Usain Bolt 100m 9.76s Video - Brussels DL 2011

Read more...

Usain Bolt 100m 9.85s Video - Zagreb World Challenge 2011

Usain Bolt, the winner of 8 gold medals at the Olympics and World championships clocked a season best 9.85s at the IAAF World athletics challenge in Zagreb on 13.09.2011 (some lucky from my birthday !!). Bolt who false started in Daegu, which then enabled his teammate Yohan Blake to became the world champion, didn't get a great start and at the 50 meters mark he only second to Kim Collins  who blasted out of the block like a hungry bullet. But the giant with 1.96m frame used the advantage to kick all the fields' asses to cross the line two meters ahead.

Kim Collins, the 2003 World champion was second in a season best time of 10.01s. His performance however was way much much much better than Bolt, considering the fact that he achieved his fastest time (9.99s) in 2003 and at age of 35 now, he only short two hundredths of a second of the mark. For a record, Bolt registered a World record in 2009 in a time of 9.58s, where 0.27s faster than the Zagreb's performance, 9.85s - which is obviously still good for everyone but actually bad and ugly for Bolt.

Asafa Powell still the world lead in 9.78s, followed by Tyson Gay (9.79), Steve Mullings (9.80), Yohan Blake (9.83) and Mike Rodgers (9.84). Below is the video;




Results (Wind: +0.1)
‎1. Usain Bolt JAM 9.85 SB
2. Kim Collins SKN 10.01 SB
3. Richard Thompson TRI 10.03
4. Jaysuma Saidy Ndure NOR 10.13
5. Mario Forsythe JAM 10.16
6. Justin Gatlin USA 10.17
7. Ivory Williams USA 10.37

Click here for full results

Read more...

Track and Field Athletics Publications

Last updated 31.05.2012


ASIAN Athletics Rankings – Publications 1989 - 2011
A few copies of the following booklets are still available from the editor against payment in advance (EUR 10 in Europe or EUR 15 / USD 22 other continents) per copy per pay-ments in cash or by International Money Order:
1998 Rankings (76 pages); 2004 Rankings (97 pages); 2005 Rankings (97 pages);
2006 Rankings (96 pages); 2007 Rankings (97 pages); 2008 Rankings (97 pages);
2009 Rankings (97 pages); 2011 Rankings (in May 2012); all other issues are sold out.


Athletics Results From ASIA
Detailed results reports services (30-35 reports/year) during the season (against subscription), national statistics from several Asian AA Member Federations etc. available on request.


ASIAN Athletics All-Time Rankings (31.12.2000)
212 pages including Asian all-time TOP 100 performers for all events, with additional performers for countries outside the dominant nations of China and Japan, all national records and separate rankings for the ex-URS republics in ASIA (before 1993) and for Israel. Copies are available at reduced price of EUR 15 (Europe) or EUR 20 / USD 30 (out-side Europe); payment only in cash or by International Money Order.


Order/contacts for the publications above to:
Heinrich Hubbeling, Haydnstr 8, 48691 Vreden, GERMANY
or by E-Mail: hhubbeling@t-online.de or by FAX: 49 2564 2829


National Records for All Countries in the World
by Winfried Kramer, Heinrich Hubbeling, Yves Pinaud and Steffen Stuebe


The 2012 edition of this valuable work with records as at 31st Dec 2011 for all Olympic events for each country and many territories (234 in all) will be available during April 2012. Records for KOSOVO and various French over-seas territories are included for the first time. Orders at a price of 25 euros against payment-in-advance (cash only) to:
Winfried Kramer, Kohlrodweg 12, 66539 Neunkirchen-Kohlhof, GERMANY


SOUTHEAST ASIA Athletics Annual 2011/12
by Jad Adrian Washif
First ever publication with information of Southeast Asian Athletics. Contains four main parts; Major Meeting Results, Ranking Lists (Annual & All-Time), Comparative Records for All Countries + Asia + World, and Athlete’s Profiles. A5 / 123 pages. Price EURO 10 (SEA), EURO 15 (outside SEA). Payment in cash, credit card, debit card, paypal, western union, and transfer from deposit machine/online banking. Order/contact to:
Jad Adrian Washif, L7, 12th College UPM, 43400 Serdang Selangor, MALAYSIA
Website: www.adriansprints.com , E-Mail: info@adriansprints.com


JAVELIN Statistics
by Tony Isaacs, started a series of historical publications concerning Men's Javelin Throw. FOUR booklets are already published containing;
PART I: 52 pages including  Progressive WR, World Top 10 Rankings 1891 - 2006, Continental Champions and best performers (year-by-year) etc;
PART II: 76 pages including Results from Olympic Games, World Championships for senior, Junior, Youth and Masters;
PART III: 76 pages including Results from around 25 different Inter-Continental Games and Championships;
PART 1V: 52 pages - detailed information about Javelin in AFRICA including Progressive Records, Continental Rankings 1912-2008, results from all Continental and Regional Champs/Games in Africa etc;

IAAF Statistics Handbook for World Championships 2011
by Mark Butler with collaboration from ATFS members, national federations and individuals. 742 pages. Download from IAAF Website: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.


ATHLETICS: The International Athletics Annual 2011
edited by Peter Mat-thews. Provides every facts on International track and fields: Annual Rankings, All-Time Rankings, Biographies of more than 700 athletes, Index of athletes, Articles, Records, Major Meeting Results (all over the World) incl. National Championships, and many others. Buy at Amazon.


Athletics at Commonwealth Games
by Rob Whittingham, Paul Jenes & Stan Greenberg. A5 36 pages. Complete results of Athletics Events at Commonwealth Games 1930-1988, Index of over 5000 athletes etc. Buy at Amazon.


Publishers / Editors / Compilers: enclose your publications here by contacting; info@adriansprints.com

Read more...

Negeri Sembilan Open Athletics Meet 2011, Seremban

The 2011 edition of Negeri Sembilan open Athletics Meet was held during September 10-11, 2011 (2 days) at Tunku Abdul Rahman Stadium, at Paroi, Seremban, Negeri Sembilan. All participants from Malaysia except some guests from Singapore and England as noted. Following are the best results;

MEN EVENTS
(10) 100m: (w: -2.9) 1, Mohd Noor Imran Abdul Hadi, 10.50; 2, Mohd Amiruddin Jamal, SIN, 10.56; 3, Mohd Azhar Ismail, 11.00; 4, Rehvan Arumugam, 11.08;
Semifinals: 1s1, Zabidi Ghazali, 10.99; 1s2, Mohd Amiruddin, 10.93; 2s2, Rehvan Arumugam, 10.98; Ikhwan Nor, 11.11; 1s3, Mohd Azhar Ismail, 10.96; 2s3, Mohd Noor Imran, 11.03; 3s3, Izzuddin, 11.17;
Heat: 1h9, Mohd Zabidi Ghazali, 10.97; 2h9, Mohd Amiruddin, 10.98; 3h9, Mohd Izzuddin Yahaya, 11.03;

Video of 100m Men Final (Wind: -2.9)

(11) 200m: 1, Mohd Izzuddin Yahya, 22.23; 2, Subramaniam Kannathasan, 22.24;
(11) 400m: 1, Mohd Harmizi Arobi, 49.70; 2, Lance Tan, SIN, 50.54;
(10) 800m: 1, Mohd Jironi Riduan, 1:53.81; 2, Nik Hafiz Nik Mohamad, 1:56.29; 3, M. Parthiban, 2:00.39;
(10) 5000m: 1, Jayamaran Karthik, 15:54.38; 2, Muniandy Arul Thevar, 16:18.45;
(10) 10,000W: 1, Mohd Khairil Harith, 48:39.04; 2, Mohd Azizi Anwar, 50:40.74;
(11) 3000St: 1, Ahmad Luth Hamizan, 9:49.08; 2, P. Jenarthanan, Nse, 10:09.78; 3, Kalimuthu Vickneswaran, Sel, 10:16.25; 4, Calvin Boon Chang Yik, Pen, 10:16.62; 5, Alex Romas, Ked, 10:17.74;
(11) 110mh: 1, Mohd Ajmal Aiman Mat Hassan, 14.37 (& 1s2, 14.86); 2, Nor Azizi Ariffin, 14.57; 3, Mohaswadie Mohamad, 14.93; 4, Shahrul Radhi Ahmad Zul, 15.18;
(10) 400mh: 1, Mohamad Firdaus Mazalan, 54.30; 2, Mohd Idzman Mahsan, Pah, 55.73; 3, Mohd Azri Kadir, 56.19;
(10) HJ: 1, Mohd Azli Ghazali, 2.05; 2=, Subramaniam Navin Raj , 2.05; 2=, Ahmad Najwan Aqra, 2.05;
(10) PV: 1, Chong Ming Xun, SIN, 4.70; 2, Mohd Fahme Zam Zam, 4.30; 3, Mohd Faizul Md Lazim, Prk, 4.30; 4, Rafiuddin Che Omar, 4.00;
(10) LJ: 1, Mohd Syahrul Faiz, 7.20; 2, Pang Li Chong, 7.03;
(11) TJ: 1, Muhd Hakimi Ismail, 15.89; 2, Ahmad Firdaus Salim, 14.83;
(11) SP: 1, Adi Alifuddin Hussin, 16.16; 2, Mohd Alif Hanif Mohd Hanafi, 13.01; 3, Shahrin Selamat, 12.75;
(11) DT: 1, Mohd Azwan Fahmi, Ked, 35.72;
(11) HT: 1, Jackie Wong Siew Cheer, 52.57; 2, Ng Chee Chew, 36.60;
(10) JT: 1, Akid Chong Mohd Isham, MAS citizen / residing in SIN, 63.42; 2, Gerald Agan Ganang, 57.37;
(11) 4x100m: 1, MAAU Team, 41.66 (Zabidi Ghazali, Ikhwan Nor, Mohd Azhar Ismail, Mohd Noor Imran);
(10) 4x400m: 1, MAAU Team (S. Kannathasan, P. Yuvaaraj, Schzuan Rosely, Yunus Lasaleh), 3:15.27;

WOMEN EVENTS
(10) 100m: 1, Nurul Sarah Abdul Kadir, 12.30; 2, Yee Yi Ling, 12.69; 3, Chiew Hui Lian, 12.73;
Semifinals: 1s1, Nurul Sarah, 12.31; 2s1, Noor Amira Mohd Nafiah 12.37 (& 1h2, 12.37), dns final; 3s1, Hui Lian, 12.60; 1s2, Yi Ling, 12.57;
(11) 200m: 1, Norjannah Hafiszah Jamaluddin, 25.00 (& 1s2, 25.14); 2, Siti Zubaidah Adabi, 25.50 (& 1s1, 25.31); 3, Zaidatul Husna Zulkifli, 25.86; …SF: 2s1, Nurul sarah Abdul Kadir, 25.45 (dns final);
(11) 400m: 1, Nurul Assikin Mohd Rasid, 58.52; 2, Nurul Faizah Asma, 58.76; 3, Sharifah Shatrah Razali, 61.00; 4, Chan Ji Ying, Joh, 61.32;
(10) 3000m: 1, Noor Amelia Musa, 10:50.59; 2, Boopathy Malini, 10:51.25; 3, Mashini, Pen, 11:51.81;
(11) 100mh: 1, Raja Nursheena Raja Azhar, 14.82 (& 1s1, 14.67); 2, Nur Fazlinda Shafei, 15.33;
(11) HJ: 1, Wong Boon Syian, 1.69; 2, Mahendran Shandyiani, 1.66; 3, Yap Sean Yee, 1.60; 4, Michelle Sng Suat Li, SIN, 1.60; 5, Kee Siew Lian, 1.55; 6, Neo Yi Wen, SIN, 1.55;
(10) PV: 1, Kathleen Ong, 3.70; 2, Caroline Adams, ENG, 3.30; 3, Justina Chan Jia Min, SIN, 3.30; 4, Chuah Yu Tian, 3.10; 5, Norezati Shasha Mohd Rosli, 3.00; 6, Valerie Tan Ee Lean, 2.90; Nur Nadira Natalia, 2.70;
(11) LJ: 1, Nurul Fatimatul Zahrah, 5.76; 2, Kee Siew Lian, 5.39;
(10) TJ: 1, Noor Amira Mohd Nafiah, 12.92;
(10) SP: 1, Rahilah Othman, 13.34; 2, Siti Nurul Ain A.Rahim, 12.53; 3, Hannah Lee Shih-Yan, SIN, 12.07; Bibi Nuraishah Ishak, 11.05;
(10) DT: 1, Yap Jeng Tzan, 46.01; 2, Hannah Lee Shih-Yan, SIN, 35.29; 3, Choo Kang Ni, Joh, 33.59;
(10) HT: 1, Casier Renee Kelly Lee, 44.98; 2, Patria Pang Mei Chin, 44.45; 3, Noor Aida Shuhada Nordin, 37.84;
(11) JT: 1, Syuryani Sikembar, 40.21;
(11) 5000W: 1, Song Gie Chee, 28:52.83; 2, Mashini, Pen, 29:59.62;
(11) 4x100m: 1, Pelapis Kebangsaan Team, 46.63;

Full results - click here

Other Videos

4x100m Men Final


Javelin Throw (Akid Chong Mohd Isham, SIN - MAS Citizen*, 63.42)


## Results courtesy of POANS
## Video courtesy of SAA

Read more...

Biomechanics Analysis & Research - IAAF Daegu World Championships 2011

Here are some links with scientific information of the IAAF Biomechanics Research which taking place during the World Championships in Daegu. The project was conducted by the Korean Society of Sport Biomechanic (KSSB) and more detailed analysis will be published in the IAAF journal, New Studies in Athletics by next year.

Coaches and athletes are highly recommended to subscribe  the IAAF New Studies in Athletics' publication, click here for detailed information - it's quite cheap, USD 60.00 including shipping costs.

MEN EVENTS

1) 100 meters - Usain Bolt 100m Analysis (Heat & SF) - Daegu 2011
2) 200 meters - Usain Bolt 200m 19.40s Analysis - Daegu 2011
3) High Jump - Jesse William, Dmitrik, Barry's Analyses (HJ Final) - Daegu 2011
3) High Jump - Biomechanical Analysis, Qualifications - Daegu 2011
4) Shot Put - Biomechanical Analysis, Qualifications - Daegu 2011
5) Javelin Throw - de Zordo, Thorkildsen, Martinez's Analyses - Daegu 2011

WOMEN EVENTS

1) 200 meters - Analysis of Veronica Campbell, Jeter and Felix - Daegu 2011
2) 100m hurdles - Sally Pearson 12.28s Analysis (& 100m Final) - Daegu 2011
3) 100m hurdles - Biomechanical Analysis, Round 1 - Daegu 2011
4) High Jump - Anna Chicherova & Blanka Vlasic Analysis - Daegu 2011
5) Triple Jump - Analyses for Saladuha, Rypakova & Ibarguen - Daegu 2011

Read more...

Video of Yohan Blake 100m 9.82s, Kirani James 400m 44.36s NR - Zurich Diamond League 2011

As I mentioned before, Yohan Blake's 9.92s -1.4 was worth 9.82s in a normal wind condition (0.0).

The newly crowned world 100m champion has already proved it I'm correct to the world as he ran 9.82s (zero wind) to win the Diamond League meet in Zurich on 08.09.2011, destroying a strong field of likes of Asafa Powell (9.95), Walter Dix (10.04), Michael Frater (10.06), and Kim Collins (10.09).

Blake is now one of the fastest sprinters of all-time. His 9.82s time moved him to 7th fastest on the all-time rankings.

Only the great sprinters have run faster than him: Usain Bolt (9.58), Tyson Gay (9.69), Asafa Powell (9.72), Tim Montgomery (9.78), Nesta Carter (9.78), Ben Johnson (9.79), Maurice Greene (9.79), and Steve Mullings (9.82).

This also means that he is better than the likes Donavon Bailey (9.84), Bruny Surin (9.84), Leroy Burrell (9.85), and Carl Lewis (9.86) - just to name a few.

Asafa Powell, on the other hand has yet to meet his actual form due to an injury he suffered during the whole month of August. He got off a great start as usual, but Blake took the lead in the second half of the race.

Powell eased up "as usual" and still ended in 9.95s. The time shows that he is the most consistent sprinter (100m) of all-time in terms of 100m timings, with more than 60 times he clocked under 10 seconds from 2004 to 2011.

Zurich Diamond League - 100m Results (Wind 0.0)
1- Yohan Blake JAM 9.82 PB
2- Asafa Powell JAM 9.95
3- Walter Dix USA 10.04
4- Michael Frater JAM 10.06
5- Kim Collins SKN 10.09
6- Nesta Carter JAM 10.12
7- Jaysuma Saidy Ndure NOR 84 10.20
8- Richard Thompson TRI 10.23
9- Trell Kimmons USA 10.33

Video of 100m Men Final (Yohan Blake 9.82) at Diamond League, Zurich 2011

Other videos from Zurich

Kirani James's 400m 44.36s - National Record / Personal Best


Dayron Robles's 110mh 13.01s - Season Best


Carmelita Jeter beats Allyson Felix at 200m again in 22.27 (-0.1)


Sally Pearson's 100mh 12.52s (+0.2)


Full Results of Zurich Diamond League 2011

Read more...

Periodization or Training Programming for Sports

In sports, there is only one concept of training periodization, which refers to the systematic planning of training. However, this periodization can be approached in various ways, as explained throughout the article.

Periodization provides a structured framework in which training periods are well-organized and systematically executed. Ideally, it should incorporate and sequence training variables effectively.

Periodization can focus on energy systems, resistance training, or a combination of both.

To achieve the desired training goals, a well-planned training structure and program are essential. This should begin with a clear understanding of the objectives or aims of the training.

Setting goals and defining the periods or phases that will help you accomplish those goals is crucial. These goals can then be realized through effective periodization, or more precisely, through careful training programming.

While there may be different types of periodization, the fundamental concept remains the same: it is still periodization. The way you apply training variables doesn’t change the underlying principle. You will periodize your training based on what works best for you.

The success of a training program lies in how well the essential training variables, such as volume, load, density, sets, reps, and others, are manipulated. This specific aspect is referred to as training programming.

Here’s a refined version of your text for clarity and flow:

The concept of training programming has been extensively discussed by leading strength and power scientists, such as Michael H. Stone, in his renowned textbook.

Training programming can be adjusted to achieve specific fitness goals. This involves manipulating training variables to determine what works best for your athlete(s), and this process is continually refined over time.

In research, various programming strategies have been debated and discussed. Some authors have claimed that one strategy is superior to others. While they may have valid points, it’s important to recognize that the nature of programming involves evolving and experimenting with different approaches to improve over time.

Similar to the principle of progression, you cannot rely on the same stimulus indefinitely if you want to continue progressing. To achieve progress, appropriate manipulation of training variables is essential.

However, there are a few key aspects of programming that I believe are important to consider. Understanding the relationship between stimulus and response is crucial in effective training programming.

This is a prerequisite because only a well-balanced training program can lead to better management of fatigue (both physical and mental) and potentiation (performance enhancement). It also enables a deeper understanding of the potential benefits of overreaching, allowing it to be used strategically for improvement. Achieving good progress requires appropriate adjustments to training variables, which ties back to the concept of training variation, such as load manipulation.

Training variation is the cornerstone of all training programming, involving the manipulation and sequencing of variables. It also forms the foundation of the training stimulus necessary to achieve higher training goals.

As a result, several models or methods of periodization (training programming) have been developed, researched, and discussed. These methods are referred to as "methods" because they describe the structure or approach to designing training programs using various training variables. The primary methods are: a) sequential and b) concurrent, both of which will be discussed further.

What makes one different from another?

Once again, there is only one concept of periodization, and it is simply called periodization. However, if you consider it from the perspective of "training focus," such as training variation, particularly in terms of load concentration and sequencing, you will find that some methods are "sequential" or "linear," while others are "concurrent." Since these methods are typically applied in a cyclic fashion, they can be considered "non-linear."

It’s challenging to strictly categorize these methods because the choice of one method or model often depends on the athlete’s specific needs and the demands of competition. For instance, an athlete new to structured training might use the sequential method or even the concurrent method, both of which require careful adjustment of training variables. An athlete with several years of performance training experience might utilize any of these methods. As training becomes more advanced, the volume and complexity of the training also increase. Examples of such training approaches are described as follows:

1. Sequential (traditional or/and linear).

This method may be applied based on the athlete's training experience and level, as discussed.

Beginner and intermediate

This method consists of several training periods or blocks that follow one another. For example, Phase 1 (General Preparation - Hypertrophy), Phase 2 (Specific Preparation - Max Strength), and Phase 3 (Competition - Power) implement this concept by decreasing volume while increasing intensity. This type of programming may be more suitable for new or young athletes.

The earlier practice of this method, known as Classical Periodization Theory (CPT), involved the simultaneous development of motor abilities and skills over an extended duration, typically targeting a single major competition (though this has since expanded to include 2-3 major competitions).

CPT involved a moderate-to-low concentration of training load throughout the period, as it was considered challenging to apply higher loads when focusing on multiple qualities at once. This approach was repeated in a cyclic manner over the years, which is why CPT is considered "non-linear."

Intermediate or advanced

The sequential method can also be adapted to meet the specific needs of advanced athletes by linking a series of concentrated load periods. This approach is exemplified in the block system of training.

To illustrate, consider the following sequence:

a. Accumulation (Preparation)

b. Transmutation (Max Strength)

c. Realization (Speed-Strength)

Block periodization adopts a unidirectional approach, where one primary quality is emphasized during each period while the other qualities are maintained. For example, during a power development phase:

• Period 1: strength (emphasis), plus strength-speed, speed-strength; 
• Period 2: strength-speed (emphasis), plus strength, speed-strength; 
• Period 3: speed-strength (emphasis), plus strength, strength-speed. 

OR

• Accumulation (4 weeks): high volume and low-moderate intensity: strength endurance, 4 sets x 12-15 reps x 55-65% => 2-3 sessions a week (+ max-strength + speed-strength => 1 session as "easy session").
• Transmutation (4 weeks): lower volume and high intensity: maximal strength, 4 sets x 3-6 reps x 85-92% => 2-3 sessions a week (+ speed-strength + strength-endurance => 1 session  as "easy session").
• Realization (3 weeks): low volume and lower-moderate intensity: speed-strength, 4 sets x 3-6 reps x 30-50% => 2-3 sessions a week (+ strength-speed => 1 session as "easy session" or incorporated in one of the speed-strength session).

This sequence is repeated, making the overall process non-linear. The method was popularized by Vladimir Issurin in the early 1980s, influenced by earlier methods of programming (which will be discussed later).

The key advantage of block periodization lies in the ability to benefit from the residual training effect. This refers to the lasting impact of the training performed in a previous phase (such as accumulation), which involved the application of a highly concentrated load.

In other words, the intensive training you did in July - known as the accumulation phase - will provide benefits in September, thanks to the residual effect.

The premise of block periodization is similar to the Conjugate Sequence System (CSS), also known as the Coupled Successive System (CSS), which was established by Yuri Verkhoshansky in the early 1970s. It also aligns with the Phase Potentiation Periodization (PPP) introduced by Michael Stone in the late 1970s.

Block periodization, CSS, and PPP offer advantages over other methods. They might be confused with concurrent training because they do not entirely neglect other qualities while focusing on one main quality during a specific training block.

To clarify the term further, "conjugate" (in CSS) means "together with others" (i.e., one or more other qualities). However, since the training emphasis is programmed sequentially during a particular block or period, rather than concurrently, it can be considered a "linear" method from this perspective.

2. Concurrent (undulating or non-linear)

In this method, two or more training qualities are trained on a daily or weekly basis. The weekly concurrent or undulating training can be depicted as follow (considered one training period or block):

• Week 1: training for hypertrophy, 4 sets x 8-10 reps x 70-80%
• Week 2: strength, 4 sets x 4-6 reps x 85-90%
• Week 3: power, 4 sets x 3-6 reps x 40-60%

The daily undulating method is as follows (repeated for several weeks to form a training period or block):

• Monday = hypertrophy
• Wednesday = strength
• Friday = power. 

Another form of the concurrent method is a model of training programming called concurrent emphasis. This is also an example of Classical Periodization Theory (CPT) and is considered a concurrent method because it originally involves developing all qualities simultaneously.

For instance, strength endurance, strength-speed, and speed-strength training are all emphasized and developed concurrently within a specific training period, as discussed earlier.

Which one is most effective?

This is a common consideration when developing a training program. All the models discussed are important and effective; what matters is how you use and incorporate them into your program. It is not surprising to see a coach incorporate two or more methods into their training regimen during a season.

However, there is always a guiding principle behind everything. If you are a beginner with three gym sessions per week, you can vary your workouts throughout the first month. Your emphasis should be on lifting skills or technique while also developing general strength. Later, you can program your workouts using non-linear or undulating methods to stay motivated through training variation.

For team sports, a mix of linear (early season, no competition) and non-linear (during competition) periodization might be more ideal. The same applies to most individual events and sports.

In elite athletes, there is always a need to apply more advanced methods, as they require additional stimulus to continue improving.

The difference between "less advanced" and advanced methods primarily concerns the loading scheme and distribution..

Read more...

Rafer Johnson VS Yang Chuan-Kwang (C.K Yang)

Johnson and C.K Yang

5 - 6 September   1960: 51 years ago today, two great men competed at the 1960 Olympics in Rome,  Rafer Johnson of the United States with a background of an Olympic silver medalist (1956) and Yang Chuan-Kwang (or C.K Yang) of Chinese Taipei, a two-time Asian Games champion (1954 and 1958). 

Both athletes lived, trained and studied together at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).

Right before the Olympics, Johnson set a world record of 8,683 while beating Yang in second at 8,426, second best in history.

Yang had the physical attributes to 'attack' the sprint, hurdle, and running events (esp. 100m, 400m and 110mh) but Johnson had the 'strength' to be unlikely matched by his competitors in the throwing events including Yang.

CK Yang won 4 out of 5 events during the first day, but Johnson was ahead by 55 points as he gained a huge point from the shot put, 273 more than Yang. 

Yang took the lead by winning one of his favorites events, the 110mh in which he gained 923 points, 183 higher than Johnson after 6 events. 

But its all changed after the discus with Johnson's exceptional throw gave him a huge point, leading 272 from Yang, and taking the lead again with 74 points after 7 events.

After the 9th event, Yang accumulated 7989 points, and was short of 67 points from Johnson (8056). With a lifetime best of  4:36.0, or 18.2 seconds faster than Johnson's personal best, Yang would win the gold if he finish the 1500m the last event by only 10 seconds ahead of Johnson.

Johnson ran the fastest time in his life, 5 seconds faster than his previous best, only 1.2 seconds slower than Yang to secore the gold medal from Yang.

Yang took the silver medal with a score of 8334, 56 points less of Johnson's winning score of 8392 points.  Russian's Vassily Kuznetsov who broke several world records in the Decathlon (including his 8357, world record in 1959) was quite far behind with 7,809 points for the bronzes.

Below is a detailed statistics of the battle;

RAFER JOHNSON VS YANG CHUAN-KWANG AT THE XVII OLYMPICS, ROME 1960
Johnson			Events	C. K. Yang
948	10.9		100 meters	10.7		1034
906	7.35		Long Jump	7.46		950
976	15.82		Shot Put	13.33		703
832	1.85		High Jump	1.90		900
985	48.3		400 meters	48.1		1005
4647			Total Day 1	4592
740	15.3		110m Hurdles	14.6		923
894	48.49		Discus Throw	39.83		622
795	4.10		Pole Vault	4.30		915
980	69.76		Javelin Throw	68.22		937
336	4:49.7		1500 meters	4:48.5		345
8392 Points (OR)			Total Score	8334 Points (>OR)
Comparative   Statistics
3 events Javelin 1500m Shot Put & Javelin 110mh & Pole Vault 7901 Points		Number of event won Highest score Lowest score Killer events Weaker events New value (1984 Table)			7 events 100m 1500m 100m & 110mh Shot Put & Discus 7820 Points

April 28, 1963, at 30, Yang set a new world record with a point of 9,121 at Walnut, California to become the first man to score over 9000 points with then scaling system. In 1980s, the amendment to the scoring formula devalued the score to 8009 points, which also enabled him to become the second man to score over 8000 points in decathlon using the current scaling system.  A serious injury had prevented him to win gold medal at the 1964 Olympics in Tokyo, and he finished in fifth. He passed away in 2007.

Below is the video of the greatest battle between two friends - Rafer Johnson VS C.K Yang;

Read more...