Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@mcquilkin When assignments are graded as far as the turned in homework will that be sent back to us with the grade and notes on what was left out or needed improved up?
-
I will also clarify my position from this holistic approach we are all talking about. I agree that when referring to strength and what it is it is beneficial to talk about it in terms everyone comprehends and understands easily. So I think what @connorwlynch @denny and others have said is the route I would go 99% of the time. And what @luke said today about the foundation for everything else is 100% accurate. But I think what we have established in this discussion is, when you are talking with a bunch of S&C nerds it is important to clarify what you are referring to because we know there are so many forms and realms of strength. -
-
Don’t laugh, but do these look right? Guys I am so bad with citations it’s ridiculous, it probably added a couple hours extra to my writing because I was thinking about what and how to say what I wanted for fear of not siting it correctly. I know there is more to it than this, but does this part at least look right?
Hatfield, F. (1989), Power: A Scientific Approach. Chicago, IL. Contemporary Books, Inc.
Siff, M. (2004), Supertraining. Denver, Co. Supertraining Institute.
Zatsiorsky, V. (1995), Science and Practice of Strength Training. Champaign, IL. Human Kinetics -
I thought you saw that, I didn’t think to put that in there sorry.
-
I don’t think one exists. I inserted my own definition and then just compared and contrasted the two. I think he is really wanting us to posit a lot of our own thoughts to see our thought process and how we form our opinions.
-
@mcquilkin For assignment number 1. It seems to directly pertain to Hatfield’s Factors Affecting Strength. If that is the case you have 4 anatomical, 4 physiological, and 4 environmental. Given that anatomical and physiological are in the same category did you mean to have 4 Psychoneural factors in place of physiological? I am aware anatomical and physiological carry two separate meanings, and also am not looking for a map to the right answer it just seemed that could have been a typo.
-
I think it is evident this question was meant to be broad, because this is one hell of a discussion! What I have seen is that to ask this question it flat out needs clarification as to what type of strength one is talking about.
-
@menacedolan that is a fantastic point in the rebut to mine and @benkuch‘s statements. And I think what you said actually lines up to what I am saying. You lining up against J Welly is definitely a display of your strength compared to his at that task, which is his wheelhouse, so he will undoubtedly be the stronger person. But let’s say your wheelhouse is badminton and you line up across from him. You are lacin the shuttlecock (I have always wanted to work “shuttlecock” into a debate) at him and covering the court where he doesn’t score at all and you do at will. Are you not stronger than him in this arena?
So if I were to clarify more let’s say strength is an overall rating system for whatever arena you are currently in. We have all built our own player on Madden. You have an allotted amount of attribute points you can assign to specific things (speed, hands, blocking, acceleration, etc…) this in turn gives you your Overall Rating. This is how I think about strength, if you are competing in crossfit you try to raise those “attribute points” in all realms of fitness. If you are competing in powerlifting you do everything you can to be the strongest in the big 3. Both of these domains go further than just the movements, in order to bring all of your numbers up you must have the mental side down, the consistency, discipline to recover, etc… But again if we are thinking more along the lines of just muscular strength we are going to go with the guy who lifts more in the powerlifting realm, but what if that guy is 300lbs and only totaled 10lbs more than the guy who is 225? The guy who is 225 in terms of relative strength is stronger but the other guy is in terms of absolute. So this is where that holistic approach comes from for me. -
@benkuch “If I am to advance the definition, it would sound something like this… Strength is the ability to fuse optimal levels of mental fortitude and manifest optimal levels of force, in a given sport, competition, or daily task, to emerge victorious.”
That’s what I was looking for (and I am not the teacher so what I am looking for isn’t required at all ha). But now I understand YOUR mindset when thinking about strength. I think it’s a stellar definition and I agree putting “to emerge victorious” can be a little dicey. In a team sport you could be the “strongest” (by what we seem to agree in terms of holistically strong) athlete out there and still lose. But take an individual sport like wrestling and you win you were undoubtedly stronger than your opponent that day. You utilized leverage, mindset, technique, etc…better than your opponent.
@menacedolan Strength is : the Ability to use all resources to overcome obstacles, known and unknown, attempting to accomplish or surpass the task at hand within a set time.
Pretty strong and straight to the point definition. However, it seems very broad and I don’t know how you came to this conclusion. What are some of the resources that can be used, also why does it need to be within a set time domain? Does baseball (or organized grab-ass as John would like to put it) have a set time, or tennis (I don’t know on this one, but it doesn’t seem like it does)? -
@benkuch awesome assessment and fair criticisms. Here are a few answers to your questions:
When talking about strength from a holistic approach I think Hatfield definitely nails it with his “Factors Affecting Strength” so for clarification I am mainly referring to encompassing everyone of those factors to create the “strongest athlete”. So to dive deeper down that rode I would consider the strongest athlete as the ones that are consistently the best at their respective sports. If we are talking about strength in superficial terms or having a conversation with a lay person you need to speak in language they understand as well. In this case if I am watching a basketball game with a buddy and a guy is having no problems backing his man down to score we are going to say he is so much stronger than the other guy. Make sense?
However, this is why I think simply asking what is strength leaves is so open to interpretation. There are many different forms of “strength” and many definitions that go along with these forms and terms. When someone asks me what is strength, I feel the need to “peel the onion” so to speak, and figure out what they are really getting at. This process will elicit different results depending on who is asking. You ask do we train the Oly lifter and the marathoner differently as far as the mental aspect. In some forms absolutely, different levels of arousal and focus do to the time domains it takes to execute their tasks are needed. However, they still need these two components just with two different approaches.
To kill two birds with one stone I will now break down some of your stuff because right now you are the only other one up haha. @mcquilkin I hope this is ok to combine my defensive to Ben’s and a critique of his?
This is pretty short and sweet. I 100% agree with everything you said in your write up. What I would like to see is for you to bring all of what you laid out full circle and create of definition as to how you perceive the question “What is Strength”. Again I can’t disagree with anything you addressed, I want to know from your perspective what all of that means to you.
-
-
What is Strength?
Well, who is asking this question? What background do they come from and what types of strength gains are they looking for and why? As far as a “book” definition of strength as if we are taking a vocabulary test goes, I like how Zatsiorsky defines it as “the ability to overcome or counteract external resistance by muscular effort; also, the ability to generate maximum maximorum external force Fmm.” However, a glossary definition to this question will simply not do. We know from Hatfield there are multiple factors that affect strength when talking about this phenomenon from a holistic approach. Meaning when you understand that strength needs to be broken down to multiple different levels you can begin to define who displays strength and how to accommodate top end levels.
Again there is no simple definition of strength, but by diving into Hatfield’s “Factors Affecting Strength” we can begin to construct a definitive term knowing that it needs to lead to further discussion. His “Anatomical Physiological Factors” I would assume are what most people, in our world, would consider when looking at strength. Through training consistently the majority of these factors can be enhanced on some level even with the most basic of programs.
I would like people to focus on the “Phychoneural/Learned Response Factors. To me this is where it all comes from, if you are weak mentally you will never be holistically strong. Why do I say holistically strong? How many people have seen that big kid in the weightroom able to do some pretty impressive numbers, but he gets on the field and is thrown around? Think look like Tarzan play like Jane. So holistically strong would mean you are taking in ALL factors affecting “strength” and not just equating it to picking up weights. The 5 factors Hatfield lays out in this category: Psych, Pain Tolerance, Focus, Social Learning, and Skill Coordination make up the foundation that the house of strength needs to be built on.
I do not think much attention needs to be paid to the External/Environmental Factors since many of them are largely out of ones control. However, it is our job to provide the equipment necessary to our trainees to get them stronger and if that is an issue creativity can go a long way. The others can be addressed through preparation, your skills on the field aren’t going to be as tight in bad weather so make sure you practice in such conditions. Know your opponent, if you know the tendencies of your opponents coming up with a game plan to take away their “strengths” will go a long way.
When taking all of this into consideration my definition of strength is as follows: “One’s ability to establish dominance over their specific arena of sport”.
-
I need to learn how to do a montage a fuckin montage, good stuff Ben!
-
I just realized we can reply to specific posts haha. Good stuff that clarifies for me!
