OSAGA......
You must be an oldie like me.....I remember this brand coming out in the late 70's.....Later turned into AVIA I believe....
Wonder how many folks here have ever heard of them.
OSAGA......
You must be an oldie like me.....I remember this brand coming out in the late 70's.....Later turned into AVIA I believe....
Wonder how many folks here have ever heard of them.
bekele = sub 26 10k.
Les wrote:
For the alternate reality Salazar to be more successful he would have to have a different personality. He was extremely driven and extremely impatient to succeed. While talented, he was not the most talented runner. He compensated for his relative lack of talent by training more and more until finally his body gave out. Ironically, Salazar the coach might be the best coach for this alternate reality 20 year old Salazar, just from his past experience with overtraining.
good take.
the point is his posture got really bad in time, he didn't start with the bad form.
rojo wrote:
tarckstar wrote:
The marathon, though, I could see him running a 2:06 to start, and probably getting to a 2:03 mid after a few - assuming he didn't run NYC, NYC, Boston, NYC.
.... I think his best would be a 2:03 low at a London or Berlin, maybe taking one or the other when Kipchoge retires.
April Fools isn't until next week. Is this meant to be a joke?
2:03 low? Repeat after me. You think he's a minute better than Haile Gebrsleassie at the marathon?
I think you could let Salazar be on every drug he's ever dreamed of being on and he wouldn't run close to 2:03 low.
Are you aware the the non-African world record is basically 2:06 flat for more than 20 years. Da Costa ran 2:06:05 in 1998. Moen ran like 2:05:48 in 2017.
I don't think he'd run much faster than he did (other than the 4% shoe)s. The problem with Salazar wasn't his training - it was the 'repeatability of his training.'
If you crush yourself in training, you F up you thyroid and don't have a long career (unless you take drugs).
Apparently you don't recall all the studies showing that Salazar's form was incredibly efficient, despite its awkwardness. He, and everyone else, could see a 2:05 in 1981. What I said was that if that same person was alive right now, in a world of 2:00/01, yes, given how much money Nike throws around, he could do a low 2:03 in the right race. It doesn't matter who he'd be better than (he'd be better that Rupp), that's not much of a reach.
Rojo, what do you put Salazar's "short" 2:08 at NYC, on the course Rupp ran the 2:06 at?
If he was 20 today, he would still be 60 tomorrow...Sooooo, pretty short career.
rojo wrote:
tarckstar wrote:
The marathon, though, I could see him running a 2:06 to start, and probably getting to a 2:03 mid after a few - assuming he didn't run NYC, NYC, Boston, NYC.
.... I think his best would be a 2:03 low at a London or Berlin, maybe taking one or the other when Kipchoge retires.
April Fools isn't until next week. Is this meant to be a joke?
2:03 low? Repeat after me. You think he's a minute better than Haile Gebrsleassie at the marathon?
I think you could let Salazar be on every drug he's ever dreamed of being on and he wouldn't run close to 2:03 low.
Are you aware the the non-African world record is basically 2:06 flat for more than 20 years. Da Costa ran 2:06:05 in 1998. Moen ran like 2:05:48 in 2017.
I don't think he'd run much faster than he did (other than the 4% shoe)s. The problem with Salazar wasn't his training - it was the 'repeatability of his training.'
If you crush yourself in training, you F up you thyroid and don't have a long career (unless you take drugs).
Given your rationale, Guye Adola is better than Haile. Thanks for clearing that up.
Les wrote:
For the alternate reality Salazar to be more successful he would have to have a different personality. He was extremely driven and extremely impatient to succeed. While talented, he was not the most talented runner. He compensated for his relative lack of talent by training more and more until finally his body gave out. Ironically, Salazar the coach might be the best coach for this alternate reality 20 year old Salazar, just from his past experience with overtraining.
No, Salazar was extremely talented and maybe the most talented marathoner in the world at that time. The goal in training should to do the least amount possible and still maximize results and Salazar went way past that point. Just about any elite runner is capable of overtraining and the the ones who had longer careers trained closer to the optimal amount.
The idea that Salazar was tougher than everyone else is a myth. Guys like Lopes, Castella and Seko were as tough as it gets.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Les wrote:
For the alternate reality Salazar to be more successful he would have to have a different personality. He was extremely driven and extremely impatient to succeed. While talented, he was not the most talented runner. He compensated for his relative lack of talent by training more and more until finally his body gave out. Ironically, Salazar the coach might be the best coach for this alternate reality 20 year old Salazar, just from his past experience with overtraining.
No, Salazar was extremely talented and maybe the most talented marathoner in the world at that time. The goal in training should to do the least amount possible and still maximize results and Salazar went way past that point. Just about any elite runner is capable of overtraining and the the ones who had longer careers trained closer to the optimal amount.
The idea that Salazar was tougher than everyone else is a myth. Guys like Lopes, Castella and Seko were as tough as it gets.
Maybe as a marathoner, but we never really saw the best of Salazar as a marathoner, his peak was too short. Talent extends beyond the physical level. On the mental side of things, Salazar was wrong because he went to extremes. It was always more, more, more. Guys like Lopes, de Castella and Seko stuck to their plans and as a result had good, long careers.
On the track, there were lots of guys more physically talented, even on the Oregon team. Rudy had more talent than Salazar. Centro Senior also. Possibly even Jeff Nelson. Salazar during his best track season where he set his lifetime PRs couldn't beat out of shape, alcoholic Henry Rono.
Salazar was shell shocked after Rotterdamn 83, I figure. He could do no wrong up until that point, then suddenly the world ran away from him, including Lopes (!), who couldn't even FINISH at New York the previous fall. Which is really too bad, I think Lopes not dropping out at 20 miles that day would have taken both Salazar and Gomez, and re-written history even sooner.
I don't see Salazar doing things any differently, though, so his fall back then might have been even more dramatic. Maybe not even making the 84 team in the marathon?
This said, I still say his 2:08 in 81 is a 2:06 on today's courses, with no other changes. Put him in 4% shoes, or whatever crazy thing Nike would come up with to enhance his stride, and I put him at 2:05 flat. I don't think it's a reach, again, to say that if he somehow didn't overtrain and go off the deep end, he's closer to 2:03 than 2:04 by the time he's done. (Assuming he was running at London, Berlin or Dubai, like everyone seeking a fast time should).
And just remember, Adola is better than Haile.
Les wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
No, Salazar was extremely talented and maybe the most talented marathoner in the world at that time. The goal in training should to do the least amount possible and still maximize results and Salazar went way past that point. Just about any elite runner is capable of overtraining and the the ones who had longer careers trained closer to the optimal amount.
The idea that Salazar was tougher than everyone else is a myth. Guys like Lopes, Castella and Seko were as tough as it gets.
Maybe as a marathoner, but we never really saw the best of Salazar as a marathoner, his peak was too short. Talent extends beyond the physical level. On the mental side of things, Salazar was wrong because he went to extremes. It was always more, more, more. Guys like Lopes, de Castella and Seko stuck to their plans and as a result had good, long careers.
On the track, there were lots of guys more physically talented, even on the Oregon team. Rudy had more talent than Salazar. Centro Senior also. Possibly even Jeff Nelson. Salazar during his best track season where he set his lifetime PRs couldn't beat out of shape, alcoholic Henry Rono.
Centro senior could never have beaten Salazar at 10000 and his 5000 AR ended up being 1 second slower than Salazar's PR. Whether Chapa could have ever run 13:11/27:25 is an unknown. A guy you didn't mention, McChesney, ran some very fast times between injuries.
Your out of shape, alcoholic guy ran 27:30 that day he beat Salazar. I'm also out of shape, but I need to start drinking more.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Salazar significantly shortened his career by overtraining. I've heard he trained as much as 180mpw and it caused a breakdown of his immune system. With more rational training he would have been a medal threat in both the 84 and 88 Olympic marathons.
I think he might have been better, but I doubt he would have had success during the Olympics. He was notoriously poor in the heat and I do not think any training or modern stuff would have helped with that.
tarckstar wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Training methods have improved immensely? How so? Coe won two 1500 golds during the time Salazar was competing. How much faster would he have run using today's immensely superior methods?
Coe ran as fast as he was able to, I don't think he left anything on the track in his fastest times. I know some here can forever extrapolate his times to be faster and faster, but I think the personal bests of Sebastian Coe are as good as possible.
Salazar, given less overtraining, might have been top-5 at the LA games, and might have gone high 2:06 at Rotterdam in 85 or 86. He was saying when he was winning that he could see a 2:05 or 2:06 before he was done, something like that, and I think he would have gotten there. It's too bad it all went south starting in 83.
I think top 5 in LA in 1984 is optimistic. The guy did not do well in the heat. Lab testing showed he had an incredibly high sweat rate. Nothing I know of can help with that.
tarckstar wrote:
rojo wrote:
April Fools isn't until next week. Is this meant to be a joke?
2:03 low? Repeat after me. You think he's a minute better than Haile Gebrsleassie at the marathon?
I think you could let Salazar be on every drug he's ever dreamed of being on and he wouldn't run close to 2:03 low.
Are you aware the the non-African world record is basically 2:06 flat for more than 20 years. Da Costa ran 2:06:05 in 1998. Moen ran like 2:05:48 in 2017.
I don't think he'd run much faster than he did (other than the 4% shoe)s. The problem with Salazar wasn't his training - it was the 'repeatability of his training.'
If you crush yourself in training, you F up you thyroid and don't have a long career (unless you take drugs).
Apparently you don't recall all the studies showing that Salazar's form was incredibly efficient, despite its awkwardness. He, and everyone else, could see a 2:05 in 1981. What I said was that if that same person was alive right now, in a world of 2:00/01, yes, given how much money Nike throws around, he could do a low 2:03 in the right race. It doesn't matter who he'd be better than (he'd be better that Rupp), that's not much of a reach.
Rojo, what do you put Salazar's "short" 2:08 at NYC, on the course Rupp ran the 2:06 at?
I have read a lot of articles saying AlSal was economical (efficiency is NOT the proper term), but if you can point to actual numbers I would be very interested to see those. I did find this article quoting Jack Daniels saying AlSal was really economical--the best part is measuring running economy at 6min/mile pace!
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/fashion/11Best.htmlSDSU Aztec wrote:
Les wrote:
For the alternate reality Salazar to be more successful he would have to have a different personality. He was extremely driven and extremely impatient to succeed. While talented, he was not the most talented runner. He compensated for his relative lack of talent by training more and more until finally his body gave out. Ironically, Salazar the coach might be the best coach for this alternate reality 20 year old Salazar, just from his past experience with overtraining.
No, Salazar was extremely talented and maybe the most talented marathoner in the world at that time. The goal in training should to do the least amount possible and still maximize results and Salazar went way past that point. Just about any elite runner is capable of overtraining and the the ones who had longer careers trained closer to the optimal amount.
The idea that Salazar was tougher than everyone else is a myth. Guys like Lopes, Castella and Seko were as tough as it gets.
I am glad to see someone else pointing out finding that sweet spot of training. Too many folks add load and see a decline and never think "Hmmm I was running better with fewer miles (or intervals or whatever)".
How do you measure "toughness"? The "you" here is not specifically SDSU Aztec.
Say what you will about the "short" NYC course in 1981, but until Salazar went 2:08.13 there, it's debatable anyone had been under 2:09. Regardless:
Salazar 2:08.13 1981 NYC
Deek 2:08:18 1981 Fukuoka
Jones 2:08.05 1984 Chicago
Lopes 2:07.12 1985 Rotterdam
Dinsamo 2:06:50 1988 Rotterdam
What's the common thread with the Fukuoka, Chicago and Rotterdam courses, compared to NYC? But for whatever reasons, Salazar could have been epic.
Your out of shape, alcoholic guy ran 27:30 that day he beat Salazar. I'm also out of shape, but I need to start drinking more.
For the younger guys around here, when Salazar lost to Rono, he was experimenting to determine the feasibility of a 10,000/Marathon double in LA. He ended up running within seconds of the AR for 10,000 and nine days later running a 2:08:52 Course Record to beat Beardsley in Boston (which later became recognized as the AR).
He had also won Silver at World Cross a couple of weeks before this double in March 1982. Roughly two months after the double, he set ARs at 5,000 and 10,000. This was all before his 24th Birthday.
The knowledge coaches and athletes have about training today is so much more vast than the run-himself-into-the-ground approach Salazar took in the 80s. I have no doubt he would have given himself a bigger training window and extended the time he had to reach his peak. Who knows if he would get down to 2:05 or faster, but, with proper coaching and recovery, I bet he would have been right up there.
Not long wrote:
He wouldn’t be able to take the drugs he was taking then.
Exactly, he would be taking state of the art drugs and be a solid 10 seconds per mile faster.
If elephants were very very small and very very light I could carry one in my pocket.
Physical talent doesn't mean comparing lifetime PRs. Those are times. I'm talking about what people are born with. Salazar had talent (but no speed) but his main talent was pushing himself in training. Even though his pro career was short, it still eclipsed all those other guys except maybe Centro Senior. The others got injured, lost motivation etc. What does that tell you about how much talent Henry Rono had as opposed to Salazar? A lot. Reverse their positions, have Rono in the best shape of his life race an unmotivated, boozer Salazar and Salazar would have been embarrassed.