Isn't that how it's typically used in sports and the arts? It's not just who's the best in the country in a given year. It's who is truly exceptional. Would you say every kid who ran between 4:01 and 4:05 in that era was a prodigy?
Only the ones who do 4:01 which makes Magness a prodigy. You're just disagreeing for the sake of being disagreeable.
You can't read my mind. I'm disagreeing because I believe words have meaning.
Examples of middle distance running prodigies: Jim Ryun Alan Webb Jakob Ingebrigtsen Niels Laros Cooper Lutkenhaus Sam Ruthe
Steve does not belong in that group. It's okay to reserve special distinctions for the truly exceptional.
He makes some points about more good coaches and genetics. But too much bro science glossing over the shoes. Most people say “oh it’s about a second or a second and half” based on the data. That’s bro science and wrong. The only way to know is to place someone on a treadmill and measure their oxygen consumption without the shoes and then measure oxygen consumption with the carbon plate shoes. When scientists do that we see a 3-4% increase in running economy. To put that in perspective for a 4:00 mile each 1% is +2.4 seconds. That means at 4% this is almost a 10 second advantage per mile at 4:00 mile paces. This is basic science. Just most people are in denial and want to “believe”.
A 3% improvement in running economy does not give you a 3% improvement in performance.
Maybe you should not be accusing someone of using "bro science".
Also, he is far from "glossing over" the difference shoes can make.
I take issue with Magness referring to himself as a track prodigy
He absolutely was a prodigy. He was near 4:00 in HS at a time when Americans were far from it. We're spoiled these days; but at that time, it was very different.
Training, footwear, nutrition, and racing strategies (i.e. drafting) have all been shown to reduce the metabolic cost of distance running (i.e. improve runni...
A critical implication of a curvilinear gross O2-velocity relation is that at fast running velocities, a 1% improvement in RE translates to smaller (<1%) improvements in running velocity and thus a less than directly proportional performance benefit. This inherent upward curvilinearity, has not previously been accounted for in models to predict running performance (di Prampero et al., 1986; McLaughlin et al., 2010).
He makes some points about more good coaches and genetics. But too much bro science glossing over the shoes. Most people say “oh it’s about a second or a second and half” based on the data. That’s bro science and wrong. The only way to know is to place someone on a treadmill and measure their oxygen consumption without the shoes and then measure oxygen consumption with the carbon plate shoes. When scientists do that we see a 3-4% increase in running economy. To put that in perspective for a 4:00 mile each 1% is +2.4 seconds. That means at 4% this is almost a 10 second advantage per mile at 4:00 mile paces. This is basic science. Just most people are in denial and want to “believe”.
1% efficiency gains does not lead to 1% performance gains. Jacob did not go from like 3:32 in the old shoes to 3:22.nobody did. 2-3s is a reasonable guess of the shift
Now some people might have gained more. 4% is the average but you have some people at 2% and some at 6%. And 3s is enough to turn you from a 4:02 miler to a 3:59
Running economy is not efficiency. The terms are often inappropriately used interchangeably.
Most kids do just enough to win races and scholarships. There's no point trying to run a 3:50 mile if 4:00 makes you the best teenager in the country. Getting good grades and having a social life are more important... track can come later.
So generally the only reason for a 16 year old to run ludicrous times is because some other kids are running fast. That's why they come in groups. Probably loads of athletes who run super fast in their early 20s could have done it as teenagers, there just wasn't any reason to prioritize it over other teenager stuff.
Isn't that how it's typically used in sports and the arts? It's not just who's the best in the country in a given year. It's who is truly exceptional. Would you say every kid who ran between 4:01 and 4:05 in that era was a prodigy?
How many guys +/- 5 years of his graduation year ran faster than Magness? 2? Just Webb? Even going all the way to 4:05 would be just a couple dozen kids out of hundreds of thousands. Yeah I think that’s prodigious.
I think the word you want is generational, which to be fair, does get thrown around too much in sports
Isn't that how it's typically used in sports and the arts? It's not just who's the best in the country in a given year. It's who is truly exceptional. Would you say every kid who ran between 4:01 and 4:05 in that era was a prodigy?
How many guys +/- 5 years of his graduation year ran faster than Magness? 2? Just Webb? Even going all the way to 4:05 would be just a couple dozen kids out of hundreds of thousands. Yeah I think that’s prodigious.
I think the word you want is generational, which to be fair, does get thrown around too much in sports
I'd have to check the archives, but I know others in that era were at least close to 4:01, if not faster.
I see prodigy and generational as synonymous. Mozart was called a prodigy. So was Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Pablo Picasso, Bobby Fischer, Michael Phelps, and LeBron James.
If Roger Bannister ran 3:58.8 on a cinder track without super shoes, what difference does coaching or genetics really make?
If we assume that super shoes give you an advantage of 1 second per lap, the new track surfaces are an advantage of 1 second per lap, that alone gets Roger down to 3:50.8. Throw in bicarb and perhaps a few other drugs and he is easily a 3:48 or 3:47 guy on TERRIBLE coaching.
My argument is that the coaching is largely overrated. He ran just a handful of times per week totally 30 or so miles per week working with coaches who had no understanding of training physiology.
Double Threshold is useless. Roger Bannister ran essentially 3:46 without ever knowing what it was.
He ran 4:01 in high school and ran at the pre classic so I'd say he was a track prodigy in his day
How do you go from a 4:01 high school miler to zero after that? Was he injured for four years after high school? Fill me in on his background?
I'm not sure if this is a rhetorical question or not but I was wondering that too as I watched the video trying to remember what I could about his career. That 4:01 was the 6th fastest high school mile ever when he ran it and it seemed he was a shoe in for faster things. And I would consider anyone with the sixth fastest high school time in his event a prodigy.
I do not recall hearing that injuries were a problem. He started college at Rice and left after two years. I found an interview where he was sort of vague about why but did say specifically that he wasn't wild about the coaching so he left and began coaching himself. I think that can work for some, I essentially did that in college and improved a lot more than before I was doing it. But it looks to me like he may have over thought things and made it too complicated. Maybe that's just my bias.
But we do know that people can sometimes not match their high school bests after graduation. How do you run 3:59 in high school and never run under 4:00 again? Tim Danielson managed somehow. And sub four is still a major barrier, maybe an ultimate or near ultimate for some. How many tries did it take for Sam Bair Jr. to get under four? I don't recall it ever being the quest for Magness that it seemed to be for Bair Jr.
In 2002 Steve Magness was a 4:17 high school miler. One year later, the Texan was the buzz of high school track as the nation watched him come closer to the magical four minute barrier in the mile
Steve was a great HS milers. However he failed to break 4 minutes (401)
He went on to college and never broke 4:06 or 14:20. HE FAILED
Salazar appreciated his nerdiness and willing to learn. However, he acted inappropriate around the women and was fired. HE FAILED.
Salazar was aware that Steve knew too much so they let him go quietly. This enabled Steve to apply at Houston without a blemish on his record. At Houston HE FAILED
He then teamed up with Jonathan Marcus (another several time fired college coach) to do a podcast. THEY FAILED and have been mocked endlessly for their pseudo science.
He has worked with a few pros from time to time. They all catch on eventually that he is a fraud and FIRE HIM
