How anyone failed to see Sickenin was trollin after his ~3rd reply is beyond me.
Got it to 8 pages tho? Good job, bruh.
I think the original post is quite interesting, these trainers obv know training in cycles of strength/power while maintaining balance would be a better option then just the functional stuff they're doing right now, I also think Andrew was right on the money in his first reply, so was Lance.
I absolutely do think safety and the $ are involved to a certain degree, which is a shame, 'cause proper training could further enhance the game and reduce injuries. However you'd think these trainers could teach a squat properly and know it's advantages so their reasoning would still be weird to me. These trainers get paid thousands of dollars and are (supposedly) highly educated, it just doesn't make any sense to not add serious strength and power to your athlete just because of safety, there has to be more to it.
One reason, I think, is not just safety, but also optimum basketball performance and longevity.
We have to keep in mind these guys routinely play 30-40 game minutes of extremely intense basketball for about 80/120 times a year. Highlighting game minutes, because I know the difference between an all out 3 hour practise session and 20 minutes of playing time all too well (ie. game time being more stressfull on the body; I'm absolutely dead after a game and can train twice a day for hours at a time easily, trainig-intensity obv varies, game-time not so much).
Keeping these guys light would make it easy on the joints and might help in the long run, furthermore, keeping them highly conditioned (not necesarily ox strong) iwhile keeping them effective is a top priority. Extra muscle, extra power might (again, MIGHT) wear on an athlete throughout the season. Implementing highly intense weight sessions after that season is over and before they go right into training-camp might seem like an overkill to the joints.
I'm not saying this reasoning is right for every situation, but I could understand it under some circumstances.
I also think it's a shame and it's probably also the reason we don't see huge transformations in player. For instance, I don't think Kevin Durant will pack muscle before the age of 29/30, the age he's likely to lose a step and is going to need another advantage.
What's amazing though, when that kind of need is there, with hungry athletes, you suddenly see a huge change (Think of the extra muscle Jordan was carrying after his return, think Kobe kobe packing 30 lbs over a single summer, losing it all the season after because of his knees).
The knowledge and capacity to change athletes is there, the need however, is not.
Can't say I agree, but I think I do understand.
PS, saw some comments on basketball and athleticism earlier.
In high level basketball, athleticism should not be underrated, pretty sure John stockton was a beast athlete, dude could defend guys twice his size, that's not just basketball IQ.
Only guy I could think of right now that wasn't a certified athlete that played in the NBA is Steve Kerr (6'3/175?) but he's one of the greatest shooters EVER. Height/weight is definately a HUGE aspect of being athletic. Just because a guy is kinda fat/slow, dude can still be effective athletically because of his height and mass.
Being able to utilize your specific athleticism creates a huge advantage over someone that does not poses the same kind of ability.
Long post n all over the place, not sure if I'm right, it's all speculation.
Hope it does push this discussion into the right direction though.
Pce
