Author Topic: chasing athleticism (Read 939739 times)

Coges · « **Reply #1230 on:** October 01, 2013, 08:40:18 pm »

Quote from: vag on October 01, 2013, 11:53:45 am

Agree to disagre with you guys.
Indeed game strength =/= gym strength, but they are still correlated. Becoming strong at the gym might not transform you from Touriaf to Kobe, but still , you will be a better Touriuaf than in the past. If you want to improve your skills, yes, you have to practice them, there is no other way. But taking your squat from 1xBW to 2xBW will give you a much better SVJ, dropstep and 1st step. Similarily a bigger bench press/push press will make you much better at blocking out. Being 5-10kg heavier will make you draw contact better. Those will make you a better player with the same skills that you had. Also, a lot depends on the position you play. I play PF. When i gym, i can blockout better, i jump higher off dropstep and SVJ which is 99% of the rebound/block/attack jumps of my game (in the paint), so fuck you fancy crossovers and pullup Js. The 5'7'' guy or Nate Robinson will still beat me. But the guy who barely beat me in the past will lose now.
Just a different perspective

Actually I think you kind of agree to agree albeit with a slightly different perspective. I play SF-C and get hte majority of rebounds, do most of the blocking out and get most of the blocks onmy team. I'm definitely a better ball player when I'm also lifting and getting stronger in the gym. But I'm also playing ball at the same time. I'm not saying getting strong in the gym won't make you a stronger ball player but you still need to actually play ball to realise that strength and transition it into game strength. It's the law of specificity. If you want to be a better ball player, play ball. If you want to be a stronger squatter, squat. There's obviously ground everywhere inbetween those two points but you will not become a better ball player by not playing/practicing ball. Period.

vag · « **Reply #1231 on:** October 02, 2013, 05:35:29 am »

^Yeah, it turns out i had 'agree to disagree' meaning wrong in my mind, I mostly agree with everything.
The point i wanted to highight is that the gym will not improve your basketball skills but it will improve your athletic skills. Maybe speed, maybe agility, maybe strength, maybe acceleration, maybe vert, maybe just inertia from your increased mass. But those, with your given skills , will make you a better player than you were. Or, to put yet another perspective at it, we can see the athletic features as skills too. It's kind of neglected, you can say someone's FG% ability to a demical point percision but you can't say 'he can block out guys up to 250lbs', you just get a void 'he is strong'.
Another factor, You HAVE to practice your skills to even preserve them. That goes the other way around. So the equations are:
same skills + better athlete = better player
better skills + same athlete = better player
worse skills + better athlete = unknown.
better skills + worse athlete = unknown.
To sum up and find where we all agree , better skills + better athlete = GOLD. So gym+skills practice is the way.

inb4 : no shit sherlock !

entropy · « **Reply #1232 on:** October 02, 2013, 07:51:17 am »

I get what you guys are saying. We all that know that one skinny lanky dude who is quick as fuck and not just quick but also incredibly strong ON THE COURT. As in that indescribable hardness quality where they feel immovable and hit like a ton of bricks even though they weigh like 160 or something. THATS the strenght quality i'm after. I dont give a damn about gym lifts, i'm sure the guy i'm talking about would struggle to bench his bodyweight for reps. And forget about squatting, he probably never tried that either. How do you get THAT quality of strength, is that trainable efficiecntly? how? and please dont tell me the answer is to lift weights because the guy i'm talking about didn't. And yes i know some people are born efficient but they've also trained to have that hardness, that physically tough play must be have a trainable component to it which needs to be tapped into before it's realised.

Vag I take issue with your idea that athleticm comes out of strength training. If you said it gives you potential to be athletic i'd be ok with. But i dont think it gives you athleticism, maybe increases your capacity to be more athletic?

Joe · « **Reply #1233 on:** October 02, 2013, 08:09:06 am »

Ab work? I feel like those sorts of people are the type to have spent time doing tons of ab stuff in their bedroom for the last 10 years.

Mikey · « **Reply #1234 on:** October 02, 2013, 08:10:20 am »

Basketball is a sport that's a bit like BMX and Gymnastics in the sense that you have to start from a young age and practice it a lot to be a great player. Like everybody else has said the athleticism you're talking about is a mixture of lots of practice + natural ability and talent, which you're never going to be able to replicate by lifting. All you can really do is practice and play as much as possible. Sometimes you see players who have deceptive athleticism, which just comes down to all their years of practice. Sure they're not fast or anything but they still manage to be able to get the job done because they have a great crossover or a powerful drive that compensates for their lack of speed. Pretty much all the Corner Backs, Safety's, Wide Receivers and Running backs in the NFL would be more athletic than NBA guards. However, if you put them on a basketball court the guards would be the ones that appear more athletic even against most of those NFL players that have a background of playing basketball. Skill specific.

entropy · « **Reply #1235 on:** October 02, 2013, 08:14:13 am »

Training
FS 1x120, 1x127.5, 1x130, 1x135 (PR)
BS 6x125, 5x125, 5Fx125B
OHP 6x40, 5x50, 4Fx60, 4x62.5, 0x65, 7x55 (PR), 9x52.5 (PR)

FS notes:
New warmup sequence felt good. I think 120 to 127.5kg makes more sense than 117.5 to 125. Ideally i'd like it to go 110 -> 120 -> 130 and thn the topset. I'll adjust my way up to that over the next few workouts, think an additive warmup sequence makes the most sense. Also I tried the form corrections I spoke about in my bar path thread. It's still not midfoot but the sets felt better. Give it time. I'm using hte new form for even my warmups now to really hone it in.

BS notes:
First set good. 2nd set got ruined by kids who lost their ball and wanted to look around the backyard. So my rest period lingered far too long and I wasn't ready mentally to do the 2nd set. They also wanted to watch me squat lol, which threw me off cause they were standing right infront of me and i'm not used to it. Anyway enough excuses. 3rd set with a belt was ok but I failed the 6th cause I didn't want to finish it with a egregagious squat morning which was to be. Maybe repeat this session on friday? We'll see how it goes. I may even do 127.5, 125 next time?

FS2 notes:
blah, not sure if i'll bother with these today with my recovery this week being so poor

upper to come

entropy · « **Reply #1236 on:** October 02, 2013, 08:59:42 am »

I'm not disputing that skills training is essential. I agree that if you have movement efficiency then you're going to kick ass, and to get that you have to spend hours practicing. No argument there.

I'll also accept that lifting weights helps you (indirectly) tap into your potential athleticism. Even that it raises your ceiling for athleticism. But I dont think it does that in a primary way.

Here is the thing i'm really interested in, the lightweight guy who seems absurdly strong despite being light and weak looking, i'm interested in describing and understanding that kind of strength. How is it defined qualitatively and quantitatively? Like you can look at someones squat 1rm and that tells you how good they are at squatting. A SVJ tells you something about their ability to jump. And so on. But is there a measure for the inherent hardness strength quality i'm describing? It can't be connected to a bench 1Rm say because we find individuals who exhibit this hardness who dont even lift! Can you guys help me understand this particular kind of strength?

Is it even connected to gym strength? Take mutombo who walks into a gym for the first time and pulls 140kg. I feel as though that might be connected to the kind of strength i'm describing, a kind of natural, untrained (at least in the gym) strength. But maybe i'm conflating two different things there, my primary interest is in that hardness quality in a good basketball player. It's not to do with athleticism or skills, it's strength.

LBSS · « **Reply #1237 on:** October 02, 2013, 09:02:02 am »

it's connected entirely to skill. you can't take the ball from that guy because he has complete control over the ball, relative to everyone else on the court.

entropy · « **Reply #1238 on:** October 02, 2013, 09:02:46 am »

^ see my post just before yours, not talking about skill but strength

Mikey · « **Reply #1239 on:** October 02, 2013, 09:12:26 am »

Quote from: entropy on October 02, 2013, 09:02:46 am

^ see my post just before yours, not talking about skill but strength

Strength is exactly the same as what I've just said before. It's a pretty common expression in rugby 'Big for nothing' or 'Looks like Tarzan but plays like Jane'. The guys that lift the most weights aren't always the hardest hitters on the field. When I first started playing pretty much every guy that looked like a bodybuilder played like a pussy to the point where we got an import from Sydney who was a massive gym junkie but had played first grade club rugby in Sydney and professionally across Europe. Anyway when I first saw him in the change rooms I expected him to be a shit player just because he looked like a bodybuilder. Anyway as soon as we started training obviously I realized he was a great player and later found out about him playing first grade and all that before.

entropy · « **Reply #1240 on:** October 02, 2013, 09:27:30 am »

^lol exactly. size vs strength. gym strength vs on court/field strength.

I miss Lance

I bet he'd have some insight on this hardness quality i'm on about. If this sounds a bit like raptor then it's probably because i am a bit of a pussy when it comes to sport. I'm very competitive in the sense that I hate to lose. But I don't think I play physically hard the way the guy i'm describing does. I feel as though it's partially because I played most of my basketball as an adult with glasses (didn't get contacts til my mid 20s) and by then i'd already become a bit too soft in avoiding contact and making too jerky movements lest i lost my glasses and have them trampled or destroyed. That still happened a lot, i've gone thru at least 5 pairs of glasses that way. But i think it's made me kind of reluctant to play physically in the way i'm describing. If you can help me be more hard on the court i'd be very grateful. Or even just help me understand the phenomenon more deeply.

Mikey · « **Reply #1241 on:** October 02, 2013, 09:43:21 am »

I can't really help. When I was younger I played heaps of basketball but because I'm short (5'11) I was always a guard so I never really had to deal with much contact when I played. At rugby I'm small (180lbs) and even at my level the average weights is around 200lbs for backs and 230lbs for forwards. Only difference between the size at my level and pro level is that our forwards are 240lbs with 20-25% bodyfat while a professional will be 240lbs with 11-15% bodyfat. Point being I don't go looking for contact or go looking to run at people haha.
Even though I don't really like contact it's inevitable because you got to play D. I just go on with the attitude of going at 100 miles an hour and shoulder charging them or grabbing them and using my momentum to tackle. Most of the time I'm lucky that when I tackle forwards I get to come in from the side and get them from behind because they've made a break. For me there's no worse feeling than standing next to a ruck standing still with forwards eager to get the ball and charge at you. I pretty much just act as a speed bump. Players that have played the game since they were young or who are great tacklers just have the attitude of I don't give a fuck. Instead of acting like a speed bump they'd do what your supposed to do and aim for the legs but I've seen heaps of concussions from that so that's why I just aim high.
For me to improve as a rugby player I should stop being a pussy and practice tackling with the right technique and start going for legs. So that's really a combination of technique + attitude and mindset. Also what's preventing me from playing is size. I live in Adelaide so I can play first grade at my size but if I moved to Sydney I'd really struggle to play in a first grade team unless I bulked up to 200lbs. Ever since I started running again at the start of the year I've sort of lost my motivation for rugby and now I just want to be a fast runner. But yeah if I was to become as good a player as possible at rugby those are the things I got to do.
So for you I'm guessing it's mainly about mindset and attitude since you've got reasonable height. You're weight is on the skinny side but even if you were 220lbs you'd still have the same issues as you're having now until you change your mindset and practice imposing your physicality.

LBSS · « **Reply #1242 on:** October 02, 2013, 10:07:13 am »

Quote from: entropy on October 02, 2013, 09:02:46 am

^ see my post just before yours, not talking about skill but strength

you're imagining a dichotomy that's not there. sports strength like what you're talking about with the skinny little guy who can't be stripped IS skill. and that skill IS strength. they are the same. i'm not trying to be zen, that's just the way it is. no other measure than "can you take the ball from him when he's going to the hoop" is worth anything when you're measuring his strength at holding onto the ball when he's going to the hoop. i would bet $100 that the only "measurement" that correlates strongly would be something like how fast he can get through taylorhorton's dribbling complex.

edit: and if you took that guy and added barbell strength WHILE NOT ALLOWING HIS SKILLS TO DEGRADE, he would be even harder to take the ball from. but improving his ball handling even further obviously is not going to have a strong influence on his bench. as for what's appropriate for an individual's progression as a player, it depends on the individual. if i wanted to get better at basketball i'd be best-off dropping almost all of my weight room work and spending nearly all of my training time on the court. i'm reasonably strong but mediocre at basketball. if anthony davis wants to get better at basketball he should probably spend a bit more time working on his bench. he's skinny like a runway model but has breathtaking skills for someone his height.

Raptor · « **Reply #1243 on:** October 02, 2013, 12:17:51 pm »

The type of strength that entropy is describing is something called "general systemic strength". Which is basically the strength of the entire organism. When you get into people that have good general systemic strength, even when they're light, they're just "well made" and don't have weak points, and therefore they can balance and stay strong in every position/situation etc. It's basically a combination of good upperbody, core and lowerbody strength coupled with good mobility and no recruitment issues.

ChrisM · « **Reply #1244 on:** October 02, 2013, 01:59:24 pm »

I'll take a stab at answering this since I've played ball since I was very young (and played and continue to play against some pretty legit competition).

Parts of what all of you are saying is right:

LBSS is right that it is a skill, its a learned behavior. My small PG buddy couldn't always protect the ball like that in the lane, it is a learned skill through years of playing. He's developed his own way to hang on to the ball in traffic and through contact, just like I have even though our methods are completely different.

Entropy is right as well in that he can barely bench his own weight and his squat is pathetically weak (were working on that though lol) but he seems "strong" on the court.

Raptor says its "system strength" or that he just has no weak areas. That's true WHEN HES ON THE COURT. He HAS to be, he's been doing those same movements all his life. Put him on a football field or hockey rink and you'd expose all sorts of functional strength deficits! Take a farmer that tosses hay bales all day every day...look at him in his element and yes, hes "strong", take him away from that element and what happens though? You'll find weakness. (This is why SST is SO important as well!)

And Mutumbo go to probably the heart of it.... He's NOT a pussy. (can't think of any better way to put it actually). He knows he's going to get it, all the small guys do, we still go in there and bang because we don't give a fuck, we just want to win and thats the bottom line.

It's a mindset. A mental toughness polished through years of competitive play and the nature of a true competitor. You can't get that in the weight room, you can't get hit during drills or shooting sessions or even the most intense practice. It's forged on the field of play. Period.

Adarq.org

News:

Author Topic: chasing athleticism (Read 939739 times)

Coges

Re: chasing athleticism

vag

Re: chasing athleticism

entropy

Re: chasing athleticism

Joe

Re: chasing athleticism

Mikey

Re: chasing athleticism

entropy

chasing athleticism -- W1D2

entropy

Re: chasing athleticism

LBSS

Re: chasing athleticism

entropy

Re: chasing athleticism

Mikey

Re: chasing athleticism

entropy

Re: chasing athleticism

Mikey

Re: chasing athleticism

LBSS

Re: chasing athleticism

Raptor

Re: chasing athleticism

ChrisM

Re: chasing athleticism