286
Pics, Videos, & Links / Re: Gerald Green 50 inch jump windmill alleyoop
« on: March 19, 2012, 11:34:28 pm »
lotta speed going into that plant.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
287
ADARQ & LanceSTS - Q&A / Re: Problem focusing on doing good form on 1st rep?
« on: March 14, 2012, 11:10:03 pm »
Sometimes my first set is harder than the rest. But i wouldn't call that a focusing problem for me, but rather just warm up problem. After 1-2 sets I get in groove and it's slightly easier.
288
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: Strenght not correlating with jump....
« on: March 11, 2012, 07:41:28 pm »I didn't say they couldn't. In fact I said they can make you more explosive. But in isolation they make you slow.
Could you elaborate?
I didn't elaborate yet?
IN the context of a complete program, of course heavy lifting will make you faster and more explosive and bring your RFD up between 0.05-0.3ish s or whichever time frame you need it to be.
But considering that heavy lifts take a lot longer than 0.05-0.3s, they want to shift your RFD to the right, making you stronger only in time frames that are greater than that which is relevant to sport. Therefore, in isolation, one might become stronger in 0.7s, but not at 0.08s, where ground contacts typically last in sprinting for instance.
But sport is variable. I'm not saying that if a particular movement has a duration of 0.2s, heavy lifting will make it worse. I'm just pointing out that heavy lifting will slow down the movement. If the movement, such as a SVJ, improves, it does so probably because the duration increased. My personal experience, and what I've seen in videos, has lead me to this conclusion. Using Kingfish as an example, his SVJ takes a while and the amortization is very deep, because the dominant motor pattern in his brain is that of a deep below parallel paused squat. If he drops this for 2 weeks, his jump is going to change.
I accept that I could be completely wrong, just for the record. I've been experiencing this, and thinking about it since 5/2011 when I became more mindful of my training. Heavy lifts improved strength, but I would tend to drop faster stuff, and therefore I would become a lot slower. Just sprints/bounding/light explosive lifting would not imrpove SVJ, but did improve RVJ and sprints. Heavy lifting always makes sprints slower in terms of stride frequency, and ground contact too probably.
Doing both at the same time was usually impossible because these motor patterns I'm starting to believe are competing in the brain. Just like concurrent endurance/strength training, I've started to think that concurrent short duration explosive stuff and long duration heavy lifting competes for space in the brain. This is my hypothesis. And this is why in my own program, I taper down heavy lifting (or any lifting that takes longer than.. 0.5s), or taper down bounding, to focus on either RFD or strength alone.
Other reasons why a triple/long/high jumper might not want to do too much heavy lifting is that jumps and plyos hypertrophy the tendons and bones much more than lifting. As I have mentioned before, on a sprints/bounding/lightweight sofa lifting program for 8 weeks over the summer, my RVJ off of both plants went up 6-8 inches (28ish to 35ish entire hand over the 9'10 rim) I was weak as shit. So there is a lot more to it than strength imo and force is not just a product of muscular contraction (or even recruitment of motor units).
But I admit I need to just sit down and read more and find studies to back this up. I feel like this stuff isn't chemistry where you cannot base it off your instincts. But this type of science can be invented, just like philosphy, especially because it relies on feel, or kinesthetic learning. So my personal experience will be very important.
289
Pics, Videos, & Links / Re: Russian Training Video
« on: March 10, 2012, 07:33:47 pm »
I want to train on trampolines/springboards/springmats so bad. There are some old springy benches at this park near my house that I used today that feel like a springboard. The potentiation is great.
290
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: Strenght not correlating with jump....
« on: March 10, 2012, 07:25:43 pm »All heavy lifts are slow lifts. Period.
Ok , that's where i exit this thread , cheers!
avishek, the'yre slow lifts, but that does NOT mean they cannot have a smililar effect to explosive lifts buddy.
I didn't say they couldn't. In fact I said they can make you more explosive. But in isolation they make you slow.
291
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: Strenght not correlating with jump....
« on: March 08, 2012, 10:26:36 pm »Ok , those are better arguments. Besides the caps and ass references!They are the same arguments. What is better is your understanding of it.
The 16% 1RM works for my argument though , the less the 1RM difference shown in that graph the more the heavy resistance curve is deliverately 'shortened' and hinders higher strength's benefits.How is it "deliberately" shortened? What is deliberately shortening it? And by shortening you are talking about the 0.2s timeframe right? Because in that case, the curve is being "shortened" due to a program dominated by heavy resistance training.
About kingfish , i mentioned him as an example of someone that dramaticaly increased his VJ pushing limit strength.Yes I knew that.
He chose to shift his curve upwards and won.Right what I am saying is he achieved one goal, in the time frame of around 0.4s ish.
If you can shift your curve up AND left ,then you win more , noone will disagree on that.Right,
1. Up and left relative to a specific time frame. If you look at the graph again, the curve is shifted left, but not up overall, in that 1RM is clearly less in the explosive-ballistic trained group, however at 0.2s, it is greater up, so up+ left happened in the graph (actually it didn't because they didn't tae the heavy resistance trained group and put them on the explosiveballistic trained program.. but for our purposes that is a better way of lookig at it since that is what we are trying to prescribe).
Ruso is not that strong though , he squats ~300, imo getting stronger is a better choice for him.
Front squat though. But more importantly, he said he has seen no change in his vertical jump. That's more important than the overall number.
But you argue with me as if i favoured slow lifts, i never said anything about slow lifts. If you feel like it , go back to the 1st page and see my repy to you where i say i hate how heavy strength training is considered powerlifting grinders. You jsut confirmed that stereotype i think...All heavy lifts are slow lifts. Period. If it's greater than 0.2ms, it's slow. If your goal is to increase power in 0.4s, training at 0.5s is slow. That's not necessarily bad, and the difference between 0.5 and 0.4 is marginal, but with lifting, we are talking more like 4.0 and 50 seconds per repeition, and time undertension, which is just on another level of "slow."
I think our different ways of seeing vert training meet at Verkoshansky's MSEM method.
Maybe it would be a good idea for ruso too...
maybe, I remember the details of that method except it invovles too much exercise (5d/wk right?). I dont have time for that.
Ruso however doesn't look slow in his videos. I am not sure our arguments are even relevant anymore, i.e., it's not abotu strength or speed anymore, it's about his form. He is using his glutes and hips to jump. He needs to use his quads. However in his depth jump, it looks more balanced. So Don't know what to say about that, keep doing depth jumps.
But more clearly in the svj, he's not using those 300+lbs front squat strength because he is jumping using a similar movement pattern as his power snatch. Look at 1:34 on page 2 of his latest video. That's not a vertical jump, that's a bend-your-hips-back-and-jump. This might be better for a BROAD JUMP.
IN FACT RUSO... WHAT IS YOUR BROAD JUMP?
Also back angle tells us a lot about hip involvement.
Jump squats though imo are a good idea still because that will force him to use his quads when jumping and help transfer that latent front squat strength to strength in a 1/2 squat position. So..
Keep front squats
But do jump squats too. That's it nothing else. Do them in 1/2 half position. and 1/4 position, and below parallel.
And try to SVJ more slowly using quads.
292
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: Strenght not correlating with jump....
« on: March 08, 2012, 03:22:58 pm »Quote
RIght then don't judge the way I act. Not that I mind, but of course if it's incorrect i will reply. That's not starting a war, that's called an intelligent debate.
@avishek:
I am not interested in an internet war. No comments about judging/amygdala etc.
Quote
About my curves analysis , you saying that i pulled the 1RM 20% difference from my ass shows you don't even have a clue of what those curves show and how to read them. I stand to what i said , maths 101.
RIght the y axis is not labeled so I was asking you how you figured it was a 20% difference.
Measuring by simple ruler method, the 1RM for heavy resistance trained is 35/16'' and for explosive-ballistic trained 30/16''. This results in a ratio of 7/6, which means the 1RM for the heavy strength group is 16.666%higher.
Quote
We need to be more technical. KINGFISH is not an example of anything. KINGFISH'S athletic achievements, are. And the only one I've seen that is related to the force/time graph, is his vertical jump.
About kingfish , he is a perfect example of how 1RM training improves RFD too, resulting superior jumping. You contradicted that by saying his VJ is 'longer in duration' and it doesn't provide us power information. That is a vastly retarded argument, VJ-training-wise. It points to me that you lack basic understanding of the vertical jump mechanics and physics.
Yes, his RFD improves. But you need to be exact. His rate of force development IN A CERTAIN TIME FRAME, such as the time it takes him to perform a vertical jump, of course improves, thus, he jumps higher. Obvious. But what I argued, is that the time it takes Kingfish to perform a standing vertical jump, is much greater than 0.2s, therefore, his force/time curve looks more like heavy strength trained athlete (as time increases, force increases), but this is not to say he is weak at 0.2s. I'm just saying if he were to train ump squats, I think he could shift his curve to the left and become mroe explosive in movements where force application is no greater than 0.2 s, such as sprinting.
There is no doubt you want the whole curve to be very high. But it needs to be highest at the relevant time frame. Thus heavy lifting in the absence of faster liftings prevents that. Heavy lifting together with faster lifting, does help accomplish it, but more slowly than with no heavy lifts at all imo, because the different motor patterns compete.
Quote
Still , those should be used to make you express higher percentages of your limit strength ( 1RM ) in the short time window that a jump occurs. Training only RFD will make your limit strength decrease ( or not increase ).
Ever increasing 1RM while maintaining explosiveness and jumping ability/coordination is the only way to go.
Ok, well thank you for pulling another load of bs from your ass. You just reiterated by ENTIRE ARGUMENT. I proposed a 6 WEEK PHASE for ruso, which is not at all complicated. I didn't tell him to do only RFD work for the rest of his life. Furthermore, RFD work doesn't have to decrease 1RM either. We already know that heavy (80%+) and moderate resistance lifting (50-60%1RM) result in the same increases in strength. But if it does, it will be a temporary decrease resulting from neural changes.
Quote
Ever increasing 1RM while maintaining explosiveness and jumping ability/coordination is the only way to go.
THIS, is why we disagree. And this is defintiely not the only way to go imo. Infact it's bad. As I just mentioned, and as dreyth pointed out, decreases in 1RM from going on a RFD phase without heavy lifting can decrease 1RM neurally, and has NOTHING TO DO WITH MUSCULAR STRENGTH. You can relearn that strength within a short time frame as long as you CUT OUT the faster lifts.
The benefits of dropping slow lifts, is to erase a slow motor pattern. Since this is not a problem for ruso, it doesn't matter anyway. But for an extremely slow strength trained jumper, every workout of slow heavy lifting reinforces a slow movement. Dropping these slow movements for a few weeks, shaves off a reinforced motor pattern, and allows an athlete to express his or herself in a faster time frame. THis is why I think it's beneficial to go just 2-4 weeks without any of it.
293
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: Strenght not correlating with jump....
« on: March 08, 2012, 02:17:48 pm »In the past month, my squat 1RM decreased by around 40lbs from going on a bounding/explosive phase (I did 265 below parallel, but probbaly cannot do 225 now). However my 10/20m sprints, bounds, and vertical jump, and broad jump have all seen PRs.
You probably just lost neural strength in the squat and not so much muscle strength.
Yes this is very possible. Which is why i used the word "transient" loss in 1RM may not be bad because it is somewhat arbitrary.
294
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: Strenght not correlating with jump....
« on: March 08, 2012, 11:03:35 am »
The 80% 1RM jump squats are basically the same thing as speed squats with the optino to jump at the end. So we can call them speed squats.
I was talking about jup squats in 1/2 squat in particular.
Does everyone agree that he is hip dominant?
I was talking about jup squats in 1/2 squat in particular.
Does everyone agree that he is hip dominant?
295
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: Strenght not correlating with jump....
« on: March 08, 2012, 10:41:19 am »
In regards to ruso.
He doesn't look slow at all. He looks hip dominant however. Snacthces are hip dominant. I suggest jump squats. (open to debate of course as always).
Also do you realize you are looking at the ground while depth jumping?
He doesn't look slow at all. He looks hip dominant however. Snacthces are hip dominant. I suggest jump squats. (open to debate of course as always).
Also do you realize you are looking at the ground while depth jumping?
296
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: Strenght not correlating with jump....
« on: March 08, 2012, 10:38:41 am »Can you elaborate on point two? It sounds to me like you're trying to move the heavy resistance training curve to the left. This is exactly what some jumps/ballistic training will do; they shift the heavy resistance trained athlete to an "explosive-ballistic trained" athlete, with the newfound ability to produce more force in smaller time frames.
I am not trying to shift the heavy resistance to the left , i am trying to shift it UPWARDS. What you've shown is a figure of 2 people with 20% difference in 1RM , it should be 100% or 200%. If you don't get what i mean , back to maths 101 or don't post mathematical figures again.
You're trying to shift the whole line upwards? Ok that is one strategy. Also there is not a 20% difference in 1RM. Unless you measured it with a ruler and calculated the exact difference you are pulling that out of your ass.
What I am suggesting is shifting the area under the curve around 0.1-0.2seconds (or whatever time frame is defined as being "quick") upward. But not the whole thing. Your strategy can work too, but I don't see any objection to to what i'm saying. Since that is most common and what is most recommended and is probably a better way because you can't just hope to see the whole curve just go up. Yeha being strong is fun, but when it's time for competition, you may be better off going on an explosive phase.
Also from explosive training, you may decrease your 1RM in the short term, but since the 1RM does not take place in the time frame of interest (0.2s for instance), it is irrelevant (ok i'll state it less storngly so you don't think I think I'm a guru.. it MAY BE IRRELEVANT).
This is what I base my suggestions off of. Therefore, you can transiently decrease your 1RM but jump higher, by increasing force production in the desired time frame. But yeah this is what I think, and I don't have 100 case studies to back it up. Maybe one day I will.
However all of this is based on training theory so it is practical and makes sense. Zatsiorsky for instance, and the graph I presented.
In the past month, my squat 1RM decreased by around 40lbs from going on a bounding/explosive phase (I did 265 below parallel, but probbaly cannot do 225 now). However my 10/20m sprints, bounds, and vertical jump, and broad jump have all seen PRs.
My box squat has decreased too. I would however need to perform more rigorous research and testing for conclusive results.
My deads are weaker (sorta.. not that much). Front squat is weaker, but was way stronger too just 3 weeks ago when I did 225x3x2.
Say names. Who is strong and injury-free but can't jump? Everyone in here trains pushing 1RM and everyone PRs in jumps , all the time.
The author of this post. But no other names, not necessary not going there. This is of course my sense from reading journals. But if you reallllly want, let's look at all the active journals, all the people pursuing strength, and look at the number of PRs IN MEASURE OF SPEED UNDER 0.3S, or any other criteria, or all criteria, such as measures of speed between 0.05-0.15s - sprinting, 0.15-0.25s - depth jumps 0.25-0.4 - SVJs in the time frame in which they have been pursuing strength? Do you want me to go there? I can next weekend cuz I have spring break. This is the only real way to know.
A meta-analysis of the active training journals.QuoteYou act like a training guru that discovered all the super secret gimmicks to xplosive vertz inchez
No need to judge how I think/act. My philosophy is that I know nothing actually. So I don't believe anything you say, or hold any strong opinions. However, I state them strongly, to stimulate discussion. This is fact. It may offend you, and it is a form of manipulation, but I don't say things that I believe are wrong. For example I won't firmly state, "perform depth drops with 135lbs from 24'' for 2 weeks)"
You cannot analyze the way I think effectively using only my posts on a forum. You'd have to have a in-person verbal debate with me on this issue to really understand how I think.
But yeah, as always, if you'd actually like to provide any rationale discussion apart from things likeQuoteLMAO , you can't be that retarded and believe any word of that shit-tastic paragraph. Come on , admit it , you're just trolling me and i fell for it!and statements like this which deviate from the discussion:QuoteI don't have anything personal with you.(great, I dont care, me neither, I only like discussing ideas).
or things likeQuoteLOLwhich promote the amygdala response I have cited numerous times. Here is a layman's guide to this response: http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/51483/handling-the-hijack.pdf
297
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: a fast and explosive donkey!
« on: March 06, 2012, 10:56:16 pm »also yes, my eccentric is probably pretty slow.
THen you have no excuse. You can still track some improvements such as awkwardness of exercise, ground contact time, muscle involvement, hangtime sorta. You don't really need a jumpmat to train for jumping...modern day excuses ftw
298
Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion / Re: Strenght not correlating with jump....
« on: March 06, 2012, 10:50:51 pm »I disagree with the analysis above. A few points:Can you elaborate on point two? It sounds to me like you're trying to move the heavy resistance training curve to the left. This is exactly what some jumps/ballistic training will do; they shift the heavy resistance trained athlete to an "explosive-ballistic trained" athlete, with the newfound ability to produce more force in smaller time frames.
2)This figure it evidently ( and imo deliberately ) wrong because the heavy resistance trained person's limit strength is ~20% bigger than the untrained one's and ~10% bigger than the explosive trained. Redraw the heavy resistance trained curve so that the peak strength is 2-3 times higher than the untrained force and put the explosive trained curve somewhere in the middle. Even at 0.2seconds the heavy resistance trained force will be higher than both others.
4) kingfish!!!
I won't say any names here but there are so many examples of individuals who lift heavy, yet cannot produce force quickly, i.e. many strong people, who are slow and don't jump high at all, and don't see improvements despite getting stronger. All I recommended were some exercises that shift the curve to the left, which Kingfish also recommended, and pretty much everyone else who provided training advice.
About kingfish, is there any evidence that he is producing more relative power than ballistically-trained individuals in 0.2s? All the videos I've seen are standing vertical jumps, which are very impressive, but also much longer in duration than 0.2s. So I'm afraid, kingfish is not your answer to this problem. Kingfish only provides us clues about SVJ, but not other measures of power. His curve therefore will look similar to the heavy strength trained athlete's. I'd be interested in seeing Kingfish drop the daily squats, and focus on some deep jump squats suing 2-3 plates.
About heavy deep squat jumps, it's really not that hard. And I recommend it as a transition into real ballistic training, since jumping straight into cleans and jump squats and sprints is very awkward when your RFD is far to the right and your CNS is used to slower movements. It's very good. The nay sayers don't really have any half-witted rationale for their arguments against deep jump squats. It's very good.
299
Nutrition & Supplementation / Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« on: March 06, 2012, 01:30:04 am »
But yes it is a model. A model that naive consumers are unsuccessfully using to achieve photoshopped physiques on the front of shitty magazines, and destroy their health.
Strange that you blame the fitness industry on calories-in-calories-out model. It seems it's a little harder to sell diet advice and supplements when you say "Eat less energy and you lose weight". I'd actually argue that the fitness industry makes a lot of money by getting overweight people to believe that losing weight is a super complicated process for which they need to buy the latest book, or read the latest article or take the new pill or herbal supplement....
I had not realized that this discussion blew up. I will respond. I suppose T0dday it's a matter of opinion. As a personal trainer, I can attest that most programs invovle caloric reduction. Most gyms also push supplements, so you are right about that. The promotion of a whole foods nutrient rich diet howver, does not exist among mainstream fitness advice. This is my priority however.
About calories in - out -
Let's take a tour into logical theory, because many of the arguments that support caloric restriction for weight loss are based on logical fallacy.
With any given statement, there exists a converse, inverse, and contrapositive. Copied from from: http://www.jimloy.com/logic/converse.htm
statement: if p then q
converse: if q then p
inverse: if not p then not q
contrapositive: if not q then not p
If the statement is true, the contrapositive is true. If the converse is true, so is the inverse.
Our statement is: If calories in < calories out, a living creature* loses fat mass.
converse: If a human being loses fat mass, living entity who follows thermodynamic laws' calories in < calories out
inverse: if calories in ? calories out (or calories in ? calories out), a living entity does not lose fat mass
contrapositive: if a living entity does not lose fat mass, calories in ? calories out (or calories in ? calories out)
*living creature instead of human because we are analysing the laws of thermodynamics in living systems, therefore human vs. rodent should not matter since both should obey the laws of thermodynamics.
On to the twinkie diet:
Human being lost fat via caloric restriction. The only thing this can possibly prove, is the contrapositve. However, the twinkie intervention does not prove the converse, based on logical theory. However, it is commonly cited to prove the converse, to prove that the subject lost fat mass, because calories in was less than calories out. Fallacy #1.
Counter point?: refeeding (I need to study for an exam so I am not going to try to find any links right now). Cheat days. Intermittent fasting and 2000 calorie dinners. japanese people aeting 2700 kcals a day and being slimmer than american people eating less.
Matt Stone's RRARF diet.
-note on the NEJM study. 4kg weight loss after 2 years is unimpressive. THis study also only proves the first statement true and cannot be used to prove the converse true (according to logical theory, which is open to debate).
-more proof disobeying the laws of thermodynamics? hibernating golden-mantled ground squirrel:
Hibernating rodents such as squirrels and marmots typically fatten in the spring, consuming ad libitum, then suddenly cease feeding in the winter. The study cited below found that from Sept. - Feb. these squirrels on a caloric-restriction dietlost fat free mass only
source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11073788
This is just one example of how fat loss can stop on a calorie-reduction diet. We all know this very well.
Inverse: if calories in ? calories out (or calories in ? calories out), a human does not lose fat mass
Counterpoint: refeeding, again, and all the other examples. THe raw food vegan diet (people consume pounds of high sugar fruit and lose weight. ubjects claim to "eat however much they want." Mechanism? AMPK activation I presume. Low protein = more ampk and is why low protein diets produce weight loss as well (as long as we're not talking about processed sugary + poly fat combinations).
contrapositive: if you don't lose fat, you didn't restrict calories.
False also. There is enogh human testimony documenting the stalled fat loss resulting from caloric restriction that I will leave it at that. I've seen it first-hand as well. Eat more, lose more weight. There's a lot more to it. And that's why even as a 'model that isn't perfect' it should not be ever mentioned at all, because of the approach it recommends. It tells people to eat less. this doesn't work.
This doesn't solve the issue of WHY WE EAT LESS. Telling someone to just restrict their calories, is a symtomatic solution. Maybe they ate more because they were stressed out, sleep deprived, have thyroid issues, have other brain issues and messed up feedback signals, poor D2 signaling/receptors, prone to addiction..list goes on. But even if calories in - ot model doesn't solve the "WHY" question, it's wrong for other reasons and is refuted over and over again.
Final conclusions for this lengthy ramble:
Fat loss has interesting biochemistry. Caloric restriction results in some of this magic biochemsitry to occur. One of the more important signals controlling fat loss is AMPK. This can be achieved through exercise, through intermittent fasting, through resveratrol, through quercetin (weakly albeit), and through caloric restrction, and through restriction of certain amino acids.
Therefore, we're talking about specific biochemistry here when discussion fat loss. The refutation of calories in - calories out, will ultimately come from better evidence than I can provide here examining how the biochemistry engendered by caloric restriction promotes fat gain, through a depressed metabolism, reduced leptin/T3/dopamine/catecholamines in the long term.
300
Progress Journals & Experimental Routines / Re: a fast and explosive donkey!
« on: March 06, 2012, 12:49:06 am »
Congrats on the PRs.
1. Definitely upload a video sometime soon. 34 is no joke. 31.5svj is also no joke. COngrats.
2. Sounds like depth jumps may be a good idea to focus on. Last time you did them was 2/21 I noticed. Maybe substitute it in for something else because if it really sucked today, that means there is a lot of room for improvement. So it's always a good thing imo when something "sucks," because it means it needs to be trained.
-one more perversion of thought: if your depth jumps suck, maybe also work on squat jumps (1/2 squat position - so fairly deep) to help yourself absorb force better in the eccentric. Do you have a slow eccentric in your SVJ? I would guess that you do if you cannot perform as well as your rvjs and svjs in a depth jump. It would also make since since you've been squatting for a while which results in slow eccentrics during svjs unless you're training fast eccentrics concurrently through a lot of jumping or if you are frank yang (who also trained very fast, and has the fastest SVJ i've ever seen in my life).
1. Definitely upload a video sometime soon. 34 is no joke. 31.5svj is also no joke. COngrats.
2. Sounds like depth jumps may be a good idea to focus on. Last time you did them was 2/21 I noticed. Maybe substitute it in for something else because if it really sucked today, that means there is a lot of room for improvement. So it's always a good thing imo when something "sucks," because it means it needs to be trained.
-one more perversion of thought: if your depth jumps suck, maybe also work on squat jumps (1/2 squat position - so fairly deep) to help yourself absorb force better in the eccentric. Do you have a slow eccentric in your SVJ? I would guess that you do if you cannot perform as well as your rvjs and svjs in a depth jump. It would also make since since you've been squatting for a while which results in slow eccentrics during svjs unless you're training fast eccentrics concurrently through a lot of jumping or if you are frank yang (who also trained very fast, and has the fastest SVJ i've ever seen in my life).