General and Event-Specific Considerations in Peaking for the Main Competition
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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 account. Centre In Adelaide, Australia. _ 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.