That suggestion was just one of the misunderstandings posted in this thread.
That suggestion was just one of the misunderstandings posted in this thread.
I know that was a misprint. I was drinking when I typed it didn't didn't self correct. It should. I was done at 60 when I was sprinting.
And while I haven't coached at all for years, and only 2 olympic athletes, I'll match my shit with yours any day.
:-)
I've read a lot of your posts.
Mala, I'm not essentially disagreeing with anything you said, except for the 100m thing.
I also agree with you that there is a generally-accepted idea of "ideal sprint form".
The easiest way to tell who is sprinting and who is running is to see what they do in the 100 and 200.
Guys like Bailey, Greene, Powell, B. Johnson, etc., who are great in the 100 and relatively no good in the 200, are sprinting, while guys like Bolt, Lewis, and Gay (maybe Blake), while great in the 100 but also great in the 200, tend more toward the running aspect, which is why they suck over the first 50m relative to the first group of guys...except for Bolt, who is, of course, ridiculous. Their running form really becomes advantageous after 50m of the 100m race.
The 100m is an odd, hybrid distance. 60m is a true "sprint", or acceleration to 50m, then 10m maintaining absolute top speed. Athletes "slow down" in the latter part of the 100m because true sprint form becomes inefficient for the task of speed maintenance longer than about 10-20m. Those who "slow down" less exhibit running form rather than sprinting form, and can do very well in the 100m as a result, and great in the 200m.
There is no way that real sprinting form is applicable to any part of any race above 200m. Those who are specifically trained for motion other than sprinting actually injure themselves whey trying to sprint, or in the best case scenario, just look ridiculous.
NOT A VALUE JUDGMENT, just my opinion.