Lear's quote on the front page may be misleading. Other teams (like Georgetown) turned him down for a book, which is party of why he landed on CU.
Lear's quote on the front page may be misleading. Other teams (like Georgetown) turned him down for a book, which is party of why he landed on CU.
Favorite paraphrased quote: "It's my last one, bi&@$." I think it was Ponce replying toa surprised Goucher as Ponce started to catch up with Goucher. If memory serves, Goucher smoked him.
Least favorite paraphrased line from the book: "I can see more of your ribs. That's a good thing!" Wetmore referring to one of the runners' having lost weight. I know it's a necessary evil of running at a high level... I just don't like the emphasis without also taking about eating disorders in the running community. That said, it's easy to look at it differently in hindsight now that there is more visibility on the issue.
LetsEatDoughnutsInstead wrote:
Favorite paraphrased quote: "It's my last one, bi&@$." I think it was Ponce replying toa surprised Goucher as Ponce started to catch up with Goucher. If memory serves, Goucher smoked him.
Least favorite paraphrased line from the book: "I can see more of your ribs. That's a good thing!" Wetmore referring to one of the runners' having lost weight. I know it's a necessary evil of running at a high level... I just don't like the emphasis without also taking about eating disorders in the running community. That said, it's easy to look at it differently in hindsight now that there is more visibility on the issue.
Actually, I just remembered all of the African runner bashing by Goucher... That was my least favorite part.
LetsEatDoughnutsInstead wrote:
Favorite paraphrased quote: "It's my last one, bi&@$." I think it was Ponce replying toa surprised Goucher as Ponce started to catch up with Goucher. If memory serves, Goucher smoked him.
It's Slattery running down Goucher during (I think) a K repeat where Slattery was doing 8 and Goucher was doing 12.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacitating_agenthttp://www.letsrun.com/news/2018/11/now-catching-members-1998-university-colorado-xc-team-20-years-running-buffaloes/kid from PA wrote:
LetsEatDoughnutsInstead wrote:
Favorite paraphrased quote: "It's my last one, bi&@$." I think it was Ponce replying toa surprised Goucher as Ponce started to catch up with Goucher. If memory serves, Goucher smoked him.
It's Slattery running down Goucher during (I think) a K repeat where Slattery was doing 8 and Goucher was doing 12.
Quack!... QuackQuack!
Disclaimer: I have not read the book. I am certain it was a real labour of love and a real achievement for Lear - but from what I have read about the premise I have somewhat mixed feelings. I am sure that as a fan of the sport the details would be inspiring, but TBH for me, that premise marginalizes the sport even more than it would appear to the average reader/sports enthusiast who doesn't know much about the sport.
I know there is support for what Wetmore has pledged to do for American distance running, and I'm not trying to change anybody's mind on that. I suppose it's not any different from top Japanese universities/ coaches only wanting Japanese runners for the ekiden teams as a matter of national prestige. Thinking like this never sat right with me, but there's nothing to do but accept it - the problem is when this thinking becomes part of a slippery slope that elements of the white majority audience on here feels entitled to adopt and use to justify their beliefs (re. the diatribes and vitriol thrown at international athletes, particularly at Africans) - I think this is a distortion - I'd like to think that Wetmore's intention really is to help US college runners compete with the best within the NCAA system, but I don't think that bears any resemblence to how this is misued here.
I do believe that his book has become a bible of sorts for the wrong reasons, a way for certain people to become even more inward-looking and convinced of their own superiority. I don't think that Lear intended this, of course and I could be wrong, but I just feel this is a reflection on what a sizeable minority on here reduced the discourse to. I think that is something that needs to be considered, if this book is to be assessed on it merits and meaning.
I don't think that Lear intended this, of course and I could be wrong
*in my own view on this - I am certainly open to discuss
More of the same wrote:
I don't think that Lear intended this, of course and I could be wrong
*in my own view on this - I am certainly open to discuss
Typical .... hasn’t even read the book but passing judgment on others regardless.
Utter BS. You haven't read the book and you're trying to cast a heavy-handed judgement on it?
I'm chuckling reading your bizarre assertion, but I'll play along: You think a mundane book that chronologically follows a college cross country team's season and was written by a young, first-time author is being co-opted to alter the mindset of runners in a negative way? Do you also look down on Once a Runner for the same reasons (or did you not read it?)? Or Remember the Titans?
FWIW, I was a high schooler soon after the book was published and read the book, read OAR, got onto Dyestat/Letsrun and was very compelled to succeed and run in college. Pretty standard stuff and I don't see RWTB as anything more than a spark of inspiration. If you want to make some wacky social justice narrative against a simple running narrative that inspires teen boys, take a step back a think about what really matters in your life.
Congrats letsrun...Wonderful work like this is some of the best of letsrun...
runner12345 wrote:
What are some of everyone's favorite running books of all time besides this one?
"Running with the Buffaloes" and "Once A Runner" are two of the best books I've read on any subject.
The lit'ry snobs who disparage them don't know what they're talking about. Both books have beautifully
crafted plots, vivid personalities, and an acute sense of what it is to run. They are worthy of Tom Wolfe
in their detail, pacing, and passion.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
For example:
1) Alpha™)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/us/politics/mueller-paul-manafort-cooperation.html2) Omega™)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/nyregion/michael-cohen-trump-russia-mueller.html3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeumyOzKqgI4)
https://getcutcampaign.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/elevation-mask.jpg5) Have a nice day.
Yes reading it for the first time just this year, the eating/weight stuff seemed pretty off. That being said, it was about the mens' team, and they all went to their big greasy spoon spot after long runs, ate steaks etc. Could've come across much worse if he acted same way around women's team, was a micro-manager on nutrition and there were eating disorders on the team. Wetmore seemed more frustrated with guys who were above race weight habitually. Kind of a dangerous way he might've joked about it, so hopefully that's evolved and it never became a Metcalf-like situation.
LetsEatDoughnutsInstead wrote:
Favorite paraphrased quote: "It's my last one, bi&@$." I think it was Ponce replying toa surprised Goucher as Ponce started to catch up with Goucher. If memory serves, Goucher smoked him.
Least favorite paraphrased line from the book: "I can see more of your ribs. That's a good thing!" Wetmore referring to one of the runners' having lost weight. I know it's a necessary evil of running at a high level... I just don't like the emphasis without also taking about eating disorders in the running community. That said, it's easy to look at it differently in hindsight now that there is more visibility on the issue.
Holms wrote:
great book wrote:
Good article/interview, thanks LR.
Would be awesome if Lear or Gault could get a sitdown with Wetmore to talk about how his training philosophies have changed over the years and looking back on this year if he would change anything
I think I read several years ago that he changed from singles to doubles. The reason for doing singles was to fit around the college schedule easier, apparently. If this were reason though, why wouldn't more colleges do it?
I never understood that logic. You have at most 3-4 classes a day. Shouldn't be hard to fit doubles around that if you are serious about it.
They had Mexicans on the team. It was Goucher and Severy who were the xenophobic racist ones.
Make no mistake, CU's women's team was certainly a den of EDs soon after that if not at that exact same time. It would be little surprise at all if the injury rates among the rosters had contributions from Wetmore's criticisms leading to undereating and resultant malnutrition.
Positive Contribution wrote:
Holms wrote:
I think I read several years ago that he changed from singles to doubles. The reason for doing singles was to fit around the college schedule easier, apparently. If this were reason though, why wouldn't more colleges do it?
I never understood that logic. You have at most 3-4 classes a day. Shouldn't be hard to fit doubles around that if you are serious about it.
One short chapter follows Goucher running on his own at 7:15, as he has classes all day starting at 9:00 (it isn't specific beyond this) and went to a Matchbox Twenty concert in the evening. Even if he only had four classes, they could be spaced so it's difficult to fit a run in (including time to change and shower and go from class to class).
Read the book, and before you read that, go read Lydiard's books.
One of Lydiard's core tenets that most college coaches (who say they are Lydiard guys) forget, but Wetmore understands perfectly is: "Champions are everywhere, they just need to be trained properly." Wetmore discusses that concept in RWTB-- he would develop the Colorado talent. Bowerman had a similar approach. That's part of the reason why he had a conflict about getting Ritz.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with making fun of your competition like the guys did. I also think it's weak when NCAA coaches go out and buy talent from overseas and act as if they're amazing. Anybody with a computer and scholarship money can do that. It takes a real coach to do the best with what he has.
Stop trying to paint everything as racist wrote:
More of the same wrote:
I don't think that Lear intended this, of course and I could be wrong
*in my own view on this - I am certainly open to discuss
Typical .... hasn’t even read the book but passing judgment on others regardless.
Come on man. I said it was more about how things have become, especially on here. I never said the premise was racist - what I did say was that I had mixed feelings about it given the way people have used it in racist viewpoints. Is it wrong to say that this should be considered in the discussion?
I would be interested in the book, for sure, mixed feelings aside. My disclaimer was because I wanted to draw a parallel (to Japan) AND point out that some people (in my view) have distorted what this book is.
Typical...hasn't even read carefully, but passing judgement on others regardless.
Look, I can certainly appreciate that the book is unique (to a fan of the sport it wouldn't be mundane), and inspiring. To be clear, I am not judging the book or the writer - as I said above - mixed feelings on the premise, but is based on how at least some people view things today - your comment about co-opting, that's what I mean. As I said, I may be wrong about my view, but can you not see elements of this in what is posted on here?
To your last point, I don't think that pointing out views that are increasingly more common today, and the role that I have seen some use this book for, diminishes the motivation this book can bring, like what it did for you - I wouldn't and do not make assumptions about you for reading it. But I do think that if people are willing to dismiss a view that they may not necessarily have seen directly, or agree with, or consider as possibly having wider implications, as a wacky social justice narrative, maybe that shows what really matters to them.