The number one recommended read on the Track And Field News Web Site today is a blog post written by NNHS alum Noah Jampol arguing the case for why Oscar Pistorius should not be able to compete at the 2011 World Championships in Daegu.
Noah, a contributor to the Bleacher Report web site, is always worth reading, but this piece is one of the best I've seen on the question of whether "Blade Runner" should be competing against the best in the world at the World Championships and Olympics. Noah isn't overly distracted by the minutiae of the scientific evidence that Pistorius' prosthetics provide a biomechanical advantage over able-bodied runner, but explores why we have competitions in the first place.
I have been contemplating writing (and may yet write) an article arguing the exact opposite, but Noah's argument for banning Pistorius is compassionate without flinching from the conclusion that allowing prosthetics to compete against legs is a fundamental shift in how we think of track and field.
July 19, 2011
The Seduction of Soft
Like you, I love to run on trails.
Well, actually, I love to run on trails that aren't too rocky. (I still have memories -- and scars -- from hard, injurious falls on otherwise very nice trails). I love to run on trails, unless, that is, they are so narrow that a group has to go single-file for miles on end, and even a solitary runner is constantly ducking low branches. I enjoy the ups and downs of trails, except the steep embankments where one needs to use all fours to ascend and a parachute or rope ladder to descend.
I like dirt trails, but if a trail has too much mud, I might choose to run on the roads instead. And of course, for many months of the year when trails are covered with snow, or worse, ice, I don't even consider them an option. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that I do roughly 80% of my annual running mileage on roads, 10% on a track and 10% on trails or grass.
I ponder these things after reading an article in the NY Times this morning questioning the common wisdom that running on trails is better than running on other surfaces. The folks at LetsRun.com dismiss the article outright, calling it "Bad Training Advice." You can read the article yourself, at the following link.
For Runners, Soft Ground Can Be Hard on the Body
I don't think the article is especially insightful, but it does raise an interesting question: what is the benefit of running on trails compared to a harder, more even surface? Have we all just accepted as gospel that running on soft trails is superior to road or track?
Coincidentally, a few days ago I received an email one of my Concord Academy runners. This runner is convinced that she will get injured if she runs on roads, and wants to run as much as possible on grass or trails. I find this to be a surprisingly common feeling among high school runners. In my response, I agreed that trails were very nice, but I also said that I didn't consider running on soft surfaces to be a fail-safe strategy for avoiding injuries. Specifically, I didn't think that the SOFTNESS of the surface was the most important factor. Instead, I mentioned the need for gradual adaptation to mileage, the need to strengthen the muscles of the foot and lower leg to be able to stabilize the body effectively at impact, the role of proprioception, and so on...
And I suggested that it was the UNEVEN nature of trails (not necessarily whether they were harder or softer) that made them different than roads. I thought that the uneven surface would give more variety to one's footstrike, hence, a better workout for the feet and less risk of overuse in the muscles, ligaments, and tendons of the knee and hip. (And by this same logic, runners will sometimes consider a rolling course to be slightly less stressful than a pancake flat course... but I digress.)
Of course, I couldn't prove any of this.
The other reasons to run on trails might be even more compelling. To enjoy the outdoors in a more agreeable environment, to avoid cars and exhaust, to take in the scenery, to introduce variety into one's running. These are perfectly good reasons to run on trails, even if the training effect is elusive.
And then there's the specificity of training. If one is preparing to race on soft surfaces for cross-country, it only makes sense to practice running on those surfaces. But for road runners, perhaps trails are not so necessary.
It's interesting how, when we think about running, we think that "soft" is automatically better than "hard." I remember a time when running shoes were being touted as "pillows for your feet." The impact forces of running are pretty severe; shouldn't your shoes be soft to cushion the blow? Nowadays, the trend is toward less shoe and letting the natural mechanics of the unshod foot handle the stress of landing, but it wasn't always that way.
In the end, isn't the whole question a little fatuous? We run where we like because that's where we like to run. Sometimes it's easier on the mind and body to run on trails (like now, in the summer) and sometimes it's a bear (like one winter trail run where I nearly ended my running career by spraining an already tender ankle). It's great to be able to do long runs off-road and I really enjoy the variety, but in January I get by on a restricted diet of runs on Comm Ave, I don't fall apart. There are no magic shoes to solve all our running problems or make hard training easy, and, sadly, you can still get hurt even if you run all your miles down a garden path strewn with rose petals.
Well, actually, I love to run on trails that aren't too rocky. (I still have memories -- and scars -- from hard, injurious falls on otherwise very nice trails). I love to run on trails, unless, that is, they are so narrow that a group has to go single-file for miles on end, and even a solitary runner is constantly ducking low branches. I enjoy the ups and downs of trails, except the steep embankments where one needs to use all fours to ascend and a parachute or rope ladder to descend.
I like dirt trails, but if a trail has too much mud, I might choose to run on the roads instead. And of course, for many months of the year when trails are covered with snow, or worse, ice, I don't even consider them an option. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that I do roughly 80% of my annual running mileage on roads, 10% on a track and 10% on trails or grass.
I ponder these things after reading an article in the NY Times this morning questioning the common wisdom that running on trails is better than running on other surfaces. The folks at LetsRun.com dismiss the article outright, calling it "Bad Training Advice." You can read the article yourself, at the following link.
For Runners, Soft Ground Can Be Hard on the Body
I don't think the article is especially insightful, but it does raise an interesting question: what is the benefit of running on trails compared to a harder, more even surface? Have we all just accepted as gospel that running on soft trails is superior to road or track?
Coincidentally, a few days ago I received an email one of my Concord Academy runners. This runner is convinced that she will get injured if she runs on roads, and wants to run as much as possible on grass or trails. I find this to be a surprisingly common feeling among high school runners. In my response, I agreed that trails were very nice, but I also said that I didn't consider running on soft surfaces to be a fail-safe strategy for avoiding injuries. Specifically, I didn't think that the SOFTNESS of the surface was the most important factor. Instead, I mentioned the need for gradual adaptation to mileage, the need to strengthen the muscles of the foot and lower leg to be able to stabilize the body effectively at impact, the role of proprioception, and so on...
And I suggested that it was the UNEVEN nature of trails (not necessarily whether they were harder or softer) that made them different than roads. I thought that the uneven surface would give more variety to one's footstrike, hence, a better workout for the feet and less risk of overuse in the muscles, ligaments, and tendons of the knee and hip. (And by this same logic, runners will sometimes consider a rolling course to be slightly less stressful than a pancake flat course... but I digress.)
Of course, I couldn't prove any of this.
The other reasons to run on trails might be even more compelling. To enjoy the outdoors in a more agreeable environment, to avoid cars and exhaust, to take in the scenery, to introduce variety into one's running. These are perfectly good reasons to run on trails, even if the training effect is elusive.
And then there's the specificity of training. If one is preparing to race on soft surfaces for cross-country, it only makes sense to practice running on those surfaces. But for road runners, perhaps trails are not so necessary.
It's interesting how, when we think about running, we think that "soft" is automatically better than "hard." I remember a time when running shoes were being touted as "pillows for your feet." The impact forces of running are pretty severe; shouldn't your shoes be soft to cushion the blow? Nowadays, the trend is toward less shoe and letting the natural mechanics of the unshod foot handle the stress of landing, but it wasn't always that way.
In the end, isn't the whole question a little fatuous? We run where we like because that's where we like to run. Sometimes it's easier on the mind and body to run on trails (like now, in the summer) and sometimes it's a bear (like one winter trail run where I nearly ended my running career by spraining an already tender ankle). It's great to be able to do long runs off-road and I really enjoy the variety, but in January I get by on a restricted diet of runs on Comm Ave, I don't fall apart. There are no magic shoes to solve all our running problems or make hard training easy, and, sadly, you can still get hurt even if you run all your miles down a garden path strewn with rose petals.
July 06, 2011
Training to Train
Many years ago, at a time when I had just started running for a coach who was a proponent of lots of hard interval workouts, I had a brief exchange with him that has stuck in my mind ever since.
My training partners and I had done a couple of workouts with him already. My recollection is that they weren't too tough, but they WERE structured differently than what I was used to. The volume was light, but they were quite fast. After the second such workout, I asked him about the purpose of this kind of training, and his response was: "You're doing this workout to train for the workouts to come."
Now, I don't think the details of those workouts matter that much, and I can't remember them anyway. But the concept of training to prepare for training made a lot of sense to me. I think I had always operated as if there was a direct and immediate connection between training and racing -- that this week's workout would benefit next week's race. The idea that you did such-and-such workouts to prepare for other workouts was new to me. My coach's response neatly encapsulated the idea that one could focus on one aspect of training or one physiological system as a foundation for work on other aspects and other systems. It would later resonate with my subjective experience when I was involved in periods of training when racing was the last thing on my mind and I was completely focused on surviving the crucible of a series of tough workouts.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately because like many, I'm deep into my own summer training now, and I'm focusing on building a foundation to support harder training to come. I've been really enjoying this process, without worrying about racing at all. There's something very satisfying about being able to handle harder sessions on the track or longer tempo runs and beginning to notice yourself recovering well and eager for the next round of workouts.
I think a lot of people -- a lot of athletes, a lot of coaches -- assume that summer is nothing but base mileage, and that ANY fast running is out of place. I'm not convinced this is right. While it might be of secondary importance, I think fast running has a place in base training.
Looking at the calendar, I see that there are only 19 weeks until my cross country team lines up on a cold day in November for their final meet of the season. Preparing for that final test means preparing to prepare. Do I want them running long, hard intervals in the early weeks of October? Then I need a plan for how to get them ready to handle those hard sessions. Shouldn't that plan include a gradual introduction to fast running?
I don't mean to suggest that summer speed is the most important element of such preparation. When I prioritize summer training goals for my runners, I generally stress adapting to daily running and impact stress, developing a significant aerobic base, working on core strength, and establishing habits of good nutrition and adequate sleep. I'm confident these are the most helpful for building a foundation for hard training to come.
But for my experienced runners I don't discourage fartlek runs, tempo runs, low-key races, strides, and other forms of faster running. I wouldn't even rule out some work on the track, if I were able to supervise it, which I'm not.
We tend to forget that fast running is fun and motivating. Feeling faster makes you feel more engaged and committed so that you start looking forward to more training. I think the key is doing enough to increase comfort with faster running, while holding back from any heavy servings of speed that would be more suitable later in season.
I'm fortunate that among my readers are coaches with much more experience than me. I'm curious as to whether you encourage your athletes to incorporate faster running into summer plans, or whether you steer them away from that.
My training partners and I had done a couple of workouts with him already. My recollection is that they weren't too tough, but they WERE structured differently than what I was used to. The volume was light, but they were quite fast. After the second such workout, I asked him about the purpose of this kind of training, and his response was: "You're doing this workout to train for the workouts to come."
Now, I don't think the details of those workouts matter that much, and I can't remember them anyway. But the concept of training to prepare for training made a lot of sense to me. I think I had always operated as if there was a direct and immediate connection between training and racing -- that this week's workout would benefit next week's race. The idea that you did such-and-such workouts to prepare for other workouts was new to me. My coach's response neatly encapsulated the idea that one could focus on one aspect of training or one physiological system as a foundation for work on other aspects and other systems. It would later resonate with my subjective experience when I was involved in periods of training when racing was the last thing on my mind and I was completely focused on surviving the crucible of a series of tough workouts.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately because like many, I'm deep into my own summer training now, and I'm focusing on building a foundation to support harder training to come. I've been really enjoying this process, without worrying about racing at all. There's something very satisfying about being able to handle harder sessions on the track or longer tempo runs and beginning to notice yourself recovering well and eager for the next round of workouts.
I think a lot of people -- a lot of athletes, a lot of coaches -- assume that summer is nothing but base mileage, and that ANY fast running is out of place. I'm not convinced this is right. While it might be of secondary importance, I think fast running has a place in base training.
Looking at the calendar, I see that there are only 19 weeks until my cross country team lines up on a cold day in November for their final meet of the season. Preparing for that final test means preparing to prepare. Do I want them running long, hard intervals in the early weeks of October? Then I need a plan for how to get them ready to handle those hard sessions. Shouldn't that plan include a gradual introduction to fast running?
I don't mean to suggest that summer speed is the most important element of such preparation. When I prioritize summer training goals for my runners, I generally stress adapting to daily running and impact stress, developing a significant aerobic base, working on core strength, and establishing habits of good nutrition and adequate sleep. I'm confident these are the most helpful for building a foundation for hard training to come.
But for my experienced runners I don't discourage fartlek runs, tempo runs, low-key races, strides, and other forms of faster running. I wouldn't even rule out some work on the track, if I were able to supervise it, which I'm not.
We tend to forget that fast running is fun and motivating. Feeling faster makes you feel more engaged and committed so that you start looking forward to more training. I think the key is doing enough to increase comfort with faster running, while holding back from any heavy servings of speed that would be more suitable later in season.
I'm fortunate that among my readers are coaches with much more experience than me. I'm curious as to whether you encourage your athletes to incorporate faster running into summer plans, or whether you steer them away from that.
July 04, 2011
With Gravity on His Side, Lowell's Brian Gagnon Runs 3:44 Mile
Former Lowell H.S. and UConn standout Brian Gagnon won the inaugural HASLAW Manchester Road Mile in Manchester NH Sunday, running an attention-getting time of 3:44, more than two seconds faster than Alan Webb's American Record.
Too bad it won't count. The course, which begins at Derryfield Park (site of the Manchester XC Invitational) and ends at Pulaski Park, has a net elevation drop of 188 feet. The race is organized by Millenium Running, the same outfit that directs the New Year's Day Millenium Mile, another downhill dash.
Here's the elevation profile for the Manchester Mile:
I wonder what the splits were for that first half mile... maybe Gags had his eyes on Johnny's Gray's AR in the 800, too.
According to the story posted in the Manchester Union Leader, Gagnon was one of eight men to go under 4:00. The women's winner, Julie Cully of Clinton NJ, ran 4:14, which is under Mary Slaney's American record.
Too bad it won't count. The course, which begins at Derryfield Park (site of the Manchester XC Invitational) and ends at Pulaski Park, has a net elevation drop of 188 feet. The race is organized by Millenium Running, the same outfit that directs the New Year's Day Millenium Mile, another downhill dash.
Here's the elevation profile for the Manchester Mile:
I wonder what the splits were for that first half mile... maybe Gags had his eyes on Johnny's Gray's AR in the 800, too.
According to the story posted in the Manchester Union Leader, Gagnon was one of eight men to go under 4:00. The women's winner, Julie Cully of Clinton NJ, ran 4:14, which is under Mary Slaney's American record.
June 27, 2011
USATF Men's1500 Final and its Aftermath
If you like races where runners push the pace from the start and run personal and seasonal best times, you probably HATED the men's 1500m final at the USATF Championships, Saturday. If, on the other hand, you like races full of tactics and tension that can be resolved only by a fast, furious finish, the 1500 was the race for you.
Of course, you already know that baby-faced Matt Centrowitz did the unthinkable, holding off -- no, pulling away from! -- the seemingly invincible Bernard Lagat. You know that Leo Manzano closed brilliantly, outleaning Andrew Wheating and Will Leer for third. Wheating, it must be said, didn't actually run a bad race (he had positioned himself in third with 100m to go), but he didn't fully appreciate a basic principle of tactical races: everyone is fast in a tactical race, and if you leave it to the last 100m, you better be sure you have the best acceleration. Wheating didn't, and he paid the price. By the way, watch the race video a few times and tell me how Will Leer accelerates so quickly in the last 40 meters...and how he manages not to lean at the tape, thereby losing fourth to Wheating...
So Wheating, who had skipped the 800 to focus on the 1500, finished in the worst possible position -- fourth -- but wait! Bernard Lagat, who had already made the team by winning the 5000m, announced he would not compete in the 1500m, opening up a spot on the team for Wheating.
So it's Centrowitz, Manzano, and Wheating, right?
Not so fast. None of the three qualifiers has met the "A" standard of 3:35 yet, and they have only until August 8th to do it. While I am no expert in USATF selection procedures, this opens up many possibilities.
If Centro meets the "B" standard (3:38) but not the "A" standard, then I believe he is the only guy who gets to go. If Centro meets the "A" standard, but Manzano doesn't, then I think Centro and Manzano go, and Wheating is left off the team. if Centro and Manzano get the "A" standard, then Wheating is all set, since he has already met the "B" standard.
And what if Centro doesn't get the "A" or "B" standard? I think that means the he doesn't go, and the other chase the standards. That could, conceivably, lead to Manzano, Wheating, and Leer going.
Anyway, the one thing we can be sure of is that -- unlike the championship finals -- in their next 1500m these guys will be running fast from the gun. That's the only way to ensure they can make it to Daegu for another tension-filled tactical race.
June 22, 2011
Another Myth Busted: 10% Rule Bites the Dust
I knew it!
I knew that venerable training rule that a runner should increase mileage by no more than 10% per week was bogus. In her Personal Best column, Gina Kolata of the New York Times cites one large study that finds no evidence that the 10% rule makes any difference in injury rates compared to a more rapid increase to a similar peak mileage and to a program that began with four weeks of other kinds of conditioning.
When Running Up Mileage, 10 Percent Isn’t the Cap
While one study can't be considered definitive, the fact that no one seems to know where the 10% rule came from and no one seems to have any evidence for its efficacy in preventing injuries suggests we should take the rule with a whole shaker of salt.
One of the weaknesses of the 10% solution was always that it flew in the face of two common-sense observations: first, it doesn't say anything about your starting point. If you start by running more than you can handle, you'll be in trouble no matter how gradually you increase from there. And second, you can't keep increasing forever or even for very long before you are running higher mileage than you can handle.
For example, if you run 30 miles a week and increase 10% each week, in fourteen weeks you'll be running over 100 miles a week. That can't be right!
Here's another example: I recently had to take several weeks completely off from running. When I started up again, my first seven days I ran about 15 miles. My second week, I ran about 25, a 67% increase, and that was fine for me. "But wait," you say, "that's only because you are a trained runner used to running more miles, and different rules apply..." Fair enough, but doesn't everyone bring some level of training to the game? I mean, if your baseline is 0, then 10% of that is still 0.
The math just doesn't make sense. If your baseline is a mile a day, it will take you 9 weeks to reach 2 miles every day. That's an entire cross-country season to go from one mile a day to two. Ah, but seven weeks after that you'll be running 4 miles a day. Seven weeks after THAT, you'll be running 8 miles a day, and by the end of seven months, you'll be running almost 16 miles per day, or 110 miles a week.
To continue my own example, after that 25 mile week I continued to increase my mileage, and now, fifteen weeks later, I'm running about 45 miles per week. That works out to about a 5% increase per week. Had I followed the 10% rule, I would be running 86 miles per week now, more than I've ever done in my life. So in my case, I used a fairly rapid increase in the first few weeks, followed by a much flatter curve as I approached what I believe is optimal mileage for my age and experience.
As a symbol of progression and gradualism, the 10% rule has some value, I guess. But as the article and the study it cites make clear, it's probably not something you should take too literally.
I knew that venerable training rule that a runner should increase mileage by no more than 10% per week was bogus. In her Personal Best column, Gina Kolata of the New York Times cites one large study that finds no evidence that the 10% rule makes any difference in injury rates compared to a more rapid increase to a similar peak mileage and to a program that began with four weeks of other kinds of conditioning.
When Running Up Mileage, 10 Percent Isn’t the Cap
While one study can't be considered definitive, the fact that no one seems to know where the 10% rule came from and no one seems to have any evidence for its efficacy in preventing injuries suggests we should take the rule with a whole shaker of salt.
One of the weaknesses of the 10% solution was always that it flew in the face of two common-sense observations: first, it doesn't say anything about your starting point. If you start by running more than you can handle, you'll be in trouble no matter how gradually you increase from there. And second, you can't keep increasing forever or even for very long before you are running higher mileage than you can handle.
For example, if you run 30 miles a week and increase 10% each week, in fourteen weeks you'll be running over 100 miles a week. That can't be right!
Here's another example: I recently had to take several weeks completely off from running. When I started up again, my first seven days I ran about 15 miles. My second week, I ran about 25, a 67% increase, and that was fine for me. "But wait," you say, "that's only because you are a trained runner used to running more miles, and different rules apply..." Fair enough, but doesn't everyone bring some level of training to the game? I mean, if your baseline is 0, then 10% of that is still 0.
The math just doesn't make sense. If your baseline is a mile a day, it will take you 9 weeks to reach 2 miles every day. That's an entire cross-country season to go from one mile a day to two. Ah, but seven weeks after that you'll be running 4 miles a day. Seven weeks after THAT, you'll be running 8 miles a day, and by the end of seven months, you'll be running almost 16 miles per day, or 110 miles a week.
To continue my own example, after that 25 mile week I continued to increase my mileage, and now, fifteen weeks later, I'm running about 45 miles per week. That works out to about a 5% increase per week. Had I followed the 10% rule, I would be running 86 miles per week now, more than I've ever done in my life. So in my case, I used a fairly rapid increase in the first few weeks, followed by a much flatter curve as I approached what I believe is optimal mileage for my age and experience.
As a symbol of progression and gradualism, the 10% rule has some value, I guess. But as the article and the study it cites make clear, it's probably not something you should take too literally.
June 21, 2011
US Track and Field: What Are We Good At?
The USATF Championships begin today in Eugene and continue through Sunday, with the meet serving as the selection process for the World Championships in Daegu, South Korea later in the summer.
The selection process itself is a little complicated. Athletes who won world championships in 2010 are automatically qualified for Daegu provided they compete in some event -- any event -- in Eugene. Hence, Alyson Felix, the reigning world 200m champion, is qualified for Daegu in the 200, but will run the 400 only in Eugene (and decide later whether to attempt to do both in Daegu). Trey Hardee, the reigning decathlon champ, has to compete in at least one decathlon event to punch his ticket to South Korea.
(Defending 400m champ LaShawn Merritt is in a strange position, since he is is currently serving a suspension that will keep him from running in the U.S. championships but not preclude him running in Daegu... at this point it seems it is up to USATF to decide whether to bend its rules that an athlete must compete at an event in the U.S. championships to be eligible.)
Other than those few, the top three in Eugene will go to the world champs, proving they have met the Olympic "A" standard. If they haven't, well, I won't attempt to explain what happens. If you are interested, you can read about it from the Eugene Register-Guard, which provided this handy guide:
Who Advances to Daegu?
This talk about about "A" and "B" standards always makes me think about where the U.S. is strong and where it is weak in Olympic events. You never hear anyone talk about the standards in the 100, 200, or 400. That's because the U.S. typically has dozens of athletes in those events with "A" standards. There's essentially no chance that a "B" standard athlete will finish in the top three.
But in other events, we are weak by world standards. At this moment, the U.S. men do not have a single runner who as met the "A" standard in the 1500m, and only two women have met the standard.
Where is the U.S. strongest? In the sprints. The U.S. is fairly strong in ALL running events. The lack of 1500 "A" marks is balanced somewhat by the large number of "B" standard athletes in that event. In all other running events, we have quite a few athletes with "A" or "B" marks already (and, of course, athletes who need them can chase "A" standards after the tactical U.S. championship races are behind them).
Where is the U.S. weakest? The walking events are a disaster, reflecting the dwindling popularity of walking in the U.S. and the lack of opportunities for youth athletes to compete in walking events. Surprisingly, except for the shot put, the men are weak in the throwing events. The women fare slightly better.
The most surprising weaknesses to me were the lack of U.S. women who had qualifying marks in the high jump and triple jump (no "A" or "B" marks in the women's triple! Is that a reflection of how much time NBC spends showing the triple, or the reason?)
Anyway, here are unofficial lists of qualified athletes from T&F News. Decide for yourself!
U.S. Men With WC Qualifying Marks
U.S. Women With WC Qualifying Marks
The selection process itself is a little complicated. Athletes who won world championships in 2010 are automatically qualified for Daegu provided they compete in some event -- any event -- in Eugene. Hence, Alyson Felix, the reigning world 200m champion, is qualified for Daegu in the 200, but will run the 400 only in Eugene (and decide later whether to attempt to do both in Daegu). Trey Hardee, the reigning decathlon champ, has to compete in at least one decathlon event to punch his ticket to South Korea.
(Defending 400m champ LaShawn Merritt is in a strange position, since he is is currently serving a suspension that will keep him from running in the U.S. championships but not preclude him running in Daegu... at this point it seems it is up to USATF to decide whether to bend its rules that an athlete must compete at an event in the U.S. championships to be eligible.)
Other than those few, the top three in Eugene will go to the world champs, proving they have met the Olympic "A" standard. If they haven't, well, I won't attempt to explain what happens. If you are interested, you can read about it from the Eugene Register-Guard, which provided this handy guide:
Who Advances to Daegu?
This talk about about "A" and "B" standards always makes me think about where the U.S. is strong and where it is weak in Olympic events. You never hear anyone talk about the standards in the 100, 200, or 400. That's because the U.S. typically has dozens of athletes in those events with "A" standards. There's essentially no chance that a "B" standard athlete will finish in the top three.
But in other events, we are weak by world standards. At this moment, the U.S. men do not have a single runner who as met the "A" standard in the 1500m, and only two women have met the standard.
Where is the U.S. strongest? In the sprints. The U.S. is fairly strong in ALL running events. The lack of 1500 "A" marks is balanced somewhat by the large number of "B" standard athletes in that event. In all other running events, we have quite a few athletes with "A" or "B" marks already (and, of course, athletes who need them can chase "A" standards after the tactical U.S. championship races are behind them).
Where is the U.S. weakest? The walking events are a disaster, reflecting the dwindling popularity of walking in the U.S. and the lack of opportunities for youth athletes to compete in walking events. Surprisingly, except for the shot put, the men are weak in the throwing events. The women fare slightly better.
The most surprising weaknesses to me were the lack of U.S. women who had qualifying marks in the high jump and triple jump (no "A" or "B" marks in the women's triple! Is that a reflection of how much time NBC spends showing the triple, or the reason?)
Anyway, here are unofficial lists of qualified athletes from T&F News. Decide for yourself!
U.S. Men With WC Qualifying Marks
U.S. Women With WC Qualifying Marks
June 20, 2011
Tanzania Journal - Day 9:
Lions as Role Models
Lion couple near Lake Nduto
Running Log, 1/1/11 -- 25 minutes in and around Lake Nduto Tented Camp
In late December 2010 I traveled to Tanzania with my wife and son to visit my daughter, Joni, who had lived in and outside of Arusha in 2004 and 2007 and who, at the time we visited, was working in neighboring Zambia.
I started writing about the trip several months ago, and those earlier posts can be found under the "Tanzania" label. In my last post, I described my final run of 2010 -- a 25-minute jog around the campground where Joni had met lions three years earlier. Although that was the end of my "year of running dangerously," we were only halfway through our trip...
After my final run of the year, I joined my family for dinner in an enclosed pavilion at the campground where we sat at metal tables and toasted the coming New Year with two bottles of wine. Rob had squirreled them away for the occasion, another one of his many thoughtful gestures. In spite of festive atmosphere, we had no real desire to stay up late, and instead retired early, falling asleep to the boisterous sounds of revelry from a group of German campers who continued to laugh and sing long into the night.
Waking up to the new year, we were, for once, not in a hurry to leave our camp site. We had another day of driving and game-watching ahead of us, as the plan called for us to work our way South to Lake Nduto, where we would have the luxury of staying at another tented camp.
My online sources tell me that the name "Serengeti" is taken from the Maasai word serengit, meaning endless plain. Entering the Serengeti Park from the North, we had not been aware of the breadth of the Serengeti. The terrain had instead seemed full of variation with rolling hills dotted with acacia and fever trees, and areas of low vegetation that provided habitats for a wide variety of wildlife. It was only when we left the Seronera and headed South that the real expanse of the plains opened up to us. The trees and low bush fell away, and the grassy plains stretched in every direction like an ocean.
Four of the roughly four million zebras we saw everywhere on the vast plains...
Here and there, the uniformity was broken by a large outcropping of granite called a kopje ("small head" in Afrikaans). In the Serengeti, kopjes rise out of the surrounding grasslands like islands, providing a distinctly different habitat that supports numerous birds and animals. For this reason, kopjes are a popular destination for the Safari vehicles. At one particularly magnificent kopje we were one of about a dozen Land Rovers parked to watch a leopard with her two cubs sunning themselves on a high shelf of rock.
Aside from the kopjes, the plains are home to hundreds of thousands of herbivores, huge herds of wildebeest and zebra, as well as smaller bands of Thomson gazelles and other migrants who feed on the short nutritious grass covering the land. These animals are part of the great East African migration, a seasonal movement of game over a 1200-mile route in search of water and nutrition.
At this point in our trip, we had begun to view the animals through the filter of our human values and to see them as representing human qualities. We had started identifying our favorites, and we all started taking sides in their endless everyday struggle for existence.
It was, for example, easy to root against the hyenas -- they seemed like gangs of thugs always slouching around plotting some new atrocity. Rob tried to put their behavior in context for us, but our prejudice got the better of us. So, too, it was easy to root for the elephants, those calm and imposing matriarchs and patriarchs surrounded by happy extended families, seemingly untroubled by our presence or the presence of predators.
I admit that at the beginning of the trip, I didn't have much respect for the wildebeest (or bearded gnu). Silly looking, I thought, and probably not too bright. But then I saw them running, single file in long dusty lines and I changed my mind. The wildebeest impressed me as the true endurance athletes of the Serengeti, running for days at a time with a steady distance-runner's gait, guided by the mysterious and crucial ability to find water in this dry land.
As for the lions, well, we all had different opinions about the lords of the Serengeti. Thanks to the skill of our guide, we had many opportunities to see lions "in action." Most of the time, this meant seeing them sleep. They sure did a lot of sleeping, at least while the sun was up. At Ngorongoro Crater a few days later, we would have our most impressive and bracing encounter with lions when three of them ambled slowly out of the grass and came straight toward our truck. It turned out that they only wanted to lie down in the shade of the row of Land Cruiser that had stopped by the side of the road.
And then there was the lion couple that we saw at Lake Nduto. When we first drove up, they were lying lazily on the ground, ignoring the gawkers and apparently doing nothing.
After a few minutes, the male rolled over, hauled himself to his feet, circled the female once and then mounted her. This sequence took about 30 seconds total, and did not appear to impress the female very much. In any case, both lions were soon snoozing again. Rob explained that this was typical and that it would go on all day, with the male waking up every 15 minutes, initiating copulation, and then going back to sleep.
My son -- who, by the way, had been growing a reddish, lion-like beard on the trip -- remarked that his search was over; he had found his role model.
After a full day of wildlife viewing, we were ready to rest. We drove through a dry wilderness around Lake Nduto, a maze of scrub forest with dried-up watering holes and dust everywhere. We arrived at the Lake Nduto tented camp around 5 p.m. and were grateful to get out of the Land Rover and smell the familiar charcoal smell of cooking fires. We dumped our bags in the tents, and the others went to get drinks.
I had decided to run -- to start the year off with a run before breaking my streak, so I changed into shorts and running shoes and began my usual routine of circling the perimeter of the camp. It was very dusty, and the charcoal smoke burned my throat, but I was pretty happy to be running anyway. I felt good, and felt that after 372 days, I would appreciate a day off.
Running at Lake Nduto -- the final day of the streak
When I was done running, I prepared to shower. The large, apartment-like tents at Lake Nduto were constructed with an ingenious contraption for hoisting a bucket of hot water up on a pole and then connecting it via a PVC pipe to a shower head that sprayed water down into a small shower stall within the tent. "Preparing to shower" meant telling the camp personnel in charge of heating up water, to bring a bucket to the tent and raise it up into position. Not for the first time, I felt a little uncomfortable to be the recipient of such lavish personal service, but I did enjoy my hot shower very much.
NEXT: Olduvai Gorge, Ngorongoro Crater
June 19, 2011
Lampron -- 4:05.99!!
It's safe to say that Mansfield junior Josh Lampron was not among the favorites in the boys mile at the New Balance Outdoor Nationals Saturday.
Lampron was not among the 11 H.S. boys who ran sub-4:10 at the "Dream Mile" a week ago in New York -- the race where Lukas Verzbicas broke four minutes. In fact, his best mile of the season had been a 4:15, run over a month ago at the Weston Invitational. Since then, he had competed in and won the 800 in the Division and State Championship meets, but hadn't focused on the mile.
However, on May 14 he had run a 1500m in 3:50.03 at the New Balance Twilight meet, the second fastest time in the country at that point (roughly equivalent to a 4:08 mile) and a performance that didn't get as much attention as it should have.
As the seeded heat of the mile got underway on Saturday, Lampron settled into fourth place and held that position behind better known runners such as Jantzen Oshier and Daniel Everett. With 100m to go, Lampron was still in fourth, more than half a second behind. But Lampron had another gear, and he bolted on the outside catching the others and going ahead of Oshier with about 15m to go. Oshier responded and the two runners crossed the line at almost the same time. A few moments later it was announced that Lampron had won, 4:05.99 to 4:06.00. He had covered his final lap in 58.36.
Sub-4:06 as a junior, and now we're all wondering whether he might eventually join Verzbicas in the sub-4:00 club. Amazing!
Results - Boys 1M - NB Outdoor National Championships
June 18, 2011
Chris Cogliano Does the Right Thing
On Saturday morning, the first event on the track at the New Balance Outdoor Nationals was the 4x1600 relay. After a single heat for the girls, the first of two heats for the boys stepped on the track.
After two legs (3200 meters), Christian Brothers of New Jersey had the lead at 8:40.85, five seconds ahead of second place with Pembroke, MA, in fifth. At the back of the field and 13 seconds behind the leaders, Bishop Guertin's Chris Cogliano received the baton to run the third leg. The officials were about to do something wrong, but he was about to do something right.
After 800 meters of leg 3, officials put the anchor runners on the track. As the leg 3 runners came into the exchange zone expecting to run their final lap, they found their teammates there to take the batons. As instructed by the officials, they made the exchange and disqualified their teams. All of them but one.
Chris Cogliano kept running, completing his four laps before handing off to anchor Jeff LaCoste. It must have been a strange sight seeing Bishop Guertin, whose team ran the full 16 laps, come in dead last in that heat, 54 seconds behind the second to last team. I wonder what kind of applause they received?
After the race, meet Director Jim Spier acknowledged the mistake made by the officials and decided to award medals to the top six teams in the first heat -- the ones who had run 6000 meters instead of the proscribed 6400 -- AND to the top six teams that had run the full distance. That included five teams from the second heat and Bishop Guertin, whose time of 17:50.63 placed them second, just ahead of a fine performance from Lowell.
I have no idea why Chris Cogliano didn't stop running after three laps when every other runner in the race did as he was told. Maybe it was because he was so far back that a coach or official told him to go ahead. But I like to think it was because he knew he wasn't done yet, and so he ran through the remnants of the chaos to finish his leg.
It just goes to show that the world is full of well-meaning people telling you what to do. Unfortunately, some of them are wrong. In this race, the officials were wrong and Chris Cogliano did the right thing anyway. Good job, Chris.
Congratulations also to All-Americans Lowell (3rd in full race) and Pembroke (6th in the short race).
Results of Boys 4x1600 Relay (lap short)
Results of Boys 4x1600 Relay (full distance)
After two legs (3200 meters), Christian Brothers of New Jersey had the lead at 8:40.85, five seconds ahead of second place with Pembroke, MA, in fifth. At the back of the field and 13 seconds behind the leaders, Bishop Guertin's Chris Cogliano received the baton to run the third leg. The officials were about to do something wrong, but he was about to do something right.
After 800 meters of leg 3, officials put the anchor runners on the track. As the leg 3 runners came into the exchange zone expecting to run their final lap, they found their teammates there to take the batons. As instructed by the officials, they made the exchange and disqualified their teams. All of them but one.
Chris Cogliano kept running, completing his four laps before handing off to anchor Jeff LaCoste. It must have been a strange sight seeing Bishop Guertin, whose team ran the full 16 laps, come in dead last in that heat, 54 seconds behind the second to last team. I wonder what kind of applause they received?
After the race, meet Director Jim Spier acknowledged the mistake made by the officials and decided to award medals to the top six teams in the first heat -- the ones who had run 6000 meters instead of the proscribed 6400 -- AND to the top six teams that had run the full distance. That included five teams from the second heat and Bishop Guertin, whose time of 17:50.63 placed them second, just ahead of a fine performance from Lowell.
I have no idea why Chris Cogliano didn't stop running after three laps when every other runner in the race did as he was told. Maybe it was because he was so far back that a coach or official told him to go ahead. But I like to think it was because he knew he wasn't done yet, and so he ran through the remnants of the chaos to finish his leg.
It just goes to show that the world is full of well-meaning people telling you what to do. Unfortunately, some of them are wrong. In this race, the officials were wrong and Chris Cogliano did the right thing anyway. Good job, Chris.
Congratulations also to All-Americans Lowell (3rd in full race) and Pembroke (6th in the short race).
Results of Boys 4x1600 Relay (lap short)
Results of Boys 4x1600 Relay (full distance)
June 17, 2011
MA 4x800 Teams (L-S, Wachusett) Place at Nationals
The Lincoln-Sudbury girls and Wachusett boys 4x800 teams made the podium at the New Balance Outdoor Nationals on Friday with blazing fast times, well beyond anything they had run previously.
The girls race was first and L-S (Megan Broecker, Marika Crowe, Sarah Mepham, and Andrea Keklak) were up. Broecker ran a 2:19, but that was only good for 13th at the exchange. Crowe ran 2:13 on the second leg, bringing L-S up to 8th. Mepham's 2:21 kept them in about the same spot, and Mass State Champ Andrea Keklak took the baton in 9th. The Princeton-bound senior proceeded to catch all but three teams, running a 2:06.67 split -- second fastest of the night - and bringing L-S home in 9:01.78.
In the boys race, Wachusett looked a little over-matched on the first leg, as Hayden Frechette-McCall's 1:57 split was only good for 14th out of 18 teams. However, Alex Jagelsky had the leg of the night for Wachusett, splitting 1:51 and moving his team all the way up to 2nd behind eventual winners Long Beach Poly. From the second exchange on, it was a battle every step of the way. Third leg Jeremy Bennie split 1:55, and brother Colin ran a 1:53 anchor to bring Wachusett home in 5th in 7:36.37. Has any Massachusetts HS team ever run faster?
Girls Results
Boys Results
The girls race was first and L-S (Megan Broecker, Marika Crowe, Sarah Mepham, and Andrea Keklak) were up. Broecker ran a 2:19, but that was only good for 13th at the exchange. Crowe ran 2:13 on the second leg, bringing L-S up to 8th. Mepham's 2:21 kept them in about the same spot, and Mass State Champ Andrea Keklak took the baton in 9th. The Princeton-bound senior proceeded to catch all but three teams, running a 2:06.67 split -- second fastest of the night - and bringing L-S home in 9:01.78.
In the boys race, Wachusett looked a little over-matched on the first leg, as Hayden Frechette-McCall's 1:57 split was only good for 14th out of 18 teams. However, Alex Jagelsky had the leg of the night for Wachusett, splitting 1:51 and moving his team all the way up to 2nd behind eventual winners Long Beach Poly. From the second exchange on, it was a battle every step of the way. Third leg Jeremy Bennie split 1:55, and brother Colin ran a 1:53 anchor to bring Wachusett home in 5th in 7:36.37. Has any Massachusetts HS team ever run faster?
Girls Results
Boys Results
June 06, 2011
Wednesday June 8 @ Cold Spring Park.
For the past several years, the Newton Summer Running Project (NSRP) has provided a loose structure for getting together with friends for steady runs during the summer months when most of us are busy building a mileage base for Fall cross country (or marathons).
Our routine has involved meeting at Cold Spring Park in Newton on Monday and Wednesdays at 6:15, and then departing for a run at 6:30. Different folks do different runs. There's usually a group of guys running 8-10 miles at sub 7:00 pace. I can't do that anymore, so I usually run 5-7 miles @7:00-7:30 pace, but I'm usually happy to go slower. If someone shows up wanting to ruhttp://www2.blogger.com/img/blank.gifn 4 miles at 8:00 pace, I'll join you.
Because of my schedule this summer, I don't know whether I'll be able to commit to regular runs from Cold Spring, but a few of us are planning to get together THIS Wednesday, June 8th, for a run. If you're around and looking for training partners, you should consider coming by.
Meet at 6:15. Run at 6:30.
Map to Beacon Street Entrance of Cold Spring Park, Newton
June 05, 2011
NN Girls Repeat as State Champions; Boys are Third
The Newton North girls track team won their second straight outdoor state title on Saturday scoring 39 points, four ahead of Andover and seven ahead of Lincoln-Sudbury.
Unlike L-S (three wins) and Andover (two wins), the Tigers didn't win a single individual event or relay. Instead they scored in three field events (22 points), three running events (12 points), and a relay (5 points). By my count, the Tigers had nine athletes in the meet; eight of them scored individually or as part of the fourth-place 4x800 team, and the ninth -- Meghan Gentile -- came within five inches of scoring in the shot put.
Despite its depth, the championship didn't come easily for North. They didn't have the defending state pole vault champion (Stephanie Brown) or a key leg of their 4x400 team (Maddie Nadeau) due to injuries. And in a strange twist, they prevailed in spite of the fact that their best relay team did not run, and their best athlete never set foot on the track.
Carla Forbes didn't run a race, but accounted for 14 points by placing second in the triple jump (39-08.5) and third in the long jump (18-05.5). Tatiana Froelich and Ellen Goldberg placed 3rd and 6th in the discus for another 8 points. On the track, Kayla Wong finished 2nd in the 100m hurdles, running 14.81. Margo Gillis placed 7th in the 800 (2:19.06) and Evie Heffernan ran 5:07.77 for 7th in the mile.
And that brings us to the relays. With North missing Nadeau in the 4x400, Coach Tranchita moved Gillis from the 4x400 to the 4x800. Gillis led off (2:20), followed by Meghan Bellerose (2:25), Maggie Heffernan (2:28), and Evie Heffernan (2:20) to finish fourth (0.01 behind third) for the 5 points that would win them the meet.
A final thought about the 2011 North team. It might be eclipsed by the 2012 North team. Of those 39 points, only 11 were scored by seniors.
On the boys side, Mansfield was racking up points on its way to a dominant victory, but the NN boys were always in the hunt for second place.
Swardiq Mayanja placed 3rd in the shot put with a throw of 53-06.5, and took 6th in the discus with a mark of 145-06.
In the 400m, Isaiah Penn battled Waltham's Nathan Pierre Louis, finally settling for 2nd in a time of 49.04. In a very competitive mile with no clear favorite, Ezra Lichtman placed 5th in 4:21.78, behind Wesley Gallagher's 4:19.24 win.
North's final event was the 4x400, and the Tigers (Clark, Lichtman, Hart, Penn) placed 7th in 3:27.80. Their 23 total points left them behind Mansfield (49) and Acton-Boxboro (29), and tied with Andover.
Unlike L-S (three wins) and Andover (two wins), the Tigers didn't win a single individual event or relay. Instead they scored in three field events (22 points), three running events (12 points), and a relay (5 points). By my count, the Tigers had nine athletes in the meet; eight of them scored individually or as part of the fourth-place 4x800 team, and the ninth -- Meghan Gentile -- came within five inches of scoring in the shot put.
Despite its depth, the championship didn't come easily for North. They didn't have the defending state pole vault champion (Stephanie Brown) or a key leg of their 4x400 team (Maddie Nadeau) due to injuries. And in a strange twist, they prevailed in spite of the fact that their best relay team did not run, and their best athlete never set foot on the track.
Carla Forbes didn't run a race, but accounted for 14 points by placing second in the triple jump (39-08.5) and third in the long jump (18-05.5). Tatiana Froelich and Ellen Goldberg placed 3rd and 6th in the discus for another 8 points. On the track, Kayla Wong finished 2nd in the 100m hurdles, running 14.81. Margo Gillis placed 7th in the 800 (2:19.06) and Evie Heffernan ran 5:07.77 for 7th in the mile.
And that brings us to the relays. With North missing Nadeau in the 4x400, Coach Tranchita moved Gillis from the 4x400 to the 4x800. Gillis led off (2:20), followed by Meghan Bellerose (2:25), Maggie Heffernan (2:28), and Evie Heffernan (2:20) to finish fourth (0.01 behind third) for the 5 points that would win them the meet.
A final thought about the 2011 North team. It might be eclipsed by the 2012 North team. Of those 39 points, only 11 were scored by seniors.
On the boys side, Mansfield was racking up points on its way to a dominant victory, but the NN boys were always in the hunt for second place.
Swardiq Mayanja placed 3rd in the shot put with a throw of 53-06.5, and took 6th in the discus with a mark of 145-06.
In the 400m, Isaiah Penn battled Waltham's Nathan Pierre Louis, finally settling for 2nd in a time of 49.04. In a very competitive mile with no clear favorite, Ezra Lichtman placed 5th in 4:21.78, behind Wesley Gallagher's 4:19.24 win.
North's final event was the 4x400, and the Tigers (Clark, Lichtman, Hart, Penn) placed 7th in 3:27.80. Their 23 total points left them behind Mansfield (49) and Acton-Boxboro (29), and tied with Andover.
May 29, 2011
Penn, Lichtman Earn D1 Titles as NN Boys Place 4th
Ever since he split sub-50 in a relay indoors at Reggie, his fans have dreamed of seeing Isaiah Penn in a championship 400m. On Saturday, they got their wish and Penn became only the second Newton North/Newton H.S. runner in history to run one lap in under 49 seconds, as he won the D1 title in a blistering 48.77. Penn became the first D1 400m champion from NN since Jed Carpenter in 2005, and the second fastest in school history behind Wes Harris.
In the one mile, Ezra Lichtman also staked a claim to history as he won the D1 title in 4:18.18, a personal best. Lichtman becomes NN's first outdoor D1 mile champion since Dave Polgar did it in 2006. Junior Justin Keefe ran a PR 4:24.40 for 7th and two more points.
The team competition was close, as expected, but Acton-Boxboro ran away with it on the strength of an unprecedented 1-2-3 24-point finish in the 800m. Seriously, has that ever happened that one team has swept a running event in D1? A-B also won the 400m hurdles (Chris Pullerits, 54.61), the 4x800 (8:01.17). and the 4x400 (edging out Newton North in 3:24.45).
North had more points from Penn in the triple jump (42-5, 5th place), and Swardiq Mayanja, who took 3rd in both the shot (53-00.25) and discus (141-04). Ryan Donovan also picked up a point with an 8th place finish in the discus (128-10).
In the one mile, Ezra Lichtman also staked a claim to history as he won the D1 title in 4:18.18, a personal best. Lichtman becomes NN's first outdoor D1 mile champion since Dave Polgar did it in 2006. Junior Justin Keefe ran a PR 4:24.40 for 7th and two more points.
The team competition was close, as expected, but Acton-Boxboro ran away with it on the strength of an unprecedented 1-2-3 24-point finish in the 800m. Seriously, has that ever happened that one team has swept a running event in D1? A-B also won the 400m hurdles (Chris Pullerits, 54.61), the 4x800 (8:01.17). and the 4x400 (edging out Newton North in 3:24.45).
North had more points from Penn in the triple jump (42-5, 5th place), and Swardiq Mayanja, who took 3rd in both the shot (53-00.25) and discus (141-04). Ryan Donovan also picked up a point with an 8th place finish in the discus (128-10).
Field Events Key as NN Girls Win D1 Championships
The Andover girls were the best team on the track yesterday at the State D1 Championships, but it wasn't enough. The Golden Warriors scored in seven of eleven running events and got wins in the 200, 400, and 4x400 relay, where in an epic battle they defeated Newton North and set a meet record with a time of 3:57.50.
But as good as Andover was on the track, Newton North was better in the field. The Tigers scored an incredible 58.5 points in the jumps and throws, including 24 points in the long jump, 18 in the discus, and 11 in the triple jump. Those points, plus 35 points in the running events and relays propelled North to the team title and denied Andover a second straight D1 crown.
Individually, the Tigers were led by Carla Forbes who defended her 2010 D1 titles in the long and triple jumps, and Ellen Goldberg and Tatiana Froelich, who went 1-2 in the discus. Kayla Wong placed 2nd in the long jump and 3rd in the 100 hurdles (14.78 in the finals, following a 14.76 in her preliminary heat). Evie Heffernan continued here amazing spring as she ran a five-second personal best in the mile (5:09.77) for third. Margo Gillis gutted out a 2:17.44 in the 800 for another third place, behind Andrea Keklak's unreal 2:08.78. Meghan Bellerose went under 60 for the 400 for the first time, placing 5th in 59.76. Kayla Prior was 5th in the long jump. Alli Hurwitz placed 7th in the 400 hurdles in 1:08.59. Emily Hutchinson tied for 8th in the high jump with a clearance of 5-0. And in perhaps her final H.S. meet, Amy Ren finished 7th in the long jump and 8th in the triple jump for 3 more points.
In addition to North's second place in the 4x400 (3:57.91), the Tigers also placed 6th in the 4x800 in 9:52.96. North's 4x100 team was disqualified for a zone violation, but by then the Tigers had the meet in hand.
2011 DI Championships - Full Results
But as good as Andover was on the track, Newton North was better in the field. The Tigers scored an incredible 58.5 points in the jumps and throws, including 24 points in the long jump, 18 in the discus, and 11 in the triple jump. Those points, plus 35 points in the running events and relays propelled North to the team title and denied Andover a second straight D1 crown.
Individually, the Tigers were led by Carla Forbes who defended her 2010 D1 titles in the long and triple jumps, and Ellen Goldberg and Tatiana Froelich, who went 1-2 in the discus. Kayla Wong placed 2nd in the long jump and 3rd in the 100 hurdles (14.78 in the finals, following a 14.76 in her preliminary heat). Evie Heffernan continued here amazing spring as she ran a five-second personal best in the mile (5:09.77) for third. Margo Gillis gutted out a 2:17.44 in the 800 for another third place, behind Andrea Keklak's unreal 2:08.78. Meghan Bellerose went under 60 for the 400 for the first time, placing 5th in 59.76. Kayla Prior was 5th in the long jump. Alli Hurwitz placed 7th in the 400 hurdles in 1:08.59. Emily Hutchinson tied for 8th in the high jump with a clearance of 5-0. And in perhaps her final H.S. meet, Amy Ren finished 7th in the long jump and 8th in the triple jump for 3 more points.
In addition to North's second place in the 4x400 (3:57.91), the Tigers also placed 6th in the 4x800 in 9:52.96. North's 4x100 team was disqualified for a zone violation, but by then the Tigers had the meet in hand.
2011 DI Championships - Full Results
May 20, 2011
BSC Conference Meet Results 5/19/11
Under heavy, overcast skies, Newton North's track and field teams competed at the 2011 BSC Conference Championships yesterday at Weymouth. I've always had mixed feelings about the conference meet, wondering whether it was one meet too many for the top athletes, but looking at the results, I'm becoming a believer in the value and excitement of the event. In particular, the Tigers had scintillating wins in the boys and girls miles, among other strong performances. The NN girls looked particularly dominant in the field events, winning all of the jumps and two of the three throws.
On the girls side first, North got wins from Evie Heffernan in the mile (5:14.33 personal best) and Margo Gillis in the 800 (2:20.41). Allie Hurwitz took 4th in the 400m hurdles, and the girls 4x100 team took 3rd.
Emily Hutchinson won the high jump at a modest 4-11 (slippery jumping surface?)... Carla Forbes won the long and triple jumps (17-5, 38-9.5). Megan Gentile took first in the shot put (36-9), and Tatiana Froehlich won the discus, spinning it out to 122-00 (with Ellen Godberg 3rd in 107-03). Amy Lu had a nice throw in the javelin, hitting 95-08 for 6th.
For the boys, Ezra Lichtman went head-to-head with Weymouth's Steve Sollowin in the mile and won the battle, running a personal best 4:21.46. That makes him the fastest NN miler since David Polgar (2006), and almost certainly puts him in the top ten all-time for the Tigers. Not to be overlooked, Justin Keefe also flew, running 4:27.51 for 3rd, with Dan Ranti at 4:35.76 in 7th. Geez, it used to be that 4:30 would win this race, now it gets you 5th.
Isaiah Penn continued to dominate the one-lap race, winning the 400 in 50.38. North also won the 4x400 relay in 3:31.14, and the 4x800 relay in 8:47.2. Who ran for the Tigers on these teams?
The work of Mike Bower continues to amaze. Newton North had four of the top five places yesterday, with all four -- all underclassmen -- at 46' or better. Swardiq Mayanja won with a toss of 50-03, but North also had a sophomore throw 48-7 (Carl Witham) and a freshman throw 46-6 (Jermel Wright). That's like having a sophomore and a freshman running 4:30 and 4:35 for the mile. Incredible! Mayanja also won the discus (140-6), with Ryan Donovan taking 2nd (139-7).
In the jumps, Tylor Hart placed 2nd in the high jump (6-3), and Penn placed 3rd in the triple (39-11).
2011 Bay State Conference Outdoor T&F Championships
On the girls side first, North got wins from Evie Heffernan in the mile (5:14.33 personal best) and Margo Gillis in the 800 (2:20.41). Allie Hurwitz took 4th in the 400m hurdles, and the girls 4x100 team took 3rd.
Emily Hutchinson won the high jump at a modest 4-11 (slippery jumping surface?)... Carla Forbes won the long and triple jumps (17-5, 38-9.5). Megan Gentile took first in the shot put (36-9), and Tatiana Froehlich won the discus, spinning it out to 122-00 (with Ellen Godberg 3rd in 107-03). Amy Lu had a nice throw in the javelin, hitting 95-08 for 6th.
For the boys, Ezra Lichtman went head-to-head with Weymouth's Steve Sollowin in the mile and won the battle, running a personal best 4:21.46. That makes him the fastest NN miler since David Polgar (2006), and almost certainly puts him in the top ten all-time for the Tigers. Not to be overlooked, Justin Keefe also flew, running 4:27.51 for 3rd, with Dan Ranti at 4:35.76 in 7th. Geez, it used to be that 4:30 would win this race, now it gets you 5th.
Isaiah Penn continued to dominate the one-lap race, winning the 400 in 50.38. North also won the 4x400 relay in 3:31.14, and the 4x800 relay in 8:47.2. Who ran for the Tigers on these teams?
The work of Mike Bower continues to amaze. Newton North had four of the top five places yesterday, with all four -- all underclassmen -- at 46' or better. Swardiq Mayanja won with a toss of 50-03, but North also had a sophomore throw 48-7 (Carl Witham) and a freshman throw 46-6 (Jermel Wright). That's like having a sophomore and a freshman running 4:30 and 4:35 for the mile. Incredible! Mayanja also won the discus (140-6), with Ryan Donovan taking 2nd (139-7).
In the jumps, Tylor Hart placed 2nd in the high jump (6-3), and Penn placed 3rd in the triple (39-11).
2011 Bay State Conference Outdoor T&F Championships
May 16, 2011
Results from the 2011 State Coaches Meet
When I was coaching at Newton North, I always loved the MSTCA Coaches meet because the depth and quality of the competition always seemed to result in a bounty of personal bests. It was always a goal to qualify for the State Coaches meet, and then run a really fast time there to qualify for the MIAA Div I meet.
On Saturday, Durfee hosted the 2011 MSTCA meet and there were plenty of fast times, and several championships for Newton North athletes.
NN senior Isaiah Penn ran the fastest 400m in the state this year, crossing the line in 49.01. He was quoted in the Globe to the effect that he still had more work to do and that he knew he could go faster. Mercy! Also in the 400, NN's Ben Clark ran 52.57.
In the 800, Ezra Lichtman added another impressive victory for North, running 1:57.92 (personal best?) to lead six runners under 2:00. North freshman Gabe Montague also competed in the 800, running 2:05.79.
In other events, Justin Keefe finished 5th in the 1 mile (4:31.19); Dan Ranti placed 4th in the 2 Mile (9:52.70); and Tylor Hart placed 4th in the high jump (6-2). In the shot put, North had three throwers over 47 feet, all underclassmen, led by Swardick Mayanja's second place (53-8). Mayanja also placed 2nd in the discus with a throw of 160-7.
Running out of the slowest heat, the quartet of Clark, Terrell Doyle, Abbott, and Keefe placed 4th overall in the 4x400 relay, running 3:32.01. Gotta love their chances with Penn and Lichtman.
Carla Forbes was named the meet's outstanding performer in the field events, as she won the triple jump with a leap of 40-1.25. Amy Ren was 10th in the same event with a leap of 33-5. Forbes also placed 3rd in the 200, running 26.17.
Forbes had company (and competition) for the above honor from her teammates. In the discus, Tatiana Froelich won with a throw of 119-5. Ellen Goldberg also had a great throw, 113-8, which was good enough for fourth. In the long jump, Kayla Wong won with a leap of 16-10.5. Wong also placed 3rd in the 100m hurdles, running 15.24 in the finals (15.16 in the trials).
In the shot put, Megan Gentile had a huge throw of 36-1.25 to place second. In the high jump, Emily Hutchinson cleared 5-3 to place third. Steph Brown was third in the pole vault (8-0).
In the 400, sophomore Meghan Bellerose (60.02) and Madison Nadeau (60.75) finished 7th and 10th, respectively. In the 1 Mile, freshman Evie Heffernan ran a personal best 5:14.04 to finish 5th, only two seconds behind the winner. Sister Maggie finished 8th in what I believe is also a personal best 5:19.84. In the 2 Mile, Devika Banerjee placed 8th in 12:20.79, with Liz Rudie at 12:44.22.
In the 400m hurdles, Amy Ren placed 10th in 1:09.32.
North's 4x100 team of Wynn, Forbes, Brown, and Wong placed 3rd in 50.72. Their 4x800 team finished 5th in 9:58.60.
2011 MSTCA Boys and Girls Results
On Saturday, Durfee hosted the 2011 MSTCA meet and there were plenty of fast times, and several championships for Newton North athletes.
NN senior Isaiah Penn ran the fastest 400m in the state this year, crossing the line in 49.01. He was quoted in the Globe to the effect that he still had more work to do and that he knew he could go faster. Mercy! Also in the 400, NN's Ben Clark ran 52.57.
In the 800, Ezra Lichtman added another impressive victory for North, running 1:57.92 (personal best?) to lead six runners under 2:00. North freshman Gabe Montague also competed in the 800, running 2:05.79.
In other events, Justin Keefe finished 5th in the 1 mile (4:31.19); Dan Ranti placed 4th in the 2 Mile (9:52.70); and Tylor Hart placed 4th in the high jump (6-2). In the shot put, North had three throwers over 47 feet, all underclassmen, led by Swardick Mayanja's second place (53-8). Mayanja also placed 2nd in the discus with a throw of 160-7.
Running out of the slowest heat, the quartet of Clark, Terrell Doyle, Abbott, and Keefe placed 4th overall in the 4x400 relay, running 3:32.01. Gotta love their chances with Penn and Lichtman.
Carla Forbes was named the meet's outstanding performer in the field events, as she won the triple jump with a leap of 40-1.25. Amy Ren was 10th in the same event with a leap of 33-5. Forbes also placed 3rd in the 200, running 26.17.
Forbes had company (and competition) for the above honor from her teammates. In the discus, Tatiana Froelich won with a throw of 119-5. Ellen Goldberg also had a great throw, 113-8, which was good enough for fourth. In the long jump, Kayla Wong won with a leap of 16-10.5. Wong also placed 3rd in the 100m hurdles, running 15.24 in the finals (15.16 in the trials).
In the shot put, Megan Gentile had a huge throw of 36-1.25 to place second. In the high jump, Emily Hutchinson cleared 5-3 to place third. Steph Brown was third in the pole vault (8-0).
In the 400, sophomore Meghan Bellerose (60.02) and Madison Nadeau (60.75) finished 7th and 10th, respectively. In the 1 Mile, freshman Evie Heffernan ran a personal best 5:14.04 to finish 5th, only two seconds behind the winner. Sister Maggie finished 8th in what I believe is also a personal best 5:19.84. In the 2 Mile, Devika Banerjee placed 8th in 12:20.79, with Liz Rudie at 12:44.22.
In the 400m hurdles, Amy Ren placed 10th in 1:09.32.
North's 4x100 team of Wynn, Forbes, Brown, and Wong placed 3rd in 50.72. Their 4x800 team finished 5th in 9:58.60.
2011 MSTCA Boys and Girls Results
May 09, 2011
College Results: Karys Wins 10000m at Heps
Ivy League Championships
Cornell sophomore Kelsey Karys (NSHS '09) won the 10000m at the Ivy League Championships (Heps) by nearly 20 seconds over the weekend, running 34:19.99. Karys also finished 6th in the 3000 (9:53.37).
Josh Seeherman poses the question:
"When is the last time a Newton North or Newton South runner won a Heps title? We know the first; Milton Green (NHS '31) won the long jump and high hurdles at the inaugural Heps championship in 1935. M. Carl Shine (NHS '55) won the shotput in 1958-1959 . . . . Mark Young (NSHS '64) won the 400 in 1968-1969, but is that it?"
Princeton senior and former Xaverian runner Mark Amirault continued his incredible spring, winning the 1500m and 5000m. Cornell sophomore Nick Wade (North Attleboro '09) won the 800m in 1:50.15.
Yale senior David Smith (NNHS '07) finished 9th in the shot put with a best throw of 15.28m (50-01.75), and 12th in the discus (38.37m, 125-11).
Cornell sophomore Kelsey Karys (NSHS '09) won the 10000m at the Ivy League Championships (Heps) by nearly 20 seconds over the weekend, running 34:19.99. Karys also finished 6th in the 3000 (9:53.37).
Josh Seeherman poses the question:
"When is the last time a Newton North or Newton South runner won a Heps title? We know the first; Milton Green (NHS '31) won the long jump and high hurdles at the inaugural Heps championship in 1935. M. Carl Shine (NHS '55) won the shotput in 1958-1959 . . . . Mark Young (NSHS '64) won the 400 in 1968-1969, but is that it?"
Princeton senior and former Xaverian runner Mark Amirault continued his incredible spring, winning the 1500m and 5000m. Cornell sophomore Nick Wade (North Attleboro '09) won the 800m in 1:50.15.
Yale senior David Smith (NNHS '07) finished 9th in the shot put with a best throw of 15.28m (50-01.75), and 12th in the discus (38.37m, 125-11).
May 06, 2011
3rd Annual Adrian Martinez Classic
June 17, 2011
On Friday evening, June 17, beginning at 5 p.m. Concord-Carlisle H.S. hosts the third annual Adrian Martinez Classic, a festival of one-mile races on Concord's Emerson track. There are races for all ages and all abilities, including a race for mile novices, and the highly competitive ADRO MILE, which offers cash prizes for top 5 finishers in the men's and women's division. There is a bonus of $1,000 for the first man who runs sub-4:00 and the first woman who runs sub-4:30.
Schedule of Events:
5:00 PM: Age Group Races from 10-under up to 18
Scholastic Challenge, three runners from same town
6:05 PM: FIRST-TIMER’S MILE
6:20 PM: Masters and Seniors Races
6:40 PM: OPEN Races
7:00 PM: The Adro Elite Miles
The scholastic challenge is a team category for high school students (team members must be from the same town and must be attending high school or just graduated).
For entry info and directions, see the event website:
http://www.martinezclassic.com
Letter from Race Director and CCHS Head Coach Steve Lane:
Dear Coaches,
I am writing to invite you and your athletes to the 3rd Annual
Adrian Martinez Classic on Friday, June 17th in Concord, MA. The
goal of the event is to bring together the whole running community
for one evening of mile races. For elites, we wish to spread some
prize money around, offer up another chance to race a fast time,
and have the race serve as a late-season qualifying chance for
USATFs. For runners with more modest goals, we offer the chance to
race a track mile, then watch the elites in the same event – an
opportunity not often available.
Hope to see you there!!
Thanks,
Steve Lane
Race Director, The Adrian Martinez Classic
www.martinezclassic.com
617-306-4650
May 04, 2011
WHS Track Coach Tom Davis Dismissed
Tom Davis (NNHS '04), the second-year track coach at Westwood High School, was summarily dismissed from his position last Friday, after the WHS Athletic Director confronted a member of the track team for running without a shirt.
Wicked Local has the story here:
Davis Fired as WHS Track Coach
There is a thread on Letsrun with additional information:
Letsrun's Tom Davis Fired from Westwood High
Tom's attempts to engage the administration in a discussion to resolve the shirtless issue prior to the incident that led to his dismissal were unsuccessful. It's hard to understand the thought-process behind the actions taken by the school.
According to the WickedLocal article, Westwood athletes and their parents have requested a meeting with the administration but have so far been rebuffed.
While I would ask everyone to keep Tom in mind, as always, it will be the athletes who will be hurt most by this action.
Wicked Local has the story here:
Davis Fired as WHS Track Coach
There is a thread on Letsrun with additional information:
Letsrun's Tom Davis Fired from Westwood High
Tom's attempts to engage the administration in a discussion to resolve the shirtless issue prior to the incident that led to his dismissal were unsuccessful. It's hard to understand the thought-process behind the actions taken by the school.
According to the WickedLocal article, Westwood athletes and their parents have requested a meeting with the administration but have so far been rebuffed.
While I would ask everyone to keep Tom in mind, as always, it will be the athletes who will be hurt most by this action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
