I believe that they are different now, actually. For example, there was no form of periodization or cycling program in the 1900s.
On the other hand, some have claimed that the cycling programs were directly inspired by drug cycles, to track when they were on the right gear.
Soviet Era sports science, as advanced as it was, almost entirely neglects this aspect, so how do we know exactly what was going on when the state secrets and not in the open? The East German program is perhaps the most well known, and that can be studied to see how they did things. I am suspicious of anything after WWII for the most part for this reason.
Look at Lance Armstrong...if a man who is in a sport which has been plagued with cheating and doping since it started, had people claim to know of his cheating, and yet, he managed to stay in the game for so long, and then it was found out that not only was he using multiple substances, they were the same ones others got busted for. No chemical trickery...just human deception.
About Arthur Saxon, you are forgetting a lot. Competition would be more dynamic. Look at how his challenge with Sandow. How many lifters could do that with him?
Also, you are forgetting equipment. Bumper plates, finely machined parts, rotating parts, etc all make it possible to lift more weight. I think Arthur Saxon would be good now, and not just in the bent press, and I think if today's lifters were given the equipment he had, they would not be so impressive.
Take a look at the Inch Dumbbell for example. The challenge is to press it, but few people can even pick it up.
Also, Arthur Saxon also boxed or wrestled (or both, I forget) and he was quite good.
You are presenting the crossfit argument here—but I believe it is better to specialize on a few events/lifts/whatever, and have a wide athletic base beneath that that carries over to just about everything else… that is ideal in my mind, and that is what the best strength athletes in the world today do.
Them's fighting words... Crossfit? I shudder at the thought.
I am talking about strength training, primarily, here. Arthur Saxon writes this:
Do not make the mistake of limiting your practices to any one set of lifts, such as the four known as the Amateur Championship lifts. Practice everything. Single and double-handed press in dumb-bells and bar bells, single and double-handed lifts, all the way in dumb-bells and bar bells, snatching and swinging, jerking and pressing, lying down with weights, supporting weights, lifting weights while laid on the back, ring weights, human weights, and if possible, double handed lifts to the knee and harness lifts, also holding the bell aloft and raising bells aloft by what is known as the Continental style of lifting...
In The Development of Physical Power, I recommend one read the following chapters:
* The Saxon Definition of Strength
* Routine of Training
Those will show his views better than his fame in the Bent Press does.
The selection of lifts for powerlifting and Olympic weightlifting are very narrow, and have become narrow over time. Look at the early Olympic weighlifting over time. Single handed lifting and the press should still be there, and it is presumed that weightlifters do train with those lifts, but would things be different if single handed lifting were the lifts today? What if the press remained and the jerk was removed?
What if powerlifting selected the Deadlift, Squat, and Bent Press?
Or what if there were no distinction, and there were a wide variety of standard lifts which could be used in competition and only chosen right before the event took place, so all lifters had to be competitive in 20 lifts, although, only 3 would be in the competition and they did not know which 3 until they started?
Or what if drugs were not used at all?
What if the equipment was not standard? Olympic weightlifters lift modern equipment, but what if they could be given bars of any kind, such as with shot loaded bells, thicker handles, nothing rotating, no bumper plates?
All these factors are why I think the lessons of the high levels of competition are of minimal use.
However, I do my best to keep an objective eye and thus do not completely dismiss the advancements that have been made in the modern era.
Don't get me wrong: the Olympic weightlifting events in the Olympics are one of the few events I care to observe (unfortunately, in America, we get to watch swimming and gymnastics), but I fully recognize that
Lü Xiaojun is nothing like me and the way he trains really has nothing to do with me and it is just an impressive display of what is possible. I have to recognize that he is a product of the Chinese training system (they start really young) and training program which includes things which are not public knowledge.
He is a product of modern advances, and as I stated, they have very little that I can apply. What can I learn from him?
Is he strong? Yes, very. Is he powerful? Yes, the best. Is he skilled in the lifts? Extremely. What can I learn from him and his training?