Agree or disagree: Kyle Merber: "The value of training partners greatly outweighs the benefit of good coaching."

For sure this is the case. And it might even be more beneficial if one of the training partners is the coach.

One of the most obvious truisms around

Yeah at an elite level it's all about physical talent, but that mental aspect gives you the edge in the race and the ability to push yourself to new heights at a point when normal people would give up. It totally matters not necessarily to never doubt yourself, but to keep pushing mentally and because of that be able to keep pushing yourself physically.

Yes good training partners/environment is key. I'd imagine training on your own can only get you so far but not to your peak potential. Even if the training partners are a notch below, they can still be helpful in various ways without compromising their own training.

Rojo you are definitely right on the idea that “belief” isn’t really that big a deal in and of itself. Commitment, consistency, talent and training all more important. Belief is a result of putting in the work over time. I like Kyle and agree with much of what he says, but I think he’s mixing two thoughts together. Yes the minute differences in the nuances of training might be overblown (and that’s often over-emphasized in coaching). But that doesn’t mean that coaching is really overrated because it feels like nowadays coaches do a lot more than just run “their system.” They tweak workouts, individualize programs, help set the racing schedule, take in athlete feedback and so on. I think the importance of training partners is highly variable depending on the athlete. But coaching is pretty important no matter what.

I have come to realize it is not just on the track that training partners help, it is also the conversations before and after practice that help give you a 24 hour mindset of improving. That is why a team that works together and talks shop together can improve greatly, while a team that doesn’t work together could do the same workouts withouts and not get the same benefits.

The "belief" part can be as simple as seeing teammates putting in the work and succeeding. A lot of distance training is just showing up day after day, and even seemingly minor accountability of daily runs with others can can really ease the process.

I never have to give much of a thought to my speed work during the week because it's a given that on track night the group will help me rise to the session. Bodies and camaraderie is all I need to succeed with that element. Zero mental friction on that.

That said, I doubt I could train every day with a group. I need the alone time on many days.

the ONLY determining factor is talent. NAU is actually the perfect example.

Grijalva and Nur succeeded not because Mike Smith is Yoda, or because they had fast teammates. They made world championship teams because they are some of the most talented athletes in the world.

Having a lot of training partners and a good culture is IMPERATIVE for recruiting at the college level, though. Once on campus, it doesn't help the athletes nearly as much as you'd think because there are still athletes at top programs that fail, and fail miserably.

I think it depends on the person.

Im fine training on my own, I’m good at hitting splits and don’t like getting sucked into other peoples workouts, but having a coach there giving me real time feedback on my form, posture, pacing, giving smart adjustments to my workout if things aren’t going well but also knowing when to tell me to keep pushing is invaluable to me.

I'd 100 percent rather coach myself and train with a big group of guys than train solo even with an excellent coach, so to each his own. Obviously you need both to really meet your max potential though

Talent obviously is most important. Stories of random HS coaches, ones who have coached their whole lives and never had somebody break 4:30 in the mile, suddenly coaching a national champion, are not uncommon. These coaches didn’t get any better at coaching or motivating their athletes, they just finally had an athlete win the talent lottery. Wasn’t it Gary Martin’s HS coach who had never had an athlete break 5 minutes before Gary? The best college and pro coaches are primarily the best judges and then recruiters of talent, and maybe they are able to motivate their athletes a little bit more than others, that’s why they succeed more than their peers. 95% of being a “great” coach it is just about accumulating talent and not about “coaching” in the traditional sense. As for training partners, I do think having good partners helps a little bit in terms of motivation and accountability, but again, just on the margins. Talent is everything and the rest is marginal.

If you really want to knuckle down to the answer you can take the idea to the extremes.

Take two runners with the same PRs. Runner one gets full on, 100% individualized training from Mike Smith/Geoff Wightman/Pat Sang/insert world class coach here but they have to do every rep solo. The other gets *the perfect* training partner - fitter than them so they can lead every rep but not so much so that they run away from you - non toxic, encouraging, cooks you dinner every night. However they have to follow the training plan of my high school coach who never did track but was the school footbal coach. One week he gave us 20 x 150 on Monday, 6 all out K Tuesday, and we had a meet Thursday where most of us tripled.

There's only going to be one winning athlete coming out of that and it is not the one with the best training partner.

Obviously that's extreme. Change it up to runner 1 having the best coach and runner 2 having a perfect training partner and a moderately competent coach then maybe you take situation 2. So realistically it is highly variable and situational.

Still makes me think Merber didn't have the best coaches.

This is the part of your post I partially disagree with. I was one of the least accomplished HS kids on my collegiate cross country team. But I was the most talented and I had no idea. Nobody did. My collegiate teammates had generally trained much harder than I had in HS. When I joined them, it was everything for me in terms of my development. Just to be able to run with these guys in practice was the most important factor in my improvement, and you are correct about motivation and accountability, but for me to run with these guys was everything, as racing well then inevitably followed.

Kyle's statement should be preceded with the words "To me"

Some will have had similar experiences and agree with his sentiment

Others will have had the success of their running careers hinge on a single coach that saw their talent and helped them become who they are

Ultimately though, a great coach knows their athletes need training partners and will manifest a team environment where everyone lifts one another up

Not sure Kyle is an expert in the value of coaching and training partners. Here is an article on the recent Australian 800m champion who has come from the depths. Kyle read the last sentence of the article.

wwos.nine.com.au

Aussie's epic rise from 'meathead' to running champ

Looming showdown with Olympian

Open link

How you managed to pull Semenya into this is just wow.

On the actual topic, I can see the downsides of having faster training partners, where maybe you're pushing too hard in training. That can lead to racing your workouts and to disappointing results. Plus you're comparing yourself to the faster runners every day, which can't be good for your mindset. I think it's hard for HS or college athletes to run within themselves when they're training in a group. That's a big skill to get down.

But I also agree with Merber that coaching isn't always about writing the most clever workout. It doesn't matter if you prescribe threshold k's or a tempo run. It's important to get in the work. Rojo is right that athletes at a high level are super talented. The second sentence can still be true -- a good coach creates an environment where an athlete can do well. I think having a coach is more important than having training partners. It's not because I think workout design is important. It's because a coach can help an athlete get the most out of them.

I'd like to say I agree but...

Cruz trained alone. Coe trained alone. Kipketer trained alone. Rudisha trained alone.

Yes all 800m runners. Why? because if not alone they race their lactic rep work .

Cruz never trained alone -- except for every rep of a workout. His coach and teammates were there every day.