all posts post new thread

Barbell How Olympic Weightlifters Should Squat

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
MikeTheBear

MikeTheBear

Level 6 Valued Member
In the kettlebell thread I mentioned that I wrote an article to try and settle the debate of whether Olympic weightlifters should use the high bar or low bar squat. This article appeared in the February issue of the Performance Menu published by Catalyst Athletics. Catalyst Athletics has its own weightlifting team coached by Greg Everett and his wife, Aimee. I signed an agreement with Catalyst Athletics saying that I would not just give the article for free. If you want to pay for the single issue the article is at the link below. It's either $5 or $10 for a single issue, can't remember, and the money is used to support the team.

The Low-Bar Back Squat and Weightlifting Redux

I am allowed to post excerpts and I will do so here, along with additional thoughts. The article was already too long so I intentionally left some stuff out. I will present these excerpts in several posts for convenience and as my schedule allows. Anyway, here goes.
 
Terminology

HBBS = high-bar back squat

LBBS = low-bar back squat

Weightlifting refers to the sport of Olympic weightlifting (as opposed to how it's commonly used to refer to people who train with weights).

Weightlifter(s) refer to those who compete in weightlifting.

The Issue

Mark Rippetoe and the Starting Strength community are big fans of the LBBS and take the position that the LBBS is better at developing general strength than the HBBS. Rippetoe has stated his position that weightlifters should use the LBBS instead of the HBBS. Those who coach weightlifting advocate the HBBS ostensibly because "that's how it was always done." I've read plenty of online debates between these two camps, but it was mostly opinions and little science or evidence. I wanted to find out if there were any facts or studies out there that could support either side.

I've read plenty of "epic threads" debating this issue and there is definitely animosity between the weightlifting community at large, of which I consider myself a member, and Rippetoe and the Starting Strength community. The article was just about the facts. As I noted in my article, I am not here to criticize or personally attack Mark Rippetoe and his Starting Strength program as a general strength program. From what I understand, this program works very well at getting novices of any age to gain size, strength or both. I wish I had this information when I began lifting as a teenager in the ‘80s. I am also not saying that the strength gained from the LBBS would have zero transfer to the strength needed for weightlifting. My issue is with Rippetoe’s claim that the LBBS is the superior squat for gaining strength and that weightlifters should abandon the HBBS in favor of the LBBS.

The Argument

The argument for the LBBS goes like this: the LBBS allows the use of more weight than the HBBS. Using more weight will allow the development of more strength. Weightlifters need to get stronger. Therefore, weightlifters should use the LBBS. This is a compelling argument. In fact, when I began researching this issue I actually approached it with somewhat of an open mind. As a masters lifter with a demanding job, training time is precious as is recovery ability. If I could find a legal (i.e., without the use of performance enhancing drugs) way to get stronger faster, sign me up. If the LBBS could get me stronger in less time, why not try it?
 
The LBBS Lets You Lift More Weight


How much more weight are we talking about? Generally, lifters can use about 5 to 10 percent more weight with the LBBS than the HBBS. I have read estimates as high as 15 percent and as low as 2.5 percent. These two extremes were likely determined by the experience of the lifters involved, so using 5 to 10 percent as a general guide is probably fair. Interestingly, Greg Nuckols, a powerlifter who has devoted several articles to the mechanics of the squat which include two detailed articles on the LBBS vs. HBBS debate, has observed anecdotally that weightlifters who convert to powerlifting tend to have very small differences between their HBBS and LBBS, and sometimes almost none at all. So we are not dealing with a huge increase in weight, and for an experienced weightlifter possibly none at all. But still, more weight is more weight right?


The next question is what allows a lifter to use more weight with the LBBS? Before getting to that, let’s discuss how our muscles work. Our muscles don’t care about “weight;” they produce “torque.” Greg Nuckols gives the following example: “Imagine someone hung a 25-pound plate from a rope, and hung the rope around your wrist. How long do you think you could hold your arm straight out in front of you before the weight started pulling it down? Now imagine someone hung the same 25-pound plate from a rope, and hung the rope around your upper arm, just above your elbow. How much easier would it be to keep your arm extended straight in front of you?” With the LBBS, the bar is placed 2 to 3 inches lower on the back, which immediately creates a leverage advantage. This allows a lifter to lift more weight by applying the same amount of torque. This was confirmed in a study:


Previous research has shown that as load is increased, there is a resulting increase in the Fv produced that is proportionate to the increase in load. With this in mind, it was expected that the results of this study would show that the [group of experienced powerlifters] had the ability to generate greater [vertical force] levels during the LBBS, because of the larger loads typically lifted. However, this did not occur. Instead, no significant differences were observed between the [group of experienced powerlifters] and [group of experienced weightlifters] groups, and only small effects were observed for [vertical force].


Muscles don’t care about weight; they only respond to tension (i.e., torque). Saying that the LBBS leads to greater strength gains because you can use more weight is like saying that attaching a weight to your upper arm leads to more strength gains than attaching a weight to your wrist because you can use more weight with the upper arm attachment. This makes sense if you look at why the LBBS is used in the first place – because it allows powerlifters to lift more weight in competition. Muscles grow and get stronger in response to the tension they generate. Tension is created by the amount of torque the muscles must produce– more torque means more tension. Therefore, if two exercises require the muscles to produce similar amounts of torque, it follows that the two exercises will produce similar results in terms of strength gain and muscle growth regardless of how much weight is used. So, for the additional weight in the LBBS to have a greater effect on strength, the muscles must produce more overall torque. If that’s the case, then why bother using the LBBS? If using more weight requires more torque, then there would be no advantage in using the LBBS in competition.
 
the first thing that comes to mind is are there any elite level oly lifters that use low bar squat in their training. I usually start with reverse engineering what the best are doing.
 
I generally have a lot of respect for Rip, and while there are a few things on which I don't agree (GOMAD if you're not a teen), Starting Strength is a phenomenal introduction to the core strength building lifts.

However, when it comes to the LBBS, I'll just add a few things to what @MikeTheBear wrote:

1. Adaptation is specific, not general. Ergo, it should be pretty obvious from simple biomechanics that the more upright torso of the HBBS is closer to the catch position of a (non-power) clean.

2. Depth: powerlifters have no particular reason (other than personal preference) to go deeper than the minimum required (parallel) for a competition squat. In contrast, in weightlifting, the lower you can get under the bar, the lower you have to lift the bar -- as long as you can get out of the hole.

I've never seen it studied, but all the anecdotal evidence I've seen / experienced is that it's easier for many lifters to get ATG in upright torso positions -- goblet squat, HBBS, front squat, than it is in LBBS.

3. Strength: Rip is right that, in general, American weightlifters need to get stronger (or, alternatively, make it financially lucrative for our most genetically gifted power generators to not go into more popular sports). But why over emphasize the squat instead of the pull?

Not to pick on Lu Xiaojun again, but as you can see from this lift, he starts off with an upright squatty / clean pull stance, but then switches to a more conventional DL-like, horizontal torso pull once the bar gets just below his knees, then finishes up with some shrugs after lockout:



Yes, hip drive played a role in the above lift...but why use LBBS to solve the problem instead of a pull?
 
Rif said:
the first thing that comes to mind is are there any elite level oly lifters that use low bar squat in their training. I usually start with reverse engineering what the best are doing.
Click to expand...

I intentionally avoided this argument. Rippetoe has heard this argument many times and his reply is that it contains the logical fallacy of appeal to authority and/or appeal to the masses. He's right. What everyone else is doing is certainly a clue that should not be ignored, "everyone else does it this way" does not necessarily prove that everyone else is doing it the right way. His other response is that what athletes do in other countries is not relevant. In the US, our most talented athletes with the genetic gifts that would for a good weightlifter go to more lucrative sports. Our strict adherence to the antidoping rules mean that our lifters are going to be "weaker" compared to those who are chemically enhanced. In countries where there's no American football and PEDs use is tolerated, weightlifting coaches get genetically gifted weightlifters who receive good "supplements," the coaches don't need to worry about getting their lifters strong. My response is that there are two problems here. First, Rippetoe offers no evidence to support this statement. It's not like he's interviewed Russian and East European coaches who told him, "Silly American, in Russia being weightlifting coach is easiest job. We get athletic strong young men, we give steroids, we not worry how they train!" Second, this makes no sense. If I were a coach with a talented weightlifter who was receiving "supplements," I would make sure to give this weightlifter the best possible training methods. My weightlifter would then DOMINATE and break all the records. We would both then comfortably retire.

Despite my disagreement with Rippetoe's argument I assumed it was true for purposes of the article. So, if we need to get our weightlifters stronger, is the LBBS the best squat variation to build steroid-like strength?
 
MikeTheBear said:
I intentionally avoided this argument. Rippetoe has heard this argument many times and his reply is that it contains the logical fallacy of appeal to authority and/or appeal to the masses. He's right. What everyone else is doing is certainly a clue that should not be ignored, "everyone else does it this way" does not necessarily prove that everyone else is doing it the right way. His other response is that what athletes do in other countries is not relevant. In the US, our most talented athletes with the genetic gifts that would for a good weightlifter go to more lucrative sports. Our strict adherence to the antidoping rules mean that our lifters are going to be "weaker" compared to those who are chemically enhanced. In countries where there's no American football and PEDs use is tolerated, weightlifting coaches get genetically gifted weightlifters who receive good "supplements," the coaches don't need to worry about getting their lifters strong. My response is that there are two problems here. First, Rippetoe offers no evidence to support this statement. It's not like he's interviewed Russian and East European coaches who told him, "Silly American, in Russia being weightlifting coach is easiest job. We get athletic strong young men, we give steroids, we not worry how they train!" Second, this makes no sense. If I were a coach with a talented weightlifter who was receiving "supplements," I would make sure to give this weightlifter the best possible training methods. My weightlifter would then DOMINATE and break all the records. We would both then comfortably retire.

Despite my disagreement with Rippetoe's argument I assumed it was true for purposes of the article. So, if we need to get our weightlifters stronger, is the LBBS the best squat variation to build steroid-like strength?
Click to expand...


". Rippetoe has heard this argument many times and his reply is that it contains the logical fallacy of appeal to authority and/or appeal to the masses."

sorry but that's ridiculous. If elite athletes thought doing good mornings standing on their head would make their lifts go up they would do it. They try any and everything.

and also sorry but this whole " they use steroids and that makes up for everything is absurd. All the best use PEDs. Our best potential strength and power athletes go where the money is: football. that's why we don't dominate.
 
Last edited:
I've heard rip say, of late, that Starting strength is not a powerlifting methodology and is more of a beginners system so as to get the average person utilizing as much muscle in the lifts as possible. It's not about it being the pinnacle of absolute strength development

Simmons talks alot about how the sumo dl and it's companion, the low bar wide stance squat is not optimal for most for getting maximal strong precisely because the leverage is so GOOD. hence his use of round back good mornings and lifts that force the lifter out of optimal posistions to develop raw strength

also, the soviets used almost every exercise ever though of in their arsenal of special exercises for specialized variety but I don't recall the LBBS being one of them

It can't hurt for sure but it's certainly no panacea
 
Yeah, I always go back to the torque argument every time too! Great article.

I generally start folks off on the HBBS because we historically are a weightlifting gym and I like the vertical torso. But I do have a few women who have crazy long femurs, and if they do a HBBS they have to fold over so far to just not fall down that the LBBS makes the most sense for them.

If my goal was to train people to lift the most weight, then yes, LBBS makes a lot of sense (though, maybe not so much at the elite levels, thanks for pointing that out, I didn't know that). But if my goal is to create generally athletic folks, then HBBS seems to work better for regular people.
 
@miked, would you also use the front squat? Although I'm not an Olympic lifter, it's my favorite between front and the two types of back.

-S-
 
Steve Freides said:
@miked, would you also use the front squat? Although I'm not an Olympic lifter, it's my favorite between front and the two types of back.

-S-
Click to expand...

Interesting question and, while I also really like the front squat, the answer is "maybe."

I categorize exercises in weightlifting as "general strength" and "positional" or "sport specific" if you prefer. The back squat is "general strength" because there is no event in weightlifting that requires an athlete to squat with the bar on their back. The overhead squat is "positional" because it trains the receiving position of the snatch but is not a good choice for someone training for general strength. The Crossfit folks love the OHS as an "ab" exercise for midline stability. That's fine I guess, but I personally would not include the OHS in a general strength program. It is not a good leg exercise because the amount of weight you can use is limited by the supporting strength of your upper body and torso.

The front squat is a hybrid of the two. It trains the recovery position of the clean but you can use enough weight to make it a good leg exercise that focuses on the quads. However, like the OHS, the amount of weight used and the number of sets completed will be limited by the strength and endurance of your torso and upper back muscles. This is why weightlifters use the HBBS - it allows us to focus on getting our quads strong without the limitations of the front squat.

Rippetoe has argued that since the front squat is already a "quad dominant" squat, why use another "quad dominant" squat like the HBBS when you can use a more "general" squat like the LBBS? I have lots of things to say about the role of the hamstrings in the squat, but the answer is that weightlifters need strong quads. To an inexperienced eye, a weightlifter setting up for a clean looks kinda like a deadlift that ends up in a front squat. The assumption is that weightlifters squat only to improve the receiving position and do other exercises, like pulls and deadlift variations, to strengthen the pull. What the inexperienced eye misses is that the pull relies very heavily on the quads. Let's look at the KB swing for a moment. We set up with the hips high and encourage a hip hinge that is not "squatty." It's a hip dominant movement. The result is that the KB swings away from us. Even a KB snatch has a loopy arc that causes the KB to move away from us which we then need to "tame" by bringing it back. This is fine for a 24 kg KB snatch but won't work for a 100 kg snatch. In weightlifting we need a more vertical bar path that directs the force more upward. The quads are the main driver of this vertical upward force. This does NOT mean that hip extension is not important in the pull - of course it is. But over-reliance on the hip extensors will produce a swing-like barbell trajectory. We need to be more "squatty" and less "swingy."
 
Steve Freides said:
@miked, would you also use the front squat? Although I'm not an Olympic lifter, it's my favorite between front and the two types of back.

-S-
Click to expand...

You bet. When I'm doing same-but-different programming I basically do a 50:50 split front:back squat. It's probably a more front squat than most people would suggest in a program, but it seems to work well. And I'm in Boulder, CO the running and cycling center of the world, so giving people strong quads is a good thing :)
 
@Rif I agree with you. If you go back to the Cold War days, the Soviet sports machine wasn't just about winning - it was about dominating. Sports were just one more means of asserting Soviet superiority. A coach who allowed sloppy technique and sub-optimal training methods because his athletes were on PEDs would probably end up in a gulag. Although the Cold War is now over, they still take this stuff seriously. You can get a sports science degree with a concentration in weightlifting all the way up to a Ph.D. That's right - in Russia, you can become a Doctor of Weightlifting. You need a thesis and everything. Somehow I think that "because we've always done it like this" is not a good thesis topic.
 
Since I am from the same eastern block, namely Bulgaria I can say that the first 10 years of training in weightlifting here is mostly technique, multiple sessions per day 4 5 days a week. Don't mistake Olympic team training here, these guys have 10 or more years under their belt. Back and front squat are both used,but Abadjiev wanted to get rid of both for specificity, yet still used them even with top lifters. Anyway to repeat the others out of many that I have seen noone seems to squat low bar
 
I was going to talk about hamstrings wasn't I. The conventional wisdom has been that the HBBS is better for the quads and the LBBS is better for the posterior chain. Research supports this conventional wisdom. So, that should be the end of it, right? The LBBS uses more muscle, therefore, better. Here's the thing: the squat, except for the box squat, is a crappy hamstring exercise. During a squat, the hamstrings do not contract as hard as they could in a hamstring dominant exercise. Why is this so? Biomechanics. The short version is that the hamstrings are antagonists to the quads. Normally, if two opposing muscle groups contract at the same time, the joint would not be able to move at all. Yet the quads and hamstrings can contract at the same time and the knee can still extend. Why is this so? (This is Lombard’s Paradox.) Because the hamstrings are biarticulate, meaning they they cross both the hip and knee joints. As you squat down, the hamstring must lengthen to allow hip flexion, but shorten to allow knee flexion. The net result is little change in the length – that is, little contraction – of the hamstrings. Little contraction translates to little force production. The hamstrings function only as dynamic stabilizers, not prime movers, in any type of squat (except perhaps the box squat). If you're doing the LBBS hoping to get a great hamstring workout, you're doing the wrong exercise.

But since the LBBS can work the hamstrings a little more, what's the downside?

Because of where the bar is located in the LBBS (the leverage advantage that I mentioned), the moment arm for the knee extensors (i.e., the quads) can be about 10 percent shorter. That means for the quads to get the same amount of work as in the HBBS, the load on the bar for the LBBS must be 10 percent greater. However, it is not always the case that a lifter can use 10 percent more weight with the LBBS. As noted above, the general rule is that a lifter can use 5 to 10 percent more weight with the LBBS, but inexperienced lifters may only be able to use 2.5 percent more. That means it is very possible for the quads to be doing less work in the LBBS. If the quads are going to receive less stress from the LBBS, this is a big deal for a weightlifter. As I mentioned above, quads are not just important for recovering from the clean and snatch. Quads play a huge role in the pull - they are what allows a weightlifter to impart upward force to the barbell in the pull.

Weightlifters squat to build their quads. If we want to work our hamstrings we have plenty of great exercises for that. There is no reason to turn the squat into something it is not.
 
I would also like to add that artificially increasing the weight with which you back squat in weightlifting theory is not worth it - you cause greater fatigue by using more weight on an exercise which does not directly impact the specific exercise but significantly impacts recovery. The idea is that you should never be able to back squat more than you front squat, and you should never be able to front squat more than you clean, thus the back squat is a means to increase the front squat with the idea to potentially improve the clean. Also for most intermediate lifters I think failing in the front squat is safer than failing in the back squat, at least I don't feel any nervous pressure attempting a front squat i am not sure I can make, since I have made that weight in the back squat many times, but first time with a record back squat weight is a different thing :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rif
I'll contribute, not to debate the issue, but to add my version of things learned directly from Mark Rippetoe and the SS teaching staff at a recent Starting Strength seminar.

First I'll caveat that I'm nowhere near a proficient Oly/weightlifter -- I can power clean and power snatch a barbell (about 125 lb and 95 lb, respectively) but I'm a real beginner with these lifts and don't know if I'll ever really pursue them beyond learning to do them so that I can teach them to others. I'm a lot farther along on powerlifts/strengthlifts - squat, bench press, overhead press, and deadlift with a few years' experience. Have been fortunate to attend both StrongFirst SFL and Starting Strength seminar so I have probably a unique perspective on both teachings. However, neither one of these teaches Oly/weightlifting.

The reason Starting Strength uses the LBBS is that they select for exercises that 1) use the most muscle mass and 2) provide the ability to move the most weight 3) over the greatest effective range of motion. Segment length and angle are the two things that affect moment force on a joint (and therefore the amount of muscle mass recruited), so the greater moment arm on the hip angle when you bend over farther for the LBBS means more muscle is recruited, and therefore more weight can be moved. Most posters in this thread agree that a few more pounds on the bar is commonly possible with a LBBS compared to a HBBS... though this may differ for someone who practices the HBBS more often. (I'll also comment that a "standard" or "perfect" LBBS is a rare thing to see, though I think the SS coaches are really good at coaching their method.)

MikeTheBear said:
During a squat, the hamstrings do not contract as hard as they could in a hamstring dominant exercise. Why is this so? Biomechanics. The short version is that the hamstrings are antagonists to the quads. Normally, if two opposing muscle groups contract at the same time, the joint would not be able to move at all. Yet the quads and hamstrings can contract at the same time and the knee can still extend. Why is this so? (This is Lombard’s Paradox.) Because the hamstrings are biarticulate, meaning they they cross both the hip and knee joints. As you squat down, the hamstring must lengthen to allow hip flexion, but shorten to allow knee flexion. The net result is little change in the length – that is, little contraction – of the hamstrings. Little contraction translates to little force production. The hamstrings function only as dynamic stabilizers, not prime movers, in any type of squat (except perhaps the box squat). If you're doing the LBBS hoping to get a great hamstring workout, you're doing the wrong exercise.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you're wrong here, but I'll say my impression is different. And I'm actually very curious to know whether the hamstrings are getting "worked" when they are simultaneously shrotening with a flexing knee and lengthening with the flexing hip in the descent; and then the reverse coming back up: lengthening with an extending knee and shortening with an extended hip. SS says they are being heavily worked (and therefore strengthened) through isometric contraction. (Edited) I believe my hamstrings are a lot stronger since I've been LBBS squatting heavier... and I'm quite sure I haven't been doing any hamstring isolation exercises.

As for a front squat, the hamstrings are already shortened in the bottom position, and the muscle can't contract as hard if it's already short, so the glutes have to do most of the work to extend the hip. Logical? Seems so to me.

There's also the matter of the external hip rotators. In the SS LBBS, the knees are shoved out hard as you bend over. This accomplishes a few things - reducing any impingement in the front of the hip, but also getting more muscles involved in the movement (the ones holding your knees out -- abductors and external rotators) and providing a stretch reflex in the adductors which aids in coming back up. More muscles, more weight to move, more strength building opportunity. This also introduces another dimension to the squat, so it's not just a matter of the differences when viewed from the side between a FS, HBBS, LBBS -- it's also what is going on laterally.

As for weightlifters' training... the SS argument isn't that they should do it as part of their training routinely, but rather that they should do it to substantially increase their strength before they become competitive, and/or in the off season. If this is true (and I may be misrepresenting, but that was my impression), then the fatigue or training resources aspects are irrelevant, because you wouldn't be mixing this "getting strong" activity with the skill of weightlifting.

MikeTheBear said:
Tension is created by the amount of torque the muscles must produce– more torque means more tension.
Click to expand...

Minor item on terminology -- Torque is the force on the joint resulting from moment force, is it not? I'm just confused by the description of the muscles producing torque... Muscles just pull on levers (bones), producing the moment force or torque on the joint that connects them.

Good discussion, and thanks for sharing some of your article excerpts, @MikeTheBear.
 
Last edited:
Anna C said:
I don't know if you're wrong here, but I'll say my impression is different. And I'm actually very curious to know whether the hamstrings are getting "worked" when they are simultaneously shrotening with a flexing knee and lengthening with the flexing hip in the descent; and then the reverse coming back up: lengthening with an extending knee and shortening with an extended hip. SS says they are being heavily worked (and therefore strengthened) through isometric contraction. (Edited) I believe my hamstrings are a lot stronger since I've been LBBS squatting heavier... and I'm quite sure I haven't been doing any hamstring isolation exercises.
Click to expand...

My copying the excerpts didn't keep the hyperlinks to the resources I consulted. Here are the links to the key articles I cited and some other research that was not in my original article. I really nerded out with the research on this article. I am aware of the limitations of exercise research studies and I am aware of Rippetoe's opinion on "ExFizz" as he calls it, but when push comes to shove I base my decisions on the science.


Greg Nuckols’ articles on HBBS vs. LBBS:

High Bar vs. Low Bar Squatting • Stronger by Science

High Bar and Low Bar Squatting 2.0 - Strengtheory

Hamstrings – The Most Overrated Muscle Group for the Squat • Stronger by Science

So the next one is from a “bodybuilding” site but it’s written by Brad Schoenfeld, Ph.D. who knows his stuff and has done studies on this topic:

Ask the Muscle Doc: Are Squats the Key to Maximizing Hamstring Development?

An infographic from Chris Beardsley who also did a study on this:

Chris Beardsley on Twitter

Here is Beardsley’s article:

Hamstring activation and the Squat - Athlete Performance Greece

Anna C said:
As for a front squat, the hamstrings are already shortened in the bottom position, and the muscle can't contract as hard if it's already short, so the glutes have to do most of the work to extend the hip. Logical? Seems so to me.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is true. Front squats are all quads and glutes.
 
Good bit of reading... I will check them out. It does seem to be a much-discussed topic.
 
Marin Koshutov said:
I would also like to add that artificially increasing the weight with which you back squat in weightlifting theory is not worth it - you cause greater fatigue by using more weight on an exercise which does not directly impact the specific exercise but significantly impacts recovery. The idea is that you should never be able to back squat more than you front squat, and you should never be able to front squat more than you clean, thus the back squat is a means to increase the front squat with the idea to potentially improve the clean. Also for most intermediate lifters I think failing in the front squat is safer than failing in the back squat, at least I don't feel any nervous pressure attempting a front squat i am not sure I can make, since I have made that weight in the back squat many times, but first time with a record back squat weight is a different thing :)
Click to expand...

This is what I've heard from pretty much ever elite level weightlifter I've known, which has been more than a few. As well numerous International level throwers of all kinds who use the basic oly lifts to develop strength and power for their sports

The idea that one should not observe and learn what the best are doing in each sport is ludicrous
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom