|
|
Post by skizzy on Sept 30, 2009 19:51:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by runnerdude on Oct 1, 2009 6:31:42 GMT -5
If Coach tells you that he ran an AR in practice, then that's that. He may have missed one practice this year but if somebody says he missed one practice of all the practices this year, then that's enough to get a whole lot started. I told Coach Salazar that you don't have to give the people of America a reason to think about trading him or anything like that. If you trade somebody, you trade them to make the team better...simple as that. I'm cool with that. I'm all about that. The people in America deserve to have a winner. It's simple as that. It goes further than that ... If he can't practice, he can't practice. It is as simple as that. It ain't about that at all. It's easy to sum it up if you're just talking about practice. We're sitting here, and he's supposed to be the next great white hope, and we're talking about practice. I mean listen, we're sitting here talking about practice, not a race, not a race, not a race, but we're talking about practice. Not the race that he goes out there and dies for and runs every race like it's his last but we're talking about practice man. How silly is that? ... Now I know that he's supposed to lead by example and all that but he's not shoving that aside like it don't mean anything. He knows it's important, he honestly does but we're talking about practice. We're talking about practice man. We're talking about practice. We're talking about practice. We're not talking about the race. We're talking about practice. When you come to the race, and you see him run, you've seen him run right, you've seen him give everything he's got, but we're talking about practice right now. ... Hey I hear you, it's funny to me too, hey it's strange to me too but we're talking about practice man, we're not even talking about the race, when it actually matters, we're talking about practice ... How the hell can he make his teammates better by practicing?
-Allen Iverson on Ritz's "AR"
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Oct 1, 2009 20:44:11 GMT -5
He did half the workout on the road. Who knows how far he ran. Not to say he isn't fit but I would buy it more readily if it were all on a track.
|
|
|
|
Post by skizzy on Oct 1, 2009 21:21:34 GMT -5
My understanding is that Nike spent the time and dollars for certified and accurate training routes including staked (nailed) mike / km etc. markers. I'm guessing this is why they know the distance and time and are not afraid to tlk to the press.
These guys are not fooling around and are throwing a lot of resources at ressurecting American running. Be kind of cool to have something like this in Canada.
|
|
|
|
Post by limestonemiler on Oct 3, 2009 18:04:48 GMT -5
He did half the workout on the road. Who knows how far he ran. Not to say he isn't fit but I would buy it more readily if it were all on a track. don't mess with alberto salazar. he knows his shit. |
|
|
|
Post by MattMc on Oct 4, 2009 12:48:23 GMT -5
These guys are not fooling around and are throwing a lot of resources at ressurecting American running. Be kind of cool to have something like this in Canada.[/quote]
Something like that-- like the Brooks Canada Marathon Project? When are we going to stop using funding and opportunity as an excuse? We can't even muster up 10 guys for a funded marathon project. The truth is that we need about 100x more people training at a high level before we can approach the level of depth and excellence seen in the US. Funding is just icing on the cake-- right now we don't even have a cupcake...
|
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 4, 2009 13:26:58 GMT -5
These guys are not fooling around and are throwing a lot of resources at ressurecting American running. Be kind of cool to have something like this in Canada. Something like that-- like the Brooks Canada Marathon Project? When are we going to stop using funding and opportunity as an excuse? We can't even muster up 10 guys for a funded marathon project. The truth is that we need about 100x more people training at a high level before we can approach the level of depth and excellence seen in the US. Funding is just icing on the cake-- right now we don't even have a cupcake...[/quote] Gotta admit, if I was just finishing university I would have jumped at this opportunity. What's up new grads, why aren't more of you taking a shot at the marathon with this kind of support in place? |
|
|
|
Post by schester on Oct 4, 2009 14:21:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 4, 2009 15:34:45 GMT -5
These guys are not fooling around and are throwing a lot of resources at ressurecting American running. Be kind of cool to have something like this in Canada. Let's not be too quick to blame the kids here. They only know what they've been taught, and most of youngsters have grown up thinking that 100k a week is a "dangerous" amount of running. As for the grads, they probably think they're as good as they're going to get after 3months (i.e. one University season) of 2-a-days and 3 hard sessions per week. Truth is, most don't have the first idea what it takes -- in terms of volume x years-- to realize one's full potential in this sport. Before we can begin to compete with the U.S. even on a per capita basis in long distance running, the whole culture of the sport in this country that has to change, and that starts in the schools and clubs. Too many of our kids come up believing that age-class success is destiny. To retain more of our talent in the prime years, we have to start cutting hard against this misconception. |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 4, 2009 17:56:43 GMT -5
These guys are not fooling around and are throwing a lot of resources at ressurecting American running. Be kind of cool to have something like this in Canada. Let's not be too quick to blame the kids here. They only know what they've been taught, and most of youngsters have grown up thinking that 100k a week is a "dangerous" amount of running. As for the grads, they probably think they're as good as they're going to get after 3months (i.e. one University season) of 2-a-days and 3 hard sessions per week. Truth is, most don't have the first idea what it takes -- in terms of volume x years-- to realize one's full potential in this sport. Before we can begin to compete with the U.S. even on a per capita basis in long distance running, the whole culture of the sport in this country that has to change, and that starts in the schools and clubs. Too many of our kids come up believing that age-class success is destiny. To retain more of our talent in the prime years, we have to start cutting hard against this misconception. I'm not blaming anyone, just wondering why more of our grads aren't taking up the marathon? Does the BMP do any recruiting? |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 4, 2009 17:57:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Oct 4, 2009 18:54:00 GMT -5
Let's not be too quick to blame the kids here. They only know what they've been taught, and most of youngsters have grown up thinking that 100k a week is a "dangerous" amount of running. As for the grads, they probably think they're as good as they're going to get after 3months (i.e. one University season) of 2-a-days and 3 hard sessions per week. Truth is, most don't have the first idea what it takes -- in terms of volume x years-- to realize one's full potential in this sport. Before we can begin to compete with the U.S. even on a per capita basis in long distance running, the whole culture of the sport in this country that has to change, and that starts in the schools and clubs. Too many of our kids come up believing that age-class success is destiny. To retain more of our talent in the prime years, we have to start cutting hard against this misconception. I'm not blaming anyone, just wondering why more of our grads aren't taking up the marathon? Does the BMP do any recruiting? It's perceived as too hard(which is wrong) and the event is not suited to your typical ADD sufferer. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 4, 2009 20:04:41 GMT -5
Matt, buddy.... You seriously don't understand what Sean's (schester) point is? Clearly, to me, great stuff is happening in Guelph, and some are choosing to take advantage of that. And I don't think it has anything to do with funding ---- it's about getting to an environment that has/is being created to support excellent distance runners. In the 1980's, there was no extra funding to come out and train with the Valley Royals or the Kajaks or the Vikes. And yet a lot of folks from across Canada made that decision, and it seemed to work quite well. I don't think the fundamentals have changed --- the money is secondary to the commitment, and that is the root of our problem, both within the University system (choosing NCAA schools, some with shitty coaches, just because your education is paid for), and afterwards, where 22 and 23 year olds, with a lot of talent, aren't willing to commit some time to develop that talent, and retire from running, with an undeveloped gift that many would die for... |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 4, 2009 22:15:04 GMT -5
Matt, buddy.... You seriously don't understand what Sean's (schester) point is? Clearly, to me, great stuff is happening in Guelph, and some are choosing to take advantage of that. And I don't think it has anything to do with funding ---- it's about getting to an environment that has/is being created to support excellent distance runners. In the 1980's, there was no extra funding to come out and train with the Valley Royals or the Kajaks or the Vikes. And yet a lot of folks from across Canada made that decision, and it seemed to work quite well. I don't think the fundamentals have changed --- the money is secondary to the commitment, and that is the root of our problem, both within the University system (choosing NCAA schools, some with shitty coaches, just because your education is paid for), and afterwards, where 22 and 23 year olds, with a lot of talent, aren't willing to commit some time to develop that talent, and retire from running, with an undeveloped gift that many would die for... Absolutely some great stuff happening in Guelph with DST at the helm. Why not in high park then? What is the BMP doing wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Weiler on Oct 4, 2009 22:27:35 GMT -5
Great stuff happening in one area doesn't have to negate great things happening elsewhere. There are some fantastic opportunities for those with the drive to pursue their dreams. We need to make sure people are fully aware of these Canadian opportunities.
The depth and competitions in south-western Ontario continues to improve, with a bit more interaction recently as well I think. Hopefully even more groups will offer these fantastic opportunities, in one form or another. Not every program will work for every athlete, so it is in our best interest to have a few options - preferably supportive of each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bomba on Oct 5, 2009 0:10:59 GMT -5
Ronny you make a good point, but i also think that you forget the main factors that attracted athletes and put expectations on them to run beyond the collegiate seasons......Dr Doug, Swan and yourself....but you were all paid to produce athletes beyond the collegaiet scene.
Nowadays the coaches are only paid for their collegiate athletes and don't seem to put as much emhpasis on post collegaite stuff. It's now some 'rabble rousers' (egs brown, lee, O'cal, etc....) on the west coast who are putting expectations, time, etc.... on athletes to go beyond being a 'big fish in a cesspool'. But they are also not in positions to have a feeder program
like in your day (although i do know that Marek has been really good for supporting athletes in whatever way he can for those who want to move beyond the collegiate scene)
|
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Oct 5, 2009 2:33:40 GMT -5
It's also worth noting that the Hanson's program in the States was started way back in, I think, 1999. Sell's first appearance on the national stage came at the 2004 Trials (along with Briney and Verran coming 4th and 5th). They finally put someone on the Olympic team in 2008. For many of those years, lots of people were laughing at the Hanson's program and asking why they were wasting money on a bunch of slow losers. (Heck, people still say that over at Letsrun.)
Similarly, Salazar's success over the last few years makes people forget that the Nike Oregon Project was actually formed in 2001, and was heavily criticized for its lack of results in its first five or six years. Both programs had trouble attracting the really top-tier athletes who were already settled into comfortable routines elsewhere. Now, everyone wants a spot on Salazar's squad.
I guess my point is that we shouldn't write off projects like the BCMP and other group training environments too soon -- and we should hope they get enough support from athletes and the rest of the running community that they last long enough to develop in the way the American groups have.
In terms of the broader societal problems, I think for better or worse we're tied to trends in the U.S. The days of really broad participation in sports like running are likely gone for good -- but if the U.S. has a generation of high school and college athletes now used to running far more mileage than they did in the 90s, I think the same thing will happen here, even if we're a few years behind. Maybe our magical class of 2001 -- Ritz, Teg, Hall, Webb -- is just arriving.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Oct 5, 2009 7:14:39 GMT -5
There may be resurgence at the very top in the US but there is still a spectacular lack of depth. Unless a lot changes by the time the 2009 rankings come out, this list is nothing to brag about-Canada may be arguably better relatively speaking. The list below would be a weak USA FIELD at a marathon major 25 years ago.
MARATHON
2:06:17 Ryan Hall (Asics) London 04/13
2:11:59 Dathan Ritzenhein (Nike) Olympic G 08/24
2:12:33 ———Hall Olympic G 08/24
2:13:54 Justin Young (Reebok) Rotterdam 04/13
2:14:17 Abdi Abdirahman (Nike) New York 11/02
2:14:23 Josh Rohatinsky (Nike) New York 11/02
2:14:30 Jason Lehmkuhle (Saucony) New York 11/02
2:15:36 Matt Downin (New Balance) San Antonio 11/16
2:16:07 Brian Sell (Hansons) Olympic G 08/24
2:16:13’ Nicholas Arciniaga (Hansons) Boston 04/21
**10 performances by 9 performers**
2:16:20 Mike Reneau (Hansons) Chicago 10/12
(10)
2:16:32 Fernando Cabada (Reebok) Twin Cities 10/05
2:16:37 Bolota Asmerom (OTC) New York 11/02
2:17:35’ Christopher Raabe (DC) Grandma’s 06/21
2:17:38 Matt Gabrielson (Mn) Twin Cities 10/05
2:17:51’ Clint Verran (Hansons) Treviso 03/30
2:17:54 Edwardo Torres (Reebok) Twin Cities 10/05
2:17:58 Mike Morgan (Hansons) Twin Cities 10/05
2:18:26 Tommy Greenless (Ca) Detroit 10/19
2:18:38 Luke Humphrey (Hansons) New York 11/02
2:18:49 Chad Johnson (Hansons) London 04/13
(20)
2:19:18 Mike Sayenko (Wa) Twin Cities 10/05
’ Jason Schoener (Va) Boston 04/21
2:19:39’ Miguel Nuci (Ca) CIM 12/07
2:19:44 Sergio Reyes (AsicsA) Torreón 03/03
2:19:47 Jeff Jonaitis (Il) Memphis 12/06
2:19:57 Trent Briney (Mi) Twin Cities 10/05
2:20:17 Jacob Frey (Saucony) New York 11/02
2:20:18’ Mark Batres (unat) Los Angeles 03/02
2:20:38 Kyle Shackleton (Ca) New York 11/02
2:20:43 Crosby Freeman (AsicsA) Chicago 10/12
(30)
2:20:52 Fasil Bizuneh (New Balance) Twin Cities 10/05
2:20:57’ Marc Jeuland (NC) Boston 04/21
2:21:28 John Crews (NC) Raleigh 11/02
2:21:41 Josh Eberly (Co) Twin Cities 10/05
Matt Pelletier (RI) Tyngsboro 10/19
2:21:49 Pat Moulton (Hansons) Hartford 10/11
2:21:55 Celedonio Rodriguez (Co) Twin Cities 10/05
2:22:09 Chris Lundstrom (Mn) Twin Cities 10/05
2:22:20 Allen Wagner (Ca) Chicago 10/12
2:22:32 Chris Olinger (Or) Twin Cities 10/05
The cut-off to make the TRIALS in 1984 was 2:19:04 and 201 guys qualified.
I really don't get the "opportunities" part of this discussion. If this were a ski jumping board, we could complain about the lack of facilities and the weather working against us. Running is not complicated people.
|
|
|
|
Post by MattMc on Oct 5, 2009 7:28:12 GMT -5
Looking at the US marathon rankings is somewhat of a myopic view. Look at their 1500-5k and 10k rankings.
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Oct 5, 2009 8:15:04 GMT -5
...we shouldn't write off projects like the BCMP and other group training environments too soon ... I'm not sure why we're criticizing them here at all. 2/3 of the group went to WCs, no? |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 5, 2009 8:26:05 GMT -5
...we shouldn't write off projects like the BCMP and other group training environments too soon ... I'm not sure why we're criticizing them here at all. 2/3 of the group went to WCs, no? I don't think we are criticizing here, just wondering why there is not 10 people there rather than just 5 or whatever the number is? |
|
|
|
Post by MattMc on Oct 5, 2009 9:21:28 GMT -5
Not criticizing the BCMP. I am criticizing the constant whinging about funding and opportunity as the main barrier to success when programs like Guelph and the BCMP exist and are relatively or markedly under-subscribed. ...we shouldn't write off projects like the BCMP and other group training environments too soon ... I'm not sure why we're criticizing them here at all. 2/3 of the group went to WCs, no? |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Oct 5, 2009 9:23:57 GMT -5
Looking at the US marathon rankings is somewhat of a myopic view. Of the eras or the countries? I just want to understand your point. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Oct 5, 2009 9:39:12 GMT -5
Not criticizing the BCMP. Didn't think you were. My comment was in relation to the other Matt's question "what are the BMP doing wrong?" He's subsequently clarified he wasn't criticizing, but I'm not sure how you can say someone is doing something wrong and think you aren't criticizing. Is HHH maybe a politician...?  |
|
|
|
Post by MattMc on Oct 5, 2009 12:15:54 GMT -5
My point is that looking just at their marathon rankings ignores their general depth at all mid-d and distance events. 1500 (21 guys under 3:40 vs our 3; best 3:32 vs 3:34) 3000m (43 guys under 8:00 vs our 1-- probably more if you include indoor; best 7:33 vs 7:56) 5000m (50 guys under 13:47 vs our 6; best 12:56 vs 13:30) 10,000m (48 guys under 29 vs our 2; best 27:22 vs 27:50) Overall by a simple divide by 10 count we are doing OK by total depth, but at the higher end they are miles ahead of us, especially in the longer stuff (5-10k). 10 years ago they had half the depth and much less top end depth. Looking at the US marathon rankings is somewhat of a myopic view. Of the eras or the countries? I just want to understand your point. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Oct 5, 2009 13:45:38 GMT -5
My point is that looking just at their marathon rankings ignores their general depth at all mid-d and distance events. 10 years ago they had half the depth and much less top end depth. I was just talking about the marathon which I thought seemed to be the primary thrust of the thread although having gone through it again, it isn't. The marathon is a bit of a canary in the coalmine, though. Many would move up because they didn't have a prayer at the lower distances because of speed or depth. And half the depth is a bit of an exaggeration. For the 1500, 3000, 5000 and 10000 the average 50th best guy from 2009 would have ranked 32nd. The steeple is weird though. That event has gone backwards. It is the exact reverse. The 32nd best guy in 2009 would have been the 50th best in 1999. Improvement also has to be compared to the rest of the world. The IAAF data is a bit more difficult to work with but it looks like the 50th best guy in the 5000 was a 13:13.20 guy in 2009 and that was equal to the 28th best guy in 1999(exactly the same as the US in that event). "Keeping up" might be a better way to describe the US efforts as opposed to a resurgence. |
|
|
|
Post by bystander on Oct 5, 2009 15:06:15 GMT -5
The US rankings have benefited at the top end with two things (mostly) - Lagat, and the 2001 US HS Grad Class (Webb, Ritz, Teg and Hall). Beyond that it is hard (although others have stepped up as well - Meb and Abdi in the longer distances, Lomong, Manzano and Symmonds in the middle-distances) to say that there is a whole lot of development going on.
Given the vast numbers drawn into the US College system and spit out the other end, with the vast Nike resources (more than Brooks can offer in all liklihood) available as well - the depth isn't all that great. A decade-by-decade analysis would be useful to really see a long-term trend. Certainly the post-grad groups (Hansons, OTC - Schumaker&Salazar, Mammoth, etc.) help, along with the normal University based post-grad groups (i.e. Warhurst - although his is mostly foreign). This is no different than in Canada, and our carding system (individually based, not 'group" based) is more developed than theirs (USATF), but the pockets of Nike are certainly deeper. But I feel that the depth isn't what it should otherwise be - I'll stop short of RonB claiming that there are many poor coaches in the US, is Canada much better? Systematically we might claim a better development "system", but the depth of numbers (athletes) isn't on our side. Given more time, groups like BMCP and Speed River may develop more top level (IAAF Standard) athletes along the way, but more groups need to be fostered so that it doesn't become too narrow in focus - perhaps a problem in the past with National centres. Also, individuals can do things on their own - Drayton trained on his own much of the time, and ran 2h11 40 years ago!! We haven't progressed much since then (if at all) even with the group mindset - the Americans (in the Marathon anyway) haven't really either (even with Hall - Khannouchi did his own thing as well).
Here is the last decade of the US in Track: For a country with 10x the population, should they have 10x the depth of Canada.
Average of USATF Rankings Lists: Compare to IAAF A & B Standards/Kenyan Depth.
- - - - - 800m - - - - 1500m - - - - -3kSC - - - - 5000m - - - - 10000m
1st - - - 1.44.25 - - - 3.32.21 - - - -8.15.15 - - -13.10.61 - - - 27.27.33
5th - - - - 1.45.84 - - - 3.37.10 - - - - 8.26.38 - - -13.22.76 - - - 28.01.65
10th - - - 1.46.56 - - - -3.38.75 - - - - 8.31.95 - - -13.29.49 - - - 28.13.15
20th - - - 1.47.42 - - - -3.40.78 - - - - 8.39.86 - - - 13.37.97 - - - 28.40.97
2000:
1st - - - - 1.44.91 - - - -3.33.59 - - - -8.11.29 - - - 13.11.77 - - - 27.46.17
5th - - - -1.45.51 - - - - 3.36.70 - - - 8.25.09 - - - -13.27.05 - - - 28.17.25
10th - - - 1.46.21 - - - -3.38.70 - - - 8.27.67 - - - -13.28.99 - - - 28.28.82
20th - - - 1.47.46 - - - -3.40.47 - - - 8.35.09 - - - -13.38.87 - - - 28.44.47
2001:
1st - - - -1.44.54 - - - - 3.33.89 - - - 8.14.82 - - - -13.17.51 - - - 27.13.98 AR (Meb)
5th - - - -1.45.71 - - - -3.36.64 - - - 8.25.73 - - - - 13.24.13 - - - 28.28.97
10th - - -1.46.83 - - - -3.38.26 *- - 8.27.54 - - - - 13.37.63 - - - 28.40.03 - -* Webb Mile HS
20th - - -1.47.88 - - - -3.41.54 - - - 8.40.83 - - - - 13.44.70 Ritz HS - - 29.05.40
2002:
1st - - - 1.43.92 - - - -3.31.93 - - - 8.18.86 - - - - 13.21.87 - - - -27.20.15
5th - - - 1.45.81 - - - -3.40.00 - - - 8.23.44 - - - - 13.27.52 - - - 27.56.90
10th - - 1.46.76 - - - -3.40.74 - - -8.30.35 - - - - 13.31.61 - - - 28.34.79
20th - - -1.47.92 - - - 3.41.61 - - - 8.39.66 - - - - 13.40.38 - - - 28.43.28
2003:
1st - - - -1.44.30 - - - -3.35.15 - - -8.22.32- - - - -13.20.50 - - - 27.41.90
5th - - - -1.46.17 - - - 3.39.74 - - - 8.30.74 - - - - 13.31.80 - - - 28.02.34
10th - - -1.47.78 - - - 3.41.49 - - - 8.32.18 - - - - 13.37.31 - - - 28.41.40
20th - - -1.47.89 - - - 3.42.6h - - - 8.40.74 - - - - 13.43.05 - - - 28.41.40
2004:
1st - - - 1.44.77 - - - -3.32.73 - - -8.15.02 - - - - 13.16.02 - - - -27.24.10
5th - - -1.46.09 - - - -3.37.73 - - - 8.23.60 - - - - 13.27.06 - - - -27.42.19
10th - - 1.46.66 - - - -3.38.54 - - -8.30.01 - - - - 13.32.27 - - - -28.18.81
20th - - 1.47.17 - - - 3.40.19 - - -8.38.09 - - - - 13.37.66 - - - -28.37.95
2005:
1st - - - 1.44.62 - - - 3.29.30AR - -8.12.65 - - - -12.59.29 - - - -27.33.47 (Lagat 1500/5k)
5th - - -1.45.86 - - - 3.35.26 - - - -8.24.16 - - - -13.13.32 - - - -28.15.52 AJR-Rupp
10th - - 1.46.70 - - - 3.38.31 - - - 8.34.84 - - - - 13.22.23 - - - -28.35.86
20th - - 1.47.35 - - - 3.40.42 - - - 8.42.32 - - - - 13.40.21 - - - -28.45.32
2006:
1st - - -1.43.68 - - - 3.29.68 - - - 8.08.82 AR - - 12.59.22 - - - - 27.22.81
5th - - 1.45.91 - - - 3.35.96 - - -8.28.18 - - - - -13.16.61 - - - - 27.59.41
10th - -1.46.50 - - - 3.38.86 - - -8.35.38 - - - - -13.28.89 - - - - 28.18.74
20th - -1.47.53 - - - 3.40.73 - - -8.41.09 - - - - -13.38.09 - - - - 28.40.20
2007:
1st - - -1.43.84 - - - 3.30.54 - - -8.15.69 - - - - -13.07.41 - - - -27.31.46
5th - - -1.45.69 - - - 3.35.72 - - -8.27.34 - - - - -13.16.06 - - - -27.43.13
10th - -1.46.62 - - - 3.37.56 - - -8.32.74 - - - - -13.20.43 - - - -28.03.44
20th - -1.47.13 - - - 3.40.17 - - -8.41.10 - - - - -13.33.24 - - - - 28.29.16
2008:
1st - - -1.44.10 - - -3.32.75 - - -8.17.34 - - - - - 13.16.29 - - - -27.16.99
5th - - -1.45.47 - - -3.36.61 - - -8.21.49 - - - - - 13.25.66 - - - -27.50.48
10th - -1.46.04 - - -3.37.51 - - -8.32.47 - - - - - 13.30.09 - - - -28.03.72
20th - -1.46.89 - - -3.40.41 - - -8.37.73 - - - - - 13.32.74 - - - -28.26.75
2009:
1st - - - 1.43.83 - - 3.32.56 - - -8.14.69 - - - -12.56.26 AR Ritz - - 27.22.28 Ritz
5th - - -1.46.17 - - -3.36.66 - - -8.34.02 - - - - -13.18.41 - - - -28.00.27
10th - - 1.46.47 - - -3.37.57 - - -8.36.00 - - - - 13.25.46 AJR-Fernandez - -28.25.85
20th - -1.46.97 - - -3.39.63 - - -8.41.97 - - - --13.30.77 - - - - -28.35.79
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 5, 2009 16:19:34 GMT -5
Bystander, please don't twist my words. I said "SOME, with shitty coaches". And clearly indicated that many fine Canadian runners were making their choices based on $$$, rather on their own long term development as athletes. I stand by that comment, and I have no doubts that there are excellent distance coaches in Canada who could be better choices for some of those athletes, if other factors were equal (which they aren't, of course).
And Bomber, we sort of agree. But it wasn't dollars for Coaches that produced results, it was focus and commitment. Guys such as Doug and Gerry only received small stipends, as both were full time professionals as Doctor and Teacher. And the same was true of many other Canadian distance coaches, who were full time professionals in other areas, but were committed to coaching at the highest level, as well. Where we agree, I think, is that we seem to have lots of money for coaching at the University level, but we haven't been successful in most cases in having those coaches put in the extra time and effort required to support athletes trying to make an impact at the next level.
I think the model of having a University Distance Coach, who is supported by Club, Provincial, National funding and programs to develop athletes over and above the University scene, is still a good model, but doesn't seem to be in common practice at the moment.
With obvious exceptions...
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Oct 5, 2009 16:39:56 GMT -5
I am not optimistic that if you build it, they will come.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 5, 2009 17:00:03 GMT -5
I am not optimistic that if you build it, they will come. Yes, I hear you on that one, SI. It's a difficult gig, to try and encourage post-collegiate athletes to keep going, and see what might be possible over the next several or many years. But DST and friends have built it, and they are coming, so it still must be possible, yes? And we have other coaches in the system who are still showing interest and success in developing distance runners.....those of us who care must keep trying, imo. |
|
