I can’t recall ever seeing an over-striding case where a structural issue was the cause. Although I have seen over-striding occur due to inhibition (i.e. sub-consciously guarding on ground contact). In fact, I have an athlete rehabbing from ACL surgery that has some stride irregularities due to this inhibition problem. But this is an unilateral problem (one leg).
In most cases, athletes who over-stride are trying to get too much out of one stride (i.e. pushing out the back-side too much) or reaching too far in front because someone has told them to “claw” or “paw” the ground. And, in many cases, if you are pushing too much on one stride, the cycling through of strides is delayed causing your front-side foot to reach out in front. In an effort to maintain equilibrium, your body will lengthen the phase of stride to match the delay created by the other leg. Because of the cyclical nature of running, over-emphasizing one aspect of the stride will wreak havoc on the entire movement.
I seem to fall back on use of the Running ‘A’ drill to help resolve a lot of the mechanical issues experienced by over-striders. I emphasize the vertical nature of the Running A drill and tell athletes when they are running at full speed, it should feel like the Running A drill (up and down vertical motion – not forward and back). If it feels like you are pushing and pulling, you will likely be over-striding.
In the practical sessions provided with Charlie’s South Africa series, there is a drill used by Charlie to improve sprint mechanics. It is a very good drill if you know how to provide the right cues to your athlete.
Of course acknowledging Charlie’s influence would have devalued his system which is available for a limited time at a super low price! :rolleyes: and that 10 stride test is interesting. From the way I understand it Ben would have been regressing using that as his race distribution changed over time to where he was taking more strides at the start.
Having just watched the NFL combine and seen guys cover 10 yards in 6.5-7.0 steps in times ranging from 4.3’s to 4.9’s, I’m wondering about the value of a 10 step test.
From the athlete-in-training point of view, I see no value to such test whatsoever, as having any kind of mark on the track and trying to ‘reach out’ to it while sprinting, will only cause stiffness and the syndrome of over-striding. I think it’s only interesting from a statistical point of view, or for a coach’s tool to know the stride coverage of the athlete, although that’s the last piece of information to worry about (in my opinion, of course).
I was just pointing out his influence. Never said dude was actually following charlie’s workouts. Alot of the stuff He was talking about I dont agree with but the use of charlie’s ideas is undeniable.
I coach HS girls. Big group of freshmen this year and every single one of them is an overstrider. All reaching out and almost all landing heel first. I think that, growing up, they have been told that to increase speed they must increase stride length. Hard to get them to change, but I do a lot of A runs and even A marching.
Number Two summed it up well. The progression of speed elements from short to long is clearly influenced by Charlie, but the tempo component is not and could interfere with the speed progression. The key to Charlie’s approach is a constant emphasis on the interaction of all components. Therefore, just adopting one element of the training (speed) without properly integrating others (tempo) might not produce optimal results.
Your comment about intensive tempo is correct, but what you describe is really a form of special endurance, which is more appropriate for HI days. What do you do between HI workouts? Extensive tempo or some rough alternative.
The approach described is common. Dan Pfaff uses similar as does some of the other former LSU coaches. They typically do tempo stuff on Sat. So, early in the season the Sat runs would be low % of pr repeats with short rests, ext tempo if you will. This progresses to Int tempo/CSW then progresses to speed end. This approach has been very successful as well.
I do ext tempo or alternative, so does Mangiocotti. His general days are what most on here would call ext tempo or equivalent. When he has Int tempo written it is on a hi day.
As Charlie always said, there are many ways to skin a cat (I really don’t want to know where that phrase came from). The key is your ability to skillfully manage the combination of components that constitute your training system. There is a danger of suddenly adopting a new system with which you have little experience.
Good points made. Until I see some true reasoning behind these “presentations” I simply stay away.
One of Charlie’s important influences on me has been the “why, when, where” details that he brought which each of his training concepts. I’m just not getting this info from other presentations - not that I need it.
However Charlie’s influence in T&F is broader today than I can recall at any time prior. And this is even seen with master class coaches. Though much respect to those that admit it.
The more I look at workout plans from those that are sent to me, the more I believe that one of the following is occurring:
Coaches are copying someone else’s workouts.
Coaches are implementing what they did as an athlete.
Coaches are making things up as they go along.
Coaches are operating on partial information and trying to piece together this info (from various sources) in an incoherent manner.
All of the above.
Coaches are getting less competent and self sufficient (not problem solving) and end up trying to regurgitate material rather than formulate logical progressions in training.
This is why Charlie never liked to put plans on the board or circulate them. They would simply be copied and there would be no understanding of why, when, how much, etc.
Trying to pick and choose from a bunch of different successful (but ultimately) incompatible training systems and thinking that if they mash them all together they get something better.
When the reality is that, while there are many Roads to Rome, trying to combine systems usually ends in disaster.
Because usually said systems, while internally consistent and successful under certain circumstances, do NOT work when combined with one another.
Very difficult to overstride up-hill. Introduce some hill sprinting into the general prep phase of training.
Look at the athlete who is overstriding and check position of pelvis. It should be in a neutral position, not angled either way.
Triple-extension (of hip, knee & ankle) - or close to it - when the torso is above the knee will enable capacity for air time and stride length will come from the effective advance of the pelvis/hips rather than from flicking out the lower-leg.
It is hard to avoid over-striding if there is no T/E. If there is no T/E the movement shape flattens out and the sprint action becomes low and slow due to extended contact time and reduced impulse.
Get it right during the warm-up. The warm-up is precious time for the elite sprinter. It is the only time when the sprinter does not have pressure to deliver a quality time. The warm-up is under-rated as the primary opportunity to perfect technique.
I also avoid using any drills involving a kicking out of the lower leg. That includes all the skip drills if an athlete already tends to kick out when sprinting. I realise that might be heresy but there it is.
Are you all referring to Mangiacotti’s info, program, etc?
I do not see at all where what he has done will not work. He has had results on the collegiate level and has mentored under one of the best T&F coaches ever. If he has changed, modified, or combined elements from many sources what is the big deal?
On one hand lots of people say, well Charlie didn’t like to provide templates because everyone would try to do exactly those (though I think most people are smart enough not to do that).
Then on the other hand lots of people say, you can’t change things around and add and pull stuff out. Well, which one is it…
If I have a template from Charlie I am just going to let it evolve with my capacities and abilities. Mangiacotti is not adding some things from Charlie and some from Tellez and some from Hart. He may be tweaking or learning things from all of those guys but not pulling and placing one workout from each coach. Just because he starts with short accels and progresses to longer runs doesn’t mean that he stole that from Charlie. It’s not like Tellez would have guys doing blocks to 40 from day one. Obviously he started short with that as well and extended it out. Same with Pfaff.
What coaches are taking workouts from various coaches and randomly pasting them into a week?
Are you all referring to Mangiacotti’s info, program, etc?
I do not see at all where what he has done will not work. He has had results on the collegiate level and has mentored under one of the best T&F coaches ever. If he has changed, modified, or combined elements from many sources what is the big deal if done logically and with common sense?
On one hand lots of people say, well Charlie didn’t like to provide templates because everyone would try to do exactly those (though I think most people are smart enough not to do that).
Then on the other hand lots of people say, you can’t change things around and add and pull stuff out. Well, which one is it…
If I have a template from Charlie I am just going to let it evolve with my capacities and abilities. Mangiacotti is not adding some things from Charlie and some from Tellez and some from Hart. He may be tweaking or learning things from all of those guys but not pulling and placing one workout from each coach. Just because he starts with short accels and progresses to longer runs doesn’t mean that he stole that from Charlie. It’s not like Tellez would have guys doing blocks to 40 from day one. Obviously he started short with that as well and extended it out. Same with Pfaff.
What coaches are taking workouts from various coaches and randomly pasting them into a week?
