The system I developed, with my athlete's input, used primarily, a kinesthetic model integrated by a numbering system. It became a feedback loop that calibrated effort of performance for the athlete and provided instant status report for me the coach. This is how we achieved the 'loop'.

Given: a performance event like the javelin, which is a spear thrown in a defined direction after a run. The purpose is to throw far in competition or in practice to throw for specific purpose ( distance, technique, 'feel').

After a warm-up and rapport is established, which can be varied day by day depending on the emotional/ physiological state of the athlete, the coach asks this question on the first workout with the athlete," If a hard throw is a '10' what number was that last throw?" The athlete usually responds with a number " 6" for example. With that performance as a base, the coach can now test again, later, as he perceives the athlete's workout progress. " What number was it?" a numbered response could be "8". The coach can now begin to calibrate the athlete's workout based on the plan for the day. If it is a light training day where effort should be within limits 5-7 then based on the athletes own self assessment, the coach can direct a 5-7 numbered day.

What became very effective for me , as a coach, was the amount of information the calibration gave me. Based on my own prior observations of what 5 or 7, for example, for a given athlete looked like before, I could assess his/her self assessment reliability. If they were reporting to me " It felt like an 8!" but I viewed it as equal to a prior '5' then I suspected that other factors were impeding self awareness ( fatigue, over training, under training, 'outside' conflicts, etc.) I could then calibrate downward to what the athlete was sensing. My directive would be " Back down to a 5 or 6 and let's see how that feels." I could adjust workout intensity and volume based on the current day-to-day fitness level. It also allowed me to know when an athlete was approaching a 'peak' performance so as not to overuse his central nervous system with hard efforts.

When the athlete 'felt' like a '6' but the performance was in the 8-9 range , I knew they were close to the 'top'. It became a normal part of our conversation as we entered the practice or competition area and as we planned for the next days work or the next competitions. Entire units of work focussed on these sensed numbers. If there is a 'most important' factor in this system, it is that the athlete's numbers of calibration are the main operating unit. The observers' calibration numbers are primarily filters, that the observer/coach can utilize in helping the athlete adjust within his/her own range. In the prior example of the athlete sensing an '8' but I assessed it as a '5', I would not comment " It looked like a 5!" That would be negative feedback. Instead I based the number feedback on the athlete's current fitness level ( emotional and physical ). He might really be at an '8' effort due to an on coming allergy attack or an infection so my suggestions must pace his current need not my own. My comment might be " Let's stay at a '6' level for the next 5 throws!" and calibrate again.

Let me in closing say that this system has application in many other areas and is probably used by others under a different name or calibration units. Please use it if you think it is applicable and let me know of your results.

PS The numbers themselves become wonderful anchors for future pacing, " You know you have '9' in their dying to come out!"

Joe Donahue

" Throw far in all you do!"