Yes, however, is this because his training was that ‘‘innovative’’ or that everyone elses sucked. I would side with the latter.
In an environment where mediocrity is commonplace it is all to easy to assign superiority to that which should be the norm.
If every combine prep coach/strength/speed coach would take the time to read Charlies materials and the translated Russian manuals (to name a few), AND posses the ability to practically apply the information!, I believe we would then view numbers such as Archuleta’s as being a higher standard, rather then an anomoly.
Hats off and much respect to DB (or who ever he is) for constructing a systematic and highly highly organized training system. Let’s not forget, however, that it was all done 40 years ago by those who wrote the book on strength science. This is my personal view of course.
You people can argue, while I make the best gains of my life, my work capacity and power is on a whole new level. And now I don’t have to worry if I did too much or did too little, I hated that feeling when I used to train “normally”
And I am now finally heading towards my goals I set for myself years back at a consistant rate. My genetics don’t seem as bad as I thought.
I can see a 40+ inch vertical jump as a realisitic proposition… not bad for a drug free mixed fiber average genetic aged body
Most of all these books I have collected seem like a waste of paper to me now…
Having the tools, info and ideas is one thing, being able to apply them in an effective manner is the key, and here is where DB’s stuff is right on, for me anyway
Yes, however, is this because his training was that ‘‘innovative’’ or that everyone elses sucked. I would side with the latter.
Plenty of good prep coaches around for decades. Who else was training all these athletes in all these sports? The internet and crafty marketing has paved a way for some salesmen while others may want to remain anyonomous (sp).
Clemson, I know you have your sources. Go ask about Freeney and Heap. I’m pretty sure everyone knows DB isn’t real. There’s obviously some link to Schroeder, so outlier or not, the concepts and results are all we have to look at with an open mind.
James, I completely agree, but it doesn’t look “simple” to put theory & research together cohesively?
There’s a time for KISS and a time for overcomplicating, but shifting anomalies to a standard would involve change…which people resist. What if all the linear periodization people shunned conjugate? Of course progressive overload works, but there’s other options.
By your logic I could say that HIT is the best training system ever because hey, there’s guys all over the Internet that swear by it as the best form of strength training.
Hit an elite powerlifting or weightlifting total using it and you’ll have my ear. Do something that hasn’t been done or can’t be done using another approach and you’ll have my attention.
I have no interest in either sport. I’m after explosiveness, power and speed.
Although a standing 315lb military press and 405+lb raw 14inch grip bench press without arch or leg drive would be pretty cockdiesel at 190lbs, and one on my goals
You’re the only thing I see on every forum. Literally. I wasn’t gonna say nothing but damn. I would love to see a clip your 40 (plus , no less :eek: ) inch standing vert. The average vert for an NBA player is like 28. The numbers you hear like 42 and up are all from a run-up and can even be off one leg. In closing CoolColJ vertical is not greater than Michael Jordan’s.
The bottom line here is that as long as an individual has not adapted to a program, they may continue to see progress on that program. I personally believe that it is DB’s terminology that is going to keep his message from being as widespread and popular because many coaches argue against it and make the argument that it’s the same old thing with a different name. I also believe that given the complicated terminology, the actual teaching of his method will limit itself to more experienced athletes/lifters and that most of these that take the time to learn his system will make serious progress on that system. But I also believe that these lifters/athletes would make similar progress on any good coach’s program or system.
CooColJ wasn’t claiming a 40" vertical. He was stating a goal, that through his experiences with DB’s system, he thinks is attainable despite not having great genetics.
It appears that we would all agree that it is the organized and systematic programming of training parameters combined with a knowledge of training history and physical assessment of the athlete in question that will ultimately yield significant performance increases.
Example: I told this to a few guys at Charlie’s workshop this weekend,
I have a 17yr old kid who I have been working with out of my garage. He had been lifting weights, sporadically and with no real organization, for the last few years. He came to me with the goal of increasing his limit strength.
His bench press on week 1 was 225lbs at a bodyweight of about 170-173lbs, he is about 5’9’’ or so. After 6 training weeks (I have him on a 10 day training week) I tested his 1RM bench and he hit 270 at the same bodyweight he was at on day one. That’s a 45lb increase in 6 training weeks.
Additionally, 275lbs was a very heavy single (+95%1RM) in coventional DL on week one. On training week 7 he hit 275 for a 5RM with a good deal left in the tank.
My point; he has hit some big PR’s in a relatively short period of time. Why- not because what I had him do was magical, but because it was systematic and organized and because his levels of muscular coordination/high threshold MU recruitment, etc, are novice at best.
Most of these dramatic performance increases that we observe, or read about, are exhibited by novice/young athletes or those who have previously been exposed to sub-optimal training, who then engage in very organized and stystematic training.
Again, nothing new here, the only possible exception being the ‘relatively recent’ mainstream exposure to organized non-linear periodization training for athletes here in the western hemisphere.
I think it’s just as dangerous (if not more so) to strain under a 95% - 100% max bench as it is to drop and catch a bar loaded with 40% of the athlete’s max. That’s just an opinion - I have no data to back that up. But I’ve done both, and I’m much more nervous about straining a shoulder, pulling a muscle, or Heaven forbid tearing a pec when I’m lifting 95% - 100% of my max.
You are probably right on both counts. I don’t think DB would claim that he’s doing anything new either, just adapting what others have done.
As for the complicated terminology, I agree, it gets in the way of learning his concepts which can be very helpful. A plyometric-iometric-miometric (or some such) bench press is actually just a regular old bench. That gets in the way of understanding.
Strength isn’t the be all and end of of power. First you have to absorb and react out before you can apply power. Yes it can help, but only to point.
Someone at my level isn’t going to gain much on his VJ by upping the squat from where its at now. Especially a running jump. And I’m not exactly a slow person.
Working on strength speed increases my strength faster than plain old heavy weights and reps. Mag work gives you best bang for the buck, you get both stronger and faster - at least for me. Which is where the individual specific training comes in
PLEEAAAZE guys, this has been more than extensively debated previously. It was extremely frustrating to go through those +300 post threads. Since we all agree that there is nothing magical about the DB system then why argue about it. If someone wants to understand the principles why can’t he get a relevant answer instead of these same old posts that lead to nowhere.
CoolCol or Kellyb could you take a look at my questions on page 1 and see if you could clarify some points for me. Thanks.
