Techniques February 2024 by Renaissance Publishing

Contents Volume 17 Number 3 / February 2024

IN EVERY ISSUE

USTFCCCA Presidents

AWARDS

44 2023 Cross Country National Coaches and Athletes of the Year

18 Elite Mindset Coaches’ perspective on the tools atheletes need to succeed BY BRENDAN WILKINS

26 Going the Distance The case for equal athletic opportunity BY MOLLY PETERS

FEATURES

Paint the Picture Teaching passive core engagement BY NIGEL AR JOSEPH , SHADAN AL-SAKET

32 Bridging the Gap On-the-field experience and new technologies

ON THE COVER: JUN 7, 2023; AUSTIN, TX, USA; JUSTIN ROBINSON OF ARIZONA STATE WINS 400M HEAT IN 44.54 DURING THE NCAA TRACK & FIELD CHAMPIONSHIPS AT MIKE A. MYERS STADIUM. PHOTOGRAPH BY KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

BY MICHAEL OLDHAM, VIPA BERNHARDT, STEVE PREWITT, KAYLIE CAMPBELL

FEBRUARY 2024 techniques

techniques FEBRUARY 2024

USTFCCCA PRESIDENT

CARYL SMITH GILBERT PUBLISHER Sam Seemes

USTFCCCA President

Caryl Smith Gilbert is the Director of Men’s and Women’s Track & Field at the University of Georgia. Caryl can be reached at UGATFXC@sports.uga.edu

MEMBERSHIP SERVICES Mary McInnis, Will Harrell, Kristina Taylor, Dave Svoboda, Adrian Wilson COMMUNICATIONS Garrett Bampos, Tom Lewis, Tyler Mayforth, Howard Willman

DIVISION PRESIDENTS

NCAA DIVISION III

NCAA DIVISION II

NCAA DIVISION I

MARC DAVIS Track & Field

Kevin Sullivan is the Director of Track and Field and Cross Country at the University of Michigan. Kevin can be reached at krsully@ umich.edu

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

DANA SCHWARTING Track & Field

JAMEY HARRIS Cross Country

PUBLISHED BY

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

KENNETH COX Track & Field

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

NAIA

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

NJCAA

CHIP GAYDEN Track & Field

techniques FEBRUARY 2024

PHOTOGRAPHER Kirby Lee

Marc Davis is the Director of Track &Field and Cross Counry at Troy University. Marc can be reached at mddavis@troy.edu.

MIKE COLLINS Track & Field

KEVIN SULLIVAN Cross Country

Chip Gayden is the Head Men’s and Women’s Track & Field Coach at Meridian Community College. He can be reached at hgayden@meridiancc.edu

Jamey Harris is the Head Men’ and Women’s Track & Field Coach at CAL Poly Humboldt University. Jamey can be reached at jamey@humboldt.edu

MATTHEW BARREAU Cross Country

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

ART DIRECTOR Tiffani Reding Amedeo

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

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

RYAN SOMMERS Cross Country

Ryan Sommers is the Head Men’s and Women’s Cross Country Coach at Bethel (Ind.). Ryan can be reached at ryan.sommers@bethelcollege.edu

DEE BROWN Cross Country

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

If you would like to submit content for, or advertise your business in Techniques, please contact 504-599-8906 or techniques@ustfccca.org.

Techniques (ISSN 1939-3849) is published quarterly in February, May, August and November by the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association. Copyright 2024. 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.

8 techniques FEBRUARY 2024

Paint the Picture Helping Athletes understand and apply passive core engagement in sprinting.

e honest, teaching pelvic position and passive core engagement takes a lot of work. As coaches, we can better emphasize core stability concepts to our athletes, especially its strong link to developing medal-caliber athletes, healthier to get into blocks and can help cross the finish line first. Standing on the shoulders of articles that explain the relationship between hip position, core engagement, hamstring injuries and performance, this article focuses on transitioning the theoretical science of pelvic position and core engagement into the art of perfecting sprinting by identifying the effects of low-core engagement, facilitating athletes to understand their bodies, and combining concepts into a sequence of drills. To dive more into the science, please read Karim Abdel Wahab’s 2016 Technique article on hip stiffness, Mike Thorson’s 2022 Technique article on speed mechanics and others within the reference list. THE SCIENCE OF CORE STABILITY. The hip joint is an intertwined structure of soft tissue (cartilage, ligaments, fascia, tendons and muscles) and hard tissue (bone) that functions together to allow joints to stay stable as forces transfer through the body during sprinting (Kobesova et al., 2016). Kibler, Press, and Sciascia (2006) identify core stability as the ability to control the position and motion of the pelvis to allow control of force application. Natural changes in pelvic movement (angular velocity) and fluid or smoother stop/start (acceleration) cause less strain on the joint and allow for better force application. Conversely, large angular velocity and abrupt acceleration may cause a greater force to be applied to the joint and less force transferred to the ground. In other words, a strong and stable core aids individuals in efficiently transferring forces from the ground, through the body and back to the ground. A weak core leads to core instability, increasing injury rates and decreasing performance (Okada et al., 2011). The function of passive core engagement - finding the

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

FEBRUARY 2024 techniques

PAINT THE PICTURE

FIGURE 1. VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE PRE/POST GAIN IN MENDIGUCHIA’S ET AL. STUDY ON HIP DROP (2022).

optimal zone of mechanical tension Even if athletes have the strongest core muscles, finding their optimized zone of muscle engagement allows them to move freely with continued control. Tensegrity is a term that describes the equilibrium of muscle engagement and how the body correctly manages mechanical tensions and transmits forces (Hohenschurz-Schmidt et al., 2016). Inappropriate muscle engagement may become detrimental as the speed and complexity of a movement increases. As higher forces pass through the joint, the likelihood of aggressive wobbles, sways or extreme rigidity increases. In other words, joint instability and joint inflexibility occur. Over time, if muscle or fascial tension is insufficient, then significant wobbles, inflexibility or sways may cause harm to the joint structures, lessening the joint function and altering body awareness, movement patterns and muscle memory. Identification of low core engagement: Pelvic drop, noisy torso and backside mechanics Pelvic drop or hip sitting refers to anterior pelvic tilt being present during movement. Pelvic drop is most noticeable when the foot hits the ground (between touchdown and toe-off). Figure 1, from 10

techniques FEBRUARY 2024

Mendiguchia’s et al. (2022) article on changes in pelvic obliquity (dropped hip) with core training, the difference in pelvic position between pre- and post-core stability training is the pelvis points downwards to the ground instead of in the direction of travel. Imagine if our hips were a large bowl of soup; athletes with more significant pelvic drop during sprinting would spill the bowl while limiting their full hip range of motion. A common reaction to pelvic drop is either collapsing the torso or protruding the chest. Both positions increase the tensegrity in the posterior muscle group (hamstrings, erector spinae and gluteals). The collapsing of the torso with pelvic drop decreases tensegrity in the anterior muscle groups (pectorals, diaphragm, obliques, abdominals, and hip flexor), making an athlete look saggy. On the other hand, pushing the chest forward with pelvic drop makes the athlete appear uncomfortably rigid. See Figure 1. A noisy torso refers to having high angular velocity and acceleration at the pelvis due to the body counteracting the impact of ground contact forces. It is a sign of low core stability. Visually this

can take different forms, but, for the most part, it can be seen as the athlete fighting to sprint straight. The fighting intensifies their torso noise by recruiting more muscle groups than needed. For instance, higher shoulder tension or intensified arm lateral motions across the body’s center, a reaction that aims to overcome the head jerking forward and back, similar to a person learning to ride a horse. The head jerking during sprinting is seen in the progression between pre- and post-training from Figure 1. Pre-training positions show that the head position at MVP (maximal vertical projection) and the touchdown is further forward than at toe-off and MVKD (maximal knee vertical displacement). Backside mechanics results from the touchdown in front of an athlete’s hips (center of mass). Picture the foot striking the ground. When the foot strikes the ground in front of the hip, the hamstring and quad engage to minimize the leg collapsing. When the knee is bent, the glutes and hip flexors shut off, forcing the hamstring to become the primary muscle for power output, and hip drop occurs, limiting front-side hip mobility. The body responds by having longer ground contact time.

FEBRUARY 2024 techniques

PAINT THE PICTURE

Figure 1 visualizes a greater thigh swing at takeoff, lower knee drive at the MVKD, increased anterior pelvic tilt, and a greater knee-to-knee distance at touchdown. “Head, Shoulders, Knees, and Toes…” Having athletes understand how their joints work. Ask an athlete where their hips are; they point to their waist instead of the bony area on the side of their leg. Having athletes understand the mechanics of their joints makes it easier for coach cueing and enhancing the athletes’ ability to paint their picture of sprinting. The four main joints that athletes need to know to reduce injuries and increase performance. The hip is a ball and socket joint. As the knee rises and falls, the femur rotates. Therefore, athletes do not need to focus on cycling when sprinting, as that is the natural path instead of knee up, knee down. The knee is a hinge joint. The knee opens and closes the leg, which allows the heel to pull close and push away from the glute.

techniques FEBRUARY 2024

The ankle is a complex joint that moves in 4 plains. Sprinting requires dorsiflexion (toes pointed up) and landing with a flat foot. The torso has multiple vertebral joints, and their function is to load and unload weight. Having vertebrae in a stacked position allows the body to utilize its mass to sprint better. Application: “A” progression to teach and reinforce core engagement A method to teach core engagement in sprinting is an “A” progression. The progression breaks down the coordination of sprinting into digestible parts while increasing complexity. Therefore, moving through the progressions depends on athletes’ understanding and avoiding pelvic drop, a noisy torso and backside mechanics. This drill series focuses on maintaining core engagement at MVKD and touchdown positions. To begin, athletes find a tall position by locating a neutral pelvis, elongated torso and standing on the balls of their feet with their heels an inch off the ground.

Once in this position, the athletes engage their core by thinking about wrapping their obliques together and locking it like a front door (a locked door exists). A great visual is getting athletes to interlock their fingers. A-March: The goals at the MVKD are to have the knee at 90 degrees, marry the calf to the hamstring and maintain the foot in a dorsiflexed position. Visually, it forms the letter “Z” from hip to knee, ankle and foot. At touchdown, the foot drives down and back underneath the hips. At each step, push from the MVKD or high knee position into the ground. To aid in painting the picture, use collaborative imagery techniques and incorporate somatic guidance in the direction of the leg from one position to the other before the athlete begins to march. A-Skip: Focuses on coordination between MVKD and touchdown as we increase complexity. Verbal and visual cueing are most effective at this progression. If an athlete has difficulties in this position, pause and reinforce the position with somatic guidance.

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

FEBRUARY 2024 techniques

PAINT THE PICTURE A-Run: Focuses on creating space in the torso by pushing the shoulders away from the hip bones and maintaining that space as athletes move, especially toward the end of the drill. Remember not to have hip dumping and a noisy torso during this drill. Alliterations and jokes are good ways to ease the learning process. A-Run to Run: To execute this drill, the athlete does a stationary A-Run, and the method of moving forward is driving into the ground from the MVKD, slowly increasing the stride length while maintaining stride frequency. Again the power delivery is from the MVKD. The goal is not to be “bucked” by holding the pelvic position, quieting the torso through the transition, and maintaining front-side mechanics without the knees lowering. This drill takes patience to execute. To conclude, my keys to helping athletes paint the picture are always to begin drills with core engagement, keep bad habits from existing, and decrease cueing with athletes’ competency. The keys increase presence in athlete execution, quality in their movement, and agency in painting their picture.

techniques FEBRUARY 2024

REFERENCES Abdel Wahab, K. (2016). Straighten Up: The importance of proper posture and the quality of stiffness in sprinting. Techniques, 9(3), 24-26. Franz, J., Paylo, K., Dicharry, J., O’Riley, P., & Kerrigan, C. (2009). Changes in the coordination of hip and pelvis kinematics with mode of locomotion. Gait & Posture, 31(2), 494-498. Hohenschurz-Schmidt, D. J., Esteves, J. E., & Thomson, O. P. (2016). Tensegrity and manual therapy practice: A qualitative study. International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine, 21, 5–18. Kibler, W. B., Press, J., & Sciascia, A. (2006). The role of core stability in athletic function. Sports Medicine, 36(6), 189-198. Kobesova, A., Safarova, M., & Kolar, P. (2015). Dynamic neuromuscular stabilization: exercise in developmental positions to achieve spinal stability and functional joint centration. In the Textbook of musculoskeletal medicine. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Locatelli, E. (1996). The importance of anaerobic glycolysis and stiffness in the Sprints (60, 100 and 200 meters). New Studies for Athletics, 11(2-3), 121-125.

Mendiguchia, J., Castaño-Zambudio, A., Jiménez-Reyes, P., Morin, J.-B., Edouard, P., Conceição, F., Tawiah-Dodoo, J., & Colyer, S. L. (2022). Can we modify maximal speed running posture? Implications for performance and hamstring injury management. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 17(3), 374–383. Okada, T., Huxel, K. C., & Nesser, T. W. (2011). Relationship between core stability, functional movement, and performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25(1), 252-261. Thorson, M. (2022). High-Velocity Speed Mechanics: Techniques and Principles for Optimal Performance. Techniques, 15(4), 26-32.

NIGEL AR JOSEPH , WEARABLE TECH FOUNDER OF MINDFULL SOLUTIONS INC., ELITE COACH AND SPRINT MECHANIC ENTHUSIAST 1986-2023 SHADAN AL-SAKET, MINDFULL BIOMECHANICS INTERN

techniques FEBRUARY 2024

Elite Mindset

A coach’s perspective on developing the tools needed for athletes to perform their best

onversations around mental health have become more prevalent with each passing year. The stigmas that once surrounded these topics are slowly fading as more individuals come forward to share their stories. Many of these individuals are the athletes we watch compete each week. These individuals, whom we often place on a pedestal for their exceptional athletic abilities, face as many difficulties and struggles as anyone else. They hold themselves to such high standards that they relentlessly pursue perfection, considering anything less than a personal best a failure. They grapple with the stress and anxiety of performing on the track and in the classroom, and some become so overwhelmed they fear performing at all. When we discuss talent, it’s evident that some athletes are naturally more gifted than others. As coaches, we don’t seek to provide them with additional talent; instead, we aim to nurture the talent they possess to help them reach their full potential. I believe the same approach should be applied when we consider “mental toughness.” Some athletes are inherently more mentally resilient than others. Much like talent, they have what they have. However, what we can do is equip them with the mental tools they need to be better prepared for any challenges they might face. “Mental toughness is built on doing the thing that is hard over and over again, especially when you don’t feel like it.” (Afremow, 2013) By providing them with mental tools to add to their arsenal, we can ensure they are better prepared for whatever situations come their way. Each coach’s resources and circumstances differ. Some may have an entire staff of sports psychologists

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

readily available to meet their athletes’ needs. Others might have just one on staff responsible for multiple athletes across numerous teams, and some coaches might be juggling so many roles that it becomes challenging to balance them all. Regardless of the circumstances, coaches spend the most time with their athletes daily. We should play an equally crucial role in their mental training as we do in their physical training. We are there with them in competition to congratulate them when things go well. And when they don’t, we need to be equipped with the proper tools to help them navigate whatever situation they find themselves in. FEED THE GOOD WOLF: MINDSET IS A CHOICE Every year, I share a story with our team about a child who dreams of two wolves engaged in an eternal battle, the good wolf and the bad wolf. Just before the battle’s outcome is revealed, the child wakes up, leaving the result a mystery. Perplexed by this, the child seeks wisdom from their grandparents, the wisest people they know. The child implores their grandparents to shed light on the battle’s victor, to which the grandparents offer a simple response: “The wolf who wins is the one you feed.” In any situation, we have the power to choose our mental response. Whether it’s adopting a Fixed or a Growth Mindset, a Positive or a Negative Mindset, or an Elite or an Average Mindset, there are typically two different paths we can follow. It’s up to us as coaches to ensure our athletes choose the path that leads to their success. Most situations or events are entirely beyond our control, but we can control our response to it. Responding to adversity with a FEBRUARY 2024 techniques

ELITE MINDSET positive mindset doesn’t always guarantee a positive outcome, but a negative mindset virtually guarantees a negative result. We become what we think about most of the time. “Words become actions. Actions become habits. Habits become character. Character becomes your destiny.” (Mack & Casstevens, 2001) Training and competing with a positive mindset can be as straightforward as the language our athletes use when speaking to themselves. Often, a single word can entirely alter their mindset. When our athletes face something challenging, they can tell themselves, “I am nervous about the outcome,” or “I am excited for the challenge.” When they hit a plateau in performance, they can either choose to become frustrated by what happened or become fascinated by why it happened. When they foul all three attempts, it can be seen as a failure or used as feedback for the next time. When our athletes lose motivation, they can think of practice as something they have to do or remind themselves that they get to do it. A single word can drastically change an athlete’s emotions and the path they choose. Even if they don’t fully believe in the power of words, simply recognizing the language they use will make them more aware of the mindset they possess. In each situation, setback, or moment of adversity, an athlete faces a choice: react or respond. Reacting to a situation is purely emotional. When an athlete has a poor performance, they get upset and allow their emotions to run wild. Some may become down on themselves, engage in negative self-talk, or begin deflecting blame onto coaches, competitors, teammates or anyone else in their path. Regardless of the response, it is unproductive, and, in many cases, the athlete ends up in a worse place than they started. Don’t get me wrong; feeling your emotions is natural and healthy. It’s a feeling that everyone is entitled to experience. The difference lies in what you do with that feeling. Responding to a situation is reacting with reflection. When an athlete responds to a negative situation, they take time to feel their emotions and then turn them into something productive. One technique I like to use is the “20 minute rule.” After a poor performance, I give my athletes 20 minutes (sometimes even setting a timer) to be upset about it, after which they need to identify the takeaway from the day or determine what they need to focus on for improvement next time. This approach 18

techniques FEBRUARY 2024

allows athletes to have a structured amount of time to experience their emotions while fostering the mindset to put the situation in the past and move forward. Those with a positive mindset find “setbacks motivating. They’re informative. They’re a wake-up call.” (Dweck, 2006) Setbacks and failures are where we learn. They provide feedback and prepare us for the next challenge. The wolf we feed each day sets the tone for an athlete’s training, development, success and the impact they have on the team culture. Our mindsets come down to the choices we make each day. We can choose to be positive or negative, to respond or react, to be elite or average. These choices significantly influence the path an athlete takes during their journey and whether they achieve their goals. The more our athletes feed the good wolf, the stronger it becomes, making them better equipped to handle any negativity they may encounter. PROCESS OVER OUTCOME “Trust the Process” has become a common phrase in athletics. Athletes who achieve significant accomplishments often credit this phrase for their success. They emphasize the value of trusting the process, even during moments of doubt or disbelief. While these stories send a powerful message to fellow athletes—never give up and keep working hard—it can be challenging for others to relate to or fully grasp the struggles required to reach the top. We live in a world where virtually everything we desire is at our fingertips. As technology advances, instant gratification becomes increasingly accessible. Need information? Google it. Hungry? In a few taps, food can be at your doorstep within 30 minutes. Need a ride? Multiple drivers in your area are ready to pick you up. We’ve become accustomed to having what we want when we want it. Unfortunately, our sport doesn’t operate that way. Training requires delayed gratification, preserving our best performances for the end of the season when they matter most. “Self-control is a secret of champions. They are willing to delay immediate gratification and tolerate frustration slightly longer for a larger reward.” (Afremow, 2013) This can be a challenging concept to accept when we are accustomed to immediate gratification. Instead of viewing performance as a linear journey, it should be seen as a process that involves delayed gratification. It’s a constant cycle of peaks and

plateaus, highs and lows, each phase building upon the last. In his 2018 book “Atomic Habits,” James Clear discusses what he calls the “Plateau of Latent Potential.” “To make a meaningful difference, habits must persist long enough to break through this plateau... When you’re struggling to build a good habit or break a bad one, it’s often because you haven’t crossed the Plateau of Latent Potential.” Just because success or a goal isn’t achieved immediately doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future. The more we persist and take the long-term view, the better we understand the process. The best athletes are those who can fall in love with the process and become obsessed with it. They excel at focusing on the journey, rather than fixating on the destination, and they’re willing to defer immediate gratification for future success. Most of the time, when athletes set goals for the season, they aim for times or distances that would be personal bests. But what happens when they don’t meet those marks? Our sport has a clear-cut nature—you either perform better or you don’t. Focusing solely on the outcome can be discouraging, causing us to lose sight of the process. It’s easy to state that you want to reach a particular distance or time, but if you don’t understand what it takes to get there, you’re setting yourself up for failure. When athletes establish their season goals, they should also set daily goals to accomplish during the process. “The way to achieve long-term goals is to break them down into small steps. Effective goal setting is like a staircase. Each step is an action step – an increment of progress.” (Mack & Casstevens, 2001) These smaller daily goals create a progression that helps keep athletes on the right path to achieving their main objectives. These small goals boost confidence because they are more attainable, and over time, they accumulate. What’s the best way to eat an elephant? One bite at a time. Every great sports story involves some form of adversity; that’s what makes the triumph all the more incredible. Without it, these stories would be dull. Our athletes need to believe that “everything in your life is preparing you for something amazing that hasn’t happened yet.” (Robbins, 2021) Every track and field enthusiast will forever remember the moment when high jumpers Gianmarco Tamberi and Mutaz Essa Barshim decided to share the Olympic Gold at the Tokyo Summer Games. What most people didn’t see was that both Tamberi and Barshim had battled injuries through-

ELITE MINDSET

out their careers. Barshim missed most of the 2018 season due to an ankle injury, and Tamberi suffered an Achilles tendon injury in 2016, causing him to sit out the 2018 Rio Olympics. Winning the Olympic Gold meant even more to Tamberi, who had his old leg cast with him, prominently marked “Road To Tokyo 2021.” Like an iceberg, what most people see is just the tip—the athlete at the top of the podium. What they miss is everything below the surface, the obstacles faced to get there. An athlete focused on the process will consistently outperform one who fixates on the outcome in the end. The former isn’t discouraged by early results because they know these results are part of the journey toward success. They see failure as feedback and setbacks as opportunities for growth. Adversity shapes who they are as individuals, athletes and leaders within the program. We’ve all heard the saying “when life gives you lemons.” Matt Fitzgerald takes it a step further in his 2020 book “The Comeback Quotient,” stating, “making the best of a bad situation entails actually making lemonade 20

techniques FEBRUARY 2024

from the lemons you’ve been given.” An athlete who faces adversity may develop anxieties and stressors, leading to the avoidance of stressful situations. Avoiding adversity leads to anxiety about adversity. The “three-step process of accepting, embracing, and addressing reality is the sine qua non of great athletic comebacks.” (Fitzgerald, 2020) The more our athletes embrace adversity as a challenge rather than a threat, the better prepared they will be for future challenges. CONTROL THE CONTROLLABLES In any competitive setting, there is a list of things that athletes cannot control. Factors such as the weather, the performance of other competitors, officiating decisions, previous performances and the competition schedule are all beyond our control. It’s also worth noting that these factors can significantly affect an athlete’s mental performance. The more we focus on the aspects within our control, the more overall control we will feel in a competition. Effort, attitude, body language and self-talk are all elements within an athlete’s control, and focusing on

these aspects can ground them in high-pressure situations or when facing adversity. An athlete’s level of confidence is closely tied to the amount of control they feel. The more control they perceive, the more confidence they possess. Have you ever noticed that some athletes perform better in home meets than away meets? This is because they feel most confident at home, where they have a sense of control over the environment, giving them a “home court advantage.” The question then becomes: how can athletes maintain this confidence during away competitions? Another key component of confidence is evidence. “Confidence needs evidence; that’s how you feed it.” (Roll & Magness, 2022, 1:25:10) Confidence is something that is earned over time and can be reinforced when athletes remind themselves of their past experiences. Telling an athlete to “be confident” when facing a challenging situation is not enough. “False confidence helps in situations where we largely don’t need an extra boost. Faking it works on easy tasks, where the challenge is low, and a bit KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

FEBRUARY 2024 techniques

ELITE MINDSET of extra motivation is needed to get you started.” (Magness, 2022) True confidence arises not from simply knowing that an athlete can accomplish a task but from the realization that they have put in the work and are prepared for the challenge. At the start of each season, the first meet is often a high-stress situation for any athlete, and as the season progresses, they become more comfortable because it becomes part of their routine. Each time an athlete faces a challenging situation in practice or competition, they gather more evidence to use in the future. “When you face difficulties head-on, instead of trying to avoid or deny them, you build resources for dealing with stressful experiences. You become more confident in your ability to handle life’s challenges.” (McGonigal, 2016) Many coaches even schedule their season with stressful competitions or early visits to championship sites so that athletes are prepared when it truly matters. The goal is to step up to the line, the mark, or in the circle and confidently say, “I’ve been here before;” “I do this all the time;” “I’ve put in the work, and I’m ready.” The more evidence an athlete has, the more in control they feel, and the more confidence they have when they’re about to face their most significant challenges. “Two of our greatest fears are the fear of being out of control and the fear of the unknown.” (Mack & Casstevens, 2001) The hard work an athlete puts in throughout the year prepares them for high-pressure situations and having control over their daily habits makes them accountable for the results they obtain. It’s easy for an athlete to list the goals they want to achieve, but without the necessary steps and habits, those goals become harder to reach. If athletes have gold level goals, they need gold level habits. Every time they face a decision, they should ask themselves, “Am I pursuing my dreams or just coasting through the day? Am I striving for personal gold, or am I settling for silver?” (Afremow, 2013) When athletes share their goals with us as coaches, our first response should be, “What does that look like? What will it take to accomplish it? What habits do you need to develop to achieve that goal?” If they don’t know the answers to these questions, that’s where they should start. In “Atomic Habits,” James Clear (2018) suggests that “eventually, I began to realize that my results had very little to do with the goals I set and nearly everything to do with the systems I followed.” If an athlete has a specific goal, there have likely been individuals before them who have already 22

techniques FEBRUARY 2024

paved the way. It’s up to the athlete to decide whether they want to use the information they’ve been provided to take action. Success leaves clues. Dr. Rob Gilbert summarized it well during episode #10274 of his “Success Hotline,” “If you plant peas, you’re going to get peas. If you plant celery, you’re going to get celery. If you plant pea seeds, don’t be upset when you don’t get celery.” Much of an athlete’s outcome is more within their control than they realize. The way they speak to themselves, their competitive mindset, and their daily habits are all factors an athlete should be aware of and focus on throughout each season. The more control they have over each aspect of their training, the more confidence they will have when they face their most significant challenges. PRESSURE IS A PRIVILEGE The best training and technical analysis will get an athlete to the championship meet, but acquiring the mental tools is what ultimately leads to the podium. As our athletes experience more success, they may also face increased pressure and anxiety. Those with an elite mindset understand that the pressure they feel is a privilege. Women’s tennis pioneer Billie Jean King frequently says, “Pressure is a privilege.” Most people, including athletes, will go through life without truly experiencing intense pressure. Athletes should not feel anxiety or run from pressure; they should run toward it. Rather than viewing themselves “in a high-pressure situation, think of this moment as their occasion to thrive.” (Afremow, 2013) Feeling pressure is a badge of honor, a testament to everything they’ve endured during the process. At the end of the day, the key to achieving high-level performance lies in an athlete’s ability to respond to the situation they find themselves in. Do they perceive it as a threat or a challenge? Is it nerves or excitement? Failure or feedback? “Contrary to what many people may expect, top performers in these fields aren’t physiologically calm under pressure; rather, they have strong challenge responses. The stress response gives them access to their mental and physical resources, and the result is increased confidence, enhanced concentration, and peak performance.” (McGonigal, 2016) When faced with any form of adversity, the athlete is presented with a choice. Will they let it hinder their pursuit of their goals, or will they consider it an integral part of their journey? As a coach, it is our

responsibility to guide them in the right direction. REFERENCES Afremow, J. A. (2013). The champion’s mind: How great athletes think, train, and thrive. Rodale Books. Clear, J. (2018). Atomic habits: Tiny changes, remarkable results: An easy & proven way to build good habits & break bad ones. Avery. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success: How we can learn to fulfill our potential. Ballantine Books. Fitzgerald, M. (2020). The comeback quotient: A get-real guide to building mental fitness in sport and life. Velo Press. Gilbert, R. (Host). (2019, April 10). Sport Psych #9 (No. 10274) [Audio podcast episode]. In The success hotline. Ironclad. Retrieved from https://www.spreaker.com/ user/successhotline/10-274-sport-psych-9 Mack, G. and Casstevens, D. (2001). Mind gym: An athlete’s guide to inner excellence. McGraw-Hill. Magness, S. (2023). Do hard things: Why we get resilience wrong and the surprising science of real toughness. Harperone. McGonigal, K. (2016). The upside of stress: Why stress is good for you, and how to get good at it. Penguin. Robbins, M. (2021). The high 5 habit: Take control of your life with one simple habit. Hay House Inc. Roll, R., & Magness, S. (Hosts). (2022, June 13). The surprising science of true toughness with Steve Magness (No. 686) [Audio podcast episode]. In The Rich Roll podcast. Rich Roll. Retrieved from https://www.richroll. com/podcast/steve-magness-686/

BRENDAN WILKINS, ASSISTANT COACH FOR WOMEN’S TRACK & FIELD AT QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY, IN HAMDEN, CT

FEBRUARY 2024 techniques

techniques FEBRUARY 2024

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

FEBRUARY 2024 techniques

Going the Distance The case for providing equal athletic opportunities

ear Coaches, On Sunday, Sept. 25, a new women’s marathon world record was set in an astounding time of 2 hours and 11 minutes. I am amazed and in awe of how far female athletes have come. From Joan Benoit winning the first women’s olympic marathon in 1984, to Courtney Dauwalter becoming the first athlete to ever win the Western States 100, Hardrock 100 and the UTMB in the same year, we are now seeing the progress that happens when we give women opportunity. So why are we as NCAA collegiate cross country committee members and coaches still insisting on drastically different distances for men and women at our Championship races? “Upon in-depth discussion the three committees were unanimously opposed to changing the men’s and/or women’s race distances at any of the three divisions of NCAA cross country.” -Response from the Div. I, II and III NCAA Cross Country Committees to an 8km Equal Distance proposal. When women step on the line for their cross country race, and only run 60% of the distance that the men do, we are not providing an equal athletic opportunity or experience to our female athletes. The difference in race distances not only sends a message to our female athletes that they are inferior to their male teammates, but relegates them as less capable in the realm of collegiate athletics as a whole. We can and have to do better! Our responsibility as coaches and committee members is to foster an environment where we are challenging all our athletes to progress. We need to push our male and female athletes to new levels of training and competing during their collegiate years. We need consistent and equal distances across the board at the NCAA Championships. The current season for NCAA Cross Country consists of a hodgepodge of distances. Women race 5km and 6km and men race 8km, except for Championship events, which is a 10km. Equality aside, on a logistical level alone it would be so much easier to have to only set up one 8km course. Additionally, racing an 8k all season and then running a 10km race for the first time at Regionals and the NCAA Championships doesn’t

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

FEBRUARY 2024 techniques

GOING THE DISTANCE

seem fair or logical for the men, from a training perspective. We believe that both the men and women should work together to determine a distance that would be best suited for all. This is why we proposed 8km, as it lies in between both current championship distances. The 8km distance for women and men at Division I, II and III levels would be good for our sport as a whole. It would be “THE COLLEGE DISTANCE.” Collegiate running should be a step on the age-appropriate progression of overall mileage and race distance that we, as coaches, would guide all our athletes to train appropriately for a 5km in high school, 8km in college, and 10km post-college events. Physiologically, both women and men are still going through the body changes of puberty when they are in college. Generally, men get faster and stronger as their muscles build from the increase in testosterone levels. At the same time, women are starting to adapt and become more acclimated to their new body shape and feel, having experienced the onset of puberty two years earlier than men. Studies show that BOTH collegiate men and women develop speed and endurance during college and are able to handle more training and volume. In fact, research has shown that the longer the race, the better women will do (Tiller). Nicholas Tiller of the Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and five co-authors teamed up on “Do Sex Differences in Physiology Confer a Female Advantage in UltraEndurance Sport?” published in the journal 28

techniques FEBRUARY 2024

of Sports Medicine in 2021. They found that women may be less susceptible to fatigue at ultramarathon distances. This is because men generally have greater muscle mass than women, which is a disadvantage over the long haul. This could explain why female runners like Courtney Dauwalter are so successful at ultramarathon distance, and why women are fully capable of training and racing longer races as a biological progression through their collegiate racing experience. There is no physiological reason for women to race shorter distances than men. Additionally, there is no logical or legal justification for subjecting women to unequal racing experiences based solely upon their gender at the collegiate level. The difference in distances seems to be based only on misguided stereotypes about the strength of men in comparison to women and vice versa. “Additionally, it was noted that an increase in the women’s distance could have a negative affect [on women]…” Response from the Div. I, II and III NCAA Cross Country Committees to an 8km Equal Distance proposal. Negative affectivity (NA), or negative affect, is the personality variable that involves experiencing a range of negative emotions and having a poor sense of self-image (American Psychological Association). Here we are in 2023 hearing that women will have “negative effect” if they race as long as their male counterparts. Does the NCAA committee really believe

that women will become emotionally distressed and depressed at the prospect of racing two more kilometers? We need to treat our female athletes as athletes, equal in worth, ability, and determination to the men, not as stereotypes: fragile and emotional women who may suffer from “negative effect” if they run longer distances. The 8km Equal Distance proposal sent to the NCAA Div. I, II and III committees included the signatures of running icons Kathrine Switzer, Joan Benoit, Lynn Jennings and Kara Goucher. These women are trailblazers who are not just decorated runners, but advocates and heroes for our sport. What if Kathrine Switzter hadn’t fought for the right to run in the Boston marathon or Joan Benoit hadn’t won the very first Olympic marathon in 1984? Where would we be without Lynn Jennings multiple world cross country titles or Kara Goucher’s numerous accolades as an NCAA champion, Olympian, TV race commentator, and best selling author? These women signed on to the Equal Distance campaign because they know how important it is for collegiate women to feel valued and respected. They fought and still fight for all female runners and they see providing equal distance opportunities as the next hurdle to overcome this discrimination and gender bias that’s hurting our sport. “Ultimately the committee members felt strongly that although race distances are different, the experience is equitable and of quality for each gender.” Response from the Div. I, II and III NCAA Cross Country Committees to an 8km Equal Distance proposal. As college coaches, we have a responsibility to follow the spirit, if not the law, of Title IX. “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Currently, when female athletes toe the line on college race courses, they will race 4 fewer kilometers than male athletes. This is not equal opportunity. Title IX mandates “equal treatment,” which requires “equivalence in the availability, quality and kinds of other athletic benefits and opportunities provided male and female athletes.” Offering women only a shorter distance for races based upon an assumption of their athletic capability– KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

FEBRUARY 2024 techniques

GOING THE DISTANCE

and not on facts–is impermissible gender discrimination. Simply allowing women to race in the NCAA, and arguing that the experience of running a 6k and running a 10k is equitable, is not the same as providing equal opportunity. “The committees also noted that increasing the women’s distance could be detrimental and consequential to women’s cross country and result in reduced participation.” Response from the Div. I, II and III NCAA Cross Country Committees to an 8km Equal Distance proposal. Many college coaches have named tougher recruiting and a fear of a decrease in roster size as the main reasons why women should race shorter distances. I’ve heard coaches say that you won’t be able to draw from mid-distance track runners to fill their cross country teams, or that high school girls will shy away from college cross country if the distances are longer. They also claim that if they can’t fill their women’s teams, their men’s roster spots will be affected. Should we, as coaches, use recruiting challenges to reduce the opportunities for our

techniques FEBRUARY 2024

female athletes? Should we, as coaches, be more concerned about an imaginary impact on our men’s roster sizes than we are about providing equal treatment, benefits, and opportunities to our female athletes? There is no proof that longer distance race opportunities have ever hurt women’s collegiate sports. In the year 2000, when they increased the women’s championship distance from 5km to 6km there was a negligible participation decrease of 327 runners total across all three divisions for one year (NCAA). Since then NCAA cross country participation numbers have increased at a regular rate each year. We also saw the benefits and increased participation when triple jump, pole vault and the 3000m steeplechase were added to the available track events for women at the NCAA Championships. When women are given the opportunity, they always rise to the occasion. There also seems to be a misconception that men are more prepared and better suited to run higher mileage in College coming out of High School. However, girls and boys race the same 5 kilometer distance in High School Cross Country. When

an athlete is preparing for competitions or future collegiate races their mileage should be based upon their training background, not their gender. That is the job of a coach. When these athletes go to college, men are suddenly required to run a 100% distance increase from High School, whereas it’s considered comparable and “equitable” for women to race with only a 20% distance increase. Their training backgrounds are no longer taken into account, but rather their gender is the sole factor in determining their race distance. “With the current race distances for men and the current race distances for women, you have similar amounts of competition time spent running per gender.” Response from the Div. I, II and III NCAA Cross Country Committees to an 8km Equal Distance proposal. Analysis of the race data for overall time from any unequal racing event from any calendar year of the NCAA, proves that a 6km race and a 10km race do not take “similar amounts of competition time.” For example, at the 2022 NCAA Div. I Cross Country

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

FEBRUARY 2024 techniques

GOING THE DISTANCE

Championships, the winner of the women’s 6km race, Katelyn Tuohy of NC State, ran a time of 19:27 averaging 3:22/km, while the winner of the men’s 10km race Charles Hicks of Stanford ran 29:43, averaging 3:01/ km (PrimeTime Timing). This is a difference of 9 minutes and 16 seconds of racing. In that 9 minutes and 16 seconds, at 3:22/km pace, Katelyn Tuohy could theoretically run another roughly 2.75 kilometers, almost half the distance of another 6k! Objectively, this is not a similar race time or race experience. Instead of telling women what they are not capable of, without any facts to back it up, we as coaches and committee members instead need to consider them purely as athletes who have individual needs in order to be their best. Our job is to help them achieve their goals by working with their training and racing background, as we do with our men, rather than telling them they are not as capable because of their gender. It is our responsibility as coaches to guide both our male and our female athletes through the collegiate running experience by meeting them where they are and pushing them appropriately as they age and mature during the four years they are with us. If we are not 32

techniques FEBRUARY 2024

doing that, then we are not doing our job as coaches. This fall, the NCAA Div. I, II and III Cross Country Committees met again to discuss the equal distance 8k proposal. In that meeting, they unanimously voted against increasing the women’s distance. However, rather than just voting the proposal down at this meeting, the committee also decided to unanimously ignore the official recommendations of the NCAA Committee on Women’s Athletics. The NCAA Committee on Women’s Athletics purpose is to “provide leadership and assistance to the association in its efforts to provide equitable opportunities, fair treatment and respect for all women in all aspects of intercollegiate athletics.” (NCAA) This committee was asked to reevaluate the NCAA Cross Country’s initial rejection of the equal distance proposal. The Committee on Women’s Athletics recommended that the cross country committees send a survey to athletes gauging their opinion on equal distance. They also recommended the equal distance proposal be sent to the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sport, in order to determine if adjusting the race

distances to 8km would raise any health and safety concerns for female student athletes. The NCAA Cross Country Committees have refused to abide by the suggestions of the NCAA Committee on Women’s Athletics to survey the athletes and get real medical opinion before considering the proposal again. Why? Would we see women running and breaking marathon world records today, if the IOC committee hadn’t been pushed to add the marathon to the 1984 Olympics? As coaches and committee members, we cannot use our own preconceived notions about what our female athletes want or are capable of but rather give them the backing of actual science and the ability to use their own voices. I have spent the better part of the last three years advocating for equal distance racing for the two sports that I coach. I have had great success creating change within the sport of Nordic Skiing, where everything from the U.S. Junior National racing circuit to the World Championships and Olympics now run fully equal racing schedules. Initially, some of the female ski racers were skeptical of the idea of equal distance races. They didn’t want to lose their traditional KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

FEBRUARY 2024 techniques

GOING THE DISTANCE “women’s only” events and felt nervous to race longer distances. That is totally understandable, as change is hard. After more and more equal distance races were added to the schedule, women realized how important equal opportunity was to the sport. The percentage of women in support of equal distances grew exponentially with the opportunity to try these equalized events, to where it is now the opinion of the majority. Interest is a byproduct of exposure. You are more apt to support something if you are given the chance to try it! We as coaches and committee members are not giving our female athletes the chance to try equal distance races; therefore, how will they ever know if they do or do not want them? If you were to poll high school cross country athletes on whether or not they believed in equal distance races, the overwhelming majority would vote they wanted equal distance. Why? Because they are given the opportunity to compete in equal distance events! At Saint Michael’s College we did give our female athletes the chance to compete in equal distance races. For the past two years we have hosted the Equality Invite on the Saint Michael’s campus, competing with teams such as Daemen, Mansfield, and the University of Vermont. We are the only NCAA race in the country to provide an equal 8km racing opportunity for female and male athletes. Here’s what some of those athletes had to say after competing in our race: “Going into the race I had never run an 8k before and I was really nervous. After the race, I felt a sense of accomplishment because I got to do something that other NCAA runners don’t get to do.” - Zoe Wilson “Even though it was really challenging, it made me feel even stronger and more proud of myself when I finished. It was an affirmation that I can do anything my male teammates can do.” - Kennedy Holsapple “It was so incredible to be able to run the same distance as the men. When running, I knew it was so much bigger than myself and that one single race.” - Kayley Bell This winter you will see the first fully equal distance NCAA Nordic Ski schedule and Championship races. This will accompany fully equal distance races on the track and in the pool, leaving cross country as the lone endurance sport without equal 34

techniques FEBRUARY 2024

opportunities for women. Coaches and committee members, we have to do better. We need to join the other NCAA sports in providing equal opportunity for our female athletes. The athletes toeing the line at last the Equality Invite 8k may have been nervous before the race, as many athletes often are before races. However the sense of pride, accomplishment, and value in their athletic capabilities they left with was palpable and infectious. I believe that this will be the same feeling your athletes would have if they are given the opportunity to race the same distances. Hopefully at this point you are asking yourself, “What can I do as a coach, athlete and/or committee member to provide equal opportunity to our female runners?” I’ve provided some suggestions: • Sign our petition for 8km Distance for ALL at the NCAA Cross Country Championships! • Email the NCAA President, your NCAA Div. I, II and III Cross Country committee Chairs and the CEO of USTFCCCA ask them to pass proposals allowing women to race the same distance as men: • Charlie Baker (cbaker@ncaa.org) President of the NCAA. • Ervin Lewis (e.lewis@unf.edu) University of North Florida Deputy AD – Facilities & Operations and Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer for Athletics, NCAA Division I Men’s and Women’s Track and Field and Cross Country Committee Chair. • Chris Bradford (crbradford@cpp.edu) California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Head Coach – Men’s and Women’s Track and Field and Men’s and Women’s Cross Country, NCAA Division II Men’s and Women’s Cross Country Chair. • Mike Howard (michael.howard@ plattsburgh.edu) Plattsburgh State University of New York, Director of Athletics, NCAA Division III Men’s and Women’s Track and Field and Cross Country Committee Chair • Sam Seemes (sam@ustfccca.org) CEO of United States Track and Field and Cross Country Coaches Association. • Host equal distances races on your campus. Interest is a byproduct of exposure. Let women try the 8km distance. You will be surprised by their reactions to equality! All of these above suggestions would be incredibly helpful to achieving equal distance in NCAA Cross Country. However, the most crucial and beneficial thing you

can do as a coach is to support all of your athletes regardless of their gender, stress the importance of equivalent opportunity, and provide your athletes with those equal opportunities. I hope to see you all at equal distance races and Championship events in the future! Sincerely, Molly Peters (Mpeters2@smcvt.edu) Saint Michael’s College

RESOURCES American Psychological Association. “APA Dictionary of Psychology.” https://dictionary. apa.org/negative-affect. Accessed October 9, 2023. NCAA. “Committee on Women’s Athletics.” https://www.ncaa.org/ sports/2013/11/18/committee-on-women-sathletics.aspxAccessed October 9, 2023. NCAA. “NCAA Sports Sponsorship and Participation Rates Report: 1956/57 through 2020/21. Pgs 46 & 48. January 6, 2022. https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws. com/research/sportpart/2021RES_ SportsSponsorship ParticipationRatesReport. pdf. Accessed October 9, 2023. NCAA Cross Country Running Committees. “Equal Distance Proposal Response.” August 1, 2022. https://equaldistance.org/equal-distance-proposals/ rejection-from-div-i-ii-and-iii-ncaa-crosscountry-committees. Accessed October 9, 2023. PrimeTime Timing. “NCAA DI Cross Country Championships.” November 19, 2022. https://live.pttiming.com/XC-PTT. html?mid=5234. Accessed October 9, 2023. Tiller, Nicholas et al. “Do Sex Differences in Physiology Confer a Female Advantage in Ultra-Endurance Sport?” Sports Medicine. May 2021. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/33502701/. Accessed October 7, 2023.

MOLLY IS THE HEAD WOMEN’S AND MEN’S CROSS COUNTRY AND HEAD WOMEN’S AND MEN’S NORDIC SKI COACH AT ST. MICHAEL’S COLLEGE. SHE HAS BEEN ASKING FOR AND ADVOCATING FOR EQUAL DISTANCE RACES SINCE SHE WAS AN ATHLETE IN COLLEGE. SHE HAS A SON AND DAUGHTER, AND AN AWESOME SUPPORTIVE HUSBAND. THERE IS NOTHING MOLLY WANTS MORE THAN TO HAVE HER DAUGHTER AND SON GO TO COLLEGE AND HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RACE EQUAL DISTANCES!

FEBRUARY 2024 techniques

techniques FEBRUARY 2024

Bridging the Gap Combining on-the track-experience with new technologies in training

e have watched the American flag rising and heard the national anthem playing during the medal ceremonies in every Olympics in modern history. National pride soars and athletes, and their coaches, are applauded for the ultimate prize. USA Track and Field (USATF) has been a dominant force in that medal hunt over the last 50 years, both on the men’s and women’s side, for numbers of medals awarded, world records, and overall dominance with over 1,900 athletes competing since 1896 and 865 medals won (Landry, 1987; Mallon and Mason, 2023). Yet, of the 24 Olympics, where USA entered a decathlon athlete, only 27 medals have been won, and since 1984 only four USA heptathlon athletes have medaled. How then can USATF elevate itself to be as dominant in heptathlon and decathlon as it is in many of the other track and field events? Our belief is that sport science data play a major role in how athletes prepare for each event within the multi-event day competition. Coaches have long since used a variety of “coaching triangles,” (e.g., practice, compete, evaluate) to structure how they evaluate athletes and structure best practices for training (Payne & Hagge, 2010). Yet few common practices, with definitive results or correlations, have been established for the heptathlon and decathlon. This article aims to provide some insight as to how to approach the gap between data that can be acquired by “oldschool” field tests and “new-age” technology, how those two areas can be complimentary, and how to apply this data knowledge to the daily training of heptathletes and decathletes.

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

FEBRUARY 2024 techniques

BRIDGING THE GAP

TALENT IDENTIFICATION VS TALENT DEVELOPMENT The age-old battle between proper identification versus proper development of athletes for elite levels is a worldwide challenge. Authors in peer reviewed journals, textbooks, magazine articles and websites describe finding those innate abilities, traits and skills, e.g., selection, and the quantity, and type of training needed to excel, e.g., development, as models that coaches often align (Henriksen, Stambulova, & Roessler, 2009). The case for talent identification, prior to Cold War-era Olympic games by the Soviet and Chinese sport regimes, was one of early adolescent developmental analysis and subsequent talent acquisition methods, with potentially unethical methodology. More recently, Canada, Sweden, Portugal, India and Germany (Gonçalves, Rama, & Figueiredo, 2012; Herm and Habil, 2010; Rosenke, 2014) have evaluated and re-evaluated athlete identification processes and procedures to determine the level of empirical evidence regarding validity. Simply put, do the selection methods work?

techniques FEBRUARY 2024

In 1993, Ericsson, Krampe and TeschRömer, proposed the now famous “10,000 Hour Rule,” proposing that mastery can be achieved by simply applying enough time. Recently North (2012) offered a critique of the rule, by asking valid questions regarding markers of excellence, natural ability, environmental factors, external support and effective coaching. Should these factors play a role, regardless the number of training hours? The 10,000-hour rule may be negated by the quality of the sessions, the quality of the information and feedback given, the focus of the athlete, the ability of the athlete to retain and use feedback, and ultimately translate practice into performance. In the end, sport science data, as well as field testing data, can and should be used for talent identification as well as talent development. LOW TECH DATA COLLECTION Leonardo Di Vinci is attributed with saying “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” I agree in many ways concerning the utilization of field testing data and applying it to

track and field performance. It makes sense that a higher vertical leap would be beneficial to high jump, a longer standing broad jump would equate to a longer long jump, and so on. While the correlations may seem obvious, and even a bit redundant in utilization, the results are mixed across the published literature. I realize and most certainly can attest to the “eye test” and experience of long-standing coaches in the sport; however, data can play an integral part to the vision of coaches. Rosenke (2014) went a step further to investigate whether our track and field talent identification systems are empirically supported. Further studies have been conducted in the 1980s and 1990s regarding specific talent identification metrics and specific events by a number of researchers (Pandi, 2018). Early reports from Henson, Turner, and Lacourse (1989) to The Athletics Congress, reported correlations between body measurements, body composition, vertical leap, 60m sprint, and stride frequency, etc. compared to performance in 100m hurdlers, 400m hurdlers, and throwers. The research-

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

FEBRUARY 2024 techniques

BRIDGING THE GAP

how quickly the athlete can elevate, is related to events and low-tech field tests. A deeper understanding is present when we know why the standing broad jump is a good predictor and why vertical leap may have limitations in predictive value. The ability to transfer that high-tech data point into coaching cues, athlete understanding, and ultimately improved performance, is the primary focus of the current project. PREDICTIVE ABILITY OF MODELS By now, you are most likely saying, “Just give me the formula already.” Unfortunately, there is no quick solution to that problem or a simple formula. Today’s athletes are sophisticated, knowledgeable and have all the technology readily available. The model we are working on is a fluid, ever-changing and ever-refining model. What we can tell you is that we examined jump height (vertical leap) as a percentage of lower body height, e.g., greater trochanter (hipbone) to the floor, weighted back toss, standing long jump, along with a few other variables. All variables, you may notice, are related to power dynamics of the athlete. All variables mentioned have strong correlations to each other and to the high tech variable – rate of force development. As for predictive ability, the model is still growing. To date, the number of participants in our research study is too low to make definitive conclusions, but the model will continue to gain power as more athletes join the project.

ers were able to develop a predictive equation for both heptathlon and decathlon using factor analytic techniques and linear regressions. The equations are quite elegant and report a 90% confidence +/- 141.4 points in decathlon point predictions, and +/- 138.2 points in heptathlon point predictions. HIGH TECH DATA COLLECTION In the 21st century, data analytics, Amazon Web Services ®, and high-speed cameras activate at the touch of a button. How do we navigate the mountain of data that is available, and do we know what we are looking at when we get the data? Accessibility may be the key to the utilization of high tech methods. A marker-based or marker-less motion capture system may be cost pro40

techniques FEBRUARY 2024

hibitive for 99% of athletes and coaches, but that does not mean there is no access. Many universities possess these systems in the exercise science, or even engineering, department. Along with the system, you may find researchers willing and able to assist in data collection, statistical analysis, and even the occasional scientist that speaks track and field. Our current effort, as a research team, is to identify the high tech data points that correlate with low-tech data points, and help coaches understand why these data matter to the performance of the athlete. Collaboration and teamwork can make the 1% difference the athlete is looking for regarding performance in any particular event or the overall multi-event point total. Currently we are investigating whether rates of force development, e.g.,

CONCLUSIONS Whether coaches and athletes use hightech or low-tech methods, the purpose of USA Track and Field success should be unwavering. This is a call to action for our “old-school” coaches and “new-school” data scientists to come together and improve USA decathlon and heptathlon medal counts. Data is useful, but only when used. CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND DISCLOSURE STATEMENT I am not affiliated, nor funded by USA Track and Field. Texas A&M University–Commerce Health and Human Performance Department, College of Education and Human Services, Office of Sponsored Programs, and Office of International Programs provided the funds utilized for the current project. We KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

BRIDGING THE GAP

would like to thank Coach Glen Sefcik, and our student researchers, Fatima Alonso, Francesca Aquilino, Ernie Balderrama, Cheni Byun, Raquel Cavazos, Shelby Gerner, Gi Gwon, Jaqueline Navarro, Austin Riffe, Marshall Tousant, Catelyn Voorheese, and Riley Williams, for their endless efforts in supporting and managing this project. REFERENCES Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & TeschRömer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033295x.100.3.363 Gonçalves, C. E. B., Rama, L. M. L., & Figueiredo, A. B. (2012). Talent identification and specialization in sport: An overview of some unanswered questions. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 7(4), 390–393. https://doi. org/10.1123/ijspp.7.4.390 Henriksen, K., Stambulova, N., & Roessler, K. K. (2010). Successful talent development in track and field: Considering the role of environment. Scandinavian 42

techniques FEBRUARY 2024

Journal of Medicine &amp; Science in Sports, 20(s2), 122–132. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01187.x Henson, P., Turner, P., & Lacourse, M. (1989). Talent Identification in Track and Field. Herm, K.-P., & Habil, H. (2010). Aspects of cooperation in kinanthropometry between India and Germany and an example of different ways of talent identification and selection. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 44(Suppl_1), i32–i32. https://doi. org/10.1136/bjsm.2010.078725.104 Mallon, B., & Mason, G. (2023). United States (USA). Olympedia. https://www. olympedia.org/countries/USA North, J. (2012, July 12). An overview and critique of the ’10,000 hours rule’ and ’theory of deliberate practice’. Leeds Beckett Repository. https://eprints.leedsbeckett. ac.uk/id/eprint/78/ Pandi, J. M. C. (2018). Prediction of track and field performance of young talents: A review. International Journal of Physical Education, Sports and Health, 5(2), 205-207. Payne, D., & Hagge, E. (2010, November 18). The coaching triangle system.

PeopleTalk Online. https://peopletalkonline. ca/the-coaching-triangle-system

MICHAEL OLDHAM, PH.D. - A HUMAN PERFORMANCE PRACTITIONER AND RESEARCHER, DR. MICHAEL OLDHAM HOLDS A PHD IN EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGY & NUTRITION, EXPLORING HUMAN PERFORMANCE, STRESS, AND RECOVERY. DR. OLDHAM’S 30 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AS A COACH SPANS ACROSS A VARIETY OF YOUTH, COLLEGIATE, AND PROFESSIONAL SPORTS, INCLUDING A CONSULTING COACHING ROLE WITH THE US WOMEN’S NATIONAL SOCCER TEAM PRIOR TO THE 1996 OLYMPICS. VIPA BERNHARDT, PH.D. – DR. BERNHARDT IS AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGIST, AND FORMER OLYMPIAN SWIMMER. SHE HAS PUBLISHED OVER 20 PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLES. STEVE PREWITT, PH.D. – DR. PREWITT IS AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR OF THE SPORT COACHING PROGRAM AT TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY – COMMERCE. HIS TWENTY YEARS OF COACHING EXPERIENCE INCLUDE MULTIPLE SPORTS SUCH AS FOOTBALL, BASKETBALL, AND TRACK AND FIELD. KAYLIE CAMPBELL, MS, RDN, CSSD, LD PERFORMANCE DIETITIAN AND BOARD CERTIFIED SPECIALIST IN SPORTS DIETETICS FOR LION ATHLETICS AND INSTRUCTOR OF NUTRITION AT TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY COMMERCE. PROVIDES NUTRITIONAL COUNSELING AND OVERSEES NUTRITION SERVICES FOR COLLEGIATE ATHLETES.

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

FEBRUARY 2024 techniques

USTFCCCA Supporters mondoworldwide.com

sportsbyapt.com/sport/track

elliptigo.com

ucsspirit.com

conica.com

vsathletics.com

geosurfaces.com gillporter.com

plubbertrack.com encoreintl.com

mfathletic.com 44

techniques FEBRUARY 2024

ucsspirit.com

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.

ontrackandfield.com

balfour.com maxmedals.com

connect.marines.com

getonform.com

beynonsports.com lightspeedlift.com

garmin.com

coachesdirectory.com

smartracks.run

relaybatons.com

boosttreadmills.com FEBRUARY 2024 techniques

2023 CROSS COUNTRY NATIONAL COACHES AND ATHLETES OF THE YEAR NCAA DIVISION I

Laurie Henes NC State Women’s COY

Dave Smith Oklahoma State Men’s COY

Parker Valby Florida Women’s AOY

Graham Blanks Harvard Men’s AOY

Pol Domenech Wingate Men’s COY

Lindsay Cunningham Winona State Women’s AOY

William Amponsah West Texas A&M Men’s AOY

Amber Williams Pomona-Pitzer Men’s COY

Fiona Smith Saint Benedict Women’s AOY

Ethan Gregg UW-La Crosse Men’s AOY

NCAA DIVISION II

Jerry Baltes Grand Valley State Women’s COY

NCAA DIVISION III

Donna Ricks Carleton Women’s COY

techniques FEBRUARY 2024

NAIA

Dominic Bolin College of Idaho Women’s COY

Chris Layne Milligan (Tenn.) Men’s COY

Ellyse Tingelstad College of Idaho Women’s AOY

Jackson Wilson Rocky Mountain (Mont.) Men’s AOY

NJCAA DIVISION I

Isaac Wood Salt Lake (Utah) CC Women’s COY

Lauren Masterson Trinidad State (Colo.) Men’s COY

Silvia Gradazzi Iowa Western CC Women’s AOY

JaQuavious Harris Salt Lake (Utah) CC Men’s AOY

NJCAA DIVISION II

Cameron Rieth Cowley (Kan.) Women’s COY

James Robinson Lansing (Mich.) CC Men’s COY

Olivia Ippel Lake Michigan Women’s AOY

Nathan Pestka Paradise Valley (Ariz.) CC Men’s AOY

NJCAA DIVISION III

Jim Macnider Harper (Ill.) Women’s COY Men’s COY

Lilly Alberts Harper (Ill.) Women’s AOY

Omar Mohamed Mohawk Valley (N.Y.) CC Men’s AOY FEBRUARY 2024 techniques