Coach Joe Newton post HS success

DIII is open to all correct? wrote:

To Greenliner... your kids were okay DIII runners at JV Ivy League colleges. Get over yourself, them, Joe newton and York.

To everyone else: My question is why don't more York kids pursue college running? That should be the bigget question. We shouldn't wonder why YHS does not produce more all americans since that kind of talent is finite at any school. I do however wonder why if these kids come from such a great program and have such a meaningful experience they do not want to pursue it for four more years.

Again, I don't know if York athletes run in college at a lower percentage than anywhere else. Do you track all the York athletes yearly to see if they run somewhere in college?

I've found that athletes run in college for different reasons than they do in high school. You mention the meaningful high school experience as support for running in college. There is some truth to this, but the fact is it's not the same experience.

I asked a girl on our team yesterday if she had an interest in running in college (she would have been mediocre, but could have at least been on the team where she is going). She said, no, and that she wanted to do intramural sports in college and just run for fun/fitness. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't feel there is anything wrong with this decision. It doesn't have anything to do with the experience she had in high school or whether I was a good coach that property instilled the right motivation/values in her.

I realize a coach can burn kids out and slant a runners' opinion of running in college. I also think that a lot of people underestimate the number of high school runners (some of them pretty good) that run in high school for reasons that don't translate to running competitively in college. They migh have run in high school for social reasons, or maybe the added expense of college requires increased work hours. Also, a large number of high school athletes make their college decision based on something besides their ability to run at their chosen school.

Did anyone else find it fascinating to look through these lists? There was actually a person on there that I knew, as he was briefly a teammate of mine on the Atlanta Track Club competitive team after finishing school at GA Tech. Outside of the stars who made it big time like Virgin, Broe, Torres, Sage, etc. I was struck by how few of the winners, or even the also rans, ever made a name for themselves. Two exceptions that I noted. The '77 champ Tom Graves had a decent career at Auburn alongside teammates like John Tuttle and Chris Fox. In '84 the 15th place runner, Mark Deady, made the '88 Olympic team in the 1500 and ran 3:35. It just goes to show how hard it is to make it to the top in our sport.

Eh? wrote:

Improvement as a runner? That's vague. Are you referring to tangible standards like times and distances? And if so, what improvements earn the distinction of being successful? This is ridiculous.

It's distance running, what other ways of measuring improvement are there other than running faster than you did before... the only guy I know who measures success by distance is Dean K... who probably would improve if he went to York.

I'm not trying to bash this team, its coach, or it's athletes... I'm just curious, the same as many who've posted above, on the collegiate activity of many of these guys who ran for national level highschool teams and where their experiences took them because we don't hear much about many of them other than Don Sage...

I don't know how to post more politely than that?

Abstaining from arguement, but something to consider.

Marius Bakken's training log from York High School

XC: October 1 - October 7, 1995

Sun: Rest (However, rest of team went on 2 hour run)

Mon: 4 X mile w/ 3 min recovery. (4:45,4:43,4:45,4:18) and 1 X 300 all out.

Tues: 4 sets of 5 X 200 meters, 60-45-30-15 decreasing recovery... (29-30 sec. per rep) and 1 X 300 all out.

Wed: 90 minutes of running

Thur: Race

Friday: 12 X 800, 2 minute recovery (2:19 average)... last rep did in 1:55, and 1 X 300 all out.

Sat: Segments: 8 min-8-6-6-6-3-3-3-3-2-2-2-2-1 (4:50-5:10 pace)

Winter Track...

Sun: 10 X 200, 2:30 recovery (27.5 avg.)

Mon: 9 miles (5:35 pace)

Tues: 1200, 800, 600, 400, 4 minute recovery... 3:03/2:08/1:40/58

Wed: 8 X 300, 4 minute recovery, 41.5/41.7/41.8/41.6/41.5/41.2/41.1/39.5

Thurs: 10 X 100, 6 X 200, 10 X 100

Fri: Race (1:53.7 800, 4:16.6 mile)

Sat: 45 minute fartlek 5:20-5:50 pace

Spring Track...

Sun: 3 miles in 15:01 (4:59,5:05,4:57 splits)

Mon: 30 min farlek 5:08-5:17 pace

Tues: 200, 300, 400, 600, 200, 3 min recovery... 24.9/40.3/57.4/1:30.5/26.7

Wed. 8 X in-and-outs sprints (0-60 sec accelerations, 60-80 sec all out, 80-100 sec float)

Thur: 6 X 200, 27-28 sec. per rep

Fri: Race (9:14 3200, 1:51.9 800, 4:15 1600)

Sat: 7 miles (5:43 pace)

Taken from "Training Profiles: HS Boys Distance" - John Nepolitan

Also, have heard York builds to 130 mile-a-week during summer. Not sure if this is true though.

present wrote:

By the way, I don't think individual runners' post-HS greatness is the fair way to evaluate *any* high school's program. "Building kids for the future" is not the primary job of a high school coach, and frankly I think it's the copout for a lot of coaches who've never matched Joe's success.

This is pure bullshit. I've coached 10 state championship teams in the past four years (xc and track) with this philosophy. You don't necessarily build kids for the future, you just don't run them into the f***ing ground. You train them properly to their current age/talent/maturity level.

Newton has had tons of success with his program, but it has to do more with his amazing motivation, sports psychology skills, record keeping and intelligence than his training system. There's nothing special in the way he trains his athletes - it's what he does with them when they're not running that's special.

giddy wrote:

Eh? wrote:

Improvement as a runner? That's vague. Are you referring to tangible standards like times and distances? And if so, what improvements earn the distinction of being successful? This is ridiculous.

It's distance running, what other ways of measuring improvement are there other than running faster than you did before... the only guy I know who measures success by distance is Dean K... who probably would improve if he went to York.

I'm not trying to bash this team, its coach, or it's athletes... I'm just curious, the same as many who've posted above, on the collegiate activity of many of these guys who ran for national level highschool teams and where their experiences took them because we don't hear much about many of them other than Don Sage...

I don't know how to post more politely than that?

Fair enough. Some people take the grounds of improvement into less tangible, personal areas. I just wondered where you were coming from.

And I wasn't trying to be rude either. But the path this discussion is following is strange. People are foisting a dichotomy onto HS and collegiate running: if you work too hard in HS, then your collegiate career will be less successful and if you save yourself in HS then your collegiate career will be more successful. This is wrong.

Here's a scenario:

Runner A competes for a high-powered HS team and turns a 1:51 800.

Runner B competes for a good HS that doesn't train as hard and runs a 1:54 800.

As seniors in college they both run 1:49, win conference championships (different conference, of course), and each qualifies for nationals whereupon they're eliminated in prelims.

Same times. Same honors. But one dropped more time from HS to college. Which is more successful?

DIII, my kids are both coaching high school track and XC teams, and one finished 55th among men in last October\'s boiling Chicago marathon. Of course, by Letsrun measures, they are failures. They simply loved running in college, did well, and moved on and still stay involved. They are not the issue, except to note that both remain involved in running and coaching at age 28- a mark of the influence Newton has had on them. I can name other high school and college coaches in the greater Chicago area that are Newton runners as well. But this is just a sad argument; I am not sure why there is this continuing desire to run Newton down, as if for all his success and all that he does for his runners, he is somehow not worthy of any consideration because they don\'t go on to run in the Olympics. Not long ago Newton runners/field athletes were All Am in several areas: Sage in distance, Jim Costello for throws, Kyle Erikson for hurdles- hell, that year, we also had Maria Cicero at BC though she was obviously not a Newton prodigy. Pete Cioni did well at Yale, and there were York runners all over the place, going back in my memory to Mike Marotta at Iowa (and later Adam Roche), John Janulis, Tim Hobbs and Peter Stasiulis at IL, Akita at Elmhurst (where he now is head coach), Bakken, Sage, McNamara, Dettmans, Mike Lucchesi, Dave Montgomery at Grinnell now, and on and on.

When York runners get to college, it is up to them to develop- it is not Newton\'s gig. It is like saying that York High School has failed if its graduates do not all get million dollar jobs. York can prep them, but once they leave, it is up to them. Those that want to continue to run, do just that. Who cares if they become AA or not? They don\'t, but some of you do. Why? What possible matter could it be to you? Why is that the measure of success you all choose? DIII just dismissed my kids, who ran 4 years in college and did well but never achieved AA status. They don\'t care about that- the experience was so much more than that.

But the thing is, I don\'t measure success by how well they run later. I measure it by what kind of men they are, and this is where Newton really shines. And if you can show me one runner, just one good runner, from York who will bad mouth Mr. Newton, I\'ll be shocked. Nearly 50 years of coaching, and you cannot find one person who dislikes him or does not respect what he has done. I am as free as a person is- I am no fan of hardass coaches- but I spent years watching how he worked and I respect him as much as anyone I know.

I wonder if Kennedy would have had much of an international career w/o my help.

Coach D wrote:

What do these people have in common?

Amy Skieresz

Ryan Wilson

Deena Kastor

They ALL went to the same high school program (Agoura CA).

Joe Newton is a great motivator, very good at taking mediocre talent and getting it to overachieve. But for developing talent to be successful at the next level, Newton is frankly a joke compared to Bill Duley.

One advantage Bob Kennedy had was a high school coach who believed his job was simply to get his athletes to the next level. I wonder if Bob would have even had an international career, let alone achieving anything, if he had been stuck with the York overtraining program.

Coaching is supposed to be about the success of the kids, NOT the outsized ego of the coach.

http://www.dyestatcal.com/news/xc2007/December/31%201992/summ.htm

I don't know about others, but it sure seems like Joe Newton has had a lot of success since he went to high scchool. 25 state championships and literally thousands of students who have learned a lot. I'm not sure why people think he was burned out in high school.

Why do you only wonder why York kids do not run after HS? Look at all of the other runners from Illinois that beat York runners and didn't run a lot of miles. There are very few that go on to compete at the next level, and even less that run well enough that we hear of. And for all you "coaches" that claim to have won state champs and only coach to prepare your runners for the next level, lets hear about them. Greenliner has already pointed out some from York, while you can't come up with one.

One additional comment. There is a thread right now that asks what success the Footlocker finalists have had, noting that the majority go on and are typically not heard from again. Obviously, the top runners are the ones we all know, but of the remaining runners from each year, who knows how they do, and how many become All American? They must also be failures, according to the logic offered here.

York is a target. Because it is successful, because Newton is well known, because those criticizing the program never ran for it and really don't understand it, and because his critics use a yardstick that means nothing in the larger scheme of things. The question is not how many York runners become All American in college; that's meaningless and a piss poor measure of success, in fact a straw man used to knock York down. The real question is, how many continue to run once they leave, and what kind of people are they? I know the answer to this question, and it is all that matters. We obviously measure success in different ways.

bump..... go York!

As has been pointed out, HS CC and Track is not in place to "prepare runners" for a future in running. HS sports are SUBSIDIZED with EDUCATION TAX DOLLARS. It is actually pretty moronic that we, as a nation, invest EDUCATION money so heavily in GAMES which serve NO PURPOSE in the grand scheme of things.

There is only one way to justify spending education money on athletics - and it has NOTHING to do with athletic development. It has to do with EDUCATIONAL development. Maybe the reason a lot of kids don't run in college is because they had HS coaches who were wise enough to instill in them that there is a tremendous number of things in life that are A LOT more important than sports. Maybe, it is the HS coaches who produce kids which are able to keep athletics in perspective who are the real successes.

I have coached many state champions - some ran in college, some didn't. Who cares? I am more interested that they go on to get an education/training in a good field, get a job they like, and have a well rounded life. I hope they learn how to incorporate a healthy lifestyle as well. I could not care any less about "developing" runners to succeed at a college level - 99.9% of every kid I will ever coach will have ZERO chance of being a D-I all-american, much less more successful than that. Why on Earth would I make that a goal?

My job, and the job of EVERY coach funded by taxes intended for educational use, is to provide an alternative setting to help teach kids things that will be valuable, and worthwhile later in life. To help them learn about health and fitness, to have fun and make some good memories. That's it.

Anyone who thinks HS sports should be about the sport has seriously lost perspective of what has value and what does not. Sports, in and of themselves, are truly and utterly pointless in every sense of the word. No HS coach, Joe Newton or otherwise, should be measured on the caliber of athletic achievement of his most elite runners after they graduate HS.

I totally disagree with this approach. I have coached for many years as well.

I come from a program that will NEVER have great success owing to the lack of community interest and factors that I won't go into.

I as a coach will approach every kid and every workout and every meet as if it IS the most important thing in the world.

I always wanted the kids to know that it may not be THE most important thing in their lives, but it is in a class of things which are equally important in their lives.

I espexially want them to know how important it is to me that they succeed in this great sport.

If they succeed here, they can succeed anywhere.

If the team becomes important to them, then any group in the future that they become a member of will be important to them and maybe they will become SUCCESSFULLY "well rounded".

If you can inspire a kid and motivate him to care alot about this...maybe he'll develop the tendencies to care about the things other people "more important".

Enthusiasm had better increase from the bottom to the top in EVERYTHING.

A military unit or a school running team.

The most memorable coaches that I have ever known, were not the ones who stressed the other things in life..I thought they were weird, if I could remember them at all..

I remembered the ones who had a passion for that thing they were trying to teach.

I'll leave the "other things" to the teachers, preachers, mothers, fathers and guidance counsellors.

"I come from a program that will NEVER have great success owing to the lack of community interest and factors that I won't go into."

Well, that is reassuring. I coach a program that did not exist 15 years ago. Now, nearly 25% of the school is out for Cross Country. Every kid is important, every kid improves, we are extremely competitive on a statewide basis, and our community really has little or no interest in CC either - at least not compared to the "ball" sports. And yet, you say my approach is wrong, and yours is right.

"I as a coach will approach every kid and every workout and every meet as if it IS the most important thing in the world.

I always wanted the kids to know that it may not be THE most important thing in their lives, but it is in a class of things which are equally important in their lives."

So . . . . it is, or is ot THE most important thing in their lives? And what "class of things" is it equal to? Education? Health? Family?

"If they succeed here, they can succeed anywhere."

Uh, no they can't. A couple of the most talented(successful) kids I ever coached are complete losers today. The reason? They honestly thought sports were the most important thing in their life, partially because they had adults in their life that made them think that sports were of tremendous value, in spite of obvious failings in school and social life.

"The most memorable coaches that I have ever known, were not the ones who stressed the other things in life..I thought they were weird, if I could remember them at all..

I remembered the ones who had a passion for that thing they were trying to teach."

That is too bad. My most memorable coaches had great passion for what they coached, but only in proportion to other important things in life.

90% (plus) of the kids who participate in CC have marginal talent or less, and will never "compete" at any significant level beyond HS. How can you justify coaching a sport (funded by education $$) in a way that honestly emphasizes the ideology that the sport is the most important thing?

finally! someone who gets it!

dies it really matter what time your ran when you were 17 when your 32, unless you're competitive, its means nothing. what matters is that you enjoyed sports and team camerraderie. being in sports is better than laying on the couch regardless of what time you ran.

Time is just a medium in which humans work, in the end its meaning less, but the lessong you learn through it: hard work, dedication and commitment is what truly matters.

I agree with "more to life." I am not sure I understand how a coach can teach his kids that the sport is the most important thing, because patently for many it is not; it is about being on a team, not about winning, because not everyone will win, and some will never do well.

See you said this: "I espexially want them to know how important it is to me that they succeed in this great sport.

If they succeed here, they can succeed anywhere." What happens if they don't succeed? What happens if you don't coach them well? What makes you think that if they succeed with running, they can succeed anywhere else? If you do nothing to help them succeed anywhere else, if you teach them nothing that will help them outside of your little area of their life. See, that is what people do not understand about coaches like Joe Newton- or Jeff Bingham, Paul Jorgenson, Pat Tyson, the Kranicks, etc. These guys all focus on running, but never forget that the world is far larger than their part in it, and the kids they coach are there only for a while. I get the sense you are a young coach, bgt; I'm a bit older, 55, so my perspective is certainly different.

When Newton has his annual alumni run, people who ran for him 40 years ago show up. They are still running. And Newton remembers every single one of them, every one. It is astonishing to see. Newton makes high school something to remember; what kids do when they leave is up to them, but they had a good mentor along the way.

Because, quite simply, when you coach a kid to think that his team and his sport is the most importantthing in the world, you are teaching him that EVERYTHING is important.

I won't pretend that I know how to teach a kid to do the other things.

I am a subject matter expert in one thing.

If I do that enthusiastically and don't bother diluting what priorities that I give a kid with other priorities that other professionals are better at giving...

Then I will do my duty towards the kid better.

I would not want to be a kids guru.

Just like i wouldn't want his math teacher to confuse the historical perspective that his history teacher imparts to him.

Success, I think is an accumulation of great ideas and finding enthusiastic,passionate leaders in all the areas, knowing that one coach isn't an expert in all the areas.

If a coach tries to be, then he is taking time away for what he knows best, for something that he only has superficial knowledge of.

Just my opinion. I know many opinions work.

Coach, you are not getting it. Your sport, your team, is NOT the most important thing in the world. And you, despite the fact you may be a "content expert," still can lead them by example. But you can make that experience meaningful for your runners, and help them use that experience to be better people. Again, I suspect you are young, in coaching and in teaching- mid-30s at the most. I get that you are passionate about what you are doing, and that's good; I think you need to broaden your perspective and consider what you do outside of the team. One thing I noted is that you said in your initial post that running at your school is not doing well and can never do well, for many reasons. But, you know, you already sound defeatist. And you know what? Not everything is important; some things are more important than others, but knowing that takes time. You'll get there. Sounds like you care, which is good; not all coaches do. But hey, give Newton some credit for being one who dies.

I should note that the movement in education today is away from the idea of a teacher (or coach) as simply a content expert who "pours" knowledge into a student, more to a learner-centered approach to education. Because it is more effective.