Brook, I appreciate your thoughts; however, I should point out that I possess my own understanding of the situation. What I object to is the idea that seems to be shared by many that suggests that a far throw is indicative of a fast 100m.
I’m certainly not disputing what was observed, recorded, etcetera by the LSU findings.
what I’m disputing is the claim that a particular means leads, as opposed to follows, improved sprint times- and especially when the means is so distant from a biodynamic/bioenergetic standpoint.
If, for example, over a 4 year period I observe 20 male sprinters improve from 10.8 to 10.3 and their backward ball throw improves along the way, I would never be so naive as to state that the improved 100m times are reflective of the performance/training of the ball throw- to the exclusion of the rest of the means in the complex.
I also suspect that this is not what the LSU people are saying either. What I gather is that they are simply sharing what they recorded.
To think that hordes of sprinters might become hell bent on improving their ability to throw a ball backwards overhead, at the expense of spending more time on the track, for instance, in hopes that their sprint times will plumet, is amusing at best.
Now, what is wise to state is that the ball throw, for instance, existing as part of a complex of means, will serve its role as a meaningful stressor on the F(t) curve (farther to the left) and positively assist in the improvement of a particular sport result. This statement is absolutely valid and this is how I rationalize this version of the throw in the training of my athletes.
Regarding the LSU findings, what I would state is that the the complex of training means that was utilized contributed to the improved 100m times and the fact that the farther ball throws correlate highly to the fastest 100m times is reflective of the improved state of the neuromuscular apparatus- as a result of the entirety of training.
So where you and I must disagree lies in the fact that I determine the ‘why’ behind the results as being, to the contrary of your view, extremely relevent.
Nothing happens by accident; but rather all entirely on purpose- even if the coach practioners are not aware enough to recognize it.
Remember, I am the The Thinker.
Don’t let that mislead you, however. I’ve trained more athletes than most of the ‘well read’ internet theoreticians out there, since being here at the University I have been given complete autonomy with training nearly all quarter backs, kickers/punters, running backs, recievers, linebackers, and dbacks and I have as much empirically rooted evidence based findings as the next guy.
With that clarification in mind I agree with you actually that the an exercise may just be indicative of results and follow along with them not necessarily be the cause of them. When listening to the Pfaff discussion on that he is, if I remember correctly, pointing out that the best 100m people also generally had the best OHB not that the OHB caused that 100m to also be fast. I also never said that was the case.
With what has been discussed here regarding Bondarchuk and the other Soviets I would say the same is true of their results and that the exercises they note correlation with competitive results may also simply follow and not be the cause. You probably already stated that.
You are clearly more experienced than me. I am actually sitting on the outside looking in which is not always a bad viewpoint. You have evidence that supports your training just like many other successful coaches have evidence that clearly supports theirs. To me, that just means you have to take all of these findings, including those in the Soviet literature, in context with the training plan they were implemented in otherwise they are for the most part irrelevant from one to the other from my viewpoint.