Dynamic correspondence is real but very often misapplied. Trainers often just use the eyeball test of “does the thing we are doing look like the sport” and that’s wrong. Example: Dane mentions that barbell back squat improves kicking power in combat sport athletes, but it doesn’t “look” like it should. There’s also been studies that improving the bench press improves the discus throw, which is the opposite of what many people would expect.
Bad trainers use “sport specific movements” and dynamic correspondence to justify bad training.
I would rather train in the same energy system than specific movement. Ex explosive snatches will train for twitchier movements in baseball than slow motion banded twisting movements.
Dynamic correspondence is real but very often misapplied. Trainers often just use the eyeball test of “does the thing we are doing look like the sport” and that’s wrong. Example: Dane mentions that barbell back squat improves kicking power in combat sport athletes, but it doesn’t “look” like it should. There’s also been studies that improving the bench press improves the discus throw, which is the opposite of what many people would expect. Bad trainers use “sport specific movements” and dynamic correspondence to justify bad training.
I would rather train in the same energy system than specific movement. Ex explosive snatches will train for twitchier movements in baseball than slow motion banded twisting movements.
Intent of speed matters