ukathleticscoach wrote:
No longevity burned out after 2 years and only won one WC gold and no Olympics. Farah is ahead of him on all time list
Is it me or does he always look like he is tripping on something?
"ahead of him"???? Farah is 14 seconds behind him over 3000m, 5 secs over 2 miles, and nearly 15 seconds behind him over 5000m.
Who's tripping now, beeyahtch?
"Daniel Komen das kommando" sounds awesome
lagat!p.s at the time of this race, tegenkamp and farah were pretty much the same runner in terms of PB's and championship race placings....so.....explain Mo's dramatic rise. Go!
polishbird wrote:
wtfunny wrote:Tony's what fishy to me is the nonsense you folks, and Mo, keep reiterating about this "slow and steady improvement" of his. It never happened. So why not talk to what DID happen, and that's a dramatic improvement in a very short time period at a relatively late stage in a typical athlete's career? He went from being not even close to medalling to the greatest championship career on the track in middle/long distance ever.
Do yourself a favor and watch the last lap of the 2007 World Champ 5000m.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sHYX3-c1UIt's misleading and inaccurate to say "not even close to medalling". Even back in 2007, Farah was taking the lead with 500 meters to go. He held it until about 250m left.
Do you see the difference between saying someone needs to put together their last 200 meters and someone who is "not even close"?
You can see the same thing in 2009.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=---LOIB8idEHe doesn't take the lead but he's in the hunt with a lap to go. As the commentator says, "He's yards only behind the great Kenenisa Bekele."
Watching these videos, he looks like an athlete who found a kick or found the strength to use his kick at the end. Not someone who came out of no where all of a sudden.
You'd like me to explain why Matt Tegenkamp isn't as successful as Mo Farah right now?
Well, Teg was injured for a lot of 2010 and never really bounced back. Kind of like Chris Solinsky in 2011.
http://www.kimbia.net/2010-highlight-matt-tegenkamp/
I imagine Mo was putting in consistent blocks of training during that time. So that would probably make a difference.
Don't know how you could blame Farah for Teg being injured though...
wtfunny wrote:
Great point .. at the bell there were 9 guys bunched together .. all of them "came close to medalling" .. if they could just "put together their last lap" as you say. Simple as that, right?
Mo had his doors blown off in 07 .. He came 6th, as the pack strolled by him. He didn't "nearly medal". Nor in 09 when he came 7th .. the entire pack walked away from him the minute they wanted to. He wasn't in the hunt for a medal there. Now he's untouchable.
You guys make it sound like any one of these athletes who were within a 100 yards of the lead pack could've become unbeatable down the road if only they'd start eating their Wheaties and hitting some bicep curls. Compare Farah's last lap in EITHER of those 2 races with his last 800m in Beijing .. or his last lap in 11, 12, 13, etc. Or the 10 000m in Beijing. He didn't "put his last 200m together" ... he became unbeatable, regardless the tactics. Last lap sprint, last 200m sprint, hard from the start, surges, whatever, nobody on the track can touch him right now.
Kejelcha just blew away everyone in a great 5000, running the fastest time of the year, the equivalent of Mo's PR, with a 7'42 last 3k. Yet Mo smoked him. The Mo of 07 or 09 would've just had his ass handed to him in both the 5 and the 10 - again. Yet today, he crushes it easily, even with tired legs, etc. There's NOTHING "slow and steady" about that kind of dramatic shift in such a short period of time at that stage of an athlete's career.
Please point out another example of something similar, if its so straight forward .. or are you suggesting Mo's the only athlete in history to have stepped up and started working seriously and gone from consistent 7th place to unbeatable?
"yards behind the great Kenenisa" is laughable .. there were a dozen guys "yards behind the great Kenenisa" ... and at the end of the race, they were STILL yards behind the great Kenenisa.
Good idea. Let's compare.
Last lap in 2007- 54.4 (Lagat ran 51-high)
Last lap in 2009- 56 (Bekele ran 54)
What are you expecting to see that looks ridiculous? Obviously he ran faster last laps when he was winning races. I see someone who got 2 seconds faster in the last 400. Yes, when you use hyperbole to describe the race, it does seem unlikely that Farah could ever beat anyone.
Last lap in Beijing. 52.6
Last lap in Moscow- 53.5
Last lap in London 52.9
Last lap in Daegu- 52.5
As for your second point, you're saying it's unprecedented for someone who wasn't winning races on the global level at 26 (Farah's age in 2009) to win races later in their career. We have to compare him to other people who are "unbeatable".
Most people who have recently dominated distance running reach their peak in their teens or early 20's. Bekele, Asbel Kiprop, Gebreselassie, Daniel Komen, Rudisha. Farah didn't do this, therefore he must not have done it by natural means.
Yes, Farah is older than people who achieved similar accomplishments. He is an outlier in that regard. You have to go back to Miruts Yifter to find an older winner of an Olympic 10k gold.
And then if I try to point out that Farah's improvement over time isn't proof of cheating, you will ask why other people around him didn't improve the way he did.
So I would have to give an explanation for why all of those runners didn't become Mo Farah.
The problem with your logic is that you want me to prove Mo's innocence by showing you other people who have done what Mo has done who aren't Mo. Well, Mo Farah is the only person to have won the 5k/10k double in three consecutive championships. He also isn't Gebreselassie or Bekele. He also is not any of the people who used to beat him. He's different than them.
You're demanding that something exceptional should also be normal at the same time. Exceptional things aren't normal. But you can't use their exceptional qualities as proof of wrongdoing. At the end of the day, I think people need to be willing to suspend their judgment and recognize the limitations of the integrity of the sport.
I'm not certain that Mo is completely clean, but I don't think there is irrefutable evidence based on his performances alone that he is dirty.
Hyperbole? Winning an unprecended triple double (only missing the quadruple by a silver medal) probably warrants hyperbole.Good idea. Let's compare.Last lap in 2007- 54.4 (Lagat ran 51-high)Last lap in 2009- 56 (Bekele ran 54)[/quote]When's the last time Mo ran a 56+ last lap in a championship race?
What are you expecting to see that looks ridiculous? Obviously he ran faster last laps when he was winning races. I see someone who got 2 seconds faster in the last 400. Yes, when you use hyperbole to describe the race, it does seem unlikely that Farah could ever beat anyone.
2 seconds faster over a last lap IS hyperbolic at this level. It might not be (it isn't) for me .. or you .. but at this level? That's a huge drop. If you don't understand this, you don't understand world class athletics.
Last lap in Beijing. 52.6
Last lap in Moscow- 53.5
Last lap in London 52.9
Last lap in Daegu- 52.5
So now he's running laps like Bekele or Lagat ... those are the fastest and the 2nd fastest athletes in the world, EVER, at their respective distances. If someone suddenly goes from a consistent 6 or 7th place finisher to swapping times with those guys, that's an astonishingly remarkable shift.
As for your second point, you're saying it's unprecedented for someone who wasn't winning races on the global level at 26 (Farah's age in 2009) to win races later in their career.
it is.
We have to compare him to other people who are "unbeatable".
Most people who have recently dominated distance running reach their peak in their teens or early 20's. Bekele, Asbel Kiprop, Gebreselassie, Daniel Komen, Rudisha.
And Mo doesn't seem to align with their performance record.
Farah didn't do this, therefore he must not have done it by natural means.
Your words, not mine. You, and tony the clown, need to stop conflating what OTHER people are saying with my comments. Please. Just stop it.
Yes, Farah is older than people who achieved similar accomplishments. He is an outlier in that regard. You have to go back to Miruts Yifter to find an older winner of an Olympic 10k gold.
You're trying to ignore the point. Not just that Mo is older than other 10k medallists. That when he was in what is generally regarded as a runner's "prime", he wasn't close to being a medallist. Now, in his later years of his career, he's suddenly unbeatable.
And then if I try to point out that Farah's improvement over time isn't proof of cheating, you will ask why other people around him didn't improve the way he did.[/quote[
I didn't say anything about cheating.
So I would have to give an explanation for why all of those runners didn't become Mo Farah.No. Now you're being stupid.
[quoteThe problem with your logic is that you want me to prove Mo's innocence by showing you other people who have done what Mo has done who aren't Mo. Well, Mo Farah is the only person to have won the 5k/10k double in three consecutive championships. He also isn't Gebreselassie or Bekele. He also is not any of the people who used to beat him. He's different than them.
See.
You're demanding that something exceptional should also be normal at the same time.
I'm not demanding anything. stfu
Exceptional things aren't normal. But you can't use their exceptional qualities as proof of wrongdoing. At the end of the day, I think people need to be willing to suspend their judgment and recognize the limitations of the integrity of the sport.
We have a long record of 'exceptional'athletes. Mo's performances are incongruent with all of those .. most of whom generally have very well aligned track records.
I'm not certain that Mo is completely clean, but I don't think there is irrefutable evidence based on his performances alone that he is dirty.
All I said is that his dramatic improvement is NOT a slow and steady improvement that tony and many other people, including Mo, say it is. It's not. You're arguing with yourself here, because you're trying to counter things I didn't say.
Please be quiet.
Please help me understand what you hope to prove by saying Mo's improvement has not been slow and steady. If it is a dramatic shift, and in some ways it is, what is the largest point?
I see that you have not explicitly stated that it is evidence of foul play but you will have to excuse people for thinking you implied that.
You referred to Mo's attitude as 'fishy' in a thread that has speculation about PED use. What does fishy mean to you? Genuinely curious.
I see wtfunny is still peddling the bullshit that Farah's improvements was fishy. Because....you know....an elite athlete in his mid 20s cannot improve at all. From being a regular finalist who finished in the top 8 in the 5k to becoming a winner. No, unless you were running fast times and winning Gold in your late teens and early 20s, then there is no way you can improve as an athlete. You might as well give up. Change of attitude, training regime, diet, form, tactics etc, none of that matters.
If Farah suddenly dropped fast time over night and ran record breaking times or even won a couple of Gold medals and then vanished, then you'd have a point about him being fishy. However the fact that he's been around for so long, has been so consistent and has been dominant for 5 years straight and has never been accused of anything, never faced allegations and a Propublica/BBC investigation didn't find anything about Farah, tells us he's clean.
I wonder why wtfunny doesn't use his conspiracy logic and explain why 10k runners have yet to run a sub 26:40 since biological passport was introduced in 2009. Yet the legendary runners he seems to defend from the 90s and 00s used to run sub 26:40 with such regular ease, at a time when blood doping was rampant in sports like cycling and it was easy to get away with blood doping.
bobgob wrote:
I wonder why wtfunny doesn't use his conspiracy logic and explain why 10k runners have yet to run a sub 26:40 since biological passport was introduced in 2009. Yet the legendary runners he seems to defend from the 90s and 00s used to run sub 26:40 with such regular ease, at a time when blood doping was rampant in sports like cycling and it was easy to get away with blood doping.
Yep, there is i close relationship between the biological passport and the slower times we see in the 10000m and the marathon right now...oh wait..
polishbird wrote:
Please help me understand what you hope to prove by saying Mo's improvement has not been slow and steady. If it is a dramatic shift, and in some ways it is, what is the largest point?
Why would someone, including Mo, say 'there's nothing dramatic about my improvement, we've worked on slow and steady improvement', if that's not what actually transpired? I'm not the one who came up with that stupid nonsense .... so the folks who ARE saying it are the ones who need to do the explaining of their point, and why they deny the reality of what actually DID transpire.
I see that you have not explicitly stated that it is evidence of foul play but you will have to excuse people for thinking you implied that.
No . i don't have excuse that bullsh** at all. I repeatedly clarified that I wasn't saying he's a doper, or any of that nonsense, yet this ridiculous crap you guys carry on with persists.
You referred to Mo's attitude as 'fishy' in a thread that has speculation about PED use. What does fishy mean to you? Genuinely curious.
I said 'if there's anything fishy ''' .. and that's your time, not mine ... it was why he'd peddle some bullsh** about a slow and steady improvement when in reality, it's been a very meteoric rise to dominance. Why not just say 'yeah, it all clicked for me in 2011 and all the things I'd worked on came together in a big way for me'?
bobgob wrote:
I see wtfunny is still peddling the bullshit that Farah's improvements was fishy.
Jesus F'in C****.
I didn't say that, at all. I said his claim to a slow steady improvement is incorrect .. and it's weird to me that he'd say this, when it's not the case.
It is indeed an exceptionally rare case that someone went from being a 6th-place and lower finisher, to an unbeatable dominant athlete with an unparalleled success in championship races, the like of which no one has even come close to .. not the greatest distance runners in history. Making that kind of shift, that late in an athlete's career, is unique.
Because....you know....an elite athlete in his mid 20s cannot improve at all. From being a regular finalist who finished in the top 8 in the 5k to becoming a winner. No, unless you were running fast times and winning Gold in your late teens and early 20s, then there is no way you can improve as an athlete. You might as well give up. Change of attitude, training regime, diet, form, tactics etc, none of that matters.
Can you give me an example of someone else, anyone else, who has had this kind of dramatic improvement in his late twenties (mid-twenties my a&&). .. not just a drop in times, because that's not the deal. Not just a higher ranking. But a change from mid-pack, to virtually unbeatable, regardless the tactic, regardless the style of the race, and to one of the fastest 1500m runners of all time, and that's not even his primary event! Just one.
If Farah suddenly dropped fast time over night and ran record breaking times or even won a couple of Gold medals and then vanished, then you'd have a point about him being fishy. However the fact that he's been around for so long, has been so consistent and has been dominant for 5 years straight and has never been accused of anything, never faced allegations and a Propublica/BBC investigation didn't find anything about Farah, tells us he's clean.
I've no idea whether he's clean or not. Nor do you. Why are you discussing this? I'v not bought it up, once.
I wonder why wtfunny doesn't use his conspiracy logic and explain why 10k runners have yet to run a sub 26:40 since biological passport was introduced in 2009.
Rupp ran 26'44. Do you really think the guys who blew his doors off in Beijing can't beat him by 4 seconds because of some biological passport?
Yet the legendary runners he seems to defend from the 90s and 00s used to run sub 26:40 with such regular ease, at a time when blood doping was rampant in sports like cycling and it was easy to get away with blood doping.
I've not defended anyone. I like Komen, a lot, as a runner. but he never ran 26'40. if you're not even going to read what I actually write, it's not worth my time worrying about your stupid discussion.
I'm done with this nonsense.
Komen didn't set a 10k record his best is 27.38
So you don't think there's any specific reason that he would misrepresent his improvement? You just don't like that his version disagrees with yours?
Maybe it's a difference of opinion. Maybe it's like how when you were a kid and would visit relatives during holidays, they would be surprised at how much you've grown. But you never notice it because you see yourself every day.
My point is that he might not be agreeing with what you see because your perspective is different than his. Did you see him train every day of his career? That would give a different perspective than if you only started paying attention in 2010/2011.
Stop being Mo's weird aunt. Or provide a reason you think he is saying this. I've given you some. If you don't like them, fine. Please provide alternatives for the sake of being productive.
don't be too shocked with mo's improvements
canova has been on record here stating that if he had the same high-tech/state-of-art back-up that mo has for his kenyan boys he woud be churning out 3'25 & 12'35 guys
polishbird wrote:
So you don't think there's any specific reason that he would misrepresent his improvement? You just don't like that his version disagrees with yours?
Maybe it's a difference of opinion. Maybe it's like how when you were a kid and would visit relatives during holidays, they would be surprised at how much you've grown. But you never notice it because you see yourself every day.
My point is that he might not be agreeing with what you see because your perspective is different than his. Did you see him train every day of his career? That would give a different perspective than if you only started paying attention in 2010/2011.
Stop being Mo's weird aunt. Or provide a reason you think he is saying this. I've given you some. If you don't like them, fine. Please provide alternatives for the sake of being productive.
Yeah, you're right. Maybe it's just that Mo started to really believe in himself that he went from a consistent 6-7th or lower place finisher to the greatest championship record of any distance runner ever. That makes sense.
7/10 for getting another response though, well done.
Have at it.
I'm betting you'll be back.
What was impressive too me was to see how many people split between 5:02 and 5:04 in that race. I can't recall the last 5000m, where the 2000m split was that fast for one guy (let alone a whole pack)...
Times have changed
All I genuinely want to know is why you think Mo is supposedly lying about the nature of his improvement.
You continue to refuse to answer. I provided an explanation for why he might not be lying, I said he just sees it differently. You didn't buy it. Okay. Why do you think otherwise?
People assume you are implying he's doping. You say you aren't. So what point are you trying to make? Simply that he is lying or wrong? Is that it?
Guvygvygvgyvygbyg wrote:
What was impressive too me was to see how many people split between 5:02 and 5:04 in that race. I can't recall the last 5000m, where the 2000m split was that fast for one guy (let alone a whole pack)...
Times have changed
The world leader at 3000m this year is 7:34.6. The pack, in the Komen race, split the 2000m at 7:33 to 7:35 pace!!!!!
tony the tiger wrote:
Wow what beautiful run
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJrMeaQkmKQ
The ideal, balls out, damn the torpedoes, go for gold racing!!
Love to see more like this.
Read through the thread, to HELL with all the detractors!!!