techniques August 2022

Contents Volume 16 Number 1 / August 2022

28

6 12 IN EVERY ISSUE

4

USTFCCCA Presidents

12 The Wind-Unwind Sequence Torsion angles in discus throwing BY DR. ANDREAS MAHERAS

AWARDS

44 Collegiate Athlete Hall of Fame 46 2022 National Outdoor Track & Field Athletes and Coaches of the Year FEATURES

6

Rethinking Improvement How it changes and how to do more of it

18 Effort-Based Phase Training Coaching distance runners to balance exertion & recovery BY SCOTT LOREK

28 Hurdle Rhythms Training high-velocity hurdling through timing, technique and strategy BY MIKE THORSON

ON THE COVER: MERCY CHELANGAT OF ALABAMA CAPTURED THE 10,000 METER TITLE AT THE 2022 NCAA DIVISION I OUTDOOR CHAMPIONSHIPS IN EUGENE, OREGON. PHOTOGRAPH BY KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

BY STEPHEN LANE

AUGUST 2022 techniques

1

2

techniques AUGUST 2022

USTFCCCA PRESIDENT

LEROY BURRELL PUBLISHER Sam Seemes

USTFCCCA President Leroy Burrell is the Head Men’s and Women’s Track & Field Coach at the Auburn University. Leroy can be reached at lrb0054@auburn.edu

DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS Dave Svoboda MEMBERSHIP SERVICES Mary McInnis, Kelsey Nemeth, Kristina Taylor, Dave Svoboda, Adrian Wilson

DIVISION PRESIDENTS

NCAA DIVISION I

DAVID SHOEHALTER Track & Field David Shoehalter is the Director of Track & Field and Cross Country at Yale University. David can be reached at david. shoehalter@yale.edu

Kevin Sullivan is the Director of Track and Field and Cross Country at the University of Michigan. Kevin can be reached at krsully@ umich.edu

PHOTOGRAPHER Kirby Lee EDITORIAL BOARD Tommy Badon, Scott Christensen, Todd Lane, Derek Yush

NCAA DIVISION III

NCAA DIVISION II

ART DIRECTOR Tiffani Reding Amedeo

DANA SCHWARTING Track & Field

TORREY OLSON Cross Country

Dana Schwarting is the Head Men’s and Women’s Track & Field Coach at Lewis College. Dana can be reached at schwarda@ lewisu.edu

Torrey Olson is the Head Track & Field Coach at California State University-San Marcos. Torrey can be reached at tolson@csusm.edu

KENNETH COX Track & Field Kenneth Cox is the Head Cross Country and Track & Field Coach at Birmingham-Southern College. Kenneth can be reached at kcox@bsc.edu

NAIA

Mike Collins is the Head Men’s and Women’s Cross Country and Track & Field Coach at LewisClark State College. Mike can be reached at mcollins@lcsc.edu

NJCAA

DEE BROWN Track & Field

techniques AUGUST 2022

PUBLISHED BY Renaissance Publishing LLC 110 Veterans Memorial Blvd., Suite 123, Metairie, LA 70005 (504) 828-1380 myneworleans.com

MIKE COLLINS Track & Field

4

KEVIN SULLIVAN Cross Country

COMMUNICATIONS Lauren Ellsworth, Tom Lewis, Tyler Mayforth, Howard Willman

Dee Brown is the Director of Track and Field and Cross Country at Iowa Central CC. Dee can be reached at brown_dee@iowacentral.edu

MATTHEW BARREAU Cross Country Matthew Barreau is the Head Men’s and Women’s Cross Country Coach at Lewis and Clark College. Matthew can be reached at barreau@lclark.edu

USTFCCCA National Office 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1750 New Orleans, LA 70163 Phone: 504-599-8900 Website: ustfccca.org

RYAN SOMMERS Cross Country Ryan Sommers is the Head Men’s and Women’s Cross Country Coach at Bethel (Ind.). Ryan can be reached at ryan.sommers@bethelcollege.edu

DON COX Cross Country Don Cox is the Head Cross Country and Track & Field Coach at Cuyahoga CC. Don can be reached at donald. cox@tri-c.edu

If you would like to submit content for, or advertise your business in Techniques, please contact 504-599-8906 or techniques@ustfccca.org. Techniques (ISSN 1939-3849) is published quarterly in February, May, August and November by the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association. Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any manner, in whole or in part, without the permission of the publisher. techniques is not responsible for unsolicited manuscripts, photos and artwork even if accompanied by a self-addressed stamped envelope. The opinions expressed in techniques are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the magazines’ managers or owners. Periodical Postage Paid at New Orleans La and Additional Entry Offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to: USTFCCCA, PO Box 55969, Metairie, LA 70055-5969.

AUGUST 2022 techniques

5

Rethinking Improvement How it changes and how to do more of it

6

techniques AUGUST 2022

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

E

arly on, most runners learn the difference between winning and success. Few athletes will ever win titles, or even be contenders. For most, just getting better each season is the win, the simple and beautiful goal at the heart of the sport. Simple, at least, in one sense: times are as objective an indicator as one could hope for—as the saying goes, the stopwatch doesn’t lie. However, not all improvement is created equal: for beginning athletes, gains tend to come in big chunks, but the faster one gets, the harder it is to keep getting faster. The way we think about improvement should change accordingly. Certainly, all improvement is worth celebrating, and for good reason. Most Improved Athlete awards are a staple of teams at all levels. However, we tend to recognize the large improvements by developing athletes, when the small gains by more accomplished runners are often more difficult to achieve. If we can quantify exactly how much harder it is to keep getting faster, we can help athletes better understand and appreciate those smaller gains. Further, we can then identify and celebrate the athletes who are best able to continue improving even as they get faster—a different way to think about Most Improved. Finally, we can seek to learn from these athletes: how are they able to keep getting better when their peers start to level off? And what can they teach us about the nature of improvement itself? In Part One of this essay, we will do the quantifying—a deep statistical dive into improvement rates. In Part Two, we will turn from the statistical to the anecdotal – and see what separates the athletes who keep improving from the rest. (Spoiler alert: it’s not the training…)

AUGUST 2022 techniques

7

RETHINKING IMPROVEMENT

given how fast she’s running now. For example, in the years between 2016 and 2021, a female athlete with a best time of 17:00 in the 5000m in a given season typically improved about 1.2% the following year—roughly 12 seconds. But an athlete who ran 16:30 typically improved only by 0.01%, or less than a second. (For reasons detailed below, these improvement rates are best applied only to the specific years between 2016-2021.) Of course, “typical” and “expected” are dangerous terms to use in running—every athlete’s development is a matter of individual circumstance. Further, there is a risk that the expected improvement rate becomes either an albatross or an anchor—something that discourages runners when they don’t hit it, or limits runners’ aspirations by suggesting they can only realistically expect to improve a certain amount. But quantifying expected improvement rates is useful in two ways: first, it can help athletes appreciate just how rare and difficult even small improvements become. If our hypothetical 16:30 runner improves to 16:28 in the following year, she has cause to feel pretty good about her season, even if a two-second PR doesn’t feel like much. Secondly, as we will do in Part 2, we should focus less on the typical, and more on the exceptional: that is, we should be asking how to emulate the success of the athletes who improve much more than expected. But before we get to the athletes, there is much to learn from the data. And before we get to the data, it is important to address its limitations:

PART ONE: A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF IMPROVEMENT IN THE DISTANCE EVENTS To measure how improvement rates change as athletes get faster, I analyzed thousands of performances in six outdoor track events—the men’s and women’s 1500m, 8

techniques AUGUST 2022

5000m, and 10,000m—over the years from 2016-2021. More specifically, I looked at the relationship between current performance and expected improvement—that is, I used the data to tell us how much faster we might expect an athlete to run in the coming year,

NOTES ABOUT THE DATA: The data comes from TFRRS.org—specifically, its compilation of the top 500 marks in each event across all college divisions. I started with the top 500 lists for the 2021 outdoor season, and worked backwards through the lists for 2019, 2018, 2017 and 2016. I then used the season-by-season progression for each athlete who made one of those lists to make sure that I had accurate marks for each year for those athletes between 2016 and 2021. Although this process yielded a very robust dataset, it is important to note the following: First, athletes on the top-500 list do not comprise a random or representative sample. There are over 60,000 athletes competing in collegiate track and field in a given

season; we are looking at data from only a small sliver of them. Second, we don’t know as much as we’d like about the athletes’ times before they came to college. Reporting data for high school competition is spotty—not every athlete’s performances are recorded, and it is difficult to tell if the available data truly represents an athlete’s best marks in high school. Although it would be useful to use high school times as a baseline for studying improvement in college, we don’t have the data to do so. Third, while it is natural to wonder, the data can’t yet tell us if particular programs are better at developing athletes. There’s too much noise over short time horizons, and over longer horizons, coaching turnover becomes a limiting factor. Fourth, runners who completed their eligibility in 2021 ran in two separate eras; their careers were anything but typical. The COVID era was disruptive in so many ways— some athletes were able to continue training effectively, but others could not; some athletes returned for another year of eligibility, others did not; some runners prioritized the “2020” cross-country season (which ended March 2021), while others

focused more on track. Moreover, the arrival of superspikes en masse, between 2019 and 2021, has created a new normal in distance running: to go back to our hypothetical 17:00 and 16:30 runners once again, the expected improvement rates are probably quite different for the years 2021 and after than they were for the previous era. For example, from 2016-19, a time of 16:30 ranked somewhere between 140th and 162nd; in 2021, it ranked 219th, and in 2022, 228th. A time of 17:00 ranked reliably in the mid-300s until 2021, when it dropped to 455—and it didn’t even make the top 500 in 2022. With more years of data, our expected improvement model will accurately reflect the impact of these developments. But even as our concept of what “fast” is changes, the general reality is likely to remain the same: as runners get faster, improvement rates will slow down. THE BIG PICTURE: CONVERGENCE Despite the limitations, the data still has much to tell us about improvement. To get a general picture of improvement rates over the course of a career, I divided athletes into three cohorts based on their first-year times. As expected, the athletes who started out

the slowest (cohort 3) had bigger average improvement rates in each successive year. The average yearly improvement for the athletes who start in that slowest cohort is close to 3%; for the fastest cohort, it is under 1%. When we break down the data by event (figures 2a-f), we see that the different improvement rates result in a convergence of times—runners in the slowest cohort catch up to their faster peers. In year one, across all events, the difference between median times of the fastest and slowest cohorts is 10%; by year four, it is only three percent. This is what we might expect, if developmental athletes tend to improve by bigger chunks than more developed athletes, and it highlights the reality that it is much harder for athletes who are already near the top of their events to continue to make big gains. HOW EXPECTED IMPROVEMENT RATES CHANGE IN EACH EVENT: An event-by-event, performance-by-performance analysis can help show exactly how much harder. Here, I calculated the year-over-year improvement, in percentage terms, every occurrence of an athlete running the event in successive years. I then

AUGUST 2022 techniques

9

RETHINKING IMPROVEMENT

improvement for times in the top 5% across all events was –0.81%, compared to 1.01% for the median time. It is worth emphasizing again that what was once considered fast in college running is no longer—our marker for the top 5% in the women’s 1500m, 4:17.49, would be 76th on the 2022 list, or just outside the top 15%; the median time in 2022 was 4:24.23, five seconds faster than the years 2016-2021. Although it is possible that the remarkable, across-the-board drop in times is only a blip (and statistically speaking, we need a few more years of data to draw any conclusions), it seems that we have entered a new era. But again, it is highly likely that even if performance levels in the years ahead are similar to 2022, the relationship between very fast times and improvement rates will be similar to what it is now: athletes who post a top 5% time in a given year will probably still be more likely to run slower the next year. (But again, we’ll want more data to be sure.) There may be many reasons why we see a negative expected improvement rate for athletes who post especially fast times—certainly, this is a question worthy of greater investigation. Perhaps it is simply due to the un-repeatability of the exceptional circumstances—the right race, right pacing, right fitness, right physical health, right mental state, right weather, right time of year—that all had to come together for an athlete to run a truly exceptional time in the first place. It may be unreasonable to expect the extraordinary to be repeatable; however, a better way to frame this question is to ask what it takes to repeat the extraordinary, or even improve upon it: If, statistically speaking, the typical athlete who posts a top-5% time runs slower the next season, what can one do to be among those few who do get faster? The answers to that question may be as varied as the athletes who ask it. But in Part 2, we will look at those who were able to keep getting faster, and see if there are any common threads among their answers. measured the relationship between the time in year 1 and the percentage improvement to year 2. This calculation yields an expected improvement curve, based on the time in year 1, for each event (figures 3a-f). For each event, we can then run a simple regression to calculate how much less, in percentage terms, an athlete can expect to improve for each second faster that they run. Using this calculation, we can then map 10

techniques AUGUST 2022

expected improvement (again, in percentage terms) based on an athlete’s current time. Table 1 shows sample expected improvement rates for various times in each event. The most striking results are in the lefthand columns of the table, which show the expected improvement for athletes among the top 5% in their events: in the subsequent year, they are more likely to run slower than they are to improve. In fact, the average

STEPHEN LANE TEACHES ECONOMICS AND HISTORY AT CONCORD-CARLISLE HIGH SCHOOL IN CONCORD, MASSACHUSETTS. HE COACHED TRACK AND FIELD FOR OVER 20 YEARS, AND IS THE MEET DIRECTOR OF THE ADRIAN MARTINEZ CLASSIC. HIS BOOK, RACE OF THE GODS, A HISTORY OF THE FIRST WOMEN’S OLYMPIC MARATHON, WILL BE PUBLISHED BY LYONS PRESS IN THE FALL OF 2023. HE WISHES TO THANK PHIL BROWN FOR HIS HELP WITH THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS - AND TO NOTE THAT WHATEVER ERRORS REMAIN ARE SOLELY THE AUTHOR’S.

AUGUST 2022 techniques

11

THE WINDUNWIND SEQUENCE Torsion angles in discus throwing

12

techniques AUGUST 2022

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

D

uring the process of discus throwing, wound up positions are observed where the upper parts of the thrower and discus system rotate clockwise in relation to the lower parts. In other words, the hip axis rotates clockwise in relation to the line connecting the two feet, the shoulder axis is rotated clockwise in relation to the hip axis and the right arm is rotated clockwise in relation to the shoulder axis. Subsequently, the system unwinds, and the upper parts catch up with the lower parts. There are two main cycles of the windunwind sequence. The first is at the back of the circle, during the preliminary swings, where the upper parts of the system rotate clockwise in relation to the lower parts, and a very wound up position is observed as the discus reaches its furthermost and backwards point. Following, the upper part unwinds until approximately the time the right foot lifts off the ground. Then, the lower parts of the body catch up and eventually get ahead and result in another wound up position as the thrower lands somewhere in the middle of the circle. The maximum value of this second wound up position occurs before the left foot touch down in the front of the circle. Finally, the system unwinds again, resulting in a tremendous transfer of angular momentum from the thrower to the discus. There are a few torsion angles a practitioner can observe as part of a rudimental analysis of the throw. All angles are formed approximately during the second double support just before release. To form those angles, four lines can be drawn (Figure 1). AUGUST 2022 techniques

13

WIND-UNWIND SEQUENCE

FIGURE 1. The four lines (axes) that

determine all possible torsion angles at the moment of maximum torsion of the system

The first line would pass through the middle of both feet; the second through the right and left hip joints; the third through the right and left shoulder; and the fourth through the right shoulder and the center of the discus. Figure 2 shows the six individual torsion angles that are formed as a result of those four lines. The lines show the degree and location of the system’s wound up position. Figures 3, 4 and 5 show how those angles typically change during the throw. As far as the time periods, the main focus in most cases is during the period between the landing of the right foot (RTD) and the release of the discus (REL). During this phase, the torsion angles of the shoulders in relation to the hips; of the hips in relation to the feet; and of the throwing arm in relation to the shoulders, all of those values reach a local maximum which expresses the maximum magnitude of winding up just before the final unwinding. In most throwers, maximum torsion of the hips in relation to the feet is reached first, followed by that of the shoulders in relation to the hips. Similarly, maximum torsion of the shoulders relative to the hips is followed by maximum torsion of the right arm relative to the shoulders. A careful consideration of the fluctuation and order of the angles described above reveals a pattern where the lower parts of the thrower+discus system begin their actions before the upper parts, something 14

techniques AUGUST 2022

FIGURE 2. The six possible individual angles formed AT MAXIMUM SYSTEM TORSION.

that is typical in throwing activities. The most prevailing explanation for such an order of action (Alexander, 1991) is that during the throwing action, greater demands are required from the muscula-

ture of the lower parts of the system rather than that of the upper parts. It seems that the muscles of the lower parts of the system are required to accelerate the lower parts, in addition to supporting the accel-

AUGUST 2022 techniques

15

WIND-UNWIND SEQUENCE

FIGURE 6. Average torsion angles at the moment of

maximum torsion of the system and, at release. (Data from: Dapena & Anderst, 1997).

FIGURE 3. Typical torsion angle changes between the hips and the feet, the shoul-

ders and the feet, and the right arm and the feet during the course of a discus throw. Note that negative values indicate that the upper parts of the system are behind the lower parts. RTO= right take off, RTD= right touch down. (Adapted from: Dapena & Anderst, 1997).

FIGURE 4. Typical torsion angle changes between the shoulders and the hips, and

the right arm and the hips, during the course of a discus throw. (Adapted from: Dapena & Anderst, 1997).

FIGURE 5. Typical torsion angle changes between the right arm and the shoulders

during the course of a discus throw. (Adapted from: Dapena & Anderst, 1997).

16

techniques AUGUST 2022

eration of the upper parts. On the other hand, the muscles of the upper parts of the system are required to accelerate the upper parts only. Another observation is that the musculature of the lower parts is stronger than that of the upper parts, but the greater demands placed upon them makes them act slower as they complete their task. Because of that, the leg muscles need to start their actions before the muscles of the upper body so they can complete their task at the same time as the muscles of the upper body, which have a lighter task to do compared to their own strength. If the upper body is activated too early, the discus will be released before the muscles of the lower body and torso have had the chance to fully participate in the throw, resulting in a reduced throwing distance. The torsion angle that is of most interest is the angle between the line connecting the feet and the orientation of the right arm. This angle expresses the total torsion of the system and is the sum of the angles between the hips and the feet, the angle between the shoulders and the hips, and the angle between the right arm and the shoulders. Figure 3 shows that this total torsion angle reaches a maximum value during the single support on the right foot. It is worth pointing out here that, during actual throwing, this angle is not as large as the sum of the maximum values of the three angles just described, and this is because those three angles reach their maximum values at different times, as implied earlier. Figure 6 shows an average magnitude of the six torsion angles at the moment the right arm reaches its maximum torsion relative to the line connecting the feet. The larger the value of the torsion angle between the right arm and the feet (their respective lines), the better. If the value of that angle is smaller than the average, one may have to observe the values of the angles between

the hips and the feet, the shoulders and the hips and the right arm and the shoulders to ascertain which one of them may be responsible for such a discrepancy, since those three angles add up to the total torsion angle of the system. Figure 6 also shows an average magnitude of the six torsion angles at the moment of release. Those angles show how well the thrower may have unwound during the transfer of the angular momentum from the body to the discus, following the double support in the middle of the circle. Ideally, the thrower would like to obtain a large angle between the right arm and the feet at release. One should keep in mind, though, that if the thrower is airborne during release, that torsion angle may not be very useful. Instead, the angle between the right arm and the hip axis may be the preferred way to evaluate as to how well the thrower unwound. Again, large values of this angle are desired at release. The separation between the hip and the shoulder axes has been a well-known technical point in discus throwing, where the thrower aims to increase the angle between the hip axis and the shoulder axis during the final double support. Figure 3 shows that this angle typically reaches its maximum value between right and left foot touch down in the front of the circle. In addition to separating those two axes during the final KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

double support position, many practitioners also advocate an active separation of those two axes in the back of the circle during the transition from double to single support over the left foot. To achieve this, the shoulders, in at least some throwers, literally stay back and “negate” the leading of the lower part of the body, and this action may inhibit the maximum development of momentum in the back of the circle, which is of paramount importance in discus throwing (also see Maheras, 2022). An examination of Figure 4 shows that after reaching a local maximum during the winds, the hip/shoulders angle becomes progressively smaller all the way to (and even past) the right foot take off. Eventually, at the end of this unwinding phase, the shoulders completely catch up with the hips, just before left foot take off. Indeed, there is no need for an active separation between the hip and the shoulder axes in the earlier part of the turn in the back of the circle. In most cases, all the thrower needs to do in the back of the circle is to make sure that the shoulders neutrally follow the lead of the right leg. The shoulders should not “negate” the turn in the back of the circle. In the best case scenario, for those throwers who are capable of doing it correctly, the left arm could be “thrown” to the left during the turn in the back of the circle so it can aid in the devel-

opment of momentum (also see Maheras, 2011). Regarding the hips and shoulders separation, all that matters is that those two axes are well separated in the final double support phase only. Attempting to separate the axes in the back of the circle does not facilitate that. REFERENCES Alexander, R. McN. (1991). Optimum Timing of Muscle Activation for Simple Models of Throwing. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 150, 349-372. Dapena, J., & Anderst, W. (1997). Discus Throw (Men). Scientific Services Project, U.S.A Track & Field. Biomechanics Laboratory, Dept. of Kinesiology, Indiana University. Maheras, A. (2011). The Function of the Extremities in Discus Throwing. Techniques for Track and Field & Cross Country, 4 (4), 8-16. Maheras, A. (2022). Momentum Analysis in Discus Throwing. Techniques for Track and Field & Cross Country, 15 (4), 34-32.

DR. ANDREAS MAHERAS IS THE THROWS COACH AT FORT HAYS STATE UNIVERSITY AND IS A FREQUENT CONTRIBUTOR TO TECHNIQUES.

AUGUST 2022 techniques

17

18

techniques AUGUST 2022

Effort-Based Phase Training Coaching distance runners to balance exertion & recovery

C

oaching is both an art and a science. It is relatively easy to fall too heavily on one side or the other. As the developments on the science side cannot be denied, neither can the side of coach’s creativity in workout design and athlete analysis. Years ago, I attended a lecture by Dr. David Costill of Ball State University on basic physiological changes through endurance training. He opened his talk by stating that most of his research found out what most coaches already knew. He found the scientific reasons for aspects such as increased stroke volume of the heart muscle and increases in capillaries and mitochondria. Any successful coach recognizes that there is no “coaching by numbers.” The personality of the coach and his/her presentation is equally key to the athlete’s development, as is the workout printed on the sheet. The great New Zealand coach Arthur Lydiard (whom I was blessed to know personally and professionally), has stated that he has never seen an exercise physiologist coach an Olympic champion, and he never will. Although his prediction has not been totally true, his sentiment is important. All coaches have also witnessed various evidence of “burnout” or staleness of the athlete. Whether that relates to emotional stress or training boredom, or a host of other issues, varies by the individual. The more an athlete is involved in his/her training, the greater chance of success. This does not mean the athlete makes the workouts or the program, but ultimately, in the midst of a competition, he is the only one out there to depend on. If the competitor cannot control his effort levels appropriately, frustrating performances will follow. Effort-based training allows the athlete to be intrinsically involved with his training in every session and still have the coach as an integral part. Effort-based training also enables the athlete to analyze himself and make a deeper impression and commitment to himself. PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE EFFORT-BASED TRAINING: Workout design is essential. In effort-based training, the training is workout based, not volume based. The workouts change to reflect the physiological goals desired during each phase. The workouts define the

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

art. As each phase has specific goals, the workouts must simulate the physical and mental demands and challenges of the event. • Workout design is more important than weekly volume. The mileage stays relatively consistent throughout the phases. Although volume may change each training season, the volume within the season will remain steady. By definition, training is the body’s adaptation to stress. Therefore, only one variable stressor is introduced: workouts. High effort cannot be achieved effectively along with high fatigue. The fatigue sources must be isolated. The combination of increased volume and highly strenuous workouts will lose many athletes. • Use A and B workouts. How often an athlete “goes to the well” in training must be monitored and restricted. “Going to the well” refers to a complete, exhausting workout in which the athlete reaches his maximum effort. In the weight room, training is not simply a matter of “maxing out” each session. In the same way, running training cannot be the same. “A” workouts are sessions that will require significant recovery time. “B” workouts are sessions that will require less, either by manageable volume, or manageable speed, in comparison to the “A” workout. “A” sessions may be once per week or used on a variable schedule. Athletes know which workouts are designated as an “A” and which are a “B.” The emphases of each week are the “A” and “B” workouts. Higher efforts are specifically planned, both physically and mentally, on those scheduled days. • Fatigue is cumulative. Rest days are scheduled. If an athlete waits until he is noticeably fatigued, he has waited too long, and the recovery time will take longer. The day following an “A” session must be easy recovery effort. This can be tricky, as the athlete may feel very good and will want to run harder on the distance day. If the recovery day is not enforced, the fatigue will accumulate, and the athlete will have hindered performances because of it. These usually occur near the end of the season when it is too late to recuperate. The disciplined use of recovery days allows the coach to better plan the “peak” and ensure the athletes will be at their best when required. After an “A” session, two recovery days are scheduled AUGUST 2022 techniques

19

EFFORT-BASED PHASE TRAINING before a “B” session. In the same way, after competitions, two recovery days are used. If we raced on a Saturday, the next high-effort session would be on Tuesday. If we did not compete on Saturday, the high-effort session could be on Monday. In this way, the harder sessions may be on different days each week. • Recovery after training is more important than resting before. This is part of the cumulative fatigue idea. If an athlete has not recovered from the previous race or training session, do not schedule another too close to the next competition. Higheffort before recovery is achieved will accelerate the accumulation of fatigue. If this is violated too often, the athlete will simply not recover at all to achieve his best potential performance. If, for example, there are competitions on consecutive Saturdays, and the coach senses fatigue is accumulating too high, schedule a high-effort session on Thursday. The athletes will be recovered from the previous event and, being rested, will be capable of a high effort on Thursday and not be “in a hole” for Saturday. In other words, make sure your team is out of the hole before you dig another one. Once the hole gets too deep, you won’t get out of it no matter how many easy days you take. PHASES AND THEIR CONTENT: In effort-based training, the workouts are guided by the athlete’s perception of themselves. All coaches know what the “red line” is. It is that line that separates aerobic from the anaerobic. The longer a runner can train and compete just below that line, the better he will be. When the line is crossed, the downward spiral begins. The goal in this training is for the athlete to know, through self-monitoring, experience and honesty, where that line is. He learns through training experience where the line is and self-determines how to negotiate it. His effort level is self-controlled. He does not learn this through a stopwatch but through his own mentality. To run along the line requires courage and mental control. These are best learned through monitoring his own efforts and forming a “oneness” with his mind. This is the mindbody connection at its best. Especially in cross country, where the terrain and sometimes the accuracy of measurements can throw off the stopwatch within the athlete, the runner must know how to run along the line without the numbers to determine it for him. Afterall, if the time on the watch is faster or slower than intended, what can 20

techniques AUGUST 2022

he do about it? He can either be discouraged or deal with it. If the numbers are not the goal, then it is his effort level that he controls and holds his focus. By knowing within himself where the line is, he can accelerate, stay the pace or respond to the race situations. Throughout, he can be relaxed, as he is in control of the situation and the situation does not control him. This is the ultimate goal of effort-based training. The phases generally follow Arthur Lydiard’s three phases of training: Marathon, Hills and Speed. In my model, I have changed these to Endurance, Strength and Speed. Each phase is from 6-12 weeks in duration. In Lydiard’s original system, 12 weeks for each phase was ideal. I modified each length to coincide with a collegiate cross country and indoor/outdoor track season. The cross-country phases would begin in late June or July and continue through the end of the season in midNovember. The track season phases begin over the Christmas holidays and continue through the end of the outdoor season. The goal of each phase is to accomplish certain physiological goals. The goal of the Endurance phase is its namesake. This could be the high mileage phase, but as I have earlier stated, mileage in this program does not vary exceedingly from phase to phase. The type of workouts change, not the volume. Therefore, all the training in this first phase is endurance in scope and goal. Here are some of the types of training used in the Endurance Phase: Distance: Just as it is. Running the total for the day as the athlete feels. There is no set pace. High Steady State: Also known as tempo runs. These would be classified as a “B” workout. I usually start them at 15 minutes at the desired heart rate and gradually move up to 40 minutes. Some athletes may use a heart monitor to control the tempo, but I suggest the following method to be used most of the time. If the athlete has a 24-minute High Steady State (HSS), explain to him that he should start out at a tempo he thinks he could maintain for the whole 24 minutes. Yes, there is trial and error here. After 5 minutes, stop and take a pulse check for 6 seconds. If it is 16-17 (160-170 BPM), great. Continue by maintaining that same perceived effort level. Speed up a shade if it is lower than 16, and back off it is higher. The key is to run relaxed. The last minute, he should be at an effort level and tempo that he believes he could maintain for 5 additional minutes (although he

will stop at the prescribed time). This will keep him below the “red line,” and the understanding will also teach him to run relaxed. After one or two HSS, and the athlete achieves control of his effort, the pulse check after five minutes can be eliminated. Some coaches may question why this method is used and instead of using a monitor for more accuracy. The reason is that the athlete must learn how to self-monitor. He must know within himself what is too fast and what is too slow. He can learn to control his effort level and control his relaxation (breathing, arm swing, mentality, etc.). His mind is engaged and connecting with his body in a way that is more difficult if depending on numbers. As with all training, the skills learned here will carry over into the more intensive training later. UPS: This is a substitute for hill repetitions. Simply put, this is a moderate paced effort run in which the athlete must accelerate on every uphill he encounters. It can be over any distance prescribed. An important aspect of this workout is that the athlete is able to return to his original pace immediately after the uphill. Therefore, the tempo up must be controlled and smooth. This workout can be an “A” or a “B” workout depending upon the tempo on the flat and the distance of the total run. Of course, the route chosen is essential. The length or grade of the hills is inconsequential. Variety is good. Press Run: A press run is a tempo run into a very high-effort run. They can be anywhere from 20 to 45 minutes, followed by a five to six minute all-out effort. It is a twist to an HSS run that incorporates the mental tenacity to accelerate after a prolonged controlled effort. The mentality is key. This teaches the athlete again about how to relax during the HSS, as the higher effort is planned and coming later. Knowing that there is a set moment to drive effort higher prepares the athlete to control his effort levels, and “turn it on” when he decides. This is an “A” workout. The second Phase is the Strength Phase. This has nothing to do with the weight room. Think of this phase as developing the physiologic and mental ability to maintain a strong, sustained effort. It is the bridge between endurance and speed development. In many ways it is the most important phase. Lydiard’s bridge was his “Hill “phase. Some coaches believe in peaking during the cross-country season and peaking again during the track season. Some

AUGUST 2022 techniques

21

EFFORT-BASED PHASE TRAINING coaches have told me that they can peak their athletes three times during the year. The effort-based program follows one peak for the whole year, being the outdoor track season. This is achieved by using only the first two phases through the summer and cross-country season, and only using the final phase, the Speed Phase, during the outdoor track season. In this way, athletes are able to compete at a high level in the fall, with sustained effort over varying terrains, but save their highest physiologic peak for the late spring. Once an athlete peaks, a downtime of recovery is necessary. After a cross country season that does not “go to the well” in terms of fatigue and physical sharpness, very little recovery time is needed afterwards. Therefore, the physiological development continues. We have all seen distance runners who perform tremendously during the fall but tend to “disappear” by the outdoor season. Although there are many factors unique to each program and individual, effort-based programs continue to rise through the competitive seasons. The effort-based program allows each member to improve throughout the year. Although every phase exhibits your art of coaching in presentation and design, both physical and mental, the Strength phase has the opportunity for your art to be utilized to a greater extent. The workouts in this phase fall into the following categories: HSS (discussed in Endurance phase), Short rest, L.A.T., Tempo Follow, Negative Split, Surge, POP runs and Race Simulation. Short Rest: Among the very first workouts in this phase should be Short Rest repeats. These will force the athlete to figure out his “red line.” It also guides his mentality to consciously decide what he can handle and what he is willing to handle. The athlete is able to freely challenge himself and deal with the consequences, positive or negative. The first workout I would start with was 10 x 2-minute repeats with 2 minutes slow jog rest. Inevitably, a new member would ask, “How fast should I run these?” I would reply, “Fast enough to complete 10 of them and feel that you worked hard. Run them so that you aren’t really fatigued until number 8. This was usually not the answer they were looking for, but they needed to realize that there is some trial and error involved, and they need to make decisions on their effort, and how to monitor and regulate it. Other workouts in this category are completely left up to the imagination of 22

techniques AUGUST 2022

the coach and his evaluation of what will work best and most effectively for development. 4 x 6 minutes with 3 minutes rest? 20 x 1 minute with 30 seconds rest? 6-minute, 4 minute, 3 minute, 2 x 2 minutes with 4 minutes, 3 minutes, 2 minutes then 1 minute rest? Art. In all of these workouts, with conversation from the coach, the runner can dissect the workout and evaluate himself. Did he run any part too fast? Could he have run faster at another part? Why? What does he need to work on? L.A.T.- Lactic Acid Tolerance: We all know that the key to distance running is to train to delay the onset of lactic acid. We also know that there is a percentage of any race that will be run in oxygen debt. There is debate over how best to deal with this, but in any case, there is a huge mental challenge to dealing with the discomfort of the situation, as well as the physical challenge. In L.A.T. workouts, the goal is to produce lactic acid, then allow time for it to somewhat dissipate, then run slower than the first part of the workout but for a longer time. In short, produce lactic acid, then deal with it. A classic workout of this category is 4-5 x 600m at a faster than goal pace effort, with 2-3 minutes rest, followed by an 8-minute rest, then 1 x mile as hard as possible. The 600’s produce the lactic acid, then the mile forces the runner to deal with it. The benefits are both physical and mental. Tempo Follow: This is an addition to a workout. It most enhances aerobic development in this second phase of training. Simply, after the main part of the particular workout is completed, the athlete runs a 10-minute tempo or HSS. This is similar to the L.A.T., but the intensity is lower. It is not a full effort, but a controlled effort. This may be done by monitoring the heart rate or telling the athlete to run it at “uncomfortable pace.” This occasional addition to the workout session enhances the athlete’s ability to control relaxation and deal with a prolonged mentally and physically uncomfortable state. While the athlete is in a general state or fatigue (post workout), he makes the conscious decision to push himself into that “uncomfortable” effort range. The benefits again are both physical and mental. Negative Splits: This training is possibly the best way to develop the strength phase. This type of training can be used in any of the three phases because it is easily manipulated to suit the needs and goals at

the specific time. Negative splits (NS) can be repeats, intervals or continuous runs. During the endurance phase, it can be a total distance in which the second half is faster than the first. A specific workout I use in half marathon training is a total of a 10 mile run ,with the first 7 miles at a controlled pace, then the last three miles at a faster pace and higher effort. An example of minutes training could be 4 x 4 minutes with NS the last two minutes of each repeat. An example on the track in phase three might be 8 x 400m with the first 200m at a set pace and the second 200m 2-3 seconds faster. Another possibility is to mix an NS within the rest of the workout. An example might be: 3 x 2 min, 1 x 5 min. NS, 1 x 4 min., 3 x 2 min. Besides the physical development of VO2 in this training, the athlete develops the sense of increasing effort at a specific moment. This, in turn, reinforces relaxation to prepare for the coming higher effort. I believe this is the most valuable aspect. This does not necessarily train the athlete to compete at negative splits, but it does teach how to increase effort when the athlete decides to. The mental strength is as important as the physiological. Surge: Surge training has many similarities to Negative Split training and is therefore extremely beneficial to Phase Two Strength Training. These can be very high in fatigue, and to do it successfully, the athlete must be at a high fitness level. This will stress the athlete aerobically and anaerobically as well as mentally. On longer designed intervals, the pace can vary from sub-goal to goal pace, and on shorter intervals, the pace can vary from goal pace to above goal pace. Examples of this type may be 6 x 800m vary the pace each 200m, 10 x 1 minute, changing speed every 15 seconds, 5 x 90 seconds, vary speeds each 30 seconds, 3 x 1600m, varying speeds each 400m. Here the coach may be as creative as possible to blend the appropriate distances and paces. Another idea is to place a surge within the interval session, i.e. 4 x 400m, 1 x 1200m (surging each 300m) 4 x 400m. As the athlete feels within himself what this workout involves mentally, the workout may be written as F (fast)- S (slow)- F (fast), e.g. 6 x 600m at F-S-F 200’s. At an early stage of using surge workouts, the paces are determined by the athlete (and may be run by “feel” without a determined time) and later, progresses to set times for each portion.

AUGUST 2022 techniques

23

EFFORT-BASED PHASE TRAINING POP Runs: Pop Runs are high in physical stress. They are intentionally placing the athlete in a place of anaerobic energy use and forcing the athlete to physically deal with it. This situational training simulates energy needs in a racing situation. It is similar to L.A.T workouts without the rest break to allow blood acidity to lower. The athlete may run 1200m at a high effort, possibly faster than 5,000m goal pace, then immediately switch to a 4-mile run at a slower pace. The design of the workout is completely left up to the coach. The first 400m of the transition will be the most stressful as the body adapts to the change in pace. It is important that the second pace is not at recovery or jog effort. This is challenging and will be an “A” workout. Race Simulation: In this training, the total workout should be very close to the competitive distance. For a 5,000m runner, the total time of the high effort sections should be from 14- 19 minutes. For an 8,000m cross country runner, the total time should be 23-26 minutes. The idea is to design the workout to simulate the energy systems and mental challenges of the race. Let’s look at an example of a cross country workout for an 8,000m distance. 2-2-2-4-2-4-3-1-1-1-1-1. These are the high effort runs at goal effort or faster. The rest intervals may be 1-1-2-2-1-2-3-2-1-1-1-1. The athlete will have a total run time of 40 minutes. In this example, the controlled beginning, (2 minuters), a middle section of longer efforts (4-2-4-3), and the 5 x 1 minutes to simulate the effort to accelerate the last mile. Notice that the rest intervals are designed to allow for the gradual increase in anaerobic activity without it becoming overwhelming (3-minute rest between the 4 and the 3 minuter). The coach designs the workout to achieve what he believes are the most important aspects to stress and develop. These workouts may also be designed to press the athlete to attack his weakest aspect of a race. If he tends to lose contact in the middle of races, design the middle of the workout to have shorter runs to allow him to press more with a shorter distance covered. The above example was not designed for this issue. If the athlete has difficulty starting the race at the desired pace, place faster aspects with more rest in the first part of the workout. The goal is always to attach the physiological development to the psychological requirements. The third phase of training is the Speed Phase. It is up to the individual coach if this phase will be categorized as “speed” or 24

techniques AUGUST 2022

“efficiency.” The difference is the amount of running done well under goal pace, or close to maximal effort (speed), or repetitions at goal pace or slightly under (efficiency). The difference is to what the athlete will respond best. For a 4-minute miler, will the athlete respond better to 200’s at 26, or 600’s at 1:27? It is the coaches’ responsibility to analyze the athlete and make a decision as to what will work best for the individual. In either case, the goal in this final phase is to develop the actual tempo the athlete will use in his highest level competitions. Phase one developed the basic endurance qualities to handle the training levels which followed, as well as developed the physiology for a high VO2 uptake. The second phase developed the strength, physically and mentally to handle the differing physiological demands of maximal efforts over the competitive distance. In phase three, the athlete’s weekly mileage should drop somewhat to allow for maximal recovery between training sessions. The 28-day development of cellular changes will soon be past, so the emphasis now is on nervous system development, not cardiovascular. In other words, the tools to enable the athlete to run fast have been achieved; now, the use of the “actual” speed can be developed. The athlete’s fatigue level will not be the highest in this phase, but the tendency for injury may be. The anaerobic threshold will be at his highest, so the objective is for the competitive goal pace to stay as long as possible under the “red line.” Specifically, the workouts in this phase are repetitions and race simulations. The volume of the workouts is also lower in comparison to previous phases. The rest intervals are determined by the decision to develop speed or efficiency. Again, the development of speed or efficiency cannot be developed in a state of significant fatigue. Once the athlete goes too deeply into the anaerobic state, neither speed nor efficiency can be developed. Do not confuse race simulation with high anaerobic work. As in all endurance training, the objective is to train in a way in which the onset of high blood acidity levels is pushed further and further back towards the latest possible point in the competitive distance. The focus of the workouts should be on quality. Therefore, the high effort sessions need to be at goal pace or faster. Examples for a 4:05 (goal time) miler may be 6-8 x 400m with 2 minutes rest at 60.5- 61 for efficiency, or 8 x 200m with 2 minutes rest

at 26-27 for speed. All high-effort sessions should be on flat ground and relatively fast surfaces. Most likely, track sessions will be in order. Another example might be 2 x 600m with 3 minutes rest at 1:30, followed by a series of 200’s. This can blend efficiency and speed. Effort-based training allows the athlete to avoid mental “staleness” through continually changing workouts which still meet the physiological development goals. Most importantly, the athlete develops within himself the mentality to push himself and reach for an increased effort level when the demands of the competition require it. If guided correctly, the athlete will increase effort while maintaining relaxation leading to the highest efficiency throughout the competition. With the athlete making the decisions on his effort, the rewards are even higher. In time, the manipulations of effort will be automatic without requiring conscious decisions. REFERENCES Dare, B. (1979). Running and your body: Applying physiology to track training. Tafnews Press. Eyzaguirre, C. & Fidone, S.J. (1984). Physiology of the nervous system: An introductory text. Year Book Medical. Lydiard, A.L. & Gilmour, G. (2000). Running to the top. Meyer & Meyer. Stein, R.B. (1983). Nerve and muscle: Membranes cells and systems. Plenum Press.

SCOTT LOREK RETIRED AS HEAD CROSS COUNTRY AND TRACK AND FIELD COACH OF NORTHWEST MISSOURI STATE IN 2018. WHILE AT THE HELM OF THE BEARCATS PROGRAM, LOREK COACHED 13 ALL-AMERICANS.

AUGUST 2022 techniques

25

28

techniques AUGUST 2022

HURDLE RHYTHMS

Training high-velocity hurdling through timing, technique and strategy

M

any coaches realize the real secret to selfevaluation is honesty and a sense of selfawareness. But admitting, however, that there may be a better way to do something can be exceedingly difficult and oftentimes a painful process for many coaches. There are coaches who train “sprint” hurdlers (100 and 110m hurdlers) who likely need to step back and re-evaluate the training processes they are administrating. Often in the past, there were some coaches who trained short hurdlers much like they did their sprint group. Not that this was all bad. But quite often another type of speed was neglected. Or perhaps not emphasized enough is a better way to put it. The speed we are referring to is commonly known as Hurdle rhythm. It isn’t that speed is not a key ingredient in the success of a hurdler. We all know it is critically important. Crucial. Many world class hurdlers could very well be elite sprinters if they chose that discipline. But before we get into the specifics of hurdle rhythm, coaches must ask themselves the three elementary training questions before they make any kind of changes to their training program(s). 1. What type of training will they use 2. How will they implement the training? 3. Why are they doing the training they are doing? A coach must always understand why they are doing what they do and convey that to the athlete (s) if they expect a “buy in” from the athlete and training group. Communication, trust and transparency are always keys to any successful coach/athlete relationship. Knowing the X’s and the O’s are certainly great, but coaching is about relationships. Once a coach has arrived at the answers to the question of why, it is much, much easier to evaluate a training program and ask the following questions: “How can the training program be improved? How can the training program be elevated? Should you continue down the same path, or build on the past and make changes for the better leading into the future?” Dr. Ralph Mann, one of the world’s foremost bio mechanists and a former world class 400-meter hurdler, would tell many hurdle coaches that there are three areas which should be of concern that could likely be addressed. Not that these are the only ones, but Mann has identified three major coaching issues regarding the training of sprint hurdlers: • The noted bio mechanist says the importance of the start is too often ignored. • He also says hurdle training has been dominated by sprint training. A notable Mann quote sums up his feelings: “The hurdles are not a sprint.” Sprint stride lengths are not possible in the hurdles due to standard spacing and restrictions. We have often heard coaches referring to the men’s strides in the hurdles as a gallop or a shuffle. Not a sprint. They are not true sprinting strides. The only real opportunities to sprint in the short hurdles are the start to the first hurdle, and the sprint to the finish coming off the last hurdle. And most coaches would argue a hurdler can’t even utilize all their speed in those areas. A hurdler can generate approximately only 75% of their

KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT AUGUST 2022 techniques

29

HURDLE RHYTHMS sprint velocity in the hurdle race, according to analysis by Mann. • The mechanics and training of the strides between hurdles and the hurdle clearance stride have been ignored, he said. Mann’s research has revealed that coaches should address four aspects to develop successful hurdlers: • Minimize the time from start to takeoff to first hurdle. • Minimize hurdle clearance time • Minimize time for the three steps between hurdles • Employ proper mechanics to obtain the most from the hurdle clearance We addressed many of the concerns in our sprint hurdle training program that Dr. Mann outlined in his work and made changes throughout the years. Our objective for this article is to convey to coaches what has “worked” to develop “fast, maximum velocity” short hurdlers at the University of Mary in Bismarck, ND. Will it work for everyone? Likely not. Coaches should never expect to grab another coaches’ training program and copy it verbatim. It doesn’t work that way. The program that Clyde Hart devised for Michael Johnson likely won’t work in your setting with your athletes. Coaches must know the context and adapt any training program to their own environment and athletes. Too many coaches expect to open a book and discover paint-by-number training programs. We have always felt coaches must individualize and customize their training programs to meet the needs of their athletes. We haven’t discovered any secrets. There are very few, if any, secrets in training. But what follows in the different sections are components and concepts on our training menu that we have utilized to improve and develop our 100 and 110m hurdlers. Our training was based on research and science-based principles by some of the leading coaching minds in the world. We added our own distinctive touch to make it work in our setting. SPEED/FORCE PRODUCTION Hurdling is not a sprint, as Dr. Mann will tell you. But let’s not kid ourselves. Speed is a critical, crucial factor in successful sprint hurdling. There aren’t any “slow” hurdlers who do well. But some coaches have perhaps been a little overzealous on the sprint side. Some coaching authorities would say there has been a misplaced priority on treating hurdlers as sprinters, opposed to training a substantial percentage of hurdle rhythm. It 30

techniques AUGUST 2022

is imperative to keep this in mind: Success in the hurdles is determined by the ability of the athlete to generate great amounts of explosive strength at exactly the correct time—timing is critical. A Dr. Mann statement that coaches should keep in mind: “The athlete that can produce the greatest amount of horizontal velocity and maintain it over and between the hurdles will be the most successful.” To obtain the above horizontal velocity that is needed to be a successful sprint hurdler, speed, strength, speed endurance and power must be trained, much the same as a sprinter. The maximum horizontal velocity that a hurdler can produce is highly dependent on the amount of effective force that they can apply during ground contact. Just as in the sprints, force production is huge component of successful hurdling. There are obviously many commonalities between sprinting and hurdling. Consequently, a coach who does not train hurdlers using many of the sprint mechanics and components of sprint training is doing the athletes a great disservice. They are certainly not meeting the needs of hurdlers to perform at the highest levels. A critical area that is shared by both the sprinter and the hurdler is front-side mechanics. Your best elite sprinters focus their efforts on leg action that takes place in front of the body, thus the name “front-side mechanics.” The same is true of hurdlers as it is for sprinters: Maximize front-side mechanics and minimize back-side mechanics. An emphasis on front-side mechanics is extremely important for the hurdler due to the increased demands for the athlete to project the body over the barrier. The bio motor qualities such as flexibility, coordination (balance), endurance, speed and explosive strength are all essentially the same for both the hurdler and a sprinter. Coaches should be mindful too, of the fact that there is a substantial difference between hurdle heights for men and women, and it should be trained accordingly. A larger percentage of training time for men in our program is devoted to hurdle rhythm and technique due to the hurdle height than women, where the 33” hurdles are much more of a nonfactor and speed is much more important. To answer the frequently asked question of what we train more—speed or hurdle rhythm—our answer is two-fold. It depends on the gender, and it depends on the athlete and their needs. The reality, however, is we

train a combination of both speed and hurdle rhythm for both males and females. HURDLE RHYTHM/HURDLE SPEED Many coaching authorities, and certainly Mann, will tell coaches that a substantial percentage of training time should be devoted to hurdle rhythm, or what some coaches term “hurdle speed.” What exactly is hurdle rhythm? A definition from the late master Canadian hurdle mentor, Brent McFarlane: “Rhythm is the speed which allows hurdlers to use their techniques to the maximum.” McFarlane always said that most hurdle authorities place rhythm ahead of sheer speed as their goal for their training programs. The goal of our program at the University of Mary was to rehearse over and over as many quality repetitions as possible at competition speed—race speeds! The training variables must be manipulated and managed to obtain the competition speeds in every hurdle session where the objective was hurdle speed. Coaches are not meeting the demands of the race if they are not mimicking race speeds in training that their athletes will execute in competition. And this is very difficult to do. We by no means, however, neglect maximum velocity speed. It is a vital component in our training program and works hand-in-hand with hurdle rhythm. Some of the strategies that our program used to achieve and mimic competition hurdle speeds in training: • Speed is a product of specific, rehearsed neurological skill patterns. So are the hurdles. Most coaches will acknowledge there is a 5-10% drop off in intensity in training compared to competition. It is the coach’s job to manage and make allowances in the training environment to establish the race speed motor patterns despite the intensity decrease. One of the best methods is to use discounted spacing and reduced hurdle heights. Discounted spacing for college men can be 8.5-8.8 meters between hurdles. For college women, 7.8-8.3m. Most of our women’s hurdling is done at 30 inches. The men vary from 33-42 inches. We obviously, at times, use the standard height of 33” for women and 42” for men. But it is infrequent. Many coaches will argue training with the 42’s and higher forces the male hurdler to “clean up” and improve their mechanics. We would agree that it can for the more talented athletes. It typically is a detriment for combined events athletes and less talented hurdlers. It is rare we use the standard spacing for either the men or women either, except

HURDLE RHYTHMS

for the first hurdle. Unlike some programs, we rarely, if ever, change the first hurdle mark. We deem the first hurdle takeoff as too critical to tamper with and the resulting “mental issues” of switching and making corrections. Coaches need to be aware, too, that marks between hurdles will obviously have to be changed and re-coordinated as the season progresses and the athlete improves and becomes faster. • Increased velocity between the hurdles can be trained by moving to 5 steps between hurdles. The distance for men is 13 meters between hurdles and 11.5 meters for women. • We very seldom have athletes train over hurdles solo. It is exceedingly difficult to train race speeds unless athletes are placed in a competitive situation where they have to compete head-to-head and the athletes possess comparable abilities. • Athletes should be basically fatigue-free and fully recovered prior to hurdle sessions where the objective is competitive speeds and the coach is training hurdle rhythm. Touchdown times should be very, very closely monitored and the session immediately curtailed if the times begin to drop off. Fewer 32

techniques AUGUST 2022

repetitions with large amounts of recovery that stress quality is the key. Our training philosophy is always quality over quantity. Recovery between hurdle repetitions can vary from 10-12 minutes or more. We have used full recovery at times (30 minutes or more). Our rule for recovery (depending on the goal(s) of the session) is a minimum of 1 minute per hurdle, with the men sometimes receiving more due to the energy requirements of clearing taller hurdles. Our goal is to not exceed 90 minutes per session, with the maximum being two hours. It is always good to remember that athletes can only be stressed at the highest levels for approximately 3 minutes per training session. With that in mind, we always stressed “quality reps” with the goal of reducing velocity fatigue. The old cliché’ is certainly true: “Practice makes perfect only if practiced perfectly. Athletes who practice or learn skills incorrectly are rehearsing skills perfectly wrong. Most coaches understand how difficult and time-consuming it is to “undo” poor or inadequate motor patterns. • The optimal speed training environment occurs in races because you eliminate

many of the limiting factors that the athlete encounters in training. Competing often and using your competitions as your ideal training ground is an excellent recipe for success. Nothing you can do in training compares with the benefits you obtain from competition. Some coaches would say too many competitions can cause premature peaks, burnout, and cause the athlete to run too fast too soon. We would say peaks and burnout are the result of outside factors other than training and competition. We also would say you can’t run too fast too soon. We would encourage coaches to get their athletes to run fast early and build on it. There is no good reason to “hold back” if the athlete is healthy. • A sizeable percentage of training time is devoted to the start, acceleration training and the teaching of the proper high-velocity sprint mechanics. “Athletes are only as fast as their mechanics will allow,” was an expression we constantly used with our athletes. Our program was in a constant search for improving maximum speed because improvement in that area will enhance acceleration and sub-maximal speed. Ultimately, KIRBY LEE IMAGE OF SPORT

AUGUST 2022 techniques

33

HURDLE RHYTHMS it will improve hurdle speed. And obviously, that was our overall goal, as it is for all hurdle coaches. MECHANICS/HURDLE STATEGIES The challenge that faces short hurdlers is to generate and maintain horizontal velocity while clearing 10 barriers, and recovering from each effort to maximize the three steps in between each hurdle. The hurdler who can produce and maintain the greatest amount of horizontal velocity will be the most successful. The hurdles obviously will cause the athlete to deviate from normal sprint mechanics. And it is imperative that the amount of alteration be minimized, and front-side mechanics maximized. Of all the mechanical factors, it is the decreasing of the ground time that determines elite performances, according to Mann. He also points out that it is the ground phase that is the only time that an athlete can apply force, and this is when the great hurdle results are produced. Ground time is dependent upon how quickly the hurdler can achieve the ground forces to project the body into and over the hurdle. To sum it up, success in the hurdles is really determined by decreasing airtime over the barrier and ground contact time going into the barrier. The proper execution of the three steps between the hurdles is crucial to running fast hurdle times. The first step, termed the Fall step and the shortest of the steps, is used to recover from the clearance and control the descending body while maintaining horizontal velocity. It is the second step, called the Shuffle step, which is the longest and sets up the hurdler for the next barrier. It is the only step of the three that can regain or exceed the velocity that was lost in the hurdle clearance. Step three, commonly referred to as the Prep step, is the step that prepares the hurdler to attack the next hurdle clearance in the best possible body position. The body position of the hurdler coming off the hurdle on descent is extremely important. The athlete must be very balanced, precise on touchdown location, and very sound mechanically if the athlete is to control the transition from vertical back to horizontal emphasis, and prepare for the all-important middle step. This is the most important step and can lead to an inferior performance much more dramatically than the others. The takeoff position and location in addition to the touchdown distance should be constantly monitored, as they dictate a great 34

techniques AUGUST 2022

deal of success for the hurdler. To summarize, the objectives of the three steps include: • First Step—Stop the fall of the hurdler as they come off the hurdle and prepare for the middle step while maintaining as much horizontal velocity as possible • Second Step—Produce the horizontal velocity to regain or exceed what was lost during the hurdle clearance, and generate sufficient vertical effort to create the stride length needed to properly prepare for step 3 • Step Three—Maintain horizontal velocity while preparing the body position for the next hurdle clearance It is very obvious that a substantial percentage of time should be spent in developing and managing the proper three-step model due to the likelihood of error on the part of the athlete. Some of the major mechanical flaws that we have encountered include: (1) Hurdle clearance issues—too far away or too close on takeoff (2) Balance and arm mechanic problems typically resulting in unwanted, excessive lateral movement and motion (3) Inconsistent takeoff approach (4) Athlete getting out in front of the center of gravity and causing braking effects (5) Reaching and over striding resulting from a failure to maintain horizontal velocity (6) Failure to use arms to maintain hurdle velocity and drive through the hurdle clearance (7) Failure to maintain front-side mechanics. (8) Too much airtime on the hurdle clearance due to a faulty takeoff, poor touchdown position or inadequate body position on top of the hurdle (9) Dropping the center of gravity by the hurdler, causing one of the body segments to be too low when the athlete reaches and attempts to clear the hurdle (10) Diving with the upper body into the hurdle, causing an over rotation of the body. We are just touching on a few of the mechanical issues. That being said, however, it is very clear that poor mechanics can be a very limiting factor. It also is very obvious that mechanics can be an immensely powerful tool if the hurdler places the body in the correct position, at the proper time, in the right direction, and at the correct speed. When a hurdler does things correctly, good things will happen. There is a reason we have listed hurdle clearance issues as the number one flaw, as it is hurdle clearance that is one of the paramount factors in success. Three components coaches should note in the hurdle clearance: (1) The take-off distance obviously affects the angle of travel (2) The angle of travel determines touchdown distance. (3) Distance in

landing affects speed to the next hurdle and time to takeoff for the next barrier (overall preparation for the next hurdle). FIRST STEP MANAGEMENT Unlike the sprints where all the strides can potentially add to horizontal velocity, only about 40 percent of the total strides in a hurdle race can accomplish that. Our objectives for the start to the first hurdle: • Minimize the time from start to the first hurdle and place the hurdler in a position to have a successful overall 10-hurdle race. • Reach the correct take-off spot on a very precise, consistent basis with the body in position to execute the mechanics of the hurdle clearance correctly. • Build the highest horizontal velocity possible in a very explosive, but controlled manner to the first hurdle utilizing the proper front-side mechanics. • Employ the sprint start mechanics and sprint strides for the first three steps ( possibly four for some athletes). One area that should be addressed is how many steps the hurdler will use to approach the first hurdle. Should the athlete use the standard 8-step model, or the 7-step approach employed by many of the world’s best hurdlers? The 7-step model is certainly not for everyone. The candidate should be a taller, extremely talented athlete with excellent speed. It should be an athlete who is a 13.5 male hurdler or better, or a 12.7 hurdler or better for female hurdlers, according to Dr. Mann. That in itself limits the field considerably. Merely getting to the first hurdle faster should never be the end-goal. The coach should enact the model that allows the athlete a great first hurdle takeoff and clearance and sets up the race in its entirety to be successful. BREATHING MODEL A breathing model pattern by the athlete can certainly contribute to the enhancement of sprint rhythm maintenance for the hurdler. The hurdler will establish a specific pattern of breathing in the race, with the hurdler “blowing out” on hurdles 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and holding the breath the remaining time. The athlete should hold breath in the blocks into the set position. Many elite hurdlers use a pattern of “blowing out” on hurdles 1-4-7-10. Holding your breath creates what is known as the Valsalva maneuver, which research shows increases blood pressure in the carotid artery, facilitating motor unit availability/ recruitment. It is important to “recharge the

HURDLE RHYTHMS system” because studies have shown that sustained maximum motor firing can last for only approximately 2 ½ seconds, and that is in very elite athletes. It also increases intra-cranial blood pressure in the carotid artery, resulting in improvement in the athlete’s ability to recruit motor units. To put it simply, holding your breath increases your ability to put great force into the track. It will likely take many rehearsals by most athletes to perfect the art of breathing to obtain the maximum effects. It is typically wise to invest in a progressive breathing plan, starting with one or two breaths in a race and progressing from there. Experimentation with the process, though, should be done in training and not in competition. DRILLS There are mixed feelings on the importance of drills. Some coaches feel they are essential. Others, like ourselves, would say drills can be important and immensely useful at times. But it is our feeling that a lot of coaches over drill. We don’t question that drills can be vitally important, especially for men who are faced with numerous technical issues in clearing 42” barriers. Only meaningful drills, however, that serve an actual purpose and have the highest degree of transfer to competition, should be included on the drill menu. Anything else is quite senseless and actually taking away energy the hurdler will need for far more important training. Ludwig Svoboda, a hurdle coach from the Czech Republic, said it best when he concluded that “many of the common hurdle drills develop a technique that is useless in maximal speed performance.” As Vern Gambetta, a noted training authority who is considered the “Father of Functional Training,” and one-time track and field coach, often says, “Do the things in training that you need to do. Not what is nice to do.” Maximizing energy and organizing the training to obtain the utmost benefits from the amount of energy expended should be the goal of every coach. In other words, cut out the “fluff.” Do drills that are highly productive and lead the athlete to be “fast.” Period. Our program emphasized a limited number of drills, and they were all fairly simple over the top of the hurdle drills. Most of the slow action drills that isolate one side were removed from our repertoire. Several of the drills that the Mary program found useful with brief explanations include: Arm Drills Any number of lower hurdles (30’ or lower for women; 36” for men or 36

techniques AUGUST 2022

lower if needed) can be used for this drill at reduced, discounted spacing (28 feet or 8.53 meters for men and 7.0-7.5m meters for women, although spacing is not critically important because the drill is done at very controlled speeds). The drill is misnamed in that the athlete must hurdle at slower speeds without using the arms. There are four versions: 1) Regular: Athlete hurdles from a standing start over any number of hurdles with the arms extended out in front of the body in a locked position. 2) Fly: Same as #1 except arms are extended like wings and held in place out from body 3) Chest: Same as 1 and 2, except arms are held tightly folded to the chest (Helpful if the athlete grabs shirt) 4) Medicine Ball: Same as 1-3, except the athlete holds a medicine ball extended out in front of them as they clear the hurdle. Women can use a 2k ball and men 3k (Size of ball dependent upon athlete) Coaching cues: Emphasize leading with the knee, squaring up hips and shoulders to the hurdles, and letting the body balance itself without the use of the arms. It is a great drill to teach body awareness and balance to eliminate rotational, lateral motion problems. The arm drills are typically done in flats and usually involve no more than 3-4 hurdles. One Step Hurdles From a standing position on the start line, hurdle any number of hurdles spaced so that the hurdler has only 1 step between hurdles. The 1st hurdle can be on the standard mark and others spaced at low heights spaced 10-13 back-to-back steps for both men and women. Coaches and hurdlers will have to experiment with the spacing depending on the individual athlete and abilities. The drill teaches athletes to lead with the knee, with a flexed lead leg, project the hips through the hurdle, and get down very quickly with an active trail leg. It is also useful to eliminate the “swinging” of the lead leg. The drill should be done in spikes at controlled speeds, with an emphasis on arm speed and driving through the hurdle. We use anywhere from 4-12 hurdles, increasing the number of hurdles progressively throughout the year. The drill can also be done in shuttle fashion, with hurdles going down, and then returning in the opposite direction. The One Step Hurdle exercise is our “goto” drill because it teaches the hurdler the most important, basic mechanics of hurdling. TRAINING DESIGN/ENERGY SYSTEMS It can be particularly challenging for the hurdle coach to set up a program for an

athlete that competes in the 100m or 110m hurdles. A lot of coaches know what should be trained. But they do not know how to put it all together into a nice, neat package that meets the demands of their athletes and their training groups. To put it another way, they have all the ingredients, but they don’t have the correct recipe to “bake the cake.” It can be very difficult to design a training program for a sprint hurdler that includes all the different components and energy training systems that are needed to be successful. Brewing up a mixture of training that prepares the hurdler to negotiate 10 barriers outdoors, and at the same time, train the proper hurdle rhythm, can be extremely difficult. Balancing training loads and building recovery into the program that allows for the hurdler to train fatigue-free hurdle rhythm and maximal velocity speed can be an exceedingly difficult endeavor. It is widely accepted that the 100m/110m hurdle events have the same energy requirements as the 200 meters. Thus, the coach will be designing and implementing training from all the different energy systems: (1) Speed (2) Speed Endurance (3) Special Endurance 1 (4) Special Endurance 2. Stephen Francis, the famous Jamaican coach, puts it in to perspective when he says, “A female athlete who is looking to run 12.90 in the short hurdles should be capable of running 38 seconds in a 300-meter time trial.” That is, he said, assuming the athlete can sprint 11.70-12.00 in the 100-meters. You will likely have to be drawing from all the different energy systems to achieve those types of performances. It very likely explains why some hurdlers who do very well indoors with five hurdles are not nearly as good when they move to the longer outdoor event that requires more speed endurance. It is indeed a “tall task” to arrive at a program that blends all the needed ingredients into a successful training program for the sprint hurdler. But it is obviously very doable. One needs not look any further than the American and World performance lists to see that many coaches are doing it very well and very successfully. STRENGTH/POWER A hurdler must have a great deal of strength and power to possess the “hurdle endurance” to produce the hurdle rhythm and time for each stage of the 10-hurdle race. The Mary competition in-season strength program emphasized a minimal maintenance program that was based on functional training principles and that did not deter the

quality training needed on the track. It was strength training that had a high degree of transfer to the actual explosive movements that the athlete would utilize and need on the track. We also looked at the strength program as an essential tool in injury prevention. A typical week with competition would include only one traditional strength day in the weight room, and as noted, was strictly maintenance. This was supplemented with core training, balance training, resistance work, plyometrics, circuit training and other forms of functional training. We were firm believers that not all strength and power work had to be done in the weight room. Our emphasis was that the off-season (Fall training non-competition period—September through December ) was the ideal time to build strength and power. SUMMARY The purpose of this article was to share what and how our program at the University of Mary evolved to develop “fast” hurdlers. I say “evolve” because it was a constant process of evaluating, adapting and changing the program to meet the needs of our athletes. A willingness to change is a trait that most great coaches possess. I constantly reminded our athletes that it is very difficult to make progress without change. Miles Davis, a musician who was one of the most influential and acclaimed figures in jazz music, had a great quote concerning change. “It is not about standing still and becoming safe,” he said. “If anybody wants to keep creating, they have to be about change.” We noted earlier that the Mary hurdle training program quite likely won’t work for everyone. But with some personal tweaks and modifications, it will work for a lot of coaches and their hurdlers. Coaches will have to understand, as with any training program, it will take time, patience and consistency with the training to obtain high-level success. That is typical of any training program that you implement. Coach Gambetta perhaps says it best: “Today everyone desires novelty and constant stimulation. Running around and constantly switching what you are doing from one day to the next is currently what is in vogue. But if what you are after is long-term growth and development, speed and switching just doesn’t work.” In other words, coaches need to develop a training plan and stick with it. Use research, science and practicality to make the necessary changes when needed, and then see it through. The end result will be coaches and athletes alike will see amazing performances. REFERENCES 1. Francis, Stephen, Jamaica, Articles 2. Francis, Charlie, The Charlie Francis Training System (E-book) 3. Fyhre, Curtis, University of South Carolina, Clinics, Articles 4. Gambetta, Vern, Gambetta Method, 2nd Edition, 2002, Clinics, Artic les 5. Lindeman, Ralph, US Air Force Academy, Clinics, Articles 6. Mann, Ralph, The Mechanics of Sprinting and Hurdling, 2018 (Written with Amber Murphy) 7. McFarlane, Brent, The Science of Hurdling and Speed, 4th Edition, Canadian Track & Field Association, 2000 8. Vega, Reese, North Dakota State University, Conversations, Information

MIKE THORSON IS THE FORMER DIRECTOR OF TRACK & FIELD/ CROSS COUNTRY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARY IN BISMARCK, ND AUGUST 2022 techniques

37

38

techniques AUGUST 2022

AUGUST 2022 techniques

39

40

techniques AUGUST 2022

AUGUST 2022 techniques

41

USTFCCCA Supporters mondoworldwide.com

sportsbyapt.com/sport/track

directathletics.com

ucsspirit.com

geosurfaces.com

vsathletics.com

simplifaster.com

gillporter.com

ucsspirit.com mfathletic.com 42

techniques AUGUST 2022

Through their ongoing support of the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association, these companies demonstrate their strong commitment to the sports of Track & Field and Cross Country. The USTFCCCA strongly encourages each member to purchase products and services from these supporters.

balfour.com

sportlinesevices.com maxmedals.com

connect.marines.com

beynonsports.com

getonform.com

lightspeedlift.com

garmin.com coachesdirectory.com

elliptigo.com

surfaceco.com

AUGUST 2022 techniques

43

T

he U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association (USTFCCCA) is proud to announce the establishment of the Collegiate Athlete Hall of Fame for the sports of track & field and cross country. Nearly 150 years has elapsed since the first known intercollegiate competitions of running, jumping, and throwing took place. Those events in the mid-to-late 19th century set the stage for the modern-day sports of collegiate track & field and cross country. Millions of collegians from coast-to-coast have proven their talents on the track, the field, and/or the grassy terrain over the past century-and-a-half. A hall of fame honoring these best-of-the-best athletes is much overdue. “The Collegiate Athlete Hall of Fame is intended to acknowledge the great athletes who have made collegiate track & field and cross country such incredible sports,” said Sam Seemes, CEO of the USTFCCCA. “Not only do we have a large queue of past athletes

that are worthy of enshrinement into this hall of fame, we also recognize a vital responsibility in producing first-class presentations to properly commemorate their accomplishments” In addition to an annual induction ceremony, plans for a permanent “hall” location are being pursued. “I’m proud that we’re stepping forward to preserve our history,” added USTFCCCA President Leroy Burrell. “Many of the coaches in our association agree that a collegiate

athlete hall of fame is long overdue to recognize the athletes who have provided us with countless unforgettable moments.” The inaugural Collegiate Athlete Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony took place at the Hult Center for the Performing Arts in Eugene, Ore., on Monday, June 6, 2022. The induction preceded the 100th edition of the NCAA Division I Outdoor Track & Field Championships which was held at Hayward Field, June 8-11. The inaugural group of 30 inductees – chosen solely on their accomplishments while a collegiate athlete – is just a starting point to showcase the robust history of excellence in collegiate track & field and cross country. Combined, this group of 30 during their collegiate careers, compiled 205 national collegiate individual titles, 99 world records, and 19 Olympic gold medals. Eligibility for induction this year was limited to men who had completed their collegiate eligibility prior to 2000 and women prior to 2010.

Jenny Barringer Colorado 2005-2009

Ralph Boston Tennessee State 1958-1961

Ron Delany Villanova 1955-1958

Harrison Dillard Baldwin Wallace 1942-1943, 1946-1948

Suzy Favor Wisconsin 1986-1990

Charlie Greene Nebraska 1964-1967

Carlette Guidry Texas 1988-1991

DeHart Hubbard Michigan 1922-1925

Vicki Huber Villanova 1985-1989

Jackie Johnson Arizona State 2004, 2006-2008

44

techniques AUGUST 2022

Jackie Joyner UCLA 1981-1983, 1985

Sally Kipyego Texas Tech 2005-2009

Carl Lewis Houston 1980-1981

Gerry Lindgren Washington State 1965-1969

Randy Matson Texas A&M 1964-1967

Ralph Metcalfe Marquette 1931-1934

Rodney Milburn Southern 1970-1973

Bobby Morrow Abilene Christian 1955-1958

Suleiman Nyambui UTEP 1978-1982

Billy Olson Abilene Christian 1978-1982

Merlene Ottey Nebraska 1980-1984

Jesse Owens Ohio State 1934-1936

Mel Patton Southern California 1946-1949

Steve Prefontaine Oregon 1969-1973

Meg Ritchie Arizona 1980-1983

Henry Rono Washington State 1976-1979

Wilma Rudolph Tennessee State 1959-1963

Jim Ryun Kansas 1966-1969

Erick Walder Arkansas 1991-1994

John Woodruff Pittsburgh 1936-1939 AUGUST 2022 techniques

45

2022 National Outdoor Track & Field NCAA DIVISION I

Mike Holloway Florida Women’s Head COY

Mike Holloway Florida Men’s Head COY

Nic Petersen Florida Women’s Assistant COY

Nick Newman Tennessee Men’s Assistant COY

Abby Steiner Kentucky Women’s Track AOY

Joseph Fahnbulleh Florida Men’s Track AOY

Anna Hall Florida Women’s Field AOY

Ayden OwensDelerme Arkansas Men’s Field AOY

Chris Parno Minnesota State Women’s Assistant COY

Jason Crow Pittsburg State Men’s Assistant COY

Denisha Cartwright Minnesota State Women’s Track AOY

Trevor Bassitt Ashland Men’s Track AOY

Zada Swoopes West Texas A&M Women’s Field AOY

LJ Kiner Pittsburg State Men’s Field AOY

Victoria Kadiri Johns Hopkins Women’s Field AOY

Marcus Weaver UW-Eau Claire Men’s Field AOY

NCAA DIVISION II

Matt Stewart West Texas A&M Women’s Head COY

Kyle Rutledge Pittsburg State Men’s Head COY

NCAA DIVISION III

Matt Jones Loras Women’s Head COY

46

Chip Schneider UW-Eau Claire Men’s Head COY

techniques AUGUST 2022

Peter Delzer Carroll (Wis.) Co-Women’s Assistant COY

Alex Jebb Johns Hopkins Co-Women’s Assistant COY

Ryan Chapman Wartburg Men’s Assistant COY

Ari Marks Wellesley Women’s Track AOY

Eric Gregory Gallaudet Men’s Track AOY

Athletes and Coaches of the Year NAIA

Laurier Primeau British Columbia Women’s Head COY

Dominic Demeritte Life (Ga.) Men’s Head COY

Ryan McKenzie William Carey (Miss.) Women’s Assistant COY

David Gonzalez St. Ambrose (Iowa) Co-Men’s Assistant COY

O’Neil Wright Life (Ga.) Co-Men’s Assistant COY

Becca Richtman Montana Tech Women’s Track AOY

Phemelo Matlhabe Life (Ga.) Men’s Track AOY

Destiny Copeland Indiana Tech Women’s Field AOY

Rowan Hamilton British Columbia Men’s Field AOY

NJCAA DIVISION I

Douglas Marshall Iowa Western CC Women’s Head COY

Erik Vance South Plains (Texas) Men’s Head COY

Tabarie Henry New Mexico JC Women’s Assistant COY

Wes Miller South Plains (Texas) Men’s Assistant COY

Hilda Chebet Iowa Western CC Women’s Track AOY

Jerod Elcock Butler (Kan.) CC Men’s Track AOY

Princess Kara Central Arizona Women’s Field AOY

Thomas Nieto South Plains (Texas) Men’s Field AOY

NJCAA DIVISION II

Robert Cervenka DuPage (Ill.) Women’s Head COY

Robert Cervenka DuPage (Ill.) Men’s Head COY

Joseph Kalnas RowanGloucester (N.J.) CC Women’s Assistant COY

Joseph Kalnas RowanGloucester (N.J.) CC Men’s Assistant COY

Kiara Carter DuPage (Ill.) Women’s Track AOY

Jonah McHaffie St. Charles (Mo.) CC Men’s Track AOY

Kara Knorr RowanGloucester (N.J.) CC Women’s Field AOY

Josh Rivers DuPage (Ill.) Men’s Field AOY

AUGUST 2022 techniques

47