Printable View
Yes I think that would work.Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
The way I proposed was not so much to put it on the RO, as the race would be designated in the calendar and publishes as (for example) Age limit 18 (U18) provided the athlete's coach signed it off.
The race would have already been approved as an acceptable over distance race by the FRA.
But your way is also worth consideration.
It has puzzled me for some time that we have a Championship that has races of mixed distances. It would be akin to a track and field series where we had 6 races say 200m, 800m, 3000m, 10000m, Half Marathon, Marathon. to Marathon with 4 from 6 to count and you must have a 800m or under and an over HM in there.
I'm surprised we don't have a Short Champs, a Medium Champs and a Long Champs.
You only have to ask dear boy!Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
History.
Originally "the Championship" was "Fellrunner of the Year" and it was based on points accrued in virtually every race in the Calendar (ie over 30- thirty) so more races= more points. Over the years it has been refined: fewer races, different formats, women, vets, and British/English & etc.
But the Champs. test what they test. Not what some refugee from T&F thinks they should test.
However every few years, the question is asked about revitalising the British Champs. which is a poor relation of the English, and "just one race" or "3 different Championships" is suggested. But, as we see, it hasn't happened and I doubt if it will anytime soon.
I am not in a position to publicly debate this but if anything the view within UKA is for shorter distances for juniors in fellrunning, certainly not longer.
No to the first, yes to the second.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I am very confident that I have growing knowledge and limited experience; I have no doubts about that whatsoever. I've got a coaching assessment day tomorrow; all being well I'll be a Level 2 coach on sunday but i won't be any more experienced/competent than i am today.
I always question (not doubt; a negative term) other peoples abilities and motives; no one has the absolute right to the intellectual high ground, no matter how convinced they are of their own prowess. If a coach cannot justify a particular viewpoint/strategy properly, in an evidence based argument, without resorting to 'pulling rank' then their viewpoint/strategy holds no credence. Again, that's not specific to anyone in particular, it's a general axiom.
Realistically Richard, you're talking to the wrong people here, we are not the people you need to convince. Also, if you have talked to the right people and they disagree with you then you might just have to accept the possibility that you're wrong?
Ah, unfortunately it appears that the usual suspects have turned up with their characteristic tact and diplomacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
I'm off. I can see where this thread is going and it's not going to end well. Will someone PM me if/when the mud stops flying.
Which is fine. And athletes will more likely become involved when they're 35. Which is also fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
However, it doesn't preclude the possibility of there being other race series, of official or unofficial standing.
Indeed. The Lakeland Classics Trophy for oneQuote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
You've nicely exemplified my point there Graham! What's seen as worthwhile is even longer and even more demanding than the English Champs. But what could be better for a lot of athletes, both ~20s and other seniors, would be a more performance-oriented series of Shorter or Medium races. And by performance I'm not having a go at the long/ultra-distance athletes, just saying it's a very different sport, and not well suited to young adults. I just checked Paula R and Jo Pavey on Powerof10 ~ neither of them doing serious 10Ks until well into their twenties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
So I guess I'm saying to Richard: The long distance options are available for the very few young adults that are interested, once they turn 18.
And I'm saying as a way forward (if anyone's interested in being constructive): The problem is there are no suitable series of shorter / performance oriented races for athletes to enter once they reach 18.
Some perspective as ever: I'm very wary of long races, especially super-longs. My recovery period after running to the best of my ability in a super-long is 4-6 weeks.
Lauren,Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
Of course the LCT is at the tougher end of the scale but I cite it (as I would) because it was a concept I (and a couple of other people) developed and just implemented. And (some) runners liked it as a different challenge to the Championships with their 40+ year history- which means they will not change radically in the short term.
No one is stopping anyone else doing whatever they want in terms of other more focused shorter race "championships" or races.
But, using all my tact and diplomacy, IMHO there is no possibility at all of the FRA registering any RO to organise a fell race which allows "underage " runners to enter. Which view may not make me Mr Popular.
Of course fell races do not have to be registered with the FRA, although RO would be well advised to ensure they take out race insurance, but whatever people's opinions about FRA (sometimes also UKA) rules it is the job of the Committee to uphold them in whatever form they currently stand.
Graham
A lot of the views in UKA are questionable - in fact the grass roots of the sport pulls it's hair out at many of the initiatives that have come out of UKA in recent years. I'm optimistic that fell running is in better hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Richard,Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
You've met me so you know it is!
I would not disagree with your comment. The stance of the FRA to UKA is "we know best, we've been running our sport for 40+ years, leave us alone and we'll stay within the UKA family, mess with us and we'll walk."
Obviously the Committee delivers that message with tact and diplomacy.
Graham
Hi Graham,
I've already reached that conclusion myself, (despite my initial enthusiasm for the selected AMs idea) : I can't imagine any way that it would work within FRA, UKA or insurance guidelines, and I am wary of pushing athletes towards greater distances. I hope that stating the truth does not make you Mr UnPopular!Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
I guess that's what I'm suggesting, and/or an ongoing review of both the FRA U18s champs and the U23s champs, if these are open for informal discussion here. I just wanted to highlight a hidden 'longer is better' mentality that I perceive in a lot of fellrunners ~ quite a contrast to the situation when the LCT was developed to build support for the superlongs perhaps!Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Regards,
Lauren
It's talking Andy. I talk to people on here in more or less the same way as I would at the club or at a race. It's not really a question of convincing as I don't think there is "a right way".Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyA
Even when you listen to endurance greats, you have those that thrived off High Mileage, others off lower mileage. Some question the use of "junk miles" and others extol the virtue of them.
It's really down to assessing the athlete in question, working out with them where their future might lie and preparing them in the best way you can for that. That's the coach.
The sport has to allow the flexibility for the coaches to operate effectively and based on some of the comments I have seen, there's a Ladies National Champ with extensive international experience and a fellow coach of junior internationals and champions who feel that some changes would be beneficial.
So here's what I believe. I believe that athletics as a sport is too reserved in it's approach to producing elite athletes.
I believe that the structure is there to produce club athletes.
I believe that there is an attitude in the sport that tends to portray people who are like-minded to me as pushy, when in fact it's nothing near to the mark. You can see in Graham's comments that the FRA seems to be under pressure from UKA to shorten the distances that juniors race over.
If you look at our endurance runners, we have some fantastic world class VETs. That's perhaps because we are not doing enough early.
http://www.thepowerof10.info/ranking...ex=M&year=2011
I know we are talking fell really here, but I look at it as endurance.
This is the 2011 rankings for 10K Road in the UK. We have to go down to 41st place before we see an U20M and we only have 2 in the top 50. Incidentally one of them a FRA Junior U18 from last season and the 3rd U20M, Dewi Griffiths is also a GB Mountain Runner.
I do sense things are improving though, that opinion is changing.
http://www.thepowerof10.info/ranking...ex=M&year=2010
In 2010 we had 4 VETs in the rankings before we got to the first U20 in 54th position.
If you look at the ladies rankings, you'll see more U20W having a go. That is perhaps why our ladies are more competitive internationally at the moment than our men in all aspects of endurance running.
If you're going to go from my personal experience, your athletes will need to take a 10-year break from high-intensity training / competition and hit the training very hard when they're older.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
If you want to know why I backed down on the selected AMs idea, and at the risk of making everyone laugh, it was what I said, with a bit of help from Richard:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
And we're not talking about incompetent athletes here. This goes to show that our 17 year olds need to do some tougher Short races, if that's the direction they want to go, and there's no hurry to get into Medium category races. Hence why I think it's worth looking at the U23 championships or alternative race series. As I mentioned in an earlier post, at least some of our most successful distance runners on road didn't get into 10Ks until their mid-twenties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
There is a historical issue with clubs arranging races to just reach the Medium category, I suspect, so putting quite a few races just out of reach of U18s. Metrication may help here and open up a few possibilities.. Or maybe the U18s could have an advance start 300m down the track, making it a Short category for them! This is when I imagine Richard tearing his hair out and saying they could just as well do it as a permitted Medium. But Rules are Rules, Rules are there for good reasons, and there has to be a cut-off somewhere.
btw my training motto is Short, Fast, Often
I would compare the rules in athletics to the methods used in our education system. That is that we judge success by how many we have that attain an average mark.
I was astounded yesterday to read a report in the local paper with self adulation from some schools that they are getting 50% of the pupils to Grade C or above. My feeling is that they aren't aiming high enough.
It seems it is acceptable now that a 16 year old is almost literate.
I think we have a similar culture in athletics.
(sorry post deleted here, due to talking nonsense)
How are you running? Did pick up some kind of injury at the end of last year?Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
That's never stopped me Lauren ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
No, no injury ~ it's called a very welcome Winter Break. Lots of people talk about periodisation, yet very few seem to put it into practice!Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
I did run a marathon, and then 2/3 of a marathon (an experiment), so a good break was needed. Training's going very well, thank you (see earlier mention of Cader Idris almost every weekend). Look out for the 5K rankings after tomorrow...
Good. You seemed to suddenly go missing from the FRA champs last year! Are you doing Lad's Leap?Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
And thats on thread how?Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
MY how the debate moves on or rather round and round. WP I am surprised yopu took the "refugee from T & F2 jibe lying down.
From what I remember of the original debate about extending and pushing on some athletes and only some for their own development it was about questioning whether the rules were right. It seesm now that the debate has been percieved as being the rules are wrong and we are going to ignore them. Clearly from the open and honest response of the FRA committee (I assume that GB spoke emphatically for everyone) this would be a pointless approach even if it had ever been intended. My view and what i thouight to be WP's view was that this should be something that could be looked at and built into new rules should it be agreed therefore allowing everyone to remain within the rules. I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that 15/16 olds step up from 5k to 15+k but the chance to debate the idea of looking at the distances shou;ld I think stay very much on the table and not just be brushed aside by folk banging on about "rules are rules" or just ignoring the idea because UKA may not be in favour. What is the viewpoint of those on the committee who are more qualified to speak on the issue.
The rules themselves can of course be debated both inside and outside the FRA committee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clash City Rocker
Within the UKA "family" the maximum distances for fell running for the older junior groups, particularly for 17 year olds, tend to be less than for either Road or Trail Running. However, it must be remembered that navigational skills can be required in fell races, particularly in poor weather, and not in the other two disciplines where courses are usually fully marked. As stated in the "FRA Safety Requirements" the organiser takes primary responsibility for U18 runners and this applies both at junior races and also for U18 runners in Short senior races. All race organisers have been reminded of this fact very recently. If 16 and 17 year olds were allowed to compete in Medium length races it would also apply to these. So this is another significant factor to take into account when considering if U18s should be able to compete at longer distances.
Even if the FRA wanted to propose an increase in the junior distances to UKA, agreement would have to also be obtained from the other Home Country organisations associated with UKA ie Scottish Athletics, Welsh Athletics and the NI Mountain Running Association because any change to the UKA rules for Fell Running would also be applicable to them.
I agree with you CCR except :-Quote:
Originally Posted by Clash City Rocker
I took the T&F jibe because I chose to rise above it ;)
and your final sentence is probably an Oxymoron :D
So who sets the rules UKA or FRA?Quote:
Originally Posted by FRAFixtures
I seem to recall that in a previous exchange I was told if UKA tried to become overbearing they would get the 2 fingered salute from the FRA.
I think Richard knows this but for those who do not:Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I respect the work of all fell coaches. I like Richard and always read his posts. I don't always agree with him and putting tact & diplomacy aside I will respond pithily but I admire his courage in voicing opinions that challenge the status quo. I remember quite clearly the first time I met him because I wanted to meet him after reading his posts on the Forum. He is an asset to the Forum. If I comment on Richard's posts it is a sign of my respect because he is worthy of it.
Receiving such an encomium from me will probably destroy his reputation as an iconoclast but anyone that uses oxymoron will get over it.
In that case may I apologise for dragging your dignified and stoic reaction down into the mud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
To be fair there are at least 2 I can think of!
So GB you grant us clearance to debat ethe rules. Thanks I thought that was what we were doing. How do we go about making this a debate that might be "inside" the FRA as clearly at the moment we are out in the cold.
This is a UKA RuleQuote:
Originally Posted by Clash City Rocker
You need to convince an Officer on the Committee with a particular interest (eg Welfare Officer, Junior Co-ordinator, Coach) that your views have any merit, the Committee would support any such argument or not, as Margaret has already pointed out,the other home countries would need convincing and UKA might then change the rule when they next print their Rules for Competition.
Where change is valid the process works, as in metrication of the Calendar.
I've been watching the thread with interest. I don't think any of the coaches/officials on here are advocating breaking the existing rules just suggesting that a review for 16 and 17 year olds may be appropriate. My suggestion is that we look for some scientific basis to this.
I think Graham's point about responsibility and navigation is very valid. In my opinion a 16 or 17 year old regular runner is more than capable of running more than 6 miles, I would raise this to 10 miles. I think that WP's suggestion that selected races over 6 miles (sorry I agree with metrification but haven't got there yet!) be allowed to have 16 and 17 year olds, if requested by the RO, is the best that option that I have heard. Typically these would be partially marked routes with no major safety issues.
My 17 year is currently very limited in his choice of races, especially during the winter. He loves the steep Bofra and Kendal Winter League races but most non champs FRA races either don't allow him to race or are multi lap affairs more akin to cross country (in his view).
We need to offer this age group some options, whilst managing the risks.
I was actually trying to avoid this being the only angle of debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clash City Rocker
From the debate so far, I was trying to identify 2 particular points and find out what the feedback was:
- If the tougher Short category races are posing a challenge to 17 year olds then this is evidence that we do not need to change the rules; instead, what we can do is find or create more tough Short courses.
- Secondly, and to be blunt probably placing me slightly closer to UKA than to some of Richard's comments, I am suggesting that a better way forward for 18-20 year olds might be to encourage race series focussing on Shorts and the easier end of the Medium spectrum, rather than expecting a massive leap up in distance at this age. As evidence I have mentioned that very few of our successful top road athletes moved on even to 10Ks until their mid-twenties (I can name some; I do not have a comprehensive knowledge of this)
The way to proceed in both cases is by finding or putting on appropriate races, and possibly arranging them in suitable championships or race series. If any form of consensus can be reached on this, then we have a way forward. Which may be helpful to (for example) the Juniors Coordinator, Duncan Richards.
Specific issues that we face are things like U16s and U18s running the same course at Juniors races, meaning the U18s are not challenged any more than they were as U16s. But sometimes we have pressure to do this for outside reasons, such as the international selectors needing a selection race (which sometimes use different age-group definitions falling into both U16 and U18 categories).
FYI I'm writing here as I have helped a lot in the last 2 1/2 years with finding Junior Championships Races. I have plenty of private discussions with a small number of people (both committe members and others), but would like to know what a wider variety of people think.
And finally.. Are there any 18-23s taking part in this discussion at all?
We cross-posted just now. Exacty what I've been trying to say!Quote:
Originally Posted by wycoller
But I think that is part of our problem in endurance terms. We are generally not competitive on the international scene.Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
If you're volunteering to tell Paula Radcliffe what she did wrong, be my guest!Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I agree with LJ. As RO for Coiners race i was "encouraged2 by selectors to ensure that 16/18 raced together and seeing as the U16 distance wqas already to the maximum I had no choice but to chang ethe intended u18 route and make them the same. U18 original route would have been the best part of 2 miles more and a good deal more ascent. When Coiners returns next year I may look to renistare this. It cant be great fro juniors knowing that from the age of 14 they are going to run the same route for 4 years wiothout any extra testing of their ability. Then for them to just step up to competeing in FRA series of S/M/L + one from any distance means they are having to step up and race in perhaps 3 races that are at least double (perhaps more) whatever they have raced before if the series includes 2 L and a long M. I fail to see how that is of benefit to them if they have had no chance at realistic managed progression. The idea of a separate series for U20/U23? which does not exceed M would be a good idea. But i do feel that there needs to be some change at a younger age group to allow for this progression to be abale to occur safely.
I know Lauren - and maybe the racing is a side issue - there's evidence out there for and against. It's hard to make the comparison with ladies as they weren't running distance until recently. But the men running in the 60s and 70s had an approach that produced far more depth over 5K - marathon in those days than we do now.Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
http://www.thepowerof10.info/ranking...ex=M&alltime=y
The half marathon all time rankings show other than Farah, we have to go to 20th place before we get to a time recorded this century. In fact Tomas Abyu in 50tyh place all time is the fastest in the last 10 years.
Gebrselassie is phenomenal - but he won the world junior 5K and 10K in 1992. In 93 he won the Senior 10K and silver in the 5K when he was only 20.
He was probably on 100 mile weeks and with some intense work thrown in and we are still talking potential for athletes in their mid 20s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Richard I have been involved in this sport for a long time and during it I have seen athletes come and go. To be competitve on an international basis today, you have to have certain characteristics and in some cases you have to be prepared to do things that aren't right. Like it or not that is the way it is.
Some athletes can run 29-30 minutes for 10k. For them that is their limit and no amount of training will ever make them go any faster. If you want guys who are going to run 27.30- 28.00 minutes naturally then it requires a certain physique. Even then they'd have to have the determination to succeed.
Saying we are not competitive because our runners don't do long races is a non-sequiter. Just as I cannot run 10 seconds for the 100m no matter how hard I train some men will never run 27.30 for 10k. Unless those few with the potential to run such times take up the sport it is a fruitless exercise to say we are 'uncompetitive.' It is also pointless to blame the non existence of medium or long races for teenagers as one of the possible causes of failure.
Good post. We forget that medium and long fell races require navigational skills. We also know that 16- 18 year olds lack the maturity of an adult - no matter how many exams they can pass - and as far as I'm concerned that is a good enough reason to exempt them from doing anything but short races.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRAFixtures
It may well be that blame for this or that is being apportioned. That is not my standpoint. i am not seeking to blame any lack of success on the international scene at the door of limiting maximum race distances to just 6m (despite it being seen as a worthy rule change I just cant get this metrification) What I am saying is that for some then the possibility of racing over slightly longer distances may not be a bad thing and may not be detrimental. Looking to debate this with a view to change is not a bad thing. Its not about just the very best . Why doe sit have to be about winners. I am not suggesting that we should only think about juniors who are capable of winning races potentially running longer races. Whats wrong with someone who is strong but a middle of the pack runner doing it. I thought this stared of about developing juniors and part of this is about fun and challenge. If the odd occasion to take part in longer races keep ist keen for runners then that is also a good thing. Its not just about the very elite.Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher leigh
Chris - I have to say I'm not sure and that isn't what I'm on about really and I did say in my last post that the racing was a side issue. I'm interested that Chris Smale and others have done long races young and I am sure that intrinsically kids are far more able to do long distances than we give them credit for.Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher leigh
But in terms of improving performance I don't think it is a good idea.
In terms of longer races, I am angling for a little leeway. We have our international U18/U16 spending 4 years running in races generally no longer than 4 mile. It's worse for lads, as they can be thrown in to a U20GB race where they can have an uphill only race longer than that.
And clearly they are lots of reasons why our male endurance runners, as much as I admire them, are not as good as they used to be. Other sports taking more of the pool of talent perhaps, but also we have a dumbing down approach to most things in life these days.
The target seems to be "average" and that can't be right.
Agree Alistair, and if we had the leeway as coaches to "approve" a U18 athlete to take on a 7.5 mile BM, then it might not be an elite athlete, but a competant athlete that we feel would benefit from the experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clash City Rocker