Evidence Based Training? | Dream Loudly | Basketball Training
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 дек 2023
- Is there really no such thing as a technique in basketball? Did all the greats of the past really just succeed despite their training? Micah Lancaster and Bryce Stanhope discuss the Evidence Based training approach. Episode one just scratches the surface of this topic.
SUBSCRIBE to our RUclips channel for more basketball training videos: bit.ly/1GGVVGW
Train with Micah Lancaster: possibletraining.com
FOLLOW us on Instagram:
▶ Instagram: / micah_lancaster
▶ Instagram: / brycestanhope
▶ Instagram: / possibletraining
Like the gear we use? Check out our shop: possibletraining.com 
Спорт
You asked for people to discuss thier own development and how this video reflects on experiences.
Basketball is not my sport, I play inline hockey (the wheels version of ice hockey). I started 30 years ago in my teens, it wasn't a big sport for our country (New Zealand) and in my city it didnt exist. So we started our own club The Ravens.
Nobody new a thing, we were so basic that our 1st year at nationals comp we taped magazines to our shins for pads and used the same tape for making the numbers on our shirts.
The underdogs, we came 3rd.
Everything from then was self taught players and administration operation was mostly parental input.
Over the years I have developed to a level at regional tournaments and making up to trials for becoming a representative for my country, before being halted by injury.
I referee the sport, and have been coaching skating and hockey for almost a decade.
The thing about my experience is that I always had an uncanny ability to see things in others, though without anybody telling me what this understanding was, I could not really apply it to my own development. It took a few years of self reflecting not only my skills but to recognize that the way I teach myself was different to others at early ages. I have grown up learning that we all learn different things at different times, so I needed to self analyze what I don't know in order to find areas in need of attention.
This came from either watching and seeing what worked for others, or, during my own moments where something wasn't working or I struggled to match the skill of an opponent.
I would need to take note of these times, break down the actions to figure out what was missing. Then I could work out what could be tweaked to improve the individual components of what I was trying to achieve, be it shooting better, finding more effective zone control, position defensively to break down an opposing attack. Then, go and work on the component, work out what to change by trial and error, find the sweet spot and beat the heck out of that sucker till it hurts.
I got good.
Then I learned that I had a knack in the teaching department.
The first thing I came to really understand about good coaching, is the phrase "watch and learn". This is usually applied when someone wants to school someone else on how awesome they are. However, my understanding is that as a coach you have to know what you are about to offer someone, if they are trying to operate at a level outside of thier skillset then you need to be able to recognize the point of difference between the things they can do and the things they want to do. Finding what they need to add or remove from thier skillset is important, and equally important is knowing what is the right time to develop what attribute to them as an individual.
The best and only way ro do this as a coach is to watch first, and learn what you are working with.
It's very true what you say about your approach to training. When it comes to helping anybody upskill, I have a different approach for different people. I often use techniques that seem unorthodox or not the standard structure you see from most teachings. A large portion of it seems to not be relevant to the unskilled onlooker, until we get to the end of sessions and take a look at where what we have achieved.
Results, statistics taken by what we started with, what we ended with and the growth in between. But that growth can't be measured, and can't really be accounted for until you return for your next session and can account for your growth by replicating previous results.
It definitely correlates in my sport that, particularly youth level development, the coaching is often done by non skilled people or good players with little ability to watch and learn, approach the dynamics of how the good gets good and instill this in the people they teach.
So mostly the drills are run repetitively untill scrimmage games happen, and people improve despite all of that.
This is why I love the I'mPossible approach. It comes to the table with a mentality that fits what I have naturally had the whole time, and allows me to adopt mindsets and structred perspective that fit my own ways of adapting the coaching aspects to my sport.
I have played other sports too, and this brings insights in that assist the teachings with regards to physical and mental adaptation.
My shooting drills are honed from the study of baseballers using particular leading leg and hip action control, zone and positional areas bring in practices learned from years of football, when players are looking to improve on rink situational awerness and fluidity to adapt I bring in lessons that make them think and operate like a basketballing point guard.
There is always room for improvement in sport and out of it, but I find the ways in which you present your stuff is the most effective option to get the most from people, and also help them get the most from themselves when you are not around.
Sometimes the explanation is outweighed by the results, the mode of operation overcomes the model operator.
It is difficult to find these types of processes consistently and across the board, in any sport.
Your work is appreciated.
🔥🔥
As someone who has done your trainer university and seen your curriculum, I am curious what you think makes the CLA apporach different than many of your training techniques. I understand you disagree with the assumption that "there is no skills" since your organization has done such a great job identifying and categorizing skills, but the techniques themselves use training tools (environmental constraints) to help players discover the details you want them to learn. As a matter of fact, the training approach I have personally seen where you introduce the method and then let them try the method themselves before showing video and getting into the detail seems very similar to what I have heard from the CLA crowd when it comes to introduction of a concept. It seems from my perspective you could be considered an elite CLA trainer.
In regards to the small sided games for skill development, I would agree with your guys stance where it is susceptible to not developing the "naturals" as those players will need the detail to learn what they are missing. However, small sided games seems to fall under the game enhancement umbrella than the skill enhancement umbrella. From my perspective, it seems like small sided games are the perfect compliment to your training methods. If done well, it can offer players the environment to get a feel of when are appropriate times to use the skills that are developed from the skill enhancement side.
Hey Sam! There are indeed some parallels to the CLA and what we teach at I'm Possible. In fact, I think many of our methods and processes have been stolen by the CLA crowd and repurposed haha. But what typically occurs in that case, is the CLA framework of no detail, challenge for the sake of challenge, and making the game far too reactive, causes even that training to simply become a sloppy version of what we do. It almost seems like they are making things sloppy sometimes just so they can "sloppify" training to support their research at times...
Even in this video, I believe I mentioned we have our own versions of constraints, so I'm not completely opposed to the concept. But constraints without understanding technique just doesn't get players very far. As far as me being an elite CLA trainer, I would agree, except that the overall CLA approach believes that only other human bodies can serve as constraints, making our methodology disqualified due to training accountability methods.
And I completely agree with you on the benefits of small sided games. I often say it's a perfect compliment and stated that in a past podcast. In fact, I would even quote you "it can offer players the environment to get a feel of when are appropriate times to use the skills that are developed from the skill enhancement side". Absolutely right! My only beef with small sided games is the belief that small sided games creates and enhances skill, which it just doesn't do very well.
Overall, this video isn't a bash of CLA. I believe I said that multiple times. It's a call for CLA to understand what it does accomplish, and what it does not accomplish. There are simply too many in the CLA that are making HUGE jumps based on the research and believing that its a one-size fits all. Match that with the typical arrogance of "academia" and we start to have issues in the basketball community.
Your critique on skills training is fine, but your argument about Borel's law is long debunked. Borel himself even refutes creationist misuse of it. Should have picked a diffetent example, because evolutionairy bio is the last field that even remotely analogous.
I’m ok with having a little bit of fun at the expense of a theory like evolution. 😅 I’m glad you liked the basketball part
@@ImPossibleTrainingYeah, I get that, but like, I don't think it's the same because the convergence of evidence is exorbitantly stronger for something like evolution than it is for something like CLA. The CLA inferences they're making and aren't critiquing aren't really based on enough convergence of evidence to make the claim. It's kind of like comparing a 6 year old who thinks they have a chance to beat a pro fighter because they won a sparring competition vs. another 6 year old in a highly specific context) to an actual pro fighter saying they can beat another pro fighter of lesser caliber, (and has 9 black belts in 300 different martial arts styles and has won 90 thousand consecutive fights against the 700 of the world's top fighters, all at once, 12 hours a day, for 70 years straight. They're not really remotely comparable. I hope that kind of makes sense where I'm coming from. Idk. I feel like your argument would be good without that analogy, because it's accurate, in reality. I agree with the overall point in regards to training. I just don't think the analogy works at all. A better example/analogy would be someone like Gwenneth Patro saying that vitamins cure cancer because she read one study where it killed cancer in a petri dish, not realizing that anything can be killed in a petri dish by just about any substance (which is why studies on petri dishes are low on the hierarchy of evidence).
The word "theory" in science actually refers to the most well substantiated ideas. Published, peer reviewed evidence is the substantiation. This is not just some drunken ramble (much like what was depicted in the video starting at the 5:19 mark), but rather decades of established research. This anti science nonsense makes you both look like clowns and you should stay in your lane. Please stop doing this. @@ImPossibleTraining
@@readandrap283evidence for evolution is as follows…natural selection is real. That evidence is then used to support theories like a Big Bang theory which is a completely unprovable theory and can’t possibly be proven by science…And evolution definitely relies on theories like the Big Bang to support itself. It’s jn that way, that these issues become similar. The “evidence” is misused and makes claims and jumps to conclusions it shouldn’t be making in the name of science
@@ImPossibleTraining I can certainly understand this perspective, but ultimately, I think it has a few glaring problems and misperceptions, both scientific and philosophical. I'll try to address it in a bit more detail with one comment, so it doesn't drag out too much.
This argument misunderstands the scientific process. Let's break it down:
"Natural selection is real, but the evidence is then misused to support unprovable theories like the Big Bang."
- Natural selection and the Big Bang are distinct scientific concepts. Natural selection is well-supported by extensive evidence in biology, while the Big Bang is a cosmological theory supported by evidence from astrophysics. The evidence for natural selection doesn't inherently support or rely on the Big Bang theory.
"The Big Bang is a completely unprovable theory."
- The Big Bang theory is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including cosmic background radiation and the observed expansion of the universe. While we can't directly observe the initial moment of the Big Bang, the theory is consistent with a wide range of observations and has predictive power.
"Evolution relies on theories like the Big Bang to support itself."
- Evolutionary biology and cosmology are separate scientific fields. Evolution is supported by evidence from genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy. While scientists explore the interconnectedness of scientific theories, accepting evolution doesn't inherently hinge on the acceptance of the Big Bang theory.
In summary, the argument seems to conflate different scientific concepts and misunderstands how evidence and theories function within distinct fields. The strength of scientific theories lies in their ability to explain and predict observations within their specific domains, and evidence for one theory does not necessarily undermine the validity of another.
As far as philosophically, rejecting macroevolution due to the inability to directly observe it reflects a form of empiricism that limits knowledge to only what is immediately perceptible. However, philosophical perspectives such as scientific realism argue that science unveils hidden truths about the world, transcending direct observation. In this context, macroevolution, supported by converging evidence from various disciplines, becomes a narrative that explains the unfolding complexity of life. Philosophically, it highlights the importance of inference, abductive reasoning, and a holistic understanding of reality beyond what is immediately evident.
Philosophically, rejecting macroevolution solely due to the constraint of direct observation demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of scientific inquiry. The rejection aligns with an outdated form of empiricism that fails to grasp the complexity of knowledge acquisition. From a philosophical standpoint, it's imperative to recognize the epistemological inadequacy of demanding direct observation as the sole criterion for accepting a scientific theory. This rigid stance overlooks the robust interplay between theory and evidence, dismissing the rich tapestry of interconnected observations that contribute to our understanding of macroevolution. This rejection is fundamentally flawed, as it neglects the nuanced methodologies and epistemic frameworks that underpin scientific progress. It reflects a reluctance to embrace the inherent uncertainty and provisional nature of scientific knowledge, undermining the very essence of a disciplined and evolving pursuit of truth.
The categorical rejection of macroevolution based solely on the insistence of direct observation is akin to demanding simplicity in a reality that is inherently complex. This perspective aligns with a reductionist view of knowledge, where understanding is sought only in the immediately perceptible, neglecting the intricate layers of abstraction and inference inherent in scientific exploration, and this rejection appears rooted in a form of scientism-an overreliance on the scientific method as the exclusive arbiter of truth. Such a stance fails to appreciate the diversity of human knowledge, dismissing insights gained through historical, comparative, and theoretical approaches.
Philosophically, the rejection of macroevolution solely based on the insistence of direct observation is not only flawed but also problematic in its implications. At its core, this rejection reflects a dogmatic adherence to a positivist worldview, where only empirical evidence is considered valid. This narrow epistemological stance fails to acknowledge the limitations of human perception and the intricate nature of scientific inference. The philosophical issue here lies in the oversimplification of the scientific process. Science, as a dynamic and evolving enterprise, involves constructing models and theories that go beyond mere observation. Rejecting macroevolution due to a demand for direct observation overlooks the richness of indirect evidence, such as fossil records, molecular biology, and comparative anatomy, which collectively contribute to a comprehensive understanding of evolutionary processes. Furthermore, the rejection is problematic in its disregard for the provisional nature of scientific knowledge. Philosophically, science thrives on skepticism, openness to revision, and the acknowledgment that our understanding of the natural world is always subject to refinement. Rejecting macroevolution based on a stringent demand for direct observation undermines this foundational aspect of scientific inquiry, hindering intellectual progress.
We don't need to repeat the past to directly test our findings. This misunderstands the standard of repeatability. When scientists say that an experiment must be repeatable, they only mean that other people should be able to do the experiment themselves and get the same results. It does not mean that the event that a hypothesis describes has to be repeatable. An experiment that tests evolution can meet the standard of repeatability without needing to repeat the process of evolution itself. This is why science is a very skeptical undertaking. Empirical science doesn't try to know anything with perfect certainty. All theories in the empirical sciences are provisional and subject to revision the moment they no longer match experience. Science does not assume that there is some eternal truth out there waiting to be discovered, and it certainly doesn't assume that such a truth has been attained. Scientists will readily acknowledge that any theory in the empirical sciences may end up being falsified at some point in the future.
The comparison between evidence misuse in exercise science and inferences in supermacroevolution isn't very accurate, if at all.
Misusing evidence in exercise science typically involves misinterpreting data or making exaggerated claims about the effectiveness of a technique without proper scientific validation. Inferences in supermacroevolution involve drawing conclusions from a broad range of evidence across multiple scientific disciplines, such as paleontology and genetics. The process is rigorous, subject to peer review, and aligns with established scientific methodologies.
The acceptance of supermacroevolution is based on a consensus within the scientific community, which undergoes ongoing scrutiny and refinement. It's not a case of misusing evidence but rather a collective interpretation of diverse data.
Misuse in exercise science may lead to suboptimal fitness recommendations, while the inferences in supermacroevolution are part of a comprehensive, well-established scientific framework that undergoes rigorous evaluation and contributes to our understanding of the natural world.
Scientific inferences in supermacroevolution are rationally warranted and substantially stronger for several reasons that distinctly differentiate them from the misuse of evidence in exercise science.
Inferences in supermacroevolution are supported by a wide array of interdisciplinary evidence, including fossil records, genetics, and comparative anatomy. The convergence of evidence from different scientific fields enhances the robustness and reliability of the inferences.
Misusing evidence in exercise science often involves isolated or exaggerated claims about the efficacy of a specific technique without comprehensive support from multiple scientific disciplines. Whereas, with macroevolution, the inferences align with and enhance our understanding of well-established scientific theories, including evolution by natural selection. The consistency with existing scientific knowledge strengthens their validity.
Misuse in exercise science may involve making claims that deviate from or contradict established principles, leading to a lack of consistency with well-supported theories. Inferences in supermacroevolution often make predictions about undiscovered evidence, contributing to their predictive power. Additionally, specific aspects of the theory can be tested through ongoing research. Whereas misuse in exercise science may lack the predictive power associated with well-grounded scientific theories. Claims made without proper scientific validation may not withstand empirical testing.
The inferences within macroevolution undergo rigorous peer review, ensuring that they meet high scientific standards. The scrutiny by experts in the field contributes to the reliability and strength of the inferences.
In summary, the scientific inferences in supermacroevolution are distinguished by their comprehensive interdisciplinary support, consistency with established theories, predictive power, rigorous peer review, and consensus within the scientific community. These factors substantially strengthen their validity and set them apart from the misuse of evidence in exercise science, which lacks these foundational elements and cannot be equated with the well-supported inferences in evolutionary biology.