contents Volume 5, Number 4 May 2012
2
A Letter from the President
REPORTS 4
Division I Track & Field Division I Cross Country
5
Division II Track & Field Division II Cross Country
6
Division III Track & Field Division III Cross Country
7
High School
FEATURES 8
The Skill of Focus
8
by Dr. Rick McGuire 16
Pole Carry and Drop by David Butler
22
Drawing Comparisons by Robert Vaughan, Ph.D
32
The Horizontal Translation in Discus Throwing by Andreas V. Maheras, Ph.D
40
Sprinter Needs Analysis By Brandon Morton
56
Updates from the NCAA Eligibility Center By John Pfeffenberger
AWARDS 49
2011 USTFCCCA Cross Country Regional Coaches & Athletes of the Year
16 40
Cover photograph by Kirby Lee: Image of Sport may 2012
techniques
1
A Letter From the President
I
am writing this the week after the NCAA indoor track & field championships for all three divisions. The NAIA championship was held a week earlier. Hopefully your indoor season was successful. By the time this is published we will all be well into our outdoor seasons. One of the things that is unique about our sport and something I really enjoy are the transitions we have during the school year. Moving from cross country to indoor to outdoor track & field provides an ebb and flow that is very different from any other
collegiate sport. In the past few months I have been thinking about the world of sport in general and, more specifically, how our sports of cross country and track & field fit into that world. In preparing for one of my psychology classes a couple of years ago I came across a book by Robert Wright called Zero-Sum Game. Wright’s thesis is that over the course of time human progress is dependant upon interactions in which both parties involved end up with a positive outcome. These win-win outcomes (non-zero-sum) as opposed to win-loss (zero-sum) outcomes are what in the long run result in progress. While there have been and will continue to be many instances of zero-sum interactions (war and political elections as examples), Wright suggests that, fortunately, over the course of human history the non-zero-sum interactions have outnumbered the zero sum. The world of sport offers many examples of zero-sum interactions. Every point/goal/ run scored in a game results in a gain for one side and an equal loss for the other side, hence a zero-sum result. I think it is easy to see that our culture looks at most sports as zero-sum games. In every football, basketball, baseball, volleyball, softball, wrestling, soccer etc. game/match there is a loser and a winner. Yes, I do occasionally hear a coach say that some good came out of a loss. By far however the more common reaction from coaches, athletes and media seems to be doom and gloom following a loss. Our sports of cross-country and track & field seem to be somewhat different in how we look at the results of our competitions. While we do identify team and individual winners at our competitions, coaches and athletes can walk away from a meet feeling like it was a success regardless of what the team or individual placement was. Before anyone suggests that I am promoting our sport as being like the 5-year-old tee-ball league where every kid gets a trophy, I want to emphasize that I believe competition between individuals and between teams is important. Being an individual champion or a team champion is a big deal and should not be de-emphasized. What I am saying is that one of the things that makes our sport so great is the ability for an athlete to set a goal, work hard and intelligently to reach the goal and then experience the success and reward that comes when the goal is reached regardless of how that athlete compares to others in the competition. That kind of success is possible for every participant in our competitions (a non-zero-sum game). This is quite different than the more common occurrence where one half of competing athletes walk away from a competition as losers and one half walk away as winners (a zero-sum game). While I doubt that the phrase “non-zero sum” will become a common part of coach’s day-to-day language, I do believe that it is another way to show why our sport of track & field and cross country is the best in the world!
dr. ted bulling President, USTFCCCA director of track & field and cross country, nebraska wesleyan university tab@nebrwesleyan.edu
2
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
Publisher Sam Seemes Executive Editor Mike Corn Associate Editor Sylvia Kamp MEDIA MANAGER Tom Lewis Membership Services Mandi Magill Photographer Kirby Lee Editorial Board Larry Judge,
Boo Schexnayder, Gary Winckler
Published by Renaissance Publishing LLC 110 Veterans Memorial Blvd., Suite 123, Metairie, LA 70005 (504) 828-1380 www.myneworleans.com
USTFCCCA
National Office 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1750 New Orleans, LA 70163 Phone: 504-599-8900 Fax: 504-599-8909
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 2012. 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.
NCAA Report
Division l Track & Field and Cross Country
ron mann
barry harwick
President, NCAA Division I Track and Field Coaches
President, NCAA Division I CROSS COUNTRY Coaches
I
was glad to see so many of you in Boise for the NCAA Indoor Championships. It gave me great pride to present the Coach of the Year and Athlete of the Year awards. We are now in the heart of our Outdoor Season, and I hope you are enjoying all the joys and challenges it brings. I want to recap some of the things that the USTFCCCA national office, your Executive Committee, and I have been working on since the USTFCCCA Convention last December. Along with Sam Seemes, our CEO, we have been working on implementation of our “Strategic Plan” that we adopted in 2009. As you all know, over the last two years, much of our attention was redirected into finalizing the future of our Outdoor Championships. Now that the future of our Championships is clear, we are now able to refocus on executing our Strategic Plan to make our sport more valuable and valued nationally and on our campuses. As a part of this process, a working group of university presidents, athletic directors, and conference commissioners met to identify and discuss areas that would help us better achieve our mission statement. Last month, you should have received a summary of this meeting from the national office. In addition, we have formalized our Championships Advisory Committee, which was established when we adopted revised operating bylaws in 2009. This committee is chaired by past president Beth Alford-Sullivan and includes six other Division I coaches. The committee met in Boise to discuss how to better present our sport through our Championships, including making our Championships attractive for future live television coverage. As you are aware by now, we have lost live television coverage for our 2012 championships. We also acted on one of the bodies’ directives at this year’s convention by formulating a committee to make recommendations to amend our rule book to include more information relevant to conducting regular season scoring meets. Dave Shoehalter will chair this committee, with Curt Kraft and Mike Maynard as members. As we move toward our Outdoor Championships, I would encourage each of you to promote our sport on your campus and in your community. We are the greatest and most diverse sport on the planet! I look forward to seeing you in Des Moines. It continues to be a joy and an honor to be your president. Ron Mann is the Head Men’s & Women’s Track & Field Coach at the University of Louisville. Ron can be reached at ron.mann@louisville.edu
4
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
W
hen I first started coaching college cross country, people often asked me “What do you do for the rest of the year?” By the time I explained that I also coach indoor and outdoor track, put on several home meets, recruit student-athletes, work with our alumni group and operate a summer running camp they usually had at least a better idea of what a college cross country coach actually does. Like most of you, my team just wrapped up the indoor season and immediately headed into the outdoor campaign. Even with that crazy schedule, I hope that all of our cross country coaches keep in mind that our work is ongoing. Here are some items that we all need to keep up to speed on, even while we keep our heads above water with track. • Our sport needs to do a better job of is finalizing our schedules further in advance. As I write this, we are still working with the NCAA to nail down the final two of our nine regional sites for the fall of 2012. I feel strongly that we need to know at least two years in advance where we will be heading for regional meets. It makes a lot of logistical planning considerably easier and also makes us appear more professional. • If you are planning on hosting a cross-country meet this fall, do some of the preliminary work now. Make sure you publicize the date of your meet well in advance. Labor Day is early in 2012 and that inevitably causes some questions about what the “corresponding date” to the previous year actually is. Using contracts to commit visiting schools to athletic events is standard procedure in many sports. This is a decision worth discussing with your staff and athletic director. • If there is a major event that you would like to attend with your team, contact the host institution well in advance. If the meet director is willing to guarantee your squad a spot on the starting line then be ready to make a commitment to attend. Keep in mind that hosting is often a thankless job. Having coaches wait until the last minute to see where other schools are going to go is a disservice to everyone who plans a schedule in advance and sticks with it. • A lot of sports toss around the phrase “student-athlete.” After reviewing the long, long list of schools that received All Academic Team honors I am proud to say that as cross-country coaches we are privileged to work with runners that live up to that name. • Our executive committee continues to hold conference calls in the spring and summer. If you have an issue that you would like to see addressed please contact your regional representative or me. Let me close by thanking everyone who coaches three seasons in a row. Only a fellow track and cross-country coach can identify with the stress and strain that goes along with being “in season” from late August to early June. If you already have a good balance between work and life, congratulations! If not, add that to your already long list of things to do. Best of luck to you and your team in your meets this spring.
Barry Harwick is the Head Men’s Track & Field and Cross Country Coach at Dartmouth College. Barry can be reached at Barry.Harwick@Dartmouth.EDU
NCAA Report
Division ll Track & Field and Cross Country
steve guymon
marlon brink
President, NCAA Division II TRACK & FIELD Coaches
President, NCAA Division II CROSS COUNTRY Coaches
I
A
would like to thank Kevin Buisman, Athletic Director of Minnesota State, Coach Schuck and Coach Blue and their staff for all the hard work in making the 2012 NCAA Indoor Track and Field Championships a success. Congratulations to all the athletes and coaches that were named regional “Athlete of the Year” and “Coach of the Year”. Also, congratulations to Amanda Putt – Hillsdale; Andrew Graham - Adams State; Lindsay Lettow – Central Missouri; Ryan Loughney – Ashland for being named National Athletes of the Year and Jerry Baltes of Grand Valley State and Tom Flood of Grand Canyon for their team’s championship and being named National Coaches of the Year. The Division II Track & Field Executive Committee would like to remind coaches that it is accepted, and encouraged if applicable, to nominate themselves for regional coach of the year. And this spring we will nominate and vote on assistant coaches for their work during the indoor and outdoor season. There is a proposal being put together for convention to discuss separating out Assistant Coaches of Year for Indoor and Outdoor, as currently done with the Head Coach awards. Two additional traditions will be held during the athlete banquet at the NCAA Outdoor Track and Field Championships. We will recognize coaches that have retired or will be retiring from the sport following the 2012 track and field season. We will also induct the class of 2012 into the Division II Athlete Hall of Fame. Congratulations to Mark Robinson (Catholic), Kendall Stevens (Findlay), Sherlese Taylor (Saint Augustine’s) and Zoila Gomez (Adams State). The Track & Field Executive Committee would like to encourage you to think about and begin submitting proposals for this year’s convention. Some of the topics of discussion in our Executive Committee conference calls are the NCAA Sports Festivals, hosting indoor national championships on over-sized tracks, the voting process for the AOY & COY awards and going back to early signing dates. Please visit with your conference representative and feel free to voice your concerns or ideas so he or she can bring it back to our committee. Our job is to represent our coaches and athletes and to strive to make our sport better. As for the NCAA Sports Festival for the 2013 NCAA Indoor Track & Field Championships, we have been informed that the NCAA Championships Committee is currently considering two sites: Cleveland, Ohio and Albuquerque, N.M. By the time you receive this letter the site may have been determined. If not, please feel free to contact me if you have any concerns or questions and I will pass them on to Sam and see what can be done. I wish each of you the best this outdoor season and safe travels!
s we near the end of the 2011-12 academic year it is time to start thinking ahead to 2012-13. Aren’t all coaches the eternal optimists/strategists who like to have something to look forward to and be able to plan for!! The 2012 cross country season will be an exciting year in Division II as we will see expanded national championship fields for the first time in many years. Men’s and women’s cross country championship teams will each increase from 24 to 32, and automatic qualifiers from 16 to 24 each. The top three teams from each regional meet will automatically advance to the finals, an increase of one team per region. Each region will be allotted one additional team berth for each team finishing in the top eight in the previous year’s national championships, which is consistent with the current procedures for selecting the finalists. This should give many coaches and athletes alike a new spark going into their summer training to earn one of the new bids to Nationals! Speaking of the National Meet, which is November 17, 2012 in Joplin, Missouri – we are making progress with plans for what has been termed the “Joplin Initiative”. Division II Chairman Aaron Russell has spearheaded the efforts for our teams to help the city of Joplin recover from last year’s tornado. We hope to raise $150,000 to be divided between the Joplin School District Fund and the Missouri Southern Tornado Relief Fund. Though it seems like an ambitious goal, it boils down to an average of only about $600 per sponsoring institution. As we make our way to Joplin next fall, we have a unique opportunity to showcase what we’re about in Division II. What better way to utilize the compassion, unity, creativity and dedication that our teams possess than by coming to the aid of a community that was devastated by an EF5 Tornado last May. A total of 160 people lost their lives in Joplin on May 22, in addition to 990 who were injured and over 8,000 buildings that were leveled. If ever there was a time and a place for the concepts of service, balance, resourcefulness, learning, sportsmanship and passion that Division II promotes, it is now! I hope you have given thought and talked to your team about what you, your team and your school can do to help contribute to the fundraising efforts for Joplin! Finally, a reminder to all of you who are hosting meets this fall to please implement the Preferred Cross Country Entry Fee program to encourage schools to join USTFCCCA. If you need assistance check the USTFCCCA website for sample wording. I look forward to continue serving as your cross country president and working with you in 2012!
Steve Guymon is the Head Men’s and Women’s Track & Field Coach at Harding University. Steve can be reached at sguymon@harding.edu
Marlon Brink is Head Men’s and Women’s Track & Field and Cross Country coach at Wayne State College. Marlon can be reached at mabrink1@wsc.edu
may 2012
techniques
5
NCAA Report
Division llI Track & Field and Cross Country
chris hall
greg huffaker
President, NCAA Division III TRACK & FIELD Coaches
President, NCAA Division III cross country Coaches
A
s I am writing this edition of the president’s report we are between seasons. By the time it goes to press I realize the outdoor season will be at about the midway point, but I feel this is a good time to reflect on the indoor season and to write more specifically about the new qualifying procedure. Prior to the NCAA initiating this new system many of the coaches had expressed concerns. I heard a great deal of conversation about the larger field size for women than men, the tie breaking process and perhaps just a level of disappointment in taking away standards. While we may still have some people missing the old system it is my opinion that the new “fixed field size” worked pretty well and would like to offer some post-national-meet information. First of all, the reason for a larger field size for women than men is simply based upon previous data that indicated women double at a much higher rate in the NCAAs. The NCAA was trying to establish a fixed field size that would allow for an equal total number of men and women in the meet and felt that 13 men and 15 women in individual events would not only bring in an equal number of athletes for both genders but would also bring us in at a similar number to what we had previously been allotted (223 men and 223 women). In the end they came very close to those numbers. The men actually still had a couple more people in the meet than the women did by a count of 218 to 216. The NCAA has told us they will re-evaluate the numbers but it appears had they gone to a 14/16 model we would have exceeded the 223. In regards to the tie-breaking procedure I did not hear any additional feedback from the coaching body. While I have heard coaches discussing that they would like to see all the athletes tied for the final qualifying spot advance I have not gotten any negative feedback about the way ties were broken. While we did not come close to having to flip a coin for a tie I continue to hold out hope that the NCAA will still come to a conclusion that if a tie cannot be broken in a competitive way that they simply advance the extra individual. In the end I personally believe that this new system did give more clarity to why people got into the meet. Looking at the TFRRS list throughout the season I felt both our athletes and coaches had a better understanding of who would or would not advance and why, thus taking away subjective decisions to the final qualifiers. For the first time applying this new system the results were pretty favorable and as it continues to be refined even into this outdoor season I expect the “fixed field size” to be viewed as a positive move forward. Chris Hall is the Head Men’s & Women’s Cross Country and Track & Field coach at the University of Chicago. He can be reached at hallc@uchicago.edu
6
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
There was no report submitted for Division III Cross Country for this issue of techniques. Greg Huffaker is the Head Men’s and Women’s Cross Country Coach at Illinois Wesleyan University and can be reached at ghuffake@iwu.edu.
HIGH SCHOOL REPORT WAYNE CLARK
K
ermit Ambrose is synonymous with Michigan scholastic track & field and cross country. He was a founding member of the Michigan Inter-Scholastic Track Coaches Association (MITCA). The organization’s most prestigious award is the “Kermit Ambrose Award” given each year to that state’s most influential cross country coach. Our sport lost this legend on February 24th and I thought it was appropriate to share a bit of his story. I was only privileged to visit with Kermit Ambrose a couple times a year, but he was a good friend. He was your friend as well, a good friend of track & field and cross country for most of his 101-year life. Hailing from a small family farm in Pierce, Nebraska, Mr. Ambrose was considered lazy for going to high school instead of remaining home to help with farm chores like most of his 8th grade friends. His yearning for education led him in 1929 to Wayne State Teacher’s College. Shortly afterward he began teaching in a one-room schoolhouse for $2.50 per day. Because of his athletic background, he coached multiple sports. He taught in several other locales, and served during World War II in the African and European theaters. After the war Kermit settled in Birmingham, Michigan in 1954, where he taught science and coached football, cross country and track & field earning state cross country championships. Coach Ambrose mentored hundreds of athletes, most notably Olympic distance runner Jack Batchelor and former University of Michigan coach Jack Harvey. In 1967 Kermit retired from coaching, but continued to officiate at high school and NCAA functions for the next 44 years, well into his 100th year of life. The story has been told that in 2007 a former Michigan high school cross country runner attended his first cross country meet in 30 years. He said that the course looked the same; even the starter appeared similar to the starter when he had run as a high schooler. It was the same starter—Kermit Ambrose. Kermit attended every U.S. Olympic Trials since 1960 and all D-I NCAA Indoor Track & Field Championships since its inception at Detroit’s Cobo Hall in 1965. In total, Kermit officiated or was a spectator at over 100 meets every year. Kermit is remembered to have said, “Don’t be satisfied with giving 100 percent; give 101 percent.” With his 101 years of life, that is exactly what Kermit did. He brought an enduring love for track & field and cross country to all venues he worked and attended, empowering those around him with that attitude. In the long line of people who have influenced our sport, I don’t know exactly where Kermit Ambrose will be placed, but I’m sure you won’t have to go very far down the list to find his name.
Wayne Clark is the Clinic Chair of the Ohio Association of Track and Cross Country Coaches. He can be reached at clark002@columbus.rr.com.
may 2012
techniques
7
The Skill of focus 8
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
M i zzou At hletic Med ia R elations p hoto
By D r . Ri c k M c G u i re Part 1: The Plan. Part 2 will appear in the next issue of techniques
What Do All Coaches Want? I believe that what all coaches may want more than anything else is for their athletes to show up on competition day totally “focused” to deliver their very best performance. Possibly they want even more for their athletes to show up at practice every day totally “focused” to have a great practice, because, if they are focused at practice everyday, they will have a more effective practice. They’ll be better athletes because they had great practice. Now when they show up for competition day, they will be better athletes, capable of delivering an even better performance, and they’ll be really good at being “focused” because they’ll have been practicing it every day. Then they’ll be really
may 2012
techniques
9
The skill of focus
focused and totally committed to delivering their very best performance. This is what coaches really want. Coaches want their athletes to bring their bestfocus today, every day! (McGuire, 2012).
Thinking Right Thinking right in sport (McGuire, 2008)! This is the essential understanding and message contained in nearly everything that I share with coaches and athletes from sport psychology. Thinking right in sport! That is as opposed to thinking wrong in sport! It is such a simple concept, and yet for many, such a puzzle. Thinking right in sport! It is such a simple concept, but one that really matters. Thinking right in sport! It is such a simple concept, and when all is said and done, it is really simple to do. Nearly all coaches and athletes recognize that wrong thoughts hurt their athletic performance. For any of us, wrong thoughts, negative thoughts and distracted thoughts get in the way and hurt our chance to deliver our best sport performance. So, if wrong thoughts hurt performance, then right thoughts help sport performance. In fact, right thoughts, positive thoughts and focused thoughts help us to deliver our very best performance. Thinking right in sport matters (McGuire, 2012)!
Thinking Right is a Skill Thinking right is a skill. And, like all skills, thinking right can be learned. Just like learning the motor skills that define the running, jumping and throwing that make the sport of track & field, thinking right is learned through proper instruction, correct modeling, direct personal experiences, and consistent, persistent repetition. Track & field coaches are all about teaching skills to their athletes! Coaches can teach, and athletes can and will learn the skills of thinking right! Focus, and being focused, is thinking right! Distracted or unfocused would be thinking wrong! Track & field athletes and coaches can learn the skill of being totally focused for each jump, each throw, each start, each interval, each drill … and then being able to refocus for the next one. Focus is just a thought. Focus is controllable. Focus is just a choice. Again, thinking is a skill. Just like learning sport skills, let’s break down the skill of thinking so we can understand just how simple this really can become. I think my thoughts. You think your thoughts. I think my thoughts one at a time. You think your thoughts one at a time – sometimes many thoughts in rapid succession – but, always one thought at a time. I pick my thoughts. You pick your thoughts. You can’t make me think anything. I can’t make you think anything. I am responsible for my thoughts. You are responsible for your thoughts. If I have a wrong thought, a negative thought, a distracted thought, a bad thought or a thought that I just don’t want to have, all I have to do is pick a different thought, a right thought! 10
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
If you have a wrong thought, all you have to do is PICK a RIGHT THOUGHT, and then the wrong thought is gone. I control my thoughts. You control your thoughts. Thinking right is a skill. It is the skill of always picking to think a right, positive, focused thought. And, to recognize when there is a wrong thought, all you have to do is pick a right thought, and the wrong thought is gone! Wrong thoughts hurt performance. Right thoughts help performance. We must teach and learn the skill of thinking right! We must teach the skill of focus (McGuire, 2012)! Being focused is a perfect example of thinking right. So, this is our goal – To be able to focus on every run, jump or throw! And, to have the skill to be able to refocus for the next! Remember:
• • • • •
Focus is just a THOUGHT! Focus is a SKILL! Focus is CONTROLLABLE! Focus is a CHOICE! YOU make the choice! YOU take control!
As track & field coaches, when we want our athletes to run faster, we do more than just yell “run faster!” Similarly, with our jumpers, we do more than just yell “jump higher” or “jump farther.” And, with our throwers, we go well beyond yelling “you’ve just got to try harder and throw it farther!” In every case, we engage in teaching and developing better skills for running, jumping and throwing!
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Focus is way more than just concentration. Focus is being … In the present Totally in the moment In control Poised Composed Concentrating Ready Motivated Engaged Confident Courageous Resilient Tough Able to refocus Totally trusting
Every one of these are important elements of being in, or having great focus. And every one of these is just a thought. Because they are just thoughts, any athlete could have every one of them at any time. They are just thoughts, so they are just a choice. Thus, focus can be completely controlled. Focus is a choice! Focus is the well spring of “peak performance,” of being “in the zone” and of “flow.” Focus is the key to great performance! Focus is the key to unlocking an athlete’s kinesthetic genius and brilliant performance. Focus is the catalyst for achieving excellence and success. Ultimately, focus is a vital key to performing, to achieving, to qualifying, to medaling and to winning!
Thinking comes before performance. Performance comes before outcome. Thus, to give yourself the chance to perform your best, you must have the skill and discipline to be Focused first. Focus is the single most fundamental skill of all sport skills! Coaches can teach the skill of focus! As track & field coaches, we pride ourselves in being great teachers of skills! We now must direct our attention on how to teach the skill of focus!
Teaching the Skill-Set of Focus Now we begin to build the skill of focus. There are actually five skills in developing the skill of focus. They are …
• • • • •
Time orientation – Right here! Right now! Positive self-talk – Affirmations Composure – Maintain optimal arousal Concentration – Find what matters Confidence – It’s a CHOICE!
Time Orientation Focus is being “in the moment” and “totally in the present”. Both of these describe the time orientation of our thoughts. The first skill or step in being able to focus is having the understanding that there is a time orientation in all of our thinking. We are either thinking in, or thinking about the past, the present or the future. Figure 1 gives us a good graphic representation of this concept of the time orientation of our thinking (Reardon in McGuire, 2012). The central point is that when it is time to perform, our thinking must be completely in the present, period! There are certainly times for the athlete’s thoughts to be oriented in the past or focused into the future. But not when it is time to perform! Many a potentially great performance has been compromised or totally lost to thoughts about the poor practice session on Wednesday, or to the idea of “we’re training through this weekend,” or to being tied up into emotional knots over worry-
ing about qualifying for the championships. In each of these cases, having thoughts in the past or the future serve to undermine great performance in the present! Getting to the present and thinking in the present is really pretty easy. Time orientation can be controlled by asking one question, and then, by providing the necessary, right answer. This is not a magic trick. This is recognizing the need to be in the present, and exercising a control strategy to get there. The question: WHERE ARE YOU? The answer: RIGHT HERE! RIGHT NOW!
AND THEN BE THERE – PRESENT IN YOUR PRESENT! Positive Self-Talk: Affirmations Your self-talk is just what you are thinking. Your selftalk, is your own conversation with you. Most important of all, your self-talk is the most influential conversation that you ever have. And, it is essential that you have positive self-talk! Negative self-talk hurts sport performance. Negative self-talk is thinking wrong. Control it. Change it. Choose positive self-talk, positive thoughts. It is important that track and field coaches realize that most athletes have developed the habit of very negative self-talk, negative thinking, particularly in the most demanding and challenging situations. This means that they have the habit of thinking wrong! To deliver their very best performance, they necessarily must break this bad, self-defeating habit, and learn the habit of Thinking Right. They must develop the habit and skill of affirming themselves. They must regularly use affirmations in their normal self-talk. Affirmations are strong positive statements about yourself! Affirmations are strong, positive, rational, strategic, motivating and personal.
Some examples of Positive Affirmations would be: • I am great! • I am strong! • I am prepared! • I am tough! • I am ready! • I trust! • I believe! • I am FOCUSED! • I am confident that I will deliver MY BEST! • I will DELIVER! • I will do my job! • I will bring my BEST FOCUS TODAY!!! But, before athletes can think right with affirmations, they must first have affirmations. It is the coach’s role to provide great instruction and encouragement for athletes in writing their own personal affirmations. Coaches are encouraged to use the model and examples provided here, plus their own personal experiences and creativity. But, it is critical that the coach help the athletes write their own personal affirmations. This will increase the
may 2012
techniques
11
The skill of focus
probability that the athletes will identify with their affirmations, and then actually practice using them until they become a habit. Now when the athletes meet those challenging and difficult situations, and they need to be thinking right thoughts, positive thoughts, affirming thoughts, they will have those affirmations there to be used!
Composure: Optimal Arousal Composure is being in total control of you, physically, mentally and emotionally, not too high, not too low, just right. Controlling one’s composure is directly related to controlling one’s level of arousal. Arousal is your level of “up-ness”. Physical arousal would be how “pumped up” you are. Psychological arousal would be how “psyched up” you are. Maintaining composure is controllable. Composure is just thinking right! Applying this model, it tells us that for any given person, with a given task, on a given day, in a given environment, with a given set of conditions, there is a given level of arousal that will allow for optimal performance. To be able to deliver their best performance, each athlete must get their arousal level to the exact level that is just right for them. If they are under-aroused, they cannot perform at their best. If they are over-aroused, they cannot perform their best. But if they have just the right arousal level, then they can deliver their best. Arousal level can and must be controlled. Every person is a little different. Every task is different – the shotput takes a different level of arousal than the 10k. Every day is different, and conditions are always changing. But athletes must be at the right level of arousal to be able to deliver their very best performance! That never changes! Your athletes may not be able to immediately identify the exact level of arousal that will allow for their very best performance. But nearly all of them will absolutely be able to identify the amount of arousal that is too little, too under-aroused and not enough for them to perform their best. And they will also be able to identify clearly when they are too aroused, really over-aroused, out of control and unable to perform at their best. With just a little attention, a little instruction, and a little practice experience, your athletes will absolutely be able to identify and get themselves into their zones. Then, as they gain knowledge, awareness and trust in their skill, they can then narrow their zones, shrinking their tolerances for error and increasing the probability that they will deliver their very best possible performances. Controlling optimal arousal is a primary skill in being focused. An athlete cannot perform at their best unless they are at their optimal level of arousal. Optimal arousal is a result of thinking right! It is just a skill! It can and must be learned and controlled!
12
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
Concentration: Find What Matters! Concentration is all about finding the right information and then staying focused on it. For every track & field athlete in their competition setting, there is a lot of information available. Some of that information is relevant to their task at hand. This information matters! But most of the information available is irrelevant to what they are doing. This information does not matter and is just a potential distraction. Concentration is simply the skill of finding what matters and then staying focused on that, period!
This model suggests using a four-step routine. Your first step should be to observe everything during pre-competition warm-up. See it all, the things that do matter and the things that don’t matter. As competition time approaches, allow your attention to draw to only the things that do matter. The other stuff just goes away. Your concentration is beginning to narrow. It’s time to go! What’s your job? Focus on just a couple
of key strategic cues. Your concentration is becoming very narrow, very focused. Visualize and see yourself perform! See it again, so powerfully that you can actually feel it. This is the connection to your kinesthetic genius. If you can feel yourself perform before actually performing, your concentration is really focused! There are no distractions! You are on! You are ready! What is left to do? Go … trust … deliver!! Just like in the learning process of any of the physical skills, at first thinking about this routine, taking each step, will at first feel awkward. Athletes may think things like “I don’t like thinking this much.” They will even believe that it is making them perform worse, not better. They will be tempted to give up after the first five or six attempts. This is normal. They are in the cognitive stage of learning, where they are thinking about every step. They just haven’t repeated this skill enough yet! Don’t give up! They will need at least 100 trials, maybe even 500, before they have formed and fully learned and internalized the skill, before it becomes a well-learned skill. But, unlike physical skills, they can do 100 trials of a mental skill in a very short time. There is no fatigue factor. You can even get as many as 1,000 trials done easily in a week. Stick with it and they will have learned and developed the skill of concentration! Once it becomes a well-learned skill, they can condense the routine into one continuous thought – “See it! Feel it! Trust it!” This becomes their concentration mantra and powerful affirmation, repeated over and over again. “See it! Feel it! Trust it!” “See it! Feel it! Trust it!” “See it! Feel it! Trust it!” When you have Concentration, there are no distractions. Concentration is a way of thinking. Concentration is totally controllable. Concentration affects optimal performance. Concentration is simply a choice. Concentration is Thinking Right! (Vernacchia, McGuire and Cook, 1996).
M i zz ou At hletic M ed ia R elations photo
The skill of focus
Confidence: Is a Choice! Confidence is just a thought. Confidence is not contingent on anything else. Confidence is just a thought. And, just like any other thought, Confidence is a choice! If you want confidence, just choose to think confidence (McGuire, 1999)! Confidence is just a thought. Confidence is controllable. Confidence is a skill. Confidence is a choice! And confidence is your choice! Confidence is thinking right! Choose to think and have confidence! It is that simple!
Confidence is Really TWO Choices! Confidence is a very important and impacting skill! Confidence is not a trick! And, it is not magic or good luck! It is a skill! Choosing to be confident is really based upon making two choices!
Choice #1 – Choose to become more COMPETENT! Athletes must choose to invest themselves in getting lots
14
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
better! Choose to practice well. Choose to increase their strength, speed, endurance, agility, techniques, knowledge, understanding and mental skills. They must choose to get better. Choose to be more competent! Competence builds confidence!
Choice #2 – Choose to Focus on your PERFORMANCE! Everyone wants to win. And, if winning is important to you, then there is a good chance that you might have reason to worry about losing. Worrying is the opposite of being confident. And, lack of confidence hurts performance. Lack of confidence is thinking wrong. In every competition, the best chance that you have for getting what you want is to perform your best. Performance always comes before outcome. Having confidence in yourself that you can deliver all that you are capable of delivering, will give you a better chance
of getting out all that you have inside. Confidence has a positive impact on performance. Confidence helps performance! Confidence is thinking right. Performance comes before outcome! Choose to focus on your performance! Choose to be confident that you can and you will deliver your best performance! Confidence is just a thought; thus, confidence is a choice!
The Plan – Next, The Delivery In this first article, we have laid the foundational understanding that focus is a fundamental sport skill. And, like all skills, the skill of focus can be both taught and learned! We have identified that in fact, there are five specific individual skills that comprise the “skill set” of focus, just like many skills comprise the skill sets of the high jump or the shotput. These five skills give us the plan for teaching our track and field athletes how to learn to Focus. In the next issue of techniques, we will continue with “Teaching Track and Field Athletes the Skill of Focus: Part 2 – The Delivery.” There we will describe how the coach can take focus to track practice everyday, and how these five skills of focus can become integrated into the daily routines of every athlete and every coach. This is what we do with all of our other track & field skills! What does every coach want? For every athlete to show up on the day of competition totally focused and intending to deliver
their very best performance! Focus is a skill! Track & field coaches are great teachers of skills! That’s what we do!
References McGuire, R.T. (2012). From the Whistle to the Snap: Winning the Mental Game of Football. Championships Productions. Ames, IA. McGuire, R.T. (2008). Thinking Right in Sport: The Critical Importance of Mental Training. Techniques. Vol. 1, Number 3 McGuire, R. T. (1999) “Confidence is a Choice”, Track and Field Coaches Review, Vol. 72, Issue 1. McGuire, R. T. (1996), “Ready or Not...the Gun Will Go Off: United States Track and Field Athletes Mental Preparation for the 1996 Olympic Games”, Training and Conditioning, Vol VI, No. 4. McGuire, R.T.,(1992) “Concentration Skills for the Track and Field Athletes: An Application of Cook’s Model of Concentration,” Track and Field Quarterly, Volume 92 Number 1, Spring. Dr. Rick McGuire is the Director of the University of Missouri’s Sports Psychology Program and was the Head Men’s & Women’s Track & Field Coach at UM for nearly three decades. McGuire has authored four books and has written countless articles for professional and scientific journals.
may 2012
techniques
15
Pole carry and drop by David Butler
It’s Importance to the Approach, Free TakeOff, and Plant 16
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
V
itali Petrov, the father of modern pole vaulting and the greatest innovator of our beloved sport, discovered some interesting aspects of technique when he observed two pole vaulters from the bamboo and steel age. He viewed a 1951 film of a “onearmed” Russian vaulter carrying the pole in a vertical position as he ran down the runway, controlling the pole with his top hand until the tip fell into the “box” at the moment he planted and took off. He also studied the great Cornelius Warmerdam, noticing that his takeoff drove the pole up towards vertical just at the moment the tip of the pole hit the box. When Vitali told me of his “inspirations” that moved him to develop “active pole drop” and “free takeoff,” I did some research of my own. I watched old films of the 1936, 1948, 1956, 1964, 1980 Olympics and, of course, Sergei Bubka. I watched Bob Richards win the gold medal with his takeoff dynamic, jumping off his big toe just as his steel pole hit the box. A free takeoff! I talked to Dr. Fred Hansen, 1964 gold medalist (and my dentist), and he told me that he would take off just a little “out” because he found that he could get the pole higher before it bent! A free takeoff! Bubka’s pole tip never stops dropping, falling in the rhythm of his accelerating approach! Active pole drop! An “active pole drop”creates a faster approach and the movement of the pole to vertical before it bends, resulting in stiffer poles and higher grips for the vaulter! An “active pole drop” enhances the plant and improves the take-off angle of the vaulter, creating a “free takeoff position”. Want to hold higher, get on longer poles, get on stiffer poles and PR! Improve your carry and pole drop!
kirb y lee photo
THE POLE IS A WEIGHT IN YOUR HANDS! The correct pole carry is extremely important to the movement of the pole to takeoff. The “old” elbow out, tight wrist (bottom hand), open hand (top hand) carry creates tension and the inability to control the pole’s weight as it drops towards the box. Rather, the vaulter should have the bottom arm, elbow tucked, wrist cocked with the pole resting in a relaxed, open-handed grip. The top hand has a full grip on the pole! This allows the vaulter to be one with the pole! The pole is not lowered with the front arm; it is lowered with the top hand traveling up through the vaulter’s side or back ribs. The pole rotates in the front arm (fulcrum). The pole’s weight must be centered through the vaulter’s body so that the athlete may sprint upright, fast and free! Hold the pole out in front and the vaulter will decelerate to counter the weight, either falling forward or leaning back. Try running with a barbell, dumbbells, or medball held out in front of you; it will be very difficult to jump with that weight static and throwing your body off balance.
may 2012
techniques
17
pole carry and drop
accelerate into a dynamic takeoff! Recommendation: Try approaches on the track with a low, static pole carry and an active, dynamic pole drop. With the active carry and drop, you will have to back your run up 2 to 6 feet because you will be running so much faster!
THE PLANT
OUT OF THE BACK The plant begins with the first step out of the back of your approach. Depending on the length of your run, the pole tip is held at such an angle so that the vaulter can time the drop of the pole in total synchronization with the acceleration of approach. The pole tip is at 70 degrees from a long approach, almost at vertical. The handspread should be at the width of the distance between your hands when the vaulter jumps up to hang from a horizontal bar. The first three to four steps are extremely important, establishing a gradual acceleration, powerful, hips tucked, knees up, toes up, tall and upright, pole in line with the displacement of the body, from tip to toe. The tip of the pole begins to fall the moment the vaulter moves.
SYCHRONIZATION and ACCELERATION As the vaulter runs faster, the pole drops faster, a continuous movement in coordination with the sprinting action to takeoff. The tip should not look like the “tick-tock” action of a clock. It should be “one fluid movement.” The weight of the pole transfers gradually from the top hand to the bottom hand, the top hand controlling the fall. An active pole pulls the vaulter down the runway once he or she has pushed the pole out of the back. The top hand “releases the hip” as the pole drops off six steps out from the takeoff. Releasing the hip means not holding the pole to the hip but focusing on keeping the bottom arm within line of the body, the top hand slightly behind the vaulter. This centering of balance with the pole allows the drop to be free and the vaulter to stay upright and in the position to jump at takeoff. If the tip drops too early, the vaulter will chop his/her step or reach/overstride to counteract the weight of the static pole. If the vaulter holds the pole tip too high and attempts to drop it fast into the last few steps, he/she will have to decelerate to plant the pole. This active pole drop greatly enhances the vaulter’s ability to “turn over their strides”and
18
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
The plant is a continuation of the running motion of your arms, left arm raising the pole up, fist through eye level and the top (right) hand passing in a straight line through the hip, ribs, shoulder, cheek, eyes, forehead; and fully extended above the vaulter. The movement begins three steps out from takeoff. As the vaulter sprints onto his/her left foot (right handed vaulter), the pole tip is eye-level or, in the least, above horizontal to the runway. The action of the “top up, tip down” creates a weightless pole! Driving from the left foot, the vaulter “flips” the pole, bringing it just in front of the right shoulder. As the vault steps onto his/her penultimate (right) foot, the pole passes through the right eye and pushes above the forehead. As the vaulter hits his/her takeoff foot, the arms thrust up, fully extended. Think “push pole” or “make space,” getting the pole as high as possible before it bends! The action of the arms must be in complete rhythm and coordination of the movement of the legs. Recommendation: Perform a four-step slowsmotion walking plant. You will discover the vaulter’s plant timing and rhythm. This will improve their awareness of where the pole needs to be in coordination with their steps.
ELASTIC FREE TAKEOFF This is crucial! As the vaulter goes airborne, he/she must continue the plant , following through by allowing the left arm to give with the bend of the pole. The left must become elastic, stretching above the vaulter’s head as he/she drives his head and chest through the arms. It’s called “taking it to the top hand,” as if the vaulter was sliding his/her bottom hand up to the top hand, like the vaulters did before fiberglass. The arms opening and expanding with the bend of the pole will make the vaulter’s body even longer and that extension keeps the pole bending and “rolling over” towards the crossbar. A good term is “chasing the pole” or “jumping over the tip.” Rather than thinking that the pole stops in the box, think of rotating the pole over the tip! Free takeoff is when the vaulter is jumping off of the right foot just as the tip hits the back of the box and “the pole is straight” and reaching its highest point towards vertical before it bends. Head position should be up and looking through the arms, not tucked into
pole carry and drop
up” drill results in the vaulter not being able to get the bottom arm extended; therefore, the vaulter can get inverted but at the sacrifice of pole rotation. Recommendation: Study film of vaulters of all levels. Watch for the pole losing its speed of rotation; this slowing of the movement of the pole towards the crossbar is caused by pulling against the bend of the pole. Keep the arms up, and the vaulter will swing to the top.
ONE FLUID CONTINUOUS MOVEMENT
the chest. Bubka states, “In pole vaulting, the crucial factor is how to transfer energy to the pole, through the complete body of the vaulter. If the pole begins to bend while the vaulter is yet on the ground, it is impossible to transfer that energy ... it is lost in the box. When we perform a ‘free takeoff,’ we can feel the pushing action of the whole body.” Recommendation: On every drill and plant that you do, with the pole, on a rope or horizontal bar, always drive head, chest and hips through the arms. Elastic!
APPLICATION & DIRECTION OF ARM PRESSURE The terms “rowing” or “down-pressure” should be revised and reconsidered. From the elastic position, the arms will apply “up-pressure”, above the vaulter, with the hands pushing and moving to 12 o’clock (arms pointing to vertical)! Any action down or forward will result in the swing collapsing into an L-seat or tuck position and the pole reacting to the shortening motion by unbending and decelerating its rotation towards the crossbar. The vaulter should “cover the arc of the pole” by swinging long and moving his/her arms “in the rhythm of the swing.” In fact, I don’t even talk about “up-pressure” until I get the vaulter on and long and planting correctly. Most young vaulters react to the pole negatively by tensing up shoulders, curling wrists, or collapsing the arms. Creating a positive relationship with the pole and plant is important: being relaxed, long, extended, and elastic. Many vaulters “block out” with their bottom arms and the only way they can swing to invert is by “breaking” or “flexing in”the bottom arm. Others are taught to “flex in” the bottom arm during drills, to get them to an inverted position. Doing this “swing-
20
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
The Petrov Method or the Bubka Model can be summed up in a few words. The pole vault starts from the first step out of the back. The pole drop or movement starts and continues to move the moment the vaulter begins his/her approach. The pole tip should never “freeze” or become static. It must drop with the rhythm of the run. This model or method was developed from the great steel and bamboo technicians of the past. It is the essence of pole vaulting; whether vaulting with a straight pole or a bending pole, it’s all about moving the pole to vertical! Active pole drop and free takeoff are the keys to holding higher, running faster and getting on stiffer poles! As Sergei Bubka says, “Move the pole towards the plane of the crossbar, rather than just trying to bend the pole.” Recommendation: Vaulters should spend a lot of time performing a six-step straight pole vault , pushing the pole to vertical and rotating it to the pit. Do this drill without pulling down or beside the pole. Stay behind and “chase the pole” to vertical, always swinging under the arms. Drive your chest, torso and hips into the pole without pulling. Gradually move your grip up one fist at a time and your step back one of your feet for each fist. The better you plant and take off, the higher you can hold! Bubka says, “Bending poles hide technical mistakes, but stiff poles (straight pole vaulting) immediately hurt you! It forces you to learn the right action.” “Some see, many understand, but very few grind away at correctness” Golubtsov
David Butler has been the pole vault coach at Rice University for over a decade. He has coached multiple All American vaulters including 2009 Division 1 Indoor & Outdoor champion Jason Colwick.
Drawing Comparisons
kirb y lee photo
by robert vaughan, Ph.d
“O
“Obviously in the data of athletic records we have a store of information available for physiological study. Apart from its usefulness I would argue that the study is amusing. Most people are interested, at any rate in England and America, in some type of sport. If they can be made to find it more interesting, as I have found it, by scientific contemplation of the things which every sportsman knows, then the extra interest is its own defence.” (11) The preceding paragraph was written nearly 90 years ago by the Nobel Prize-winning physiologist A. V. Hill. He was the first to scientifically connect, through the various energy systems, the increasing length of an athletic event with diminishing speed. We hope that you find the following examination of athletic performance useful, amusing, and interesting. A close relationship, in terms of energy requirements, exists between select track events, primarily the 100-200 and 5,000-10,000. How close are the relationships of the other events such as the 400-800 and 200-400? We can examine how closely they are related by means of using average speed in meters per second (mps). Furthermore, we can use speed to further illuminate the role of the energy systems in performance in order to aid in the construction of training schedules. In this article we will explore the interaction among the anaerobic alactic, anaerobic glycolytic, and aerobic energy systems, and the speed that must be maintained to win gold at the World Championships or Olympic Games in those events. All further references to the “seven-meet average” relate to Table I. The seven-meet averages are the winning average times for the 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011 World Championships as well as the 2004 and 2008 Olympic Games in events from 100 meters to the marathon. It has been known for years that as the time (distance) of intense activity increases, the capacity of the energy systems to regenerate ATP, and, as a result, speed falls (12, 8, 14). Recently, others (12, 33) have used speed and time to fatigue as measured on a treadmill in the laboratory to predict performance. Weyand concluded that the performance of an athlete is determined by the relative dependence of that athlete on aerobic energy sources. The longer an athlete relies on aerobic energy sources, depletion of anaerobic power is minimized and the longer the performance may be maintained (33). We will provide results from meets of the highest caliber that illustrate the validity of the laboratory research.
100-200 Meters If you examine the relationship between speed in the 100 and 200 meters measured in mps, you will see a very strong correspondence. The average speed for the men’s World Record in the 100 meters is 10.438 mps while the 200 record is 10.42 mps, a .998 relationship. The women’s 100-200 World Records show a similar pattern with 9.53 mps for the 100 and 9.372 mps for the 200, a difference of only .17 mps. The speed of the 200 record is .978 of the 100 record. Each energy system is activated at the onset of exercise and continues to function smoothly through changing intensities and increasing time (8, 32). The anaerobic alactic energy system is the dominant energy source for the first five to six seconds of the two events (1). The degradation of CP peaks at 1.3 seconds and declines thereafter until the glycolytic system predominates. However, even before the aerobic energy system reaches 50 percent of energy production at 60-75 seconds, it significantly contributes to sprint performance. Duffield reported a nine-percent and 11-percent contribution of the aerobic energy system to performance for men and women in the 100 meters. (3) The 10-meter splits for the 100 World
Record underscore the expected time course for depletion of CP in the working muscle. Top speed in the 100 meters is reached at five to six seconds into the race and maintained for up to 30 meters before a gradual deceleration begins. Bolt’s fastest 10-meter split of .81 seconds or 12.345 mps occurred between 60 and 70 meters, after which a gradual slowdown occurred due to reduction of CP in cell (28). As CP begins to decrease, ATP regeneration is maintained at a slightly lower level by anaerobic glycolysis. Maximal glycolytic regeneration occurs after five seconds to between 10-15 seconds (1). The IAAF analysis of Bolt’s 200 meter World Record indicates he reached top speed between 50 and 100 meters, then gradually slowed over the last two 50-meter segments. Even though he was slowing, as there was no reaction time and acceleration phase in the last 100, the elapsed time for that 100 was 9.27 seconds, .65 secinds faster than the first 100. The slowdown from the fastest 50-meter split, the segment from 50-100 meters to the last 50 meters, was nine percent, due in part to the inability of the anaerobic glycolytic energy system to regenerate ATP as rapidly as the anaerobic alactic sytem. The splits for both the 100 and 200 meters conform to the accepted physiology that depletion of available CP results in a slowing stride rate. The close relationship between the two events is further demonstrated in that the 100 and 200 meters have had a history of individuals who have won both events in Olympic Games or World Championships. Nine men and six women have won the 100-200 double in the Olympic Games, while four men and two women have added the 100-200 double in the IAAF World Championships.
400 Meters When the jump is made from 200 meters to 400 meters, there is considerable decrease in speed in the men’s world record performances from 10.4 to 9.3 mps, a loss of 11 percent, and a decrease from 9.4 mps to 8.4 mps and a nine-percent loss in average speed for the women’s world record. There is a corresponding increase in the contribution of aerobic energy to performance as the distance increases. Current research (1) demonstrates that by the 300-meter mark in an all-out sprint, the contribution of the three energy systems is 23 percent anaerobic alactic, 49 percent anaerobic glycolytic and 28 percent aerobic energy sources. According to Duffield, the aerobic contribution reaches 41 percent for men and 45 percent for women in 400-meter time trials (5). While anaerobic glycolysis can regenerate high volumes of ATP, the amount available is less than with the phosphagen system. Therefore, when the event progresses from primarily alactic to glycolytic, the speed must decrease due to a reduction in ATP production. There is further reduction as reliance on the aerobic system increases (9). At all distances, including the sprints, women depend on aerobic metabolism to a greater extent than do men (30). Even though the production of the alactic system declines with time, it contributes up to 30 percent of anaerobic energy in events lasting two to three minutes (8). It should be noted that only one man, Michael Johnson, and one woman, Valerie Briscoe-Hooks, have won gold in the same Olympic Games or World Championships in both the 200 and 400 meters. The physiological requirements for the 400 at a world-class level differ significantly from the demands of the 100-200, with an increase in the involvement of anaerobic glycolytic and aerobic energy systems. Recent research (16) demonstrates that there is reduced neural drive as race distances increase from 100 to 400 meters. Tomazin further states, in addition to significant low frequency fatigue at all sprint distances, strength loss was present only after the 400 meters. As with the 200, the peak speed attained in the 400 is in the second quarter of the race. The slowest section includes the final quarter (particularly in the 400, the final 50 meters). Michael Johnson’s may 2012
techniques
23
drawing comparisons
24
final 50 meters for his 43.18 World Record was run at 8.33 mps as compared with 10.08 mps for the second 50 meters, a reduction of 21 percent (7). Johnson ran the second 100 of his 43.18 world record in 10.3 seconds, 9.71 mps, and the final 100 in 11.5 seconds or 8.70 mps, a loss of 10.5 percent from the fastest to the slowest 100 (7), Marita Koch slowed from 11 seconds for her second 100 to 13.5 over the last 100 in her 47.6 record, a loss in speed of 18 percent (J. Hendershott, personal communication, January 31, 2012). You will notice in the following paragraphs that, as the reliance on the aerobic energy system increases, such as in the 1,500 and 10,000, the speed over the concluding portion of the race increases. In the 100-400 meters, the opposite is true, and speed decreases over the concluding portion as there is greater reliance on anaerobic energy sources.
pionship 800 races were won in less than 1:44.0, and those were the only three 800s in which the last 200 was run in 26 seconds or more. The women’s winning 800 times over the seven meets averaged 1:56.72. The women covered the final 400 in an average of 58.99 with a range from 58.1 to 59.88, a loss of one percent. The final 200 averaged 28.81, a one-percent improvement over the average race pace and two percent faster than the average pace of the final 400, nearly identical to the men’s results. The range of times for the final 200 was 29.6 to 27.6. The only two closing 200’s run under 28 seconds were in races won in 1:58 and 1:59, a full two to three seconds slower than the average for the seven events, further illustrating the validity of the prevailing anaerobic store concept due, in part, to the relative contribution of aerobic power. The tactics of World Record attempts lead to an altered utilization of the energy systems when contrasted with championship finals run after several rounds. As an example, there is a four-percent slowing for the final 200 meters to 26.4 over the average pace for Rudisha’s 1:41.01 World Record (24). The early speed of 24.7 for the first 200 and 48.9 at the 400 reduces the anaerobic power available for the last 200. Although the split for her final 200 was not available, records indicate that Jarmila Kratochvilova’s final 400 of 57.1 was one percent slower than the average pace in her 1:53.28 World Record (J. Hendershott, personal communication, January 31, 2012). The dramatic increase in reliance on aerobic energy sources in the 800, over the 400, has meant that few athletes have possessed the varying abilities that provide the basis for success in both the 400 and 800. Alberto Juantorena, in 1976, and Kratochvilova, in the 1983 Helsinki World Championships, were the only individuals to accomplish the double in Olympic or World Championship competition, although Arthur Wint of Jamaica came within .3 seconds in the 800 after winning the 400 at the 1948 London Games. On the way to her double in 1983, Kratochvilova ran a round of the 400 and a round of the 800 on three consecutive days followed by the finals of the 400 on the fourth day. The high-intensity performance necessitated by repeated rounds at near-best effort may result in muscle damage and non-metabolic fatigue (8). This could impair those athletes who must perform at close to personal bests to advance to the next round, especially in the endurance events. Each of the men’s World Records from the 100 to 400 meters has been set in the finals of the World Championships, or Olympic Games, while none of the of the men’s World Records have been set in the two championship meets in events 800 meters and above.
800 Meters
1,500 Meters
There is an even greater reduction of 15 percent in speed for World Record times when the distance increases from 400 at 9.3 mps to 800. with an average speed of 7.9 mps for men and 8.4 mps to 7.01 mps for women, a reduction of 16.5 percent. Reasons for this dramatic change include a much greater reliance on the aerobic energy system in the 800 plus the strategy differences of events not run in lanes. Both Duffield and Spencer have demonstrated a greater-than60-percent contribution of the aerobic energy system to 800-meter performance (5, 15). Billat has proposed that speed in the 800 is regulated by the prevailing anaerobic store that determines anaerobic power available at the end of the race (3). The final 400- and 200meter split times for the previous five World Championships and two Olympic Games seem to bear out Billat’s assumptions. The mean for the men’s final 400 meters for the seven championship events was 51.9 with a range from 51.3 to 52.5. The 400 split was one percent faster than the average-race pace, with the final 200 another one percent faster, an average of 25.67 seconds. Three of the seven cham-
The fall-off in world record pace from the 800 to the 1,500 is eight percent, 7.92 mps to 7.28 mps for men and 7.06 mps to 6.51 mps for women. The decline is considerable, but slightly less so than from the 200 to 400. The primary reason for the fall-off is the increased contribution of the aerobic energy system. The aerobic contribution in the 1,500 is reported to have increased to 77 percent for males and 86 percent for females (6). Since 1924 the 800-1,500 double has been accomplished in the Olympic Games by Peter Snell (Tokyo, 1964), Tatyana Kazankina (Montreal, 1976) and Kelly Holmes (Athens, 2004). Ivo VanDamme came close in 1976, but he was defeated by Alberto Juantorena in the 800 and John Walker in the 1500. Sebastian Coe held both World Records when he was defeated by Steve Ovett in the 800, the first of the two events in Moscow 1980. In the Los Angeles Games of 1984, Coe lost the 800 to Joaquim Cruz by .3 seconds before winning the 1,500. Rashid Ramzi is the only athlete to double in the 800 and 1,500 in the World Championships. He accomplished the feat at Helsinki in 2005. The
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
may 2012
techniques
25
drawing comparisons
Table I Compiled average of gold medalists in the IAAF World Championships 2003, 2005, Men Event AVG mps Split mps Fastest Split 100 9.92 10.08 .82* 12.20* .86* 200 19.68 10.16 4.36** 11.47** 4.88 400 44.04 9.08 10.24+ 9.77 11.94+ 800 1:44.92 7.62 51.91 7.71 25.87 1500 3:34.74 6.99 52.7 7.59 26.3 5000 13:17.70 6.27 53.2 7.52 26.1 10000 27:21.46 6.09 54.46 7.35 27.22 Marathon 2:09.31 5.43 1:04.20 5.47 +1% Women Event 100 200 400 800 1500 5000 10000 Marathon
AVG 10.88 22.01 49.38 1:56.77 4:00.70 14:58.37 30:37.62 2:25.34
mps 9.19 9.05 8.10 6.85 6.23 5.57 5.44 4.83
Split 1.89 4.96 11.53 58.89 60.26 60.31 61.27 1:11.59**
2007, 2009, 2011; Olympic Games 2004, 2008. Finish mps 11.63* 10.25 8.37 7.73 7.60 7.66 7.35 2:25.34
mps Fastest Split Finish mps 10.58 1.96*** 10.20 10.08 5.59** 8.95 8.67# 13.52 7.45# 6.79 28.81 6.94 6.64 30.01 6.66 6.63 29.50 6.78 6.53 30.35 6.59 4.89
%Diff+-4.9% -11.9% -16.7% +.3% +8.8% +22.2% +21% 4.83
%Diff +-3.7% -12.6% -16.4% +2.2% +7% +21.7% +21.1% +1.2%
Adapted from Track & Field News. 2003. 56(10): 9, 12, 17, 28, 30, 31, 34; Track & Field News. 2004. 57(10): 13, 15, 44, 47; Track & Field News. 2005. 58(9):12, 18, 22, 37, 38, 42; Track & Field News. 2007. 60(11): 12, 17, 20, 33, 36, 40; Track & Field News. 2008. 61(10): 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, 40, 41, 42, 45, 48, 53; Track & Field News. 2009. 62(11): 8, 10, 15, 18, 33, 36; Track and Field News. 2011. 64(11): 7, 9, 11, 16, 32, 33, 37, 41; http://www.iaaf.org/development/research/index.html; Usain Bolt 100m 10 meter splits. August 22, 2008. Speedendurance.com November 22, 2010; iain Hunter, personal communication, February 6, 2012; http://berlin.iaaf.org/recordsbiomechanics/index.html. *Splits are for the 2008 Olympic Games and 2005 and 2009 World Championships only ** Splits are for 2007 and 2009 World Championships only ***Splits are for 1997 and 2009 World Championships only +Splits are for the 2003, 2007 and 2009 World Championships only #Splits are for the 2007 and 2009 World Championships and 2008 Olympic Games only lack of individuals doubling in these two events may be due, in part, to scheduling and the difficulty of performing at a high level through three to four rounds in each event over eight days. The average race time for the men’s final in the seven meets was 3:34.69, which is 6.99 mps. The men’s final 400 for the seven championship events averaged 52.7 (7.59 mps) with a range between 51.5 and 54.1 seconds. The average increase in pace over the final 400 was eight percent. The two slowest finishing 400s came in the two fastest 1,500s which seems to support the concept of prevailing anaerobic store. The women’s final 400 averaged 60.26, and the range was from 58.1 to 61.4 seconds. The average women’s time over the seven meets was 4:00.27, or 6.24 mps. This gives the finishing 400, run at an average 6.63 mps, a near-six-percent improvement over the average race pace. Hicham El Guerrouj’s average 400-meter pace for his 3:26.0 World Record was 54.9, or 7.28 mps. The last 400 was 53.5, or 7.47 mps an increase of just over two percent (J. Hendershott, personal communication, January 31, 2012). The women, once again, show similar results. Yunxia Qu’s last 300 was run in 45.3 (6.62 mps), 1.7 percent faster than the average pace for her 3:50.46 (6.51 mps) World Record (J. Hendershott, personal communication, January 31, 2012). Interestingly, times in the women’s 1500, along with last lap and final 26
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
200-meter times have been steadily increasing for the last three major championships. It is possible that drug testing is having an effect.
5000 Meters There is a slightly less than 10-percent fall-off in pace for World Record performances between the 1,500 and 5,000 for both men and women. Also, only three men have succeeded in performing this double in Olympic or World Championship competition: Paavo Nurmi in the Paris Games of 1924, El Guerrouj in Athens 2004 and Bernard Lagat in the Osaka World Championships of 2007. Kip Keino missed by .15 seconds at Mexico City in 1968 when Mohammed Gammoudi defeated him in the 5,000. Gabriela Szabo was close in the Sydney Games of 2000, finishing third in the 1500, only .17 seconds out of first after winning the 5,000. The women are at a disadvantage, having only run the 5,000 since 1988 and the 1,500 since 1972. It is clear that, while this double is difficult, it is more doable than the 200-400 or the 400-800. Even though there is the 10-percent decrease in pace for the 5,000 in relation to the 1,500, in one section of the race, the last 400, there are nearly identical splits for the men and women. The men’s seven-meet average for the final 400 was 53.2, .99 of the speed of the seven 1,500’s final 400s. The average time
for the seven 5,000s was 13:17.70, or 63.82 per lap. The final lap was an increase in pace of 16 percent. The women’s final 400 was 60.31, .999 of the 1,500’s 60.26. The average pace for the seven women’s 5,000s was 71.87, a 16-percent increase for the final 400. Tirunesh DIbaba’s last lap of 63.9 was six percent faster than her 68.1 average for her World Record 14:11.15 (21). The anaerobic cost of the body of the race clearly impacted Dibaba’s finish. It may be difficult to imagine Kenenisa Bekele’s World Record of 12:37.35 as 12.5 laps averaging 60.59. His last lap of 57.85, a 4.5-percent increase in pace, indicates the anaerobic toll of the first 11.5 (J Hendershott, personal communication, January 31, 2012). We will provide further details concerning the similarities in last lap times among the middle distance events in the next section.
10,000 Meters While there is a near-10-percent fall-off in pace between the 1,500 and 5,000, there is less than a four-percent pace reduction between the 5,000 and 10,000 meters, only .26 mps for men and .22 mps for women. Athletes with highly developed aerobic energy systems are able to maintain speed at near their upper limit (31). The close relationship in terms of pace between the 5,000 and 10,000, points to a nearly identical utilization of the aerobic energy system. The similarity is further illuminated when you investigate the men’s finishing lap times for the 5,000 and 10,000 during the past seven international championships. The average for 5,000 meters is 53.6, or 7.52 mps, while the 10,000’s last lap average is 54.5, or 7.34 mps, a difference of only .18 mps. The average 400-meter split for the women’s final lap in the 5,000 is 60.31, or 6.63 mps, and 61.27 in the 10,000, a speed of 6.52 mps, a difference of only .11 mps. The ability of men and women to accelerate over the finishing 400 points to impressive anaerobic reserves for athletes in these primarily aerobic events. The increase for the last lap (over average pace) for the women’s 5000 was 16.9 percent, and 16.4 percent for the women’s 10,000. The men’s results were virtually identical, an increase of 16 percent for both the 5,000 and 10,000. The greater reliance on anaerobic metabolism during the body of the race during World Record attempts is demonstrated by Bekele’s final lap of 56.9 in his World Record 10,000, which was nine percent faster than his 25-lap average of 63.1, but 4.4 percent slower than the seven-meet average (2). The women’s record demonstrates similar results. Junxia Wang’s finish in her 29:31.76 World Record was only 7.5 percent faster than her 70.9 per lap average (J. Hendershott, personal communication, January 31, 2012). However, Wang ended her race with a 3,000-meter sustained drive in 8:17. There have been multiple instances where athletes have won both 5,000 and 10,000 golds in the ultimate competitions for the year. Men such as Emil Zatopek, Vladimir Kutz, Lasse Viren, Miruts Yifter and Kenenisa Bekele have accomplished the feat, Viren twice. Bekele added a second 5,000-10,000 double in the 2009 Berlin World Championships. Paavo Nuurmi came within two seconds of joining that field when Ville Rittola beat him in the 5,000 in 1928, or you could say Rittola came closer as Nuurmi outran him by only .3 seconds in the 10,000 that year. Women have had many fewer chances as the 5,000 was first run in the Olympics in 1996, and the 10,000 in 1988 (1995 and 1987 respectively for the World Championships). Tirunesh Dibaba from Ethiopia won both in the Helsinki World Championships 2005 and Beijing Olympic Games 2008, and Vivian Cheruiyot of Kenya took home both golds in the 2011 Daegu World Championships.
Marathon The marathon world record has a 10.3-percent decrease in speed in comparison with the 10,000 for the men’s world record and an
eight-percent loss for the women. There is a greater relationship, in terms of speed in mps between the 5,000 and marathon than there is between the 400 and 800, which points to the increased utilization of the aerobic energy system in those events. Even though the 10,000 and marathon primarily utilize the aerobic energy system, doubling in the two events has been rare due to the rigors of the marathon and scheduling difficulties. However, in spite of those difficulties, Mamo Wolde won both the 10,000 and the marathon at Mexico City 1968. Although the events were not in the same games, Carlos Lopes was second in the 10,000 in 1976 at the Montreal Games and won the marathon in Los Angeles 1984. World Championship and Olympic Games marathons are typically run in less-than-ideal conditions and on hilly courses, while the world-best times were set on flat courses in near-ideal conditions. In spite of these problems the men have averaged 2:09.31 for the seven-meet set of championships we have selected, only four percent slower than Patrick Makau’s 2:03.38 World Record set in Berlin. The women have fared somewhat less well, averaging 2:25.34, or 12 percent off Christiansen’s world-best 2:15.25 set in London.
Combination Events One of the most interesting comparisons between and among widely different distances is in the combination events. The final 400 in events as disparate as the 800 to the 10,000 correspond in one somewhat unexpected respect. The anaerobic reserve capacity seems to be closely related in that the speed of the final 400 varies little from the 800-10,000. In the men’s events the 1,500 final 400 is run at 98.5 percent of the speed of the 800, and the 5,000 at 99 percent of the 1,500. The 10,000 is run at 97.7 percent of the 5,000. The shortest of the mixed events, the 800, is more closely related to the 10,000 in one respect than the 200 is related to the 400. The final 400 of the 10,000 is run at 95 percent of the speed of the 800’s final 400 for men and 96 percent for the women. For women, the 1500’s average pace for the concluding 400 meters in the seven championship events was 97.7 percent of the speed of the 800, the 5,000 at 99.9 percent of the 1,500 and the 10,000 at 98.4 percent of the 5000. The results differ very little between men and women, further indicating the importance of the physiology of the energy systems.
Summary To sum up: Apart from the usefulness of this data, I would hope that your interest in it will serve as its own defence. Significant variation in speed, as measured in mps from one event to another, corresponds with increasing, or decreasing, involvement of the three energy systems. The concepts of the available anaerobic store and relative reliance on aerobic metabolism, demonstrated in the laboratory by Baker and Weyand, are supported by the results from the highest level meets (1, 33). The idea that a well developed aerobic capacity serves to spare anaerobic reserve capacity appears to be the most logical conclusion. Coaches, without the benefit of advanced measurement tools such as magnetic resonance imaging, are able to determine the energy systems involved in their athlete’s performance by simply measuring the speed in mps of the event in question and an event on either side in terms of distance. As an example, an 800meter runner who wishes to optimize his/her training could utilize performances in the 400 and 1,500 for their predictive benefit. The results would suggest whether the athlete’s strength was in the primarily anaerobic or aerobic events and whether further attention should be paid to one or the other energy systems. It is clear from the figures we have examined that full development of each energy system is necessary for success in events from the 400 to 10,000 meters.
may 2012
techniques
27
28
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
may 2012
techniques
29
drawing comparisons Conditioning Research: Epub ahead of print. 2010. Hill A.V. The physiological basis of athletic records. British Association for the Advancement of Science: Report of the 93rd Meeting: 156-73. 1925. Hill DW, Vingren JL, Nakamura FY, Kokobun E. Relationship Men Event Record Holder MPS Relationship between speed and time in running. International Journal of 100 9.58 Bolt 10.44 Sports Medicine 32(7): 519-22. 2011. 200 19.19 Bolt 10.42 0.998 “IAAF.org-Biomechanics Report.” Iaaf.org- International 400 43.18 Johnson 9.26 0.89 Association of Athletics Federations. Ed Helman Hommel, IAAF, 800 1:41.01 Rudisha 7.92 0.85 2009. Web 04 Feb, 2012. 1500 3:26.00 ElGuerrouj 7.28 0.92 Sahlin K. Metabolic factors in fatigue. Sports medicine 13: Mile 3:43.13 ElGuerrouj 7.21 0.99 99-107. 1992. 5000 12:37.35 Bekele 6.60 0.92 Spencer MR, Gastin PB. Energy system contribution during 10000 26:17.45 Bekele 6.34 0.96 200- to 1500-m running in highly trained athletes. 33: 157-62. Marathon 2:03:38 Makau 5.69 0.90 2001. Tomazin K, Morin JB, Strojnik V, Podepecan A. Fatigue after Women Event Record Holder MPS Relationship short (100-m), medium (200-m) and long (400-m) treadmill 100 10.49 Joyner 9.53 sprints. European Journal of Applied Physiology Epub ahead of 200 21.34 Joyner 9.37 0.98 print. 2011. 400 47.60 Koch 8.40 0.90 Track & Field News. 56(10): 9, 12, 17, 28, 30. 2003. 800 1:53.28 Kratochvilova 7.06 0.84 Track & Field News. 57(10): 13, 15, 44, 47. 2004 1500 3:50.46 Yunxie 6.51 0.92 Track & Field News. 58(9): 12, 18, 22, 37, 38, 42, 2005. Mile 4:12.56 Masterkova 6.37 0.98 Track & Field News. 60(11): 12, 17, 20, 33, 36, 40, 2007. 5000 14:11.15 Dibala 5.87 0.92 10000 29:31.78 Junxie 5.64 0.96 Track &Field News. 61(8): 2008. Marathon 2:15:25 Radcliff 5.21 0.92 Track & Field News. 61(10): 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, 40, 41, 42, 45, 48, 53. 2008. Note the close relationship between the 100-200 and the 5000-1000 and the Track & Field News. 62(11): 8, 10, 15, 18, 33, 36. 2009. relatively loose relationship between the 800 and 400. Adapted from R.H. Track & Field News. 63(11): 15. 2010. Vaughan Principles of Training in Textbook of Running Medicine R.G O’Connor Track & Field News. 64(11): 7, 9, 11, 16, 32, 33, 37, 41. 2011. and RP Wilder eds. McGraw Hill, New York, 2001. Track & Field News. 64(11): 7, 9, 11, 16, 32, 33, 37, 41. 2011. Track & Field News. 64(12): 34. 2011. Usain Bolt 100m 10 meter splits. August 22, 2008. Speedendurance.com November 22, 2010. Vaughan RH. Principles of Training in Textbook of Running Resources Medicine R.G O’Connor and RP Wilder eds. McGraw Hill, New York, Baker Julian S. McCormick Marie Clare and Robergs Robert A. 2001. Interaction among skeletal muscle metabolic energy systems during Ward-Smith A.J., Radford P.F. Energy conversion rates during intense exercise. Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism 905612. 2010. sprinting with an emphasis on the performance of female athletes. Bekele10k World RecordZurich6/25/05IAAF GL Memorial Van Journal of Sports Science 18:835-43, 2000. Damme. YouTube video clip accessed February 9, 2012 Ward-Smith AJ and Radford PF. 2000 Investigation of the kinetics of Billat V, Hamar L, Koralsztein JP, Morton RH. Differential modeling anaerobic metabolism by analysis of the performance of elite sprinters of anaerobic and aerobic metabolism in the 800-m and 1,500-m run. Journal of Biomechanics. 33(8): 997-1004. 2000. Journal of Applied Physiology 107(2): 478-87. 2009. Westerblad, H., Bruton J.D., Katz, A. Skeletal muscle: energy metaboDuffield R, Dawson B, Goodman C. Energy system contribution lism, fiber types, fatigue and adaptability. Experimental Cell Research to 100-m and 200-m track running events. Journal of Science and 316: 3093-9. 2010. Medicine in Sport 7: 302-13. 2004. Weyand, Peter G. and Mathew W. Bundle. Energetics of high speed Duffield R, Dawson B, Goodman C. Energy system contribution to running: integrating classical theory and contemporary observa400-metre and 800-metre track running. Journal of Sports Science 23: tions, American Journal of Physiology Regulatory Integrative and 299-307. 2005. Comparative Physiology 288: R956-R965., 31, 34. 2005. Duffield R., Dawson B, Goodman C. Energy system contribution to 1500- and 3000-meters track running. Journal of Sports Science 23: Dr. Robert Vaughan spent 18 years as an exercise physiologist at the 993-1002. 2005. Tom Landry Sports Medicine and Research Center. He coached such A Ferro, A Rivera, I Pagola, M Ferreruela, A Martin, V Rocambio. A notable athletes as five-time Olympian Francie Larrieu Smith as well kinematic studyof the sprint events at the 1999 World Championships as numerous other Olympic Trials qualifiers. He served as an assistant in athletics in Sevilla. ISBS 72-75. 2002. coach for the US Track & Field Team at the 2002 IAAF World Cup, the Gastin PB. Energy system interaction and relative contribution dur2002 Pan American Games, and was an assistant for the South Team at ing maximal exercise. Journal of Sports Medicine 31(10): 725-41. 2001. the US Olympic Festival in 1981 and 1982. Vaughan has been involved Green HJ. Mechanisms of muscle fatigue in intense exercise. Journal with USA Track and Field’s Elite Athlete project since 1987 and is an of Sports Science 15(3): 247-56. 1997. instructor for the USA Track & Field Level II and Level III Coaching Hassane Z, Georges J, Christophe J, Dominique D, Maitel Education program. B, Abderraouf BA, Jacques P, Elie M. Journal of Strength and
Table II The Relationship in Meters Per Second of World Record Performances
30
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
andreas v. maheras P H OTO
32
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
the horizontal translation in
discus throwing by andreas v. maheras, ph.d
O
n average, the forward linear momentum of the thrower-discus system contributes six percent of the horizontal speed of the discus at the moment of release, while the angular momentum around the vertical axis contributes the remaining 94 percent (Maheras, 2008). Therefore, the contribution of the forward linear momentum to the speed of the discus is quite small. However, it is not negligible and warrants attention particularly during the thrower’s action in the back of the circle. More specifically, during the double-support phase in the back of the circle, the thrower makes horizontal so-called “pull-push” forces against the ground (figure 1) and the ground reaction to those forces generate most of the angular momentum around the vertical axis that the thrower will need for the throw. Similarly, forward horizontal linear momentum is generated in the early stages of the throw and it makes the system translate horizontally across the circle (figure 2). An analogy can be used here to explain the purpose of giving forward linear momentum to the thrower-discus system. That is, one can compare the discus thrower with a ship firing a cannon. If the ship, firing the cannon, is traveling forward as the cannon is fired, the forward speed of the ship is added to the forward speed of the projectile. This results in a larger total horizontal speed of the projectile as compared to a condition where the ship would be stationary when it fired the cannon. The forward motion of the thrower-discus system contributes to the speed of the discus at release and the thrower, indeed, needs to take advantage of this (admittedly limited) forward motion as much as possible contribution to the overall speed of the discus at release.
Ideal vs. Real Horizontal Translation of the System’s Center of Mass Ideally, it seems that during the double support phase in the back of the circle, the thrower should shift the system’s center of mass to a position that is almost directly above the left foot, which is the time that the thrower starts generating the system’s angular momentum around the vertical axis as she rotates counterclockwise. Following, after the thrower is facing towards the direction of the throw, she should thrust directly backward on the ground with the left foot. This way, the large and slightly off-center ground reaction force provides a large amount of linear momentum and additional angular momentum to the system. The thrower would then translate directly forward across the circle. During the double support delivery phase, the large horizontal linear momentum of the system will enable the thrower to obtain upward linear momentum at the expense of some loss of horizontal linear momentum. The upward linear momentum would further enable
the thrower to generate vertical speed for the discus while the leftover horizontal speed would help in the generation of the horizontal speed of the discus (Maheras 2009). In reality though most throwers do not move that way. Figure 3 shows a typical path of the center of mass at the instant that the discus reaches its most backwards point, at the take off of the right foot, at the take off of the left foot, at the landing of the right foot, at the landing of the left foot and, at release. During the double-support phase at the back of the circle, throwers tend to shift the position of the center of mass of the system in a diagonal fashion which, from the point of view of the thrower, expresses a shift toward the left and backwards (front of circle). The mental image that the thrower may have is that of displacing the center of mass to a position more or less directly above the left foot, before pushing off across the circle, but this does not usually occur (Hay & Yu, 1996a, 1996b). Although this is the case, Hay & Yu (1996b) addressed the fact that the closer the center of mass is to being in line with the left foot at take off in the back of the circle, the less the probability of the thrower having the left foot too far to the side (in the bucket) during the release effort. It is rather common then that, even with experienced throwers, the center of mass gets closer to the vertical of the left foot but does not reach it. Therefore, at the time that the left leg starts its main horizontal thrust against the ground, the center of mass is ahead and to the left of the position of the left foot (figure 4). Consequently, the thrust of the left foot against the ground is not directly backwards but in a rather oblique direction backwards and toward the right. The reaction force from the ground is forward and toward the left (figure 4). In turn this makes the system’s center of mass travel in an oblique direction across the throwing circle, that is, forward and toward the left (figure 3).
Oblique vs. Direct Backward forces Since this type of action deviates from what may be ideal, the question arises as to what may be the disadvantage of such a technique. Generally the oblique nature of the direction of the motion of the system’s center of mass should not present any problems for the generation of the vertical speed of the discus. As long as the horizontal speed of the system is large, it should help the thrower obtain vertical linear momentum during the doublesupport phase at delivery, regardless of whether the horizontal translation is directly forward or more oblique. On the other hand, there may be an issue for the generation of the horizontal speed of the discus. The more oblique the direction of the motion of the system’s center of mass with respect may 2012
techniques
33
the horizontal translation in discus throwing Figure 1. “Push-Pull” forces, made by feet on the ground, generating angular momentum during the initial double support in the back of the circle. Figure 2. Forward linear momentum in the early stages of the throw. Figure 3. Approximate path of the center of mass at the instant: the discus reaches its most backwards point (1), at the take off of the right foot (2), at the take off of the left foot (3), at the landing of the right foot (4), at the landing of the left foot (5) and, at release (6).
to the final horizontal direction of the motion of the discus after release, the smaller the contribution of the horizontal speed of the system to the horizontal speed of the discus at release. Considering the ship-cannon example described earlier, if the ship’s cannon does not fire directly forward but at an angle with respect to the direction motion of the ship, the two speeds, the horizontal speed of the ship and the oblique horizontal speed of the projectile relative to the ship, do not exactly add up. Theoretically, this may pose a problem for the thrower. Instead of pushing in an oblique fashion, a thrower may decide to push directly backward on the ground as shown in figure 5, in opposition of what is shown in figure 4. If the thrower chooses to do this when the system’s center of mass is forward and to the left of the position of the left foot, as it happens in most throws, the force that the thrower will be able to exert on the ground would be much smaller than if the push were made in the standard oblique direction shown in figure 4. This may not present a problem regarding the rotation of the system. That is because the small ground reaction force as shown in the right of figure 5, points more off center with respect to the center of mass than the oblique ground reaction force shown in figure 4. For the generation of the angular momentum around the vertical axis this would 34
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
tend to compensate for the size of the force. However, there may be a problem regarding the translation of the system. That is because the small size of the horizontal ground reaction force as shown in figure 5, would significantly reduce the horizontal speed of the system across the circle. This would tend to limit the contribution of the system’s linear momentum to the horizontal speed of the discus at release. Also, a lower speed of horizontal translation would also make it more difficult for the system to obtain upward linear momentum during the delivery phase. A limited amount of upward linear momentum would result in a limited contribution to the vertical speed of the discus at release. All in all, this approach does not seem promising (Dapena & Anderst, 1996). In good throwers (throwing between 58 and 60 meters), at the time the left foot loses contact with the ground in the back of the circle, the system’s center of mass is traveling horizontally at approximately 2.4 m/s. The direction of the motion is oblique, forward and toward the left at an angle of approximately 23 degrees to the left. During the airborne phase the direction of motion and the speed remain constant. During the single support on the right foot, there is a small loss of horizontal speed in the order of 0.4 m/s. During the left foot landing at the start of the delivery phase the horizontal speed of the system is at approximately 2.0 m/s and its direction of motion is roughly similar to that in the back of the circle during left foot take off. During the delivery phase the horizontal speed decreases further by another 0.7 m/s. By the time the discus is released the system’s center of mass has a horizontal speed of 1.3 m/s. The direction of motion is similar to that in the back of the circle when the left foot took off from the ground at approximately 22 degrees. This loss of horizontal speed of the system’s center of mass during the delivery phase serves two purposes: a) it prevents the thrower from fouling and b) it allows the generation of upward linear momentum which is useful for the generation of the vertical speed of the discus.
Divergence Angle In general then, the average horizontal direction of the motion of the system’s center of mass is in a diagonal direction forward and toward the left. The horizontal direction of the motion of the discus after release varies but the average is four degrees and it points forward and to the right. The difference between the two angles indicates the divergence between the horizontal paths of the system and that of the discus. The size of the divergence angle determines how much of the horizontal speed that the system’s center of mass had in the last quarter turn, effectively contributes to the horizontal speed of the discus. The larger the divergence angle, the greater the loss in the contribution of the horizontal speed of
the horizontal translation in discus throwing
Figure 4. Generation of linear momentum during the first single support in the back of the circle. It is generated by an off center ground reaction force passing to the right of the center of mass of the thrower+discus system. This would probably be the preferred technique during the drive to the middle of the circle. Figure 5. Hypothetical direct backward force that could be made on the ground by the left foot during the first single support in the back of the circle. The assumption here is that the center of mass of the thrower is not directly over the left foot. The forces depicted here are small and the execution of such technique would probably not be good. the system to the horizontal speed of the discus and, consequently the greater the loss in the distance thrown. According to Dapena & Anderst (1996) the losses increase at first gradually up to -20 degrees but at a higher rate after that value (the negative sign indicates that system’s center of mass is moving on average toward the left with respect to the eventual horizontal direction of the motion of the discus at release). If the divergence angle is kept within reasonable levels the loss in distance is quite small. In an average 61.00-meter throw the contribution of the horizontal speed of the system to the horizontal speed of the discus at release is at approximately 1.2 m/s, only 0.1 smaller than the horizontal speed of the center of mass at release which is at 1.3 m/s. Given an average horizontal speed of the discus at release at 19.3 m/s, the 0.1 m/s loss due to the divergence of the paths of the center of mass and of the discus is about one half of one percent (0.1/19.3) of the total horizontal speed. In a hypothetical throw in vacuum this would reduce the distance of the throw by about 0.30 meters in a 60-meter throw. In a real-life throw, with the all the aerodynamic forces that act on the discus, the loss would be greater. The exact amount will depend on the wind and will result in a loss between 0.30 and 0.50 meters. On the other hand, when the divergence angle reaches –50 degrees, the loss of the horizontal speed due to the divergence is at an average of 0.46 m/s, and the loss in distance thrown is between 1.4 and 2.1 meters depending on the aerodynamic forces.
Conclusions, Practical Application Experienced practitioners have always suggested that the discus thrower a) pivot/transition/balance well over the left foot during the turn in the back of the circle and b) attempt to move in a generally straight line across the circle. One of the reasons for this has to do with the proper generation of forward linear momentum and the horizontal velocity of the system’s center of mass. Ideally, the thrower should shift the center of mass to a position that is almost directly above the left foot, and then push directly backward on the ground to obtain a good drive directly forward across the circle. However, the exact execution of this movement is not practical. Coaches should avoid suggesting that the center of mass strictly pass over the left foot. Therefore, if the thrower fails to bring the center of mass close enough to the vertical of the left foot, as most throwers do, the thrower should make a strong hori36
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
zontal drive across the circle in an oblique direction. In this case it would not be a good idea to attempt to push directly backward on the ground as shown in figure 5, because the forces generated in this instant are too small and not optimal for linear momentum generation. As long as the discus thrower drives across the circle at a moderate oblique angle toward the left and does not throw the discus too far to the right so that the divergence angle does not reach values beyond -20 degrees, there will not be a significant loss in the distance thrown. Coaches should always be aware of the direction the thrower is moving across the circle, particularly in relation to the direction of the released discus. That is because if the divergence angle reaches higher values, there can be significant losses in the thrower’s performance. This implies that even in the case where the left foot lands in the “bucket,” if the thrower is able to follow the left foot (move towards that direction) and throws towards that line, as experienced throwers do, then the thrower should be OK. Although in the majority of all discus throwers the center of mass never reaches vertical over the left foot, the closer the center of mass is to being in line with the left foot at take-off in the back of the circle, the lower the probability of the thrower having the left foot too far to the side (in the bucket) during the final release effort.
References Dapena, J., & Anderst, W. (1997). Discus Throw (Men). Scientific Services Project, U.S.A Track & Field. Biomechanics Laboratory, Dept. of Kinesiology, Indiana University. Hay, J.G. & Yu, B. (1996a). Free leg action in throwing the discus. Track Coach, 134: 4265-4268. Hay, J.G. & Yu, B. (1996b). Weight shift and foot placement in throwing the discus. Track Coach, 135: 4297-4300. 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. Maheras, A. (2008). Momentum Development in Discus Throwing. NTCA Throwers Handbook, J.A. Peterson & Lasorsa R. editors, p.p. 132-136. Dr. Andreas Maheras has been the throws coach at Fort Hays State University since 2004. Maheras was a former member of the Greek national team and has developed the FHSU throws programs into one of the elite in NCAA Division II.
may 2012
techniques
37
USTFCCCA www.mondoworldwide.com
www.gillathletics.com
www.ucsspirit.com
www.beynonsports.com
www.advpolytech.com
www.balfour.com
www.coacheschoice.com
www.brooksrunning.com
www.stockmeier-urethanes.com
www.directathletics.com
Through their ongoing support of the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Associaton, these companies demonstrate their strong commitment to the sports of Track & Field and Cross Country. 38
techniques techniques mfeb a y r2u 01 a 2r y 2 0 1 2
SUPPORTERS www.ucsspirit.com www.mfathletic.com
www.tractionusa.com www.finishlynx.com
www.FTTF.com www.powerbar.com
www.vsathletics.com www.maxmedals.com
The USTFCCCA strongly encourages each member to purchase products and services from these supporters. feb r u a mrayy 22001122 techniques techniques
39
sprinter needs analysis
Asun photo
By Brandon Morton
40
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
may 2012
techniques
41
sprinter needs analysis
t
he universal question in all sports is how to become more powerful, faster and stronger. This question is one I get asked a lot by high school coaches and athletes in general. The first thing any coach needs to do when wanting to know how to get an end product is find out what’s needed to get there. This is called forming a needs analysis, which is just finding out what you need to get what you want. You can apply this to anything but for the sake of this article we will look at a needs analysis for a 100m sprinter. For a 100m sprinter to be successful there are many key qualities that should be present. General and max strength, simple reaction time, reactive strength, elastic strength or power, absolute speed, speed endurance, coordination and posture are needed to be successful in the sprints. Some of these qualities are endowed from childhood activity, while others are made and enhanced through training. These characteristics must be applied at the same time and over the course of the entire race. In his book Peak When It Counts: Periodization for Track and Field, William H. Freeman states that “the main physical qualities of an elite sprinter are quickness, strength, and speed endurance.” This is true, but I wanted to get a little bit more specific in my breakdown of what a sprinter needs to be successful.
why it correlates well with the slower lifts associated with max-strength weight training. When the sprinter is in the upright position they are applying force at a faster rate and so a different form of training is needed to enhance this portion of the race. Utilization of activities that are more specific to the rate of force application in this phase is needed, but that’s discussed later in this article.
Simple Reactive Speed Reactive speed (“quickness” as referred to by some) is the ability of the central nervous system to contract, relax or control muscle function. It’s measured as the time interval or reaction time between the stimulus detection (starter pistol) and response execution (or initiation of movement). It’s needed at the start of the race so that the sprinter is able to react to the sound of the gun in a quick enough time so that they are not left behind in the blocks. Some sprinters aren’t the best reactors but this motor response can be sharpened. If a sprinter doesn’t have great reaction speed then it doesn’t mean he/she won’t win – but he/she certainly won’t get off to the best start. I will train this response by using numerous reaction drills in which they must react and put the body thru the same range of motion as in the race. However, because this is such a small percentage of the race I wouldn’t suggest spending a large amount of time trying to improve simple reaction time.
General and Max Strength One of the first requirements is a strong body or general strength. Everything from arms, legs, and core has to be very strong. General strength is gained during the preseason in the weight room and by improving the overall fitness level on the track. The lifts that help this particular quality may or may not be specific to sprinting. Squats, lunges, bench, pull-ups and other non-specific lifts are utilized. You will see a lot of track & field programs begin their repetition range at about eight to 10 reps, but consideration needs to taken into account regarding body types and care should be exercised so excessive bulk in the body does not result. The entire body must work harmoniously together to produce a good race, so the entire body has to be in good physical conditioning and very strong, so that it can handle the stress of workouts in later phases of the year. But this alone will not make you faster; it’s simply the A in an ABC relationship. You have to add more things to your training regimen; this is the first step. In sprinting, initial acceleration is determined by stride length and not stride rate. This is achieved through a high level of explosive and maximum strength work for the muscles involved. Initial acceleration is a specific motor skill and is a different skill in and of itself (Yuri V. Verkhoshansky). The speed of force application and direction are both different from what’s seen when the body is in an upright position. When in the initial acceleration phase your force application is slower, which is
42
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
Reactive Strength or Power Reactive strength is the key to success when the sprinter is in the upright position on the way to the max speed phase, during max speed maintenance, and the speed endurance phase. To define it would be to say it’s the stretch shortening cycle in a muscle where there is a build up in tension during the stretch phase and a release in energy and tension during the shortening phase. Basically, reactive strength is like a rubber band effect. This cycle happens in most athletic events but, for the sake of this article, I will attempt to show how it’s related to sprinting. Prior to ground contact there is eccentric activity in the hamstrings and gastroc-soleus muscles. This pretension allows a reduction of slack in the system which sets up its ability to produce forces reactively upon ground contact. This is immediately followed by a concentric or shortening cycle when the foot leaves the ground and energy created during the eccentric phase is utilized to propel the body forward. This process is what’s used during jumps, and sprinting and many other actions (throwing footballs, baseballs etc.). Rate of force application is a determinant of how well the acceleration phase and absolute speed phase goes. Basically the stretch shortening cycle has to happen in a short period of time. This is usually what’s missing from a sprinter who is really strong in the weight room but is still running slow. When sprinting, the stretch shortening cycle happens but, for slower sprinters, the ground times are
may 2012
techniques
43
ET SU ph otolab ph oto
sprinter needsanalysis
longer and the forces are not as high. The purpose of this article isn’t to diagnose activities that can improve the needs analysis capabilities, but I can’t resist giving some hints on how to improve the stretch shortening cycle. Plyometrics can be the added parameter in the equation to bridge work done in the weight room with work done on the track. The most specific plyometric for sprinting is sprinting, but you can also do different bounds. Just be careful with the amount you are giving and the time of season you give these workouts. They really drain the central nervous system. Now back to our needs analysis. My mentor, Campbell University head track and field coach Jim Patchell, always told me training is sometimes an A+B+C=D relationship. This means you had to add another activity to bridge the gap between two other activities in order to get the desired effect you need. For example take A-weightroom work and combine it with B-Plyometrics and you get C-improved elastic strength= D-faster sprinting. Remember the best plyometric for sprinting is sprinting. Power is force x speed and sprinters want to be able to 44
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
apply as much force as possible in a very small amount of time. As proved by research (Weyand, Sternlight, Bellizzi, & Wright, 2000) humans reach higher running speeds faster not by repositioning their limbs more rapidly but by applying greater support forces to the ground. Sprinters cannot try to purposely push down harder on the ground to create power but instead the power applied to the ground should be a byproduct of the stretch shortening cycle of the muscle and should occur when using natural and proper form. If the sprinter tries to push harder than what’s natural then this will increase stride length but decrease stride rate and causes him/her to sprint slower. If a sprinter tries to increase stride rate by quickening strides then this shortens stride length which will also cause him/her to sprint slower. This process has to be a natural occurrence, which is why I always tell sprinters to just run as fast as they can and don’t do anything that doesn’t feel natural during the race.
Absolute Speed Absolute speed is needed first and foremost to be a sprinter. This is the top velocity a sprinter reaches dur-
may 2012
techniques
45
sprinter needs analysis ing a race. In Sport Specific Speed authors Vern Gambetta and Gary Winckler write that, in the track sprints, absolute speed is the ultimate determining factor in sprint success. Eccentric and concentric phases must be powerful and rapid at this point of the race to keep the sprinter at top
Speed endurance is the amount of time you can stay at your top speed for whatever race you’re doing. speed. It can be assured that with proper posture and biomechanics the sprinter will reach maximum velocity and be able to maintain it until fatigue sets in; at this point, some sprinters form may break down, while others will be able to maintain their forms. It all depends on the of physical shape sprinters are in and how good their mechanics are. This can be a result of insufficient speed endurance work, general muscles that weren’t strengthened enough in the general conditioning phase or just bad coaching of the biomechanics of top-speed sprinting. Through top-speed training and over-speed training we will look to improve form, absolute speed and overall comfort at top speed.
Speed Endurance Speed endurance is what a lot of people don’t realize is the true key to running fast. I remember that a lot of football players that went to high school with me used to always seem to think they were faster than me because of their 40-yard dash times, but they didn’t realize that if they can’t stay at those speeds then they would eventually get left behind. Speed endurance is the amount of time you can stay at your top speed for whatever race you’re doing. For short sprints that speed would be maximal velocity, while for 400 meters it would be maximal desired velocity because in a 400-meter race you’re not trying to hit the highest speed possible but you’re choosing a speed beneficial for that distance. Work by Ushko and Vilcov (“The Structure of Sprint Training,” n.d.) states that proper training of the lactic and alactic systems is very important when talking about speed endurance and also that the execution of a large volume of glycolytic and anaerobic alactic training loads leads to a substantial improvement of sprinting speed and specific endurance. Alactic system is max effort before exhaustion while lactic systems are when you are trying to remain at top speed in the presence of exhaustion.
Coordination Coordination is several parts acting together harmoniously to produce an action. In this case the entire body – arms, legs, abs, back etc. – will be working together to move the body down the track. Coordination is improved
46
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
through advanced sprint drills that will later help with a sprinter’s form while running. You will see a lot of young sprinters have problems with drills when first starting off, some eventually learn to properly perform the drills while others don’t. When a sprinter learns to properly perform a drill, he/she can feel some patterns that may occur while running or he/she may feel positions they feel while running. But mainly neuromuscular coordination is needed because as a sprinter becomes faster the time for a unified muscle contraction shortens. Repetitive sprint training requires the same motor patterns to be repeated over and over again. This allows neural pathways to become more and more established. Also, it’s needed for starts off the blocks. If athletes aren’t able to move the limbs quickly in the right sequences at controlled speeds then they could end up falling flat on their faces after the initial pushes. The only way to improve all of these is repetition of the activity. Let the athlete perform the action repeatedly and the first form of adaptation that occurs is motor coordination. So the practice of sprinting from blocks and standing starts, as well as running tempo runs, will improve all of these areas of coordination.
Posture In order to sprint efficiently and incorporate all muscles and body parts in the race that are required, the sprinter must have proper posture and maintain it throughout the race. The hip posture is straight up and down without any tilt forward or back. Unfortunately a lot of today’s kids aren’t playing outside but on the computer or on game systems so they have poor posture from slouching in the couch. This is why these postural positions have to be taught, even to some collegiate athletes. But the positions will vary at different points of the race. They are trained thru various drills such as a-skips and b-skips. To put it simply, the head should be aligned with the spine which the hips should be under, and the legs will cycle and push back and downward into the ground. If all these needs are met, then you should have a successful sprinter.
References Freeman, H. William. (2001) Peak When It Counts: Periodization For American Track and Field 4th edition Gambetta, Vern & Winckler, Gary. (2001). Sport Specific Speed. Sarasota, FL. Gambetta Sports Training Center. Ushko, B. The Structure of Sprint Training. Verkhoshansky, V. Yuri. Quickness And Velocity In Sports Movements. Weyand, S. B., Sternlight, Bellizzi, & Wright. (2000). Faster Top Running Speeds are achievedwith greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements. Journal of Applied Physiology , 1991-1999. Brandon Morton is as an assistant track and field coach at East Tennessee State University. Morton works primarily with the men’s and women’s sprints, hurdles, and relays.
2012 USTFCCCA national indoor COACHES & ATHLETES OF THE YEAR Division I
Robert Johnson Oregon Women’s Head COY
Mike Holloway Florida Men’s Head COY
Wayne Pate Kansas Women’s Assistant COY
Mario Sategna Texas Men’s Assistant COY
Diamond Dixon Kansas Women’s Track AOY
Lawi Lalang Arizona Men’s Track AOY
Brianne Theisen Oregon Women’s Field AOY
Curtis Beach Duke Men’s Field AOY
Division Ii
Jerry Baltes Grand Valley State Women’s COY
Tom Flood Grand Canyon Men’s COY
Amanda Putt Hillsdale Women’s Track AOY
Andrew Graham Adams State Men’s Track AOY
Lindsay Lettow Central Missouri Women’s Field AOY
Ryan Loughney Ashland Men’s Field AOY
Division Iii
Marcus Newsom Wartburg Women’s Head COY
Frank Gramarosso Steve Johnson Pat Ebel North Central Wartburg UW-Oshkosh Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Nevada Morrison Wartburg Women’s Track AOY
Ben Scheetz Amherst Men’s Track AOY
Skye Morrison Wartburg Women’s Field AOY
Christopher Roethel Christopher Newport Men’s Field AOY
may 2012
techniques
49
DIVISION I 2012 USTFCCCA Regional indoor Coaches & Athletes of the Year great lakes region
Susan Seaton Cincinnati Women’s COY
Ron Helmer Indiana Men’s COY
Christopher Bostwick Jeff Huntoon Michigan State Indiana Women’s Assistant Men’s Assistant COY COY
Christina Manning Ohio State Women’s Track AOY
Andy Bayer Indiana Men’s Track AOY
Jasmine Cotton Connecticut Women’s Field AOY
Japheth Cato Wisconsin Men’s Field AOY
Fred Samara Princeton Men’s COY
Chris Mittenberg Steve Dolan Georgetown Princeton Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Emily Infeld Georgetown Women’s Track AOY
Robby Creese Penn State Men’s Track AOY
Vanessa Henry Maryland – Eastern Shore Women’s Field AOY
Conor McCullough Princeton Men’s Field AOY
mid atlantic region
Patrick Henner Georgetown Women’s COY
midwest region
Gary Pepin Nebraska Women’s COY
Connie Price-Smith Southern Illinois Men’s COY
Wayne Pate Kansas Women’s Assistant COY
Paul Thornton Minnesota Men’s Assistant COY
Diamond Dixon Kansas Women’s Track AOY
Harun Abda Minnesota Men’s Track AOY
Jeneva McCall Southern Illinois Women’s Field AOY
Erik Kynard Kansas State Men’s Field AOY
Ralph Lindeman Air Force Men’s COY
Cliff Felkins Texas Tech Women’s Assistant COY
Ed Eyestone BYU Men’s Assistant COY
Nachelle Mackie BYU Women’s Track AOY
Miles Batty BYU Men’s Track AOY
Kelly Closse Texas Tech Women’s Field AOY
Cale Simmons Air Force Men’s Field AOY
mountain region
Gregg Gensel Utah State Women’s COY
50
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
northeast region
Willy Wood Columbia Women’s COY
Nathan Taylor Cornell Men’s COY
Andrea Grove McDonough Gabe Sanders Connecticut Boston University Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Lucy Van Dalen Stony Brook Women’s Track AOY
Jarret Eaton Syracuse Men’s Track AOY
Rebecca O’Brien Buffalo Women’s Field AOY
Robert Golabek Buffalo Men’s Field AOY
south region
Mike Holloway Florida Women’s COY
Bob Braman Florida State Men’s COY
Dennis Nobles Jon Stuart Florida State Georgia Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Octavious Freeman UCF Women’s Track AOY
Torrin Lawrence Georgia Men’s Track AOY
Krystal Schade Alabama Women’s Field AOY
Gray Horn Florida Men’s Field AOY
south central region
Darryl Anderson TCU Women’s COY
Chris Bucknam Arkansas Men’s COY
Nic Petersen Mario Sategna TCU Texas Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Kristen Gillespie Arkansas Women’s Track AOY
Akheem Gauntlett Arkansas Men’s Track AOY
Whitney Gipson TCU Women’s Field AOY
Damar Forbes LSU Men’s Field AOY
southeast region
Lawrence Johnson Clemson Women’s COY
Dave Cianelli Virginia Tech Men’s COY
Timothy Vaught Greg Jack Charlotte Virginia Tech Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Dezerea Bryant Clemson Women’s Track AOY
Ryan Hill NC State Men’s Track AOY
Tynita Butts East Carolina Women’s Field AOY
Marcus Robinson Virginia Men’s Field AOY
west region
Edrick Floreal Stanford Women’s COY
Greg Kraft Arizona State Men’s COY
Sheldon Blockburger Arizona Women’s Assistant COY
James Li Arizona Men’s Assistant COY
Katie Flood Washington Women’s Track AOY
Lawi Lalang Arizona Men’s Track AOY
Brigetta Barrett Arizona Women’s Field AOY
Brianne Theisen Oregon Women’s Field AOY
Chris Benard Arizona State Men’s Field AOY
may 2012
techniques
51
DIVISION II 2012 USTFCCCA Regional indoor atlantic region
Dave Osanitsch Shippensburg Women’s COY
George Williams Saint Augustine’s Men’s COY
Samantha Edwards Virginia State Women’s Track AOY
Josh Edmonds Saint Augustine’s Men’s Track AOY
Tabitha Bermis Edinboro Women’s Field AOY
Christopher Copeland Saint Augustine’s Men’s Field AOY
Mark Schuck Minnesota State Men’s COY
Indira Spence Adams State Women’s Track AOY
Andrew Graham Adams State Men’s Track AOY
Barbara Szabo Western State Women’s Field AOY
Oliver Harsanyi Western State Men’s Field AOY
John Wallin Southern Connecticut Men’s COY
Amy Varsell Bentley Women’s Track AOY
Marc Arce Findlay Men’s COY
Amanda Putt Hillsdale Women’s Track AOY
central region
Mike Thorson U-Mary Women’s COY
east region
Gary Gardner UMass Lowell Women’s COY
Brittany Brown Selasi Lumax Southern Connecticut Southern Connecticut Women’s Field AOY Men’s Track AOY
Matthew Jeune New Haven Men’s Field AOY
midwest region
Jerry Baltes Grand Valley State Women’s COY
52
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
John Guagenti Findlay Men’s Track AOY
Sam Lockhart Grand Valley State Women’s Field AOY
Ryan Loughney Ashland Men’s Field AOY
Corey Thomas Stonehill Men’s Field AOY
Coaches & Athletes of the Year DIVISION II south region
Frank Hyland Benedict Women’s COY
David Cain Alabama-Huntsville Men’s COY
Latrice Johnson Alabama-Huntsville Women’s Track AOY
Chavis Taylor Benedict Men’s Track AOY
Tonish Delorch Kentucky State Women’s Field AOY
Andrew Cole Alabama-Huntsville Men’s Field AOY
south central region
Victor Thomas Lincoln Women’s COY
Kip Janvrin Central Missouri Men’s COY
Kirk Pedersen Central Missouri Men’s COY
Chrystal Ruiz Angelo State Women’s Track AOY
Laban Sialo Central Missouri Men’s Track AOY
Lindsay Lettow Central Missouri Women’s Field AOY
Darius Walker Central Missouri Men’s Field AOY
southeast region
Matthew van Lierop Mount Olive Men’s and Women’s COY
Kate Griewisch Lenoir-Rhyne Women’s Track AOY
Felix Duchampt Queens Men’s Track AOY
Lauren Sloan Anderson Women’s Field AOY
Nazaire Saintine Lees-McRae Men’s Field AOY
west region
Karl Lerum Seattle Pacific Women’s COY
Tom Flood Grand Canyon Men’s COY
Shavine Hodges Grand Canyon Women’s Track AOY
Tyler Sipes Grand Canyon Men’s Track AOY
Ali Worthen Seattle Pacific Women’s Field AOY
Karlin Stewart Grand Canyon Men’s Field AOY
may 2012
techniques
53
DIVISION IIi 2012 USTFCCCA Regional indoor Coaches atlantic region
Stephen Patrick SUNY Cortland Women’s COY
David Prevosti SUNY Geneseo Men’s COY
Markus Allen Buffalo State Women’s Assistant COY
Joe Reed SUNY Oneonta Men’s Assistant COY
Sasha Henry Buffalo State Women’s Track AOY
Sean Bernstein SUNY Oneonta Men’s Track AOY
Emma Dewart Ithaca Women’s Field AOY
Wenley Louis SUNY Geneseo Men’s Field AOY
Steve Mathre St. Thomas Men’s COY
Steve Johnson Wartburg Women’s Assistant COY
Pete Wareham St. Thomas Men’s Assistant COY
Nevada Morrison Wartburg Women’s Track AOY
Mike Hutton St. Thomas Men’s Track AOY
Skye Morrison Wartburg Women’s Field AOY
Jonas Elusme Wartburg Men’s Field AOY
Clyde Morgan Wabash Men’s COY
Kevin Phipps Baldwin-Wallace Women’s Assistant COY
Roger Busch Wabash Men’s Assistant COY
Mary Mahoney Mount Union Women’s Track AOY
Sutton Coleman Rose-Hulman Men’s Track AOY
Ashley Bault Marietta Women’s Field AOY
Brandon Eddy Baldwin-Wallace Men’s Field AOY
central region
Marcus Newsom Wartburg Women’s COY
great lakes region
Kevin Lucas Mount Union Women’s COY
mideast region
Not Pictured
Bobby Van Allen Johns Hopkins Women’s COY
54
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
Tom Donnelly Haverford Men’s COY
Gary Aldrich Carnegie Mellon Men and Women’s Assistant COY
Sheena Crawley Franklin & Marshall Women’s Track AOY
Jordan Schilit Haverford Men’s Track AOY
Abigail Schaffer Moravian Women’s Field AOY
Justin Turner Gwynedd-Mercy Men’s Field AOY
aches & Athletes of the Year DIVISION IiI midwest region
Not Pictured
Josh Buchholtz UW-La Crosse Men’s COY
Brian Woodard Monmouth Women’s Assistant COY
Pat Ebel UW-Oshkosh Men’s Assistant COY Women’s COY
Christy Cazzola UW-Oshkosh Women’s Track AOY
Dan Sullivan UW-Stevens Point Men’s Track AOY
Melissa Norville Illinois College Women’s Field AOY
Pete Delzer UW-Oshkosh Men’s Field AOY
new england region
Mathew Lemaire Worcester State Women’s COY
Al Fereshetian Bates Men’s COY
Nicole Wilkerson Middlebury Men’s and Women’s Assistant COY
Margo Cramer Middlebury Women’s Track AOY
Ben Scheetz Amherst Men’s Track AOY
Tanasia Hoffler Williams Women’s Field AOY
David Pless Bates Men’s Field AOY
south/southeast region
Duane Ross Methodist Women’s COY
Doug Thomasey Lynchburg Men’s COY
Maddy Outman Emory Women’s Assistant COY
Denver Davis Bridgewater Men’s Assistant COY
Carmen Graves Roanoke Women’s Track AOY
Alexander Tallman Washington and Lee Men’s Track AOY
Elizabeth Krug Hendrix Women’s Field AOY
Richard Roethel Christopher Newport Men’s Field AOY
west region
Not Pictured
Travis Olson Linfield Women’s COY
Toby Schwarz Whitworth Men’s COY
Bob Omlin Derek DeWindt Whitworth Whitworth Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Alexis Arnold George Fox Women’s Track AOY
Trent Alsin Whitworth Men’s Track AOY
Catherine Street Linfield Women’s Field AOY
Carter Comito Whitworth Men’s Field AOY
may 2012
techniques
55
site, www.eligibilitycenter.org, I will provide details regarding what a future student-athlete must do to get eligible.
Full Qualifier.
Updates from the NCAA Eligibility Center by john pfeffenberger
W
ith many new changes in the NCAA’s rules on a year-toyear basis, it can sometimes be difficult to understand what you need to know as a future student-athlete or coach. In this quarter’s edition of Updates from the NCAA Eligibility Center, we will focus on some very important topics related to changes in initial-eligibility academic standards for those student-athletes that plan to enroll at NCAA Division I institutions in the Fall of 2015 or later.
Who will these new requirements impact? The new initial-eligibility academic requirements will impact high school students who enroll full time at an NCAA Division I college or university on or after August 1, 2015.
What are the possible outcomes for future student-athletes who fall under these new requirements? There are three possible categories that a future student-athlete may fall under based on this new academic standard. These categories are: Full qualifier: Eligible for competition, athletics aid (scholarship) and practice the first year; Academic redshirt: Eligible for athletics aid the first year, practice in first regular academic term (semester or quarter), but no competition; Nonqualifier: Not eligible for athletics aid, practice or competition the first year.
What does this mean? Instead of providing comparative changes to the current academic requirements, from the NCAA Guide to the College-Bound StudentAthlete, which can be found on the NCAA Eligibility Center’s web56
techniques m a y 2 0 1 2
In order to receive athletics aid (scholarship), practice and compete in their first year, students will need to complete 16 core courses in the following areas: 4 years of English; 3 years math at Algebra I level or higher; 2 years natural or physical science (one lab if offered at any high school attended); 1 year additional English, math or natural/physical science; 2 years social science; and 4 years additional from areas above or foreign language, philosophy or comparative religion. Have a minimum required GPA of 2.300 in the 16 core courses mentioned above. Graduate from high school. Meet the requirements of the competition sliding scale. Meaning, you must have a minimum sum ACT or SAT (critical reading and math only) score that matches the 16 core course GPA on the scale. This scale can be found at the NCAA Eligibility Center’s website, www.eligibilitycenter.org, One of the new requirements relates to the progression in which core coursework must be completed. Future Division I studentathletes must complete 10 core courses before the seventh semester of high school (e.g., senior year), and of those 10 core courses completed, seven must be in the area of English, math or science. For purposes of the GPA calculation for NCAA academic certification, the 10 core courses become “locked in” for the purpose of the calculation. This means that students need to start working hard early in high school to do well on their core-course requirements.
Academic Redshirt. The same 16 core course requirements must be met in order to be deemed an Academic Redshirt. The key difference between the Academic Redshirt and the Full Qualifier lies in the GPA. A minimum GPA of 2.000 in 16 core courses is necessary to become an Academic Redshirt. The GPA and SAT/ACT score must also meet the requirements of the sliding scale for an academic redshirt. This information again can be found on the NCAA Eligibility Center’s website: www.eligibilitycenter.org. If a future student-athlete does not meet Full Qualifier status, but qualifies for the Academic Redshirt, he/she can practice during his/her first term at a Division I college or university. After the first semester or quarter is complete, in order to continue to practice for the rest of the year, the student must be academically successful at the collegiate level.
Nonqualifier. A nonqualifier is a college-bound student-athlete that does not meet either set of requirements. A nonqualifier cannot receive athletics aid during the first year at an NCAA Division I college or university and cannot practice or compete during the first year at a Division I college or university. For additional information regarding NCAA Division I’s new initial-eligibility academic requirements, visit the NCAA Eligibility Center’s website or call the NCAA customer service staff at 877-2621492. For feedback, questions, comments and suggestions for future topics from the NCAA Eligibility Center, please contact John Pfeffenberger at jpfeffenberger@ncaa.org.