.

I've seen one of the foremost Coaches in CrossFit ignored on this very forum when he dared to take time from actually teaching this stuff to try and explain why we're wrong. And not just once. He didn't have to do that, he certainly didn't have to do that more once, he did it because he cares about CrossFit and genuinely wants to see it done properly. Now he's gone to the trouble to explain very carefully how we can have our cake and eat it too. And, he's proved that it works.

Ignoring that is madness and it's driving people away from this forum. Good people. People who want to contribute for joy of CrossFit.

"Like shouting into an insane asylum" is how one of them described it recently. It's a shame that he was all to accurate."

I am first to admit I love lurking and reading threads and have obtained a lot of interesting thoughts and leads from them in terms of how not to approach certain aspects of training

As usual on reading these entertaining threads all that comes to mind is
Shut up and train then..... actually do something
as opposed to just training and writing on forums or just writing on forums and doing sub par training
Andew Cattermole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2009, 04:41 PM   #19
Garrett Smith
Senior Member
Garrett Smith's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 4,326

Just read the article, and like Leo said, it seemed a little weird--don't quite know how to explain it.

Off topic, but a concern I had was in the linked videos to the article is that Connor Martin loses all his lumbar curve in the starting position of his heavy squats. That won't be good over time, for sure. I had to re-watch it to confirm...the amount of pelvic tilt he goes through in the transition from standing to actually squatting is *huge*.
Garrett Smith NMD CSCS BS, aka "Dr. G"
RepairRecoverRestore.com - Blood, Saliva, and Stool Testing
My radio show - The Path to Strength and Health
Garrett Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2009, 06:48 PM   #20
Derek Weaver
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,628

I haven't read the article, but I don't see what the big deal is. It's Jeff Martin's approach to something similar.

Like Anthony said, Gant's not the first to incorporate heavy lifting with CF. Coach Rut has a little program called the Max Effort Black Box that accomplishes the goal as well. Along with Anthony's approach, Brandon Oto's etc.

What I think is interesting is that the higher ups in CF, usually the ones who say that following the mainpage is all that's needed, have apparently ok'd an entire journal article on another approach.
And if you don't think kettleball squat cleans are difficult, I say, step up to the med-ball
- CJ Kim
Derek Weaver is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 3
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.