Blog

The goal of everyone involved in sport should be to enhance the performance of the athlete during competition. To that end, we undertake a variety of approaches to place load and stress on the athlete, with the understanding that the provision of this load, in the short term, acts as a stressor. This stressor requires a response from the body, allowing it to adapt and overcome, with the end result being an increase in physiological capacity. If we’re lucky, this will lead to an improvement in performance (although it is worth pointing out that physical improvements don’t always correlate with performance improvements).

There is a fine balance between load and adaptation: too much load can lead to maladaptation, where the athlete becomes over-fatigued and under-recovered, reducing their performance and increasing their injury risk. We don’t want this. On the other hand, if the load is too low, there will be too little stimulus for adaptation and, as a result, the athlete will not elicit any physical improvements from training. We don’t want this either, although arguably it is better than too much load, as at least in this state the athlete has the physical capacity to still compete while fresh.

The Measures of Monitoring

As the standard of sport performance increases, the importance of efficient and well-balanced training becomes paramount. To that end, over the last five years or so, and aided by technological advances, coaches and support staff have become more focused on monitoring the training process. Overall, this monitoring has two main goals:

1. Determine when the athlete is able to tolerate load.
2. Determine when the athlete is unable to tolerate load (and may therefore get injured).

As such, we can think of athletes as being in an optimally adaptive or sub-optimally adaptive state. A host of factors affect this—genetics, nutrition, stress—such that no athlete is likely in the identical adaptive state as their teammate. Even if we had two identical twins, it’s likely that one had slightly higher quality sleep the night before, or had a slightly easier training session a week ago. For a coach, being able to measure this is important, as it determines how much load will elicit the required stimulus: For twin A, a heavy lifting session might be ideal for that point in time, but for twin B, that same lifting session might be slightly too much.

This isn’t news to coaches: In a recent study, 67% of high-level rugby coaches rated monitoring the training load as “very important,” and 29% rated it as “important” —leaving only 4% who didn’t recognize a need for it. There are many different ways to monitor training load, with the optimal one changing based on available equipment and the needs of the performance staff. Common methods include just the quantification of training load, which we can achieve by monitoring the amount of time each player trains for (in total minutes, number of sessions, or number of drills), which is a very crude measure.

We can enhance this by monitoring something referred to as session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE), whereby the players score how hard they found the session (usually out of 10), which we can then multiply by the length of the session in minutes to get a workload score. This is a really useful metric, because now it allows us to take into consideration athlete fitness and fatigue. For example, the more fatigued the athlete, the harder they will find the session, leading to an increased sRPE score. The fitter (and fresher) the athlete, the easier they will find the session, leading to a decreased sRPE score. As such, this process allows individual variation to become apparent, which can be incredibly useful.

Fortunately, subjective measures, such as sRPE, have been shown to be as effective at monitoring athlete wellness as more objective (and usually expensive) measures. There is a caveat to this, however, and that is that sRPE is only valid if athletes give accurate and reliable scores. This isn’t always the case; if they have to give their scores in front of teammates, they might attempt to act macho and lie. Similarly, if the last portion of the session is harder than the rest, this can bias the athlete’s perception of how hard the session was, inflating the scores (one way around this is to wait until 15-20 minutes after the session to collect the RPE data).

We can then monitor training load metrics, including sRPE, over a period of time. Tim Gabbett is one of the eminent researchers in this area. Gabbett popularized the acute:chronic workload score, with the idea being that training load data (primarily sRPE x training time) could be collected to give a four-week rolling average picture of the “chronic” workload, and this can be compared to the weekly (or shorter) “acute” workloads. Large increases or decreases in this acute workload relative to the chronic, standard load the athlete is used to, are believed to increase the risk of injury, something which is again supported by Gabbett’s research.

Subsequent to this, there has been some discussion regarding the best method to calculate the acute:chronic workload, with some researchers pointing out a potential issue with Gabbett’s methods. Because fitness isn’t static, but can increase and/or decrease over time, the use of chronic workloads can be slightly misleading. As an example, I might be in a training taper, which means that if the taper goes on for long enough, I will become less fit. As a result, any training I do acutely will be more taxing than the acute:chronic workload score might suggest—in this case, the researchers recommend using an exponentially weighted moving average, which the research has shown to be effective.

Developing a Monitoring Program

So, what does the ideal monitoring protocol look like? Again, this depends on each person’s unique situation, but the best protocol is one that athletes can follow and that gives usable information. There is no point having the best protocol possible if it takes an hour to complete and you don’t get the results for two weeks. Athletes won’t want to waste time submitting the data, and the information garnered won’t inform the training process, due to the processing delay.

The immediacy of feedback is the most important characteristic of any #monitoring protocol, says @craig100m. Share on X

Returning to the study on rugby coaches, it determined that a maximum of 10 minutes spent monitoring fatigue and recovery per session was appropriate. The immediacy of feedback was deemed to be the most important characteristic of any monitoring protocol, for reasons mentioned previously. The coaches also felt that the monitoring protocol should be both inexpensive—no fancy equipment here—and easy to administer, potentially ruling out blood tests. Other important aspects were that any test should be able to have the entire team complete it at the same time, and the test should be non-fatiguing.

Alongside wellness data and training load data, it makes sense to also collect some performance data. The reason is perhaps obvious: Performance is the metric that matters, and yet we have the potential to lose sight of that if we just focus on wellness and training load metrics. By collecting performance data, we get an idea of how the athlete is responding to training—if their scores are improving, they are tolerating the load well and getting fitter; if their scores aren’t improving, then they are either in an intensified training phase (which is fine, as long as it is planned), or they are not tolerating the training load adequately, and as such are in a maladaptive state, increasing the risk of injury.

Performance is the metric that matters, and yet we have the potential to lose sight of that if we just focus on wellness and training load metrics.

Most coaches conduct performance testing at regular, but widely spaced, intervals; perhaps every month or two. While this allows for the collection of useful performance data for comparison to older data, it doesn’t allow for the making of rapid adjustments. For this, we need more frequent testing data. This creates a problem; while we need more frequent performance data in order to better adjust the training load, we can’t put in maximal testing sessions on a weekly basis because they interfere with training too much. A really good way around this is the use of sub-maximal tests on a semi-regular basis, usually in the warm-up. This approach is perhaps ideal, because the sub-maximal aspect of it means that the test doesn’t interfere with training too much, and shouldn’t be affected to a large extent by motivation.

Sub-Maximal Tests for Performance Monitoring

The sub-maximal tests you might want to use depend on the athletes you’re working with. For team sport or aerobic athletes, a useful test is the 5-5 football test, well studied by Martin Buchheit. In this test, they run for five minutes at 9 km/h with a heart rate monitor, and you collect their average heart rate for the final 30 seconds of the test and after 60 seconds of recovery (to give a score of heart rate recovery). If their sub-maximal heart rate lowers with training, then they’re getting improvements in aerobic fitness; if it increases, they’re perhaps ill or excessively fatigued. The same is true for heart rate recovery; if that goes down, they’re getting fitter. The best part about this test is that it doesn’t require a warm-up beforehand, and so it can function as a warm-up itself.

For monitoring of speed-power metrics, there are a number of different options. One is a six-second maximum cycle sprint, followed by one-minute recovery, followed by an additional six-second max sprint; in this test, you monitor peak power output. This has been shown to be a valid measure of neuromuscular fatigue in Australian Rules footballers.

A second potential measure is that of counter-movement jump height (CMJ). While this often requires expensive equipment (such as an Optojump), you can make a poor-man’s version by just having a measuring tape by the wall and seeing how high the athletes jump. There is also the option of an iPhone/iPad app called myJump, which the scientific literature has shown to be valid. When it comes to CMJ, average height is more sensitive to neuromuscular fatigue than greatest height, so it makes sense to do three to six CMJs during the latter stages of a warm-up.

A final option is that of bar speed during lifting movements, which many coaches utilize. Again, this could be sub-maximal during the warm-up—for example, a set of six hang snatches at 50% 1RM—or could just take place naturally during training, as athletes tend to lift similar loads session to session. If an athlete’s velocity at a given load is significantly lower on a given day, then they are potentially struggling with the overall training load.

A key consideration is athlete compliance. Research indicates that it is crucial that any monitoring of wellness doesn’t take a long time, and is easy for athletes to carry out. The more barriers that an athlete faces in the delivery of wellness data, the less likely you are to get consistent information. If using a questionnaire, athletes should ideally be able to complete it in around 60 seconds. An additional consideration is the ease with which you can log and record this data; if you have paper questionnaires for 30 squad members, you need to input that data into a spreadsheet. This may or may not be a worthwhile use of your time, so other options are apps that record to a centralized database that you can access, although cost becomes an issue here.

Putting the Pieces Together

Perhaps the best practical paper on athlete monitoring comes from Gabbett himself, along with other high-level authors. They published their ideas in an editorial from mid-2017 in the British Journal of Sports Medicine. Their guidelines are:

1. Determine what you want to achieve through the monitoring process
• As already discussed, this is likely going to the monitoring of improvements in training, the effects of fatigue from training, and a reduction in performance; all of which contribute to the end goal of enhancing athlete performance.
2. Determine how to collect this data
• When it comes to monitoring performance, select fitness tests that are relevant to your sport. You wouldn’t give sprinters an aerobic fitness test, for example.
• For external training load, decide on relevant metrics. If you’re a runner, this might be total training distance multiplied by intensity.
• This can be as in-depth as you require; you might want to collect blood after training to determine hormonal status, although this is likely overkill for most.
3. Collect the data
• Make sure you collect the data in a reliable and valid format; attempt to keep conditions the same.
4. Analyze the data
• There is no point in collecting data if you don’t use it to inform your decisions, so this is the crucial step. Without wanting to get too deep into statistics, for wellness data, you likely want to use standard deviations of z-scores. For fitness testing data, you have a number of options, but the smallest worthwhile change metric is perhaps the most important. If you’re not sure what this is, Anthony Turner has the best video I’ve seen on it, and this website is also an excellent resource.
5. Use the data!

There’s no point in collecting #data if you don’t use it to inform your decisions, says @craig100m. Share on X

Let’s examine this through the hypothetical situation of a sprinter I’m coaching. I’ve decided that I want to collect daily wellness data before the training session, to assess the athlete’s “readiness to train.” I do this via a questionnaire that takes about 60 seconds to complete, and allows me to understand how well she has slept, how tired and sore she is, and whether she is ill. Any large deviations from her “normal” scores (and I can determine what normal is by calculating monthly averages, for example) acts as a red flag to me; I can speak to the athlete to see what’s going on, and possibly change the training session accordingly.

A few times per week I could also implement some sub-maximal tests, the type of which we discussed earlier, to allow me to get some objective data on how well the athlete is tolerating load; if her scores indicate fatigue, and this level of fatigue is unplanned (i.e., isn’t a deliberate training variation such as functional overreaching), then, again, I can modify training. (Once more, the more data I collect, the more robust my baseline data becomes, so I can better detect deviations from normal.)

After sprint-based sessions, I could create my own modified sRPE metric by asking the athlete to rate how hard the session was out of 10, and multiplying this by the distance covered. (In the gym, I could just multiply sets x reps x weight for a volume score). Over time, I can set this up in my spreadsheet to determine the acute:chronic workload, which then allows me to tell if the athlete is under- or over-cooked, or just right.

Finally, at set points during the year, perhaps every six weeks or so, I can insert some specific performance tests; perhaps a speed test (60m from blocks), a strength test (back squat 1RM), and a power test (standing long jump). Overall, this package allows me to make small daily variations in training volume and intensity where required, guard against injury, and then determine whether the athlete is responding to training by showing improvements in testing.

Make Monitoring Part of the Training Process

In summary, athlete wellness, load, and performance monitoring is a worthwhile addition to the training process, possibly protecting against overtraining syndrome, illness, and injury, and allowing for on-the-fly modifications to the training program. While this can be expensive and time-consuming, it doesn’t have to be: Simple 60-second questionnaires, logging of total session workloads, and occasional sub-maximal performance tests are likely to be sufficient for most training program’s goals. Ensuring athlete buy-in is also crucial, as the monitoring program is only as good as the data you can collect, and if this data is unreliable, then the system falls down.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

Further Reading

• Buchheit, Martin. “Monitoring Training Status with HR Measures: Do All Roads Lead to Rome?” Frontiers in Physiology. 2014: 5(73).
• Halson, Shona L. “Monitoring Training Load to Understand Fatigue in Athletes,” Sports Medicine. November 2014: 44(2); 139-147.
• Turner, Anthony N.; Bishop, Chris; Springham, Matt; and Stewart, Perry F. “Identifying readiness to train: when to push and when to pull.” Professional Strength & Conditioning. 2016: (42); 9-14.

If you’re a regular visitor to SimpliFaster, then you’ll know that one of the objectives of the site is to help coaches get their athletes faster. While linear speed and acceleration are often the focal point, this post will take a look at another physical quality that’s highly valuable in today’s world of elite sport (especially when it comes to court and field sports): change of direction (COD) speed.

The goal of this piece is to present some of the more updated research on COD ability—in particular, what the underlying physical components of COD are and how coaches can organize different training means to enhance this very vital quality.

Before I continue, I’d like to mention something. While I hold a master’s degree in sport science, my practical experience comes from the tennis court. I’ve competed at almost every level—juniors, college, and the equivalent to what other sports would call the “minor leagues.” Over the past decade, I’ve tried to merge my experiences on the court with my experiences off of it. And while tennis is my bread and butter, I believe that the underlying mechanisms that contribute to elite movement outcomes on the tennis court can aptly transfer to other sports. This includes, but is not limited to, basketball, volleyball, soccer, football, and more.

This article reflects my experience both playing and coaching elite tennis for the better part of two decades. I do my best to offer examples from a variety of sporting disciplines, but don’t hold it against me if some examples are biased towards the tennis court.

Agility and COD ­– An Intro

There are many terms used in today’s sporting environments to define movement. Examples include: “they are quick/agile,” “those are some fast feet,” “good footwork,” and on and on. Coaches from all sports use these terms liberally and interchangeably. While, on the surface, this may not seem like a big deal, with the cutthroat competitiveness of sport today every inch or second matters. For the casual fan or observer, it may not make a difference, but for coaches working in elite settings, knowing the difference between key terms will weigh heavily on how these coaches organize their training programs.

For instance, what does the term “quickness” mean? There are books on the subject but, to be frank, I’ve studied this field for over a decade and I’m still not sure. In fact, prominent researchers in the field (Sheppard and Young 2006) disregard quickness as a sport science term altogether, claiming that it’s simply “too vague.”

Even the term “speed” is misleading. What are we referring to? Is it linear speed? Limb speed? Maximum speed? Or something else? If it’s top running velocity we’re after, you should know that in many field and court sports, athletes rarely reach top running velocities. The dynamics of the game, along with the court/field dimensions, just don’t allow for it.

#Agility is often mistaken for #COD speed. They’re closely related, but not the same, says @CoachKuzdub. Share on X

Then there’s agility. “Agility” is a real term and a very critical one at that. While its importance cannot be overlooked, it’s also a term used loosely in sport environments around the world—often mistaken for the main topic of this post, COD speed. For instance, you may think that a simple spider drill is an agility drill (see Video 1 below). If so, you’re wrong. In order for us to better understand COD speed and how training means can improve this quality, we should first differentiate between these two closely related terms, as one is highly dependent on the other.

Video 1: The Spider Drill is a classic change of direction exercise that exposes athletes to different movement patterns that help prime general efficient mechanics. While popular for tennis, athletes in other sports can also do it.

Agility vs. COD: What’s the Difference?

In a recent paper (Huggins et al., 2017), the authors begin with the following sentence: “Agility or COD is a critical physical attribute….” Notice the emphasis on “or.” Or? Really? You don’t have to look very far to know that these terms are not one and the same. To gain deeper insight, let’s briefly define each term, starting with agility. Sheppard and Young (2006) propose the following:

“A rapid whole-body movement with change of velocity or direction in response to a stimulus. This definition respects the cognitive components of visual scanning and decision making that contribute to agility performance in sport.”

Two factors jump out when reading this definition. First, that changing the direction of a movement, in the context of agility, is predicated on the presence of a stimulus. And second, this stimulus acts as a catalyst for an athlete to make a decision as to how they’ll execute the subsequent movement.

In tennis, this is pretty evident. Every time a player makes a movement towards the oncoming ball, several factors are at play. The player may anticipate the oncoming shot based on the tactical scenario, their opponent’s strengths and weaknesses, and the scoreline. Then, they will use various visual scanning cues to better perceive where the ball will end up. Given this info, the player will make a decision, and then execute the movement. This all happens within milliseconds.

Now let’s compare this scenario with the definition of COD ability: “a rapid whole-body movement with change of velocity or direction that is pre-planned.”

See the difference? The former involves a perceptual decision, while the latter does not.

Let’s look outside of tennis to illustrate this distinction. A basketball player, when defending the ball handler, changes the direction of their movements based on what the offensive player is doing—if they cross over to the left, the defender reacts to this (i.e., the stimulus). This is an agility task.

If we look at this same play from the lens of the offensive player, a different story exists. The player likely has an idea beforehand (which is pre-planned) of what play or move they will execute. This movement has layers to it—the player may know their opponent’s weakness (moving to the left) and could try to exploit that or they themself might be stronger/faster when moving to the right and choose to make a play in that direction. Because this is pre-planned (so to speak), it likely falls under the label of “COD” task.

But is it that easy? What about when the defender looks to their right for just a split second to see where their teammates are positioned? In this case, perhaps the offensive player sees a momentary window of opportunity and reacts to it. Is this movement a COD task or an agility task?

The Agility-COD Continuum in Sport

By now, you may be slightly confused. When delving into these concepts, I often am. But there’s a point to all of this; actually, a couple of points. First, movements are rarely just COD-based or just agility-based. There’s likely a continuum that exists. The way I see it, this continuum relates to the open-closed skill continuum in sport.

Gentile (2000) proposed a 16-stage open/closed skill continuum—called “Gentile’s Taxonomy”—to better classify various motor skills. At one end you’ll find skills that are completely closed, while at the other end you’ll find skills that are completely open. Within the two extremes, you’ll find a wide array of skills that may slightly favor one side of the spectrum over the other. Here’s an example of a batter hitting a baseball. (This is taken from Gentile himself. To see all 16 stages, refer to his 2000 study.)

It’s not the aim of this piece to get into the closed to open skill debate, but rather to highlight that COD and agility also act on a similar continuum.

The second point is, while I acknowledge that a continuum exists, training the underlying factors that make up COD, irrespective of agility, is still relevant. Look at Figure 2 below. Although COD doesn’t contain a perceptual component, agility does contain COD. I like the way Sophia Nimphius (associate professor at Edith Cowan) puts it and I’ll paraphrase her here. In essence, COD can occur twice, under “planned” conditions and under “agility” conditions. You can’t have an agility task without the physical, COD side of things.

All this leads us to the following: COD has many sub-components that play significant roles in its successful execution. We will now explore some of these physical qualities to gain further insight into COD speed in elite sport.

In many sports, critical movements of the game occur in incredibly tight spaces. Sport coaches from various disciplines echo similar sentiments, exclaiming thoughts like, “There’s just no space and time out there.” This is obvious in racquet sports where the court dimensions are quite small, but even on the basketball court and the soccer pitch, and in the hockey arena, key plays of a game or match are often decided in these so-called “tight spaces.” Furthermore, it’s typically the player with greater speed—or in this case, COD speed—that seems to win the battle for the puck, ball, or positioning.

Don’t believe me? A recent study (Pereira et al., 2016) took a closer look at movement in professional tennis players, and here are some interesting descriptive results from it. The total distance covered per rally was about 5.5 meters. Lateral movement occurred more than 75% of the time and, when moving to the side, the distances were much shorter. Lastly, and perhaps most intriguing, were the movement velocities. An astonishing 79% of the time, players were moving between 0 km/h and 7 km/h! Another 17% of the time was spent between 7 km/h and 12 km/h, 3% between 12.01 km/h and 18 km/h, and a measly 0.3% between 18.01 km/h and 24 km/h.

In a previous report (Abdelkrim et al 2007), we learned that in men’s basketball, up to 1,000 directional changes may occur during one competitive game. In elite females, a more recent investigation (Conte et al 2015) found that players changed direction 576 times (on average) with a range between 363 and 759. These activities last, on average, between two and four seconds. While 86% of all sprints were less than 10 meters in distance, when analyzing all movements (running, sprinting, jogging, jumping, specific basketball movements, etc.), close to 60% of them occurred in the 1-5 meter distance range.

While the basketball study didn’t analyze movement velocities, it’s safe to say that with the amount of directional changes that take place, and within a specific distance range, full running speeds aren’t reached. To make sense of these stats in terms of training prescriptions, we should look back at sport science basics, and the force-velocity relationship in particular. When movement velocities are low (like the examples above), forces have to be high, otherwise it’ll be a challenge to produce explosive, efficient movement. This leads us into our next topic of discussion, the underpinning physical factors that affect COD in sport.

Change-of-Direction and Sport – Physical Factors

I attended a presentation on COD a couple years back at a tennis federation. While the presentation was well-intentioned, the presenter refuted strength and power training as key components to COD ability. Interestingly, the arguments of the presentation were based on a review paper published in 2006 by Brughelli. Many of us know the results of that paper. If you’ve forgotten, let me refresh your memory: The review found no significant correlation between COD ability and strength or power levels.

Does that mean Sheppard and Young’s model (from above) is completely inaccurate? Or that we should forego strength and power development when attempting to make improvements in COD?!? Here’s the counterargument (Nimphius et al 2017): 

“In research and applied practice, the use of total time as a measure of COD performance has been overwhelmingly considered as a ‘valid’ measure of performance. However, recent research has suggested that the use of ‘total time’ from COD and agility tests may be masking actual COD ability, primarily because total time is biased to linear sprint ability in most tests.”

This is the reason Brughelli’s review came to the conclusion it did—up to that point, research on the topic didn’t actually measure what it intended to measure. (In some cases, researchers still make the same mistakes by using T-tests, shuttle runs, etc. that have a large linear component and, in some cases, are more relevant in testing anaerobic capacity than COD ability.)

As coaches, we should be more concerned with the various instantaneous moments of COD tasks. Share on X

So when it comes to COD, what are we trying to measure anyway? As I see it, the key to understanding COD ability in terms of the mechanical underpinnings lies in the isolated moments where a COD movement occurs. In other words, as coaches, we should be more concerned with the various instantaneous moments of COD tasks. We can divide these moments into three primary phases:

• The Braking Phase – aka the deceleration phase.
• The Propulsive Phase – aka the re-acceleration phase.
• The Transition Phase – aka as the planting phase.

Based on what we’ve outlined above, in conjunction with Sheppard and Young’s COD model, the remainder of this article focuses primarily on the physical subcomponents that make up COD.

Note: I’m a strong believer that technique and coordination are big drivers when it comes to COD ability in sport. They are heavily influenced by the specific and inherent mechanics of each sport, and even further than that, by very specific movement scenarios within each sport. It’s not the scope of this article to highlight the nuances of the various sporting movements, but for strength and conditioning coaches, I believe it’s worthwhile to analyze every possible movement outcome of the sport in question, as it will likely influence programming.  

Leg Muscle Qualities and COD Performance

While research acknowledges the importance of unilateral strength in improving COD ability, I won’t touch on it much here—otherwise this article would turn into a 10,000-word dissertation. I will, however, focus on several physical factors Sheppard and Young (2006) proposed: concentric strength and power, reactive strength, and how anthropometrics influence the discussion. Let’s dive into these in greater detail.

Concentric Strength and Power

Concentric strength and power can be most closely linked to the propulsive phase of COD. In various sport settings, after a deceleration and plant occurs, a re-acceleration in another direction takes place. Because ground contact times are longer during acceleration phases, maximum and explosive strength abilities are critical. In theory, the more force you can impart into the ground and the faster you can generate that force, the more efficient the propulsive phase.

A 2015 study (Spiteri et al.) on female basketball players showed a significant and strong correlation between propulsive force—the amount of force—from zero velocity to initiation of movement, relative to body weight (which we’ll explore in greater detail soon) and exit velocity (along with subsequent 505 test times). This means that generating a high amount of force relative to body mass will essentially improve COD ability. Thus, increases in concentric leg strength may improve first step abilities, whether that’s initiating movement from a starting position or performing a 180-degree COD.

Practically, the concentric portion might be trained in a more traditional manner (heavy explosive squats) or by decreasing and/or eliminating the stretch-shortening cycle’s (SSC) contribution to the lift (concentric or con squats—see Video 2). Con squats may be useful for sports/athletes where there’s a longer-than-normal transition phase, if a swing, kick, jump shot, or some other play is performed between the braking and propulsive phases. In these cases, concentric-only strength would be highly beneficial. Previous research (Nimphius et al 2010) supports this, as stronger athletes are able to apply force at faster rates (RFD) during the propulsive phases of COD tasks.

Video 2: Concentric work is still relevant because of the adaptations to the nervous system and the lowered stress and recovery needs. A mix of eccentric and concentric activities are wise for in-season training.

What Sheppard and Young’s model left out, however, were the two other types of muscle contractions: eccentric and isometric. Both are vital for improved COD ability in sport.

Eccentric Strength

When an athlete begins to decelerate, the braking forces acting on them are quite high. In fact, studies (Delaney et al., 2015) have shown that athletes are exposed to forces that are much higher than their own body weight during this phase. While coaches are often confronted with the question, “How strong is strong enough?,” it’s apparent that we might want to consider the ability to withstand forces that are up to two times the athlete’s own body weight.

Further to that, Spiteri (2013) found that athletes who performed significantly better at a 45-degree cutting task generated significantly higher vertical and horizontal braking forces. In other words, they were better at rapidly decelerating. In a 2015 study, the same research group found that athletes who were stronger eccentrically had a faster and more efficient transition between braking and propelling. Anecdotally, we see this when athletes appear to have a smooth transition between braking and propelling.

Practically, the eccentric phase can be accentuated with supramaximal lifts (Video 3) or by simply performing a variety of slow tempo lifts. But I doubt that’s enough. Athletes must be able to absorb considerably large forces under fast movement velocities. This is where Olympic lifts may warrant implementation—with an emphasis on the catching phase. During a hang power snatch, for instance, you can target the movement to affect bilateral or unilateral force absorption (Video 4).

Video 3: Heavy maximal eccentrics are difficult to implement without the right rack and the properly prescribed load. Eccentrics are above overload in force, not just overload with time under tension.

Video 4: Split snatches are less common than in the past, but they offer a nice blend of bilateral and single leg benefits to athletes. Include scapular strengthening from barbell pulling, and split snatches are a great addition.

Isometric Strength

Lastly, we have the transition phase. Recall that the transition phase in COD is also known as the plant phase. When looking at instantaneous joint moments, this phase seems to rely on isometric strength abilities (Spiteri et al., 2015). In other words, there’s a transition between braking and propulsion where movement velocity is zero but large forces are still at play.

It seems that athletes who possess higher isometric strength values are better able to maintain a low position when changing direction. This is important for two reasons. If you lack isometric strength, you can’t maintain your body in place. (In essence, you end up fighting against momentum, with it pushing you one way and you wanting to go the other way.)

Athletes w/higher #isometric strength values can better keep a low position when changing direction, says @CoachKuzdub. Share on X

Second, staying low when changing direction facilitates a better muscle length-tension relationship. Muscles produce more force at specific lengths. If they are too long (legs fully extended) or too short (legs fully bent), then force output will be diminished, comparatively. Keeping a relatively low stance will enable optimal force production, allowing for greater re-acceleration during the propulsive phase.

Overall, all three muscle contractions have their place when it comes to faster, more explosive, and more efficient transitions between braking, planting, and propelling. And when looking at some of the research on the topic, it seems that each COD phase links with one another. From a practical perspective, it’s likely not necessary to isolate each phase unless a visual assessment from a seasoned coach warrants it. In that case, you may implement an isometric-only exercise that deals with the exact angles of interest (Video 5).

Video 5: Isometrics are very flexible options and split squats are mechanically suited for intense training. Short periods of isometric training can help break through plateaus in strength and power.

Body Mass, Relative Strength, COD, and More

A study by Delaney et al. (2015) assessed professional rugby players on multiple abilities to determine various performance attributes and how they correlate to COD ability. When comparing a 505 COD test to a loaded vertical jump (40kg CMJ—countermovement jump), there was no significant correlation. While peak power from the vertical jump had no bearing on COD ability, when it was converted to relative peak power (based on body mass), everything changed. All of a sudden, there was a large significant correlation between the jump and COD performance.

When it comes to maximum strength in the back squat, the findings are even more telling. Delaney and his colleagues found no correlation between COD and a 3RM full-depth back squat. However, when back squat strength was reported relative to body mass, there was a strong and significant correlation to COD ability. In sub-elite rugby players, relative 1RM back squat strength was the greatest predictor of 505 COD ability. In female basketball players (Spiteri et al., 2015), there was a very strong and significant correlation between relative strength in a half-back squat and 505 COD ability.

Having a lower body mass isn’t the only factor at play here. A lower-percent body fat ratio relative to strength is also linked with faster COD test times (Spiteri et al., 2015). Essentially, lower body fat can have big impacts on an athlete’s ability to change direction rapidly and efficiently, as there is less nonfunctional mass (nonfunctional in this case meaning non-contractile). To my knowledge, strength training is the best way to improve body composition (i.e., lower body fat percentage). Remember, only muscle contracts—fat doesn’t.

A Word on Female Athletes and Specificity

Female athletes seem to consistently show greater correlations in COD ability when compared to relative strength (Nimphius et al., 2010; Spiteri et al., 2013, 2015). In the case of the Spiteri study (2015), one factor contributing to this finding is that the testing used a half squat instead of a full squat. When it comes to training, this is important for two reasons. First, a half-squat elicits angles that are more specific to COD tasks. On a tennis court or soccer pitch, it’s more common for athletes to move and change direction at these smaller angles than very deep ones, which a full squat represents. Second, athletes can tolerate higher loads in these smaller angles, which further increases relative strength values. As we’ve seen before, a conjugate approach that periodizes squats depths appropriately is warranted.

Reactive Strength and COD

Recall the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) for a moment. The premise is that when performing any type of fast, explosive movement, the involved tissues undergo a rapid eccentric stretch followed by an explosive concentric shortening. Because of this mechanism, the SSC stores and utilizes elastic energy, thereby augmenting power output to levels higher than if we were to perform a concentric-only movement (or if there was a significant lag in eccentric-concentric coupling). There are two components to the SSC, the fast component and the slow component. We’re going to turn our attention to the fast component, as its role is key when reactive strength is in the mix.

I will refer to reactive strength and the fast SSC component synonymously. Movements of this nature are highlighted by short ground contact times (<250 milliseconds), minimal flexion of the hips and knees, and perhaps most relevant to our discussion, a stiffening of the ankle and/or leg.

The Role of Stiffness

Reactive strength possesses one particular sub-component—called stiffness—that enhances the use of the fast SSC. During explosive actions, there is energy exchange between the various tissues of the lower extremity, including muscles, tendons, and ligaments. Stiffness greatly influences this transfer of energy. As the term implies, this literally means a stiffening of the targeted musculature and surrounding tissues. This can occur actively and/or passively. We can see stiffness in the lower extremity as either total leg stiffness—which includes the ankle, knee, and hip joints—or simply ankle stiffness. Stiffness in the ankle is of primary importance due to the activation and rapid contraction (from eccentric to concentric) of the triceps surae musculature, the two heads of the gastrocnemius along with the soleus.

A stiffer spring (to a point) is theorized to rapidly release stored elastic energy. This is exactly what we look for when cutting in football or recovering after a return or serve in tennis. And it begins in the ankle. If the ankle cannot stiffen, not only will ground contact times be higher, but energy may “leak.” This results in diminished stiffness at the knee and hip; both of which are influenced by triceps surae stiffness. Think of the kinetic chain: If there’s a broken link at some point, the rest of the chain suffers. That’s how important ankle stiffness is in generating movement and changing direction.

Researchers (Arampatzis et al., 2001) have found that acute changes in stiffness do, in fact, occur. This tells us two things. First, performing pre-conditioning hops (like the video below) can augment jump height, peak power, and intrinsic ankle stiffness; research has established this on multiple occasions (Kummel et al., 2016; Maloney et al., 2017). Second, having the correct intent may also contribute to increased stiffness, and morphological changes in the muscle-tendon complex are not entirely necessary to achieve stiffness.

Proper exercises and cues, therefore, have a profound effect on establishing this quality, acutely. That said, long-term passive and active morphological adaptations in the muscle-tendon and surrounding tissues may occur. Coaches must assess how much stiffness their sport requires and monitor this diligently.

Video 6: Bilateral reactive jumping is a great way to improve neuromuscular adaptations to the body while sparing the wear and tear that some single leg exercises have. You can use contact grids to measure and monitor lateral movements.

One final note on the notion of proper exercise prescription and cueing. What the aforementioned study revealed was that when athletes performed drop jumps, two things happened. First, there was a greater pre-activation of muscles of the ankle complex before they hit the ground. And second, co-contraction—the ability to contract both the agonist and antagonist musculature simultaneously—increased.

It is important to deliberately train stiffness/reactiveness off the field or court, says @CoachKuzdub. Share on X

Both of these factors increase stiffness. This simply highlights the importance of deliberately training stiffness/reactiveness off the field or court. Lastly, there are ways to make these types of drills more “agility” based by using various external cues (whether verbal, hand gestures, or otherwise). For instance, you can prescribe a drop jump exercise in a closed manner (Video 7) or more open (Video 8).

Video 7: Lateral plyos are about redirecting forces, not just moving side to side. Focus on quality landing positions before changing directions, as it’s easy to get lost on the location an athlete moves to instead of how they receive forces off the ground.

Video 8: Athletes can do lateral jumps on the court, field, or pitch. Include hurdles and cones as general guidelines only, not tight zones of movement, so the athlete doesn’t feel restricted.

Don’t Forget About Technique

My objective in this article was twofold. First, it was my belief that making the distinction between agility and COD was key to laying the foundation for these two qualities. While COD deals only with physical/technical factors, agility entails both perceptual/decision-making factors along with COD factors. Second, it was my aim to uncover why strength and power were previously shown as insignificant players in the optimization of COD (in terms of what the previous research revealed). Also, to offer an updated viewpoint towards the underlying mechanical requirements athletes should possess in order to change direction effectively. These can be trained off the court or field.

Lastly, I’d like to reiterate that this analysis only takes into account a fraction of what’s important when attempting to improve agility and COD as a whole. There are a number of schools of thought on this topic, from game-based approaches to constraint-led drills. I’m not trying to disregard the importance of other methods on COD and agility development, but a universal approach to training makes logical sense to me. While I haven’t touched on technique and mechanics, I do believe we shouldn’t neglect their place in the training process. That said, for athletes to express movement efficiently, it’s my belief that they must possess both the technical proficiency and the physical capacity to do so.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

References

1. Arampatzis, A., Schade, F., Walsh, M. and Brüggemann, G. (2001). “Influence of leg stiffness and its effect on myodynamic jumping performance.” Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 11(5), pp.355-364.
2. Ben Abdelkrim, N., El Fazaa, S., El Ati, J. and Tabka, Z. (2007). “Time-motion analysis and physiological data of elite under-19-year-old basketball players during competition” * Commentary. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 41(2), pp.69-75.
3. Bergmann, J., Kramer, A. and Gruber, M. (2013). “Repetitive Hops Induce Postactivation Potentiation in Triceps Surae as well as an Increase in the Jump Height of Subsequent Maximal Drop Jumps.” PLoS ONE, 8(10), p.e77705.
4. Brughelli, M., Cronin, J., Levin, G. and Chaouachi, A. (2008). “Understanding Change of Direction Ability in Sport.” Sports Medicine, 38(12), pp.1045-1063.
5. Conte, D., Favero, T., Lupo, C., Francioni, F., Capranica, L. and Tessitore, A. (2015). “Time-Motion Analysis of Italian Elite Womenʼs Basketball Games.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(1), pp.144-150.
6. Delaney, J., Scott, T., Ballard, D., Duthie, G., Hickmans, J., Lockie, R. and Dascombe, B. (2015). “Contributing Factors to Change-of-Direction Ability in Professional Rugby League Players.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(10), pp.2688-2696.
7. Gentile, A.M. (2000). “Skill acquisition: Action, movement, and neuromotor processes.” In J.H. Carr & R.B. Shepard (Eds.), Movement Science: Foundations for Physical Therapy (2nd ed., pp.111-187). Rockville, MD: Aspen.
8. Huggins, J. (2017). “Within – and between – Session Reliability of the Spider Drill Test to Assess Change of Direction Speed in Youth Tennis Athletes.” International Journal of Sports and Exercise Medicine, 3(5).
9. Maloney, S., Richards, J., Jelly, L. and Fletcher, I. (2017). “Unilateral Stiffness Interventions Augment Vertical Stiffness and Change of Direction Speed.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, p.1.
10. Nimphius, S., Callaghan, S., Bezodis, N. and Lockie, R. (2017). “Change of Direction and Agility Tests.” Strength and Conditioning Journal, p.1.
11. Nimphius, S., Mcguigan, M. and Newton, R. (2010). “Relationship Between Strength, Power, Speed, and Change of Direction Performance of Female Softball Players.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(4), pp.885-895.
12. Pereira, T., Nakamura, F., de Jesus, M., Vieira, C., Misuta, M., de Barros, R. and Moura, F. (2016). “Analysis of the distances covered and technical actions performed by professional tennis players during official matches.” Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(4), pp.361-368.
13. Sheppard, J. and Young, W. (2006). “Agility literature review: Classifications, training and testing.” Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(9), pp.919-932.
14. Spiteri, T., Cochrane, J., Hart, N., Haff, G. and Nimphius, S. (2013). “Effect of strength on plant foot kinetics and kinematics during a change of direction task.” European Journal of Sport Science, 13(6), pp.646-652.
15. Spiteri, T., Newton, R., Binetti, M., Hart, N., Sheppard, J. and Nimphius, S. (2015). “Mechanical Determinants of Faster Change of Direction and Agility Performance in Female Basketball Athletes.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(8), pp.2205-2214.

After the huge success and popularity of the first “Jumps Roundtable” series of articles, SimpliFaster asked Coach Nick Newman to trade his usual answers for questions. Nick interviewed eight accomplished jumps coaches for the second edition of this excellent six-part series.

We have published one question from the “Jumps Roundtable Edition #2” per day over the last six days. This sixth and last installment is on the specifics of designing a training plan, and also delves into the biggest influences on these particular coaches. Please enjoy, and please share.

The Coaches

Bob Myers: Bob Myers is currently retired, but served as Associate Head Coach at Arizona and was a college dean and athletic director over the past 40 years. He has an M.S. in Kinesiology, specializing in Biomechanics, and a doctorate in education with his dissertation on “A Comparison of Elite Jumps Education Programs of Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom Leading to a Level III Jumps Education Program in the United States.” Bob was inducted into five Halls of Fame as an athlete, coach, and athletic director. He has published 31 articles in professional journals around the world and has lectured at over 50 locations throughout the world.

In his 13 years coaching at Arizona, Bob coached four national record holders, five collegiate record holders, and 27 All-Americans in the high jump, triple jump, long jump, javelin, and heptathlon. He is perhaps best known for coaching the University of Arizona women high jumpers to a 1-2-3 finish in the 1985 NCAA Outdoor Championship, where all three jumped over 6’3” (1.91m for second and third, and 1.93m for first) even though two were heptathletes. He also coached Jan Wohlschlag, who was ranked No. 2 in the world in 1989, won four USATF National Championships, and was the World Grand Prix Champion.

Todd Lane: Todd Lane entered his 10th season as a member of LSU’s coaching staff in 2017. The Tigers and Lady Tigers have flourished in eight seasons under Lane’s direction—he has coached 11 NCAA scorers to 35 scoring All-America honors in four different jumping events since joining the LSU coaching staff right before the 2008 season. His student-athletes have also captured six SEC championships and 36 All-SEC honors over the last eight seasons.

Nelio Moura: Nelio Alfano Moura has been a member of national coaching staffs in Brazil since 1990, participating in five Olympic Games, five Pan-American Games, and 17 World Championships (Indoor and Outdoor). Nelio has developed, in partnership with his wife, Tania Fernandes de Paula Moura, more than 60 athletes who qualified to national teams, and he coordinates a talent development program successfully maintained by the São Paulo state government. He is Horizontal Jumps Coach at Esporte Clube Pinheiros, and has a master’s degree in Human Performance from UNIMEP – Piracicaba. At least one of Nelio’s athletes has qualified to each iteration of the Olympic Games since 1988, and he guided two of them to gold medals in Beijing 2008. 

Dusty Jonas: Former high jump Olympian, Dusty Jonas, was named a full-time assistant coach on the Nebraska track and field staff on July 12, 2017, after eight years as a volunteer assistant for the Huskers men’s and women’s high jump. Since joining the Huskers program as a volunteer coach in 2010, Dusty has coached nine Big Ten high jump champions and 10 first-team All-Americans. Twelve Huskers have cracked all-time Top 10 high jump charts in his eight seasons. In the 2015 indoor season, Dusty helped then-sprints coach Billy Maxwell coach the Huskers men’s sprints, hurdles, and relays, and that group went on to combine for 46 of the team’s title-winning 127 points at the Big Ten Indoor Championships. 

Neil Cornelius: After a torn ankle ligament at 19, Neil started coaching in his free time at the age of 20. One year later, he coached his first National Junior champion in the triple jump (Boipelo Motlhatlhego, 16.07m). By 2011, he had his first 8m jumper (Mpho Maphutha, the youngest South African and the first South African high school athlete to jump over 8m at the age of 18 years). By 2013, Neil has his first national colors by representing South Africa as a team coach for the African Junior Champs. There, his athletes received three medals (long jump: Gold; triple jump: Gold (15.98 CR) and Silver). In 2016, Neil coached Luvo Manyonga to an Olympic Long Jump silver medal (8.37m) and in 2017 to a World Championship Gold (8.48m) and an African/Commonwealth Record (8.65m).

Since Neil first started coaching, his training group has amassed 88 medals (16 medals at various international championships and 72 medals at national championships). He’s currently the head Long Jump/Triple Jump coach for the Tuks Athletic Club (University of Pretoria), as well as the head jumps coach for the Tuks HPC and the Tuks Sport High School. 

Kyle Hierholzer: Kyle Hierholzer has most recently worked as the 2017 Lead Jumps/Multis coach and education manager for ALTIS in Phoenix, AZ. During the 2015 and 2016 seasons, he was the co-coach of Jumps/Multis with Dan Pfaff. Over the course of Kyle’s tenure, the group produced podium finishers at the U.S. Indoor Championships, World Indoor Championships, World Outdoor Championships, and Olympic Games, and also a Diamond League Champion. Before joining ALTIS in fall 2014, Kyle worked eight years at Kansas State University. Kyle primarily assisted head coach Cliff Rovelto in the sprints, jumps, and combined events. He also served as the primary coach for the K-State pole vaulters. 

Stacey Taurima: Coach Taurima has been the Head of Athletics of the University of Queensland for almost five years, where he has coached senior and collegiate athletes to finals in World Youth, World U20 Championships, Commonwealth Games, and World University Games. He has coached national medalists in both senior men’s and women’s sprints events, and in 2017 coached Liam Adcock and Shemaiah James to Silver and Bronze in the Open Australian Championships, along with Taylor Burns and Daniel Mowen to Gold in the 4x400m. Stacey has coached 16 national champions and 19 international athletes in a five-year period and many professional sporting teams utilize him for his expertise in speed-based programs. 

Alex Jebb: Alex Jebb is the Combined Events and Jumps coach for John Hopkins University. In his first two years of coaching there, his athletes have earned six All-American honors, five Academic All-American honors, 15 school records, four championship meet records, and two NCAA Division 3 All-Time Top 10 marks. Alex was honored as the USTFCCCA NCAA Division III Mideast Region Men’s Assistant Coach of the Year for the 2017 indoor season. He graduated from John Hopkins with a Bachelor of Science in Biomedical Engineering and Applied Mathematics, and from Duke University with a master’s degree in Engineering Management. He is an engineer by day and coach later in the day.

The Question

Nick Newman: This question is repeated from the first edition of the Jumps Roundtable, simply because it is an area of great interest for most coaches—the topic of differing weekly training setups.

Different areas of the world seem to have slightly different general setups. For example, a common American setup alternates high-intensity sprinting/jumping/weight training days with low-intensity running and circuit training days, while a common European setup alternates sprinting/jumping days with weight training days throughout the week. Which training setup do you use? Who, or what, would you say influenced your programming style the most? 

Bob Myers: I predominantly follow the European model in which sprint/jump days are followed by weight days. However, this is an oversimplification since sometimes this model is not followed, due to the goal of the training cycle. If absolute strength is the goal of a particular cycle, then sprinting and jumping becomes secondary.

Each cycle should have an overall goal or theme and, therefore, other aspects of the training, while not neglected, become less critical. This is how the weekly or other cycles reflect what is important in that time period. My training cycles were most heavily influenced by the great coaches of my time: Dan Pfaff, Gary Winkler, and Vern Gambetta, along with many other great minds in training theory, such as Tudor Bompa, Gerhardt Schmolinsky, and L. Matveyev.

Each cycle should have an overall goal, reflecting what training is important in that time period. Share on X

Todd Lane: Good question. I guess I’m more the American setup you referenced in your question. Through the years, I’ve begun to mix in more of some alternates at various times of the year, or back-to-back high-intensity days with the high-level athletes. For them, I feel like some change to training that we’ve done over a period of years is a good thing. Also, they often need a bigger stimulus to achieve new levels of performance. This would be followed by several days of low intensity.

Obviously, Boo Schexnayder (and the people who influenced him) has had a huge influence on my programming.

Nelio Moura: I don’t have a pre-established model, but I try to follow some concepts.

Technical training is always after the easiest days. We usually have a full rest day on Sundays, and an active recovery day on Wednesdays. Technique is trained on Mondays and Thursdays, but that can change during the competitive season. When we have technique, we also do some complementary strength training (weight lifting or plyometrics).

Weight Training: Two to three sessions per week, each session with a different goal (non-linear periodization). During the competition season, I normally prescribe a very short session of maximal strength (maintenance) on Wednesdays (recovery day).

Plyometrics: Two sessions per week, with a 72-hour interval between the sessions. Sometimes, for organizational reasons, I have to reduce the interval to 48 hours.

Speed: Tuesdays (flying 10m or 30m, in & outs, running over small hurdles, etc.) and Saturdays (usually at our speed ramp, in different combinations of uphill/flat/downhill).

On Wednesdays, we do active recovery (prophylactic work, medicine ball throws, easy interval training).

In order to try to answer, here is a model. Remember, it is flexible.

Dusty Jonas: My training setup and philosophy has been heavily influenced by my college coach and mentor, Gary Pepin. People who know me best know that I am voracious reader and I am on a constant quest for knowledge to learn all of the different ways to skin the proverbial cat. Much of what I have learned has come from reading everything I can get my hands on, from my experience as a volunteer coach, and from my time as a professional in track and field. I was lucky enough to pick up a lot of knowledge along the way in USATF high performance clinics, and from coaches that I was fortunate enough to meet and work with on various national teams.

As touched upon in a previous question, to develop a training plan you need to know the demands of the event and athlete, and train the qualities needed to succeed. In the fall, I typically train my athletes in a traditional GPP setup where we alternate high-intensity and low-intensity days. This usually allows the athlete sufficient recovery time between high-intensity or higher volume sessions. I generally favor five to six training days per week in the fall. A typical five-day setup would look something like this:

• Monday – Acceleration/power work, multi-jumps circuits, weight training
• Tuesday – Technical training, specific drill work
• Wednesday – Speed/power, plyometrics/multi-jumps, throws, weight training
• Thursday – Technical training, specific drill work, position work
• Friday – Tempo (extensive, intensive, hills, speed endurance), weight training
• Saturday – Active recovery or rest
• Sunday – Off

The SPP phase is very similar to GPP, but the focus shifts to much more event-specific technical work and more MaxV and specific speed endurance work. This may lend itself to more recovery time between training sessions.

The competition season varies from the GP and SP phases in the fact that this is the time of year where an athlete’s technique will not generally improve significantly with most collegiate programs having a competition every weekend. Most of the time is spent recovering and sharpening qualities that should have been developed early in the year. My competition weeks typically look like this:

• Monday – Acceleration/rhythm work, jumps circuits, med ball circuits
• Tuesday – Technical training, specific drill work (This is our biggest technical session of the week.)
• Wednesday – Speed/specific speed endurance, plyos/multi-jumps/throws, weight training
• Thursday – Light technical work, position work
• Friday – Pre meet
• Saturday – Competition
• Sunday – Rest

I find myself planning more around rest than anything else. Share on X

As far as American versus European training setups go, I think both have their merits. Choosing one over the other or something totally different will depend on the athletes that you have and the rate at which they develop. The more years I spend in the sport, the more I learn that one way isn’t always the best way. I find myself planning more around rest than anything else.

Neil Cornelius: Our track sessions in season usually alternate between jumping and sprinting, with the majority being high-intensity.

• Mondays and Tuesdays – High-intensity jumps and sprints
• Wednesday – Mid-intensity running and recovery
• Thursday – High-intensity jumping/technique
• Friday – Recovery running
• Saturday & Sunday – Rest

In the off-season, the setup changes in intensity a bit depending on the phase we’re in, but we still alternate our days between jump-specific and sprint-specific exercises. The high-intensity gym in the off-season occurs early in the morning on the days we are supposed to do sprints (twice a week), with the alternate days being kept for a recovery session in the gym. In season, I like to keep the gym intensity and frequency low to keep the track quality very high. 

Kyle Hierholzer: Like most coaches, I have learned from each coach involved in my life along the way, and I am grateful for every single one. My two biggest influencers are probably Cliff Rovelto, whom I worked for at Kansas State for eight years, and Dan Pfaff, whom I co-coached with at ALTIS for three years. They’re my biggest influencers mainly because I could observe and learn from them daily, over long periods of time. In addition, Boo Schexnayder has always been open and eager to share. He and Todd Lane were my instructors for my Level II Jumps course 11 years ago, and both have continued to give back to the sport, and me, tremendously.

I arrange activities to affect the bio-motor abilities: strength, speed, stamina, suppleness, skill. Share on X

My coaching systems and style are some blend of my environment and the lessons learned from mentors and experiences. Today, when I write and implement training, I still structure activities around influencing the five bio-motor abilities: strength, speed, stamina, suppleness, and skill. Most of my background was in combined events, so I have a bias toward grouping activities based on commonalities and compatibility. I feel that this allows me to get the most bang for my buck when teaching an element.

When I think of organizing training days in a microcycle, I tend to categorize them as either “neuro” or “general.” Neuro days would be days that intentionally have a high impact on the athlete’s nervous system. Typically, these would be higher intensity, low-moderate volume days. General days would then be activities that help to restore the nervous system. General days include both working and rest days for me.

When further classifying days, I will think high-neuro, light-neuro, general, or a hybrid day (having both neuro and general components). Throughout the course of a season, we are working to be able to handle two to three back-to-back neuro days because that’s what we do in competitions. From Day One of training, that is what we are gradually working towards.

The weekly cycle structure for us might look like this throughout the course of a season:

I’m happy to share training plans in more detail, just send me a message.

I write training in ranges and with many options so that we can readily fine-tune things on the day, while keeping the theme of the day or cycle. Regarding strength training, I view it as complementary to what we are doing on the track. I tend to marry it to the theme of the day and the cycle so that the teaching component can continue into the gym. I generally tend to keep it simple in the gym, focusing on one of three components: maximum strength, power, or general strength.

As the season goes along, we spend less time in the gym, and typically narrow the focus to only key exercises. The fluff drops away. I don’t use a lot of special strength exercises because I feel like we do plenty of them on the track, but I will on occasion in certain cycles. Especially if an athlete indicates a desire for this, or feels strongly that it’s necessary. I don’t mean to downplay the weight room at all; it is a significant part of our training and athlete development. However, it supports what we do on the track—it doesn’t drive it.

When I first started coaching, I wrote in four-week cycles. I followed a medium-medium-high-low loading routine in early season, and a high-medium-medium-low routine in the competitive season. Now, I almost exclusively write in three-week cycles with a mod-high-low rhythm in early season, and high-mod-low in later season. I’ve found the increased density of low weeks has worked well with my style of training design and implementation.

I’m still not exactly sure where I sit on the general prep versus special prep debate, but I would say I typically start on the general end of specific movements. For example, we do acceleration work during Week One of training, but it’s not in spikes, it’s for shorter distances, and it’s often focused more on the global aspects of the skill.

I have begun utilizing Coach Pfaff’s three-day rollover cycle during the competitive phase, and I am a believer in its effectiveness for most athletes. For more information on this, feel free to contact me, and I’ll happily discuss and share. The basics of it are to do an ergonomic study of the event to figure out the most important demands, and then focus solely on those demands. For a long jumper, this might globally look like the following:

• Day 1 = Acceleration development/power emphasis in the gym
• Day 2 = Jump technique/general strength
• Day 3 = Max velocity or speed endurance or intensive tempo/power and/or max strength

The guidelines for implementing the rollover are pretty straightforward:

• Always rest after a Day 3.
• Day 2 is a wild card and can be played anytime, except the day after a Day 3.
• The athlete can insert rest days as they choose at any other time.
• Insert normal pre-meet routines into the cycle as needed.

So, a two-week setup with competitions on Friday and the following Saturday might look like this:

Or it could look like this…

Or several other options depending on the athlete…

The main variable we work with in this situation is density. We try to find the patterns that work best for each athlete. The athlete stays on the rollover for the duration of the competitive season, and we typically start it two to three weeks prior to the first serious competition of the season. Generally, if an athlete goes on the rollover for the indoor cycle, we’ll go back and do a few regular cycles before outdoor.

My training system is still evolving and changing. I always do my best to look at things through the common-sense lens. When in doubt, I reach out to my support circle, and I ask them to reel me back in. Grow your network, and contribute to it.

Stacey Taurima: Australia has a good history of horizontal jumping success. We seem to be predominately a nation based around “speed-based” jumpers. Although our track sprints history isn’t currently turning heads, our horizontal jumpers seem to be very competitive with runway speeds.

My program is mostly KPI-driven, so the ‘capacity’ we’re developing will dictate the program design. Share on X

The technical elements in sprinting, jumping, and lifting all tend to influence my training programs in both collegiate and junior developing athletes. Being ALTIS alumnus, Coach Dan Pfaff has probably been my most influential sprints and jumps coach to date, and through his teachings I’ve embraced the importance of working towards a technical model in all areas of the program.

The program is generally KPI-driven, so depending on what “capacity” we’re developing, this will dictate the program design.

The weekly outlook will generally commence after a rest day. The primary focus on the first session of the cycle will be to prepare the body for Day Two, which is generally the higher KPI focused session (i.e., technical jumps/plyometrics day). So, Day One (potentiation day) will blend into Day Two, and so on. Once again, the intensity/density will be determined by athlete needs, time of year, etc.

Alex Jebb: The training setup will vary depending on the time of year. As the year progresses, my group develops more variation in setup between the multis and the other jumpers/hurdlers. I’ve experimented with a few different setups, including the two you mention above, as I like to “guinea pig” things on myself before employing them with my athletes.

While it is possible to provide a solid justification for each of the many setups out there that work for a particular athlete, I think that the following setup works best for my athletes. For the most part, we’ll go:

• Monday – Accelerations/med ball or jump circuit/heavy lift with more of a concentric focus
• Tuesday – Short approach jumps/jump drills/extensive tempo
• Wednesday – Max velocity work/bounding/lighter lift through large ranges of motion with a focus on bar speed
• Thursday – Recovery day/throws work/pool or general strength circuits
• Friday – Either a speed endurance day or resisted accelerations/special lift (heavy on plyometrics, largest variation in squats on Fridays as we progress through the various themes)
• Saturday – Jump tech./intensive tempo or speed endurance
• Sunday – Splash around in the pool

I think this structure allows me to touch on everything I want to accomplish each week, and I have found it easy to layer in event-specific work into this setup throughout the year. This arrangement is conducive to implementing progressions within each event, as it touches on almost every component needed (acceleration, max velocity, speed endurance, technical work, various themes in the weight room, etc.), so it’s easy to progress each element at the proper pace for the athlete.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

After the huge success and popularity of the first “Jumps Roundtable” series of articles, SimpliFaster asked Coach Nick Newman to trade his usual answers for questions. Nick interviewed eight accomplished jumps coaches for the second edition of this excellent six-part series.

We will publish one question from the “Jumps Roundtable Edition #2” per day over the next six days. This fifth installment is on the specifics of building a technical model. Please enjoy, and please share.

The Coaches

Bob Myers: Bob Myers is currently retired, but served as Associate Head Coach at Arizona and was a college dean and athletic director over the past 40 years. He has an M.S. in Kinesiology, specializing in Biomechanics, and a doctorate in education with his dissertation on “A Comparison of Elite Jumps Education Programs of Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom Leading to a Level III Jumps Education Program in the United States.” Bob was inducted into five Halls of Fame as an athlete, coach, and athletic director. He has published 31 articles in professional journals around the world and has lectured at over 50 locations throughout the world.

In his 13 years coaching at Arizona, Bob coached four national record holders, five collegiate record holders, and 27 All-Americans in the high jump, triple jump, long jump, javelin, and heptathlon. He is perhaps best known for coaching the University of Arizona women high jumpers to a 1-2-3 finish in the 1985 NCAA Outdoor Championship, where all three jumped over 6’3” (1.91m for second and third, and 1.93m for first) even though two were heptathletes. He also coached Jan Wohlschlag, who was ranked No. 2 in the world in 1989, won four USATF National Championships, and was the World Grand Prix Champion.

Todd Lane: Todd Lane entered his 10th season as a member of LSU’s coaching staff in 2017. The Tigers and Lady Tigers have flourished in eight seasons under Lane’s direction—he has coached 11 NCAA scorers to 35 scoring All-America honors in four different jumping events since joining the LSU coaching staff right before the 2008 season. His student-athletes have also captured six SEC championships and 36 All-SEC honors over the last eight seasons.

Nelio Moura: Nelio Alfano Moura has been a member of national coaching staffs in Brazil since 1990, participating in five Olympic Games, five Pan-American Games, and 17 World Championships (Indoor and Outdoor). Nelio has developed, in partnership with his wife, Tania Fernandes de Paula Moura, more than 60 athletes who qualified to national teams, and he coordinates a talent development program successfully maintained by the São Paulo state government. He is Horizontal Jumps Coach at Esporte Clube Pinheiros, and has a master’s degree in Human Performance from UNIMEP – Piracicaba. At least one of Nelio’s athletes has qualified to each iteration of the Olympic Games since 1988, and he guided two of them to gold medals in Beijing 2008. 

Dusty Jonas: Former high jump Olympian, Dusty Jonas, was named a full-time assistant coach on the Nebraska track and field staff on July 12, 2017, after eight years as a volunteer assistant for the Huskers men’s and women’s high jump. Since joining the Huskers program as a volunteer coach in 2010, Dusty has coached nine Big Ten high jump champions and 10 first-team All-Americans. Twelve Huskers have cracked all-time Top 10 high jump charts in his eight seasons. In the 2015 indoor season, Dusty helped then-sprints coach Billy Maxwell coach the Huskers men’s sprints, hurdles, and relays, and that group went on to combine for 46 of the team’s title-winning 127 points at the Big Ten Indoor Championships. 

Neil Cornelius: After a torn ankle ligament at 19, Neil started coaching in his free time at the age of 20. One year later, he coached his first National Junior champion in the triple jump (Boipelo Motlhatlhego, 16.07m). By 2011, he had his first 8m jumper (Mpho Maphutha, the youngest South African and the first South African high school athlete to jump over 8m at the age of 18 years). By 2013, Neil has his first national colors by representing South Africa as a team coach for the African Junior Champs. There, his athletes received three medals (long jump: Gold; triple jump: Gold (15.98 CR) and Silver). In 2016, Neil coached Luvo Manyonga to an Olympic Long Jump silver medal (8.37m) and in 2017 to a World Championship Gold (8.48m) and an African/Commonwealth Record (8.65m).

Since Neil first started coaching, his training group has amassed 88 medals (16 medals at various international championships and 72 medals at national championships). He’s currently the head Long Jump/Triple Jump coach for the Tuks Athletic Club (University of Pretoria), as well as the head jumps coach for the Tuks HPC and the Tuks Sport High School. 

Kyle Hierholzer: Kyle Hierholzer has most recently worked as the 2017 Lead Jumps/Multis coach and education manager for ALTIS in Phoenix, AZ. During the 2015 and 2016 seasons, he was the co-coach of Jumps/Multis with Dan Pfaff. Over the course of Kyle’s tenure, the group produced podium finishers at the U.S. Indoor Championships, World Indoor Championships, World Outdoor Championships, and Olympic Games, and also a Diamond League Champion. Before joining ALTIS in fall 2014, Kyle worked eight years at Kansas State University. Kyle primarily assisted head coach Cliff Rovelto in the sprints, jumps, and combined events. He also served as the primary coach for the K-State pole vaulters. 

Stacey Taurima: Coach Taurima has been the Head of Athletics of the University of Queensland for almost five years, where he has coached senior and collegiate athletes to finals in World Youth, World U20 Championships, Commonwealth Games, and World University Games. He has coached national medalists in both senior men’s and women’s sprints events, and in 2017 coached Liam Adcock and Shemaiah James to Silver and Bronze in the Open Australian Championships, along with Taylor Burns and Daniel Mowen to Gold in the 4x400m. Stacey has coached 16 national champions and 19 international athletes in a five-year period and many professional sporting teams utilize him for his expertise in speed-based programs. 

Alex Jebb: Alex Jebb is the Combined Events and Jumps coach for John Hopkins University. In his first two years of coaching there, his athletes have earned six All-American honors, five Academic All-American honors, 15 school records, four championship meet records, and two NCAA Division 3 All-Time Top 10 marks. Alex was honored as the USTFCCCA NCAA Division III Mideast Region Men’s Assistant Coach of the Year for the 2017 indoor season. He graduated from John Hopkins with a Bachelor of Science in Biomedical Engineering and Applied Mathematics, and from Duke University with a master’s degree in Engineering Management. He is an engineer by day and coach later in the day.

The Question

Nick Newman: Event technical models are difficult to create because of the physical and anthropological variables each athlete possesses. However, for your specialty event, what are the most valuable technical specifics that you feel influence performance the most? How do you address them within your program?

Bob Myers: In one word, kinetics—the position, momentum, and body movements to create maximum forces in the correct direction (angles at takeoff) at the right time. A good part of the season is spent trying to progressively and systematically maximize these forces at the right time to attain maximum vertical lift (as pertains to the HJ) at takeoff. As the season comes to an end and the athlete is peaking for the most important meets of the season, high jump approach accuracy and rhythm (momentum and body position) must be foremost in the technical preparation for a peak.

All coaches should employ a technical “system” whereby a systematic progression (or technical learning progression) of technique is taught, then use an inventory of problem-solving drills to address particular technical deficiencies that pop up. Drills should not be used just to drill, unless they are part of the physical training for an athlete. Drills should be used to build the technical model or to correct a technical error.

When you drill, have a reason: Use drills to build a technical model or correct a technical error. Share on X

Many coaches drill for no particular reason or at the wrong time in the season, often just because they have seen a drill used by another coach. Again, every aspect of training should be done for a specific purpose, not just because they saw a good athlete doing a particular type of training.

Todd Lane: I disagree with the statement, “Event technical models are difficult to create because of the physical and anthropological variables each athlete possesses.” Technical models are the commonalities we see across all good performers in performing the event. There are stylistic differences within this model that are unique to each performer, but they still exhibit the key checkpoints that make up a technical model.

For instance, in the triple jump, the athlete has horizontal displacement at takeoff and free hip/leg extension creates a somewhat neutral pelvis position, which allows all phases to be efficiently executed. This is addressed during all the work we do, from bounding to short approach jumps.

Nelio Moura: My program is really open, so I allow plenty of technical variations. For example, if you ask me the best way to begin the approach run, I will say, “standing.” However, my athletes begin their run-up in different ways, according to their individual preferences. I just try to help them be as consistent as possible. On the other hand, there are key, fundamental aspects that determine performance at the horizontal jumps, and I am truly emphatic about them. I can’t see how to make concessions at the transition and takeoff phases, as well as the active landings in the triple jump. 

Dusty Jonas: I want to start by giving the readers a clear understanding of how I choose to define the term “technical model.” To me, it refers to coaching to the demands and physics of the event to achieve the desired result. I will also continue to use the high jump specifically as my example of developing a technical model. While this is high jump specific, the concept carries over to most of the other events in track and field.

There are specific things in the high jump that an athlete needs to be able to execute in order to reach as close to their potential as possible.

1. Generate 90%+ of the required horizontal velocity over the first three to four strides of a 10+ step approach.
2. Initiate the curve such that the foot, hip, and shoulder turn progressively to greater degrees. This develops inward lean that causes the COM to stay inside of the outside leg on the curve. The COM should not shift over the top of the penultimate foot.
3. At takeoff, the COM should travel from the outside edge of the heel to off of the big toe as the athlete leaves the ground.
4. If all of these things are executed correctly, four rotations should occur: forward, lateral, about the long axis of the body, and about the bar.

As the above list for the technical model points out, there are many different things that need to happen correctly for an athlete to efficiently clear a bar. That being said, many athletes can jump relatively high while lacking one or more rotations, but bar clearance and, very importantly, athlete health, can suffer over time as a result.

To address the original question directly, the most valuable technical aspect that affects performance is the approach. It is also the most time-consuming and, for some, the most difficult to master.

Knowing that these things need to be accomplished, accommodations must be made based on factors such as anthropological differences, genders, training ages, etc. The first thing that I do is identify weaknesses, specifically on the approach, and adjust accordingly. One athlete’s time may well be spent doing acceleration work and running a large number of approaches to develop a rhythm and feel for the lean and speed through the curve. Another athlete may do extremely well with just a very small amount of full-approach running/jumping. When I find where an athlete’s time is best spent, I start to see the most significant improvements.

The largest accommodation that we make is to fit specific radius measurements to each athlete individually, based on a number of factors such as height, speed, and technical proficiency on the curve. Regardless of individual differences, the goal is the exact same for every athlete, so in reality, there can be only slight variations to the model itself. The only variations that should be made are in how the training is programmed and how the coach chooses to implement his or her system to fit the technical model.

Neil Cornelius: Jumping is all about control. You need to be able to control your speed, control the timing of your takeoff, control your flight, and control your landing. The most important and valuable part to control is the athlete’s body position and posture. The perfect body position in a specific phase (i.e., shoulders up and open in your takeoff) allows you to pull out the proper movements and technique when you take off, fly, and land. This is why plyometrics on the track during the year (off-season and in-season) are of vital importance, as that control, posture, and body position (as well as timing) can be more easily taught while doing those exercises.

Kyle Hierholzer: I’m not sure what my specialty event is, but I will go with the long jump because that is where I’ve probably done most of my work recently. I will, however, make a comment about specializing to young coaches… Don’t do it! Even if you fancy yourself as a jump coach right now, spend some time with the throws coach, the distance coach, the sprint coach, etc.

Also, that administrative stuff? It’s pretty important as well. The more well-rounded you become, the better you will be down the road. Everyone pretty much agrees that young athletes shouldn’t specialize—well, neither should young coaches. Rant over, on to the long jump. I’m going to discuss shapes, targeting, and penultimate no-nos. 

The first element we spend a large amount of time developing is the approach. I won’t spend too much time discussing it now because it’s been talked about and written about for years on end. There really is nothing new under the sun. Back in 1936, Jesse Owens was solid.

We train and teach acceleration, transition, and max velocity technique and qualities. We train these qualities on the track, and we transition them to the runway. We hold athletes accountable to each phase, and demand mindfulness of execution. However, what has been important to me lately is understanding shapes.

A jumps coach can only see and hear what the approach should look like, but an athlete must feel it. Share on X

What do I mean by shapes? Can the athlete spend the appropriate amount of time in each phase? Can they blend together each phase in a harmonic, well-executed fashion from any length of run, in any conditions? The athlete must feel what the approach should look like. As a coach, I can only see and hear what the approach looks like. The athlete can feel it.

The length of the approach should be able to be expanded or condensed and still have shape. If the athlete executes a 20-step run well, but loses shape on a 12-step approach, then I haven’t really done a good job of teaching them what the purpose is for each phase of the run. In our system, I know that when an athlete maintains shapes for any length of run, we really have someone who is learning, who is mindful, and who is buying in.

The second element is targeting. I hear lots of people talk about steering, but I hear very few talk about targeting. I was introduced to it by Coach Pfaff. It centers around the athlete targeting a specific point on their foot to a specific point on the track. Targeting makes steering more effective and precise.

When someone shoots a rifle with open sights, they line up two points. One at the end of the barrel, and one at the back. So, we can’t just tell athletes to hit the board. We should tell them exactly “what” to hit the board with, and exactly “where” to hit it. The board is 20 centimeters long. Be specific. “Target your back row of spikes 15cm behind the board.”

Typically, the faster the athlete is coming down the runway, the farther behind the board they need to target. The only exceptions to this are the super twitchy, fast converter types, who by the grace of God have a much bigger margin for error than everyone else. So, if an athlete hits their mid/check mark with a well-shaped run but still fouls, we go to targeting. If they were targeting 20 centimeters behind the board, we’ll move it to 30 centimeters, and so on. If they weren’t targeting at all, we remind them to do their job.

Targeting is an easy concept to grasp, but a hard skill to master. It requires mindfulness, and it should be a KPI in jump sessions. This can sometimes be difficult because athletes want to work on “technique.” That’s when you show them how many fouls they averaged in each competition last season, and then see if they think it’s an issue. Find your teaching moments. Athletes will generally need to have different targets for approaches of different lengths.

Targeting is easy to understand, but hard to master. It should be a KPI in jump sessions. Share on X

The final portion I’ll discuss is penultimate mechanics, and point out two common errors we’ve experienced in recent years, as well as share some possible strategies to address the issue. The two issues we’ll be looking at are over-lowering on the penultimate, and being over-active on the penultimate.

1. “Over-lowering.” Although the center of mass will lower, athletes generally do not need to have any conscious feeling of trying to lower their center of mass on the penultimate step. The lower their center of mass goes on the penultimate, the higher it’s going to go in flight, the more forward rotation that will occur, and the shorter they will jump. Correct lowering of the COM should result from the proper shape of the run, and correct penultimate execution. Over-lowering can occur for several reasons:
1. The athlete is too close to the board, and must put the brakes on and sit on the penultimate to buy time to get the takeoff in. Debrief the shape of the run, targeting, and conditions.
2. The athlete is too far from the board, and must now buy time to get to the board for the take off. Debrief the same as above.
3. The athlete craves being way up in the air and looking cool, and is lowering to allow this to happen. Explain to the athlete that this is the long jump not the high jump, and our objective is to go far.
4. Poor posture going into the take-off phase. This requires the athlete to again spend too much time on the penultimate to correct the posture error. Debrief shape of run and mindfulness on postural strategies.
2. “Over-activeness.” You can measure this by looking at the angle of the penultimate shin upon touchdown of the penultimate foot. We are looking for perpendicular (90 degrees) to the ground. If the penultimate step is too negative (less than 90 degrees), then the center of mass will be going down into the board, and the athlete will interpret this as falling. As a reaction, they will most likely block the takeoff leg into the board to fight the sensation of the fall. This can be a very injurious action.

Most athletes who are “over-active” have a wrong understanding of the penultimate step. They generally are mistakenly trying to add velocity to the run, or they are trying to spend less time on the ground than they should. The athlete must decelerate to jump. It’s the price you pay to fly. We want to maintain as much velocity as possible on the penultimate, but that will be unique to each athlete. Each athlete will also have a unique amount of time that they need on the ground to execute the jump. Less time on the penultimate is not always better for every athlete.

To correct this error, some good cues can simply be to ask the athlete to “feel the penultimate foot further out in front,” “let the ground come to them,” “feel a little bit more flight on the penultimate stride,” “feel the ground for a little bit longer on the penultimate step,” or something else that you come up with for your specific athlete based on their characteristics.

Generally, if the shin angle is correct and the center of mass lowers the appropriate amount for the individual, then your athlete will be in position to execute proper takeoff mechanics.

Stacey Taurima: For me, key technical areas include:

• Understanding the technical requirements in acceleration transferring to upright running.
• Run-up rhythms in relation to stride length and frequency.
• Emotional control and steering abilities having higher KPI requirements.

When training these elements, we tend to observe foot placements along the runway and assess individual foot placements, which we call “grouping,” at various points along the way. The more consistent the groupings, the easier it is to steer into the board.

Alex Jebb: For me, I believe that nothing replaces the base of just being an athlete in the purest sense. We even have a phrase we use that helps keep athletes out of their own heads and keeps things fun after jump or throw attempts or races: “More athlete.” This objective is something we work towards as a base throughout the year, with the aim of the athlete developing a wide range of skills and abilities in a multitude of areas.

Jumpers need what I call a ‘more athlete’ base, to develop a wide range of skills and abilities. Share on X

For example, I’m a big believer in high jumpers playing pick-up basketball because of the many types of jumping and mixed energy system work involved (the only rule we have is that they must play with other varsity athletes to help reduce injury risk). I believe that working through various planes of motion and types of movements develops the athlete’s motor learning capabilities so that when we do focus in on a few ultra-specific types of jumps, they see a greater uptick in performance than they would have with less of an “athlete” base.

Technical models are largely the same, regardless of the athlete, because the laws of physics will dominate a large portion of these models. Building off of the physics piece, I think the concepts of basic physiology are the next level of governance. Only after accounting for these two layers, physics and physiology, can we begin to interject athlete-specific modifications. An event such as the long jump begins with looking at projectile motion and objects in flight—greater horizontal speed and vertical takeoff velocity will produce a greater jump. Physics!

The next piece is how the athlete should most efficiently reach peak speed at the take-off point and conserve as much horizontal velocity as possible while converting energy into a vertical takeoff (i.e., a stiff take-off leg). Physiology! Delineating between the requirements of a “speed jumper” or a “power jumper” in the long jump, for instance, then becomes a puzzle of fine-tuning take-off actions and angles for what will work best for that particular athlete.

Thus, working off of my first point, increasing the athlete’s ability to “figure things out” makes my job much easier as a coach. Once the athlete and I identify what works best for him or her, then we can alter different variables to develop proficiency in his or her individual “model.” For example, we’ll utilize spatial cues such as low hurdles, incorporate jumps on or off of boxes to address when and how to apply forces, and employ objects such as weighted vests or assisted speed devices to target the feel of ground contacts.

Tomorrow, we’ll feature the last installment of this Jumps Roundtable Edition #2 series: “Designing Training Plans.”

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

After the huge success and popularity of the first “Jumps Roundtable” series of articles, SimpliFaster asked Coach Nick Newman to trade his usual answers for questions. Nick interviewed eight accomplished jumps coaches for the second edition of this excellent six-part series.

We will publish one question from the “Jumps Roundtable Edition #2” per day over the next six days. The fourth question deals with the reduction and management of injuries. Please enjoy, and please share.

The Coaches

Bob Myers: Bob Myers is currently retired, but served as Associate Head Coach at Arizona and was a college dean and athletic director over the past 40 years. He has an M.S. in Kinesiology, specializing in Biomechanics, and a doctorate in education with his dissertation on “A Comparison of Elite Jumps Education Programs of Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom Leading to a Level III Jumps Education Program in the United States.” Bob was inducted into five Halls of Fame as an athlete, coach, and athletic director. He has published 31 articles in professional journals around the world and has lectured at over 50 locations throughout the world.

In his 13 years coaching at Arizona, Bob coached four national record holders, five collegiate record holders, and 27 All-Americans in the high jump, triple jump, long jump, javelin, and heptathlon. He is perhaps best known for coaching the University of Arizona women high jumpers to a 1-2-3 finish in the 1985 NCAA Outdoor Championship, where all three jumped over 6’3” (1.91m for second and third, and 1.93m for first) even though two were heptathletes. He also coached Jan Wohlschlag, who was ranked No. 2 in the world in 1989, won four USATF National Championships, and was the World Grand Prix Champion.

Todd Lane: Todd Lane entered his 10th season as a member of LSU’s coaching staff in 2017. The Tigers and Lady Tigers have flourished in eight seasons under Lane’s direction—he has coached 11 NCAA scorers to 35 scoring All-America honors in four different jumping events since joining the LSU coaching staff right before the 2008 season. His student-athletes have also captured six SEC championships and 36 All-SEC honors over the last eight seasons.

Nelio Moura: Nelio Alfano Moura has been a member of national coaching staffs in Brazil since 1990, participating in five Olympic Games, five Pan-American Games, and 17 World Championships (Indoor and Outdoor). Nelio has developed, in partnership with his wife, Tania Fernandes de Paula Moura, more than 60 athletes who qualified to national teams, and he coordinates a talent development program successfully maintained by the São Paulo state government. He is Horizontal Jumps Coach at Esporte Clube Pinheiros, and has a master’s degree in Human Performance from UNIMEP – Piracicaba. At least one of Nelio’s athletes has qualified to each iteration of the Olympic Games since 1988, and he guided two of them to gold medals in Beijing 2008. 

Dusty Jonas: Former high jump Olympian, Dusty Jonas, was named a full-time assistant coach on the Nebraska track and field staff on July 12, 2017, after eight years as a volunteer assistant for the Huskers men’s and women’s high jump. Since joining the Huskers program as a volunteer coach in 2010, Dusty has coached nine Big Ten high jump champions and 10 first-team All-Americans. Twelve Huskers have cracked all-time Top 10 high jump charts in his eight seasons. In the 2015 indoor season, Dusty helped then-sprints coach Billy Maxwell coach the Huskers men’s sprints, hurdles, and relays, and that group went on to combine for 46 of the team’s title-winning 127 points at the Big Ten Indoor Championships. 

Neil Cornelius: After a torn ankle ligament at 19, Neil started coaching in his free time at the age of 20. One year later, he coached his first National Junior champion in the triple jump (Boipelo Motlhatlhego, 16.07m). By 2011, he had his first 8m jumper (Mpho Maphutha, the youngest South African and the first South African high school athlete to jump over 8m at the age of 18 years). By 2013, Neil has his first national colors by representing South Africa as a team coach for the African Junior Champs. There, his athletes received three medals (long jump: Gold; triple jump: Gold (15.98 CR) and Silver). In 2016, Neil coached Luvo Manyonga to an Olympic Long Jump silver medal (8.37m) and in 2017 to a World Championship Gold (8.48m) and an African/Commonwealth Record (8.65m).

Since Neil first started coaching, his training group has amassed 88 medals (16 medals at various international championships and 72 medals at national championships). He’s currently the head Long Jump/Triple Jump coach for the Tuks Athletic Club (University of Pretoria), as well as the head jumps coach for the Tuks HPC and the Tuks Sport High School. 

Kyle Hierholzer: Kyle Hierholzer has most recently worked as the 2017 Lead Jumps/Multis coach and education manager for ALTIS in Phoenix, AZ. During the 2015 and 2016 seasons, he was the co-coach of Jumps/Multis with Dan Pfaff. Over the course of Kyle’s tenure, the group produced podium finishers at the U.S. Indoor Championships, World Indoor Championships, World Outdoor Championships, and Olympic Games, and also a Diamond League Champion. Before joining ALTIS in fall 2014, Kyle worked eight years at Kansas State University. Kyle primarily assisted head coach Cliff Rovelto in the sprints, jumps, and combined events. He also served as the primary coach for the K-State pole vaulters. 

Stacey Taurima: Coach Taurima has been the Head of Athletics of the University of Queensland for almost five years, where he has coached senior and collegiate athletes to finals in World Youth, World U20 Championships, Commonwealth Games, and World University Games. He has coached national medalists in both senior men’s and women’s sprints events, and in 2017 coached Liam Adcock and Shemaiah James to Silver and Bronze in the Open Australian Championships, along with Taylor Burns and Daniel Mowen to Gold in the 4x400m. Stacey has coached 16 national champions and 19 international athletes in a five-year period and many professional sporting teams utilize him for his expertise in speed-based programs. 

Alex Jebb: Alex Jebb is the Combined Events and Jumps coach for John Hopkins University. In his first two years of coaching there, his athletes have earned six All-American honors, five Academic All-American honors, 15 school records, four championship meet records, and two NCAA Division 3 All-Time Top 10 marks. Alex was honored as the USTFCCCA NCAA Division III Mideast Region Men’s Assistant Coach of the Year for the 2017 indoor season. He graduated from John Hopkins with a Bachelor of Science in Biomedical Engineering and Applied Mathematics, and from Duke University with a master’s degree in Engineering Management. He is an engineer by day and coach later in the day.

The Question

Nick Newman: Injuries are often a necessary evil of elite performance. How do you prevent, manage, and alter your training around specific injuries? What important tips or information can you provide for coaches who have athletes that are often unable to tolerate the “ideal” training plan and always require alterations?

Bob Myers: Listen to the athlete, observe fatigue indicators, and keep an eye on total stress (school, emotional, social, etc.). Try to instill a daily working relationship between your medical staff, individual athletes, and the coach. Proper training and technical progressions are also critical in preventing injuries (such as developing a good background of plyometic work before moving to high-intensity plyometrics).

Regularly communicate off the track to keep your finger on the pulse of the athlete and make sure you are both on the same page. Every training plan is a road map; however, plans can change depending on injury, competition schedules, stress levels, etc. A great coach is one that can identify these issues (as early as possible) and adapt the training program to accommodate the athlete, while still following the overall intent of the program.

When athletes return from an injury, the training load must be adjusted downward. If possible, the coach should not skip ahead in the training program, but revert back in the training phase so the athlete has time to get back up to speed, or another injury is likely. For athletes who have a hard time following an “ideal” training plan (due to injury or other issues that may arise), keep in mind there is no “cookie cutter” training plan for each athlete. Plans should be individualized as much as possible, with as much data as the coach can obtain based on training age, medical assessments, and technical, physical, and psychological backgrounds.

Again, this is where the art or craft of coaching comes into play. No one program is the best for everyone and it is the experience of the coach, their communication with the athlete, and the rest of the staff (AT, PT, psychologist, nutritionist, etc.) that enable the great coaches to modify any plan when it is in the best interest of long-term athlete development.

Todd Lane: Certainly, sound training methodology would be the biggest goal, but when training groups, individualization is required. For me, variance in training is one of the keys in trying to alleviate injury possibilities. It’s easy to get locked into certain exercises and intensities. Varying these helps keep the body moving forward.

Variance in training is one of the keys in trying to alleviate injury possibilities. Share on X

Communication between the coach and athlete on a daily basis is key to the athlete’s health status and general overall feeling is HUGE. Tightness, aches, pains, etc., need to be discussed and evaluated. Training plans for the day should be altered if that’s what’s called for based on the athlete’s health. Often, it is the alteration of a single session and the athlete is fine.

If available, soft tissue work is the most desirable thing.

Every athlete brings some type of injury history to the table. If they get the same injury year after year, something needs to be figured out. Training needs to be set up to not only avoid the same injury, but also address and attempt to remedy the injury.

You go to Plan B, C, D, etc. I look at alternate training plans as to “what can I do to continue to feed the animal in a different way,” with the animal being the speed/power nervous system. Maybe it’s more time between the speed/power days to allow greater recovery. I can work through some injuries just by limiting the range of motion of certain exercises in the weight room or on the track. For example, cleans from the thigh instead of the floor, or bounding with limited flexion.

The coach needs to be constantly involved in rehabilitation programs performed by medical personnel. These programs often tend to be rooted in more endurance-type training and are far removed from the “feeding the animal” that I referred to earlier. I think a good rehab program has some aggressiveness in it and sometimes that means the coach needs to step in and employ training. I want the athlete back as soon as possible, even doing remedial work. 

Nelio Moura: Injuries are really always part of the equation, unfortunately. This is particularly true when the athletes reach a level where they are able to express to the maximum their capacity to generate explosive strength. So, I am always trying to find a way to prevent injuries, with different degrees of success. I have noticed the best measures are the simplest: training in a smart way (paying attention to the ratio of acute to chronic load and avoiding load monotony, for example), good nutrition (real food is far more important than supplements, even though some supplemental strategies can be very helpful when guided by a sports nutritionist), and sleeping… two additional hours of sleep per day can make a huge difference!

I believe there is no “ideal” plan. Planning helps to organize the general actions taken, but changes should be made every day, considering the state of the athletes and the responses that they present. Systems of health and training load monitoring help me to implement those adjustments (the system that I use is AthleteMonitoring), but the coach must always pay attention to the athletes’ behaviors during practice, and we have to be open to listening to them. 

Dusty Jonas: In a perfect world, no athlete would ever get injured; but in the real world of athletics, this is rarely the case. I think the best way to go about preventing injuries is with a well-designed training program that caters to an athlete’s strengths and improves upon their weaknesses. The first step in the process would be to identify an athlete’s deficiencies, injury history, strength levels, and movement patterns.

In the jumps, I commonly see tibial stress syndrome (shin splints), stress fractures of the foot bones, ankle sprains, patellar tendinitis (jumper’s knee), and the rare back or hamstring injury. Many of these are overuse injuries and can be avoided. Eventually, you start to get an idea about volumes and intensities that each athlete can handle without developing pain. Once armed with this knowledge, it makes planning for training much easier. Over time, you hope that athletes’ bodies adapt to training so that more volume or intensity can be added if necessary.

Some athletes will never be able to train in an “ideal” training program. You can design a program on paper with all of the best intentions, but in practice certain athletes always require alterations. What is considered “ideal” is relative to the athlete. Every one of them is an incredibly complex organism and all have different needs to develop.

Some athletes will never be able to train in an ‘ideal’ training program—‘ideal’ is all relative. Share on X

Early in my coaching career, I assigned volumes based on what I had done or others had done in the past. I discovered very quickly that when I did this, many athletes ended up torn to shreds. Eventually, I learned that “ideal” is different for everyone and knowing what exercises, volumes, and intensities each athlete responds to best has helped me to develop much more specific training programs that have resulted in fewer injuries and more consistent performances.

Inevitably during an athletic career, however, an athlete will have an injury of some degree. The degree and type of injury will have a lot to do with how a management plan is designed.

If an athlete is able to train at some level, which is common with shin splints, adjustments to the training plan are made. Using shin splints as an example, rest generally resolves the issue. During this time, rehab exercises are done in the training room until the issue subsides. I typically prescribe limited weight-bearing exercises that mirror the theme of the day. Biking can be a useful option for running days as you can prescribe different tempos, speeds, and rest intervals. Doing running or plyometric exercises in the pool is also a great option and allows for better posture during a movement than a stationary bike.

If an athlete’s injury renders them unable to train whatsoever (hamstring tears or ruptured tendons, etc.), the management plan falls to the athlete’s training staff and their doctors/surgeons, if applicable. During this time, I find that communication is incredibly important between the athletic training staff, strength and conditioning staff, and sport coaches. I’ve seen and heard of numerous examples of athletes that got lost in the shuffle when it came to injuries in this regard. Having a return-to-play plan that involves all three parties allows for a better outcome for the injured athlete.

If an injury prevents an athlete from training like they normally would or removes them from training altogether, it can be a crushing blow to their psyche. I find that having a clear plan to move forward can help in this regard, as many athletes are process-driven creatures. Giving them small goals to achieve over a period of time can be a great way to drive the sometimes monotonous nature of rehab. I also think that having them involved with the team during training times makes them feel like they have not been forgotten and gives them a chance to look at the event from the outside, which can be a fantastic learning tool. 

Neil Cornelius: Every athlete is unique and they will all need adjustments at some time or another, but keeping an athlete healthy requires a competent team. My success in 2017 would have been nothing without the physio, the psychologist, and the biomechanist being there. Having a team keeping the athlete healthy and conditioned allows me to do the necessary and important work on the track that is required.

If there are athletes always struggling with issues, it’s best to identify what those issues are (the majority of the time the cause of the long-term struggler’s injuries are away from the area of trouble), identify the source of the injury, and go out and address it. Whether that is changing your training program completely or getting outside help (another coach, physio, etc.), you do whatever you have to do. Adapting the training program to that individual is a must. Just remember that there are no quick fixes or results in athletics, and such a fix may take a lot more time than you or the athlete would like (a month, a year, two years, etc.).

Kyle Hierholzer: Injury management and prevention is the second biggest separator in high performance coaching behind mental resilience qualities. There are some common denominators among coaches who have historically performed very well in regard to this topic. 

These qualities consist of, but are not limited to:

• Effective and consistent athlete debriefing (banging the drum here).
• Operating in an appropriate manner with support teams.
• Utilizing sound technical models.
• Designing programs with appropriate volume, intensity, and density ranges.
• Demanding high accountability in all areas.
• Making wise decisions in the moment regarding training adjustments.
• Maintaining an athlete-centered approach in all situations.
• Having multiple options for each training day… Plan A, B, C, D, etc.

Let’s spend some time looking a little closer at a few of these topics. The second quality on the list, “operating in an appropriate manner with support teams,” can be the most challenging component of managing athlete health. As coaches, we need the expertise of professionals across many fields if we truly want to give our athletes the best opportunity for success. These fields include: soft tissue therapists, athletic trainers, chiropractors, doctors, nutritionists, psychologists, life coaches, strength coaches, etc.

In many cases, the quality of care your athletes receive will be directly related to the quality of your relationships with these individuals. I recommend striving to create an environment where everyone in that circle feels safe to express their opinion, and feels that the opinion they have matters. You don’t want to have a critical piece of information left unsaid. This doesn’t mean that you must act on every piece of information received, but you don’t want anyone in the circle under-reporting.

We often see situations where each field creates their own silo, and then fights at all costs to protect their silo. This creates infighting, jealousy, “white knight” syndrome, poor communication, resentment, and frustration, and it is overall not a fun place to be. As coaches, we cannot blame anyone in that circle if we have not taken the time to educate them on what our expectations are for performance and professionalism. We must know a little bit about each component, and each component must know a little bit about what we are doing.

Dan Pfaff and Dr. Gerry Ramogida refer to this concept as “performance therapy.” The effectiveness of this concept is only as good as the quality of the relationships within the circle. As coaches, we cannot expect those relationships to simply happen because we happen to be in the circle. They must be developed, with safety, trust, and empathy as the hallmarks. If those qualities exist, then the team involved will work tirelessly to help athletes achieve success.

Coaches can lead on this. Be a leader. For more on leadership, I’ve recently become a big fan of Simon Sinek’s work. Check out “Leaders Eat Last” and “Find Your Why” if you are interested in some non-sport reading (which you should be).

The second of these qualities I will dive deeper into is “using a sound technical model.” This should seem like common sense, but unfortunately, it is not always employed. One of the biggest temptations we can have as coaches is to study and emulate the model of the world record holder, or the most recent world or Olympic champion. This can be very dangerous, as it can lead to a departure from a sound model.

Many times, these athletes are outliers. There is literally nobody else who could or should use the unique model that they used. Also, we often don’t know the price those athletes paid for using these models. Athletics coaches have a professional responsibility to understand kinesiology, biomechanics, anatomy, etc. The more rules we break in relation to those topics, the higher the probability that injury will occur.

Will you coach outlier athletes who break those rules? Yes, if you coach long enough. Should everyone use the same model that your outlier did? No. How do we make decisions on when to allow athletes to break from sound technical models? When do we decide to change aberrant technique?

Try using the following questions as starting points before changing an athlete’s technical model.

• How long has the athlete been executing in this fashion?
• How proficient is the athlete at making change?
• Does the athlete understand the risks/rewards of changing?
• What is the quality of the therapy team’s ability to manage injuries?
• Is there something else we should change farther up the chain?
• Is the athlete physically capable of doing what we might ask them to do?

Finally, let’s discuss the last part of the original question regarding “ideal” training plans and alterations. I don’t think there is such a thing as the perfect training plan. If we think our training plan is flawless, then the only thing we can do is blame the athlete for not being able to execute it. This will create a toxic environment.

As coaches, we can individualize or “fine tune” our training plans in both the writing phase and during the implementation phase. In situations where an athlete is unable to handle the training as it’s written, that indicates to me that one of two things is probably going on. Either the coach and medical team are doing a poor job of adjusting training for that athlete on the day, or the athlete is doing a poor job reporting to the coach how they are feeling. Or both. Either way, it is the coach’s responsibility to address the situation.

Coaches should work to create environments where athletes feel safe reporting honestly. To do this, athletes need to believe that if they report a symptom, they will not be immediately shut down and sent to the trainers. This is where “decision making in the moment,” and “having a Plan A, B, C, etc.” come into play. We always try to find the closest thing to Plan A that an athlete can do before we remove them from the practice environment or intervene with a therapy modality. Over time, this creates trust and gives the coach more insight into how to properly prescribe training for that athlete.

We might be surprised at just how well some athletes can compete while doing what we consider to be Plan B training. Try using your workout plan more as a blueprint to drive big picture things you want to accomplish on the day or in a cycle. The correct implementation of that blueprint will be unique to your environment, style, athlete population, etc.

Stacey Taurima: Before we structure injury prevention programs, we need to know what we are preventing. Therefore, having a good understanding of the event requirements not only allows coaches to structure training programs to accommodate the event demands, but can also assist in mitigating possible injury risk.

Having a good understanding of event requirements can help coaches mitigate possible injury risk. Share on X

Modifying training programs to accommodate injuries can be challenging in the horizontal jumps events, depending on injury type. Creative programming and the establishment of solid medical/therapy networks both need to be implemented in the best interest of the athlete. Communication is paramount between all involved.

In my experience, horizontal jump athletes tend to express similar injury patterns to other speed/power ground impact sports such as basketball and volleyball, so, again, monitoring training load is vital in injury management and prevention protocols.

In the case of injury, we tend to do our best to remain as close as possible to the current program. We make modifications where necessary, but I like to keep the athlete close to the actual session plan if the athlete isn’t injured.

Again, depending on the injury type, we can duplicate training responses with other modalities such as bike or pool sessions.

Alex Jebb: For us, open lines of communication are the biggest factors in injury prevention. This goes beyond just asking the athletes how they feel before practice each day, as they warm up, and throughout the session. The athletes at Johns Hopkins are under incredible academic stress, and high performers will always put more stress on themselves as well. Since my main job is to develop them as people and aid in their preparation for careers and lives after college, we work around these stressors first and foremost.

It is normal for me to go around the room of athletes and ask how much each person slept the previous night. When I get answers such as “uhh…a couple hours” or “I promise to sleep tonight,” we make modifications to their workouts, such as swapping out a high-intensity day for a general recovery day. I can (and do) repeatedly stress the importance of sleep and nutrition, but I’m not naïve and I don’t necessarily disagree with them either—they’re at Johns Hopkins to prepare for medical school, PhD programs, Wall Street, or whatever passion they’re going to follow for the next 40 years of their lives. While they are incredibly passionate about their athletics, exams, papers, and internships are more important.

Keeping things in perspective and being realistic about college will minimize injuries due to lifestyle choices, as opposed to burying my head in the sand and treating the team as if it were a professional training group. I think this applies to all coaching situations as well—the balance of life on and off the track can’t be understated.

All coaching situations need to balance the athlete’s life on and off the track or field. Share on X

In terms of managing injuries and altering training, this situation again touches on communication. Luckily, we have amazing athletic trainers at Hopkins who are on the same page as to when to push things and when to hold back, and always keeping the larger picture in perspective. When an athlete is injured, we try to keep him or her active and fit by any means necessary without aggravating the injury. Most of the time, this contingency plan involves transferring sprint workouts to a stationary bike or pool and modifying the lifts to try to maintain as many of the benefits as possible.

For athletes who seem unable to tolerate the “ideal” training plan, I think it’s important to keep things in perspective. Taking a patient approach to training loads will alleviate a number of problems, as the gradual increases in loads over time accumulate to a well-developed training base. I’m actually going through this right now with one of my athletes—it’s a constant push-pull of having to corral the athlete with a history of injuries who is so eager to train.

This challenge is much better than the opposite scenario of an unmotivated athlete, but it is a struggle to drill the fact that consistently completing 80-90% of the written training is much preferable to alternating periods of 100% completion with periods of 0-20% completion. Keeping the end goal in mind and being patient when it comes to progressing towards that goal is, in my mind, the best way to handle alterations to training plans. The best ability is availability!

Tomorrow, we’ll feature the next installment of this Jumps Roundtable Edition #2 series: “Building a Technical Model.”

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

 

After the huge success and popularity of the first “Jumps Roundtable” series of articles, SimpliFaster asked Coach Nick Newman to trade his usual answers for questions. Nick interviewed eight accomplished jumps coaches for the second edition of this excellent six-part series.

We will publish one question from the “Jumps Roundtable Edition #2” per day over the next six days. This third installment is on tapering and peaking strategies for athletes. Please enjoy, and please share.

The Coaches

Bob Myers: Bob Myers is currently retired, but served as Associate Head Coach at Arizona and was a college dean and athletic director over the past 40 years. He has an M.S. in Kinesiology, specializing in Biomechanics, and a doctorate in education with his dissertation on “A Comparison of Elite Jumps Education Programs of Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom Leading to a Level III Jumps Education Program in the United States.” Bob was inducted into five Halls of Fame as an athlete, coach, and athletic director. He has published 31 articles in professional journals around the world and has lectured at over 50 locations throughout the world.

In his 13 years coaching at Arizona, Bob coached four national record holders, five collegiate record holders, and 27 All-Americans in the high jump, triple jump, long jump, javelin, and heptathlon. He is perhaps best known for coaching the University of Arizona women high jumpers to a 1-2-3 finish in the 1985 NCAA Outdoor Championship, where all three jumped over 6’3” (1.91m for second and third, and 1.93m for first) even though two were heptathletes. He also coached Jan Wohlschlag, who was ranked No. 2 in the world in 1989, won four USATF National Championships, and was the World Grand Prix Champion.

Todd Lane: Todd Lane entered his 10th season as a member of LSU’s coaching staff in 2017. The Tigers and Lady Tigers have flourished in eight seasons under Lane’s direction—he has coached 11 NCAA scorers to 35 scoring All-America honors in four different jumping events since joining the LSU coaching staff right before the 2008 season. His student-athletes have also captured six SEC championships and 36 All-SEC honors over the last eight seasons.

Nelio Moura: Nelio Alfano Moura has been a member of national coaching staffs in Brazil since 1990, participating in five Olympic Games, five Pan-American Games, and 17 World Championships (Indoor and Outdoor). Nelio has developed, in partnership with his wife, Tania Fernandes de Paula Moura, more than 60 athletes who qualified to national teams, and he coordinates a talent development program successfully maintained by the São Paulo state government. He is Horizontal Jumps Coach at Esporte Clube Pinheiros, and has a master’s degree in Human Performance from UNIMEP – Piracicaba. At least one of Nelio’s athletes has qualified to each iteration of the Olympic Games since 1988, and he guided two of them to gold medals in Beijing 2008. 

Dusty Jonas: Former high jump Olympian, Dusty Jonas, was named a full-time assistant coach on the Nebraska track and field staff on July 12, 2017, after eight years as a volunteer assistant for the Huskers men’s and women’s high jump. Since joining the Huskers program as a volunteer coach in 2010, Dusty has coached nine Big Ten high jump champions and 10 first-team All-Americans. Twelve Huskers have cracked all-time Top 10 high jump charts in his eight seasons. In the 2015 indoor season, Dusty helped then-sprints coach Billy Maxwell coach the Huskers men’s sprints, hurdles, and relays, and that group went on to combine for 46 of the team’s title-winning 127 points at the Big Ten Indoor Championships. 

Neil Cornelius: After a torn ankle ligament at 19, Neil started coaching in his free time at the age of 20. One year later, he coached his first National Junior champion in the triple jump (Boipelo Motlhatlhego, 16.07m). By 2011, he had his first 8m jumper (Mpho Maphutha, the youngest South African and the first South African high school athlete to jump over 8m at the age of 18 years). By 2013, Neil has his first national colors by representing South Africa as a team coach for the African Junior Champs. There, his athletes received three medals (long jump: Gold; triple jump: Gold (15.98 CR) and Silver). In 2016, Neil coached Luvo Manyonga to an Olympic Long Jump silver medal (8.37m) and in 2017 to a World Championship Gold (8.48m) and an African/Commonwealth Record (8.65m).

Since Neil first started coaching, his training group has amassed 88 medals (16 medals at various international championships and 72 medals at national championships). He’s currently the head Long Jump/Triple Jump coach for the Tuks Athletic Club (University of Pretoria), as well as the head jumps coach for the Tuks HPC and the Tuks Sport High School. 

Kyle Hierholzer: Kyle Hierholzer has most recently worked as the 2017 Lead Jumps/Multis coach and education manager for ALTIS in Phoenix, AZ. During the 2015 and 2016 seasons, he was the co-coach of Jumps/Multis with Dan Pfaff. Over the course of Kyle’s tenure, the group produced podium finishers at the U.S. Indoor Championships, World Indoor Championships, World Outdoor Championships, and Olympic Games, and also a Diamond League Champion. Before joining ALTIS in fall 2014, Kyle worked eight years at Kansas State University. Kyle primarily assisted head coach Cliff Rovelto in the sprints, jumps, and combined events. He also served as the primary coach for the K-State pole vaulters. 

Stacey Taurima: Coach Taurima has been the Head of Athletics of the University of Queensland for almost five years, where he has coached senior and collegiate athletes to finals in World Youth, World U20 Championships, Commonwealth Games, and World University Games. He has coached national medalists in both senior men’s and women’s sprints events, and in 2017 coached Liam Adcock and Shemaiah James to Silver and Bronze in the Open Australian Championships, along with Taylor Burns and Daniel Mowen to Gold in the 4x400m. Stacey has coached 16 national champions and 19 international athletes in a five-year period and many professional sporting teams utilize him for his expertise in speed-based programs. 

Alex Jebb: Alex Jebb is the Combined Events and Jumps coach for John Hopkins University. In his first two years of coaching there, his athletes have earned six All-American honors, five Academic All-American honors, 15 school records, four championship meet records, and two NCAA Division 3 All-Time Top 10 marks. Alex was honored as the USTFCCCA NCAA Division III Mideast Region Men’s Assistant Coach of the Year for the 2017 indoor season. He graduated from John Hopkins with a Bachelor of Science in Biomedical Engineering and Applied Mathematics, and from Duke University with a master’s degree in Engineering Management. He is an engineer by day and coach later in the day.

The Question

Nick Newman: Tapering and peaking for big competitions is the name of the game at the top level. Generally speaking, reducing volume and increasing specificity over time are aspects of peaking. Please elaborate on your peaking strategies and how they differ among certain athletes. How much does the psychology of your athlete play a role in peak performance for the big competition?

Bob Myers: While preparing for peaking, technical training is at the top of the systematic technical progression pyramid and is paramount, along with competition-like training intensity and psychological training. The athlete must be confident, must have a competition plan for any condition and circumstance, and must be rested!

Training volumes become quite low since peak intensity in training is at its highest. Warmups, other than in cold weather, become dynamic and shorter. Jump technique is at its pinnacle, so in the high jump, approach rhythm and accuracy are locked in. Absolute strength should have peaked six weeks out and dynamic lifting should have peaked within 10-14 days before that peak.

Peaking strategies for athletes depend on training age, technical level, fitness, and mental state. Share on X

As speed-strength work gets higher and higher in intensity and technical work is of No. 1 importance, the volume of speed-strength work declines. Therefore, as the intensity curve of training goes higher (ultimately to its highest point), the volume of the training curve declines.

The last week before a peak technical consistency is critical (especially in the high jump, where misses in a competition are the difference in making the podium or watching from the stands).

Psychological work should parallel the technical consistency in the last week. Have a solid plan, but planning for the worst and hoping for the best is critical. As technique becomes solidified and consistent, so should confidence levels.

Peaking strategies for different levels of athletes depend on training age, technical level, fitness, and psychological makeup. Several aspects are the same for all levels of athletes: consistency of the technique or technical stabilization, and building confidence going into the competition.

Todd Lane: I’m not a huge fan of the word “peaking.” I think in today’s athletics world, we are sharpening the athlete, often for extended periods of time. When I look at the elite world scene, I see people who run 9.80 in April and 9.80 in June, 9.80 in August and 9.80 in September.

Once we get our intensities in training to a certain level, it really becomes about playing with the volume. We undulate and manipulate the volume to create situations where the athlete is sharp for competition, or increase the volume to be able to maintain training and prolong the season. It’s a micro dosing of volume. The greater the training age, the longer this can go on for, generally. Once you lose the volume for an extended period of time, you’ve begun that downward slope of being able to sharpen again for further competitions.

The density of the truly intense work is reduced and there are more general days to allow recovery.

Rest itself is often placed upon the athlete and placed into training, by default. For example, looking at the NCAA system, in the last 21 days of the regular season (regionals and into NCAA), you have four days of rest built in with travel days. There should be another two to three days of planned rest in there. So you’re looking at six to seven days in 21 that are already off (or very close to it), with more than half just due to the logistics of getting to meets. Lowered volumes and rest become the governor for “peaking.”

Psychology becomes 90% of the battle in preparing for the big meet “peak.” Really, it’s about confidence. You have things you do in training, whether it’s testing or a specific workout that allows the athlete to be successful to set that confidence. No offense to coaches, but I think sometimes we give our training plans and peaking strategies too much credit when things go really well for that big meet.

Competitive athletes know what’s on the line at the big meets. They get themselves into a mindset to compete and when they get around their competitors, it’s game on and incredible things happen. I liken it to the NBA. The regular season players are on cruise control to a certain extent, but come playoff time, some truly take over and step up their game to levels never seen before. There is a confidence and ability to take their game to new levels because of the competition and what is on the line. 

Nelio Moura: There are many studies concerning tapering for endurance events, but far fewer that consider explosive events. Anyway, it is believed that the shorter the event, the shorter the tapering, even though we have to take individual differences into account.

For my jumpers, I plan five to 10 days of tapering (roughly, one week). Intensity and specificity are kept high, with a huge decrease in volume. Training frequency is also slightly reduced. Immediately before the tapering, some athletes, under certain circumstances, do one week of overreaching. The management of injury risk is always present, and I usually prefer a more conservative approach. Therefore, I don’t use this overreaching week too often. 

Dusty Jonas: The first thing I do when planning for a taper is pinpoint on the annual plan which competitions are the most important for the training year. For some athletes, the conference championship is their major competition for the year, and for others it could be the NCAA championships, World Championships, or beyond. The planning of a taper should take place well in advance of it being used during the training year.

My tapering strategy generally involves a 21-day taper, but some athletes react better to a seven- or 14-day taper. Some athletes need more rest, while others need less to stay sharp. This goes back to knowing your athletes and the correct training stimulus to apply for them to succeed. My goal when planning a taper is to apply enough stimulus to avoid detraining or, in some cases, overtraining.

The planning of a taper should take place well in advance of it being used during the training year. Share on X

During the taper, I keep much of the volume fairly consistent, but decrease the density and increase recovery times. Our technical training starts to get more intense and specific to try and mimic the stress of high-level competition on the athlete’s body. The time spent on the track decreases and practices don’t last much longer than an hour to an hour and a half, including warmup and cooldown. I like to look at this time of the year as a sharpening period. If you have planned correctly, your athletes shouldn’t need a new edge, so to speak. It’s all about honing and sharpening the edge that already exists.

It is incredibly important not to ignore the technical or psychological aspects of peaking. For many NCAA athletes, championship season and final exam season coincide. During this time, it becomes necessary to monitor an athlete’s stress level and body language. A late night studying for a final exam can derail a planned training day, so communication between the athlete and coach becomes crucial.

A 2015 article in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research co-authored by Bryan Mann of Missouri suggested that injury rates among NCAA football players during times of high academic stress affected more athletes than at times of low academic stress or high physical stress. In 2010, the Stanford Sleep Disorders Clinic did a study on the Stanford men’s basketball team. Without getting into the finer details of the study, the results showed that a minimum sleep time of 10 hours per night resulted in a significant increase in shooting accuracy, faster sprint times, and a general feeling of being less fatigued. The research wasn’t done on track and field athletes, but the results of these studies shouldn’t be taken lightly and should be considered during this time of the year when looking to reach peak performance.

An athlete’s state of mind is of great importance at this point of the year. If an athlete leaves practice feeling like they got something important accomplished, they leave happy. Happy athletes are confident athletes and confident athletes perform well when it matters.

Neil Cornelius: I’ve never had a problem with athletes peaking at the right competitions. The trick is just keeping them healthy and pain- and/or injury-free to be able to do the right exercises to get them to peak, so injury prevention is a must. I just imagine the perfect form and technique my athlete has to have at the big competition and then work out the training and preparation necessary to get them there.

Usually, the exercises done are whatever need to be done and differ from athlete to athlete. Closer to the major competition (two to three or so weeks, again depending on the form), I like to let athletes do as few major things as possible. The training durations are the same and the quality and intensity are high, but there are a lot less reps. In a session of 45 minutes, we’ll do about five full run-up jumps or six 50m sprints—with ample recovery time between each jump or rep.

Psychological preparation is of big importance as well. The athlete must know when they are supposed to peak (which major meets) and what the goal is for the season. But it’s also important to keep the athlete calm and relaxed about the major competitions. I’ve seen too many talented athletes—favorites for medals—falter at the major ones. They tend to put the big one on a pedestal, like it’s this crazy, major hard-to-reach thing. Keeping relaxed and chilled on the big day has seen a lot of my athletes pull out upsets and PBs on the day.

We like getting our mindset to the point where we’re treating the big one just like any other normal competition and focusing on the job at hand. We also take everything step by step; i.e., during the qualifying round our focus is on getting the automatic qualifier, we don’t think about the final until we’ve qualified for the final, etc. And, during the final, we don’t focus on the medals, we focus on the jumps and making sure we get the distance in the first three rounds to make the Top 8. Once we’re in the Top 8, our attention goes fully towards the top position. 

Kyle Hierholzer: Great question! This is one that I have changed my mind on during my career. I used to think it was all about setting up the peak. I thought that every single macrocycle, mesocycle, microcycle, and individual training session had to be expertly and meticulously structured. The culmination of this master plan was going to be an amazing, trumpets blaring, peak of performance that was totally due to the plan. I would spend hours agonizing over sets, reps, cues, distances, etc. I was chasing perfection.

Now, to be fair, I think that process was very, very, good for me. I learned what my style of training design was, and I began to formulate maps in my head. I started to not have to track volume, intensity, and density as much because I had seen it before. I had analyzed quadrennial plans, and compared quadrennials against each other. I knew how many reps of each exercise in the weight room the athletes did, how many times they threw OHB, how many approaches they ran, etc. I started to develop norms.

Eventually though, it started to become obvious to me that I could not predict how athletes were going to feel and react one week from now, much less 38 weeks from now, with any real amount of accuracy. I was taking myself way too seriously. I also started observing jumpers who were having great performances in February and equally great performance in September. If athletes are going to have a career in the sport while making a livable income, they had to perform at a high level for months on end.

The evidence against a one or two peak seasons started to grow for me. I started talking to my mentors, and closely observing how they were organizing training. Slowly, the traditional periodization model started to hold less water for me as a speed/power coach.

I had to tell you that story, so I could tell you this story. I think tapering is an effective technique, and we have a taper period going into major competitions. But I don’t think there is such a thing as a true training-induced “peak.” I think the “peaking” happens when a confident, mentally resilient, relatively healthy, technically sound athlete walks into a stadium full of people. They are representing their country or school, their friends and family are in the stands, and they know it’s the biggest meet of the year. If we can’t get up for that, then we have bigger fish to fry than training design.

Now, can poor training design negatively impact that environment? Absolutely. Do I think it creates that environment? No.

How do we come up with our taper design? We experiment throughout the season with different setups going into various competitions. Some athletes like to rest the day before a meet. Some two days before. Some like to do a light warmup every day leading into it. Some like to do absolutely nothing for a few days. Some like track stuff, and some like weight room stuff.

We experiment throughout the season with different taper setups going into various competitions. Share on X

We intentionally try various combinations in both training and competition setups. Afterwards, the athlete debriefs us on how they felt, and we make notes and adjustments. Once we see a trend begin to present itself, then we have a basis for what we are going to do heading into the major.

Here are a few general guidelines we have about tapering for major competitions:

• Avoid the “one more” syndrome – safeguard athlete health.
• Trust the athlete’s input in the process – they are the ones in the stadium.
• It’s not a good time to try something new – stick with what got you there.
• Keep the cues simple – you’re seeking flow state, not analytics.
• Rest and therapy are critical – but again, don’t add new stuff unless needed.
• Debrief frequently – it’s cathartic and can help the coach remove stress.
• Set up as much of the logistics as you can – so there’s less for the athlete to think about.
• Keep accountability measures the same as always for the individual.
• Generally, women need to keep more volume, men more intensity
• Generally, hold the last big neuro session no closer than five days out from the competition.

The psychology of the athlete plays a massive role in performance at major competitions. However, if you are addressing it at the major competition, it’s probably already too late.

Training mental resilience needs to happen in conjunction with all of your other training modalities. It should be part of your trend analysis, as discussed earlier, and most likely will have presented itself in the debriefing process. The athletes who don’t view mental resilience just as seriously as event technique will generally not do well under the big lights. However, the blame for that must lie with the coach, who did not do a good enough job educating the athlete on the importance of this topic.

I am guilty of this and have failed here many times. It takes some tough conversations, and lots of accountability. It’s not often discussed, but I think that coaches who create a lot of buy-in to a “peaking” process are inadvertently creating a very tough mental skills gap to overcome. If the athlete knows they can only “peak” one or two times per year, then what will they do at the third meet, or the fourth meet? Will it be in the back of their head that they have already “peaked?”

For example, as the college coach of an elite athlete, you need to perform well at Conf ID, NCAA ID, Conf OD, NCAA OD, USA OD, and WC. This situation makes thorough debriefing and athlete education on the process extremely important.

Stacey Taurima: I’ve had experience with many types of athletes who respond completely differently under training load. Generally, a rule of thumb is to reduce volume in some areas but, at the same time, maintain a level of training volume appropriate for that athlete at that moment in time.

Various factors such as travel, dietary influences, therapy/medical, recovery modalities, and emotional state are all considerations of training load, so the one or group of factors the athlete presents with will determine your path.

The actual training load leading into a major meet is pretty similar to what the program looks like four to six weeks prior. We don’t really change a lot going into the major competitions, but address the concerns when they arise.

In my experience, the individuality within the peaking process is generally the recovery and medical program. Some athletes enjoy different types of recovery modalities, such as manual therapies like massage, chiropractic work, ART, hot and cold baths, or medical interventions. Athletes can sometimes act like divas in this area, wanting only a certain physician to work on them at a particular time, so it’s important to accommodate these requirements where possible.

During major meets the psychological state of the athlete is one of my higher KPIs leading into the major championships. Another of the biggest concerns is the parents, other family members, spouse, girlfriend, and/or boyfriend of the athlete. Many times these people unwittingly derail the athlete’s performance on game day. Emotions are high for everyone and everyone wants involvement, so controlling these issues requires discussions prior to the major meet. This way everyone understands what needs to be done in the best interests of the athlete.

Various other distractions, such as athlete villages, other teams, living arrangements with shared rooms, etc., all lead to stressors that have a compounding effect on the athlete, so it’s vital to manage the athlete’s emotional state over the duration of the championship.

Plans are drawn up months before actual championships to accommodate possible changes that the athlete may face, so scenarios and mitigation plans are part of the discussions prior to all competitions.

Alex Jebb: I don’t think that I do anything special from a programming perspective when it comes to peaking athletes. While I allow for individual differences between athletes, I think the overarching themes of reducing volume and increasing specificity, and thus maintaining intensity, hold true for most everyone.

We employ a traditional 10- to 14-day taper outside of either our conference championships or the NCAAs, depending on the athlete. During this period, there is a significant reduction in training density and then volume, although we keep intensity high and fine-tune some event-specific work. Most of our work in the weight room is extremely light and fast for some neural work, although we still touch on max strength with one heavy session seven to 10 days out.

The mental component of a taper will determine the (controllable) success of the athlete. Share on X

I think that the athlete’s psychology plays the predominant factor in the success of a taper. As long as the above physical aspects of a taper are in place, then I think the mental component will determine the (controllable) success of the athlete. This is where I think the strength of the coach-athlete relationship is very much a determinant of success.

If the athlete has complete trust in the coach, and the coach knows which buttons to press on the athlete, then the rest takes care of itself. Some athletes need stimulation to come into a competition firing on all cylinders, whereas others need to be calmed down or re-focused. Some just need to be completely distracted. I believe that the coach and athlete having a well-established relationship truly makes championship season the most fun time of the year.

Tomorrow, we’ll feature the next installment of this Jumps Roundtable Edition #2 series: “Reducing and Managing Injuries.”

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

 

After the huge success and popularity of the first “Jumps Roundtable” series of articles, SimpliFaster asked Coach Nick Newman to trade his usual answers for questions. Nick interviewed eight accomplished jumps coaches for the second edition of this excellent six-part series.

We will publish one question from the “Jumps Roundtable Edition #2” per day over the next six days. Our second series installment is on plyometric training and teaching. Please enjoy, and please share.

The Coaches

Bob Myers: Bob Myers is currently retired, but served as Associate Head Coach at Arizona and was a college dean and athletic director over the past 40 years. He has an M.S. in Kinesiology, specializing in Biomechanics, and a doctorate in education with his dissertation on “A Comparison of Elite Jumps Education Programs of Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom Leading to a Level III Jumps Education Program in the United States.” Bob was inducted into five Halls of Fame as an athlete, coach, and athletic director. He has published 31 articles in professional journals around the world and has lectured at over 50 locations throughout the world.

In his 13 years coaching at Arizona, Bob coached four national record holders, five collegiate record holders, and 27 All-Americans in the high jump, triple jump, long jump, javelin, and heptathlon. He is perhaps best known for coaching the University of Arizona women high jumpers to a 1-2-3 finish in the 1985 NCAA Outdoor Championship, where all three jumped over 6’3” (1.91m for second and third, and 1.93m for first) even though two were heptathletes. He also coached Jan Wohlschlag, who was ranked No. 2 in the world in 1989, won four USATF National Championships, and was the World Grand Prix Champion.

Todd Lane: Todd Lane entered his 10th season as a member of LSU’s coaching staff in 2017. The Tigers and Lady Tigers have flourished in eight seasons under Lane’s direction—he has coached 11 NCAA scorers to 35 scoring All-America honors in four different jumping events since joining the LSU coaching staff right before the 2008 season. His student-athletes have also captured six SEC championships and 36 All-SEC honors over the last eight seasons.

Nelio Moura: Nelio Alfano Moura has been a member of national coaching staffs in Brazil since 1990, participating in five Olympic Games, five Pan-American Games, and 17 World Championships (Indoor and Outdoor). Nelio has developed, in partnership with his wife, Tania Fernandes de Paula Moura, more than 60 athletes who qualified to national teams, and he coordinates a talent development program successfully maintained by the São Paulo state government. He is Horizontal Jumps Coach at Esporte Clube Pinheiros, and has a master’s degree in Human Performance from UNIMEP – Piracicaba. At least one of Nelio’s athletes has qualified to each iteration of the Olympic Games since 1988, and he guided two of them to gold medals in Beijing 2008. 

Dusty Jonas: Former high jump Olympian, Dusty Jonas, was named a full-time assistant coach on the Nebraska track and field staff on July 12, 2017, after eight years as a volunteer assistant for the Huskers men’s and women’s high jump. Since joining the Huskers program as a volunteer coach in 2010, Dusty has coached nine Big Ten high jump champions and 10 first-team All-Americans. Twelve Huskers have cracked all-time Top 10 high jump charts in his eight seasons. In the 2015 indoor season, Dusty helped then-sprints coach Billy Maxwell coach the Huskers men’s sprints, hurdles, and relays, and that group went on to combine for 46 of the team’s title-winning 127 points at the Big Ten Indoor Championships. 

Neil Cornelius: After a torn ankle ligament at 19, Neil started coaching in his free time at the age of 20. One year later, he coached his first National Junior champion in the triple jump (Boipelo Motlhatlhego, 16.07m). By 2011, he had his first 8m jumper (Mpho Maphutha, the youngest South African and the first South African high school athlete to jump over 8m at the age of 18 years). By 2013, Neil has his first national colors by representing South Africa as a team coach for the African Junior Champs. There, his athletes received three medals (long jump: Gold; triple jump: Gold (15.98 CR) and Silver). In 2016, Neil coached Luvo Manyonga to an Olympic Long Jump silver medal (8.37m) and in 2017 to a World Championship Gold (8.48m) and an African/Commonwealth Record (8.65m).

Since Neil first started coaching, his training group has amassed 88 medals (16 medals at various international championships and 72 medals at national championships). He’s currently the head Long Jump/Triple Jump coach for the Tuks Athletic Club (University of Pretoria), as well as the head jumps coach for the Tuks HPC and the Tuks Sport High School. 

Kyle Hierholzer: Kyle Hierholzer has most recently worked as the 2017 Lead Jumps/Multis coach and education manager for ALTIS in Phoenix, AZ. During the 2015 and 2016 seasons, he was the co-coach of Jumps/Multis with Dan Pfaff. Over the course of Kyle’s tenure, the group produced podium finishers at the U.S. Indoor Championships, World Indoor Championships, World Outdoor Championships, and Olympic Games, and also a Diamond League Champion. Before joining ALTIS in fall 2014, Kyle worked eight years at Kansas State University. Kyle primarily assisted head coach Cliff Rovelto in the sprints, jumps, and combined events. He also served as the primary coach for the K-State pole vaulters. 

Stacey Taurima: Coach Taurima has been the Head of Athletics of the University of Queensland for almost five years, where he has coached senior and collegiate athletes to finals in World Youth, World U20 Championships, Commonwealth Games, and World University Games. He has coached national medalists in both senior men’s and women’s sprints events, and in 2017 coached Liam Adcock and Shemaiah James to Silver and Bronze in the Open Australian Championships, along with Taylor Burns and Daniel Mowen to Gold in the 4x400m. Stacey has coached 16 national champions and 19 international athletes in a five-year period and many professional sporting teams utilize him for his expertise in speed-based programs. 

Alex Jebb: Alex Jebb is the Combined Events and Jumps coach for John Hopkins University. In his first two years of coaching there, his athletes have earned six All-American honors, five Academic All-American honors, 15 school records, four championship meet records, and two NCAA Division 3 All-Time Top 10 marks. Alex was honored as the USTFCCCA NCAA Division III Mideast Region Men’s Assistant Coach of the Year for the 2017 indoor season. He graduated from John Hopkins with a Bachelor of Science in Biomedical Engineering and Applied Mathematics, and from Duke University with a master’s degree in Engineering Management. He is an engineer by day and coach later in the day.

The Question

Nick Newman: Plyometric training can take on many forms and serve several purposes. Options include high shock depth jumps, alternate bounding, remedial low-intensity hopping activities, and many other variations. Describe your use of plyometric training and your progressions throughout the season. Do you link them with event-specific work? Do you incorporate them into weight room complexes or use plyometrics in other ways?

Bob Myers: Plyometrics are linked with event-specific technical work in that overall training load must be watched so as not to overstress the athlete. This is where complementary and compatible training is important to line up training that works well together and does not lead to overstress injuries.

The plyometric program must always fit together with your overall training plan. Plyometrics is just one component of a larger picture. Plyometric training is linked with event-specific work, and many times event-specific work counts as some of the plyometric volumes and vice versa. The use of plyometrics as complexes with weight training in the weight room should be accomplished as training exercise dyads in the late off-season and pre-season phases of training.

• Plyometrics training should always go from “general” to “specific” as you proceed through the yearly training cycle.
• Progress from low volume to high volume and then low intensity to high intensity. Don’t ever have high volume and high intensity during the same cycle of training.
• Peak volume of plyometrics come after peak volume of weights in the yearly cycle.
• Peak intensity occurs right before an athlete’s physiological peak.
• The volume and intensity of plyometrics should match the training background of the athlete.
• The technique is such that the athlete begins to have a muscular contraction before landing.

A sample inventory of general preparation (off-season) in-place jumps (10+ reps per set):

• Ankle jumps
• Back tuck jumps
• Front tuck jumps
• Rocket jumps
• Lateral jumps
• Bunny hops
• Single leg tucks
• Hurdle hops
• Box drills

A sample inventory of specific preparation (pre-season) meso-power jumps (six to 10 reps per set):

• Hops for height
• Bounds for height or distance
• Speed hops
• Speed bounds
• Straight leg bounds

A sample inventory of competition preparation and competition (in-season) short-end jumps (one to six reps per set). Note that these should be very event- or sport-specific!

• Depth jumps
• Speed hops
• Curve hops – for high jumpers
• Standing long jumps
• Standing triple jumps

Volumetric Considerations (for high level athletes):

In-Place Jumps (low intensity with high volume): 250-500 contacts per session with 10 or more reps per set.

Longer Jumps (low intensity with high volume): Recorded in horizontal distance with a recommended volume of 40-100 meters per rep and 600-2,000 meters per session. These are mainly for runners and horizontal jumpers, like long and triple jumpers, where horizontal jumping ability is more important than vertical.

Meso-Power Jumps (higher intensity than in-place jumps): 150-350 contacts per session with six to 10 contacts per set. These are mainly for vertical jumpers, such as in basketball, volleyball, high jump, etc.

Meso-Endurance Jumps (the same volume and intensity as meso-power jumps): Measured in horizontal distance (meters or yards), not the number of contacts. Recommended 20-40 meters per rep, with a recommended volume of 400-1200m per session.

Short-End Jumps (high intensity and low volume): Recommended one to five contacts per set with 100-300 contacts per session for highly trained athletes.

Todd Lane: I’ll start simply in three areas:

1. With low-level, almost remedial, jumps, in place of jumps done in circuit fashion. Cueing foot contacts, absorbing the landing (to me this is often a neglected quality in plyometric training). This type of work also allows for the building of work capacity and conceptual teaching.
2. The other area is with short bounds. One to three takeoffs, which pairs well with acceleration work (another area we train from Day 1). Standing long, standing triple jump, double leg hops, combo single leg hops. Allows coordination and, again, foot contacts.
3. Very remedial hops—we call them baby bounds. Both horizontal and vertical displacement are very low, but we can teach foot contacts, absorbing again, swing segments of arms, and hips. Much of what we cue here carries over to all jumps, but especially the triple jump.

From there, the bounding will continue to increase in intensity, with more displacement and velocity added to it. We will add in things like hurdle hops, varying the spacing and/or height.

Once we get into the competitive season, the plyometric work drops significantly and we remediate back to some of the early season work such as jump circuits, short jumps, and remedial hopping, just to stay in touch with those qualities. The intensity of competition is more than enough, and I’ve found that trying to maintain high-intensity plyometric work with competition is an injury situation waiting to happen. I’d rather we undertrain in this area than try to squeeze more out of it and end up injured.

Trying to maintain high-intensity plyometric work with competition is an injury waiting to happen. Share on X

The ballistic lifts we do in the weight room during the competitive season—such as weighted jump squats and lunge jumps type of exercises—are also enough to feed the elastic strength.

People don’t think enough about the interplay between the weight room and plyometric work. Looking at the overall program throughout the year, one has to give for the other to be successful, and vice versa. What I mean is, within microcycles and/or mesocycles, the intensity and volume in one area means the other area needs adjustment.

I like complexes, such as a squat followed by a hurdle hop. I think it allows for motor units and proprioceptors to be challenged in different ways, it stimulates further adaptation, and it can really light a nervous system up in a positive way. Having said that, I’ve seen where complex training, if done for too long of a period, can just fry and flatten athletes. 

Nelio Moura: Plyometric training is in the center of my program. It is probably the most specific way to develop strength, that is, by its turn, the key to high performance. I use some kind of plyometric training from the beginner’s first week of training until the week of the fundamental competition for experienced athletes. The final goal is that plyometric exercises develop throughout the athlete’s career, until they reach their mature, specific, and high-intensity form during the special preparation and pre-competitive periods of experienced athletes.

Some plyometric exercises that I use with experienced athletes are so similar to the target ability that it is difficult to say that the session is not a technical one. Almost all my weight training programs are organized into complex pairs (one lifting exercise followed by a plyometric one), taking advantage of the PAP phenomenon. 

Dusty Jonas: I will attack this question from the perspective of the high jump and, more specifically, to the demands of the plant leg, and speak from the general to specific demands of the event.

In the grand scheme of the training year as a whole, any method of plyometric or multi-jump training needs to contribute to the overall mission as it pertains to the event. The high jump takeoff is no different than any other jumping event in that, at plant, there is a collision with the ground and a subsequent change of direction or deflection off of the ground. The difference is where the force is being applied and directed. There are massive lateral forces upon takeoff that affect the ankle and knee joints, and an athlete must be able to accept this collision and have the ability to amortize quickly with as little bend in the leg as possible. These demands must be addressed when incorporating plyometric training into a high jump training plan.

Generally speaking, plyometrics are a fantastic tool to teach pretension and correct postural positions when done at a low intensity and amplitude. During GPP, I like to do a lot of teaching about body position leading into ground contact, and how the foot/ankle should contact the ground and apply force quickly and efficiently. Dan Pfaff has referred to some of this as “rudiment work,” while Boo Schexnayder refers to it as “foot prep or multi-jump circuits.” When doing these drills, I like to teach full foot contacts because I believe that full foot contacts can teach force application over a greater area in the right direction. Full foot contacts can also help develop the elastic qualities of the Achilles tendon, as well as help people who are overly “toe-y” to stay off of the toe when the foot contacts the ground.

I like to keep this kind of work in all year long and incorporate it into warmups, cooldowns, and recovery days. These exercises include double leg hops and single leg hops, as well as right and left leg combos, and are done in all planes of motion.

As the training calendar and athletes progress, we decrease the volume and increase the intensity, as well as incorporate more specific work. Athletes that are more neutrally driven can be absolutely wrecked by what some would consider a light plyometric day in regards to contact numbers. Others can do massive volumes of multi-jump/plyometric training and recover relatively quickly. It is important to identify these differences in athletes when prescribing exercises and doses.

Specific work can be single or double legged in nature. When evaluating double leg box drop jumps, single leg box drop and hold, or double leg hurdle hops, the height of the box or hurdle is determined by the maximum angle of allowable deflection in the knee that I am looking at. I usually limit the maximum deflection angle to 20-25 degrees at the knee joint, as it is more specific to the event and can reduce the chance of injury to the patellar tendon and to the ACL in women.

As the competitive season progresses, much of the plyometric volume will decrease, traditionally speaking. Since max velocity sprinting is plyometric in nature, this is also accounted for, along with the volume of max effort jumps being taken during technical sessions.

A very general example of the season progression is as follows:

Early Season: Rudiment work, jumps circuits, split jumps, lunge exchange jumps, skipping for height and distance, etc. (Total volume per session: 125-175 contacts; Intensity: low.)

Mid-Season: Alternate leg bounding from stand or short run in, double leg hurdle hop variations, depth jumps (double and single leg variations), bounding complexes, event-specific technical work, etc. (Total volume per session: 50-100 contacts; Intensity: moderate to high.)

Late Season: Bounding variations, hurdle hop variations, event-specific technical work (Total volume per session: 45-75 contacts; Intensity: high.) 

Neil Cornelius: Plyometrics are essential for any sprinter and jumper, but I like to keep everything I do event-specific. In the off-season, I use a variety of plyos in the gym and on the track, while in-season I keep the plyos just on the track. (I tend to mix it up to keep my athletes away from boredom. The same exercises can be done in different ways.)

I do mid/high intensity in the off-season with mid/high reps, while I keep the reps low in-season but the intensity at its highest. Keeping the plyometrics event-specific does more than just strengthen the right muscles the right away; if done correctly, it can be invaluable in teaching the athlete the right technique. Normal bounding on the run-up towards the pit is my favorite, and it makes teaching the right technique, form, and control so much easier when it comes to in-season preparation.

Kyle Hierholzer: I’m an advocate for a middle ground of thought on coaching, and keeping things as based on common sense as possible. In my opinion and experience, jumpers like to jump! Programs that disregard or de-emphasize plyometric training may be removing an element of training that can, at minimum, be very enjoyable to this population of athletes. Without getting into an overly lengthy discussion of plyometric classifications, periodization, and individual event needs, I’ve outlined some guidelines below to safeguard athlete health and training quality.

In general, throughout a training program we utilize the following general structure when classifying plyometric activities.

1. Low complexity, low intensity
2. Low complexity, high intensity
3. High complexity, low intensity
4. High complexity, high intensity

For clarity and context, when using the term “complexity,” I am talking about how challenging the demands of the movement are for the individual athlete. As an example, an in-place double leg hop would be very low on the complexity scale, while a depth jump from a one-meter box into a triple jump would be very high on the complexity scale.

Regarding the term “intensity,” I am referring to how much effort/force/amplitude/speed of movement, etc., the coach asks the athlete to put into the exercise. For example, in-place double leg hops that are cued to be executed with a low amplitude of movement are on the opposite end of the intensity spectrum from a 25m single leg hop for time and minimum contacts.

When prescribing plyometrics, remember the highest complexity/highest intensity task is competition. Share on X

Understand that complexity and intensity are often tied together. A complex movement may require a higher intensity because more effort is required due to the skill demands. On the flip side, there are situations where athletes may have to down-regulate intensity/effort to feel safe performing a complex plyometric while learning the skill.

I keep the following principles in mind when prescribing plyometric activities:

• The highest complexity, highest intensity task is competing in the event.
• The idea of “minimum effective dose” must be followed when prescribing plyos.
• Mindfulness and skill execution must be held to high accountability standards.
• An athlete’s health and well-being must take priority over “doing cool stuff.”
• Gradual progression through categories is a must.

Now that you have a picture of how we categorize plyos, and you have looked at some of the key principles that guide our implementation, I’ll expand on a few further thoughts regarding implementation.

We’ll generally progress from category A to category D throughout a season or career. It’s important to remember that an exercise can move between categories. For example, early in the training season or for athletes of young training age, low amplitude in-place jumps can be perceived by the athlete’s system as high intensity and complex. This may lead to a strong stimulus and adaptation loop. However, as adaptation occurs and the season progresses, that same exercise can shift to low intensity and not be very complex at all.

At that point, the exercise can become more restorative in nature with a low stimulus for change. Eventually, it may become so general in nature that its value to training is very low. Thus, the need for increased complexity or intensity to keep challenging the system. Remember that with increases in complexity and intensity, the coach may need to change the density pattern of the prescription.

When coaching athletes during plyometric activities, I spend a great deal of my time focusing on foot position and firing order. I demand a high level of accountability for the athlete to land with a flat (dorsi-flexed) foot, and to avoid a toe-first (plantar-flexed) landing at all costs. This is connected to the second point, firing order.

Movement should be initiated from proximal to distal, and I prefer that the athlete thinks about movement initiation occurring prior to contacting the ground. Athletes often get anxious to be on the ground and thus fire the closest joint to the ground (the ankle), resulting in a toe-first contact. The firing should “start” from the hip and move down. Coaches have referred to this as “pre-firing,” “anticipation,” etc. Find the cue that works for you, and you will begin to see crisper and more-efficient force loops.

Depth jumps, plyometrics in the weight room, and extensive bounding can all have a place in an athlete’s training design. (Personally, I’m a fan of combinations in the weight room because they allow me to really hit home on points about firing order.) However, these exercises also may never have a place in an athlete’s training design. To me, this is where the real “art” of plyometric prescription comes into play.

Coaches try to put athletes in situations that cause their systems to create unique solutions. Share on X

We are trying to put athletes in challenging situations that cause their systems to create unique solutions to problems. What is challenging for one athlete may not be challenging for another athlete. Therefore, attention to detail, trend monitoring, and athlete debriefing are important on a regular basis. It’s important to have a large inventory of plyometrics to draw from, but it’s paramount to match up exercise prescription with athlete need.

Linking plyometrics with event-specific work in the same session does happen on occasion. However, we have generally found that during the competitive season, a plyo session the day before event-specific work seems to prime the pump for the following day. Remember that in the jumping events, event-specific work is a plyometric. Do you need more on the same day? If so, what’s your purpose?

I’ll close this topic with three notes that have recently been areas of interest to me regarding plyometrics. The first of these is fluid dynamics within the joint system, and the role of plyometrics in training this system. In lay terms, the fluid in the joint systems functions like the hydraulic fluid in a piece of heavy machinery. This fluid system allows the equipment to create more force for lifting loads or pushing objects than it could without the system. The interesting part to me is the role of plyometrics in not only training this system, but also in its restorative capacities. The idea is that plyometrics (especially low complexity, low intensity) help to return the fluid in the joints to a homeostatic state after a heavy impact session, thus preventing fluid imbalances and improper joint function.

The second note regards using plyometrics as a movement screen. Successful coaches have always paid attention to detail and adjusted as needed. Plyometric activities give us a unique window into movement because they are often rather novel activities for many athletes as compared to other movements. This means that it’s more difficult for even the “magician” athletes to hide faulty movement patterns. Look for differences in firing patterns, joint amortization, ground contact time, posture, etc. Try paying special attention to anything moving backwards.

Finally, just a little bit on ground contact time and athlete conversion abilities. Working with Coach Pfaff, we tried to put athletes into one of three different boxes: slow, medium, or fast converters. This describes how much time the athlete needs to spend on the ground to most efficiently apply force and re-organize their body for the most successful outcome. If we coach every athlete to get off the ground as fast as possible, or “hit and go,” we may be doing them a disservice based on their unique skill sets.

Realize that these are spectral boxes, and we can shift athletes some over time. It’s not always wise to use a catchall cue for an entire group of athletes. Use the cues that are best for each person, and know why you are using them.

Stacey Taurima: When introducing plyometric exercises into any training program, I’m looking at improving and enhancing certain capabilities within the athlete’s toolbox.

When implementing plyometric exercises, I’m generally looking at developing reactive strength, elasticity, power development, neural stimulation, and conditioning qualities. It’s important to understand the reasoning or purpose of plyometric inclusion.

When introducing plyometrics into an athlete’s program, I tend to focus more on vertical force applications than horizontal, especially with athletes with limited training years. This allows for athletes to maintain postural integrity while developing elastic and reactive strength qualities in a safe manner. We can progress into the horizontal applications once the athlete has developed the required capabilities.

Our introductory plyometric circuits are similar to the plyometric rudiment schemes developed by Coach Dan Pfaff. These schemes offer coaches better understanding of the athlete’s current capability and give insight into progression time frames. When progressing plyometric activity, we examine the relationship between volume and intensity, and what that looks like in the current training cycle.

The plyometric exercises should complement other aspects of the training program. For example, sprint acceleration is more horizontal force dominant; therefore, the plyometric exercises should complement a similar impulse. This can be carried out prior to acceleration, which leads into potentiation affects.

I believe plyometrics need to be respected, due to the neural demand they require. I tend to utilize them occasionally with some individuals in the squad, and more with others.

Alex Jebb: I believe in using plyometrics throughout the season because it’s some of the most comparable work to event-specific training. Our plyometric training is comprised of a broad annual progression of movements, beginning with low intensity in-place jumps and moving up the spectrum of intensity to possibly assisted-speed alternate leg bounds for my more-experienced athletes.

We start with drop jumps, in which the athlete steps off a box that is about as tall as his or her standing vertical jump, and simply stick the landing, as a precursor to depth jumps. Our bounding progression starts with different jump combinations to load the athlete in a variety of ways, and then moves to endurance bounding from a standing start until we gradually add more speed going into the bounding combinations. This progression finishes with a few high-quality bounds in which the athlete is either bringing maximum speed into each repetition, or bounding onto and off of boxes. (We manipulate the height and spacing.)

Be careful that the use of plyometrics doesn’t come at the expense of quality strength work. Share on X

I also believe in using plyometrics within weight room complexes. I think that strength and power exercises and the neural effect of plyometrics feed off of each other in a synergistic fashion. However, I think you have to be careful in ensuring that the use of plyometrics doesn’t come at the expense of quality strength work. Our efforts on the track are so ballistic and high velocity in nature, that I believe the best use of the weight room is as a complementary component to develop strength. So, while I do believe in the value of plyometric complexes in the weight room, I will quickly abandon them if I think they are sacrificing quality strength/power work. 

Tomorrow, we’ll feature the next installment of this Jumps Roundtable Edition #2 series: “Tapering and Peaking.”

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF

After the huge success and popularity of the first “Jumps Roundtable” series of articles, SimpliFaster asked Coach Nick Newman to trade his usual answers for questions. Nick interviewed eight accomplished jumps coaches for the second edition of this excellent six-part series.

We will publish one question from the “Jumps Roundtable Edition #2” per day over the next six days. Our first is on the process of working with new athletes with high-level talent and/or world-class performances. Please enjoy, and please share.

The Coaches

Bob Myers: Bob Myers is currently retired, but served as Associate Head Coach at Arizona and was a college dean and athletic director over the past 40 years. He has an M.S. in Kinesiology, specializing in Biomechanics, and a doctorate in education with his dissertation on “A Comparison of Elite Jumps Education Programs of Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom Leading to a Level III Jumps Education Program in the United States.” Bob was inducted into five Halls of Fame as an athlete, coach, and athletic director. He has published 31 articles in professional journals around the world and has lectured at over 50 locations throughout the world.

In his 13 years coaching at Arizona, Bob coached four national record holders, five collegiate record holders, and 27 All-Americans in the high jump, triple jump, long jump, javelin, and heptathlon. He is perhaps best known for coaching the University of Arizona women high jumpers to a 1-2-3 finish in the 1985 NCAA Outdoor Championship, where all three jumped over 6’3” (1.91m for second and third, and 1.93m for first) even though two were heptathletes. He also coached Jan Wohlschlag, who was ranked No. 2 in the world in 1989, won four USATF National Championships, and was the World Grand Prix Champion.

Todd Lane: Todd Lane entered his 10th season as a member of LSU’s coaching staff in 2017. The Tigers and Lady Tigers have flourished in eight seasons under Lane’s direction—he has coached 11 NCAA scorers to 35 scoring All-America honors in four different jumping events since joining the LSU coaching staff right before the 2008 season. His student-athletes have also captured six SEC championships and 36 All-SEC honors over the last eight seasons.

Nelio Moura: Nelio Alfano Moura has been a member of national coaching staffs in Brazil since 1990, participating in five Olympic Games, five Pan-American Games, and 17 World Championships (Indoor and Outdoor). Nelio has developed, in partnership with his wife, Tania Fernandes de Paula Moura, more than 60 athletes who qualified to national teams, and he coordinates a talent development program successfully maintained by the São Paulo state government. He is Horizontal Jumps Coach at Esporte Clube Pinheiros, and has a master’s degree in Human Performance from UNIMEP – Piracicaba. At least one of Nelio’s athletes has qualified to each iteration of the Olympic Games since 1988, and he guided two of them to gold medals in Beijing 2008. 

Dusty Jonas: Former high jump Olympian, Dusty Jonas, was named a full-time assistant coach on the Nebraska track and field staff on July 12, 2017, after eight years as a volunteer assistant for the Huskers men’s and women’s high jump. Since joining the Huskers program as a volunteer coach in 2010, Dusty has coached nine Big Ten high jump champions and 10 first-team All-Americans. Twelve Huskers have cracked all-time Top 10 high jump charts in his eight seasons. In the 2015 indoor season, Dusty helped then-sprints coach Billy Maxwell coach the Huskers men’s sprints, hurdles, and relays, and that group went on to combine for 46 of the team’s title-winning 127 points at the Big Ten Indoor Championships. 

Neil Cornelius: After a torn ankle ligament at 19, Neil started coaching in his free time at the age of 20. One year later, he coached his first National Junior champion in the triple jump (Boipelo Motlhatlhego, 16.07m). By 2011, he had his first 8m jumper (Mpho Maphutha, the youngest South African and the first South African high school athlete to jump over 8m at the age of 18 years). By 2013, Neil has his first national colors by representing South Africa as a team coach for the African Junior Champs. There, his athletes received three medals (long jump: Gold; triple jump: Gold (15.98 CR) and Silver). In 2016, Neil coached Luvo Manyonga to an Olympic Long Jump silver medal (8.37m) and in 2017 to a World Championship Gold (8.48m) and an African/Commonwealth Record (8.65m).

Since Neil first started coaching, his training group has amassed 88 medals (16 medals at various international championships and 72 medals at national championships). He’s currently the head Long Jump/Triple Jump coach for the Tuks Athletic Club (University of Pretoria), as well as the head jumps coach for the Tuks HPC and the Tuks Sport High School. 

Kyle Hierholzer: Kyle Hierholzer has most recently worked as the 2017 Lead Jumps/Multis coach and education manager for ALTIS in Phoenix, AZ. During the 2015 and 2016 seasons, he was the co-coach of Jumps/Multis with Dan Pfaff. Over the course of Kyle’s tenure, the group produced podium finishers at the U.S. Indoor Championships, World Indoor Championships, World Outdoor Championships, and Olympic Games, and also a Diamond League Champion. Before joining ALTIS in fall 2014, Kyle worked eight years at Kansas State University. Kyle primarily assisted head coach Cliff Rovelto in the sprints, jumps, and combined events. He also served as the primary coach for the K-State pole vaulters. 

Stacey Taurima: Coach Taurima has been the Head of Athletics of the University of Queensland for almost five years, where he has coached senior and collegiate athletes to finals in World Youth, World U20 Championships, Commonwealth Games, and World University Games. He has coached national medalists in both senior men’s and women’s sprints events, and in 2017 coached Liam Adcock and Shemaiah James to Silver and Bronze in the Open Australian Championships, along with Taylor Burns and Daniel Mowen to Gold in the 4x400m. Stacey has coached 16 national champions and 19 international athletes in a five-year period and many professional sporting teams utilize him for his expertise in speed-based programs. 

Alex Jebb: Alex Jebb is the Combined Events and Jumps coach for John Hopkins University. In his first two years of coaching there, his athletes have earned six All-American honors, five Academic All-American honors, 15 school records, four championship meet records, and two NCAA Division 3 All-Time Top 10 marks. Alex was honored as the USTFCCCA NCAA Division III Mideast Region Men’s Assistant Coach of the Year for the 2017 indoor season. He graduated from John Hopkins with a Bachelor of Science in Biomedical Engineering and Applied Mathematics, and from Duke University with a master’s degree in Engineering Management. He is an engineer by day and coach later in the day.

The Question

Nick Newman: Professional and collegiate coaches often acquire high-level talent and/or athletes with previous world-class performances in their given events. Describe your process when beginning work with an athlete who has achieved a high level of success under a different training system or philosophy. Do you adapt your system based on information from the athlete’s training history? Or do you introduce them to your own philosophies and methods regardless?

Bob Myers: In working with a new athlete who has already attained a high level of success, communication with the previous school and/or club coach(es) is critical in determining training age, athlete strength and weaknesses, and psychological makeup. In-depth discussions with the athlete, usually begun through the recruiting process, also take center stage in assessing the background of the athlete. Procurement of a varied database of video is also essential in assessing the athlete and formulating the first training year.

Within this process the coach must not only determine physical background, but also psychological makeup, to determine what motivates the athlete, the athlete’s confidence level, cueing background, etc. Additional information is attained through a complete medical, athletic training, and physical therapy assessment, as well as assessment testing for physical levels and psychological and nutritional assessments. Within the initial assessment period for the athlete, the coach should spend a considerable amount of time with the athlete discussing technical, training, psychological, and nutritional philosophies so both know similar terminology and can move forward in building the foundation by which the evaluation results can lead to the new program. So, in short, the new yearly cycle of training is set up to be as individualized as possible (or at least grouping athletes with similar programs), combining input from all the data obtained from the athlete’s history and testing and various other assessments. 

Todd Lane: Training age plays a part. The greater the training age, the more middle of the road approach I’ll take. It’s hard to do work within a system that is not your own, so it has to make sense as to why there are certain things happening in an imported system. And the younger the training age (incoming high schooler), the more I’ll introduce my philosophy and methods.

When experienced athletes look for my advice, they are looking for change. Share on X

Nelio Moura: Usually, when experienced athletes look for my advice, they are looking for changes, to try the philosophy behind my system. However, these athlete do not arrive as a “blank sheet”—they have a history I have to account for. They probably experienced some degree of success, so have done more right things than wrong things during their development. This is also an opportunity for me to learn. My system is open, and I try to incorporate any and all knowledge that can make it better.

Dusty Jonas: I think any time you get an athlete, it is important to know their training history, injury history, etc. Most of that information should have been learned during the recruiting process in regards to the collegiate system. If an athlete has achieved a high level of success before they get to you, it is clear to me that their coach before was doing something very well, whether it was the type of training, managing injury/rest/nutrition, etc. When possible, I find it helpful to compare and contrast the programs and see where the similarities lie. Other training philosophies can offer an opportunity to learn and advance your knowledge for your coaching toolbox.

Once the similarities and differences are identified, the athlete should be introduced to foreign training concepts or stressors slowly. For example, if an athlete hadn’t done any weight training in high school, it probably isn’t in anyone’s best interest to have them under a massive load in the weight room before learning the desired movement. The same can be said for running or plyometric/multi-jumps volumes.

During the transition from one program to another, communication between the athlete and coach is critical. Regardless of your philosophy, it is important to understand that all athletes have their own unique sets of strengths and weaknesses and are not created equally. Your training should account for this and be adjusted accordingly.

In regard to foreign athletes, most will need some time to adjust to a new school system, language, and culture. This is not unlike first-year American athletes who may be away from the safety net of home for the first time. 

Neil Cornelius: Well, you cannot completely disregard an athlete’s coaching history, whether it was of high or low quality. I tend to introduce my new athletes, no matter the skill level, to my methods and ideologies. If an athlete has enjoyed a certain level of success with his old methods it doesn’t necessarily mean those methods are correct or are the best for him, but it does mean that there are at least elements that brought out success.

I usually tend to ease my new athletes into my methods while keeping in mind their old training that brought out success. I’ve never had athletes struggle to adapt to my methods and technique and the vast majority do improve, so I’ve never doubted introducing talented or professional athletes to my way of doing things. 

Kyle Hierholzer: I believe this question gets right to the heart of why most coaches get into the coaching profession in the first place, which, in my opinion, is the opportunity to help others. It’s less about philosophies and systems, the latest research, the hippest new book, or growing social media followers. It’s more about leadership. It’s about coming alongside athletes and building relationships of trust, empathy, and accountability. 

Keeping that vision in mind, I believe the biggest success factor in the athlete’s transition is the quality of the induction conversations and the thoroughness of the detailed debriefing process utilized prior to the start of training. This is where the rubber meets the road. This is where the vision statement turns into action points.

The induction process should target global concerns that may be raised by both parties. Topics addressed should include, but are not limited to:

• Assessing and understanding the reasons why the athlete is making a change.
• Protecting the existing training environment and culture…is it a fit?
• Reviewing past coaching situations of the athlete, including successes and failures.
• Identifying trends in behavior or communication styles…do they match?
• Laying out clear expectations of performance from both parties.
• Checking references from as many sources as possible, including previous coaches.

Once the coach and athlete both feel comfortable that these items are satisfactory, then it makes sense to move on to a more detailed debrief that may be more training-philosophy-oriented. This should be a structured process with the coach and athlete going through each section together and sharing thoughts or concerns.

Example sections may include:

• Data from the previous seasons (SB, PB, averages, injuries, trends, etc.).
• Items effective/not effective in the weight room.
• Items effective/not effective on the track.
• Training items enjoyed/not enjoyed in any realm.
• Key therapy inputs.
• Cue systems that have worked/not worked (time in career, time of year, etc.).
• Level of event-specific knowledge.
• Video usage skills, etc.

In this situation, it makes sense to give the athlete the opportunity to freely express their opinions as to why they have excelled in the sport. This will give the coach a great deal of information about what the athlete may be looking for, what they feel may work for them in training design, or maybe even some concerns about what they need to do in their career moving forward. The experience and knowledge of the athlete will normally dictate the level of discussion. Some questions may take more leadership from the coach, and others may simply require the coach to sit back and listen.

After the debrief, you will generally have a solid idea of where that athlete sits from a mindset perspective in relation to the training methodologies that you believe lead to success. Generally, this leads to one of three situations…

1. Strongly aligned philosophically, and many indications of compliance with normal training design.
2. Strongly misaligned philosophically, and training moving forward would require a massive shift by either coach or athlete in methodology.
3. Somewhere in the middle, and moving forward would require compromise to some degree by both parties.

Then it’s time to make a decision as a coach about how much you are willing to compromise based on everything you’ve learned in the initial induction and detailed debrief. It is possible for athletes in all three situations to achieve success over the course of the coach-athlete relationship. The more rigid the coach, the smaller their pool of potential athletes. The more open and flexible the coach, the greater their pool.

It should be noted that not everyone is a good fit, and it’s OK to say no. Sometimes, we may take people that don’t align with us in order to challenge ourselves or because we believe we can make an impact in another area of that athlete’s life. In many instances, we can bring athletes around to our foundational training beliefs through education.

At the end of the day, if the athlete feels safe and if they trust the coach, they will buy into whatever training system the coach feels is best. It is then the responsibility of the coach to maintain that culture and utilize their network and experience to put the athlete into the best possible environment for success. I’m happy to share samples of debriefs with anyone interested.

If an athlete trusts the coach, they will buy into any training system the coach thinks is best. Share on X

Stacey Taurima: It depends on the system you’re inheriting the athlete from: professional, collegiate, high school, etc. All have different considerations that need addressing prior to acceptance to ensure ease of transition into your training environment. A more junior athlete with limited training years or an injured athlete may need immediate interventions upon commencement; therefore, flexibility in the decision-making process must occur for athletes to reach their athletic potential.

In my experience, just because an athlete is a higher performing athlete, it doesn’t necessarily mean they understand the requirements to maintain and improve on their current abilities. This education process again requires flexibility and a non-biased approach.

The introduction process of a new athlete can be quick or drawn out over time, depending on the athlete’s history and individual needs. During this process, discussions will take place to educate coaching staff on the athlete’s event knowledge, training understanding, and lifestyle, etc. This will also encompass injury, medical, therapist, and treatment plans.

So, once we’ve established a performance baseline or “player/athlete profile,” we will commence the training process. This process will always be based around athlete’s health and well-being, remembering the athlete is already talented and has demonstrated a high level of skill in their event area previously. We believe that, to understand the athlete’s talent, we must maintain a simple program and focus predominately on the athlete’s dominant qualities.

In the first few weeks for healthy athletes, we don’t generally communicate a lot surrounding the training applications. Pre and post session briefings are always carried out, but generally during the session communication is limited as we like to see how the new athlete interacts with squad members, interprets a task, and problem solves, on the track and in the weight room.

In summary, flexibility in the decision-making process surrounding best practice for the athlete is our current philosophy.

Alex Jebb: While I have not worked with truly elite athletes at this point in my career, I think the process of working with a new athlete is the same as for the situation of a freshman coming in from a high-performing high school program. It is imperative to understand the training background of the athlete and what worked (and didn’t work) for him or her with a previous coach. This understanding should stem from discussions with both the athlete and the former coach and should encompass both the physical and mental backgrounds of the athlete.

I wouldn’t say I change my system for the athletes I coach; rather, I “tailor” my system to their needs. As with every coach, I implement my system because I believe, at the moment, that it is what will work best for my athletes, given all of the various constraints of working within the college setting. I also believe that it is my duty to experiment with the athlete’s training, at least a reasonable amount.

I wouldn’t say I change my system for the athletes I coach; rather, I ‘tailor’ it to their needs. Share on X

For example, if someone has had success with a heavy volume of tempo running in the past, then I might experiment with a reduction in volume for a bit to see what kind of response I get—who knows if that success was due to the volume of tempo, or in spite of it. This experimentation is especially true for freshmen, when I know I’ll have three more years with them. I’ll try to isolate what I feel are the two to three biggest question marks in their training history, whether for better or for worse, and then play around with those variables to investigate further.

My two current decathletes are a good illustration of this process of individualization. One is very elastic but also compliant, so we’ve found that he responds very well to heavy eccentrics in the weight room. However, he needs some time to recover from these periods and truly get out of the “hole” that we dig him into. My other decathlete, however, isn’t as gifted in terms of tendon structure, but he is an absolute workhorse when it comes to general training capacity. Thus, I know that he can not only handle high workloads, but more specifically needs heavy volumes of tempo running and speed endurance workouts.

As much as I would like to take credit for being able to just know these differences, it took a process of tinkering, following hunches, and talking to both the athletes and outside sources to eventually figure this out for them.

Tomorrow, we’ll feature the next installment of this Jumps Roundtable Edition #2 series: “Plyometric Training and Teaching.”

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF