Or does he always run with a good finishing time in mind? Thereby never really having a bad showing due to risk taking. And any victory being a product of the pace he had decided on prior to the race just happening to win it.
A good way to stay a sponsored runner for a long time. But not how to become a legend.
he is mostly concerned about how long he can hang with sell.
It's his life. He can do as he pleases with it. I'm sure even though he's a top American runner that his talent will only take him so far. I don't think he's got legend in him no matter what strategy he uses. There will always be at least one better as long as he's running.
If an athlete in another sport was known for only caring about his personal stats and not whether he won or lost. The people in this country would eat him alive. Why not in running?
And obviously it's his life. But why have professional athletes if we cant discuss them.
Didn't he run for place at boston last year? What about all his national championships?
He's a great guy and a great pro who knows exactly what he is capable of. He runs his race, and by his own admission knows that lots of things would have to go his way to win. But I don't think it's fair to say he doesn't run to win. He was in the mix at Boston for a long time last year, and probably will be again Monday. On the right day and the right course, he is capable of winning. Though if he ran to win someplace like Chicago, he'd DNF.
4th place and never challenged the winner
National Championships may have been won by a predetermined pace working out that day. Much like the Olympic trials.
He's a great guy. I just wonder how much he cares about actually winning any given race.
When you run the races he runs you really don't have much of a shot of winning. So...if you were to run the World XC Champs would you just sprint out at the start to try and win? At least you tried right?
Every runner tries to beat his best. For some runners that means gunning for the win. For some that means running a fast time. For some it's a combination of both.
Alan
yeah seriously, this is like the dumbest thread ever... just shut the f*** up.
You shut the f*** up or Ill smack you upside the head B****
Tryin to talk to me that way skinny punk.
But back to Culpepper. He is not every runner. He is a paid professional. And correct me if I'm wrong but the object of a race is to win it at that level. Its one thing to have a plan to try to win. But if that plan gets you 4th to 10th place in every race you run its time to change the plan. Running to win is sprinting in the World Championships. But it is also not letting the lead pack go at mile 15 of a marathon. Not if youre trying to win
Running to win is NOT sprinting in the world Championships
Correction
I believe he ran the 2004 Olympic Trials to win.
Beyond that, this is a dumb and even unfair question to ask. There are marathoners who believe their best chance of victory is NOT to go out very hard with a leader. If this strategy takes someone from 15th, to let's say, ONLY fourth, or third, or even second, are we gonna say he didn't try to win?
He doesn't race much. When he does, he seems pretty conservative. He won't win a big race, but he won't blow up either.
I was at Bolder Boulder the year that he finished second. I was close enough to really see him when he entered the stadium. The lead Kenyan had ~150m lead on him, and was slacking a bit. You could see in his face that he realized that he could win. He kicked in very hard, and forced the Kenyan to step it up a couple of gears to hold him off. He ran to win that day.
What do you want him to do, start choosing races that he knows he has a better shot at winning? She he skip Boston and head to Grandma's, instead?
How often do these marathoners that you speak of win major marathons?
My original question was does he run to win or run to run well? Running well keeps the sponsorship money coming in. Running to win is a personal thing. A thing that stands a great chance of appearing to be running badly. But also can make you a legend. Especially an American at Boston.
Alot of those runners that runner X picked off coming from 15th to fourth, third or even second were guys who only came to the race with 1 objective - to win.
I dont think its an unfair or dumb question. When Alan Culpepper lines up for Boston on Monday will his mindset be to win the race or just to have a good showing? I know what Meb is coming to do. Hes shown me what hes about. And quite frankly I dont think that Meb is a better runner than Alan.
right, because when a runner more talented and just as equally trained comes to race, it's really you (in this case, Culpepper) that has a problem. unfortunately, it's the nature of the game: there's always someone out there tougher, faster, stronger than you. you fail to account for this and as a result look like a typical letsrun jackass.
So are you saying that Meb is better than Alan?
And if everyone on lets run is a Jackass then what does that make you C*** S***er?
well, troll, meb does have an AR and a silver thing hanging around his neck; both associated with events that culpepper has excelled in the most.
as for the epithet, yes, i am the biggest c********* you know. but, for the record, i didn't say everyone, and i'm not sure how you connected a donkey to sucking the dong...jesus, mary, and joseph i think i just figured it out. enjoy living on a farm there?
I dont know you so I guess that just makes you a C*** S****r
I wasnt making any connections just straight calling you a name.
Meb has achieved those things by standing at the starting line with the right mindset. Not because he is a physically superior athlete to Culpepper. People have come up with a few instances where Alan did indeed run to win. And we all know he is capable of beating Meb. So I guess the question of the day is. Will Alan Culpepper try to win the Boston Marathon. I say regardless of his finish (4th, 5th etc) he will never really be in it. And not because the other runners are superior to him. But because he wont run to win.