Optimal Training

Fam and "Win/Win" racing

An interesting blog post by Anthony Famiglietti is stirring up quite the discussion about both him and his racing tactics.  You'll remember he led the first half of the USATF Championships 5000m, and ran a big sprint to move from 8th to 1st mid-race, before ultimately finishing out of contention and not making the USA team.  I've included the video of the race below.

I looked at the race this way.  Fam came in with the top time.  He likes to run from the front and he felt he would be strong enough to hold off enough competitors to qualify for Berlin whether he led or not.  Ultimately, however, the wind took its toll, he struggled, and he didn't qualify.

Fam says he took the approach because it is a "win/win".  He describes it like so:

Coming into the US championships this year with complete freedom and this philosophy in mind I decided to attack the race this year with a win-win approach. I had been training all year at a very high level setting myself up with races and workouts that would lend to a front running style to put me in a position to push from the front of a race and run a great time. I knew the other side of the coin to this strategy would be if their was heavy wind slowing my pace and the field came with me I'd drag the race to a faster time and give the other athletes a chance to kick off my pace making it more competitive. I would become a pace maker for the race so to speak. Unfortunately I personally did not fully achieve what I was aiming for. However, those in the race did run closer to the A standard time on a windy day, one athlete set a junior 5k record and I'm sure there were some nice PRs across the board. It was win-win. I did my part in raising U.S. running a bit. It's a start and I hope others take the cue to do the same from time to time and challenge each other in this way. We'll all benefit as a whole and US running will raise to a new standard of excellence and performance. Hopefully gone are the days of guys chasing A standards and falling short by seconds. I think the future will hold many athletes running well below A standard times here in the US as competition and expectations are raised to a new standard.

I think the post was written on the wrong side of the race, unfortunately.  Had he written something similar prior to the race, he might not be taking so much flack. Genuine or not, his analysis comes off more like a rationalization than a clear-cut motivation.  However, let's take him at his word, because I do believe Fam has been a predominately genuine individual throughout his career.  He puts himself out there, and that's why I enjoy watching him race and why his successes and failures can seem so acute.

I think Fam's overall message is spot-on.  He is a two-time Olympian racing in an off-event, and he felt it was worth the risk to try and do it "his" way.  There's nothing wrong with this at all.  The fact that he didn't qualify might bother his sponsor and it might bother his most passionate supporters (both of whom are no doubt frustrated by his tactics), but success can be about more than just how you perform relative to your competition.  How you performed relative to your own abilities is a perfectly valid measurement of your performance.  I wrote about norm-referenced and self-referenced success at length in The Long and Short of Excellence.

Ultimately, Fam isn't content to settle for norm-referenced excellence (winning races, making teams, etc.).  He's after something more elusive: self-referenced success (running PRs, executing perfectly, realizing his potential, etc.).  Guys like Rupp and Teg are still focused on the former, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.  It's the stage they're at in their careers.  Guys like Pre focused on the latter, but were fortunate to have the norm-referenced success to legitimize their approach in our norm-referenced society.  Fam will no doubt be kicking himself for his poor execution, but I doubt he'll ever seriously question the actual approach.  Good for him.

As for raising the level of US distance running, I'm torn.  He certainly raised the entertainment factor for the fans, which is appreciated.  And he definitely made the race a little more honest.  But I'm not sure athletes are ever going to follow his lead and run pedal-to-the-metal from the gun at championship races.  And I'm not sure they should.  I'll settle for seeing more athletes take more risks in general, however.  I'm tired of seeing people who can't win kicker's races not going earlier, for example.  The ironic thing about Fam doing it is that he's one of the few guys who doesn't need to. 

Fam is still learning.  It's no doubt a big reason he's approached this season the way he has.  It's a journey of self-discovery.  But just because that journey brings out his flaws for all to see, that doesn't mean he doesn't have a valid lesson to teach us all: that losing isn't usually the worst thing that can happen to you.  That would be lying awake at night second-guessing why you didn't give it your all.

Disappointment can be great motivation

The Science of Sport just returned from the Rugby World Cup, in which South Africa lost to Wales in the final.  In the disappointment, Ross captures the essence of what separates those who become high achievers from those who never do. 

I have written before that when an athlete takes to the line or the field, they must believe that they have done 99% of the work in training, and that the final 1% lies before them. The team that has prepared the best (99% as opposed to 90%) has the advantage. If you have done more than the opponent in training, then he needs to do more than you to win - you hold the advantage, both physically and mentally. I believe that sports science is the quest for those percentages, or millimeters, or milliseconds. It asks "What stones remain unturned, and how do we overturn them"? That is comprehensive, integrated sports science and management.

There are many more great quotes within his article.  No matter your level, it will serve as motivation for how you view your own performance.

Nate Jenkins puts success and failure in perspective

A great blog entry by marathoner turned indoor trackster Nate Jenkins.  He had a rough go of it at the USATF Indoor Nationals 3000m, but he explains in his blog why he's not losing any sleep over it.  I think we all could stand to be reminded that we need to be judged against our total set of goals at the beginning of the season, not just our expectations prior to one particular event.  Here's the blog post.

Success and 'that mental edge'

There was an interview at TrackShark with Illinois runner Angela Bizzarri, runner-up in last year's NCAA 5k (15:46!).  She addressed the topic of success breeding pressure vs success breeding confidence:

Does your past success put pressure on you to perform or does it fuel your confidence for upcoming races?

AB: It definitely helps build my confidence.  You can get in really good shape and have great workouts but a lot more of it is mental.  You have to know you can hang with that top pack.  Seeing that you can gives you that mental edge that you can do it again.

The hardest dip to get through as an elite runner (or a pre-elite runner, I should say) is having that confidence that you can, in fact, hang with your competition.  I imagine it's the same for a fresh lawyer entering the court before his first high profile case, or a doctor performing some complicated new surgery before the eyes of his fellow surgeons.  Doing it the first time is terribly difficult, but after that, it gets easier and easier.

There are ways to gain that confidence that don't involve having that experience, though.  The first is to work with people who've done it.  That demystifies it and demythifies it.  This is why people who apprentice under an artist or who join a team with a senior champion on it tend to excel.  The illusion that success comes from talent is shattered when the work ethic of the expert is laid bare.

Another way to gain in confidence is to frame the challenge in the terms of your previous success.  For example, I'm studying Italian right now.  I don't know any Italian, but I do know Japanese.  The simple fact that I made it through the dip in Japanese gives me the confidence to know I can do the same with Italian.  Finishing third in my league in cross country gave me the same kind of confidence when I started running track that next spring.  Sure, they're different.  But it was the similarities that mattered.

The last way you can improve your confidence is to simply take a risk and have it pay off.  This can be tough, though.  Taking a risk in running generally means executing a strategy that will put you through increased pain with increased probability that you will not succeed.  And if you are mentally ready for that potential failure, it can be much worse than simply playing it safe.  But when you do succeed, it can completely change your perspective on what you can do. 

Or maybe you just need to prepare differently

Asafa Powell said something I found interesting today in his pre-race interview at the Memorial Van Damme meet in Brussels, Belgium.

“I don’t know how to explain (his form in Beijing), maybe I’m just a guy for the circuit. I just don’t know how to explain it,” said Powell.

“At the Olympics, I went back into the relay and ran really well, I said to myself ‘why didn’t I feel like that in the final (of the individual 100m)’. Perhaps it’s running the rounds (at a championships) where as on the circuit you are just running once on the track. That’s all I could come up with.” (emphasis mine)

Asafa Powell has been pegged as an underachiever, given that he has run such amazingly fast times yet never won a major championship.  To be fair, he wasn't going to beat Usain Bolt in Beijing.  But he arguably should have been second instead of fifth.  And that's the crux of the argument against Powell.  It's not just that he's never won.  It's that relative to his abilities, he under-performs in championship situations.

Personally, I think the above is a telling quote.  Long-time readers of Optimal Training will know how often I talk about how high achievers and low achievers attribute their successes and failures.  At the risk of oversimplifying, high achievers attribute success to hard work and painstaking preparation.  They attribute failure to being lazy or underestimating the difficulty of the challenge.  In sum, they focus on qualities that they have some measure of control over.

Low achievers, on the other hand, tend to attribute success to luck or the relative ease of the challenge.  Yet they attribute failures to their lack of talent.  Essentially, they take no credit for their successes and blame that which is internal and unchangeable for failure.

Now take a look at that quote and tell me which group you'd put Asafa Powell into, if you only had that quote to go by.  (This is why I love reading athlete interviews...it's the only chance you get to see how they think!)  With only that quote, you'd have to put him into the "low achiever" group, wouldn't you?  He's essentially saying he doesn't have the "innate talent" for championship racing.

I'm not saying Asafa Powell is a failure or a low achiever.  He's obviously not.  He obviously believes in hard work, or he'd never have become this fast.  But equally obvious to me is that psychologically, Asafa Powell's mindset is not 100% aligned with high achievement.  He gives himself an out by blaming things outside his control when he fails.  If he really believes this (and I expect he does), then how hard will he work to change it?  (Answer: he won't, it's unchangeable!)

I don't expect Asafa Powell to win any major championships until he addresses this issue.  His problems have nothing to do with talent or being "just a guy for the circuit."  That's ridiculous.  The simple fact about his championship record is that he hasn't won because he hasn't prepared appropriately.  He may or may not have done the physical work, but he obviously hasn't done the mental work necessary to succeed. 

It's not too late--it's never too late--but it's ultimately up to him.  Is he ready to do the hard work to change his mindset?

Update: I meant to tip Jimmie at 400 Meter Oval for finding this story.  He is aggregating all the news--literally, all of it--about running over at his site.  If you're looking for a good running article, 400 Meter Oval is a great place to start.

Successful vs entertaining

Tirunesh Dibaba won the distance double in Beijing, dominating two distinctly different types of races.  In the 10k, she ran an Olympic Record and one of the fastest times ever.  Elvan Abeylegesse took the lead and pushed the pace, with Dibaba trailing the entire way.  Then in the final 400m Dibaba turned it on as only she can, sprinting away to Olympic gold.

In the 5k, nobody was willing to run that race against Dibaba.  So everyone sat back and waited, hoping they'd be able to take her in a sprint (or at least beat enough people to get a medal).  The race was appallingly slow, and Dibaba sprinted away from everyone to take the gold.  Abeylegesse proved she is the second best long distance runner in the world right now, as she hung on for silver, her second of Beijing.

Pat Butcher, a journalist who covers running, wasn't satisfied though.  In this scathing article he rebukes Dibaba's races and questions her courage, initiative, and self-respect.  Why?  Because she didn't lead her races until the end.  Because she knew she could win with her kick, and did so.  In short, because she was predictable and boring. 

As I read it, I get the impression Mr. Butcher's been following running a long time, is a bit bored and jaded with African runners' domination the past couple decades, and has decided he can only accept excellence if it is entertaining.  It's not enough for athletes to break Olympic records or win gold, Mr. Butcher wants to see them do it in epic fashion.

And who knows.  Maybe he's right.  Maybe "The Baby-faced Destroyer" is the most boring runner ever.  (In my book, having that nickname automatically excludes her from the discussion, but still...)  It brings up an interesting question: Would it benefit Tirunesh Dibaba to run differently?

Competitively, it's hard to argue that it would.  The goal is, after all, to win championship races and achieve to the level of your potential.  It may be great entertainment when someone does both at the same time (see also: Usain Bolt), but few athletes ever demand both in a setting like the Olympics.  Dibaba was no different; she focused on winning the races.  She's already proven that she can run fast times.  Now she's proven she can win championship races.  Most people would argue she's done it all.  Except, Mr. Butcher, I imagine, because she hasn't done both while entertaining him.  So if she cares to know whether she can do that AND win, too, then I suppose there is some benefit to changing her approach.

Monetary benefits, however, are another story.  Might it not make her more appealing to sponsors if she ran like Steve Prefontaine, leading from the gun and dissing her opponents guts (all with a bushy mustache, of course)?  Doing so might set her up to lose races to rivals like Meseret Defar, but if she could pull it off, wouldn't there be a windfall waiting for her?  I actually don't think so.  It might be appealing to us as fans to see her run this way, but are we going to pay her to do it?  I wouldn't, though I can't speak for Mr. Butcher.

I'm a big believer in running risky races.  I think you need to push yourself and take chances and not be afraid to fail.  But there's a difference between being successful and being entertaining.  The more risk, the more entertaining, of course.  But when your risk decreases your chances of achieving your goal, you have to consider the benefits. 

My guess is Dibaba did.  And having Pat Butcher as a fan simply didn't hold as much value to her as the opportunity to win two gold medals.  One wonders how she ever came to that conclusion.

Let 'em fail...successfully

I played Little League baseball when I was a kid.  I remember very clearly one player in particular, Charlie Moreno, who was in our league.  We never played on the same team, which was terrible because he was the best pitcher in our age group year after year.  He didn't throw a good curveball or anything as I remember it; he just threw really hard. 

I played an entire year and never got a hit off of him.  Maybe even two.  I swung when it was a good pitch but mostly hoped he'd be wild and just walk me.  Then one year (I'm guessing I was 10), in our first game, my team faced Charlie's team.  He'd grown taller, and seemed to throw even harder.  I distinctly remember wishing they'd forced him to play in the next age group.

Then a funny thing happened.  In my first at-bat against him, I hit a grounder to second.  I got out, but I really stung the ball.  It was the first time I'd ever even hit the ball hard against him, and something changed within me.  Charlie's mystique diminished a little.  My next time up, I got a single.  And my third time up I hit a solid fly ball to left (which was caught).

I don't remember the rest of my at bats against Charlie that year.  I'm pretty sure he got me out more often than I got hits.  But that first game changed me as a batter.  I had hit the ball hard against Charlie Moreno!  If I could do that, I could hit the ball hard against anyone.  And I did.  For the first time, I finished the year with a good batting average and became a truly confident hitter.

I mention this because I read a disappointing article today about a 9-year old kid named Jericho Scott.  He's a very good pitcher for his age, with the ability to throw 40 mph.  He's so good, in fact, that the league told his coach he wasn't allowed to pitch anymore.  When his coach brought him to the mound in a recent game, the other team forfeited and left the field!  Now his team is being disbanded!  (!!!!!)

Essentially, the league has decided he's too good to play there.  The other kids can't hit off of him.  He throws so hard it's scary to other players (note: he's never beaned another batter).  And of course, because adults are involved, it appears there are some petty jealousies that may be playing a role.

Anyway, this made me think about how these parents, coaches, and league administrators think about success and failure.  And perhaps how we think of it, too.  The league is trying to set up an environment in which everybody succeeds.  And their assumption is that if Jericho always wins, then everyone else always loses.  It's all black and white.  Their only solution is, for the good of the rest of the kids, to ensure Jericho doesn't win.

There are obviously better approaches to solving this, like letting Jericho play against older competition.  But the point I want to make is, success and failure shouldn't be measured by outs and hits for these kids anyway.  It should be based on their execution, their approach.  So what if you got out, how did you approach the at bat?  Did you swing at good or bad pitches?  Did you foul a ball off?  Did you lay down the bunt? 

Kids should be focusing on subjective success when they are young.  They should be measured against their abilities and previous experiences.  If a good at bat is fouling off a pitch before striking out, then parents and coaches should be embracing that and celebrating when the kid makes contact.  And if the kids are focusing too much on normative success--striking out and getting hits--then they need to be reminded what their goals are when they are batting--good swings, staying patient--and encouraged to focus on them relentlessly.  Make it a game within the game if you have to.  And if they do get a hit, parents and coaches should treat it the same way.  As the outcome of good (or maybe even bad) execution.

The time to learn how to focus on execution instead of results is when you're a kid.  It's when you're playing things like Little League baseball.  I can't help but think what I'd have felt like if my coach had forfeited our baseball game because Charlie Moreno was pitching against us that day.  Not only would I have not been able to play baseball--my worst nightmare as a kid--but what would it have done to me to have all the coaches and parents agree that we had no chance--that we were simply not good enough? 

I sometimes wonder if I didn't need to have that at-bat against Charlie.  It certainly affected my confidence in baseball.  And as a kid, my confidence in many things was related to my ability on the sports fields.  I guess I'll never know.  But what I do know is that kids in Jericho's league aren't getting the opportunity to hit that crucial ground ball to second off of him.  And that's really a shame, if you ask me.

Success in running and business...is it luck?

Business offers more opportunities for "lucky breaks" than distance running.  The rules change more frequently to favor one over another, the psychology of the market changes making one product more appealing than another, and the ability to manipulate your success is more pronounced (if not more understood).  But in the end, both running and business are the same in that you can choose what aspect of your success or failure you focus on: your luck or your effort.

Kara Goucher hates the word "fluke".  Why?  Because people apply it to results she views as being generated through her painstaking preparation and hard work.  She finds it demeaning.  Because it is.  I imagine if you called the iPhone a fluke Steve Jobs would feel the same way.  He spent years of hard work creating his masterpiece.  Sure there may have been some luck involved...but is that really why the iPhone was so successful?

Seth Godin just wrote a post in reference to a review of his book The Dip, that hits the nail on the head.  You can look at your success as being at the mercy of randomness, luck, or fluke occurrences.  Or you can look at your success as being the result of painstaking preparation, hard work, and the fact that you were ready to benefit from that luck when it came your way.

There are plenty of people who think each way.  As a general rule, those who think the former are less successful than those who think the latter.  Successful people focus on effort.  They don't deny the existence of luck, but they ignore it.  They have work to do.  This applies whether they are pursuing success in athletics, business, education or family life. 

You may not think this applies to you.  Well, good luck.

I hate the word fluke...

Shalane Flanagan won the bronze medal in last night's 10,000 meters.  She finished a distant third to two phenomenal runners, Tirunesh Dibaba and Elvan Abeylegesse.  And while she wasn't expected to win gold, taking the bronze medal was far from unexpected.  After all, she entered the race with the fastest time of the year, and Kara Goucher had already knocked down the mental barrier of competing at the highest level over 10,000 meters with her bronze medal performance at the World Championships in Osaka.  But still people will say that her medal was a "fluke".

Kara Goucher had a great quote about Shalane's performance, however.

"I hate the word 'fluke,' and since last year with my bronze medal my name has been associated with it," Goucher said. "But Shalane showed that the strength of U.S. running is no fluke."

I think she's absolutely right.  There is no such thing as a "fluke" performance in distance running.  In fact, I will go one step further.  Those who would describe a distance running performance as a "fluke" are generally stuck in the mindset of a low achiever and can't (or won't) accept the difference between optimal preparation and execution and dumb luck.

Kara Goucher's bronze medal was not a fluke.  Nor was Shalane Flanagan's.  Meb Keflezighi's silver medal in the Athens marathon was not a fluke.  Nor was Deena Kastor's bronze.  And the rise in U.S. distance running is no fluke, either.  Sure it is benefited by a few imports.  But none (save Khalid Khannouchi) came here as world class athletes.  They became world class athletes training in U.S. schools and competing in the U.S. system.

America will win more medals at these Olympics.  Not because of dumb luck or the alignment of the stars.  Because we're preparing better, training harder, and competing smarter.  Because we no longer associate ourselves with second-class talent.  And most of all, because runners like Kara Goucher and Shalane Flanagan and Meb Keflezighi and Deena Kastor don't believe in the word "fluke".

Jon Rankin: Lessons from his Loss

Jon Rankin finished sixth in the 1500 meters at the US Olympic Trials last month.  He was in fourth place until about 50 meters to go, when he realized he wasn't going to catch the top three and was himself caught by Will Leer and Alan Webb.  He then kind of disappeared for a while, and as a good friend of his, I was particularly interested in what he planned to do.

He explains all of that in a new blog post.  It turns out he was pretty much just shell-shocked from the experience.  I don't blame him. James Carney said the same thing.  Probably the worst position to be in is the guy who only kind of has a shot if he gives it 100% and everything falls into place, only it doesn't quite happen.  It can be brutal on the emotions.

Jon had some inspirational things to say about the experience, however, and he also gave some insight into why he's become the great runner he is.  Here's a snippet of his post:

"I've never considered myself a superstar and I've never considered myself to be any more special than anyone else. So as I was fortunate enough to qualify from one round to the next I was most pleased because I felt like I was another example of what all people can do. Then again maybe I have it all wrong, maybe we're all extraordinary and only a few have been lucky enough to realize it."

One of the hallmarks of successful people is the way they think about success in general.  They view success in terms of effort and preparation.  Talent is maybe assumed, but not something you can depend on as an advantage.  As such, they see anyone and everyone as having the potential to be just as good as they are. 

It may not be true, but it's how they think.  That's why when you hear a top athlete saying he isn't underestimating anyone in the competition, it's probably true.  He isn't focused on them--he should be focused only on what's under his control--but he's fully aware that he achieved his success through hard work and preparation, and there's nothing stopping his competition from doing the same. 

When Jon sees other people, he sees the potential for the extraordinary.  He assumes the extraordinary.  It both keeps him on his guard in races and makes him an incredibly inspirational person to know and speak with.  I have heard that he has become a very well-regarded public speaker over the past year.  I have no doubt that's true.  He empowers people.

I wrote before about the inherent risk in training like an Olympian.  I'd be lying if I said I didn't have Jon in mind when I wrote it.  And while Jon is no doubt crushed that his dream didn't come true, I've a feeling we are all going to benefit from it.  With his way of thinking about others, his passion for the sport and helping people, and his untiring work ethic, big things are sure to come.  On the track and off.

Keep on going, Jon.  You're just getting started.  And you've got a lot of people betting on you for London 2012!