Sprinting technique improvement: Rapid technique correction case study
Rapid technique correction using Old Way New Way®: Two case studies with Olympic athletes
Abstract of a paper published in The Sport Psychologist, 2002, 16, 79-99.
Yuri Hanin, Research Institute for Olympic Sports, Finland; Tapio Korjus and Petteri Jouste, Finnish Sports Association, Finland; Paul Baxter, personalbest.com.au, Brisbane.
"Exploratory studies examine the effectiveness of Old Way New Way®, an innovative meta-cognitive learning strategy initially developed in education settings, in the rapid and permanent correction of established technique difficulties experienced by two Olympic athletes in javelin and sprinting. Individualized interventions included video-assisted error analysis, step-wise enhancement of kinaesthetic awareness, re-activation of the error memory, discrimination and generalization of the correct movement pattern. Self-reports, coach's ratings and video recordings were used as measures of technique improvement. A single learning trial produced immediate and permanent technique improvement (80% or higher correct action) and full transfer of learning, without the need for the customary adaptation period. Findings are consistent with the performance enhancement effects of Old Way New Way® demonstrated experimentally in non-sport settings."
Case study
Technique correction for a female sprinter (J).
Previous case studies strongly suggest that Old Way New Way® is an effective intervention strategy for rapid correction of technical errors with national and international level athletes.
However, one limitation of these case studies was that the interventions were all conducted by the end of the season and it was not possible to measure baseline performance and other outcomes of the learning trial.
Therefore, a more controlled study, involving a young national level female sprinter (J), was employed.
Athlete's profile
J was a 19 year old female sprinter with personal bests of 7.25 (60m), 11.51 (100m) and 23.62 (200m).
Background to the technique difficulty
There were two main errors in J's starting technique, namely:
- J's back converged at the same time as the push off from the blocks, making the push off powerless and direction of the push too upright.
- J's rear leg's movement pattern for the first step was incorrect because she raised her heel too high while bringing the real leg forward, resulting in a braking effect on first contact
The reasons for these errors were speculative but some possibilities emerged, as follows:
- Strength development of lower body and middle/upper body, especially the middle, had not been in balance. Legs had become too powerful in respect to the middle body.
- During the 1998 training season, a heavy harness (up to 20kg) was used to develop acceleration. Such a heavy load pulling from the shoulders may have caused her back to converge and changed the movement pattern at the start of the push off.
- Because of the convex shape in the middle of the body, body alignment during the push off from the blocks was not straight. Moving the rear leg forward with a correct pattern requires support from the body, so J was not able to perform the movement correctly because her back bent during the push off.
After careful consideration, it was concluded that, in order to correct the second error, the first error should be corrected first, so this became the goal of the correction session.
During training in 1999 coach and athlete tried to correct J's start technique using the traditional method, i.e., the athlete performed starts repeatedly (drill fashion), supported by continuous feedback from the coach after each start, with the conscious aim of changing the movement pattern.
Start technique improved slowly during drill sessions, but the athlete repeatedly fell back to old, incorrect, ways during competition.
(29.10.1999) J's coach, PJ, heard about Old Way New Way® from the sport psychologist (YH) and discussed the possibility of using Old Way New Way® with J.
(1.11.99) PJ attempted to conduct the Old Way New Way® session on his own based on general ideas about the method. Being untrained in the methodology, his attempt was unsuccessful.
(3.11.99) PJ and J approached YH to learn why the method did not work for them. It was decided to conduct the session together as a team, including athlete, coach and sport psychologist, so that the necessary expertise could be focused on the problem.
Stage 1. Error analysis
(4.11.99 and 5.11.99) A thorough error analysis was done. PJ wanted his athlete's push off from the blocks to be more efficient.
Summary of error analysis by the coach.
What is she doing wrong?
She loses power because:
. right leg (rear) movement is too high in way forward (movement).
. her upper back rounds and her chin presses down toward her chest.
. left leg's push off from the front block is partial and its direction is too much upwards.
How should it be?
. her right leg movement forward should follow a lower path.
. her upper back should stay flat and her head should be in line with the rest of her upper body.
. push off from the front block should be done to the end meaning that her head-shoulders-hip-knee and ankle should form a line at the end of the push off. In that way the push off would be more efficient.
What is the difference "new" vs. "old"?
. right leg's (rear) movement forward is faster.
. upper body stays solid and her head is in line and directs push off into the right direction.
. whole body shoots forward as a result of push off.
In an attempt to simplify this list and reduce the amount of detail the athlete had to concentrate on, this error analysis was re-examined and refined.
Summary of refined error analysis of a sprinter's technique.
What is she doing wrong?
. her upper back rounds and her chin presses down toward her chest.
How should it be?
. her upper back should stay flat and her head should be in line with the rest of her upper body.
What is the difference?
. upper body stays solid and her head is in line and directs push off into the right direction.
Stage 2. Correction session (1.5 hours including warm up)
An individualized Old Way New Way® protocol for correcting J's technique problem was devised by PB, the Old Way New Way® Learning consultant. The protocol was implemented in one session with J and her coach, PJ.
The session was conducted by YH who was trained in Old Way New Way®, with the assistance of PJ.
Similar to our previous learning trials, the session began with YH briefly describing the four-step protocol, after which J did a regular warm up lasting 30 minutes. Then all four steps of the intervention were conducted.
During the session starts were video taped and immediate replay was used to emphasise erroneous and correct starting technique. At the same time after each trial J reported the feelings and kinaesthetic sensations that accompanied erroneous and correct execution of starts. These open ended self-reports were taped and later transcribed.
J's coach made the following observations of the learning trial, in a message to YH.
(12.11.99) "Thank you for your great help and interesting ideas on JO's start training. Here is my report of what happened."
Preparation for the LT session
"J was well informed about the learning trial. Before our meeting she was somewhat reserved and skeptical about the system. I think I was more interested."
"After our little experiment she was interested to know more and therefore our meeting helped a lot. She prepared for Tuesday well and I think she was kind of "open minded" about the session. Didn't expect marvels but was curious to see what would happen."
"Information you gave before the session was good and set her to concentrate on the session - warm up was very typical for her start training - the presence of the other girl didn't seem to disturb her."
Beginning of the trial
"J performed starts in the old way. She said it was easy to do them, because she didn't have to try to express any particular point. The hardest thing was to find clear 'feelings' and it took some time to really find some exact sensations."
"I think doing starts with eyes closed helped a lot. By the end of part one she found some clear images of that kind of start."
Finding the "new way"
"At the beginning it was hard to find the technique we aimed for. It took 5 tryouts to find that the movement of the left arm could direct her towards the right technique. Next 5 starts went well and she got a hold of the "new" technique."
"I think that in a complex movement like the start it is not possible to think only one thing but try to think the movement as a whole and try to find the right words for the athlete which ring the bell' for her. That has not much to do with pure biomechanics. I think the question is rather to find how the athlete really experiences the movement."
Comparing the old and the new way
"There was no problem doing starts in either way after she had found 'the leading arm movement'."
"Moving the front block in the previous step made the old way a little bit better, but still there was quite a clear difference between the old and the new way."
The new way
"Last six starts went well. She was very tired after the session but could still concentrate well to the end."
"I checked the videotape and there were 38 starts altogether. That is a very big amount."
"Now I look forward with great interest to see how well she can perform her starts in future start sessions."
(10.11.99) Sports psychologist's observations of the session (2hrs).
Step 1 (8 starts). Johanna did starts using the video taping and replaying technique for each start. She asked if she should emphasize the mistake (it turned out that in their unsuccessful session they did exactly that). I said we don't need that - just the usual erroneous start.
She could not report anything special in the first four starts. Closing eyes helped ("getting up, in a rush").
The last four starts were really typically bad (they worked on them for a year!).
Step 2 (9 starts) First, she had no clear idea about the right technique. It looked like her right technique was yet not developed.
First 5 starts (except one) were not good enough. We tried and experimented. The look did not work. So we tried with her left hand moving forward (it was bent and went up in erroneous attempts).
First it felt unnatural, not easy (as with the old start technique). Then she started to feel how her left hand moves forward and it became easier to get a better awareness.
Here' s a problem: If the coach and the athlete might not know the right technique! Therefore, developing awareness might be a problem. Here we deliberately tried to move her forward from the blocks (based on what happened during her ineffective movement pattern) and succeeded. The left block was moved a bit forward.
Step 3 (11 starts). Verbalization was OK: I did it for her two times and she did 3 times (all taped).
Step 4 (6 starts) All good starts even though she was really tired (in a usual training session they do only 8-10 starts. Now it was 38 times!
PJ recorded her time, despite the fact that we agreed to be not interested in that at this point!
It turned out that the less she tried (being so tired) the better her start was, PJ noticed.
Incidentally the last attempt was technically her best ever start!
I ended the session with a short summary of what was planned, how we progressed and what happened and reiterated the notes about 80% of good start later and how to handle spontaneous recovery.
One general problem emerged, though. How to do the good technique start if there is no ready-made pattern or if the coach is not clear about what is the best individually suitable technique for this particular athlete.
The three basic questions—what's wrong; how should it be done; and what is the difference, help to focus on description and that is fine as a beginning.
But we should add another question forcing a coach (an expert) to think about how to produce the right movement!
Today I called PJ again. He and J were very satisfied. PJ was especially convinced that it made the difference in this new methodology when it was done as a joint effort rather than on his own!
Stage 3. Post-LT stage
A follow-up in training and in indoor competitions was conducted to evaluate the impact of the Old Way New Way® procedure on athletic performance.
It was hypothesized that the correction of error in starting technique should result in gradual improvement of athlete's results in 60m and 100m.
It was anticipated that this success could also have a motivational impact and affect the results in 200m.
Case summary and discussion
This case again illustrates many of the important outcomes of Old Way New Way that have been demonstrated experimentally and in field trials in non-sport learning settings.
These outcomes concern skill development, performance improvement, cognitive and affective change and the desire to continue using Old Way New Way® for technique development.
1. Skill correction
Predicted efficacy of performance following the successful correction session is usually around 80% or better.
Three separate training sessions (18.11.99, 22.11.99, 26.11.99) were observed in order to evaluate the impact of Old Way New Way® on subsequent performance of starts.
The results were as follows:
- 9 technically correct starts from 11 starts (82%) were good in the next training session and
- 9 technically correct starts from 10 starts (90%) were observed in the two subsequent sessions.
- What is more, spontaneous recovery of erroneous starts was handled effectively.
- Learning gains also transferred successfully to competitive performance.
A series of video stills of J's starts clearly indicated the differences between the old and new way of starting. Technique faults are now corrected and her back stays flat and her head is in a straight line with the upper body. In addition, her left arm is driving her body more actively forward.
2. Performance enhancement
Now that J's technique was corrected and it was clear that the learning gains had successfully transferred to competition, J's performance was followed up further in competitions to test whether the "new way" of starting would produce faster times, i.e., that it was actually a "better" way.
Table 1 reports the dynamics of our sprinter's timed performance in pre- and post-correction situations. Immediately post-intervention, both results in tests (60m) and results in the competitions (national and international) improved significantly (p< 0.05). The magnitude of change was also of practical significance.
| Before | After | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Wrong |
Right |
Wrong |
Right |
|
| Practice | 100% |
0% |
20% |
80% |
| Competition | 100% |
0% |
15% |
85% |
