Perhaps he SHOULD have had more but he had burned out, as even he acknowledges.
Perhaps he SHOULD have had more but he had burned out, as even he acknowledges.
Pacemakers for hire wrote:
I agree with Rodgers and Shorter but certainly not Salazar.
Alberto was born on August 7th 1958. He turned 26 years old in 1984. He should of had several more years of prime running years for a marathoner. We can come up with many excuses but NONE of that list could ever dip under 2:11 again. Not one. That is amazing.
You're easily amazed.
As for Salazar, his descent after 1982 is well-documented. He just got slower and weaker. He was getting beaten by runners whom he had beaten in years past.
He only turned 24 in 1982. Why would a perfectly healthy runner, start to fall apart at such a young age? It is not like he moved on to other things.
Pacemakers....it HAPPENED. He was DONE. He had overdone it, as he said. He considers himself a cautionary tale. He was no longer "perfectly healthy." How many more times, and in how many more ways, does this have to be explained to you? Brilliant marathon careers can end very very abruptly.
I apologize if this turned into a Alberto situation. I meant it directed at all of the marathoners from 1982 and 1983 that I believe ran on short courses. In 1984 the following athletes were still young.
Salazar 26
Beardsley 28
Meyer 29
Tabb 30
Mendoza 32
Durden 33
Wells 30
Sandoval 30
Bjorkland 33
Virgin 29
Tuttle 26
Every single one of those runners were still in their prime and had already broken 2:11 but could not do it after the courses were lengthened.
It just makes our current runners look that much better. In 2008.
Brian Sell 30
Abdi 31
Meb 33
Khalid 37
I believe that all of them will run sub 2:11 this year.
I'm not sure how old you are, but you don't seem to know much about any of those runners. As I mentioned, Tuttle was the only one on your entire list who was even arguably still in his peak years in 1984. Do you even know who Ed Mendoza, Jeff Wells, or Garry Bjorkland was?
Salazar and Virgin were both sub-27:30 10,000-meter guys; Meyer, Shorter, and Sandoval were all solidly sub-28 guys; and Bjorkland, Rodgers, and perhaps Mendoza were capable of running sub-28 in the mid- to late-1970s. Ron Tabb and Jeff Wells were two of the most talented marathoners in the country. Beardsley was sub-2:09 on a hot day in Boston, and low-2:09 at Grandma's. I have no reason to believe that Brian Sell could come close to any of those guys (even Beardsley) over 10K, and I would pick any of them (except, perhaps, Mendoza) over Sell at the marathon distance. And it is absurd to suggest that Gilmore (whose fastest marathon was an aided 2:12:45 or so at Boston) would have been able to go head-to-head with those guys. (Meb and Abdi are a different matter. And KK is by far the best marathoner in U.S. history.)
As I mentioned, a number of those times in the '70s and early '80s were recorded on aided courses like Boston, so I don't take them at face value, but I'm not aware of any serious contentions that Boston, Grandma's, or the 1980 Olympic trials course was short.
Avocados Number wrote:
Salazar and Virgin were both sub-27:30 10,000-meter guys; Meyer, Shorter, and Sandoval were all solidly sub-28 guys; and Bjorkland, Rodgers, and perhaps Mendoza were capable of running sub-28 in the mid- to late-1970s.
I'd say that Bjorklund was capable of sub 28, especially since he ran 27:46 in 1984.
Which means that Meyer and Rodgers and Sandoval and Mendoza and Wells and Beardsley were not as fast as Carney or Moran or Torres or Bizuneh on the track ( a distance that we know is consistent).
Sell & Khalid will not...
sell is on a downhill slide (made his goal the team)
Khalid struggels to finish...
correct on the others
observer
What the f*** planet are you from? Only Salazar and Tuttle could be considered anywhere near their prime.
Pacemakers for hire wrote:
I apologize if this turned into a Alberto situation. I meant it directed at all of the marathoners from 1982 and 1983 that I believe ran on short courses. In 1984 the following athletes were still young.
Salazar 26
Beardsley 28
Meyer 29
Tabb 30
Mendoza 32
Durden 33
Wells 30
Sandoval 30
Bjorkland 33
Virgin 29
Tuttle 26
Its only a flesh wound wrote:
I'd say that Bjorklund was capable of sub 28, especially since he ran 27:46 in 1984.
Yeah, I was wondering about that. As I recall, he ran about 28:03 at the '76 trials with just one shoe, so I figured that he probably broke 28 at some point.
You're starting to get annoying. You're making a lot of assumptions about runners you did not know. Many of the runners on your early '80s list were simply gone from the scene completely by 1984. It's not like they were, say, running 2:13s on newly measured courses.
There are many top U.S. marathoners from subsequent years who did not run scintillating 10,000s. Bob Kempainen, Pete Pfitzinger, and Pat Petersen come to mind. And their 10,000 times do not suggest that Carney or Moran or Bizuneh or Torres will run excellent marathons. Though they might. We just don't know.
Why don't you just end this now?
watching wrote:
Sell & Khalid will not...
sell is on a downhill slide (made his goal the team)
Khalid struggels to finish...
correct on the others
observer
The other just finished behind Sell and Khalid in the trials. As washed up as Khalid is....he is better than Meb every day of the week.
Pacemakers for hire wrote:
Which means that Meyer and Rodgers and Sandoval and Mendoza and Wells and Beardsley were not as fast as Carney or Moran or Torres or Bizuneh on the track ( a distance that we know is consistent).
Which means that Meyer et al were all marathoners, who never had the advantage of yearly Hoovertrons.
Meyer 27:53
Rodgers 28:04 (about his only attempt)
Sandoval 27:47
Mendoza 28:23
Wells 28:12, better leg speed than anyone named on your list
Beardsley 29:00
Pacemakers for hire wrote:
He only turned 24 in 1982. Why would a perfectly healthy runner, start to fall apart at such a young age? It is not like he moved on to other things.
Think Todd WIlliams. It's not like AlSal is the only guy that hit a rough patch and just couldn't make a comeback.
In any case adding the SPR is 42 meters, other changes such as 1 meter vs 30 cm maybe another 100 tops. We're talking maybe 30 seconds at the speed these guys are running, not anything that makes a 2:09 low guy suddenly unable to break 2:11.
The point, in case you missed it, is that those runners had the basic 10K speed to run those times on accurately measured marathon courses. I provided you with some background on those guys because you obviously don't know much about them.
It's one thing to note that certain adjustments were made in measurement standards, and quite another to suggest that the runners of the late '70s and early '80s were running on courses that were close to half a mile short (which is what it would take to bring Gilmore down to the 2:10 that you hypothesized, or to bring guys like Salazar, Meyer, and Bearsley up over 2:11).
You made my point. They were all marathoners. That was their focus and 1984 was an Olympic year. And 100% could not run sub 2:11 once the courses were measured correctly. Got it. I am done. I will no longer beat on your heroes. It is far easier (and makes you feel better) to assume that the runners of today are slower and that they just don't make them like that anymore. Enjoy your fantasy.
Oh ...you had a point.
Careers end when they end, pal. It happens.
Pacemakers for hire wrote:
I am done.
People rarely stick to such promises on this site.
I don't think that anyone is claiming that "the runners of today are slower and that they just don't make them like that anymore." KK is clearly a faster marathoner than any U.S. runner of the early '80s, and Hall probably is as well. Meb and Abdi have the talent, and I'm pretty sure that Ritz does, too. But your knowledge of the excellent runners of the past is awfully weak.
Pacemakers for hire wrote:It is far easier (and makes you feel better) to assume that the runners of today are slower and that they just don't make them like that anymore. Enjoy your fantasy.
The fantasy of 'short courses' is far easier to believe than the reality that they all ran faster, over many years and distances, than your 'blue collar' hero from Beverly Hills Gilmore did.