“Do not confuse weight room numbers with play strength and power. One of the most important fundamentals in football is a player’s ability to deliver a blow on the most and to be able to defend himself against a blow on the move, and no squat or bench number can help us evaluate whether he can or can’t. The ability to deal with contact on the move can be recognized in his balance, explosion, and leverage – more than in the weight he can lift in a stationary position.”
The Art of Winning
by Bill Belichick
There are several quotes I could have included from Belichick’s book, but this one caught my eye because it's so true. Athletes move in space, often have opponents that force adaptation, and frequently compete in various environments.
However, often weight training involves very static movements. The deadlift, bench press, squat, and so on, are invaluable in working the muscle to develop strength and power, but often in a very specific direction.
Belichick is advocating for movements that mimic real life. I recently heard a podcast in which the researcher in physical culture (loosely translated as how we lift and move objects to improve ourselves) was encouraging a return to older movements to develop “real” strength. Moving hay bales, swinging heavy objects, and so on develop more holistic and core strength.
My gym is large with plenty of 45lb weights for the squat rack. But the largest kettlebell? 30lbs. Medicine ball? Only 20lbs. My pleas for more substantial movable weights go unheeded.
Ask Yourself:
Am I recognizing the difference between weight-room numbers and an athlete’s ability to demonstrate strength, power, and resilience in dynamic competition?
When designing training programs, do I include enough movements that replicate the sport's unpredictable, contact-heavy nature?
Am I advocating strongly enough for the tools and equipment my athletes need to prepare effectively for the demands of their sport?
Excerpt taken from Reflections on the Coaching Life Volume 2.