Mike Smith Training Philosophy?

From what I have heard from interviews with him as well as his athletes, he knows his stuff with training (and spent plenty of time picking Jack Daniels brain just being around Flagstaff), but what mostly makes him a really exceptional coach is his people skills. He knows what makes people tick and how to get athletes in the right headspace and he knows how to listen and figure out what each person needs. It makes you think between him and Diljeet Taylor that many people really underestimate the people skills side of coaching. It was also a complete opposite side of the coin to the whole Robert Johnson Oregon debacle.

Quote from Mike Smith:

“When I look at an athlete, the way I see an athlete, how they see themselves, how they feel about themselves, where they are in their lives, that’s going to show up on the track way more than the training, right? The training is only going to be in line with the athlete when those other places are in check. You can maybe fake it and get by for a little while but ultimately those things are going to reveal themselves more than the workouts, and the mile(age), whatever, any of that stuff. So, how people are feeling is, to me, the first part that you have to tackle as an athlete, then you can nerd out on workouts. But to get that order wrong, I think, you’re going to be dumbfounded at the lack of results.”

Quote from Robert Johnson:

Robert Johnson, who became UO’s track and field and cross country head coach in 2012, has guided the Ducks to 14 NCAA championships while elevating what already had been one of the sport’s premier college programs.

Under Johnson the Ducks increasingly have embraced expensive and advanced technological tools such as blood tests, hydration tests and DEXA scans. A DEXA scan is a medical imaging test that uses X-rays to precisely measure bone density and body fat percentage.

DEXA scans, in particular, have become a flashpoint for some athletes, who say the precise body fat percentage measurements can trigger unhealthy behaviors.

Johnson contends his scientific approach largely removes human bias from judgments about athletes and allows the UO coaching staff to design workouts precisely tailored to each athlete’s needs.

“Track is nothing but numbers,” he says. “A good mathematician probably could be a good track coach.”

Which approach seems to be working out better?

someone wrote:

It makes you think between him and Diljeet Taylor that many people really underestimate the people skills side of coaching.

I don't really understand this. I think they both seem like complete tool bags. Especially Mike Smith with his ridiculous fake accent from nowhere.

How to Recognise Different Types of Trees From Quite a Long Way wrote:

someone wrote:

It makes you think between him and Diljeet Taylor that many people really underestimate the people skills side of coaching.

I don't really understand this. I think they both seem like complete tool bags. Especially Mike Smith with his ridiculous fake accent from nowhere.

Seriously, where is that dude from? Where did Mike Smith grow up? Where was he born? I cannot place the accent. Is it fake? Why do you think that?

How to Recognise Different Types of Trees From Quite a Long Way wrote:

someone wrote:

It makes you think between him and Diljeet Taylor that many people really underestimate the people skills side of coaching.

I don't really understand this. I think they both seem like complete tool bags. Especially Mike Smith with his ridiculous fake accent from nowhere.

You don't understand it because you are an idiot. No other way around it.

But yes OP, the mental aspect is truly what Coach Smith succeeds in. My brother had the same experience with him. He was there for the swap from Heins to Smith and noticed the personal aspect was night and day difference. Coach Heins was a great coach, but he was really hard-nosed with his athletes....sometimes to a fault. You wouldn't notice that with how his outside demeanor was. Mike spent a majority of the transition year just kicking back and observing how the team interacted with each other. From everything my brother said, plus the limited interaction I have had with the guy.....it is tough to explain. He just "gets" it. He has that special sauce that isn't taught in books. Sounds weird, but it's there. Guess you just got to meet him to find out.

Regarding training, they don't do too many truly gnarly hard sessions. He focuses a ton on work that is slower and longer than your traditional tempo training. He is most concerned about volume of workouts + right effort. They train quite a bit easier than they did with Heins actually. The Lumberjack workout? That thing is all but forgotten nowadays. Not saying that they don't do gut-busting sessions, but they focus a lot on long, continuous marathon-paced runs, short broken-up threshold work, and then short/quick efficient sub race pace work. Very little hard stuff. He is all about stacking the deck with consistent training and avoiding training that will set you back for a long time.

So if they don't do a ton of super hard workouts, how are they so tough in races? That's where the Mike Smith factor comes in. He knows how to speak to them. They don't need to do workouts to fake confidence. It really just comes down to coaching.

Well first, he believes that to be a successful coach, you should start by inheriting a national champion team.

It will be interesting to see what Heins can do with the Louisville distance program. Under Head TF/CC Coach Cowper success has mostly been in the throws and jumps.

I saw Smith speak at Villanova's distance clinic in 2019 and obviously a ton of it was on the mental side. He discussed the idea and mission of coaching, as well as his idea of a shared journey with the athlete and the coach.

He broke his training into three key parts - "the engine," "movement," and "the mind." Two of his central points in terms of actual training and the engine were that "there is no wrong answer with fartlek" and that "when in doubt (over what workout to do), defer to the aerobic system." He said that they only really do two big v02 sessions throughout the season. They do focus on alactic speed development, typically in terms of 20/40/80m work.

As far as the mind portion, he talked a lot about managing emotion and expectation. He seems to spend a lot of time with his athletes on identifying negative thoughts in a race and how to clear that and get back in a positive headspace when experiencing stressors. They seem to work on this in training as well; it seems like there is constant monitoring of where the athlete is throughout big sessions and how that will translate to race setting.

I have a lot more notes from the lecture and was able to chat with him for a few minutes during some downtime that day, but this is a general overview.

someone wrote:

Which approach seems to be working out better?

"Heart" data vs hard data. Why not use both?

He's probably as skilled and knowledgeable as any other decent coach.

Yes, his people skills are good and that helps his coaching some.

It's really about having to train all the time at altitude, and being adept enough as a coach to keep his kids disciplined and consistently progressing.

Nothing particularly special, but he's got the right circumstances to see consistently high results.

Good stuff. Thanks for sharing. Making a connection with individual athletes is a underrated trait. People think it's all about workouts.

cyclonealum wrote:

someone wrote:

Which approach seems to be working out better?

"Heart" data vs hard data. Why not use both?

because people are people and not machines. putting value on metrics like the ones Oregon are using (body fat percentage especially) is a pretty slippery slope especially in distance runners. Let the races speak for themselves and let the athletes run the races. Really as a coach all you should be trying to do is make your athlete feel secure both in their fitness and in who they are as a person/athlete. Mike does that better than maybe anyone in the NCAA (though the top tier recruiting classes definitely play a big role in their success)

Breakfast In Bed wrote:

He's probably as skilled and knowledgeable as any other decent coach.

Yes, his people skills are good and that helps his coaching some.

It's really about having to train all the time at altitude, and being adept enough as a coach to keep his kids disciplined and consistently progressing.

Nothing particularly special, but he's got the right circumstances to see consistently high results.

Comments like these really diminish what they've done at NAU over the last five or six years. We really haven't seen this level of dominance at the NCAA level since McDonnell's Arkansas squads.

There are certainly helpful factors -- NAU has done very well on the recruiting trail, does get to train at altitude, and had the momentum of Heins with them. But without superior coaching those factors alone wouldn't get them where they have gotten. Stanford has probably had better recruiting in the same period, and Oregon, OSU, BYU, ND and some other schools have had similar recruiting in that span. I think the only blueblood school that you can really say hasn't had nearly the level of talent that NAU has the last 5-6 years is Colorado. So to have relatively similar talent to 4-5 other top schools but consistently come out ahead is phenomenal.

Galen Rupp, one of the top three or four best male distance runners in American history, vetted coaches all over the country and chose Mike Smith. He did not do so because Mike Smith is a good motivator and a good people person. He did it because Mike Smith is a uniquely intuitive and smart coach. He gets it -- from the yearlong shorter speed work that doesn't put a lot of strain on the legs to the sub-threshold work that a lot of programs (even top programs) ignore. He just gets it. He is one of the best five or ten coaches in the world.

Remember the teacher in HS that taught the AP English class and how they were always looked upon as a really great teacher?

It's kinda like that.

Hey man - any chance you'd be willing to share those notes? Unless they're written only...and still I'd love to see a photo of them? you can shoot me an email, will AT mus DOT to

thanks so much

Is there a way to find out more about future coaches clinics? Would love to see some great coaches talk.

bring them back to the bedroom

True regarding CU recruiting vs these others.

....Same as it's ever been!

Wetmore seems to take great pride in it actually

(along with not recruiting internationally)

Mike Smith certainly deserves all his accolades.

Curious though, compared to other greats, why had NAU/Heins/Smith failed to yeild the same results with these great coaching abilities in regards to their Women's teams, especially compared to Wetmore or McDonnell?

Flavian wrote:

Is there a way to find out more about future coaches clinics? Would love to see some great coaches talk.

They went virtual in 2021, but fingers crossed it'll be back in person next year.