Posted In: The Classics
I have a good drive phase, and once I lift my head up at about 20-25m, I lose all momentum and power that I have generated through my drive phase and then when I get back into my stride I start to make up the ground that I have lost from around 30-50m.
You guy’s are the experts on this kind of stuff,
What can I do to improve, and if possible, stop what I am doing wrong???
Thankyou very much
Allow the torso to raise the head.
If you are accelerating properly (each stride progressively increasing in length and speed; direction of force changing from horizontal to vertical), your torso should raise naturally as you move throught the accleration phase (as my contemporaries on here know how much I hate the term 'drive phase'…;)). If you are consciously raising your head, you will consequently drop your hips and lose the ability to continue to provide effective force to the track. You will then be pulling rather than pushing.
Just allow it to happen and don't worry when it happens (i.e. don't force yourself to be in a certain position at a particular point on the track).
🙂
I agree with JJ's answer, you should take his advice and allow your torso to control your head.
I am not trying to be rude, but you can't have a good "drive phase" if you can't transition out of it. Sprinting should be seamless, and a good "drive phase" would mean you accelerated to max velocity smoothly.
[i]Originally posted by JJ[/i]
…drive phase
…drive phase
…drive phase(JJ stands in the corner and repeats to himself, "There's no place like home, There's no place like home…" )
:barf:
I love it JJ. Keep the attitude, it's hilarious and well received 😀 :spin: :tumble:
If one has a great "drive phase" but has a bad "transition" into max velocity then drive phase is no longer great?
The "head down" position that has been popularized by HSI's group should only be attempted by very elite athletes if at all. It's an attemp to move the COM to a more favorable position for acceleration but it has the head is tucked down, forces cannot possibly be transimitted through the long axis of the body. It is also likely to create a greater rotational moment meaning that it will be harder to come out of it as you stand up. If it were to be done (and I really don't recommend it) the movement of the head would have to be as progressive (moving at the same rate upwards) as the changing body / trunk angles; so that the head would be upright at the exact moment that upright posture was achieved. If the head were thrown back rapidly at any point, it would create huge problems. I'd imagine this is probably what you're experiencing.
Overall though I'd stick with JJ's advice. Try to keep a neutral head position and drive through the long axis of the body. Head position should be dictated by body angles and body angles should be dictated by the acceleration curve (should dictate the rate of change of body angles) and force application (should somewhat dictate the angle itself).
ELITETRACK Founder
[i]Originally posted by Phoenix[/i]
If one has a great "drive phase" but has a bad "transition" into max velocity then drive phase is no longer great?
I know, it does not sound right. What I am trying to say is this; a 100m sprint is all about acceleration, there is positive acceleration and then negative acceleration. We as coaches give names to different segments of the sprint, but in actuality there are no cut off marks. "Drive phase" does not end when we look up. There is no "transition phase", we are constantly transitioning from the time we leave the blocks to the finish line. So in my head you cant have a good drive phase and a bad transition, you were simply having a good run then you made a mistake and jacked up. For example, Bruny Surin was having a great run in the 99 world champs then he took that bad step and jacked up. What should we say; he had a good drive phase, a good max velocity phase, but he needs to work on his deceleration phase.
I don't have any data on it (my biomechanics work is mainly with the shot putters and some sub-elite level sprinters) but I'd imagine it's a little of both (lower head angle and lower trunk angle). This is to be expected since tucking the head down will lower the COM which will go hand in hand with a lower trunk angle. That is, if two individuals (Runer A: tucked head; Runner B: neutral head) of equal power and dimensions were racing with the same race distribution and velocity curve, the one who starts with a lower COM will have to take longer to get to an upright posture because their COM started from a lower position. So at any given point, runner A will have a lower trunk angle that is mostly due to the effect that the head down position has on the total body COM. In theory, this could potentially extend the acceleration (positive) phase because the foot contacts would be behind the COM for a longer period of time (until the person gets fully upright). I hope that made sense. I personally think that it's negative effects would outweigh its potential benefits.
ELITETRACK Founder
I just thought of a more concise way of stating my point from the last post:
If two runners are progressing through body angles at the same rate, the one with the lowest starting COM position will have a lower position (as seen by trunk angle) until the point where both are running with an upright posture. This of course is dependent on the fact that a runner with a head down position doesn't suddenly throw their head back at some point.
ELITETRACK Founder
What I find amazing is the fact that Ben Johnson had lower departure angles than most of his rivals, but yet seem to be more upright than them during early acceleration. He is one of the few sprinters that maintain a stright line through the long axis of the body during early acceleration. Most of his rivals back then were slightly bent over at the waist and it seem like today's sprinter are bent over even more. John Smith talks about keeping the weight foward and using it like a running back comming through a hole. Could there be any advantage to this? Phisics tells us that force can be better transmitted if we keep a straight line through the body, but it also tell us that the best takeoff angles for gaining distance is 45 degrees, yet nobody would try this in the long jump. Phisics does not always work the same way when it comes to the human body as compared to other objects. So maybe unless you have a great amount of strength like Ben, it is better to accelerate with some bend in the long axis going through the body.
Re: Greene
I love how this HSI drive phase has taken on a life of it's own.
Do you know why John started doing that with Maurice? Because when Mo came to John, he was exceptionally explosive, but tended to "pop up" very quickly in his acceleration phase. Get a tape of the '95 US Championships 100m and you will see what I mean. John used the "head down/drive phase" as a cue to "overcorrect". What happens? Mo blows up in '97 and all of a sudden all the HSI guys are running that way. I could be wrong, but I don't believe that the Nike LA/Early HSI crew of Mitchell, Drummond, et al. were using this technique. It's also somewhat brilliant counterintelligence on Smith's part, b/c now everyone is trying to copy that style that really has only worked consistently for one athlete, and people are failing.
There is no magic bullet.
Re:Maurice's body angles and such.
I've not done a quantitative analysis, but my tape study has shown that Mo is exiting the blocks at a fairly normal angle with respect to his peers, maybe just slightly lower only becuase of his ridiculous strength levels. The key difference, in my opinion, is that when he was at the top of his game, he was exceptionally patient in allowing himself to accelerate.
Re: Bruny.
What should we say? He ran 99.9% of the race perfectly. He blinked. That is what happens at that level. No semantics, no catch phrases. He ran one of the greatest times ever run, but head-to-head, Mo was better that day.
JJ,
I agree. This is why one cue may work for more sub-elite people but will plague the big boys.
When looking into such phases yes they are seemless, only at the elite level. One college meet I saw a beautiful run of a 10.20 with a smooth and seamless stride pattern. Yet to my untrained eye it was too seamless. In efforts to run "perfect" he lowered his watts. Because he stayed relaxed I could not see it. When he got ready by "not trying to not try too much" for olympic trials he ran a 10.09 and made the team for his country.
I definitely agree with you guys, but sometimes it's nice to play devil's advocate.
I honestly think Maurice is doing the same thing that Carl did when he was on top. Carl had great early acceleration and never forced for frequency or cut full range or motion to get it. He allowed every thing to build up naturally, and Maurice is doing the same. However, Carl was lacking in max strength which is of great importance the first 5 meters and he also had to contend with his longer limbs, which is not an advantage in early acceleration. These two factors but him behind early, but if there is anybody that has a great "drive phase" before Maurice it was Carl Lewis.
Excellent posts. I think possibly the take-home point here is that departure angle, head position, trunk position, or any other factors are secondary to the fact that one needs to accelerate to top-end speed smoothly rather than shifting too early (to use car talk) and grinding the gears. Proper race distribution is key not only for correct momentum development but also for energy efficiency.
ELITETRACK Founder
Great points Mike.
Here are two quotes from Dan pfaff that may help this thread along. The first one is nothing special, just some good information for any young athlete or novice coach to know. The second quote may have some implications if you think about the change in body angles he recommends for each successive stride.
" I do not teach stay low……body lean is a product of force placed into the ground. When one starts there is no foward movement or speed so we [can] push on the ground with great force and for a long period of time. This results in foward lean, usually a 45 degree angle from the block… each successive stride finds us pushing for shorter and shorter periods of time because we are now accelerating….thus each step should be less and less lean until we are absolutely upright. The folk with the big power ratios appear to stay down longer because they are able to apply force for a long time frame….this is due to training for power and proper biomechanics…. forced lean foward or trying to keep the hips low is a mistake and sets one up for injury."(Dan)
"Things that we key during drive phase, 0-40m….each stride gets uniformly longer; each stride gets uniformly faster, ground contact times lessens each step; air time between contacts increases uniformly; total body angles to the ground change 8-10 degrees each successive stride."(Dan)
Thoughts?
"Things that we key during drive phase, 0-40m….each stride gets uniformly longer; each stride gets uniformly faster, ground contact times lessens each step; air time between contacts increases uniformly; total body angles to the ground change 8-10 degrees each successive stride."(Dan)
Didn't I already say that?
"If you are accelerating properly (each stride progressively increasing in length and speed; direction of force changing from horizontal to vertical), your torso should raise naturally as you move throught the accleration phase." (JJ)
❓
Must be a glitch in the matrix…
What is the brain thinking when your departure angles are so agressive that you are in a leaning position that feels like you can fall over? Do you need to program it to feel comfortable by reps and reps, or does the athlete learn to do this artificially?
[i]Originally posted by Phoenix[/i]
What is the brain thinking when your departure angles are so agressive that you are in a leaning position that feels like you can fall over? Do you need to program it to feel comfortable by reps and reps, or does the athlete learn to do this artificially?
Although no one I've worked with to date has had a block clearance style as described above, I believe that movements of that degree of complexity and velocity must be properly rehearsed with reps. The athlete must learn to control and react to the power that he/she can generate. I sometimes call that "timing" when I talk to my athletes. I often see that with athletes (and experienced it myself) during the early micros (fall) when max strength levels are really popping, athletes have a tremendous ablilty to apply the force to the ground, but the motor apparatus can't quite keep up. In other words, the athlete has the ability to deliver the force, but can't optimally perform the switching motion either in flight or upon foot contact.
In my opinion, once the requisite strength and power levels are in place for an athlete, sprinting is all about neurological suppleness-How sensitive and discrete can your neuromuscular system be? When this quality is high, you will hear athletes say stuff like, "Everything felt so fluid" or "I felt like I knew exactly when my foot was going to hit the ground" or "I was in complete control from start to finish".
No glitch in the matrix JJ. What do you guys think about the 8-10 degree change in body angle each successive stide. Lets say we are lucky enough to coach an athlete that can depart the blocks at a 45 degree angle, with a 8-10 degree change in body angle each successive stride this athlete would be upright by 10meters. If this is so, what makes the drive phase 30 or 40meters. Is it really about body position or more about effort?
Body position is a product of the application of force against the ground, not effort. Sure, an athlete can assume any particular position he/she wants, but 9 times out of 10 if you coach an athlete to "pantomime" a particular torso position, they will fail: They won't be doing the right things at track level. The '8-10 degree rise' is simply a function that should directly correlate to the change in acceleration mechanics from block clearance to maximum velocioty.
Biomechanics and physics sure do make some of these concepts much clearer. Also exposes a lot of semantics and catch phrases. I highly recommend "The Mechanics of Athletics" by Dyson to anyone interested.
Maybe I should have said "perceived effort." JJ, I was not trying to imply that body position in a product of effort. I am trying more to get a working definition for "drive phase"
For example, Bruny talks about "drive phase" as accelerating as fast as you could using as little energy as possible. Maurice say you have to use as much power as possible but with as little effort as possible (in science neither of statements makes sense). With a 8-10 degree change in body angle each successive stride taking place as Dan pointed out the athlete would be up by 10meters. So what makes the his drive phase 40m? It can't be body position,because the athlete is almost upright my 10meters. Is it the perceived effort? What makes a drive phase 30-40 meters?
[i]Originally posted by Phoenix[/i]
What is the brain thinking when your departure angles are so agressive that you are in a leaning position that feels like you can fall over? Do you need to program it to feel comfortable by reps and reps, or does the athlete learn to do this artificially?
I tend to think that in most cases it's artificial. That's because if it wasn't, a person wouldn't really get into that position (instability) in the first place. A position that is unstable feels that way for a reason. The body is often times smarter than the (conscious) mind and it more than likely won't put itself into a position that it can't handle. If the power is there, the correct departure and body angle should probably feel natural. Stability can be achieved through strength and power development and to a lesser degree proprioceptive enhancement through repititions. Until those qualities are added, the instability will still be present. Especially low and unstable positions have to be artificially forced when power indicators are not present and when these power indicators are present, the same positions ceases to be an unstable position.
ELITETRACK Founder
[i]Originally posted by 2belite[/i]
"Things that we key during drive phase, 0-40m….each stride gets uniformly longer; each stride gets uniformly faster, ground contact times lessens each step; air time between contacts increases uniformly; total body angles to the ground change 8-10 degrees each successive stride."(Dan)
Thoughts?
These numbers don't make sense and I think I may have an explanation and possibly an answer to 2belite's question (what constitutes the "drive phase" ). First of all, we all know that runners are not fully upright at 10m. Secondly, it would be naive to think that body angles progress at a linear rate. It is more likely the case that body angles change dramatically at first, and progressively get less and less as one approaches maxV and a fully upright posture. To put this in an example, here's some arbitrary numbers for trunk angle to explain what I mean:
[*] @ 5m: 60 degrees (15 degree change from previous position)
[*] @ 10m: 70 degrees (10 degree change)
[*] @ 15m: 76 degrees (6 degree change)
[*] @ 20m: 80 degrees (4 degree change)
[*] @ 25m: 83.2 degrees (3.2 degree change)
[*] @ 30m: 86 degrees (2.8 degree change)
[*] @ 35m: 88.5 (2.5 degree change)
[*] @ 40m: 90 degrees (fully upright position acheived with 1.5 degree change)
This would reconcile the fact that trunk angle is not fully upright at 10m despite what the proposed 8-10 degree change / stride would indicate. Thoughts?
ELITETRACK Founder
So then what does constitute "drive phase"……I think it's the angle of push and the ratio of vertical to horizontal impulse. This will not only determine body angle, but also acceleration curve. Having said that, we can't look at body angle and push angle independently because the body angles and push angles are interdependent on one another. Body angle determines location of COM position relative to foot strike which will in turn determine the ratio of horizontal to vertical impulse which will in turn determine the body angle of the following step, and so on…..what came first the chicken or the egg?
ELITETRACK Founder
[i]Originally posted by 2belite[/i]
Again, some great points Mike. Do you think maybe HSI is using body angles to set up push angles instead of the other way around?
hmmmmm……I can't say I have any idea. I'm not too familiar with John's cues.
As an additional note to the above, the following thought came to me that ties together several of my above comments regarding the change in trunk angle and the ration of horizontal to vertical force impulse:
ELITETRACK Founder
HSI…. I don;t want to speak for John. However, it seems like they often use body positions (or at least the feel of them) to create sensations or patience. I don't know how else to explain it…
He'll tell certain athletes to be in body position "X" [even though in reality no position is a static thing, but much more fluid] at a certain point so that they will be able to "stay on task".
For example at 15m you should feel x
OR
after this sensation starts to lesson your body should feel "this way".
I hope that helps.
Maybe, we could forget about the science for a while and focus on the art of coaching this part of the dash. What sensations should a sprinter feel the first three steps, what should he feel at 15m, should the arms be the only focus? Throw out some answers and some questions.
I don't think the arms should be the only focus and for those of you that do can you please give me a decent explanation.
I personally think they should initially feel long, hard (slow and complete)pushes back, large segment movements, and feet behind the body. This would progressively change to a quickening of tempo, reduction in the amplitude of segment movements and more vertical pushes.
ELITETRACK Founder
[i]Originally posted by 2belite[/i]
Maybe, we could forget about the science for a while and focus on the art of coaching this part of the dash. What sensations should a sprinter feel the first three steps, what should he feel at 15m, should the arms be the only focus? Throw out some answers and some questions.
PUSH. PUSH. PUSH. Anything else is overcuing and overthinking. Trust me, this isn't just science it's experience.
You're moving so slow (relatively) across the ground that that should be the only thing you are feeling. Mike's answer was right on point. All this body position angle stuff is predicated by what is done on the ground. Period.
If you see a kid "pop up" it isn't b/c he raised his torso, it's b/c he either had an incomplete push on one of his steps either by trying to be too quick or b/c of an overstride that was not mechanically effecient.
:yawn:
I think it would be better to list the errors first, see why they are making the errors, then come up with cues or special exercise techniques to solve such problems.
I have always struggled with what to tell athletes that have naturally quick turnover. Typically they are smaller and have shorter levers but don't always lack for power, yet seem to have difficulty applying the slower more force generating foot contacts at the beginning of a race. I am somewhat afraid to try and get them to have longer foot contact during acceleration, simply because it disrupts their natural flow, while at the same time realizing it could be causing them precious fractions of a second.
Comments, questions, observations?
[i]Originally posted by Phoenix[/i]
I think it would be better to list the errors first, see why they are making the errors, then come up with cues or special exercise techniques to solve such problems.
Excellent point….needs analysis should always preceded program or technical development.
ELITETRACK Founder
Scroft-
The pushes don't necessarily have to be SLOW but they should be slower than foot contacts at MaxV. The key thing is that they are complete pushes. If not, they're just pecking at the ground and costing themselves quite a bit in momentum development.
ELITETRACK Founder
[i]Originally posted by scroft[/i]
I have always struggled with what to tell athletes that have naturally quick turnover. Typically they are smaller and have shorter levers but don't always lack for power, yet seem to have difficulty applying the slower more force generating foot contacts at the beginning of a race. I am somewhat afraid to try and get them to have longer foot contact during acceleration, simply because it disrupts their natural flow, while at the same time realizing it could be causing them precious fractions of a second.Comments, questions, observations?
This is what worked for me before; tell the athlete to push from the glutes. Have you ever noticed that if you tell an athlete to stroke their arms fast and then faster they cut the elbow drive back and start moving the elbow joint up and down. But if you make it a point to tell them swing from the shoulders they keep the full range of motion. And they always will say it feel slower. Well the same thing goes and works for the legs. The more distal the joints you get your feedback from the faster things seem and the harder it is to control.
I hope that makes sense to you.
If such a drill is effective, or any drill is effective, how many runs should be drilled and how many should be raw? Any numbers per say? Experiences?
[i]Originally posted by Phoenix[/i]
If such a drill is effective, or any drill is effective, how many runs should be drilled and how many should be raw? Any numbers per say? Experiences?
Its not so much a drill, its more something to focus on untill the right mechanics become automatic. If it helps the athlete keep it, if not throw it out.
For example Francis cues pulling down with the hand to teach correct arm action. Tellez cues letting the knees lead(knee up knee down) Carl Lewis talks about the sweep of his elbows. The joints are good at giving feedback. For most athletes its easier to sense joint position and joint movement than it to sense streth and rate of stretch.
All that is not important, here is something els that may work. Ato talks about driving the knees to his chest during this phase, it works because in sprinting the function of one leg is always in contrast with the function of the other. So if one is going up the other has to be pushing back. I personally would not use this method, I think its hard to transition out of.
Call it a drill or exercise, any frontal lobe training will be skill development. What ratios doe people find effective?
[i]Originally posted by Phoenix[/i]
Call it a drill or exercise, any frontal lobe training will be skill development. What ratios doe people find effective?
I see drills as something done to teach a skill, not something done (cue) to keep the skill on task.
From your above statement I am guessing you believe sprinting is all hind brain. There is a lot of truth to that view, but its not totally right. If you ask a beginner what he/she felt during a sprint they would not be able to tell you much. Ask an elite sprinter the same question they can tell you where they made a mistake or what every step felt like. When you are really good, you have time to think. I am not saying you should be thinking about proper mechanics eg full extension or something of that nature, but you can cue yourself during a race(eg keep shoulder down). Top sprinters do it all the time, they don't respond to the person that caught a flyer in the lane over, they don't try to keep accelerating after 60m, they know their peripheral vision can play tricks on them (make things look closer than they really are) but they dont't respond to the illusion. It takes a lot of frontal lobe work to stay on task during a race and not fall victim to your natural instincts.
What are your experiences with such methodology with elite sprinters or personal performance thoughts? I am not an all or none hindbrain guy, but after listening to the Audio CD (available this fall on Rlab!) The interviews with some huge names will be very enlightening. Of course I am not a purist since Carl decided to raise his hands in celebration during his famous 200 race years ago. But any cues, directions, will have some shift to decision work.
[i]Originally posted by Phoenix[/i]
What are your experiences with such methodology with elite sprinters or personal performance thoughts? I am not an all or none hindbrain guy, but after listening to the Audio CD (available this fall on Rlab!) The interviews with some huge names will be very enlightening. Of course I am not a purist since Carl decided to raise his hands in celebration during his famous 200 race years ago. But any cues, directions, will have some shift to decision work.
check your u2u
[i]Originally posted by 2belite[/i]
I see drills as something done to teach a skill, not something done (cue) to keep the skill on task.
From your above statement I am guessing you believe sprinting is all hind brain. There is a lot of truth to that view, but its not totally right. If you ask a beginner what he/she felt during a sprint they would not be able to tell you much. Ask an elite sprinter the same question they can tell you where they made a mistake or what every step felt like. When you are really good, you have time to think. I am not saying you should be thinking about proper mechanics eg full extension or something of that nature, but you can cue yourself during a race(eg keep shoulder down). Top sprinters do it all the time, they don't respond to the person that caught a flyer in the lane over, they don't try to keep accelerating after 60m, they know their peripheral vision can play tricks on them (make things look closer than they really are) but they dont't respond to the illusion. It takes a lot of frontal lobe work to stay on task during a race and not fall victim to your natural instincts.
Wrong.
Regardless of how good you are, time to think is not the issue. The reason the great ones can tell you what is going on is because the error-correction mechanism in the cerebellum is much more supple and sensitive and able to detect the discrete changes in technique that the beginner cannot. Whatever an elite is "feeling" is certainly not cognition, it is simply increased quality of feedback from the cerebellum.
Your contention that the frontal lobe work that occurs in response to distractions may or may not be true. However, the primary determining factor for how a person will 'react' to those things is established long before the gun fires. The state of mind that the sprinter is able to get himself into prior to the race beginning is much more important than thinking, "oh gee, the guy in lane 5 got out fast"
JJ,
It would be nice to see numbers and video of a given training year. What is on this forum on my end is just a reflex what I do and think. It maybe be wrong but it is what I do. While everyone can show strength gains early, when the elite guys are hoisting heavy loads, such strength gains are not going to happen. But if you have been doing things right for years you should have the regeneration work done and training set up that you can see corrections on tape. It would be nice if people that ran seminars would show how they fixed things with tape instead of telling us verbally.
[i]Originally posted by Phoenix[/i]
JJ,It would be nice to see numbers and video of a given training year. What is on this forum on my end is just a reflex what I do and think. It maybe be wrong but it is what I do. While everyone can show strength gains early, when the elite guys are hoisting heavy loads, such strength gains are not going to happen. But if you have been doing things right for years you should have the regeneration work done and training set up that you can see corrections on tape. It would be nice if people that ran seminars would show how they fixed things with tape instead of telling us verbally.
Huh?
Carl,
I wasn't refuting what you were saying. I was actually trying to support your viewpoint of the role of the cerebellum in the execution of sprint mechanics. I was posing an alternative viewpoint that 2belite raised regarding cognition/frontal lobe activity during the 100m sprint.
❓
JJ,
I should have said "great post" first…it was a beauty. What my intentions is to see what is going on day to day with elite guys. I noticed that the better coaches seem to make a impact on lifestyle.
In fact I would l like to do a phone interview of some of your thoughts for the audio cd.
I usually try and explain that they should be slower and longer during accel.
I always worry that I am going to take away from a natural strength and slow down an athletes rate of turnover later in the race.
I think that if you try and speed up the process of learning good mechanics it can be detrimental, I try and convince everyone that they simply need to continue to get better through their collegiate career. I have had athletes that can make the changes quickly and carry over into racing, I have had athletes that pick it up quickly yet seem unable to transfer it to racing and others that really don't get it for a couple years. I guess my point is that there is no set drill or cue or number of reps that work for everyone.
JJ, I am not saying an elite sprinter has the time to think about how to perform correct mechanics, and then do it. I am saying it takes frontal lobe work to execute a good race. An elite athlete is able to cue himself during a race. Sprinting in it self may become a hind brain activity for a sprinter, but often times it takes frontal lobe work to stay on task.
Look at the 88 oly, Carl looked over at Ben about three times during that race, if you have time to look at someone 3 times in a race I am pretty much sure you have time to think. He looked at ben then went back to work, looked at Ben again then went backt to work, looked again this time concluding its over, yet stayed on task, if that is not talking to yourself I don't know what is.
Now a race may not slow down that much for other sprinter, but it slows down enough for them to tell themselves "keep shoulder down", "keep chin down" or "stay tall". In that same race race Ben is quotes as saying "I said to myself, he's coming… and i did my best to hold form". Sprinting is only totally hind brain for the beginner not the elite. If you guy want to keep your heads buried in the sand, feel free.
[i]Originally posted by 2belite[/i]
JJ, I am not saying an elite sprinter has the time to think about how to perform correct mechanics, and then do it. I am saying it takes frontal lobe work to execute a good race. An elite athlete is able to cue himself during a race. Sprinting in it self may become a hind brain activity for a sprinter, but often times it takes frontal lobe work to stay on task.
Look at the 88 oly, Carl looked over at Ben about three times during that race, if you have time to look at someone 3 times in a race I am pretty much sure you have time to think. He looked at ben then went back to work, looked at Ben again then went backt to work, looked again this time concluding its over, yet stayed on task, if that is not talking to yourself I don't know what is.
Now a race may not slow down that much for other sprinter, but it slows down enough for them to tell themselves "keep shoulder down", "keep chin down" or "stay tall". In that same race race Ben is quotes as saying "I said to myself, he's coming… and i did my best to hold form". Sprinting is only totally hind brain for the beginner not the elite. If you guy want to keep your heads buried in the sand, feel free.
You cite that Carl looked over during the race 3 times. Thanks for strengthening my argument. Carl was getting lit up and the fact that he looked over was evidence that he was not "running his own race". Ben was doing something to him that he had never experienced. That he looked over simply proves that Ben had taken Carl out of whatever focused mind set he was in before the gun went off. He wasn't performin optimally. Did he (Carl) run fast? Hell yes. Could he have run faster in a different situation? Probably. Don't believe me? Refer to the '91 WC. Leroy had him beat, but since Carl trained with him every day, Carl stayed relaxed and the result? 9.86.
Is there time for cognition? Yes. Does it have a place in sprinting 100m? No. Any adjustments that are made during a race are reactions to the feedback given to the body by the motor apparatus.
The moment you use the frontal lobe to stay on task in competition-situation 100m dash, you're cooked. That mental preparation should have been locked in and completed well before you have stepped into the blocks. Nothing that happens during a 100m dash should EVER surprise you.
Ben's quotes are simply his verbalization of the sensations that he experienced once he REFLECTED on what happened.
As far as my head being in the sand:
Trust me, I think I might now a little bit about what is going on in a sprinter's head during a high-level competition.
"Ben's quotes are simply his verbalization of the sensations that he experienced once he REFLECTED on what happened."(JJ)
Give me a break JJ, he's telling us what he was thinking, but yet you feel the need to add something.
If you think me citing Carl as an example strengthens your point, you are missing my point for sure. Carl ran a personal best that day, he hit his highest max velocity while looking over at Ben, the same max velocity (12.1m/s) he hit when he ran his perfect race in the 91wc on a faster track. Carl did not loose because he was thinking and chose to look over at ben, he lost because Ben was able to out accelerate him and match his top speed.
You are missing my point; the mechanics of sprinting may be totally hind brain at the elite level, but staying on task is not automatic. Therefore, "sprinting" as a whole is not hind brain.
Ask coach Tellez who is the fastest sprinter he has ever coached, and he would tell you Joe De-Loach. Joe could not stay on task during a 100m, but he sure could in the 200m. Ask Floyd Heard why he perfers the 200m and he would tell you he likes it because he has more time to think and setup his race. In fact alot of 200m guys would give you that same reason for them having more success in the 200 over the 100. For the real good ones the 100m is a long race.
Stop trying to defend a theory and open your mind, you may see some truth in what I am saying.
Without taking sides it seems that when my athletes discuss a race they are reflecting on what they felt happen, not on what they think happened. I can sometimes help the process by offering my two cents. For example an athlete that tries to rush transition might not realize during the race they are reacting but in a post race discussion might come to the conclusion that they did react to being behind and felt the need to hurry. I think staying on task is important but i am not sure that a rection to a stimulus could be called thinking in a race. I know I have or had at least a few athletes that run better 200's not because of the time to think but because they go into with a more relaxed feeling because the added time does not overemphasis a mistake, I am certain they are not thinking.
The Cerebellum is like the control system of an automatic pilot device. Just as an automatic pilot compares the information from the instrument settings of a plane and actual course, the hindbrain continually compares the higher brain's intention with the body's performance and sends out messages to intiate corrective measures to smooth out voluntary movements that are precise and economical.
It coordinates
(1) the force
(2) the direction
(3) the extent to prevent overshoot
(4) maintain posture
(5) and ensure it flows smoothly
Remember that the brain can receive information that is primative…such as pain that can trigger emotional responses.
While the primary motor cortex can control the face and other small muscles of the head such as the ocular muscles of the eyes and the muscles of the tongue, those are not generators of limbs and have different pathways.
The Forebrain wants to run….the cerebellum does most of the work save the finger in the air at the end or other arm activities of celebration. Notice that world records will never include such winning theatrics now that the fat has been removed from the sport. Sure Carl looked over and still maintained great form to overcome Linford, but we have problems here….
Athletes have their own "blueprint" to a race distribution based on talents. Years of training and coaching design a great model that should be more "Automatic", meaning just following through what you have done hundreds of times. Any mid race would spell a disaster since the body is not prepared for such changes. Remember Mo did not win 1999 Bruny LOST it by his reaction to Mo. I wondered if Bruny expected to win or was trying not to loose? Very complicated but as a guy with a swimmer body an no speed, guys like JJ and Charlie have a great leg to stand on since they know what it feels like. All I can do is listen to what athletes say after I GIVE THE QUESTIONS. Some athletes feel things that never happen but effective coaching is guiding athletes to get or demonstrate the right tasks.
Charlie's 10.3# is not elite, I did that my jr year in college. JJ's 10.25 is a lot better, but it's not elite. I've trained with a few 10.20 guys that can't tell you what the hell they are doing. I've also had training partners that have gone sub 20( that I could stay with) and they can tell you what they thought about to keep them on task during a race. I know I will get a lot of slack for not saying what qualifies me to talk about elite sprinting, but I can live with it.
So I guess Dan and Tom should not Coach since they were not elite? As for your speed why are you not running elite times or coaching elite athletes??? Since only fast guys are 10.0 or faster, not much is left!
Instead of the side arguements lets focus on what should be done not only this other crap. Running low tens is fast enough to understand a lot of what is going on. Sure the stuff changes but what is your point. What does go on from 0-10 seconds in detail? Write your blueprint of ten seconds 2belite.
Phoenix, you are the one that said JJ and Charlie have the qualifications to talk about sprinting because of the times they ran. I am saying you don't need to run at an elite level to coach someone to that level, if that was the requirement JJ nor Charlie would make it, because 10.25 and 10.3# is not elite.
JJ also appointed himself qualified because of his experience and then proceeded to question my qualifications assuming I have no experience running at a high level.
I was not trying to bash JJ's accomplishments, but don't tell me running 10.25 qualifies you to talk about elite sprinting. When I was in college the best guys on my team were running between 10.1# and 10.4# and none of us knew what we were doing, we were fast and that was all that counted. I wasted 4 years of college racing my team-mates instead of learning how to run my race. It got so ridiculous that I was running 47s in october on a 400m breakdown. So running fast when you are fast says nothing.
In was not untill some better sprinters took me aside and told me what to do and how to stay on task, did I make any real gains. The "better sprinters" I am talking about, have gone sub10 and sub20. If you can but 2 and 2 together you would Know I had a good coach and good training partners, and more than likely I am sharing what they taught me.
2belite or not 2belite, that is the question…..what forebrain things are they lacking that they can't have experienced running 10.2? What are the differences that we are missing?
FARK the theory….what environment do you need to be world class? While we are seperating the fly shit from pepper who here has created a environment for people that are "Sub elite" to develope? It takes years and a lot of money…
Many of us here know a lot…but no matter how much you know what are your sprinters doing? If you are prescribing various mobility drills to open up the adductors and the athletes are staying up to 4am and getting hammered all the time at strip clubs don't look for sub ten performances. That's if they have money and are not Nike drones.
Honestly, has Charlie produced any world class sprinter's without AS assistance?
[i]Originally posted by Dark Knight[/i]
Honestly, has Charlie produced any world class sprinter's without AS assistance?
I wouldn't know, since I've never met the man. I would encourage you to read Speed Trap, though, (if you haven't already) and it does detail how he developed his athletes very far along well before they began using AS.
But here is my question: Why do some people think that Charlie was the only one that coached athletes that used AS? I just think it's more prominent than some folks think or want to believe.
[i]Originally posted by Phoenix[/i]
2belite or not 2belite, that is the question…..what forebrain things are they lacking that they can't have experienced running 10.2? What are the differences that we are missing?
I am not saying they/you are missing anything. IMO sprinting is not all hind brain. It's obvious we all don't agree with that, so maybe it's best if we agree to disargee.
As for me telling you what it takes to run at an elite level, I can't, there are too many factors. However, the advice I could give, is not to buy into any coach's theory completely. If a coach is capable of transfering knowledge he is also capable of transfering error. If you accept a theory you also accept the limits of that theory.
Let me tell you a story of a conversation I had with coach Tellez once. I asked him what was the sense of having sprinters run as far as 400m in practice, do they really need to go that far? He said "yes they need the strength." So I continued………. why would you need to be in that kind of shape to run a good 100m? He look at me, then said "who said anything about shape…….if I wanted to get you in shape all I need is a 50 yard hall way." I was shocked, so I asked him to explain. He said "the 400m builds strength…..after 300m it's hard to keep your hips up …you really have to push". I wanted to make sure I got what he was saying, so I look at him and asked, are you talking about strength….like weight room strength. His answer "yea, what else".
For years I thought the idea behind 500m and 400m breakdown was to get sprinters in shape, and here this man was using it to build strength. After he explained that to me, I realize while smtc would run 400s like they were running the 100m(same mechanics). This may not seem like a big deal to many, but if you coach sprinters you would know that most sprinters adapt their mechanics to fit the distance of a run. It is much more efficient to run a 400m with a lower hip hight than is required for success in a 100m. This change, prevents the right musculture from being fully developed. (it's hard to run a 400m with the hips that high,but it trully does build strength in the hip extensors if done right)
The whole point of that long story is this; a lot of those runs are done in the intermediate zone. The same zone that one great coach says you should avoid. He is also the same coach that says sprinting is all hind brain. Now am I saying that Francis is wrong, no. Could Tellez use weights instead to build hip strength, maybe. All I am saying is don't lock yourself to anyone's theory, or you will end up locking yourself to their limits also.
:yawn:
Your 47 in practice? How can you brag about a practice time and expect me to take you seriously?
Dam bro, I not trying to beef with you. You seem to be so bent on fighting with me that you are missing my points. Do you think I am bragging about running 47 in practice. The reason why I said I did it in October is because practice started in Sept. I was trying to bring across the point that I was racing in practice instead of learning how to run (47s after 5week of practice is stupid, especially when the first few weeks consisted of tempo and weights). I hope someone saw the point I was trying to make.
I thought your 10.10 had a 7.0 w reading,my bad. Btw Xavier is my good buddy, if I remember right didn't you run for shore ac the same time as him. I've also seen you run a few times, not bad for the north-east (hard training conditions). I remember I saw you run in NJ, I don't remember the name of the track, but I think you got second behind Jon Carter from Florida. If I remember right Chris Williams was in that race and you beat him. He ended up running 20.02 and you were putting yours hands on him. SoI know you had it bro, I got no beef with you or your mentor Francis.
Gentlemen, we are waaaaaaaay off topic. Let's take this discussion to another thread and leave this one for acceleration mechanics.
ELITETRACK Founder
there always talk about the acc phase or drive phase, as i watched some films of some world class guys it doesnt look like they are in the typical acc phase position for very long (the 45 degree body angle etc) most of them are upright and some of them are upright but holding there head down, so im i wrong or what?
The body angle should change progressively. The 45 degree recommendation is somewhat arbitrary and doesn't have any real foundation in biomechanics. It certainly isn't effective to stay at a static position considering the athlete needs to be upright at some point. Therein lies one of the primary issues of acceleration- Lower departure angles from the blocks are advantageous for acceleration and in most cases can only be pulled off by the best sprinters. Regardless though they still need to stand up tall and run with proper top-end speed mechanics if they want to be effective beyond 40m.
ELITETRACK Founder
The body angle should change progressively. The 45 degree recommendation is somewhat arbitrary and doesn't have any real foundation in biomechanics. It certainly isn't effective to stay at a static position considering the athlete needs to be upright at some point. Therein lies one of the primary issues of acceleration- Lower departure angles from the blocks are advantageous for acceleration and in most cases can only be pulled off by the best sprinters. Regardless though they still need to stand up tall and run with proper top-end speed mechanics if they want to be effective beyond 40m.
i hear coaches all the time on the forum speaking bout "getting my athletes to drive out/acc as far as possible", what exactly do they mean?
i hear coaches all the time on the forum speaking bout "getting my athletes to drive out/acc as far as possible", what exactly do they mean?
It could be one of two things a misunderstanding of race distribution or an attempt to manipulate race distribution to have a positive affect on the outcome of the entire race. In the case of the former many coaches here Mo, Gatlin, etc talk about drive phase this and drive phase that and they take home that the proverbial drive phase is the most important part of a race. In the latter scenario, it's an attempt to delay reaching top end speed through either throttling back intensity or manipulating body positions so that the athlete decelerates less at the end of the race.
ELITETRACK Founder
[quote author="utfootball4" date="1162095208"]
i hear coaches all the time on the forum speaking bout "getting my athletes to drive out/acc as far as possible", what exactly do they mean?
It could be one of two things a misunderstanding of race distribution or an attempt to manipulate race distribution to have a positive affect on the outcome of the entire race. In the case of the former many coaches here Mo, Gatlin, etc talk about drive phase this and drive phase that and they take home that the proverbial drive phase is the most important part of a race. In the latter scenario, it's an attempt to delay reaching top end speed through either throttling back intensity or manipulating body positions so that the athlete decelerates less at the end of the race.
[/quote]
heres a comment made by danimal9 "As long and rapid an acceleration as possible."
heres a comment made by danimal9 "As long and rapid an acceleration as possible."
This is true in an ideal world but in reality it doesn't (can't) quite work that way because top end speed is finite so rapid acceleration and duration of acceleration can't both be maximized at the same time.
ELITETRACK Founder
[quote author="utfootball4" date="1162095727"]
heres a comment made by danimal9 "As long and rapid an acceleration as possible."
This is true in an ideal world but in reality it doesn't (can't) quite work that way because top end speed is finite so rapid acceleration and duration of acceleration can't both be maximized at the same time.
[/quote]
Mike is exactly right. However, I think my comment should be thought of optimizing acceleration, ie find the right amount of rate of change in velocity and the duration of time that occurs till that rate of change in velocity stops. Top end speed is finite, but the finite determinants of top end speed are dependent on both the length and the rate of change in acceleration. The length a maximal acceleration can occur seems to be in the range of 4-7s, although research seems to be showning that males can accelerate for 4.5-6s range and females 5-7s so there does seem to be some physiological mechanisms that differentiate males from females in acceleration durations.
My thoughts are this, you cannot do both as Mike says, but you can work towards optimal acceleration patterns for races by working from the rate of change perspective first and trying to lengthening it to a maximal distance/duration as distance and duration are invariably linked to a specific rate of change pattern. You work a pure acceleration phase, focusing on block clearance, and establishing stride pattern optimizations thru submaximal stride rates and longer contact times to establish greater force application maximum distances worked are 15-25m. Then you start working at distances from 30-60m with emphasis on transistioning to maximal velocity and maximal velocity work as well. However, there are times when the technical aspects of block clearance and the first 3-5 steps out of the block need to be revisited during this time to ensure the motor pattern has been learned. This period often includes 30-60m sprints and extending ins and outs markers, and increased number of flys while the former period has fewer fly's and IO's are done over 10-20-10 or 10-10-10 working on the technical aspects of ins and outs.
The length a maximal acceleration can occur seems to be in the range of 4-7s, although research seems to be showning that males can accelerate for 4.5-6s range and females 5-7s so there does seem to be some physiological mechanisms that differentiate males from females in acceleration durations.
I'm unfamiliar with this research. Can you point me in the right direction.
ELITETRACK Founder
It's an observation I made of the research. Look at the article you have by Frank Dick, The MSSE article from 1979 of p 332-337 of Velocity Curve by Volkov and Lapin. An Article by Coh and Tomazin (Track Technique, i believe) doesn't specifically point to this but looking at how some things don't add in article to attribute to differences between 2 groups I am assuming they didn't investigate this possibility. Maybe I jumped to a conclusion I can't support emperically, but there does seem to be a difference when related to 100m times.
It's an observation I made of the research. Look at the article you have by Frank Dick, The MSSE article from 1979 of p 332-337 of Velocity Curve by Volkov and Lapin. An Article by Coh and Tomazin (Track Technique, i believe) doesn't specifically point to this but looking at how some things don't add in article to attribute to differences between 2 groups I am assuming they didn't investigate this possibility. Maybe I jumped to a conclusion I can't support emperically, but there does seem to be a difference when related to 100m times.
Thanks. I wasn't trying to call you out or anything…just was curious to see if there was some research that actually examined this directly.
ELITETRACK Founder
It's probably too intense for a masters project to have it investigated properly, but I may put it in my back pocket if I decide to pursue and be accepted into a doctorate program.
Has the NSA stuff with data from last year WC's come out yet? I need to look at some of that.
Has the NSA stuff with data from last year WC's come out yet? I need to look at some of that.
Not that I'm aware of. I'm not an NSA subscriber and I rarely get the opportunity to read it so it could have come out. The USATF data is out there. Kebba has posted it to the site for the past 2-3 years.
ELITETRACK Founder
I've seen a lot of sprint data, but haven't seen any that show women accelerating longer than men. In almost all of the cases the men accelerate deeper into the race (100m) and maintain peak/near peak velocities longer.
I haven't seen any of the data from NSA for the 2005 World Champs but don't expect it to be too much different than previous years OG/WC/USATF data. Gatlin's data is diff than most (as seen in his "WR" run) in this his stride frequency is very low.
I've seen a lot of sprint data, but haven't seen any that show women accelerating longer than men. In almost all of the cases the men accelerate deeper into the race (100m) and maintain peak/near peak velocities longer.
I haven't seen any of the data from NSA for the 2005 World Champs but don't expect it to be too much different than previous years OG/WC/USATF data. Gatlin's data is diff than most (as seen in his "WR" run) in this his stride frequency is very low.
KT, I haven't seen much of the data. I'm interested in the time, rather than distance, durations of accel for men and women. Men accelerate further, but is the time about the same?
Maybe there aren't any conclusions to draw, or applications to be made, just curious.
well most of the men are hitting peak velocities btw 50-65m and "near peak" much sooner. Since the world record for 50m is 5.56 so assume they most men are accelerating for 5-6 secs. With the greatest amount of acceleration happening in the first 3-4 secs.
For women the 50m WR is 5.96, 60m is 6.92. They tend to be closer to peak velcoity around 45-55m.
Just to echo and support what KT said, accelerations are occuring over roughly the roughly the same time frames but men accelerate faster (a greater change in velocity / time) and for a longer duration (of time and distance).
The greatest acceleration occurs in the first second and dramatically drops off from that point on. When the athlete is at 40m they are very close to top-end speed.
ELITETRACK Founder
By what Kebba just posted, it indicates that women accelerate 5.5-6.5s. I understand the calculus involved between velocity and acceleration as acceleration approaches 0, the difference in velocity are smaller. I am just looking for more data to review.