All this makes for very interesting reading and of
course there is no right or wrong. One method or
another cannot ever really be proved beyond all
doubt to be the best or better, simply because
every single person will adapt differently to each
stimulus. Just because Bradley’s approach was
quite basic doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work just as
well today. I don’t really think we’ve come all that
far since then. The basics are still the same.
Speedball is just another (very effective) way of
producing a very very strong core and that was
probably lacking in some of the regimes pre-Bradley.
I also like the use of the heavy bag for the same reason.
It takes a lot of discipline to do a Bradley speedball
session PROPERLY and that’s probably where the
secret to it is.
Only very talented people break 10s so i think
it’s a little misleading to say that this training
doesn’t produce the very top level sprinters.
I wonder how someone like Asafa would go on
this type of training?
Just the thoughts of an interested observer!
RE: “But TODAY - the Bradley method is applied only (as far as I am aware) within a small group of pro runners in Australia and perhaps (not sure) in Scotland”
You have hit the nail on the head Sevo! And probably blows your argument out of the water.
You have conceded that only a handful of pro-running squads who invariably consist of average athletes with limited natural talent train with the Bradley method.
So how in hell do you expect them to be competitive at a ‘Golden League’ level? There is no sprint training program on earth that will transform a battler whether he be your average interclub athlete or a pro-runner into a 10.00s elite level sprinter.
As far as I know, none of us - myself, Jim Bradley, Neil King, Wilson Young, etc, have had an athlete of West African descent or an African American or the genuine gun who could run 10.6 at 16 years of age.
Look at the current sprinting landscape in Australia - who is delivering fast athletes on a regular basis? No-one, not even the institutes and academies of sport who have access to the best talent.
What about yourself Sevo - are you coaching anyone to sub 10.4 level? And if you are, were they already sub 10.4 before they joined you?
Bradley’s squad from the 60’s would wipe the floor with the current crop of Aussie sprinters.
George McNeil was genuine world class, he proved it by matching the likes of Warren Edmondson & Tommy Smith in the ITP series.
Wilson Young once stated that McNeil was better than Allan Wells (although it was said before Allan won the Olympic gold medal).
To say Bradley’s methods are not capable of producing an elite level sprinter is just absurd, when you consider how good McNeil and Wells were.
The reality is there is no sprint coach in Australia regularly turning out fast sprinters at the rate Jim Bradley has done in the past.
All I know is history says that it’s only a matter of time before it happens again.
Watch this space. 
PS: Charlie’s right of course any program in the hands of a bad coach is doomed to failure. If you don’t like Bradley’s methods then don’t use them; no-one’s forcing you to. I can’t see the point of saying they are archaic and won’t work when the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that if done properly the program can be very productive.
Like Youngy has said, there is no point in saying that Bradley/Youngy can’t produce sub 10.2x sprinters like S Franics/Mills/Smith, because we all know that genetics play a role in who gets to the start line in the Oly/WC Finals (The last Caucasian runner to make the Olympic Final was Wells 1980 (Bradley Trained), WC Final – Finnish runner Matic Osovnikar in 2005). There’s only a handful of Aussie runners who have run inside 10.20 and as Youngy has suggested, these runners often get pawned off to the institute coaches for ‘expert’ training.
It would be interesting to say the least if the current crop of elite Aussie sprinters took on JB methodology of training!
This history of the Bradley program suggests they completed this type of training since the poor weather conditions outside prevented them from training (rain/snow in the Scottish winter) and therefore JB devised a methodology which would strengthen and condition his athletes to be physically superior to other squads once the track preparation begun. The training is systematic and demanding and many on the ‘outside’ see it as a foolish method of training, however like Youngy says, those who knock the program have generally not participated in it or not followed it correctly, and therefore have not received the rewards on the track.
I don’t think it’s that established runners flock to JB or Youngy due to the success they have had or having, i think it’s more that runners on the outside look at the success these programs have, and the lack of success THEY are currently experiencing, and make a choice to move to one of these squads to learn another training method. Usually, these athletes have been under-achieving with their current coach or training group for several seasons on end, and then once put into a training environment which is systematic, brutal and physically demanding, they tend to fulfil some or if not all of their potential once the season starts.
Many ‘knockers’ choose not to embrace the JB program due the fact that science hasn’t endorsed ‘hitting a speedball’ and doing ‘bodyweight circuits’, but i would suspect if someone did conduct a study some of the findings which would result would include:
Increased Anaerobic Threshold
Increased VO2 Max
Increased Capillarisation
Fibre Type Transition
Increased Power Output
Increased Lean Muscle Mass
Decreased BF %
Increased RFD
Now, none of these are training adaptations which cannot be achieved through other training means, however i have seen them occur through the JB method and just because they haven’t been measured doesn’t mean they don’t occur.
Youngy’s results in South Australia speak for themselves!
Youngy
You have conceded that only a handful of pro-running squads who invariably consist of average athletes with limited natural talent train with the Bradley method.
I have not conceded anything Youngy. I stated obvious and that is if (big IF) the Bradley method was that good it would have had much bigger impact in international athletics not only throughout the 60’s but even today. Take for instance Bompa or Yuri Verkosansky. They also pioneered their methods aprox. during the same era as Bradley did. However, if the Bradley method was above average, to say the least, it would have been perhaps embraced by more coaches. This has NOTHING to do with the limited training facilities or talent you mentioned. Imagine now, if those pro athletes had embraced more advanced training methods rather then outdated method by Bradley, wouldn’t you think that they would have a better chance in succeeding?
I reckon they would. Instead, they keep on punching speed balls 
and running slow so they score a better mark.
So how in hell do you expect them to be competitive at a ‘Golden League’ level? There is no sprint training program on earth that will transform a battler whether he be your average interclub athlete or a pro-runner into a 10.00s elite level sprinter.
This is based on a wrong premise. See ,my comment above.
As far as I know, none of us - myself, Jim Bradley, Neil King, Wilson Young, etc, have had an athlete of West African descent or an African American or the genuine gun who could run 10.6 at 16 years of age.
So what?! I do not want to enter into African-Americans are more genetically predispositioned to sprint then others and similar myths. There has been a number of young 10.60-10.80 16 yo Caucasian runners in Australia over the years but they did not ultimately succeed because they were white but because of many other reasons, coaching being one of them.
Last year M. Turk - a 16yo has run 10.70. No, I do not coach him, I know of him. I think he has been coached by one of coaches with PRO background. Turk only started sprinting in October 2008 (soccer background), as I have been informed and in March 2009 has won under 18 title and was fastest under 18 sprinter in Australia (DOB 1992) He isn’t from the West Indies or the USA.
Look at the current sprinting landscape in Australia - who is delivering fast athletes on a regular basis? No-one, not even the institutes and academies of sport who have access to the best talent.
Would they have been delivering better results had they all embraced the Bradley method? Your insinuation or example, if you will, has nothing to do with this particular method, so I will skip it.
What about yourself Sevo - are you coaching anyone to sub 10.4 level? And if you are, were they already sub 10.4 before they joined you?
I have been coaching and when I feel like announcing my coaching contribution to the wonderful world of sprinting I promise CF forum will be the first place to find out. If I may add, I do not intend to coach anyone that has been coached by someone else for obvious reasons.
Bradley’s squad from the 60’s would wipe the floor with the current crop of Aussie sprinters.
I can not say anything on that as I never met or saw those guys running in the 60’s nor I think that there is any decent sprinter currently in Australia.
To say Bradley’s methods are not capable of producing an elite level sprinter is just absurd, when you consider how good McNeil and Wells were.
You keep repeating the same couple of names Youngy. It is obvious that the Bradley method is strength and conditioning program nothing more nothing less. A. Wells obviously was better suited to it as for instance Ben Johnson was better suited to lifting weights than Kim Collins.
PS: Charlie’s right of course any program in the hands of a bad coach is doomed to failure. If you don’t like Bradley’s methods then don’t use them; no-one’s forcing you to. I can’t see the point of saying they are archaic and won’t work when the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that if done properly the program can be very productive.
Youngy, by using the Bradley method ONLY there is NO chance that anyone could possibly produce a sub 10 sprinter regardless of (Scandinavian or West Indies) their origin If you happen to be the first one to achieve that I will be the first one to congratulate you and I will eat my own words.
And of course we all agree that in the hands of a bad coach any athlete is doomed even if they were following the best program ever created.
And BTW, instead of speed balls one could use boxing pads…the effect would be pretty much the same and the process much more quiet. I hate those bloody pros making all this noise in the gym where we train LOL
It’s like…mate we are about to start our season so next week we will do what good old Jim did…bloody speed balls will be smoking!!..and a week later here they come all geared up and ready to rock…yep, those bloody pro runners
Just teasing…
I could not have agreed more. I wanted to ask the same question in one of my previous replies to Youngy but because being busy with other stuff neglected to put my thoughts into the cyber world.
It is true that a particular training suits a particular individual. For instance I use a mixture of strength and conditioning (no particular coach) training structured to suit a particular athlete. I use Bompa’s periodisation templates and approach to certain extent. Also, I use CF’s methods in speed development and use his approach in structuring a plan for my 100 and 200m runners while I use C. Hart’s approach for 200/400m runners. For instance on tempo days I would always use Hart’s approach and on speed days CF’s. I have experimented with various other programs but found that generally the above named approach works better.
I have also used L-S but recently switched to S-L. However, I use weights with some athletes while with other athletes I rather introduce more plyos etc. Just depends on an individual. Their abilities are different therefore the programs are different.
I am open to suggestions and will progrssively update my strategy based on the latest and most appropriate stuff. The Bradley method would not fit in well with what I do nor I plan to coach pro runners but ultimately we may just come around to compete at the biggest meets just to kick some pro runner arse and collect some cash If we can, of course.
The reason I brought up the West African issue was not to suggest at all that caucasian sprinters are inferior but that the large majority of the world’s best sprinters have got West African heritage. That is a fact of life. And therefore if one of us who use speedball were able to access this population we might have a greater opportunity to coach Golden League athletes.
As I have said several times before you cannot continue to slag off at a training method, claiming it WILL never produce fast athletes when the evidence of the past shows that it has.
It’s like the holocaust deniers, continue to dispute something regardless of the evidence.
Sevo reminds me of a fellow in Adelaide who has continually bagged me and my training methods for the last 10 years.
At first it was I’d never have someone at the national level or could break 10.9.
When that happened it was never broken 10.8 or wear the Australian singlet.
Of course this season a 400m runner in my squad ran sub 10.8 a few times including 10.73. AND I had two athletes make Australian teams this year.
So now it’s “Youngy’s never had an Australian champion”
Every time he sets the bar - I jump over it.
So for his benefit - read what’s on this bloke’s singlet. So much for: “he’d never have an athlete wear the Aussie singlet”
The bloke in the photo has won the Bay Sheffield, the Burnie Gift, the Whyalla Gift, been 4th in a Bay Sheffield off a back mark and twice been the backmarker in a 400m Camden Classic final for 2nd and 3rd. He’s also won 4 SA state open titles including the 100/200/400 treble this season, won 3 Australian U/23 titles and been 4th in an open 400m national title. Before he did all that he was bowling cricket balls and when he burst on the scene in 2005, the chap I referred to earlier claimed he had no future.
Really Sevo, until you have formulated your own training methodology, put it into practice and produced something akin to an Allan Wells, Drew McMaster, George McNeil, Ricky Dunbar, Dave Walker, John Dinan, Steve Brimacombe etc, I reckon you lack genuine credibility to criticise the coaching methods of Jim Bradley.
If you turn out even half the coach he was, you would have done very well and better than the vast majority of sprint coaches in this country.
I’m no longer interested in discussing it. :rolleyes:
Youngy
In PEAK condition
ELITE sprinters - 9.69-10.20
Above average sprinters - 10.21-10.50
Average sprinters - 10.51-10.99
Wannabe sprinters - 11.00 - 11.50
Snails - 11.51+
claiming it WILL never produce fast athletes
I said - ELITE and you are putting “fast” athletes into my mouth. I did not say that!
At best the Bradley method (if implemented correctly) could produce - AVERAGE sprinters, and a few above average sprinters over 50 year period and Allan Wells!
There are MUCH better CURRENT methods that would help athletes achieve much faster results than the Bradley method. I consider this as free PR for Jimbo I am not trying to suggest you should stop using it but it is obvious ( I hate to repeat myself so many times) that this method is S&C method.
Youngy
No need to take away what you have publicly stated and then follow it up with something else.
Anyway be my guest.
Really Sevo, until you have formulated your own training methodology, put it into practice and produced something akin to an Allan Wells, Drew McMaster, George McNeil, Ricky Dunbar, Dave Walker, John Dinan, Steve Brimacombe etc, I reckon you lack genuine credibility to criticise the coaching methods of Jim Bradley.
I do not need to have credibility as a coach Youngy to realise which system is more comprehensive and which ISN’T. I do not need to have 20 national champions to realise which system is better suited to certain types of athletes and which isn’t. You are now acting just like that guy you mentioned. Don’t you realise that?
I do not have to have in fact any credibility to have the right to express my OWN opinion. And my OWN opinion is that the Bradley method is an inferior method to a vast number of existing superior methods. Should I repeat myself again? They can be lean, powerful and fit but ultimately there are very few that have ever made it to above average ranks. Anything over 10.50sec. I consider as the standard for Australian pro runners, and that’s exactly where they fit in. Face it.
How many school kids in the USA can run 10.50-10.90? More than Australian population? Well, there you go. It explains how fast 10.70 really is
I wonder if I asked one of my athletes if they have been training to run 10.70 - what would they say to me, or would I continue coaching them?
until you have formulated your own training methodology
My own? Why should I? Bompa, Verhoshansky, Francis and Hart have done it. All I need to do is mix it up a bit and get it ready for a particular athlete that runs in a particular event. I do not need to “invent” a “new” method putting my own name against it just to make myself more credible while saying that the Bradley method is rather limited and very much archaic. I do not need to be an inventor rather I remain to be a fairly good manager of already existing stuff.
Have you invented your own method? If not - well you can ask that question only when you do
Cheers and do not act like your mate.
As I said I’m no longer interested in debating the merits of Jim Bradley’s training methods.
You’ve got your opinions and sadly (not saying Sevo is a person of influence) while it’s shared by people of influence, the chances of someone using JB’s methods accessing the relative talent pool will continue to limit where it can go.
I know this from first hand experience.
So in my view it’s the negative attitudes towards the Jim Bradley training methods that limit the success not the methods themselves.
Youngy
So in my view it’s the negative attitudes towards JB that limit the success not the methods themselves.
How can I possibly have a negative attitude towards JB when I never ever met the guy?
I mate of mine has been working with his friend, who happens to be a scientist BUT NOT an oncologist, on a breakthrough method in curing cancer that the scientist claims to be revolutionary. The scientist does not have any credibility within the “brotherhood”, you know, those experts who have been charging chemotherapy at premium prices for decades. This new method is 97% more effective than anything available but because the scientist does not have the “credibility” the very first thing the brotherhood will do is $hit all over him because he isn’t the member
Why?
One - the brotherhood would make significantly less money because their chemo treatments would be significantly reduced, and
Two - it would prove that these guys knew jack about curing cancer something which directly hits their inflated egos. They couldn’t have possibly been wrong all these years, could they?
Good talking to you…
Hmmm now some of this is starting to not make
much sense but anyway. Let me spell it out the
way i’m thinking it. I would like to see Youngy train
Asafa using the Bradley methods. I’d bet he would
improve on what he has done. Of course
we will never know because as we have been
over endlessly in this debate, he hasn’t had the
top tier sprinters to try it with.
If this method can take valuable tenths off a 10.5
sprinter, who’s to say it wouldn’t also improve a
9.8 sprinter??? If these super elite sprinters
haven’t used this method before, it cannot be
argued that it doesn’t work!
Bolt,Gay,Powell,Chambers etc on this method - i’d like to see that!!
mate, opinions are like arseholes,everyone has one.Why the debate/attack on the Bradley program.Either use it or don’t.
This thread had better start getting less personal. Make your points but cut the crap.
Coincidentally there is a speedball article in the latest AT&FCA magazine - Modern ATHLETE & COACH, Volume 47, No. 3. July 2009.
On pages 8 & 9 it is written by Stuart Dempster and entitled:
Speedball
HIT THE BALL TO GET FASTER
The magazine is exclusive to members of the Australian Track & Field Coaches Association.
Not comprehensive but an interesting read nonetheless.
This is starting to remind me of the JAAA vs. USATF threads at T&FN, except without the 12x nested quotes.
This thread had better start getting less personal. Make your points but cut the crap.
Charlie,
I disagree with your decision to simply delete a scientific article that did not have anything to do with any personal attack towards anyone.
I have never met Youngy. I have heard just good things about him and this is NOT my personal attack on him nor his squad. I do not know these people.
If you can not tolerate a vigorous debate tell me and I will just read the stuff on this forum but without my active participation. This just shows how some people are not cut for the cyber world or debates.
In that particular article, which I am happy to provide again, none of active pro runners have been mentioned. It is a well known fact and is well documented that these things have happened in pro running.
This thread is DIRECTLY related to that subject and if you can not see it, ask and I will paraphrase it.
If you are going to protect some and prevent others from talking openly as adults, well it just shows a few things about you. I am not a kid nor I am in need of a papa. I do respect you as a coach but honestly you seem to have a lot less feeling for online moderation
No harm intended, just sharing my opinion with the WWW.
Cheers.
P.S. I have been participating in online discussion forums on various subjects since 1996. I am currently an administrator on 5 online forums and have been moderating on dozens of other forums since 1996. As an administrator, I make sure my moderators understand what their duties are and when they should or should not get involved in discussions. The following simple policy seems to work - if you are an admin or a mod and if you decide to participate in a discussion DO NOT use your powers to CONTROL that particular discussion because it can get personal and emotional, get other mods to moderate it and you consider yourself only as a member. These are basic online rules that have been applied and seem to be working OK in many communities. Also, from administrative point of view it is important that online boards are active, that users or members contribute in various ways. Unless this forum is closely related to the marketing purposes of CF online shop, I fail to understand why seemingly interesting scientific article would be simply deleted. Finally, I do not see written rules that we need to comply with…can you write them?
Hi Youngy
On pages 8 & 9 it is written by Stuart Dempster and entitled:
Speedball
HIT THE BALL TO GET FASTER
I will endevour to read it, thank you. I am sure you know how to handle a debate and am sure that you do not need a preferential treatment from the CF protective services.
Can we make this bit clear - I DO NOT have anything against you nor anyone from your squad or anyone on this forum. My participation in this discussion is not a personal attack on you nor anyone you coach.
I hope this is clear because there are people who obviously need to undertake a course that would help them understand a simple fact - we do not have video or audio effects in cyber debates and each word needs to be read carefully and comprehensively.
Now, use of a speed ball is JB’s signature accessory, however I am not addressing only that aspect but a few other aspects including the use of a speed ball.
Use of a speed ball is a good thing during GPP and generally for conditioning but it alone does not produce top sprinters.
There is a broad spectrum of training methods applied not only by JB but by many other pro coaches that ultimately led to stagnation and speed limitation of many pro sprinters in Australia and perhaps wherever pro running takes place.
For instance - dead running. I am sure you are familiar with this term much more than I am and you would have a wealth of info in your personal database about this.
The fact is that pro runners - and I am limiting my discussion only to pro runners because we are indeed talking about the Bradley method which has been embraced mostly by pro runners - not necessarily train to run fast in every single race.
Preparations and motifs of sprinters in pro running are highly questionable.
I am happy to expand on this subject and share my opinion on why only A. Wells has achieved greater results than any other sprinter who used the Bradley method, if I am permitted to speak out.
I hope this forum is not a forum where whimps congregate but rather decent adults and teenagers who are allowed to share their opinions freely.
I understand why certain subjects are “a no-no” on this forum but this kind of topic has nothing to do with it nor it is linked to Mr. Administrator in any way.
I hope you understand and accept my apology if I have offended you in any way.
We can agree to disagree.
In case they don’t improve?..
Just teasing…
This thread is entitled “Questions about Allan Wells” and up until recently focussed on the training Allan utilised to become a very successful sprinter, which was inspired by the methods developed by Jim Bradley.
It was about the physical preparation of sprinters using the methods successfully applied by Allan.
Until he who calls himself Sevascrator decided to change the focus, it had nothing at all to do with cheating & running dead.
To post items about cheating & dead running on this thread mischeviously infers that the training methods used by Wells and Bradley were somehow related to cheating.
Jim Bradley NEVER encouraged athletes to run dead. And his training - as applied by him and others such as Wilson Young & Neil King did not lead to stagnation & speed limitation. On the contrary most athletes under these coaches improved from year to year. That is well documented and to suggest otherwise is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. In fact I regard it reprehensible and I personally find it very insulting and offensive.
As for the following:
“For instance - dead running. I am sure you are familiar with this term much more than I am and you would have a wealth of info in your personal database about this.”
I DO NOT have a wealth of information about dead running on some some data base. On the contrary I learned from Jim Bradley that dead running is 100% wrong and cheating and hence do not subscribe to it. Again I find it insulting that it is inferred I employ non-trying as a means of achieving success. This so called data base simply does not exist other than in your imagination.
Finally at no stage have I sought preferential treatment from Charlie Francis nor did I complain or request that posts be deleted.
Charlie Francis runs his website the way he sees fit and respectfully I’m in no position to tell him how it should be monitored.
Sadly not all of us are willing to accept that posting on this forum is a privelege…it is not a god given right.