Technical chit-chat thread

[Elle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RLcF9WTAdU&t=784s

In this video, Corbu, Roca and Orecchini are advertising the new level 2 weightlifting course of the Federation.

Corbu at 22:40 says that the error in weightlifting was to maintain the technical details that had been used during the "split era" also in the "squat era", because there was an evolution of the competition exercise. He didn't say exactly what he was referring to.

What do you think about that? Is it true that much of the technique we see today is "outdated"? In what details?

The only thing that I think is very different from the past is that now there is much more technical freedom: before you either did that move or you were out of the team (like Rigert, they told me), now the athlete is at the center of everything and there is no longer just black or white but a whole shade of gray. But I think the principles have remained the same (because the goal, split or squat, remains to lift the barbell and get under it).

[strapping]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RLcF9WTAdU&t=784s

In this video, Corbu, Roca and Orecchini are advertising the new level 2 weightlifting course of the Federation.

Corbu at 22:40 says that the error in weightlifting was to maintain the technical details that had been used during the "split era" also in the "squat era", because there was an evolution of the competition exercise. He didn't say exactly what he was referring to.

What do you think about that? Is it true that much of the technique we see today is "outdated"? In what details?

The only thing that I think is very different from the past is that now there is much more technical freedom: before you either did that move or you were out of the team (like Rigert, they told me), now the athlete is at the center of everything and there is no longer just black or white but a whole shade of gray. But I think the principles have remained the same (because the goal, split or squat, remains to lift the barbell and get under it).

It is difficult to respond without actually knowing what he means by it. Truth be told, I am wary of anyone who says out with the old, in with the new.
I don't think there are any fundamental differences between the split and squat snatch. Physics hasn't changed in 60 years and neither has human anatomy. Baszanowski expressed "modern" technique in both the split and squat lifts, breaking world records with both styles. The expression of technique is different, but the principles are the same.

There are minor details that can be different in practice, but these are not fundamental differences. Just a case by case basis but here are things he might be referring to.

• The barbell trajectory is usually more forward, or rather, less rearward in a split snatch. The receiving position is more forward in the split for most lifters, which was less punishing for lifters who have an overly long first pull and late transition/2nd pull (e.g. Russia 2015, Nino). This ties into the no leg touch era (pre-1964). Since 1969 the barbell has been allowed to touch the legs. Lifting into the squat allows the lifter to pull the bar a bit more rearwardly to generate some more vertical force at the top of the pull.
• In turn, this allowed more lifters to have a pulling rhythm that is very fast off the floor, with less at the top of the pull. The position of the back and head tended to be more in flexion. Nowadays, lifters have more velocity gained from the 2nd pull and less from the 1st pull. However, I believe this is a consequence of changes, not how it should be taught.
• Many lifters needed a bit more bar height for the split than for the squat, presuming proficiency in both lifts. Corbu may be referring to the notion that "old school" coaches try to get people to lift the bar as high as possible, whilst "modern" weightlifting should be more about getting under fast. I'm not sure of either school of thought.
• Lifters in the split era had much stronger hips and abdominal musculature compared to their quadriceps strength (relative to the squat era). This allowed for more lifters to take a straight legged jerk receiving position to take pressure off the quads. Nowadays you tend to see a bit more knee flexion in the jerk receiving position which is neither here nor there. The important factor is not letting the bar drop after fixation and keeping stiff, whatever the joint angles are.

Does this really change anything? In my opinion, no.

The athlete should pull in a way that allows them to maintain upward force (minimal loss of force in transition) in the middle and finish of the pull, with minimal bar drop (between apex to fixation) and forward/backward/lateral momentum in the catch. In turn, that is more about correct understanding, sequencing (same for all lifters) and changes to positions and technical cues based on the individual lifter.

[Elle]

Thank you for the answer!

This is not the first time that Corbu says something similar. He says that currently the technical concept of the lifts is wrong because the lifts are done in squat as they were done in split. I have never found any further explanation for this statement. I attended the level I course, in which the new technical concept of the exercises was explained, but I I have never had any clarification on this point.

(I have the slides of the course, if anyone is interested in)

[strapping]

Thank you for the answer!

This is not the first time that Corbu says something similar. He says that currently the technical concept of the lifts is wrong because the lifts are done in squat as they were done in split. I have never found any further explanation for this statement. I attended the level I course, in which the new technical concept of the exercises was explained, but I I have never had any clarification on this point.

(I have the slides of the course, if anyone is interested in)

Those were just suggestions of possibilities, I don't know for sure.

You are welcome to provide an upload link to them. I can't be bothered adding an upload portal.

If I were a betting man, I would bet that he is saying that lifters need to be faster under the bar and less focused on maximum height. This is based on how the younger Italians move, particularly the women but also to some extent the men. This can work if the lifters have a large surplus of shoulder/leg strength but it risks pressouts in the snatch (which Italy is trying to remove i guess) and difficult clean recoveries. The clean recoveries become a problem if a lifter either has weak legs or normal legs (e.g. CJ = 3-5RM FS).

[Elle]

the phantasmagorical secrets of Italian wl are here

[strapping]

the phantasmagorical secrets of Italian wl are here

sis this looks like every L1 course in the entire world but written in italian

[Elle]

A pretty poor course in my humble opinion, just a new nomenclature of the lift phases, not a revolution. A teaching method based heavily on the control of angles, which inevitably led many participants to make mistakes.

And not a hint of programming. For that you have to do the level 2 course.

God bless the new italian school XD

I'm a bit critical but actually the leap forward, in terms of international results, is evident. They are doing a great job in Rome!

[Guima73]

the phantasmagorical secrets of Italian wl are here

Thank You !!!

[strapping]

A pretty poor course in my humble opinion, just a new nomenclature of the lift phases, not a revolution. A teaching method based heavily on the control of angles, which inevitably led many participants to make mistakes.

And not a hint of programming. For that you have to do the level 2 course.

All L1 courses have 1 main goal: don't kill your athlete and provide a way out of legal liability if they have an accident

L2 courses will teach a CrossFit coach or S&C coach some actual coaching knowledge I guess, but it's nothing you can't learn by actually coaching weightlifting if you were a weightlifter (with or without certification). Maybe it's different in Italy, but I doubt it.

I'm not sure S&C or CrossFit coaches benefit much from them unless they really take the time to sweep the floors of a weightlifting gym. They'll learn more, for sure. But unless you spend the hours understanding what you're learning about, you will never really get it.

[Elle]

All L1 courses have 1 main goal: don't kill your athlete and provide a way out of legal liability if they have an accident

L2 courses will teach a CrossFit coach or S&C coach some actual coaching knowledge I guess, but it's nothing you can't learn by actually coaching weightlifting if you were a weightlifter (with or without certification). Maybe it's different in Italy, but I doubt it.

The Italian Federation has several first level courses (fitness, crossfit and weightlifting oriented) and all of them, exept weightlifting, have a programming part. In my opinion, it seems fair to me: if I have to train someone, I have to know the basics of the discipline, including basic programming (like the first level course in USA).

More than increasing my knowledge (even though there is always more to learn) I am curious to know what the programming concept for an average athletes is in the new Italian school.