Bernard Lagat (almost 40) Is As Good As Any 5000m Runner in U.S.

Haha, YO (super cereal) wrote:

Like I said, name ONE person who is running the same times in his 40s as he was in his mid 20s.

Not running, but cycling, 4000m individual pursuit:

Kent Bostick qualified for 1996 US Olympic team at age 42, defeating a 27 year old (Rupp's age) in the finals. This is a brutal cycling "sprint" of about 4+ minutes, requiring tremendous power, and power is what diminishes first with age, not endurance. For race, start at 3:20

Bostick failed to make olympics many times previously, and finally put it together on that day. He's so old his USCF license number is in the 100s, and nowadays they're over 50,000.

5 years earlier he set 100km track record of 2:09.11, that's avg speed of 46.44kph or 28.9mph. He went from racing marathon duration races to mile races, how many endurance athletes drop down in distance as they age?

Lagat is wonderful, but he could not have achieved the record that Rupp did in his 5K Diamond races this summer.

Haha, YO (super cereal) wrote:

Wow you people know even less about running than I ever thought possible.

Like I said, name ONE person who is running the same times in his 40s as he was in his mid 20s. Not "slightly slower" times, THE SAME times. I'm not saying people can't continue to compete at a high level into their 40s but NO ONE can continue to run the exact same times or faster. Feel free to provide examples (and not personal examples ie. "yeah I ran 22:00 for a 5k at 26 and 21:50 at 40"), not simply state your opinion on the matter.

What you and some others are missing is that Lagat is NOT running the times that he and El Guerrouj ran in their eiarly 20's. They ran 3:26. Lagat can't run anywhere near that now, which is why he moved up in what he probably thought was the twilight of his career.

Now the math here is a little more than a little shaky because it involves two levels of comparison charts, and the second of these is high unreliable becuase it involves non-elites (the WMA 2010 factors). But if you look up 3:26 in the IAAF equivalences for 5000, you get what Bekele ran. So, what you compare with is not the 13:06 that he ran recently, but the 12:37 or 12:40 he supposedly could have run if he had trained for 5000 at the time he ran 3:26.

Now if you take that 12:40 or less and do an age graded equivalent of that, you get something like 13:15, which is getting there. Now, if you factor in that Lagat is world class and not exactly training like a hobby jogger that shows up in masters meets, you would expect the age-graded number to be faster.

What you're seeing is the very large talent difference between what Lagat was and what people like Rupp are now. If Rupp is 1-20 against Rupp including the age differential, just imagine what Lagat would do to Rupp and Farah (or Ndiku) if they were the same age.

An that's why 95% of what Lagat used to be is still close to impossible to beat.

When Lagat kicked down Bekele in the 5000m in 12:59 with a 51 second last lap, back around 2005-7? the former was surely in 12:40s shape. Lagat was in roughly 3:33-5 shape in the 1500m for about five years before this one, so obviously he's not close to the runner he was when he ran 3:26.3 behind El G or 3:27 to win in 2004. But there probably has never been someone as good at the 5000m at his age as Lagat, unless Geb is older than he says he is.

good post. keep in mind what coach d has written above and realize: lagat´s 13:06 can be explained as the result of a supertalented world class athlet who keeps going on, stays tuned and avoids mistakes in his training (the typical talented age performers make mistakes) and all this with hardly any injury. therefore he slows down very little (but he does).

the age tables have to be updated - what a pain for all of us masters runners. considering the gaussian distribution, we realize that lagat´s performance is an extreme, but possible. the typical masters meet hero running a 15:00 5k is not the extreme.

doping? i don´t know. do you? if anything has to be investigated, it will be done. it´s not my task.

addendum: there´s a former 3000m steeplechaser (PB:8:09, so real world class) who quit running years ago. meanwhile he is running here in my country occasionally and just for fun some races. at the age of 40 now, a heftier body, no real ambitions, no more training consistency and with more or less five quite short weekly sessions he is still running a 15/5k. imagine what could be possible for him if he would have done it like lagat, and lagat is way more talented.

on the other hand i understand the doubters here. but as i mentioned: it´s not my task to investigate here.

Donkey Balls wrote:

Kent Bostick qualified for 1996 US Olympic team at age 42, defeating a 27 year old (Rupp's age) in the finals. This is a brutal cycling "sprint" of about 4+ minutes, requiring tremendous power, and power is what diminishes first with age, not endurance. For race, start at 3:20

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z22QDn2LHfw&feature=related

Bostick failed to make olympics many times previously, and finally put it together on that day. He's so old his USCF license number is in the 100s, and nowadays they're over 50,000.

5 years earlier he set 100km track record of 2:09.11, that's avg speed of 46.44kph or 28.9mph. He went from racing marathon duration races to mile races, how many endurance athletes drop down in distance as they age?

This is an interesting question.

I have been following cycling more over the years (never raced) and wonder how it is that track sprinters can transition to multi-day tours with 6-hour stages. Also, how stage racers can transition back to the track, as Brad Wiggins is talking about.

This is like elite ultra runners and 800 guys switching around between events. Sure you can do it and maybe be hlaf decent at both, but to be elite and both seems crazy.

curious re bike specialization wrote:

This is like elite ultra runners and 800 guys switching around between events. Sure you can do it and maybe be hlaf decent at both, but to be elite and both seems crazy.

It isn't really. Cycling is entirely different.

A sprinter in cycling can be dragged along for hundreds of kms and then blast by everyone.

That could never happen in a running race.

The multiple choice of gears in cycling gives an athlete a huge option to find a cadence that suits their physiology but running is far less versatile.

crusherver wrote:Bernard Lagat (almost 40) Is As Good As Any 5000m Runner in U.S.

I've been a big fan of Lagat for the past five or so years.

Signed,

Regina Jacobs

I agree with most of your post, coach d, but you are the one missing something here. This haha yo dude did not miss anything. Haha yo dude is NOT disagreeing with your point at all, but he is simply agreeing with me that people are not as fit at 40 as in their mid 20s, all things being equal. You too are making that point. So you clearly misunderstood him...

Billy Dixon wrote:

curious re bike specialization wrote:

This is like elite ultra runners and 800 guys switching around between events. Sure you can do it and maybe be hlaf decent at both, but to be elite and both seems crazy.

It isn't really. Cycling is entirely different.

A sprinter in cycling can be dragged along for hundreds of kms and then blast by everyone.

That could never happen in a running race.

The multiple choice of gears in cycling gives an athlete a huge option to find a cadence that suits their physiology but running is far less versatile.

Generally true, but i suspect that Bostick's 100km US track record was done solo so no drafting excuse. Most track records are solo except team events.

I don't fully understand the mechanics, but power and power/weight ratio seem to play a much bigger part in cycling then running. You won't make super powerful Usain Bolt into a 10k runner, or even a miler (would love to see him try), but you can stretch a power biker like Bostick into huge range of distances. Partly to do with lack of ground impact in biking.

Still, Bostick would probably get smoked in a TDF sprint finish, though maybe not as much as the flyweight mountain climbing experts with high power/weight, but lower absolute power then the sprinters. Mountain expert Marco Pantani = 126 lbs, TDF sprint king Marcel Kittel = 181 lbs. Kittel won 4 stages, but finished 4th last.

Any TT specialist is going to get smoked in a true sprint finish. Cycling is still very specific to the pure strength of the cyclist.

The specialists still end up winning when the race finish caters to their specialty. No matter how long the race actually is.

The smart rider tries to set up the finish or have it set up to cater to those strengths.