Would Pre have run in the 1984 Olympics?

MechJony wrote:

He was a great runner but not outstanding

What is the difference between "Great" and "Oustanding". Should we say "MOOAT" instead of "GOAT"?

Yazzoo wrote:

Kobbs Hessler wrote:

He would have been only 33 so perhaps a successful marathoner by that point. Carlos Lopes was 37 when he won the Olympic marathon in Los Angeles. Or would Pre have burned himself out by then, or been on the decline for other reasons?

Wasn't Yifter like 36-37 running 13:16 in 1980- which was maybe 3 seconds off his all time PR. I absolutely think Pre could have gone through 1980 at least, age 29 and improved 10 seconds to 13:11. Would not have been able to beat Rono though -13:08 at age 26. Not sure he would have moved up to marathon after that, maybe the 10k. I think Pre beat Yifter in 1971.

Moorcroft was 29 years old when he set the World record of 13:00.41 in 1982,

No one really knew how old Yifter was, but what an amazing runner to watch. His explosive finishes were like no one else before or since. He left the best in the world looking like Sunday hobby joggers with 300 meters to go.

Kobbs Hessler wrote:

Lopes was a compete freak of nature, and likely doped to the gills. Back in the 80s, distance runners generally speaking didn't "age" as well as they do today. Hell, Jim Ryan was done at 25. If Pre got some kind of medal in '76 he may have stuck with it a bit more. But the 1980 boycott would have been a huge blow. Who knows if competing on American soil in '84 would have enticed him out of retirement, and if he'd still have been any good. He'd have needed 2:11 at the '84 trials. Seems a stretch.

I don't know how old you are, but I have never heard a peep about him being on drugs. Lopes was an incredibly talented runner but hardly a freak of nature. In fact, his teammate Fernando Mamede held the WR in the 10K around the same time frame.

wellletssee wrote:

Kobbs Hessler wrote:

Lopes was a compete freak of nature, and likely doped to the gills. Back in the 80s, distance runners generally speaking didn't "age" as well as they do today. Hell, Jim Ryan was done at 25. If Pre got some kind of medal in '76 he may have stuck with it a bit more. But the 1980 boycott would have been a huge blow. Who knows if competing on American soil in '84 would have enticed him out of retirement, and if he'd still have been any good. He'd have needed 2:11 at the '84 trials. Seems a stretch.

I don't know how old you are, but I have never heard a peep about him being on drugs. Lopes was an incredibly talented runner but hardly a freak of nature. In fact, his teammate Fernando Mamede held the WR in the 10K around the same time frame.

It is very strange for any runner to not peak until their late 20s, and then re-peak even higher at 37/38. Especially four decades ago! Consider that Italian guy who won the 100m in Tokyo last summer at 26 having never shown such form. Many eyebrows raised. Most sprinters peak much younger.

Kobbs Hessler wrote:

wellletssee wrote:

I don't know how old you are, but I have never heard a peep about him being on drugs. Lopes was an incredibly talented runner but hardly a freak of nature. In fact, his teammate Fernando Mamede held the WR in the 10K around the same time frame.

It is very strange for any runner to not peak until their late 20s, and then re-peak even higher at 37/38. Especially four decades ago! Consider that Italian guy who won the 100m in Tokyo last summer at 26 having never shown such form. Many eyebrows raised. Most sprinters peak much younger.

Lopes was hindered by injuries for several years after the 1976 Olympics. I've never heard of any doping allegations against Lopes.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

MechJony wrote:

He was a great runner but not outstanding

What is the difference between "Great" and "Oustanding".

Concurrently holding 7 US outdoor track records, including the 3k, 5k, and 10k, seems outstanding.

I’m surprised you didn’t mention John F. Kennedy. He is perhaps the leading figure in this particular category.

DragonLady wrote:

Ernest wrote:

Pre was a decent runner, but if he hadn't died, he wouldn't be the figure he is now.

Like James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, etc. - Dying freezes you in time at a point when your popularity and ability is peak. Elvis was a legend - even dying at42, we already saw a fat past-his-prime Elvis with a waning career, infidelity, and addicted to drugs, alcohol, and sex.

Back to Pre, if could make the Team, you'd absolutely think he'd want to be at the 1984 Games - with a horde of top talent boycotting, a lot of Americans had their best shot at medals.

I’m surprised you didn’t mention John F. Kennedy. He is perhaps the leading figure in this particular category.

Of course, Abraham Lincoln is another. If not for their assassinations, neither would be remembered as fondly as they are today. In fact, had they both survived to old age, it’s quite possible that they would have been remembered as two of the worst presidents in American history. In fact, their assassinations are precisely the reason that both presidencies have tended to elude sharp scrutiny.

Kobbs Hessler wrote:

He would have been only 33 so perhaps a successful marathoner by that point. Carlos Lopes was 37 when he won the Olympic marathon in Los Angeles. Or would Pre have burned himself out by then, or been on the decline for other reasons?

The problem would have been making a living. It is not like Nike was a goliath it is now. Read Shoe Dog to learn about the early financial struggles. AAU/USATF might have questioned his working for them anyway based on the rules at the time and how they were being interpreted. The athlete was not being given the benefit of the doubt.

Pre may have decided that the 'Finnish method' was his best chance of beating Viren et al. in 76. Pre infused with reindeer milk would have been an awesome sight, and perhaps the first man under 13:00 a decade before Aouita.

If he had transitioned to the dark side, then by 84 he may have been gorging on HGH, Mexican burritos, you name it. A sub 2:05 marathon would have been possible even at 37.