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.
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?
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.