Whiskey Tango Foxtrot wrote:
The more articles I read from Matt Fitzgerald, the less respect I have for him.
such is the case when dreams come true: the closer you get to them, the more you realize that they won't save you.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot wrote:
The more articles I read from Matt Fitzgerald, the less respect I have for him.
such is the case when dreams come true: the closer you get to them, the more you realize that they won't save you.
Born to Logic wrote:
It must be nice to be this naive.
You clearly have first-hand knowledge.
Chris wouldn't sell any books without his made up controversy AND the very essence of Born to Run is "well it worked for me"
I never said I bought what he wrote in his book. Calm yourself, take some deep breaths and then maybe you'll stop hyperventilating and can see straight.
I just Matt's new book "Run" the mind body method of running by feel. Which is how I have run for years,I'm not into structured plans and numerical formulas to tell me how to run and train.I think it's good.
Surf & Turf Flowers wrote:
And I never made any claims one way or another regarding CMcD. CMcD is not relying on multinational corporate advertising for his salary, either. I have far fewer questions regarding CMcD's motivations than I do MFitz's.
I'm confused by this, since they both made their money writing books about running, books which, among other things, advise doing certain things to improve one's running. Can you explain how they differ in this regard?
Countering CMcD's crap with more crap is not the answer. It goes to MFitz's credibility as one who is attempting to refute. There are many good points to counter CMcD's claims, MFitz just fails to present any. His swings miss wildly. He has zero basis and the sources he chose for the article have little more than that.
Fantastic. In reality, Fitz is trying to refute McD, who in turn was trying to refute established "running common knowledge." McD "refuted" it by saying "barefoot running worked for me and this other guy!," and Fitz is saying "well, it didn't work for me or these people." The fact that you find this different is hilarious.
Surf & Turf Flowers wrote:I missed the claim you reference, please quote.
What's odd is that the claim was made by you. If you can't remember what you posted a day or two ago, perhaps this discussion isn't worth having.
"So just how fast is he and is there evidence that he has much of a clue about getting faster than that? Or is he all talk?"
For reference, just to have it in the same post, my statement was that "What I am arguing is that the previous post claiming that we could disregard his information based on his PRs is complete crap." Clearly you were claiming that his PR ("how fast he is") is somehow relevant to the validity of his points.
How fast is Chris McD?