Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - AGC

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 97
76
with the treadmill run I want to start at around 36km/h and then try progress on wards. Good session.

That seems a little fast doesn't it? Be careful, don't end up on a gym fails YT compilation.

77
Basketball / Re: NBA 2018 - 2019 Season
« on: November 04, 2018, 07:45:22 pm »
some respect? he straight-up admitted to having sex with an incapacitated woman without her consent or even any reason to think she might consent under other circumstances. the fact that he doesn't seem to understand what he did doesn't absolve him or make it any better, it just means he's a fucking idiot in addition to being a rapist.

100%. I remember seeing an interview with rookie D-Rose and thinking that he was as thick as a brick. Not the type of guy you'd want to lavish with fame and millions of dollars at an early age.

78
Reading, Books, & Sheeit / Re: Book Journal
« on: October 30, 2018, 07:49:28 pm »
Yes, he was a great player. I lived in NM when he was dropped/retired, and it was a pretty big deal at the club (I went to the public gym/rec centre at their Arden st facility).

Also, this always cracks me up:

(5'8)


79
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: Scooby 2011 Journal
« on: October 29, 2018, 12:09:40 am »
to me the formula is simple:

If you want it bad enough, you can achieve it with a wide variety of training.. but, you have to really want it - which means you are truly obsessed with it, which means you think about it often, push yourself often, and push yourself hard. You can make mistakes, but you have to learn from them. You absolutely cannot take frequent time off.

personally i'd like to see him just take the approach of:

"fuck it. i'm just going to get strong as fuck. put some serious meat on my quads/legs/glutes. jump hard as fuck. dunk hard as fuck. sprint occasionally. eat good. get enough sleep. not overthink anything. not overanalyze anything. and just train like an animal."

 :ninja: :ibsquatting: :ibjumping: :ibrunning:

*applause*

Scooby should ask himself: "Based on my training history, how complex can I make my training program before it becomes too hard to sustain for long periods of time?"

80
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: acole14's journal
« on: October 06, 2018, 11:29:50 pm »
Last time I checked I was at 22-23in svj. So I lost about 1-2 inches of vertical jump over the last year. Couldnt really train the last 3 weeks because of tendinitis.

Ah that's too bad mate. I'm away at the moment with limited wifi access so haven't responded, but I had a massive testing fail anyway. Went down to the courts early but I forgot it was school holidays - it was swarming rather than the typical 0-1 other players at that time. I ended up playing about 100 1v1 games with some 12yo kids :huh: Too crowded to really test svj properly and couldn't film, but I got some good ~35'' dsvjs once i got warmed up. So definitely not close to 37'' svj anyway.

I'm going to keep training like this at least until the end of the year as I'm only really hitting my stride now. I'm also planning on getting to the court once a week before work if possible. So if you want, keep it up and we'll see where we're at Dec 31st.

81
Great 3km time. Where does that put you for a predicted 5km?

82
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: acole14's journal
« on: September 24, 2018, 04:54:56 am »
Nice squats. Keep up the great work! Have you experimented with your elbow position on the squat rack? Textbook form has them lower but if you've found higher works better that's fair.

Thanks mate! Yeah I have noticed that during the years and it's definitely not textbook. I find that without the elbows a bit higher, I can't get enough of a 'shelf' for it to be comfortable, but I'll keep playing around with it. The best squatters seem to have them pointing straight down.

83
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: acole14's journal
« on: September 24, 2018, 01:25:31 am »
Video blocked from WMG on "copyright grounds".

130x5 FS is good though!

Lol. It picked up the song being played over the gym speakers. As if the music isn't awful enough on its own, now it's blocking my videos  :huh:. I erased the audio, it should be fixed soon.

Oh and I should have said 130kgs x 5 for back squat, not front. I wish I could hit 130 x 5 FS. I've just been doing 3x10 at 70-80kgs, that's plenty for my wrists atm.

damn those SVJ's are looking GOOD.

yea your text was misleading, made sense when i watched the vid tho.. :D

i really loved front squats as well, just made my upper back feel to achy once i started getting good with them. probably should have stuck with them though (at the time). definitely felt a good boost in my quad power when FSQ'n.

Thanks mate! Haha yeah, I hate making those mistakes. Very late when I posted that.

Yeah, when I was training with aths squad, we did front squatting over winter. That, plus a lot of paused squat jumps, had me jumping really well even with no especially heavy weights lifted (max ~80-85 kgs x 10 from memory).

84
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: acole14's journal
« on: September 23, 2018, 09:45:10 am »
Video blocked from WMG on "copyright grounds".

130x5 FS is good though!

Lol. It picked up the song being played over the gym speakers. As if the music isn't awful enough on its own, now it's blocking my videos  :huh:. I erased the audio, it should be fixed soon.

Oh and I should have said 130kgs x 5 for back squat, not front. I wish I could hit 130 x 5 FS. I've just been doing 3x10 at 70-80kgs, that's plenty for my wrists atm.

85
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: acole14's journal
« on: September 23, 2018, 07:36:59 am »
Front squatting has really helped a lot (no surprise I guess). I got 130kgs x 5 last session. Been getting a few more jumps in as well, still hard. I just wait until the smaller room at the gym is free and try and hit the roof  :ninja:. Bits of a session from yesterday:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hsg_aziJYk" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hsg_aziJYk</a>

86
Tennis / Re: 2018 US Open
« on: September 13, 2018, 12:12:23 am »
^Hear hear.

No harm in giving a warning.

The harm is that an unfair advantage given to one player over another isn't penalised accordingly. I don't get why a soft warning is considered reasonable if the player (or coach in this instance) has knowingly violated the rule, just because of the player, or stage of the tournament. That's all.

Also, if you want something to be really outraged about: apparently, the US Open organisers made the wheelchair finalists play in an indoor court with no room for spectators. Wtf?

87
Tennis / Re: 2018 US Open
« on: September 11, 2018, 02:24:52 am »
But in this case the umpire cannot say that it was a clear violation and that serena was receiving coaching instructions, but it is not clear, you don't see a clear cut violation from serena receiving instructions from her coach and it is not 100% clear that the communication between them was coaching instructions, even if it was, let's say, instructions in the form of a sign language, the umpire is not aware of this and so cannot declare a violation based on gut feeling rather it should be based on facts, clear cut violation.

Watch this. He is clearly indicating something, and given we're all just speculating, it looks as if he's making eye contact with someone and nodding at the end as if the message has been communicated. I doubt he's just staring into space, nodding and making random movements like that. It's ludicrous to say that if it was coded sign language, it's irrelevant as the umpire can't know what it means. What else would it be about? The umpire can absolutely make that call, because the International Tennis Federation (which upheld this violation) validated his ability to judge these situation when they picked him to officiate the match.

The divisive issue here is whether it should a 'soft' warning or a code violation. Unfortunately, that is the umpire's discretion. There's no obligation to provide 'soft' warnings before any code violation. So they may call it straightaway if they deem fit (and this umpire is a stickler). It's also important to note that after this incident, Serena did change her style of play and win a few points (I didn't see this myself but have read it here (a few comments down) and here). So, perhaps he sees this change of play and decides that this is a clear violation and has to call it . There's a lot we don't know about the actual circumstances, because some parts aren't documented (the fact that the coach admitted to coaching is interesting but not relevant at the time). What I'm trying to establish here, is you can't say it was grossly unfair to make that call. Also, it carried no penalty and did not have to decide the match the way it did. It's a tough call in a final, but it's not up to the umpire to predict whether a call will alter the subsequent flow of the match, or the temperament of the players (they might suspect so, but that's context-dependent and shouldn't be part of the assessment).

so what he should have done was give warning to serena and her coach as well as a clarification to the opposing player and her coach as not to communicate with their coaches in any way and if there are any further communication between player and coach in whatever form then they will be penalised for violating that rule (don't know what the name of the rule is, coaching violation?) so that they know in advanced what not to do and cannot argue if it happens again.

Maybe if it was a newly introduced rule, sure. Is it the umpire's job to warn a player for every potential code violation though, as if they've never played the game? According to Martina Navratilova, it's a well-known rule that is called. Martina also says it is common to give a warning, and I can see the argument. But if they think the coaching has influenced the score (as the umpire may have concluded here), perhaps they decide a straight violation is warranted if both parties clearly know and understand the rule. It speaks more to inconsistency of applying this stupid rule, which is why I just think that sort of coaching should just be allowed, and I would be stunned if it isn't heavily revised after this.

But when you have certain people, and I have seen this with umpires is that they do not handle criticism very well especially when it comes from players they are over seeing and therefore get offended when they are told you are wrong, then instead of thinking maybe I was harsh, they would go into the 'I am right and you are wrong and nothing you can say will change that' mentality and when race is involved it just makes the situation all the more worse because of supposed superiority of the umpire over the player like LBSS posted.

That situation you described is definitely plausible. But I when I was watching the match, they replayed the discussion between a few games and I couldn't believe how long Serena was berating the umpire for without getting pinged (there was even a break in the dialogue where she said "Don't talk to me", he looked away and seemed to be leaving it, then she launches in again). I thought he handled the criticism well at the time. First it was 'liar' (which normally would get a violation right there based on the clause of implying dishonesty or partiality), he let that go, then borderline threats along the lines of "I can make sure you don't umpire my games again", then 'thief' - this is the last straw and she gets another violation (not a discretionary full game penalty btw: an accrual of three violations gives away a game). I can't see any other reading of the situation apart from that Serena forced another violation from the umpire. I think if the umpire doesn't make that call there, he gets a lot of flack from the officiating organisation for letting a player do that for so long with no penalty.

So, first should be warning if the violation is not 100% clear so as to provide a support to any future arguments of any further doubtful similar situations.

A violation like that will never be 100% clear. But it could definitely impact the game straight away, so the umpire has to be on top of it and in certain situations, it's clear enough to be a straight violation - that's what the umpire decided. I think I'm fighting a losing battle here, but I really just don't get why the umpire is to blame because of lack of a warning for the on-court coaching call.

IMHO serena has more than earned the right to lose her temper when she feels like she's being treated unfairly. 

Losing temper in a match = yes. She has been treated awfully by the media and some umpires in the past, and there's definitely possible gender discrimination occurring in tennis and other sports in terms of relative standards of acceptable behaviour (the catsuit banning and Alize Cornet incident, for example). I respect her a lot for coming back so strong after pregnancy and using her influence for activism, which not every megastar athlete does or is obliged to.

Unreasonably sustaining temper, to the point of spoiling the other player's Grand Slam win (and it being the third time it's happened) = that's where I draw the line. Serena's a great player, comfortably amongst the pantheon of all-time tennis players with the Big Three and Steffi Graf. I understand the mitigating factors, I only wish she could have drawn on her experience to control her emotions just a bit better given this was the third time.

88
Tennis / Re: 2018 US Open
« on: September 10, 2018, 02:05:54 am »
first, the chair should have simply warned both sides (& perhaps coaches as well). To give Serena a violation like that at such a critical time, without warning, is absolute garbage. That caused Serena to "lose it". ie, "here we go again".

I feel that's excusing Serena's subsequent behaviour,

it's not excusing it at all. but that call set things in motion.

But you're saying that one violation (with no penalty attached at that stage) caused the subsequent meltdown. It didn't cause anything other than giving Serena a violation at that point in the match. It might have contributed to inflaming her mental state, but placing responsibility on the umpire is too extreme. Put yourself in the umpire's position. He sees the coach give coaching-like signals (picked up on camera). This is the final. How's it going to be for him if Serena then starts blowing the doors off the opponent, and he hasn't penalised the offending player? This is guy is also an apparent stickler for enforcing rules. Her team should have let her know this. Again, I mostly blame the coach for this, but Serena had to be more professional in that situation, she's experienced enough.

Quote
to blame the umpire for not warning her about a very well-known violation in the game.

well known? that's never called.

Yes, it is well-known? It's definitely called occasionally, but as I said, it's a stupid rule that should just be removed. Nadal's coach was infamous for getting away it and I've read tennis forums for years: its always being discussed. I have no inherent problem with coaching from the sidelines, it's a dumb rule, but it's a rule that both players were playing under and that's just the situation.

Quote
I disagree with 'warnings' for offences in general. What's the point of the rule if it's arbitrarily enforced depending on context?

tennis is all about concrete rules. how do you apply one of the few subjective rules without giving a warning? I've watched tons of tennis, i've rarely seen that rule enforced. Also, i've seen chair umps give warnings more than i've seen an actual violation.

you can only enforce a subjective rule arbitrarily.

I don't see why, because it's a subjective rule, warnings need be applied in every case. Of course, subjective calls are part of sport; my point was that context shouldn't matter in subjective arbitration. If the umpire sees what they deem as clear on-court coaching, they should pull the trigger whether it's the US open final or a Challenger qualifier, or whether the player has a history of meltdowns. In this case, the footage of the coaching was pretty obvious to me. If the umpire doesn't call that, I don't know when it would be called, and I don't think a warning is warranted just because of the context of the match - the coaching might have already influenced the outcome of the game. I agree that it's stupid rule though, and it should just go because it's too hard to detect and control with the players and coaches being in direct sight of one another, and because coaching is what they're paid to do.

Quote
It's a weird rule anyway (coaches are paid to coach IMO) but I understand that tennis has a gladiatorial spirit where the players should be battling their opponent with no outside influence. If she should be mad at anyone, it should be the coach, not the umpire.

coaches often "instruct" during the match, doesn't mean the athlete is actually looking at them receiving the instructions. coaches coach, even if the athlete isn't looking at them.

Well, if they know the rule (and they do)...then they shouldn't be! The major problem with the violation (apart from it existing at all) is that it's a player violation, not a coach violation. It should be: if the umpire sees that sort of signal, the coaching staff are watching the game from the locker room with lighter pockets from that point, and the player doesn't accrue a violation. Serena kept taking it personally because it implies that she was cheating, which I didn't believe, but that's the rule both players are playing under. They just got caught out.

Quote
Then compounding it by racket-smashing and abusing the ump is just bad situational awareness/brain fade, like not knowing how many fouls you have.

imho the racquet smashing isn't even a problem. she never even mentioned it. she knew she'd probably get a violation for it. men smash their racquets all the time, especially guys like Djoko / Murray / Kyrgios / Roddick etc.

What I meant is: if you're playing bball on five fouls, you know to not go hacking at the ball, or trying to take a charge on a fast break. In tennis (as you know, for others who don't) it goes: [warning-->point penalty-->game penalty-->default] for each successive violation. So knowing you're already on one violation, keep cool if you get a call you don't agree with, and likely, nothing will come of it (easy to say at the keyboard I know, but these are professional players with a lot at stake).

Her worst offense (to me) was calling the chair a "thief". That was stupid. But again, i've seen people chew out chair umps all the time and not get violations. Here's Federer dropping F bombs:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koTTY3QuLcQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koTTY3QuLcQ</a>

She lost her composure, that's all on her. However, that first coaching violation was still bullshit.

Serena is probably already on "edge" with some of the treatment of female athletes vs men. She's not someone who can just ignore it. Some of the stuff that happened in this US Open adds context to her meltdown - I mean she even mentioned this incident. Here's a woman receiving a violation for turning her shirt inside out:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2UIBboqUNo" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2UIBboqUNo</a>

I've seen men do shirt changes during the changeover TONS of times, especially Nadal/Djokovic etc.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPIAAZS3V4I" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPIAAZS3V4I</a>

Tennis has historically been a "boys club", that shit drives Serena crazy. I think it factors in to some of her blowups.. Boys club & "race" issues are always on her mind, she deals with alot of it.

Yes, you could see it was a confluence of different emotional issues that Serena has been subjected to over the years coming out. I don't necessarily disagree with what she believed was happening, but it was just unprofessional to let it completely derail and overshadow the match. That's what the post-game press conference is for.

(I'm not in disagreement with any of the gender discrimination stuff raised by this, mostly because I can't find any data on whether there are umpiring discrepancies apart from anecdotal stuff, and drawing broad conclusions from these insular cases is tricky).

Quote
This is the third US Open final where Serena has completely overshadowed the effort of the eventual winner with meltdowns (Clijsters 2009 and Stosur 2011). I think it really sucks to put an asterisk on someone's title like that, i.e. "if the other player hadn't melted down and given a game away, maybe they would have won, but I'll never know etc". This was the worst of the three by a mile though.

Some people might be saying "if she didn't melt down you never know", but Osaka was on fire, I doubt Serena wins that match without the melt down. Though, Serena was up 3-1 in the 2nd set when that coaching violation call happened.

That bolded hypothetical part is exactly what I'm talking about - there's a seed of doubt now. Maybe Osaka is not thinking about it right now, but in 20 years, she might look back at this match, and that seed of doubt will be there. Rather than a positive memory of blitzing her idol off the court, they'll most likely be bittersweet memories. I've had that happen to me when I was a junior in aths ("you only won because x switched to soccer/football/rugby") and it's a crappy thing to do, even indirectly. That's the major problem I have with this. I wish they could have just played the match out without the drama.

She went directly to the chair and states she didn't receive instructions and she's not a cheater. That call really messed her up, the idea that she was "cheating". A warning would have been a good idea. A warning would have also been a good idea before taking a game from her, ie: "Serena if you continue I will have to take away a game"

I just don't know why you need to coddle a player like Serena (or any player really, they're all professionals and should know the rules) - she's as experienced as they get. I watched the match live and they replayed her going at the umpire between games. It was prolonged dialogue, threatening to get him off her games and the liar/thief comments. She should know better at that point - it's playing with fire to do that on two violations, even if one was questionable. I think a warning at that stage is too generous for any player, a newbie or a veteran. In that Federer example, I don't think he abused the umpire to the degree that Serena did, but he swore and for sure, that's a violation. This speaks more to inconsistency between umpires' interpretation of violations. I think the umpire here made the right call based on the rule:

Quote
d) Verbal Abuse
 i) Players shall not at any time directly or indirectly verbally abuse an official, opponent, sponsor, spectator or any other person within the precincts of the tournament site. Verbal abuse is defined as any statement about an official, opponent, sponsor, spectator or any other person that implies dishonesty or is derogatory, insulting or otherwise abusive.

Finally. From what i've seen:, most everyone seems to be coming out AGAINST that coaching call violation. Former/current pros, analysts etc, everyone saying that was pure bullshit. Most people don't seem to think the thief comment is a violation either, given that men get away with worse.

That ref abused his power.

It's clearly a very polarising and complex issue because most of the coverage here in Aus was fairly mixed; I just don't buy that the umpire is the bad person here. One bad call can get shrugged off. Serena went the other way and, for the third time, overshadowed the victor. She's obviously established amongst the greats of tennis and it will be a minor blemish when it dies down (although the gender issues will be ongoing I think). I mostly just feel for the winner being deprived of their celebration. It was sickening to see her getting booed like that.

89
Tennis / Re: 2018 US Open
« on: September 09, 2018, 07:20:17 am »
first, the chair should have simply warned both sides (& perhaps coaches as well). To give Serena a violation like that at such a critical time, without warning, is absolute garbage. That caused Serena to "lose it". ie, "here we go again".

I feel that's excusing Serena's subsequent behaviour, to blame the umpire for not warning her about a very well-known violation in the game. I disagree with 'warnings' for offences in general. What's the point of the rule if it's arbitrarily enforced depending on context? It's a weird rule anyway (coaches are paid to coach IMO) but I understand that tennis has a gladiatorial spirit where the players should be battling their opponent with no outside influence. If she should be mad at anyone, it should be the coach, not the umpire. Then compounding it by racket-smashing and abusing the ump is just bad situational awareness/brain fade, like not knowing how many fouls you have.

This is the third US Open final where Serena has completely overshadowed the effort of the eventual winner with meltdowns (Clijsters 2009 and Stosur 2011). I think it really sucks to put an asterisk on someone's title like that, i.e. "if the other player hadn't melted down and given a game away, maybe they would have won, but I'll never know etc". This was the worst of the three by a mile though.

90
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: Two Hands Two Feet
« on: August 21, 2018, 09:50:26 pm »
Amazing how my knees feel after doing the bulgarian split squats. Glutes and hams hurt like hell but this results in the knees feeling golden.

I have that exact same feeling too after BSS...but I never do them enough. They really are a great exercise.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 97