see article...
http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=5839&PageNum=1
and video of 2001 NCAA XC Studs...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMmsmHVTIkA&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Props to the now defunct "RunnerMedia" for doing interviews, seems like they actually got the real scoop, and Flotrack owes them for completely stealing their idea.
The early 2000s were such a pure, innocent, and awesome time for US distance running. No Rupp, no Verzbicas, no flotrack... just pure awesome running.
McArdle fan wrote:
see article...
http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=5839&PageNum=1and video of 2001 NCAA XC Studs...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMmsmHVTIkA&feature=mfu_in_order&list=ULProps to the now defunct "RunnerMedia" for doing interviews, seems like they actually got the real scoop, and Flotrack owes them for completely stealing their idea.
The early 2000s were such a pure, innocent, and awesome time for US distance running. No Rupp, no Verzbicas, no flotrack... just pure awesome running.
Awesome time for US distance running? Really. I recall in 2000 the US had 1 male and 1 female marathoner at the Olympics. Rod deHaven was 69th and ran 2:30 in pretty nice weather. (He ran about 45 sec faster that Christine Clark!).
I am now hoping the comment was sarcasm...
Yeah, it sucks that we're doing better now than we were doing then. Too bad.
McCardle-not a great talent other than durability. On the other hand the greatest talents like Teg and Ritz never had that. It seems like they are always hurt.
I always thought the 10 percent rule was stupid. I went from 25 miles a week to 50 to 70 to 90 all in high school and never got injured. But I was only a 28:20 runner ultimately like McCardle. Why did he quit so soon without going for the marathon?
I suspect that the true track distance talents are put together in a way that's different than a McCardle.
No, that wasn't sarcasm. The crew of guys from that era are the reason why guys from this era are good. In fact... the guys in the video I posted like Webb, Ritz, and Hall ARE the current crop of studs.
luv2run wrote:
McArdle fan wrote:see article...
http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=5839&PageNum=1and video of 2001 NCAA XC Studs...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMmsmHVTIkA&feature=mfu_in_order&list=ULProps to the now defunct "RunnerMedia" for doing interviews, seems like they actually got the real scoop, and Flotrack owes them for completely stealing their idea.
The early 2000s were such a pure, innocent, and awesome time for US distance running. No Rupp, no Verzbicas, no flotrack... just pure awesome running.
Awesome time for US distance running? Really. I recall in 2000 the US had 1 male and 1 female marathoner at the Olympics. Rod deHaven was 69th and ran 2:30 in pretty nice weather. (He ran about 45 sec faster that Christine Clark!).
I am now hoping the comment was sarcasm...
[quote]McArdle fan wrote:
No, that wasn't sarcasm. The crew of guys from that era are the reason why guys from this era are good. In fact... the guys in the video I posted like Webb, Ritz, and Hall ARE the current crop of studs.
[quote]luv2run wrote:
No, no, and no. I'm from that era. I ran against McArdle. In fact I beat McArdle on occasion. Yes, his high mileage produced some great results... for about 2 years until those miles caught up to him and he could never stay healthy. I'll admit- it was fun to watch him roll for those couple of seasons, though.
As for Webb, Ritz, and Hall being the current studs- are you joking? Webb has been little more than a bedtime story since '07. Ritz popped a nice 5k and half and appears to be just about finished due to an inability to stay healthy. Hall popped a fast Boston, but does anyone really think he will run anything close to the 2:06 he ran years ago (without gale force winds at his back)?
No, sir. Those three were legends and could still run well, but the U.S. has moved on... the future belongs to Rupp, Centro, and possibly Solinsky... and deservedly so.
No... the future still belongs to the original BIG 3: WEBB, RITZ, HALL.
Francis LL wrote:
[quote]McArdle fan wrote:
No, that wasn't sarcasm. The crew of guys from that era are the reason why guys from this era are good. In fact... the guys in the video I posted like Webb, Ritz, and Hall ARE the current crop of studs.
[quote]luv2run wrote:
No, no, and no. I'm from that era. I ran against McArdle. In fact I beat McArdle on occasion. Yes, his high mileage produced some great results... for about 2 years until those miles caught up to him and he could never stay healthy. I'll admit- it was fun to watch him roll for those couple of seasons, though.
As for Webb, Ritz, and Hall being the current studs- are you joking? Webb has been little more than a bedtime story since '07. Ritz popped a nice 5k and half and appears to be just about finished due to an inability to stay healthy. Hall popped a fast Boston, but does anyone really think he will run anything close to the 2:06 he ran years ago (without gale force winds at his back)?
No, sir. Those three were legends and could still run well, but the U.S. has moved on... the future belongs to Rupp, Centro, and possibly Solinsky... and deservedly so.
It has always been a very stupid idea.
If someone starts at 0, and adds 10 percent every week;
in 20 years they'll still be running 0 miles a week.
break it up wrote:
McCardle-not a great talent other than durability. On the other hand the greatest talents like Teg and Ritz never had that. It seems like they are always hurt.
I always thought the 10 percent rule was stupid. I went from 25 miles a week to 50 to 70 to 90 all in high school and never got injured. But I was only a 28:20 runner ultimately like McCardle. Why did he quit so soon without going for the marathon?
I suspect that the true track distance talents are put together in a way that's different than a McCardle.
You're obviously a troll if you say durability was one of McCardle's strong points. He's a prime example of a great runner who never reached his potential because of injury problems. The only reason I posted this and succumbed to your troll-like intentions was to let other people know you are full of shit. Hopefully they won't engage you in any more discussion. Poor effort, douche bag.
The medal haul by Webb, Ritz, Hall and McCardle in Daegu was staggering.
While the medal haul by those that did not run high mileage and did not increase in the manner described in this thread was quite good: Lagat, Jenny, Centro, and Uceny as the first American female to be #1 in 1500 in 28 years. One could also mention Rupp who apparently ran 40mpw going into his Junior HS year and just reached 100mpw a year ago I think, which is "slightly" less than 10% per week.
Yeah? But what did farah do? What does Fagan do? What does bairu do? What did mcdougal do? So maybe you should shut your mouth.
I usually use the 10% rule until I hit 100 miles a week, then I use the 5% rule. When I start running after time off, I usually start around 45-50 so the 10% rule works for me. It has also kept me healthy for over ten years (besides a few aches and pains here and there). I probably could get away with a 20% rule if I wanted, but like Galen Rupp, it's all about small increases, right?
I don't think you should use the 10% rule if you're below 40 or above 100. I would never go from 15 to 16.5 miles, that's absurd.
break it up wrote:
I always thought the 10 percent rule was stupid. I went from 25 miles a week to 50 to 70 to 90 all in high school and never got injured.
Your line of thought would also probably mesh well with this statement:
"I played Russian Roulet a couple times and lived so therefor Russian Roulet is safe."
coach bigfoot wrote:
I would never go from 15 to 16.5 miles, that's absurd.
Huh?
What?? wrote:
coach bigfoot wrote:I would never go from 15 to 16.5 miles, that's absurd.
Huh?
15 + (10% x 15) = 16.5
he's referring to a 15 mpw runner.
gawd.
Former McCardle fan wrote:
break it up wrote:McCardle-not a great talent other than durability. On the other hand the greatest talents like Teg and Ritz never had that. It seems like they are always hurt.
I always thought the 10 percent rule was stupid. I went from 25 miles a week to 50 to 70 to 90 all in high school and never got injured. But I was only a 28:20 runner ultimately like McCardle. Why did he quit so soon without going for the marathon?
I suspect that the true track distance talents are put together in a way that's different than a McCardle.
You're obviously a troll if you say durability was one of McCardle's strong points. He's a prime example of a great runner who never reached his potential because of injury problems. The only reason I posted this and succumbed to your troll-like intentions was to let other people know you are full of shit. Hopefully they won't engage you in any more discussion. Poor effort, douche bag.
I would say that someone who can jump up to in college to 100-130 mile weeks and immediately respond without getting torn down or injured has rare durability. That isn't full of shit. Especially when I've been around countess 21 year old male runners who cry and moan about how hard it is when they first start trying to run over 70 miles a week.
Great to see Webb and Ritz in that video, those interviews were awesome!! The guys weren't giving the boring flotrack stock answers, props to the guys who did the interviews.