Quote from maple
A very wise elite Finnish coach once told me that the coaching process should be described as "slow hurrying" Do what you have to do to improve results quickly however do everything that you have to do to insure long term success.
So you are going to improve strength but you are going to do it in the context of good technique. You are going to recognize that it takes 10 years to make an elite thrower so you don't have to rush the process. You make training positive and fun because you don't want to burn out the athlete at age 21 when many are still 3-5 years away from physical maturation.
The last point is worth thinking about. How many 190 foot college discus throwers would reach Olympic levels if they kept throwing to age 26 or later. It would only take gains of 3-4 feet a year for 5 years to reach Olympic trials finals. Sure these would be good gains but they aren't impossible.
The problem is greed of course! I want to be good right away. I want my athlete to make NCAAs this year not next. The easiest way is to pile on the strength work and ignore technique and speed. Then at age 21 they are burnt out, stop improving and quit!
published at Feb 10th 2009 11:17am on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from champsdad
as a volunteer coach, i have been blessed with 3 state champion discus throwers. all have been undersized by most standards, 2 barely topped 180 lbs, but yet threw 184 and 189ft. they made the most of their strength training, but had excellent technique, and perhaps the best positive mental attitudes i've seen. last year my sophomore thrower also won state. good technique, bigger build than my 1st 2 guys, but yet his superior strength didn't help him as much as technique and PMA. mentally he won because he he didn't let the miserable conditions affect him. throwers need to be strong, no doubt, they must have technique. you can't slight one without harming the athlete. just my Joe Blue Collar analysis!
published at Feb 10th 2009 11:28am on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from Coach Mac
Really enjoyed the discussions and points so far. Its intresting that when the SQUAT exercise is discussed it always seems too evoke this wide range of opinions and emotions....grin
We do have a system in the U.S. that is $$$ based and is entirely too fast. There are a number of 60-ft high school putters that NEVER throw 60-feet in college. Most of the Elite College coaches were thinking they had to get our hammer senoirs to 75-m bye the time they graduate to allow them too transition into an open schedule.
There really is no club based (nationally funded program) that allows an athlete too be identified and then start as a pre-pubescent and DEVELOP into a world class athlete. I've had the privilege too watch Conor Mc Coughlah the last 3 1/2 years train at our facility and he is following more of the Utopian Model. He started playing with the turns as a 5-year old. Very little conventional lifitng the first couple of years, HOWEVER very SPECIFIC special strength work.
So I agree the quick-fix (too strong too soon) is a DEAD end however its such an uphill battle if the kid is a footballer. The need for a college schlorship normally has the good high school athlete being tugged between 3-sports and 3-coachesin the pursuit of the all-mighty full ride.
So we as college coaches get a variety of "training ages" walking in the door. From an age of zero (small high school--- no wt-room work----2-3 sport athlete) too other athletes that started serious lifting at age 12 and essentially is maxed out (gross strength) and does not see the value in SPECIAL Strength because they are a God in the traditional lifts.
So its the neophyte coach who thinks its as easy as getting them lifts UP...or just wait till he gets some technique ect. There is a reson these events are IN the Olympics. So the trainable aspects ( strength,flexibility and speed) can be acquired but should be a matrix blended in with two other factors kinsethetic's and the ability too compete! We feel these last two attributes seperates the average from the great thrower.
The gym-rat/throwers are always wondering WHEN are we going to max...and I point to the Tendo Unit and tell them you are maxing on every rep that is monitored on the readout. So I totaly agree that just about every athlete brings a different set of values to the coach and the monitoring has to be specific.
Roads to Rome: When Dr B mentioned that Youri learned HIS basic hammer technique in 3-months while Yuri Tamm took 5-years. The intresting fact is they both broke the WR so yes, not only are there a number of ways to get to Rome but apparently shorter and longer paths !
Have a GREAT Day !
published at Feb 10th 2009 12:40pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from Brad Reid
Oh well... another area where "if a little is good for you, taking ten times as much must be ten times as efficacious..."
On the continued disappointment of vitamins in longer termed studies:
published at Feb 10th 2009 10:13pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from Nick Garcia
I got an email that said Kumberness went 20 meters and some change with the rotation. I don't know if it was in competition though.
published at Feb 10th 2009 10:26pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from Greg Pilling
I have a question concerning the following quote from yesterday:
"When you make rapid gains in strength and mass, your nervous system gets re-wired to accomodate...meaning that the once great technique you taught your athlete in high school is now gone, and they have to re-learn their old technique or learn a new technique all over again."
I do not question the validity of the effect of strength on the CNS, but to use some examples of my own, I will illustrate what I question. I would consider myself to be a technically sound discus thrower who has had moderate success and has been able to see improvement every year of my throwing career. In my five years of high school (Ontario) I saw a progression of (1k) 50m, (1.6k) 48m, 49m, 51m, and 59m. I really didn't touch a weight in any of my years of high school except for the last in which I hit the weights pretty hard and saw an increase on my squat of 150lbs, which would be considered a large improvement. I did not however have any problems with my technique being lost and having to re-learn it. During that period. And again while in college my lifting results were pretty stagnant due to injury and illness until the last 18 months in which I have had some great strength increases (increase in max bench of 100lbs). My progression with the 2k has been 49m, 51m, 53m, and 57m. The only year that I have had non-typical improvement has been when I have had those big jumps in my strength levels. In my experience I have not noticed my technique being stunted at all by strength increases.
This leads my to conclude one of two things:
It is either that I was able to avoid the CNS issue by continuing to throw during the period of strength gain therefore not having a drastic change in strength from one throwing session to the next as if I had several months between throwing.
The idea of strength gains screwing up the technique of the thrower by altering the CNS in some way is either not supported by research or the research is not adequately correlated to throwing and is therefore a coaching wives tale.
Granted, these conclusions are based off of a weak subject pool (just myself) and could be invalid, but I would like to know if there is applicable research on the subject and I just got lucky or if it is something that I should be worrying about on a macro scale (beyond the immediate effect of heavy lifting on a CNS in the next few day) in my future coaching. I have always thought that you should look at the weaknesses of the throwing and place an emphasis on that. In most cases in America technique is more of a problem, and not AS MUCH strength levels.
Any questions, comments or concerns are welcome. I hope I'm not stepping on any toes, I just have that question looming in my mind.
published at Feb 10th 2009 11:24pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/
Quote from w8coach
I think tht Hilltopper's quote that has been used in a couple of posts has been taken out of context as I said in an earlier post. I don't think anyone on this board would dismiss the useful strength in the throws and deliberately not use the weigthroom to their athlete's advantage. The point is what is the most important piece of the equation here, just being strong or throwing with proper tech? If an athlete can't execute the movement properly, then I would say get them as strong as humanly possible in order to make up for tech deficiencies. If they have great tech, get them into the best useable, throwing strength possible. The debate will carry on I'm sure but it is important to not take a qoute from one person out of context to prove another person's point.
published at Feb 10th 2009 11:38pm on http://www.effortlessthrow.org/