Actually, I find that their advice is lacking on programming. It seems very intuitive, and going by feel.
Well, there you go… as for going by feel, it really depends on the individual. You are kinda overgeneralizing for athletes of both eras, I think.
So, we cannot be sure what their routines were. They did not generally have coaches and recorded routines.
Actually, for the individuals I’m going to write about in my blog posts, I have quite a bit of information. And a great deal more can be extrapolated, to some degree, even from the incomplete data that we have.
Arthur Saxon’s advice for the regular person is likely a lot different from what he did, and he knows it, because not everyone will have the same natural abilities he has.
Not really. He says, basically, ‘this is what I do, do this—but I have always been strong, so you might not get the same results.’
But, as athletes, they are the pinnacle of what we can look to.
I disagree, but that’s kinda the whole point of this… take a naturally strong man and have him train hard and he’ll be at the top of his chosen strength sport. The difference is that we have better training now, along with better knowledge in general, more available talent… and better drugs. As I’ve said many times now.
the most gifted athletes, the most skilled, do not compete in diverse events
We still have gifted all-rounders. Koklyaev is one. Anyone who does both powerlifting and strongman. Stronman competitors themselves, actually, have more diversity in their competitions than the oldtimers ever did. Of course, they prepare specifically now, but that’s the point.
“Modern” advances are shady, drugs, intense specialization, and finely tuned technique in a few lifts
Modern advances are better coaching (heck, coaching at all), team training, better knowledge, better training, more talent, and drugs. If you look at our weightlifters now, they are stronger in the non-competitive lifts than ever before, i.e. deadlifts, squats, pulls, bench presses; not just the 2 or 3 olympic lifts. Powerlifting can’t really be compared to anything done back then, but the best powerlifters are very well rounded, at least I think so. Especially now that strength-crosstraining is becoming more widespread, as is the powerlifter-bodybuilder-strongman hybrid. Specialization increases records in the chosen sport, but it’s not like you have to suck at everything else to specialize. On the contrary, your base has to be even wider to push your chosen lifts higher, when competition is so intense. Which is why top athletes today have such good athletic bases.
Now, if a gymnast turns to powerlifting, and then competes with Olympic weightlifting, and then tries out GS, that is more useful
Um, no. I don’t think there’s anyone who could be really good at all three of those (just to use your example). Denis vasiliev and Oleh Ilika are probably the best examples you’d find, but they are not nearly as good at weightlifting and powerlifting as actual weightlifters and powerlifters. In fact, they are girevoy sport specialists who have built that base under them, that strength base… that is exactly what I am referring to, in fact.
I have a different way of measuring “strength”. It is based on ability, whether one “can” or “cannot” do something.
Pretty sure that’s how we all do it, theorizing on someone’s potential is pretty much useless in the strength world. Savickas has the most brute power of anyone alive, and quite possibly anyone ever, so he gets my vote. But again, that’s just me.
The best example who is not overshadowed by particular events that I can think of is Sig Klein.
Klein’s a good example, but seriously, you can’t compare him to even an amateur in terms of weightlifting today. And if you look at all around athletic ability, again, he’s nowhere near the Chinese weightlifters (they’re the best example here, again, since it’s harder to compare powerlifters and strongmen…). Not to mention that gymnastics has advanced so far beyond doing handstand pushups on a bench that we probably have gymnasts who could out-lift klein without even having lifted weights before.
Don’t get me wrong, now. I really like klein, I’ve researched him and his training incredibly thoroughly, and he’s on my to-do list with the blog. But he really cannot be compared to today’s crop of Olympic lifters.
Anyway, I feel like I really am just repeating myself at this point and you are still somehow thinking that specialized athletes just
have to be only good at one thing.
Unless you have something new to say, let’s leave it at this: I believe that there is plenty to learn from any era when it comes to human physical strength (or any attribute) and the pursuit thereof. You apparently don’t, so we’ll agree to disagree on that. You also seem to discredit modern athletes, which I find somewhat distasteful, but we do agree on (for example) the problem of comparing drug-free athletes to those ‘using’. Of course, that is far from the only reason… and I think that the other reasons for today’s lifters’ superiority (there are several, that I’ve re-hashed above) are good things. Apparently you don’t; but I do fully understand your general viewpoint, even if I think it's a little off-base.
Anyhow, you don’t have to read my blog entries that contain more modern training methodologies
but I’ll be sharing the other lifter profiles on here when I write them. Sandow’s should be up later this week. After that; Saxon, Maxick, Goerner, Klein, and Bob Peoples. I might do Grimek as well, not sure. I’ll probably do another series for modern strength athletes next year, depends on the time I have, I do have my own training to attend to….
