Boston, the sea-leve elite running mecca?

douglas burke wrote:

Horst Girth wrote:

Just a thought. Let's face it, from 800 up, you need a training block at altitude.

most of the USA's top distance runners, Rupp, Jager, Teg, Solinsky, C. Derrick, etc. have been training in Portland/Eugene Oregon the last decade or so, so no altitude training for them.

(note Rupp and maybe others in Salazars group do sleep in an altitude tent). still most runners training in Oregon, have not bothered with altitude training.

Um, well depending on what you call altitude training (i.e. length of time and the height).

But from I gather from interviews (Flotrack, Letsrun), social media (twitter, etc.) and press releases (Kimbia) that Jerry's group or at least a substantial number of the men in that stable, do regular "stints" at "altitude" (somewhere in Arizona or the Rockies, I believe). I can't remember if some of his athletes when they were over in Switzerland had spent any time at some altitude.

Again, I know that NOP does altitude training blocks in Utah. At least they used to. Al told me so (a long story.)

As for the crappy weather, I can only speak for myserlf and my contemporaries (mid/late 70s), we just went out and ran. It wasn't bad at all.

We'd run distance. We'd do doubles. We'd do intervals on the roads, or indoors. If you are runner from a winter zone, it's normal, you simply go out and run. And you enjoy it!

We'd miss maybe 3 days a year due to weather. Given the general gung-ho attitude, I'd say we enjoyed the benefit of the rest!

Anyhow, any truly elite runner living in Boston does need an altitude block somewhere, I'll repeat that too.

well .... wrote:

pipe dreamer... wrote:

Some of the worst weather in the country for several months per year.

Utter nonsense. Boston weather is rather mild. Rarely gets below 10F or above 90F. Roads are cleared the day snow falls. Not a lot of thunderstorms or other severe weather.

Not a lot of thunderstorms??? Where the hell were you the last couple of months?? And 10 degrees is mild? Eff that.

thisguy wrote:

The game has changed now, though. IMO, pros can't really risk the reduced quality of training and stay competitive.

Kim Smith goes to Florida for the vast majority of the winter, btw. Ben True gets out of town (NH) as well, I believe. They aren't stupid and they have the resources to do so.

So in your opinion, those elites training in Boston are stupid?

Bottom line is, why set up a training camp in a lousy place to train? Just because there is a nice Indoor Track nearby? are you kidding?

Go someplace where you can stay put instead of picking up and getting out of dodge every couple of months.

pipe dreamer... wrote:

Bottom line is, why set up a training camp in a lousy place to train? Just because there is a nice Indoor Track nearby? are you kidding?

Go someplace where you can stay put instead of picking up and getting out of dodge every couple of months.

I didn't say anything about an indoor track. In fact, previous posters gave made it quite evident that successful training can occur in winter without such a facility.

There's the training philosophy of "put me in the most perfect possible situation." Then, when conditions are less than ideal, you have a built-in excuse for why you failed when training had been going so well.

On the other hand is the philosophy of "If I can be good here in spite of X,Y, and Z, I can be good anywhere anytime and great when everything is perfect." Seems a much better system for success.

Bottom line, because there's a lot of shoe company money here and an excellent running community. And let's put this nonsense about the winters to rest. Sure, it snows a fair amount in Boston, but the weather just is not that bad -- we're not talking Maine here. The mention of indoor tracks was in relation to track athletes who presumably want a track to work out on before March.

Blathering Blatherskyte wrote:

There's the training philosophy of "put me in the most perfect possible situation." Then, when conditions are less than ideal, you have a built-in excuse for why you failed when training had been going so well.

On the other hand is the philosophy of "If I can be good here in spite of X,Y, and Z, I can be good anywhere anytime and great when everything is perfect." Seems a much better system for success.

No one is saying you can't succeed in Boston, or other places where one must deal with winter.

People are saying, if you have the choice, why would you want to make it harder to train optimally? They don't hand out medals for toughing it out in the cold and snow.

Training in a place where it snows is not going to make you tougher than if you train somewhere that it doesn't snow. People that choose to train in warmer climates are what's called smart, not weak.

And I say this as someone who grew up in New Hampshire.

new hamster wrote:

new englander wrote:

Training in a place where it snows is not going to make you tougher than if you train somewhere that it doesn't snow.

Sure it is.

No it isn't.

hrunner2 wrote:

the weather sucks in comparison to somewhere like the bay area / Portland / Victoria, BC and even Seattle. Sure you can deal with crap like plowed roads and indoor tracks, but why would you ever want to if you are a pro runner? There were some days in Boston when ice storms would hit (about 2 per year), where running outside was almost impossible. For january and february it rarely gets above 32. Living outside of San Francisco, in 5 years, I think I've done every run between 50F and 88F. If you are a professional runner, go where you can run.

Not only that, compared to west coast cities, Boston's trail system sucks. Try comparing the charles, emerald, even the fells to something like the trails of mt tam in marin county or even the trails behind berkeley. no comparison.

The weather isn't horrible compared to the Pacific Northwest - it may snow more and get colder but it still precipitates way less

As far as trails around Boston, wtf are you talking about?

Someone else has mentioned the (Middlesex? there's also Lynn) Fells and the Blue Hills but there are plenty more that are more convenient if you live in Boston than most of the trails are in the Bay Area. Try Battle Road/Minuteman Trail or Walden Pond. Newton/Wellesley/Needham have plenty of trails if you know where to look (and not far from the marathon course).

All this is true.

Altitude is great if you are racing at altitude.

Heat and humidity is great if you are racing in heat and humidity.

Snow is great if you are racing in snow.

If you will be racing in all of these situations then you should be training in all of these situations.

I heard people that train at altitude complaining about the heat and humidity in New Haven on Monday. WC and Olympics are almost always hot and humid. WXC is almost always in mud and snow.

Training should prepare you to race. Boston is much better than Palo Alto.

The real mystery is why New Balance would seemingly fund a group with Cooghan at the helm? Mahon was at least around during the Mammouth/Deena/Meb time and knows what it takes (Uceny). Cooghan has coached one good athlete who will have a very hard time making a team.

Same with Brooks Beasts. Mackey is coaching hiss wife and Garrett Heath while Symmonds continues his amateur fishing career post-Olympics.

The 3 Nike groups have proven coaches.

[quote]bostonian in the bay area wrote:

The weather isn't horrible compared to the Pacific Northwest - it may snow more and get colder but it still precipitates way less

It does not precipitate more in the pacific northwest, very similar rain totals to boston, just snows much less up there.

BAA team has the hottest looking hotties!

Definitely Boston is the #1 source for US distance runners. Flanagan, Salazar, just to name a few.

That's a straight up lie. I live in Bay Area and can be on endless sprawling trails and hills within 15 minutes of running. There's nothing comparable to that in Boston. Furthermore you can run on the bay area trails for just about 360 days a year, whereas there is about 5 months max of trail running in Boston.

All of this debate about Boston as being a good place to train in the winter is ridiculous. It is a FACT that there are dozens to possibly 100s of better CITIES to train in the US.

HOWEVER, the BAA has money. And athletes need money. Yes, the NOP and BTC have a better training situation but there also the top 20 american runners. All of the also rans have to go where the money is. The exception is that Dartmouth chick, but she's from MA, so shes a MAhole and doesn't know any better.

When people lose sub 13 5000m races by a tenth of a second, every little thing matters. Simply being "tougher" than you competition because you trained through three nor'easter storms in February and March isn't going to help.

That being said, if any of you dim wits read the BAA website, you would know that they offer a winter training camp in a warm climate and an altitude camp for the high performance members.

"As a member of the BAA High Performance team you will receive the following training support: Warm Weather/ Altitude Camps"

THEREFORE YOU ARE ALL WRONG. To the old timers smoking dope, no elite athletes are making the decision to train in boston winters and none ever will again. Bill Rodgers was one in A BILLION. An ANOMOALY. You can't make decisions in life based off the one exception. Get that?

To the young kids crying about how stupid it is to have an elite team in boston because the winters suck. READ THE BAA WEBSITE and get informed before talking a bunch of dribble about things you know nothing about.

Boston Strong wrote:

Definitely Boston is the #1 source for US distance runners. Flanagan, Salazar, just to name a few.

Shalane was born in Boulder, that is where the cardiovascular system was developed. Another altitude runner getting it done.