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

It's about relative to our younger selves. Yes I would like to contend at World Masters at my own event.

What are Shaheed's lifetime bests?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yet what we are seeing with Hughes is that he is running longer distances at a level comparable to a very decent 25-35 year old - which is tougher than running middle distance at that level. .

He was and is a Marathoner. It would be tougher for him to run middle distance at a "good' 25-35 year old level.

This is like your mile to half marathon comparison. Faulty.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yet what we are seeing with Hughes is that he is running longer distances at a level comparable to a very decent 25-35 year old - which is tougher than running middle distance at that level. .

He was and is a Marathoner. It would be tougher for him to run middle distance at a "good' 25-35 year old level.

This is like your mile to half marathon comparison. Faulty.

You have misunderstood the point. I am not suggesting Hughes would be competitive with 25 year-olds in middle distance events. What I am saying is that for any 60 year-old distance runner to be competitive with the 20's age group - at any event - is to be a significant outlier amongst his age peers, whose best performances are more equivalent to runners in their early teens.

Aging doesn't simply reduce muscular strength; it sees a reduction in cardio vascular capacity. When you combine the two we would expect to see a greater relative decline as the distances get longer. Hughes demonstrates the reverse.

Nope. You're trying to make up another rule and expecting everyone to believe it.

You don't compare 60 year old times to teens over the Marathon distance. Twenty somethings are the "teens" of that event.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Nope. You're trying to make up another rule and expecting everyone to believe it.

You don't compare 60 year old times to teens over the Marathon distance. Twenty somethings are the "teens" of that event.

So 20 somethings (and I actually did give the range to include the 30's) are like "teenagers" (14 year olds?) when it comes to running the marathon? Never mind that since the inception of the event many champions have only been in their 20's - like Abebe Bikila and Joan Benoit Samuelson.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Nope. You're trying to make up another rule and expecting everyone to believe it.

You don't compare 60 year old times to teens over the Marathon distance. Twenty somethings are the "teens" of that event.

So 20 somethings (and I actually did give the range to include the 30's) are like "teenagers" (14 year olds?) when it comes to running the marathon? Never mind that since the inception of the event many champions have only been in their 20's - like Abebe Bikila and Joan Benoit Samuelson.

Speaking of goalposts. You don't have to contort the extremes of things to try to make your point valid. Young teens tend to not run marathons and certainly not to the point where you can derive meaningful data.

Bikila and Benoit were late 20s-30s and pure marathoners.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So 20 somethings (and I actually did give the range to include the 30's) are like "teenagers" (14 year olds?) when it comes to running the marathon? Never mind that since the inception of the event many champions have only been in their 20's - like Abebe Bikila and Joan Benoit Samuelson.

Speaking of goalposts. You don't have to contort the extremes of things to try to make your point valid. Young teens tend to not run marathons and certainly not to the point where you can derive meaningful data.

Bikila and Benoit were late 20s-30s and pure marathoners.

They were but two quite typical examples over the years. A marathon runner doesn't have to be over 35 to be any good - unless they are doping.

You also can't turn teenagers into athletes in their twenties and thirties by mere argument; whatever the event, there is no comparison between a 14 year old and the same person at 25-35.

Young teenagers don't typically run marathons because it is too hard for a developing body; it takes physical maturity to run that distance - and that's what 25-35 year olds have. And that is who Hughes is competitive with - young adults in their physical prime. At 60.

That's right. Physical prime does not equate to prime performance. Hughes is not competitive with the best 25-35 group. Not even close.

He's a degraded former Olympian among high level hobbyjoggers.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

They were but two quite typical examples over the years. A marathon runner doesn't have to be over 35 to be any good - unless they are doping.

You also can't turn teenagers into athletes in their twenties and thirties by mere argument; whatever the event, there is no comparison between a 14 year old and the same person at 25-35.

Young teenagers don't typically run marathons because it is too hard for a developing body; it takes physical maturity to run that distance - and that's what 25-35 year olds have. And that is who Hughes is competitive with - young adults in their physical prime. At 60.

That's right. Physical prime does not equate to prime performance. Hughes is not competitive with the best 25-35 group. Not even close.

He's a degraded former Olympian among high level hobbyjoggers.

You don't read what I said or grasp it. I said Hughes is comparable with "good runners" in their twenties and early thirties, not the best. I am not comparing him with 2.05 marathon runners. It is dishonest of you to claim otherwise. But you consistently distort or misinterpret what I say. To run a 1.11 half or 2.27 is a very respectable standard for all those except elites and professionals. Only the better recreational runners could do it.

I compared it to a 2.08 half mile or 4.59 mile for a 14 year-old- which is what runners like Shaheed did at 60 - which is good for a runner in their early teens but still nowhere near the best at that age group. Shaheed and King are in fact nowhere near the best 13 and 14 year olds - but that is also an argument I did not make. But as for their even being in the same ball park - or straight - as a good 25-35 year old (say 1.55 and 4.20) - forget it. Yet in comparable hm and marathon terms, Hughes appears to be so. If you can't see that you really don't understand the sport.

*4.50 mile - not 4.59.

Armstronglivs wrote:

. If you can't see that you really don't understand the sport.

lol. And how is your masters career going?

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

. If you can't see that you really don't understand the sport.

lol. And how is your masters career going?

Understanding is not measured by a stop-watch - or you would all be getting dumber as you get older and slower. Regrettably, that may be true for some anyway.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

lol. And how is your masters career going?

Understanding is not measured by a stop-watch - or WE would all be getting dumber as you get older and slower. Regrettably, that may be true for ME anyway.

Also: It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Pissing myself at some of these comments suggesting Tommy Hughes is on Peds, 1992 Olympian that took a long spell away from running, continued to work on building sites and decided to go back running. I would say a paracetamol is the only drug he ever took at most.

To get access to Peds now would be a venture in Northern Ireland.

Genetics pure and simple

Does Tommy still do manual labor?

I wonder if he's expected to keep up with the prime years guys . lol

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

. If you can't see that you really don't understand the sport.

lol. And how is your masters career going?

And yours? How good are you? You seem like a jerk.

Chrysothamus vicidiflouris wrote:

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

lol. And how is your masters career going?

And yours? How good are you? You seem like a jerk.

Great. Better than you. OK.

I get that you think you are Spartacus, but how exactly does any of that relate to the points I raised about Hughes?

Earlyboy wrote:

Pissing myself at some of these comments suggesting Tommy Hughes is on Peds, 1992 Olympian that took a long spell away from running, continued to work on building sites and decided to go back running. I would say a paracetamol is the only drug he ever took at most.

To get access to Peds now would be a venture in Northern Ireland.

Genetics pure and simple

If it was only genetics that were needed for fast times no one would ever dope. But doping can improve on genetics. If he doped, you wouldn't know.