True/False: Malcolm Gladwell: Farah has been a contender in every race he has EVER entered in his prime

Yeah it's like they think his career began at age 28. According to Wikipedia he ran the world championships in 2007 (finished 6th), the olympics in 2008 (didn't make the final), the world champs in 2009 (finished 7th), and lost in all of them. It wouldn't be a knock against him except he was already 26 years old in 2009, which means his development was highly unusual.

"virtually every race" Not every race.

Also his prime happened to be later in life. That actually happens to a lot of people.

Have you heard of Carlos Lopes?

imma help you rojo wrote:

"virtually every race" Not every race.

Also his prime happened to be later in life. That actually happens to a lot of people.

Have you heard of Carlos Lopes?

Actually, yes. He was world xc champ in '76, as well as the silver in '76 10,000m behind viren. Of course, that doesn't fit your narrative though, does it?

Yifter won 2 and a World Cup.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

rojo wrote:

World championship/Olympic medals won after age 27.

Gebrseslassie: 0

Bekele: 0

Kiprop: 0 (to be fair he just turned 28)

El G: 3

Farah: 10

Yifter won 2 and a World Cup.

This also assumes that the names above are telling the truth about their age.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Yifter won 2 and a World Cup.

This also assumes that the names above are telling the truth about their age.

Yes...but if they were older than they said they were, this would be STUNNING due to their already unbelievable performances at older ages, particularly Geb but even Bek's 2:03 marathon.

Oookay

His doping prime...yes. His age prime...No.

rojo wrote:

World championship/Olympic medals won after age 27.

Gebrseslassie: 0

Bekele: 0

Kiprop: 0 (to be fair he just turned 28)

El G: 3

Farah: 10

That would look even more extreme if you'd compare that to the medals won before age 27. Also, add Radcliffe to the list.

Gladwell is probably referring to his "prime" as the time when he started winning medals. Basically, the peak of his career. So it's basically a dumb obvious point to make. But not necessarily blatantly wrong.

I think it's quite obvious what he means. He is praising Mo's consistency. Since he's been a contender he's always been up there. He doesn't have bad races.

It's nothing to do with age. You are just being pedantic.

I like all of Malcolm's book and articles. Big fan here. In this case at WC Farah didn't run out of gas. Mo ran into a faster runner and his positioning also prevented him from getting clear to win. Edris was just faster. Farah was fortunate to run when Bekele wasn't at his best. He wouldn't have defeated Bekele in championship races. Mo was very good and career timing was part of his success in winning championships.

I didn't read the entire article, but am confused on why that is an important "fact" (if Gladwell even backs it up) if not compared to Geb/Bekele/Tergat etc.

Those guys were always up there and contending as well, if memory serves.

I would argue he wasn't a contender in the London marathon, but I could see someone begging to differ (some people thought he would be before the fact).

His 1500s he ran extremely well but wasn't quite contending to win.

Uh-oh. wrote:

imma help you rojo wrote:

"virtually every race" Not every race.

Also his prime happened to be later in life. That actually happens to a lot of people.

Have you heard of Carlos Lopes?

Actually, yes. He was world xc champ in '76, as well as the silver in '76 10,000m behind viren. Of course, that doesn't fit your narrative though, does it?

Sure it does, Lopes was 29 in that breakthrough year.

Also when Lopes was healthy and a race was better suited to his more one dimensional abilities he was also a contender in virtually every race he entered.

Mo was pretty good, like I always say. A force to be reckoned with. Beat a lot of the very best. But it's all over now.

Your prime is not determined by your age but the time when you are at your best.

Farrah's prime was at a later age than most.

Malcolm Gladwell tends to think in fallacies far too often.

If you define someone's prime as the time in their career that they are most successful without regard to any other factors, then you're engaging in completely circular logic. It gets the equation exactly backwards.

Star wrote:

Your prime is not determined by your age but the time when you are at your best.

Farrah's prime was at a later age than most.

rojo just can't believe people can peak later and hold it after JKs training failed to keep wejo at a higher level for more than a couple of years.