Zola Budd 7th place Carolina Challenge (18:43)

Thinking out loud wrote:

She's 51 wrote:

Not really. It's like 4 minutes slower than her PB.

Well, a general rule of thumb is that you are doing pretty well if you can approach your high school PRs in your early 50s...

Btw, I see that she is head xc coach at Coastal Carolina. Anyone know what happened to Jeff Jacobs?

I wish what you say were true, but its not.

Whiteman can run wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

The Beijing WC had an 50-54 invitational men's 800, none of them ran sub 2.

That doesn't mean they did not approach their high school PRs.

Plenty of sub-4:10 in H.S. kids are produced each year. Show me the crew of sub-4:10 50 year-olds that keeps popping up each year.

Just wow... wrote:

Whiteman can run wrote:

That doesn't mean they did not approach their high school PRs.

Plenty of sub-4:10 in H.S. kids are produced each year. Show me the crew of sub-4:10 50 year-olds that keeps popping up each year.

That's because virtually none of them continue competing or take far too long off before returning.

This is more about how much you lose even if you are still using it.

However aging theories are being revised every year and guys like Lagat and Whiteman will likely spur on a new wave of old guys who run like high schoolers.

It also comes down to the worth of those performances. A 4:10 high schooler can realistically think of being an Olympian, A 4:10 50 year old can't..

Age grade her performance; that's a good rule of thumb.

WMA grade of 90.7%, world class. Probably worth sub18 on a track, so solidly world-class for 51.

Arete wrote:

Age grade her performance; that's a good rule of thumb.

There are 80 mile weeks, and there are 80 mile weeks.

It takes an exceptional lack of talent as an (male) endurance athlete for someone doing 80mpw in their early 20s to have a PR of 16:57. If you ran 17:45 at age 50, you clearly are not in the exceptionally un-talented category.

Your coaching/training plan must have been absolutely wretched back then, while it seems pretty safe to assume Zola's wasn't.

So in conclusion: 90% AG performances suck when you previously have had 98-99% AG performances as an elite?

Good to know, I will keep this in my FAQ as an answer to heed

Some advice wrote:

There are 80 mile weeks, and there are 80 mile weeks.

It takes an exceptional lack of talent as an (male) endurance athlete for someone doing 80mpw in their early 20s to have a PR of 16:57. If you ran 17:45 at age 50, you clearly are not in the exceptionally un-talented category.

Your coaching/training plan must have been absolutely wretched back then, while it seems pretty safe to assume Zola's wasn't.

Well first of all I was in my 30s before I could reliably run that much. In my 20s I could only manage about 50-60 miles and did 17:22.

My training plan was actually as balanced as anything you would likely recommend. Most of us actually agree on what constitutes good training relative to volume.

So my current 17:45 ability at near 50 is sustained mediocrity?

I sounds like you are telling me I have no idea how to train and am simultaneously talented and devoid of talent.

Bottom line is that I'm still surprised Budd has slipped as much as she has.

She's 51 wrote:

mymastasays wrote:

Must be over 50 years old! Impressive.

Not really. It's like 4 minutes slower than her PB.

That's not uncommon for women who reach puberty.

Some advice wrote:

Your coaching/training plan must have been absolutely wretched back then, while it seems pretty safe to assume Zola's wasn't.

Hopefully you are also accounting for Zola having off the chart levels of talent.

She's 51 wrote:

Long neck small dick wrote:

Throw some of your numbers up there sweetheart and identify thyself .

16:56 lifetime, 17:45 at close to 50. Pretty bad but not such a huge difference.

Not sure why you're all offended. It just seems like Budd still trains pretty hard

Before you say I must have barely done any training it required a couple of years of 80 miles or so per week to even crack 17.

We're offended by the insulting disrespect you're giving Zola, due to the lack of perspective you have from clearly not being anywhere as old as 51, and also your stubborn refusal to consider that one's abilities change with age despite best efforts.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Thinking out loud wrote:

a general rule of thumb is that you are doing pretty well if you can approach your high school PRs in your early 50s...

The Beijing WC had an 50-54 invitational men's 800, none of them ran sub 2.

They're all injured by championship time. You need to check out early season results.

older than you wrote:

We're offended by the insulting disrespect you're giving Zola, due to the lack of perspective you have from clearly not being anywhere as old as 51, and also your stubborn refusal to consider that one's abilities change with age despite best efforts.

48 is pretty close especially with all the damage my body has accrued through the years.

Why would you be offended that I'm being stubborn about refusing to accept aging as such a ready excuse?

I think offended is too strong a term as you're just an internet chat-board nobody.

Somehow, you find it in yourself to disparage a woman who has been to hell and back multiple times, yet has grace and fortitude you can only dream of.

She's set astonishing track records, many of which still stand. She's also parented an AP National Scholar, run the Comrades, volunteered her time to support poor black athletes in NC and is loved and respected by everyone who knows her.

Meanwhile, you're still just an internet chat-board nobody.

She's 51 wrote:

French Dawg wrote:

Classic

Why? It really isn't that remarkable to be four minutes outside your lifetime best when you are close to 50 and still running a lot.

How many elite level athletes can still run well in their 50's.

50-60 miles in your 20s and only 17,22? Ridiculous lack of taleny.

Frightened Inmate # 5 wrote:

I think offended is too strong a term as you're just an internet chat-board nobody.

Somehow, you find it in yourself to disparage a woman who has been to hell and back multiple times, yet has grace and fortitude you can only dream of.

She's set astonishing track records, many of which still stand. She's also parented an AP National Scholar, run the Comrades, volunteered her time to support poor black athletes in NC and is loved and respected by everyone who knows her.

Meanwhile, you're still just an internet chat-board nobody.

You're over reacting. I am merely surprised that she has slipped so much.

well,, wrote:

50-60 miles in your 20s and only 17,22? Ridiculous lack of taleny.

Correct! Notice I'm not offended by this observation? But I'm apparently aging really well or REALLY know how to train now.

How has your running progressed through the years?

But you are not taking into account Zola ran the 18:43 in flip flops