Ian King

A message to parents of young athletes – would you sign up for this?

/by

Imagine this. You are turning up to training 45 minutes earlier than the previous generation did. You are doing ‘dryland’ – alleged performance enhancing and injury reducing physical training. And it is degrading your body shape, increasing the severity and frequency of your injuries, and putting you out of sport, play and movement earlier than if you didn’t do it. And the performance enhancing impacts are unclear at best.

Would you sign up for this?

I would expect not. Then why are you signing your kid up for this?

I know, you don’t know any better. You trust your sports coaches, your school. You don’t know me. What I am saying it a ‘bit left field’. You don’t like what I say etc. etc.

Ignore me at your child’s peril……

I watched 10-14 year olds perform 45 minutes of dry land training before their multi-week swimming training session.

What physical risks does swimming present? Rounded and injuries shoulders, arched and sore backs. Both resulting in performance reduction.

So what will this 45 minute dry land session do to them?

I outline my thoughts below – not holding back, but at the same time not sensationalizing the matter. This is serious, and your kids are in the cross hairs.

I write this for parents of young athletes, or athletes of any age who seek to improve their understanding of optimal athlete performance programs.

I rely on concepts and analytical techniques I published from 1998 onwards in publications such as ‘How to Write Strength Training Programs’ (1998, book), ‘How to Teach Strength Training Programs’ (2000, book) – both of which are available to anyone; and DVD programs such as ‘Strength Specialization Series’ (1998, DVD) and ‘Injury Prevention & Rehabilitation Series’ (2000, DVD) – which are only available to coaches in our coach education program.

If I reduce one injury in one athlete, prevent one athlete from having surgery, extend the career of one athlete, give better quality of later life to one former athlete – my efforts are worthwhile.

Yes part of all of this message will upset, anger, offend etc. some coach or coaches somewhere – but your child is worth more than the feelings of a coach or coaches that should have made a greater effort to be better.

So let’s dive deeper into the dry land program we are using in this real world case study.

STRENGTH VS FLEXIBILITY

Let’s start with simple breakdown of time. It was 40 minutes of strength exercises, followed by 5 minutes of stretching.

If your aim was to accelerate the shortening that swimming causes to the muscle, you would be advised to do just this. 40 minutes of tissue tensioning and shortening work, and 5 minutes of tissue lengthening.

If your goal was to reduce injury and enhance performance and length their careers – you would reverse this. 40 minutes of stretching, and 5 minutes of strengthening.

Now lets talk about sequence. Strength first, flex second. If you flex first apparently, according to rumor and sketchy science, it will make you weak. So the current trend in a world that refuses to think for itself is to do it last.

Now in the real world, if you had the courage to defy conformity, and did stretching first, you would find the stretching open up your joints, free the nerves to fire, reduce the joint wear and tear. The only way to do it! But that’s just my opinion, based on near 40 years of coaching and the experience of training more athletes in one lifetime than you could imagine.

However unless you control the program, don’t hold your breath waiting for this change. Your child will be having shoulder surgery before that happens, as the dominant world trends – the reason why humans do anything including their sports training – are going the other way at them moment. Stretching is bad. Just about the only time you are going to hear your child needs to stretch is after the injury has occurred, from your physical therapist. A little too late….

UPPER BODY VS LOWER BODY VS TRUNK (Core)

If you divide the body simplistically into three sections – upper body, lower body and middle of the body (core) where should the dry land focus go?

Based on how I saw the exercises being conducted, and taking into account my interpretation of the prime mover, I observed that…

…about 12.5% of the exercises go to trunk (abdominal or core as some like to say), and these were done as the last few exercises. The trunk/core/abdominal was given by far the least focus.

….about 25% of the exercises go to upper body and these were for the most part down in the latter half of the strength session.

….about 50% of the exercises go to lower body, and these were done for the mo part in the first half of the strength session. So the lower body was given the most priority.

Now I don’t expect to dwell on the discussion of relative importance of each of these three sections of the body to swimming performance – that would take a bit more time and space, and we can get into that another time.

However I will speak without hesitation to injury prevention (or in this case, as in most cases injury creation). I suggest the neglect of the middle of the body completely unacceptable.

ABDOMINAL BALANCE

Based on the ‘Lines of Movement’ concept I first published in 1998 and now universally adopted (although rarely referenced) I identify four (4) basic lines of movement in the abdominals that generally speaking provide balance in training along with two additional, more advanced ones.

Now there were more exercises in the w0rkout that included abdominal involvement (e.g. med ball throw downs), however when they are not the primary focus, they are listed as abdominal exercises. And when they involve other muscles such as ‘planks’, they get categorized as integrated.

Essentially not only is the abdominal program under prioritizing this muscle group, what is done potentially lacks balance.

Opportunities I found Reality of this program
BASIC
1. Hip flexion

Ö
2. Trunk flexion

Ö

Ö
3. Rotation

Ö
4. Lateral Flexion

Ö
ADVANCED
5. Co-contraction glut/ab

Ö
6.   Integrated

Ö

Ö

UPPER BODY BALANCE

Based again on my ‘Lines of Movement’ concept I divided the eight (8) upper body exercises into the following lines.

Horizontal pull – 4.5

Vertical Pull – 2.5

Horizonal Pull – 1

Vertical push – 0

The part numbers came from giving a movement that shared dominance in lines of movement 0.5 points to each of the two dominant lines of movement/muscle groups.

This translates into the following table.

Percentage of lines of movement based on number of exercsies.

My recommended exercise distribution of using 8 exercises Reality of this program
Horizontal pull

50 %

15%
Vertical push

25 %

0%
Vertical pull

12.5%

30%
Horizontal push

12.5%

55%

What is the main form of upper body imbalance from most swimming strokes? Rounded and drooped shoulders. What causes this? The reliance of the majority of swimming strokes on the chest (horizontal push) and lats (vertical pull) to pull the body through the water.

What does this program do? Makes the imbalances even worse, faster. You can expect a hastened decline in posture, more injuries, more severe injuries, more surgery and a shorter career, followed by a life time of rounded shoulder…

But it doesn’t have to be this way….

And this is without getting into a discussion of relative sequence of exercises, and relative loading potential of exercises selected, the results of which would only painter a gloomier picture.

LOWER BODY BALANCE

The potentially least important muscle group (yes, it is important, and it will be dependent on stroke, style, individual swimmer) that got the most attention in this dry land training program example has it’s own imbalances.

There were a total of thirteen (13) lower body exercises, however leg swings were three of them and I have taken them out of the equation for the moment.

Based again on my ‘Lines of Movement’ concept I divided the remaining ten (10) lower body exercises into the following lines.

Hip dominant – 2

Quad dominate – 8

This translates into the following table.

Percentage of lines of movement based on number of exercises.

My generalized recommended exercise distribution using 10 exercises Reality of this program
Hip dominant

60 % (6)

20 % (2)
Quad dominant

40 % (4)

80 % (8)

What is the main form of lower body imbalance from most swimming strokes? The muscle imbalances of the lower body in a swimmer are less than the upper body challenges they face. However sore lower backs are, in my professional opinion, caused by over-used quad muscles pulling on the hips and causing the nerves of the spine to be pinched.

Now swimming in itself does not cause a large number of lower back injuries compared to upper body injury potential. However, if you were to do this kind of dry land program chronically, you would quickly find yourself facing a higher incidence of back pain and lower extremity soft tissue aggravations than you would from normal swimming alone.

Quad dominance caused physical ailments are common in many land based running sports. Now swimming is neither land based or impact, so why would you want to reproduce a potential side effect in a sport that otherwise sees relatively little of it?

And this is without getting into a discussion of relative sequence of exercises, and relative loading potential of exercises selected, the results of which would only painter a gloomier picture.

For example I teach that prioritization of the training effect is caused by three main factors – which exercise/s are done most (relative volume), which exercise are done first or in what order (sequence), and what are the relative loading potential of each exercises (if an exercise can do load, it has the potential to create greater change in the muscle. If not matched by the opposite muscle group exercise, imbalances can result).

Take relative loading potential. All the quad dominant exercises involve the squat or squat variations – the load potential and real load lifted (even if only bodyweight) is far in excess of the load potential of the two hip dominant exercises – which only involved part of the bodyweight, and by nature of the less number of joints involved, could never match the load potential of the squat exercise.

In other words if I painted the full picture, it would get even uglier….

But it doesn’t have to be this way….

SUMMARY

Sport has the potential to create many positive outcomes. What is often overlooked is the potential for sport to also create shape in the body for better or worse, long term. Mostly for the worse. The longer you play, the higher level you play, the greater the chance you take the physical downsides into the rest of your life. It doesn’t take too long or too many training sessions to commence the shaping.

We accept that about sports. It comes with it’s good and bad. However what if what we are doing in our ‘dry land’ or ‘physical preparation’ was making the physical downside worse?

In the 1990s I suggested that most physical training in sport was doing more damage than good.

In fact I believe that most injuries are actually caused by the way athletes train. The only injury acceptable is an unavoidable impact injury.   Virtually all soft tissue injuries are avoidable. But imagine that – training, during which focus is geared towards performance enhancement, may induce most injuries. Isn’t this ridiculous! [1]

In fact from my experiences and observation, the greatest effect that I have seen from most physical preparation is to detract from these five factors, not enhance it. Imagine that – training and being worse off for it. Well how do you think the athlete would feel if he/she found out! Yeah, they’re real fit – to sit in the stands in their team uniform and watch![2]

If it was introduced at about 20 years of age, and most athletes retire from competitive sport in their late twenties, the physical damage and the aging factor combined and were hidden.

But what if the training methods now, some two decades later, are just as damaging to the body as they were in the 1990s? What if they were done to kids? The kid would potentially be damaged to the point where a decade later, n their teams, they were too damaged physically to continue to play, or to continue to improve.

And in my observation, that is exactly what is happening.

When assessing the injury potential of your decisions in training today, one must look forward many years. Because few physical preparation coaches train individuals for many years continuously, they do not have the opportunity to understand the long-term implications of the training program they are implementing with the individual athlete. As a result, from my observations, most physical preparation programs do more harm than good. They may give short term results or confidence to the athlete, but result in significant performance restrictions and or injuries long term.

The more an athlete participates in physical preparation, including the younger they start in physical preparation, the greater the incidence and severity of injury. Unfortunately these injuries are being blamed away by many involved in sport as being a function of the increased demands and impact forces in ‘modern day’ sport. This to me is little more than an excuse, an exercise in putting one’s head in the proverbial sand. Quite simply, the majority of training programs are flawed from a physical preparation perspective and are causing the increased injuries. [3]

In my opinion, I repeat my comment of 20 years ago – most training does more harm than good. The only thing that has changed is now we are doing the damage to younger and younger athletes.

The below summarizes in table format how far apart my approach to what is being done by the majority.

A comparison of my generalized recommendations vs. the observed training session.

My recommendations Reality of this program
Sequence of dry land Flex then strength Strength then flex
Time allocation Flex–30m/Strength–15m Strength–40m/Flex–5m
Prioritisation of body part Middle-upper-lower Lower-upper-middle
Number of abdominal lines of movement

4-6

2
Prioritization of upper body lines of movement 1.     Horizontal pull

2.     Vertical push

3.     Vertical pull

4.     Horizontal push

 1.     Horizontal push

2.     Vertical pull

3.     Horizontal pull

4.     Vertical push
Prioritization of upper body lines of movement 1.     Hip dominant

2.     Quad dominant

 1.     Quad dominant

2.     Hip dominant

In summary, what I observed being done these young athletes and what I believe should be done is almost diametrically opposed. It would be difficult to reach more opposite conclusions. Interpretation aside, one of us is really off-track.

Question I have include – who writes these programs? What is their experience? Will they ever be held accountable for the long term impacts? Why are we doing this to our children?  Will you keep throwing your child into the ‘lion’s den’?

I was of the understanding we were to care and nurture our children, not accelerate and amplify the damage of sport….

[1] King, I., 1997, Winning & Losing, Ch 5, p. 25

[2] King, I., 1999, So you want to become a physical preparation coach, p. 30-31

[3] King, I., 2005, The way of the physical preparation coach, p. 66-67

Ian King

Stop lifting your leg!

/by

The former US NCAA Division 1 athlete started performing the exercise in their program, the single leg stiff leg deadlift, for the first time under my supervision.

As they bent forward their non-support leg began to lift backwards. I asked:

‘Why are you lifting your leg?’

They replied:

‘Because that is how I was taught to do it.’

I found this really ironic, as the exercise I originated the exercise from Australia, and now I had to correct it from American influence. I published this exercise in the from the late 1990s onwards [i] [ii] [iii] [iv] [v] [vi] [vii] [viii] [ix] [x] after a decade or so of testing.

I found it ironic but not surprising, as for nearly two decades now I have watched the bastardization of my innovation. I spend the most of the first decade post 2000 wondering how this ‘variation’ came about. How did my exercise end up being messed up so badly? Then I stumbled on the answer.

It was published in Men’s Health in 2000[xi], unreferenced and un-credited, by another ‘author’.

At the photo shoot I suspect the male model made up his own interpretation.

I understand how most photos shoots happen. The ‘author’ is rarely if ever on site. An unknown organizes the photo shoot, and the result in this case was an exercise where the subject lifted their back leg.

So the reason why the world now does this exercise with the back leg moving backwards is – because they are copying a misinterpretation done by a Men’s Health male model in a photo shoot!

A good enough reason? I don’t believe so….

Reminds me of the story about a trend in marathon runner. The story goes that Australia’s lead marathon runner in the 1982 Commonwealth Games was suffering from diarrhea as they ran. The solution they chose to reduce the embarrassment was to wipe their legs down with the face wipe cloths offered at regular intervals in the break. From watching this act, a new trend was developed – wipe your legs down with the wet face clothes.

Is this a good reason to wipe your legs down in a marathon? I don’t think so….(unless you find yourself with brown colored liquid bodily fluids running down your leg…)

So apart from the fact that the masses of coaches and trainers of the world are imitating a mistake, what is the problem with the exercise. Any movement is good movement, surely? Well, yes and no.

It’s great to be moving. However the general intent of an exercise is to fix one end of the muscle and move or stretch the other end. This makes the muscle work. When you lift your leg backwards, this stretch or strain intended for the hamstring is reduced because of the movement of the back leg. So you are doing an exercise with movement, but a significant reduction in the intended target muscle.

When you lift your back leg up it counterbalances the movement to the front, reducing the stretch and effort. When you go to stand up again, the lower of the leg back down does most of the work. It becomes more of a ballet like balance exercise than a strength exercise. For some that may be all they need, but please, stop masquerading it as a strength exercise!

Put simply you are doing less work.

Now I appreciate that not all can do this exercise full range due to lack of strength or flexibility or balance. However avoiding this challenge is not going to fix the limitations! Start with limited range, and place a premium on increasing the range progressively over time, rather than looking to increase load straightway. Just about every Google image of this exercise has a DB or similar in hand – don’t follow this! Most people cannot get range with their own bodyweight, so don’t add load until you have full range!!!

Just about every gym I go anywhere in the world I see this exercise being done, and it always reminds me of the oil well devices you see littered in the desert, where the lever is long and heavy to assist the oil to be pumped with less energy.

Now for the purists who remember the difference between a single joint and multi-joint movement, they know the single joint movement offers more isolation, and the multi-joint less. By moving the back leg you change the exercise from a (almost) single joint exercise to a double joint exercise.

Now I don’t expect to reverse this mistaken exercise option. It has gone too far. It’s been published without thought by too many well-marketed US ‘gurus’, especially as a key ‘functional’ exercise.

However, for those who would prefer to exercise for a reason better than copying the confusion of a male model at a US photo shoot….here is how I originally intended for you to do this exercise:

Single Leg standing Stiff Legged Deadlift: Let the fun begin! Stand on one leg – have the other foot off the ground, but kept roughly parallel with the leg doing the supporting. Bend the knee slightly, but that knee angle should not change during the exercise (get a partner to watch for this, as it will be tempting to do so!). Now bend at the waist, allowing the back to round and reach slowly towards the floor. If your range allows, touch the floor with the fingertips and return to the starting position. Use a speed of 3 seconds down, 1 sec pause at the ends, and 3 seconds up.

 You may struggle with balance, but persist – you will be developing the muscles in the sole of the foot! The first time you do this you may find you are touching down with the non-supporting foot regularly to avoid falling over. This is ok, but in later workouts, try to minimize this. When you have mastered this exercise, and touching of the ground by the non-supporting leg means terminate the set – this is your challenge.

Don’t be surprised if you can only do 5 reps on day 1! Look to increase the reps from workout to workout. Hold light DB’s in your hand ONLY when you get to 10 reps at the speed indicated. No warm up set necessary.   Remember the weak side rule.

Here’s what it should look like, performed by dual Olympian and Gold medalist (2000)!

The top position

The bottom position

Need more clarity?

Unfortunately a few select individuals in the US thought it was okay to publish this exercise innovation without reference or credit. And created a highly marketed mis-interpretation of my exercise.

So what makes me think the ‘author’ of this Men’s Health article was ‘copying’? Maybe it was their email…

From: name withheld  Sent: Saturday, 4 December 1999 5:18 AM To:kingsports@b022.aone.net.au Subject: Re: Between Sets Newsletter #6

Ian, …It’s funny ‐ I have bben doing your t‐mag leg workouts ( the first two). It seems such as hort workout a.. this is done in a half an hour. But ‐ the pain !!!!!!!!!!!! You weren’t kidding ‐ it is a deep muscle soreness ‐ real intense. Interstingly it is a great workout to introduce females to weigth lifting and training. (A lot of them are scared to lift heavy) Keep them coming…
‐name withheld

Maybe it was the way they re-publishing my content verbatim in multiple ‘publications’….[xii]

Single leg standing stiff leg deadlift: Stand on one leg – have the other foot off the ground, but kept roughly parallel with the leg doing the supporting. Bend the knee slightly, but that knee angle should not change during the exercise (get a partner to watch for this, as it will be tempting to do so!). Now bend at the waist, allowing the back to round and reach slowly towards the floor. If your range allows, touch the floor with the fingertips and return to the starting position.

The first time you do this you may find you are touching done with the non-supporting foot regularly to avoid falling over. This is ok, but in later workouts, try to minimise this. When you have mastered this exercise, touching of the ground by the non-supporting leg means terminate the set – this is your challenge.

Not even a conversion from Australian spelling to US spelling, or editing of the grammar or layout! Just a straight (one of thousands) cut and paste. So yes, the Men’s Health submission was an un-credited, unreferenced submission.

A ‘breakthrough’ in later years – same description, but a name change for the exercise![xiii] [xiv]

Single Leg Romanian Deadlift: Stand on one leg – have the other foot off the ground, but kept roughly parallel with the leg doing the supporting. Bend the knee slightly, but that knee angle should not change during the exercise (get a partner to watch for this, as it will be tempting to do so!). Now bend at the waist, allowing the back to round and reach slowly towards the floor. If your range allows, touch the floor with the fingertips and return to the starting position.

It’s tough to watch an otherwise potentially intelligent species of animal blindly follow a misinterpretation. And its tough to watch the potential of this exercise I developed over years be diluted to look like and exercise when it’s not really doing much.

So unless you think it a worthy use of your training to copy a misinterpreted Men’s Health snippet, STOP LIFTING YOUR LEG!

Returning to the NCAA athlete who received a much-needed correction in exercise interpretation, I asked:

‘So how did you feel about the exercise when you were throwing your leg back?’

To which they replied:

‘Well actually, I could feel the exercise doing anything, and I didn’t understand why I was doing it. I did ask the strength coach, but their answer just didn’t add up’.

Mmm. not surprising. At least some human beings are in touch with their intuition…

The key is this – if you have read this you have been given a chance to stop lifting your leg, hold it parallel to the other, foot just off the ground, and get a real workout – the way it was intended!

[i] King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series King Sports International, Brisbane, Aust. (DVD)

[ii] King, I., 1998, Strength Specialization Series, King Sports International, Brisbane. (Audio)

[iii] King, I., 1998, How To Write Strength Training Programs: A Practical Guide, King Sports Publishing, Brisbane, Aust. (Book)

[iv] King, I., 1999, Ian King’s Killer Leg Exercises, t-mag.com (DVD)

[v] King, I., 1999, 12 Weeks of Pain – Limping into October – Pt 1, t-mag.com, 17 Sep 1999. (Article)

[vi] King, I., 1999, Get Buffed!™, 1st Ed., King Sports Publishing, Bris. Aust. (Book)

[vii] King, I., 2000, How To Teach Strength Training Exercises, King Sports Publishing, Brisbane, Aust. (Book)

[viii] King, I., 2000, How To Teach Strength Training Exercises, King Sports International, Brisbane, Aust. (DVD)

[ix] King, I., 2000, Make your legs soar, Men’s Health, November, p. 28-29. (Article)

[x] King, 2001, Advanced Leg Training: Stage 1, Fri, Jan 19, 2001

[xi] Single leg deadlift, Men’s Health, June 2000

[xii] ‘Authors’ name withheld to reduce drawing attention to plagiarists, 2003, Marcocycle, CA USA

[xiii] ‘Authors’ name withheld to reduce drawing attention to plagiarists, 2005, Program Design Bible, CA USA.

[xiv] ‘Authors’ name withheld to reduce drawing attention to plagiarists, The Female Breakthrough, xxx.

Ian King

There is a better way – Part 3: I don’t notice you

/by

In the second phase of the game, only a minute or so in, one of the players successfully bumped off the attempted tackle of an opponent. The attacking player whooped so loudly you could hear him a mile away. The celebration continued for another minute. This is a real live, 2017 example, in a state level talent identified player, playing club sport.

This player’s team lost that game by about 40 points.

This was not, and is not an isolated incident. In the team this young athlete plays in, more celebration is given to individual achievement that team success, although in fairness they have no team success. Or perhaps because of the allowed behavior they have no team success.

There was a time, and still is in the winners in the world of team sports, when the scoreboard did all the talking. However this changed with the focus on individual achievement as a form of performance measurement. The collation and distribution of individual’s player game statistics in team sports may have been the turning point.

In Australian team sports, this change towards a greater focus on individual player game stats became apparent in the late 1990s. In American it would have been a decade or so earlier.

What has been the impact of this increased focus on individual player game statistics on team performance? Suffice to say, any team that fails to control and keep in context this aspect of the game will not be a championship team.

The aim of this article is to provide an introductory insight for coaches into developing the most fundamental key to success in team sports.

The first step

The fundamental first step in determining tactics in team sports is the decision to commit to playing as a team. Now I understand this sounds so obvious you may wonder why I bother mentioning it. I wish I didn’t have to. However the reality of my observations is that tragically this fundamental concept has become lost in coaching practice.

The first step is to decide, as a coach or player, where your commitment to this concept. Do you plan to embrace and execute team first tactics, or individual first tactics?

Now it’s one thing for a player to choose to prioritize their individual game statistics over the team outcome. You could expect that in a world where selfishness and instant gratification are growing trends. However players should not be dictating team culture. Yes, many would like to, and many do attempt to. In the ideal world the team culture is the responsibility of the coach. So what happens to a team where the coach fails to negatively reinforce selfish behavior, or worse, promotes selfish behavior by act or omission? Lack of team success, epidemic in team sport globally.

To clarify the values of the coach in the example where the team prioritizes the individual ‘big hits’, a few weeks after the incident described in the opening paragraph, the coach was heard to say in the half-time speech – at time the team was down about 33-5:

“Now its time to do well as individuals.”

That was this coach’s solution to success in team sport, after giving up on their best efforts team tactics (which were really an extremely sub-standard team approach, more an individual approach pretending to be team). So whilst the concept of team-based tactic as the first step sounds obvious, it apparently is not to what I suggest is the majority of coaches.

The fact that the team in this case study was a losing outfit (finishing in the bottom half of the ladder) is a coaching failure, not a player failure. Yes, we could blame the player/s, however the athletes relying on the wisdom of their elders, their coaches.

The second step

The second step in team-first tactics is to have the ability to identify characteristics of team play, and to positively reinforce them.

Let’s assume a coach at least in theory embraces team-based values. Do they have the skill-set to identify the desired characteristics? We actually need to take it back even one step further – do they even know from a left-brain recall perspective the top five to ten characteristics of team based values tactically speaking? Without at first a theoretical understanding, there is no chance of developing unconscious competence!

The young male athlete came off the basketball court hoping for some encouraging words from his coach in the post game debrief. What he got was the comment

“I don’t notice you out there on the court.”

Wow! Without going into the power of words as it relates to coaching and empowering athletes, this comment revealed a lot about the coach.

So the basketball coach that told the young player that they didn’t notice them out there was, I suggest, another coach doomed for the scrap heap of non-fulfillment, because they were looking at the individual stats, not the scoreboard,

Absolutely, the player’s individual game statistics were not setting the world on fire. But what if the player was one of the dying breed of players whose primary focus was on put team before individual, to do things to to enhance team success as measured on the scoreboard at the expense of looking good individually?

Let me help the coach out with this insight into understanding how players impact the momentum of the game and the scoreboard, irrespective of their individual players statistics. I analyzed three games played by this basketball team in question prior to this disempowering yet enlightening comment by the coach. This it as a great example of a teaching opportunity in the area of coach education, specifically tactical development!

I divided all periods of play into periods of when the player chastised for not being ‘noticeable’ was on the court, and when this player was off the courts. Let’s give this player the code name ‘Player H’. Player H was averaging about 45-50% court time, never starting a game.

Total periods Win Loss Draw
H OFF 12 1 9 2
Averages 8% 75% 17%
Av Points Differential 2 -5 0
H ON 11 4 5 2
Averages 36% 45% 18%
Av Points Differential 3.25 -3% 0

There were 11 periods of play over three game when Player H was ON the court, and 12 periods of play over these three games when Player H was OFF the court. Note this team has not won a game, trial or regular season. The season is 7 games long.

So what do the TEAM stats – as measured by the scoreboard – tell us about Player H’s contribution?

  • When Player H is ON the court, 36% (4) of the playing periods are won by his team. When player H is OFF the court, 8% (1) of the playing periods are won by his team.
  • When Player H is ON the court 45% (5) of the playing periods are lost by his team, compared to 75% (9) when Player H is OFF the court.
  • There is no statistical difference in relation to drawn points periods when Player H is ON (17%) or OFF (18%) the court.
  • The average wining margin of playing periods won when Player H is ON the court is 3.25, compared to the average winning margin of 2 when Player H is off the court.
  • The average losing margin of players periods lost when Player H is ON the court is -3 and the average losing margin for lost playing periods when Player H is OFF the court is -5.

So the court didn’t notice Player H when he was on the court? This is a classic example of coaches failing to understand the impact individual players have on TEAM performance. Failing to understand how individual players contribute to team success is a guarantee to fail as a coach in team sports. Failing to reinforce a TEAM based culture and tactics. And failing on the scoreboard as well.

Additionally, what impact did these words from the coach have on the player? The athletes unsolicited comment:

“With a statement like that, I really want to play for that coach….”

Yes, that was sarcasm used by the young athlete. Cumulatively, the comment contributed to the young athlete questioning whether to continue playing that sport for that institution. How does this help anyone? Not the player, not the institution represented, not the sport. Oh, and not the coach.

So what do you think Coach? Has this helped you notice the ‘Player H’s’ when they are on the court now?

The third step

The third step is to possess the coaching skill-set (as a coach) or influence (as a player) to successfully create this tactical foundation and culture.

When I am coaching new teams and I see this behavior I call it out for what it is – selfish; and provide instant negative reinforcement for it. It is an epidemic in sport that makes it so easy to win in team sports for those coaches and team who understands the value of a TEAM first culture, and have the courage and skillset to implement it.

Let’s assume in the case study presented at the start of this article the coach was committed to team-value based tactics (which we know is not correct). What should or could they have done about this display of individual-centric values by this young athlete?

One solution would have been to ‘drag’ (take off the field, counsel) the player immediately and given them a solid insight into why that behavior is unacceptable and inappropriate. That is, if it had to get that far. These values should have been clarified in the first few weeks of a new team assembling, during training. The clarification of team values is arguably THE MOST IMPORTANT act a coach can do to establish success.

So how can you readily identify TEAM based cultures and tactics vs individual-centric team cultures and tactics? Simply watch when a player passes the ball –did the player pass the ball as a first option, or as a last option, when they have exhausted all their own options?

Therefore how to do you change team tactics to a team-value based culture? Conduct drills and provide positive reinforcement verbally to unselfish play, where the player’s decision making reflects the internal question of ‘what would be best for the team?’

I understand that the greatest challenge for any coach seeking to implement this is that the team performance may suffer in the learning phase. This short term loss will be more than off-set by the long term rewards for having a team-value tactical culture.

In my experience implementing this tactical strategy, the key is initially to reward to process (e.g. of passing as the first option, not the last option) over the outcome. Yes, the parents on the side of the field will be critical because their ‘Young Johnny’ could have scored had he been selfish, or the team could have ‘won today’ had he been selfish. Perhaps the pass was dropped, and the score did not occur. Or perhaps the team lost. What astounds me is all the lip service given to ‘long-term athlete development’. This concept is NOT JUST RELEVANT to physical development (although I suggest most coaches who talk about this fail to develop this physical anyway but that is another discussion) – it also relates to technical (skill), tactical (tactics) and psychological development. Not just also – probably more importantly!

Historic influences on this individual-centric team value

So where did this player driven and coach accepted inappropriate behaviors evolve? In this discussion, we will look beyond the obvious human trait temptation of selfishness and meeting individual needs.

In Australian team sports, this change towards a greater focus on individual player game stats became apparent in the late 1990s. In American it would have been a decade or so earlier.

The advent of individual statistics in a team sport, supported by ‘strength and conditioning’ programs offering short term gain for long term loss, have been two forces most coaches either lack the wisdom to see through, or simply lack the understanding to decipher the information. If a coach fails to correctly identify the common denominators between winning and losing, they will never fulfill their potential as a coach. Sadly, from my observation over the last four decades, this fate awaits the majority of them.

I have seen many school sporting cultures where ‘young Jonny’ will never pass the ball, because he believes (and his belief is continuously reinforced by coach and parents behavior) that if he does things that make him look good, he will receive accolades. Forget about the scoreboard. As long as ‘young Jonny’ looks good!

This is where ‘strength and conditioning’ post the late 1990s in Australian sport has come to lend a hand. The short-term benefit available to all young athletes is that they can gain the equivalent of a year of two of physical maturation in one off-season in the gym. This means that they can make those extra meters in contact, make the big hits, look better statistically and attract the attention of the uneducated observer.

What suffers? Team work. Team success. When ‘young Jonny’ tucks the ball under his arm in rugby, one thing becomes very evident – he is not going to pass the ball! It doesn’t matter if there was an overlap or a extra man, ‘young Jonny’ is going to hold onto that ball.

Conclusion

I suggest that any act or omission by a coach that reinforces individual centric values and tactics in team sport dooms that team to failing to fulfill their potential. Based on my observations, I suggest two things:

  1. The majority of coaches in the current landscape lack the value of or the ability to identify and correct team-value tactics and culture.
  2. The trend has and will continue to move away from team-value tactics and culture.

For example, what we have now, say in Australian rugby, are a team full of ‘young Jonny’s’ who either do not possess the skill set to run and pass at the same time, or who choose not to pass. Watch any game of rugby union in Australia, from kids to the national team, and you will see a number of passes per phase that would average below two. You could be forgiven for thinking you were watching 1970’s rugby league, in an era when the skills were low and the physicality was all that was on offer.

I use rugby union as example; however all team sports have suffered the same fate. I often wonder why the majority of these sporting events are called team sports. The majority of male players in Australian team sports are clearly committed to demonstrating their physical superiority over the opponent, with little regard for team outcome.

On the flip side, winning in team sport has never been easier, because most coaches and team fail at the fundamental tactical development step. Imagine how many other steps they fail at?!

So what is the solution? Coach education. Not just the theory of coaching. The education must include the ‘art’ of coaching. And who by? Coaches with personal mastery, not ‘coaches’ with theoretical knowledge only.  What are the chances of this happening? Not high. What will happen to those athletes, coaches, sports, countries or teams that do follow this? Great things.

Another reason why success in sport is so easy. So few will ever take the steps that result in success. So a great coach in a great sport has really very little competition.

 

Note:

For those athletes and coaches who are concerned about the direction of training and want to believe there is a better way – congratulations. There is a better way. We have spend the last four decades discovering better ways to train, and we teach these better ways when we work with athletes or coaches. The KSI Coaching Program aims to provide you with the tools to train athletes and others in their highest and best interests, with no interest in what the dominant trend is or will be in the future. Learn more about KSI Coach Education here https://kingsports.net/courses/

Ian King

The decline of Australian sporting performances

/by

Australia’s sports performances are in decline.  Yes, it’s a generalization, and if this is not the case in your sport, I am happy for you. However. to showcase this suggestion, I have selected five sports or sporting events that possess a proud and long history of international dominance or success. Sports interwoven in the Australian cultural psyche. And then, more importantly, I will address the question why I believe this is happening.

The five sports or sporting events I will reflect upon include swimming, tennis, rugby union, cricket and the Summer Olympic Games.

The recent World Swimming Championships gave Australia, a proud swimming nation, the lowest gold medal count since the 1980s:

“The medal tally of the world swimming championships just concluded in Budapest makes disturbing reading for an Australian …Australia’s gold medal count may have slumped at this event, but on total medals Australia are still equal second with Russia and China. All trail far in the wake of the sport’s only superpower, the USA (38).

However the gold standard is gold medals and by that score Australia have not sunk so low since the 1980s.”[1]

Australian tennis is in a slump. That’s the title of a recent national newspaper article.[2] The article discussed the recent Wimbledon Grand Slam performance by Australian tennis players:

“The Canberran led Australia’s nine-player contingent at the All England Club, with only qualifier Arina Rodionova advancing to the second round.

Kyrgios’s opening-round retirement with hip injury, coupled with difficult draws, meant there were no Australian men in the second round here for the first time since 2012 and only the second time since 1938.”

In the top 100 men’s world ranking Australia has currently only three players. [3]

In rugby union Australia is currently ranked number four in the world. Whilst a slide from say second to fourth or even third to fourth seems minimal, it represents a significant decline in the nations world ranking. Australia hit its low point in 2015 with ranking of 6th, and is currently sitting in 4th. Not acceptable for a team that sat in 2nd place for most of the first decade of this century.

To reinforce this point, at a provincial level, if the guaranteed finals appearance to a conference winner was removed, Australia may not have had a team in the eight-team finals in the last two years.

In Test cricket, Australia has had more months in number one sport in the ICC world rankings than any other team since the inception of this measurement method in 2003. However Australia test cricket current sits at third place, a long way behind South Africa (2nd) and India (1st), with only a slender lead over England, New Zealand, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. [4]

What about Olympic Games performances? At end of the 2016 Sumer Olympic Games in Rio, Australia was ranked in tenth position on the medal table with a total of 29 medals (8 gold, 11 silver, and 10 bronze). This was Australia’s lowest medal tally and lowest rank since the 1992 Olympics.[5] Australia peaked at the 2000 Sydney Olympics with 58 medals in total, and has declined in a linear fashion every Summer Games since.[6]

So what’s behind this pattern of decline? Everyone’s got an opinion, however few have participated and observed professional sport at the elite level for nearly forty years as I have. My suggestions will be dismissed by most, and benefitted by few.

Understand this – misinterpret the cause-effect relationship for losing, and you will fail to win. That’s why it’s so easy to dominate in sport – few are on track with their interpretation and solutions. Everyone’s got an opinion, few are qualified by track record as measured by the scoreboard to give them.

I believe that in the top three reasons why Australian sport is in decline is the way physical preparation is being implemented in this country. Let me give you some history.

The word ‘strength and conditioning’ is an American term, coined in 1981 by the then National Strength Coaches Association of America, who following their 1978 origin, realized they wanted to add something more to the title than strength. This belated lip service didn’t and hasn’t changed anything.

The NSCA was begun for college strength coaches who were involved in American football, that is ‘gridiron’. Whether is it optimal for this sport is another question, however few athletes in that sport run far enough to find out their muscle imbalance, and even fewer touch the ball to find out their technical limitations.

I suggest, after many decades of observation and involvement, that the original intent of the NSCA has not changed, and that the training method proposed are not suitable to the majority of sports.

So in 1988 the NSCA came to Australia. How do I know? Because I was part of it’s inception. However up until about the mid 1990’s there was less than five (yes, 5) people employed full time in this industry. Which meant the impact of the arrival of this American influence was very, very limited.

This all changed in the late 1990s, and into the 2000s. Now, post 2010, nearly every high school in the country (as in the US) has its own ‘S&C’ program, and most private high schools have their own in-house ‘S&C’ coach. Every teenage talent-identification program, every late teens/early twenties development squad, and every elite and professional squad have their own service providers and programs. In fact, in most private high schools, about 50% of the total training time is given to ‘S&C’ activities, and failure or refusal of the young athletes to participate in these dubious activities results in non-selection.

Australia now has twenty plus (20+ years, 1995 to present) of formal, compulsory American ‘strength and conditioning’ influenced programs. Now the impact is being felt.

So what are some of the reasons I am adamant that the sporting decline in this country is due to the way physical preparation is being done, and laying most of this at the feet of the ‘strength and conditioning’?

In tennis all national programs have ‘strength and conditioning’ compulsory from the age of 12 years upwards. In my observations and from my discussions with players and coaches, about 80% of all these young athletes are injured at any one time such that their ability to train and play pain free is compromised. Stress fractures of the lumbar are common place prior to the age of 16 years, and surgery involving shaving of the hip is rising at a rate where the statistics are looking like over 50% of the elite nationally ranked tennis players in Australia will have this surgery during their career.

Quite simply, most elite talent identified tennis players in this country will have surgery prior to the age of 20 years (more likely 18 years), and will be forced into retirement due to their physical inability to play the game by or prior to the age of 24 yrs.

Currently Australia has three top 100 world ranked men’s players, and at least two of these cannot complete tournaments currently due to serious, chronic injuries (Bernard Tomic and Nick Kyrgios). Tomic (ranked 93) is 24 and Kyrgios (ranked 20) is 22 years of age. Jordan Thompson (ranked 75) is 23 years of age. No Australian player in the top 100 men’s world ranking is over 24, and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

On the basis of my hypothesis, Tomic at 24 years of age, is on the verge of fading out of the top 100. His ranking movement supports my hypothesis.

Now for rugby. The majority of talent identified young rugby players (>50%) will have surgery before they are twenty years of age. At least 25% will have surgery before they graduate from high school. The average number of surgery for a rugby player who plays into his late 20’s is about five.

Let me make this very clear – NO-ONE plays optimal sport on the background of surgery. It is physically impossible. There is a whole arm of medical and paramedical people really enjoying this situation. But the players are not benefitting.

I began preparing athletes in all these sports at the elite level in the 1980s, and have been involved in coach education at a state, national and overseas level from the early 1990s. I have a number of decades of involvement, contribution and participation. I have witnessed these changes first hand. This is not theory. You can argue it’s not science, but you can also put your head in the sand and say it’s not happening.

The trajectory is downwards. I have grave concerns for the physical (and mental) health of Australian athletes moving forward. Additionally, whilst I don’t advocate litigation in sport, the glaring failure of the duty of care by sporting bodies, institutions and schools towards the athletes in their care may only be addressed as a result of a civil suite.

In the 1980s strength training was an element of athletic preparation that was missing. The content that is being provided in ‘strength and conditioning’ in Australia, is in my opinion, inappropriate. Grossly inappropriate. Further exacerbation of the negative impact this training is having on sports performance is that it is taking the place of training that is far more valuable and important to long term athlete development – such as skill (technical) development.

In closing, is this just an Australian issue? No, I suggest, based on the Australian case study, that any nation will suffer the impacts of their nationalized application of American influence ‘strength & conditioning’ after if not before the 20 years anniversary.

I believe for example that the United Kingdom was about a decade behind Australia in embracing ‘strength & conditioning’. UK sport is currently out-performing Australian sport. In swimming, the media recognize that England is now ahead of Australia in swimming.

“The Brits are now better at swimming than Australia. Yes, you read that right.

The medal tally of the world swimming championships just concluded in Budapest makes disturbing reading for an Australian. Occasionally we have to accept that England will win the Ashes and the English rugby team will triumph but our superiority in swimming was a constant, until now.

A nation that has less than a dozen Olympic pools and is the world’s leading creator of head-up breaststrokers has been more successful at this year’s major championship than one bathed in sunshine most of the year round and, well, swimming in facilities.” [7]

In rugby England and Ireland are ranked ahead of Australia in current world rankings, and Scotland and Wales are not far behind.[8]

Rank Team Points
1  New Zealand 94.78
2  England 90.14
3  Ireland 85.39
4  Australia 84.63
5  South Africa 84.16
6  Scotland 82.47
7  Wales 81.73

In cricket England is only one close place behind Australia:[9]

•   ICC Test Championship
Rank Team Matches Points Rating
1  India 32 3925 123
2  South Africa 26 3050 117
3  Australia 31 3087 100
4  England 34 3362 99

And in tennis the UK have the same number of top 100 men’s tennis players as does Australia (3) however their rankings average is far superior to Australia. And they have players older than 24 years of age in this category, unlike Australia.

So this suggests to me that at around 2025 the UK may seem the same sporting decline Australia has, as at that point they will have had twenty or more years of American influenced ‘strength & conditioning’. Now I cannot say if they have applied this training to the teenage athletes in the same ‘enthusiastic’ and compulsory way that Australia has, however I suspect they may have.

What few appear to understand is that there are many ways to gain short-term advantage in sport, however few of these have long term advantages.

For example it is very easy to take a teenage athlete and accelerate the physical maturation process through say strength training, which is basically what ‘strength & conditioning’ is, despite the belated addition and presence of the word ‘conditioning’. So you can take a 14 year old and turn them in to the equivalent of a 17 year old on the following season. However there are many shortcomings with this, not the least the absence of high-level skill development, that will result in long term deficiencies. There is also the muscle imbalances that typically result from the poorly designed strength training programs that are epidemic in sport. So what looks good at the twelve-month mark sours quickly a few years later.

The failure to take a long-term approach to athlete preparation is a key factor in the decline of sports performance.

So why is not affecting the origin country? My hypothesis is at odds with the US dominance in world sport. I have battled with this question also. Here is my conclusion to date. America is blessed with a high population of what I call ‘load resistant’ athletes. A population of 300 plus million plus the gene pool of the whole world to recruit from. The question I also ask is ‘How good could America be if it had to optimize training, instead of getting by on its gene pool?’

So what are Australian sports doing about this decline? It’s early days and I don’t want to limit the possibilities. I will say this however – are they going to recognize the factors I do? Do they have the courage to make the changes to reverse these trends? These are the big questions. I could tell you what I think is going to happen (my coaching experience talking here), however I am going to remain open minded and optimistic (the humanitarian in me!).

However I can only guarantee that the challenge I have highlighted will be overcome and reversed by teams and individuals who share my vision and values on how to train athletes. Will that be you?

Note:

For those athletes and coaches who are concerned about the direction of training and want to believe there is a better way – congratulations. There is a better way. I have spend the last four decades discovering better ways to train, and we teach these better ways when we work with athletes or coaches. The KSI Coaching Program aims to provide you with the tools to train athletes and others in their highest and best interests, with no interest in what the dominant trend is or will be in the future. Learn more about KSI Coach Education here https://kingsports.net/courses/

References

[1] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/olympics/brits-are-now-better-at-swimming-than-australia/news-story/64f60fb04fdd0282ce057ee48b78c2ef

[2] http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/wimbledon-2017-australian-tennis-in-a-slump-with-only-nick-kyrgios-ranked-in-the-world-top-20/news-story/282426075bd0d235215433b9f07f2930

[3] http://www.espn.com/tennis/rankings

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_Test_Championship

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics

[6] http://www.topendsports.com/world/countries/australia/events/olympics/medals.htm

[7] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/olympics/brits-are-now-better-at-swimming-than-australia/news-story/64f60fb04fdd0282ce057ee48b78c2ef

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Rugby_Rankings

[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_Test_Championship

Ian King

There is a better way – Part 2: Don’t look to ‘strength & conditioning’ to get your skill development

/by

In the late 1980s a European coach brought me a North American winter sport gliding athlete and told me that the athlete lacked certain skills and asked that I create them in the gym. I did my best to keep a straight face, assuming that this was an isolated case and I would not likely face too many conversations of this nature. Unfortunately the reverse has occurred. The world has moved further towards the belief that the North American ‘strength and conditioning’ movement will solve all athletic problems. It won’t. Rather, it’s creating them.

To place this message in context, let’s get on common ground with vernacular. Influenced by the seminal works of Hungarian turned Canadian Tudor Bompa, I divide athlete development into four categories – technical, tactical, physical and psychological.   How important is technical or skill development? Not only do I rank it number one, the timing is critical. There is a possibility that the window of adaptation is highest at the younger ages and closes over time.

How do we develop skill? By rehearsing the specific skill. I mean the SPECIFIC skill, whether taught in part or whole. How many times has the athlete executed the skill in the training session? How many times has the athlete executed the skill in their career to date?

What I am NOT referring to is the use of ‘apparently’ specific exercises to develop the skill.

There are optimal strategies of skill development that progress the athlete from non-intense to more intense execution, from non-stressful to higher stress execution, from low volume to higher volume execution and so on. Failure to optimally implement skill develop impedes skill develop.

However one of the greatest killers of skill development in western world sport is the imbalance between technical (skill) development and physical development (read ‘strength and conditioning’ if that helps). With the continual lowering of the age at which young athletes are expected to join physical preparation programs, this alone is reducing their skill development. There was a time in the North America (probably in the 1960 ad 1970s) and in Australia and New Zealand (the 1970s and 1980s) where there were no formal ‘srength and conditioning services’ provided to the young athletes. I suggest these times were more balance in their time allocation relative speaking to skill development.

I predict that in the decades to come we will have ‘strength and conditioning’ programs in primary schools (ages 6-12 years), and I imagine this process may have begun. I suggest this will contribute to a further decline in skill development.

Physical preparation coaches are not taught, by and large, how to teach sports skills, nor are they taught how to balance the time and energy development of the four areas of athlete development. They are taught a narrow content of ‘this is how you do strength and conditioning’. Unfortunately sports coaches for the most part are no better educated, and have accepted the handover to the ‘strength and conditioning’ coach.

I have seen many examples where a teenage athlete will spend as much time in the gym as they will in their technical AND tactical development. This is not consistent with my interpretation of their relative needs.

What I do readily acknowledge is that the early advancement of the physical qualities gives athletes and coaches the perception of superiority over their opponents, in the same way an earlier maturing athlete feels superior to his less developed yet same ages peers in sport. However this short-term elation almost always gives way to the disappointment of the realization that the long term limiting performance factor is the skill development.

To guide you in the first instance, I suggest that ‘physical development should not exceed skill development’. At least not until you believe that athlete needs no further improvement in skill. Because once they default to physical dominance, it is less likely that further skill development will result.

Not only is the western world spending too much time in the strength training gym, there is also an unfounded believe that to have a ‘tool’ in the hand of the athlete will provide superior results in skill development. For example, you do not have to have resistance bands in your hand to optimize skill development. In fact, for the most part, doing so will impair skill development.

A long forgotten tenant of skill development is the caution towards the use of external loading to develop a skill based sport adaptation. The challenge with this is the reality that if athlete may modify the actual technique that should be developed to a modified technique aimed at overcoming or dealing with the external load. The key to any application of external load in a skill development drill is the wisdom to know how little volume you need to get an adaptation, and what the threshold of volume would be that might result in an inappropriate adaptation. This level of coaching wisdom is rarely found. In the interim I suggest you stay away from it.

To give a very specific example, the development of the ability of a number 2 in rugby union to throw a ball accurately into a lineout does not (and I suggest for the most part should not) require the use of resistance tubing. Rather I would prefer to see higher volume skill training, supported at an appropriate time with low volume non-specific strength training (when I say non-specific I mean not as specific as mimicking the action) at an appropriate time in their development. Yes there are a number of subjective comments in this guidance, such is the ‘art’ of coaching.

Ideally I would like to see a shift back towards the prioritization of skill development, and the reduced exposure of all athletes, and in particular the young athlete, for formal ‘dryland’ or ‘strength and conditioning’ training. What is happening is not good enough, and the athlete is paying the price. The good news is there is a better way. The question remains – will you go there?

 

Note:

For those athletes and coaches who are concerned about the direction of training and want to believe there is a better way – congratulations. There is a better way. I have spend the last four decades discovering better ways to train, and we teach these better ways when we work with athletes or coaches. The KSI Coaching Program aims to provide you with the tools to train athletes and others in their highest and best interests, with no interest in what the dominant trend is or will be in the future. Learn more about KSI Coach Education here https://kingsports.net/courses/

 

Ian King

There is a better way – Part 1: Why are you ignoring the message from Tom Brady, Kevin Durant, and Novak Djokovic?

/by

More athletes are having their athleticism destroyed, their careers shortened, and their long term quality of life threatened because of they way they are being trained than ever before in my lifetime.  The athlete training world has lost the plot.  Not concerned or don’t buy into this statement?  Then you don’t read any further.  There’s heaps of more valuable articles on the internet for you to read, such as how to create hypertrophy in the absence of skills, or the exact liquid temperature to consume your glutamine in the absence of any focus on foundational nutrition…For those that resonate with my concerns, I invite you to stay with me.

Is that my opinion or is it a scientific fact? It’s my opinion. Now those who don’t know or don’t appreciate (or don’t want to do either for various reasons) the depth of experience training athletes or track record in identifying limiting factors in sports training and performance and innovating solutions that have led to this opinion – you may be forgiven for discarding my opinion.

However before you disregard my conclusions on the state of athletic preparation, I want you know you are also disregarding the opinion of a couple of athletes that have also to train differently to what most are doing – Tom Brady, Kevin Durant and Novak Djokovic.

The way we train athletes does more harm than good. That’s the message I have been sharing since the 1990s. And it is not just getting worse. It is reaching diabolical standards.

In fact I believe that most injuries are actually caused by the way athletes train.  The only injury acceptable is an unavoidable impact injury.   Virtually all soft tissue injuries are avoidable.  But imagine that – training, during which focus is geared towards performance enhancement, may induce most injuries.  Isn’t this ridiculous! [1]

In fact from my experiences and observation, the greatest effect that I have seen from most physical preparation is to detract from these five factors, not enhance it.  Imagine that – training and being worse off for it.  Well how do you think the athlete would feel if he/she found out!  Yeah, they’re real fit – to sit in the stands in their team uniform and watch![2]

…from my observations, most physical preparation programs do more harm than good. They may give short term results or confidence to the athlete, but result in significant performance restrictions and or injuries long term…. Quite simply, the majority of training programs are flawed from a physical preparation perspective and are causing the increased injuries. [3]

For those not familiar with these three athletes who share my opinion, allow me to provide a quick bio. Tom Brady is the most successful quarter back in American Football history with five Super Bowl Championship rings.  Kevin Durant just won his first championship ring with the Golden State Warriors in the NBA.  And Novak Djokovic has been dominating men’s tennis internationally during the ten years, frequently occupying the coveted No 1 world ranking. He is considered one of the greatest tennis players of all time, with a 80+% match winning rate (the second highest in the Open Era).

So what does Tom Brady have to say?

“I have been blessed to learn the right methods, through my nutrition, hydration, pliability and proper rest. It’s really not that hard if you do the right thing.”[4]

No mention of maximal loading or hypertrophy training.  In fact he apparently stays away from lifting heavy weights, and focuses on flexibility.[5]

What does Kevin Durant have to say?

“All the strength coaches were laughing at me and s—. They were giggling with each other that I couldn’t lift 185 pounds and I was like, ‘All right, keep laughing. Keep laughing.’ It was a funny thing because I was the only one that couldn’t lift it and I was struggling to lift it. I was embarrassed at that point, but I’m like, ‘Give me a basketball, please. Give me a ball.’….I was ranked the last person in camp, drills-wise. I was the worst player, and the first player didn’t get drafted. That tells you a lot about the significance of that s—.”[6]

What does Novak Djokovic have to say?

           ….And I know if I need to spend two hours a day stretching, I’ll spend that time, because I know that’s going to make me feel good.”

The following statement comes from his first coach, Jelana Gencic, who guided him between about the ages of 6 years through to his early teens.

“You know Novak was not too strong a boy,” Gencic said. “You know how he is now elastic and flexible. Do you know why? It’s because I didn’t want to work too hard with him.”…Gencic held up her racket. “This,” she said, “is the heaviest thing he had to handle. We only worked on his legs, his quickness, only fitness on the court, not in the weight room. We stretched and did special movements for tennis, to be flexible, to be agile and to be fast and with the legs. And now he’s excellent, excellent, excellent.”

Djokovic said Gencic’s approach was always long-term.

“Jelena was one of the people that had a huge impact and huge influence on that part of let’s say my profession, being flexible and taking care of my elasticity of the muscles,” he said Saturday. “Because she taught me and convinced me that if I stayed flexible, not only will I be able to move well around the court and be able to recover well after the matches, but also I’ll be able to have a long career……[7]

If you look at how the world is training athletes, its obvious that the majority are disregarding the messages from this dominant sporting icons.  Allow me acknowledge one of the most likely criticisms. That the opinions of these three athletes does not override the fact that thousands of other athletes have trained more trend like – heavy load, excessive volume, to high levels of fatigue.  I acknowledge this counter argument.  You are right. You can always provide evidence to support both the for and against of any argument.

However allow me to share what I believe is one indisputable fact – that the evidence provided in the case studies of these three athletes confirms that you can become the best in the world without the training proposed by most coaches and engaged in by most athletes. The way most train is not a common denominator with success.  It’s not necessary,  its not optimal, and I suggest in most cases does more damage than good.

I suggest that conforming to the dominant trends will is a common denominator with injuries, reduced athleticism, shortened careers and a lower quality of later life.

The great thing about human life is we get to choose what we believe in. If you as an athlete choose to embrace the mainstream approach, fantastic and good luck.  If you are a coach and also choose to believe in and embrace the current dominant training methods, I trust in the future you take time to reflect upon the outcomes, and be accountable.   Visit with your athletes 20-40 years after they have retired, and see how they are going. And take responsibility.

For those athletes and coaches who are concerned about the direction of training and want to believe there is a better way – congratulations. There is a better way.  I have spend the last four decades discovering better ways to train, and we teach  these better ways when we work with athletes or coaches.   For example, the KSI Coaching Program aims to provide you with the tools to train athletes and others in their highest and best interests, with no interest in what the dominant trend is or will be in the future.

The training world is now one where you will get a job whether you are great or incompetent – there is simply demand for services. However if you want to go beyond simply ‘getting a job’, if you want to do the best by the athlete, to fulfill your potential – you are not going to achieve these goals training the way everyone else is training.

What is happening is not good enough, and the athlete is paying the price. The good news is there is a better way. The question remains – will you go there?

Note:

In July 2017 we are offering selected physical preparation coaches the opportunity to spend 21 days with my top coaches and myself; through webinar and forum interaction.  It’s not for everyone. Here are some of our pre-qualifications criteria:

  1. You need to have been coaching for at least 5 years.
  2. You need to have come to the conclusion that there is a better way (for both you and your clients).
  3. You need to have taken some action to date to study KSI material (not including free online articles).

21 days with us during which you will get an inside look at who we are, what we do, and why we are totally confident we lead the world in athlete preparation.  Free.  Email info@kingsports.net immediately if you want to be part of this program and qualify.

[1] King, I., 1997, Winning & Losing, Ch 5, p. 25

[2] King, I., 1999, So you want to become a physical preparation coach, p. 30-31

[3] King, I., 2005, The way of the physical preparation coach, p. 66-67

[4] http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2686534-in-better-shape-than-ever-at-age-39-heres-how-tom-brady-does-it

[5] http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tom-brady-says-hurting-time-162548454.html

[6] http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/kevin-durant-calls-nba-combine-waste-time-top/story?id=47338234

[7] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/03/sports/tennis/djokovic-bends-and-twists-but-doesnt-break.html

Ian King

Be part of the solution

/by

On a Saturday morning I watched a group of girls aged approximately 6-8 years old performing walking lunges in their warm-up for club sport. It was early morning on a winters day, and every single one of them was using both hands on their lead knee as they struggled to come out of each rep. Heart breaking. Tragically I can see this in all sports of all age groups in the fields and playing arenas in any city in the western world. At least anywhere with internet connection, where dominant trends spread more rapidly.  A predominance of misguided, non-effective, career killing and quality of life damaging training methods.

I’m sure the coach, a middle aged and enthusiastic man, was well-meaning.  In the same way the misguided physical coaches globally are for the most part well meaning – for some reason they don’t ask the question and dig deep enough to understand there is a better way.

In the case of walking lunges in the warm up its potentially life-changing knee degeneration being created in group of unsuspecting and trusting minors.

If you share my vision that the direction of training in this world is heading in an inappropriate direction you can be part of the solution, rather than being part of the problem.  Because as KSI coaches we are very clear in our vision – there is a better way, athletes and clients training to be better deserve that better way.  We are committed to giving them the best so they can be their best. This is measured by zero injury and superior outcomes in training and competitive. Podium performances.

However if you, like the coach that winter Saturday morning with his group of 6-8 year old girls, leave your training decision inquires at the level of ‘well EVERYBODY is doing this’, then I’m confident you shouldn’t bother reading any further. On the flip side, if you share my beliefs that what is being done is simply not good enough, then read on.

I appreciate that possibly the vast majority of sports and physical preparation coaches care more for conformity than about the results. That’s normal. That’s average.  It’s not going to change. 90% of every group is committed to conformity and being ordinary. 5% are drive to be good. 5% won’t rest before greatness is achieved.  You choose your group, your tribe. You can be ordinary and average. Or you can be good. Or you can be great. At KSI we are driven to be great. You can share that vision, not just in lip service but in the same metrics we use to objectively confirm the superiority of the KSI way.

I appreciate that possibly the vast majority of physical preparation coaches care more for the perception of popularity, how many hits on their website, how many social media followers, than their ability to positively impact the lives of the end user.  Or how low their body fat is, or how big their biceps are. How much ‘knowledge’ they have, or how many certificates they have. However there will also be some of you that are drawn to the impact you have on the end user, more than the perception you create with your peers.

Throughout my professional career I have solved problems the world faces in training through disruptive innovations that ultimately path through the ‘three stages of truth’ – first they are rejected, then ridiculed and then adopted and claimed by a trend-spotting marketer from the north-east or the south-west!

KSI Coaches are taught these innovations at a level of excellence not imaginable to the rest of the world. And they are taught innovations that have not been released into public domain, as they rise through the levels and become trusted teachers of the KSI way.

We put the athlete/client first. We let impact determine our results. We let our results do the talking. We under promise and over deliver.  We prefer the marketing that comes from the way we change peoples lives over the marketing most use on social media to create a perception of themselves.  We are humble and solution focused.  We make a difference in the lives of others, and in doing so make a difference in the lives of our coaches. Our coaches live a lifestyle most can only dream off, as  a result of giving athletes and clients training results more can only dream off.

It’s your choice. You could be part of the solution, the KSI way.

Note:

In July 2017 we are offering selected physical preparation coaches the opportunity to spend 21 days with my top coaches and myself; through webinar and forum interaction.  It’s not for everyone. Here are some of our pre-qualifications criteria:

  1. You need to have been coaching for at least 5 years.
  2. You need to have come to the conclusion that there is a better way (for both you and your clients).
  3. You need to have taken some action to date to study KSI material (not including free online articles).

21 days with us during which you will get an inside look at who we are, what we do, and why we are totally confident we lead the world in athlete preparation.  Free.

Email info@kingsports.net to learn more.

Ian King

To think or conform?

/by

I received an email from a young man on the subject of stretching, a classic case of humans choosing conformity over thinking. The email went like this:

“Recently I purchased your Legacy book. The book is full of training gold, especially important information is about stretching. You should spread the truth about stretching. I can`t believe how everybody is wrong with this dynamic stretching B.S. Static stretching rules. I´m more flexible than ever, feel great, and it does transfer to dynamic motions.” [i]

I was really impressed that this young man sought to gain a personal experience about stretching prior to reaching a conclusion. He thought for himself, in the face of dogma to the contrary, and reached a conclusion contrary to the dogmatic teaching.

As for spreading the ‘truth’ about stretching, that’s what I have been doing for nearly 40 years now. The challenge is most people don’t want to think independently. The famous Dr. Albert Swcheitzer when asked in about 1952 reached the same conclusion.  Earl Nightingale tells this story in his 1956 audio ‘The Strangest Secret’. (A must listen to!)

Here is the transcript:

“Some years ago, the late Nobel prize-winning Dr. Albert Schweitzer was asked by a reporter, “Doctor, what’s wrong with men today?” The great doctor was silent a moment, and then he said, “Men simply don’t think!” [ii]

Now as far as the truth or wrong, I tend to avoid these words where possible. To ignore the value of static stretching and replace it with dynamic stretching – or to leave your static stretching till after the workouts. These are mistakes.

However I understand how static stretching is promoted, and I understand most people are more committed to conformity than fulfilling their potential.

I have watched many of those who have achieved marketed position of influence in this industry promote their values on stretching. I know personally that the minority of these influencers who actually train don’t stretch, and never have.  To acknowledge they have missed the point in training as regards stretching is not going to happen in their lifetimes. And the influencers who don’t train have no chance of knowing personally the best alternatives or combinations.

As for conformity, I again refer to the best selling (in the true sense of the word, not in the way current industry marketers use it) for one of the best comments on conformity:

“Rollo May, the distinguished psychiatrist, wrote a wonderful book called Man’s Search for Himself, and in this book he says: “The opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice … it is conformity.” And there you have the reason for so many failures. Conformity and people acting like everyone else, without knowing why or where they are going.” [iii]

[Imagine if referencing and crediting were the norm in this industry? wouldn’t that be amazing! instead of this encouragement to lie, cheat, steal and plagiarize…]

Now concepts are promoted with great dogma, which is why I have historically encouraged people to challenge and ignore the dogma:

“Not only are you taught with a degree of dogma in formal education, you are often taught not to think – rather to accept ‘this is the way’.  Certain informal education teaches you to think for yourself (as we do at KSI) or teaches you a different perspective to the one you were taught to dogmatically adopt in your formal education. Exposure to this can cause some initial unease.” [iv]

I don’t suggest knowing the truth, however I have reached conclusions and encourage others to do the same, even if they are contrary to the dominant paradigms:

“I don’t know about truth, but I can say that blind and dogmatic teaching of this by personal trainers and others has contributed to some serious misconceptions…” [v]

My strong recommend has been to:

“Resist the temptation in program design to conform to mainstream paradigms simply for the sake of conforming, no matter how dogmatically they are presented, or how much you may be ridiculed or ostracized for trusting your intuition over conformity.” [vi]

Not to be confused of course with a thinly paraphrased paragraph that followed a year later in an article at t-nation.com from another ‘author’….

“When designing training programs, resist the pressure to conform to any tradition or system of beliefs, no matter how dogmatically that tradition or those beliefs are presented, or how much you get “slammed” for not conforming.” [vii]

My message to the young man who wrote to me, and to you to, is have the courage to think for yourself! And if you need help, I wrote the book ‘Barbells & Bullshit’ to help you. If nothing it will shock you into realizing that your own conclusions will be far more accurate and ethical and better for your than the self-serving dogma dished up by many who seek to exert their influence for reasons other than a pure intention to serve you. You can get this book in hard copy or e-book.  If you email me at question@kingsports.net sharing your commitment to think for yourself, I would love to give you a free copy of the e-book.

So the choice is yours – to think or to conform. Just don’t expect the masses to be so brave!

[i] Personal communication, name available on request, 26 April 2017

[ii] http://www.nightingale.com/articles/the-strangest-secret/

[iii] http://www.nightingale.com/articles/the-strangest-secret/

[iv] King, I., 1999, So You Want to Become a Strength and Conditioning Coach

[v] King, I., 2001 (?), Q & A, T-mag.com, Issue #10

[vi] King, I., 2005, The Way of the Physical Preparation Coach, p. 17

[vii] xxxx 2006, xxxxx, T-mag.com, Feb

Ian King

Hoping to catch up to the other schools in strength & conditioning  

/by

At the end of a coaching session where I was giving back, along with a number of other of former elite athletes in a specific sport, the coordinator introduced me to a young man who he explained was a teacher at a private school who had been entrusted with the task of introducing ‘strength and conditioning’ to his school, with the specific intent of ‘catching up to the other schools in their association as far as strength and conditioning’.

I didn’t want to say anything to the young man, to spoil his eagerness, so I kept a straight face. But inside I cringed – ‘catch up to the other schools in strength and conditioning?’ Why would you want to do that? It should more accurately described as ‘catching down’.

Let me explain.

In the 1970s not many high schools had gyms and in the ones that did have, there was no formal programming and no ‘strength and conditioning’ service provision. Firstly because there was no such thing as a ‘strength and conditioning coach’, as the term ‘strength and conditioning’ was an afterthought by a professional organization with a strength focus that belated wanted to expand their focus without changing their acronym (you can read more about that in my original writings on this subject in ‘So You Want to Become…’). And secondly because organized physical preparation (as I prefer to call it) was not even provided to the majority of western world elite adult teams at that time.

In the early 1980s in Australia the majority of 18 year and older elite athlete that I worked with (and there were thousands) were what I called clean skins. They had never done formal physical preparation. I only had to undo the imbalances that their sport had created in their body. I summarized at that time it usually took three years of solid supervised and individualized training to clean them p to the level of being injury free for the most part for the rest of their career.

Fast forward to the second decade of the 21st century and what’s changed? I inherit broken athletes from the age of 12 upwards. ACL reconstruction, stress fractures of the lower back, shoulder and hip surgery – you name it. So what’s changed?

Many in the respective sports would tell you it’s just the sport – it’s inevitable. I don’t agree, and my experience doesn’t support this. Some will say the athletes are bigger and stronger and the impacts are greater. Really? Aside from non-specific strength tests, my experiences and observations don’t support this. A more recent trendy explanation is that the athletes specialize too early. Sounds good, and it may be a contributor, but for me this also fails to explain the difference. So what is my conclusion?

In the 1970s and 1980s athletes gaining exposure to formal physical preparation as they entered elite ranks around 20 years of age typically retired at about 30 years or age. So that’s about 10 years. What if that retirement was forced more by physical preparation inducted injury than age or their sport? Now holding that thought for a moment, what if take those same flawed training concepts and applied them to a 20 year old? They would be out of the sport by about 20 years of age!

And that’s my theory. In fact I go as far as to say if a young athlete is talent identified around 8-12 yeas of age, and has the (mis)fortune of being exposed to ‘elite strength and conditioning’ – they will be injured by 16 years of age, undergone significant sports-injury related surgery by 18 years of age, and unable to play their sport by about 20 years of age as a general rule.

So in summary when I see the same flawed training methods applied to adults being applied to young athletes, I fear for their future.

So what makes me conclude that most training is flawed? During my last four decades of seeking answers and excellence in how to train, I have reached certain conclusions and theories on what it takes to create or avoid an injury.

Are my conclusions the same as the masses? No. Should this be a concern? Only if you are a conformist. If your dominant need is to be liked, and to achieve this you need to be like others, then you would be concerned by the fact that I have reached certain theories that differ from the mainstream. On the other hand if you realize that to get a different and ideally better result than the masses, you need to train differently – then you would be excited.

In my opinion the only improvements we have seen in training is in the ability to measure it, the technology of equipment, and the technology of the surgery to repaid the injuries.

Could it be possible that what the majority – and that probably means you – are doing more damage to good in their training? That is my suggestion. Is it popular? No. Is it easy to discredit? Yes. Does this what ever else is doing approach to training result in the best possible sporting out comes? No.

So if I am on track, why do most continue on this path? The answers lies there. Because most do it. And the majority are so insecure about their actions they seek comfort in the masses. Will the get away with it? Legally yes, because the interpretation will be that is what is accepted practice. Should they be able to sleep at night? I suggest not, if they have a conscience.

Why I am I so firm about this? I speak for the athlete. My heart goes out to the legally minor young athlete who has an adult guide them to life-long, career threatening, quality of life threatening injuries. There is a better way – I teach it openly and have done for decades. I believe that perhaps in the next generation, after my time on this earth, what I teach will be accepted as the final stage of truth as described by 19th century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer – ‘accepted as being self-evident’.

But what about the one or two generations of young athletes who paid the price in their ‘strength and conditioning’ training between 1980 and whenever a better way is accepted?

So did I get excited for the young man empowered to bring his school ‘Strength and conditioning’ program up speed with other schools in their association? Not al all. I felt sad for the by-products of this intent. The young, innocent and trusting athletes. They are not, in my opinion, going to ‘catch up’. They are going to ‘do down’ in their athletic development.

Ian King

A KSI coach in every town! Wouldn’t that be nice!  

/by

I was sitting enjoying lunch today in Melbourne, Vic AUST with a friend of KSI. They shared a challenge, seeking my assistance. A New York colleague of theirs had approached them to service a client of theirs who was visiting Australian from the US for a few weeks in association with the first tennis Grand Slam event of the year, the Australian Open, played in Melbourne.

So did I have any coaches I could refer to in Melbourne was the question,, and the challenges. I didn’t. Tragically we don’t have a KSI coach in every town!

Reminded me of a situation a few months ago where a US based friend of KSI was looking for us to refer a KSI coach in Spain for their client, a person associated with the band U2. Now we were able to find a coach however they were only a L1 KSI coach. We would have preferred a higher-level KSI coach.

I put out a call on our KSI Coaches private Facebook Page, and no surprise, no response. looks like we are going to have to throw our net out wider, something we’re reluctant to do – because with a coach that has a bit of this and a bit of that in their tool box (even if one of those ‘bit off’s is attempts to apply their interpretation of the KSI way), the training approach cannot be guaranteed, and nor can the outcomes. You can appreciate our reluctance to refer to the unknown…

So…. it’s our challenge – more KSI coaches, ideally one in every town! And the benefit belongs to the client getting a better and predictable training service, and to the coach getting the referral!

Ian King

Want to put your hand up for this? Respond in the next 48 hrs to info@kingsport.net