contents
Volume 7 Number 4 / May 2014
in every issue
6
2 A Letter from the President 3 USTFCCCA Presidents 56 Updates from the NCAA Eligibility Center
FEATURES
6 Pound for Pound
Weight Lifting and the Men’s Throwing Events
By Don Babbitt
20 Pull and Dynamics
Direction of Pull and Dynamics of Arm Action in Hammer Throwing
By Andreas V. Maheras, Ph.D
30 Third Law of Motion
Mechanics Fundamentals for Track & Field
By Kevin O’Grattan
36 Realignment and the phases preceding it
30
4 Connections Crucial to the Success of a Pole Vault
David Butler
42 Ties that Bind
Developing relationships cultivates winning results
Ben Gall
AWARDS 49 50 52 54
USTFCCCA National Indoor Coaches & Athletes of the Year Division I: USTFCCCA Regional Indoor Coaches & Athletes of the Year Division II: USTFCCCA Regional Indoor Coaches & Athletes of the Year Division III: USTFCCCA Regional Indoor Coaches & Athletes of the Year
COVER
Photograph courtesy of UGA Sports Communications
42
MAY 2014 techniques
1
A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT Publisher Sam Seemes
W
Executive Editor Mike Corn
ell, welcome to Outdoor season 2014. I hope you are all enjoying some great competitions, warm weather and good health. As we move forward to our third competitive season of the year, I hope you find the time to appreciate all that is happening in our sports and continue to focus on making positive change for our futures. Our indoor Division I, II and III national championships were outstanding. Once again our athletes, coaches and programs put on some of the best competitive championships of all the NCAA. Congrats to all that achieved success and had a productive indoor drive. As we work our way through our outdoor competitions, I hope all of you can take the time to familiarize yourselves and your staff on the changing landscape of our sports and the potential changes within the NCAA. There is no doubt we are moving toward some major changes from our leadership within the NCAA and your voices, our voices need to be heard. Please communicate with your Athletic Directors and with our leadership of the USTFCCCA. Each conference has a conference representative that represents you on the USTFCCCA Division I Executive Committees, one for Cross Country and one for Track and Field. These conference representatives are your front line for all that is taking place within our organization. I encourage you to communicate with them on a regular basis. Your input is critical as decisions are finalized and you do have a voice in all that takes place. In addition, please note that this is a “Rules” year, and our Rules Committee will finalize all proposed rule changes over the summer for a new rule book for the next two years. Each member has the ability to submit rule proposals to the Rules Committee and the Committee will determine the final set of rules for our rulebook. After all these years of being involved on committees for USTFCCCA I truly recognize how frustrating it can be when a proposal of a change is circulated through our body, and the details, rational and reasons for these changes are not fully disclosed or they get lost in translation. This is a bit due to the nature of our sport and the many, many coaches that are in our ranks. There is no easy or simple way to introduce new concepts, ideas or changes without its effect being positive for some and negative for others. Please note, that we must have an open and communicative process for our sports to grow and become better. Let’s work forward from the understanding that we all need to work together toward our futures. I hope that each of you will be motivated to continue to work toward the betterment of our sports through working together. Ask the questions, give your opinions and work toward improvements together. I promise from my position of the USTFCCCA President that I believe in all that we are trying to do for the athletes, coaches, fans and leaders of our sports. I hope you will trust and work with us for all that you may want as well.
Beth Alford-Sullivan President, USTFCCCA Beth is the Director of Men’s and Women’s Track and Field and Cross Country at Penn State University. She can be reached at bxa10@psu.edu.
2
techniques MAY 2014
Contributing Editors Matt Cohen,
Sylvia Kamp MEDIA MANAGER Tom Lewis Media Assistant Kyle Terwillegar Membership Services Dave Svoboda Photographer Kirby Lee Editorial Board Tommy Badon,
Boo Schexnayder, Derek Yush, Gary Winckler
Published by Renaissance Publishing LLC 110 Veterans Memorial Blvd., Suite 123, Metairie, LA 70005 (504) 828-1380 www.myneworleans.com
USTFCCCA
National Office 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1750 New Orleans, LA 70163 Phone: 504-599-8900 Fax: 504-599-8909
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 2014. 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 700555969. If you would like to advertise your business in techniques, please contact Mike Corn at (504) 599-8900 or mike@ustfccca.org.
ustfccca PRESIDENTs DIVISION I DENNIS SHAVER
NCAA Division I Track and Field Dennis Shaver is the Head Men’s and Women’s Track and Field Coach at Louisiana State University. Dennis can be reached at shaver@lsu.edu.
sean cleary
NCAA Division I Cross Country Sean Cleary is the Head Women’s Track and Field and Cross Country coach at West Virginia University. Sean can be reached at Sean.Cleary@mail.wvu.edu.
DIVISION II james reid
NCAA Division II Track and Field James Reid is the Head Track and Field Coach and Assistant Athletic Director at Angelo State University. He can be reached at james.reid@angelo.edu.
Scott Lorek
NCAA Division II Cross Country Scott Lorek is Head Men’s and Women’s Track and Field and Cross Country coach at Northwest Missouri State University. Scott can be reached at slorek@nwmissouri.edu.
DIVISION III kari kluckhohn
NCAA Division III Track & Field Kari Kluckhohn is the Head Women’s Track and Field Coach at North Central College. She can be reached at kskluckhohn@noctrl.edu.
KATHY LANESE
NCAA Division III Cross Country Kathy Lanese is the Head Men’s and Women’s Cross Country Coach at Case Western Reserve University. Kathy can be reached at krl3@case.edu.
MAY 2014 techniques
3
Pound for Pound Weight Lifting and the Men’s Throwing Events Don Babbitt
6
techniques MAY 2014
kirby lee photo
W
eight lifting is an integral part of strength and conditioning programs for all four throwing disciplines. In the majority of training plans, the exercises that make up the Olympic lifts and Power lifts, and their variations, are the foundation of these programs. There has been a ongoing discussion over the years in the throwing community regarding lifting and throwing which centers around how much you have to lift in order to throw a certain distance. It is quite commonplace that when two throwers meet to discuss training that the conversation quickly turns to the topic of “how much do you lift for exercise “x.� However, the correlation between throwing and lifting is somewhat limited, and far from definitive, because the throwing movement is much more complicated than the lifting movement, and there are many other factors, both physical and psychological, that can determine a good throwing performance. The purpose of this article is to provide a review of training results for male athletes attempting to compete at the highest level of NCAA competition in the four throwing disciplines. The aim is to highlight the type of lifting performances an NCAA coach may see when collecting data over the long term from their training groups. There is no intention of implying that the lifting results are statistically correlated with actual throwing performance. The only purpose is to provide a large sample of lifting results that one contrasts and compares with regard to the different throwing disciplines. General trends in the lifting performances will be discussed, and the results for these throwers will be discussed with regard to event type, strength to body weight ratio, and level of throwing performance. The statistics for the throwing athletes to be presented are from actual maximum performances and not on theoretical or extrapolated predictions from multiple repetitions. This data has also been accumulated from the throwers of the University of Georgia track and field program over the past 30 years, which has produced many successful performers in all four throwing disciplines at the NCAA level. Virtually all the athletes whose data is presented are between the ages of 18-24 years old. In addition, the lifting numbers are only representative of the training marks produced while on the team as undergraduates and are reported with their corresponding throwing performances. It should be noted that many of the throwers went on to continue throwing after college and later improved on both their throwing results and lifting results.
MAY 2014 techniques
7
POUND FOR POUND TABLE 1: Top 10 Power Lifting Totals
Name
Bench Press
Back Squat
Total
Brent Noon (70-5 ¾ Shot Put)
570
710
1280
Geno Atkins (58-0 ¼ Shot Put)
490
605
1095
Jay Harvard (215-5 Hammer, 56-3 ½ SP)
431
644
1075
Jarkko Haukijarvi (63-1 ¾ Shot Put)
475
594
1069
Mike Judge (61-7 Shot Put)
480
585
1065
Reese Hoffa (66-4 ¼ Shot Put)
465
535
1020
Caleb Whitener (64-1 ½ Shot Put)
371
606
977
Mike Van Winkle (187-9 Discus)
445
523
968
Matt Eicholtz (58-1 ½ SP, 180-1 DT)
426
535
960
John Newell (62-3 SP, 219-6 HT)
426
510
936
Clean
Snatch
Total
Andras Haklits (260-1 Hammer)
418
308
726
Panagiotis Mavraganis (235-0 HT)
408
292
700
Alex Urlando (201-5 Discus)
375
319
694
Brent Noon (70-5 ¾ Shot Put)
396
297
693
Reese Hoffa (66-4 ¼ Shot Put)
370
286
656
Tomas Sjostrom (237-0 Hammer)
375
275
650
Boris Stoikos (227-11 Hammer)
370
264
634
Caleb Whitener (64-1 ½ Shot Put)
366
266
632
Mike Judge (61-7 Shot Put)
365
265
630
Jay Harvard (215-5 Hammer)
364
264
628
TABLE 2: Top 10 Olympic Lifting Totals
Name
MAXIMAL STRENGTH and THE POWER LIFTS To begin, we will look at the maximum strength levels for the Olympic lifts and Power lifts, and see exactly what type of throwing athletes make up these lists. Table 1 shows the top 10 for the two-lift totals for the Power lifts (Bench Press and Back Squat) for the University of Georgia all-time throwers. The majority of the throwers who make up the top 10 Power lifters are shot putters, or the shot put is their primary throwing event. The high number of shot putters in the top ten power lifting lists makes sense for the following reasons. The shot is the heaviest implement of the four throwing events and requires the greatest percentage of final release speed development from the power position (85 percent). The shot is the heaviest implement of the four throwing disciplines, causing final release speeds lower than those of 8
techniques MAY 2014
the javelin, discus and hammer. The combination of heavier implement and lower release speed suggests a correlation with a reliance on maximal strength rather than speed, to be successful. They are not as tall as the typical discus thrower, and they are larger in body mass than both javelin and hammer throwers. The larger mass and shorter leverage systems make shot putters better suited for generating bigger numbers in the power lifts. One other observation was made in that some of the shot putters who are in the top 10 for the power lifts are not necessarily the top athletes in terms of throwing performance. This suggests that merely being strong in the power lifts may not necessarily be a major factor in throwing success at this level, and hints that other factors such as timing and technical execution play a more prominent role in throwing success. However, the athletes who are strong in the weight room, but not as accomplished
in throwing performance, can still have an important role in the group in pushing the more talented throwers in lifting performance while in the weight room. In summary, shot putters tend to be the strongest power-lifters in the throwing group, but the strongest power lifters were not necessarily the top throwers.
MAXIMAL STRENGTH and THE OLYMPIC LIFTS The top 10 lists for the Olympic lifting totals show a little variation from the Power lifting top 10 lists. The first observation that jumps out is that the shot putters do not dominate the Olympic lifts as much as the Power lifts. The second observation reveals that the athletes at the top of the Olympic lifting lists are among the top throwers in the history of the program. The top six performers on this list represent the school record holders for the shot put, discus and hammer, as well as the number two performer in school his-
POUND FOR POUND CHART 1:
TABLE 3: Top 15 Bench Press Performances for Men
Name
Performance
Brent Noon (70-5 ¾ Shot Put)
570
Eddie Weaver (59-6 ¾ Shot Put)
550
Daniel Vanek (63-4 Shot Put)
500
Geno Atkins (58-0 ¼ Shot Put)
490
Mike Judge (61-7 Shot Put)
480
Jarkko Haukijarvi (63-1 ¼ Shot Put)
475
Reese Hoffa (66-4 ¼ Shot Put)
465
Mike Van Winkle (187-9 Discus)
445
Alessandro Urlando (201-5 Discus)
445
Jay Harvard (215-5 Hammer, 56-3 ½ Shot Put)
431
John Newell (62-3 Shot Put, 219-6 Hammer)
426
Matt Eicholtz (58-1 ½ Shot Put, 180-1 Discus)
426
Ashinia Miller (62-6 Shot Put, 178-4 Discus)
426
Chad McClendon (61-3 Shot Put, 185-4 Discus)
420
Chris Howard (54-10 Shot Put, 181-2 Discus)
385
tory in the shot put, and numbers two and three in the hammer throw (see Table 2). Every thrower in the top 10 Olympic lifting lists is also a member of the schools top 10 list in at least one of the four throwing disciplines, making them among the top performers in school history. The majority of these throwers have also scored at the NCAA meet (placing in the top eight). While it is not statistically confirmed, a quick look at these results make 10
techniques MAY 2014
it appear that high performance in the Olympic lifts may have more to do with fostering success in the various throwing events than the Power lifts.
TOP PERFORMANCES IN THE BENCH PRESS Examination of Table 3 shows that over 80 percent of the top 15 Bench Pressers in program history were shot putters, or throwers who were very good at shot (see Chart 1). For maximal bench press perfor-
mance, this would make sense since shot putters tend to be the largest throwers and the bench press involves a motion that is very similar to the delivery pattern of the shot. Superior bench pressing performances are made possible because the large amount of weight that is lifted is a smaller percentage of the shot putters body weight when compared with traditionally smaller and lighter throwers such as javelin or hammer throwers. In addition, the shot putters leverage system (arms) used for bench pressing may not be quite as long as that of discus throwers, thus giving shot putters a biomechanical advantage in putting up larger amounts of weight in this particular lift. It should be noted however, that discus throwers were the second most prominent type of thrower in terms of bench press performance which does speak to the need to good upper body strength as a requirement for high level success in that throwing discipline. In terms of bench press performance relative to body weight, the very best performers were once again shot putters. The top five in this category were able to lift between 180-220 percent of their bodyweight (see Table 4). These top end percentages are representative of a very high level of accomplishment for the lift and are at least 30-40 percent higher than what is seen from the typical NCAA thrower.
TOP PERFORMANCES IN THE SQUAT The top performances in the back squat (thigh just below parallel) in relation to amount lifted and percentage of bodyweight, were dominated by shot putters and hammer throwers (see Table 5). Three explanations can be put forth as to why these two event areas represent the top squatting performances. The shot putters are the largest throwers or had the physical build that gave them a mechanical advantage (shorter legs and wider hips) in squatting relative to “longer and taller” throwers such as discus and javelin throwers. Hammer throwers were the second most prominent on the list for top squatting performances. Many of these hammer throwers had typical hammer body types, characterized by modest height (no more than 6-feet 0-inches to 6-feet 1-inch) and strong legs which made them well-suited for success in the squat. Both the shot put and the hammer
POUND FOR POUND CHART 2:
TABLE 4: Top Bench Press Performances per Body Weight
Name
Performance
Percentage of Body Weight
Brent Noon (70-5 ¾ Shot Put)
570
222%
Eddie Weaver (59-6 ¾ Shot Put)
550
204%
Daniel Vanek (63-4 Shot Put)
500
180%
Chad McClendon (61-3 SP, 185-4 DT)
420
179%
John Newell (62-3 SP, 219-5 HT)
426
177%
throwing sequences involve more vertical application of force against the ground (and hence a steeper release angle) compared with the discus and javelin throws, which have a larger translational movement component. This necessitates the ability to generate larger ground forces that can be developed with the use of an exercise like the squat. Another significant point of note with regard to the top 15 performance list for squat is that the best throwers were not necessarily the best squatters. While some of the throwers at the top of the list were school record holders or members of Georgia’s top five performance list for a given event, nearly 50 percent were not in the top 10 or even top 15 on the event performance lists (see Chart 2). The top marks for squatting relative to percentage of body weight lifted registered between 245-275 percent (see Table 6). These are impressive results considering a squat of double body weight is considered a very high level for throwers who are looking to perform at the highest levels of competi12
techniques MAY 2014
tion at the NCAA level. However, it should be noted that the top five squatters for percentage of body weight lifted were between the height of 5-feet 11-inches and 6-feet 2-inches. This gives them a leverage advantage in producing high body weight percentage totals compared with taller or rangier throwers (like discus and javelin throwers).
TOP PERFORMANCES IN THE CLEAN The top 15 lifting table for cleans was made up of primarily shot putters and hammer throwers (see Table 7 and Chart 3). The throwing performance level of these 15 throwers were also very high, with every member of the list being in the throwing top 10, and over 70 percent being in the top five in program history in terms of throwing performance. The top five on the clean list have also placed no worse than third at the NCAA Championships in their respective events, with two of them being multiple NCAA Champions (Haklits & Noon). It is the primary reason for the makeup of
this list are as follows: It is made up of many of the most talented and explosive throwers in program history. It consists of some of the largest throwers in program history, which means they will not have to lift as high a percentage of bodyweight to get on the list. It is made up of some of the most explosive, yet shorter throwers, who will have a mechanical advantage over taller throwers in the Olympic lifts, such as the clean. Unlike the make up of the top 15 clean max performance list, the top five performers in relation to bodyweight were either javelin throwers or hammer throwers (see Table 8). All five of these athletes were very obviously very explosive but were also shorter (two were 6-feet 2-inches, the other three were 6-feet 0-inches and under). The percentage of bodyweight lifted for these five was between 157-176 percent, which is very good. One hundred and fifty percent of bodyweight lifted in the clean can be considered very good for a top level NCAA thrower.
POUND FOR POUND TABLE 5: Top 15 Squat Performances
Name
Performance
Brent Noon (70-5 ¾ Shot Put)
710
Jay Harvard (215-5 Hammer, 56-3 ½ Shot Put)
644
Boris Stoikos (227-11 Hammer)
625
Andras Haklits (260-1 Hammer)
610
Chad Goddard (196-3 Hammer)
610
Caleb Whitener (64-1 ½ Shot Put)
606
Geno Atkins (58-0 ¼ Shot Put)
605
Chris Howard (57-10 Shot Put, 181-0 Discus)
600
TJ Davilmar (59-2 Shot Put)
596
Jarkko Haukijarvi (63-1 ¼ Shot Put)
594
Mike Judge (61-7 Shot Put)
585
Beau Braswell (188-3 Hammer)
555
Reese Hoffa (66-4 ¼ Shot Put)
555
Matt Eicholtz (58-1 ½ Shot Put, 180-1 Discus)
535
Josh Mize (155-8 Hammer)
525
TABLE 6: Top Squat Performance per Body Weight
Name
Performance
Percentage of Body Weight
Brent Noon (70-5 ¾ Shot Put)
710
276%
Boris Stoikos (227-11 Hammer)
625
266%
Jay Harvard (215-5 HT, 56-3 ½ SP)
644
248%
Chris Howard (54-10 SP, 181-2 DT)
600
245%
Beau Braswell (188-3 Hammer)
555
243%
CHART 3:
14
techniques MAY 2014
POUND FOR POUND TABLE 7: Top 15 Clean Performances
Name
Performance
Andras Haklits (260-1 Hammer)
418
Panagiotis Mavraganis (235-0 Hammer)
408
Brent Noon (70-5 ¾ Shot Put)
396
Jarkko Haukijarvi(63-1 ¼ Shot Put)
377
Tomas Sjostrom (237-2 Hammer)
375
Alessandro Urlando (201-5 Discus)
375
Boris Stoikos (227-11 Hammer)
370
Reese Hoffa (66-4 ¼ Shot Put)
370
Caleb Whitener (64-1 ½ Shot Put)
366
Mike Judge (61-7 Shot Put)
365
Lucais MacKay (230-3 HT, 184-9 DT)
365
Jay Harvard (215-5 HT, 56-3 ½ SP)
364
Trevor Snyder (249-5 Javelin)
360
Daniel Vanek (63-4 SP)
353
Chad McClendon (61-3 SP, 185-4 DT)
353
TABLE 8: Top Clean Performance per Body Weight
Name
Performance
Percentage of Body Weight
Trevor Snyder (249-5 JT)
360
176%
Panagiotis Mavraganis (235-0 Hammer)
408
169%
Andras Haklits (260-1 Hammer)
418
164%
Brian Moore (248-2 Javelin)
346
163%
Boris Stoikos (227-11 Hammer)
370
157%
TABLE 9: Top 15 Snatch Performances
Name
Performance
Alessandro Urlando (201-5 Discus)
319
Martin Maric (190-1 Discus, 237-3 Javelin)
308
Andras Haklits (260-1 Hammer)
308
Brent Noon (70-5 ¾ Shot Put)
297
Panagiotis Mavraganis (235-0 Hammer)
292
Reese Hoffa (66-4 ¼ Shot Put)
286
Tomas Sjostrom (237-0 Hammer)
275
Caleb Whitener (64-1 ½ Shot Put)
266
Mike Judge (61-7 Shot Put)
265
Boris Stoikos (227-11 Hammer)
264
Jan Bielecki (230-0 Hammer)
264
Jay Harvard (215-5 HT, 56-3 ½ SP)
264
Trevor Snyder (249-5 Javelin)
260
John Newell (62-3 Shot Put, 219-5 Hammer)
260
Brian Moore (248-2 Javelin)
256
16
techniques MAY 2014
POUND FOR POUND TABLE 10: Top Snatch Performances per Body Weight
Name
Performance
Percentage of Body Weight
David Schiedt (201-2 Hammer)
256
127%
Martin Maric (190-1 DT, 237-3 JT)
308
126%
Trevor Snyder (249-5 Javelin)
260
123%
Brian Moore (248-2 Javelin)
356
123%
Andras Haklits (260-1 Hammer)
370
121%
CHART 4:
TOP PERFORMANCES IN THE SNATCH As would be expected, the top 15 list for the snatch was very similar to that of the clean, with over 70 percent overlap between both lists (see Table 9). Like the members of the top 15 list for clean the best performers in the snatch were also top-level throwers. One third of these throwers would go on to participate in the Olympic Games or World Championships in their respective events. All 15 occupied spots on the Georgia’s top 10 throwing lists and were NCAA Championships participants. Members of the snatch top 15 that were not in the top 15 in the clean could be characterized as lighter or longer and more athletic throwers. The snatch is considered the fastest lift in the weight room so it makes sense that faster and more athletic throwers would occupy the list. In terms of throwing event representation, the hammer throwers appeared to be the majority group in the snatch top 15 list (see Chart 4). Both discus throwers and javelin throwers also had a small presence in the top 15 as well. The top 18
techniques MAY 2014
five snatch performers relative to body weight were represented primarily by hammer throwers and javelin throwers (see Table 10), and were some of the quickest and best jumpers in the history of the program with an average standing vertical jump of 33 inches.
SUMMARY After examining these lifting performance tables we can draw five general trends about the relationship between lifting and its effect on throwing performance. High performance in the Olympic lifts has a little more in common with high performance in throwing than the power lifts. The top throwers in program history were the best Olympic lifters in the program, this was not necessarily the case at times with the Power lifts. The top bench pressers were shot putters and in a few cases discus throwers. Both events rely on upper body power more than the hammer throw or javelin throw. The top athletes in the squat were
either some of the bigger throwers or shorter throwers. These throwers also came predominantly from the shot put and hammer events, which require more vertical application of force with the legs, and higher release angles, than do discus and javelin throwers. The top performers in the snatch, both in terms of both maximal weight lifted and percentage of body weight lifted, were generally the most “athletic” of the four lifting groups. The top snatchers were also the most diverse group in terms of having representatives from all four throwing disciplines as well.
Don Babbitt has been the throws coach at the University of Georgia for nearly 20 years. Babbitt has coached 46 throwers who have competed in the Olympic Games or World Championships and that group has won nine medals, and 15 top five finishes.
20
techniques MAY 2014
andreas v. maheras photo
Pull and Dynamics Direction of Pull and Dynamics of Arm Action in Hammer Throwing Andreas V. Maheras, Ph.D.
D
uring the course of a hammer throw, a thrower winds the implement a couple or three times around the body while maintaining ground contact with both feet. Subsequently the athlete executes three or four turns where the whole body rotates with the hammer by alternating between double and single support. The speed at the time of release will dramatically affect the distance thrown with the angle of release also playing a role at that instance. It is imperative for the practitioner to understand the various factors that will positively affect the hammer velocity during the course of a throw.
Forces Acting on the Hammer Ignoring air resistance, two forces will act on the hammer during the course of a throw (figure 1). Those are: the weight of the hammer (W) and the wire pull (WP). These two forces can each be analyzed into a tangential (WT, WPT) and a perpendicular force (WPE, WPPE).The perpendicular forces will affect the direction of motion of the hammer, that is, the eventual curvature of the hammer path as well as the tilt of the plane of motion.Those two forces (WPE and WPPE) will not affect the velocity of the hammer.
The forces that will determine the velocity of the hammer are the tangential forces (WT and WPT). The tangential force of the weight will tend to increase the velocity of the hammer between the high point and the low point of its orbit. As the hammer ascends between the low and the high point, that force will tend to decrease the hammer velocity.The tangential force of the wire pull will depend on two factors: a) the size of the force exerted by the thrower on the wire itself and, b) the direction along which the wire is pulled in relation to the center of rotation of the hammer. If the thrower pulls ahead of the center of rotation, the velocity will tend to increase.If pulling behind, the velocity will tend to decrease. Therefore, the velocity of the hammer will fluctuate depending on whether the sum of the WT and the WPT points in the same or the opposite direction to the direction of the hammer.In comparing the two tangential forces, that of the wire pull is the one that is mostly responsible for the changes in hammer velocity. Dapena (1984) found that the maximum wire pull was about eight times greater than the maximum tangential force due to wire pull, which indicated that most of the force exerted by the athlete on the
MAY 2014 techniques
21
pull AND dynamics
Figure 1. Forces acting on the hammer. A. Weight (W), tangential component of weight (WT), and perpendicular component of weight (WPE). B. Wire pull force (WP), tangential component of wire pull (WPT), and perpendicular component of wire pull (WPPE). The perpendicular components (WPE, WPPE) control the direction of motion of the hammer. The tangential components (WT, WPT) control the velocity of the hammer.
wire is used to keep the hammer along its circular path leaving only a small percentage to be used for changing the velocity of the hammer.
The Importance of the Direction of the Pull
Figure 2. The triangle position and hypothetical optimum pull of the hammer.
22
techniques MAY 2014
Given the above information, the direction of the hammer pull becomes of paramount importance as one assesses the factors that would enhance the velocity of the hammer. Beginning with the findings of Kuznetsov in 1965, the theory of the lengthening of double support phase emerged. Although several years later others questioned some aspects of that theory (e.g., Dapena, 1989, Morriss & Bartlett, 1992, 1994), one “position” that eventually arose from the original double support theory is that of the maintenance of the arms in a generally straight fashion with the formation of a triangle throughout the execution of the throw after entering the first turn, which is what most competent throwers are doing nowadays (figure 2). However, top-level hammer throwers of the distant past used a technique that enabled them
to more or less “drag” the hammer during the turns which, it was claimed later, caused a slowing down in the rotation of the body.One of the most obvious characteristics of that technique was a distinct flexion of the right elbow, particularly during single support (figure 5, red lines). From a mechanical point of view, excessively “leading" the hammer in the entry to the first turn and throughout the execution of the throw, is indeed not desirable as compared to a straight arm position as shown in figure 2. This is because the old use of the technique with a bent right arm was the result of a misconception regarding the optimum direction of the pull. Figure 3, shows an outline of a hammer thrower, the shoulders and arms represented by a triangle.It shows the hammer and the circular path followed by the center of mass of the hammer, and the center of the curved path (dot in the middle). As one observes this figure, it is important to consider that the force exerted by the thrower on the hammer must always be aligned with the hammer wire, other-
Figure 3. Straight-arm formation and rotation in hammer throwing. For practical purposes the left arm here is aligned with the hammer wire.
wise some applications from the laws of physics would be violated. A light, flexible wire (or a rope) can only be pulled along its length. If one tries to pull on a wire in a direction other than along its length, the wire will immediately point in another, new, direction of pull, so that one would still be able to pull along the wire. Although this can be proven using a mechanical explanation, it is also pretty self-obvious by experimenting with a string attached to an object laid on a table for example a book or a marble. In all this discussion, the hammer ball, hands and left shoulder will be kept aligned. As will be pointed out later, the body positions in figures 2 and 3 are quite close but do not exactly reflect what should be happening during actual throwing. An observation of figure 3 shows that the hammer wire, and therefore the force made on the hammer, points ahead of the center of the hammer's circular path, and therefore the speed of the hammer will increase. Attempting to take advantage of this action, sometime around the 1950s or 1960s, some practitioners figured that, if
Figure 4. Pulling along the wire (green lines) where the latter points further ahead of the hammer’s center of path
the body could be made to face in a more counterclockwise direction relative to the hammer, this would be good, because the wire would be pointing farther ahead of the center of the circular path, and therefore there would be larger increases in hammer speed. This position is represented with the green lines in figure 4. The black lines show the same picture as in figure 3. Such a direction for the hammer wire would indeed be advantageous since it would help in the generation of greater hammer speed. However, in this configuration it would not be possible to keep the hands in contact with the handle unless the wire were lengthened, which would be illegal, of course. So the basic idea was a good one, but it could not be implemented. The implication here is that, since a longer wire is not allowed, in case a thrower did maintain contact with the (legal) hammer and its handle, the radius of the hammer path would be reduced and so there would not be an overall advantage. It is impossible to pull farther ahead with both arms straight and at the same time keep the
same radius merely by turning the body more counterclockwise, because the impossibility of lengthening the wire would only allow the thrower to do such a thing by simultaneously shortening the radius (Dapena, 2011). In figure 4, if one considers translating the entire green hammer farther down and toward the left, to allow the handle to be in contact with the hands (tip of the triangle) that would surely shorten the radius. To shorten the radius less, one would need to bend the right elbow, as in the red image of figure 5. Therefore, searching for an alternative, practitioners figured that, by bending the right elbow and wrapping the left arm across the trunk in a clockwise direction, the thrower could stay facing more counterclockwise, but still remain in contact with the handle. Superficially, this would seem to solve the problem. But it did not. The wire force lost its desired more forward-pointing orientation relative to the center of the path. In other words, just because the thrower is now facing more toward the left, does not necessarily mean that the thrower is also pulling MAY 2014 techniques
23
pull AND dynamics
Figure 5. Bending of the right elbow (red lines), and wrapping of the left arm across the trunk, in a clockwise direction.
the hammer in a direction that is further ahead of the center of the path. In fact, by bending the right elbow, there will still be a slight shortening in the radius of the hammer path (figure 6). The conclusion here is that, as one compares the straight arms position with the bent right arm position, the former allows for both a more optimum pulling of the hammer, that is, ahead of the hammer's center of path (even a slight advantage as shown in the picture), and also for a longer, albeit slightly, radius of the hammer path. Those two are the factors that explain the most regarding the differences between the two positions. As hinted above, in real life, the direction of the wire pull will not point directly toward the left shoulder or the middle between the two shoulders, but toward a point somewhere between the left shoulder and the mid-point between the two shoulders (figure 7). This is so, because if the force points exactly between the two shoulders the force made on the hammer will be pointing less far ahead of the center of rotation of the hammer path, a less than optimum position. This, however, did not affect the present discussion, because the 24
techniques MAY 2014
Figure 6. Comparison between a straight–arm and a bent right arm configuration in hammer throwing. The former provides for both a more advantageous pull of the hammer and a longer radius.
positions were kept the same for all the situations described above. Some practitioners will claim that a disadvantage of turning, in the course of a hammer throw, by leading the hammer and with the right arm bent, may enable the thrower's body to rotate fast, but somehow the hammer itself will not rotate as fast as the body's rotation would indicate and, therefore this is the reason why hammer speed is compromised under those circumstances. It is not so. First of all, if the body is made to rotate faster for whatever means, that does not mean that the hammer is going to have to rotate more slowly in absolute terms. It just means that the thrower will rotate faster, and thus that the hammer is going to rotate slower than before relative to the thrower. But so what? What counts is how fast the hammer rotates in absolute terms, not relative to the thrower. It is true that, if the thrower were to rotate faster than the hammer and kept this up for a long enough period of time, there would be problems, because the thrower would not be able to twist his upper body clockwise enough to stay in
contact with the hammer handle, and this, theoretically, could be a problem. However, if the thrower notices that his body is rotating farther and farther ahead of the hammer, he will surely slow down the hammer so that the thrower and the hammer have "ballpark" similar average speeds of rotation within each turn. In summary, the practical implication is that pulling the hammer wire will not necessarily cause the hammer to increase its velocity. The crucial factor is the direction of the pull. If the thrower pulls behind the center of rotation it will cause a significant decrease in the hammer's velocity. The desirable effect is for the thrower to pull ahead of the center of rotation throughout the throw, although it seems that hammer throwers do pull both behind and ahead of the center of rotation, the former, for unknown reasons. Paradoxically, most of the force exerted by the athlete on the wire is used to keep the hammer along its circular path and only a small percentage is used for changing the velocity of the hammer. Therefore, optimum direction of hammer pull and maintenance of a wide radius path should be the two factors guiding the hammer thrower’s actions
pull AND dynamics for optimum performance.
References Figure 7. Actual optimum pull of the hammer. The hammer wire is aligned with a point somewhere between the left shoulder and the midline between the two shoulders.
Dapena, J. (1984). Tangential and perpendicular forces in the hammer throw. Hammer Notes, 5, 40-42. Dapena, J. (1989). Some biomechanical aspects of hammer throwing. Athletics Coach, 23 (3), 12-19. Dapena, J. (2011). Personal Communication. Kuznetsov, V. (1965). Path and Speed of the Hammer in the Turns. Legkaya Atletika, 11: 11-12. Morriss, C. & Bartlett, R. (1994). Biomechanical analysis of the hammer throw. Athletics Coach, 28 (3), 18-27. Morriss, C. & Bartlett, R. (1992). Biomechanical analysis of the hammer throw. Athletics Coach, 26 (3), 11-17. Some may think that when a mass spins around a fixed point, an additional force is generated which pushes that mass outwards, in the case of the hammer, keeping the wire stretched and away from the vertical. It is thought that this is the force that the hammer thrower has to counteract using her own weight.
26
techniques MAY 2014
That force is often called the centrifugal force but it is, however, illusory as it does not exist. When a body is moving, it wants to stay moving in a straight line. For it to move in a circle, it must be acted on by a force acting inwards towards the center to keep its trajectory circular. This inward force does exist and it is called centripetal, and in this narrative it is called the wire pull (WP). The term centrifugal force has come about by the misconception that there is a force that acts in the opposite direction (reaction) to the centripetal force. The pull that the hammer thrower experiences is the force that has to act towards the center to keep the hammer head from flying off tangentially, until it is released. The so called "centrifugal" force is a virtual or fictitious force.
Dr. Andreas Maheras is the throws coach at Fort Hays State University in Kansas and is a frequent contributor to techniques.
30
techniques MAY 2014
kirby lee photo
Third Law of Motion Mechanics Fundamentals for Track & Field Kevin O’Grattan MAY 2014 techniques
31
Newton’s third law of motion
T
his article discusses Newton’s third law of motion and it’s applications in Track & Field. The article’s primary focus is to correct misconceptions and misrepresentations of Newton’s third law. Although Newton’s third law is often the most well-known fundamental law of motion, it is possibly the most misunderstood. This article serves to provide clinicians with correct examples of Newton’s third law, and seeks to address some of the most common incorrect representations used by Track & Field presenters at educational seminars and courses. Also, it seeks to help coaches realize how a better understanding of mechanics can aid them in better serving their athletes.
Newton’s Third Law of Motion As coaches, we understand that a basic knowledge of mechanics and the interaction of forces with motion can help us to better coach our athletes. All of the events in Track & Field involve forces, and it is the successful execution of force application that drives athletic success. One of the areas of mechanics most individuals feel they understand well is Newton’s 32
techniques MAY 2014
third law of motion. Many individuals can even recite it from memory stating, “For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.” However, Newton’s third law happens to be one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented physics properties. The widely known action-reaction definition leads many to erroneously believe that any cause-effect relationship is an example of Newton’s third law. What contributes to this is the fact that many available resources are often filled with incorrect examples. With an appropriate understanding of Newton’s third law, coaches can better guide athletes to more efficient applications of force, and be aware of body positions that may result in injury as a result of force application. Newton’s third law states: When one object exerts a force on a second object, the second object exerts a force equal in size, but opposite in direction back on the first object. There are several noteworthy aspects of this statement. First, the third law is describing two objects that are acting on one another. The first object is exerting a force on a second object. Also, the second object is exerting a force back on the first object. This
is describing two objects that each exert one force on the other object. These two forces are known as third law pairs or action-reaction pairs. Since, each force is acting on a different object, we find that Newton’s third law pairs could never be exerted on a single object. This is often an area for misunderstanding, as many illustrations of two forces acting on a single object are described as an example of Newton’s third law. However, these examples are not correct representations of Newton’s third law. Secondly, Newton’s third law describes the relative size and directions for the two forces. Each force will have the same amount of force, and acts in opposite directions. This is true regardless of the material the objects are made of, size of the two objects, or how fast they are moving. Imagine an iron track and field shot in outer space above the Earth. With the shot in space, we can neglect any interaction with the atmosphere. The only forces present in the scenario would be the gravitational attraction between the shot and the Earth. When describing the forces in the shot-Earth system we could use the following two statements: Joe Mizereck photo
The Earth exerts a gravitational force on the shot. The shot exerts a gravitational force on the Earth. Note in the similarity of the two force descriptions. The only difference is the location of the subject in each statement. Furthermore, note how the objects simply exchanged places in the force descriptions. This is one of the easiest ways to identify third law force pairs. Also, because gravitation is an attractive force, each of these forces would be in opposite directions. When trying to identify Newton’s third law pairs, it is helpful to describe what object is exerting the force and the object the force is acting on. If you can successfully describe what is exerting the force and the object it is acting on, then locating that force’s third law pair, is as simple as exchanging the place of each object in the force description. In addition to the forces acting in opposite directions, Newton’s third law tells us the forces are equal in magnitude. This means the gravitational force the iron shot is exerting on the Earth is the exact same amount of force that the Earth is pulling on the shot. Notice the two
objects will not move the same as a result of these forces because Newton’s second law tells us their own mass plays a role in how they will move. Nonetheless, the forces they are exerting on one another are the same. Newton’s third law is also applicable to rotational motion. Forces that cause a body to rotate about an axis are known as torque. Since torque is created by applying a force to an object at a point away from the rotational axis and involves force, these forces are also governed by Newton’s third law. An example of this is a crescent wrench used to turn a nut. When force is applied to the end of the wrench, by your hand for example, that force is away from the axis of rotation (the center of the nut). This would cause the wrench to rotate about that axis. Since your hand is applying force to the end of the wrench, Newton’s third law dictates that the wrench is also applying a force to your hand. Torque, or what we can think of as rotational force, is still representative of forces acting on object, and therefore will have identifiable third law force pairs. One of the challenges in understand-
ing Newton’s third law is the fact that there are numerous textbooks, technical papers, and websites with wrong information regarding Newton’s third law. One of the most common mistakes when trying to identify Newton’s third law pairs is to believe the two forces can act on the same object. Remember, just because two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction does not mean they are a Newton’s third law pair. A prime example would be a box sitting on the ground at rest. If we think of the forces acting on the box in this scenario, it has weight and thus a gravitational attraction to the Earth. However, it is not moving downward, so there must be a force from the surface of the Earth holding it up. Since the box is not moving, these two forces must be the same magnitude, but in opposite directions. However, these two forces cannot be a third law pair because they are both acting on the box. Remember, one of the fundamental components of Newton’s third law is that a third law pair is always comprised of two forces, with each one acting on a different object. Each of these individual forces does have a third law pair, but we need to MAY 2014 techniques
33
Newton’s third law of motion analyze each force separately to find its match. As the Earth is exerting a gravitational force on the box, the third law pair would be the box exerting a gravitational force on the Earth. As the surface of the Earth is exerting a force to hold the box up, then the third law pair would be the box pushing down on the Earth. Another common incorrect identification of Newton’s third law happens when any cause/effect motion is labeled as a third law example. This happens most frequently because people are casually familiar with the action-reaction definition of Newton’s third law. Often when something is identified as being a reaction to a previous action, people falsely believe this must be an example of Newton’s third law. This error happens oftentimes with limb movements of athletes in the air as it relates to rotational dynamics. Limb movements used to control the body’s rotation as a projectile are incorrectly identified as illustrations of Newton’s third law. One example that is cited are limb movements in the air of a long jumper executing the hang technique. As the jumper progresses through the air toward the pit, they swing their arms downward. In addition to the downward movement of the arms, they bring their legs upward. These two actions are not an example of Newton’s third law despite their cause/effect, or action/reaction relationship. If we take the forces generated by the limb muscles as external forces acting on the torso, we can illustrate the third law relationships that are present. As the arms swing downward they apply a torque, or rotational force, on the torso. In doing so, we could say the arms exert forces on the torso. The third law pair to these forces would be the torso exerting a forces on the arms. The same analysis could be applied the legs. As the legs swing upward they provide force to the torso, therefore their third law pair would be the torso exerting forces on the legs. These limb movements together are an example of conservation of angular momentum, with the arms and legs providing opposite torques to control the body’s rotation rate. Newton’s third law is important for coaching track and field, because all motions generated by athletes involve forces. In many cases, we seek to control the direction of forces generated in order to maximize their effect on motion. One 34
techniques MAY 2014
such example would be that of a sprinter taking off from the blocks. At the start, the sprinter presses against the blocks. The sprinter exerts a force on the blocks. The Newton’s third law pair for this would state: the blocks exert a force on the sprinter. It is precisely this force from the blocks onto the sprinter that initially propels them forward down the track. Newton’s third law also predicts that the force from the blocks will be in the opposite direction of the force the sprinter is exerting on them. Understanding this relationship allows coaches to critically evaluate their athletes positioning through the drive phase. For example, if an athlete’s position were more vertical during the initial sprinting steps, it would not maximize their force application to accelerate them forward down the track. Newton’s third law would mandate the force exerted on the sprinter, from the track, would be more vertical and not an efficient application of force. It is precisely Newton’s third law that directs sprint coaches to evaluate shin angles for sprinters during the drive phase to more effectively dictate the direction of force the runner will receive from the track surface. This understanding of Newton’s third law can also help to identify errors in force direction and their effects. If we see a high jumper leaning toward the bar when observing their penultimate step, it would be clear that the ground will then drive the jumper into the bar because of Newton’s third law explaining the direction of force the ground would produce on the jumper. Comprehension of Newton’s third law can bring understanding to why correct body positions for our athletes will produce the best results. Another area where understanding Newton’s third law can be helpful is with injuries and injury prevention. The knowledge that all forces from an athlete directed to an implement or the ground will produce third law pair forces acting back on the athlete can help coaches recognize the source of certain injuries related to improper body positioning. Athletes adopting poor or improper body positions will not only limit their productive force application, but can also be subjecting parts of their anatomy to larger force loads than desirable or safe. A shot putter, for example, that uses poor technique and extends the shot laterally/ horizontally away from the body could
be at risk of injury. With the shot out of alignment with their shoulder as they attempt to rotate into the power position, the force from the shot could be directed through the forearm onto the elbow in a dangerous manner. If the shot putter were to utilize correct form, with their arm in line with their shoulder, the force acting on them from the shot would be directed through the entire arm and back to the shoulder socket and torso. This is just one of any number of possible examples stressing the importance of body proper positioning as a safety issue for athletes, with regard to Newton’s third law pairs. By understanding Newton’s third law and its relationship to force application, coaches can be mindful of how their athlete’s body positioning may influence the possibility of injury. Newton’s third law can be helpful in directing coaches to better instruct athletes. In any attempt to use, an understanding of how force interactions will affect athletes, one must be careful to recognize what forces Newton’s third law actually describes. If coaches can determine the direction of force an athlete is exerting on an implement or the ground, then Newton’s third law can be used to understand how forces will be applied to the athlete. This is helpful in recognizing appropriate body positioning and coaching athletes toward more efficient applications of force. Forces described by Newton’s third law must act on two different objects. The forces are always equal in magnitude, but opposite in direction regardless of the interacting bodies’ size, shape, material or condition. While Newton’s third law does apply to forces responsible for torque and rotational dynamics, many scenarios of actions and reactions in rotational dynamics are not examples of Newton’s third law. Track and Field coaches with a solid foundation in kinematics will be better able to prepare their athletes for success, and an understanding of Newton’s third law is the cornerstone of that foundation.
Kevin O’Grattan has served as an assistant cross country coach at Olympia High school for the past seven years, where he teaches AP and Honors Physics.
36
techniques MAY 2014
rice athletics photo
Realignment
and the phases preceding it FOUR Connections Crucial to the Success of a Pole Vault David Butler
T
he intricate phases of the pole vault are intertwined and connected together, each one will affect, negatively or positively, the one that follows. In this article, I will begin with “Realignment” and work backwards. I hope to show the cause and effect of four important aspects of the pole vault. In the early 1900s, a man named James Weldon Johnson composed a “spiritual song” called “Dem Dry Bones”. Some of you older readers may remember it… it goes like this: Toe Bone connected to the foot bone, foot bone connected to the leg bone, leg bone connected to the knee bone…. you get the idea! Between three steps out from takeoff and the initiation of the swing, there are four crucial aspects of technique that prescribe a successful vault. They are all connected and one affects the other, resulting in a pole that is accelerated to vertical. Thus we have the Fantastic Four Connections that create acceleration in the rotation of the pole. Yes, the Fantastic Four! Like the Marvel Comic Superheroes we read, studied, drew and collected in the 1960s. The Fantastic Four Connections of the Pole Vault. First 4,3,2,1 and then 1,2,3,4. Coaches, hang with me now, I’m only
taking about four things!
4th Connection: Realignment Realignment is a violent and aggressive re-extending of the arms at the very moment the swing is accelerating. This is a rehollowing of the shoulders as both arms extend with the pole bending away from the vaulter. The motion is a short and immediate burst, which can be mimicked by “slapping the wall” or giving someone a “high ten hand slap.” Picture this- stand about a foot from a wall, take both hands way back above and behind the head. Now, with a quick movement, slap the wall as high as possible! This will drive the body back with a lot of power. Suspended from a bending pole, this realignment coupled with the aggressive attack of a long swing gives the vaulter a swing that accelerates and brings the vaulter into an inverted position on top of the bend. Too many vaulters today block at the plant and break the bottom arm’s pressure, pulling themselves beside the pole to get upside down. This causes the athlete to either be below the bend or having to take some other shortcuts to still get on top of the bend. Realignment keeps the vaulter behind and under the pole and makes the body
as long as possible in its swing to vertical. The vertical part of realignment is the re-extension of the bottom arm, pointing totally vertical at the moment the takeoff toe is pointing towards the box. The vaulter’s body is totally straight and the left arm (right handed vaulter) is straight. In the old straight pole vaulting, with steel or bamboo, the realignment is the moment the vaulter hyper-extends both arms as both legs accelerate a long sweeping pendulum. The body will be in a straight line and one with the pole. Realignment is not a pull! Pulling in any manner or direction decelerates the rotation of the pole. Realignment is connected to and can only be performed if the Fantastic Connection No.3 is executed correctly!
third Connection: Elastic Expansion At the very moment the tip of the pole strikes the box, the vaulter must connect with the pole, becoming part of the pole in its pathway to vertical. The arms, elbow and shoulders must become elastic, stretching up and above the vaulter’s head. The bottom arm should bend at the elbow, so that the body of the vaulter can jump through the outward bend of the elbow. The left hand (right handed vaulter) should move to a vertical line MAY 2014 techniques
37
Realignment and the phases preceding it through the hips of the vaulter. This is the exact same effect the old bamboo and steel vaulters did for 60 years. These sawdust veterans would shift the bottom hand together with the top hand as they flipped the pole up during the plant. Both hands would elastically move up and back to full extension off the ground - creating the same connection, left hand in a vertical line through the body. This elastic attack of the hands and shoulders allows the body to connect to the pole’s movement towards the vertical. Planting with blocking shoulders and arms that stop and are tense will successfully bend the pole, but NOT MOVE THE POLE! The only way to try to get upside down from a blocking plant is to row forward or break the pressure with the left, causing the vaulter to slide beside the pole in a “shortcut” to vertical. The inversion of this type of vault is out in front of the bend, not on it. The Fantastic Elastic connection cannot move at its optimum without connection No.2 : Space.
second Connection: Make Space As the plant of the pole is accelerated, both arms must reach full extension, pulling the shoulders to that “hollow” position we talked about in the realignment phase. Hollow means that the head is framed by both arms, creating a hollow roundness from one shoulder around and under the chin and back to the other shoulder. This hollow shape is like a narrow “U” and pushes the pole to its highest point just before the tip strikes the box. This full extension moves the pole to a higher angle and makes it begin to accelerate towards vertical, BEFORE IT BENDS! The hollow extension can only be executed if the vaulter’s step is ON. Taking off ON (vertical line from the top of the top hand to the toe of the takeoff foot) is really connected to the first connection—the one that starts it all—the tip of the pole!
first Connection: The Action of the Pole during the Approach The verticality of the pole tip during the first steps out of the back and the action of the pole tip as it drops in rhythm with the vaulter’s acceleration down the runway sets up the next three connections. The first Connection is the pole tip up and falling through the eyesight of the 38
techniques MAY 2014
vaulter the moment he or she initiates the plant three steps out. The tip must be up and not horizontal to the runway. This “teeter-totter” effect of the tip falling and the top of the pole being picked up, creates a “weightlessness” that makes the plant extend into space; making that spatial connection from the takeoff toe through the body to the hollow arms. An active pole drop enhances posture, takeoff angle and extension off the ground. If the pole tip is static or still, it becomes a dead weight suspended out in front of the vaulter’s center, creating imbalance in posture, deceleration of approach and tension in the vaulter. This can cause a lower, later and tense plant and a takeoff that will surely be under. *One of my Rice University vaulters recently calculated the weights of a few poles as they dropped into the vaulters hand. A 13 foot 140 = 16 pounds A 14 foot 150 = 22 pounds of dead weight A 15 foot 165 = 27.6 pounds of tension, imbalance A 16 foot 180 = 31.5 pounds of broken posture, deceleration A 5 meter 200 = 39.1 pounds of either weight that hinders or 39 pounds of weightlessness that helps! In the words of the great American vaulter Pat Manson, “It doesn’t matter if you are carrying a telephone pole or a toothpick, if you drop it correctly, it becomes weightless in your hands.” Like dominoes set up to break a record, one out of place, oddly spaced or off line, and they will “stop the flow of the fall”. It’s the same in the pole vault. Drop the tip too early, too late or carry the pole still and static and the flow of the jump dissipates and breaks. If the pole slows in its rotation and the vaulter breaks at the hips, unable to get inverted, then there are “disconnections” somewhere along the line. Coaches, look for these Fantastic Four Connections: • A vertical tip out of the back and the pole tip moving freely in the last three steps. • The full, hollow extension of the arms, creating space towards the vertical. • The vertical line of the elastic expansion of the arms at takeoff, bottom hand in line with the hips. • The realignment, re-extension to the
vertical, behind and under the bend of the pole. Remember, each one is connected to the other. These four connections stay connected, and the vault will be a beautiful thing- free, flowing and fast. Disconnect any of these verticals and things go horizontal and the vertical slows and stops. The hip bone is connected to the thigh bone connected to the knee bone. Make these connections move as one, and VERTICAL is what you will get; bigger poles, higher grips, faster runs, higher heights! A few points to ponder: • Watch for POSTURE and RELAXATION. Body should be a straight line not a zigzag. • Dropping the tip of the pole early can cause numerous dysfunctional planting motions. • Watch for the hands to travel in a straight line striking extension at the same time, as one. • Taking off ON and making space with hollow arms allows the whole body to PUSH the POLE. • Study Bubka, Tarasov and numerous vaulters of the early 1980s. REALIGNMENT can only be accomplished by the success of the previous three connections. You can’t realign if you don’t use the “elastic properties” of the plant. You can’t realign if you do not create hollow space and full extended arms the moment before the tip strikes the box. This “hollow space” creates a powerful, elastic, active plant. You will struggle with the plant if the tip of the pole drops too early or too late!The Fantastic Four Connections: Pole Drop, Make Space (Push Pole to vertical), Elastic Plant and Realignment are four crucial connections that can make a vaulter fly!
David Butler has been the men’s and women’s pole vault coach at Rice University for over 10 years. In 2009, he coached Jason Colwick to the NCAA Division I Indoor and Outdoor national championships.
Ties that Bind
Developing relationships cultivates winning results Ben Gall
42
techniques MAY 2014
CALIFORNIA Baptist University Sports photo
A
fter over twenty years as an athlete and coach in the sports of cross country and track & field reflecting on my experiences, both positive and negative, has helped me understand what it is I do and where my greatest successes have been. When I began coaching I was 23 and right out of college. My idea of being a coach was basically writing workouts and administering them. If I did this successfully I figured my athletes would excel. I have come to understand that writing workouts and training plans are really a very small part of being a coach of cross country and track athletes. It is the relationships that really matter, and the successful coach is someone who can build positive relationships with those he or she works with. This article is mostly about my experience in developing the coach and athlete relationship, but I think it is important to note that the successful coach is able to develop many positive relationships. They have good working relationships with their administrators, colleagues at other schools, coaches at other levels, parents, boosters, and community members just to name a few. All of these relationships are important in becoming successful and maintaining that success long term. Mageau and Vallerand (2003) discuss in depth the successful relationship between coach and athlete. Though it is not sport specific I believe they provide a researched backed model supporting the role of the coach in helping the athlete develop into an autonomous individual who can take ownership of their own growth. “Being autonomy supportive means that an individual in a position of authority takes the others perspective, acknowledges the other’s feelings, and provides the other with pertinent information and opportunities for choice, while minimizing the use of pressures and demands” (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). I believe this sums up what it means to be a coach who is looking out for the long term development of their athletes. In the article they go on to provide a list of seven autonomy-supportive behaviors that coaches can and should engage in if they want to help their athletes develop to their highest potential while under their guidance. These seven areas are: Provide choice within specific rules and limits; provide a rationale for tasks and limits; acknowledge the other person’s feelings and perspectives; provide athletes with opportunities for initiative taking and independent work; provide non-controlling competence feedback; avoid controlling behaviors; and prevent ego involvement in athletes. They go on to discuss each one of these in detail. The one I will address is acknowledging the other person’s feelings and perspectives. If you understand where an athlete is coming from
and their background, you are more likely to act in a way that feels supportive to them. “This acknowledgement requires perspective taking on the coach’s part and shows that athletes are perceived by their coach as individuals with specific needs and feelings, and not mere pawns that should be directed” (Mageau & Vallerand 2003). I have seen coaches address this in many different ways in their interactions with their athletes; all of them having success in deepening this relationship and gaining the trust of the individual athletes on their team. There are a few coach and athlete relationships that really stand out when looking at the sport of track and field. Sebastian Coe and his father Peter are a great example of one highly successful relationship. Peter Coe knew virtually nothing about athletics when he started coaching his son, but what he felt comfortable with was that he knew his son better than anyone else. He figured out the physiology and biomechanics of the sport after becoming Sebastian’s coach. The intimacy of their relationship allowed Peter to keep Sebastian healthy and progressing at just the right pace. They were able to build on each year and were completely comfortable sharing their doubts and fears with each other. The result was one of the most successful coach and athlete relationships and one of the best middle distance runners to ever compete. In an article in the Telegraph after Peter’s death Sebastian explained why he thought the relationship was so successful. “The partnership with my father worked because I liked the guy, and would have done so even were he not my father. He could be a bit brutal, certainly, but he was right so often – having more faith in me than sometimes I had in myself” (The Telegraph, August 12, 2008). One thing that has always struck me with this relationship is that Peter consistently refused to take on other athletes while Sebastian was still competing. He felt that he would be unable to give them the attention they deserved from him and he knew that this relationship was crucial to their success. Peter and Sebastian Coe had a different relationship than most of us have with our athletes. They were father and son first and then became coach and athlete. Also, they had the opportunity to have each other’s full attention. Most of us do not have that luxury; we coach within an educational system and are in charge of full teams of athletes. On top of our coaching duties we are responsible for recruiting new athletes, doing paperwork, going to meetings and often teach classes at our universities. In addition, most of us are responsible for coaching both male and female athletes. All of this has the effect of taking our time and attention away from developing deep individual
MAY 2014 techniques
43
ties that bind
relationships with our athletes. I have come to fully believe that it is in the best interest for our teams, our athletes and ourselves to figure out a way to deepen these individual relationships within the constraints of the system we work in. When I think about my experience as an athlete, what I remember most is my relationships with my coaches and teammates. I had two coaches in my career, my high school coach and my college coach. Both coaches had time to talk with me and learn about my fears, expectations and long term goals. These relationships are intact even today and have impacted how I approach my coaching every day. My high school experience was in Anchorage, Alaska and my coach was someone who brought our school from a very mediocre program to being one of the top programs within a few years. Our team also exploded in size and eventually was close to a hundred kids on the cross country team alone. He made it fun and pushed us to reach our potential, no matter what level we were at. He showed he cared and worked hard to understand who we were. He made us want to succeed and gave us the confidence to do so. It has been over 17 years since he was my coach but our relationship still has an impact on who I am as a person and how I interact with my athletes. He showed me that as a coach you are helping athletes reach their goals while also instilling val44
techniques MAY 2014
ues that they will carry with them for the rest of their lives. In college I had quite a different relationship with my coach. We had highly successful teams and our coach was someone who made you believe in yourself and your teammates more than you would have thought possible. He made you want to succeed, not just to reach your goals, but to represent the school and team as well or better than the previous teams. He never shied away from letting us know when he was disappointed in a workout, race, or some other area of our lives. On the other hand, he was the first one to praise us when we met our goals, whether athletically, academically, or in some other area. He was able to create an atmosphere where risks were not only okay, but expected. If you were willing to risk and put yourself out there then you gained his respect and admiration. Through this environment I have seen many athletes, myself included, improve dramatically and become fiercely loyal. His office was always open and you could count on finding teammates gathering in there just talk and hang out. He also worked part time on campus doing maintenance and there were always athletes from the team stopping by and helping him out while they talked about life and running. Since graduation our relationship has changed into more of a friendship, but is stronger than ever. When I need advice or to talk about life he is
often the first person I call. Another coach who has had a major impact on me and my own coaching career was the head track coach while I was in college and then hired me when I graduated and he took a new job. I spent 10 seasons coaching under him and was able to observe and learn about coaching our sports as well as developing relationships with our athletes that have a lasting impact on them. He has always had an athlete first policy where athletes know that they are cared about as people and not just athletes. Each of these coaches has had a slightly different approach, but the result is the same; creating an environment where athletes feel comfortable opening up about their fears and doubts. This allows the coach to address those feelings, coming to an understanding of that individual athlete. Thus providing the opportunity to help them grapple with their fears and hopes as they grow into the athlete and person they desire to be. I believe it is not so much the approach that matters, but the environment created. The athlete has to know that you care about them as an individual and you are not only open to them sharing their desires and fears with you, but that you expect it. The earlier on in the relationship this trust is created the stronger the relationship can become and the higher chance of success the athlete has. Nine years ago one of my athletes came to me after her freshman cross counkirby lee photos
try season and asked if we could begin setting up a regular weekly meeting to make sure we had time to connect and talk. I agreed, and we began meeting. During the next semester she improved dramatically and ended her season by finishing 10th in the NCAA D2 outdoor championships in the 1500m. She also won conference titles in the indoor 800m and outdoor 1500m. More importantly, I began to understand her better as an athlete and person. I noticed that I could read her better at practice and was able to better adjust her workouts based on what I saw from day to day. These meetings gave me the insight I had been lacking before. We spent time talking a little about training and racing, but more time was spent talking about school and life. Just a half hour a week and we both were more comfortable with each other, which I believe helped her trust me and helped me understand her. The next fall I decided to try something drastic and set up a half hour meeting with all of the athletes I coached; at the time this was around 20 student athletes. At first many of the returners were resistant to the meetings; they felt like it was just one more thing to fill up their already busy schedules. Some of them would regularly skip or cancel the meetings. The male athletes seemed to be particularly resistant. I remained persistent and kept encouraging them to come. With each athlete these meetings took different shapes. With some of them all we talked about was their training and racing, with others we hardly ever talked about this. It was just a time for them to have my complete attention. My commitment to them was that that time each week was theirs to talk about whatever they wanted. Over the next seven years those meetings became an integral part of our program. Consistently on my annual reviews that the students filled out anonymously for the university the meetings were the most commented on aspect of their experience. They felt cared about and loved. We saw our team grow dramatically in size and competiveness; by the time I left there were twice as many athletes on the roster as there were when the meetings started. When that first athlete qualified for the national meet as a freshman, she was just the second athlete from our university to qualify for the outdoor championships, and the first female. The program now consistently sends multiple athletes to the indoor and outdoor national championships. In 2009
alone the athletes won eight all-American awards. Prior to starting individual athlete meetings we had won no NCAA AllAmerican awards. There was also an improvement in the level of retention and grades once the meetings started. It is much easier to know when a student is struggling in a class or unhappy with their experience when you have an opportunity each week to ask them how things are going and they feel comfortable being open. At least for us, in our program, these weekly meetings became one of the pillars to build the program on. The broader picture is developing a relationship with each individual athlete and making sure they know you care about them as a person and what is going on in their lives both inside and outside of athletics. I came to see my weekly meetings with the athletes as a time for them to share their feelings and desires. They were able direct this time with whatever was on their minds. At times they may not have had anything to talk about and we would just discuss what was going on in their classes or their perception of what was going on with the team. Other times they may have wanted to talk about their training and what direction we were going. Occasionally they had something deeper they wanted to discuss and we had the time for that as well. These meetings provided me with key insight into each one of them, so when I was at practice I understood if they were going through something and could better read them. I learned when it was okay to push a certain athlete and when I needed to back off. Our relationship became much more fluid and a deeper trust was instilled between us that provided both of us an opportunity to benefit and grow from the relationship. In January of 2012 I took my first head coaching position at California Baptist University. Being a head coach in charge of every aspect of the team has made it more difficult to schedule weekly meetings with each athlete. I have however tried to keep regular meetings with each athlete a part of our program. We are still figuring out the best way to do this in our program, but our staff has a priority of making time for each athlete on an individual basis. In ending his article in the February 2010 issue of Techniques Will Freeman made a powerful statement: “This coaching thing is not easy to do well. There is a lot more to it than just having a strong
knowledge base and owning a stopwatch. It is a process that, when done well, teaches the athlete to take responsibility for themselves.� I believe this statement hits directly on why coaching can be such a rewarding profession. By developing each individual relationship with your athletes you are given the opportunity to not only help them succeed in athletics, but also in life. Over the course of a career you are presented with the chance to positively influence hundreds if not thousands of lives. Over the past 12 years I have come to understand this and it was the athletes I have been lucky enough to coach that taught me the importance and potential impact of each individual relationship. There are a lot of different ways to strengthen your relationship with each one of your athletes and provide them with the environment that will help them to continue to grow and develop as they are on your team. We are each in a unique environment that presents us with many opportunities and challenges. I hope that my experiences can provide insight into how I have tried and continue to try to do this. Each coach needs to acknowledge the constraints they work under as well as the importance of providing a relational environment where their athletes feel free to express themselves and work towards their goals under the safety of the coaches’ guidance. If you can figure out how to provide this environment I fully believe that you will not only see athletic success on your teams, but success in all the other areas of life that are so important to our athletes.
References Freeman, W. (2010). Knowledge and wisdom in coaching. Techniques. 3(4).16-21. Mageau, GA., & Vallerand, RJ., (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: a motivational model. Journal of Sports Science. 21(11), 883-904. Miller, D. (2008). Peter Coe: the father who kept Seb on track. The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3637649/Peter-Coe-the-father-whokept-Seb-on-track.html
Ben Gall is the Head Cross Country Coach at California Baptist University in Riverside, Calif. Gall holds a doctorate in educational leadership and management from Capella University. MAY 2014 techniques
45
ustfccca supporters
Through their ongoing support of the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Associaton, 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.
mondoworldwide.com
ucsspirit.com
hokaoneone.com
beynonsports.com
rekortanspurtanadvpolytech.com
stockmeier-urethanes.com
dataathletics.com
directathletics.com
46
techniques MAY 2014
balfour.com
ucsspirit.com
mfathletic.com
coachesdirectory.com
vsathletics.com
athleticsuniverse.com
garmin.com
trainingpeaks.com
maxmedals.com
elliptigo.com
MAY 2014 techniques
47
2014 ustfccca national INDOOR coaches & athletes of the year division i
Robert Johnson Petros Kyprianou Oregon Georgia Women’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Head COY
Travis Geopfert Arkansas Men’s Assistant COY
Abbey D’Agostino Dartmouth Women’s Track AOY
Edward Cheserek Oregon Men’s Track AOY
Kendell Williams Georgia Women’s Field AOY
Curtis Beach Duke Men’s Field AOY
division iI
Rock Light Adams State Women’s Head COY
George Williams Brett Suckstorf Trent Mack Saint Augustine’s Wayne State Ashland Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Danielle Williams Johnson C. Smith Women’s Track AOY
Drew Windle Ashland Men’s Track AOY
Barbara Szabo Western State Women’s Field AOY
DeJon Wilkinson Saint Augustine’s Men’s Field AOY
division iII
Ben Dorsey UW-Oshkosh Women’s Head COY
Josh Buchholtz UW-La Crosse Men’s Head COY
Katie Wagner Al Carius UW-La Crosse North Central Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Ashante Little Wheaton Women’s Track AOY
Thurgood Dennis UW-Eau Claire Men’s Track AOY
Amelia Campbell Carleton Women’s Field AOY
Jamie Ruginski Southern Maine Men’s Field AOY
MAY 2014 techniques
49
division i 2014 ustfccca regional INDOOR coaches & athletes of the year great lakes region
Bill Lawson Kent State Women’s Head COY
Mick Byrne Wisconsin Men’s Head COY
Nathan Fanger David Astrauskas Kent State Wisconsin Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Leah O’Connor Michigan State Women’s Track AOY
Reed Connor Wisconsin Men’s Track AOY
Tori Franklin Michigan State Women’s Field AOY
Michael Lihrman Wisconsin Men’s Field AOY
Marcus O’Sullivan Randy Bungard John Gondak Villanova Penn State Penn State Men’s COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Mahagony Jones Penn State Women’s Track AOY
Brannon Kidder Penn State Men’s Track AOY
Thea LaFond Maryland Women’s Field AOY
Corey Crawford Rutgers Men’s Field AOY
Diamond Dixon Kansas Women’s Track AOY
Kirubel Erassa Oklahoma State Men’s Track AOY
Sami Spenner Omaha Women’s Field AOY
Jon Lehman Minnesota Men’s Field AOY
Anthony Rotich UTEP Men’s Track AOY
Lindsey Hall Montana Women’s Field AOY
Mark Jackson UTEP Men’s Field AOY
mid atlantic region
Beth Alford-Sullivan Penn State Women’s Head COY
midwest region
Ryun Godfrey North Dakota State Women’s Head COY
Dave Smith Oklahoma State Men’s COY
Derek Miles Billy Maxwell South Dakota Nebraska Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
mountain region
Joe Franklin Lacena GoldingJames Thomas New Mexico Clarke Texas Tech Women’s Head COY UTEP Men’s Assistant COY Men’s COY Women’s Assistant COY 50
techniques MAY 2014
Le’Tristan Pledger Texas Tech Women’s Track AOY
NORTHEAST region
Robyne Johnson Boston University Women’s Head COY
Nathan Taylor Cornell Men’s COY
Bruce Lehane James Garnham Boston University Buffalo Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Abbey D’Agostino Dartmouth Women’s Track AOY
Rich Peters Boston University Men’s Track AOY
Adabelle Ekechukwu Harvard Women’s Field AOY
Stephen Mozia Cornell Men’s Field AOY
SOUTH region
Mike Holloway Florida Women’s Head COY
Bob Braman Florida State Men’s COY
Petros Kyprianou Dennis Nobles Georgia Florida State Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Cory McGee Florida Women’s Track AOY
Arman Hall Florida Men’s Track AOY
Erica Bougard Mississippi State Women’s Field AOY
Andre Dorsey Kennesaw State Men’s Field AOY
SOUTH CENTRAL region
Mario Sategna Texas Women’s Head COY
Chris Bucknam Arkansas Men’s COY
Vince Anderson Travis Geopfert Texas A&M Arkansas Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Kamaria Brown Texas A&M Women’s Track AOY
Deon Lendore Texas A&M Men’s Track AOY
Brea Garrett Texas A&M Women’s Field AOY
Ryan Crouser Texas Men’s Field AOY
SOUTHEAST region
Edrick Floreal Kentucky Women’s Head COY
Harlis Meaders North Carolina Men’s COY
Tim Hall Shawn Wilbourn Kentucky Duke Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Dezerea Bryant Kentucky Women’s Track AOY
Matt Hillenbrand Kentucky Men’s Track AOY
Jeannelle Scheper South Carolina Women’s Field AOY
Curtis Beach Duke Men’s Field AOY
WEST region
Caryl Smith Gilbert Southern California Women’s Head COY
Tony Sandoval California Men’s COY
Curtis Taylor Sheldon Blockburger Laura Roesler Oregon Arizona Oregon Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY Women’s Track AOY
Lawi Lalang Arizona Men’s Track AOY
Shanieka Thomas San Diego State Women’s Field AOY
Nick Ross Arizona Men’s Field AOY
MAY 2014 techniques
51
division iI 2014 ustfccca regional INDOOR coaches & athletes of the year atlantic region
Lennox Graham Johnson C. Smith Women’s Head COY
George Williams Karen Gaita Doug Knol Saint Augustine’s East Stroudsburg Shippensburg Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Danielle Williams Johnson C. Smith Women’s Track AOY
Jermaine Jones Saint Augustine’s Men’s Track AOY
Tabitha Bemis Edinboro Women’s Field AOY
Dejon Wilkinson Saint Augustine’s Men’s Field AOY
Jim Dilling Minnesota State Men’s Head COY
Samantha Rivard Minnesota Duluth Women’s Track AOY
Cole Toepfer Minnesota Duluth Men’s Track AOY
Erin Alewine Central Missouri Women’s Field AOY
Chris Reed Minnesota State Men’s Field AOY
central region
Joanna Warmington Minnesota Duluth Women’s Head COY
Brett Suckstorf Todd Dejong Wayne State Minnesota State Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
east region
John Wallin Joseph Van Gilder William “Bill” Melissa Stoll Sutherland Southern Connecticut Southern Connecticut Southern Connecticut Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Southern Connecticut Women’s Head COY Men’s Assistant COY
Ada Udaya Logan Sharpe New Haven Southern Connecticut Women’s Track AOY Men’s Track AOY
Tiffany Okieme Nick Lebron Georgian Court Southern Connecticut Women’s Field AOY Men’s Field AOY
midwest region
Jerry Baltes James Kearney Trent Mack Grand Valley State Lewis Ashland Women’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY Men’s Head COY 52
techniques MAY 2014
Kalena Franklin Grand Valley State Women’s Track AOY
Drew Windle Ashland Men’s Track AOY
Jessica Bridenthal Ashland Women’s Field AOY
Justin Welch Findlay Men’s Field AOY
2014 ustfccca regional division iI INDOOR coaches & athletes of the year south region
Frank Hyland Benedict Women’s Head COY
David Cain Soyini Thompson Katelin Barber Alabama-Huntsville Alabama-Huntsville Alabama-Huntsville Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Women’s Track AOY Men’s Assistant COY
Dennis Bain Claflin Men’s Track AOY
Krishanda Campbell-Brown Benedict Women’s Field AOY
Devin Jones Alabama-Huntsville Men’s Field AOY
south central region
Rock Light Adams State Women’s Head COY
Darren Flowers West Texas A&M Men’s Head COY
Damon Martin Matt Stewart Adams State West Texas A&M Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Kayon Robinson Adams State Women’s Track AOY
Kevin Batt Adams State Men’s Track AOY
Barbara Szabo Western State Women’s Field AOY
Carlton Lavong Adams State Men’s Field AOY
southeast region
Matthew van Lierop Mount Olive Women’s Head COY
Tsehaye Baney Richard Briggs Jim Vahrenkamp Queens Queens Mount Olive Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Chelsea van Dijk Mount Olive Women’s Track AOY
Felix Duchampt Queens Men’s Track AOY
Shelby Kennard Queens Women’s Field AOY
Jovan Vukicevic Queens Men’s Field AOY
west region
Michael Friess Alaska Anchorage Women’s Head COY
Anthony Tomsich Ryan McWilliams Pee Wee Halsell Western Washington Alaska Anchorage Alaska Anchorage Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Joyce Kipchumba Alaska Anchorage Women’s Track AOY
Jordan Edwards Academy of Art Men’s Track AOY
Tiana Wills SF State Women’s Field AOY
Frank Catelli Western Washington Men’s Field AOY
MAY 2014 techniques
53
division iII 2014 ustfccca regional INDOOR coaches & athletes of the year atlantic region
Mary Kate Curran St. Lawrence Women’s Head COY
Eugene Lewis Buffalo State Men’s Head COY
Eric Flores Marques Dexter RPI SUNY Cortland Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Emily Cousens NYU Women’s Track AOY
Joseph Jensen Hamilton Men’s Track AOY
Divya Biswal St. Lawrence Women’s Field AOY
J.D. Roth SUNY Oneonta Men’s Field AOY
Joe Dunham Central Men’s Head COY
Melissa Norton Patrick Lockington Wartburg Dubuque Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Tricia Serres Luther Women’s Track AOY
Eli Horton Central Men’s Track AOY
Kayla Hemann Wartburg Women’s Field AOY
Colt Feltes Wartburg Men’s Field AOY
Clyde Morgan Wabash Men’s Head COY
Todd Swisher Roger Busch Baldwin Wallace Wabash Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Cara DeAngelis Ohio Wesleyan Women’s Track AOY
Victor Banjo Wittenberg Men’s Track AOY
Melanie Winters Baldwin Wallace Women’s Field AOY
Sean Donnelly Mount Union Men’s Field AOY
Jim Jones Salisbury Men’s Head COY
Kimberly Standridge Nick Price Johns Hopkins Widener Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Maggie Shelton Johns Hopkins Women’s Track AOY
Chris Stadler Haverford Men’s Track AOY
Marissa Kalsey Westminster Women’s Field AOY
Kris Joint Moravian Men’s Field AOY
central region
Marcus Newsom Wartburg Women’s Head COY
GREAT LAKES region
Kevin Lucas Mount Union Women’s Head COY
MIDEAST region
Bobby Van Allen Johns Hopkins Women’s Head COY
54
techniques MAY 2014
2014 ustfccca regional division IiI INDOOR coaches & athletes of the year MIDWEST region
Kari Kluckhohn North Central Women’s Head COY
Josh Buchholtz UW-La Crosse Men’s Head COY
Katie Wagner Al Carius UW-La Crosse North Central Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Lexie Sondgeroth UW-Whitewater Women’s Track AOY
Thurgood Dennis UW-Eau Claire Men’s Track AOY
Jessika Smith UW-Stout Women’s Field AOY
Brandon Zarnoth UW-Eau Claire Men’s Field AOY
NEW ENGLAND region
Nate Hoey Williams Women’s Head COY
Halston Taylor MIT Men’s Head COY
Elaina Zizza Matt Swett Amherst Worcester State Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Ashante Little Wheaton Women’s Track AOY
Coby Horowitz Bowdoin Men’s Track AOY
Jana Hieber Tufts Women’s Field AOY
Jamie Ruginski Southern Maine Men’s Field AOY
SOUTH/southeast region
Shane Stevens Bridgewater Women’s Head COY
Tyler Wingard Carl Blickle Brian Flynn Christopher Newport Roanoke Bridgewater Men’s Head COY Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Debora Adjibaba Emory Women’s Track AOY
Randy Lott Virginia Wesleyan Men’s Track AOY
Enuma Ezenwa Richard Roethel Christopher Newport Christopher Newport Women’s Field AOY Men’s Field AOY
west region
John Smith George Fox Women’s Head COY
Toby Schwarz Whitworth Men’s Head COY
Adam Haldorson Randy Dalzell George Fox George Fox Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY
Lenore Moreno La Verne Women’s Track AOY
Chancise Watkins La Verne Men’s Track AOY
Charity Arn George Fox Women’s Field AOY
James Francis La Verne Men’s Field AOY
MAY 2014 techniques
55
updates from the ncaa eligibility center
T
his spring, an interesting new character has emerged on the high school athletics scene. It is a talking bench, bent on pushing collegebound student-athletes to learn more about the new initial-eligibility standards to compete in Division I starting in 2016. This bench lives in social media, videos, stickers, posters, a public service announcement and even a school bus visiting schools in Atlanta and South Florida. You will find the bench is a tough-loving coach for the game of life with some pointed yet thoughtful motivational messages for the student-athletes he meets. He is active on Twitter (@talkingbench), 56
techniques MAY 2014
where he engages with his more than 12,000 followers to drive home his pep talks. You may have already spotted him in a public service announcement that aired during March Madness. A range of materials for high schools, parents and coaches are available at 2point3.org. We continue to ask you to help us spread the message of the changing initial-eligibility standards to today’s high school student-athletes. Thank you for working with us to help the next generation of student-athletes understand the increased academic expectations so we can give them their best chance to compete and succeed in college.
Eligibility Center Contact Info Phone: 877-262-1492 Website: eligibilitycenter.org If you have questions or ideas for additional topics for Updates from the NCAA Eligibility Center, please feel free to contact me at lkennedy@ncaa.org.
leigh ann kennedy Leigh Ann Kennedy is the Assistant Director of Amateurism Certification at the NCAA Eligibility Center. She can be reached at lkennedy@ncaa.org.