Re: Standing Press VS Bench Press

[Guest guest]

IMO the bench press is the most over rated exercise in weight

training. The overhead pres used to be one of the three Olympic lifts.

My friend Mike Burgener could press 400 lbs. at a bodyweight of

220lbs. I find that vastly more impressive than bench pressing.

Check out this woman pressing more than most men. I think this is very

cool:

Standing erect to do the Standing Press requires use of the entire

body. The isometric tensioning of the core develops great functional

strength. The back and legs must also be very strong. The exercise

requires standing erect against gravity, way more functional than

lying downI totally agree with , " the Standing Press is better

for athletic performance. "

W.G.

Ubermensch Sports Consultancy

San Diego, CA

>

> IMO the Standing Press is better for athletic performance. Nearly

100% of all sports is done on your feet while exerting force against

either gravity or some other external force. While the bench press is

an effective lift for improving upper body strength, it does not in

any way mimmick any tasks performed by athletes in any sport other

than Powerlifting.

>

> Garrison, CSCS

> Mesa, AZ

>

> ================================

>

> To: Supertraining@...: pbeck53@...: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:47:52

+0000Subject: Standing Press VS Bench Press

>

> I would like to hear everyones response as it relates to the

importants of a bench press over a standing press for athletic

training. I do not have any articles or journals that would give some

validity to this topic though. If you do please share.

BeckCarolina Crossfit, USA

>

>

> ================================

>

[Guest guest]

500 pounds overhead by any method is impressive. Those youtube vids sure show

the different styles of pressing. In 1954, Hepburn is motionless as he

initiates the press. There's a 1968 clip of the press and the contestants all

thrust with their upper body to initiate the press and lean back to finish it.

The eyev clip shows him using the thrust and lean back technique while doing

a push press with his legs clearly helping the lift.

At one time the press was pure strength. By the time it was removed from

competition, it wasn't.

Everything is messy. I just wish sports weren't. I'm looking for the Easter

Bunny as we speak.

Skip Dallen

Covina, CA USA

Re: Standing Press VS Bench Press

Some videos of the classic Olympic Press:

Check out the vertical at the end of this awesome press:

eyev making over 500 lbs look easy!

To me there's just no comparison to the bench. Vastly different

exercises. And in the Olympic press you have to dead lift and clean

the weight before you can press it. The press itself is pure strength.

Total body power and strength! To see 500 lbs go overhead, just awesome!

==================================

[Guest guest]

I can make that blanket statement becuase it's true. The bench press

is an excellent exercise for developing strength in the chest,

shoulders, and triceps, but it doesn't have alot of carryover to most

sports.

1.) Unless you do powerlifting, or equestrian, or rowing, every sport

is performed while standing and requires for be exerted not only

against the ground, but also that the body must mitigate forces

exerted on the body while standing. In most power sports (football,

hockey, sprinting, rugby, throwing events etc)exerting force is only

half the equation, absorbing forces from external sources is crucial

too. A standing press trains the body to do both far more effectively

then the bench press does. Exercises like the press, push press, push

jerk help train the body to stabilize in all 3 planes while

simultaneously exerting force, and have forces exerted on the body.

The bench press does not. By having multiple points of contact with a

stable surface while lying in a supine position, the body only has to

stablize a portion of the load vs the entire portion.

2.) This isn't about mimicry, but if it were,please tell me outside

of Powerlifting any movement in any sport that in any way mimics the

bench press. I can think of several movements in several sports that

have similar motor paths to the over head presses.

3.) If you can show me a clear example of a non powerlifting athlete

that might require to exert more force in a horizontal orientation

while also maintaining three points of contact with the ground, I

will concede your point.

Garrison, CSCS

Mesa, AZ

In Supertraining , boxeraugust wrote:

> 7. Philip Garrison posted

> " IMO the Standing Press is better for athletic performance.

Nearly 100% of all sports is done on your feet while exerting force

against either gravity or some other external force. While the bench

press is an effective lift for improving upper body strength, it does

not in any way mimmick any tasks performed by athletes in any sport

other than Powerlifting. "

>

> How can one make such a blanket statement? Yes most sports are done

on your feet. Yes you must overcome gravity or an exteranl force.

Throwing a weight overhead can help the whole body handle loads more

efficiently. Your argument regarding mimicy is mute as not too many

sports require one to stand in a static position and throw a weight

to arms length directly overhead. Why do so many people feel that we

need to mimick sporting actions to make an exercise effective. Trying

to mimick sporting actions can actually mess up the recruitment

pattern of the real sporting action. What happens if your athlete

needs to express force in a more horizontal plane and does not

require him/her to express force in a vertical plane?

>

> The two exercises both have a purpose and it depends on the sport

and the athlete's biomechanical structure whether they should be

applied or not and to the percentage of that application.

>

> Damien Chiappini

> Pittsburgh,PA.

>

[Guest guest]

Damien states:

How can one make such a blanket statement? Yes most sports are done on

your feet. Yes you must overcome gravity or an exteranl force.

Throwing a weight overhead can help the whole body handle loads more

efficiently. Your argument regarding mimicy is mute as not too many

sports require one to stand in a static position and throw a weight to

arms length directly overhead. Why do so many people feel that we need

to mimick sporting actions to make an exercise effective. Trying to

mimick sporting actions can actually mess up the recruitment pattern

of the real sporting action. What happens if your athlete needs to

express force in a more horizontal plane and does not require him/her

to express force in a vertical plane?

The two exercises both have a purpose and it depends on the sport and

the athlete's biomechanical structure whether they should be applied

or not and to the percentage of that application.

My response, taken one point at a time:

Damien:

" How can one make such a blanket statement? "

Easily, because it is a quite valid statement alluding the the

Principle of Yes to the 4th Power, in this example taken directly from

the Mike's Gym website, home of the USA Weightlifting Regional

Training Center. Mike Burgener, MA, CSCS and USAW Senior International

Coach states:

" It is our philosophy that an exercise must utilize " yes to the 4th

power. " YES 1: Is the exercise ground based and are you standing up

while performing the exercise? YES 2: Is the exercise a free weight

exercise? YES 3: Does the exercise work multiple muscle groups and

surround multiple joints? YES 4: Is the exercise performed in an

explosive manner? "

The press satisfies all four requirements, some of which you obliquely

refer to when you go on to state:

" Yes most sports are done on your feet. Yes you must overcome gravity

or an exteranl force. "

Damien:

" Throwing a weight overhead can help the whole body handle loads more

efficiently. "

Use of the term " throwing " to describe the press is a bit

disingenuous. Let's stick to the correct terminology, the lift is a

press. One " throws " a discus, a shot put, a javelin or a ball. One

does not " throw " hundreds of pounds overhead when pressing or even,

for that matter, jerking.

Damien:

" Your argument regarding mimicy is mute as not too many sports require

one to stand in a static position and throw a weight to arms length

directly overhead. "

How many sports require one to push heavy things off of one's chest

while lying on one's back? Your position is something of a non sequitur.

Damien:

" Why do so many people feel that we need to mimick sporting actions to

make an exercise effective. "

Duplicating the requirements of a particular sport, both

biomechanically and energetically, is an attempt to satisfy the

specificity of training principle. This is the training principle that

dictates that football linemen do not run marathons.

Damien:

" Trying to mimick sporting actions can actually mess up the

recruitment pattern of the real sporting action. "

How can you make such a blanket statement? Is it not the case that

your statement is only occasionally true and then only if it involves

some sports movements done with excessive resistance? In order to be

accurate doesn't your statement require several qualifiers?

Damien:

" What happens if your athlete needs to express force in a more

horizontal plane and does not require him/her to express force in a

vertical plane? "

First, in the case of football players, far more power to move other

football players around is generated by the legs and back than the

arms. Trying to move a 300 lb lineman with one's arms is essentially

futile. Even punch blocking is actually an exercise using the full

body. Proper blocking requires one's full body, starting with ground

based power, the feet.

Second, there are very few sports where one needs to generate power in

a horizontal plane. Football, wrestling, Karate, boxing, Judo and

Sumo. In my experience, only two of those sports, football and

wrestling, ever utilize the bench press as part of training. Certainly

my training program for MMA fighters does not include any bench

pressing. The closest we come to benching is incline DB presses and

plyometric push ups. Actually, bench pressing might be a specific

example of your contention that mimicry " can actually mess up the

recruitment pattern of the real sporting action. "

On second thought, no. It sure didn't seem to cause my old sparring

partner, Young, three time National Powerlifting Champion and

former world record holder in the dead lift, any problems. I was his

lightest sparring partner and the only one he couldn't knock out. Mike

Weaver, who became World Heavyweight Champion, was the only guy to

whip in a boxing ring, so heavy benching apparently didn't hurt

his punching ability. But then also did a lot of cleans and jerks.

And that brings us to the point of this discussion. The original

thesis put forward was that the press is a superior exercise to the

bench. There seems little room for argument if one applies the

Principle of Yes to the 4th Power. You've successfully made the case

that the bench is a more sport specific tool, but certainly not better

than the overhead press. In my experience, heavy benchers often have

difficulty pressing, due to adaptive shortening and internal rotation

of the AC joint, while my Weightlifters, who rarely if ever bench, can

move big weights on the bench. I'll remind you that my 235 lb Olympic

Weightlifting trained MMA fighter benched 3 x 350 lbs to silence some

body building fools at the local 24 Hr Fatness. He can also press 350

lbs overhead. Casey Burgener, 105+ kilo (265 lbs) National

Weightlifting Champion, has benched well over 400 lbs just to see what

he could do. The point of the discussion is that the press is a better

overall body exercise, because one is standing erect. Bodybuilders may

press sitting down, but not Weightlifters. When done from the floor,

the press is truly a full body exercise. One first RDL's the bar into

a clean, front squats to a fully erect posture and then presses. That

sort of training will make one better in almost any sport.

W.G.

Ubermensch Sports Consultancy

San Deigo, CA.

=========================================

>

> Too many people seem to be caught up in the specificity/mimicry

game. Whether bench pressing or OH pressing is better for sport is

irrelevant.

>

> 1. Neither action is involved in sports specifically unless you are

a powerlifter or Olympic lifter.

>

> 2. Training with weights is a tool to enhance performance, increase

strength, add body mass, reduce injury.

>

> 3. The specificity with weight training would be in the EXECUTION

SPEED of the movement or the use of max effort training to increase

MU Recruitment, rate coding and the subsequent power production which

can carry over to movements in sport. Executing movements with speed

and power will enhance speed and power in sporting movements.to some

degree. When an individual gets stronger their power output increases.

>

> 4. The goal of any pressing movement is to learn to express arm

adduction/extension forcefully. This occurs whether it is a bench

press or overhead press. This action when utilized for sport training

should also be done with a grip that is no more than 1-2 inches

wider than shoulder width of the athlete and never wider than the

rings on an OLY bar. If you review actions in sport most when executed

efficiently occur in this width of the athletes body. Football lineman

punch blocking, boxer throwing a punch and so forth.

>

> 5. Depends on the athlete's sport and the athletes shoulder

structure. A football lineman needs to express force on a more

horizontal plane or more specifically moderately inclined plane when

punch blocking or rushing the passer and keeping opponent away from

his body. So benching and developing power in this plane would be more

of a necessity than developing power in an vertical plane, of course

it should not be neglected unless the athlete has biomechanical issue

such as a type 3 acromion that can cause impingement.

>

> 6.Regarding the shot put, which I believe was metnioned reagarding

these posts. One should analyze the optimum angle of the explosive

push of the shot in realtionship to the body and train the incline

bench at that angle and at angles within 20 degrees above and below.

Utilizing the push press would also aid this sporting action as it

requires an explosive extension of the body.

>

> 7. Philip Garrison posted

> " IMO the Standing Press is better for athletic performance.

Nearly 100% of all sports is done on your feet while exerting force

against either gravity or some other external force. While the bench

press is an effective lift for improving upper body strength, it does

not in any way mimmick any tasks performed by athletes in any sport

other than Powerlifting. "

>

> How can one make such a blanket statement? Yes most sports are done

on your feet. Yes you must overcome gravity or an exteranl force.

Throwing a weight overhead can help the whole body handle loads more

efficiently. Your argument regarding mimicy is mute as not too many

sports require one to stand in a static position and throw a weight to

arms length directly overhead. Why do so many people feel that we

need to mimick sporting actions to make an exercise effective. Trying

to mimick sporting actions can actually mess up the recruitment

pattern of the real sporting action. What happens if your athlete

needs to express force in a more horizontal plane and does not require

him/her to express force in a vertical plane?

>

> The two exercises both have a purpose and it depends on the sport

and the athlete's biomechanical structure whether they should be

applied or not and to the percentage of that application.

>

> Damien Chiappini

> Pittsburgh,PA.

>

[Guest guest]

What about wrestling and MMA? Back on the mat, opponent in side or full mount I

am bridging and pressing him at the same time. I do not end up in guard position

or on the bottom that often but when I do I depend on raw strength to power out.

Bill

Havertown, Pa

===========================

Philip wrote:

I can make that blanket statement becuase it's true. The bench press

is an excellent exercise for developing strength in the chest,

shoulders, and triceps, but it doesn't have alot of carryover to most

sports.

1.) Unless you do powerlifting, or equestrian, or rowing, every sport

is performed while standing and requires for be exerted not only

against the ground, but also that the body must mitigate forces

exerted on the body while standing. In most power sports (football,

hockey, sprinting, rugby, throwing events etc)exerting force is only

half the equation, absorbing forces from external sources is crucial

too. A standing press trains the body to do both far more effectively

then the bench press does. Exercises like the press, push press, push

jerk help train the body to stabilize in all 3 planes while

simultaneously exerting force, and have forces exerted on the body.

The bench press does not. By having multiple points of contact with a

stable surface while lying in a supine position, the body only has to

stablize a portion of the load vs the entire portion.

2.) This isn't about mimicry, but if it were,please tell me outside

of Powerlifting any movement in any sport that in any way mimics the

bench press. I can think of several movements in several sports that

have similar motor paths to the over head presses.

3.) If you can show me a clear example of a non powerlifting athlete

that might require to exert more force in a horizontal orientation

while also maintaining three points of contact with the ground, I

will concede your point.

Garrison, CSCS

Mesa, AZ

In Supertraining , boxeraugust wrote:

> 7. Philip Garrison posted

> " IMO the Standing Press is better for athletic performance.

Nearly 100% of all sports is done on your feet while exerting force

against either gravity or some other external force. While the bench

press is an effective lift for improving upper body strength, it does

not in any way mimmick any tasks performed by athletes in any sport

other than Powerlifting. "

>

> How can one make such a blanket statement? Yes most sports are done

on your feet. Yes you must overcome gravity or an exteranl force.

Throwing a weight overhead can help the whole body handle loads more

efficiently. Your argument regarding mimicy is mute as not too many

sports require one to stand in a static position and throw a weight

to arms length directly overhead. Why do so many people feel that we

need to mimick sporting actions to make an exercise effective. Trying

to mimick sporting actions can actually mess up the recruitment

pattern of the real sporting action. What happens if your athlete

needs to express force in a more horizontal plane and does not

require him/her to express force in a vertical plane?

>

> The two exercises both have a purpose and it depends on the sport

and the athlete's biomechanical structure whether they should be

applied or not and to the percentage of that application.

>

> Damien Chiappini

> Pittsburgh,PA.

>

[Guest guest]

,

The 2 points below are not very valid. For any sport (outside barbell

sports) I can imagine bench press, military press, push press are

*general* means of training. There is nothing specific for any of

the above exercises in relation with most sports.

Don't get too fond of details like " ... while also maintaining three

points of contact with the ground " , because IMO you'll loose sight of

what really specific and competition means of training are and how

transfer of training occur (or not ) from various means of training to

the final goal => developing maximum power in a specific regime. Its

certainly not about that " 3 points of ground contact " .

Respectfully

Dan Partelly

Romania

==============================

> 2.) This isn't about mimicry, but if it were,please tell me outside

> of Powerlifting any movement in any sport that in any way mimics the

> bench press. I can think of several movements in several sports that

> have similar motor paths to the over head presses.

>

> 3.) If you can show me a clear example of a non powerlifting athlete

> that might require to exert more force in a horizontal orientation

> while also maintaining three points of contact with the ground, I

> will concede your point.

>

> Garrison, CSCS

> Mesa, AZ

>

> In Supertraining , boxeraugust <boxeraugust@> wrote:

>

> > 7. Philip Garrison posted

> > " IMO the Standing Press is better for athletic performance.

> Nearly 100% of all sports is done on your feet while exerting force

> against either gravity or some other external force. While the bench

> press is an effective lift for improving upper body strength, it does

> not in any way mimmick any tasks performed by athletes in any sport

> other than Powerlifting. "

> >

> > How can one make such a blanket statement? Yes most sports are done

> on your feet. Yes you must overcome gravity or an exteranl force.

> Throwing a weight overhead can help the whole body handle loads more

> efficiently. Your argument regarding mimicy is mute as not too many

> sports require one to stand in a static position and throw a weight

> to arms length directly overhead. Why do so many people feel that we

> need to mimick sporting actions to make an exercise effective. Trying

> to mimick sporting actions can actually mess up the recruitment

> pattern of the real sporting action. What happens if your athlete

> needs to express force in a more horizontal plane and does not

> require him/her to express force in a vertical plane?

> >

> > The two exercises both have a purpose and it depends on the sport

> and the athlete's biomechanical structure whether they should be

> applied or not and to the percentage of that application.

> >

> > Damien Chiappini

> > Pittsburgh,PA.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Don't get me wrong, I do not think any thing done in the gym trully prepares you

for the field. I just feel certain lifts better prepare the body than others.

Garrison, CSCS

Mesa, AZ

To: Supertraining

From: dan_partelly@...

Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:51:10 +0000

Subject: Re: Standing Press VS Bench Press

,

The 2 points below are not very valid. For any sport (outside barbell

sports) I can imagine bench press, military press, push press are

*general* means of training. There is nothing specific for any of

the above exercises in relation with most sports.

Don't get too fond of details like " ... while also maintaining three

points of contact with the ground " , because IMO you'll loose sight of

what really specific and competition means of training are and how

transfer of training occur (or not ) from various means of training to

the final goal => developing maximum power in a specific regime. Its

certainly not about that " 3 points of ground contact " .

Respectfully

Dan Partelly

Romania

==============================

> 2.) This isn't about mimicry, but if it were,please tell me outside

> of Powerlifting any movement in any sport that in any way mimics the

> bench press. I can think of several movements in several sports that

> have similar motor paths to the over head presses.

>

> 3.) If you can show me a clear example of a non powerlifting athlete

> that might require to exert more force in a horizontal orientation

> while also maintaining three points of contact with the ground, I

> will concede your point.

>

> Garrison, CSCS

> Mesa, AZ

>

> In Supertraining , boxeraugust <boxeraugust@> wrote:

>

> > 7. Philip Garrison posted

> > " IMO the Standing Press is better for athletic performance.

> Nearly 100% of all sports is done on your feet while exerting force

> against either gravity or some other external force. While the bench

> press is an effective lift for improving upper body strength, it does

> not in any way mimmick any tasks performed by athletes in any sport

> other than Powerlifting. "

> >

> > How can one make such a blanket statement? Yes most sports are done

> on your feet. Yes you must overcome gravity or an exteranl force.

> Throwing a weight overhead can help the whole body handle loads more

> efficiently. Your argument regarding mimicy is mute as not too many

> sports require one to stand in a static position and throw a weight

> to arms length directly overhead. Why do so many people feel that we

> need to mimick sporting actions to make an exercise effective. Trying

> to mimick sporting actions can actually mess up the recruitment

> pattern of the real sporting action. What happens if your athlete

> needs to express force in a more horizontal plane and does not

> require him/her to express force in a vertical plane?

> >

> > The two exercises both have a purpose and it depends on the sport

> and the athlete's biomechanical structure whether they should be

> applied or not and to the percentage of that application.

> >

> > Damien Chiappini

> > Pittsburgh,PA.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Todd,

What fight? We are simply engaged in a rational dialectic exploring the many

aspects of resistance training.

First, the opening line is, " It is our philosophy that an exercise must

utilize " yes to the 4th power. " Phil obviously shares our philosophy of

training. Yes to the Fourth Power in not an immutable law. Neither is Kant's

Categorical Imperative. Both are simply guidelines. However, some fundamental

truths are self evident. Look at the training methods generally used in sport.

Most of the time they adhere to Yes to the Fourth Power. Consider also the

Principle of Specificity. How many sports are played slowly or lying down?

If you access Mike's web site:

http://www.mikesgym.org/

You'll find the rest of Mike's (and my) training philosophy, " If I can satisfy

the requirements to " yes to the 4th power " 75% of the time, then the program and

exercises I select are good functional exercises. "

Todd:

" --Ground based and standing. Does this mean two feet planted on the ground? "

Come on Todd, that's pretty obvious. Please see the answer to the first

question.

" I assume it allows for a variety of foot displacement to occur. Does

standing allow for bending, rotating, and other body configurations beyond

standing? Again, I’ll assume my questions are pedantic and the first power

allows for “functional” movement patterns. "

Again, pretty obvious.

Todd:

" --Is it a free weight exercise? Why in the world does this matter? Are

bodyweight and bands not acceptable for certain exercises? After all, bands

allow for acceleration through end ROM and that’s applicable to force output,

right? "

This is rather weak inductive reasoning. No where is it stated that training

is restricted to free weights. We use bands and bodyweight exercises, in

addition to pushing wheelbarrows up and down hills, flipping big truck tires and

backward uphill sprints. We get quite creative.

Todd:

" Does the exercise work multiple muscle groups and surround multiple joints? Not

to be a wiseass, but ANY STANDING EXERCISE will work multiple muscle groups in

the form of mobilizes and stabilizers. After all, on the most basic level all

muscle function as synergists. "

You left out " and multiple joints? " This is an argument that commits the

fallacy of presumption. The complete position is stated in the complete

sentence.

Todd

'Is the exercise performed in an explosive manner? I’m not a power-lifter and

don’t try to pretend it’s my field of expertise. However, not all sports need to

have every exercise performed in an explosive manner. "

Name a sport where the ability to express speed is not a critical ability?

Explosive resistance movement involves neurological adaptation, fast twitch

muscles fibers, and a whole physiological and biochemical cascade effect which

enhances the ability of the athlete to become more powerful. Even when one can't

move the weight very fast, one is thinking of moving it fast. Speed is an

expression of power. Speed is the first thing that virtually every coach looks

for in an athlete. Again, specificity of training.

Remember the rest of Mike's position, we try to apply Yes to the Fourth Power

75% of the time. Leaves plenty of opportunity to do slow stuff, although we

rarely do.

Hopes this answers your questions,

W.G.

Ubermensch Sports Consultancy

San Diego, CA

todd langer wrote: Hi Bill,

This isn’t my “fight” per se, but I do have a few questions and/or comments

on the topic. Please, don’t take my thoughts as inflammatory. I’m simply

trying to make sense of a multifaceted topic.

Since when is the “Yes to the 4th Power” a universal Law? I mean it’s a

philosophy or a rule, right? Sure, it might work for Mike Burgener, but

what’s that prove other than the fact these requirements works for Mike

Burgener? Let’s take a closer look.

" --Ground based and standing. Does this mean two feet planted on the ground? "

Come on Todd, that's pretty obvious.

" I assume it allows for a variety of foot displacement to occur. Does

standing allow for bending, rotating, and other body configurations beyond

standing? Again, I’ll assume my questions are pedantic and the first power

allows for “functional” movement patterns. "

Again, pretty obvious.

" --Is it a free weight exercise? Why in the world does this matter? Are

bodyweight and bands not acceptable for certain exercises? After all, bands

allow for acceleration through end ROM and that’s applicable to force

output, right? "

--Does the exercise work multiple muscle groups and surround multiple

joints? Not to be a wiseass, but ANY STANDING EXERCISE will work multiple

muscle groups in the form of mobilizes and stabilizers. After all, on the

most basic level all muscle function as synergists.

--Is the exercise performed in an explosive manner? I’m not a power-lifter

and don’t try to pretend it’s my field of expertise. However, not all sports

need to have every exercise performed in an explosive manner. On that note,

I always wonder why more offensive lineman in football don’t practice

isometric lockouts on the bench press. It’s not explosive, but there’s a

definite argument to be made that holding 500 lbs for 30 seconds more

closely resembles pushing a defensive lineman. It’s just one example of

thousands, but you get my point.

Thanks!

Todd Langer MSc, Rolfer ®

Boulder, CO

===============================

[Guest guest]

I'm not an MMA practitioner but I am a fan. Many of the participants in the MMA

are some of the best conditioned atheletes around. You said it yourself, you

are " bridging and pressing " when back on the mat. In fact you could also add

twisting and pulling. I don't think bench press involves those types of

movements, other than pressing of course. In other words you would still be

utilizing many more muscle groups than those that are trained by the bench press

alone. May even go so far as to say all the muscle groups of the body are being

brought into play in that particular instance. Not to say it is a useless

exercise for MMA practitioners, just one of many that likey need to be used.

Lee Robillard

Mississauga, Ontario

Canada

Bill wrote:

What about wrestling and MMA? Back on the mat, opponent in side or

full mount I am bridging and pressing him at the same time. I do not end up in

guard position or on the bottom that often but when I do I depend on raw

strength to power out.

Bill

Havertown, Pa

===========================

Philip wrote:

I can make that blanket statement becuase it's true. The bench press

is an excellent exercise for developing strength in the chest,

shoulders, and triceps, but it doesn't have alot of carryover to most

sports.

1.) Unless you do powerlifting, or equestrian, or rowing, every sport

is performed while standing and requires for be exerted not only

against the ground, but also that the body must mitigate forces

exerted on the body while standing. In most power sports (football,

hockey, sprinting, rugby, throwing events etc)exerting force is only

half the equation, absorbing forces from external sources is crucial

too. A standing press trains the body to do both far more effectively

then the bench press does. Exercises like the press, push press, push

jerk help train the body to stabilize in all 3 planes while

simultaneously exerting force, and have forces exerted on the body.

The bench press does not. By having multiple points of contact with a

stable surface while lying in a supine position, the body only has to

stablize a portion of the load vs the entire portion.

2.) This isn't about mimicry, but if it were,please tell me outside

of Powerlifting any movement in any sport that in any way mimics the

bench press. I can think of several movements in several sports that

have similar motor paths to the over head presses.

3.) If you can show me a clear example of a non powerlifting athlete

that might require to exert more force in a horizontal orientation

while also maintaining three points of contact with the ground, I

will concede your point.

Garrison, CSCS

Mesa, AZ

In Supertraining , boxeraugust wrote:

> 7. Philip Garrison posted

> " IMO the Standing Press is better for athletic performance.

Nearly 100% of all sports is done on your feet while exerting force

against either gravity or some other external force. While the bench

press is an effective lift for improving upper body strength, it does

not in any way mimmick any tasks performed by athletes in any sport

other than Powerlifting. "

>

> How can one make such a blanket statement? Yes most sports are done

on your feet. Yes you must overcome gravity or an exteranl force.

Throwing a weight overhead can help the whole body handle loads more

efficiently. Your argument regarding mimicy is mute as not too many

sports require one to stand in a static position and throw a weight

to arms length directly overhead. Why do so many people feel that we

need to mimick sporting actions to make an exercise effective. Trying

to mimick sporting actions can actually mess up the recruitment

pattern of the real sporting action. What happens if your athlete

needs to express force in a more horizontal plane and does not

require him/her to express force in a vertical plane?

>

> The two exercises both have a purpose and it depends on the sport

and the athlete's biomechanical structure whether they should be

applied or not and to the percentage of that application.

>

> Damien Chiappini

> Pittsburgh,PA.

>

[Guest guest]

I agree with about the bench press and will go one further -

aside from powerlifting, MMA and perhaps people with obese spouses,

there is virtually no practical use whatsoever for great bench

pressing strength.

Any time you try to push anything heavy, you lean your body forward

until it is between the weight and your feet. You then press overhead

and also use the lower body to help. Pushing something perpendicular

to the body just tips you over backwards, as there is no base of

support. You can get into a lunge stance and push a little more, but

nothing like heavy bench press scale forces. Once you can knock out

pushups easily with good form, you have about all the specific pushing

strength perpendicular to the torso you need.

The situation is actually worse than this however. It would be one

thing if the bench press was merely not all that useful. In fact it

is dangerous. The bench against the back acts as a crutch for the

shoulder girdle, allowing imbalanced strength to develop, creating a

predisposition to shoulder injury.

In dips and overhead presses, the entire shoulder girdle has to

stabilize itself somehow. Not so in the bench press. The scapulae

are braced against the bench, and the bench does most of the work that

rotator cuff and many muscles attached between scapulae and ribs

normally do. The imbalance that develops is so well-known among heavy

benchers that it is widely considered necessary to do regularly do

" L " -flye rehab exercises and often a battery of other supplemental

exercises to counter the imbalances created by the bench. You know

something is wrong with an exercise when you have to build a permanent

rehab routine into your workout to counter the problems it creates.

Overhead presses and dips, on the other hand, are inherently sound

exercises. Either exercise, if done properly, could be done entirely

on its own with no other weight exercises. No supplements required.

Wilbanks

Wisconsin, USA

>

> >

>

> > > 7. Philip Garrison posted

>

> > > " IMO the Standing Press is better for athletic performance.

>

> > Nearly 100% of all sports is done on your feet while exerting force

>

> > against either gravity or some other external force. While the bench

>

> > press is an effective lift for improving upper body strength, it does

>

> > not in any way mimmick any tasks performed by athletes in any sport

>

> > other than Powerlifting. "

>

> > >

>

> > > How can one make such a blanket statement? Yes most sports are done

>

> > on your feet. Yes you must overcome gravity or an exteranl force.

>

> > Throwing a weight overhead can help the whole body handle loads more

>

> > efficiently. Your argument regarding mimicy is mute as not too many

>

> > sports require one to stand in a static position and throw a weight

>

> > to arms length directly overhead. Why do so many people feel that we

>

> > need to mimick sporting actions to make an exercise effective. Trying

>

> > to mimick sporting actions can actually mess up the recruitment

>

> > pattern of the real sporting action. What happens if your athlete

>

> > needs to express force in a more horizontal plane and does not

>

> > require him/her to express force in a vertical plane?

>

> > >

>

> > > The two exercises both have a purpose and it depends on the sport

>

> > and the athlete's biomechanical structure whether they should be

>

> > applied or not and to the percentage of that application.

>

> > >

>

> > > Damien Chiappini

>

> > > Pittsburgh,PA.

>

> > >

>

> >

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Philip wrote:

>

> 2.) This isn't about mimicry, but if it were,please tell me outside

> of Powerlifting any movement in any sport that in any way mimics the

> bench press. I can think of several movements in several sports that

> have similar motor paths to the over head presses.

>

> 3.) If you can show me a clear example of a non powerlifting athlete

> that might require to exert more force in a horizontal orientation

> while also maintaining three points of contact with the ground, I

> will concede your point.

>

Caveat: If it were up to me, I'd put bench press on the list of

" Exercises That Would Not Cause Any Great Loss Were They To Suddenly

Disappear From Existence. "

Having said that... Groundfighting is one example of where this might

be true. You can either push yourself off the opponent from above

(more like a pushup) or push an opponent off you from below (more

analogous to the bench press). Parts of you may very well be pinned

and immobile.

However, I would still not assign the bench press as an exercise,

because ideally the rest of the body is also involved. Very few decent

grapplers would let the rest of their body remain static while the

arms press. The lower body may be gripping an opponent's body, trying

to extend the hips, perhaps trying to roll, etc.

Two examples.

a) The move from half guard (both your legs wrapped around one of the

opponent's legs) to what is known as the " whipup " to take the

opponent's back. In order to execute this one you are on your back,

with O in your half guard, and you place both hands either under their

armpits or on the ribcage. You press them explosively upwards so that

you can turn underneath them, then work your way under their arm on to

their back. This involves a forward press but also a powerful curl

with the hips.

There is a move we call " fantastic pants " to escape the full mount

(where O sits astride your hips). Again, you press up like a bench

press, but also again you roll the hips under, to sneak your knees

into the space created under the opponent.

I personally use modified and often rather creative (I fancy) presses

based on the concept of these integrated movements. You could use the

bench press as a sports-related exercise for these types of movements,

and it wouldn't be the worst choice in the world, but it certainly

wouldn't be the best.

Krista -Dixon

Toronto, ON

kristascottdixon@...

[Guest guest]

This is a very old press, probably done by grappling artists from

immemorial times and popularized by Brazilians from Brazilian Top

Team, I was told it appears on many of their videos.

I consider such a press a very good " specialized " exercise, and one

which is more likely to develop special work capacity, not strength.

Also, they all suffer from a very reduced ROM.

However, its not , again IMO, a replacement for pressing exercises.

I personally use dumbbell bench press / push-up / depth pushups as

means of training. For example I may use stimulation method to

develop upper body explosive strength , using a combination of bench

press and depth push-ups.

Later, during phases of training in which you need to develop special

work capacity , you will use the type of presses you describe, most

likely using interval method.

I dont see why you would limit yourself artificially in the selection

of means of training .

There is NOTHING inherently bad with bench press. Its just a tool, an

exercise. It's the prescription which makes it " bad " . You can use

bench presses in a lot of situations where you have to develop

explosive strength in the upper body. I described one above, there are

other situations when the exercise comes very handy.

Is it overrated ? Yes, it is. Is it a exercise which we should dump to

garbage. No way. Very useful sometimes.

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

> a) The move from half guard (both your legs wrapped around one of the

> opponent's legs) to what is known as the " whipup " to take the

> opponent's back. In order to execute this one you are on your back,

> with O in your half guard, and you place both hands either under their

> armpits or on the ribcage. You press them explosively upwards so that

> you can turn underneath them, then work your way under their arm on to

> their back. This involves a forward press but also a powerful curl

> with the hips.

>

[Guest guest]

Todd

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that lead to unsupported

conclusions.

Your " emotive reasoning " has more logical fallacies and unsupported

conclusions than I have time or interest to address. Your position is

untenable at best. Any reasonable person would have to agree that Yes

to the Fourth Power is a good guide to training and that it supports

Phil's position.

Kant's CI is a moral guide to behavior, a maxim. That is different

from Kant's moral theories. Yes to the Fourth Power is a guide to

training, also a maxim. Even Kant's CI has a contradiction. The

universalization of Kant's maxim creates that contradiction. In spite

of that, it is still studied today in philosophy classes all over the

world. Burgener's Yes to the Fourth Power is a maxim and it may not

be linguistically perfect, but it works quite well. It was formulated

by a group of very successful strength coaches. Adherence to it has

generated numerous athletes of merit and distinction. The USAW

Regional Training Center, where Mike Burgener is the head coach, has

produced several Jr. National and Senior National Weightlifting

Champions. One example would be Tommy Gough:

* Olympic Games team member (1996 & 2000)

* Bronze Medalist at Pan American Games (1995)

* Senior National Champion (1995-1998, 2000)

* Three-time Junior World Team Member

* Twice Junior National Champion

* All-Time Senior American record holder in total

* Senior American record holder in snatch, clean and jerk, and

total (1993-1997)

This is just one of the athletes Mike Burgener has produced while

practicing Yes to the Fourth Power. These results are a testament to

the efficacy of his methods, based on the principles of Yes to the Fourth.

The original question was " Which is the better exercise, bench or

overhead press? "

The jury's in, the discussion over. I'm sure you've read the posts.

This discussion with you has become a " futile and hopeless labor. "

The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the

top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own weight.

They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful

punishment than futile and hopeless labor.

- Albert Camus

W.G.

Ubermensch Sports Consultancy

San Diego, CA

" Hi

> Bill,

> I don't particularly think the comparison of philosophical theories to a

> workout guideline is valid. Especially, considering the very

foundation of a

> workout program should be grounded in scientific truth and not emotive

> reasoning. "

>

> Apparently,you are unfamiliar with Kant's Categorical Imperative.

Kant's CI

> is not a theory, it's a moral principle and behavioral guideline.

Use of the

> term " theory " is inaccurate and unnecessarily confusing. If you are

going to

> require a high level of linguistic precision you should also engage

in it.

>

> KANT'S MORAL PHILOSOPHY

> " Kant argued that moral requirements are based on a standard of

rationality

> he dubbed the " Categorical Imperative " (CI). Immorality thus involves a

> violation of the CI and is thereby irrational. Other philosophers,

such as

> Locke and Hobbes, had also argued that moral requirements are based on

> standards of rationality. However, these standards were either

desire-based

> instrumental principles of rationality or based on sui generis rational

> intuitions. Kant agreed with many of his predecessors that an

analysis of

> rationality will reveal only a requirement to conform to instrumental

> principles. Yet he argued that conformity to the CI (a non-instrumental

> principle) and hence to moral requirements themselves, can

nevertheless be

> shown to be essential to rational agency. This argument was based on his

> striking doctrine that a rational will must be regarded as

autonomous, or

> free in the sense of being the author of the law that binds it. The

> fundamental principle of morality - the

> CI - is none other than this law of an autonomous will. Thus, at the

heart

> of Kant's moral philosophy is a conception of reason whose reach in

> practical affairs goes well beyond that of a Humean 'slave' to the

passions.

> Moreover, it is the presence of this self-governing reason in each

person

> that Kant thought offered decisive grounds for viewing each as

possessed of

> equal worth and deserving of equal respect. "

>

> As you can see, Kant's CI is based on rationality. Your position

that the

> analogy comparing Yes to the Fourth Power and Kant's CI is invalid

because

> they are not " grounded in scientific truth " is inaccurate. Both are

based in

> rationality and have nothing to do with " emotivre reasoning " Your

use of the

> term " emotive reasoning " indicates that you really don't understand

what's

> being discussed. Principles of training rationally arrived at based

on many

> decades of experience clearly has nothing to do with emotion or

" emotional

> reasoning. " and meet the basic definition of science, " knowledge

attained

> through study or practice.'

>

> Second, the implication that Yes to the Fourth Power is not based in

science

> is invidious. According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the

> definition of science is " knowledge attained through study or

practice, " or

> " knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws,

esp. as

> obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the

> physical world. " Yes to the Fourth Power is a philosophy based on a

couple

> hundred years of the collective experience of several successful

strength

> and conditioning coaches.

> Your inability to recognize that Yes to the Fourth Power is, like

Kant's CI,

> a general guide for behavior or in this case, GPP, is unfortunate. The

> analogy is entirely accurate.

>

> Todd::

> " On the face, I agree that most sports are not played lying down or with

> slow speed. However, even this is not the " truth " as it were,

because most

> sports have an ebb and flow with athletes standing around, sitting,

and at

> time lying in a prone position (hoop players who prefer to avoid lumbar

> " creep " by sitting on chairs). However, that stated we're obviously

talking

> about when an athlete needs to exert force/express speed during their

> sporting event. You state, " If I can satisfy the requirements to

" yes to the

> 4th power " 75% of the time, then the program and exercises I select

are good

> functional exercises. "

>

> " ------However, earlier in the thread you supported your contention of

> utilizing " a blanket statement " regarding overhead presses for sport

> insomuch that " it is a quite valid statement alluding to the

Principle of

> Yes to the 4th Power. " Please, explain to me how a guideline can be

used to

> validate a far reaching assumption and then not be used 100% to fully

> satisfy its own definition of a functional exercise. "

>

> Here you have reframed the argument with more than one false premise. A

> general statement supported by a general principle of training hardly

> constitutes a violation of reason or logic. You put forward the position

> that there is " a far reaching assumption. " There is an enormous

difference

> between a sweeping generalization and a statement of general

principles. Do

> you even remember what Phil's position was? And where is your

definition of

> a functional exercise that may be employed 100% of the time, that is

> succinct? Obviously, Yes to the Fourth Power is a general training

> philosophy written in the simplest manner possible for the general

public

> and not scientists. Nevertheless it supports Phil's position.

>

> Todd:

> " Next, you state, " No where is it stated that training is restricted

to free

> weights. We use bands and bodyweight exercises, in addition to pushing

> wheelbarrows up and down hills, flipping big truck tires and

backward uphill

> sprints. We get quite creative. "

> " -----This contradicts what you posted earlier in the thread, no? To

> reiterate you posted the following, but apparently I misunderstood the

> context. " It is our philosophy that an exercise must utilize " yes to

the 4th

> power. " YES 1: Is the exercise ground based and are you standing up

while

> performing the exercise? YES 2: Is the exercise a free weight

exercise? YES

> 3: Does the exercise work multiple muscle groups and surround multiple

> joints? YES 4: Is the exercise performed in an explosive manner? "

>

> What contradiction? Yes, you've apparently misunderstood again.

Perhaps if

> you viewed some of the videos available on Mike's site and saw the

training,

> things would make more sense to you.

>

> Todd:

> " -----I don't understand your rationale that I left out " multiple

joints " in

> my questioning the 3rd designation in the Power of 4 and thus, it

somehow

> justifies your position. Almost all exercises utilize multiple

muscles AND

> JOINTS as synergists. Even so called " arm isolation " exercises use

the wrist

> as stabilizer and elbow as a fulcrum. The same argument can be used

for any

> non functional sitting exercise. So, again the 3rd designation in

the Power

> of 4 is irrelevant unless the word " multiple " is changed to

" majority " of

> joints in the body. I'd usually consider this pedantic, but not when

someone

> is rigidly adhering to a dogmatic philosophy. "

>

> Rather Wittgensteinian of you. You've determined that Burgener

should change

> " multiple " to " majority " in the 3rd part of Yes to the Fourth Power. And

> this matters to who exactly? Evidently only to someone being

pedantic and

> obtuse. Again, these are general principles of training, nothing more.

> Speaking of Wittgenstein and linguistic precision, your use of the term

> " rigidly adhering to a dogmatic philosophy. " , is sophistry at it's

worst.

> How can one " rigidly adhere to dogma " when it's already been made quite

> clear that Yes to the Fourth Power is simply a general principle or

> philosophy of training? Your efforts to pedantically pursue your inane

> argument has little to do with the real issue. and appears to be

little more

> than a misguided attempt to rationalize a very shaky position.

>

> Todd:

> " -----Your contention that express speed is critical in all sports

is again

> misleading, IMO. It would depend on what you consider a sport. Archery?

> Shooting? NASCAR driving? Luge? "

>

> You've got this part right. It does depend on what one considers a

sport.

> I've coached at the Olympic level and hold the Games in high regard,

But,

> even though they are in the Olympic Games, having done both archery and

> shooting, I do not consider them sports, much less sports on the

same level

> as Judo, wrestling or Weightlifting.

> By the way, NASCAR drivers and luge competitors require very quick

reflexes.

> Training for speed helps, either directly or indirectly, in all things

> athletic

>

> ===========================================

>

[Guest guest]

This was probably a purely pragmatic reason. In the 70's Mel was the head of

the University gym where we did Weightlifting and Powerlifting. Competitions

were always combined as was much of our training. Mel would win powerlifting

competitions by virtue of being there as I woiuld win weightlifting contests for

the same reason. I doubt if Mel did BP specifically to improve shoulder

strength for the snatch/ jerk.

Terence Delaney

Johannesburg

South Africa

Cell +27-(0)-82-301-1020

Fax +27-(0)-8651-49865

Re: Standing Press VS Bench Press

W.G. 'Bill' wrote:

> Standing erect to do the Standing Press requires use of the entire

> body. The isometric tensioning of the core develops great functional

> strength. The back and legs must also be very strong. The exercise

> requires standing erect against gravity, way more functional than

> lying down

If I recall correctly, Dr. Siff included the bench press in his " Big Five, " but

omitted the

" Olympic Press, " even though he was an accomplished weightlifter back when the

press was

one of the competition lifts. Unfortunately, I never asked him why while he was

still here to

answer. Would anyone like to hazard a guess?

===============================

[Guest guest]

Bill,

I tried to follow this discussion in detail, but was showered with so

much long-winded irrelevance I gave up. As someone with a philosophy

degree, I find it painful to see such respected names and ideas so

badly misused. The mark of a good philosophical education is clear,

concise reasoning and economical writing, not name-dropping,

memorizing quotes, and browbeating.

I also don't see why this " Yes to the fourth power " business was

brought into the discussion. First of all, if it's only a rough

guideline meant to be applied to 75% of the routine, it would seem

irrelevant to the original question of whether a particular exercise

should be used, as that exercise could always be in the remaining 25%.

Second, Todd was right and your objection to it was unsatisfying: you

can't seem to make up your mind whether the powers are suggestions or

dogma. You reference it as a sort of litmus test for exercises in

order to dismiss the bench, yet whenever Todd tries to criticize even

one word of the " four powers " , you claim that they are not meant to be

considered so rigorously.

If I were to take this " Yes " business seriously, I'd have an awful lot

of questions about it, especially regarding its applicability to rock

climbing, rowing, swimming, bicycling, kayaking, or any other sport

where one does not stand on the ground, for starters. Also, 75% of

the athlete's routine is to be made up of explosive exercises? Hope

they don't need any strength or endurance... It sounds to me like yet

another pithy infomercial-style oversimplification that raises more

questions than it answers, and has no place in a technical discussion

of this sort.

Wilbanks

Wisconsin, USA

>

> Todd

>

> Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that lead to unsupported

> conclusions.

>

> Your " emotive reasoning " has more logical fallacies and unsupported

> conclusions than I have time or interest to address. Your position is

> untenable at best. Any reasonable person would have to agree that Yes

> to the Fourth Power is a good guide to training and that it supports

> Phil's position.

> Kant's CI is a moral guide to behavior, a maxim. That is different

> from Kant's moral theories. Yes to the Fourth Power is a guide to

> training, also a maxim. Even Kant's CI has a contradiction. The

> universalization of Kant's maxim creates that contradiction. In spite

> of that, it is still studied today in philosophy classes all over the

> world. Burgener's Yes to the Fourth Power is a maxim and it may not

> be linguistically perfect, but it works quite well. It was formulated

> by a group of very successful strength coaches. Adherence to it has

> generated numerous athletes of merit and distinction. The USAW

> Regional Training Center, where Mike Burgener is the head coach, has

> produced several Jr. National and Senior National Weightlifting

> Champions. One example would be Tommy Gough:

> * Olympic Games team member (1996 & 2000)

> * Bronze Medalist at Pan American Games (1995)

> * Senior National Champion (1995-1998, 2000)

> * Three-time Junior World Team Member

> * Twice Junior National Champion

> * All-Time Senior American record holder in total

> * Senior American record holder in snatch, clean and jerk, and

> total (1993-1997)

>

> This is just one of the athletes Mike Burgener has produced while

> practicing Yes to the Fourth Power. These results are a testament to

> the efficacy of his methods, based on the principles of Yes to the

Fourth.

>

> The original question was " Which is the better exercise, bench or

> overhead press? "

> The jury's in, the discussion over. I'm sure you've read the posts.

> This discussion with you has become a " futile and hopeless labor. "

>

> The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the

> top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own weight.

> They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful

> punishment than futile and hopeless labor.

> - Albert Camus

>

> W.G.

> Ubermensch Sports Consultancy

> San Diego, CA

[Guest guest]

Given that Wittgenstein was so smart that almost no one could

understand what he was talking about, one would think it was a

compliment. However, I think it was merely a botched attempt to coin

an epithet - the basic implication being that you were trying to

obscure the discussion by resorting to semantics.

The popular notion of Wittgenstein's most famous later ideas makes him

out to be a complete relativist. The idea is that no meaningful

connection between language and empirical evidence is possible.

Language is merely a made-up communication game that works according

to its own rules and has little relation to any reality external to

the game itself. Hence, we should just give up trying to find out the

real truth about anything and just make sure we are applying the right

" language game " in the right context in ordinary life.

To start with, Wittgenstein was an immense genius in the fields of

logic, mathematics, and linguistics, so the idea that his philosophies

about anything could be boiled down to such simplistic,

easily-dismissable cartoons seems pretty unlikely. In my limited

exposure to his work, I gathered that the language game critique had

to do specific uses of language, where it does seem like it is being

misapplied. For instance, we might ask " what caused the universe? " .

We are applying an idea of cause and effect that we came up with

mostly by observing the behavior of medium-sized objects moving around

in space to everything that exists all at once. I would say

'misapplication of a language game' sounds like a reasonable

explanation of what might be wrong with that question.

Anyhow, even assuming a cartoon view of Wittgenstein, it's hard to see

how it relates to the intended criticism of you. If you were trying

to fool him by playing some kind of linguistic three card monty, it

would have been because you thought you were right and he was wrong,

not because you thought language doesn't really refer to anything and

knowledge is impossible. I think what you were actually doing was

disputing whether a particular word made a sentence incorrect because

of the reality it referred to. This is just a standard way to argue

about anything, and has nothing to do with broad epistemological

issues in general, or with Wittgenstein in particular.

Moreover, since almost no one knows Wittgenstein's ideas well enough

to get the reference, the intention was obviously to aggrandize

himself by making you and other readers feel ignorant, which is in

fact a deliberate, obvious attempt at obfuscation - ironically the

exact type of behavior he was attempting to accuse you of by coining

the epithet in the first place... Bear in mind that this is just a

partial real philosophical examination of his misuse of only one word...

Wilbanks

Wisconsin, USA

> >

> > Todd

> >

> > Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that lead to unsupported

> > conclusions.

> >

> > Your " emotive reasoning " has more logical fallacies and unsupported

> > conclusions than I have time or interest to address. Your position is

> > untenable at best. Any reasonable person would have to agree that Yes

> > to the Fourth Power is a good guide to training and that it supports

> > Phil's position.

> > Kant's CI is a moral guide to behavior, a maxim. That is different

> > from Kant's moral theories. Yes to the Fourth Power is a guide to

> > training, also a maxim. Even Kant's CI has a contradiction. The

> > universalization of Kant's maxim creates that contradiction. In spite

> > of that, it is still studied today in philosophy classes all over the

> > world. Burgener's Yes to the Fourth Power is a maxim and it may not

> > be linguistically perfect, but it works quite well. It was formulated

> > by a group of very successful strength coaches. Adherence to it has

> > generated numerous athletes of merit and distinction. The USAW

> > Regional Training Center, where Mike Burgener is the head coach, has

> > produced several Jr. National and Senior National Weightlifting

> > Champions. One example would be Tommy Gough:

> > * Olympic Games team member (1996 & 2000)

> > * Bronze Medalist at Pan American Games (1995)

> > * Senior National Champion (1995-1998, 2000)

> > * Three-time Junior World Team Member

> > * Twice Junior National Champion

> > * All-Time Senior American record holder in total

> > * Senior American record holder in snatch, clean and jerk, and

> > total (1993-1997)

> >

> > This is just one of the athletes Mike Burgener has produced while

> > practicing Yes to the Fourth Power. These results are a testament to

> > the efficacy of his methods, based on the principles of Yes to the

> Fourth.

> >

> > The original question was " Which is the better exercise, bench or

> > overhead press? "

> > The jury's in, the discussion over. I'm sure you've read the posts.

> > This discussion with you has become a " futile and hopeless labor. "

> >

> > The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the

> > top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own weight.

> > They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful

> > punishment than futile and hopeless labor.

> > - Albert Camus

> >

> > W.G.

> > Ubermensch Sports Consultancy

> > San Diego, CA

>

[Guest guest]

,

Jumping into a discussion leading with comments like, " This isn't my

" fight " per se, but I do have a few questions and/or comments

on the topic. Please, don't take my thoughts as inflammatory. " ,

strikes me as a rather apparent passive aggressive metalanguage that

really means " I'm here to start a fight, (without appearing to

challenge you directly). " Reading further, it was obvious that being

" inflammatory " was precisely what Todd had in mind. It took little

pragmatic competence to get his real meaning. He was, to put it

simply, trying to yank my chain.

For example, Todd stated, " Since when is the 'Yes to the 4th Power' a

universal law? " and " Sure, it might work for Mike Burgener, but what's

that prove other than the fact these requirements works(sic)for Mike

Burgener? " These two thoughtless questions/statements are clearly and

deliberately " inflammatory " . Where was it ever suggested that Yes to

the Fourth was a universal law? And the implication that Burgener's

methods are beyond Todd's ken so therefore no one else can duplicate

them, really weak. Or was Todd's contention that Burgener trains super

humans and his methods don't work on normal athletes? Amazing,

Burgener, coaching out of his two car garage, way out in the country,

can get super humans to drive as much as a 100 miles one way to access

his coaching.

The obvious purpose of Todd's post was to demean and attack my

position. Among Todd's questions are two that are particularly

astonishing coming from someone who puts an MSc behind his name;

" --Ground based and standing. Does this mean two feet planted on the

ground? " and " --Is it a free weight exercise? Why in the world does

this matter? " These must be deliberately obtuse. How else do you

explain someone with a college degree not being able to understand

something as simple as " Standing erect " and " ground based " ? It would

be difficult to make Yes to the Fourth Power any more forthright. Go

back and read Todd's entire post, the metalanguage isn't remotely

subtle. It was obvious to me Todd had his own agenda. His passive

aggressive approach, exemplified by " Not to be a wiseass, but ANY

STANDING EXERCISE will work multiple muscle groups in the form of

mobilizes and stabilizers. After all, on the most basic level all

muscle(sic) function as synergists. " This comment, ironically,

validates the original position that OH presses are better for

athletes than bench pressing and supports my position that Todd's

purpose was to antagonize me. Todd's failed effort to avoid being a

" wiseass " and his other inane comments combined to provide an

irresistible opportunity to engage in some " language games " .

I decided I'd have some fun with Mr. Langer, MSc and possibly teach

him a couple of things at the same time. He wanted to play language

games, so he got language games.

Wittgenstein's early philosophy as posited in the Tractatus

Logico-Philosophicus was essentially about the meaning of words. I'm

sure you'll agree that's a gross oversimplification but reasonable

without getting into the Tractatus in any real depth. Your contention

that I think I am right and Todd wrong is accurate. The reference to

Wittgenstein was one of several attempts to force Todd to reassess his

use of language and grammar. " For a large class of cases — though not

for all — in which we employ the word `meaning' it can be defined

thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language " (PI 43).

Partly to get him to do some homework, partly to get him to engage in

a rational discussion and partly to amuse myself, I used, what are for

some people, obscure references. I thought if Todd googled those

references he might come to realize how obviously contentious and weak

his position was. Unfortunately I was wrong on that score. He still

doesn't get it.

Todd was attempting to defend Damien, someone who has made his share

of blanket statements. When Damien weighed in on the issue of bench

press versus OH press, he did so with several " blanket " statements in

his post, message #45461 of Mar. 13. Todd had nothing to say about

Damien's blanket statements because he and Damien were apparently in

agreement. Todd has been forthcoming in stating he's not an expert in

" powerlifting " , (a probable misnomer).

Cutting to the chase, this argument has been the result of tension on

the forum between belief based coaching and evidenced based coaching.

" Belief-based Coaching is a common and traditional form of coaching.

Its guides for practices are usually a mix of personal experiences,

some limited education about sport sciences, selected incomplete

knowledge of current coaching practices, and self-belief in that how

coaching is conducted is right. Changes in coaching practices occur

through self-selection of activities. The accumulated knowledge of

belief-based coaching is subjective, biased, unstructured, and mostly

lacking in accountability. Belief-based coaching also includes

pseudo-scientific coaching. Pseudo-scientists attempt to give the

impression of scientific knowledge but invariably their knowledge is

incomplete resulting in false/erroneous postulations. Belief-based

coaching is normally the foundation of most coaching development

schemes. Organizations are closed (isolated) systems resisting

intrusions of contrary evidence that might alter the constancy of the

beliefs and social structure. Logical (knowledge) entropy increases

with time in these structures.

Evidence-based Coaching is a restricted and relatively rare form of

coaching. Its guides for practices are principles derived from

replicated reputable studies reported by authoritative sources in a

public manner. Often there is consideration of objective studies that

do and do not support principles. Evidence-based coaches have fewer

guides for practices, but what are included are highly predictive for

accomplishing particular training effects. The accumulated knowledge

of evidence-based coaching is objectively verified and structured.

However, evidence-based coaching principles are developed in a

fragmented scientific world. It could be somewhat difficult to gather

all the relevant knowledge into an educational scheme. Organizations

are open systems structured to constantly accept new knowledge and

concepts. Logical (knowledge) entropy decreases markedly as order is

established.

Valid and appropriate sport science is closer to embracing natural

science and discovering true causes of performance than belief. Belief

fosters entropy and error. How much disorder (entropy, error) is

involved in coaching will depend upon the extents to which

evidence-based principles and beliefs are involved in the

sport-coaching culture. "

- Brent S. Rushall

San Diego State Univ.

Oct 2003

Even though I've been coaching for over 40 years, longer than Damien

and probably Todd have been on the planet, I'm not nearly as vested in

my beliefs as they apparently are. And I get a bit irritated with

people who argue ad nauseaum that they're correct without presenting

any empirical evidence or citations to support their position. It's

unfortunate that you took my use or " abuse " of Wittgenstein so

seriously. That was not for you. I hope you can come to understand my

position.

Nothing endures but change.

- Heraclitus

W.G.

Ubermensch Sports Consultancy

San Diego, CA

> > >

> > > Todd

> > >

> > > Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that lead to unsupported

> > > conclusions.

> > >

> > > Your " emotive reasoning " has more logical fallacies and unsupported

> > > conclusions than I have time or interest to address. Your

position is

> > > untenable at best. Any reasonable person would have to agree

that Yes

> > > to the Fourth Power is a good guide to training and that it supports

> > > Phil's position.

> > > Kant's CI is a moral guide to behavior, a maxim. That is different

> > > from Kant's moral theories. Yes to the Fourth Power is a guide to

> > > training, also a maxim. Even Kant's CI has a contradiction. The

> > > universalization of Kant's maxim creates that contradiction. In

spite

> > > of that, it is still studied today in philosophy classes all

over the

> > > world. Burgener's Yes to the Fourth Power is a maxim and it may not

> > > be linguistically perfect, but it works quite well. It was

formulated

> > > by a group of very successful strength coaches. Adherence to it has

> > > generated numerous athletes of merit and distinction. The USAW

> > > Regional Training Center, where Mike Burgener is the head coach, has

> > > produced several Jr. National and Senior National Weightlifting

> > > Champions. One example would be Tommy Gough:

> > > * Olympic Games team member (1996 & 2000)

> > > * Bronze Medalist at Pan American Games (1995)

> > > * Senior National Champion (1995-1998, 2000)

> > > * Three-time Junior World Team Member

> > > * Twice Junior National Champion

> > > * All-Time Senior American record holder in total

> > > * Senior American record holder in snatch, clean and jerk, and

> > > total (1993-1997)

> > >

> > > This is just one of the athletes Mike Burgener has produced while

> > > practicing Yes to the Fourth Power. These results are a testament to

> > > the efficacy of his methods, based on the principles of Yes to the

> > Fourth.

> > >

> > > The original question was " Which is the better exercise, bench or

> > > overhead press? "

> > > The jury's in, the discussion over. I'm sure you've read the posts.

> > > This discussion with you has become a " futile and hopeless labor. "

> > >

> > > The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the

> > > top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own

weight.

> > > They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful

> > > punishment than futile and hopeless labor.

> > > - Albert Camus

> > >

> > > W.G.

> > > Ubermensch Sports Consultancy

> > > San Diego, CA

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Todd,

It's unfortunate that you had to " search out Google " . In the future

I'll try to keep things simpler so you don't have to look up so many

references in order to understand the inferences. It doesn't seem as

though it's been of much benefit because you still don't get it.

There's still plenty for you to " Google " though, because you missed

several references. Hint: My use of " emotive reasoning " is one you of

several you missed. But we will get to that shortly.

The essential issue goes back to 03 12 when pbeck53 said, " I would like

to hear everyones response as it relates to the importants(sic) of a

bench press over a standing press for athletic training. "

Rather than directly posit a position substantiated by either

experience or science, you chose to adapt a strategy of attacking me

with sophistry, claiming my use of a set of general training

principles that shows why someone who adheres to those principles

would agree that the standing press was a better exercise for athletic

training, was invalid. What was the point? Did it have anything to do

with the fundamental issue? The purpose was not to educate or

explicate a difficult to understand concept, your purpose was, in a

very passive aggressive manner, to attack me.

I had already posted my position on why the standing press was better

for an athlete. Phil agreed and his position was as unequivocal as

mine. Just after, Mike Doyle posted a very strange use of the bench

press suggested by Charlie Francis. Not a peep out of you about that.

Then Damien responded with a post in which he summarily dismissed the

original post with this pronouncement, " Whether bench pressing or OH

pressing is better for sport is irrelevant. " Excuse me? Still not a

peep out of you, in spite of your deep concern for blanket statements.

Damien then goes on to assume the role of Captain Obvious, making a

series of statements,reasonably accurate but information already well

known to professionals in strength and conditioning and exercise

science, and information overload to most non professionals. But then

he makes this statement, #3 " When an individual gets stronger their

power output increases. " Isn't that a " blanket statement " ? And its not

technically accurate. What about the force-velocity relationship?

" Given that the force-velocity relationship states velocity and force

are inversely related for concentric movements, it is clear that

maximum power can't be generated through maximizing both speed and

force at the same time. (1994) suggests that maximal power

(power = force X velocity) could theoretically be achieved in three ways:

* high force X low speed

* low force X high speed

* moderate force X moderate speed

The latter has been shown to maximize power production, which peaks at

around 30–45 percent...Between 30–50 percent 1RM is the desired range

for optimal power development. However, there has been further

research indicating that 80 percent can produce peak power in trained

athletes. "

Speed is an expression of power. Power is F=MA. Although a 1RM Olympic

lift may express maximum power it does not ncessarily express maximum

strength.

" So if increasing strength can at least in theory increase power, then

why do studies generally show that this does not happen, even when

untrained individuals are studied and it is maximal/short-term, not

submaximal/sustained, power that is measured? The reason is that a

very large percentage of the increase in strength that occurs with

resistance training is due to neurological adaptations, not due to

muscle hypertrophy. Furthermore, these neurological adaptations are

highly specific to the joint angles and velocities used in training.

The force generated at higher velocities increases even less, if at

all, such that maximal power may actually be unchanged. "

Perhaps you didn't attack Damien's blanket statement because, as

you've already stated, you are not a Powerlifter. Perhaps because you

recognized that he was just making a general proposition and didn't

want to get into a lot of technical detail. However, please note that

no one else, including me, jumped on Damien's technically inaccurate

blanket statement.

Nor did anyone, including you, ask for an explanation of this curious

statement; " Depends on the athlete's sport and the athletes(sic)

shoulder structure. " What does this sentence mean? What does the

athlete's sport have to do with GPP? Damien directly contradicts

himself when he first states:

" Too many people seem to be caught up in the specificity/mimicry

game. " and then goes on to say: " Neither action is involved in sports

specifically unless you are a powerlifter or Olympic lifter. " So,

according to Damien, the OH press specific to only one sport, as a

full body exercise for GPP shouldn't it be better for GPP than the

bench press, which Damien goes on to describe as being rather football

specific?

" A football lineman needs to express force on a more horizontal plane

or more specifically moderately inclined plane when punch blocking or

rushing the passer and keeping opponent away from his body. So

benching and developing power in this plane would be more of a

necessity than developing power in an vertical plane,... "

And how does overall body strength derived from OH pressing not apply

to virtually any sport? Still not a word of protest from you.

My position as to what brought on this argument is explicated in my

post to . I think it's experienced based versus evidenced based

coaching. Although in your case Todd, I don't how much strength or

athlete coaching experience you have.

You introduced an interesting concept in your post attacking me.

Emotive reasoning. I found that curious, because there is little use

for emotive reasoning in science. But to amuse myself and test you I

used the line, " any reasonable person would have to agree … " , a

excellent example of emotive reasoning taken from Worldview Blogicus

Politics: April 28, 2004

Mainstream Emotive Reasoning

" Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that lead to unsupported

conclusions. Many are easy to identify and are either refuted or

avoided. However, other fallacies have become mainstream and are used

to support a variety of beliefs and assertions. One such class of

fallacy, that is often overlooked, is the appeal to emotions (emotive

fallacies) rather than reason or substance. In this regard,

prejudicial language is often used to attach a value or moral goodness

to a particular proposition.

For example, " any reasonable person would have to agree … " implies

that disagreement is unreasonable without any substantive argument. "

So apparently you're not all that familiar with the fact that emotive

reasoning is another method of supporting an unsubstantiated position.

You certainly didn't recognize it when I used it on you.

However, I do think that our choice of quotation sources may provide

insight as to our respective intellectual positions. In your last post

to me you countered my quote from Camus with a quote from a song by

Charlie s. Now I'm LOL.

The universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it.

- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

W.G.

Ubermensch Sports Consultancy

San Diego, CA

>

> Bill,

>

> What - no more copying and pasting for me to search out Google?

>

> The last email response on my behalf has flaws in its logic, no doubt.

> However, I've simply resorted to fighting fire with fire and giving

you back

> a taste of your own medicine or in other words when in Rome..

>

> Again, Bill you sure do like to walk on a slippery slope. I like how you

> mention, " Any reasonable person would have to agree that Yes to the

Fourth

> Power is a good guide to training " . LOL! I never said otherwise in

regard to

> its merit as a guide, but you continuously resort to it as proof to

validate

> your original argument. Again, you're playing with words to make a point

> instead of seeing the error in your ways.

>

> I do not doubt the merits of Mike Burgener. However, his immeasurable

> success DOES NOT allow you to use his guide to validate an exercise.

>

> The jury isn't out on the bench vs. the overhead press. At least not

in the

> world in which I live where the sky is blue and the water is wet. I

still

> agree with Damien and so do quite a majority of high level trainers

who've

> privately emailed me to avoid your wrath.

>

> " The devil bowed his head because he knew that he'd been beat. And

he laid

> that golden fiddle on the ground at ny's feet. ny said,

" Devil, just

> come on back if you ever want to try again. "

>

> Todd Langer, MSc, Rolfer

> Boulder, CO

>

> _____

>

> From: Supertraining

[mailto:Supertraining ]

> On Behalf Of W.G. 'Bill'

> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:00 AM

> To: Supertraining

> Subject: Re: Standing Press VS Bench Press

>

>

>

> Todd

>

> Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that lead to unsupported

> conclusions.

>

> Your " emotive reasoning " has more logical fallacies and unsupported

> conclusions than I have time or interest to address. Your position is

> untenable at best. Any reasonable person would have to agree that Yes

> to the Fourth Power is a good guide to training and that it supports

> Phil's position.

> Kant's CI is a moral guide to behavior, a maxim. That is different

> from Kant's moral theories. Yes to the Fourth Power is a guide to

> training, also a maxim. Even Kant's CI has a contradiction. The

> universalization of Kant's maxim creates that contradiction. In spite

> of that, it is still studied today in philosophy classes all over the

> world. Burgener's Yes to the Fourth Power is a maxim and it may not

> be linguistically perfect, but it works quite well. It was formulated

> by a group of very successful strength coaches. Adherence to it has

> generated numerous athletes of merit and distinction. The USAW

> Regional Training Center, where Mike Burgener is the head coach, has

> produced several Jr. National and Senior National Weightlifting

> Champions. One example would be Tommy Gough:

> * Olympic Games team member (1996 & 2000)

> * Bronze Medalist at Pan American Games (1995)

> * Senior National Champion (1995-1998, 2000)

> * Three-time Junior World Team Member

> * Twice Junior National Champion

> * All-Time Senior American record holder in total

> * Senior American record holder in snatch, clean and jerk, and

> total (1993-1997)

>

> This is just one of the athletes Mike Burgener has produced while

> practicing Yes to the Fourth Power. These results are a testament to

> the efficacy of his methods, based on the principles of Yes to the

Fourth.

>

> The original question was " Which is the better exercise, bench or

> overhead press? "

> The jury's in, the discussion over. I'm sure you've read the posts.

> This discussion with you has become a " futile and hopeless labor. "

>

> The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the

> top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own weight.

> They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful

> punishment than futile and hopeless labor.

> - Albert Camus

> ===========================================

>