OAC Progression

this is funny.. because this is what im hearing

"OAC yeah, thats radder than repeatedly performing consecutive one arm pullup pulses up a rope for distance up and back down a rope for reps."

how many pulls does it take you to get to the top? im not so certain but that amount will be multiplied bu the sets and reps. just imagine that Coach decides to make us do them for 5x5. that's 25 times how many times it takes you to pull yourself upwards and with a safe descent.

crazy. absolutely crazy, when you factor in the math.

it just kind of sounds like anyone who doesnt want to go this route is only playing with pulling strength. like stopping at pushups wanting to build upto one arm pushups when you can be doing dips and hspu which will make you strong enough to do one arm pushups. seems like there's two choices here, the long route with a few skills or the short route with a greater array of skills that are more advanced than our own setted goal.

That's not what I was saying at all. 

I was talking about the best method for attaining the OAC, because that's what will be useful to the OP. In the mind of somebody who's main goal is OAC, the best method would be the one that achieves the OAC in the shortest possible time. And that method is what I gave, in order to answer the OP.

But if we're talking about OAC as "playing with pulling strength" when compared with doing high-volume advanced RC work, then that argument doesn't really have a basis either - I could just as easily claim that doing 5x5, or even 5x10 OAC negatives one after another on a bar is going to be even crazier (when you factor the math) than doing high-volume cirques down a rope lol. It's all relative. 

And I don't see sticking with OAC instead of RC to be in any way analogous to stopping at push-ups and never moving onto dips/push-ups. Please explain that one to me! 

Jono said:

That's not what I was saying at all. 

 

I was talking about the best method for attaining the OAC, because that's what will be useful to the OP. In the mind of somebody who's main goal is OAC, the best method would be the one that achieves the OAC in the shortest possible time. And that method is what I gave, in order to answer the OP.

 

But if we're talking about OAC as "playing with pulling strength" when compared with doing high-volume advanced RC work, then that argument doesn't really have a basis either - I could just as easily claim that doing 5x5, or even 5x10 OAC negatives one after another on a bar is going to be even crazier (when you factor the math) than doing high-volume cirques down a rope lol. It's all relative. 

 

And I don't see sticking with OAC instead of RC to be in any way analogous to stopping at push-ups and never moving onto dips/push-ups. Please explain that one to me! 

oh! I'm not talking about you   I'm refering to the people who look for shortcuts within shortcuts.

if you have a copy of BtGB, you would understand my reference, in the book, Coach talks about how he would host pushup wars. once the winner was announced, i think he did a volume around 350(?) reps and the second runner up was 300(?) reps. one of them was a GST student and the other(im not aware of his backround) trained pushups for endurance. 

I am inexperienced in performing or even creating athletes that can do these type of feats, what i can give testimony of is that working on basic elements in a progressive manner(in my case, my BAS pulling mastery will be rope climbs) has created a lot of strength with relatively simple movements. i would like to see how my rope climb focus will compare to my Crossfit friends(who are currently working progressions to actively move towards OAC) because so far, I can only do a 3/4 of mastery for the first RC progression and my pulling strength is significantly higher than their's, so im excited to see how this pans out, that's all

Coach Sommer said:

 

This may have been one of the primary benefits of being a US National Team Coach for so many years; I developed a very pragmatic, no nonsense attitude toward training.  No room for pet theories, no place for second best, no refusing to accept reality.  Something either worked or it didn't.  If it didn't, move on.  High level results became the only criteria which mattered.

 

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

Coach, it would be nice to know, over the years, which training methods / practices / exercises that are currently popular / mainstream / flooding the internet / on youtube etc. have you found to be ineffective?

Following your GB University Curriculum, we can clearly see what you have experienced to be the best training stimuli for producing the absolute best results. (WHAT HAS WORKED) It would be nice if you could post a list of things which you have found to be ineffective over the years (WHAT HASN'T WORKED), yet which people in abundance still follow to this day.

As an example. On another recent post, you said that Dillion for Navy Seal training "fell prey to some other people's advice of using tabata sprints to prepare which were much more to his liking than the long bouts of lsd that I prescribed.  However given his experience in training so far, he has now been cured of such nonsense."  I was curious to know, are their any other training stimuli like this you have found to be ineffective. I mean in the broad areas of Strength, Power, Flexibility, Mobility, Cardio Conditioning, Running, Jumping, Balancing, Odd Object Lifts, Olympic Lifts, Box Jumps, Heavy Squats/Deadlifts, Ninja Warrior Training, Mov-nat, Agility Cone-Runs, etc etc..

Thank you

What works and what doesn't is determined by your goals as well as your training methodology

Tabata intervals, for example, produce great results - but not if your goal is LSD-related!

If the question is what has worked best to produce the best gains for GST - I think you know the answer!

Bench pressing!  That never worked for any gymnast...

boban said:

 

Is this a good progression for a one arm supinated CTI?   

FredInChina said:

Is this a good progression for a one arm supinated CTI?   

 

 

 

 

 

You mean the inverted CTI?