Ange, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. We all are so fortunate to have you hosting this site and honoring your husband’s legacy. The information here is invaluable. Reading the books is awesome, but it’s so cool to re-read them and then come on here and see Charlie discuss and APPLY his teachings in a practical and realistic way through his conversations on these forums. It goes to show it’s not all about what Charlie thought, but it’s HOW he thought that made a difference. I recently was reading a thread where he was discussing with other members about Michael Johnson and his training, and it’s all about using common sense. There is no doubt that Charlie and Clyde Hart had different training systems, so it was really interesting to see Charlie talk about how he really wouldn’t have changed much about his training at all. A lot of top-level coaches (I could give examples of these training groups but I don’t think I need to mention names lol) will say “oh if this guy did things our way he’d be running X time”, but that’s purely from a dogmatic ego and just to promote their business scheme. Charlie never fixed something that wasn’t broken. That brings to mind the example of how he was criticized for not “fixing” Angella’s overstriding early on in her career. He patiently let her grow into it, and she obviously ended up benefiting greatly from it. Same thing with Ben’s start. I am sure there are plenty of coaches today who say “imagine how much faster Ben would have been using the toe drag and doing wickets!”. Charlie’s wisdom goes well beyond analytics and it is why he had the results he had. He didn’t just take 10 flat guys and improve them by a tenth or two. He started by developing kids who had nothing and helped build them into world champions. Today, we have too many “gurus”.
@YoungCj1 to answer your question, simply put, I do not believe there really is an established correlation. First off, I must say that by asking that question that already tells me you are motivated and inspired, because most people think they are done at 30. Heck, I have seen 22 year old college seniors who think they are topped out when I know for sure they could reach another tier if they put in the time to continue to train into their 30s.
I think that part of the stigma is that people often watch mainstream sports and see athletes retire around 30 in a lot of the explosive sports. But these are PROFESSIONAL and ELITE athletes who: 1. are performing at such a high level that it can potentially cause more serious injuries, as well as forcing themselves to play through injuries in big money sports like the NFL/NBA etc. 2. they already have enough money made by that point and are mentally burnt out. My point is that these situations do not apply to someone who is still DEVELOPING, and also that there are outliers. So it’s not a fair comparison. Giving up when we are in our 20’s is an issue of how our society is structured. If I may be so bold, amateurism and the NCAA are a huge barrier to why people give up on sports (and life) so soon. I have been reading a bit on sprinters from the 19th and early 20th century when “professionalism” was the common practice, before amateurism was established. It was not uncommon to see professional sprinters compete well into their 30s or 40s back then.
What I can say though is that we have seen many sprinters with long careers and performing well into later years. Su Bingtian just ran the fastest 30 and 60 meter splits ever, and he is 32. Kim Collins ran a PB of under 10 sec shortly before turning 40. There’s also the case of Gatlin, who ran several PB’s in his mid-to-late 30s and became world champion - this was also after a long hiatus - which you could speculate might have been beneficial for his longevity since he was not over-racing or over-training during those years. On the female side, the case of SAFP comes to mind, and she’s 35 now and still on top of her game. There really are plenty of examples. One of the key things is to train smart at conservative volumes which will help you stay healthy, which is what enables you to continue to make progress.
Another consideration is that as you get older, I think that some of the training emphasis needs to shift back to some of what is emphasized for beginners. As you get older, it is important to maintain general fitness, flexibility, and strength levels, and etc. Of course, these things are always in every good program, but sometimes advanced athletes (in the middle of a career) get to a point where they need a bit more specific work compared to general work because the high performance levels must prioritize those things. It is easy to get lost in the shuffle of emphasizing specific speed work too much and to begin neglecting the fundamentals, because at one’s middle/peak years the general qualities are largely taken care of by the high performance levels of the specific task (if you are sprinting very fast, you are already applying massive force, already have flexibility to reach such great positions, and obviously are fit if you are running 10 flat for example, or whatever your PB may be. So the weights/flexibility/etc often take care of themselves to the point where you don’t need to emphasize those training components as much as a beginner). Naturally as we age it is merely part of the process that we begin to lose some of these general qualities, and so they become more valuable again as you get later into your career. You could have great biomechanical patterning from years of being fast, but that all means nothing if not in the presence of adequate fitness, strength, flexibility, etc.
Bottom line is that everyone’s peak years will vary depending on multiple factors, so control the things you can and don’t worry about the things you cannot control.