Stember runs 19:30

Probably 5 years after retiring.

Reality check223 wrote:

Kenyano wrote:

That's a total disappointment, I can't believe he can't be with in 18 minutes bracket. I thought if he miss cracking 18, he would definitely be in 18 minutes something.

I can do 18 something without serious training and I am older than him!

then what does that tell ya - age don't matter that much. it's about training!

You are right it is not about age, it is about training. But remember we are talking about a former professional here. No matter how long he hasn't trained, still 19:30 is too lame given that he had 10 weeks training.

If he knew he was that bad, then he could have better bet for cracking a 19 or a 20 instead.

In addition he had a pacer, so the idea of him getting blown up shouldn't come into play.

The thing is Stember should just forget about running!

(I hope the above statement will motivate him to work harder rather than kill him)!

a bad day wrote:

We all have had a bad day before...

I was never nationally ranked, but I can

tell my grandchildren that I beat

Gerry Lindgren/Frank Shorter/Bill Rodgers so on so on

Don't tell your grandkids this, they won't care. Actually nobody cares.

To the post who said "WTF is talent" because it can't be quantitatively measured: Are all the important things quantifiable?

They make a big deal about the thing on LR, the charity etc and the dude doesn't come close!

Sounds like Stember's lack of character which was present even in his stanford days is still there!

Im not surprised that Michael Stember ran like crap. He asked me for help six weeks ago and I told him to show up to practice. He only showed up four times and he didn't do what I ask him to do. He just jogged up and down the field, and then says he is too tired to train. The reason why Stember didn't run fast is because his mind is weak and he didn't want to hurt. It is as simple as that. Softer than toilet paper, that guy is.

Letsrun could now create an online reality series called Stember's return. It could also be done for charity. Each week/month we could have a short 10 minute AVI, SWF, or Quicktime film covering his training back into condition. The production values don't have to be that steep. All you need is a decent camera, Finalcut Pro/Premiere, and a delivery device (AVI, Flashmovie(FLV).

A.Kear

http://jam.groups.adobe.com

To the post who said "WTF is talent" because it can't be quantitatively measured: Are all the important things quantifiable?[/quote]

If you are going to use a word that carries meaning, then it better be clear what you are communicating. Alluding to "talent" without any clear idea about what that entails is pointless.

For example: "He has talent, therefore he should have ran near 18 minutes for the 5K."

So his performance is predicated on his "talent" but is it clear what that communicates to a reader? And furthermore, if his "talent" is different from the "talent" of an elite marathoner, then just what kind of "talent" are we talking about here? What does it mean for someone with "talent" in say the 1500m to take x years off and come back and train for a 5K by logging 15-20 miles a week as preparation for y weeks?

I think the use of the word "talent" is a bit like the use of cliches in the sense that people use it without really thinking about what they are really communicating.

rjm314 wrote:

If you are going to use a word that carries meaning, then it better be clear what you are communicating. Alluding to "talent" without any clear idea about what that entails is pointless.

I think you're overthinking what people mean by the world "talent" when referring to Stember.

He came into the sport with no specific running training and ran fast times. He was able to step on the track at Jesuit and immediately ran times that most people would need a lifetime of training to achieve. That shows some innate physiological ability to be a runner.

If he started high school at such a high level, it stands to reason that his baseline is just that much higher than anyone else.

I think the people who have surmised that Stember is more talented than the average runner may be on to something. The challenge now is figuring out what to do with this information.

I'm also going to side with those who figure he probably had more than a 19:30 in him yesterday, and that if for some reason he did not, he could probably come back and run in the 16's before long if he cared to put in a modicum of work. As a few people have noted, 33 is younger than other ages, e.g., 39, 43 and 90.

These are the kinds of scintillating insights that keep people coming back to this site for more. I have to stop short, however, of agreeing with the borderline conspiracy theorists who seem to believe that Stember was out to screw his charity all along for reasons known only to Stember himself, and that Letsrun.com was complicit in his scandalous conduct and was publicizing his effort in advance just to make everyonr involved look like miserable blowhards.

By the way, I heard from a reliable source that he split 4:09, 4:35 and 10:11 before managing to bring it home at 5:30 pace for the final 172 meters so that he could outsprint an Irag war veteran with a massive head wound who is confined for life to mechanized parachute. He just didn't have the base needed to sustain 13:30 pace for more than half the race.

Would you rather Stember didn't run for charity and never became nat'l champ or an olympian, like you anonymous, lesser runners? Then if he 'popped' an 18 min 5K and posted it anonymously, it'd be 'better'.

ttc wrote:

...you anonymous, lesser runners?

I think you meant "we."

in sacto wrote:

He came into the sport with no specific running training and ran fast times. He was able to step on the track at Jesuit and immediately ran times that most people would need a lifetime of training to achieve. That shows some innate physiological ability to be a runner.

If he started high school at such a high level, it stands to reason that his baseline is just that much higher than anyone else.

No that's poor reasoning. Stember was a VERY athletic and sports-involved athlete before he started running. There is no high baseline - he was just already very athletically developed by the time he started running. Soccer players and basketball players of certain positions should not have a problem running 400m-mile well.

Perhaps more people bet against him than for him. So perhaps Stember figured that running slower than his goal would help the charity more.

Pathetic. Why drum up all this publicity if you are going to look like a buffoon?

hounddogharrier wrote:

Pathetic. Why drum up all this publicity if you are going to look like a buffoon?

Yeah. He should have at least been realistic, like Florence Griffith-Joyner was when she claimed after Seoul that she was training to make the Olympics in the marathon. Maybe if they'd had CrossFit back then she would have done it.

hounddogharrier wrote:

Pathetic. Why drum up all this publicity if you are going to look like a buffoon?

He did... A total AHOLE

maybe he figured that he would drum up even more interest if he failed the first time and tried a second time. I'm surprised, but clearly he did not train much at all. I ran 1620 in college before a knee injury put me out for 15 years. When I could finally run again, I ran about 10 miles per week with no workouts for a few months and ran 20:30, then on 20 miles per week ran 19:15. And all this time my knee was still too weak to even walk up stairs. So, I thought that sub 18 would be nothing for this guy. But if you do not run at all or almost not at all, and don't crosstrain at all, how are you going to do a distance event? We can define talent as ability to improve vastly more than others on the same training, to run faster than others with no training, to be strong enough to handle heavy and intense training loads without injury, and so forth, and by all those definitions, you'd have thought a guy who ran 4:04 in high school and 3:35 in college had it. This was fun and I hope he does it again.

Ed Whitlock would eat him for lunch with that time.

Agreed -- for these young guys who have never had a long layoff or the older guys who have never really stopped running -- it is difficult to come back from a prolonged period of time not running.

His 19:30 says nothing about his talent or his love for the sport -- it just illustrates the obvious -- he has taken time away from running, but tried to come back as a recreational runner to raise some money.

No need to hate for that.