Techniques February 2022

Contents Volume 15 Number 3 / February 2022

46

10

4

IN EVERY ISSUE

2

USTFCCCA Presidents

AWARDS

54 2021 Cross Country National

Coaches and Athletes of the Year

FEATURES

4

In Conversation A collegiate hurdle coaches roundtable training discussion

BY MIKE THORSON

10 Speed Play

Guiding skill through a seamlessly

sequenced sprint curriculum

BY DR. BRAD DEWEESE, DR. MATT SAMS,

DR. JOHN WAGLE & JOEL WILLIAMS

26 Pole Vaulting

Mechanical goals and technical strategies

BY BOO SCHEXNAYDER 34 Discus Throwing

Multi-disciplinary mechanical applications

BY DR. ANDREAS MAHERAS 46 The Squat Exercise

A must for the track and field athlete

BY JOHN CISSICK

ON THE COVER: BOWERMAN FINALIST TYRA GETTINS OF TEXAS A & M CAPTURED THE HEPTATHLON TITLE AT THE 2021 NCAA DIVISION I CHAMPIONSHIP MEET IN EUGENE, OR. PHOTOGRAPH BY KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

FEBRUARY 2022 techniques

1

USTFCCCA PRESIDENT

LEROY BURRELL PUBLISHER Sam Seemes

USTFCCCA President Leroy Burrell is the Head Coach at the University of Houston.

Leroy can be reached at lburrel2@central.uh.edu

EXECUTIVE EDITOR Mike Corn DIRECTOR OF MEDIA, BROADCASTING AND ANALYTICS Tom Lewis

DIVISION PRESIDENTS

MEMBERSHIP SERVICES Kristina Taylor

DAVID SHOEHALTER NCAA Division I Track & Field

DIVISION II

DIVISION I

David Shoehalter is the Director of Track & Field and Cross Country at Yale University.

David can be reached at david. shoehalter@yale.edu

MARC BURNS NCAA Division I Cross Country Marc is the Head Men’s and Women’s Cross Country coach at the University of Missouri and can be reached at burnswe@ missouri.edu

DANA SCHWARTING NCAA Division II Track & Field

TORREY OLSON NCAA Division I Cross Country

Dana is the Head Men’s and Women’s Track & Field coach at Lewis College and can be reached at schwarda@lewis.edu

Torrey Olson is the Head Track & Field and Cross Country Coach at Cal State – San Marcos. Torrey can be reached at tolson@csusm.edu

COMMUNICATIONS Lauren Ellsworth, Tyler Mayforth PHOTOGRAPHER Kirby Lee EDITORIAL BOARD Tommy Badon, Scott Christensen, Todd Lane, Derek Yush ART DIRECTOR Tiffani Reding Amedeo

PUBLISHED BY Renaissance Publishing LLC 110 Veterans Memorial Blvd., Suite 123, Metairie, LA 70005 (504) 828-1380 myneworleans.com

DIVISION III

KRISTEN MORWICK NCAA Division III Track & Field Kristen is the Head Women’s Track and Field and Cross Country coach at Tufts University and can be reached at kristen.morwick@tufts.edu

DUSTIN DIMIT NCAA Division III Cross Country Dustin is the Head Men’s Track & Field and Cross Country coach at Rowan University and can be reached at dimit@rowan.edu

USTFCCCA National Office 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1750 New Orleans, LA 70163 Phone: 504-599-8900 Fax: 504-599-8909 Website: ustfccca.org

NJCAA

NAIA

MIKE COLLINS NAIA Track & Field

2

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

Mike is the Head Men’s and Women’s Cross Country and Track & Field coach at Lewis and Clark University and can be reached at mcollins@lcsc.edu

RYAN SOMMERS Cross Country President Ryan is the Head Cross Country coach at Bethel University and can be reached at ryan. sommers@betheluniversity. edu

DEE BROWN NJCAA Track & Field

DON COX NJCAA Cross Country

Dee Brown is the Director of Track and Field & Cross Country At Iowa Central CC. Dee can be reached at brown_dee@iowacentral.edu

Don Cox is the head track and field and cross country coach at Cuyahoga Community College. Don can be reached at donald.cox@tri-c.edu

Techniques (ISSN 1939-3849) is published quarterly in February, May, August and November by the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association. Copyright 2022.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any manner, in whole or in part, without the permission of the publisher. techniques is not responsible for unsolicited manuscripts, photos and artwork even if accompanied by a self-addressed stamped envelope. The opinions expressed in techniques are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the magazines’ managers or owners. Periodical Postage Paid at New Orleans La and Additional Entry Offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to: USTFCCCA, PO Box 55969, Metairie, LA 70055-5969. If you would like to advertise your business in techniques, please contact Mike Corn at (504) 599-8900 or mike@ustfccca.org.

FEBRUARY 2022 techniques

3

In Conversation

A collegiate hurdle coaches roundtable training discussion 4

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

BRIAN LARSON PHOTO

M

any coaches will attest to attending clinics where the speakers talked in what most would term generalities. In other words, they talked a lot, but it was very inconsequential. Not a lot of content.

They told numerous stories and a lot of jokes. Some bad and some good. Kind of like the speakers. Some good. And some not so good. The excellent speakers always sent you home with some gems you could immediately apply in your program. Most of the training ideas and concepts that I used throughout my career I stole from other coaches. Vern Gambetta, who was the first director of the USATF coaching education program and one of the three founders, always says coaches are either imitators or innovators. I would like to think I was both. We certainly imitated many coaches. But we would like to think we were innovative in that we took their concepts and devised our own unique training programs that fit our athletes in our own particular environment. We will freely admit that much of our training came from listening and talking to coaches at various clinics all over the United States. Some of our best learning in particular came from coach’s roundtable type discussions and sessions, either listening or participating. We found the exchange of ideas, concepts and opinions very informational and oftentimes very enlightening. Often entertaining as well. It was certainly immensely helpful to a young coach who was always seeking better ways to train athletes. One thing I have found about training: The more I have learned about training, the more I learned I didn’t know.

The objective of this article is to provide a perspective on what coaches across a number of various levels (NCAA Division I, II and NAIA) can offer on assorted topics concerning 100 and 110m hurdle training. It is always interesting to obtain a perspective on how other coaches train hurdlers and what methodology and concepts have led them to their successes. This article is a written version of a coaches roundtable. Nine of the leading collegiate coaches from across the country were asked the same five questions pertaining to a number of topics concerning the training of sprint hurdlers. First, a brief look at the panelists: Chris Parno, Minnesota-Mankato (MN) Named Central Region and NSIC Conference Assistant Coach of the Year numerous times, Parno is in his 10th sea-

son at the Division II Minnesota school.

He is the Associate Head Coach and has coached six national champions, 113 conference titlists and 115 All Americans.

One of his athletes, Myles Hunter, holds the Division II 60m hurdle record at 7.53.

Coach Parno has done a number of training articles and videos and teaches USATF Level I certification courses. He was the 2020-21 NCAA Division II National Assistant Coach of the Year.

Reece Vega, North Dakota State University (ND) A former NSIC Conference and Central Region Assistant Coach of the Year, Vega is in his second year at his alma mater, NDSU, after three highly successful years at the University of Mary in Bismarck, ND. Vega had 21 All Americans and 14 conference champions in his short tenure at Mary. Vega is a former head coach at College of Saint Rose in Albany, NY, and at Graceland University in Lamoni, Iowa.

Ernie Clark, San Jose State (CA) A firstyear assistant coach at the California school, Clark was an extremely successful coach at Ashland in Ohio, where he was Associate Head Coach. Clark coached six Olympic Trials qualifiers while at Ashland, where he had been since 2015. He has coached two athletes who were ranked in the top 10 in the world. He is a four-time National Assistant Coach of the Year.

Clark’s prior Division I coaching experience came at Indiana 2014-15.

Luke Mahoney, Hastings College (NE) Mahoney is in his fifth season as the men’s and women’s hurdle coach at the NAIA school in Nebraska. He has coached two All Americans, 12 conference champions and two athletes who were runners-up in the national championships.

Mahoney was a remarkably successful high school hurdle coach at Lincoln Southwest in Nebraska prior to arriving at Hastings.

Kip Janvrin, Central Missouri (Mo) The former Olympian is in his 25th year as co-head coach at Central Missouri. He has spent 32 years at the Missouri school and has coached 25 different athletes to 44 National championships. The coaching tandem of Janvrin and co- head coach Kirk Pedersen have guided Central Missouri to 16 men’s indoor MIAA conference titles, 5 women’s championships, 13 men’s outdoor and 3 women’s outdoor conference crowns. Janvrin was one of the top decathletes in the world at one time, competing in the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

Curtis Taylor, Oregon The Associate Head FEBRUARY 2022 techniques

5

IN CONVERSATION: COACHES ROUNDTABLE Coach for the Ducks, Taylor joined the Oregon staff in 2014 after a very successful stint at Laney College in California. He has guided Ducks to six individual NCAA titles, 14 individual PAC 12 conference championships and 49 All American awards.

Taylor, who was the NCAA Division I National Assistant Coach of the Year in2017, guided Jenna Prandini, the 2015 Bowerman winner.

Eric Hanenberger, South Dakota State University (SD) The Associate Head Coach at SDSU since 2015, Hanenberger was the head coach at Division II St. Cloud for three years prior to moving to the Jackrabbit program and having an immediate impact. Hanenberger’s athletes have had a hand in 14 new school records—10 individual and four relays. He has also coached at North Dakota State University and Northern Iowa.

James Vahrenkamp, University of North Dakota (ND) The new head coach at the University of North Dakota moved to the Fighting Hawks program from Queens University (NC), where he was a 14-time NCAA Southeast Regional Coach of the Year. In his nine years at Queens, Vahrenkamp produced 21 conference team championships, 61 All Americans and five national champions.

Jamie Cook, Navy The director of track and field/cross country at Navy, Cook has guided the Midshipman to 10 Patriot League conference championships in his first four years at the helm. He has been awarded the same number of conference Coach of the Year honors. Cook, who was at Penn and Oregon prior to taking over at Navy, also coaches Olympian Devon Allen. Allen was the number one ranked hurdler in the world in 2021 according to World Athletics.

The five questions and the responses by all nine of the coaches are listed below.

Some answers have been edited for sake of clarity and grammatical correctness.

QUESTION 1 If you could pick only one thing that assists your hurdler’s performance, what would it be?

Jamie Cook - Focus on being a better, more aggressive athlete. I want to work with the most competitive people who aren’t afraid to fail.

Luke Mahoney - I would say it’s an attacking mindset. If an athlete is tentative with 6

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

the hurdles, they won’t put themselves in a position to be successful. They will ultimately break and jump instead of hurdling.

Curtis Taylor - Speed and, in particular, stride frequency.

Kip Janvrin - Speed development.

Ernie Clark - Block Starts and the feeling of acceleration all the way through the first 3 hurdles.

Reece Vega - Sprinting biomechanics.

Eric Hanenberger- I think the best thing that assists the hurdler besides going over hurdling is improved spring technique.

Jim Vahrenkamp - Maximum velocity skills or qualities. Personally, the postures, rhythms and limb velocities in maximum velocity work transfers to what we are working on in the hurdles.

Chris Parno - Managing the start.

Specifically talking about the step pattern used to move the athlete from the blocks to the take-off of the first hurdle (7-9 depending on age, skill, strength levels). I believe the entire race is set up for success or failure (of the desired goal for that race) based on the body position of the athlete at the first hurdle take-off, as well as the distance from the hurdle. Many of the technical issues we see in hurdling can be fixed or minimized by proper take-off location. These defined take-off locations set up proper stretch reflexes allowing for quality hip projection into the hurdle.

Personally, I always have tape down on the track at the 4th step check mark and at the proper take-off location. These marks give me a path of diagnosis if problems arise with maintaining velocity, or technique in and off hurdles.

QUESTION 2 What do you emphasize more in your training program: speed and power or hurdle rhythm?

Jamie Cook - Tough answer. Speed and Power probably, with an emphasis on proper take-off distance.

Luke Mahoney - It’s a combination of the two. However, we are always stressing speed, to go along with the attacking mindset as stated above. Speed is a hurdlers best friend!

Curtis Taylor - Equal and appropriate doses of both. You need speed and power to develop appropriate hurdle rhythm.

Kip Janvrin - Both, and both must be present.

Ernie Clark - I hate the word rhythm, as it tends to create a plateau in how the athlete feels. I want them to constantly feel like they are pushing to faster speeds in the flight of hurdles. I like to push the speed at all times in drills, in sets, and in races.

So that, by default, makes me speed and power emphasis.

Reece Vega - Speed and power. I believe the more you are able to develop a hurdler’s speed, the faster they will be in the hurdles.

Eric Hanenberger - Men’s hurdles – 1.

Hurdle race rhythm. 2. Sprint speed (improved spring technique first and foremost). Women’s hurdles – 1. Sprint speed (improved spring technique first and foremost). 2. Hurdle race rhythm.

Jim Vahrenkamp - I am not sure that I emphasize one or the other more. I try to train all of these qualities concurrently or in a conjugate sense. There are of course small variances during the natural progression of a season in regard to the performance requirements at any given time.

Suffice to say that all of the qualities are being trained at the same time.

Chris Parno - Both…the physiological and bio-motor characteristics of a sprinter and hurdler are not all that different. We can never underestimate the need for speed and a robust neuromuscular system, specifically in the 100-meter hurdle race. The lower hurdle heights allow for less deviation from sprint technique, thus increasing the emphasis of flat land velocities.

Hurdlers embody the 5 bio-motor abilities (speed, strength, endurance, coordination, flexibility), and these athletes must be trained and proficient in all facets. In the men’s hurdles, there is an emphasis on rhythmic abilities, as these athletes must manage higher attack angles for the higher hurdle height (higher rise of the center of mass). In either population, I would always bank on athletes that can reach higher overall velocities and coordinate intense movements more efficiently. To lower hurdle times in either race, the goal will usually always be to elicit quicker rhythms/ higher frequencies, vs working to open the stride lengths maximally.

QUESTION 3 How important or unimportant are drills in your training program?

Jamie Cook - Drills are important from a kinesthetic and flexibility standpoint. Also, teaching proper rhythm, alignment, and posture.

Luke Mahoney - They are absolutely vital to our training. We always drill prior to hurdling. The drills vary based on where we are at in our training and what we are emphasizing or trying to correct. It’s important to get the drill work down so we can build muscle memory. We want to get to a point where we are racing and not thinking!

Curtis Taylor - Drills are important with respect to emphasizing proper technique, but must be integrated into the final model. Drills unto themselves are not helpful to the final product.

Kip Janvrin - Very little.

Ernie Clark - Drills are VERY important in my training, as I use them as tools to break down movements and create the habits in movements I’m looking for.

Reece Vega - believe hurdle drills are important when it comes to warming up.

Also, for beginning hurdlers I think it helps reinforce a lot of patterns we are looking

for. When it comes to helping a hurdler hurdle faster and developing, I believe that just doing drills will not accommodate this.

Eric Hanenberger - I’m not a “driller”…get really good at maybe two drills and then we hurdle.

Jim Vahrenkamp - Personally, I do very little in the way of drill work. I work more whole-part than the opposite direction.

That means that in the occasion where I am trying to provide some type of context for the full movement, I might break things down. We try to spend the greatest amount of our time at relatively maximal velocities where limb movements are specific and where touchdown times introduce the rhythmic qualities that we want to train.

Chris Parno - I feel like we are drilling an athlete anytime we aren’t performing full hurdle segments at 100% intensities.

Anytime we break down the whole movement to specific parts, we are drilling. I feel like there has been a lot of controversy on the importance of drilling in hurdling…to which my response would be, where else do we learn, diagnose and fix problems?

Don’t get me wrong, proper take-offs at high speeds in full hurdling must be rehearsed and ultimately fix many problems. On the other side of that, through drills, we spend time building and rate

coding technical motor patterns, rhythm qualities, projection, etc. Let’s take the standard 3 step drill. Closer spacings allow the athlete to feel more vertical impulse allowing for technical motor pattern training. Lengthen the space between the hurdles in the same drill and you’re working at higher velocities, allowing for increased hip projections and focus on take-off and touch-down positions. I feel drilling is important early in the training season, but drilling never negates the importance of full hurdling. We may spend 30-45 minutes early season drilling and understanding motor patterns before full hurdle reps.

8-10 weeks out from our end goal, the hurdle warm-ups may resemble sprint day warm-ups with just a few “check in” type drills (1/3 step rhythm drills), before getting into the main full hurdle session.

QUESTION 4 What role does strength training play in your in-season training program during the competitive season?

Jamie Cook - Strength training plays a role. The emphasis changes based on the athlete.

Luke Mahoney - Next to the classroom, the weight room is the most important

FEBRUARY 2022 techniques

7

IN CONVERSATION: COACHES ROUNDTABLE room. From becoming stronger and more explosive to preventing injuries, the weight room allows us to achieve the goals we are after on the track. Drills and workouts can take you far, but without strength training, we won’t reach our maximum potential.

Curtis Taylor - A very large and vital part.

Kip Janvrin - Very little.

Ernie Clark - Strength training is simple for me: DO IT! It makes our athletes stronger (which makes them more durable), more explosive (more powerful with speed), and can also increase core strength and flexibility if utilized properly. In season, we still work on progress, but must taper down for championship season.

Reece Vega - During the season, I believe that strength training plays a part. I don’t believe it’s the biggest part, but it does have a part. Just as recovery, sleep, nutrition, all play a part in success, so does strength training.

Eric Hanenberger – Strength training is much higher component in the off-season (3x per week 60-75 minutes per session). Goal = peak strength/peak power.

In-season is much more supplemental (2x per week 20-45 minutes per session). Goal = peak bar speed/peak repeated power.

Jim Vahrenkamp - Strength training compliments what we do on the track. One of the most eye-opening conversations that I had revolved around the purpose of squatting in a sprint program. A mentor of mine mentioned that having a big squat provides the structural stability necessary to produce high quality performances on the track. In single support, the forces that the body is forced to manage are huge because of the limb velocities at impact. Squatting prepares us to maintain posture through these impact moments, which allows us to conserve horizontal velocity by minimizing breaking postures.

Chris Parno - In season, our strength program is supporting in nature and shouldn’t take away from the high quality (less quantity) work on the track. We keep in mind that strength is displayed in many forms; absolute, general, specific, reactive, elastic, etc. Hurdling is a reactive strength activity with repeated plyometric contacts on and off hurdles at higher velocities. Our goal in-season is racing and maintaining the strength we’ve built throughout the Fall.

Strength training is always important but shouldn’t overtake the efforts on the track.

We can’t think only of the weight room 8

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

when encompassing strength work into our programs.

QUESTION 5 How would you respond to the statement by noted authority in sport bio mechanics, Dr. Ralph Mann, when he says, “Hurdling is not sprinting.”

Jamie Cook - The goal is to be as efficient as possible when hurdling. Hurdling is an extension of your run/sprint (created from the first 7/8 steps). I still want the most powerful and dynamic athlete possible when starting out.

Luke Mahoney - I couldn’t disagree with the statement more from the racing mindset.

Hurdlers are sprinters first and foremost.

Curtis Taylor - I think there’s some truth in that statement from a coaching conceptual standpoint. Both cannot be coached the same because of the fixed hurdle distances.

Kip Janvrin - Show me a good hurdler that cannot sprint.

Ernie Clark - I believe the movements all the way to the last step are in fact sprint/ drive steps, but hurdling and the 3 step in between at the elite level is certainly not a sprint. It is in fact much more complicated in dealing with the hurdles and the confined spaces in between each barrier.

It is certainly not comparable by technical aspects, but I think it is in terms of the start, acceleration, fast contact times, etc. in terms of training and effort.

Reece Vega - I would both agree and disagree. Yes, hurdling is not technically a sprint because hurdles are in the way. But, all the best hurdlers are fast, which makes sprinting a key ingredient in hurdling.

Eric Hanenberger - It mimics a sprint race.

There is a lot of sprinting between the barriers.

Jim Vahrenkamp - The demands of the hurdle events are unique in the athletics universe. Sprinting qualities are required, but not the hallmark of the event. In the same way that sprinting occurs during the long jump, the actual sprint portion is not the focus. So too here, the barriers and their negotiation become the focus.

The application of sprint qualities makes it necessary to train those qualities while remembering not to forgo the important rhythmic qualities necessary for success in the event.

Chris Parno - I agree with the statement.

We may be at 100% intensities while hurdling and it’s easy to cue “sprint faster,” but by nature hurdling is more of a rhythmic activity. To increase velocity in sprinting we are managing the equation of speed, among many other things.

The equation of speed being stride length x stride frequency = velocity. To increase speed in sprinting, we look to manipulate the speed equation by either increasing or decreasing stride length/stride frequency to get a higher overall velocity (knowing they are inversely proportionate). In hurdling to decrease your time, more often than not, it will be strictly a frequency increase. Hurdlers are coordinating the defined stride pattern with high frequencies to decrease race times! We can’t take steps out of the hurdle races (outside of the start), so it’s crucial we cover these stride patterns quicker with increased frequency and rhythm SUMMARY There are certainly a lot of commonalities among the responses and answers to the various topics. There are also some glaring differences. Our goal was to demonstrate that there are a number of different philosophies and methods on how to train 100and 110-meter hurdlers. Everyone understands that there are different approaches to training, and they can all be successful.

Every coach has to find their “true north.”

They have to find the training program that is the correct formula and that is sustainable for them. Some training plans are better than others. Some are tailored to meet the demands of different athletes in different environments. Very few are what we would term wrong. One of our little nuggets to young coaches is this: “There really isn’t a wrong way, but perhaps a better way.” Our hope for this article is this: Hurdle coaches will gain some insight into what can work from other coaches, and a perspective of what they can successfully make work for them in their program with their athletes.

MIKE THORSON IS THE FORMER DIRECTOR OF TRACK AND FIELD/CROSS COUNTRY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARY IN BISMARCK, ND AND IS A FREQUENT CONTRIBUTOR TO TECHNIQUES.

FEBRUARY 2022 techniques

9

LONG DISTANCE

Speed Play

Guiding skill through a seamlessly sequenced sprint curriculum

10

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

W

ithin track & field, various models exist regarding the macro-management of speed enhancement. For instance, coaches may subscribe to a short-to-long, long-to-short, or concurrent system to inform global progressions within the allocated preparation time. Though these themes speak to how a plan conceptually attempts to advance the skill of sprinting along with specific fitness, these overarching modes of training are superficial and limited in their scope as it relates to the micro-level management of planning.

Specifically, these broad models fail to provide insightful perspective that allows the coach to carefully deliver nuanced programming, and more importantly, instruct a speed development session with precision. In other words, having greater clarity on both the intended goals and actual outcomes of a given sprint tactic or drill may improve a coach’s ability to deliver targeted cues or verbal instruction. As a result, the motor-learning effects of properly designed sprintskill development sessions are augmented through informed and artful coaching.

While the development and practice of coaching should be grounded in evidence, they are often separated — causing a detrimental dissociation between the aspects of curriculum delivery, skill analysis and movement modification.

Therefore, the purpose of this article is to arm coaches with a logical progression of tactics that develops sprint skill while considering the temporal aspects of highvelocity running.

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

ADVANCES IN SPRINT MODELING The current understanding of maximum effort locomotion demonstrates that sprinting is indeed a skill. While elegant in design, Bushnell and Hunter’s (2007) investigation on the relationship between movement quality and running speed demonstrated that while endurance athletes and sprinters shared similar biomechanical and spatiotemporal qualities at low cadences, the distance runners within their study failed to adjust technique as speed increased. In short, this supports the notion that sprinting proficiency is improved through coaching intervention and quality-repetition.

As a skill, sprinting may be further enhanced through training tactics that mature the musculoskeletal system’s ability to efficiently produce, tolerate and transfer high forces into the track

(Colyer et al., 2018). Moreover, those forces should be distributed in an appropriate magnitude and direction so as to maintain elastic qualities while minimizing braking (Nagahara et al., 2019).

Lastly, the properly-oriented forces must be transmitted within an abbreviated amount of time, typically ~90-100ms at top speed, which reinforces explosive strength as the primary criterion for sprint success.

This explosivity is underpinned by a collection of neuromuscular factors including, but not limited to motorunit typing, intra- and inter-muscular coordination, rate-coding and neural drive, which collectively work to actualize sprint-movement characteristics.

Because of their role in rate and magnitude of force development, these neuromuscular factors serve as prerequisites for proper mechanical actions within critical time frames. For example, sprinters who initiate GC with a stance phase that is more proximal to the center of mass at top-speed are more likely to conserve energy and prioritize elastic behavior through the SSC, a rapid and forceful lengthening of a muscle-tendon complex followed by an immediate shortening or contraction (Komi, 2008). Practically speaking, Manzer, Mattes, and Hollander (2016) described this phenomenon with the following observation of top-speed sprinting: “a high lifted knee stretches the hamstrings and gluteal muscles for the forthcoming hip extension at downswing during the pre-support-phase.

This leads, furthermore, to a sudden stop of the upper leg at maximum knee lift to the momentum transfer on the entire body and supports the takeoff extension because the time of maximum knee lift coincides with the takeoff of the opposite side.”

Conceptually, the SSC is important for sprinting as it underpins the spring-mass model (SMM). The SMM depicts sprinting as the result of a body mass bouncing along two springs (Blickhan, 1989, Dalleau et al., 1998, Dutton & Smith, 2002, Farley & Gonzalez, 1996). During a complete running cycle, one spring compresses and propels the sprinter’s body forward. Simultaneously, the other spring swings forward in preparation for ground contact. Within an upright sprint, compression of the spring begins at foot strike, which results in horizontal braking forces. This sudden deceleration assists in propelling the swing leg forward in preparation for the following step. As FEBRUARY 2022 techniques

11

SPEED PLAY the center of mass moves ahead of the stance foot, the sprinter enters the “midstance” phase. Within the SMM, the spring is compressed to the lowest point, which coincides with a lowered center of mass at mid-stance. The most proficient sprinters are able to minimize this downward COM displacement – once again pointing to the importance of magnitude and rate of force production in sprinting (Mann & Murphy 2015). Finally, the push-off (toe-off) segment of the stance phase describes the return of energy through the extension of the coiled spring. This return of force projects the sprinter forward into the next step (DeWeese, 2015).

Though useful in rudimentary conceptualization, the SMM is limited in its appreciation of integral aspects of running mechanics such as the unique force-time characteristics of elite sprint foot-strikes.

Specifically, Clark & Weyand (2014) demonstrated that fast sprinters produce a significant amount of their ground force within the first third to half of a stance phase. Furthermore, this same research group helped decode this asymmetrical force profile through a Two-Mass Model (TMM) system (Clark et al., 2017). Still mathematically elegant, the TMM only requires the mass of a sprinter’s shank and remaining body, alongside variables collected during a sprint cycle: contact time, aerial time and shank acceleration.

This revised TMM system considers two consistent and consecutive running actions that are independent of movement speed. In short, ground contact results in a nearly-immediate halt of the shank while the remaining body accelerates up and ahead of the shank throughout stance phase. We can represent these events mathematically as two overlapping impulses: Impulse 1 (I1) captures the ground reaction forces and temporal characteristics of shank stabilization, while Impulse 2 (I2) describes the forces required to accelerate the rest of the body through a given stance phase (Clark et al., 2017).

Acknowledging the depth of value that a TMM adds to the assessment of individualized sprinter profiling and programming, the authors developed and validated a method to capture ground reaction force data using inertial measurement units (IMU) within a traditional training environment. As compared to recent investigations that capture kinetic data during 12

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

open sprints on an instrumented track (force plates), this is the first time that sprint waveforms have been collected and analyzed in a manner that is unrestrained from the laboratory setting.

WHAT IS IMPULSE AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? Force transmission to the track does not occur instantaneously. Instead, a sprinter imparts force to the track across the entire stance duration, which ranges from 100130ms during acceleration to 85-90ms during maximum velocity sprinting (Aagaard et al., 2002). Impulse is the product of these ground reaction forces and the stance duration for each step. While large ground reaction forces are integral to successful sprint performance, the time-dependent nature of sprinting prevents athletes from fully expressing their maximum force capabilities (Cormie et al., 2010; Seitz et al., 2014). Therefore, rate of force development (RFD) is integral in allowing athletes to develop high percentages of their maximum force capabilities during each step permitting large impulses to be produced under the time constraints of sprinting.

Because it is the product of force and time, impulse describes the area under the force-time curve. In theory, practitioners can describe the shape and magnitude of an athlete’s sprint force-time profile similarly to phase analyses performed on the countermovement jump (Mizuguchi et al., 2015; Sole et al., 2018). The recent development of the TMM (Clark et al., 2017) provides a platform from which to examine the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of an athlete’s running form at ground contact. Specifically, a coach can tie the movement quality observed on the track to the impulse profile of each stance phase. Further, supplemental information regarding common impulse shapes for various sprint tactics can aid coaches in properly sequencing these drills in a logical, timely manner.

SPEED PLAY Using force-time waveform models collected over the training season of two highlevel male sprint athletes (a 2018 Olympic sprint-sport athlete who is also a former Division 1 All-American sprinter and an International sprinter with personal bests of 10.11 and 20.23 in the 100m and 200m, respectively) as a guide, we hope to pro-

vide the coaching community with greater clarity on several sprint drills common to track & field. While not an exhaustive list, the sprint drills presented within this paper were strategically chosen for their ability to emphasize certain aspects of a sprint run, while collectively exposing the athlete to a wide array of movement velocities and force characteristics.

This data and the accompanying interpretation may help with the organizational process of training tactics within a competitive year. As Coyler and associates (2018) remind us, an athlete’s response to training is highly specific to the conditional stimuli (e.g., velocity and load) prescribed. These conditions should be programmed in an emphasis/de-emphasis manner throughout the training year as improvements during one phase may be accompanied by reductions in performance across another (Coyler et al., 2018).

Due to the acknowledgement of these interconnected force signatures, it may be possible to better represent the phasic nature of sprinting and provide targeted constraints by which motor learning can be maximized. More specifically, the consideration of both the absolute and relative magnitudes of the “two-masses” make it more reasonable to infer potentially distinct characteristics. This may then lead to more precise methods that can be applied in the development of sprint skill. While limited by population, the data gleaned from this ecologically-valid investigation demonstrates, for the first time, what occurs when traditional sprinting is altered to enhance or address isolated aspects of a run.

ACCELERATION TACTICS Within a periodized program, coaches may elect to enhance race performance through concentrated (not isolated) efforts of shorter-distance sprints prior to higher workloads at top-speed. This training decision is supported by Naito et al.

(2013) and Schiffer (2009) who concur that maximum velocity results from the acceleration established within earlier zones of a sprint race. Therefore, if this premise is to be accepted, then it is logical to equip the coach with a diverse array of tactics by which to systematically mature the foundational component of skillful sprinting.

Further, if we acknowledge that sprinting is a skill that depends on neuromuscular readiness, coaches should emphasize pro-

FEBRUARY 2022 techniques

13

SPEED PLAY

FIGURE 1: THE STAGING AND EXIT OF A CROUCH START.

FIGURE 2: FORCE-WAVEFORM REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TWO-MASS MODEL FOR STEPS 1,3,7,9,11 FOR THE CROUCH START.

gramming strategies that improve movement proficiency through organized training tactics that consider both technical aspects and biomechanical characteristics.

STANDING STARTS Crouch Start: The track and field block start is considered to be a high-skill, high-output event that may require rehearsal under near-optimal conditions of readiness (Bezodis et al., 2018; Brazil et al., 2018). As such, a less technical yet consistent starting-stance for multiple sprint efforts within a training session is warranted.

From a staggered stance that is approximately two foot lengths apart, the crouch start (CS) places the athlete’s center of mass approximate to that of a block start.

Specifically, the athlete will descend their hips down into a “loaded” position while maintaining a long and braced torso. Once the squatting position has been established, the sprinter should take a deep inhalation while raising their front forearm/hand to their forehead while the back hand is taken to the hip. Just before driving out, the athlete may choose to “fall” into the start by slightly flexing/ dropping the lead knee so as to promote a more horizontal displacement during exit through the creation of a more positive shin angle.

While Shinohara et al. (2018) discovered that the CS slightly differs from the block start with regard to spatiotemporal parameters within both early and later stages of 14

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

acceleration, it may allow the sprinter to better orient force application into a more horizontal direction over the entire acceleration phase. Its kinematic similarities do, however, provide the athlete with as advantaged of a starting position as possible without the use of additional equipment. This gives the CS high practical utility in training sprinting athletes both on the track and in other sports. All considered, a full sprint from the CS will serve as the criterion for comparing the subsequent acceleratory tactics within this article.

REACTIVE ACCELERATIONS Prone Start: As seen in Figure 3, the Prone Start is a training tool that places the athlete at the lowest possible point on the track. From a position that is approximate to the bottom of a push-up, the sprinter responds to an external cue (often a clap), pushing their center of mass up and out.

This explosive start should be done while attempting to maintain a long and braced torso in order to counter the initial step’s knee drive “toward the chest.” Lastly, in order to prevent over-rotation and/or a premature vertical lift of the torso, the sprinter should emphasize aggressive and rapid foot strikes that coincide with “long and strong” arm cycles.

Considering the force-time wave forms, this training tactic appears to increase the total time to peak force in order to raise the body from an exaggerated starting

position. As such, this drill led to a larger total impulse through the first 3 steps with a larger emphasis toward I1 in order to rapidly stabilize the up-and-ahead movement of the COM. Furthermore, the dataset used for this analysis demonstrates lower peak forces through most of the 12 steps, which could result from the more horizontally-oriented hip extension.

Taken together, this drill should be considered an advanced tactic as the sprinter must be strong enough to generate enough propulsion during I1 in order to displace horizontally, while still being able to ‘hold themselves up’ against the lowered COM. The alteration in force production demands relative to the CS through a kinematic constraint (i.e. exaggerated horizontal orientation) make the prone start a sprint tactic that allows the athlete to emphasize proper direction of force application. In addition, the prone start can be used to stage more traditional starts so as to potentiate subsequent efforts or to retain previously developed acceleration skills, which includes the sensation of aggressive pushing “down and back” (i.e. properly oriented force production).

Chest Pass to Chase: The Chest Pass Chase is a medicine ball starting drill that can assist the sprinter in experiencing and developing a piston-like action against the track. The athlete will begin this sprint by placing themselves in a CS with a medicine ball held at chest height, being stabilized

FIGURE 3: STARTING POSITION AND EXIT STEPS OF THE PRONE START.

FIGURE 4: FORCE-WAVEFORM REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TWO-MASS MODEL FOR STEPS 1,3,7,9,11 FOR THE PRONE START.

by elbows “tucked” into the sides. After an initial fall with the aim of placing the “hips ahead of the heels,” the runner will push and project their center of mass out in a manner to transfer momentum into the ball. Furthermore, the medicine ball’s path dually serves as an external cue of both magnitude and direction of force application, with a linear toss being desired.

As noted in Figure 6, the chest pass chase appears to primarily influence the initial acceleration of a sprint run, likely as a result of an increase in ground contact time needed to stabilize oneself from the pronounced COM displacement. Specifically, there is an increase in the total time to peak force and a greater reliance on I2 during steps 1 through 3.

Interestingly, the sprinter returns to nearbaseline numbers once the traditional sprint form is regained. This tactic allows the athlete to emphasize and rehearse proper initiation of early acceleration initially while seamlessly progressing to open sprinting. Considering the information above, the chest pass chase could be a logical precursor to potentiate block starts where horizontal displacement and larger force production is desired. This versatile tool may be leveraged by coaches frequently in a long-term sprint skill development plan due to its versatility.

Falling Start: The Falling Start is yet another reactive drill that conceptually requires the runner to become comfort-

able with being “ahead of themselves” (i.e. horizontally-oriented). As the sprinter falls away from the coach’s grasp, the emphasis should be on leading into the lean through the hips rather than the upper body. This is done to prevent a breaking of the waist that could limit terminal hip flexion which stages the first step. After falling “long and tall,” the athlete should be cued to punch the ground hard and fast during the initial steps in order prevent over-rotation or the desire to “pop-up” during transition.

Considering the force waveform data, the falling start leads to increased stance times within the initial steps 1-3 coupled with a larger reliance on I2, perhaps resulting from the significant horizontal orientation of hip extension on exit in a somewhat similar manner to the prone start. However, explosive strength rises through step 9 likely as a combined result of optimal positioning and a taller COM compared to a traditional crouch or prone start. Combined, these findings suggest that the falling start may be a suitable drill to be performed prior to accelerativetransition work or top-speed training as it compliments and reinforces late-stage skill.

RESISTED SPRINTING Incline Sprints: One form of increasing resistance to traditional sprinting is through altering environmental constraints. Theoretically, incline sprinting

is thought to “bring the ground to the athlete” who may have difficulty managing and/or executing proper acceleratory mechanics. Specifically, the steady climb and rise of the ground permits a runner continuous opportunity to rehearse limbactions and foot strikes that are propulsive in nature. While limited by subjects, Bingham and colleagues (2015) demonstrated that incline sprinting on a 5-degree slope created spatiotemporal characteristics that were similar to the first 5 steps from block exit on a flat track.

Noting Figure 10, it appears that a sustained reliance on I2 is required for the production of propulsive forces against a rising slope. While I1 continues to drive an asymmetrical wave-form through ankle stabilization, net impulse is shaped by the work to drive the athlete up and ahead of each stance phase. As such, it appears that increasing the inclination of the running surface is a suitable method to enhance accelerative ability early during the preparation period and could be a viable option for the retention of early-phase sprint qualities during competitive or more specific periods of the training year.

Sled Towing: Arguably the most popular, and perhaps the most-researched, resisted-sprint tactic is the sled pull (Alcaraz 2018, Bachero-Mena & Gonzalez-Badillo, 2014, Bentley et al., 2014, Harrison & Bourke, 2009, Morin et al., 2016). Sled pulls follow a similar logic to incline sprinting, FEBRUARY 2022 techniques

15

SPEED PLAY

FIGURE 5: THE SET-UP, MEDICINE BALL RELEASE, AND EXIT OF THE CHEST PASS CHASE.

FIGURE 6: FORCE-WAVEFORM REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TWO-MASS MODEL FOR STEPS 1,3,7,9,11 FOR THE CHEST PASS CHASE.

FIGURE 7: THE COACH-SUPPORTED STARTING POSITION, RELEASE, AND EXIT OF THE FALLING START.

FIGURE 8: FORCE-WAVEFORM REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TWO-MASS MODEL FOR STEPS 1,3,7,9,11 FOR THE FALLING START.

FIGURE 10: FORCE-WAVEFORM REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TWO-MASS MODEL FOR STEPS 1,3,7,9,11 FOR THE INCLINE SPRINT.

16

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

aiming to alter the environmental constraints in order to emphasize certain aspects of acceleration skill. Fluctuating the external resistance can modulate (both increase and decrease) the demand of horizontally-oriented force application during each ground contact. Theoretically, this drill serves to aid in the staging of proper segment alignment while also facilitating greater ground forces when chronically applied to acceleration-based training.

As a result of the external resistance, sled pulls have more programming considerations than other sprint-skill development tactics — particularly optimal load selection. While this continues to be a point of dialogue and debate within the coaching and scientific communities, the authors do not feel it is within the scope of this article to spend considerable time on this topic.

However, it is worth noting that the authors feel that is most appropriate to rely on sled loads that are towards the modest-end of external resistance, especially within a more mature or established track & field team environment. Briefly, conservative loading allows 1) more similar step kinematics to unresisted sprinting, 2) more similar segment kinematics to unresisted sprinting, 3) better fatigue management and 4) maintenance of elastic-reflexive mechanisms found in unresisted sprinting. Furthermore, it is the authors’ contention that similar programming considerations should be made in sled pulls as in resistance training (e.g. loading variation) to create an environment that exploits physiological phenomenon (e.g. post-activation potentiation) and exposes the athlete to a broader spectrum of output demands. The thoughtful manipulation of loading likely allows the athlete to both physically develop specific physical aspects relevant to sprinting as well as promote a more robust

learning environment from a motor skill standpoint.

Programming nuances aside, sled pulls have considerable evidence supporting their use in improving sprint ability in distances less than 20m and coaches are warranted in frequently leveraging this tool (Alcaraz 2018). Considering the figure below, a moderatelyloaded (~55% BW) sled pull led to an overall increase in ground contact time while producing a decrease in total force. Though initially counterintuitive, this may have resulted from a more horizontal orientation of the COM relative to the ground, where the athlete used the sled as an off-set in order to support a greater propulsive position. In addition, total impulse increases 7-12% for steps 1-10, largely from an increase in I2, theoretically through an overload of the skill of transitioning through stance phase. With this new information, it may be advantageous for the coach to emphasize that the athlete drives their hips ‘through’ the belt or apparatus that is tethering them to the sled during the pull.

SHORT SPEED - TRANSITORY Acceleration Hold: While Bezodis et al. (2012) and others suggest movement behavior is slightly nuanced and “self-selected” even at the elite level of competition, multiple sources have demonstrated that a 100m dash can be broken down into definable zones based on kinetic and kinematic similarities (Mackala, 2007; Nagahara et al., 2014a; Manzer 2016). Specifically, these zones can be summarized as the Early-Acceleration, MidAcceleration, Late-Acceleration, and Maximum Velocity as noted in Figure 12 (Bellon, 2016).

Success within the aforementioned transition or “late acceleration” phase requires the athlete to stay patient and unhurried as the torso opens up and “sits on top” of the previously established vertical shin. Unfortunately, less skillFEBRUARY 2022 techniques

17

SPEED PLAY

FIGURE 9: THE STARTING STANCE, “FALLING AHEAD INTO A FORWARD LEAN” STRATEGY, AND EXIT STEPS OF THE SLED PULL.

FIGURE 11: FORCE-WAVEFORM REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TWO-MASS MODEL FOR STEPS 1,3,7,9,11 FOR THE SLED PULL.

FIGURE 12: SPATIOTEMPORAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SPEED ZONES WITHIN A 100M DASH.

ful sprinters rush through this phase in order to “pop up and run,” sacrificing the last few meters of acceleration in order to satisfy the sensation of moving fast. This impatience can blunt maximum velocity through the compromise of posture, which can appear “seated” if the athlete fails to thoroughly drive themselves tall.

And while a sprint should be seen as a fluid movement that is devoid of abrupt disruption, dividing the race into distinct stages may provide the coach with themes for the design of practice agendas. As such, the acceleration-hold serves as a drill to (a) bridge between acceleration training and top speed, while (b) permitting the athlete time to maintain patience and drive toward pure upright mechanics.

18

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

Referring to the work of Mackala (2007), and Manzer (2016), this training unit attempts to provide the athlete with an opportunity to graduate through the initial and extended acceleration phases while being tasked with a controlled rise of the torso. Specifically, the coach will instruct the athlete to accelerate maximally from a crouch or block start up to a cone or landmark that is approximate to the onset of vertical shins. From here, the athlete can be cued to “maintain inertia or speed” by “not pushing on the gas pedal any further.” While “holding speed,” the sprinter should then allow the torso and head to “uncurl and rise in unison” as they “drive their hips up and through” to a top-speed “stacked” posture.

In addition to the opportunity for a rehearsal of transitional mechanics, acceleration holds also serve as a bridge between programming tactics. For instance, this training tool can be used to regulate the exposure to higher velocities through the judicious placement of a hold cone. Practically speaking, a coach may place the cone at or before the vertical shin to limit intensity or move the cone ahead so as to introduce higher running speeds.

For example, Figure 14 visually represents the phase-to-phase characteristics of an acceleration hold where the sprinter’s vertical shin was identified to occur at approximately 35 meters. From here, the athlete was instructed to aggressively build speed from a crouch start up to a cone

FIGURE 13: THE TRANSITIONAL MECHANICS OF LATE-ACCELERATION SPRINTING. NOTE THE VERTICAL SHIN COUPLED WITH A NEAR-ERECT TORSO. THE TORSO SHOULD CONTINUE TO RISE GRADUALLY OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL STEPS TO A POINT THE JOINTS ARE “STACKED” ENTERING MAXIMUM VELOCITY.

FIGURE 14: FORCE WAVEFORM REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TWO-MASS MODEL FOR THE LAST SEVERAL STEPS OF THE “ACCELERATION” ZONE COMPARED TO THE FIRST SEVERAL STEPS OF THE “HOLD” ZONE.

placed at the 35m mark, and then to “hold speed” while patiently unfolding the torso over the next several steps. Therefore, the last 6 steps of the “acceleration phase” are compared to the first 6 steps of the “hold phase.”

Data collected during this training session demonstrates that the overall ratio of I1 to I2 remains relatively unchanged as ground contacts hasten between the entry to and exit from “late-acceleration,” which is bookmarked by the vertical shin and subsequent vertical torso. This may suggest that nuances for this drill then, are not necessarily in biomechanics, but in the art of coaching. Though the waveforms presented in Figure 14 may initially seem insignificant, they provide evidence that a properly executed hold produces similar kinetics as an open sprint, but at reduced velocities. This indicates that the acceleration hold fits best as a transitionary tool to longer sprints, but only if the athlete can demonstrate the necessary patience as they unfold at the hip during transition, which may be required in order to produce wave-form similarities. Future

investigation should examine this drill using a diverse range of sprint abilities to determine if this is the manifestation of a learned effect of high-level sprinters, as was used in the current discussion.

TOP SPEED TACTICS Fly-In: As described by coaching pioneers Seagrave (1996) and McFarlane (1993), the Fly-In drill is designed to isolate top-speed mechanics through the prescription of a pre-defined zone of no more than 4 seconds that is staged by a near or full buildup. Once at top-speed, the athlete should demonstrate a “stacked” posture alongside full and unhindered upper- and lowerbody limb cycles that permit a proactive and deliberate foot-strike “down and through” the track. This action attempts to maintain an optimal hip height through a more proximal touchdown, which serves to the maximize the SSC. Compared to acceleration or transitional sprint techniques, the fly-in is reliant on a sharp rise in I1. Recall that I1 relates to the time it takes to stabilize the shank upon ground contact. Thus, the faster an

athlete can steady the shank at top speed, the more economical that stance may be.

This is demonstrated well in the figure below, with the athlete delivering a high relative contribution to the total impulse from I1 during these strides taken following an 40m build. The stronger and more skilled athletes will be able to provide a substantial magnitude and rate of force production, resulting in a more prominent I1. The overall strength of the leg musculature allows the athlete to aggressively initiate contact with the ground during stance phase, causing positive or neutral vertical hip displacement. This positive or vertical hip displacement, coupled with a foot-strike just ahead of the center of mass, permits “clean” ground contact and facilitates very high force production under a time constraint of approximately 90-100ms. Thus, the force waveforms presented below not only serve to further elucidate the efficacy of this tactic, but may also be useful in evaluating the quality of ground contact. Because top-speed is the crowning component of a short-to-long progression, this could serve as a means of FEBRUARY 2022 techniques

19

SPEED PLAY

FIGURE 15: THE ENTERING MECHANICS OF A FLY-IN SPRINT RUN, HIGHLIGHTED BY A TALL RIGID TORSO THAT PROVIDES FREEDOM FOR A FULLYFLEXED THIGH AT THE TERMINATION OF SWING PHASE. THIS STAGES A MORE PROXIMAL GROUND CONTACT, PRESERVING THE SSC. IN ADDITION, ATTENTION SHOULD BE PAID TO THE NEUTRAL KNEES AT MID-STANCE (WHEN BOTH THIGHS ARE “UNDERNEATH THE HIPS”.

FIGURE 16: FORCE WAVEFORM REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TWO-MASS MODEL FOR THE LAST SEVERAL STEPS OF THE “BUILD” ZONE COMPARED TO THE FIRST SEVERAL STEPS OF THE “FLY” (MAXIMUM VELOCITY) ZONE.

final evaluation of program efficacy prior to race modeling or competition.

The “Fly-Float-Fly” (FFF), also known as the “Sprint-Float-Sprint,” is another top speed training tactic of which practitioners have long speculated is more advanced due to the increased time spent at maximum velocities. Specifically, the FFF evolves from the fly-in by exposing the sprinter to a pair of fly-zones separated by a “float” zone that is thought to permit a brief neurologic recovery. Similar to the fly-in, the top speed zones are brief (2-4 seconds), but combine to yield a larger sum of stimulus through the double peaks at maximum velocity running.

Furthermore, it has been postulated that the second “fly” zone will result in the highest velocities due to the potentiating nature of the run if the sprinter “maintains inertia” during the float “recovery” zone.

Historically, this effect has been noted through the capture of average velocity over the fly-zones through the assistance of timing eyes. However, kinetic and kinematic data that provides greater insight into how a sprinter modulates tactics in order to achieve similar velocities within the zones has gone unknown.

For instance, based on the data used in Figure 16, both fly-zones demonstrated a 20

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

greater reliance on I1 as compared to the float-zone while total impulse remained nearly unchanged. In addition, it appears that practitioners may indeed be correct as I1 reaches its highest magnitudes in the second fly zone.

As a result of the information collected through the average zone velocities and the force waveforms, the FFF is indeed an advanced tactic that should be used within the SPP or Pre-Comp to isolate and exploit top speed mechanics. In addition, this type of training unit can be morphed into speed-reserve/ speed-endurance sessions through the elongation of runs, while still avoiding the creation of the dynamic stereotype as identified by Ozolin (1978).

CONCLUSION Though many of the drills discussed throughout this paper have been well established within track & field, variance in instruction and prescription continue to exist. Therefore, the purpose of this paper was twofold: First, the authors hope to promote coaching continuity through the description of drill design, cueing strategies for set-up and execution, and optimal placement within the training plan (Figure 18). Second, the authors provide ecologically-valid monitoring data that helps

illuminate how these properly-instructed drills influence sprinting outcomes.

Why does this matter? In summary, because sprinting, like all other forms of human locomotion, is a skill. The waveforms introduced within this paper speak to the elegance of movement quality in a way that traditional variables such as step time, length and frequency cannot.

Specifically, these waveforms demonstrate shape and scope of force production that factors into the sprinter’s technique.

The question, now, is not if there exists a universally-applicable technical model or how much strength is needed to run fast; rather, we should ask ourselves how much latitude exists in either direction from an individual athlete’s preferred movement signature before we attempt to exploit a given tactic. Perhaps the monitoring and study of stance waveforms provides us with that answer.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank John Abbott and Austin Smith for their efforts in supporting this project.

REFERENCES Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Andersen JL, Magnusson P, and Dyhre-Poulsen P.

FIGURE 17: FORCE WAVEFORM REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TWO-MASS MODEL COMPARING THE LAST 5 OF THE FIRST “FLY” (BUILD) ZONE, THE MIDDLE 5 STEPS OF THE “FLOAT” ZONE, AND THE FIRST 5 STEPS OF THE FINAL “FLY” (REAPPLY) ZONE.

FIGURE 18: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE PLACEMENT OF SPRINT TACTICS WITHIN A TRAINING PLAN THROUGH THE CONSIDERATION OF SKILL MATURITY AND FOOT-TOGROUND FORCE INTERPLAY.

(2002). Increased rate of force development and neural drive of human skeletal muscle following resistance training. J Appl Physiol 93: 1318-1326.

Alcaraz PE., Carlos-Vivas J., Oponjuru BO., & Martinez-Rodriguez A. (2018). The effectiveness of resisted sled training (RST) for sprint performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 48: 2143.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-0180947-8 Bachero-Mena B, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. (2014). Effects of resisted sprint training on acceleration with three different loads accounting for 5, 12.5, and 20% of body mass. J Strength Cond Res. 28(10):2954–60.

Bellon, C. (2016). The Relationship Between Strength, Power, and Sprint Acceleration in Division I Men’s Soccer Players. Electronic Theses and Dissertations.

Paper 3087. http://dc.etsu.edu/etd/3087.

Bentley I, Atkins S, Edmundson C, Metcalfe J, & Sinclair J. (2014). A review of resisted sled training: implications for current practice. Professional Strength and Conditioning (34).

Benson LC, Ahamed NU, Kobsar D, & Ferber R. (2018) New considerations for collecting biomechanical data using wearable sensors: Number of level runs to define a stable running pattern with a single IMU.

J of Biomechanics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbiomech.2019.01.004 Bergamini E. (2011). Biomechanics of sprint running: a methodological contribution. Biomechanics [physics.med-ph]. Arts et M ́etiers ParisTech. English.

Bezodis NE, Salo AT, & Trewartha G. (2014). Lower limb joint kinetics during the first stance phase in athletics sprinting: Three elite athlete case studies. Journal of Sports Sciences. 32(8), 738-746.

Bezodis NE, Walton SP, & Nagahara R (2018). Understanding the track and field sprint start through a functional analysis of the external force features which contribute to higher levels of block phase performance, Journal of Sports Sciences, DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2018.1521713 Bingham GE, Wagle JP, Fiolo N, & DeWeese BH. (2015). An elite athlete’s initial uphill battle. 11th Annual Coaches and Sport Science College, Johnson City, TN. Blickhan R. (1989) The spring-mass model for running and hopping. J Biomech 22: 1217-1227.

Borysiuk Z, Waskiewicz, Piechota K, Pakosz P, Konieczny M, Blaszczyszyn M, Nikolaidis PT, Rosemann T, & Knechtle B. (2018). Coordination aspects of an effective sprint start. Frontiers in Physiology. (9) 1138, 1-7.

Brazil A, Exell T, Wilson C, Willwacher S, Bezodis IN & Irwin G (2018). Joint kinetic determinants of starting block performance in athletic sprinting, Journal of Sports Sciences, 36:14, 1656-1662.

Brughelli M, Cronin J, & Chaouachi A. (2011). Effects of running velocity on running kinetics and kinematics. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.

25(4)/933–939 Buller, A. J., Eccles, J. C., & Eccles, R. M. (1960). Interactions between motoneurons and muscles in respect of the characteristic speeds of their responses. The Journal of physiology, 150, 417-439.

Bundle MW and Weyand PG. (2012).

Sprint exercise performance: does metabolic power matter? Exerc Sport Sci Rev 40: 174182.

Coh M, Jost B, Skof B, Tomazin K, & Dolenec A. (1998) Kinematic and kinetic parameters of the sprint start and start acceleration model of top sprinters.

Gymnica, 28, 33-42. Čoh, M., Tomažin, K., & Štuhec, S. (2006).

The biomechanical model of the sprint start and block acceleration. Facta universitatisseries: Physical Education and Sport, 4(2), 103-114.

Colyer SL, Nagahara R, Takai Y, Salo AIT. (2018). How sprinters accelerate

SPEED PLAY

beyond the velocity plateau of soccer players: Waveform analysis of ground reaction forces. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 28:2527– 2535. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13302.

Clark KP & Weyand PG (2014). Are running speeds maximized with simple spring stance mechanics? J Appl Physiol, 117(6), 604-615.

Clark KP, Ryan LJ, & Weyand PG (2017).

A general relationship links gait mechanics and running ground reaction forces.

Journal of Experimental Biology. 220: 247258. DOI: 10.1242/jeb.138057 Cormie P, McGuigan MR, and Newton RU. (2010). Influence of strength on magnitude and mechanisms of adaptation to power training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 22

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

1566-1581.

Debaere S, Delecluse C, Aerenhouts D, Hagman F, & Jonkers I. (2013). From block clearance to sprint running: Characteristics underlying an effective transition, Journal of Sports Sciences, 31:2, 137-149, DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2012.722225 DeWeese BH, Sams ML, Williams JH, & Bellon CR (2015). The nature of speed: Enhancing sprint abilities through a short to long training approach. Techniques, 8(4), 8-22.

Dick F. Development of maximum sprinting speed. Track Technique 109, 34753480.

Duchateau J, Semmler JG, & Enoka RM. (2006). Training adaptations in the behav-

ior of human motor units. J Appl Physiol, 101(6), 1766-1775.

Dutto DJ and Smith GA. (2002). Changes in spring-mass characteristics during treadmill running to exhaustion. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: 1324-1331.

Edgerton VR, Roy RR, Gregor RJ, et al.

(1986). Morphological basis of skeletal muscle power output. In: Jones NL, McCartney N, McComas AJ, editors. Human muscle power. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, Inc., 43-64.

Farley CT and Gonzalez O. (1996). Leg stiffness and stride frequency in human running. J Biomech 29: 181-186.

Faulkner, J. A., Claflin, D. R., McCully, K. K., & Jones, D. A. (1982). Contractile properties of bundles of fiber segments from skeletal muscles. The American journal of physiology, 243(1), C66-73.

Gajer B, Thepaut-Mathieu C, & Lehenaff D. (1999). Evolution of stride and amplitude during course of the 100m event in athletics.

New Studies in Athletics. 14(1), 43-50.

Gardiner P, Dai Y, & Heckman CJ. (1985).

Effects of exercise training on alpha-motorneurons. Journal of applied physiology, 101(4), 1228-1236.

Harrison AJ, Bourke G. (2009). The effect of resisted sprint training on speed and strength performance in male rugby players. J Strength Cond Res. 23(1):275–83.

Hunter, J. P., Marshall, R. N., & McNair, P. J. (2005). Relationships between ground reaction force impulse and kinematics of sprint-running acceleration. Journal of applied biomechanics, 21(1), 31-43.

Komi, P. V. (2008). The stretch-shortening cycle. In: Komi, P. V., editor. Strength and Power in Sport. London: Blackwell Science Ltd, 1992: 169-79.

Macadam P, Nuell S, Cronin JB, Nagahara R, Uthoff AM, Graham SP, Tinwala F, & Neville J. (2019). Kinematic and kinetic differences in block and splitstance standing starts during 30 m sprintrunning, European Journal of Sport Science , DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2019.1575475 Mackala K. (2007). Optimisation of performance through kinematic analysis of the difference phases of the 100 metres. New Studies in Athletics. 22(2), 7-16.

Mackala K, Fostiak M, & Kowalski K. (2015). Selected determinants of acceleration in the 100m sprint. Journal of Human Kinetics. 45, 135-148.

Mann RV. (2014, November). Analysis of sprint mechanics, start mechanics, & maximum velocity. Presented at the 2014 University of South Carolina Speed Elite KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

Coaches Clinic, Columbia, SC. Mann RV & Murphy A. (2015). The mechanics of sprinting and hurdling.

CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Manzer S., Mattes K., & Hollander K. (2016). Kinematic analysis of sprinting pickup acceleration versus maximum sprinting speed. Biology of Exercise. 12(2): 55-67. DOI: http: doi.org/10.4127/jbe.2016.0109 McFarlane B. (1993). A basic and advanced technical model for speed. NSCA Journal. 15(5), 57-61.

Mero, A., & Peltola, E. (1989). Neural activation fatigued and non-fatigued conditions of short and long sprint running. Biol Sport, 6(1), 43-59.

Mizuguchi S, Sands WA, Wassinger CA, Lamont HS, & Stone MS (2015). A new approach to determining net impulse and identification of its characteristics in countermovement jumping: Reliability and validity. Sports Biomechanics. 14:2, 258272, DOI: 10.1080/14763141.2015.1053514 Morin JB, (2005). Spring-mass model characteristics during sprint running: Correlation with performance and fatigueinduced changes. Int J Sports Med. DOI 10.1055/s-2005-837569 Morin JB, Bourdin M, Edouard P, Peyrot N, Samozino P, & Lacour J. (2012).

Mechanical determinants of 100m sprint running performance. Eur J Appl Physiol.

Doi:10.1007ls00421-012-2379-8.

Morin JB, Slawinski J, Dorel S, et al.

(2015). Acceleration capability in elite sprinters and ground impulse: push more, brake less? J Biomech.;48:3149‐3154.

Morin JB, Petrakos G, Jimenez-Reyes P, Brown SR, Samozino P, Cross MR. (2016).

Very-heavy sled training for improving horizontal force output in soccer players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 12(6):840–4.

Nagahara, R., Matsubayashi, T., Matsuo, A., & Zushi, K. (2014a). Kinematics of transition during human accelerated sprinting.

Biology open, 3(8), 689-699.

Nagahara R, Naito H, Morin JB, & Zushi K. (2014b). Association of acceleration with spatiotemporal variables in maximal sprinting. Int J Sports Med. 35: 755–761.

Nagahara R, Mizutani M, Matsuo A, Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T. (2017).

Association of sprint performance with ground reaction forces during acceleration and maximal speed phases in a single sprint. J Appl Biomech.1‐7.

Nagahara, R., & Morin, J.-B. (2018).

Sensor insole for measuring temporal variables and vertical force during

sprinting. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology, 232(4), 369–374. https://doi. org/10.1177/1754337117751730.

Naito H, Kariyama Y, Miyashiro K, Yamamoto K, Tanigawa S. (2013). Typespecific step characteristics of sprinters during the acceleration phase in 100-m sprint.

DOI: 10.5432/jjpehss.13012 Ozolin, N. (1978). How to improve speed.

In Jarver, J. (Ed.). Sprints and Relays: Contemporary Theory, Technique and Training. Los Altos, CA: Tafnews Press, pp. 55-56. Originally printed in Legkaya Atletika, reference unavailable.

Ross A, Leveritt M, & Riek S. (2001).

Neural influences on sprint running. Sports Med, 31(6), 409-425.

Schiffer, J. (2009). The sprints. New Studies in Athletics. 24(1), 7‒17.

Seagrave L. (1996). Introduction to sprinting. New Studies in Athletics. 2-3, 93-113.

Seitz, L.B., Reyes, A., Tran, T.T. et al.

(2014). Increases in Lower-Body Strength Transfer Positively to Sprint Performance: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis Sports Med 44: 1693. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40279-014-0227-1 Shinohara, Y., & Maeda, M. (2015). The role of the starting block in sprinting and its influence on a crouch start Japan J. Phys.

Educ. Hlth. Sport Sci., 60(December), 667684.

Shinohara Y, Nagahara R, Matsuo A, & Maeda M. (2018). Difference in acceleration patterns in two start techniques: Crouch and standing starts. 36th Conference of the International Society of Biomechanics in Sports, Auckland, New Zealand, September 10-14, 2018.

Slawinski, J., Dorel, S., Hug, F., Couturier, A., Fournel, V., Morin, J., & Hanon, C. (2008). Elite long sprint running: a comparison between incline and level training sessions. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 40(6), 1155.

Sole C, Mizuguchi S, Sato K, Moir G, & Stone MH. (2018). Phase characteristics of the countermovement jump force-time curve: A comparison of athletes by jumping ability. J Strength Cond Res. 32(4): 1155-1165.

Stoyanov H. (2014). Competition model characteristics of elite male sprinters. New Studies in Athletics. 29(4), 53-60.

Struzik A, Konieczny G, Stawarz M, Grzesik K, Winiarski S, & Rokita A. (2016) Relationship between lower limb angular kinematic variables and the effectiveness of sprinting during the acceleration phase.

Applied Bionics and Biomechanics, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/7480709.

Thiel DV, Shepherd J, Espinosa HG, Kenny M, Fischer K, Worsey M, Matsuo A, & Wada T. (2018). Predicting ground reaction forces in sprint running using a shank mounted inertial measurement unit. ISEA Proceedings 2, 199. doi:10.3390/proceedings2060199.

Weyand PG, Sternlight DB, Bellizzi MJ, and Wright S. (2000). Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements. J Appl Physiol 89: 1991-1999.

Weyand, P. and M. Bundle. (2005).

Energetics of high-speed running: integrating classical theory and contemporary observations. American Journal of Physiology: Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 288: R956-R965.

Weyand, P. G., Lin, J. E., & Bundle, M. W. (2006). Sprint performance-duration relationships are set by the fractional duration of external force application. American journal of physiology. Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology, 290(3), R758-765.

Weyand PG, Sandell RF, Prime DN, and Bundle MW. (2010). The biological limits to running speed are imposed from the ground up. J Appl Physiol 108: 950-961.

DR. BRAD DEWEESE IS THE DIRECTOR OF HIGH PERFORMANCE FOR THE NEW YORK JETS. HE PREVIOUSLY SERVED AS A HIGH PERFORMANCE MANAGER FOR THE U.S. OLYMPIC COMMITTEE. DR. JOHN WAGLE CURRENTLY SERVES AS THE MINOR LEAGUE STRENGTH & CONDITIONING COORDINATOR FOR THE KANSAS CITY ROYALS. PRIOR TO THIS POSITION, JOHN WAS A STRENGTH & CONDITIONING FELLOW AT ETSU, AND WAS THE DIRECTOR OF SPORTS PERFORMANCE AT DEPAUL UNIVERSITY. JOEL WILLIAMS IS THE SPRINTS AND HURDLES COACH AT UNC ASHEVILLE, WHERE HE HAS PRODUCED 28 BIG SOUTH ALL-CONFERENCE PERFORMERS, 10 CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS, 1 NCAA INDOOR ALLAMERICAN, 2 NATIONAL RECORD HOLDERS, AND 3 OLYMPIC & WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP ATHLETES. DR. MATT SAMS IS A SPORT SCIENTIST AND SPORT SCIENCE CONSULTANT. HIS PREVIOUS EXPERIENCES INCLUDE WORK WITH CHINESE CROSS-COUNTRY SKI, FACULTY MEMBERSHIP AT LAGRANGE COLLEGE, ETSU MEN’S SOCCER, AND THE USOC LAKE PLACID OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER’S SPORT PHYSIOLOGY DEPARTMENT. FEBRUARY 2022 techniques

23

Pole Vaulting Mechanical goals and technical strategies

26

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

THE POLE VAULT IS ONE OF FOUR EVENTS COVERED IN THE TRACK & FIELD ACADEMY’S JUMPS SPECIALIST CERTIFICATION COURSE THAT IS OFFERED ANNUALLY. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS ARTICLE IS TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE COURSE TEXT. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PROGRAM MAY BE FOUND AT USTFCCCA.ORG

M

oving the Pole to Vertical.

The pole must be moved from its position at takeoff to a vertical position in order to best facilitate clearance. This means that takeoff forces should be directed in a way that moves the pole, not just in a way that bends the pole.

Creating Pole Speed. Adequate pole speed must be created and maintained. Pole speed refers to the speed of movement of the pole as it rotates about the axis formed by the box to a vertical position. Inadequate pole speed makes it difficult to get the pole to a vertical position and penetrate enough to vault well. Excessive pole speed denies the vaulter adequate time to prepare for bar clearance.

Conserving Horizontal Velocity.

Horizontal velocity must be conserved during—and horizontal movement should continue immediately after— takeoff. This goal is consistent with the above goals. While the pole vault is a vertical jump, during takeoff and in the moments immediately following takeoff, the vaulter should be traveling in a primarily horizontal direction, with the conversion to a more vertical direction occurring later.

Creating an Appropriate Path of the Vaulter. A path of the vaulter’s center of mass that creates a chance for success must be established. In spite of the presence of the pole, the paths vaulters display are curved and resemble parabolic curves greatly.

Increasing the height of the curve gives a chance to jump higher, but mandates increasing the width of the base of the parabola, making horizontal components of takeoff critical.

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

FEBRUARY 2022 techniques

27

POLE VAULTING

TECHNICAL STRATEGIES IN THE VAULT Appropriate Takeoff Angles. Elite vaulters takeoff at angles of 18-21 degrees. The accentuated vertical component in these takeoff angles assists in moving the pole to a vertical position.

High Plant. The vaulter’s arms should be completely extended prior to takeoff.

This maximizes the angle of the pole to the ground. Starting the pole at a greater angle increase the chances of moving it to vertical.

Forward Plant. A forward component of the plant assists in preserving the somersaulting energy of the pole established during the pole drop, assisting in bringing it to a vertical position.

Appropriate Takeoff Location. The vaulter should take off from a location that places the takeoff foot directly under the top hand as takeoff is initiated. This maximizes the vaulter’s effective height at this point and maximizes the angle of the pole to the ground, increasing the chances of moving it to vertical Keeping the Body Extended. Once the vaulter leaves the ground and the pole is moving toward vertical, this rotating system is subject to the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. Decreasing the radius of the system insures good rotational pole speed. This radius can be minimized if the vaulter remains in an extended position in the early stages of flight, effectively keeping the vaulter’s mass close to the axis of the pole’s rotation.

APPROACH PHASE DISTRIBUTION Drive Phase. Approach phase distribution in the pole vault approach shows a six step drive phase in most instances, possibly extending to eight steps in very long approaches or reduced to four steps 28

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

in very short ones.

Continuation Phase. The continuation phase comprises the remainder of the run, and varies in length depending upon the number of steps in the approach.

Transition Phase. The transition phase consists of the last six steps. It is in these steps that most steering occurs and problems associated with anticipation of takeoff arise.

CHECKMARK SYSTEMS The Starting Mark. Vaulters employ a checkmark at the start of the run. Some athletes use another at some other point in the approach, usually near the end of the drive phase, to ensure consistency.

If this mark is used, it should not disturb the smooth execution of the approach.

THE COACHING CHECKMARK Mark Location. Most coaches use checkmarks in the middle of the approach, usually six steps away from the takeoff location, at the start of the transition phase. This permits them to gauge approach accuracy while eliminating the distraction of the steering occurring in the last six steps. This mark is typically located anywhere from 40-56 feet away from the rear edge of the box. Better athletes exhibit greater displacement and commensurately longer distances here.

Displacement. The coaching mark enables monitoring of displacement in the steps of the transition phase. Greater displacement here, within the context of proper running mechanics, relates to a greater period of the undulatory path of the center of mass. These factors are proportional to displacement in the jump itself. (see figure)

VISUAL TRACKING PATTERNS Facilitating Steering. In order to facilitate steering, vaulters should be taught proper visual focus patterns during the approach.

Early location and tracking of the box are necessary to best enable accurate takeoff locations.

Visual Focus Patterns. In order to facilitate steering, athletes should be taught to look at the box as early in the drive phase as head alignment permits. During the continuation phase, the athlete should see the box peripherally, so that the head is not dropped out of alignment. This peripheral visual contact with the box should continue through the plant.

THE START Modifications in the Start. The necessity of carrying the pole prevents the vaulter from placing the hips higher than the shoulders and flexing the hips completely in the set position. The vaulter should lower slightly by flexing the knees and hips, while maintaining a more upright position of the torso.

Compromises in the Start. These modifications in the start compromise the vaulter’s ability to forcefully displace at the start, as compared to other jumping events.

Regardless of this disadvantage, the vaulter should displace as forcefully as possible in the start.

POSTURE AND STEP TRAJECTORIES Posture. Neutral alignment of the pelvis throughout the vault approach is critical to performance. Anterior pelvic tilt alters takeoff angles greatly and results in altered foot placement and deceleration at takeoff.

These factors not only disrupt the takeoff itself, but disrupt the movement and flexion characteristics of the pole. Vaulters often sense inherent danger when pelvic alignment is poor and fail to take off.

Step Trajectories. Establishing and maintaining the vertical component of the trajectories of the steps is critical to performance.

The accentuated flight times permit proper execution of the plant, and late or incomplete plants often result when these push off angles become excessively horizontal.

These vertical trajectories also positively affect the movement and flexion characteristics of the pole. Vertical shin angles in the continuation and transition phases are indicative of proper step trajectories, and assumption of acute shin angles in the transition phase is a common error.

POLE VAULTING THE POLE CARRY The Pole Grip. The hands should grip the pole slightly wider than shoulder’s width apart. The top hand should be positioned within the assigned grip range of the pole.

The hands should be positioned so that when the pole is held overhead, both palms face inward.

The Pre-Carry Position. In the pole carry, the top hand should be positioned slightly behind the hip. The bottom hand should be positioned near the center of the chest, with the wrist flexed and the forearm oriented vertically to support the pole from underneath. The pole rests on the webbing between the thumb and first finger. Both hands should be closed loosely. The pole tip should be positioned somewhat left of center at the start of the run.

The Pole Carry. During the carry, the rear elbow should be kept slightly flexed, and the bottom arm and hand should be kept in position as long as possible. Slight vertical oscillations of the pole are permissible as an aid in countering lower body movements. Forward-backwards movements in the sagittal plane are likely to disrupt the plant and should be avoided.

Mating Push off Trajectories and Pole Positions. The relationships between push off angles and pole angles throughout the approach are critical. On each step, the pole must be positioned so that the push off forces assist in moving it appropriately.

Beginning Positions. The approach should start with the pole tip high. The pole should be aligned approximately at 45-60 degrees as the vaulter starts. As this push off occurs, the pole should be parallel to and close to the chest. The pole is also positioned slightly across the body for ease in carrying.

Pushing the Pole in the Drive Phase.

During drive phase, the displacement produced by the vaulter’s steps should be directed along the axis of the pole so that the pole is effectively being pushed down the runway. The movements of the pole upon push off from each step should be upward and outward, with no rotation of the pole present.

Continuation Phase Positions. If the approach is long enough, at the completion of the drive phase, the vaulter should run comfortably, displaying proper maximal velocity mechanics with the pole at an angle of approximately 45 degrees.

The Pole Drop. The pole drop should begin eight steps from takeoff. The pole tip 30

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

should drop slightly with each step, using the top (rear) hand to control the drop and the bottom (front) hand as a fulcrum. This may require the rear hand to move to a position approximately 6 inches behind the hip. The pole tip should be at the height of the vaulter’s forehead when the plant is initiated, with the top hand slightly behind the hip. The bottom hand should not have lowered excessively. Dropping the tip too early forces postural compromise as the drop is decelerated and is a common error.

Dropping the tip too late forces deceleration while the pole completes its fall.

Modifications in Abbreviated Approaches. In short approaches, phase distribution and pole drop mechanics must be adjusted to allow proper jumping postures and create correct angular velocities of the pole.

Lateral Movements. As the tip drops, the bottom hand should gradually bring the pole laterally to a position parallel to the runway.

PREPARATION THE MOVEMENTS OF THE PLANT The Curl. The plant should be initiated as a curling movement, primarily a flexion of the elbow, bringing the top hand from a position just behind the hip, up the body’s side, to a position near the ear. The plant should begin at touchdown of the third to last step, so that the curling action occurs in concert with the setup of the penultimate step.

The Press. The plant should be finished as a pressing movement, extending both arms completely so the top hand is as high as possible and slightly in front of the head. This pressing action occurs in concert with the movement onto the takeoff step, and should be complete prior to grounding of the takeoff step and the pole’s impact with the back of the box.

Plant Path. During the plant, the pole should be kept as close to the body as possible to prevent deceleration and postural stability problems. The hands should act as a couple, moving in unison in an upward and forward direction, so that pole speed is conserved. The arms and the takeoff foot are subject to action-reaction relationships, so the forward component of the plant prevents reaching at takeoff and the resultant deceleration.

Lateral Alignment. At the completion of the plant, the shoulders should be parallel to the crossbar. The top hand should

be located above and just in front of the acromion process. The lower arm should be extended so that the hand is above and in front of the opposite acromion process.

This ensures travel toward the center of the pit, proper pole loading, and prevents turning about the pole.

Plant Location. The pole tip should be placed near the midpoint of the box. This allows the jumper to move without bearing the weight of the pole, as the tip slides to the stopboard. The tip should be placed to the left side of the box for right handed vaulters (and vice versa), to insure proper timing of pole compression.

PENULTIMATE MECHANICS Preparation Needs. Elite vaulters normally display takeoff angles of 18-21 degrees.

These takeoff angles require lowering and the presence of typical penultimate mechanics.

Path of the Center of Mass. Subtle lowering should be initiated in a forward and downward direction, with the body’s center of mass assuming a level but lowered path as the flight phase between penultimate and takeoff is entered.

TAKEOFF Encountering Impact. Takeoff location should be adjusted so that the impact associated with the pole tip striking the stopboard does not occur until the hips and shoulders have displaced to a point directly over the takeoff foot. Impact must occur before the vaulter leaves the ground.

THE UPPER BODY Position at Touchdown. At the instant the takeoff foot grounds, the arms should be completely extended upward with the top hand just in front of acromion process.

The lower arm should be extended so that the hand is above and in front of the opposite acromion process. The shoulders should be parallel to the crossbar. The torso should be oriented vertically.

Displacement. The shoulders should continue to move forward throughout takeoff, so that they are significantly past the top hand at liftoff. This produces an elastic response that is critical to setting up a strong succeeding swing phase.

Arm Actions. Throughout takeoff, the arms continue to extend upward, and the bottom arm provides some resistance against the pole’s movement toward the body.

POLE VAULTING

THE LOWER BODY Position at Touchdown. At the instant the takeoff foot grounds, a slight inclination of the shin and thigh are present. The shin angle should be very slightly obtuse. The torso should be oriented vertically.

Takeoff Movements. During takeoff, the shin should rotate to an acute angle, preparing it to receive and transmit the takeoff forces generated in the hip. This rotation should be approximately symmetrical with respect to vertical.

Displacement. The hips should continue to move forward throughout takeoff, so that they are significantly past the takeoff foot at liftoff. This produces an elastic response that is critical to setting up a strong succeeding swing phase.

The Free Leg. The free leg movement should be coordinated with the elastic response produced in the hip flexor muscle group and the extension of the hip at takeoff. The free leg is sometimes extended slightly in the latter stages of takeoff or during flight to slow rotation of the vaulter about the pole.

THE SWING Swing Quality. The degree of horizontal displacement achieved by the shoulders and hips at takeoff and the elastic response produced as a result determines the quality of the swing phase.

Initiating the Swing. The swing is set up by the torso moving forward ahead of the limbs at takeoff. This sets up a powerful, succeeding trailing swing of the legs. The body should reach maximal extension at the chordline between the butt of the pole and the top hand.

Extension. The takeoff leg and top arm should remain extended during the swing. Extending the free leg slightly after takeoff is permissible to delay the swing, but is generally indicative of poor takeoff mechanics.

The Bottom Arm. The bottom arm should continue to apply upward pressure while yielding somewhat in the saggital plane, to allow continued movement of the chest.

Finishing the Swing. As the swing slows, the vaulter should bend at the waist so that the shins come near the pole. This bending at the waist should occur when the vaulter’s body aligns with the chord line between the butt of the pole and the top hand.

32

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

The First Pull. As the swing slows, to assist in the rockback, the vaulter should force the top arm downward toward the legs, keeping it extended throughout. At the same time, the bottom arm should flex so that the elbow moves outward and the vaulter’s body can move close to the pole.

FINISHING MOVEMENTS The Extension. As the swing ends and first pull ends, the hips should be extended forcefully so that the body is extended and nearly in line with the pole.

Second Pull. The second pull occurs as the hip extension ends. The vaulter should pull with both arms directly along the axis of the pole.

Initiating a Rotation. The positioning of the pole diagonally across the body prior to the second pull, combined with the pull

itself, should initiate a rotation that turns the vaulter’s stomach to the bar.

The Clearance. In clearance, the vaulter should assume a piked position by flexing at the waist. This sets up a rotation over the bar and a more favorable location of the body’s center of mass with respect to the bar. In the final stages of clearance, after the pole is released, the vaulter should lift and rotate the elbows outward to avoid contact with the bar.

BOO SCHEXNAYDER, TRACK & FIELD STRENGTH & CONDITIONING COACH AT LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRICULUM AND TEXT FOR THE JUMPS SPECIALIST CERTIFICATION COURSE OF THE TRACK & FIELD ACADEMY. TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE TRACK & FIELD ACADEMY GO TO USTFCCCA.ORG. KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

FEBRUARY 2022 techniques

33

34

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

Discus Throwing Multi-disciplinary mechanical applications

D

iscus throwing, as all the other throwing events, is, from a physical point of view, a multi discipline event. The discus throwing action is a combination of: Jumping Ability, for the explosive action of the legs during the whole duration of the throw and particularly during the final phase, Sprinting Ability, for the smooth and quick motion across the circle; and finally, Throwing Ability, for the coordinated, efficient and effective application of the greatest force possible on the discus during the final phase.

Modern discus throwing technique is a result of both current scientific and empirical knowledge. This is expressed

by a thorough knowledge of the human nature and the physical laws that govern the human movements. Briefly, the technique of discus throwing must be in accor­dance with: 1. The physiological, kinesiological and biomechanical laws that govern the human movement, 2. The movement pattern according to which the execution of the action takes place, and 3. The individuality of the athlete.

Discus throwing must be in accordance with the aerodynamic laws that determine the behavior of the discus when it is in the air (for more, see Maheras, 2021). A movement is effective when its execution takes place according to its specifications,

i.e., the physio­logical and physical laws that govern it.

By using the proper technique, the discus throwers are enabled to transfer all or a great part of their power on the implement. This occurs because they take advantage of the laws that govern the body movements, thus increasing the work they can produce during a given moment (competition). Finally, the success of the thrower’s effort depends upon the expert coordination and use of the socalled internal and external forces which are present during the execution of the action by the discus throwers when they attempt to throw the discus as far as possible.

FEBRUARY 2022 techniques

35

DISCUS THROWING

FIGURE 1. THE “WOUND UP” POSITION.

BASIC PHASES IN DISCUS THROWING Preliminary Wind (s) During this part of the action, the thrower executes some preliminary winds, moving the discus and the body from right to left while, in essence, the thrower remains static. By doing this the thrower: • Overcomes the inertia of the ‘athlete - imple­ment’ system by giving an initial velocity to both the discus and their body.

This initial velocity, or else ‘the overcoming of the inertia’, allows the thrower to execute with greater ease the rest of the action.

• Gives the discus a motion pattern.

In es­sence, the thrower determines the plane and the direc­tion of the motion which is about to occur.

The “Wound Up” position During this phase (fig. 1), towards the end of their prelimi­nary swings, the discus thrower rotates as far to the right and back as feasible. Apart from producing some stretching of the muscles, the main goal of this position is to provide more time for the subsequent counterclockwise motion through an increased counterclockwise range of motion. This time increase has to do with how angular momentum is generated in the back of 36

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

FIGURE 2. THE TRANSITION FROM THE BACK TO THE MIDDLE OF THE RING, DURING FIRST DOUBLE SUPPORT (A), DURING SINGLE SUPPORT (B, C) AND (D) BEGINNING OF THE SECOND DOUBLE SUPPORT.

the ring, the mechanics of which will be presented in detail in a future report by this author. Another goal of this position is to properly connect these preliminary winds with the rest of the action (timing and movement accuracy).

Transition The discus thrower moves in a rotational fashion towards the center of the circle and generally to­ward the direction of the throw (fig. 2). This is accomplished by initially using two, and later one point, of support and rotation. This phase takes place from the moment the thrower is in the “wound up” position until the moment when the right foot reaches the center of the circle. During this phase, the discus thrower creates momentum.

In fact, this is basically the only opportunity the thrower may have to develop the great majority of angular momentum for the rest of the throw, and therefore, this phase is of major importance for the outcome of the whole throw. More specifically, the thrower develops both linear and angular velocity, and consequently linear and angular momentum. “The thrower’s ability to generate a large amount of torque over a longer period of time in the back of the circle, is mostly responsible

for the generation of that momentum”.

Power Position The discus thrower comes in contact with the ground quickly and in balance, by landing on the feet successively, first on the right and then on the left, while allowing a certain distance between them (fig.

3). By doing this, the thrower ensures a stable base of support which will allow for the application of force. More­over, with the left leg, a blocking point is created, which in turn creates the prerequi­sites for an even greater acceleration of the already increased rhythm of the motion of the discus.

Release Here (fig. 4), the discus thrower leads the discus to the highest point of its release, while simultaneously applying the maximum force possible on it by summing up all the secondary forces into one, thus imparting a greater velocity at the time of release. Another characteristic of this phase is the development of vertical velocity.

MECHANICAL AND KINESIOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS Preliminary Wind (s)

FIGURE 3. THE POWER POSITION.

Inertia is the force/reaction that is presented when another force tends to alter its state of motion. Thus, when a body is at rest, there is a certain resistance to put it into motion, while if it is already in motion, it tends to remain in motion. The inertia that a body presents is proportional to its mass. The heavier the body, the more difficult it is to move or else, the more difficult it is to alter its speed.

The discus thrower, by making use of this principle, does not initiate the effort from a static position, but to the contrary, an attempt is made to impart a certain speed to the body + implement system, for an effective execution of the rest of the movements.

The “Wound Up” position Keeping in mind the axiom which states that when activities in which two or more movements are executed towards a given direction, in order to maximize their effectiveness, no pause must occur during their execution, the completion of the first movement overcomes a great amount of the inertia of the body; thus, the work of its successive move­ment becomes progressively easier and efficient. Every interruption that may occur will result in the loss of part or the whole advantage that was gained from the previous movements. Therefore, the discus thrower must smoothly connect the preliminary winds with the ensuing throwing action, lest there is a loss in the gained advantage from the previous phase, when the

FIGURE 4. THE RELEASE.

FIGURE 5. FIRST DOUBLE SUPPORT.

inertia of the discus as well as the body was initially overcome. In addition, as mentioned earlier, as far as the thrower’s effort to rotate to the right is concerned, it must be pointed out that this has to do with the application of force (or better stated, torque), as well as the movement of the pertinent limbs, through the greatest time possible. The advantages of this effort will be presented in a future report.

Transition First Double Support The lower the center of gravity, whether the body is in motion or static, the better one can maintain their balance (fig.

5). Moreover, it is known that the more the muscle is stretched (up to an optimal point) the more energy it can store, which results to a greater force production.

Taking advan­tage of these principles, the discus thrower during this phase, flexes the knees which implies that there is a stretch in the muscles of the thigh, while at the same time there is a lowering of the center of gravity, to enhance balance.

Single Support During this phase (fig. 6) the discus thrower initially is supported only by the left foot/leg with the right leg widely spread to the right. The right arm is back in a rather straight line, while the left arm moves fairly straight to the left. Exactly at this point, this particular position of the thrower constitutes a system, parts of which are located away from the main

axis of rotation, which means that the moment of inertia is greatly increased.

Airborne Phase / Conservation of Angular Momentum After the thrower has already developed a certain velocity and has transitioned, pivoting over the left foot, and while being airborne, quickly brings, a) the left leg close to the right and, b) “wraps” the left arm more or less in front of the chest, both closer to the center of rotation, thus increasing the angular velocity (fig. 7).

In essence, the thrower makes use of the principle concerning the conservation of the angular momen­tum which states that: ‘providing that no force is exerted upon a body, the latter either remains static or rotates with a constant velocity.’ The discus thrower is initially in an “open” position (fig. 6), which is characterized by a well developed moment of inertia, whereas later the thrower suddenly ‘closes’ (fig.

7), and in order to maintain the angular momentum constant (conserved), the angular velocity is increased, Because: G=Iω Where: G = angular momentum

I = moment of inertia

ω = angular velocity The same principle is used by dancers and gym­nasts in their routines. Moreover, during this phase, the discus throw­er makes an effort to maintain the torso neutral, whereas purposely giving the priority to the feet/legs. This enables the FEBRUARY 2022 techniques

37

DISCUS THROWING

FIGURE 6. FIRST SINGLE SUPPORT.

thrower: • To have the most effective position during the final power position, • To take advantage of the forces generated from the legs, and • To ensure a valid throw Moving towards the center of the circle consti­tutes the fundamental phase for linear momentum development and rotational momentum “storage” during the transition phase. The discus thrower develops momentum because the body as a whole moves with a given speed, thus, Because: J = m v where: J = momentum (linear) m = body mass v = body velocity The amount of momentum will be equal and proportional to thrower’s mass (weight) and the velocity of their motion.

Note: Although mass and weight are not one and the same thing, (mass is the measure of the inertia of an object, while weight is the force with which the earth pulls it); here, for convenience purposes their meaning has been considered the same because under earth conditions their differ­ence is minimal (compared, for example, with the conditions that are prevalent on the moon surface).

Finally, because: F = m a where: F = force 38

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

FIGURE 7. AIRBORNE PHASE.

m = mass a = acceleration and: a= v/t where: a = acceleration v=velocity

t= time therefore: F = m v/t which finally comes to: F = J/t which shows that force production is proportional to mass, and as mass increases, force also increases. Moreover, this phase does not take place by covering a short distance through the ring, but to the contrary, there is an effort to cover a nominal distance within the circle. This, because, not only the work produced by the throw­er’s body is greater, Since: W= F s where: W= work F = force s = distance but also the developed moments are greater, Because: J = m v, and v = s/t which shows that momentum is proportional to the distance covered providing that the time allotted is a fixed value.

Note: It has been found that rotary momentum, both about the vertical and the horizontal axis, is the main contributor to the discus speed (Dapena, 1993).

Therefore, attention must be paid on the rotational aspects of discus throwing rather on the translational.

FIGURE 8. THE RESULTANT FORCES R AND R”.

Linear Direction The discus thrower moves linearly on the axis of direction. This means that, essentially, an attempt is made to sum up the forces toward a straight line, making use of the principle which states: ‘when two or more forces act on a body, or two or more forces act toward each other, the resulting motion is deter­mined from their direction and their magnitude.’ More specifically, Newton said that these two forces can be combined into just one force, called the resultant force that would have the same effect on the body as the two forces did individually. To find the resultant, one would make a parallelogram with the sides equal to the two applied forces. The diagonal of this parallelogram will then be equal to the resultant force.

This is called the parallelogram of forces law. This way, the total force expressed with the velocity of release, constitutes the resultant force of all the secondary forces which were devel­oped by the thrower toward one and only direction.

Figure 8, shows that while the forces F1 and F2 have the same magni­tude, in the first case (the angle formed is relatively small) the resultant R has greater value than the resultant R” (the angle formed is relatively large). The forces then must tend to have a linear relation­ship to each other rather than to diverge (for more see Maheras, 2012).

FIGURE 9. OPTIMAL PATH OF ACCELERATION (LEFT), COMPARED WITH A POOR ONE (RIGHT).

Second Double Support Phase The discus thrower arrives in the power position (both feet are in contact with the ground) by bring­ing in contact first the right foot and then the left. At this moment, 1. The thrower brings the feet actively and smoothly in contact with the ground by landing on the ball of the feet to support the body. One can compare the action of the feet, and particularly of the right one, to a spring, which is initially suppressed as it absorbs the sudden load (the thrower’s body weight) as the thrower comes in contact with the ground with their right foot (elastic landing).

2. Immediately after this, the muscle which is now stretched, actively reacts and returns the stored energy (reactive landing). If to the contrary this won’t occur and the thrower either comes in contact with the ground by using the whole foot or fails to react, then according to the kinesiological principle already mentioned, there will be a loss of part or the whole advantage of the momentum gained from the previous actions.

3. The discus thrower quickly brings the left foot in contact with the ground immediately after the right foot landing.

This is done, in part, to avoid a premature rotation and translation of the upper body to the left and front, a rotation which is otherwise caused by the already acquired momentum, a fact that has as a conse­ quence a decrease of the path through which the thrower can apply force. In

other words, the thrower, during this phase, strives to be in a rotating position toward the right and back, thus increasing the distance through which force can be applied, taking advantage of this action (fig. 9). More specifically, The work that the thrower produces (W) is equal to the force (F) applied, times the distance (s) through which that force is applied.

That is: W= F s which means that the more powerful the thrower and the greater the distance through which the force is applied, the greater the work produced. A caveat here, however, is that the distance must be covered in the least time possible. If one increases the distance through which the force is applied, they must main­tain constant the time in which this distance is covered when compared to another shorter dis­tance. Otherwise there is no real benefit from this relationship. because: P = W/t which means that the work done, in essence repre­sents the power of the thrower, must be done in the least time possible. Moreover, keeping in mind the equation about work, one can reframe the power equation to: P = F s/t but F = m a and: a= v/t which means that: F = m v/t which finally comes to: F t = m v

This relationship shows that the greater the force, the greater the velocity, and the greater the time of the force application, the greater also the velocity. This last statement comes in conflict with what was mentioned earlier regarding the application of the force at the least time possible to achieve the greatest velocity at the moment of release. Pertain­ing to this, one should have in mind that the above statement is indeed valid when the distance of force application is indefinite. In the case of discus throwing, however, this distance is finite (s = a fixed value) so the relationship above (F t = m v) , turns into: Ft = m s/t So, F t2 = m s, and because, m s = constant (a fixed value) (m = mass of the discus and s = distance of force application) Then, F t2= a fixed value which means that as the force increases, the time decreases (and the reverse).

The thrower, therefore, indeed wishes to apply the greatest force in the least time possible.

The contact of the feet with the ground does not take place simultaneously, because a break in the motion will occur which will have a negative effect in the whole action due to the principle already men­tioned earlier. Therefore, the feet are planted quickly and in succession. In this way, the time between the feet landing tends to approach zero, but it never does. Moreover, for a very short period FEBRUARY 2022 techniques

39

DISCUS THROWING where: v = linear velocity ω = angular velocity r = radius

FIGURE 10. COORDINATED TURNING AND PUSHING ACTION OF THE RIGHT SIDE DURING DELIVERY (Φ = ATTACK ANGLE).

of time, the bodyweight is entirely over the right leg. Thus, the discus thrower not only takes advantage of the increased distance through which force is applied, but also an increase in the ‘attack’ angle (fig. 10). By transferring the body weight from the back leg (right) to the front (left), the thrower manages to pass through the phase of the ‘stretched bow’, and to lead the discus to the highest point of release.

Release During this phase, the thrower essentially transfers the stored rotary momentum from the body to the implement. The body weight is transferred from the back leg (right) to the front (left), while at the same time an attempt is made to drive the right lower side (fig. 10). Beyond the already mentioned results of this kind of movement (from back to front), and in combination with the proper placement of the left leg next to the rim, the discus thrower: a. Restrains the body’s horizontal velocity and converts it to rotational in a vertical plane around the point of support of the left leg, and b. Rotates the body in a horizontal plane around a vertical axis, whereas the distance between the two legs, as well as their degree of bending, must be in accor40

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

dance with the principle of the ideal distance which states: ‘it (the ideal distance) should be so large or so small so as to give the best results, particularly when compared with other positions with greater or smaller angles of bending.’

Likewise, the degree of momentum that the discus thrower makes use to be able to throw their discus as far as possible, should be person­al for each thrower, to be able to supply their forces constantly on the implement with an even increasing acceleration.

More specifically, with the placement of the left foot next to the rim, the discus thrower is able to: 1. To apply force, exactly because the left foot pres­ents a reaction which the discus thrower is called to overcome, 2. To rotate around the vertical axis by using as a point of rotation the point of support of the left leg down the circle and radius of rotation their height, a fact that enables them to develop a small amount of additional angular momentum which has, as a result, the development of angular velocity (ω) (omega) and, because: G= I ω where: G= angular momentum I = moment of inertia, ω = angular velocity and: v = ω r

then, the higher the angular velocity, the higher the linear.

Based on the axiom which states that every body maintains its velocity constant, providing that the resultant force of the forces acting upon it equals zero, this reactive action of the left foot (which hampers the already developed veloci­ty) favors the thrower who, because of the inertia the rest of their body presents, both has a tendency to move fast to the front and also plant the left foot rapidly (for more on the left foot action, see Maheras, 2009).

Concerning the rotation around the vertical axis, one can observe that because the linear velocity of a rotating body is proportional to the distance from its axis of rotation, it is evident that their shoulders and their right arm have the great­est velocity because their distance from the axis of rotation, which is the left foot, is greater than that of the other body parts (e.g., hips). Moreover, the discus thrower during this phase attempts to: 1. Thrust the right lower side to the front while leaving the throwing arm inert. This is done to take advantage of the stretch or myotatic reflex, which occurs on the muscles around the waist area and chest due to the sudden stretch resulting from the torsion between the axes of the hips and the shoulders.

2. Cross the axes of the hips and shoulders, which is a product of the previous action. This rotation of the body around its vertical axis throughout the duration of the action has as a result the lengthening of the distance through which force is applied during the final phase of release.

3. Push the legs rapidly and actively against the ground to take advantage of the law which states that ‘when a body ‘A’ exerts a force to another body ‘B’, then the body called ‘B’ exerts another force which is equal and opposite to the first.’

The thrower applies as much force as possible against the ground and the later reacts by ‘returning’ it.

Note: Discus throwers may think that are exerting forces against the ground during the delivery phase, but they are mostly not (Dapena, 1994). However, although the thrower exerts minimal forces against the ground during the delivery phase, these

forces are not zero.

4. Apply force with a proper sequence, timing and rhythm to avoid any break in the generation of the secondary forces that have been developed up to a given point of the whole action. This way, every lever/joint activated according to the movement pattern is able to transfer to the implement an increasingly accelerated movement toward a given direction.

The faster the levers succeeding each other, the better the thrower’s potential.

Moreover, the afore­mentioned movement coordination has an energy saving effect as far as the thrower’s energy stor­age.

By maintaining a constant movement pattern, the discus thrower applies force smoothly without interruptions. If interruptions occur, they will auto­matically force the thrower to begin their effort from an almost inert state, having lost an important amount of energy to succeed in the work which has already been done until the mo­ment of the interruption.

Prerequisite, however, for such a coordinated action, is the total participation of the discus thrower’s body levers. This is done, in the first place, by activating the big and powerful muscles which are relatively slow and surround joints that have rather restricted flexibility, while subsequently activating the small and less powerful muscles which are rather fast and surround joints of greater flexibility.

5. The thrower progressively stabilizes the body levers/joints from down up and from left to right, so as each following lever/joint when its turn comes to be activated, is able to have as a point of support the previous lever/joint which has already concluded its action and now serves as the supporting point of the next joint/lever. This results in a thorough utilization of the whole body’s potential.

Eventually, the whole left part of the thrower’s body abruptly stops as the left arm blocks. By doing so, the thrower is enabled to transfer momentum from the left arm to the right arm. What happens is that the body segments of the right side, and particularly the right arm, move forward with a velocity which is more than double the speed that the body had until that time. One can com­pare this successive stoppage of the different body parts to the waves that approach the coast one after the other without pause, or a series of dominoes which drop one after the other.

FACTORS THAT AFFECT DISTANCE THROWN (FROM A MECHANICAL POINT OF VIEW

ASSUMING THAT ALL OTHER FACTORS REMAIN EQUAL)

rotation), the greater the velocity that the discus acquires while the former rotates.

1. The Thrower’s Body Weight.

The weight of a thrower will affect the angular momentum (G) that they can generate while they are moving across the circle, because it is equal to the moment of inertia (I) which is the body mass, times the angular velocity (ω) (omega), That is, G = l ω The generation of greater angular momentum will potentially enable the thrower to transfer a greater amount of that momentum to the implement during the delivery phase.

5. Finally, generally, the bigger the thrower the better As far as height is concerned, because every body lever ‘draws’ bigger circles or arcs of a circle, a fact that shows that during the same time period, the bigger thrower’s limbs cover longer paths, and at the same time generate greater momentum, be it linear or rotary. It is interest­ing to note here that the movements of the human body parts are similar to those of the levers which are rotational/angular.

A general note: When one examines the various physical properties (body weight, body height, strength, etc.) between two throwers, in order to decide who has the advantage over the other, it must be kept in mind that we have to examine only the property/ability under consideration, while we consider that hypothetically all the other abilities of the throwers are the same. Only under those circum­stances can what was mentioned be true. In any other case, a short thrower might be better than a taller one, for example, because the former is stronger or faster, etc.

2. The Thrower’s Strength.

Because: F = m a which means that the acceleration that a body develops is proportional to the force which is ap­plied upon it, one can conclude that the stronger the thrower, the more the force that can be exerted on their implement, which means that the acceleration is greater, which in turn results to a greater velocity of release.

Note: By far, the most important factor for an increased dis­tance thrown is the velocity of release. Mathematically, for example, in the relationship below which is used to calculate the range of a projectile, the velocity (v) of release is squared, showing its paramount contribution in the maximum range of a projectile.

R = v2sin(2ω)/g 3. The Thrower’s Height The taller thrower has an advantage because, finally, they release their discus from a higher point and thus, if we consider that the angle and velocity of release to be the same between two throwers, the higher the point of release, the greater the distance thrown.

Note: By far, height of release is the least factor affecting distance thrown.

4. The Thrower’s Arm Span A thrower with long arms has a certain advantage over the thrower with short arms, and this is because:

v = ω (omega) r which means that the linear velocity (v) that every point of the circle which the thrower “draws” while they are moving equals to the angular velocity (ω) times the radius of rotation (r) which in the case of the discus thrower is their arm.

So by considering that the angular velocity is the same between throwers, the longer the thrower’s arms (the radius of

ADDENDUM: In memory of Petros Papageorgiou, coach, professor and mentor, 1926 - 2020.

REFERENCES Maheras, A. (2021). Basic Aerodynamics and Flight Characteristics in Discus Throwing. Techniques for Track and Field & Cross Country, 15 (2), 4-12.

Maheras, A. (2012). The Horizontal Translation in Discus Throwing.

Techniques for Track and Field & Cross Country, 5 (4), 33-36.

Maheras, A. (2009). Pros & Cons. The Grounded Release Method Versus the Airborne Release Method in the Discus Throw. Techniques for Track and Field & Cross Country, 3 (2), 38-42.

Dapena, J. (1994). New insights on discus throwing: A response to Jan Vrabel’s comments. Track Technique, 129, 41164119.

Dapena, J. (1993). New insights on discus throwing. Track Technique, 125, 39773983.

DR. ANDREAS MAHERAS IS THE THROWS COACH AT FORT HAYS STATE UNIVERSITY AND IS A FREQUENT CONTRIBUTOR TO TECHNIQUES.

FEBRUARY 2022 techniques

41

42

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

FEBRUARY 2022 techniques

43

USTFCCCA Supporters Through their ongoing support of the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association, these companies demonstrate their strong commitment to the sports of Track & Field and Cross Country. The USTFCCCA strongly encourages each member to purchase products and services from these supporters.

connect.marines.com

mondoworldwide.com

sportsbyapt.com/sport/track

beynonsports.com

directathletics.com balfour.com ucsspirit.com

geosurfaces.com

simplifaster.com

maxmedals.com gillporter.com

ucsspirit.com

mfathletic.com

vsathletics.com

surfaceco.com coachesdirectory.com garmin.com

sportlinesevices.com

FEBRUARY 2022 techniques

45

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT 46

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

The Squat Exercise A must for the track and field athlete

T

he squat exercise has been a mainstay in athletic strength training programs for decades.

This can be a difficult exercise to perform, and athletes can work up to a lot of weight on it. While this exercise has been a foundational exercise for athletes, there is always something new coming up on the internet that is “better” than the squat.

Track and field requires athletes to be able to achieve horizontal velocity (through sprinting), vertical velocity (through jumping), and to be able to exert force against an implement (for example, throwing a shot put). All of these involve exerting force against the ground. The squat (along with its variations) is important because that is exactly what the exercise is training athletes to do.

In each track and field discipline, it is also important to be able to maintain posture. For example, a sprinter must be able to maintain their posture at foot-strike. A jumper must be able to maintain posture during the plant. The thrower must be able to maintain posture while levering off one side of the body. The squat and its variations help to develop the strength to be able to maintain posture during the performance of track and field events.

This article is going to cover several variations of the squat exercise. It will cover why some of the exercises we see on the internet might not be necessary for the track and field athlete. Finally, it will cover how to incorporate the squat into a track and field athlete’s training program.

VARIATIONS OF THE SQUAT BACK SQUATS Back squats involve squatting with the barbell on the back of the athlete’s shoulders. The athlete should have the bar resting where it is comfortable for them. Some athletes like it higher (almost on the neck)

and others like it lower (almost on the rear deltoids). For a track and field athlete, the most important thing is to give the athlete the flexibility to be able to put the barbell where it is most comfortable for them.

The athlete’s feet should be between hip-width and shoulder-width apart. We want to avoid anything more extreme than that, as it won’t be beneficial to being a better track and field athlete.

The back squat is the foundational exercise for lower body training. It strengthens pretty much every muscle from below the diaphragm. It strengthens the athlete’s skeleton and joints. It also involves exerting force against the ground, which is what track and field athletes do. Finally, athletes can become really strong on this exercise.

The entire time the bar is on the back of their shoulders, we want the athlete to be protecting his or her lower back.

This is done by sticking the chest out and pulling the shoulders back. If this is done, then the weight will be evenly distributed across the athlete’s vertebrae.

If the athlete’s shoulders are allowed to round forward, then this is the recipe for a lower back injury—so this is an important coaching cue.

It’s also important that the athlete begin the squats by pushing the hips back and unlocking the knees. Doing this keeps the feet flat on the floor and keeps the weight on the athlete’s hips. On the other hand, if the athlete begins the exercise by pushing the knees forward, then they will be off balance and the weight will be on the knees (which we don’t want) instead of the hips.

SPLIT SQUATS Split squats are squats where the bar is on the back of the athlete’s shoulders.

However, unlike back squats, the athlete will have one foot in front of them and one foot behind them; in other words, they will be in a split position.

The front foot will be flat on the ground. The back foot will be far enough back that the ball of the back foot will be on the ground. From this position, the athlete will flex their front knee and hip lowering themselves until their front thigh is parallel to the ground. From that position, they will reverse directions and repeat. After the desired number of repetitions have been performed, the athlete will switch legs.

Like the back squat, the athlete will want to protect their lower back. An important thing to pay attention to with split squats is that we want to avoid letting the athlete touch their back knee to the FEBRUARY 2022 techniques

47

THE SQUAT EXERCISE ground. This is because as we get tired, we tend to rush, which can result in slamming that back knee against the ground.

The split squat primarily focused on the front leg. The back leg helps some during the exercise, but the focus is on the front leg. This is important because track and field athletes sprint with one leg in contact with the ground at a time, and they lever off one side of the body. I start athletes out on this exercise with 30-50% of their back squats, but they can eventually work up to 70-85% of that!

This is an important exercise for a track and field athlete. Not only does it work on strength, but it also works on posture and eccentric strength. In other words, this is an exercise with a direct impact on the performance of the athlete’s event.

Normally, I start athletes out with 70% of what they would have done in the back squat or split squat. They can eventually work up. This is also a low volume exercise, usually in sets of three to four repetitions.

One thing we want to avoid with this exercise is putting the back foot on any raised surfaces (like a box, bench or stability ball). I understand that everyone has seen the webpages and videos with people doing just this, but the problem is that it creates an unstable situation. An unstable situation is a problem for two reasons.

First, it doesn’t happen in track and field.

Second, it invites injuries.

PAUSE SQUATS Pause squats can be done as either back squats or split squats. In a pause squat the exercise is performed exactly like the regular variation with one important exception: the athlete will pause for a full count in the bottom position. For example, the athlete will squat down into the bottom position and then pause before standing up. Good form needs to be emphasized while the athlete is paused — this is not a time for the athlete to relax!

48

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

ECCENTRIC SQUATS Like pause squats, these can be done with back squats or split squats. They are performed exactly like the back squat or split squat with one important difference: the descent is exaggerated. Normally, an athlete will take ten slow seconds to lower themselves to the bottom position and then reverse directions. Like with pause squats, technique needs to be emphasized while performing this exercise (it is very tiring).

Like pause squats, athletes will begin with around 70% of what they would have done on the back squats or split squats.

This is also another low volume exercise.

There is no need to do more than three to four repetitions per set.

WHAT ABOUT…?

There are exercises missing from above.

There are no front squats, box squats, overhead squats, goblet squats, bands or chains mentioned. There are several reasons for this.

First, some exercises require an enormous investment in learning to be able to perform them with proficiency. This includes front squats and overhead squats. We have to keep in perspective that the goal behind an athlete’s strength and conditioning program is to physically prepare the athlete to be better at his or

her event. A coach has to carefully consider whether the time spent learning the exercise will have a return at improving the performance of the athlete’s event.

Second, some exercises are designed for specific situations that come up in strength training sports. For example, the front squat strengthens the athlete for the clean in Olympic lifting. The overhead squat strengthens the athlete for the snatch in Olympic lifting. Box squats train a specific range of motion during the powerlifting squat; in other words, they focus on where a powerlifter is weak in the squat. Bands and chains are also strengthening parts of the range of motion in a powerlifter’s squat. None of this may be needed for a track and field athlete!

Third, some exercises are useless for a track and field athlete. By this, it should be understood that some exercises look great on social media but just don’t provide the stimulus that a track and field athlete needs to get better.

Finally, some exercises are dangerous.

For example, if an athlete is even a little off during the overhead squat, there is a shoulder or elbow injury waiting to happen.

HOW TO PROGRAM The squat (and its variations) is a primary exercise in a strength and conditioning program. This means it should be done towards the beginning of a training session, shortly after the warm up. There are many ways to organize a track and field athlete’s training. The athlete may perform total body training sessions, they may do lower body/upper body training sessions, or they may organize the sessions by physical quality.

TOTAL BODY TRAINING SESSIONS With this type of organization, the athlete typically trains two to three times a week with strength training. Total body training sessions normally consist of a power exercise, 1-2 lower body strength exercises, and 1-2 upper body strength exercises. A sample of this is in table one. See Table One Notice that the squats (or deadlifts) are the second exercise in the training session, immediately after the total body power exercise. This is because the squats (and deadlifts) are more strenuous and more important than the rest of the exercises.

The power exercise is performed first

THE SQUAT EXERCISE

TABLE ONE: SAMPLE TOTAL BODY TRAINING SESSIONS.

Exercises:

Day One

Day Two

Day Three

Power clean Back squats Romanian deadlifts Bench press Bent over rows

Power snatch Split squats Good mornings Incline press Pull-ups

Push jerk Deadlifts Glute ham raises Military press Dumbbell rows

TABLE TWO: SAMPLE LOWER BODY/UPPER BODY TRAINING SESSIONS.

Exercises:

Day One

Day Two

Day Three

Day Four

Power clean Back squats Lunges Romanian deadlifts

Push jerk Bench press Dips Bent-over rows Shoulders

Power snatch Split squats Good mornings Hyperextensions

Split jerk Incline press Pull-ups Military press

TABLE THREE: SAMPLE TRAINING SESSIONS BY QUALITY.

Exercises:

Day One

Day Two

Day Three

Back squats Romanian deadlifts Bench press Bent-over rows Military press

Power clean Snatch pulls Push jerk

Superset: Split squats and push-ups Superset: Lunges and pull-ups Superset: Good mornings and dumbbell military press Superset: Inchworms and bear crawls

because we want the athlete to be relatively non-fatigued when performing this exercise.

LOWER BODY/UPPER BODY TRAINING SESSIONS These training sessions tend to be longer, focusing on more exercises in each session. There also tends to be four training sessions per week (two lower body, two upper body). Table Two shows a sample of this type of workout. (See Table Two) There don’t need to be a lot of exercises to get a benefit from the training, but it does require more days of training each week. The back squats and split squats are still performed second in the workout, immediately after the power exercise.

PHYSICAL QUALITY Strength training, like track and field training, can be organized around physical qualities. This helps the coach to align the training with what is being done in the event so that strength training complements and supports rather than competes 50

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

with the event training. Frequently, this means a strength session, a power session, then a hypertrophy session. Depending upon the time of year, there may be a great emphasis on one quality. For example, with collegiate athletes, there may be more strength sessions from October through December as the athlete prepares for the indoor season. Table Three provides an example of this type of training organization.(See Table Three) In Table Three, day one is a maximal strength session. The intent would be 80-90% of maximum and a low volume (6 repetitions per set or fewer). Day two is a power session, this would be 60-80% of maximum, with around three repetitions per set. Day three is a hypertrophy day, 70-80% of maximum, 8-12 repetitions per set. Notice that the squats are done first on the respective training sessions because in those workouts, those exercises are the most important in the session.

This approach to training helps to align strength training to event training. For example, day one aligns well with accel-

eration training, day two with maximum velocity training, day three with speed endurance.

The squat is a key exercise for the track and field athlete. Besides being important, there are variations that can be important once the basic exercise is mastered.

Having said that, there are also a great many exercises that may not provide a great return on the time invested.

JOHN CISSIK IS THE PRESIDENT AND OWNER OF HUMAN PERFORMANCE SERVICES, LLC (HPS), WHICH HELPS ATHLETICS PROFESSIONALS SOLVE THEIR STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING NEEDS. HE COACHES YOUTH BASEBALL, BASKETBALL, AND SPECIAL OLYMPICS SPORTS AND RUNS FITNESS CLASSES FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS. HE HAS WRITTEN 10 BOOKS AND MORE THAN 70 ARTICLES ON STRENGTH AND SPEED TRAINING.

FEBRUARY 2022 techniques

51

52

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

FEBRUARY 2022 techniques

53

2021 CROSS COUNTRY NATIONAL COACHES AND ATHLETES OF THE YEAR NCAA DIVISION I

Laurie Henes North Carolina State Women’s COY

Michael Smith Northern Arizona Men’s COY

Whittni Orton BYU Women’s AOY

Jerry Baltes Grand Valley State Men’s COY

Hannah Becker Grand Valley State Women’s AOY

Kyle Flores Pomona-Pitzer Men’s COY

Kassie Parker Loras Women’s AOY

Conner Mantz BYU Men’s AOY

NCAA DIVISION II

Damon Martin Adams State Women’s COY

Isaac Harding Grand Valley State Men’s AOY

NCAA DIVISION III

Bobby Van Allen Johns Hopkins Women’s COY

54

techniques FEBRUARY 2022

Alex Phillip John Carroll Men’s AOY

NAIA

Chris Layne Milligan Women’s COY

Chris Layne Milligan Men’s COY

Alyssa Bearzi Milligan Women’s AOY

Zouhair Talbi Oklahoma City Men’s AOY

NJCAA DIVISION I

Lindsey Anderson College of Southern Idaho Women’s COY

Dee Brown Iowa Central CC Men’s COY

Faith Nyathi El Paso CC Women’s AOY

Vincent Ngochu Northwest Kansas Tech Men’s AOY

NJCAA DIVISION II

Jim Robinson Lansing CC Women’s COY

Cameron Rieth Cowley Men’s COY

Sarah Bertry North Iowa Area CC Women’s AOY

Adrian Diaz-Lopez Cowley Men’s AOY

NJCAA DIVISION III

Ella O’Kelley Oxford Women’s COY ALL PHOTOS BY KIRBY LEE

Jeff DeGraw Joliet JC Men’s COY

Julia Danko Oxford Women’s AOY

Hunter Phillips Joliet JC Men’s AOY FEBRUARY 2022 techniques

55