I think this is what America's distance running problem is: the most talented athletes are always injured. Why is that?

Its not all luck and you sound silly when you claim this.

You need to get over yourself and whether you think you were a better high school coach [some what 30 years ago?] or not than Cook.

He evolved, got better and learned along the way and said as much. He has incorporated training principles from others and applied them. My point was that this training methodology has taken those that have had bad injuries and kept them healthy and got them ready for the big races when it was needed.

He's not that highschool coach anymore but you keep sounding like you are.

Stating the obvious wrote:

Its not all luck and you sound silly when you claim this.

Coaching isn't about having world class athletes being dropped in your lap. Don't kid yourself.

The reason they are injured is because they are training really hard and in some cases over training.

It is no different with the africans though.

Currently Bekele is somewhat injured. Sileshi Sihine hasn't raced since I dont know when. Martin Lel dropped out of London and New York with injury. Dibaba was banged up all last year.

I'm sure I could come up with more examples but to say that africans don't get injured is flawed. Some are more durable than others but their bones break and ligaments tear etc. etc.

Ya, nothing "luckier" than having world-class talent that is already injured "dropped in your lap", and all you did was get them healthy and onto the next level or two in relatively short order, including a couple of "lucky" bronze medals.

malmo wrote:

Coaching isn't about having world class athletes being dropped in your lap. Don't kid yourself.

zone defense wrote:

Ya, nothing "luckier" than having world-class talent that is already injured "dropped in your lap", and all you did was get them healthy and onto the next level or two in relatively short order, including a couple of "lucky" bronze medals.

You're right. Luck is the colloquial expression of probability.

On the basis of pure probability one who is injured today is much less likely to be injured at X point in the future.

I can illustrate this simple concept with a basket full of white balls and a few red ones is you wish?

"On the basis of pure probability one who is injured today is much less likely to be injured at X point in the future."

I disagree with that statement. Anyone that suffers an injury today is infinitely times more likely to get injured tomorrow. The problems I always see in the training room among upperclassmen are people that got hurt freshmen year and continue to have different problems arise.

Glueing the broken humpty dumpty back together, while still trying to get fast, is the lowest probably a coach will ever overcome.

athletic trainer 13541 wrote:

I disagree with that statement. Anyone that suffers an injury today is infinitely times more likely to get injured tomorrow.

No so.

They are likely TO BE injured the next day, but are less likely to be injured on each subsequent day. Less likely to be injured in 3 days than today. Less likely...one week. Less likely ...one month, etc.

They are certainly not INFINITELY more likely to get injured tomorrow.

But back to my original point: an injured athlete is less likely to be injured at x point in the future (tomorrow, next week, next month, two months etc).

athletic trainer 13541 wrote:

I disagree with that statement. Anyone that suffers an injury today is infinitely times more likely to get injured tomorrow. The problems I always see in the training room among upperclassmen are people that got hurt freshmen year and continue to have different problems arise.

Another logical fallacy. You work in a training room. You see people who are injured. Therefore runners are always injured? I would have thought that most trainers could see past the tip of their noses?

Had you worked in the training room while I was in college you would have seen me in the training room this many times.

Freshman year: 1) bruised heel/plantar fascia

Sophomore year: 2) strained thigh 3) bashed knee (steeple barrier)

Junior year: none

Senior year: 4) dislocated shoulder, 5) strained foot, 6) stress fracture

From your narrow perspective in the training room. what you see and conclude is: "same people, different problems arise"

From my big picture perspective, what I see and conclude is: "out of 1400 days, injured 45 days, missed two competitions over four years"

Yet during each of those injuries (point I) at any random future point X, the probability of me being injured was low, 45/1400.

We can do this probability thingie with a barrel full of white and red ping pong balls if you wish?

malmo your facile invocation of probability and ping-pong balls reveals your lack of experience with real-life coaching of athletes other than yourself. Fortunately people like Cook are out there actually working and evolving their concepts with actual human beings, who shockingly end up having world-class success. Your jealousy drips from every post you make here, but has zero impact on the sport itself.

zone defense wrote:

malmo your facile invocation of probability and ping-pong balls reveals your lack of experience with real-life coaching of athletes other than yourself. Fortunately people like Cook are out there actually working and evolving their concepts with actual human beings, who shockingly end up having world-class success. Your jealousy drips from every post you make here, but has zero impact on the sport itself.

WTF? I'm neither jealous nor envious of Cook in the least bit. You've missed your mark.

There is nothing facile about probability. Facile would have been a pithy saying like "a broken clock is right twice a day."

...Too many crazy High School Coaches....NCAA system where too many coaches demand a 3-peak per year period (XC, Indoor and Outdoor) as well as doubling and tripling too much...that's why...by age 22, most runners are fried..Wes Santee should have been the first runner to break the 4 minute mile...check your history and learn why he did'nt....relays and points baby!

Captain Track wrote:

...Too many crazy High School Coaches....NCAA system where too many coaches demand a 3-peak per year period (XC, Indoor and Outdoor) as well as doubling and tripling too much...that's why...by age 22, most runners are fried..Wes Santee should have been the first runner to break the 4 minute mile...check your history and learn why he did'nt....relays and points baby!

I think that if you checked your history, the NCAA system, three peaks, and relays, etc, made far more runners careers than not, and made Olympians for many different nations that otherwise would have disappeared into obscurity. The US collegiate system cultivates the competitive instincts.

Guys like Santee were done at 22 because there was nothing more for them to strive for after they graduated college.

[quote]malmo wrote:

WTF? I'm neither jealous nor envious of Cook in the least bit. You've missed your mark.

[quote]

Really??? You should read what you write, seems like a lot of anger and jealousy issues to me. I think they have hit the mark.

Well Teg was injured when he attempted running 10k. He obviously can't run them.

Stating the obvious wrote:

Really??? You should read what you write, seems like a lot of anger and jealousy issues to me. I think they have hit the mark.

Yes really. What anger? What jealousy?

Perhaps you’re taking umbrage over my characterization of Cook’s coaching reputation as being fortuitous, and built with ready-made professional mercenaries because there's no counter case for him? My characterization is accurate.

I looked at George Masons Press Guide figuring I’d find out his resume is better than I had thought, but that turned out not to be the case. Cook did get some nice finishes in NCAA indoors with those professional mercenaries (see page 64 and 65 of the Press Guide), and it’s certainly quite an accomplishment to be proud of -- but that’s not the issue at hand. Cooks’ resume for developing athletes in middle distance and distance running is so scant that it pales in comparison to scores upon scores of college coaches, one of them being George Watts, who was coached by Cook in high school.

George Mason’s current coach, Andy Gerard, is a coaching superstar compared to Cook, and has a golden touch wherever he goes.

Even with the mercenaries left in there are scores of Div I coaches with better resumes. Take them out, and you have nothing.

800 METER RUN

1. Abdi Bile 1:44.47 1987

2. Julius Achon 1:44.55 1996

3. Alex Morgan 1:45.58 1996

4. M. Vernon-Watson 1:45.88 1995

5. Simon Bowen 1:46.38 1993

6. Ibrahim Aden 1:46.44 1996

7. Ibrahim Okash 1:46.54 1985

8. Miklos Arpasi 1:46.85 1996

9. O’Neil Duncan 1:47.10 1997

10. John Cook 1:47.70 1989

1500 METER RUN

1. Abdi Bile 3:31.71 1987

2. Julius Achon 3:38.13 1996

3. Ibrahim Aden 3:40.68 1996

4. Kevin Black 3:42.87 1987

5. Simon Bowen 3:44.95 1994

6. Dan McKay 3:45.00 1998

7. Ibrahim Okash 3:45.65 1986

8. Chuck Wimberly 3:45.86 1978

3000-METER STEEPLECHASE

1. Jon Babcock 9:03.8 1981

2. Stephane Franke 9:13.0 1987

3. Dave McCormack 9:14.1 1982

4. Pat McCoy 9:15.6 1983

5000 METER RUN

1. Ahmed Ismail 14:04.86 1986

2. Dave McCormack 14:07.90 1985

3. Jon Babcock 14:09.70 1983

4. Mike Stafford 14:09.90 1980

10,000 METER RUN

1. Dave McCormack 29:40.1 1984

2. Ahmed Ismail 29:49.6 1984

3. Matt Wilson 29:53.6 1980

4. Will Abers 29:54.7 1976

malmo wrote:

Yes really. What anger? What jealousy?

12:42PM - in reply to Cook Diss

"Cook is an idiot."

No anger or jealousy there, nope. Nothing but impartial surmise.

zone defense wrote:

12:42PM - in reply to Cook Diss

"Cook is an idiot."

No anger or jealousy there, nope. Nothing but impartial surmise.

How does saying someone is an idiot become anger or jealousy. It's my opinion. I signed my name to it.

I made a straightforward assessment about John Cook’s lack of coaching credentials in developing middle distance and distance talent and your response is to ascribe false motivations on my part? Keep trying.

Look, I find the guy very funny and real, kind of like a track Yogi Berra. The fact is, Cooks successes were all ready-made mercenaries, as a college coach, and now.

You have yet to show me where is his record of developing talent? I've posted the record in black and white, why are you so silent?

The reason is easy. There is no record of development. Given is ridiculous statements about other coaches applying common sense aerobic training, yet he prefers jumping jacks and dipthongs to running, you don't have to be a genius to figure why his coaching record is so scant.

Simply put..."Speed Kills"!

My limited experience?????

Coached one year 49 times!

malmo wrote: Yet during each of those injuries (point I) at any random future point X, the probability of me being injured was low, 45/1400.

You seem to be responding to the apparent statement: "An athlete who is injured today has a high probability of being injured at some point in the future."

What the trainer was attempting to convey is: "An athlete who is injured today is more likely to be injured at some point in the future than an athlete who isn't injured today."

I realize that you probably still disagree with the second statement; it's just that your argument about your own sample-of-one injury probability isn't relevant.

What the question comes down to is, if you were to calculate the average number of injury days per year over a 10-year period for a large of group of runners at a similar level, would the values tend to cluster close the average, or would there be big spread (i.e. some people who tended to stay healthy, while others who were repeatedly plagued by injuries)?

There are some situations where current injury is certainly predictive of future susceptibility to injury -- for instance, among college women who haven't eaten enough through their formative years to lay down enough bone, and will thus suffer an endless succession of stress fractures. But I have no idea whether the same is true among the more general population of serious runners with no obvious pathology. I suspect it is.

Whatever the answer, I don't see any evidence to support the OP's ramblings.