I've been reading Supertraining lately & encountered this term. I understand it very roughly; but it got really complicated when I hit this paragraph.(Also should I start separate threads on specific topics like this one or a general Supertraining related thread?)

Hence, the kinesiological pattern of a sports action can be the appropriate concept only if it represents part of the general strength field. At the same time, control of the external interaction of the motor apparatus is possible only through the internal kinesiological pattern. Consequently, when referring to control of the athlete's movements, one must consider not so much the movement (i.e. the relative shifting of the body's links), as the kinesiological pattern and its influence on the working-effect of the movement. This forms the pedagogical basis of the problem of controlling human movement.

I've bolded the parts that I'm having a tough time understanding.

should I start separate threads on specific topics like this one or a general Supertraining related thread?

Separate thread. You did right.

This is the kind of thing from Supertraining that I've been telling people for years. I.E. it just has a whole lot of jargon like that and a lot of "theory" that is largely incomprehensible. I can sort of tease out what it says but some of it is meaningless.

general strength field

Not a clue.

control of the external interaction of the motor apparatus is possible only through the internal kinesiological pattern.

So what?

when referring to control of the athlete's movements, one must consider not so much the movement (i.e. the relative shifting of the body's links), as the kinesiological pattern and its influence on the working-effect of the movement.

That is like saying one must consider the ecosystem in order to understand how a field mouse gets it's food. In other words it's lofty language but doesn't really break anything down to it's essentials. You cannot look at human movement by considering it as a 'concept' you have to break it down to certain principles.

For instance he is talking about what is sometimes called "segmental interaction" when he talks about relative shifting of the body's links (which is very unclear language). First of all that is really the foundation of the kinetic chain principle and also what created the whole open versus closed chain movement hoopla, which may or may not be useful. The "kinesiological pattern" is a juicy sounding but useless piece of jargon since kinesilogy is the study of human motion so of course that involves patterns of movements. Again, so what? Still doesn't come close to saying anything of use to the strength training student.

Supertraining suffers from one central problem…it could not decide what kind of book it wanted to be. There are many passages like this which try to say something and fall short of actually communicating the idea. Having something to say is one thing…being able to communicate it clearly to your audience is another. My advice would be to ignore the paragraphs you can't understand after 2 or 3 run-throughs.

This is the kind of thing from Supertraining that I've been telling people for years. I.E. it just has a whole lot of jargon like that and a lot of "theory" that is largely incomprehensible.

Lol, I understand this statement better now that I've been reading supertraining.

My advice would be to ignore the paragraphs you can't understand after 2 or 3 run-throughs.

Thank you Eric, I'll keep this in mind when I'm reading this book. : )