Chit-chat thread

[strapping]

Outside of scientific jargon where meaning needs to be stable, I'm not a fan of linguistic prescriptivism. I think that terminology takes on the meaning ascribed to it by its context and use. Two different cues for the same principle can work/not work differently for the same lifter.
That's not to say we shouldn't be intentional about our language, it's just that the same thing will mean different things to different people.

More than specific language, use visual demonstration with your verbal communication and apply it to a constrained task variation that pushes someone towards the desired behaviour.

-

The technical matters described in the post are complicating simplicity, though this is not unique to this Italian post/system but of almost all academic discussion of weightlifting.

To apply maximum height to the bar, push the ground down and the chest up as hard as possible for as long as possible, without falling over. Literally just stand up and stretch up. Force go down into ground, up into body. Impulse is yes.
That results in the body self-organising the first pull, transition and second pull, or if I'm understanding it correctly, the staccio, cambio and spinta.

To stay connected to the bar and finish the lift properly (scambio, or combined 2nd pull/turnover/fixation), the lifter/barbell must be balanced in motion, preferably with the barbell close to the body/shoulders with minimal swing.

I'm not so much a fan of the idea of trying to get under quickly, so much as fixating relaxed, actively and strongly. Getting under the bar quickly is a necessary evil of weightlifting, but increases the impulsive external force (and internal forces due to more external force + larger joint moment arms) in the catch.

Imperio for example squats under super fast but doesn't really fix the bar, particularly with her shoulders more than her elbows. You can see this when she warms up with 45kg. She hits the bottom then a moment later, the bar settles into the pocket over the shoulder. This timing gap is most obvious at light weights, but is true of heavier lifts too.

-
Tangent

The turnover requires a fast and forceful contraction of the trapezii primarily, as well as the other scapular muscles, deltoids, rotator cuff and elbow flexors. As we know from our concentric F-v curve, more tension requires decreased velocity of movement.
I'll also add that the significant force applied in the second pull does go through the traps, which then obviously need to contract to stabilise the shoulder as well as continue producing force into the turnover.

Excessive arm bend or grip tension can, subsequently, not so much limit speed of extension but more the speed of turnover/fixation. IMO it's usually an automatic bodily response to balance the system where the lats/rest of the upper back are not strong enough to keep the barbell close with loose arms.

I think that's why even though the traps "don't lift the bar" (they do, upward force is upward force even if you're not touching the ground), having sufficient strength to be supple in the traps helps a lifter turnover actively.

Scapular retraction during the turnover also helps keep the bar closer, which is probably why the cue of scapular retraction during the transition/cambio was taught to some lifters.

The pelvic retroversion with the glutes IMO is such a minor detail that essentially amounts to nothing. You either take on more load with your hips if your hips are more capable, or your abs/spine if that's more capable. Brace hard, push up, what happens happens.

-
The discussion about periodisation is a tired topic from 5-10 years ago. Periodisation is a fancy word for prioritising, scheduling and timetabling.
All weightlifting is inherently periodised, unless you can snatch and clean and jerk at the same time.

Funnily enough, the outline of the Italian training week is eerily similar to an example training program I wrote for an imaginary case study in my undergrad.

The Italian secret isn't technique or programming, the secret is infrastructure, talent selection/development, funding and time.
The real mystery isn't the Italians, the real mystery is the Indonesian weightlifting system.

[Elle]

Uh, the post by WLfan! I think I know him but... I'm not sure.

As regards the change of terminology compared to the classic one, the new terms are not so representative of the various phases of the lift, even for an Italian.

I heard the opinion of several important coaches (outside the narrow circle of the national team) and even they agreed that those terms do not help to better understand the lifts. To say, "Cambio" in Italian is used when subjects exchange something: "you give me an apple and I give you a pear, we made an exchange". What does it means in a snatch?

Some coaches even find english terminology (first pull, second pull etc etc) much easier to use.

These coaches, who have also forged international champions, tried to oppose the new terminology but in vain. I believe that behind the modification of the terms there is also something more "ideological": I have to re-found a sports movement? Ok, I change everything, people and terminology. And that terminology will always remember this change, even in the future when the people who made it are gone (for example, it seems that Corbu will leave after Paris 2024).

[strapping]

I heard the opinion of several important coaches (outside the narrow circle of the national team) and even they agreed that those terms do not help to better understand the lifts. To say, "Cambio" in Italian is used when subjects exchange something: "you give me an apple and I give you a pear, we made an exchange". What does it means in a snatch?

With no insider information, I suspect it's just a translation of the term "transition phase", which I find to be a clumsy term in English as you find cambio in Italian. Though it's less clumsy than double knee bend. Sure, there is a a change of direction and a preparation for the final extension/explosion/second pull, but I don't thinl transition sits quite right. I just call it the middle of the pull.

Maybe a more descriptive technical term could be the chesty uppy phase.

[Hawkpeter]

This seems extremely significant.

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles ... news-story

Antonio Urso, the IWF’s general secreta ... letes too.

Urso also said: "We must reduce the enormous number of referees and technical officials in a competition, which is especially important in youth competitions.

"Young athletes should enjoy it, not worry about the referees - if their lift is not quite perfect, it’s okay."

[Elle]

Oh my god... I might agree to speed up the competitions so as not to bore the audience, but I'm very scared about choosing additional exercises.

[brian.degennaro]

Trim. The. Fat.

Get rid of the unnecessary amount of officials needed to operate a competition. So many of these TOs just seem to be there as a result of nepotism rather than qualification.

[erpel]

Getting rid of press-outs will not make WL less arbitrary. A barbell "overhead under control" is arbitrary to begin with. What is full extension of the arms? How long is standstill? What is control?

One can imagine all kinds of "lifts" which qualify as ground to overhead in one/two motion(s) which don't resemble what we're used to. Making the sport uglier is not progress. And yes, aesthetics/skill is a fundamental part of this sport, whether officially codified or not.

[Guima73]

"Young athletes should enjoy it, not worry about the referees - if their lift is not quite perfect, it’s okay."

This is wrong

[Hawkpeter]

Trim. The. Fat.

Get rid of the unnecessary amount of officials needed to operate a competition. So many of these TOs just seem to be there as a result of nepotism rather than qualification.

What, you didn't enjoy those Tokyo B sessions with 5 lifters and 13 TO's?

And how is the transactional culture of the sport supposed to continue if gifted spots aren't able to be used as currency?

[strapping]

I have nothing against these ideas and proposals, but strategic plans don't mean anything unless they're put into practice.
The words may sound good and be well meaning, but what actually gets done is what matters.
The IWF appears, still, not to have a CEO/Operations manager to enact the proposed changes. More bureaucracy will not solve the problem.

Getting rid of press-outs will not make WL less arbitrary. A barbell "overhead under control" is arbitrary to begin with. What is full extension of the arms? How long is standstill? What is control?

One can imagine all kinds of "lifts" which qualify as ground to overhead in one/two motion(s) which don't resemble what we're used to. Making the sport uglier is not progress. And yes, aesthetics/skill is a fundamental part of this sport, whether officially codified or not.

I don't disagree that the sport will be no less arbitrary but I think it would make refereeing more consistent as most referees, including International Category 1 referees, have a significant skill issue.

I don't agree that aesthetics is fundamental to the sport. In general, I do not believe in such a thing as "the spirit of the rules". It is either written in the rulebook, or it isn't. Knowing what the rules are, and what they are not is a fundamental component of competing in any sport. The current rules are quite poorly written, contributing to the problems you mentioned.

Besides, most peoples' (athletes and coaches) aesthetic preferences interfere with the development of rational and coherent technique from a biomechanical standpoint. Many of the lifts/lifters that are commonly found "aesthetically pleasing" are displeasing to me (e.g. Kuo's snatches).