Question: Is it better to train the implements that the athlete throws best or to train the implements that the athlete struggles with? Try to improve where the athlete already throws well and improve that or attack the weak points (or balls that the athlete does not perform best with)? -Frederick Hannie

I began responding to this question last week by discussing the specific question of whether a throw should focus on throwing implements they are good at, or ones they are bad at. The short answer is that rather than making the decisions based on what hammers they are good at, they should instead focus on what hammers will help them throw further.

But after I finished the question I left open the bigger question: should training focus on strengths or weaknesses. It would be nice to focus on eliminating weaknesses and focusing on strengths, but athletes have limited time and energy and coaches must often make a tough decision between the two. In addition, strengths and weaknesses come into play not just in the training plan, but also in technique where there also might not be the choice of pursuing both paths simultaneously. My approach is to look at the problems in steps by focusing on eliminating liabilities, focusing on the transfer, and then creating your own individual mold that capitalizes on your strengths and uses creative thinking.

Question: Is it better to train the implements that the athlete throws best or to train the implements that the athlete struggles with? Try to improve where the athlete already throws well and improve that or attack the weak points (or balls that the athlete does not perform best with)? -Frederick Hannie

This is quite a complex question, so I will try to break it down into the two core points I see: (1) whether a thrower focus their training on weights they can throw the best; and (2) the broader question of whether it is best to design a training plan that leverages the strengths of an athlete or focuses on eliminating weaknesses. Since the questions go in two different directions, I will address only the first one below and get to the second question in another post later this week.

If you look past the oiled up muscles and ads promising the latest and greatest supplements, T-Nation is one of the best resources online for the discussion of new ideas about training. Sure, some articles there are based on inaccurate hearsay or seem written more for the author to hear his own voice, but it also collects together input from some of the top young minds in athletic development looking to teach and learn like Wil Fleming, Chad Smith, and Derek Woodske. All three are former throwers and run their fantastic blogs of their own. But no matter the author, the site always leave you thinking and help on developing your own training philosophy.

A few weeks ago Chris Cralle pointed out an article on change, one of my favorite topics. In the article trainer Todd Bumgardner essentially makes the assertion that changing exercises in training is a bad thing. Merely adjusting volume and intensity is all the change an athlete needs. As he puts it “A new exercise variation typically isn’t the solution; an innovative way to load a proven exercise typically is.” The author makes a few good points: change done to make things interesting is bad and training needs to focused on the event. But after that our opinions diverge. I think change is one of the most crucial factors in developing a good training plan.

Throwing light and heavy hammers should be a major part of hammer throw training. But in addition to playing around with different weights, many throwers also add variety to the length of the hammer. This is another way to add variety to training, but one method I am not a fan of.

In most of Western Europe, short hammers and heavy hammers go hand in hand. I have never met a Swiss or German coach that has thrown a normal length 10-kilogram hammer for men, and few that even utilize a normal length 9-kilogram. The theory is that heavy hammers can develop bad technical habits, but shortening a heavy hammer makes the hammer feel lighter and easier for the athlete to throw with proper technique.

Last week I posted part one in an interview with shot putter Nick Garcia. Nick started training again last year after a few years away from training and decided to experiment with creating his own program based on the methods of coach Anatoliy Bondarchuk. After a year with the new program, he provided me with his thoughts and feedback. Part two continues where we left off. First we discuss what he likes and dislikes about the program, as well as how difficult it was to learn about and implement it. We then discuss how he’s started using the training system for his successful high school group. Last week I mentioned Nick has coached 20 boys over 50-feet in just one decade of coaching. In the days since, that total has gone up 23. Before we get started, we had some requests for video of Nick, so I’ve posted two of his best throws from the past year below.

My collegiate career got off to a rocky start. Back in August 2002 I showed up to Cal State-Northridge only to have my coach, the man I had moved more than a thousand miles to work with, resign. The next six months were filled with ups and downs before I decided to transfer a few months before the school year ended. At that point, the recently graduated shot putter Nick Garcia took me under his wing to finish out the season. He helped write a training plan that led to a five-meter improvement. He offered me lifting facilities. And he offered me work as an assistant for his hammer wire making business in John Godina’s garage. I learned a lot about training from him and even more about dedication. With this in mind, I was happy that he called me a year ago to ask a few questions about Bondarchuk. Finally I had a chance to return the favor.

This training talk is also a case study in converting to a training system based on the teachings of coach Anatoliy Bondarchuk. Nick has been training now for one year under this system and I figured it was a good point to get his feedback on the transition and also provide a shot putter’s point of view to counterbalance my hammer throw commentary.

When listening to coaching presentations at clinics, I am often frustrated by the coaches that simply point flaws in technique without giving a solution. They leave the audience thinking that finding the problem is the same as finding the solution. In my mind, technical analysis and coaching technique is not simply a matter of identifying problems, but a three-step process that applies not only to the hammer throw, but to all events and sports. The first step is analyzing positions. Next comes analyzing the movements that connect the positions. And finally a coach has to figure out a way to get an athlete to achieve the positions and movements they’re aiming for. While there is some overlap in these steps, the steps are mostly distinct requiring a separate approach and thought process.

Question: I have recently begun coaching a few local throwers that have come out to my training sessions. Do you have any tips on how to balance coaching and training together? – Rich

As I am still in the process of figuring this one out, I am hardly the one to ask for advice. But I know it is possible. Nearly every coach goes through this phase and many already achieve success before retiring as a thrower. Coach Bondarchuk, after all, guided Sedykh to a gold medal in 1976 while he was still training. I think that was his wake up call to focus all of his energy on coaching since he finished two steps down the podium with a bronze around his neck. While he has yet to give me advice on this, I can offer three recommendations from a few years of experience in this area.

At least once a year, world record holder Yuri Sedykh comes to america for a camp or clinic. In December he once again spent four days in South Carolina for the Hurricane Throwers Classic, where he worked hands on with youth, college, elite, and masters throwers.

Last week I stumbled upon a video from that clinic, shown below. Rather than video of a presentation, this was video of Sedykh coaching. Sedykh often gives the same presentations at his clinics, so it was interesting to see him give feedback instead. Feedback always changes depending on the thrower and the specific throw, so I feel that watching a coach at work gives you the best understanding of the approach and application of their technical philosophy.

Question: What are people’s thoughts on the number of throws per year? I have heard that Dr. Bondarchuk’s throwers do 25 throws in the morning and 25 in the afternoon, 5 days a week. That’s 12,000 throws a year. Just wondering what people think? – Anon3764 from the Macthrowvideo chatroom

I have to summon the inner lawyer in me and answer this question unequivocally by saying “it depends.” Like every other element of training, the number of throws you take should be individualized to the needs of each thrower. What works for one athlete is not necessarily the best for another athlete. Athletes have different levels of fitness, maturity, time, and strength. Other variables like the weather even come into play. All of these factors affect how much throwing a person should do. But, that being said, there are still a few principles I would recommend to every thrower.