How do you get a cold in August???? I somehow have and it has completely sapped me of energy. I was finally beginning to run pain free and get in some decent miles when I get a few sneezes and then all of a sudden my nose is like a hydrant.
Sometimes timing is everything and I cannot figure out whether this cold is good or bad. I only have another week and a half til school begins and my nephew is down at the coast (they went to the PNE today while i went to sleep. But it may be a bit of a sign as I figured I was in the 80 mile range last week (not workouts, just runs), which was a bit of a jump. I felt great all last week in every sense of the word (I got in an hr and 40 mins at the SFU trails) and was even planning my early season fartlek and tempo workouts.
Of the many things I've lean red as I've gotten older is not try and hammer thru sickness....back off yes, hammer no.... the worst part is that I was finally chomping at the bit to get in some harder stuff, but that will have to wait at least another day.
On a side not is a presentation I am doing at the UBC XC team camp this year. I realized when I sat down to think what is relevant to a young collegiate athlete I thought back to when I first began running and remembered what a complete idiot I was (in every sense of the word). I emailed a few of the guys who have gone thru the UBC system the last few years and asked them about direction. They were really helpful, but I also fear that I may go to the extreme of things.
Basically I've picked a few things from here and there to hopefully create a coherent presentation from their attitudes and the basics of training. Mostly I looked at the 'larger picture' items and tried to relate the to mistakes I made myself and often see other young athletes making. As always I worry that my bluntness will get me in trouble, but I hope they appreciate the honesty. It's one thing I can look at any things in 20/20 hindsight and I don't think a lot of younger athletes get a chance to always be fully conscious of how they need to approach running to achieve even a reasonable level of success.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Dirty Harry was a bad bad man....
.....someone may wonder how can Dirty Harry and running have so much in common, but my obtuse mind works wonders when I am actually back and running. Now don’t me wrong I love the Dirty Harry movies. This is one of those times. In the various Dirty Harry movies he was always a guy who bucked the rules and system and ignored what ohers told him . He also had some of the best quote from his ‘Do I feel lucky’ punk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daFb3J-cwLg&feature=related) to ‘Make my day’ (,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6-Snl4a1RI) .
The quote I want to focus on is his also famous, but one the character of Harry Callahan often contradicted in his actions, was ‘A man’s got to know his limitations’ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZNlraF0xec). If anything I’ve come to realize as I got older was that one of the reasons I never stopped running was that I refused to set limits on what I was doing and what society said I should be doing. There was always that little thing in me that said you can somehow learn something from this situation. I think that’s what Brett Favre is going through in his various comebacks... he simply likes what he is doing.
It’s not that I expected to go out and win every race or set world records (to the contrary), but I always recognized that pushing limits and boundaries was something that really motivated me. So if that meant trying to run competitively at an age when most people have given up or coming back from an injury or simply seeing what sort of stresses I could put my body through then that was something that I saw as a challenge.
I was lucky in that even in the bad times I always was able to have some performance that kept me going and trying. It was then that the decision of what I was doing never really became a question. It had already been answered.
I can look back on things in 20/20 hindsight realized that some of my performances in my 30’s were a direct result of ignoring Dirty Harry’s famous words. If I had listened to him there is little doubt that I would not have achieved any tangible results or made any teams. But more relevant is that I would have lost out on so many great experiences. From such things as travelling, learning from winning/losing/trying/giving up, making friends and mostly the day to day enjoyment of grinding it out I learned many things about myself that I would have never found out if I had packed it in.
I remember a story from a few years back when Bob Kennedy was trying to overcome injuries and race successfully over 10km. He was being advised by famed miler Marcus O’Sullivan who told him to try and comeback because he had also done the same thing in his mid 30s and that it was during this time that he appreciated running and more importantly had learned the most about the sport and himself.
There are times when packing it in becomes a lifestyle choice or something that you forced into, but if you create those ‘limitations’ then remember that sometimes you may lose something that you can never get back. So don't listen to Dirty harry....instead do as he did and buck the system. You just might surprise yourself.
The quote I want to focus on is his also famous, but one the character of Harry Callahan often contradicted in his actions, was ‘A man’s got to know his limitations’ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZNlraF0xec). If anything I’ve come to realize as I got older was that one of the reasons I never stopped running was that I refused to set limits on what I was doing and what society said I should be doing. There was always that little thing in me that said you can somehow learn something from this situation. I think that’s what Brett Favre is going through in his various comebacks... he simply likes what he is doing.
It’s not that I expected to go out and win every race or set world records (to the contrary), but I always recognized that pushing limits and boundaries was something that really motivated me. So if that meant trying to run competitively at an age when most people have given up or coming back from an injury or simply seeing what sort of stresses I could put my body through then that was something that I saw as a challenge.
I was lucky in that even in the bad times I always was able to have some performance that kept me going and trying. It was then that the decision of what I was doing never really became a question. It had already been answered.
I can look back on things in 20/20 hindsight realized that some of my performances in my 30’s were a direct result of ignoring Dirty Harry’s famous words. If I had listened to him there is little doubt that I would not have achieved any tangible results or made any teams. But more relevant is that I would have lost out on so many great experiences. From such things as travelling, learning from winning/losing/trying/giving up, making friends and mostly the day to day enjoyment of grinding it out I learned many things about myself that I would have never found out if I had packed it in.
I remember a story from a few years back when Bob Kennedy was trying to overcome injuries and race successfully over 10km. He was being advised by famed miler Marcus O’Sullivan who told him to try and comeback because he had also done the same thing in his mid 30s and that it was during this time that he appreciated running and more importantly had learned the most about the sport and himself.
There are times when packing it in becomes a lifestyle choice or something that you forced into, but if you create those ‘limitations’ then remember that sometimes you may lose something that you can never get back. So don't listen to Dirty harry....instead do as he did and buck the system. You just might surprise yourself.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Science vs Nature
I have been nitpicking at this one for over a week. getting a few sentences here and there and generally forgetting about it. But I also realized that in my own running this has been a central push and pull about the philosophy of how one should approach their running.
Over the years I have had enough revelations and tried enough things that you get down to the basics (more about that in the future) in running. One of those own questions and battles in myself have revolved around structure vs. running free or as I often see it Franz Stampfl vs. the “Stotan” or better described as Stampfl vs. Percy Cerutty. Although a debate that began in the 50s and 60s, this is a debate that is as relevant now as it was in the past.
For those who don’t know Franz Stampfl was an Austrian coach who had gained his fame while helping Roger Bannister get under 4mins for the mile, while Cerutty was an Australian coach, who had worked with John Landy (although before the Empire Games Landy had left him. Where these two would really come into conflict, hence the idea behind this post, was when Stampfl moved to Australia and came into direct conflict with both Cerutty and his most famous athlete Herb Elliott (the only undefeated major miler of all time and arguably the greatest 1500/miler runner of all time).
What makes their story so interesting if how each approached the sport and their athletes. Stampfl was by all accounts a very scientific and quiet coach. He advocated a very organized and structured training pattern that was dominated by interval work and hitting certain splits around the track.
Cerutty on the other side felt that humans were animals and as such needed to run ‘freely’. His philosophy was based upon his creation of the term ‘stotan’ or a combination being both stoic and leading Spartan lifestyle. He felt that if u ran like a natural animal and ran against pain (rather than in a structured manner like around a track) then you would achieve your greatest successes. He advocated sand running, fartlek style running (based upon the great Gustav Holmer and successes of the two Swede milers Arne Andersson and Gunder Hagg who had come so close to breaking the once impregnable 4 min mile). He believed that if one runs around the track in training then that took away some of one’s natural love for running. He also felt that you should hate your opponent as your main goal was to beat them in a race so why should you be nice to them off the track. He did wild things like waving a towel if Elliott was on wld record pace and often led philosophical discussion on famous philosophers such as Nietzsche who was famous for his ‘what doesn’t kill you will only make you stronger’).
Cerutty’s greatest athlete was the legendary Herb Elliott. Elliott went undefeated as a Sr athlete (he lost once in grade school to an older boy) in the mile/1500m. He set a time that IMHO is the single greatest race ever run, and is still considered wld class, at the 1960 Olympics when he ran 3:35 (closing in 1:52 on a cinder track) and won by the largest margin in Olympic history (still I think). Elliott’s ability to make himself puke and run himself into submission is legendary.
Where the Cerutty vs. Stampfl rivalry really began was with Elliott’s greatest Aussie rival Merv Lincoln. Lincoln was probably one of the top few milers in the world, but never could beat Elliott. But more relevant was that Lincoln was coached by....Stampfl, who had come to live in Australia after Bannister’s successes. Of course not only did Cerutty’s ‘them vs. us’ attitude cause problems, but his attitude of ‘natural running’ was in direct contrast to Stampfl’s scientific attitude. Hence the argument of who produced the better system of producing runners. In then end many saw Cerutty as a crackpot, but to this day Elliott still sees his basic attitude of challenging oneself and running through barriers as the key to success.
So the question is...are you a Stampfl (science and structure) or a Cerutty (free and natural)? I know for me I’ve gone through episodes of both over the years. And in both cases I got into trouble and learned much all at the same time. In the end I decided that at heart I was more like Cerutty, but that at times I need to fall back on the basics and force structure on myself. More relevant came when I ended up doing a bit more coaching/advising. Some want and need someone to be more Stampfl in their approach (structure, told what to do, science) while others want and need someone to treat them like Cerutty did to Elliott on a regular basis (challenge, philosophical, more ‘art’ in coaching). In then end you need to find out if you want and need one or the other more/less...... if you can then running is far more enjoyable.
Over the years I have had enough revelations and tried enough things that you get down to the basics (more about that in the future) in running. One of those own questions and battles in myself have revolved around structure vs. running free or as I often see it Franz Stampfl vs. the “Stotan” or better described as Stampfl vs. Percy Cerutty. Although a debate that began in the 50s and 60s, this is a debate that is as relevant now as it was in the past.
For those who don’t know Franz Stampfl was an Austrian coach who had gained his fame while helping Roger Bannister get under 4mins for the mile, while Cerutty was an Australian coach, who had worked with John Landy (although before the Empire Games Landy had left him. Where these two would really come into conflict, hence the idea behind this post, was when Stampfl moved to Australia and came into direct conflict with both Cerutty and his most famous athlete Herb Elliott (the only undefeated major miler of all time and arguably the greatest 1500/miler runner of all time).
What makes their story so interesting if how each approached the sport and their athletes. Stampfl was by all accounts a very scientific and quiet coach. He advocated a very organized and structured training pattern that was dominated by interval work and hitting certain splits around the track.
Cerutty on the other side felt that humans were animals and as such needed to run ‘freely’. His philosophy was based upon his creation of the term ‘stotan’ or a combination being both stoic and leading Spartan lifestyle. He felt that if u ran like a natural animal and ran against pain (rather than in a structured manner like around a track) then you would achieve your greatest successes. He advocated sand running, fartlek style running (based upon the great Gustav Holmer and successes of the two Swede milers Arne Andersson and Gunder Hagg who had come so close to breaking the once impregnable 4 min mile). He believed that if one runs around the track in training then that took away some of one’s natural love for running. He also felt that you should hate your opponent as your main goal was to beat them in a race so why should you be nice to them off the track. He did wild things like waving a towel if Elliott was on wld record pace and often led philosophical discussion on famous philosophers such as Nietzsche who was famous for his ‘what doesn’t kill you will only make you stronger’).
Cerutty’s greatest athlete was the legendary Herb Elliott. Elliott went undefeated as a Sr athlete (he lost once in grade school to an older boy) in the mile/1500m. He set a time that IMHO is the single greatest race ever run, and is still considered wld class, at the 1960 Olympics when he ran 3:35 (closing in 1:52 on a cinder track) and won by the largest margin in Olympic history (still I think). Elliott’s ability to make himself puke and run himself into submission is legendary.
Where the Cerutty vs. Stampfl rivalry really began was with Elliott’s greatest Aussie rival Merv Lincoln. Lincoln was probably one of the top few milers in the world, but never could beat Elliott. But more relevant was that Lincoln was coached by....Stampfl, who had come to live in Australia after Bannister’s successes. Of course not only did Cerutty’s ‘them vs. us’ attitude cause problems, but his attitude of ‘natural running’ was in direct contrast to Stampfl’s scientific attitude. Hence the argument of who produced the better system of producing runners. In then end many saw Cerutty as a crackpot, but to this day Elliott still sees his basic attitude of challenging oneself and running through barriers as the key to success.
So the question is...are you a Stampfl (science and structure) or a Cerutty (free and natural)? I know for me I’ve gone through episodes of both over the years. And in both cases I got into trouble and learned much all at the same time. In the end I decided that at heart I was more like Cerutty, but that at times I need to fall back on the basics and force structure on myself. More relevant came when I ended up doing a bit more coaching/advising. Some want and need someone to be more Stampfl in their approach (structure, told what to do, science) while others want and need someone to treat them like Cerutty did to Elliott on a regular basis (challenge, philosophical, more ‘art’ in coaching). In then end you need to find out if you want and need one or the other more/less...... if you can then running is far more enjoyable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
