Now. Just to recap. Going back to UT’s original post…
“skips and hop are not plyo, they are jumps”
End of discussion.
ut,
what would you call hurdle hops then? charlie named them as plyometrics and frequently used in his athletes program?
i stated in a earlier post that depth drops/depth jumps/hurdle jumps
so why are skips jumps and hurdle hops are plyo’s? where are the differences?
dude im not bringing this topic back up, read through this thread lots of great comments
Probably the whole Charlie Francis Training System is nothing else than a method to externally modulate those forces,built on Charlie’s unique hands on experience,knowledge,and intuitive mind.
Paradoxically enough,if viewed as such it is no different from sadly infamous Tzekos’ training,and the System James has been talking about all these years.
One day we will all finally see the light.
Pakewi, could you please elaborate a little bit more?
What are the parallels between Charlie’s and Tzekos’ systems?
What are the parallels between Charlie’s and Schroeder’s systems (I assume you are still collaborating with him)?
They are both methods which produce results by the use of tools ( Vertical Integration in one case,and extreme specificity and minimization of variables in the other) which allow precisely to modulate those forces James is talking about based on the external adaptive responses of the individual.
Seen all the discussion and debate over the years,I can only comment that maybe,I am Jay Schroeder,in the end…
Pakewi,
I agree that any method which was able to produce consistent results did so because it was able to produce a positive (toward the result) adaptive response (not sure why you are writing about external, maybe you wanted to say phenotypic).
With a bit of reductionism, we can say that those methods were able to increase (and optimize) the force production relative to sprinting.
But one question is how,and another question is why.
You are not Jay Schroeder, who lacks the Italian charm.
External only meaning response based.
The GPP DVD covers plyometric progressions. I’m not sure if the video still comes with the illustration, but it’s a must have. http://www.charliefrancis.com/store/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=23
Absolutely a must!
Pakewi,
the question is still there. CF training system with his high-low setting and Tzekos’ training with specificity and continous high intensity days. Where are the similarities? Of course both have been very successful (Charlie a lot more, Kenteris was far away from WR and also Thanou as far as I remember). And the end result of succesful training system -> successful athletes (when in elite circles) is the modulation of tremendous high forces. But how can you reach the same “conclusions” by taking routes so far away?
double posting, a common problem
Happens all the time:
Arguably there are many differences between CFTS and Clyde Hart systems.
In middle / long distance events, some runners are successful via low volume/high intensity, others the opposite.
Perhaps there is no absolute right answer. Maybe some athletes are more suited to a certain type of approach, therefore the key point is understanding what suits each person.
Perhaps that says something about us as human beings rather than specifically for each successful training method around.
So, Kenteris with Charlie wouldn’t have reached the potential he reached with Tzekos? And the same for Ben with the opposite?
I don’t know. For sure, Tzekos’ training system is more demanding than CFTS (but we have more limted info on the fomer) and thus the “selective” implications are stronger.
But what? This is what Pakewi (and Schroeder) and Jamirok are supporting.
Exactly.
Until we recognize the need of a training system which targets the human before the athlete,input before than output oriented,and stimulus before than response based. A feedforward rather than feedback structure,hence,by definition:universal.
If I knew this, I would have started employing the method pakewi describes. Pakewi has done a good job in convincing me that the success certain athletes have had has the human organism as the common denominator and not the diversity of the successful training plans over time.