well,. wrote:
Those who say that have never watched the 2007 WC 10000m. Bekele was clearly more tired than Sihine with one lap to go. Guess who won?
The guy who wasn't actually as tired as he appeared to be.
well,. wrote:
Those who say that have never watched the 2007 WC 10000m. Bekele was clearly more tired than Sihine with one lap to go. Guess who won?
The guy who wasn't actually as tired as he appeared to be.
hey can we agree to refer to the quality that is aerobic/distance fitness as something other than "strength"? it's a terrible habit the BrosJo have passed along, and a recipe for a lotta confusion and obfuscation. seems to me strength means strong, and not necessarily (or even usually) aerobically/distance fit. it may well be that "strength = speed," but to the extent its true, its a result of the maximal power output, not a result of the economy/aerobic ability. seems to me when folks talk about this other "strength = speed" concept, what they really mean is "fitter is fitter." and that's not really any lamer to say. so lets try to get it right from now on?
Ghoytr wrote:
Strength is speed wrote:No it most certainly does not. Strength is more important than speed.
You cannot run a great mile without strength and speed.
I can squat 405lbs 16 times and run the 100 meters in 11.2 seconds and I weigh 220lbs. Does this mean I can run a fast mile?
Certainly if a Kenyan debuted with a 27:34 and ran 3:46 and 1:43, almost everybody would say he had a chance to medal if he could make the Kenyan Olympic team. It is the type of range which would make anybody a threat.
ngvc wrote:
Old Man Winter wrote:Great mile ability does not necessarily imply great kicking abilities over longer distances.
Yes it does.
You're saying that great mile ability NECESSARILY implies kicking ability over longer distances?
There are a couple of possibilities here.
1) You don't have very good reading skills
2) You really believe this to be true, in which case Usain Bolt NECESSARILY must be great at Ultramarathons.
27:34 as your all out PB run is just too slow to win a medal at the Olympics. Period. There would be at least 5 others in the race who can run 26:xx.
If the final was a slow early pace and then fast for the last 2-3 laps then Rupp would win because would have been running beneath his ability and more comfortably than the guy who can only manage 27:30 on the best of days, in perfect race conditions.
Once again the respect that LRC'ers have for the mile makes them believe that a man who can run 3:46 must therefore be able to medal at the 400m with his 'speed' and use his 'strength' to outkick a very much more accomplished specialist 10km runner.
Webb was very good at the mile and therefore 1500m, world class and one of the best of all time. He could have been competitive in the 800m and 5000m in certain races also. 10000m is too far from of his best racing distances.
nope wrote:
ngvc wrote:Yes it does.
You're saying that great mile ability NECESSARILY implies kicking ability over longer distances?
There are a couple of possibilities here.
1) You don't have very good reading skills
2) You really believe this to be true, in which case Usain Bolt NECESSARILY must be great at Ultramarathons.
Almost all great milers have great kicking ability over a longer distance. Do you know what the word "implies" means? It does mean what you think it does. Educate yourself before showing your colossal ignorance. Great miling ability "suggests" or "implies" great kicking ability over longer distances. Have you ever heard of a guy named Hicham or a guy named Said? Educate yourself before your next post.
I meant to write that the word "implies" does NOT mean what you think it means. You need to get smarter, and your silly comment about Usain Bolt truly shows a lack of ability to think.
NOP Skeptic wrote:
Strength is speed wrote:Doesn't matter, fast or slow, strength is more important than speed. The guys who are kicking fast in the final lap are the ones who are least tired. To medal at 10,000 you need to be capable of well under 27:00.
Exactly, if the pace is wearing him out too much or he can't hang w/ the pace AT ALL he can't use his 3:46 speed, it's meaningless at 9600m
Plus he ran 27:34, the London 10k was won in what, 27:22? If he can't even run that, how was he going to run it in a race where the pace was all over the place (70-61-65) AND w/ a 53 last lap?? I doubt Alan could've even medaled at the 5k... People forget, at the elite level, last laps aren't that different
The 1500m- Mac Daddy 51 high last lap
The 5k- Farah 52 last lap (Gebremeskel 51 high)
The 10k- Farah 53 last lap
Not only that, the last 1600m was under 3:55 for the 5k and just under 4 for the 10k
Rupp is the only American that has Been able to handle that type of in and out pace. And he was second.
Not saying Webb could not have handled that in his prime, but AlSal got two runners to be able to handle the surges of the Africans and still be able to kick at the end.
Webb did not have that type of coach.
Tenzing wrote:
I don't think they'll ever run an Olympic 1500 at that altitude.
Definitely 9/10, maybe more. :)