Whether you agree or not that the problem with American middle distance running is "obvious" (Not enough speedwork!) or indicative of a general lack of will, it's still interesting to see how different runners have made it to the top with very different training philosophies.
Since I specifically asked the rhetorical question "Where have all the half-milers gone," I got what I deserved when Coach Blackburn told me why he thinks the U.S. has fallen behind. (Thanks for the reply, coach!)
I actually agree with many (but not all!) of his points. But it's fascinating and somewhat perplexing to realize that the last U.S. Olympic gold medalist in the 800m was an unlikely champion who claimed that he hated to work out, and only ran hard three times a week.
In an article in Sports Illustrated from 1973, a year after he shocked favorite Dmitry Arzhanov in the Munich 800m final, Dave Wottle is quoted on the subject of his training:
"There is a limit to what I can do without running myself down...I only work out hard three times a week. I really prefer to have the pain three days instead of seven."
His teammate steeplechaser Sid Sink is then quoted:
"I ran every morning last year... Dave came out maybe three of five. Yet he made the Olympic team and won the medal. I stayed home. It was, shall we say, aggravating, and all the more so because he was right. He ran as he felt. I did a lot of that work just to satisfy my head. It tore the rest of me up."
"Aggravating." I love that.
Read the whole article here:
and Our Hats Are Off to You
Does this mean I think hard work isn't important for achieving success? Of course not! Hard work -- VERY hard work -- is essential for success in track and field, but figuring out how hard to work (and how and when to rest) is a matter of great dispute and probably varies tremendously from runner to runner. I don't happen to believe that the answer is always "train harder."
I also have to point out that Dave Wottle wasn't typical. Maybe he was unique, but I don't think so.
Anyway, if you have never watched the 1972 Olympic 800m final, please correct this lack in your education by viewing it now. If Arzhanov stays out of trouble on the first curve, I think he wins 9 times out of 10.
Jim McKay has the call:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Great to watch the race again. I have to believe, based on Dave's comments, that if he had the mentality to withstand the pain more than 3 times a week he would have been even better. He had more talent than his friend, Sink, and succeeded despite not working as hard. I've had state champions who felt even a few days a week was too much. My point has been runners should rest when they need to, which should be when they physically need to, not automatically or when they emotionally need to. They should be able to control their emotional feelings if they believe it will help them. If not, then they just won't succeed as highly as they would if they were stronger psychologicly. It's such a shame when runners are prevented from high achievement by a false belief that working hard will hurt them.
I think really, its an argument about duration versus impact (I'm going back a few posts as well). If you want a bright star to shine for a short period of time, alot of hard work will get him to probably his greatest heights. If you want a long successful career, then adding rest and recovery is not suggested, but essential. I have to side with Jon on this, as I'd prefer to be able to have a long lasting career with several highs than a short career featuring 1-2 incredible races, or even 1 year of incredible racing.
But in HS athletes, our only job is to run them as fast as we can without adversely impacting their ability to keep competing at an even higher level than in HS. Unless, in some strange case, you have an athlete decide freshman year he wants to peak at 18, and would rather not run a single day afterwards. Then, I guess 120 mile weeks are OK for that HS kid.
Psychologically--hate to misspell words.
I'm a little confused as to where exactly the idea "burn out" came from for running. You mention that rest days and breaks are necessary and they are, sometimes. But why should athletes take easy days after every hard session or race or keep the pace controlled even when the athlete feels good. What is backing up this belief. Applying common sense to this argument of course because I'm not arguing for the extremes.
Michael phelps did a workout, or two everyday for 4 or 5 years straight when he was a teen. He's only 24 and he sure "burned out" wayy to quickly evidenced by his recent lost in Rome.
Alberto never took days off, I know the arguement for this one but he won the boston marathon, twice. Would he still have won if he trained differently? who knows.
NBA players play around 100 games per season if they want to win a championship. A nba game is just as taxing as a track race and players often play two games in the span of three days.
All these athletes seem to be ahead of the their competitions on the international stage. I believe championship don't come cheap, or else it wouldn't be treasured as much.
Before we start choosing up sides in a debate between two simplistic pictures of training, I want to make sure that people understand that I, too, believe in the value of hard work and sacrifice in the development of a champion. I also agree with Coach Blackburn that developing the emotional fortitude to be able to continue training (and racing) when you're tired, sick, not at your best, or when things seem to be going against you, is an essential characteristic of a champion.
I don't want to speak for Coach, but I guess we probably differ on how much individual variation there is in optimal training and rest. I tend to believe that there is a lot of variation, and that every runner is an "experiment of one". That's why I continue to be fascinated by outliers, like Wottle, who found different ways to the top.
As for "burn out", I rarely use that term (search through my 850 blog posts, if you doubt me!). I'm a big believer in running every day, year-round, although I think -- for many runners -- fairly moderate runs do as much good as high-intensity runs, allowing a more effective development of an aerobic base.
I think, really, burnout is simply the result of not getting what you need from running, at the price you're willing to pay. Sometimes I get burned out WRITING about running, but not from running itself. I TALK a lot about rest, but I don't take much of it.
Oh, and Alberto Salazar won the Boston Marathon only once, in 1982.
Watching that 1972 race never gets old. One thing to note is the famous adage from the Johnson bros. (letsrun) - there is always room to kick in the last 100m of an 800m.
I'm not sure that Michael Phelps is a good comparison; swimming isn't really an impact sport thus training 6 hours a day is not only do-able but required (all serious swimmers do insane training). Unless you have the gift of not getting injured when doing 130+ miles (e.g. Bill Rodgers), then simply "running more" might not be the best option. Although this is more in the context of marathoners, Bill Squires has consistently said 80 to 90 per week is enough.
The ole' Villanova man had a point in the previous thread - the 800m is 60% anaerobic which requires muscle strength obtained either through a good dose of serious speedwork (Herb Elliott) or the Lydiard method (Peter Snell). Your best 400 of the year occurs with your best 400, not 1500. People were yapping that Maggie Vessey was doing too much at race pace and then she pulled out a 1:57 yesterday.
I guess perhaps there is an issue of longevity. There unfortunately is no shortcut for hard, fast, workouts, and these workouts will create success. Jumbo's 4x800 at mile race pace on Tuesday and 8x400 at half-mile race pace on Thursday created a lot of DMR victories at the Penn Relays. Nevertheless, careers were quite a bit shorter back then. Ron Delany's 1500 PR was when he was 23, and his 800 PR was from age 26. He was essentially done after the 1960 Olympic cycle. Nick Symmonds is 26 right now he just ran his first sub 1:44, and his career has a long way to go - this requires perhaps a more careful prescription. Michael Granville ran 1:46 in HS off of heavy speed work and that was his lifetime PR. Mike Carmody up at Dartmouth similarly came out of high school with a 1:49 and I'm not sure he ran faster than 1:48 in college with pretty good coaching.
I guess for some time the 800m has been clumped with the 1500m, which is OK but the speed component got lost a bit - it is really just as close to 400m as the 1500m. Figuring out which style of workouts are necessary is the art of coaching, I presume.
One thing is for sure - the 800m has been terrible in the US for some time; most of our athletes didn't make the semi-fimal. Hazel Clark and her remarkable consistency has never given her a higher place than 6th in any major international competition. One common missing ingredient appeared to be 400m speed. Even Seb Coe ran 46.8.
Our women's middies are getting better - finally.
Post a Comment