The issues with Dynamic Correspondence
Like everything in life and particularly athletic development, there are some issues with the theory surrounding the dynamic correspondence. Firstly, whilst there appears to be great logic behind the use of certain exercises, techniques, and training methods, there is an argument to suggest that the use of physical development to improve ‘sport’ performance does not exist. This is purely due to the large number of uncontrollable variables the athlete(s) are exposed to during competition.
For a somewhat exaggerated example, imagine a 9.98-second 100m sprinter has never competed in the Olympics, nor completed a strength training programme but is about to over the coming months. They complete the training programme, compete in the games, and achieve a time of 9.21 seconds – a new world record. Was that the result of the training programme, the atmosphere, their breakfast, or perhaps even their new trainers? The point being made is there are numerous interfering factors which may have contributed to the athlete’s new world record, so the dynamic correspondence of the training programme is not fully understood.
What is important to understand, is that whilst actual ‘sport’ performance is hard to measure, countless quantities of research have demonstrated that physical training programmes can improve ‘athletic’ performance in test-based environments (2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Given this information, assumptions can be made that well-designed strength and conditioning programmes can improve ‘sport’ performance.
Secondly, the current lack of knowledge regarding the biomechanics of sporting movements, for example, the typical peak forces, rate of force developments, impulses, and power outputs of the take-off during the long jump mean there are limitations with the specificity of training prescription. In simpler terms, we do not fully understand the biomechanics of particular sporting movements (e.g. hammer throw) in order to improve them as much as we may be able too.