Ballistics training = = = "stronger, higher jump etc"

I've done weight lifting for Muay Thay for some time.

What I was doing was:

-Heavier weights (~90% of 1RM);
-Much longer rests;
-Doing the lifting as fast as possible, which was slow...;
-Fewer Repetitions;

BTM: obviously they both have their place . . . fact is the best boxers these days lift weights.

*edit* yeah basically what LX says is how fighters strength train. most oldschool boxing trainers only have a bodybuilding understanding of weights (high reps, isolation exercises, working to failure), which would indeed suck for a boxer or badminton player.

Durr. A base of strength is necessary for ballistics to make any sense at all. When you are talking about elite (non-badminton related athletes), I would imagine that you need to find some balance between strength, risk of injury (ballistics are a mo-fo for this), and explosiveness (ballistics are key).

For badminton, I can't imagine that strength training would be helpful beyond what is needed to do full body weight ballistic movements.

FWIW, my PR 1rm (as a multiple of bodyweight) for bench press was highest immediately after quitting boxing (doing only ballistic bodyweight exercises and punching people).

doesnt really merit a durr given that it was being disputed.

durkadurk's performance in this thread could not have been scripted any better.

ROFL

Your trainers were ignorant pure and simple.

Now what the fvck is funny about that?

That you think you are doing full squats.

I thought by 'absolutely not' he was agreeing that they weren't full squats.

Though nothing would surprise me ITT.

I'm not 100% sure he knows what a full squat is. His 'absolutely not' comment leads me to believe he thinks 85 degrees of flexion is a full squat and anything more is dangerous. This would fit in with all of his other comments, especially him being a PT.

But I could be wrong, and as you said: nothing would surprise me ITT.

I said I was absolutely not doing 'full squats' since there was no reason to put that sort of strain on my knee joints. 85degrees of flexion was sufficient for my purposes. The picture of the guy doing the ball squat is precisely the sort of depth of squat that I would perform. Also, stop with the genetic fallacy of "personal trainer." I agreed that the certification process is a joke...I went into that process knowing more than the person teaching. I guess that you think that the training staff of professional hockey teams are garbage because they're "personal trainers"...yes? Come off it.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

LOL

never heard of shearing forces i take it

Thank you for providing us with proof you have no idea what you are talking about.

I have no idea of the staff of professional hockey teams, as I have never met them. I have met a ton of local PTs and they know nothing about properly working out, although they all proclaim to know everything/more than the other people. Not sure if it is a genetic fallacy, but it is a stereotype based upon personal exeprience, anecdotal evidence from others, and your posts.

So in post #78 when you said this ...

you were

a) being intentionally misleading.

b) thinking the default meaning of "squat" is "partial squat".

c) being careless in your description and a poor communicator.


?


PairTheBoard

None of the above. In the linguistic community of which I have been a part, "squat" meant going slightly past 90degrees. The high performace camps of which I participated (which included trainers from professional sports teams) referred to squats in this way; the coursework in kinesiology also tended to suggest this usage for most training instances. Furthermore, this philosophy applied to other exercises such as benchpress/shoulder press/etc.. That there may have been implicature lies in the hearer, not the speaker, in this case. Perhaps rather than jumping to conclusions and casting aspersions, people couuld have first asked for clarification. Also, I made it clear that the ball squat was basically exactly that to which I was referring in terms of technique.

none of the above. he didnt squat 500lbs to 5 degrees above parallel. he was lying.

Sounds like b) then. Where you were active the default meaning of "squat" is what is referred to by some people as a "partial squat". Since a 500lb full squat is evidently a pretty major feat I suppose in that context people knowledgeable of the various fitness communities could have parsed your meaning. I myself know practically nothing about this stuff apart from what I can google.


PairTheBoard

when you said 85 degrees did you mean you went 5 degrees past parallel or 5 degrees above parallel?

cos if it was 5 degrees below parallel, then you did a full squat, but i think everyone understoof your earlier post to mean you were 5 degrees above it.

no one asked for clarification because you are a lying idiot either way

*edit* i mean looking at the bold, how much of a pompous blowhard verbiose bad communicator do you try to be?

What do you mean by parallel? Where the line from knees to butt is parallel to the ground? If so, 5 degrees past that is not what was shown in the picture where the guy's butt was nearly touching the ground.

Do we have any consensus at all around here as to what a "squat" is?

PairTheBoard

parallel wrt squatting means your femur is parallel to the ground.

anything to parallel or below is a squat. the guy in the picture is doing a full squat. someone who squats so their femurs go exactly parallel to the ground is also doing a full squat.

the former case is also referred to as an "ass to grass" squat though.

I assume a 500lb "ass to grass" squat would be far more impressive than a parallel squat.

90 degrees must refer to a parallel squat since that would form a 90 degree angle between the knee-feet line and the knee-butt line. Since you are moving your butt down in the squat, going 5 degrees past 90 degrees would carry your butt below parallel forming an 85 degree angle between the knee-feet line and knee-butt line. Sounds like that's what he claims to have done so that's evidently a "full squat" but not an "ass to grass" squat as the picture presented.

How much harder is it to do a squat to 5 degrees below parallel compared to a partial squat to 5 degrees above parallel? google has a link to a guy who claims to have worked up to a 500lb partial squat in 2 years training. Is going another 10 degrees spectacularly more difficult?


PairTheBoard

Lol..."ass to grass" squats....he he...you'll have great quadriceps but never be able to walk again once you destroy your knees....

the last 5 degrees are the hardest, it is very common for people to try to go to parallel with heavy weights to just miss it in their struggle.

partial squat can mean a lot of things: it could mean he was 5 degrees above parallel or 75 degrees above parallel. 5 degrees above parallel with 500lbs is still outrageously strong. furthermore the guy who claimed to hit a 500lb partial squat, in addition to maybe being way above parallel, may also have been a lot bigger than durk. durk hasnt claimed any specific weight, but im assuming he was below 200lbs due to his claimed elite badminton skills. a 500lb squat is much more easily achieved if you weigh 300lbs.

so as i have already said, its not clear if durk is claiming to have gone 5 degrees above parallel, or 5 below, but both are incredible claims.

*edit* ASS TO GRASS SQUATS DO NOT DESTROY YOUR KNEES: IF DONE PROPERLY THEY STRENGTHEN THEM AND ARE HEALTHIER FOR YOUR KNEES THAN PARTIAL SQUATS. THE CONTRARY IS A VERY COMMON PIECE OF MISINFORMATION