Real talk here. Why are so many coaches idiots? Never experienced this myself, but I keep hearing stories of people with coaches that don't understand the sport. Anyone wanna chime in on this?
Real talk here. Why are so many coaches idiots? Never experienced this myself, but I keep hearing stories of people with coaches that don't understand the sport. Anyone wanna chime in on this?
Consider your sources.
Quite a few idiot runners, as well.
It's because of the nature of the sport, but let me be clear about which coaches I'm about to skewer. The terrible coaches I have seen are usually high school distance coaches, but of course this can apply to other disciplines. In my opinion, these coaches fundamentally do not understand the sport. Distance running is simple, from a technical perspective, and that's why so many of these buffoons can stroll into these rolls. But the subtler details of the sport are essential for a coach to be great. What I mean is that great coaches strike a perfect balance that allows their runner to improve. They motivate their athletes to the point where they are fearless in the face of mileage, workouts, and races, but also temper this intensity by instilling a sense of pace, recovery, and calm. Most high school coaches just read Daniels and think that 40+ mile weeks will get them a healthy team that can contend for a conference championship, with maybe one or two studs every few years. But the problem with this regimen is that it's static, and fear driven. It's a conservative approach that produces conservative results and actually hurts more runners than it helps. Think about it, the only athletes that can achieve at a high level are the high responders, and I have seen firsthand how some kids, when asked to do college level training, have amazing developed into college level recruits (duh!). A good high school coach will promote in his athletes a desire to constantly push their boundaries, so naturally their mileage, tempos, and paces will increase over time. It should not be uncommon for a junior or senior to be running 70 mile weeks, and 7 mile tempos, or 16x400 at crest-load pace. But that's only possible because that same coach will also know when to hold said athlete back, to ensure a consistent build up. So in sum, so many coaches are bad because they lack the vision to push their athletes, and the knowledge to understand recovery. Running may not require a vast technical knowledge, but it does require a deep, generalist understanding. It's like philosophy, it's not difficult in the same way as physics or chemistry, but it's difficult nonetheless.
Serious Response wrote:
It's because of the nature of the sport, but let me be clear about which coaches I'm about to skewer. The terrible coaches I have seen are usually high school distance coaches, but of course this can apply to other disciplines. In my opinion, these coaches fundamentally do not understand the sport. Distance running is simple, from a technical perspective, and that's why so many of these buffoons can stroll into these rolls. But the subtler details of the sport are essential for a coach to be great. What I mean is that great coaches strike a perfect balance that allows their runner to improve. They motivate their athletes to the point where they are fearless in the face of mileage, workouts, and races, but also temper this intensity by instilling a sense of pace, recovery, and calm. Most high school coaches just read Daniels and think that 40+ mile weeks will get them a healthy team that can contend for a conference championship, with maybe one or two studs every few years. But the problem with this regimen is that it's static, and fear driven. It's a conservative approach that produces conservative results and actually hurts more runners than it helps. Think about it, the only athletes that can achieve at a high level are the high responders, and I have seen firsthand how some kids, when asked to do college level training, have amazing developed into college level recruits (duh!). A good high school coach will promote in his athletes a desire to constantly push their boundaries, so naturally their mileage, tempos, and paces will increase over time. It should not be uncommon for a junior or senior to be running 70 mile weeks, and 7 mile tempos, or 16x400 at crest-load pace. But that's only possible because that same coach will also know when to hold said athlete back, to ensure a consistent build up. So in sum, so many coaches are bad because they lack the vision to push their athletes, and the knowledge to understand recovery. Running may not require a vast technical knowledge, but it does require a deep, generalist understanding. It's like philosophy, it's not difficult in the same way as physics or chemistry, but it's difficult nonetheless.
I would say that if a coach even knows about Jack Daniels then that's a win! Far more coaches know less about running than that! Low mileage. Tons of speedwork...all the time. Awful stuff, simply awful.
I remember reading an article with German Fernandez's coach saying he used Daniels' book to train Fernandez.
I do like what you said about mileage though.
I've seen a few coaches who had really funny, totally counterintuitive approaches. They were certain that high mileage meant injuries, no matter what preventive measures were taken. A senior girl who went on to run at a high level D1 program, and currently has a 2:11 pr for 800m, went to a running camp, then was told to take the rest of the summer off because she overtrained that one week and was going to get injured.
Anyways, they kept mileage very low, but always gave out long, hard interval sessions, lasting up to 8 miles. So athletes were running 25-30% of their weekly mileage on one day, the interval day. Goes against just about anything you could imagine. The issue is that for many schools, XC is a secondary sport. The administration often does little to find a good coach, settling instead for the teacher who has been around forever, because it is easier. The teacher usually knows next to nothing about it, just making it up as they go. Heath from CBA was like this his first few years. He had been a sprinter, then had come back to teach and decided to be a distance coach. His first few years were apparently (from what I've been told by alumni and coaches of rivals at the time) absolutely awful. He had no idea how to coach a team, and most kids wound up injured. They couldn't compete with most other schools. Many kids out of CBA today wind up injured, but they also produce national level talent, so people overlook that.
Bro - Mama wrote:
Quite a few idiot runners, as well.
Law of averages is a b!tch.
Fantastic post, but WTF is "crest-load pace"?
Serious Response wrote:
It's because of the nature of the sport, but let me be clear about which coaches I'm about to skewer. The terrible coaches I have seen are usually high school distance coaches, but of course this can apply to other disciplines. In my opinion, these coaches fundamentally do not understand the sport. Distance running is simple, from a technical perspective, and that's why so many of these buffoons can stroll into these rolls. But the subtler details of the sport are essential for a coach to be great. What I mean is that great coaches strike a perfect balance that allows their runner to improve. They motivate their athletes to the point where they are fearless in the face of mileage, workouts, and races, but also temper this intensity by instilling a sense of pace, recovery, and calm. Most high school coaches just read Daniels and think that 40+ mile weeks will get them a healthy team that can contend for a conference championship, with maybe one or two studs every few years. But the problem with this regimen is that it's static, and fear driven. It's a conservative approach that produces conservative results and actually hurts more runners than it helps. Think about it, the only athletes that can achieve at a high level are the high responders, and I have seen firsthand how some kids, when asked to do college level training, have amazing developed into college level recruits (duh!). A good high school coach will promote in his athletes a desire to constantly push their boundaries, so naturally their mileage, tempos, and paces will increase over time. It should not be uncommon for a junior or senior to be running 70 mile weeks, and 7 mile tempos, or 16x400 at crest-load pace. But that's only possible because that same coach will also know when to hold said athlete back, to ensure a consistent build up. So in sum, so many coaches are bad because they lack the vision to push their athletes, and the knowledge to understand recovery. Running may not require a vast technical knowledge, but it does require a deep, generalist understanding. It's like philosophy, it's not difficult in the same way as physics or chemistry, but it's difficult nonetheless.
Sorry, that's a John Kellog term. "Crest-load" is technically what your race-pace would be for an 8 mile race. Almost no high schoolers would know this pace, but you can think of it as mid-to-low 5:30 miles. For 400's, that's going to be around 80 seconds or under.
I would say that if a coach even knows about Jack Daniels then that's a win! Far more coaches know less about running than that! Low mileage. Tons of speedwork...all the time. Awful stuff, simply awful.
I remember reading an article with German Fernandez's coach saying he used Daniels' book to train Fernandez.
I do like what you said about mileage though.[/quote]
Sorry, I have to disagree. I think Daniels training has been a huge reason why US high school coaches are stuck in the dark ages. His ideas are useful, but they should never form the foundation for a coaching philosophy. Similar to Frued, fun to read, occasionally insightful, but you'd fail psyche if his teachings formed your bedrock.
Serious Response wrote:
I would say that if a coach even knows about Jack Daniels then that's a win! Far more coaches know less about running than that! Low mileage. Tons of speedwork...all the time. Awful stuff, simply awful.
I remember reading an article with German Fernandez's coach saying he used Daniels' book to train Fernandez.
I do like what you said about mileage though.
Sorry, I have to disagree. I think Daniels training has been a huge reason why US high school coaches are stuck in the dark ages. His ideas are useful, but they should never form the foundation for a coaching philosophy. Similar to Frued, fun to read, occasionally insightful, but you'd fail psyche if his teachings formed your bedrock.[/quote]
No offense taken. What I was trying to say that A LOT of coaches don't even know about Daniels! Yes, they are that terrible. I took over a program that ran 13 miles a WEEK...and no summer running!
Who the heck would know their 8 mile race pace? who runs 8 mile races?
And 80 sec 400's would be 5:20ish pace, not 5:30 pace. What you really mean is under control, tempo pace, closer to Daniels cruise intervals. But, because Daniels training has left US high school coaches in the dark ages, we will coin a new term for the same work load.
crazy eights? wrote:
But, because Daniels training has left US high school coaches in the dark ages, we will coin a new term for the same work load.
What is it about Daniels training that has left high school coaches in the "dark ages"?
Sounds like tinman's "critical velocity".
Serious Response wrote:
Sorry, that's a John Kellog term. "Crest-load" is technically what your race-pace would be for an 8 mile race. Almost no high schoolers would know this pace, but you can think of it as mid-to-low 5:30 miles. For 400's, that's going to be around 80 seconds or under.
To is, or not to is wrote:
crazy eights? wrote:But, because Daniels training has left US high school coaches in the dark ages, we will coin a new term for the same work load.
What is it about Daniels training that has left high school coaches in the "dark ages"?
Yeah I was wondering the same thing. There's a lot of good in Daniels: purposeful workouts, recommends good mileage, a balance b/w work and recovery. I would say that all the low-mileage coaches focusing on tons of hard work is far worse.
I thought my HS coach was an idiot. We had no one good on our team, I was the top runner as a freshman.
I found our old training plans... and it was I that was the idiot. Mileage goals, tempo runs, fartleks, long runs, all stuff you didn't do in the 90s. I later found out he coached a national champion and US record holder in the 80s.
There's a lot of idiots. But at least this one wasn't.
Serious Response wrote:
It's because of the nature of the sport, but let me be clear about which coaches I'm about to skewer. The terrible coaches I have seen are usually high school distance coaches, but of course this can apply to other disciplines. In my opinion, these coaches fundamentally do not understand the sport. Distance running is simple, from a technical perspective, and that's why so many of these buffoons can stroll into these rolls. But the subtler details of the sport are essential for a coach to be great. What I mean is that great coaches strike a perfect balance that allows their runner to improve. They motivate their athletes to the point where they are fearless in the face of mileage, workouts, and races, but also temper this intensity by instilling a sense of pace, recovery, and calm. Most high school coaches just read Daniels and think that 40+ mile weeks will get them a healthy team that can contend for a conference championship, with maybe one or two studs every few years. But the problem with this regimen is that it's static, and fear driven. It's a conservative approach that produces conservative results and actually hurts more runners than it helps. Think about it, the only athletes that can achieve at a high level are the high responders, and I have seen firsthand how some kids, when asked to do college level training, have amazing developed into college level recruits (duh!). A good high school coach will promote in his athletes a desire to constantly push their boundaries, so naturally their mileage, tempos, and paces will increase over time. It should not be uncommon for a junior or senior to be running 70 mile weeks, and 7 mile tempos, or 16x400 at crest-load pace. But that's only possible because that same coach will also know when to hold said athlete back, to ensure a consistent build up. So in sum, so many coaches are bad because they lack the vision to push their athletes, and the knowledge to understand recovery. Running may not require a vast technical knowledge, but it does require a deep, generalist understanding. It's like philosophy, it's not difficult in the same way as physics or chemistry, but it's difficult nonetheless.
Dude, this is a lot of words and no substance.
So HSers should do 7 mile tempos and 16 X 400 at "8 mile race pace."
I don't disagree with what you are saying but think you missed the mark.
Serious Response wrote:
It's because of the nature of the sport, but let me be clear about which coaches I'm about to skewer. The terrible coaches I have seen are usually high school distance coaches, but of course this can apply to other disciplines. In my opinion, these coaches fundamentally do not understand the sport. Distance running is simple, from a technical perspective, and that's why so many of these buffoons can stroll into these rolls. But the subtler details of the sport are essential for a coach to be great. What I mean is that great coaches strike a perfect balance that allows their runner to improve. They motivate their athletes to the point where they are fearless in the face of mileage, workouts, and races, but also temper this intensity by instilling a sense of pace, recovery, and calm. Most high school coaches just read Daniels and think that 40+ mile weeks will get them a healthy team that can contend for a conference championship, with maybe one or two studs every few years. But the problem with this regimen is that it's static, and fear driven. It's a conservative approach that produces conservative results and actually hurts more runners than it helps. Think about it, the only athletes that can achieve at a high level are the high responders, and I have seen firsthand how some kids, when asked to do college level training, have amazing developed into college level recruits (duh!). A good high school coach will promote in his athletes a desire to constantly push their boundaries, so naturally their mileage, tempos, and paces will increase over time. It should not be uncommon for a junior or senior to be running 70 mile weeks, and 7 mile tempos, or 16x400 at crest-load pace. But that's only possible because that same coach will also know when to hold said athlete back, to ensure a consistent build up. So in sum, so many coaches are bad because they lack the vision to push their athletes, and the knowledge to understand recovery. Running may not require a vast technical knowledge, but it does require a deep, generalist understanding. It's like philosophy, it's not difficult in the same way as physics or chemistry, but it's difficult nonetheless.
+1
My kids' HS coach was a college D2 800m runner. He believes in low mileage around 30mpw even during XC season. It's his philosophy and it is not open to discussion. This coach knows I was a DI all-American in college but has never asked my thoughts. I want to shake him and explain not everyone responds to the same low-mileage training.
My oldest is running in college now and improved dramatically with moderate mileage and a long run every week. He almost gave up the running in HS but now is one of the best runners on his college team and qualified for nationals in XC. In HS he was mid-pack at the state XC meet, but now in college maybe 5 of those state meet runners can beat him.
High School coach gets lucky with some super talented athletes and has success simply because having their athletes do anything will yield good results, now they're considered a great coach through pure luck. Many school districts see a sport like XC/Track as a 'participation' sport, so they don't give the faintest interest in actual performance and development, and are happy if the coach gets numbers to join (further reinforcing the first problem, where blind luck in talent makes people think they're doing something right).These coaches are typically also teachers, which can be great, but unless they are the super-competitive or motivated type, they're unlikely to expand their knowledge as a coach, and will just go off their personal experience while competing in HS or College.
College XC/Track coaching in many, many places is who you know, not what you know. Ran at a big-time school or were a successful athlete yourself? you'll get a job regardless of whether you have any idea what made you successful. Get to know the right coach, and they'll bring you along as an assistant, again regardless of qualifications. I have an acquaintance that used to be a co-worker, post-collegiate competition didn't take off for them, but they were 'sub-elite' and a quality DI athlete. Their old coach got a new job and brought them on board, and now this distance runner is working with sprinters at a DI institution, with no experience and only cursory coaching education, while readily admitting they don't know what they're doing.
On top of all this is that track/xc is a fringe sport. Most College administrators have a Football, Basketball, or Baseball background, so they have no idea what makes a successful coach, and since their priorities are on their 'major' sports, the coach has little to answer for as long as they stay above blatant mismanagement or scandal. And of course there is little to no incentive to expand their knowledge base, especially since most programs will be more successful by recruiting better athletes, rather than getting better at developing their own talent.
Very few stops along the way at almost every level do coaches actually have outside incentive to get better at what they do.
My collegiate coach is a complete idiot. He's all talk to the AD about how he is going to build the greatest team ever and blah blah blah. It's not just high school coaches.