1. PAGES 1-35 - Texas Track & Field Coaches Association

2 

A Letter from the President 

contents 

Volume 5, Number 1 August 2011 

4 

6 

8 

10 

REPORTS 

Division I Track & Field 

Division I Cross Country 

Division II Track & Field 

Division II Cross Country 

Division III Track & Field 

Division III Cross Country 

High School 

IAAF Report 

8 

16 

24 

36 

44 

FEATURES 

Approach Run and Acceleration Patterns 

by Dave Nielsen 

Coaching Youths 

by Matthew Buns, Ph.D. 

A Mental Plan 

by Lawrence W. Judge, Ph.D., CSCS 

and Erin Gilreath, MA. 

Mental Imagery 

by Sterling M. Roberts 

Developing Your High School Track & Field Program 

By Don Helberg 

16 

49 

AWARDS 

2011 USTFCCCA Outdoor Regional 

Coaches & Athletes of the Year 

24 

36 

Cover photograph by Mike Corn 

AUGUST 2011 techniques 1

A Letter From the President 

Greetings from Lincoln, Nebraska! I hope you have 

been able to relax a bit this summer before things 

ramp up again in the fall. Although there is always 

plenty of work to do, I certainly enjoy the slightly slower 

pace of summer. 

Beginning in August I have the privilege of assuming the 

office of President of the USTFCCCA. First, I want to thank 

the outgoing president, Curtis Frye of the University of South Carolina. Curtis’s 

energy and passion provided great leadership for our association over the past 

two years. Going home from last year’s convention I found myself at the same 

airport gate as Curtis. I learned two things from that chance meeting. 

1. The job of President may be more stressful and tiring than I thought. 

When I got up and walked over to Curtis in anticipation of gaining some 

insight on the job I was going to take on, I found Curtis with his eyes closed 

catching a little cat nap! Sorry, Curtis, just had to give you a hard time. I know 

you worked very hard at the convention and probably spent a good deal of 

time answering questions from people like me. 

2. Curtis loves our sport. He was very generous with his time and was more 

than willing to share his thoughts on the role of the President. It did not take 

long for me to feel the passion that Curtis has for our sport and his desire to see 

track & field and cross country grow and prosper. 

I remember being at the first meeting of our association in Louisville, KY in 

1993 (I am sure we did not call it a convention) with about 60 other coaches. 

From that humble beginning our membership has grown to 7,649 with almost 

1,000 coaches registered at our last convention. I hope to see continued growth 

in our membership during my term as president. In an effort to promote even 

more involvement in our association, the cross country executive committees 

of the NCAA I, II and III recently approved an initiative designed to boost 

membership. They have requested that all USTFCCCA members who host regular-season 

2011 Cross Country meets offer preferred entry fees for USTFCCCA 

members. Hopefully this initiative will encourage coaches who may not be 

members currently to seriously consider joining us. 

Electing our first NCAA III President of the USTFCCCA is further evidence of 

the growth and evolution of our association. I am humbled to be in this position 

and assure you that I take this responsibility seriously and will do my best 

to serve the association. We have some issues and challenges ahead of us that 

are specific to certain groups of institutions and others that are relevant to the 

entire organization. Regardless of affiliation, NCAA I, II, III, NAIA or high 

school, I know we all are focused on doing what is best for the greatest sport in 

the world. I look forward to working with and for you all over the next two 

years. Enjoy the rest of the summer and I wish you the best getting your new 

year started this fall. 

DR. TED BULLING 

PRESIDENT, USTFCCCA 

DIRECTOR OF TRACK & FIELD AND CROSS COUNTRY, NEBRASKA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY 

tab@nebrwesleyan.edu 

PUBLISHER Sam Seemes 

EXECUTIVE EDITOR Mike Corn 

ASSOCIATE EDITOR Sylvia Kamp 

ASSOCIATE EDITOR Mason Cathey 

MEDIA MANAGER Tom Lewis 

MEMBERSHIP SERVICES Mandi Magill 

PHOTOGRAPHER Kirby Lee 

EDITORIAL BOARD Vern Gambetta, 

Larry Judge, Boo Schexnayder, 

Gary Winckler, Ralph Vernacchia 

Published by Renaissance Publishing LLC 

110 Veterans Memorial Blvd., Suite 123, 

Metairie, LA 70005 

(504) 828-1380 

www.myneworleans.com 

USTFCCCA 

National Office 

1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1750 

New Orleans, LA 70163 

Phone: 504-599-8900 

Fax: 504-599-8909 

techniques (ISSN 1939-3849) is published 

quarterly in February, May, August, and 

November by the U.S. Track & Field and 

Cross Country Coaches Association. 

Copyright 2011. All rights reserved. No part 

of this publication may be reproduced in 

any manner, in whole or in part, without 

the permission of the publisher. techniques 

is not responsible for unsolicited 

manuscripts, photos and artwork even if 

accompanied by a self-addressed stamped 

envelope. The opinions expressed in 

techniques are those of the authors and 

do not necessarily reflect the view of the 

magazines' managers or owners. Periodical 

Postage Paid at New Orleans La and 

Additional Entry Offices. POSTMASTER: Send 

address changes to: USTFCCCA, PO Box 

55969, Metairie, LA 70055-5969. If you 

would like to advertise your business in 

techniques, please contact Mike Corn at 

(504) 599-8900 or mike@ustfccca.org. 

2 techniques AUGUST 2011

NCAA REPORT Division l Track & Field and Cross Country 

RON MANN 

PRESIDENT, NCAA DIVISION I 

TRACK AND FIELD COACHES 

BARRY HARTWICK 

PRESIDENT, NCAA DIVISION I 

CROSS COUNTRY COACHES 

Iwould like to take this opportunity to thank Beth 

Alford-Sullivan for her leadership as President over the 

last two years. In addition to faithfully discharging the 

regular duties of our President, she also led us through a 

challenging restructuring process of the Outdoor Track 

and Field Championships. Having experienced the new 

Championships format for the last two years, the competition 

at our National finals is the finest I have seen during 

my career in Division I Track and Field. Our Association 

will continue to work with the NCAA and the NCAA 

Division I Track and Field Sport Subcommittee to improve 

the conduct and administration of the Preliminary 

Championship Competition and Final Championship 

Competition. As a part of those ongoing efforts, following 

the work done by your Executive Committee and the 

Division I coaching body at the last USTFCCCA 

Convention, we recently submitted requests for funding 

for participants and hosts of the Preliminary 

Championship Competition. Now, as I begin my term as 

President, I look forward to continuing our work with the 

NCAA Sport Subcommittee, the Executive Committee of 

USTFCCCA, and the Division I coaching body at large to 

make the Division I Track and Field experience more exciting 

for all athletes, coaches and fans. 

Over the next two years of my term as President of 

Division I Track and Field Coaches, I ask that we continue 

to focus on the strategic plan that we adopted in 2009. 

That plan includes making our sport more valuable and 

valued on our campuses and throughout our society. The 

USTFCCCA has some of the brightest and most dedicated 

individuals on university campuses across this country. As 

such, my challenge and request of each of you during my 

tenure is that we unite to present to our public a sport that 

is marketed, presented and administered using all of the 

technology and creativity available to us at this time. 

Athletic administrators want to see their university Track 

and Field teams in competition on their campuses. Fans 

want to see an exciting, timely, visually stimulating event - 

one that they can follow and understand. Our student-athletes 

want to be proud alumni of their universities and of 

the oldest and best sport in the world - track and field. 

Finally, we as coaches should continue to swell with pride 

as we train our athletes to become the best they can be on 

and off the track. 

Ron Mann is the Head Men’s & Women’s Track & Field 

Coach at the University of Louisville. Ron can be reached 

at ron.mann@louisville.edu 

As you read this letter, over 300 Division I cross country teams will 

be preparing for the 2011 season. I am opening my report with 

that thought because I don’t think that we can emphasize enough 

how wide-sweeping our sport is throughout the NCAA. As president of 

our coaches group, my goal is to have all of our plans and decisions be 

made in the best interests of all of these programs. 

My term as president started this summer and I would like to thank 

outgoing president Bob Braman for all of his hard work during his term. 

In addition to his leadership of the coach’s association he also guided 

Florida State to the runner-up finish at the 2010 NCAA meet. Bob has 

been a great example of a coach who not only takes care of his own program 

but looks at the big picture of our sport as well. 

Joining me in leadership roles for the next two years are Sean Cleary 

and Dave Smith as vice-presidents. Sean and Dave are incredibly talented 

coaches who annually produce tremendous teams at West Virginia 

and Oklahoma State respectively. I am going to count on their experience 

and enthusiasm to help us move forward. 

Our association voted overwhelmingly to change the date of our 

national championships from Monday to Saturday. We need to keep 

pushing so that this can be enacted for the 2012 championships. We 

need to nail down the date, and sites, for the 2012 regional meets. We 

have had long discussions on how many days prior to the championship 

to host the regionals. Now is the time to get a final decision approved. We 

also need to select our regional sites at least two years in advance. 

I think we have a reasonable chance of increasing the size of our 

championship field. Providing greater access to the championship would 

be a major plus for our association. We are working on this already for 

indoor track and field; the time is ripe for cross-country as well. A second 

and even easier change is to increase the number of schools ranked at 

the end of the season. We can use the existing formula that we use for 

the 13 at large spots to rank teams from 32 to 64. This is a win-win. It is 

recognition for more schools and allows cross-country to be an even 

more important part of the Director’s Cup rankings. I hope to work with 

the national office on this project. 

Finally, as you make a variety of travel plans this fall for your team or 

for recruiting, please keep the national convention in mind. It is a little 

disappointing to see how may schools do not send even a single representative 

to the convention. You will have a chance to have your voice 

heard. Believe me, I understand that it can be frustrating to vote on 

something at the convention and then see the motion disappear into the 

NCAA swamp. The more voices that are heard, the more coaches that follow 

up with their AD and conference commissioner, the more likely we 

are to control our own destiny. 

I am looking forward to a great season with the Dartmouth crosscountry 

team. Best of luck to you and your team as well! 

Barry Hartwick is the Head Men’s Track & Field and Cross Country Coach at 

Dartmouth College. Barry can be reached at Barry.Harwick@Dartmouth.EDU 


NCAA REPORT Division ll Track & Field and Cross Country 

STEVE GUYMON 

PRESIDENT, NCAA DIVISION II 

TRACK & FIELD COACHES 

MARLON BRINK 

PRESIDENT, NCAA DIVISION II 

CROSS COUNTRY COACHES 

Ihope as we enter August that everyone has been enjoying 

the summer. As we have now put the 2011 Outdoor season 

behind us, I would like to thank Kim Duyst and her staff at 

Cal State Stanislaus once again for all the hard work they put 

in while making the Outdoor Championships a success. 

Congratulations to Abilene Christian and Grand Valley State 

on winning the team titles for both indoor and outdoor and to 

all the athletes and coaches for a good year. I would also like to 

congratulate the Division 2 Hall of Fame inductees and their 

institutions. We need to express our thanks as well to the 

NCAA for allowing us to have the awards presentations and 

Hall of Fame included in the banquet program. I felt it went 

well and in a timely fashion. I know how much it meant to the 

inductees and their families. 

I would like to remind you that the 2012 HOF nominees are 

due on Dec. 5, 2011. You can find the form on the USTCCCA 

website. We are combining the cross country and track and 

field Halls of Fame and presenting them at the outdoor championships, 

which will be at CSU-Pueblo in 2012 and 2013. The 

2012 indoor championships will be in Mankato, Minn. 2013 is 

an NCAA Sports Festival year and the site has not been determined 

at this time. 

All of you should have received emails on the new rules for 

pole vault for the upcoming season, as well as emails on the 

submission of proposals for the convention. Please refer to the 

Division 2 handbook on the USTFCCCA website for the procedures 

on how to submit a proposal and what the deadlines 

are. The first deadline is September 15 for a proposal to be 

considered for the convention agenda. Late proposals may be 

accepted for this convention or may be tabled to the following 

year. Again, please refer to the handbook. 

I would like to send best wishes to Joplin, MO and the staff 

at Missouri Southern State University as well as so many others 

that were affected by the devastation the tornado brought 

to that area. I would also like to thank Chris Asher for his dedication 

and leadership for the past few years as our president. 

I will do my best to represent you (the coaches) and the sport 

throughout my term as your president. 

As we head into the 2011-12 academic year, it is a time of 

renewed excitement as teams are busy with the start of 

a new cross country season ahead. I am equally excited 

for this year as it is the beginning of my two-year tenure as 

USTFCCCA Cross Country DII President after having served 

the past two years as First Vice President and two additional 

years as Second Vice President. The USTFCCCA organization, 

under the direction of our CEO Sam Seemes, is always striving 

to help better the sports of cross country and track and field. 

I hope that I can help guide our sport as a voice for your ideas 

and proposals in the meetings in which I will be representing 

you. I encourage you, if you have ideas or concerns, to contact 

your conference representative or myself as we will have 

monthly conference calls where we will discuss issues that can 

help promote the betterment of our sport. 

You should have received, or will soon receive, information 

regarding the 2011 DII Cross Country Preseason Polls. You 

should have the formal request and team outlook form sent to 

you by your regional poll rater, which you should return by 

August 15. As a former regional poll rater, I can tell you that 

these are very helpful in creating the initial polls as teams can 

change significantly from year to year. Please take the time to 

submit your information to your region rater. Your coordinators 

are Ray Hoffman (women’s poll) and T.J. Garlatz (men’s 

poll) and Michael Friess (poll committee chair). 

The proposal to increase field expansion is moving through 

the NCAA. If it passes it would increase the number of qualifiers 

to the NCAA II Cross Country National Championships 

by one team per region and one individual per region. 

A new policy adopted by NCAA DI, DII, and DIII USTFCC- 

CA members states that hosts (of regular season meets) offer a 

preferred entry fee to those teams who are members of UST- 

FCCCA. Meet hosts are to offer a $50 discount to those member 

institutions. The purpose of this is to help increase 

involvement in USTFCCCA. 

Finally, it is not too early to start thinking about booking 

your room and flight to the 2011 USTFCCCA Convention, Dec. 

12 to 15, in San Antonio, Tex. All information is posted on the 

USTFCCCA website. Your attendance and participation is crucial 

to the betterment of our sport! 

Good luck in the upcoming cross country season! 

Steve Guymon is the Head Men’s and Women’s Track & 

Field Coach at Harding University. Steve can be reached at 

sguymon@harding.edu 

Marlon Brink is Head Men’s and Women’s Track & Field 

and Cross Country coach at Wayne State College. Marlon 

can be reached at mabrink1@wsc.edu 


NCAA REPORT Division llI Track & Field 

CHRIS HALL 

PRESIDENT, NCAA DIVISION III 

TRACK & FIELD COACHES 

NCAA DIVISION III 

CROSS COUNTRY 

As I am writing this edition of my president’s report the 

2011 outdoor season has come to a close. Hopefully 

all of you are enjoying a relaxing summer and recuperating 

from what was a very long but also a great year of 

track and field. We had an outstanding outdoor championship 

and I would just like to take a moment to thank Ohio 

Wesleyan, who served as the host for the meet, and to congratulate 

our champions. 

The University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh found themselves 

back in a familiar position, winning the women’s team 

championship for the first time since 2007. This was the 

first under head coach Pat Ebel. On the men’s side it was 

again North Central College capturing the NCAA championship, 

the first time, under new head coach Frank 

Gramarosso. The Titan women had a relatively comfortable 

victory of 21 points while the men’s crown was not decided 

until they crossed the finish line in the 4 x 400 relay. Two 

points separated La Crosse and North Central in the team 

standings but it was really just 2 tenths of a second that 

determined the team champion. Both Pat and Frank were 

recognized as coach of the year. 

I would also like to take a moment and recognize the 

tremendous work and leadership we are receiving from our 

USTFCCCA National office and of course our CEO Sam 

Seemes. This office has been instrumental in developing a 

much more unified coaches association and given us a voice 

that is being heard by the NCAA and our sport committee. 

There is no doubt that they have our best interests in mind 

and are working hard to give our student athletes an experience 

they will never forget. 

As always there is additional work to be done and I hope 

that, while reading this report, you will begin thinking about 

getting more involved in the association. Our meetings will 

again be held in San Antonio, Tex., from Dec. 12 to 15. We 

expect to have a number of significant agenda items to discuss, 

highlighted by the indexing of indoor tracks for national 

qualifying performances and field size for the championship 

meets. We are also asking each of you to please consider 

what you feel could make our already great sport better. 

Submit your items for consideration at the convention 

before September 15th and we will continue to work with 

the NCAA Track & Field Subcommittee to make improvements 

for the 2012 indoor and outdoor championships. 

The Division III Cross Country Executive Committee has suggested 

that member programs who host a regular-season 

2011 cross country meet adjust their entry fee structure such 

that USTFCCCA member programs receive a preferred rate $50 less 

than that of non-USTFCCCA members. More information can be 

found at http://www.ustfccca.org/ustfccca-xc-preferred-entry-fees 

REGIONAL REALIGNMENT 

The NCAA Division III Championships Committee is still reviewing 

its options. Because this realignment must take into effect the 

best interest of so many sports you can understand that it is a 

lengthy process. As always, the USTFCCCA national office will keep 

you updated on advances on this issue. 

USTFCCA COMMITTEES 

Interested in becoming more involved with Division III cross 

country? Two committees are seeking members: The Law and 

Legislation Committee and the Nominations and Elections 

Committee. Involvement for either committee would involve working 

with the respective chair throughout the year and meeting as a 

group at the annual convention. You can find more information, 

including the committee chairs, within the handbook located 

online. If you are interested in serving on either committee, please 

email President Greg Huffaker at ghuffake@iwu.edu 

RANKINGS 

A reminder: A preseason regional ranking will be released on 

Tuesday, August 23 with the first regional ranking of the season 

released on Tuesday, September 13. The preseason national poll 

will be released on Wednesday, August 31 and the first national poll 

of the season released on Wednesday, September 14. All release 

dates are listed on page 31 of the Division III Cross Country 

Handbook found online. 

A reminder: Meet schedules and results can be found on the 

USTFCCCA website. Please send meet dates to Tom Lewis 

(tom@ustfccca.org) in the USTFCCCA national office if your meet is 

not posted. 

The USTFCCCA Track & Field Academy is hosting several programs 

over the next several months, including two high-level 

courses, Sports Science for the Speed and Power Events and Sports 

Science for the Endurance Events. Those courses, along with other 

TFA programs, will be held prior to the USTFCCCA convention in 

San Antonio. Additional information about the Track & Field 

Academy and the convention can be found at www.USTFCCCA.org. 

Chris Hall is the Head Men’s & Women’s Cross Country 

and Track & Field coach at the University of Chicago. He 

can be reached at hallc@uchicago.edu 

This report was prepared by the USTFCCCA national office staff. 


HIGH SCHOOL REPORT 

IAAF COACHES COMMISSION REPORT 

WAYNE CLARK 

VICTOR LOPEZ 

CHAIRMAN, IAAF COACHES COMMISSION 

Recently the Ohio Association of Track & Cross Country Coaches 

recognized the 75th anniversary of Jesse Owens establishing four 

world records during one track meet. I thought you might like to 

read a little history about this great track and field performer. 

Loving to run, Jesse began his track career in junior high school 

becoming an exceptional talent in the sprints. During his high school 

days at Cleveland East Tech Owens established the national high school 

record in the long jump and equaled the world record in the 100-yard 

dash at 9.4 seconds. Because of an after-school job, Jesse practiced 

mostly on his own before school each day. Yet, Jesse persevered. 

Unbelievable by today’s standards, Jesse attended Ohio State University 

without a scholarship. Also, in that time period, because he was African 

American, he was banned from living and eating with his white university 

teammates, was given individual travel arrangements, and had to work a 

part-time job to help pay for his tuition. But Jesse persevered. 

It was just over 75 years ago, in 1935, that Jesse set four world records 

within a 45 minute time period in the Big Ten Championships. He tied 

his own WR in the 100 yard dash and smashed the WR in the 220, the 

broad jump, and the 220 low hurdles. Some sports enthusiasts claim 

this meet to be the most valiant sports accomplishment of all-time. 

This achievement in just 45 minutes! Jesse persevered. 

Not only was Jesse a tremendous athletic ambassador for track and 

field, but in the highly racially motivated 1936 Berlin Olympic Games, 

Jesse won four gold medals, making him an ambassador for all 

mankind. After these accomplishments Jesse became somewhat more 

accepted, but he was not recognized by any U.S. President until Dwight 

Eisenhower honored Owens as an “Ambassador of Sports” in 1955. 

Throughout, Jesse persevered. 

After his 1936 Olympic successes, Owens was obligated to continue 

racing in Europe without expenses or funding. He became homesick 

and returned to the United States without “permission”. His amateur 

status was immediately revoked by USOC President Avery Brundage, 

and Jesse was left with few resources for his family. Jesse’s life was sustained 

by periodic involvements with failed businesses, exploitation of 

racing against horses, as well as employment as a gas station attendant. 

Fortunately, Jesse’s family remained lovingly true to him. But, during 

his deepest lifetime low, Jesse had to file for bankruptcy. Remarkably, 

Jesse persevered. 

In later life Jesse traveled the world speaking for large corporations 

and the U.S. Olympic Committee, which had rejected him in prior 

years, relating his story and encouraging others of less fortunate circumstances 

to persevere. 

Perhaps Jesse’s story will encourage all of us to scrutinize our treatment 

of others, while encouraging those we coach to remain persistent 

in striving to achieve Jesse’s athletic accomplishments. 

Wayne Clark is the Clinic Chair of the Ohio Association of Track and 

Cross Country Coaches. He can be reached at clark002@columbus.rr.com. 

The 2003 IAAF Congress held in Paris, France approved 

a resolution to make athletics the number one sport in 

schools all over the world. We as coaches understood 

that this was a very important step in the development of 

track and field. Theold system which was used in most countries 

all over the world, the club system, was dying. Therefore, 

the IAAF Long Term Athlete Development Plan emphasis 

since 2003 has been to introduce athletics from the primary 

school up to high school in all the countries around the 

world. I pleased to say that the program is making progress 

with the introduction of the IAAF Kids Athletics program in 

elementary schools and with an emphasis in Youth competition 

beyond the primary school. In the NACAC area, especially 

in the Central American and Caribbean region, the program 

is pretty much in place and making big strides with athletes 

all over the region producing fantastic results. 

I must say that, in the U.S., this system has been the bread 

and butter in the development of track and field. Seeing that 

the system has worked in U.S. and other countries like 

Jamaica, Cuba, the Bahamas, Puerto Rico and elsewhere, the 

IAAF understood that this was the way to go. But where the 

U.S. really is a mile apart from the rest of the world is in the 

development of track and field beyond the secondary schools. 

The U.S., with its NCAA program, has perhaps one of the best 

if not the best high performance development systems in the 

world. No other country in the world has a system of three 

divisions like in the NCAA, a system in the NAIA and a system 

in the junior colleges, where athletes receive a scholarship to 

study and to participate in athletics at that particular university 

or college. Puerto Rico has a similar program, maybe the 

equivalent of the NCAA Division II, where there is a university 

league composed of 21 institutions where the competition 

in a number of sports is as intense as in the U.S. and the athletes 

receive scholarships like in the U.S. I believe universities 

in Jamaica are starting to do the same. 

Where else can you get a four- or five-year education, practice 

the sport under the best coaches, have use of the best 

facilities and compete in a top-notch program? The only 

place that we know which has a program of that magnitude is 

in the U.S. Therefore, the IAAF aspiration is that all the countries 

around the world follow that example because it has 

proven that it is the best. 

I would like to congratulate all the members of the 

USTFCCCA for the fantastic job that they do year in year out 

in developing athletes—not only from the U.S., but from 

other countries as well. 

Victor Lopez can be reached at victorlp8@aol.com. 


8 techniques AUGUST 2011 

KIRBY LEE PHOTOGRAPH

APPROACH 

RUN 

ACCELERATION 

PATTERNS 

BY DAVE NIELSEN 

T 

The UCS Spirit National Pole Vault Summit is a fantastic gathering 

of many of the best pole vaulters in the nation. This annual event 

is staged in Reno, Nevada, each January and attracts an eclectic 

group of athletes from best to beginner, young to old, and professional 

to recreational. Every year the Saturday competition is tied 

to a Friday clinic. The clinic offerings encompass a myriad of topics 

related to the event which focus on safety, performance and 

enjoyment. This is a learning environment for all athletes, coaches 

and parents in attendance. The elite vault coaches, scientists, 

and lecturers are selected each year to make the presentations 

and are not likely to leave without a new idea or a few. The 2010 

year was another tremendous success and, as a presenter, I certainly 

gleaned insight which I will share in this article. 


APPROACH RUN AND ACCELERATION PATTERNS 

I was contacted by associate event director Lane Maestretti 

about creating a station to test and provide feedback for athletes 

(primarily high school) in regard to their approach run. 

We talked about methods of timing the run in an accurate and 

reliable manner. Further, Lane thought it would be beneficial 

to provide feedback on run-up lengths as to their effectiveness 

feeling that many a high school athlete (and coach) try to use a 

longer-than-needed approach length. We decided that we 

wanted to have feedback on the speed the athlete was running 

at a series of successive intervals. The testing length was to be 

equal to the maximum approach length of any athlete whom 

we were to test. Since most of the research refers to speed 

(velocity) as measured in meters per second, a metric measure 

was used. The test allowed the athlete a three meter (about 10 

feet) run into the first timed segment. Each timed segment 

was five meters in length. Seven segments were timed so the 

total run length evaluated was 38 meters. This run up length is 

equal to or exceeds an 18 step (e.g. nine left) approach for 

almost all vaulters. Diagram 1 provides the outline of the basic 

set up. 

The next hurdle to cross was how to time this so that the 

result would be available in a timely manner and with a reasonable 

amount of accuracy. Video tape was rejected due to 

the time analysis would have taken and the fact that using 

hand held times for this type of project would be far too unreliable 

(inaccurate). Fortunately, devices such as the Brower 

Timings System Speed-Trap and Brower TC are made for this 

type of thing. I had two units that I share with football and 

soccer but our proposed set up required eight gates. 

Fortunately, Brower Timing Systems is located in Salt Lake 

City, which is only a couple of hours away from my home. I 

contacted Mark Brower of Brower Timing and he was kind 

enough to lend us the eight photo gates (A-B units) required, 

16 tripods, two TC-timers, and two display boards for our project. 

See diagram 1. 

MIKE CORN PHOTOGRAPH 


Peak velocity was noted for each athlete, each trial, and the 

compilation of these peak velocities graphed. See Graphs 1 & 2 . 

It is important to note that before the data of any trial was 

used it was screened for any obvious error. The primary error, 

albeit one that rarely occurred, happened during the pole carry 

trials. The athlete would drop the pole and prematurely trip the 

photo gate. That determination was made on observing the 

trail itself and any obvious peak/drop in velocity on the data 

sheet. Occasionally a passerby would accidentally bump a tripod 

that the photo gate rested upon and trigger a false trip. All 

of those trials were eliminated from the data set. 

DISCUSSION 

The cumulative average velocities, within each segment of 

the trial runs, is displayed in Table 1 for both boys and girls 

groups, with and without pole carry. Review of Table 1 (which 

visually supported in Graph 1) shows that both groups accelerate 

rapidly to 90% of their top speed whether carrying a pole or 

not. The average of all groups showed an excess of 90% of top 

speed within Segment 3. This third five meter segment measurement 

accounted for the time taken to run between 13 and 

18 meters, or for familiarity, between roughly 42’ and 59’. All 

athletes (with the exception of one girl’s trial without carrying a 

pole) were still accelerating at this point and, therefore, the 

actual 90% of top speed mark likely occurred somewhere 

between 50-55’. For the jumper, whether it be long, triple, or 

pole vault, that would translate to roughly a 10 step approach 

(e.g. 5 lefts). On average, it took the athletes three more segments, 

15 meters (about 50’), to accelerate the remaining 10% 

to top speed. That path did not necessarily follow a smooth 

pattern either as evidenced by , for example, the girls’ runs with 

the pole. 

The length of run needed to bring these athletes to top speed 

is presented in Table 2 and corresponding Graph 2. When running 

without a pole, 67% of the boys and 78% of the girls were 

at their top speed in this test by the 6th segment or likely somewhere 

around 100’. While carrying a pole, 60% of the boys 

showed their peak speed by the 6th segment whereas 88% of 

the girls were their fastest by this point. This may have been 

due to pole length and weight or the skill carrying a pole. 

Everyone ran slower when they carried a pole (which only 

makes sense) and within these two groups, on average, the 

“cost to top speed” of carrying the pole was 4.6% and 5.7% for 

girls and boys respectively. Notably, the girls ran faster carrying 



TESTING PROCEDURE – POSTING RESULTS 

The project successfully tested 34 girls and 52 boys in two 

runs each. The boys and girls came to our station in groups of 

12-18 as a rotation from their clinic work at the vaulting pits. 

All athletes had received a general warm up prior to coming to 

the timing station, but had admittedly not “peaked” for their 

trial. Upon arrival of the group the athletes provided our staff 

with their names to be loaded into the system. Once everyone 

in the group was accounted for we began the testing. After a 

little practice, we were able to test, recall splits, and load data at 

the rate of two athletes per minute. Two timers were used to 

recall the splits, one as a primary and the other as back up. 

Between each rotation and when there was a little extra time, a 

data sheet and accompanying speed graph was printed and 

posted for each athlete. 

RESULTS 

The data was compiled by gender (boys group/girls group) 

and whether or not the athlete was carrying a pole. Average 

times for each five-meter segment was calculated and graphed 

just as it had been for each individual athlete. Peak velocity is 

defined as the fastest five-meter segment of the athlete’s trial. 





a pole relative to their top 

speed. Much of this difference 

is likely due to pole size more 

so than to carry efficiency but 

that was not tested. 

These willing athletes exhibited 

a wide range of abilities. All 

of them did have experience 

with none being raw beginners 

(no experience). Those with 

more experience and with 

greater performances (higher 

vaults to their credit) tended to 

run faster and had a more even 

acceleration curve. An example 

is provided in Tables 3 and 4 

with their corresponding 

graphs. Comparing these two 

athletes, one was a high school 

intermediate and the other a 

skilled high school athlete (in 

fact, one of the top high school 

athletes attending the clinic). 

This may suggest that it is a skill 

to develop an approach that 

can smoothly and effectively 

bring an athlete to top speed, or 

put another way, bring an athlete 

to useable top speed. 

Observing all the data, it seems 

that just running from further 

back is not likely the key factor 

in bringing out the athlete’s 

very best. 

TO SUM UP THE STUDY 

OF THIS GROUP: 

These athletes were running 

at 90 percent of their top speed 

less than 60 feet into their trial 

run whether they carried a pole 

or did not carry a pole. 

On average, the remaining 10 

percent of their top speed required a distance of between 50 

and 60 feet, or roughly half the distance required to accelerate 

to top speed, again whether carrying a pole or not. The boys 

tended to need a little more distance to hit top speed when carrying 

a pole whereas the girls tended to need a little less distance. 

Carrying a pole while running slowed these runners about 

five percent. 

An unmeasured observation was that the faster and more 

experienced athlete took longer (distance run) to reach top 

speed and tended to have a more regular acceleration curve 

than the less-experienced and slower athlete. 

I think these observations are worthy of consideration for the 

coaching of all jumping events. Of special coaching note is that 

if an athlete needs more technical preparation in jumping 

mechanics, taking more trials from an approach of six to 10 

steps (three to five lefts) makes good sense. The athlete will, in 

all likelihood, be able to take more attempts, concentrate 

jumping technique, and still function near top speed. The 

process of achieving top speed in a controlled and “smooth or 

regular” manner also appears to be a skill and therefore needs 

to be practiced as well. 

ADDENDUM 

The Brower timing system was also used in the Friday night 

elite men’s and women’s competitions. In congruence with 

existing research model on runway velocity just prior to the 

take off, photo gates were set up to time the last five meters 

prior to the take off. Results of each attempt of these elite athletes 

was recorded and shown to the audience on the display 

units provided. My sincere thanks to Mark Brower and the 

Brower Timing System staff for their support of the Reno Pole 

Vault Summit and this project. 


COACHING YOUTHS 

OThe 4 guiding principles of motor development | BY MATTHEW BUNS, PHD 

ver 100 years of motor development research 

can be summarized by these 4 guiding principles. 

Each one of them is important in understanding 

how track and field athletes develop 

and what that means for coaches. 

CHILDREN ARE NOT MINIATURE ADULTS 

Children are obviously smaller than adults. But, if you drew 

a child and adult to the same scale, they would look very different 

because children have different proportions and composition 

(Figure 1, pg18). Children have relatively larger heads, 

shorter extremities, and smaller torsos than adults. Compared 

to an adult, the younger the child is, the greater the difference 

in proportion (Malina, 1984). At birth, the head is about 25% of 

total body length: for an adult the head is about 12% of the 

total body length. Similarly, adult leg length accounts for at 

least half of the total height; at birth, the legs are about 30% of 

total body length. The extremities grow faster than the torso 

which grows faster than the head. Consider how difficult tasks 

such as balancing and jumping are for young children based 


on their short legs and large heads! 

Running speed increases during childhood because 

stride length increases. The stride increases as the legs 

grow longer and stronger and as the pattern becomes 

more efficient. As children progress, they take longer 

steps or strides and stay in the air longer during flight 

phase. When young children are asked to run faster, they 

generally take quicker steps—often in place. Rather than 

saying “Run faster,” coaches should say, “Take bigger 

steps.” The fastest runners use their arms to pull themselves 

forward. The arms move in opposition, with the 

upper arm (humorous) driving forward forcefully. In 

young children the arms may be stationary or may flail in 

KIRBY LEE PHOTOGRAPH 

no particular pattern. As skill increases, the arms begin 

to rotate in opposition, but this movement is generated 

by a twisting of the spin rather than by conscious movement 

of the humorous. 

Skills change systematically for children from 2 years of 

age through elementary school. For example, you would 

expect to see a 2-year old run with arms high, extended, 

and straight (picture Frankenstein’s walking), feet shoulder-width 

apart, and a short, flat-footed step. You would 

not expect to see this kind of movement in an adolescent 

or an adult. Why do these skills change? Some change is 

caused by growth. For example, as legs get relatively 

longer, the stride length increases. Similarly, as relative 

head size decreases balance is less of a problem. Also, the 

central nervous system is maturing with increase in 

synapses and better integration of information. These 

allow better motor control with maturation. The biological 

changes work with practice to improve the execution 

of skills. The developmentally appropriate track and field 

program is designed to recognize the individual differences 

in rate of change in the fundamental skills and to 

capitalize on the consistency of the order of these 

changes. Coaches should plan for the average and then 

accommodate variation by individualizing up or down 

within each practice. 

The body makes two major adjustments during aerobic 

exercise such as running. First, muscles do their work 

during exercise by using fuel (food) and oxygen. The 

more intense the work is, the more the body uses oxygen 

and fuel. Generally, respiration and heart rate increase 

with the intensity of exercise. At some point, the circulatory 

system can no longer keep up in delivering oxygen 

and removing waste. Fatigue sets in quickly at that point, 

and work must be stopped or substantially reduced. 

The second effect of exercise is the production of heat. 

The body dissipates some heat by breathing but removes 

most of it by sweating. The circulatory system increases 

blood flow to the skin, and the heat is lost by radiation 

and evaporation of sweat. Coaches should be conscious 

of this process, particularly during hot and dry weather, 

when excessive sweating and evaporation may produce a 

loss in total body fluid that can result in dehydration. 

People of all ages are susceptible to dehydration. Always 

permit children to drink as much water as they want to 

during and after training. Water is as good a fluid replacement 

as any of the advertised commercial products. The 

USDA warns that children do not drink enough water 

regardless of whether they are exercising, so encouraging 

children to drink water meets the demands of training 

and a more general nutritional need. 

Children and adults handle heat and oxygen producing 

differently during training. Children have higher resting 

heart rates than adults; at rest, children’s hearts are work- 


C OACHING YOUTHS 

Figure 1. 

Changes in form and proportion of the human body during fetal and postnal life. From Malina, R.M. (1984). Physical 

growth and maturation. In Motor Development during childhood and adolescence. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess. 

ing harder than adults’ hearts. For example, a six year-old 

boy has a resting heart rate of 86 beats per minute (a girl’s at 

the same age would be 88); by age 13, his resting heart rate 

would be 66 (hers would be 70). The maximum heart rate for 

a six year-old is 215, compared with 201 for a 13-year-old. 

Anaerobic power, the ability to work without oxygen, is 

also lower in children than in adults. This is because children 

have less of an important enzyme (phosphofructokinase 

or PFK) in their muscles; this enzyme allows the muscles 

to work without oxygen. Children produce more PFK 

after puberty. Anaerobic power is important in activities 

such as sprinting. 

Children also have a lower hemoglobin concentration in 

the blood than adults. Hemoglobin is the part of blood that 

carries oxygen to the working muscles (e.g., in the heart and 

legs), so children transport less oxygen per unit of blood 

than adults. This means that children can do less work than 

adults. Hemoglobin content in the blood increases at puberty; 

however, the increase is not as great in women as it is in 

men. 

Children become more fit as a result of fitness training but 

the responses to training tend to be lower in children than in 

adults for several reasons: 

Children tend to be more fit at the onset, so training 

results in less improvement 

Children have higher resting and maximum heart rates, 

which limits the intensity of training 

Children have less hemoglobin, which limits maximal oxygen 

uptake. 

During exercise, adults are working at closer to their maximum 

capacity (aerobic capacity) for oxygen delivery than 

during rest. Children work close to the maximum aerobic 

capacity all of the time, so they benefit less from cardiovascular 

training and they fatigue more rapidly during exercise 

(Bar-Or, 1983). Much of the improvement is attributable to 

improved technique, for example pacing themselves when 

they are running a mile. 

Exercise training does produce three benefits for children 

and adults. First, hearts become stronger as a result of training 

as stroke volume (the amount of blood the heart can 

pump in one beat) increases. Second, more capillaries 

develop as a result of training, which provides a better supply 

of blood to the heart and working muscles. Third, better 

extraction of oxygen from blood leads to improved enzymatic 

reactions. 

Weight training for children is a controversial topic. The 

two most important issues are cost-benefit trade-off and 

potential for injuries. Weight training takes a lot of time and, 

for prepubescent children, the gains are small (Faigenbaum, 

Westcott, Loud, and Long (1999). Therefore, the time might 

better spend doing something else. As children are growing, 

there is risk of injury; however, low-intensity (low-weight) 

training regimens can be safe when the coach is qualified to 

coach young children. 

Children are not miniature adults—if they were, imagine 

how much easier coaching children would be! As people get 

older, they get better. Childhood lasts for about 12 years and 

is followed by adolescence, which continues for several more 


Figure 2. Average height and weight curves for American boys and girls. Malina, R.M. (1984). Physical growth and maturation. 

In Motor Development during childhood and adolescence. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess. 

years. There is a reason for this extended period of development. 

Development is a process that takes time and nurturing 

in order to reach a successful conclusion. 

BOYS AND GIRLS ARE MORE ALIKE THAN DIFFERENT 

The bodies of girls and boys are more alike than different 

during childhood: however, differences emerge during 

puberty that give males a performance advantage in certain 

activities. At puberty, or about 12 to 13 years of age, the 

growth of girls slows dramatically and then stops completely 

at about 15 to 16 years of age (Figure 2). Males reach 

puberty about two years later than girls and therefore reach 

their adult size at about 17 to 19 years of age, thus growing 

2 years longer than girls (Malina, 1984). Prior to puberty, 

boys and girls are very similar in height and weight: in fact, 

in elementary school the advantage may go to the earliest 

maturing girls, who are likely to be taller than everyone 

else. What does this mean for grouping athletes? Take care 

when grouping children. Optimally, children of similar skill 

should work together because it can be safer and motivations 

for success peaks when the challenge is appropriate. 

For young athletes, the motivation to learn and master 

skills is driven by two questions: Am I getting better? Am I 

normal? Those who answer these questions positively are 

likely to continue practicing and improving (Scanlan, 1995). 

Coaches should identify the following problems in running 

for remediation: arms swinging too much or too little, 

crossing the midline of the body, or flailing; feet toeing in 

or out or producing flat-footed steps; or trunk leaning too 

far forward and twisting. The range of performances on 

most motor skills during elementary school is greater within 

a gender than the differences between genders. The 

average running speed for girls and boys is nearly the same 

during elementary school. Girls demonstrate the mature 

running form described earlier at a slightly earlier age than 

boys. Most children demonstrate a mature run by 7 years of 

age. At puberty, boys continue to increase running speed, 

whereas girls’ running speed tends to level off or decreases 

slightly (Figure 3, pg 21). The differences during elementary 

school are attributed to different treatment of boys and 

girls. For example, boys tend to have great opportunity, 

expectation and encouragement—but there is no biological 

reason to expect differences during elementary school. 

Therefore coaches need to provide equal opportunity, have 

similar expectations and encourage boys and girls equally. 

Respiration response is the same for girls and boys. As 

children train, respiration rate can provide information 

about level of fatigue. For example, a child who can talk 

easily while jogging is probably breathing steadily; when 

respiration interferes with talking, the child is moving 

toward fatigue. Although this article has spent some time 

discussing gender differences, the fact is that all children 

are more alike than different. The focus of this principle is, 

of course, inclusion—whether the difference between two 

children is race, ethnicity, culture, gender, disability, or 

socioeconomic status. 

GOOD THINGS ARE EARNED 

Figure 4 (pg 21) compares overhand throwing by girls and 

boys using effect sizes. An effect size of .5 is moderate, and 

.8 is large. By using effect sizes, this figure shows the results 

of a large number of studies (so not just one sample of 

throwers). Most of us are aware what the phrase “throws 

like a girl” means: The throw is a slow, weak lower-arm 

motion accompanied by a short step on the same foot as 

the throwing hand. The arm motion often looks like a dart 

throw. Contrast this motion with the typical throw for a boy, 

which is vigorous: the entire body coils backward; as a large 


C OACHING YOUTHS 

Table 1. Sex Differences in World-Record Performance in Track (400 meters) 

step is taken forward, the hips rotate forward, followed by 

the shoulder, then the upper arm, and finally the lower 

arm and hand. The throw ends with the body leaning forward 

over the stepping leg. 

Why these differences in throwing motion? A few theories 

exist on this. The most likely is that the sociocultural 

importance of throwing well for males creates an atmosphere 

in which girls who throw poorly are allowed to continue 

to throw poorly and boys who throw poorly are 

trained until they throw well. The fact remains that training 

reduces those differences but does not eliminate 

them. All children should be expected to throw with an 

efficient pattern. As boys and girls practice, encourage 

them to take a large step, throwing with force. Do not 

worry about accuracy until a mature pattern is well established 

(5 for boys, 8 for girls). 

Table 1 shows how both males and females improved in 

the 400 meter dash over this 70-year span although 

females clearly improved more. Why? Opportunity, expectations, 

and encouragement for females are much different 

today than they were in 1923. World-class athletes are 

all motivated, well trained, and well coached. At this level, 

males and females differ by about 10% in performance— 

this likely represents a true biological difference. The differences 

within a gender are also large; that is, some 

males are much better at a particular activity than other 

males, and likewise some females are much better at a 

particular activity than other females. Thus, depending 

on the particular track and field event or task, biological 

and inherited factors make a relatively small contribution. 

Sportswriters, broadcasters and parents often use terms 

such as “natural athlete” to describe superstars. Less often 

they use the terms “hard worker” and “dedicated.” When 

working with young athletes, it is hard work and practice 

that should be emphasized, because that is within their 

control. The characteristics leading to performance are 

biological (physical size), psychological (motivation) and 

cognitive (knowledge and practice). 

Many professional athletes report being discouraged 

during childhood and adolescence. However, they persisted 

and became successful. This is likely attributable to 

the relative age effect—which means the oldest athletes in 

youth sport are identified as the best and the youngest 

and least mature as the poorest (Thomas & French, 1999). 

The relative age effect was discovered by examining the 

age of players on youth all-star teams, where the players 

with birthdays just after the cut-off date were most frequently 

all-stars. Similarly, in baseball the skilled position 

players (pitcher, catcher and shortstop) are all about a 

year older than outfielders and bench players. 

If environment did not matter, practice would be 

unnecessary—as would coaches. If innate “talent” is all 

that matters, practice becomes unimportant. A coach’s 

training philosophy is based on the notion that environment 

(and nurturing) does matter. The foundation for 

youth sport is effort, practice, and improvement. Motor 

development research suggests that good things do come 

to those who work hard. 


Figure 3. Running speed during childhood. 

From Espenschade, A. and 

Eckert, H. (1974). Motor 

Development. Science and medicine 

of exercise and sport (2nd ed.). New 

York, NY: Harper and Howl. 

Figure 4. Effect size for 

overarm throwing (gender differences 

increase with age). 

From Thomas, J.R. and 

French, K.E. (1985). Gender 

differences across age in 

motor performance; A metaanalysis. 

Psychological 

Bulletin, 98, 260-282. 


COACHING YOUTHS 

Figure 5. The three body types 

NO BODY (NOBODY) IS PERFECT 

Effective coaches embrace the uniqueness of each athlete. 

There is variability among athletes and within each 

student. The coach’s job is to leverage the potential of 

each athlete by understanding how children are different, 

how they develop, and how they learn. Physique is 

described by 3 body shapes (Figure 5). The apple-or pearshaped 

body (endomorph), the muscular body (mesomorph) 

and the linear body (ectomorph). Most people 

are a combination of two. Early maturing females tend to 

be endomorphs, and later maturing children tend to be 

ectomorphs. Individuals usually have little control over 

their physique. Physical activity and healthy eating allow 

people to make the most of their physique. As a coach 

you can help children understand that a) there is no ideal 

body shape, b) we are all more alike than different and c) 

all of us can have healthy bodies. The emphasis on body 

type creates two additional problems: 

It shifts the focus away from athletic improvement, a 

positive behavior, and toward body weight. 

In some people, it may encourage unhealthy eating and 

a desire to be “too thin.” 

What is also important for children and adolescents to 

understand is that larger bones and a healthy amount of 

muscle are good. Their participation in track and field 

can help by increasing muscle and bone growth, and 

reducing fat. Although a moderate level of skill is important 

in order to enjoy most sports, you do not have to be 

an expert to enjoy track and field. The task for youth 

coaches is to provide all children with a variety of skills so 

they can choose events in which they can enjoy success. 

Success does not mean winning; success means participating 

regularly and performing effectively relative to skill 

level and expectations. 

REFERENCES 

Bar-Or, O. (1983). Pediatric sports medicine for the 

practitioner. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. 

Espenschade, A. and Eckert, H. (1974). Motor 

Development. Science and medicine of exercise and sport 

(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Howl. 

Faigenbaum, A.D., Westcott, W.L., Loud, R.L., and Long, 

C. (1999). The effects of different resistance training protocols 

on muscular strength and endurance development in 

children. Pediatrics, 104, 5. 

Malina, R.M. (1984). Physical growth and maturation. In 

Motor Development during childhood and adolescence. 

Minneapolis, MN: Burgess. 

Scanlan, T.K. (1995). Social evaluation and the competitive 

process: A developmental perspective. In Children and 

youth in sports: A biopsychosocial perspective. Dubuque, 

IA: Brown & Benchmark. 

Thomas, K.T. and Thomas, J.R. (1999). What squirrels in 

trees predict about expert athletes. International Journal of 

Sport Psychology, 30, 221-234. 

Thomas, J.R. and French, K.E. (1985). Gender differences 

across age in motor performance; A meta-analysis. 

Psychological Bulletin, 98, 260-282. 

Matthew Buns, PhD, Concordia University Chicago 

can be reached at matthew.buns@cuchicago.edu or 

641-512-1736. 


AMENTAL PLAN 

UTILIZING POSITIVE SELF-TALK TO BUILD COMPETITIVE CONFIDENCE IN THE THROWS 

BY LAWRENCE W. JUDGE, PH.D., CSCS AND ERIN GILREATH, MA. 



WWithout adequate mental preparation, an athlete, 

even with excellent physical and technical preparation, 

can undermine his or her own performance. A 

seasoned coach can use sport psychology to help the 

athlete in gaining a competitive advantage by assisting 

with the mental preparation needed to perform 

at peak levels. Psychological preparation is focused 

on techniques that athletes can use in a competitive 

situation to maintain control and optimize performance 

(Reardon, 1992). Mental skills must be developed 

in a systematic, progressive fashion to achieve 

maximum results (Judge, Bell, Bellar, & Wanless, 

2010). Mental periodization has emerged as the latest 

tool to help coaches prepare athletes for competition 

(Holliday et al., 2008). Mental periodization is a conscious 

systematic mental conditioning program 

designed for peak performance for specific competitions 

and is focused on such items as motivation, 

arousal awareness, developing pre-competition routines, 

self-talk, and confidence (Table 1, pg 26). The 

concept of periodization framework is easily accepted 

intellectually by coaches; however, the practicalities 

of putting this framework together in an effective 

manner are much more difficult to grasp. Thus, 

coaches and sport psychology consultants must work 

together to properly implement mental periodization 

plans to achieve optimal results (Judge et al., 2010). 

There are many components that contribute to 

peak performance in athletes. Usually these components 

are interrelated in such a way that, if one piece 

of the puzzle is weak or absent, the other pieces will 

not function optimally. Having confidence (or lack 

thereof) can affect many other aspects of performance 

as well. Achieving an optimal level of arousal 

and focus is a necessity for successful athletes and 

this optimal mental state for a thrower can be 

referred to as a “flow” state (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). 

An athlete’s self-talk during practice and competition 

is important to achieving a flow state (Reardon, 

1992). Self-talk is a skill that, if used properly, is rooted 

in an athlete’s confidence level. More specifically, 

the manipulation of self-talk can have positive or 

negative effects on the perceived ability of the athlete. 

Negative self-talk can limit an athlete’s performance, 

increase stress level, and adversely affect selfconcept. 

Most throws coaches are quite adept in 

training the necessary physiological systems, but 


A MENTAL PLAN 

Table 1 

don’t address the mental components as effectively. There is 

a lack of information available on a system of mental preparation 

that is thorough enough to match the physical preparation 

and help the athlete to achieve “flow.” One strategy to 

achieve “flow” is to increase the athlete’s awareness of selftalk, 

identifying areas of self-talk that need to be improved, 

and to develop strategies to improve the content of self-talk. 

The purpose of this article is to: 1. describe themes related to 

self-talk, and 2. suggest methods that can increase awareness 

of self-talk and develop strategies to change self-talk 

units that are detrimental to performance. 

DEFINING SELF-TALK 

Self–talk refers to the mental dialogue that occurs when 

faced with conflict, life challenges, or even simple day-today 

concerns. Self-talk is a running commentary about 

everything you do (Reardon & Gordon, 1999). Every occurrence 

in your life receives some internal comment, remark, 

or evaluation. Patterns of negative or positive self-talk often 

start in childhood and often color a person’s thinking for 

years, and can influence the experience of life’s stress. These 

patterns are worth changing if they become negative in 

nature (Reardon & Gordon, 1999). 

Research on self-talk has sought to answer questions pertaining 

to the where, what, why, and when of self-talk. The 

results of a study by Hardy, Gammage, and Hall in 2001 were 

as follows: 

Where did self-talk occur most often? Sport-related locations 

were mentioned first and home was mentioned second 

When did it occur? During practice or competition. 

What was the nature of the self-talk? Polarity/nature (+/-), structure 

(phrases, cue words, or sentences), or task instructions 

(skill-specific or general) 

Why did athletes use self-talk? Motivation (more than for skill 

development/execution). 

In an effort to quantitatively evaluate the self-talk of athletes, 

researchers found that most self-talk is positive, and 

contains equal parts negative and neutral self-talk (Reardon 

& Gordon, 1999). Also, males are more prone to using negative 

self-talk and more external self-talk than their female 

counterparts (Hardy, Hall, & Hardy, 2005). 

SELF-TALK AND EXERCISE INTENSITY 

Self-talk will differ in content depending on the activity 

level and fatigue of an athlete. St Clair Gibson and Foster 

(2007) classify self-talk as being either associative or dissociative, 

and the category of self-talk is dependent on exercise 

intensity: as exercise intensity increases associative self-talk 

increases. Associative self-talk that occurs when working 

out at high intensities serves many functions including 

pace/body monitoring and awareness of effect. This kind of 

self-talk would be important for preventing injury by promoting 

body awareness and for sustaining exercise beyond a 

certain threshold. Dissociative thoughts have to do with the 

environment, reflection, problem-solving, and general conversational 

chatter that occurs inside one’s head. 


Dissociative thoughts are more prevalent during low 

intensities as the mind tends to wander away from the 

task the body is performing because extra mental effort is 

not needed to continue the task (St Clair Gibson and 

Foster, 2007). 

INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL SELF-TALK 

Self-talk can be described as the dialogue that one has 

with oneself, either internally or aloud, with most self-talk 

occurring internally (Hardy et al., 2005). In a paper by St 

Clair Gibson and Foster (2007), it was observed that negative 

self-talk was more likely to be said aloud as opposed 

to positive self-talk. Zinsser, Bunker and Williams (2010) 

describe self-talk as the “key to cognitive control” because 

of its ability to change thought processes, regulate arousal 

and anxiety, maintain appropriate focus, and cope with 

adversity. The anxiety regulatory and coping effects of 

self-talk have been well documented in the literature. In a 

recent study by Hatzigeorgiadis and Biddle (2008), it was 

revealed that athletes who perceived their pre-competitive 

anxiety as facilitative reported less negative self-talk that 

those who perceived their anxiety as debilitative. In a follow-up 

study, Hatzigeorgiadis and Biddle (2008) then 

sought to discover if actual performance correlated more 

directly with negative self-talk than pre-competitive anxiety 

due to goal-performance differences. They found that 

discrepancies between goals and performance were more 

strongly correlated to negative self-talk than pre-competitive 

anxiety. The results of this follow-up study demonstrate 

that when athletes perform poorly relative to their 

expectations of achievement, or when confronted with 

competitive adversity, they will tend to focus on self-evaluative, 

performance-related thoughts. This relationship 

between goals and performance is a more powerful predictor 

of negative self-talk than is pre-competitive anxiety, 

even if that anxiety was seen as debilitative by the athletes. 

Ideally, self-talk is absent as athletes report having little 

conscious thought during peak performance or “flow” 

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), but it’s difficult to train a mind 

to think of nothing, as the mind would have to focus on 

thinking of nothing in an effort to clear the mind. This is 

not an efficient way to spend time during mental training 

as the athlete should be focusing on thoughts that are 

conducive to performance. Too much self-talk can also be 

detrimental to performance as it would disrupt automaticity 

of thought and action. The key to making selftalk 

a skill and not a liability to an athlete lies in controlling 

its polarity (positive or negative), eliminating distracting 

elements, and keeping self-talk at an appropriate 

level/frequency given the complexity and newness of the 

task, and the athletic ability (skill level) of the athlete performing 

the task. 

Research has identified several ways to quantify selftalk, 

the first of which deals with polarity (positive or negative) 

(Hardy et al., 2005). Positive self-talk will enhance 

self-worth and performance whereas negative self-talk 

will produce the opposite effect. Neutral self-talk also 

exists and is usually instructional in nature, which could 

also have an impact on performance. The second way to 

quantify self-talk is as either instructional or motivational. 

Instructional self-talk gives athletes attentional cues about 

the technical aspects of a physical skill. For example, a 

hammer thrower in the sport of track and field might tell 

himself before a throw, “long, long, push, push” as instructional 

self-talk to focus his attention on what to do on 

each turn of the throws. Motivational self-talk can help 

regulate arousal by making the athlete focus on the effort 

they put forth on a particular trial (Reardon & Gordon, 

1999). Additionally, motivational self-talk helps reinforce 

self-confidence by providing the athlete with affirmations 

of their ability. Keeping with the example of a hammer 

thrower, motivational self-talk could be something like “I 

can execute a good throw” or “I can wait on the ball.” 

Self-talk also exists as either internal or external. Most 

research has focused on external self-talk because internal 

self-talk is much harder to quantify (Hardy et al., 2005). To 

measure internal self-talk, athletes would have to selfreport 

their internal self-talk, which is difficult for many 

reasons. First, athletes might not be aware of their internal 

self-talk. Second, they may forget their internal selftalk 

before they are able to record it or report it to 

researchers. Finally, the study of internal self-talk is a 

challenge because athletes may not accurately report 

because they may simply wish not to report their internal 

thoughts or feelings, even though most internal self-talk 

may be positive. In 2007, St Clair Gibson and Foster confirmed 

that most negative self-talk is external while the 

internal self-talk is usually positive in nature. Self-reported 

questionnaires and limited comparable data create difficulty 

in assessing result reliability (Alaranta et al., 2006) 

as answers may be intentionally answered falsely as the 

subjects being questioned may not wish to reveal their 

true feelings, even if anonymity and confidentiality are 

guaranteed by the investigators. 

SELF-TALK CONTENT 

The content of self-talk varies by athlete and level of the 

athlete performing the task (i.e. beginning, intermediate 

or elite). The content of self-talk will also vary depending 

on the newness/complexity of the skill being performed. 

In general, it is best for athletes to focus on short phrases 

(mantras) that represent the key points of what could be a 

longer cue. Research has shown that planning and memorization 

of key words will result in a significant improvement 

in performance in as little as one week’s time (Ming 

& Martin, 1996). The hammer throw is an example of a 

complex skill that involves strength and power in the individual 

sport of track and field (Figure 1, pg 30). Referring 

back to the example of the hammer thrower, “long, long, 

push, push” is a cue abbreviated from a longer sentence of 

“Let the hammer go long to the left with long double-support 

phases on turns one and two, then push the knees 

closed on turns three and four.” The full sentence is far 


A MENTAL PLAN 

Figure 1. The hammer throw is an example of a 

complex skill that involves strength and power 

in the individual sport of track and field. 

too long to focus an athlete’s attention appropriately on the 

cues that would be the most effective in assisting the athlete 

in achieving an optimal result. Content of self-talk also varies 

by the experience of the athlete and the complexity/novelty of 

the skill that is being performed. When a skill is new (and 

therefore more complex), or the athlete is inexperienced, 

longer self-talk that includes more details to facilitate mastery 

of the physical skill will need to be used. Conversely, experienced 

athletes, or those performing a skill that is simple, will 

not require as many cues; a single self-talk unit is most effective. 

Frequency of self-talk will differ depending on the 

nature of the sport being played. Athletes who play individual 

sports will use more self-talk than those in team sports (Hardy 

et al., 2005). This phenomenon 

could be attributed to the timegoverned 

nature of most team 

sports that does not afford athletes 

the luxury to use self-talk. 

Athletes playing team sports are 

also more likely to use negative 

and external self-talk, but less 

overall self-talk than athletes in 

individual sports (Hardy et al., 

2005). The “team” nature of some 

sports may be a reason why selftalk 

is predominantly negative or 

external amongst athletes. In a 

team sport, an individual may 

view himself/herself as only a 

small part of the equation. Team 

sport athletes could believe that 

their self-talk has little impact on 

the game or match because they 

have multiple teammates influencing 

the outcome. 

The appropriateness of selftalk 

in relation to the task being 

performed is also an important 

element to consider. Endurance 

tasks (i.e. long distance running) 

and strength/power tasks (i.e. 

weight lifting) will differ in their 

self-talk demands. One study 

examined the effect of motivational 

or instructional self-talk on 

four different tasks: a soccer pass 

for accuracy, a badminton serve, 

a 3-minute sit-up test 

(endurance), and a MVC on a leg 

extension (strength). The results 

showed that instructional selftalk 

impacts all tasks but is less 

effective on the endurance tasks. 

There were few differences in the 

effectiveness of the motivational 

self-talk among all tasks except 


for the strength test. In the control 

group, self-talk proved to be 

much less effective. (Theodorakis, 

Weinberg, Natsis, Dourma, & Kazakas, 2000). This occurs 

because in a strength power test, a short burst of energy is 

required for performance and can be enhanced by motivational 

phraseology. 

Further study in the realm of self-talk will likely focus on its 

precursors such as how the events that precede the self-talk 

influence the internal/external dialogue of an athlete. 

Preliminary studies have focused primarily on the role of the 

coach as the catalyst of self-talk. One of the preliminary studies 

found that the level of supportiveness demonstrated by a 

coach was highly correlated with the use of positive statements, 

which then led to positive self-talk in athletes 

(Zourbanos, Hatzigeorgiadis, & Theodorakis, 2007). Given the 


esults of this study, coaches should have a positive attitude 

toward their athletes so athletes in turn will have a positive 

attitude toward themselves. 

IMPROVING SELF-TALK 

One of the first steps to improving self-talk habits is 

becoming aware of self-talk. The relationship between one’s 

thoughts, feelings and behaviors can best be explained by 

looking at the fundamentals, or ABC’s, of self-talk (Ellis, 

1962). According to Ellis (1962), thoughts are very important 

as we are what we think and when we repeat irrational sentences 

that we have devised or learned from our backgrounds, 

we disturb ourselves. It is important that athletes 

understand the impact their thoughts have on their performance. 

If an athlete has been habitually thinking negative 

thoughts, he or she probably won’t believe that the 

coach can change their way of thinking. This can be corrected, 

however, by recognizing the recurring thoughts and 

replacing any negative thoughts with more positive statements. 

When an athlete starts to notice the body’s reaction to 

detrimental thinking, he or she can start to become present, 

focus on how they want to react, pause, react calmly and 

analyze the situation. This is where the “challenge” step 

comes into play. Hardy, Roberts and Hardy (2009) tested the 

effectiveness of two different awareness interventions: the 

paperclip technique and the logbook. In Hardy et al. (2009), 

73 participants completed a questionnaire on awareness of 

the use and content of negative self-talk, as well as the 

motivation to change negative self-talk. Participants were 

assigned to a control, paperclip or logbook group. 

Participants performed three typical training sessions over a 

three-week period. The logbook group completed a self-talk 

logbook after each session whereas the paperclip group carried 

out a paperclip exercise during each session. The 

paperclip exercise consisted of giving the athlete a bag of 50 

paperclips and having them move one from their left to 

right pocket whenever they used any negative self-talk. At 

the end of the session they would then count the paperclips 

in their right pocket and, in essence, enhance awareness of 

their own negative self-talk (Hardy et al., 2009). Upon completion 

of the training sessions, the questionnaire was readministered. 

The logbook worked much better at increasing 

athletes’ self-awareness and content of negative self-talk 

than the paperclip technique. However, neither method 

demonstrated any significant impact on motivating the athlete 

to change his/her behavior. 

Self-instructions (sometimes called instructional self-talk), 

such as a hammer thrower saying to himself, “Eyes to the sky 

on the release,” can likewise be used during practice sessions 

to build a habit or immediately before a performance to serve 

as a cue. Again, due to an athlete’s limited attentional capacity, 

having a cue word (either instructional or motivational in 

nature) may have a positive effect on performance (Chroni, 

Perkos and Theodorakis, 2007). Instructional self-talk can be 

utilized on the day of competition. Effectively monitoring 

self-talk requires a focus on the positive aspects of performance, 

which in turn reaffirms positive self-talk (Reardon, 

1995). Developing statements that remain positive and 

focused on the task at hand are important for reinforcing 

positive self-talk. As Gill (2000) points out, one effective strategy 

involves athletes developing pre-planned statements 

that produce positive thoughts and images. Athletes can 

develop and experiment with various statements in practice 

such as “I am mentally tough,” “It’s no big deal,” and/or “Stay 

relaxed.” Self-instructions or instructional self-talk, can likewise 

be used during practice sessions to build a technical 

habit or immediately before a performance to serve as a 

technical cue (Feltz and Landers, 1983). In a sport like track 

and field, the coach may not be within hearing range of the 

athlete on certain competition days and may have to use 

hand signals further emphasizing the need for easy and 

direct cue words. 

Many coaches get impatient with athletes because they 

cannot perform at full capacity during the season and the 

coach fails to realize the true cause of an athlete’s technical 

difficulties: their mental approach. The key is timing, 

sequence, and interaction of the mental and physical training 

stimuli to allow optimum adaptive response in pursuit 

of specific competitive goals. The goal of final preparation in 

the competitive phase is to maximize fitness and skills and 

minimize distractions on the day of the competition. Many 

athletes under-perform on competition day because of a 

number of mental obstacles. The most successful elite athletes 

have mastered the ability to approach the competition 

in a unique way by changing their mental process and internal 

dialog. Four-time U.S. Olympian in the hammer throw 

and current head coach at Ashland University, Jud Logan, 

utilizes this novel way of approaching important competitions 

by reframing the way he views competition in his 

mind (Cannon, n.d.). According to Logan, “When I was an 

active thrower I did not compete to win. I competed to 

reward myself for training hard” (J. Logan, personal communication, 

Dec. 13, 2010). Reframing is the process of creating 

an alternative frame of reference or a different way of 

looking at a situation. According to Gauron (1984), reframing 

allows you to acknowledge the issue or thought but 

allows you to view the event from a different perspective. 

Coach Jud Logan is adamant that a competition should be 

thought of as a reward for the hours of hard training. 

According to Logan, “each thrower is rewarded at least three 

throws (trials) and the possibility of an additional reward of 

three more throws (finals) for the countless hours of dedicated 

throwing and weight lifting” (J. Logan, personal communication, 

December 13, 2010). Practicing and developing 

the skill of reframing will assist the athlete with controlling 

his internal dialogue or self-talk in a positive and useful 

manner, and much of the anxiety and pressure of competition 

will be lifted. Ravizza (1977) reported that athletes who 

compete without fear have a narrow focus of attention, full 

immersion in the activity, and a feeling of being in absolute 

control. Reframing is an effective method of achieving this 

state of mind (Cannon, n.d.). Utilizing methods of reframing 

can help ease the angst that sometimes accompanies 

competition for track and field athletes in all events. 


A MENTAL PLAN 

INCLUDING POSITIVE SELF-TALK IN A PRE-COMPETITIVE ROUTINE 

Incorporating concentration, composure, and confidence 

into an athlete’s training and competition regimen will maximize 

the opportunity for positive self-talk. The pre-competitive 

routine is a necessary element of the training and competitive 

plan (Reardon & Gordin, 1999). The biggest challenge 

that competitive athletes and their coaches face is how to put 

the continued development of psychological skills into the 

training program (Judge et al., 2010). The way you practice is 

essentially the way you will compete. The process of mental 

skill acquisition begins in the preparation phase with the 

emphasis on proficiency in concentration and composure. 

This encompasses skills such as deep breathing and relaxation, 

focusing techniques, developing the skill of breathing 

control and arousal management. Also, skills such as attentional 

control and attentional endurance as well as transitional 

flexibility are necessary in the early stages of skill 

development. These fundamental and specific skills, encompassed 

by concentration and composure, lay the base for the 

development of higher-level skills such as visualization, 

imagery, and self-talk management. The concentration and 

composure skills seem less directly related to performance, 

but what becomes apparent when viewing high-level performance 

or performance breakdown is that breakdown 


occurs most often in the areas of concentration and composure 

(Reardon & Gordin, 1999). 

The application of psychological skills to competitive 

situations requires developing an effective pre-competition 

routine, a sound pre-performance routine and a 

sound recovery/refocusing routine for use in competition 

(Reardon, 1992). All of these routines need to be developed, 

utilized and applied in a practice situation in order 

to be able to effectively implement them in a competitive 

situation (Judge et al., 2010). Elements of a competition 

day mental plan include: 

Energy Management Skills 

Checklist For Competition Day 

Mental Plan Chronology 

The principle of specificity is very important to keep in 

mind when designing physical training programs and is 

equally important in the development of psychological 

skills. A pre-competition routine for a hammer thrower 

may include a planned warm up, positive self-talk, a focus 

on performance goals, a relaxation strategy, controlling the 

type and amount of interaction with others, a nap earlier 

in the day, and monitoring fluid and food intake. The competition 

day mental plan in Table 2 was utilized by 

American record holder (in the women’s hammer throw) 

Erin Gilreath. Ultimately, athletes need to experiment with 

the pre-competition routine in practice with the guidance 

of the coach. 

CONCLUSION 

The concept of self-talk has several important implications 

for athletes and coaches. Dedicated and driven 

coaches seeking success must know how to incorporate 

not only the physical aspect of training, but also the mental 

aspects as well. Sport psychology has emerged as the 

latest tool for helping coaches prepare athletes for competition, 

but few coaches take full advantage of psychological 

skill preparation. Psychological training for any athletic 

undertaking is a complex process that involves learning, 

practicing, and applying numerous psychological skills 

(like the previously mentioned skill of self-talk). 

Psychological training must be part of the periodized plan 

and must be programmed as such. 

Although this article has focused specifically upon selftalk 

for the throwing events in track and field, the basic 

psychological concepts and practices noted have application 

in numerous other individual and team sports. One of 

the most important skills for learning to deal with stressful 

situations is to identify self-talk the internal dialogue 

occurring within the mind. The “stress-log,” covering the 

A’s, B’s, and C’s of the situation, is a useful tool to help 

uncover the negative or unhelpful aspects of thinking. 

Replacing those negative thoughts with more reasonable 

and helpful thoughts is key to optimal results. 

All events in track and field and other sports can benefit 

from the development of a psychological training plan 

that is sequenced and that unfolds in harmony with the 

physical training plan. The gap between the science used 

to develop the training program on paper and the art of 

implementing the program to maximize the performance 

in the competitive and practice venues separates good 

coaches from great coaches. All coaches strive for the ability 

to have their athletes perform in an uninhibited, 

relaxed, and skillful manner. Various personalities, team 

chemistries, motivations, and attitudes coalesce to create 

a series of variables for the coach to juggle. With the daily 

practice plan in hand, the coach steps out onto the field 

and begins practice where a multitude of unexpected variables 

can occur. Implementing and successfully executing 

the plan may very well be the biggest challenge. It does not 

matter what is on paper if the coach cannot execute the 

plan effectively. Understanding each individual athlete 

and knowing what motivates him or her is the crucial element 

of understanding self-talk and creating an environment 

for great performance. Inadequate mental preparation 

can easily undermine an excellent physical technical 

preparation. Flow, which many experts in the field call 

“being in the zone,” is a primary goal of athletes and 

coaches alike. A coach who utilizes a plan to train the 

mental skills along with the physical skills throughout the 

year will minimize the unknown variables and better prepare 

their athlete’s ability to perform in competitions. 

Developing a strategy for mental preparation will help 

your individual athletes and/or team realize their full 

potential and enjoy the post event celebration on the 

awards stand. The hard work pays off! 

Dr. Larry Judge is an Associate Professor of Physical 

Education at Ball State University and the Throws Chair for 

the USATF Coaching Education Program. 

Erin Gilreath was a 2004 Olympian in the Hammer Throw 

and competed in two World Championships. 

REFERENCES 

Alaranta, A., Alaranta, H., Holmila, J., Palmu, P., Pietilä, 

K., & Helenius, I. (2006). Self -reported attitudes of elite 

athletes towards doping: Differences between type of 

sport. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 27(10), 

842-846. 

Cannon, N. (n.d). The psychology of hammer throwing: 

Jud Logan. Retrieved from: 

http://hammerthrow.org/training-resources/articles/psychology-jud-logan/ 

Chroni, S., Perkos, S., & Theodorakis, Y. (2007). Function 

and preferences of motivational and instructional self-talk 

for adolescent basketball players. Athletic Insight, 9(1). 

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of 

optimal experience. New York City, NY: Harper & Row. 

Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. 

Secaucus, NJ: Citadel Press. 

Feltz, D. L., & Landers, D. M. (1983). The effects of mental 

practice on motor skill learning and performance: A 

meta-analysis. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 25-27. 

Gauron, E. F. (1984). Mental training for peak performance. 

Lansing, NY: Sport Science International. 

Gill, D. L. (2000). Psychological dynamics of sport and 

exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 

Hardy, J., Grammage, K., & Hall, C. (2001). A descriptive 

study of athlete self-talk. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 306- 

318. 


A MENTAL PLAN 


Hardy, J., Hall, C. R., & Hardy, L. (2005). Quantifying athlete 

self-talk. Journal of Sport Sciences, 23(9), 905-917. 

Hardy, J., Roberts, R., & Hardy, L. (2009). Awareness and 

motivation to change negative self-talk. The Sport Psychologist, 

23, 435-450. 

Hatzigeorgiadis, A., & Biddle, S. (2008). Negative self-talk during 

sport performance: Relationships with pre-competition 

anxiety and goal performance discrepancies. Journal of Sport 

Behavior, 31(3), 237-253. 

Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., & Theodorakis, Y. (2007). 

The moderating effects of self-talk content on self-talk functions. 

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 240-251. 

Holliday, B., Burton, D., Sun, G., Hammermeister, J., Naylor, 

S., & Freigang, D. (2008). Building the better mental training 

mousetrap: Is periodization a more systematic approach to 

promoting performance excellence? Journal of Applied Sport 

Psychology, 20, 199-219. 

Judge, L. W., Bell, R. J., Bellar, D., & Wanless, E. (2010). 

Developing a mental game plan: Mental periodization for 

achieving a “flow” state for the track and field athlete. The Sport 

Journal, 13(4), ISSN: 1543-9518. 

Ming, S., & Martin, G. L. (1996). Single-subject evaluation of a 

self-talk package for improving figure skating performance. The 

Sport Psychologist, 10, 227-238. 

St Clair Gibson, A., & Foster, C. (2007). The role of self-talk in 

the awareness of physiological state and physical performance. 

Sports Medicine, 37(12), 1029-1044. 

Ravizza, K. (1977). A subjective study of the athlete’s greatest 

moment in sport. In Proceedings of the Canadian Psychomotor 

Symposium, Psychomotor Learning and Sport Psychology 

Symposium (pp. 399-404). Toronto, Canada: Coaching 

Association of Canada. 

Reardon, J. (1992). Incorporating mental skills into workouts: 

Learning how to “go with the flow.” American Athletics, 3, 54-55. 

Reardon, J. (1995). Relaxation: A necessary skill for competition. 

American Athletics, 3, 50-53. 

Reardon, J., & Gordin, R. (1999). Psychological skill development 

leading to a peak performance “flow state.” Track and 

Field Coaches Review, 3(2), 22-25. 

Theodorakis, Y., Weinberg, R., Natsis, P., Douma, I., & 

Kazakas, P. (2000). The effects of motivational versus instructional 

self-talk on improving motor performance. The Sport 

Psychologist, 14, 253-272. 

Zinsser, N., Bunker L., & Williams, J. M. (2010). Cognitive 

techniques for building confidence and enhancing performance. 

In J. Williams (Ed.), Applied Sport Psychology: Personal 

Growth and Peak Performance (305-335). New York City, NY: 

McGraw-Hill. 


mental imagery 

By Sterling M. Roberts 



COACHES ARE ALWAYS 

SEARCHING FOR WAYS 

TO GIVE ATHLETES ANY 

EXTRA ADVANTAGE 

OVER OTHER TEAMS 

AND ATHLETES. 

One edge that has been the focus of 

much research is the enhancement of 

athlete confidence for the potential 

effects of heightened confidence on performance. 

In recent literature, studies 

by Craft, Magyar, Becker, and Feltz 

(2003) and Mamassis and Doganis 

(2004) found that of the indices measured 

by the Competitive State Anxiety 

Inventory-2 (CSAI-2), self-confidence 

best predicted performance in athletic 

events. Bandura (1997), considered to 

be an expert on self-efficacy and related 

topics such as confidence, concluded 

that while self-efficacy was not a substitute 

for physical talent, it was surely one 

of the co-determinants of athletic 

prowess and in contests of evenlymatched 

opponents, “Perceived efficacy 

emerges as the sole determinant of overtime 

performance” (p. 383). It would 

appear, therefore, that while a coach’s 

primary job is to instruct athletes on the 

finer points of the sport itself, one of the 

most helpful things a coach could do for 

the athletes’ overall performance would 

be finding ways to improve their selfconfidence 

and self-efficacy. 

Upon closer investigation into sources 

of sport self-confidence, it was apparent 

that mental preparation and, more 

specifically, motor imagery were major 

determinants of athletes’ sport confidence 

levels (Cumming, Olphin, & Law, 

2007; Hays, Maynard, Thomas, & 

Bawden, 2007; Thomas, Maynard, & 

Hanton, 2007; Short & Short, 2005). 

Motivational General-Mastery (MG-M) 

imagery was defined as imagery which 

focused particularly on an athlete’s control 

and confidence in a difficult situation 

(Hall, Mack, Paivio, & Hausenblas, 

1998). The purpose of this inquiry, 

therefore, was to determine whether 

weekly use of MG-M imagery exercises 

by NCAA Division III track athletes 

would enhance the sport confidence of 

those athletes, as quantified by Vealey’s 

(1986) Trait Sport Confidence Inventory 

(TSCI), which was found to be a valid 

and reliable measure of sport confidence 

in previous research. The goal 

was to develop a mental imagery routine 

that coaches and athletes could use to 

build athletes’ confidence, and therefore 

improve performances, in their athletic 

endeavors now and in the future. 

METHODS OF RESEARCH 

PARTICIPANTS 

Ten collegiate track and field athletes 

from a rural Division III institution volunteered 

to participate in the imagery 

sessions. They ranged in age from 18 to 

21 years, consisting of five males and 

five females with seven being 

Caucasians and three being African- 

Americans. The athletes competed in 

the sprinting, jumping, hurdling, and 

throwing events in track and field, comprising 

a wide range of competitive 

events. Results were gathered for seven 

total participants after three athletes 

elected to discontinue their participation. 

All athletes followed the intervention 

and procedures as detailed below 

until they eliminated themselves from 

the study. 

INSTRUMENTS 

In this study, the quantitative instrument 

of measure was the TSCI (Vealey, 

1986), which assessed subjects’ sport 

confidence. The inventory consisted of 

13 items answered using a nine-point 

Likert scale, with “1” representing “low” 

confidence and “9” representing “high” 

confidence. Before responding to the 

items, instructions directed athletes to 

base their responses on how confident 

they “generally feel” when competing in 

sport. Instructions also indicated that 

athletes were to compare their confidence 

levels to the “most self-confident 

athlete” they knew. The test-retest reliability 

of the TSCI was found to be very 

high (r = .86), and the inventory was 

shown to be valid with significant correlations 

to other measurements of selfconfidence 

among athletes. 


MENTAL IMAGERY 

In addition, a qualitative component was added for more 

detailed results. At the end of the study, during an individual 

session scheduled with the researcher, athletes responded to 

the following prompt: 

Do you feel that the imagery exercises in which you have 

engaged throughout the course of this study had any effect 

on your levels of confidence in your specific event or sport as 

a whole? Explain in detail the extent to which the imagery 

had an effect on your confidence. In addition, please indicate 

whether or not you intend to continue the use of 

imagery on your own following the conclusion of this study 

and your reasons for doing so or not. 

Athletes were given as much time as needed to respond in 

as much detail as possible. 

PROCEDURES 

Pre-intervention. Before beginning imagery exercises, an initial 

TSCI was administered to each athlete. Participants 

received instructions on which types of imagery they should 

focus on and on how much time they should devote to the 

exercises each week. They then underwent a preliminary, 

researcher-led relaxation and imagery session, in order to 

experience the techniques and types of imagery to be used 

throughout the six-week intervention. Finally, the researcher 

answered any questions the athletes had regarding the study 

before the intervention period began. 

Intervention. Participants in the study were required to 

engage in weekly MG-M imagery exercises associated with 

control and confidence. The researcher explained that MG-M 

imagery involved imaging the entire process associated with 

mastering a difficult situation in a specific event, including 

specific details, such as the weather, the scenery and feelings 

and emotions that may occur during the event. Athletes were 

told to engage in relaxation techniques before going through 

any imagery exercise. The relaxation techniques involved 

finding a quiet, comfortable location to sit or lie down. 

Athletes were told to follow a relaxation script provided to 

them in audio and in written format (Price-Evans, 2010). The 

relaxation script involved deep breathing exercises meant to 

release tension and calm the athlete prior to their imagery 

session. After a five- to 10-minute relaxation session, athletes 

would begin their MG-M imagery exercises, using as much 

detail as possible. 

Athletes followed this general intervention procedure at 

least four times each week for six weeks. The athletes were 

required to provide details about personal imagery sessions 

at least three times each week in a provided imagery journal. 

The journals served to immediately reinforce the athletes’ 

imagery. To ensure that the athletes understood the goals of 

the imagery exercises, they scheduled one structured imagery 

session each week with the researcher to go through the 

intervention procedure and imagery session as well as to 


RESULTS 

Following a six-week intervention, 

all qualitative and 

quantitative data were analyzed 

to determine whether 

weekly use of motor imagery 

exercises by the athletes had 

any effect on their levels of 

confidence in track and field. 

Following separate analysis of 

the quantitative and qualitative 

results, triangulation was 

used to compare the two sets 

of results and determine 

whether the results supported 

each other and whether 

past research supported the 

results of this investigation. 

review and discuss the imagery journal. This time served to 

ensure that the athletes were properly following the procedures 

and were using correct MG-M imagery techniques and 

situations. 

Post-intervention. Immediately following the last scheduled 

structured imagery session, athletes were instructed to submit 

their imagery journals so that the researcher could verify 

the frequency of the participants’ individual imagery sessions. 

The TSCI was administered again, and the athletes 

were given as much time as they required to respond to the 

reflective prompt. Athletes who had not recorded at least 

three personal sessions each week throughout the six week 

intervention were excluded from the results, which were analyzed 

in detail following the post-intervention procedures. 

QUANTITATIVE RESULTS 

Before beginning motor 

imagery, the median TSCI 

score was 87 (N=7; M=83.3; 

SD=18.5). Following the sixweek 

intervention, the athletes 

took the TSCI again to 

determine whether the program 

had any influence on 

their sport confidence. After 

six weeks of motor imagery, 

the median TSCI score rose 

to 99 (M=92.3; SD=15.5), a 

difference of 12 (See Figure 1 

for a graphical representation 

of participants’ pre- and 

post-intervention TSCI 

scores). Upon further investigation, 

it was discovered that 

one participant was a significant 

outlier, negatively skewing 

the mean and distorting 

the standard deviation. 

Following a re-analysis of results and the removal of the outlier 

from both the pre-intervention and post-intervention 

TSCI scores, the pre-intervention TSCI score mean was 89.3 

(N=6; SD=10.2), which was closer to the overall median score 

of 87. The post-intervention score reanalysis resulted in a 

mean score of 98.3 (SD=6.0), also much closer to the overall 

median score of 99. These results showed an average 

increase of 9.0 on the post-intervention TSCI scores compared 

to the pre-intervention baseline scores, an improvement 

of nearly one standard deviation (Z=0.88; see Table 1 

for complete pre- and post-intervention TSCI score results). 

Individual results showed that six of the seven participants 

scored higher on the post-intervention TSCI than their initial 

score, and the only athlete that did not show improvement 

scored only one point less on her post-imagery TSCI. 



Additionally, more than half of the participants improved by a z- 

score of 0.55 or greater, with three athletes having improved by a 

z-score above 1.0. Despite the small number of participants, the 

improvements still resulted in a marginally significant 0.057 p- 

value. These quantitative results were mirrored by the responses 

of the athletes to the qualitative reflective prompt. 

QUALITATIVE RESULTS 

The qualitative results stemmed from participant responses 

to the reflective prompt. Athletes were asked if they believed 

imagery had an effect on confidence and whether they intended 

to continue imagery in the future. Athlete responses to the 

two parts of the prompt were analyzed separately by searching 

for common themes and subthemes. 

All athletes responded that they felt imagery had a positive 

influence on their levels of confidence. Athlete responses to 

why or how imagery affected confidence were grouped into 

physically- and psychologically-based reasons (See Table 2 for 

the complete analysis of why participants believed imagery 

enhanced their confidence). All seven participants noted at 

least one psychological explanation for why they believed 

imagery positively influenced confidence compared to only 

four who believed their confidence was physically based. 

In addition to the unanimous agreement that imagery had 

an influence on sport confidence, all athletes responded that 

they planned to continue using imagery in the future. Again, 

reasons were grouped into the categories of physically and psychologically 

based as well as a generic category for unspecified 

responses or those that did not fit into either of the main categories 

(see Table 3, pg 42 for the complete analysis of why participants 

planned to continue imagery use). Again, athletes 

overwhelmingly stated that they intended to continue their use 

of imagery for psychological reasons over the relaxing physiological 

response. 

TRIANGULATION OF RESULTS 

Following the separate analysis of the quantitative TSCI 

results and the qualitative responses to the reflective prompt, 

the two sets were compared. The qualitative responses that 

athletes experienced positive influences on their self-confidence 

from the imagery were supported by the fact that TSCI 

scores increased by a significant margin during the six-week 

imagery program. In addition, the unanimous response that all 

athletes intended to continue their use of imagery following the 

conclusion of the intervention period indicated that the exercises 

were working and enjoyable to the participants. 

The concurrence of the quantitative and qualitative results in 

this study was no surprise, as previous research made similar 

findings. In a qualitative study, Hays et al. (2007) found that a 

majority of athletes found mental preparation, including 

imagery exercises, to be a source of confidence. In an implementation 

of a mental training program, which included extensive 

use of imagery, during the competitive season, Thomas et 

al. (2007) found this mental training had a significant effect on 

both the athletes’ frequency and intensity of self-confidence. 

In studies focusing solely on imagery, similar to this one, Short 

and Short (2005) and Cumming et al. (2007) found that imagery 

was consistently correlated with high scores in self-confidence. 

Despite the small number of participants in this study, the 

results were supported by the findings of past qualitative and 

quantitative research, which further validated the findings of 

this study. 

DISCUSSION 

Of seven participants who completed the six-week mental 

imagery program, six achieved higher sport confidence scores 

on the TSCI following the intervention (M=98.3 compared to 

M=89.3). Additionally, five of the seven scored at least one-half 

of a standard deviation higher (SD=10.2) on the post-intervention 

TSCI than they had prior to the imagery program. The only 

athlete that did not experience an increase in sport confidence 

scores saw a decrease of only one point. The results were only 

marginally significant (p=0.057), possibly due to the small number 

of participants involved in the study, but still suggested that 

the consistent use of MG-M imagery by athletes could increase 

their sport confidence overall. 


The triangulation of the quantitative and 

qualitative results further validated findings 

that the use of MG-M imagery could positively 

influence an athlete’s sport confidence. 

Both sets of results showed that the intervention 

program led to increased confidence, so 

much so that 100% of the participants intended 

to continue their use of imagery following 

the study. Previous research made similar 

findings (Short and Short, 2005; Cumming et 

al., 2007; Hays et al., 2007; Thomas et al., 

2007) further strengthening implications that 

regular use of MG-M imagery could enhance 

sport confidence in athletes. Overall, this 

study appeared to accomplish its goals. 

The reflective responses provided by the athletes following 

the intervention also suggested that MG-M imagery was an 

effective and enjoyable method of increasing athlete sport 

confidence. Participants unanimously responded that they 

experienced a positive impact on self-confidence due to the 

imagery exercises and that they enjoyed the intervention 

enough to continue imagery sessions in the future. 

Participants noted that their sources of confidence were psychological 

in nature rather than physical, substantiating that 

their main reasoning for continuing the use of imagery were 

also psychological. This was expected, due to the psychological 

nature of confidence itself and that imagery is an exercise 

that takes place solely in the psyche. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Despite the apparent implications of this 

examination of imagery and confidence, it is 

important to note that this study was conducted 

at one institution, with a limited 

number of volunteer participants, over a sixweek 

period of the preseason conditioning 

portion of the track and field season. In 

addition, the athletes knew and interacted 

with the researcher on a daily basis outside 

of the imagery study, which could have 

altered their responses to the TSCI and the 

reflective prompt. These factors could have 

impacted the results of the study, and further 

investigation would be necessary in 

order to make broader generalizations 

regarding the impact of MG-M imagery on 

overall sport confidence. 

One recommendation for future research 

would be to conduct a similar investigation at 

a larger NCAA Division I or II institution. 

Generally, these larger institutions put more 

of an emphasis on athletics than Division III 

institutions and are better funded in this area, 

including the allowance of athletic scholarships. 

More controls could be put in place to 

further validate the findings, such as funding 

for an imagery expert to conduct the imagery 

sessions instead of a coach with limited 

imagery experience and a relationship with 

the study participants outside of the imagery 

sessions. Additionally, perhaps these athletes, some of whom 

would presumably be on scholarship or competing to earn a 

scholarship in the future, would take more seriously elements 

that could potentially improve their performance, such as 

imagery. It would be interesting to see whether a similar 

study conducted at one of these higher divisions would result 

in similar findings and whether the implications differ due to 

the nature of athletics within the various divisions of the 

NCAA. 

Another recommendation would be to investigate the 

effects of imagery use over a longer intervention period, especially 

one which would include the competitive season. The 

physical and mental changes that occur during the season 




could affect the imagery used by the participants, which could 

have effects on the overall results of the study. In addition, more 

prolonged regular use of imagery could show whether the positive 

impacts on confidence increase or eventually plateau. These 

results would be useful in determining the optimal length of an 

imagery training program and perhaps in determining when 

such a training program would be most beneficial to the athletes. 

Perhaps the strongest recommendation (and potentially the 

one with the most implications) would be a study with a larger 

population sample, including athletes from different sports and 

multiple institutions. These results would be more valid across 

a larger cross section of the population and could be used to 

promote imagery training sessions for athletes in many sports. 

In addition, the inclusion of participants from multiple institutions 

could be used to validate the findings for athletes from 

colleges and universities of all sizes and divisions in different 

parts of the country. This research would be necessary to further 

conclude that regular use of MG-M imagery could be generally 

effective at enhancing the sport confidence of all athletes. 

CONCLUSION 

The purpose of this project was to determine whether regular 

use of MG-M imagery by athletes over the course of a six-week 

intervention period would have any impact on their sport confidence 

as measured by Vealey’s (1986) TSCI. Both the quantitative 

TSCI and the qualitative subject responses suggested that 

imagery use enhanced athlete sport confidence within the 

parameters of the study. Several recommendations were made 

which could further the literature in the area of imagery and 

sport confidence, including expanding the study to include a 

larger sample of athletes from various sports who attend different 

institutions across the country. Such research would be beneficial 

in advancing the understanding of the link between 

imagery and confidence, which is essential for a high level of 

performance for athletes. This understanding could be vital in 

enhancing the methods of coaches in any sport in order to provide 

their athletes with the highest opportunities for success. 

Sterling Roberts has spent the past two years as the graduate 

assistant jumps/hurdles/sprints coach at Defiance College in 

Defiance, Ohio, where he recently earned his Master of Arts in 

Education with a Concentration in Coaching. 

REFERENCES 

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. 

New York: Freeman. 

Craft, L., Magyar, T., Becker, B., & Feltz, D. (2003). The relationship 

between the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 

and sport performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & 

Exercise Psychology, 25(1), 44-65. Retrieved from SPORTDiscus 

with Full Text database. 

Cumming, J., Olphin, T., & Law, M. (2007). Self-reported psychological 

states and physiological responses to different types 

of motivational general imagery. Journal of Sport & Exercise 

Psychology, 29(5), 629-644. Retrieved from SPORTDiscus with 

Full Text database. 

Hall, C., Mack, D., Paivio, A., & Hausenblas, H. (1998). 

Imagery use by athletes: Development of the Sport Imagery 

Questionnaire. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29(1), 

73-89. 

Hays, K., Maynard, I., Thomas, O., & Bawden, M. (2007). 

Sources and types of confidence identified by world class sport 

performers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(4), 434-456. 

doi: 10.1080/10413200701599173 

Mamassis, G. & Doganis, G. (2004). The effects of a mental 

training program on juniors pre-competitive anxiety, self-confidence, 

and tennis performance. Journal of Applied Sport 

Psychology, 16(2), 118-137. doi: 10.1080/10413200490437903 

Price-Evans, P. (2010). All about depression: Online relaxation 

exercises. Retrieved from http://www.allaboutdepression.com 

Short, S., & Short, M. (2005). Differences between high- and 

low-confident football players on imagery functions: A consideration 

of the athletes’ perceptions. Journal of Applied Sport 

Psychology, 17(3), 197-208. doi: 10.1080/10413200591010049 

Thomas, O., Maynard, I., & Hanton, S. (2007). Intervening 

with athletes during the time leading up to competition: 

Theory to practice II. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(4), 

398-418. doi: 10.1080/10413200701599140 

Vealey, R. (1986). Conceptualization of sport-confidence and 

competitive orientation: Preliminary investigation and instrument 

development. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8(3), 221-246. 

Retrieved from SPORTDiscus with Full Text database. 


DEVELOPING YOUR 

HIGH SCHOOL 

TRACK & FIELD PROGRAM 

BY DON HELBERG

I’ve been coaching track and field for 27 years and 

have been the Boys Head Coach for the past 20 

years. I was very fortunate to have great coaches 

as my mentors in high school and college. The 

former Head Coach of my program stayed on as a 

coach when I took over the program, giving me 

encouragement and insight. Wheaton North has 

2100 students. I continually have 100 plus boys 

out for track each year. We compete for spring 

athletes between five other boys sports and the 

never-ending club sports. This is what I do to promote 

our program at Wheaton North High School. 

YOU’RE INVITED! 

Dan McQuaid 

WHAT: Track and Field informational meeting 

WHEN: This Thursday November 18th at 2:30 in the Auditorium 

WHO WILL BE THERE: All the athletes who want to regain the DVC title 

WHAT IF I CANNOT MAKE THE MEETING: See Coach Helberg (room 810) 

WHAT SHOULD I BRING: A friend if you have one! 

RECRUITING 

Let’s face it, we need to recruit kids. When baseball has tryouts, 

hundreds of kids show up without any recruiting. I once 

saw a cross country t-shirt saying “our sport is your sport’s 

punishment”. I liked the shirt but, I thought, maybe that’s how 

athletes view track and field. I wanted to change that attitude. I 

never wanted an athlete to feel I didn’t want him in my program. 

•Send every freshman an invite to your informational meeting 

•Send every returning athlete an invite to your informational meeting 

•Talk to an athlete who quit last season to see if he wanted 

to return. 

•Send every wrestler/basketball player an invite to your program 

when their season ends. Personally talk to the really good ones! 

•Get names from soccer and football coaches, then personally talk 

to those players. 

•Get names of athletes who have been cut from baseball and 

volleyball 

•Get middle school names 

•Have current members help recruit 

•Get a bulletin board to post pictures and information about 

your program 

ALWAYS BE POSITIVE 

It’s too easy to find the negative in any situation. Don’t fall 

into that trap and dwell on the negatives. Always look for the 

positive in your situations (especially when it’s not easy). 

Whenever you need to correct an athlete, start off with something 

they’re doing correctly/well, then zero in on what needs 

to be corrected. Finish up with another positive. The athlete 

will be more willing to adapt when you approach them in a 

positive manner. 

•The athletes will reflect you and your staff’s personality 

•Get excited about every athlete’s PR 

•Develop trust, so that the athlete is not afraid to fail if he 

tries something different 

•If your #1 athlete cannot compete, exude the attitude that 

now another athlete gets a chance to develop in this situation. 

COACHES 

I have been blessed with outstanding coaches on my staff. 

All of them have been clinic speakers and/or award-winning 

coaches. There are five paid coaches for the 100 plus boys, plus 

I have up to five additional volunteer coaches. 

•All of the coaches on your staff MUST have the same philosophy, 


DEVELOPING YOUR HIGH SCHOOL TRACK & FIRLD PROGRAM 

so the athlete does not get mixed messages. 

•Head coach needs to meet with different event kids periodically 

so they hear the same message from different people 

(not just their event coach). 

•Have a coache’s social with spouses before/after season 

•Meet weekly with your coaching staff or communicate with them 

about goals for the upcoming meet (emphasize individual events 

vs. relays…moving kids up, trying to win the meet, using it as 

a workout, dealing with Prom…) 

•Must allow asst. coaches to be their own head coach and make 

their events their own, but they should clear new strategies/ 

techniques with the head coach first so that it is consistent 

with the team’s philosophy. 

•Insist that they continually better themselves by attending 

clinics/speaking at clinics. 

•Volunteers…Make sure they know their role in the program and 

that they have the same philosophy. Make them feel important and 

include them. Treat them as one of the paid coaches and recognize 

them as often as possible. 

ACKNOWLEDGING ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

Everyone likes to be recognized. Take the time to give an 

“atta boy” as often as possible. It doesn’t cost anything and 

goes a long way to make the athlete feel good about themselves. 

•Recognize PR’s (in team meeting after a meet by a show of hands) 

•Send weekly e-mails to parents about all the great things that 

happened at the last meet, including Gray Shirt winners. 

•Display Record Boards 

•Post top 10 performances in each event (all time) 

•Post State Meet Placers (all time) 

•Post results and/or top marks for the season (weekly) on the 

bulletin board 

•Get names of athletes in daily announcements if possible when 

they win or break records 

MEETS 

During the indoor season, Wheaton North runs 1 meet/week 

and during the outdoor season 2 meets/week. We have a 

Tuesday dual/triangular meet where everyone competes and 

the weekend meet is an invitational with limited entries. Many 

of our meets are “non-scoring.” The only meet we try to win 

every year is our conference meet. 

•Our goal for EVERY meet (including the state meet) is for 

everyone to get a PR. Team points will take care of themselves 

if everyone gets a PR. 

•Get as many kids into meets as possible…your stars will shine 

anyway and you won’t overuse them (they need to get to the end 

of the season healthy). 

•Enter meets/develop meets that have a lot of participation 

(we developed a Best 4 Invitational where each team enters their 

“Best 4” in each event (except relays, only one relay) and treat each 

level like a separate meet with one grand team total). This way the 

#3 and #4 athletes (which usually don’t get into invites) feel that 

they’ve contributed to the teams performance. 

Surround yourself with good people and let them help you 

develop and maintain your program. You cannot do it all by 

yourself. It takes a lot of time and energy to develop and maintain 

a quality program, but the lives you impact by teaching 

them lifelong lessons are well worth it. 

GRAY SHIRTS 

We started this tradition 27 years ago. We bought simple gray 

t-shirts that said “Wheaton North Track and Field” on them and 

gave them out to athletes who really distinguished themselves 

in one way or another. We only awarded about 12 year. When I 

became head coach, I decided that I would get a lot of them 

and have every athlete (or most) try to earn one. We developed 

a criteria for the boys to earn a Gray Shirt (see below). They 

wear them as badges of honor around school, at practices, and 

meets. They cannot buy them, they must earn them. Every year 

I have one of the varsity athletes design the shirt so it’s different 

every year. We award them at team meetings after each meet. 

Each coach talks about the shirt winner and how they’ve 

earned the shirt. 

GRAY SHIRT CRITERIA 

•Good week of practice, good meet effort 

(usually a Personal Record (PR)). 

•Represents Wheaton North Track and Field in a positive 

manner both in and out of the classroom 

•Allows themselves to be coached 

•Unselfish with their talents (puts the team before any 

personal agendas) 


USTFCCCA SUPPORTERS 

Through their ongoing support of the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country 

Coaches Associaton, these companies demonstrate their strong commitment to 

the sports of Track & Field and Cross Country. The USTFCCCA strongly encourages 

each member to purchase products and services from these supporters. 

www.benyonsports.com 

www.FTTF.com 

www.mondousa.com 

www.mfathletic.com 

www.ucsspirit.com 

www.vsathletics.com 

www.ucsspirit.com 


2011 USTFCCCA OUTDOOR NATIONAL 

COACHES & ATHLETES OF THE YEAR 

DIVISION I 

Sheila Reid 

Villanova 

Women’s Track AOY 

Ngoni Makusha 

Florida State 

Men’s Track AOY 

Tina Sutej 

Arkansas 

Women’s Field AOY 

Will Claye 

Florida 

Men’s Field AOY 

Pat Henry 

Texas A & M 

Women’s Head COY 

Men’s Head COY 

Craig Carter 

Arizona 

Women’s Assistant 

COY 

Dick Booth 

Florida 

Men’s Assistant COY 

DIVISION II 

Shannon Gagne 

New Haven 


Leford Green 

Johnson C. Smith 


Lindsay Lettow 

Central Missouri 


Nick Jones 

Abilene Christian 


Jerry Baltes 

Grand Valley State 


Roosevelt Loften 



Cory Young 



COY 

Joe Lynn 



DIVISION III 

Ruby Blackwell 

Methodist 


Mike Spain 

North Central 


Holly Ozanich 

UW-Oshkosh 


Eric Flores 

Cal Lutheran 


Pat Ebel 

UW-Oshkosh 


Frank Gramarosso 

North Central 


Mahesh Narayanan 

North Central 


COY 

Guy Mosher 

Central 



DIVISION I 2011 USTFCCCA OUTDOOR REGIONAL 

COACHES & ATHLETES OF THE YEAR 

GREAT LAKES REGION 

Christina Manning 

Ohio State 


De’Sean Turner 

Indiana 


Beth Rohl 

Michigan State 


Michael Hartfield 

Ohio State 


Karen Dennis 

Ohio State 


Dennis Mitchell 

Akron 


John Newell 

Michigan State 

Women’s Assistant COY 

Ed Beathea 

Ohio State 


MID ATLANTIC REGION 

Sheila Reid 

Villanova 


Casimir Loxsom 

Penn State 


Chelsea Carrier 

West Virginia 


Dwight Barbiasz 

Maryland 


Sean Cleary 

West Virginia 


Fred Samara 

Princeton 


Chris Miltenberg 

Georgetown 


Steve Dolan 

Princeton 


MIDWEST REGION 

Diamond Dixon 

Kansas 


Mookie Salaam 

Oklahoma 


Mara Griva 

Nebraska 


Erik Kynard 

Kansas State 


Steve Rainbolt 

Wichita State 


Larry Wieczorek 

Iowa 


Dana Boone 

Oklahoma 


Joey Woody 

Iowa 


MOUNTAIN REGION 

Amanda Mergaert 

Utah 


Miles Batty 

BYU 


Ifeatu Okafor 

Texas Tech 


Julian Wruck 



Patrick Shane 

BYU 


Mark Robison 

BYU 


Cliff Felkins 



Dion Miller 




NORTHEAST REGION 

Kate Grace 

Yale 


Leonard Korir 

Iona 


Rebecca O’Brien 

Buffalo 


Robert Golabek 

Buffalo 


Bill Morgan 

Connecticut 


YNathan Taylor 

Cornell 


James Garnham 

Buffalo 


Men’s Assistant CO 

SOUTH REGION 

Ti’erra Brown 

Miami 


Kirani James 

Alabama 


Kimberly Williams 

Florida State 


Will Claye 

Florida 


Caryl Smith 

UCF 


Mike Holloway 

Florida 


Adrian Ghioroaie 

Southern Mississippi 


COY 

Dick Booth 

Florida 


SOUTH CENTRAL REGION 

Jeneba Tarmoh 

Texas A&M 


Barrett Nugent 

LSU 


Tina Sutej 

Arkansas 


Marquise Goodwin 

Texas 


Dennis Shaver 

LSU 


Pat Henry 

Texas A&M 


Rolando Greene 

Arkansas 


COY 

Mario Sategna 

Texas 


SOUTHEAST REGION 

LaKya Brookins 

South Carolina 


Sam Chelanga 

Liberty 


April Sinkler 

Clemson 


Marcel Lomnicky 

Virginia Tech 


Lawrence Johnson 

Clemson 


Dave Cianelli 

Virginia Tech 


Kevin Jermyn 

Duke 


Greg Jack 

Virginia Tech 


WEST REGION 

Jordan Hasay 

Oregon 

Co-Women’s Track AOY 

Lea Wallace 

Sacramento State 

Co-Women’s Track AOY 

Elliot Heath 

Stanford 


Anna Jelmini 

Arizona State 


Colin Dunbar 

Long Beach State 


Fred Harvey 

Arizona 



Craig Carter 

Arizona 


Jason Dunn 

Stanford 



DIVISION II 2011 USTFCCCA OUTDOOR REGIONAL 

ATLANTIC REGION 

Neely Spence 

Shippensburg 


Leford Green 



Xahnn George-Reid 



Orolando Duffus 

Saint Augustine’s 


Dave Osanitsch 

Shippensburg 


George Williams 

Saint Augustine’s 


Larry Moore Steve Spence 

Johnson C. Smith Shippensburg 

Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY 

CENTRAL REGION 

Photo Not 

Available 

Photo Not 

Available 

Kristi Buerkle 

Bemidji State 


Derek Bredy 

MSU Moorhead 


Mary Theisen 

Winona State 


Dane Tobey 

Neb.-Kearney 


Tracy Hellman 

Augustana 


Keith Barnier 

MSU Moorhead 


Mike Turgeon Jim Vahrenkamp 

Winona State Augustana 

Women’s Assistant COY Men’s Assistant COY 

EAST REGION 

Shannon Gagne 

New Haven 


Evan White 

UMass Lowell 


Alyssa Hudgins 

Georgian Court 


Diwani Augustine 

Southern Connecticut 


Kevin LaSure 

New Haven 


John Wallin 



Mustafa Abdur-Rahim 



Nick Lara 




Monica Kinney 



Dustin Emerick 

Southern Indiana 


Sam Lockhart 



Kurt Roberts 

Ashland 


Jerry Baltes 



Jeremy Croy 

Tiffin 


Cory Young 



Joe Lynn 




COACHES & ATHLETES OF THE YEAR DIVISION II 

SOUTH REGION 

Photo Not 

Available 

Photo Not 

Available 

Camille Clemmons- 

James 

Benedict 


Daniel Kirwa 

Harding 


Antoinette Oglesby 

Fort Valley State 


LaQuan Priest 

Claflin 


Steve Guymon 

Harding 



Kasia Williams 

Nova Southeastern 


COY 

Bryan Phillips 

Harding 


SOUTH CENTRAL REGION 

Photo Not 

Available 

Judith Riley 

Lincoln 


Desmond Jackson 



Lindsay Lettow 

Central Missouri 


Nick Jones 



Victor Thomas 

Lincoln 


Roosevelt Lofton 



Chris Richardson 

Neb.-Omaha 


COY 

Tom Dibbern 

Angelo State 


SOUTHEAST REGION 

Kate Griewisch 

Lenoir-Rhyne 


Maurice Eubanks 

UNC Pembroke 


Katherine Davis 

UNC Pembroke 


Will Byars 

Anderson 


Matthew van Lierop 

Mount Olive 


Larry Rodgers 

UNC Pembroke 


Jason Bryan 

Anderson 


COY 

Adonis Stanley 

UNC Pembroke 


WEST REGION 

Sarah Porter 

Western Washington 


Alfred Kangogo 

Alaska Anchorage 


Na’i Leni 

Cal State LA 


Josh Como 

Cal State LA 


Karl Lerum 

Seattle Pacific 


Kirk Freitas 

Chico State 


Octavious 

Gillespie-Bennett 

Cal State LA 


Issac Frederick 

Western Oregon 



DIVISION III 2011 USTFCCCA OUTDOOR REGIONAL 

ATLANTIC REGION 

Miriam Khan 

TCNJ 


Brian Lang 

Rochester 


Emma Dewart 

Ithaca 


Craig Van Leeuwen 

Ramapo 


Jennifer Potter 

Ithaca 


Colin Tory 

RPI 


Ed Jaskulski 

SUNY Brockport 


John Izzo 

Rochester 


CENTRAL REGION 

Keelie Finnel 

Coe 


Kevin Janata 

Nebraska Wesleyan 


Janey Helland 

Gustavus Adolphus 


Ethan Miller 

Central (Iowa) 


Marcus Newsom 

Wartburg 


Joe Dunham 



Derek Frese 

Nebraska Wesleyan 


Guy Mosher 



GREAT LAKES REGION 

Joanna Johnson 

Oberlin 


Kevin McCarthy 

Wabash 


Elizabeth Evans 

Rose – Hulman 


Kevin Phipps 

Baldwin – Wallace 


Bret Otte 

Calvin 


Clyde Morgan 

Wabash 


Matt Wackerly 

Ohio Wesleyan 


Jarrod Davis 

Baldwin – Wallace 


MIDEAST REGION 

Jacqueline Guevel 

Carnegie Mellon 


Eric Woodruff 

Moravain 


Abigail Schaffer 

Moravain 


Thomas Masterson 

Delaware Valley 


Mark FitzPatrick 

Washington and 

Jefferson 


Tom Donnelly 

Haverford 


Gary Aldrich 

Carnegie Mellon 


Jay Dunn 

Johns Hopkins 



COACHES & ATHLETES OF THE YEAR DIVISION III 


Christy Cazzola 

UW- Oshkosh 


Mike Spain 

North Central (Ill.) 


Holly Ozanich 

UW – Oshkosh 


Ben Harmon 

Washington (Mo.) 


Frank Gramarosso 



Mahesh Narayanan 



COY 

Pat Ebel 

UW- Oshkosh 



NEW ENGLAND REGION 

Photo Not 

Available 

Portia Jones 

MIT 


Ben Scheetz 

Amherst 


Kelly Curtis 

Springfield (Mass.) 


David Ples 

Bates 


Halston Taylor 

MIT 


Al Fereshetian 

Bates 


Lisa Wallin 

Tufts 


Joel Williams 

Williams 


SOUTH/SOUTHEAST REGION 

Ruby Blackwell 

Methodist 


Kevin Cunningham 

McMurry 


Ashlynn Chavis 

Methodist 


Richard Roethel 

Christopher Newport 


Duane Ross 

Methodist 


Barbara Crousen 

McMurry 


Maddy Outman 

Emory 


Dan Graber 

Centre 


WEST REGION 

Photo Not 

Available 

Photo Not 

Available 

Photo Not 

Available 

Kimber Mattox 

Willamette 


Marcus Fortugno 

La Verne 


Kelly Young 

Occidental 


Eric Flores 

Cal Lutheran 


Kendra Reimer 

Claremont-Mudd- 

Scripps 


Mike Schmidt 

Redlands 


Jason Romero 

Claremont-Mudd- 

Scripps 


Eloise Cappellano 

Whitworth 



IS THERE A REQUIRED MINIMUM GPA FOR CORE COURSES TO BE ELIGIBLE? 

Yes. The minimum is 2.000 or better on a 4.000 grading scale for 

both NCAA Division I and II. 

Updates 

from the 

NCAA 

Eligibility 

Center 

BY JOHN PFEFFENBERGER 

Each year, the NCAA Eligibility Center attempts to provide as 

much outreach and communication as possible as it relates to 

NCAA rules and regulations for initial eligibility in Divisions I 

and II. That being said, the NCAA Eligibility Center can sometimes 

be a place of confusion and frustration for athletes and coaches 

alike. I thought that I would use this column to explain some of the 

very basic elements of NCAA initial eligibility, and what aspects are 

important to know for both athletes and coaches. 

WHAT IS INITIAL ELIGIBILITY AND WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT? 

Initial eligibility rules are in place to ensure that college-bound student-athletes 

have met NCAA academic and amateurism guidelines. 

College-bound student-athletes cannot participate in any sport for an 

NCAA Division I or II college or university without this certification. 

WHAT ARE THE TEST-SCORE REQUIREMENTS? 

In Division I, the NCAA uses a sliding scale that combines the 

core-course GPA (see below for more on core courses) and 

ACT/SAT scores to determine eligibility. Division II requires a 

minimum SAT score of 820 for the critical reading and math sections 

only or a minimum ACT sum score of 68. For more information 

about the NCAA Division I and II academic requirements, 

please visit www.eligibilitycenter.org. 

WHAT IS A CORE COURSE AND HOW MANY DO I HAVE TO COMPLETE? 

Core courses are primarily English, math, foreign language, social 

studies and science classes with an emphasis on college preparation. 

To play in Division I, high school graduates must complete 16 core 

courses. Currently, Division II college-bound student-athletes must 

complete 14 core courses, but that will change to 16 core courses 

beginning in 2013. 

WHAT ARE THE AMATEURISM REQUIREMENTS? 

The online registration process includes questions relating to a 

prospective student-athlete’s sports-participation history. The information 

provided will be reviewed by the NCAA Eligibility Center’s 

amateurism staff, and a determination will be made as to whether 

the individual’s amateur status should be certified. Individuals with 

questions about their amateur status should contact the NCAA 

Eligibility Center at 877-262-1492. 

WHEN SHOULD PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETES REGISTER WITH THE NCAA 

ELIGIBILITY CENTER? 

The NCAA Eligibility Center staff recommends that prospective 

student-athletes that wish to attend an NCAA Division I or II institution 

register at the beginning of their junior year of high school, or 

international equivalent. 

WHAT WILL I BE ASKED TO PROVIDE WHEN I REGISTER WITH THE NCAA 

ELIGIBILITY CENTER? 

Prospective student-athletes should first create an account by 

going to www.eligibilitycenter.org. After a prospect has registered his 

or her account, three basic sections will need to be completed. 

About Me – In this section, a prospect will answer some basic demographic 

information such as name, date of birth, gender and where 

he or she lives. 

My Coursework – Prospects will be asked to enter the name and location 

of his or her high school (currently attended), along with information 

about summer school or any additional schools the prospect 

may have attended. 

My Sports – This is the section where a prospect will provide information 

related to his or her sports participation history. The NCAA 

Eligibility Center will ask about high school and/or club teams, as 

well as high school and post-high school events. 

HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO REGISTER WITH THE NCAA ELIGIBILITY CENTER? 

Accounts will be eligible for processing with a payment of the 

application fee. This fee is currently set at $65 for domestic 

prospects and $95 for international. 

Hopefully this article provided some basic Q&A about general 

information as it relates to the NCAA Eligibility Center. With that, I 

will leave you with a few tips for those incoming high school seniors 

to stay on top of the game when it comes to obtaining your NCAA 

eligibility for fall 2012: 

Take the SAT and/or ACT again, if necessary. The NCAA Eligibility 

Center will use the best scores from each section of the ACT or SAT 

to determine your best cumulative score. 

Continue to take college-prep courses. 

Check the courses you have taken to match your school’s list of 

approved core courses. 

Review your amateurism response and request final amateurism 

certification on or after April 1 (for fall 2012 NCAA enrollees). 

Continue to work hard to get the best grades possible. 

Graduate on time (in eight academic semesters). If you fall 

behind, use summer school sessions before graduation to catch up. 

After graduation, ask your guidance counselor to send your final 

transcript to the Eligibility Center with proof of graduation. 

John Pfeffenberger is the Coordinator of Amateurism Certification for 

the NCAA Eligibility Center and can be reached at jpfeffenberger@ncaa.org

1. PAGES 1-35 - Texas Track & Field Coaches Association

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?