You must be kidding, or really bad at math. You’re saying that a guy that benches close to 400lbs. would struggle with a triple at 315? No way.
I really don’t see how this debate is still relevant, if you have realistic volumes of speed, plyos, MB etc. There is no way that you can go into the weight room and lift circa max weights and expect to progress in that situation.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that point. But offseason/GPP, if the athlete has not reached an acceptable level of strength, there should be plenty of room to include some heavy lifting.
Charlie (who some people on here must think is a Westside aficionado) has said REPEATEDLY that weights is supplemental work! It must serve the primary stimulus, not the other way around.
ALL lifting is supplemental, that does not lead to the suggestion that one approach is better than another.
As much as some people may disagree with James, he is spot on with his assertion that it is mind-numbingly easy to attain the necessary strength (at least what can be obtained in the weight room) to reach high levels of performance both in sprinting and team sports. Furthermore, using sub-max loads (note: still can be “heavy”) is a much more complementary method while incorporating a holistic program. Remember, the goal is more speed and one would be well served to avoid deviating too far from that specific objective.
Bulloney. If strength were “as easy as falling out of a boat and hitting the water”, just about every athlete in every gym would be much stronger. They are not. Even many good athletes who have lifted for years are not at all what I would call strong, even when that has been the stated goal of their training. James also has said his athletes, I think he stated the load was usually around 70%, do not lift explosively. Do you agree with that? Non-explosive lifting at a 10-12 RM. That’s the ticket to speed and explosive strength?