Sometimes the impression from a seminar depends on the time given to present and the audience. I got terrible reviews from the Nat Strength and Cond conference (where great reviews went to the “sport-specific” crowd) and good reviews from a seminar in Slovenia presenting the exact same material.
Some quotes:
From Nat S&C “He’s like rain man counting cards. Nothing practical we can use”
From Slovenia; “This was excellent. This is material we can use right away!”
Great info… This is what I’m talking about… Thanks!
LOL! That is very interesting considering the info that I’ve seen and read from you is extremely practical and useful. Just goes to show you…
[QUOTE=
LOL! That is very interesting considering the info that I’ve seen and read from you is extremely practical and useful. Just goes to show you…[/QUOTE]
You can only use what I tell you about my own experiences if you’re willing to think about things for yourself. If you want to suspend thinking and follow a guru, based on a floor show, I’m not your man.
Rain Man counting Cards, priceless 
WORD! I’m felling that…
i have worked with dan somewhat at texas. he is a great coach and has a tremendous amount of PRACTICAL knowledge. i think since i have learned much from him, i find it hard to find any “new” and any more “practical” ways to train athletes. even when going over much of charlies material i find some very common and similiar trends in their training systems. the bottom line is that their success simply comes from their ability to communicate and connect with their athletes and make necessary adjustments to continue success. as for being able to present, that is a separate skill, and i personally think charlie’s communication ability is unmatched. also, as a side note, could dan be saving much of his “best” stuff for his athletes. charlie were you giving seminars in the heat of your career? feeling that you were keeping an edge?
Actually I did give seminars but didn’t seem to get across to people mostly because many of my seminars were for the federation and often I was undercut.
After one presentation, a distance coach got up to announce: “Everyone knows how easy it is to produce sprinters!” I asked him why he didn’t do it then, since he hadn’t produced anything in his own field, but got no reply.
I gave a seminar on EMS and the federation provided a COUNTER-presenter to speak after me to contradict everything I said. Mine was the only presentation where this was done.
That’s Classy.
ahh!! the jealousy that success can bring. what is your philosophy on sharing your knowledge while possible competitors can capitalize?
But you can see that they don’t. Knowing what the concept is and adapting it to the individual are two different things and the competitor at the highest levels arose from a particular background method which might not respond well to change, especially if that change is dramatic
This is the one thing i find really strange. Charlie must be the only athletics coach in the world who provides indepth information on his entire system and yet very few seem interested. It used to amaze me now i just smile at the irony. Though people are starting to pick things up second hand…
Coaches are always either too proud or too cautious to strictly apply other successful coach concepts.
If Charlie has (and still) inspired coaches with his training methods, it’s up to each coach to cope with their athletes when unexpected things happen (and really it happens almost everyday!). That’s when Charlie of course is not there.
However, nothing forces him to share his knowledge. Other succesful coaches have never published anything, like Wolfgang Meier, or very little, like Bob Kersee, so the least we can do is to give the credit due to Charlie.
However it’s still possible to produce World Class sprinters without knowing Charlie’s methods! I asked Obikwelu (OG silver 9.86) 's coach if they use S to L or L to S approach and she didn’t understood what i was talking about! That’s quite relieving in a way that there are many orads to success!
Remember that there are coaches out there who have used my methods with limited modification and some in fact who have gotten their training programs from me directly, but no one is going to stand up and admit it.
This illustrated well what you say:
After Asafa’s WR, a scientist who coaches elite distance runners declared to the press revolutionnary things:
“WR should be down to 9.50 by 2010… Sprint training, sets of 30 to 50m sprints with 3 to 5min rest, has to enhance phosphocreatine stockage, 35% of which is genetic, so the margin of progression physiologically speaking is enourmous… This said, the sprint programs around are not perfected and efficient at all, we are far from having reached the limits… Science allows to calculate everything but scientific training hasn’t realy started…
Asafa Powell hasn’t got a great technique, his position in the starting blocks, his start, his hip position, he can still improve… His power can be improved too, in working strength specifically with sprints in hill.”
I contacted this scientist because, as you imagine, i’m interested in getting my sprinters into 9.50 land, but i haven’t received reply…
It’s easy to criticize sprint program when you don’t coach sprinters and don’t have the will to try with World class ones…
Poor Asafa, he should listen the scientist and sprint in the hills (of course he never does it http://www.charliefrancis.com/community/showthread.php?t=10263 and Charlie’s GPP doesn’t include hills either!!!) and WTF Asafa is doing with his power training (this scientist probably doesn’t know he has World leadership in specific power jumping and throwing tests…).
How is it possible to talk about sprint training when you don’t even know CF’s system and even more criticize someone’s program when you don’t know what it is about. :mad: (BTW Stephen Francis told the media this year that CFTS is a base for his training).
Or they like re-inventing the wheel…
This is typical. Nothing is impossible to the man who doesn’t have to do it himself.
BTW, I do use hills in the GPP, at least in GPP 1 but not usually in the SPP.
I know you use hills, as Asafa does, like many others, this made the scientist critics so funny :rolleyes: .
Sorry, I missed the irony. What’s this guy’s name? Good for people here to know so they can put anything else he has to say in context.
PJ, Where did he say this? Why was he even mentioning Charlie?
Obviously Stephen Francis knows about L-S and S-L which is good but CF has people on the track in spikes by week 4-5 whereas Asafa is apparently still in flats for a few months after this.
The scientist is French Véronique Billat who coaches Isabella Ochichi Silver medallist at 5000m in Athens. Her last feat was to PREDICT Gebrselasie’s WR at Marathon last week. An other big mistake was to justify the 10000m WR by Wang Junxia by using mathematical models from the average velocity, while this performance were set with a huge negative split (15:05 + 14:26). This completely changes the problem.
Franno gave credit to CF in l’Equipe (as i did myslef btw), although this information was not really spread since giving credit to CF can bring a bad cloud over you.