CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Exercises
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Exercises Movements, technique & proper execution

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-20-2009, 01:20 AM   #1
Aaron Smith
Member Aaron Smith is offline
 
Aaron Smith's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Fairbanks  AK
Posts: 1
Is a PC to F. Sq really functional?

Crossfit is about functional movement and productive application of force right? Yet often a WOD will call for squat cleans that are light enough to power clean.

If you can pull a weight hard enough to catch it high then why squat with it? It seems counter productive to lower the bar when the goal of the movement is elevation of the load, or productive application of force.

I realize that there's a much greater demand on the athlete when squat cleans are required. All you have to do is compare Greg Amundson's "Elizabeth" times in the Power and Full Squat versions to see it.

"No comparison" as he put it.

But the reality stand that the only time in the real world you'd ever do a squat clean is if you pulled something so heavy you couldn't catch it high.

I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with programming light squat cleans; I guess I'm just looking for validation of this observation and throwing it out there to see if you guys have any thoughts.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2009, 03:40 AM   #2
Greg Privitera
Affiliate Greg Privitera is offline
 
Greg Privitera's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Moorestown  NJ
Posts: 2,293
Re: Is a PC to F. Sq really functional?

You should still be catching squat cleans low if they're light so the bar is moving down as little as possible.

It's good practice and just a heck of a lot of work (good for conditioning).
__________________
my workout log
My Affiliate
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2009, 05:22 AM   #3
Jesse Emers
Member Jesse Emers is offline
 
Jesse Emers's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Port Orange  Florida
Posts: 3,739
Re: Is a PC to F. Sq really functional?

Greg is right. Also, drilling these high rep light squat cleans will make you much more profficient at the movement when it comes to lifting heavier weights.
When the WOD calls for light squat cleans, dont do a power clean then squat it. You need to reduce the force that you use to jump the weight up so that the bar only goes high enough for you to catch in a squat. Its a faster cycle time and also saves alot more energy than pulling harder for a power clean followed by a full front squat.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2009, 07:26 AM   #4
Renee Lee
Member Renee Lee is offline
 
Renee Lee's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Boston  MA
Posts: 3,039
Re: Is a PC to F. Sq really functional?

slightly off topic, but a pet peeve of mine:

when thrusters or wall balls are prescribed, it drives me crazy when people either PC (or curl for wall ball) the weight to standing, then squat. Faster, more efficient for the first rep is to squat clean the weight, straight into the thruster.
__________________
"catapultam habeo. nisi pecuniam dabis, ad capitem tuum saxum mittam."
Translation: I have a catapult. Give me your money or i'll throw a rock at your head.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2009, 08:14 AM   #5
Ted Sheedy
Member Ted Sheedy is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pittsburgh  PA
Posts: 13
Re: Is a PC to F. Sq really functional?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renee Lee View Post
slightly off topic, but a pet peeve of mine:

when thrusters or wall balls are prescribed, it drives me crazy when people either PC (or curl for wall ball) the weight to standing, then squat. Faster, more efficient for the first rep is to squat clean the weight, straight into the thruster.
It may be faster and more efficient. But is a squat clean into a push press really a thruster?
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2009, 12:18 PM   #6
Katherine Derbyshire
Member Katherine Derbyshire is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Seattle  WA
Posts: 7,596
Re: Is a PC to F. Sq really functional?

If you never do squat cleans with light weight, what makes you think you'll be able to do them with heavy weight?

Katherine
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2009, 12:28 PM   #7
Lincoln Brigham
Member Lincoln Brigham is offline
 
Lincoln Brigham's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kirkland  WA
Posts: 3,987
Re: Is a PC to F. Sq really functional?

THANK YOU KATHERINE! Spot on.

The PC-to-front squat is great practice for learning the squat clean. Eventually the lifter gets so annoyed with pulling and squatting the bar higher than necessary that they just cut to the chase and start squat cleaning the weight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2009, 03:05 PM   #8
Departed
 
Profile:  
Posts: n/a
Re: Is a PC to F. Sq really functional?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Sheedy View Post
It may be faster and more efficient. But is a squat clean into a push press really a thruster?
It's only not a thruster if they stop at the point of full hip and knee extension, and then PP/PJ the weight up. As long as momentum never stops, it's a thruster.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2009, 03:55 PM   #9
Eric Montgomery
Member Eric Montgomery is offline
 
Eric Montgomery's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Diego  CA
Posts: 7,413
Re: Is a PC to F. Sq really functional?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lincoln Brigham View Post
Eventually the lifter gets so annoyed with pulling and squatting the bar higher than necessary that they just cut to the chase and start squat cleaning the weight.
...which is pretty much what Bill Starr suggested in his CFJ article as a progression for teaching the squat clean to someone who's never done it before. Good article if anyone hasn't seen it.
__________________
Training Log (WFS)
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2009, 04:04 PM   #10
Renee Lee
Member Renee Lee is offline
 
Renee Lee's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Boston  MA
Posts: 3,039
Re: Is a PC to F. Sq really functional?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Sheedy View Post
It may be faster and more efficient. But is a squat clean into a push press really a thruster?
i...what?

i don't think you understood what i just said...
__________________
"catapultam habeo. nisi pecuniam dabis, ad capitem tuum saxum mittam."
Translation: I have a catapult. Give me your money or i'll throw a rock at your head.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
are handstands functional? Elfrieth Sonny Rodriguez Fitness 32 11-21-2007 02:16 PM
Functional Strength Example - Brad Gilliatt Fitness 11 10-28-2007 10:32 AM
Why are rings functional? Jason C. Brown Exercises 9 03-10-2007 09:21 AM
Why are rings functional? Aaron Wilson Exercises 9 11-09-2006 12:45 PM
Functional full extension and functional ohs Mike Burgener Exercises 2 07-01-2005 08:39 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.