SPRINTING - VERSATILITY OR

SPECIALIZATION?
By B. Tabatshnik, L. Maslakova, E. Ozolin
Should sprint training be versatile, or should sprinters specialize in one particular
distance? The subject is discussed by three Soviet authors Tabatshnik,
recommending specialization for male sprinters, Maslakova, suggesting a
versatile approach for women and Ozolin, claiming a compromise where a
versatile preparation forms the base for specialization. The articles are
translated, slightly condensed, from Legkaya Atletika, Moscow, No. 10, October
1985. Re-printed with permission from Modern Athlete and Coach.
SPECIALIZATION (B. TABATSHNIK)
Some years ago it was agreed that top level sprinters should be capable of
producing equally fast times in both short sprints, Is such a versatility really
possible?
History shows that only eight athletes have succeeded in scoring the Olympic
100 and 200m double. Only three, Bob Morrow (1956), Valery Borzov (1972) and
Carl Lewis (1984) have won both Olympic sprints since 1956. The world
rankings, since the introduction of electric timing, reveal that seven of the 10
fastest 100m exponents fail to make the leading 25 in the 200 m (20.50 sec.). On
the other hand, five of the first 10 in the 200m (20.10 sec.), are missing from the
best 25 in the 100m (10.15 sec.).
This apparent specialization in one sprint is influenced by the improved times and
increasingly tougher competition. It is extremely difficult to compete in such
meetings as the world and European Championships, Olympic Games,
European Cup etc., often requiring a large number of full effort starts. There
appears to be a need for specialization, although little research is available on
the subject. Most studies concentrate on the 100m distance and coaches have
been inclined to employ similar training for both events.
Looking at the specificity of the 200m shows that there is a general opinion that a
200m performance is accepted as being very good when it is equal, or deviates
only a little, from the double of the 100m time, T200 = 2 x T100 0.4 (Pokrovsi)
applies to hand timing, while Gross of U.S.A. recommends T200 = 2 x T100
0.13 for electric timing.
Gross, analyzing the results of the 1972 Olympics, indicated that good sprinters
were dominating the second half of the 200 m distance. Athletes in the 20.00 to
21.16 sec. time range, who were faster over the first 100m, were as a rule

stronger over the second 100m. This regularity did not occur in sprinters with
21.26 to 21.89 sec. 200 m times and Gross reached the conclusion that only high
level sprinters are capable of compensating the lack of sufficient maximum speed
by speed endurance.
The difference of times between the first and second half in the 200m is regarded
asar
el
i
abl
ei
ndi
cat
ori
nev
al
uat
i
ngaspr
i
nt
er

sspeedendur
ance. Taking into
consideration that about 1.45 sec. is lost in the first half in the start and
approximately 1.25 0.2 sec. in running around the curve, top athletes lose 0.73
sec. in the second half of the distance. Lower level performers, on the other
hand, lose 1.12 sec. These figures stress the need to develop speed endurance,
so that the second 100m can be covered with minimal losses of speed.
It is known that 100m per
f
or
mancesar
edec
i
dedmai
nl
ybyt
heat
hl
et
e
smax
i
mal
speed capacity and the rate of acceleration. The 200m results, in turn, depend
mainly on speed endurance and the level of maximum speed. Speed endurance
in the 100m depends largely on the capacity of the organism to exploit
anaerobic-alactic energy, while speed endurance in the 200 m is closely related
to anaerobic-lactic acid system. Coaches must therefore be aware of the
differences in the methods required to develop alactic and glycolysis anaerobic
systems.
The different demands of the 100 and 200m sprints explain why not all athletes
can perform with equal success over both distances. Their success over one or
the other distance depends largely on specializing according to their
anthropometric measurements. Athletes, who are good in the 100m but weak in
the 200m, are usually relatively tall (174.4 cm) and heavy (73.2 kg) with a heightweight index of 1.2. Sprinters, who excel in the 200 m, are on an average 182.9
cm tall, weigh 71.8 kg and have in index of 1.1.
Athletes with different morphological indicators achieve maximum speed
differently. Tall sprinters have longer strides and lower stride frequency in
comparison to medium height runners. They cover the 100m in 44 to 46 strides
and perform well in the 200m. Shorter athletes use 48 to 52 strides in the 100m
and usually perform well only over short distances.
The maintenance of a high work capacity level depends largely on a rational
exploitation of energy reserves. Athletes with longer strides usually use energy
rationally and replace faster the used energy reserves. A high stride frequency,
on the other hand, is responsible for rapidly accumulating fatigue. This means
excellent results in the 100m but restricts the 200m performances.
Research information reveals that speed in the 100 and 200m races drops
mainly through a reduction in stride frequency. There is normally no change in
the stride length, showing that fatigue results from a drop of stride frequency and

is responsible for speed losses in the 100m and particularly in the 200m. Further,
an analysis of the speed dynamics in the 100m shows two groups of sprinters.
The first group is successful mainly because of their excellent reaction time and
extremely fast acceleration. They reach maximum speed at the 35 to 45m mark
and have a very high stride frequency (5.30 to 5.55 stride/sec.) but only a
medium stride length (210 to 220 cm). The speed in this group drops
considerably in the second part of the distance (75 to 80 m) and is 10 to 11%
below the maximum in the last 10m.
The second group covers the 100m in 45 to 47 strides with a gradual
acceleration to reach maximum speed after the 50m mark. Their stride length at
maximum speed is 230 to 245 cm and the stride frequency 4.55 to 4.70
stride/sec. The sprinters in this group, usually 180 to 195 m tall, slow down less
in the second part of the distance with the last 10m speed 8 to 9% below the
maximum.
The individual differences in the speed dynamics are decided by the sensibility of
t
heat
hl
et
e
sner
v
oussy
st
em.Fas
tac
cel
er
at
i
ngspr
i
nt
er
s,who perform well over
60 and 100m, have a weak but very sensitive nervous system. Those with good
speed endurance but slower acceleration, who perform well over 200m, usually
possess a strong but not so sensitive nervous system.
The above presented concepts allow to decide which is the best distance for a
sprinter at the age of 17 to 18 years, provided the young athlete has been
training at least three or four years. The evaluation parameters are listed in table
1.

VERSATILITY (L. MASLAKOVA)

Women sprinters, in contrast to their male counterparts, contest successfully two
or three sprint distances. This tendency has become particularly obvious over the
last 10 years, as a rapidly increasing number of women sprinters compete in the
400m. Athletes, who have the 100m as their main event, often include 400m

races to their early season program to check training progress. Sprinters, who
concentrate on the 200 and 400m distances, include 400m races in the program
in the second half of the season, prior to important major meets.
It is interesting to note that high level performances in all three sprint distances
have been achieved by women sprinters with the best 200m times. The 200m
requires a high level of speed endurance as all parts of the distance have to be
covered with a maximum effort. This requires a certain amount of versatility in
training and appears to be responsible for improved times in all three sprint
distances.
These facts should convince coaches of women sprinters the need to employ a
versatile training approach. Unfortunately practical experience reveals that our
leading coaches tend to prefer specialization.
COMBINING SPECIALISATION WITH VERSATILITY (E. OZOLIN)
The previous two articles appear to indicate that men and women sprinters take
different roads to the top. Men are in the main specializing in one sprint distance,
while women are using a versatile approach. These different approaches are
reflected also in the world records when the average running speeds in setting
the records are compared (see table 1).

As can be seen, the fastest sprint distance for men is the 200m, for women the
100m. Looking at the dynamics of the running speed shows that men are able to
hold close to maximum speed for 150 to 160m when it drops by 6 to 8%. This is
responsible for a faster average speed in the 200m. The 200m speed begins to
drop around the 130 to 140m mark for women and is reduced by 10 to 12%. A
typical example of what happens is shown in a 22.66 sec. race of Olympic 100m
champion Kondratjeva (see table 2).

It should be noted that 9.43 m/sec was notKondr

at
j
ev
a
smax
i
mum speed.She
reached in her best 100m races 10.5 m/
s
ec.I
tunder
l
i
nest
hef
actt
hatwomen
s

200m records, in comparison to men, are not of a high standard and are likely to
be improved in the near future.
Why are women unable to maintain near maximum running speed in the longer
sprint? Physiological differences appear to be responsible for this. It is known
that women are well behind the men in power capacities but a lot less in
endurance factors. Consequently, women sprinters train less in the high intensity
zone, running basically longer distances at optimal speeds. Men, on the other
hand, employ a lot more sprinting at maximum speeds.
Psychological factors appear to play also a part when it comes to competitions.
Male 200m sprinters approach the distance with a maximum acceleration,
attempt to reach maximum running speed and try to maintain it as long as
possible. Female sprinters employ changing speed patterns, including a free
running out of the curve.
Success in the short sprint depends on how effectively an athlete can exploit all
running performance components the start, a fast acceleration, maximum
running speed and the maintenance of it to the end of the distance. All this is
decided by versatility in training, as top performer
scan
taf
f
or
dt
ohav
eaweak
link. Borzov and Mennea, who were capable of fast times over several distances,
are typical examples.
Contemporary competition, on the other hand, requires from the athlete narrow
specialization. It is therefore important to emphasize in the 100m training starting
and acceleration, while attention in the 200m training is directed to curve running
and the maintenance of maximum speed.
Consequently, it is possible to say, without hesitation, that a versatile preparation
forms the base for specialization in sprint training and leads to outstanding
performances.