Is a 27:20 american runner from 23 years ago vastly superior to one now?

Don't forget, watches now also tell you how far you ran and at what pace(s).

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

Treadmillionaire wrote:

1. Ipods are much lighter than walkmans were.

2. Subway can now toast sandwiches.

3. Soda switched from sugar to corn syrup.

4. Nike shocks have springs in them.

5. Stopwatches can tell you how fast your heart beats.

6. We found out women won't die if they break a sweat.

7. Lays potato chips have 0g. trans fat.

8. People say "run forest run" when they see you work out, as opposed to whatever they used to say.

9. You can carry your water on a utility belt like batman.

10. Facebook.

That was a fine post, treadmillionaire.

But you left two key things:

Gallowalking and underwater/zero-gravity treadmills. In fact, combine these two and the sky is the limit

Are you retarded? If Rupp were SIGNIFICANTLY more able than 27:33 then he would've done it at the olympics. Sure, thats a championship race, but its a race where people run are running conservatively and tactically at a pace that is Rupp's PR pace anyway. So why didn't he do it then?

He'll get better, but making illogical conjectures about what his current capacities are is pointless. We'll see. I do think he will be considerably better than 27:33 this year, but he had the olympics last year, so thats an invalid argument.

Not A Moron wrote:

Are you retarded? If Rupp were SIGNIFICANTLY more able than 27:33 then he would've done it at the olympics. Sure, thats a championship race, but its a race where people run are running conservatively and tactically at a pace that is Rupp's PR pace anyway. So why didn't he do it then?

He'll get better, but making illogical conjectures about what his current capacities are is pointless. We'll see. I do think he will be considerably better than 27:33 this year, but he had the olympics last year, so thats an invalid argument.

Your name is ironic, because this is a moronic post.

Do I really need to explain to you?

Why didn't her run better than 27:33 in Beijing in an Olympic final? Why didn't Abdi run better than his 27:16, or even better than Galen? He ran 27:33 2 track seasons ago, relatively early in the season and didn't race it again until US championships (remember the weather for that?) and then in Osaka.

It sometimes surpises me how stupid people are on this board. But then there have been plenty of people that thought he couldn't even make the olympic team, while he goes on the be our top man at the olympics. Somehow they ignored the fact that he made the world championship team the year before after a full college track season before it.

You do understand that the 30-40 drill was a long time staple workout, tried and true by every great Oregon runner for over 35 years. So Galen ran a mile longer than the best of the best, and he did it by himself. And this was his first real test after coming back from the olympics. It amazes me that some people can't fathom this.

Lindgren ran 6 miles in 26:11.

Mark Nenow was a much tougher runner. He grew up in Minnesota training in heavy snow boots and a shovel.

rupp is clearly improved after two or three years of apparent stagnation. he's destroying the competition and he's been running some incredible workouts. we should see a 27:20 or better and a 13:12 this year, more likely the former than the latter, but definitely sub-13:20. I think that Carlos Lopes?? had the world record of 27:13 when Nenow ran his 27:20. Nenow I don't recall as being much of a championships runner.

You are correct, sir. We are WAY overdue. And don't forget my rationale is not scientific. Maybe I'm just optimistic than I should be about the potential of guys like Rupp, Rohatinsky, Hall, Teg, Solinsky, Fernandez, etc.. I do think there is more depth now. And more fearless young runners now. In the '90s it was Kennedy, Williams and Croghan. That's all.

Lindgren ran 27:11, not 26:11.

Mamede ran 27:13, not Lopes.

Craig Virgin, two time world cross country champion 1980 and 1981. 10k 27:29 AR 2mi 8:40.9 HSR. University of Illinois grad...Good old hard work ethic. Set a goal time to run and train for it. I think his career was cut short or disrupted after 1981 Madrid race(kidney infection from food or water?)

Knee, not kidney.

oldfrog wrote:

Craig Virgin, two time world cross country champion 1980 and 1981. 10k 27:29 AR 2mi 8:40.9 HSR. University of Illinois grad...Good old hard work ethic. Set a goal time to run and train for it. I think his career was cut short or disrupted after 1981 Madrid race(kidney infection from food or water?)

OR wrote:

People use this rationalization a lot, a lot of the time it doesn't pan out. People run a races (off the double, pace was uneven, in the rain, it was cold out, it was hot out, didn't taper, no speed work, 120 miles last week, up all night drinking,...) where everything clicks and then in "better" conditions they run the same/slower times.

I'm not buying this. Everyone's pr is from Europe - Teg, Solinsky, Webb, Ritz, Kennedy, etc. If you're in peak shape and you go to Europe for a few weeks, you will pr.

totanks wrote:

I trained daily with Bickford in the mis 80's. I believe he was ranked #1 in the world at one time and ran about 27:13. Every day hard. Bruce Denton had nothing on him. 100-120 mpw at 6:00 or better no let up.

He did not run every day HARD and neither did Nenow. Perhaps it was just HARD for you.

Fat Bill.

Ritz? 13:00/27:00? No way! As spaced out as his coach is, Hudson doesn't even talk about 13/27!

eyeofthetiger wrote:

Who is the only non african to run 27:10????

Dagbar Thapa of Nepal. He used to be on my team before he got deported.

ex-stasi wrote:

Lindgren ran 27:11, not 26:11.

Mamede ran 27:13, not Lopes.

Lindgren's time was a six mile time.

You know what did happen around that 23 years ago is a guy named Jack Daniels came out with a formula that said you could run 80 and get the same benefit as running 120 miles a week. He made it legit when he claimed to have trained these top athletes when all he did was test them on a treadmill.

most of the "races" that fast americans run these days are nothing more than glorified time trials. if it doesn't happen at stanford or some stanfordesque style race, it doesn't happen.

nenow probably could have run under 27:10 if all he had to do was draft off of some number or kenyans and ethiopians all gunning for sup 27.

btw what american is running 27:20 now?

T Williams 10k was in knoxville. Everyone though he would run 20s faster in europe in a competive race. Didn't happen. Yeah most people run faster latter in the season but there is a good chunk every year that don't improve. If you want through the last 20 years of track and field news, you would find a ton of performances where you say to yourself, image what they would have done in a better paced/better conditions race.

just asking of course wrote:

OR wrote:

People use this rationalization a lot, a lot of the time it doesn't pan out. People run a races (off the double, pace was uneven, in the rain, it was cold out, it was hot out, didn't taper, no speed work, 120 miles last week, up all night drinking,...) where everything clicks and then in "better" conditions they run the same/slower times.

I'm not buying this. Everyone's pr is from Europe - Teg, Solinsky, Webb, Ritz, Kennedy, etc. If you're in peak shape and you go to Europe for a few weeks, you will pr.

...in which he tied with Billy Mills

HRE wrote:

ex-stasi wrote:

Lindgren ran 27:11, not 26:11.

Mamede ran 27:13, not Lopes.

Lindgren's time was a six mile time.