Just trust me on this.
Just trust me on this.
the point is that there is no "optimal"age for peaking. it varies from person to person. for most elite it is in the mid to late 20's (24-28) - at least, for running your PR in the 1500.
Mel, I agree that Malmo probably considers anyone on here to be a fool unless they were world class. But since most track fans are runners who failed to become world class, most of Malmo's fans on here are probably fools.
everyone is different...but, generall speaking.....the mile= 26.....the 5k.....28
Living in the Past wrote:
Mel, I agree that Malmo probably considers anyone on here to be a fool unless they were world class. But since most track fans are runners who failed to become world class, most of Malmo's fans on here are probably fools.
That's catagorically false.
but "irascible" is spot on!
Categorically!
Living in the Past wrote:
No, my intent wasn't to distort what you said. My intent was to point out that you are treating two separate issues as though they were one.
1) There's the physiological potential of the athlete, which on average is around the age of 26 for an event like the 5,000. (Just look at the mean age of the fastest 5,000 meter runners of all time when they set their PRs.)
2) Then there's the potential based on external circumstances, like the quality of the coaching or the need to make a living or the athlete's susceptibility to injury or the runner's persistence. Dave Merrick was one of the greatest high school runners of all time, who probably could have set an American record in the 5,000 at around the age of 26 had financial pressures and injuries and perhaps inappropriate coaching not caused him to peak at around the age 20 (you can probably help me out with the precise age here).
But I don't think anyone would really argue that Merrick achieved his potential. So while I might have gotten the facts slightly wrong in using Merrick in this example, I'm not distorting anything that you have said. I'm merely pointing out your flawed premise in using the term "potential" to treat two separate subjects as though they were one.
I think most people on this forum understand that there's a difference between biological potential and the potential of life events to cut a career short before the biological potential was achieved.
It's funny how an honest debate with you can result in your taking a dismissive attitude and impugning the other guy's motives. I never was world class, so maybe I have no business debating with you at all. But as a runner of modest accomplishments, I'm a fan of anyone who competed at your level. I admire the fact that you know so many people who really mattered in this sport in the 70s and 80s. I'm just a former wannabe and you're the real thing. But even the mediocrities can see that there's a greater biological potential (on average and all else being equal) for an athlete in the 5,000 at 26 than at 19. All you have to do is look at the statistics.
You have a lot of deep thoughts there, living in the past. I have no idea what Dave Merrick and "treating two separate issues as though they are one" is supposed to mean, but I'll predict a 10,000 word treatise to be coming soon?
los gatos wrote:
but "irascible" is spot on!
Only in your mind.
wow leave it to you to give the weakest come back of 2006. way to squeak it in there with one week to go. good show.
but seriously, it is true.
You don't understand the meaning of 'irascible'. Keep obsessing, no one will notice.
wow you can't take a joke can you?
by the by, here is the definition just so you know what it actually means. makes more sense now?
i·ras·ci·ble Pronunciation (-rs-bl, -rs-)
adj.
1. Prone to outbursts of temper; easily angered.
2. Characterized by or resulting from anger.
and by the way, i am just teasing you malmo, i know it's true (whether you don't want to admit it), but it's what makes you a lovable character on letsrun.
Sorry, I'm not angry nor do I have a temper. Keep trying.
I am not trying to make you angry, duh!
Merry Christmas Malmo!