UnderGround Forums
 

S&C UnderGround >> Transfer


12/31/02 1:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
126 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 31-Dec-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 1553
 
In the thread "on pullups" the argument turned largely towards the old transfer argument. Does what we do in the gym, particularly with sets of less then 6 repetitions where the primary stumulous is on the nervous system, have any effect on what we do in other situations such as fights or grappling matches? I would really like to see this resolved, possibly with some studies, if anyone has them. The problem with anectodal evidence is that there are so many variables, especially between exercising in the gym and a skill heavy sport like mma that a reasonable conclusion can't really be attained. Things like genetics, diet, skill level, etc. all come into play. "What is the transfer of learning? Why concern ourselves with the study of transfer? Because transfer refers to the process in which people use learning that has occured in one situation in a new or different situation; it is an importnant part of our educational training. Since this process occurs so often and so widely, it is common knowledge that people can transfer much of what they have learned in one situation to many others. For example, some components of the field hockey, such as player positions on the field of play, can help the performer in the game of soccer. However, the transfer of other principles, such as the players' positions during a field hockey endline out-of-bounds play, may interfere with the learning of play located in a similar part of the soccer field." (Drowatzky, 107) cont' -doug-
12/31/02 1:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
126 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 31-Dec-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 1554
"Except under very carefully controlled and arranged conditions, positive transfer appears to be much more likely to occur than negative transfer. Even when optimum conditions for the productions of interference are arranged, the negative transfer effects seem to be somewhat weak, quite transitory, and very apt to shift to facilitation during relearning...In short, interference and negative transfer effects are difficult to produce in skills situations. Those who favor an interference theory of forgetting can take some meager comfort from the fact that motor skills seem to be impervious to both interference AND forgetting." Irion (1969, pp. 20-21) This conclusion was derived from experimental studies on motor learning. It really addresses peterf's concern about the short lived effects of any results attained from a GTG method of training, as well as any doubt that may have been attributed to any level of interference involved in what is learned during, say, a deadlift when it is transfered over to a sport like grappling. Irion seems pretty confident that even if negative transfer (also called interference, a fine example of which is found in the first quote) occurs between the two, that it eventually turns into facilitation, or a positive transfer. However, the bulk of studies done use fine motor skills. This means verbal skills, and skills with the hands, as opposed to gross skills, which or more similar to grappling movements and weightlifting. The author of "Motor Learning, Principles and Practices" states that "the stumulous-response situations are different enough that they merit special study." He says that, although there is a difference between the two, and it is a bit overgeneralized to apply fine motor studies to gross motor skills that "inasmuch as new motor skills evolve from these well-learned patterns, positive transfer should be expected more oftehn than either negative or neutral transfer." cont
12/31/02 1:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
dolemite_112
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 31-Dec-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 3196
AAAAH!!!! I've thought of this a great deal, and would like to discuss it further. I'll state my own personal experience. When I was powerlifting moreso, my wrestling shot was fast. When I drilled my shot over and over, my shot was much faster of course. Now, I've noticed that when I do higher rep work such as 8-12 of heavy squats, my shot feels more powerful. I have also noticed this with using very heavy weight, but very short rest in between. What I'm getting at basically is that when I use a protocol that is more a traditional hypertrophy set up, or some variant of that, my carry over to the mat has been moreso. That was my experience, what about you guys? C
12/31/02 2:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
126 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 31-Dec-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 1555
Most of the gross studies were done with bilateral transfer, studying the transfer of skill from one side of the body to an untrained side of the body. The overall findings were that motor skills, strength, and endurance all transfered from a trained side of the body (like the right arm) and were found, obviously in a lesser extent, but still in existance, in the untrained side of the body. This transfer was done from hand to feet using speed as well. It was found that increasing the speed of hand movement had a significantly positive effect on the speed of one's foot movement. I can cite the studies if anyone is interested. Finally, "Egstrom, Logan, and Wallis (1960) attempted to identify the effect of practice with projectiles of varying weights upon the throwing accuracy of college students. The results of this study indicated that the subjects who prcaticed with a light ball experienced positive transfer to throwing accuracy with a heavier ball, but practice with a heavier ball did not transfer to throwing performance using the lighter ball. Presently, therefor, no evidence exists to support the overload principle when applied to motor skills learning." Now, everthing not cited comes from "Motor Learning" by Drowatzky which came out in 1975. Still the findings are pretty interesting to me. Hopefully they can be of some use to the discussion. -doug-
12/31/02 2:06 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
dolemite_112
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 31-Dec-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 3199
on a side note.... one thing I've found to give excellent transfer for my coordination was skipping rope.
12/31/02 3:16 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jbraswell
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 31-Dec-02
Member Since: 15-Jul-02
Posts: 599
Doug, this topic has been very frustrating for me as well since, as you say, there isn't much on it, even though it seems to be THE question for the study of strength and conditioning. The other big question to me is if tranfer does indeed occur, how do we know when to take advantage of it? The big SAID principle says to get better at what you're doing, do that thing more. Obviously, though, one doesn't want to make that an unbreakable rule, as then the whole notion of strength and conditioning would be silly. We need to know when it's wise to focus on a specific motor or muscle quality and overload it. Thanks for the info, though. It helps. It gives me confidence I might be doing some good when I run sprints.
1/2/03 6:12 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
126 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 02-Jan-03
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 1556
ttt for later -doug-
1/3/03 5:02 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jjj
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03-Jan-03
Member Since: 23-Mar-02
Posts: 112
ttt
1/3/03 9:09 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
126 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03-Jan-03
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 1573
Dolemite, A wrestling coach i know swears by oly lifts for the very reason that he says it makes one's shot much faster. Now, who am i to argue with him? If they dont help with making one more explosive, then what would be the point of risking injury while doing them? There's an argument in favor of motor skill transfer in that for sure, for those who do oly lifts, unless they do the lifts just for the sake of the lift. However, the evidence you present is anectodal and ought to be avoided in a discussion like this. The lack of evidence so far, in general, is what has frightened people away from this topic since all of the arguments are merely people's opinions. When you have one person rabidly opposed to the notion, and one in favor the two opinions clash and they walk away with nothing gained except an annoyance over the issue. Jbraswell, I like your points. This certainly is the question on most of the minds of those who frequent this forum. I think a better question then "is there any transfer at all?" is "HOW MUCH transfer is there to sub 6 rep sets towards activities of high skill," the major activity of interest here being grappling or other mma's. In light of the evidence and theory presented in the book i'm inclined to think, along with the author, that even if direct motor skill transfer does not occur from a heavy compound movement in the gym to a roughly similar movement on the mat, even with sub 6 rep sets where the primary factor is neurological, then eventually it would yield positive neuromuscular facilitation. -doug-
1/3/03 9:17 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
126 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03-Jan-03 09:41 AM
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 1574
Continuing on, i want to hear from someone in the non-transfer crowd, because im sure there's evidence there as well (as Irion suggests). The big question on my mind in light of the evidence presented here, however, is what type of training yields the best transfer to an athlete? When considering this question you have to consider two types of athletes, and the many shades of grey that fall between the two: 1. The athlete who's training is primarily conditioning, and may do skill work for less then 2 hours per week, or not enough to get any skill specific conditioning. This holds to people who are also not skill training at all, but anticipate doing so in the future. 2. The athlete who's training is heavily skill oriented, who does skill work for over 2 hours per week, or trains hard enough during what skill sessions he/she has to obtain a measurable conditioning benefit from the skill training alone. This is someone who could be in excellent shape without any conditioning beyond skill specific. I have my own ideas on the best ways to train each, but i want to hear some of your ideas. I Have to return to work right now, but when i come back later ill have time to write more. -doug-
1/3/03 10:33 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ali
784 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03-Jan-03
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 3005
doug is forum bro of the week. Keep it up, and forum bro of the year. Thanks, mang. That said... I have barely absorbed what's already here right now. Time constraints, short attention span, holiday-recovery, and arriving back west with a case of poison ivy that makes me look like I've been boiled in salt water has crimped my style. Great thread, for when I get to reading it more seriously! Thanks and ttt.
1/3/03 11:59 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
126 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03-Jan-03
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 1575
That means a lot to me ali, thanks! If people get the chance i'd like to continue the discussion with my last question posed. I'll have loads of time tomorrow (if not later today) to clarify my points on the most effective training methods for the two types of athletes mentioned above. -doug-
1/3/03 12:42 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jbraswell
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03-Jan-03
Member Since: 15-Jul-02
Posts: 624
It might be worthwhile to look to HITters if you want some arguments against transfer. Granted, I'm not a big fan of HIT, and I never understood how they kept their sort of training from being impaled by their own arguments, but, hey, just because an idiot says the sun won't rise doesn't mean it won't.
1/3/03 2:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ambey
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03-Jan-03
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 852
TTT
1/4/03 2:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HarryLime
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Jan-03 03:23 PM
Member Since: 15-Mar-02
Posts: 896
Good stuff. I think part of the problem in understanding the specificity of adaptions is the way people think of 'learning'. It's always stuck me that there's a world of difference between learning fine motor skills and the facilitation of gross movements. The level of cognitive work is completely different. For fine skills it takes a very long time to reach a point where you don't have to think about what your doing; and once you've 'perfected' the movements you usually will not be making much more progress. For squating, a beginner has to think his way through the movement and take care make sure he's not screwing up. Once he's in a groove and doesn't have to monitor himself as much he can still manage to make significant progress year in year out. Your nervous system only 'learns' to recruit more motor units in a highly metaphoric sense. I don't see why made from simultaneously extending your knee and hip with lots of force in a particular pattern would be competely useless when the lines of forces change. Your neural pathways don't 'know' squats they 'know' how to extend the knee and hip. That said, I think the bulk of anyone's training in non-lifting sports should focus on structural adaptions. Reaching ideal levels of hypertrophy and having enough time to train sport-specific skills is hard enough for anyone with a full time commitment to work or school.
1/5/03 1:06 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
peterfield
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Jan-03
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 50
Can I throw in the lead article in this month's Peak Performance by exercise physiologist Owen Anderson which appears to address at least some of the issues raised and might I thought be of some interest to those here. In his article Anderson looked at the effects of one limb training and the implications which might be derived from the various research studies. 1. Anderson first cited a study carried out in Tennessee several years ago where the subjects trained one leg only on an exercise bicycle. During the study average heart rate dropped steadily and blood lactate levels also dropped significantly. At first sight it appeared that the subjects' cardio systems had undergone major changes such that they would be able to carry out a similarly intense workout with their untrained legs and enjoy similar low heart and ventilation rates seeing that their heart and respiratory muscles were in better shape. In fact when the subjects changed legs they had to go back to square one in physiological terms. Heart rate and blood lactate levels shot back up to their pre training values as if the heart and respiratory systems were completely untrained. 2. To put it another way says Anderson, there was no transfer of the training effect from one leg to the other. Experiments like this and others show that the heart rate and respiratory responses to exercise are determined not by specific adaptations of the cardiovascular and respiratory system but by the training state of the muscles involved in the exercise. 3. Anderson goes on to explain why the untrained muscles caused the nervous system system to fire the cardiovascular and respiratory systems back to their pre trained level. 4. He then asserts that the importance of the observations is for training to be specific to the demand's of one's ultimate competition.He says that it does little good to have lower than average heart and breathing rates during prolonged and strenuous exertions which are not closely related to your specific endeavour; such phenomena are not necessarily indicative of a strong heart or great respiratory action since both heart and ventilation rates could shoot up dramatically during your sporting activity if you have not carried out exactly the right kind of training. 5. A good looking heart is only good looking in the specific circumstances in which it is performing. Thus it does little good for endurance athletes to work on their cardiovascular development in a general way. What they need is to get their heart used to providing blood to the muscles during the specific movements of competitive efforts. Note: maybe nothing entirely new here. As I have often mentioned there is both an issue of oxygen supply by the cardio vascular system and an issue of oxygen extraction by the specific working muscles in determining V02 max which argues against general cardio training. However to balance this view do remember as I usually point out that Frank Shamrock holds otherwise! Anderson then goes on to consider the carry over for strength in training only one arm and the implications for specificity. 1. It may be no surprise that while endurance does not transfer from one limb to another strength does although the reason points to the paramount importance of the nervous sytem and training specificity. 2.When a trained limb gains strength some of the augmentation can be attributed to hypertrophy and some to the nervous system. In effect the nervous system develops an increased ability to activate and synchronise the most crucial motor units and inhibit others. The nervous system can then be utilised by the other arm whereas during endurance activity muscular adaptations must occur to allow movements to be sustained. cont
1/5/03 1:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
peterfield
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Jan-03
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 51
3. While the nervous system is a powerful and adaptable thing it will not transfer general strength from arm to arm or from leg to leg. It will only transfer strength during specific motions from one limb to the other. Bottom line: if you are going to the gym to make yourself stronger you are wasting your time if you carry out movements dissimilar to those you use in your sport. I am with him on non transferabilty but wonder whether you can achieve specificity in a complex activity like grappling.
1/8/03 9:12 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
126 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Jan-03
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 1592
Bleh, i've been so busy i havent been able to contribute what i want to. I'm keeping this at the top though. It's interesting that peterf found a study that largly has the opposite results. I'd like to hear more about the particulars of each study, but the chances of that are probably pretty slim. Also, in the study you posted, peter, Anderson didnt seem to go into detail about how long it took the second leg to catch up to the first leg. I would think, and Irion's studies would suggest that even though the transfer was neutral it would soon yield facilitation. What i mean, is that the second leg would develop to the level of the first faster then the first did on its own. TTT for ali, geoff, and the furthering of this discussion. -doug-
1/8/03 12:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
126 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Jan-03
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 1594
Continuing on. I can really translate any movement i do into the gym into something roughly similar on the mat. Deadlifts, squats, and oly lifts bear some similarities to shooting, lifting, slamming, shrimping, the upa, and many other sport related movements. Pressing motions in the gym mimic pressing motions on the mat, and the same is true for pulling motions. One could argue that nothing in mma looks like a bench press, but then again, any benching i do i secondary to the close grip bench, which is very similar to controling an opponent's hips with your hands. As stated on the pullup thread, i think muscular adaptations will tranfer accross the board given the same muscle is doing the work, and the samples from the studies i posted seem to suggest that the nervous system can carry over as well, albeit sometimes in a delayed fashion. The studies you posted dont really prove to me that i'm "wasting my time" training for strength in the gym, especially when evidence to the contrary exists. Harry, Im not sure i entirely agree with you. In fact it's been shown (to the best of my knowledge) that "rituals" before a particular lift or activity will give a better performance. It is thought that the ritual is something that "tells" the nervous system that the specific motor sequence is about to be fired. It essentially starts the groove. I think the body does know the difference between a squat and a pickup from a double-leg, but i think developing strength in the former will yield a benefit to the latter.
1/8/03 4:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
dolemite_112
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Jan-03
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 3276
I'm starting more and more to feel that muscle transfer will occur far more than cardio. C
1/8/03 4:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Geoff Langdale
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Jan-03
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 528
Great thread, Doug. I posted a bunch of abstracts a while back showing a number of studies that failed to connect 1RM on a collection of various lifts (including favorites like squats and power cleans) with comparatively simple performance metrics such as sprints, jumps and so on. Take a look at the various "specificity" issues at: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/mastable.htm Obviously not all the studies presented are particularly relevant, and they're not all perfectly designed. But they're a little further away from anecdote than "I can really translate any movement i do into the gym into something roughly similar on the mat". Well, I can translate the power clean movement into the "roughly similar" vertical leap, but Miller et al (see Specificity of Training 3, study 13 from the above link) didn't find any significant connection between these two (or practically any others) over five years of testing with N=261 Division I football players at Texas A&M. At the start of the thread we were enjoined against anecdote. But by the last message (the one beginning "Continuing on.", in case someone posts in the interim), practically everything you write is either anecdotes, assertions or (rather indirect) analogies from material on fine motor skills (as you intially point out). The fact that the nervous system _can_ carry over is precious little evidence that it actually _does_, particularly (as peterfield points out) when we're discussing general strength (as opposed to the ability to transfer specific strength from limb to limb). It's one thing to transfer one-legged squat ability from the left leg to the untrained right; but quite another to transfer normal speed full squat ability to jumping ability. Now, of course, we can deploy the usual skeptic's arsenal of claims against the various studies quoted from the above link (the studies are too small, or short, or they measure the wrong things, etc.). Or we can go on to argue that we just "know" that benching is like pushing on the mat (hey, they all use the same muscles, and muscles are simple things, right?) But there seems to be far more evidence piled up in favor of specificity rather than transfer in most sports applications. If transfer is so likely, I would expect to see a little more evidence that it happens; instead we see specificity over joint angles, movement speeds, states of fatigue, maximal vs. submaximal effort, phase of the moon, etc. Ok, I lied about the phase of the moon. I think this issue becomes even more fraught when we consider the huge range of attributes required for grappling and the limited time most people have to attain them. To indulge in some speculation: it may well be that improving one's squat from 400 to 650 is going to make you a monster on the mat - but if one spent the training effort required on grappling drills and maintaining one's 400 squat, you'd probably wind up equally formidable. Much of the pro-transfer argumentation relies on attacking the strawman of "no transfer at all from X is possible, anytime"; it would be worth considering the far more difficult case, which is "enough transfer to make X worth doing as opposed to something else". HarryLime writes: "I don't see why [strength gains?]made from simultaneously extending your knee and hip with lots of force in a particular pattern would be competely useless when the lines of forces change. Your neural pathways don't 'know' squats they 'know' how to extend the knee and hip." I think this is oversimplifying. I agree that neural pathways don't know squat (ha, ha), and I also doubt that improvements would be "completely useless". But the timing of the recruitment of motor units at the right angles to get through a squat sticking point (and/or the co-ordination between the many different muscles important to squatting) isn't necessarily the right timing to make the "lift" part of a takedown more explosive.
1/9/03 9:14 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
126 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-03
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 1595
I knew i mentioned geoff's name for a reason ;) My arguments in the last post by me were more to keep the thread rolling then anything. I'm out of studies, as it stands, so any knowledge i put from here will either be anecdotal (which i will do my best to avoid), or assumptions based on what i feel is relevant to mma in each of the studies shown. I dont have the time to read your studies for this post geoff, but i definately will later. I didnt start this thread to say that these studies prove transfer occurs, but rather i wanted to find the "right" answer, and although it may not be out there with everyone nodding their heads in agreement, i'd wager we have enough intellegent people here and enough studies collected to come as close as anyone else has. My question to those here, in light of the studies provided, do you feel that transfer occurs? My intuition and a loose collection of old fine motor studies and bilateral transfer studies suggests that it does, but studies provided by peter and geoff suggests that neural adaptation does not transfer and in peter's studies, neither does cardiovascular work. Now, anecdotally i have to argue with that last statement, considering i got my best mile run of my life a month ago after having not ran at all for about 2-3 years. I can't really explain it based on peter's studies, and maybe someone else can. My second question, and even more important to me, is what do you think is the best method of training outside of your given activity for the two types of people i posted several days ago? Is there anything you can do in the gym that really helps? Do only muscular adaptations occur, or do those not even? If power and cardio are out, what is one to do to takes one's game to the next level besides simply doing more skill work, since perhaps that amount of time is not available for most? Is it possible for someone who has never done skill specific work --or at least hasnt in a while-- to prepair for skill work in the future? If non-transfer is supported by the likes of peter and geoff, and transfer seems to be supported by the likes of ali, then either could certainly occur in my mind, but in light of what you've seen and studied, what is the best way to train outside of skill work? -doug-
1/9/03 9:17 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
126 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-03
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 1596
Let me rephrase that last question: What is the best way to train for mma/grappling outside of skill work? Without that addition the answer may be endless :) -doug-
1/9/03 11:48 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
126 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-03
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 1597
I just had a chat with Christy Lozan, who is a graduate student in excersise phys. here at the uni at works alongside the esteemed Doctor who runs things here. At any rate, i'll go into more detail of our relatively short conversation later, but more or less the conclusion we derived was that a miminum of power (expressed as a percentage of one's bodyweight for each lift) is likely useful in terms of how it will transfer over to one's more skill based activity, but beyond that point, time will be better spent working on skill. No surprise this sounds a lot like Geoff's point on squatting. Perhaps, if we we are largly in agreement about this, we could determine a rough estimate of how much one's 1RM should be on each lift, and maybe a few other basic traits. Once that 1RM and those other traits are achieved, maintainance would take place and skill work would largely prevail. This will go a long way to helping me design this semesters workout for our BJJ team, so i greatly appreciate all the effort that has gone into this from everyone who has contributed. -doug-
1/9/03 1:21 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ark_Grappler
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-03
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 292
Please archive this great thread for future digestion.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.