Science vs Nature

I have been nitpicking at this one for over a week. getting a few sentences here and there and generally forgetting about it. But I also realized that in my own running this has been a central push and pull about the philosophy of how one should approach their running.

Over the years I have had enough revelations and tried enough things that you get down to the basics (more about that in the future) in running. One of those own questions and battles in myself have revolved around structure vs. running free or as I often see it Franz Stampfl vs. the “Stotan” or better described as Stampfl vs. Percy Cerutty. Although a debate that began in the 50s and 60s, this is a debate that is as relevant now as it was in the past.

For those who don’t know Franz Stampfl was an Austrian coach who had gained his fame while helping Roger Bannister get under 4mins for the mile, while Cerutty was an Australian coach, who had worked with John Landy (although before the Empire Games Landy had left him. Where these two would really come into conflict, hence the idea behind this post, was when Stampfl moved to Australia and came into direct conflict with both Cerutty and his most famous athlete Herb Elliott (the only undefeated major miler of all time and arguably the greatest 1500/miler runner of all time).

What makes their story so interesting if how each approached the sport and their athletes. Stampfl was by all accounts a very scientific and quiet coach. He advocated a very organized and structured training pattern that was dominated by interval work and hitting certain splits around the track.

Cerutty on the other side felt that humans were animals and as such needed to run ‘freely’. His philosophy was based upon his creation of the term ‘stotan’ or a combination being both stoic and leading Spartan lifestyle. He felt that if u ran like a natural animal and ran against pain (rather than in a structured manner like around a track) then you would achieve your greatest successes. He advocated sand running, fartlek style running (based upon the great Gustav Holmer and successes of the two Swede milers Arne Andersson and Gunder Hagg who had come so close to breaking the once impregnable 4 min mile). He believed that if one runs around the track in training then that took away some of one’s natural love for running. He also felt that you should hate your opponent as your main goal was to beat them in a race so why should you be nice to them off the track. He did wild things like waving a towel if Elliott was on wld record pace and often led philosophical discussion on famous philosophers such as Nietzsche who was famous for his ‘what doesn’t kill you will only make you stronger’).

Cerutty’s greatest athlete was the legendary Herb Elliott. Elliott went undefeated as a Sr athlete (he lost once in grade school to an older boy) in the mile/1500m. He set a time that IMHO is the single greatest race ever run, and is still considered wld class, at the 1960 Olympics when he ran 3:35 (closing in 1:52 on a cinder track) and won by the largest margin in Olympic history (still I think). Elliott’s ability to make himself puke and run himself into submission is legendary.

Where the Cerutty vs. Stampfl rivalry really began was with Elliott’s greatest Aussie rival Merv Lincoln. Lincoln was probably one of the top few milers in the world, but never could beat Elliott. But more relevant was that Lincoln was coached by....Stampfl, who had come to live in Australia after Bannister’s successes. Of course not only did Cerutty’s ‘them vs. us’ attitude cause problems, but his attitude of ‘natural running’ was in direct contrast to Stampfl’s scientific attitude. Hence the argument of who produced the better system of producing runners. In then end many saw Cerutty as a crackpot, but to this day Elliott still sees his basic attitude of challenging oneself and running through barriers as the key to success.

So the question is...are you a Stampfl (science and structure) or a Cerutty (free and natural)? I know for me I’ve gone through episodes of both over the years. And in both cases I got into trouble and learned much all at the same time. In the end I decided that at heart I was more like Cerutty, but that at times I need to fall back on the basics and force structure on myself. More relevant came when I ended up doing a bit more coaching/advising. Some want and need someone to be more Stampfl in their approach (structure, told what to do, science) while others want and need someone to treat them like Cerutty did to Elliott on a regular basis (challenge, philosophical, more ‘art’ in coaching). In then end you need to find out if you want and need one or the other more/less...... if you can then running is far more enjoyable.