So the next level of questioning, original question, is what elements are deemed important? Individual differences aside, elite sprinters are separated by trends of performance variables. Ground contact time, ground contact force, foot contact in relation to COM, hip ROM in recovery, etc. These findings fuel the direction of technique and biomotor training for elite athletes. It makes sense. Specific observations of elites=Specific training emphasis for elite.
What may or may not make sense is:
specific observations of elites=specific training emphasis for poor athlete.
If we agree that technique and biomotor training is the key for all ages and skills, then it is a matter of deeming what is important across skill levels. The scientific method has helped build elite priorities of training as mentioned above.
Part of what I am looking for is:
specific observations of poor athletes=specific training emphasis for poor athlete.
Is there evidence based information to shed light on taking a poor athlete and making them average? Or is it an educated guess as to what is important and distinguishing among poor to average athletes?