Thanks for putting that article up. I was thinking I should track it down and do that but now I don't need to look for it. I'm not sure I agree with malmo's characterization of Tom as a hobby jogger. Saying that's what a guy who'd won multiple national championships, even fairly minor ones, is is setting a pretty high bar. But like he says, anyone can have an opinion.
Tom Osler deserves a strong defense. He was good naturedly known as "Turtle Tom" Osler in the late 1960s because he didn't have the same lean/hungry look that many of us did. But, damn, he could beat you in any 15K+ race when you didn't have a good day. I don't have any race times at hand, but I bet Tom could run about 52:30 for 10 miles.
He trained and raced smart--like Ron Daws, another "no talent" runner who got everything out of himself. He IS smart; that's how he became a university math professor; he's still running far as I know, for his physical, mental and emotional health.
He put his smarts to good common-sense use in his Conditioning booklet. It's a classic. I followed many of his principles in 1968 when I ran 2:14:29.
Few modern-day road runners would argue with any of Tom's basic conclusions. They just do more and faster, which is what they should be doing 50 years later with better equipment, nutrition, opportunity, some $$$, etc.
Amby Burfoot wrote:
Tom Osler deserves a strong defense. He was good naturedly known as "Turtle Tom" Osler in the late 1960s because he didn't have the same lean/hungry look that many of us did. But, damn, he could beat you in any 15K+ race when you didn't have a good day. I don't have any race times at hand, but I bet Tom could run about 52:30 for 10 miles.
He trained and raced smart--like Ron Daws, another "no talent" runner who got everything out of himself. He IS smart; that's how he became a university math professor; he's still running far as I know, for his physical, mental and emotional health.
He put his smarts to good common-sense use in his Conditioning booklet. It's a classic. I followed many of his principles in 1968 when I ran 2:14:29.
Few modern-day road runners would argue with any of Tom's basic conclusions. They just do more and faster, which is what they should be doing 50 years later with better equipment, nutrition, opportunity, some $$$, etc.
Thanks for that, Amby. malmo hit a real low on this thread, only displaying his ignorance and arrogance. I hope Tom still gets in many good miles.
One of my favorite Osler anecdotes was when he was having dinner with Ted Corbitt and his wife. At the time, Corbitt was doing heroic mileage, well-known to locals, on the order of 180+/week, mostly tucked into his commute. His wife made a comment on how "...other husbands just lay around and get fat, but my Ted gets in his little run every day!". Osler reported that he nearly ejected the contents of his mouthful of food across the table.
He was a mere 10:00 2-miler in high school, as was I, and I took great inspiration that I might achieve his level (never did, but had fun trying).
I'm not sure why you think that Osler needs a "strong defense" Amby? He is not being attacked. If you look at the link I provided to the Joe Henderson 1969 article you will find that he did run 52:30 ten miles, as you surmised.
Joe Henderson’s 1969 article on Tom Osler, age 29
Occupation: college mathematics professor. Training: 70 to 75 miles a week at about 7:00 pace; fast bursts added three times a week before major races. Times: mile -- 4:35 (4:54 on fast training), 2-mile -- 9:35 (10:10), 3-mile -- 14:48 (16:30), 6-mile -- 30:30 (33:15), 10-mile -- 52:40 (57:30), marathon -- 2:29:04 (3:30).
The rest of Henderson's article describes Osler, a novice runner's self-discovery by trial and error, and how he learned the basics of training in ten years (1957-1967). Now I'm not a math professor, nor are any of my friends, but for most of us it only took only a year or two, at most, to master the basics.
http://www.joehenderson.com/longslowdistance/home.php?article=2209
YMMV wrote:
Thanks for that, Amby. malmo hit a real low on this thread, only displaying his ignorance and arrogance. .
Not true at all. You seem to be offended that I've never heard of your friend. That's your issue, not mine.
malmo wrote:
Never heard of him.
Never subscribed to any of his "obsessions."
Never heard of any of my peers subscribing to any of his obsessions.
Anyone can have an opinion.
Always a good idea to go into a thread and exclaim you are ignorant about a situation which somehow makes you above the people in this thread and who it is about.
Former Sub 14:00 wrote:
malmo wrote:
Never heard of him.
Never subscribed to any of his "obsessions."
Never heard of any of my peers subscribing to any of his obsessions.
Anyone can have an opinion.
Always a good idea to go into a thread and exclaim you are ignorant about a situation which somehow makes you above the people in this thread and who it is about.
Never a good idea to attack the person rather than the content. If you want to prove I've heard of Osler before then go ahead. If you want to prove that either me or my peers have subscibed to his obsessions do that. Other thn that you're creating drama where there is none.
I'm a little older than you and Tom's a little older than me. Figuring out the basics took some time for me, Tom actually helped with that but it took time for me to learn about him and make that happen. In the 1960s in western Pa. there was not much running going on outside of high schools and few high school coaches who had any real experience in the sport. Our coach was the football coach who never had the distance runners do anything, he didn't even give many of us race times. He did have guys from the football team running plays at track practices.
I had no idea of how to go about getting faster. The only publication that had any consistent information about training was Browning Ross's Long Distance Log and you kind of needed to know someone who knew it existed to know to get it. I didn't. Occasionally Sports Illustrated would have a story about a distance runner that MIGHT make some sort of reference to his training. I think the first thing I ever read about training was in a 1965 SI article about Ron Clarke. Track and Field News was there as well but it mostly gave results though there would be occasional training descriptions
The point is, given that Tom was trying to figure out the basics even sooner than I was it's not surprising that it took him longer to do than it took you. There was a ton more information about running in the DC area when we were there than there had been pretty much anywhere not that many years earlier. Don't misread this, I've always been impressed with how much about the sport you figured out and despite our political differences I almost always think what you write here about running is bang on the mark. But I'm not surprised it took Tom a bit longer to work out the basics given his setting.
Amby Burfoot wrote:
Tom Osler deserves a strong defense. He was good naturedly known as "Turtle Tom" Osler in the late 1960s because he didn't have the same lean/hungry look that many of us did. But, damn, he could beat you in any 15K+ race when you didn't have a good day. I don't have any race times at hand, but I bet Tom could run about 52:30 for 10 miles.
He trained and raced smart--like Ron Daws, another "no talent" runner who got everything out of himself. He IS smart; that's how he became a university math professor; he's still running far as I know, for his physical, mental and emotional health.
He put his smarts to good common-sense use in his Conditioning booklet. It's a classic. I followed many of his principles in 1968 when I ran 2:14:29.
Few modern-day road runners would argue with any of Tom's basic conclusions. They just do more and faster, which is what they should be doing 50 years later with better equipment, nutrition, opportunity, some $$$, etc.
I recall the afterword you wrote to Joe's LSD book about your training for that 2:14 and saying you'd been feeling good and began doing "Oslerian pickups."
malmo wrote:
YMMV wrote:
Thanks for that, Amby. malmo hit a real low on this thread, only displaying his ignorance and arrogance. .
Not true at all. You seem to be offended that I've never heard of your friend. That's your issue, not mine.
He is not my "friend", he is an author, and I read his book, which for me was quite valuable in it's advice at the time (1978, a bit before the internet and availability of the canonical "SOM" document which has propelled so many Olympians since). Your denigration of his intellect and ability was and is completely obtuse and uncalled for. You remain insufferable.
HRE I thought you were in DC for awhile?
malmo wrote:
HRE I thought you were in DC for awhile?
I was. I thought that came through in what I wrote but maybe not. By then I had figured out a good many of the basics but was out of college by then. But when I started running in high school in Pa. no one knew anything to speak of. It was all trial and error with most of it turning out as error. Even when I started running in college the same held true although by then not everything was an error.
"I don't even know what this is but I will comment on it." That's basically what you are doing. Then you clutch your pearls as people rush to call you out on it. Of course you don't know who he is. You made a point to inform everybody of it. I am only responding to weird drama created by you. It is kind of your MO nowadays.
YMMV wrote:
malmo wrote:
Not true at all. You seem to be offended that I've never heard of your friend. That's your issue, not mine.
He is not my "friend", he is an author, and I read his book, which for me was quite valuable in it's advice at the time (1978, a bit before the internet and availability of the canonical "SOM" document which has propelled so many Olympians since). Your denigration of his intellect and ability was and is completely obtuse and uncalled for. You remain insufferable.
I haven't denigrated Oslers intellect or ability. Both are clearly accurately displayed by Joe Hendersons article.
You however, became triggered when I said I didnt know who he was, and offered my lack of confirmation to the article from the OP s link. Once enraged you proceeded on a campaign of personal insults.
Take a deep breath. Everyone doesn't have to agree with you.
HRE wrote:
malmo wrote:
HRE I thought you were in DC for awhile?
I was. I thought that came through in what I wrote but maybe not. By then I had figured out a good many of the basics but was out of college by then. But when I started running in high school in Pa. no one knew anything to speak of. It was all trial and error with most of it turning out as error. Even when I started running in college the same held true although by then not everything was an error.
It did. After the second read.
I thought I recalled your name from Washington Running Club circles. Ray Morrison, Mark Baldino, Gabe Mirkin, Larry Noel, O'Connell, Bob Rothenberg, Terry Baker, Al Naylor etc.
Tom Osler is most certainly more well known than Malmo. Likewise his influence on runners is greater than Malmo’s. Just sayin’.
HRE wrote:
Amby Burfoot wrote:
Tom Osler deserves a strong defense. He was good naturedly known as "Turtle Tom" Osler in the late 1960s because he didn't have the same lean/hungry look that many of us did. But, damn, he could beat you in any 15K+ race when you didn't have a good day. I don't have any race times at hand, but I bet Tom could run about 52:30 for 10 miles.
He trained and raced smart--like Ron Daws, another "no talent" runner who got everything out of himself. He IS smart; that's how he became a university math professor; he's still running far as I know, for his physical, mental and emotional health.
He put his smarts to good common-sense use in his Conditioning booklet. It's a classic. I followed many of his principles in 1968 when I ran 2:14:29.
Few modern-day road runners would argue with any of Tom's basic conclusions. They just do more and faster, which is what they should be doing 50 years later with better equipment, nutrition, opportunity, some $$$, etc.
I recall the afterword you wrote to Joe's LSD book about your training for that 2:14 and saying you'd been feeling good and began doing "Oslerian pickups."
HRE/Amby: Are Oslerian pickups the 880 yard accelerations/repeats described in his 1967 Pamphlet "The Conditioning Of Distance Runners" (reprinted in two parts in Runners World in 1984/1985)?
https://beaconhillstriders.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/TheConditioning-of-Distance-Runners-Part-1-Tom-Osler.pdfhttps://beaconhillstriders.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/The-Conditioning-of-Distance-Runners-Part-2-Tom-Osler.pdfNothing unique about Tom Osler's views. I would call it common sense.
malmo wrote:
YMMV wrote:
He is not my "friend", he is an author, and I read his book, which for me was quite valuable in it's advice at the time (1978, a bit before the internet and availability of the canonical "SOM" document which has propelled so many Olympians since). Your denigration of his intellect and ability was and is completely obtuse and uncalled for. You remain insufferable.
I haven't denigrated Oslers intellect or ability. Both are clearly accurately displayed by Joe Hendersons article.
You however, became triggered when I said I didnt know who he was, and offered my lack of confirmation to the article from the OP s link. Once enraged you proceeded on a campaign of personal insults.
Take a deep breath. Everyone doesn't have to agree with you.
You don't usually use "hobbyjogger" as a compliment.
"By the time I graduated from high school I was already a much more experienced runner than he was".
Given that Osler won a national championship at 30k in 1967, your claim seems denigratory to me.
So why not instead just be happy that you may have learned something about the history of long-distance running in the US?
Yup, that was the gang though I was out of the area before Terry Baker joined. I joined shortly before they separated from the Washington Sports Club and became the Washington Running Club.