General and event-specific PQ; ©bylAAF considerations in peaking 12:2-3; 75-86, 1997 for the main competition by KUius Banonielz ami Bill Lnrsoti

V W Starting from the well-known fact that \ Introduction: peaking under specific success in international athletics is determined cnnditions to a large extent by the ability to perform at peak level in the major competition of the It is desirable to design the training pro­ seoson, this study presents basic considerations gramme so as to reach maximum performance at for peaking the performance after the first the main competition of the year. Although there competition series, illustrated with models for may be difficulties in achieving such a result the throwing events. Because most of the work under the circumstances of the main competition on this subject relates specifically to the (e.g. stress, climate, distractions) it is nevertheless Northern hemisphere, this study also examines essential to develop an effective strategy for the problems of the Southern hemisphere. The doing so. importance of a high and stable performance In the European Championships in 1982 and level during the first competition period as a key the World Championships in 1983 only S of the indicator to success in the qualifying round of 42 medallists in the throwing events recorded the main competition af the year is underlined. their season best performance in the main com­ It is also shown that peaking as the climax of petition (HINZ/BARTONIETZ 1985). More than 10 the entire preparation cannot be produced years later the problem remains the same: At the independently and that the effectiveness of the World-Championships in 1995 only 1 7 of the 84 peaking period is determined by that af the finalists recorded their season's best performance preparation as a whale. in the main competition (BAtiTONitT^/BoRHSiRöM 1996), but still only 9 of the 21 medallists t43o/o). As shown by the data in Table I, the problem is not confined to the throwing events but also applies, for example, to the jumps and hurdles. Also, in other sports with an objective perfor­ mance judgement such as swimming, weight-lift­ ing and shooting, only about 20% of all qualified

Table 1: Effectiveness of the preparation for the Worid Championships 1995 in selected events - WC results versus season's best performance

Event Number of WC better than % athletes season PB all throws (finalists) -men 48 8 tr - women 36. 9 25 high Jump -men 33 6 18 -women 35 9 26 fnpfe jump Dr Klaus Bartonietz is a throws coach and works -men 43 7 16 as a biomechanies expert at the Olympic - women 32 8 25 Training Centre Rheinland-Pfalz/Saarland - 110m and 100m hurdles Schifferstadt. Germany. ' -men 47 13 28 - women 32 a 25 Bill Larsen is a throws coach, lecturer and editor. Note: Wind-assisted attempts al the WC are not included, working through the lAAF Regional Development other variations in external conditions are not taken Into Centre In Adelaide, Australia. account. _ lAAF quarterly New Studies in Athletics • no, 2-3;i937 75 athletes reached their season's best result at the The problems associated with the peaking pro­ Olympic Games (LEHNERT 1994), Of all the finalists cess vary according to the preparation environ­ in the 1996 Olympics, the medallists showed the ment. At least the following variations in condi­ results of the most effective training. In the tions can be identified: throwing events, 8 of the 21 medalists (38%) • Selection in season: The requirement to record reached their season's best result during the a qualifying performance (e.g. Germany) or to Olympic finals. In addition, 4 athletes (the gold contest a selection trial (e.g. LISA) and the tim­ medallists Kumbernuss, Barnes, Riedel, Kiss plus ing of such requirements. Sadova and Zvereva) reached such a high level of • Selection out of season: The practice of selec­ performance 2 to 7 weeks before the Olympics tion at the end of the domestic season in the that an average decrease of about 2% did not Southern hemisphere (e.g, Australia, New Zea­ detract from their leading position. In summary a land). successful training process is noted for about two thirds (67%) of the medallists. The training of the The peaking process requires optimal interac­ top athletes seems to be characterised by a high­ tion of organisational factors and biological laws er training efficacy compared with the results of adaptation and development: reached 13-14 years ago. • The competiton period in which qualification is required is subject to the long-term training According to ZAISIORSKY (1995). the efficacy of effects of the realised training loads. A maxi­ the whole preparation can be judged with the mum performance normally can not be achieved help of an "efficacy coefficient": under these conditions. If an athlete does re­ cord his season's best performance at this time efficacy coefficient 100 • ttie total number of athletes he has probably peaked unintentionally (e,g. perhaps this could be the explanation for Ze­ ('The number o( athletes who achieved their best performance during the main competition,) lezny's season's best of 98,40m in May 1996). • Given that the peak performance is the end According to ZATSIORSKY (1995), for Olympic result not only of the peaking period but of teams an efficacy coefficient of about 85% is the entire preparation it is unlikely that further considered excellent, 75% is considered good and improvements can be produced simply by 65% is considered acceptable (e.g, for the medal­ repeating the same process. Therefore, peaking lists in the throwing events in 1996). for the selection procedure and then again for Coaches and sports scientists have long recog­ the major competition cannot be expected to nised the problem of performance peaking, see, produce a higher performance. for example: VERCHOSHAMSKV 1988 elite sports, general ScnNABEL/HA««E/Bo«Dt 1994 elite sports, track and 2 Main principles for peaking the field events performance after the first BoAs/OsBORWE 1981 track and field events competitiiin series: throwing events ScHMouNSKv 1983 track and field events 2.1 Northern hemisphere OzoLiN et al, 1989 track and field events BD^OARCHuK 1992 track and field events Following the selection process there is a com­ BAIYI 1996 track and field events pact repetition of the preparation period (i.e. HAMANN/ScHont 1979 throwing events mini-prep of 6 to 8 weeks, cf. Figures 1 and 2. HINZ/BARTONIEIZ 1985 throwing events Table 4) during which the contents of the whole YiMGBO 1994 throwing events. preparation are repeated with the following char­ acteristics: The art of peaking was based mostly on the experience of leading coaches and was a part of • Weekly training volume of about 70-80% of the "secret knowledge" of, for example. Eastern the weekly maximum volume during the German coaching (therefore it was not included preparation period (e.g. see Figure I and 2. also in the textbooks of BAUtRSFtiD/ScHROTER 1979, the data of LoscH/BoncHER 1994), HARRt 1982). • Maximum loading m relation to the main com­ Until now, there has been a lack of knowledge petition (according to UHNERT 1994 and SCHNA- about peaking (see e.g, GAMRETTA 1989, SCHNABH/ B£L/HARRE/BORD£ 1994) HARRE/BORDE 1994). This study will present basic - general training 5-4 weeks before, considerations for performance peaking, illustrat­ - maximum training volume 4-3 weeks before. ed with models for the throwing events. Because - special training 3-2 weeks before. most of the work on this subject relates specifi­ - maximum training intensity 2-1 week be­ cally to the Northern hemisphere, this study also fore. examines the problems of the Southern hemi­ In summary, the maximum training loading is sphere. reached 3-2 weeks before the main competition.

76 New Studies in Athletics • no. 2-3/1997 )AAF quarterly This shows the need for intensity control to­ flexibility for full range of movement in the gether with the gradual decrease of training vol­ main joints. ume. It is a fact that many world class throwers • The best training results of the preparation are limit their throwing intensity to 90-95% of the achieved during the taper. maximum 3-7 days before competition (YINGBO • Replication of the main competition lime in 1994), the throwing sessions, stable ritual during the With throwing training intensity we are con­ final days, especially the last 4-6 days (warm- cerned not only with the weight of the imple­ ups and workouts, meals, regeneration). Coaches ment and the distance thrown but also, to a sub­ should consider avoiding total rest days be­ stantial degree, with the quality of movement cause of the need to maintain all body systems execution and the mental work. at a high level of activity, especially the central • Maximum strength training is characterised by nervous system. a low nutnber of repetitions at high intensity The data in Table!, taken from an unpublished for a maximum recruitment of motor units. study of 1979, shows the principles of implement • Special throwing training focused on tech­ distribution during the entire preparation with nique and movement quality, developing spe­ the peaking period as a substantial part. The vari­ cial performance and including the limited use ous loadings represent the training philosophy of light implements (see 2.4). current at that time. Although current trends • High level of technique based on maximum place less emphasis on high volumes of maximum Table 2; Distribution of throws with implements of different weight during throwing training [%] (adapted from HAMANN/SCHOTTE 1979)

Event Implement [kg] Men Women Men / Women prep. comp. peak. prep. comp. peak. Shot put 7,26 / 4 62 85 87 48 55 52 8,25 / 5 27 8 7 37 29 31 6,26/31 6 7 6 10 10 ID 9,25 / 6.25 4.5 3 3 5 >9.25 / >6.25 0.5 2 3 2 Discus throw 2 / 1 discus 51 86 77 53 73 54 >3 / >2 shots. 19 10 12 23 19 27 Sticks, nngB 2-3/1-2 shots. 16 2 5 21 6 18 Sticks, rings 2-3/ 1,5-2 discus 13 2 d 2 2 1 1,75/0,75 discus 1 2 1 .Javelin throw 0,8 / 0,6 javelin 33 61 58 30 78 55 0.8-1,5/0.6-1-0 23 19 23 24 9 16 shots >1.5/>1,0 shots 14 7 6 23 5 14 <0,8/

Table 3: Training volume of the mesocycles during the preparation period (taken from DEUTSCHER LEICHTATHLETIK-VERBAND 1991. p, 82)

Event Complex of training Mesocycles 1 2 3 4 S 6 1 Shot maximum strength 3-5 n-13 17-19 29-31 21-23 13-15 special strength 1-3 13-15 17-19 22-24 30-32 11-13 1 throwing 3-5 9-11 13-15 19-21 22-24 28-30 Discus maximum strength 2-4 15-17 28-30 20-22 17-19 12-14 special strength 2-4 13-15 24-26 31-33 20-22 4-6 throwing 3-5 11-13 18-20 18-20 28-30 16-18 Javelin maximum strength 5-7 29-34 24-26 15-17 11-13 10-12 special strength 2-4 18-20 23-25 20-22 19-21 12-14 throwing 2-4 11-13 14-16 22-24 26-28 19-21 Hammer maximum strength 5-7 26-28 21-23 14-16 15-17 13-15 special strength 9-11 26-28 21-23 14-16 15-17 13-15 throwing 4-6 12-14 15-17 15-17 29-31 19-21 Sum of ttie entire preparalwn period = 100%

lAAF quarterly New Studies in Alliletics • no. 2-3/T997 77 strength training, nevertheless the general idea interpreting training data such as in Figure 3 of the loading structure remains viable. there is always the possibility that some of the Table 3 gives an example of how to distribute discussed results could have been affected by the entire volume during the mesocycles. other factors such as injury or illness, however The performance development of Astrid Kum­ we have to assume a normal uninterrupted pre­ bernuss shows the effect of a well-constructed paration, double periodization. while Stephanie Storp shows a similar level of improvement albeit from 2.2 Southern hemisphere a significantly lower base. Each reached the sea­ sons best performance during the taper although The competition season in such countries as not in the Ptiain competition (see Figure 3). When Australia. New Zealand and some of the island

shot put 100%

I ^ '.•••?* '"A • •"• A

50

1st 2"*' 3rd 4th 5th GthMC discus throw

100% hammer throw

50 ;-..• A -..v V V \ .'A-. A-. ,>•*^ ^' 'i'- V V ^vf V V

avelin throw 100%

so

training content throws special strength maximum strength

Figure la: Loading In the main training components during the preparation period for single peri­ odization (according to HAMANN/SCHOTTE 1979)

78 New Studies in Athletics • no. 2-3/1997 lAAF quarterly States of Oceania has its climax in March and tion. In addition, the time-lag involved multiplies selection for Olympic Games and World Cham­ the possibility of injury to selected alhletes. pionships generally takes place in about April - To overcome this problem the Australian Fede­ anything from 18 to 23 weeks prior to the main ration, for example, has developed prc-dcparture international competition. In this case, instead of a mini-prep of 6-8 weeks, there is available standards which selected athletes must reach enough time for a full preparation. This gives a before leaving the country (Table S). However decided planning advantage but also has its dis­ this does not necessitate a mini-prep as the stan­ advantages. Selectors have no guarantee thai dards set are low enough to be achieved during athletes selected in April-May will reproduce this the preparation period. Nevertheless, a mini-prep level of performance in an entirely new prepara­ is still recommended for those elite athletes who

shot put 100%

SO

yd 4th 5th 6th MC discus throw 100%

50

hammer throw 100%

50

T • if ^^- V..-'

javelin throw 100%-

50

Figure 1 b: Loading in the main training components during the preparation period for double peri­ odization (according to HAMANN/SCHOTTE 1979)

IAAF quarterly New Studies in Athlelics • no. 2-3/1997 79 need to reach a high level of perfor­ shot put mance early so as to be competitive early in the Northern season [see the recommendations in 2.1). ••airows -•-max, strengIh Australian javelin throwers Joanna -<=- spec, sir eng Ih Stone (5th WC) and Louise McPaul /V\ (2nd OG) provide good examples of effective preparation in 1995 and \ 1996 respectively (seasons PB at the main competition of the year, see Figure 4). Hammer thrower Sean Carlin was able to reach better than 99% of his domestic season best within 10 wseics days of the Olympic Games but his performance base was too low to be competitive. In contrast, Andrew discus throw Currey set an Australian National 100 Record of 84.92m in the 4th week of •»throws 1996 and was at 98% of this 23 -^max, strength 75 weeks later but by 27 weeks (OG) he /\/'\ -^spec. strength was back to 91% (Jan Zeiezny also could only manage 89.6% of his sea­ I 50 son's best but was still able to take the gold medal.). Similarly, the female Australian discus throwers peaked

1 about 9-10 weeks early and New / ^ Zealander Beatrice Faumuina failed to approach her best domestic result woehs (64.04m).

javelin throw Figure 5 underlines for one of these athletes the hypothesis that the ef­ fectiveness of the taper is determined by the entire preparation period. The significantly higher performance level during the 1996 domestic season (61,30m vs 57.14m) resulted in a higher starting level in the first northern competitions. Athough the level of performance fell during the taper period in both years, the fall was fifty percent less in 1996. The level of performance stability was was also higher; The standard deviation hammer throw from the average value was ±3,10m in 1995 and ±2.42m in 1996 by a sig­ •••throws nificant difference between the aver­ -^max. sirengWi age performances' values at the A /X •^Spec. strength 99.9%-level. 50 \^ K . A^\.^^ 2.3 Considerations for the >^Z\ Z\ pealting process when the 25 ><^ main competition is in : the Northern hemisphere 1 12 3 4 5 6 7 (e.g. Atlanta 1996. Athens 1997)

Because of the negative effects of Figure 2: Loading in the main training components during travel, including jet-lag, coaches and the peaking period (according to HAMANN/SCHOTTE 1979) their athletes in the Southern hemi-

80 New Studies m Athlelics • no, 2-3/1997 IAAF quarterly Table 4; Planning of the entire training year (double periodization) and contents of the mesocycles for young shot putters (taken from DEUTSCHER LEICHTATHLETIK-VERBAND (1993), p. 91, adapted)

Week of ttie year Meso-cycles Training period Contents 41 1 general general athletic base: 42 training - conditioning 43 - general strength abilities 44 (Irunit muscles) 45 - co-ordination 46 2 maximum t>ar bell training 47 strength (snatcti, clean and ]erk, squat. 1 46 training bench press) 49 50 51 3 throwing main load in shot put: 52 training - technique-orientated 1 strengtri development. Z - mostly use of the competition 3 implement and of heavy implements 4 <4 indoor development of form 5 competitions aiteralion load-rest 6 7 8 S general see 1st preparation 9 training period 10 11 12 13 intensification increase of training intensity 14 6 maximum high intensity 1 15 strength 16 training 17 18 special strength focus on technique 19 development 20 7 weekly throwing complex development 21 maximum of technical goals 22 (final acceleration) 23 form development 24 beginning of the 26 first competion series 26 S competition increase ot training 27 series, intensity. 28 qualification for alteration load-rest 29 the Junior WC 3D

3il ••«•• peaking mini-prep

39 main competition, e.g. Junior WC . _J Table 5: Qualification standards (qs) and pre- optimal timing of the relocation should be at departure standards (pds)for the least as early as the first week of the taper lo Australian Olympic team throwers in minimise the negative effects of travel on high 1996 broadly based on lAAF intensity training and competition. The first part B standards of the taper is characterised by work of a more Men Women general nature (see Figure 2). which is less sensi­ Event qs pds qs pds tive to these effects. Shot put 19.50 18,50 16,00 16,60 Discus throw 62.00 59,50 60,00 56,50 2.4 Considerations for the peaking Javelm throw 80.00 74,50 60,00 56,50 process when the main competition 1 Hammer throw 74.00 69,50 I is in the Southern hemisphere sphere must pay serious attention to the timing (e.g. Sydney 2000) of their relocation to the Northern hemisphere This situation poses new problems. Does the where this includes a substantial shift in longitude athlete travel to the Northern hemisphere for (Southern hemisphere to Europe or North America, competitions ÜT not? If he chooses to travel he and between Europe and North America), The faces all of the problems noted above (jet-lag

IAAF nuartcrly New Studies in Athletics • no, 2-3/1997 81 21,5 Kumbernuss • Neimke -»•Storp^ 21 ^ A A— — E ^°'^ ^^^ 8 20 y v^ • ^-—^ I 19.5 ^V ^ o ~ ^I^^^^^''^^ 19 „----^——"^

18,5 3^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '1 1 1 1 1 1 18 49 51 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 50 52 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Weeks December 1995 - August 1996 (OG)

Figure 3: Performance development in 1996 of three female shot putters (double periodization)

70 [-•-Stone'95 ^McPaul'Qe -^Nerius'96^ 68

66 E 64

62

60

58 56 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 Weeks 1995 and 1996

Figure 4: Performance development of 3 female javelin throwers in 1995 and 1996

etc.), twice! The process of adaptation must be • One study (LARSEN 1995) has suggested that a repeated on his return to Australia. The advan­ high performance level during the first compe­ tages of having the main competition in the tition period is a key indicator to success in the South will therefore be considerably reduced. The qualifying round of the main competition of the year: At the 1995 WC only athletes with alternative of remaining at home can only be season's best performances of more than 77m viable if satisfactory opportunities for high level qualified for the hammer throw final. competition are available (e,g, a pre-Games com­ petition season involving high-ranking oppo­ With few exeptions the results of the 1996 Olympic throwing finals support this view. Only nents from the Northern hemisphere). The later hammer throwers with a season's best of over scheduling of Southern hemisphere Games (e.g, 78m qualified. Of the 70 top ten ranked athletes Sydney / September, 2000) provides additional in the seven throwing events 58 qualified for the time for a full preparation. finals [between 8 and 9 per event on average). Only Vadim Chersonzev missed the hammer final, 2.5 The importance of a high and stable Gavin Lovegrove the men's javelin final and performance level during the compe­ Oxana Ovchinnikova and Silke Renk (one isolated tition period top 10 performance] the women's javelin final.

82 New Studies in Athletics • no, 2-3/1997 lAAF quarterly • The major influence in filling the top places the competition performances during this time was the ob///fy to improve on the season's best interval. performance (LARSEN 1995). Al the Olympic • Successful peaking requires objective informa­ Games this finding was the case of 3 javelin tion about the technical level, A comparison of medallists (Baekley. Räty. McPaul) and 2 ham­ "debit" and "credit" is necessary to Figure out mer medallists (Deal. Krykun), However, in the actual training goals (comparison between determining the final order of the medal win­ actual and required value, see Figure 7). ners there was considerable variation between • Positive orientation with motivational effect, the throwing events. On the one hand the gold clear goals for the workouts [Figure 7). medal at the WC and OG was won with the first throw (WC: javelin and discus throw Carry out a competition analysis 1-2 days after women, shot put men, OG: all 3 women's each competition. The results of this analysis events) and on the other hand with the last have to lead to an optimal attitude for the fol­ throw (WC; hammer throw, javelin throw men, lowing workouts: OG: shot put men). A good performance has to be used to build up The high intensity throwing training has to be confidence and the positive thinking of the ath­ directed to the ability to fight for better results lete. The data on which Figure 7 is based were right through a series and also up to the end of a used for this reason (by comparison with a photo workout. During training, normally the first sequence of the event's leading athlete). The pos­ throws are more relaxed and technically good itive elements of technique which have key func­ than the last, but efforts have to be directed tions for performance should be reinforced by towards maintaining a high technical level up to special drills and simulations, using the interac­ the end of the session so as to finish the session tion between speaking, thinking and moving. with a technically good throw. After an unsatisfactory competition perfor­ Competing several times during the taper mance, focus on the sources rather than just the without special preparation in accordance with indications for such a result (e.g. avoid repeated the planned training contents can result in a viewing of video faults). Athlete and coach must decrease in performance due to the effects of work together to identify appropriate corrective training load on the level of event-specific skills measures and build up confidence that problems and abilities. Figure 6 shows the interaction are soluble. between training load and performance develop­ • Attempts to make major changes in technique ment during the taper period. The increased during the taper should be avoided (YINGBO number of throws with heavy implements (22"'^ 1994), The limited time during the taper neces­ week) and of special strength exercises (23"i sitates the development of the "fine tuning" of week) seems to be related to an improvement in the technique before the peaking period (using

Domastic: Praparation Compsti eton paaking ccn^iet 1. Ci on Sanaa pariod pertod •varaaaa

Q • V. 1995/96 -e-V. 1994/95!

44 46 48 50 52 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 45 47 49 51 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 Weeks November - August 1994/95 and 1995/96

Figure 5: Performance development in 1995 and 1996 of a female discus thrower

IAAF quarterly New Studies in Athlelics • no. 2-J/1997 83 T teat results

ccai^etition Q results

£ throws — discus Ikg — discus >lkg • • sticksy shots

— E all throws •• L reps special strength — S reps maximum strengtJi

' t ' t ' '|l I I I 1 I 20 25 30 weeks I 6th MC I peaking period

Figure 6: Performance development of like Wyludda during the peaking period in 1992 (above) and the training load during the last weeks before the Olympic Games in 1992 (in %, related to the weekly repetition maximum of the preparation period) - middle: parts of the throwing training - below: sum of all throws, special strength and maximum strength training (based on data of LQSCH/BOTTCHER 1994. adapted and supplemented)

84 New Studies in Athleti« • no. 2-3/1997 lAAF quarterly kn«a anq!* ot tha rront iBQ •t l:h* monuHit - of plantina leijo ISO» - ot ralaaaa 145* lee» JBWlln anglB - of ralaaVQ 340 - of •tCaok -2° - aldsalip 13"

wiChout ground contact

World Championships Competition Goal technique qualiricstior. ' vaska iMfora ths Olympic lax tha naxt yaara: CP G«i de pBEla Auguat f. 199S June 2S 199S 66-68m 59.30m 64.4em

Figure 7: Body positions at the moment of planting the front leg and at the moment of release for a female javelin thrower Left: In the qualifying round at the World Championships in 1995 {the athlete did not qualify). Centre: Close to the technical demands at the competition during the peaking period. The athlete reached the Olympic final and won the silver medal (result of the AIS/Track and Field competition analysis). Right: Necessary body positions to reach a higher performance level and to form a base for assess­ ing the demands for the training of technique and special strength.

the competition period). If the technique-re­ form at peak level in the major competition lated problems are not solved in time, perfor­ of the season, mance-limiting effects are pre-programmed 2] Training programmes must be constructed so for the main competition. that this goal may be reached, and must take • In theory the use of light implements will into account the peculiarities of preparation achieve an increase in movement speed and in the Northern and Soulhern hemispheres. neuromuscular cu-ordination. In practice only 3} An effective training process has been diag­ a small number of throws with light imple­ nosed for about two thirds of the medallists ments is normal because of undesired effects in the throwing events based on the compar- on the movement pattern (see the data in ision "Season P8 vs resull at the Olympic Table 2: about 3-4% in javelin throwing train­ Games". The training of the top athletes ing up to 6-^(yh in shot put training). In fact, seems to be characterised by a higher train­ light implements make lower power demands ing effectiveness if compared with the results compared to their mass (BARIONIEIZ 1987). reached one-two decades ago, • Active rest intervals are necessary especially at 4) Peaking is the climax of the entire prepara­ the beginning of the taper in spite of the tion and can not be produced independently. training load during the competition period (physical and mental tiredness) and also after The effectiveness of the peaking period is the load peaks. According to LEITNER (1992). determined by that of the preparation as a 10% of the tapering time has to be used for whole. active rest (a taper of 8 weeks/56 days - 6 days 5) The main principle in constructing the taper planned for active rest], requires a compact repetition of the prepara­ tion period (i.e. mini-prep). 6) It is clear that, in order to plan the taper 3 Summary period correctly, all details and loadings of 1) Success in international athletics is deter­ the preparatitjn must be adequately docu­ mined to a large extent by the ability to per­ mented (training protocols). lAAFtjuarterlv New Studies in Athletics • no. 2-3/1997 85 7) The performance of the leading athletes in FHIEWAN, W.H.: the throwing events is characterised by a Peak when it counts. Periodization for Amerrcan Track and high level of sporting technique as one Field. Tafncws Press. 1991 inseparable part of the training efforts dur­ GAMBEnA. V, (ed.): ing the entire preparation process. Because The Athletics Congress's Track and Field Coaching Manual, abilities and skills exist in unity, the peaking 2nd cd,. Champaign, III.: Human Kinetics, 1989 period is characterised also by intensive tech­ nical work (mental preparation for the work­ HAMANN, F.; SCHOTTE, K.-H.: outs, feedback). Zur diszipiinspezifischen Verteilung von Geräten unter­ schiedlichen Gewichts im speziellen Wurf/Stoßtraining (Einfachperiodtsicrung), FKS Leipzig, FG Wurf/Stoß, 24 p. REFERENCES HARRE, D.: ANDERSON, C: Principlesflf sports training, Berlin, 1982 Tapering peak performance for Atlanta, Attiletics Australia, HINZ, L,; BARTONIET/, K,: OlyrüpicCongress- Peaking -, Brisbane. 11-13 March 1996, Brisbane, lecture Zur Leistungsentwicklung in den Wurf-/Sloßdisziplinen der Leichtathletik im Olympiazyklus 1981/84, In; Theorie und BAIYI. I.: Praxis des Leistungssports 34 (1985), 5, pp, 17-23 Final preparation - a game plan fnr peaking in Atlanta or jEimFfl, G.: How does the aspirin find the headache? Aihletics Australia. Olympic Congress - Peaking -, Brisbane, 11-13 Die erfolgreiche Vorbereitung auf Top wettkämpfe. In: Die March 1996, lecture Lehre der Leichtathletik 31 (1992), 36, pp, 15-16; 37, pp. 17-24 BARIUNIMZ, K,: l^RSEN. B,: Zur sportlichen Tecltnik der Wettkampfübungen und zur Wirkungsriclitung ausgewählter Trainingsübungen in den Determinants of success in major competitions - A case Wurf- und Stoßdisziplinen der Leiclitathletik, Leipzig: DHfK, study of the hammer throw at the 1995 W.C. Athletics Habilitation, 1987 Australia, Olympic Congress - Peaking -, Brisbane, 11-13 March 199G, lecture BAHTONIEV/. K,: LfHNERT, A.: General consideration in peaking for throwers. Athletics Australia, Olympic Congress - Peaking -, Brisbane, 11-13 Die unmittelbare Vorbereltuhg auf entscheidende March I99G, lecture Wettkämpfe. In; Leistungssport 24(1994), l,pp, 10-15

BAHioNim. K.; BORGSIRÖM. A.: LOSCH, M.; BancHiR, G,: The throwing events at Ihe World Championships in Increasing the effectiveness of special strength training for Athletics 1995, Göteborg - Technique of the wurld's best the discus throw using Ihe discus strength training machine ISTM-Discus), In: New Studies in Athletics 9 athletes. Part 1: Shot put and hammer throw. In: New 11994), 3, pp, 69-82 (German version in: Die Lehre der Studies in Athletics 10 [1995), 4. pp. 43-63 Leichtathletik 33 (1994), 13. pp. 16-18; 34, pp. 15-16,21) BAoERsrELD, K.-H.; SCMRÖIEH, G.: MAHHN, D,; CARI, K.; LEHNEBTZ, K.: Grundlagen der Leichtathletik. Berlin, 1979 Handbuch Trainingslehrc. Schorndorf, 1993 BOAS, J,; OsaoRNE, N.: OzoiiN, N.G.; VoflONKiN, V.l.: PRIMAKOV. JU.N. (ed.): Periodization for Australian athletes. In: Modern Athlete and Coach 19 (1981), 4, pp, 3-6 Legkaja atletika. Moscow, 1989

BOAS, J.; OsBORMf, N.: SCHNABEL, G.; HAHRE, D.; BORDE, A. (ed.): Trainingswisscnschafl: Leistung - Training - Wettkampf Pcalting. In: Modern Athlete and Coach 19 (1981), 7, pp, 1M4 [Training siencc: Performance — training - competition], Berlin: Sportverlag, 1994 BONDARCHUK, A,: VERCIIOSHANSKT, J,: About the development of form. In: Modern Athlete and Coach30(l992). 4. pp, 6-8 Effektiv trainieren. Berlin. 1988 Vingbo, I.: DEUTSCHER LEICHTATHIETIK-VEHBAND (pub!.]; SCHLIBERI. B.; Pre-competition preparation for throwers. In: New Studies HOMMEi. H, (ed.): in Athletics 9 (1994), 1, pp. 43-45 Aktuelle Trainingsgrundlagcn des Kochleistungstrainings. Zatsiorsky, V.: Darmstadt, 1991 Science and practice of strength training. Champaign, III: DEUTSCHER LEiCHTATHLETiK-VEfiB>yjD (publ.); KuHt. L; HOMMEI, H, Human Kinetics, 1995 (ed.): Rahmentrainingsplan für das Aufbautraining - Wurf, 2nd ed,, Aachen, 1993 [JSl

86 New Studies in Athletics • no. 2-3/1997 lAAF quarterly