plyo program

I agree with james,this is all great discussion,thank you everybody for precious input.
That said facts over opinions may be an appropriate epistemological tool to navigate nowadays virtual realities.

Excellent points svincenz

I’ll be the first to admit that my theoretical sport training mind exists in, not even a totalitarian but more of a, despotism in which I am the despot.

Truth in jest

Regarding your statement regarding the difficulty in talent identification/selection for team sports, I respectfully disagree.

As I enter my 8th year working with American football, I can state with complete certainty that the requisite tools for precise talent identification and selection are in fact in existence and usable in the practical setting.

The most valuable markers are constituted by neurophysiological, psychological-emotional, and morpho-biomechanical evaluations.

I am fortunate to have a close associate in Bulgaria (a soon to be professor at the NSA in Sofia) who has, over the years, shared with me various research only being pursued in Russia; specifically pertaining to morpho-biomechanics.

In addition, I was privileged to have been put in contact with a graphologist living in the US who demonstrated to me the nearly incomprehensible accuracy in psychological-technical-behavioral profiling that may be attained via hand writing analysis. I speak from experience as she evaluated both me and my wife, not knowing either one of us, based solely upon our handwriting and provided us with profiles more detailed then we could have possibly described each other after having been married, at that time, for 7 years.

It is my knowing that the tools are, in fact, available and that all relevant talent identification variables are measurable/quantifiable.

It’s a matter of asking the proper questions and possessing the requisite diagnostic resources.

The key, as you well noted, is not to make premature diagnostic rulings such that the ‘baby is not thrown out with the bath water’ so to speak.

Probably upon the commonalities of the multiple numerators (training methods) that have brought success on the single denominator (humans), for this would give useful hints sooner. Not a direct way perhaps, but it seems only natural to study this area and see how success can be brought about.

James, what happens if in training we consider and target humans before markers,will those markers maybe change?
Why then to call upon profiling to make up for lack of knowledge and perception of the whole?

I am glad you refer then to diagnostics,as this is exactly the structure medical sciences have been built upon ,either in the easter,and western world as we know it.

Question remains though:isn’t there any better option really?

From my experience, the more advanced athletes require a general stimulus while the less advanced athletes and beginners require more specific stimuli.

In the cases of accel vs. max velocity, I’m looking at the general stimulus of one versus the other in many cases. If you are doing a session where you are trying to run at max velocity (i.e. flying start 30-40m build up into 20m max velocity effort vs. running a straight 60m run at max effort) one is more stressful than the other - and this can be influenced by whether or not you are starting from a stand or out of blocks. For the developmental athlete, I’m looking for very specific adaptations, many of which are related to technique and biomechanical efficiency. There may also be specific strength and power adaptations related to various stages of the acceleration phase. If the athlete is not “strong” enough to hold acceleration posture, this capacity must be developed more specifically.

For an advanced athlete, many of these specific issues should already be in place. Thus, I’m looking for general stresses from the various runs (different distances) to create a positive adaptation. This may take place within a context of training over many weeks and phases.

Thus, if someone approached me with two different 100m runners - one elite and one non-elite - I would be much more interested in the general trends of training and application of stresses for the elite runner (loading and unloading periods over time, distances run and progressions over those distances, times for each distance over the span of the training program). While I would be more concerned with the specific training and biomechanical elements of the non-elite (running technique, posture, exercise selection, lifting technique, field test results, etc).

These assumptions are all based on:

  • What I have seen across the sample of athletes I have worked with (beginners to world record holders/olympic medallists)

  • Discussions with Charlie in the midst of working with these various athletes

Of course, some may have a different definition of general vs specific than I do. And, I am only speaking of an “emphasis” in training, as there will always be general and specific adaptations at every level.

I liken advanced coaching to staring at one of those paintings that have the hidden image in them. The more you stare intensely at those images, the harder it is to see the hidden image. The more you step back, take your time and let your eyes relax, the clearer things become. I believe too many people are staring and glaring too intently (looking for quick and easy results), rather than taking in the entire context of what is in front of them, gathering knowledge over time and waiting patiently for the results.

For how our paths may have distantiated over time,we got to the very same conclusion above,which I deeply agree with.
Are you familiar with the Bates Method? Exercises like what Bates calls “Palming” and “Sunning” can be extremely helpful to enhance general brain functions which allow such hidden image/bigger picture experiences,hence maybe better advanced coaching.

Yes - our common denominator helps to make it all possible.

No I haven’t heard of the Bates Method. Can you bring me up to speed on it (so that I don’t have to Google it)? Thanks in advance.

From Wikipedia:


“Bates suggested closing the eyes for minutes at a time to help bring about relaxation.[15] He asserted that the relaxation could be deepened in most cases by “palming”, or covering the closed eyes with the palms of the hands, without putting pressure on the eyeballs.[1] If the covered eyes did not strain, he said, they would see “a field so black that it is impossible to remember, imagine, or see anything blacker”, since light was excluded by the palms. However, he reported that some of his patients experienced “illusions of lights and colors” sometimes amounting to “kaleidoscopic appearances” as they “palmed”, occurrences which he attributed to his ubiquitous “strain” and which he claimed disappeared when one truly relaxed.[15] This phenomenon, however, was almost certainly caused by Eigengrau or “dark light”. In fact, even in conditions of perfect darkness, as inside a cave, neurons at every level of the visual system produce random background activity that is interpreted by the brain as patterns of light and color.[4]”

Underlined are those concepts which may go a long way (epistemologically speaking) explaining many phenomena of today’s sport science and training.

I am always closing my eyes periodically when performing massage or static stretching with an athlete. It is not a conscious effort - it just happens. It does help with sensing tension and changes in muscle tension.

(…and opening up the big picture!)

IT deff helps.
I have seen ppl talk and talk when performing this work - to me, they are just going through the motion.
Also - I once had this lady massaging my legs = great
She became Pregnant and her massages became useless. Instantly you could feel the difference.

Regarding the assessment of humans before markers, in my judgment, is “putting the cart before the horse”.

Particularly because the markers (sport structure) is what provides the context and direction for the training.

Isn’t the human the PRIMARY context and direction to be addressed?
How can the human ever be defined the cart in your allegory?
How can the human as a whole (even to extent of considering it - as a whole - purely a machine) can be considered SECONDARY to whatever expression of its own,even when defined by the most accurate markers available (on the market)?
Wouldn’t this putting opinions (and I am not referring here to one or the other James’ opinion) before facts?
Which brings about the next legitimate question: what do we build our judgements upon really?

I would only use that logic for the developmental training of young children because they do not yet have the sufficient biological maturity to specialize their efforts towards a defined sport structure.

Sufficient biological maturity being what makes a human human,I guess.

Pakewi, I’m like my man svincenz, Where the heck do you come up with this stuff? What Im trying to say is, speak clearly, your speaking in riddles. Obviuosly your a philosophical type of guy, fine but keep it simple. James, Number 2, and Svincenz did. I understand what your saying (after reading it like 12 times). Granted this is a good discussion but again for simplistic sake please just keep it simple.

Some gibberish in this thread ! Let`s have a vote on who is taking the p***.

Pakewi has great knowledge and was one the Charlie’s favourites, as far as I know. I hope he will continue to share.
I second that he could be clearer, but it could also be that he is reasoning in those terms and so he is not inclined to change his semantics here on this forum. The same happens with James, who normally (I think) thinks and talks an writes in “Soviet” terms and he is not inclined to change it or make it more palatable. It is usually a consequence of living and working in a niche, so Pakewi and Schroeder’s influence and James and Russian/Eastern influence.

Here lies the big difference between Pakewi’s and James’ approach I previously identified.
Pakewi wants to tackle the human before the sports’ requests, for James it is the opposite.
Pakewi, when you say addressing the huma,n are you referring to a re-establishment of natural and proper reflexes, form and structure or to an expansion of abilities?
Is the human “corrupted” by previous experience (ranging from lifestyle, food, early specialization) and you want to return to a “pristine” condition?

I know Schroeder is big on posture and length-tension. I was listening to a podcast where Paul Gagne was speaking and he seems to share some of your ideas. First, correcting limiting postures and working from there. He talked also about general brain function (not IQ, but in the sense of ability to rapidly acquire proficiency in new movements) as a big discriminant between mediocre and great athletes.

Question: are you also studying/experimenting with physiological self-regulation?

You are reducing sensory stimulation. We receive most of it through our eyes, so for (almost) everyone is actually easier to detect internal changes with eyes closed, which generally has also a calming effect on the sympathetic nervous system. So, not always suggested before performance, always after.