Steven Francis [sic] works with Tyson Gay?
[quote]Why the surge in interest in Steven Francis’ program of late? [b]What about Lance Braumann? Was everyone equally as interested before he worked with Tyson Gay?[/b]
Hope that makes sense. Believe me when I say I understand the background of these coaches and the groups they have worked with and have been familiar with them for a long time.
I understand what you are saying and I have repeatedly stated that these athletes were indeed very successful. However, the major reason these guys have the interest they do and the reason the “genius” tag get’s flung around is because of the very high profile athlete/s that win medals. If you really think Charlie would have the influence he has had on sprint coaching without Ben, or the others without their relatively small number of elites, we may have to just agree to disagree. Ditto for Stephen (my sincerest apologies) Francis pre Asafa or Braumann pre gay, to say their elites do not elevate their ideas in the view of anyone is just ludricous.
I’m more than familiar with Pfaff’s ideas and I again I agree that in his own program there will be a very balanced mix that reflects the needs of his athletes, but the issue is what people can apply and the impression they get of what is optimal due to his association with elites, you are barking up the wrong tree. It is not up to Dan or anyone else to decide “what is abused in collegiate track (tempo)”, the so called “focus of the program” depends greatly on the background and bias of the coach, as I’ve sated (I’m sure you’ve read) on another site Dan’s background across multiple events and disciplines and settings (as well as generally high expertise) means his focus and approach will be clearly different to others who do not reflect these characteristics.
I have only addressed very accessible statements that are out there as in the information age this is what coaches will immediately access.
With regards to mitocondria you have clearly missed the point. The point is adaptation to work capacity is activity specific. Triathletes are a good example because they must run, cycle and swim each and cannot rely on running to develop adaptations for swimming or cycling work capacity etc (though each discipline can raise heart rate, peripheral adaptation e.g. mitochondria are specific), there is a bevy of research on specificity of conditioning based on triathletes vs specialist runners/cyclists/swimmers as a model and your failure to realise my point is telling to say the least.[/b]
The rest is just blather of the nature I’ve already covered, I’ve made none of the polemic statements you claim. Perhaps a little less biography and a little more biology for you, once you’ve finished Dan’s life story of course.
Chad: All coaches have guru quailties, if you honestly believe otherwise based on the fact they are “proven coaches that go out of their way to help teach younger coaches in the hopes of imparting knowledge. So yes, there are many followers and perhaps we are biased, but it is because these people are willing to help teach, take the time to speak at clinics and log countless hours mentoring.” you are deluded. The followers do largely make the “guru” though as you say, I do not refer to the quality of the coaches in working with their athletes in most of the above I think you’ll find.