I disagree…Malcolm Arnold was a fantastic coach, Colin Jaskson was one of the greatest sprinter athletes of all time. I fail to see how his training methods arent correct or how he couldnt adjust for other athletes…Jason gardner could run sub 6.50 consistantly, but ran 9.98 i believe only once and averaged 10.15 the year he ran sub 6.50 about 6 times…
Something other than coaching or training methods must be the issue here…
I disagree…Malcolm Arnold was a fantastic coach, Colin Jaskson was one of the greatest sprinter athletes of all time. I fail to see how his training methods arent correct or how he couldnt adjust for other athletes…Jason gardner could run sub 6.50 consistantly, but ran 9.98 i believe only once and averaged 10.15 the year he ran sub 6.50 about 6 times…
Something other than coaching or training methods must be the issue here…
I don’t see how you can point to something other than training when someone runs 6.50 and 10.15. Like dbandre said, 6.50 + .90 splits the rest of the way is 10.10. Hell even I can string up a few .95 splits w/o wind and I suck.
I disagree…Malcolm Arnold was a fantastic coach, Colin Jaskson was one of the greatest sprinter athletes of all time. I fail to see how his training methods arent correct or how he couldnt adjust for other athletes…Jason gardner could run sub 6.50 consistantly, but ran 9.98 i believe only once and averaged 10.15 the year he ran sub 6.50 about 6 times…
Something other than coaching or training methods must be the issue here…
I don’t want to get into the PED discussion, because I think training error can come from many different sources and the Europeans who are heavily influenced by the likes of Mero and Bosch in terms of research focus too much on stride rate and pulling once they reach MaxV, they also push too long. I could be wrong about this, but I don’t think I am. Colin Jackson was a hurdler and thus turnover focus doesn’t help a hurdler since the number of steps they take in a race is exactly the same from about 10m to 100m in the 110mH race, but rhythm does count for something and rhythm helps one maintain velocity.
The biggest difference is his athletes lose velocity in a race at a greater rate than non-elite sprinters do (ie.. they don’t trust momentum). They lose as much as .15s/10m between maxV and the last 10m of a race.
Speed end or Power End would seem to be these athletes problem no? For a 110 hurdler, this quality must be had in abundance. So why would it be a training error for some of his athletes, and not for others…
so what are we saying, that Malcolm Arnold got their training plans wrong?
Maybe his time has passed is how I look at it. Just about the same way I view Bobby Kersee and host of other Giants in track and field. Bobby can still do a great job with hurdlers, but no one else has responded well to his workouts, despite his 3 or 4 medalists from the Olympics. Crawford was so run into the ground he ran 21.X to finish last in his last 200m race and Felix cut her year short after the Olympic loss in the 200m, but it’s so painfully obvious she’s now the best 400m runner in the world.
Speed end or Power End would seem to be these athletes problem no? For a 110 hurdler, this quality must be had in abundance. So why would it be a training error for some of his athletes, and not for others…
Elastic strength and power would be the problem. Maybe Malcolm doesn’t train Jason or Craig like he trained Colin either.
Most “60m specialists” aren’t winning the 100m race at 60m, so I’m not sure it is that, Nick.
A lot/most of the top Jamaican guys don’t run indoors at all and even most of the Americans don’t once they are pro. Who knows if that is beneficial or not.
huh? i dont get you…i said GB has alot of good 60m guys and no good 100m guys, (except Dwain.)
Look at Rogers of the USA, he’s a 60m specialist, did nothing in the 100m.
GB’s 100m guys are still pretty good, not quite the American or Caribbean levels, but I agree with Davan about how the American and Caribbean athletes don’t compete a lot indoors.
I think the main difference between the Americas 100m guys and GB’s 100m guys has to do with elastic strength/power training. It also seems they are taught to claw and pull at maxV. I won’t mention the other reasons. Still there is no reason for the 4 or 5 guys they have running around 6.55 for 60m not to be running be sub 10s, one only needs to average .87s over each of the next 4 10m segments.
Why would you test over 10m? Only because you have 20m to run in. Otherwise you would use longer distances i.e. 100m or at worst 60m. Here’s a thought…if we test people over 110m do you think they would improve over 100m more? Still 10, 20, 30-m tests allow a scientist to gauge biomechanical strengths and weaknesses. Fantastic 10m performance may use up too much ATP, effectively reducing leg stiffness as speeds increase and as the runner adopts a more upright position. Optimum 10m performance is all that is required.
Re: biomechanics. Focussing on improving 10m performance too much might ruin overall performance. I reckon I was the fastest human over 10m running 1.6-1.65s consistently but to do so I had to adopt this strange running style (copied something from the internet). This running technique was completely useless over 15m though and you look like a goose.
Regular 60m sprinters may not be developing the techniques required to accelerate beyond 60m (look at Gatlin and Flo-Jo). If they do have that technique then they may lack the race practice to allow a smooth transition into the technique. Yes, it seems training the claw and pull at MaxV is essential in this zone.
Most “60m specialists” aren’t winning the 100m race at 60m, so I’m not sure it is that, Nick.
A lot/most of the top Jamaican guys don’t run indoors at all and even most of the Americans don’t once they are pro. Who knows if that is beneficial or not.
huh? i dont get you…i said GB has alot of good 60m guys and no good 100m guys, (except Dwain.)
Look at Rogers of the USA, he’s a 60m specialist, did nothing in the 100m.
GB’s 100m guys are still pretty good, not quite the American or Caribbean levels, but I agree with Davan about how the American and Caribbean athletes don’t compete a lot indoors.
I think the main difference between the Americas 100m guys and GB’s 100m guys has to do with elastic strength/power training. It also seems they are taught to claw and pull at maxV. I won’t mention the other reasons. Still there is no reason for the 4 or 5 guys they have running around 6.55 for 60m not to be running be sub 10s, one only needs to average .87s over each of the next 4 10m segments.
Why would you test over 10m? Only because you have 20m to run in. Otherwise you would use longer distances i.e. 100m or at worst 60m. Here’s a thought…if we test people over 110m do you think they would improve over 100m more? Still 10, 20, 30-m tests allow a scientist to gauge biomechanical strengths and weaknesses. Fantastic 10m performance may use up too much ATP, effectively reducing leg stiffness as speeds increase and as the runner adopts a more upright position. Optimum 10m performance is all that is required.
Re: biomechanics. Focussing on improving 10m performance too much might ruin overall performance. I reckon I was the fastest human over 10m running 1.6-1.65s consistently but to do so I had to adopt this strange running style (copied something from the internet). This running technique was completely useless over 15m though and you look like a goose.
Regular 60m sprinters may not be developing the techniques required to accelerate beyond 60m (look at Gatlin and Flo-Jo). If they do have that technique then they may lack the race practice to allow a smooth transition into the technique. Yes, it seems training the claw and pull at MaxV is essential in this zone.
Are saying that pulling or clawing/pawing is a good thing? At 60m, acceleration is finished or nearly finished for most sprinters. At worst a 6.55s 60m runner just finished his 50-60m split in .87s, he shouldn’t drop below .9s until at least the 80-90m segment and no worse than .93s for the final segment. 6.55 + .87 + .88 + .9 + .93 giving that runner at worst a 10.13s run, while the typical run would be a .85 + .86 + .89 + .89 for 10.03s and the GB guys have a hard time doing what should be done in the worst case scenario. I think Williameson dropped under 10.10s once of all the GB sprinters besides Chambers this season.
yeah your right about the times…i would guess however, that up until 70-80m for Gardner he was running under 10 seconds equivalent…so how is it an elastic strength problem and not a speed end problem for him?
Most “60m specialists” aren’t winning the 100m race at 60m, so I’m not sure it is that, Nick.
A lot/most of the top Jamaican guys don’t run indoors at all and even most of the Americans don’t once they are pro. Who knows if that is beneficial or not.
huh? i dont get you…i said GB has alot of good 60m guys and no good 100m guys, (except Dwain.)
Look at Rogers of the USA, he’s a 60m specialist, did nothing in the 100m.
It’s not a complicated concept.
Rodgers runs indoors for $$ because he didn’t have a contract until he got the indoor title. We’ll see if he continues to run now that he has a contract.
At the US champs, he definitely wasn’t leading the races at 60m. My point was that the British guys aren’t running that poorly in the 100m relative to their 60m (compared to what say most of the other people running similar 60m times right now run). They generally run 6.6s with some 6.5s. A lot of guys go 6.5x and don’t get under 10. Since it is indoors though, 6.5x will get you a lot further on the world level than an equivalent 100m time because of the level of competition.
I’d be more interested in seeing what their 60m splits en route to these 100m times are because they aren’t running devastating 60s in the big races and then falling off hard.
Possibly there is some sort of planning issue once they move from indoors to outdoors that needs to be addressed.
