Women's Recap: Teens Mary Cain And Ajee Wilson Win As Does Kim Conley
February 15, 2014
Alan Webb Retires From Track And Field
February 15, 2014
Well, this was a good thread until it degenerated into this cr^p. Name callers... please go back to the playground.
To those of you who actually want to discuss track:
Aside from the issue of a few seconds either way, what is it about Lagat that makes him able to run and race this well at age 39?
It can't just be genetics/talent.
Anyone have any insights? Training? What he does to take care of his body? Mental approach?
come on, folks... wrote:
Aside from the issue of a few seconds either way, what is it about Lagat that makes him able to run and race this well at age 39?
It can't just be genetics/talent.
Anyone have any insights? Training? What he does to take care of his body? Mental approach?
All of the above relate to his longevity:
On training:
- Relatively low mileage since he has 25 years of base to lean on.
- Very high-quality work, strategically planned over shorter periods leading into target races.
sawthatonecoming wrote:
Agreed.
Also w/r/t indoors vs. outdoors: there's not case to be made, and it's not just the surface that makes outdoors faster. It's also the distance of the track. If a 2000m race was run on a straight landing strip it would be faster than an equivalent performance on a 400m outdoor track or a 200m indoor track.
SCIENCE.
Why does the distance of the track matter? They aren't running any shorter or longer. A 3000m is a 3000m. No, a 2000m on a straight track is not automatically going to be faster than on a circular track. You don't know what you're talking about here. What you're saying has nothing to do with science.
george oscar bluth wrote:
You asked a (stupid) question, and I answered it, jackass. How could you be so idiotic to be arguing that outdoors 3000m times are inherently faster than indoor times (which I agree with), and then to support that you ask someone to try to find a race last year where the indoor time was as fast or faster than the outdoor time, THE ONLY EXAMPLE OF WHICH IS EXACTLY CONTRADICTING THE POINT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE. You are fucking awful at making a point.
On the other hand, you're great at making straw man arguments.
wink wink wrote:
might want to take a glance at the record books
And you might want to take a glance at a book that teaches you that statistics are not causal.
tfc wrote:
Why does the distance of the track matter? They aren't running any shorter or longer. A 3000m is a 3000m. No, a 2000m on a straight track is not automatically going to be faster than on a circular track. You don't know what you're talking about here. What you're saying has nothing to do with science.
Actually, it does. You're expending energy to maintain balance (especially for taller runners) and change direction. The sharper the turn, the more energy you're going to expend doing so. You could run a 3000m with 90 degree angle changes every 100m. Do you think that it would be as fast as running a 3000m on a track with smooth turns? No. Take that hyperbolic example down a few notches and you have your answer on why an indoor track is slower than an outdoor track.
In a sport that takes every tenth of an ounce in a shoe and every extra mile a week seriously, this is just another thing that makes a small difference in performance.
El G ran 4:44 outdoors he should have a go at that
Lagat breaking records at "age 39"? Nope. Nothing to see here. This guy never tested positive for EPO- he is too friendly and smiley to ever cheat.
Maybe David Rudisha will decide to switch over and become an American too? Why doesn't USATF just bribe all the Kenyans to become Americans? Then Americans can pretend to be the best at everything! They could probably fast-track their applications.
Galen Rupp Number on Fan wrote:
Maybe David Rudisha will decide to switch over and become an American too? Why doesn't USATF just bribe all the Kenyans to become Americans? Then Americans can pretend to be the best at everything! They could probably fast-track their applications.
When did your ancestors switch over. You are essentially European and America's success on track is based in Africa so what is different about Lagat, just timing
sawthatonecoming wrote:
jjjjjjjj wrote:Lagat already ran 7:38i this year and this indicates better. Levins was in very good shape already for shorter distances when he ran 13:19 as evidenced by how easily he ran the post-meet workout with multiple 53s and not breathing hard afterwards, unlike Rupp. If you think about it, 4:54 on pace is 3:55 1600 and :59 400, so 3:50-1 seems likely for a mile. That's not much slower than he has run outdoors in the 1500m for years. So, I'd think he can run 7:32. By the way, the outdoor world record is a sterling 4:44 by El G! He ran 2:52/3:49.6 (1600m) /55.2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsr0mZiRbNwSo you think Lagat is going to PR indoors at age 39 in February?
You mean, like he did yesterday? Yes, I think that if he got into a fast race, I think that he could run 7:32 next week. He hasn't had great pacing for his recent 3k's when he's in shape, but he closed those very quickly, which is why he's done so well in recent years on the indoor circuit at 3k, including multiple world indoor championships. We know that Lagat's primary weakness in recent years, compared to his prime (3:27 as late as 2004 after he became an American citizen), has been his 1500m speed, which has been around 3:32-5 for years now. But this race showed that he has got 3:33 right now.
george oscar bluth wrote:
Electric Avenue wrote:And at what distances exactly were the indoor leading marks last year equal or faster than outdoors?
Ummm...the 3000m. You aren't helping your cause.
That's because the 3k indoors is a world championship event but it's not outdoors. The 5k is the big one outdoors.
Also tracks aside, everyone's real goals are outdoors, so THEY are faster outdoors. (Which helps and hurts your case in different ways). You just don't understand why you're right or wrong, so therefore you're wrong.
Also Lagat in his prime could have been mid 7:25's no doubt if he ever got in a race that fast. And his 5k pr is a joke! the guy ran a 12:59 closing in 51.9 beating Bekele which was his pr for awhile until his 12:54 and 12:53 in 2010-2011. He could have run 12:40's. He has slowed down we just don't have all out efforts from his younger days to compare to other than his 3:26 which says it all,
Electric Avenue wrote:
And at what distances exactly were the indoor leading marks last year equal or faster than outdoors?
tfc wrote:[quote]sawthatonecoming wrote:[/b
Indoors isn't slower than outdoors. No one is running on old wooden tracks anymore.
The top athletes' main goal is to peak in the summer and half of the world's elite either skip indoors or use it as a tester to see how their winter training is going.
No athlete is wanting to be at a season's peak in Feb, so comparing any athlete's indoor and outdoor pbs and surmising that outdoor tracks are faster than indoor by X no of secs based on this is pointless.
Some modern indoor tracks are as fast or faster than outdoor tracks, and some athletes actually prefer indoor tracks, as various athletes and coaches have testified to.
Mathematical conversions for this are non -sensical.
sawthatonecoming wrote:
Actually, it does. You're expending energy to maintain balance (especially for taller runners) and change direction. The sharper the turn, the more energy you're going to expend doing so. You could run a 3000m with 90 degree angle changes every 100m. Do you think that it would be as fast as running a 3000m on a track with smooth turns? No. Take that hyperbolic example down a few notches and you have your answer on why an indoor track is slower than an outdoor track.
In a sport that takes every tenth of an ounce in a shoe and every extra mile a week seriously, this is just another thing that makes a small difference in performance.
No, actually it doesn't. You are just making things up. Where has there ever been recorded evidence that it takes more energy for taller people to remain standing up than for shorter people? Even if there was a link there, there's still no link between that and the amount of energy left available to apply to forward running motion. Again, you are just making things up.
Mrr82 wrote:
george oscar bluth wrote:Ummm...the 3000m. You aren't helping your cause.
That's because the 3k indoors is a world championship event but it's not outdoors. The 5k is the big one outdoors.
Also tracks aside, everyone's real goals are outdoors, so THEY are faster outdoors. (Which helps and hurts your case in different ways). You just don't understand why you're right or wrong, so therefore you're wrong.
Also Lagat in his prime could have been mid 7:25's no doubt if he ever got in a race that fast. And his 5k pr is a joke! the guy ran a 12:59 closing in 51.9 beating Bekele which was his pr for awhile until his 12:54 and 12:53 in 2010-2011. He could have run 12:40's. He has slowed down we just don't have all out efforts from his younger days to compare to other than his 3:26 which says it all,
What? YOU don't understand what YOU are talking about. My post was giving an example to a question posed. That answer was correct. Are you braindead?
Noble Kane wrote:
Electric Avenue wrote:And at what distances exactly were the indoor leading marks last year equal or faster than outdoors?
No athlete is wanting to be at a season's peak in Feb.
Some modern indoor tracks are as fast or faster than outdoor tracks,
Of course some athletes try to peak in Feb (really early march) for indoors. You can have more than 1 peak a year. There's no evidence that indoor tracks are as fast or faster.
tfc wrote:
wink wink wrote:might want to take a glance at the record books
And you might want to take a glance at a book that teaches you that statistics are not causal.
might want to take a glance at a physics textbook
Def a well rabbited steady race. All the front guys are in great shape and shows lots of promise for a fast 2014.
He's right. The only reason outdoor records are faster is because:
Some runners feel that if they go hard during indoor season it may put them in a position to when they have to maintain their peak too long or if they do the 2 peak system they might not be able to be sharp in time for August
Indoor championships are only every other year so not many athletes want to go after records and get themselves in top shape early when they're not even going to be able to use that shape on the world championship stage
On the off years for outdoor (1 every for 4 years (no Olympics or WC like this year)) you still have the DL races which are going to still promote fast times (like Galen Rupp's 26:48 AR at the 2010 Brussles meet)
Yes, it is true that less curves are going to make it easier however, what about the banked curves? The fastest indoor track (in which most records are broken) have the same mondo surface that the fast outdoor tracks do so that's out of the question, but they also are banked. Banked track help with the centripetal force of your body when rotating around a curve and helps with your bodies torque (an objects ability to accelerate around a curve), are there any outdoor banked 400 tracks? No... So the fact that 400m tracks have less curves is an advantage over indoor tracks, but the fact that many fast indoor tracks are banked is an advantage over outdoor tracks. These advantages pretty much cancel each other out. Another factor is enviornment. In indoors you always have a controlled environment for optimal preformance while on outdoor you might have bad conditions. Therefore when it comes to environment problems, sometimes indoor tracks and facility can actually be faster.
You're more likely to get more money is outdoor races so because of financial opportunities this may be a upside for records outdoor being faster. In some countries, athletes don't get paid like US athletes, so when they have the opportunity to go to and try to break a record at a fast DL meet then they take it.
Indoor season is only from mid-Jan to mid-March, while outdoor season is from late march all the way to September if you include the last couple of DL meets so outdoor has a bigger time frame to set better times.
Also, to be aerobically fit, you must do a lot of base mileage from September-December. During those down months, it's going to be easier to peak long term (more towards the outdoor season) than to just do a bunch of base mileage and try to rip some fast times a month later, it doesn't work like that for most athletes.
Conclusion: Indoor tracks are just as fast, if not faster than outdoor track, but the shape of the athletes and the athletes wanting to do indoor is the reason outdoor records are faster.
I'd bet good money that Lagat could run a 7:32 in a rabitted race this year.
He was in that kind of shape pretty early-on indoors last year when he ran away from some good competition, closing in 1:58 for the last 800m (30.x, 59.x, 59.x, 58.x ) with his 7:34.