You forgot one huge source of inspiration: 2016 Olympic Champion Matthew Centrowitz! Today’s young stars were 11-18 when he won that race. You better believe it left an impression on them.
So how does a 17 year old on a meagre mileage run as fast as a former Olympic champion who trained much harder?
There are so many variables at play here man, not just age and training volume. For one thing Snell ran 1:44.3 on a grass track in 1962 spikes. For another, obviously not all runners are of equal talent and it’s possible that this youngster could be more talented than any number of past Olympic champions. For another, Lydiard’s training was revolutionary and certainly seemed to work for Snell, but training methods have developed since then, using Lydiard’s premise of maximizing aerobic fitness as a building block.
While your schtick is always tedious, usually you at least can come up with better arguments than this.
Snell trained 100mpw backed up by speed work under Lydiard and at 21 he won the Olympic gold in Rome setting a new Games record. He ran 1.46.3. That is same time as a 17 year old who we are also told trains about as hard as Bannister (30mpw). Snell was one of the old time greats and a unique talent. What is this kid doing that he wasn't? What are any number of runners doing today that he wasn't? We just take it as a given that runners should be so much faster today - even those who train less - when they are physiologically essentially the same as top athletes from previous eras. Snell was way faster than runners before him because not only was he uniquely talented he was far better trained. We can't make the same claim about runners today. (And it isn't all "the shoes", and the tracks.)
There are so many variables at play here man, not just age and training volume. For one thing Snell ran 1:44.3 on a grass track in 1962 spikes. For another, obviously not all runners are of equal talent and it’s possible that this youngster could be more talented than any number of past Olympic champions. For another, Lydiard’s training was revolutionary and certainly seemed to work for Snell, but training methods have developed since then, using Lydiard’s premise of maximizing aerobic fitness as a building block.
While your schtick is always tedious, usually you at least can come up with better arguments than this.
Snell trained 100mpw backed up by speed work under Lydiard and at 21 he won the Olympic gold in Rome setting a new Games record. He ran 1.46.3. That is same time as a 17 year old who we are also told trains about as hard as Bannister (30mpw). Snell was one of the old time greats and a unique talent. What is this kid doing that he wasn't? What are any number of runners doing today that he wasn't? We just take it as a given that runners should be so much faster today - even those who train less - when they are physiologically essentially the same as top athletes from previous eras. Snell was way faster than runners before him because not only was he uniquely talented he was far better trained. We can't make the same claim about runners today. (And it isn't all "the shoes", and the tracks.)
You say Snell was a unique talent. Not in the sense that you may think. There are likely at least several thousand people born each year who have the talent to run that Snell had. They may not have Arthur Lydiard to coach them and most of them may never do much running at all, or they may be in another sport.
Snell trained 100mpw backed up by speed work under Lydiard and at 21 he won the Olympic gold in Rome setting a new Games record. He ran 1.46.3. That is same time as a 17 year old who we are also told trains about as hard as Bannister (30mpw). Snell was one of the old time greats and a unique talent. What is this kid doing that he wasn't? What are any number of runners doing today that he wasn't? We just take it as a given that runners should be so much faster today - even those who train less - when they are physiologically essentially the same as top athletes from previous eras. Snell was way faster than runners before him because not only was he uniquely talented he was far better trained. We can't make the same claim about runners today. (And it isn't all "the shoes", and the tracks.)
You say Snell was a unique talent. Not in the sense that you may think. There are likely at least several thousand people born each year who have the talent to run that Snell had. They may not have Arthur Lydiard to coach them and most of them may never do much running at all, or they may be in another sport.
You're joking. Snell was a multiple wr holder and a 3 time Olympic champion, achieving what many - including Coe - couldn't, which was to win the 800, defend it and take the 800/1500 double which only one athlete had done before him (in 1920) and none have done since. In this sport, he has to be seen as one of the greats. So pardon my scepticism at seeing a 17 year-old come from nowhere, with a fraction of his training, to match his winning time at the 1960 Olympics. It is a different sport today - and not because of greater talent or better tracks and shoes.
You don't know how long this lad has been training for. He might only be running 60km a week, but he might have been doing that since he was 5.
Snell was only 20 when he ran 1:46 and likely capable of a lot faster. It was run on cinders and 1950's spikes. Those alone are worth 2 seconds. Not sure how you can continue to pretend that tracks and shoes don't make a difference.
Even if Snell's training was largely the same as today's elite, there are a myriad details that must add up, from nutrition to plyometrics. Dutch 17 year olds are at least an inch taller than they were in the 19t0's. That alone must make a difference. Or is it that down to doping?
You don't know how long this lad has been training for. He might only be running 60km a week, but he might have been doing that since he was 5.
Snell was only 20 when he ran 1:46 and likely capable of a lot faster. It was run on cinders and 1950's spikes. Those alone are worth 2 seconds. Not sure how you can continue to pretend that tracks and shoes don't make a difference.
Even if Snell's training was largely the same as today's elite, there are a myriad details that must add up, from nutrition to plyometrics. Dutch 17 year olds are at least an inch taller than they were in the 19t0's. That alone must make a difference. Or is it that down to doping?
- Snell was 21 and just shy of his 22nd birthday when he won in Rome.
- Tracks and shoes may make a difference but what is your authority for claiming it is effectively a full second per lap over cinder tracks?
- Where is it stated the youngster may have been training 60k per week since he was 5? (I would think that extremely unlikely without causing him irreparable damage at an early age).
- What is the evidence that early training translates to Olympic-level performance by the mid to late teens, if not maturity? Some of your favorite examples of those you consider clean athletes had trained for only a couple of years before they became world beaters - Elliott began training with Cerutty after the '56 Olympics and became the world mile record holder in '58. Snell began training with Lydiard in '58 and was Olympic champion in '60. Years of training are not necessary to produce the best athletes and certainly not training that began before puberty.
- Where is it shown that height is an advantage in md or distance running? Elliott and Snell were 5'11", Coe about 5'8", Morceli about the same, El G 5'9" and Bekele 5'8". Few top md runners are over 6'0". Big doesn't necessarily equate with better in md and distance running.
- A healthy diet is still generally considered to be proteins, carbs, and fats - meat, vegetables, nuts and fruit. That is for athletes as well as the person in the street. So what has modern "nutrition" added to that (apart from drugs) to transform athletes?
- It has been known for several decades that drugs have infiltrated every sport. They are being used even at high school and college level. Doping has become more sophisticated and hard than ever to detect. No athlete could hope to be the best now without it. Sure - there will have been impovements in sports over the last few decades - particularly those that are skill-based and involve significant technology (like golf and tennis). But that isn't running. The improvements in tracks and shoes won't account for everything.
According to the much favoured Occam's Razor around here, doping offers the best and simplest explanation for how even very talented youngsters, like a 17 year old, can chase the best performances of some of the past greats in the sport. One thing we know for certain - it can't be ruled out and with the nature of elite sport now it is more likely than not.
You don't know how long this lad has been training for. He might only be running 60km a week, but he might have been doing that since he was 5.
Snell was only 20 when he ran 1:46 and likely capable of a lot faster. It was run on cinders and 1950's spikes. Those alone are worth 2 seconds. Not sure how you can continue to pretend that tracks and shoes don't make a difference.
Even if Snell's training was largely the same as today's elite, there are a myriad details that must add up, from nutrition to plyometrics. Dutch 17 year olds are at least an inch taller than they were in the 19t0's. That alone must make a difference. Or is it that down to doping?
- Snell was 21 and just shy of his 22nd birthday when he won in Rome.
- Tracks and shoes may make a difference but what is your authority for claiming it is effectively a full second per lap over cinder tracks?
- Where is it stated the youngster may have been training 60k per week since he was 5? (I would think that extremely unlikely without causing him irreparable damage at an early age).
- What is the evidence that early training translates to Olympic-level performance by the mid to late teens, if not maturity? Some of your favorite examples of those you consider clean athletes had trained for only a couple of years before they became world beaters - Elliott began training with Cerutty after the '56 Olympics and became the world mile record holder in '58. Snell began training with Lydiard in '58 and was Olympic champion in '60. Years of training are not necessary to produce the best athletes and certainly not training that began before puberty.
- Where is it shown that height is an advantage in md or distance running? Elliott and Snell were 5'11", Coe about 5'8", Morceli about the same, El G 5'9" and Bekele 5'8". Few top md runners are over 6'0". Big doesn't necessarily equate with better in md and distance running.
- A healthy diet is still generally considered to be proteins, carbs, and fats - meat, vegetables, nuts and fruit. That is for athletes as well as the person in the street. So what has modern "nutrition" added to that (apart from drugs) to transform athletes?
- It has been known for several decades that drugs have infiltrated every sport. They are being used even at high school and college level. Doping has become more sophisticated and hard than ever to detect. No athlete could hope to be the best now without it. Sure - there will have been impovements in sports over the last few decades - particularly those that are skill-based and involve significant technology (like golf and tennis). But that isn't running. The improvements in tracks and shoes won't account for everything.
According to the much favoured Occam's Razor around here, doping offers the best and simplest explanation for how even very talented youngsters, like a 17 year old, can chase the best performances of some of the past greats in the sport. One thing we know for certain - it can't be ruled out and with the nature of elite sport now it is more likely than not.
You are accusing a minor of doping. I know what I would do if that was my son.
i wouldnt know if hes doping or not,but i do know athletes are doping younger ,and also a lot of countries have been playing "catch up",especially in europe.i cant say i blame them.usually though its only the less sophisticated dopers/regimes that get caught.europeans,americans and some others protect their athletes,and hide their drug regimes.
You don't know how long this lad has been training for. He might only be running 60km a week, but he might have been doing that since he was 5.
Snell was only 20 when he ran 1:46 and likely capable of a lot faster. It was run on cinders and 1950's spikes. Those alone are worth 2 seconds. Not sure how you can continue to pretend that tracks and shoes don't make a difference.
Even if Snell's training was largely the same as today's elite, there are a myriad details that must add up, from nutrition to plyometrics. Dutch 17 year olds are at least an inch taller than they were in the 19t0's. That alone must make a difference. Or is it that down to doping?
- Snell was 21 and just shy of his 22nd birthday when he won in Rome.
- Tracks and shoes may make a difference but what is your authority for claiming it is effectively a full second per lap over cinder tracks?
- Where is it stated the youngster may have been training 60k per week since he was 5? (I would think that extremely unlikely without causing him irreparable damage at an early age).
- What is the evidence that early training translates to Olympic-level performance by the mid to late teens, if not maturity? Some of your favorite examples of those you consider clean athletes had trained for only a couple of years before they became world beaters - Elliott began training with Cerutty after the '56 Olympics and became the world mile record holder in '58. Snell began training with Lydiard in '58 and was Olympic champion in '60. Years of training are not necessary to produce the best athletes and certainly not training that began before puberty.
- Where is it shown that height is an advantage in md or distance running? Elliott and Snell were 5'11", Coe about 5'8", Morceli about the same, El G 5'9" and Bekele 5'8". Few top md runners are over 6'0". Big doesn't necessarily equate with better in md and distance running.
- A healthy diet is still generally considered to be proteins, carbs, and fats - meat, vegetables, nuts and fruit. That is for athletes as well as the person in the street. So what has modern "nutrition" added to that (apart from drugs) to transform athletes?
- It has been known for several decades that drugs have infiltrated every sport. They are being used even at high school and college level. Doping has become more sophisticated and hard than ever to detect. No athlete could hope to be the best now without it. Sure - there will have been impovements in sports over the last few decades - particularly those that are skill-based and involve significant technology (like golf and tennis). But that isn't running. The improvements in tracks and shoes won't account for everything.
According to the much favoured Occam's Razor around here, doping offers the best and simplest explanation for how even very talented youngsters, like a 17 year old, can chase the best performances of some of the past greats in the sport. One thing we know for certain - it can't be ruled out and with the nature of elite sport now it is more likely than not.
So essentially every young kid running great times is guilty of doping until proven innocent? That modern tracks and shoes have had a huge benefit in times is pretty much widely acccepted as far as I can see. It's obvious from the fact that times have improved in the last few years and approached the full throttle times in many events (and even exceeded them). Of course, it might be partly due to doping, but it's hard to believe the elite today are as doping anything like to the level of the EPO era.
You're as bad as Rekrunner claiming that the burdon of proof is on us to prove beyond doubt even convicted dopers are guilty.
I have no idea how much training this kid has had. Either do you. The idea that he only trains 50Km a week is based entirely upon his recent Strava for Christ's Sake, and you're the one using it as evidence of doping.
OK, so Elliott running 11 seconds faster than Gunder Hagg, at age 20 and with scarecely 2 years of training, is clean running? Right. Elliott also ran 1:46.7 at age 20. You're saying he did that on no more than 2 years of training. You also say that height and physical development doesn't make any difference in times. In that case, why should it surprise you that a 17 year old could ran as fast as Elliott? In fact, it shouldn't surprise you if a 5 year old could with 2 years training. Why can't 17 year old's run as fast as greats of the past if they are the same height and weight and have done as much training?
Better nutrition is the best explanation as to why 17 year olds today are taller than their peers decades ago.
Occams Razor does not prove that a 17 year old must be doping to run as fast as 20 year old off 2 years training 62 years ago. You have to explain how and why a 17 year old could get away with doping in a Western country with low corruption and strict anti-doping controls. You have to explain why if even every kid is doped out of their minds that there aren't more doping busts, and why it is the obvious dopers that get busted, and why there are so many more doping busts in Kenya where doping controls are (still) nowhere near the level of the West.
You say Snell was a unique talent. Not in the sense that you may think. There are likely at least several thousand people born each year who have the talent to run that Snell had. They may not have Arthur Lydiard to coach them and most of them may never do much running at all, or they may be in another sport.
You're joking. Snell was a multiple wr holder and a 3 time Olympic champion, achieving what many - including Coe - couldn't, which was to win the 800, defend it and take the 800/1500 double which only one athlete had done before him (in 1920) and none have done since. In this sport, he has to be seen as one of the greats. So pardon my scepticism at seeing a 17 year-old come from nowhere, with a fraction of his training, to match his winning time at the 1960 Olympics. It is a different sport today - and not because of greater talent or better tracks and shoes.
An athlete has done it since 1964, Tatyana Kazankina, in 1976.
You're joking. Snell was a multiple wr holder and a 3 time Olympic champion, achieving what many - including Coe - couldn't, which was to win the 800, defend it and take the 800/1500 double which only one athlete had done before him (in 1920) and none have done since. In this sport, he has to be seen as one of the greats. So pardon my scepticism at seeing a 17 year-old come from nowhere, with a fraction of his training, to match his winning time at the 1960 Olympics. It is a different sport today - and not because of greater talent or better tracks and shoes.
An athlete has done it since 1964, Tatyana Kazankina, in 1976.
An E Bloc athlete, at the height of their state-sponsored doping. No male has done it since Snell.
So essentially every young kid running great times is guilty of doping until proven innocent? That modern tracks and shoes have had a huge benefit in times is pretty much widely acccepted as far as I can see. It's obvious from the fact that times have improved in the last few years and approached the full throttle times in many events (and even exceeded them). Of course, it might be partly due to doping, but it's hard to believe the elite today are as doping anything like to the level of the EPO era.
You're as bad as Rekrunner claiming that the burdon of proof is on us to prove beyond doubt even convicted dopers are guilty.
I have no idea how much training this kid has had. Either do you. The idea that he only trains 50Km a week is based entirely upon his recent Strava for Christ's Sake, and you're the one using it as evidence of doping.
OK, so Elliott running 11 seconds faster than Gunder Hagg, at age 20 and with scarecely 2 years of training, is clean running? Right. Elliott also ran 1:46.7 at age 20. You're saying he did that on no more than 2 years of training. You also say that height and physical development doesn't make any difference in times. In that case, why should it surprise you that a 17 year old could ran as fast as Elliott? In fact, it shouldn't surprise you if a 5 year old could with 2 years training. Why can't 17 year old's run as fast as greats of the past if they are the same height and weight and have done as much training?
Better nutrition is the best explanation as to why 17 year olds today are taller than their peers decades ago.
Occams Razor does not prove that a 17 year old must be doping to run as fast as 20 year old off 2 years training 62 years ago. You have to explain how and why a 17 year old could get away with doping in a Western country with low corruption and strict anti-doping controls. You have to explain why if even every kid is doped out of their minds that there aren't more doping busts, and why it is the obvious dopers that get busted, and why there are so many more doping busts in Kenya where doping controls are (still) nowhere near the level of the West.
- The antidoping experts have said that very few dopers are caught and it is generally only "the dumb and the careless". Clearly, doping will be much more widespread than the doping busts suggest. Done expertly, very few will be caught. It is known to be present in all countries and in all sports at elite levels, notwithstanding different degrees of anti-doping control. As David Howman has said, "doping is more sophisticated than antidoping". Anyone, anywhere could dope and get away with it. And they do. Your "EPO era" is certainly not over - it is just harder to catch them. I have that on the authority of top WADA officials.
- You still don't say what the confirmed improvement in times will be from either shoes or tracks. I'm not saying they won't help but it may be nothing like you think - particularly if undetected doping features in those improvements.
- I took the figure of his given training to suggest it lacked credibility for explaining his performance. If he generally trains harder than that - we don't know - it still doesn't convince me that it enables a 17 year old to run at the level of former champions who were several years older. There is a gulf in physiological development between a 17 year old and a 20 or 21 year old. Training does not bridge that gulf if the older more mature athletes have also trained hard.
- You don't address the point that most md runners are not big athletes. Most are under 6'0". (Juantorena was a rare exception). I don't know how tall this youngster is but he doesn't need to be bigger than athletes like Coe (5'8") and El G (5'9") to be the best. Further - what exactly is the "nutrition" that makes athletes faster today, who are the same build as athletes of yesteryear?
- I didn't say every young athlete is doping - they won't be. But some will. At a certain point there are performances that can arouse suspicion. In my view, this is one of them.
- The antidoping experts have said that very few dopers are caught and it is generally only "the dumb and the careless". Clearly, doping will be much more widespread than the doping busts suggest. Done expertly, very few will be caught. It is known to be present in all countries and in all sports at elite levels, notwithstanding different degrees of anti-doping control. As David Howman has said, "doping is more sophisticated than antidoping". Anyone, anywhere could dope and get away with it. And they do. Your "EPO era" is certainly not over - it is just harder to catch them. I have that on the authority of top WADA officials.
- You still don't say what the confirmed improvement in times will be from either shoes or tracks. I'm not saying they won't help but it may be nothing like you think - particularly if undetected doping features in those improvements.
- I took the figure of his given training to suggest it lacked credibility for explaining his performance. If he generally trains harder than that - we don't know - it still doesn't convince me that it enables a 17 year old to run at the level of former champions who were several years older. There is a gulf in physiological development between a 17 year old and a 20 or 21 year old. Training does not bridge that gulf if the older more mature athletes have also trained hard.
- You don't address the point that most md runners are not big athletes. Most are under 6'0". (Juantorena was a rare exception). I don't know how tall this youngster is but he doesn't need to be bigger than athletes like Coe (5'8") and El G (5'9") to be the best. Further - what exactly is the "nutrition" that makes athletes faster today, who are the same build as athletes of yesteryear?
- I didn't say every young athlete is doping - they won't be. But some will. At a certain point there are performances that can arouse suspicion. In my view, this is one of them.
Do you think John Walker was doping, Armstrong?
Still trying, I see, from the thread where you were deleted. He wasn't Lasse Viren or an E Bloc athlete in '76 so I guess probably not.
No. Burgin is the Jakob equivalent in the 800m. He ran 1:45.36 as a U18.
The thing about Laros is that his 800m PB was 1:50.46 until last week.
His other PBs are 3:43.4, 8:04.1 and 13:57.
Ot is now believed that he can run sub 3:40 and be better than Jakob was as a U18 in the 1500m. He just needs an opportunity to do that in the next week or two.
Well, four American high schoolers have run within .3s of Laros's time at 18 and 19 years old, and three of those didn't have high level runners as parents to get them an early start, so why would this be suspicious to you? Snell ran 1:44 anyway. A 1:46 in an Olympic final doesn't mean too much. Some Olympic finals are tactical. Centro ran 3:50 in his victory. By your logic, shouldn't it then be much more suspicious that Laros ran 7 seconds faster in his pr 1500m race (and he surely can run much faster than that now) than the 2016 Olympic champion?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.