Canova puts his foot in his mouth just like everyone else here

Oh Damn, you're right!

He must be wrong about everything then.

PS..Renato....thanks for all your invaluable contributions to this board ...please ignore the idiot static. I'm sure for every blowhard that loves to see their own words in a forum, there are hundreds of people who are thankful that someone as accomplished in the sport as you feels it worthwhile to answer questions here. Please don't let the morons give you the wrong idea. The problem is that the morons just like to hear their own voice more than others, so the silent majority of people who are extremely grateful that you share your insight and experience freely with everyone here seems to be underrepresented.

trweqwet wrote:

Oh Damn, you're right!

He must be wrong about everything then.

PS..Renato....thanks for all your invaluable contributions to this board ...please ignore the idiot static. I'm sure for every blowhard that loves to see their own words in a forum, there are hundreds of people who are thankful that someone as accomplished in the sport as you feels it worthwhile to answer questions here. Please don't let the morons give you the wrong idea. The problem is that the morons just like to hear their own voice more than others, so the silent majority of people who are extremely grateful that you share your insight and experience freely with everyone here seems to be underrepresented.

I didn't say he was wrong about everything, dingbat. And your ass-kissing here is pathetic, as is your convenient ignoring of the points I made.

Canova's claims are stupid, period.

I think he was saying what a lot of people believe now that the best marathon runners in the world on a perfect day could be in the 2:02-2:03 range. He obviously believes his guy is in this category and that on bad days or when they are not at 100% then they would be more in the 2:05 range which is probably a good prediction for chigago's winning time.

How is this an example of "foot in the mouth"? Maybe if Moses runs 2:10 tomorrow, you could make a case, tomorrow, but even then, it still hardly seems applicable, given all the things that can go wrong in a marathon, even if you are in good shape.

You accuse him of bad math, but you didn't show any math yourself. What equations do we use? The Eugene statement sounds more like a coach's assessment of an athlete's current shape, based on the coaches knowledge of the athlete's present shape, rather than some mathematical relation of his specific performance at Eugene. It's simply not a question of bad math, but an estimation based on experience.

The "80 to 85 percent" is, as you said, the athlete's personal assessment of his shape. The first question is how do we measure this quality of shape? In which units do we quantify shape? The 80 to 85 percent is surely not measured in time. Otherwise 2:02 becomes 1:43:42. Or assuming the right direction, a 2:22:30. Surely this is not what Mosop means by 85% of shape. There must be some other equation that translates shape into time. So again, we have a coach attempting to translate an estimate of an unmeasurable quantity "shape", into measurable time, to give us readers a more accurate perspective, based on coaching experience.

We can also not say Ryan was a 2:04 guy in April. His Boston performance on a flat unaided course is more like a 2:06:30. I think we could easily imagine that a not fully trained Ryan manages only a 2:09:30, and everyone here would call it another disappointing performance.

I don't see anything unusual about these estimates. At worst, they could be called optimistic, but it's hardly an example of putting a foot in your mouth.

Despite people's negativity to your post, you raise a good point. There are facts, and there are words. There is a world of difference between the two.

That point being, here are the facts:

1. Boston (with gale or hurricane inspired winds) was run in a remarkably fast (for ANY marathon, let alone Boston) 2:03 low. On top of that, Ryan Hall shattered his previous best by running 2:04 something.

2. Canova essentially claimed that the wind wasn't really much (if any) of an aid. He said his guy was capable of that kind of time without a tailwind, and that the runners reported more cross wind than anything.

3. In general, tracks produce faster paces than roads. Like you said, 4:39.3 pace on a track for 30k probably isn't on the same level as a 4:41.4 pace on the road for 26.2 miles.

4. It appears that Moses will not be producing a 2:02/2:03 type of performance tomorrow in Chicago. This is explained away by Canova as him not being in top form. "85%", if you will.

5. We can only wait for him (or others) to actually produce a 2:02/2:03low marathon time before we'll know for sure if Canova is right or not. Until then, all we have is the word of the coach, a fast time on a very, very windy day in Boston, and whatever they run tomorrow.

I personally am excited to see them run the times we've been told they're capable of. But, until it is done, all we have are the above facts. And some speculation.

Idolatry Buster wrote:

He ran 4:39.3 pace on a nice soft track in May.

soft = slow. That's why road race records are faster.

You're critiquing a man who has forgotten more about distance running then you hope to ever know. Congrats!

Why does everything come down to science for so many people. Food for thought. Could science predict a runners time better than say a really good coach who knows his athletes. Lets say everything a runner did leading up to a big race was measured including what he did outside of running. Do you think science would predict a more accurate time than then a coach like Canova. Last there is not much difference between 82.5(avg for Canova guess) and 100 percent for a runner. It is a guess anyways he might actually be better than that say 90% or more. That can basically translates to either he is not as sharp as he needs to be for a super fast time or is behind in training a bit. Even if you are in 100% shape it does not mean you show up and race to that potential. The sample size is to small to be able to even tell if Canova is blowing smoke or not. Maybe we saw his best efforts already maybe not. Its all guessing in the end and many things have to go according to plan to even produce quality times at that distance. If he runs say 2:15 and had not problems during the race was just his best effort that day then you can call the coach out. Till then go pick on the kids at the playground so you feel good about yourself.

Nah...... wrote:

soft = slow. That's why road race records are faster.

You sound like a total clown saying that.

Track is essentially ALWAYS faster than road, due to:

- WR attempts rarely running more than a few meters more than the race distance in track (vs having to cover tangents on the road).

- The simple mechanics of spikes on Mondo vs rubber on tarmac.

Sometimes the "WR"s in rarely-contested distances (e.g. 25000, 30000) has been quicker than the relevant 25k/30k road times, but which is faster is just a matter of getting an athlete like Mosop to actually race these oddball distances, which happens rarely on either surface.

In races that are frequently contested on both road and track (5000/5k, 10000/10k), of course we all know that track is faster. Look at any athlete's PRs - having faster road times is the exception to the rule.

I can't even believe I'm responding to this. Do you even follow track?

the smartests letsrunner wrote:

Nah...... wrote:

soft = slow. That's why road race records are faster.

Yeah, phenomenal fail there.

I love the people resorting to arguments from authority. Canova is a god, therefore the points I raised don't need to be addressed.

Try looking at the substance of what I wrote and refute it if you can. Don't tell me how friggin awesome R.C. is based on his reputation. This is a guy who says EPO doesn't help Africans and makes up a bunch of physiobabble to support it. You can deify him at your own peril.

Science wrote:

Why does everything come down to science for so many people.

I know. The nerve of them! It's like people who insist on using math to do computations instead of letting Really Nice Guys make random guesses.

80% of 2:03 is 2:34

Wouldn't 80% of 2:03 be smaller than 2:03?

Fail.

jerkstorelarry wrote:

Wouldn't 80% of 2:03 be smaller than 2:03?

Fail.

The only thing that's a failure here is your concept of "percent of maximum pace." You are an idiot.

And now that Mosop has run 2:05:37, what's to be said about Canova. On one hand the bootlickers will claim that he is a genius. The realists will acknowledge what they knew all along: that Canova and Mosop were both sandbagging when it came to Mosop's preparation and readiness.

Even the announcers were sticking with the "80 to 85 percent" BS well after it was clear that Mosop was in the shape of his life.

I don't know what it'll take for people to acknowledge that African runners and their coaches lie and sandbag as freely as others do.

I tried looking for the substance, but it's really hard to find.The closest thing of substance you seem to say is that Moses' performances has not yet indicated 2:02 marathon capability. We must wait and see if that prediction will come true, or if it's just big talk.Canova's statements are an indication of what he thinks the athlete was capable of doing, in Berlin, and in Chicago. I presumed they were based on other "inside" information, evaluating race performances in a fuller context than a simple mathematical transformation of race performances can provide.The 80-85% was Mosop's statement about his current shape from his training, and it gives only a vague indication of what the time penalty could be in Chicago. Thankfully Canova helped translate this statement into a realistic expectation of time.Seeing how Moses just ran 2:05:37, it looks like 2:05 in Chicago was a very reasonable estimate.The statement that "Canova put his foot in his mouth" is so far unsubstantiated.You might also want to go back and read what Canova actually says about EPO and which Africans. It's more qualified than you seem to understand, and so far, hasn't been disproven.

Idolatry Buster wrote:

Try looking at the substance of what I wrote and refute it if you can. Don't tell me how friggin awesome R.C. is based on his reputation. This is a guy who says EPO doesn't help Africans and makes up a bunch of physiobabble to support it. You can deify him at your own peril.

Renato is a genius. He is the greatest coach in the world right now, and today only adds to that reputation. He (correctly) predicted Mosop's performance beforehand. And it's clear that Mosop is NOT in peak shape: If he was, he wouldn't have slowed to >5:00 pace in the last few miles.

What's the lie? The minimum required to acknowledge a lie is if you are able to identify one more specifically.Mosop's 80-85% statement was about "shape", not "time" or "percent of maximum pace". While it's also an interesting concept, it's not the concept here.Canova said they weren't going for a world record, and to expect a 2:05:xx, and the training was hampered by an injury, and he wasn't 100% prepared. Lots of truth in those statements, unless you cling to some unfounded belief that Mosop cannot do better with unhampered training.The only thing that might be considered a lie, is the 2:02 predictions, but only time will tell that.

Barking Spider wrote:

The only thing that's a failure here is your concept of "percent of maximum pace." You are an idiot.

And now that Mosop has run 2:05:37, what's to be said about Canova. On one hand the bootlickers will claim that he is a genius. The realists will acknowledge what they knew all along: that Canova and Mosop were both sandbagging when it came to Mosop's preparation and readiness.

Even the announcers were sticking with the "80 to 85 percent" BS well after it was clear that Mosop was in the shape of his life.

I don't know what it'll take for people to acknowledge that African runners and their coaches lie and sandbag as freely as others do.

A random LR poster making predictions about Ryan Hall cannot be compared to an athlete's own coach making predictions. I am 100% sure that Canova knows more about Mosop's fitness than anyone on LR knows about Hall's fitness.

I still don't see anything in your post that indicates Canova put his foot in his mouth. Now that the race is over can you provide more specifics?

Looks like Canova's prediction was right, if an unfit Mosop can do that you have to think he is at least in WR shape when he is at close to 100%.

speedstar wrote:

Looks like Canova's prediction was right, if an unfit Mosop can do that you have to think he is at least in WR shape when he is at close to 100%.

Yup, Canova did call the time, but why do so many people assume that he was being truthful about his athlete's fitness? He was obviously either lying, hedging his best, or plain wrong, and it's not as though coaches at this level can be counted on to be honest pre-event. Like Pinkowski himself said, that 80 percent thing was almost surely a smokescreen. I'm not surprised that the fellator crowd here is swallowing this, though.