Um, they are not as big or as HEAVY as Hartmann.
Um, they are not as big or as HEAVY as Hartmann.
Just how heavy is he?
"If I had an athlete, no matter how good, who kept training himself into injury by doing dumb things (easy runs too hard, racing workouts, etc.) then I'd sit him down once or twice and achieve an understanding, maybe send him to get regular massage or to get him working with a nutritionist, or send him packing. It's a waste of time and a black mark to keep working with someone who refuses to get out of his own way and behave like a true professional already." - cutting thru apologia
You think the major of Ritzenhein's have been from overtraining? I'll admit running in the Olympics on a foot that had recently been injured and not being 100% healthy was not bright, but injuring his foot while running on grass, which people usually run on to avoid injury(how can you blame the coach here?) or a freak accident from kicking a soccer ball in his backyard(still the coach's fault?) or having pneumonia and later "walking pneumonia" (still coach's fault?). You can't blame the coach for everything. It's just easy to see not-as-great things happening to an athlete you expect to soar and point the finger at the coach.
"Like you're sitting at home yapping your fool mouth off with all this speculative hot air? Hall was getting injured in college, too, and even did right out of college but since he's been with Mahon things have been much better. It's probably not a coincidence." - cutting thru apologia
I'm not being speculative about anything. What have I speculated about? When I orginially posted in respone to poster What is Reality?, I was using concrete results to disprove his point that Ritzenhein and the rest of Hudson's boulder crew were becoming worse athletes or not reaching the real potential. They are in fact becoming better athletes. What I was saying to you is that I'm not trying to tell people what they need because I don't believe I know what exactly it is they need, except to be healthy, and from my point of view, Ritzenhein isn't moving backwards as an athlete, nor are any of his other athletes. All of Hudson's athletes have moved forward.
"And then plateaued after a year. Most of what goes into a performance in the first year under a coach has as much to do with previous training as anything else. Residual training effect." - cutting thru apologia
This is such a bullsshit cop-out. So no coach except for the original coach can claim to have had any success with his/her athlete because their success is due to the residula training from their previous coach? What about the residual effects of after being with Hudson for a year? And how can you say that any of them have plateued? His athletes run PR's every year, unless they're injured or unhealthy, which, a lot of the time, is not probably not Hudson's fault(playing with a dog, getting pneumonia, etc.), if you can believe it. And while we're on the subject of Ritzenhein, he ran PR's after being with Hudson for more than a year and a half, so I don't think you can really attribute the residual training effects of Wetmore's coaching to, say for example, Ritz' 61:25 or his 13:16.
"And in 3rd was Max King. Remind me how many NCAA titles and records Max King can claim." - cutting thru apologia
So you're going to demote Hudson's knowledge of training because an athlete who never won an NCAA title beat Ritzenhein? Instead of taking a positive or neutral view, take the negative view: It's not that King had a great run, but that Ritzenhein had a horrible one. The thing about "walking pneumonia" is that you don't know that you have it unless you see a doctor, so unless you think athletes should be seeing doctors every day, I don't think Hudson is to blame for anything as far as Ritzenhein's sickness and sub-par performance. And it's always easier to point the finger in hindsight of such obstacles that don't present themselve until later. Do you feed off negativity? Do you look for all the poor performances to magnify them and then find the right person to point the finger?
"How many bad races/bad days are you going to mypically apologize for before the pattern hits you squarely in the nose?" - cutting thru apologia
I'm not apologizing for anything. And there is no pattern except that Ritzenhein's foot keeps getting injured because he keeps running on it. If you can figure out a way for him to run on his foot and not injure it, why don't you contact him and tell him you can keep him injury free and healthy and that he should allow you to coach him because you know so much about what he needs. However, I have noticed the pattern that every time he gets in a good duration of healthy training, he performs rather well, and who are we suppose to attribute that to, if not his coach?
"And beat by journeyman Peter Gilmore. Remind me how many NCAA titles or records Gilmore has to his credit." - cutting thru apologia
This is another pathetic excuse to belittle Ritzenhein's accomplishments due to Hudson's coaching. Let me ask you a more relevant question when dissecting the physical superiority of one runner over another in a particular race: how many marathons had Gilmore already run before Ritzenhein ran his first marathon? Do you believe that experience means nothing when racing a distance, especially the marathon? You talk about me myopically analyzing something, but if you really wanted to compare those two runners, the fact is Gilmore is older and has had much more expeience and training for the marathon distance, so I'm not surprised that Gilmore ran 2:13 because he has already ran 2:12 before, and at Boston no less. You're just another one of those guys who thinks everything Ritzenhein does belongs on a pedastal, and if it isn't on the pedastal, it's a shiesty job of coaching he's received.
"I wouldn't say it was bad, but I don't think there's any denying that it's well below his potential, and the same's true for every year he's had since turning pro." - cutting thru apologia
Isn't that speculation? Claiming to know what an athlete's true potential is?
irun wrote:
You think the major of Ritzenhein's have been from overtraining?
Say what?
I'll admit running in the Olympics on a foot that had recently been injured and not being 100% healthy was not bright, but injuring his foot while running on grass, which people usually run on to avoid injury(how can you blame the coach here?)
When did that happen?
or a freak accident from kicking a soccer ball in his backyard(still the coach's fault?)
Where did you get that info?
or having pneumonia and later "walking pneumonia" (still coach's fault?).
You'll notice (at least you should have if you're paying attention) I never said that the coach bears complete blame for every setback (though pneumonia is hardly an injury, unless you're implying that Ritz became especially succeptible to respiratory infection by overtraining).
You can't blame the coach for everything.
Well no shit, why are you pointing out something so obvious? I never suggested the opposite to be true.
It's just easy to see not-as-great things happening to an athlete you expect to soar and point the finger at the coach.
Just like it's easy to overlook things and buy stupid explanations when you're a fanboy apologist.
I'm not being speculative about anything.
Sure you are.
What have I speculated about?
You were speculating on things that have not happened yet. Don't you even remember what you wrote? You can look back if you've forgotten already.
When I orginially posted in respone to poster What is Reality?, I was using concrete results to disprove his point that Ritzenhein and the rest of Hudson's boulder crew were becoming worse athletes or not reaching the real potential. They are in fact becoming better athletes.
Um, they should improve at the rate that they have if they're on ANY structured training schedule, even Hal Higdon's. This is an inconsistent bunch and they're falling short of the potential suggested by their high school and college careers.
What I was saying to you is that I'm not trying to tell people what they need because I don't believe I know what exactly it is they need, except to be healthy, and from my point of view, Ritzenhein isn't moving backwards as an athlete, nor are any of his other athletes.
I believe it.
All of Hudson's athletes have moved forward.
Or they have moved on, with the vast majority having done that.
This is such a bullsshit cop-out.
Only to those addled by physiological ignorance.
So no coach except for the original coach can claim to have had any success with his/her athlete because their success is due to the residula training from their previous coach?
No, were you unable to comprehend what you read?
What about the residual effects of after being with Hudson for a year?
What about them?
And how can you say that any of them have plateued?
In their performances, what else?
His athletes run PR's every year, unless they're injured or unhealthy, which, a lot of the time, is not probably not Hudson's fault(playing with a dog, getting pneumonia, etc.), if you can believe it.
What the hell are you even trying to say? You're losing it.
And while we're on the subject of Ritzenhein, he ran PR's after being with Hudson for more than a year and a half, so I don't think you can really attribute the residual training effects of Wetmore's coaching to, say for example, Ritz' 61:25 or his 13:16.
Uh, did I? No, I didn't. Christ.
So you're going to demote Hudson's knowledge of training because an athlete who never won an NCAA title beat Ritzenhein? Instead of taking a positive or neutral view, take the negative view: It's not that King had a great run, but that Ritzenhein had a horrible one.
It's both, in case you couldn't figure it out. Both things had to happen to lead to that result.
The thing about "walking pneumonia" is that you don't know that you have it unless you see a doctor, so unless you think athletes should be seeing doctors every day, I don't think Hudson is to blame for anything as far as Ritzenhein's sickness and sub-par performance.
You're right, Ritz is to blame there. Oh yeah, unless being overtrained led to him being more highly succeptible to respirator infection.
And it's always easier to point the finger in hindsight of such obstacles that don't present themselve until later. Do you feed off negativity? Do you look for all the poor performances to magnify them and then find the right person to point the finger?
No, why do you ask? The last question doesn't make sense, by the way.
I'm not apologizing for anything.
I'm sure you believe that.
And there is no pattern except that Ritzenhein's foot keeps getting injured because he keeps running on it.
Yeah, it's that simple. Somehow the mileage he did in high school didn't have the same effect, and he was running less mileage in college than he was in high school.
If you can figure out a way for him to run on his foot and not injure it, why don't you contact him and tell him you can keep him injury free and healthy and that he should allow you to coach him because you know so much about what he needs.
I don't care to be his coach, though I probably could figure out that very thing.
However, I have noticed the pattern that every time he gets in a good duration of healthy training, he performs rather well, and who are we suppose to attribute that to, if not his coach?
Sure, but what's it worth when he's had to scratch most of his pro seasons due to injury? Good performances in late November and January are good, but we all know that's not his real aim in terms of when to be racing his best.
This is another pathetic excuse to belittle Ritzenhein's accomplishments due to Hudson's coaching.
Oh well. You consider Ritz losing to Gilmore to be an "accomplishment"? Interesting, if weird, perspective. Did you know that as a freshman in college Ritz beat Gilmore by over a minute on the 12k course at US XC nationals?
Let me ask you a more relevant question when dissecting the physical superiority of one runner over another in a particular race: how many marathons had Gilmore already run before Ritzenhein ran his first marathon?
I could look it up but I already know that it's more than one. I still don't see the relevance. I bet there are tons of guys who have run way more marathons than Ritz has or ever will but never would be within even 10 minutes of Ritz in a marathon, not even NYCM 06. How much should experience make up for a lack of innate ability or talent? I don't think it's enough to make up the difference in obvious talent level between Ritz and Gilmore, you apparently (though mysteriously) think it does.
Do you believe that experience means nothing when racing a distance, especially the marathon?
No, but doesn't he supposedly have a coach experienced in racing the marathon distance to help him with that? Might that mean that something was failed to be imparted that would have allowed for a better result at NYCM 06? Hmmmm!
You talk about me myopically analyzing something, but if you really wanted to compare those two runners, the fact is Gilmore is older and has had much more expeience and training for the marathon distance, so I'm not surprised that Gilmore ran 2:13 because he has already ran 2:12 before, and at Boston no less.
I'm not surprised, either, I'm just stymied by the fact that someone with Ritz's ability who has the insights of his marathon-seasoned coach would be beaten by a guy running 2:12-2:13. Somehow Ryan Hall, who Ritz is every bit as talented as, was able to avoid such a pratfall in his debut today.
You're just another one of those guys who thinks everything Ritzenhein does belongs on a pedastal, and if it isn't on the pedastal, it's a shiesty job of coaching he's received.
No. I'm certain that Ritz could do better than he has, though.
"I wouldn't say it was bad, but I don't think there's any denying that it's well below his potential, and the same's true for every year he's had since turning pro."
Isn't that speculation? Claiming to know what an athlete's true potential is?
No, it isn't really. I think most people who know what they're talking about would agree that Ritz has huge potential to compete with the best on the world stage. They've said as much again and again over the years, and his 3rd at World XC as a junior and 24th at World XC in the senior long course as a college freshman and CR in the 10,000 stand as solid testimony as to his great, mostly untapped potential.
"All of Hudson's athletes have moved forward."
???
Matter of personal opinion. I disagree.
I agree with previous poster that an athlete can improve incrementaly almost immediately with a change in coach, training partners, or geography. Here I reference Hartmann's successes.
With that end, I don't see other athletes moving forward. And remember what a SMALL group we are talking about. Ritz, and Torri. The rest are more like rabbits, only in it for a bit.
The long term success of Hartmann is definitely not a step forward today in London. Hope he recovers.
All the above argument concerning Hudson's training philosophy is like trying to debunk a 5th graders philosophy paper.
By arguing like this, you're giving Hudson respect that he not only doesn't deserve but hasn't earned or ever will earn. He has "lifted" training philosophies from other coaches (more respected coaches, italian coaches, etc) and applied them to his own. Any 5th grader could do the same.
The only reason Hudson is a coach at all is because Shayne referred Ritz to him, and set up a meeting, allowing Brad to convince Ritz that he actually knew what he was talking about. My best guess is Brad's basic energy and enthusiasm reeled the vulnerable young superstar into his east coast clutches. Turns out Ritz still hasn't seen him for the charlatan that he is.
When Ritz leaves, bye bye Hudson.
BUMP
bookend wrote:
All the above argument concerning Hudson's training philosophy is like trying to debunk a 5th graders philosophy paper.
By arguing like this, you're giving Hudson respect that he not only doesn't deserve but hasn't earned or ever will earn.
Are you saying that Ritz and Hartmann and Torres are all being deceived by a mental midget? If so, what does that make them. I think you are being incredibly unfair to the athletes that have trust in Brad. I have a hard time believing that all of them were fooled. Major changes do need to be made in their marathon approach. Let us all give them time to do that.
The question is: Am I saying Ritz, Hartmann, and Torres are all being deceived by a mental midget?
Answer: Yes. But a very persuasive mental midget. So it really isn't a reflection on those runners, but more a reflection on how persuasive Hudson is.
Then he is a hell of a lot smarter than you are giving him credit for.
bookend wrote:
The question is: Am I saying Ritz, Hartmann, and Torres are all being deceived by a mental midget?
Answer: Yes. But a very persuasive mental midget. So it really isn't a reflection on those runners, but more a reflection on how persuasive Hudson is.
The last way I'd describe Brad is "persuasive."
Ritzenhein, Hartmann, Torres and Carney are getting the wool pulled over their eyes by Brad for one reason: personal records and their results in the National Championships. What a bunch of hayseeds? Imagine what they'd be doing if "bookends" could only coach those guys?
Give it a rest. This thread is way past its sell date.
malmo wrote:
The last way I'd describe Brad is "persuasive."
One of the first words I would use to describe him. Along with caffeinated. He can be very slick for a first impression.
Not intelligent, not persuasive, merely IN BOULDER and NOT WETMORE! - No more reasons why those guys are running for Brad. Ritz should be better than Hall at this point regardless of injury or not and he is sitting 6 minute back in the marathon and 2 minutes in the half marathon and zero World Champs team in the 5k!
How's about a list of the bridges that Brad has burned in Boulder during the last 5 years? Boulder is an incredibly small town, and he has somehow managed to bounce from gig to gig to gig to gig over and over again during that time - if that isn't "persuasive" then I do not know what is.
Well, it's funny, Ritz has mentioned in an interview that the reason he went with Hudson was because his fiance was still competing at CU (so he needed to stay around Boulder and had to have someone who was local, apparently) and Hudson had trained under Wetmore when he was in HS and so knew Wetmore's system and therefore would know how to train Ritz. Nothing about how Wetmore gave Hudson his stamp of approval, nothing about how Hudson had been to great heights and/or had already enabled others to great heights and so knew how to get Ritz to such heights and beyond. None of that. Hudson was in the right place at the right time and he was familiar. That's it.
"persuasive" is in fact a very good word to describe Brad's personality; and I can think of a few others that wouldn't sit so politely in the context of this forum.
despite whether or not he is a "persuasive" personality - some I know would rather use the word "manipulative" - he has manuevered his way into a good position in the sport. he has a few top tier athletes who believe in him, or seem to believe in him - and credit should be given where it is due.
but I will say his relationship to his athletes can only co-exist so long as his athletes don't come to understand his true character. if that is not important to his athletes, then they will no doubt flourish.
but the real question worth asking is: Is Brad a good coach? Or does he just coach good runners?
the laughing goat wrote:
"persuasive" is in fact a very good word to describe Brad's personality; ......
.....but the real question worth asking is: Is Brad a good coach?
I say yes. Even his haters refer to him as persuasive. I can't imagine how difficult it must be with so many "internet experts" second guessing every move.
different page wrote: I can't imagine how difficult it must be with so many "internet experts" second guessing every move.Ask Wetmore. If you have the mental toughness and maturity to ignore it, then it's no problem at all.
In 2006 - I thought winning 12k XC and Setting an AR in the 20k was pretty good. He also won the USATF 20k.
Some people (critic and supporter alike) could have a degree in "Comparative Hudsononics", given all the time you guys spend going back and forth regarding his coaching.