Transfer of Training (Part 2, A Physiological and Mechanical Lens, Dynamic Correspondence and Bondarchuk’s Model)

From a physiological and mechanical standpoint, the early works of Anatoliy Bondarchuk and Yuri Verkhoshansky have been particularly influential in shaping our understanding of how the optimal development of physical capacities can be determined through exercise prescription. Verkhoshansky’s (2009) Dynamic Correspondence framework provides a structured set of criteria to evaluate the extent to which an exercise aligns with the specific demands of a targeted sporting skill. Effectively, exercises with a higher dynamic correspondence will have a greater positive transfer to the sporting skills we are looking to develop. 

The five key criteria of Dynamic Correspondence are as follows:

1. Amplitude and Direction of Movement – This refers to the kinematic similarity between the exercise and the sporting skill. Essentially, the movement pattern should closely resemble the intended sport-specific action.

2. Region of Accentuated Force Production – As Dan Cleather succinctly describes, this criterion assesses “the joint range of motion where force production is highest.”  Exercises should prioritise force application in ranges that are critical for performance in the target skill.

3. Dynamics of Effort – This relates to the principle of overload, ensuring that the force and effort applied during the exercise match or exceed those required in the sporting movement.

4. Rate and Time of Maximal Force Production – This criterion evaluates whether the time frame for force application in the exercise aligns with the demands of the sport. Since many sporting actions occur within milliseconds, training must reflect real-world force production constraints.

5. Regime of Muscular Work – This refers to the type of muscle contractions used in both the exercise and the sporting skill. For example, isometric and eccentric contractions and whether the movement is cyclic (repetitive, e.g., running) or acyclic (single explosive actions, e.g., jumping or throwing).

By utilising this set of criterion, coaches and practitioners can more appropriately optimise exercise selection to attempt to enhance positive transfer between strength, weight room based exercise, and the sporting skills. While Dynamic Correspondence serves as a valuable framework for guiding exercise selection, it is important to recognise its limitations and avoid applying it in isolation. One of its key shortcomings is its lack of consideration for the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC)—a fundamental component of many sporting movements. Additionally, the framework fails to account for metabolic and energy system demands, which are crucial for ensuring that training interventions provide an appropriate physiological stimulus for adaptation. Strength and conditioning coach Will Ratelle has raised thought-provoking critiques of Dynamic Correspondence, particularly questioning whether its strict application can truly ensure an optimal stimulus for the athlete. He argues that the more an exercise is tailored to match specific movement coordination patterns, the less potent the training stimulus becomes, potentially limiting overall adaptation. This presents a paradox: excessive specificity may compromise the overload principle, reducing the effectiveness of training in driving meaningful physiological change. Furthermore, Dynamic Correspondence has limited applicability to field sports, where athletes operate in chaotic environments, continuously reacting to external stimuli such as opponents, teammates, and unpredictable game dynamics. Unlike controlled, repeatable actions in track and field or weightlifting, team sports demand a high degree of adaptability, which cannot be fully captured by a framework that primarily evaluates biomechanical similarities between exercises and sport-specific skills. I will explore the differences in open and closed skills in relation to transfer of training later on in this article. 

Bondarchuk’s Transfer of Training Progression Model 

Continuing on how we attempt to ensure more positive transfer with a physiological and mechanical focus, Bondarchuk’s Transfer of Training Progression (2007) model allows us to systematically classify exercises into different categories based on their degree of specificity towards the sporting skill.

Bondarchuk’s 4 Categories in the Transfer of Training Progression Model: 

1. General Preparatory Exercises (GPE): exercises that develop fundamental physical qualities with no direct connection to the sporting skill. 

2. Special Preparatory Exercises (SPE): exercises that train similar muscle groups and movement patterns but do not precisely replicate the sporting skill. 

3. Special Developmental Exercises (SDE): exercises that closely mimic the sporting movement pattern in terms of force application and intermuscular coordination. 

4. Competitive Exercise (CE): the exact sporting skill done outside of competitive environments under realistic conditions. 

Bondarchuk’s model provides us with a structured, systematic, and practical approach for understanding how exercises transfer across to sporting performance. However, despite the model aiding in aiming to bridge the gap between the weight room and the sporting skill, the model does have its limitations. Firstly, Bondarchuk initially developed the model based off of his research on track and field throwers (discus, hammer, and javelin); therefore, one could argue its applicability towards field sports and open-skill sports is fairly limited, especially from a metabolic conditioning and SSC standpoint. Secondly, the model only focuses on the physiological and biomechanical elements of sports performance, neglecting the crucial cognitive, coordination, and perceptual skills required during sport. Additionally, the model perhaps oversimplifies what many deem, as well as myself, to be a complex, non-linear process. Coaches like Steffan Jones base the majority of his programming off of Bondarchuk’s model, but this makes sense as the skill (cricket fast bowling) that he is looking to improve is acyclic in nature or a closed skill. However, I am yet to come across coaches who utilise Bondarchuk’s model in more open-skill sports like field hockey, rugby, or football. Perhaps an area where further research needs to occur.

Integration of the biomechanical rigour of Dynamic Correspondence with the structured progression of Bondarchuk’s model, coaches can develop a more holistic approach to training transfer. This synergy ensures that training interventions enhance both mechanical efficiency and physiological adaptation, reducing the risk of non-transferable exercises while maintaining a potent training stimulus. Unfortunately, both the Dynamic Correspondence framework and Bondarchuk’s model originate from closed-sport skill sports like weighting and track and field; therefore, their applicability must be questioned when it comes to those more open-skill sports. The models must be applied with context in mind, recognising that sports performance is not solely dependent on physical qualities—skill acquisition, perceptual skills, coordination, and adaptability must also be considered.

While these models and frameworks give us structure and logic in regard to training interventions, they do not fully explain why some athletes struggle to transfer developed physical capacities into actual sporting skills. In Part 3, I will explore how coordination, motor learning, and the constraints of sport environments play a crucial role in determining whether strength gains stick or not. 

References / Sources:

Bondarchuk, A. P. (2007). Transfer of Training in Sports. Ultimate Athlete Concepts.

Dan Cleather - Senior Lecturer at St Mary's University Twickenham

Steffan Jones - Founder of PaceLab / Cricket Fast Bowling Coach

Verkhoshansky, Y, and Siff, M.C. (2009). Supertraining. Verkhoshansky SSTM: Rome, Italy.

Will Ratelle - Former NFL & College S&C Coach