Surely the best Kiwi performance of the yr let alone last w'end was the all-blacks second demolition of the English rugby team.
one chariot for sale, low swinging, sweet variety, slightly damaged, wheels have come off.
Surely the best Kiwi performance of the yr let alone last w'end was the all-blacks second demolition of the English rugby team.
one chariot for sale, low swinging, sweet variety, slightly damaged, wheels have come off.
What about this guy and what he ran at mt washington--it is a freak type of race and you can never compare it to anything
1500 4:18 1989
3000 9:12 1989
5000 15:45 1989
5 mile 26:00 1990
10k 33:19 1989
12k 41:29 1999
15k 52:19 1997 1/2 mara 1:13:16 1989
16 mile 1:36:59 1999
20 mile 2:02:40 1998
mara 2:41:30 1996
mt wash 1:08:01 1991
You can compare any two performances you like. Everyone has the right to be more impressed by one performance or another. Maybe you like watching an 800, I'd rather watch a marathon. I know what it feels like to run a 58 second quarter, and cannot imagine ever being able to run 4 of them back to back. I also know exactly what it felt like during the second half of Mt. Washington on Saturday (30-50mph winds), and am more impressed by Wyatts performance. I never said that Wyatt could beat Willis in a mile or 5k, I said you cannot reliably predict a performance at Washington based on flat races. I am fascinated the extraordinary physiological demands it takes to run fast in any arena, track, mountains, roads. The amount of lactic acid that Wyatt was generating and clearing, or his aerobic ability to be able to run that fast without accumulating incredible amounts of lactic acid, is amazing. I would like to add that I am equally impressed by Webb's performance. Although you can say you can't compare the two becuase they are so different, both depend on the same few physiological variables. By the way, it's Dr. Ben Nephew, not mister.
You can compare any two performances you like. Everyone has the right to be more impressed by one performance or another. Maybe you like watching an 800, I'd rather watch a marathon. I know what it feels like to run a 58 second quarter, and cannot imagine ever being able to run 4 of them back to back. I also know exactly what it felt like during the second half of Mt. Washington on Saturday (30-50mph winds), and am more impressed by Wyatts performance. I never said that Wyatt could beat Willis in a mile or 5k, I said you cannot reliably predict a performance at Washington based on flat races. I am fascinated by the extraordinary physiological demands it takes to run fast in any arena, track, mountains, roads. The amount of lactic acid that Wyatt was generating and clearing, or his aerobic ability to be able to run that fast without accumulating incredible amounts of lactic acid, is amazing. I would like to add that I am equally impressed by Webb's performance. Although you can say you can't compare the two becuase they are so different, both depend on the same few physiological variables. By the way, it's Dr. Ben Nephew, not mister.
Only a pompous ass with a second rate degree corrects people to say "Dr." when they want to feel superior. Only those with a third rate degree however, are impressed!
I only correct people who need to be corrected for reasons such as this------
the funniest part about you mountain runners/ultra geeks is that you think what you do is the most incredible, outrageous, and wildest thing anyone has ever done. i don't mind the humble guy, but its the guy who start jacking off over racing uphill @ 9 minute mile pace. come on now, that poor kenyan probably got lost in the fog and none of you self proclaimed mountaineers helped him.
That reason would be a lack of respect for a fellow runner. The "mister Ben Nephew" was a sarcastic remark following the above name calling, not an innocent mistake. There was no need for this. I respect discussions simlar to Bob's. Of course Bob is a former GBTC runner, so I would expect nothing less from him! As to people's degrees and how pompous they are, if you have ever been to a scientific meeting, you would know that people from all sorts of universities can be pompous. As to the "rating" of a degree, I am of the belief that it is what you do with your degree that is most important. If you graduate from Oxford with a degree in chemistry, but never publish anything, what is that worth?
Taking advantage of the brew-ha for a shameless plug:
I did miss the post you quoted and there are some select times when it is necessary to put someone in his/her place with a simple correction of the title. I have been to scientific meetings and know of which you speak regarding pompousness. However, most of the better scientists insist on informality and graciousness (sp?) to all. There are always some asssholes at the top but, alas, I digress. Thou shalt not be impressed with a title. Eloquence and deeds speak louder than titles.
Why are we comparing two athletes to try and make some laim claim that one is a better athlete than the other. It is obvious that the two events that Wyatt and Willis competed in are clearly not comparible. For a start they took place on different sides of the globe, they were run if different conditions, environments, so different I can not see any level criteria from which to draw a comparision.
By the results I have read it looks as though both NEW ZEALANDers had fantastic runs and we should be celerbrating both their efforts rather than saying one is better than the other.
Why are we comparing two athletes to try and make some laim claim that one is a better athlete than the other. It is obvious that the two events that Wyatt and Willis competed in are clearly not comparible. For a start they took place on different sides of the globe, they were run if different conditions, environments, so different I can not see any level criteria from which to draw a comparision.
By the results I have read it looks as though both NEW ZEALANDers had fantastic runs and we should be celerbrating both their efforts rather than saying one is better than the other.
I own "Kiwis Can Fly" and there is nothing in there to indicate Dixon or Quax are good hill runners. I consider myself a track runner, and have competed in Mountain Races and got beaten by people way slower on the track. They are two different sports.
alright this thread is boring the sh*t out of me...its evident the ultra geeks arn't gonna change their minds about hill runners versus track runners and i can respect that.
now if you excuse me, i gotta go read something of interest like the macdonalds dollar menu contest thread while watching the newlyweds on mtv.
all i know is i'd rather be able to tell people i ran a 3:53 mile than point to some obscure road race and name a time that makes little or no sense to anyone.
(why, just the other day i ran a mile uphill with a 30-mile-an-hour wind and hail raining down. 5:05, but it was probably worth a 3:52 given the conditions. this doesn't really get anyone excited, does it?)
Track and mountain running are two different sports. In high school we used to run repeats on a 1/4 mile hill. It was so steep you could easily use your hands to help in the climb without bending over. I could beat sub 50 400m guys up it along with 4:15 milers. My PRs were 55.5 and 4:33. it's a different sport and because so few people try it I don't think you can compare the two.
I agree.
One of the best Irish runners of recent years was Noel Berkeley, who used to race quite a bit on the hills. While he was a good hill runner and could make international teams, there were a few better hillrunners with slower track and road times who could always beat him.
His track times are similar to Wyatt's (27:55 10k, 1992 Olympian) but he would never have been in the same league as Wyatt.
Thus I conclude that Wyatt could probably beat athletes much faster than him in on the hills (uphill anyway).
Hill and track running are, as said, two different sports, and require different physical attributes for maximum success.