Specialized sports skill categories

At present, there is no absolutely unified classification standard for specialized sports skills in the sports science community and first-line training circles. The mainstream classification logic focuses on the three dimensions of "movement environment stability", "energy metabolism dominant type" and "movement repetition pattern". The applicable scenarios of different classification methods vary greatly, and there is no so-called "most correct" classification method.

What is most often talked about by first-line coaches is that it is divided into two categories: closed type and open type according to the stability of the action environment. To put it bluntly, if you don’t have to deal with sudden external variables when performing movements, the venue, rules, and movement sequences are all fixed in advance, such as archery, weightlifting, and single figure skating movements. These are classified as closed skills. During training, the core is to improve movement accuracy, sharpen muscle memory, and try to minimize variables. However, this classification is quite controversial. When I had dinner with the coach of the provincial gymnastics team, he complained that this classification was completely thought up in the laboratory. On the field, the elasticity of each area of ​​the free exercise field is slightly different. Your first somersault lands two centimeters off, and all subsequent connecting movements have to be temporarily adjusted. How can it be absolutely "closed"? If you really follow the logic of closed skills and practice a set of fixed sets of muscle memory, you will immediately collapse if there is a small accident on the field. Items like table tennis are even more embarrassing. When you practice movements against the ball machine, it is a typical closed skill. When you actually play in the game and you have to watch the opponent's racket and judge the point of rotation, it becomes an open skill. There is no way to put it into a certain category.

From the perspective of exercise physiology, there is another very popular classification method, which is divided into three categories according to the dominant energy supply system: phosphagen-dominated, glycolysis-dominated, and aerobic-dominated. Events such as the 100-meter run, shot put, and standing long jump, which can be completed in a few seconds and are full of explosive power, rely on the pre-stored ATP and creatine phosphate in the muscles for energy, and are phosphagen-dominated ； After running such as 400 meters and 800 meters, my legs are so sore that I can't lift them up and I can't slow down for a long time. They mainly rely on glycolysis for energy, and lactic acid accumulates very quickly. ； In events such as marathons and long-distance open water swimming that last for tens of minutes or even hours, aerobic energy supply accounts for the majority. However, many first-line physical trainers also criticize this classification. When I chatted with a physical trainer of a certain secondary vocational basketball team, they said that no one would directly classify basketball into a certain type of energy-supplying event - the few seconds of fast break sprints are all based on phosphate, and running back and forth in the stalemate stage increases physical fitness. What we compete for is aerobic. The three energy supply systems rotate in rotation during a game. If you put a label on it, it will limit the training ideas. Now their team is flushing phosphate and glycolysis reserves two weeks before the game. During the game, they focus on maintaining the aerobic foundation and do not conduct one-size-fits-all training according to categories.

There is also a division method that is particularly widely used in youth training circles, which is divided into periodic and non-periodic skills according to the repetition pattern of actions. Such as running, swimming, rowing, etc., where the movement cycle is repeated and the force exertion logic is basically the same, they are periodic skills. Fighting, high jump, basketball breakthrough, etc., where the combination of movements and the rhythm of force exertion are different each time, are non-periodic skills. When I helped design courses for a friend's youth fitness center, they especially liked to use this category to arrange classes for younger children: Children aged 7 to 9 would first practice periodic events such as running and rope skipping to hone the stability of basic movement patterns. After the running and jumping movements are no longer crooked and the core can be contracted, they can then practice non-periodic events such as ball games and obstacle races to practice reaction and adaptability. However, a sports rehabilitation practitioner I know feels that this classification is quite "lazy": even for the most regular road running, the hardness and slope of the ground on each step are different, and most people have subtle differences in the force exerted by their left and right legs. There are no completely repetitive movements at all. The classification is only to lower the teaching threshold. You really have to pay attention to individual details. Each movement is unique.

I myself have been through the trap of overly superstitious classification when I led amateur runners to prepare for a half marathon. At first, according to the textbook, long-distance running was classified as a "closed, periodic, aerobic-dominated" skill. All training was based on the pace of running on the playground. Later, I found that a student ran at a pace that was 10 seconds slower than running on the playground every time. After careful questioning, I found out that he had to avoid pedestrians, avoid shared bicycles, and go around manhole covers when running. His attention was completely distracted by environmental variables, and his movements were not stable at all. Later, he was given impromptu obstacle running training twice a week. Cones were randomly placed on the playground, allowing him to run in different directions and adjust his stride length at any time. After half a month of training, his road running pace directly matched the level on the playground. It was then that I really realized that these classifications are just a reference frame. When it comes to actual operation, how can there be any strict category boundaries?

To put it bluntly, all classifications of specialized sports skills are man-made tools, and there is no right or wrong distinction between high and low. If you want to control variables for academic research, the more detailed the classification, the better. ； If you practice by yourself or provide training, there is really no need to be boxed in by these categories. Categories that can solve practical problems are useful categories.