Hi again Brian,
I agree wholeheartedly. I was not suggesting that any funding should be
thrown the way of those athletes. In the UK and Ireland even people
competing in Nationals etc don't get funding (living expenses, travel
expenses or any other funding). A few may get sponsorship from shoe
companies but these are usually only the Olympic standard athletes. Also, in
Ireland, athletes who have qualified for Olympics etc usually get some
monetary assistance from the National Federation although this is not always
the case as I can attest to. As for paid coaches?????? There is only One
paid coach in Ireland (The National director of coaching) and that's only in
the last ten years. Club coaches are totally unpaid.
There are however clubs throughout the country with NO paid coaches,
officials, clubhouses or tracks. These clubs run on a voluntary basis,
organise weekly coaching, and local competitions (where there is a municipal
track they use that , where there is not they rent a field for the day from
a local soccer club, or rugby club). In my town of 17,000 people we have two
such clubs, joint membership figures of over 300 athletes from under 10 kids
to 70 year olds. We have had numerous National Champions down through the
years who never got any funding.
My point is that if people are interested enough, they should get out there
and form clubs. It may take a while to get going but its well worth it.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Mcewen, Brian T [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 08 January 2001 19:05
To: 'Michael Casey'
Subject: RE: t-and-f: Re: Clubs
Hi Brian,
But surely there should be a competitive destination for these athletes.
A) Yes ... there should be. I think that in the US there IS good
opportunity for men who are just outside the level of making a living off
their running to still train and race. I just don't think that the focus
should be on throwing money at them so they can have better coaches, money
to travel and living expenses paid. It just doesn't make sense. This level
of athlete (those that NEVER made the College Championships) could likely
continue at or near their age 23 level for a long time ... but they will
likely not improve from say 1:51/3:47 to 1:46/3:37 just because they are
allowed to develop for 4-5 more years.
Exceptions are numerous, I agree. We can all find examples of people who
just didn't fulfill their potential until after age 23. But, I think what
Mike Platt said about "doing it on your own" applies here. If you were
around 3:47/14:10 in college ... and you want to continue to compete
seriously ... you should do it. In the US there are some opportunities for
you, not many but some. It is different here (compared to Europe) in that
there is so much space that if you want to join a training group you may
have to move a long ways. In Ireland and England you were most likely
already in a club from much earlier. The systems are totally different.
My point was NOT that there should be no club for them (semi-elite), NO
competitions, no coaching. Only that in THE US, you have 8-10 years of
guaranteed coaches, and a well-established schedule of competition, during
HS and college, your travel and equipment are often taken care of for you.
If you have not shown to be National-class material by then ... you should
expect to push on by yourself ... not with shoe money/travel money and paid
coaches from someone else.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Nearly every other country in the world has competition for this category of
athlete. Also I wouldn't entirely agree with your assertion that it is
unlikely that an athlete would reach a standard needed to compete at a
National Level. I have seen numerous athletes do just that. Miss-management
in the college scene (and it is out there) which is then rectified by a
personal coach can and has led to dramatic improvements. One instance comes
to mind immediately of a really mediocre athlete who on leaving college
qualified for and competed in European Championships (Same qualification
marks as Olympics). He only ran 1:55,3:51 (1500m) and 14:38 in College.
A) Certainly there are MANY who do it ... but there are just a handful
every year who somehow make it from 3:51/14:38 to 3:37/13:28 level ...
compared to THOUSANDS who run 14:38 each year. It is possible ... but the
likelihood is rather small.
If you look at the 3:37/13:28 level runner ... he certainly would have had
to have some difficult circumstances and bad environment/coaching advice to
still be at the level of a good US HS boy when leaving University.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
It's a chicken and egg situation in the US in that if the structure and
competition was there I think you'd find a lot of the 1:51/4:05 guys still
competing. There are a lot of guys out there who know they're not Olympic
material but still love competing and don't want to just run 5k on the road.
A) Part of the 'chicken and egg' problem is that if the US could fund real
track and field and cross country for the semi-elite runner (which would BE
GREAT! No question!) we would be obliged to do it for every other sport
(swimming, tennis, skiing, gymnastics, football, etc.)
I have been playing tennis now for a few years, many of the men I play with
are very good, they may have played high school and college. They want to
compete ... and they DO! But they pay $60 a month to belong to the club,
$18 an hour for court time, $10 and hour for drill instruction, $40 an hour
for private instruction and $200 a season for league or travel play.
They are not going to be tennis pros ... they are not going to tour and make
money off their sport ... they learned this when they couldn't make it to
NCAA's in college. But they love the game, they love competing and they
happily practice and keep paying to play in tournaments.
The same situation exists in bike racing, which I did for a few years.
There is opportunity to compete in mountain or road races every weekend from
March to November. In a good year in Michigan you can make $1300 racing ...
but you spend more than that in travel/entry/meals.
Running should be the same. There should be strong clubs, with abundant
opportunity to compete ... but if you want shoe/travel/or coaching money you
should be earning it.
-Brian McEwen
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mcewen, Brian T
Sent: 08 January 2001 16:07
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: t-and-f: Re: Clubs
There is no club environment for a 21.00/1:51/4:05/14.00 hurdles/ level
athlete in this country after college ... because there is NO destination
for this athlete, competitively.
If a man has reached the 1:51/4:05 level by 23 (after, perhaps redshirting a
year) it is highly unlikely that he will ever reach the 1:47/3:42 (800/1500)
level they would need to be at to compete at the National level. They would
have already figured this out, when they failed to ever qualify for the NCAA
championships.
A 1:51/4:05 college senior is a good athlete, and a valuable part of the
team. However, he would have probably been around 1:55-56/4:13-16 for
800m/1600m in high school. I think most runners and college coaches would
agree with this.
By 23 years old, after 8 years of solid training, it is not likely this
level of athlete would improve the same amount (4 seconds/8 seconds) in the
800/1500m that he did while maturing from an 18 year old to a 22-23 year
old. A lot of his improvement from 1:55/4:15 to 1:51/4:05 comes EXCLUSIVELY
FROM MATURATION, and a lot comes from harder college training.
While improvement can (and does) occur from 24-28 ... there is very little
physiological maturation occurring at this age ... so you can't expect the
level of improvement experienced from 18 to 23 to continue. With time and
training (and financial support) he would more likely make it to 1:49 and
4:01 ... and most people would ask, "What good has this done? Except for
the individual?"
In sprinting and hurdling, the situation is even more pronounced. I have
never been a sprinter or a hurdler, but we all have to realize that even
though Michael Johnson continues to sprint at the highest levels at 33 ...
it is VERY UNUSUAL historically ... and physiologically. Usually by this
age many physical characteristics required for sprinting have started to
decline ... permanently. If you are 14.00 or 21.00 at 22-23, that is very
close to your lifetime potential in those events.
The likelihood of a 21.00 sprinter/14.00 hurdler/ (1:51/4:05) MD guy
becoming a 20.30/13.40/ 1:47/3:55 performer capable of something close to
the NATIONAL level is really LOW. You could throw money at this guy all
day, you could give him great coaches, and give four years to try and
develop ... but it wouldn't happen.
If the athlete was a 1:51/4:05 guy or a 10.70/21.00 sprinter in College ...
there was a reason. This level of athlete is not bound for the Olympics ...
he is bound for 5k road races and 4-on-4 basketball tournaments.
-Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 12:34 PM
To: Mike Trujillo; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: t-and-f: Re: Clubs
Mike Trujillo wrote:
> The Mikes (Roth and Rohl) and Ed all bring up some interesting
> points about the club system, or lack thereof, in this country. Another
> Mike (Platt) maintains that there IS a club system in place; I disagree
> with him.
> The club system, as it now exists, serves one of four different
> functions. It can be a youth/developmental club, aimed at introducing our
> sport to novices. It can be an elite club, producing national-level (and
> beyond) performers. It can be a masters club, which needs little
> explanation. Or it can be a social club, usually limited to runners, with
> little or no organized coaching or training.
> I think most of us can think of local examples of the first, third,
> and fourth types. (Here in what's known as the Quad Cities, we have only
> the last of these [Cornbelt Running Club], with a couple of small youth
> clubs on the horizon.) The second type is HSI, the Enclave, and a few
> others. The shoe companies are NOT clubs; they are sponsors.
> Illustrating story: I have a photo that Bill Leung took at the winter XC
> champs from Washington on the desktop of the computer in my classroom.
> Sometimes students will comment, "Wow that team is really good! Look at
> how many of their runners are in the front!" They're referring to the
Nike
> uniforms and assume (erroneously) that they are members of a team that
> trains together-after all, that's true for other sports, right? Same
> uniform means same team which means same coach, arena, etc.? Obviously,
> shoe companies aren't clubs.
> What's wrong with this picture? WHERE ARE THE POST-COLLEGIATE,
> SUB-ELITE, SUB-MASTERS, NON-SOCIAL CLUBS? There aren't more than a
handful
> of these in the country, and that IS the problem with our sport. There
> OUGHT to be a fifth type of club, are there just isn't. (For convenience,
> let's call this fifth type a True Club.)
While I am sure that there are lots of "track clubs" out there .. And a lot
of successful ones .. This is what I was thinking about when I asked the
initial questions about clubs .. There are many clubs here in Northern
California too .. A lot of them .. However, As Mike stated in his post they
are either social type clubs .. or Youth oriented clubs which basically
gives the kids something to do when they are not running for their schools
.. The HSI type clubs are few and as much as I am an HSI fan they are not
"developmental" / "grass roots" clubs .. They are businesses designed to
aid the elite Professional level athletes .. And that is great because they
need something too !!! Schools (primarily high schools and colleges) are the
"developmental programs" for the under 21 group of track athletes .. And
HSI, the Enclave and others will take care of the elite athletes over 21 ..
What is there for the 23 year old sprinter recently out of college with no
eligibility who is say a 21.00 sprinter .. Or a 14.00 hurdler .. Or a 1:51
half miler .. Or a 4:05 miler .. What is there for these athletes who may
just be developing physically and a couple of years or so away from maturity
in the sport ?? No offense but I don't think there is room for the 21.00 at
HSI .. Maybe if he could get down to 20.40/20.50 in a couple of years .. And
he may be ready to do that .. Except he doesn't have the opportunity .. It's
not too big a stretch to think that the 1:51 guy might be able to get to
1:46/1;47 in another year or two with the right work (and be in the thick of
it right now in the US) .. And given the recent thread regarding early
bloomers and late bloomers perhaps some of our best talent goes uncultivated
.. For lack of a system to help them .. And as Darrell alluded to in another
post that system is more than pulling people together to work out/train they
would also need a series of competitions to compete in .. And I am aware of
the "All Comers meets" that take place all over the country .. I am thinking
more along the lines of organized team competitions and championships ..
Perhaps regionally and then nationally .. Or some type of series of meets
here in the states that while the golden league is taking place in Europe,
guys running 10.40 - 10.60, 21.00 - 21.40, 46 - 47, 1:50 - 1:53 are going at
and honing their skills ... Where a 10.50 guy has a chance to get to 10.25
and go against "the big boys" ... Where in a National Championships setting
there are winning times of 10.31/20.90/45.99/1:49.80/3:45 .. With relays
that go 39.50/3:05 ... Guys (and girls) that are just short of Olympic trial
caliber who might get there in the next 4 years given an opportunity ...
That system would be developmental !!!!!
Conway Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
