Squatting, Judo, and sport specificity.

Synapse said:
According to their tags, Crossfit, MMA, and "Sport specific training".
Click to expand...

"Deep cuts Fit, Functional Movement, Boot Camp training, Core-fit training, Explosive Power, stability training, cross-fit, extreme workout, fitness, metabolic workouts, sport-specific training, MMA training, BEST of Philly, weight loss, strenght training, agility, endurance, lower body sculpting, cellulite specific training, post rehab"

Come on, son. They are just using every tag they could think of to get more views.

That is not sport-specific training, by any stretch of the term. Using that video as an example of sport-specific training just shows you don't really understand what the term means.
 
miaou said:
"Deep cuts Fit, Functional Movement, Boot Camp training, Core-fit training, Explosive Power, stability training, cross-fit, extreme workout, fitness, metabolic workouts, sport-specific training, MMA training, BEST of Philly, weight loss, strenght training, agility, endurance, lower body sculpting, cellulite specific training, post rehab"

Come on, son. They are just using every tag they could think of to get more views.

That is not sport-specific training, by any stretch of the term. Using that video as an example of sport-specific training just shows you don't really understand what the term means.
Click to expand...

I posted that video semi-jokingly, it could just as easily have been some insane Naudi video. The fact is, I typed in MMA sport specific training to get that video up, so there you go.

There's at least 5 examples of what I consider good and bad sport specificity in my posts in this thread. I'm not sure why you seem to be completely ignoring all of the information I've posted.

By the way, no one understands what the term means; it's one of the most ubiquitous words in the training world. I mean that literally - the NSCA doesn't even have it defined well in their texts.

That being said, I can assure you that I know what the textbook interpretation of it means, otherwise I wouldn't be a CSCS. I also know what it means when it's used properly, and I know the butchered version of "sport specificity" that most people throw around.

If you want to discuss the value of sport specificity, then let's actually discuss it. I'm getting the sense that you aren't actually reading what I'm posting.
 
Synapse said:
I posted that video semi-jokingly, it could just as easily have been some insane Naudi video. The fact is, I typed in MMA sport specific training to get that video up, so there you go.
Click to expand...

That's why they used every tag they could think of. So their video pops up when you do a search for whatever.

Naudi's videos aren't examples of sport-specificity, either, btw.

There's at least 5 examples of what I consider good and bad sport specificity in my posts in this thread. I'm not sure why you seem to be completely ignoring all of the information I've posted.
Click to expand...

Admittedly, I did not read most of your posts here. I read your first post discrediting the principle of sport-specificity, I replied to that specific point, then you posted a silly video that has nothing to do with it.

By the way, no one understands what the term means; it's one of the most ubiquitous words in the training world. I mean that literally - the NSCA doesn't even have it defined well in their texts.

That being said, I can assure you that I know what the textbook interpretation of it means
Click to expand...

Wait, what?

No one understands what it means/it's not defined in NSCA texts, but you know the textbook interpretation of it?

otherwise I wouldn't be a CSCS.
Click to expand...

I didn't notice your signature until you mentioned you were a CSCS. I think you are getting a bit defensive/taking this a bit personal.

Also, lol at name-dropping to prove a point in an online discussion forum.
 
miaou said:
That's why they used every tag they could think of. So their video pops up when you do a search for whatever.

Naudi's videos aren't examples of sport-specificity, either, btw.



Admittedly, I did not read most of your posts here. I read your first post discrediting the principle of sport-specificity, I replied to that specific point, then you posted a silly video that has nothing to do with it.



Wait, what?

No one understands what it means/it's not defined in NSCA texts, but you know the textbook interpretation of it?



I didn't notice your signature until you mentioned you were a CSCS. I think you are getting a bit defensive/taking this a bit personal.

Also, lol at name-dropping to prove a point in an online discussion forum.
Click to expand...

Yep, you're right. They're terrible examples of sport specificity. That is exactly why I posted them. I said this in my posts, which you haven't bothered to read.

Plenty of people know what effective sport specific training is - there's tons of quality trainers using it appropriately and I've cited them numerous times. It IS a poorly defined term, and is used in an ambiguous way throughout most of the NSCA's texts. Hence the confusion on what "sport specific training" really is/how it should be conducted.

I mentioned that I wouldn't be a CSCS if I didn't know the textbook definitions because that's true - I wouldn't have passed the exam. It's no more a bragging right than saying that I wouldn't have passed an algebra test if I didn't know what a variable was. It can tell you that definition doesn't count for dick in the gym.

The credential itself doesn't count for practically anything; I use it as a self-advertising point, It's my professional designation, I'm not name dropping anything, and I get absolutely nothing out of this forum besides (what are usually) quality discussions. In other words, I place zero value in your opinion of me.

You're picking fights here, and I'm not really sure why. This is rapidly devolving into a dick swinging contest over semantics, and I'm going to choose to ignore you because I have no interest in that.
 
I mentioned that I wouldn't be a CSCS if I didn't know the textbook definitions because that's true - I wouldn't have passed the exam.

You also mentioned that It's no more a bragging right than saying that I wouldn't have passed an algebra test if I didn't know what a variable was. It can tell you that definition doesn't count for dick in the gym.

The credential itself doesn't count for practically anything; I use it as a self-advertising point, It's my professional designation, I'm not name dropping anything, and I get absolutely nothing out of this forum besides (what are usually) quality discussions. In other words, I place zero value in your opinion of me.
Click to expand...

You are being silly and I'm not even going to address all that.

Btw, lol at "I get absolutely nothing out of this forum besides quality discussions" while having your full name and website in you sig.

You're picking fights here, and I'm not really sure why. This is rapidly devolving into a dick swinging contest over semantics, and I'm going to choose to ignore you because I have no interest in that.
Click to expand...
Then stop responding to the "dick swinging" and respond to the point. And here is the point:

You just said this:

Synapse said:
Plenty of people know what effective sport specific training is - there's tons of quality trainers using it appropriately and I've cited them numerous times.
Click to expand...

But a few posts ago you wrote this:

Synapse said:
You're on stage 2 of the 3 stage progression to understanding sport specificity.

Stage 1 is being unaware of it, stage 2 is learning about it and believing that it has major applications in sports development, and stage 3 is learning that it's massively overstated/overrated and makes almost no difference whatsoever unless you play a very niche, non-dynamic sport where the motor pattern never deviates.
Click to expand...

You said sport-specificity makes "almost no difference whatsoever" outside of a few "very niche" exceptions. This is what I disagree with, and this is what I commented on.

It is now clear to me that you are backtracking on this issue and/or didn't express your position well in the first place.

That is all.
 
miaou said:
You are being silly and I'm not even going to address all that.

Btw, lol at "I get absolutely nothing out of this forum besides quality discussions" while having your full name and website in you sig.


Then stop responding to the "dick swinging" and respond to the point. And here is the point:

You just said this:



But a few posts ago you wrote this:



You said sport-specificity makes "almost no difference whatsoever" outside of a few "very niche" exceptions. This is what I disagree with, and this is what I commented on.

It is now clear to me that you are backtracking on this issue and/or didn't express your position well in the first place.

That is all.
Click to expand...

You can believe what you'd like - the blog in my sig gets ~300 hits a day, and maybe 10 a week are from Sherdog. I make no money off of it anyway. I post it here because it's my online identity; it represents who I am and what I do. I got into this board by posting my articles here for critiquing.

Everything else you brought up doesn't even warrant a response, because you can't be bothered to read what I say. Frankly, it's annoying the piss out of me that you keep asking for something I've already given you multiple times, and I don't like being grumpy this early in the day.

That's as much I'm willing to say on it and to you.
 
72997823.gif
 
Synapse said:
No kidding, I was getting close to killing miaou with a trident.

Could have really used a well timed Shadface to break the tension.
Click to expand...

Lulz.

I have nothing personal against you, but I dislike statements/soundbites like "sport-specificity makes no difference" because people often tend to think in absolutes (either sport-specificity is all-important or it should be entirely discarded) when the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

In this forum, concepts like "sport-specific" and "functional" are almost taboo (and often confused with one-another).
 
Some comments from me... based on my limited understanding:

Sports specificity isn't meant to be doing, I don't know... weighted punches if you are a martial artist or weighted javelin throws if you are javelin thrower. I.E. it's not meant to be replicating the exact same movement as you perform in your sport when you are doing weights.

A lot of it is going to simply looking at the basic limb movements and positions used in the sport and using that to influence the choice of exercises and the relative amounts of effort assigned to them (once a basic level of strength is present, I think). On way that might manifest is in selection between variants of basic movements: so, for example, in your sport you need to extend your arms powerfully but you usually do it at 90 degrees to your body, you might use overhead press as your main exercise and not bench nearly so much. Another might be in adjusting the balance between basic categories of movements, e.g. if you were a sprint cyclist you'd be unlikely to bench or do upper pulling exercises as much as you squatted. In some cases it might be elevating what is really just a secondary movement for most strength athletes or for strength base development into a primary movement- for some athletes some sort of trunk rotation might be as important as anything else. Dirty Holt has stated repeatedly that for elite wrestlers, it's more important to focus on grip and neck strength than other qualities (I assume he would say that an elite wrestler would have a decent base of strength in the main movements anyway). Sometimes it might just be about assistance, e.g. adding lunges if in your sport you frequently find yourself trying to extend your knees and hips with your feet split.

It's worth mentioning, of course, that the big lifts do correspond to movements that are used in a hell of a lot of sports. And so you wouldn't expect to see radical change from the classic recipes very often.

Another aspect of sports specificity is, arguably, the "conversion phase" (the last block in a classic block periodization before tapering and competition, and after the max strength block). You can choose activities which are somewhat like things you do in your sport, e.g. things like agility drills, weighted jumps and stuff with medicine balls (like throws). The idea will be that you will get better and better at them, and the level you will reach with them will be higher than it could otherwise have been without developing your maximum strength first. Since these should be quite a lot more similar to what you do in your sport than heaving barbells, they should help you to apply your strength during competition or competition-like situations.
 
JauntyAngle said:
Some comments from me... based on my limited understanding:

Sports specificity isn't meant to be doing, I don't know... weighted punches if you are a martial artist or weighted javelin throws if you are javelin thrower. I.E. it's not meant to be replicating the exact same movement as you perform in your sport when you are doing weights.

.
Click to expand...

Throwing sports are apparently the one avenue where, "do sport movement, but slightly heavier or lighter thing" is a pretty good special preparatory exercise
 
miaou said:
In this forum, concepts like "sport-specific" and "functional" are almost taboo (and often confused with one-another).
Click to expand...

The issue with "functional" is that, depending on who is saying it, it means different things, some of which are sensible and some are not. I know what you mean when you say functional, because you've posted a definition before, but that doesn't mean other people do, or that I'll know how someone else is using the word.
 
miaou said:
Lulz.

I have nothing personal against you, but I dislike statements/soundbites like "sport-specificity makes no difference" because people often tend to think in absolutes (either sport-specificity is all-important or it should be entirely discarded) when the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

In this forum, concepts like "sport-specific" and "functional" are almost taboo (and often confused with one-another).
Click to expand...

Likewise. Let's just agree to disagree.

Jaunty and Tosa basically summed up the two points I was trying to make this entire time anyway, except add "sport specific" to "functional".
 
Last edited:
So...I should forget about squat form and just throw fat guys instead?

Sounds solid.

I guess what I expected was that the high bar squat was a different enough movement to be worth using as a conversion thing, kind of the same way Oly lifters use it as sports training but some (one in particular but who dammit) use the low bar squat as general leg strengthening work.
 
Ethan said:
So...I should forget about squat form and just throw fat guys instead?

Sounds solid.

I guess what I expected was that the high bar squat was a different enough movement to be worth using as a conversion thing, kind of the same way Oly lifters use it as sports training but some (one in particular but who dammit) use the low bar squat as general leg strengthening work.
Click to expand...

If it was just for a conversion phase, why not give it a try? Max out a few times about 3 weeks before a competition. Switch to maintaining your low bar and work on your high bar. Do a few more lunges of various kinds, some explosiveness stuff. Do that for 2-3 weeks, then a quick break with very little work at all if you want to taper. Then see how you feel.

At the very least, it would be interesting. And there would be lulz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,044
Messages
55,463,552
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top