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

Armstronglivs wrote:

So you also can't answer the question, of how does a 60 year-old run the equivalent of an open 55min half-marathon?

A great performance, hijacked by posts about PEDs, is a shame.

Firstly, as someone nearly three years older than Hughes, he looks old enough to be my uncle. Its amazing that most of these super fast old guys don't really look young for their age.

For me the take out is, that I can still run fast. Its been 4 yrs since a sub 3:10, but I would find a goal of sub 3 easier than sub 19 5km. Those two don't equate either, but I don't know if you are losing speed more than stamina, or maybe it is self fulfilling because you are able to cope with mileage better than speedwork.

BTW, Hughes himself did not run a mile in 4:50, you cannot do a linear comparison and I think, despite my lack of speed a 4:50 mile is closer in achievement than a 71min HM, not that I could do either.

@Armstronglivs seems to get wrapped up in certain metrics, like Brad Barton's college mile time or the "55 minute equivalent" for Hughes and can' let go. The old record by Martin Rees was also 1:11 and while pretty good he was no world beater as a younger runner.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Why do you still have so much trouble controlling your parting shots characteristic from pre-school?

It's a very odd reflex action.

Are you volunteering an example of sophisticated wit? But it seems personal jibes are the privilege of those who think like yourself, in this little echo-chamber. While offering insult, it escapes some of you why you earn the response you receive.

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So you also can't answer the question, of how does a 60 year-old run the equivalent of an open 55min half-marathon?

Because nobody thinks it is the equivalent of a 55 HM. You are doing garbage math and pretending it has meaning. Garbage in, garbage out is the old computer saying.....

Since your maths are so good perhaps you could explain the following: the world's best mile at 60 is just under 4.50; the half-marathon time of 1.11 is around 5.25 per mile - about 35 secs slower each mile than the one mile record.

If we take the open times for a comparison, the mile wr is 3.43. A half-marathon run at the same differential as for the 60's, of 32-34secs slower per mile, would mean each mile would be run at 4.15-17. That works out at a half marathon time of 55+mins. (The current wr is about 4 mins slower than that.) So how do you explain that long distance endurance appears to be relatively greater - much greater - at 60 than amongst open athletes in their prime?

I am not saying Hughes has run a mile in 4.50, and nor am I arguing that El Guerrouj holds the world half-marathon record. I am simply using the wr's at each distance as a metric for showing how much time is proportionately lost over the longer distance. We do that for other distances.

Armstronglivs wrote:

wow just wow.... wrote:

And why does Armstronglivs get to post such garbage without proof? You're lucky I don't run this site mate as I would have banned you long ago and if I was Hughes, I'd sue you in New York minute!

So you also can't answer the question, of how does a 60 year-old run the equivalent of an open 55min half-marathon?

It's not. It is equivalent to a 57:34 open half according to official age grading, which I trust more than your method of comparing mile times.

wow just wow.... wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So you also can't answer the question, of how does a 60 year-old run the equivalent of an open 55min half-marathon?

Absolutely I can. He's exceptional and did something really special, period.

If anyone does anything out of your acceptable time slot they are juiced?

I have zero idea of who you are as I don't live here but apparently you do.

But to make the accusations such as the ones you have, you must have some major insecurity issues if this is your sole purpose, to rip those who run exceptional times, things you obviously could never do.

There are threads throughout the history of this site that have expressed scepticism about athletes and given athletic performances, because of the prevalence of doping in the sport. It is a bit precious to think that masters athletes can never be subject to the same inquiry. I asked a question above, offering a metric for evaluating Hughes' performance, and it has received little more than indignation. That isn't an argument.

Another giver of +1 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So you also can't answer the question, of how does a 60 year-old run the equivalent of an open 55min half-marathon?

It's not. It is equivalent to a 57:34 open half according to official age grading, which I trust more than your method of comparing mile times.

You may do that. But why is the metric I have offered not appropriate in your view? As I have said, we often make such comparison for other distances.

Armstronglivs wrote:

[quote]That works out at a half marathon time of 55+mins. (The current wr is about 4 mins slower than that.)

The current world record is 58:01, 3 minutes slower than your 55 minutes, and only 27 seconds slower by age grading than Hughes' time.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am not saying Hughes has run a mile in 4.50, and nor am I arguing that El Guerrouj holds the world half-marathon record. I am simply using the wr's at each distance as a metric for showing how much time is proportionately lost over the longer distance. We do that for other distances.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Another giver of +1 wrote:

It's not. It is equivalent to a 57:34 open half according to official age grading, which I trust more than your method of comparing mile times.

You may do that. But why is the metric I have offered not appropriate in your view? As I have said, we often make such comparison for other distances.

The reason the metric is not appropriate is because it is a vary rarely raced WR, unlike open mile and HM, the 60+ mile record by one person vs the HM of another does not have enough data points

The HM time underscores my point that the 60+ mile WR is 'soft' (if one can say that)

I am Sam wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am not saying Hughes has run a mile in 4.50, and nor am I arguing that El Guerrouj holds the world half-marathon record. I am simply using the wr's at each distance as a metric for showing how much time is proportionately lost over the longer distance. We do that for other distances.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You may do that. But why is the metric I have offered not appropriate in your view? As I have said, we often make such comparison for other distances.

The reason the metric is not appropriate is because it is a vary rarely raced WR, unlike open mile and HM, the 60+ mile record by one person vs the HM of another does not have enough data points

The HM time underscores my point that the 60+ mile WR is 'soft' (if one can say that)

I may not entirely agree with you - although your points are fairly stated - but I appreciate the civility of your response.

Using your exact logic, explain why his time isn't equivalent to a 52.24. Here are the numbers

Open records

10k: 26:17 4:14 mile

HM : 58:01 4:26

60 year records

10K: 33:57 5:28

HM: 71:09 5:26

So this is obviously the same as running 4:12 miles for the HM right? And Obviously if you can run the HM 2s faster than the 10k time, clearly you will run your marathon 4s faster? He should be pushing 2:20 right? As I said garbage in, garbage out.

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/

Isn't he the speedster with the bodybuilder's physique?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Why do you still have so much trouble controlling your parting shots characteristic from pre-school?

It's a very odd reflex action.

Are you volunteering an example of sophisticated wit? But it seems personal jibes are the privilege of those who think like yourself, in this little echo-chamber. While offering insult, it escapes some of you why you earn the response you receive.

So you can't. You do it all the time btw. No jibe or insult needs to be offered first. It's your

initial response.

For a start the over 60s 10k world record is 32:48.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Are you volunteering an example of sophisticated wit? But it seems personal jibes are the privilege of those who think like yourself, in this little echo-chamber. While offering insult, it escapes some of you why you earn the response you receive.

So you can't. You do it all the time btw. No jibe or insult needs to be offered first. It's your

initial response.

While yours is to lecture. Each to their own.

My first comment was about Hughes' time. I offered no insult until insult was received. You were happy to contribute. But now you adopt a high moral tone. As the expression goes, if the heat in the kitchen isn't to your liking, you know what to do.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

So you can't. You do it all the time btw. No jibe or insult needs to be offered first. It's your

initial response.

While yours is to lecture. Each to their own.

My first comment was about Hughes' time. I offered no insult until insult was received. You were happy to contribute. But now you adopt a high moral tone. As the expression goes, if the heat in the kitchen isn't to your liking, you know what to do.

Try again. You immediately started with insults. " Soft, juiced to the gills" No possibility of anything else. I merely observed your comments and they were "as usual".

If people doing great things bothers you, try harder yourself.

Your wrong wrote:

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

Using your exact logic, explain why his time isn't equivalent to a 52.24. Here are the numbers

Open records

10k: 26:17 4:14 mile

HM : 58:01 4:26

60 year records

10K: 33:57 5:28

HM: 71:09 5:26

So this is obviously the same as running 4:12 miles for the HM right? And Obviously if you can run the HM 2s faster than the 10k time, clearly you will run your marathon 4s faster? He should be pushing 2:20 right? As I said garbage in, garbage out.

For a start the over 60s 10k world record is 32:48.

Post a link to where a 60 year old has run 32:48 on the track. I will be waiting......

Your wrong wrote:

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

Using your exact logic, explain why his time isn't equivalent to a 52.24. Here are the numbers

Open records

10k: 26:17 4:14 mile

HM : 58:01 4:26

60 year records

10K: 33:57 5:28

HM: 71:09 5:26

So this is obviously the same as running 4:12 miles for the HM right? And Obviously if you can run the HM 2s faster than the 10k time, clearly you will run your marathon 4s faster? He should be pushing 2:20 right? As I said garbage in, garbage out.

For a start the over 60s 10k world record is 32:48.

Quite apart from your correction, I am not sure why he has substituted a 10k/half-marathon metric while ignoring the comparative measure I raised of mile/half marathon. Perhaps because it doesn't suit his argument.

Quite apart from that, we can see that although there is a falling off in time of the mile rate from the 10k compared with the half in the open grade - of some 12secs per mile - in the 60's there is a much less apparent decline, of about 7 secs per mile. Hence, an event of 21k is run at a rate only fractionally slower than a race less than half the distance. That is phenomenal endurance for 60 year-olds and suggests the half marathon record is a significant outlier in the age group - and even better than the open wr when age-graded.

The commenter also suggested my estimate of Hughes' time means he should be pushing 2.20 for the marathon. I wouldn't argue that, but he isn't too far off, at 2.27. If that's correct, that's a loss of only 14mins in 30-odd years. Incredible.