sketchbook wrote:
They also missed the key point about how Solinsky was two years older than Rupp so of course he was 2 years more developed.
We didn't miss this point. Did you just skim the article?
We talked at length how Solinsky was older than Rupp.
Did you somehow miss this part of the article?
LRC wrote:
Rupp fans will point out that Solinsky certainly benefited from being older than Rupp. Solinsky is 17 months older than and it’s certainly a big advantage to be 1.5 years older when two athletes are developing (and given Rupp’s baby-face, he likely developed later than most).
As for the training, as I told the guys i coached at Cornell, they don't ask for your training logs before the start of race and give a head start based on who is training the most - the point is to win the race.
Until his FREAK injury, Solinsky owned Rupp. We just wanted people to remember that.
That being said, we mentioned the age gap and Rupp's baby looks because to me running is interesting in the sense that it's often is about who keeps improving the longest. If a guy is 5 seconds per mile faster than you but you improve for two more years than he does, you'll likely surprass them. Weldon was a very late developer and continued to improve after college.
But our main point is we'll never know what would have happened. The facts are Solinsky was better than Rupp in terms of absolute accomplishments (PRs) and PRs at a given age when he got hurt.
OP, yes, you're right, we didn't consider training volumes. Why would we?
I always laugh when people talk about training for two good reasons.
1) How do we know coaches are telling the truth? Coaches can say whatever they want. Salazar is a secretive guy who won't even let flotrack film his workouts when they are paying the group for access. A smart coach would spread misinformation.
2) Many great workouts from the past are from doped up runners. JOhn Kellogg always says, "The dopers have ruined training theory."
That being said, I remember sometime after 2008 it came out in an article that Rupp didn't like doing continuos runs (he liked mile repeats, 400s etc but not continuous stuff) and his mileage wasn't that high (I'm always wary of mileage as some people say the run 100 when the hit 100 once in a cycle, others say it when they average it), I thought to myself, "My God, tempo runs and mileage ARE distance running. He's not even training if this is true."
Whenever I'm having a debate with one of the many NOP skeptics of Rupp and NOP - and there are a lot of them out there - i always cite that as an example as to how he could be clean. When I'm talking to someone who thinks Rupp is dirty, I cite the training and his youthful appearance as reasons to how he could have improved more than anyone else in history at his age.