|
|
Post by SI on Oct 5, 2009 17:03:20 GMT -5
Question for the Guelph group. Can anyone join?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bomba on Oct 5, 2009 20:50:20 GMT -5
ronny.... I am not talking about doug or gerry getting paid, but more along the lines of the funding for high performance centres that created a structure in place for post collegaite success. A combination of a few extra bucks here and there (egs lonergan got paid from AC, SFU, Valley Royals) in combination with goals that extend beyond simply collegiate running is relevant....if u have incredibly intrinsic people involved then great, but IMHO there also needs to be some economic stimulus (even a minimal amount) to keep things going for the long haul.......
|
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 5, 2009 22:02:49 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...?  Okay, what does the BMP need to do in order to get more participation from our recent grads? |
|
|
|
Post by feens on Oct 6, 2009 3:31:20 GMT -5
Okay, what does the BMP need to do in order to get more participation from our recent grads? Simple answer: move to a real province (perhaps one that has mountains and air worth breathing)  |
|
|
|
Post by thinskinned on Oct 6, 2009 11:53:17 GMT -5
Okay, what does the BMP need to do in order to get more participation from our recent grads? One common factor in most successful goups is DIVERSITY. Both in the range of focus of events as well as the calibre of athletes involved. I think it is detrimental to label a group a "marathon" specific entity. That puts too narrow a focus on the training & goals. History has shown that good marathoners come from all different backgrounds. In the end I think you will see more high end marathon runners come out of a general "distance project" than a marathom specific one. There are probably several reasons for that but one thing I don't envy for the athlete in a so call "marathon project" is the unrelenting sense of failure & perhaps not feeling worthy of belonging to the group if one can't/isn't succeeding in the marathon....or just don't feel like training for it in the next competitive cycle. Diversity in athletic abilities is simple. Strength in number, misery loves company, like minded individuals & a contsant reminder to the more naturally gifted not to be wasting that gift since many others would love to have. Bomba, one (actually 2) persons vote on reasons for transplanting west. Absolutely nothing to do with coaching, funding or group structures....all about weather & high level athletes to train with (who also would be there with or without the structure) |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 6, 2009 13:31:49 GMT -5
I guess my point is that we shouldn't write off projects like the BCMP and other group training environments too soon Or new collegiate programs.  There's a lot of good stuff going on. London Runner, UTTC has a good group, but there are waves, and it takes time between peaks (not sure that is the right word to complete the oceanographic metaphor). Feel the love! Running love! |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 6, 2009 13:39:10 GMT -5
or just don't feel like training for it in the next competitive cycle. Isn't this the main problem? |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 6, 2009 13:42:08 GMT -5
Question for the Guelph group. Can anyone join? Every contact I've had with DST, Moulton or anyone else is that they are as open as can be. I've sent an athlete to train with them over the summer, and they were totally fine with that. As Gryphons, they recruit harder than Marek, but it's just so positive, I can understand how it is hard to resist. I spoke to DST once about joining the group myself (as a potential grad student) and it was open arms. I'm pretty sure if they would take me, they would take anyone. A bit late to this thread. I think the first reply was the best! |
|
|
|
Post by tracktrashtalker on Oct 6, 2009 13:59:46 GMT -5
Question for the Guelph group. Can anyone join? University of British Columbia |
|
|
|
Post by thinskinned on Oct 6, 2009 16:29:44 GMT -5
or just don't feel like training for it in the next competitive cycle. Isn't this the main problem? Well, it's very much looking like the answer to that question is a resounding NO, if we bring it back to the original topic of this thread at least. Getting away from the grips of the marathon & a very marathon specific program/environment seem to have done wonders for Mr. Ritz. No doubt that phase of training/competition is helping him out emencely now & no doubt his focus on shorter stuff now will help produce better results in the marathon later. I don't see this as a problem but a solution to his being stale/unmotivated/stuck in a rut with the typical marathon cycle of training & racing. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Weiler on Oct 6, 2009 17:09:55 GMT -5
thinkskinned/oldstertootwo2,
how many groups had the diversity in training/goals/etc. to medal nationally or represent at Worlds in every distance event from 5,000m to the Marathon (5,000m, 10,000m, Half, Marathon) in 2009?
There's nothing saying we can't have a Marathon Group in one city and then a Distance Group the next city over. Group A works better for some people, Group B for others. Everybody wins!
If you commit to joining a funded, specialized training group and 'just don't feel like training for it in the next competitive cycle' I don't think the group structure is your biggest concern. I hope no one receiving AC funding just doesn't 'feel like training for it' and competing in their funded event at Nationals.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 6, 2009 19:38:12 GMT -5
Steve, I think you may be missing the skin-man's point, which is a very good one, and born of direct experience with Canada's best ever "distance project"-- the Kajaks group under D. Clement (yes, the current Guelph group notwithstanding). This group got several decent marathons out of it's people by training in a totally organic way for the entire distance running event range. Very few distance runners do well training specifically for the marathon on a year-round basis (i.e. in "every training cycle"). In fact, I've been noticing for quite a while now how often it happens that, once a good distance runner decides he/she is a "marathoner" rather than a distance runner, things go south. (Interestingly, Salazar himself comes to mind as an prime example of this phenomenon). So, it's not a question of having "something for everyone" in terms of groups on offer; it just may well be that any group that attempts to target the marathon exclusively will ultimately fail, first because its athletes fail to thrive, and then because of its inability to attract new members. I've been a supporter of the BMP since it's inception, but I've always understood that it is something of an experiment; and, like any experiment, it may not ultimately work, or work in its original form.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 6, 2009 20:18:01 GMT -5
Oldster, if you were to ask D. Clement about the success of the Kajaks program during the 1980's, and early 1990's, you would understand that the achievements were part of the larger vision, which was operative in BC at that time. For instance, many of the athletes who came West, originally did so with the support of the Valley Royals, under coach Gerry Swan. Also, many of the athletes thrived with the support of the BC competition program, with Ken Elmer leading the way in many areas, and great input from BCA and AC., and a bit by myself as well. It was a team program, back then, and to isolate the Kajaks results is only partially accurate.
And it is interesting that many of those Marathon results were from athletes who seemed to have achieved what they could on the track......Schiebler, Williams, Nelson, Fell, etc., although I would suggest Boileau was an exception who was great on the track, but really went after the Marathon as his prime event. 11th at the World Championships in Helsinki in 1983 ----yes? And later, Bruce Deacon as well...
|
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 6, 2009 20:49:18 GMT -5
Steve, I think you may be missing the skin-man's point, which is a very good one, and born of direct experience with Canada's best ever "distance project"-- the Kajaks group under D. Clement (yes, the current Guelph group notwithstanding). This group got several decent marathons out of it's people by training in a totally organic way for the entire distance running event range. Very few distance runners do well training specifically for the marathon on a year-round basis (i.e. in "every training cycle"). In fact, I've been noticing for quite a while now how often it happens that, once a good distance runner decides he/she is a "marathoner" rather than a distance runner, things go south. (Interestingly, Salazar himself comes to mind as an prime example of this phenomenon). So, it's not a question of having "something for everyone" in terms of groups on offer; it just may well be that any group that attempts to target the marathon exclusively will ultimately fail, first because its athletes fail to thrive, and then because of its inability to attract new members. I've been a supporter of the BMP since it's inception, but I've always understood that it is something of an experiment; and, like any experiment, it may not ultimately work, or work in its original form. I enjoyed this post Oldster, but I didn't get the Salazar bit. Please elaborate. (Dude announced he'd win NYC, he did. Next year he announced WR, he did.*) *Yeah, I know. |
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 6, 2009 20:56:26 GMT -5
In fact from 80-82, he did his best Marathons AND ARs for 5k, 10k, and a 2nd/4th at WXC. Yes, there was a decline from 83/84 onwards though.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 6, 2009 21:11:51 GMT -5
Ron, all points well taken. What we're talking about is really a "B.C Distance Project", with several facets (except, notably, an exclusively marathon-oriented enclave).
Skuj, Salazar's early marathon achievement were made when he was a self-professed 10k guy taking a shot at the marathon. Things began to go awry for him when he began thinking and training like a "marathoner". He did, after all, have a very truncated career for such a talented young guy. In fact, I think a lot of people have his example in mind when they say, mistakenly, things like "as soon as you move to the marathon, say goodbye to your "track speed". The real lesson to be taken from the Salazar experience ought to be: "as soon as you start training year-round for the marathon, you risk your distance running ability, period." I think we'll all find that this is a lesson he himself has learned, and will apply to his own charges.
|
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 6, 2009 21:19:53 GMT -5
I assumed that in 1980 he embraced the Marathon, but trained in such a way to be great at 5k-10k. In the early 80s, most of the best believed in "fast 10k = good for Marathon".
But Salazar made some silly mistakes later on with overtraining? And what exactly is "training year round for the Marathon"? Aren't the best Marathon Specialists doing the periodization thang, and intermediate races/stepping stones?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 6, 2009 21:52:34 GMT -5
Skuj, I think thinskinned put it best when he referred to not targeting the marathon in "every training cycle". This, in any case, is what I mean when I say "training year-round for the marathon". In the beginning, I think Salazar would spend a few months of the year training specifically for a marathon (i.e. New York), after which he would shift focus to the shorter stuff, meaning he resumed training for 5s and 10s. To my understanding, later on he stopped caring at all about how he performed at anything but the marathon, and started doing sessions normally reserved for the 10-12 weeks of specific marathon prep all year round. The point is, it is possible to do very well in the marathon-- and probably advisable too, if one wants a long career-- by training specifically for it for only 10-12 weeks at a time, 1-2 times per year (provided, I would add, one takes it up at an early enough age). One might want to call this "periodization" for the marathon, but it amounts to the same thing: training as a distance runner, and doing the marathon as simply one event in that range.
Thinskin's specific point still stands: requiring that athletes in a training group specifically target the marathon, or even run the marathon at all, such as the BMP has sought for its own reasons to do, simply may not work, because that's not how good marathoners are typically made. This is not a knock on the BMP, which is, as I said, only an experiment, and one with the very best of intentions.
|
|
|
|
Post by feens on Oct 6, 2009 22:16:00 GMT -5
A couple of points to note around this as well:
- Salazar had Ritz drop down in distance.
- Coolsaet is also an example of someone going back to training to shorter stuff after having run a couple of marathons
Also, is it not possible that even those training for marathons would benefit from having a diversity of people around them as well, with different skill-sets, etc?
---
Although I may not be talented enough to be at the level where I could do something like join such a group, even if I was offered a chance to head over to the BMP, I'd have a hard time saying yes, for a few reasons:
1) As I mentioned earlier, I'd have no desire to live/train in Toronto (and I grew up all of an hour away, so it's not like I'm unfamiliar with the area)
2) The diversity of the group. I've trained with a number of different groups/coaches now, and I personally love being around a variety of runners. It is exciting and encouraging.
3) The most focused point here: not always wanting to train specifically for one main event. I can understand why Ritz felt stale after a while. Sometimes it's nice to take a step back and focus on something different for a while. What good is running if you don't enjoy it?
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Oct 6, 2009 22:25:24 GMT -5
Isn't this the main problem? Well, it's very much looking like the answer to that question is a resounding NO, if we bring it back to the original topic of this thread at least. Getting away from the grips of the marathon & a very marathon specific program/environment seem to have done wonders for Mr. Ritz. No doubt that phase of training/competition is helping him out emencely now & no doubt his focus on shorter stuff now will help produce better results in the marathon later. I don't see this as a problem but a solution to his being stale/unmotivated/stuck in a rut with the typical marathon cycle of training & racing. Yeah, I see that, but I was more referring to the general attitude of "don't feel like training." If you want to be good you have to do stuff you don't feel like doing. I guess in retrospect that was not what you meant in your post. I agree that having a good plan that incorporates some relative down-time is essential. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Weiler on Oct 6, 2009 22:29:36 GMT -5
No, I got it. My own club is based on "training in a totally organic way for the entire distance running event range." However, I don't believe that is the 'only' way and am disturbed by the negativity from people who feel there is only one correct way to do things, when they could instead chose to be supportive of other groups for the greater good of Canadian distance running. Saying you are supportive of a group on one hand, then making little digs at them or their concept with the other, does not match my definition of being supportive. Very few distance runners do well training specifically for the marathon on a year-round basis (i.e. in "every training cycle"). Oldster, you may have missed part of my post. How many groups in Canada included training cycles that allowed their athletes to place top-3 in Canada or compete at the IAAF World Championships in all events {5,000m, 10,000m, Half Marathon, Marathon} in 2009? |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 6, 2009 22:54:40 GMT -5
Steve, you seem determined to pick a fight on this one, for reasons known only to you. If having an opinion and stating it suggests that one believes that there is "only one way of doing things", then I guess I'm guilty as charged, along with everyone else who's not willing to say "hey, anything goes, there no right way or wrong way, and everyone's a winner!". As for the "digs" and "negativity", I think I've been pretty straightforward in what I think are the strengths and weakness of the BMP. As I've said before, the BMP will succeed or fail based on its actual performance in doing what it has set out to do, period. Our various "attitudes" and levels of "moral support" have nothing to do with it, and to suggest otherwise is to be patronizing to the people involved. The project is, after all, not some delicate flower that will wilt at the first sign of "negativity". And what, Steve, would be your definition of "supportive", if it does not involve any constructive, well meaning criticism, or recognition that perhaps not everything has gone as planned with this experiment?
|
|
|
|
Post by thinskinned on Oct 6, 2009 23:33:15 GMT -5
just testing....have I been banned?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bomba on Oct 7, 2009 0:04:20 GMT -5
thinskinned.....successful things are multi facted.... my take is the old chicken and egg syndrome......but to keep things going over the long haul (as opposed to short term) requires 'more' than just athletes, coaches, weather and training partners, etc....it's more of a question of something in place that attracts people. Whatever that may be..... I like Ronny's idea of an entire BC project idea...Egs the 'best ever' program program provided a multi-faceted approach that then took on a life of tis own. IN retrospect one can see a handful of situations that arose and died from varying factors: Egs the GBTC of Bill squires fame never took off until the boys had some beers, threw out some coaching names and came up with name of Squires to coach them.....a combination of Squires and the athletes allowed them to overcome financial and weather constraints (I would put Guelph in this category). In the end it appears that it was more financial (egs the competing shoe companies) that tore apart the grp . On the other side a grp like Hansons was created more by money (it sure as hell isn't the weather)...but will it survive if the money dries up ....what will happen when its star Sell retires?  or a grp like the Florida track club was based around the singular idea of guys training together (egs bachelor being that 'centrifical force'), but lacked the infrastructure or fudning to go long term..... .....it's really all about degrees/percentages of what caused the upswing and downswing (nevermind good ol fashioned cycles)...egs the downswing in BC began with politics and funding and the nail in the coffin was the retirement of high profile athletes/coaches. The question might be what would have happened if any one of these factors (or maybe better to ask which one had the greatest impact) was taken out of the equation.....would this have impacted anything? ? That in general has always been my take.......and why I get frustrated with the higher ups. It doesn't take much in many respects (as shown by DST) of a little extra funding for coaches (either club or uni) to put in a little extra time, a blueprint (collegiate mixed in with post collegiate), some simplistic infrastructure (egs done cheaply by coordinating with a uni to provide something as simple as pool/gym access, etc...) in combination with intrinsically motivated athletes to create something special..... |
|
|
|
Post by thinskinned on Oct 7, 2009 1:37:25 GMT -5
thinkskinned/oldstertootwo2, how many groups had the diversity in training/goals/etc. to medal nationally or represent at Worlds in every distance event from 5,000m to the Marathon (5,000m, 10,000m, Half, Marathon) in 2009? Wow Steve, you've really lost it on this one. But I'll just answer your question (sort of) then let you continue on with the finger pointing & name calling. The answer to your question is NONE. Now ask me the same question in the late 80's and the answer would have been 4; TOC Etobicoke Huskies Regina Mundi Kajaks Of the top 72 marathon times on the all-time lists these clubs claim 25 (35%) by my counting. TOC-9.5, Kajaks-7.5, Regina Mundi-5, Etobicoke Huskies-3 [trivia-who is the 0.5TOC/0.5Kajak] All these clubs had the aforementioned diversity & precisely why I have formed MY OPINION on the best way to develop top calibre marathoners. Hence, it seems your question appears to support my theory. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Weiler on Oct 7, 2009 13:04:16 GMT -5
My only interest in 'fighting' is against misinformation being presented on this board; I don't mean to be pointing fingers, and don't see any names being called.
The BCMP is being presented in this thread as a marathon-focused group (which it is) that trains exclusively for the marathon in every cycle of training (which is incorrect). The 2009 race distances of Andrew Smith and Dylan Wykes follow a similar pattern, as far as I can tell, with Andrew taking silver over 10,000m at Nationals. Tara won what Moulton described as "one of the strongest Canadian Women's 5,000m fields..." at Nationals this year. Matt had a great debut in winning the Canadian Half champs, qualifying for Worlds.
I have a pretty good understanding of the ups and downs of this project and realize that it is not perfect, nor is any other group.
Constructive criticism by definition is: 'useful and intended to help or improve something, often with an offer of possible solutions.' I have no problem with that and hope that those interested in 'helping improve' are just as quick to give credit where credit is due.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 7, 2009 17:53:50 GMT -5
Steve, with all due respect (and I actually have great respect for what you're doing down there), I still can't see what been said here against which to take this kind of umbrage. Misinformation? The Brooks Marathon project is called the Brooks Marathon project for a reason. It is quite consciously NOT styled as typical distance running enclave. Athletes who enter are understood to be making a commitment to the marathon. No one, in other words, is allowed to receive support from the Project if he/she does not intend to train for and race marathons. No one has suggested that this means that athletes will never race or train for other distances, or do well at them. It does, however, quite clearly mean that success at these other distances must be considered an adjunct to marathon preparation. You can accuse me and others of anything you want, but you can't seriously suggest that we are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the nature of this program. In fact, you yourself seem to what to have it both ways. First you say that the BMP is a different approach from a typical distance enclave, and should be understood and supported as such. Now your saying that it's really not so different from a typical distance enclave, because its athletes have done well at non-marathon distances.
As for the nature of the criticism implied in what been said so far, the constructive part is obvious: some of us are suggesting that the project might work better if it broadened its mandate in including other kinds of specialties, and let the marathoners emerge, as it were, organically. If the BMP people even care one way or another what gets said on here (which I doubt they actually do) they can take this or leave it. But, it is clearly constructive, as it is based on what some of us who are a little older know of successful group training experiments of the past. Like you, I know the principals at the BMP reasonably well, and I highly doubt they would take offense to the expression of this kind of an opinion.
As for the giving of due credit, I can recall plenty of congratulatory comments on the performances of BMP members when they have run well. As a frequenter of this forum, I think you know that this is true. I think you also know that everyone on here who knows about it has always rooted for this project to succeed in its mandate. And I, for one, think it generally has so far: It put two members on the WC marathon squad after less than 3 years in operation, after all. Circumstances being what they are in Canadian distance running at the moment, this is not too bad at all. However, because it is so much better funded than any other group in this country, and because it has promoted itself in such a high-profile way, it is bound to be held to a higher standard. Once again, I think its principals understand and accept this. So, please, let this be the last time someone gets his throat jumped down for failing to show proper reverence for the BMP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Weiler on Oct 7, 2009 22:36:39 GMT -5
oldster, it's a pet peeve just as you have with the youth training (except that we have very similar views on that one). Some people have worked hard to present a great opportunity, which I believe should be supported as one of many possible opportunities for our athletes to be GREAT.
There were comments praising other athletes who alternated marathon cycles with shorter distance cycles in terms of the greater long-term benefits towards their marathon careers. There were also comments suggesting the BCMP as only having marathon cycles. I (poorly) presented the fact that BCMP has done the same as others are being praised for - though they weren't receiving any credit for it, at least in this thread.
Generically speaking, just because the long-term goal in a specialized group is 1 specific event, that doesn't mean that coaches and athletes cannot chose the best path possible to reach that point. A marathon group can have an athlete train towards a 10k in a specific cycle. This is different then a distance enclave that includes an 800m group. The fully-funded concept would have a #s limitation that may not support a full distance enclave. Fortunately, we have that option in other groups.
|
|
|
|
Post by feens on Oct 7, 2009 23:20:22 GMT -5
Steve, I think the thing is, the question was brought up as to how we can get more post-collegiate athletes involved in the marathon, and then more specifically, the question was posted as to what the BMP could/should do differently. I think the discussion that has followed has been pretty fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Weiler on Oct 9, 2009 23:50:53 GMT -5
A couple of points to note around this as well: ... - Coolsaet is also an example of someone going back to training to shorter stuff after having run a couple of marathons Can't believe no one commented on this yet...not that there's anything wrong with that concept, but what are you talking about??? |
|
