Sir Mo falls short of British Record while Tommy Hughes strikes again with a 71:09 age 60+ WR!

kmaclam wrote:

Mo negative split a 1:00:27 falling a minute short of the record while 60-year-old Tommy Hughes ran a WR 1:11

Hughes is running 13 miles at a rate of only 35secs slower per mile than the wr for the mile in his age group. The equivalent in the open category would be a half run at 4.15 per mile. That would be a 55min half. Either the 60's mile record is super soft or Hughes is juiced to the gills.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Hughes is running 13 miles at a rate of only 35secs slower per mile than the wr for the mile in his age group. The equivalent in the open category would be a half run at 4.15 per mile. That would be a 55min half. Either the 60's mile record is super soft or Hughes is juiced to the gills.

Or maybe you lose speed/power a lot faster as you age, while you can keep your endurance closer to what it was when you were younger...

Graham Green recently turned 55 and is firing on all cylinders again, so maybe we will get another Brit WR in the M55 category soon.

https://club.runthrough.co.uk/runner-feature-graham-green/

Just maybe wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Hughes is running 13 miles at a rate of only 35secs slower per mile than the wr for the mile in his age group. The equivalent in the open category would be a half run at 4.15 per mile. That would be a 55min half. Either the 60's mile record is super soft or Hughes is juiced to the gills.

Or maybe you lose speed/power a lot faster as you age, while you can keep your endurance closer to what it was when you were younger...

The sprint records don't support your hypothesis. Records get further from the WR as the distance gets longer. Hughes is a massive outlier here, running faster than the M60 10k record for half marathon.

Just maybe wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Hughes is running 13 miles at a rate of only 35secs slower per mile than the wr for the mile in his age group. The equivalent in the open category would be a half run at 4.15 per mile. That would be a 55min half. Either the 60's mile record is super soft or Hughes is juiced to the gills.

Or maybe you lose speed/power a lot faster as you age, while you can keep your endurance closer to what it was when you were younger...

The physiologists say that cardio vascular capacity declines substantially with age.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Just maybe wrote:

Or maybe you lose speed/power a lot faster as you age, while you can keep your endurance closer to what it was when you were younger...

The physiologists say that cardio vascular capacity declines substantially with age.

You are tireless in your mission to discredit people who are doing things you can't.

I get it, your hips are gone, your mobility is shot, you haven't aged well. But stop pi**ing on those who have been more fortunate with their health, who are training hard, and achieving great results.

Most O/60 records are "soft" as not many internationals are still running seriously at 60.

At 61 I understand the challenges.

Derek Turnbull of NZ ran a stack of 55, 60 and 65 records. Derek was a sheepfarmer who had run 2.00 and 4.23 as a 20 something. This is what we have seen in the past good sub elite guys who have not maxed themselves out.

Hughes had a non typical career but showed elite potential. Probably had about 10 minutes more marathon ability than Turnbull (2.38 at 60 and 2.41 at 65) so if he gets his shxt together and keeps it together he could run 2.28 to 2.30. So a 1.11 looks about right. Of course he may be juiced up. But I do think his performances are realistic.

Hughes is a monster -

https://www.lifetimerunning.net/2020/04/profile-tommy-hughes-holds-age-59-world.html

Here's another great article on his training -

https://www.podiumrunner.com/training/marathon-training/how-to-run-a-227-marathon-at-age-59/

Age grading is BS.

1:11 is 1:11, can’t be compare with 58 min not matter the age. This person wasn’t able to become an elite athlete when young that’s the real deal. Please stop thinking that some amazing performances at different group ages are better than WR because they are Not.

60 y/o 1:11 does not mean he could run 55 in your 20’s.

I know an amazing 40+ athlete he wasn’t a great athlete at college he kept running and training very hard and now one of the best masters in the country and might be able to get in the future this BS equivalents at WR performances but we all know that he wasn’t able to achieve anything close to that when young and tried hard.

Please have respect for athletes at their peak even with doping it takes a very special athlete to achieve WR’s.

Armstronglivs wrote:

kmaclam wrote:

Mo negative split a 1:00:27 falling a minute short of the record while 60-year-old Tommy Hughes ran a WR 1:11

Hughes is running 13 miles at a rate of only 35secs slower per mile than the wr for the mile in his age group. The equivalent in the open category would be a half run at 4.15 per mile. That would be a 55min half. Either the 60's mile record is super soft or Hughes is juiced to the gills.

Are you aware of the fact that the old record was already 71:31? Perhaps Masters just slow down a lot more on a % in the shorter events? I mean if you factor in the shoes, today's run wasn't any better than what Martin Rees ran in 2013.

Pajac wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The physiologists say that cardio vascular capacity declines substantially with age.

You are tireless in your mission to discredit people who are doing things you can't.

I get it, your hips are gone, your mobility is shot, you haven't aged well. But stop pi**ing on those who have been more fortunate with their health, who are training hard, and achieving great results.

+1

Does he even bother to post ANYTHING positive? Seems an insufferable person.

rojo wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Hughes is running 13 miles at a rate of only 35secs slower per mile than the wr for the mile in his age group. The equivalent in the open category would be a half run at 4.15 per mile. That would be a 55min half. Either the 60's mile record is super soft or Hughes is juiced to the gills.

Are you aware of the fact that the old record was already 71:31? Perhaps Masters just slow down a lot more on a % in the shorter events? I mean if you factor in the shoes, today's run wasn't any better than what Martin Rees ran in 2013.

Or maybe this guy is just able to train a a lot harder than the shorter guys. The miler is doing 25mpw and XC. This guy is cranking out 120mpw at 6:30-7:00 miles. I have to imagine that is a lot closer to optimal hm/marathon training

Coevett wrote:

Graham Green recently turned 55 and is firing on all cylinders again, so maybe we will get another Brit WR in the M55 category soon.

https://club.runthrough.co.uk/runner-feature-graham-green/

don't do this, they're not in the same bracket. Green (re)peaked in 2015 and is just a huge insta attention-seeker for the past few years. Hughes is the real deal.

Pajac wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The physiologists say that cardio vascular capacity declines substantially with age.

You are tireless in your mission to discredit people who are doing things you can't.

I get it, your hips are gone, your mobility is shot, you haven't aged well. But stop pi**ing on those who have been more fortunate with their health, who are training hard, and achieving great results.

That's exactly what Lance Armstrong's fans used to say about him. But you wouldn't know anything about that from your little play-pen. But you would certainly know a lot about people doing things you can't.

Armstronglivs wrote:

kmaclam wrote:

Mo negative split a 1:00:27 falling a minute short of the record while 60-year-old Tommy Hughes ran a WR 1:11

Hughes is running 13 miles at a rate of only 35secs slower per mile than the wr for the mile in his age group. The equivalent in the open category would be a half run at 4.15 per mile. That would be a 55min half. Either the 60's mile record is super soft or Hughes is juiced to the gills.

He’s talented to the gills?.

Armstronglivs wrote:

But you would certainly know a lot about people doing things you can't.

And he's OK with that and not bitter and accusatory. Try it.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

But you would certainly know a lot about people doing things you can't.

And he's OK with that and not bitter and accusatory. Try it.

Well, he doesn't have much choice. And neither do you, I suspect.

rojo wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Hughes is running 13 miles at a rate of only 35secs slower per mile than the wr for the mile in his age group. The equivalent in the open category would be a half run at 4.15 per mile. That would be a 55min half. Either the 60's mile record is super soft or Hughes is juiced to the gills.

Are you aware of the fact that the old record was already 71:31? Perhaps Masters just slow down a lot more on a % in the shorter events? I mean if you factor in the shoes, today's run wasn't any better than what Martin Rees ran in 2013.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_masters_world_records_in_road_runninghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_masters_athletics#Mile

As was pointed out above, masters athletes don't slow down more in shorter events relative to longer events, as shown by the masters sprint records. The middle distance records, including the mile, have been dominated by some very talented athletes, like Nolan Shaheed, whose mile record just fell to Dan King.

But no one has addressed the point I made above: the 60's half-marathon record is equivalent to a 55min open half-marathon record, if we compare the differential between the mile record and the mile rate in the half-marathon. No one would accept a 55min half record is possible, so how is a time like 1.11 credible at 60? As much as some might wish it to be so, stamina doesn't increase as you age.