 |  | | Page 2 - weight lifting program for Tennis. Discuss weight lifting program for Tennis, on Health Forums.
| | 
12-04-2006, 03:27 AM
| | |  Re: weight lifting program for Tennis
Dnia 2006-12-04 Curt napisał(a):
> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>> Dnia 2006-12-03 Curt napisał(a):
>> > Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>> >> Dnia 2006-12-03 Curt napisał(a):
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > re Pete's offering of
>> >
>> > http://www.nieuwsinfo.nl/images/12003ausopen367.jpg
>> >
>> >> > I'd say that's at least 90% Mother Nature, Pete. ;o)
>> >> > God BLESS Her on her creations, eh?
>> >>
>> >> If she achieved 90% of her present level, Pete wouldn't
>> >> be able to Google her out. She would be nobody among
>> >> other nobodies.
>> >
>> > Is that true, Andrzej?
>>
>> It is.
>
> I don't believe that's correct. (Doesn't mean it's not, of course, but
> there you have it.)
>
>> Try imagining that a 10s sprinter developed only 90% of his
>> present level. He becomes roughly 11s sprinter, which is
>> nobodyness.
>
> You're comparing apples and oranges, imo and fwiw.
>
>> > http://sportsline.com/tennis/rankings/wta
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serena_Williams
>> >
>> > She's been a pro tennis player since 1995 (at age 14!) and, although
>> > she's ranked 95 currently, from what I see in Wiki, she was ranked 21
>> > by the Women's Tennis Association in 1999.
>> >
>> > The 100 ranked female tennis player? I was "able to Google her out."
>> > Likewise, I suspect that Serena, had she only achieved 90% of her
>> > accomplishments, would also have been someone Pete would have been able
>> > to find with a search engine's help.
>>
>> It's not possible to guess where on top100 she would end up while being
>> able to deliver 90% of what she could.
>
> It's not? Where are the math wizards (or anyone with a calculator)? She
> had been ranked 21 and then she dropped to 95 over a period of time.
> That's a calculable drop, right? There's a way to represent that
> calculable drop as a percent, isn't there?
>
> Likewise, if Serena can achieve X accomplishment with Y amount of skill
> then if you take Y and multiply it by 90%, shouldn't you be able to
> calculate X as well?
You seem to assume that an athlete who develops 90% ability will
receive 90% results. I tried to show you how crazy assumption it is,
by my sprinter example. With high jump, for example, 10% is like 24 cm
difference. You are out of business by the time your high jump goes
down by 24 cm.
> I have a headache now and will stop this course of discussion
> immediately.
>
>> I say, she wouldn't be googlable. She would be among
>> other ninetypercenters.
>
> Okay.
>
> Still, if Serena was ranked 21 at, say, 99% effort then she'd be where
> at 89% effort? She'd fall off the charts? And even if she would, she
> was still in the public's eye while she was off the WTA top 100. I
> think she dropped to 300 something. But that's looking at it from her
> diminishing from a point of peak performance. You presented it as never
> having reached where she has with her current ability. Where would she
> have been if she had only "achieved 90% of her present level," as you
> commented originally?
One could find measurable sport, and see where are people who fall 10%
behind an elite levels. The more competitive sport we find, the more
punishment for small drop in performance.
> Perhaps there's not a way to calculate that, however, since you state
> it's "not possible to guess where" Serena would be at 90% then I'll use
> that as my free pass in saying, yeah, she'd be Googleable.
Details are not important as long as you got what I meant. I don't
expect you to show scientific calculations of your 90% number too.
>> > Regardless, Serena's physique is courtesy of her parents. Boom! I'm
>> > guessing she'd look as she looks even if she'd never played tennis,
>> > never spoke to a trainer, never did anything but ate and breathed.
>>
>> I don't believe it. Much.
>
> Okay. I won't argue your ability to believe. Much. ;o)
Makes sense.
>> > Again, I'm guessing that maybe ten percent of her physique/appearance
>> > may've come from her participation in tennis - weight training,
>> > supplements, competitions, etc.
>>
>> Can you imagine Serena as a sprinter? Would she look exactly the same?
>> Or as a marathon runner, for that matter. Would she look still the
>> same?
>
> Marion Jones was a basketball star before she became a track star. (Or
> perhaps she was track then basketball then track. Hmm. My memory!) Has
> her physique changed?
I don't know if it changed much. If Pyrros Dimas turned into
basketball his physique wouldn't change much too, but what does it
show?
> Serena would never have been a marathoner, imo.
Why not?
> A
> tall guy will be steered to the basketball court. A guy with a barrel
> chest and short arms will be directed to the weight room. Still, there
> are countless variables.
>
> Serena could train and then complete a marathon. I'm certain of that.
> To answer your question, I'll say she'd slim down as she put in the
> necessary miles in preparation, however I doubt very much she'd ever
> reach the top competitors in that sport simply because it's not her
> bodytype.
Everyone who will go through a marathoner training schedule will
achieve this bodytype. Including Serena and Pyrros Dimas. What is
questionable is if they would be able to get anywhere near the elite
level. This might not happen, but physique transformation is an easy
task for a sportsman or sportswoman of proved dedication.
> And you said sprinter. Do you know Serena's sprint times? ;o)
No. Are they within 110% of top sprinter times? Quite possibly better
than that. Still, as a sprinter she wouldn't be mightily successful
with those times.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R  |
12-04-2006, 03:27 AM
| | | Re: weight lifting program for Tennis
On Mon, 3 Dec 2006, Curt wrote:
> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>> Dnia 2006-12-03 Curt napisał(a):
>>> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>>>> Dnia 2006-12-03 Curt napisał(a):
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> re Pete's offering of
>>>
>>> http://www.nieuwsinfo.nl/images/12003ausopen367.jpg
>>>
>>>>> I'd say that's at least 90% Mother Nature, Pete. ;o)
>>>>> God BLESS Her on her creations, eh?
>>>>
>>>> If she achieved 90% of her present level, Pete wouldn't
>>>> be able to Google her out. She would be nobody among
>>>> other nobodies.
>>>
>>> http://sportsline.com/tennis/rankings/wta
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serena_Williams
>>>
>>> She's been a pro tennis player since 1995 (at age 14!) and, although
>>> she's ranked 95 currently, from what I see in Wiki, she was ranked 21
>>> by the Women's Tennis Association in 1999.
>>>
>>> The 100 ranked female tennis player? I was "able to Google her out."
>>> Likewise, I suspect that Serena, had she only achieved 90% of her
>>> accomplishments, would also have been someone Pete would have been able
>>> to find with a search engine's help.
>>
>> It's not possible to guess where on top100 she would end up while being
>> able to deliver 90% of what she could.
>
> It's not? Where are the math wizards (or anyone with a calculator)? She
> had been ranked 21 and then she dropped to 95 over a period of time.
> That's a calculable drop, right? There's a way to represent that
> calculable drop as a percent, isn't there?
Not really - it all depends on how good the others are. What Andrzej is
saying is that if she's at a level of 1000 milliserenas, the rest of the
top 100 are all at least, say, 990 milliserenas, up to about 1010. If she
was 90% as good, she'd be at 900 mSa, which is nowhere near the top 100.
Since there's no absolute way to quantify tennis, however, this is all
moot.
tom
--
find porn apricot |
12-04-2006, 03:27 AM
| | | Re: weight lifting program for Tennis
Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> Dnia 2006-12-04 Curt napisał(a):
> > Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> >> Dnia 2006-12-03 Curt napisał(a):
> >> > Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> >> >> Dnia 2006-12-03 Curt napisał(a):
Nice game of ping pong there, innit?
> >> > [...]
> >> >
> >> > re Pete's offering of
> >> >
> >> > http://www.nieuwsinfo.nl/images/12003ausopen367.jpg
> >> >
> >> >> > I'd say that's at least 90% Mother Nature, Pete. ;o)
> >> >> > God BLESS Her on her creations, eh?
> >> >>
> >> >> If she achieved 90% of her present level, Pete wouldn't
> >> >> be able to Google her out. She would be nobody among
> >> >> other nobodies.
> >> >
> >> > Is that true, Andrzej?
> >>
> >> It is.
> >
> > I don't believe that's correct. (Doesn't mean it's not, of course, but
> > there you have it.)
> >
> >> Try imagining that a 10s sprinter developed only 90% of his
> >> present level. He becomes roughly 11s sprinter, which is
> >> nobodyness.
> >
> > You're comparing apples and oranges, imo and fwiw.
> >
> >> > http://sportsline.com/tennis/rankings/wta
> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serena_Williams
> >> >
> >> > She's been a pro tennis player since 1995 (at age 14!) and, although
> >> > she's ranked 95 currently, from what I see in Wiki, she was ranked 21
> >> > by the Women's Tennis Association in 1999.
> >> >
> >> > The 100 ranked female tennis player? I was "able to Google her out."
> >> > Likewise, I suspect that Serena, had she only achieved 90% of her
> >> > accomplishments, would also have been someone Pete would have been able
> >> > to find with a search engine's help.
> >>
> >> It's not possible to guess where on top100 she would end up while being
> >> able to deliver 90% of what she could.
> >
> > It's not? Where are the math wizards (or anyone with a calculator)? She
> > had been ranked 21 and then she dropped to 95 over a period of time.
> > That's a calculable drop, right? There's a way to represent that
> > calculable drop as a percent, isn't there?
> >
> > Likewise, if Serena can achieve X accomplishment with Y amount of skill
> > then if you take Y and multiply it by 90%, shouldn't you be able to
> > calculate X as well?
>
> You seem to assume that an athlete who develops 90% ability will
> receive 90% results.
Perhaps. I believe I asked more questions than I made assumptions,
however.
> I tried to show you how crazy assumption it is, by my sprinter example.
> With high jump, for example, 10% is like 24 cm difference. You are
> out of business by the time your high jump goes down by 24 cm.
Interesting, but aren't there more variables with tennis than there are
with a straight sprint or a high jump?
[...]
> > Still, if Serena was ranked 21 at, say, 99% effort then she'd be where
> > at 89% effort? She'd fall off the charts? And even if she would, she
> > was still in the public's eye while she was off the WTA top 100. I
> > think she dropped to 300 something. But that's looking at it from her
> > diminishing from a point of peak performance. You presented it as never
> > having reached where she has with her current ability. Where would she
> > have been if she had only "achieved 90% of her present level," as you
> > commented originally?
>
> One could find measurable sport,
And so, in your opinion, is tennis measurable sport?
> and see where are people who fall 10% behind an elite levels. The
> more competitive sport we find, the more punishment for small drop
> in performance.
I agree with the sprint and, yes, the high jump examples, but, again,
is tennis a parallel to either of those?
> > Perhaps there's not a way to calculate that,
Is there?
> > however, since you state it's "not possible to guess where"
> > Serena would be at 90% then I'll use that as my free pass
> > in saying, yeah, she'd be Googleable.
>
> Details are not important
They're not, eh? So does that mean I can or cannot use my "not possible
to guess" free pass?
> as long as you got what I meant.
Yes, so far as sprint and high jump, but, again, are those sports
comparable to tennis so far as this discussion is concerned?
> I don't expect you to show scientific calculations of your 90% number too.
How very generous of you. ;o)
> >> > Regardless, Serena's physique is courtesy of her parents. Boom! I'm
> >> > guessing she'd look as she looks even if she'd never played tennis,
> >> > never spoke to a trainer, never did anything but ate and breathed.
> >>
> >> I don't believe it. Much.
> >
> > Okay. I won't argue your ability to believe. Much. ;o)
>
> Makes sense.
yes
> >> > Again, I'm guessing that maybe ten percent of her physique/appearance
> >> > may've come from her participation in tennis - weight training,
> >> > supplements, competitions, etc.
> >>
> >> Can you imagine Serena as a sprinter? Would she look exactly the same?
> >> Or as a marathon runner, for that matter. Would she look still the
> >> same?
> >
> > Marion Jones was a basketball star before she became a track star. (Or
> > perhaps she was track then basketball then track. Hmm. My memory!) Has
> > her physique changed?
>
> I don't know if it changed much. If Pyrros Dimas turned into basketball
> his physique wouldn't change much too, but what does it show?
What? Hey, Andrzej, that's all Greek to me.
(um, ba dump bump, btw)
Dimas, at almost 5'8", and considered the best Greek weightlifter of
all time, is just a leeeetle bit taller than Will Brink, fwiw.
Spud Webb is shorter than Dimas. But as to what does it show? I don't
know.
> > Serena would never have been a marathoner, imo.
>
> Why not?
I do, however, know that there's no current female marathoner (or male
marathoner for that matter) with Selena's physique. Certainly it's a
case of apples and oranges, or, maybe apples and pears. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=7656162 is the one URL
that popped up from a quick Google search of "body structure and sports
performance" that I believe is applicable to this discussion (or, more
accurately, my point of view).
That document's title is _Body structure, somatotype, maturation and
motor performance of girls in ballet schooling_ and my point, if there
even is one, would be that people often gravitate to sports or
activities that their bodies are generally suited for.
To wit (and to repeat):
> > A tall guy will be steered to the basketball court. A guy with a barrel
> > chest and short arms will be directed to the weight room. Still, there
> > are countless variables.
> >
> > Serena could train and then complete a marathon. I'm certain of that.
> > To answer your question, I'll say she'd slim down as she put in the
> > necessary miles in preparation, however I doubt very much she'd ever
> > reach the top competitors in that sport simply because it's not her
> > bodytype.
>
> Everyone who will go through a marathoner training schedule will
> achieve this bodytype.
What? I believe you are *incredibly* wrong. Frank Shorter compared to
Bill Kazmaier much? You certainly don't believe the reverse is true?
Frank could train until his hands bleed and he'd never "achieve this
bodytype." I'm averse to blanket statements, but I'm leaning toward
uttering ~*EACH AND EVERY TIME YOU SAY THAT THEN YOU ARE WRONG!*~
> Including Serena and Pyrros Dimas. What is questionable
Andrzej, I mean it, I'm >< that close to typing "~*EACH AND EVERY TIME
YOU SAY THAT THEN YOU ARE WRONG!*~"
Please don't test me.
> is if they would be able to get anywhere near the elite level. This
> might not happen, but physique transformation is an easy
> task for a sportsman or sportswoman of proved dedication.
Tell that to Frank Shorter as he attempts to bench 600 pounds.
> > And you said sprinter. Do you know Serena's sprint times? ;o)
>
> No. Are they within 110% of top sprinter times? Quite possibly better
> than that. Still, as a sprinter she wouldn't be mightily successful
> with those times.
Okay, THAT really IS Greek to me.
Which is fine, honestly, as I love ouzo.
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R
All this (this being sports performance, training, elite achievement,
etc.) is rather moot, too, as I believe Pete has little, if any,
interest in tennis but great interest in Serena's physique which leads
me back to God BLESS Mother Nature and her creations!
--
Curt |
12-04-2006, 05:47 AM
| | | Re: weight lifting program for Tennis
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 20:07:57 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
<bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Dnia 2006-12-03 gedaloda@thisguy.com napisał(a):
>> On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 14:28:58 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
>><bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Dnia 2006-12-03 gedaloda@thisguy.com napisał(a):
>>>> On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 13:07:44 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
>>>><bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As you say, you may be wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Technique is acquired through practice on the court (or against a
>>>> backboard) and with guidance from a coach. Technique is not acquired
>>>> through lifting weights or stretching rubber.
>>>
>>>But it can be spoiled by above mentioned. If you do significant number
>>>of reps of "sport specific" movement, your painstakingly honed motor
>>>recruitment patterns can get binned.
>>
>> Number of reps, sets, resistance of band(s), direction of movement,
>> etc. are part of an overall exercise plan that should be individually
>> tailored to an athlete.
>
>Oh, once you are into bands so much, let's not forget that tracking
>progress with this kind of equipment may turn out to be a challenge.
You can't measure progress in the same way as you measure incremental
increases with free weights. My weight plates go from 50 pounds to
1/4 lb. However, it's not a big challenge to know that you have made
progress with bands or tubing. There are bands with different levels
of resistance and there are published exercises in the beginner,
intermediate, and advanced categories. One knows when exercises
become easier to perform. One can use bands/tubing to
make/measure/judge progress with free weights and/or in one's sport of
choice. Sometimes the judgement involved is partially subjective.
For example, Bruce Baumgartner, 4 time
Olympic medalist stated  wrestling)
"I have used Lifeline Power Cables for training and rehabilitation
throughout my athletic and coaching career. World and Olympic level
athletes continue to use Lifeline cables for their durability and
function - both in rehabilitation and sport-specific training." http://www.lifelineusa.com/products.cfm?categoryid=2
>>>> Resistive bands and tubing do not slow you down; they can help to
>>>> increase explosive power as resistance increases as the tubing is
>>>> stretched.
>>>
>>>Slow training against resistance will make you slow. Especially, when
>>>one trains "sport specific" movement. How fast you can "serve" against
>>>bands? Much slower than real stuff. And the trainee will learn to
>>>"muscle" the movement, which is bad news.
>>
>> OK. Tell all the track athletes and football players to stop using
>> chutes and sleds and other types of resistance equipment.
>
>Track athletes do not perform discuss "throws" against bands, last time
>I checked. Yes. Let's have a look at what various throwers do. Do
>they train a lot of "sport specific" moves with added resistance? Well,
>at times they may decide to throw overweight or underweight implement
>to fix some technical problem, but the extent of utility of this kind
>of training is constantly discussed. Some say that excess of use of
>this kind of training will spoil the technique, so it should be used
>judiciously.
I don't know how many trainers use ERT with throwers, but a quick
Google search shows that equipment and training tips are available on
this subject. http://www.everythingtrackandfield.c...810_A_rnd_E_12 http://www.throwfarther.org/training/
Just about any idea or technique can be ruinous if applied
injudiciously. That doesn't mean that a poorly interpreted and
applied idea or technique can't be valuable if applied intelligently
>> The idea is not to match the speed with which one serves, hits
>> forehands, etc. The idea is to improve general conditioning, balance,
>> stability, agility, and power and to address the needs of muscles
>> involved in a particular sport.
>
>Oh, you say *general*. So why not use general tools to address
>general needs? Is something wrong with using general stuff to fix
>general shortcomings?
"General conditioning" can be achieved in a variety of ways, using
different types of equipment or no equipment at all (bodyweight
exercises). Muscles can be developed with isometric exercises,
isotonic exercises, and/or by progressive variable resistance
exercises (rubber bands/tubing). Each is valuable in its own right
and each can contribute to "general" conditioning.
>> For example, tennis involves
>> multidirectional lower-body movements, aggressive trunk rotation, and
>> large concentric and eccentric stresses to the rotator cuff and
>> scapular muscles. There are high levels of muscle activity in the
>> wrist and forearm so training these muscles is needed to prevent elbow
>> and wrist injury. Training the rotator cuff and upper back muscles
>> are highly recommended.
>
>Unluckily, it doesn't do much for shoulder stability. Heavy overhead
>supports, on the other hand, do help.
Overhead lifting done incorrectly can cause problems. Overhead
lifting done correctly can be very helpful. Resistive bands can be
useful in tennis. One such exercise is elbow extension with shoulder
abduction (serve simulation) (triceps)
One stands with band/tubing under one foot and shoulder at about 100
degrees and elbow bent 90 degrees. Lean to the side with trunk
approximately 30 degrees to simulate the serving position, and extend
elbow. Slowly return elbow to serving position and repeat.
Stabilize arm using other hand to ensure that shoulder stays in
serving position. Avoid placing shoulder in overhead position because
during serve the shoulder is only elevated 90-100 degrees due to side
bend of trunk.
Nothing wrong with doing DB presses or side-presses. Rubber bands
which utilize progressive variable resistance might even help you to
develop explosive power to move beyond your current sticking point.
I'm sure everyone here knows that bands are often used in conjunction
with barbells by many accomplished lifters.
Rubber bands are also great for performing exercises with different
directions of motion. You can exercise multiple joints and planes in
the more functional standing position. Iron and isotonic resistance
exercises are _typically_ limited to upward movements (against
gravity). Rubber bands also offer smooth eccentric resistance during
the return phase of movements. With respect to the aforementioned
possible drawbacks of "slow" exercises, it should be noted that rubber
bands allow faster movements and plyometric exercises to a much
greater degree than machines and isotonic resistance.
Finally, there is clinical research that the strength curve produced
by elastic resistance is similar to the strength curves of human
joints.
>
>> There are base exercises and sports
>> simulation exercises which tennis players are using with elastic
>> resistance tubing.
>
>That's my whole point. Throwers do not simulate throwing when they want
>to improve throwing. They do strength and conditioning training geared
>at important muscle groups and they throw for real a lot. If they do
>something wrong, they throw closer, so they can measure very well if their
>training program works or not. Yuri Sedyk did a routine based on front
>squats and 400m sprints, for example. He didn't "throw" against a band.
>
>> Someone who lifts heavy weights but does not know how to play tennis
>> might make the mistake of muscling his/her movements. That would
>> occur regardless of the specific sport involved. Accomplished tennis
>> players who understand how to execute shots are benefiting from using
>> resistance bands and tubing and are not sacrificing the efficiency of
>> their strokes in the process.
>
>Possible. I can imagine that good tennis players will remain good
>players even faced with a very stupid S&C program.
>
>>>I agree. Equipment is really not important.
>>>
>>>> Correct technique and correct amount of resistance help to reduce the
>>>> risk of injury.
>>>
>>>Maybe. Anyway, why slow training of "sport specifics" should help?
>>
>> Ask the many different types of athletes who use resistance training
>> in one form or another (tubing, clutes, sleds, etc.).
>
>I'm not against resistance training. I'm against resistance training
>by "mimicking" sport specific moves in the gym. It's better to do
>moves different enough that your body will not confuse them on the
>playing field.
>
>> I don't know what you mean by "slow." Sometimes it's useful to vary
>> the speed of a resistive movement. This can easily be done with
>> resistance bands or tubing.
>
>Or many other equipments. Anyway, I remember seeing a video of
>training of heavyweight UFC fighter. He did sled drags and tire flips.
>No harm in it, from my point of view. They also attached a lot of
>bands to his limbs and core and he trained take-downs against all that
>resistance and a sparring partner, which struck me as stupid. The idea
>was to develop muscular endurance which would allow him to fight longer
>at high level of output. Anyway, it didn't worked much. He got winded
>while rolling on the mat with the other guy, which might not happened if
>instead of playing Spiderman he would train wrestling to the point of
>exhaustion. Like Fedor does, for example.
I'm not sure I get the idea of training muscular endurance in this
way. That's sounds like too much resistance for training strength
endurance. Or maybe I'm wrong about this. Anyway, for the sake of
argument, let's say this was a poor training technique. If so, the
conclusion isn't that resistive bands and tubing are contraindicated
for fighters.
>
>>>From what I read, body is really smart when it comes to executing
>>>complicated patterns and one should really concentrate on honing the
>>>real stuff as much as it makes sense. Body will also limit the speed
>>>of limb to the point of safety, which is limited by *antagonist* muscle
>>>ability to stop it short of injury, so increasing strength of agonist
>>>muscles may result in slower movements on the playing field.
>>
>> One of the many benefits of ERT is that, in many cases, it can be used
>> to improve the balance of opposing muscle forces.
>
>Like many other training equipments.
>
>> Base exercises are
>> especially useful in this respect. ERT emphasizes using base
>> exercises as well as exercises that simulate movement patterns
>> inherent in specific sports
>
>Which will probably work equally great like playing Spiderman for
>take-down training.
>
>>>What makes sense to me is training *qualities*, like speed strength for
>>>example, in general. What makes sense to me, is balancing development
>>>of muscles all around the body of trainee, to prevent injuries. What
>>>makes sense to me, is training some specifics of sport performance in a
>>>way which is safer and more effective, like for example some explosive
>>>lifts can be treated as a substitute for jumping, but without much
>>>joint trauma.
>>
>> Vertical jumping is often trained with rubber bands or tubing.
>>>
>>>But I can be wrong. No matter, that's what I think.
>>
>> There's often no harm in being wrong as long as you're open to the
>> possibility that you might be wrong. Is it more important to be
>> correct or to avoid the ignominy of being regarded as someone who
>> changes his mind?
>
>I never said that band training is useless. It's just a way of
>providing resistance. Gravity works too. Anyway, discussing equipment
>makes no sense. Equipment starts making sense if one uses it to
>develop some quality.
Yes, yup, etc.
>
>> http://www.lifelineusa.com/articles.cfm?articleid=18
>>
>> http://www.runnersworld.com/article/...0X16-5,00.html
>>
>> http://www.humankinetics.com/product...sbn=0736037837
>
>Equipment again. What sort of quality will band training develop
>better than other kinds of training?
Covered above. Multiple planes of resistance - frontal, sagittal ans
transverse. Good for replicating whole-body, multiple-joint movements
of functional activities. Smooth eccentric resistance. Allows faster
movements and plyometric exercises. Progressive variable resistance.
Strength curves similar to strength curves of human joints.
I have no plans to throw away my free weights.
As far as tennis is concerned, give me an OK racquet, an OK court, the
right type of competition, lots of practice/playing time, a backboard,
and a great coach. Iron and/or rubber can't substitute for any of
this |
12-04-2006, 05:47 AM
| | | Re: weight lifting program for Tennis
Tom Anderson wrote:
> Curt wrote:
> > Andrzej Rosa wrote:
[...]
> >> It's not possible to guess where on top100 she would end up while being
> >> able to deliver 90% of what she could.
> >
> > It's not? Where are the math wizards (or anyone with a calculator)? She
> > had been ranked 21 and then she dropped to 95 over a period of time.
> > That's a calculable drop, right? There's a way to represent that
> > calculable drop as a percent, isn't there?
>
> Not really - it all depends on how good the others are. What Andrzej is
> saying is that if she's at a level of 1000 milliserenas, the rest of the
> top 100 are all at least, say, 990 milliserenas, up to about 1010. If she
> was 90% as good, she'd be at 900 mSa, which is nowhere near the top 100.
>
> Since there's no absolute way to quantify tennis, however, this is all
> moot.
I believe the applicable term is:
yes
Wrt moot, that is.
> tom
> find porn apricot
Classic. Loved the URL, of course.
--
Curt
|
12-04-2006, 05:47 AM
| | | Re: weight lifting program for Tennis
Dnia 2006-12-04 Curt napisał(a):
> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>> Dnia 2006-12-04 Curt napisał(a):
>> > Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>> >> Dnia 2006-12-03 Curt napisał(a):
>> >> > Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>> >> >> Dnia 2006-12-03 Curt napisał(a):
>
> Nice game of ping pong there, innit?
Yes, not bad.
[...]
> All this (this being sports performance, training, elite achievement,
> etc.) is rather moot, too, as I believe Pete has little, if any,
> interest in tennis but great interest in Serena's physique which leads
> me back to God BLESS Mother Nature and her creations!
So, you tell me that all that time I discussed Serena Wiliams ass?
Serena doesn't even look especially attractive to my eye. Well, better
than average, but there are plenty of way prettier girls in a local
bar most weekends.
Check out this one (three minutes clip). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l39gYUgqfTg
Very tiny waist and (over)developed hips and tights, but she's still
pretty. Showing Snatch, too. And Clean&Jerk, a bit later.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R |
12-04-2006, 05:47 AM
| | | Re: weight lifting program for Tennis
Curt wrote:
> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>> Dnia 2006-12-04 Curt napisał(a):
>>> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>>>> Dnia 2006-12-03 Curt napisał(a):
>>>>> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>>>>>> Dnia 2006-12-03 Curt napisał(a):
>
> Nice game of ping pong there, innit?
>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> re Pete's offering of
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nieuwsinfo.nl/images/12003ausopen367.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd say that's at least 90% Mother Nature, Pete. ;o)
>>>>>>> God BLESS Her on her creations, eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If she achieved 90% of her present level, Pete wouldn't
>>>>>> be able to Google her out. She would be nobody among
>>>>>> other nobodies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that true, Andrzej?
>>>>
>>>> It is.
>>>
>>> I don't believe that's correct. (Doesn't mean it's not, of course,
>>> but there you have it.)
>>>
>>>> Try imagining that a 10s sprinter developed only 90% of his
>>>> present level. He becomes roughly 11s sprinter, which is
>>>> nobodyness.
>>>
>>> You're comparing apples and oranges, imo and fwiw.
>>>
>>>>> http://sportsline.com/tennis/rankings/wta
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serena_Williams
>>>>>
>>>>> She's been a pro tennis player since 1995 (at age 14!) and,
>>>>> although she's ranked 95 currently, from what I see in Wiki, she
>>>>> was ranked 21 by the Women's Tennis Association in 1999.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 100 ranked female tennis player? I was "able to Google her
>>>>> out." Likewise, I suspect that Serena, had she only achieved 90%
>>>>> of her accomplishments, would also have been someone Pete would
>>>>> have been able to find with a search engine's help.
>>>>
>>>> It's not possible to guess where on top100 she would end up while
>>>> being able to deliver 90% of what she could.
>>>
>>> It's not? Where are the math wizards (or anyone with a calculator)?
>>> She had been ranked 21 and then she dropped to 95 over a period of
>>> time. That's a calculable drop, right? There's a way to represent
>>> that calculable drop as a percent, isn't there?
>>>
>>> Likewise, if Serena can achieve X accomplishment with Y amount of
>>> skill then if you take Y and multiply it by 90%, shouldn't you be
>>> able to calculate X as well?
>>
>> You seem to assume that an athlete who develops 90% ability will
>> receive 90% results.
>
> Perhaps. I believe I asked more questions than I made assumptions,
> however.
>
>> I tried to show you how crazy assumption it is, by my sprinter
>> example. With high jump, for example, 10% is like 24 cm difference.
>> You are
>> out of business by the time your high jump goes down by 24 cm.
>
> Interesting, but aren't there more variables with tennis than there
> are with a straight sprint or a high jump?
>
> [...]
>
>>> Still, if Serena was ranked 21 at, say, 99% effort then she'd be
>>> where at 89% effort? She'd fall off the charts? And even if she
>>> would, she was still in the public's eye while she was off the WTA
>>> top 100. I think she dropped to 300 something. But that's looking
>>> at it from her diminishing from a point of peak performance. You
>>> presented it as never having reached where she has with her current
>>> ability. Where would she have been if she had only "achieved 90% of
>>> her present level," as you commented originally?
>>
>> One could find measurable sport,
>
> And so, in your opinion, is tennis measurable sport?
>
>> and see where are people who fall 10% behind an elite levels. The
>> more competitive sport we find, the more punishment for small drop
>> in performance.
>
> I agree with the sprint and, yes, the high jump examples, but, again,
> is tennis a parallel to either of those?
>
>>> Perhaps there's not a way to calculate that,
>
> Is there?
>
>>> however, since you state it's "not possible to guess where"
>>> Serena would be at 90% then I'll use that as my free pass
>>> in saying, yeah, she'd be Googleable.
>>
>> Details are not important
>
> They're not, eh? So does that mean I can or cannot use my "not
> possible to guess" free pass?
>
>> as long as you got what I meant.
>
> Yes, so far as sprint and high jump, but, again, are those sports
> comparable to tennis so far as this discussion is concerned?
>
>> I don't expect you to show scientific calculations of your 90%
>> number too.
>
> How very generous of you. ;o)
>
>>>>> Regardless, Serena's physique is courtesy of her parents. Boom!
>>>>> I'm guessing she'd look as she looks even if she'd never played
>>>>> tennis, never spoke to a trainer, never did anything but ate and
>>>>> breathed.
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe it. Much.
>>>
>>> Okay. I won't argue your ability to believe. Much. ;o)
>>
>> Makes sense.
>
> yes
>
>>>>> Again, I'm guessing that maybe ten percent of her
>>>>> physique/appearance may've come from her participation in tennis
>>>>> - weight training, supplements, competitions, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Can you imagine Serena as a sprinter? Would she look exactly the
>>>> same? Or as a marathon runner, for that matter. Would she look
>>>> still the same?
>>>
>>> Marion Jones was a basketball star before she became a track star.
>>> (Or perhaps she was track then basketball then track. Hmm. My
>>> memory!) Has her physique changed?
>>
>> I don't know if it changed much. If Pyrros Dimas turned into
>> basketball his physique wouldn't change much too, but what does it
>> show?
>
> What? Hey, Andrzej, that's all Greek to me.
>
>
>
> (um, ba dump bump, btw)
>
> Dimas, at almost 5'8", and considered the best Greek weightlifter of
> all time, is just a leeeetle bit taller than Will Brink, fwiw.
>
> Spud Webb is shorter than Dimas. But as to what does it show? I don't
> know.
>
>>> Serena would never have been a marathoner, imo.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> I do, however, know that there's no current female marathoner (or male
> marathoner for that matter) with Selena's physique. Certainly it's a
> case of apples and oranges, or, maybe apples and pears.
I would say its more a matter of watermelons........they are HUGE!!!
>
> http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=7656162 is the one URL
> that popped up from a quick Google search of "body structure and
> sports performance" that I believe is applicable to this discussion
> (or, more accurately, my point of view).
>
> That document's title is _Body structure, somatotype, maturation and
> motor performance of girls in ballet schooling_ and my point, if there
> even is one, would be that people often gravitate to sports or
> activities that their bodies are generally suited for.
>
> To wit (and to repeat):
>
>>> A tall guy will be steered to the basketball court. A guy with a
>>> barrel chest and short arms will be directed to the weight room.
>>> Still, there are countless variables.
>>>
>>> Serena could train and then complete a marathon. I'm certain of
>>> that. To answer your question, I'll say she'd slim down as she put
>>> in the necessary miles in preparation, however I doubt very much
>>> she'd ever reach the top competitors in that sport simply because
>>> it's not her bodytype.
>>
>> Everyone who will go through a marathoner training schedule will
>> achieve this bodytype.
>
> What? I believe you are *incredibly* wrong. Frank Shorter compared to
> Bill Kazmaier much? You certainly don't believe the reverse is true?
> Frank could train until his hands bleed and he'd never "achieve this
> bodytype." I'm averse to blanket statements, but I'm leaning toward
> uttering ~*EACH AND EVERY TIME YOU SAY THAT THEN YOU ARE WRONG!*~
>
>> Including Serena and Pyrros Dimas. What is questionable
>
> Andrzej, I mean it, I'm >< that close to typing "~*EACH AND EVERY TIME
> YOU SAY THAT THEN YOU ARE WRONG!*~"
>
> Please don't test me.
>
>> is if they would be able to get anywhere near the elite level. This
>> might not happen, but physique transformation is an easy
>> task for a sportsman or sportswoman of proved dedication.
>
> Tell that to Frank Shorter as he attempts to bench 600 pounds.
>
>>> And you said sprinter. Do you know Serena's sprint times? ;o)
>>
>> No. Are they within 110% of top sprinter times? Quite possibly
>> better than that. Still, as a sprinter she wouldn't be mightily
>> successful
>> with those times.
>
> Okay, THAT really IS Greek to me.
>
> Which is fine, honestly, as I love ouzo.
>
>> Andrzej Rosa 1127R
>
> All this (this being sports performance, training, elite achievement,
> etc.) is rather moot, too, as I believe Pete has little, if any,
> interest in tennis but great interest in Serena's physique which leads
> me back to God BLESS Mother Nature and her creations! |
12-04-2006, 05:47 AM
| | | Re: weight lifting program for Tennis
Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> Dnia 2006-12-04 Curt napisał(a):
> > Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> >> Dnia 2006-12-04 Curt napisał(a):
> >> > Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> >> >> Dnia 2006-12-03 Curt napisał(a):
> >> >> > Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> >> >> >> Dnia 2006-12-03 Curt napisał(a):
> >
> > Nice game of ping pong there, innit?
>
> Yes, not bad.  )
> [...]
> > All this (this being sports performance, training, elite achievement,
> > etc.) is rather moot, too, as I believe Pete has little, if any,
> > interest in tennis but great interest in Serena's physique which leads
> > me back to God BLESS Mother Nature and her creations!
>
> So, you tell me that all that time I discussed Serena Wiliams ass?
HA!
> Serena doesn't even look especially attractive to my eye. Well, better
> than average, but there are plenty of way prettier girls in a local
> bar most weekends.
>
> Check out this one (three minutes clip).
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l39gYUgqfTg
>
> Very tiny waist and (over)developed hips and tights, but she's still
> pretty. Showing Snatch, too. And Clean&Jerk, a bit later.
I'll trust you on that. I'm already up past my bedtime and, well, with
dial-up, that three minutes might keep me up another 15 minutes to load
the video.
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Will definitely check it out when I have more time. 'night!
Good grief. In the time it takes me to type this much the YouTube has
loaded only 12 seconds of the 3:17. God bless dial-up? No!
(Just a statement of fact. Neither a curse or a complaint against my
dial-up or my genetics.)
--
Curt |
12-04-2006, 03:18 PM
| | | Re: weight lifting program for Tennis
Dnia 2006-12-04 gedaloda@thisguy.com napisał(a):
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 20:07:57 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
><bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> You can't measure progress in the same way as you measure incremental
> increases with free weights. My weight plates go from 50 pounds to
> 1/4 lb. However, it's not a big challenge to know that you have made
> progress with bands or tubing. There are bands with different levels
> of resistance and there are published exercises in the beginner,
> intermediate, and advanced categories. One knows when exercises
> become easier to perform. One can use bands/tubing to
> make/measure/judge progress with free weights and/or in one's sport of
> choice. Sometimes the judgement involved is partially subjective.
>
> For example, Bruce Baumgartner, 4 time
> Olympic medalist statedwrestling)
>
> "I have used Lifeline Power Cables for training and rehabilitation
> throughout my athletic and coaching career. World and Olympic level
> athletes continue to use Lifeline cables for their durability and
> function - both in rehabilitation and sport-specific training."
> http://www.lifelineusa.com/products.cfm?categoryid=2
Actually I use some cables in my training. It's a spring loaded Chest
Expander kind of exerciser, and I use it to work on my shoulder
flexibility.
See? There is a quality I want to develop, so I take whatever
equipment works for it. I could do it with a broomstick, but cables
work better so I use cables.
>>Track athletes do not perform discuss "throws" against bands, last time
>>I checked. Yes. Let's have a look at what various throwers do. Do
>>they train a lot of "sport specific" moves with added resistance? Well,
>>at times they may decide to throw overweight or underweight implement
>>to fix some technical problem, but the extent of utility of this kind
>>of training is constantly discussed. Some say that excess of use of
>>this kind of training will spoil the technique, so it should be used
>>judiciously.
>
>
> I don't know how many trainers use ERT with throwers, but a quick
> Google search shows that equipment and training tips are available on
> this subject.
>
> http://www.everythingtrackandfield.c...810_A_rnd_E_12
>
> http://www.throwfarther.org/training/
Second link shows some Westside inspired training. Not exactly what
other links suggest, but funny enough, in between I stumbled upon a
link with article where some javelin thrower performed crossover with
some cables attached. I still think that he thrown well instead of
this use of cables, not thanks to it.
[I cut a lot. It became lengthy.]
>>Unluckily, it doesn't do much for shoulder stability. Heavy overhead
>>supports, on the other hand, do help.
>
> Overhead lifting done incorrectly can cause problems. Overhead
> lifting done correctly can be very helpful. Resistive bands can be
> useful in tennis. One such exercise is elbow extension with shoulder
> abduction (serve simulation) (triceps)
There are plenty of similar exercises which can be done with free
weights, or just bodyweight.
> One stands with band/tubing under one foot and shoulder at about 100
> degrees and elbow bent 90 degrees. Lean to the side with trunk
> approximately 30 degrees to simulate the serving position, and extend
> elbow. Slowly return elbow to serving position and repeat.
>
> Stabilize arm using other hand to ensure that shoulder stays in
> serving position. Avoid placing shoulder in overhead position because
> during serve the shoulder is only elevated 90-100 degrees due to side
> bend of trunk.
I think that it's rather nonsense. A serve is a full body movement and
to develop good serve one needs to train full body. I'd be glad to
know if for example Ab-wheel doesn't work what's important much better
than tricep extension (which is called a serve simulation to muddle the
waters ;-)).
> Nothing wrong with doing DB presses or side-presses. Rubber bands
> which utilize progressive variable resistance might even help you to
> develop explosive power to move beyond your current sticking point.
> I'm sure everyone here knows that bands are often used in conjunction
> with barbells by many accomplished lifters.
>
> Rubber bands are also great for performing exercises with different
> directions of motion. You can exercise multiple joints and planes in
> the more functional standing position.
With all those "functional" planes I also have some reservations.
[...]
>>Or many other equipments. Anyway, I remember seeing a video of
>>training of heavyweight UFC fighter. He did sled drags and tire flips.
>>No harm in it, from my point of view. They also attached a lot of
>>bands to his limbs and core and he trained take-downs against all that
>>resistance and a sparring partner, which struck me as stupid. The idea
>>was to develop muscular endurance which would allow him to fight longer
>>at high level of output. Anyway, it didn't worked much. He got winded
>>while rolling on the mat with the other guy, which might not happened if
>>instead of playing Spiderman he would train wrestling to the point of
>>exhaustion. Like Fedor does, for example.
>
> I'm not sure I get the idea of training muscular endurance in this
> way. That's sounds like too much resistance for training strength
> endurance.
They used relatively light bands, and like a ten of them, or something
in this range. The idea was to make this guy work against constant
tension for extended periods of time, like several minutes.
> Or maybe I'm wrong about this. Anyway, for the sake of
> argument, let's say this was a poor training technique. If so, the
> conclusion isn't that resistive bands and tubing are contraindicated
> for fighters.
Sure. I never wrote much about bands. All the time I write about
training methodologies, not equipment.
[...]
>>Equipment again. What sort of quality will band training develop
>>better than other kinds of training?
>
> Covered above. Multiple planes of resistance - frontal, sagittal ans
> transverse.
Yeah. True. Still, I'm somehow reluctant in admitting that all those
fancy planes make much sense in real world. I mean, I've seen videos
of athletes doing some really strange pulley moves to develop some
supposedly important "planes" instead of doing something productive,
like training or resting.
> Good for replicating whole-body, multiple-joint movements
> of functional activities.
That's what I don't like about them. ;-)
> Smooth eccentric resistance. Allows faster
> movements and plyometric exercises. Progressive variable resistance.
> Strength curves similar to strength curves of human joints.
>
> I have no plans to throw away my free weights.
>
> As far as tennis is concerned, give me an OK racquet, an OK court, the
> right type of competition, lots of practice/playing time, a backboard,
> and a great coach. Iron and/or rubber can't substitute for any of
> this
Make sense. Sure.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R |
12-04-2006, 03:18 PM
| | | Re: weight lifting program for Tennis
Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> Dnia 2006-12-04 gedaloda@thisguy.com napisał(a):
>> On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 20:07:57 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
>> <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> You can't measure progress in the same way as you measure incremental
>> increases with free weights. My weight plates go from 50 pounds to
>> 1/4 lb. However, it's not a big challenge to know that you have
>> made progress with bands or tubing. There are bands with different
>> levels of resistance and there are published exercises in the
>> beginner, intermediate, and advanced categories. One knows when
>> exercises become easier to perform. One can use bands/tubing to
>> make/measure/judge progress with free weights and/or in one's sport
>> of choice. Sometimes the judgement involved is partially subjective.
>>
>> For example, Bruce Baumgartner, 4 time
>> Olympic medalist statedwrestling)
>>
>> "I have used Lifeline Power Cables for training and rehabilitation
>> throughout my athletic and coaching career. World and Olympic level
>> athletes continue to use Lifeline cables for their durability and
>> function - both in rehabilitation and sport-specific training."
>> http://www.lifelineusa.com/products.cfm?categoryid=2
>
> Actually I use some cables in my training. It's a spring loaded Chest
> Expander kind of exerciser, and I use it to work on my shoulder
> flexibility.
>
> See? There is a quality I want to develop, so I take whatever
> equipment works for it. I could do it with a broomstick, but cables
> work better so I use cables.
Would you care to expand further? Shoulder flexibility is something I
believe I really need to work on as it is, I believe, compromising my push
press. I also want to include some overhead squats but I can't use anything
more than about 50/60kg as the weight sits too far forward and I'm forced to
[sort of] support it with forearm strength!!
[...]
--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss |
12-04-2006, 03:18 PM
| | | Re: weight lifting program for Tennis
"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> schreef:
>> All this (this being sports performance, training, elite achievement,
>> etc.) is rather moot, too, as I believe Pete has little, if any,
>> interest in tennis but great interest in Serena's physique which leads
>> me back to God BLESS Mother Nature and her creations!
> So, you tell me that all that time I discussed Serena Wiliams ass?
Hahaha!
> Serena doesn't even look especially attractive to my eye.
Most men i speak to dont find her sexy.
I think she is incredebly sexy, even more so when she is angry.
If she walked up to me and said "You are my Bitch, i control YOU!", i might
even say;
Yes i am, you control me... But i insist she says in in Dutch.
> Well, better than average, but there are plenty of way prettier girls in a
> local
> bar most weekends.
Not with an ass like that.
There arent any black girls in Poland
> Very tiny waist and (over)developed hips and tights, but she's still
> pretty.
I dont think thats overdeveloped.
I like the Asian female weightlifters.
Nice quads and glutes.
----
Pete
|
12-04-2006, 03:18 PM
| | | Re: weight lifting program for Tennis
"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> schreef:
All this (this being sports performance, training, elite achievement,
etc.) is rather moot, too, as I believe Pete has little, if any,
interest in tennis but great interest in Serena's physique which leads
me back to God BLESS Mother Nature and her creations!
__________________________________________________ ______
No really, my interest in tennis is sincere and genuine.
I have been watching both men and women ever since John Mcenroe came into
the scene.
I loved that guy. What a character...
BOOM-PATS-BOOM-PATS-BOOM PATS...
OUT!
WHAT?
THE BALL WAS OUT !!!
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, YOU BLIND MOTHERFUCKER !?!?!?
I started to whatch the women a few years later.
I love the way they moan...
Oh I say, well played sir
Fifteen love
Oh my goodness me, what a shot
Thirty love
Who could possibly return that backhand?
Thirty fifteen
These two boys really mean business today
Forty - fifteen
Out
Out
What!
Out
WHAT!
The ball is out
You gotta be kidding
The ball is in; everyone could see that the ball is in
Chalk dust everyone could see that there was chalk dust
That ball was in by about a mile
You people here goddamn senile
Don't be noisy, there's a good chap
You'll wake the linesman, she is having a nap.
Screwball
Call yourself an umpire
You're a screwball
Play on
You're being rather naughty
Kindly play on
I won't play on till you change you're call
you didn't even see the (beep beep) ball
I come over here to play a (beep beep) game
But you're blind geriatric to (beep beep) thing
The ball is in, everyone could see that the ball's in
Chalk dust, everyone could see that there's chalk dust
I am awfully sorry but the ball was out
I'd be jolly grateful if you didn't shout
If you don't like it here well you shouldn't come
Frankly sir
You're a pain in the bum
Moron, I want another umpire you're a moron
Chalk dust, I wanna see my lawyer there was chalk dust
You pick on me cause of who I am
I am not playing on and I don't give a damn
The ball wasn't out it's a goddamn lie
I won't play on and I think I'm gonna cry....
Chalk dust
I wanna see my daddy there was chalk dust
Boring
I'm gonna have to shoot you now
You're boring
I am sorry about this
You tedious little brat
I am sick of you
The umpire strikes back
(machine gun fire) Rat-a-tat-tat-tat
Oh, You're the pits, you're scum man, you are not fit to be called a human
being
(machine gun fire) Rat-a-tat-tat-tat
I was talking to myself.
(dies) uhhhh......
----
Pete
|
12-04-2006, 03:18 PM
| | | Re: weight lifting program for Tennis
"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> schreef:
> I have saved both these images for later analysis.
> As a control, i will also examine images of Maria Sharapova. Furthermore,
> i may conduct a thought experiment involving Williams and Sharapova
> together.
Stop teasing me.
I know what you are gonna do....
Lock them up together for a very long long time with a rubber device?
The question of course, isnt, will they use it or not. Of course they will.
But who is gonna strap it on ?!?!?!
THATS the question!
----
Pete
|
12-04-2006, 03:18 PM
| | | Re: weight lifting program for Tennis
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 11:00:35 +0100, "Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl>
wrote:
>"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> schreef:
>
>All this (this being sports performance, training, elite achievement,
>etc.) is rather moot, too, as I believe Pete has little, if any,
>interest in tennis but great interest in Serena's physique which leads
>me back to God BLESS Mother Nature and her creations!
>
>
>_________________________________________________ _______
>
>No really, my interest in tennis is sincere and genuine.
>I have been watching both men and women [...]
I lost interest in watching Wimbledon since the advent of cycling
shorts, which replaced the somewhat more diaphanous and more alluring
undergarments worn by les girls.
Tennis does not have the same interest quotient as hot tottie bottom
watching!
Ugh! It's Monday!
|
12-04-2006, 03:18 PM
| | | Re: weight lifting program for Tennis
"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> schreef:
> http://www.mariasharapovaonline.info...arapova-13.jpg
> http://www.sitevip.net/maria-sharapova/images/index.gif
> http://www.mariasharapova.com/
> YOWZA!
Strange that you are sexually attracted to both Serena and Maria.
Sure, i like different women. Besides black, i find Asian and Hispanic women
attractive. (prefferably a mixture of the afforementioned) but they must
have one thing in common.
I WOULD like to see some meat on them bones.
Maria isnt even slim, she is borderline anorexic. I believe she is 1.84
meters, 57 kilos.
Serena is 1.78 meters, 68 kilo. Thats a HUGE difference.
And thats only weight/height. The way the weight is distributed is very,
very different. The way they move/walk is also very different.
Maria is a bit shy, timide, where i saw Serena a few times ready to rip off
the Umpires head!
Two ends of a spectrum, i guess...
----
Pete |
12-04-2006, 03:18 PM
| | | Re: weight lifting program for Tennis
Pete wrote:
> "Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> schreef:
>
>> http://www.mariasharapovaonline.info...arapova-13.jpg
Now that IS sexy; apart from the oversize feet  !!!
>> http://www.sitevip.net/maria-sharapova/images/index.gif
>> http://www.mariasharapova.com/
>
>> YOWZA!
>
> Strange that you are sexually attracted to both Serena and Maria.
>
> Sure, i like different women. Besides black, i find Asian and
> Hispanic women attractive. (prefferably a mixture of the
> afforementioned) but they must have one thing in common.
>
> I WOULD like to see some meat on them bones.
>
> Maria isnt even slim, she is borderline anorexic. I believe she is
> 1.84 meters, 57 kilos.
>
> Serena is 1.78 meters, 68 kilo. Thats a HUGE difference.
>
> And thats only weight/height. The way the weight is distributed is
> very, very different. The way they move/walk is also very different.
>
> Maria is a bit shy, timide, where i saw Serena a few times ready to
> rip off the Umpires head!
>
> Two ends of a spectrum, i guess...
>
> ----
> Pete
--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss | | |
