Sports-specific movements

Bruce7

I remember seeing a programme where Damon Hill, the racing driver, had a set up where he had a dummy race car in his house with weights attached to the wheel, and he used to sit in this contraption and yank the weighted wheel around so that he got stronger in the turns (or whatever the point was).

Was this a stupid thing for him to do?

There is a view that exercises that seek to replicate sports-specific movements too closely should be avoided as they are likely to interfere with the muscle memory.

If we accept this, the next question is: how close is too close?

For example, tennis and golf. There aren't any effective weights exercises (that I know of) which replicate the swing / serve so there's nothing to worry about here. But if we take the shot put, then almost any kind of one handed press might be seen to encroach on the thrower's technique.

In other words, should we say: if you do sport X, then don't do exercise Y in the gym? I.e. if you are a rower, don't do rows, if you are a discus thrower, don't do flyes, etc.?

Edwardius

Bruce7 wrote: »

I remember seeing a programme where Damon Hill, the racing driver, had a set up where he had a dummy race car in his house with weights attached to the wheel, and he used to sit in this contraption and yank the weighted wheel around so that he got stronger in the turns (or whatever the point was).

Was this a stupid thing for him to do?

If he was doing it in 1994 and 1995 then yes !

Hanley

Eh... just do some double unders?

Barry.Oglesby

I stopped reading after the "there is a view" line. It's not a view.

d'Oracle

Is throwing a disc like a fly?

Mellor

Bruce7 wrote: »

There is a view that exercises that seek to replicate sports-specific movements too closely should be avoided as they are likely to interfere with the muscle memory

If we accept this, the next question is: how close is too close?

Very big IF tbh

There is a big difference between your examples and say, Footballers shouldn't train with medicine balls,

Barry.Oglesby

Will's lost patience with this guy so I'll bite.

This is NOT a view. This is the scary science monster. You do not replicate skill movements with the gym. There are plenty of golfers who've gone down the route of swinging heavier clubs and tornado balls making a piss ant living in the backwaters of professional golf. Likewise with every sport. If it were so, why not get sprinters to attach weights to their feet and run? makes sense right?

Skill for the practise ground, strength and power in the gym.

The idea that because something is "similar" it should help is false. Take balance for example. Put a man on a swiss ball for a week until he can balance on it on his knees no problem, then put the same man on a bike or on a pair of skis or a snowboard. He'll still be ****e, even though alledgedly his "balance" has improved.

It takes years of practise to perfect a skill, either gross or fine. Weighting those movements is a shortcut to poor performance.

And the Damon hill thing is one of the most idiotic things I've ever read, but I got a good laugh out of the image of him sitting in his back garden in a little wooden racing car with weights on the steering wheel. Did he make the sounds too I wonder? I hope so. "Vrroooooom"

omniscient_toad

The Damon hill thing does sound a recipe for driving straight into a wall, imagine spending a week hauling a freakishly heavy steering wheel about and then hopping into a finely tuned pants-wettingly fast car where the minutest twitch and adjustment is vital. Coming up to the first corner, "easy left turn easy le.." steering wheel yanked left as hard as possible and car upside down. And on fire :cool: .

Bruce7

I accept this position, but was trying to phrase my post in neutral language, and brought up the Damon Hill example as a way to raise this issue without referring to the previous discussion and prolonging an unnecessary argument

So, in order to try and get past this, let's just agree that it 100% correct to not attempt to replicate sports-specific movements. Ok?

So the question is where does one draw the line? In other words, how close to a sports-specific movement is too close?

Barry.Oglesby

The thing is that a lot of things that look similar are as different as chalk and cheese.

Bruce7

Ok, so if I understand you correctly, you are saying that appearances are not enough to allow us to distinguish between a movement that is likely to interfere with a sports-specific one and a movement that is not.

So how can one make this distinction?

Zamboni

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

And the Damon hill thing is one of the most idiotic things I've ever read, but I got a good laugh out of the image of him sitting in his back garden in a little wooden racing car with weights on the steering wheel. Did he make the sounds too I wonder? I hope so. "Vrroooooom"

Ha!

Was it just me who thought of this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KviaEWepqhY

Barry.Oglesby

Bruce7 wrote: »

So how can one make this distinction?

Through experience and coaching nous.

Bruce7

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

Through experience and coaching nous.

So is there any way for an average Joe Soap to make this distinction by himself? Are there any rules, or logic, that someone could follow who isn't a top flight coach, and doesn't have access to one?

Barry.Oglesby

Bruce7 wrote: »

So is there any way for an average Joe Soap to make this distinction by himself? Are there any rules, or logic, that someone could follow who isn't a top flight coach, and doesn't have access to one?

What are you asking here? You'll either have to be 1) more specific with respect to exercise selection as in, are you looking for coaching advice? 2) tell me if this is just an exercise in academics

In case of 1) we do this for a living so there's a charge. In case of 2 ) then I'll discuss it but to be honest, I doubt it's of any value to you or anyone to go all "sciency" when we don't have a common frame of reference. This sort of stuff is hard enough to explain in person, in writing I'd have to write a small essay. Google scholar should help you if you're really that interested.

Bruce7

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

What are you asking here? You'll either have to be 1) more specific with respect to exercise selection as in, are you looking for coaching advice? 2) tell me if this is just an exercise in academics

In case of 1) we do this for a living so there's a charge. In case of 2 ) then I'll discuss it but to be honest, I doubt it's of any value to you or anyone to go all "sciency" when we don't have a common frame of reference. This sort of stuff is hard enough to explain in person, in writing I'd have to write a small essay. Google scholar should help you if you're really that interested.

It's a theoretical discussion designed to arrive at principles which can be followed by a trainee who wants to get better at a particular sport, so that such a person can make their own decisions about exercise selection and programme design, and can distinguish the wheat from the chaff, especially on the internet.

I can handle science if it is clearly explained, but is there not some ground that could be covered in between experience and coaching nous and in-depth scientific equations?

Our common frame of reference is the English language, no? I'm not being smart, I'm just saying that if something is set out clearly and then proceeds in logical steps from first principles, anyone should be able to understand it.

Of course, I know your time is valuable, and you don't owe anyone an explanation of this stuff. I'll check out Google too.

Barry.Oglesby

Okay I understand that.

But try to see it from my point of view, most attempts by myself or Will to explain something here end in tears, Will especially. Will offerred you an explanation of this in pm (I've seen the actual conversation not the edited version you posted). I have no confidence that any attempt to explain this will end well.

So to summarise:
- this is a complex topic
- trying to put it in layman's terms leads to more questions, as above
- That will lead to me posting references and studies
- That will lead to me being told to dumb it down
- trying to put it in layman's terms leads to more questions, as above
- That will lead to me posting references and studies
- That will lead to me being told to dumb it down

and so on.

Sorry. This is just the way it is in our experience.

Bruce7

Yeah, ok. This does seem a bit weak though. I haven't asked you to put anything in layman's terms, or dumb anything down.

If terms are clearly defined there is no need to use layman's terms.

If the logic behind something is clearly set out there is no need to dumb it down.

Most experts don't have this kind of trouble explaining their areas of expertise. You might say, "Those who can, do..." but aren't you supposed to be a coach?

g'em

Guys this is really starting to get personal and I don't like it at all. Lay off the snotty tones please.

Inspector Coptoor

Ive been looking at this for a couple of days getting more and more vexed, not vexed enough to say anything til I saw this:

Bruce7 wrote: »

You might say, "Those who can, do..."

That phrase p1sses me off something rotten and I take it as an insult to my profession

Bruce7 wrote: »

but aren't you supposed to be a coach?

I didnt know one's ability to coach S & C or MMA/bjj in a live setting was directly proportional to how little a joe soap can take up on an internet forum from a post on a particular topic.

By your inane logic, I should be able to go on to youtube, watch a video of how to snatch, then go into the gym and perform the technique perfectly simply because I have seen it and have a list of instructions as to how to perform the exercise.

it doesnt work that way!

If I give my Biology students an experiment in order of steps 1,2,3,4 etc on how to dissect a heart, you can be damn sure they're not gonna be able to "expose the semi lunar valves" simply be reading how to do.
They need to be shown in person.

Bruce7

Ok, sorry, happy to drop the subject altogether.

g'em

Liam I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't see my warning above. This thread is not about anyone's coaching abilities, please stay on topic. That goes for all posters, anyone not addressing the issues outlined in the OP can take a forum break for the weekend.

cmyk

Bruce7 wrote: »

So is there any way for an average Joe Soap to make this distinction by himself? Are there any rules, or logic, that someone could follow who isn't a top flight coach, and doesn't have access to one?

I've read through this thread a couple of times (and the other one now) and I'm still not grasping what the actual question is? There is plenty of logic applied to training an athlete, but whole books have been written on the subject.

Bruce7 wrote: »

Most experts don't have this kind of trouble explaining their areas of expertise. You might say, "Those who can, do..." but aren't you supposed to be a coach?

Again I don't understand your question, but I think Will seemed to sum this up for you with this statement in the other thread.

You should be looking to develop your general conditioning in the gym. To first and foremost have a balanced physique and then improve your strength and power then look to put this into practice in training and competition in your particular event.

This seems to answer the question I think you're asking pretty well.

Bruce7

cmyk wrote: »

I've read through this thread a couple of times (and the other one now) and I'm still not grasping what the actual question is? There is plenty of logic applied to training an athlete, but whole books have been written on the subject.



Again I don't understand your question, but I think Will seemed to sum this up for you with this statement in the other thread.



This seems to answer the question I think you're asking pretty well.

Yes, I understand and accept this answer. I was just looking to find out where to draw the line between too close to a sports-specific movement and sufficiently different to one. Will take it elsewhere.

Didn't mean to cause any offence with this thread, and apologies if I did.

Barry.Oglesby

Bruce7 wrote: »

Most experts don't have this kind of trouble explaining their areas of expertise. You might say, "Those who can, do..." but aren't you supposed to be a coach?

And we're off again with the professional insults.

Best of luck now Fitness forum Informed Performance's coaches won't be darkening your door again.

Hanley

This thread would make so much more sense with examples.

It almost sounds like an esoteric trap where someone's supposed to say X only to be shown an obscure reason where Y is right in like 1% of cases. What a load of w@nk.

Ask about some movements, ask about some sports and maybe then you'll get an actual answer other than "it depends".

d'Oracle

Hanley wrote: »

This thread would make so much more sense with examples.

It almost sounds like an esoteric trap where someone's supposed to say X only to be shown an obscure reason where Y is right in like 1% of cases. What a load of w@nk.

Ask about some movements, ask about some sports and maybe then you'll get an actual answer other than "it depends".

Yeah.
But somehow I doubt that was ever going to happen.

As much as science interests me, I can't help but feel the "it depends" route was probably the best here anyway.

Edit: On reflection we had two, Rowers shouldn't do rows and Discus throwers shouldn't do flyes.

g'em

This is going nowhere fast. Locked.