Will Heffernan Strength and Conditioning coach blog

Will Heffernan · 11-05-2008 09:51PM

Tingle wrote: »

Will, leaving the bullsh*t and self-deprecating forum bravado aside, what do you think of the quote below, that in track and field a track coach shouldn't need an external S&C expert in that if they are are devising and implementing a programme the S&C is holistically included in the overall program and very much aligned to what the athlete is doing on the track.

In all seriousness...I think it is really, really stupid and speaks to the root cause of the under performing of Irish athletes in a lot of sports.

When working with Gillick/Kidd how did it work? Did you talk to Kidd and see where he was at in his program with Gillick and work and base it from there or did you talk and look at Gillick and devise a strength program from there independently. Interested to know. Coaching track athletes myslef and strength is my weakness. I usually build the track/running program first and then work in the strength and get advice externally if I come unstuck but generally try and keep it simple in the gym. I suppose this applies to all sports in that what level of interaction do you have with the main coach when they are building their overall program?

We worked together as a team...we met regularly and talked even more frequently.

KERPAL · 11-05-2008 09:57PM

apologies if what i said i heard is bull****. the chap who told me isnt the most reliable, but everyone else was licking your hole sooooooo....

Will Heffernan · 11-05-2008 10:07PM

KERPAL wrote: »

apologies if what i said i heard is bull****. the chap who told me isnt the most reliable, but everyone else was licking your hole sooooooo....

Like most things...it is probably somewhat correct and partly bull****.

Believe me...I didn't take offence.

There is a certain individual in Irish sport who went on a rampage bad mouthing me to everyone and anyone who'd listen...2 things happened...1. A heap of those people couldn't wait to tell me what had been said because they actually hated his guts and hoped I'd go and punch his head in but unfortunately because of his position and influence had to sit back and take it and 2. I got a sudden spike in job offers and work from people who really did hate this guys guts and thought that if he hated me then I really must be good...a my enemies enemy is my friend sort of thing...either way I don't actually care...I only care about what my athletes think and the people who pay my bills think....everyone else is entitled to think whatever they like....and that doesn't bother me either way.

thirtyfoot · 11-05-2008 11:33PM

Will Heffernan wrote: »

In all seriousness...I think it is really, really stupid and speaks to the root cause of the under performing of Irish athletes in a lot of sports.

What is the really, really stupid part? That if you are going to use a S&C coach that they should know exactly what you as a track coach are trying to achieve? Thats what seems to have happened in your work with Gillick/Kidd. Or that if the track coach is qualified or confident enough in their abilities (its not rocket science after all and no point making it too complicated) that they oversee all apsects of training? Makes sense to me. Yes, if a track coach (or any coach for that matter) believe they have deficiencies get help but I think educating yourself is the better path to follow. Indeed getting help may be part of the education process.

The attitude that Strength & Conditioning specialists are some all knowing holy grail sourcing oracle guru grates on many track coaches (and its something thats proving very devisive in US track circles at the moment). We have some top class technical power coaches here in Ireland (young guys too) and I think its a bit of sweeping statement to say that not embracing the S&C specialist is the root cause of Ireland's sporting ills, kinda feeds the guru perception above. But then again, I presume thats not what you are saying, that all our track coaches are sh*t when it comes to S&C and you have all the answers to their problems, is it?

Will Heffernan · 12-05-2008 12:12AM

Tingle wrote: »

What is the really, really stupid part? That if you are going to use a S&C coach that they should know exactly what you as a track coach are trying to achieve? Thats what seems to have happened in your work with Gillick/Kidd. Or that if the track coach is qualified or confident enough in their abilities (its not rocket science after all and no point making it too complicated) that they oversee all apsects of training? Makes sense to me. Yes, if a track coach (or any coach for that matter) believe they have deficiencies get help but I think educating yourself is the better path to follow. Indeed getting help may be part of the education process.

OK...I just finished writing a big response to this...but I decided not to put everyone's nose out of joint straight away....I'm sure I'll get around to it eventually any way.e

This can be debated all day and all night and there isn't a right or wrong answer...like many things in relation to training it is just a matter of opinion.

I have mine and you have yours...and they obviously differ.

The attitude that Strength & Conditioning specialists are some all knowing holy grail sourcing oracle guru grates on many track coaches (and its something thats proving very devisive in US track circles at the moment). We have some top class technical power coaches here in Ireland (young guys too) and I think its a bit of sweeping statement to say that not embracing the S&C specialist is the root cause of Ireland's sporting ills, kinda feeds the guru perception above. But then again, I presume thats not what you are saying, that all our track coaches are sh*t when it comes to S&C and you have all the answers to their problems, is it?

That isn't what I said...you said amongst other things that 'In track (especially the power stuff) a top coach worth his salt shouldn't need S&C help.' and I said 'I think it is really, really stupid and speaks to the root cause of the under performing of Irish athletes in a lot of sports.'

The fact that you don't see what the problem is just goes to further my point...but like I said...you have your opinion and I have mine.

Pen1987 · 12-05-2008 10:45AM

I'd love if both of you would have a mature debate and state the points each of you hold without cloaked insults or sly jabs. It would be a very interesting discussion and very educational for alot of people who are interested, yet only developing in the field of S&C/Athletic coaching...

and to Will directly, someone stated they were in your class, I presume that youre studying in some form, any chance you could tell me what you're studying and previous qualifications you've gained? not that I'm questioning them its more that I'd love you're job or something simialar but don't know how exactly to go about it.

Will Heffernan · 12-05-2008 11:26AM

Pen1987 wrote: »

I'd love if both of you would have a mature debate and state the points each of you hold without cloaked insults or sly jabs. It would be a very interesting discussion and very educational for alot of people who are interested, yet only developing in the field of S&C/Athletic coaching...

I'm fine with that...and I wasn't having a go at Tingle...it is just that you tell by his post that he has a particular opinion and I don't really see it as my job to change that...he's entitled to it and obviously it is based on his experience. My opinion is different is all...no big deal.

and to Will directly, someone stated they were in your class, I presume that youre studying in some form, any chance you could tell me what you're studying and previous qualifications you've gained? not that I'm questioning them its more that I'd love you're job or something simialar but don't know how exactly to go about it.

You can question all you like mate. I'm studying Sports Science and Health (again) and other than that I studied Sports and Remedial Massage in Australia back in the olden days. I also have and did all the usual industry stuff and various stages...fitness leader/instructor stuff as well as NSCA and ASCA qualifications.

I'll be really brief here but getting 'qualified' as such is not the way to get into the industry....I could go to art school for 4 years...I guarantee you that I wouldn't be a painter....coaching is a cross between science and art...you need to understand the fundamentals and have the artictic flair to be able to apply them...plenty of graduates come out of university sports science courses they don't all produce quality athletes.

You want to get experience working with good coaches and go to as many coaching and training seminars as possible...if not for the information...go for the reason that the people who are actually going to employ you or help you get a job will be there.

TrueMass · 12-05-2008 11:34AM

where is your gym based will? do you attend Poliquin seminars

Will Heffernan · 12-05-2008 11:40AM

TrueMass wrote: »

where is your gym based will?

In a cave...sort of like Batman.

do you attend Poliquin seminars

Don't even get me started on Chuckles.

Mickk · 12-05-2008 11:46AM

Will Heffernan wrote: »

In a cave...sort of like Batman.
Don't even get me started on Chuckles.

Who you kidding man, you wont sell anything you are far too abrasive. You have to be nice to sell (like me

) , approach things with a feather duster not a sledge hammer. Plus you are far to fat and skinny.

Will Heffernan · 12-05-2008 11:54AM

Mickk wrote: »

Who you kidding man, you wont sell anything you are far too abrasive. You have to be nice to sell (like me ) , approach things with a feather duster not a sledge hammer. Plus you are far to fat and skinny.

You know the reason that I am bitter and twisted is because unlike you...I don't actually have anything decent to sell....except my coaching....so like I said...nothing decent to sell.

I was told a few months back that I looked more like a swim coach than a weights coach....that hurt me more than anything you could possibly say.

thirtyfoot · 12-05-2008 11:57AM

Will Heffernan wrote: »

I'm fine with that...and I wasn't having a go at Tingle...it is just that you tell by his post that he has a particular opinion and I don't really see it as my job to change that...he's entitled to it and obviously it is based on his experience. My opinion is different is all...no big deal.
.

Exactly, no big deal. I admit I do have a chip on my shoulder regarding S&C gurus (should really stop using that word as its sly) but on the other hand you all can't be that bad and if Gillick thinks you are half-decent then that's a fair enough endorsement for me. I have included this smilie

to emphasise my joining of the Will hole licking vibe of the thread that irked KERPAL

(to emphasize I'm being sarcastic)

Will Heffernan · 12-05-2008 12:05PM

Tingle wrote: »

Exactly, no big deal. I admit I do have a chip on my shoulder regarding S&C gurus (should really stop using that word as its sly) but on the other hand you all can't be that bad and if Gillick thinks you are half-decent then that's a fair enough endorsement for me. I have included this smilie to emphasise my joining of the Will hole licking vibe of the thread that irked KERPAL (to emphasize I'm being sarcastic)

Good God...please don't be too nice...I'll have to set up some accounts and start ragging on myself if you guys can't do a proper job of it.

I think you probably just haven't worked with any decent S&C coaches before...there aren't many that I'd recommend here....and I think that is unfortunate.

Pen1987 · 12-05-2008 12:24PM

thanks for the reply there. I looked at sports science for a uni course here but didnt get in unfortunately. My uncle runs a sports rehab/athlete recouperation/alternative mediciene camp/practice thing (yeah its a lot of stuff I know, hes a doctor/accupuncturist/bowen therapist and black belt in Judo - and your standard ozzy lunatic) in Melbourne, he said similar stuff to you about getting into the conditioning coaching field i.e its not the academics of it but the drive/talent/passion and attitude that makes a good coach...

You say in your blog that you approach every athlete as just that, an athlete - not a footballer, rugby player, swimmer, rower etc and that its your job to make them a good athlete and their sport-specific coaches job to make them a good competitor in their field...

Does that mean you approach every athlete the same way - address their weaknesses, correct them, build upon them? Or would you look at say a back row rugby player, see they are strong overall but to 'immobile' (wrong word) and work out a plan for their speed/flexibility. Then look at a soccer player, see they are speedy, but weaker on the bench than your average athlete and work on their upper body?... though some would say that upper body conditioning is slightly irrelevant in soccer, but if youre addressing every athlete as an athlete, then a soccer player with a similar standard upper and lower body would be a more rounded athlete in your eyes, yet possibly wouldnt see the actual benefits on the field? (not meant as a barbed question)

Will Heffernan · 12-05-2008 12:37PM

Pen1987 wrote: »

thanks for the reply there. I looked at sports science for a uni course here but didnt get in unfortunately. My uncle runs a sports rehab/athlete recouperation/alternative mediciene camp/practice thing (yeah its a lot of stuff I know, hes a doctor/accupuncturist/bowen therapist and black belt in Judo - and your standard ozzy lunatic) in Melbourne, he said similar stuff to you about getting into the conditioning coaching field i.e its not the academics of it but the drive/talent/passion and attitude that makes a good coach...

Exactly...if you have those attributes you'll seek out the technical know how you need.

You say in your blog that you approach every athlete as just that, an athlete - not a footballer, rugby player, swimmer, rower etc and that its your job to make them a good athlete and their sport-specific coaches job to make them a good competitor in their field...

Well that sure sounds like me.

Does that mean you approach every athlete the same way - address their weaknesses, correct them, build upon them?

I do have a pretty standardised approach..yes.

Or would you look at say a back row rugby player, see they are strong overall but to 'immobile' (wrong word) and work out a plan for their speed/flexibility. Then look at a soccer player, see they are speedy, but weaker on the bench than your average athlete and work on their upper body?

Along those lines yes...I went over this in response to a question I got today regarding conditioning.

... though some would say that upper body conditioning is slightly irrelevant in soccer,

Try running and playing a soccer came with your arms tied to your side and come back and tell me the upper body condition is irrelevant.

but if youre addressing every athlete as an athlete, then a soccer player with a similar standard upper and lower body would be a more rounded athlete in your eyes, yet possibly wouldnt see the actual benefits on the field? (not meant as a barbed question)

http://www.dw-world.de/image/0,,2056828_4,00.jpg

Do you think this guy neglects his upper body conditioning? Do you think for a second he couldn't bang out some pull ups? Do you know how many soccer players and GAA footballers I've seen who are too weak to do a pull up?

Do you think that having better body weight mastery wouldn't help their football?

Hanley · 12-05-2008 12:43PM

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Do you think this guy neglects his upper body conditioning?

Wow... he looks like just about every other footballer that I've ever seen.

He has nothing on this beomoth tho http://cm1.dotspotter.com/media/0/28/19/69796820---david_beckham_topless.jpg

littlefriend · 12-05-2008 12:51PM

Hello Will, you old charmer you. When you set up your blog did you mean to answer questions on there? looking well btw

Will Heffernan · 12-05-2008 12:59PM

littlefriend wrote: »

Hello Will, you old charmer you.

Hello yourself.

When you set up your blog did you mean to answer questions on there?

I am and will answer any questions posted there.

looking well btw

You mean...not like as much of a fat mess as I used to...thanks...I think.

I only came here because I was told I was being rubbished and wanted to see if anyone had any good dirt on me...knowing me you can imagine how disappointed I was when I got here and found that people were calling me name...I was hoping for better hating.

Al_Fernz · 12-05-2008 01:01PM

Hanley wrote: »

Wow... he looks like just about every other footballer that I've ever seen.

He has nothing on this beomoth tho http://cm1.dotspotter.com/media/0/28/19/69796820---david_beckham_topless.jpg

LOL.

Apparently, Beckham attributes his poor Euro 2004 form to too much weightlifting and the fact that he was too "bulky".

Interestingly enough, I was reading an interview with Micah Richards:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_01/richardsDM0509_468x803.jpg
where he says that he has never lifted any weights in his life.

Will Heffernan · 12-05-2008 01:07PM

Al_Fernz wrote: »

LOL.

Apparently, Beckham attributes his poor Euro 2004 form to too much weightlifting and the fact that he was too "bulky".

I wouldn't disagree with that...like any type of coaching....sometimes some coaches just get it wrong.

Interestingly enough, I was reading an interview with Micah Richards:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_01/richardsDM0509_468x803.jpg
where he says that he has never lifted any weights in his life.

That is always the case....there are plenty of ways to skin a cat training wise...you have to find what works best for you or for your athletes if you are a coach.

Pen1987 · 12-05-2008 01:44PM

Pen1987 wrote:

Quote:
Does that mean you approach every athlete the same way - address their weaknesses, correct them, build upon them?

Will wrote:

I do have a pretty standardised approach..yes.

Pen1987 wrote:

Or would you look at say a back row rugby player, see they are strong overall but to 'immobile' (wrong word) and work out a plan for their speed/flexibility. Then look at a soccer player, see they are speedy, but weaker on the bench than your average athlete and work on their upper body?

Will wrote:

Along those lines yes...I went over this in response to a question I got today regarding conditioning.

... though some would say that upper body conditioning is slightly irrelevant in soccer,

Will wrote:

Try running and playing a soccer came with your arms tied to your side and come back and tell me the upper body condition is irrelevant.

I agree with you there, but some would say that strengthening the upper body of a soccer player is like attempting to strengthen the pecs of a golfer... i.e it would make them a better athlete, but when it comes to performance on the field the improvement in performance is negligable, (even detrimantal to a golfer because its about core and flexibility) [I know .01 of a second elite competitors, neligable = diff between gold and fourth...]

Pen1987 wrote:

but if youre addressing every athlete as an athlete, then a soccer player with a similar standard upper and lower body would be a more rounded athlete in your eyes, yet possibly wouldnt see the actual benefits on the field? (not meant as a barbed question)

Will wrote:

http://www.dw-world.de/image/0,,2056828_4,00.jpg

Do you think this guy neglects his upper body conditioning? Do you think for a second he couldn't bang out some pull ups? Do you know how many soccer players and GAA footballers I've seen who are too weak to do a pull up?

Do you think that having better body weight mastery wouldn't help their football?

Look, I'm really not trying to pick apart any of your training/S&C practices, from reading your blog I agree almost 100% with everything you say. I know text doesnt have a tone of voice but the constant rhetorical questions seem very defensive i.e "look you idiot, do you not think GAA players couldnt bang out 50 push ups? Do you not think better BW mastery wouldnt help?"... I'm in agreement with you here! I'm just trying to get as much info as I can from someone whos where I want to be in 15 years time. If you dont want to help me out its fine, Im just some kid on the internet I'll get over it...

Let me rephrase my question. You've got two athletes, one is a back row, one is a winger in football. If you give them the same [reasonable, basic] program to improve their general athletic weaknesses they will both develop as an athlete.

So you let them work on the program for 6months [just for the sake or argument]. Soccer boy was the size of Beckham there when he started, he comes back with +30KG on his bench and squat, banging out 20 extra pull-ups, same BF he was when he started but gained 15KG.

Rugby boy was pretty standard back row size to begin with. He comes back with 15KG up on his bench, same number of pull-ups, squatting an extra 20KG, down 5% on BF and same weight.

Now nobodys going to argue that they both have become better athletes, but Beckhams weight gain has probably lost him some % of his acceleration, so hes not quite as tricky a winger, yet hes more powerful, but power doesnt really relate to the wing position in football, especially tricky wingers. While Rugger has improved in all categories related to his position so hes a better rugby player.

Two better athletes. Yet one is slightly worse in their field while one is better? You've improved Soccers athletic weakness, he probably has a more equal upper-body:lower body strength ratio but his lithe frame and speed of movement in his lower body were his athletic weaknesses but field-strength. So hes a better athlete but worse player?

So in some way you must tailor your training program towards their sporting field? Finally, playing Devils Advocate here, Do you agree that if 10 people of US collegiate sporting standard who all had the same 75% scholorship in different events came into you and all refused to tell you what sport they played and yet you trained them all to become better athletes at least 2/3 would become worse in their field [Im sure 7/8 would improve but...]

Will Heffernan · 12-05-2008 02:22PM

Pen1987 wrote: »

I agree with you there, but some would say that strengthening the upper body of a soccer player is like attempting to strengthen the pecs of a golfer... i.e it would make them a better athlete, but when it comes to performance on the field the improvement in performance is negligable, (even detrimantal to a golfer because its about core and flexibility) [I know .01 of a second elite competitors, neligable = diff between gold and fourth...]

A lot of things contribute to performance...like not getting injured for example.

Look, I'm really not trying to pick apart any of your training/S&C practices, from reading your blog I agree almost 100% with everything you say.

You can and should pick them apart...I have no problem with that.

I know text doesnt have a tone of voice but the constant rhetorical questions seem very defensive i.e "look you idiot, do you not think GAA players couldnt bang out 50 push ups? Do you not think better BW mastery wouldnt help?"

I think we have our lines crossed here...because I am really not defensive in any way shape or form...I always end up being screwed no matter what I say...I either come on here and give you my opinions in which case I get bagged for being a know it all or for coming across like I know everything...or I try to be 'inclusive' for want of a better word and try to ask questions that will get people thinking and get accused of being defensive or evasive...hence the reason I don't really participate in any open message boards or forums. So I apologise if I come of as a dick.

... I'm in agreement with you here! I'm just trying to get as much info as I can from someone whos where I want to be in 15 years time. If you dont want to help me out its fine, Im just some kid on the internet I'll get over it...

I'll help anyone who wants to help themselves...the only way I got where I did is with the help of all the great coaches I had and the ones that I have been lucky enough to work beside. So if you want help PM me and if I think you are serious about what you say you want to do I'm sure we can work something out. I am always open to coaches coming and seeing what I do and a lot do...the funniest thing is I get more high profile coaches visiting me from overseas than I do from Dublin and that just seems to be the way the industry is here...which is a pity.

Let me rephrase my question. You've got two athletes, one is a back row, one is a winger in football. If you give them the same [reasonable, basic] program to improve their general athletic weaknesses they will both develop as an athlete.

This is simple...they wouldn't have the same program....unless they had the same needs.

So you let them work on the program for 6months [just for the sake or argument].

Would never write a 6 month program in the first place.

Soccer boy was the size of Beckham there when he started, he comes back with +30KG on his bench and squat, banging out 20 extra pull-ups, same BF he was when he started but gained 15KG.

Not if I was coaching him.

Rugby boy was pretty standard back row size to begin with. He comes back with 15KG up on his bench, same number of pull-ups, squatting an extra 20KG, down 5% on BF and same weight.

In 6 months? If that took me that long I'd kill myself.

Now nobodys going to argue that they both have become better athletes,

I would.

but Beckhams weight gain has probably lost him some % of his acceleration, so hes not quite as tricky a winger, yet hes more powerful, but power doesnt really relate to the wing position in football, especially tricky wingers. While Rugger has improved in all categories related to his position so hes a better rugby player.

So the training program that the footballer was on was crap and the rugby players wasn't too bad.

Two better athletes. Yet one is slightly worse in their field while one is better? You've improved Soccers athletic weakness, he probably has a more equal upper-body:lower body strength ratio but his lithe frame and speed of movement in his lower body were his athletic weaknesses but field-strength. So hes a better athlete but worse player?

No he'd be a worse athlete and worse player....and that wouldn't be a good thing.

So in some way you must tailor your training program towards their sporting field?

People always talk about this...sports specificity...and it is difficult to give you my opinions in a few lines and I know you hate the rhetorical questions BUT...if I gave Peter Stringer John Hayes' program do you really think no matter how hard he trained and how much he ate that this program would make him grow 2ft and put on 50kgs? People generally end up in sports that they are physically suited to...there is a reason that John Hayes isn't playing GAA...and it isn't because of his training. I'm trying to make each athlete as well rounded and balanced as possible with regards to ALL their physical attributes....not improving their strength and sacrificing everything else.

Finally, playing Devils Advocate here, Do you agree that if 10 people of US collegiate sporting standard who all had the same 75% scholorship in different events came into you and all refused to tell you what sport they played and yet you trained them all to become better athletes at least 2/3 would become worse in their field [Im sure 7/8 would improve but...]

Playing devils advocate here I bet if those 10 athletes came to me I could tell you not only what sport they played but what position and get 7 or 8 correct. So it really wouldn't matter if they told me or not.

Mickk · 12-05-2008 02:29PM

Pen1987 wrote: »

Now nobodys going to argue that they both have become better athletes, but Beckhams weight gain has probably lost him some % of his acceleration, so hes not quite as tricky a winger, yet hes more powerful, but power doesnt really relate to the wing position in football, especially tricky wingers.

I don't agree that a weight gain will nesseccarly mean a loss of acceleration. I know for a fact personally it didn't, I was a basket ball player as a kid, at 16 y/o I was 6'2" and only about 70kg. I did jump programs and built up my vert jump till I could dunk both two footed jump and a running one footed jump. I started lifting for basketball and got hooked, basketball fell by the wayside. I really got into lifting and at 19 was about 110kg with about 20% fat (and a big bloated red face to match)
Just out of interest I had a go jumping and my jump, even with an extra 40kg of weight on me, was exactly the same! It really surprised me I thought I wouldn't have even touched the ring... I know thats vertical acceleration but look at 100m runners builds, nobody has more acceleration than them.

thirtyfoot · 12-05-2008 02:34PM

Mickk wrote:

look at 100m runners builds, nobody has more acceleration than them.

Shot putters would give a 100m man a rattle over 5-10m and they are even bigger!!! Its funny seeing a shot putter doing speed on a track but jaysus can they move.

Hanley · 12-05-2008 02:39PM

Mickk wrote: »

I know thats vertical acceleration but look at 100m runners builds, nobody has more acceleration than them.

I'm pretty sure there was a study done at or after the Mexican Olympics that showed weightlifters had the best explosion and acceleration out of ALL the sports.

Admittedly weightlifting as a training parameter for the other sports probably wasn't as prevalent as it is nowadays, but I just thought it was funny that the strongest guys, even tho they were much heavier than the sprinters or jumpers, were also the most explosive.

Hanley · 12-05-2008 02:40PM

Tingle wrote: »

Shot putters would give a 100m man a rattle over 5-10m and they are even bigger!!! Its funny seeing a shot putter doing speed on a track but jaysus can they move.

Beaten to the punch.... Tingle have you heard of that study I'm talking about??

thirtyfoot · 12-05-2008 02:50PM

Hanley wrote: »

Beaten to the punch.... Tingle have you heard of that study I'm talking about??

I haven't heard of the study but it makes sense if a shot putter (or weighlifter) has to exert all the force in the space of 7 feet.

Dragan · 12-05-2008 02:57PM

This kind of reminds me of time Hany Rambod posted on Team Test.

Welcome Will, thanks for posting.

Dragan
- Fitness Forum Mod.

Pen1987 · 12-05-2008 03:00PM

This is getting mad with the quote boxes... If its annoying any moderators tell me to take it to the PMs. Will is in quote boxes, my prior replies are embolded and my new comments are left standard.

Quote:
I agree with you there, but some would say that strengthening the upper body of a soccer player is like attempting to strengthen the pecs of a golfer... i.e it would make them a better athlete, but when it comes to performance on the field the improvement in performance is negligable, (even detrimantal to a golfer because its about core and flexibility) [I know .01 of a second elite competitors, neligable = diff between gold and fourth...]

A lot of things contribute to performance...like not getting injured for example.

Ah... now I think I've learned something new. Your basis for improving a golfer/footballers (non-sport specific area of an athletes) general conditioning is to correct imbalances which may cause injury?

Quote:
Look, I'm really not trying to pick apart any of your training/S&C practices, from reading your blog I agree almost 100% with everything you say.

You can and should pick them apart...I have no problem with that.

I would if I could but I can't, I'm trying to get to the bottom/understand your philosophy more than pick anything apart.

Quote:
I know text doesnt have a tone of voice but the constant rhetorical questions seem very defensive i.e "look you idiot, do you not think GAA players couldnt bang out 50 push ups? Do you not think better BW mastery wouldnt help?"

I think we have our lines crossed here...because I am really not defensive in any way shape or form...I always end up being screwed no matter what I say...I either come on here and give you my opinions in which case I get bagged for being a know it all or for coming across like I know everything...or I try to be 'inclusive' for want of a better word and try to ask questions that will get people thinking and get accused of being defensive or evasive...hence the reason I don't really participate in any open message boards or forums. So I apologise if I come of as a dick.

Nah you didnt come across as a dick, I ****in delighted someone will answer my questions honestly cos' Im sick of talking to old-school athletics coaches who tell me I'd be a better 800m runner if I ran 2KM slow instead of going to the gym for an hour. Hence the reason you probably see some of my questioning as idiotic.

Quote:
... I'm in agreement with you here! I'm just trying to get as much info as I can from someone whos where I want to be in 15 years time. If you dont want to help me out its fine, Im just some kid on the internet I'll get over it...

I'll help anyone who wants to help themselves...the only way I got where I did is with the help of all the great coaches I had and the ones that I have been lucky enough to work beside. So if you want help PM me and if I think you are serious about what you say you want to do I'm sure we can work something out. I am always open to coaches coming and seeing what I do and a lot do...the funniest thing is I get more high profile coaches visiting me from overseas than I do from Dublin and that just seems to be the way the industry is here...which is a pity.

Fair play, I'm not a coach though, I'm 20 and I used to play golf to a high standard until I tore my ACL and got into the gym for rehab, ended up devoting all my golfing time to the gym and S&C and havent played since. I'm considering going into the field when I finish college though next year.

Quote:
Let me rephrase my question. You've got two athletes, one is a back row, one is a winger in football. If you give them the same [reasonable, basic] program to improve their general athletic weaknesses they will both develop as an athlete.

This is simple...they wouldn't have the same program....unless they had the same needs.

Ok, they wouldnt have the same program, but both programs would be addressing their athletic weaknesses...

Quote:
Soccer boy was the size of Beckham there when he started, he comes back with +30KG on his bench and squat, banging out 20 extra pull-ups, same BF he was when he started but gained 15KG.

Not if I was coaching him.

What would you aim to do if you were coaching someone of that bodytype and in that sport? Maintain bodyweight and improve squat/LB conditioning etc or give him speed and agility excercises?

Quote:
Now nobodys going to argue that they both have become better athletes,

I would.

I mistyped, Im meant nobody would argue that they have not improved as athletes.

Quote:
but Beckhams weight gain has probably lost him some % of his acceleration, so hes not quite as tricky a winger, yet hes more powerful, but power doesnt really relate to the wing position in football, especially tricky wingers. While Rugger has improved in all categories related to his position so hes a better rugby player.

So the training program that the footballer was on was crap and the rugby players wasn't too bad.

... but they've both improved as athletes, Beckham lifts more, is stronger and has better upper body endurance... So hes a better athlete? but not as good a winger?

Quote:
Two better athletes. Yet one is slightly worse in their field while one is better? You've improved Soccers athletic weakness, he probably has a more equal upper-body:lower body strength ratio but his lithe frame and speed of movement in his lower body were his athletic weaknesses but field-strength. So hes a better athlete but worse player?

No he'd be a worse athlete and worse player....and that wouldn't be a good thing.

... why is he a worse athlete? He's stronger, more balanced UB;LB strength ratio, his weaknesses are improved upon, but admittedly he's slightly slower off the mark, yet could probably run at speed for longer... Overall he has improved?

Quote:
So in some way you must tailor your training program towards their sporting field?

People always talk about this...sports specificity...and it is difficult to give you my opinions in a few lines and I know you hate the rhetorical questions BUT...if I gave Peter Stringer John Hayes' program do you really think no matter how hard he trained and how much he ate that this program would make him grow 2ft and put on 50kgs? People generally end up in sports that they are physically suited to...there is a reason that John Hayes isn't playing GAA...and it isn't because of his training. I'm trying to make each athlete as well rounded and balanced as possible with regards to ALL their physical attributes....not improving their strength and sacrificing everything else.

Ok I think this part of the debate requires a bit more research by myself, I've got the general simple attitude of if you put a 20 year old Brian O'Driscoll who never played rugby of football beside a 20 year old Damian Duff who'd never played rugby or football you've got pretty much the same athlete and if you trained both in S&C to the same level, you'd come out with either 2 good soccer players (if you trained them for speed and agility) or (if you trained them for strength and power) 2 good rugby players. Hence Sport specific training...

Will Heffernan · 12-05-2008 11:53PM

Pen1987...just PM me and come out to the gym...trying to answer each of these points will give me a headache.

Will Heffernan Strength and Conditioning coach blog

Comments