Transfer of Training (Part 3, Coordination, Strength to Skills and Ecological Dynamics)
- Hugo Morgan
- Mar 23
- 7 min read
Updated: Mar 24
When discussing transfer of training, the role of coordination is often overlooked in favour of purely physiological and mechanical perspectives, but perhaps also due to the lack of understanding surrounding the neurology at play. Particularly in how the brain and nervous system regulate movement, adapt to stimuli, and refine motor patterns for optimal performance. Now, I am by no means claiming to fully understand the complexities of neurology, as I don’t think the brain scientists are there yet! But the very fact that I question the effectiveness of relying solely on physiological and mechanical methods to enhance sports performance suggests that other critical factors must be at play.
Frans Bosch has been one of the most vocal critics challenging this strictly physiological and biomechanical focus on promoting positive transfer to sport skills. Bosch (2015) emphasises that strength and coordination are deeply interconnected and should not be viewed in isolation. Arguing that strength and power, in his view, only hold value when they can be effectively expressed within the movement demands of sport. A key critique Bosch raises against traditional overload principles is their impracticality in replicating the true force demands of sport. Take, for example, the calf complex in high jump—an event where the ground reaction forces (GRFs) on a single limb can reach approximately seven times body weight. For an 80kg athlete, this equates to a staggering 560kg of force to provide any sort of stimulus great enough for adaptation to occur. Now I am not sure about you, but the thought of attempting single leg calf raises with 560kg on my back sends shivers down my spine, quite literally! So how can we go about promoting any sort of overload to the system? If forces can only be replicated by mimicking the skill and pattern itself, emphasis within training should be placed on refining technique and kinematics to enhance performance and robustness within that movement pattern.
This idea was not new - Sale and MacDougall (1981) previously argued that training should be specific in terms of movement pattern, contraction velocity, contraction type, and contraction force. This brings us to the principle of specificity, which highlights that adaptations are highly specific to the nature of the training stress (Young, 2006). This closely relates to the SAID principle (Specific Adaptations to Imposed Demands), which reinforces the idea that the body adapts specifically to the demands placed upon it. In simple terms, back squatting will get you better at back squatting - but won’t transfer to a better forehand in tennis. However, developing a foundational level of strength through back squatting may create the necessary physical capacity to enhance sport-specific skills.
Traditional strength training typically focuses on increasing peak force production or increasing cross-sectional area (CSA) of muscles, but as Zatsiorsky (1995) pointed out, “maximal force exertion is a skilled act in which many muscles must be appropriately activated. This coordinated activation of many muscle groups is called intermuscular coordination.” This feeds into the narrative that it is not just about how much force we produce, but how we produce it. Optimal sequencing and synchronisation of muscle activation may be even more important than peak force capabilities. Just as crucial is having access to fluid, repeatable, and safe motor patterns. Relying too much on rigid movement options can be limiting, especially in open-skill sports, as well as may increase injury risk.
Young (2006) reiterates the importance of movement pattern specificity and the development of intermuscular coordination to promote specific neural adaptations. Neural adaptations such as the ability to more efficiently recruit motor units and increase firing rates, which contributes to greater peak force production, as well as the muscle sequencing (Carroll et al., 2001), which feeds into the notion that it is not just about how much force we produce, but how we produce it.
From Coordination to Constraints: Could Movement Adaptability Drive Skill Transfer in Sport?
If we assume that expression of strength is only useful within sporting contexts, surely our training away from the sport, to some degree, must reflect the complex nature of movement and skill acquisition, not just focus on raw outputs of force? Skill acquisition is the process of learning and refining movement patterns and strategies through practice to achieve efficient and adaptable solutions within a certain task governed by constraints (Daivds et al., 2008; Newell, 1986; Schmidt and Lee, 2011). So, how can we take these broad physical capacities and better transfer them to our sporting skills? After all, we develop those physical capacities in the first place in the hope that they transfer over to the sporting skill, so assuming we can, how do we help facilitate this within our training?
To begin building an understanding of this question—and to connect it back to our earlier discussion on enhancing training transfer through physiological and biomechanical means (such as Dynamic Correspondence and Bondarchuk’s Transfer of Training Progression model)—we need to explore the early research on motor learning, constraints, and skill acquisition. Bernstein’s (1967) influential work introduces us to the Degrees of Freedom (DOF) model, which highlights that the human body has the challenge of coordinating numerous joints and muscles efficiently to provide solutions to movement tasks. This initially alludes us to the idea of self-organisation, where the individual reacts to stimuli rather than simply executing pre-planned movements. James Gibson’s (1979) Ecological Dynamics built upon Bernstein’s idea by emphasising perception-action coupling, where athletes learn by interacting with what Gibson termed as affordances (opportunities for action) in their environment. Improvement in physical capacities does not necessarily guarantee transfer over to the intended skill; instead, physical capacities must be developed within environments that challenge our visual processing, perception, decision-making and ability to react to what is in front of the individual. Moving on into the 1980s, Karl Newell (1986) introduced the Constraints Model, explaining how, like Gibson expressed, our movement solutions emerge from the interaction between task, environmental, and individual constraints. Whatever is in front of us will dictate the solution we opt to utilise in a given sports task.
Beyond the Weight Room: Rethinking Agility Performance and Transfer Through Contextual Demands
But how does all of this historical context relate to our discussion on transfer of training? The principle of specificity tells us that adaptations occur in the specific region of stress. Similarly, Davis’s Law states that “soft tissue models along the lines of stress” (Clark et al., 2008). So, with that in mind, how might developing high levels of eccentric braking rate of force development (RFD) in the lower body, for example, contribute to improvements in agility or change of direction (COD) within sport? Considering the above and the thoughts of Frans Bosch, those who sit on this side of the fence would argue focusing strictly on the physical capacities will not enhance transfer of training. I think we can appreciate that both agility and COD, like nearly all open-skill sport tasks, require multiple other qualities aside from physical capacities to become efficient and excel in. This is highlighted within Sheppard and Young’s (2006) widely referenced components of the agility framework, as seen below.
Unfortunately, I believe the issue lies in the rigid nature of common but well researched agility and COD tests—such as the 505 or T-test—used by practitioners and coaches to assess performance. Many studies report improvements in COD and agility as a result of weight room-based programs that develop general physical capacities. However, these conclusions are often based on improved scores in these standardised tests. Just because a rugby player demonstrates an improved score over a 12-week period within the 505 test does not automatically mean their ability to beat defenders has improved. In my opinion, based off of Sheppard and Young’s agility framework, these tests completely disregard the “perceptual and decision-making factors” or the dynamic constraints side of the coin. Additionally, I believe such standard tests result in very linear approaches to go about creating change, especially within tests that only really tax the physical capacities of an individual. There is no doubt more contextual methods of assessing agility and COD need to be devised, but perhaps this is a post for another time!
Referring back to Bernstein, Gibson, and Newell’s work in conjunction with Sheppard and Young’s agility framework, agility performance within sport cannot be solely based on strength but on how the body is able to self-organise itself and utilise the physical capacities within sporting settings. While improvements in eccentric braking RFD will enhance the abilities to accelerate and decelerate, these abilities must be integrated into intermuscular coordination patterns, reactive decision-making, and rapid reorganisation of DOF to optimally enhance the transfer of training. Without contextual integration, isolated strength capacities may not directly transfer to agility performance, as COD requires more than just force production; it requires the ability to effectively manage and redirect forces within a dynamically changing environment (constraints).
Understanding that coordination and constraints ultimately dictate our movement solutions—and the outcomes of various sporting tasks—is critical. This perspective should fundamentally shift how we view strength and the development of physical capacities when it comes to enhancing transfer. It is never just about how much force we produce, but how, when, and in what context that force is being applied. In the final part of this series, I will attempt to pull everything together—exploring real-world case studies from world-class athletes, and diving into the often-overlooked role of training age in shaping how, and if, our training transfers to actual sporting skills.
References / Sources:
Bernstein, N. (1967). The Co-ordination and Regulation of Movements. United Kingdom: Pergamon Press.
Bosch, F. (2015). Strength Training and Coordination: An Integrative Approach. Netherlands: 2010 Publishers.
Carroll, T. J., Riek, S., & Carson, R. G. (2001). Neural adaptations to resistance training: implications for movement control. Sports medicine, 31, 829-840.
Clark, M. A., Lucett, S., & Corn, R. J. (2008). NASM essentials of personal fitness training. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Davids, K., Button, C., & Bennett, S. (2008). Dynamics of skill acquisition: A constraints-led approach. Human kinetics.
Gibson, J. G. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Newell, K. M. (1986). Constraints on the Development of Coordination. In M. G. Wade, & H. T. A. Whiting (Eds.), Motor Development in Children: Aspects of Coordination and Control 341-360. The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.
Sale, D, and MacDougal,l D. (1981) Specificity in strength training: a review for the coach and athlete. Can J Appl Sport Sci. 16(2):87-92.
Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2011). Motor learning and performance: From principles to application (5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Young, W. B. (2006). Transfer of strength and power training to sports performance. International journal of sports physiology and performance, 1(2), 74-83.
Zatsiorsky, V. M. (1995). Science and Practice of Strength Training. United States: Human Kinetics.