pakewi
January 10, 2009, 6:08am
44
Jim’ Bradley’s theories on speedball (speedbag in USA) training for sprinters does include the notion that hitting the ball in excess of 4.5 hits per second (some up to 6 hits per second) allows the body to get use to driving the muscles in the shoulder girdle (especially the back) in a cycling motion that can be translated to the track.
The only reason there is no scientific evidence to support Jim’s training methodology, is that no university or institute has conducted an actual scientific test.
The anecdotal evidence though is irrefutable, as Bradley himself improved dozens of athletes, firstly in Scotland in the `1960’s to 1971 and later in Australia from 1988 through the 2000 and is the most successful coach in professional running history (Australia/Scotland).
His first athlete who Jim experimented on with his theories (1957 to 1966) couldn’t break 11s (He ran 11.4 in an amateur club meet when Jim first saw him run) for 100 yards, but over a 9 year period, improved every year until he could cover the distance in 9.4s. The same athlete then moved to Australia and amazed the Aussies with Gift wins off scratch, covering the 130 yard distance in around 12.1s.
Wilson Young (under Jim Bradley) improved considerably, winning the famous Powderhall New Year Sprint in 1971 before embarking on a successful coaching career, mainly in the professionnal ranks, but later proved highly successful in the amateurs with runners like Allan Wells and Drew McMaster (10.34/20.77).
Jim, btw, is a great admirer of Charlie’s track program with the emphasis on short distances of 60’s and 80’s at high intensity; and whilst not exactly the same, there are subtle similarities, especially the during the comp & taper phase.
One other point, anyone adopting the use of speedball for the first time needs to be patient. The ability to get the ball up to over the 300 hits per 3 min round (600 hits for both hands) to where the benefits start to materialise takes time.
Train the brain,the body will follow. In ways more complex than the usual general to specific and skill tansfer approaches allow to understand today.
Science nowadays limits itself right in the way studies are set up,and even further in the filtering processes of the results obtained.
Evidence based results often point a direction,which as often is resisted and filtered out,for the sake of protection geared towards survival of individuals,individual theories,individual paths to results.
Results,once produced,belong to the world.Eventually benefits will start materialising anyway,but,as correctly stated: it takes time.