Quote from w8coachJohn,
I don't believe you said this. You have been the first one to bring up the "Hoier than thou" generation of throwers being clean without provocation. Are you saying that 500-600 BP's don't exist anymore? Everybody knows , also, that designer drugs are bigger and more undetectable than ever.
You never can except that the best technicians have already hung up their shoes
published at Aug 25th 2010 4:55pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from bigbWhat do you believe are the specific principles that throwers can not deviate from?
Regardless of physical differences or any other differences for that matter.
published at Aug 25th 2010 4:57pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from w8coachAgain, balance, foot pivoting, lt arm and leg blocking, The full use of the stretch reflex over the involved muscles, etc.
published at Aug 25th 2010 5:17pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from VikingDisplay MoreThe reason women today aren't those of the past are social.All those powerhouses of the past were state-sponsored women.They were talent-fished at school and brought up to be champions.They were promised and got trips around the world ,glory ,money and access to much better living that no other means could provide.
Now,women can get this anyway.Try to convince a 16 year old girl today that she's good at the shot but she may end up looking like Fibingerova.Good luck.
All women i've been watching athletics with the last 30 years are repulsed by the way some women throwers look in the shot and discus.
Glory,money and trips won't work anymore.
Strength will always be there.Martinez benched 300k,Cantwell probably benches close to that or even more.The average 20m shotputter benches 250k easily.It was always like this.Those that really push weights ,get strong.
This is how top strength athletes are wired.
The sport isn't clean.
Huge weightroom numbers were a goal in itself-not only a means to an end.This is a great reason why there were inconsistent performances.Huge power peaks must be timed perfectly during the throw for the throw to be a great one.
German women could throw 20 throws ,half of them at 75+ in the discus and the other half at 65,it was hit or miss.This is why the putters were gliders.
The drugs were newer then and doses were also hit and miss.Probably got away on the high side due to lack of experience and scientific background.
The more scientific it was the lesser the dosages were.
Tests are more now but what they test for is out of the stadiums decades ago.
The average middle aged man across the street is on Growth hormone and the test "isn't perfected yet"...this was a good drug... for 1984...
Today everything is scientific, and event specific.Athletes don't buy the drugs at the gym close to their house.Each event has its own drugs,you won't find positives with testosterone or methandienone in distance runners unless they're from a thord world country.
The average athlete is much better now but the very top are just as good.How the top of the crop do is up to individual talent.
Today's athletes are very secretive,they will never tell anyone what they get.They have learned from the mistakes of others.The "i know two throwers up close" is not a good excuse anymore.It takes one person to send a bunch to prison or out of the sport.
Much like in the past,the athletes themselves don't know what they're taking,it's a business secret for those who provide them the substances.They manufacture and provide and the athlete performs-those two won't mix.
It's not about being European or American,it's not cutting edge science anymore,the field is almost level now.
Performances vary mostly due to different goals during seasons.
published at Aug 25th 2010 5:50pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from w8coachTotally agree again! Another reason for some fair play and leveling of the playing field in the future. have the governing bodies really inspect what they truly expect and not create puppets that don't speak up to keep their places in the sport. Curt Flood's name comes to mind as a pioneer in the MLB.
published at Aug 25th 2010 6:00pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from HunterViking, we've had this discussion before ad-nauseum. I'm not suggesting that nobody has taken drugs the last 20 years, but anybody can see that the marks dropped once drug testing began and have not returned...this is no coincidence
published at Aug 25th 2010 6:37pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from w8coachGranted but the strength levels being identical or better now is no coincidence either.
published at Aug 25th 2010 6:44pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from bigbSo those things are necessary for what exactly?
I'm not trying to be a smartass I just want to figure out how those things factor in and to what degree. Basically if those movements are executed up to 90 % ( 100 % being the maximum) then what happens?
published at Aug 25th 2010 7:05pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from HunterDisplay MoreThere are a couple differences
1) 5 over 70 in 87 3 in 09...Gunthor threw about a foot further than Cantwell
2) I believe it was 1984 or 1986 that there were about 15 gliders that threw over 21.35...you conveniently chose a different year
3)Compare the PR's of the throwers from 2009 vs the throwers from 1987 and you'll see the disparity is vivid.
published at Aug 25th 2010 7:33pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from HunterAt first glance I thought the marks you gave were bests for the year, not performances at worlds...another key difference I would add is the fact that in 87, five guys glided 70' while only two did last year.
published at Aug 25th 2010 7:39pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from w8coachNo worries, I took it as a serious , valid question.
Foot pivoting creates direction for the rest of the body to travel. An example would be the lt foot pivoting to a line in the intended direction of the throw. Pivoting also creates torque. The rt foot pivot in the middle transfers the The COG taht was balanced on the rt foot in the middle to the lt leg ahead of the UB and results in a stretch across the torso. Like holding a spring between the thumb and index finger of each hand. Twist the bottom grip and the tension is transmitted through the spring to the top grip. Move the bottom grip forwads and you create the catapult effect of a complete motion.
Optimizing the levers of the body creates stronger divices in which to impart faorce into the implement. If the thrower is balanced on the rt foot and pivoting ahead of the UB , the centrifugal force will raise the arm to 90 degees which is the strongest lever.
Balance is crucial to be able to exert maximum forces against the ground and the implement. Out of the back the UB must maintain an almost vertical posture as the LB is lowered into the middle of the ring inside the lt foot creating tremendous linear forces.Balance in the middle is the UB must be in the same vert position. If there is a tilt the opposite reaction is for the hips to slide to the lt leg ahead of the pivot putting the responsibility for release velocity on the rt arm.
published at Aug 25th 2010 7:43pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from Dark HorseDisplay MoreYou guys are basing your assumptions of "drugs being just as rampant" on the fact that there SHOULDN'T be an evolution in distance over the course of 2 decades! The amount of improvement becomes lessened over time because of diminishing returns but if the level of throwing is just NOW getting back to what it was 20 years ago then I think that attests to the fact that drugs are LESS prevalent. lets count back 11years from the '87 worlds.
1976 Olympics
Udo Beyer 21.05 GOLD
Yevgeny Mironov 21.03 SILVER
Alexandr Baryshnikov 21.00 BRONZE
Seems to be a significant improvement from 76 to 87. Lets go back 8 more years.
1968 Olympics
Randy Matson 20.54 GOLD
George Woods 20.12 SILVER
Eduard Gushchin 20.09 BRONZE
Again a pretty nice increase in distance from 68 to 76. Yet there is no improvement from 87 to 2009...
By the logic of human evolution (evolution in training, technique, nutrition, larger population=larger genetic pool to pick from, etc) marks in 2010 compared to 1987 should be higher by a noticeable margin...but they aren't.
I'm no fool, I believe that drugs are still being used but I think the numbers prove that present day athletes are less influenced by such enhancements.
-Ninow
published at Aug 25th 2010 8:54pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from w8coachDoesn't the lack of tech perfection today, similar nutition, less athletes coming to the throws due to the pro sports, and the same strength levels of atheltes shoot your theory down? There uis less of a pool to choose from as less athletes go out for the throws. All these things cancelling out, it comes down to tech again. There has been little evolution in tech in my book. It is easy to point out on video. It is acop out for us to think that this is about the use of drugs back in the day. Different day same subject.
published at Aug 25th 2010 9:14pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from John SmithDisplay MoreDid some research. Both Olympic years.
Men's Shot
1988 top ten average shot 21.90
2008 top ten average shot 21.54
1988 gliders average- 22.04
2008 top ten gliders- below 21m
Advancements in the Rotational Technique made up the difference here.Gliders dropped while rotators rose.
Men's hammer
1988 top ten average 83.12
2008 top ten average 81.74
Women's Shot
1988 top ten average 21.38
2008 top ten average 19.89
Women's Discus
1988 top ten average 72.26
2008 top ten average 65.61
So after 20 years of throwing this is what the numbers say. Back in the day there was bigger drops of distance at Big meet time then there is today. Women took the biggest drop because drugs gave them much more.
http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/43/7/1262
This document has a lot of proof.
John Smith
published at Aug 25th 2010 9:36pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from bigbDisplay MoreIn a conclusive sense. Do you believe those two throwers that were mentioned had bad technique?
And if so how do we define a standard for good tecnique.
It's of my opinion that "good" technique is indefinable
Which way do you see it?
published at Aug 25th 2010 10:34pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from HunterDisplay MoreI'll concede that this is not as simple as "guys did drugs 20 years ago and now they don't"....but thats likely the biggest factor.
Guys dont glide 22m with regularity anymore, they just dont. And the only guy that has glided 22m in the past decade also failed a drug test, coincidence?
And as coach Smith pointed out, since Barnes got busted, the performance of spinners around the world HAS gotten better...the numbers are just skewed because the 74' glider cannot exist today.
Randy Barnes was a phenomenal athlete who "somehow" managed to go from 55' in practice to a 73' warmup in a matter of months.
You keep referencing the technique. As mentioned many times, its easier to achieve phenomenal technique by practing more due to a drug induced state. In a long and strong article from about 12 years ago, Barnes discussed his training regimen at Texas A & M. It was preposterous. I don't have the article in front of me but I believe he talked about lifting and throwing 2-3 times A DAY. This is not possible without drugs and this is why Barnes technique was so good and this is why he would have thrown 24m if he hadnt been busted.
You talk about the drugs and technique like they are separate, but they are not. Oh wait, I forgot, Cantwell, Hoffa and Nelson all use phenomenal amounts of drugs but they are all undetectable and yesterdays athletes were so much better...guess we'll continue to spin our wheels.
KK
published at Aug 25th 2010 10:54pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from HunterDisplay More"'another key difference I would add is the fact that in 87, five guys glided 70' while only two did last year.'
-Technique issues is a different story.Why mention the glide in this ? I could also say there are 5 spinners in the top 8 throwing 20.50+ and there were 0 in 87."
Why spin when you can juice and glide 23m?
"-So,you're actually saying that today's throwers throw closer to their PRs in big meets,correct ?
Answer me,why ?"
I've seen countless posts from you after a Cantwell/Hoffa/Nelson "chokes" at a big meet and you use that as "proof" that they are using...and when they throw well you use that as "proof" also!!!
""Miknehvich 22.09 (failed test)
Barnes 23.12 "
-Did you forget something here ?
Is it because Barnes is American or is it because he was a spinner ?"
I made a point to mention Miknevich because I don't think its any coincidence that the only glider to recently go 22m, also happened to test positive during his career. Do you think I am trying to hide the fact that Barnes doped??? Did you read my last post to w8coach? I called Barnes out for his gains while doping more than i ever have a glider or a european.
As mentioned in the last post, we're coming from 2 different places...agree to disagree. I'm done
KK
published at Aug 25th 2010 11:22pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from hopefullthrowerDisplay MoreApply non throwing life experiences to this, what about the fact that several countries, ie eastern europe has specific systems in place for selection and training of athletes which drove the top end standards and volume of throwers in those countries and forced the others to react accordingly?
Gunthoer and Andrei were individuals from western european countries but the training they had was as good as anything today, the information on how to train the east european way had spread out to the west and ipso facto.
the US had all the info too, Randy Barnes was coached in weight training by Istvan Javorek who was an olympic medalist in weightlifting from Romania, the coaches had spread all the info by then.
so the selection and support of the athletes in the east european states drove everyone's standards up. Randy B threw 22.39 in the olympics because he had to to win, but Timmerman had a throw in had and threw 22.47 because he had to. if there was no one throwing over 21m, he would have hit 21.20 to win LOL Cantwell threw 22m last year to win worlds because he had to.
The east germans found all the talented people in their small pool of 17m people and put them in the right sports, and trained them with the best expertise, so did the soviets and others.
Q weightlifting, were the weight classes changed because todays athletes couldn't break the records? Why has Taranenko's record not been broken, why has the Bulgarian's record in the snatch been broken? sorry I've forgotten his name. because there are not enough people being trained in a system, or trying to beat the system.
published at Aug 25th 2010 11:29pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from w8coachI would classify it as biomechanically less efficient tech. Washington was the athlete we all want to be and Oerter made that move in the middle taht changed his entire throw.
Weak tech has very few of the thigns we discussed earlier and string tech is a solid combination of those same elements.
published at Aug 26th 2010 12:04am on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from HunterDisplay Morebefore drug testing:
2 spinners over 75'
7 gliders over 22.10m
Since Barnes's ban, no spinner has been close to 75' and no glider has gone 72'6". The only guys who have been close (Toth, Miknevich) were banned at one time or another.
Certainly there are other factors involved here, but this is just too big a coincidence to ignore in my opinion.
published at Aug 26th 2010 12:08am on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
