How should we develop American distance runners?(Coaches ,jtupper,Tinman,Renata,Malmo,Joe Rubio)Give some suggestions?

I'm not sure whether I'm agreeing or disagreeing with Kevin here. But I also want to attack the "sacrafice" argument.

I'm the probably rare 50 year old, well, 51 year old, who has seen about as much of the world and the US as Brinker, Sell, etc. and loads of this travel was connected to running. On occasion, I got my way paid. On other occasions I scraped and scrounged to get to races in distant places. I had older cars and crappier apartments than people who took the "cubicle" route. But I think I had a hell of a lot more fun that the cubicle guys and got as much satisfaction, if not more, from my running than I'd ever have gotten selling stocks.

I really believe that US running began to decline at about the time college kids really began to become serious about their careers and began to view serious running as a sacrafice.

I think that we are on the same page. How long ago did you retire as an elite runner and what do you currently do for a living?

I was born retired as an elite runner. I was never more than the US equivalent of a "club runner." I just threw myself into the sport and managed to get into some high level races where I was usually pretty well thrashed.

I supported myself as a teacher for a while, then as a cab driver and substitute teacher, then bounced into mental health counselling, got a graduate degree and now teach psychology courses at a local college and do some private counseling.

Looking back on it all, I think I was extremely fortunate that I went in the direction that I did. I've had a different life than most people have and I wanted that. I didn't want to work for 56 years, get a gold watch and die. The people who hook up with your program, or even the ones who just decide to stay with the sport seriously for a while to see what happens, are getting a priceless experience. When it's time to do something else, they'll likely succeed because they'll do it well. They'll do it well partly because the experiences they glean from years of running to be as good as they can will carry over. Unfortunately, you can't show this sort of thing on a ledger sheet, so many will think it's pointless to pursue serious running for, say ten years, while delaying a career. But it's not pointless.

We need kids who are willing to go out and run real workouts, say something like 4 sets of 10 400's at 69 sec. each with a 90 sec. rest between 400's, and a 600 meter jog between sets. Kids who will do this day after day after day ... besides putting in some mileage in the mornings.

Kevin, I applaud you and your brothers effort for the advancement of distance running in this country. We need more people like you.

I believe people like Clint Verran are an extreme exception to the rule, rather than the status quo among talented recently post-collegiate runners. Most people with that much on their plate would not be able to handle it, or if they did, they would be severly lacking in one or more areas. For most, its simply too much to do at once, and the opportunity you provide for your athletes allows the few exceptions to this rule to prosper.

Traveling the world is nice, and provides interesting life experiences, but I think travelling isn't enough of an incentive for most people. Training for the 8-10 years post-collegiately makes for great memories and experiences that cannot be replicated elsewhere but I have to respectfully disagree that one doesn't sacrafice something for it. In economics, its referred to as "opportunity cost", the cost of doing one thing instead of another, and the lost opportunity in doing so. It comes down to a personal decision dictated by the individual's ideologies and particular situation, and unfortunately most don't choose the road less traveled. And I agree that you won't acheve much if you don't invest the time and energy, but for such an enormous investment in effort and time, most want the hope of being world-class. I don't think you can honestly look a 30min 10k guy in the eye at the age of 22 and tell him 120 miles per week will get him to compete with Geb and Bekele, running 26:30. One has to take an objective and critical look at their ultimate potential and make a balanced decision regarding how they want to spend the next 10 years of their life. With the exceptions of guys like Dathan Ritzenhein, maybe 10 other collegians, and a few of the guys in your group perhaps, spending 10 years training to race guys who run a 3:50 mile or a 27 flat 10k by the age of 20 doesn't seem like the wisest choice. I wish this weren't the case, I really do. But I thought it would be good to give the perspective from the athlete's side. Keep up the good work Kevin, your dedication to the sport's future is inspiring.

Pat, I know everyone will have different views on this, and I respect your point. Here is my view. I am 24 years old and work in a cubicle here in Cincinnati. I hate my job, own a home and coach a local high school team. Even putting in 80 miles a week is tough.

Although I am a post-collegiate runner, my times are not good enough to pursue this as a career. I realize this. My first marathon a few weeks ago was 2:48. I would give anything that would make running my life..If I could survive financially, I would do that right now just trying to get faster... Lottery tickets are my only hope :)

I'm reluctant to pollute this excellent thread with an opinion/question from the peanut gallery, but I was wondering about getting into the guts of the US college training approach a little bit.

I "know" maybe a dozen US college runners through various means (a couple I actually know, most I've "met" here and other running discussion places).

One common element among all of them has been some form of serious injury that's put them on the shelf for one to several months. My take is that the injuries were unnecessary, and associated with excessive intensity during periods of heavy volume.

I hate to generalize too broadly, particularly given that I'm not American. But am I out in left field suggesting that the college system (and probably the high school system feeding into it) is what's broke and needs fixing?

in considering this point, i think it can be said that individuals within those systems are to blame. if the coach has a talented runner and is only thinking about the four years that they have to coach them, there is the problem. coaches need to be thinking further into the future of the runner's whose training schedules they are planning. any high school coach that is coaching someone that clearly will continue running in college should be thinking about setting them up for success at that level. the best thing that a high school coach can do to prepare a runner for college is steadily, yet appropriately, increase the volume of an athlete's mileage, introduce longer interval training (1000m-1600m), and start the athlete on regular doses of weekly LT runs.

workouts at the high school level are a problem. most athletes that enter my program never do anything over 600m in length in a workout. i started making my recruits fill in training logs over the past few years and the percentage of athletes doing 200s and 400s during cross country is mind boggling. why are coaches obsessed with running 400s? you are training the atheltes to finish strong, that's great, but who the hell cares how hard they can finish when they don't have the aerobic strength to run with the leaders?

at the college level, if you have someone that has the talent to run competitively after college, the planning must be geared toward long-term development. the goal should be to have the athlete improve in performance and fitness each of the 4-5 years that they are in school. if that happens, i think many more athletes would focus on training a bit more after college. i see lots of runners level off after their sophomore and junior years. i think that a long-term approach to training, one that builds upon the previous year in a logical progressive way, leads to PRs during the final meets of a senior's athletic career.

i also think that coaches need to encourage athletes to stay at it a little longer - after graduation from college. every year hundreds of students rush to the workforce that could, two to three years down the road, if they continue to train, see large gains in fitness. coaches have a great deal of influence on their athletes. more should be encouraged to stay on at college and attend grad school, be a resident director, etc... something that will allow them to save money, start to pay off their loans (if they have any), and not worry about housing or meals.

the key to bringing along distance runners in this country or any country is ... a long-term development approach to training. high school and college coaches, for the most part, want their athletes to run their fastest races while they are under their guidance. that is misguided thinking. college coaches should be proud when an athlete experiences success in running years after they leave college. some would say that the coach, had they known what they were doing, could have done more or had another all-American. the simple truth is that the coach, knowingly or unknowingly, set the athlete up for long-term success.

"Training for the 8-10 years post-collegiately makes for great memories and experiences that cannot be replicated elsewhere but I have to respectfully disagree that one doesn't sacrafice something for it."

Who the heck is suggesting this takes 8-10 years? Give yourself 3-4 years of dedicated work, then if you aren't seeing results get on with your life if that's what you feel you need/want to do. Set a reasonable timeline to chase your dream (this keeps your parents and the significant other off your back too). People do well with relatively shorter timelines where there is a sense of urgency and the light at the other end is visable, they don't do well with an eternity. 8-10 years is an eternity. I ran 26 miles back to back at 5:20 pace 8 years ago much of which I can't remember. Today I cannot manage a single one that pace. Trust me, 8 years is an eternity.

3-4 years is an entirely reasonable timeframe to live on mac and cheese and see how good you can be. Most males in this country run their best times at the age of 24-27. I would bet that for most American males reading this thread, that's the case. Why? Because by and large most males run their best times in the 8-10th year of competitive running and most in this country start running in HS when they are 14-17 years old. That means they'll run their PR's at 24-27. Not likely at all that if you're 22, ran in high school competitively and continued on with college track and XC that you'll set your PR's at 30-32, you'll be on the downward slope by then.

They give you 3-4 years in high school to mature, 4 or so in college, give post collegiate running 3-4 years as well to see results. If you're 22, you're a freshman in post collegiate ruunning. The biggest improvements are to come and for most male athletes this comes at ages 24-27 so quit if you want, but you gotta know that the statistics say you are folding your hand holding a full house while the Waiting Career on the other side of the table is holding a pair.

Regarding the lost competitive advantages in the workplace, I sincerely doubt a 22 year old is going to have that much of a competitive advantage over a 26 year old with a similar education so if you sincerely want to see how good you can be, stop rationalizing and get your butt in gear. Get on with your double days, the long runs, the 200's, 400's, 800's, mile reps, the hill reps, etc - chase the dream and enjoy having fun racing and living like a running bum for a little while longer, then marry Jane, buy the SUV, the white picket fence, the Harley and get the Wall Street Journal delivered on your doorstep for pennies a day content that you gave yourself a legit shot at being your best.

If you'd rather go onto a career, well that's fine too. Go make a boat load of cash and don't look back. The only thing I'd ask is that you don't forget us small fries when we come knocking on your office door (wit a view of course) looking for a handout like a plane ticket to send a deserving kid to a meet in Michigan on 6/10 when you get to the top.

Joe

Kevin Hanson said:

I GUARANTEE that if you are not willing to invest 8-10 years after college, that you will never achieve much in our sport.

Great perspectives being offered---allow me a few. I've had the opportunity to compete and coach at an Olympic level, several universities and six h.s. as my journey took me around this country. In my 60s now, my perspective has changed and grown.

We genuinely do have a clash of cultures and expectations going on in the U.S. in 04. When I coached overseas, I was really taken by the club system which allowed a neighborhood kid to be coached by the same people for 25 years in some cases and eventually by the same national level coaches if he/she reached that level.

I'm currently coaching my first love, high schoolers, this being the 7th h.s. over a 45 year period. There is a real clash between the objectives of the h.s. coach and the so-called summer track clubs for young kids. Most of the summer clubs are sprint/field oriented and the level of competency in coaching is enormous, as it can be in h.s. Your h.s. athletes are tired and need a break plus the rebuilding base period over the summer. The last thing a knowledgeable h.s. coach wants is intense summer racing and speed work. Our weakness begins at this fundamental point of no long term agreement on the big picture and the gradual development of an athlete, particularly 800-3200.

We ignore the foundation for short term success and ego stroking and lose countless prospects along the way because of the stresses and expectations of the h.s. and college scheduling athletically, not to mention academically and the expectations of parents who have little knowledge or understanding of the problem or conflict.

Kids who've been developed appropriately over a long period, learn to love the sport and the activity. Kids thrown into a crash course/intense training program with no build up, quickly get hurt, disappointed and disappear.

I don't know an easy solution, but 40 years of love and participation at every level of our sport has taught me that unless we recognize the underlying cultural clashes and conflicts pulling at our efforts we are doomed to continual failure. We have the numbers, the facilities, the technical knowledge, the institutions, many trained coaches, yet we continue to ignore some basic fundamental flaws in our system or lack of a system. We can't dismiss our h.s. and college programs easily, but how do we get a more coordinated approach that allows for proper development. The club system can be a big part of the solution, but our current use of it is much too helter skelter and not blended with our h.s. and college system.

yes! while a high school coach, the place i would rather be as well, i often fueded with local summer club coaches that showed up at our meets begging kids to join. the promises of trips to the "national meets" and other things sound great to a young 15-16 year old. the kids want to succeed and win medals, go to bigger races, travel, etc.. the problem is that, certainly in the middle and long distance races, the summer season should not be spent racing. i truly believe that a runner can peak twice a year, trying to hold on to that peak for too long, or attempting to peak again in july as a high schooler is a recipe for disaster over the long term.

we've all seen tons of young runners accomplish a great deal at a young age (parental pressure or club coaches) and then end up doing little after high school. this trend needs to stop. a female teammate of mine in high school was a "world beater" in 7th and 8th grade. in college she never got any better. the trophy room in her house didn't grow very much after 10th grade ... it was, of course, already overflowing ... she could have been a very solid and competitive runner in college and possibly beyond. right now in my area there are two young female atheltes that are "tearing up the roads and tracks" ...

only time will tell, but the club coach VS high school coach is a good point. amen for mentioning it here on one of the best posts i have seen in years.

Joe:

Once again a sage speaks the truth. I support your contention that most runners simply need to give it a full-commitment for 3-4 years post-collegiately to see what they can do. I have told people who want to be great distance runners to run until they hit thier 28th birthday, and if they haven't seen the results they thought would be possible, despite full-commitment, then they should hang up the racing shoes and just run 20-30 minutes per day for their health. Perhaps my suggestion is extended too long. Tinman

It's a very impressive discussion going on here. The hard thing is to get to the next step, or even decide what that step should and can reasonably be. I'm a lousy administrator and waste way too much time trying to organize things, but would love to get together to discuss in person some of these issues. I don't know when or how, but it sure could be a good thing in my mind. Help is needed.

As someone who is currently experiencing the club running system in Europe, I can honestly say that competitive and training opportunities are much greater for the sub-elite runners of the world.

While I 100% agree that the attitude of the athlete is the deciding factor in their improvement rate, the environment is such that more would be encourage to give it a go after college.

Anyway, a true club system would be amazingly difficult to foster in the US, so I won't go on about it.

The real question (as brought up by Joe Rubio) is what has accounted for fewer athletes who are willing to make a committment or put in time after college? Where has the attitude gone? Of my running friends in college, only myself and one other still "train" rather than just run. (yes, I had more than just one running friend) This is common for most people I know.

I honestly don't know the answer to this. Most likely it is a bunch of different factors.

How do we get this back?

you certainly have the respect of enough of your peers to at least call for or suggest a coaches forum on distance running at the d3 national meet this november. sitting down and talking about training, although i think a good number of people wouldn't attend, is a great idea. maybe if it is done at d3 other levels would follow. the usatf, if they wish to promote coaching education, should look at a collection of coaches whose athletes are already running at a relatively high level as a group of people willing to do anything to get their hands on information that could make their teams (thus American distance running) better.

i think that even more important than getting usatf certification, is a group of coaches sitting down and talking about things.

if you were willing to speak people would certainly listen. i remember engaging in a little small talk with you while waiting in line to purchase our extra all-American certificates. the guy that was selling them was reading your book! he was certainly excited about interacting with you. i was happy to learn earlier in the year that you had returned to cortland, before the race i introduced myself as our runners started in the same box.

i too, hope that something more comes out of this thread.

So now what? What do we need to do? Here's one's guys opinion.

First off, when you're an athlete or a guy in business you gotta have 2 things to succeed. A goal and at least a general plan to get there. Neither by itself is good, you have to have both. Same for us as a sport, we all know what we want, we need a plan to get it done. If there is a plan, athletes will have something to aspire to, coaches likewise. Here's one to consider:

Everyone has lots and lots of good input, lots of things that are wrong that should be improved, things that used to work that need to be brought back, reasons for kids to stay in the sport, etc. Here's a basic road map outlining goals for all of us (coaches and athletes) to strive for given our individual priorities of where are interests lie in distance running and where we are best utilized.

Personally I have always referred to the model developed by Istvan Balyi on developing athletes when deciding on my coaching approach for a particular level of athlete. Why? Because the goals and the way you approach athletes are very different depending on where that athlete is in their development cycle and he makes each stage pretty clearly defined which helps me. In his model there are 5 stages of development an athlete goes through in their careers, each needs to be completed successfully in order to reach the next highest levels effectively, they are:

1. Train for FUNdamentals

2. Train to Train

3. Train to Compete

4. Train to Win

5. Retirement

Below are each in greater detail and the teaching/coaching goals for each stage.

1. Train for FUNdamentals: The emphasis is on the overall development of the athlete?s physical capacities, and fundamental movement skills, and the ABC's of athleticism - Agility, Balance, Coordination and Speed. Participation in as many sports as possible is encouraged. Speed, power and endurance are developed using FUN games. Correct running, jumping and throwing techniques are taught, using the ABC's of athletics.

2. Train to Train: During the Training to Train stage young athletes learn how to train and they also learn the basic skills of a specific sport. As well, they are introduced to the basic technical/tactical skills and ancillary capacities including: warm up and cool down, stretching, hydration and nutrition, recovery and regeneration, mental preparation, taper and peak, integrated pre-competition routines and post-competition recovery.

During competitions athletes? play to win and to do their best, but the major focus of training is on learning the basics as opposed to competing. Training and competition ratios are optimised because too many competitions waste valuable training time and conversely, not enough competition inhibits the practice of technical skills and learning how to cope with the physical and mental challenges presented during competition.

3. Train to Compete: This phase of development is introduced after the goals and objectives of the Training to Train stage have been achieved. During the Training to Compete stage, high intensity individual and sport-specific training is provided to athletes year round. Athletes, who are now proficient at performing both basic and sport specific skills, learn to perform these skills under a variety of competitive conditions during training. Special emphasis is placed on optimum preparation by modelling training and competition. Fitness programs, recovery programs, psychological preparation and technical development are now individually tailored to a greater degree. This emphasis on individual preparation addresses each athlete?s individual strength and weaknesses.

4. Train to Win: This is the final stage of athletic preparation. All of the athlete?s physical, technical, tactical, mental, and ancillary capacities are now fully established and the focus of training has shifted to the optimisation of performance. Athletes are trained to peak for major competitions. Training is characterized by high intensity and relatively high volume. Frequent breaks help to prevent physical and mental burnouts.

5. Retirement

"So what the heck does this mean to me Rubio?" Well simple (at least to me it is). Each stage represents a different level of our sport (youth/jr HS, high school, college/post collegiate, worldclass). Each stage lists goals and preferred outcomes of training, it sets expectations, it's a road map. If we use it as a general plan at least we have a starting point which will help a ton.

If you are a youth coach, you are in the Train for Fun stage. Your job is to teach the ABC's of sports (agility, balance, coordination, speed) teach fair play, expose the kids to lots of sports so they become proficient at moving their bodies in space, they become "natural athletes" able to pick up any sport down the road and be decent. They know how to sprint, jump, hurdle, they have balance, they can tumble, etc. Those that go into track will do so because they love running. The job here is not to get the kid running 100 miles per week, it's not to win a gold medal, it's not to be a little league parent, it's to teach the basic fundamentals of all sports. If you have a HS kid just coming out for the first sports in their lives it's proably best to view them in this stage at least intially, so the emphasis is on development of the ABC's, not on aerobic development.

If you are a high school coach and the kids you get are somewhat athletic already, chances are your program should use train to train stage as goals. If you look at the better programs around they win year in and year our primarily because the kids fall into a system that get's them fitter than anyone else and because of this they generally win. Many colleges are like this too. The athlete learn that if they train daily, they have success. Those that work hard win, if they do double days, they succeed, etc. Weely mileage goals, double days, all the basics are taught and necessarily need to be learned to move onto the next stage.

Train to Compete is what I try to do with my Oly Trials type people./ We don't focus on the training so much kinda because they trust the system for the most part and if they can't get out of bed for a double run at this point they haven't learned everything they need to from the train to train stage, so are not a mature enough athlete for a Train to Compete program at this stage of their career. For those in the Train to Compete stage, we tilt the focus onto competition. We manipulate their training based on particular meets, we emphasize competition specific aspects in our workouts, we periodize the season, we individualize the workouts more, we expect you to race consistently and base the success of the program on how you race. I don't know this for a fact, but I would think the top level college programs, Keith and Kevin, the Farm Team, etc fall into this stage of development.

Where we are really missing the boat is in the final stage. We are not good as a nation in the Train to Win stage. Other countries have Train to Win programs/camps for these athletes (Morroco, Spain, Japan, etc), we keep people in their Train to Train group with the same expectaions and goals, then expect miracles.

When people get to the Train to Win stage I believe we should take our best people in each event and do one of 2 things.

1. Have them move into an environment where they live the full time athlete lifestyle, they train with the best atletes we have in their event, we have the top coach or coaches in our country guiding them. USATF takes them to the top meets, they run a structured program all focused upon winning a medal or placing in top level comp. The only people invited here would need to meet strict standards of performance or have show the ability to get it done. College kids would need to be very good or show extreme promise to jump right in here. It would take in my mind a Oly "A" standard time to earn your spot in this elite group.

2. For athletes who do not want to move away or who would prefer to stay with their current coach, we have these athletes stay with their Train to Train program but insist that athlete and coach follow the program outline (training and racing) established by the national event coaching staff. The athlete and coach would be required to attend mini camps with the rest of the athletes in the national development program and become a true team of top level athletes working towards the same goal insteadof against each other in the quest of earning a medal or top placing in international competition.

We would have very few athletes in the Train to Win level programs. Maybe 3-5 athletes per event disciplines (800/1500, 1500/ steeple/5k, 5k/10k, 10k/marathon) and you'd need a guy like me willing to let a guy like Sev or Vigil take my female marathoners once they were at a level that warranted it. I'd have no problem with it, still others might, so allowing the athlete and coach to maintain their current sitaution while following the national program could work. The other advantage of this set up is the cost. It wouldn't kill the bank, plus it seems to me getting a sponsor to cover an event discipline with a few athlete focused entirely on achieving worldwide success has appeal.

Right now, we do not have anything for athletes to aspire to beyond Train to Train programs, we have nothing for a coach like me to use as a carrot beyond making a spot on the Olympic team. We need to get the top part of our pyramid set up to achieve what we all want.

Thoughts?

Joe

I just got back from an ASICS meeting and some of the big wigs at ASICS seemed responsive to helping the funding of such a meeting.So hopefully we can get this together in possibly the next year.

It`s a great program, but very difficult to implement.

There would be some serious, serious clash of personalities with this development model in distance running. Great for power events, a clash of thinking for distance events.

Eastern block athlete development for their former sport schooling system VS Western thinking, imho. As an example, Summer of Malmo would definately not fly (I`m not knocking it, nor endorsing, just stating).

It`s a very well packaged Eastern block model that looks at biological maturation, cognitive development, long term 10+ years development, etc, etc It is a model for all sport, that must be kept in mind...it applies to water polo as it does to distance running.

It`s a good organizational tool, but in the USA it has to go through the schooling system. The schooling system in the US is football-basketball $$$ friendly.