To Malmo, Hodgie, and the other "greats: a few words about talent

dunes, you've said your piece. give it a rest now as it doesn't appear as if you have anything else of substance to add. guys like you that display bad comprehension skills even after things are spelled out for you in detail drive this board down w/nonsense.

as soon as my headache clears...i've got .02 to add to this discussion.

AND THE BATTLE IS OVER! Clearly with the latest posts we can see that malmo has briefly brought his commentary up to wejo's level(see above message) and with this a very credible, non heated, informational post. And in reply from our local hell raiser dunes runner we get the most absurd post, making little sense, having no credibility and really admits defeat, which is easy to see if you have been following. Could it be? dunes runner are you out of ammo? say it aint so?

sucka - go for another run

On numerous threads I've read nothing but bullshit from you, dick runner. My favorite has to be your completely ass backward logic relating to weight training.

It is on this board where I have discovered the greats from yesteryear such as malmo. Why don't you and all other naysayers just shut up and listen to a legend once in a while instead of provoking him into needless, pety arguments that stray from the topic.

Fact is, more of the current crop of U.S. underachievers need to hunker down like the greats of yester year, and it ain't going to happen on 75 mpw coupled with cross training.

Malmo very good answer but what was the difference between you and the two more decorated athletes in the question, more 1)hard work, 2)luck, or 3)just plain better equipment(genes)? Also I would like add I could never hold your jock, I was...I would describe stirring the coals of the Council fire we all sit at here in internet/letsrun world.

Thank you, all due respect,

jhh

scotth wrote:

dunes, you've said your piece. give it a rest now as it doesn't appear as if you have anything else of substance to add. guys like you that display bad comprehension skills even after things are spelled out for you in detail drive this board down w/nonsense.

as soon as my headache clears...i've got .02 to add to this discussion.

Scott - dunes runner is the 'master' of the circular argument based on little to no fact. We've been down this road before. Why malmo bothers trying to debate the poster I have no idea since, as right as malmo is, he can't possibly get his point across to the nitwit known as dunes runner.

Scott you have your head up your ass just like malmo.

Another example of a dumb american male who can't comprehend or do shit.

keep shooting yourself in the foot. I see malmo's right about the projection thing. angry little twit you are.

I believe you are as mistaken about Scott as you are Malmo. He is one of the most informed writers about running today.

Malmo, Hodgie-san and Scott don't really have to defend anything. Anyone who is very informed about running knows who they are and what they bring to the table.

You can learn alot from them.

I just read the last 40 posts or so, and now I can't even remember what this thread is about. I have picked up some useful information, such as the fact that I personally can't understand basic facts and that I am generally quite offensive to Malmo & his supporters. I also learned that dunes runner & Malmo are not fond of each other. And I learned that Malmo is right (I'm no longer sure what he's even right about) because some guy who was struggling with his running returned to fairly high mileage training recently and got a PR.

Anyway, just to try to bring this thing back to where it started (I think), a claim was made that, while it was great for runners to try to achieve their potential, some runners just aren't able to endure the heavy loads of others. While guys who put in 150+/- mile weeks are to be commended for their tenacity and work ethic, and I know that it doesn't come easily for them or without complications, some people break down well before that mark. I mean, I really can't think of a runner I find more impressive than Wejo, based on his coming out of obscurity by sticking to a plan for years and transforming himself from a mediocre runner to an extremely good one. I just think the point was that some people might not be capable of doing that. Some people might sit down at the age of 15 and work out a 20-year development plan that was absolutely perfect: gradual increases in mileage and intensity, lots of slow mileage, stretching, strengthening exercises, ice baths, massages, physical therapy, working on their basic need for speed, rest when appropriate, and on and on, but still break down at, say, 95 miles a week, and never be able to progress beyond that. All because their were some inherent limitations in their physical make-up. Maybe their bones are less dense than average, their genetics dictated that their joints would not be strong enough, etc. There are countless possibilities.

This does not mean:

--oh, anybody could be as good as Malmo, Hodge, or Wejo is they could stand up to that kind of training

--most people get the most out of their potential--I would agree that the vast majority of runners would benefit from more or harder training. I'm sure that if their were as many runners today willing to sacrifice like guys in the 70's and early '80's, the US would have a better running scene.

I think the original poster felt that some on this board judge himself and others to be inferior competitors because, with a little willingness to sacrifice, a little patience, an increase in mileage, the attitude that "I'm either going to get really good or cripple myself trying", they could have done significantly better. And I would agree that that is an attitude that seems prevalent among some on this board. All I'm saying is, (taking his word for it), he tried all that, and it didn't work. I'm saying that for some people, maximizing their potential might involve doing significantly less of a workload than Malmo, Hodge, & Wejo. It doesn't mean that their workload is just as hard as the stud guys, it just means that they couldn't handle the workload of the stud guys no matter what.

Is that such a concession to make? Just to admit, OK, you need to have a try at very high mileage if you want to turn yourself into a top-level distance runner, but maybe, just maybe, you did everything right but just physically couldn't handle it? It's not so hard. If it makes you feel any better, I'll admit that I personally don't think I've done all I could to maximize my potential. I could train more. I did 13 miles this afternoon including a 5-mile tempo run, but I thought about getting up early this morning and doing an additional 5-miler. But I didn't do it--even though it probably would have benefitted me--because I just didn't want to. But I would say, there have been times in the past that I have gone out for the extra 5-miler on a regular basis. I've glimpsed the limits of my abilities, gotten fairly close to them (I think), but decided it wasn't worth doing things such as spending very little time with my wife and friends and dogs and books just to get my marathon down from 2:32 to maybe 2:28.

PSSSST,

If you "overtrain" along the way you will find the correct training. If you undertrain, well,...

HRE:

>Didn't there used to be a Will Rogers? I think he was from Connecticut and was running at the same time as Bill Rodgers. I don't think WR ever did a marathon. Maybe I'll dig out the old mags and see if I can find the name. Does this name ring a bell with any other oldtimers from the northeast?<

HRE,

When Bill Rodgers first made a big impression in 1975 some of the local media, including the late great departed Joe Concannon of Litchfield Ct. & the BOSTON GLOBE declared him Will Rodgers.

The early days of the Greater Boston Track Club Bill was known as Will-ha. Bill would come up with nicknames for running partners on the club based on some of his competitors around the world whom he thought they most resembled.

At the Olympic Games in Montreal many of us from Boston that lined the course wore T-shirts with a likeness of Will/Bill Rodgers declaring "Will Power."

Bill Rodgers is a most impressive person, and runner.

Twice 2:09, and a lifetime fastest mile of 4:18.

Tom,

Your comments are right on and made me chuckle.

Malmo you are ONE of the men no doubt! I wanted to answer your question; 3K 8:47.6 indoor, 10K 31:47.78, 1/2Mth 1:11:07. NO real excuse I was just not good enough. At my peak I ran betweem 50-60 on average all ball busting speeds of(D3 runner type guy) 6-6:30no slower/mi, sometimes faster, with high end workouts mixed in twice per week per the coach. Longest week = 99; most when I was running well = 76. Out of HS I was 4:38 & 10:01. Most of us are too lazy for sure, no doubt. I also now believe that most of us ran too fast/hard all of the time. Again, all my respect, you were a HAMMER in your day, no doubt.

jhh

[quote]TomM wrote:

--oh, anybody could be as good as Malmo, Hodge, or Wejo is they could stand up to that kind of training

--most people get the most out of their potential--I would agree that the vast majority of runners would benefit from more or harder training. I'm sure that if their were as many runners today willing to sacrifice like guys in the 70's and early '80's, the US would have a better running scene.

I think the original poster felt that some on this board judge himself and others to be inferior competitors because, with a little willingness to sacrifice, a little patience, an increase in mileage, the attitude that "I'm either going to get really good or cripple myself trying", they could have done significantly better. And I would agree that that is an attitude that seems prevalent among some on this board. All I'm saying is, (taking his word for it), he tried all that, and it didn't work. I'm saying that for some people, maximizing their potential might involve doing significantly less of a workload than Malmo, Hodge, & Wejo. It doesn't mean that their workload is just as hard as the stud guys, it just means that they couldn't handle the workload of the stud guys no matter what.

Is that such a concession to make?

In college I had a friend who claimed he broke down if he went much over 40 mpw. But one spring, a series of horrible races had him willing to try something else. So I took with me for my main session each day and got him up to 70 mpw. It wasn't hard, I just slowed him down. He handled the miles immediately. He improved his 3 mile PR by about 10 seconds and his 6 mile PR by about 2 minutes, then went back to 40 mile weeks saying he really didn't care enough about running fast to run as much as he'd been.

That was fine. He was maybe my best friend and a really good person and I'd never say he was inferior to me or to anyone else who trained more than he did just because he trained less.

And none of us pushing the "work" angle here are saying that anyone will become world class if they work as hard as they possibly can. What we're saying is that if you assume you have little ability and use that as a reason not to train as much as you can, you'll never find out what sort of ability you had/have.

Cetainly there are people who run fast from Day One with little background and improve as they do more and become world beaters. But there are also people like Tom Fleming, Benji Durden and New Zealanders Dave MacKenzie and John Robinson whose early careers showed no indication of any ability and only became really good after years of high volume work. Even Bill Rodgers appeared to be nothing more than one of many respectable college division runners when he was at Wesleyan and even his first year as a road racer showed no indication of what was coming. If he'd decided that he had only a bit of talent and not gone at it full bore it's likely he'd never have had the career he did.

That's all any of us "work" people are saying. If you run 120 mpw and find that it doesn't work as well as 75 mpw did, you can always go back to 75, even if you need a few weeks rest to get over the effects of the 120s, and you'll know that 75 mpw is your sweet spot. But if you stop at 75...

Very good post Just say no

The manner in which you delivered your thoughts on talented runners and injury prone talented runners was excellent.

I just dropped by to read a few post, now its back to the NFL: Miami vs. Tennesse and Cleveland vs. Kansas City

(two tough quarterbacks leading their teams to victory).

Tomorrow I will post a brief outline of my athletic career,

I have shyed away from doing so-because many won't believe the truth. Anyway it touches on a few of the points you made. I hope you enjoy it when I post it tomorrow.

Vipam

I disagree that most people could run as fast as Wejo and Malmo. The talent level of the national runners are a given; however, what seperate them from recreational runners: dedication and commitment. The United States is filled with runners who could be National Class if they committed themselves to that goal. Many high school and collegiate runners do not continue their pursuit to become national class athletes instead they prefer to focus on families and careers. The sheer number of athletes that fall into this category could very well have produced a national class runner had they dediced to focus on such a goal. The fact of the matter is that not all talented runners chose to leave track some future national class runners have their decision made for them by prison sentences, nagging interest, or lack of interest in the sport.

Vipam

"With friends like these, who needs enemies?"

Just wanted to point out that, just because Dunes Runner disagrees with Malmo, it doesn't mean that everyone else who disagrees with Malmo automatically agrees with DR. DR has demonstrated on many threads that he's a troubled individual with reality problems; on this thread, he simply distracts from the point.

And that point, as a few people have restated, was that: yes, the vast majority of people never reach their potential because they don't push the envelope. Malmo's generalization is perfectly true. BUT it's possible that there are some exceptions to the generalization, who despite their best efforts will never physically be able to handle the miles necessary to reach their potential.

And please spare me the anecdotes about "my friend, who said he couldn't run more than 40 miles, but then I showed him how, so that means you can run 150 miles a week too, because you must be just the same as my friend".

I'm not saying anyone can run 150 miles a week. I'm saying that most people who say they can't handle anything but small amounts of running can do a lot more and will generally benefit from it, but will never know unless they try. I struggled to get past 50 miles a week and again to get past 70. In each case I adjusted nad eventually could handle 140-160.

Vipam no one in this thread claimed that most people could run as fast as Wejo or Malmo, so how do you disagree?