Good now I got your attention. Classical periodization as most coaching education programs teach is history. The classic X curve of high volume work developed in a preparatory phase of training then crossing and moving to a high intensity low volume phase during competition is gone. Why is it still taught? Periodization is about the timing of the application of the training stimuli, it is not abou
Periodization is Passe
-
-
Participant -
Participant
i disagree. there is much to be learned from reading past classics. some things may have changed since the 50s/60s but there are some good ideas and concepts in Bompa, Matveyev, Verhoshansky, et al. Examining various prep phases, comp cycles, classification of exercises, and subtle vs. radical shifts in training can be illuminating. basically, the examined life is worthwhile.
-
Participant
i disagree. there is much to be learned from reading past classics. some things may have changed since the 50s/60s but there are some good ideas and concepts in Bompa, Matveyev, Verhoshansky, et al. Examining various prep phases, comp cycles, classification of exercises, and subtle vs. radical shifts in training can be illuminating. basically, the examined life is worthwhile.
i agree Verhoshansky and Bompa info is the best around..periodazition is not history..
-
KeymasterVern’s actually been saying this for as long as I’ve known him so this viewpoint isn’t new. Without speaking for Vern, I think much of this viewpoint is due to the fact that Vern largely works with team sports now and he’s also come to understand the role that drugs played in the inception of the original periodization research.
On a related aside, I tend to look at Bompa’s work (primarily speaking of the widely read and published stuff) as like high school chemistry. For the most part everything makes sense and things are clear cut and easily defined. The reality is that things are often more like college or post graduate chemistry…full of exceptions to everything that was learned previously. And while the high school stuff is absolutely fundamental to be able to have any understanding of the college chemistry, you quickly realize that it’s fairly basic. I think this is intentionally so in the books because it’s trying to teach the underlying concepts and I recommend his books to everyone. I’ve corresponded with Tudor on a couple occassions many years ago and his training theory suggestions were quite helpful and seemed beyond what was in the books.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
Know the history and the fundamentals, but also expand your education enough to allow for customization based on the needs of your modern program. Old yes, but outdated only if applied in the same manner as when it was first implemented. Fair summarization?
-
Viewing 5 reply threads
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.