tharrtell said:
I think specificity in training is quite common these days. Lance Armstrong trains with weights, but uses them to build strength without bulk because in cycling bulk slows you down - especially when climbing hills - keeping the muscle to body mass ratio as high as possible. He trains the muscles that will help his cycling, but absolutely nothing more.
I just assumed that a similar approach would be used with skaters. Train the muscle groups that will make a stronger skater/jumper, but don't train all muscle groups as I'm imagine that excess muscle mass would be a deterrent.
The amount of science in training these days is pretty amazing, IMO. The knowledge of what will benefit vs. hinder performance. I'd think a knowledgeable off ice trainer could really benefit a skater.
Great example of Armstrong's approach Tharttell. You know, I would think a similar approach would be used in figure skating, too. But actually, modern sports science really only started picking up steam in the early '80s and 20 years isn't that long. I agree with you that there is a great deal of amazingly useful information out there, espeically compared to 20-30 years ago, but at least in figure skating, it is being used by only a few. I
But even in tennis during the '80s, Martina Navratilova was criticisized for being too much of a "machine" because she sought out cutting edge training techniques and played tennis "like a man." Of course a lot of that was aimed at her homosexuality, but it's only been with the advent of Serina and Venus Williams that big strong girls were considered "okay" and even sexy by some. But it's still Anna Kournikova in the bra on the billboard.
Anyway, in skating, at least from what I've seen, modern training techniques have not trickled down the way they have in most other Olympic sports. I think a lot of it is because the older coaches get most of the top skaters and they tend to stick with whatever worked for them. In fact, there is often a negative toward "those people in labs and white coats who think they know everything about training a skater" (overheard a coach saying this at the Chelsea Piers rink last year. All through the 1990s, the Russians eschewed full run-throughs with jumps (which OT reminds me, in the "Chat with Sasha" thread she says she does full runthroughs four days a week, but she doesn't say if it's full runthroughs with jumps; last year Tarasova mostly had her doing runthroughs without jumps). I know, Tarasova is not a singles coach. But even Michelle did not have an off-ice trainer until last season. And look at the difference! At least I see a big difference in both her body and her skating.
It seems like a no-brainer. You have both scientists and athletes working at nothing but how to better train athletes, yet in sports that are heavy on tradition, like figure skating, you have many of the most powerful coaches and even many of the younger coaches with absolutely no knowledge of modern training methods. Coaches and athletes in sports like cycling, skiing, running, anything that depends on equipment and are based on time, seem to be more open to new training methods, which i think comes from them always being interested in faster bicycles, faster skis, etc., which naturally transfers over into training. Plus they can easily meausre what works and what doesn't--time. In sports like figure skating, there's a big emphasis on coaches' "secret methods," even though everybody knows what everybody else is doing. I also think some/many top coaches have the kind of ego where if they were to say, "I'm going to get someone in here with knowledge of modern scientific training methods to help" it would diminish their power. It's like doctors refusing to recognize new or poorly understood illnesses. It makes no sense, it doesn't help anybody, but given the personalities involved, you can see how it happens.
A couple of examples:
1. You would think that when the Scotvolds turned around their whole approach to runthroughs after Paul Wylie won the silver at the '92 Olympics after the Scotvolds changed his training to full and double runthroughs with jumps the year before the Olympics that the Scotvolds would say, "Hey, this might work with Nancy!" But nope, it took Nancy's meltdown at '93 Worlds for them to do the same thing with her and of course it made a phenomenal difference.
2. Why are figure skaters doing 3/3s and quads on boots designed at best for single jumps? The design of skate boots has not changed in any meaningful way since the 1940s. There are hinged skated boots (most of you have heard my harangue on this before) that have been studied and shown to more evenly distribute the landing forces thourhout the ankle, knee, hip, and lower back instead of concentrating them on the hip. The only thing holding back the used of the hinged skate boot is tradition.
Also, ask yourself this: As a triathlete and Iron Man competitor, there are trade magazines out there devoted strictly to all aspects of training, yes? They have articles based on the latest research, who's doing what, etc. Is there a comparable publication in skating? No.
There are several books, but the best of them, IMO, "Conditioning for Skating : Off-Ice Techniques for On-Ice Performance"
by Carl Poe was only published in 2002. Other books on elite training for skaters, which vary on how sophisticated the information is, include:
"Be a champion figure skater!" by Robert X Weaver, Figure Skating Judge for the USFSA
"The Inner Champion" by Choeleen Loundagin
"Figure Skating: Championship Techniques" (Sports Illustrated Winners Circle Books) by John Misha Petkevich
"The Ultimate Guide to Weight Training for Skating" by Robert G. Price.
But there are no montly, bimonthly or quarterly magazines devoted to training techniques for figure skating, nor are there websites or e-zines, and IMO, while books are good, the only way to keop up with the ever evolving sport is with a periodical. And for figure skating, there isn't one. To me, that says a lot.
I started out in dance science and medicine, which is a REALLY tradition-bound world. When I added figure skating I too assumed that as athletes, the skaters and coaches would be open to modern training methods, certainly much more so than dancers and dance insructors. Boy, was I surprised. In some ways, skating was an even more closed world than dance. I'm hoping that as skaters like Michelle use off-ice trainers that more will coaches will follow suit. But then, dancers didn't follow Makarova's innovative work with sports trainers and she was considered the great ballerina of her generation. IMO, it's strictly a psychological barrier. For the sake of the skaters' success and health, I hope the present level of resistance does not continue.
Rgirl (we need a soapbox emoticon, lol)
), it's hard to make up for not having those early years on the ice, especially when the differences among the top five or six skaters in the world are really very small. We and some of the judges may see Michelle in a class by herself, but skill for skill, the top ladies are all so amazingly good that in terms of improving enough to make the difference between one or two places at Worlds can be a matter of one tenth of 1% better consistency; same with speed, edging, jumps, whatever.
