Author Topic: vertical jump bible 2.0 vid  (Read 5215 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

nba8340

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 696
  • Respect: +8
    • View Profile
    • Email
vertical jump bible 2.0 vid
« on: September 10, 2012, 05:15:38 am »
+1
let me know what you thought of the jumps lance/adarq

maybe you guys have a good explanation for what happened on those depth jumps, getting progressively lower on them and then higher

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXnhhzTbeyU

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14464
  • Respect: +2393
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: vertical jump bible 2.0 vid
« Reply #1 on: September 10, 2012, 05:36:22 am »
0
I think you were right when you said you started to use a longer amotization and depend more on the quads and less on your ankles/calves which are worse developed than the quads in your case.

How much is a jump mat by the way?

nba8340

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 696
  • Respect: +8
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: vertical jump bible 2.0 vid
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2012, 10:35:38 pm »
0
$500 about, i didn't buy that one, they have it at the gym

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14464
  • Respect: +2393
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: vertical jump bible 2.0 vid
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2012, 04:57:16 am »
0
$500 about, i didn't buy that one, they have it at the gym

They have it at your gym? wtfffff

LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11435
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +6069
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: vertical jump bible 2.0 vid
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2012, 10:02:46 am »
0
do you always 180 when you jump?
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

handstand + backflip + flag

T0ddday

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Respect: +1114
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: vertical jump bible 2.0 vid
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2012, 05:32:47 pm »
0
Interesting video. Confusing a bit to me, because my recent PRs are broad jump (10'3''), SVJ (37.0), RVJ (37.5), and my consecutive double leg jumps are beyond my single broad jumps.   So, according to this video I am good a the tests for hip-dominance, quad-dominance and ankle-dominance, but I perform really poorly (RVJ) in the test which combines all three!

How well does that mat replicate vertec results?  Seems like calibration would be a difficult task for those who jump really high. The difference between a 48'' inch jump and a 42'' inch jump is very very little time in the air because the athlete has to take off and land at a pretty high velocities in both cases, I wonder if that tool is really designed to have the sensitivity or if it is even possible (ie a slight knee bend or change to flight time resulting from touching a surface may throw it off for high-verticals). 

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14464
  • Respect: +2393
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: vertical jump bible 2.0 vid
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2012, 06:10:38 pm »
0
You probably need to practice the RVJ more in your case... it's a matter of practice.

nba8340

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 696
  • Respect: +8
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: vertical jump bible 2.0 vid
« Reply #7 on: September 18, 2012, 12:54:14 am »
0
Interesting video. Confusing a bit to me, because my recent PRs are broad jump (10'3''), SVJ (37.0), RVJ (37.5), and my consecutive double leg jumps are beyond my single broad jumps.   So, according to this video I am good a the tests for hip-dominance, quad-dominance and ankle-dominance, but I perform really poorly (RVJ) in the test which combines all three!

How well does that mat replicate vertec results?  Seems like calibration would be a difficult task for those who jump really high. The difference between a 48'' inch jump and a 42'' inch jump is very very little time in the air because the athlete has to take off and land at a pretty high velocities in both cases, I wonder if that tool is really designed to have the sensitivity or if it is even possible (ie a slight knee bend or change to flight time resulting from touching a surface may throw it off for high-verticals). 

yea like raptor said, maybe you just don't practice rvj often and your form isn't good?  never seen you jump so hard to give definites.   what do you mean your consecutive double leg jumps are beyond your single broad jumps?

the mat is pretty accurate actually, you can cheat it by picking up your knees and landing in like a full squat, but it's harder than it looks.  you would have to consciously be trying to do it in order to cheat.

nba8340

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 696
  • Respect: +8
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: vertical jump bible 2.0 vid
« Reply #8 on: September 18, 2012, 12:54:57 am »
0
do you always 180 when you jump?

yea man, seems like it, not sure why, maybe one side is stronger than the other

T0ddday

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Respect: +1114
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: vertical jump bible 2.0 vid
« Reply #9 on: September 18, 2012, 03:48:45 am »
0
Interesting video. Confusing a bit to me, because my recent PRs are broad jump (10'3''), SVJ (37.0), RVJ (37.5), and my consecutive double leg jumps are beyond my single broad jumps.   So, according to this video I am good a the tests for hip-dominance, quad-dominance and ankle-dominance, but I perform really poorly (RVJ) in the test which combines all three!

How well does that mat replicate vertec results?  Seems like calibration would be a difficult task for those who jump really high. The difference between a 48'' inch jump and a 42'' inch jump is very very little time in the air because the athlete has to take off and land at a pretty high velocities in both cases, I wonder if that tool is really designed to have the sensitivity or if it is even possible (ie a slight knee bend or change to flight time resulting from touching a surface may throw it off for high-verticals).  

yea like raptor said, maybe you just don't practice rvj often and your form isn't good?  never seen you jump so hard to give definites.   what do you mean your consecutive double leg jumps are beyond your single broad jumps?

the mat is pretty accurate actually, you can cheat it by picking up your knees and landing in like a full squat, but it's harder than it looks.  you would have to consciously be trying to do it in order to cheat.

My point is that it is not uniformly accurate for different verticals.  For example the difference between a 15 inch vertical and a 20 inch vertical is approximately 0.1 second of hang time.  But the difference between a 40 inch and 45 inch vertical is about 0.05 seconds of hang time.  So the amount that you can "cheat" (intentionally or unintentionally) goes up as your vertical increases.  This is coming from a scientist... but non-random noise is always troublesome in any device.  

What I mean is that if I measure how far I am able to cover on four broad jumps (About 40 feet) where I stop between each jump I cover a much smaller distance than if I land and bound for four consecutive jumps (greater than 42).  Usually suggests more reactivity rather than just strength. The end of the video at the bottom has some jumps:  

http://www.adarq.org/forum/progress-journals-experimental-routines/t0ddday-journal/75/

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14464
  • Respect: +2393
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: vertical jump bible 2.0 vid
« Reply #10 on: September 18, 2012, 06:57:00 am »
0
Interesting video. Confusing a bit to me, because my recent PRs are broad jump (10'3''), SVJ (37.0), RVJ (37.5), and my consecutive double leg jumps are beyond my single broad jumps.   So, according to this video I am good a the tests for hip-dominance, quad-dominance and ankle-dominance, but I perform really poorly (RVJ) in the test which combines all three!

How well does that mat replicate vertec results?  Seems like calibration would be a difficult task for those who jump really high. The difference between a 48'' inch jump and a 42'' inch jump is very very little time in the air because the athlete has to take off and land at a pretty high velocities in both cases, I wonder if that tool is really designed to have the sensitivity or if it is even possible (ie a slight knee bend or change to flight time resulting from touching a surface may throw it off for high-verticals).  

yea like raptor said, maybe you just don't practice rvj often and your form isn't good?  never seen you jump so hard to give definites.   what do you mean your consecutive double leg jumps are beyond your single broad jumps?

the mat is pretty accurate actually, you can cheat it by picking up your knees and landing in like a full squat, but it's harder than it looks.  you would have to consciously be trying to do it in order to cheat.

My point is that it is not uniformly accurate for different verticals.  For example the difference between a 15 inch vertical and a 20 inch vertical is approximately 0.1 second of hang time.  But the difference between a 40 inch and 45 inch vertical is about 0.05 seconds of hang time.  So the amount that you can "cheat" (intentionally or unintentionally) goes up as your vertical increases.  This is coming from a scientist... but non-random noise is always troublesome in any device.  

What I mean is that if I measure how far I am able to cover on four broad jumps (About 40 feet) where I stop between each jump I cover a much smaller distance than if I land and bound for four consecutive jumps (greater than 42).  Usually suggests more reactivity rather than just strength. The end of the video at the bottom has some jumps:  

http://www.adarq.org/forum/progress-journals-experimental-routines/t0ddday-journal/75/

Maybe you have less than developed calves vs your hips and quads. In that situation the difference between the so-called reactive jumps vs. the reset jumps wouldn't be big, or maybe your calves are developed pretty well but your bodyweight x acceleration really really overloads them in the eccentric phase of each consecutive jump - hence they aren't doing too well on the rebound jumps.

T0ddday

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Respect: +1114
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: vertical jump bible 2.0 vid
« Reply #11 on: September 18, 2012, 10:58:44 am »
0
Interesting video. Confusing a bit to me, because my recent PRs are broad jump (10'3''), SVJ (37.0), RVJ (37.5), and my consecutive double leg jumps are beyond my single broad jumps.   So, according to this video I am good a the tests for hip-dominance, quad-dominance and ankle-dominance, but I perform really poorly (RVJ) in the test which combines all three!

How well does that mat replicate vertec results?  Seems like calibration would be a difficult task for those who jump really high. The difference between a 48'' inch jump and a 42'' inch jump is very very little time in the air because the athlete has to take off and land at a pretty high velocities in both cases, I wonder if that tool is really designed to have the sensitivity or if it is even possible (ie a slight knee bend or change to flight time resulting from touching a surface may throw it off for high-verticals).  

yea like raptor said, maybe you just don't practice rvj often and your form isn't good?  never seen you jump so hard to give definites.   what do you mean your consecutive double leg jumps are beyond your single broad jumps?

the mat is pretty accurate actually, you can cheat it by picking up your knees and landing in like a full squat, but it's harder than it looks.  you would have to consciously be trying to do it in order to cheat.

My point is that it is not uniformly accurate for different verticals.  For example the difference between a 15 inch vertical and a 20 inch vertical is approximately 0.1 second of hang time.  But the difference between a 40 inch and 45 inch vertical is about 0.05 seconds of hang time.  So the amount that you can "cheat" (intentionally or unintentionally) goes up as your vertical increases.  This is coming from a scientist... but non-random noise is always troublesome in any device.  

What I mean is that if I measure how far I am able to cover on four broad jumps (About 40 feet) where I stop between each jump I cover a much smaller distance than if I land and bound for four consecutive jumps (greater than 42).  Usually suggests more reactivity rather than just strength. The end of the video at the bottom has some jumps:  

http://www.adarq.org/forum/progress-journals-experimental-routines/t0ddday-journal/75/

Maybe you have less than developed calves vs your hips and quads. In that situation the difference between the so-called reactive jumps vs. the reset jumps wouldn't be big, or maybe your calves are developed pretty well but your bodyweight x acceleration really really overloads them in the eccentric phase of each consecutive jump - hence they aren't doing too well on the rebound jumps.

Maybe you read my post wrong, I jump almost a foot farther per jump when I jump reactively rather than with a reset.  I am doing well on the rebound jumps relative to the reset jumps.  But... to confuse things worse I don't really train calves directly (save for sprinting) so I doubt they are my strong point.

entropy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1684
  • b00m!
  • Respect: +276
    • View Profile
Re: vertical jump bible 2.0 vid
« Reply #12 on: September 18, 2012, 11:04:08 am »
0
I see guys here eeking out impressive improvements in their VJ thru training. Are commensurate improvements possible for sprinting as well thru training?
Goals: Cutting to 6-8% bodyfat

LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11435
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +6069
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: vertical jump bible 2.0 vid
« Reply #13 on: September 18, 2012, 11:57:50 am »
0
@entropy: yes, of course you can improve your sprinting through training. and of course, if you've never practiced it before, you can get a lot better.
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

handstand + backflip + flag