Techniques May 2023

CARYL SMITH GILBERT

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

DIVISION PRESIDENTS

MARC DAVIS

Track & Field

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

DANA SCHWARTING

Track & Field

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

MIKE COLLINS

Track & Field

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

DEE BROWN

Track & Field

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

KEVIN SULLIVAN

Cross Country

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

CHRIS REED

Cross Country

Chris Reed is the Cross Country and Track & Field Associate Head Coach at Seattle Pacific University. Chris can be reached at chrisreed@spu.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

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

DON COX

Cross Country

Don Cox is the Head Cross Country and Track & Field Coach at Cuyahoga CC. Don can be reached at donald. cox@tri-c.edu

PUBLISHER

Sam Seemes

MEMBERSHIP SERVICES

Mary McInnis, Will Harrell, Kristina Taylor, Dave Svoboda, Adrian Wilson

COMMUNICATIONS

Lauren Ellsworth, Tom Lewis, Tyler Mayforth, Howard Willman

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

USTFCCCA

National Office

1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1750 New Orleans, LA 70163 Phone: 504-599-8900

Website: ustfccca.org

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 2023. 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.

Power Moves

Long term weight training for sprint, hurdle and jumping events

Weight training is a critical piece in the athletic development program for practically any sport, and the sprint, hurdle, and jumping events are no different. A well organized, properly administered weight program is a part of every successful program.

Generic training is never a good idea, and training simply to produce fatigue should not be an option. Training should be purposeful and organized so that every exercise, set and repetition serves a purpose and fills a logical position in a long-term progression.

GOALS OF THE PROGRAM. Weight training programs should be planned in order to accomplish several goals.

The program should develop absolute strength levels to adequate levels. The “slow” forms of strength are not typically thought of as important in speed-based sports, and they can, in fact, be overdeveloped. However, proficiency in absolute strength ensures biomechanical efficiency and plays an important role in driving endocrine changes essential to achieving high levels of performance.

The program should help increase power to high levels. Power, the ability to produce force quickly, is important in an event where huge forces must be produced and applied in a fraction of a second. Developing an athlete’s explosive power capabilities may be the most specific, and most critical, purpose of the weight training program.

The program should assist in developing reactive strength and elasticity to high levels. Weight training programs should be designed in a way that supplements and assists the sprint and plyometric programs in the development of these qualities.

Certain portions of the program should be geared toward enhancing restoration. While we typically don’t associate weight training with restoration, the effects that certain forms of weight training have on the endocrine systems can make them very helpful and effective in accelerating restoration.

ORGANIZATIONAL PRINCIPLES. Here are some organizational principles which apply to weight training programs for these events, as well as programs for nearly every sport.

NEURAL IMPROVEMENTS ARE KEY. Strength improvements gained via hypertrophy are not an option in the sprint, hurdle and jumping events. Not only are we trying to limit increases in body size, but hypertrophy-based strength increases are associated with increases in the slower forms of strength, which are not our primary goal. The weight training program for these events (and all speed/power-based sports) should be organized to produce neural improvements. Specifically, the program should not be organized with the goal in mind of changing the muscle, but improving the nervous system’s ability to activate the muscle. Strength increases result not because the muscle changes, but because the nervous system’s ability to stimulate muscle gets better.

EMPLOY QUALITY-BASED TRAINING. Sprinters, jumpers and hurdlers are typically people with slight builds, not designed to withstand large lifting volumes. For this reason, it’s important that time spent in weight training is efficient and that the training is quality based. You’ll get a lot more from multiple sets of a few exercises than a long list of exercises. Long weight workouts result in drops in power output at the end of the session, or the athletes pacing themselves at the start of the workout to ensure the ability to finish. Neither is a good option.

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

POWER MOVES

THE VALUE OF SIMPLICITY. Simple movements allow for high power outputs. You can be heavy or fancy, you can’t be both. You can be explosive or complicated, but not both. Exercises with simple movement patterns allow greater loading, whether the loading is with weight or with speed. Standard Olympic moves like pulls, cleans and snatches, and simple squat, press and pull movements should form the foundation of the program. In addition, these lifts activate lots of muscle tissue, which results in greater neural and endocrine responses. Body-wide responses, like improvements in nervous system or endocrine system function, are the key goals. Single leg exercises should be a part of the program because they are very specific to movements in sprinting, jumping, and hurdling, but double legged lifts are superior when high speeds or loads are required.

CATEGORIES OF WEIGHT TRAINING EXERCISES. All weight training exercises aren’t the same, and each type of exercise performs a very specific role in the weight training program. It’s best to categorize weight lifting exercises as follows.

OLYMPIC LIFTS. Olympic lifts are competitive lifts, specifically the snatch, clean and jerk. Also included in this group are exercises that are derivatives of, partial movements of, or teaching progressions for these lifts. Olympic lifts develop absolute strength, power, reactive strength, coordination, and assist in skill development and transfer. They produce no long-term negative effects. The multitude of advantages and the absence of negatives mean they should be the foundation of the program.

STATIC LIFTS. Static lifts are traditional weight lifting exercises that involve high loads, low speeds, simple movements and major muscle groups. Usually, large ranges of motion are employed, because this assists in alleviating any muscle imbalances that may exist. Most static exercises are variations of squats and presses. They are great for developing absolute strength. They do produce some short-term problems, particularly decreases in coordination and elasticity, so they should be programmed with care and aren’t advised at certain times of the year.

BALLISTIC LIFTS. Ballistic lifts are fast, elastic exercises that involve gross movements

and major muscle groups. Most ballistic lifts can be classified as weighted jumps or speed presses. They are very specific to these events and are great for developing power and reactive strength. They work handin-hand with the plyometric program to accomplish those goals. The spinal loading associated with these lifts requires a certain level of preparation before undertaking them, so they might not be the best choices early in the training year or early in a career.

REGIONAL LIFTS. Regional lifts are exercises that employ smaller muscle groups, addressing a particular region of the body. They may be bilateral or unilateral. They employ lighter loads, so the movement patterns can be simple or complex. In sprint, hurdle and jump training programs these exercises are used to supplement strength development, but their primary use is as an endocrine stimulant to enhance restoration.

BASIC PROGRAM LAYOUT. Our primary weight training sessions will consist of an Olympic lifting exercise. This is followed by static or ballistic lifting, depending upon the time of year and purpose of the session. They occur two to three times per week. Regional lifts are scheduled outside of these key sessions and organized into circuits, and we will consider their implementation later.

PHASES OF TRAINING. The weight training program for these events should include three phases.

Phase 1 - Rate Coding Development. The primary goal of the first phase of training is to drive rate coding increases. In this phase, nearly all our concerns center around improving the nervous system’s ability to activate muscle tissue through increased frequency of stimulation. This permits greater efficiency and faster progress in the succeeding training phases. This is accomplished with high volumes of light, fast Olympic lifts. The light loads allow a measure of safety in the early phases of training as well.

A portion of this phase is also dedicated to preparation for absolute strength work to come in the next phase. This work takes the form of low intensity squat- and press-type work. Think in terms of positioning the athlete to perform heavy static lifts in the next phase; show patience with static lifts in this phase.

SESSION COMPONENTS

Olympic Lifts: All sessions should use six sets of four to five repetitions at 55 to 65 percent of a single repetition maximum.

Lower Body Static Lifts: Deep squatting (or similar leg movements). Use four to five sets of five to six repetitions, not to exceed 30 total repetitions or an intensity of 70 percent of a single repetition maximum.

Upper Body Static Lifts: Alternate pressing and pulling movements from session to session. Use three to fous sets of five to eight repetitions, not to exceed 25 total repetitions or an intensity of 70 percent of a single repetition maximum.

You should spend at least three work weeks in this phase, and not exceed six work weeks.

PHASE 2 - Absolute Strength

Development. In this phase, our primary goal is to develop absolute strength. You may wonder, “Why now and not in phase one?” The answer is because the light Olympic lifts done in phase one have improved the nervous system’s ability to activate muscle tissue, so progress in this area can now occur much faster. Faster progress is an advantage, but more importantly, faster accumulation of strength results in less accumulation of the negatives we mentioned in our earlier discussion of static lifts.

In our scheduling of these static lifts, we will feature one heavy session per week featuring heavy squatting, and one other session that employs single leg work and a more diverse array of exercises.

Our Olympic lifting program continues in this phase. The light, fast-bar philosophy continues here to maintain neural stimulation. Once a week, Olympic lifts will get a little heavier in preparation for the intense work to come in the next phase.

SESSION COMPONENTS

Olympic Lifts: Alternate between medium and light sessions. Medium sessions should use cleans, since cleans permit higher loading levels. Use six sets of two to four repetitions at 70-85 percent of a single repetition maximum. Light sessions should use six sets of four to five repetitions at 55 to 65 percent, as in the previous phase.

Lower Body Static Lifts: Alternate between heavy and medium sessions. Heavy sessions should use simple deep squatting, employing five to six sets of three to five repetitions and not to exceed 18 total repeti-

tions. Intensities should progress from 75 to 90+ percent over time. Medium sessions should use multiple single leg exercises, employing two to three sets of three to four repetitions per leg per exercise, not to exceed 30 total repetitions or an intensity of 80 percent of a single repetition maximum.

Upper Body Static Lifts: Alternate between heavy and light sessions. Heavy sessions should alternate between simple pressing and pulling movements, employing three to four sets of three to five repetitions, not to exceed 16 total repetitions. Intensities should progress from 75 to 90+ percent over time. Medium sessions should alternate between simple pressing and pulling movements as well. Use multiple single arm exercises, employing three to four sets of five to eight repetitions, not to exceed 25 total repetitions or an intensity of 70 percent of a single repetition maximum.

This phase can last indefinitely, but if, or when, you have developed the ability to deep squat (sub-parallel) twice body weight, you should discontinue the lower body work and move to the next phase. Should this be accomplished quickly, you should still spend

at least four weeks using the Olympic lifting programming philosophy.

PHASE 3 – In-season. The in-season lifting program shows two key shifts in philosophy.

At this time of year, the Olympic lifting program becomes polarized. All Olympic lifting sessions are very light and fast, or very heavy. No lifting is done in intermediate intensity zones. The purpose of the medium intensity work is to prepare athletes for the heavy work. With heavy Olympic lifting now being done, the preparatory work is no longer needed. In addition, medium intensity work during the competitive season isn’t intense enough to really help, but is too heavy to easily recover from. It should be omitted from the program.

The static lifting program is discontinued and ballistic lifts are substituted. Discontinuing static lifting permits the athletes to be at their coordinative sharpest and elastic bests. The ballistic lifts produce high levels of tension and, as such, create a very good strength maintenance program and will allow continued increases in the more specific forms of strength.

SESSION COMPONENTS

Olympic Lifts: Alternate between heavy and light sessions. Heavy sessions should use cleans, because they permit higher levels of loading, Use six sets of one to three repetitions at 90 to 100 percent of a single repetition maximum. Light sessions should use six sets of four to five repetitions at 55 to 65 percent, as in the previous phases.

Lower Body Ballistics: Abandon squat work and replace it with ballistic exercises, like various forms of weighted jumps. Use 10 to 30 percent of bodyweight as a load, employing five to eight sets of five to 12 repetitions, not to exceed 45 total repetitions per session. It is important to vary exercise choice and load from session to session to maintain sharpness. If you are away from competition for extended time, you can return to squat type work, using five to six sets of two to three repetitions, not to exceed 12 total repetitions, done no more than once every 10 days.

Upper Body Ballistics: Abandon pressing and pulling work and replace it with ballistic exercises like various forms of speed presses. Use 40 to 55 percent of bodyweight as a load,

employing three to four sets of five to six repetitions, not to exceed 25 total repetitions per session.

Revisiting Regional Lifts. Throughout the year, regional lifts will be organized into circuits. A variety of exercises that address all body parts should be selected. This permits you to attack various regions of the body biochemically in a strategic sequence. A variety of movements (flexions, rotations, extension, etc.) should be selected for inclusion in the circuit. Good circuits include at least 12 different exercises and 24 total sets of work. Ten repetitions of each exercise are done, with the intensity being such that the final repetition produces a little distress at the end of the set. Most importantly, rest intervals between sets range from 60 to 90 seconds.

Implementation of these circuits in the training program results in several advantages.

Weight training circuits produce immediate increases in serum growth hormone levels (and possibly testosterone as well), which results in an immediate acceleration of restoration and recovery.

Weight training circuits, done frequently (two to three times per week) over an extended period of time (six to eight weeks) make these increases in endocrine output semipermanent. Even if you discontinue the circuits, athletes continue to enjoy the benefits of the accelerated hormonal output.

Performing these weight training circuits permits higher levels of glycogen storage. If done after a tough workout, the circuit depresses glycogen levels further. This results in a more pronounced, more urgent super-compensation as glycogen replenishment occurs.

Weight circuits improve endocrine responses when structured this way. These exercises have limited potential for endocrine development individually, but banded together into a circuit, they work to produce far more pronounced endocrine effects.

Weight training circuits allow the regional lifts to be scheduled on other days, independently of the Olympic, static and ballistic lifts. This allows them to continue their role of strength supplementation, but allows a short worklist in other weight training sessions. Rather than littering the key sessions

with several regional lifts that dull its intensity, they can be done on another day and permit the athlete to train with more intensity and focus.

Circuits are done very frequently over the first six to eight weeks of training to gain some of the semi-permanence mentioned earlier. After this, the circuits are employed periodically on an as-needed basis for the remainder of the training year. Whenever an additional restorative stimulus is needed, circuits can return to the program.

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

The Heart of the Matter

High performance athletes’ perceptions of the coach-athlete relationship

Relationships between coaches and athletes play a critical role in that athlete’s overall sport performance (Philippe & Seiler, 2006), and has increasingly been the subject of empirical research (Jowett & Cockerill, 2003; Infurna, 2022). A large number of studies have examined the coach-athlete dyad across professional (Gearity & Murray, 2011; Staff et al., 2017) and Olympic (Jowett & Cockerill, 2003) settings. More recently, research has also focused on coach-athlete relationships in collegiate settings (Simons & Bird, 2022; Criticos, Layne, Simonton, & Irwin, 2020) and post competitive experiences (Harry &

Weight, 2021). Prior research that focused on elite athletes has reported that talent development is dependent upon quality coaching (Cote, Baker, & Abernethy, 2003; Jowett & Cockerill, 2003; Infurna, 2022).

There are many factors that contribute to the success of the coach-athlete dyad, such as: open communication, establishing trust and rapport, trustworthiness, coach autonomy, supportive behaviors and building credibility (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Infurna, 2022). Previous researchers have suggested that an effective and mutually beneficial coach-athlete relationship plays a vital role in the athlete’s

success, and that that coaches are an important source of support for their athletes (Harry & Weight, 2021). A current gap in the empirical literature exists between different types of coach-athlete dyads at various levels. Minimal empirical literature has been devoted to collegiate dyads (Simons & Bird, 2022; Criticos et al., 2020; Vella et al., 2013), therefore the purpose of this retrospective study is to further understand the dynamic relationships between elite collegiate athletes and their coaches. The following research question was proposed to guide this study: What can we learn about elite post-collegiate athlete perceptions of their

relationship with their collegiate throwing coaches?

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

As a framework for this study design, Jowett’s (2007) 3+1C’s model was incorporated. Jowett and Cockerill (2003) developed the 3C’s model to measure the coach-athlete relationship dyad. The 3C’s are composed of three succinct qualities: 1.) closeness; 2.) commitment; and 3.) complementarity. Closeness is described as the depth of trust, like, respect and appreciation between the coach and athletes in the dyad. Commitment is comprised of the desire and willingness of the coach and athlete to maintain their relationship over a period of time. Complementarity can be described as the perceived interaction between the coach and athlete are both cooperative and effective in nature. Co-orientation is described as a shared understanding and viewpoint, specifically to which degree an athlete and coach are able to accurately identify and infer how the coach and athlete is behaving, thinking and feeling. Essentially, “the 4Cs provide operational meaning to the quality of the coach-athlete relationship (Jowett, 2017, p. 8).”

METHODOLOGY

SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS

Upon receiving WIRB approval, the author disseminated study information through social media to post-collegiate throwers that competed on track and field programs while enrolled in college. Overall, 11 post-collegiate throwers responded to the author’s introductory email, completed the demographic questionnaire, and elected to participate in the study.

Inclusion criteria consisted of the following: 1.) a graduate of an NCAA institution

that supported a track and field program (Feltz, Short, & Sullivan, 2008); 2.) had a relationship with their specific throwing coach for at least three years; and 3) had achieved a recognized measure of success as a competitive collegiate thrower at the NCAA Division I, II, and/or III level (earned All-American status and/or won a collegiate national championship in a throwing event). Interviews for the research study were conducted between March, 2020 and August, 2022. Interviews ranged from 58 minutes to 98 minutes and were transcribed verbatim by a third party transcription company. Participants were given a pseudonym to protect their anonymity throughout the research study.

DATA COLLECTION

A qualitative methodological approach was selected for this study in order to fully understand the coach-athlete relationship as a socially-constructed phenomenon (Creswell, 2014). A deductive thematic approach was implemented to remove data not relevant to the pre-identified 3+1C dimensions framework and test its transfer in the context of collegiate track and field, specifically to throwing (Foulds, Hoffmann, Hinck, & Carson, 2019). The interviews were guided by semi-structured open-ended questions (Patton, 1990).

Sample interview questions were, “Tell me about the relationship you had with your collegiate throwing coach,” “How did you perceive your relationship with your collegiate throwing coach,” “What does your ideal coach-athlete relationship look like,” and “What role do you think the relationship you had with your throwing coach played in the successes you achieved as a collegiate thrower?” Demographic information was collected at the beginning of the interview

(gender, race, ethnicity, age, number of years competing at the collegiate level and coached by the same person, institution type, and athletic accomplishments.)

DATA ANALYSIS

At the conclusion of the interview process, each interview was transcribed verbatim by a third-party transcription service. A deductive thematic analysis was used on the interview transcripts following the guidelines suggested by Braun and Clark (2006). The author documented meaningful units of code as they presented themselves in the text related to the 3+1C theoretical framework (Creswell, 2013). Raw data themes were identified relating to athletes’ perceptions of their relationship with their throwing coach, which aligned to the 3+1C model.

RESULTS

From the deductive analysis, 41 raw data themes were identified relating to athletes’ perceptions of effective throwing coach behaviors, aligned to the 3+1C’s model. The raw data themes combined to form 10 higher order themes (See Table 2).

The dimension of closeness was made up of four higher order themes which included trust, likeability, respect and care. All of the athletes identified how important it was to them that their coaches went out of their way to develop meaningful relationships with them. When the participants talked about trust, they spoke at great length about how much time their coaches spent with them. Walter said, “Coach went way out of his way to spend extra time with me. I knew that he supported me and wanted me to get better because of that.”

When discussing competition, Jenna said, “Coach always talked to me about how he used each meet to chart my growth and

Higher Order Theme

Trust

Likeability

Respect

Care

General Dimension

Closeness

Autonomy Supportive Behaviors Commitment

Shared Experience

Positive Coaching

Role Model Traits

Teamwork

Effective Communication

Complementarity

Co-Orientation

progress as a thrower. I didn’t always have to set a personal best, but he found wins in everything.” Amanda spoke at great lengths about the prior athlete successes of her coach. She said, “Coach knew how to produce great throwers. I knew I could believe in him because of what he was able to accomplish with the throwers that came before me. That was important to me. I wanted to be a great thrower, and I knew I could achieve that by working with him.”

Morgan discussed how her coach was able to relate to her and her teammates. She said, “Coach tried to relate with everyone. He went out of his way to get to know everyone and be able to build a bond with them.” Joanne said, “Coach would try and learn a lot about you. He would use that information to build a better bond with you. He knew a lot about us.”

The coaches’ ability to actively engage their athletes in conversation was paramount for the throwers. Conversations beyond training were found to be very important for the participants. Maryanne talked about how her coach wouldn’t always talk about throwing. She said, “Coach would talk to us about everything. He’d ask us about our family and how classes were going. He shared his personal experiences with us, too.”

During coaching sessions, it was acknowledged by participants that understanding them as people outside of the athletic environment helped shape their relationships. When discussing her relationship with her coach, Jenna said, “Coach knew more about me than my parents in college. I felt comfortable sharing my feel-

ings with them. It was important to me to know I could do that.” Similarly, James said, “Coach wanted me to throw well. He also wanted me to do well in school. Academics were important at my college. I didn’t do too well in school my freshmen and sophomore year. Coach helped me get through that difficult part of my life. I can’t thank him enough.”

Being around the athletes in training, the weight room and competitions was equally important. Lenny said, “I knew coach cared because he never missed a training session. I could count on him because he was always there.” Walter said, “Coach was always at practice. I don’t think he missed more than five sessions with us.”

COMMITMENT

The second dimension of commitment was comprised of five raw themes that created two higher order themes. Participants acknowledged that their coach had multiple conversations with them about the planning process and actively involved them when establishing goals for the seasons. Diego shared, “Each summer coach would discuss goals with us. He asked us what we wanted to accomplish. We then talked about what we would do to get there.” Similarly, Maryanne said, “After my first All-American award my freshman year, coach started talking to me about the future and what I could accomplish after college.”

Joanne said, “I liked that coach included us in the process. It wasn’t just this is what you are doing, but what do you think about this. How could we get there together was a phrase heard at practice pretty much on a

daily basis.”

The coach-athlete relationships described by the participants were developed over a successive period of time. James said, “We spent a lot of time together. We would practice, then go to the weight room and finish with dinner. Coach often times came to dinner with us.”

COMPLEMENTARITY

Complementarity was comprised of the following higher order themes, positive coaching and adaptability. The participants reported preferences for a coach that created a consistent and fun environment that was consistent in practice. Lenny said, “Coach always wanted to have fun in practice. He was very encouraging, even when things weren’t going well. He always saw the positive.”

Participants also acknowledged the importance of being passionate about throwing. Jenna said, “You could tell coach loved throwing. He was so passionate about it that it made me want to be more passionate as well.” Joanne said, “Coach had this infectious personality. He loved throwing. It made us love throwing just as much as he did.”

Lauren said, “Coach was always positive. His personality and how he treated us in practice allowed us to grow as individuals. He had all these life sayings he would share with us. I threw well, but I couldn’t have done that without coach sharing his philosophy about stuff with us. He had a lot of life experiences he shared with us.”

Adaptability was an important trait for the coaches to have. Participants shared how their coach would be flexible during practice, in the weight room, or at competitions. Morgan said, “Coach was consistent and easy going. He would come earlier or stay later in order for us to get our training in.” The ability to receive constructive feedback was also shared by some participants. Lenny said, “Coach was open to our feedback. He would often ask us what we thought about something, either in training or the weight room.”

CO-ORIENTATION

The final dimension, co-orientation, is comprised of six raw themes that made up two higher order themes. The first higher order theme was effective communication. Most participants discussed how their coach communicated with them by providing direct and honest feedback. Diego said, “Coach was really honest with us. We all knew where we stood with coach.” Nico said, “Coach didn’t sugar coach anything. I liked that. I appreciated the honest feedback about my throwing.”

It wasn’t just about communication,

TABLE 2. ATHLETES’ PERCEPTIONS OF EFFECTIVE THROWING COACH BEHAVIORS WITHIN THE 3+1C’S MODEL

however. Most of the participants discussed the importance of their coach having a personal philosophy. Morgan said, “Coach always carried his notebook with him. On the first page of his notebook was his coaching philosophy. He made sure to share [his philosophy] with us at the beginning of each semester. It was how he coached us. He wanted us to know what was important to him, but also how he was going to help us succeed.”

Teamwork was developed by both the coach and athlete having a shared purpose and the ability to hold each other accountable. Nico shared, “Coach took our feedback and incorporated it in our training. It made me feel good that he listened, but he also held us more accountable because he included our suggestions.” Lauren said, “Coach accepted our feedback. He held us more accountable because we had more say in the structure of practice.”

Other athletes shared the importance of having a shared purpose on the team. Walter said, “We all wanted to get better. Coach wanted to get better and he wanted us to get better, too. We had a common goal, to help each other get better.” Joanne shared this, “Coach wanted all of us to achieve our goals. That was his purpose, too. To make sure we got better every day.” Similarly, Morgan had this to say, “Our coach took all of our feedback and suggestions. He never took anything personally, which was nice. We all knew he wanted us to get better. We had shared goals. It was our responsibility to do the work in practice,

but we knew coach was there for us. It was a shared responsibility.”

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this retrospective qualitative research study was to investigate high performing throwers perceptions of their coach-athlete relationships. The results of this study support previous research that highlighted the effectiveness of coachathlete relationships with respect to high performing athletes in collegiate settings (Infurna, 2022; Jowett, 2017). Participants in this study preferenced coaches who were caring, trusting, passionate about throwing, open to feedback, and focused on the long-term development of the athlete, with individualized goal-setting, open communication and accountability considered key features to developing a positive relationship. The participants perceived their coaches to have an autonomy-supportive coaching style characterized by their openness to include athletes in making choices, collaborating over training and competitive experiences, and being receptive to athlete input and feedback.

Two central tenants that are fundamental to developing positive coach-athlete relationships are effective communication skills and shared experiences. The participants identified how important is was to them that their coaches developed meaningful relationships with them by not only focusing on track or athletics, but a desire to get to know them as individuals outside of athletics. Central to the sport psychology

literature, researchers have identified the importance of establishing a positive, nurturing and emotional connection between coaches and athletes (McGuire, 2016; Philippe & Seiler, 2006; Jowett, 2006). The positive coaching experiences shared by the participants in this study supports findings from previous qualitative studies in which positive coaching became a central tenant of establishing a more effective and positive coach-athlete relationship (Infurna, 2022; McGuire, 2016).

The current body of empirical literature focused on coach-athlete relationships has demonstrated that athletes who perceive their relationship with their coach to be positive and strong feel more comfortable with them (Bennie & O’Connor, 2012; Jowett & Cockerill, 2003). Researchers have highlighted the need for coaches’ knowledge of how to foster relationships in order to ultimately create meaningful and positive relationships at the youth level (Martinek & Hellison, 2009). Positive feelings were often exchanged throughout practice times and at competitions, which assisted in fostering positive coach-athlete relationships (Philippe & Seiler, 2006). Findings from Jones et al., (2004) suggest that coaches need to be aware of what may be going on in their athletes’ lives. Prior research has also reported that coaches may be better able to develop positive relationships with their athletes by demonstrating an interest in them both in the arena of athletics, as well as off the field (Bennie & O’Connor, 2012; Jowett, 2007)

Participants acknowledged the comfort and willingness with which their coaches encouraged them to discuss their goals, as well as how they wanted to move forward with a particular practice session or competition. The athletes felt as though they were allowed and able to share their thoughts, and express their ideas about the direction they wanted their seasons to go (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Their coaches’ willingness to collaborate with their athletes has been supported in other previous empirical studies in which athletes feel a greater sense of belonging and part of the goal-setting process with their coaches (Felton & Jowett, 2013; Lafreniere et al., 2011).

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Results from this study present evidence to support transferable skills such as positive coaching, effective communication skills, and having a sense of shared purpose between coach and athlete help support and

build the coach-athlete relationship over time. This study, however, is not without its limitations which should be considered when interpreting the data. First, due to the qualitative nature of the study, findings cannot be generalized across collegiate athletes. Future studies should focus on other collegiate sports teams of low team interdependence, such as golf, tennis, cross-country, swimming and diving, equestrian and fencing. Future research should be conducted on collegiate athletes that are currently enrolled in institutions of higher learning.

CONCLUSION

The present study examined the perceived relationship between high performing athletes and their track and field throwing coaches. The findings underline the critical importance of establishing and building a positive coach-athlete relationship for the athlete, with a greater emphasis placed on transferable skills. With this notion in mind, it is proposed that track and field throwing coach education should not just focus on prescribable aspects (technical skills, nutrition, recovery strategies) of coaching, but also within the integration of exchangeable skills and standards required in order to develop healthy and positive relationships (Infurna, 2022). Participants in this study preferred coaches that were positive, future minded, and provided direct feedback to enhance athlete performance. A coach’s ability to work with individual athletes is crucial to their overall development, specifically by adapting training programs to meet their unique needs. The trust-building process between the coach and athlete was enhanced by having a shared purpose, establishing mutual goals, and the ability for the coach to instill a sense of belief in their athlete. Findings also note the importance of coaches to verbalize their coaching philosophy, take an active role in the lives of their athletes outside of athletics, and to illuminate a path for their athletes brighter than the athletes can illuminate for themselves (Lilly, 2022).

REFERENCES

Bennie, A., & O’Connor, D. (2012). Coachathlete relationships: A qualitative study of professional sport teams in Australia. International Journal of Sport and Health Science, 10, 58-64.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research Psychology, 3, 77-101.

Cote, J., Baker, J., & Abernethy, B. (2003).

From play to practice: A developmental framework for the acquisition of expertise in team sport. In J. Starkes & K. A. Ericsson (Eds.), Expert performance in sports: Advances in research on sport expertise (pp. 89-114). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th edn, Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, California, 2014.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, California, 2013.

Criticos, M., Layne, T., Simonton, K., & Irwin, C. (2020). Gender differences with anxiety, perceived competence, and grit in collegiate track and field throwers. Journal of Physical Education and Sport 20(5), 27512759.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

Felton, L., & Jowett, S. (2013). “What do coaches do” and “how do they relate”: Their effects on athletes’ psychological needs and functioning. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 23, 130-139.

Feltz, D. L., Short, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J. (2008). Self-efficacy in sport: Research and strategies for working with athletes, teams, and coaches. Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL.

Foulds, S. J., Hoffmann, S. M., Hinck, K., & Carson, F. (2019). The coach-athlete relationship in strength and conditioning: High performance athletes’ perceptions. Sports, 7(244), 1-11.

Gearity, G. T., & Murray, M. A. (2011). Athletes’ experiences of the psychological effects of poor coaching. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12, 213-221.

Harry, M., & Weight, E. (2021). Postcollegiate athlete transitions and the influence of a coach. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 1-26. Infurna, C. J. (2022). Sustained Success at the Olympic Level: Perspectives on Coach-Athlete Relationships from Track & Field Throwing Coaches. Track Coach, Winter 2022.

Jones, R., Armour, K., & Potrac, P. (2004). Sports coaching cultures: From practice to theory. London: Routledge.

Jowett, S. (2017). Coaching effectiveness: The coach-athlete relationship at its heart. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16, 154-158.

Jowett, S. (2007). Interdependence Analysis and the 3+1Cs in the Coach-Athlete Relationship. In Social Psychology in Sport; Jowett, S., Lavallee, D., Eds.; Human Kinetics:

Champaign, IL, USA, 2007; pp. 15-77.

Jowett, S. (2006). Interpersonal and structural features of Greek coach-athlete dyads performing in individual sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18(1), 69-81.

Jowett, S., & Cockerill, I. M. (2003). Olympic medallists’ perspective of the athlete-coach relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 313-331.

Lafreniere, M. AK, Jowett, S., Vallerand, R. J., & Carbonneau, N. (2011). Passion for the coaching and the quality of the coach-athlete relationship: The mediating role of coaching behaviors. Psychological Sport Exercise, 12(2), 144-152.

Lilly, B. (Host) (2022, January). Jud Logan—4x Olympian (#157). In Be Legendary. A Sorinex Podcast.

Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship. A motivational model. Journal of Sports Science, 21(11), 883904.

Martinek, T., & Hellison, D. (2009). Youth leadership in sport and physical education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

McGuire, R. (2016). The power of positive coaching. University of Missouri.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London: Sage.

Philippe, R. A., & Seiler, R. (2006). Closeness, co-orientation and complementarity in coach-athlete relationships: What male swimmers say about their male coaches. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 159-171.

Simons, E. E., & Bird, M. D. (2022). Coachathlete relationship, social support, and sportrelated psychological well-being in National Collegiate Athlete Association Division I student-athletes. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 1-20.

Staff, H. R., Didymus, F. F., & Backhouse, S. H. (2017). Coping rarely takes place in a social vacuum: Exploring antecedents and outcomes of dyadic coping in coach-athlete relationships. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 30, 91-100.

Vella, S. A., Oades, L. G., & Crowe, T. P. (2013). The relationship between coach leadership, the coach-athlete relationship, team success, and the positive developmental experiences of adolescent soccer players. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 18(5), 549-561.

DR. CHARLES INFURNA IS THE THROWS COACH AT ALFRED STATE COLLEGE. DR. INFURNA HAS COACHED ONE NATIONAL RECORD HOLDER AND THREE NATIONAL CHAMPION THROWERS.

Running Periodization

Adapted from Running Periodization: Training Theories to Run Faster

In addition to linear and reverse linear periodization, the subjects of the first two parts of this series, there are a couple other ways to plan your athletes’ training.

BLOCK PERIODIZATION

Multi-targeted training doesn’t provide a sufficient stimulus for long-term improvement. Concentrated training cannot be managed for multiple targets at the same time. Your athletes may get great results initially, but they can also plateau quickly. With multi-targeted training, you’re asking them to respond and adapt to multiple stimuli at the same time. Their bodies are pretty smart and could probably handle the job given enough time to do so, but there will almost certainly be a trade-off, since different types of training—like aerobic and anaerobic training—provoke different responses and adaptations, some of which can be incompatible.

A clever way to avoid incompatible adap-

tations is with another model of periodization—block periodization. This includes sequencing of specialized mesocycles, called blocks, that concentrate on only a single or a couple of compatible abilities at a time using a large volume of workouts, and train multiple fitness factors consecutively rather than concurrently. Since physiological and biochemical changes require periods of at least two to six weeks—the typical duration of mesocycles—blocks are organized as mesocycles.

Block periodization consists of three types of specialized mesocycle blocks: 1.) accumulation, which develops basic abilities, such as technique, aerobic capacity, and muscular endurance (with an emphasis on mitochondrial biogenesis and metabolic capacity of slow-twitch muscle fibers); 2.) transmutation, which uses shorter mesocycle blocks that include high-intensity workouts to develop race-specific abilities, such as anaerobic endurance and more spe-

cialized technical skills; and 3.) realization, which develops speed, race-specific tactics, and recovery (taper) prior to the race. Thus, accumulation is analogous to the general preparation phase of the traditional linear periodization model, transmutation is analogous to the specific preparation phase, and realization is analogous to the competition phase.

The major principle of block periodization is that the concentrated attention on and training of single targets or abilities separately is more effective than the training of several fitness factors or athletic abilities simultaneously. While variation is a critical component of periodized training, periodically reducing that variation to concentrate on a specific target can induce rapid development of that target. Low-intensity and high-intensity training are carried out in specific blocks to promote beneficial training adaptations, with high-intensity training succeeding low-intensity training.

“THE CONCENTRATED TRAINING OF LIMITED ABILITIES SEPARATELY IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THE TRAINING OF VARIED ATHLETIC ABILITIES SIMULTANEOUSLY.”

PART 3: BLOCK AND UNDULATING PERIODIZATION

Block periodization may be more effective than traditional linear periodization for highly trained and elite runners. Developing multiple abilities at once is challenging in this population, primarily because very fast runners are closer to their genetic potential, and the accumulated fatigue from the volume and intensity of training needed to squeeze out even more improvement would likely exceed the capacity to recover from the training stress. Recreational runners and lower-level runners (like high school freshmen and sophomores), on the other hand, who are far away from their genetic capabilities, can often benefit from training multiple fitness factors simultaneously.

The main problem with block periodization is that the training of only one fitness factor at a time increases the risk of detraining other factors that are not being stimulated during the specific block. To avoid that from happening, it’s important to use maintenance workouts that provide a sufficient stimulus to prevent previous adaptations from being lost. Since some fitness factors decline faster than others, the sequencing of blocks is also important to maximize the residual effects from previous training blocks. New runners lose fitness quickly when they stop training. If athletes have been training for many years, they can hold on to their fitness for longer. Experienced runners retain their “trainedness” for a longer amount of time, in part because the physiological adaptations they have made become a more permanent part of their biology.

Block periodization is more effective and time efficient than linear periodization, causing greater increases in VO2max, power output at VO2max, and power output at lactate threshold. This is the conclu-

sion of several scientific studies that have compared the two types of training. In one of those studies, scientists at Lillehammer University College in Lillehammer, Norway divided 19 trained cyclists into two groups:

1.) a block periodization group, which did a one-week block of five high-intensity workouts (6 x 5 minutes or 5 x 6 minutes at 88 to 100 percent max heart rate (zone 3) with 2½ to 3 minutes recovery between reps), followed by three weeks of one high-intensity workout per week plus a high volume of low-intensity training; and 2.) a traditional periodization group, which did two highintensity workouts per week for four weeks plus a high volume of low intensity training. Both groups did the same volume of interval training and low-intensity training over the entire four weeks. For two months prior to the study, neither group did any interval training. The cyclists in the block periodization group increased their VO2max by an average of 4.6 percent and their submaximal power output by 10 percent, while VO2max and power output did not change in the linear periodization group.

In a similar study on 15 trained cyclists by the same group of researchers, the same training intervention was extended to 12 weeks, with the block periodization group repeating three times the four-week pattern of one week of five high-intensity workouts and three weeks of one high-intensity workout per week, while the linear periodization group did two high-intensity workouts per week for the entire 12 weeks. After 12 weeks, the block periodization group increased its VO2max and submaximal power output slightly more than did the linear periodization group. Both groups increased peak power output and the average power output during a 40-minute time trial, however, there was no difference in the amount of improvement between groups.

While these and other similar studies are relatively short (11 days to 12 weeks) and did not use running as their training interventions, they do suggest a possible effective way to structure mesocycles—one week of low-volume/high-intensity training with several hard workouts, followed by three weeks of high-volume/low-intensity training with just one hard workout per week. In other words, go hard for one week with multiple workouts, then back off the intensity for three weeks, doing one maintenance workout each week. However, a word of caution is necessary here, because the greater relative anatomical stress of run-

ning (and thus its greater injury potential) compared to other endurance sports that have been the subject of research studies may necessitate more recovery between high-intensity workouts in a block periodization program for runners. One way to include more recovery is to use microcycles that are longer than one week and spread the intense workouts around that longer time frame. For example, your athletes can include three to five intense workouts in a 10-day (instead of 7-day) microcycle, as part of a 40-day (instead of 28-day) mesocycle block. If it’s too challenging to deviate from a 7-day calendar to plan the training this way, they can keep the 7-day duration for the three non-intense microcycles of the mesocycle block and extend only the intense microcycle block for more recovery during that training period.

Block periodization is not without criticism. For starters, it’s fairly obvious that using concentrated blocks of specialized, intense training will cause your athletes to get fitter in a hurry, especially when they have not been doing intense training. It has been known for a long time that when intense interval training is added to an endurance training program, fitness and performance improve. Also, compared to varied training, concentrated training causes a shorter-lasting fitness effect. That’s why it’s important to use maintenance workouts to maintain fitness and prevent detraining after the concentrated block.

Perhaps the best way to train with block periodization is to add a concentrated block mesocycle at the beginning of each macrocycle, when your athletes are just coming off a recovery microcycle and beginning a new phase of training. For the first one or two mesocycles that begin each of the three major macrocycles of the year—general preparation, specific preparation, and competition—concentrate their training on just one fitness factor. Plan several stimulating workouts that focus on that fitness factor during the first microcycle of those mesocycles. Then, spend the next few microcycles (weeks) backing off from that stress, using occasional maintenance workouts to maintain fitness. Since the congregated training stress of block periodization can cause a lot of fatigue, limit the duration of those mesocycles to three to four weeks.

Block periodization: During the first microcycle of the first two mesocycles, the training load is increased with increased intensity. The next two microcycles

decrease the intensity but increase the volume before backing off on both volume and intensity for a recovery microcycle. The third and fourth mesocycles are designed similarly to regular, non-block-periodized mesocycles.

The controlled nature of block periodization can make your athletes’ training better, because it narrows their focus. They become more productive, focusing on what will get them where they want to go and eliminating what won’t.

But running, like life, is not always blocked into neat, little, organized spaces, nor is it linear. Running must be fluid with life and the constant journey that feeds your athletes’ souls with desire and passion. Running, like life, has ups and downs that coalesce into a beautiful, undulating rhythm.

And so there is one more model of periodization we need to talk about.

UNDULATING PERIODIZATION

Many years ago, I was talking to a coach of a successful college cross country team, an Olympian himself, who had his athletes do one type of workout on Monday, another type of workout on Wednesday, and what the coach called a “wild-card” workout on Friday that the athletes could choose based on what they thought they needed to work on. The coach believed in training multiple aspects of fitness and all the metabolic energy systems all the time. Runners and other coaches often do the same, training multiple fitness factors simultaneously within a microcycle. A standard week of training for many runners is an interval workout on Tuesday, tempo run on Thursday, and long run on Saturday or Sunday, with a mix of aerobic runs and perhaps strength training on other days.

Although the coach who prescribed this training to his athletes didn’t mention it during our conversation, there is a term for this type of training—undulating periodization, which includes drastic variations in volume and intensity either daily or weekly throughout the training program. It is based on the theory that if a training stimulus is repeatedly presented in the same way, its effect diminishes. So instead of repeating the same stimulus, you constantly change it—from week to week, and even from day to day.

Undulating periodization can serve as a way to maintain (or even increase) aerobic

development during latter mesocycles of a macrocycle, which is often neglected in a linear periodization program, when the latter mesocycles focus on intensity. Since aerobic development is always important for a distance runner, undulating periodization injects volume throughout the training program.

As with most of the scientific research on periodization, undulating periodization has been studied most often as it pertains to muscular strength. Indeed, it was developed specifically for strength training. Studies that have compared undulating periodization to other periodization models have shown that undulating periodization is equally or slightly more effective as linear periodization to increase strength. However, a review of 23 studies on strength training found that undulating periodization increases muscular strength, but is less effective than linear periodization.

Due to the constant variation in volume and intensity, creating an undulating periodization program is considerably more work compared to designing other types of periodization programs. When the intensity is low, the volume is high, and vice versa. The intensity pattern doesn’t need to be repeated; it can vary throughout each week. For example, a four week-mesocycle early in a macrocycle (when the focus is on volume) can take the following pattern:

Week 1: easy / medium / easy / medium / easy / hard

Week 2: medium / easy / medium / easy / medium / hard

Week 3: easy / hard / easy / medium / easy / medium

Week 4: medium / hard / easy / medium / easy / medium

A four week-mesocycle late in a macrocycle (when the focus is on intensity) can take the following pattern:

Week 1: hard / medium / easy / medium / hard / easy

Week 2: medium / easy / hard / easy / medium / hard

Week 3: easy / hard / medium / hard / medium / easy

Week 4: hard / easy / medium / hard / easy / hard

Any type of periodization training program is (or at least should be) undulating in nature, consisting of hard days, moderate days, easy days and rest days, which causes undulating peaks and valleys within each microcycle. The unique characteristic of undulating periodization is that these peaks and valleys are of different stimuli. By contrast, linear, reverse linear, and block periodization are narrower in their focus, planning the training with more specific themes to each microcycle and mesocycle.

I am more in favor of the linear, reverse linear and block periodization approaches,

which focus on one or two fitness factors at a time. That doesn’t mean that every day of a microcycle or mesocycle is the same, as the volume and intensity are manipulated to drive adaptation to a specific stimulus. Perhaps undulating periodization is best reserved for strength training, as it was initially intended. Unlike running, strength training has a narrow focus regardless of how it’s done, whether for muscular endurance, hypertrophy, or muscular strength. Running has a much wider focus that incorporates many body systems and can be done from very slow for hours to very fast for seconds, which represent completely different stimuli and adaptations. My experience supports that it’s better to narrow the focus on one or two stimuli, habituate to that stimulus through repetition, and then increase the stimulus (via increases in volume, intensity, or volume of intensity), which requires a linear, reverse linear, or block periodization approach.

Part 4 of this series on periodization will discuss the special circumstances of high school and college periodization.

DR. JASON KARP IS A COACH, EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGIST, BESTSELLING AUTHOR OF 15 BOOKS AND MORE THAN 400 ARTICLES, AND TED SPEAKER. HE IS THE 2011 IDEA PERSONAL TRAINER OF THE YEAR AND TWO-TIME RECIPIENT OF THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SPORTS, FITNESS & NUTRITION COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP AWARD. HIS REVO₂LUTION RUNNING COACHING CERTIFICATION, WHICH HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY COACHES AND FITNESS PROFESSIONALS IN 26 COUNTRIES, WAS ACQUIRED BY INTERNATIONAL SPORTS SCIENCES ASSOCIATION. IN 2021, HE BECAME THE FIRST AMERICAN DISTANCE RUNNING COACH TO LIVE AND COACH IN KENYA. RUNNING PERIODIZATION AND HIS OTHER BOOKS ARE AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.

Hammer Throwing

Countering dynamics

During a hammer throw, the athlete first rotates the hammer two or three times around his body while keeping both feet on the ground. Following, the athlete attempts to increase the speed of the hammer by turning three or four times together with it, as one system, while being in double and single support alternately. During the turns, as the throw progresses and the speed of the thrower + hammer system increases, the athlete will be “countering” the hammer to maintain an optimum balance of the system. He can do this by employing two methods, a.) countering with the “hips” which involves the reaching out with the arms and shoulders, while at the same time the midsection area is brought backwards (figure 1), or, b.) countering with the “shoulders” which involves the tilting of the torso more or less backwards with the hips in a neutral or forward position (figure 2). Employing one or the other countering method will affect the radius of rotation of the hammer in that, the more the backward tilt, the more the reduction in the hammer radius (Dapena, 1989).

ANGULAR MOMENTUM VS. ANGULAR VELOCITY

From a purely mechanical point of view, the rotation of the thrower + hammer system is related to its combined angular momentum. In that respect, angular momentum is this valuable commodity in hammer throwing that can be used to generate hammer speed at any chosen time. Maximum generation of angular momentum is the paramount concern of a hammer thrower. The best way to do this is torque over time; that is, change in the angular momentum of any system = torque made on the system x time during which this torque is applied on the system, and this is the rotational version of Newton’s second law.

A longer radius of the hammer path should theoretically allow for a slower angular velocity of the thrower + hammer system for any given linear speed of the hammer. Slower angular velocity should require slower contractions of the muscles involved in the throw. Since muscles can exert larger forces at slower speeds of contraction (Hill, 1922), a longer radius should be expected to facilitate the increase of the angular momentum of the system. From a mechanical viewpoint then, the thrower would like to keep the radius long for as much time as possible. By keeping the radius long, for any given amount of angular momentum that the thrower has at that time, the angular velocity will be smaller. This will facilitate the generation of more angular momentum in the early and mid-turns, because the leg muscles will be in slower, and therefore stronger, concentric conditions. Pertaining to that tradeoff (high angular momentum vs. lower angular velocity), someone may argue that the hammer speed will be compromised. However, it is not so. The thrower has angular momentum “in the bank” that he can, from a mechanical point of view, use to generate hammer speed whenever he wants.

THE ALIGNMENT BETWEEN THE HAMMER WIRE AND THE ARMS

A very important point in this discussion is the fact that more or less, the line of the arms of the thrower and the line of the wire of the hammer itself are NOT in alignment, vertically during hip countering (figure 1).  If they were in alignment, as they are when countering with the shoulders (figure 2), some muscle action would be required of all the muscle groups that cross the shoulder. This is necessary in order to help the ligaments of the shoulder joint to prevent dislocation, to prevent the humerus from getting pulled out of its socket by the huge hammer cable force. But, all in all, these muscles produce a net zero torque about the shoulder joint. Some muscles make clockwise torques and others make counterclockwise torques, but summed, those torques add up to zero (figure 3). When the arms and the hammer wire are NOT in alignment, which happens when countering with the hips (figures 1 & 4), a particularly

FIGURE 1. COUNTERING WITH THE HIPS. BLUE LINE = REPRESENTATION OF THE EXTENSION OF THE ARMS. RED LINE= HAMMER WIRE. YELLOW LINE= HAMMER PLANE. (ADAPTED FROM DAPENA, 2023).

FIGURE 2. COUNTERING WITH THE SHOULDERS. BLUE LINE = REPRESENTATION OF THE EXTENSION OF THE ARMS. RED LINE= HAMMER WIRE. YELLOW LINE= HAMMER PLANE. (ADAPTED FROM DAPENA, 2023).

strong force is needed from the shoulder extension muscles (latissimus dorsi), because in this case the thrower needs a net shoulder extension torque to keep the hammer plane depressed, as will be discussed later.

In reality, however, it may not possible for the thrower to maintain the long radius for such a long time. The long radius is achieved by “countering with the hips” (figure 1), with the pelvis sticking out backward, and shoulders further forward than when “countering with the shoulders” (figure 2).  But “countering with the hips” also requires the athlete to keep the plane of motion of the hammer depressed. We are not talking about the steepness of the hammer plane, but at what level the hammer plane “cuts” the thrower’s body (figures 1 and 2). When “countering with the shoulders,” the hammer plane will cut the body above the center of mass closer to the shoulder level, but when “countering with the hips,” the hammer plane will cut the body at approximately waist level. The steepness of the hammer plane may be the same in the two countering methods, but the “cutting” point is different. In the broader picture, in hip countering, the angle between the arms and the hammer wire is more or less always there, and it causes the need for a high torque by the latissimus dorsi muscles.

Keeping the hammer plane at that depressed level requires a lot of effort on the part of the latissimus dorsi muscles as the hammer picks up more and more speed. When the hammer is traveling at a slow speed (say, turn 1), this is possible for the thrower to do. But as the hammer ball goes faster and faster, the force required of the muscles increases a lot. Dapena (2023) has calculated that, to keep the hammer plane depressed at waist level when the hammer is near its maximum speed would require the latis-

simus dorsi to make more force than if a smaller size hammer thrower were to execute the “iron cross” in the gymnastics rings. So the increased generation of angular momentum facilitated by countering with the hips can be achieved in the early (easier) part of the throw, but it is not available when the thrower is really desperate for it in the later (more demanding) parts of the throw. From this point of view, “countering with the hips” is not quite the wonderful panacea that some practitioners and athletes may like it to be.

Theoretical Considerations

As already discussed, during a hammer throw, theoretically, the thrower needs maximum angular momentum at the expense of maximum velocity. A hammer thrower should adopt the maximum hammer radius possible, which implies keeping the hammer speed at the minimum possible value that he can get while having that given amount of angular momentum. If there were a way to make the hammer path radius be, say four meters, the thrower should do that. Of course there is no way to get a hammer path radius of four meters. The hammer path radius is roughly half that. But if he could get a four-meter radius, he should. In practice, there is a limit to how much a thrower can maximize radius, because the body parts have certain lengths that limit how far away from the body the thrower can put the hammer ball, no matter what body configuration one may adopt. That is, however, the only limit. The thrower ideally wants to keep the radius maximum throughout the turns. To do this successfully, he will have to decrease the angular velocity a lot. As he does that, the thrower will still have a lot of angular momentum, more angular momentum than if he had chosen to rotate faster by using a shorter hammer path radius.

Ideally and theoretically, in his attempt

to maximize angular momentum, the thrower should insist on keeping the radius maximum throughout the turns, by countering with the hips; however (very crucial) not all the way to release, but to a point somewhere in the last turn. After that point, the radius should be shortened. This is what was meant earlier when angular momentum was thought as a valuable commodity in hammer throw which the thrower has “in the bank” to generate hammer speed. That is, somewhere in the last half or quarter turn, the thrower should shorten the hammer radius. In this respect, the thrower saves it for the end, because once he produces the shortening, the speed of rotation increases, and it becomes impossible to increase the angular momentum any further. At some point in the last turn, the thrower gives up on further generation of angular momentum. It is now time to “cash in” the angular momentum that he has by “converting it” into hammer speed. It is no longer the time to generate any more angular momentum.

If the thrower stops countering with the hips, his rotation will become faster, and the hammer will get more speed, but he will NOT be able to keep increasing his angular momentum at the rate that he had been increasing it until then. His final angular momentum will not be as large as it would have been, and the final hammer speed after the last turn’s shortening will not be as fast as it would have been if he had kept the radius long, for a longer time.

Continuing from earlier, and in regard to the exertion of muscular force, there seems to be an inherent conflict during hammer throwing where one needs on one hand, slower speeds and maximum radius to be able to exert maximum muscular forces but on the other hand the apparent need for maximum speed at all times seems obvious. However, there is no conflict. It may seem that there is a conflict, but there is not. There are two “ingredients” needed for achieving the largest amount possible of hammer speed at release: First, the thrower needs to generate as much angular momentum as possible, and second he needs to minimize the hammer path radius at release, which in effect converts angular momentum into hammer speed.  To achieve the first, it is best to maximize the hammer path radius while exerting the maximum possible horizontal pull-push forces with his feet against the ground to increase that angular momentum. This long radius will limit the hammer speed

FIGURE 3. MUSCLE ACTIONS PRODUCING TORQUE ABOUT THE SHOULDER JOINT DURING SHOULDER COUNTERING. PINK ARROW PRODUCES COUNTERCLOCKWISE TORQUE. RED ARROW PRODUCES CLOCKWISE TORQUE. NET TORQUE ABOUT THE SHOULDER IS ZERO. (ADAPTED FROM DAPENA, 2023).

that the thrower has during this period, but that doesn’t matter. The hammer speed that counts is the one that the thrower will have at release. If the thrower focuses on just turning fast, his muscular forces will be small even if he is trying to make maximum efforts. This is due to the physiological properties of muscles (Hill, 1923). By the same token, this does not mean that a thrower should not attempt to accelerate or increase the speed during the turns. What he should NOT do (as much as feasible) is do that at the expense of angular momentum. There should be no loafing. The thrower should make maximum effort, but keep the radius long.

Note: Vertical forces are by far the dominant forces during the turns (also see, Maheras 2010). Nevertheless, there are also some horizontal pull-push forces, forces that are good for the thrower (figure 5). These horizontal pull-push forces are big during the preliminary winds, and become

smaller and smaller during the turns, but never quite get reduced all the way down to zero. So the thrower is generating angular momentum about the vertical axis all the way to the end of the throw, although less and less in each turn. Indeed, the vertical forces are the main ones during the turns, but horizontal forces don’t quite disappear. Those horizontal forces will produce torques about the vertical axis passing through the center of mass, they add up to a zero net horizontal force, and will therefore increase the angular momentum of the thrower+hammer system about that vertical axis. This is very unlike a tug-of-war scenario, in which a big net backward horizontal ground reaction force, through the feet, is gained.

In the battle, then, between speed generation and momentum generation during the turns, angular momentum should be the only concern because focusing only on turning fast, usually implies both low mus-

cular efforts and low angular momentum, instead of high angular momentum, which is what eventually counts. Going fast for the sake of going fast is, mechanically, a moot point.

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The theoretical optimum position is countering with the hips (and not with the shoulders) all the way to somewhere in the last turn. But, in reality, throwers can’t keep this position for very long because they are not able to keep the hammer plane depressed when the hammer speed surpasses a certain value. In the middle of the throw they are forced to counter with their shoulders, but in the early part of the throw (i.e., when the hammer is still traveling slowly), they have the choice to counter with their hips or with their shoulders.

It could be that, maybe it is a little bit better to counter with the hips in the early part, because it will put the leg muscles in

slower (i.e., stronger) concentric conditions. However, this will later require a gradual change from countering with the hips to countering with the shoulders, which may lead to more inconsistency than if the entire throw were made countering with the shoulders. So, there may be a plus or a minus in countering with the hips early on. It is also possible that throwers don’t make a totally full effort pull-push in the early turns, in which case it would not be so critical to seek the slowest possible concentric muscle conditions during that part of the throw. What seems clear is that in the mid and late turns, the countering has to be done with the shoulders. This is the most difficult part of the throw, and countering with the hips is not an available tool at that time.

BALANCE MAINTENANCE

Of course, all throwers are forced to start the shortening much earlier than the last turn because of the impossibility of countering with the hips, due to the impossibility of keeping the hammer plane depressed after the hammer reaches a certain amount of speed. If we assume that the thrower could, indeed, keep the hammer in a depressed plane all the way to the end, he would not need to counter with the shoulders. He still would be able to stay in balance. It is mechanically possible. Leaning the trunk backward more (countering with the shoulders), would not be necessary and does not prevent the thrower from rotating forward and falling flat on his face any more than countering with his hips, as long as the thrower keeps the horizontal distance from the feet to the thrower’s center of mass the same in both cases (figure 6). Therefore, shoulder countering is not done to prevent the thrower from falling forward.

BEST OF BOTH WORLDS

Because it is impossible to keep the hammer plane depressed, the thrower will start almost immediately to counter less with the hips and more with the shoulders. Because of this, the radius will begin to shorten almost immediately after the start of the turns. The thrower will begin to rotate at a large angular velocity prematurely, and thus, will not be able to generate as much angular momentum as he would have been able to generate if he had been able to “counter with the hips” all the way to that final 1/4 turn or 1/2 turn.

The thrower would “want to have his cake”, and he would “want to eat it too.”  He would want to get the benefits of shortening the radius as well as the benefits of maintaining a long hammer radius. In theory, this should be possible. It would be possible by maintaining the radius long throughout most of the throw, which maximizes the generation of angular momentum, and then shortening the radius near the very end. This will make it very difficult to increase the angular momentum any further, but will dramatically increase the hammer speed at that particular instance. So, the ideal theoretical countering will be with the hips, throughout the turns, with a quick shortening of the radius very late, somewhere in the fourth. However, because of the throwers’ physical limitations, this (the countering with the hips throughout) it is very difficult or even impossible to achieve. Therefore, a

compromise of sorts is sought.

There are two options to have the slower angular velocity and slower hammer speed in the early part of the throw: a.) the thrower does only a half-hearted pull-push action with his feet against the ground, and adopts a moderate or short hammer path radius. (Let’s say that this

gives him a hammer speed of 15 m/s at that time.) Or, b.) he does a full effort pull-push action with his feet against the ground, which will give him more angular momentum (and which would give him a larger amount of hammer speed than option “a” if he adopted the same hammer path radius, say 17 m/s); BUT instead of using

the same hammer radius as in option “a,” adopt instead a longer hammer path radius, which limits the hammer speed to 15 m/s. Both strategy “a” and strategy “b” will give him the same amount of hammer speed (15 m/s) at that time, but strategy “b” will give him more angular momentum that he can use later on to generate hammer speed in the last turn. So, strategy “b” is the good one. Strategy “a” is rejected. The limitation in hammer speed in the early and mid-turns needs to be achieved through the use of a long hammer path radius while maximizing the pull-push forces on the ground. That is strategy “b.” The desirable limitation in hammer speed in the early and mid-turns should NOT be achieved through a tenuous pull-push effort by the feet on the ground.  That would be strategy “a,” which would not be recommended.

A third strategy would be, c.) to do a full effort pull-push action with the feet against the ground, which will give the thrower more angular momentum than “a,” but adopt a moderate or short hammer path radius. This will give him, during this period, a larger hammer speed (say, 16 m/s) than with strategy “b,” but it will also give him less angular momentum than “b” because the faster speed of rotation (in comparison with “b”) puts his leg muscles in faster concentric conditions. This will reduce the amount of force that the muscles can make, and therefore also the amount of pull-push forces that the feet can make on the ground. (Note: As hinted earlier, not all “full efforts” are created equal. Full efforts in faster concentric conditions cannot exert forces as large as full efforts in slower concentric conditions.) In the last turn then, when the time comes to “cash-in” the angular momentum into hammer speed, strategy “b” will have more angular momentum available for cashing in than strategy “c.” Therefore, strategy “b” is the best, strategy “c” is second best, and strategy “a” is the worst.

The problem is that strategy “b” is impossible to continue after the hammer reaches certain speeds because the thrower is not able to keep the

FIGURE 4. MUSCLE ACTIONS PRODUCING TORQUE ABOUT THE SHOULDER JOINT DURING HIP COUNTERING. PINK ARROW PRODUCES COUNTERCLOCKWISE TORQUE. RED ARROW PRODUCES CLOCKWISE TORQUE. IN THIS CASE THAT CLOCKWISE TORQUE IS PROVIDED BY THE LATISSIMUS DORSI MUSCLE TO COUNTERACT THE COUNTERCLOCKWISE TORQUE PRODUCED BY THE HAMMER WIRE. (ADAPTED FROM DAPENA, 2023).

FIGURE 5. HORIZONTAL PULLPUSH FORCE (RED ARROWS), EXERTED BY THE FEET ON THE GROUND DURING DOUBLESUPPORT.

FIGURE 6. APPROXIMATE CENTER OF GRAVITY LOCATION (RED DOT), DURING HIP (BLACK OUTLINE), AND SHOULDER (ORANGE OUTLINE) COUNTERING.

hammer plane depressed. Therefore, strategy “c” is what needs to be used. Strategy “b” can be used very early in the throw, but the thrower will have to switch to strategy “c” before the final shortening in the last turn. Again, method “b” is not really an option. The actual question is whether it’s best to go with a pure method “c,” i.e., countering with the shoulders all the way (e.g, Sergei Litvinov), or with a compromise between a pure “b” and a pure “c,” i.e., countering with the hips early on, and gradually changing into countering with the shoulders (e.g., Yuriy Sedych, Adrian Annus).

PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS

Although some throwers counter with their hips in the early turns and with their shoulders in the late turns, most throwers do not counter significantly with their hips in the early turns and do not depress the hammer plane. These throwers use a uniform technique during the entire throw, countering with the shoulders in all the turns.

The athletes that initially counter with their hips probably have a mechanical advantage that makes it easier for them to increase hammer speed in the early stages of the throw. However, they have to change their technique when the hammer reaches a large speed. By conserving their efforts in the early stages of the throw, countering with the hips, it may allow them to concentrate their effort more intensely during the final turns, but it does not give them a direct mechanical advantage in the final stages of the throw. By then, they are countering with their shoulders. Eventually, countering with the hips in the early part of the throw may not give the hip countering throwers a significant advantage because the distance of the throw is limited mainly by the ability of the athlete to increase the speed of the hammer during the late turns, when it is already moving very fast.

Two possible causes have been proposed (Dapena, 1989) as to why throwers find it impossible to successfully counter with the hips during the entire throw. The first is possible spinal stress and injury as the thrower tries to keep the hammer plane depressed, and second, the extreme load placed on the musculature of the shoulder extensor muscles. If spinal stress is the limiting factor that forces hammer throwers to counter with the shoulders in

the late turns, it may be simply unfeasible to counter with the hips in the late turns of the throw without increasing the risk of injury. However, if insufficient specific strength of the shoulder extensor musculature is what prevents hammer throwers from keeping the hammer in a depressed plane during the late turns, strengthening these muscles (and possibly also the supporting flexion musculature of the upper trunk) should help throwers to counter with the hips in the late stages of the throw and, thus, facilitate the increase of the angular momentum of the system when the hammer is already moving very fast. As discussed, this could be followed by a shortening of the hammer path radius during the final part of the last turn, which could increase the speed of the hammer still further, thus helping to improve performance.

SPEED OF ROTATION AND RADIUS OF ROTATION

Shortening the radius has a good immediate effect on the speed of the hammer.  However, it’s a short-sighted action because it increases the angular velocity, which in turn makes it more difficult to increase the angular momentum any further than what it was at the time when a thrower decides to shorten the radius. So, for an immediate benefit, a thrower foregoes a larger final benefit.

In less skilled throwers (who lead the turns with their shoulders and the hammer “falling” a bit behind) the hammer is always going to have a speed of rotation that is similar (not exactly the same, but very close) to that of the body. Otherwise, the hammer would get further and further behind as the throw progresses from one turn to the next, making the throw impossible to continue; and that is not going to happen. That is, if a thrower were to keep the left elbow straight, but the right elbow more or less flexed, that would keep the hammer a bit behind the athlete. However, it will be rotating at about the same speed as the athlete. For an example involving translation instead of rotation, one should consider two race cars, one say five meters behind the other, and maintaining that distance. Both cars have the same speed, but one is behind the other.

Bending the right elbow in this way effectively shortens the distance between the thrower’s center of mass and the ham-

mer ball, so it is a version of method “a” discussed earlier...a bad thing. Bending the right elbow shortens the hammer path radius, and, thus, is bad because it reduces the generation of angular momentum. From that point of view, the obvious problem with the hammer not being perfectly aligned with the thrower’s body, horizontally, is that the angular momentum is compromised not that the hammer speed is reduced.

Addendum: The author would like to acknowledge Dr. Jesús Dapena, for his insight with this project.

REFERENCES

Dapena, J., & McDonald C. (1989). A three dimensional analysis of angular momentum in the hammer throw. Medicine &.Science in Sports & Exercise, 21(2), 206-220.

Dapena, J. (2023). Personal Communication.

Hill, V. (1922 ). The maximum work and mechanical efficiency of human muscles, and their most economical speed. Journal of Physiology, 56:19-41.

Maheras, A. (2010). Reassessing Velocity Generation in Hammer Throwing. I.A.A.F., New Studies in Athletics, 24:4, 71-80.

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

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.

balfour.com

sportlinesevices.com

getonform.com

connect.marines.com

beynonsports.com

coachesdirectory.com

lightspeedlift.com

garmin.com

smartracks.run

2023 National Indoor Track & Field

NCAA DIVISION I

NCAA DIVISION II

NCAA DIVISION III

Lance Harter Arkansas Women’s COY

Damon Martin Adams State Women’s COY

Nick Davis UW-La Crosse Women’s COY

Chris Johnson Arkansas Women’s Assistant COY

Kyle Rutledge Pittsburg State Men’s COY

Josh Buchholtz UW-La Crosse Men’s COY

Travis Geopfert Arkansas Men’s Assistant COY

Andrea Blackett Azusa Pacific Women’s Assistant COY

Katie Wagner UW-La Crosse Women’s Assistant COY

Jesse Miller Pittsburg State Men’s Assistant COY

Riley Macon MIT Men’s Assistant COY

Julien Alfred Texas Women’s Track AOY

Stephanie Cotter Adams State Women’s Track AOY

Fiona Smith Saint Benedict Women’s Track AOY

Dylan Jacobs Tennessee Men’s Track AOY

Cordell Tinch Pittsburg State Men’s Track AOY

Cheickna Traore Ramapo Men’s Track AOY

Taylor Nelloms West Texas A&M Women’s Field AOY

Victoria Kadiri Johns Hopkins Women’s Field AOY

Jasmine Moore Florida Women’s Field AOY

L.J. Kiner Pittsburg State Men’s Field AOY

Joseph White Carthage Men’s Field AOY

Kyle Garland Georgia Men’s Field AOY

Chris Bucknam Arkansas Men’s COY

Athletes and Coaches of the Year

Women’s Track AOY

2022

Men’s

Tapiwanashe

Nick Dodson Southeastern (Fla.) Men’s COY

Keith Blackwill New Mexico JC Women’s COY

Linda Kranick Saratoga Springs (N.Y.) High School Girls COY

Art Kranick Saratoga Springs (N.Y.) High School Girls COY

Malcolm Dias William Carey (Miss.) Women’s Assistant COY

Keith Blackwill New Mexico JC Men’s COY

Cullen Doody Jesuit (La.) High School Boys COY

Nate Wolf Dordt (Iowa) Men’s Assistant COY

Arman Hall New Mexico JC Women’s Assistant COY

Addy Wiley Huntington (Ind.)

Women’s Track AOY

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

Senzo Sokhela Westmont (Calif.)

Track AOY

Privilege Chikara Meridian (Miss.) CC

Juanita WebsterFreeman Indiana Tech Women’s Field AOY

Makarawu New Mexico JC

Men’s Track AOY

Doug Edgar Indiana Tech Women’s COY

Miracle Ailes Iowa Western CC Women’s Field AOY

Kudakwashe Chadenga South Plains (Texas) Men’s Field AOY

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

NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL CROSS COUNTRY COACHES OF THE YEAR