Nobody is forcing you to read it. Don't like it? Move on.
So don't read or offer any other opinions that are different from Craig Virgin?
I said he had a great career, and nothing changes that, but that things are different from the '80s. Do you disagree with that?
So what do you see as different and how do those differences mean that current athletes could not do what guys from Virgin's time did? As your comment stands it has no substance at all.
I think Virgin could have a pulled a Lasse Viren long sprint on Yifter in Moscow 1980 and would have had great chance of gold as he was at the peak of his powers as you say. When you look at Rodgers in the Marathon, Paige in the 800m, Scott in the 1500m, Centrowitz Sr in the 5000m, and Marsh (who set a national record in the Trials that year) in the steeple chase, then the US team had a very good chance of sweeping all of the Men's distance races Moscow. I think Carter meant well but it resulted in a lost opportunity in Moscow; look at the Miracle on Ice in the Winter Games that year.
You people who believe that there is a reality where Virgin would have beaten Yifter in Moscow in any scenario are living in fantasyland.
It is very possible that Virgin would not have beaten Yifter in Moscow, I'm inclined to think it was unlikely but thinking it possible is far from living in a fantasy land. He beat Yifter at World Cross Country the next year. Of course those are different events but if Runner A beats Runner B in one serious competition it's not a fantasy to think it could happen in some other serious competition.
So don't read or offer any other opinions that are different from Craig Virgin?
I said he had a great career, and nothing changes that, but that things are different from the '80s. Do you disagree with that?
So what do you see as different and how do those differences mean that current athletes could not do what guys from Virgin's time did? As your comment stands it has no substance at all.
To interject here, if you just mean why current Americans can’t medal at world cross, though Virgin did, there’s two main reasons.
One, there were relatively few East Africans who were on the elite running scene and they were just beginning to discover their talent. The talent pool was much smaller. Virgin would have gotten smoked by Ngugi, Hissou, and Tergat and several other later African stars.
Second, Americans as we have seen largely no longer take World Cross seriously, so the best runners don’t participate and the ones who do are not peak race fit. There’s your answers.
There's a point where this '80s stuff gets tiresome.
Congratulations on his great career, but times have changed.
Ok. How about 2002?
March 23, 2002: Paula Radcliffe wins her first world xc title.
April 14, 2002 (22 days later): Paula Radcliffe wins the London Marathon in 2:18 without super shoes.
The BU results every December show that when these guys/gals get in incredible xc shape that carries over. If you are in shape, you are in shape and will do well in a race. End of story.
So don't read or offer any other opinions that are different from Craig Virgin?
I said he had a great career, and nothing changes that, but that things are different from the '80s. Do you disagree with that?
So what do you see as different and how do those differences mean that current athletes could not do what guys from Virgin's time did? As your comment stands it has no substance at all.
I'm sure financial structures and incentives for professional runners have changed since he ran 45 years ago. Also, the competition has changed from 45 years ago.
It possible that what he thinks are "excuses" are actually rational decisions made by runners of this era.
Nobody is forcing you to read it. Don't like it? Move on.
So don't read or offer any other opinions that are different from Craig Virgin?
I said he had a great career, and nothing changes that, but that things are different from the '80s. Do you disagree with that?
Did I say not to read opinions that different from Virgin's? No, I did not. Did I say that things aren not different now than they were then? No, I did not.
Conversely, you seem to be saying not to read opinions from those that ran or coached in Virgin's time. In your own words, it "gets tiresome."
Is it also true that Virgin trained too hard and raced too much? Did that exacerbate his health and injury issues, or would the kidney problems happened regardless? Virgin and even more so, Salazar, peaked way too young. Virgin did make the '84 Olympic team, but '81 was his last really good year.
So what do you see as different and how do those differences mean that current athletes could not do what guys from Virgin's time did? As your comment stands it has no substance at all.
I'm sure financial structures and incentives for professional runners have changed since he ran 45 years ago. Also, the competition has changed from 45 years ago.
It possible that what he thinks are "excuses" are actually rational decisions made by runners of this era.
You are correct. The problem is that Craig is egocentric and believes his accomplishments are bigger than they actually are. So he can’t accept that he won in years where his competition wasn’t what it would be years later. Doing so would mean admitting he really wasn’t that good and would damage his self absorbed ego.
Is it also true that Virgin trained too hard and raced too much? Did that exacerbate his health and injury issues, or would the kidney problems happened regardless? Virgin and even more so, Salazar, peaked way too young. Virgin did make the '84 Olympic team, but '81 was his last really good year.
Depending on what you believe, there have been things written over the years that indicate his training was pretty intensity focused, similar to Steve Jones. Like nothing under five minute pace. If that is true, that may have been a bit much and precipitated a relatively short career. Despite my not liking Virgin personally, I do admit his success in his peak years as one of the all time American greats, even if he is a jerk.
Obviously Craig Virgin is a legend and I do think more pros should be running world XC, but isn’t this like an equivalent of Phil Jackson trying to run the triangle offense in 2026?
Yes, pros can definitely run works xc and still have good track races. But the analytics or “moneyball” revolution in running is racing less and have more distinct fitness peaks off bigger blocks. Virgin’s equivalent of a good track season when he was a pro, is not the same as it is now.
Also, it was really just Grant Fisher who skipped the race entirely? Mantz was hurt and isn’t running at all right now. The US team had 3 olympians and multiple NCAA XC winners/runners up.
So what do you see as different and how do those differences mean that current athletes could not do what guys from Virgin's time did? As your comment stands it has no substance at all.
To interject here, if you just mean why current Americans can’t medal at world cross, though Virgin did, there’s two main reasons.
One, there were relatively few East Africans who were on the elite running scene and they were just beginning to discover their talent. The talent pool was much smaller. Virgin would have gotten smoked by Ngugi, Hissou, and Tergat and several other later African stars.
Second, Americans as we have seen largely no longer take World Cross seriously, so the best runners don’t participate and the ones who do are not peak race fit. There’s your answers.
Mostly I meant that saying times have changed without explaining what's changed doesn't really tell anybody anything. At least now you've done that.
To your second point here, I think Virgin is addressing the business of the best US runners not taking World Cross Country seriously and saying he thinks it's a mistake. As you think times have changed, why do you think forty plus years ago runners could run WCC and then run good spring marathons or have good track seasons but today's runners can't do that? I will add here it's no longer possible to do that but I'll give much more weight to the opinion of someone who has actually done that and knows others who have as well than to someone who's done neither.
To your first point here, there were nowhere near as many Africans running then as now but there were a lot more of them than most people today recognize. But those Africans did not win everything so they weren't as noticeable or as memorable as now.
To your point in your other post about what Virgin considers excuses for not running WCC actually being rational financial decisions I'll say that I expect Virgin understands that as well as you do but might be taking a longer view. If WCC sets you up for a good spring marathon or track season you may make more money than you'd get by running two or three indoor meets. Virgin was a very professionalized runner who knew how to make money from his running.
There's a point where this '80s stuff gets tiresome.
Congratulations on his great career, but times have changed.
Ok. How about 2002?
March 23, 2002: Paula Radcliffe wins her first world xc title.
April 14, 2002 (22 days later): Paula Radcliffe wins the London Marathon in 2:18 without super shoes.
The BU results every December show that when these guys/gals get in incredible xc shape that carries over. If you are in shape, you are in shape and will do well in a race. End of story.
Well, that would make sense. A marathoner running a hard 8k 21 days prior to her race might make sense. It might be a good fitness check or race to sharpen prior to the marathon. However, this year, they were held on January 10th, and that's three months prior to any spring marathon, so that might not make sense in other runners training.
Okay, but what if some of the runners aren't currently in shape? What if Fisher is regrouping, doing some base work? Mantz and Young are seemingly injured. I guess I need to see some specifics on who you think is in shape to run but didn't. Again, it's quite possible that the runners that didn't run World Cross have reasons for doing so, and it's not just excuses.
So don't read or offer any other opinions that are different from Craig Virgin?
I said he had a great career, and nothing changes that, but that things are different from the '80s. Do you disagree with that?
Did I say not to read opinions that different from Virgin's? No, I did not. Did I say that things aren not different now than they were then? No, I did not.
Conversely, you seem to be saying not to read opinions from those that ran or coached in Virgin's time. In your own words, it "gets tiresome."
You said that nobody is forcing me to read it, and that I should just move on. So what were you saying?
I'm saying that it get tiresome to hear that what worked in the '80s would work now. There's always they implication that they just worked harder or were tougher. I believe that runners at the top level are just as tough and work just as hard as runners back then.
If they want to argue that race results don't go as deep as they did in the '80s, that fine. I would probably mostly agree on that, but that's a different issue.
To interject here, if you just mean why current Americans can’t medal at world cross, though Virgin did, there’s two main reasons.
One, there were relatively few East Africans who were on the elite running scene and they were just beginning to discover their talent. The talent pool was much smaller. Virgin would have gotten smoked by Ngugi, Hissou, and Tergat and several other later African stars.
Second, Americans as we have seen largely no longer take World Cross seriously, so the best runners don’t participate and the ones who do are not peak race fit. There’s your answers.
Mostly I meant that saying times have changed without explaining what's changed doesn't really tell anybody anything. At least now you've done that.
To your second point here, I think Virgin is addressing the business of the best US runners not taking World Cross Country seriously and saying he thinks it's a mistake. As you think times have changed, why do you think forty plus years ago runners could run WCC and then run good spring marathons or have good track seasons but today's runners can't do that? I will add here it's no longer possible to do that but I'll give much more weight to the opinion of someone who has actually done that and knows others who have as well than to someone who's done neither.
To your first point here, there were nowhere near as many Africans running then as now but there were a lot more of them than most people today recognize. But those Africans did not win everything so they weren't as noticeable or as memorable as now.
To your point in your other post about what Virgin considers excuses for not running WCC actually being rational financial decisions I'll say that I expect Virgin understands that as well as you do but might be taking a longer view. If WCC sets you up for a good spring marathon or track season you may make more money than you'd get by running two or three indoor meets. Virgin was a very professionalized runner who knew how to make money from his running.
Radcliffe and Virgin ran their best marathons within a few weeks of the World Cross Championships. Those were late-March cross country and mid-April marathons. That probably made sense to run World Cross at the time.
World Cross Champs were three months prior to any spring marathons this year. It's possible that some might, but I don't believe that many marathoners are trying to hammer a fast 8k or 12k three months prior to their big race.
Edit:
As far as Africans running, they didn't really take off until the late-'80s and early-'90s. I looked at Boston results and there was one Kenyan in '77, one in '80, and then nothing until '87. Ethiopians: two in '63, then nothing until '87. My point is that things were very different back then.
This post was edited 10 minutes after it was posted.
I can't remember who wrote, "the past is a foreign country, they do things differently there". That makes sense to me about comparing eras. The great thing about World XC back then was having the best runners from all the distance events lining up against each other on the same day. Coghlan ran for Ireland in the muck of Limerick in 1979 and tried to help the national team, even though it was very tough for him. It's just different now with the very nice indoor tracks which weren't available back then. Even U.S. XC Championships were a bigger deal. Finishing in the top 100 was a good result in the late 80's.
I think Virgin could have a pulled a Lasse Viren long sprint on Yifter in Moscow 1980 and would have had great chance of gold as he was at the peak of his powers as you say. When you look at Rodgers in the Marathon, Paige in the 800m, Scott in the 1500m, Centrowitz Sr in the 5000m, and Marsh (who set a national record in the Trials that year) in the steeple chase, then the US team had a very good chance of sweeping all of the Men's distance races Moscow. I think Carter meant well but it resulted in a lost opportunity in Moscow; look at the Miracle on Ice in the Winter Games that year.
You people who believe that there is a reality where Virgin would have beaten Yifter in Moscow in any scenario are living in fantasyland.
I've trained with Virgin and I don't even know what zip code fantasyland is.
My favorite two parts... Virgin on the excuses people make not to run xc.
There's a point where this '80s stuff gets tiresome.
Congratulations on his great career, but times have changed.
Yes, times have changed, but not all for the better. The World Cross Country used to be "the toughest race in the world to win" according to most. Now it has become somewhat cartoonish starting with the course and then the lack of competitive support from many countries' top athletes. Yeah, I know it's about money and that is a pity. Is there a more proudful moment than representing your country in competition against the world??
I think world XC needs to be every year and on a consistent weekend like it used to be not that long ago.
Houston half, Valencia, Boston etc, are all consistent. Make world XC the 3 weekend of the year or first Sat. in Feb or something.
It wasnt that long ago that everyone was going. 2008 had all kinds of people at the championship. Mottram got his ass kicked but he was there. Kenny B was out for redemption against Tedesse from the year before.
Make it every year, make it consistent and people will go
There's a point where this '80s stuff gets tiresome.
Congratulations on his great career, but times have changed.
Yes, times have changed, but not all for the better. The World Cross Country used to be "the toughest race in the world to win" according to most. Now it has become somewhat cartoonish starting with the course and then the lack of competitive support from many countries' top athletes. Yeah, I know it's about money and that is a pity. Is there a more proudful moment than representing your country in competition against the world??
I agree that changes produce positive and negative results. Professionalizing running changed some things for the better and some things for the worse.
Hopefully some people can recognize that changes have happened and that what might have worked almost 50 years ago might not work the same now.