Agreed, progression can be seen in other areas of racing. Last year Alexa made her biggest break through in racing strategically, proof:
US Olympic Trials Semi-Finals Alexa raced with poise
US Olympic Trials Finals Alexa raced very well, 1.8 seconds out of making the Olympic Team
PR for 800m 2:00.99
Alexa is in college, has a boyfriend, has a social life and I hope is not reading this stuff. The progressions posted and great, because they show trends, which are relevant and common for all athletes.
Trained in camps and probably doped up! Maybe 26 at that age
Why is it okay to talk about Efraimson but not Hadley? They're the same age.
Rojo will post a thread criticizing Alexa but the exact same thread on Hadley is deleted. They're both pros and the same age...
there can be more than one wrote:
douglas burke wrote:other sports Floyd Mayweather jr was winning tournaments at 8 years old, John Smith and Cael Sanderson and Dan Gable were state champions in high school.
Burnout is a myth, the only reason a prodigy does not become the best in the world is lousy coaching.
If Efraimson is not breaking world records and winning World and Olympic Gold medals the reason would be lousy coaching, no reason to sugar coat it.
This is your dumbest post. That's saying a lot too.
You think no other female is capable of edging her out for those laurels?
Agreed - an impressive accomplishment by Mr. Burke. Way more phenoms than titles and record holders. And being a phenom has as much to do with maturing early (esp boys) as it does top end talent. For women, even subtle changes in bio-mechanics can have significant effect on performance. Broadly speaking talent is composed of both innate ability which shows up relatively early (phenom!) and the ability of the body to improve under increased workloads (your late arrivals that show up only after years of work). To be a world/Olympic etc champion you generally have to have significant amounts of both types. Everyone will have different improvement curves so comparing athlete's is a fools errand.
Burke also gives way to much credit to coaches - they are important in lots of ways but to say they are the single most important element is way too overboard. Why do you think even the most successful coaches have wildly different rates of success with athletes?
Alexa is a great talent and the transition from junior to senior/professional running is very tough. But the start of this transition must happen as soon as possible and therefore the early years as a pro can be hard. But what makes a great runner is a myopic focus and singular drive to succeed. Some people have these qualities and some do not.
Les wrote:
Except Eraimson and Cain cannot be compared to college runners because they turned pro as teenagers. For college runners, lack of progression can be hidden by team goals or academic pursuits or social life, but for a pro, lack of progression cannot. It's a single-minded focus with no distractions, and if that focus does not bring results then it's plain as day with excuses difficult if not impossible. That is probably why Cain went back to college -- to hedge her bets and reduce the pressure that being a pro brings.
ok, I agree.
I think most kids who turn pro shouldn't.
Cain and Efraimson would have benefited from ncaa competition. teens having to run each race at 100% peak is not good
100%. Hadley and Efraimson deserve the same respect (or i guess level of criticism) from this message board. I'm not saying that criticism is okay or that it is inappropriate, but that there must be consistency.
She misses her indoor mile PR from last year by half a second and apparently her career is over? Give me a break rojo. Alexa is fine.
notrump wrote:
The only people who can testify authoritatively are Salazar and Hickey. They won't for obvious professional reasons. Some day we will get a coherent explanation for the stagnation factor of these young American athletes. On the flip side, how do you explain Laura Muir who has startled us by progressing from ordinary to spectacular over the last two years?
Consistent progression year by year since 2006 coupled with talent. She was a 4.00/2.00 runner back in 2014- I would hardly label her "ordinary" prior to 2015
http://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=19602TrackCoach wrote:
Les wrote:Except Eraimson and Cain cannot be compared to college runners because they turned pro as teenagers. For college runners, lack of progression can be hidden by team goals or academic pursuits or social life, but for a pro, lack of progression cannot. It's a single-minded focus with no distractions, and if that focus does not bring results then it's plain as day with excuses difficult if not impossible. That is probably why Cain went back to college -- to hedge her bets and reduce the pressure that being a pro brings.
ok, I agree.
I think most kids who turn pro shouldn't.
Cain and Efraimson would have benefited from ncaa competition. teens having to run each race at 100% peak is not good
Bolt,Haile,Tergat, El G,Kevin Garnett, Kobe ,and LeBron disagree. If you are good enough,make that money. Most college track coaches are a complete joke and so is the college season. Better to get pro coaching
If the decision to go pro basically makes them be unsuccessful when going to college could have given them a chance then it probably is a bad choice. Unless the 1 contract they sign is huge.
Wowow wrote:
She misses her indoor mile PR from last year by half a second and apparently her career is over? Give me a break rojo. Alexa is fine.
This x10000.
One of the dumbest threads I've seen here in a while, and that's really saying something.
Alexa has been in college since HS; she has an academic load, social life and personal goals (no team goals to distract her, this is true; or hide behind). There are no excuses for the 5-10 girls who have beaten or finished close to Alexa over the years. Most of whom have gone to Stanford, and are under achieving.
You have no idea how much you don't know. Genetics are a huge part of this, but the adaptive response is equally big. The adaptive response takes the right stimulus, which I am sure you do not understand. Each stimulus, provokes different genetic responses; a great coach understands this and manipulates those responses.
Agreed, they recruit Olympians and try to keep from getting them hurt. The goal is to win NCAA titles, not to win Olympic golds. Sell outs.
often teen phenoms overtrain,and very rarely achieve their potential,as seniors.some quit the sport,and come back,and run better than ever,others dont.most super talented teens fall by the wayside.i remember georgie clarke,a 16 year old australian,who ran 2.01/4.06 as a 16 year old,and got a horror run of injuries,after that.she made the sydney olympics in the 1500 meters,actually.speaking of sydney,someone mentioned sydney mclaughlan the hurdler.itll be interesting to see what she can do.will she improve?or fall by the wayside?
Sprinters peak between 19-21, so the discussion needs to keep these things in mind. The paralysis by analysis that most Americans occupy their minds with, limits them.
Have you ever watched a world class athlete workout on a daily basis, maybe her class load (University of Portland) and having roommates took a little out of her last year and I am quite certain she had some aches and pains.
Miltenburg has let us down, he has done nothing with the talent he has recruited. The guy must have been a used car salesman.