Techniques May 2022

Contents Volume 15 Number 4 / May 2022

6

18 26 IN EVERY ISSUE

4

USTFCCCA Presidents

18 Coaching with Cues Effective cue progressions and practices in jumping events

BY BOO SCHEXNAYDER

AWARDS

46 2022 National Indoor Track & Field Athletes and Coaches of the Year

26 High-Velocity Speed Mechanics Techniques and principles for optimal performance

BY MIKE THORSON

FEATURES

6

Super Shoe Science How to maximize the benefits of carbon-fiber technology

BY DR. TIMOTHY J. MOORE

34 Generating Speed Momentum analysis in discus throwing

BY DR. ANDREAS MAHERAS

ON THE COVER: ABDIHAMID NUR OF NORTHERN ARIZONA CAPTURED THE 5000 METER TITLE AT THE 2022 NCAA DIVISION I CHAMPIONSHIP MEET IN BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA PHOTOGRAPH BY KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

MAY 2022 techniques

1

2

techniques MAY 2022

MAY 2022 techniques

3

USTFCCCA PRESIDENT

LEROY BURRELL PUBLISHER Sam Seemes

USTFCCCA President

Leroy Burrell is the Head Men’s and Women’s Cross Country Coach at the University of Houston. Leroy can be reach at leroyburrell@uh.edu

DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS Dave Svoboda DIRECTOR OF MEDIA, BROADCASTING AND ANALYTICS Tom Lewis

DIVISION PRESIDENTS

NCAA DIVISION I

DAVID SHOEHALTER Track & Field

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

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

KEVIN SULLIVAN Cross Country

Kevin Sullivan is the Director of Track and Field and Cross Country at the University of Michigan.

Kevin can be reached at krsully@umich.edu

MEMBERSHIP SERVICES Mary McInnis, Kristina Taylor, Adrian Wilson COMMUNICATIONS Lauren Ellsworth, Tyler Mayforth, Howard Willman PHOTOGRAPHER Kirby Lee

NCAA DIVISION III

NCAA DIVISION II

EDITORIAL BOARD Tommy Badon, Scott Christensen, Todd Lane, Derek Yush

DANA SCHWARTING Track & Field

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

TORREY OLSON Cross Country

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

ART DIRECTOR Tiffani Reding Amedeo

PUBLISHED BY Renaissance Publishing LLC 110 Veterans Memorial Blvd., Suite 123, Metairie, LA 70005

KENNETH COX Track & Field

Kenneth Cox is the Head Cross Country and Track & Field Coach at Birmingham-Southern College. Kenneth can be reached at kcox@bsc.edu

MATTHEW BARREAU Cross Country

Matthew Barreau is the Head Men’s and Women’s Cross Country Coach at Lewis and Clark College. Matthew can be reached at barreau@lclark.edu

(504) 828-1380 myneworleans.com

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

NAIA

MIKE COLLINS Track & Field

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

NJCAA

DEE BROWN Track & Field

4

techniques MAY 2022

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

RYAN SOMMERS Cross Country

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

DON COX Cross Country

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

If you would like to advertise your business in techniques, please contact 504-599-8900 or membership@ustfccca.org.

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

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

MAY 2022 techniques

5

Super Shoe Science How to Maximize the Benefits of Carbon-Fiber Technology

6

techniques MAY 2022

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

O

ver the last few years, you’ve probably heard a lot about a new category of supposed miracle running shoe that is said to be the “must-have” for faster times and huge PRs. That’s why this new piece of gear was a major topic on the minds of coaches and athletes at the recent US Olympic Track and Field Trials and Olympic Games. Even NBC analyst Kara Goucher brought up the rise of carbon-fiber plated Super Shoes by pointing out that one of the competitors in the 5K field had switched shoe sponsors so she could be more competitive with other runners who were sporting these speed weapons. From Karsten Warholm’s record shattering run in the 400 hurdles to Eliud Kipchoge’s eye popping marathon performances, the effect of carbon-fiber plated Super Shoes seemed undeniable. A recent retrospective observational study showed a significant decrease in seasonal best times for elite athletes in the 10 km, half marathon, and marathon races, representing both genders, starting in 2017 (Bermon et al. 2021). Leading the authors to conclude that “adoption of the advanced footwear technology has been identified as a factor contributing to these observed changes.”

So despite some of the controversy surrounding these modern marvels of engineering as “Mechanical Doping,” it’s obvious that Super Shoes are here to stay.

That’s why in late 2020, World Athletics created a list of approved shoes for competition with the guideline that “Any type of shoe used must be reasonably available to all.” Thus, like any new advancement in sports, runners are now scrambling to figure out how to successfully integrate the product into their own personal training programs. Which poses the question: How can the typical runner best take advantage of this unique technology in an effort to improve their overall performance?

IMPORTANT STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS “The research suggests that the energy savings of a Super Shoe come from two things, the foam and carbon-fiber plate sandwiched in the midsole,” says Dr. Jae Kun Shim Professor of Biomechanics at the University of Maryland. During his impressive career, Shim has consulted with numerous Olympic Champions and conducted scientific studies for top companies on technology that helps improve running economy and efficiency. Shim theorizes that the compliant foams such as polyether block amide (PEBA) used in Super Shoes helps “absorb the energy a runner produces

on impact, while returning a portion of that energy into a runner’s stride through propulsive force generated in the gastrocsoleus complex.” In turn, all of this extra momentum can increase a runner’s stride length by traveling more distance in the air. In addition, while many people tend to think of the carbon-fiber plates used in Super Shoes as a spring, Shim says it actually “functions more like a lever at the ankle as it hinges while propelling the body forward.”

Ultimately, the effect from the plate helps improve a runner’s ankle mechanics by reducing work at the joint, thereby modifying the load on your calf muscles. A recent study by Nigg et al. published in the May 2021 edition of the British Journal of Sports Medicine describes a Teeter-Totter Effect, which is created by the increased midsole thickness, or “stack height,” that is then accentuated by the curved carbon plate in a Super Shoe.

Nigg hypothesized, “to maximally improve performance with the curved carbon-fiber plate requires three main characteristics”: 1. The stiffness of the curved plate must be so that the resultant ground reaction force moves far enough anteriorly during the stance phase of running.

2. The pivot point (where the teeter-totter effect takes place) should not be located too far anteriorly, allowing the shoe sole to act as a fulcrum.

3. The curvature in the forefoot of the shoe sole must be substantial, but not too extreme, to allow for the desired teetertotter effect.

Thus, “if the curvature of the plate is designed correctly, the teeter-totter effect will result in a force during push-off that acts at the right location (heel of the foot), at the right time (during take-off) and with the right frequency (depending on the running velocity and the ground contact time somewhere between 2 and 4 Hz).” This heel force likely contributes substantially to the improvement in running economy.

Ultimately, experts believe that a longer stride length is initiated at the hip from a wider arc of motion, while cadence runners will have a smaller stride length and higher turnover. Thus, they tend to rely more on the calf musculature for generating torque at the ankle. In the end, increasing stride length has been observed to be more efficient than increasing stride frequency for most runners by devoting less energy to leg acceleration (Mooses et al. 2015).

That’s because running economy is highly influenced by anatomical and biomechani-

MAY 2022 techniques

7

SUPER SHOE SCIENCE

maximize performance in different runners, along with other important personal characteristics that influence overall performance such as core and hip stability, muscle fiber type, ankle and foot structure, body weight and their current fitness level.

In addition, female athletes appear to benefit more than males from carbon-fiber plated Super Shoe technology. This advantage is thought to be derived from a greater fatigue resistance, increased substrate efficiency, and lower energetic demands during endurance events (Hunter, 2016; Tiller et al., 2021). A lower body mass and smaller shoe size could also provide a possible explanation for the gender difference. This is due to a smaller shoe size being associated with a shorter but stiffer carbon-fiber plate (Hoogkamer et al., 2017), along with a higher midsole thickness and optimal body mass ratio that facilitates a larger percentage of energy return in female runners (Hoogkamer et al., 2018). Therefore, Shim states that the main takeaway for any runner who wants to unleash the potential energy stored in a Super Shoe would involve “training the ability of the body to effectively utilize the ‘rebound effect’ created by the integrated midsole system.” cal differences. For example, an increased effective lower-limb length due to a greater stack height will enhance economy when body mass is maintained. In addition to the improvements in running economy that are seen by altering leg length, a greater stack height also provides an increased space within the shoe for more elastic energy to be stored and released during every foot strike. While stack height is ultimately scaled according to the corresponding shoe size, this is not always linear in nature and provides shorter athletes with a disproportionally larger increase in lower leg length, which has been suggested to be a beneficial contributor to running economy.

Although the precise mechanisms are not clear, longer and thinner legs also seem to contribute to a greater moment of inertia, and therefore, a reduction in the muscular demand required to move the legs forward.

This theory is based on a biomechanical model (i.e., the LiMb model; Pontzer 2007) linking limb length to the energy costs of locomotion. When predicting running performance, this model calculates the rate of muscular force production during running from effective limb length, the excursion angle of the limb during the stance phase, 8

techniques MAY 2022

as well as the swinging of the limb forward.

To predict the cost of leg-swing, the LiMb model treats the limb as a pendulum with a radius of gyration. In addition, the LiMb model views the leg as a strut with length (L) that has a constant point of foot–ground contact during the stance phase. Plus, humans strike the ground with the heel but leave the ground from the toe, and this forward shift of the point of foot–ground contact effectively increases the length of the limb.

In the end, Shim stresses that an athlete would need to train with a Super Shoe before competitions to adequately benefit from this advanced technology. However, he adds that “it is not clear if everyone will see the same results since each individual has their own unique style, which most importantly includes the ability of a runner to properly utilize the energy return properties of the shoe.” Along those lines, large differences have been noted in overall performance, with some runners experiencing little to no improvements in running economy and others showing up to 6% or more in efficiency. This wide range of response seems to depend on foot-strike patterns and the optimal shoe stiffness required to

HARNESSING GROUND REACTION FORCES According to Santa Monica-based clinician Bob Forster, “Running economy represents a complex interaction of physiological and biomechanical factors that can be adapted over time through targeted training techniques or modified dramatically in the short-term by a change in footwear.” Over his 40-year career, Forster has liberally written the book on running injuries, Healthy Running Step by Step, and along the way, he has consulted with major shoe companies on efficiency and economy.

As a sports medicine consultant to the LA Marathon, Forster usually focuses on flexibility and range of motion in an effort to prevent repetitive motion running-related injuries and to improve overall performance.

But through his work with elite track and field athletes such as seven-time Olympic Gold Medalist Allyson Felix and World Record Holder Sydney McLaughlin, Forster found that they “actually wanted to maintain some level of tension in the muscle for improved performance.” That’s because by increasing muscle tension, you can contract the muscle quicker while producing more force. Forster says that legendary Olympic track coach Bobby Kersee refers to this

mechanism as a strut that allows the legs to absorb the energy generated by ground reaction forces created when the foot contacts a hard surface while running. Think of your legs like the springs of a strut or a shock absorber in your car. When compressed, tighter springs can recoil faster and return more energy. As the elastic strength stored in your legs is explosively released, it’s equivalent to around 2.5 times your body weight and can be distributed into forward momentum with a good hip position and knee drive (Burns et al., 2021). This directed linear movement, which takes a vertical force and transfers it into the horizontal plane, is the main attribute required to maximize the rebound effect inherent in a Super Shoe. Thus, to more efficiently take advantage of this important action, your hip needs to be directly over your ankle at midstance, since Forester says proper alignment is key when it comes to improving running economy in a Super Shoe. If the hip is behind your foot, it can negatively impact the toe-off phase, aiming your knee in a sub-optimal trajectory and not into a more efficient forward path. Just like with a carbon-fiber shafted golf club, you need to have a smooth swing and follow-through to find

the “sweet spot.” Otherwise, you are going to shank the ball instead of driving it straight down the fairway.

The Spring-Mass Model is commonly used to describe the running gait cycle since it treats the runner as a single point mass on a linear elastic spring that strikes and leaves the ground at a constant touchdown angle.

Thus, it has been proposed as the mechanical template that defines the running gait across species (Blickhan, 1989). The model and its associated spatiotemporal characteristics have exhibited a strong relationship to running performance and economy through parameters such as leg and vertical stiffness, vertical oscillation, contact time, stride frequency and stride length.

In addition, Forster discovered during a research project that he could “effectively change the energy demands of a shoe by manipulating its design and structure.”

Since Super Shoes are specifically designed to be more energy efficient, it has been postulated that runners should also see a reduction in overall fatigue. That’s because the thick midsoles and energy-absorbing foams help dampen muscle vibrations, just like a performance racing strut or shock absorber that reduces the magnitude of vibratory

motions, which have been shown to affect every important system in the body including bones, tendons, ligaments, muscles and even nerves. At the July 2019 Footwear Biomechanics Conference, a research study confirmed this theory by presenting data showing that runners using a carbon-fiber plated Super Shoe sustained less muscle damage than a control group wearing a regular running shoe by attenuating muscle soreness, damage (established by a reduction in blood inflammatory markers LDH IL-6, as well as WBCs) and inflammation.

Furthermore, such a reduction in muscle burden is associated with an additional functional benefit via a sustained augmentation of training load and performance.

It appears one of the primary functions of a Super Shoe may be to reduce vibrational forces, because vibration is mostly governed by muscle contraction, which can, in turn, increase fatigue if an overload is present. If the excessive vibrations are not addressed, the muscles will have to work harder to prevent uncontrolled forces from damaging vulnerable systems. Thus, moderation of vibrations within the Super Shoe structure appears to revolve around the reduction of transmitted shock waves caused by the

MAY 2022 techniques

9

SUPER SHOE SCIENCE

foot impacting the ground. So, if you can help dampen input vibration, you will also reduce the stress placed on the muscle since vibration accounts for ~20% of all input load.

Forster theorizes that the reduction of muscle soreness inherent in a Super Shoe would suggest that a runner could potentially sustain higher training loads while decreasing the overall risk of injury, especially when proper form is utilized.

So, what exactly can a runner do to help train the ability of their body to positively react to the rebound effect and vibrational control created by a Super Shoe, while also taking advantage of the pendulum action imitated at the hip as the knee swings forward in a regular and repeating running stride? The main takeaway is that inefficient form caused by poor posture can direct the knee in an inefficient path, producing excessive vertical oscillation at the hip, while a good body lean and hip position helps drive the knee forward, optimizing the rebound effect of a Super Shoe after the foot contacts the ground.

TEACHABLE MOMENT: A commonly heard mantra from top running coaches is “fast is 10

techniques MAY 2022

relaxed.” So learning how to properly load and unload while not bracing or excessively “dampening” the body against the vibrations caused by ground reaction forces is a key to increased running economy in a Super Shoe.

In addition, you can also manipulate muscle tension in a number of different ways.

Before a workout or a race, incorporate some low level plyometrics, such as dynamic skipping and bounding, as well as form drills like high knees or butt kicks to help develop the ability to react quickly and explosively while utilizing vibrational forces more efficiently. Forster also says these drills will help create resilience in the connective tissue in preparation for running in high energy return Super Shoes.

ESSENTIAL TECHNICAL ELEMENTS “Running fast and efficiently is a skill that can definitely be taught,” says Loren Seagrave. As the owner of Speed Dynamics, Seagrave travels the globe educating coaches and athletes about the biomechanics of sprinting, including working with major organizations like the USA Track & Field Coaching Education Program and World

Athletics. That’s why many top distance runners are now hiring sprint coaches like Seagrave to help them improve their running form, because it “translates to increased running efficiency and decreased oxygen cost of running.” Thus, you will routinely see an elite male marathoner who is also capable of breaking four minutes in the mile.

Along those lines, Seagrave has built on the work of Dr. Ralph Mann’s incredible tenure coaching elite runners. From his extensive running research, Mann found that the optimal time a sprinter spends in the air is .123 milliseconds (0.123 seconds). This means the most economical way to become faster is by generating as big a force as possible into the ground in the shortest amount of time by using a quick efficient turnover or cadence, just like in Forster’s strut analogy.

Seagrave says, “We are now seeing sprinters putting their force into the ground in less than 80 milliseconds, running at over five steps per second.” To help define the explosive action of punching the leg forward from the hip joint while maintaining optimal air time, Seagrave has coined the term “thigh pop.” This initial forward movement is crucial to efficient running form because, as Seagraves says, “it helps reduce the time to recover the leg and allows the runner to create more force with less overall deviation in the stride.”

Properly recovering the leg is the key factor required to accurately direct the Kinetic Energy generated from a Super Shoe’s impact with the ground by channeling it into a straight-ahead motion. However, Seagrave says if your stride length is too long, you can’t maintain optimum forward momentum due to overstriding that produces a braking effect from the foot landing in front of the center of mass. So, it is definitely a delicate balancing act between stride length and frequency if you want to achieve the most efficient and economical running form.

That’s why Seagrave teaches his athletes how to reprogram their nervous systems by utilizing the proper techniques that help accentuate their own personal style of running.

Seagrave states when the stored energy in a Super Shoe is coupled with a strong thigh pop, it can literally catapult the thigh forward while putting the leg in a more optimal position of full flexion, which in turn leads to a powerful “Ground Preparation Phase.”

Now, the athlete can “generate greater negative foot speed which minimizes breaking forces, while more efficiently loading

SUPER SHOE SCIENCE in the posterior chain muscles, such as the hamstrings, and stabilizing strength on the anterior side via the quadriceps. Including tried and true moves like deadlifts and squats into your training will allow you to take full advantage of the benefits of a Super Shoe. If not, you’ll end up with musculoskeletal issues like strains and pulls caused by inefficient running form that is multiplied through the elastic energy generated by a Super Shoe.

the Carbon Fiber midsole or spike plate.”

To help his athletes better understand the concept, Seagrave uses the cue “Grab Back with the Toe Up” to maximize the effect of having a firm foot at ground contact and not a soft or floppy touchdown. This allows the athlete to take better advantage of the explosive action of a Super Shoe because the more solid base you have as your foot hits the ground, the stronger foundation you have for an explosive rebound. This is the same mechanism a carbon fiber prosthetic limb provides “Blade Runners” in the T-43 and T-44 Paralympians that Seagrave has coached in the sprint events. Thus, carbon fiber midsoles and spike plates have the same potential to provide similar improved response times—especially since the genesis for the current Super Shoe technology has been derived from the original work performed with Oscar Pistorius and the FlexFoot Cheetah limbs.

For any runner who wants to maximize Super Shoe technology, Seagrave says, “When correct and efficient biomechanics are used, it can provide a ‘supercharging effect’ of force into the ground in a much shorter period of time with enhanced leg recovery mechanics.” But Seagrave also states that the real challenge occurs when a runner does not have the strength, power and flexibility required to “Load and Explode” through an optimal range of motion. Although the evidence shows that carbon-fiber plated Super Shoes can improve running performance, there are currently no major longitudinal studies on the increased risk of injury due to a more rigid sole and the lack of foot stability, and how it might affect the body’s spring mechanism including the arch of the foot and metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint of the big toe (Oh et al., 2017, Sichting et al., 2020).

12

techniques MAY 2022

Therefore, if a runner cannot load properly through their first and second toes, they will lose the ability to utilize the crucial “windlass mechanism” of the foot that helps stabilize the arch (Bruening et al., 2018, Welte et al., 2018). That’s because when the big toe is lacking extension during the latestance phase, the quality of triple extension at the hip, knee, and ankle joint will dramatically decrease. Thus, if the foot and ankle ultimately cease to act as an effective rocker mechanism, the knee and hip will usually sacrifice extension at terminal stance.

Therefore, future research should focus on identifying optimal forefoot stiffness and stability, plus individual foot strike patterns, with the ultimate outcome being used to set industry standards regarding regulations for carbon fiber plated Super Shoes moving forward.

That’s why Seagrave tells all his athletes the main takaway is “if you want to be an accomplished runner, you’ve got to spend time in the weight room with high intensity strength training since it will help you produce more explosive power, especially when combined with plyometric exercises. If your foot contacts the ground and your leg collapses because you don’t have the strength and neuromuscular coordination to stabilize your hips and joints in the lower body, you’re in really big trouble” says Seagrave.

Just like a blown shock absorber or strut that can no longer effectively absorb impact through proper compression and rebound, your overall performance will suffer with excessive motion and uncontrolled vibrations.

TEACHABLE MOMENT: Seagrave’s philosophy as a coach has always been: “If it’s not broken, break it, and then re-engineer it to a higher level!” Seagrave says you’re going to need good explosive reactive strength

CONCLUSION Like the switch from cinder tracks to synthetic surfaces or the introduction of the Fosbury Flop and fiberglass poles, it appears Super Shoes are becoming an important tool in the arsenal of any athlete seeking to expand their competitive horizons. In a recent interview for The Telegraph, Seb Coe, the President of World Athletics, said he only sees positives in shoe companies investing in the sport. “There have been some technological advancements on what I was running in and what the generation before me was running in. That is the nature of our sport.”

In the end, one sound piece of advice that has not changed when it comes to footwear selection and overall running style is to pick a product that best fits your own personal needs for comfort and performance. But the fact is, there are currently a large number of companies producing various “Super Shoe” options that you can try to find out if they help maximize your potential as a runner.

Plus, as the science and practical experience with the category continues to expand, coaches and athletes will figure out how they can further optimize the advantages produced by these new products to the fullest extent while driving the advancement of the sport.

REFERENCES Assumpcao Cde, O., Lima, L. C., Oliveira, F. B., Greco, C. C., and Denadai, B. S. (2013).

Exercise-induced muscle damage and running economy in humans. Sci. World J. 2013:189149. doi: 10.1155/2013/189149.

Barnes, K. & Kilding A. (2019). A randomized crossover study investigating the running economy of highly-trained male and female distance runners in marathon racing sheos veruss track spikes. Sports Medicine, 49(2): 331-342.

Bermon S, Garrandes F, Szabo A, Berkovics I, Adami PE. Effect of Advanced Shoe Technology on the Evolution of Road Race Times in Male and Female Elite Runners. Front Sports Act Living. 2021 Apr

MAY 2022 techniques

13

SUPER SHOE SCIENCE 22;3:653173. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2021.653173.

PMID: 33969296; PMCID: PMC8100054..

Blickhan, R. The spring-mass model for running and hopping. J. Biomech. 22(11–12), 1217–1227 (1989).

Brisswalter, J., Limbros, P. and Durand, M.(1996). Running economy, preferred step length correlated to body dimensions in elite middle-distance runners. J. Sports Med. Phys.

Fitness 36,7-15.

Brown, D., Wertsch, J., Harris, G., Klein, J., Janisse, D. (2004). Effect of rocker soles on plantar pressure. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85(1): 81-86.

Bruening, D. A., Pohl, M. B., Takahashi, K. Z. & Barrios, J. A. (2018). Midtarsal locking, the windlass mechanism, and running strike pattern: a kinematic and kinetic assessment.

J. Biomech.

73, 185–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbiomech.2018.04.010.

Burns, G.T., Gonzalez, R., Zendler, J.M. et al. Bouncing behavior of sub-four minute milers. Sci Rep 11, 10501 (2021).

Burns, G. T., Gonzalez, R. & Zernicke, R. F. Improving spring–mass parameter estimation in running using nonlinear regression methods. J. Exp. Biol. 224(6), jeb232850 (2021) Burns GT, Tam N. Is it the shoes? A simple proposal for regulating footwear in road running. Br J Sports Med. 2020 Apr;54(8):439440. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100480. Epub 2019 Oct 19. PMID: 31630088.

Chang, Y. H. and Kram, R. (1999).

Metabolic cost of generating forces during human running.

J. Appl. Physiol.86,1657-1662.

Cigoja, S., Fletcher, J.R., Esposito, M. et al.

Increasing the midsole bending stiffness of shoes alters gastrocnemius medialis muscle function during running. Sci Rep 11, 749 (2021). de Ruiter, C. J. et al. Stride frequency in relation to oxygen consumption in experienced and novice runners. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 14(3), 251–258 (2014).

Enomoto et al. Biomechanical analysis of the Medalists in the 10,000 metres at the 2007 World Championships in Athletics, New Studies in Athletics (2008) Farley, C. T., Glasheen, J. & McMahon, T. A. Running springs: Speed and animal size. J. Exp. Biol. 185, 71–86 (1993).

Frederick EC. No evidence of a performance advantage attributable to midsole thickness. Footwear Sci. 2020;12:1–2.

Folland, J. P. et al. Running technique is an important component of running econo14

techniques MAY 2022

my and performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.

49(7), 1412–1423 (2017).

Garcia-Pinillos, F. et al. How Do spatiotemporal parameters and lower-body stiffness change with increased running velocity?

A comparison between novice and elite level runners. J. Hum. Kinet. 70(1), 25–38 (2019).

Hamner SR, Delp SL. Muscle contributions to fore-aft and vertical body mass center accelerations over a range of running speeds. J Biomech. 2013 Feb 22;46(4):780-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.11.024. Epub 2012 Dec 11. PMID: 23246045; PMCID: PMC3979434.

Hoogkamer,W., Kipp, S., Frank, J. H., Farina, E.M., Luo, G., and Kram, R. (2018).

A comparison of the energetic cost of running in marathon racing shoes. Sports Med. 48, 1009–1019. doi: 10.1007/s40279-017-0811-2.

Hunter I, McLeod A, Valentine D, Low T, Ward J, Hager R. Running economy, mechanics, and marathon racing shoes. J Sport Sci.

2019;37:2367–73.

Hunter, J.P., Marshall, R.N. & McNair, P.J. (2004). “Interaction of step length and step rate during sprint running.” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. (36): 261-271. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000113664.15777.53.

Hunter, S. K. (2016). The relevance of sex differences in performance fatigability.

Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 48, 2247–2256. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000928.

Lucia A, Esteve-Lanao J, Oliván J, Gómez-Gallego F, San Juan AF, Santiago C, et al. Physiological characteristics of the best Eritrean runners—exceptional running economy. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab.

2006;31:530–40.

Mann, R. & Herman, J. (1985).

“Kinematics analysis of Olympic Sprint Performance: Men’s 200 Meters.”

International Journal of Sport Biomechanics.

(1): 151-162.

Mann, Ralph. (2015) The Mechanics KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

MAY 2022 techniques

15

SUPER SHOE SCIENCE of Sprinting and Hurdling. Createspace Independent Publishing Platform . ISBN 13: 9781517571610 ISBN 10: 1517571618.

Mcleod, A., Bruening, D., Johnson, A., Ward, J., Hunter, I. (2020). Improving running economy through altered shoe bending stiffness across speeds. Footwear Science, 1-11.

Mackala, K. & Mero, A. (2013). “A kinematics analysis of three best 100m performances event.” Journal of Human Kinetics.

36: 149-160. doi: 10.2478/hukin-2013-0015 Modica, J. R. and Kram, R. S. (2005).

Metabolic energy and muscular activity required for leg swing in running. J. Appl.

Physiol.98, R2126-R2131.

Mooses M, Mooses K, Haile DW, Durussel J, Kaasik P, Pitsiladis YP. Dissociation between running economy and running performance in elite Kenyan distance runners. J Sport Sci. 2015;33:136–44.

Muniz-Pardos, B., Sutehall, S., Angeloudis, K. et al. Recent Improvements in Marathon Run Times Are Likely Technological, Not Physiological. Sports Med 51, 371–378 (2021).

Nigg BM, Cigoja S, Nigg SR, Teeter-totter effect: a new mechanism to understand shoe-related improvements in long-distance running, British Journal of Sports Medicine 2021;55:462-463.

Oh, K. & Park, S. (2017) The bending stiffness of shoes is beneficial to running energetics if it does not disturb the natural MTP joint flexion. J. Biomech.53, 127–135.

Paradisis, G. P., Pappas, P., Dallas, G., Zacharogiannis, E., Rossi, J., Lapole, T. (2021). Acute Effects of Whole-Body Vibration Warm-up on Leg and Vertical Stiffness During Running. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 35; 9, 2433-2438.

Pontzer H. A new model predicting locomotor cost from limb length via force production. J Exp Biol. 2005;208:1513–24.

Pontzer H. Predicting the energy cost of terrestrial locomotion: a test of the LiMb model in humans and quadrupeds. J Exp Biol.2007;210:484–94.

Pontzer H. Effective limb length and the scaling of locomotor cost in terrestrial animals. J Exp Biol. 2007;210:1752–61.

Raichlen DA, Armstrong H, Lieberman DE. Calcaneus length determines runnin economy: implications for endurance running performance in modern humans and Neandertals. J Hum Evol. 2011;60:299–308.

Road to Rio: How to be fast, with Loren Seagrave. Katy Bergen, Sarasota HeraldTribune . Apr 12, 2016. YouTube [Internet] . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqoYbciPYA. 16

techniques MAY 2022

Rogers, S. A. et al. Assessments of mechanical stiffness and relationships to performance determinants in middle-distance runners. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 12(10), 1329–1334 (2017).

Roy, J. & Stefanyshyn, D. (2006). Shoe midsole longitudinal bending stiffness and running economy, joint energy and EMG. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise: 38(3), 562-569.

Schache AG, Dorn TW, Williams GP, Brown NA, Pandy MG. Lower-limb muscular strategies for increasing running speed. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.

2014 Oct;44(10):813-24. doi: 10.2519/ jospt.2014.5433. Epub 2014 Aug 7. PMID: 25103134.

Sichting, F., Holowka, N.B., Hansen, O.B. et al. Effect of the upward curvature of toe springs on walking biomechanics in humans.

Sci Rep 10, 14643 (2020). https://doi. org/10.1038/s41598-020-71247-9 Stéphane Bermon et al, Effect of Advanced Shoe Technology on the Evolution of Road Race Times in Male and Female Elite Runners, Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 22 April (2021).

Sinclair, J., Richards, J., Selfe, J., FauGoodwin, J., & Shore, H. (2016). The influence of minimalist and maximalist footwear on patellofemoral kinetics during running. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 32(4), 359-364.

Sissler L, Giandolini M. Finite element modelling of tibial vibrations during running. Footwear Sci. 2019;11:sup1:75–7.

Stefanyshyn DJ, Nigg BM. Mechanical energy contribution of the metatarsophalangeal joint to running and sprinting. J Biomech.1997;30:1081–5.

Steudel-Numbers KL, Weaver TD, WallScheffler CM. The evolution of human running: effects of changes in lower-limb length on locomotor economy. J Hum Evol.

2007;53:191–6.

Sun X, Lam WK, Zhang X, Wang J, Fu W. Systematic review of the role of footwear constructions in running biomechanics: implications for running-related injury and performance. J Sport Sci Med. 2020;19(1):20–37.

Tiller, N. B., Elliott-Sale, K. J., Knechtle, B.,Wilson, P. B., Roberts, J. D., and Millet,G. Y. (2021). Do sex differences in physiology confer a female advantage in ultra-endurance sport? Sports Med. doi: 10.1007/s40279020-01417-2. [Epub ahead of print].

Welte, L., Kelly, L. A., Lichtwark, G. A. & Rainbow, M. J. (2018). Influence of the windlass mechanism on arch-spring mechanics during dynamic foot arch deformation. J. R.

Soc. Interface 1, 4. https://doi.org/10.1098/ rsif.2018.0270.

Weyand, P. G., Kelly, M., Blackadar, T., Darley, J. C., Oliver,S. R., Ohlenbusch, N. C., Joffe, S. W. and Hoyt, R. W.(2001).

Ambulatory estimates of maximal aerobic power from foot-ground contact times and heart rates in running humans. J. Appl.

Physiol.91,451-458.

Weyand, P. G. et al. Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements. J. Appl.

Physiol. 89(5), 1991–1999 (2000).

Workout Wednesday: Olympic Coach Loren Seagrave’s Sprint/Hurdle Tips.

MileSplit.com. Apr 19, 2017. YouTube [Internet] . https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=Sf74Zab5gA4.

TIMOTHY J. MOORE, PH.D., C.S.C.S., M.C.H.E.S., IS A FORMER DIVISION I ATHLETE AND COACH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND WHO HAS TRAINED TOP PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES, COLLEGIATE ALLAMERICANS, WORLD CHAMPION COMPETITORS AND TEAM USA MEMBERS IN MULTIPLE SPORTS. MOORE IS CERTIFIED AS A LEVEL 2 COACH IN SPRINTS AND HURDLES FROM USA TRACK & FIELD, AND HIS RESEARCH HAS BEEN PRESENTED AT THE INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC SCIENTIFIC CONGRESS. HE HAS ALSO SERVED ON THE PERSONAL TRAINER EXAM COMMITTEE FOR THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EXERCISE, AS THE FITNESS AND GEAR EDITOR FOR SHAPE MAGAZINE, AS WELL AS A CONSULTANT TO THE KERLAN-JOBE ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC AND SPORTING GOODS COMPANIES SUCH AS POLAR AND REEBOK. FEATURES ON DR. MOORE HAVE APPEARED IN PEOPLE MAGAZINE AND USA TODAY, AS WELL AS ON TELEVISION’S GOOD MORNING AMERICA.

MAY 2022 techniques

17

LONG DISTANCE

18

techniques MAY 2022

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

Coaching with Cues Effective Cue Progressions and Practices in Jumping Events

C

ues are verbal words and descriptions that coaches use in attempts to elicit a specific motor response from an athlete. Cues, along with demonstrations and feedback, serve as the vast majority of the methodology coaches use when teaching and correcting sports techniques. Cues vary greatly. Some are heard on a daily basis at every training venue in the world and are a lasting part of athletics coaching culture. Who hasn’t heard a coach tell an athlete to “get the knees up” while sprinting or “build stride frequency patiently” on the jump runway?

Other cues are far more sophisticated, show greater levels of understanding of the event by the coach, and they are valued as “secret weapons” by many successful coaches.

KEYS TO EFFECTIVE CUING The true secrets to effective, high-level cuing can be summed up in four parts.

Understanding the Movement. The first requirement for effective cuing is a sophisticated understanding of the movement required. An understanding of how each body part moves is a good start, but understanding the relationship in timing between these individual movements constitutes a much more advanced understanding of the movement, and is a prerequisite to high-level coaching. An understanding of the appearance of the desired movement (and ability to identify deviations from the desired model) is helpful. In all, an understanding of the forces at play that create the movement’s appearance constitutes a far more sophisticated and effective approach to cuing.

Understanding Cause-Effect Relationships. There are cause-effect relationships at work in the execution of any sport skill. The ability to effectively execute one phase of the event is directly dependent upon the proper execution of some prior

movement. In the jumping events, these cause-effect relationships have many roots.

Some are rooted in velocity or momentum development. Some are rooted in human elasticity, meaning elastic responses in certain phases of the technique feed energy and allow efficient execution of the event’s succeeding phases. Some are rooted in posture, some in the rate of frequency development in the jump approach. Identifying all of the cause-effect relationships encountered in the jumping events is impossible; the number is infinite. Still, it should be the mission of a good jumps coach to identify and understand as many as possible in order to create cuing efficiency and expedite the process. Much time is wasted in coaching cuing effects without addressing their root causes. Efficient cuing in practice helps. Efficient cuing in competitions is critical since the number of competitive trials is limited and the opportunity to experiment is nonexistent.

Understanding the Difference between Appearance and Feeling. Understanding the appearance of the desired patterns of movement is essential to effective cuing.

Understanding cause-effect relationships raises our level of coaching effectiveness.

However, the most advanced and effective cuing takes into account the sensations and feelings the athlete experiences as the event is performed. In the jumping events, athletes are moving at high velocities and producing large forces, and at velocities as high as 12 meters per second, things feel different. Also, there is always a delay in human proprioceptive feedback. Sensations are relayed to the brain for processing in a delayed manner, meaning that a tenth of second or so passes between the time a position is achieved and the brain perceives it. This results in things feeling very different to the athlete than they might appear on video. The best cuing practices take in

information based on how it looks to the coach and translate it into how it feels to the athlete.

Distinguishing between these is essential to good cuing. Performance is about movement, not positions. Even the most critical positions an athlete must attain in performance last hundredths of a second, and athletes must be able to move fluidly into and beyond these positions. In many cases, emphasis on a position disrupts the entire flow of the movement.

For example, at the end of the initial push off from a start, you see an athlete’s body aligned in a straight line, from the head, through the torso and push off leg, to the toe. We all understand the importance of this position. However, in a good start, you never stop or rest in this position. To ask an athlete to “feel” this straight-line position would interrupt the flow of the movement and by the time the athlete achieves the position, the message is sent to the brain, and the position is perceived, the subsequent movements are already far too late and excessive backside mechanics result.

All this, in spite of the fact that the “straight line” position is readily visible in every great start. It’s not what it looks like; it’s what it feels like. What is actually a complete push feels like an incomplete push to a great athlete. There are other examples. Great sprinters show significant backside mechanics when sprinting, but only feel the frontside due to the anticipatory nature of ground contact and the high velocities involved.

Good triple jumpers show significant frontside prior to the landing of the first phase, but really only sense the backside component immediately prior to it, since the forward movement is not of the body’s volition, but resulted from elastic loading of the hip flexors at takeoff.

Creativity. The single biggest factor that limits the development and improvement MAY 2022 techniques

19

COACHING WITH CUES of a coach is an unwillingness to cue creatively. In many cases, the coach is simply afraid to say the wrong thing. Any cue might be a good one in a certain situation with a certain athlete. Cues that originate outside the boundaries of common jumps-coaching culture are often the most effective of all.

Often, cuing something that is generally considered bad technique might very well work when the athlete’s habitual mistake is on the other end of the technical spectrum.

Adventuresome cuing is indeed rewarded often, and when it fails, the only cost is a wasted repetition. Along the same lines, repetitively using cues that aren’t working—because of bias or because they are commonly used in jump coaching—wastes time and wrecks the athlete’s confidence in the coach.

CUE SYSTEMS A cue system is a group of related cues that are used to teach a skill and to control the subtlety or radicalness of the change in performance. In most cases, the cues in a cue system are not only related, but are of the same cue categories.

For example, in acceleration, the forward body lean and extended pushing create a sensation that the feet are behind the athlete. At maximal velocity, even though the feet touch down under the center of mass, the athlete receives a perception of dominant frontside due to the anticipatory nature of ground contacts. Therefore, an athlete who doesn’t spend enough time in the acceleration phase could be cued to “feel the feet behind you longer” or told, “you got your feet in front of you too early.”

A person who over pushes in acceleration could be cued to “get your feet in front of you sooner.” In this case, a cue system is built around the athlete’s perception of the location of their feet with respect to the body’s core.

TYPES OF CUES Cues can be generally categorized into one of the categories below. This list of categories is not necessarily complete, and the categories are not necessarily exclusive. Many cues may fall into one or more categories.

Internal Cues. Internal cues are cues that refer to the movements or positions of body parts. “Knees up,” “dorsiflex the ankle,” “toe up,” and “land on the heel” are all examples of internal cues; they refer to the positioning of certain body parts.

External Cues. External cues are cues that refer to movements of the body as a 20

techniques MAY 2022

whole, often with respect to the surroundings or a certain location (like the takeoff board). “Lower your center of mass/hips,” “push up,” “push out,” and “rise in front of the board” are all examples of external cues.

They all refer to movements of the body as a whole or to the body’s center of mass.

Spatial Cues. Spatial Cues deal with the location and relative position of the body parts with respect to other parts or the environment. For example, cuing the knee to drop in front of the ankle prior to pushing off of the board in the triple jump takeoff or cuing the arms behind the body at the initiation of the high jump takeoff are common spatial cues.

Temporal Cues. Temporal cues deal with the timing or the rhythm of movements with respect to spatial landmarks or other movements. A long jumper who rises prematurely at takeoff can be cued to “rise later.”

Common cues governing the development of stride frequency on the runway all fall into the temporal cue category.

Fragmented Cues. Fragmented cues deal with small portions of a larger movement. For example, cuing the subtle heel first grounding of the takeoff foot on the board in the triple jump, followed by a rolling action of the foot against the board, with an emphasis on flexion of the forefoot and extended pressure on the ball of the foot during takeoff, would constitute a very detailed description of the takeoff foot’s actions during that phase of the event, but is fragmented because it would examine only a tiny portion of the total human anatomy.

Holistic Cues. Holistic cues deal with gross characteristics of the movement or larger portions of the movement. They are commonly characterized by one or two key words and the meaning is obvious even to an athletics novice. “Set up,” “lower,” “relax,” “slow the back” and “work your transition harder” are all common holistic cues that you will hear repeatedly on the coaching box of any competition.

Qualitative Cues. Any cue used in a feedback situation that conveys the correct/ incorrect nature of a skill can be classified as qualitative.

Quantitative Cues. A cue used in a feedback situation that does not only convey correctness or incorrectness of a skill, but also provides information regarding the degree of correctness or incorrectness, can be classified as quantitative. There are many situations in skill teaching where an athlete makes a change and feels it’s a positive change. However, the change may be too

subtle and insufficient or far too radical and overly extreme. Quantitative cuing conveys the quality of the skill, rather than absolute right or wrong conditions. Telling an athlete that an improvement was made from a grade of 50% to a grade of 75% gives the athlete not only an indication of progress, but also an idea of how radical the change intended must be and an idea of what perfect execution will feel like.

Radical Cues. Radical cues describe a partially learned skill as a totally new skill, as to minimize learning interference from the previous pattern of movement. In many cases, subtle degrees of error correction result in slippage and returning to old movement patterns. In many cases, radical cuing results in faster learning and greater permanency. Sometimes insecurity in coaching leads to a strategy where the coach makes a small correction on an experimental basis, with the intention of making a more radical change once improvement is confirmed. This strategy seldom works.

Overcuing. Overcuing is a form of radical cuing where the coach goes so far as to actually ask the athlete to make some mistake, in order to move an athlete radically along the technical continuum. When considering nearly every skill, a technical continuum exists, where radical errors lie at the ends of the continuum and the desired technical model lies in the middle.

It’s often a very effective and fast-working coaching practice, when an athlete is making an error, to ask the athlete to make the opposite error with expectations that the resulting technique will lie in the middle of the continuum.

For example, when examining maximal velocity mechanics in sprinting or on the runways, anterior pelvic tilt is a common problem. The hips tilt forward, the back arches into a lordotic position and the general shape of the body’s core becomes curved: stomach in front, hips and legs behind. It’s often effective to have these athletes think of curving their bodies in the opposite direction at maximal velocity.

Of course, it wouldn’t be correct to follow this advice exactly, but many athletes have improved dramatically as a result of this example of overcuing.

PROGRESSION AND PERIODIZATION OF CUING Certain cues work better in different practice situations and at certain times of the training year. The following are some key considerations for long term cue usage

MAY 2022 techniques

21

COACHING WITH CUES

strategies: Internal vs. External Cuing. The preponderance of motor-learning research seems to support the superiority of external cuing in skill teaching. However, when dealing with highly technical skills, using only external cues can be a frustrating experience.

Generally speaking, we use internal cues to establish a context of sorts in which external cuing works. When an athlete is cued externally, the resulting movement might very well be incorrect in spite of the fact that it meets the cue’s requirements. There are right and wrong ways to execute the skill within the boundaries of the external cuing.

Internal cues serve to limit the degrees of freedom in the execution of the skill, and thus provide the correct context for external cues.

For example, a commonly used external cue elicits lowering of the center of mass on the long jump penultimate step. This lowering can occur in many ways. It can occur in support during the penultimate step or in the flight phase immediately prior to the penultimate grounding, or a bit of both. The amortization during lowering can be hip dominant, knee dominant or a bit of both.

Cuing the hip, the knee, shin rotation, foot placement, etc., and developing proper movement patterns create a much better chance of success when external cuing is eventually used.

Spatial vs. Temporal Cues. Spatial cues, in most cases, are better at slower speeds and in the early stages of learning (in the “slower” phases of the event, like the start,

22

techniques MAY 2022

they might be applicable at any time). In most cases, we see a progression from a preponderance of spatial cues to a greater involvement of temporal cuing. Spatial cues may be used in high-speed situations, provided the difference between appearance and the athlete’s sensations are properly accounted for and they are used in a holistic manner.

Fragmented vs. Holistic Cues.

Fragmented cues are used exclusively in drill situations and at low speeds or intensities. Holistic cues can be used in those situations as well, but are best reserved for high speed, high intensity situations. Any good coach-athlete tandem goes into a major competition armed with an understandable array of holistic cues.

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Cuing.

Quantitative cues can be used in nearly any situation that qualitative cues could be used and are generally preferred.

CYCLING CUE SYSTEMS Cuing practices and cue systems should be cycled, in much the same way as training is arranged into cycles. Cues, like training, are a stimulus that produce an adaptation, and any cue tends to lose its effectiveness over time if used often; much like a workout that is overly repeated. Training produces adaptations, and in skill teaching, the adaptation desired is a change of motor behavior.

Adaptation to a cue occurs over time, and the value of that cue then decreases for the time being.

Often, we see an athlete’s skill levels

improve dramatically due to the implementation of a new cue system. Eventually, the system loses its effectiveness and other technical issues begin to leak into the athlete’s technical model, requiring implementation of a different cue system to continue the technical improvement, or even possibly to manage the technical regression.

Normal cuing progressions (internal to external, spatial to temporal, fragmented to holistic) are a big part of this necessary cycling of cues. However, additional cycling is typically necessary. This cycling can be effective in very simple forms. For example, in coaching a long jumper, alternating between cuing the penultimate side of the body and the takeoff side of the body provides a very simple effective cycling system.

This alternation can occur from session to session, week to week, or month to month.

This is not to say that an infinite number of cues or cue systems are needed. Cues that seem to have lost their effectiveness regain their effectiveness after being on the shelf for a while. In most cases, two or three ways of cuing a particular aspect of jump technique, rotated on a regular basis, works well.

Of particular note is how this cycling of cue systems affects the peaking process. All coaches make adjustments to their training in the championship phases of training in order to enable an athlete the best chance to succeed in those critical competitions.

Consideration should be given to adjust cuing practices as well. Since cues seem to lose effectiveness over time, implementing a new cue system too far in advance of the critical competition (and sticking with it through this competition) might result in technical regression at a critical time.

Continued rotation of cues and cue systems, or the implementation of a new (but familiar) system 3-4 weeks in advance of a critical competition, can help to maintain and ensure technical sharpness when you need it most.

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

MAY 2022 techniques

23

High-Velocity Speed Mechanics Techniques and principles for optimal performance

26

techniques MAY 2022

I

t is interesting to discover that many coaches often dismiss or neglect certain important training components. Core training and the training of balance are two that come readily to mind. Another component that often fails to get the attention it deserves is sprint mechanics. Few coaches would disagree that they aren’t vitally important. But although they feel they are a critical component, there is a real disconnect in their philosophy and what they actually train. This often results in sprint mechanics being under-coached or not nearly stressed enough.

Why, if coaches feel so strongly about mechanics, do they not follow through in their training programs? Coaches would likely list a number of reasons, with number one being there isn’t enough time to focus on everything that needs to be trained. Sprint mechanics are not as important as some of the other components, they will say. I would disagree with coaches who feel that way. My question to those coaches: What could be more important than training the very foundation of speed and speed development?

I have always emphasized this gem of wisdom to our athletes: “You are only as fast as your mechanics will allow.” This is not an original line. I have heard many leading, elite coaches convey the same message to their athletes. Over and over!

Tom Tellez, the legendary Hall of Fame and former University of Houston coach, and the mentor of Carl Lewis, summed it up best when he said, “If you want your athlete to run fast, they have to run with the correct technique.”

Ralph Mann, one of the leading bio mechanists in the world, says in a book entitled The Mechanics of Sprinting and Hurdling that, “The reason why mechanics plays such a critical role in performance is because this is the factor that determines how the available resources that any athlete possesses are delivered to the track.”

ARTICLE OBJECTIVE The objective of this article is to identify for coaches both the correct and incorrect sprint mechanics. Information on the proper mechanics, coaching tools, coaching cues, what coaches should be looking for, and some of the obvious incorrect mechanical issues are all outlined in this presentation. A secondary goal is to provide coaches with information on several topics pertaining to sprint mechanics and its importance to the overall sprint performance.

IMPORTANCE OF SPRINT MECHANICS There are a number of factors that lead to speed, and mechanics are critically important to nearly all of them. The correct mechanics, we might add. Most coaches agree that improper mechanics can be a very limiting factor in speed. An athlete must place the body in the correct position, at the proper time, moving in the right direction and at the right speed, to maximize force production.

That is what speed is all about: Force production. Speed defined is a very precise skill of applying large mass specific forces to the ground in a very short time. “Speed is all about hitting the ground hard and fast,” notes Dr. Peter Weyand, a Southern Methodist University professor of Applied Physiology and Biomechanics and one of the world’s foremost experts on human performance. An athlete will not be able to produce the necessary forces for optimal speed without the proper mechanics.

There are a number of issues that contribute to improper mechanics.

Four of the significant issues include: 1. ATHLETES ARE TAUGHT INCORRECT MECHANICS Some of this is a lack of knowledge by coaches. Some of it is coaches failing to evolve and understand that track and field training is constantly changing. We are always reminded of the quote by Gary Winckler, the Hall of Fame hur-

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

MAY 2022 techniques

27

HIGH-VELOCITY SPEED MECHANICS dle/sprint coach from University of Illinois, who conducted a clinic at the University of Mary in 1997: “Unfortunately, like in many other endeavors, we too often cling to what we know rather than constantly examine and evaluate what we are doing to get the results we are achieving. This all-important self-examination enables us to selectively discard ineffective practices and replace them with better ones.” Great coaches are great teachers. That is most certainly true when the author thinks back to his former instructors/ coaches/mentors. Athletes must be taught the proper sprint mechanics.

2. ATHLETES TRAIN THE INCORRECT MECHANICS Mechanics are a component that must be rehearsed repeatedly and correctly if they are to be perfected. They also must be taught correctly and monitored with instruction and feedback daily. Although it is greatly beneficial for the coach to have a very keen eye and great observation skills, video analysis is typically a must. Although it is always good to learn mechanics at slower speeds, coaches are reminded that they must be perfected at high speeds if they are to transfer to competition. Many coaches are disappointed when athletes fail to transfer the skills they have been taught in drills at slower speeds to high intensity. Coaches should also keep in mind that although there is some room for individual differences, most sprint mechanics skills are considerably basic and fundamental. Sprint mechanics really don’t change at any level. Many coaches allow for too many “customized” mechanics. It is particularly important to make the distinction between what is personal style and what is faulty and must be corrected. Mann says this about that subject: “The inability and unwillingness for coaches to actively teach (change) their athletes is the weakest aspect of development of United States athletes.”

3. ATHLETES LACK THE FLEXIBILITY AND JOINT MOBILITY TO PRODUCE THE CORRECT MECHANICS Athletes quite often cannot place themselves in the correct mechanical positions needed to maximize performance due to a lack of flexibility and joint mobility.

4. ATHLETES LACK THE NECESSARY STRENGTH TO PERFORM THE CORRECT MECHANICS The athlete does not have the foundation of strength, especially younger athletes, to achieve the mechanical requirements the coach is seeking.

28

techniques MAY 2022

CRITICAL SPRINT COMPONENTS There are a number of discussion topics that need to be briefly addressed prior to moving this article to the actual mechanics of high velocity sprinting. To be clear, the focus of this presentation is concerned with high velocity speed mechanics and not simple running mechanics.

Components that will be addressed include: (1) Force production (2) Posture and body position (3) Frontside Mechanics (4) Dorsiflexion (5) Arm Mechanics FORCE PRODUCTION Although the equation for speed is stride length times stride frequency, the biggest determinant of speed is force—force production. The difference in speed between athletes can be attributed to what occurs during the ground application. Many coaches in the past were overly concerned with training and improving stride length and stride frequency.

“The athlete needs to focus on the application of force, not stride frequency,” says Tellez. “Stride frequency is useless in the absence of force.”

Weyand also has addressed this in his work. He noted in a paper published in 2000 that the data indicated both greater stride length and stride frequency result from the application of greater ground forces in shorter periods of time.

One of the concerns many coaches have struggled with is attempting to improve both stride length and stride frequency. The problem occurs, according to Mann, because stride length and stride rate are not mutually independent. He goes on to note that stride rate can easily be improved by shortening the time in the air. This, however, will decrease stride length. The same with stride length. It can be improved by increasing the time in the air, but this will decrease the stride rate.

Mann goes on to say that a compromise is needed to achieve optimal stride rate/stride frequency for the athlete. He notes, though, that the research reveals improvement in the stride frequency is how better sprinters produce elite level sprint performances. The other key element in speed is the application of force in the correct direction(s). This is where mechanics plays a huge role. The bottom line: The athlete must possess the correct mechanics to ensure that the forces generated by the neuromuscular system result in greater speed.

POSTURE/BODY POSITION How important is posture? Tellez, the famed

master technician who we referred to earlier, said it best: “Body position is the most important factor in sprint technique.” Why does Tellez say this? In a nutshell, the correct sprint posture is the platform for applying force. It is only through proper technique that an athlete can maintain posture integrity and avoid a collapse of the ankles, knees and hips and apply force to the surface in a very short time.

Posture refers to the positioning and functional capacity of the core region of the body, according to Michael Young of the United States Military Academy and Human Performance Consulting. Young says that the movement of the limbs originates in the core region of the body. He notes that a stabilized core in the proper alignment typically ensures the proper movement of the limbs.

Young continues by saying, “When the body lacks either proper internal stability or appropriate posture alignment, it often results in a reflexive manner to preserve stability. The reactions tend to be very detrimental to sprint performance.”

Another important aspect concerning posture is that proper posture promotes frontside mechanics and minimizes backside mechanics. Frontside mechanics, to be discussed next, are critical in allowing the sprinter to be much more efficient and produce higher velocities.

FRONTSIDE MECHANICS Frontside mechanics allow the athlete to generate the most effective ground forces.

Research has proven this. Even in the start and acceleration—two areas believed by many coaches in the past to be dominated by backside mechanics.

Frontside mechanics are actions that take place in front of the body. It is best summed up by former Texas A&M coach Vince Anderson when he says, “Sprinting is nothing more than a fast march.” Backside mechanics, which are to be avoided, are the actions that occur behind the body. Research has shown that successful sprinters place their emphasis on leg movements and actions that take place in front of the body, according to Mann. He goes on to say that research shows the more a sprinter can shift the critical ground contact efforts to the front of the body, the more successful the sprint performance.

Some of Mann’s other conclusions: A. The entire sprint race, including the start, should be frontside oriented.

B. A sprinter must be frontside dominant

HIGH-VELOCITY SPEED MECHANICS during ground contact to produce the most effective ground forces.

C. If an athlete fails to achieve frontside dominance at the beginning of the race, they will be unable to shift from that point forward. In other words, if the sprinter starts with dominant backside mechanics and actions, there is very little chance a shift will be made to the frontside.

D. The sprinter who falls from frontside mechanics during the race will not be able to recover.

E. Frontside mechanics do not occur naturally. They must be trained. It is much more natural for the athlete to employ backside actions.

F. Research indicates, according to Mann, that 75% of the ground contact uses prominent levels of the hip flexor activity to pull the hips and upper body forward toward the takeoff position. This also stops backward rotation of the upper leg. It was commonly believed at one point that the sprinter was using their hip extensors down the track during ground contact. Studies have now shown that sprinters emphasize leg extension for only about 25% of the ground contact.

Some other benefits of frontside mechanics, according to Young, are enhanced stability, reduction of braking forces and increased vertical forces. Mann says the biggest problem in sprinting is stopping the downward fall of the body and producing the upward projection into the next air phase. To accomplish this, he says, large vertical forces must be produced during ground contact. Studies have revealed that nearly all ground force is vertical in orientation at maximum velocity.

A 1987 study by Weyand showed as little as one-tenth of the amount of force is applied horizontally once an athlete reaches higher velocities.

The best example of frontside mechanics, according to Mann, is Carl Lewis, the Hall of Fame sprinter and Olympic legend. Mann says Lewis possessed the best sprint mechanics of any sprinter ever studied.

According to Mann, Lewis never let his upper leg pass behind a vertical line dropped down from his hip when he was in his top form. Lewis essentially eliminated upper leg backside mechanics, which Mann says is the most critical of the sprint components.

DORSIFLEXION There are two schools of thought regarding the dorsiflexion of the foot in athletes. Some coaches would say it does not need to be coached—it will take care of itself naturally.

30

techniques MAY 2022

Other coaches and authorities, including the author, would say it does indeed need to be trained. It does not occur naturally.

“The old thinking was that we didn’t need to train it,” says Loren Seagrave of Speed Dynamics, who is one of the leading sprint/ hurdle coaches and performances authorities in the world. “Coaches need to train dorsiflexion. It is too important.”

Why is dorsiflexion so important? We have found that proper dorsiflexion and the training of dorsiflexion with our athletes and programs results in fewer injuries, improved ground dynamics, enhanced velocity, reduced braking forces and increased capacity for the elastic force production at ground contact.

To be clear, dorsiflexion is the movement at the ankle joint where the toes are brought closer to the shin (brought up toward the shin, so to speak). The correct dorsiflexion assists the foot to strike the track in an optimal position to put force into the ground and launch the athlete forward. The correct dorsiflexion also allows the sprinter to obtain the most from the elastic component of the leg.

Regarding this, it is extremely critical that the athlete have the sufficient strength to manage the plantar flexion/dorsiflexion and inversion/eversion of the foot. The more rigid the joint, the greater the energy return.

ARM MECHANICS There have been biomechanical studies that have diminished the importance of the arms in sprint performance. Mann says in his research and writings that the legs, not the arms, primarily dictate success in sprinting.

He goes on to say in his hurdle/sprint book that, “Superior arm speed does not produce a superior sprint performance.”

Few would disagree with that assessment. And some would disagree with the late Charlie Francis, the legendary Canadian sprint coach, saying, “All sprinting is controlled by the arms.” But most would agree that the arms are critically important and can be a very limiting factor in producing elite sprint performances if not used properly.

Why the arms are important and what they provide the sprinter: A. The most critical element that the arms provide (if used correctly) is directing all movements to the front of the body and producing the all-important frontside mechanics discussed earlier.

B. The arms balance and stabilize posture in addition to providing very important verti-

cal lift on every stride.

C. The arms play a role in minimizing center of mass losses and they provide momentum for the body.

D. Arms and arm speed are especially important in acceleration. They enhance vertical forces for the athlete to overcome gravity and into an optimal sprint position.

SPRINT MECHANICS

BASIC SPRINT MECHANICS Sprint mechanics must be rehearsed over and over with many, many repetitions if the athlete is to put themselves in position to produce the forces to achieve successful maximum velocity. Some of the basic principles that we deem important are listed below: 1. Athletes should run tall, chest up, with the pelvis slightly posteriorly tilted, with the head and torso aligned right above the pelvis.

The body will be just slightly tilted forward at top speeds. The correct posture cannot be emphasized enough—it is critical to success! The proper posture is the platform for applying force. The trunk angle of your best sprinters remains almost constant for the full sprint distance. The trunk is your biggest and heaviest segment of the body and serves as an excellent base of support for the lower body to produce the movements to successfully sprint.

2. The head is held high, with the eyes looking straight ahead. The head, neck and spine should be neutrally aligned. There should be no rotation of the head. The goal is a loose jaw with the chin remaining level, always keeping the head steady.

3. The hand of the driving arm comes up to shoulder level. They should drive back 6 to 8 inches behind the hips on the backside, and swing through the shoulders with no wasted motion. Remember that sprinting is controlled to a large degree by the arms, and the arms aid in balance, recovery and the allimportant frontside mechanics to produce the needed angular momentum and torque.

The arms are especially critical in the acceleration phase, with a vigorous, driving action providing for powerful, explosive movements.

4. The shoulders are relaxed, squared up to the track—not hunched and causing tightness in the upper body. The hands are open, and the thumb is on top, with the elbows rotated inward toward the athlete’s sides.

5. The hips are high enough above the ground with a slight forward rotation to allow the driving leg to fully extend to the ground to obtain the full range of motion. They should

be in a neutral position and in line with the body. An athlete should avoid dropping hips to raise the knees. The hips should extend fully through the full range of motion to maximize the vertical and horizontal forces in the proper direction. Hips that extend fully also activate the stretch reflex that allows the leg to naturally swing through with maximum angular velocity.

6. Good knee lift is essential—the thigh should be parallel or horizontal with the ground.

7. Concentrate on running smooth and letting the body flow—no bouncing.

8. Ground contact should be with the ball of the foot, with the foot striking directly under the center of mass. Many coaches stressed staying on the toes in the past. According to Tellez, the foot contact should be on the outer edge and high on the ball of the foot.

A toe landing with too much plantar flexion results in too much time being spent waiting for the foot to rotate down into a stable position. The goal of the athlete should be to impact the ground with a foot that is moving backward—think of a child riding a scooter or skateboard. The foot should be pushing backward before it impacts the surface. Sprinting is a pushing action and not a pulling action. The foot must be moving horizontally backward as fast as possible at ground contact. The faster the foot is moved backward, the faster and more efficient the performance will be.

9. Feet should be positioned straight ahead and pointing straight down the track during foot contact. A dorsiflexed foot is like a loaded spring that activates the calf, generating power and minimizing ground contact. Mann says the optimal dorsiflexion is 10 degrees.

10. Avoid excessive backside mechanics. Problems associated with excessive backside actions: a. Increased recovery time, which results in slower step-rate (stride frequency) b. Increased load on the hamstrings, which must assist in the recovery process. This greatly increases the risk of injury! c. Decreased knee lift because knee lift is inhibited when the hips are low, and there isn’t enough time for them to be lifted higher with the late recovery. This results in less powerful force being placed into the surface.

11. Relaxation: All athletes should be striving for relaxation and running comfortably with rhythm. Focus on using muscles that are required for running and stabilization. More importantly, learn to switch off all muscles that are not required. The face, shoulders and neck should all be relaxed and free of tension and strain.

SPRINT MECHANIC TEACHING CUES 1. Cocked foot on ground impact stressing the proper dorsiflexion (toe up is the cue) 2. No butt kick (The butt kicker drill was a staple in the warmup for many coaches in the past and was considered desirable) 3. Flat back, tight stomach and butt 4. Run tall with chest up. (Aids in keeping hips up and over the center of mass) 5. Knee up, Toe up, Heel up, Hands up, Step over opposite knee.

(This should be a constant cue from the coach to the athlete) 6. Speed up the arms and have good arm separation. (Arm Speed/Arm Drive—especially during acceleration where urgency with the arms is key) 7. Close the angle (90 degrees) on the arms. (Short levers are fast levers) 8. Hands slightly higher at the front with thumbs up, and turn elbows in toward the side of the body. (Throw hands down and back forcefully in an up and down motion) 9. Minimize the bouncing and lateral forces as much as possible.

MAY 2022 techniques

31

HIGH-VELOCITY SPEED MECHANICS 10. Stress Good High Knee lift/drive.

(Pop the thigh forward and envision you are kicking someone in the shin, according to Seagrave) 11. Everything is down stroke in sprinting with a low heel recovery.

12. Athletes should push down through the shin, pushing through the ground vertically.

13. Swing through the shoulders with the arms.

14. Avoid dropping hips to raise the knees.

15. “Knee up, Foot Down” is an excellent coaching cue.

16. Think of the hands as two hammers and there are nails in the wall behind you that you are attempting to nail in. (Cue from Feed the Cats Coach Tony Holler) MONITORING AN ATHLETE’S TECHNIQUE/ MECHANICS A coach who analyses and monitors an athlete’s technique and mechanics should look for the following major items: 1. Tall Action—An athlete should be running erect, running tall, running on the forefront of the foot with a full extension of the back, hips and legs, as opposed to “sitting down” when running (lowering of the body).

2. Relaxed Action—The athlete should move easily and with fluid motions as opposed to “working hard” or “grinding” as they sprint. The movement of sprinting should “flow.” The hands should be relaxed, the shoulders low, and arms should swing rhythmically by the sides in harmony.

3. Smooth Action—An athlete should lightly “float” across the top of the ground.

All motion should be forward and not up and down with as little lateral movement as possible. The legs should move easily under the body like a wheel rolling down the track.

4. Drive—An athlete should be pushing from an extended rear leg, with good forward knee drive with the movement actions in front of the body. This is followed by a strike and pushing foot action directly below the athlete’s center of gravity. This was often in the past incorrectly called pawing. There is no such thing as pawing. Sprinters don’t paw or pull. It is a pushing action.

There is no better indicator for the coach to observe proficient sprint mechanics than the amount of separation between the knees at touchdown. Great sprinters keep it to a minimum at touchdown.

32

techniques MAY 2022

SPRINT MECHANIC NO-NO’S Posture 1. Leaning or tilting backward with the body 2. Leaning or bending forward at the waist 3. Excessive Side-to-Side Motion (Lateral Motion) 4. Head tilted back or too far forward (chin protrusion) 5. Not enough tension in the abdominal muscles, limiting the transfer of force.

Arm Action 1. Arms swing across the midline of the body 2. Arms are carried too high or too low 3. Condensed arm swing (Too high and tight) 4. Excessive Arm Swing (sweeping) 5. Arms are very square to shoulders and robotic in nature 6. The swinging motion of the arms lasts for longer than the optimal time, rather than being short and powerful 7. Arm movement is not coordinated with the motion of the legs Leg Action 1. Footstrike—exaggerated forefoot or heel strike 2. Hips are stiff 3. No Knee Lift or Drive 4. Reaching—putting on brakes and getting out in front of center of mass Hands 1. Thumbs are turned down 2. Palms are down (dogpaddling) 3. Hands shaped like fins 4. Making fists with the hands (causes tightness to radiate up into arms and upper body) SUMMARY To summarize, sprint mechanics matter a great deal. They can be a huge mechanical advantage, or a very limiting factor. The mastery of sprint mechanics will allow the four major objectives of a sprint program to be achieved:

It can be improved.”

Coaches must be always working toward a model of optimal sprint mechanics. Why? Mechanics is directly related to performance.

Mann says it best: “Great coaches understand and teach the science of performance.” And it really isn’t that difficult. As stated before, mechanics don’t change at any level.

The technical mastery of the mechanics will take quality rehearsal and significant, supervised instruction by coaches. It must be monitored and evaluated daily. The bottom line is this: Better mechanics, better sprinters.” Sprint mechanics do matter!

REFERENCES 1.Anderson, Vince, formerly of Texas A & M, Articles, Clinics 2.Hanenberger, Eric, South Dakota University, conversations Holler, Tony, Track & Field Coach, Plainfield North High School, Illinois, Articles Mann, Ralph, The Mechanics of Sprinting and Hurdling, 2018 (Written with Amber Murphy) Sherman, Amelia, former assistant track and field coach at the University of Mary, editing, conversations, information Seagrave, Loren, Speed Dynamics, Conversations, Clinics, Articles Tellez. Tom, The Science of Speed, 2020 (Written with Carl Lewis and Christopher J. Arellano, PHD.) Vega, Reece, North Dakota State University, Articles, Conversations Weyand, Peter, Southern Methodist University, Articles Winckler, Gary, University of Illinois, Clinics, Conversations, Articles Young, Michael, United States Military Academy and Human Performance Consulting, Articles

1. Force production improvement.

2. Braking forces minimized.

3. Improved vertical propulsive forces.

4. An emphasis on front side mechanics and minimized backside mechanics.

A favorite saying I used with my athletes: “Excellence doesn’t just happen.” Optimal mechanics don’t just happen either. They must be taught. Coaches need to remember a quote by Coach Seagrave: “Sprinting is a skill.

MIKE THORSON IS THE FORMER DIRECTOR OF TRACK & FIELD/CROSS COUNTRY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARY IN BISMARCK, ND

MAY 2022 techniques

33

Generating Speed Momentum Analysis in Discus Throwing 34

techniques MAY 2022

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

TWO MECHANICAL CONCEPTS Linear momentum is a term that refers to the mechanics of translation of a system. It is directly proportional to the speed of translation of the center of mass (CM) of the system, and it has the same direction as the speed of translation of the CM of the system.

Angular momentum (also called “rotary momentum”) is a mechanical term that refers to the mechanics of rotation of a system. It is related to how fast a system is rotating (speed of rotation) and how “spread-out” the system is with respect to the axis of rotation. The faster the system is rotating and the more spread-out the system is with respect to the axis of rotation, the larger the angular momentum of the system.

To change the angular momentum of a system, it is necessary to exert on that system forces that point off-center to its CM. This is only possible when the system is in direct physical contact with other systems, such as the ground. When a system is not in contact with other systems, no off-center forces are exerted on it, and therefore its angular momentum remains constant; for example, when a discus thrower is in the airborne position just before landing in the middle of the circle.

It is possible to transfer angular momentum from one part of a system to another. An example: shortly before release, a discus thrower can transfer counterclockwise angular momentum from the left arm to other parts of the body and eventually to the discus. This will materialize as a slowing down of the counterclockwise speed of rotation of the left arm (and/or a shortening of the radius of the left arm with respect to the middle of the body: less “spread-out”), and a speeding up of the rotations of other body parts (or of the discus).

For any given amount of angular momentum that a part of a system has, the closer this part of the system is kept to an axis of rotation, the faster it will tend to rotate around that axis.

That happens, for example, after the left foot takes off from the ground following the end of the first single support, when a discus thrower quickly brings both legs near the middle of the

body, and the legs tend to rotate faster around the vertical axis. This speeding up of the rotation of the legs will help them to get ahead, from a rotational point of view, of the upper body and of the discus.

LINEAR MOMENTUM During a discus throw, the feet make forces on the ground. By reaction, the ground makes equal and opposite forces on the feet (figure 6). These reaction forces give linear momentum to the combined thrower+discus system. Forward horizontal linear momentum is generated in the early stages of the throw. It makes the system translate horizontally across the throwing circle (figure 1, left). During the delivery phase, the thrower loses part of the forward linear momentum and obtains upward vertical linear momentum (Figure 1, right). That is, the forward-moving athlete plants the left foot ahead of the body and presses forward and downward on the ground. This action helps the athlete obtain vertical speed at the expense of some loss of horizontal speed. At release, the thrower+discus system will have some leftover forward linear momentum, as well as upward linear momentum. An analogy that can be used here to explain the purpose of giving forward linear momentum to the thrower+discus system is as follows: One can compare the discus thrower with a ship firing a cannon.

If the ship is traveling forward as the cannon is fired, the forward speed of the ship is added to the forward speed of the projectile. This results in a larger total horizontal speed of the projectile as compared to a condition where the ship is static when it fires the cannon. The forward motion of the thrower+discus system contributes to the speed of the discus at release, and the thrower indeed needs to take advantage of this forward motion as much as possible, albeit its limited contribution to the overall speed of the discus at release.

ANGULAR MOMENTUM To understand the process of generating the speed of the discus relative to the CM of the thrower+discus system, we will need to look at the angular

MAY 2022 techniques

35

GENERATING SPEED

FIGURE 1. FORWARD LINEAR MOMENTUM (LEFT), AND UPWARD LINEAR MOMENTUM (RIGHT).

FIGURE 2. ROTARY MOMENTUM ABOUT THE VERTICAL AXIS (VIEW FROM TOP). RED CURVED ARROWS SHOW THE DIRECTION OF ROTATION.

momentum of the thrower, the angular momentum of the discus, and the angular momentum of the combined thrower+discus system. Although the discus speed is the ultimate goal, one cannot look exclusively at the raw speeds because speed alone does not explain the dynamic relationships between the speed of the discus, the forces 36

techniques MAY 2022

made by the thrower on the ground and the motions of the thrower. Essentially, the angular momentum of the thrower+discus system is equal to the angular momentum of the thrower plus the angular momentum of the discus. In other words, the angular momentum of the discus is directly proportional to its speed. By focusing on angular

momentum instead of speed, one can gain a mechanical understanding of the discus’s speed development process because the angular momentum of the discus is directly proportional to its speed (Dapena & Anderst, 1997).

The ground reaction forces which produce the linear momentum of the thrower+discus system also give angular momentum to the thrower+discus system. There is angular momentum in two independent directions. First, about a vertical axis (figure 2) and second, about a horizontal axis aligned with the midline of the throwing sector (figure 3). A transfer of angular momentum about the vertical axis from the thrower to the discus imparts horizontal speed to the discus (figure 2), and it also tends to slow down the thrower’s counterclockwise rotation in the view from overhead. A transfer of angular momentum about the horizontal axis from the thrower to the discus imparts vertical speed to the discus (figure 3). It also tends to slow down any counterclockwise rotation of the thrower in the view from the back of the circle (Dapena, 1994 b, 1993 a).

Figure 4 shows the net contributions of the momentum generated (linear or vertical) to the final speed of the discus. It also shows that linear momentum contributes minimally, and that angular momentum is the main contributor to the discus speed.

The rotation of the thrower+discus system about a vertical axis can be generated most effectively while both feet are in contact with the ground, through a “pull-push” mechanism. There are two such periods in every throw: the first double support phase at the back of the circle and the double-support phase during the final delivery. The roles of these two double-support phases need to be addressed. Some may still emphasize the dynamic delivery phase while the “back of the circle” may be receiving only limited attention. However, discus throwers need to be very dynamic in the parts of the throw that precede the delivery phase.

GENERATION OF HORIZONTAL SPEED THROUGH ANGULAR MOMENTUM ABOUT THE VERTICAL AXIS Most of the angular momentum of the thrower+discus system about the vertical axis is obtained from the ground during the initial double support phase at the

FIGURE 3. ROTARY MOMENTUM ABOUT THE HORIZONTAL AXIS. LEFT, VIEW FROM THE BACK OF THE CIRCLE. RED CURVED ARROW SHOWS THE DIRECTION OF ROTATION. RIGHT, SIDE VIEW. PINK ARROW SHOWS THE DIRECTION OF ROTATION. THIS AXIS RUNS THROUGH THE CENTER OF GRAVITY AND IS ALIGNED WITH THE MIDLINE OF THE THROWING SECTOR IN A FRONT-BACK DIRECTION.

FIGURE 4. CONTRIBUTION OF LINEAR AND ANGULAR MOMENTUM TO THE SPEED OF THE DISCUS.

back of the circle and the following single support phase on the left foot. During the initial double-support phase, the angular momentum is probably generated mainly by pull-push forces (figure 5). During the single-support phase on the left foot, it is generated by an off-center ground reaction force that passes to the right of the CM of the thrower+discus system (figure 6).

During the single support over the right foot in the middle of the circle, the right foot generally makes on the ground a small horizontal force, which points forward and somewhat toward the left (figure 7, left). The ground reaction force points almost directly through the CM of the system and therefore, the angular momentum of the system about the vertical axis remains almost constant during the single support on the right foot. A

small (but not negligible) amount of angular momentum about the vertical axis is added to the system during the final delivery phase.

The increase in the angular momentum of the system about the vertical axis during the final delivery is small, approximately 10%, compared to that generated in the back of the circle (Dapena & Anderst, 1997, Dapena 1994 b, 1993 b).

The directions of the forces made by the feet on the ground during the delivery phase are approximated in figure 7, right. The left foot probably pushes on the ground forward and perhaps somewhat toward the right, while the right foot may exert on the ground a smaller force which points backward and toward the left, with respect to the throwing circle. The reactions to these forces produce the observed increase in the counterclock-

wise angular momentum of the system about the vertical axis during the delivery.

This inability of the thrower to generate a large amount of angular momentum about the vertical axis during the delivery phase begs the question as to why it is so.

Presumably, the thrower has already been rotating so fast about the vertical axis by the time she reached the middle of the circle during the second single support, that the feet find it difficult to make very large horizontal forces on the ground (Dapena, 1993 a, Dapena & Anderst, 1997).

To illustrate, let us consider a downhill skier coming off the gate to start her descent.

Along with using her legs actively to move forward, she would also initially stroke with her ski poles very dynamically against the snow surface to help accelerate that descent.

However, as the speed of the skier+ski poles system reaches high values a few seconds later, it becomes increasingly difficult and eventually impossible to keep using the poles any longer; so, the skier tucks the poles away and allows gravity alone to take her to the finish line. That is, further use of the ski poles would be a braking force not a propulsive force or, stated somewhat differently, the skier may think that she is helping the system move forward, but she is not.

Similarly, discus throwers may think that they are exerting forces against the ground during the delivery phase when they are not; at least not as significant forces as they think (Dapena & Anderst, 1997, Dapena, 1993 a).

The conditions in the back of the circle at the start of a discus throw are analogous to those of an initially motionless skier. From initial static conditions, the subject is able to achieve significant increases in speed by using the ski poles or in angular momentum about the vertical axis (in the early part of a discus throw). The conditions at the start of the double-support delivery phase in the discus throw are analogous to those of a fast-moving skier. When the subject is already moving very fast, it is difficult or impossible to achieve further increases in speed by using the ski poles or in the angular momentum of the whole system about the vertical axis (in the double-support delivery phase of a discus throw). Does the thrower need to make an all-out effort to generate counterclockwise angular momentum about the vertical axis at the back of the circle? Not necessarily. However, there will be a problem if the thrower is not active enough during that period. Another analogy that can help to further elucidate this MAY 2022 techniques

37

GENERATING SPEED

FIGURE 5. “PUSH-PULL” FORCES, MADE BY FEET ON THE GROUND, GENERATING ANGULAR MOMENTUM (VERTICAL AXIS) DURING THE INITIAL DOUBLE SUPPORT IN THE BACK OF THE CIRCLE.

FIGURE 6. GENERATION OF ANGULAR (AND LINEAR) MOMENTUM (VERTICAL AXIS) DURING THE FIRST SINGLE SUPPORT IN THE BACK OF THE CIRCLE. IT IS GENERATED BY AN OFF CENTER GROUND REACTION FORCE PASSING TO THE RIGHT OF THE CENTER OF MASS OF THE THROWER+DISCUS SYSTEM.

point (i.e., how active a thrower should be in the back of the circle) is to consider a long jumper, say four steps prior to the end of the run-up. Assuming that the athlete is already running at c. 98% of the desired speed, the athlete probably will not have much difficulty reaching 100% of the desired speed in the four remaining steps. Therefore, running at a somewhat sub-maximum speed a few steps prior to the end of the run-up is not necessarily a problem for the long jumper.

On the other hand, if four steps prior to the end of the run-up the athlete were running say, at c. 50% of the target speed, the jumper would not have enough time in the four remaining steps to reach the target speed at the end of the run-up, and the result would be a sub-par jump.

In a similar way, if the angular momentum of a discus thrower about the vertical 38

techniques MAY 2022

axis is somewhat smaller at the start of the double-support delivery phase, this may not be a problem, because within certain limits, the athlete should have the opportunity to increase that angular momentum to the assumed desired value before release.

However, if the value of the same angular momentum is too far below the target value, the thrower will find it impossible to reach the target value before release, resulting in a sub-par throw. It is not known how low the angular momentum about the vertical axis can be at the start of the double-support delivery before it starts to negatively affect the throw. What is known is that the value of the angular momentum about the vertical axis, at the beginning of the double support delivery, is not far below the value that it has at release. This means that although most throwers rely, to some extent, on an increase

in the value of that angular momentum of the thrower+discus system during the delivery phase, they actually rely much more on the angular momentum that they generate during the first double support and the early part of the first single support (Dapena & Anderst, 1997).

Although the discus thrower needs to generate a large amount of angular momentum around the vertical axis during the early part of the throw, the motions of the athlete at the back of the circle should not be rushed.

Instead, during the first double-support and single-support phases, the athlete should rotate at a reasonably fast pace while keeping the arms and the swinging leg widely spread.

SPECIFIC MECHANICS OF ANGULAR MOMENTUM GENERATION DURING THE FIRST DOUBLE & FIRST SINGLE SUPPORT At the back of the circle, the thrower wants to generate the maximum possible amount of angular momentum about the vertical axis. It’s emphasized that what a thrower wants is a large amount of angular momentum, not necessarily of angular velocity. To achieve this, the thrower swings the right leg counterclockwise very fast, very far from the middle of the body, and over the longest possible range of motion. Such a thrust of the swinging right leg helps the athlete to generate (i.e., obtain) counterclockwise angular momentum about the vertical axis.

Here’s how: Angular momentum is generated by the torques exerted on the body+discus system about the vertical axis. The increase in angular momentum is equal to the amount of torque received from the ground, multiplied by the time during which this torque is exerted. That is, angular momentum = T (torque) x t (time) and that relationship states that for any given amount of time, the bigger the torque, the bigger the angular momentum the thrower will have in the end.

So the thrower wants a maximum value for the products of torque and time. As mentioned earlier, these torques are exerted essentially by “pull-push” forces received by the feet from the ground during the doublesupport phase (figure 5) and by a more-orless forward-pointing force exerted by the ground on the left foot, a force that points slightly off-center to the center of mass in the view from overhead, during the singlesupport phase (figure 6).

So the thrower wants maximum torque and maximum time. However, if the thrower

MAY 2022 techniques

39

GENERATING SPEED

FIGURE 7. ANGULAR MOMENTUM GENERATION (VERTICAL AXIS) DURING THE SECOND SINGLE SUPPORT (LEFT) AND SECOND DOUBLE SUPPORT (RIGHT). RED ARROWS SHOW THE FORCE MADE ON THE GROUND, PINK ARROWS SHOW THE GROUND REACTION FORCE.

FIGURE 8. ANGULAR MOMENTUM GENERATION (HORIZONTAL AXIS) DURING LATE SECOND SINGLE SUPPORT (LEFT), AND EARLY SECOND DOUBLE SUPPORT (RIGHT). RED ARROWS SHOW THE FORCES MADE ON THE GROUND, PINK ARROWS SHOW THE GROUND REACTION FORCE.

receives a very large torque from the ground, she tends to rotate quickly (all other things being equal) and if she rotates quickly, the time that she will have available will decrease. So clearly, there is an apparent conflict here. Should the thrower reduce the torque in order to have more time available? The answer is no (Dapena, 2021).

The thrower needs to maximize the torque, and when that results in a shortening of the 40

techniques MAY 2022

time, so be it. What the thrower needs to do to mitigate the shortening of the time is to increase the time by increasing the range of motion.

The way to do this during the “wound up” position in the back of the circle is to start the counterclockwise motion (towards her own left) of the whole system with the discus in the most clockwise (towards her own right) position possible. Of course,

discus throwers already do this. At the most clockwise position of the discus, the hips are clockwise relative to the footprints, the shoulders are clockwise relative to the hips, and the discus is clockwise relative to the shoulders. Apart from producing some stretching of muscles, the main goal of this position is to provide more time for the subsequent counterclockwise motion through an increased counterclockwise range of motion.

So the thrower wants to maximize torque even though it tends to reduce the available time. The question is then whether there is a way to increase the torque. Indeed, there are a couple of ways to produce a big torque; the main way being to exert the muscles very hard. An additional way to increase the muscle forces is by reducing the speed of contraction of the muscles.

At the most clockwise position of the discus in the back of the circle, the body is momentarily unmoving. It has been rotating clockwise up to that point, but it will continue moving in a counterclockwise direction, so at that precise point in time, the body is basically at a standstill. That is, it has neither clockwise nor counterclockwise speed of rotation.

At that time, the muscles that will propel the athlete in her counterclockwise motion are momentarily (instantaneously) in isometric conditions. In isometric conditions, muscles are able to exert very big forces and therefore, at this time, the thrower will be able to make the ground apply a large counterclockwise torque onto her. Ideally, these muscles would keep exerting those large forces throughout the entire double-support and single-support phases in the back of the circle, because large muscle forces imply large torques exerted by the ground onto the thrower. But there is a problem. The counterclockwise torques exerted by the ground onto the thrower make the thrower rotate faster and faster counterclockwise, and in doing so, it becomes harder and harder to achieve those large muscle forces because the muscles go from isometric conditions (at the most clockwise position of the discus) to slow concentric conditions and, later, to fast concentric conditions. Physiology tells us that the faster the concentric conditions of a muscle, the smaller the force that it can exert. So should the thrower reduce the size of the muscle forces to reduce the increase in counterclockwise angular velocity, therefore putting the muscles in slower concentric conditions, which would then allow the

muscles to exert larger forces? No. For the thrower to reduce the muscle force in order to increase the muscle force would be illogical. This is the second apparent conflict. But again, there is a good solution for minimizing this conflict.

The muscles need to be kept, at all times, at the maximum tension they can exert. Although that will make the body rotate faster, thus reducing the muscle forces, to a great extent, this is unavoidable. However, the thrower can mitigate the loss of muscle tension by maximizing the system’s moment of inertia, which can be done by keeping the arms outstretched in the double-support and the lead leg outward during the single-support. Under these conditions, for the given amount of angular momentum that the system has, the speed of rotation (its angular velocity) won’t be as large, and the speed of rotation, not angular momentum, is what determines how quickly the muscles contract. The priority in the back of the circle is to increase angular momentum, not angular velocity, and the best way to increase angular momentum is to keep angular velocity as small as possible.

Angular velocity should not be kept relatively small by limiting the amount of angular momentum because that would be self-defeating. It needs to be kept small by increasing the moment of inertia, which would allow the thrower to increase angular momentum more quickly from the value that it has at a specific point in time.

Succinctly stated, although theoretically one can increase the angular momentum (L) by increasing either the moment of inertia (I) or the angular velocity (ω) since L= I ω, the thrower should always favor an increase of inertia at the expense of angular velocity because both practically and mechanically, it’s unwise to increase angular velocity, due to the fact that as velocity goes up, torque goes down because of muscle physiology regarding speed of contraction and tension generation. This inability to generate torque at high speeds is disproportionate enough to justify a loss in speed in favor of an increase in the moments of inertia.

TRANSFER OF ANGULAR MOMENTUM Following the generation of the maximum angular momentum possible in the first double and the first single support phases, that rotary momentum is “stored” in the thrower while the discus is given just a small amount of the rotary momentum. The rotary momentum obtained by the thrower and

the discus during this first double support phase and first single support phase does not increase during the delivery phase, as explained earlier (Dapena, 1993 a). On the other hand, a powerful transfer of rotary momentum from the thrower to the discus takes place during the delivery phase, which results in an increase in the horizontal speed of the discus.

Rotary momentum about the horizontal axis, the major contributor to the vertical speed, is obtained during the second half of the second single support phase and the first half of the delivery phase. At that moment, the thrower receives, from the ground, a force that passes to the right of the CM, and it gives the thrower counterclockwise rotary momentum as viewed from the back of the circle. The momentum is then transferred to the discus and produces majority of the vertical speed of the discus. As with the rotary momentum about the vertical axis, most of the rotary momentum about a horizontal axis is not obtained from the interaction with the ground in the middle of the circle (Dapena, 1993 a).

by the ground on the right foot would thus pass to the right of the CM and would tend to increase the counterclockwise angular momentum about the horizontal axis of the system, while the reaction force exerted on the left foot would pass to the left of the CM and would tend to decrease the angular momentum. Overall, the action of the right leg is dominant, and the result is a net gain of counterclockwise angular momentum about the horizontal axis during the first half of the double-support delivery phase.

In most throwers, during the second half of the delivery phase there is not much further gain of angular momentum about the horizontal axis. However, part of the counterclockwise angular momentum that has been generated during the second half of the single support phase on the right foot and the first half of the delivery phase is transferred from the thrower to the discus during this period. Again, this transfer of angular momentum during the second half of the delivery phase produces most of the vertical speed of the discus (Dapena & Anderst, 1997).

GENERATION OF VERTICAL SPEED OF THE DISCUS THROUGH ANGULAR MOMENTUM ABOUT THE HORIZONTAL AXIS The angular momentum about a horizontal axis aligned with the midline of the throwing sector is important for the generation of the vertical speed of the discus (figure 3). This angular momentum is generated mainly during the second half of the single-support phase on the right foot and during the first half of the delivery phase.

During the single support phase, the thrower’s right foot exerts onto the ground a force that points vertically downward and possibly also somewhat toward the left in the view from the back of the circle (figure 9, left). The ground reaction to this force passes to the right of the CM. Since the reaction force is off-center (in other words, it does not point directly through the CM), it gives the thrower counterclockwise angular momentum in the view from the back of the circle.

During the early part of the doublesupport delivery phase, the directions of the forces made by the feet on the ground are not clear. However, it seems that the right foot continues to push on the ground downward and perhaps further toward the left than in the single support (figure 9, right), while the left foot pushes closer to the vertical direction. The reaction force exerted

PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS REGARDING MOMENTUM One may argue that experience teaches that a discus thrower should prefer to execute moderate and rather slow movements in the back of the circle and try to arrive at the center of the circle under control, ready for the all-important final delivery of the discus.

It may also seem quite paradoxical to argue that during the dynamic delivery phase in the front of the ring, there is no gain in the rotary momentum of the thrower+discus system, and that the thrower rotates so quickly about the vertical axis that she finds it difficult to exert forces on the ground.

Most coaches would argue that the faster a thrower performs the turn in the back of the circle, the higher the risk that there will be a slowing down and poor execution of the delivery phase. In the same fashion, it seems obvious that there should be a tremendous pushing against the ground during the delivery phase. Would it be possible to throw successfully on a slippery surface? Moreover, good discus throwers can throw over 55 meters from a standing position. Since there is no momentum during the start in this type of throw, it is evident that all momentum is generated during the delivery phase because this is what a standing throw is all about.

If there was no momentum generation, a throw could not take place (Vrabel, 1994).

MAY 2022 techniques

41

GENERATING SPEED

THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING MOMENTUM Experimental data (Dapena, 1993 a, Dapena & Anderst, 1997) has shown that there is no additional momentum development during the delivery of the discus. Again, the reasoning can be found in that the body is rotating so rapidly during that phase, that the thrower is unable to exert significant forces onto the ground, as illustrated earlier using the downhill skier example.

However, although the thrower exerts minimal forces against the ground during the delivery phase, these forces are not zero. A thrower would tend to slip on an icy surface, the same way a distance runner running on an icy road would tend to slip, although the forces exerted against the ground are small. However, in the case of the discus thrower, the tendency to slip would be much greater in the back of the circle, as it would be greater during the first strides of a sprinter as she tries to accelerate (Dapena, 1994 a).

As far as the standing throw is concerned, from a dynamic point of view, its execution is different from the execution of the delivery phase. In the standing throw, the thrower creates forces on the ground, which are not present in the delivery phase of a full discus throw. The implication here is that there are certain differences between the muscular actions of a standing throw and those of the delivery phase of a full throw. Without question, the discus does obtain most of its rotary momentum, and therefore most of its velocity, during the delivery phase.

However, this does not necessarily mean that the majority of the thrower’s effort also occurs during the delivery. Not only in terms of the effort exerted during the delivery phase, which expresses the interaction between the thrower and the discus, but also in terms of effort exerted in the early part of the throw (turn), which expresses the interaction between the thrower and the ground.

Essentially, the thrower should strive to generate rotary momentum in the back of the circle during her first double support and single support phases. Subsequently, this rotary momentum is stored in the body and then part of it is transferred into the discus during the delivery phase. In fact, this action is the most important aspect of the delivery phase, coupled by the exertion of downward forces on the ground (upward linear momentum), for the generation of the vertical speed of the discus (Dapena, 1994 a).

42

techniques MAY 2022

SUMMARY The dynamic execution of the movements in the back of the circle is of paramount importance for the correct execution of the discus technique. Throwers cannot capitalize on an increase in the rotary momentum during the delivery phase. That momentum has already been generated during the phases of the first double and the early part of the first single support. Therefore, problems will arise if the thrower is not active enough during this particular phase. If the rotary momentum is small in the back of the circle, it will be difficult for the thrower to reach her maximum potential speed at the moment of release, resulting in a compromised throw. Similarly, increased activity in the back of the circle does not mean that the discus needs to be accelerated early via an increase in angular velocity. Meaning, the throwers should rush through the movements. Throwers should be advised to be dynamic in the back of the ring and strive to create a large amount of angular momentum via the exertion of large torques against high moments of inertia, which will tend to reduce the angular velocity—an acceptable compromise.

Good throwers are not rotating super quickly in the back of the ring, but this does not mean that they are “taking it easy.” They have acquired quite a bit of angular momentum and to achieve that, they are making big torques. But the angular momentum is being stored in the form of a big moment of inertia and a relatively small angular velocity, and this relatively small angular velocity is what makes some coaches believe that the athletes are “taking it easy.” At the time of the end of the single-support phase at the back of the circle, very little of this angular momentum is stored in the discus or in the throwing arm, so it gives the false impression that nothing very dynamic is going on.

Indeed, nothing very dynamic is going on in the discus or the throwing arm, in the back of the circle. That is because all “dynamism” is taking place in the whole body+discus system, of which the throwing arm and discus are very small parts. The throwing arm and the discus don’t get ultra-dynamic until the second double-support (delivery) phase in the front of the circle, when a large amount of the whole thrower+discus system’s angular momentum is transferred from the thrower’s body (legs, trunk, head, and non-throwing arm) to the throwing arm and discus.

REFERENCES Dapena, J. (2021). Personal Communication.

Dapena, J., & Anderst, W. (1997). Discus Throw (Men). Scientific Services Project, U.S.A Track & Field. Biomechanics Laboratory, Dept. of Kinesiology, Indiana University.

Dapena, J. (1994 a). New insights on discus throwing: A response to Jan Vrabel’s comments. Track Technique, 129, 4116-4119.

Dapena, J. (1994 b). An analysis of angular momentum in the discus throw. Journal of Biomechanics. 27, 660.

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

Dapena, J. (1993 b). An analysis of angular momentum in the discus throw. Proc.

14th Cong. ISB, Eds. S. Bouisset, S. Mdtral and H. Monod.

Societe de Biomecanique, Paris, 306-307.

Vrabel, J. (1994). Are Dapena’s insights on discus throwing correct? Track Technique, 129, 4114-4115.

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

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

mondoworldwide.com

connect.marines.com

vsathletics.com sportsbyapt.com/sport/track

beynonsports.com

directathletics.com balfour.com

ucsspirit.com

geosurfaces.com

simplifaster.com gillporter.com

maxmedals.com

ucsspirit.com mfathletic.com

garmin.com

sportlinesevices.com

elliptigo.com

coachesdirectory.com

lightspeedlift.com 44

techniques MAY 2022

surfaceco.com

MAY 2022 techniques

45

2022 National Indoor Track & Field NCAA DIVISION I

Mike Holloway Florida Women’s Head COY

Edrick Floréal Texas Men’s Head COY

Nic Petersen Florida Women’s Assistant COY

Pete Watson Texas Men’s Assistant COY

Abby Steiner Kentucky Women’s Track AOY

Abdihamid Nur Northern Arizona Men’s Track AOY

Jasmine Moore Florida Women’s Field AOY

Ayden Owens Arkansas Men’s Field AOY

Chris Parno Minnesota State Women’s Assistant COY

Nick Aguila American International Men’s Assistant COY

Berenice Cleyete-Merle Indianapolis Women’s Track AOY

Trevor Bassitt Ashland Men’s Track AOY

Cheyenne Williamson Saginaw Valley State Women’s Field AOY

Johnathon Harper Texas A&MKingsville Men’s Field AOY

Dusty Lopez Williams Men’s Assistant COY

Kassie Parker Loras Women’s Track AOY

Aidan Ryan Williams Men’s Track AOY

Hannah Zenkovich UW-La Crosse Women’s Field AOY

Kyle Rollins St. John Fisher Men’s Field AOY

NCAA DIVISION II

Mike Turgeon Minnesota State Women’s Head COY

Jerry Baltes Grand Valley State Men’s Head COY

NCAA DIVISION III

Matt Jones Loras Women’s Head COY

46

Matthew Jeff Stiles Washington (Mo.) Scheffler Men’s Head COY Ithaca Women’s Assistant COY

techniques MAY 2022

Athletes and Coaches of the Year NAIA

Doug Edgar Indiana Tech Women’s Head COY

Frezer Legesse Oklahoma City Men’s Head COY

Austin Roark Indiana Tech Women’s Assistant COY

Dylan Biedron Saint Mary (Kan.) Men’s Assistant COY

Joy Abu William Carey (Miss.)

Women’s Track AOY

Zouhair Talbi Oklahoma City Men’s Track AOY

Destiny Copeland Indiana Tech Women’s Field AOY

Dylan Kucera Midland (Neb.) Men’s Field AOY

NJCAA

Douglas Marshall Iowa Western CC Women’s Head COY

Erik Vance South Plains (Texas) Men’s Head COY

Marc Bierbaum Iowa Western CC Women’s Assistant COY

Wesley Miller South Plains (Texas) Men’s Assistant COY

Hilda Chebet Iowa Western CC Women’s Track AOY

Chris Robinson South Plains (Texas) Men’s Track AOY

Nia Robinson Barton (Kan.) CC Women’s Field AOY

Shakwon Coke Barton (Kan.) CC Men’s Field AOY

2021 NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL CROSS COUNTRY COACHES OF THE YEAR

Barry Haworth Assumption High School (KY) Girls COY

Stan Lambros Cheyenne Mountain High School (CO) Boys COY

MAY 2022 techniques

47