hey, hey Amby Burfoot

It doesn't matter how many Africans are on your list. It's the time and performance that matters. Hall's run 2:06:17. Why can he not be competitive with any other runner who's run that sort of time or slower?

How competitive was he in Beijing with other runners who had run that sort of time or slower? Beating up on Sell, Culpepper, Meb, KK, and Ritz in NYC is a different scenario than London, Beijing, or Boston.

So he'll never finish higher than 9th or 10th again in a major race? There's no chance that he's learned from any mistakes he might have made in Beijing and will be using Boston as a chance for redemption?

I am NOT predicting that he'll win. I've written more than once that the odds are against him, as they are against any individual runner. But why would a guy with his time not be considered to have a realistic chance to win a race like Boston? The only thing anyone can seem to come up with is that he's not African.

But let's play this out. Against a field of Africans how much faster than the fastest African would a US runner need to be for you to think the US runner has a reasonable chance of winning a marathon?

You made that implication, nobody else did.

You mean that makes him so unlike Cheruiyot, Merga, and the rest? What is with this urge to mythologize Hall and his circumstances?

Yes, of course he has a chance. Except you've gone beyond that.

You continue to miss the forest for the trees. Since he's clearly not one who can just run away from a field like this, it's not simply about speed or times.

Where have I said anything more than that he has a chance to win? Where have I gone beyond that? Quotes please and stop putting words in my mouth. And naturally you don't answer my question.

I find it baffling that people can get so hung up on the semantics of a perfectly reasonable quote. Burfoot was speaking to a reporter in a mass-media publication. He was giving context to the general public, not providing sports psych counseling to Ryan Hall.

The challenge in educating people about the current state of the sport is, on the one hand, conveying just how unbelievably fast Hall is, and on the other hand, explaining why this doesn't mean he's a shoe-in to win Boston or any other international race. There's a level of depth and parity in the sport that means that 2:06 doesn't guarantee you anything.

Hall right now is like, say, Peter Rono or Fermin Cacho in the 1500 in 88 and 92. They were both very capable of winning (obviously), but no one would have said beforehand that their victories were inevitable. They weren't Morcelli or El G types. This is not easy for a casual spectator to understand, when you're telling them how unbelievably fast someone is, then when they come fifth in 2:06 you turn around and say that it was still a fantastic race.

[quote]70s guy wrote:

I remember reading in RW back in the mid 70s, that Amby Burfoot ran an 8:40 2 mile on nothing more than 7 minute training miles. Crap articles like that, whether they are true or not (supremly gifted runners can do lots of things out of the ordinary-how many milers have you seen quoted in March after running a sub 4 mile that, "they haven't even gotten on the track yet"?). Problem is, when the ordinary runner reads this crap, they think that somehow it will transfer to them and their career goes down the dumper.[/quote

high school and college runners are always looking for the secret, the magic pill, the secret training method, the 'make-you-fast' diet.....there is no secret other than good genes, hard work and luck (with injuries).

HRE wrote:

Where have I said anything more than that he has a chance to win? Where have I gone beyond that?

With the whole "redemption" mythology, as was plainly pointed out.

Quotes please and stop putting words in my mouth.

Look at my last post.

And naturally you don't answer my question.

Which one? I answered the latter and the former, naturally, wasn't even a good question.

Ok. All you're really going to do is say that I'm wrong and interpret what I write in a way that convinces you of that. I'm not interested in that sort of thing. It serves no point.

Amby's best two mile was 8:45 and it did come off slow training. I'm not sure why relaying that information qualifies as crap. I once talked with him about this very thing and he said that at the time he was running races in the 880- 6 mile range pretty much weekly or more often.

How else should what you've written be interpreted? Because I've taken the most straightforward interpretation possible. If you're just going to backpedal to weasel out of it then I agree, it serves no point.

Amby loves boobs, Amby loves boobs, Amby loves boobs. And so do you Wejo, Rojo, Mojo, and FloJo.

HRE wrote:

Amby's best two mile was 8:45 and it did come off slow training. I'm not sure why relaying that information qualifies as crap. I once talked with him about this very thing and he said that at the time he was running races in the 880- 6 mile range pretty much weekly or more often.

I should clarify. his great feat of running an 8:45 2 mile while running 7 minute miles in training is not crap. The relaying that info to a whole generation of young runners in the early 70s who are already getting stuff like "LSD, the slow, humane way to train", probably did more to hurt a lot of runners who went with long slow distance and never moved beyond it. So to relay that information, while it may be true is reckless to say the least to impressionable runners looking for an easy way to a fast time. NEWSFLASH! very few runners will be able to run an 8:45 2 mile out there, let alone doing it off 7 min mile pace in workouts.

When Joe Henderson wrote "LSD" and included guys like Burfoot and Bob Deines he tried to be very clear that he wasn't telling people that training at 7:00-8:00 pace would produce the sorts of performances those guys were getting.

But when the book was released in 1969 there was a fairly widespread idea that there was no value at all in running that slowly excpet for warm ups, cooldowns and recoveries.

Joe had switched to slow training and surprised himself with how well he managed to race. When he found there were others who trained similarly and had even more success he decided, with the urging of Track and Field News, to write about it. For those of us who were wearing down from doing almost daily interval work it was a very useful idea and many of us benefitted greatly from that apporach.

HRE wrote:

For those of us who were wearing down from doing almost daily interval work it was a very useful idea and many of us benefitted greatly from that apporach.

the interval crazy workouts from the 60s was even worse and burned out more runners and pushed many into early retirement 'cause it was just no fun. Lydiard had the right combo figured out.

And that was really the idea Joe was trying to advance when he wrote the book. He was suggesting that training could be a lot more pleasant than it had been and that you weren't writing off your chances of racing well. He was strongly influenced by Lydiard when he wrote the book but personally wasn't interested in doing the hill and track phases because he'd already done loads of that sort of thing.

You completely missed the point.

HRE wrote:

Steve,

Can you recall what your mental state was before Boston '75?

Yes, I was in great shape for Boston in 1975, but still scared to death of guys like Ron Hill, Jerome Drayton, Tom Fleming, and a host of great U.S runners. A guy named Bill Rodgers had just placed 3rd in the World XC's and that was worrisome, even though I had beaten him in 1974. (Friends from the Boston area said that he had gotten sick fom the World's and "wouldn't be a factor".... great advice!) I remember running with Bill through the first 5-6 miles, and he was incredibly relaxed, joking and looking around, while still running sub- 5 minute pace! He took off from there with Drayton, and proceeded to run an unbelievable ( at the time) 2:09:55,setting American and Boston records. I ran very even splits and caught Tom Fleming about 600 yards from the finish. I was very pleased with my time of 2:11:54, and also with the fact that the U.S. went 1-2-3. Back then, it was the most competitive marathon, outside of the Olympics and Fukuoka. Running Boston, in those days, was simply the best in road racing, in my opinion.

I ran my worst all out, serious marathon at Boston. The downhill course for the 1st part had my quads dead by the time I got to heartbreak hill. Could hardly lift my legs those last 5 miles; and I was a 215 marathoner, twice on other courses. My quads couldn't handle that course.