The Snatch Technique of H. Mutlu (TUR)

The Snatch Technique of H. Mutlu (TUR)

Antalia, Turkey 2001

138.5 kg World Record (56 Kg)

V. B. Kanyevsky

Translated by Andrew Charniga, Jr.

Sportivny Press©

The starting position at the instant of barbell separation from the platform is close to the optimum (figure 1). The head is tilted back; the back is arched; the arms are straight; the center of the shoulder girdle is 4 cm in front of the starting vertical line. The feet are positioned 9 cm apart and the toes are turned to the side at an angle of 20°. This provides good stability for the subsequent lifting. However, the sportsman’s thighs are situated slightly lower than the optimum. The knees form an angle of 75° which is less than the optimum range of 80 – 100°.

The hand spacing is slightly narrower than the optimum for athletes of the same height as Mutlu (145 cm); this makes for a stronger grasp, but the barbell is at a greater height from the platform in the squat position.

The athlete shifts the barbell towards his legs (figure 2) away from the starting vertical line as he lifts it; this is obvious from the depiction of the barbell’s trajectory. The knees only straighten to an angle of 135° which is less than the optimum of 145°; the time to perform the two phases of the pull was 0.37 sec; this is shorter than the optimum 0.45 sec. Barbell speed at the end of the 2nd phase is 0.73 m/sec which conforms to the optimum model of the snatch. The barbell has shifted 3 cm towards the legs from the starting vertical at this instant.

The knees bend to an angle of 120° at the end of the 3rd phase (fig 3) which is  less than the optimum of130°. The athlete has prematurely raised his heels; this action lessens the potential effectiveness of the explosion during the 3rd and 4th phases. The barbell has shifted towards the athlete to its maximum of 7 cm relative to the starting vertical. The length of the 3rd phase or amortization was 0.2 sec, longer than the optimum (0.11 sec) and longer than that of the clean. The legs and trunk extend simultaneously.

The subsequent lifting (fig 4) is performed with the trunk fully straightened and tilted backward slightly, facilitating the descent into the squat position. The knees are not fully straight, only to an angle of 170°. The length of the 4th phase or final acceleration is 0.2 sec which is close to the optimum. The barbell reaches a maximum speed of 1.64 m/sec, greater by 0.24 m/sec than the optimum. The athlete raises his heels completely and lifts his shoulders; this enables him to utilize well his anthropometric potential for lifting the barbell to the maximum height in the “supported” position.

The barbell is subsequently raised to its maximum height of 96 cm (fig. 5) during the ballistic (unsupported) “flight” of 0.2 sec; this conforms to the optimum. However, the increased explosion time to 0.4 sec versus an optimum of 0.28 sec results in a delayed switching to the squat under. As a result, the barbell has already dropped from the point of its maximum height by 7 cm (figures 5 – 6), even though the athlete “turns the barbell over” with sufficient speed in 0.1 sec.

The barbell is secured at arms length at a distance of 6 cm from its point of fixation in the squat; the overall descent of the barbell was 13 cm.

The squat under was performed with balance and precision (fig 7).  The barbell was fixed at a height of 83 cm from the platform in the squat position and situated slightly behind the athlete’s head. The feet are placed 20 cm apart with the toes turned to the side at an angle of 30°. The squat was performed well, and the subsequent recovery and fixation overhead did not cause the athlete any difficulty.