I am not hung up on ground contact time. I only used it as an example of something observed between elite sprinters. However, it would seem like a coach would employ specific training methods with decreased ground contact in mind, rather than "overall development". But again, that is not my focus.
Also, where do you get the idea that specific training emphasis for poor athletes are developed based on specific observations of elites?
What gave me that idea?
Two things. 1) It is just what I have seen and read. If a linear speed program is more evolved than 10x60m, 10x100m, etc. it is usually kinematic based with an emphasis in force production. There certainly is the possibility that other methods are employed that I don't know about. Which is one reason for posting on this forum.
2) Your line of thinking here is what I am referrring to as elite observations superimposed on average athletes.
Also, why can the principals not carry over? If you see the elite sprinters have good front side mechanics, great hip ROM, good lower limb stiffness, etc., then why not try to improve those qualities (which you will have to improve to get better) in average athletes?
I am still not understanding where you get the idea that everyone looks at elite sprinters and decides exactly what every 12sec sprinter needs based on just watching elites run. Even my dumb dumb high school coaches didn't do stuff like that.
I think you contradicted yourself there but it doesn't matter. I work with a lot of poor athletes to improve speed and reach an athletic potential. In fact a 12s sprinter would be considered elite in comparison. So what I am talking about is taking a poor athlete and making them average, at best. No illusion of replicating or reaching an elite level. In essence, they are almost a different animal all together. I was hoping for scientific information and performance variables across all levels of athleticism. What I am getting is that there is none.