Agreed. Pretty sad how this thread became a pissing contest between these 2. Too many 'coulda been good' threads end up like this.
Agreed. Pretty sad how this thread became a pissing contest between these 2. Too many 'coulda been good' threads end up like this.
glooming wrote:
Great. We have two of the biggest idiots on this message board arguing.
And then one guy who felt his day would not be complete unless he made this comment.
SMJO and Ventolin, so what do you guys actually think of Lagat being able to put in a nice run after a day off? Does it have merit and what are your impressions of it?
SMJO wrote:
glooming wrote:Great. We have two of the biggest idiots on this message board arguing.
And then one guy who felt his day would not be complete unless he made this comment.
JESUS CHRIST. Shut up already. You think anyone gives 2 damns about your opinion? You and ventolin must be the 2 biggest wastes of life on the LR boards.
And that is saying a lot.
Get a hobby. Go for a run. Do something.
Don't ignore my post dammit.
Does Lagat's 4:54 2000m not show that he has the same 3:33 1500m speed now that he had 3 years ago when he ran 12:53?
had to say it wrote:
JESUS CHRIST. Shut up already. You think anyone gives 2 damns about your opinion? You and ventolin must be the 2 biggest wastes of life on the LR boards.
And that is saying a lot.
Get a hobby. Go for a run. Do something.
Nobody cares about your opinion either.
I have too many hobbies. What are yours?
NotAustin18 wrote:
SMJO and Ventolin, so what do you guys actually think of Lagat being able to put in a nice run after a day off? Does it have merit and what are your impressions of it?
Whatever Lagat is doing is clearly working. That isn't really a topic for debating.
When you take a guy who had 12:40 potential who has still found a way to dominate many years later, just watch and learn if you want to prolong your own running.
Until someone comes along and shows that Lagat could have dome something different to be even better at 39, his method is the best.
obviously you don't SMJO, given the number of threads to which your moniker is attached. You are one of these people (Vento is another) who pollutes a thread by replying to every post as if it a personal attack on you. Your opinion is irrelevant, state your case (briefly) and move on - if you can't say what you need to say in two posts, then you do have a problem.
I a person does state their case briefly, people get angry that you don't list sources and provide a short bibliography.
My opinion on Lagat's run is given briefly. That will not be enough and clearly people must think it's relevant or they wouldn't be so enraged by it and feel the need to say so. That is all.
SMJO wrote:When you take a guy who had 12:40 potential
utter drivel
a guy like hicham who was better than bernie at all distances 1500 - 5k coudn't break 12'50, so how can your peabrain believe bernie had 12'40 poential ???
SMJO wrote:
I a person does state their case briefly, people get angry that you don't list sources and provide a short bibliography.
My opinion on Lagat's run is given briefly. That will not be enough and clearly people must think it's relevant or they wouldn't be so enraged by it and feel the need to say so. That is all.
Just chiming in to say I also hate your posts. Cheers!
ventolin^3 wrote:
SMJO wrote:When you take a guy who had 12:40 potentialutter drivel
a guy like hicham who was better than bernie at all distances 1500 - 5k coudn't break 12'50, so how can your peabrain believe bernie had 12'40 poential ???
How can you say Hicham didn't have sub 12:50 potential? In 2003 he ran 12:52 with a 53 last lap! 53!
Evening out the splits alone will put that performance in the 12:4x range!
And what line of fit does 3:26 1500m and 7:23 3000m give?
Let Us Run wrote:
SMJO wrote:I a person does state their case briefly, people get angry that you don't list sources and provide a short bibliography.
My opinion on Lagat's run is given briefly. That will not be enough and clearly people must think it's relevant or they wouldn't be so enraged by it and feel the need to say so. That is all.
Just chiming in to say I also hate your posts. Cheers!
Thanks! Gaining knowledge and insight is hard. Keep reading and you will learn to love them.
ventolin^3 wrote:
SMJO wrote:When you take a guy who had 12:40 potentialutter drivel
a guy like hicham who was better than bernie at all distances 1500 - 5k coudn't break 12'50, so how can your peabrain believe bernie had 12'40 poential ???
You already said this a few times.
SMJO wrote:
NotAustin18 wrote:SMJO and Ventolin, so what do you guys actually think of Lagat being able to put in a nice run after a day off? Does it have merit and what are your impressions of it?
Whatever Lagat is doing is clearly working. That isn't really a topic for debating.
When you take a guy who had 12:40 potential who has still found a way to dominate many years later, just watch and learn if you want to prolong your own running.
Until someone comes along and shows that Lagat could have dome something different to be even better at 39, his method is the best.
Finally, some running talk instead of everyone bad mouthing each other.
I think "12:40 potential" is an asinine point. It doesn't matter what your potential was. All we know are the facts, he's run 3:26.34 and 12:53.60 and 7:29.0 (3k). Those are his times. In 2006 he ran a 12:59 with a blistering 51 last lap. Maybe Lagat could have run faster early in his career, maybe he couldn't. You have to remember, it took him a long time to develop as a long distance runner. When he first started running he didn't run very far but just ran fast.
When Bernie showed up to WSU he quickly got injured because he was given too many miles. That season they had him only doing 10-15 min a day on the indoor track because that's all he could do while injured, but he was doing it all at 5 minute pace because as Li puts its "he just has a hard time running much slower than 5 minute pace, his legs just don't like it." So Bernie raced the 8k and did like a 24low or something. That's when Li said "ok this kid has talent, we need to keep him healthy and adjust his training."
Coming from a background like this, of course its fair to assume Bernie wasn't ready to run a fast 5k early in his career. He built up his volume consistently over the years and it just so happened that he got to a point where his endurance caught up with his speed and he did the 1500/5k double at 2007 worlds. Then gradually he transitioned to 5k training, prior he was running 5ks and 1500s off 1500m training and tempo runs. Now he is strictly on 5k training. His endurance work has gotten better. He has a lot of runs of 10 or more miles now, and his tempos are longer than the 3-5 miles he has done most of his career and sometimes even get up as long as 7-8 miles now.
To reiterate: speculation is pointless, there's no guarantee Bernie would have run a faster 5k in his youth; all we can look at is what he has done and hope he continues to run at a high level for years to come.
I wouldn't say his potential doesn't count.
Could he still run a PB this year? That would indicate getting closer to his potential if he did.
SMJO wrote:
ventolin^3 wrote:utter drivel a guy like hicham who was better than bernie at all distances 1500 - 5k coudn't break 12'50, so how can your peabrain believe bernie had 12'40 poential ???
You already said this a few times.
& you post drivel
bernie never had 12'40+ in his life
More "new" info.
How about some thoughts on the actual post topic?
ankle wrote:page 50 of Running Free "Early in 1978 he suffered a serious injury , putting his foot down an old gate post holewhile out training at Loughborough, was lucky not to break the ankle, and severely ruptured all the tendons. He sat in agony while his sock expanded like a balloon as he watched it. He crawled accross the field to a security car....and rushed to hospital"
this already looks like drivel
what "security car" woud a fringe 800 guy upto then have ?
& according to "balloon" explosion he was finished
they didn't have mri/bone scans scans those days
trust me, i order a 1/2 dozen mri / week
you describe a serious, probably irreparable injury
he wouda been barely able to walk 1y after, let alone 1'42.3
Later on page 51 in a direct quote from Coe " ..the sister said it was broken. George insisted it wasn't. Sister: I'm telling you it is' George: 'I'm not a betting man' (which was a bare faced lie because he would bet on two earwigs climbing a wall) but I'll put my shirt on it that it's not' Sister: what are your qualifications? George: MSc in biomechanics' whereupon she immediately started calling him dad
coupla idiots here
never too impresssed in a bio-mechanics guy
not enough maths work
etc
she called him her dad ?!?!
ventolin^3 wrote:
SMJO wrote:ventolin^3 wrote:utter drivel a guy like hicham who was better than bernie at all distances 1500 - 5k coudn't break 12'50, so how can your peabrain believe bernie had 12'40 poential ???
You already said this a few times.
& you post drivel
bernie never had 12'40+ in his life
What about his 12:53.60 in Monaco? It was run with a 53 last lap and an abysmally slow 4th kilometer.
Ventolin, you've said before that Farah was good for 12:45ish that day. Since Lagat ran nearly an identical race, I'd argue he was also good for 12:45. And had he run that a few years younger it's not too difficult to imagine Lagat running 12:40low