Likes Likes:  2
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: The Sport of Weightlifting Series by Jim Napier

  1. #11
    AKA Tony Arkitect FFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    4,157
    Post Thanks / Like
    Review of book 2 updated in 2nd post.

  2. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    693
    Post Thanks / Like
    "Just as I was writing a note about how this is strange, I turn the page and find his claim that "the snatch will almost always be 80% of the C&J no matter what, so pushing the C&J is more important."

    That's interesting. He was an outstanding snatcher. If I recall correctly, his snatch was out of proportion better than his C&J, probably closer to 90% than 80%.

  3. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,817
    Post Thanks / Like
    The "magical" 80% number is outdated 70s-80s information. Look at contemporary elite lifters. Being at only 80% or even under means being an outlier.

  4. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    799
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FFF View Post
    Currently reading through book 2 and will do a full review, but this should get some discussion going:

    Attachment 155
    I have to say "it depends." It depends on the lifter, the phase, the goal of training, and so on. I definitely lean on the side of specificity and think nearly half your training time needs to be dedicated to classic snatch and clean & jerk with 1-3 repetitions. I'm not convinced (beyond learning progression) of the utility extensive of block or hang work outside of two to three microcycles per macro in the grand scheme. I find snatch balance is a very good tool to improve the snatch and jerk. Complexes have their place early in the training year as a way to build volume and GPP. I'm sure this is what Jim is getting at but writing it in such a manner isn't going to sell as much.

  5. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    799
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by erpel View Post
    The "magical" 80% number is outdated 70s-80s information. Look at contemporary elite lifters. Being at only 80% or even under means being an outlier.
    Care to elaborate? Do you mean that in the "modern" era of lifting that you ought to be snatching 80% or more of your CJ?

  6. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    693
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by b_degennaro View Post
    Care to elaborate? Do you mean that in the "modern" era of lifting that you ought to be snatching 80% or more of your CJ?
    I think he is referring to the days when the press was competed, and for a while thereafter. Back then, time spent working on the press was to the detriment of the snatch, more so than the C&J. I never trained the press, but some of the older guys I knew did and told of spending at least 40% of their training time working on it. As the press deteriorated into a quick lift, some saw their press approach their C&Js. One guy I know did 385-275-380 at a national meet.

    Back then, for heavier lifters, milestone lifts were 350-300-400. With the elimination of the press, more time was spent working on the other lifts, particularly the snatch, and we saw that ratio move upwards to 80% and beyond.

  7. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,817
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by b_degennaro View Post
    Care to elaborate? Do you mean that in the "modern" era of lifting that you ought to be snatching 80% or more of your CJ?
    The average elite c&j has decreased more than the average snatch vis-a-vis the 80s. This is visible in a WR era comparison (snatch yes, c&j not really), but also in many elite pb's. The underlying pattern is that of a "narrowing", so yes - the modern ideal is over 80%.

    Long 138/170 = 81.2%
    Wu 139/163 = 85.3%
    Thach 135/161 = 83.9%
    Kruaithong 132/157 = 84.1%
    Kim 154/178 = 86.5%
    Chen 151/183 = 82.5%
    Zhang 147/179 = 82.1%
    Figueroa 142/177 = 80.2%
    Irawan 145/175 = 82.9%
    Liao 166/198 = 83.8%
    Ismaiylov 163/188 = 86.7%
    Shi 162/195 = 83.1%
    Kim 160/187 = 85.6%
    Chen 160/185 = 86.5%
    Mosquera 155/187 = 82.9%
    Lü 177/207 = 85.5%
    Kim 171/201 = 85.1%
    Karapetyan 174/197 = 88.3%
    Ehab 165/201 = 82.1%
    Godelli 171/198 = 86.4%
    Rostami 179/220 = 81.4%
    Tian 178/221 = 80.5%
    Ulanov 175/215 = 81.4%
    Lu 180/214 = 84.1%
    Markov 179/211 = 84.8%
    Okulov 176/215 = 81.9%
    Aukhadov 175/215 = 81.4%
    Pielieshenko 175/211 = 82.9%

    AND SO ON

    vs.

    Om 134/171 = 78.3%
    Rahimov 165/214 = 77.1%
    Bedzhanyan 190/242 = 78.5%
    Ilyin 191/246 = 77.6%
    ???

  8. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    57
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by b_degennaro View Post
    I'm not convinced (beyond learning progression) of the utility extensive of block or hang work outside of two to three microcycles per macro in the grand scheme. I find snatch balance is a very good tool to improve the snatch and jerk. Complexes have their place early in the training year as a way to build volume and GPP.
    I find it fascinating that these general approaches are voiced by a wide variety of individuals involved in US weightlifting - not to tar everyone with the same brush but I've seen some staunch "post-Bulgarian" approaches where blocks, hangs and so forth are rejected almost entirely. I have no idea where this came from but I can't say I see the sense in it.

    If you have a problem with a single aspect of your movement in any other activity (sprinting, throwing, squat/bench/dead, etc.) then you'd compartmentalise the movement to isolate the individual point at which things go wrong, adjust the positioning within this limited range and then work on integrating it to the full movement. Why the Snatch or CJ should be any different to this I'm not quite sure - obviously its a faster movement but technical tweaks are always relevant. Perhaps if your technique is perfect you might worry less about this, but even so the hang variants are great for back strength (in explosive movements) and the block snatch is one of the best ways to improve the speed of the extension and change of direction.
    I'm curious as to why their reputation is under such criticism - I've always personally been a fan of the block snatch and found that progress in a deliberate, well-executed block snatch is highly-correlated with progress in the full movement (where the focus is on replicating the block-based extension).

    I also have a lot of time for heavy complexes when they're implemented intelligently and strategically. I've seen some ridiculous bollocks out there (pull + clean + hang clean + FS + push press + Jerk + ohs + sotts press etc.) but keeping it simple with these things can really improve technique and conditioning is only a secondary concern. I suppose it depends on what we're talking about as a complex but I have a few I really like, such as the Deadlift + Snatch and the Power Jerk + Split Jerk (from rack).

    I could be wrong in my attitude but I've generally found that most people who reject the importance of these exercises and approach a Bulgarian style of training are arrogant and erroneously believe that their technique is either, (a) already perfect, or (b) going to become better simply according to the passage of time. Intelligent programming and deliberate technique focus in these lifts should carry over and I'm curious to see what the case against them is - performing a lot of Snatch and CJ might improve your technique over time, but to suggest that its faster than actively targeting the problem boggles the mind.

    Disclaimer: this diatribe is not aimed at anyone, but I've been thinking about it a lot lately and I feel like someone here might know enough to explain it.

  9. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    412
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Liam View Post
    I find it fascinating that these general approaches are voiced by a wide variety of individuals involved in US weightlifting - not to tar everyone with the same brush but I've seen some staunch "post-Bulgarian" approaches where blocks, hangs and so forth are rejected almost entirely. I have no idea where this came from but I can't say I see the sense in it.

    If you have a problem with a single aspect of your movement in any other activity (sprinting, throwing, squat/bench/dead, etc.) then you'd compartmentalise the movement to isolate the individual point at which things go wrong, adjust the positioning within this limited range and then work on integrating it to the full movement. Why the Snatch or CJ should be any different to this I'm not quite sure - obviously its a faster movement but technical tweaks are always relevant. Perhaps if your technique is perfect you might worry less about this, but even so the hang variants are great for back strength (in explosive movements) and the block snatch is one of the best ways to improve the speed of the extension and change of direction.
    I'm curious as to why their reputation is under such criticism - I've always personally been a fan of the block snatch and found that progress in a deliberate, well-executed block snatch is highly-correlated with progress in the full movement (where the focus is on replicating the block-based extension).

    I also have a lot of time for heavy complexes when they're implemented intelligently and strategically. I've seen some ridiculous bollocks out there (pull + clean + hang clean + FS + push press + Jerk + ohs + sotts press etc.) but keeping it simple with these things can really improve technique and conditioning is only a secondary concern. I suppose it depends on what we're talking about as a complex but I have a few I really like, such as the Deadlift + Snatch and the Power Jerk + Split Jerk (from rack).

    I could be wrong in my attitude but I've generally found that most people who reject the importance of these exercises and approach a Bulgarian style of training are arrogant and erroneously believe that their technique is either, (a) already perfect, or (b) going to become better simply according to the passage of time. Intelligent programming and deliberate technique focus in these lifts should carry over and I'm curious to see what the case against them is - performing a lot of Snatch and CJ might improve your technique over time, but to suggest that its faster than actively targeting the problem boggles the mind.

    Disclaimer: this diatribe is not aimed at anyone, but I've been thinking about it a lot lately and I feel like someone here might know enough to explain it.
    I don't think many people will disagree with you. The problem is when people throw in variation for the sake of variation.

    For example take someone who does some type of snatching 8 times in 2 weeks and they think they should include muscle snatches, hang snatches from different positions, block snatch from different heights, power variations of these then end up doing each of them once every 2 weeks because they've seen a compilation video of some Chinese/Russian lifters doing all these combinations.

    I think the general view held by most experienced coaches is to do snatch and maybe power snatch regularly, then every other accessory exercise is included because it specifically addresses a technique problem or weakness of the lifter in question.

  10. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Worcester, England
    Posts
    684
    Post Thanks / Like
    What you see on the internet isn't always indicative of a wider scheme of thinking. There are a lot of weightlifting coaches who don't broadcast everything on Instagram, youtube etc. Some don't have any social media accounts.

    With that said, I personally believe specificity (beyond the beginner stage) is king. Variation is important for motor learning and skill acquisition, but that will only take you so far, beyond that you need to get stronger, and get really proficient at performing the lifts from the floor at heavy weights frequently. Obviously, a classic Bulgarian style of training is not feasible in the modern day, but you can take elements from it to apply to your own training. Personally, I don't find block or hang lifts very useful to me, but that may be because of my build (long limbs, short torso). Different strokes for different people.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •