Better Track Head Coach- Distance or Sprints

Of course you are going to get a lot of responses that say distance coaches are better.

The truth is there are far more points and events geared toward speed than distance so my opinion is a sprint coach is better.

in high school, a distance coach is best. im not sure that's true in levels beyond.

distance coaches get a ton out of events from 400/4x400 through 3200.

And I don't believe sprints guys are going to be typically any better in hurdles, unless they are hurdles guys. Sprints coaches are probably also more likely to do better with jumps.

The thing is, in high school, the truly talented sprints/jumps guys are just going to win, whether they coached are not. Sprinters are born. In distance, a kid who might be an 11:00+ nobody on a team without a coach, can be a sub 10:00 point scorer with somebody who develops distance runners.

high school xc coach wrote:

in high school, a distance coach is best. im not sure that's true in levels beyond.

distance coaches get a ton out of events from 400/4x400 through 3200.

And I don't believe sprints guys are going to be typically any better in hurdles, unless they are hurdles guys. Sprints coaches are probably also more likely to do better with jumps.

The thing is, in high school, the truly talented sprints/jumps guys are just going to win, whether they coached are not. Sprinters are born. In distance, a kid who might be an 11:00+ nobody on a team without a coach, can be a sub 10:00 point scorer with somebody who develops distance runners.

I agree with your point that being a good sprinter is 99% genetic. For that reason, and the fact that sprint coaches are useless in cross country, it's better to have a distance head coach.

We can all agree that having a throws head coach is the WORST.

Your question exposes the problems. The head coach is a track and field coach, not a distance coach, not a Sprint coach, bit a track and field coach. If they identify as one event area, they are not head coach material.

The tribalism in our sport and the inability to coaches multiple event areas are part of our demise.

Sprints , you have to coach “ athletes” , the distance guys are weirdos who spend time talking about Gwen .

It’s always interesting to me to hear distance coaches devaluing sprint training.

Top sprint coaches do the same with distance coaches.

The truth is that proper sprint training is complex. It’s a game of fractions of a second. Block starts, top speed, and form are extremely important and need a trained eye to get it right.

I understand in some way about your points about sprints in high school. But, keep in mind that most sprint based coaches are not knowledgeable on how to coach it.

The idea that distance coaches are better so they can train sprinters to race longer is odd. Why would

you if they are better at sprinting?

otter wrote:

The truth is that proper sprint training is complex. It’s a game of fractions of a second. Block starts, top speed, and form are extremely important and need a trained eye to get it right.

on the other hand, you can be an elite distance runner simply by running a lot with absolutely nobody watching you

Totally depends on the program and their resources. Some good and some bad with both. A sprint based program can win championships simply because there are more points available and athletes can double and triple easier. The downside is bad in 1/3 of the seasons.

otter wrote:

It’s always interesting to me to hear distance coaches devaluing sprint training.

Top sprint coaches do the same with distance coaches.

The truth is that proper sprint training is complex. It’s a game of fractions of a second. Block starts, top speed, and form are extremely important and need a trained eye to get it right.

I understand in some way about your points about sprints in high school. But, keep in mind that most sprint based coaches are not knowledgeable on how to coach it.

The idea that distance coaches are better so they can train sprinters to race longer is odd. Why would

you if they are better at sprinting?

Good post!

otter wrote:

It’s always interesting to me to hear distance coaches devaluing sprint training.

Top sprint coaches do the same with distance coaches.

The truth is that proper sprint training is complex. It’s a game of fractions of a second. Block starts, top speed, and form are extremely important and need a trained eye to get it right.

I understand in some way about your points about sprints in high school. But, keep in mind that most sprint based coaches are not knowledgeable on how to coach it.

The idea that distance coaches are better so they can train sprinters to race longer is odd. Why would

you if they are better at sprinting?

And I'm a distance coach. Sprinting is basically a different sport and I have no earthly idea how to coach it beyond identifying who the fast kids are with no training. Again, I completely agree with this.

Sprints.

Distance coaches are usually former distance runners, who are known for being self-sabotaging headcases.

Sprinters get pu$$y

If you are a T&F assistant coach who only coaches 3200m runners, you have found your appropriate level. Please do not ever request to coach sprinters. Please do not every request to be head T&F coach with your attitude toward sprinters.

Now, this is completely anecdotal to the small area I coach in. In my ten years of coaching at the high school level, I have met and worked with ONE sprints coach who is analytical the way that many distances coaches are. Just from the head coaches I've met, those with distance backgrounds are more likely to put in the time to study effective, training routines for everything from sprints to vault to distance.

high school xc coach wrote:

Now, this is completely anecdotal to the small area I coach in. In my ten years of coaching at the high school level, I have met and worked with ONE sprints coach who is analytical the way that many distances coaches are. Just from the head coaches I've met, those with distance backgrounds are more likely to put in the time to study effective, training routines for everything from sprints to vault to distance.

I am sure there are sprint coaches in your conference that are breaking 100m down into multiple segments with film study. I trained as a sprinter very briefly then promoted or demoted to middle distance. All depends how one views sprinting versus middle distance I guess. Still was asked to race events as short as 200m from time to time. Runners, 800m and up see sprinters on track doing 50s & 150s with plenty of recovery. Runners do not see the effort sprinters put in weight room. If runners think about it, many 10.1 or 10.2 100m men or 20.3 to 20.5 200m men are not much faster than fastest college & pro Am. football players, 40 yard dash. The difference, due to the training and practice, elite sprinters can hold their speed past 50m. Many college football & NFL guys who never were track athletes cannot sprint well past 50m. Elite 100m & 200m sprinting is not natural. Elite sprinting certainly is not 99% genetic. Takes a lot of hard work! Sprinters risk catastrophic injuries, both while sprinting and also in weight room.

As someone who is a distance coach under a head track coach/director that isn't a distance coach, I will say that it's very frustrating.

Why?

Because you are asking a person to be in charge of and make day-to-day decisions for a sport they don't even coach! They're unqualified for the job! Why in the world would you have a baseball coach make decisions for the basketball team?

However, a distance coach understands both worlds and is therefore naturally more suited to the role. I will add that protections need to be put in place to preserve the investment in non-distance events. IE separate track and xc scholarships.

otter wrote:

Of course you are going to get a lot of responses that say distance coaches are better.

The truth is there are far more points and events geared toward speed than distance so my opinion is a sprint coach is better.

Ask John McDonnell.

pinky and the brains wrote:

As someone who is a distance coach under a head track coach/director that isn't a distance coach, I will say that it's very frustrating.

Why?

Because you are asking a person to be in charge of and make day-to-day decisions for a sport they don't even coach! They're unqualified for the job! Why in the world would you have a baseball coach make decisions for the basketball team?

However, a distance coach understands both worlds and is therefore naturally more suited to the role. I will add that protections need to be put in place to preserve the investment in non-distance events. IE separate track and xc scholarships.

Head T&F coach is like a conductor of a full orchestra. A shot putter may weight over 300 pounds. Hurdlers, jumpers, sprinters, and throwers on hs T&F team may have all played Pop Warner football together. I cannot imagine anyone besides a former hurdler, jumper, sprinter or thrower as head track coach. So you and head track coach butt heads. Resource allocation issues? I doubt head T&F coach cares how distance coach trains 3200m runners. I will give you an example that may have made a distance coach upset a bit. Steve Holman. He raced 3200m as a freshman or sophomore in something like 10:01 to 10:10. Head track & field coach decided Holman would not race 3200m anymore. Head T&F coach needed Steve Holman for 4 x 400m. That is why head T&F coaches should not be former distance runners. A former college 10000m and XC D-1 All-American would have ruined Holman, attempting to make Holman a sub-9 3200m guy in hs. And it would have been bad for the team not having Holman on 4 x 400m relay since 3200m and 4 x 400m are not practical. Distance coaches do not understand both worlds. It is not either or as I stated. There are so many different athletes, so many events, T&F. If former sprinter head T&F coach wants you to train the 1600m guys as Peter Coe would have trained a 1600m guy instead of the Lydiard style, former sprinter T&F head coach may be correct.

Al Cantello was a thrower. He put together some outstanding distance squads at Navy.

Franz Stampfl was a thrower. He coached everything (his quote was something to the effect of "what's wrong with knowing all the events?"), yet perhaps was best known for the moderate success of his athletes Roger Bannister and Ralph Doubell in the middle distances.

The best distance coach I ever worked with, Tim Hale, was himself a long jumper and hurdler. Steve Dolan, who's had considerable distance success at TCNJ and Penn, was a multi-eventer and javelin specialist. And Frank Gagliano. who was a quarterback, has coached, what, ~50 sub-4:00 milers?

Whatever one's personal athletic background, the key is that s/he be willing to learn, and to understand that we coach people, not events. A head coach who doesn't make the effort to gain a feel for all the events, and more importantly for the people who compete in them, is mentally lazy--even though s/he put in 60-90 hours of hard work each week.

As an assistant coach I've had various assignments that have taken me through all the event groups (throwers, jumpers, hurdlers, sprinters, distance, multis). Having coached in all the events has made me better in each, and much better at working with and empathizing with my students.

im sure there are examples where you are correct, but in the world that I participate in, distance runners almost always take up at least 1 or 2 spots on a 4x400. And very often, the best ones in the league are made up of 3 or 4 mid distance/distance runners.

Distance coaches LOVE the 4x400 in most cases, and good coaches often have 2 to 4 relay teams on the track to end a meet.