View Full Version : Benefits of Isometric pushes for scrummaging
Given that scrummaging in the front row is in essence an Isometric hold until one side gives what benefit could be gained from similar training methods in the gym ie trying to lift supra maximal weights of pins with a squat.
PikeKing
13-06-2011, 22:00
this looks familiar
PikeKing
13-06-2011, 22:02
the more I've thought about it the more I dont like it. 1st off joint angles are very specific with isometric training, so you would have to match the angles/postioning, which you cant do with a squat. Then there is the whole loading of sport specific movement, which I dont like either. Thats skill specifc work that should be done on a scrum machine rather than in the squat rack. Doing an overcoming isometric, pushing into an immovable object would be far better than just squatting down and holding the weight with an iso but again you'd have to get the joint angle right or train multiple angles. You should post this on IC to see what response you get, its an interesting topic.
Andy's bang on. To get better at Scrummaging you need to scrum, its a skill that needs to be practiced. Obviously getting bigger squat / dead will help, but a skillful Scrummager will often overcome a stronger one.
The best two scrummaging sides i played in both had one thing in common - lots of time on the machine.
Number of things to consider that may well have an equal/greater impact - team/unit cohesion within the scrum, timing, body dimensions, footwear, technique, standard of refereeing etc etc etc
As Pikeking mentioned, it all sort of comes back to the 'sport specific' idea, which, if taken to its logical conclusion, would have you running around with a weighted rugby ball and calling it a day. I would venture that if you wanted to experiment with anything, maybe go back and read Dan John on the topic and try some anderson front squats?
On a vaguely related topic, I listened to an interview with Dan Baker (big noise in Aus S&C and S&C coach for the Brisbane Broncos) who was claiming that players should aim to squat 1.5 times bodyweight because that would allow them to control anybody in a contact situation since they could handle that amount of weight...that made literally no sense to me at all.
JonnyJames
14-06-2011, 12:21
On a vaguely related topic, I listened to an interview with Dan Baker (big noise in Aus S&C and S&C coach for the Brisbane Broncos) who was claiming that players should aim to squat 1.5 times bodyweight because that would allow them to control anybody in a contact situation since they could handle that amount of weight...that made literally no sense to me at all.
Nor to anyone surely? What if the guy they're trying to control can squat twice bodyweight etc etc?
plateau2
14-06-2011, 12:26
On a vaguely related topic, I listened to an interview with Dan Baker (big noise in Aus S&C and S&C coach for the Brisbane Broncos) who was claiming that players should aim to squat 1.5 times bodyweight because that would allow them to control anybody in a contact situation since they could handle that amount of weight...that made literally no sense to me at all.
He's wrong it's actually 1.3338444 times body weight
Retarded argument. He also thought he had 2-3 players doing 1.5 x or better...he is at one of the top rugby clubs in the world with amazing athletes...I have 4-5 guys doing that at a Uni club...
plateau2
14-06-2011, 12:31
Retarded argument.
Why
Why
In my opinion, how much you squat has no relation to your ability to move another human being around. For reasons I don't know guys who have never done a squat can be hugely dominant in the tackle, whereas others who can be extremely good in the gym are not.
I'm not for a second saying the squatting won't help - I'm certain that it will. I also appreciate the value in having a standard to aspire too. I just don't really see the correlation between a 1.5 x BW squat and the ability to dominate a player in a contact situation. Why not 1.75 or 2 times as you alluded to above? It can't just be related to weight, because in almost every collision both players will be moving, thus hugely amplifying the forces involved.
plateau2
14-06-2011, 12:44
In my opinion, how much you squat has no relation to your ability to move another human being around. For reasons I don't know guys who have never done a squat can be hugely dominant in the tackle, whereas others who can be extremely good in the gym are not.
I'm not for a second saying the squatting won't help - I'm certain that it will. I also appreciate the value in having a standard to aspire too. I just don't really see the correlation between a 1.5 x BW squat and the ability to dominate a player in a contact situation. Why not 1.75 or 2 times as you alluded to above? It can't just be related to weight, because in almost every collision both players will be moving, thus hugely amplifying the forces involved.
Sorry missunderstanding on my point, agree with the above
Retarded argument. He also thought he had 2-3 players doing 1.5 x or better...he is at one of the top rugby clubs in the world with amazing athletes...I have 4-5 guys doing that at a Uni club...
It's weird how weight room performance doesn't always equal good on pitch performance, it's counter intuative to most, but makes sense if you understand the sport. A tackle situation can vary so much that even with a good strength foundation, if you're angles are off, you will get sat down.
For some though (like me) being stronger than most on your team is the leveller. I'm not the greatest technique wise, but make up for it with strength (don't scoff at this, many, very good players don't even step foot in the gym week to week).
I'd have to say, all the training I've seen at the higher levels tends to focus on power moreso than strength, whether it's misguided I don't know. Having said that a very promising junior at my club just got knocked back from Leicester Tigers recently because his strength standards "weren't up to scratch for his age group". Yet this is a lad dominating men on the field because of his speed and agility, you can go too far with it sometimes.
JonnyJames
14-06-2011, 13:18
Having said that a very promising junior at my club just got knocked back from Leicester Tigers recently because his strength standards "weren't up to scratch for his age group". Yet this is a lad dominating men on the field because of his speed and agility, you can go too far with it sometimes.
Jesus. Even to a total rugby ignoramous such as I that's just plain retarded. Surely a decent coach would take the attitude of 'We'll just have to bring your strength levels up to scratch alongside developing your speed and agility?'
Jesus. Even to a total rugby ignoramous such as I that's just plain retarded. Surely a decent coach would take the attitude of 'We'll just have to bring your strength levels up to scratch alongside developing your speed and agility?'
Exactly! I suppose though,l when you have a 100 juniors on trial, and they're all pretty promising you need some sort of cut off. Certainly with the advent of professionalism in Rugby there has been a marked shift towards taking things like this into heavy consideration, I'm talking 17 year-old props being able to bench 130kg and Squat 210kg etc. Seem to be following the American route to S&C.
JonnyJames
14-06-2011, 13:29
Again; commenting from a position of ignorance but: I would have thought that if one were imposing criteria; ability on the field > strength in the gym.
LWStrong
14-06-2011, 13:37
Again; commenting from a position of ignorance but: I would have thought that if one were imposing criteria; ability on the field > strength in the gym.
Probably the case, but I think what Aled is trying to say is that you must have both or you will not get picked.
JonnyJames
14-06-2011, 13:40
Probably the case, but I think what Aled is trying to say is that you must have both or you will not get picked.
Gotcha.
Rugby realises that strength is important in a very basic way for the main part - ie everybody benches, nobody squats to depth or properly and the olympic lifts are vital to player development.
Rugby realises that strength is important in a very basic way for the main part - ie everybody benches, nobody squats to depth or properly and the olympic lifts are vital to player development.
Benching is quite relevant to ruggers if you ask me. Squats, some people (me) have previously have/had issues with the required flexibility to do them properly. Oly Lifts? For the time investment to master, not worth bothering with for a rugby player: Jumps, Swings, Plyos just as effective for power development.
Benching is quite relevant to ruggers if you ask me. Squats, some people (me) have previously have/had issues with the required flexibility to do them properly. Oly Lifts? For the time investment to master, not worth bothering with for a rugby player: Jumps, Swings, Plyos just as effective for power development.
What I mean is that there is a big 'get in the gym' attitude with very little guidance/research/know-how.
What I mean is that there is a big 'get in the gym' attitude with very little guidance/research/know-how.
Oh yeah, for sure. In most cases, people just need to get stronger first before worrying about all the other crap.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.