Re: Soviet Secrets and Russian Myths

November 22, 2006

>

> In the thread on " Does sports science research influence practice? "

> there have been references to Soviet research, the need to understand

> it, the claim that few in the US really do, and the statement that

> Soviet plyometric research was first introduced into this county

> around 1975. In all of this there is the implication that the

> Soviets developed a better system that was the cause of their

> performance supremacy. We have heard this all before in countless

> books, tapes, seminars, etc. on " Soviet Secrets. " It may be good

> marketing, but there is a problem; little of it is true. " Russian

> Myths' might be a better title.

>

> How one defines performance is to a degree subjective, but one

> measure is Olympic medals. The US has won roughly twice as many

> medals in the summer Olympics as the Soviet Union. This is, of

> course, due to the fact that the Soviet Union , did not compete in

> the first 11 Olympics of the modern era. It did, however, compete in

> 11 of the next 12 just as the US (each country boycotting one) and

> has not been in the last three. The US has won roughly twice as many

> medals competing in roughly twice as many Olympics. If we subtract

> the 118 Gold medals won by the US in the last three Olympics we find

> that in exactly twice as many Olympics (22 to 11) the US won 1.79

> times as many Gold medals. That looks pretty even to me, but keep in

> mind that the early Olympics had far fewer over all sports (as little

> as 8 compared to 28 in 1992, the last Olympics the Soviets were in).

> There were simply not as many medals to win in the earlier Olympics.

> When all of these factors are considered, I think it is hard to

> conclude that the Soviets outperformed the US, but that has been an

> opinion many have held for a long time.

>

> A lot of this may have to do with simple medal counts at each

> Olympic. Take for example the 1960 Olympics in Rome. The Soviets won

> 103 total medal (43 gold) to the US total of 71 medals (34 gold).

> Based on this, it might appear that the US lost out.

>

> However, if we look at how those medals were distributed, we find

> that a lot of the Soviet Union's medals came in Canoeing, Cycling,

> Fencing, Gymnastics and Water Polo, sports the US had (and for the

> most part still has) little interest in. In recent times, rhythmic

> gymnastics, team handball, etc were added to the list. On the track

> side in 1960, we swept the men's 110 hurdles, the 400 meter hurdles,

> the shot put and discus. We placed first and second in the men's pole

> vault and long jump and won the decathlon and men's 4x400 meter

> relay. From a track and field perspective, the US did just fine.

>

> In fact, if we compare Gold medals in track and field for all

> Olympics, we find that the US has won 318 to the Soviets 71. This is

> more than 4 times as many medals in track and field, not the 1.79

> figure from above that includes all Olympic sports. On the other

> hand, the Soviets have won 30 Gold medals in canoeing to our 5. They

> clearly outperform us in canoeing, but not in track and field.

>

> During the last go around on Weyand, claims were made about the

> contribution of Soviet science to the sprints. As pointed out then,

> neither Soviet science or East German application of it made much of

> a dent on US dominance in the sprints. To get a fuller picture of

> the Soviet contribution, we should also look at the jumps.

>

> From 1961 to 1963 Valeri Brummel set 5 world records. His last lasted

> until 1970. In 1960 the Soviets won the Gold and Silver in the high

> jump, the US the Bronze. In 1964, the Soviets won the Gold, the US

> the Silver and Bronze. Unfortunately, it was not until 1966- 1967

> that Verkhoshanky and others started writing about the need to change

> training methods and about depth jumps. Did this really have any

> impact on the results from 1961 through 1964? Maybe.

>

> While the Soviets were studying plyometrics, Dick Fosbury, without

> access to the Soviet science, was reinventing the high jump. In

> 1968 he won the Gold medal and the US also took Silver. The Soviets

> took Bronze.

>

> How well did the Soviets fare in employing their own secrets after

> 1968? Well, from 1971 to 1976, Americans alone set the world record,

> breaking it 4 times. Soviet plyometrics were introduced to the US in

> 1975 and the US has not held the world record since 1976.

>

> In 1972, the Soviets won the Gold in the high jump, East Germany the

> Silver and the US won the Bronze. In 1976, Poland won the Gold,

> Canada the Silver and the US the Bronze. Seven years before being

> introduced to plyometrics we won a Gold and a Silver and followed

> that up in the next 8 years with four world records and two Olympic

> medals. It does not sound like we needed Soviet secrets to do well.

>

> In 1980 and 1984, the boycotts took place. In 1988, Russia won the

> Gold, the US the Silver and Spain the Bronze. In 1992 Cuba won Gold,

> in 1996 the US won Gold, in 2000 Russia won Gold and in 2004 Sweden

> won Gold and the US won Silver. Bronze went to the Czech Republic.

>

> The story of the long jump does not help the Soviets Secrets myth

> either. Boston, Beamon, and . A steady stream of world

> bests that the Soviets never came close to meeting. Ralph Boston

> held most of the world records in the long jump from 1960-1965. In

> 1960, the US won Gold and Silver to the Soviets' Bronze. In 1964,

> Great Britain won Gold, the US Silver and the Soviets the Bronze. In

> 1968, the US won Gold (and Beamon set the world record) and Bronze;

> Great Britain won Silver. In 1972, the US again won Gold and Bronze

> and Germany won Silver. In 1976, the US won Gold and Silver and Great

> Britain won Bronze. 1980 and 1984 were the boycotts. The US swept the

> medals in 1988 and 1992 and won Gold and Bronze in 1996. In 2000,

> the medals went Cuba, Australia and Ukraine. In 2004 the US won Gold

> and Silver and Spain won the Bronze.

>

> The triple jump bounced around between Poland and the Soviets from

> 1960 through 1968 with Brazil and Italy also getting in the action.

> In terms of world records Italy and Brazil were just about as

> successful as the Soviets. Yet we never became fascinated with

> Polish, Italian or Brazilian secrets. The last three world records

> have been held by an American and a Brit.

>

> The Soviets did study sports more systematically than the US. They

> were the ones trying to catch up. Their work is worth studying and

> applying, but its effect has been misconstrued by those in the

> business of selling products based on the research. At least that

> part is as American as apple pie.

>

> Part of the belief in Soviet success stems from the hysteria that

> took place when they snuck up on the world with great success as they

> first started competing. Coming from a closed and secret society, it

> is really not all that amazing that we did not see them coming. We

> were trying to spy on their army not their sports program. Also

> Olympic success became a much more serious matter during the Cold War

> than before. It really should not have been that surprising that the

> only other super power in the world at the time with a large

> population base and an intense desire to best the US at everything,

> including sports, could do well and at times outdo the US. Remember

> they got Sputnik up first. Because of cultural and political

> differences, they addressed sports differently than the US, but the

> results on the field were not significantly different. Newspapers

> just reporting medal totals did not give an accurate picture of what

> was taking place.

>

> Today we see China emerging as a sports power. No one sees this as

> surprising given the size of their population and their desire to do

> well. We should view the Soviet success the same way.

***

Interesting reading Jon - its amazing what we can do with statistics!

Lets look at a few more facts: -

The USSR took part in 9 summer Olympics (1952-1988 with one boycott),

and won the medal table at 7 out of the 9 games. When looking at more

detail the top three medal producing sports for the USSR at these

games were 1)- Gymnastics, 2) Athletics and 3) Wrestling. We can

clearly see these are not minority sports that the USA have no

interest in.

Interestingly enough when we look at winter game statistics

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_at_the_Winter_Olympics) the total

number of golds won show that in 7 out of the 9 games the USSR took

part in they too finished first.

The stats taken from the Era of the USSR not only contradict the main

message of your post, but the literature that is now circulating in

the mainstream stems from this time frame.

Given the success of the training methods of other countries influenced

by the USSR (EG East Germany - The GDR), maybe the methods of the

soviets and their training should not be under question - but IF we

actually understand them properly and have implemented them correctly?

Just a thought...

Mick Morrey

Staffordshire

U.K.

November 22, 2006

Not to be racist, but how many of Olympic medals were won for team USA by

African-Americans? My point is that African Americans of West African decent

seem to dominate sprint and power type events. Some research has shown that

these top athletes are blessed with an unusually high percentage of fast-twitch

muscle fiber.

It is faulty logic to imply that lack of Soviet olympic medals somehow

corrolates with the Soviet Union's lack of contribution to the field of sports

science. An important consideration is that they aren't starting with the same

players on their team. They don't have Jordan, Carl , Sugar Ray

Leonard, Vince , etc on thier team. After all, there are

limits to training.

Ed White

East Sandwich, MA USA

============

jon_haddan wrote:

In the thread on " Does sports science research influence practice? "

there have been references to Soviet research, the need to understand

it, the claim that few in the US really do, and the statement that

Soviet plyometric research was first introduced into this county

around 1975. In all of this there is the implication that the

Soviets developed a better system that was the cause of their

performance supremacy. We have heard this all before in countless

books, tapes, seminars, etc. on " Soviet Secrets. " It may be good

marketing, but there is a problem; little of it is true. " Russian

Myths' might be a better title.

How one defines performance is to a degree subjective, but one

measure is Olympic medals. The US has won roughly twice as many

medals in the summer Olympics as the Soviet Union. This is, of

course, due to the fact that the Soviet Union , did not compete in

the first 11 Olympics of the modern era. It did, however, compete in

11 of the next 12 just as the US (each country boycotting one) and

has not been in the last three. The US has won roughly twice as many

medals competing in roughly twice as many Olympics. If we subtract

the 118 Gold medals won by the US in the last three Olympics we find

that in exactly twice as many Olympics (22 to 11) the US won 1.79

times as many Gold medals. That looks pretty even to me, but keep in

mind that the early Olympics had far fewer over all sports (as little

as 8 compared to 28 in 1992, the last Olympics the Soviets were in).

There were simply not as many medals to win in the earlier Olympics.

When all of these factors are considered, I think it is hard to

conclude that the Soviets outperformed the US, but that has been an

opinion many have held for a long time.

A lot of this may have to do with simple medal counts at each

Olympic. Take for example the 1960 Olympics in Rome. The Soviets won

103 total medal (43 gold) to the US total of 71 medals (34 gold).

Based on this, it might appear that the US lost out.

However, if we look at how those medals were distributed, we find

that a lot of the Soviet Union's medals came in Canoeing, Cycling,

Fencing, Gymnastics and Water Polo, sports the US had (and for the

most part still has) little interest in. In recent times, rhythmic

gymnastics, team handball, etc were added to the list. On the track

side in 1960, we swept the men's 110 hurdles, the 400 meter hurdles,

the shot put and discus. We placed first and second in the men's pole

vault and long jump and won the decathlon and men's 4x400 meter

relay. From a track and field perspective, the US did just fine.

In fact, if we compare Gold medals in track and field for all

Olympics, we find that the US has won 318 to the Soviets 71. This is

more than 4 times as many medals in track and field, not the 1.79

figure from above that includes all Olympic sports. On the other

hand, the Soviets have won 30 Gold medals in canoeing to our 5. They

clearly outperform us in canoeing, but not in track and field.

During the last go around on Weyand, claims were made about the

contribution of Soviet science to the sprints. As pointed out then,

neither Soviet science or East German application of it made much of

a dent on US dominance in the sprints. To get a fuller picture of

the Soviet contribution, we should also look at the jumps.

From 1961 to 1963 Valeri Brummel set 5 world records. His last lasted

until 1970. In 1960 the Soviets won the Gold and Silver in the high

jump, the US the Bronze. In 1964, the Soviets won the Gold, the US

the Silver and Bronze. Unfortunately, it was not until 1966- 1967

that Verkhoshanky and others started writing about the need to change

training methods and about depth jumps. Did this really have any

impact on the results from 1961 through 1964? Maybe.

While the Soviets were studying plyometrics, Dick Fosbury, without

access to the Soviet science, was reinventing the high jump. In

1968 he won the Gold medal and the US also took Silver. The Soviets

took Bronze.

How well did the Soviets fare in employing their own secrets after

1968? Well, from 1971 to 1976, Americans alone set the world record,

breaking it 4 times. Soviet plyometrics were introduced to the US in

1975 and the US has not held the world record since 1976.

In 1972, the Soviets won the Gold in the high jump, East Germany the

Silver and the US won the Bronze. In 1976, Poland won the Gold,

Canada the Silver and the US the Bronze. Seven years before being

introduced to plyometrics we won a Gold and a Silver and followed

that up in the next 8 years with four world records and two Olympic

medals. It does not sound like we needed Soviet secrets to do well.

In 1980 and 1984, the boycotts took place. In 1988, Russia won the

Gold, the US the Silver and Spain the Bronze. In 1992 Cuba won Gold,

in 1996 the US won Gold, in 2000 Russia won Gold and in 2004 Sweden

won Gold and the US won Silver. Bronze went to the Czech Republic.

The story of the long jump does not help the Soviets Secrets myth

either. Boston, Beamon, and . A steady stream of world

bests that the Soviets never came close to meeting. Ralph Boston

held most of the world records in the long jump from 1960-1965. In

1960, the US won Gold and Silver to the Soviets' Bronze. In 1964,

Great Britain won Gold, the US Silver and the Soviets the Bronze. In

1968, the US won Gold (and Beamon set the world record) and Bronze;

Great Britain won Silver. In 1972, the US again won Gold and Bronze

and Germany won Silver. In 1976, the US won Gold and Silver and Great

Britain won Bronze. 1980 and 1984 were the boycotts. The US swept the

medals in 1988 and 1992 and won Gold and Bronze in 1996. In 2000,

the medals went Cuba, Australia and Ukraine. In 2004 the US won Gold

and Silver and Spain won the Bronze.

The triple jump bounced around between Poland and the Soviets from

1960 through 1968 with Brazil and Italy also getting in the action.

In terms of world records Italy and Brazil were just about as

successful as the Soviets. Yet we never became fascinated with

Polish, Italian or Brazilian secrets. The last three world records

have been held by an American and a Brit.

The Soviets did study sports more systematically than the US. They

were the ones trying to catch up. Their work is worth studying and

applying, but its effect has been misconstrued by those in the

business of selling products based on the research. At least that

part is as American as apple pie.

Part of the belief in Soviet success stems from the hysteria that

took place when they snuck up on the world with great success as they

first started competing. Coming from a closed and secret society, it

is really not all that amazing that we did not see them coming. We

were trying to spy on their army not their sports program. Also

Olympic success became a much more serious matter during the Cold War

than before. It really should not have been that surprising that the

only other super power in the world at the time with a large

population base and an intense desire to best the US at everything,

including sports, could do well and at times outdo the US. Remember

they got Sputnik up first. Because of cultural and political

differences, they addressed sports differently than the US, but the

results on the field were not significantly different. Newspapers

just reporting medal totals did not give an accurate picture of what

was taking place.

Today we see China emerging as a sports power. No one sees this as

surprising given the size of their population and their desire to do

well. We should view the Soviet success the same way.>>

November 23, 2006

One might be critical of Rick Bruner or Ben Tabachnik, co-authors of the

book Soviet Training and Recovery Methods, but in that book Tabchnik notes

that,

since the excellent results in '72 with Olympic champion Valery Borzov, the

USSR had " produced very poor sprinters. " Tabachnik stated his views in an

article that detailed the reasons: concentration on short term success,

condition of life, facilities and equipment, and most interesting, research

hitting

a wall.

Tabachnik noted that the Soviet Union conducts more sports research than

" all the other countries in the world combined. " However, he claimed in his

article that " 80% of this research becomes unused by Soviet coaches. "

I found the following passage interesting:

" While a research institute may have 500 researchers, there are no middlemen

who are responsible for passing this information on to coaches. What is

needed is about twenty-five such people who bridge the gap between science and

practice. Does this sound familiar. It is the same thing that happens in the

USA. "

This seems to point back to the original thread: Does Sports Science

Research Influence Practice

Happy Thanksgiving to all who celebrate this day. Incidentally, the symbol

for Harvard's Concord Field Station Research Center is the trotting turkey

Ken Jakalski

Lisle HS

Lisle, IL

November 23, 2006

An acquaintance of mine emigrated from Russia. When he

was a child he was selected for the state sponsored

gymnastics program. As he tells it, this was not a

choice of his. He did not get to choose the sport he

wished to participate in, if any. He was small,

strong, and showed talent at tumbling, so his future

was picked for him. And his family did not have to pay

for this gymnastics program. Certainly this is one of

the Soviet Union's training secrets.

Mark Glatzer

New York, N.Y.

USA

--- Mick wrote:

>

> >

> > In the thread on " Does sports science research

> influence practice? "

> > there have been references to Soviet research, the

> need to understand

> > it, the claim that few in the US really do, and

> the statement that

> > Soviet plyometric research was first introduced

> into this county

> > around 1975. In all of this there is the

> implication that the

> > Soviets developed a better system that was the

> cause of their

> > performance supremacy. We have heard this all

> before in countless

> > books, tapes, seminars, etc. on " Soviet Secrets. "

> It may be good

> > marketing, but there is a problem; little of it is

> true. " Russian

> > Myths' might be a better title.

> >

> > How one defines performance is to a degree

> subjective, but one

> > measure is Olympic medals. The US has won roughly

> twice as many

> > medals in the summer Olympics as the Soviet Union.

> This is, of

> > course, due to the fact that the Soviet Union ,

> did not compete in

> > the first 11 Olympics of the modern era. It did,

> however, compete in

> > 11 of the next 12 just as the US (each country

> boycotting one) and

> > has not been in the last three. The US has won

> roughly twice as many

> > medals competing in roughly twice as many

> Olympics. If we subtract

> > the 118 Gold medals won by the US in the last

> three Olympics we find

> > that in exactly twice as many Olympics (22 to 11)

> the US won 1.79

> > times as many Gold medals. That looks pretty even

> to me, but keep in

> > mind that the early Olympics had far fewer over

> all sports (as little

> > as 8 compared to 28 in 1992, the last Olympics the

> Soviets were in).

> > There were simply not as many medals to win in the

> earlier Olympics.

> > When all of these factors are considered, I think

> it is hard to

> > conclude that the Soviets outperformed the US, but

> that has been an

> > opinion many have held for a long time.

> >

> > A lot of this may have to do with simple medal

> counts at each

> > Olympic. Take for example the 1960 Olympics in

> Rome. The Soviets won

> > 103 total medal (43 gold) to the US total of 71

> medals (34 gold).

> > Based on this, it might appear that the US lost

> out.

> >

> > However, if we look at how those medals were

> distributed, we find

> > that a lot of the Soviet Union's medals came in

> Canoeing, Cycling,

> > Fencing, Gymnastics and Water Polo, sports the US

> had (and for the

> > most part still has) little interest in. In recent

> times, rhythmic

> > gymnastics, team handball, etc were added to the

> list. On the track

> > side in 1960, we swept the men's 110 hurdles, the

> 400 meter hurdles,

> > the shot put and discus. We placed first and

> second in the men's pole

> > vault and long jump and won the decathlon and

> men's 4x400 meter

> > relay. From a track and field perspective, the US

> did just fine.

> >

> > In fact, if we compare Gold medals in track and

> field for all

> > Olympics, we find that the US has won 318 to the

> Soviets 71. This is

> > more than 4 times as many medals in track and

> field, not the 1.79

> > figure from above that includes all Olympic

> sports. On the other

> > hand, the Soviets have won 30 Gold medals in

> canoeing to our 5. They

> > clearly outperform us in canoeing, but not in

> track and field.

> >

> > During the last go around on Weyand, claims were

> made about the

> > contribution of Soviet science to the sprints. As

> pointed out then,

> > neither Soviet science or East German application

> of it made much of

> > a dent on US dominance in the sprints. To get a

> fuller picture of

> > the Soviet contribution, we should also look at

> the jumps.

> >

> > From 1961 to 1963 Valeri Brummel set 5 world

> records. His last lasted

> > until 1970. In 1960 the Soviets won the Gold and

> Silver in the high

> > jump, the US the Bronze. In 1964, the Soviets won

> the Gold, the US

> > the Silver and Bronze. Unfortunately, it was not

> until 1966- 1967

> > that Verkhoshanky and others started writing about

> the need to change

> > training methods and about depth jumps. Did this

> really have any

> > impact on the results from 1961 through 1964?

> Maybe.

> >

> > While the Soviets were studying plyometrics, Dick

> Fosbury, without

> > access to the Soviet science, was reinventing the

> high jump. In

> > 1968 he won the Gold medal and the US also took

> Silver. The Soviets

> > took Bronze.

> >

> > How well did the Soviets fare in employing their

> own secrets after

> > 1968? Well, from 1971 to 1976, Americans alone

> set the world record,

> > breaking it 4 times. Soviet plyometrics were

> introduced to the US in

> > 1975 and the US has not held the world record

> since 1976.

> >

> > In 1972, the Soviets won the Gold in the high

> jump, East Germany the

> > Silver and the US won the Bronze. In 1976, Poland

> won the Gold,

> > Canada the Silver and the US the Bronze. Seven

> years before being

> > introduced to plyometrics we won a Gold and a

> Silver and followed

> > that up in the next 8 years with four world

> records and two Olympic

> > medals. It does not sound like we needed Soviet

> secrets to do well.

> >

> > In 1980 and 1984, the boycotts took place. In

> 1988, Russia won the

> > Gold, the US the Silver and Spain the Bronze. In

> 1992 Cuba won Gold,

> > in 1996 the US won Gold, in 2000 Russia won Gold

> and in 2004 Sweden

> > won Gold and the US won Silver. Bronze went to

> the Czech Republic.

> >

> > The story of the long jump does not help the

> Soviets Secrets myth

> > either. Boston, Beamon, and . A

> steady stream of world

> > bests that the Soviets never came close to

> meeting. Ralph Boston

> > held most of the world records in the long jump

> from 1960-1965. In

> > 1960, the US won Gold and Silver to the Soviets'

> Bronze. In 1964,

> > Great Britain won Gold, the US Silver and the

> Soviets the Bronze. In

> > 1968, the US won Gold (and Beamon set the world

> record) and Bronze;

> > Great Britain won Silver. In 1972, the US again

> won Gold and Bronze

> > and Germany won Silver. In 1976, the US won Gold

> and Silver and Great

> > Britain won Bronze. 1980 and 1984 were the

> boycotts. The US swept the

> > medals in 1988 and 1992 and won Gold and Bronze in

> 1996. In 2000,

> > the medals went Cuba, Australia and Ukraine. In

> 2004 the US won Gold

> > and Silver and Spain won the Bronze.

> >

> > The triple jump bounced around between Poland and

> the Soviets from

> > 1960 through 1968 with Brazil and Italy also

> getting in the action.

> > In terms of world records Italy and Brazil were

> just about as

> > successful as the Soviets. Yet we never became

> fascinated with

> > Polish, Italian or Brazilian secrets. The last

> three world records

> > have been held by an American and a Brit.

> >

>

=== message truncated ===

Lee and Mark Glatzer

New York, NY

USA

November 23, 2006

My post did not imply a lack of Soviet contribution to

sports science. In fact, I noted that they did engage

in more research than the US at the time. That

research and/or the Soviet sports system simply did

not produce the superior results claimed by the

sellers of books, tapes, and seminars on Soviet

secrets. It is the claims by these promoters that is

the problem.

We may have a better talent pool in the sprints than

the Soviets, but Dick Fosbury and Dwight Stones were

white Americans who beat the Soviets in the high jump.

Fosbury did it at the Olympics and Stones did it in

world records.

We didn't just beat the Soviets in track and field in

the sprints. The discus and shot put are

power/strength events. From 1960 to 1972 we

outperformed the Soviets in both events at all four

Olympics winning at least a Gold or Silver medal in

each event at each Olympics. All of our medalists were

white.

Poles, Brazilians and Italians are not from African

descent, yet they roughly equalled Soviet success in

the triple jump.

Jon Haddan

Irvine, CA

November 23, 2006

I visited Russia and many eastern European countries many times

beginning in the mid 1980s. My impression was that most athletes had a

very difficult time because of their poor lifestyles. Even directors of

large institutes lived very austere lives. I wasn't impressed by their

facilities. What impressed me was their system. They were very

systematic and disciplined. Large cities like Leningrad (now St

sburg) and Moscow had more than 70 sports schools. Even drug use

was systematic. I don't think the Soviets had any secrets that were

not available in the West. They were better organized.

Dr Kalinski (professor at Kent State) was chair of Biochemistry

in Kiev. He has a copy of a secret protocol on steroids distributed to

leading sports medicine professionals in the USSR (he presented a paper

on this at ACSM about 5 years ago). Our athletes used drugs in those

days too, but it was not institutionalized the way it was in the East.

Western athletes took performance enhancing drugs on their own, based

largely on advice from other athletes and information they got from

dubious sources, such as The Underground Steroid Handbook.

They certainly did more applied sports research than we did. As we saw

from Dr. Yessis' excellent publication Soviet Sports Review, they

experimented with practical techniques to improve performance. They

also emphasized whole body training methods, while we emphasized

bodybuilding. However, my college coach track Bob Lualhati used whole

body training methods in the 1960s. He was a judo and karate black belt

and included martial arts training for power athletes. So, these

methods were used in America, even in those days.

Other countries have used good grass-roots organization to improve

performance. In 1992, I moved to Chamonix France for the school year

with my two sons (sabbatical leave). They competed on a public school

ski racing team. For $100 per child, they got a season ski pass, expert

coaching 6 days a week, ski training integrated into the school

curriculum, transportation to and from daily practices, and weekly ski

competitions in the Haute Savior.The government had an arrangement with

Rossignol to sell racing skiis to kids on French race teams at cost.

They also attended FIS meets in Italy (Trophio Toplino) and Serbia.

This system allowed kids from poor families to excel in the sport. I

am a poor professor and could never have afforded to give my kids this

experience in the USA. Sending a kid to a ski school cost as much as

going to Harvard. In the USA, the family had better have a lot of money

or it will be very difficult to be successful in downhill skiing.

We should have sports schools in the US. Our kids are largely unfit. We

have been successful because we have a high standard of living and an

incredibly large talent pool. The schools wouldn't have to sacrifice

academics for sport. They wouldn't even have to be devoted to

developing elite athletes. The curriculum would include solid

development of movement skills that became more specialized as they

aged.

Dr. D. Fahey

Dept. of Kinesiology, Exercise Physiology Laboratory

Track and Field Team

California State University, Chico

Chico, CA 95929-0330

Discusdoc@...