The Olympic lift derivatives, and medicine ball throws to the exclusion of subsequent accelerations, only partially satisfy criteria of dynamic correspondence relative to the bioenergetic/biodynamic structure of the 100m sprint and the criteria that are satisfied are, as you and others have mentioned, limited to starting out of the blocks and initial acceleration; again, only partially.
What those of us who are well informed also know is that many other training means that transfer much more positively to those segments of the sprint.
Such as:
– resisted block starts,
– double, single, and alternate leg multiple response bounds/jumps,
– jumps up and off an elevated surface,
– double and single leg bounds up stadium stairs,
– medicine ball squat/chest throw + acceleration,
– push up starts,
– and so on and so forth.
ALL of these examples satisfy greater degrees of correspondence than throwing a medicine ball, to the exclusion of subsequent acceleration, or lifting a barbell.
Furthermore, we know that the greatest room for improvement in the 100m lies not in the start, nor in the early stages of acceleration; but in the middle and later stages of the race.
Thus, and to further reinforce my point, it is unnecessary and unwise to expend the bioenergetic resources on a means that only partially transfers to the segments of the race that inherently have less room for improvement and, to boot, don’t even transfer as well as other more rudimentary and more cost effective means such as those that I mentioned in bullet points above.
Again, the weightlifts degree of transfer is only partial, AND, only partial to segments of the 100m. As a result, their role in the training is non-essential and entirely debatable.
This is all that I care to elucidate to readers. I’m not saying don’t do this or don’t do that; for the very reason that what we are discussing is debatable and because it is debatable this is likely to go on and on and on.
I’m interested in sharing factual, scientific, and evidence based information and inspiring others to devote the same critical thinking that I have and streamline the training process.
Training is efficient if the highest sport result is achieved with the least expense of time and energy- Kurz
I’m not disputing the sport results achieved by the athletes of the coaches who include weightlifts in the training- I’m disputing the efficiency of the training process.
Many roads lead to Rome- a profound statement, indeed.
It is my aim to encourage coaches and athletes to take the most efficient route.
I have nothing against the Olympic lifts and I will go on to state that I am confident that I have a greater understanding and appreciation of the sport of weightlifting than the majority of the coaches who include them in the training of their athletes.
I also have a decidedly keen advantage and position of objectivity when discussing this matter as I have had the opportunity to question one of the most celebrated weightlifting coaches in the history of the sport- Ivan Abadjiev (former national team coach for Bulgaria)
When a weightlifter who I was coaching, who was studying under Abadjiev at the time, conveyed my question to Abadjiev as to what his thoughts were on snatches and C&J in the training of non-weightlifters his response was as follows:
“Leave weightlifting to weightlifters. As long as the athletes understand how to squat and pull I see no need for them to weightlift”
Furthermore, I made the acquaintance with a former weightlifting national team member for Albania and after a brief discussion on training he said THE EXACT SAME THING- “its only important that the athletes understand how to squat and pull”
I share all of this with the aim that training will become as efficient as possible.