The Rationale Behind Mastery Requirements and Progression Sequence

Hello all!

 

I was unable to find this sort of discussion with a search, but if one exists I'd appreciate someone guiding me there! 

 

This forum and coach's book were absolutely key in my early development in and introduction to gymnastics strength back in 2008, which is when I joined my high school's gymnastics team as a complete beginner at the age of 16. I recently purchased handstand one and foundation one, and have been happy to revisit GB and experience how it has developed over the years. 

 

Being an aspiring teacher as well as trainee, I'm particularly interested in the principles informing the protocols and programs I engage in. 

 

First, here are some principles from GB that have contributed greatly to my understanding of strength development: (Note that these are things I learned several years ago, and I understand that the thinking may have evolved since then in relation to these. Any updated thoughts of GB's methodology are welcome.)

 

1. Muscles adapt, recover, and gain strength far faster than connective tissue does. This imbalance must be addressed in training in order to remain healthy and allow the supporting structures to keep up.

 

2. The use of leverage and progressions in building a high level of strength using mostly body weight, and of course the exercises, progressions, and programs themselves.

 

3. The effectiveness of building maximal strength before even endurance and power, because while strength positively contributes to those, it does not work in reverse.

 

Here are some questions I have about the current programs and methodology:

 

1. How are mastery criteria determined? What is it about those particular set and rep goals that determine that the performance of the exercise has reached mastery?

 

2. Is it necessary to move through these progressions linearly? For example, why not work HS PE1/PE2/PE3 progressions (which get one used to being inverted) concurrently with PE4/PE5, and so on, which seem to work more on the bodyline? Some progressions are clearly more difficult and complex variations of the previous ones and require competence with those prior movements, but in some cases the later progressions seem like they would feed into the development of the previous ones and vice-versa. Why not use a nonlinear approach in these cases?

 

Note that I am not trying to reinvent the wheel or criticize these programs in any way, as I am very well aware of coach's vast experience and wisdom in GST programming (and that it exponentially exceeds my own). This is not a question on how to use or customize the programs, I'm merely looking to better understand the thinking behind the method as given. 

 

Thank you in advance! Looking forward to the discussion.

 

 

 

 

jeremyfrias said:

 

2. Is it necessary to move through these progressions linearly? .... Why not use a nonlinear approach in these cases?

 

One simple reason is to keep the courses easy to follow.  You have 7 goals to work on and take 1 step toward each goal each week. A nonlinear approach would make this very complicated very quickly.  I image coach's one-on-one training isn't as linear since he can personally cater to strengths and weaknesses.  But as a web-based course that fits a broad audience, linear is quite effective.

Jeremy Huston said:

One simple reason is to keep the courses easy to follow. You have 7 goals to work on and take 1 step toward each goal each week. A nonlinear approach would make this very complicated very quickly. I image coach's one-on-one training isn't as linear since he can personally cater to strengths and weaknesses. But as a web-based course that fits a broad audience, linear is quite effective.

Yes that would definitely make things more complicated.

My guess that is that it's a matter of focusing your time and energy as efficiently as possible. Keep in mind that if you demonstrate mastery of a PE/iM pair that you don't have to spend more time doing training blocks of that exercise pair and can instead just "skip" to the next pair. If you can't though, then this signifies a deficit/weakness in your kinetic chain (strength or mobility wise) and therefore you need to put your effort into fixing/shoring up that weakness.

If you instead were to diffuse your energy and time into 3-4 exercises for the same movement pattern you would most likely get worse results, not better ones. That and your workouts would likely become much longer (again most likely leading to lower quality of work at a certain point).

Finally, perhaps you are correct about Coach's personal clients not having as rigid of a structure. But then again he stated in one of the webinars that he had one student who it took something like 2 years (can't remember the exact time frame) to learn a flip and Coach would not let him move on to learn other types of flips till he mastered that one (seemingly because he actually does follow a very rigid and linear structure). Once the student mastered that flip he blew through learning 3-4 other types of flips in a couple months. So again, it actually sounds to me like the courses are based on his direct (and obviously super effective) training methods that he uses with his athletes.

Which reminds me to go listen to the awesome webinars again!

YU're asking to write down in simple and few words the result of year and years and years of experience and knowledge.

After about 4-5 years i'm understanding the logic behind the GB programs. in the last 5 years i've analyzed them from the biomechanic  pov, physioteraphy pov, technical pov and more. and only recently I can merge the information from different perspectives. 

it is practically impossible give a complete explanation of the logic behind GB approach. 

Thank you for the responses so far! I apologize for the delay in my own responses, have been busy with travels lately.

Jeremy Huston said:

One simple reason is to keep the courses easy to follow.  You have 7 goals to work on and take 1 step toward each goal each week. A nonlinear approach would make this very complicated very quickly.  I image coach's one-on-one training isn't as linear since he can personally cater to strengths and weaknesses.  But as a web-based course that fits a broad audience, linear is quite effective.

 

A very good point!

Zach Armijo said:

It's not just simply going through motions and mimicking the exercises. That will only get you so far. Only once you take the time to understand the methods and madness, can you really start to see the cream rise to the top and utilize the knowledge in different ways.

Completely agree here, which was part of the rationale for starting this thread. I see action and appropriate reflection as effective ways of growing so that one doesn't just become dependent on what others say to do. I realize that much of this kind of understanding takes time and critical thinking. My inclusion of some of my own takeaways and understandings from my experience with GB thus far was not only to share but to also serve as a sort of template for what kinds of things one might learn along their path, and I was hoping to learn what some more experienced people have come up with through their own journeys in this methodology.

Any insights related to the original question on mastery requirements?

Ha, while doing a set up of 50 V-ups... "but the mastery requirement is only 15!"

Zach Armijo said:

You will have a lot of time to reflect when your surpass it, then revisit to make it your own.

Great post; this sentence particularly stuck out to me. I used to very much over think this stuff, still tend to, but have learnt that questions do answer themselves during the process.

Zach Armijo said:

The Mastery requirements more or less test you based on your work capacity, ROM, or strength.

 

Pretty obvious the strength is tested across the 5 rep range. Later in your F3/4, 5 reps of certain elements will just flat out suck. But they are right at the sweet spot of laying down new neural patterns as well as the appropriate strength to grow and move on. 

 

As seen in F1, you are being tested against your work capacity coupled with form. This isn't just form for the sake of being correct. This is form that will HAVE to become natural in your gymnastics career. It's a constant reinforcement of that form so it will be ingrained in you.

 

Other elements such as Hinge Rows need to be a little beyond strength but not full blown endurance either. It needs to prep and reinforce you while also getting you use to a longer endurance set.

 

I'm sure we could try to break down every element and discuss why, but does it really matter that much?

 

Going back to the critical thinking aspect of it all, you will find your elements that you choose to pursue beyond what is prescribed. 10 tuck ups...are you kidding me?! Let's do sets of 50 coupled with 30 V ups. Hell...we were even punished in old seminars with 50 V ups...and there was a lot of punishing.

 

It would be worth more of your time to put your nose in the dirt and get to training rather than rip apart something that might not be there with any significant meaning other than it is what it is. You will have a lot of time to reflect when your surpass it, then revisit to make it your own.  

Thank you for your thoughtful post Zach. There's certainly a lot to be said for the work capacity that foundation lays down in the beginning, as well as the other attributes mentioned. 

 

In the past year, before purchasing and beginning F1, I had a lot of success with a more intuitive form of training that does not put much emphasis into sets and reps, but puts a premium on quality of movement and perceived effort (making a movement feel as easy as possible before thinking of adding intensity or moving on to another progression). This is why the use of predetermined numbers (sets and reps) as the training goal has been somewhat difficult to transition back into, especially since every person is so different. Of course, they are necessary, but striking a balance between quantity and quality is an ongoing process for me personally. The growth (particularly, work capacity) that can be gained from a purely intuitive approach is certainly limited! 

 

Intuitive movement got me from a deconditioned state into one that surpassed even the previous peak (one gained through more conventional GST), which probably had a lot to do with remembering previous motor patterns as well as incorporating my new experiences in exploring different disciplines. This intuitive approach, quite honestly, produced a level of amazing progress I could not have anticipated, which is why I'm so fascinated with studying different approaches. In fact, I didn't even consider this kind of training to be "training" at all, I just looked at it as moving a little more than I had been.

 

And of course, the message that rings through these forums is not lost on me. Train, work at it, don't over think. This, I hope, is obvious (though we're all at different stages). I continue and will continue to train. But part of the beauty of having a forum of fellow trainees and GST enthusiasts is to discuss issues and ideas that are pertinent to our training, and thus why I decided to bring a more principles based discussion to the forum as well (and I'm sure this is not the only one).