contents Volume 6, Number 4 May 2013
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 10
Growth and Development As a Coach
14
By Todd Lane 14
The Potential Developing the athlete’s performance potential by Christine M. Brooks, Ph.D.
24
Relationship Between High School and College Coaches by Bill Schnier
30
The 200m Athlete Team Contributions and Even Phases By Leo A. Settle
36
Pacing Strategies For Distance Events in 2012 U.S. Olympic Track & Field Trials By Molly Hirt and Dr. Phil Henson
56
Updates From the NCAA Eligibility Center by Leigh Ann Kenned
30 36
49
AWARDS 2013 USTFCCCA Cross Country Regional Coaches & Athletes of the Year
Cover photograph courtesy of LSU Sports Information
may 2013
techniques
1
A Letter From the President
I
trust that the indoor track & field season was a success for you and your program. Regardless of how the undercover campaign turned out, the outdoor season brings new opportunities and challenges for coaches and student-athletes. As I write this, our warmer climate programs as well as those traveling from colder environs have begun outdoor competition. Most of us in the Midwest as well as the northern areas of the country should have their outdoor seasons well underway by the time you read this. One of the things that I enjoy about coaching the sports of cross country, indoor track and outdoor track is the creativity and problem solving required when faced with less than ideal conditions. With rare exception, we regularly need to adapt our practice plans to current conditions. Whether it is trying to get a quality pole vault practice done with 40 mph winds blowing across the Texas plains; planning early season cross country training in Louisiana knowing the expected high temperature that day is 104 along with high humidity; or getting your team ready for the first outdoor meet in Minnesota when there is still 6 inches of snow on the ground, coming up with a plan to create the best experience possible for our student-athletes is one of the unique challenges of our profession. As I write this letter, the NCAA men’s and women’s basketball tournaments are drawing to a close. As you may know, the basketball coaches’ organizations (men and women are separate) hold their conventions during their respective Final Fours. Possible alternatives to our annual December convention have been discussed in the past. Besides the many logistical reasons why pairing our convention with an event (say the NCAA Division I Outdoor Championship) would present many problems, I am glad that our time to gather as coaches is a stand-alone event. When comparing convention notes with my colleagues in other sports, it quickly becomes apparent that we have a really good thing going. We can be proud that our convention is a true professional meeting. The business that gets conducted, the professional development that occurs and the quality of the celebratory events makes the USTFCCCA annual convention, one of, if not the best, coaches association conventions in the country. We need to continue working to make the event even better but it certainly is one of the top benefits of being a member of our association. The ultimate destination for our student-athletes in any season is the national championship. This outdoor season will conclude with national championship meets in Marion, Indiana (NAIA), LaCrosse, Wisconsin (NCAA III), Pueblo, Colorado, (NCAA II) and Eugene, Oregon (NCAA I). I am sure that each of these championship events will provide a quality experience for all of the student-athletes and coaches who take part. While I have always respected the time and effort that host institutions put into hosting a national championship event, I have to admit, now that Nebraska Wesleyan will be hosting the NCAA III indoor championship in 2014, I am paying even closer attention to the myriad of details that go into hosting such an event. My athletic director and I were taking notes and analyzing logistics at the NCAA III Indoor championship at North Central College. If we can do half as good a job as my friends at North Central, our meet will be a success. My thanks go to all the institutions that have been willing to host a national competition. While those of us who coach for a number of years will attend many championships, the very small number of championship events that a student-athlete may experience certainly make it a very special memory. I wish the very best for you and your program during this outdoor season. Let’s do our best to provide great experiences for our student-athletes. I look forward to continuing to work with you to make the greatest sport in the world even better.
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 3
Publisher Sam Seemes Executive Editor Mike Corn Associate Editor Sylvia Kamp MEDIA MANAGER Tom Lewis Membership Services Dave Svoboda Photographer Kirby Lee Editorial Board Tommy Badon,
Larry Judge, Boo Schexnayder, Dr. Ralph Vernacchia, 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 2013. 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
C
A
ongratulations to all who competed so well during the NCAA Indoor Championships, and particularly to the University of Oregon and University of Arkansas for their respective team championships. Your executive committee has accomplished much since my last report. We have recommended to the Division I Track and Field Sports Committee a new schedule for future Indoor Championships, along with recommended updates to our now active document, the Indoor Championship Manual. In addition, during our Indoor National Championships in Fayetteville, Sam Seemes conducted an open forum discussion for throws coaches and horizontal jumps coaches. The purpose of the Fayetteville dialog was to bring forward ideas to enhance and further streamline these events at our National Championships. This platform will be replicated and expanded during our time in Eugene. Your conference representatives have been working on your behalf on monthly conference calls to discuss business brought forward from convention, as well as address issues you (the membership) have brought forward during the course of the regular and championship seasons. In addition, a subcommittee drafted a response to the NCAA Level III violation questionnaire, which the executive committee supported and forwarded to the NCAA. The Championship Advisory Committee, chaired by Beth AlfordSullivan, has had ongoing discussion both at the site of the National Championships, as well as regularly scheduled conference calls to make recommendations to the Executive Committee on how the Division I championships can be enhanced. We welcome your input through this representative process. The USTFCCCA national office, your CEO Sam Seemes, and your president have had ongoing scheduled dialog with the NCAA liaison Holly Shelley. The focus has been on how we can use technology and resources to improve the first round experience while providing equity across both East and West sites. The national finals are a great event, however we continue to explore avenues to make our championships ready for live TV with the NCAA’s partnership with ESPN. Again we welcome your input in this endeavor. I wish each of you well and much success at the conference, first round and at the national finals. This is my final report as your president. I would like to convey my sincere and heartfelt appreciation for the opportunity to serve the membership of this great sport. I want to thank the membership, the executive committee, Sam Seemes and the entire national office staff. Best wishes to all of you as we conclude this season of Outdoor Track and Field! Run fast, jump high and throw far!
s I write this, I can tell you that my desk and office are more cluttered than usual. My team just got back from our 10-day spring trip this week and we are hosting a home meet on Saturday. The blur that was the indoor season has already moved on to the outdoor campaign, so I’m spending most of my time getting the Dartmouth team ready for coming meets. I do try to schedule a little time each week for planning for next fall. I hope that each of you can also tackle some of the projects I have listed below… • Scheduling our meets is an area where the sport of crosscountry can improve. We finally have our nine regional sites for the fall of 2013 but that process was not as smooth as it could have been. If you have an interest in a future regional meet, start laying the groundwork with your sport administrator now. It is not enough for a coach to get up at a regional meeting and say, “We have a great course!” Someone is going to have to be responsible for bid forms, permits and other paper work. Make sure your athletic department is on board. • If you are planning on hosting a cross country meet this fall, get in some of the preliminary work now. Publicize the date of your meet well in advance. Consider using contracts to commit visiting schools to your meet. I understand that this is not a tradition in our sport but I feel strongly that is an idea whose time has come. • 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. We all want to do what is best for our team. We also need to 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. Our Executive Committee continues to have conference calls during the off-season. If you have a topic for us please contact your regional rep to get it on our agenda. On our last call, the Executive Committee discussed three different methods of ranking 64 teams in cross-country. This has been a much longer process than I anticipated when I took over as president; I do feel that we have made progress. I have appointed a sub-committee chaired by our first vice-president Sean Cleary to select the best method and we will present that to the membership this fall. Let me close by thanking everyone who coaches three seasons in a row. Do yourself a favor and include some personal and family time planning in the months ahead. Best of luck to you and your team in your meets this spring, see you at the track.
Ron Mann is the Head Men’s & Women’s Track and Field Coach at the University of Louisville. Ron can be reached at ron.mann@louisville.edu
Barry Harwick is the Head Men’s Track and Field and Cross Country Coach at Dartmouth College. Barry can be reached at Barry.Harwick@Dartmouth.EDU
4
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
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
would like to thank the city of Birmingham and the Birmingham Crossplex for making the NCAA Indoor National Championships so successful. Katie Holmes and Chairman Scott Groom, the entire NCAA Track & Field Committee, and A.J. Holzherr and his staff worked hard with a short notice to pull off this year’s festival and did an outstanding job. As for the NCAA Sports Festival this year, if you have any comments or concerns that you feel need to be addressed please feel free to email me. I will pass them to Damon Martin, DII Executive Chairman, and we will see to it that they are conveyed to the right people. One concern that has been expressed to me already is in regards to the amount of time that athletes and coaches must spend away from school. This concern will certainly be brought forward and we will keep you posted regarding any response we receive. I would also like to congratulate the USTFCCCA “Athlete of the Year” and “Coach of the Year” Regional and National Award Winners for the indoor season: Drew Windle, Ashland; Brent Vogel, Central Missouri; Vashti Thomas, Academy of Art; Sam Lockhart, Grand Valley State; George Williams, St. Augustine’s; and Charles Ryan, Academy of Art. This year we were able to add 4 more USTFCCCA awards to our slate: Assistant Coach of the Year and the High Point Athlete of the Championship Meet. These honors were given to Dennis Newell of U-Mary and Blaine Maag of Grand Valley State as the Assistant Coaches of the Year, and the High Point went to two Academy of Art athletes: Vashti Thomas and Johnny Carter. Congratulations also to this year’s Division II Athletes Hall of Fame class. Kirby Blackley (Findlay), Derek Miles (Unv. of South Dakota) and Randolph Williams (Kentucky State) will be honored at the banquet prior to the NCAA Outdoor Championships in Pueblo, Colo. I would like to encourage you to send information to Sylvia Kamp (Sylvia@ustfccca.org) at the USTFCCCA national office about any coaches that may be retiring this year so that they can be recognized by the organization. Also, if you would like to submit a proposal for consideration at the 2013 USTFCCCA convention, please contact your conference representative, and he or she can guide you through the process. A complete list of conference reps can be found on the USTFCCCA website in the Division II section. Our job is to represent you, our athletes, and our sport. Let’s strive to continuously make track and field better. I wish you and your teams the very best this spring. I look forward to seeing you in Pueblo. Steve Guymon is the Head Men’s and Women’s Track and Field Coach at Harding University. Steve can be reached at sguymon@harding.edu
I
t is hard to believe that another academic year has almost passed us by, and we are now thinking about wrapping up recruiting, summer training programs for our athletes, and looking ahead to what next fall will hold for our cross country teams. One of the things that I would like to encourage everyone to do is to “think outside of the box” and try to find ways to give back to the sport of cross country/track and field. As I write this, we are in the process of hosting a two-day college meet at the end of March. Hosting a meet is a great way to generate interest in your teams. We also hosted two days of high school indoor track meets two weeks earlier, as well as a youth indoor track and field meet the first weekend in March. I note this, not in an attempt to brag, or to get anyone’s sympathy, but instead to highlight ways to help your programs as well as the sport that we are passionate about. The youth track meet was a first year adventure for us, but was very rewarding for the members of our team who got to help the younger athletes and remember what it was like to be a first time track and field participant. We were able to get some sponsorships to offset the cost of participant T-shirts and awards and in the end were able to even make a small profit for the team. While the thought of hosting an event may sound scary and daunting, it is a great way to get people interested in your sport. It may be hosting a cross country meet, a road race, or a track and field meet, but if it gets your team’s name out in the newspapers, on the radio, TV, or on the school website, it can be a great way to get some positive publicity. I am excited about the prospect of another “outside of the box” idea that may happen in the fall of 2014 for cross country. At the Convention in December, we talked about hosting a combined DI, DII and DIII cross country championships to commemorate the 75th anniversary of NCAA Cross Country Championships. While this is still in the process of being examined for feasibility and gathering NCAA approvals, I believe it is something that could be a very exciting event that would create a very unique and memorable experience for the athletes and cross country fans alike. The success of the Men’s Basketball championships this year where all three divisions played their championship games in Atlanta during the same weekend demonstrates the possibilities. In closing, the Executive Committee will continue to have conference calls throughout the spring/summer months, so if there is an item that you would like us to discuss or that you want to speak about, please don’t hesitate to contact me or your conference rep. Best of luck to you and your teams this spring! Marlon Brink is Head Men’s and Women’s Track and Field and Cross Country coach at Wayne State College. Marlon can be reached at mabrink1@wsc.edu
may 2013
techniques
5
NCAA Report
Division llI Track & Field and Cross Country
kari kluckhohn
KATHY LANESE
President, NCAA Division III TRACK & FIELD Coaches
President, NCAA Division III cross country Coaches
T
A
he 2013 NCAA III Indoor Track and Field Championships are now behind us. It was an exciting meet to not only coach, but to host. Thank you to those who participated in the Championships here at North Central College. We hope you had a positive experience and made lasting memories. It was a privilege to be trackside to observe numerous amazing moments. One such experience was witnessing a long-time coach have a national champion in the high jump. He said, as I paraphrase, “We don’t get these moments very often in our careers.” He was so proud, deservedly so. Take the time to enjoy the journey of each student athlete you coach. Look for those moments. It may not be the national title, but there are successes for all. Personal bests never get old. Thank you to the NCAA III Committee and Tyrone Lockhart for meeting with me at the Indoor Championships. Sam Seemes and I presented the USTFCCCA’s stance on field size expansion for the Indoor Championships beginning in 2014. As a reminder, at the 2011 convention the overwhelming majority of USTFCCCA coaches voted to add the 200 meters and 3000 meters while also adding to the field size for every individual event (17 women, 15 men). We also offered the suggested competition schedule from the 2012 convention. The NCAA III Track and Field Committee is continuing discussion on the issue. Our USTFCCCA III Executive Committee has been continuing with our monthly conference calls. I have been in communication with the NCAA to encourage further research regarding indexing. Our national office also sent a formal letter with regards to this issue, and others, from the convention. Now that we have concluded a season that utilized the new system, more work can be done. The outdoor season is upon us. As some are enjoying excellent weather, I am sure others are wondering when the warm spring weather will be here! I know many were shoveling the snow off their outdoor tracks in the north and adjusting their training schedules to adapt to the challenges well into March. Adapting is an important part of coaching.We all want what is best for our student athletes, and sometimes the path to success presents detours and road blocks. There is always more than one path. Our athletes pick up on how we present any situation: as an opportunity or a challenge. Have a productive spring and enjoy your athletes! I hope to see you in La Crosse, Wis., for the 2013 Outdoor Track and Field Championships.
lthough Cross Country season is far from our minds at the moment, your Executive Committee continues to conduct conference calls on a regularly scheduled basis to discuss some old business and some rather new business that arose from our convention in December. As you are aware, the topic of regional realignment was addressed and discussed at length at the 2011 USTFCCCA convention. As a result of those discussions, a proposal was crafted by the Executive Committee and submitted to the NCAA Sport Committee for consideration. This proposal called for a more balanced distribution of programs throughout the eight regions with defined geographic boundaries. After reviewing the coaches’ proposal, the NCAA Division III Sport Committee approved the plan with minor adjustments and forwarded it to the NCAA Division III Championships Committee. Cross Country regional realignment was part of a broader look at regional competition across all sports in Division III and following this review it was the decision of the Championships Committee to not institute any significant changes to the current regional structure in Cross Country or other sports. With the exception of relocating four institutions from the Allegheny Mountain Collegiate Conference (Franciscan-Great Lakes Region, Medaille, D’Youville and Hilbert, Atlantic Region) into the Mideast Region, the eight regions of Division III Cross Country have remained essentially unchanged. A topic of much discussion at this year’s convention was that of a joint Division I, II and III Cross Country Championship for 2014. Each division’s Cross Country Executive Committee is in support of this initiative and continues to discuss the subject with the respective sport committees to identify and resolve any potential obstacles. The USTFCCCA national office has been working to identify potential locations that could host this event if approved and is monitoring this proposal as it moves through the NCAA Committee structure. The recently completed Men’s Basketball tournament in Atlanta featured championship games in all three Divisions (in addition to the semi-finals of Division I) and was greeted with almost universal praise from coaches, players, administrators and fans. It is this type of forward thinking that we hope to bring into our sport as well. As always thanks to Sam Seemes and the staff at the USTFCCCA office for their hard work and dedication to our sports and continued success to everyone this track and field season. We will be taking it to the trails before we know it!
Kari Kluckhohn is the Head Women’s Track and Field Coach at North Central College. She can be reached at kskluckhohn@noctrl.edu.
Kathy Lanese is the Head Men’s and Women’s Cross Country Coach at Case Western Reserve University. Kathy can be reached at krl3@case.edu
6
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
HIGH SCHOOL REPORT Don helberg
T
he season has started. For some we’re at the halfway point and others are just starting up. Most of the annual clinics have occurred and hopefully you’re trying some ‘new’ things to make your team the best it can be. I want to inform you about the National Senate of High School Coaches Associations. The Senate meets annually at both the USATF Annual Meeting in early December and also meets at the USTFCCCA Convention in mid-December in hopes that all states can be represented at either meeting. The purpose of the Senate is to: • Maintain lines of communication between major organizations and high school coaches • Aid in the development of state high school track and cross country coaches associations • Develop state high school track and cross country coaches clinics • Act as a clearinghouse of information regarding clinic speakers • Create a forum to discuss issues and develop relationships between state organizations • Manage and promote the Gill “Coach of the Year” Award The Senate maintains lines of communication through mass emails and the National Senate web ite: nationalsenate.org. These emails are sent throughout the year and topics include surveys, rule interpretations, clinic information, national meet information and more. The Senate has set aside funds to help start up State Track & Field/Cross Country Coaches Associations where ones don’t currently exist. A meeting is planned for this July with USTFCCCA CEO Sam Seemes and Assistant Director Mike Corn to develop a plan for the USTFCCCA to help the Senate to facilitate some of the objectives stated above. To help maintain and advance the National Senate, annual dues of $100/state association/year are collected. Individuals whose state does not have a Track & Field/Cross Country Coaches Association may become members for $10/year. Membership entitles a state to be involved in all motions and votes associated with the National Senate. Finally, the National Senate has agreed to manage and promote the Gill “Coach of the Year” Award. Mark Alcorn from Minnesota has agreed to chair this endeavor for Gill. The Senate will disseminate information to the different states via email and the website. I want to encourage EVERY state to be involved in the National Senate and to reach out to me if you think the Senate can help you move your state forward. Good luck with your seasons!
Don Helberg is the Chair of the National Senate of High School Track Coaches Associations and an At-Large member of the USTFCCCA Board of Directors. Don can be reached at Donald. Helberg@cusd200.org
may 2013
techniques
7
lsu sports information photo
Growth and Development as a coach
O
By Todd Lane
ver the last several years I have had several conversations, some of them ongoing, with very successful coaches in our sport. These conversations have centered on developing and growing as a coach. I’ve visited with University of Florida Head Coach Mike Holloway on a practice track in South Korea; Boo Schexnayder, former assistant at LSU and a great educator over many lunches here in Baton Rouge; Vern Gambetta, one of the founding fathers of coaches education in this country during a recent project at our facility; Gary Winkler, former University for Illinois coach at a clinic here in Baton Rouge; and my boss at Louisiana State University Dennis Shaver on many road trips. I’ve also had the honor to teach, over the last seven years, in
10
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
the USATF Level 2 program and now the USTFCCCA Track and Field Academy. My involvement in these programs has provided me the opportunity to interact with the many coaches that take part in these week long courses. The opportunity to watch the learning, the exchange of ideas and continual communication that goes on long after these schools, allows me to watch coaching development take place as new doors are opened and the wheels are spinning with new ideas in coaches’ heads. The common themes from my discussions with these coaches along with the teaching experiences and then my own personal experiences, continual growth and development form the basis for this article. My goal is to set out an outline for those beginning their own development in coaching in our sport.
Understanding that coaching is teaching The word coach is a broad word that entails many different hats that we wear. What it all boils down to is, as coaches, we are teachers. We work in academic environments where we are responsible for helping student athletes learn, develop and grow as students, athletes and people. It is a great responsibility and the prevalent thought that should never be forgotten in what we do. Coaching/teaching is most importantly, not about our ego and our success, but the success, development and growth of the student, the athlete and the person we work with.
Robert Johnson, Greg Kraft and Bob Braman, to name a few, all had humble beginnings in our sports, where their craft of coaching, administrating, recruiting and more were developed. These beginnings and experiences, this working in the trenches, certainly contributed to the success they have enjoyed on a national level. Developing as coach is grounded in experiences that provide the appreciation for challenges to be overcome. It is plain and simple working hard in everything the coach does, on and off the track.
Developing athletes Developing and growing as a coach, should lead us down the road of working to be the “complete coach”. Being the complete coach, is being the best coach on the track that we can be, but also having an understanding that coaching is a very global term that encompasses many different aspects of our jobs off the track. As we all know, coaching is not a nine-to-five job and is more than just holding a stopwatch. As track and field coaches we take on many roles, some of which are quite tedious such as moving hurdles, driving vans, fund raising, setting up travel, completing mounds of paperwork for compliance and many more that seem to pull us away from what we all want to do: coach athletes. It is part of coaching and doing this trench work contributes greatly to being successful coaches. There are always tasks in every program that are not overly enjoyable but necessary to do. There should be no task that is beneath a coach, particularly in the early years of his or her career. Be the person who takes on those tasks because the experience of doing them is invaluable. Taking on and completing these tasks demonstrates a work ethic and ability to do what is necessary to make a program and its individual athletes successful. Every successful coach you see at the collegiate level today earned their way to their successful position. Odds are they worked hard at an institution with a much smaller budget and less prestige prior to landing their position with the more recognized program. They made less money or even no money for their coaching, but they worked long hours, became resourceful and didn’t let their limited resources or lack of pay discourage them. They found ways to be successful and overcame the barriers that that situation provided. When I look at the successful, National Championship winning coaches at the Division I level, all had similar starts in our sport. Pat Henry, Curtis Frye, Mike Holloway, Dennis Shaver,
Those in the coaching profession all have the same goal and that is for their athletes to continue to progress during the time they work with them. In the collegiate ranks, there are great disparities in the funding, facilities and expectations of the programs as well as the athletic potential that is recruited to campus. The goal of developing athletes is the same however across all spectrums and the coach should work to develop athletic potential to the fullest extent possible. This does not have to mean NCAA champions or All-Americans, it may mean conference champion or podium finish, whatever the potential may be. Obviously not all athletic potential will develop as we would like due to circumstances beyond the coach’s control. What is the measuring stick of how well you are achieving in athletic development? There should be consistent development of potential that produces the best results at the most important times of the year and throughout the athlete’s career with the coach. Becoming better at developing athletes takes time. One of the great on-the-track transformations that happens for coaches is when they develop into an “artist” at designing and applying training. What I mean is that there is an art to understanding how to manipulate training to suit the athlete best. I have seen many times when a coach takes the workouts of the wellrespected, successful coach and follows them exactly as they are written, but ends up with athletes who fail to meet their potential or even worse, injured. The art of coaching is not following someone else’s plan or writing down workouts that the coach sees others doing; it is in designing, manipulating and altering the plan to meet the athlete’s needs based on what the coach sees in practice every day. The coach becomes an artist as they develop their own training philosophy, which is a big step in coaching growth and development. kirb y lee photo
Working in the trenches to be the complete coach
Being a lifelong learner Coaching is always pursuing the best answer at the time and finding a better answer the next time. Coaches will never know may 2013
techniques
11
growth and development as a coach it all and learning continues throughout a career. Learning itself comes in many forms. It could be reading, listening and exchanging ideas as a coach, which are all part of being a lifelong learner. The best learning is done by doing the work, implementing the training and finding out what works and what doesn’t. Even when it doesn’t work, we grow and learn as coaches. Training errors are best discovered this way and allow the coach to re-think and re-apply how they do things. One of the great joys and challenges of coaching is that no two athletes are the same. As coaches, we should never feel like we have it completely mastered as we work to get all athletes to develop. We may be on the right path, but each athlete provides us with chances to learn more. These experiences that a coach has on a daily, monthly and yearly basis are part of being a lifelong learner. Our goals as coaches should be to become holistic in our knowledge. Coaches should continue to gain knowledge about all aspects of training be it on the track work, strength training, sports medicine principles, sports psychology or any other aspect of the sport they coach. In some situations, the coach may have other professionals who deal with certain areas, but the coach becomes better when they have a better understanding of everything that impacts the athlete’s chance of reaching his or her potential. The coach challenges the athlete to get better and so, too, should they challenge themselves to get better by pursuing and taking advantage of opportunities to learn.
Have a mentor (or two)
“You are either part of the problem or part of the solution,” is one of my favorite sayings that I think cuts right to the heart of what we as coaches do on a daily basis. We are part of a solution, because we are constantly solving problems. Coaching is the opportunity on a daily basis to embrace the challenge of solving problems. Once they view themselves in that light, as a problem solver, they move closer to becoming a complete coach. Problems come from many sources. They come from athletes, training issues both on and off the track, parents, fellow coaches, administrators, athletic trainers, sports information, facility people, fundraising groups, injury problems, lack of resources and many more. Problem solving involves thinking on the fly. For example in practice situations, such as an injured athlete who may need alternative training or an athlete who struggles to grasp a concept. Problem solving involves looking at both short term and long term outcomes and finding the best way to solve the problem to have positive outcomes for short and or long term conclusions. Every problem has a solution and it is the job of the coach is to find it. The solution and/or implementation of a solution may not always be easy but good coaches understand and embrace those challenges.
Coaching is a long term journey of many years where help and support are needed. We all need someone we can call on for advice, words of encouragement and to bounce around ideas. A mentor is someone who is going to provide honest feedback. At times, the feedback offered may not be what you want to hear but is what you need to hear at that particular time. Experienced, successful coaches have tremendous amounts of knowledge besides just a training inventory and a resume of great athletes. Knowing how to work with people, build relationships, network and learn the other side of coaching is something that needs to be learned and conveyed from a mentor. Looking to find a mentor? The coach shouldn’t call up the person they think to be the greatest or most famous coach out there. The coach should find someone who has taken a genuine interest in them, someone with experience and who is willing to be called upon. The coach should be genuine with the mentor in their efforts. No one who is in a position of mentoring wants to hear from someone just when there are problems, but also when there is success and new discoveries. Having a few mentors that can provide an array of perspectives is good. One may provide excellent advice on training theory, while another provides excellent advice on managing personnel for example. Coaching is a lifelong pursuit of excellence. It is an honor and privilege to be given the opportunity to coach in a sport as great as ours. This honor means we should strive to be our best and the most complete coach we can be. It is a process that is never ending and should be pursued with passion, enthusiasm and a commitment to our own growth and development.
Evaluation
bio
Evaluation starts with looking inward first in the process and not finger pointing, not citing faults and making excuses for why it is not going the way the coach wants. If the desired results
Todd Lane is an Assistant Track and Field Coach at LSU and serves on the staff of the USTFCCCA Track and Field Academy as an instructor in the Jumps Specialist Certification program.
illinois sports information photo
Problem solving on a daily basis
12
aren’t being realized, obviously something isn’t working. Selfevaluation is not always easy, but it is a necessary activity that coaches should be doing on a regular basis to help determine what changes need to be made in order to reach a better outcome. Self-evaluation is not only useful when trying to fix what’s wrong, it’s also useful for the coach to note what is working. Self-evaluation should involve all aspects of coaching, including the training program, communication, effectiveness in completing administrative duties etc. As an on field coach there is already evaluation on a daily basis. Every time a training session is in progress or just completed, there should be an evaluation of how it went or is going. Was or is it appropriate, what needs to be different next time and how it progresses in the next session are all parts of a daily evaluation. At seasons’ end, the coach should determine what worked and what didn’t and how improvements can be made for the future, concentrating on the things that they can influence and control.
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
kirb y lee photo
14
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
The Potential Developing the athlete’s performance possibilities by christine m. brooks, Ph.D.
E
very athlete has a specific level of performance potential. Relative to other competitors their age, this may be high, moderate, or low depending on a whole host of factors. The variables we will discuss in this paper include:
• Genetics versus training • Physical capacity and exploitation capability • The adaptation process • How things can go wrong
Genetics versus training Two critical variables affecting the athlete’s performance potential are their genetics and their training. These carry roughly equal influence on the athlete’s performance potential. However, the role played by each is different. Genetics dictate the size of the external and internal body structures that often directly impact the events for which the athlete is suited. An athlete is tall or short due to their genetic coding. At full maturity their anthropometric dimensions such as height, arm or leg length, etc., is fixed. Outside hormonal enhancement, or other genetic fiddling, nothing can be done to change an athlete’s anthropometric characteristics. Genetics also dictates the maximum size of internal body structures, such as the heart and lungs, capillary beds, and the energy production capacity of the muscle fibers, etc. Unlike anthropometric dimensions, though, the average untrained individual’s internal structures are nowhere near their genetic capacity even at full maturity. This is because the body only maintains the internal structural size it requires for current level of chronic activity. There is considerable built-in excess untapped capacity that remains underdeveloped for most people due to their sedentary behavior. Designed correctly, training can trick the body into thinking it needs more physical capacity to meet its survival needs. In this way, training induces internal structures to grow bigger, or increase in total number as is the case for enzymes and hormones. The most important training response is to ‘turn on’ specific genes so that relevant proteins for the internal structure needing improvement are manufactured. This is referred to as the adaptation effect and is one of the ways training improves an athlete’s performance over time. When training stops, the structures regress back to a level matching daily activity needs.
may 2013
techniques
15
the potential
The luck of the draw In terms of genetic influence on anthropometric dimensions, some athletes really luck out. Swimmer, Michael Phelps, for example, has a very unusual body shape. His arm span exceeds his 6’4” height by 3 inches. He has the leg length of a 6 foot man and the torso length of a man who is 6’8”. His hands and feet are disproportionally large for his size serving as fins and paddles. There are likely thousands of potential elite athletes roaming around who are perfectly endowed anthropometrically for certain sports waiting for us to identify them. All athletes are constrained by the influence of genetics on their body structural design. Decathletes are a classic example. Decathletes are challenged by the conflicting speed/strength versus endurance demands of their event due to the principle of allocation theory. Speed and strength depends on an athlete having a high proportion of fast acting muscle fibers that are sensitive to fatigue. Endurance, on the other hand, relies on a higher proportion of slower fibers with more resistance to fatigue. This means that if the athlete is genetically endowed for speed, he or she will have a disadvantage in the events requiring endurance because the principle of allocation states it is not possible to excel in both. Good sprinters do not perform as well over 1500 meters, but have a superior ability in the long jump, 400 meters and 110-meter hurdles. The decathlon is a sport of tradeoffs generated by conflicting anatomical and muscle fiber type requirements. Indeed, ecological and evolutionary theory predicts that above average ability in one motor ability can only be attained at the expense of average performance in other motor abilities. This feature is illustrated in the design of all organisms and appears to be based in the organism’s genetic code. However, it is not exactly clear what influence an athlete’s training has on these genetically determined performance tradeoffs.
Taking an athlete to their genetic ceiling Developing an athlete’s performance by inducing internal
16
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
structures to get bigger and stronger is not an easy process. Two main components are involved that are analogous to a plug and its receptor. One component (the plug) has to do with improving the athlete’s physical capacity and the other component (the receptor) has to do with developing and honing the relevant skills. When they are separated, these two components don’t accomplish anything – they are inert, so to speak. Plug them together, however, and magic happens!
Component 1: Training enhances motor abilities critical to an athlete’s physical capacity. These motor abilities include endurance, strength, speed, coordination and flexibility. Training stimulates the growth of internal structures so these motor abilities improve thereby enhancing the athlete’s overall physical capacity. You can think of physical capacity as representing the size of the athlete’s engine. Training encourages growth of relevant internal structures so the athlete’s engine becomes better equipped for jumping high, throwing further, or running fast or long, etc. The engine can only grow as big as the genetic ceiling allows. For this reason, the fundamental physical capacities of speed, strength, endurance, coordination and flexibility all have an upper ceiling to their development. Component 2: Training enhances the athlete’s skill level enabling exploitation of the bigger engine. Developing exploitation capabilities is the most challenging and sometimes, most frustrating aspect of coaching. Not all athletes with an exceptional engine have the patience or dedication to maximally hone their skills so they can use that engine effectively. Their development becomes arrested and never reaches the level of “expert performer.” For example, an athlete might have the ability to run very fast. However, applying that speed to performing a particular skill, let’s say hurdling, requires an interface between pure speed and
k irb y lee p hoto
the potential
the specific skills of hurdling. These skills include clearing the starting blocks and reaching the first hurdle in a certain number of strides, then taking off, clearing the hurdle, landing on the other side and then negotiating the limited space between the hurdles without reducing speed. The coach is challenged further by the maturing athlete because their body changes proportions contributing to their larger physical capacity. A mismatch between a skill and an athlete’s current physical development can cause them harm. Run up speed in the long jump, for example, must match the athlete’s ability to convert speed into a jump. A mismatch can result in a torn muscle or strained ligament. A training volume exceeding the athlete’s current level of adaptation can lead to a career ending sickness response referred to as “overtraining syndrome.”
The performance capacity and exploitation curves Figure 1 (page 16) illustrates how an athlete’s physical capacity and exploitation capabilities might look like while progressing towards their genetic ceiling. The hypothetical performance level of the athlete is also shown. The three curves depict how an athlete’s physical capacity, exploitation capabilities and performance might look between
18
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
age 5 all the way to elite performer. The athlete’s exploitation capabilities develop more slowly than physical capacity because of all the neurological complexities involved in training the necessary motor skills.
How long does it take to reach one’s genetic potential? It appears to take 10 years or 10,000 hours of deliberate practice to reach one’s genetic potential. Deliberate practice means dedicated training in a specific event such as hurdling, or running endurance events. This 10,000-hour deliberate practice theory has its origins in a 1993 study by Ericsson exploring how great violinists became great. Transposing this research onto sports is a bit tricky, but the important message from the deliberate practice theory is: If you want to succeed, you must practice. If the athlete chooses the right sport it is possible to convert “practice” into quite a high level of performance. Before puberty, the athlete’s performance rapidly improves due, in large part, to the natural growth of body structures and expansion of exploitation capabilities as the brain and nervous systems mature. After puberty, the athlete’s body stops growing and continued improvement will depend primarily on the adaptation of the internal structures and the athlete’s ability to hone the motor skills so he or she eventu-
kirb y lee photo
the potential
ally reaches a highly proficient level. After about age 30, the engine’s capacity gradually shrinks due to internal body structure breakdown (i.e. due to the aging effect). Skill level also deteriorates, although skill tends to remains quite high with continued practice. The athlete’s overall performance progressively declines after around age 30. At all levels of development the coach is constantly trying to increase the size of the athlete’s natural engine capacity by stimulating additional structural growth and enhancing exploitation capability by perfecting the motor pathways of the nervous system. The coaching challenge is to enhance the engine’s capacity without blowing it up (i.e. sending the athlete into an over-trained state). You can blow up the athlete’s engine by stressing it beyond its ability to build the additional structures quickly enough to meet the stresses of training.
the cardiovascular system increases in response to training, the principle of symmorphosis states that the organs within this system will each adjust their structural design only to the level required to exactly match the new chronic physical demand placed on it. Blood vessels alter their structure to ensure working organs always have an adequate blood supply exactly matching their new level of chronic activity. Bone will remodel itself to exactly match the increase in stress loads placed upon it. The fibers of skeletal and heart muscle will increase their size and capacity to exactly match chronic higher loads. These modifications will reverse to match lower physiological demands when training stops for a period of time. The coach exploits this internal remodeling capacity of the human body for the purpose of enhancing an athletic performance.
Why the physiological systems adapt Everything is interconnected American naturalist John Muir said, “When we try to pick up anything by itself we find it is hitched to everything else in the universe.” Muir was referring to interconnections occurring in the natural world surrounding us. However, this notion of interconnectedness has remarkable application to the way the human body works. A concept of “symmorphosis” explains why the human body’s day-to-day physiological capacity is only sufficient to match current chronic functional demands. It makes no sense for any part of a biological system to have a greater functional capacity than the system as a whole. If chronic functional demand of
20
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
The body’s internal structures only operate within certain environmental conditions for temperature, acidity and blood glucose levels, etc. Environmental conditions within the cell are closely controlled because the body’s organs, and all protein structures such as enzymes, can be severely damaged when the internal environment moves outside the preset ideal range. The body goes to inordinate lengths to prevent any disruption of its internal environment. The term homeostasis is used to describe this desire of the body to maintain its internal environment within a preset ideal range. The cell’s homeostasis is at the very heart of sport training because it is the reason for the existence of
the potential the body’s adaptive capacity. An athlete’s training is a strategic manipulation of the body’s internal environment so it becomes a challenge for the cell to retain its ideal environment. Whenever the cell is stressed, the adaptive mechanism moves into motion to build additional structures so the internal environment is stable when the athlete is working at a higher intensity. To combat disruption in homeostasis, cells respond by rapidly manufacturing protective proteins that go to work to repair damage done by the stresses of training and to restore homeostasis.
The game You can think of the design of the athlete’s training as a game you are playing with the adaptive mechanism of the athlete’s body. A coach makes strategic decisions to disrupt the internal environment of the athlete’s body (or its homeostasis) and in doing so sets the adaptive mechanism into action in its effort to correct this disruption. It’s a challenge, though, to ensure that the adaptive mechanism responds in predictable ways. For example, suppose you want the athlete’s muscles to improve capacity to burn fat for energy rather than their limited store of glycogen. In this case you will design a training stimulus to prod the body’s adaptive mechanism to build structures to improve the use of fat. If you want the muscles to add protein so they can produce a high level of force, as might be the case for a sprinter, then you will strategically design the athlete’s training so the adaptive mechanism will build more protein and add it to the muscles you want to become stronger. In essence, you are trying to manipulate the body’s adaptive mechanism to build the structural components needed for the specific physiological capacity improvement you want to accomplish.
The adaptive mechanism is a mystery Compared with the body’s adaptive mechanism, the coach is a neophyte in this game. The body’s adaptive mechanism has millions of years of experience behind it and has devised numerous ways to make the necessary structural changes so the body can adapt to the various levels of stresses placed upon it. A further complexity is that we don’t fully understand how the adaptive mechanism works. We do know with some degree of certainty that it will only make the essential structural improvements it “thinks” the body needs in order to survive. We also know it is possible to send the adaptive mechanism mixed signals and the wrong structural changes can occur. Let’s say you want to build leg strength. In this case you will design a training stimulus that will prod the adaptive mechanism to build more protein and add it to the leg muscles so they can produce a higher level of force. If you happen to concurrently add endurance running while developing strength you can potentially stimulate the adaptive mechanism to block protein synthesis. This is not the outcome you want. The adaptive mechanism will interpret the endurance stimulus as a signal to conserve energy. Since building protein requires substantial energy all structural building projects will be blocked. In this case, the wrong structural changes will occur because you have sent the adaptive mechanism conflicting signals about what adaptations you want it to make.
22
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
If the outcome you expect does not occur, it is because you have used the wrong signal for the structural building response you want to accomplish.
Monitoring mechanisms can malfunction We know that if you try to force the body to adapt too quickly the numerous sensors responsible for monitoring the correct preset internal state will malfunction. When you overtrain an athlete the sensors are overworked, will gradually malfunction and the athlete will ultimately become sick because the sensors are unable to send the correct information about the body’s homeostasis to the brain. Your coaching experience will gradually permit you to predict how the adaptive mechanism will react based on information about how an athlete has responded to a similar training stimulus in the past. This is the art of coaching and it illustrates the importance of keeping detailed training logs for each athlete. Training logs help you predict what the adaptive mechanism is likely to do under a given set of circumstances. Knowledge about how the human body works physiologically, how structures are built to maintain a desirable internal environment, and the athlete’s training log, are used hand-in-hand to form decisions about an athlete’s training.
References Bouchard CA. Ping, Rice T, Skinner JS, Wilmore JH, Gagnon J, Perusse L, Leon A, and Rao DC. Familial aggregation of VO2max response to exercise training: Results from the HERITAGE Family Study. J. Appl. Physiol. 87(3): 1003 –1008, 1999 Ericsson KA. Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: A general overview. Academic emergency medicine. 15: 988-994, 2008. Ericsson KA, Krampe RT, Tesh-Romer C. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100 (3), 363-406, 1993. Plisk S. Periodization: Fancy name for a basic concept. Olympic Coach 16(2): 14-17, 2004. Smith DJ. A Framework for understanding the training process leading to elite performance. Sports Med; 33 (15): 1103-1126, 2003 Van Damme R, Wilson RS, Vanhooydonck B, and Aerts P. Performance constraints in decathletes. Nature, 415: 755756, 2002. Weibel ER. Symmorphosis. On form and function in shaping life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2000. Verhoshansky Y. Main features of a modern scientific sports training theory. Translated from, the original Italian version by Alessandro Lombardi. New Studies in Athletics, 13(3): 9-20, 1998.
BIO Christine Brooks, Ph. D., is an exercise physiologist who has developed interactive internet courses for Griffith University and the University of Florida. She has been an instructor with the USATF Coaching Education program and received the 2000 Smithsonian Laureate Award for innovative distribution of scientific knowledge.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE COACHES By Bill Schnier
T
he relationship between high school and college coaches ideally is a symbiotic one in which each helps the other for the advancement of their common athletes. We are all doing the same job but with different employers and different aged athletes. We very much need to be supportive of each other for the benefit of our sport. At times the relationship is terrific; the admiration is high with the results soaring. That scenario usually exists when the high school coach and the college coach have the following relationships: 24
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
• Both put the long-term interests of their athlete first. • Both have self-confidence and a sharing spirit. • Both are happy with their jobs. • Neither is burdened by jealousy. • Both understand and respect the job of the other. When relationships break down, it is usually spearheaded by misconceptions. Let’s try to put things in perspective. Is a fourth grade teaching position better than a first grade job because the fourth graders will always outperform the first grad-
ers in every measurable category? If your answer is “yes” then you assume the college coach is better and more important than his high school counterpart. In reality, coaching is coaching. Having been a grade school teacher for one year, a high school teacher/coach for seven years and a college coach for 38 years, I have benefitted from the advantages of all levels. When you work with younger athletes, you are more important in their lives because you meet them in their formative years, consequently making a greater lifelong difference. You usually know their parents and families. You are part of their school and larger community. You teach them the sport for the first time, using that clean canvas to create an early masterpiece. You take them to places they have never been. Frequently you are their father or mother figure. The high school coach plays a more critical role in the development of the athlete as well as the person, seldom duplicated no matter how skilled the college coach. For these reasons
the high school coach is the more memorable, much like the first grade teacher because she was your first teacher. College coaches work with athletes at a higher level and can usually point to lifetime PRs being set under their watch. The coach-athlete relationship is almost always more mature resulting in a higher level of dialogue. The stakes are higher so the peaks and valleys are greater. The college coach usually has the luxury of coaching as a full-time job. The college athlete tends to have more serious teammates and better training groups. The college coach has a larger pulpit with the opportunity to make a bigger splash. The college coach is usually the student’s final coach and in that respect is the more memorable, valued for his work at the pinnacle of an athlete’s career. Both categories of coaches need each other but their relationship is full of land mines which can be avoided if the following are true: • The high school coach needs to know what is actually good and not oversell his athletes. • The college coach needs to investigate the entire person, not just his times and distances. • The high school coach cannot discount college achievements just because the colleges are blessed with better athletes, facilities, money, schedules and a more national setting. • The college coach needs to appreciate that the high school coach got his or her athletes 85 percent of the way. • The high school coach needs to continue to show interest in his athlete(s) once they get to college. At their best, both coaches will remember the excitement of their first days of coaching and why they got started. The high school coach should try to pass his students on to the best coach and person, not simply to the most prestigious university. The college coach needs friends in the high school ranks, especially in these days of negative recruiting. In our sports, the need is great to respect and benefit from each other. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “if we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately.” The ideal symbiotic relationship previously referred to can be achieved with a spirit of cooperation between the high school and college coaches. If each coach would walk in the other’s shoes or at least attempt to from time to time, then their relationship should be outstanding. Not only will that expand each coach’s personal network but will also best serve their common athletes. The high school coach has a golden opportunity to reach out to the college coach because his collegiate counterpart has a built-in interest in the high school athlete, the life-blood in building his team. No high school coach needs to incorporate all of these suggestions, but should be active in some of these ways. It will only help. • Attempt to create a college-type team featuring good athletes in all events, college-ready students and a team which competes at high-level meets. Most important, they need to think big. • Visit colleges occasionally with your athletes to promote “life beyond high school.” Make them aware of the places they visit as well as other colleges which are both similar and dissimilar. This will motivate your students to continue their sport in the future. • Showcase your athletes by making a list of juniors and seniors who plan to attend college and who are athletically able to compete. Indicate which athletes are best suited for college Divisions I, II and III. Include complete information so as to begin a personal relationship based on more than just athletic statistics. • Contact college coaches by phone or email when you have a worthy athlete. Make yourself known. Most college coaches enjoy those calls and are waiting for them. may 2013
techniques
25
relationship between high school and college coaches • Host meets. Make your team important in your own school as well as with colleges. • Share officials with your local universities. Those officials will tend to speak well of both the high school and the college. • Host a “College Night” with your parents, sharing what you know. Invite a variety of speakers including counselors and college coaches who can present their school. Help to place your students where they need to be, obligating you to be well informed. In doing so, don’t allow bias to stand in the way of a natural fit for your athletes. The college coach can bask in the status of his position much like the fashion model who smugly expects lots of attention, or he can reach out to his high school counterparts as a peer, much like the person who is pretty both inside and out. The latter type of coach not only serves himself and his team, but is highly regarded at the high school level, receiving commendations which he seldom hears but which occur nonetheless. He can do some or all of the following: • When you attend high school meets, introduce yourself to as many people as possible. Too many coaches simply observe and never get active with coaches and parents at that meet. Realize that you cannot approach athletes other than seniors and not until they are released by their coach after their competition is over. Also know that a discussion with parents constitutes a “contact” per NCAA rules. • Host events for the high schools. This could be meets, camps, clinics or “College Days” from the collegiate perspective. NCAA rules play a role in this but it could pay off richly with good recruits either this year or in the future. • Attend high school coaches meetings. Be a member of the high school organizations. Ask them what your university can do
26
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
to help them out. Invite them to attend your college meets. • Speak at high school clinics. If you aren’t asked to speak, attend them as a participant. In doing so you will learn and also give others the realization that you are not too “big” to learn. The track and field culture is very much against a person who is “living beyond their raising.” Keep in mind that if you speak at a high school banquet it cannot be during a dead period and cannot include a recruiting presentation. • Volunteer at large high school meets. You are allowed to be an official but not an announcer at high school meets per NCAA rules. Your presence will do wonders for your reputation and will also enhance your ability to recruit. If all of these suggestions appear to be too much to handle, plan on doing one per year which is still one more than many coaches do. After several years you will discover what is possible and also what you enjoy. Any time taken from your primary job appears at first to be time poorly spent, but upon further review you will discover that you have enriched your life by reaching out to others. Just as the best athlete cannot be contained in just one sport or one event, the top coaches cannot be defined by just fulfilling their job description and nothing more. By putting their athletes first, all coaches will discover they are not only better coaches but will live a much fuller coaching life. Most of all, it will be more fun.
Bio Bill Schnier has been the Head Track and Field Coach at the University of Cincinnati for over 30 years. During his tenure, the program has produced more than 130 individual conference champions and he has been named Conference Coach of the Year 15 times.
utep athletics PHOTO
The 200m Athlete
Team Contributions and Event Phases by leo a. settle
30
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
V
aluable athletes on the team who can contribute to the championship season are important for every program. Every season, athletes’ training cycles are strategically designed to peak at the right moment to optimize team scoring. At the championships, a skilled jumper, a technically sound thrower, and a talented endurance runner can successfully compete in multiple events. This holds true for the properly trained the 200-meter sprinter as well, who could potentially contribute in as many as four events at a championship meet. To date, there is an enormous amount of literature and training methodologies for acceleration, maximum velocity, and the 400-meter sprinter. Despite the multitude of sprint studies and articles, there is a lack of literature specifically for the 200-meter sprinter. The purpose of this article is to describe the phases of the 200 meters and provide recommendations for future development of the event. Training the 200-meter athlete is not a complex procedure. It is accomplished through a series of developmental training distances carefully arranged in a progression so as to facilitate phases and components needed for the event. The 200-meter sprinter must combine the basic speed of the 100-meter sprinter and speed endurance of the 400-meter sprinter to optimize their performance. The 200-meter athlete can successfully contribute to the 4x100meter and 4x400-meter relays when they are proficient at combining the 100-meter and 400-meter training attributes. Interestingly, at a championship meet they can be the favorable choice for both relays, a finalist for the 100 meters or 400 meters as well as their own discipline. Athletes that are primarily the 100-meter or 400-meter runners may face challenges as a duel relay member. The raw speed of the 100-meter specialist is paramount for the 4x100 meters, but some athletes display speed endurance deficiency for the 4x400-meter relay. The speed endurance of the 400m specialist is paramount for the 4x400-meter relay, but the raw speed deficiency potentially increases their risk for injuries when competing at the shorter distance.
utep athletics PHOTO
Versatile 200 Meter Athletes Michael Johnson, Usain Bolt, and Allyson Felix have proven to be versatile with their success in the 100/200/400 meters and relays. Baylor recruited Michael Johnson for his 200-meter high school times. Amerman (2004) quoted Michael Johnson discussing high school, “I ran the 200 and both relays (4x100 meters and 4x400 meters).� As a senior, Johnson won the district title in the 200 meters but lost at the state meet. During his 1988 year at Baylor, he ran 20.07 seconds in the 200 meters
may 2013
techniques
31
utep athletics PHO TO
the 200 meter athlete
two years before he broke the 45 seconds barrier. Johnson did a rare showing in the 100 meters during 1994 and finished 10.08 seconds. At the 1996 Olympic Games, he broke the 200 meters world record and several years later the 400 meters world record. He is currently recognized as one of the greatest 200/400 runners. Usain Bolt’s 100 meters and 400 meters improved after breaking the 20 seconds barrier in the 200 meters. In 2004, he broke 20 seconds, three years before his first 100 meters race, and four years prior to breaking the 10 seconds barrier with a 9.69 seconds world record. Bolt’s personal best of 45.28 seconds in the 400 meters was three years after running under 20 seconds. In 2003, Allison Felix earned the title “High School Athlete of the Year” by Track and Field News Magazine for her 200-meter
accomplishments. In June 2012 at the USA Olympics Trials, she recorded a 200-meter personal best of 21.69 seconds. Two months later, her personal best of 10.89 seconds in the 100 meters and 400 meters of 49.59 seconds followed her half lap personal record. At the 2012 Olympics games, she won three gold medals for the 200 meters and both relays. Johnson, Bolt and Felix are supportive examples of 200meter athletes who can respectively compete in both relays. Interestingly, a few 100-meter sprinters did well in other events. Tyson Gay, who holds the USA 100-meter record, produced a 2009 world class 200 meters time of 19.58 seconds, and 2010 world class 400m of 44.89 seconds. Gay is one of the few 100m specialists with a 44 seconds performance.
IAAF Men 200 Meters Historical Recognized Highlights World Record 19.19 Usain Bolt (JAM) 2009 First under 19.50 seconds 19.32 Michael Johnson (USA) 1996 First under 20.0 seconds 19.83 Tommie Smith (USA) 1968 First under 20.5 seconds 20.4 Henry Carr (USA) 1963 First under 21.0 seconds 20.7 Jesse Owens (USA) 1936 IAAF Women 200 Meters Historical Recognized Highlights World Record 21.34 Florence Griffith Joyner (USA) 1988 First under 22.0 seconds 21.71 Marita Koch (GDR) 1979 First under 23.0 seconds 22.9 Wilma Rudolph (USA) 1960 First under 24.0 seconds 23.6 Stanislawa Walasiewicz (POL) 1935
32
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
the 200-meter athlete 200-meter Phases For the purpose of this article, the 200 meter event will be divided into six phases. The phases are: • start/acceleration • transition • sub-maximum velocity • floating phase • speed endurance • deceleration Each component is important. The prescribed training and running mechanics can overlap somewhat. The suggested arbitrary distances for each phase are for references, modification is acceptable.
through the head. The ground contact of the first step should be on the forefoot and striking directly or slightly behind the center of gravity of the hips for maximal force. Strength is contributable to an effective acceleration phase. Some athletes are often concerned about trying to have quick feet. The quick feet action is detrimental to great acceleration. Acceleration effectiveness happens when the ground contact is forceful, slightly behind the center of gravity (hips), and ground contract time is from longest to shortest throughout the acceleration phase. The ankle should remain in dorsiflexed position during ground contract, which will support an optimal position for greater force. The athlete’s body alignment angle to the ground will gradually increase as they progress through the acceleration phase.
Into the Curve Start/Acceleration Transition
0-30 meters (Push from the blocks and apply force to ground) 30-40 meters (Gradually rise to an up-right position)
Out of the Curve Sub-Maximum Velocity Floating Phase
40-80 meters (Sub Maximum Speed about 95-97%) 80-110 meters (Run fast effortlessly)
Home Stretch Maintenance Speed Endurance 110-150m (Sustain speed endurance and to gain position) Deceleration Phase 150-200m (Sustain speed endurance and decelerate the least amount)
Into the Curve The main purpose of start/acceleration is to overcome inertia and effectively attain speed in a powerful, efficient way. Coaches practice many different training methodologies for the start/acceleration phase. Some common methods used to enhance acceleration are short measured hill runs, sled pulls, vest running, harness belts, hurdle hops to sprint run, falling starts and starts from the blocks. Guthrie’s (2003) suggested positioning in the starting blocks: • Both hands with all fingers on the surface with thumb and forefingers creating a bridge position • Right hand on the line and left hand 3-4 inches behind the line • Arms perpendicular with the surface with shoulder directly above • Head in neutral position • Lead leg knee 1-3 inches from the start line • Recovery leg knee 1-3 inches from the lead leg foot contact on the ground • On the set position, the hips rise up with both feet pressing the pads and shoulders minimizing forward lean. The lead leg should be around 90 degrees and the recovery leg should be around 120 degrees. Acceleration commences after the start gun signal. The athlete’s lead leg powerfully applies force against the blocks while the recovery legs swings simultaneously with the opposite arm. Guthrie (2003) stated after block clearance, the athlete should continue to drive forward from a 45-degree angle, plotted from the ground, through the ankle to the knees joint, hips, and then
34
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
The transitional phase is when the athlete’s body drive angle significantly increases from a few degrees to erect position. The horizontal ground contact develops to vertical as the ground contact time shortens. The athlete’s acceleration is near peak as they prepare for sub-maximal speed. The transitional phase should happen naturally without any compromising jerks. When running the curve phases, the body will experience centripetal force that makes it difficult to hug the line. Doscher (2009) describes the feeling of the body pulled to the outer lanes; in reality, it is the normal tendency for the body to continue moving in a straight line. The body is resisting our efforts to keep forcing it to the left. The left shoulder should slightly turn inward toward the curve for efficiency curve running.
Out of the Curve The sub-maximum velocity and floating phases are the fastest part of the event. The speed from the 100-meter training will contribute to these areas. When executed properly, the athlete will have reserve energy, decelerate the least, and appear to have faster velocity in the home stretch. Usually, race positioning is set up in these areas. Success in the 200 meters does not require maximum speed effort in any part of the race. The success comes from efficient running, reaching near max speed, and the ability to tolerate speed endurance fatigue. Spencer et al’s (2005), research suggest that one’s muscular physiology limitation is performing at maximum velocity for 6-8 seconds. The sub-maximal phase is on the second half of the curve where athletes are experiencing less centripetal force. The
shoulder will have less of an inward lean and the head positioning should remain in neutral position. The recommended exertion effort is around 95 percent of maximum speed. This will allow the athlete to have sufficient energy for the remainder of the event and reduce injuries. The floating phase is when the athlete is effortlessly maintaining speed from the established sub-maximal speed. The speed is sustainable due to the previous near max speed and not “flooring the gas pedal.” The emphasis is on preparing the body to sling shot off the curve into the home stretch. Arguably, many injuries happen in this area due to athletes’ constant pushing and over stressing the hamstrings.
Developmental Training Distance Prospective sprinters who have a good tolerance to speed and special endurance I & II training are good candidates for the 200 meters as their primary event. These individuals may significantly contribute to both relays and have the 100m or 400m as a secondary event. Training the 200 meter athlete is not a complex procedure, but is accomplished through a series of developmental training distances carefully arranged in a progression so as to facilitate phases and components needed for the event. According to Mc Farlane (2000), the following distances and intensities are for developing acceleration, maximum velocity, speed endurance, special endurance I, and special endurance II.
Home Stretch Maintenance
The home stretch in the 200 meters challenges the athlete’s speed endurance. After the body is slingshot off the 0-30m @ 90-100% Acceleration curve, sufficient 400-meter strength training will contrib30-60m @ 90-100% Maximum Velocity (Raw Speed) ute to the home stretch speed endurance. The athlete will 80-150m @ 85-100% Speed Endurance be in trouble if efficiency into and out of the curve was 150-300m @ 85-100% Special Endurance I (100 & 200 meter Runner) not executed. Running the first 100 meters at 100 percent 300-600m @ 85-100% Special Endurance II (400m Runners) is detrimental to the adenosine triphosphate and fast twitch muscle energy reserves (Spencer et al., 2005). The speed endurance phase mechanics will resemble a 100-meter sprinter. The foot remains dorsal flex, ground conThrough careful planning and execution of that plan, the 200 tact at the ball of the foot, the recovery leg stepping over the meter runner can be a significant contributor to your track and opposite leg calf, hips high and squared forward, and the body field program. Having the ability to not only compete at a high will have a slight forward lean. The arms back swing should level in their specialty, the 200 meters, but also contribute to be hand slightly behind hips and elbows flexed at 90 to 110 both the long and short relays as well as the other sprint races degrees. The forward swing completion is hand directly in front makes them a valuable piece of the puzzle. of the face and elbows at 80 to 90 degrees. The illusion of some athletes running faster in the deceleraReferences tion phase is the effect of them decelerating the least. Fatigue is Allen, D.G. (2004) Skeletal muscle function: Role of the culprit to deceleration. The athlete’s intense energy expenionic changes in fatigue, damage and disease. Clinical and diture during the first 150 meters causes a variety of changes in Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology, 31 (8) 485-493 the muscle properties. Allen (2004) suggests that fatigue results Amerman, D. (2004) Michael Johnson, Encyclopedia Notable in the accumulation of lactate and lowering of the pH- which Sports Figures. The Gale Group, Inc. Retrieved from: http://www. negatively affects the skeletal muscles excitability. Achieving encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3407900276.html greater performance, in this component, will rely on executing Doscher, W. (2009) The Art of Sprinting: Techniques for Speed proper running mechanics with a rhythmic pattern. and Performance. North Carolina: McFarland & Company Gonzalez, J. (2011) Resistive Training for Speed Development. NSCA Performance Training Journal, 10 (4) 7-8 Guthrie, M. (2003) Coaching Track & Field Successfully. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics Mc Farlane, B. (2000) The Science of Hurdling and Speed 4th Edition. Ottawa, Ontario: The Canadian Track and Field Association Spencer, M., Bishop., Dawson. B., and Goodman, C. (2005) Physiological and Metabolic Responses of Repeated-Sprint Activities. Sports Medicine 3335 (12), 1025-1044.
Bio
utep ath letic s PHOTO
Leo Settle is an assistant Track and Field coach at the University of Texas-El Paso overseeing the Men’s Sprints, Hurdles, Relays and Jumps for the Miners.
may 2013
techniques
35
pacing strategies
For Distance Events in 2012 U.S. Olympic Track and Field Trials Molly Hirt & Dr. Phil Henson
36
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
kirby l ee PHOTO
E
very four years before the summer Olympics, the U.S. holds an Olympic Trials track and field meet to determine the U.S. Olympic team. Athletes who have met the U.S. Olympic Trials “automatic” standard within the prescribed time period are qualified to participate in the Olympic Trials. Additional verified entries from the rank-ordered list of those who have qualified with the Olympic Trials “provisional” standard are invited to participate, only to the extent that the indicated field size has not been filled by those with the “automatic” standard (USATF, 2012). The top three athletes in each event who have the Olympic “automatic” standard (note: this is often faster than the U.S. Olympic Trials “automatic” standard) qualify for the U.S. Olympic team (USATF, 2012). Therefore, the three athletes who compete in the Olympic Games may not be the top three finishers at the Olympic Trials. If one of the top three finishers does not meet the Olympic “automatic” standard prior to the Olympic Trials or during the Olympic Trials, another member of the field who already has achieved the Olympic “automatic” standard is named to the team instead. In many large meets, a rabbit will be present for the beginning of distance races to help make the pace of the race quick without requiring the contending athletes to lead the whole race. However, in the U.S. Olympic trials, rabbits are not allowed. This can make pacing strategies for the Olympic Trials interesting, especially since some athletes who already have the Olympic “automatic” standard may want to sit back and conserve energy for the final few laps of the race, while other athletes who do not have the Olympic “automatic” standard may try to push the pace early in hopes of finishing in the top three and hitting the qualification mark. The purpose of this article is to examine pacing techniques in both the men’s and women’s distance races (from the 800 meters to the 10,000 meters) in the 2012 U.S. Olympic Track and Field Trials. These races are different from many other championship races because qualification standards have to be met in order to make the Olympic team. Therefore, the question of interest is: are the pacing strategies at the Olympic trials different? Often times, for distance races (above 800 meters) at championship events, the winners negative split the race, running the second half faster than the first. Is that the case in the 2012 U.S. Track and Field Olympic trials? Thiel et al. (2012) claim that, “pacing strategy is an important determinant of success in sports competitions. Athletes have to distribute their ability to provide for muscular adenosine triphosphate (ATP) generation while maintaining an adequate reserve such that the athlete never runs out of energy and faces catastrophic physiological failure before the finish, nor has excess energetic reserves at the end of the competition.” Foster et al. (2009) claim that pacing strategies
may 2013
techniques
37
pacing strategies
Figure 1
Figure 2
middle of the event by increasing the pace, or a long endspurt after a gradual increase in speed at the end of the race (Thiel et al., 2012). In short duration events (<4 minutes), the typical pacing strategy involves a fast start, with power output declining progressively until completion (Tucker & Noakes, 2009). Tucker and Noakes (2009) found that in an 800-meter event, the typical pacing strategy involves a fast first lap, with a significant decrease in speed on the second lap. This type of pacing strategy was seen in both the women’s and men’s 800-meter races at the U.S. Olympic trials. Interestingly, in the women’s 800-meter race, many of the women competing in the final already had the Olympic “automatic” qualifier before the finals. Therefore, many of the women were racing in order to place in the top three, not necessarily for time. Alysia Montano, Geena Gall, and Alice Schmidt finished 1-3 in the finals and qualified for the U.S. team at the London Olympics.
Figure 1: Speed vs. distance of the winner of the women’s 800-meter final at the U.S. Olympic trials. The winner positive split the second half of the race. In the men’s 800-meter race, the competitors employed the typical positive splitting pacing strategy. The top three finishers all had the “automatic” Olympic standard before the race and ran faster than the standard during the race. Nicholas Symmonds, Khadevis Robinson, and Duane Solomon Jr. finished 1-3 and each qualified for the London Olympics.
are based on extensive experience gained during training and previous competitions. Tucker et al. (2006) state that the “best race” strategy in the 800 meters is small but progressive slowing. In the 1500- to 10,000-meter track races, the “best race” strategy has been described as even pacing with an endspurt (Tucker et al., 2006). In championship races, since finishing place is a more important outcome than finishing time, the top runners might run with a slower pace with varied tactics, and variations in pace can vary with the overall pace of the race (Thiel et al., 2012). Since the U.S. Olympic trials is a championship race, but there are also Olympic standards that have to be met, the pacing strategies may be slightly different than typical championship races. Thiel et al. (2012) have found that lap splits in world record performances suggest smooth and slow transitions of speed. However, in Olympic finals races, Thiel et al. (2012) found “microvariation” was seen and likely represents the complex regulation necessary to balance runners’ efforts to keep their pace at the desired level despite growing fatigue, while avoiding a physiologically catastrophic event. Thiel et al. (2012) describe three different winning strategies used in distance races: a continuously high speed throughout the race, a “break away” in the 38
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
Figure 2: Speed vs. distance of the winner of the men’s 800-meter final at the U.S. Olympic trials. The winner positive split the second half of the race. In many championship 1500-meter races, the common racing tactic is a sit-and-kick approach. This is because in the 1500-meter race, the competitors are faced with conflicting demands: start fast to allow the achievement of VO2 max and limit the participation of the anaerobic system in the intermediate part of the race, while the same fast departure increases the participation of the anaerobic metabolism in the beginning of the race and could, if too intense and too long, damage the final performance (Hanon et al., 2008). For this reason, many of the competitors in the 1500 meters start out slower and finish faster, so that they do not tap into the anaerobic system too early and risk not having enough energy for the final lap. In the women’s 1500-meter race, the top competitors all had the Olympic “automatic” standard before the Olympic trials. Therefore, the primary tactic of many of these runners was to place themselves in position to cover moves and be ready to respond when the final kick starts. Morgan Uceny, Shannon Rowbury, and Jenny Simpson finished 1-3 to secure their spots on the U.S. team to the Olympics.
pacing strategies
Figure 3
Figure 3: Speed vs. distance of the winner of the women’s 1500-meter final at the U.S. Olympic trials. The winner negative split the second half of the race. In the men’s 1500-meter race, only six competitors had the Olympic “automatic” standard going into the finals. Therefore, the pace went out fairly fast in the beginning, because some of the athletes without the “automatic” standard wanted to try to finish in the top three and hit the standard. However, as is typical in many championship 1500-meter races, the pace slowed during the middle and the fastest lap of the race was the final lap. Leonel Manzano, Matthew Centrowitz, and Andrew Wheating finished 1-3 and qualified for the U.S. team at the London Olympics.
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 4: Speed vs. distance of the winner of the men’s 1500-meter final at the U.S. Olympic trials. The winner negative split the second half of the race. The 3000-meter steeplechase is a particularly difficult race since the competitors not only have to race 3000m, but they also have to jump over barriers and a water jump. Therefore, strength and energy conservation are critical for success in this race. Tucker and Noakes (2009) state that, “substrate availability is often implicated as a limiting factor during exercise performance. Volitional fatigue during exercise at a constant workload is often thought to coincide with muscle or liver glycogen depletion.” Pacing is important in a difficult distance race such as the 3000-meter steeplechase in order to prevent catastrophic fatigue. In the women’s 3-kilometer steeplechase, the top three finishers all hit the Olympic “automatic” standard during the finals. The pacing of the leader during in the women’s 3-kilometer steeplechase started out fast and slowed down as the race progressed. The third place finisher, Shalaya Kipp, did not have the Olympic “automatic” standard going into the finals. However, since she hit the Olympic “automatic” standard in the final and finish third, she secured her trip to the London Olympics.
Figure 5: Speed vs. distance of the winner of the women’s 3000-meter steeplechase final at the U.S. Olympic trials. The winner positive split the second half of the race.
40
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
Unlike the women’s 3-kilometer steeplechase, the men’s 3-kilometer steep negative split the second half of the race. Many of the men in the final already had the Olympic “automatic” standard going into the U.S. Olympic trials. Therefore, the race was more tactical, and many of the competitors were running for place and to conserve energy rather than run a fast race. Evan Jager, Donald Cabral, and Kyle Alcorn finished 1-3, all running the Olympic “automatic” standard in the finals (which they all had prior to the race) in order to qualify them for the London Olympics.
Figure 6
Figure 6: Speed vs. distance of the winner of the men’s 3000-meter steeplechase final at the U.S. Olympic trials. The winner negative split the second half of the race. In the women’s 5-kilometer race, many of the top contenders had the Olympic “automatic” standard going into the finals. The race began as a fairly tactical race, but with approximately 1 kilometer to go, Julia Lucas, who already had the Olympic “automatic” standard, started to increase the pace. Tucker and Noakes (2008) claim that exercise work rate typically increases significantly at the end of longer duration exercise bouts. However, in the case of Lucas, she started to increase her work rate too early in the race and ended up having a ‘catastrophic’ event in the last 400m of the race. She got passed by the top two finishers, and then at the very end was beaten out by Kim Conley, who finished third and ran a time under the Olympic “automatic” standard (which she didn’t have prior to the 5-kilometer finals). Therefore, the U.S. Olympic team for the women’s 5-kilometer was Julie Culley, Molly Huddle, and Kim Conley, with Julia Lucas barely missing out on qualifying for the Olympic team.
Figure 7: Speed vs. distance of the winner of the women’s 5000-meter final at the U.S. Olympic trials. The winner negative split the second half of the race.
Figure 7
Figure 8
In the men’s 5-kilometer race, Bernard Lagat, Galen Rupp, and Lopez Lomong were the favorites, and each of them had the Olympic “automatic” standard prior to the finals of the 5-kilometer. Therefore, the pacing strategy of this race was similar to many championship races, such that the race started out at a slower race and then increased over time, with the last lap as the fastest lap of the entire race. Galen Rupp outkicked Bernard Lagat to win the 5-kilometer, followed by Lopez Lomong. All three qualified for the London Olympics.
Figure 8: Speed vs. distance of the winner of the men’s 5000-meter final at the U.S. Olympic trials. The winner negative split the second half of the race.
may 2013
techniques
41
pacing strategies
Figure 9
Figure 10
When competing in a race, long endurance races such as the 10 kilometers, appropriate distribution of energetic resources is critical. Billat et al. (2006) compared subjects who raced a 10-kilometer event at a free pace throughout versus subjects who raced at a constant-pace. The results of their study showed that the larger degree of pace variation in the free paced races may be a strategy to minimize the physiological strain during severe exercise and prevent premature termination of effort (Billat et al., 2006). At the 2012 U.S. Olympic trials, the winner of the women’s 10 kilometers ran at varying speeds throughout the race (Figure 9). However, as the race progressed, the speed was increased, such that the second half of the race was faster than the first half. This strategy was likely employed to ensure that a ‘catastrophic’ event, where there is a significant decrease in pace for an athlete due to exhaustion, did not occur during the race. In the end, Amy Hastings outkicked collegian Natosha Rogers and Olympic bronze medalist Shalane Flanagan to win the race. Since Rogers did not already have the Olympic “automatic” standard and did not eclipse that standard in this race, the fourth place finisher, Lisa Uhl (who had the “automatic” 42
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
Olympic standard) qualified for the London Olympics, along with Hastings and Flanagan (USATF, 2012).
Figure 9: Speed vs. distance of the winner of the women’s 10,000-meters final at the U.S. Olympic trials. The winner negative split the second half of the race. The men’s 10 kilometers was a different scenario than the women’s race. Galen Rupp was the clear favorite. He already had the “automatic” Olympic standard. His role in this race was to help his teammate, Dathan Ritzenhein, finish in the top three and hit the “automatic” Olympic standard, since he did not have it prior to the Trials. Therefore, Rupp controlled the pace from the beginning to make it an even paced race that would be fast enough to help Ritzenhein qualify for the team to London. In the end, Galen Rupp, Matt Tegenkamp, and Dathan Ritzenhein finished 1-3 and all ran the “automatic” Olympic qualifier time to secure their spots at the London Olympics.
Figure 10: Speed vs. distance of the winner of the men’s 10,000-meter final at the U.S. Olympic trials. The winner negative split the second half of the race.
kirby lee PHOTO
The pacing strategies of the distance races at the U.S. Olympic trials were similar to many championship races. The men’s and women’s 800-second positive split, which is typical for running events of a shorter duration. The other distance races all negative split, meaning that the pace of the race picked up in the second half, which is typical for longer distance events in championship races. This strategy enables many of the top competitors to conserve their
energy for the end of the race when they need to sprint at the finish. These athletes needed to ensure that they finished in the top three in order to secure a spot on the U.S. Olympic team at the London Olympics. The only exception to this pacing strategy was the women’s 3000m steeplechase, where the competitors positive split the second half of the race. Since few competitors in this race had the Olympic “automatic” standard, it is likely that the race may 2013
techniques
43
kir by lee PHO TO
pacing strategies
started faster to ensure the race was run at a pace that would enable competitors who did not yet have the Olympic “automatic” standard to try to achieve it and finish in the top three. Therefore, the fact that the competitors had to be the top three finishers with the Olympic “automatic” standard did influence the pacing strategies in some of the distances at the U.S. Olympic Trials.
refrences Billat, V.L., Wesfreid E., Kapfer, C., Koralsztein, J.P., Meyer, Y. 2006. Nonlinear Dynamics of Heart Rate and Oxygen Uptake in Exhaustive 10,000m Runs: Influence of Constant vs. Freely Paced. J. Physiol. Science 2006; 56(1): 103-111. Foster, C. Hendrickson, K.J., Peyer, K., Reiner, B., de Koning,
44
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
J.J., Lucia, A. Wright, G. Pattern of developing the performance template. Br. J. Sports Med 2009; 43(10): 765-769. Hanon, C. Leveque, J.M., Thomas, C., Vivier, L. Pacing strategy and VO2 kinetics during a 1500-m race. Int J. of Sports Med 2008; 29: 206-211. Thiel, C., Foster, C., Banzer, W., Koning, J.D. Pacing in Olympic track races: Competitive tactics versus best performance strategy. J of Sports Sci 2012; 30(11): 1107-1115. Tucker, R., Lambert, M.I., Noakes, T.D. An analysis of pacing strategies during men’s world-record performances in track athletics. Int. J. Sports Phys and Perf 2006; 1(3): 233-245. Tucker, R., Noakes, T.D. The physiological regulation of pacing strategy during exercise: a critical review. Br. J. Sports Med 2009; 43(1): 1-9. USATF. Olympic Trials Track and Field 2012 Results. Available online at http:// www.usatf.org/Events--Calendar/2012/U-S--OlympicTeam-Trials-TF/Results.aspx USATF. Qualifying Standards 2012. Available online at http:// www.usatf.org/events/2012/ OlympicGames/entry/qualifyingStandards.asp
BIO Molly Hirt is a graduate of Bloomington North High School (IN), and the University of Notre Dame, where she was an outstanding Middle Distance and cross country runner. She is currently competing in her final year of NCAA eligibility while completing a Masters’ Degree in Applied Sport Science at Indiana University. Phil Henson Ph.D. served as faculty advisor on this article. Dr. Henson is Assistant Professor and Coordinator of Coaching Education in the department of Kinesiology at Indiana University. He was previously an Assistant Track and Field Coach at Indiana, and was the Competition Director for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Games in Atlanta.
USTFCCCA www.mondoworldwide.com
www.gillathletics.com
www.ucsspirit.com
www.beynonsports.com
www.rekortanspurtanadvpolytech.com
www.balfour.com www.coacheschoice.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. 4466
techniques techniques m maayy 22001133
SUPPORTERS www.ucsspirit.com www.mfathletic.com
www.tractionusa.com
www.powerbar.com www.coachesdirectory.com
www.maxmedals.com
www.vsathletics.com
The USTFCCCA strongly encourages each member to purchase products and services from these supporters. m maayy 22001133 techniques techniques
4477
2013 USTFCCCA national indoor COACHES & ATHLETES OF THE YEAR Division I
Chris Bucknam Arkansas Men’s Head COY
Robert Johnson Oregon Women’s Head COY
Travis Geopfert Wayne Pate Arkansas Kansas Men’s Assistant COY Women’s Assistant COY
Lawi Lalang Arizona Men’s Track AOY
Abbey D’Agostino Dartmouth Women’s Track AOY
Derek Drouin Indiana Men’s Field AOY
Andrea Geubelle Kansas Women’s Field AOY
Division Ii
George Williams St. Augustines Men’s Head COY
Charles Ryan Academy of Art Women’s Head COY
Blaine Maag Dennis Newell Grand Valley State University of Mary Men’s Assistant COY Women’s Assistant COY
Drew Windle Ashland Men’s Track AOY
Vashit Thomas Academy of Art Women’s Track AOY
Brent Vogel Central Missouri Men’s Field AOY
Sam Lockhart Grand Valley State Women’s Field AOY
Division Iii
Josh Buchholtz Wisconsin-LaCrosse Men’s Head COY
Ben Dorsey Wisconsin-Oshkosh Women’s Co-Head COY
Eric Schueffner Brian Woodard Drew Ludtke WisconsinMonmouth Wisconsin-Oshkosh Whitewater Women’s Assistant Women’s Co-Head Men’s Assistant COY COY COY
Dan Sullivan Wisconsin-Stevens Point Men’s Track AOY
Christy Cazzola Isaac Vazquez Melissa Norville Wisconsin-Oshkosh Wisconsin-LaCrosse Illinois College Women’s Track AOY Men’s Field AOY Women’s Field AOY
may 2013
techniques
49
DIVISION I 2013 USTFCCCA Regional indoor Coaches & Athletes of the Year great lakes region
Phil Rickaby Alan Turner Kent State Notre Dame Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Jade Barber Notre Dame Women’s Track AOY
Maverick Darling Wisconsin Men’s Track AOY
Felisha Johnson Indiana State Women’s Field AOY
Derek Drouin Indiana Men’s Field AOY
Beth Alford-Sullivan Randy Bungard John Gondak Penn State Penn State Penn State Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Emily Lipari Villanova Women’s Track AOY
Casimir Loxsom Penn State Men’s Track AOY
Thea LaFond Maryland Women’s Field AOY
Damon McLean Princeton Men’s Field AOY
Bill Lawson Kent State Women’s Head COY
Ed Nuttycombe Wisconsin Men’s Head COY
mid atlantic region
Joe Compagni Monmouth Women’s Head COY
midwest region
Tonja Buford-Bailey Illinois Women’s Head COY
Randy Hasenbank Loyola Chicago Men’s Head COY
Wayne Pate Adrian Wheatley Kansas Illinois Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Betsy Saina Iowa State Women’s Track AOY
Chris O’Hare Tulsa Men’s Track AOY
Andrea Geubelle Kansas Women’s Field AOY
Erik Kynard Kansas State Men’s Field AOY
Eric Heins Northern Arizona Men’s Head COY
Juli Benson Scott Steffan Air Force Air Force Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Emma Coburn Colorado Women’s Track AOY
Kennedy Kithuka Texas Tech Men’s Track AOY
Nickevea Wilson UTEP Women’s Field AOY
Mason Finley Wyoming Men’s Field AOY
mountain region
Joe Franklin New Mexico Women’s Head COY
50
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
northeast region
Jason Saretsky Harvard Women’s Head COY
Nathan Taylor Andrea Grove-McDonough James Garnham Cornell Connecticut Buffalo Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Abbey D’Agostino Dartmouth Women’s Track AOY
Eric Jenkins Northeastern Men’s Track AOY
Victoria Flowers Connecticut Women’s Field AOY
Montez Blair Cornell Men’s Field AOY
south region
Caryl Smith Gilbert UCF Women’s Head COY
Andy Eggerth Kennesaw State Men’s Head COY
Karen Harvey Ken Harnden Florida State Florida State Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Aurieyall Scott UCF Women’s Track AOY
Eddie Lovett Florida Men’s Track AOY
Lucie Ondraschkova Georgia Women’s Field AOY
Marquis Dendy Florida Men’s Field AOY
south central region
Lance Harter Arkansas Women’s Head COY
Chris Bucknam Arkansas Men’s Head COY
Chris Johnson Travis Geopfert Arkansas Arkansas Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Regina George Arkansas Women’s Track AOY
Deon Lendore Texas A&M Men’s Track AOY
Makeba Alcide Arkansas Women’s Field AOY
Tarik Batchelor Arkansas Men’s Field AOY
southeast region
Shawn Cobey Clemson Women’s Head COY
Dave Cianelli Virginia Tech Men’s Head COY
Tim Hall Ben Thomas Clemson Virginia Tech Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Brianna Rollins Clemson Women’s Track AOY
Ryan Hill NC State Men’s Track AOY
Karimah Shepherd NC State Women’s Field AOY
Alexander Ziegler Virginia Tech Men’s Field AOY
west region
Shelia Burrell San Diego State Women’s Head COY
Greg Kraft Arizona State Men’s Head COY
Maurica Powell David Dumble Oregon Arizona State Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Phyllis Francis Oregon Women’s Track AOY
Lawi Lalang Arizona Men’s Track AOY
Shanieka Thomas San Diego State Women’s Field AOY
Jeremy Taiwo Washington Men’s Field AOY
may 2013
techniques
51
DIVISION II 2013 USTFCCCA Regional indoor atlantic region
Lennox Graham Johnson C. Smith Women’s Head COY
George Williams Saint Augustine’s Men’s Head COY
Anne Carleson Steve Spence Edinboro Shippensburg Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Katrina Spratford Shippensburg Women’s Track AOY
Dane Hyatt Saint Augustine’s Men’s Track AOY
Tabitha Bemis Edinboro Women’s Field AOY
Cameron Daugherty Slippery Rock Men’s Field AOY
Mark Schuck Minnesota State Men’s Head COY
Dennis Newell University of Mary Women’s Assistant COY
Kevin Sanger Minnesota State Men’s Assistant COY
Melissa Agnew University of Mary Women’s Track AOY
Derek Bredy MSU Moorhead Men’s Track AOY
Erin Alewine Central Missouri Women’s Field AOY
Brent Vogel Central Missouri Men’s Field AOY
Karen Boen Stonehill Men’s Head COY
Mike Ekstrand William Sutherland UMass Lowell Southern Connecticut Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Ada Udaya New Haven Women’s Track AOY
David Thomas New Haven Men’s Track AOY
Scott Fangman Indianapolis Men’s Head COY
Kris Horton Bellarmine Women’s Assistant COY
Anna Rudd Ferris State Women’s Track AOY
Drew Windle Ashland Men’s Track AOY
central region
Victor Thomas Lincoln Women’s Head COY
east region
Gary Gardner UMass Lowell Women’s Head COY
Antoinette Toussaint Nick Lebron UMass Lowell Southern Connecticut Women’s Field AOY Men’s Field AOY
midwest region
Jerry Baltes Grand Valley State Women’s Head COY
52
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
Blaine Maag Grand Valley State Men’s Assistant COY
Sam Lockhart Grand Valley State Women’s Field AOY
Joseph Postwaite Lake Erie Men’s Field AOY
Coaches & Athletes of the Year DIVISION II south region
Frank Hyland Benedict Women’s Head COY
David Cain Alabama-Huntsville Men’s Head COY
Soyini Thompson Alabama-Huntsville Men’s Assistant COY Women’s Assistant COY
Kedeshia Simpson Alabama-Huntsville Women’s Track AOY
Deon Clifford Benedict Men’s Track AOY
Krishanda CampbellBrown Benedict Women’s Field AOY
Devin Jones Alabama-Huntsville Men’s Field AOY
south central region
Bob DeVries New Mexico Highlands Women’s Head COY
Damon Martin Adams State Men’s Head COY
Tom Dibbern Jerrod Cook Angelo State Abilene Christian Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Alicia Nelson Adams State Women’s Track AOY
Tabor Stevens Adams State Men’s Track AOY
Barbara Szabo Western State Women’s Field AOY
Jordan Yamoah Texas A&M-Kingsville Men’s Field AOY
southeast region
Peter Dalton King College Women’s Head COY
Cameron Babb Limestone Men’s Head COY
Clive Caesar Clayton State Women’s Assistant COY
Amanda DavisWilliamson King College Men’s Assistant COY
Hannah Witt King College Women’s Track AOY
Ayrton Azcue Clayton State Men’s Track AOY
Jessica Matthews Clayton State Women’s Field AOY
Evan Webb Lees-McRae Men’s Field AOY
west region
Michael Friess Alaska Anchorage Women’s Head COY
Pee Wee Halsell Chris Riggs Bruce Frankie Western Washington Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Vashti Thomas Academy of Art Women’s Track AOY
Micah Chelimo Alaska Anchorage Men’s Track AOY
Becki Duhamel Central Washington Women’s Field AOY
Johnny Carter Academy of Art Men’s Field AOY
may 2013
techniques
53
DIVISION IIi 2013 USTFCCCA Regional indoor Coaches atlantic region
Mike Jackson Ramapo College Women’s Head COY
Matt LoPiccolo SUNY Oneonto Men’s Head COY
Branko Miric Ramapo College Women’s Assistant COY
Marques Dexter SUNY Cortland Men’s Assistant COY
Sasha Henry Buffalo State Women’s Track AOY
Thierry Diessongo CCNY Men’s Track AOY
Michelle Favre Ramapo College Women’s Field AOY
Spencer Lefort SUNY Fredonia Men’s Field AOY
Steve Mathre St. Thomas Men’s Head COY
Drew Jones Hamline Women’s Assistant COY
Erik Diley St. Thomas Men’s Assistant COY
Taylor Berg St. Thomas Women’s Track AOY
Brian Saksa St. Olaf Men’s Track AOY
Kayla Hemann Wartburg Women’s Field AOY
Maxwell Dunne St. Thomas Men’s Field AOY
Clyde Morgan Wabash Men’s Head COY
Brian Diemer Calvin Women’s Assistant COY
Mike Schober Mount Union Men’s Assistant COY
Mary Mahoney Mount Union Women’s Track AOY
Ethan Freet Ohio Wesleyan Men’s Track AOY
Elizabeth Evans Rose Hulman Women’s Field AOY
Tom Postema Defiance Men’s Field AOY
Tom Donnelly Haverford Men’s Head COY
Ben Serfass Gwynedd Mercy Women’s Assistant COY
Kevin Clark Gwynedd-Mercy Men’s Assistant COY
Hannah Oneda Johns Hopkins Women’s Track AOY
Chris Stadler Haverford Men’s Track AOY
Chelsea Tavik Salisbury Women’s Field AOY
Justin Turner Mercy Men’s Field AOY
central region
Marcus Newsom Wartbur Women’s Head COY
great lakes region
Kevin Lucas Mount Union Women’s Head COY
mideast region
Bobby Van Allen Johns Hopkins Women’s Head COY
54
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
aches & Athletes of the Year DIVISION IiI midwest region
Kari Kluckhohn North Central Women’s Head COY
Josh Buchholtz UW LaCrosse Men’s Head COY
Brian Woodard Monmouth Women’s Assistant COY
Ed Schueffner UW Whitewater Men’s Assistant 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
Isaac Vazquez UW LaCrosse Men’s Field AOY
new england region
Kristen Morwick Tufts Women’s Head COY
TJ Smith Bridgewater State Men’s Head COY
Lisa Wallin Todd Goewey Tufts Bates Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Sarah Quinn MIT Women’s Track AOY
James LePage Bates Men’s Track AOY
Tanasia Hoffler Williams Women’s Field AOY
David Pless Bates Men’s Field AOY
south/southeast region
John Curtin Emory Women’s Head COY
Tyler Wingard Aaron Campbell Christopher Newport Emory Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY
Brian Flynn Bridgewater Men’s Assistant COY
Carmen Graves Roanoke Women’s Track AOY
Robert Willett Birmingham Southern Men’s Track AOY
Theresa Ford Emory Women’s Field AOY
Dominique Torres Christopher Newport Men’s Field AOY
west region
John Smith George Fox Women’s Head COY
Toby Schwarz Whitworth Men’s Head COY
Joey VanHoomissen Doug Beatty Whitworth George Fox Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Jonathan Padron Occidental Men’s Track AOY
Emily Wyatt George Fox Women’s Field AOY Women’s Track AOY
Carter Comito Whitworth Men’s Field AOY
may 2013
techniques
55
Updates from the NCAA Eligibility Center by leigh ann kennedy
S
ummer is right around the corner, and it is important to stay informed on what college-bound student-athletes should do in high school to ensure a smooth certification process before attending an NCAA Division I or II institution. The NCAA’s outreach and education efforts related to initial-eligibility requirements are in full swing. These efforts focus on both Division I requirements for prospective student-athletes enrolling on or after August 1, 2016, and Division II prospective student-athletes enrolling on or after August 1, 2013. The following materials, which have been made available to high school and non-scholastic athletic communities, may also be valuable to you and your colleagues. Please refer to www. eligibilitycenter.org, or our new outreach site, www.2point3.org for even more information. • Guide for the College-Bound Student-Athlete: The guide is a highly comprehensive tool, that has been designed to help you understand the NCAA initial-eligibility process and to prepare student-athletes for transitioning from high school to becoming an NCAA Division I or II student-athlete. www.ncaapublications. com/productdownloads/CBSA.pdf • Initial-Eligibility Brochure: A quick guide to the standards and steps that it takes to become an NCAA Division I or II student-athlete. www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/ EB13.pdf • Eligibility Center Quick Reference Sheet: A complete breakdown of the NCAA Divisions I and II initial-eligibility standards. fs.ncaa.org/Docs/eligibility_center/Quick_Reference_Sheet.pdf
56
techniques m a y 2 0 1 3
• New Academic Requirements Document: This document discusses the new academic standards for student-athletes enrolling at a college or university on or after August 1, 2016. fs.ncaa.org/Docs/eligibility_center/Important_New_Rules/New_ IE_Rules.pdf • 2012-13 Your Path to the Student-Athlete Experience Presentation (for Students): A PPT for students and parents to provide insight into our process. fs.ncaa.org/Docs/eligibility_center/Your_Path_Presentation_for_Student-Athletes.pdf • New Academic Standards PowerPoint: fs.ncaa.org/Docs/ eligibility_center/Important_New_Rules/High_School_IE_ Standards.pdf Also, in an effort to continue to spread the word about this important new information, we are pleased to announce that the NCAA’s Initial-Eligibility course available through NFHSLearn.com has been updated with the new academic requirements and is being made available free of charge! Please visit NFHSLearn.com and take 30-45 minutes to complete the Initial Eligibility course. This course will familiarize you and your colleagues with the new academic requirements, as well as the required NCAA Eligibility Center registration and certification process for college-bound student-athletes. For feedback, questions, comments or suggestions for future topics from the NCAA Eligibility Center, please contact Leigh Ann Kennedy at lkennedy@ncaa.org. For more information, visit the NCAA Eligibility Center website at www.eligibilitycenter.org.