SMU Speed Symposium

Posted In: Blog Discussion

  • Vern Gambetta
    Participant
    Vern Gambetta on #15343

    On April 14 & 15 Dr. Peter Weyand of SMU will host a symposium that will bring together practitioners and scientists to meet and discuss the latest research and practices on improving human speed performance. For more information on the speakers and the program follow this link for more information on the symposium. This should be a great opportunity to learn and share ideas.

    Continue reading…

    Avatar
    Participant
    trackjabber on #77799

    This looks crappier than a flaming pile of cow dung.

    Other than Winkler and Hart you’ve got a bunch of no-name done-nothings. I’m guessing anyone who goes to listen to these ‘speed experts’ will come out learning that the arm swing doesnt matter (Mann & Weyand), that mechanics are everything (Mann), that mechanics are nothing (Weyand, Ross, Jalaski), that the only exercises athletes ever need to do is a combination of never before seen strange exercises using a simultaneous combination of running, twisting and boxes (Bosch) or heavy partial range of motion deadlifts (Jalaski & Ross); and that the only thing that matters is MASS-SPECIFIC STRENGTH (Weyand, Ross, Jalaski), and that humans are capable of running 6s for 100m (Weyand).

    Avatar
    Participant
    Daniel Andrews on #77837

    Jabber:

    It’s a symposium fool.

    From wikipedia:
    Symposium originally referred to a drinking party (the Greek verb sympotein means “to drink together”) but has since come to refer to any academic conference, or a style of university class characterized by an openly discursive rather than lecture and question-answer format.

    You act as if some of those things you listed are not true. In its purest form, even Weyand, Ross, Jalaski will agree mechanics are important. The problem some genius took mechanics to mean pretty form and the sprint/speed coaching community fell in love with it.

    again from wikipedia:

    Mechanics (Greek Μηχανική) is the branch of physics concerned with the behaviour of physical bodies when subjected to forces or displacements, and the subsequent effect of the bodies on their environment.

    I really don’t think Weyand is going to bring up conjecture in a symposium unless someone else does. He more than likely will be debating how little “form” drills relate to running mechanics (kinetics and kinematics).

    While I certainly disagree with Ross and Jalaski on some items. The ASR formula and systemic focus on speed development (although I hate systems relating to coaching) would be a step in the right direction for younger athletes who have coaches who run their athletes into the dirt and know little about the sport.

    While you may think many haven’t done anything, people like Vern Gambetta who made this blog is in the symposium and he’s certainly done many things across many sports. You could make an argument that Winkler and Hart recruited only the best and even ruined some of them (this happens in coaching as no one is perfect). The biggest concern I have about the Symposium is the scientists are all biomechanics/physiologists and only Jalaski is a practitioner at the level most athletes compete. The man who needs to be at this symposium is Dan Pfaff as a practitioner and at least someone from the motor learning field.

    If you want to listen to names, then go spend your money listening to Bob Kersee, Larry Wade, and others.

    Avatar
    Participant
    trackjabber on #77858

    Geez. You might be more foolish than you let on. Where’s Dan Pfaff? Loren Seagrave? Charlie Francis? Tom Tellez? They’re clearly going ‘all-out’ as far as financing it so why not bring in a successful sprint coach. Hart’s never coached a top 100 meter guy. Winkler is a long hurdle guy. Bosch — never mind.

    If you’re going to bring someone from overseas to discuss speed why a Rugby coach no one has heard of? Why not Locatelli Springstein or Lopez. Some of the staff seems fine. The other half seems like a good old boys network…Weyands devotees (Bundle, Jakalski, Ross) and Gambetta’s network (Morris, Bosch, Winkler).

    As for my list— which of the items are true! None in the absolutes that those guys refer.

    Just saying…

    Avatar
    Participant
    …like a fox on #77860

    As for my list— which of the items are true! None in the absolutes that those guys refer.

    Just saying…

    From Foxipedia:

    Dont Go
    One’s using the option not to attend.

    Avatar
    Participant
    …like a fox on #77863

    PS: Dont underestimate Mr Moriss. He and I spoke at a symposium back in 2003 and I was very impressed. He also has an academic backround beyond you pegging him as just some rugby coach.

    Avatar
    Participant
    Daniel Andrews on #77870

    Geez. You might be more foolish than you let on. Where’s Dan Pfaff? Loren Seagrave? Charlie Francis? Tom Tellez? They’re clearly going ‘all-out’ as far as financing it so why not bring in a successful sprint coach. Hart’s never coached a top 100 meter guy. Winkler is a long hurdle guy. Bosch — never mind.

    If you’re going to bring someone from overseas to discuss speed why a Rugby coach no one has heard of? Why not Locatelli Springstein or Lopez. Some of the staff seems fine. The other half seems like a good old boys network…Weyands devotees (Bundle, Jakalski, Ross) and Gambetta’s network (Morris, Bosch, Winkler).

    As for my list— which of the items are true! None in the absolutes that those guys refer.

    Just saying…

    You are the one espousing their thoughts for them as absolutes and while Barry is knucklehead on occasion it doesn’t mean he can’t add value. While there is no true 100m coach, does their need to be? Do you really need more people who coach elites or do you need more people who coach as the developmental level? Aren’t those the coaches who make all these either coaches seem great to begin with?

    As for myself, I no longer have respect for Loren Seagrave and his money machine in Speed Dynamics. Its all BS. Some Seagrave drills are useful but the other junk he’s been doing is complete BS.

    The only person who I don’t think belongs is Bosch as he’s lost his mind as a scientist with any objective or imagination to create acceptable new hypothesis to test.

    #1: Arm swing doesn’t matter. Arms only show reactions to prior actions. They show symptoms of errors, but the error lies somewhere down the kinetic chain. I guess the moron who coaches arm carriage can make arm swing matter since they most likely be instructing unnatural carriage such as 90 degree BS. However, I guarantee all of these practitioners from the Gambetta side probably don’t mention arms except for setting up in the blocks very often.

    #2: Mechanics are all that matter. What parts of the mechanical system that matter is what the symposium is about.

    I could go on all day explaining the virtues of most of the coaches I disagree with, but I digress and I am going to bed.

    Mike Young
    Keymaster
    Mike Young on #77872

    Geez. You might be more foolish than you let on. Where’s Dan Pfaff? Loren Seagrave? Charlie Francis? Tom Tellez? They’re clearly going ‘all-out’ as far as financing it so why not bring in a successful sprint coach. Hart’s never coached a top 100 meter guy. Winkler is a long hurdle guy. Bosch — never mind.

    If you’re going to bring someone from overseas to discuss speed why a Rugby coach no one has heard of? Why not Locatelli Springstein or Lopez. Some of the staff seems fine. The other half seems like a good old boys network…Weyands devotees (Bundle, Jakalski, Ross) and Gambetta’s network (Morris, Bosch, Winkler).

    As for my list— which of the items are true! None in the absolutes that those guys refer.

    Just saying…

    While you make some valid points on suggested speakers you should know as a website owner that it’s generally a bad idea to make insulting and ‘hate’ posts…especially if you’re a complete newbie with no cred on this board at all. Please keep things civil.

    I would LOVE to hear the discussion between Mann, Gambetta and Winkler vs. Ross and Ken. I’m also curious to know if Dr. Weyand is as aligned with Coach Ross et al as they imply.

    I have never heard Robert speak but Vern has spoken very highly of him to me.

    ELITETRACK Founder

    Mike Young
    Keymaster
    Mike Young on #77873

    As for myself, I no longer have respect for Loren Seagrave and his money machine in Speed Dynamics. Its all BS. Some Seagrave drills are useful but the other junk he’s been doing is complete BS.

    REALLY? He’s arguably the most successful 100m sprint coach in NCAA and American history. Especially when you examine his success with both men and women. And if we look at just what he did with females it’s close to indisputable. I’ve only met Loren once and didn’t really have the time to pick his brain but I think while a lot of his stuff is outdated (and may be misreprentative) he clearly has a much more advanced understanding of sprint mechanics, training theory, and neurophysiology than 99% of the other coaches in the world. Check out some of his writings. I think you’ll see there’s much more to the guy than speed dynamics.

    The only person who I don’t think belongs is Bosch as he’s lost his mind as a scientist with any objective or imagination to create acceptable new hypothesis to test.

    What do you mean by this. I’m not following. I’ve attended about 12 level 2s now and I can say that his talks in Chicago 2 or 3 years ago were some of the more thought provoking I’ve listened to. They spurred a lot of heated debate in the cafeteria following his talks that I haven’t seen before or since.

    #1: Arm swing doesn’t matter. Arms only show reactions to prior actions. They show symptoms of errors, but the error lies somewhere down the kinetic chain. I guess the moron who coaches arm carriage can make arm swing matter since they most likely be instructing unnatural carriage such as 90 degree BS. However, I guarantee all of these practitioners from the Gambetta side probably don’t mention arms except for setting up in the blocks very often.

    The only research I’m aware of that actually focused on the arm swing (by Hinrichs) indicated otherwise. It said that they can contribute up to 7% of vertical propulsive force. If we want to debate this one lets start another thread.

    ELITETRACK Founder

    Avatar
    Participant
    Daniel Andrews on #77874

    [quote author="dbandre" date="1234349696"]
    As for myself, I no longer have respect for Loren Seagrave and his money machine in Speed Dynamics. Its all BS. Some Seagrave drills are useful but the other junk he’s been doing is complete BS.

    REALLY? He’s arguably the most successful 100m sprint coach in NCAA and American history. Especially with females. I’ve only met Loren once and didn’t really have the time to pick his brain but I think while a lot of his stuff is outdated he clearly has a much more advanced understanding of sprint mechanics and neurophysiology than 99% of the other coaches in the world. Check out some of his writings. I think you’ll see there’s much more to the guy than speed dynamics.

    The only person who I don’t think belongs is Bosch as he’s lost his mind as a scientist with any objective or imagination to create acceptable new hypothesis to test.

    What do you mean by this. I’m not following. I’ve attended about 12 level 2s now and I can say that his talks in Chicago 2 or 3 years ago were some of the more thought provoking I’ve listened to. They spurred a lot of heated debate in the cafeteria following his talks that I haven’t seen before or since.

    #1: Arm swing doesn’t matter. Arms only show reactions to prior actions. They show symptoms of errors, but the error lies somewhere down the kinetic chain. I guess the moron who coaches arm carriage can make arm swing matter since they most likely be instructing unnatural carriage such as 90 degree BS. However, I guarantee all of these practitioners from the Gambetta side probably don’t mention arms except for setting up in the blocks very often.

    The only research I’m aware of that actually focused on the arm swing (by Hinrichs) indicated otherwise. It said that they can contribute up to 7% of vertical propulsive force. If we want to debate this one lets start another thread.[/quote]

    I read a lot of Seagrave’s stuff, but then I interviewed with SD and read some of their literature and I had to check twice to make sure it was the same Loren Seagrave. I agree a lot of earlier stuff is outdated, but I still like a few of his drills.

    I read Bosch’s “Running” book about 4 years ago and it was so bad I can barely. Then again, he thinks distance runners are uncoordinated sprinters which is an absurd argument. I can guarantee I can create a lot of debate if I spoke at a level II as well. It means little.

    As for the arms. Lets not start, because the arm contribution is from a natural swing and carriage that is reactionary to running. We can’t increase the force contribution with active arm movements but we can dampen it. I guess this is a chicken and egg one but go ahead start a new thread. I may or may not participate. I almost hate the subject as messing with arms will dampen vertical force production and not enhance it.

    Mike Young
    Keymaster
    Mike Young on #77875

    I read a lot of Seagrave’s stuff, but then I interviewed with SD and read some of their literature and I had to check twice to make sure it was the same Loren Seagrave. I agree a lot of earlier stuff is outdated, but I still like a few of his drills.

    I’m assuming you mean you interviewed with Velocity? If that’s the case, I don’t think Loren is involved with them anymore and hasn’t been for some time. There are a couple other people who lurk on this board who could probably speak to this better than me. One thing that I’m keenly aware of as a business owner myself and Vern could speak to in-depth is the fact that business and coaching can be 2 separate things for some people. If the goal of speed dynamics series or Velocity was to make money then it was probably a successful venture and in my mind shouldn’t necessarily be misconstrued as what he necessarily did on the track.

    I read Bosch’s “Running” book about 4 years ago and it was so bad I can barely. Then again, he thinks distance runners are uncoordinated sprinters which is an absurd argument. I can guarantee I can create a lot of debate if I spoke at a level II as well. It means little.

    It actually means a lot in a symposium…especially if you have someone like Frans who could probably hold his own in a debate. I say that while disagreeing with many of the same viewpoints that you probably do.

    ELITETRACK Founder

    Avatar
    Participant
    trackjabber on #77902

    While you make some valid points on suggested speakers you should know as a website owner that it’s generally a bad idea to make insulting and ‘hate’ posts…especially if you’re a complete newbie with no cred on this board at all. Please keep things civil.

    Point taken. I apologize to the board. HOWEVER, I was the one who was insulted directly (by dbandre) when he called me a fool.

    My beef I guesss was just that if you look at the website they are playing at up like something revolutionary and then they have very few people actually known for speed research or training. It doesn’t mean they’re bad but they don’t really match up with headlines of the clinic. Can anyone dispute this? Weyand and Mann are probably the only 2 that are speed specialists in their field. And to address the question about 400m running. I think it does matter. That’s not speed. That’s 400m running. Speed and endurance. Hart and Winkler are not true SPEED guys in my opinion. I gave my short list above for coaches I’d consider. Ross and Jalaski have shown complete disregard for physics on this board and others make bold absolute statements and misinterpret science. What would earn them a spot other than mindless worship of Weyand?

    Avatar
    Participant
    Daniel Andrews on #77912

    This looks crappier than a flaming pile of cow dung.

    Certainly one of the greatest ways to introduce your presence.

    Other than Winkler and Hart you’ve got a bunch of no-name done-nothings. I’m guessing anyone who goes to listen to these ‘speed experts’ will come out learning that the arm swing doesnt matter (Mann & Weyand), that mechanics are everything (Mann), that mechanics are nothing (Weyand, Ross, Jalaski), that the only exercises athletes ever need to do is a combination of never before seen strange exercises using a simultaneous combination of running, twisting and boxes (Bosch) or heavy partial range of motion deadlifts (Jalaski & Ross); and that the only thing that matters is MASS-SPECIFIC STRENGTH (Weyand, Ross, Jalaski), and that humans are capable of running 6s for 100m (Weyand).

    Then you left us hanging in the wind. Seriously the only thing we can imply from this statement is you don’t think these are valid points. In fact, when Mann is writing about “Mechanics” its a totally different thing than the Weyand, Ross, and Jakalski group are referring to which is technically form and form drills and trying to teach mechanics with slow non-specific movements.

    I’ll leave this little bit of “cow dung” out there. Weyand, Ross, Jakalski really bang away on mass-specific force, but isn’t velocity really just mass-specific impulse in classic Newtonian Mechanics and not really MSF? lets solve for mass specific impulse:

    mass * velocity = force * time
    velocity = (force * time)/mass

    This lends a little bit of credibility to Weyand, Ross, and Jakalski argument of MSF. Although I think there is some specificity with regards to activity and the duration of time.

    Question to Mike:

    Has anyone in Level 2 ever suggest impulse scaled to mass being a critical factor in velocity?

    Avatar
    Participant
    …like a fox on #77917

    Gotta say, I have Bosch fatigue. Isnt his 15 minutes up? Just got invited to Alberta to hear him yet again.

    db & Jab, you guys are taking 2 different roads to a similar location I’d say, eh?

    Avatar
    Participant
    Daniel Andrews on #77920

    Fox:

    about the 2 different roads, yes and no. I think Barry and Ken have valid points to make, although I disagree with some things of theirs as evidence with how I have ripped them on certain issues just because their is a misunderstanding and decoupling with respect to mechanics and form (how good something looks). I also think very new coaches coaching younger age groups or larger group settings would be best served by the Ross and Jakalski training systems over some of these systems out there. I am not a system guy either and I don’t think coaching is done well through systemic processes but through evolutionary processes as systemic processes get stuck in approaching local optima (optimal as the systemic level, but not globally). Can you imagine a new coach trying to get results using the inno-sport methods or speed-dynamics or so called sport enhancement protocols like Frappier.

    I think the one thing most of us agree on is Bosch is old news.

    I would really liked to have seen at least one motor learning researcher, an educator like Pfaff or researcher/coach like Mike, and possibly 1 more HS coach on the panel. The glue on the Panel seems to be Ken Jakalski as he knows Vern, Barry, Frans, and Peter very well. I expect him to be the one trying to dictate the direction of the symposium and keep it focused. I also consider Ken a good friend although we’ve met once.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 19 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.