Making Music with the Soul of a Blind Man

Walshy recently wrote a blog that I felt was worth commenting on, before gradually delving off-topic and hopefully 'saving' the blog at the end with a song that has little to nothing to do with the original topic. Jeremy was comparing his method of using challenging, and progressive, goal-setting to keep himself motivated and reaching higher, whereas a young lady he knows prefers a safer method of recycling goals when they aren't met. As Walsh is still a mid-distance runner, his perspective was from that of someone who has frequent opportunities to race, though perhaps only a few 'great' set-ups per season. As he's gaining a better understanding of the sport, he's figured out that a mid-distance runners season can comprise of a series of progressive races aiming towards an end-goal and, as such, he can enter the season with a very challenging End Goal (ex. 3:48 for this summer) knowing full well that he'll be entering his first 1,500m race of the year with a goal that will be much more strongly based on his current fitness (recent workouts). As such, his End Goal is almost, though not entirely, irrelevant. Bronwen, on the other hand, is more focused on longer road races and is looking at perhaps just 1 or 2 chances per season to hit a goal time; as such, she may very well be aiming for her End Goal in her first, and only, Half Marathon of the spring (or fall).

Comparing their event focus, however, barely scratches the surface of what can make an aggressive, or safer, goal the correct choice for a given athlete. As a coach, I might even make the argument that I'm not even concerned about the actual goal an athlete sets but, in fact, the response they'll have to the outcome of achieving/missing that goal. Let's back up a few steps. Over the long term, my priority is that an athlete such as Walsh or Douglas is doing the following:
-developing physically in a variety of ways (speed, endurance, LT, biomechanical efficiency, and so on)
-developing mentally in a variety...
-staying healthy and recovering sufficiently
-enjoying the sport, so that they'll see value in continuing the above

Once you get to know an athlete, you can make a statement such as the following: whether or not Jeremy Walsh hits his goal of 3:48 for this summer will NOT impact his continued involvement in this sport. While I would like to see him achieve that goal, and I believe it is possible - very difficult, and near the very top end of his short-term potential, but possible - I realize that for this individual, it is not 'necessary' and as such we're okay to set the bar 'that high' both in private and in public. As I touched on above, we're still going to take things one race at a time; when he gets close and the right situation presents itself, the gloves come off. If significant injury or illness come into play, we adjust and stay focused on the 4 points above, something that certainly came up with Hendrikx last year which, for those able to follow his entire year closely, we were able to see the overall progress towards the end result there.

Not everyone is in this sport for the same reasons and, at the other end of the spectrum, you're going to have an athlete who is going to 'need' to hit their stated goal. It could even affect their continued involvement in the sport, from the highest levels of competition (one final attempt at Olympic qualification) to a more local level (one final attempt at a Boston qualifier before giving up on the marathon as a focal event). When looking at the drop-out rates of competitive runners following each 'stage of life' - graduating from high school, entering the Senior (20+ ranks), graduating College or University, etc. - and coupling that with some athletes need for fulfillment in their chosen endeavor, you're going to end up realizing that setting too challenging a goal for some people can be a very poor gamble. Of course, that raises the question of whether you even need a specific End Goal for every athlete. Depending on their needs and current focus, you may do much better to agree upon a process-oriented goal. Perhaps focus on appropriate seasonal progression, setting a goal of achieving their best performances in the final month of the season and feeling 'ready to race' at the chosen final meet or Championship. Now there's a goal that many in the high school, Junior, and College/University ranks should take to heart.

Another important thing to keep in mind with goals is the significance of their origin. My goal is to guide an athlete, and at the same time adjust my own perception of them, towards the point where we're independently zeroing in on the same goals. For the Really Chilly road races, for example, I went through each of the LRDC athletes racing and considered their PBs, recent training, and recent mental state and jotted down my range of what I felt they should be aiming for. That 3rd one, recent mental state, is key both in selecting the actual goal and in pre-race discussion with the athlete. Sami McGuinness, for example, has been inconsistent recently, partially due to asthma. As such, I wanted to set up a soft goal for her, relative to her actual fitness, such that on a good day she'd crush it, but on a bad day she'd still be close. The top Junior guys (Taylor, Roberts, and Fleming) were mentally ready to get after it and had each other to key off of, so they got the green light to get rolling as I wasn't concerned if they fell off to 16-high or even 17-low. Madeline, on the other hand, wasn't and needed a safe goal of breaking 19, aiming for 3:45s. Sometimes it's best to allow an athlete to set a weak goal, trusting that they'll evaluate their effort level and adjust accordingly, negative splitting or perhaps even running at the correct effort from the gun and exceeding the 'soft' splits from the gun.

Alright, that should have sufficiently deviated from the initial topic by Walsh of risk aversion. Be sure to check out his most recent blog where he describes how to accidentally win a half-marathon.

Music