Compression v. Spinal Lengthening: Different Applications for Different Training?

I'm fortunate enough to have been exposed to some very good training materials: teachers, mentors, and colleagues in the trenches. Three who come to mind who've influenced me are Alfonso Duran, my second weightlifting coach; Pavel Tsatsouline, who introduced me to kettlebells and clarified much of the systemization and methodology that Alfonso taught me; and Dr. Eric Cobb, creator/developer of Z-Health. So my current thinking and stances on training are probably more a reflection of their influence combined with almost 15 years of experience in the industry.

Pavel teaches compression as part of the RKC system, not only for performance, but also for safety. Try pressing a heavy bell without compressing the ground, your joints, muscles, breath, and focus: unless you have another/alternative method, that sucker just ain't goin' up. But here's the problem I see: too much tension and too much compression actually make you weaker. It shuts down the joints and overstimulates the sympathetic nervous system producing the exact opposite effect you're looking for. Now, in fairness to Pavel, he has spoken about this and produced multiple DVDs and books covering various aspects of this subject, but many in the RKC community only focus on the tension and compression.

Dr. Cobb teaches spinal/axial lengthening for maximal strength, speed, and performance. (Incidentally, so does Pavel, just a different variation and in conjuction with compression.)

The question I struggle with is this: Are they both right? Is one more right than the other in some instances over others?

Here's an example: As a weightlifter, I am currently using axial lengthening only. No compression whatsoever. Here's my rationale: I must be as fast as possible under that bar. I slow myself down when I use high-tension techniques. I even use axial lengthening when squatting and pulling. Why? Because, unlike the other strength sports, the olympic lifts require a very high degree of athleticism. Athleticism is the perfect blend between tension and relaxation. This blend must be automatic. Generating tension, in my experience, is a conscious decision. For slow grinds like deadlifts and squats in powerlifting, tension--high-tension, is a very, very good thing. But not for weightlifting. Too fast. Too athletic.

Upon what am I basing my ideas? Well after studying hours and hours of training hall tape, recalling my early experiences as a novice weightlifter and the rantings of my first coach, weightlifters only, or simply, "stretch out" at the start. They try to touch the crowns of their heads to the ceilings. This is axial lengthening. When watching them squat, they wedge themselves between the floor and the bar. In fact, they also do it on the lifts as well: wedging plus axial lengthening. From my vantage point, this is a combination of Pavel's and Dr. Cobb's philosophies.

Based on the above observations, this is the way I am currently thinking:

1. Compression/high-tension techniques should be combined with axial lengthening for slow grinding lifts, like the military press, bench press, squat (unless your an olympic lifter) and deadlift, etc.

2. For ballistic exercises such as the olympic lifts and their kettlebell cousins, axial lengthening may actually be better. It's been my experience that I'm faster, stronger, and have better endurance if I perform these in a "long spine" position without the high-tension techniques.

The only problem I forsee is that in my humble opinion, it's just plain ol' much easier to teach a client high-tension techniques than to "feel" long spine. It's just much easier to feel high-tension than long spine. Perhaps it's just going to take time for me to get my clients to adjust to long spine.

I will have more on this later, I'm sure of it.