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

swingsandmisses wrote:

The old thread bump was great for a laugh to see the OP claim that Ryan Banta is a better coach than Clyde Hart. Oh man I almost fell out of my chair when I got to that post. Hilariously priceless.

While, I appreciate the complement, so we are clear Clyde is galacticly better coach than I. He is on the Mt. Rushmore of track and field coaches.

So Ryry agrees that not all sprinters are trained the same unlike wrestling cat.

Correct. DNA, facilities, training age, menu of events, championship schedule, weather all play a role. That is the art of coaching no matter what you are coaching.

No.

And I have given the names of coaches who teach alternative training philosophies that are better.

The fact is, the world of track needed and still needs coaches like Tony Holler not Clyde Hart.

It's a controversial opinion but it's the truth. Hart has set the sport back.

Why does Tony Holler have so few sub-50 quarter milers? In most years, he has none. Apart from Marcellus Moore, his sprinters have been average at best. In my opinion, he had one incredibly gifted athlete on his team and he decided to capitalize on that to start making bank on his "feed the cats" program. He's an average coach who's great at self-promotion. I know many coaches who are influenced by Clyde Hart's training methods and consistently have more success than Tony Holler.

1/4 miler coach wrote:

No.

And I have given the names of coaches who teach alternative training philosophies that are better.

The fact is, the world of track needed and still needs coaches like Tony Holler not Clyde Hart.

It's a controversial opinion but it's the truth. Hart has set the sport back.

Why does Tony Holler have so few sub-50 quarter milers? In most years, he has none. Apart from Marcellus Moore, his sprinters have been average at best. In my opinion, he had one incredibly gifted athlete on his team and he decided to capitalize on that to start making bank on his "feed the cats" program. He's an average coach who's great at self-promotion. I know many coaches who are influenced by Clyde Hart's training methods and consistently have more success than Tony Holler.

Exactly.

I'll give Holler credit, I think his system works well for HS 100/200 runners. But he argues his success at the 4x4 is due to his system. When you routinely win the 4x1 year in and year out, and your success at the 4x4 is being Top 8 a handful of times, that's not success at that specific event.

He doesn't want to put a focus on training his athletes for the 400 and that is completely fine. What is wrong is that he tries to say his way is the best way to train 400 runners and that is absolutely not true.

Holler's success at a small school in IL was partly weather.

Weather, plus the size of the school, is why East St Louis Senior (and Lincoln) used to dominate the sprints.

I didn't see his claimed 4 state titles in 4 x 100m, and I checked the years between '98 and '05 onine at IL HS State T&F results

At Plainfield North, it is a much bigger school, but one superstar sprinter is the catalyst for the recent success.

I'm not defending Clyde Hart.

He would get elite 200m runners and over train.

Jeremy Wariner was trying to get his 200m speed back toward the latter part of his career, and I think he got injured trying.

Jeremy Wariner later admitted that leaving Clyde Hart to focus more on "speed" was a mistake.

1/4 miler coach wrote:

Jeremy Wariner later admitted that leaving Clyde Hart to focus more on "speed" was a mistake.

He should have focused more on speed when younger.

Maybe then he wouldn't think it was a mistake.

What does Bud Winter say?

If posts on this site care about the results of the athletes who were coached, Winter seems to still be the best?

yhwh wrote:

1/4 miler coach wrote:

Jeremy Wariner later admitted that leaving Clyde Hart to focus more on "speed" was a mistake.

He should have focused more on speed when younger.

Maybe then he wouldn't think it was a mistake.

What does Bud Winter say?

If posts on this site care about the results of the athletes who were coached, Winter seems to still be the best?

Tommie Smith and Lee Evans were trained differently.

coach wrote:

yhwh wrote:

He should have focused more on speed when younger.

Maybe then he wouldn't think it was a mistake.

What does Bud Winter say?

If posts on this site care about the results of the athletes who were coached, Winter seems to still be the best?

Tommie Smith and Lee Evans were trained differently.

And?

I've never looked up his training before, but I just did and I post it below and discuss:

Here is an excerpt from Bud Winter's training:

During this time period they would do drills every day, when they were in top shape they would do what Winter called a “relaxation test”, almost like Charlie Francis’ flying 20’s, they would run 9/10 effort over 30 yards with running start, timed, idea was to show the sprinters that you run faster with 9/10’s speed and not all out.

I call 85% effort to be near 100% efficiency, if following the running technique that I prefer.

His basic approach to sprinting was a simple 8 step plan:

1. Use high knee action

2. Use good foreleg reach

3. Run high on toes

4. Have good arm action

5. Maintain good forward lean

6. Bound forward, not up

7. Run tall, with back straight

8. Be relaxed, with loose jaw and loose hands

If you follow Winter's 8 steps, maybe 9/10 is optimal.

I don't focus (1) because it induces a shortened muscle to lift. Same as tackle football "high knees" which I don't feel is optimal for speed.

I don't focus on (2) because the foot will adjust to the power required. His recommendation tends to work better when already running fast, because that is more about maintaining speed than accelerating. Similar to Rick Wohlhuter, with his naturally short Achilles tendons, so that he would spring around the track like a deer. If Alberto is not on Cuba's drug program, Rick is a gold medalist.

If bounding forward and only slightly up, the thighs swing up because of the power from the jump, and that appears to be high knees.

Because one can't jump and touch the rim (dunk) if tense, there is no reason to focus on anything else, especially (8), because of jumping far forward and only a little up. The body naturally does what is should, everything else feels counterproductive.

Actions speak louder than words.

I saw on Mary Cain's instagram that she was doing drills to rehab from surgery.

If she still has the fire to return to try and qualify, and she is able to train without injury, then I predict from her better form that she has a chance, provided she does the speed work and powers her way through.

If she tries the distance approach, or returns to her old form as seen online, then I think she has no chance in the 800m or 1500m.

I have a few points to make on this topic:

One thing people overlook is this thread Hart's ability to coach his athletes to peak at the right time and run there absolute best in championship scenarios (rounds etc). Michael Norman may end up running faster than Wariner and Johnson, but until I see him able to win when it matters most at the pro level, I can't say his training is absolutely superior to Hart for winning championships. MJ would win doubles at the pro level and who can forget how bulletproof Wariner and teammates were at the top of their game in the olympics and championships in the early 00's.

I think people look at the total of sub max velocity volume Hart has in his programs and overlook there is still a lot of max effort work in his schedules - all out 60s, 150 build-ups to max effort, flying 100s, lots or races (his athletes raced a LOT), block starts, short hill sprints, weight training sessions. When I've seen his larger plans, I see much of the same volume I'd expect of the max velocity work from other coaches, but the difference is that the sub-maximal sprint work is in a lot higher volume and slower (and less plyos). He prescribed weight training in the same volume that Michael Norman is doing now though.

1. Why would it be necessary to start off by saying very negative comments about a very good coach, speaking from a historical reference? Why not approach it that different methods are available and can be reviewed. Clyde Hart doesn't need any justification for what he has accomplished over his long career. It also doesn't mean new, young coaches can't improve training methods, building up from what worked years ago.

2. Athletes are not all the same and can't be coached the same.

3. High school athletes, college athletes and pro athletes can't and don't follow the same training programs for good reason. They are all living under different conditions and have different physical parameters (that is environment and physical maturity play important roles).

4. I would offer that the 400 meter runner has to be extremely versatile athletically, having speed, strength and power and the ability to sustain as much of those components throughout the race.

5. The 400 meter race is different in high school, college and on the pro level. The event has little in common at each level due to how racing and training is reflective of what goals are desired by coach and athlete.

So given that above, I look at the new wave of performances and find myself marveling at how athletes are racing this season (and don't bring up the shoes), compared to the past, going all the way back to the late 60's and early 70's.

I think today's athletes (especially pros) seem to have more time to get race pace training and goal pace training prior to competition (this can be reflective of reduced racing due to Covid). This is obvious to me at the pro level where runners can hit personal best, meet records, etc at their opening meet of the season. That was hardly ever the case back in the old days. Back when I was racing and then coaching, one would "progress" from early season fitness to late season "top fitness".

Thus, the training today seems to have changed to reflect when an athlete needs to produce a good time. In high school and in many medium level college programs, 400m runners race themselves into shape, running multiple races and events in a meet, often multiple times a week. Pros don't do that. They limit their racing schedule and, I believe spend a lot of their practice sessions mimicking racing rhythm and patterns. I compare it to how horses seem to be trained, primarily going out and doing time trials and focusing on speed training.

https://www.ofhorse.com/view-post/Thoroughbred-Racehorse-Training-How-Horses-Prepare-for-a-Career-at-the-Racecourse

. This is unlike in swimming where repetitions and workload seem to be the foundation of their training.

Finally, most of Hart's athletes had innate base speed that most 400m runner could only dream about. That speed enabled him, I believe, to work on other factors needed for strong 400 performances, since I don't think speed is lost with non-speed training.

The biggest issue I have with short-long training for young people is that they may just not be ready for it from a physical standpoint. A young, undeveloped runner, who is still a bit awkward and non-fluid, I feel, needs more medium to easy repetitions to help get his body to develop a "runner's rhythm" and good running form. A guy like Boling or Johnson may already have that maturity early on in their athlete development, but many others are more like young birds, just learning how to fly.

You can see as an athlete develops and matures over their high school career, they look more and more "athletic" and fluid as they train and race. I am not sure that is developed as quickly using the short to long training.

In the old days, when most events moved qualifiers forward by multiple rounds based mostly on place and not time, strength and endurance was important to complete all the rounds. In the modern track and field world, trials based on place and time (with no quarter finals, semi finals)or just finals on time, seem much more common place. Thus, training methods are being adapted to reflect that movement away from multiple rounds. I can see where the short to long or greater focus on speed training would be an asset for that type of racing.

This also doesn't seem to be reflected in just the 400, but also longer distances, as witnessed by the recent performances across the board. Athletes seem to be coming out of hibernation and popping outstanding marks right out of the blocks. As an old timer, I am just amazed by how that is happening. My training and my coaching was always progressive in nature. Build up a solid base and then hone in as the peak of the season comes around.

I think back to Larry James, who was second in the 400 in 1968 and was on the world record setting 4x400 team as well. I still remember he and Jumbo Elliott getting into a discussion (loud enough so I could hear it) at Penn Relays about how Larry didn't want to do another race at Penn, having run the hurdles, and multiple relays already both Friday and Saturday. Larry felt he was going to be burned out, rather than be the "Burner" as he had been racing almost every week, indoors (where he won the 440 yd dash at the NCAA meet) and a full outdoor season. Yet, he was strong enough and maintained his speed all the way through the Olympics. Keep in mind Larry was only a sophomore in college at that time.

I'm a little shocked by some responses on this thread that suggest high schoolers need a short to long approach MORE than pros. It was definitely the opposite for me, as I simply wasn't developed aerobically or LT wise to not crash and burn in a properly run 400m until I was a sr. My biggest improvements in the 400m tracked more closely to my improvements in the mile than the 100m. I improved by 1 second in the 100m from fr. to sr., 14 seconds in the 400m, 2 minutes in the mile! In college I improved my 100m by another .3 or so, but improved by 400m by almost 3 seconds and mile by about 25 seconds. Surely my 100m speed improving was important, but my endurance maybe even more so!

This didn't age well.

They aren't even that good at 4x1 or 4x2. But they are awful in the 4x4...and Tony will still say his way is the only way to train for the 400.

I agree, I don't think Tony Holler has ever simultaneously coached 4 sub 11 second guys on the same 4x100.

I will credit Tony Holler with introducing me to the Freelap timing system though. Although not super useful, I know my 10m, 20m, and 30m times from blocks.

I think his system of ranking and publishing his athletes' standings is a good motivator and builds team culture.

His actually sprint coaching methodologies are a bit questionable and if you review his work he often winds up with injured runners who never really as perform as well as their training times indicate (besides Marcellus running 3.8 for the 30m, he has had tons of guys running 3.9 for 30m, but no one under 10.5 or 10.6). Either Marcellus was sandbagging in practice or Tony's athletes need some serious energy system training/learn to run fast relaxed

If you want to introduce kids who play a variety of sports to track and field and keep them motivated, Feed the Cats is a great program. Hart's method might scare off a younger HSer who hasn't bought in.

I'm curious what Bullis HS does.

Tony Holler said no one ever gets injured on the kitty feeding program.

Based on what Quincy Wilson has said and run Bullis is definitely on a short to long program for the quarter runners.