The URL above takes you to the FULL article written by Steven Plisk of Excelsior Sports.
I’ve got good news and bad news. For starters here’s the bad news: the subject of this article is specificity, perhaps the most mundane and unexciting concept in all of training. Why bother going there when we could tackle so many other interesting, urgent issues? Specificity is worth revisiting precisely because it’s such a foundational concept that it tends to slip under our radar. Of all the time-honored training principles, none seem to get bastardized and misinterpreted the way specificity does. Maybe that shouldn’t be surprising. Who wants to think about stuff like analyzing task demands when there’s planning and coaching to do?
Now for the good news: Specificity really isn’t boring at all, especially when you consider its place in the planning process. Think of it as the essential first step in preparing any strategy: zeroing in on the target. You can be an expert at the next two steps — understanding the situation and selecting tactics — but if you don’t get an accurate fix on your performance target, odds are you’ll miss it despite your best efforts.
So hopefully I’ve got your attention and you’ll read on. I’ll try to keep it interesting and present a worthwhile take-away message. If I can accomplish that, with luck you won’t be caught off guard the next time you hear the five most dangerous words in the profession.