Stabilizing the Technique of the Jerk
Rustem Khairullin
Olymp 2:16 – 17: 2002
Translated by Andrew Charniga, Jr.
Sportivny Press©
An analysis of the results of the Russian men’s national championships for the years 2000 – 2001 produced the following conclusions:
1. The sport mastery of the jerk was found to be lagging. The data we analyzed provided convincing evidence because the ratio of snatch to the clean and jerk (S/J) was 82.31%±0.98% at the 2000 Russian championships and 82.19±-.98% at the 2001 Russian championships.
2. There was a relatively low success rate for the clean and jerk at these competitions of 54.79±4.39% and 53.75±5.75%, respectively.
An analysis of the results of the 2001 World championships and the 2002 Russian championships in the individual exercises revealed that the success rate of competition attempts in the clean and jerk remained at a relatively low level.
Only the champions at the 2001 World championships had good results (a success rate of more than 66%); whereas, the female champions at the 2002 World championships obtained excellent results (a success rate of more than 83.33%, tables 1 – 6).
The effect the level of the competition exerts on the biathlon total can be reckoned only by the optimum ratio of the snatch to the clean and jerk.
A comparison of the dynamic and kinematic characteristics of the snatch and the clean and jerk confirms what A.V. Chernyak (5) said, “The lagging of the ratio is a constant, independent of qualification and weight class.” He reached this opinion as a result of his analysis of the ratio of the snatch to the clean and jerk going back to 1924. The ratio was rather low (average of 75%) up to 1936. It increased to 77.6% after 1948 because of a more significant increase in the snatch. There were no significant changes as weightlifting evolved (especially from 1956).
This ratio did not change for some time after the elimination of the press. The ratio increased significantly beginning with the 1970s for the champions and all the participants, alike, at important competitions (see table 7).
According to A. V. Chernyak, the snatch to clean and jerk ratio is 75 – 82%. If the ratio exceeds 82% it means that the technique of the snatch is better than that of the clean and jerk. However, we should not forget that the success rate of competition attempts in the snatch is also relatively low (4). We should also not forget that serious injuries are associated with the snatch.
In our opinion, the rise in the snatch to clean and jerk ratio is more because of the chronic failures in the jerk portion of the clean and jerk. A number of articles dealing with this problem have appeared in the pages of Olymp. I don’t have to remind the reader of the polarization of opinion amongst the authors; this served only to further confuse the issue.
Considerable research of the weightlifter’s warm up and observations of training and competitions indicate that the main problem with the technique of the jerk is directly connected with the learning and the subsequent training for this exercise.
In our opinion the most common mistakes connected with the jerk are as follows:
1. The majority of lifters lack a pronounced, forceful, squat under the barbell.
2. The majority of lifters exhibit an irrational (during a slipshod warm up) rearranging of the feet in the split position.
The overwhelming majority of weightlifters jerk the barbell to arms length rather easily, but they “fix” the barbell overhead with considerable difficulty. The reason is because the support of the barbell is not “active.”
It is common knowledge that during the triathlon era athletes trained specifically on supporting the barbell, since this was necessary for the “tempo” press. The push – press was employed specifically to develop the “feel” of supporting the barbell. This quality played an important role in the clean and jerk, especially in the split under the barbell. And, it is no coincidence that there were few of these incidences of missing the jerk in the triathlon era.
But, the practical value of the push – press is illustrated by the following fact. Research showed the barbell speed in the jerk was some 0.20 to 0.25 m/sec faster for the “triathlete” than for the “biathlete” (1). After the press was eliminated from competitions, lifters gradually switched to the push – press and obtained negative results.
After giving up on the push – press, the push – jerk became a popular training exercise; this made the situation worse. Even a casual visual analysis of the basic positions of the split- style – jerk and the push – jerk reveal little in common between them. One has to completely counterbalance the system in the squat under position (split or half squat styles) of the jerk (figure 1). The athlete has to arch the back significantly and shift the pelvis backwards with the push – jerk style of squatting under the jerk.
This motor habit, when applied to the split – style, causes the pelvis to be tilted backwards away from the vertical of the general center of gravity (the hands, elbows, shoulder joints, pelvis) which in turn re – distributes the force of the barbell over these fundamental support points. As a result, the athlete has great difficulty fixing the barbell at arms length (4).
The rigidity of the supported squat under in the jerk depends in no small measure on the quality of the execution of the split. Many years of experience in weightlifting allows us to say that the overwhelming majority of lifters execute the split in a slipshod manner during their warm up (abbreviated, without sharply fixing the position). They fail to “feel” the weight over the basic support points.
Figure 1.
 |
|
| Khairullian Figure 1 | |
Figure 2.
 |
|
| Khairullian Figure 2 | |
When the lifter executes the split correctly, he should sense the hands, elbows, shoulders and ilio femoral joints align in the same strict vertical line. The support is on the heel of the foot thrust forward and the support is on the toes of the one thrust rearward. It is extraordinarily important to place the feet with the toes turned inward (figure 2, B, C) in order to achieve stability in the saggital plane (side to side direction). The lifter should not be in a “hurry” to recover from the correctly rearrangement of the feet in the split position. It is important to sense the “twisting” of the rearward placed foot and “feel” the springiness in this foot during the warm up.
Table 1. Successful Attempts in the Clean and Jerk of the Participants of the 2001 World Championships (Men).
| Wt. Class | Snatch/Jerk% Champ. | All Participants | Success Ratio % All Part. | Success Ratio Champ. |
| 56 | 85.23 | 81.28 | 52.38 | 33.33 |
| 62 | 76.38 | 81.63 | 53.85 | 100.00 |
| 69 | 78.95 | 82.06 | 48.33 | 100.00 |
| 77 | 80.24 | 80.97 | 50.00 | 66.66 |
| 85 | 85.71 | 81.68 | 61.66 | 66.66 |
| 94 | 83.14 | 83.33 | 58.73 | 100.00 |
| 105 | 87.77 | 81.31 | 58.88 | 66.66 |
| 105+ | 84.00 | 81.40 | 66.66 | 66.66 |
| Avg. | 82.68±3.40 | 81.71±2.86 | 56.31±12.96 | 75.00 |
Table 2. Successful Attempts in the Clean and Jerk of the Participants of the 2001 World Championships (women).
| Wt. Class | Snatch/Jerk% Champ. | All Participants | Success Ratio % All Part. | Success Ratio Champ. |
| 48 | 78.94 | 79.93 | 48.15 | 33.33 |
| 53 | 82.61 | 79.74 | 51.92 | 66.66 |
| 58 | 75.51 | 79.46 | 66.66 | 66.66 |
| 63 | 84.00 | 81.18 | 61.66 | 66.66 |
| 69 | 80.70 | 80.10 | 61.40 | 100.00 |
| 75 | 82.14 | 81.42 | 50.98 | 100.00 |
| 75+ | 82.25 | 80.92 | 52.77 | 100.00 |
| Avg. | 80.88±2.63 | 80.39±4.30 | 56.22±19.69 | 76.19 |
Table 3. Successful Attempts in the Clean and Jerk of the Participants of the 2002 Russian Championships (Men).
| Wt. Class | Snatch/Jerk% Champ. | All Participants | Success Ratio % All Part. | Success Ratio Champ. |
| 56 | 84.90 | 83.14 | 66.66 | 33.33 |
| 62 | 84.48 | 80.50 | 42.86 | 66.66 |
| 69 | 78.16 | 78.71 | 64.70 | 66.66 |
| 77 | 83.75 | 83.12 | 56.41 | 33.33 |
| 85 | 85.18 | 82.95 | 60.00 | 100.00 |
| 94 | 82.92 | 82.26 | 57.77 | 33.33 |
| 105 | 84.78 | 84.18 | 66.66 | 66.66 |
| 105+ | 83.33 | 80.94 | 72.22 | 66.66 |
| Avg. | 83.44±2.71 | 81.97±4.36 | 60.91±20.31 | 58.33 |
Table 4. Successful Attempts in the Clean and Jerk of the Participants of the 2002 Russian Championships (women).
| Wt. Class | Snatch/Jerk% Champ. | All Participants | Success Ratio % All Part. | Success Ratio Champ. |
| 48 | 78.38 | 79.46 | 66.66 | 66.66 |
| 53 | 75.00 | 76.37 | 85.71 | 100.00 |
| 58 | 80.00 | 77.10 | 66.66 | 100.00 |
| 63 | 78.72 | 78.86 | 66.66 | 66.66 |
| 69 | 82.60 | 80.88 | 71.43 | 66.66 |
| 75 | 78.94 | 84.30 | 66.66 | 100.00 |
| 75+ | 78.43 | 79.63 | 75.00 | 100.00 |
| Avg. | 78.86±2.81 | 79.51±6.40 | 71.25±13.12 | 85.71 |
Table 5. Analysis of the Success Ratio in the Jerk of the Participants of the 2001 World Championships .
| Wt. Class | Snatch/Jerk% Champ. | All Participants | Success Ratio % All Part. | Success Ratio Champ. |
| Men | 82.68±3.40 | 81.71±2.86 | 56.31±12.96 | 75.00 |
| Women | 80.88±2.63 | 80.39±4.30 | 56.22±19.69 | 76.19 |
Table 6. Analysis of the Success Ratio in the Jerk of the Participants of the 2002 Russian Championships .
| Wt. Class | Snatch/Jerk% Champ. | All Participants | Success Ratio % All Part. | Success Ratio Champ. |
| Men | 83.44±2.71 | 81.97±4.36 | 60.91±20.31 | 58.33 |
| Women | 78.86±2.81 | 79.51±6.40 | 71.25±13.12 | 85.71 |
Table 7. Ratio of Results of the Snatch to the Clean and Jerk
| Category | USSR chps. 74 | World 74 | OG 1996 | Russ. Chps. 1997 | World 2001 M | World 2001 W | Russ. 2002 M | Russ. 2002 W |
| Winners | 77.01±3.22 | 78.39±3.90 | 82.54±3.20 | 82.55±2.83 | 81.71±2.86 | 80.39±4.30 | 81.97±4.36 | 79.51±6.40 |
| All Athletes | 78.11±2.29 | 77.77±3.57 | 81.72±3.65 | 82.01±2.46 | 82.68±3.40 | 80.88±2.63 | 83.44±2.71 | 78.86±2.81 |
Literature
1. Ivanov, A.T., “Jerk Exercises for Athletes in Different Weight Classes,” Weightlifting, Moscow, FiS, 1972.
2. Luchkin, N. I., Weightlifting, Moscow, FiS, 1962.
3. Khairullin, R.A., “The Problem and Methodical Potential of Stabilizing Motor Habits in Sport,” Kazan, KFEI, 1998.
4. Khairullin, R.A., “The Problem of Stabilizing the Barbell in the Jerk,” Olymp, #2 and 3, 2001.
5. Chernyak, A. V., Methods of Planning the Training of Weightlifters, Moscow, FiS, 1976.