I am ready and open to get the usual gibberish comment and blame,but anyone would also care to answer at least to a very simple question of mine: with all the morpho-biomechanics of the world how does a 8-10 yo’s biceps brachii differ in nature,and function from a 14-16 yo’s one? Don’t they both primarily flex elbows,for Americans,as well as Bulgarians,and for the all-mighty Russians too,however structured or less structured the personality of the individual,and even for the smartest and most sophisticated graphologist and/or marriage consultant out there ?
Honestly,to me this all goes a long way explaining the MASS confusion reigning in today’s world of sports training AT ALL LEVELS.
Svincenz,you have fisrt hand,day to day experience of PRO euro soccer,as I do,so you’ll know how the injury rate in major European competitions has climbed to the roof this year (36% increase). Do you know also what was the conclusion the experts got to as far as the cause of all this based on all these studies,and sciences we all base our OPINIONS upon? Winter temperatures and humidity changes. Global warming.
Aren’t we HUMANS (athletes or not!) designed to function in different environments and adapt ? Isn’t training supposed to make ALL OF US humans more and more proficient at this?
Gibberish,or not,I’ll sit here anyway waiting for what they will come up with next Spring and Summer,do my job,and have a honest laugh in the meantime.
I believe we ALL have to work to improve our ability to communicate these concepts to a broader audience. I will be the first to admit that there have been many a presentation when I would get nothing but blank stares back from the coaches I was speaking to. Now I have come to expect it. Of course, there will always be a proportion of the audience that “doesn’t get it” nor will they ever.
There are lots of really, really smart guys out there who cannot hold an audience. It does seem that the people who are really making a name for themselves are the not-so-smart guys that are working to connect with the masses. I’m not saying I’m trying to be one of those guys (as I despise most of them), but there is a lesson to be learned.
There sure is at least ONE LESSON to be learned,as always,#2,and you surely are doing a great job in many many areas ! Thank you,for all this,to start with.
Charlie had the gift of taking some very complex concepts and making them much more simple during the implementation process. In fact, some of his explanations were so simple, people would not believe that they would work (i.e. just flick the hand out of the starting blocks and everything will take care of itself).
On the other hand, I would be talking with Charlie and the nature of the conversation was so advanced, I would just keeping nodding my head in agreement even though I had no freaking clue what he was talking about. The concepts would be zooming over my head at the speed of a supersonic jet fighter. In most cases, it would take me a number of years to actually understand the message he was trying to impart.
When we would do his seminars together, I would always introduce myself as the “translator” or “CF for Dummies” when we got to the high-end discussions on training. Charlie would introduce himself as “Rain Man”. I guess that would make me Tom Cruise.
I only have been a far away spectator of that very same movie most of the times,but still I sat there,and equally kept nodding in agreement,equally having no freaking clue of what Charlie was talking about.And I have been re-playing that movie ever since,perpetually looped in the silent pursuit of that “everything will take care of itself”…
Pakewi,
are you sure you understood what I wrote or you were simply making a point by ridiculing what I wrote? I dont’ think they make any sense in the context I proposed, i was talking about something completely different. Yes, probably you wanted to say that.
Anyway, sorry to disagree, but humans were not designed, and it is not only the wrong word, it is wrong concept. So, we are not designed to function in different environment and adapt.
Training is basically supposed to stimulate phenotypic adaptations by upregulating the expression of certain genes.
Now, I don’t know if I understood well, but really are the experts converging to global climate change (not warming) as an explanation for the rise in injuries? Because I think it is as antiscientific as it can be.
(man plans)…and god laughs, wonderful autobiography of Arthur Jones, a interesting fella for sure.
N2, not referring to people posting here, but there are things difficult to communicate and things that don’t make any sense.
Great researchers are not always great teachers (most of the time for laziness, otherwise they would not necessarily great, but at least half-decent), but great researchers have clear ideas in their minds.
And there are people able to explain things much more complicated (in absolute terms) than training (for instance, grad courses in some hard science). Of course, the audience has to be of decent subject-specific knowledge.
I always liked how Charlie was able to communicate. I’m sure he was keeping more advanced (and maybe not fully formed) concepts for smaller audiences.
I understood,and respect what you said,nor I am ridiculing your words in any way.
As long as words are concerned,well,words may be inappropriate,the general sense surely is not.
Well,if you have access to Italian and English media,then,just have a comprehensive look for latest articles and interviews by doctors,trainers,and phd’s in different areas re: injuries in pro soccer this season.
Some claims made on this forum too are quite anti-scientific ,some to the point of being difficult to logically sustain as well,by the way. As #2 says,we all have some responsibilities in this regard,some in communication,some in attitudes and true ends I guess.
As we get deeper into the discussion, I think we agree much more than we disagree.
Now that specific age ranges and developmental levels are being addressed I think we are very much in agreement.
My interest in talent identification only applies to doing so when the time is right, which differs based upon sport structure and biological maturity rates, in order to subvert mistakenly premature exclusion/misdirection.
I agree bold!
And sometimes getting the desired response becomes a trial and error process,as the desired response may vary ,being itself a mean to an end.
In my collaboration with Dr Verkhoshansky on his upcoming 2nd Coaches Manual, prior to his death, we decided to replace the word plyometric with the proper term- reactive-elastic.
Pliometric, with an I, indicated, from Greek, increased measurement. No reference to speed. Thus, pliometric is the proper term to describe what is currently referred to as eccentric.
Plyometric, with a Y, was termed by Fred Wilt who was a friend of and had visited Dr Verkhoshansky and, with respect to Wilt, the word and use of plyometric has really muddled the sport training literature.
In the 2nd coaches manual it is also explained that concentric and eccentric are misused words in reference to sport science/muscle physiology.
So, those of you who purchase the 2nd manual, when it comes out, will see the following vernacular:
concentric is replaced by miometric, or overcoming
eccentric is replaced by pliometric, or yielding
isometric remains the same and is equivalent to sustaining and static
plyometric is replaced by reactive/elastic
and shock is exclusive to the most intensive forms of rapid muscle lengthening
Other than smooth shifts one way or the other allowed for by the training process fine tuning the whole CFTS aims to, how do you manage to effectively separate the effects of plyometrics - as well as of any other training mean - from central to peripheral?
As you may know regardless of the athlete,regardless of the sport,regardless of the end goal,all of my training has been based on stimuli eliciting as pure and controlled as possible reflexive activity,which to me allows for both central and peripheral adaptation to the highest degree and at the fastest rate,hence implying the highest and fastest potential of change,with precisely this being one of the goals of adopting such extreme methodological choices.
The avatar is a charcol by jolliffe. If you believe the genetic thing he has the verandah over the eyes and it more than likely continues around the whole head.
