gerry lindgren

Important points to be made:

1. Jtupper wrote: ?Someone said he must have been a little strange. Name me some great athletes who aren't. I always thought that was a prerequisite.? So you are saying ALL/MOST great athletes are ?strange/?very weird?? That is not necessarily true, so don?t act like it is. Lindgren was a VERY weird cat in most people?s estimation, making Gabe look pretty boring/plain. Not every great athlete acts like Gabe/Gerry. There are plenty of great athletes that are no different than average people, except for way-above-average talent. There are MANY ?normal? great athletes.

2. Gerry was sort of whacko. And it is said he did not really count his mileage, but just ran. So why should be believe his mileage totals??

3. On the other hand, let?s say his totals were true. And let?s not discount that he clearly had some talent, and was also extremely durable. Greatest HS runner ever. How many medals did he go on to win??? 0. Let?s not praise his mega-mileage that may have helped wreck him and shorten his career. I would MUCH prefer to talk about some of our medallists from that period: Ryun, Schul, Dellinger, Mills. Ryun and Schul put in WAY less mileage than Lindgren, and more focus on quality. Schul ran 13 ?speed/quality? sessions a week sometimes. Hmmmm, 350 miles a week = burnout and no medal. LOTS of quality work (Ryun/Schul) = Olympic medals and world records. THAT Is what you should be praising. Stop this romantic love of the crazy mega-milega hermit guy. Bottom line, he crashed & burned when it mattered most, as he was becoming an adult, and then did nothing the rest of his life.

4. Didn?t he just up and leave his family behind? And everyone thinks he was a ?great person? ??? Remind why. Because he ran a lot and was ?pleasant.? Wow, is that all it takes to be a ?great person??

5. TomM has made more sense than the rest of you combined. He was just being rightfully skeptical. Shane Paul, your responses makes you look an 11 year old at best. Embarrassing. Shane Paul and others just type and don?t think.

I admire Gerry's hard-work and great races as a youth. But count me out of the ?Gerry was a god? fan-club. I?ll take Ryun?s, Schul?s etc accomplishments/ training-methods/lives over Gerry?s ANY day. Seb Coe was twice as successful as Gerrry on ¼ the mileage. There is someone to admire, with a great CAREER and a great LIFE, not some psycho who peaked at 18 and never won a medal.

One interesting line from it: "A week after the Olympic Trials, Lindgren ran a four-mile cross country course event at California?s Mt. SAC in the incredible time of 16:54. The world record for two miles at the time was 8:27. Do the math. Lindgren tied the world record in his first two miles, and then did it again, no rest. The course was legitimate distance, according to the meet director, Stanford?s Payton Jordon." 1964 I think ??--quote

OK, the world record for 5000m set by Kip Keino in 1964 was 13:24 I believe. 16:54 pace for 4 miles works out to about 13:07 pace for 5000m. And this was on a cross country course. A "legitimate distance" cross country course. I would have to say that this is yet another example of mythmaking about Lindgren. Either the time is wrong or the course was short. But it would be typical of this kind of mythical character that things never quite went his way in official, carefully observed events like the Olympics, but he was capable of otherworldly performances when nobody was paying too close attention.

But I suppose I'm just being negative, pointing out those pesky little things called "facts" that get in the way of a good story. Sorry about that.

Yeah TomM, how dare you question the Lindgren myths. Yes, only SOME of the stories are myths, don't jump down my throat here people. I know he ran several world-class races in his short career. Those are the facts: great talent, very hard worker, monomanical in his training, world class, but in 2 Olympic years, did not get it done when it mattered most. Too bad.

It's not so much a matter of not questioning, but you've more or less admitted that there's nothing that will convince you that Lindgren ran the distances he claims. When people who believe the distances say they believe them, you discount them. When people who know Lindgren say he told them he ran that much, you answer that he probably didn't measure the miles correctly. Ok, that's your privilege, but it's frustrating debating someone who has declared the debate over.

So maybe the 50 mile days really were "only" 43 miles and the 210 mile weeks were only 185. To quibble over the specifics misses the point. He ran way more than anyone believed possible or beneficial and accomplished things no one else did, and he didn't really "burn out," he still runs and races occasionally.

Also, the fact that Don Ritchie once ran 100 miles at a 6:10 pace makes me think it's more likely that Lindgren's sub-6:00 88 mile run really happened. That's not disrespect for Ritchie or any other ultra-runner, but rather acknowledgement that ultra-runners are generally people who weren't getting the results they want at common distances and who moved up until they began winning. Lindgren, I expect even Ritchie would acknowledge, was a much more talented runner who actually was at least as well-prepared, by virtue of his 200 mile weeks, as Ritchie for an ultra. So if Ritchie could do 6:10s for 100 Lindgren doing 88 at a bit faster seems doable.

Message:

You know that kid in high school who always got his ass kicked by everyone and still tried to be one of the "cool" people? That's TomM. He's a piece of shit who talks noise all day long, but hides behind is little dogs in real life. Fucking prick. Other than that, a great guy!

sooo...what does a message like that make YOU, Shane Paul?

Anyone who does this, who does this seriously is psycho on some level.

I'd say Coe was successful of half the mileage (half of 200).

i think the story is actually only sub-7:00s for 88 miles, which, i guess, makes it even more believeable for you.

So, anyway, one of the magazine treasures I've saved is a Distance Running News (pre-Runner's World days) w/Gerry Lindgren shaking Mike Ryan's (USAF) hand on the cover after, I believe, the '69 NCAA cross meet. There's also a pic inside showing Lindgren leading a small pack w/frosh Pre a few yards back (he'd finish 4th...I think).

I've also saved the Sports Ill w/Pre as a frosh on the cover. They are not for sale.

Just a few corrections of things you stated or implied in your post:

--I never said Don Ritchie ran 100 miles at 6:10 pace. I said about 6:54 pace.

--I never said Lindgren ran 88 miles at sub 6 pace. I said sub 6:30's was the claim.

--I never said that Lindgren "burned out".

--I would dispute that "ultra-runners are generally people who weren't getting the results they want at common distances and moved up until they began winning". I'm sure that probably happens on occasion, but I've never met anybody for whom that was the motivation. For the most common reason, try something along the lines of wanting something challenging and unusual. And if you think Lindgren was really that much better suited to ultrarunning than Ritchie, do some research on Ritchie first.

--I don't see how quibbling over specifics "misses the point". The point of this ongoing debate seems to be "did Lindgren really run as much as is claimed?" The vast majority of the posts have either been claims of spectacular feats by Lindgren, or myself and a couple of others doubting those claims. It seems kind of like any time I point something out about one of the claims that seems a little too far-fetched, somebody cries "but that's not the point. The point is that he was really good." We all know that already! What we're debating is how he got that good. If he didn't "really" run 50 miles a day, don't say he did! Asking for reliable information is not a sin.

You're right about it being hard to convince me about Lindgren's mileage claims. The point is, the claims are too outlandish to accept based on vague word-of-mouth claims. As the well-known hoax debunker Martin Gardner has said, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". If somebody tells me they saw a ghost or a UFO or God or something like that, no amount of character witnesses or pleading is going to convince me. It's just going to take something a lot more convincing than that, like me being there or at least a convincing videotape, because Gardner's experiences have shown that lots of seemingly ordinary, honest people will go to extreme lengths to deceive people, even when they have nothing to gain by it. It's just one of the strange parts of human nature.

I see where TomM is coming from on this. The treatment of Lindgren is the exception rather than the norm on this board. When speaking of other runners on this board, worldclass or otherwise, if a number is wrong or seems even slightly distorted people are quick to jump all over it. People fight like crazy over whether Coe did no more than 75 miles a week or if he was getting up to 90. And this is a guy whose dad wrote a book documenting training. Yet with Lindgren, who did not keep those sorts of records, we are supposed to blindly accept that he ran 350 miles a week for 6 weeks and that his typical weakly mileage was 250?

I know there is the "who cares how many miles he ran" argument. Well, you would think most of the people on this board would. We jump over everyone else to make sure there facts are straight. And if the point isn't how much Lindgren ran, it shouldn't be an issue that there are some who just don't believe the 350 weeks and 250 week average. If you change that to 300 miles for a 6 week stretch (still insane) and 200 miles a week average, it be easier for some to accept.

Some of the race stories are pretty ridiculous. The 46:05 10 mile training run through the wheat fields that was faster than Ron Clarke's world record? The 16:54 4 miler on a XC course is another example TomM focused on. To clarify a bit, in 1964 Ron Clarke held the world record in 13:34.8. About 4:22 mile pace. Yet, Lindgren ran 4:13.5 mile pace for almost a mile farther on a cross-country course? Hell, if he just would have kept the 4:13.5 pace on a track for 5k, he would have hit about 13:06 for 5k. Faster than Rono ever ran.

I don't think anyone blindly accepts any particualr claims. My point is that he ran a LOT at certain times. How many 50 mile days does one need to run in order to claim validly that he ran 50 miles a day? Sports Illustrated did an article about him that mentioned that he commonly went for "all day" runs on weekends. If he really ran all day, didn't stop to play touch football and count it as running, that's impressive. How much did he do on those all day runs? Forty miles? Eighty? Personally, I don't care. It was impressive and for many of us who semi-matured in those dyas, really inspirational.

I also don't really care if someone else believes Lindgren ran as much as reported or not as long as they recognize that he went well past the accepted limits of what a person could do. to me, that's the point.

Dear posters,

I can vouch for Lindgren, he really did run 300+ miles

over a stretch.

I agree with just say no. What is actually important in life? Is it running around in circles? Does running 66 mile long runs make you a good person? Lingren had serious issues and ran from them by leaving his family and moving to Hawaii. I'm not bashing the guy, I don't know the circumstances, but everybody posting seems to have this idea that Gerry is the greatest guy because he trained his balls off and he was so "down to earth." Be careful what by which you judge a man. Respect his dedication? Sure. Praise his eccentricity? Maybe. Put him on a pedestal because he ran a ton and has cool quotes, and neglect the truth about his life? I'd say no.

lghjl

Well, that's good enough for me. We now have a witness to his mega mileage. I never doubted it.

We need somoene who was alive in the 60s and personally interacted with Gerry regularly (more than just interviews once in a while or witnesses) to answer two very important questions.

I can't sleep till I find out who what when where how, this is bugging me.

Very true. How seconds per lap did Webb & Nelson gain from the harder/faster tracks? Did Gerry L. run his 13:44.0 on cinder? His 8:40.0 was on wood right?

jzs

Gerry was quite small and light, they called him "The Sparrow".

sparrows are deadly