Wheating wins in 3:35.89

thirty two wrote:

ttc wrote:

Yea, and Rojo did the same. He was a moron and a hypocrite- not me.

Still you, pal. Writing 'I take back everything I said' doesn't make you any less of a moron.

Same rules make Rojo a moron and a hypocrite. Difference is, I realize my error. Rojo still doesn't and he's still the only hypocrite.

rojo wrote:

TTC,

You are a moron.

1) You say Centro should have raced more but seemingly fail to realize he was racing a lot (world indoors) he just got injured.

2) You say he shouldn't ignore xc but he didn't. He ran well at the Club USA Champs? What other XC meets did you want him to run? His track season ended in August. You can't really run world indoors and xc at the same time.

That being said, I actually agree with your assertion that alot of guys don't progress after college. Chris Lear called me up the other night and was like, "Rojo, I think you guys should do an article on when guys peak. Everyone acts like all these US collegians need money so they can keep running and peak at 28 or 29. When in reality do most of them peak?"

It's worth looking into for sure.

The data will be meaningless.

Unless you can find a way to prove that they peak when they have the most support...College.

Because what you won't see is large amounts of post collegians getting the support to train as they did in college -- for four years or more. Especially 1500m specialists.

I agree with ttc and I have posted about this before. Every year our top senior national runners get beat by collegians only to get beat themselves by collegians when they turn pro.Look at at Manzano who beat the US pros when he was in college only to get beat by centro last year when centro was in college,...and look at centro now getting beat by collegians,,.....and so the cycle goes on

So what are we saying here? The top runners should stay in college indefinitely? Or train like they are in college?

Regressing milers.

Manzano graduated college in 2008. Ranked #6 in the world in 2010.

He's a favorite to make this year's Olympic team.

2011 was slower than 2010 but let's see what happens.

Lomong finished college in 2007. He is really fit this year, I can see him getting PR's accross the board still.

Holman graduated in 1992, made the Olympic team that year. His lifetime PR was in 1997 and was US Champ in 1999. He was consistantly one of the top two US milers from 1993-1999.

Paul McMullen graduated college in 1995. Won the OT's in 1996 then cut off two toes in a lawn mower accident in 1997. Despite a "regression" after losing the toes, he qualified for 2001 WC team and made the finals.

The good American milers were all better on the world stage after college. I don't see a lot of regression.

There is just a small sample size. If you want a bigger sample size, look at the number of Kenyans who were good at age 22 and see how well they progressed for the years after.

Didn't Manzano and Lomong qualify for the Olympics in '08 and then make the finals at worlds in '09 (after turning pro in 2008)? There are runners you can point at who have regressed, but these two aren't them.

Who is that girl that walks behind the start of the race? Nice.

Its not that the US's top milers regress post college, its that Vin Lanana's miling studs regressed.

Stember, Jennings, Robison all had their best seasons while in college and did very little as professionals.

Lunn is an exception, I guess.

Still... Lanana had 4 hugely successful milers while at Stanford and 3 did nothing post college (the season after college does not count, in my book, because they're still riding the college fitness).

Since he has been at Oregon...

Centro, Wheating, Acosta haven't done much since graduating (again... Centro was riding the college fitness, so last year doesn't count in this analysis).

I hope all 3 make Vin's numbers more appealing after this year and into the future.

So far, though, none of Vin's athletes have long lasting successful careers as far as I can tell (please let me know if I am wrong... which I may be).

rojo wrote:

TTC,

You are a moron...

One of the founders of this site coming on the message boards to call someone a "moron"?!?

Seriously?

WHATyO wrote:

Its not that the US's top milers regress post college, its that Vin Lanana's miling studs regressed.

Stember, Jennings, Robison all had their best seasons while in college and did very little as professionals.

Lunn is an exception, I guess.

Still... Lanana had 4 hugely successful milers while at Stanford and 3 did nothing post college (the season after college does not count, in my book, because they're still riding the college fitness).

Since he has been at Oregon...

Centro, Wheating, Acosta haven't done much since graduating (again... Centro was riding the college fitness, so last year doesn't count in this analysis).

I hope all 3 make Vin's numbers more appealing after this year and into the future.

So far, though, none of Vin's athletes have long lasting successful careers as far as I can tell (please let me know if I am wrong... which I may be).

I wouldn't pin this on Vin, there are so many factors, the main one being the lack of support, routine etc.

another humble opinion wrote:

rojo wrote:

TTC,

You are a moron...

One of the founders of this site coming on the message boards to call someone a "moron"?!?

Seriously?

I agree. This is really lacking any semblance of class. Now I know why these message boards are such a cesspool.

ttc, OK, WC and Olympic/Trials success is one thing, but I was thinking PRs and progression of faster times after college. All those guys hit faster times AFTER their collegiate careers were over. You could have picked many other obvious candidates to make your point about post-college flops.

Getting called out by rojo is deserved. I think your lesson is to THINK and let your brain catch up with your instincts.

I think part of the problem post-collegiately in WC/Trials/Olympics analyses is that too many Americans never learn how to RACE against top line international competition. In college, they learn how to race in packs against their peers, deal with surges, etc. But when when they go pro and get into Euro competitions, mostly they see rabbbited affairs, and when they run up against African runners in WC and Olympics, they are seeing surges and last laps they've never dealt with before. Its amazing that Webb had his spotty world class success in races like his famous Paris breakout. Webb today still cannot race tactically if his life depended on it- and he really learned nothing from his brief foray into college racing.

Thats why the new guns are so unique and exciting now- Rupp, Levins.

I agree TTC was wrong but being called a 'moron' by the co-founder was uncalled for. First he rips LV with his childish comments and now he takes a shot at TTC. Perhaps Rojo doesn't understand more people on this site means more revenue. If Rojo wants hurt his income by taking shots at users fine by me, it's his money.

Come on people the co-founder said it as a jest. His record indicates he is a level headed person. Lets focus on the post and not the sideshow. Wheating did well, he may win gold in London.

THANK YOU

I was in deep deep pain watching that webcast last night. BOTh of them were beyond poor. They could not go more than 1 minute without making some major mistake

It is great that they are broadcasting the NTL (another point why is it that Athletics Canada can put together something like this but USATF can't?), but com eon guys get your act together or just show the races and don't even talk. Or better yet hire Larry Rawson

rojo wrote:

TTC,

You are a moron.

1) You say Centro should have raced more but seemingly fail to realize he was racing a lot (world indoors) he just got injured.

2) You say he shouldn't ignore xc but he didn't. He ran well at the Club USA Champs? What other XC meets did you want him to run? His track season ended in August. You can't really run world indoors and xc at the same time.

That being said, I actually agree with your assertion that alot of guys don't progress after college. Chris Lear called me up the other night and was like, "Rojo, I think you guys should do an article on when guys peak. Everyone acts like all these US collegians need money so they can keep running and peak at 28 or 29. When in reality do most of them peak?"

It's worth looking into for sure.

-----------------

The assertion is correct.

However, most the top NCAA guys ran 3:37/38 at age 22/23, getting down to 3:34/35 may not sound like much, but perhaps it is a normal progression over the next 5-7 years. For U.S. milers. Getting under 3:34 is kind of like a H.S. miler running sub-4, we have a few that do it, but they are the exception. What I am saying is that as a nation, we are 3:34/35 types at the top end and until we get more athletes like Webb and perhaps Wheating who can run faster than 3:37/38 at a younger age, we aren't going top see 3:29s per se. ...it is what it is. The guys who ran 3:37/38 at age 22/23 and became career 3:34/35 pros, didn't do anything wrong, it simply is what it is. One of the big mistakes we make is overevaluating NCAA prospects at the next level. (Cam Levins is a prime example.) I remember watching guys like Stember, Leo, etc., kicking past everyone and having exciting finishes in NCAA meets, but most of the time, they were only running 3:40 and they were 22/23 years old. Webb and to a lesser extent, Wheating and Frenandez are only athletes who's talent level is/was such that there is/was a reasonable expectation that they would be running sub-3:32s and perhaps become medal contenders at the next level. - Just keeping it real.

U.S. distance running is progressing the way it should: by an evolutionary process of trial and error, success and injury/failure. As much as talents like Ritz, Webb, and Hall may seem like "outliers" at the time of their success, it takes many such athletes trying and failing to build the next generation's success. We are seeing this already with Rupp, Centro and others. It is a process that takes not just years, but decades. Anyone who followed the sport twenty years ago knows well how far we've come, and have yet to go.

Who was the 2nd announcer? Terrible job. Calling out names over the 1st, more composed, analyst. Interrupting constantly. Speaking way too fast and trailing off at the end of his sentences. Next time he should pass on the double espresso.