26/10/2024
I’ve noticed that he new BWL technical model has now made it into the BWL coaching courses so I thought I’d write a little moan about why I think the changes to the model are rubbish.
For those of you who have somehow avoided me going on and on about it on facebook - I produced the original technical model used by BWL both in their courses and to track technical improvements on the weight lifting World Class Programme. I’m quite proud of it.
The major benefits of my origiaal technical model are:
Simplicity
Consistency
Precision
It's simple - knees move back during the first pull, move forwards during the transition and then back again during the second pull. In American, these are the first, second and third pull. Which probably makes more sense now I come to think of it.
Because the model depended on a change in direction of the knees, it's easy to identify each key position when analysing video. It was when the knees stopped moving in one direction and started moving back the other way. Easy!
And it's precise. Anyone correctly following instructions would produce a key position series showing exactly the same frames of the video.
It also identifies what I call technical “inflection points”, a term nicked from maths describing a change in sign of a curve from positive to negative or vice versa. From these key positions we could even make predictions. For example, if the bar is forward of the centre of the base of support in the start position, at the end of the first pull or at the power position, the lifter will jump forwards. It’s why we have to get our knees back out of the way of the bar as it passes them.
My original technical model never claimed to identify every important aspect of technique but it is a powerful and accurate tool for technical analysis.
So, to recap, the technical model I produced identifies the key positions as:
Start position - the last frame of a video before the weights leave the ground. This definition of the start position removes the uncertainty of the period of bar bend before the bar leaves the ground, producing a consistent key position.
End of first pull - the frame of the video before the knees visibly move forward. This is the bit the lifter has to stay over until.
End of transition - the frame of the video before the knees change direction and move backwards. This is the power position. The lifter’s ankles, hips and shoulders should form a vertical line at this point.
End of pull - the frame of the video before the knees move forwards again as the lifter starts to go under the bar. The lifter’s shins should be vertical, hips behind knees, shoulders behind hips.
I think it’s pretty good!
BWL had different ideas. They decided that a simple, effective, consistent and precise model wasn’t what they wanted so they changed it. Here’s the new one:
Start position - same as before
End of first pull - same as before
So far so good! But now it gets dodgy
Mid-thigh - this is when the glenohumeral joint is directly over the bar
End of pull - same as before
You may have noticed the change. Some stuff about glenohumeral joint and no power position! The glenohumeral joint is the shoulder joint. It should be called this in the course material. This isn’t vitally important but I think it shows a lack of consistent thinking in general as technical terms aren’t used throughout the rest of the description. Only for the glenohumeral joint. Although I could guess what they meant, I didn’t actually know that the glenohumeral joint was the shoulder joint until I looked it up. I suppose I’ve learned something which is a tick for the new version but I think being clear and using plain language that everyone can understand is important for making these things accessible to as many people as possible. Say “shoulder joint” to 100 people and it’s likely that 100 people will know what you mean. Say “glenohumeral joint” to 100 people and at least 50 of them will say they don’t agree with that sort of thing and walk off.
Anyway, now we have a technical model where the way to find each key position is inconsistent. Last frame of the knees moving back gets you the end of the first pull. Identifying where the glenohumeral joint is directly over the bar gets you the third key position, called mid-thigh even though it may, or may not, be at mid-thigh. The knees moving back gets you the end of the pull.
The knees moving back and forth, as used by my original technical model, is correlated to knee extension - in most people the technical model describes extension during the first pull, flexion or no movement at the knee joint during the transition, then extension again for the second pull. The reason we don’t describe it like that is that there are some lifters who continue to extend at the knee through the transition but tracking horizontal movement of the knee still derives the key positions accurately.
Now that we have a new key position we should look at why this position is important.
The shoulders do pass from in front of the bar to behind the bar during the lift so is a joint passing from in front to behind the bar specifically significant in the way that knee extension and flexion is? Tracking the way the knees move lines up with significant changes in force production on a force plate. There isn’t such a correlation for the mid-thigh position. This isn’t surprising because the way the lifter is moving continues unchanged through this position. Before the shoulders pass over the bar the lifter is more-or-less doing a stiff legged deadlift and after the shoulders pass over the bar the lifter continues to more-or-less do a stiff legged deadlift.
So the movement doesn’t change at the new key position. Is it just inherently important that a joint has moved from in front of the bar to behind the bar? If this is the case, why isn’t the point at which the knees move from in front of the bar to behind the bar during the first pull a key position?
In the original technical model, every time the knees change direction, there’s a key position. This consistency has been lost and now it’s a mish-mash.
What about precision? In the original technical model, the key positions could be identified precisely on video. To be fair, this is helped by video running and thirty frames per second or something like that so, when viewed frame by frame, the point at which the knees change direction is usually obvious but this is still a great strength of the original technical model. If you take a key position series and I take a key position series they will agree with one another. Now try identifying the point at which the glenohumeral joint is exactly over the bar. First, you need to know where exactly the glenohumeral joint is underneath the shoulder muscles. Then you need to identify that this joint is vertically above the bar. Difficult even if you’re videoing from the side and precisely lined up with the lifter in the horizontal plane - which, as luck would have it, makes the other key positions more difficult to identify as the weights obscure the knees so you have to go by the ankles which, despite technically being what the model is based on (plantar flexion and dorsiflexion describe horizontal knee movement in the lifts) are more difficult to see movement in on video.
I’ve seen the screenshot demonstrating the mid-thigh position in the BWL material. In my opinion, the lifter (Jack Oliver) still has his shoulders slightly forward of the bar. I might well be wrong about this because it’s really hard to tell. That’s the problem.
So, it’s not consistent and it’s not precise. At least there must be some useful information that we can gain from analysing this position. According to the BWL material, the feet should remain flat on the floor at least until the lifter reaches the mid-thigh position. Hooray! An evidence-based conclusion! I checked a video of the great Naim Suleymanoglu sn**ching, his heels had risen before his shoulders were above the bar. Lifters do make technical errors but if the man who has lifted the most weight in comparison to his bodyweight does something it isn’t a barrier to high performance. And why is it important to have flat feet until that exact point? Is it better to have feet flat on the ground longer than that? Is it a disaster if the heels rise before that (clearly not if Suleymanoglu does it). Check Suleymanoglu, or any other elite lifter, using the old technical model and they perform within it. We now have a technical model that doesn’t encompass at least one of the greatest lifters of all time. There are plenty of others. I checked. BWL should try checking stuff. It’s a useful habit. So, not evidence-based then. Bah.
What of the power position? It’s not there any more. It gets a mention in the level three course as a transitory position in the second pull. I don’t see what’s any more transitory about it than any other position during the lift, we move through all of them, and it’s the most powerful key position for identifying errors in lifting technique. But it’s not there any more for level one and two coaches. A clearly identifiable key position where an important change occurs in weightlifting technique has been replaced by a bit of the lift where a joint passes over the bar. If you look at a force plate analysis of a sn**ch or clean you can clearly identify the power position. Not so the mid-thigh position. There might be interesting significance to the mid-thigh position but BWL haven’t shown this. They’ve just decided arbitrarily that it’s a key position and the power position isn’t.
Finally, if the power position is a transitory position during the second pull, why is it mentioned at all? Every part of the pull is a transitory position. If the second pull takes half a second and the frame rate of your video is thirty frames per second, you’ll have fifteen frames of transitory positions forming part of the second pull. What makes the power position so special that they mention it in level three coaching course? My suspicion is that whoever writes the courses knows that the power position is important and is a key position as justified for the reasons given above so although it’s gone from the courses most people do, they’ve snuck it back in for level three.
So, now that I’ve started with suspicions, here’s what I think has happened:
When I was head of coaching I was challenged by several people over the technical model and, specifically, the power position. I was told it didn’t exist and that we shouldn’t teach it. Proving it existed was easy. I just explained how the technical model was derived and showed how this, when applied to video, produced a screenshot of the power position. Mechanically, the justification is sound and everyone who initially argued against it gave up because this was clear.
“But we shouldn’t teach it!” was the next objection. That’s a matter of opinion. The evidence shows that the power position does happen in proper weightlifting technique. Achieving a power position is the reason a lifters’ thighs or hips make contact with the bar. Whether or not you want to tell a lifter about it is up to the coach. I have no problem with BWL using a coaching model that doesn’t mention the power position - although I disagree. A technical model, though, is a model of technique and missing out the power position in this just makes the model incomplete and doesn’t give the coach the knowledge they need to identify problems in a lift. I have been told by more than one coach that, if you teach the power position all sorts of sh*tty things happen to lifting technique. I do teach the power position and my lifters’ technique is fine. Better than most I’d say (but then I would say that I suppose). I’m not Head of Coaching any more so my opinion on teaching weightlifting technique doesn’t hold sway. But the facts haven’t changed.
In my opinion, the people who didn’t like my technical model but couldn’t actually state any evidence-based reasons for their opinion have taken the opportunity of me no longer being Head of Coaching to replace my evidence-based model with their opinion-based model in BWL’s courses. There’s no-one in a senior enough position willing to debate this poor decision. I was willing to debate so they just waited until I wasn’t there. Good tactics really! I think this is a shame. BWL’s course have generally improved over recent years but this is a step backwards. I’m a bit gutted that my legacy from my time as Head of Coaching is being erased. I never did a good job of creating alliances during my time with BWL and this fault is being exposed now. It’s not that I didn’t get on with people, it’s just that I think facts are more important than who I’m political friends with when it comes to something like modelling the sn**ch or clean & jerk. If something is correct, it’s correct. I always thought that doing a good job was enough. I’m proud that I created an evidenced-based technical model with a solid grounding in mechanics and disappointed that this is being eroded. I think, in this case, politics is winning over evidence and undermining an evidence-based approach to the detriment of British Weightlifting.
