[quote author="dbandre" date="1228620672"]
I did not redefine hypocrisy, as hypocrisy is saying one thing then doing another. By no means did Mike say lets do one thing and not allow it on ourselves.
What, like saying that other peoples training means are laughable and then posting mediocre, laughable to some, videos highlighting that? Would that be hypocritical?
Whether or not something gets put into the hall of shame thread [b]doesn’t people[/b] cannot defend something posted or ridicule it. That’s the purpose, [b]there is no hypocrisy in doing either, nor is there hypocrisy in doing it.[/b]
Ok, this whole bit isn’t even english. Not sure how to respond.
Testing is not training period end or story. Discussing training effect of testing is incomprehensible since the goal is to test and not to train. That’s context and perception, that’s why I think you are missing the point. I don’t think any of us want to train at loads were quality of work begins to suffer. You can refer to my own site on my particular views of quantity and quality in training.
Are you not testing the effect of training? As an academic comparison, do you study different material than that being tested? Same material, different material? There are subtle differences in methodology but fundamental similarities in principle.[/quote]
Am I testing for best possible “form” on an Olympic Lift with highest load possible maintaining that “form”? No. Am I testing the ability to produce force maximally and as fast as possible? Yes. In doing so I can identify deficiencies. As for material testing, do you think they submaximally test materials in terms of tensile strength, volume of load, etc…? Heck NO, they test the deformation of the material from it’s original shape and materials have poor adaptation from test to test in a macrocycle. When I am testing 60m sprints later in the season, do you think I am looking at “form” for correctness or to identify deficiencies when I look at the video later that night and compare it to previous sessions and the results of the previous session? When I am testing athletes I am chasing numbers, looking for improvements and when they do improve I still need to see how they improved and where they seem to be deficient. If they don’t improve, I need to see why they did not improve and have to review training schedules and rest and alter them accordingly. “Big Picture” training and testing is about goal oriented movement objectives, somehow and someway some idiot was able to make “form” a worthwhile achievement goal.
Well if you think maintaining perfect “form” is going to make you better, then yes that will be laughable. “Form” is some piece of crap garbage psuedo-biomechanist use to describe motion. So when I consider training bad, I don’t really account for “form”, but the purpose of the activity should fit what’s being trained and in each instance I would say it’s not in the training videos.
As for my writing typing skills just put in the missing words I left out. I don’t proofread posts, I post then proofread, yeah I know backwards, but better to get the post out than let your misinformation stand. The mind can usually put the right word in for you.