No sub 2:04:00s
No Sub 13:00s
No Sub 27:00s
No sub 2:04:00s
No Sub 13:00s
No Sub 27:00s
You have issues
hyperbole or fact? wrote:
They didn't wear watches in 1985?
No dumbass, watches weren't even invented until 1986. In 1985 they used sundials. Learn a little history you moron.
someone else wrote: The people arguing for all this old-school shit are the real tools. If something is going to make you better, wouldn't you use it?
I don't think people are arguing "old school" just for the sake of being old school. My interpretation of the point is that all the new-fangled gadgets DON'T make one a better runner. They may not hurt, but they certainly don't help.
Technology might serve as a placebo if a person is so Type A that he has to monitor every aspect of his physiological performance while training but, ultimately, hard work is hard work. And hard work (combined with a bit of common sense) is all it takes.
Good OP, nice to see the old stuff.
As for the rest of those in this thread who are pissing on the OP, I feel sorry for you.
It's a shame as the Brojos tried hard.
Goodbye.
Carlos Lopes worked in a bank, and then went running after work. Only once a day, he wasn't professional, began running after 18, ate lots of fries and a huge steak before racing...
he didn't think much, he just ran...
this sucks wrote:
No sub 2:04:00s
No Sub 13:00s
No Sub 27:00s
And how many non-Africans have run:
Sub-2:04, none.
Sub-13, just a handful.
Sub-27, just one by a fraction of a second.
My interpretation of the original poster's thought process: "Things were different when I was in my prime, so they must have been better. We didn't use fancy gadgets because we were tough, not because they hadn't been invented yet."
That is, unless the original poster is one of the young, naive runners who never actually lived in the era they idealize.
Either way, it's not to be taken seriously.
Indie wrote:
someone else wrote: The people arguing for all this old-school shit are the real tools. If something is going to make you better, wouldn't you use it?I don't think people are arguing "old school" just for the sake of being old school. My interpretation of the point is that all the new-fangled gadgets DON'T make one a better runner. They may not hurt, but they certainly don't help.
Technology might serve as a placebo if a person is so Type A that he has to monitor every aspect of his physiological performance while training but, ultimately, hard work is hard work. And hard work (combined with a bit of common sense) is all it takes.
If they don't work, then why are runners faster now? Do they just try harder?
It was surprising to see them running watches. Most runners were surely wearing watches in the mid 80s
'Do tell how you choose to approve technological advances for use'
Well smart arse the EA's don't use most of that crock of shite:
'No arm warmers, no gloves, no compression socks, no breathe-rite strips, no ice vests, no Alter-G, no aqua jogging, no gel packs, no fuel belts'
Who is the better runner Americans or East African's -don't give me that shit about using the available technology. To be the best you copy the best not someone slower
Mohammed Mourhit ran sub 27 for Belgium, though he was a drug cheat.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Well smart arse the EA's don't use most of that crock of shite:
'No arm warmers, no gloves, no compression socks, no breathe-rite strips, no ice vests, no Alter-G, no aqua jogging, no gel packs, no fuel belts'
Who is the better runner Americans or East African's -don't give me that shit about using the available technology. To be the best you copy the best not someone slower
No gloves? Send an east African out for a tempo in Chicago during January and ask him if he wants gloves.
No aqua jogging? Are you trying to say all other forms of cross-training are for sissies as well?
I understand the point that not all these things are necessary to become an elite runner, but to discard every piece of equipment that isn't a shoe or a mustache is ignorant.
So they wear gloves big deal
Now f off and argue about nothing with someone else
800 dude wrote:
Mohammed Mourhit ran sub 27 for Belgium, though he was a drug cheat.
He was African, not east-African, but African nonetheless.
just run wrote:
No arm warmers, no gloves, no compression socks, no breathe-rite strips, no ice vests, no Alter-G, no aqua jogging, no gel packs, no fuel belts.
They just ran.
The ancient Greeks raced in the nude. No shirts. No shorts.
They just ran.
just another guy wrote:
No dumbass, watches weren't even invented until 1986. In 1985 they used sundials. Learn a little history you moron.
LOL!!!
Had to be there - back in-the-day, that is. You really did just run as you felt. So what could Bannister have run had he been in Nike spikes and a high-tech track? Ask the same of Jones, Lopes, and Deek - what could they run if they had pacers, no 40 hr. work week, etc. They just ran. How many sub- 2:30 guys were there in the 80s as opposed to now? But, it could just be the porter talking - after all, it is Friday. Indeed.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
So they wear gloves big deal
Now f off and argue about nothing with someone else
Another translation: "I don't really know what I'm talking about, so I'm going to tell the people who disagree with me to F off."
What pieces of running equipment are OK to use? Which are for sissies? Where do you draw the line?
'Do tell how you choose to approve technological advances for use'
Well smart arse the EA's don't use most of that crock of shite:
'No arm warmers, no gloves, no compression socks, no breathe-rite strips, no ice vests, no Alter-G, no aqua jogging, no gel packs, no fuel belts'
Who is the better runner Americans or East African's -don't give me that shit about using the available technology. To be the best you copy the best not someone slower[/quote]
Lookee here
http://www.iaaf.org/mm/photo/competitions/competition/05/46/71/54671_full-lnd.jpg
[quote]ukathleticscoach wrote:
