1)No question that what leads to point A may or may not be as meaningful as what leads to point B; however, the gradation tends to lie much more heavily in the direction of programming, versus exercise selection, once results have surpassed the middle zones (as ambiguous as ‘middle zones’ is I think you understand my point)
True, but exercise selection will inherently change programming if it is giving a qualitatively different stimulus. Olympic lifts would fit this.
2)My first year coaching at the high school level I began training a Long jump/100m athlete and after 3 months training him his 100m time dropped a tenth of a second from 10.5mid to 10.4 mid (both FAT) and his long jump increased from 24mid to 25high (I can’t remember the specifics) and at a meet at SAC State, even though this doesn’t count, he fowled by the smallest of margins (about 1inch over the board) and landed in the 27low area of the tape (the entire crowd when wild). He was Caucasian.
I am very confident that I have at least two players that I could coach to sub 10.5 FAT if they ran track and I coached it. But that’s neither here nor there.
I think you missed the point of this. My point is that you are talking about not looking at programs that get people to 10.5 (or any other time) and instead look to sub 10, which is fairly arbitrary in itself since it is already selecting parts of the population to a great extent (ie very specific region and socio-economic background).
I would hope you would have a couple guys under 10.5 because you have some guys that ran around that time with minimal to no sprint-specific training. Tommie Campbell ran 10.69 his first year out without basically training (team doesn’t even have a track and I am not even sure blocks to practice with). That is another issue though.
3)Regarding me quoting Bondarchuk’s correlations and not putting too much stock into the LSU findings, if you’ll remember our phone discussion, I pointed out how the OHB throw is so distant bioenergetically/biodynamically than the 100m sprint, especially in comparison to the 30m sprint, which is why I could only believe that the correlation was high do to the OHB throw being a primary training means that only coincidentally improves along with sprint times; whereas me quoting Bondarchuk is simply to reinforce my point in so far as what Bondarchuk’s results prove is that the means of highest transference are those which, in contrast to the LSU findings, meet more criteria of dynamic correspondence.
So the transference between an OHB and a 100m holds less weight and significance (in spite of the literally thousands of data points to go from, along with results) than a 30m sprint and a shotput throw (the study you just quoted)? Think about that for a second.
In both studies of Bondarchuk’s that I quoted, by far the highest transference to the highest level shot throws in competition were 7-9 different forms of throwing a shot of various weights and then came the jumps, and barbell exercises.
That is kind of like saying running with a 5lb weight vest has a higher cross-over because it would relate more to sprint results than an OHB. I wait for the training programs that use that as a foundational component of their training.