I was starting to think maybe I was spinning my wheels after
the first email.

But after ‘The Fallout’ I got a few dozen responses from
subscribers who were either convinced or in total agreement.

So it feels good to know that many of you really do ‘get it’.

But the point of this email is to address a few of you who
disagreed. So let’s get right to that.

Feel free to email me with further responses.

Now, since I don’t want to make it look like I’m calling
anyone out, I’m just using  the initials of the people
that sent the emails.

And I’m not trying to call anyone out here. I appreciate
everyone’s opinions and love debates of all kinds. And since
so many of the dissenters asked essentially the same questions
I’m only addressing the most common issues.

Also, these people are not Complete Speed Training customers.

*****
And yes, in this first example, those are the person’s real
initials.

QUESTION 1: This was a real long email so I’m going to address
it in pieces.

B.S. wonders: …are you going to put,say, a big DH in baseball
through intense agility training, or even agility training
at all? Probly not. How about a basketball guard? I’d
certainly hope so. So doesn’t that make the concept of
agility training sport specific? Of course it does.

LATIF SAYS: I’m talking about youth athletes here, not
professional ones. Before I begin, and getting off course
right off the bat (no pun intended) is a DH really an
athlete?

That’s debatable. Tough to put a DH in the same category of
athlete as a Decathlete, Olympic Swimmer, Wrestler or NFL
running back.

So, I suppose, a major league DH isn’t going to do much
athletic development. But they play that position precisely
because they aren’t good enough athletes to play any other
position. Maybe if they did that type of training earlier in
their careers, they could so something besides swing a bat.

And that’s no disrespect to baseball players because I’m from
Boston and a huge David Ortiz fan. But look at that dude.

Is that an ‘athlete’? That’s stretching the definition of
athlete.

Doesn’t it take incredible skill to hit a 95 mph fastball? (Since
that’s what you all want to ask)

Yes. But it also takes skill to eat 63 hot dogs in 12 minutes.
Does that make Joey Chestnut an ‘athlete’? If you say yes,
then we can agree to disagree.
But you’re going to have a youth basketball player do agility
work. And a soccer player, and a lacrosse player. And I even
do agility work with track athletes in the prep periods.And in
large part, it’s all the exact same drills and exercises.

Why? Because they need to be better overall athletes because
they play more than one sport. And if they’re 13 specializing
in one sport, well, that’s a shame. Listen again to Al Vermeil
and Duane Carlisle.

Does that make it ’sport specific’ training? I would call
it ‘athletic development’.

B.S. wonders:

I think all your doing with this newsletter is confusing
people who don’t completely grasp speed, agility, and
athlete training the way that you and your staff does. I’m
not saying your wrong; on the contrary, everything you wrote
in this newsletter is on point. But to say something as
crazy as “sport specific training is a myth”, that’s nonsense.
You know it. He knows. She knows it. I know it. Something like
“myths ABOUT sport specific training” would be exponentially
better I believe.

LATIF SAYS:

I think people don’t grasp it precisely because they look at
athletic development in terms of sport. Football speed, Soccer
speed, etc. At the youth levels we’re teaching Movement Skills.

Most kids can’t do basic movements, so how can they run if they
can’t walk?

‘Sport Specific’ Training *should be* a myth. I’ve got thousands
of happy Complete Speed Training customers. And no athlete in
that series is training with a stick, bat, ball or baton.

Because movement patterns learned well on their own carry over
to every sport.

Now, for a quick lesson on marketing…

If I don’t grab peoples’ interest with my subject lines, noone
opens my emails. So a subject line, like a headline of a sales
letter, must be compelling enough to get people to go ‘What’s
this guy talking about?’ and then open the email.

‘Myths about sport specific training’ wouldn’t get as many
opened emails as ‘Sport specific training is a myth’.
B.S. Wonders:

…if I were a client reading this I would either 1)
throw all of your credibility out of the window for saying
something like that or 2) believe you, but be utterly
confused as to why you say sport specific training is a
myth, then go on to explain that it really isn’t a myth
because different sports do indeed require different
training. It’d be so much easier to not make the client
tip-toe around their vocabulary and just give them the
sport specific program that you know they want, regardless
of how much you hate the fact that they aren’t the
experts that you are. That would leave both parties happy
and you smelling like roses, and at the same time your just
giving them the “regular” drills that are needed for
improvement in the sport of interest.

LATIF SAYS:

I have some pretty big time coaches supporting my philosophy.
Coaches much more knowledgeable than I. So that should only
add credibility.

Click here for more on what one of those experts says about
training young athletes:

http://www.completespeedtraining.com/cmd.php?ad=323597

If they’re confused, that is my fault for
not being more well spoken. Different sports require different
training to the extent that energy system demands require it.

But sports like field hockey, soccer and lacrosse, from an
energy system standpoint, are incredibly similar. I could take
an athlete from each sport, put them on the exact same program
(minus adjustments based on individual assessment) and get
equal degrees of improvement. What ’sport specific’ changes
do I have to make? Add a field hockey stick, soccer ball
and lacrosse stick to some of the drills? Adding separate
implements to the same training is sport specific like calling
a DH an elite athlete. You really have to stretch the definition
of the term.

I think the problem is that ’sport specific’ has become an
umbrella term that is misleading. If a football player runs
patterns that is a ’sport specific’ activity. But he can only
run an effective pattern because he *first* learned the
fundamental elements of first step mechanics, acceleration,
coordination development, etc.

Coaches and parents are putting the cart before the horse.

Click here to develop better *athletes*, regardless of sport:

–> http://www.completespeedtraining.com/cmd.php?ad=323603
*************

T.C. wonders:

Of course with the examples you contrast here - the concept
of sport specific is not real, as the sports are so similar
as to prove your point. how about contrasting say high
diving and power lifting…?

LATIF SAYS:

First, different sports have to be different. So training
is either sport specific or it isn’t.

With a youth high diver, I’m probably going to have him/her
in the weight room doing the exact same explosive exercises
as my power lifter. Not as many, not always as heavy, but
if my diver is doing cleans to develop power and my power
lifter is doing cleans to develop power, then what makes
them different from a ’sport specific’ standpoint?

My diver needs to develop a strong core and so does my
powerlifter. If I’m doing many of the same core training
exercises with both athletes, just at different loads and
volumes, what’s the difference from a ’sport specific’
standpoint.

A clean is a clean. A medicine ball wood chop is a medicine
ball wood chop.

If the argument of ’sport specific’ or not covers the small
percentage of difference in true athletic development that
comes *after* a foundation of movement pattern skill has
been developed, regardless of sport/activity, then we’re not
debating the same things.

But if you have a 15 year old high diver and a 15 year old
power lifter and all they do is high dive and power lift then
that comes with it’s own set of physiological problems over
the long term.

**********

S.S. wonders:

Your coaching is all about improving technique and efficiency
and of course it is correct to say that the field hockey
player and the sprinter can both benefit from having a better
sprinting technique/efficiency.

BUT the nature of field hockey is that when players have to
produce bursts of speed they either have to do so chasing
or controlling a ball. In either case, and particularly in
the latter, they will be unable to employ the techniques
you are coaching because their posture will be much more
crouched, their arms much more fixed and their heads and
breathing will need to be much more flexible than a
sprinter’s.

LATIF SAYS:

But the field hockey player can’t be fast on offense or defense
with a stick if they haven’t first developed a foundation of
movement skills *without* the stick.

This is the problem with coaches who train field hockey players
with the stick when the girls can’t even do proper squat,
accelerate with the feet landing beneath the hips or shuffle
laterally with the hips inside the knees, knees inside the
ankles, chest over the knees, toes forward, etc.

People are trying to teach athletes to run before they can
even crawl.

I came from a place where the field hockey coach was great
at coaching field hockey, but those kids were overtrained,
injured and frustrated. Because 9 out of 10 coaches, parents,
etc. (and that’s generous) simply don’t know what the hell
they’re doing as far as strength and conditioning.

Putting a stick in their hands after they learn the fundamental
90% of training is a small part of the overall training picture.
But people think training with the stick is 90% and the other
part is secondary, if not tertiary. Not true.

S.S. wonders:

So although the energy systems required may be broadly similar
to a 400m runner, the running technique will be hugely
different. What would be the point concentrating on
teaching a field hockey player how to sprint with perfect
form when they will hardly ever have the opportunity to
employ what they have learnt in the game? Surely much
better to concentrate on teaching them to run faster in
the position they will have to adopt?

LATIF SAYS:

Because the field hockey player doesn’t just play field hockey.
So you’re training them to be a better overall athlete, not
just a field hockey player. You’re hurting the kid much worse
to corrupt their mechanics by only training them one way.

This comes back to the ego and short sightedness of many
coaches. 99/100 field hockey players are moving on to other
sports in the winter and the spring.

I’m going to have a field hockey player run with a stick. But
they’re doing plenty of that in their regular field hockey
practice. During training, they need to learn how to run. Period.
Not just run with a stick.

The athletes I have trained that train to be better athletes
develop far faster and compete at a much higher level than
those who only repeat one movement pattern over and over.

Again, putting the cart before the horse.

So it is certainly better to teach them to be good athletes
first.

http://www.completespeedtraining.com/cmd.php?ad=323603

**********

And that <$firstname$>, is my rant.

Please feel free to send in your comments and questions.
In speed,

Latif Thomas
P.S. When you’re ready to develop kids as athletes first and
(insert sport) players second, click here:

http://www.completespeedtraining.com/cmd.php?ad=323603
To learn more about the best book I have seen on the *right*
way to approach youth athletic development, click here:

http://www.completespeedtraining.com/cmd.php?ad=323597

------------------------------

Spread the Word:

 digg this  del.icio.us  Technorati  Blogmemes  Ask Jeeves
 Furl  Reddit  Rojo  Simpy  Spurl  Socialize It
 Earthlink  Google  Netscape  Windows Live  Yahoo

------------------------------

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 12th, 2007 at 11:22 am and is filed under Speed Training . You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.