Elitetrack: Sport Training & Conditioning

A common error in training with the clean is catching it incorrectly. During attempts for records it looks like someone’s back in action! This is the guy that speaks on olympic lifting technique? This VIDEO is a clear example of common efforts to grab attention with the better athletes while forgetting that each athlete deserves care. Instead of being negative I will share some of my experiences
 
Continue reading…

That picture is amazing. It actually does look like the guy is doing the limbo. I find the ‘limbo’ catch to be far worse than super wide stance catches. The limbo catch jams the lumbar vertebrae while in a compromised position and makes the athlete accept the load in a position where the shear forces at the knee are huge. Instead of the impact being taken on by the muscles of the hips and knees, it gets taken on by the back and knees.

Both Limbo-ers & Wide Stance at catch-ers represent the same thing to me.  Lack of athletic ability equal to the dynamics of the task.
Dont know the SC guy in question but he looks like he’s putting V8 engines on lawn tractors.  Bad business.
The Coug’s C & J clips might be even more frightening to watch? or there’s equal chance they dont C&J?

hello,

Have to agree. When i was in college(u. of Mo.)over 20 odd years ago with but
1 or 2 exceptions everyone(including myself) was a wide stance catcher.
I almost think that there should be no Oly lifts without a decent catch.
Should’nt lift what you cannot catch?
Brandon Green

cccp21 - 25 April 2009 04:58 PM

hello,

Have to agree. When i was in college(u. of Mo.)over 20 odd years ago with but
1 or 2 exceptions everyone(including myself) was a wide stance catcher.
I almost think that there should be no Oly lifts without a decent catch.
Should’nt lift what you cannot catch?
Brandon Green

Do you mean to say that the wide stance catch is equally bad or not as bad?

I agree that you shouldn’t lift what you can’t catch but there are many who display the same bad technique even at non-limit loads (like when load gets above 80%). In these cases they are capable of catching correctly but do not.

As much heat as you take for being so critical, I think the athlete in the background will help convey your message.

Looks like The Matrix meets The Power Clean!

I can only speak about me, but not being able to catch it in a proper position, but limboing and/or ending up in a wide stance is not always about ability, but fear and doubt when the weight gets heavy. It took me a while to realize I am capable of performing a deep catch at my max, that I always thought I can only catch in a wide stance.

I’m not sure if I’d call it fear but I can relate. I’d guess that for 80+% of athletes that going wide (rather than dropping under) is the instinctual and natural thing to do for cleans.

With such incredibly bad form, why bother catching it at all? The benefit of the lift is realized even without the catch, isn’t it? It seems that a great deal of potential injury could be avoided by just performing maximal pulls to a set height and just controlling the weight back down to the floor. If you can pull to a set height, add weight. You’re not limited by what you can’t catch. Is there any benefit that would otherwise translate to other sports by not catching the weight?

I agree that in these cases the athletes probably shouldn’t do the catch until they get better but I think:

1) The catch does produce a very important (eccentric loading) training effect that I wouldn’t want to give up if safety were not an issue.

2)I’m not sure athletes using limbo catch technique would be performing the technique correctly even without the catch. It seems, at least with the guy in the video, that things have gone bad WAAAAY before he ever attempts to get under the bar.

Mike Young - 26 April 2009 01:37 PM

I agree that in these cases the athletes probably shouldn’t do the catch until they get better but I think:

1) The catch does produce a very important (eccentric loading) training effect that I wouldn’t want to give up if safety were not an issue.

2)I’m not sure athletes using limbo catch technique would be performing the technique correctly even without the catch. It seems, at least with the guy in the video, that things have gone bad WAAAAY before he ever attempts to get under the bar.

Understood. Has the effect of the eccentric catch ever been tested? How much training effect would be lost? These guys are just a back/leg injury in the making.

Let me ask another way. Since I know you would not allow such catches by your athletes, consider the two alternatives….

1) The athlete reduces the load by 15 - 20% to maintain some level of reasonable form. Since these were at leaset triples, we’re already talking somewhere around 90-95%1RM, so reducing another 15 - 20% takes you to around 70-75%1RM for triples that can be caught properly.

2) The athlete maintains current load, or slightly higher load (110%) but does not catch the weight.

Now, for argument and easy math’s sake, assume catchable 1RM was 100kg. Would athlete #1 lifting 70-75kg get the strength/power training effects that lifter #2 might get at 110kg (110% catchable1RM) even without the added benefit of the catch? Is the training effect of the catch really that much a part of the overall training effect that it overrides a 57% (110/70) increase in barbell weight?

For athletes with good lifting form, this question isn’t so much an issue, but for a great many high school and even college age athletes who don’t have good Oly form, I think this is a legitimate question for discussion.

Star, is there any relevance to this if it is not the weight that is causing the problems, but the inherent technique? If you are catching the bar like the guys in the video, no amount of reduced load is going to make the technique adequate. Sure, there won’t be a limbo catch (so it will be safer from an orthopedic perspective), but that doesn’t consider how awful the pulling is as well, which will likely reduce the training effect.

Evan (davan) - 26 April 2009 04:14 PM

Star, is there any relevance to this if it is not the weight that is causing the problems, but the inherent technique? If you are catching the bar like the guys in the video, no amount of reduced load is going to make the technique adequate. Sure, there won’t be a limbo catch (so it will be safer from an orthopedic perspective), but that doesn’t consider how awful the pulling is as well, which will likely reduce the training effect.

I don’t disagree with your assessment of the technique, but if the lift is to be used, the technique should be correct. Lowering the load will certainly improve the technique. How far the load has to be reduced to see acceptable technique will vary, but the question still stands. I guess a third alternative would be to abandon Olys, but that is another story.

I’d like to hear responses from those that know/use Olys in training.

Lowering the load improves overall technique greatly…There is no question about that. This is the case with myself and everyone who i have seen training using Ol’s .

I think you missed my point. If the technique is going to be bad simply from the way the movement is understood, reducing the load is not going to improve the technique to a significant degree. It will make flaws less obvious, but poor initiation of the pull and other aspects will remain the same, only not requiring a limbo catch to be made.

I would go back to relearning the lift rather than try to make do with a shitty pull, which is all you are going to have if you just eliminate the catch in that particular instance.

Mind you, I am not talking about somebody who simply catches moderately wide or something of that nature, but rather, someone who has technique that from even before the initiation of the pull (entire set-up) is far off the mark of what is acceptable.

Technical issues will typically rear their head under maximal efforts but are present in lesser degrees at sub-maximal intensities. I’d bet that most limbo-catchers have terrible pulling technique even when they’re using lesser loads.

Star61-
From your 2 scenarios…I actually use both concurrently. In my GPPs I like to work up to heavy pulls while concurrently incorporating lighter loads for the full lift.

If I had to choose 1 of the 2, I’d go with number 1 because it would greater long term benefits once the technique is learned.

Also, the benefit of the full lift is not just the eccentric loading but also the very fast switching of direction at the top of the pull. This can be done without a catch but when it is it’s fairly hard to not turn the pull in to an arm-focused pull rather than a jump.