The Amazing Pat Porter

malmo wrote:

Mamede hadn't yet run a faster 10k than Virgin. That makes him the fastest runner in the field.

Avocados Number wrote:

So if you, as a crotchety old 50-something ex-runner, show up at a moderately competitive half-marathon filled with a bunch of 64 minute guys in their twenties, you would consider yourself to be the fastest runner in the field?

You're a f***ing idiot. But I'll play your childish game.

If I had the fastest time in the world in 2007 and show up today and beat the runner with the 2nd fastest time in the world, then that makes me the fastest runner in the field. What someone does later doesn't change that.

Any more childish analogies?

Sagarin wrote: Too bad that the US can no longer put a guy in the top 30.

Sure they can, and they have been.

Um, that was for effect. But, why don't you provide a list of US performances over the last decade, if you have it? I'd be curious to see how we've fared post Todd Williams. It's not terribly impressive.

Sagarin wrote:

Um, that was for effect. But, why don't you provide a list of US performances over the last decade, if you have it? I'd be curious to see how we've fared post Todd Williams. It's not terribly impressive.

Your threshold of what impresses you is way too high. You could do some heavy lifting of your own and look up the results, you know?

Sagarin wrote:

If we are talking about a criminal trial, where "reasonable doubt" is the litmus test, then I believe Avogadro has made enough of a compelling argument to tip the scale. If it's civil trial, then Malmo has won on a barometer of "preponderance of the evidence." Nonetheless, despite what the "facts" show, I do not think it's a stretch to surmise that if the Ethiopian hadn't gone early, he would have had better than a fighting chance of winning the damn race. pretty much common sense. As for Mamede, I don't think he factors in this discussion.

Except, of course, that malmo isn't making some "preponderance of the evidence" argument about who the best runner in the field was. Rather, he's defending the proposition that there is "no reason" to believe that Kedir or any of the other Ethiopians could have beaten Virgin if they hadn't gotten confused about the lap count and sprinted a lap too early. I think that there are some pretty good reasons to think that Kedir, and perhaps others on the Ethiopian team, could have.

Mamede comes into the picture because malmo asserted, without qualification, that Virgin was the "best track 10K runner" in the 1981 field. My more modest position was that it's unclear who the best track 10K runner in the field was, since Mamede showed himself to be the fastest (not necessarily the "best") track 10K runner in the world a few months later, and Kedir showed himself to be better in a tactical 10K in the 1980 Olympic final than Virgin had ever shown himself to be.

Kedir's performance in the 1981 race was both tragic and remarkable. (Even Bekele, perhaps the best track and cross-country distance runner in history, has failed to recover and hold on for victory on the occasions when he has kicked a lap early against lesser runners.) It was good that Kedir was able to become the world champion the next year.

malmo wrote:

Your threshold of what impresses you is way too high. You could do some heavy lifting of your own and look up the results, you know?

Wow, you're a feisty little bugger today, aren't you? I was, in fact, doing just that as you posted this (I wasn't meaning to treat you like a hamster on a wheel -- I know you tend to have the most thorough and organized compilation of data on this board, so I figured you might have it at your fingertips). Truthfully, I couldn't remember our top showing over the last decade, but I knew it surely wasn't a top ten performance. And, indeed, no one has pierced the top ten at least since 1998. And no one has pierced the top 30 since 2002. Now, I know I will be ostracized for my next, what will be considered controversial, remark, but I just don't hold Abdi and Meb's performances (11th in 2003 and 2002) in the same light as the reminiscing about Porter and Virgin's. Americans to be sure, but I just am not to be convinced that they don't possess African distance running genes. But that's another topic altogether. I'm not asking to be persuaded, because I'm not going to be.

Of course, the entire short race/long race skews this entire argument, but in the spirit of this thread, the long race is the subject of my focus, because that's where one should find the greatest convergence of steeplers, 5000 and 10000 specialists, road racers, and marathoners.

Avocados Number wrote:

Mamede comes into the picture because malmo asserted, without qualification, that Virgin was the "best track 10K runner" in the 1981 field. My more modest position was that it's unclear who the best track 10K runner in the field was, since Mamede showed himself to be the fastest (not necessarily the "best") track 10K runner in the world a few months later, and Kedir showed himself to be better in a tactical 10K in the 1980 Olympic final than Virgin had ever shown himself to be.

Only Virgin beat both of those runners. He outkicked them to boot.

How can you claim that Moscow was "tactical" when Yifter came within 0.73 of his PR and Kedir set his PR there? Kedir LOST in a tactical race against Virgin. Virgin blew his doors off.

Are you going to claim that it's unclear that Bekele is the fastest 10k in the world TODAY because someone might beat his WR at some time in the future?

You're flat out crazy, and wrong on every single point.

Sagarin wrote:

Wow, you're a feisty little bugger today, aren't you?

If "feisty little bugger" is asking you to do some of your own research rather than asking me to do it for you, then so be it.

Is this thread about Pat Porter or is it about Virgin being able to beat this guy or that guy? My dad could beat all of them up!

Easy Rider wrote:

Is this thread about Pat Porter or is it about Virgin being able to beat this guy or that guy? My dad could beat all of them up!

Haha. It was initially about Porter (as posted by me) but it appears to have degraded into an argument over Virgin beating this guy or that guy and who ran how many laps too short and when they ran which PRs. It's very good entertainment.

malmo wrote:

3 miles easy, 2400 @ 6:27 (67,67,59,59,67,67), 400 jog, 1600(4:15), 400 jog, 1200(3:05), 1.5 miles easy, 6x300(51,47,45,43,41,38.4), 2 miles easy

38.4, for a 300m? ...... no way Virgin had that kind of speed. How do you know that he ran that fast?

I guess it comes down to this; in any given race on any given day the person best prepared, both mentally and physically MAY win depending on where the damn finish line is, a lap short or a lap long, better damn well have your head out your ass in that kind of race! Are you guys serious? The winner is the guy who crosses the finish line first and therefore the fastest on that day. Faster, who flippin' cares the winner is the winner!! Remember Pre and his phylosophy?

Back to Pat wasn't it 8 USA cross titles? Yeah he was damn good at cross, enough said.

2:20 wannabe .... wrote:38.4, for a 300m? ...... no way Virgin had that kind of speed. How do you know that he ran that fast?

Mad Dog wrote:

I guess it comes down to this; in any given race on any given day the person best prepared, both mentally and physically MAY win depending on where the damn finish line is, a lap short or a lap long, better damn well have your head out your ass in that kind of race! Are you guys serious? The winner is the guy who crosses the finish line first and therefore the fastest on that day. Faster, who flippin' cares the winner is the winner!! Remember Pre and his phylosophy?

Agreed, but I think all that 6.0221415 × 1023 was asserting from the very beginning was that, had the Ethiopian(s) not inadvertently gone prematurely, they very plausibly and quite probably would have beaten Virgin. And I agree with him. It's not some absurd assumption. The thread unnecessarily went downhill from there, but that's all the initial point really was. And it was a fair point.

Back on topic, I would have loved to see Virgin and Porter race at their prime at world cross. And, frankly, I'd love to see another Virgin or Porter come out of the woodwork and be competitive year in and year out. It seems as though Ritz could fit that bill as he always runs well in cross, but he hasn't proven he can crack the top ten.

malmo wrote:

One more post then I'm done.

Eight posts later...

Sagarin wrote:

I'd love to see another Virgin or Porter come out of the woodwork and be competitive year in and year out. It seems as though Ritz could fit that bill as he always runs well in cross, but he hasn't proven he can crack the top ten.

It is a nice thought, but in this era of professionalism and specialization I really do not see any top US runner put that kind of seasonal focus on World Cross, where the payoff is so slim. Which is unfortunate because I would also like to see it and believe that there are capable candidates.

Sagarin wrote:

Agreed, but I think all that 6.0221415 × 1023 was asserting from the very beginning was that, had the Ethiopian(s) not inadvertently gone prematurely, they very plausibly and quite probably would have beaten Virgin. And I agree with him. It's not some absurd assumption. The thread unnecessarily went downhill from there, but that's all the initial point really was. And it was a fair point.

Thank you.

OK, Avo thinks Virgin wasn't the best. Malmo thinks he was. They both support their assertions. Ultimately, Virgin has the medal at home. For my money, any reasonable arguments notwithstanding, that's what really matters. Let's move on, shall we?

Why couldn't Virgin run 38.4? Hell, I could run 39 at the end of a workout, albeit not at the end of that one.

Now, to answer a question from about five pages ago, Dennis Leck was another Alamosa guy. He made two world XC teams I think.