Most Important Word in Speed Training
I recently heard Dan Pfaff talk about acceleration being a ‘complicated neuromuscular equation’.
I recently heard Boo Schexnayder say acceleration is about finding the ‘resonant frequency of oscillary patterns’ in terms of developing and improving the efficiency of locomotive mechanics.
I recently heard Gary Winckler say, “90% of speed development is technique.”
I once heard Will Smith talk about understanding how the universe works by ‘studying the patterns.’
Well, I’ve been studying the patterns, and, in doing so, one fact has become overwhelmingly clear:
Our athletes will be faster when they develop this quality.
Our athletes will be more explosive and powerful when they develop this quality.
Our athletes will be on the board (instead of over and behind) and won’t trip over hurdles (or themselves) when they develop this quality.
Our athletes will consistently hit their times during tempo runs and race modeling sessions once they develop more of this quality.
So, if all I’ve said here is true, then what is the most important word in all of speed training?
Coordination.
Everything we do in practice is designed to improve the ability to express technique in order to positively influence performance. An athlete’s inability to express said technique simply boils down to lack of specific coordination.
Of course, I didn’t invent this concept. I heard Gary Winckler talk about it. Then I thought about it. Then I stole it. Now here we are.
Here’s an example. Last week I ran the exact same workout with two different athletes.
One was a 16 year old high schooler with a 200m PR of 26.1. The other was a 22 year old post collegiate with a 200m PR of 24.7.
The high schooler has been doing consistent technical work all summer and fall, going back and forth between me and another great sprints coach, Marc Mangiacotti. (UPDATE: He and I will be running the 2012 New England Track & Field clinic again this summer, so, when you bring your athletes, you and your sprinters will get to learn what we’re doing first hand…)
In our last session, she looked incredible. Her bad runs are now vastly superior to what good runs looked like in June. She can break down her own technique before I say anything which, to me, is a sign of wildly improved kinesthetic awareness and skill acquisition. Her confidence is light years ahead of where it was 6 months ago. I’m very proud of her and can’t wait to see her reap the rewards of her hard work.
The post collegiate, on the other hand, comes from a (Division I) college program here in New England (whose name I will not mention) that did absolutely no technical work, no speed work and sent 200m specialists out for 30 minute runs on a routine basis even in the middle of the competitive phase. She came from a good high school program (cough, cough), so that’s roughly the last time this athlete had good technical instruction (a 25.02 HS PR vs 24.71 collegiate PR is not a comforting improvement over the course of 4 years at the D-1 level).
Needless to say, this athlete was some sort of Hot Mess. She could feel it wasn’t right.
It wasn’t lack of effort or focus. And it sure wasn’t lack of ability. It was pure lack of coordination.
She lacked (’lost’ might be a better word) the strength (coordination training under resistance), endurance (coordination training under event specific time constraints), speed (coordination training to express highest force in the least amount of time and resulting in optimal displacement) and mobility (coordination training to dynamically express forces through desired/required ranges of motion) to accelerate to top speed and maintain that velocity with any semblance of efficiency or consistency of execution.
Once she acquires the coordination that the high schooler currently possesses, I know one thing for sure, she won’t be grinding to dip under the times she ran when she was 16.
My point is pretty simple. If you want to run a 21st Century program, it’s not enough to just run fast in practice. As coaches we have to have our own process for solving the acceleration equation. And, just as importantly, we have to be able to help our athletes solve it themselves. Because we can’t cue them or engage in technical feedback once the gun goes off. Their success fundamentally depends on the ability to feel what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’ and make corrections in real time, under the stress of competition and with 6-7 other athletes trying to beat them. Or with a crowd of people staring at them while they barrell down the runway.
It’s not enough to send kids into the weight room if you don’t have the same technical standards for a squat or clean as you do for coming out of blocks or doing phase work in the triple jump.
But if you reframe your training perspective with coordination being the ultimate goal and strength, speed, endurance and mobility being interdependent qualities, it will be easier to connect the dots between movements, event groups and specific skill development.
At your next practice, watch your athletes perform all the drills and exercises that make up their practice with this concept of ‘coordination as the ultimate goal’ in mind. It will be both liberating and overwhelming at the same time.
If you want more success, you must solve the coordination equation. If you haven’t already, this is a good place to start.
To your success,
Latif Thomas
.
Filed under Distance, Hurdles, Jumps, Mid Distance, Sprints, Throws by on Dec 1st, 2011. Comment. 
Comments on Most Important Word in Speed Training
Screening body language during practice arrival through session prep is as important as well.
BTW – I had a high ranked scholastic athlete go that school as well. The result was perhaps a fine education albeit very little to add from a promising athletic future.
Excellently written, Latif, and on a central concept. Better coordination can make all of life better, we hope! GO PATRIOTS! — Rob
You said: “It’s not enough to send kids into the weight room if you don’t have the same technical standards for a squat or clean as you do for coming out of blocks or doing phase work in the triple jump.” And I completely agree. The only roadblock I come to is the ‘proper’ squat technique… Many very educated strength and conditioning coaches (including Boo Schexnayder) teach that the toes should be pointed out (duck footed) while squating. Although I understand the anotomical benefits of this (especially for getting deeper in the squat), it goes against everything technically that we teach everywhere else… right? We don’t run duck footed, point our toes out in the blocks, land duck footed from a plyometric activity, etc. So should we instruct athletes to squat (or do any other workout for that matter) with the toes out?
@Coach L:
My argument would be that we don’t always look for direct carry over on the track from what we do in the weight room. I have athletes, at certain points of the season, squat below parallel even though at no point in track, outside of the set position in the blocks, do we really come close to parallel/90 degrees at the knee. But I do it for functional mobility, hormonal response and motor unit recruitment. Sometimes I cue my high jumpers to drive their knee as high as they can at takeoff even though I really want them to block with the knee at belt height. One could argue, in fact, that any strength training exercise done on two feet lacks specificity because, outside of the block start, everything we do in track is off of one leg. If squatting with the toes out (long bounding sprints) allows your athletes to get a greater range of motion in order to achieve your prescribed goal for the exercise, I think you have to look at what you’re trying to do and justify it from there. For example, some coaches don’t like having sprinters do long bounding because they feel the contact times are too long to be specific. And that’s a valid point. Some coaches like to do long bounding because it teaches athletes to be comfortable spending more time on the ground pushing. Also a valid point. Both are ‘right’ and both are ‘wrong’ depending on the point of view of the observer. If you can justify it then I think it is OK. Our programs are defined as much by what we don’t do as they are by what we do do and vice versa.
@E. Robert Premo:
Thank you sir. Go Pats!
I totally agree with you. A coach once told me, “Don’t do tactically what you can’t do technically.” We just started our season (in California), and I sat down with my coaches about what we should be focusing on during the GPP. First on my list is coordination. When it came down to discussing acceleration, I presented to them that it’s a neuromuscular response and it requires optimal recovery. I’ve implemented the 1 min. recovery for every 10m before; BTW, I’ve purchased your DVD’s. So I explained the principle behind that. Both coaches were not too receptive. They both think that the recovery is way too long. Needless to say it was frustrating. They think that our athletes should feel the “burn”. We should take them to the edge; whatever that edge is. They want everything to be maximum intensity. Needless to say I’m very frustrated. BTW, they’re both football coaches coaching track because they have football athletes on the team. How can I make them understand the principle? Any suggestions? Articles?