ST
2 / gcst
1 /
|
|
ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
|
|
Translated and adapted by David Ribera-Nebot
|
|
1.
Abstract |
Francisco
Seirul-lo Vargas
|
|
|
|
In
order to create an appropriated training process for team sports, it is
relevant to define a differential paradigm of sport performance.
Traditionally, the sport training science has been developed through the
study of the needs of several individual sports and, in contrast, its
results are applied to team sports. We strongly believe that the analysis of
the dynamic complex systems theories will provide us the best theoretical
basis to construct a specific training science for team sports. Accordingly,
it is necessary to modify the systematical Cartesian paradigm in such a way
that can provide more adequate solutions to explain the complexity. Our
proposal is to build channels of access between these theories and the
different levels of the training process of team sports. Key Words Structural Training, Team Sports, Dynamic Complex Systems.
|
|
Sport
in the 20th century is developed by means of its teaching and
its training. The teaching-learning processes are based on behaviorists
theories (“what is observable”) such as psychology, pedagogy,
didactics and methodology. The training-performance processes are based on
mechanistic theories (“what is measurable”) such as physiology,
physics, medicine and biomechanics. These sciences –through its
contributions- have been useful to construct an atomist and
multidisciplinary sport model; in other words, a model based on the
dualism “mind-body” that has been an ongoing debate since the
beginning of the human knowledge. Classical Paradigm
In
the classical paradigm there exists a reproduction of models by ...
“contrasted evolution”. The model is reproduced depending on: -The
evolution of the rules. -The
evolution of the competition demands. -The
evolution of the knowledge of the coach. -The
evolution of the social and economical valuation of sport. -The
evolution of technology and research applied to sport. All
of them are external, alien to the athlete. The model is made up from the
sport and from society. Fundamentals to Practice
Behaviorist
and mechanistic theories have developed certain practices to achieve these
models. -Practices
of global tendency (during the first stages of sport learning): global
training and small games. -Practices
of analytical tendency (during stages of sport performance): technique,
tactic and physical conditioning. Both
of them, are developed by quantitative practices of lineal and progressive
sequences of analytical exercises. The
player is built in order to fulfill
the demands of a certain model that at this moment “dominates” a
concrete sport. This
paradigm, now in recession, has dominated our culture for several hundreds
of years, during which it has been constituted our occidental society and
considerably influenced the rest of the world. Such paradigm consist of an entrenched set of ideas and values among which we can mention the following: the vision of the universe as a mechanical system that is compound of pieces, the vision of the human body as a machine, the vision of living in a society as a competitive struggle for survival, the belief in the unlimited material progress by the economical and technological growth, ...(Capra, 1998).
|
|
|
|
Sport
in the 21st century is developed by means of an integral
development of the athlete (“mind-body” as a whole). Its teaching and
training are an unique optimization process of the athlete. Cognitivism
and structuralism _supported by organizational biology, neural-sciences,
theory of the systems, theory of the information and ecological theories_
achieve the auto-modeling or auto-structuring of the athlete. Consequences: New Paradigm
The
aim is to achieve the auto-structuring by “differential optimization”
and this is obtained by means of: -The
establishment of technical-tactical skills in which the player shows a
certain competence. -The
observation of the impact that competition causes to the player. -The
constant acquisition of new knowledge of the player about the game,
training and himself. -The
formation of the own social image. -The
achievement of the knowledge of the player during practice by means of
technology and adequate research tools. All
of them are related to the athlete. The proposals are taken from the
athlete. If
proposals are taken from the athlete, it is necessary to modify our
thought, ideas and values about the sport-person as a living being that
seeks the constant dynamic interaction between what is rational,
analytical, reductionist, lineal, competitive, quantitative (for
individual sports) and what is intuitive, synthetic, holistic, non-lineal,
cooperative, qualitative (for team sports). The Athlete According to These Theories
Based
on the new paradigm, we are nowadays able to interpret the sport-person as
a hyper-complex structure that is made up by interactions and retroactive
actions between the following structures: -Conditioning
structure. -Coordination
structure. -Social-Affective
structure. -Emotional-Volitive
structure. -Creative-Expressive
structure. -Mental
structure ... ? Each
structure must be considered as the expression of underlying processes. This
means that the processes _a complete net of dynamic connections among
systems_ become apparent through what we call structures. Also,
what we traditionally call capacities are just forms of sectorial
evaluation of part of the processes that occur in some systems which makes
up a determined structure. 1st Contribution of the Systems Theory to the
Development of Training
This
systematic and holistic conception of the player will provide clues about
the conditions under which the athlete must develop his training activity
in order to obtain his differential auto-structuring. As a result, the own
contents of the structural training appear; understanding that despite it
can also provides new elements to “individual” sports, it is much more
adequate for “team” sports in which the continue interaction among
objects-partners-opponents requires high levels of auto-structuring of all
their components. Therefore,
high variation contents and high variability practices are relevant. As
pointed out in the new paradigm, teaching and training are a single fact
of optimization of processes which will become apparent as properties of
each aforementioned structure, because these properties can only be
considered from two standpoints: -The
dynamic inter-activity of all the systems. -The
global consistency of their interactions ... We
must construct specific exercises of structural training that provide such
dynamic inter-activity and consistency; in contrast to the repetitive and
analytical training exercises typically used by individual sports and
based on other theories. Practical Conditions These
practice requirements are offered by Preferential Simulation Situations.
It must be defined such determined conditions of work that fix a
“preferential” performance on some of the functional systems of the
athlete. Thus, we will make up the building of the conditioning substratum
of the training system. It is applied by certain movement forms that the
athlete performs during his practice. These movement forms must include
basic coordination elements that support the sport technique _execution of
coordinate simulation_. (Stable levels that assure the consistency of the
interactions). They are practiced under concrete situations which contain
relevant information that must be processed so as to perform consequently.
The cognitive structure must be involved. Connections with the
partners-opponents-object must be established to feed the social-affective
structure. Episodes of specific personal challenge must be experienced so
as to commit the emotional-volitive structure. (Levels for the variability
that provides dynamic inter-activity). 2nd Contribution of the Systems Theory to the
Development of Training
One
of the essential properties of any life manifestation is the irreducible
tendency to construct multi-level structures of systems inside of systems.
These structures are consequence of varied inter-active processes among
systems of differential complexity that take shape as a net in which
nothing is the most important. This
triggers the need to modify the laws of the traditional training, inasmuch
as synergy relations are more used than progressive training loads and
sequential planning is substituted by differential priority. Many other
principles based on the hierarchical and lineal conception must be
substituted by inter-connected multi-level guidelines. Practical Consequences
|
|
|
Figure 1. Model of a Structural Micro-cycle. |
|
Every
training day, there exists a differential priority adjusted to the needs
of the athlete. All priorities are integrated in the synthesis
pre-competition. The
total of contents of each micro-cycle are related with the consecutive
and next micro-cycles. This is based on different inter-connection
guidelines so as to obtain a high level of structural optimization. 3rd Contribution of the Systems Theory to the
Development of Training
We
know that the function of the components of such nets is to participate
in the production or transformation of other components of the net.
Consequently, all the net is built by itself. This provokes that the
product of processes is the own organization, the differential
auto-organization based on processes of qualitative production which
bring about each unique human being. On the whole, the called improvement of performance can not be evaluated by quantitative criteria that are alien to the person; on the contrary, they should be evaluated by qualitative proposals which are based on the interpretation that the own athlete is able to complete at any episode and from any perspective of the practice that performs. |
|
|
|
Bateson,
G., Maturana, H. (1999). Gaia.
Editorial Kairós: Barcelona. Capra,
F. (1998). La trama de la vida. Editorial Anagrama: Barcelona. Capra,
F., Bolem, D. (2000). El espíritu de la ciencia. Editorial Kairós:
Barcelona. Capra,
F. (2002). Conexiones ocultas. Editorial Anagrama: Barcelona. Hayles,
N.K. (1993). La evolución del caos. Editorial Gedisa: Barcelona. Mosteriu,
J. (1994). Filosofía de la cultura. Editorial Alianza: Madrid. Morris,
R. (1994). Las flechas del tiempo. Editorial Salvat: Barcelona. Newel,
K.M. & Corcos, D.M. (1993). Variability and motor control. O’Connor,
J. & McDermont, I. (1998). Introducción
al pensamiento sistémico. Prigogine,
I. & Nicolis, G. (1997). La estructura de lo complejo.
Editorial Alianza: Madrid. Prigogine,
I. (1984). Order out of chaos. Bantam Books: New York.
|
|
|
| © 2003 Francisco Seirul-lo Vargas ALL RIGHTS RESERVED |
| www.EntrenamientoDeportivo.org
|
 © 2003 entrenamientodeportivo.org © 2003 humanmovement.com |