Let's fast-forward to 2023, and if you're Mo Katir or Jakob, you are never "alone" on a rep anymore as you are paced by your coach/assistant on a bike. Most every major player does this.. times have changed.
Coaches overvalue coaching. Athletes overvalue mental toughness. Obviously a combination of good coaching with some training partners that make the grind bearable is the best of both worlds. Training solo gets pretty damn hard once you're weeks and months into a serious grind.
Of 3 scenarios - 1) solo training with good coaching, 2) group training with poor coaching, 3) group training with good coaching, the third is obviously the best scenario. But that is easier said than done for most people and dependent on the situation.
There is a lot of poor coaching at the HS level, mostly because it is difficult to individualize training programs and HS athletes (and College as well) will race their workouts if allowed to do so. In my experience one can individualize training much better with solo or small group interactions. At the elite level, training with other people is a much better scenario for development or maintenance even for the sake of consistency.
Currently coaching an athlete on the cusp of making World and Olympic teams (literally 10ths away from World Standard last year in a new event - moved up)). I have asked him to train with some others at the expense of my program (since I don't coach his training partners) to get the impetus of pushing the envelope that he can't do on his own. To that end I am more co-ordinating his program on a general level than overseeing it on a daily basis, and filling in gaps when needed and reminding him of what he is trying to accomplish on not to get off track (so to speak)). But then I feel that post-Collegiate athletes need to be in some control of their own training or what have they really learned in the previous years?! In other words, more of an advisory role than as a coach in the standard HS or College environment. In this context it is more about feedback and the athlete taking ownership of their own decisions, rather than have someone make significant decisions on their behalf, which to me is NOT a healthy mindset.
To this end I have misgivings about these Pro groups where the coach is in absolute control as it seems to be treating the athlete as a child who doesn't know enough to chart their own career. If that is the reality then the athlete has had poor coaching to put them in that position, as I feel that the athlete should have been taught to be able to coach themselves if necessary. That is the indictment that I have of the US (and many other situations) experience that athletes are too often not really taught anything, and so are too reliant on coaches to do "it all" for them in a somewhat overly controlled environment. Frankly, I see much of that in Jerry's training environment - that the coach has too much power.
Cold take, in hs I trained mostly alone until outdoor because I had someone who wasn't the hs coach coaching me, and I wouldn't trade that for other kids from my hs to train with (who were actually pretty good). Besides, why do you need someone blocking the wind for you in training?
Of 3 scenarios - 1) solo training with good coaching, 2) group training with poor coaching, 3) group training with good coaching, the third is obviously the best scenario. But that is easier said than done for most people and dependent on the situation.
There is a lot of poor coaching at the HS level, mostly because it is difficult to individualize training programs and HS athletes (and College as well) will race their workouts if allowed to do so. In my experience one can individualize training much better with solo or small group interactions. At the elite level, training with other people is a much better scenario for development or maintenance even for the sake of consistency.
Currently coaching an athlete on the cusp of making World and Olympic teams (literally 10ths away from World Standard last year in a new event - moved up)). I have asked him to train with some others at the expense of my program (since I don't coach his training partners) to get the impetus of pushing the envelope that he can't do on his own. To that end I am more co-ordinating his program on a general level than overseeing it on a daily basis, and filling in gaps when needed and reminding him of what he is trying to accomplish on not to get off track (so to speak)). But then I feel that post-Collegiate athletes need to be in some control of their own training or what have they really learned in the previous years?! In other words, more of an advisory role than as a coach in the standard HS or College environment. In this context it is more about feedback and the athlete taking ownership of their own decisions, rather than have someone make significant decisions on their behalf, which to me is NOT a healthy mindset.
To this end I have misgivings about these Pro groups where the coach is in absolute control as it seems to be treating the athlete as a child who doesn't know enough to chart their own career. If that is the reality then the athlete has had poor coaching to put them in that position, as I feel that the athlete should have been taught to be able to coach themselves if necessary. That is the indictment that I have of the US (and many other situations) experience that athletes are too often not really taught anything, and so are too reliant on coaches to do "it all" for them in a somewhat overly controlled environment. Frankly, I see much of that in Jerry's training environment - that the coach has too much power.
Good post, agree 100%. At the pro level of most any sport, the coach is more a collaborator or coordinator of a group (of assistant coaches and athletes) than a dictator king. Even at the higher levels in college, that's increasingly true. It's an interesting topic consider and the OP sets this up well by assuming far too much and staking too much on anecdotal evidence. Mindset can improve far more quickly with professional intervention than fitness or even racing prowess can, though of course racing prowess can easily improve with mindset tweaks.
Cruz never trained alone -- except for every rep of a workout. His coach and teammates were there every day.
From December 1984 Runners World p.93
Cruz trains the way he races -- alone, pushing himself. "When Luiz started coaching me, it was just me," he says. "I don't like anyone to push me. I've learned to do my pace. I know what I need to do in workouts. I don't need anyone to yell at me, even Luiz.
Gags was a great coach who brought together very talented athletes and made them run times they never imagined they could run prior to joining his group.
I wouldn't take it too literally. I am guessing it was a hyperbole.
He has a point. He is right. But he is also wrong.
Well, I guess as we continue to look for answers to the secrets of the universe that will give us the edge, I tend to lean on those who have a record of great success. Of course he dumbed it down for a simpleton like myself but it made sense and helped me keep things in perspective as I worked with young people. I can only control so much. Learning and teaching on my behalf was my ficus. The coach athlete relationship is a huge factor and communication/trust can overcome some barriers to performance and competition but ultimately, I felt his simple list was truth.
Maybe I'm weird but I've gotten my best results training both solo and self-coached. I'm very intrinsically motivated about running and I genuinely enjoy putting in the work. When I had training partners in college, I would get sucked into running at paces that weren't always what I needed on that day. I was also more competitive with my teammates than with runners from other schools, which wasn't a healthy mindset. I enjoyed being on a team for the social aspect and having people to run easy miles with, but I'd always rather go at it solo when it came time to grind. My current setup where I run easy with my friends in a running club once a week and do everything else alone has helped me to PRs across the board.
I had terrible coaching in high school and good coaching in college, and I've been able to adapt many of those principles into what I do now. Coaching isn't rocket science and it's easy to get hung up on the little details, but having someone who's clueless writing the workouts will be detrimental no matter how tight-knit the training group is.
National Distance Summit 2007, Joe Vigil: 4 factors that determine success.
1. Genetics
2. Environment: includes training partners.
3. The Coach/Plan
4. Motivation
Some you can control, some you cant. Sounded about right to me at the time.
At Grinnell? Yeah, I'm believing Vigil over almost any other coach.
Per Vigil, this certainly bears out in wide scale marathon success in the US. With the cohesive, Team USA groups from about 2000, we got a huge improvement that resulted in performers like Ryan Hall, Meb, Deena, even Sell and Linden, and their acolytes within those groups. Even Rupp came out of the group model in NOP. I'm certain you don't get a Meb or a Sell achieving as highly as they did if they're training fully solo with those same coaches. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Honestly, those aren't even the best examples. Kenyan, Ethiopian, and Japanese runners show that the group carries the day over the coaching. They're all in groups of talented and motivated peers, as a rule, while the level of coaching naturally varies. Of course, at the end of the day, this is down to bias and conjecture as there's no way to isolate or standardize coaching and group dynamic.
Cruz never trained alone -- except for every rep of a workout. His coach and teammates were there every day.
From December 1984 Runners World p.93
Cruz trains the way he races -- alone, pushing himself. "When Luiz started coaching me, it was just me," he says. "I don't like anyone to push me. I've learned to do my pace. I know what I need to do in workouts. I don't need anyone to yell at me, even Luiz.
Thats as close as you'll ever get to the topic. Runners World? Lol.
Luiz micromanaged his group. Cruz, Barbosa, the other Brazilian(??), a couple of locals and even Gerry Donakowski. I think that "Bhagwam" was coached by Luiz as well. Each of his runners did the same sessions but were fired out of the cannon one at a time, perhaps 10-20 seconds apart. I dont recall them ever running as a group, but the may have. It was quite a spectacle, with runners at breakneck pace and orange cones scattered around the track perhaps 50m apart.
So you can technically say that Cruz trained "alone", but the reality was he didnt.
For sure this is the case. And it might even be more beneficial if one of the training partners is the coach.
The Boulder Bubble is exemplary of this. When the local scene was a collection of some of the best in the USA if not in the world, from Shorter and his crew through to Jones, Rojas, Deek, Barrios, and Plaatjes at the tail end, there was no common coach. Shorter was apparently the de facto coach of the guys who chose to run with him. Those guys just showed up to train together for whatever the session and their performances were the obvious result. Since about 2000, the elite side has chiefly been splintered into limited groups that form around singular, career coaches. Other than those in Wetmore's orbit (and Riley's comeback) the performances, or a lack of them, has been the defining outcome over that timespan. Would there be a rising tide effect if Klecker, Hunter, Hoare, Riley, Nuguse, Stinson, Parsons, et alia trained together on the regular? That could be an interesting thought experiment. Certainly it should be acknowledged that OAC is likely the best collection of talent in a singular, coach-centered group in town since the Torres brothers, Ritz, Slattery, and Nelson were together on the CU XC squad.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.