|
|
Post by slinger on Apr 3, 2009 21:50:15 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Apr 4, 2009 21:31:38 GMT 1
As I mentioned to Caroline, I think I saw this discussed on the US forum before, its a great article. Interesting things for me:
1. Interetsing that they consider body composition differences, strength differences and therefore propensity to become injured. Surely that has to play a role in the frequency and intensity of all types of training in mixed groups?
2. Weaknesses in the trunk for women - I wonder how significant this is and if people consider this in training and programming?
Some of these things will be managed by common sense in training but it also seems that some areas should be tailored specifically according to gender (although also tailored according to age, maturity, strength and skill level.
Finally it was also interesting to see the drop in top 10 Finish males stregth levels - I wonder if that has improved since the article was written or stayed constant?
|
|
|
|
Post by Caroline on Apr 4, 2009 21:40:42 GMT 1
I think it's also interesting how they point out the importance of gymnastics. Of course the one who shows this up is Thorkildsen - his website shows how good his bounding is on the tumble run and also his crucifix on the rings. I have always thought that developing own body strength is a great way to work on strength prior to introducing weights. It also is really good for flexibility (obviously..), and if you get to the dizzy heights of tumbling with handsprings and somersaults, that has to be some of the best work you can do to strengthen those shoulder muscles dynamically! However... how many people in this country do any of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by pembrokian on Apr 8, 2009 10:22:20 GMT 1
For me, what stood out in this article was the comment on the impact of sociology in their development of athletic talent. I've yet to come across any such comments in UK literature (other than throwaway comments constantly telling us rubbish kids are today etc.).
The observation that strength throw the population is declining as they move from rural to urban living is telling and, of particular interest, the comment that children develop basic throwing ability from playing informal games at an early age; something most would be chastised for here in this day and age.
|
|
|
|
Post by slinger on Apr 8, 2009 15:59:14 GMT 1
pembrokian i think you totally right....as kids - aged 5 to 11 [so primary school age] before school lessons began we used to play a game where 2 teams of of us would go to opposite ends of the play ground and throw tennis balls to either end - it was a simple game of just throwing it to the other end and whoever got hold of it would throw it back...we had little care for other kids running about, but i never remember anyone getting hit by the ball.....simple game that showed and developed basic throwing ability.
like you say though if kids did that today, no doubt they'd have the ball taken off them!
|
|
