Soviet sport scientists spent decades trying to solve one problem…how do you take the strength you build in the weight room and actually get it to show up in competition? Their answer was the bridge. General means build the foundation and Special strength exercises carry

that foundation toward the event. The closer the exercise sits to the sport/movement, the more that transfers. The further away it sits, the less direct transfer. The other thing those coaches got right was experimenting inside a principled framework. They didn’t have a

peer reviewed paper for every drill they tried. They needed a deep enough understanding of adaptation, exercise selection/transfer, & accommodation to know when something was working vs when to pull it. That kind of judgment comes from immersion… Reading texts, discussing

with coaches/mentors, wrestling with an idea through different books before you understood it. The process wasn’t inefficient, but it WAS the education. Most of that’s gone now. The answer is available in seconds, which is great, but… What’s left is people who can talk

about training but can’t adjust a program when the athlete in front of them isn’t responding. Most coaches can find exercises. Force & Expression is for the ones who want to understand why they’re choosing them and know exactly what to change when the program isn’t working.

is there ever been a direct study showing that the system is superior? It seems self evident but like all those posts about Adam Archuleta what if he just did more American style training would he have been the same? or better? worse?

I just challenge the assertion that todays trainers are as critical thinkers as those in the past. People in the past thought and did some obvious stupid stuff and in 50 years they will look back on use that same way

Possible, I can only go off the interactions I’ve had