What's your view? Think he trains too hard?
What's your view? Think he trains too hard?
After swing the workouts in a book of his, yest. Too much emphasis on speed but it seems to work. Do his runners seem to have success in college and beyond?
People always bring up post high school. There are several possibilities that can happen after high school.
The athlete may have trouble adapting to the college life.
The college coach may not be as good as the high school coach.
The athlete may not respond well to the college coaches training philosophy. They may run better under a different program.
The athlete may realize that they want to focus their energy elsewhere.
I have seen all of the above happen for better and worse from many different high school programs. Sometimes kids get more focused in college and do better, while others get distracted and do not improve much, if at all.
The blame is not on the high school coach. If anything blame the college coach for not training the athlete well and keeping them focused. The coaches are managing the team. They need to make sure they are getting the best out of their athletes, not just training them.
I'd call Newton and Bill Aris two of the worst coaches in the history of high school track/XC. In all those years, really the only person from York who as accomplished anything post high school was Marius Bakken, and he didn't do the York program. Same thing appears to be true of Aris--nothing fancy just run yourself into the ground for the glory of the coach and ruin your future. I don't see that ruining kids futures with way too much training load way too soon should be part of the description of a good coach, regardless of the win-loss record (they are not competing for Olympic medals, just high school cross country).
Compare with Bill Duley at Agoura, California, who coached Deana Kastor, Amy Skieresz, Ryan Wilson, among others. Or compare with Salazar as a high school coach.
Too much overall load for athletes not ready to handle it. Everything for the glory and the ego of the coach and nothing for the competitive future of the kids. When this happens a couple of times, you might look at the athlete or the college program. But when the same thing happens over and over again (and you can find multiple threads on letsrun about the same thing happening over and over again), ban the coach permanently.
Totally agree
Well, I suspect coach d is trolling, but in any case: Joe is surely one of the greatest high school coaches of all time, in any sport.
Having coached high school and college athletes, I can agree readily with the poster who listed how things change between high school and college; and I'd be willing to bet that more of Joe's guys have gone on to compete in D1 than those of any other coach.
Well over 90% (I think it's something like 96%) of high school athletes *never* compete in intercollegiate athletics, in any division. Meanwhile, Joe gives his students an inestimable *educational* experience through their participation in his program, and he frequently gives them the deeply satisfying experience of working hard toward a major goal (like winning one of the toughest state titles in the U.S.) and achieving it.
That kind of high school success is Joe's job. No one ever talks about winning HS football coaches "developing their athletes for the future"--they develop them for *now*, and (typically) give them a great educational experience in the process.
Joe does that better than anyone else I've ever known or heard of.
PS: When a guy of Joe's wins an NCAA championship, I think that qualifies as "accomplishing something post high school." And Marius wasn't that guy.
PPS: Yes, I'm pretty sure you were trolling.
coach d wrote:
I'd call Newton and Bill Aris two of the worst coaches in the history of high school track/XC. In all those years, really the only person from York who as accomplished anything post high school was Marius Bakken, and he didn't do the York program.
If he only produced Donald Sage and more/less Marius Bakken then that still puts him ahead of 99% of HS coaches doesn't it?
You obviously don't know jack about Bill Aris. Do you know how small his team usually is? It would be near impossible for him to overload his athletes and still manage to have five left healthy.
Why do you just make shit up?
Post High School wrote:
People always bring up post high school. There are several possibilities that can happen after high school.
Actually, I don't think it's any of that. The idea of high schoolers working too hard and burning out is just a statistical fallacy. People see a 4:20 miler from York and a 4:20 miler from Bumf*ck, Alabama and then of course the York kid improves less in college. The problem is people think he burned out, but the reality is the York kid was less talented, he was just closer to his ultimate potential in high school and therefore had less upside in college.
His job was to coach HSers. He instilled in them great values they carried with them the rest of their lives, he made them better men, and he lead them to a lot of success and championships. He did his job well. He isn't Alberto Salazar, his job isn't to find 14-16 year old prodigies and take a gradual 10-12 year approach. His job is to win championships in HS, and he does that. Some of his runners have had success in college. Good coach.
Hardloper wrote:
Post High School wrote:People always bring up post high school. There are several possibilities that can happen after high school.
Actually, I don't think it's any of that. The idea of high schoolers working too hard and burning out is just a statistical fallacy. People see a 4:20 miler from York and a 4:20 miler from Bumf*ck, Alabama and then of course the York kid improves less in college. The problem is people think he burned out, but the reality is the York kid was less talented, he was just closer to his ultimate potential in high school and therefore had less upside in college.
I agree with Hardloper here. and the other post that 96% don't see a collegiate career.
I'll address the latter first. As a person currently attending highschool, who has no future in D1 career (4:48 mile(full), 2:10 800, and 16:45 5k) I would like to be trained to my full potential in HS and make waves there and then possibly because of that training even get the chance to run in college even if im doomed to never show much improvement, because thats better than reaching sub optimal potential but then never doing anything with that other than bragging rights at the water cooler.
Secondly, I love Hardloper's point here. If the York kid runs 4:20 off ~90mpw, and Joe Shmoe runs 4:20 on ~50mpw or less, it's not that the York kid is burned out, its that he doesn't have much room to grow from what he was trained from in HS. where as Joe Shmoe has plenty of room to drop the time simply by upping mileage without any other speed/focus work. And he's not running better in college because his coach didn't burn him out its because hes talented and can expand farther. As opposed to the York kid who is less talented and had to put in his near max work to achieve the same time.
Yeah because kids in the 70's didn't train hard right?
Coach D's post makes me feel sorry for the athletes he coaches. I'd like to know his team so we can look at how good he is at developing America's youth for the next level.
Hardloper wrote:
Post High School wrote:People always bring up post high school. There are several possibilities that can happen after high school.
Actually, I don't think it's any of that. The idea of high schoolers working too hard and burning out is just a statistical fallacy. People see a 4:20 miler from York and a 4:20 miler from Bumf*ck, Alabama and then of course the York kid improves less in college. The problem is people think he burned out, but the reality is the York kid was less talented, he was just closer to his ultimate potential in high school and therefore had less upside in college.
I do agree with this. More improvement in college can be a result of not training properly in high school versus someone else over-training. It's also worth noting that people go to college for a lot of different reasons. Even on the top XC teams nationally, you're only likely to have a couple of surefire college level runners and even less that are going to be disappointments if they don't develop into runners people actually notice in college.
Putting a great high school team together is about creating a team environment where everyone buys into a program and taking athletes that aren't blue chip college guys and getting them to run to their max potential. People aren't looking to see how post-high school runners do from 99.9% of the high schools in America. That in itself is going to lead to a slanted view of how athletes at the other 00.1% schools do in college.
Hardloper wrote:
Post High School wrote:People always bring up post high school. There are several possibilities that can happen after high school.
Actually, I don't think it's any of that. The idea of high schoolers working too hard and burning out is just a statistical fallacy. People see a 4:20 miler from York and a 4:20 miler from Bumf*ck, Alabama and then of course the York kid improves less in college. The problem is people think he burned out, but the reality is the York kid was less talented, he was just closer to his ultimate potential in high school and therefore had less upside in college.
Bingo. Aris is a master at taking a girl who'd be running 20:00+ 5ks most anywhere else and turning her into an athlete running low 18s. When this athlete goes to college to run for a coach who can't hold a candle to Aris, we then blame Aris for her not setting the world on fire?
Post High School wrote:
People always bring up post high school. There are several possibilities that can happen after high school.
The athlete may have trouble adapting to the college life.
The college coach may not be as good as the high school coach.
The athlete may not respond well to the college coaches training philosophy. They may run better under a different program.
The athlete may realize that they want to focus their energy elsewhere.
I have seen all of the above happen for better and worse from many different high school programs. Sometimes kids get more focused in college and do better, while others get distracted and do not improve much, if at all.
The blame is not on the high school coach. If anything blame the college coach for not training the athlete well and keeping them focused. The coaches are managing the team. They need to make sure they are getting the best out of their athletes, not just training them.
I generally agree with this post. The Letsrun podcast interview w/ Bill Aris is actually kind of instructive on the difference between high school and college. It is easier, in a sense, for the right high school coach to "align the forces" for success that at college. A high schooler's life is much more structured, and they're at a point in their psychological development where they might buy into a deep team environment a bit more easily than older college age athletes.
You get to college, and you have to manage your classes, your homework, your diet, your roommates, your dorm-life, your sex life, your plan for life post-college -- not to mention manage qualitatively more challenging workouts and competition with consistently more talented athletes (on your own team and on others).
Apples and oranges.
Newton can make high schoolers reach their potential and get a chance to run in college. But what about 99% of the coaches in high school cross country who actually care about their athletes. Where would you rather succeed? High school or college. Newton gives an athlete no chance of succeeding in college after what they do in high school. At least the other coaches bring them close enough to their potential where they have a chance to reach college, but not with such hard training that they are set up for failure
What a horrid, nauseating post..... You obviously know nothing of either man and have a very dull axe to grind.....disgusting....you should be banned forthwith!
Wonderer123456789 wrote:
But what about 99% of the coaches in high school cross country who actually care about their athletes.
If you're suggesting that Joe Newton doesn't care about his athletes...you are completely unfamiliar with the man and his work.
And if you're suggesting that 99% of high school xc coaches DO "actually care about their athletes," you are completely unfamiliar with the Big Picture of American HS cross.
Where would you rather succeed? High school or college. Newton gives an athlete no chance of succeeding in college after what they do in high school.
Yeah--except for the future NCAA champion, and other all-Americans, he's coached. Except for the kids who got scholarships to go to good colleges, as a result of his coaching.
Oh, wait: "succeeding in college" can only be related to running, right? Learning discipline and self-control, as Joe's guys (mostly) do, getting better grades than you otherwise would have, and getting into a better college than you otherwise would have--even if you don't run a step while there--doesn't count as "succeeding" in your book, right?
At least the other coaches bring them close enough to their potential where they have a chance to reach college, but not with such hard training that they are set up for failure
Most high school cross country coaches don't get their kids anywhere near their potential, and as a result most of the kids (including some with tremendous talent) don't even *consider* running at the next level.
Joe's guys do.
'70s, not 70's, retard.
The Schnide wrote:Yeah because kids in the 70's didn't train hard right?
Coach D's post makes me feel sorry for the athletes he coaches. I'd like to know his team so we can look at how good he is at developing America's youth for the next level.
I was on a team that beat Joe's York team soundly to win state championships in the 70's. And my family has known him since the 50's. My father coached a bit in the 60's, and his teams beat York, too. But this only makes Joe's statute greater - he has been at it a long time with an unparalled record of success.
I have nothing but great things to say about Joe Newton. He was always a great sportsman to our team, and so were his athletes.
My grandparents lived two blocks from York High School, and my entire extended family lived in Elmhurst. I trained informally with Joe's guys from time to time when staying with family and I did not think Joe's guys trained all that hard, frankly. They put in the miles - longer than I really liked to run as a 45 mile a week guy - but it did not strike me as "overtraining". This may be the result of a bit of a distorted perception - some of us on my team had some real leg speed, and we may have just had a bit more talent in our two to three year run.
Joe gets out large numbers, and gets them in sounds aerobic shape. And he motivates the kids to be focused and disciplined and avoid distractions. He runs a superb high school program, and his runners - no matter what their profession today (and lots of his guys are successful in life), value Joe's contributions.
Only on the Lets Run board, populated by some of the most self absorbed and insecure people, are there people saying negative things about Joe Newton.