Canova puts his foot in his mouth just like everyone else here

Benefit of the doubt? Why do you assume he is lying? What do you want us to swallow?If Mosop is not 80-85% fit, tell us what is the right percentage? How fit is the Mosop that ran 2:05:37 today?Canova translated that when Mosop says 80-85% fitness (not time or pace, as some of the mathematicians have shown) he means a 2:05 performance in Chicago. That's a fairly concrete transformation of fitness to time, and a firm prediction. Mosop ran a 2:05 in Chicago. Yet your point is, Canova was obviously lying, hedging his best (sic), or plain wrong, not about the 2:05, but about the 80-85%?Why don't you rephrase the lie for us, in your own words, and tell us the implications?

William Hunting wrote:

Yup, Canova did call the time, but why do so many people assume that he was being truthful about his athlete's fitness? He was obviously either lying, hedging his best, or plain wrong, and it's not as though coaches at this level can be counted on to be honest pre-event. Like Pinkowski himself said, that 80 percent thing was almost surely a smokescreen. I'm not surprised that the fellator crowd here is swallowing this, though.

I came back to the Hotel, and started to read the posts in Letsrun. The most part of them are very funny, because they show the level of athletic knowledge of the most part of the posters is nonexistent. To speak of methodology with many posters is like to speak of nuclear physics with children of primary school.

1) When we speak about "percentage of shape", of course we don't have a mathematic approach. If we say Bolt is at 50% of his shape in 200m (19"19), somebody can think he goes running in 38"38 ? 80% of shape it means to move from a performance at the top of the World to a performance that can be about the number 20-30 in the World.

2) There is no reason to lie about the training of an athlete, two days before the race. In athletics, there are results, and if you lie you appear like a stupid two days later. I clearly explained that Moses could run in 2:05, and this happened (and I said it BEFORE the race, not after). So, if he was not able to do it, it could be rightful to think I plaid some game BEFORE the race. But, if he was able, people has to recognize I was honest in my presentation before the event.

3) The reality was as follows :

a) After his WR of 30k on track in Eugene, he had very little training in June because of some probem in his left Achilles tendon. At the end of June (on 26), Moses ran the 10k race in Boston, again feeling pain after 5k. He finished slowly (28'28" with 14' + 14'28"), and after that

he NEVER went running during the month of July (rest and therapies)

b) Moses started training at the beginning of August, during a very tough rain season. For the first 2 weeks, only one session per day, not long and not fast, for avoiding any risk of injury. During the last 2 weeks, 2 sessions per day of easy run, but NEVER one session of specific training.

c) The real training started on 5th of September, and was a GENERAL training. For example, on Monday 12 Sep he ran 45k in 2:27:13 (27 days before Chicago), while before Boston he ran 45k almost 3 months before the race.

d) Moses NEVER had time for training specific endurance, so came to Chicago with a GENERAL preparation. His shape was the shape he needed 2 months before the race, when we have to start the specific training. In my training phylosophy, SPECIFIC is to run something long and really fast with long recovery between two sessions, using a lot of mileage at the specific speed of the race. HE DIDN'T DO. In my experience, the possibility of improvement in the final performance during the SPECIFIC PERIOD si between 2 and 3 minutes.

e) Because of the tendon, Moses had a very long and fast warm-up (about 30' with the last 20' at high speed) that is not the best solution before a marathon, because the athlete has to use part of the fuel he has for the marathon. This, together with the crazy development of the race (with a tough acceleration between 25 and 35 km, but especially a 3k in 8'25" between 31 and 34k), provoked the depletion of fuel that is the reason of slowing down during the last 5 km (his last 2,2 km were in 7'04", while Shobukova ran 6'52"....).

f) For all these reasons, I know Moses could run 3' faster with good preparation and better situation (weather and pace). His shape was very far from fhe shape of Boston (I say 85%) and of Eugene (I say 80%), when he was able to absorbe one km in 2'41" during the record of 30k, going back to the pace of 2'51" per km immediately later, without paying the acceleration. In the case of today, instead, Moses paid, during the last 5k, the acceleration he had to do, having a lack of fuel after 38k.

Therefore, the reality is 1) he was not in shape, but his shape was enough for running the race record despite a bad

management of the race, and 2) the wind didn't help him too much in Boston, because, with the shape of Boston, he could run today under 2:04.

At least, also if the two marathon of Boston and Chicago are the performances remaining in the eyes of people, technically speaking his WR of 30k on track was surely better. On the contrary of somebody thinks, ON THE ROAD (if the road is ok, with good tarmac and few turns) IT'S POSSIBLE RUNNING FASTER THAN ON TRACK, so his WR on track can easily become under 1:26:00 on the road.

I can do the analysis of this fact, of sure posters of Letsrun without any specific practical experience cant do.

At the end of everything, I want publicly to thank the Director of Chicago Marathon, Carey Pinkowski, for his honesty and his technical knowledge : when I informed him (at the beginning of August) about the problems of Moses, he said he wanted Moses in any case, BECAUSE ABSOLUTELY WANTED THE MAN RUNNING 1:26:47 ON 30k ON TRACK (and Pinkowski, on the contrary of the most part of posters of Letsrun, was himself a very good athlete when young).

So, also the idea we plaid some game for some strange reason with media and organiser is groundless, because Carey knew everything and always was updated about the situation.

Is it really so difficult to think that is also possible to say the truth and to be honest ?

Coach Canova, congratulations on Moses' spectacular run. And, thank you for your thoughtful and informative posts. I hope, despite the silly comments, you recognize there are many who silently read your posts and are thankful for your contributions to the body of training knowledge.

85% is a metaphorical estimation of an ephemeral concept.

97.83% of a specific time gives a very precise number.

They both mean the same thing in the proper context. Just because you can't understand there is more than one way to say the same thing doesn't make everyone else stupid.

But it might make you an idiot.

What would be special blocks / workouts for Mosop?!

Hi Renato:

Just wondering, did Moses get Tecar on his Achilles?

Is Tecar available in the United States? Thanks.

Renato Canova wrote:

the wind didn't help him too much in Boston, because, with the shape of Boston, he could run today under 2:04.

This means that, even though Moses ran 2-3 minutes faster at Boston, it wasn't aided by the wind, because if the wind had been against him, he would have run even faster than this, perhaps 85% of the time therefore 1:44:36.

Now all you stupid posters who think 85 percent means 85 percent like Renato said, are stupid because you thought it meant 85 percent but really means 9 percent. But you have to be smart like Renato to understand this, that 85 percent means only 2 percent. So you see therefore that Moses could have run 2 percent faster at Boston with the gale winds in his face instead of behind him, therefore 2 hours and 36 seconds.

It is too bad the wind was with him, not helping, because if it was against him at Boston then he would have run faster and now have the world record. We are hoping the next marathon the wind will be against him and also he will be running uphill all the way. Then you stupid letsrunners will see the following wind and downhills DID NOT HELP Moses at Boston! This is like trying to teach rocket sciences to puppies, because you PEOPLE ARE STUPID, but I am very smart like Renato.

So Canova says Moses Mosop is going to run 2:05. Then Mosop ran 2:05. Still, you guys still are criticizing him. Obviously he was telling the exact truth.

Coach Canova,

How is Mosop addressing his Achilles injury long term? Is there a specific strengthening regimen that he will follow? It seems that his toe-running style will challenge his longevity, but could be ideal for breaking the record.

It looks like his weakness is coming from his hips--the way he tilts his head to the side and his arm carriage is uneven on his left side. Is this accurate?

coach bigfoot wrote:

So Canova says Moses Mosop is going to run 2:05. Then Mosop ran 2:05. Still, you guys still are criticizing him. Obviously he was telling the exact truth.

2:03 with wind & downhill

plus 2.5 minutes = 2:05:30 on flat course

It was an easy prediction to make.

it is very easy wrote:

2:03 with wind & downhill

plus 2.5 minutes = 2:05:30 on flat course

It was an easy prediction to make.

Leaving aside the downhill part since the net downhill at Boston does NOT make it a fast course -

How did you get the 2.5 minutes? I distinctly remember Canova saying the wind was not why Boston times were so fast this year. And now, he is using 2.5 minutes?

Ricky Henderson wrote:

it is very easy wrote:

2:03 with wind & downhill

plus 2.5 minutes = 2:05:30 on flat course

It was an easy prediction to make.

Leaving aside the downhill part since the net downhill at Boston does NOT make it a fast course -

How did you get the 2.5 minutes? I distinctly remember Canova saying the wind was not why Boston times were so fast this year. And now, he is using 2.5 minutes?

Canova figured Moses had improved from Boston, which is more than 3+ minutes faster than fast flat courses, therefore he added 2 1/2 minutes.

It was an easy prediction to make.

Also he probably told Moses to say that his leg was hurting and he was having a bad time of month, which doesn't many anything. A lot of people have run their best times when it felt very easy, and never approached them again.

it is very easy wrote:

Canova figured Moses had improved from Boston, which is more than 3+ minutes faster than fast flat courses, therefore he added 2 1/2 minutes.

It was an easy prediction to make.

Also he probably told Moses to say that his leg was hurting and he was having a bad time of month, which doesn't many anything. A lot of people have run their best times when it felt very easy, and never approached them again.

I can't understand your English. I do not expect it will improve with another try so I won't ask.

Thanks anyway.

I appreciate your providing another great race recap. Ignore all the idiots. We can understand that you know what you're talking about, correctly predicting Mosop's performances, and tell us the details of his preparation. We cannot get that anywhere else. We get nothing whatsoever of value from the mindless critics, not new information, nor new insight, nor witticisms.

Of course we respect Canova and his thoughts and posts here are supremely appreciated. I do wonder that an athlete can be at 80% of peak and get injured - doesn't that say the athlete could not handle the current training load? So wasn't the athlete over 100%? But I'm just a zombie who eats brains, so what do I know?

A private definition of "percent," are you serious? Renato talks in terms of what fast runners and their coaches understand. If you have ever been on a team or around athletes that were even decent, this kind of talk is quite commonplace. The standard hobby jogger obviously wouldnt understand Renatos "private" definition of percent since its a token measurment of real athletes fitness. Renato is certainly one of the top 5 coaches on the planet and if he says 80% means one thing and then his runner backs up his words, then we should assume he knew exactly what he was talking about. We are not going to get a more informed opinion on this. There are no scientists or doctors that know more about the sport than does Canova. He should be like the father or teacher that we all know and believe his word over anyone elses. He gives all of his honest opinions, gives detailed workouts of the worlds most elite athletes and shares personal insight into a training method that has and is creating the very best the world has to offer. All for free because he loves the sport.

Is it "asperger's" with an apostrophe? If you cannot spell "flue" or "diarya" or "malarea", are you entitled to be afflicted?I can fault everyone who homed in on "percent", because they are all wrong. The problem is a misunderstanding and faulty transformation of units on their part.Many people have trouble understanding that in mathematics, % is unitless. It is simply an alternate notation for dividing whatever number by 100 ("per" means "out of", and "cent" means 100). When we use percentages to describe something, it is some fraction of 100% or 1. The problem in this thread (and many others) is not with some private definition of percent, but a misunderstanding of the unit being fractionalized. You must understand 85% of what? In this case it is "fitness" or "shape", and not "time", "speed", or "pace".Imagine if I understood 85% to be distance. By 85%, maybe Renato and Mosop really meant that he could only run 22.7 miles. Well Mosop completed 100% of the distance. Are Renato and Mosop liars? No, in this case, the fault would be completely mine, for trying to replace a statement about fitness with a statement about distance, and then blaming Renato for the resulting farce.These statements including percentages are not contradictory:- If I follow 85% of my training, I can run 97% (of average speed at race distance) of my PR- Last year, after 100% of my training, I ran 105% (speed) of my PR- If I am 85% fit, I can only run 98% (speed) of my PR.- When Lydiard says 7/8th effort (i.e. 87.5%), for me this means 97% speed over a 10K time trial.Can you see how percentages can be used to describe many things? Different percentage values can end up describing the same thing, when you change the unit.The problem is not the use of "percent", but understanding that shape and fitness is not a 1 to 1 transformation to speed, pace, time, or distance.That is why it makes complete sense for Renato to clarify that 85% fitness translates to 2-3 minutes over a whole marathon. A statement about being "85% fit" is complete vague, as there is no known way to quantify (to 1 part in 100) a level of fitness. If I am completely unfit (0% fitness), I can still manage to race with a time. So we must accept Renato's description of the transformation from fitness to time (before the race), especially when it is meant to clarify what the original vague statement really means.

Hans A. wrote:

It's ASPERGER'S. If you can't spell it you're in no position to assess who is and is not afflicted. (Sorry, I'm being picky because I have the flue with a touch of diarya and just got over malarea.)

And regardless of Renato's street cred, he's not entitled to a private definition of "percent." You can't fault the people who homed in on that, even if they were obviously trolling. I don't know that anyone would care had RC not made a variety of dubious statements here lately, although I think his less-than-perfect English is as much to fault for this as the substance of his claims.

Renato might be wrong here and there, but one thing you need to know he had handled a lot of great runners and he still handling such runners. He see the potential in runners that we don't see. We only wait for races to make some argument.

Just ask yourself, out of 20 or 30 or more runners that he is handling, why he never talk about them going 2hrs 2 minutes or 2hrs 3 minutes? The thing is if all remain unchanged, Mosop's potential is there.

But if that doesn't materialize, it won't mean he didn't have that potential once in his career.

So let's hope that his potential comes out in races, and stop politicking on minor issues.