1. Oud nieuws
  2. Mel Siff en J.V. Askem overleden
  3. AT Trainers Licentie
  4. Website statistieken en upgrade
  5. Website update
Meer berichten ...

::Laatste trainingsberichten
Eddy van Oort op 3/24/2009 @ 10:51 am

korte krachttraining
bench: 10x4 6x50 3x6x60 2x70
squatmachine: 10x80 2x10x100 (explosief uit, 3 sec terug)

Eddy van Oort op 3/18/2009 @ 10:44 am

90-80-70 versnelling rustig
60-50-40 versnelling 90% + coast
6 x 30m startspelletje
300-200-150-200-300 200m wndrust (~= 3′)
(46.9 28.6 20.9 28.1 45.2)

150m te rustig aan gelopen als ik ‘t terugzie, had een 19-er moeten zijn.

Eddy van Oort op @ 10:41 am

bank 10x40 8x50 3x6x60 1x70 0x75
squatmachine 10x70 2x8x100 6x120 , “diep”.

Eddy van Oort op 3/11/2009 @ 9:05 am

2 x 6 x 200m in estafette vorm, on flats
(30.6 30.0 30.5 30.3 32.2 31.3) (rust: 1:16 1:20 1:20 1:21 1:17)
23′ rust/medizin bal oefeningen
(33.3 32.3 32.1 31.9 31.9 31.0) (rust: 1:19 1:20 1:18 1:21 1:16)

op deze site

trainings logboeken

nederlandse atletiek verenigingen

swift atletiek roermond
hellas utrecht
av fit zeist
prins hendrik vught
av attila tilburg
av 40 delft

nederlandse atletiek

atletiek unie portaal
tartan.nl - horden/sprint
weia reinboud - statistiek
trittico track team - talenten

internationale atletiek

de iaaf plus forum
charlie francis: plus forum
elitetrack: plus forum
sportscoach - compleet
masters t-and-f
peak performance online
dan john: discuswerpen
exrx - exercise directory


nieuws beheer

::Snelkracht artikelen

Stukjes van werpers forum The Ring Deel 2

Werpers forum The Ring -- 2004.04.13


Calf-Ham-Glute Raises

Calf-Ham-Glute Raises with one leg

Back Raises (AKA back hypers-but do not hyperextend)-be sure to add weight behind the head or across shoulders

Back Raises with one leg

Reverse Hypers

Reverse hypers with one leg

Partial hi-rep deadlifts (similar to a RDL but with the weight allowed to free-fall to the 1" below the kneecap position, then pulled violently back to lockout . . . the lifter bends at the hips and knees, thrusting the buttocks to the rear thereby keeping the shinbone, when viewed from the side, perpendicular to the floor . . . emulating almost exactly the position from which to execute a VERTICAL LEAP). Use 25-40% of a deadlift 1RM. Attach rubber bands for fun.

Jumping squats with rubber band resistance

Box Squats off a very low (6-8") box

Regular box squats slightly below parallel

Pull-thrus off a low cable machine

One legged squats with the "passive" leg placed behind the lifter and up on a bench

Seated good mornings

Sets and reps on these vary WIDELY.

You will find that GENERALLY the pulling range from floor to knee may mean less than the range from slightly below the knee to lockout as far as increasing capacities for throwers goes-as this has a much greater effect on hip/knee extension and ultimately jumping capacities. This is why snatches from a hang and off boxes work well for some, and why hi pulls from a hang do too. You will find that the goal needs not necessarily to be strengthening the musculature so that either olympic lifts or powerlifts can be done more successfully, but rather so that the body can be conditioned to simultaneously extend knee, hip, and to whatever level possible, ankle joints simultaneously, in a very explosive fashion, to enable an increase not only of the strength but also the intermuscular coordination needed to explosively deliver the shot.

This is why those squat jumps done by Chris Sprague when he was in high school worked so incredibly well. He obviously did quite a lot with very basic but sensible (for explosive athletes) tactics and filled in the blanks with some creative GPP (pushing-pulling that family vehicle).

I think we can learn a lot regarding his example. I think I recall his father citing a divergence from this program resulting in lower performance.

This is why the various forms of squat are better than any other exercise, GENERALLY speaking, and also why box squats work so well. Non box squats work well too, but box squats break up the eccentric-concentric chain enough to really focus on flexing off the box with all the muscle groups you are concerned about.

Box squats also teach the athlete to sit BACK into a position that, much like the partial hi-rep deadlift, mimics a position from which a vertical leap is executed (chest up, buttocks back, shins relatively perpendicular to the ground). One need not use the very wide stance that powerlifters use, but you BETTER sit back, or there will not be the overall effect on the target muscle groups.

Watch video analysis of any thrower. You will see the relevance of the exercises that call on this simultaneous extension.

As a rule, anything that extends the hip is good. Anything that extends the hip and knee, simultaneously, is better. Anything that extends the hip, knee, and ankle, is best. But of course the uses of the various exercises must be juggled to balance strength and explosiveness concerns.

Smart use of the box squat will cover more bases than you think, especially when you become more familiar with it and its nuances.

One need not use a lot of weight to get the desired effect. I have a 14 year old daughter who uses the box squat as her core exercise. Her vertical leap is 19.25" at 160-163 lbs. And she trains with VERY moderate poundages. The highest she has ever gone is 145x5, off a 13.5" box (which puts her at a position about 1" below parallel, which we have found to be relevant for her unseating from the crouch in the glide). Most (I would say 90% of total) sets are worked between 85-110 lbs, always for 5's. She uses no olympic lifting variants at this point in time (but will, when needed, IF needed), but much training focus is put right on that mid-body area.

With the box squat.

When the box squat is understood, it becomes a real powerful tool.

Torso Work

Although the video is powerlifting specific, you will see a sensible treatment of torso work in Louie Simmons' "Squat Workout" tape. You can call him at 614-276-0923 for details.

For those who follow powerlifting, it should be noted that Louie is doing the best deadlifting of his life currently (no tricks, he does not even use a tight suit when pulling at meets, just a belt and a singlet), and he attributes his current ability to pull over 700 lbs in competition on a regular basis (with short arms, no less-he has a squatter-bencher build) on the much higher level of torso strength he possesses now.

The relationship to throwing is simple. The stronger your torso is, the more proficiently you can execute prime mover exercises.

Also, the stabilization role played by the torso especially when gliding is very important.

And, the role of torso strength on rotary throwing is so obvious I daresay we need not say much more (the high volume of torso work executed by Imrich Bugar is a good example here).

The writings of Bondarchuk (especially those that contain the little exercise illustrations) contain tons of excellent torso conditioning exercises that are very relevant to the thrower.

Ithink he had a hammer thrower or two who did pretty well.

Note: we think ALL throwers should do some form of hammer training and discus throwing because of the high degree of effect that these disciplines can have on the trunk. General types of 1-hand and especially 2-hand throwing using plates and medicine balls is also quite beneficial.

Training the obliques (and not just the abdominals proper) also will make the torso much stronger in a useable fashion. We see oblique and lower back training as most important, followed by abdominals.

If you do your Westside homework, and add the Bondarchuk info to it, or vice-versa, you cannot go wrong. Both coaches have produced numerous champs, and I find it a little coincidental that both coaches have a sense for the great importance of torso strength in sport.

It probably has to do with the fact that both men are/were also very intense competitors seeking out any and all edges on the competition during their respective careers.



I was a 3-lift powerlifter who blew out his back in 1989. This left me to BP specialization. My bench sucked (310 @ 210 at age 31 in 1989, and stuck there for nearly 7 years), and I needed help. So I contacted Louie Simmons at Westside Barbell in 1991, and that bench inched its way up to 440. I am 41 now, and the bench remains in the 400-440 range depending on training intensity. I am lifetime drug-free. I have coached numerous 500+ benchers, a couple of 700+ squatters (all drug-free) and one triple bodyweight deadlifter.

My training interests took a turn in late 1996 when my then 11 year old daughter expressed an interest in throwing. I was quite surprised to find out that Louie had a few training ideas up his sleeve that suited T&F athletes.

I was more surprised to find out he had some inroads to places to look for more info.

Of course, some excellent throwers, coaches and training experts helped out. These include, but are not limited to, Sonja Fitts, John Smith, Klaus Bartonietz, Brandon Green, and of course Louie.

It is worth mentioning that there are a number of "Ringers" who have requested to remain nameless, who have sent me a lot of excellent material. One who I hope does not mind being mentioned is Riccardo Magni. MANY thanks to Riccardo for the slews of documents he has sent my way.

I am no throwing expert. I am a person who does, however, have a knack for making training things work, and I am also pretty good at the putting together of 2 and 2 in order to equal 4 with respect to training.

I credit Louie for making me look way below the surface.

Now, I will say this-it is to the shame of those who seek knowledge in training that they do not do their research before expounding. As Ken Sprague would say, this is not rocket science. While a powerlifter's special exercise repertoire may include good mornings (AND SHOULD) in order to increase squats and deadlifts, it is important for the thrower to realize that for them, the squat for them is akin to the good morning for the P/L'er.

As to bergeron's questions re. maxes, you will find that most throwers will have maxes in bench, squat, clean or snatch (power, hopefully), and push presses. There are reasons for each of these.

But there is no one "way". What about Woods, who did benches and squats?

Or Feuerbach, who favored the O/L's?

Both men were excellent.

What about Sarul, who could only bench 400?

Or what about Beyer, who could do over 660?

Or what about Westsider Akins, who may have not possessed the best putting form, but hafd a "decent" P/L base?

Or what about Kumbernuss, whose knees are so shot, it is amazing she can walk, no less glide?

I'm sure Andy Baran can educate us all on the role of each lift if he sees fit. But there is no exclusively right way-it has been said that Alexeev could put a shot 61 feet. Powerlifter Akins was 10 feet better.

What does that mean, if anything at all?

As for O/L maxes, I think we see modest numbers for fellows like Sarul and even Wilkins. But each man makes up for the shortfalls elsewhere (Sarul in sprints and jumps, Wilkins in a kickass squatfor a tall fellow).

A thrower cannot look at a lift as being an end result for a throw without looking at their body to see what it needs first. Connie Price Smith gets away with a low bench but she pulls world-class deadlift marks (interestingly, most of the documentation I have seen from John Smith seems to indicate an affinity for partial heavy deadlifts, snatches off boxes, hang pulls and a lot of many different kinds of squats, perhaps Louie would love her to death). It is pretty clear that she maximizes everything she can, in a sensible manner.

Enough chatter. I am no thrower, but a few little ones I am helping just might turn out to be throwers. And it is because of a mix of the traditional (Smith & Bartonietz) and the wholly non-traditional (Louie) that the process will be very fun.

If youy think I am full of shit, then get your dead ass in line, because the line of folks who seem to think so is rather long.

You are very smart to want to know where the heck I am coming from, training ideology wise. The websites are rife with all sorts of ideas and misinformation. In the most recent edition of PL USA, Ken Leistner makes a point regarding Bulgarian olympic lifters and their use of the squat. It seems that many people would like us to believe that these Bulgarians do not do back squats. Upon returning from a visit to one of their training sites, Randall Strossen relayed to Leistner how shocked he was to find out how much (volume) they back squatted, how well they did it, and how big the weights were that they would use.

This is no surprise whatsoever to those familiar with the incredibly important role of back squatting in any and all strength training and explosive strength training endeavors.

This is just one example of misconstrued training concepts.

Something that Louie taught me can serve all trainees well: do not merely turn to the exercises that you think will work, but look at the biomechanical movement you are trying to train, and adapt exercises to enhance that movement!

This requires understanding.

While there are books and papers written by Bompa, Zatsiorsky, Verkhoshansky, Hartmann &Tunnemann, Komi, Bosco and many others that pretty concisely explain the nitty-gritty of general and specific strength training (which I would also consider recommended/mandatory reading), you will find that getting a handle on that one primary Louie-ism will take you quite far.

Of course, applying that simplistic approach to throwing is more difficult than applying it to P/L or O/L. That is where a biomechanical understanding of the whole throwing process you are concerned with comes in handy.

This is where becoming a student of the throw(s) in question is critical. Kline's question regarding "what throwers I have trained" is perhaps less important than the question of where I have developed my paradigms and ideas from.

Even more valuable is a real-world understanding of how incredibly gifted many of the high-level throwers really are! In many instances I have to ask the very valid question as to whether the thrower in question is successful because of their training protocols and tactics, or rather, in spite of them. One look at some high-level throwers in the flesh brings to mind the fact that they were in large part dealt a royal flush in the gifts department.

I think it is quite clear that a coach who has one mutant trainee whose training concepts that they are using as a proof text is possibly the example not to follow. However, when you have a coach that can produce repeated results with many bodytypes, then you are onto something.

I remember attending the 1998 NCAAs in Buffalo, and in particular watching the UCLA women in the throws. I was very impressed with the mastery exhibited by these women, especially since their bodytypes/sizes were all across the board (Sua, Powell, Noble, Kawar), yet each one displayed what could only be the product of excellent and thorough coaching.

I think that it is wise to go find out about strength from those who are strong, and it is wise to find out about throwing far from those who have thrown far. But it is also equally as wise to divide by the genetic factor, and work that into your equation.

And it is important to call each and every paradigm you have into question. This way you will really understand what "works," irrespective of the genetics variable. And of course, what works may/can/will differ from person to person.

And one last Louie-ism, once all these things are done-you must learn how to teach yourself. Nothing replaces this.


An analysis by Bartonietz of this thrower (done in 1991 perhaps? I am operating from memory) makes mention of the fact that he would land on his right HEEL at center circle, and the shot would virtually stop moving, yet the fact that studies had shown that he (Gunthor) had a FT muscle fibre composition of around 90% (nature or nurture should be the operative question here for fans/students of capacities increase!) "possibly" had an overriding effect.

I'll bet.

The question about technique is a good one. But I have seen numerous posts in the past regarding the "horrible" stand-to-full-throw differentials exhibited by Gunthor, Kumbernuss and Beyer (curiously, all being quite dominating throwers in their heydays), and I cannot help but ask the question as to whether or not technique (with respect to the differential in question) is as big of an issue as the question that should be asked regarding their more basic power-based excellent technique exhibited in their standing throws!

Big stands with a little differential seem to have a greater reliability level than marginal stands with potentially yet spradically big differentials that "show up" on some meet days, and not on others.

It is not a bad thing to rely on strength if you have it. It appears to me that, at least in glide shotput, strength (of an explosive kind, which always has its foundation in increasing of absolute strength levels) helps.

I personally prefer Lisovskaya myself (and I oftentimes wonder why elements of her technique are so rarely discussed or evaluated). She had the best mix of all. Yet one must ask, how good would her technique have been if her strength levels were lower?

Dave Caster


There was some posts about olympic lifting and throwing yesterday which is a subject near and dear to my heart, so I'll blast out some random thoughts.

Like most serious throwers, I to, feel it's important to include some Oly style lifting in ones program. Back in the mid to late 80's (my 'prime' as it were), my routine consisted of squats, power cleans, clean hi pulls, hang cleans and benches. I put benches last because they are the least important.

But because the Oly lifts are not a continous tension movement (like squats) I believe they need to be done with a little more frequency per week. Oly lifts have a 'loading' and 'unloading' phase to them. Unlike the traditonal powerlifting and bodybuilding movments. Depending on how many hard sets you do, it's possible to do some Oly movement (or variation) several times a week.

And while HIT training may be okay (periodically) for the 'slower' lifts, it's no good for the Oly's. My oly's went nowhere fast just working up to one hard set (ala Mike Mentzer) 3-5 hard sets, are a better scheme.

Please don't feel like you have to learn the complete movement in order to do the Oly's. I don't think it's crucial to learn to snatch and clean with deep catches. It's not a bad thing, but the risk for injury rises with deep catches. If you're a thrower who hasn't done deep catches before, BE CAREFUL!! Have an experienced lifter work with you and video. In addition to that, with deep catches, you will have 'bombouts', moreso with deep snatches (try squats with a snatch grip, it's a little precarious), so you better have access to bumper plates. Gym take a dim view on dropping pig iron onto their floor.

It seems advisable to me, use variation of the oly's in terms of safety and ease of execution. This would include hi pulls (to various heights), power cleans & power snatches or hang cleans & hang snatches. For awhile I didn't 'rack' my cleans because of an injury to my left wrist and I don't feel it hurt my throwing at all.

I also question whether it's crucial to do both cleaning and snatching movements. In relation to throwing, I can't hardly believe that one would be that different from the other. Currently, I'm focusing all my attention on cleaning movements. There are enough variations to fill a program, and for me (6-4 with a belly) it's more comfortable to set up for the clean than the snatch.

As long as the focus of your lifting is legs and oly's you'll be on your way. Most throwers probably spend too much time on upper body. All I do is push presses, overhead presses, bench, dips and I'm considering giving up the bench.

Be sure to leave (or make) time for abdominals, sprints and some jumps. Many throwers get into a habit of lift and throw, lift and throw. Mistake!

Sorry for long post.

Train smart, cover all the bases, recuperate, throw far.

Phat Man


People interested in upping their squat might also get info about Westside Barbell Clubs system (actually Louie's system). I tried it periodically with some success as well. I don't have time to type it out.

Scan the web for different searches. Dave Caster also knows A LOT about the system and has been a contributor to THE RING.

Go to the 'Shot and Disc Page' I don't know the email. But it's a popular link. There are article there by Dave Caster (yay Dave!). about Louie's principles. However, he's (Louie) isn't a big believer in Olympic Lifting. With all due respect, I not down with that.

The main reason is Louie biggest justification for his system is how many 800# squatters it's produced, how many 600# benches etc, etc. Okay. Point well taken. That does validate his system.
His system can definately help ones powerlifting.

So, my question is 'How many world-class throwers has Louie produced?' Okay, then, what have different world class throwers and their coaches promoted as an adjunct to training? Time after time it's been some form of olympic lifting. Either the actual Snatch and/or C&J or a variation.

I'm going put more stock in what's been successful. If I want to up my squat, bench or deadlift, I'll look to a system like Louie's which has produced many champions. If I want to throw the shot farther, I'll look to a system that has produced shot put champions.

If you see this post Dave, it's not a diss to Louie or his principles. I just don't agree on this particular point.

As a sidebar, I read in Powerlifting USA a couples years ago (I think Dec '98) that for his conjugate day, Louie had people doing Power Snatches and Power Cleans. I'd be very interested to know how much weight they were hoisting up.

Phat Man


Thanks for your comments on Louie's training. Typically, Westside is not a place where throwers go to train, as it is a P/L gym and the rest speaks for itself.

Also, I believe many athletes who compete in drug-tested sports are a little leery of guilt by association if it were ever found out that they embraced these training principles, or went to Louie for help. This is a shame, and their loss.

Some throwers do tap him for information; they usually do so on the Q.T. for the aforementioned reasons.

About the only Westsider who also put the shot that comes to mind is Kevin Akins. The principles worked pretty well for him; it could be argued that greater attention to technical matters from a throwing perspective may have resulted in even further distances. Louie and I have discussed his training on numerous occasions; Louie's regret is that his current methods were in their infancy stages in the '80's, and he would have liked to have seen what would have transpired if Akins used the more refined variants.

Sidenote: Akins went to high school up here in upstate NY, and was a real animal even back then (my poor brother had the great misfortune of playing football against him). He was what one would refer to as gifted. When he left for Ohio State, he was around 245 or thereabouts in bodyweight, and fast as hell. He also fell about an inch short of setting our HS state record in shot-I think his best with the 12 pounder is somewheres in the 64-4 range. He holds our state discus mark.

He gained a little weight while in Ohio, and got a little better with the shot, too (over 71 with the 16 pounder, was it?). I think he topped out at 330 bodyweight or somewheres in that general vicinity.

These little Akins anecdotes really do not prove a whole lot however, as the sample size (1 is real small) is insignificant, and as my brother would say, this character could look at a weight and get stronger, he was so blessed.

Louie wishes he had a number of throwers to work with; if he did, he could then devise more throwing relevant training.

As to the Olympic Lifting issue, I think you would be surprised with some of the twists that are used from time to time in this sort of training, ones that would meld nicely with Olympic lifting.

No one lift can be looked at as a be-all and end- all (although I have an interesting little tidbit on that later), but with all other things being equal, a stronger thrower is a better one.

I remember a document regarding E. German hormonal manipulation that was sent to me by a Ring contributor. One of the most telling segments of that document was a little graph that showed the resultant change in shot put distances as achieved by a certain DDR olympic gold medalist lady shotputter during her first courses of anabolic administration. Prior to the administration, she was a 17 meter (or thereabouts) putter. I forget how long she had been training up to that point (I do not have the docs in front of me) but I believe it was for over 10 years. It took 11 weeks of very small (5-15 mg of T-bol daily) to shoot her over 19 meters.

Accompanying graphs showed, over the next 4 years, her results as they correlated with her drug use.

As you would guess, she threw far when using, and not nearly as far when clean.

Now, the reason I bring this up is because steroids make you stronger. And she threw better when she was stronger.

Regarding the aforementioned tidbit-we do like box squatting. Now, earlier in the season, while box squatting frequently, my daughter was able to put the shot 39-1. As we tapered her box squatting volume down and incorporated more speed elements, her best put went to 37-9.25. And after further tapering, her season ended with a 36-0.25. Now here is the really dismaying part-that 36-.25 put was done off a 33 foot stand (so we knew her glide mechanics were not the mitigating variable).

The 39-1 WAS a stand.

We were determined to investigate, over the course of this season, the efficacy of the more normal forms of periodization. Over the course of the training year, we had noticed a reopccuring theme of further throws resulting from INCREASES in squatting volumes. We had corroberating Russian information that had suggested that increases in squatting volumes (along with decreases in upper body training volumes) might elicit better in-season results. We also knew the only way to test this shit out was to do it.

So we obtained results from the high volume squatting in the early season. The 39-1stand.

Interestingly, she set PRS with the 10 lb, 4k, 8lb, 3k and 6 lb shots at that point in time-so there was not a bias as to speed or specific shot size.

Now we have the piss-poor results from the effect of tapered volume squatting. Interestingly, a decrease in bench press strength cannot be blamed for the subpar result; she moved her bench max up substantially in 1999.

The purpose of this little analysis? For her, squatting makes her stronger. The more she squats (volume wise), the further she throws. The less she squats, the shorter she throws. At the specific point that the PRs were being attained, her bench max was a little over 15 lbs less than what it ended up at upon the conclusion of the season.

I think it is clear that strength helps. We like Louie's methods because they make you stronger. And once all is said and done, it is pretty plain to see that the primary way to increase explosiveness and speed is by getting stronger.

That's why the very best speed strength athletes are always suspected of drug use.

Strength training within the confines of a sport that is explosive by nature need not be overly focused on speed (as hopefully the sprinting that a sprinter does or the throwing that a thrower does is explosive by nature), but it sure as hell better be focused on strength.

We learned a lot about periodization this year (and what needless bullshit it is and how the "strength-then-speed" paradigm can lead tothe athlete flushing all the strength away that they need to exhibit speed), and we learned a lot about what Ken Sprague has referred to in the past as "riding the horse that brought you here."

Ken, if you happen to read this post, let me simply say that my eyes are now more opened to all of the things you have said in the past, and I have to wholeheartedly agree with you (and Louie) on periodization issues.

Dave Caster



If you squat once a week, and want to use a Westside paradigm, you can still make excellent gains (this may even be a more viable option for the drug-free, btw).

The way to do this is to do your percent training first, followed by your absolute strength work next, followed by any rep work that you desire to do to induce hypertrophy to target areas. Here's how:

1.) Box squats, 60% of your 1RM on whatever box height you are using, for 12 sets of 2 reps, no more than 1 minute rest between sets in week 1. Over the next 3 weeks, bump up the bar weight by 2.5% each workout, and take out a set each session: 11 sets of 2 at 62.5% in Week 2, 10 sets of 2 at 65% in Week 3, and 9 sets of 2 at 67.5% in Week 4. Now, you do not have to use box squats, but they do work well. The real bottom line is to start your workout with the speed component. Those adverse to box squats can do their power cleans or snatch variants here-though you just might find that you can generate some very nice speed-inducing qualities with the box squat-and using substantially more weight with the squat than ou ever could with any pull variant (which will have positive effects onyour vertical leap). Of course,you could use box squats for 4 weeks, then cleans for 4 weeks, then snatches for 4 weeks in this "speed excercise slot", which may be the best way to go (unless you need mass, then you should be getting a bigger dose of squatting-I never saw power cleans or snatches mass anyone up; the heavy diet of squatting done by Russian and Bularian O/L'ers should be testimony to those who see the snatch or clean as an end in itself).

2.) Choose a good multiple joint movement to do, and work up to a heavy triple (3RM) on a top set, or three good singles with a 90% of 1RM weight. Many who can only bear up to one lower body workout a week and still train in a Westside fashion opt to do a few heavy box squats after their regular box squatting. Many also do this when percent benching (including myself more often than not), with really good results. You will be surprised at how much strength you will retain after the percent box squatting or percent bench pressing. The longer you do the protocol, the easier this gets. It takes about 12 weeks before your body will accept this. After that, you will easily be able to hit 90-92.5% lifts after percent work. Most of my non-shirt maxes in benchpress have come after a percent bench workout. You will find the same to be true with box squatting. You can always opt to keep the weight on the bar the same after your box squats, and just toss o some chains or rubber bands for a few last hard sets-the same general effect, but probably more beneficial, as your barspeed stays up better this way. Of course, you can do some form of good morning working up to a heavy triple, or say, a rack deadlift for a heavy single, or a higher-box squat with very heavy weight for a top single, or even a partial squat in the power rack for heavy singles (a strategy long favored by powerliftin great Walter Thomas, who would prepare his squats by training for sets of 10 in the full squat, and by supplementing this work with eavy partial squats . . . not exactly "Westside" in execution, but definitely "Westside" with it's intent . . . and eventual outcome.

3.) Finish off with a good 3 sets of10 rep movement in an exercise that will build you some muscle, like the reverse hyper, or calf-ham-glute raises. The idea here is to build the portions of the hamstrings and glutes and lower back in a spine-friendly manner, and also in a way that will stimulate muscle growth because of the eccentric work involved. Even a few sets of full squats for 10 reps with light weight, lowering the bar slowly, works well in this regard.

4.) Finish off with abs.

Just remember to do the "speed" variable first, then absolute strength, then reps. And change things around every 3-4 weeks. You need not do 12 exercises in one workout, 3-4 works fine. But if you switch exercises every 4 weeks, then you will be getting a nice variety over the long haul.

Dave Caster



I read Gary Cooper's post. I know there are a lot of folks who see the O/L as the highest and best means to the throwing end, strength-wise.

This may be true for some.

Now, those pesky East Germans knew that STRENGTH made longer puts. This is evident through their fastidious record keeping. The hormonal manipulation article referred to earlier helps us to see that strength helps. A certain female shotputter placed 5th at a certain Olympicswith a 55-5.75 (16.91m) put. She had been training for around 8-9 years at that time. 4 years later, with her best puts in the mid 17m range (as you would expect, a small gain in distance for a seasoned thrower over 4 years of steady training is reasonable), those happy docs hooked her up on a teeny bit of drugs and BAM, 19.61 meters about 11 weeks later and a WR and olympic gold! At least, according to the Berdendonk (sic?) study.

Interestingly, one of her teammates finished 2nd, with an 18.78 m toss, a full meter over HER previous best, as well.

Draw your own conclusions . . . I don't think full squats or power snatces were the key ere.

As for P/L oriented lifts, popular to some opinions, these same folks who obviously liked the dope also liked exercises that would make you strong. Same general principle, no? This means exercises like benches, squats, snatches, push jerks and the like.

Don't confuse the snatch with speed building exercises. Ever feel how it smokes the hell out of your upper back? Take a softball or a Turbojav or a nockenball out sometime and throw those things with your non-throwing hand. And see where the hell you get incredibl sore the next day. That's right-directly in the snatching muscles.

Speed builder? Bullshit. The snatch is a STRENGTH builder for some very important throwing muscle groups. Probably why Petra Felke built that huge snatch. Comments from Andy Baran here would be most appreciated.

As for P/L movements, I find it curious that DDR shot coach Spenke broke out the BENCHPRESS progressions of Briesenick and Gies (remember them? 3rd and 4th at the '72 Olys) in his 1974 (I believe) presentation. Just for yuks, here are Briesenick's numbers in the bench press:

1969: 352lbs
1970: 418
1971: 474
1972: 518 (the year of his Olympic bronze)
1973: 529 (the year of his PR toss of 21.67m was it?)

Curiously, his snatch, clean, and jerk numbers did not move up nearly as aggressively as his bench:

Clean: 363 lb
Jerk: 363
Snatch: 286

Clean: 374
Jerk: 374
Snatch: 308

Either Briesenick was just plain good at benching and hated the olys, or Spenke was a bench nut, or perhaps they had a clue that, like steroids, benching increases strength.

Gies' numbers are very similar.

And both of these fellows spanked O/L proponent Feuerbach at that '72 Olympics.

Not to mention that George Woods, who was 2nd (arguably due to a real bad measurement when his put hitthe gold medalist's marker, but was measured shorter), ALSO a fan of benching and squatting. Any inputs regarding the training of Woods would be greatly appreciated, by the way.

Just because all the good putters did olympic lifts does not mean that olympic lifts are the answer. It's clear that most of them bench and squat their ass off, as well.

The quest for the shotputter in the capacities venue should be for strength first and foremost.

It is from strengththat everything else comes, that is a fact. Even good technique cannot be mastered without appropriate strength.

Ever see a weak shotputter who glides well beat a strong one who does?

For that matter, have you ever seen a weak shotputter glide well at all?

But now that is a slightly different issue.

Dave Caster



Dave Caster's post brings up some serious questions in regards to strenght training.

I have seen time and time again on the Ring the Importance of the Oly Lifts as it relates to the throws, and usually a downgrading of the importance of Heavy squatting and I have seen the bench described as an non-essential lift.

Andy Baran, a fellow ringer who was very close the DDR throwers during thier hay day taught me the importance of upperbody strenght as the Germans seen it.

We traded info, and I gave Him Connie's Performace stats and he plugged them into the famous German Web. I asked him what the web showed that Connie needed to work on in order to throw 20 meters. The answer was a shocking when the e-mail came back (she needs a bigger bench), everything else is in line. I then went back into her training records and found that almost all her best throws were at times when she was benching very well. Then he sent me another e-mail that asked the question "why do you think the American Men are so good in the shot put over the years". Like he said, the Americans are not the best oly lifters, but they have always been some of the strongest bench pressers over the past 40 years.He then went on to say, "The Germans learned this from the Americans"

Just some food for thought.
John Smith



Here is interesting data from the 1975-76 Olympic Shotput & Discus camps. This is a small tidbit from it, but will give you the ballpark on how strong strong is when talking about elite throwers from a practical sense, not from "information from periodicals."

Here's how strong those elite US guys were-I will list the group sample size after each lift, the group average, and the range (min and maxes of the group in question):

First, The Shotputters, in lbs:

N=15, 453.13 avg (400-520 range)

N=16, 602.17 (480-750)

Power Clean:
N=15, 363.73 (320-410)

Incline Bench:
N=14, 390.64, (315-460)

N=12, 293.83 (235-375)

N=11, 388.09 (310-440)

Push Press:
N=11, 374.45 (275-460)

N=13, 618.46 (510-700)

And The Discus Throwers:

N=12, 411.28 (350-475)

N=11, 536.54 (400-700)

N=11, 329.92 (230-410)

N=8, 314.37 (260-335)

N=10, 246.00 (190-275 . . . Mac Wilkins is at 255, and he performed well in both camps, and obviously very well in the Olympics too . . . and had a helluva indoor shotput . . . maybe the 650 squat helped him out, no?)

N=9, 309.50 (250-410)

N=8, 305.51 (220-450)

N=10, 572.50 (430-675)

This is datat from real live US throwers of the past, to include Feuerbach, Woods, Wilkins, and many others who would be familiar to you from the 70's.

Phat Man is proposing use of a marriage between the disciplines; the eastern bloc beat him to the punch 30 years ago. The necessity of this is plainly obvious. They realized that olympic lifts are not "speed increasers" per se (if they were, Ben Johnson would have been snatching rather than benching and squatting), but exercises used to make a thrower STRONGER.

Notice that the bench and the squat were the most often used lifts in the sample. Is this a mystery?

As to Kline's question as to "how much for how far," the charts have been posted before from both DDR info courtesy of Mr. Baran, and also FRG info . . . but humans are not clones, so dare I say that these assumptions are hard to make sight unseen?

So I will leave it to others to answer him.

As to Fieldboy and gaining weight: Evan, you can pull and bench till the cows come home-and this won't do jack shit for your adding of mass . . . but squatting sure will. Now, I do not mean deep full-range squatting, and I do not mean partial squatting-and I do not mean wide-stance powerlifting squatting- but I do mean plain old back squatting, with enough weight to make it a chore as you come parallel. You need enough weight to stimulate overall growth, and enough range to be applicable. And this will do. Unless you are a hammer thrower, it is obvious that the body angles in a parallel squat exceed the needs of the other throwing disciplines.

You will find, as a rule, the deeper one squats, the more erect their torso posture must be (hence, in P/L circles, the nomenclature "Olympic Squat" for those squats executed with a moderate width stance, erect posture, deep depth and the bar high on the shoulders). Now, it appears on the surface that "the deeper, the better . . ." but this is not necessarily so. Differences in bodytypes alone may make one trainee's favorite lift another trainee's worst nightmare . . . this fact notwithstanding, you will find one thing to be true: the most important aspect of training strength to enhance sport is to address all those muscles in the "posterior chain" in the most effective way possible. Middle and lower back, glutes, hip flexors, HAMSTRINGS and calves are the chief ambulators for those who play any explosive sport on their feet. With that said, it is important to choose exercises that will not only jazz up the strength of the posterior chain (AND help the muscles work together in concert), but will also have a positive effect on the athletic qualities one is trying to improve (in the case of the thrower, the acquisition of brisk hip-knee-ankle extension is important).

Now, no one lift will build these qualities. But you will find that some cover more ground than others. It is a fact that, when squatting in a fashion in which you descend BACK (as if you were sitting in a chair) rather than DOWN, you will stimulate a greater stretch reflex. This can be observed practically when you watch somebody jump up for a rebound, or execute a vertical leap. The athlete does NOT descend down deeply, or maintain a vertical back posture; quite the contrary. The position that affords the best jump is one in which the shins relatively vertical to the ground, the chest is over the knees and held up, and the glutes are thrust backwards in a manner that affords an above-parallel position for the thighs. This position is the one that allows all the muscles of the posterior chain to do their work.

Sounds sort of like a box squat, no?

The box squat activates the hips and hamstrings MORE than a deep squat, as the stopping on the box confounds most, but not all, of the reversible muscle action advantage afforded by the eccentric portion of the squat-FORCING the hips and hamstrings into a greater role in the concentric action of standing back up. When I do deep squats, my legs get sore all-around-yes, the deep squat is a nice, well-rounded move. BUT when I do box squats, my hip flexors and hamstrings, along with my adductors, feel like they are going to come off!

No one squat form is the answer (heck, no squat except for the jump squat combines the extension of hips, knees and ankles-this is why power cleans are so good), but you are probably ahead of the game if you pick squat techniques that blitz the posterior chain. Power cleans and the like give that 3-joint extension action that is important to train, but they provide nowheres near the resistance (and NO eccentric portion to speak of) to stimulate the sort of hypertrophy that is critical to getting stronger, especially for the younger trainee.

Test these statements out. Take a deep squat with a given weight, sink it, and come roaring up to lockout as fast as you can. Now do the same with the box squat (or a regular squat to parallel or thereabouts) and rip that sucker up to lockout. When you try this comparison, you will see why there is substantially more movement applicability with the parallel squat. You can use more weight, in a faster manner, executing depths and joint angles that exceed the requirements of the sport in question. This will obviously add up to a better performance, all other aspects being equal.

John Smith made an excellent point yesterday regarding what the Germans learned from the heavy-benching Americans. This carries over, as well, to the squat. We do not squat like Olympic lifters. But except for a brief period (1972-1988), American men have absolutely dominated the shot on the world level. And you can bet that the athletes from the eastern bloc who were ruling the roost during that short period of time were pretty strong in the bench and squat . . . I spoke about Briesenick yesterday; his strength in the power movements was less than those that followed (Beyer and Timmerman). I remember one of the anecdotes on Beyer in Charlie Francis' book about Ben Johnson-Francis witnessed Beyer doing partial squats with 400 kg (880 lbs) in the shared training facility, just shaking that bar like it was a baby's rattle during a visit by the DDR to the US in the early 80's. Didn't Beyer set a WR a few days later during that visit?

No one exercise is the answer, but a nice balance helps to add up to a good result.

I neglected to mention in my last post that because of the increased barspeeds attainable with a parallel or (preferably, by us at least) box squat, the force values imparted on those affected muscles in the posterior chain are much higher than those possible with the slower Olympic squat.

Keep in mind that because this form of squattiung is so potent, it can lead to muscular imbalances. This is why it is important to mix other squats in from time to time. The problems arising from this sort of squatting are exactly the opposite from other forms of squatting-rather than getting quads that are too powerful for the hamstrings (the typical problem, leading to hamstring pulls and a myriad of other maladies) the reverse happens. Westsiders plug this gap with incline squats or belt squats to keep the quads in good working order . . . olympic squats can work just as well.

Do not forget movements like calf-ham-glute raises, reverse hypers AND AB WORK to flatter what you are attempting to accomplish in the squat.

The primary reason to box squat is to teach the athlete to sit BACK on the box in an appropriate, stretch-reflex generating manner. This is the most important point of all with box squatting-to teach the movement and reinforce it.

The breaking of the eccentric-concentric chain is secondary to using the right technique (as many of the Ring posters say regarding throwing technique, positions create power-this is true also in simpler movements like the box squat).

Your power rack squat recommendation is quite similar to what Walter Thomas, the great 165-198 lb powerlifter, used to do, in conjunction with 10 rep sets in a below-parallel squat using in the 405-450 range.

However, he used to do the rack squats in a partial fashion, not crawling underneath the bar in a low position.

Box squatting, as I said yesterday, confounds MOST, but NOT ALL, of the squat's reversible muscle action. You can pause for up to 2 seconds on the box (or for that matter, up to 2 seconds on the chest with a pause bench) before the stored energy in the muscles that afford that reversible muscle action is dissipated as heat. So you will lose a decent amout, but not all, of that stretch reflex when box squatting.

This is important, as this becomes the vehicle whereby the box squat allows you to use enough weight when squatting to actually do yourself some good, while shaving off enough of the stretch reflex to throw the concentration of the exercise onto those posterior chain muscles that do the bulk of the explosive force actuating in any sport event involving the use of the legs.

Safe? I have read/heard a lot of comments regarding the danger of box squats-mostly from people who were less familiar with them-or who had seen some spine-shredding nut crashing into a box from a quick, straight down drop and quickly bouncing back up to lockout. I can say this-if you sit BACK, and descend in a CONTROLLED manner, and STOP on the box and forcefully flex off of it, you will see how safe they can be.

Of course, variety is the spice of life, and the box squat is one of many tools. While their role in stimulating a focus on certain muscle groups is great, fellows who compete in a sport in which reversible muscle action plays a role will want to do other forms of squatting or other exercises that stimulate this quality (some do plyos, some do jumping squats, some use O/L variants, and some do a number of interesting and unorthodox things that also work well-but simplicity seems to be the watchword here).

There have been a number of super posts of late from a number of people pointing to the value of keeping things relatively simple. I could not agree more-especially for the thrower, who has concerns other than the weight room.

A special thanks to Big Chief for his clarification on the camp numbers!


Dave Caster

::contents © Elliott Oti 2002-2004 where applicable