May 25th, 2009
Got on the track again today – probably my last true level five effort for a while. The protocol was 4 times (200/200 rec; 200/400 rec; 800/400 rec). I ran all the 200s in 34 (with a couple slips down to 33) and was solid at 2:19 for the first three 800s, then fell apart and ran 2:23 on the last one. The next couple efforts will be in level three, then a 5k race in 12 days, and then reevaluate.
On another note – there is some interesting discussion about the role of college in skier development. I will probably write at greater length about this in the future, but it is an interesting question. I obviously took the college route, and given that I hadn’t qualified for JOs as a high school skier there clearly wasn’t any other option for me. I developed quite a lot in college, and while I might not have “made it” I was beating everyone (except Kris) who skipped college for a few stretches in there. In fact, I made all that progress as a three season athlete (cross country running and track on top of skiing). My guess: college skiers don’t fall behind because of college, but because they just aren’t as committed as the guys who take time off and just ski. That thought doesn’t mean the Ski Team is making a mistake with their new recommendation, but it is something to think about. Or so it seems to me at a little before midnight, after grading 30 exams and 10 papers and cranking out 40 comments!
June 1st, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Hey Justin, This is definitely an interesting debate. Your name popped first in to my head in the college vs no college debate. I think that you could have probably been thrown in to a box for four years and come out fast. You have that kind of work ethic.
Is it me or is the phenomenon of going from high school to full time training a relatively new idea? Thinking back to when we were in school, it seemed like no one was doing it, with the exception of the Scandinavians who gave it a shot on their respective national teams, then decided to beat up on the US collegiate circuit as a way of funding their educations. It also has been very common with our Alpine brethren. When Andrew Johnson stopped attending Middlebury, it was a very new thing and seen as a huge step, and debated by many that it was not the best idea. To think what may have been if Carl Swenson went for it straight out of high school – he may have been contending for podiums by the end of his career instead of top 20s.
I think there are skiers where gong straight to college is a wise choice where there are others where it is not a good idea. It is not a one size fits all situation. I believe that it really depends on the program that the skier is in and their work ethic. Does the college have the resources that produce fast skiers? Is there deep enough coaching staff to give the requisite attention to the fast folks, or is that watered down by those of us that are there for academics first, skiing second (or maybe third)? Can the skier get the workouts in (upwards of 650 hours for 20 yr olds, nowadays) and more importantly rest without burning out? If you’re pulling 2 a days, you need extra sleep. A full course load with labs would definitely cut in to that.
There are certainly programs out there that are as good as some of the top club teams in the country. Dartmouth comes to mind for us EISA folks – great skiing very close, world class coaching, a development team and great facilities. However, I think the greatest variable is the tiger in the tank. Does the skier have the work ethic to get out there and put in the time?
Dan
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Hi Dan,
I agree that college is right for some and not for others. And that the key is motivation. So many college students ski their best races as freshmen; that takes either a conscious effort or a lot of beer, since at 18-22 most skiers (men especially, but women too) get faster just for being a year older as long as they put in any training at all.
One thing that colleges are inconsistent with is competition. Certainly having Chamberlain, Giese, Johnson, and others to ski against was good for me, but I was number two in the East (first American) two years running and so being in college did limit my exposure to what it meant to to truly fast. We all treated Thorrod Bakken like some kind of god when that fact is he wasn’t good enough to make the Norwegian team…
I think the college scene in getting better, with more SuperTours at college races (in the Midwest for a couple years now and starting this year in the East) and that those races give the college skiers who are looking to continue a much better perspective on the sport than I had.
Really, I think this highlights the choice college programs already had: are they going to embrace one interpretation of the Ski Team’s view and accept that college skiers are basically second rate, or are they going to fight back and prove that education and athlete development can work quite well together?