: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:26 pm  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

Your body doesn't know you are playing RL.


If you simulate everything then you will become "match fit".


However, as I have said, given it's much easier to get 95% there and finish the last 5% off by actually playing the game, why would you?

If you simulate everything you will be playing the sport.

: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:28 pm  

I played about 20 mins for the Riversiders a week last Sunday and my ribs are still knacking me.

I am definitely not match fit (but will get there I should add!) whereas the rest of them were playing in the heat at Irlam a week later with absolutely mortal hangovers! Fair play fellas That's a good example for me!

: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:29 pm  

wigan pie man wrote:

in that case then , one day we will get to the stage where you can get match fit in a gym.
all it takes is a few simulators to hit the body as if its being tackled, and other similar machines.

they said we would never make a nuclear weapon at one time as well.

as science progresses, so does progress.........or summat.

only thing i can think of against my own theory is that as we progress, the game will progress (as its been doing) and players will get fitter and need to be more match fit to cope, thereby always keeping one step in front of scientific advances.

The problem is that firstly you have to combine so many different disciplines to make it virtually impossible, and to compound that as training conditioning improves and style of game changes demads on the body change, so basically you are forever playing catch up. There is no set finish line it is a line that is always moving forward as training moves forwards.

If anyone is interested in reading further on this I would suggest reading anything by Vern Gambetta.

[Pemps]

: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 pm  

Rilo wrote:

I played about 20 mins for the Riversiders a week last Sunday and my ribs are still knacking me.

I am definitely not match fit (but will get there I should add!) whereas the rest of them were playing in the heat at Irlam a week later with absolutely mortal hangovers! Fair play fellas That's a good example for me!

Erm, for future reference when you refer to the riversiders could you call them "The RugbyLeagueLegends.com Riversiders"?

Thanks

: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:33 pm  

Pemps wrote:

Erm, for future reference when you refer to the riversiders could you call them "The RugbyLeagueLegends.com Riversiders"?

Thanks

My bad, duly noted!

: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:42 pm  

in that case then , one day we will get to the stage where you can get match fit in a gym.

all it takes is a few simulators to hit the body as if its being tackled, and other similar machines.

they said we would never make a nuclear weapon at one time as well.

as science progresses, so does progress.........or summat.

only thing i can think of against my own theory is that as we progress, the game will progress (as its been doing) and players will get fitter and need to be more match fit to cope, thereby always keeping one step in front of scientific advances.[/quote]

Whilst i agree that training methods have improved and will continue, for example 20 years ago most teams weight training would have been based on bodybuilder type workouts, where as now they do more sport specific stuff and olympic lifts. I would be amazed if anyone used exercises like curls! I dont think you will ever be able to train for 100% match fitness. Training is more linear than a game.

In all sports, athletes are always knackered when they finish the race due to the extra effort they put in, and you cannot train for that. That extra effort is down to mental strength and nothing else. The Will to push yourself further than you do normally.

: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:47 pm  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

You can get 100% match fit in the gym.

Now it may well be harder than playing the game, however it is possible.

Not possible at all. I'm a lecturer in Sport in Manchester and have never known any athlete to get match fit at the start of the year in the gym alone.

: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:51 pm  

jonh wrote:

The problem is that firstly you have to combine so many different disciplines to make it virtually impossible, and to compound that as training conditioning improves and style of game changes demads on the body change, so basically you are forever playing catch up. There is no set finish line it is a line that is always moving forward as training moves forwards.

If anyone is interested in reading further on this I would suggest reading anything by Vern Gambetta.

no offence mate, but i'd rather be kissing girls

: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:55 pm  

I would suggest reading anything by Vern Gambetta.

Mel Sif is quite good however maybe a little dated now.

Charles Staley also has some good info out there but has gone a little mainstream now!

Jonh,

what are your thoughts on the Crossfit methodology, getting quite a lot of press at the moment?

: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:06 pm  

Sharpy_4a wrote:

Mel Sif is quite good however maybe a little dated now.

Charles Staley also has some good info out there but has gone a little mainstream now!

Jonh,

what are your thoughts on the Crossfit methodology, getting quite a lot of press at the moment?

Crossfit is simply another way of rebranding an old basic model of periodization IMHO.

Supertraining by Mel Siff is a fantastic book and should be the cornerstone of anyone wanting to take research in this area seriously, although it certainly should not be the first book you read as it is very hard going.