ED EYESTONE THROWS SERIOUS SHADE AT SUDBURY, GAUSON, AND SMITH FOR INTERNATIONAL RECRUITING

malmo wrote:

deaf ears ed wrote:

Undoubtedly, yes. How many Mormons do you know? It is not the sedentary lifestyle that many defenders of the practice try to paint. These are some of the top distance talents in the country, how long do you think it takes them to get back aerobic fitness? Not 3-4 years, that’s for sure. And then they reap the benefits of being 25-26 year olds in their athletic prime.

Amen. LRC is the place that allows the least informed and least experienced. Physical development occurs regardless of the (running) training levels during those two years. How many times do injured runners come back better than ever during extended training breaks? Often.

Puberty is a powerful training enhancer, regardless of the actual training. Ever look at pictures of yourself during the growth years? Not just pictures of yourself in your hs running gear, but pictures of headshots? At 14, 16, 18, 20, 22? You look entirely different from year to year. I saw a team photo from my freshman year of college. I looked like a little kid who snuck in the photo.

Only in the LRC fantasy world do they think Mormons lose irrecoverable fitness due to the mission. It doesn't happen. I've said before in this thread, I wished that I took off a year or two before starting college. It would have made a huge difference.

Just to make sure anyone doesn't misinterpret what I've said. I admire what Eyestone and BYU has done. I like the whole clean living thing. There is a lot to be said about it. But when it comes to complaining about over-aged Kenyans, Eyestone should just zip it. He's the last NCAA coach who has a bona fide complaint.

i ran in the 90s wrote:

malmo wrote:

Amen. LRC is the place that allows the least informed and least experienced. Physical development occurs regardless of the (running) training levels during those two years. How many times do injured runners come back better than ever during extended training breaks? Often.

Puberty is a powerful training enhancer, regardless of the actual training. Ever look at pictures of yourself during the growth years? Not just pictures of yourself in your hs running gear, but pictures of headshots? At 14, 16, 18, 20, 22? You look entirely different from year to year. I saw a team photo from my freshman year of college. I looked like a little kid who snuck in the photo.

Only in the LRC fantasy world do they think Mormons lose irrecoverable fitness due to the mission. It doesn't happen. I've said before in this thread, I wished that I took off a year or two before starting college. It would have made a huge difference.

Just to make sure anyone doesn't misinterpret what I've said. I admire what Eyestone and BYU has done. I like the whole clean living thing. There is a lot to be said about it. But when it comes to complaining about over-aged Kenyans, Eyestone should just zip it. He's the last NCAA coach who has a bona fide complaint.

malmo
Registered User
Look, I know this is going to make some of you clutch your pearls, but someone needs to say it: more high school runners should take a couple years off before jumping into college running.

Before you start hyperventilating, understand what “taking time off” means. It does not mean two years on the couch with a Costco-sized tub of cheese balls. I’m talking about two years of growing up, building a foundation, learning how to train like an adult without a helicopter coach tracking your mileage on spreadsheets.

Every year we get the same story:
Kid runs 9:20 for 3200, signs with a mid-major, shows up in August, immediately gets thrown into 80-mile weeks because “that’s what the team does.” By October he’s hurt, by January he’s burnt out, and by March he’s wondering if he should switch to triathlon.

Here’s the dirty little secret no one likes to acknowledge: most 17- and 18-year-olds are not physically or mentally ready for collegiate training. You’re still growing. You’re still figuring out who you are. And college coaches — bless them — don’t have time to babysit 20 freshmen who can’t handle anything harder than tempo pace without blowing a gasket.

Take a year or two and do the following:
Learn how to train consistently. Not hero weeks, not Strava-bait workouts, just consistent, sensible training.
Get stronger. Your body will thank you later.
Learn discipline without pressure. No conference meets. No trying to impress upperclassmen. Just you and the work.
Let your aerobic system mature. Yes, that’s a real thing. Biology is undefeated.
Arrive at college as a grown-up, not a project.

The NCAA will still be there when you’re 20. Your eligibility clock doesn’t evaporate. And guess what? Coaches love runners who show up durable, developed, and ready to contribute — not kids they have to bubble-wrap.

I’m not saying everyone should do this. The phenoms will be fine. But for 80% of you? A runway is better than a crash.

Stop rushing. The sport will wait.

— malmo (fictional)

freekiprop2 wrote:

OED wrote:

So 2 years and 5 months after graduating high school, Connor was in the same shape he was in… in high school. I ask again, where’s the advantage? This simply shows that from a beginning baseline at his high school fitness level, he then competed for four years.

Well you can say “2 years and 5 months after graduating high school” to make it sound unfavorable, or you could say that he was a 21 year old freshman rapidly coming back to top form. In the spring season he would improve his 5k pb by 32 seconds and qualify for NCAAs.

Most people 2 years and 5 months removed from high school are juniors. Most freshmen are 18 or 19, and many don’t even find their high school form right away. See the UW runners this year or many of Stanford’s recent additions including Leo Young.

Relative to his high school performances and other freshmen transitioning to the NCAA (mission or not), I would say that Conner had a very good freshman year, and he then had the benefit of competing until he was 25.

Maybe he would’ve progressed all the same if he hadn’t taken two years off and been a world beater as a 21 year old senior. It’s hard to make any definitive claims with hypotheticals like this

OED wrote:

freekiprop2 wrote:

Well you can say “2 years and 5 months after graduating high school” to make it sound unfavorable, or you could say that he was a 21 year old freshman rapidly coming back to top form. In the spring season he would improve his 5k pb by 32 seconds and qualify for NCAAs.

Most people 2 years and 5 months removed from high school are juniors. Most freshmen are 18 or 19, and many don’t even find their high school form right away. See the UW runners this year or many of Stanford’s recent additions including Leo Young.

Relative to his high school performances and other freshmen transitioning to the NCAA (mission or not), I would say that Conner had a very good freshman year, and he then had the benefit of competing until he was 25.

Maybe he would’ve progressed all the same if he hadn’t taken two years off and been a world beater as a 21 year old senior. It’s hard to make any definitive claims with hypotheticals like this

That’s my point though. People say things like he was a 21 year old freshman and then compare him to other freshman as if there were in the exact same position only Mantz was older. Everyone seems to dismiss the fact that Mormon missionaries don’t train for two years as irrelevant when it so obviously isn’t.