Nice Hudson interview about Ritz and American distance

joerg von bismarck wrote:

ja. i nailed that bekele interview. it was a high-class interview over 5,000.12359 meters.

When will Kenenisa Bekele make his debut over the classic distance of 42,19538457209 meters?

Reading Brad's comments, I almost forgot that the best American distance runner, Bernard Lagat, runs just 60 or so miles/week. It's as if Brad's forgets we compete in races below 2 hours duration....

Now the interesting thing is that Alan Webb has put his career straight to ruins in pursuit of "aerobic development". And only by going back to what works, will we ever see him in an Olympic 5000m final. Like Lagat, Webb can break 13 on moderate mileage and sensible high quality.

Since the early 70's at least, the fastest US marathoner has been a top 5000m runner and this will never change. Without the requisite track speed, including <4 mile capability, and ~50 sec 400m speed, super fast marathoning is impossible. To believe 120-150 mile weeks are necessary for a top world class marathon is just a mistake. What is necessary is ~13' 5000 speed and a willingness to work hard, and the strength of mind to throw out most of the dinosaur training mythology. This means more race specific training. The Kenyans and Ethiopians know to get the lead out.

I do care about Brad, but the truth is advising Ritz was the best thing that ever happened to his coaching career, and paid quite well.

Sorry, Rodgers was not a top 5k runner, Kempainen was not a top 5k runner, Spence was not a top 5k runner, Durden was not a top 5k runner, Thomes was not a top 5k runner, Tabb was not a top 5k runner, Heffner was not a top 5k runner. Plaatjes was not a top 5k runner.

If Bekele can run 11.0, then he can run 141 and 325 easily. I call BS. It can have some plausibility only if it was hand timed (so more like 11.25) and came with a flying start, otherwise that statement is absolutely rediculous.

Bekele has never run under 12 seconds. People see him crossing a line on the track and time the finishing straight and come up with these ridiculous times.

His fastest 100's are 12.5 at sea level and very slightly faster at altitude.

Milton Friedman wrote:

wellnow wrote:

The last paragraph where he says;

"Look at Kenenisa Bekele, he runs 11.6 seconds for his last 100m in the final, but you have to understand he runs 150 miles a week as well"

11.6? It was 13.4

I DVR'd the 3k at the World Athletics Final, when Bekele had to go all-out, over the last 100m, to hold off Lagat.

He crossed the 100m to go line in 7:52.2. He finished in 8:03.8, which would be 11.6 for the last 100m.

This is plausible. The pace was slow, and his 100m PR is 11.0, according to this interview:

http://www.takethemagicstep.com/coaching/athletes/interviews/if-you-dream-it-it-can-happen-kenenisa-bekele-reflects-on-his-recent-success/

***************************************************

Sorry Milton, complete and utter nonsense.

In the World Athletics final his last 400 was 52.03 which is probably the fastest last lap he has ever run in a race. When he goes, he goes, there are no ridiculously fast 100m splits, what is remarkable is his speed endurance.

Lagat is a bad example. He gets away with it as a fast 1500m guy (3.26) moving up to 5000m. He is NOT a distance runner. He will win 5000m races when the pace is slow. For a guy as fast as him anything slower than 12.40 as a 5000m PR is a joke. Heck even at Worlds it required having guys like Kiprop and Choge running like idiots for their abilities that even puts him in the hunt for a medal for 1500m these days. Why Choge wasn't racing the 5000m at Worlds tells me that he is afraid of Bekele. He doesn't have the requisite "kick" for the 1500m, although he has the speed-endurance to run a fast 5000m off that 3.29 ability.

I think what Husdon is alluding to is the "slow-twitch guys" (like Salazar - who ran a 13.11 5000m off a 55sec 400m, or so it is claimed) for whom a great aerobic base is required for more than a "one-off and they are done" career. Even John Walker claimed that he couldn't run 3.50 for a mile unless he could run 4.00 off only base mileage. For the distance guy that wants range over 5000m-marathon, it's no good having speed if the base isn't there - that's what went wrong in the 90's. T.Williams really hadn't much talent - he stood out (Kennedy notwithstanding) because he did the running.

I keep reading about how bad everyone was training in the 90's in America, but I have no idea what they are talking about. You need mileage and speed, same as it ever was. Some guys do high mileage and some don't, same as it ever was.

What makes the difference in how fast you race is getting used to a faster pace, and then getting into those fast races, and racing them with confidence. The best Americans now are no better than those of 20,30,40 years ago, but Grand Prix races in Europe are arranged for fast times. When you get in that ideal race, you can destroy your PR. So what was so wrong about what Americans were doing in the 90's? I suspect that the faster pace that Africans were running was a complete shock to the best American 5000 and 10000m runners, and they completely lost confidence en masse, and now the opposite is happening, and confidence is returning.

wellnow wrote:

Sorry Milton, complete and utter nonsense.

In the World Athletics final his last 400 was 52.03 which is probably the fastest last lap he has ever run in a race. When he goes, he goes, there are no ridiculously fast 100m splits, what is remarkable is his speed endurance.

If you pause the race, and move it forward frame-by-frame, you can see a shot of him -- with Lagat on his shoulder -- just about to cross the 100m start line, with the clock in the lower right corner reading 7:52.2. The only way this split could be wrong is if the clock on the TV is wrong, but I believe it is hooked into the FAT timing system.

I agree that his speed endurance is remarkable, which I why Bekele can run 11.6 at the end of a race, when his all-out 100 speed is only 11.0. :-)

dsrunner has the day off wrote:

Reading Brad's comments, I almost forgot that the best American distance runner, Bernard Lagat, runs just 60 or so miles/week. It's as if Brad's forgets we compete in races below 2 hours duration....

Lagat says himself that he runs mid-70s, and he doesn't count warm-up and cool-down mileage. If he was counting like a normal American (20 up, 20 down = 5-6 depending) then he would be running 80-95.

So, actually, Lagat runs a decent chunk of mileage for a mid-d guy.

...and he's already running at top speed! Bolt goes 8.xx in that circumstance.

The comment about Webb running 12:50 is typical Hudson taking a shot.

If you read between the lines, what he is saying is that if Webb doesn't run 12:50, it is poor coaching.

If Webb run 12:53 and destroys the AR everyone will be complimenting Alberto but Hudson will say "I thought he would run 12:50"

He does this kind of shit all the time. He puts down other coaches in an attempt to make people think he could of done a better job.

Then Bekele lies wrote:

If Bekele can run 11.0, then he can run 141 and 325 easily. I call BS. It can have some plausibility only if it was hand timed (so more like 11.25) and came with a flying start, otherwise that statement is absolutely rediculous.

What's ridiculous is your spelling.

Alan Webb has run 13:10 already on 1500m training from three years ago. He has a range from 800m 1:43.5 to 10,000m 27:34 and he has run a 3:46 mile. If you think Webb can't break the A.R. when he is on you need to take another look at your understanding of the sport. Alan Webb is a Monster plain and simple.

Milton Friedman wrote:

The only way this split could be wrong is if the clock on the TV is wrong, but I believe it is hooked into the FAT timing system.

Even "if" the tv timing was correct, what you saw was probably the end of the relay exchange, a common mistake.

If correct, that would give him a 12.8, more in line with his 52 second last lap.

For the last 100 to be 11.6, the previous would have needed to be 14.4 seconds.

Brad Hudson's point at the end of his interview is in complete agreement with what Alberto Salazar believes when comparing the aerobic capacity of American runners to the East African runners. They both know that the East Africans are ahead of U.S. and most other runners aerobically, and this is because, as Salazar once said on an interview on flotrack, "by the time the average east african runner is 18, he's already done 20,000 miles." Now, that may not be true for every east african runner, but he makes his point. Americans are nowhere near this mileage mark by the time they're out of high school, so high school, collegiate, and post-collegiate coaches have to train their athlete to build up better aerobic bases, and this is what Hudson was saying at the end of the interview, and it makes sense. If there is a gap between American and Kenyan runners, the best way to become more competitive is by closing that gap. And that gap just so happens to be aerobic base and threshold.Alan Webb ran 1:43, 3:30, and 3:46 following training he did for longer distances, like the 2 mile (8:11 pr) and 10k (27:34). This also came after he spent a couple winters running in European cross country meets, so for a solid 2 years, Webb was making sure he developed his aerobic base and threshold, and it paid off in the summer of 2007.Bernad Lagat may only run 60 miles/week, but this is probably just during the spring and summer seasons. Most middle distance runners get down to around that mileage at those times of the year. Bernard Lagat is also in his mid-30's, so he has 20 years of work behind him. I wouldn't say he is the best and only example to look in forming your argument.The three most interesting and notable points I think Hudson made in his interview were these:1. Tegenkamp has done 140 mi/week for base training2. He believes Webb could run 12:50 if completely fit3. He believes American runners need to focus more on aerobic base and threshold to catch up to the East African runnersI don't disagree with any of these points he made, although I cannot personally verify that Tegenkamp was ever doing 140 mi/week, but I'd believe it. I also believe that Webb is capable of running low 12:50's if completely fit, and I definitely believe the last point.

The whole walking-to-school argument is stupid. The entire globe is covered with desperate, third-world countries where walking is the only way to get around. So why is it so hard to find Tibetan and Peruvian marathon runners? (Not to mention the rest of the world.) It's kinda funny that so many posters here are anti-Galloway walking breaks but huge believers in the Kenyan walking-to-school hypothesis.

you're trying to dismiss an argument by starting a new one. not a good way to go.there are ~ 6 million people in tibet. there are 300 million people in american and we don't have nearly as many sub-13 or sub-27 5k and 10k runners as the east africans. you're mixing a fruit argument with a salad argument.

walking to school? wrote:

The whole walking-to-school argument is stupid. The entire globe is covered with desperate, third-world countries where walking is the only way to get around. So why is it so hard to find Tibetan and Peruvian marathon runners? (Not to mention the rest of the world.) It's kinda funny that so many posters here are anti-Galloway walking breaks but huge believers in the Kenyan walking-to-school hypothesis.

Interesting, neither Hudson nor Salazar has managed to coach anyone to international success in the marathon.