UW is for University of Wisconsin-Madison. Stop using it with Washington. Wisconsin is MUCH more accomplished and deserving.
UW is for University of Wisconsin-Madison. Stop using it with Washington. Wisconsin is MUCH more accomplished and deserving.
Hi Suzy, thanks for dropping in!
Former UW Runner wrote:
I suspect this is someone who had a good experience running for Greg. There was always a good chunk of people who enjoyed his energy and enthusiasm. He was a decent coach most of the time, but I honestly could never get past the talking crap about people when they were out of earshot. I never understood it, there was nothing to gain, but he would throw something inappropriate out there and get a nervous chuckle out of some of his athletes. GOOD COACHES DON'T DO THAT! It's not a fireable offense in itself, but to me, it was completely inappropriate conduct by a head coach. Many of us are not surprised that Greg is no longer with UW.
This being said, the guy is not all bad (If he could knock off some of these destructive behaviors, he'd be a great coach). I can't say I enjoyed running for him, but I know other athletes have had better experiences. I hope he finally learns and grows through this.
This is someone who had an up and down running experience under Greg. Some of that was my fault, some his, some circumstance. While I technically enjoyed some level of his enthusiasm, I always viewed it as a bit much and often times I found it to be insincere as I found his entire approach to most everything to be insincere (though I could have been reading him incorrectly I'm fully willing to admit). I was treated like royalty when I ran well and mostly ignored when not. I wasn't particularly fond of him, but objectionably I had quite a bit of improvement under him although I feel I did not reach peak performance while I was there - again, some of that lies with myself, Greg, and circumstance. He would talk crap about people while they were in his presence (whether in good-natured ribbing or in a harsher 'you need to get your sh*t together' way), if he did it behind their back I was not witness to it.
I'm not 'defending' Greg. Although I have a personal history with the guy I'm coming at this as objectionably as can be reasonably expected. This to me is more about what people can be 'fired' for (I know he technically resigned be everyone knows what that means) and why it's a bad idea to cater to the lowest common denominator. I'm not telling anyone that his way was the best. I'm saying don't bow down to the vast minority who were driven to emotional breakdown by someone being harsh on them. What's the goal here? End all adversity? Where does it stop? If we fire coaches for being 'mean' or 'fat shaming' now, do we fire coaches for telling them they didn't run fast enough in 10 years? For telling them their time wasn't a PR in 20 years?
If these kids can't deal with a 'mean' coach there is something that needs to be addressed with THEM. Sorry, that is the truth. If you can't handle that it's going to be a rough life. But you have a choice. You can transfer. You can find one of these coaches that coddles and everyone wins and you don't put a ton of people out of work (after you've left the university anyways, FFS). You can let the majority choose to stay and not have panic attacks because their coach was hard on them.
You think I'm here to defend something when I'm indifferent to it. I'm here to push back against empowering the weak. And not because I don't think they should be cared for - they should - but we need to recognize that they are the ones that need help, not the ones to be setting thresholds for others' behavior. The rest of us will function just fine. The rest (most) of us need some level of adversity, not to be pampered all day every day.
Baaaadge wrote:
UW is for University of Wisconsin-Madison. Stop using it with Washington. Wisconsin is MUCH more accomplished and deserving.
That doesn' t even make sense. UW-M is all yours though.
Kettle wrote:
... but objectionably I had quite a bit of improvement under him...
... I'm coming at this as objectionably as can be reasonably expected...
Objectively. The word is objectively.
Kettle wrote:
Former UW Runner wrote:
I suspect this is someone who had a good experience running for Greg. There was always a good chunk of people who enjoyed his energy and enthusiasm. He was a decent coach most of the time, but I honestly could never get past the talking crap about people when they were out of earshot. I never understood it, there was nothing to gain, but he would throw something inappropriate out there and get a nervous chuckle out of some of his athletes. GOOD COACHES DON'T DO THAT! It's not a fireable offense in itself, but to me, it was completely inappropriate conduct by a head coach. Many of us are not surprised that Greg is no longer with UW.
This being said, the guy is not all bad (If he could knock off some of these destructive behaviors, he'd be a great coach). I can't say I enjoyed running for him, but I know other athletes have had better experiences. I hope he finally learns and grows through this.
This is someone who had an up and down running experience under Greg. Some of that was my fault, some his, some circumstance. While I technically enjoyed some level of his enthusiasm, I always viewed it as a bit much and often times I found it to be insincere as I found his entire approach to most everything to be insincere (though I could have been reading him incorrectly I'm fully willing to admit). I was treated like royalty when I ran well and mostly ignored when not. I wasn't particularly fond of him, but objectionably I had quite a bit of improvement under him although I feel I did not reach peak performance while I was there - again, some of that lies with myself, Greg, and circumstance. He would talk crap about people while they were in his presence (whether in good-natured ribbing or in a harsher 'you need to get your sh*t together' way), if he did it behind their back I was not witness to it.
I'm not 'defending' Greg. Although I have a personal history with the guy I'm coming at this as objectionably as can be reasonably expected. This to me is more about what people can be 'fired' for (I know he technically resigned be everyone knows what that means) and why it's a bad idea to cater to the lowest common denominator. I'm not telling anyone that his way was the best. I'm saying don't bow down to the vast minority who were driven to emotional breakdown by someone being harsh on them. What's the goal here? End all adversity? Where does it stop? If we fire coaches for being 'mean' or 'fat shaming' now, do we fire coaches for telling them they didn't run fast enough in 10 years? For telling them their time wasn't a PR in 20 years?
If these kids can't deal with a 'mean' coach there is something that needs to be addressed with THEM. Sorry, that is the truth. If you can't handle that it's going to be a rough life. But you have a choice. You can transfer. You can find one of these coaches that coddles and everyone wins and you don't put a ton of people out of work (after you've left the university anyways, FFS). You can let the majority choose to stay and not have panic attacks because their coach was hard on them.
You think I'm here to defend something when I'm indifferent to it. I'm here to push back against empowering the weak. And not because I don't think they should be cared for - they should - but we need to recognize that they are the ones that need help, not the ones to be setting thresholds for others' behavior. The rest of us will function just fine. The rest (most) of us need some level of adversity, not to be pampered all day every day.
Here's the thing. They were there as STUDENT-athletes. Running was one part of the entire program that they were paying for. Seems strange to to put the onus fully on them to transfer just because the coach is an A-hole. Students are paying for his salary, shouldn't they have some input on his behavior?
Let's take the athletics out of it. If you went to school that you really loved, would you transfer just because one professor was a complete douche and was being abusive toward students and showing up to class drunk? Or would you maybe expect the University to do something about a professor that had multiple complaints from students? Not saying he needed to be fired, but I don't get this whole 'just shut up and transfer' attitude. What part of your tuition payment includes signing away reasonable protection from abuse from faculty?
*to be clear I'm not trying to insinuating he was showing up drunk, just using it as an example of a professor acting inappropriate on the job.
"Abuse" is subjective. If the vast majority didn't feel "abused" then did "abuse" take place?
Is there proof he showed up drunk? I'm hearing stories. 20 year olds (particularly today's 20 year olds) I trust not to deliver truth over feeling.
Kettle wrote:
"Abuse" is subjective. If the vast majority didn't feel "abused" then did "abuse" take place?
Is there proof he showed up drunk? I'm hearing stories. 20 year olds (particularly today's 20 year olds) I trust not to deliver truth over feeling.
the poster clearly stated that he wasn't implying Metcalf was drunk.
If I walked down the row at work and slapped every third person in the face....is that really "abuse"?
most people didn't feel "abused", right?
Greg, you're not helping yourself out here at all. Please just stop.
Kettle wrote:
"Abuse" is subjective. If the vast majority didn't feel "abused" then did "abuse" take place?
The Catholic Church just called.........yes. It's still abuse even if you didn't abuse them all.
This is the dumbest post in the history of Letsrun. There have been worse, but this is actually sincere.
Somebody else said he was drunk earlier and I was typing a reply during the time s/he was making the second post clarifying about drunkenness. Sue me.
Your analogy of every third person getting slapped is invalid since basically everyone was treated the same. He wasn't singling people out. He was indiscriminately harsh on any and everyone and as per his quote he 'thought they could handle it'. Most could.
So my point stands. If he was harsh on 99 people who felt it wasn't abuse and harsh on the 100th who DID think it was abuse, did abuse take place? Or is something wrong with #100?
asd365 wrote:
Greg, you're not helping yourself out here at all. Please just stop.
You must think you're some kind of genius. Of COURSE the only person who could disagree with someone who thinks Greg was abusive is Greg himself. And Greg would make up a story about running for Greg. And not write/speak in any way that Greg does. And state how flawed he thinks Greg is.
You caught me
-Greg
Not a Metcalf fan at all but I think using the term “abuse” related to Greg’s actions as they have been reported is going overboard. It sounds like a lot of inappropriate language, poor interpersonal skills/lack of trust talking about people behind their backs and inability to relate to some of his athletes as individuals. He is one of those P5 coaches who runs people very hard and if you’re in the small percentage who succeed you think he’s great, the end justified the means. Everyone else ends up injured and quits, transfers, or feels they were cheated out of reaching their potential.
In his case this stuff had all cumulated to the point where it ruined the program’s reputation and his recruiting in the last three years really started taking a hit, which translated to even worse team results for a chronically underperforming program. Pretty easy for the AD to make a change when all those factors are in play, even more so if there’s any truth to the rumors about his personal behavior raised by another poster. Really looking forward to see what the new staff can do there once they get things overhauled.
Here's a crazy idea. Maybe some athletes were singled out, and worse happened in private. Maybe not all of the victims have come forward publicly. The idea that anyone knows everything that happened because they were on the team at the time, or because they read an article about it, is ridiculous.
Most victims don't report abuse immediately, especially when there is an imbalance of power, when you don't know if anyone will believe you, when you think people will accuse you of being a whiney crybaby.
We're now delving into the theoretical?
Yes, dear, we can only comment on what has been made public knowledge. What has been made public knowledge makes the 'victims' sound like they couldn't handle not being treated with kid gloves. If worse happened, why are those instances being locked away in a vault and just the crybaby stuff being leaked?
As long as we're going completely on guesswork, how about we just go with Greg ate babies in front of athletes privately? Greg forced some of his athletes to watch furry porn with him privately? Greg demanded private hot stone massages in return for scholarship money?
You are so entrenched in ensuring that someone is a victim you're now resorting to conjuring up 'what if' scenarios to justify how you absolutely positively NEED to feel about what went down. Congratulations.
So what is it?
-Is what has been made public truly abusive behavior?
-Do you know for a fact that much worse happened in private to singled out individuals?
-Are you filling in gaps with conjecture to flesh out your narrative?
Kettle wrote:
If these kids can't deal with a 'mean' coach there is something that needs to be addressed with THEM. Sorry, that is the truth. If you can't handle that it's going to be a rough life. But you have a choice. You can transfer. You can find one of these coaches that coddles and everyone wins and you don't put a ton of people out of work (after you've left the university anyways, FFS). You can let the majority choose to stay and not have panic attacks because their coach was hard on them.
You think I'm here to defend something when I'm indifferent to it. I'm here to push back against empowering the weak.
That's total nonsense. A weak person would tolerate some a--hole being constantly mean to them.
A strong person would not tolerate that abusive type of behavior, and beyond that would not tolerate their friends, team mates, and people they didn't even know being treated in abusive ways by some a--hole.
Outraged wrote:
Yes, dear, we can only comment on what has been made public knowledge.
You must be Greg, or are there two people as dumb and worthless as you are.
There's nothing more insulting than being presented with a guess as evidence in the guise of fact.
Singling out individuals for embarrassment and humiliation is simply a failing management philosophy. No evidence it works. The reason not everyone complained about it is probably because the coach only used it on athletes who seemed vulnerable enough.
There's a big difference between chewing out a team for poor effort and singling out individuals for berating, IMO.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday