2.1.2018 “Sport Specific”

Okay, I’m going to go back into my rant about “Sport-Specific” and “Functional”. I like “Functional Training” slightly better than “Sport specific training”, but that is like saying I like smashing my pinkie to slightly better than smashing my little finger. When someone tells me they do sports specific training, my immediate thought (which is most often caught by my filter keeping it as an “inside voice”) is “how cute”.

We know, unequivocally, that sports lead to injuries. Whether they be direct contact injuries or non-contact injuries, we know that injuries and sports go hand in hand. Why, then, on God’s Green Earth would we spend more time doing “Sport-specific” things. Point 2 – What is more sport specific than, say, actually practicing their sport. I can train a runner, but I’m not a throwing coach. Even a crappy throwing coach is better than me, but I can make people better throwers WITHOUT throwing (or shi$$y drills that look like throwing). Some of our high school coaches unknowingly (or knowingly) are nailing it. Football coaches that want their linemen to take up wrestling for the mobility, great. Basketball coaches that guide their players to go out for the track team to work on their speed, wonderful. Soccer coaches that direct their players to the cross-country team, horrible. No one should do that. (Opps sorry, opinion against any activity that lasts more than 4 minutes.) Even that is good. Maybe they are just trying to get these athletes out of their hair for a season, but, by doing so have actually done a great service to that athlete – diversity. Specialization leads to extinction – we see it in nature all the time.

What about functional. People have a hard time defining this word, let alone anything else associated with the word. About the best definition of the word is one I heard a kettlebell instructor (can’t recall which one) use – functional training improves whatever it is you want to do. Yep, that is about it. The problem is many don’t ask the next question – yes, the person in front of them want’s (needs) to get stronger. We asked that as their goal. But the next question is “Stronger for what?” How they answer dictates everything. Getting an endurance athlete stronger is a very similar path as getting a power lifter stronger, but if we follow the “functional training” mindset won’t look anything the same. Why? Because we think we understand what is going on in the sport (and in all fairness, we probably do. At a superficial level).

Tell me this persons sport. George stands on his field of play On cue, he lowers into an athletic stance. The shifts his weight left, then moves to the right. Immediately, George sprints forward for 3 steps. He then plants is left foot into the ground and comes to an immediate stop, spins 180 degrees and immediately jumps into the air.

Is that a football receiver going out on a route, or a basketball player trying to get open and then jumping for the ball. What about a baseball infielder going after a ball and then throwing to first? The point is, if we look at what is functional for almost all of our court/field sports there is a lot of crossover. Athletes run, plant, cut, jump, dive, raise their center of mass, lower their center of mass, they shuffle left, crossover right and any/every combination in between.

I’ll leave you with this – what is the weight room equivalent to sport specific training with a barbell or kettlebell. You don’t get any of the fancy bands/toys that get all the attention. You get the tools that get results. What is the equivalent?