View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Justin Varsity

Joined: 08 Oct 2001 Posts: 312 Location: London
|
Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2001 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is bewildering to think it, but 99% of all the UK athletes you've ever seen started by going along to a community based club at a local track as a kid, paying their subscriptions and joining a training group which may well include a 10.5 and a 12.5 100m runner, trained by a volunteer coach with a day job. The elite performance clubs such as Christie's are a 90s phenomenon.
That so many good athletes have been produced over the years is a tribute to the work done by these unpaid volunteers. Most also depend on very poor quality facilities - Jason Gardener still trains on a track which is in fact to poor to be used for competition.
There is an argument that this poor situation helps produce great champions because the likes of Christie, Coe and so on have to develop an incredible determination and self-drive, since they have to do it all effectively alone. This also explains why so many world class UK athletes (eg Coe, Christie, Edwards) can seem so incredibly self-centred - they have to be, they've achieved what they have with little help from anyone.
Where this poor situation changes is at the elite performance level, especially for juniors. The UK system for bringing juniors through is very, very impressive, as the list of current athletes who were former junior champions shows - Chambers, Malcolm, Macey, Merry, Baulch, Gardener, Golding, Holmes, Backley, Campbell, Richardson and Radcliffe all made a big mark as kids and have been brought through. That's why I'm so confident about MLF - I think that the people responsible for his development know what they are doing and will not be under the same pressure to over-expose him as might a US college coach be, for example.
But of course this is the tip of the pyramid and the height of the tip depends on the width of the base. The base is the clubs and schools, and t&f is in very poor shape in both these areas.
And remember - the largest t&f stadium in the whole country holds just 17,000 spectators! Many clubs exist over 100 miles from the nearest artificial track, which in any case is likely to be horribly over-booked and in poor condition. Schools and local authorities sold most of their playing fields in the 80s to raise cash. Really, it's almost a miracle that there are any world class UK athletes. Without the heritage the sport has (it's well-regarded in the UK and the very top athletes are big stars) we'd be nowhere.
Justin |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Conway Olympic Medalist

Joined: 25 Aug 2001 Posts: 3570 Location: Northen California
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2001 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well I am impressed at what has been accomplished in the British system given what would seem to be limitations ... I do think, however, that training on poor tracks and poor conditions might be an advantage, as this forces one to work harder than he or she may otherwise do on pristine artificial surfaces ... I think that is one reason why in spite of all the advatages that athletes have today they are not that far in front of their counterparts from say te 60's & 70's - at least in the sprints/hurdles ...
I'm also not so sure that the US college system is any great advantage ... It does provide quality coaching and facilities ... But budget cuts have eaten into competitive opportunities as well as the number of quality athletes that schools can obtain ... and I think it is having quality athetes to train with that produces the better results - although the UK system may well prove that to be un-necessary ...
But for example, pre Title IX schools like UCLA and USC were able to stock piletalent by the boat loads ... And their teams were always at the top of the charts (so to speak) ... During the 70's and into the early 80's their squads could have competed against most other country's national teams and won ... Post Title IX and reduction in funding have made them for the most part "average" ... They've gotten the occasional Boldon or Watts .. But have had to rely on trying to develop one or two "stars" as opposed to a team full ...
The richest country in the world and we have no continuity of development |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dan Chief Pontificator

Joined: 22 Mar 1999 Posts: 9334 Location: Salem, OR
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2001 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From a sprint standpoint (which covers most of the athletes we've been talking about), I think a "poor" track is often better than a nice one, as it typically means a harder, faster surface. More likely to lead to injuries if one isn't careful, but also more likely to lead to speed!
Dan |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Conway Olympic Medalist

Joined: 25 Aug 2001 Posts: 3570 Location: Northen California
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2001 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree ... Although I tend to think of a poor track as a dirt track that has been "chewed up" .. This makes for a very soft, sandy surface which forces you to work harder to produce similar results as if you were on a "good" track ... Either way, a "poor" track makes one work harder to achieve success ... And that is what breeds champions !!!
[ This Message was edited by: Conway on 2001-11-29 10:09 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Conway on 2001-11-29 10:10 ] |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dan Chief Pontificator

Joined: 22 Mar 1999 Posts: 9334 Location: Salem, OR
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2001 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good point. That sort of "poor" track certainly wouldn't produce speed in training, but it might still pay off on race day.
Dan |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Conway Olympic Medalist

Joined: 25 Aug 2001 Posts: 3570 Location: Northen California
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2001 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Two types of "resistance" training that were popular when I was young were beach running and hill running (up hill) ... Two forms of stregnth running .. Both made you work harder to achieve speed ... Not sure if anyone is doing any of that any more ... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dan Chief Pontificator

Joined: 22 Mar 1999 Posts: 9334 Location: Salem, OR
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2001 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't heard of many people doing beach running for speed development these days, but it is fairly common for distance runners to develop strength that way. Aggressive hill running is a must. I just wish we had a better selection of non-trafficked hills around here...
Dan |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Conway Olympic Medalist

Joined: 25 Aug 2001 Posts: 3570 Location: Northen California
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2001 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You should try it ... First heard about it from Steve Williams when I was in high school ... I've tried it and it works pretty well ... Is a good workout - sprinting in the sand ... I'm sure the distance runners just run on the beach, but try sprinting ... Sort of like pool running/workouts ...  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dan Chief Pontificator

Joined: 22 Mar 1999 Posts: 9334 Location: Salem, OR
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2001 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've done some hill sprints in the sand, and I know at least some distance runners do the same. It's good for strength, especially smaller muscle groups in the legs, but I have a hard time seeing the motion doing much to directly benefit the stride. Seems more like a weight workout than a running workout.
Dan |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Conway Olympic Medalist

Joined: 25 Aug 2001 Posts: 3570 Location: Northen California
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2001 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Now I never said it was a speed workout ... I said resistance ... So in essence it is a weight type workout - that can be done during the season in small amounts as well as early season ... As you said is good for the small muscle groups ... Good for rehabilitation as well as prevention ... Sort of a "Rokcy" type workout .. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dan Chief Pontificator

Joined: 22 Mar 1999 Posts: 9334 Location: Salem, OR
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2001 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm, I suppose you did specify "resistance"... I think of hill sprints as more of a speed workout (great for working at near max intensity with very little strain on the hamstrings), so the association between the two led me astray from your original point.
Dan |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2001 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
somebody mentione or asked "do the athletes view the Olympic and World championships differently". I would say an unequivocal yes. THE Olympics are just that ... THE pinnacle. Even these day an Olympic medal is much more 'marketable' than any other championship. In the 'old' days the marketing was different but the attention could be life changing. Lasse Viren will go down as one of the most dominating runners of his time, but he lost often up to and after the Olys. And ... without checking, can even a serious track & field fan be able to say who won any other championship races in 5 and 10k during '72 and '76. Way extreme fans might generate a few - but I say that would be one of the qualifying characteristics (of being way extreme) - being able to come up with 72 and 76 'other' champ 5 and 10kers. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dan Chief Pontificator

Joined: 22 Mar 1999 Posts: 9334 Location: Salem, OR
|
Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2001 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
While you may indeed be correct, it sounds like you have answered how you view the importance of the Olympics, not necessarily the view of the athletes. That sounds like the typical media portrayal, but I'm not completely convinced athletes view it the same way. For what it's worth, not being able to name medalists outside the Olympics is more a matter of what is presented to the public that anything else.
Quote: | Lasse Viren will go down as one of the most dominating runners of his time, but he lost often up to and after the Olys. |
Really? I thought he raced sparingly outside the Olympics.
Dan |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Justin Varsity

Joined: 08 Oct 2001 Posts: 312 Location: London
|
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2001 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am absolutely convinced that the athletes view the Olympics as the pinnacle, above the World Champs. In fact, I have never heard a single athlete express the contrary view. Hicham El G would trade all his WC wins for a single OG win. Mo Greene was quite clear before Sydney that he would never be considered an all-time great without an OG win, no matter how many WC he won.
I don't think this situation was inevitable. The 4-yearly WC in Helsinki, Rome and Tokyo were wonderful but the move to a bi-annual cycle robbed the WC of a huge amount of prestige, cheapening the event to the extent that a WC gold can never be the equal of an OG gold.
Justin |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Conway Olympic Medalist

Joined: 25 Aug 2001 Posts: 3570 Location: Northen California
|
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2001 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would agree that the athletes view the Olympics as the pinnacle, but I think more so because that is what the rest of the world follows ... I think Mo's statement was in line with that as he knew no matter what he did/does at Worlds, the media follows the Olympics ... So that is the one you HAVE to win to get respect ..
Regarding the Worlds themselves, I looked forward to having a "major" event more often than every four years ... I think the problem with the Worlds is that they present nothing different than the Olympics and have not earned their stature ... They operate on the exact same format so come across somewhat as an imitation ... Many sports have world championships in addition to the Olympics and seem to do fine ... I think our Worlds needs to have an identity of its own ... As in only the best are invited !!! Participation based on ability not national representation ... Of course the only problem with that is that you preclude the US from competition in some areas and some may view that as a negative ... And then we get back to who are these "championships" for the true fans of sport and the athletes or the media/advertisers/etc .....
[ This Message was edited by: Conway on 2001-12-03 19:32 ] |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|