UCLA distance program

i know that a few runners do runs of 12 miles+ in the mornings on weekends that they don't race.

there are also other asst. coaches that are quite knowledgeable.

the track is awesome. rekortan, with wide turns, and about 80m straightaways. modeled after tracks in Europe.

on a run there one time, i saw several famous people, (i didn't know who they were until my friend told me later). Jim Belushi was one. heather graham another (not together). Santa Monica and that whole area is pretty cool though.

good runners are comin from there distance wise-emilson, aragon, patannan. those 3 are runnin AWESOME. 8:40 steeple, 4:00 mile, and i forget pat's PR's, but he's an awesome runner.

the program for 1 sucks because of title 9.

he can only have around 7-8 guys on the roster for track, some 12 for x/c. the girls have been upwards of 30!!

simply he treats the runners like a glass bridge, he doesnt want you injuried since covering 800 /1,500 /5,000 / 10,000/ steeple with 5-6 guys is streching it thin. if he piled on the miles his tiny group would have much higher injury rates, he's pressed to have results, school invests in the track program, they need to win.

He babies the runners with low mileage to make sure they can be healthy and run the races they are needed for. During X/C theres more freedom, its your "base for track", as soon as its over its indoor and you hit the track for repeats, X/C isnt taken seriously by most of them, thus thats why they arent a contender. 5 guys for x/c are the same doing all the distance events in track. the b squad either has to kiss ass or have some radically jump, otherwise they are weeded out in 1-2 years and are cut for some new recruits.

quotes

"Can I do 8*800 instead, I need some progression from my older workouts?"

reply: "what you did in high school wont work at this lever!" - it was slower and shorter than what I did in high school. His way or the highway!

"you ran 12*400 at 60 sec with 60 sec rec, why can't you run 12.5 laps at 72 pace??!!!"

I have to second the eyewitness on this ucla discussion. i know two guys who used to run for ulca in the last 2 years and they were kicked off for being injured and peterson is known as just a giant asshole. he asked my friend, a guy who was pretty awesome in high school and got injured trying to go beyond petersons minimilism, to quit, he said it would be better for the team. what kind of coach says that? so if your son wants to be a miler than I say go for it but the guys I knew who were true distance guys not middle distance got canned for trying to get better on high mileage and for ,doing what many do, fail. they are top notch at middle distance and have a damn good cross team for how thye train but from what I heard from the guys its too much bullshit. like trying to win the lottery; competing for 6 spots that rankin, emilson, and aragon already have 3 sewn up, its tough. sink or swim

Im currently running 1:56 as a HS junior.

UCLA is a school I'd like to go to. Do I have any kind of shot of making the team? Money is not an issue, and my grades are good. I think I can get in without being a recruit - assuming I run around a 1:52-3 at the end of next year, do I stand a chance to walk on to the team?

the best milers in the world have run tens of thousands of miles... i don't know where the coach gets his models....

Only if Irv Ray coached UCLA...Aragon would be 3:55 miler and the cross team would challenge stanford.

Select a category...pissed off people for $0 please.

Question: I was there.

Answer: Who is Kubler.

Jeopardy, I was there would be the answer and Who is Kubler would be the question. Watch the show, or if you are at UCLA learn the difference between a statement and a question.

i thought that peterson was the women's coach. is he not a good coach or guy?

For "goodtoknow" or anyone else interested...

Peterson is the head xc coach for both men and women and the distance coach in track for both as well. The head coach for men's t&f is Art Venegas (throwing coach).

If you run 1:52-53, you most definately have a shot on being on the squad. Majority of the middle dist. crew were 1:52-54 800m meter runners in hs (I'm assuming 800 is your main event since that is the only event you mentioned). Those who have toughed it out have shown great improvement within a two/three year span. Just do a good job at the big invites (Arcadia, Mt. SAC), and in CIF (I'm assuming your a Cali kid). Example: Nick Thornton was a 1:54 guy in hs, won the Arcadia Meet I think and went all the way to the state meet. After three full years, he's now a consistent sub 1:50 guy. Along with him, there are three other guys who are now 1:48-49 800m who had somewhat similar PR's in the 800 and 1600 in hs.

As far as what people say about the Peterson on this board, I certainly would take more stock in finding out who is through meeting him than opinions on a board. Things may be right for you at UCLA, or may not be your cup of tea and you will have other options. I certainly did not have it easy at UCLA, but I toughed it out and ran there all four years and certainly feel better about myself than if I would have bitched and quit or transferred. I think no matter where you go, there will always be some issue along the line, big or small, with coaches or teammates. That's life. After college, you'll certainly have bosses, co-workers, friends of friends, and even family members you don't particular take a liking too, but you'll have to deal with it. Dealing with a coach you don't like is such a small matter, and you can always turn the situation around in your favor through hard work. That's the path I chose rather than exploit my disappointment on a message board and I'm still competing today after college.

Hope that answers your question. If you run those times, drop any college coach that your interested in competing for an email or phone call. Good luck.

JPat

Man I'll tell you what if I could go back and do it all over I'd have signed with this school. Coming from the cold, crappy midwest I was worried that it would be too nice out there and turn me into a pussy so I went to a midwest school with one of the best programs in the nation.

I did all right, not great, but I could have enjoyed it at UCLA I think. Plus the school is well known and means something wherever you go. Big 10 schools, with the possible exception of Michigan, only carry weight in the state they are located in.

Life is short. Enjoy it. Go to UCLA.

Art, what type of a major is that, go to a real school and get a real education and run with a good team at Bentley College. West Coast schools are a joke

What defines a "good" school? I don't know of an accredited university where willing graduates are unable to seek employment.

Didn't Michael Granville go there?

yes he did.

Whatever happened to him? After running (I think) 1:46 in high school, I remember he and his father bragging about world records. Instead, he got steadily worse in college. Was it the program at UCLA? Injuries? Or did he just peak in high school? Maybe setting a high school record is like being on the cover of Sports Illustrated -- so many high school recordholders never have an impact even at the college level.

Granville's the poster boy for my theory that too much anaerobic work in low-volume training can permenantly burn a kid.

1993: 1:51.03 HS FR

1994: 1:48.98 HS SO

1995: 1:47.96 HS JR

1996: 1:46.45 HS SR

1997: 1:47.93 CO FR

1998: 1:47.68 CO SO

1999: 1:48.27 CO JR

2000: 1:50.97 CO SR

2001: NT

2002: 1:54.13i

2003: NT

Among other times, in 1996 Granville ran 46.1 for 400m, and 46.5 in 1998 and 2000. In 2003 he ran 49.1. In Nov. 2002 Granville ran the Farm Team 6km XC Open in 22:09 (5:57/mi).

Trackhead, you must be so knowledgeable of Michael Granville's training that you must be either Bob Larsen or John Smith, at every workout, taking every split, to be make that statement? In fact, I've seen the exact same post to the word from you on a previous Granville post.

The fact of the matter is, while some talented athletes' focus and drive to excel on the track continues over from high school to college, for others track becomes less of a priority once they have entered college with the social, academic, and athletic stresses/opportunities that present themselves. This may have been the case with Mike, as from what I understand, he came from a strict situation in high school at Bell Gardens to UCLA where there is so much to easily take up your attention aside from track. To back up that statement, I bet you did not know Granville was married in college. That's a lot of stress and emotion to go along with the rigorous academic and athletic demands on a college runner at any school, let alone UCLA.

To set things even more straight, Michael Granville ran 46.1x in 2000 for the 400 (and won PAC-10's that year in the event too) and ran 1:50-mid at Stanford Invite last year (2003). There's a lot that can be said through season bests, and at the same time they can be very deceiving. While 800m was his main focus upon his arrival to UCLA, I would say during the last two seasons he was doing 400m as much, but probably even more than 800m. If I recollect correctly, he was doing more work with John Smith than Larsen and probably more workouts towards 400 than the 800 (the year he won conf. title and a year removed from being a member of the NCAA 4x400 champions). As a result, he rarely did 800m in his sr. yr resulting in the 1:50. As far as the Farm Team Open xc results, the guy is not a xc runner, period.

Trackhead, you seem to know alot about running and I know what you are thinking writing that post, and I would have to agree. It would have been awesome to see Granville improve from that national hs record and ascend into a world class 800m runner while at UCLA. Unfortunately, that did not happen and a lot of things don't usually work out. I consider myself fortunate enough to have witness some of his great runs in hs and later have him as a teammate in college. This is not a UCLA thing, or even a Granville matter. The fact of my post is that you don't even hesitate to belittle this man's accomplishments (not knowing aything about the man personally, but on seasonal bests) in order to put yourself up by professing that you know the rights and wrongs, the do's and don'ts of training. That is the sickening thing in my mind. However, when the day ends, by doing this you are nothing more than the other Monday Morning Quarterbacks that infest this board bashing Webb, Magness and the rest. I hope you do something more with your time. But if not, I finished right behind Stember (and I'm not that good) in that Farm Team Open, you could do a "Stember, my poster boy child..." post as well. :P Until then, think before you write.

Patananan

I was not bashing anyone -- I was making a theory with regards to sport physiology. I was not being critical, bashing or whatever you would like to call it -- just observational. What did I belittle? I made no judgement on any of his performances; all I did was display them and suggest a mechanism -- what is wrong with that?