The sport of track and field would be better off if Clyde Hart never entered it and took up coaching.

It is well known that Hart's program is mainly for 400 m, maybe 200/400 m sprinters. So if you like to train 60/100 m sprinters this way, I agree this is not the best idea.

However, I don't believe all high school coaches are stupid enough to try to make all their kids be 400 m sprinters and no one paying attention to the needs of pure short sprinters.

Though I think a comparable phenomenon can be observed in middle and long distance running. Everyone is put on a high mileage long slow distance program, even the 800/1500 m runners...

Wrestling vat wrote:

Indoor? wrote:

Citation needed?

Citation for what? That he's coached by CSG? Or that CSG is a lot closer to Tony Holler than Hart?

Ever been to USC or listened to CSG talk about her training philosophy? If you have it's obvious.

Nope I haven’t been to USC or listened to CSG so going to need you to provide some proof. I would bet money that what Norman trains like is nothing close to feed the cats Tony.

Now I agree feed the cats is an alright way to bring young sprinters along who want to focus on the 100/200 and who maybe don’t like to work hard so you are sure to keep them. But to think that any college programs which are putting out top 100/200 runners is even doing anything close to that is asinine. Sure the 100/200 runners probably have training that is more focused on speed, but to think all they do is time a couple 40s and have a few days off is a week.

Also I think you are over estimating how many High Schools train their 100/200 runners long to short. I coach and don’t know anyone that trains like that for kids who only run those distances. And again there is no doubt that feed the cats is not ideal for someone who does want to focus on the 100, if it was then you’d have had a lot more success in the 4x4 then you’ve had.

Baylor's 4x400 Relays have placed in the NCAA's over 30 times in the last 35/36 years. While Clyde Hart has coached some of the most gifted athletes ever, he has also made some above average athletes great. There may be different methods to achieve success, but his system obviously works. It is foolish to condemn a training method just because it is different than another, or because other people try to emulate it incorrectly. Also, what have you achieved? You criticize one poster by calling them an anonymous, random person, but who are you? In reading your posts, you too are just a random, anonymous person who feels the need to put down one of the greatest coaches ever. There's a reason that Baylor has always been called "Mile Relay U" and the reason is Clyde Hart.

Not really that impressive either. A average kid just needs to train hard and sleep to be “respectable” at the high school level.

Question for you wrestling cat. How many kids that train for the 200 are truly sprinters? How many kids that run the 4x100 are truly 100 meter runners? Some have more potential in the 400 anyway.

I had a friend who was a great coach and his runners couldn't understand why one of them was given different training. They thought their coach was babying this runner. He explained that this young man (who ended up placing in the state meet 100) was a sprinter and they weren't. They were quartermilers. Buy-in was tough.

Wrestling cat wrote:

You know it, I know it.

Didn't Coach Hart begin to modify his program in the mid 80s when MJ was getting hurt all of the time? I think they focused less on the aerobic back then? Maybe to much intensity and not enough rest? He had some sort of epiphany when he was coaching MJ.

Anyways please correct me if I am wrong.

I was really fortunate to have a collegiate coach that avoided a ton of volume and long practices of endless repeats and I have carried that with me. Kids don't enjoy that.

It's actually really interesting to watch a long to short program go on for a season up close. My distance coach had to take a season off and I took on that roll and we brought in two sprint coaches to take on the sprints. Watching the practices it almost looked like it was borderline child abuse.

There's a reason those coaches get the top athletes to come to them. They've proved their coaching knowledge over a career to get to that point. No world class athlete goes to a coach with no experience. Not every athlete Cylde coached came in as world class.

Your comparison to a high school coach who takes in average talent is laughable. The knowledge and experience someone like Clyde has drawfs that individual. That individual wouldn't have a clue what to do to maximize a world-class talent if they walked through the door. Clyde probably wouldn't be the best coach for a mediocre high school team, but his experience extends beyond olympic medal caliber talent.

Wrestling cat wrote:

????? wrote:

LMAO

Hart got lucky that he got his hands on a couple of freak athletes with good genetics.

If you gave Hart a random selection of people to train for a 400m and someone like Latiff Thomas a random selection of people to train for a 400m, Latiff Thomas's athletes would be faster on average almost all the time. If you make them compete across all sprint distances (60, 100, 200, and the 400) then it's no contest. Tony Holler too, if he had to only focus on training the 400m.

This is funny.

Wrestling cat wrote:

You know it, I know it.

You have put forth a compelling argument. Not sure how anyone can refute all the careful data points you have laid out.

I am guessing you voted for Trump

Wrestling cat wrote:

You know it, I know it.

I know that you were attempting to be provocative, but your premise is ridiculous as it most of what you’ve posted since.

Clyde developed his program during a certain place and time. The man was/is a 400m/800m coach, nothing more and nothing less. You wouldn’t know that because you haven’t spoken to him. To say that his results were a fluke is pure fiction. The man had his first Olympic Trials finalist in the 400 in 1976 and continued that to have them in every Olympic Trials thereafter, except for 1980. I don’t advocate his ideas, but to say that they are harmful is simply ignorant.

Caryl Smith-Gilbert’s program is anything but low-volume. I have spoken to her on numerous occasions over since 2004 and know the details quite well. 18x90m hills reps and straight-legged bounds, both in the same week, are specific examples. Quincy Watts has also added some things from Jim Bush such as 500 breakdowns, repeat 300’s and longer hills for long sprinters/hurdlers., including Norman and Benjamin. They also lift heavy. To compare what they do at USC to Holler’s ideas is ludicrous.

Holler’s program works in a specific setting, with short sprinters for a limited time. Male high school sprinters will get faster by showing up and doing almost anything other than distance runs, which I’ve seen too many coaches do. Once they hit their 20’s, there needs to be greater stimulus and athletes with no training background struggle to transition.

Quite the opposite actually. Coach Hart began incorporating more sprinting in the program because Michael had issues with transitioning into meets. The only other change was to shorten the recoveries on some of the sessions, specifically in the fall. The old and new programs are available online.

Partridge wrote:

However, I don't believe all high school coaches are stupid enough to try to make all their kids be 400 m sprinters and no one paying attention to the needs of pure short sprinters.

Times have changed a bit but for a long time, 10 x200m workouts dominated HS track.

Old NE Coach wrote:

Baylor's 4x400 Relays have placed in the NCAA's over 30 times in the last 35/36 years. While Clyde Hart has coached some of the most gifted athletes ever, he has also made some above average athletes great. There may be different methods to achieve success, but his system obviously works. It is foolish to condemn a training method just because it is different than another, or because other people try to emulate it incorrectly. Also, what have you achieved? You criticize one poster by calling them an anonymous, random person, but who are you? In reading your posts, you too are just a random, anonymous person who feels the need to put down one of the greatest coaches ever. There's a reason that Baylor has always been called "Mile Relay U" and the reason is Clyde Hart.

His system works some of the time for a small percentage of people who are innately fast. I'm criticizing the system because it's not the best way to train sprinters for any distance and because it's been over prescribed. Yeah, other people emulate it incorrectly and it's not Hart's fault I'll grant that, but my whole point was that if Clyde Hart never started coaching no one would have heard of long to short, no one would have tried to copy it, and feed the cats would have developed a lot sooner. No one who starts training track as a beginner with no experience thinks to themselves that doing 10 x200m would be a great thing to do. If Clyde Hart's methodology was not out there so much of lower level track would not have turned into the nonsense you used to see around 2010.

I'm not mentioning who I am or what I have achieved. There is no need to make arguments from authority.

Not that impressive wrote:

Not really that impressive either. A average kid just needs to train hard and sleep to be “respectable” at the high school level.

I guess we have different definitions of the term "respectable". Respectable to me at a high school level means low 11s/sub 11 in the 100m for boys and low 12s/sub 12 for girls. A kid running high 11s, 12s, 13s needs to do a specific type of training to achieve that not just train "hard" and sleep.

Except clearly it is one of the best systems for 400 runners and feed the cats is not. You have done little to prove that low volume short sprint training is ideal for runners who want to focus on the 400.

coach wrote:

Question for you wrestling cat. How many kids that train for the 200 are truly sprinters? How many kids that run the 4x100 are truly 100 meter runners? Some have more potential in the 400 anyway.

I had a friend who was a great coach and his runners couldn't understand why one of them was given different training. They thought their coach was babying this runner. He explained that this young man (who ended up placing in the state meet 100) was a sprinter and they weren't. They were quartermilers. Buy-in was tough.

Quartermilers are sprinters looool. 400m is a sprint distance.

Luv2Run wrote:

Wrestling cat wrote:

You know it, I know it.

You have put forth a compelling argument. Not sure how anyone can refute all the careful data points you have laid out.

I am guessing you voted for Trump

Anyone who has an opinion on track coaching that disagrees with yours must have voted for Trump. Your powers of deduction are blowing my mind...

You can adapt feed the cats for 400m runners. Once a strong speed base has been made the athlete will have a better speed reserve than if he/she had been blasting 200m intervals. Then it's just a matter of extending speed with speed endurance work and working on lactate tolerance.

Emptying the Litter Box wrote:

Caryl Smith-Gilbert’s program is anything but low-volume. I have spoken to her on numerous occasions over since 2004 and know the details quite well. 18x90m hills reps and straight-legged bounds, both in the same week, are specific examples. Quincy Watts has also added some things from Jim Bush such as 500 breakdowns, repeat 300’s and longer hills for long sprinters/hurdlers., including Norman and Benjamin. They also lift heavy. To compare what they do at USC to Holler’s ideas is ludicrous.

Oh word? Well, I'd still argue about how much volume is really necessary for a 400m sprinter but what CSG does is still not Clyde Hart's style of 400m training.

I think feed the cats could work for an elite sprinter too with a few modifications (namely more speed endurance workouts). We are just assuming Tony Holler would coach an elite sprinter the exact same way he would coach a high school sprinter and that he would be unable to adapt his program.