Doing High Mileage ( Marathon Training ) followed by Smart Speedwork is Textbook Lydiard Training. Maybe Americans are finally figuring out this 60 miles a week Jack Daniels crap does not work/[/quote]
Yea except bernard lagat runs 60 miles a week, is 34, and took home 2 medals in the world championships. there is more than one way to train, you are being ignorant if you think daniels system is crap and lydiard is the only way.
truefan wrote:
Yea except bernard lagat runs 60 miles a week, is 34, and took home 2 medals in the world championships. there is more than one way to train, you are being ignorant if you think daniels system is crap and lydiard is the only way.
Yup, I'd say it just shows there's many different ways of going about training.
The most obvious requirement for success is being amazingly talented... The untalented people are the ones who say that only one way works.
[/quote]
Doing High Mileage ( Marathon Training ) followed by Smart Speedwork is Textbook Lydiard Training. Maybe Americans are finally figuring out this 60 miles a week Jack Daniels crap does not work/[/quote]
With all due respect, if you actually read Daniels' books and Lydiard's books you would find neither picks the mileage -- both have said "one size does not fit all". They both stress aerobic training, different pace running, peaking AND WORKING WITH A COACH. (Not yelling, just emphasizing) Neither man has a pat answer, and as in most things in life, the answer lies somewhere in between.
Why not enjoy Ritz's great moment while not tearing someone else down?
Yes you are wrote:
Infamous wrote:No I'm not an idiot kid. He had around a 63 flat for the first lap and a 63 for the seventh lap which is a couple. Did I not make myself clear? Great race regardless.
Since when is 61.8 around 63?
Honestly, you may be a bit of an idiot. 61.8 was his time from 200-600M.
dpriest1967 wrote:
High and Mighty wrote:You're shocked that a marathoner took 20 seconds off his 5k PR and ran American Record after 8 weeks moderate speed training. Don't be a jackass. Yes, there were a few signs, but it's still a shocking performance that NO ONE expected.
Doing High Mileage ( Marathon Training ) followed by Smart Speedwork is Textbook Lydiard Training. Maybe Americans are finally figuring out this 60 miles a week Jack Daniels crap does not work/
I seem to remember that Jack coached Jerry Lawson in the 1990s and he was an extremely high mileage guy, but I guess you won´t let facts get in your way.
Regardless of what has happened the last few years, if you know much about Ritz over the last 10 years it is plain as day. He won outdoor Nationals in the 2 mile as a sophomore (9:01y) in a year when Cabada was the only faster boy in his grade (8:55m).
As a junior he won FL over Don Sage and Tegenkamp and Dobson. That spring he ran 8:41.1m and 1:54/4:05.9 some of the fastest set of PRs a junior has ever had. He backed that up with several more sub-9 races. He also had a 14:10 track 5k that was planned to be faster.
Then as a senior he won FL again over Webb and Hall and continued into winter with an 8:48 time trial (in a 4x800 relay no less) before taking 2nd to Teg (who was in college) at the WCC Trials and then 3rd overall at WJCCC. He ran a few good 3200s but his main focus was the AHSR in the 5k and he ran 13:52 at Penn and then 13:44.X (missing the record) at USATF. He won NON 2 mile again for the third straight.
then he went 13:27 at MtSAC as a college frosh and 4th in the NCAA XC race. That year he mainly lost to Alistair Cragg, Torres and Kimani. 13:27 is still the fastest 5k ever run by an American-born collegian during the school year. He also was on the Senior Long Course team for WCCC this year, placing 24th in the senior race. Had he been born two days later, he could have run the Junior race. Many people forget this race.
Junior year, After coming back from his first serious injury he won NCAA XC off limited training, then in spring he ran the 27:38 AmCR (since beaten - and right behind BK in his debut).
If you aren't noticing something about his record (3 national 2mile titles, 2 FL titles, beaten by almost nobody in HS, and only by the best in college; nearly the fastest in the 3200 each year; 13:44 in HS and 13:27 right away in college) then nobody can help you see it.
He has been showing the same kind of talent that Lindgren, Pre, Virgin, Salazar, McChesney and Kennedy all showed from age 15-25 ... but out of all those great runners nearly every one of them had been chort-circuited somehow, either by death, or their health, or something else.
Out of those listed Virgin came closest to being able to reach his talent potential, but his kidney problems made it difficult.
So my point is that many over the years (like those pot-smokers at TaFNews) have argued that Ritz was not the BEST talent. "Dave Merrick was better" they would say, or "Virgin was the best! He started every XC race with a 4:19 mile!" ... or "Lindgren ran WRs or near them in HS!"
It doesn't matter. You can't compare eras that directly. Tracks, the lack of a 2mile, shoes, weather in the midwest vs. the sunbelt. All those things made it difficult to compare.
What was certain in my mind was that Ritz was right among the greatest talents the US had ever seen for the HS 2mile and what Olympic event would that ability translate to best as an adult?
Ritz has always been maligned by detractors as "too slow" to break 13:00. Well, he ran a 4:05.9 1600 when he was just 17... now 10 years later he ran the first 1600 in about 4:07 and the last one in 4:06.0.
So all of those who doubted him can suck it.
idiot alert wrote:
I seem to remember that Jack coached Jerry Lawson in the 1990s and he was an extremely high mileage guy, but I guess you won´t let facts get in your way.
gee, that's funny-- i seem to remember lawson running really high mileage BEFORE hooking up with jd, who brought his mileage down...
newname wrote:
So all of those who doubted him can suck it.
Captain of the debate team, no doubt.
pretty incredible considering his 1500 PR (as listed on USATF bio...anybody know if he's run faster?) is 3:42.99. also looks like thru 3k he was 7:47, while his 3k PR is listed at 7:39! probably safe to say he's due for massive PR's in these events as well, should he take the step down, but sounds like he'll gear up for a half in october and that's it.
also whoever noted USATF is slower than wikipedia in updating times, good observation, they've still got ritz's marathon at 2:11, haha.
overall props to ritz and hopefully others like teg will join him in the elite sub 13 club soon.
as for those arguing about 61.8 63.0 whatever...too much free time?
math man wrote:
Honestly, you may be a bit of an idiot. 61.8 was his time from 200-600M.
You aren't much of a math man. He still wasn't 63 at the 400.
Actually, Ritz ran his PR in Belgium, ever so slightly faster than Indy. But the point is well taken. In Belgium he took the lead and pushed the penultimate lap much too hard. As a result, he closed in 70. In Indy, on a warm, humid night, he closed in 2:32, in what was a somewhat tactical race. But the really important point is that Hudson intentionally kept Ritz away from speed training, and for a very good reason. Ritz kept getting hurt and Hudson reasoned that the first step to running fast is to stay healthy. Also, I should add, Hudson is a bit caught up in the idea of race specific training, which involves in part rarely running faster than race pace in practice. So Ritz ran 13:16 twice while almost never running faster than 62 400s in practice. Salazar took a runner with a huge aerobic base and made him run fast--56 400s, for example. One last point: in Zurich, Ritz's last 2000 was the fastest in the race--5:09, and 3 seconds faster than Bekele.
malmo wrote:
High and Mighty wrote:You're shocked that a marathoner took 20 seconds off his 5k PR and ran American Record after 8 weeks moderate speed training. Don't be a jackass. Yes, there were a few signs, but it's still a shocking performance that NO ONE expected.
I'm with Ryan Foreman.
Rit'z 5k PR was set at Nationals in Indianapolis on a warm night -- not a place to run fast -- years ago. He was a 13:05 guy back then (as his 2 mile PR shows) who just never ran in the right race.
Now he's a better runner. And after trying to force himself into a distance that his body isn't suited for, comes back down to his best distance, with all of that aerobic base how could you not expect this?
He finished 6th at the World Champs, beating many 27:00 10k runners, then he runs Zurich at what is his best distance. I'd bet that he himself expected 13:00 to 13:05.
I also think there are many lessons we can learn from this performance ...
You don't have to run highschool track, then college, then move to the roads and run 5k/10k's, then eventually when you start feeling like your speed is diminishing run a half marathon, then a full - then be a marathoner your whole life.
MARATHON (heavy aerobic) TRAINING HELPS ON THE TRACK - it just does. Putting in good marathon training, running your marathon, then not thinking about running for months is a waste of all that work. Of course recover your legs from the marathon event - but, good marathon shape means being in great shape. Recover and continue to take advantage of your work.
Montesquieu wrote:
Actually, Ritz ran his PR in Belgium, ever so slightly faster than Indy. But the point is well taken. In Belgium he took the lead and pushed the penultimate lap much too hard. As a result, he closed in 70. In Indy, on a warm, humid night, he closed in 2:32, in what was a somewhat tactical race. But the really important point is that Hudson intentionally kept Ritz away from speed training, and for a very good reason. Ritz kept getting hurt and Hudson reasoned that the first step to running fast is to stay healthy. Also, I should add, Hudson is a bit caught up in the idea of race specific training, which involves in part rarely running faster than race pace in practice. So Ritz ran 13:16 twice while almost never running faster than 62 400s in practice. Salazar took a runner with a huge aerobic base and made him run fast--56 400s, for example. One last point: in Zurich, Ritz's last 2000 was the fastest in the race--5:09, and 3 seconds faster than Bekele.
malmo wrote:I'm with Ryan Foreman.
Rit'z 5k PR was set at Nationals in Indianapolis on a warm night -- not a place to run fast -- years ago. He was a 13:05 guy back then (as his 2 mile PR shows) who just never ran in the right race.
Now he's a better runner. And after trying to force himself into a distance that his body isn't suited for, comes back down to his best distance, with all of that aerobic base how could you not expect this?
He finished 6th at the World Champs, beating many 27:00 10k runners, then he runs Zurich at what is his best distance. I'd bet that he himself expected 13:00 to 13:05.
His last 2km was 5:09 but remember he ran at the back of the pack and started to speed up. It's easier to have the fastest negative split in a race when you do this as opposed to running from the front.
math man wrote:
Honestly, you may be a bit of an idiot. 61.8 was his time from 200-600M.
So he went 33.X from 200 to 400m?
moloradocudstuffin wrote:
So he went 33.X from 200 to 400m?
Don't make fun of math man, he's just a dumb ass.
We all knew Ritz had ridiculous talent, but find me one person here who would've projected an AR for him yesterday? Heck, I had him beating Rupp at worlds and running 27:17 +/- on earlier threads, and that assertion didn't get a whole lot of support. Even still, I did not expect a sub-13:00 from this kid.
What's revealing about this thread, and thanks for posting it by the way, is that, had Ritz applied the same patience and discipline in last April's London Marathon (he was out hard at 14:39 through 5k), he very well might've run the 2:06 he was seeking. I thought he would run much faster than 2:10 AS LONG as he didn't commit to a suicidal early pace, which he did. Now, some may dispute that, but Ritz has almost always had energy/fuel problems toward the end of his marathons, and it should've been obvious that opening in 14:39 was an unwise strategy for such an athlete. He should have gone out 30 seconds slower, at least.
Ritz is a better track man than marathoner. It is time he quit beating the hell out of his legs and prepare for the 5k or 10k in London. Maximizing appearance money at Marathons is short-term thinking. Salazar ran the marathon in part because he didn't have the base speed to run 27 low & 12:56.
Pepsin wrote:
moloradocudstuffin wrote:So he went 33.X from 200 to 400m?
Don't make fun of math man, he's just a dumb ass.
Ok, listen closely. 30.9 for 1st 200M. 61.8 for the NEXT 400. Where was he between 200-400?? Who knows. Data not given. I'm not sure how you arrived at 33.x. I mean, it makes you sound terrific. Unfortunately, I never said that.
Maybe I should've made my name "theonewhoneedstopointoutto thehskidsonherehowtoreadthesplits"
Its amusing to see people simply extrapolate without reason. '..He did 12:56 so 12:50 can't be far away...'
Fantastic run, but he could just as easily 'Do a Moorcroft' and not get close again.
It's nice to see all 3 guys make a name for themselves...ritz, hall, and Webb. I remeber in high school it was all about ritz then came the hall Webb match up. Now all 3 have done something great.