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:
PALMING
“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***.
Guys,
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.
James,
I think we continue to disagree, to a certain extent, and there’s nothing bad in it.
I have vast experience with soccer in the European system and I don’t think until 14-16 yo a strong talent identification is possible. Of course it depends on the margins of errors you include in your talent identification, but let’s say, in muscular soccer like the one played nowadays, you are inclined to favour certain morpho-biomechanics features. Just to drop a couple of names, Xavi and Iniesta, two of the best players around, would be easily and rapidly discarded. Their abilities (like reading the game, big personality etc.) would be identifiable clearly in middle to late teenage years. In addition, if we refer to young guys (8-10 yo), they will play with adults in maybe 8-10 years, which is a pretty long time-frame during which game dynamics can dramatically change. In the 100 m dash the distance does not change, but even in that discipline, people taller than 1.92-1.94 would be considered due to Bolt’s success,while maybe ten years they would have been directed toward other disciplines as they lacked the proper (at that time!) morpho-biomechanics.
As for the support of graphologist, that is very interesting and I’m a little bit informed. The question is: does the degree of accuracy change in teenage years, where personality is not fully formed and subject to less predictable changes than in later years?
Clear and top-notch information.
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.