If they had the shoes of today, she would lose to them every time. You have to go back to the 1940s to find men who would lose to today's top women with modern tech. Pre-Lydiard era. Since then, most increase in performance has been due to tech (and peds).
If they had the shoes of today, she would lose to them every time. You have to go back to the 1940s to find men who would lose to today's top women with modern tech. Pre-Lydiard era. Since then, most increase in performance has been due to tech (and peds).
In the 1940s they were running on sand tracks and using leather spikes. Not sure you can even start to compare the eras ....
Many races in the 1990s were won in 1345 or 13:50. Although they were tactical, still they were won in that time. Could she beat them on a bad day?
Wasn't this with 1990s training which is now generally accepted to be perhaps the worst era of training approches to distance running since the 1940s or something?... Training is the most important factor in distance running regardless of gender or inherent talent.
If they had the shoes of today, she would lose to them every time. You have to go back to the 1940s to find men who would lose to today's top women with modern tech. Pre-Lydiard era. Since then, most increase in performance has been due to tech (and peds).
Even if they ran barefoot, they would drop Kipyegon like a bad habit.
Many races in the 1990s were won in 1345 or 13:50. Although they were tactical, still they were won in that time. Could she beat them on a bad day?
Wasn't this with 1990s training which is now generally accepted to be perhaps the worst era of training approches to distance running since the 1940s or something?... Training is the most important factor in distance running regardless of gender or inherent talent.
Matt Giusto was training exactly like the elites of today train.
It's the shoes and the technology, which is okay. Time marches on.
Many races in the 1990s were won in 1345 or 13:50. Although they were tactical, still they were won in that time. Could she beat them on a bad day?
Also, you should show her some respect. Unless you are clueless 13 year old, don't call female athletes like Chebet "girls." She is a full grown woman.
And no. Elite US men in the 1990s would never in a million years lose to a person who had to "go to the well" to break 14. They could run that time in training -- day in, day out...
p.s. Do you think Chebet could run "1345 or 13:50" because those are the times you trotted out as your proof that she'd have a chance.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Wasn't this with 1990s training which is now generally accepted to be perhaps the worst era of training approches to distance running since the 1940s or something?... Training is the most important factor in distance running regardless of gender or inherent talent.
Matt Giusto was training exactly like the elites of today train.
It's the shoes and the technology, which is okay. Time marches on.
Or perhaps that this runner I’m apparently too young to have heard of is only as talented as today’s 1325 runners.
Many races in the 1990s were won in 1345 or 13:50. Although they were tactical, still they were won in that time. Could she beat them on a bad day?
I see where you're going with this, and your question is legit. The only thing you're not realizing is you're trying to compare apples with oranges. I attended a running clinic a few years ago where Matt was speaking, and by his own account, he said he ran the worse race ever in the 1996 Olympics. He also said that he was super fit having run 27:58 on the roads in April and 3:55 in May, about 5 weeks apart from each other, but he made no excuses for running poorly. The only issue for him was the humidity (90 degrees at race time with like 80% humidity). He was ok with the heat, but the humidity was tough. Could Chebet or Faith K beat him that night? Who knows. Matt would probably say anyone could've of beat him. So I'm thinking you're not trying to bash him, just taking one of his poorest races and comparing it to someone's greatest race. If all things were equal, neither Chebet or Faith K could hold a candle to either MG or BK. Give those boys some super shoes and some b-carb, BK's 5000m PB is in the 12:40's and MG is dippin' under 13:00.
Maybe they never ran as fast as they could've, but these dudes won a lot of races and made a lot teams. I'd take just one Nat'l Championship and call it a career, they each won a bunch.
p.s. Do you think Chebet could run "1345 or 13:50" because those are the times you trotted out as your proof that she'd have a chance.
I think she could run 10 seconds faster under more ideal conditions like an cool evening race in Oslo or Stockholm. That ferocious kick over the last 200 showed she was not running at her limit. 13:50 for sure. With a male pacer the whole way 13:45.