TN1965 wrote:Here are two things I don't understand.
1. If coaches cannot / should not change a runner's "natural" form, does that hold true for sprinters as well?
2. If the argument is "inefficient forms worked for so-and-so (fill in your favorite past runner)" why should we believe they could not have possibly run faster with better forms?
The problem, in distance running, is what is a better form. I remember one Jack Daniels study where they showed videos to distance coaches of various runners and have them guess which had the most economical form. And most of the coaches were completely wrong. Some runners who looked wrong were very economical and some who looked great were not.
The key in running is learning to relax while going fast. And that pretty much comes from training long and fast.
Conor Dary wrote: The problem, in distance running, is what is a better form. I remember one Jack Daniels study where they showed videos to distance coaches of various runners and have them guess which had the most economical form. And most of the coaches were completely wrong. Some runners who looked wrong were very economical and some who looked great were not.
I suspect this is because most distance coaches have poor understanding of running forms. And the reason for that is they were not taught about running forms when they were young runners.
What Salazar is trying to do is to break up this bad cycle. When he started coaching, one of the first people he consulted was Tom Tellez. Tellez told him something like "running fast is running fast no matter what the distance is."
In September, Salazar was watching a YouTube video of Cain’s national high school record performance of 4:11.02 in the 1500m at the IAAF World Junior Championships in Barcelona, where she finished sixth despite running against women up to three years older than her and noticed flaws in her running mechanics: she tends to hunch her shoulders
Conor Dary wrote: The problem, in distance running, is what is a better form. I remember one Jack Daniels study where they showed videos to distance coaches of various runners and have them guess which had the most economical form. And most of the coaches were completely wrong. Some runners who looked wrong were very economical and some who looked great were not.
I suspect this is because most distance coaches have poor understanding of running forms. And the reason for that is they were not taught about running forms when they were young runners.
I think Daniels is smart enough to design an experiment to determine how difficult it is to figure what is correct running technique, rather than how dumb coaches are.
As for Salazar, I was in Eugene when he was a star, both at UofO and AW, and his form was an occasional topic of discussion. Dellinger was quoted as talking to sprint coaches, etc. about getting Alberto faster. In fact Dellinger had a video, that TandFnews peddled in a series, that covered distance technique. And for all of that Salazar's form changed very little over the years.
I would like to add, I think there are a lot of good drills that runners can do that improve your economy: high step drills, etc. But only to a certain limit.
Of course, some coaches think with just a change of technique anything is possible. Even a 2 hour marathon...
This discussion has just reminded me that of all of the great runners in the past 20 years, the worse form had to be Paula Radcliffe. And she had some very good advisors, whom I knew, and her form changed only a bit over the years, even though she worked at it. When she first started running on a top level about 20 years ago, her head use to rotate so much I thought it was going to fall off. It got better, but no one would have ever called it pretty. But 2:15 is still the WR and most likely will be for quite a while.
And then there was Murray Halberg who had a withered left arm and yet still won the 1960 Olympic 5000.
It's not all about looking good. What look like flaws in running form are often sypmptoms pointing to deeper weaknesses and imbalances that can impact things like an athlete's ability to properly balance, generate maximum power, handle years of high volume, etc. When thoughtful coaches, physical therapists and trainers observe biomechanics they are looking at what those movements may indicate about those unseen forces. Of course, when it comes time to kick, it helps to know how to sprint, and there are certainly widely accepted principles about body dynamics and positioning there. Being efficient and fast for 4,600 meters is not the same thing being efficient and fast for the final 400.
ExCoastRanger wrote:It's not all about looking good. What look like flaws in running form are often sypmptoms pointing to deeper weaknesses and imbalances that can impact things like an athlete's ability to properly balance, generate maximum power, handle years of high volume, etc. When thoughtful coaches, physical therapists and trainers observe biomechanics they are looking at what those movements may indicate about those unseen forces.
You can point out flaws all day. Coe had wingy arms, Cram feet turned out,etc. Ryun's head rotated, etc. But there is only so much change you can do.
And I am sure there are lots of people who will charge an arm and a leg to make you look awesome, but that usually is about it.
I finally want to add, I have known a lot of world class distance runners over the years, from various countries in various cities, men and women, with all sorts of running technique. And the only commonality I have discovered to run faster is do a lot of miles, and do a lot of speed work.
Conor Dary wrote:You can point out flaws all day. Coe had wingy arms, Cram feet turned out,etc. Ryun's head rotated, etc. But there is only so much change you can do.
And I am sure there are lots of people who will charge an arm and a leg to make you look awesome, but that usually is about it.
Pointing out flaws is one thing. Knowing what they mean -- if they mean anything -- is another. A form critic watching me run these days might think my left arm swing is flawed, looks bad and try to fix it. A knowledgeable coach might pick up that the whacky arm swing is a result of tightness and imbalance in my left hip and glute, which actually impacts the sequence in which my glutes and hamstrings fire, throws my stride off balance and results in a different foot plant than my right side. Those are things related to form -- but not necessarily the form itself -- which have a real bearing on health and performance.
“Biomechanics is the most important thing... We have facilities that allow us to measure an athlete’s ground contact time, power off each foot, stride length. With that data we can help our physios and orthopedists correct any imbalances. I’ve seen an athlete with a 6% power difference from one side to the next pare that down to 1% over a six week period. You get people symmetrical, and it’s like a well-oiled machine. And Galen is completely symmetrical, to 1/10,000th from one side to the next.”
“Biomechanics is the most important thing... We have facilities that allow us to measure an athlete’s ground contact time, power off each foot, stride length. With that data we can help our physios and orthopedists correct any imbalances. I’ve seen an athlete with a 6% power difference from one side to the next pare that down to 1% over a six week period. You get people symmetrical, and it’s like a well-oiled machine. And Galen is completely symmetrical, to 1/10,000th from one side to the next.”
“Biomechanics is the most important thing... We have facilities that allow us to measure an athlete’s ground contact time, power off each foot, stride length. With that data we can help our physios and orthopedists correct any imbalances. I’ve seen an athlete with a 6% power difference from one side to the next pare that down to 1% over a six week period. You get people symmetrical, and it’s like a well-oiled machine. And Galen is completely symmetrical, to 1/10,000th from one side to the next.”
interesting post, salazar has said "we got her on a strengthening. muscular realignment program, plus stretching and flexibility to loosen upher back, thats bascically the only thing we need to work on, her footstrike and lower body mecanics are actucally, very, very good"
based on the toni reavis quote from above, i would think cain was tested in the mnner rupp was tested
