Techniques November 2021

Contents Volume 15 Number 2 / November 2021

4

28

IN EVERY ISSUE

2

USTFCCCA Presidents

AWARDS

44 USTFCCCA Coaches Hall of Fame

Class of 2021 46 The Bowerman Finalists 2021

FEATURES

4

Long Distance Basic Aerodynamics and Flight Characteristics in Discus Throwing

BY DR. ANDREAS MAHERAS

14

14 High Jump Approach Mapping

A New Way to Develop A Consistent

High Jump Approach

BY DUSTY JONAS

28 Strength Training for Distance Runners

Longevity Through Versatile Conditioning

BY CARRIE LANE 36 Creating Confidence

The Four Sources of Self-Efficacy

BY DR. MATTHEW BUNS

ON THE COVER: BOWERMAN AWARD FINALIST TURNER WASHINGTON OF ARIZONA STATE WON THE DISCUS TITLE AT THE 2021 NCAA TRACK & FIELD CHAMPIONSHIPS IN EUGENE, OR WITH A THROW OF 208’ 1”.

PHOTOGRAPH BY KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

NOVEMBER 2021 techniques

1

USTFCCCA PRESIDENT

LEROY BURRELL PUBLISHER Sam Seemes

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

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

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

DIVISION PRESIDENTS

MEMBERSHIP SERVICES Kristina Taylor

DAVID SHOEHALTER NCAA Division I Track & Field

DIVISION II

DIVISION I

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

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

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

DANA SCHWARTING NCAA Division II Track & Field

TORREY OLSON NCAA Division I Cross Country

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

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

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

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

DIVISION III

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

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

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

NJCAA

NAIA

MIKE COLLINS NAIA Track & Field

2

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

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

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

DEE BROWN NJCAA Track & Field

DON COX NJCAA Cross Country

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

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

Techniques (ISSN 1939-3849) is published quarterly in February, May, August and November by the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association. Copyright 2021.

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

NOVEMBER 2021 techniques

3

Long Distance

Basic Aerodynamics and Flight Characteristics in Discus Throwing 4

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

T

he discus is an extremely aerodynamic implement (Hubbard, 2000). This implies that, under certain conditions, the distance thrown can be increased or decreased significantly beyond or below to that expected in a vacuum or in still air. A notable example is from the men’s discus final during the 1976 Olympic Games, where the gold medalist released his discus a significant 1.4 m/sec., less than the silver medalist (25.88 m/sec. vs. 27.28 m/sec., Terauds, 1978). However, aerodynamic factors dramatically affected the distance achieved by those two throwers. In a vacuum, the same author calculated that the silver medalist would have thrown 4.06 meters further than the winner. Indeed, the aerodynamic forces acting on the discus during its flight can decisively alter the course of its trajectory positively or negatively. So much so that the first author to publish scientific data regarding the effects of wind on the discus, Taylor (1932), suggested that it would be unfair to allow records achieved under favorable conditions. Those favorable conditions are created as a result of fluctuations in the relative wind speed, primarily, and secondarily, the angle of release, the velocity of release, the attack angle, the inclination angle, the tilt angle, the rotation of the discus around its short and long axes, the effective mass of the discus and its moment of inertia. During its flight the discus is influenced by gravity and the aerodynamic forces of lift, drag and pitching moment. Those forces act on the center of pressure (CP) which does not necessarily coincide with the center of gravity (CG) of the discus and is located somewhere in front of the CG. Drag is the product of the dynamic pressure (pressure in the front of the implement is greater than that in the rear), the cross-sectional area and a dimensionless drag coefficient. The other component, lift, is the product of the same elements but with its own dimensionless coefficient which measures the effectiveness of the implement to produce force perpendicular to the velocity vector. Those two coefficients, along with the pitching moment coefficient, depend on the attack angle.

The angles of interest that are formed during the launch of the discus are those of release, attack, inclination, tilt, along with the pitching moment (figure 1).

LIFT GENERATION The typical theory to explain how lift is produced uses the Bernoulli principle

which, briefly stated, explains that there is a high air speed and low pressure on the top of the air foil (wing-discus-frisbee etc.) and a low speed and high pressure on the lower surface of the foil. The difference in pressure creates a positive, upward lift. However, this theory has been challenged as trivial, incorrect or incomplete (NASA). That is, it does not explain why the velocity is higher on top, and so the explanation of lift presented is no real explanation, or more precisely it is a trivial truism (Johnson & Jansson, 2015).

Other theories that have been proposed include the Newton’s third law theory, the “longer path” theory, the “downwash” theory, the Coanda effect theory, the Kutta-Zhukosky lift theory and the Prandtl Drag Theory. According to Johnson & Jansson (2015) none of these theories present a correct explanation of flight.

They postulated that the aforementioned theories can be classified according to three conditions: trivial and correct, trivial and incorrect and, nontrivial but incorrect. They suggested that what is needed is a nontrivial correct theory and he offered a combination of the Bernoulli’s principle and Newtonian physics theory as an explanation of how lift is generated.

The detailed description of any of those theories is beyond the scope of this narrative.

ATTACK ANGLE The optimum angle of attack of the discus depends on the angle of release. A negative angle of attack means that the initial direction of the center of gravity points upwards in relation to the long axis of the discus (figure 1), with the opposite being true for a positive attack angle. Negative attack angles are the predominant in high level throwing. Generally, the negative angle of attack should increase as the angle of release increases and decreases as the angle of release decreases. At an approximate release angle of 25 degrees, the angle of attack is at zero (Terauds, 1978). In still air, the optimized attack angle will be at -4 to -10 degrees (Soong, 1976; Frohlich, 1981; Hubbard & Cheng, 2007). Along with other release parameters, Chiu (2008), also calculated a -10.25° angle of attack as optimal for breaking the current men’s world record, and that of -9.25° for breaking the current women’s world record.

The magnitude of the lift, drag and pitching forces will strongly depend on the attack angle (figure 2). According to Seo (2013), Seo et al. (2012) and Ganslen

(1964), lift increases linearly with the angle of attack up to the stalling angle which is at 30°. At that point the discus experiences a sudden decrease in lift and at 90° the lift force is zero. The drag force also increases with increasing attack angle from 0° to 90°. Ganslen (1964) showed that the sudden decrease in lift at 30° also coincides with the formation of a “turbulent wake” behind the discus. Discus performance will be improved if the discus has a relatively flat angle of attack.

Once the discus develops an angle of attack to the relative wind, it will continue to exaggerate the “nose up” tendency, which is termed as a positive pitching moment. This implies that a flight path initiated near the point of the stall angle for the discus will necessarily result in a stalled discus with high drag and low lift. Therefore, an optimum attack angle will allow the discus to complete its flight without stalling.

A term that has been used in reference to the attack angle is the maximum lift/ drag ratio and, more specifically, the attack angle at which that maximum ratio occurs. Taylor (1932) and Ganslen (1964) found that the maximum value of the ratio occurred at an attack angle of 9°. This value seems to be in conflict with a generally accepted negative optimal angle of attack. Hay (1985) attributed this discrepancy to the ever changing angle of attack during the discus’s flight speculating that the optimum angle obtained at release will be the one that would yield the best results overall and not at a particular instant in flight. On the other hand, Hubbard (1989) mentioned that the lift/drag ratio is a concept used in aircraft design to resolve issues related to the maximization of the steady cruising range of an aircraft. He stated that this ratio is irrelevant in a discussion of the transient behavior of a discus and that, as an aerodynamic term, it should disappear from the discus literature.

RELEASE ANGLE, ANGLE OF TILT, INCLINATION ANGLE Terauds (1978) reported that the angle of tilt at release should be at 15°, which he probably estimated from field or film observations. Soong (1976), found that with reasonable initial discus rotation, the release angle and the angle of inclination have a large effect on the range. At zero wind, the optimum combination of release angle and inclination angle is 35°/26° respectively if they vary independently. If they vary together, that NOVEMBER 2021 techniques

5

LONG DISTANCE

FIGURE 1. AERODYNAMIC FORCES AND ANGLES DURING THE DISCUS FLIGHT. TOP:

VIEW FROM THE SIDE, BOTTOM: VIEW FROM THE BACK. RED ARROW DEPICTS THE PITCHING MOMENT. CG=CENTER OF GRAVITY, CP=CENTER OF PRESSURE.

FIGURE 2. DEPENDENCE OF AERODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS ON THE ANGLE OF ATTACK

(ADAPTED FROM HUBBARD & CHENG, 2007).

6

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

optimum is at 33°. However, the former ratio will result in a 1.55 meters gain in range. Frohlich (1981) agreed that the optimum strategy in still air is to release the discus so that the inclination angle is about 5 to 10° less than the release angle.

Although this results in negative lift during the early stages of the flight, it allows for a minimum of drag and optimum average lift throughout the upward part of the discus flight. Results from optimization studies that assumed a 0° angle of tilt indicate that for elite throwers, the discus should be thrown at release angles between 35-37°, inclination angles of 26-27°, and attack angles between -9 and -10°. Slightly higher release angles and more negative angles may be more suitable for throwers capable of lesser release speeds. Voigt (1972) claimed that by modifying his data to account for a -17° tilt angle at release, the range will improve by 2.7 meters. Hubbard & Cheng (2007) reported a maximum range of 69.39 meters with a men’s discus released at windless conditions with a release speed of 25 m/sec. and a rotation of 6.6 rev/sec. with an angle of release at 38.4°, inclination angle at 30.7°, and a tilt angle of 54.4° and attack angle at -4°. Deviations of several degrees of any of the first three values while holding the other two constant will result in a minimum decrease of the range achieved, i.e., less than 39 cm. Larger departures, in the order of tens of degrees, will result in a range decrease of approximately 5 meters. Generally, range is most sensitive to the release angle and least sensitive to the tilt angle at release. For both men’s and women’s discuses, the optimal initial conditions of the angles of release, inclination and tilt, will vary significantly with wind speed.

There has been a considerable discussion regarding the need for the presence or not of a tilt angle at release. According to Hubbard & Cheng (2007), it is optimal to release the discus tilted significantly so that the lift vector can remain vertical throughout much of the flight, especially near the end of it. The angle suggested was at 54.4°.

That angle will gradually decrease (see explanation of this effect under the discus rotation section below), from 54° and will remain at 15° before landing for a nearly flat impact. Although there may be an initial loss of early vertical lift from that initial tilt, the eventual plane reorientation to nearly horizontal overcomes that disadvantage because the tilt results in larger average aerodynamic forces. Regarding the optimum tilt angle, casual observations of throwers may show that they release the discus with a tilt angle quite smaller than 54°. It may be that the application of a theoretical optimum angle may in the end detract from the throwers’ ability to maximize release velocity or other release parameters.

WIND VELOCITY It is a well established fact that for both men’s and women’s discuses, longer throws can be achieved throwing the discus against fairly strong winds than with the wind or no wind (figure 3). The increases in range due to lift are larger than the decreases due to drag and the discus can always fly further in air than in vacuum (Hubbard & Cheng, 2007). In an early investigation, Taylor (1932), found that head winds between 7 and 8 mph were advantageous, that this advantage decreased progressively and at 14.5 mph became a disadvantage. He also found that tail winds of up to 14 mph were also detrimental to the range achieved. However, Frohlich (1981) using mathematical modeling, found that a discus will travel about 6 meters further if thrown in a 7.5 m/sec (16.8 mph) head wind than if thrown with the wind, and 8.2 meters further if thrown in a 20 m/sec (22.5 mph) headwind than with such wind. A properly thrown discus will always fly further if thrown against winds up to 20 m/sec (45 mph), than with it. This implies that long throws cannot be achieved against extremely strong winds. Theoretically, if the wind velocity is high enough, the discus will stop flying forward and it will actually travel backwards at some point during its flight.

Hubbard & Cheng (2007), employing a 3D dynamic model, reported a 10 and 14 meters advantage for men and women when throwing into a 5 m/sec (11 mph) headwind compared to a 10 m/sec. (22 mph) tailwind.

Tutjowitsch (1976) found that if thrown at an negative angle of attack and at a release speed of 23 m/sec, the discus will fly 5.4 meters further if thrown into a head wind of 5 m/sec (11 mph). This value

is close to Taylor’s (1932) but quite less that that of Frohlich (1981). Unger (1977) claimed a linear increase in distance for head winds of up to 5 m/ sec (11 mph) with a greater than linear relationship for higher wind speeds, although he provided no support for those claims.

Chiu (2008), employing mathematical modeling, estimated optimal performances when the wind speed fluctuated from -21 m/sec (-47 mph) to 12 m/sec (27 mph).

He found that when the head wind was at 17 m/sec (38 mph) the male “virtual” record holder could throw up to 84.27 meters, approximately 10 meters further than the current world record.

When the head wind was over 17 m/sec., the range would decrease gradually. Similarly, for the female “virtual” record holder the distance would decrease at head wind speeds of over 13 m/sec (29 mph).

Chiu (2008) also found that generally with increased tail wind, thrown distances for both males and females would decrease. However, he also reported a little known observation that, with tail winds of over 7 m/sec (15.7 mph), the ranges thrown for both males and females would begin to increase.

Chiu (2008) also reported that when the head wind was approximately 8 m/sec. (18 mph), both male and female “virtual” record holders would obtain their optimal throwing distance provided that the angle of release and the inclination angle were the same. On the other hand, with increased tail wind, the optimal distance could be obtained only when the inclination angle was larger than the release angle.

Regarding the drag and lift coefficients, Frohlich (1981) stated that the measurement of those is probably not accurate for relative wind speeds of over 40 m/sec (90 mph) NOVEMBER 2021 techniques

7

LONG DISTANCE

FIGURE 3. EFFECT OF WIND VELOCITY (NEGATIVE SIGN FOR HEADWIND) ON RANGE (R) GIVEN ANGLE OF RELEASE/ANGLE OF INCLINATION. INITIAL SPIN 36.9 REV/SEC, RELEASE VELOCITY 25.5 M/SEC. (ADAPTED FROM FROHLICH, 1981).

FIGURE 4. VIEW FROM TOP. EFFECT OF AIR ON THE CLOCKWISE ROTATING DISCUS

CAUSING GYROSCOPIC PRECESSION (RAXF), AND LATERAL DISPLACEMENT OF THE CENTER OF PRESSURE (A). IN THE RIGHT, A TORQUE ACTING ON POINT B (GREEN DOT), WILL CAUSE A PRECESSION OF THAT TORQUE 90° TOWARDS THE DIRECTION OF ROTATION CREATING A TORQUE VECTOR APPLYING A FORCE UPWARDS ON POINT E (BLUE DOT), CAUSING THE DISCUS TO ROTATE AROUND THE BC AXIS. (ADAPTED FROM BARTLETT, 1992).

FIGURE 5. EFFECT OF THE INITIAL ROTATION ON THE RANGE. ANGLE OF RELEASE=ANGLE OF INCLINATION=35°, RELEASE VELOCITY = 25.5 M/SEC. (ADAPTED FROM SOONG, 1976).

8

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

and that it would not be meaningful to perform any range calculations with wind speeds above 20 m/sec (45 mph).

THROWING IN THE WIND For moderate winds, i.e., less than 20 m/ sec (45 mph), a discus thrown with a tail wind must be thrown with a different strategy than a discus thrown in a head wind. Frohlich (1981) stated that with a head wind, the discus inclination angle, at release, should be about 10° to 15° less than the release angle so that during the majority of the flight the drag will be kept at minimum and lift at maximum.

As the velocity of the wind increases, the release angle decreases making the discus trajectory flatter. This way the discus will not hover for too long and stall towards the end of its flight. On the other hand, for a discus thrown into a tail wind, the release angle should increase, the discus is thrown higher in the air. With tail wind velocities over 20 m/sec (45 mph), longer throws will be obtained if the discus is turned over so the discus catches the wind like a sail would. The worst possible conditions to obtain long throws is to throw in a tail wind of 7.5 m/sec. (17 mph). If the wind velocity is less than about 20 m/sec. (45 mph), longer throws can always be achieved by throwing against the wind (Frohlich, 1981).

Frohlich (1981) also observed that although the longest throws take place against strong winds, it is easier to obtain optimum performances when throwing in a tail wind, in the sense that it is easier or, less technique demanding, for a thrower to produce the optimum release parameters than if throwing in a head wind. For example, to obtain a throw within one meter of the optimum when throwing in a 10 m/sec (22 mph) head wind, the thrower should release the discus at an angle within ±5° of the optimum and at a discus inclination angle within ±3° of the optimum. When throwing in a 10 m/sec (22 mph) tail wind, the thrower could release the discus within ±6°, and ±15° of those angles respectively, to come within the same one meter of the optimum throw.

This may imply that throwing in head winds may favor the experienced thrower due to the larger control required to achieve optimum performances. In addition, the effect of a head wind is enhanced as the discus spin increases with the higher the spin, the better the effect of a headwind (Hildebrand et al., 2009).

Hubbard & Cheng (2007) described what they termed a “slicing” strategy

when throwing against strong headwinds of between 6 and 20 m/sec. (13-45 mph).

In those conditions it is optimal to initially have the discus symmetry plane (an imaginary plane that equally divides the discus front and back) nearly vertical by decreasing initial inclination and increasing initial tilt substantially (>70°), although the release angle remains relatively constant near 35°. With strong tailwinds very high release angles are optimal. For example, with tail winds at 10.8 m/sec (24 mph), a strategy of 44.3°, 36.7° and 58.6° (release angle, inclination angle, tilt angle) will produce the same result as a 46°, 46.3° and 19.1° strategy, other factors being equal. For large tailwinds, a “kiting” strategy was proposed taking advantage of the fact that in extreme conditions the wind speed may be greater that the discus horizontal velocity. In this case an initially positive angle of attack is chosen which makes both the angle of release and the inclination angle to increase. For a tailwind of 20 m/sec (45 mph), an angle of release at 62° with an inclination angle at 90° is proposed, with the entire flight essentially occurring at that extreme inclination angle, and the discus acting like a sail. Obviously, those optimal theoretical angles for high winds are extremely difficult or impossible to obtain by throwers.

Ganslen (1958) mentioned that a less able thrower will benefit more from a head wind of a given speed than a good thrower, because the percentage increase in the relative wind will be greater for the less able thrower than a thrower who can throw the discus at high velocities. Soong (1976), found that the head wind advantage is lost when the discus inclination angle is too high as it happens when both the angles of release and the inclination angle are 35°.

RELEASE VELOCITY The paramount factor for optimum performance is the release velocity and all the efforts of the thrower should be geared towards enhancing that value.

Aerodynamic forces become more important with increasing release velocity. Up to about 25 m/sec (56 mph), with no wind, the range achieved is more or less the same whether the discus is thrown in a vacuum or in air, although a quite different angle of release should be used to obtain the optimal range for the throw. A discus will go further in air as compared to a vacuum assuming that the release velocity is better than 25 m/sec., or if

throwing against a strong wind (Frohlich, 1981).

DISCUS ROTATION The most salient effect of the discus rotation around its short axis, is to stabilize its orientation during its flight. Frohlich (1981) reported that at the moment of release, the discus rotates at ~7 rev/sec.

However, the effect of the discus rotation had not been studied in all past investigations, many of them assuming that both the pitching and the rolling rates the of the discus are invariable due to the stabilization gyroscopic effect of the discus spin. Soodak (2004) and Hubbard and Cheng (2007) recognized the apparent characteristic of the discus flight to exhibit a slow but uneven rolling of the discus with several degrees of roll occurring in typical flights. The women’s discus exhibits a higher rolling rate than the men’s. This rolling motion alters the direction of the lift vector and prevents the trajectory from occurring in a purely vertical plane. More recently, Rouboa et al. (2013) studied the aerodynamics of the discus with and without rotation.

They stated that the rotation motion essentially influences the air resistance as it minimizes the influence of the drag forces and, thus allowing the discus to fly further. If there are no torques acting on it, the initial plane of motion of the discus is maintained throughout its flight. However, in reality, the rotation of the discus generates aerodynamic forces that apply torques which are small but not negligible. A careful observation of the discus during its flight shows that for a right hand thrower, the left side of the discus tilts or rolls progressively downwards at an angle that reaches approximately 10° shortly before the discus lands. This behavior of the discus occurs because the aerodynamic lift forces are larger on the forward half of the discus and tend to make the front edge move upwards. Because of the discus rotation, this upward torque creates a gyroscopic precession, a phenomenon occurring in rotating bodies in which an applied force is manifested 90 degrees later in the direction of rotation from where the force was applied. Therefore, the end result is the creation of a torque vector pointing to the right and causes the right side of the discus to go up (figure 4). Secondly, since the discus rotation causes the relative air velocity to be slightly higher on the left side of the discus (Magnus effect), the aerodynamic forces cause a lateral dis-

placement of the center of pressure to the left. These forces create a torque vector pointing forward causing the front edge of the discus to pitch upward at about 1.5°/sec during its flight which results in a change in the angle of attack which in turn affects the magnitude of the lift later in flight. Those three moment components (i.e., higher forces on the front half, lateral displacement of the center of pressure and, change in the attack angle) will rotate the discus counterclockwise around its long axis, with the left edge moving downwards and the front edge pitching up (Bartlett, 1992). It will also slow the rate of rotation of the discus around its own axis, although that effect is negligible (Hubbard & Cheng, 2007).

The latter authors also reported that optimal strategies and ranges for both men’s and women’s discuses depend on initial spin assuming a constant velocity and on release velocity assuming a constant spin.

Frohlich (1981) mentioned that because of the symmetrical shape of the discus, a non rotating one would experience smaller aerodynamic torques than a rotating one and that this had caused an expert to suggest that a discus be constructed with a hollow rim filled with mercury in order to reduce that rotation after the release.

However, a non-rotating discus lacks stability and will most likely wobble. Such a discus may experience less torque but it will also become less aerodynamic, and eventually the negative effects will outweigh the positive.

Rouboa et al., (2013) using computational fluid dynamics, studied the aerodynamic effects on the discus both with and without rotation. They found that the range of the discus was strongly affected by the drag coefficient, the initial velocity of release, the release angle and the direction of wind velocity. In turn, those variables change as a function of discus rotation. For a variety of angles of release and velocities of release they tested, the rotating discus had an advantage over the non rotating one. For example for release speeds of 25 m/sec (56 mph) and 27 m/sec (60 mph), a rate of rotation at 4 rev/sec, an angle of release at 34°, angles of attack varying between 0° and 90° and, a head wind of 10 m/sec (22 mph), there was a gain of the rotating discus of 2 meters and 5 meters respectively for those two release speeds. They also calculated that the rotation of the discus does not alter the vertical distance of the throw. However, those authors did not specifically mention whether the rotaNOVEMBER 2021 techniques

9

LONG DISTANCE

0° FIGURE 6. EFFECT ON DISCUS ROTATION OF A SIDE WIND FROM THE RIGHT (B) OR LEFT (A), FOR A RIGHT HAND THROWER.

FIGURE 7. EFFECT OF DIRECTION OF WIND ON THE RANGE OF THE DISCUS. 180°= STRAIGHT HEAD WIND, 0°= STRAIGHT TAIL WIND. LEFT HAND THROWERS SUBTRACT FROM 360°. (ADAPTED FROM HILDEBRAND ET AL., 2009).

10

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

tion of the discus affects drag, lift and pitch. Regarding that issue, Seo et al.

(2012), found little difference between the aerodynamic coefficients of drag, lift and pitching moment whether the discus was spinning or not. Voigt (1972) reported a 3.75 meters increase in range if the spin was increased from 5 to 16 rev/sec. with a release speed of 20 m/sec.

Soong (1976) also tested the effect of the speed of rotation of the discus.

He found that with a 25.5 m/sec. speed of release and a discus rotation speed from 0 rev/sec to 37 rev/sec, there was an increase of 13.76 meters attributed to the discus rotation (figure 5). Although he tested higher rotation speeds, he found out that values beyond the speed of ~37 rev/sec., will not change the range achieved, but that the pitching and rolling motions could be reduced. Hubbard & Cheng, 2007, argued that the optimal initial spin rates they calculated, using 3D models, of 4 rev/sec. and 7 rev/sec. for men’s and women’s discuses respectively, indeed allow for an advantageous orientation of lift later in flight something that much higher spin rates would probably not allow. Hildebrand et al. (2009) similarly found that the best throw is obtained at the highest spin rate. Their numerical results were very close to those of Soong (1976) although the former authors studied rotation speeds between 6.3 and 14 rev/sec. By the same token, for a men’s discus spinning at 14 rev/sec., the optimal wind is a straight head wind (in line with the direction of the throw). At the same spin rate, a head wind at 50° from the right is optimal for the women’s discus. As the spin rate decreases, the optimum wind direction generally shifts from a head straight wind (0°), to the right (90°) and the throwing range also decreases.

MOMENT OF INERTIA The dimensions and the mass of the discus are specifically determined by the rules of the sport, but there are no specifics regarding the moments of inertia of the discus, which essentially means that there are no restrictions as to the distribution of the mass around the center of the implement.

The force required to stop a rotating object depends on the product of the mass of the object and the square of the distance from the axis of rotation

to the particles that make up the body (I= m r²). The further the distribution of the mass from the center, the greater the moment of inertia of the rotating object.

Inertia simply expresses the degree of resistance in altering the given state of an object. Discuses with large moment of inertia have most of their weight towards the edge of the discus. Assuming that adequate rotation is imparted on such a discus, it will be increasingly difficult to alter its state of rotation, i.e., to slow it down. Indeed, most discus throwers have a tendency to prefer throwing discuses in which most of the mass is concentrated toward the rim. The large moment of inertia of those discuses, that resists changes, make them less prone to adverse aerodynamic torques. Since a discus with large moments of inertia is less likely to spin out of its previous rotational plane, the highest density of the discus should be on its circumference (Hildebrand, 2001).

These days companies offer a plethora of discuses with a variety of weight distribution. The wise thrower will choose the discus that will suit her capabilities. More may not always be better when it comes to the moment of inertia of the discus.

Soong (1976) studied the effect of the discus moment of inertia, as a function of the rate of discus spin, comparing two men’s discuses, one with a 22.4 mm., rim thickness (most commonly used discuses) and another with 28.2 mm. The former presented inertia of 157.61 gm/cm/sec², while the latter, 182.5 gm/cm/sec². He found that the ratio of the moment of inertia to the weight of the commonly used discus, is already sufficiently high.

Further effort in redistributing the mass will not produce significant improvement in the throw. The maximum distance advantage of the thicker rim discus was at the spin rate of 8 rev/sec., and it was about 44 cm, while at the speed of 4 rev/ sec., the gain was 1 cm.

OTHER EFFECTS Side Winds. Simulation research has not extensively studied the effect of side winds. Experience with throwing against head side winds strongly supports the advantage of those winds. In an observation of a number of practice throws, Pharoah (1957) speculated that the optimum wind direction is from 20° to the right of the throwing direction. Frohlich (1981) also mentioned that head winds blowing from the right side (right hand throwers) would allow for even longer

throws than those obtained with direct headwinds. He suggested that in those conditions the thrower would want to release the discus with the highest point of its rim towards the direction of the wind. He further explained that with the wind being from the right, it will reach the discus at oblique angles, and that the relative wind velocity will be smaller compared to a direct headwind. This will cause both the drag and the lift to be reduced. However, longer distances may be obtained since some of the drag forces would act perpendicular to the direction of flight thus reducing their negative effect on the discus. In addition, Terauds has addressed that for a right hand thrower, the side wind from the right, would also serve to maintain the gyroscopic stability of the discus by enhancing the rotation of the discus since its right side moves with the wind (figure 6 b) rather than in opposition (figure 6 a). For left hand throwers, the same phenomenon is true for a wind from the left and a counterclockwise rotation of the discus.

Hildebrand (2001) further mentioned that with headwinds, the discus rolls from a generally horizontal position to a nearly vertical one which tends to make it lose lift. His computer simulation showed that the head wind from the right is more beneficial because it hinders the rotation of the discus around its long axis (axis BC in figure 4), and preventing, or better delaying, the discus from assuming a vertical position.

Hildebrand et al. (2009) applied 3D simulation to study the optimal release conditions given a constant wind of 5 m/ sec. (11.2 mph) blowing from a variety and all directions, for both the men’s and the women’s discus. Figure 7 shows the effect of the wind on the range. For the men’s discus, a wind from the right at 40° in relation to the direction of the throw (220° in figure 7), was the optimal, given a release velocity at 25 m/sec., an angle of release at 33 degrees and an initial spin at 8 rev/sec. For the women’s discus, a wind exactly from the right, 90° in relation to the direction of the throw, (270° in figure 7), was optimal, given 24 m/sec. release velocity, 41° angle of release and 8 rev/ sec initial spin rate. According to those authors, for the men’s discus, the result is a straightforward one in that a direct tail wind is the worst and a head wind from the right is the optimal. However, for the women’s discus, the optimal wind comes from the right at a right angle to the direction of the throw (90°), with winds from

the left being the worst. It is interesting to note that the results of Hildebrand et al. (2009) show that a women’s discus will travel about the same with a direct tail wind or a wind from the right at approximately 30° in relation to the throw (210° in figure 7), assuming all other variables are constant. Also, based on the same results, for the men’s discus, a thrower who is throwing the discus in a wind exactly from the right (90°), would gain about 1.2 meters if he adjusted his technique so that the direction of the discus flight shifts about 15° to the right (195° in figure 7).

Effects of Discus Area (A), Mass (M), Air Density (ρ). The effect of the aerodynamic forces is proportional to the quantity ρA/M. In those quantities, the mass and area of the discus are fixed values, whereas the air density can fluctuate among places depending on temperature and altitude. Frohlich (1981) reported that, assuming same release velocity, lower effective mass discuses fly further, particularly in a head wind. In still air, for every kilo in mass reduction there are 47 cm. gain in distance, whereas in a headwind of 10 m/sec., (22 mph) the gain in distance is approximately 3 meters for every kilo in mass reduction. This implies that, if released at the same velocity, a women’s discus will travel 47 cm. further than the men’s in still air and 3 meters further in a headwind of 10 m/sec., due to the better overall aerodynamics of the reduced surface women’s discus. When the effective mass is reduced, the thrower will need to reduce the release angle to obtain the optimum distance. Therefore, women discus throwers should release their discus several degrees smaller than the suggested optimum for the men’s discus. Men discus throwers throwing at high temperatures and high altitudes should release at angles several degrees beyond suggested optimal. Hildebrand et al. (2009) also attributed differences between the men’s and women’s discuses, as to the optimal direction of the wind, to differences in the discus effective mass.

Better performances, although not significantly better, can be achieved at low temperatures (cold air is denser than warm air) due to the effect of air density on the aerodynamics. A discus will fly 13 cm. further at 0° C (32° F) than at 40° C. (104° F). Under the same conditions it will fly 90 cm. further with a 10 m/sec.

(22 mph) headwind. For every 10 mm Hg increase in the atmospheric pressure there is an increase of 1.2 cm in distance if thrown in still air, and 8.1 cm. in 10 m/ NOVEMBER 2021 techniques

11

LONG DISTANCE sec headwind.

Effects of Gravity, Orientation and Release Height. Because the gravitational acceleration varies less than 0.5% among places on Earth, changes in that acceleration have little effect on discus range. A discus will fly 19 cm. further in still air at the elevation in Athens, Greece rather than at the elevation of Mexico City; the same discus will fly 34 cm further at the equator than in the poles. Moreover, because of the earth’s rotation, any projectile will travel longer if released eastward than westward, assuming no differences in any of the other factors affecting the distance thrown. The distances gained will be minimal though.

Regarding the release height, Frohlich (1981) reported that it appears that releasing the discus 1 meter higher will result in a 2 meter longer range. Since such increases in release height are impractical, those gains can be generalized and assumed to be approximately 10 cm for every 5 cm increase in release height.

REFERENCES Bartlett, R.M. (1992). The biomechanics of the discus throw: a review. Journal of Sports Sciences, 10: 467–510.

Chiu, C. (2008). Estimating the Optimal Release Conditions for World Record Holders in Discus International Journal of Sport and Exercise Science, 1(1): 9-14 Frohlich, C. (1981). Aerodynamic effects on discus flight. American Journal of Physics, 49:1125–1132.

Ganslen, R.V. (1964). Aerodynamic and mechanical forces in discus flight. The Athletic Journal, 44:50, 52, 68,88-89.

Ganslen, R. (1958). Aerodynamic forces in discus flight. Scolastic Coach, 28, 46, 77.

Hay, J. (1985). The Biomechanics of Sports Techniques (3rd Edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Hildebrand, F., Schuler, A., & Waldmann, J. (2009). Optimization of discus flight. 27th International conference on Biomechanics in sports, A. Harrison, R. Anderson, & Kenny, I (editors).

Hildebrand, F. (2001). Modeling of discus flight. Biomechanics Symposia, University of San Fransisco., pp. 371-374.

Hubbard, M. (1989) The throwing events in track and field. in: C.L. Vaughn (Ed.) Biomechanics of Sport, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL;213–238.

Hubbard, M. (2000). The Flight of Sports Projectiles, in Biomechanics in Sport: Performance Enhancement and Injury Prevention (ed V. M. Zatsiorsky), Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, UK. 12

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

Hubbard, M., & Cheng K. (2007). Optimal discus trajectories. Journal of Biomechanics, 40, 3650-3659.

Johnson, C., & Jansson, J. (2015) The secret of flight. Public Domain, https://secretofflight. wordpress.com/ Kazuya, S., Shimoyama, K., Ohta, K., Ohgi, Y., & Kimura, Y., (2012). Aerodynamic behavior of a discus. 9th Conference of the International Sports Engineering Association, ISEA 2012, 34, 92-97.

NASA. Public Domain, https://www.grc.nasa. gov/www/k-12/airplane/wrong1.html Pharoah, M. (1957). Observations on discus throwing. AAA Coaching Newletter, 4, 9-10.

Rouboa, A., Reis, V., Vishveshwar, M., Marinho, D., & Silva, A. (2013). Analysis of wind velocity and release angle effects on discus throw using computational fluid dynamics. Computer Methods in Biomechnaics and Biomedical Engineering, 16, 1, 73-80.

Seo, K. (2013). Aerodynamic characteristics around the stalling angle of the discus using a PIV. 10th International Symposium on Particle Image Velocimetry, Delft, The Netherlands, July 1-3 ,2013 Soodak, H. (2004). Geometric top theory of football, discus, javelin. In: Hubbard, M., Mehta, R.D., Pallis, J.M. (Eds.) Engineering of Sport 5: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Engineering of Sport, Davis, CA, vol. 1. September. ISEA, Sheffield, UK, pp.

365–371.

Soong, T. (1976). The dynamics of discus throw. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 98:531– 536.

Taylor, J. (1932). Behavior of the discus in flight. The Athletic Journal, April:9–10.

Tutevich, V. (1976). Theorie der Sportlichen wurfe teil 1. Leistungsport, 7:1–161.

Terauds, J. (1978). Computerised biomechanical cinematography analysis of discus throwing at the 1976 Montreal Olympiad. Track and Field Quarterly Review, 78:25–28.

Unger, J. (1977). Throwing in the wind.

Modern Athlete and Coach, 15, 31-32.

Voigt, H. (1972). Wirkungen der luftkrafte auf die flugweite beim diskuswerf. Der Leibeserziehung, 21:319–326.x

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

The Full Names and Complete Mailing Addresses of the Publisher, Editor and Managing Editor are: Sam Seemes, Mike Corn, 1100 Poydras St., Suite 1750 New Orleans, LA 70163.

Techniques is owned by USTFCCCA, 1100 Poydras St., Suite 1750 New Orleans, LA 70163.

The Average Number of Copies of Each Issue During the Preceding 12 Months: (A) Total Number of Copies (Net press run): 7.080 (B3) Paid Distribution Outside the Mails Including Sales Through Dealers and Carriers, Street Vendors, Counter Sales and Other Paid Distribution Outside USPS: 0 (B1) Paid Circulation through Mailed Subscriptions: 7,020 (C) Total Paid Distribution: 7,020 (D4) Free Distribution Outside the Mail: 0 (E) Total Free Distribution: 0 (F) Total Distribution: 7,020 (G) Copies not Distributed: 60 (H) Total: 7,080 (I) Percent Paid: 99% The Number of Copies of a Single Issue Published Nearest to the Filing Date: (A) Total Number of Copies (Net press run): 6,480 (B3) Paid Distribution Outside the Mails Including Sales Through Dealers and Carriers, Street Vendors, Counter Sales and Other Paid Distribution Outside USPS: 0 (B1) Paid Circulation through Mailed Subscriptions: 6,420 (C) Total Paid Distribution: 6,420 (D4) Free Distribution Outside the Mail: 0 (E) Total Free Distribution: 0 (F) Total Distribution: 6,420 (G) Copies not Distributed: 60 (H) Total: 6,480 (I) Percent Paid: 99% Signed, Sam Seems STATEMENT REQUIRED BY TITLE 39 U.S.C. 3685 SHOWING OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION OF TECHNIQUES, Publication #433, Published Quarterly at 1100 Poydras Street Suite 1750 New Orleans, LA 70163.

The business office of the publisher is 1100 Poydras St., Suite 1750 New Orleans, LA 70163.

NOVEMBER 2021 techniques

13

High Jump Approach Mapping A New Way to Develop A Consistent High Jump Approach

W

hen Dick Fosbury introduced the world to the “flop” high jump technique at the 1968 Olympic Games, it became the gold standard for high jumping from beginners to Olympic champions. The “Fosbury Flop” has gained popularity through the years due to its simplicity to learn and its efficiency over the previously used straddle, roll or scissors techniques.

Development of an approach that is specific to each individual is of the utmost importance in order for a jumper to clear the highest bars efficiently while avoiding unnecessary injury in the process.

A non-debatable fact about using a curved approach is its purpose: To cre-

14

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

ate inward lean and centripetal force.

The resulting forces after takeoff create a twisting backwards somersault that allows the athlete to twist their back to the bar while simultaneously rotating the body over it (Dapena & Ficklin, 2007). By doing this efficiently, it is possible for a jumper’s center of mass (COM) to potentially pass below the bar, meaning that the athlete does not have to jump as high to successfully clear the bar. These principles will be used to answer the question of where to begin developing a high jump approach.

For the purposes of this article, a 10 stride “J” style run up will be used. This includes a five-stride acceleration on a straight line and a five stride portion on

a curve. My goal for this article is for you to be able to map out a full approach and quantify several useful pieces that are often neglected: The attack angle at of the end of the approach and the arc length.

PREVIOUSLY USED METHODS The two most widely used approach development methods are: the “J” run back, and straight line approaches that are transferred onto a curve. There are inconsistencies with each of these methods that may lead to technical issues later in the athlete’s development.

The “J” run back is performed by an athlete starting at a takeoff point an arm’s length away from the bar and running KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

NOVEMBER 2021 techniques

15

HIGH JUMP APPROACH MAPPING back in the shape of the letter J. This approach is difficult to replicate with any consistency, and using this technique requires the athlete to accelerate on a curve rather than a straight line.

The straight line approach is performed by the athlete running five steps in a straight line at the speed that they feel that they could successfully execute a jump.

After 3-5 trials, the average of the measurement is taken. The athlete is then asked to run the full ten steps on the same line, marking the average distance of the tenth or takeoff step in the same manner as before. The two measurements are taken to the apron where the athlete and coach estimate a distance from the standard and a radius length to fit. Using this method can result in hours of guesswork regarding the curved portion of the approach. Any radius that is decided upon by the coach will be purely conjecture and will more than likely not be executed correctly for quite some time, if ever.

APPROACH MECHANICS The process begins with discussing what makes the flop so effective: the curve.

The two main reasons to run a curve in the high jump are to lower the athlete’s COM and to facilitate rotation around the bar in flight (Kerin, 2015). The curve

an athlete runs in a high jump approach is determined by several different factors such as age, body morphology, strength levels, speed and experience. The most important thing to remember is that regardless of the curve an athlete runs, it should be run correctly with good curve running mechanics.

Using this method of approach development means that it is very important to explain what the term “good curve running mechanics” means. The goal of the first five strides of the approach is to develop as much horizontal velocity as can be maintained through the next five strides on the curve into takeoff.

The mechanics of the first five strides are consistent with a normal acceleration pattern and upright sprint mechanics. If the athletes have not developed sufficient horizontal velocity prior to entering the curve, they may try to accelerate while running the curve. The mechanics and postures involved in acceleration are much different than those desired while running the curved portion of the approach and these may contribute to the athlete deviating from the curve (Becker, Kerin & Chou, 2013).

The goal of the second half of the approach is to run a curve with the greatest amount of controllable horizontal

velocity with as much inward lean as possible and still be able to safely execute the jump (Dapena, McDonald & Cappaert, 1990). When an athlete begins to run a curve, the forces being exerted through the ground are no longer just vertical, they are also lateral. This means that the smaller the radius is, the more difficult it is to stay on the curve in a normal stride pattern with speed without deviating from it (Chang & Kram, 2007).

It is highly possible that a deviation from the curve is one of the biggest contributing factors to an athlete missing the bar.

Deviations from the curve result in the loss of inward lean which will inhibit the facilitation of rotation around the bar.

Research also shows that the loss of inward lean contributes to longer times spent on top of the bar by way of distance traveled down the bar during flight (Becker, Kerin & Chou, 2013). See Figure 1 for proper and improper curve running mechanics.

Teaching an athlete how to run a technically correct curve is the best way to start developing a high jump approach.

RUNNING A TECHNICALLY CORRECT CURVE RESULTS IN… • High vertical velocity off of the ground relative to the athlete • Back rotating to the bar

FIGURE 1:

POSTERIOR VIEW OF TWO ATHLETES SHOWING PROPER AND IMPROPER LEAN THROUGH THE CURVE. ATHLETE A HAS A STRAIGHT LINE THROUGH THE BODY AND IS LEANING FROM THE ANKLES KEEPING OUTWARD PRESSURE AGAINST THE CURVE. ATHLETE B IS BROKEN AT THE HIPS AND IS LEANING INTO THE CURVE WITH THE SHOULDERS. NOTICE ATHLETE A’S COM IS LOWER

BY EFFECTIVELY LEANING THROUGH THE CURVE.

TABLE 1: AVERAGE

RADIUS DISTANCES RUN

BY MEN AND WOMEN IN THE HIGH JUMP.

16

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

NOVEMBER 2021 techniques

17

HIGH JUMP APPROACH MAPPING

FIGURE 2: DIAGRAM OF LAY-

OUT FOR CIRCLE DRILLS. LINES SHOWN IN BLACK ARE CHALKED DOWN ON THE TRACK. RADIUS DISTANCES THAT ARE SHOWN ARE A STARTING POINT TO USE AS A REFERENCE BASED ON THE NUMBERS IN TABLE 1. THE DISTANCES MAY BE ADJUSTED BY THE COACH DEPENDING ON THE LEVEL OF THEIR ATHLETES. THESE DRILLS ARE GENERALLY PERFORMED AWAY FROM THE APRON WITH NO PIT OR STANDARDS TO USE AS REFERENCE. THE SUBTRACTION OF A GIVEN TAKEOFF POINT ASSISTS IN KEEPING THE ATHLETE FOCUSED ON THE TECHNIQUE AND RHYTHM OF THE RUN WITHOUT RUNNING TO A CERTAIN TAKEOFF SPOT.

FIGURE 3: THE FIRST MARK TO DETERMINE IS THE STARTING POINT OF THE FIRST FIVE STRIDES OF THE APPROACH.

THE SECOND MARK TO DETERMINE IS THE STARTING POINT TO THE TAKEOFF POINT

TABLE 2: SAMPLE TABLE FOR GATHERING DATA. DISTANCE A = STARTING POINT TO MID-MARK, DISTANCE B = MID- MARK TO TAKEOFF POINT,

DISTANCE C = TAKEOFF POINT TO GUIDELINE (CHORD LENGTH), DISTANCE C (ACTUAL) = ADJUSTED TAKEOFF POINT RELATIVE TO DISTANCE DOWN THE BAR, DISTANCE D = MARK ON GUIDELINE BACK TO STARTING POINT, DISTANCE D + TAKEOFF DISTANCE = SAME AS DISTANCE D BUT ACCOUNTING FOR TAKEOFF DISTANCE, ARC LENGTH TO BE CALCULATED LAST.

18

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

• Fast somersaulting over the bar • Short time spent over the bar THE CIRCLE DRILL The best way to teach an athlete a skill is by doing drills that are specific to the event. This method of approach development starts with a drill that is modified from the long-utilized circle drill. It is performed by having the athlete run, skip, or jump around various sized circles.

THINGS TO REMEMBER WHEN SELECTING A RADIUS SIZE • Radius size is dependent on the greatest amount of controllable inward lean and horizontal velocity • High velocity + high strength level = LARGER radius • Low velocity + low strength level = SMALLER radius • Experiment with different sizes, drills, and speeds Table 1 shows the variety of radius distances by elite men and women measured over time (Dapena, 1995).

The collegiate men that I coach do well on a 35’-42’ radius and women on 30’-36’.

These are just suggestions and may be adjusted as the athlete progresses.

Begin the setup of the drill by drawing three different half circles on the track with different radius measurements that are all connected at the same mid mark. Radius measurements of 30’, 35’ and 40’ are most often selected as these distances cover the entire range for men and women. Smaller or larger radius measurements may be chosen to suit the needs of varying skill level athletes.

There is some degree of trial and error that the athlete and coach will experience until a radius is found that fits well and that can be executed correctly. Experiment with different radius sizes until one is found that fits the athlete best. The layout for the circle drill is shown in Figure 2.

Once the different radii have been drawn on the track, the athlete is asked to do a variety of drills on the different sized half circles. After mastering curve running technique on the chosen radius, the straight line portion of the approach is added.

The straight line portion of the approach is added by having the athlete start on the mid mark and run back five strides in the same acceleration pattern that they would use on a normal high jump approach.

Using Figure 2 as reference, a left footed jumper would run to the right side on the

guideline and a right footed jumper would do the opposite.

Have the athlete run as many repetitions as needed to get a consistent starting point for the beginning of the approach. Once a consistent mark is achieved, have the athlete run from the new starting point to the mid mark and check to make sure that it is still consistent.

Once the athlete is consistently hitting the mid mark, they are to continue running around whichever radius has been selected. Having three different sized radii going through the same mid mark allows a large group of athletes to work on the same set up. Limit the number of radii to three, as any more can be difficult to differentiate visually for the athlete. Using different colored chalk for each radius makes them much easier to see.

What this drill effectively does is take an entire high jump approach away from the apron and allows the athlete and coach to experiment with different radius measurements to see which radius the athlete runs optimally. This drill is continued for a period of a few weeks or until the athlete and coach have experimented with various radius distances and speeds.

Once the athlete and coach are comfortable with the chosen radius, it is time to begin developing an approach using the same drill.

APPROACH DEVELOPMENT Once a radius is decided upon, draw the drill on the ground with the chosen radius in the same manner that is shown in Figure 2.

When the drill is chalked down on the track and measured, be sure that there is a guideline to help ensure that it is set up as squarely as possible. This will help with the collection of accurate data later. The first mark that will be determined is the starting point of the approach. This process is the same as previously discussed in the circle drill. The athlete should be able to run 3-5 repetitions within 2-3 inches of each other before advancing.

Once a consistent starting point has been established, the athlete is asked to run the full ten stride approach around the selected radius. It is important that the athlete is consistent on the previously established marks. After the athlete has run 5-6 full approaches within approximately six inches of each other, the most consistent mark will be used to establish the takeoff point. See Figure 3 for illustration of the different marks.

Measurements will need to be taken

when both points are established and marked. It is recommended that both metric and imperial measurements be taken to allow for easier calculations later. Using a spreadsheet to help organize your data is very helpful. An example is provided below in Table 2 with completed data. The data being used in Table 2 is from a male jumper that will be referred to as Athlete 1.

See Figure 4 for measurements taken from Athlete 1.

Three of the cells in Table 2 have intentionally been left blank since there is not enough data thus far to complete it. The current measurements show the distance of the actual approach but does not take into account the takeoff distance from the bar nor the distance down the bar that the athlete will take off. A general rule for takeoff distance away from the bar is an arm’s length. Experience has shown that 3 feet for women and 4 feet for men works well but the coach and athlete may experiment with what is comfortable. I prefer one foot up to 18 inches down the bar at takeoff, and for the purpose of this article, 18 inches will be used.

These measurements will make it possible to calculate “Distance D + Takeoff Distance” and “Actual C Distance”. This will begin to answer the question “How far out from the standard should I be?”

The answer: It depends on the size of the radius and the speed at which it is run.

See below for instructions on how to calculate these distances with data from Figure 4.

To map the approach, some inexpensive tools will be needed: A compass, protractor, an engineer’s scale, and graph paper.

At this point, all of the data that is needed to draw the full approach map has been gathered. Using graph paper to draw the full approach map is especially helpful for keeping the measurements square.

Once the map is drawn on paper it gives the coach a visual reference to check the direction of the run up and calculate the arc length.

Using an engineer’s scale is very simple since every inch is broken up into powers of ten up to sixtieths. The tenths scale is the only scale to be used in this process. Using the tenths scale, 1”= 10’. For example, if the radius is 38 feet, it would be scaled down to 3.8 inches.

Since measurements were taken in metric and imperial, the data can be scaled down using the imperial system while still having numbers in metric to do easy math with.

It is very helpful to draw the pit and NOVEMBER 2021 techniques

19

HIGH JUMP APPROACH MAPPING

FIGURE 4: ALL MEASUREMENTS

UP TO THIS POINT. NOTE THAT THE APPROACH SET UP IS ROTATED 90˚ COUNTER CLOCKWISE IN THIS VIEW.

FIGURE 5: FROM LEFT: ENGINEERS SCALE, COMPASS, AND CLEAR PROTRACTOR

20

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

FIGURE 6: FULL REPRESENTATION OF THE FULL APPROACH MAP FOR ATHLETE 1. A FEW THINGS TO NOTE:

ACTUAL C DISTANCE IS MEASURED FROM THE INSIDE OF THE VERTICAL PORTION OF THE STANDARD BUT FOR THIS ILLUSTRATION THE MIDDLE OF THE STANDARD WAS CHOSEN. ATTACK ANGLE AT THE END OF THE RUN IS DETERMINED BY USING A PROTRACTOR AS WELL IS THE ORIGIN ANGLE (Ø).

NOVEMBER 2021 techniques

21

HIGH JUMP APPROACH MAPPING standards to provide a reference to start drawing from. Here is how to do it step by step in the order that I prefer. You may draw or measure the approach any way that suits your style. The measurements used will be from Figure 6.

1. Begin by drawing the Actual C Distance or 16’1”. This will be a measurement of 1.61 inches using the engineer’s scale. Start measuring at the middle of the standard as illustrated in Figure 6. Since the scale only works in tenths you may use 1.6 inches.

2. Draw the line that indicates Distance D + Takeoff Distance or 67’1.5”. This will be a measurement of 6.7 inches on the engineer’s scale.

3. Mark the mid mark by starting at the starting point and measure 31’6.5 or 3.1” towards the standard on your paper. This is Distance A. 4. Now mark the takeoff point. Using this example 18” down the bar is allowed while taking off 4’ away from the bar.

These scaled measurements would be .15 inches down the bar and .4 inches away from the bar.

5. Draw a line for Distance B, or chord length, from the mid mark to the takeoff point. In this case, it is 36’1.5” or 3.6 inches. This is also the time where previous measurements can be checked. If the chord length does not equal 3.6 inches on your scale, an error may have occurred while drawing previous measurements.

6. The center of the circle, or origin, must be found. The radius is the distance from the center of the circle to any point on it. The point to be drawn on paper will be the point where the radius length is equal from the origin to the mid mark and the origin to the takeoff point. Notice in Figure 6 that these two lines are of equal length.

7. Draw the radius with the compass.

The needle point of the compass will be placed at the origin point and the pencil will be placed on the mid mark. If you have measured correctly it will pass through the takeoff point that was drawn in step 4.

8. Measure the origin angle. This is done by using the clear protractor.

9. Measure the angle at the end of the run. This is done by placing the vertex of the clear protractor on the takeoff point with the radius line to the origin point oriented at 90˚ perpendicular to the takeoff.

Next, place a mark even with the baseline of the protractor. You may then draw a line from the takeoff point to the mark you 22

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

just made. You will now have a tangent line from the radius. To get the angle of attack, simply measure this line in relation to the front of the high jump pit. See the full approach map for a representation of this line.

See Figure 6 for the full approach map of Athlete 1.

Once the approach map is drawn, I would recommend taking the time to analyze it. If the angle of the run up is too shallow or steep, the radius may have to be adjusted. For the level of jumper that I have coached, I find that angles of 30˚35˚ (33 ± 3˚) have been the most effective for women and angles of 35˚-40˚ (36˚ ± 5˚) have been most effective for the men.

These angles at the end of the run fit my philosophy of the high jump and should only be taken as suggestions. I encourage everyone to experiment with different radius measurements and angles to see which fit the individual athletes best.

Once satisfied with the measurements, the arc length can now be calculated using a simple equation using data from Athlete 1.

The arc length will not be discussed in detail because to do so would result in going into a great amount of detail regarding the technical model. I do believe that it has some significance since it shows the actual distance run by an athlete around the curve. This measurement can lend itself to timing possibilities if one has access to capable timing equipment.

Once the coach is satisfied with the result of the full approach map, make note of the measurements that the athlete will use when transferring the approach to the apron for practice or competition. There are three measurements that are taken and I prefer to measure them in this order: 1) Distance out from the standard 2) The full approach distance and 3) The mid mark.

Using the full approach map, Athlete 1 would have these measurements: 1) 16’1” out from the standard 2) 67’1.5” back to the starting point and 3) 35’7.25” to the mid mark. The distance from the down mark to the mid mark is achieved by taking the difference between “Distance D + Takeoff Distance” and “Distance A”.

This method of approach development will give the coach and athlete a chance to experiment and work together on what improves mechanics, positions and corresponding results. I believe that it is a superior alternative to approach development

as compared to other methods specifically with regards to the curve and radius measurement. It has also saved me hours of practice time in the process. Since it gives a more precise measurement of where an athlete’s approach should be, the changes that are made are very small. There may be a change of a few inches instead of changing a few feet from practice to practice.

This means more practice time devoted to being able to teach a skill with consistency and less time in a trial and error search.

As the athlete masters an approach, do not be afraid to experiment with new measurements. Changes to the approach will likely happen throughout an athlete’s career based on maturity, strength, speed, and technical mastery. I think it is beneficial to be able to keep a record of approach maps on individuals to see how they progress over their careers.

REFERENCES Becker, J., Kerin, D., & Chou, L. (2013).

Consequences of Deviation From the Curve Radius In The High Jump Approach. Taipei, Taiwan: Conference of the International Society of Biomechanics in Sports.

Chang, Y. & Kram, R. (2007). Limitations to maximum running speed on flat curves.

Journal Of Experimental Biology, 210(6), 971-982. http://dx.doi.org/10.1242/jeb.02728 Dapena, J. (1995). How to design the shape of a high jump run-up. Track Coach, (131), 4179-4181.

Dapena, J. & Ficklin, T. (2007). High Jump Report #32 (Men) (pp. 2-4, 24).

Indianapolis: USA Track and Field.

Dapena, J., McDonald, C., & Cappaert, J. (1990). A REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF HIGH JUMPING TECHNIQUE. Medicine & Science In Sports & Exercise, 22(2), S17. http://dx.doi. org/10.1249/00005768-199004000-00098 Kerin, D. (2015). The Curve Run & US High Jump. Presentation.

DUSTY JONAS IS AN ASSISTANT COACH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA WHERE HE HAS COACHED NINE BIG 10 CHAMPIONS IN THE HIGH JUMP. FOLLOWING HIS OWN VERY SUCCESSFUL COMPETITIVE CAREER AT NEBRASKA, JONAS COMPETED FOR TEAM USA A TOTAL OF EIGHT TIMES IN HIS CAREER, INCLUDING THE 2008 OLYMPIC GAMES AND THE 2010 WORLD INDOOR CHAMPIONSHIPS WHERE HE EARNED A BRONZE MEDAL.

24

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

NOVEMBER 2021 techniques

25

Strength Training for Distance Runners Versatile conditioning improves balance and encourages longevity

26

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

M

any good distance coaches recognize that a strength training regimen will enhance their athletes’ durability, coordination and therefore efficiency of movement. But where to start? Even if coaches do understand how to interface strength with endurance, they face countless logistical challenges such as managing their team numbers safely, lack of a weight room and many more. With all the time constraints encountered by high school, collegiate and post-collegiate distance runners, strength and power sessions can easily fall by the wayside as the season progresses. However, there are numerous ways to keep strength training in the program yearround while navigating these unique challenges.

This article will briefly justify why a strength and power program is beneficial for endurance athletes, and will then discuss the most important activities for distance runners and how to practically implement these exercises into the busy schedules of distance athletes.

For the purposes of this article, the terms “strength training” or “weight training” include: absolute speed work (intense, short sprints with full recovery), medicine ball and bodyweight activities, traditional weight room activities, plyometric training and sprint development drills.

WHY SHOULD WE LIFT? A consistent strength training program for distance runners will: 1. Improve running economy 2. Provide movement patterns that contrast the repetitive nature of running 3. Accelerate recovery and reduce injury potential REASON #1: IMPROVED RUNNING ECONOMY Simply put, running economy means that a runner gets from point A to point B with as little wasted energy as possible. Less wasted movement means conserving energy and reducing injury susceptibility. Research shows that a major influence on running economy is a runner’s ability

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

NOVEMBER 2021 techniques

27

STRENGTH TRAINING FOR DISTANCE RUNNERS to apply force off the ground. One, two, three strength training that concentrates on force production skills—namely in the form of low level plyometrics, short sprinting, multi-throws and traditional Olympic lifting—is an excellent way to teach the force generating skills that improve stride efficiency. These movements demand a level of intensity that, in turn, trains the neuromuscular system to coordinate muscular firing patterns, maintain good posture while under load, change direction efficiently (i.e. “coupling time”), and build a supportive network of soft tissue development.

These activities of strength training therefore provide runners with a variety of ways to train the skill that contributes to improved force production with each stride. (See Picture 1) PICTURE 1: MULTI THROW, CLEANS/OLYMPIC LIFTS, SHORT

SPRINTS (UP STAIRS?), IN-PLACE JUMPS

PICTURE 2 & 3: EMPLOYING ACTIVITIES LIKE BACKWARD LUNGES AND ROTATIONAL MOVEMENTS CHALLENGES COORDINATION AND PROVIDES VARIETY OF MOVEMENT TO REPETITIVE-MOTION ATHLETES, LIKE DISTANCE RUNNERS.

28

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

REASON #2: VARIETY OF MOVEMENT Not only does weight training teach valuable movement skills, it also provides opportunity to move in directions, planes and amplitudes that differ from the repetitive, forward-moving motion of distance running. Variety of movement builds durability throughout the connective tissue in an athlete’s body.

Picture a volleyball net that is pulled every day in the same direction. Over time, the individual squares of the net become distorted, lines of tension develop through the direction of pull, and perhaps the net begins to sag in certain places. The distortions that develop in the net can be corrected by pulling the net in a completely different direction, perhaps with a few hard tugs. Varying directions and amplitude of pull provide a change or stressor that allows the net to re-align. Similarly, in distance running, soft tissue is constantly “pulled” in one direction, causing strength in commonly used planes and amplitudes, and weakness and strain in less commonly used movement patterns. If the direction and amplitude of stress is altered—like pulling a few hard tugs of the net in a different direction—tissue will strengthen throughout the body, not just where it is most used during running efforts.

In short, strength training can greatly enhance durability throughout runners’ soft tissue and joints. (See Picture 2 & 3)

NOVEMBER 2021 techniques

29

STRENGTH TRAINING FOR DISTANCE RUNNERS REASON #3: ACCELERATE RECOVERY Employing certain strength training protocols (sets, reps, rest) can complement and enhance the recovery processes for endurance athletes so that they are ready to go on hard workout days.

Lifting relatively heavy loads allows distance runners to put more tissue under tension than they do when running at sub maximal paces or performing bodyweight strength exercises.

When they tap into those less-used, but very large, muscle fibers, the body responds by releasing hormones that start the recovery and rebuilding process.

While lifting heavy provides a contrast in intensity that offers anabolic effects for recovery, other strength training protocols complement the run intensity to also enhance recovery.

These protocols usually come in the form of up-tempo bodyweight, medicine ball, and simple weight circuits.

When performed with proper intensity and time limits, the cumulative effect of the circuits elicits an endocrine response to accelerate recovery.

Therefore, following a recovery run with a few light strength circuits will enhance the desired effect for the day.

An added bonus of these circuits is that they save some pounding on the legs and provide movement variety patterns to the most commonly used contractions of sub-maximal running.

(See Picture 4 on next page) Circuits are where most distance coaches live when it comes to strength training. They present minimal risk of injury when implementing with a group of diverse abilities, with limited time, and limited equipment. When performed properly, they are an excellent complement to recovery runs.

WHAT ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN STRENGTH TRAINING SESSIONS? When orchestrating running and strength sessions, the paramount goal should be to match the running theme with the strength training theme.

Common themes that transfer seamlessly from the running workout to the strength training workout send the body and brain the same clear message.

Therefore, on recovery and threshold days, strength training activities should

30

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

consist of work that enhances recovery, namely in the form of the short, mildly intense circuits described later in this article. On more intense speed development days, strength training can consist of more technically demanding work, such as jumping, throwing, or Olympic and static lifting, which are all activities that help build firing patterns, coordination, posture, and running economy.

In short, common themes amongst running and lifting sessions means less busy work and more targeted purpose to every component of training activities.

STRENGTH TRAINING ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE FORCE PRODUCTION SKILLS The fastest running days provide optimal opportunity for strength training sessions that focus on improving running economy. Here are the types of activities to include on these days: 1. Sprint development drills 2. Hurdle mobility 3. Random “play” 4. Jumping and throwing 5. Fast, short sprinting 6. Olympic lifts and reactive strength exercises 7. Static lifts (multi jointed, heavy resistance exercises) Of course, all of these exercises need not be included in each training session, but these all help to promote the skill of efficient force generation. Large groups or more developmental runners may never advance to Olympic and static lifts. There are many exercises outside of the weight room that closely mimic the loads, velocities, and muscular coordination demands that athletes will encounter while running. Coaches should utilize exercises from the above categories that correlate with the athlete’s developmental age, include elements of coupling time (that is, an athlete’s ability to change direction quickly), challenge coordination, and strictly adhere to postural control.

Since distance runners spend less time on pure speed development, these force production sessions will be more dispersed than their sprinter counterparts, who engage in speed development sessions 2-3 times per week.

PROTOCOLS FOR FORCE

DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES: Adhering to the “common theme” rule means it will take longer for distance athletes to train force application activities. However, the grey area is the warmup. The lowest level force production skill training (sprint drills, hurdle mobility, random play) can be implemented daily within a simple ten-minute warmup or cooldown, regardless of the workout theme. What little mileage might be sacrificed to make time for these dynamic movement activities, will pay off in training the athletes’ ability to handle the repetitive forces of distance running. (See Picture 5) With regards to random play, these are simple, non-contact games that allow for low level plyometric training and variety of movement. They are a great alternative to a traditional warmup or cooldown and still provide force development education. Games such as knockout in basketball, ultimate frisbee, light soccer shootouts, or other light contests offer a less structured setting than traditional warmups or cooldowns. A less structured session often re-invigorates athletes and opens them up to learning new skills.

Especially in the case of an injured athlete, these “games” allow for brain re-training as the body learns how to move again.

While incorporating a dynamic movement warmup or cooldown is the first step in a strength training program for endurance athletes, the next progression is to properly add multi-jumps, multi-throws, short sprints, and/or traditional weight room activities. These activities are NOT aerobic training, and ample time should be allowed for athletes to rest in between sets. The emphasis is on high quality on each repetition. The number of repetitions performed follows traditional speed/ power training, and is generally determined by the point at which technique breaks down. The repetition range for most exercises generally falls somewhere between one and eight reps per exercise, depending on the activity.

Force development activities, particularly those not involving the weight room, should be implemented as early as possible in the training cycle and modified for lower level athletes.

Inserting intense, power-based move-

NOVEMBER 2021 techniques

31

STRENGTH TRAINING FOR DISTANCE RUNNERS

ments early in the training cycles, even if drastically modified for ability or time of year, will serve distance runners well as they strive to improve overall movement economy. Waiting to employ these movements until athletes are more developed or until it is “racing” season does not build a proper base for the skill of running fast. Force production activities can and should be included throughout the year, and can be modified to match skill levels and training phases.

32

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

STRENGTH TRAINING ACTIVITIES TO ACCELERATE RECOVERY Training programs for distance runners employ a heavy dose of sub-maximal running that is designed to improve aerobic fitness and provide oxidative recovery after hard workouts. Strength training can easily “piggy-back” these running workouts and will enhance recovery-based and threshold-pace running sessions.

The categories of strength training

that help to accelerate recovery include: 1. Bodyweight circuits (these are called “General Strength” in most track and field applications) 2. Medicine ball circuits 3. Bodybuilding circuits These circuits will be the bread and butter of most of strength training efforts in the endurance world, since they match so well with sub-maximal effort running. They are staples of many quality track and field programs, thanks

PICTURE 4: WHEN MANAGING LARGE GROUPS, RELAY-STYLE ACTIVI-

TIES ARE ONE WAY TO KEEP ATHLETES MENTALLY ENGAGED AND MAINTAIN THE DESIRED INTENSITY OF THE CIRCUIT

PICTURE 5: INCORPORATING A VARIETY OF SPRINT DEVELOPMENT

DRILLS INTO A DAILY WARMUP IS AN EFFICIENT WAY TO TRAIN LIGHT FORCE PRODUCTION SKILLS EVERY DAY. HAVING ATHLETES HOLD A STICK OVERHEAD ENFORCES POSTURAL STABILIZING SKILLS IN AN UPRIGHT POSITION.

mostly to the early coaching education literature compiled by coaches such as Boo Schexnayder, Dan Pfaff, and others. They are easy to employ with large groups of varying ability. They are also easy to implement outside the weight

room and in a short amount of time.

BODYWEIGHT AND MEDICINE BALL CIRCUITS Not all circuits are created equal, and this is where many endurance coaches implement less-than-ideal circuit proto-

cols. To gain the desired recovery effect of these circuits, athletes’ effort levels needs to be high enough to elicit mild amounts of lactate into the blood, but not too high that they “go lactic” looking like an elephant just jumped on their back. The body responds to mild lactate levels by releasing valuable recoveryoriented hormones. As athletes progress through the circuit, they should be moving with intent through each exercise, maintaining effort somewhere between a too slow “gossip session” and a too intense or too long “death march.” For example, 30 seconds of work (bodyweight squats) followed by 15-30 seconds of rest, then followed by another activity (v-sits) with the same work- to- rest combination. Continue with a variety of movements, employing large muscle groups, for 8-12 minutes. Working longer than 40 seconds per exercise bout, or longer than 12 minutes for the entire circuit, will not achieve the proper lactate levels needed to promote recovery.

Combine a few of these short circuits together, taking 2-3 minutes of rest after each one.

Bodyweight and medicine ball circuits allow for creativity and variety in exercise selection. While there are complex strategies to choosing the types and order of exercises for these circuits, in general, start with the biggest movements in the first circuit (lunges, mountain climbers, v-ups, etc) and progress to circuits focusing on smaller muscle groups (core, planks, barefoot work) next. To provide movement variety and strengthen tissue throughout the body, include a heavy dose of rotational, lateral, diagonal and posterior chain-focused movements within each circuit.

WEIGHT ROOM CIRCUITS Weight room activities can also be a complex maze of activities that are difficult to pare down to what is the most efficient use of an athlete’s time.

A good way to utilize the weight room without doing complex movements, like Olympic lifts and squats, is to put together a circuit of simple, “regional” lifting movements. These are often called “Bodybuilding” or “Regenerative” circuits. These circuits involve simple, nontechnical weighted movements, such as lat pulldowns, bicep curls, step ups, weighted sit ups, and others, organized in a way that provides an endocrinebased recovery response. These circuits have also come in to popularity with NOVEMBER 2021 techniques

33

STRENGTH TRAINING FOR DISTANCE RUNNERS track and field programs. They offer muscular endurance, variety of movement, and hormonal responses that accelerate recovery. Just like the general strength circuits, the work intervals on these weight circuits should be low enough to allow for moderately high power output on each exercise. The general protocol for a Bodybuilding circuit is 10-12 exercises, 2 x 10 reps per exercise at approximately 75% of maximal effort (meaning the last 1-2 reps should be slightly difficult), with 60-90 seconds rest between each exercise. 9, 11 The specific exercises should address all regions of the body, but the lifts should not be technical in nature. Bodybuilding circuits are fairly simple to organize with a large group, as athletes can partner up and move through each “station” of activities. Grouping athletes at a station will ensure they rest as needed while still getting quality work.

In short, “Theme is King” when organizing effective and efficient strength programs for distance runners. Matching the fastest running days with the most intense and complex strength training activities will enhance the neuromuscular coordination needed for fast, efficient running. Conversely, matching the submaximal threshold, intervals, and easy runs with strength protocols that help accelerate recovery will greatly augment the run training.

BUT WE DON’T HAVE….

There are plenty of strength training challenges that distance teams of all ages and abilities encounter. Many coaches argue that their teams are too big to organize productive strength sessions, that they have diverse levels of skills and motivation from their athletes, they don’t have facility access, or their assigned strength coach does whatever he or she wants. These and other scenarios are real issues that most distance coaches must work through. Many coaches have figured out creative ways to implement strength/power/speed training without the use of a weight room. For their force production skill work, they employ jumping and all-out, short sprinting (even up a steep set of stairs), both of which require no equipment. They bring medicine balls, sand-filled innertubes, or portable hurdles to the local park where they train. They organize relay-style circuits that foster a competitive envi34

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

ronment to keep enthusiasm high. They schedule strength training on different days for different groups of runners.

To make time for these activities, a small percentage of overall mileage may be sacrificed. But to foster long-term durability of runners, sacrificing a small percentage of mileage to make time for work that enhances running economy is a sacrifice worth making. In many cases, getting healthy athletes to the line late in the season when competitors may be sidelined with injury, is argument enough for this small mileage sacrifice.

Strength training for endurance athletes provides robustness, power, and movement economy to runners of all ability levels. 12 Many endurance coaches are taking pages from the speed/ power world and adapting the training concepts for their aerobic athletes.

Complementary and contrasting movements provide durability to soft tissue.

Force production training as early as possible during a career or a season offers athletes small “hits” of movement economy training throughout the season.

And, finally, common “training themes” should provide guidance to coordinate strength sessions that match the theme of the running session.

REFRENCES 1. Mann R, Sprague P. A Kinetic Analysis of the Ground Leg During Sprinting, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport.

1980. 51;2, pp 334-348.

2. Weyand P, et al. Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces, not rapid leg movement. J Appl Physiology. 2000. 89, pp 1991-99.

3. Weyand P, et al. Biological limits to running speed are imposed from the ground up. J Appl Physiology. 2010. 108, pp 950-961.

4. Sale D. Neural adaptation to resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc.

1988. 20 pp s135-145.

5. Kraemer, W. J., et al. Hormonal and growth factor responses to heavy resistance exercise. J. Appl. Physiol. 1990. 69, pp 1442-1450.

6. Gladden, L.B. Lactate metabolism: a new paradigm for the third millennium. J Physiol. 2004. 558, pp 5-30.

7. Phillip. A., et al. (2005). Lactate- A signal coordinating cell and system function. The Journal of Experimental Biology. 208, pp 4561-4575.

8. Brooks, G.A. The lactate shuttle during exercise and recovery. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1986. 18, pp 360-368.

9. Schexnayder, B, et al. TRACK AND FIELD ACADEMY SCC 301 CURRICULUM. 2013. www.ustfccca.org/ track-and-field-academy 10. Knowles, B (interview).

Reconditioning with Bill Knowles.

GAINcast episode 49, http://www. hmmrmedia.com/2017/01/gaincastepisode-49-reconditioning-with-billknowles/ Jan 26, 2017 11. Kraemer, W. Influence of endocrine system on resistance training adaptation.

NSCA Journal. 1992. 14:2, pp 42-45.

12. Balsalobre-Fernández C, SantosConcejero J, Grivas G V. Effects of strength training on running economy in highly trained runners: A systematic review with meta-analysis of controlled trials. J Strength & Conditioning Research. 2016. 30 (8): 2361-2368.

CARRIE LANE IS AN ASSISTANT TRACK AND FIELD COACH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING. SHE ALSO SERVES AS A LEAD INSTRUCTOR IN THE USTFCCCA TRACK & FIELD ACADEMY’S STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING COACH CERTIFICATION PROGRAM.

NOVEMBER 2021 techniques

35

Creating Confidence The Four Sources of Self-Efficacy

T

he purpose of this article is to provide coaches with a way to coach mental readiness and show why it can be just as crucial as physical readiness. A coach should not have to be a sport psychologist in order to realize how important it is to performance to have a mental edge in track and field. In order to be mentally ready to compete and put forth an optimal performance in track and field, athletes must be confident in themselves and have a high level of self-esteem. Above this, an athlete must possess something more specific: a high level of self-efficacy. The goal of this article is to describe what the concept of self-efficacy is and how coaches can find sources of it and apply it to his or her athletes. Self-efficacy, in and of itself, has been shown to be a better predictor of performance than just outcome expectations (goal setting) before a performance, and as good of a predictor as anxiety levels (Gernigon & Dolloye, 2003). It is one of the most important, situation specific, mental aspects that a 36

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

track and field coach can instill within their athletes.

OPERATIONALIZING AND CONCEPTUALIZING SELF-EFFICACY Before discussing the sources of self-efficacy in track and field athletes, one must first understand what exactly it is, and how it is set it apart from other psychological definitions. Albert Bandura, the founder of the concept, defines self-efficacy as the belief a person has in their ability to complete an objective successfully in order to obtain a specific goal (Bandura, 1977). In other words, someone with high self-efficacy has an unquestionable belief in their ability to go out and do something in order to achieve their goal. It is very specific to the task at hand and at that time, therefore, in this case it must be very specific to the athlete in regards to their sport of track and field.

Upon reading this definition, one might think that it is just another word for selfconfidence, self-esteem, outcome expecta-

tions or another interchangeable word. This, however, is not the case. As stated above, self-efficacy is a term that is specifically related to the task at hand. In order to grasp this, some time must be taken to separate it from its would be synonyms.

The difference between self-efficacy and self-confidence can be discrete and hard to understand to anyone who is not familiar with the terms, but it is a stark, and important difference that must be understood in order to coach it. Confidence, first and foremost, is a general term about a broad subject. One can be confident in many things, including failure. Someone can be confident about a lot of things, a track athlete for example may be confident that they are going to run poorly and not achieve their goal. Efficacy, however, does not have that possible negative side. It is also specific to the task at hand, whereas confidence may spill over to many different areas of life, not focusing on a single event. The most important thing to take away from the difference KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

NOVEMBER 2021 techniques

37

CREATING CONFIDENCE between the two is that confidence allows room for failure, but a person with high selfefficacy believes they will go out and succeed in their task no matter what (Bandura, 1997).

A difference must also be established between self-efficacy and self-esteem. Once again, this focusses around the specificity that is self-efficacy. Self-esteem, essentially, is a value of self-worth. It can apply to a lot of different areas in one’s life, all of which may never cross over and effect the other.

For instance, a track and field athlete may have high self-esteem in the classroom and in their social life, but may still not care and perform poorly on the track without affecting that self-esteem. Self-efficacy, once again, deals solely with the task at hand; and cannot cross over to other areas. As evidence for this, Sherer and Madux (1982) found in their study that there was actually a negative correlation between self-esteem and selfefficacy within the athletes that they tested.

One final distinction must be made in terms of defining self-efficacy, and that is the difference between it and outcome-expectancy. This difference can be understood by looking at the one as half of an equation, and the other as the entire equation.

Outcome expectancy is the belief that if you perform something a certain way, then the outcome will be a certain way resulting from that performance. Self-efficacy, on the other hand, is the conviction that one can do that performance successfully, and that the successful performance will yield a favorable result. It is essentially outcome-expectancy, plus the part that has to happen before it; and the belief that the outcome will be positive no matter what (Gernigon et al., 2003).

SOURCES OF SELF-EFFICACY Now that self-efficacy has been defined and set apart from anything else, the major questions and main focus of this article can be addressed. How does a coach find sources of self-efficacy, and how does he or she coach and instill it within their athlete? As it is, there are four main sources of self-efficacy: mastery experience, modeling, social persuasion, and physiological factors (Bandura, 1977).

MASTERY/PAST PERFORMANCE Mastery experience, or an accomplishment in a past performance, is the first source of self-efficacy in an athlete. It is also the most powerful source of high self-efficacy in an athlete, as it is driven by themselves (Bandura, 1977). Simply put, “success 38

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

breeds success”. The successful completion of a task will raise future self-efficacy, and likewise, the unsuccessful completion will lower it. This has to do with mental processing that occurs when one has completed a task once. “People process, weigh and integrate diverse sources of information concerning their capabilities. They then regulate their choice behavior and effort expenditure on the basis of the perceived self-efficacy” (Bandura, Adams & Beyer, 1977). In other words, a completed successful task can influence the amount of effort and success in a future task. With this in mind, completion of these successful tasks, however, cannot be an easy, repetitive feat. In a study done on swimmers, there was a negative correlation between high self-efficacy levels and motivation to complete tasks when the goals being set were too low (Miller, 1993).

In order to keep motivation at a high level and promote continually increasing levels of self-efficacy, one must keep the goals and tasks at a high level.

The coach’s role in this source of selfefficacy is to provide this opportunity for the athlete. In track and field specifically, this can be done in many ways. The first, and most obvious way is with prior competition. A good way to start this is to set an athlete up in an event at a low key meet, and breed the environment for success. Success in small meets like this will build efficacy for larger meets in the future. Consistently reminding the athlete of these past performances is also a key role of the coach.

Another way to build efficacy through mastery experience is at practice.

Specifically with distance runners, this can be done through workouts. In one of the most widely used training systems in the country, interval workouts are done as a primary workout for the week and are done at a pace to build VO2 max, which is essentially 5K race pace. An example workout of this would break down to 8x1000 meters at 5K race pace with short jogs in between (Daniels, 2005). This is an extremely challenging and taxing workout, but it is a pace that should be what an athlete can run for a 5K. They can draw on the mastery experience of completing this workout to build self-efficacy for a future race. Likewise for jumpers and throwers, mastery experience can easily be simulated at practice. Unlike distance athletes, a lot of their practice can be simulating meet day actions. Thus, completion of a certain distance or mark at practice can provide mastery experience for them. Once again, making the athlete aware

of this source is just as important as the coach realizing it themselves.

MODELING/VICARIOUS EXPERIENCE The next source of self-efficacy is modeling, or vicarious experience. This is basically mastery experience, except through watching another person. This is especially important with less experienced athletes, as they will often use the success and judgment of others to validate their own success (Gernigon, et al., 2003). Watching others complete a task successfully will increase an athlete’s own self-efficacy, and watching others fail at a task will likewise lower self-efficacy (Madux, 1995). Self-modeling, or observing one’s self perform successfully repeated times, has also been shown to increase self-efficacy and performance in sports such as hockey (Feltz, Short & Singlton, 2008).

Once again, the role of the coach in this source of self-efficacy is to provide the opportunity to the athlete. Modeling, specifically self-modeling, can be extremely helpful with increasing an athlete’s self-efficacy when it comes to running with proper form.

Watching and critiquing video of one’s self and others running properly will lead to the belief that they can continuously do it properly. This source of self-efficacy is, however, probably best used in more technical events, such as jumping and throwing. Watching others perform the complicated movement sequences and the successful performances that result with the successful completion of the movements can enhance the athlete’s self-efficacy about performing the same task. As a coach, one can provide this by bringing a video tape to track meets, having an athlete watch a more skilled teammate perform, or simply by directing them to videos and coverage of professional events.

However, it is best to keep modeling within the same level of competition, as past studies have shown that the modeling source is most effective when used with athletes with similarities to the athlete in question (Weiss, McCullagh, Smith & Berlant, 1998).

SOCIAL PERSUASION The third source of self-efficacy, social persuasion, is the verbal encouragement from another. This source most often directly comes from the coach. Although it can come from another athlete or parent, the strength of social persuasion as an effective booster of self-efficacy depends on “the prestige, credibility, expertise and trustworthiness of the persuader” (Gernigon et al., 2003). On

NOVEMBER 2021 techniques

39

CREATING CONFIDENCE most teams, hopefully, that persuader is indeed the coach. One must tread carefully when using this source however, as Bandura (1977) explains that negative effects on selfefficacy from verbal persuasions have more of an impact and a quicker impact on an athlete than positive effects do. Therefore, it is essential to be consistent with positive feedback, as one negative verbal comment could potentially have a larger effect on an athlete’s self-efficacy than a stream of positive persuasion.

Verbal persuasion from a coach must be sincere and believable, as well. “Persuaders must cultivate people’s beliefs in their capabilities while at the same time ensuring that the envisioned success is attainable” (Pajares, 1997). It is just as important to be realistic with athletes as it is to be positively persuasive, as unrealistic goals and persuasions will ultimately lead to failure in the goal, thereby reducing self-efficacy through negative mastery experience, which as discussed earlier, is the most powerful source of self-efficacy.

In the sport of track and field, verbal persuasion is very similar to any other sport.

The easiest way to do this is to remind the athlete of the other two previously mentioned sources of self-efficacy. Use the evidence. Remind them of what they have

40

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

done because as stated before, previous mastery experience is the most powerful source of self-efficacy, and reinforcing this through verbal persuasion will only make them all the more strong mentally. It is once again important to use this realistically, however, and this can be done through setting realistic goal times in races, marks in throws and jumps, etc.

PHYSIOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION The last source of self-efficacy, but certainly not the least important, is that of physiological factors. Simply stated, this has to do with the athletes’ perceptions of the physiological effects associated with exercise and exertion, such as nervousness, aches and pains, exhaustion, etc., on how they will affect their performance. These factors can have an effect on an athlete’s perceived self-efficacy depending on their current emotional state.

A person with high self-efficacy will view these at face value: an effect of exercise; whereas a person with low self-efficacy will think more into and let these physical signs be viewed as a sign that they cannot complete the task (Bandura, 1997).

SELF-EFFICACY AND FATIGUE It is the coach’s job to get the athlete to a point where he or she will view these physi-

ological factors positively, and even be able to apply them to a better performance.

There are several studies that demonstrate the possibility of performing well and overcoming physiological perceptions during negative physiological effects.

A main focus for distance runners centers around the central nervous system. Tim Noakes has been at the forefront of this research. His research supports the idea that the central nervous system plays a large role in regulating exercise output. This research has formed his professional stance against the “peripheral fatigue model” presented

by A.V. Hill in 1923, saying that the central nervous system is the principle limiting factor in performance (Noakes, T. D., 2011). He established the “central governor model”, which revolves around the idea that when oxygenation of the heart, brain and other organs reaches a dangerous level, the brain will begin to shut down systems (muscles and heart work output, etc.) in order to terminate the effort (Noakes, 2002). However, with mental training and experience, and in certain situations, this limiting factor can be overridden. This helps to explain many situations that cannot be fully understood with the idea that metabolic and peripheral fatigue are the only limiting factors. An example of this would be how at the end

CREATING CONFIDENCE of an “all-out” endurance effort, runners have the ability to have a “finishing kick” at the end even though they are metabolically depleted and have been slowing down throughout the effort. A coach who realizes this can teach their athlete that the brain will try to terminate a run long before the body has exhausted the ability to perform, and the athlete who competes with this in mind will have a higher level of self-efficacy when these factors set in, leading to a more successful performance.

A second example of how physiological factors can be used as a source of selfefficacy can be applied specifically to more explosive events. This has to do with the term “post activation potential” (PAP).

Physiologically defined, PAP is a phenomenon that involves increased muscle performance output during a short time frame (less than 4min) after a high intensity warm up. It is an interesting phenomenon due to the fact that common sense would make one think that one would be tired and not perform as well after an initial, high intensity activity. However, several studies have shown this not to be the case in many instances. According to DeRenne (2010), there are two main physiological mechanisms that are responsible for this. The first one involves the high intensity warm-up increasing phosphorylation of light chain myosin in the muscle, thereby increasing cross bridge rate within the muscle. The second involves increasing the activity in the spinal cord between afferent and alpha motor neurons. The combination of these two factors results in PAP (DeRenne, 2010).

Gerasimos Terzis et al. (2009) conducted a study to measure the effectiveness of PAP on shot put by using drop jumps as a warm-up. After an intense warm-up of several drop jumps, a significant increase in throwing distance was noted in male throwers. Rixon (2007) conducted another study with jumping using a PAP eliciting warm-up. He found that after a maximal isometric squat warm-up, jump height was significantly higher in athletes compared to not using this type of warm-up. This odd phenomenon is further proof that what an athlete is feeling physically is not the ultimate determinant of performance, as in this case; an exhaustive style of warm-up elicited unseen physiological characteristics that actually improved performance.

A coach’s job, once again is to show the athlete that these things are possible, and boost their self-efficacy through knowledge, education and practice of such things.

42

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

CONCLUSION These four sources are the best and most proven ways to coach self-efficacy in athletes. However, learning how to coach self-efficacy begins by understanding what it really is. It is imperative to understand how self-efficacy is separate from self-confidence, self-esteem and outcome expectancies, as they are not the same thing and often do not go hand in hand. One word that should come to mind when trying to define self-efficacy is specific. It is specific to the situation, and in this case, the performance in a track and field event.

Upon understanding self-efficacy, it is important for a coach to realize where its sources can be found and how they can be used. Every source begins with the coach instilling it within the athlete and helping him or her to realize exactly what they are.

Opportunities for mastery experience and vicarious modeling should be provided by the coach in order to promote an environment for success. Verbal persuasion means the most when it is coming from the person on the team with the most prestige and influence: the coach. And the complexities of physiological factors and how to use them to an advantage must be understood and explained in order for the athlete to take full advantage of them in a situation, and for them to approach them from a view of high self-efficacy.

As stated before, self-efficacy levels are an extremely reliable predictor or future performance. It is crucial to coach a mental edge in athletes because as stated earlier with physiological factors, mental factors can overrule physical ones. Coaching athletes, especially track and field athletes, cannot end with physically preparing them; a strong mental state of self-efficacy must accompany them in order to achieve the highest, optimal performance.

REFERENCES Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191-215.

Bandura, A., Adams, N., & Beyer, J. (1977).

Cognitive processes mediating behavioral change.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (3), 125-139.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Daniels, J. (2005). Daniels’ running formula. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

DeRenne, C. (2010). Effects of postactivation potentiation warm-up in male and female

sport performances: a brief review. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 32 (6), 58-64.

Feltz, D.L., Short, S.E., & Singleton, D.A. (2008). The effect of self-modeling on shooting performance and self-efficacy with intercollegiate hockey players. In M.P Simmons & L.P. Foster (Eds.), Sport and exercise psychology research advances (pp. 9-18). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Gernigon, C. & Delloye, J. (2003). Selfefficacy, causal attribution, and track athletic performance following unexpected success or failure among elite sprinters. The Sport Psychologist, 17 (1), 55-76.

Madux, J.E. (1995). Self-efficacy theory: An introduction. In J.E. Maddux (Ed.), Selfefficacy, adaptation and adjustment: Theory, research and application (pp. 3-33). New York: Plenum.

Miller, M. (1993). Efficacy strength and performance in competitive swimmers of different skill levels. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 284-296.

Noakes, T. (2002). Lore of running: 4th ed.

Cape Town, South Africa: Oxford University Press.

Noakes, T.D. (2011). Time to move beyond the brainless exercise physiology: The evidence for complex regulation of human exercise performance. Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism, 36 (1), 23-35.

Pajares, F. (1997) Current directions in selfefficacy research. In M.Maehr & Pr.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 1-49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Rixon, K. P, Lamont, H. S., & Bemben, M. G. (2007). Influence of type of muscle contraction, gender, and lifting experience on postactivation potentiation performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(2), 500-505.

Sherer, M., Maddux, J. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation.

Psychological Reports, 51, 663-671.

Smith, D. & Bar-Eli, M. (Eds). (2007).

Essential readings in sport and exercise psychology.

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Weiss, M.R., McCullagh, P., Smith, A.L., & Berlant, A.R. (1998). Observational learning and the fearful child: Influence of peer models on swimming skill performance and psychological responses. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 380-394.

DR. MATTHEW BUNS IS AN ASSISTANT CROSS COUNTRY AND TRACK AND FELD COACH AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF KINESIOLOGY AND HEALTH SCIENCE AT CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY IN ST. PAUL, MN.

NOVEMBER 2021 techniques

43

USTFCCCA Coaches Hall of Fame Class of 2021

PETER FARRELL

PRINCETON The collegiate ranks called Farrell to Princeton on September 1, 1977. His first recruit was Lynn Jennings, who would eventually become the first American woman to win an Olympic gold medal in a distance event on the track, among other feats. From there, the Tigers ascended to great heights over the next 39 years until his retirement following the 2016 outdoor track & field season.

Princeton got off to a hot start with Farrell at the helm, winning 11 Ivy League titles in his first six years on campus. That included a Triple Crown during the 1980-81 academic year, where the Tigers captured Heps titles in cross country, indoor track & field and outdoor track & field. Princeton replicated the feat exactly 30 years later, starting with the 2010 cross country title. Princeton won 11 team titles between 2006 and 2016, with 10 coming in the first five years of that span.

The Tigers were especially strong in cross country, where they reeled off five Heps titles in a row from the midto-late 2000s. No team came together better than the 2009 edition, as they became the first – and still, only – squad in Ivy League history to sweep the conference meet.

With one individual national champion in track & field (Julia Ratcliffe, 2014 hammer), 55 total AllAmericans, four Mid-Atlantic Region cross country titles and two top-5 finishes at the NCAA Cross Country Championships, you can’t overlook what Farrell’s Tigers accomplished on the regional and national stage under his direction, either.

44

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

THOMAS “T.E.” JONES

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN He, along with Amos Alonzo Stagg and John L. Griffith helped organize the first NCAA championship in any sport, the 1921 National Collegiate Track & Field Championships.

Jones was the athletic director and head cross country and track & field coach at the University of Wisconsin, positions he held for 35 years until his retirement at age 70.

From 1910 to 1912, Jones led Missouri to a number of accomplishments. His teams won three Missouri Valley Conference titles in track & field and captured the Western Conference title in 1911.

He returned to Madison to much fanfare in 1913 and developed UW into a powerhouse in cross country and track & field over the next 35 years. The Badgers won 14 conference titles and posted a 70-18 record in dual meets.

That doesn’t even include a pair top-3 finishes at the NCAA Cross Country Championships, which was still in its infancy at the time. UW actually took runner-up honors at the second-ever installment of the meet in 1939 thanks to an individual title from Walter Mehl, who finished second the previous year.

Success carried over into track & field, where the Badgers amassed numerous team titles, 137 total individual titles between the indoor and outdoor seasons (five at the NCAA Outdoor Championships), a 123-47 record in dual meets and an undefeated record in indoor triangular competition with Jones at the helm.

Jones also coached Arlie Mucks, a 1912 Olympian in the discus, to the indoor shot put world record in 1916.

DON LARSON

NORTH DAKOTA STATE After graduating from SDSU in 1976 with a bachelor’s degree in physical education and then earning a master’s degree in the same area of expertise from Minnesota State-Moorhead, Larson began his coaching career at Concordia College in Moorhead, Minnesota.

Just a few years later in 1979, took the head coaching job at North Dakota State. And it is in Fargo, where Larson spent the next 41 years molding the Bison into a perennial force until his well-deserved retirement following the 2019-20 academic year.

For the first 25 years of Larson’s tenure, the Bison left their mark as NCAA Division II members in the North Central Conference. NDSU won 36 conference titles as a team between 1979 and 2004, including 35 in track & field alone. That one cross country title came in 1982 and it was the first link in a chain that resulted in capturing the vaunted Triple Crown.

Triumphs at the national level were just as commonplace for the Bison. Curt Bacon gave Larson his first individual champ in 1980 when he won the steeplechase crown and before all was said and done, his athletes added 10 more to that total at the NCAA DII level. Larson’s athletes also compiled 206 All-America honors with 193 of those coming in track & field. NDSU’s best finishes, as a team, were third outdoors in 2004 and fourth indoors in 1989.

Success continued after the Bison made the full transition to the Summit League in NCAA DI. NDSU won 18 more conference titles between 2007 and 2020, including the 2020 indoor crown to send Larson out as a winner. The Bison dominated the proceedings, too, sweeping the top-4 spots in the 800, the top-6 spots in the shot put and the top-3 spots in the weight throw as Larson was named the conference’s Coach of the Year for the 17th time.

Payton Otterdahl gave NDSU its first individual champion at the NCAA DI level in any sport in 2019 when he won the shot put at the NCAA Indoor Championships. Otterdahl also set the collegiate indoor record in the event earlier that year. He claimed the weight throw the very next day.

DR. NANCY MEYER

CALVIN From 1988 to 2003, Calvin was unmatched in the MIAA and the Great Lakes Region. During that span, the Knights won 16 consecutive conference titles and won all but one regional crown.

Calvin qualified for the NCAA Division III Cross Country Championships for the first time in 1989 and three years later had a runner-up finish.

Calvin won back-to-back titles in 1998 and 1999 to make Meyer just the third coach in NCAA DIII history to lead a women’s program to consecutive crowns.

Calvin continued to dominate the MIAA and contend at the NCAA Championships in the final six years of Meyer’s career.

The Knights won five of six conference titles between 2000 and 2005 and finished as high as fifth in 2002 and 2003.

Meyer, a two-time National Coach of the Year and eighttime Regional Coach of the Year, stepped down in 2006.

She remained an integral part of the Calvin athletic department as the Senior Associate Athletics Director/ Athletics Compliance Director and as a full-time professor in the Calvin kinesiology department before retiring at the end of the 2020-2021 academic year.

JOHN MOON

Once Moon wrapped up his athletic career, he got his first taste of coaching at the Kilmer Job Center and then jumped in with both feet at Rahway (N.J.) High School.

Moon created a juggernaut out of a dormant track & field program, leading the Indians to 33 championships and a 99-11 dual meet record in seven years.

Moon’s rise continued in 1972, when he was named the head coach of cross country and track & field at Seton Hall University. The Pirates won the men’s mile relay at the 1973 NCAA Division I Indoor Track & Field Championships and followed that up with a meetrecord performance of 3:14.0 the following year – en route to a fourth-place team finish – to become just the third program to win back-to-back national titles in that event.

Five more national event titles followed for the Pirates, including four from the women’s team during a 1994 campaign that saw them finish third indoors and eighth outdoors.

With as much national success as The Hall had in track & field – which included 73 All-America honors over the years – conference dominance was just a formality. From 1980 until 2010, the Pirates racked up six team titles and 225 individual or relay titles at the BIG EAST Championships.

DENNIS SHAVER

LSU After 9 years as an assistant, Shaver took over the LSU program in 2004. During those 9 years, his athletes won 18 individual and seven relay titles at the NCAA Indoor or Outdoor championships during this period.

The long list of athletes coached by Shaver includes the program’s two winners of The Bowerman, Kimberlyn Duncan (2012) and Sha’Carri Richardson (2019). Richardson is one of 10 men or women Shaver guided to the NCAA title in the 100 meters alone, including the versatile Xavier “X-Man” Carter.

LSU’s sprint depth has regularly impressed as the Tigers have won 26 NCAA titles in relay events under Shaver.

Shaver has led the Tigers to a pair of national team titles. The women captured the first, back in 2008. Then, in 2021, Shaver’s men romped to a decisive NCAA victory behind six event titles . More than 30 of Shaver’s athletes have continued to the Olympic stage, with 10 earning medals.

Shaver’s list of honors includes four National Coach of the Year awards from the USTFCCCA as well as once being named as the national Assistant Coach of the Year. He has been named Regional Coach of the Year nine times and the SEC Coach of the Year eight times.

JOHN WEAVER

APPALACHIAN STATE App State’s cross country and track & field programs accumulated 78 conference team championships, with 75 coming in the Southern Conference before the Mountaineers moved to the Sun Belt Conference in 2014. Weaver was honored a total of 43 times as conference Coach of the Year.

Weaver returned to App State to get his Master’s in biology and worked with the men’s cross country and track & field programs as a graduate assistant in 1982 during transformational times for women’s sports. Weaver helped the Southern Conference begin championships in cross country (1985), outdoor track (1987) and indoor track (1988). App State became a dominant force in all three sports, winning the SoCon “Triple Crown” seven times.

Weaver coached many accomplished women, highlighted by hurdler Melissa Morrison, who won 12 SoCon individual titles and went on to earn a pair of Olympic bronze medals, and Mary Jayne Harrelson, the 1999 and 2001 NCAA 1500-meter champion.

Harrelson and Morrison were two major pieces in App State earning 23 total All-America honors under his watch.

During the summer of 2012, Weaver served as the sprints and hurdles coach for the women’s USA National Under-23 team that competed in Mexico.

NOVEMBER 2021 techniques

45

The Bowerman Finalists 2021

JUVAUGHAN HARRISON

COLE HOCKER

TURNER WASHINGTON

LSU Harrison, who hails from Huntsville, Alabama, proved himself worthy of the nickname “Mr. Jumps.” Not only did Harrison become the first athlete in NCAA DI history to win both the high jump and long jump in the same year at the NCAA Indoor Championships, but he also doubled back to complete the sweep once again at the NCAA Outdoor Championships, giving him four NCAA titles in 2021. Harrison wrote his name all over the all-time collegiate charts, equaling the second-best clearance in the outdoor high jump at 2.36m (7-8¾) as part of a perfect 7-for-7 effort at the SEC Outdoor Championships and moving up to No. 3 in the indoor long jump at 8.45m (27-8¾) and No. 6 in the outdoor long jump at 8.44m (27-8¼). That mark in the indoor long jump occurred during his winning series at the NCAA Indoor Championships, where Harrison conquered the strongest field in meet history (It was the only final with four men over 8.10m (26-7), besting the previous best of three from 1993).

OREGON Hocker, a native of Indianapolis, Indiana, starred in mid-distance and distance events throughout the collegiate track & field cycle. He won three NCAA titles – becoming just the third man in NCAA DI history to sweep the mile and 3000 at the NCAA Indoor Championships and add the 1500 crown outdoors, joining Marty Liquori of Villanova and Joe Falcon of Arkansas – and finished fourth in the outdoor 5000 after doubling back from the 1500 less than two hours earlier.

Hocker sizzled the track in each of those title-winning races, setting a meet record in the indoor mile at 3:53.71 and barely missing meet records in both the indoor 3000 and outdoor 1500 by a total of 0.26 seconds. Earlier in the year, Hocker clocked the second-fastest mile in collegiate indoor history (3:50.55) and moved up to No. 8 on the all-time world chart in that event, in addition to helping Oregon set an all-time world best in the DMR with a blistering 2:49.89 opening split for 1200 meters.

ARIZONA STATE Washington, from Tucson, Arizona, became just the third man in NCAA DI history to sweep the indoor and outdoor shot-put titles and add a discus crown all in the same year (John Godina of UCLA and 2010 The Bowerman finalist Ryan Whiting of Arizona State are the others). In a word, though, Washington was dominant in 2021. Washington ended the year with eight of the top-10 seasonal marks in the discus, seven of the top-10 seasonal marks in the outdoor shot put and four of the top-10 seasonal marks in the indoor shot put, including the collegiate record of 21.85m (71-8¼). Don’t forget that Washington also hit a huge mark of 66.26m (217-5) in the discus, which made him the No. 7 performer in collegiate history. That allowed Washington to be the only man in collegiate history with current all-time top-10 efforts in both the discus and any shot put.

46

techniques NOVEMBER 2021

TARA DAVIS

TYRA GITTENS

TEXAS Davis, who hails from Agoura Hills, California, swept the NCAA long jump titles and unified the collegiate indoor and outdoor records in that event – a combination last seen in the same year

by Carol Lewis in 1983. Her collegiate records and first NCAA crown all came within the span of three weeks in March. It was at the NCAA Division I Indoor Track & Field Championships in Fayetteville, Arkansas, where her effort of 6.93m (22-9) not only topped the podium, but broke the collegiate indoor record previously shared by Whitney Gipson and Elva Goulbourne.

Just two weeks later, Davis captured the event crown at the Texas Relays with a leap of 7.14m (23-5¼) to smash a 35-year-old collegiate outdoor record held by the legendary Jackie Joyner.

Davis’ undefeated outdoor season in the long jump got even better, as she added three marks that equaled the fourth-best performance on the alltime chart. She capped the year with a come-from-behind victory at the NCAA Division I Outdoor Track & Field Championships, where she soared 6.70m (21-11¾) in Round 5 to secure the sweep. Don’t forget that Davis also won the 100 hurdles at the Big 12 Outdoor Championships.

TEXAS A & M Gittens, from Saint Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago, scored the most team points out of any individual at the NCAA Indoor and Outdoor Championships, regardless of gender. When all was said and done, Gittens amassed 50 points behind three NCAA titles, one runner-up finish and two more third-place efforts.

Two of those titles came at the NCAA Indoor Championships where she broke the collegiate record in the pentathlon (4746) on her way to becoming the first athlete in meet history to win both the high jump and pentathlon in the same year. Her historic year continued outdoors, most notably at the SEC Outdoor Championships in College Station, Texas. Gittens totaled 6418 points to move up to No. 3 all-time in the heptathlon and, in doing so, soared 6.96m (22-10) in the long jump and cleared 1.95m (6-4¾) in the high jump to take spots Nos. 4 and 6 on the all-time chart in those events, respectively. If that wasn’t enough, Gittens is the only woman in world history to hit those marks within the confines of a multi.

Gittens kept it rolling to win the NCAA heptathlon crown by 118 points in Eugene, Oregon. In addition to those outstanding performances, Gittens finished runner-up in the outdoor long jump and took third in both the indoor long jump and outdoor high jump at the NCAA Championships.

ALL PHOTOS BY KIRBY LEE

ATHING MU

TEXAS A & M Mu, a native of Trenton, New Jersey, accumulated four collegiate records and 10 all-time top-10 marks in individual events during her lone collegiate year and added blazing anchor legs to polish off a pair of record-setting relays.

Indoors, Mu obliterated collegiate records in both the 600 (1:25.80) and 800 (1:58.40) with additional all-time top-10 efforts in each event. Between those, Mu went 50.52 over 400 meters for the fifth-fastest performance in collegiate indoor history. Mu would later finish runner-up in that event at the NCAA Indoor Championships and anchored the Aggies to 4×400 victory with a 49.54 split, the fastest ever recorded in world history. It didn’t take long for Mu to leave her mark outdoors, unifying the 800-meter collegiate records with a scintillating 1:57.73 effort in mid-April at the Michael Johnson Invitational. That would be Mu’s last 800 as a collegian as she eschewed the event to focus on the 400 in the postseason. Mu targeted 2016 The Bowerman winner Courtney Okolo’s collegiate record in the event of 49.71 and got progressively quicker each time out: 50.04 in the prelims at the SEC Outdoor Championships; 49.84 in the final at the SEC Outdoor Championships; 49.68, to break the collegiate record, at the NCAA DI West Preliminary Round in College Station, Texas; 49.57, to win her only NCAA individual title and lower the CR, at the NCAA Outdoor Championships.

NOVEMBER 2021 techniques

47

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

sportsbyapt.com/sport/track beynonsports.com

directathletics.com

balfour.com ucsspirit.com

geosurfaces.com

simplifaster.com gillporter.com

maxmedals.com

mfathletic.com

ucsspirit.com

osst-surfaces.com/en coachesdirectory.com

vsathletics.com