Is HS running really that bad?

When I went to college I took a coaching course of basketball--there wasn't any on running. Just about every student in the class had better ideas on coaching than did the teacher. But the topic of burn out was never even discussed.

Also, we have many elite runners today not discussing about athlete burn out. closest I can think of a person who EVER talked about kids getting burned out was Tracy Austin when she covered tennis. And they made her shut her mouth about it and didn't renew her contract. A very taboo topic to say the least.

I also agree that college training is doing more harm than good. I think there are a few exceptions maybe--like Colorado. but all in all--there is way too much emphasis on winning and not grwoing with the sport.

I believe the biggest reason American distance running sucks is the High School system. If a kid is raised in a school without a XC or track program he, the odds of him becoming intrested in running are close to nothing. If a coach is clueless on running and is just doing it to volunteer, then the kid never gets a half assed coaching program. This means his talent will never be developed anywhere near its potential at HS, and will most likely never run in college. A kid that wants to be trained properly and wants to go to a HS with an all round program can't unless he lives in that district. The majority of schools are so overcrowded that if you don't live in their zone you can not go there, so you can't change schools in your county even though your taxes are supporting both schools equally.

I grew up in United States Swimming, before I decided to focus on running. In case you don't know US swimming is a club system and the US is the most dominant country in the world at swimming. One big difference is that if a kid is unhappy about how his training is going he can change teams to one that is more similar to what he believes is successful. A swimmer will also only have about 8 meets a year. Kids also can begin as young as five years old, so by the time they are in HS, they are already studs. The also will already have years of experience at state championships and other highly competitive meets, so when they get to Olympic trials or other large national and international meets it doesn't fell like anything new to them. The coaches are also more experienced and knowledgeable. since the majority have come from the same background of juggling school and about 18 hours workouts with the club, they relate to the kids needs better. They also are paid to coach so they are motivated to learn more ang get better, unlike the majority of HS coaches. This system gives any kid who wants to acheive his full potential a strong oppurtunity. If a kid is underprivledged many clubs have programs to help them pay the fees, such as teaching swim lessons to preschool children. The club system has worked so well that college scouts no longer scout HS, and only concentrate on clubs. HS swimming teams only require kids to come to meets to letter, because they know the club kids can lap the HS kids in anything over 2 laps, and don't want to piss them off by wasting their time. Even though the club swimmers are only required to swim at meets few will swim HS and if they do they will just do it one year for their letter. And the biggest advantage club has over HS is that they are coached 11 months of the year, and are given august off to help prevent burnout from busting their ass 18 plus minus hours every week for the previous 11 months. If I ever wanted to swim over the break the coaches were glad to be there to write workouts and Coach.

Yes, high school running is that bad. God forbid if you ever reveal your name. You might find it slammed on message boards in the way Ah is right now, all for being right.

HS running would not be that bad if kids were allowed to change schools from one that has poor coaching to one with strong coaching and develops athletes better I Think the majority of the programs in urban and suburban areas are of fair quality, it is the ones in rural parts that are questionable, just because the coaches do know what to do properly. If they would take the time to read books on training and educate themeselves the schools in rural areas would be able to turn as strong runners as in the urban and suburban area.

I am just presenting some of the advantages the club system has over the HS system. US swimming does a fine job of managing the program as well.

This is just the way I see at the HS where I am from. it may be different in other parts of the country. The reason I fell this way is because for my states XC championship race their were boys walking up the hill at the first mile marker in the AAAAA race. They only qualified because they finished top 2 in their regions located in rural parts of the state. While the JV teams for the majority of the schools that got left home around the big cities would destroy the varsity teams at these schools.

I agree, being able to switch programs would benefit plenty of runners, myself included I believe. Besides XC, distance coaching and running(besides myself) is nonexistant. If i could switch to a close by towns program (They produced the state champ in the 2 mile, ranked 6th in XC this year)I know that it would benefit my running. At this point I have to go to outside coaches for workouts and advice and train alone all the time.

Problems with HS running as I see it.

1. Far too much stress.

2. Not very flexible--not very well rounded

3. Too much emphasis on anaerobic conditioning and short term goals.

4. Very little, if any, support from student body--pathetic.

5. No emphasis on becoming well-rounded as a person and getting along with the opposite sex--too prudish and catholic-like.

6. No sense of direction so far as health and nutrition are concerned--this may be a positive since most coaches are clueless.

7. It isn't interspersed across the curriculum as it should be (this is way too hard to explain--for instance, try to do a book report on Jim Ryun for English 10 class--such isn't encouraged and it will probably net you an F especially if you try to do it on your own).

8. Cheerleaders tend to ignore xc. Not enough fan support, as there SHOULD be.

9. Some xc runners act gay not meaning to.

10. Too much stress.

I'm not defending the HS system, far from it. It's very frustrating to work within it, knowing what you cannot do that you should be doing.

But why are we not criticizing the college system with the same venom as the high school? I really don't think HS is doing the damage you think it is, other than young runners not getting the positive experience we'd like to see them get in a good program. I get the sense that many people think that HS coaches don't know jack and that college coaches are all-knowing. My experience tells me that many if not most college coaches are no better and in many ways worse. I see very little development going on in college and a hell of a lot of outright damage, if not abuse.

catman wrote:

Problems with HS running as I see it.

1. Far too much stress.

Stressful -- that's because it's a race. If you're in a race that's not stressful either you're head and shoulders above the competition or you don't belong in the race

2. Not very flexible--not very well rounded

What does this mean? It's about running, not cross-training. Of course it's not well-rounded.

3. Too much emphasis on anaerobic conditioning and short term goals.

So far the only point you've made worth mentioning. Note that this is because it's a specific training issue, not some ridiculous vague point about being "well rounded" or getting cheerleaders.

4. Very little, if any, support from student body-pathetic.

That's because it's boring. Who wants to watch a bunch of skinny guys run around in circles. Hell, I'm one of those skinny guys and even I understand this. The student body goes after epic, warlike contests -- like football games.

5. No emphasis on becoming well-rounded as a person and getting along with the opposite sex--too prudish and catholic-like.

On becoming well rounded as a person? It's a sport about running If you want to become well-rounded as a person then become well rounded as a person. Running doesn't hold you back from that. Nor is it running's job to make you that way.

6. No sense of direction so far as health and nutrition are concerned--this may be a positive since most coaches are clueless.

Good. Your second good point.

7. It isn't interspersed across the curriculum as it should be (this is way too hard to explain--for instance, try to do a book report on Jim Ryun for English 10 class--such isn't encouraged and it will probably net you an F especially if you try to do it on your own).

No it isn't "way too hard to explain." It's just a stupid point. If you do a book report on a book worth reporting, and do it well, you'll likely get a good grade. It's just that books on Jim Ryun aren't generally considered to be "good literature". For the same reason, you won't get a good grade if you do a book report on the phone book. Get it?

8. Cheerleaders tend to ignore xc. Not enough fan support, as there SHOULD be.

Of course they ignore it. It's boring. Cheerleaders are generally after beefcake, not skinny guys with lung capacity.

9. Some xc runners act gay not meaning to.

Brilliant. You must have thought long and hard to come up with that one, Brainiac

10. Too much stress.

You said this already.

Excellent Average_Joe, I am very proud of you. I was about to do the same thing but you beat me to do it. Catman pretty much proved nothing there, well except that he merely just wants to be noticed and has too much stress in his life.

im in hs right now.. totally stressed out. i was getting 3 hours of sleep and running well until i got a stress fracture. tragic

Young Runner has a very instructive example of how a club-based system is superior to the current school-dominated one (swimming). Another sport that has a relatively small fan base in the U.S., yet in which the U.S. is developing a strong world-level presence is in soccer, which is also club-based, much as Young Runner describes for swimming. This also takes care of complaints against COLLEGE exploitation, as the club system overrides this also. A large benefit of this is that an athlete doesn't have to change his school and education in pursuit of good coaching- they can have both.

The school-based system is fine for more popular fan-based ball sports, but fails miserably with more particpation-based sports, such as running.

Umm that was actually a very very good post by catman. Don't know how you could really bash that one guys... He is right on the money about a lot of things there so lets give him credit... Or atleast I will, ha.

Here's a sobering thought: good, bad and somewhere in between, the 'high school system' will continue as it has for the forseeable future. We are talking about tens of thousands of coaches nationwide w/a variety of personal experiences, coaching strategies and knowledge, interactive styles, etc.

I, for one, feel our high school coaches are doing just fine. Sure, I see some things I don't like but unless I commit to affecting change, my energy is better spent on other things. There are a number of ways to educate coaches and although letsrun lessons are valuable I doubt they reach very many.

The main sticking point w/this thread is it's taking on high school running at large. It's impossible to say the system is this way or that w/thousands of variables.

It's not possible or fair.

The age-group swimming or youth soccer models are not applicable to running. Running has a far greater risk of injury to young bodies than swimming does. I've seen no evidence that involvement in a structured training routine at the intensity level of young age-group swimmers has had any positive effect on future running success, and plenty of evidence that it hurts. (Anyone here remember the Garritsons?)

However, you are starting to see more alternatives to the college system. Several top, Olympic calibre swimmers have bypassed the college system to train with international competition as their main focus, and the best young soccer players are going to the junior national team instead of playing college soccer.

The major reasons that the US is so successful swimming on the international level are these:

1. There is no large population of desparate, genetically favored individuals for swimming as there is for running.

2. Most of the US successes are in the strength/technique events. We're not much if any better in distance swimming than we are in distance running.

Case In Point:

RENO HIGH SCHOOL had the Nevada State Championship Cross Country Team all four years I was there, from 83-86. I did not run one step in a RHS uniform. I just started by jogging in my sophomore year, 2 miles a few times a week at first, then 6-8 miles every day except Friday by my senior year.

I did absolutely no speed work, never ran on a track, and if I felt good, I ran fast. If I felt bad, I ran slow. No pressure whatsoever.

RHS turned out some good runners such as state champion Mike Bennett who apparently won an athletic scholarship to attend Oklahoma State and he ran sub-29 for 10km there.

HOW MANY RUNNERS ON THOSE TEAMS ARE STILL COMPETITNG TODAY? HOW MANY QUALIFIED FOR THE FUCKING OLYMPIC TRIALS??? Crazy Jason sure did.

jason

"The age-group swimming or youth soccer models are not applicable to running. Running has a far greater risk of injury to young bodies than swimming does. "

This may be true, since running is a lot more weight-bearing than swimming, and I'd think it's a lot easier to run excess miles on a trail somewhere than it is to swim excess laps looking down at a black line at the bottom of the pool. However, there are plenty of swimmers who, by the time they reach college after 12+ years of their sport, have shoulders so injured they can barely lift their arms to brush their teeth. So let's not pretend swimmers can do their thing for years at top levels and not ever get injured.

Also, most swimmers don't become overnight successes (as you sometimes hear of runners) -- they've spent hundreds of hours in the pool starting at a young age. I'm not sure if that adds anything to the discussion, but it's just a point.

"I've seen no evidence that involvement in a structured training routine at the intensity level of young age-group swimmers has had any positive effect on future running success, and plenty of evidence that it hurts. (Anyone here remember the Garritsons?) "

Weren't the Garritsons coached by their father? That's a bit different from an age-group TEAM that trains and competes with and against other children. If I'm wrong, then fine... but it seems that many young children who excel at distance running before they get into HS are coached by their parents (or by personal coaches hired by the parents) and compete against adults in road races or open meets. Comparing their success against 9-year-old swimmers competing against other 9-year-old swimmers in a team-focused environment is like comparing apples and oranges.

"However, you are starting to see more alternatives to the college system. Several top, Olympic calibre swimmers have bypassed the college system to train with international competition as their main focus"

True. But you're also seeing more college basketball players leave the NCAA and go pro. And many college-age gymnasts forego the NCAA gymnastics program in order to focus on the Olympics. So the fact that there are options to the college system don't change the fact that

"We're not much if any better in distance swimming than we are in distance running."

Three Americans (two women, one man) made the finals of the longest distance events in swimming (800m women, 1500m men) at the 2000 Olympic games. The women took home a gold and a bronze.

Thanks for the support Jason--you are a shinning example of how lack of stress made you the runner that you are today.

I want to just support my 7th point that Average Joe refuted:

What most english instructors regard as good literature, I don't. I don't regard anthing by Hemmingway and the like as good literature--because I am not interested in that crap. People who write nonfictional accounts of athletes are not recognized as producing good literature--but they should goddamn it. Indeed, they are teaching teachers to teach across the curriculum with the very idea I brought forth in my 7th point--but most teachers still don't do it! They do not have the good sense to do it. They go with traditional english literature, which is mostly crap. Do you know where that word "crap" came from? The british are credited with inventing the type of commodes we use now by a man whose name was: John Crapper. And now you know the rest of the story.

catman wrote:

I want to just support my 7th point that Average Joe refuted:

What most english instructors regard as good literature, I don't. I don't regard anthing by Hemmingway and the like as good literature--because I am not interested in that crap. People who write nonfictional accounts of athletes are not recognized as producing good literature--but they should goddamn it. Indeed, they are teaching teachers to teach across the curriculum with the very idea I brought forth in my 7th point--but most teachers still don't do it! They do not have the good sense to do it. They go with traditional english literature, which is mostly crap.

I'm guessing (mainly from the tone of your writing) that you are still in high-school, or perhaps junior high. Is that right?

If you are lucky and relatively intelligent, then as you grow older you will begin to realize that "that crap" as you call it, is studied because it is some of the highest quality writing that can be found in the English language. It was produced by people who knew how to do things with the language that most writers can only envy.

Perhaps Hemingway (only one "m" in there) is not the best choice of examples. There are many critics who do not appreciate his style. He spent many years writing for newspapers and that "get to the point" attitude is reflected in his writing. Very short, declarative sentences. By themselves, they don't seem like much. But in Hemingway's case, the whole is definitely greater than the sum of the parts.

Find me a book on Jim Ryun that can approach the level of anything by Hemingway, Faulkner, Shakespeare, Cather, Melville, etc and perhaps you'll have a point. Find me any book about running, fiction or non-fiction with that quality of writing and we'll talk. But you know, I've read most of what's out there on running, both fiction and non-fiction and nothing is even in the same league. Chris Lear, Kenny Moore, John L. Parker are all decent writers (I'd say Moore is the best) but hardly legends in the making.

Good literature is generally recognized as such because of the quality of the writing, not the subject matter. Any topic can be the subject of good literature, but first you have to find someone who knows how to put a sentence together about it. It's just that there are no Hemingways out there writing about running right now.

Usher wrote:

The major reasons that the US is so successful swimming on the international level are these:

1. There is no large population of desparate, genetically favored individuals for swimming as there is for running.

2. Most of the US successes are in the strength/technique events. We're not much if any better in distance swimming than we are in distance running.

That's bullshit. If you want to call having 25,000 miles behind you by 18 years old, fine, call it that. If Americans didn't have cars and ran as much as Kenyans and Ethiopians do, America would be equally as competetive. But we don't. When we're kids we get rides to school and play video games and watch TV. We certainly aren't putting any sort of mileage.