RUNNING is the most aggressive sport

What is real and scientifically proven is that man will

never, because he is not physiologically capable, and

in accordance with the law of gravity, the law of nature

and the law of the universe, be able to run under 4 minutes for the mile. You may dream of it, plan for it, train for it,

invent faster tracks and shoes for it, lighten the load and

the mind, eliminate all the free radicals in the body, and

stop drinking beer; but you will never run under 4 minutes for

the mile. The intellect, by the by, has nothing to do with it; so those of less then average mental capabilities, though

they may speak in the words of dreams, are no more able to achieve this aspiration.

Retard is a very very offensive word. How is that that you can denigrate people who, YOU, think less capable then yourself, intellectually, as you do? Please apologize for your less then humane words.

We all, who fall into this category that you assail with your

dissrespect, hope that one day YOU, will run under 4 minutes for the Mile.

And that someone will care.

1. It's worth remembering that science has yet to really explain distance running completely. There's a lot of theory out there but shockingly little hard evidence.

2. The fundamental principal of athletic training is stress and adaptation. You stress your body in a specific way (such as dropping the hammer in the middle of a 10 miler) and your body adapts to that stress so it can better handle surges during racing.

3. The only reason not to do what Gerry is suggesting is because one's body cannot handle the stress. This is a valid concern. However, it is easy to not stress oneself enough if one is a runner who pays too much attention to schedules and not enough to his own body. Last year, I ran almost 3000 miles (a big jump for me) and I didn't get any faster. This year I'm actually a little behind that pace (building up rapidly, though) but by dropping a fast mile or 6 here and there, depending on how I'm feeling, I'm suddenly running 30 SECONDS PER MILE FASTER WITH LESS PERCEIVED EXERTION. I mostly just run my ass off when I feel like I can handle it and I back off when I'm feeling a little sore.

Not so for climbing comps. They are safer than the pole vault, as the routes and belay systems are very safe..

The Rocket wrote:

As much as I hate to say this I actually believe Motorcross or Competitive Rock Climbing are more aggressive. They force you to put your life at risk each and every time you compete.

somewhatfast wrote:

Physiologist... wrote:

What is wrong is he has no clue about periodization in sucessful training implimentation.

Gerry the Jogger can go on ridiculous runs starting in 5th gear and ending in reverse... and I'll stick to what's scientifically proven and we'll see who is laughing when it counts.

in the words of South Park "why don't you go help yourself to a f***ing science textbook, because you're talking like a retard"

Who's laughing? Gerry because he was probably way faster than you'll ever be.

Gerry has earned his spot in history. One doesn't have to agree with him; however it is a disgrace not to appreciate the fact that he's sharing his thoughts on running with this community.

Given this one race memoire, more of an accomplishment than many of us could ever hope to accomplish, if the poster is in fact the real Gerry Lindgren (which, given previous posts, appears to be true), I would simply thank him, not question him, and heed his advice any day of the week:

An American had never beaten a Russian at 5,000 or 10,000 meters.

"The Russians ruled," author and runner Kenny Moore says. " To even run with them, let alone run off on them, was seismic."

So Lindgren hit the track for the 10,000 meters in the Los Angeles Coliseum on July 25, 1964, and sent shockwaves that extended will beyond the world of sports.

Lindgren didn't just beat the Russians that day, he destroyed them.

"I don't think either of us had a clue just how phenomenal that was," says Lindgren's coach, Tracy Walters. "If we did, it would have scared us."

Lindgren's dramatic victory that day finally put American distance runners on equal footing with the rest of the world.

"What he did as a young runner against the Russians was something no other runner could do. No one had ever beat them," says former Washington State coach John Chaplin, who came to WSU when Lindgren was a senior. "That made other runners say if this kid could do it, hell, we could do it. And they did. But they didn't do it until he had done it."

Leonid Ivanov and Anatoly Dutov, ranked second and third in the world, towered over Lindgren by a good 6 inches.

Lindgren, who now lives in Hawaii, remembers the race as if it were yesterday.

"When the race got going . . . everything settled in. I was just waiting for them to throw their big kick," he says.

A lap short of 4 miles in the 6.2-mile race, Ivanov surged about 20 yards ahead of Dotov, causing a dilemma for Lindgren that Walters solved.

"I didn't know what to do, stay or go," Lindgren says. "My coach saw my dilemma and yelled at Bell, `Tell Gerry to go on by if he feels good."'

He did.

"I went to the outside. I just floored it as hard as I could go," he says. "Suddenly I'm in the lead. I'm thinking I shouldn't be there. . . . I was just running completely out of control, as hard as I could, thinking all the time, `Lazy Americans.' It was the only thing in my mind."

Pictures show Ivanov with an absolutely bewildered look as Lindgren roared by. The crowd went berserk when Lindgren made the move.

Lindgren was supposed to drop back into a normal pace but didn't because he thought he heard Ivanov on his heels.

Lindgren figured he had to look strong until he was passed, but no one went by. He kept hearing footsteps. His legs were rubbery.

As the laps wound down, his goals changed. As he passed Bell he thought he heard his coach yell that his lead was 5 meters. Maybe he could still finish in the same lap, maybe he could beat one of the Russians.

"It wasn't until I went around the final curve to the straightaway I thought maybe I could beat one of them if I went fast," he says.

Lindgren still heard footsteps as he crossed the finish line in 29 minutes, 17.6 seconds and glanced around. He was shocked neither Soviet runner had rounded the corner, more than 100 meters back.

"I finally figured out it was my own footsteps," Lindgren says, still amazed at the memory. "I was so inexperienced, I didn't realize you heard your own echo."

Ivanov finished 22 seconds after Lindgren, a lifetime in international racing. Dotov's time was 30:51.8.

Lindgren kept running. Not a victory lap -- that wasn't the modest Lindgren's style -- but his usual warm-down lap. A herd of photographers chased him. Along the backstretch, he slapped hands with adoring fans in the front row.

The moment was so moving, U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy, just months after his brother was assassinated, sat among the delirious crowd with tears streaming down his cheeks.

"Then it sank in," Lindgren says. "The crowd was roaring. I wasn't sure what I had done. I was in a trance."

Living in the Past wrote:

The results speak for themselves. He had an incredible career in high school and college. But Gerry's post-collegiate career is a story of decline. Like Jim Ryun, he wasn't the same runner after graduation. Do you ever wonder how great he might have been if only he had held back a little on those "easy" days?

My comments are not so much about doing or not doing what Gerry's suggesting verbatim. The comments were more about people who respond when guys like Lindgren, Rono, malmo, Hodgie-san, etc have given advice here by saying essentially that these guys don't know what they're talking about. I think the guy who prompted my response essentially said something like, "I'll stick with what's been proven to work" as if what he's sticking with has gotten better results than what Gerry suggested and then ended by calling Lindgren "retarded."

I have wondered what might have happened with people like Lindgren and Ryun if they'd gone a little easier at times, if they'd hooked up with someone like Lydiard, if there had been money in the sport and they hadn't needed to find a way of supporting themselves after college, and so on. But I also don't necessarily assume that they'd have been better. It's always tempting to look at someone who has tremendous early success at something and expect them to be world beaters for ages but that doesn't happen regularly and that may or may not mean that their early training was incorrect.

In the post-Lindgren/Ryun years there has been much more emphasis on rest and a more measured approach to training high school runners. Yet who have we produced that accomplished more than what Lindgren and Ryun did on the track?

So yes, maybe holding back a bit would have lengthened either of their careers and lead to even greater performances. But maybe the great performances were a result of that no holds barred approach and adding an element of caution would have lengthened their careers but redued their performances.

What's happened with running in the west today is that we "know" so much that no one experiements anymore. Everyone is afraid that if they stray outside the accepted boundaries of intelligent training they'll fall apart. While I'm not saying everyone should run a mile PR in a workout and then hang on for another nine miles, I am saying that it's generally people who don't accept conventional limitations who make the big breakthroughs. So much of what we read about successful preparation for the sport is about physiology that we're losing sight of the emotional and mental aspects which I think really are much more important to an individual's success or failure.

HRE wrote:

What's happened with running in the west today is that we "know" so much that no one experiements anymore. Everyone is afraid that if they stray outside the accepted boundaries of intelligent training they'll fall apart. While I'm not saying everyone should run a mile PR in a workout and then hang on for another nine miles, I am saying that it's generally people who don't accept conventional limitations who make the big breakthroughs. So much of what we read about successful preparation for the sport is about physiology that we're losing sight of the emotional and mental aspects which I think really are much more important to an individual's success or failure.

Great post!

Yes, great post.

Rono vs. Lindgren? Who would win in a race and also who's more delusional and lives in the past more?

200miles a week did he ran?

800 dude wrote:

HRE wrote:

What's happened with running in the west today is that we "know" so much that no one experiements anymore. Everyone is afraid that if they stray outside the accepted boundaries of intelligent training they'll fall apart. While I'm not saying everyone should run a mile PR in a workout and then hang on for another nine miles, I am saying that it's generally people who don't accept conventional limitations who make the big breakthroughs. So much of what we read about successful preparation for the sport is about physiology that we're losing sight of the emotional and mental aspects which I think really are much more important to an individual's success or failure.

Great post!

And I agree as well, great post. But let's look at the flip side. I'm actually a perfect fit to an earlier statement ... my 5k p.r. is 15:58, so I'm one of these "16' 5k guys who thinks he knows something". But, I've also coached for 25 years, and regularly get shot down here because the conventional wisdom is that you're only as intelligent as your pr. In baseball they will admit that the great players tend to not make the best managers ... well in running, god forbid you didn't go to the Olympics, or tour Europe, or finish top 10 at NCAA XC, because then .... you opinion doesn't matter.

What we all need to do is listen to everyone on these boards, and understand that everyone who is seriously posting may have something valuable to add.

By the way .... where the hell is Malmo? I haven't seen him post for a month, and he is someone who was fast, and does have a lot to add.

Boxing is clearly the most aggressive sport. Or the Ultimate Fighting if you think of that as a sport. Or maybe the underground "Bloodsport"-type stuff, if you're into jean-claude van damme.

No runners ever literally kill one another in matches. No runners suffer serious brain damage. There are certainly less aggressive sports, but running is hardly the most aggressive.

My friend, HRE said, "I am saying that it's generally people who don't accept conventional limitations who make the big breakthroughs."

I agree, and did such things myself in training myself. For example, I ran a bad marathon, and a week later because I was pissed off, ran an excellent 30 km race to redeem myself in my own eyes.

But who as a coach would dare do that with someone else?

So you can take this aggressiveness personally, and enjoy or suffer the consequences, but can you coach that way? Or are we required to coach defensively?

Tom

Coaching in an aggressive manner is seperate from being a personally aggressive runner in that when coaching, you are putting someone else's body, not your own, on the line. If your athlete gets injured b/c you were willing to sacrifice his or her body in order to achieve the ultimate goal as a coach, that is not exactly fair to the athlete. Now obviously, it all comes down to the athlete's personal choice on whether or not they are going to follow a coach's aggressive nature, but some coachs may pressure athletes into an overly aggressive training regime causing a greater risk in injury.

Derderian wrote:

My friend, HRE said, "I am saying that it's generally people who don't accept conventional limitations who make the big breakthroughs."

I agree, and did such things myself in training myself. For example, I ran a bad marathon, and a week later because I was pissed off, ran an excellent 30 km race to redeem myself in my own eyes.

But who as a coach would dare do that with someone else?

So you can take this aggressiveness personally, and enjoy or suffer the consequences, but can you coach that way? Or are we required to coach defensively?

Tom

I think that the great coach finds that fine line. A consistent theme on this board is a complaint that HS coaches are too careful when coaching their athletes. I disagree for many reasons. First, maybe 1% of HS runners even move onto college running, why should coaches expect their runners to put in triple digit mileage for what amounts to a fun HS experience. Secondly, shouldn't we provide the HS runner for a place to go? If they are already doing 100/week, what will college bring?

Some college coaches do take chances .... and are then vilified as a consequence. Look at Wetmore, he's crucified on here. It's tough .... Tom, maybe you had the ability to drive yourself, but many need that task master to press them through the tough sessions.

Once I had a spell of trouble with my achilles. It was so swollen I couldn't fit it into a shoe so I cut the back off of an old shoe and taped it to my foot. I actually shuffled along like that for about two weeks, doing maybe two or three miles a day on this swollen achilles. Eventually I got sick of being injured and decided I was going to ignore the thing and run "normally."

I crammed the foot into a non-mutilated shoe and set off. Immediately the heel hurt like crazy and I started to shuffle and limp, then remembered I was going to run normally no matter how badly it hurt. For about three minutes I saw God. Then the pain went away and when I next looked at the heel, the swelling had too.

Would I recommend that an athlete I advise to do something like that? Not on your life. Tom's right. We're much more wreckless with ourselves than we are with people we coach or advise and I'm sure this adds to the generally conservative approach many of our up and coming athletes have learned.

I think that there are a lot of sports that are perhaps more agressive with respect to the desire to inflict pain on someone else. At times endurance sports often wind up person to person agressive battles to see who can dish out/take more pain...running, cycling etc. Watching a cyclist crack on a sadistic mountain climb or a bold break away like Gerry did againt the Russians could be considered agressive moves. I would think Ironman may be the toughest sport of pushing a body to its limit. For certain, it takes a special kind of individual (wacko)to go out and deliberately seek joy by inflicting pain on himself in such ways. Obviously Gerry can provide his own testimony to how he took his running to the top. Gerry holds a special place in the US history of sport. His advice is free for the taking. Unfortunately, I, like many others, would love to see his log books to understand how a gifted athlete carved himself into such a running machine. One thing I know from Gerry's consistent postings and through his book, he certainly believes that regularly running a gut wretching 10 miles was a key to his development.

I would second a call for some details on Gerry's training. Certainly, I'd like to know just how often he was hammering it per week. It just doesn't seem like much of a long-term approach if you are going to really push and punish your body on a daily, or near daily, basis. As most athletes have found through trial and error, the body needs rest and a chance for adaptation.

For sure I recommend getting Gerry's book (through his website) and read it. I've read it a couple of times and can only dream of running like he did, but I would be in flames on the side of the road in no time.

Ballsy, gutsy kid he was that changed the history of running in this country. I have the utmost respect for him and the training that skinny little kid put himself through to be the best.