Over the years I have evolved the following operational definitions of strength. Operational because it is how I classify strength training when I design my workouts. Classically the coaching literature divided strength into general strength and special special. I never felt that was a thorough enough breakdown so I added a third division, specific strength. Visualize the strength classifications as a continuum on the force/velocity curve. On the upper left of the force/velocity curve is low speed, high force work and on the lower right is high speed, high force. The goal of strength training is to develop strength you can use and apply in the sport or event. In order to accomplish that, the goal is to shift the force/velocity curve to the right. It has been my experience that the three classifications that I use give me a better command of the type of loading necessary to achieve that shift and help me design more effective workouts.
Three classifications are:
General Strength – This consists of methods and exercises that are directed toward the development of the force component of power. This encompasses traditional weight training exercises and other resistance methods including body weight exercises that do not seek to imitate any aspect of specific sport skill. Speed of movement is of little or no concern. This is all about force, not speed.
Special (Transitional) Strength – The purpose of these methods and exercises is to transition general strength into specific strength. These exercises could be considered similar but not the same as specific sport movements. Olympic style weight lifting, medicine ball work, stretch cord work and plyometric training generally fit into this category. There is still a force component present, but there is a higher speed component. The exercises are more specific.
Specific Strength – This consists or methods and exercises that are characterized by movement with resistance that imitates the joint action of the sport skill. Rather than similar it is very much the same. There is a high degree of specificity in terms of mechanics, skill and above all speed of movement. This obviously will have the highest degree of transfer to specific sport skill.
There is an obvious overlap. The amount of this overlap varies with the athlete and the sport. It is important to note that these definitions are meant as guidelines not as strict rules. Over the years I have found that defining strength in this manner helped me stay on target in terms of developing strength that could be applied to the event or sport. Play with it and see how it applies to your own situation.
marcel.roy3@gmail.com
Very interesting Vern.
I work with the Canadian Forces (which include the Canadian Army, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force). For about 3 years we have been working on a program that divide fitness in 3 areas: Physical, Functional and Operational.
The way you define Strength is very similar to our approach. First work on the physical preparation by focusing on the main fitness components (Physical) and covering some pre-hab that were identified. Then progress by training the movements by including some speed, power, agility, etc (Functional). Finally we wrapped things by doing workouts that will replicate what soldiers will do in field, on the tarmac or a ship using similar loads, distance, time etc (Operational).
We too have an overlap and we train all three of them year-round but the numbers of exposure varies base on where they are situation on their military training (ie deployment cycle).
We will do a study this summer on the program to demonstrate its validity.