i've found this article published in a italian site. i've read it and now i'm just confused because in the post named "maximal strength is not a panacea" is clear the point of the Coach, but reading this article i was surprised, nothing wrong with the words of the article..
i'm sorry that the article is in italian, if i can i try to translate it but now i'm on exams, by the way if you have some time i think you can find very interesting this article.
the author is analizying the balistic bench he written these conclusions:
-The power of the bench ballistic is equal to the power of the bench not ballistic for loads ranging from 30% up. No need to do the ballistic bench to generate power, the bench is fine, contrary to what until now had always thought.
- The power generated with light loads by those who have a high maximal is much higher than that of those who have a low maximal: the maximum counts for the generation of power, with all the loads, even with those first deemed to be specific for the power.
he is reporting the study of Hill about strength and also talking about Vladimir M.Zatsiorsky ' s book.
he said "I repeat it yet again ... the maximal is important.
The practical application, therefore, is that if you're training for the strength you are training also the force power. If you want to be powerful in the upper body, just be strong in the upper part of the body"
this seems to be in contrast with the idea of coach Sommer that maximal strength limits the explosive strength
i wait for more opinions