| |
Main
Date: 26 Jun 2006 08:03:48
From: Ron
Subject: question on timing sprints
|
Morning,
I have a question regarding timing of short distances:
I coach a Boys soccer team. And during our preseason conditioning
period I would like to put the running portion of the training in
control of the players as much as possible. My experience has been
that the more they focus on their own times, the harder they push
during the practice sessions. And the less they worry about comparing
their performance to that of their peers. I will make their PR's
(personal record) the goal each day and not the idea of beating all of
their teammates. In addition to a variety of soccer related skills, we
will be running a timed mile, a timed 40 yard dash, and a timed 40 yard
dribble each day of training.
I would like to come up with a way for the individual players to time
themselves in the two 40 yard "sprint" activities. I have tried timing
it manually with volunteers or other players from the team, but it just
didn't work out well. It needs to be easy, accurate to a tenth of a
second, and convenient for it to work.
Do you know of a way to handle the timing of these "sprints"?
I have a considerable amount of experience with electronics and/or
computers. As well, I have convenient access to a variety of
computers. However, anything I build or buy has to come out of my own
pocket, not the school's budget. So money is a key consideration.
Can you help me?
Ron
|
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2006 07:05:53
From: Jack
Subject: Re: question on timing sprints
|
Ron,
I'm sure you tried having one person with a stopwatch yelling out times
as they cross the finish line. Each runner remembers their own time.
Why didn't that work? I would think it would be accurate enough for
your purposes.
Jack
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2006 09:50:50
From: Steve Freides
Subject: Re: Results: Jogging Vs Ski Machine
|
"LurfysMa" <invalid@invalid.invalid > wrote in message
news:rsc2a2dja6c0rrp34pu4s5rq98n1hd9nkb@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:14:20 -0400, "Steve Freides"
> <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>
>>>>I recommend lifting weights, for whatever that's worth. Maintaining
>>>>muscle is harder the older we get, and lifting weights can help with
>>>>that. It can also help improve resistance to injury.
>>>
>>> I've been lifting since 1970 but can barely bench press my bodywgt.
>>> these days, one rep (165) and no leg work. Using the leg extension
>>> machine was the immediate cause of the torn right lateral meniscus.
>>
>>The leg extension machine, and most machine, are riskier than using
>>free
>>weights, contrary to popular opinion. I hope you don't give up on
>>training your legs. And, for what it's worth, the bench press should
>>not be the first choice of someone interested in basic, functional
>>strength and health, at least not in my opinion. You'll do better,
>>although you won't sport pretty pecs for the beach, if you focus on
>>overhead presses, especially standing overhead presses.
>
> How are standing presses significantly different than (I assume)
> sitting presses?
First, there is quite a difference between a supported seated press and
an unsupported seated press. So consider all three - seated supported,
standing, and seated unsupported. You also have the variations in what
you press - a barbell, one dumbbell or kettlebell, or a pair of
dumbbells or kettlebells.
The seated supported press is what I see most people doing. You sit
slightly leaning back in some sort of chair-like apparatus or bench with
back support, and you press a weight or a machine bar overhead. This
one isolates the shoulders most, which is not something I prefer.
The standing press is quite different because, once the weight is heavy
enough, the midsection must kick in to help stabilize the body. The
stricter one is with standing press form, which means the more you try
not to lean in any direction while pressing, the more you will have to
tense other muscles throughout your body, your midsection in
particular. You can actually get quite a belly workout this way once
you learn what to focus on and if you practice good technique. I prefer
the one-armed version because it's the most challenging for the
midsection. I do one-armed kettlebell presses almost every day, and
two-kettlebells presses for variety some of the time. The barbell
overhead press, while a fine movement, isn't my first choice for general
strength purposes - it requires a bit more barbell-specific technique
and it's almost impossible to do with a heavy weight without some
leaning back. The two-kettlebell or two-dumbbell standing press also
invites leaning back, another reason I prefer the one-armed version.
The unsupported seated press is actually quite difficult to do, since
there is less opportunity to adjust the body underneath the weight.
Particularly if you do them seated on the floor or something very low,
your hamstring flexibility will be taxed as well.
For most general purposes, the standing one-armed press is a tremendous
exercise. With kettlebells, the movement called the Military Press
mostly closely resembles what you'll find described as an Arnold Press
with dumbbells - a full range movement starting with the weight held
below the chin and against the chest, and rotated outwards as it's
pressed upward.
Hope that helps some. See Pavel's recent "Enter The Kettlebell"
http://www.kbnj.com/etk.htm for more on why a press like this should be
considered a core movement for basic functional strength.
-S-
http://www.kbnj.com
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jun 2006 07:50:04
From: LurfysMa
Subject: Re: Results: Jogging Vs Ski Machine
|
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 09:50:50 -0400, "Steve Freides"
<steve@fridayscomputer.com > wrote:
>"LurfysMa" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>news:rsc2a2dja6c0rrp34pu4s5rq98n1hd9nkb@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:14:20 -0400, "Steve Freides"
>> <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>>
>>>And, for what it's worth, the bench press should
>>>not be the first choice of someone interested in basic, functional
>>>strength and health, at least not in my opinion. You'll do better,
>>>although you won't sport pretty pecs for the beach, if you focus on
>>>overhead presses, especially standing overhead presses.
>>
>> How are standing presses significantly different than (I assume)
>> sitting presses?
>
>First, there is quite a difference between a supported seated press and
>an unsupported seated press. So consider all three - seated supported,
>standing, and seated unsupported. You also have the variations in what
>you press - a barbell, one dumbbell or kettlebell, or a pair of
>dumbbells or kettlebells.
I'm using dumbbells, both arms together, while sitting on the floor,
usually cross-legged.
>The seated supported press is what I see most people doing. You sit
>slightly leaning back in some sort of chair-like apparatus or bench with
>back support, and you press a weight or a machine bar overhead. This
>one isolates the shoulders most, which is not something I prefer.
That makes sense.
>The standing press is quite different because, once the weight is heavy
>enough, the midsection must kick in to help stabilize the body. The
>stricter one is with standing press form, which means the more you try
>not to lean in any direction while pressing, the more you will have to
>tense other muscles throughout your body, your midsection in
>particular. You can actually get quite a belly workout this way once
>you learn what to focus on and if you practice good technique. I prefer
>the one-armed version because it's the most challenging for the
>midsection. I do one-armed kettlebell presses almost every day, and
>two-kettlebells presses for variety some of the time. The barbell
>overhead press, while a fine movement, isn't my first choice for general
>strength purposes - it requires a bit more barbell-specific technique
>and it's almost impossible to do with a heavy weight without some
>leaning back. The two-kettlebell or two-dumbbell standing press also
>invites leaning back, another reason I prefer the one-armed version.
I'll try it one-armed and see.
I do almost all of my exercises with dumbbells. I like that it
requires even more stabilization effort than a barbell.
The only exception is squats. I need the bar resting on my shoulders.
My legs are so much stronger than my arms that I have trouble
stabilizing enough weight using dumbbells to be able to challenge my
legs. I tried squatting with the dumbbells hanging down, but it didn;t
feel right.
>The unsupported seated press is actually quite difficult to do, since
>there is less opportunity to adjust the body underneath the weight.
>Particularly if you do them seated on the floor or something very low,
>your hamstring flexibility will be taxed as well.
I do them sitting on the floor, usually cross-legged. I haven't
noticed any hamstring problems and I have naturally tight hams.
>For most general purposes, the standing one-armed press is a tremendous
>exercise. With kettlebells, the movement called the Military Press
>mostly closely resembles what you'll find described as an Arnold Press
>with dumbbells - a full range movement starting with the weight held
>below the chin and against the chest, and rotated outwards as it's
>pressed upward.
>
>Hope that helps some. See Pavel's recent "Enter The Kettlebell"
>http://www.kbnj.com/etk.htm for more on why a press like this should be
>considered a core movement for basic functional strength.
Thanks
--
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Jun 2006 16:47:30
From: Steve Freides
Subject: Re: Results: Jogging Vs Ski Machine
|
"LurfysMa" <invalid@invalid.invalid > wrote in message
news:2mg2a21bmodv5b58lefr0heuvugb0m7dr6@4ax.com...
-snip-
>>The unsupported seated press is actually quite difficult to do, since
>>there is less opportunity to adjust the body underneath the weight.
>>Particularly if you do them seated on the floor or something very low,
>>your hamstring flexibility will be taxed as well.
>
> I do them sitting on the floor, usually cross-legged. I haven't
> noticed any hamstring problems and I have naturally tight hams.
-snip-
I'd say you have better than average flexibility, then, unless you're
using especially light weights. It's not hamstring problems per se that
you have to watch out for, it's tight hamstrings preventing you from
keeping your lower back in a good position. Just to be clear, there's
nothing wrong with sitting cross-legged on the floor with your back
slightly rounded, it's just not what you want when moving a heavy weight
overhead.
A good goal, according to the book I mentioned by Pavel, is a one-armed
standing press with nearly 1/2 your bodyweight - this is for men. I've
managed this one with a 70 lb. kettlebell press at 150 lbs. of
bodyweight. My wife is pretty strong - she can press a 35 lb. weight at
123 lbs. bodyweight. I'm good for singles at that weight most days,
sometimes doubles, max is a triple, while my wife has done 5 reps of
hers and is good for a triple most days. Just some examples for you.
-S-
http://www.kbnj.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Jun 2006 19:54:37
From: LurfysMa
Subject: Re: Results: Jogging Vs Ski Machine
|
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:47:30 -0400, "Steve Freides"
<steve@fridayscomputer.com > wrote:
>"LurfysMa" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>news:2mg2a21bmodv5b58lefr0heuvugb0m7dr6@4ax.com...
>
>-snip-
>
>>>The unsupported seated press is actually quite difficult to do, since
>>>there is less opportunity to adjust the body underneath the weight.
>>>Particularly if you do them seated on the floor or something very low,
>>>your hamstring flexibility will be taxed as well.
>>
>> I do them sitting on the floor, usually cross-legged. I haven't
>> noticed any hamstring problems and I have naturally tight hams.
>
>-snip-
>
>I'd say you have better than average flexibility, then, unless you're
>using especially light weights. It's not hamstring problems per se that
>you have to watch out for, it's tight hamstrings preventing you from
>keeping your lower back in a good position. Just to be clear, there's
>nothing wrong with sitting cross-legged on the floor with your back
>slightly rounded, it's just not what you want when moving a heavy weight
>overhead.
I'll take care to watch the rounded back.
>A good goal, according to the book I mentioned by Pavel, is a one-armed
>standing press with nearly 1/2 your bodyweight - this is for men. I've
>managed this one with a 70 lb. kettlebell press at 150 lbs. of
>bodyweight. My wife is pretty strong - she can press a 35 lb. weight at
>123 lbs. bodyweight. I'm good for singles at that weight most days,
>sometimes doubles, max is a triple, while my wife has done 5 reps of
>hers and is good for a triple most days. Just some examples for you.
I think the heaviest weight I have used is 100 (2 50s), which would be
40% of body weight (total, not one arm). As I get heavier, I'll watch
the back. I'll also try one-armed and standing for variety.
Thanks for the tips.
--
|
| |
Date: 28 Jun 2006 17:30:00
From: Robert Grumbine
Subject: Re: question on timing sprints
|
In article <1151334228.730527.123240@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com >,
Ron <rgraham11@gmail.com > wrote:
>Morning,
>
>I have a question regarding timing of short distances:
>
>I coach a Boys soccer team. And during our preseason conditioning
>period I would like to put the running portion of the training in
>control of the players as much as possible. My experience has been
>that the more they focus on their own times, the harder they push
>during the practice sessions. And the less they worry about comparing
>their performance to that of their peers. I will make their PR's
>(personal record) the goal each day and not the idea of beating all of
>their teammates. In addition to a variety of soccer related skills, we
>will be running a timed mile, a timed 40 yard dash, and a timed 40 yard
>dribble each day of training.
You don't mention how old the players are.
Timed mile every day is probably too often. Timed weekly is probably a
better frequency, with daily untimed miles.
You can't expect PRs every day. For that reason as well, you might
want to go with weekly (but on different days than the mile). Again,
untimed daily as a skill and technique exercise with the weekly
timed ones for guidance.
But PRs are definitely the way to go.
>I would like to come up with a way for the individual players to time
>themselves in the two 40 yard "sprint" activities. I have tried timing
>it manually with volunteers or other players from the team, but it just
>didn't work out well. It needs to be easy, accurate to a tenth of a
>second, and convenient for it to work.
>
>Do you know of a way to handle the timing of these "sprints"?
>
>I have a considerable amount of experience with electronics and/or
>computers. As well, I have convenient access to a variety of
>computers. However, anything I build or buy has to come out of my own
>pocket, not the school's budget. So money is a key consideration.
There are inexpensive watches with stopwatch function. Probably
several players have one already.
If you want 0.1 second accuracy, though, self timing is out.
(If you're hard core about it, any form of manual timing is out.)
Other player timing ought to have worked ok. What was the problem?
I ran through my baseball team with me being the only timer pretty
easily. Line them all up, prepped that I'd be saying 'go' almost
immediately after the person ahead finished (and any delay in their
start was their problem/counted on their time), and went at it.
Times saved on my 100 lap watch, and made them write down their names
after they finished. For the players, I told them their time when
they finished, and for me, I had the times and matched that to the
name list. Not as important for baseball, so I didn't do it often.
But they were quite enthusiastic about it.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
|
| |
Date: 29 Jun 2006 05:40:04
From: Ron
Subject: Re: question on timing sprints
|
Robert Grumbine wrote:
> In article <1151334228.730527.123240@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
> Ron <rgraham11@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Morning,
> >
> >I have a question regarding timing of short distances:
> >
> >I coach a Boys soccer team. And during our preseason conditioning
> >period I would like to put the running portion of the training in
> >control of the players as much as possible. My experience has been
> >that the more they focus on their own times, the harder they push
> >during the practice sessions. And the less they worry about comparing
> >their performance to that of their peers. I will make their PR's
> >(personal record) the goal each day and not the idea of beating all of
> >their teammates. In addition to a variety of soccer related skills, we
> >will be running a timed mile, a timed 40 yard dash, and a timed 40 yard
> >dribble each day of training.
>
> You don't mention how old the players are.
They are 14 years old mostly
>
> Timed mile every day is probably too often. Timed weekly is probably a
> better frequency, with daily untimed miles.
I only have about 2 weeks before the season actually begins. Once we
start playing our games we will only be able to run once or twice a
week at most and the little training time we have needs to go to
tactics and small group/team skills.
>
> You can't expect PRs every day. For that reason as well, you might
> want to go with weekly (but on different days than the mile). Again,
> untimed daily as a skill and technique exercise with the weekly
> timed ones for guidance.
>
I am not expecting PRs from them every day. However, I want them to be
comparing their efforts to their own PRs instead of comparing
themselves to the 3 or 4 "fast" kids on the team. The slower kids
quickly stop trying and then their efforts quickly become unproductive.
> But PRs are definitely the way to go.
>
> >I would like to come up with a way for the individual players to time
> >themselves in the two 40 yard "sprint" activities. I have tried timing
> >it manually with volunteers or other players from the team, but it just
> >didn't work out well. It needs to be easy, accurate to a tenth of a
> >second, and convenient for it to work.
> >
> >Do you know of a way to handle the timing of these "sprints"?
> >
> >I have a considerable amount of experience with electronics and/or
> >computers. As well, I have convenient access to a variety of
> >computers. However, anything I build or buy has to come out of my own
> >pocket, not the school's budget. So money is a key consideration.
>
> There are inexpensive watches with stopwatch function. Probably
> several players have one already.
>
The mile is easy to handle for me. They run as a group and the timing
I can do myself. One thing that I am considering is to stagger the
start times based on their PRs. That way each kid will have a
reasonable chance of winning the race that day.
Any thoughts on this? I haven't done this before.
The Sprints are a different issue, however. I am trying to come up
with a way for the individual player to be able to take more control of
his own training session. To be able to work on the specific soccer
weaknesses/strengths he has. The way I structure the training sessions
is to have a number of 'stations'. Each station works on a particular
soccer skill. I usually have about 6 or 7 stations going at the same
time. The 40 yard dash. The 40 yard dribbling sprint are just two of
the stations. Most of the other stations are more soccer related.
Since there is only one of me and 20+ kids training, finding ways to
keep them focused on their own progress is very important so that we
use our time effectively.
At this age level, I find that speed, endurance, and self-confidence
are almost as important as the soccer skills. And MANY of them are
just not in condition. This is one way to get them in condition with
the short amount of time I have to work with them. (1 1/2 hr weekdays,
with a 6 week season)
> If you want 0.1 second accuracy, though, self timing is out.
.1 sec would only be necesary on the sprints.
It is this sprinting station that I REALLY want to work on. I just
need a better method (with the resources I have available). This is
by far the most important issue to me now.
> (If you're hard core about it, any form of manual timing is out.)
> Other player timing ought to have worked ok. What was the problem?
>
> I ran through my baseball team with me being the only timer pretty
> easily. Line them all up, prepped that I'd be saying 'go' almost
> immediately after the person ahead finished (and any delay in their
> start was their problem/counted on their time), and went at it.
> Times saved on my 100 lap watch, and made them write down their names
> after they finished. For the players, I told them their time when
> they finished, and for me, I had the times and matched that to the
> name list. Not as important for baseball, so I didn't do it often.
> But they were quite enthusiastic about it.
I have had a similar experience in prior years with this too. The kids
love it! But the trouble is that it takes so much time that I can't
get the other soccer skills in that day, unfortunately.
>
> --
> Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
> Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
> evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
> would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2006 04:49:54
From: Ron
Subject: Re: question on timing sprints
|
For those that might be interested, here are some suggestions and
updates-
Ron wrote:
> Robert Grumbine wrote:
> > In article <1151334228.730527.123240@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
> > Ron <rgraham11@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Morning,
> > >
> > >I have a question regarding timing of short distances:
> > >
> > >I coach a Boys soccer team. And during our preseason conditioning
> > >period I would like to put the running portion of the training in
> > >control of the players as much as possible. My experience has been
> > >that the more they focus on their own times, the harder they push
> > >during the practice sessions. And the less they worry about comparing
> > >their performance to that of their peers. I will make their PR's
> > >(personal record) the goal each day and not the idea of beating all of
> > >their teammates. In addition to a variety of soccer related skills, we
> > >will be running a timed mile, a timed 40 yard dash, and a timed 40 yard
> > >dribble each day of training.
> >
> > You don't mention how old the players are.
>
> They are 14 years old mostly
>
>
> >
> > Timed mile every day is probably too often. Timed weekly is probably a
> > better frequency, with daily untimed miles.
>
> I only have about 2 weeks before the season actually begins. Once we
> start playing our games we will only be able to run once or twice a
> week at most and the little training time we have needs to go to
> tactics and small group/team skills.
>
>
> >
> > You can't expect PRs every day. For that reason as well, you might
> > want to go with weekly (but on different days than the mile). Again,
> > untimed daily as a skill and technique exercise with the weekly
> > timed ones for guidance.
> >
>
I am not expecting PRs from them every day. However, I want them to be
comparing their efforts to their own PRs instead of comparing
themselves to the 3 or 4 "fast" kids on the team.
My experience has been: The slower kids quickly stop trying and then
their efforts become unproductive. Is this consistent with what you
have seen?
(?I believe generally accepted coaching philosophy is consistent with
this?)
>
>
> > But PRs are definitely the way to go.
> >
> > >I would like to come up with a way for the individual players to time
> > >themselves in the two 40 yard "sprint" activities. I have tried timing
> > >it manually with volunteers or other players from the team, but it just
> > >didn't work out well. It needs to be easy, accurate to a tenth of a
> > >second, and convenient for it to work.
> > >
> > >Do you know of a way to handle the timing of these "sprints"?
> > >
> > >I have a considerable amount of experience with electronics and/or
> > >computers. As well, I have convenient access to a variety of
> > >computers. However, anything I build or buy has to come out of my own
> > >pocket, not the school's budget. So money is a key consideration.
> >
> > There are inexpensive watches with stopwatch function. Probably
> > several players have one already.
> >
>
> The mile is easy to handle for me. They run as a group and the timing
> I can do myself.
One thing that I am considering is to stagger the start times based on
their PRs. That way each kid will have a reasonable chance of winning
the race that day.
Any thoughts on this? I haven't done this before and would love to
hear from some of you that might have done this as a coach or a
competitive athlete.
The Sprints are a different issue, however. I am trying to come up
with a way for the individual player to be able to take more control
of
his own training session. To be able to work on the specific soccer
weaknesses/strengths he has. The way I structure the training
sessions
is to have a number of 'stations'. Each station works on a particular
soccer skill. I usually have about 6 or 7 stations going at the same
time. The 40 yard dash. The 40 yard dribbling sprint are just two of
the stations. Most of the other stations are more soccer related.
Since there is only one of me and 20+ kids training, finding ways to
keep them focused on their own progress is very important so that we
use our time effectively.
>
> At this age level, I find that speed, endurance, and self-confidence
> are almost as important as the soccer skills. And MANY of them are
> just not in condition. This is one way to get them in condition with
> the short amount of time I have to work with them. (1 1/2 hr weekdays,
> with a 6 week season)
>
>
> > If you want 0.1 second accuracy, though, self timing is out.
>
> .1 sec would only be necessary on the sprints.
>
It is this sprinting station that I REALLY want to work on. I just
need a better method (with the resources I have available). This is
by far the most important issue to me now.
Here is my best suggestion/idea to deal with the issue of the players
taking more control of their own training. I will have a "system" set
up for the sprints. There will be a laptop that connected to a set of
photo-cells to start and stop the stopwatch. Each player's time will
be displayed in a large font on the screen for about 30 seconds. Then
it will be saved in a log automatically. (For those that are
interested in the technology. This link will give you an idea of how I
will do it. Credit for the design goes to Gregory Braun. He has done
this kind of thing with slot car racing.
http://www.hoslotcarracing.com/ )
>
> > (If you're hard core about it, any form of manual timing is out.)
> > Other player timing ought to have worked ok. What was the problem?
> >
> > I ran through my baseball team with me being the only timer pretty
> > easily. Line them all up, prepped that I'd be saying 'go' almost
> > immediately after the person ahead finished (and any delay in their
> > start was their problem/counted on their time), and went at it.
> > Times saved on my 100 lap watch, and made them write down their names
> > after they finished. For the players, I told them their time when
> > they finished, and for me, I had the times and matched that to the
> > name list. Not as important for baseball, so I didn't do it often.
> > But they were quite enthusiastic about it.
>
> I have had a similar experience in prior years with this too. The kids
> love it! But the trouble is that it takes so much time that I can't
> get the other soccer skills in that day, unfortunately.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Robert Grumbine
|
|
