Canadian XC - Overall Scores and Other Analysis

[SI]

Dec 8, 2009 16:27:52 GMT -5 pmac said:

Bottom line is, if you love the sport, you're gonna stick with it, and you don't need necessarily need government handouts to do it.

Exactly right. Steve, why are you banging away at open races at 46 years old? You are STILL living what some of us are saying.

[saskatchewan]

i agree with pmac.

Oldbones, i'm simply not buying your arguement. I would like the decline in depth of CDN running to many factors certainly not all related to more competitive international stds.

Let's turn the decline in CDN distance running arguement on its head. Less depth can mean more reward and opportunities for those reasonably talented individuals who choose to stick it out. For example, if a CDN woman ran a 2:28 marathon (13 min off the WR) she would be sponsored and representing Canada at international championships.

We seem to have forgotten that many greats ran for $0 and simply the love of the sport. I have always believed (and have consistently seen it played out) that if you do something well for the love of it, the money will follow.

I don't have all the answers and likely won't convince those die hard who see the inevitable demiss of CDN distance running, but i remain optimistic that good times are around the corner.

[oldster]

I guess I take a middle position on all of this. I definitely think passion and drive are important, but that, at the margins, a certain amount leadership-- and dollars-- from above can make a difference in terms of the number of people who choose to follow their passion long enough to make a go of it. Right now, there are some 5-6 millions of Canadian dollars (and that's counting AC's budget alone, not Provincial Branch budgets). I think that this money could be better targeted to help improve the depth of performance in the sport, from which the quality would follow as a matter of course as athletes competed with one another for national team spots. But, I don't think money, in terms of the amounts available to individual athletes, either from the government or private sources, is a significant factor in determining how many post-collegians choose to continue in the sport. There has never been significant money in this sport and, really, there STILL isn't much for any but the very best; and yet, globally, the depth in the sport is greater than ever. In fact, I'm not even convinced that the carding system is necessarily the best use of money. It remains more than possible to get to a very high level in this sport without a lot of personal money, notwithstanding what oldbones says about times having changed.

In fact, oldbones, I can't believe you would challenge the Steve Jones example on the basis of an argument that his time wouldn't stack up today. The guy ran 2:07:13, and he soloed it, with terrible pacing to boot! That time is 3mins off the current world record, making it the equivalent of a high 2:10-11 back in the mid-80s. Guys at that level were certainly players back then-- i.e. more than capable of top 10s or better at Worlds or the Olympics-- and a 2:07 guy is certainly a player today. If someone can get to 2:07 working full time and raising a family, surely these factors are not prohibitive when it comes to being world class in any era. Look at the East Africans themselves. There lives are typically very hard in different ways before they ever achieve world class levels (i.e. WHILE they're actually doing so), but it's clearly not stopping them.

[ess92]

This opinion may be based in ignorance but I don't understand why there is a problem?
It seems that many here are saying that there isn't the funding available to travel to competitions and you cannot possibly cover it yourself. But why not? Most runners who take up the sport seriously are university educated. With that degree, you can now find a job. Thats the financial situation taken care of.
One could argue that the other problem is that there isn't enough time to train. There are 24 hours in a day. Assume you work 9-5, a standard 8 hour work day. You now have time to train in the morning and in the evening.
What else is holding a would be champion back? There are very few people who will be able to make a living running. If that is the only reason someone is in the sport then they should just move on.

[ronb]

I have almost total agreement with statements made by oldster, pmac, saskatchewan, SI.
I couldn't have expressed my opinion of our sport, and where it's going or not, and why, any better than you guys have.
Maybe we have a generational shift going on here. I here people needing instant gratification, and praising extrinsic rewarding, as compared to intrinsic, and I am thinking, "you are in the wrong activity - try video games".
People who think Steve Jones or Herb Elliott are anomalies have no sense of the history of the sport. Almost all of the great distance runners from the 50's, 60's, 70's and even 80's, were doing it from a sense of love and passion for the activity, and respect for the talent they were blessed with, and an unquenchable desire to express that talent to the highest possible level. And they would all be very competitive today, even without all the so-called progress in training methods and technologies and perhaps extra financial support.
Look at the Aussies and the Kiwis from those days. Different side of the world, different seasons, huge time zone change to get anywhere to compete, no great financial support at all, primitive (basic) training principles, countries with small populations.....but countries with huge respect for Sport at all levels - something we really need to revitalize in Canada, particularly in Athletics, particularly in distance running.
I hear your question, thinskinned, and I will answer in time - I just don't want to sidetrack this thread right now.

[SI]

If I quit at 24, I wouldn't have ever started. I started running the year I became a partner where I still am and, truth be told, the 100 mile plus 12 workout weeks were a good way to take my mind off the 80 hour work weeks(part of the year). The time thing is a complete joke.

[lcarson]

In my opinion, University educated runners either from the CIS or NCAA system should pursue their careers and running aspirations at the same time. To invest all your time and energy soley in sport is potentially dangerous. Besides, when the running goes sour, what tools and resources would the runner have to put life events into perspective - not many! When proportionally too much time is invested in one aspect of one's life, what a person does (runs) soon defines who that person is rather than what they do - not good. As the previous posts have eluded, there are 24 hours in a day, and one who works 8-10 hours in a career, can train 1-3 hours daily if they plan their work, training, rest accordingly. I know there are many runners who contribute to this message board who have competed or compete at very high levels while pursuing a career. This is the message we should be sending our young talented runners - keep running post-collegiately - compete at a high level - get a real job, and consider being selective with your choice of competitions if you need to pay your own way.
SUCK IT UP YOUNG RUNNERS

[oldbones]

A Steve Jones 2:07 today would only rank him 25thish on the year top list for 2009 ... yes a contender but not even a winner (of top tier races)! Things have changed.

The big races today (Rotterdam, London, Dubai, Chicago, Berlin) are all under 2:07 (with winners in the 2:04-05 range)... I would claim that is a major change in quality and depth. In fact the 5th place finisher in London was a 2:07.44 (and 3 minutes is quite a bit in my opinion ... hey 3 (.59) more minutes and we are at the 2 hour mark ... something many here stated is a hard milestone to reach in the near term).

I am not stating money is the end all and be all and the silver bullet for the issues in the sport; however it sure as hell couldn't hinder! I certainly don't advocate a "welfare-athlete system" but a comprehensive supportive system, framework, competitive CDN based semi-professional circuit ($ incentive) that could bridge the gap from structured/supportive university sport to the professional ranks.

Are you claiming the Brooks Marathon Project or DST COE is the wrong approach? It is all based on a competitive atmosphere where athletes can focus on training!

Can anyone name an elite level marathoner today (a top 1 "percenter")(who also sets world records) that works a full-time job? Hallie G. has his own company, multi-businesses etc but I don't really know if that counts as slogging it out 8hrs a day 365 a year.

You don't think money is not an incentive for the masses that are produced in Kenya? (yes love blah blah ... but crawling out of poverty is sure one hell of an incentive).

Love and passion is the prerequisite ... that is a given ... the entry fee.

Not trying to convince anyone ... just stating my opinion of where I see the big issues and the problems with the optics of the sport ....

Time to wake up to the generational shift ... kids today want the cake also. The sport will continue the decline and relegation to the back pages with such "old thinking"; time for something new.

[ronb]

I think it's a matter of priorizing, and deciding what is important to you at that stage of your life, while keeping the longer term in the picture also.
I really disagree that it's an automatic decision at age 22 or 23 to feel a necessity to jump into a "career type job", while trying to keep running at a high level. Can some people do both? - absolutely. Does one or the other suffer from this decision? - perhaps. Which is not a bad thing of course - life is full of compromises, and some are much more adept at balancing various callings than others - we are all individuals. Graduate school, if affordable, is a great option for 22-26 year olds trying to work out their life path, because there is a lot more flexibility in your day, and you are not training and competing for the "man", but for yourself.
What does the term "potentially dangerous" mean? And the "when the running goes sour",
what does that mean? There is no guarantee of ultimate success, of course, but giving it your best shot can't be wrong, can it?
My summary position is that, if an individual really wants to explore their potential as a runner, and makes a conscious decision to priorize their running, and fit other "stuff" around that for a while, that is not a bad thing... Nor is it a bad thing for other runners to decide to keep trying to run at the highest level possible, while exploring their other life possibilities. As a "system" (a group of people who care about Canadian distance running),
all individuals should be encouraged to find what works for them, and go for it, which brings us back to SUCK IT UP YOUNG RUNNERS...

[ronb]

Dec 8, 2009 21:56:20 GMT -5 oldbones said:

A Steve Jones 2:07 today would only rank him 25thish on the year top list for 2009 ... yes a contender but not even a winner (of top tier races)! Things have changed.

The big races today (Rotterdam, London, Dubai, Chicago, Berlin) are all under 2:07 (with winners in the 2:04-05 range)... I would claim that is a major change in quality and depth. In fact the 5th place finisher in London was a 2:07.44 (and 3 minutes is quite a bit in my opinion ... hey 3 (.59) more minutes and we are at the 2 hour mark ... something many here stated is a hard milestone to reach in the near term).

I am not stating money is the end all and be all and the silver bullet for the issues in the sport; however it sure as hell couldn't hinder! I certainly don't advocate a "welfare-athlete system" but a comprehensive supportive system, framework, competitive CDN based semi-professional circuit ($ incentive) that could bridge the gap from structured/supportive university sport to the professional ranks.

Are you claiming the Brooks Marathon Project or DST COE is the wrong approach? It is all based on a competitive atmosphere where athletes can focus on training!

Can anyone name an elite level marathoner today (a top 1 "percenter")(who also sets world records) that works a full-time job? Hallie G. has his own company, multi-businesses etc but I don't really know if that counts as slogging it out 8hrs a day 365 a year.

You don't think money is not an incentive for the masses that are produced in Kenya? (yes love blah blah ... but crawling out of poverty is sure one hell of an incentive).

Love and passion is the prerequisite ... that is a given ... the entry fee.

Not trying to convince anyone ... just stating my opinion of where I see the big issues and the problems with the optics of the sport ....

Time to wake up to the generational shift ... kids today want the cake also. The sport will continue the decline and relegation to the back pages with such "old thinking"; time for something new.

Wow !!! And what is that something new !!! Drugs???
If kids today, in Canada, want the cake too, they can't have it, without putting in the time. There's no current modern short cut to success in these events. What are you suggesting? I am really missing your point here...
The "old thinking" worked - the "new thinking" isn't working... So, should we go forward with ideas that aren't working, or try to incorporate proven models of success. I would suggest that DST and Co. are just back to the basics, and reminding us all of how well that works...

[pmac]

Dec 8, 2009 21:56:20 GMT -5 oldbones said:

A Steve Jones 2:07 today would only rank him 25thish on the year top list for 2009 ... yes a contender but not even a winner (of top tier races)! Things have changed...

Time to wake up to the generational shift ... kids today want the cake also. The sport will continue the decline and relegation to the back pages with such "old thinking"; time for something new.

Jones had a pacer for a grand total of 4 miles. That was it. And he went through the half in 61:40! Imagine what he might have run had he went out a tad slower, and had a group of Kenyans trading off the lead to pull him through. Irregardless, ever heard of Meb Keflezighi? I hear he recently won the New York Marathon in 2:09, incidentally a personal best. I maintain that Jones, Hill, Shorter, Clayton, etc. would be competitive today.

And kindly avoid spouting the old adage "kids these days don't want to work for anything". I knew at a young age that I was in this sport for the long haul regardless of how much I made (but more likely spent) pursuing it. I'm 19 years young oldbones. And I hate cake.

[oldster]

Dec 8, 2009 21:56:20 GMT -5 oldbones said:

A Steve Jones 2:07 today would only rank him 25thish on the year top list for 2009 ... yes a contender but not even a winner (of top tier races)! Things have changed.

The big races today (Rotterdam, London, Dubai, Chicago, Berlin) are all under 2:07 (with winners in the 2:04-05 range)... I would claim that is a major change in quality and depth. In fact the 5th place finisher in London was a 2:07.44 (and 3 minutes is quite a bit in my opinion ... hey 3 (.59) more minutes and we are at the 2 hour mark ... something many here stated is a hard milestone to reach in the near term).

I am not stating money is the end all and be all and the silver bullet for the issues in the sport; however it sure as hell couldn't hinder! I certainly don't advocate a "welfare-athlete system" but a comprehensive supportive system, framework, competitive CDN based semi-professional circuit ($ incentive) that could bridge the gap from structured/supportive university sport to the professional ranks.

Are you claiming the Brooks Marathon Project or DST COE is the wrong approach? It is all based on a competitive atmosphere where athletes can focus on training!

Can anyone name an elite level marathoner today (a top 1 "percenter")(who also sets world records) that works a full-time job? Hallie G. has his own company, multi-businesses etc but I don't really know if that counts as slogging it out 8hrs a day 365 a year.

You don't think money is not an incentive for the masses that are produced in Kenya? (yes love blah blah ... but crawling out of poverty is sure one hell of an incentive).

Love and passion is the prerequisite ... that is a given ... the entry fee.

Not trying to convince anyone ... just stating my opinion of where I see the big issues and the problems with the optics of the sport ....

Time to wake up to the generational shift ... kids today want the cake also. The sport will continue the decline and relegation to the back pages with such "old thinking"; time for something new.

Nice one, Pmac.

For my part, let me repeat a couple of things in response to this:

-I'm not suggesting that a degree of funding and professionalization are not essential for success today. But, it's amazing what someone like DST has been able to do with so little money. And, the question of funding is a different one from that of the incomes athletes can hope to enjoy from the sport. I don't think more than a tiny handful of top athletes from outside the developing world have ever gotten into this sport with the idea of making a lot of money. Athletes need inducements, but these need not be financial. It just so happens that, for athletes in parts of the poor world, money (read: simple survival in most instances) is a big inducement. But, in places like Canada, the idea of making a national team can be just as big an inducement for young athletes as making a few hundred or thousand extra $ can be for the average East African athlete (and that is all the average East African can really ever hope to make in the end, and most probably know this).

-Saying that money, as a reward for success already achieved, is necessary is not the same as saying that it is a requirement for success, which is what is at issue here. Most East Africans get really good living very simply and before they ever make any real money. Young Canadians could too, provided they had sufficient reason to give it a try. It simply doesn't take much more than shoes and some open space to get really good at running, provided someone really wants to try. And having to work at the typical North American job sure as hell doesn't prevent anyone from getting very good at this sport.

-Steve Jones time, working full time most of his life, is only 3mins off the world record today, and only one man-- the greatest runner of all time-- has run this fast. Jones did this time with terrible pacing (look what happened recently to Sammy W. and Geb when they tried to run similar splits at the half-- and with rabbits!) and on his own. A guy of his ability would remain today a serious top 3 threat, at least, in any race he ran. And, oldbones, would you seriously tell a young runner today whose goal it was to become one of the best in the world not to bother trying to train and work full time because the best he could hope to run was only 2:07:13 (after a sub- 1:02 half) like the full-time-working Steve Jones did!? The fact that Jones (and many Kenyans operating in very rudimentary and difficult living conditions) managed to become very good ought to be the final word on the question of whether it is possible to work full time and run at a high level.

-The idea that you can't reach the top without training "full time" is an insidious myth-- insidious because the minute a young athlete begins to believe it, it becomes true.

[fastrunner155]

Does anyone have examples of top track athletes (Olympic level) competing today who work full-time? I'm not talking about a few hours a week at the Running Room but more like a career.

[tundra]

Take a look around. It doesn't need to be strictly looking at elites. I know a lot of people that are far removed from the ranks of the elite that work full-time and train as hard as International class athletes. The only problem for them is that they lack in the genetics of the elites. I know several people that struggle to get under 20 minutes for a 5km, but they do two a days, intervals, pace runs, get to physio, cross train and do everything else right to make their body cover 5km/halfs/full as fast as they possibly can. They have kids, dogs, jobs, doctors appointments, broken water mains, car problems, bad days et al. Yet, they are out there doing it, not for money or recognition, but in the pursuit of being the best that they can and the love of it.

Just run if you want to, and don't if you don't want to. Easy enough for me!

[oasis]

interesting to find out if any elites today are working full time like in the past, I'm guessing not very many, like has been mentioned working full time should not get in the way of someone training/competing at an elite level but obviously be easier if one didn't have to

tundra are you being serious saying 20min 5ker's are doing 2 days, do you think they need to be, just curious

[mpd]

Dec 9, 2009 8:33:25 GMT -5 fastrunner155 said:

Does anyone have examples of top track athletes (Olympic level) competing today who work full-time? I'm not talking about a few hours a week at the Running Room but more like a career.

I'll say it again...

There is a board at the entrance of the Athletic Centre at U of T with several (I'll count next time I'm there but I'm guessing it's around 75) student-athletes that competed for Canada (and a few for the US) in ATHLETICS in every Olympic Games from 1900 - 2000.

I, for one, consider being a student (especially in grad school) a full time job and fully compatible with competing at a high level for the reasons that ronb mentioned.

Guelph is doing fine, but if you want to talk about longevity and proven success you should be looking at those university programs that seem to be able to pump out Olympians!!

[tundra]

tundra are you being serious saying 20min 5ker's are doing 2 days, do you think they need to be, just curious <oasis>

Yes, some are. These are people that just want to be the best that they can. Do I think they can run the same 5k on less? Sure, but if they aren't getting any stress related injuries and they want to do the training, let them roll with it. It's not what I would prescribe, but if they are enjoying it, let them go.

[oldster]

I would imagine the vast majority of today's top athletes are not working full time, simply because it is now more possible to train full time than before. But does this mean that it's not possible to work a real job and reach a world class level?

Someone mentioned Gebresellasie: Everything I've ever read about the guy suggests that he has a very demanding non-running schedule-- easily the equivalent of many typical North American jobs, I would guess. And just because he's doing it all voluntarily (i.e. he actually wants to be a businessman, whether needs to or not) doesn't mean the work is not demanding. And Gebresellasie (also Paul Tergat, who also maintains a very busy schedule outside of his training) has shown legendary longevity, unlike some of the younger Kenyan "one hit wonders" who reportedly like to lay around all day drinking tea between workouts! What does this tell us about the importance of proper work-life balance and running excellence?

And I echo tundra's comments about hard-training busy professional running hobbyists. These people certainly exist, and they put to shame the average 20-something who claims he doesn't have time to train because he has to work during the day. Sure, many of these people would be even better if they had more time to rest between workouts; but, it is amazing--and instructive-- what they ARE able to do in spite of work and home lives that are far busier and more demanding than that of the average young post-collegian.

[saskatchewan]

Not athletes competing today, but two who competed at a high level while working full-time (and would still be at a high level) are:

Eamon Martin 27:15 10Km, 1990 Commonwealth 10Km champ, London Marathon winner, top 10 world XC (from memory on the xc one) in the late 80's, early 90's all while working full-time as a Mgr at Ford in England.

Peter Elliot - 1:43 (working full-time as a carpenter), later ran 1:42.8 and won 1990 Commonwealth's while working p-t (as a carpenter).

I'm sure that these two (along with Steve Jones) will quickly be identified as 'anomolies" to those who see the athletics glass as half empty.

Great reply pman on the age comments.

Ron, SI, Oldster i echo your thoughts.

[SI]

The funny thing is that my downfall in my first incarnation was OVERTRAINING. I had too much time on my hands to train despite a very demanding job. Up to 120 miles a week was a piece of cake, timewise. That only involved a run at lunch and a run after work and only one run on Sat and Sun.

[jaydolmage]

I think MattMc is a good example here -- a very demanding career and some very impressive results based on (I think he'd admit) limited early promise or natural talent but a lot of sacrifice and effort.

I think it is also worth adding a qualification here: just because many elite athletes aren't juggling careers and their training doesn't mean they couldn't. The elite runners I know are also really smart, driven people. By no means are they running full-time because they can't be successful in the career of their choice. The proof is that when they retire from running, they will indeed be very successful in the work-world.

The message, I think, is that if you want to do it, you can. Keep at it, even if you have to run in the dark every day. I am decidedly sub-elite, but all of my PBs have come in my thirties, as I've been working and making babies.

Jay

[oldster]

Dec 9, 2009 15:15:56 GMT -5 saskatchewan said:

Not athletes competing today, but two who competed at a high level while working full-time (and would still be at a high level) are:

Eamon Martin 27:15 10Km, 1990 Commonwealth 10Km champ, London Marathon winner, top 10 world XC (from memory on the xc one) in the late 80's, early 90's all while working full-time as a Mgr at Ford in England.

Peter Elliot - 1:43 (working full-time as a carpenter), later ran 1:42.8 and won 1990 Commonwealth's while working p-t (as a carpenter).

I'm sure that these two (along with Steve Jones) will quickly be identified as 'anomolies" to those who see the athletics glass as half empty.

Great reply pman on the age comments.

Ron, SI, Oldster i echo your thoughts.

Interesting story about Eliot: He was actually offered a complete paid leave of absence from his employer in 87-88 and turned it down. He said that he wouldn't have been able to face his workmates when he returned if he took all that time off and failed to win a medal! Instead, he stayed at work and got the silver, missing the gold by a 10th or so.

And who can say that a guy like Eliot would not be competitive today? The guy ran 1:42.8 and "only" 3:32 (but ran 3:47.8 in beating a stellar field in the 5th Avenue Mile in 1990-- a time that hasn't been approached on that course in years). Any serious 1500 guy with 1:42 speed will be a serious threat in any championship race-- Eliot was, and would be today.

[saskatchewan]

i remember that great elliot story. definitey a working man's athlete. Tough as nails. Fast and strong as well.

A race like the 2008 Olympic 1500m would have totally suited him.

[journeyman]

Dec 8, 2009 21:56:20 GMT -5 oldbones said:

A Steve Jones 2:07 today would only rank him 25thish on the year top list for 2009 ... yes a contender but not even a winner (of top tier races)!

2:07 would crush the Canadian record. That would be a good start, wouldn't it?

[ronb]

Dec 10, 2009 10:37:18 GMT -5 journeyman said:

Dec 8, 2009 21:56:20 GMT -5 oldbones said:

A Steve Jones 2:07 today would only rank him 25thish on the year top list for 2009 ... yes a contender but not even a winner (of top tier races)!

2:07 would crush the Canadian record. That would be a good start, wouldn't it?

Not to mention what guys like Ron Clarke, and Peter Snell and others ran, almost 50 years ago, based purely on their talent and internal motivation. At their peak, they had some support, but not very much. They certainly were not full time athletes...
Of course, the Africans have taken the World Records in most of our events to a new level....But how does that invalidate (in our own eyes or in terms of Athletics Canada support) supporting our best runners to achieve their best possible results? What am I missing here?

[gtown]

Just noticed this thread had gone to the working and running tangent and thought I would throw in my 2 cents.

The idea of working full time and being a competitive runner is obviously not pie-in-the-sky. You have examples listed in history and current examples aplenty. That being said, something's gotta give. I mean I just finished the first term of my MBA, 8 individual courses plus integrated group work, and tried to train at a relatively consistent level (I gave up on optimal right away) through the fall. It was impossible. There are simply not enough hours in the day. Sleep starts to suffer, which leads to illness and poor performance. I believe the moral of the story is that optimally developing one's career and optimally training at the same time can't happen. One has to suffer due to the other.

[saskatchewan]

i don't think people are saying working full-time and training full-time are optimal. They likely aren't. But having a young family and working full-time plus other activities (running, pursuing professional designation, hobbies, etc) aren't optimal either (i fall in to this category).

Frankly, there are few 'optimal' situations in life, regardless of the context.

As has been stated numerous times, work and training can coexist quite easily for those individuals who are highly motivated.

I think the challenge for most [post-university kids is that the transition from university to the work world is always challenging, and then adding on possibily lossing the team environment likely discourages many athletes. This is where a supportive club structure and an understanding work environment can make a world of difference for a young athlete transitioning from university.

Our challenge is to develop and foster that environment so that athletes can bridge the gap between university and international competition.

[oldbones]

Dec 11, 2009 10:02:34 GMT -5 saskatchewan said:

i don't think people are saying working full-time and training full-time are optimal. They likely aren't. But having a young family and working full-time plus other activities (running, pursuing professional designation, hobbies, etc) aren't optimal either (i fall in to this category).

Frankly, there are few 'optimal' situations in life, regardless of the context.

As has been stated numerous times, work and training can coexist quite easily for those individuals who are highly motivated.

I think the challenge for most [post-university kids is that the transition from university to the work world is always challenging, and then adding on possibily lossing the team environment likely discourages many athletes. This is where a supportive club structure and an understanding work environment can make a world of difference for a young athlete transitioning from university.

Our challenge is to develop and foster that environment so that athletes can bridge the gap between university and international competition.

Excellent post and this is the angle I was poorly trying to get through.

People here are claiming that elite level results can be achieved without a total "life focus" just on training (work-life-run) using historical examples; and I agree ... it can be done.

Nothing is optimal ... life is a tradeoff... however we are speaking to a spectrum not absolutes (i.e. binary yes/no) ... what can we do to provide the best possible and optimal environment? (DST COE, Oregon, Eldoret). If we want gold we have to invest.

Is the old amateur framework optimal for today? I argue no.

Can great results be achieved if you have full time jobs, family, etc.? Yes ... is this framework optimal for everyone (apart from the super human multi-taskers such as Peter E., Herb, Steve J.)?

How does this reality impact the participation rate and "continuation rate" in the sport (help or hinder) to produce ... and please focus on this ... elite top level international athletes (own the podium folks ... medal contenders ... Gary Reed, Kevin Sullivan, .... )?

I know it can be done as illustrated through time but is it optimal in relation to modern day pressures.

When Herb ran there certainly were less outside forces and drivers (i.e. other professional sports that provided huge sums of money and rewards).

Running simply has not progressed over time to "professionalize" in offering rewards and a depth of reward to support a deep participation rate at higher levels such when an athlete leaves the comforts of the university system.

The incentives to not continue may today be greater than the incentives to continue (regardless of love, passion and all that good stuff).

Mitigating these barriers via (a. funding b. semi-pro circuits in NA c. COEs, Brooks Marathon Project etc. ) can only help in the modern art and science of elite level running.

It is not a question about "suck it up kid" or "we don't want you in our sport type stuff" ... I don't think CDN running has the luxury to take that perspective if it is merely going to survive let alone grow and expand.

[oldster]

Dec 11, 2009 11:27:30 GMT -5 oldbones said:

Dec 11, 2009 10:02:34 GMT -5 saskatchewan said:

i don't think people are saying working full-time and training full-time are optimal. They likely aren't. But having a young family and working full-time plus other activities (running, pursuing professional designation, hobbies, etc) aren't optimal either (i fall in to this category).

Frankly, there are few 'optimal' situations in life, regardless of the context.

As has been stated numerous times, work and training can coexist quite easily for those individuals who are highly motivated.

I think the challenge for most [post-university kids is that the transition from university to the work world is always challenging, and then adding on possibily lossing the team environment likely discourages many athletes. This is where a supportive club structure and an understanding work environment can make a world of difference for a young athlete transitioning from university.

Our challenge is to develop and foster that environment so that athletes can bridge the gap between university and international competition.

Excellent post and this is the angle I was poorly trying to get through.

People here are claiming that elite level results can be achieved without a total "life focus" just on training (work-life-run) using historical examples; and I agree ... it can be done.

Nothing is optimal ... life is a tradeoff... however we are speaking to a spectrum not absolutes (i.e. binary yes/no) ... what can we do to provide the best possible and optimal environment? (DST COE, Oregon, Eldoret). If we want gold we have to invest.

Is the old amateur framework optimal for today? I argue no.

Can great results be achieved if you have full time jobs, family, etc.? Yes ... is this framework optimal for everyone (apart from the super human multi-taskers such as Peter E., Herb, Steve J.)?

How does this reality impact the participation rate and "continuation rate" in the sport (help or hinder) to produce ... and please focus on this ... elite top level international athletes (own the podium folks ... medal contenders ... Gary Reed, Kevin Sullivan, .... )?

I know it can be done as illustrated through time but is it optimal in relation to modern day pressures.

When Herb ran there certainly were less outside forces and drivers (i.e. other professional sports that provided huge sums of money and rewards).

Running simply has not progressed over time to "professionalize" in offering rewards and a depth of reward to support a deep participation rate at higher levels such when an athlete leaves the comforts of the university system.

The incentives to not continue may today be greater than the incentives to continue (regardless of love, passion and all that good stuff).

Mitigating these barriers via (a. funding b. semi-pro circuits in NA c. COEs, Brooks Marathon Project etc. ) can only help in the modern art and science of elite level running.

It is not a question about "suck it up kid" or "we don't want you in our sport type stuff" ... I don't think CDN running has the luxury to take that perspective if it is merely going to survive let alone grow and expand.

Agreed. This comes pretty close to nailing the "middle position" I was aiming for. If we want to see more young Canadians competing in the upper ranks of the sport, we can't rely simply on the superior moral fibre and fanatical determination of a tiny minority who can balance a full time job, family, and high level training. I would strongly encourage those kinds of people to continue to step up; but they are, by definition, rare, and the odds of one of them making it all the way are also, by definition, slim. We need to continue to work towards creating an environment where the average (i.e. in terms of ability to balance career/eduational demands and high level sport) promising post-collegian is more likely to give the sport a serious shot. And, just as it is pointless for AC to simply exhort young athletes to "step up", without being much concerned about how to increase the total pool of serious practicing athletes, it does us no good to tell young athletes to simply "suck it up" in the face of real world pressures where their material futures are concerned. Regardless of what a Steve Jones or a Peter Eliot was able to do 20 years ago, or what young Kenyans coming out of poverty have been able to do more recently, young Canadian will weigh their options according to their own perceptions of reality. When I address them, I try to recognize this fact; but, I also invite them to try, and tell them, based on my experience, that many of the things they think are insurmountable obstacles are really not insurmountable at all.

What frustrates me is how little is actually required to create an environment (or set of small environments) where young post-collegians feel encouraged to continue in the sport for a few more years, and how little is actually required from the top to support this environment. Many post-collegians will find it hard to go from the cozy and clearly structured world of collegiate competition, in which their self-identity as "student-athletes" is a psychically secure one, to the more open-ended world of the senior-elite athlete, in which one's self identity is a lot less clear and secure; but, experiments like the Guelph/Speed River group (or, before it, the many great training groups of the 70s,80s and 90s) have shown how little it really takes to create a suitable replacement for the college environment. As I've said before, one of the most important factors in encouraging more post-collegiate distance runners to continue is simply the existence of places where they can do their thing without feeling like slacker drop-outs or social freaks, a place where they can be with others who understand what they're trying to do. Without this, the pursuit of excellence in this loneliest of sports feels far too weird and socially isolating for all but the most fanatically determined.

And, the fact is, the vast majority of post-collegians are not up to much career and family-wise in their mid-late 20s that could really keep them from continuing in the sport. The data clearly show that young people are much slower off the mark in these respects than in past decades. I would wager that most post-collegian are not giving up running because the intense demands of family and career. I mean, people finish undergrad at age 22! I would bet that most are working transitional jobs, living at home, and generally weighing their options for the future (particularly now, post-recession). If we could somehow create more environments similar to that of Guelph/Speed River, I think we could induce a few more of these young people to continue with their running. (Of course, we could do a lot better than a few more if we could also reduce the intensity of early age-class training and racing, and create more opportunities to make paid national teams of one kind or another*.)

*Interestingly, Edrick Floreal, former Canadian Olympian jumper and now very successful NCAA coach (now at Stanford), said basically the same thing re: the funding of junior national teams in a recent interview with Andrew Maloney in Athletics Magazine. The easiest and probably cheapest way to grow our pool of potential elites (i.e. 18-24 year olds) would be to fund not only first tier teams like World Juniors and WXC, but more second and third tier national team opportunities. These opportunities provide clear-cut goals for young athletes to pursue, helping to keep more of them in the game.

[ronb]

Dec 8, 2009 13:47:37 GMT -5 thinskinned said:

Dec 8, 2009 12:29:29 GMT -5 ronb said:

So, let's see if I've got this straight. You are 22/23/24, have finished your first degree at University in either Canada or the USA. You are a pretty good runner, and running is a very enjoyable part of your life. You know you could run much faster with a few more years of development, but you are not on a fast track to being an Olympic medallist. So you should quit running, and get on with the rest of your life? Is that really what some of you are saying, or some slight variation thereof? If so, I really dispute that line of thinking.

Ron, here's something for you to think about;

You had very successful middle & long distance athletes on both the male & female side in univeristy. It's a well know fact (I'm sure they were aware of this) that middle distance & distance athletes don't reach their full potential until early 30's.
Now, how many of your female athletes were still competing at age 30?
How many male athletes were still competing at age 30?
Why is there such a discrepancy?

If the males HAD continued on what would have been the "rewards" for them other than gaining new PR's?

On a slight sidenote; yes, for some the pursuit on new PR's & other running satisfactions is enough to drive the desire to train & compete hard. But the number of truly or reasonably talented athletes with that sort of genetic make up/drive is few. And they are easy to spot at age 40.

Hey thinskinned - here is my attempt to respond to your post, as quoted above ( I hope !)

1) The average age of achieving top performance in the distance events is just that - an average. It does not necessarily apply to any one individual. Some people PR in their early to mid-20's, others into their 40's. Which is my way of saying that the individual environment is much more important than an average age of top performance. It goes without saying that the group or "system" support can influence that individual environment greatly.
2) That being said, I agree that trying to keep our top athletes in the sport, and hopefully improving, into their 30's is a solid goal for athletes in our sport.
3) I only coached elite, post-secondary men from about 1976 to about 1989. Brent Fougner became the Men's Coach at Uvic in 1989, and "inherited" several great male athletes at that time. In fact, Dave Campbell was the only elite male I coached after 1989, until I did a bit more coaching in later years, with Eric Kiauka, and several others. So, I really didn't spend very much of the prime of my coaching career, coaching guys.
4) I coached elite, post-secondary women from aboout 1976 to about 1998, and then several others later.
5) You say there is a big discrepancy between the Males and Females that I coached, as far as running up to age 30 or older.
I don't think there is much difference at all. They may have had different coaches, but almost all of our fine runners we had at Uvic during the 1980's went on to explore their running potential in the post-Collegiate World, both males and females. That was part of our ethic --- we weren't in the business of trying to produce huge performances in November or March, unless the March was the World Cross Country. Our gig was trying to use the University seasons to develop the athlete, have some fun, and run fast in the Summer, when it counts.
6) One thing that I did note, at that time, it was much more common for a female runner to be able to carry on with her running, with the full support of her "significant other", both emotionally, and economically. In other words, there seemed to be a bit more pressure for the male runners to get on with their "working world" careers. But still, those who really wanted to found the way to still be improving their running well into their later 20's and 30's, even those with no real financial support at all.
Did I answer your question?