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

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

.

Because it's a much better metric.

Not too many people speculate on the half potential of milers.

Nice one

Armstronglivs wrote:

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

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.

I made an observation about Hughes' time. You seem to take it personally. If my observation bothered you, come up with a better argument.

I am not "bothered" by people "doing great things"; there are many achievements I admire. But I have also learned to be sceptical of some outlier feats when doping has become endemic in all sports, and at all levels. None of it is measured by my own very modest efforts. Envy doesn't come into it. I am not the calculus - other great athletes are.

Lets hear of a few examples which impress you. Also your reason for believing they are clean.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

.

Because it's a much better metric.

Not too many people speculate on the half potential of milers.

You have missed the point. It isn't about what a miler can achieve over a half marathon. It is to show the usual percentage fall-off in times in each event in the very best at each distance, and it can apply from the sprints to the marathon. All events run at their maximum by the best competitors will show a slowing as the distances are longer. We can often estimate what the metric will typically be, from, say a half-mile to a mile, or 5k to 10k, and half-marathon to marathon. The world records in each event are one way of ascertaining that metric. That is what I have done.

My point was to ask why that metric of relative slowing is apparently considerably different - much less - for one particular event - in a 60's masters event compared with the same open events. I don't really buy the argument that the 60's mile record is "soft", as Nolan Shaheed has been a fantastic masters middle-distance runner (and now succeeded by Dan King).

Your metric fits your theory. It is no more valid than the other one.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I made an observation about Hughes' time. You seem to take it personally. If my observation bothered you, come up with a better argument.

I am not "bothered" by people "doing great things"; there are many achievements I admire. But I have also learned to be sceptical of some outlier feats when doping has become endemic in all sports, and at all levels. None of it is measured by my own very modest efforts. Envy doesn't come into it. I am not the calculus - other great athletes are.

Lets hear of a few examples which impress you. Also your reason for believing they are clean.

As I have indicated, I have a great deal of admiration for Nolan Shaheed's achievements, at so many masters levels, and also Dan King's recent record. Nothing about their performances leads me to suspect they were anything other than genuine. That view is based on what I understand about the sport and my awareness of the nature of physical aging - which I have read about as well as having experience of it.

I might add that superior masters achievements may also depend on rare genetics that aren't evident in elites, which are those factors that produce a slower rate of decline with aging and less propensity to serious injury. A good master's athlete need not have been outstanding in their youth. That said, everyone eventually gets slower over the years - if they are still able to compete.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Your metric fits your theory. It is no more valid than the other one.

But, equally, no less valid then.

Correct. Also Nolan Shaheed takes a supplement of dubious legality.

Why not use a 10k on the track? Why do you think using. a 1 mile on the track gives a valid result but a 10k (note how he hasn't posted a link to that track 32:48 because it doesn't exist) doesn't? Why doesn't your methodology work? Because you are making assumptions that aren't valid is the obvious answer.

Also the comparison of the two athletes is apples to peaches in nearly every way.

Most Masters records are set by guys in a tiny pool of talent and /or capacity to withstand hard work.

When you are young you have multiple years and competition chances at a distance. As a Master you have five years of getting older and a couple of chances at best over shorter distances.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Pajac wrote:

You don't know me, so you just do the only thing you are able to; you insult and try to get people to react.

Your posts have no content.

Sorry Dolly, you are a very unfriendly type and nothing but bad entertainment.

But you can't stop yourself from responding all the same. Again and again. But you are right about one thing - I don't know you. Small blessings.

You keep responding too, Dolly, with the same juvenile comebacks.

So this record was set in nike %fly... meaning it's really 73-76 min effort? Still impressive

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Also the comparison of the two athletes is apples to peaches in nearly every way.

Most Masters records are set by guys in a tiny pool of talent and /or capacity to withstand hard work.

When you are young you have multiple years and competition chances at a distance. As a Master you have five years of getting older and a couple of chances at best over shorter distances.

Of course. It is why doing these comparisons like this is meaningless. With a shallow talent pools it is easy to have big outliers. As the pools get deeper, the discrepancies vanish. It is absurd on a physiological level that the HM WR pace is faster than the 10k track pace. But one is a popular event and the other is basically never run. See the hour world record (i.e. pretty sure given 2 mins that Kamworor could have run another 100m:)) compared to the HM.

Right now the 60 year mile record is held by a 14:30 (i.e. a good runner but far from world class) and the HM is held by a 2:14 marathoner. One of those is a much better runner than the other and if they age the same you would expect one to put out far better times. But both are a couple notches down the talent chain from the guys who are setting records in their 20s. Eventually we will get some guy with more talent (say a 3:55 miler or a 2:08 marathoner) who ages well and smashes these records. But it might take 50 years for the combo of talent, aging decline, and desire to all line up.

Pajac wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

But you can't stop yourself from responding all the same. Again and again. But you are right about one thing - I don't know you. Small blessings.

You keep responding too, Dolly, with the same juvenile comebacks.

Anything more than that would be wasted on you. It also seems you have taken up stalking.

I did refer to your 10k comparison. It still reveals the same issue, that Hughes is running his distances much faster relative to his age peers in shorter distances than athletes are doing in open competition.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Pajac wrote:

You keep responding too, Dolly, with the same juvenile comebacks.

Anything more than that would be wasted on you. It also seems you have taken up stalking.

Replying to you is stalking but you replying to me is what?

You are the human waste on here though. Your fear mongering is borderline criminal and you have told at least three posters that you wish they catch COVID and die.

Why the brojos tolerate this, especially when one of those posters is their darling Jamin, is something inexplicable.

So there isn't as much talent in the shorter distances because the times are not as fast? A circular argument if I ever heard one. Faster times can be the product of doping. Not to mention that it is exceedingly condescending to some very fine athletes - like Shaheed. You also don't get that talent at an elite level doesn't necessarily endure into later life. The athlete who ages least will be the best in masters competition. An Ed Whitlock doesn't need to have been an Olympian in his youth.

Pajac wrote:

Replying to you is stalking but you replying to me is what?

Also stalking. You're both idiots stalking each other.

bothsides wrote:

Pajac wrote:

Replying to you is stalking but you replying to me is what?

Also stalking. You're both idiots stalking each other.

You are replying to me, idiot stalker.