Do you think track is boring for Edward Cheserek? Does Oregon take it too easy?

He's getting in good training while he isn't one of the best in the world yet, and isn't racing all out in his early 20s in order to save himself for his prime in his mid to late 20s.

What's the point? wrote:

I don't see the appeal in this. Or the point. I understand "saving yourself' for the big races, but even the pros race all-out on multiple occasions throughout the year and try and drop fast times. And is an NCAA title even meaningful to Cheserek? I mean, would you be excited if you beat a 6 year old at checkers?

Someone like grampa ches is excited to beat a 6 year old. He loved beating 15 year old high schoolers when he was 28. He dopes to the gills now so he can beat 18 year old college kids as a 33 year old. Someone like grampa ches, or anyone at oregon and NOPe don't have the same ethical sense as a normal person. They are psychopaths who really would rather lie, cheat and steal than win fairly.

Baconn wrote:

He's getting in good training while he isn't one of the best in the world yet, and isn't racing all out in his early 20s in order to save himself for his prime in his mid to late 20s.

Sorry, I just don't buy this. The men and women who are currently the best in the world (with a few random exceptions mostly in the marathon) all challenged themselves in competitive races in their younger days and ran plenty of all-out races before they were at the top. Even Galen Rupp and Mo Farah did when they were college-age and continue to do so now ... and they are pros who are often criticized for racing too infrequently.

I'm not saying for Cheserek to take an Alan Webb approach and run himself into the ground in his early(?) twenties and be burned out in 2-years. But running a few all-out races during the year is not going to hurt his long term development. If anything it's going to help it.

Lawi Lalang took a completely different approach when he was in the NCAA and ran out front pushing hard even in races he could have easily won with a kick. Asked why he did this he said he was practicing for when he was a pro and he'd be running Diamond League races where they all went out that fast.

I'm not saying Lalang's approach is the answer for Cheserek, but surely there is a happy medium between grinding it out from the gun in every single race and making every single "race" a jogfest.

For the purpose of this thread, I don't care about the sport or the fans. I'm just trying to make sense of the way Oregon has Cheserek (and to a lesser extent even Jenkins) go about their running. It's just very different than what I did, what most collegiates (even the elite ones) do, what the professionals do, and it just seems boring and at a certain level pointless.

powell and the rest of oregon have brainwashed him into just thinking about the ducks winning. he didn't even attempt to win the 3000 indoors because he wanted to let his teammate win for a change. that's just ridiculous to me.

i can understand not going for huge times, collegiate records, etc. not everybody cares about times. but that indoor 3k...wtf.

What's the point? wrote:

For the purpose of this thread, I don't care about the sport or the fans. I'm just trying to make sense of the way Oregon has Cheserek (and to a lesser extent even Jenkins) go about their running. It's just very different than what I did, what most collegiates (even the elite ones) do, what the professionals do, and it just seems boring and at a certain level pointless.

Jenkins top priority is NCAAs and probably is willing to sacrifice trying to run fast to give himself the best shot to win there. Clearly, something about the Oregon philosophy/training only allows them to run hard three times a year. Plus, he will probably try and have a summer season and do USAs.

Cheserek, I have no clue. He could twiddle his thumbs all year and still win NCAAs so what's stopping him from actually running hard in any XC, indoor or outdoor races for the entire year (including NCAAs) is beyond me. Seriously, all this focus on NCAAs and he doesn't try and beat his teammate in the indoor 3K? Maybe he's just lazy and doesn't like to hurt any more than he has to.

Plus he's had opportunities to run hard against good comp, but didn't take them. The Millrose Mile he paces a teammate (???) and finishes way back. Stanford 10K the winner was 28:12. I would have liked to see him actually compete at those two events.

is the triple doable at NCAAs?

even if he only does 15/10, i wouldn't expect the 15 to be too easy for him

chdic16 wrote:

is the triple doable at NCAAs?

even if he only does 15/10, i wouldn't expect the 15 to be too easy for him

Last year he did the 5K/10K double. If he did that again this year he should definitely win easily, but I haven't looked at how the schedule changed with the new men/women separate days format. I assume the 5K/10K are on different days with the 1500 heats one day and final on the other. So if he doubles he'll do 5K/10K rather than the 1500/5K.

Could he triple? That'd be tough, but I think he's enough a favorite in the 5K and 10K he could win those even with the 1500 in his legs as well. Does Oregon need him to do that though? If he does, I agree the 1500 wouldn't be too easy for him especially considering he'd be tripling and Soratos would probably make it fast again to take advantage.

I agree with your overall sentiment but he's definitely had some tough races where he was pushed to his limit: running down Kithuka in xc his freshman year, his 1500 and 5k losses to Lawi, the Millrose mile, and his solo 1200 DMR leg where he really got after it going out in 56.

What's the point? wrote:

-tempo a 10K in 31:45-32:00 (finish 26th while people ahead of me were running close to my PR)

-tempo a 5K in 15:30ish with my teammates, not racing it in

-Run a few more slow races against people no where near my level and beat them all easily with a big kick at the end

Isnt a tempo a treshold run?

reed wrote:

he didn't even attempt to win the 3000 indoors because he wanted to let his teammate win for a change. that's just ridiculous to me.

Despite Cheserek's quote, does anyone really believe he didn't attempt to win? Maybe he had a different attitude knowing it was his teammate, but he was in sprint mode with the same look and arm swing as when he sprints. Jenkins is good.

We have had this argument before. Yes, I believe he didn't attempt to win. However, you are in good company and the Letsrun verdict is that he lied.

bigtool05 wrote:

I agree with your overall sentiment but he's definitely had some tough races where he was pushed to his limit: running down Kithuka in xc his freshman year, his 1500 and 5k losses to Lawi, the Millrose mile, and his solo 1200 DMR leg where he really got after it going out in 56.

Agreed, he ran hard races last year as a freshman. I was thinking of this year and looking ahead to the rest of his college career. Maybe he won't do this for 4-5 years tho and will go pro early.

??temp0?? wrote:

What's the point? wrote:

-tempo a 10K in 31:45-32:00 (finish 26th while people ahead of me were running close to my PR)

-tempo a 5K in 15:30ish with my teammates, not racing it in

-Run a few more slow races against people no where near my level and beat them all easily with a big kick at the end

Isnt a tempo a treshold run?

Not anymore. Now the term is used for a too-fast workout, or a slow race; e.g.

"Man, you didn't do so well today."

"Uh, I was tempoing this race."

What's the point? wrote:

(except for the indoor 3000 where Jenkins "beat him").

Eric didn't "beat" him, he won.

This thread is one of the most frustrating thing about the media and typical coaches. The best athletes throughout all the sports are labeled as lazy. Bolt, Jadeveon Clowny, Randy Moss, Jim Brown, and now Ches and so many others that are limping around who you never heard of because coaches who thought they knew what they were doing either physically or psychologically ran them into the ground.

You have to understand that people who are capable of the most elite and mind boggling performances are like that BECAUSE they are "lazy". It takes an inconceivable amount of energy to perform at their level and it takes a very long time to recover from it.

Every single person who plays sports has seen this. There was always that one kid who the coaches drooled over and then complained about being lazy, but the problem is they didn't understand how to motivate and train an elite athlete. Training elites is VERY different than training your typical "try hard white guy" who has no talent but "busts his butt". In sports like track, who cares if he "busts his butt" because his best is nowhere near the elite talents potential.

Now don't get me wrong, there is a difference between a naturally lazy athlete who knows their own limits and protects their bodies for the great efforts and those who have no motivation and drive. The "lazy" elites train very intense and it is precisely their few repetitions at extreme intensities which make the gaps in between seem like a lack of effort. It isn't it is just recovery for the next huge effort.

Ches will be fine in the long run if he continues to be coached by smart coaches who understand this fact and allow the increasing intensity of the races that he will progress through to increase Ches's effort. Be patient.

I don't buy your argument that elite performances take substantially more mental energy and recovery time than performances at any other level. I also don't buy your argument that this trend exists where the most elite athletes are perceived as lazy. Did anyone call Tergat lazy? Bekele? Geb? El G? Komen? Seb Coe? Rudisha? Hell I don't think I've ever heard anyone call Ches lazy either.

Hell I'll keep going. Did people call Michael Jordan lazy? Do people call Lebron lazy? Did people call Lance Armstrong lazy? Your whole post is bs

This will not be as interesting if 5-10 years from now (when the 15 yr olds are adult professional athletes), they still lose to Cheserek.