Jason Ginsberg
Level 4 Valued Member
This is not related to strength training, but I thought it would be of interest since the Pavel has compared the kettlebell to the kalashnikov in a few of his books.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/24/world/europe/mikhail-kalashnikov-creator-of-soviet-era-ak-47-weapon-is-dead-at-age-94.html?_r=0
There's a particular quote that caught my eye:
"Shorter than traditional infantry rifles and firing a cartridge midway between the power of a pistol and the standard rifle cartridges of the day, the Kalashnikov line was initially dismissed by American ordnance experts as a weapon of small consequence. It was not particularly accurate or well made, they said, and it lacked range and stopping power.
It cemented its place in martial history in the 1960s in Vietnam. There, a new American rifle, the M-16, experienced problems with corrosion and jamming in the jungles, while Kalashnikovs, carried by Vietcong guerrillas and North Vietnamese soldiers, worked almost flawlessly."
Why is this interesting to me? Because it shows that while the AK-47 was initially dismissed because it didn't do some things as well as other weapons, some of it's perceived flaws were actually virtues in the right circumstances, and let it find an important place in the history of weaponry. Similarly, you can find lots of people online bashing the kettlebell for not being a barbell or a dumbbell, but many of the features that seem like disadvantages to some actually lend themselves to very useful applications that the kettlebell is better suited for.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/24/world/europe/mikhail-kalashnikov-creator-of-soviet-era-ak-47-weapon-is-dead-at-age-94.html?_r=0
There's a particular quote that caught my eye:
"Shorter than traditional infantry rifles and firing a cartridge midway between the power of a pistol and the standard rifle cartridges of the day, the Kalashnikov line was initially dismissed by American ordnance experts as a weapon of small consequence. It was not particularly accurate or well made, they said, and it lacked range and stopping power.
It cemented its place in martial history in the 1960s in Vietnam. There, a new American rifle, the M-16, experienced problems with corrosion and jamming in the jungles, while Kalashnikovs, carried by Vietcong guerrillas and North Vietnamese soldiers, worked almost flawlessly."
Why is this interesting to me? Because it shows that while the AK-47 was initially dismissed because it didn't do some things as well as other weapons, some of it's perceived flaws were actually virtues in the right circumstances, and let it find an important place in the history of weaponry. Similarly, you can find lots of people online bashing the kettlebell for not being a barbell or a dumbbell, but many of the features that seem like disadvantages to some actually lend themselves to very useful applications that the kettlebell is better suited for.