Good question.
Team USA Roster
100m Women
Ky Westbrook (Chandler, Ariz.)
Hannah Cunliffe (Federal Way, Wash.)
Ariana Washington (Signal Hill, Calif.)
200m Women
Ky Westbrook (Chandler, Ariz.)
Hannah Cunliffe (Federal Way, Wash.)
Ariana Washington (Signal Hill, Calif.)
How right you were! 10.99 isn’t messing around. 
Nice.
Anyone have a video of this race?
Hannah demonstrates some obscure mechanical inefficiencies regarding her arms. Notice the degree to which her shoulders internally rotate upon conclusion of front side action and her forearms come across her torso (similar to the lousy mechanics we see from football [soccer] players). I’ve shown this in a photo with her right arm as the left arm has the white sleeve and it’s not as clear. Additionally, notice her right foot during recovery after toe off and how, similarly, her ankle internally rotates: 
Here are stills of Prandini and Cunliffe taken one stride apart at toe off: 
Prandini demonstrates exceptional mechanics.
James,
I’m sure this is easier said than done but, in terms of her inefficiencies, where would you start in your attempts to correct this? Some connected to Altis talk about “hardware” versus “software” and the need to differentiate when problem solving? Also, my guess is she’s been doing this for a long time so how long might it take to fix? Some out there make you think one ART session or a corrective exercise will do the job but I always find that a bit of a stretch. Just picked up a copy of your book and am finding it very informative.
Thanks for picking up a copy of the book Ollie. I’d appreciate you leaving a review of it on Amazon when you’re through with it.
As for solving Cunliffe’s mechanical issues, indeed the problem solving must discover the root of the issue and to what extent it reflects ‘hardware’ (neurological) versus ‘software’ (an issue in the soft tissue).
At a distance, I highly doubt it has anything to do with a soft tissue restriction.
If I were coaching Hannah the process would begin with conversation and having her tell me what she sees when looking at her own slow motion video. We’d find out if she’s aware of what she’s doing and, if so, discuss possible origins.
I’ll postulate that she has zero inhibition in demonstrating optimized arm action while standing in front of me and, thus, this would then be scaled into drills, extensive tempo, intensive… and so on on the basis of what, at first, would begin as forebrain (conscious competence) cognitive work. The scaled intensity would provide for opportunity to automate the action commensurate with her rate of motor skill aptitude and eventually enter the realm of unconscious competence via the restructuring of operations in the motor cortex that result in automation.
10.99 is a pretty swift time and she appears to be improving. I reckon you’d want to be pretty confident that changing her mechanics would illicit a positive outcome.
Indeed grooster, and the confidence is rooted in the immutable nature of physics. The result of mitigating the “in spite of’s” and amplifying the “because of’s” is the most significant source of improvement.
In principle, there’s no difference between the dysfunction of her ‘soccer’ style arm action and if I were to race Usain Bolt over 100m and he were to have to hold a water balloon above his head with both hands. I actually have very good mechanics, however, Bolt would still destroy me in spite of the fact that he was holding a water balloon above his head. Needless to say, I would confidently instruct him to do away with the water ballon and pump his arms according to the physics implications that we all have access to.
Dysfunction is dysfunction irrespective of its magnitude. The only instance in which a particular movement might be excused, despite it not serving the optimal model, is if it bares no negative implication on force: velocity output. I have no hesitation in stating that Hannah’s improvements have occurred in spite of her arm dysfunction due to the diminished significance of specific arm action when compared to the legs.
Bottom line, optimize performance fully, not partially, by way of ensuring total and complete accountability in preparation.
Her right foot action still remains a mystery. I’d have to look at more video to see whether and to what extent it happens to the left foot.
I like the analogy James, but am unsure whether running with a water balloon above your head is equal to a 19yo girl running 11.99 early in the season. I just think it may be wise to not tinker with something too much if it’s not entirely broken. Is this similar to BJ starts, where a lot of people were telling Charlie to change it( according to speed trap) and he became the best starter in the world IMHO.
Yeah, I could have learned to run like everybody else…and I’d have been a second slower like everybody else.
–Michael Johnson
In Bolt’s case, he had scoliosis and Glen Mills had no choice but to strengthen his core with weights and correct form deficiencies. But fixing a form “error” that does not relate to injury status does not guarantee a positive outcome.
Grooster, keep in mind that I qualified the extreme analogy in terms of “in principle”. In this way, by further analogy, in principle there is no difference between a minor crime and a capital crime, in terms of the fact that both crimes are in violation of the law.
Completely different was Ben’s way of starting. In actuality, I believe far too great a spectacle was made about his start in terms of him ‘leaping’ out of the blocks. In reality, every sprinter leaps out of the blocks which is why no part of the sprinter’s body is in contact with the blocks or track (completely airborne) at the conclusion of block clearance. It’s a matter of the orientation of the pedals themselves and the implications. Thus, the mentionable difference between Ben and the rest was the block set up in which his pedals were closer together.
As to whether Ben was the absolute best starter is debatable because he does not have the fastest 10m split (Bolt actually has a faster 10m split from his 9.69 in 2008 Olympics). Ben did have an incredible reaction time and the differential between arranging the block pedals closer together, versus farther apart (both in terms of what probably amounts to less than a 15cm differential) , in terms of f:V considerations, is no where near the same in comparison to managing optimized arm action (ergo closing the elbow slightly below 90 in front and opening slightly above 90 in back) and running like a soccer player and paddling the arms as if racing through chest deep water.
Important to understand is the continuum between broken and optimal and to not make the grave mistake of problem solving in terms of one or the other. The differential between broken and optimal is, in fact, enormous.
Remember that any measurable deviation off of optimal comes at a cost. I contend that Hannah’s arm action is a significant deviation off of what is optimal and the longer it goes unresolved the more it will interfere with the optimization of her improvement (as talented as she already is).
Ikh, first off, we all know that Johnson’s (mechanically disadvantageous) mechanics were a fantastic subject for debate and his own thesis that he was faster because of them is completely biased and, in my opinion (along with what we know about force: posture and other mechanical principles), totally wrong.
I agree that resolving a form error that does not relate to injury does not guarantee a positive outcome, however, let us remember the point of training in the first place- to heighten competition performance. In this way, it is irrefutably mistaken to not seek to optimize the mechanical system of the human body.
Remember that any measurable deviation off of optimal comes at a cost. I contend that Hannah’s arm action is a significant deviation off of what is optimal and the longer it goes unresolved the more it will interfere with the optimization of her improvement (as talented as she already is).
Very good points James and makes sense what you are saying, however, the above comment is not fact, only a guesstimate. What is fact is that she is now running 11.99 and uninjured and improving. I’m just saying that the coach would need to be very careful in tinkering with biomechanics ( no matter how unorthodox they may seem) when the result of such tinkering is unknown.
Quick reply to this message Reply Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
Grooster, remember what is known, however, in terms of the implications of arm action in terms of preservation of momentum, thoracic rotation and its implications on counter hip rotation and increased horizontal displacement of the knee (Z axis) prior to (stepping down). While we don’t have exact quantities to assign to these factors we are all well aware of their existence. Thus, we may conclude that there is a clear mechanical disadvantage to sprinting with elbows fully extended throughout the amplitude. By association, we may acknowledge that the problem with internally rotating and extending the shoulder during front side action, such that the forearm ends up almost parallel to the horizontal axis in front, is markedly dysfunctional and worthy (and in my opinion absolutely essential) to amend.
Her arm action looks fine in this 200m race: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrpJStX_rsA . The winner’s form is actually a lot worse than hers. This suggests to me that they are already working on the arm action and that she’s able to control it when running at sub-maximal speed.
Still very much a problem Robin1. These are stills from the last few strides. 
Notice the magnitude of thoracic rotation along with the shoulder/arm variables I mentioned previously.
Form usually breaks down a bit over the last few strides of a 200m race. A little earlier on in the race her arm action looks better. While not yet perfect, I would say she has the cleanest arm action of all the athletes in this race.
Very good points again James,( and makes total sense in theory) though, I do not wish to get into a match to see who can use the biggest words, as I will come off second best, actually, I wouldn’t even make the grand final. My only point is that when you change something, you are going to get a different response. That could be a positive response and it could very well be a negative response as well. I think the coach would need to be very careful in changing something where there is still improvement being made.
Not sure if it was a typo but HC ran 10.99 not 11.99. To grooster’s point, in a way, she was able to progress from running high 11’s earlier in her career to now running sub 11 without fully cleaning certain things up. But I think she’s entered new territory where the battle is no longer about tenths but about hundredths and she’s less likely to get away with technical inefficiencies.