Iron Cross is bad for you

NikArun said:

imo, if one wants to be a generalist, he is right. if ido wanted to direct all his efforts into advanced ring strength i'm sure he would have remarkable progress. however his ring strength is trained along with handbalancing, climbing, locomotion, floreio, brachiating etc etc. so him having easy straddle planches and one arm chins (i've seen a picture of him full planching floating around somewhere) is pretty incredible, as ring strength or gymnastic strength is only a small percentage of his overall practice.

For a generalist, can you "afford" to iron cross? What is the point? just to say you did it? it is certainly not a necessity if being a mover is your primary goal, and where is the transfer to other organic disciplines (climbing,various martial arts, parkour etc.). After a certain point, you are going to be subtracting time from other 'more human' skills and be incomplete or imbalanced as a mover.

And also yes you can adapt to almost anything, but that doesnt mean it is good for you. Normal people adapt to sitting 12-14 hours a day and for many many years or decades feel normal until it catches up with them. Immense stress under almost full internal rotation of the shoulder, maybe you'll be fine for a while, but we don't see many ex gymnasts showing health and longevity though their are some exceptions (as opposed to, for example, handbalancers. many examples of those in their 40's and older at almost peak performance and health still).

Again, you may be able to slowly work up to it and balance out the shoulder girdle from almost the full internal rotation, but at the end you will probably have just an iron cross to show for it, when alot of that adaptive energy can be used for enhancing and promoting other basic and human qualities. If being a specialist is your goal, then this doesn't apply! But for a generalist the cost of the iron cross will make the rest of your practice suffer.

In *gymnastics*, rings strength skills contributes a relatively small fraction to your overall score. Yet nearly 100% of high level athletes in this sport will have a good iron cross. They are true generalist: they have to learn hand balancing, acrobatics, and innumerable dynamic motions.

That Ido does not possess high level rings strength is an indication that he either does not care to develop it or does not know how or both.

Joshua Slocum said:

In *gymnastics*, rings strength skills contributes a relatively small fraction to your overall score. Yet nearly 100% of high level athletes in this sport will have a good iron cross. They are true generalist: they have to learn hand balancing, acrobatics, and innumerable dynamic motions.

That Ido does not possess high level rings strength is an indication that he either does not care to develop it or does not know how or both.

Agree, however I think it is worth mentioning that Ido practices from a minimalistic philosophy much similar to parkour, and that using rings is "an artificial way" of becoming stronger. But if he truly not cared he would simply not perform a bent arm cross and send a video to Coach for him to judge - also worth noting.

Well most of his success stories show people doing stuff on rings so it's probably safe to say he doesn't think that way (rings being artificial).

 

No straight arm rings strength elements or preparatory elements on most his videos though so it's not likely that he teaches it. Probably for the best in any case, better not to teach what you don't know rather than risk people's elbows.

ForzaCavaliere said:

They focus a lot on other things too, as 'generalists' wouldn't it be hard to advance beyond already pretty advanced moves like straddle planche and one-arm chin-up. It's hard enough getting there as it is!

Oh, I agree - my point is that as a generalist Ido is without a doubt very good at what he does, yet almost every FB post he writes contains explicit statements about how his method is superior to just about everything else, including the development of gymnastic strength in adults. I'm not saying a straddle planche isn't impressive but as far as GST goes it's pretty basic stuff. The fact that he can teach people to do sPL, MU and OAC does not, IMO, give him the right or credibility to claim the things he claims. So far Ido has failed to convince me of the superiority of his method (and I have three months worth of experience with his online coaching, so I know a little about the way he works).

I like a lot of Ido's stuff. But he has admitted himself - he is not a specialist. He believes that you must sacrifice other areas/modalities in order to become a  specialist. Unfortunately, you NEED to become a specialist in rings training in order to safely/properly obtain the higher strength rings skills.  I would say Ido's lack of knowledge is due to his lack of specialization. How many 'all around' athlete/fighters/strength training/movers do you see out there with high level rings skills (that didnt already have a back ground in gymnastics?). Not many.

jules said:

I like a lot of Ido's stuff. But he has admitted himself - he is not a specialist. He believes that you must sacrifice other areas/modalities in order to become a specialist. Unfortunately, you NEED to become a specialist in rings training in order to safely/properly obtain the higher strength rings skills. I would say Ido's lack of knowledge is due to his lack of specialization. How many 'all around' athlete/fighters/strength training/movers do you see out there with high level rings skills (that didnt already have a back ground in gymnastics?). Not many.

Why must we exclude those that had gymnastics backgrounds? Also I think lack of this type of strength comes from lack of patience and knowledge by most. Outside of those coaching gymnastics who really knows how to prep for crosses. And amongs these who knows the special precautions that adults should follow. I know of only one who has developed a program appropriate for adults. Others are adaptations of what has worked on kids and I have seen little evidence that it translates. Even in earlier prep like straddle planche on rings.

I think coach's and Josh's comments are pretty spot on. Gymnasts make pretty darn good generalist movers. Which is why we see them break into handbalancing, cirque, etc after leaving artistic gymnastics. Don't get me wrong, I certainly appreciate these other disciplines but I haven't seen anything quite as well rounded as a gymnast.

Micawberian said:

Man, guys, I'm sorry. It was just supposed to be a simple question about iron cross safety...

My Dearest Friend, dont apologize, this discussion is noteworthy. I say good onya' mate, keep up the good work. This is the world wide web, and this is all part of the experience.

RJS said:

My Dearest Friend, dont apologize, this discussion is noteworthy. I say good onya' mate, keep up the good work. This is the world wide web, and this is all part of the experience.

I completely agree, and credit to Coach Sommer and admins for leaving conflicting views up. 

 

I still strongly believe the iron cross, maltese, victorian etc. are not necessary to pursue if your goals are being a better generalist mover and longevity in your practice. The more and more specialized you get in any one discipline, the more you flirt with injury. 

 

And after a certain level of strength, I think (again, as a generalist) it is pointless to keep pushing that strength. Learn to use it in movement! When I was a specialist in olympic weightlifting I would see the same thing, everyone was so obsessed with back squat numbers that the snatch and clean/jerk was almost an afterthought. I would see squat numbers raise up 30-40kg and the snatch and clean and jerk didn't budge, and snatches that were only 50% of their max back squat, which is almost embarrassing.  

 

Strength is a means to an end, not an end in itself. From Ido's viewpoint, I think strength is a support (very important support) for movement. For climbing, dancing, playing, fighting, movement exploration, improv. Just like how he uses Back squats and OL as a support for flipping and jumping and sprinting and not as an end in itself. In that vein, straddle planches and once arm chins are more than enough. There is so much more to explore. 

 

Thanks again for letting their be some discussion!

Actually your reasoning regarding the necessary training for being a generalist is flawed.

If being a 'generalist' is your goal and, as Daniel pointed out, gymnasts are the athletes whose skills translate to the widest range of other activities (handbalancing, breakdancing, cirque, streetworkout, OAC, olympic lifting etc) why are you not focusing exclusively on GST?

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

Well, Ido has been always a good reference for me and I always considered him good at the thing he does. However, his comment about crosses and more advanced straight arm work it is not coherent with things like: "Improper Alignment" so this is also not "I I prefer honesty to modesty any day of the week".

Where did Ido even get that many elite gymnasts especially rings specialists get shoulder injuries in the long run from iron crosses and the like and how does he know it is caused by those exercises?

Daniel Burnham said:

Why must we exclude those that had gymnastics backgrounds? Also I think lack of this type of strength comes from lack of patience and knowledge by most.

 This is actually what i was trying to say.  I shouldn't type and eat.

Also I believe that a well developed gymnast makes a powerfully well rounded athlete.

Joshua Slocum said:

In *gymnastics*, rings strength skills contributes a relatively small fraction to your overall score. Yet nearly 100% of high level athletes in this sport will have a good iron cross. They are true generalist: they have to learn hand balancing, acrobatics, and innumerable dynamic motions.

That Ido does not possess high level rings strength is an indication that he either does not care to develop it or does not know how or both.

This reminded me of what they teach in my Uni - that the is no Sport that combines the majority of physical components. From thei recommendation to achieve the "Overall / Generalist" fitness a Young trainee should - participate in team sports ( Soccer, basketball), lift weights for strength training and do something similar to Yoga stretching. And the majority of people still think that Gymnastics main components are - Pushups, pullups, dips, BW squats. Im Doomed aren't I? 

It's impossible to be good at all. You can train gymnastics and this has a good transfer to the individual sports in some ways. But if we talk about colective sports it is completly different. Phyisical training is important, but there are technique, tactics, strategy...I am discovering that Ido is being a bit destroyed by his ego. He can't learn gymnastics from coach Sommer, doing some programming modifications and pretend to be better that coach sommer, who has been dedicating his life for being the best in a specific area. I can't see the honesty here.

Ido Portal's web presence is how I found this place- and I haven't looked back. I am surprised that he has a negative view of Inlocates/Dislocates, but limiting iron cross training from his offerings does not seem like a bad idea. Most casual athletes will probably not develop enough strength to train the iron cross safely anyway. If someone needs to develop that strength, they can go elsewhere (possibly here), but setting training parameters is prudent in my opinion.

curtisfer said:

Ido Portal's web presence is how I found this place- and I haven't looked back. I am surprised that he has a negative view of Inlocates/Dislocates, but limiting iron cross training from his offerings does not seem like a bad idea. Most casual athletes will probably not develop enough strength to train the iron cross safely anyway. If someone needs to develop that strength, they can go elsewhere (possibly here), but setting training parameters is prudent in my opinion.

Yea that's fine. But he should have said that instead of making the excuse that it is bad for everyone. He seems to think if he has tried and failed then it isn't possible.

Daniel Burnham said:

Yea that's fine. But he should have said that instead of making the excuse that it is bad for everyone. He seems to think if he has tried and failed then it isn't possible.

What has not been seen cannot be seen; including what one cannot do others cannot either. This is a strong belief among intuitive people who is used to being right.

 

But there is no point in discussing this any further really. Ido will be Ido, and we should spend more time training for crosses instead of talking about them.

 

 

I would see squat numbers raise up 30-40kg and the snatch and clean and jerk didn't budge, and snatches that were only 50% of their max back squat, which is almost embarrassing.  

TBH, Snatch is supposed to be anywhere from 50-65% of BS. You'll rarely see over 60% though and a lot of times this is in lankier lifters who are weaker squatters. Yurik Vardanyan for example didn't front squat much more than his clean and jerk. Most average lifters are going to be in the range of 50-60%.

I think that everyone has differing ideas on what exactly is a "rings specialist." Is Iron Cross/Maltese considered ring specialist or is the stuff afterwards considered a specialist? (Azarian/Nakayama etc.)

Iron Cross isn't considered something that is all that fantastic by itself considering it's only worth a B. Now if you can kip to cross or something like that. Ideally an Elite routine should have 10 C's so a difficulty value of around 3.0 besides the 5 groups garnering another 2.5 before the execution score takes it's toll.

Maltese being a D is definitely a ring specialist move. I think Rings specialist and I expect C's and D's, and maybe some E's. Bare in mind you still have to some nice giants and a D dismount ideally. Ideally a score over 15.

alan tseng said:

I think that everyone has differing ideas on what exactly is a "rings specialist." Is Iron Cross/Maltese considered ring specialist or is the stuff afterwards considered a specialist? (Azarian/Nakayama etc.)

A "rings specialist" would be someone who pursues rings strength for its own sake: someone who sees it as an end in and of itself, rather than as a tool for improving other pursuits. Consider, for example, a power lifter versus as decathlete who lifts weights. The powerlifter's entire focus is on improving their lifts: the decathlete only lifts weights to improve their performance in 10 other tasks. The decathlete can improve their performance by lifting weights, but only up to a point: too much weights, and they're not spending enough time actually training the 10 events they're supposed to be really good at. Similarly, if you're training rings as a supplement to build strength for your primary discipline(s), you will eventually reach a point where progressing further will require more effort than it's worth - this is true of any sort of supplemental training.

 

The question being debated here is when exactly that point is reached. One one side of the debate, we have some who people are hypothesizing that learning an iron cross is hard enough that the effort required outweighs the benefits for someone who wants to pursue Ido's many interests - a "movement generalist". On the other side, (myself included) are those who believe that the IC is well worth achieving for someone in such a situation, simply because the general strength carryover is very useful. 

Joshua Slocum said:

A "rings specialist" would be someone who pursues rings strength for its own sake: someone who sees it as an end in and of itself, rather than as a tool for improving other pursuits. Consider, for example, a power lifter versus as decathlete who lifts weights. The powerlifter's entire focus is on improving their lifts: the decathlete only lifts weights to improve their performance in 10 other tasks. The decathlete can improve their performance by lifting weights, but only up to a point: too much weights, and they're not spending enough time actually training the 10 events they're supposed to be really good at. Similarly, if you're training rings as a supplement to build strength for your primary discipline(s), you will eventually reach a point where progressing further will require more effort than it's worth - this is true of any sort of supplemental training.

 

The question being debated here is when exactly that point is reached. One one side of the debate, we have some who people are hypothesizing that learning an iron cross is hard enough that the effort required outweighs the benefits for someone who wants to pursue Ido's many interests - a "movement generalist". On the other side, (myself included) are those who believe that the IC is well worth achieving for someone in such a situation, simply because the general strength carryover is very useful. 

Nailed it, thread concluded.

Joshua Slocum said:

A "rings specialist" would be someone who pursues rings strength for its own sake: someone who sees it as an end in and of itself, rather than as a tool for improving other pursuits. Consider, for example, a power lifter versus as decathlete who lifts weights. The powerlifter's entire focus is on improving their lifts: the decathlete only lifts weights to improve their performance in 10 other tasks. The decathlete can improve their performance by lifting weights, but only up to a point: too much weights, and they're not spending enough time actually training the 10 events they're supposed to be really good at. Similarly, if you're training rings as a supplement to build strength for your primary discipline(s), you will eventually reach a point where progressing further will require more effort than it's worth - this is true of any sort of supplemental training.

The question being debated here is when exactly that point is reached. One one side of the debate, we have some who people are hypothesizing that learning an iron cross is hard enough that the effort required outweighs the benefits for someone who wants to pursue Ido's many interests - a "movement generalist". On the other side, (myself included) are those who believe that the IC is well worth achieving for someone in such a situation, simply because the general strength carryover is very useful.

So what do you think? Does learning IC make you a ring specialist? If not when does the time come

alan tseng said:

So what do you think? Does learning IC make you a ring specialist? If not when does the time come

Both of your questions are answered in the post you quoted.

So what do you think? Does learning IC make you a ring specialist? If not when does the time come

No, there are more than a handful of Level 8's through 10 who compete iron cross.

Let's take for example, my buddy. In college he competed a cross but didn't compete a straddle planche ( 5'11 170). He also competed an inverted cross and though rings was one of his best events (he started gymnastics late) he was more of an all arounder. It just happened that his ring routine was fairly competitive more so than his other events because you can get by if you are strong and it's not as difficult as an event as say pommel horse or high bar.