Run-Down Forums

Micah Ward · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2001 5:21 pm Post subject:

If you lose speed when moving up in distance could it be because you haven't done the endurance training to be able to hold the fast pace?

Dan · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2001 5:24 pm Post subject:

Possibly, but that's kind of talking in circles. If they don't have the endurance base and that results in them losing speed, then that seems like a pretty good sign that they shouldn't have moved up in the first place.

Dan

Conway · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2001 6:26 pm Post subject:

Might it simply be that as individuals move up in distance they work less on speed ??? Which goes back to my premise that BOTH can be and need to be worked on simultaneously !!!

Dan · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2001 7:25 pm Post subject:

Quite likely. It's tough to get someone to realize that they need to keep working on speed when you're telling them to move up because they don't have enough speed in the first place...

Dan

Conway · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2001 9:49 pm Post subject:

Guess I don't have a distance mentality ... Would seem an easy sell to me ... Take what speed you have from event X and move up to event Y and have more speed than those who are already there !!! Go from being out kicked to being the kicker !!!

Micah Ward · Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2001 3:27 am Post subject:

Dan · Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2001 5:56 pm Post subject:

But if establishing the endurance base is causing them to lose speed, then it doesn't matter what order the endurance, speed is developed in. Either way it will result in someone with a lack of speed that is moving up because they were told their speed (or lack thereof relative to the shorter stuff) would be better suited to the longer events! Quite a catch-22, it seems.

Conway · Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2001 9:38 pm Post subject:

I agree with athletes being rare that can excel across a range of events .. What I am referring to is not necessarily exelling but the transference of speed in a shorter event to a longer one .. And I think that can be done ...

Conway · Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2001 7:57 am Post subject:

Which leads me to a question that crossed my mind last night ... What is the negative obsession with speed in this country ??? Distance runners/people run away from it .. Speed events are considered in a negative light in this country ...Speed people (sprinters and hurdlers) are looked upon negatively - cocky, arrogant, etc ... What is it that people in the US don't like about speed ??? If Canada had what we have here in terms of wealth of sprinters and hurdlers they would be heroes ... Ditto any other country in the world .. But here in the states its almost a "We don't care" attitude .. Actually almost a "we wish they were else where" mentality ... Is this the paranoia of a sprinter talking or have others noticed as well ???

Conway · Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2001 7:59 am Post subject:

The irony of it all being that it is the speed events that hav emade this country a track and field power !!!

Dan · Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2001 8:50 am Post subject:

Yeah, it sure is ironic. I don't know the historical trend of how the sprints are viewed, but I suspect there is an ugly side to the anti-sprint attitude -- racial biases and the "dumb black athlete" stereotype. Sad

People see sprinters and their occasionally wild antics and trash talking, and it instantly conjures up images of White Men Can't Jump and multi-million dollar contract holdouts... At the other end of the spectrum is the white middle distance runner, quietly plugging away at the mileage...

If I'm on the right track, then that is a mighty big hurdle. Sad

Dan

Micah Ward · Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2001 9:10 am Post subject:

I didn't know there was an anti-sprinter bias. I love to see Americans win no matter what race they are. But I do get very bored very quickly with the "in your face" attitudes that are so prevelant in all athletics. Basketball, football, even baseball. I think we have an epidemic of poor sportsmanship throughout the sports scene in this country where winning doesn't seem to be enough. Some athletes feel they have to degrade and taunt their opponents as well. That is why I have become increasingly less of a fan of the mainstream sports over the past few years.

Dan · Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2001 9:30 am Post subject:

No argument here. I think something changed in the early 90's. Before that, trash talking and mental gamesmanship was directed at the opponent. Now, it seems to be largely directed at the camera, becoming much more demonstrative as a result.

Dan

Conway · Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2001 12:01 pm Post subject:

Well I think you both are on the right track ... Historically I think it stems from the "dumb black athlete" mentality .. I also think along those lines is the thought that sprinters are "natural" ... That it doesn't take any work to be a sprinter .. That these guys are just gifted .. Etc, etc, etc ...

Then you add the trash talking and apparent arrogance that comes with the territory (as in our previous discussion on trash talking) .. What was just trash talking in the 60's and 70's slowly became (how do I want to put this) a commercialized visual display during the 80s and 90s ... ESPN heighten what Micah (and others including myself) has come to hate about sports - the open commercialization of one's self for the camera !!! Be it basketball, football or our beloved track and field, everyone is hogging for the camera .. The culmination of it for track and field being the 2000 Olympic trials (in my opinion) ... There Greene and Johnson took it to new highs AND lows ... And at the urging of the media ... The end result being of course the destruction of both athletes in the 200 final !!!

However, having said all of that, it is the sprints and hurdles upon which USA track and field is built until our middle distance and distance people become world class !!! And yet it is the speed people who are most defiled in this country ... And antics aside I think any other country in the world would be more than happy to have the arrogant Americans as their citizens and representatives ... I doubt there is a country in the world that would not have opened its arms to our Olympic 4x1 squad had they in mass decided they would rather be somewhere else !?!?!?!?

Dan · Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2001 2:43 pm Post subject:

From the sounds of things, few people outside the US thought the 4x100 antics in Sydney were that big of a deal. I have a hard time comprehending that, though, as they looked pretty bad on TV. Can't quite figure how NBC could have portrayed something with such a spin if it didn't resemble what we were shown...

Dan

Discussion Forum

Share the Love!

What's New