2:04 for a 66 year old with his ability is like walking. He did not want to run any faster than that so that more people would have a reasonable goal to "beat" him. I have no ability at all and I ran the Indy Mini in 1:54 2 years ago at age 70. And the "winner" in 70+ ran 1:41 !!! He still runs regularly, although recreationally, on the trails in Boulder. He could run sub 1:30 if he wanted to.
trailrunner71 wrote:
2:04 for a 66 year old with his ability is like walking. He did not want to run any faster than that so that more people would have a reasonable goal to "beat" him. I have no ability at all and I ran the Indy Mini in 1:54 2 years ago at age 70. And the "winner" in 70+ ran 1:41 !!! He still runs regularly, although recreationally, on the trails in Boulder. He could run sub 1:30 if he wanted to.
< 1:30? You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but he hasn't posted anything in... 15 years? that would make that a logical conclusion.
This is silly anyway. Who cares what times he gets up to at 66? He's a legend, and still moving. That's good enough.
The man is 66, has osteoarthritis in his knees and an artificial hip, and has had other surgeries, too. His body is very beaten up at this point. My hat is off to him for still getting out there and running, at whatever speed.
But did he look relaxed?
Funny thread!
old guy 68 wrote:
...
If I could run a 1:43 at 66 years old I'm sure Shorter could run well under 1:25...
Actually no. No, you're not.
To think that there is any significant correlation between what Frank Shorter's body was capable of when he was 25 years old and what his body is capable of at 66 years old is just ignorant. Such ignorance is matched by anyone thinking that there is any significant correlation between what his own body was capable of when he was 66 years old and what Shorter's body is capable of at 66 years old.
Try to keep the ignorance quotient down.
Okiedokie.
trailrunner71 wrote:
2:04 for a 66 year old with his ability is like walking. He did not want to run any faster than that so that more people would have a reasonable goal to "beat" him. I have no ability at all and I ran the Indy Mini in 1:54 2 years ago at age 70. And the "winner" in 70+ ran 1:41 !!! He still runs regularly, although recreationally, on the trails in Boulder. He could run sub 1:30 if he wanted to.
If you had no ability at all then you would not be able to finish a HM.
In addition, your abilities at an advanced age and Frank's are uncorrelated. Your 1:54 and the "winner's" 1:41 shed zero light on Shorter's current capabilities.
OK so I clicked on some links in this thread...
This was a marketing photo-op training run with a couple of race staff members. The race is May 15. No results for a Frank Shorter in the 2014. Come on folks. It was a 2hour training run with soccer moms.
If you follow Ron Hill's website you see that he is still racing at 70 plus and he does race as hard as he can. You also see that his times are nowhere near what you'd have expected from a guy with the performances he had in his prime years.
You've pretty much nailed it. The best master's performers are almost always people who took up the sport at older ages. Those of us who were running 5-6k miles a year 30 plus years ago can still run but much slower than we'd expect based on our "prime" performances.
2:04 may not have been the absolute fastest Frank could go but I'd bet it wasn't that far off and good for him for still running.
I have no idea what it's like to be an Olympian and former elite. I do know what it's like to be old, past your prime, and have a worn out body. Trust me, it is much easier to quit and sit on the couch than to keep running. Much respect to Mr. Shorter for keeping at it at whatever pace in spite of his age and various orthopedic ailments.
HRE wrote:
If you follow Ron Hill's website you see that he is still racing at 70 plus and he does race as hard as he can. You also see that his times are nowhere near what you'd have expected from a guy with the performances he had in his prime years.
You've pretty much nailed it. The best master's performers are almost always people who took up the sport at older ages. Those of us who were running 5-6k miles a year 30 plus years ago can still run but much slower than we'd expect based on our "prime" performances.
2:04 may not have been the absolute fastest Frank could go but I'd bet it wasn't that far off and good for him for still running.
Yep. Look at it this way: would you rather be an Olympic champion or an an old age group wiz? I doubt any of us would choose being a fast old dude over being an Olympic gold medalist.
Does anyone know the full history of the various hip operations FS had?
I'm sure he had at least one resurfacing operations.
One would think recent major operations like hip surgery would have more of an impact on his current ability to run than his level of excellence 35 or 40 years ago does.
boutyufj wrote:
would you rather be an Olympic champion or an an old age group wiz? I doubt any of us would choose being a fast old dude over being an Olympic gold medalist.
Wrong!
I am much happier being who I am.
missing the point wrote:
Does anyone know the full history of the various hip operations FS had?
I'm sure he had at least one resurfacing operations.
One would think recent major operations like hip surgery would have more of an impact on his current ability to run than his level of excellence 35 or 40 years ago does.
I have no idea of his full medical history. He's mentioned having several surgeries, a hip resurfacing, and knee osteoarthritis. Given all that, I'm impressed that he is running at all, no matter how slowly.
he's had physical problems i think
He has a bad hip, and should prob get it replaced.
I'm envious. He won a gold.
did you?
Whoa, what size shoe does Frank wear?
Looks like he's wearing ASICS Gel-Lyte 33's and has become a heel striker. Still smilin' though.
HRE wrote:
If you follow Ron Hill's website you see that he is still racing at 70 plus and he does race as hard as he can. You also see that his times are nowhere near what you'd have expected from a guy with the performances he had in his prime years.
You've pretty much nailed it. The best master's performers are almost always people who took up the sport at older ages. Those of us who were running 5-6k miles a year 30 plus years ago can still run but much slower than we'd expect based on our "prime" performances.
2:04 may not have been the absolute fastest Frank could go but I'd bet it wasn't that far off and good for him for still running.
That's because dumb streaks have interfered with his ability to actually train properly.
That's your problem too.