Adarq.org

Don't get two things confused (and Raptor's post did not exactly help here). There is strength training and there is the usage of techniques that are supposed to be stimulating your nervous system (STIM) so that power output can increase.

Doing 3 sets of squats with high intensity as well as volume (say >3 reps) and doing plyos after is a terrible idea. Doing plyos first would be better. Doing 5 heavy squat singles and continue with jumps or something similar is possible. Whether this would actually potentiate your explosive movements in the same session I tend to doubt, but it is at least not terribly stupid (like the first example) and it might work for a certain population of athletes. The latter is what you call complex training.

Adarqu, I always thought VERTEC testing is rather accurate if done correctly. What problems do you see with it?

beginner with lifting shoes?

I guess you will have a hard time lifting in his gym with bad shoes. I have seen him encourage rank novices in videos to get some good pair of lifting shoes right away. Makes sense to me.

My bad...i've never seen or heard of bumper plates before...and ya he does look like a beginner...
As for the rounding of the back...he is doing it and like I said it is instinctively kind of hard to round your back that much with a bar on your shoulders...but he is still doing it!

The rounded back thing will go away with some practice and a solidified technical execution. He is just learning the proper movement in this video. I have observed the same thing with actually the majority of the few people I coached the exercise to. Only few have good control over their lumbar spine initially. But this sorts itself out rather quickly once some key points of technique are learned and the focus can shift more to keeping everything tight around the torso. The guy in the video did not have that stuff down yet.

Why is that? You won't tell the story with your long forearms now, will you? 

It is sort of funny to read what scholars have to say about the topic of VJ training. I am extremely skeptical towards this information because it is usually based on poorly designed research with limited application value. The information in the article is really shallow, especially regarding appropriate training design. It is just stating conventional wisdom and many points can be debated. I heavily disagree with the standard advice to use a periodization model for everything regardless of training level and I think this is just a waste of time and display of a poor understanding of what will be necessary for example for an athlete without previous exposure to strength training.
The hesitancy on the topic of heavy vs. light loads for strength training I find especially amusing. Those guys are seriously suggesting that it MIGHT be good to let an athlete do "strength" training with <70% of his 1rm? This MIGHT be better because it does not take as long to lift the load? There are so many things wrong and illogical about this thought, that not even the opposite is true and one has to doubt if those people have actually put any thought into this instead of blindly adopting things others have said before to give apology for their idiotic research.

Regarding squat strength: Lifting a heavy weight will slow the lift down. A 1rm will look rather slow for the squat, otherwise it is not a 1rm. The last 1 or 2 reps of a 5rm might look rather similar. Here is the thing though: After you got those last 2 rather slow reps, you might next time be able to do the same number of reps with 5 lbs more and in a month you might have a 5rm considerably heavier than previously. The last reps of that new 5rm will still look slow, but how does the set look like with your previous 5rm weight? Probably not so slow anymore - I think everyone can follow that thought. Now, will that squat strength transfer to gains in the VJ? No, not if the guy training is in fact more advanced than a novice strength trainee. But we are doing resisted explosive lifts, right? See, they do take care of that problem ridiculously well if used correctly. What happened during the heavy training though is that we gained strength and muscle which makes progress in the explosive lifts a lot easier which in turn helps with jumping tremendously.
Now, when we would instead have trained with super light weights, what would have happened is that maybe we would have gotten a little stronger and that strength might even be relatively transferable to a VJ. But the gains would have been vastly inferior considering the trainee did stall in a power phase earlier on. The reason being that max strength, a necessary component of power, would still be a limiting factor.

Just out of curiosity, anyone have idea of those that have achieved elite(37+) via mainyl low bar vs highbar

High bar
kingfish
rip?

low bar
uh?

kingfish is the only person that I know off and whose progress and means to it are somewhat (but not perfectly) pursuable from here and TVS that actually got his SVJ to 37" or higher. That tells me some things about either the general wisdom of how to approach training (for example to make training decisions based upon which of the alternatives you like best while at the same expecting perfect results) OR about the improvements possible in this area. Neither of these things is something people like to hear about, so I will leave it at that.
One also has to observe that kingfish did amazing progress from a reported mid 20s SVJ to I believe around 38", but that it also took him many years to accomplish this. And also that he seems to be a great exception from the rule based on all the VJ enthusiasts on the related forums and their below-elite results, based upon your categorization at least.

Rip had incredible success also, but his situation does NOT apply to the majority of people here since he started with a high RVJ already when he was I believe 14 years old. Anyone remotely familiar with the typical hormonal changes that go on from this age up to the early 20s might become skeptical whether the same progress would be possible for someone who is not a teenager anymore and starts from rather low VJ and thus seems to be less talented in the first place. One also has to take note of his not-elite (again, based upon your definition) SVJ.

In conclusion and based upon these two examples it seems to be far fetched to say that the usage of the high-bar squat does correlate with better success in VJ training, especially in face of the fact that so many more people use the high-bar variant and don't get to the level you described as elite. On the other hand there is tychver, who stopped training for VJ years ago and yet has to show a respectable running and standing jump - below elite by your definition, but pretty good for someone with his build and not even trying anymore to jump high. He squats low-bar, ATG and does olympic weightlifting. You could also take me as example of someone with below elite results, but there are still not so many people around here or TVS with a 36" SVJ, are there? Not even two years training time, interrupted by three volleyball seasons where only little athletic training took place, is not excessive either, or would you say so?
So the small number of people that used the low-bar squat in the first place did not get to elite results yet, but can still report good progress, in fact better than the majority of people using the high-bar variant.
Now, I would not conclude anything from this. But anecdotally it should tell you that doing squats low-bar and below parallel is not the antithesis to athleticism.

Just saw this thread and thought I'd throw out a comment. IMO a lot of the debate is over interpretations in the definition of what is a half squat vs full squat.  For me a full squat is legal powerlifting depth...at parallel or just below. Olympic lifters have their own definition of squats.   I've never recommended full ATG olympic style squats unless people just like doing them.

I'm pretty sure James Smith is referring to the same thing in what he calls a half squat.

I could live with that squat for anyone. That squat Jarron Gilbert did I'd consider that a good squat.

The thing is I know from experience when the average bro gets in the squat rack he tends to perceive things differently than what is really taking place.  For most people a "full squat" is what an olympic lifter would call a half squat and going even to parallel is against the natural tendency of most people.   I've been in enough high school  and college weight rooms, gyms and I've seen enough video of people misinterpreting things that I would never tell anyone to do a half squat, especially on the internet.   Because I know without fail most will be doing something resembling a 1/8 squat without about 100 more pounds than they can safely  handle and at worst tear their back to hell and at best get little benefit from the exercise.    Just a couple of weeks ago I saw a bro load up about 405 lbs on the squat rack when he was capable of doing maybe half that correctly.  I turned away for a few moments before hearing a loud CRASH as the weight crushed him to the pins.  That's not an uncommon occurence at all.  

Just recently a guy ruined a bar in the gym I train at by loading up to 530 lbs for his 1/4 squats, getting out of position and letting it drop on the pins from pretty much shoulder height. I heard from the trainers but I am pretty sure I know who the guy is and he is not weak. He is actually a very, very good sprinter whose coach told him he wouldn't need full squats since he does not need the ROM for his sport. Thing is the guy is really a very advanced athlete in his events (long jump and 100 m) and to get a decent training effect for his GPP from 1/4 squats he needs to go heavy. Turns out maybe too heavy than what he can actually handle safely. I hope he is alright.

Really great articles and videos in this section, I just got through watching and reading them all and this is some great information. Thanks a lot to you and also adarqui to share this information here!