The symbol of the birth of sports-specific training

At present, it is generally recognized in the academic and training circles that the core symbol of the birth of sports-specific training is the official publication of the "Special Sports Training" textbook co-edited by former Soviet scholars Leonzieev and Ozolin in 1964. However, nearly 30% of European and American sports science researchers regard the "Specialized Training Practical Manual" released by American sprint coach Weintraub in 1960 as the node for the formation of an independent discipline. The two division logics have not yet been completely unified.

A few years ago, when I was doing scientific research for the provincial track and field team, I saw a Russian version of the translation that was reprinted in China in the 1970s in the information cabinet of retired hurdles coach Zhang. It was an internal handout from the national coaches training class at that time. The core reason why this textbook has become a symbol of mainstream recognition is that it pulls specialized training out of the traditional general training framework for the first time. Previously, it was either a scattered experience summary of coaches of various sports. Swimmers only wrote about swimming skills, and weightlifters only talked about weightlifting. Even basic words such as "special load" and "special ability" did not mean the same thing when they were spoken by coaches of different teams. For the first time, this textbook draws out the common rules of different specialties. It not only establishes a unified terminology framework, but also leaves exclusive training logic modules for each project. It is equivalent to setting "language rules" that can be used universally for the entire subject. When discussing special training, everyone no longer needs to talk about it.

But if you ask the first-line physical fitness coaches in European and American professional leagues, nine times out of ten they will give you another earlier booklet. When I went to the United States to participate in a physical training camp last year, the NFL's physical coaches were still using Weintraub's "100-meter special strength conversion rate" formula to train new players. They didn't understand the logic of "the creation of textbooks is the birth of a discipline." Weintraub himself is a first-line sprint coach. The manual is the result of tracking the training data of 127 professional sprinters for three years. For the first time, he clearly stated that "the conversion rate of general physical fitness to specific abilities is less than 30%." This directly destroyed the old perception that had dominated the training world for decades, "after general physical fitness is practiced, specialization will be better." Practitioners in the European and American circles generally feel that the birth sign of a training-oriented discipline must be practical results that can be put into practice and can directly solve old problems. A theoretical framework alone is useless.

There are also some old Eastern European coaches who will make a more niche statement. They feel that the "Principles of Special Training for Weightlifting" released by the former Soviet weightlifting coach Vorobiev in 1956 is the prototype. However, after all, this book only covers a single weightlifting event and does not extract common rules for all events, so it has never been widely recognized.

To be honest, anyone who has ever queued up knows that it doesn’t make much practical sense to worry about which year and which book this logo belongs to. This discipline was essentially forced out by the performance bottleneck of athletes. In the past, everyone used to train for three months of general endurance and general strength, and then develop specific techniques. As a result, there were often "gym athletes" who could squat 200 kilograms and run less than 11 seconds. The hips stretched as soon as they reached the competition. Everyone was forced to have no choice but to start thinking about the specific training logic of each event. Whether it was the Soviet textbook or the American manual, they just responded to this demand at that time. To put it bluntly, in the past, everyone cooked based on their taste, and could only cook Sichuan or Cantonese cuisine. Later, someone not only extracted the general rules of "flavor logic" and "heat control" for different cuisines, but also left special operating instructions for each cuisine. This can be regarded as having specialized knowledge, not scattered recipes.

When I train young coaches now, I still take out the core contents of the two old books and talk about them. There is no absolute sect in training. No matter which book is recognized as the birth mark, the theory that can help athletes reduce injuries and increase performance is the theory that is useful.