Bob Kennedy is back! Throws Down 7:21 Final Mile to Outkick Caroline Wozniacki

Compliments for a mid-forties man running 3:26? I am surprised. How un-LR this is. If this guy were an ordinary runner (i.e. some non-former elite), the hobby jogger comments would be flying like crazy here. The word "slow" would have been pounded to death, too, and his great distance from the world record would have probably been mentioned...and the fact that he is just local or regional class with that time would have been pointed out quickly.

Congratulations to both Bob and Caroline. Nice running! and in difficult condtions, too!

What a stud

Mark Coogan

2:55

2:55 is pretty fast to me. For an Olympian with a PR of 2:13, it is not surprising to see him run at 2:55 at age 48. Still, 2:55 is a solid performance, and it is good he is still running. I wonder where this Olympian placed in his age category?

At age 44, Kennedy's time is 64% in age grading and 11 minutes slower than BQ.

Idiot post of the day.

Gary Oldman wrote:

TrackCoach wrote:

Your are wrong. First off, it sounds like you are forgetting Bob is old and when you stop running for 10 years and gain weight, you become just like any overweight mid-40s guy who doesn't exercise. He only recently lost weight and dose not do what would be considered training, his 3:26 is indicative of his former self. As slow as 3:26 might sound to you, most 3:26 guys are younger, smaller and train to run that time. Btw, why would Bob train for or care to run a 2:50 marathon...what does he have to prove?

I hope you are not really a coach.

Why? He's dead on.

I salute all of you thousands of no-name runners, especially those of you in your mid-forties or older, who bested a sub-13:00 elite. You should brag a little.

So here's my question: how much does weight really matter?

Take me. in College i was 145lb 6'2, mile of 4:16, 10k in 30 flat (ok, just under, but whatever).

So now i'm 48. i've just been able to start running again after a 15 year break. i weigh 180 now.

i weighed 180 about 10 months ago when i've started putting daily miles. I'm at around 50 miles week these days. I still weigh around 180, but clearly it's the muscle weighs more than fat thing (cause well i've lost inches).

i think i'm in 40min 10k shape. Cause i can string together some 6:30s for a while without too much effort, and i did a test-5k a little while back where i was low 19s.

i've done some light speed workouts recently (6x800 @ 3:00) which when i think about what i used to run, seems laughable. Except it was hard the first few sessions.

and the whole time i kept thinking "god i can feel this weight".

so i have been thinking two things:

1. if i lost 20 pounds i wonder what that would do. Like if tomorrow i woke up and i was 160, what difference would that make? would i just magically drop 30s or something?

2. i wonder how much more damage i'm doing at this weight (more pounding). I never had ankle issue before and now after 10 milers, me ankles are sore. Like "I've been playing basketball sore"

i suppose the only thing to get numbers on such a question would be to run folk with weight jackets (i used to do hill work outs with those things in the 80s). And see what the differences really are.

Anyway, just idling wondering if anybody has any thoughts about weight in general?

For me, it doesn't matter that much - i'm a never was/has been like 99.9% of the rest of us here.

But i am curious.

The Animal Within wrote:

Tennis $$ wrote:

Just for perspective, Wozniacki has $2.5 million in prize winnings in 2014. Add another $10+ million in sponsorships and not a bad effort for a hobby jogger.

How the hell does tennis have such high prize winnings? And why so much in sponsorship? Is tennis really that much more popular?

I've always wondered how minor sports like this are so rich. I get golf, old fat rich men, expensive equipment, etc. but tennis?

Yes, Tennis is incredibly popular all over the world, it is not a minor sport in any way.

Yes, tennis has some popularity, but the original respondent here makes a great point: how could this minor sport be so many levels (so many millions) more "popular" than running? There really is no comparison here. And compared to football, soccer, basketball, and baseball, tennis looks really minor.

1. It's played world-wide.

2. It's dominated by Caucasian players so has a huge audience in the rich European countries.

Pro Tennis is NOT a minor sport. From Websters:

Minor Sport (noun) \ˈmī-nərˈspȯrt\- See Running

"A tennis photo of CW.

http://coolwallpaperz.info/user-content/uploads/wall/o/95/caroline-wozniacki-x-p-hd-widescreen-1043282.jpg

"

That is Kim Clijsters, NOT Caroline Wozniaki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Clijsters

The problem with these types of questions is that typically in order to lose weight you need to train. So the results after losing weight are partially due to the weight loss and partially due to the training. Likewise, all weight gain is not the same. Most runners when they 'retire' they just stop running as much so the weight gainedIis mostly fat compared to a runner who reduces running but incorporates lifting whose weight gain will include a lot of muscle. So a 'retired' runner who lifts will be able to run faster than a 'retired' runner who doesn't if weight gained is the same.

If you want to see what an extra 30-50 lbs of fat feels like run with a weight vest.

As an example....I used to run sub 16 5ks when 145lbs...now at 165 I'm sub 18 (10 years ago too but lets not factor in age with this)...with a 40lb ruck I can run 8-10 min per mile.

Alan

outsiderunner wrote:

Yes, tennis has some popularity, but the original respondent here makes a great point: how could this minor sport be so many levels (so many millions) more "popular" than running? There really is no comparison here. And compared to football, soccer, basketball, and baseball, tennis looks really minor.

Again, it is not minor, even in America it gets hours of coverage every week for opening rounds and it's stars have always been well marketed.

outsiderunner wrote:

Yes, tennis has some popularity, but the original respondent here makes a great point: how could this minor sport be so many levels (so many millions) more "popular" than running? There really is no comparison here. And compared to football, soccer, basketball, and baseball, tennis looks really minor.

Assuming not injured, professional tennis players play in about 20-25 tournaments a year and the successful ones will play in a number of rounds per tournament so they are seen more often than runners. The top players may play a bit fewer tournaments.

The top players have the opportunity to play the other top players more often than runners do so that makes it easier for popularity reason and that makes it easier to advertise rivalries.

Finally, the ATP and WTA know how to market their stars. For the women, it's the top couple of women and whichever of the other top 20-25 women who are hot. And for the men, it's the top 5-10 men.

As an FYI, the top 30 men for singles have earned in tourneys $1 million +, #100 is at $370,000 and #200 is at $115,000. On the women's side, it's the top 26 who are above $1 million and 100 is almost at $300,000 (didn't show top 200). #1 for both is just under $9 million.

Remember that each of these players has to pay his/her coaches, travel, lodging, managers, etc as well so there are costs to go with these earnings too which can be a decent percentage for those on the lower end.

On another note...

Bill Demong, US Olympian in Nordic Skiing, clocks in at 2:33... not bad...

I saw that, too. I think it is excellent.