Yes, because your body just *explodes* from "running too much too soon"
What kind of bullshit is that?
Yes, because your body just *explodes* from "running too much too soon"
What kind of bullshit is that?
Of course it happens. Similar to how pigeons explode when you feed them alka seltzer or rice or baking powder or, um, coke & mentos...
Clifford O Clavin wrote:
A Canadian is better at the same age than this supposedly legendary U.S. distance runner. No Salazar and gadgets.
This kid is showing Rupp how it is done. Levins will have a better career than Rupp. There is no doubt.
Wow. Showing Rupp how it's done huh? Last time I checked, Salazar and all those gadgets have helped Galen Rupp become the fastest American 10000m runner ever. Let me know when Cam Levins runs 26:48. Not saying he can't, but just because he won an NCAA title doesn't mean he'll have a great pro career.
Ninja Mask wrote:
Without a doubt. While Rupp and Salazar are fretting over every detail, Levins is running. He doesn't have time to worry. He is too busy putting the miles in. This kid has just started to show his true potential. Looking forward to see what he can accomplish while doing this full-time in a few years.
Haha. Yeah because Galen Rupp probably only runs 40 mpw right? You're in a idiot.
Give it a rest on this damn canuck will you. This joker is no different than the east Africans who come to the USA and take scholarships from USA-born althetes.
But because he's white he's revered on Lets Run.
Cam will be a has been in a few years.
Derrick wins where it counts.
I bet he gets a ton more action that Levins.
Salazar "frets" because he is a control freak. Salazar and Rupp are insecure and need external aids. Levins is old school and he'll have a better career when all is said and done, and he'll probably do more and say less.[/quote]
THIS^
Ridiculous. Nothing but speculation. Despite everyone's insistence that Galen Rupp is a coddled yuppie, he is HANDS DOWN our nation's best 10000m runner and has run 3:34/12:58/26:48. He's probably also our best shot at a medal for any distance over 400m.
People can go on and on about how much potential Cam Levins has, but until he actually beats Galen Rupp or runs an American Record, give it a rest. Good college runners don't always ball in the pros.
Interesting to note wrote:
Ninja Mask wrote:Without a doubt. While Rupp and Salazar are fretting over every detail, Levins is running. He doesn't have time to worry. He is too busy putting the miles in. This kid has just started to show his true potential. Looking forward to see what he can accomplish while doing this full-time in a few years.
What a stupid post. Do you really think the Farah's and Rupp's of this world are not doing the running.
Levin's is a work in progress.
He might just explode from all the miles and have a short career because he hasn't been careful or "fretting" over everything.
Kinda what I was thinking. If he is running 155+ mpw to win NCAAs what does he need to do to compete with the pros? 300mpw?
Hopefully he can find a way to improve and have a successful pro career. Kicking it up another notch and staying injury free might prove challenging.
Potential is way different from accomplishment. The list of distance prodigies who had tons of potential either in high school or college but never reached truly great heights is very long.
German Fernandez, Lucas V and so on were all supposed to be greater than Rupp.
Levins might be faster at this age than Rupp was but Rupp has actually continued to improve. Derrick has also been faster than Rupp. He took his Junior 5k AR and 10k American Collegiate Record.
Meanwhile, most people would agree that Rupp hasn't reached his full potential yet. Based on recent PRs he could probably run 12:55 and 26:40 in the next year or two.
Is Cam Levins going to drop almost a minute from his PR in the next 4 years?
I constantly marvel at how from such a seemingly knowledgeable group such idiotic statements are made. One of the hallmark's of our sport is that people come along that are better at a certain age or point in their career than another runner doing good things, yet they fail to ever equal the later accomplishments of that other runner. That's the norm. The exception is when that runner continues his or her improvement to exceed the accomplishments of the other runner. Can Levins meet or exceed what Rupp's doing now and will do in the future? He certainly is showing the potential, but to speak of it as a certainty is moronic. Levins still has a very long way to go simply to match what Rupp's doing now.
Cam Levins = the new Josh McDougal.
Clifford O Clavin wrote: There is no doubt.
Yes, there is no doubt that you have a secret crush on Rupp. Leave the man-boy alone.
A few Letrunners clearly spend a bit too much time watching WWE wrestling and they try to carry over the same type of mindset to their track lives. I.e. they live in a world where liking one competitor necessarily means that you hate another. Like there are good guys and bad guys and enemies and allies and all sorts of silly things like that.
Such people can't just like Cameron Levins, for example. Their fandom wouldn't really be complete if it didn't involve also bashing some other runner. They can't just say "Levins is a great runner" without linking that statement to some other statement about how much some other runner sucks.
How about this: Levins and Rupp are both great runners. I hope to see them both accomplish great things.
While you are undoubtedly right that the unwashed masses are stupid, this is actually a poor example, for at least two independent reasons.First, you actually said NOT AND, which is easily transformed into NOT OR, by simple application of De Morgan's laws. (That's basic logic).Second, the ambiguity arises from the way you expressed it in English, with one phrase as a conjunction, and the subsequent phrase containing the negation. It's ambiguous whether you mean the negation of a conjunction, or a conjunction of two negations. That is, whether you meant:NOT (5000m AND 10000m)orNOT 5000m AND NOT 10000mApplying De Morgan's laws gives a disjunction of two negations, or a negation of a disjunction, respectively:NOT 5000m OR NOT 10000morNOT (5000m OR 10000m)respectively.Combining these two ideas, means a more appropriate example would be if you had said that "you were NOT a champion runner AND a porn star". Then you can see even a third possibility of ambiguity opens up, where only the first part is negated. You can see now the importance of using English words like BOTH, EITHER, NEITHER, and NOR can remove ambiguity.Another ambiguity is whether you mean holding both records simultaneously. If Rupp loses the 10K American record, then subsequently achieves the 5K American record, would this contradict you?
Clifford O'Clavin wrote:
This is a perfect example of how stupid the unwashed masses are. You apparently believe that the word "and" can be interpreted as the word "or." It is stunning how uneducated and downright moronic some of you are. IF I said that I was a champion runner and a porn star, you apparently believe that this could mean (without any deception on my part) that I was simply a porn star but not a champion runner, or a champion runner but not a porn star, or both. What a moron.
Clifford O Clavin wrote:
I would like to apologize in advance for jinxing Cam Levins-- I suppose somebody will be bumping this thread everytime he gets injured.
He jinxed himself with the training he does. I really do hope he makes it all the way through this season and this streak continues. But most people on this website can see that it's not sustainable. He will get hurt sometime.
rekrunner wrote:
While you are undoubtedly right that the unwashed masses are stupid, this is actually a poor example, for at least two independent reasons.
First, you actually said NOT AND, which is easily transformed into NOT OR, by simple application of De Morgan's laws. (That's basic logic).
Second, the ambiguity arises from the way you expressed it in English, with one phrase as a conjunction, and the subsequent phrase containing the negation. It's ambiguous whether you mean the negation of a conjunction, or a conjunction of two negations. That is, whether you meant:
NOT (5000m AND 10000m)
or
NOT 5000m AND NOT 10000m
Applying De Morgan's laws gives a disjunction of two negations, or a negation of a disjunction, respectively:
NOT 5000m OR NOT 10000m
or
NOT (5000m OR 10000m)
respectively.
Combining these two ideas, means a more appropriate example would be if you had said that "you were NOT a champion runner AND a porn star". Then you can see even a third possibility of ambiguity opens up, where only the first part is negated. You can see now the importance of using English words like BOTH, EITHER, NEITHER, and NOR can remove ambiguity.
Another ambiguity is whether you mean holding both records simultaneously. If Rupp loses the 10K American record, then subsequently achieves the 5K American record, would this contradict you?
No,no,no.
Let me attempt to instruct you. It is false that A and B are true. It is false that Galen Rupp holds the 5000m (A) and 10,000m (B) U.S. records. In order for this claim to be true, either or both of A or B must be false, as if they were both true, the conjunction of A and B would be true, rendering its negation false. Consequently, at least one or more of A and B must be false. Since it is false that Galen Rupp holds the 5000m record, my expression was correct. This is rather rudimentary, one would have thought.
Clifford O'Clavin wrote:
Just STeffU wrote:LOL sure, you worded it awkwardly and try to blame me on it, you said Salazar held records at 5000 and 10000, that can be interpreted either way as Rupp holding one of the two records or both. You never stated that you meant holding both of them simultaneously. Also, you do not know that Rupp cannot EVER do that, you are just assuming that's just more proof you are just a hater. The fact you waste so much time trying to bash him already shows that I cannot take you seriously.
No to clarify this you have to preceed 5000 and 10,000 with the word both. ie "hold BOTH 5000 and 10000 records" read any logic book and you will see that you are using ambiguous intellectually inferior language.
No, I didn't "word it awkwardly" and try to blame you for it. I am going to try to teach an intellectual inferior and may I have the requisite patience. OK, if I said that Geb held world records in the 5000m and the 10,000m, and that this was a feat that Rupp would never achieve, everybody with intelligence would know that IF Rupp miraculously held the world record at 10,000m, he has still failed to match the achievement of Geb, and there is no need to explain this to anybody but dolts. Therefore, you are a dolt.
I hope they both do well
Clifford O Clavin wrote:
A Canadian is better at the same age than this supposedly legendary U.S. distance runner. No Salazar and gadgets.
This kid is showing Rupp how it is done. Levins will have a better career than Rupp. There is no doubt.
All the best to Cam Levins, but meteroic rises are not the ideal way to go. They are unsustainable.
Salazar and Rupp have a system of planned incremental progress year in and year out. this is how the body develops the best.
i am sure there are a number of other examples of people running better times than Rupp their junior years in college. none of them have ended up where rupp is. rupp is good because of the incremental progress not because he had a meteoric rise all at once.