I consider Haile the greatest distance runner of all time.
But we need to talk about the quote of the day.
Is more really better?
Haile says he decided to go up to road racing after running much under 13' for 5k became something of a challenge.
He runs a 2:06 marathon debut but has trouble in the final miles.
He decides he needs to train more, and against his manager's advice, Haile ups his training mileage, including 30 mile long runs.
His late mile troubles in the marathon continue.
He keeps his miles somewhat higher and gets back to doing more speed in his training. He runs a spectacular 26:52+. I watched the race in Hengelo. Haile raced as brilliantly as ever.
At his best Haile ran <12:40 and 26:22 for the 5k and 10k respectively. He says he had more left in the WR 10k, surely <26:20.
If we accept that Haile can once again run 13' for 5k that means he can now cover ~4900m in the same amount of time as he once ran a full 5000m. A 2% drop in distance.
In his 10k he showed he could cover about ~9800m in just under 26:20. Also a 2% drop in distance.
If running all the extra miles are helping Haile, wouldn't those help in the final miles of a marathon?
And if his endurance is so much augmented by added miles, why are his 5 and 10k performance velocities still in the identical ratio as years ago when he was in his prime, running less?