Interview with Renato Canova

[Sasha Pachev]

Dates back a few years, but a worthwhile read:

http://www.mensracing.com/athletes/interviews/2005/renatocanova.html

Some quotes I liked:

"It may be that you see this guy running and think you look like him, but inside, not talented. But it's not a situation for just Africans. It's a situation for everyone. So this is part of individual differences, not racial differences, because a lot of Africans are not talented."

"I think you need maybe 10 years for building your body. So when you are European or an American now who has a passion for running, and the passion starts at 15, 16 years old, in many cases, he has to do from 15 to 25 years [old] the basic work for building his body. And one of the big problems is that nobody has the patience to do this, because after two or three years they want already to go into very specific training, but it is not possible to get good results, because there is not a good base. So we want to build a house from the third floor. It's not possible. This is a problem that is very difficult to solve. Athletes want to be competitive, and everyone knows that to be competitive, if you run faster, you are more competitive than running slower. But for running faster without destroying yourself, for using the intervals for example, it's like the cherry on the cake — it's not the cake, it's the cherry on the cake. But if you have not the cake, where you put the cherry? This is the problem. So Europeans and Americans now are starting to recognize the difference between the cake and the cherry."

"Normally, nobody is able to invent anything new. Big scientists were never able to explain, because you can explain only what you can control, and normally scientists are not able to advise top athletes. So normally new things are from some coach that does not know anything about training, but is crazy, or an athlete who doesn't know much himself but is crazy, is motivated to do something very strange, like 23 kilometers climbing from Fluorspar. [Note: Canova is referring to a 23-kilometer continuous uphill run in Fluorspar, Kenya, that 1996 Boston Marathon champion Moses Tanui often did.] You had good results, and this becomes a possibility. Not a system, but a possibility."

[Bob]

Terrific interview.  Thanks for sharing!  I'm going to read it again, but his insights already have me thinking in contrast to what I've already read in books.  I can't help not think about the complacency in America and its affect on running.  One has to wonder if the culture and lifetstyle here will always hamper our position in distance running on the world stage.  Let's face it, living here is easy street, and the influences to draw us away from daily physical effort are numerous.  I know there are genetic exceptions, but in general, the hunger is no longer there and the talent pool has shrunk.  On that thought, let's consider the possibility that other country's have a larger talent pool from the start.  Here's my line of thinking.  You start with a large pool of people with some talent in running, there for various reasons (future, money, fame, etc), and then you work the hell out of them until a few stick and the rest go to the junk pile (not far from the truth).  This is not difficult to do unless you have a small pool to begin with as I feel we do here.  I understand Canova's angle on Americans wanting everything now and not being patient in building a foundation the Lydiard way, but I feel that those desires cross cultural boundaries.  That's human nature my friends and not some American phenomenon.  Hell, I'd venture a guess that we have 100 Lance Armstrongs, Ryan Halls, and Pre's sitting on there duffs in front of the television, but they don't realize it because they simply haven't tried, for a variety of reasons/distractions, or picked the wrong sport from the start.  Not the case in other places, where the distractions and choices are few.  Alright, I've blabbed long enough.

[Jon Allen]

Bob- I agree that in general, fewer Americans start endurance sports, so the pool to draw from is smaller.  I wonder, though, if part of that indicates a lack of desire/work ethic on the individual's part.  In other words, if someone now does not exercise but has the physical ability to be very good, would they never meet that potential because of the lack of desire/dedication?  So even if there are 100 potential Pre's, most of them would never become Pre's because they aren't dedicated.  If they don't have the desire/competitive spirit from the start, they would not be world class if they start later.  Just a thought.

One other thought- the influence of money.  It is written that many of the Kenyans, etc. who run do it because they can earn a living that way and support their families.  In America, there are many ways to make a decent living, and most are physically easier than the little-noticed distance running.  Hence, we run mainly for recreation and personal enjoyment.  But the Kenyans, in general, may not have as many potential ways to earn a good living, so it is worth it for some of them to dedicate themselves to running in hopes that they may succeed financially.  Just throwing the idea out there.

[Bob]

Jon - Your points are valid as well.  Consider the problem we have with childhood obesity and it's pretty clear where dedication to exercise or physical activity ranks in most American minds.  Based on articles I've read, your point about money as a primary motivator for Kenyan runners is true as well.  Another thought is why would a gifted runner here in America stick with running when there is very little money in it?  There's the influence of ball sports and a bigger payoff later.

[Sasha Pachev]

We have many gifted runners that love the sport enough to fully dedicate themselves to the sport at least for a few years if they did not have to deal with the issues of a high (inflated) cost of living. For many, the choice is do I do what it takes to win, or do I eat? In fact, we have several runners on the racing team that are facing that choice right now.

Which raises an interesting question about our economy. What percentage of our working population is engaged in activities that are necessary for modest living? I have a feeling that our economy is very wasteful, and is structured in such a way that it is not easy to withdraw yourself from cycles of waste. Even if you choose a productive occupation, you have to work extra to effectively support those who are spinning their wheels. You are often forced to spin your wheels, because it is not easy to place yourself in a productive position. So I am not too worried about the economic "crisis". I think it will be good, the economy will hopefully restructure itself to where it pays more to do something useful, and less to spin your wheels.

[Jon Allen]

Bob- Yes, our priorities in general are not towards exercise, which is why many gym classes have been eliminated from schools.  Plus the government subsidises many types of unhealthy foods (candies, high fructose corn syrup) but not as much for fruits, etc.  Maybe they should buy everyone running shoes!

True, also, that many elite athletes would rather play money/ball sports than run.  More publicity, more money.  Same reason soccer is not as successful in the US, profesionally.  In many countries, most of the good athletes play soccer.  In the US, the good athletes play football, basketball, baseball, soccer, etc.  So more spread out.

Interesting topics.

[Sasha Pachev]

Jon:

I do not think ball sports steal a lot of potential marathon stars. A potentially world class marathoner will be a decent ball player, somewhat above average, but not a star. He will have some quickness and coordination, but not enough fast-twitch fibers for the stardom.

If we are going to do the loss management, we should examine shorter races. Our athletes from their youth generally run the shortest race that they are good at. So let's say we have a high schooler that runs 800 under 1:52. We think is a middle distance runner. Often he is. But probably one out of five (I am guessing) is potentially another Ryan Hall. But we hardly ever encourage him to train for a longer distance for long enough to see if he will start shining.

Instead, we have it like this. If you are not good in 800, try the mile. If you are not good in the mile, try 5000. Not good in 5000 - try 10000. Not good in 10000 - you stink, too bad - collegiate refuse. Then the collegiate "refuse" trains on the their own for the marathon.

Wrong approach. Should be - good in 800 - see if you are better at the mile. Good at the mile - see if you are better at 5000. Good at 5000 - see if you are better at 10000. Good at 10000 - see if you are better at the half-marathon. Good at the half-marathon - see if you are better at the marathon. Move back to a shorter distance only once it's been determined that you cannot do better at a longer distance with proper training.

[Jon Allen]

Sasha, that is spoken like a true marathoner rather than a miler- you are showing your bias    After all, there is nothing wrong with being a world class 800 runner rather than world class marathoner.  I do agree that, ideally, runners should discover what their best distance is, though (if they want to)

[Sasha Pachev]

Jon:

You missed my point. Ryan Hall is not a world-class middle distance runner, but he is a world-class marathoner. He would never have known he was a world-class marathoner had he kept trying to become a world-class middle-distance runner. We see a guy run a 3:59 mile and we call him a miler. He has zero chance to be world class, he will do no more than just score points for his college team at meets if he remains a miler. Maybe he'll make the Trials. Yet we think -  he broke 4:00, he made the Trials, he must be a miler. 4 times out of 5 he is just a 3:59 miler, that is his best distance. But one remaining time he is a 2:05 marathoner, but because he thinks he is a miler, he never seriously tries the marathon.

The deception is in the fact that a potentially world-class marathoner will shine brightly enough in the mile for everyone to be tricked into thinking he is a miler.

It is not about choosing which distance you are going to be best at, that's already been chosen by your slow-fast twitch ratio. It is about finding which distance you are you going to be best at.

[Jeff Linger]

Its generally easier to move up than down and find more success. Take a high school half miler who runs a 1:55. Most of the time he will probably place 1st or 2nd in his meets (I'm talking in general, not necessarily at a national level). While this runner may be successful in the 400 meters, we could probably predict his best time in the 400 meters to be somewhere around 50-52. Good, but probably not necessarily placing 1st or 2nd. However, if we move him up to the mile or even 2 mile, we know he has the speed to be successful, and with training he might be great. There are more systems involved whereby he may be more successful as he moves up, but moving down eliminates systems of potential success and focuses on systems he already has proven, to some extent, in his 800. It maybe that he has incredible speed and his endurance is lacking. Perhaps he went out at a 50 second quarter and came back in a 1:05. But I think most of the time it is easier to predict his top out 1/4 time versus his top out mile or 2 mile time. And as the runner with speed moves up to greater and greater distances he possesses the potential to train more systems. I think this is what Sasha is saying. Keep moving up until you find the distance you can have the most success at. Rarely do runners start at a longer distance and say, hey, I think I can be more successful at a shorter distance. Generally they have already discovered what they can do at a shorter distance. Unless its the very beginning of their high school career and on a whim they said, I think I'll start out as a 2 miler. People are lazy, meaning they will probably start at the shortest distance they feel they can be successful at and then move up. Ok, I'm totally rambling, but I think this is what Sasha is saying.

[Jon Allen]

Ah, I see what you are saying.  Agreed, for Jeff and Sasha.  Although, Sasha, I was aware enough in my comment to say that runners should "discover" what their best distance is (acknowledging that it is a physical characteristic more than a choice), not "decide/choose".