If Adam runs 2:12 in the Marathon he will be Salazars BEST EVER

Retardalert wrote:

eh... wrote:The OP said 27:45 and 2:11:45 so I wouldn't say that makes him an idiot and yes Dan Browne actually has run that fast.

The OP listed 3 times, all which were wrong. So yes that does make him an idiot for posting without having anything correct. And then he posted again, again posting a wrong time. Brown never went 27:38, the guy clearly is a special needs person.

I don't know where he got the 27:38, I found 27:42, but I still don't think that allows you to call the OP an idiot when clearly he started a decent thread that actually pertains to running.

Maybe you should get USATF to correct their Bio's.

THIS IS FROM THE USATF PAGE

DAN BROWNE

Events: Distance

Height: 5-9

Weight: 145

PRs: 5,000m 13:28.24 (1998); 10,000m 27:38:50 (2004); Marathon 2:11:35 (2002)

Born: June 24, 1975, in Portland, Ore.

Current Residence: Beaverton, Ore.

High School: West Linn, Ore., ‘93

College: U.S. Military Academy ‘97

Coach: Alberto Salazar

Agent: Self

Club: Nike

When you get everything gift wrapped for you, as Nike has done, you aren't "hungry". We get so wrapped up in numbers and potential and all the other crap. We keep thinking that our (U.S) poor results are a problem that we have to solve with our altitude tents, "projects", and our $$$$ (Nike). It's not a science experiment. We coddle the ones that we feel have potential, put them in this "project", and they get comfortable. They don't get faster because they don't have an edge to them. We sit back and project times and look at stupid tables and if they run faster or slower than the table says they should, well "you're either underachieving at this distance or underachieving at that distance"......REALLY?

Rupp pulls out of events because of some small injury, Hall pulls out of Boston because of ??????, Barringer "passing out", A. Goucher's "proclaimations" and subsequent let downs. We even see this kind of crap in regional races. Supposed "sub elites" pulling out of races because they aren't "feeling up to it". We all know you're getting your butt kicked. Just take it like a man.

Even the successful international runners fall victim to it. Geb has gone soft recently... asthma, slept wrong. Read today's quote on the main page.... dude is retiring at 19 (!) because he's sick of red tape and criticism about how much mileage he's doing. He's working his a$$ off and he catches crap because he's not working within the structure "they" (British Athletics) deem appropriate. He's producing the results.... don't screw around with him.

"Eat like you're poor..." Joe Vigil. Maybe it should be "train like you're poor, race like you're poor, live like you're poor" because we keep getting our butts handed to us by those who do. Maybe we shouldn't give our elites so many of these so called "advantages". It seems to me that we we're much more competitive when we didn't (60's, 70's, 80's).

Question: Do you think they would sacrifice the $$$ for the wins and the medals?

Hall isn't out of Boston; that was a rumor. Rupp shows up and races well 99% of the time, as does Barringer. Goucher is cocky but has a history of injuries. I don't see where you're going with this.

Yes, some people get comfortable, but that certainly isn't limited to people from the US. Kenyans are the king of running well early in life and then losing the drive once they've made some money. For most Americans, money or comfort was never the issue in the first place. If you think that Rupp or Hall aren't hungry anymore, then I'd like to see your evidence. American running is on a big upswing, and that is inarguable.

Retardalert wrote:

eh... wrote:The OP said 27:45 and 2:11:45 so I wouldn't say that makes him an idiot and yes Dan Browne actually has run that fast.

The OP listed 3 times, all which were wrong. So yes that does make him an idiot for posting without having anything correct. And then he posted again, again posting a wrong time. Brown never went 27:38, the guy clearly is a special needs person.

On the plus side, he spelled the guy's last name correctly.

kara goucher has also never run a marathon with pacers...

chad johnson-- 25k ? is that an event?

I don't think Chad Johnson ever even won the 25k; he's run it a few times, but Dan Browne has won it most recent years.

Drug Czar is interested wrote:

The responses are equally as telling. People have taken shots at your intelligence or even your mother but not one has presented any hardcore numbers to prove you wrong. Good job.

The Drug Czar

Is 12:56 a hardcore enough number for you?

MSCoach wrote:

"Eat like you're poor..." Joe Vigil.

I get that it's a metaphor, but, as a nation, this is exactly what we are doing, which is why this healthcare reform will ultimately be an abysmal failure from an economic standpoint. Just look how kids are eating in elementary schools now. Look at your friends. Unfortunately, eating "like you're poor" means something different in this country than it does in say, someplace like Kenya. And farm subsidies, which make soybean oil and high fructose corn syrup-laden foods cheaper than they otherwise should be creates a bunch of gluttons who "eat like they're poor" because they are under or unemployed. And it will be that way for quite some time. Think the supply/demand equation is going to balance down the road? Federal subsidies to pay for a problem largely created by federal subsidies. Makes sense to me. It sure worked with Fannie and Freddie.

Back on topic. It's true that Salazar has yet to have a stable of marathon success, but Goucher's 2:25 debut in New York was probably worth a 2:23 on a course like London. And he did get Adam all the way back to PR shape in the 5000 and 6th at world cross after Wetmore had essentially already opined that his career was over. Let's see what he does with Ritz this fall, who has notoriously underachived relative to his ability (if you believe comparison charts). Ritz should be quicker than 2:10:00.

"When you get everything gift wrapped for you, as Nike has done, you aren't "hungry". We get so wrapped up in numbers and potential and all the other crap. We keep thinking that our (U.S) poor results are a problem that we have to solve with our altitude tents, "projects", and our $$$$ (Nike). It's not a science experiment. We coddle the ones that we feel have potential, put them in this "project", and they get comfortable. They don't get faster because they don't have an edge to them."

They don't get faster? Have you been watching these guys and chicks run for the last several years?

Uh they didn't even run 2:09! Everyone except maybe Browne underachieved in the marathon. There are Japanese runners who are slower than these guys at almost every sub-marathon distance yet have much faster marathon PRs. Salazar's record in coaching marathoners is pretty miserable given the acclaim he receives. Even if he gets Ritz under 2:09, his overall record will still be really weak.

think right wrote:

Hayduke wrote:

chad johnson-- 25k ? is that an event?

mike donnelly-- a nobody

dave davis-- a nobody

phillemon hanneck-- was a has been before he joined

dan brown--talent, not a marathoner.

Exactly, Rupp could have beat half of these guys at 10K (at the level they were at when the joined salazar) his freshman year at Oregon and by his 3rd year he would have mopped them up.

They were good runners relative to the average college runner, but it seems like you were expecting them to go out and run 2:07 when in all reality they probably couldn't even handle the training that Rupp was going thru as an 18 year old.

I believe Josh Rohatinsky ran a 2:15 at the last Trials placing in the top ten. He was coached by Salazar at the time. Maybe this is his second best ever.

So I guess when Columbus set out to find a faster route to China, and ended up opening European interest into the Americas instead, he was a failure as an explorer, right?

snarky wrote:

Drug Czar is interested wrote:

The responses are equally as telling. People have taken shots at your intelligence or even your mother but not one has presented any hardcore numbers to prove you wrong. Good job.

The Drug Czar

Is 12:56 a hardcore enough number for you?

Exactly what has "12,56" to do with AlSal´s ability as a marathon coach?

What I'm trying to say is that they might be faster than they've shown, that they're too wrapped up in what Nike and all the "advantages" they recieve do for them. And while, yes, they are getting faster, they're still not winning and I don't believe they've really fulfilled potential. They're only accomplishing what they are told (by coaches... and I'm guilty of this as well) they can accomplish. I'm suggesting that they don't know how to win because they haven't been asked or expected to. They're only asked to improve their PR's and get faster. They get the "big" contract and their wrapped up in the clock, the technology, the training tables, and all the other crap and they've limited themselves to what they're told they can do. They aren't ready to WIN.

MSCoach wrote:

What I'm trying to say is that they might be faster than they've shown, that they're too wrapped up in what Nike and all the "advantages" they recieve do for them. And while, yes, they are getting faster, they're still not winning and I don't believe they've really fulfilled potential. They're only accomplishing what they are told (by coaches... and I'm guilty of this as well) they can accomplish. I'm suggesting that they don't know how to win because they haven't been asked or expected to. They're only asked to improve their PR's and get faster. They get the "big" contract and their wrapped up in the clock, the technology, the training tables, and all the other crap and they've limited themselves to what they're told they can do. They aren't ready to WIN.

This is just blue collar romantizism BS.

Yes it is..... and the rest of it is elitist, lazy a$$, immaturity.

I'll take the blue collar BS.

RomantiCism.

Tell me what a guy that runs 27:40 should run for a marathon. What about 28:00, 28:20, 28:40, 29:00? I don't care what the charts say. You tell me.

How should I know? How would you know? They are just projections, NOT exact science. Too many people think that they or a running guru can "boil" it all down and figure out how to get a 27:40 athlete to run <2:10. If the athlete doesn't and they run 2:10+, the same people seem to think that either the athlete is overachieving at the 10k or underachieving in the marathon because they didn't match the projections. There are INTANGIBLES, that can't be taught, in running that are too often brushed to the side and not taken into account. And who cares what I think he's going to run, who cares what his coach thinks he's going to run. The only thing that matters is what the athlete has in their mind and what they want to accomplish.

Look, I'm not trying to be contentious. I understand the value behind some of the things I'm criticizing. However, when I read some of the stuff being written on this site by people, track fans, coaches, whatever, it gets a little irritating. Maybe the 27:40 guy shouldn't be running the marathon if he runs 2:12 or 2:15 or 2:20. That's why the OP's criticism caught my eye. Maybe he's right, if Salazar can't get guys under 2:10, maybe he shouldn't be coaching marathoners. Maybe he should leave it to Hanson's or another group. Maybe they've "figured it out" and even though Nike's pouring money and technology into it, it's just not working Salazar.