Marc Scott Has Left Bowerman, Now With NN Running, Hoping to train with Kipchoge in Kenya

this and this wrote:

In defense of runners that supposedly race on, mess around on, stay on the track too long...

Can't fault anyone from spending most or all of their best and peak running years on the track. Most runners start their running careers on the track, and its always fun to keep the measurable accurate progression in times going as long as possible. Competition and racing on the track is real, raw and exposed. No place to hide. The clock does not lie and you either have it or you don't. If you are good enough to cut it, there is nothing similar on the roads to running a big international track race in front of tens of thousands of spectators that are watching and responding to you and a few others for the entire race.

Road races are more relaxed and there may be more money on the roads, but if you live to race and compete the track is where its at.

There is more history on the track and more international fan/spectator interest in elite track racing than elite road racing.

Given the choice, I believe most elite distance runners would rather win the Olympic 10k than any marathon.

If you achieve success on the track, there is always the possibility of finding success on the roads later. The opposite, where a runner is a successful road racer that later becomes successful on the track, rarely occurs.

Nothing wrong with running on the roads, but nothing wrong with staying on the track either.

realistic wrote:

logically wrote:

... so you want to play semantics?

Let's break this down. First, define speed. You want to define it as pure, top end, absolute peak mechanical and metabolic pace sustained for an arbitrary distance, in this case 200m. Fine. Let's use that.

Here's the first problem with your argument. You have a quantitative data point for one runner, and can only surmise the point for the other. So, you simply cannot state one runner has more speed based on your arbitrarily chosen distance.

Second problem. You're arguing that a runner who could close a 5k in 50 high could not run even a full second faster in a pure 400m race. That seems... unlikely. Using the of Purdy, VO2 Max, Cameron and Riegal performance predictors (yeah, I know they're flawed), a 3:28 1500m converts to a 47.3. Cut that in half and you have 23.65. Probably about a second fast, but it's enough to make my point. Obviously, I'm suffering from the same methodological flaw you are here. I can't use this as a statement of fact. Only probability. And the raw probability based on those quantitative scoring/predictors is that Mo in fact had more raw speed (by your definition).

Link:tools.runnerspace.com/gprofile.php?do=...

Third problem. Does it matter? As you pointed out, there is a difference between raw speed and speed endurance. Raw speed doesn't tell us much here. If we're trying to predict 1500m times, it tells us a little more, though not much. As I just established, based on your arbitrary measure of speed, Mo likely is "faster." This alone renders your whole argument unlikely to be correct. But we're not trying to predict 1500m times. Marc was a 5k/10k guy, where aerobic capacity is far more important than raw speed. And, like you said, elite distance runners aren't really that "fast" compared to sprinters, or NFL wideouts for that matter. But that measure of raw speed doesn't tell us a thing when it comes to predicting mid-long distance performance. Are we really arguing that Tyreek Hill has more potential in the 5k than Marc because he has more raw speed? This renders your argument pointless.

Finally, I appreciate Steve Cram. Great athlete. But appealing to authority doesn't make your argument any stronger.

Like I said these arguments have gone around and around all the 20 years I've been posting here. People like you make silly arguments based on lack of knowledge of the sport and individual athletes.

rojo wrote:

shootpost wrote:

I love Joe Klecker but I don't think so. And it isn't a Joe's problem.

Americans just haven't figured out the marathon. We haven't figured out how to run 2:05 except in 2 anomalies (Ryan Hall Boston and KK who is a legend).

If you want to run 2:05 you gotta do what Marc is doing- go to kenya and do it their way.

I'm amazed by comments like this. THe US just hasn't 'figured out' the marathon (except when an African-born runner like Khannouchi sets a WR for us). The Japanese just haven't figured out mid-d or anyting on the track (except when they are coaching Kenyans on the track).

It's GENETICS people. If I had to guess, I'd say Americans are too big for the marathon. Wikipedia says Kipchoge is 5'6 and Bekele is 5'5". Most American men distance runnners are much bigger than that. Much.

The people who hadn't figure out the marathon were the Kenyans up until the mid 1990s. Now they dominate it.

rojo wrote:

shootpost wrote:

I love Joe Klecker but I don't think so. And it isn't a Joe's problem.

Americans just haven't figured out the marathon. We haven't figured out how to run 2:05 except in 2 anomalies (Ryan Hall Boston and KK who is a legend).

If you want to run 2:05 you gotta do what Marc is doing- go to kenya and do it their way.

I'm amazed by comments like this. THe US just hasn't 'figured out' the marathon (except when an African-born runner like Khannouchi sets a WR for us). The Japanese just haven't figured out mid-d or anyting on the track (except when they are coaching Kenyans on the track).

It's GENETICS people. If I had to guess, I'd say Americans are too big for the marathon. Wikipedia says Kipchoge is 5'6 and Bekele is 5'5". Most American men distance runnners are much bigger than that. Much.

The people who hadn't figure out the marathon were the Kenyans up until the mid 1990s. Now they dominate it.