Elitetrack: Sport Training & Conditioning

Throughout the past couple of years, I have spent time on different track forums.  Giving information and receiving information.

Occasionally, I would learn something new.  But, for the most part, most of these forums spend a significant amount of trying to discredit valuable information -as opposed to relaying useful information.

Don't get me wrong, if someone is relaying invalid information then refute it.  But why leave us with a vacuum in its place?  What does that serve?  Besides boosting one's ego.

Are there so many insecure people that need to tear others down in order to make themselves feel adequate?

It all goes back to the theory that what works for one may not work for another. 

Yes, there is a lot of good information out there and there is equally as much bad information there.  But, everyone knows what works for them and that's what they go by.

Everyone's training theories and methods are almost always based on the ways of great coaches like Charlie Francis, Dan Pfaff, Clyde Hart, and people like that who know what they are doing. 

However, everyone has their own interpretation on each method and institutes it into their programs differently.  I personally use methods mostly based off of CF with some things linked to other coaches.  But, my interpretation of his methods is totally different than someone else like, say, mike. 

What you have to understand is that everyone is different and everyone is going to do what works for them.  The problem lies when people start trying to push off what they think, feel, and "know" onto others.  That's the only problem. 

I see no big deal with this in some ways.  It opens up people's minds to totally new ways of thinking.  This, in turn, helps everyone grow and mature as athletes/coaches and that is what makes this sport what it is…great minds coming together for a cause.

I really appreciate your answer and agree with you.

What I am referring to is not the interpretations of information or someone pushing their ideas off on others, (which is not a problem in my opinion). 

I am referring to someone specifically telling another that his or her information is incorrect.  While not telling them what the correct information is…hence a vacuum is left.

That is just straight up ignorance and Mike does a good job of keeping that off of this board. 

If you can't give an answer then don't correct someone.  Plain and simple.

Originally posted by 400Stud
If you can't give an answer then don't correct someone.  Plain and simple.

I don't think that is right. Sometimes you may be able to see a error in someones theory,but can't come up with the answer to correct it.
I think a lot of times we accept some coaches theories as gospel because of the results they have had. I think a perfect example of this is happening with Charlie Francis. I give Charlie a lot of credit for sharing his knowledge with the puplic, but I am sure if other great coaches(paff,john,tellez,korchemny) would be so generous to share their training theories and why they do things different from Charlie, people would maybe see flaws in Charlie's theories that they are not seeing now.
I can point out a few questionable things in his theories, but I a scared of 400stud may think I am ignorant because I don't have the answer:rolleyes:.

"Charlie, people would maybe see flaws in Charlie's theories that they are not seeing now."

The Irony of Marion's preference for Charlie entertains 2belites arguement. Like an ivory tower PE director…no taste in reality. I listen to all and take what I need…but Ben's run in Seoul was the most facial performance in the History of elite Sprinting. Name a better performance? Also notice that Charlie produced people from a small area in Toronto…not getting a Carl Lewis from NJ after being cleaned up by Ross. The tapes and times do not lie and we are all waiting for 2belite to prove everyone wrong with the hordes of subten guys.

Personally, what bothers me is when people assume that you are "influenced" by a particular person b/c you may share some of their insights.

I think that the danger lies within being dogmatic-i.e. being married to a particular coach's philosophy. 

Dan will be the first person to tell you that.  He was HEAVILY influenced by Tellez (Dan will tell you that in a heartbeat), but if you compare Dan's stuff with Tellez', they couldn't be more different.  What Dan did was he learned from one of the best, but also brought in new ideas to the mix.

I think the great coaches can appreciate what makes certain philosophies successful, but can also discard that which they don't agree with. 

At the risk of inserting the key and pushing the big red button, I have to respectfully disagree with 2belite's sentiment re: (pfaff, John, Tellez, Korchemny).  I don't know if you can completely polarize Francis from Pfaff.  True, Dan doesn't do tempo, and Charlie does, but in reality their philosophies are extremely similar.  They just diverge on certain details, but not ones that would create a significant difference in philosophy. 

No matter how much one might dislike a particular training system, if the coach has had success with it, he is doing SOMETHING right.  The challenge as a student of the sport is to figure out what that something is, evaluate it, and determine if it has a place in your program.

Do I agree with everything Charlie does? No.  Do I agree with everything Dan does? No.  Do I agree with everything Tellez did? No. Yet, ALL of them have been huge influences on me as I've developed my coaching philosophy.

Regardless of philosophy/system, the key is this: Know YOUR system better than anyone knows theirs.  Why? Because anyone can implement an annual plan that is well-thought out in advance.  But the coaching starts when adjustments need to be made.  If you OWN what you do, you'll be able to make the adjustments, if not, pick up a dart, close your eyes, and fire away.

I probably should have worded better. 

I am INFLUENCED by Charlie, but I don't follow him to a T.  Prime example…I don't do speed work during GPP when going straight from an off-season to the next season.  He is a firm believer that you should not go more than 3 weeks w/o speed work, however, I believe you should not do speed work b4 you have a general endurance and fitnees base in place. 

Yet, I am probably going to play football which serves as my base, so I can go into a GPP post-football and start in w/ speedwork. 

I totally agree with what JJ said.  You do need to be original in what you do, but it doesn't mean that you have to adopt the exact program that someone else does, because it may not be for you.

But, I think we are getting a bit off topic because the original post was regarding how people correct each other and don't say why.  But either way, this has become quite an issue already, I can tell.

Originally posted by 400Stud
When the hell does what I think really have to do with what you say/don't say?  Don't be ignorant. 

I was just making a statement that, and I probably should have clarified this, you should not correct someone and not give ANY evidence as to why you disagree.  You may not have the answer, per se, but you should at least give some reason why you disagree besides, "because I said so".  That's when problems arise. 

That and when people play on words. :splat:

Exactly

Originally posted by 400Stud
When the hell does what I think really have to do with what you say/don't say?  Don't be ignorant. :splat:

400stud, the last line in that post was a joke, nothing to make an issue. Do you really think I would not say something in fear of what you think. Just a joke man, just a joke.

"The Irony of Marion's preference for Charlie entertains 2belites arguement. Like an ivory tower PE director…no taste in reality. I listen to all and take what I need…but Ben's run in Seoul was the most facial performance in the History of elite Sprinting. Name a better performance? Also notice that Charlie produced people from a small area in Toronto…not getting a Carl Lewis from NJ after being cleaned up by Ross. The tapes and times do not lie and we are all waiting for 2belite to prove everyone wrong with the hordes of subten guys."(phoenix)

You would compare me to an "ivory tower pe director" with no taste in reality? I am of the reality, that most people on this site will never play with the same hand of cards that charlie has played with. Who on this site would have an athlete on steroids from the age of 19(Ben was on the juice for 8 years at the time of his 88 performance).Charlie talks about all the guys that have gone sub 9.80 have big benches. What he does not tell you, is you will never have a sprinter benching 450lb at a 173lb unless he is on the juice. He refuses to talk about steroids on his web site, yet it is one of the biggest factors that made his program successfull. My hold on reality is good, is yours?

Everyone-
I think this can turn in to a productive discussion but let's make sure we all "play nice" as my kindergarten teacher used to say.

Originally posted by mike
Everyone-
I think this can turn in to a productive discussion but let's make sure we all "play nice" as my kindergarten teacher used to say.

I think so too. Instead of questioning me, lets question one of Charlie concepts. How about the role of weight training for a sprinter?

Originally posted by 2belite
Instead of questioning me, lets question one of Charlie concepts. How about the role of weight training for a sprinter?

Sounds good. Look here.

Originally posted by 2belite
I think so too. Instead of questioning me, lets question one of Charlie concepts. How about the role of weight training for a sprinter?

Swell.  And while we're at it, let's question all theories and have one big freakin' discussion over this to get it all in the air.  Pick one.

Check the polls thread for mine

:saint:

You're no angel :cool: