That's the irony we're talking about -- my lifting numbers are up about 200% since my college days, and I've put on 50 pounds of mostly muscle, but I doubt it did much of anything for my bat speed.
As a college freshman I was 6'2", 145 pounds. I was by far the weakest member of the team in the weight room -- it wasn't even close. We never DL'd but I would put my max at the time around 120 pounds. I was quarter-squatting 115. Yet I had more hitting power than everyone else on the team -- it wasn't even close. I was the only guy who could clear the centerfield fence (415 ft. away and 20 ft. high) and the only guy who could clear the pine trees behind the outfield fence.
I guess I'm wondering how the physics work, and the relationship between strength and power applied in different ways. Swinging a bat is a full-body skill with lots of rotational components, and I seem to be inherently advantaged there (politically correct term for "genetic gift" ). But I'm pretty feeble in powerlifting. OK, I'll be honest, I'm very feeble.
Yet I can drive a golf ball well over 350 yards, which is about the same as what I did in college. Adding another 150 pounds to my deadlift didn't increase my rotational power. That's what gobbla's talking about with doing work you "get a return" on.
I think your example is why a lot of baseball "traditionalists" said for years that weight training would make you too bulky and actually cause you to lose bat speed. With Jose Canseco and the other baseball playing weight lifters seeing advantages from weight training (and supplementation) in the '80's more people got into lifting for baseball. Now, whether these advantages (more strength, ability to recover, etc.) lead directly to more or less bat speed I don't know. I suspect that if you are stronger you have more bat speed but I couldn't prove that.
But, you not included, most guys with big time power are larger, stronger guys. You probably have superior timing, bat speed, and ability to hit the sweet spot, giving you that kind of power even when you weren't as strong.
I happen to think you could have a little more bat speed now that your stronger, but I have no idea how it could be proven.
That's what I mean. Hypertrophy and increases in maximal strength don't correlate to the ability to move quickly or to move light objects quickly.
Cool. I did not catch that you meant ability to move quickly in the first post. Thanks!
*Edit*
What are your thoughts on DeFranco and his methods for improving explosiveness and speed in his athletes? As you probably know, he uses a derivative of WSB (with additional methods). Can explosiveness be improved by weight training? Can that correlate to unweighted movement (i.e. quickness)?
Again, just soliciting opinions, not trying to be confrontational.
Cool. I did not catch that you meant ability to move quickly in the first post. Thanks!
*Edit*
What are your thoughts on DeFranco and his methods for improving explosiveness and speed in his athletes? As you probably know, he uses a derivative of WSB (with additional methods). Can explosiveness be improved by weight training? Can that correlate to unweighted movement (i.e. quickness)?
Again, just soliciting opinions, not trying to be confrontational.
DeFranco's template is solid as it can get.
Explosiveness can be improved by training (strength work and reactive/plyo stuff), but I'm still not convinced it does a huge amount. Probably enough to be worth the effort, in the sense that it hones the ability that's there, but not sure in terms of how much it develops the quality.
Explosiveness and quickness are two different things, and unfortunately it seems that quickness doesn't benefit from being stronger or more explosive. As to whether it can be trained, I don't know. But it doesn't correlate at all with the other abilities.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
That's what I mean. Hypertrophy and increases in maximal strength don't correlate to the ability to move quickly or to move light objects quickly.
Ah ha! The speed had to be present, but perhaps the other element of the force hitting the ball is the ability to continue to move the mass (the bat) through the object. That's where extra strength comes into play, perhaps.
So, player A has fast bat speed, but is not as strong, so when the bat makes contact with the ball, the bat may actually slow a bit.
Player B, who is stonger, has the same bat speed, but his extra strength mean that the bat continues to accelerate through the ball, moreso than in player A's swing.
Also, I bet the mass of the player, perhaps the arms, which are also moving, means there is more mass moving into the object/ball, over the same time/same speed. So, more force.
Ya exactly, it becomes a factor of marginal and diminishing returns.
As an example, start a raw beginner out with a 200 lb squat then build that to 400 over a couple of years. He'll probably be better off for it.
Now say it takes X more years to bring the squat from 400 to 600. Well, that's not necessarily gonna be so easy, and it will most certainly involve very intensive training oriented towards making it happen versus just getting to 400 in the first place. On top of that, the second 200 lb gain won't necessarily net the same performance gains as the first 200 lb gain did. This is all relative, of course, both to the individual and the sport, so you can't just lay out blanket numbers. If somebody's a natural at squatting, they may damn well get to a 600 squat with little trouble.
The point here is what you're emphasizing and focusing the training on.
I'm the first one that's talking maximal strength when it comes to being primary goal for athletic development, but to a point. Once the foundation is built, it tends to be more of a maintenance role rather than a pure developmental quality.
This isn't to say you'd drop or neglect training in that way, you can and should certainly still use it. Just not in the linear gain X in squat = gain Y in running/throwing/kicking fashion that occurs earlier on.
Ie, if somebody happens to come upon a stupid-high lift as a product of the training, great. But I'm not of the mindset that you should "force" a stupid-high lift (with all the training and such that would go into that) in the hopes that it will yield improved performances, when time could be better spent.
That's one of the things that people tend to overlook with Boyle's single leg stuff. Everyone has such a hard on for 1 leg squats and all because he says they're awesome. He also says that he uses bilateral work for younger trainee's that need to get stronger, faster. 99% of "us" are in the category of weaklings, while possibly not young...we're likely not working with enough weight to actually cause harm from the loading itself.
Explosiveness can be improved by training (strength work and reactive/plyo stuff), but I'm still not convinced it does a huge amount. Probably enough to be worth the effort, in the sense that it hones the ability that's there, but not sure in terms of how much it develops the quality.
I wonder if the higher level the athlete the more beneficial it is precisely because it helps, but not a huge amount. I'm not sure if this makes sense, but what I'm thinking of is our high level baseball player. He gets to that level because of a way higher than normal hand eye coordination and bat speed. Any extra little bit could seperate him from the pack.
Also, this is why I think performance enhancers have their appeal in baseball- we've all heard the "steroids can't make you hit a curveball" statement, but at the level those guys play, even a slight addition in bat speed or strength could be enough to go to another level of performance.
It does. Allow me to take you way back in time, almost three years, to this thread. The difference in performance between a AAA player and a major league player if often so infinitesimal, and the difference in paycheck is so substantial, that you can definitely see why so many guys do whatever it takes.
Baseball is a very mental game too. If 20 pounds of muscle makes you more confident, and it at least doesn't hurt your explosiveness, then yes, it made you better.
Thanks for the comment, Russ! Always good to meet another baseball guy. And I must say it's been great fun to watch your videos, and even more fun hijacking your thread here.
__________________ Megaloi -- My Blog
"Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."
- Mignon McLaughlin
It does. Allow me to take you way back in time, almost three years, to this thread. The difference in performance between a AAA player and a major league player if often so infinitesimal, and the difference in paycheck is so substantial, that you can definitely see why so many guys do whatever it takes.
Baseball is a very mental game too. If 20 pounds of muscle makes you more confident, and it at least doesn't hurt your explosiveness, then yes, it made you better.
The difference in performance between a AAA player and a major league player if often so infinitesimal, and the difference in paycheck is so substantial, that you can definitely see why so many guys do whatever it takes.
RL, the difference could also be a tad more accuracy, a tad better vision, a tad better innate/genetic neural connections, a tad better hand/eye coordination. Granted, all other things equal, the extra size and strength -- more mass, more consistent acceleration -- may make a difference. Or, as you said, it could just be confidence and attitude. Maybe swinging that one extra time every other at bad, rather than take the pitch standing.
Now, I'm curious, since were talking cross over/carry over:
Ross (hopefully you're checking back): What do you do, aside from deadlifts, that you feel contribute to your good absolute strength in that lift? How do you train otherwise? I'm interested in seeing how it carries over.
For instance, I know you use some pretty heavy weight for oly derived movements, but since they are explosive, you are using less than maximal weight. You also do some challenging bodyweight work, but, again, it 's often explosive with sub-maximal weight (or, in the case of pistol squats, hard, unilateral bodyweight work).
I'm a martial artist, and I want to train best for that, so I don't really focus too much on DL's and on low rep, absolute strength work. But, now I want to get to 405 just to bragging rights. But, I'm also coming to recognize that my ability/performance is presumably still limited simply by my overall lack of strength.
I wonder if the higher level the athlete the more beneficial it is precisely because it helps, but not a huge amount. I'm not sure if this makes sense, but what I'm thinking of is our high level baseball player. He gets to that level because of a way higher than normal hand eye coordination and bat speed. Any extra little bit could seperate him from the pack.
Also, this is why I think performance enhancers have their appeal in baseball- we've all heard the "steroids can't make you hit a curveball" statement, but at the level those guys play, even a slight addition in bat speed or strength could be enough to go to another level of performance.
(jeez I hope that made sense)
Ya.
The dilemma is that you start running into cause-effect problems. Is the training making the athlete, or is the athlete good regardless?
When you get examples like RL, where he wasn't trained at all and was still the better athlete, it really calls it into question.
So much of the "fine skill" sports aren't so clear-cut as just get stronger/more explosive. In my mind, that's a skill you either have or you don't. You're either good or you're not, and you're not gonna train that up.
On the other side of that, I'm far from convinced that you can't take somebody with talent and then use strength and power training to improve them. I think that this actually does happen if done properly, as per Chris' comment above.
I'm not a physics expert by any means but I consider it the difference between imparting kinetic energy and momentum to the ball. A bat doesn't weigh very much, neither does a baseball. So somebody that's got natural quickness (to say nothing of the coordination et al required) could conceivably impart a lot of KE to a ball.
Now add some muscle mass/strength/RFD-explosiveness to that equation, and *assuming* they see no dropoffs in speed/quickness: well, think of the difference in getting hit by a Pinto versus a freight train. The extra impulse/momentum can translate to more oomph behind a hit, provided it's developed in the context of an already good athlete.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Eric Cressey uses the analogy of "building a bigger glass." The glass represents your maximal strength and the fluid in it represents your physical attributes. An athlete with excellent physical attributes but little maximal strength (a small glass that's full) can, by making his glass bigger (increasing maximal strength), create the potential to fill that bigger glass with more/improved physical attributes.
Sure that'll hold for some athletes. Somebody that's dependent on a lot of strength/force output and not so much the fine-skill components...think throwers or sprinters....would likely fill that analogy.
But then compare that to a baseball player, or golfer, or tennis pro, or any similar sport that involves fine motor control with an implement, and is not completely dependent on bursts of maximal and rapid force (which a hammer throw or shotput would be). I don't think that analogy carries over in that instance.
ETA: I think this would carry over to martial arts and boxing as well, for the same reasons.
Also I still wonder about the cause-effect relationship here....are the top power athletes super-strong from their training, or is it just that being that good at powerful/explosive sports just happens to carry over that well to being strong?
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
I've got to run, but I throw out there the notion of a punch or a kick, whether on a body or breaking, say, a stack of boards.
The speed is important, and in as much as training can improve speed, it will help. But I'm not sure where strength per se comes into play, except that notion of being able to maintain momemtum/acceleration into/through the target mass.
I think it might be more dependent on the individual than the particular sport or skill. I know we've seen improved hitting from the guys on our high school baseball team from improved strength. I can see what you're saying though. It doesn't seem to apply to everyone.
I think there's an article on Kelly Baggett's site "How strong is strong enough" or something along those lines. It was covered in "Theory and Practice of Strength Training" as well.
It seems that it's true "to a point". Like Chris is saying it has to do with the length of time you have to display whatever force you can generate. If you've got a fraction of a second (throwing a punch) you're ability to bench press 600lbs isn't going to matter because you're only going to be able to display X amount of force before impact. If you're producing additional power after that point...so what?
The biggest times that I'd think it would matter (significantly) would be if the athlete was just flat out weak and when it being a conditioning aspect (similar to Eric's example). Let's say the person ISN'T going 100% w\ every throw\kick\what ever, but they need to do it repeatedly over a period of time. It'd be easier to maintain 87.35253% effort over 5min of activity than it would be to do 94.2342342%.
I'm gonna talk outta my ass for a minute here and throw out a theory. It kinda fits with what dmw, PMan and gobbla have been saying. This is all baseball specific, because that's what I know and have seen.
My own example and plenty of other players have shown you don't have to be big to hit the ball a loooong way. When I was a kid (1980s) we all loved the St. Louis Cardinals. Jack Clark was the undisputed power hitter on the team, and he had the big, burly body stereotypical of the role. But every year, the longest team home run wasn't hit by him... it was hit by Willie McGee. He may only hit five home runs a year, but they were bombs. His weight was usually listed as 175, but he was probably 160. Jack was listed at 205, and was probably closer to 240. Yet every year Willie would hit a longball that Jack couldn't match.
Before the age of every MLB game being filmed, there are many stories of historic bombs hit by other players. Many are by Babe Ruth, again a huge guy. But Ted Williams also had his share, even though he weighed far less than Ruth and was almost certainly "weaker" in terms of maximal strength.
Ask a Seattle Mariner who can hit the longest home runs in batting practice. They'll all say that Ichiro is unbeatable by all the bigger guys.
So here's the deal -- all these skinny guys can hit very, very long home runs. And in a controlled environment like batting practice, they rule. But the games are different. Hitting is a matter of timing and balance, and very few times do you actually get to take an optimal swing. Usually your entire swing is a constant adjustment to the pitch's speed, location and movement. So while the skinny guys can hit the predictable pitches a mile, their power diminishes rapidly when they have to slow down and adjust. Compound that even further if they miss the sweet spot of the bat.
Big guys are less disadvantaged in game situations, because their additional mass helps hit the ball farther when they lower their bat speed, or miss the sweet spot. So they hit home runs more often, because they have less negative impact from adjusting to unpredictable pitching.
So my theory is that my 50 pounds of mass gain hasn't helped me hit the ball any farther on an optimal, batting practice swing. But I'll hit more home runs every year because my less-than-optimal hits will go farther.
Hey, it's a theory.
__________________ Megaloi -- My Blog
"Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."
- Mignon McLaughlin
Well, here's another example: the current fastest man alive, Asafa Powell, can't bench 245, and that's with a 9.77s 100m, and recently a 9.74 (IIRC). Compare that to Ben Johnson, who previously held that record with a 9.78 (I think, I'm probably off there), and his 405 bench/660 squat.
That is a HUGE variation for what are the best of the best elite level sprinters. A sub-10s 100m can be done by like 20 people; so obviously there's something going on there that's independent of pure "trained" strength/power qualities.
I absolutely do think that strength and power training can enhance what is already there; but then again you'll always find instances where pure talent overshadows any ability of training.
So in summary: novices can train up abilities. Especially teenagers, as this is part of the "overall development" process. A good athlete is a well-rounded one.
But talent cannot be replaced nor trained up. All training can do is enhance those qualities that are already present.
And there are certain sports that just might not benefit from it at all. Lisa's example of teenage baseball players could simply be explained as a process of general development in a novice athlete, for example. They're getting stronger and improving skills, but this is also coinciding with a general development process.
You can look at it as relative improvement vs. absolute improvement, and where the athlete is in the overall scheme of development (ie, novice, intermediate, advanced).
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
When I was a kid (1980s) we all loved the St. Louis Cardinals. Jack Clark was the undisputed power hitter on the team, and he had the big, burly body stereotypical of the role. But every year, the longest team home run wasn't hit by him... it was hit by Willie McGee.
You were only a kid? I was living in St. L then and I was a young adult. Shit.
I was those guys play, too. I bet we were at a same game sometime!
Taking off on what I said earlier, and what gobbla said, too, what about a fighter punching a heavy bag? I don't care how small a guy it, I'm not sure he can get the bag moving like a bigger guy, who is probably slower. Is it, then, mass?
OTOH, I've also seen small guys hit hard. Well known example would be Bruce Lee.
Sounds like a National Geographic special needs to be done.
A knowledgeable and helpful acquaintance sent these to me:
Zatsiorsky - Rate of force development, rather than absolute force itself, is the crucial factor in successful athletic performance
Zatsiorsky - The ability to produce maximal forces in minimal time is called explosive strength. Strong people do not necessarily possess explosive strength
Verkhoshansky - An extraordinary development of absolute strength has a negative influence on speed.
Siff - Verkoshansky and colleagues has established that excessive maximum strength training can impair speed-strength and technical skill in boxers.
Siff - Filinov has established that excessively heavy strength loads diminish the force and speed of boxer’s punches
Siff - Considerable research has established that voluminous strength loading is detrimental to the technique of the weightlifting movements and punching speed in boxing
). But I'm pretty feeble in powerlifting. OK, I'll be honest, I'm very feeble.
) in the '80's more people got into lifting for baseball. Now, whether these advantages (more strength, ability to recover, etc.) lead directly to more or less bat speed I don't know. I suspect that if you are stronger you have more bat speed but I couldn't prove that.
Linear Mode
