Go back to previous topic
Forum nameGeneral Discussion
Topic subjectyeah....
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13384397&mesg_id=13384912
13384912, yeah....
Posted by tariqhu, Thu May-21-20 04:13 PM

>I don't really stretch much any more either. The current
>stretching consensus seems to be dynamic stretching prior to a
>run and some light static stretching afterwards. But I'm sore
>and fatigued no matter what I do, so it's not like I follow
>that personally.

it becomes too much to stretch lol. I just hope it doesn't bite my in the butt later.
>
>Kids younger than high school run some shorter cross country
>distances, but basically yeah - every race at HS is going to
>be 5K(ish). I try to recommend cross country to the kids who
>are starting to get serious about track, but the good-ness of
>the idea really varies according to what event the kids are
>good at or interested in. A lot of sprint coaches get antsy
>about their runners doing anything long and slow, the idea
>basically being that the upside of additional endurance isn't
>worth the wear and tear on the body, and that you can get
>up-to-400m strong without running cross country.
>
>I don't entirely agree with that, but mostly because it's
>pretty wide brush. True 100/200m types can successfully move
>up to 400m without the mileage of cross country, and a number
>of those might find a fall season running 5000m races leaves
>them a bit stiff and rickety when November and December comes
>around. Track doesn't have the same infrastructure for
>building hype around highschool talent as other sports, but
>they're definitely trying - and being able to run a hot time
>in December is now an expectation for a lot of high school
>kids.
>
>All that said, my view is that most kids would profit from
>moving up at least one or two events, and if they continue
>onto college that's what's going to happen in a lot of cases.
>Most HS programs tend to stream kids to 400m and below or 800m
>at above, and that means the boundary of "sprint" for the
>former group and "distance" for the latter group doesn't get
>breached as often as it should. More 200/400 runners should
>seriously try the 800. More 400/800 runners* should seriously
>try the mile, etc. Cross country is a pretty decent,
>low-pressure way to find out if that kind of move is right for
>a young runner.

I follow this line of thinking. at least for now. seems like the endurance would really help on those mid-distance races. 400s & 800s especially.


>
>*I should add here though that one of the most interesting
>effects of the explosion of club track programs the last
>half-decade or so is that kids are trying a pretty wide
>diversity of events at a pretty young age. So the dynamic I'm
>complaining about may be changing.

there are so many teams and places to run. different levels. rec centers vs aau, etc. getting mine into the sport and finding the right fit has been especially tricky.

we started out at the rec center. eventually realized they didn't have the resources to really make things happen. they also operate on a really short schedule. my daughter was doing a lot of shorter races, but she's not build for 100s or 200s. just seems like she was slow when it more an issue of not running the right races.

later, we got her on an aau squad. they practiced more and were more serious in general. she found the right runs to compete in, 400s & 800s. she'd never won race until that 400 a couple of years ago. she also went to state that same year for the 800. made a lot of progress by simply being on a better, more competitive team.

>
>Yeah dude. You're honestly a hero for this. We have parents
>come by and watch once and awhile and I'm *thrilled* that
>they're there because this isn't the sexiest sport in terms of
>highschool social capital, so if the parents are into it then
>the kids have a shot of being into it. But when they're around
>I can't help but think, "who would want to watch this?"
>
>The answer appears to be: good parents who are helping make my
>job easier.

it just makes sense for me to get something done. there are other folks out walking and doing stuff too. often times, its parents just dropping them off. or just chilling on the sidelines. I try not to judge since everybody's situation is diff. folks are working or whatever. just may be tired by practice time. might have their own injuries or simply, it aint their thing. I so wish there were more dads at practice tho.
>
>You are entirely correct. My team has a hellaciously terrible
>time running fast early in the season. I mostly coach distance
>runners and I have a pretty young bunch right now, so I more
>or less gave up the ghost on running fast times, early. But
>even our sprinters are terrible at it. No matter how good our
>team ends up, we are reliably garbage for the first 2-3
>months.
>
>But I see these kids from other programs who are ready to go
>and throw out some eyebrow-raising performances early, and
>it's like they get streamed into a whole separate set of
>runners. They get higher seeds in better meets, and the fast
>times just kind of unfold from there. The risk is that I've
>also seen some programs that are just red-lining their kids
>from December through Nationals in June, and it's about 50/50
>whether those kids make it through the season uninjured. There
>is a nationally notable (set the highschool 4x400m and 4x200m
>national records last winter during indoor) sprint program in
>our conference, and they are... undeniably better than us. But
>they've often had to shut down their best runners because the
>wear and tear adds up.
>

its those aau teams that are running all year or at least practicing before the official season starts. they come out the gate rolling. they seem to just have better athletes. mine just aren't into it like I hoped.

you're right about injuries. there's can be a wearing down process for those that got an early start on the season. I think for high school, those injuries are also coming from doing multiple sports. they're not really getting any breaks between seasons. just rolling out of one sport, right into the next.

>That's a really extreme example though. You're absolutely
>right about getting a head start.
>
>
>Ugh. That last part is frustrating to hear. Sorry about that.
>I'm a mixed bag as a coach, but the stuff that you're dealing
>with is the easiest stuff to get right and it sucks when
>coaches don't. Just talk to kids and parents about what events
>you think are best for their kid individually and the team as
>a whole, and be conservative about how you push kids to deal
>with discomfort/pain/injury.

I was pissed at that coach. he was already sucky from a personality standpoint from what I saw the previous year. not a good motivator. just cusses and yells a lot. that was her first year with him. I kinda made her quit that team because I saw him stunting her growth. this year was more terrible. he didn't even let the team know about practices. wouldn't respond to them about meets. didn't response on their group chats. I have no idea what he was doing.

the whole time, I was thinking the high school coaching would her reach new goals. nope. the experience for both years has been bad. hoping for a new school next year and better results.

>
>Girls track is definitely a fruitful avenue for college.
>There's not a ton of money in the sport, so scholarships are
>scarce - but they're way more common for girls than boys, and
>because girls programs aren't as deep as boys programs - I'm
>always a bit surprised and impressed when one or another local
>girl that I'd characterize as "pretty good" rather than "fall
>over and die fast as hell" ends up going to run at a major
>program. Seems there are just ... fewer fast girls, so a fast
>girl is going to get more NCAA attention.

I didn't realize that. even more reason for her to get with a good program and see what she can do. she's never reached her full potential. a lot of that is on her from a work ethic stand point. being on a good team would help push her tho.
>
>Jesus, this really got me going talking about track. How old
>are your kids? And what events are they interested in now?

my daughter just turned 16 and my son, 11. they both like the same races. 200, 400, and 800. she can do all of them decently, but her best is the 400. not quite enough foot speed to compete in the 200 very well. I think that's a stamina issue tho since there are no breaks in that run.

he also fits better with the longer races, 400 and 800. not sure what really fits him yet. he starts out well, but fades about 75 meters in lol. so yeah, still finding his footing. stamina definitely needs work. I think he'd actually be fine with 800s and 1600s. or maybe track isn't his sport lol.