When it comes to tempo, times have a way of sorting themselves out, regardless of what times are suggested by the coach! Add grass to the mix and those times go straight out the window anyway. Most people can jog a lap and a half.
This tempo stuff is supporting means for the real meat and potatos here.
this is what gets me, what if you just feel like running 50% of your top speed instead of 75%. Personally for tempo on grass i find 60-75% tough as hell, boring and uncomfortable. I can do 70% easy but it feels like a hard workout, it never feels easy. Should one just jog it out with sprinting mechanics?
Track or grass, these questions are irrelevant in the long run. If you get to 10.3 doing this then great - I don’t see any reason why you wouldn’t. But the real question is that as the time drops what happens to the event? How does the event change and will this program still elicit the improvements you are looking for? Maybe if you are destined to run 10.2 it will do but 9.7? Think back to the “from right to left” argument and if you don’t agree with it come up with a model you do think makes sense and gives you a sense of direction.
Having tried a number of different approaches my perspective is as follows.
In most college programs the coach is asked to work with group of between 8-30 athletes. Hence you have to come up with a program that is best for the largest percentage of athletes and hopefully do the least harm. In fact the primary consideration should be doing as little harm as possible.
A speed based system can have incredible results, but I think it can also wreck many (most?) athletes. So for most coaches it is simply safer to go with an endurance based system. Take note that I haven’t used the S-to-L or L-to-S nomenclature. I think these are terms unique to the two structures that CF uses.
So in the NCAA system there are a few people who do use a speed based program such as Caryl Smith-Gilbert, but they are a small minority. There are also some I am sure that use one of CF’s two structures, though few would admit to it. The bulk come at it endurance first because they view it as safer, at least for them. Some of these coaches have honed it to a point where they are very effective, while others blow kids up on a regular basis. I think that this latter group would fail no matter what system they use.
tamfb, as a person who clearly has spoken to Vince Anderson I think that you have the info that provides the answer. He puts an emphasis on speed while also building a rational base of endurance and he rarely wrecks an athlete.
Your wrong about the BJ start, a couple yrs ago i had a athlete who was trying to do the BJ start and this is what Vince said:
trying to copy ben johnsons start is aok, if he keeps pushing when he makes first ground contact. johnson jumps out (which is good) and keeps pushing up the track until he achieves a vertical posture – that takes along time… alot of guys who jump out stop pushing when they hit the ground on stride one.
leaning out over the start line is a problem. a big problem. there is no way to properly distribute his weight if he is leaning out. necessarily, that means he has all his weight on his hands
his shouldres should be almost directly above his hands (vertically) when viewed from the sideat on your marks and set.
at set the shoulders may dislace maybe an inch forward (but no more
Keep in mind that I have heard Vince speak once and I’m operating off those notes.
It also seems like you’re tying to lure me into a response in order to contradict me.
If that’s what Vince said fine. Keep in mind i see a caveat in there, that being as long as the athlete “keeps pushing.” We both know for most people, especially kids, this isn’t going to happen.
Well like i said, this was a question i asked vince about a certain athlete i had, this athlete was very strong 500+ squatter so he wasnt any 17yr old kid.
It also seems like you’re tying to lure me into a response in order to contradict me. NO i wasnt, just wanted to hear your answer bc i was surprise by Vince answer.
