Sep 30, 2007
Every year the Rocky Mountain Division (RMD) whittles down their mass of athletes and selects a thirty member All Star Team. Last month RMD held a physical testing assessment for these selections. The purpose of this RMD administered assessment was to identify in which percentile an athlete stood within their given age. Results were tallied in theoretical max squats, squat cleans, the 5X jump, the ever popular "beep" test, which is used to estimate one's VO2 max, and a few others. Those athletes whom fell within their target physical percentile were awarded the ever coveted Colorado Ski Country Pass, the season's ticket to all of our beloved Rocky Mountain resorts. Those whom scored below their age based target percentile were kept on the All Star Team, which will allow for certain invitations and selection nods, yet were not awarded "The Pass".
One could argue philosophically whether this is a fair assessment, or an appropriate manner in which to award affiliation. There is an ongoing dialogue among the Region's coaches regarding the nature of this test in particular. And while I too have offered my laundry money to those listening, what this has truly allowed me to do is rethink why we test, and what that means to different level athletes.
With the Men's Alpine National team, we tested the athletes 2-3 times per year, depending on an athlete's team status and a few other outlying factors. We tested once in the spring, once mid-summer and ideally once in the fall, just prior to the competition cycle. The National Team style of testing was scientific in nature and was conducted in a manner that was highly unbiased to form. In other words, an athlete could not just practice an individual test to raise their numbers. Instead, they had to make real conditioning gains to see improvement.
It was always interesting to watch an athlete's numbers ebb and flow in certain strength arenas as the training phases elapsed. By mid-summer, their force numbers or max strength, were usually at their peak. This July test also saw a reduction in an athletes' explosiveness, which is typically high in the spring after a taxing season of eccentric loading. The fall test then brought faster jump speeds, higher vertical jumps, and force numbers that were close to those of the summer days. And after multiplying force times acceleration you get power, and hopefully after three phases of training, more of it.
Tests results mimicking this sort of progression are a testament to both trainer and athlete. If the training has a high rate of efficacy, you'll find that the data collected works to support the targeted gains of the training. The alpine skiing strength programs I institute target force gains and hypertrophy early in the annual training cycle and explosive strength later, peaking as the competition cycle begins. And as we test the athletes here at Crested Butte Academy, I hope to see these specific strength gains in all of the athletes. If you do, then you know the training is effective. If you see it in some athletes but not others, then you know who needs to work harder. Yet most importantly, if targeted training returns are not confirmed through testing, then it is time to rework the training programs.
Yet this sort of overarching programming is not effective for all athletes. Athletes within any program will inherently vary by age, gender, ability, and levels of fitness. To simply lay out a single training regimen for an entire program, with disregard for a groups disparities, is to do this group an injustice. And a physical assessment will help ascertain an individual's limitation, and drive programming to address it.
It is very common in developmental athletes to see great distinctions within an individual's athletic abilities and physical fitness levels. I have seen cases where athletes are agile and explosive, yet weak. I have also seen kids strong like bulls that can barely get off the ground. One manner in which to visualize this is to imagine two athletes. Athlete A possesses explosive biased strength and can throw an 8kg medicine ball about 15 feet in the air. Yet he throws a 6kg ball 30 feet high. Athlete B is forced biased and can throw an 8kg ball 20 feet in the air, yet can only muster 23 feet with the lighter ball. The goal of course is to get both athletes throwing the 8kg ball through the roof. But the question is how?
Every athlete possesses distinct physical traits and maintains different types of strength. The testing protocol and methods we employ will expose these specific attributes of the athlete and allow a more informed impression of the individual. This view enables coaches to design programming that will improve upon an athletes' specific weakness while continuing to promote their strengths. In the above case, athlete A needs pure strength work, while athlete B needs to improve his explosive strength, and testing is how we decipher who needs how much of what. In this end, testing is the indispensable foundation from which to build specific athlete programming.
What is perhaps best about the example above is what athletes A and B learned from their trials. Now, they are both aware there are numerous types of strength and also ways in which to train them. I have always believed in the education of an athlete as the single most important tool to their success. To test an athlete is a necessary step to initiate a better connection with their levels of fitness. In the beginning of the process, they will recognize what areas of their fitness need attention. From their programming, they can see and certainly feel their body adapting to the loads. Soon after they will come to understand that the clean and jerk is not only an Olympic event they could potentially win a gold medal in, but is also a very skier specific exercise that builds explosive strength in the hip and glut. And in the end, if an athlete explains to you that a two footed jump onto a high box with dumbbells is better for them then a power clean, then we have done our job, and done it well.
Yet what I like most about any testing protocol is the message it sends to the athletes. Every season we enter them into numerous competitions from which they are looked upon, seeded, selected and judged in a highly objective arena. With testing, we are granting them a break from this manner of constant appraisal and allowing them to compare themselves to something perhaps more applicable and real, themselves. And by testing an athlete three times a year and dousing the days in between assessments with heavy loads of strength, endurance, balance, agility, speed, and core work, and giving them guidance through the ongoing routine of hard work, we are allowing our athletes a chance to make gains on themselves. This is a process that I hope sends a powerful and empowering message to these developing individuals, one that can only reinforce the innate challenges of our sports. CBA is home to numerous individual sports, and if we teach our athletes to be accountable for their personal actions off the snow and in the gym, then it will absolutely manifest itself in the finish and on the podium.