Yea and Bud Winter is pure old school. From Bud’s book:
"The training schedule is presented because it has for many years proved effective in developing top flight United States sprinters. The philosophy behind it is as follows:
You will use an overdistance approach
You will go from quantity to quality
You will build a foundation of stamina and then develop speed gradually. This will prevent injury."
need I go on?
preparation
“The first two weeks you are going to get in condition gradually by using the law of partial recovery. You will start by jogging slowly on soft grass and continue until you feel the first sign of fatigue”… “Increase your work time until you have worked an hour’s time walking and jogging.”
“Third week
Mon: Stride 440, no speed, just stride, repeat
Tue: Stride 4x220 walk 220
Wed: run 880
Thur: run 15min without stopping. pick up the pace every 2 minutes
Fri: 3x300 strides w/ 5min rest
Sat: 2x880 w/ 20min rest”
“Inseason
Mon: 6 to 8 starts, long windsprints (6 to 8 laps)
Tue: starts, 4x220 (out fast- float- kick)
Wed: form work, 2x60 10min rest, 1x160 rest 15min, 1x300”
Thur: windsprint warmup, starts 3-4, 3x110
Fri: rest
Sat: compete"
I am sick of typing. This is old school. Do we know anything about Jamaican’s training? They say it’s Bud Winter (this ^^^) is Bud Winter.
The point being made here is that the training is organised and planned. Glen Mills certainly hasn’t just lifted the training program of Bud winters thats for sure and neither has Francis. Their training is certainly not “old school”.
We do know that they train Long-to-short, we know that they place a premium on technique. We know that they do a lot of hill work. What you are looking for is a week-by-week break down and no doubt a lot of people are now because of the 9.69 performance. Mills is aware of the relaxation drills that Winters developed.
This is typical of many on this site, you take one year where the training was short to long and attribute JUST that one year to the performance. What about the four or five year previous. What about the year-on-year development? One year out of seven or eight years of previous long-to-short doesn’t make a program short-to-long overall. Take it or leave it misinformation or what ever you may call it think for yourself and figure it out. CF has alluded to the fact that conditioning alone can knock off tenths. A long-to-short program is likely to be more of a conditioning program.
We seem to know Glen Mills uses (some) speed from day1. And Charlie seems to be of the opinion that their higher intensity stuff is short to long. But we also know that Mills uses 400 prep work, and that Franno seems to use 300s every week from Day 1 apparently.
So the question is, what role should (can) 400m overdistance (presumably more intensity than tempo) have in short to long?
Does the approach only work if you do NOT do heavy weights for indoors?
The training discussion is fin bs. IT NEVER ENDS.
Everyone runs, lifts some free weights, progressive gradual overload, rinse and repeat. Your body is not a computer. Precise differences between athletes programs are irrelevant. Everyones training is pretty much the same.
If coaching is the most important factor, why didn’t Charlie’s guys go under 20 officially and Bolt did when he was 16 and not finished with puberty?
Charlie is a great coach with lots of success and he had talented athletes as well.
And for the last time, Kim Collins spent most of his development in the US at one of the original sprint powerhouses–TCU.
Did you see the videos they had of Asafa lifting last night? He could barely do a freakin lunge or even what seemed to be a “deadlift” (not sure what it was really). Was that just supposed to be smoke in mirrors?
They call it long to short- but is it? The long part of Asafa’s training is 300s in 37. That just doesn’t explain much and certainly is no factor compared to the short hills and short speed. Likewise Bolt’s comments of "moving up to 200m training after his WR in the 100.
Does that sound like L-to-S?
He did have weights in his hands for the lunges and you have no idea what rep number he was on for either of these exercises. You honestly think one of the fastest people ever can’t do a lunge? Come on.
You completely misunderstood the point clearly because I am talking about how he was doing them, not the ease/strength/etc. It clearly, along with the “deadlift”, wasn’t a movement that was exactly coached in a manner that most would consider safe or technically sound. I’m far from a form nazi, but when we’re giving credit that these guys are somehow taking into consideration and purposely manipulating such varying volumes/intensities/densities in every aspect of the training and periodizing the surfaces used, I would expect they’d at least be able to teach basic movements.
Dig what deeper? I am on the site because Charlie and others like Pierre-Jean provide great information, analysis, and products. What bothers me about this is that whenever an athlete or group is all of a sudden great, we’re being led to believe it is because of something they’re doing in training that’s making them great and neglecting the biggest factors in success-talent, support, and apparently wild yams and cullaloo juice because I was told by some Jamaicans that is part of the secret to Usain’s and Asafa’s success.
My point was that if we’re going to say coaching is the most important thing to success, does that make the coach of the fastest person ever the best coach? If Bolt grew up in the same neighborhood as John Davies, would John Davies be the great coach we speak of?
I was sloppy with this post. One in one trillionith odds. Gold medal.
Since Im just a guy from boston, like most people here, I don’t really give a crap about what people think about me or my opinions. And like most people here, I am not afraid to voice my opinions.
And don’t get mad at me. I wasn’t the one who figured out this stat. Write SI or the sociologists who figure this crap out. I really don’t care personally, I’m never going to win a gold medal and thats all I know.
