Does HS from OP mean high school? If so, do you really think you know more about coaching than "Coach Jerry?"
Does HS from OP mean high school? If so, do you really think you know more about coaching than "Coach Jerry?"
rupp-certified saladbar wrote:
HAHAHAHAHA!
First, 2:09:55 was a 5-second PR. Don't get too excited about that.
The fact he improved less than three minutes in five years is actually pretty bad, and he is still underperforming in the marathon.
Salazar might be the best 5/10 coach out there. He clearly has not figured out the marathon. Arguing otherwise just makes you like silly.
and he was injured for nearly all of 2010 and 2011.
"Liberty Christian" Nelson's HS. I like it! And i guess i'd agree as far as his wiring appearing to be more toward the marathon.
Nike reality check wrote:
There is definitley a measuring bar than needs to be used in comparing coaching. THE QUALITY OF ATHLETE THAT THEY ARE WORKING WITH. Let me give you some basics and then start measuring successes.
27:30 should be able to run 2:06
27:45 = 2:07:30
28:00 = 2:09
28:15 = 2:10:30
28:30 = 2:12
28:45 = 2:13:30
29:00 = 2:15
29:15 = 2:16:30
If you do not feel this is legit, I will gladly use whatever equivelancy standards that you see as legit. This way we can discuss how a coach is doing rather than having the same level of expectations for a 27:30 guy and a 29:00 guy.
I agree with this as long as we are using the same measuring stick for all. Lets start keeping score. I will do the easy ones.
ALBERTO 0
Shumacher 0
Hansons group may have had over 70 athletes in 14 years but how many were sub 28:00 10k guys? How many were sub 33:00 10k girls? They are doing a great job at developing the talent that they are given. With new talent like Jake Reilly, Colby Lowe, and Neely Spence it will be fun to see how this unfolds. They may be the best marathon specific coaches in the US but only time will tell over the next few years.
Nike reality check wrote:
There is definitley a measuring bar than needs to be used in comparing coaching. THE QUALITY OF ATHLETE THAT THEY ARE WORKING WITH. Let me give you some basics and then start measuring successes.
27:30 should be able to run 2:06
27:45 = 2:07:30
28:00 = 2:09
28:15 = 2:10:30
28:30 = 2:12
28:45 = 2:13:30
29:00 = 2:15
29:15 = 2:16:30
If you do not feel this is legit, I will gladly use whatever equivelancy standards that you see as legit. This way we can discuss how a coach is doing rather than having the same level of expectations for a 27:30 guy and a 29:00 guy.
1) Talent level at 10k does not necessarily translate to talent level at 26.2.
2) Your scale looks WAY off. You've got every second at 10k worth 6 seconds at 26.2. It should probably be more like one second is somewhere between 4.5 and 5.0 seconds.
27:30 = 2:06 ?!? Then 27:00 = 2:03? Again, scale is way off.
Your scale looks too steep, creating some times as too optimistic, and others as pessimistic. I think a better starting point for your discussion is something like Purdy, IAAF or Daniels VDOT:Here is Purdy (and Daniels) equivalence times:27:30 = 2:08:00 (2:06:47)27:45 = 2:09:11 (2:07:57)28:00 = 2:10:24 (2:09:08)28:15 = 2:11:35 (2:10:18)28:30 = 2:12:47 (2:11:28)28:45 = 2:13:59 (2:12:38)29:00 = 2:15:11 (2:13:48)29:15 = 2:16:22 (2:14:58)
Nike reality check wrote:
...
27:30 should be able to run 2:06
27:45 = 2:07:30
28:00 = 2:09
28:15 = 2:10:30
28:30 = 2:12
28:45 = 2:13:30
29:00 = 2:15
29:15 = 2:16:30
If you do not feel this is legit, I will gladly use whatever equivelancy standards that you see as legit. This way we can discuss how a coach is doing rather than having the same level of expectations for a 27:30 guy and a 29:00 guy.
Under Daniels the ZERO success story remains the same for Alberto and Jerry. I can come up with at least 25 success stories for Hansons.
These threads are so funny, state a less than glowing opinion of the Hansons or Hudson and their runners get on here (because many of them are obsessed with this board) and defend to the bitter end, their coach, reason or truth be damned.
At least Jerry and Alberto's runners have better things to do rather than live on Letsrun.
Hey guys/gals, go for a run and let your performances speak for your coach instead of your Letsrun posts.
Never ran for either Hansons or Hudson. I think the Hansons are too strict and structured, and Hudson has a dysfunctional group of misfits that are capable of going postal for no reason. However, both of them know the marathon far better than anyone currently associated with the swoosh.
As evidenced by what? The large amount of OT qualifiers?
Point is that Hudson could not do what Salazar did with Ritz.
Not only that, Ritz had many more attempts under Hudson.
Evidence? wrote:
As evidenced by what? The large amount of OT qualifiers?
As evidenced by the number of athletes that have met their potential in the marathon based on ANY of the equivelancy scoring tables. Alberto and Jerry can afford to work with ANY athlete that they choose and pay them 10 times what they can get anywhere else and they still can not get one single athlete to have the marathon be their best event. NOT ONE.
Hal Higdon!
riley stops wrote:
This race could be the beginning of the end for Nelson, Bairu and Vaughn. Don't be surprised if all three end up leaving Schumacher's group because they don't get resigned by Nike. It's unfortunate, but it's also part of being a professional athlete.
They should be cut. They're not doing anything for the sport. They barely race and when they do, they often DNF or finish last. Bairu and Vaughn have no kick. They can run fast but can't contend for the win in international or national-caliber races. Nelson has a decent kick but hasn't done anything noteworthy in a while. None of them have a lot of upside potential anymore. They should switch to a different Coach so Schumacher can develop more world class track athletes (which is what he's good at). He should be working with young athletes with more speed that can be developed into contenders. Ryan Hill, Andy Bayer, Ben True, Diego Estrada, and Cam Levins come to mind.
True ran with Nike when he was right our of college--wasn't for him. He's a northern New England boy through and through.
willy k wrote:
And people wonder why Hall coaches himself.
Ryan Hall isn't God, silly.
Not a Hudson or Hanson runner wrote:
These threads are so funny, state a less than glowing opinion of the Hansons or Hudson and their runners get on here (because many of them are obsessed with this board)
O RLY?
How do you know this?
(Not that I doubt it.)
willy k wrote:
2. There are literally no good marathon coaches in the US.
Trollist wrote:
Brad Hudson and the Hansons.
I wonder if Mark Hadley will be considered as such in a few years. Has done well with Stephanie Pezzullo (who it was said was not built for the marathon) and lucked out by trying the thankless task of coaching Molly Pritz. Suspect he'll be well regarded in due course if/when his daughter starts running the full distance. Will be interesting to see if anyone else comes through under him before then.
Try telling that to Squires.
willy k wrote:
1. I think the marathon is harder to coach it than it sounds, because unlike 5k/10k you don't have tons of high schoolers / college runners to test the water, you only get two chances per year to see if what you did worked.
2. There are literally no good marathon coaches in the US. Salazar apparently sucks, Mahon apparently sucks, now we've confirmed Schumacher apparently sucks too. And people wonder why Hall coaches himself.
More importantly, why does the current depth in the marathon pale in comparison to the early 80s? We're so much deeper in the track events, yet we're not very impressive at 26.2 miles.