Is Salazar right?

Uncle Rico is my hero wrote:

I saw Al Sal speak in Vancouver in December at a coaching conference. Listening to him, you quickly realize that he is a total student of the sport. He's trying to address every little thing he can with these world class athletes to gain an edge - the difference between Gold, Silver, Bronze, or not even making the podium.

As good as he was, he freely admits that he made some training mistakes as an athlete, including not concentrating more on correcting his own form.

Or not even being anywhere close to the podium for his athletes.

Graeme McDowell wrote:

I have always wondered how Al would have coached himself...does he really think he could have changed his form to that of a sprinter? I highly doubt it and I think working on form and sprinting speed is great but not at the expense of building the aerobic engine. Lydiard did believe in working on form and some of the first form drills I learned came from attending one of his camps.

Salazar did improve his form. He did work on it. When he came to Oregon he was terrible -- ungainly, shuffling. They had him running up stadium steps with a half inner tube hilled with sand around his shoulder to improve strength. A few years later as a pro he had improved, his stride had lengthened. He was never beautiful, but his form did get better.

Salazar is wrong. The obsession with form is just a way to justify unnecessary over-coaching. Look at all the great marathoners who are self coached (G. Mutai, P. Makau, etc.). If Makau spent all of his time trying to correct his heel striking, he would never have set the WR and won Berlin. Salazar and others just overintellectualize running in order to justify their existence. Running form is largely genetic. Improvement in form only happens naturally with more mileage and strength. Unless something is just crazy out of whack, there is no reason to intentionally manipulate foot strike and running form. No magic formulas. Just train hard and have talent.

Do you actually believe the ignorant crap you write, or are you a lying trollio like the match.stuck ilk?

he's a lying troll who somehow thinks he gets it, while others (coaches in general) don't.

There is a huge range of running biomechanics, and many can (if given sufficient time and knowledgeable feedback) improve their form in a number of ways. Some require improved strength to alter biomechanics, others require drills, and some don't need much at all. There is no doubt that just running can (for beginners anyway)improve form for some, but for others that is not enough. AlSal is right, this is where distance runners can learn from sprinters - efficiency and economy of movement are a major concern for sprinting, and learning to run fast AND relaxed is something that just mileage and hill reps doesn't necessarily develop.

However, for many recreational runners this can be a poor investment of time if not actually seeking to optimize their performances. In part, good form can reduce the liklihood of chronic injury, but then so can stretching (if inflexible) and orthotics (to alter biomechanical problems) for that matter.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

He's right. In what other sport is it okay to let form "develop naturally?"

What other sport is entirely composed of an activity that is 100% natural for the human species?

Wrestling.

OK Here You Go wrote:

Lenny Leonard wrote:

He's right. In what other sport is it okay to let form "develop naturally?"

What other sport is entirely composed of an activity that is 100% natural for the human species?

Trolling

Precious Roy wrote:

Salazar is wrong. The obsession with form is just a way to justify unnecessary over-coaching. Look at all the great marathoners who are self coached (G. Mutai, P. Makau, etc.). If Makau spent all of his time trying to correct his heel striking, he would never have set the WR and won Berlin. Salazar and others just overintellectualize running in order to justify their existence. Running form is largely genetic. Improvement in form only happens naturally with more mileage and strength. Unless something is just crazy out of whack, there is no reason to intentionally manipulate foot strike and running form. No magic formulas. Just train hard and have talent.

You need to understand what he's saying. All running technique is a balance between power and efficiency. The running form is a single support phase, the walking is double.

The purest, most effective technique is the sprinter. Clearly it doesn't work for 26 miles, or even one mile. However when a top distance runner sprints, he may look slow, but the closer his technique is to a sprintyer the faster he'll go.

At a jogging pace everyone looks the same. A sprinter is able to apply more force on the ground and to the drive.l That makes them faster with a longer stride and of course a faster turn over.

If you want to run fast its imprtant to understand the process behind it. Then of course you have to pay attention to a person's natural proclivities. Paula Radcliff looks like shit. And ran fast. Not any longer, probably becuse her technical inconsistencies finally caught up with her. Hall needs work. Meb was very compact and clever in his technique. The guy who came fourth looked fine but lost his ticker with about 7 miles to go and it took too long to get back. He looked the best coming in. But too little too late.

Nothing Salazar said was wrong. He was exactly right. But you need to understand why he said it and what the consequences are. This isn't about heel strike.

I didn't see anyone getting up on their toes in either of the Marathon Trials.

Junk Master wrote:

I didn't see anyone getting up on their toes in either of the Marathon Trials.

That's why no one broke 2 hours. That and stride angle.

Herbert Hombre wrote:

It seems to me that sprinting by definition involves sacrificing running economy for speed. No one could or would sprint for 26 miles because the running economy of sprinting is so low. So why would sprinting form necessarily be good form for when you need to run a longer distance with economy?

why does it seem to you by definition that sprinting involves sacrificing running economy for speed?

malacoochie wrote:

Meb was very compact and clever in his technique.

Oh, Meb's technique was very 'clever' indeed.

It is no accident that Meb has set back-to-back PR's after getting into the Skechers GORun shoe. It helped improve his stride efficiency. It is too bad this 'performance aid' was not available to Dathan when Salazar was coaching his stride mechanics a couple of years ago, and talking about a 'flat-tire' hitch in Dathan's mechanics.

There are a multitude of subtle things going on in all phases of ground strike/plant/transition/push-off. The unique shape and materials (coefficient of restitution properties, which themselves are a non-linear function of the force-loading as a function of tim ) helped Meb to increase stride momentum. The smaller ground contact area reduces wayward leg torque, again improving a clean and efficient stride.

Just sayin dude wrote:

why does it seem to you by definition that sprinting involves sacrificing running economy for speed?

Maybe "by definition" wasn't the right way to put it, but if you're sprinting you are intentionally trading more energy for greater speed.

For example, in the 100m, good sprinters aren't trying to conserve anything because good sprinters still haven't hit their peak speed by 100m. If you had an infinite amount of energy you would do the same thing and sprint a 5000m. No one is capable of that, so typically in a 5000 people run at a pace that conserves as much energy as possible until close to the end and then try to use up every remaining bit of energy in a final sprint. They don't use the same form for the whole race because sprinting the whole way would use up too much energy and a more economical stride wouldn't let them speed up at the end.

To me the assumption that sprinting form - which in its purest form in the 100m isn't trying to be economical or to hold any energy back - would be the best form for distance running is a faulty assumption because the best form for distance running also has to be economical - it can't just apply the maximum amount of force over the shortest distance.

This is correct in all but he explanation.There is an 'ideal techinique' "ideal form"If you match that with physical ability you'll run fast.If you have less physical ability you'll become a distance runner and run not so fast.:-)

I cannot believe some of the things that have been written here.

AlSal is Full of SH1T as far as "sprinting knowledge" goes.

Sprinting and running are two different activities, mechanically--almost completely different.

Real sprinting can barely be maintained for 100m by the best of the best, such as Powell. All else, much of the 200, is very fast running. The 400 is all running, and no sprinting, or else you will suck. Sprinting a 400 is far slower than running a 400--same goes for the 200, slightly less emphatically.

Distance runners do not sprint--I would even go so far as to say that they CANNOT sprint. They just don't have the appropriate equipment, same as they can't do an iron cross.

Some of them can run very fast, and there is certainly a need to be able to accelerate in distance running--but not to "sprint".

Distance runners don't "sprint" to the finish...they run very quickly. The closest thing I have ever seen to actual sprint form from a distance runner was Jeilan last year, and my raving about his performance and form can be found here:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4203011&page=3

And again, it is not a disparagement of distance runners. Distance runners cannot sprint. When they try, they look like they're goofing. A fast distance runner could run a 12-second 100m, but if they tried to sprint it, they would go no better than 13 seconds.

AlSal either has no idea what he is talking about, or he does understand, but is unable to articulate it properly.

400m guys are very fast runners. Gay and Bolt can run very fast. The first time Bolt showed serious sprinting form was on the anchor leg of last year's 37.04 WR relay.

If...IF he can continue with that form...new 100m WR

He is 100% correct, and he is proving this statement to be true.

He is 100% correct, and he is proving this statement to be true.

malacoochie wrote:

For example, in the 100m, good sprinters aren't trying to conserve anything because good sprinters still haven't hit their peak speed by 100m.

Anyone that takes more than 100m to hit their peak speed isn't a good sprinter.