It would make the premise(s) which you base your hypothesis on false, so yes, it would make it false since it is by definition on a false premise.
Thanks PJ. That clears alot up.
That’s a pretty strong correlation. I’d be curious how do the british sprinters ratios hold up? They are on the brink of sub 10.
That’s a strong negative correlation. -0.97 means the longest the stride length, the shorter the stride frequency, and vice-versa.
pierrejean,
What do you feel is the value, from an influence on program design standpoint, of the SL/BH ratio?
The paradox is whereas SL and SF have negative relationship, both increase with higher running speed level of performance.
Therefore, from a program design standpoint, one should observe and analyse the current situation for a given athlete and set goals. SL and SF vary over the course of 100m race, and are improved at different levels. However, SF improvement should be geared toward shorter ground contacts as poor and good performers have similar flight time but different ground contact times.
Individualised plans are needed, because you can’t build an athlete from a model, Gatlin has a ratio of 1.46 and Montgomery 1.28, that’s a huge difference for a same running speed, and those extreme numbers are not a good guide for monitoring a developping athlete. Montgomery only improved his SF over the years, while Gatlin improved both SF and SL (mostly SL though). These obervations are not enough to guide the coach.
The fear is always a misunderstanding of what’s going on with the top guy.
In this case, some of the British coaches wanted to emulate Bolt’s stride length as the “answer”, thinking Williamson should go to 41 strides when he’s much shorter than Bolt. That just will never work out well and the farther into the race you go, the worse it will get, hence better 60m than 100m results for W.
The best bet generally is the use a program that works on all aspects without predetermination and let things sort themselves out for the individual, as PJ says.
It seems like there is always a tendency to analyze the biomechanics of the top performers and then retroactively use that as the basis for a deliberate training plan for other athletes, despite the fact the training program of that top performer was not self-consciously designed with those biomechanical parameters in mind, that’s simply what fell into place as a result of properly progressed training and the athlete’s body structure.