Galen Rupp's Days as a 5000m Runner Are Over, 2017 Looks to Be His Last at 10,000m

All the top marathoners being Africans, except Kawauchi, shows once again that marathoning is about fuel efficiency and easily dominated by those with naturally low body weight. The optimal body structure develops in people who eat sparingly since birth. East Africans have lowest per-capita calorie consumption in the world, and Japan is among the lowest of developed countries.

Rupp's skeleton is too big to compete with them at marathon. His olympic medal was the result of the suspicious en-masse failure of the top Africans and will not happen again except possibly at another olympics. Everyone who knows marathoning knows the olympics doesn't mean shit anymore.

So, Rupp moving to marathon is essentially retirement from world class competition. He is now an exhibition runner solely for advertising Nike products to people who don't know any better. Call me a hater but I'm telling it like it is. The only question is who his replacement on the track will be.

Angryjohnny,

The information was obtained from the Track & Field News website 2016 US Absolute List page that is dated current as of 11/07/2016. A spot check of American men finishers the 2016 Chicago Marathon and New York City Marathon results proves the list to be inaccurate. Please accept my apology for trusting 'the bible of the sport' as the truth.

Thanks,

-Norm

rjm33 wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

That's quite possible. But don't forget that the most rampant, literally unlimited drug use occurred in the 80s, in particular in Europe and America.

While the drugs are better now, one has to hold back quite substantially (if one doesn't want to bribe the IAAF and train in Ethiopia).

It's not a coincidence that we aren't exactly faster than during the Cold War era, despite better shoes, faster tracks, more knowledge etc.

The 800m world record for women from 1983 of 1:53.28 still stands.

Here she is:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/01/11/22/300B77A900000578-0-image-m-27_1452549996865.jpghttps://myoutlookonfootball.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/jamila-k.jpg

Oh boy.

I didn't know Roger Daltrey was a world class runner!

rojo wrote:

Alternate Reality wrote:

Big mistake. Just like the mistake most American distance runners make when they say they are moving to the marathon (Ryan Hall, Ritz).

The most successful, accomplished U.S marathoner ever, Frank Shorter, continued to race in 10K and 5k distances throughout his career.

Can people please stop talking about Frank Shorter and thinking what he did applies at all today. He was a great marathoner in the 1970s when it was largely an amateur sport and there was hardly any African competition.

The 77 fastest runners in the world this year at 26.2 were all born in Africa.

So yes, his training was great when 2:10 could win the Olympics and hardly any one from Africa was any good.

This. They should be talking about Frank's slightly older contemporary Carlos Lopes who bridged the gap and did everything right against the Africans.

whowho wrote:

I didn't know Roger Daltrey was a world class runner!

Borje Salming

Norman K. wrote:

Angryjohnny,

The information was obtained from the Track & Field News website 2016 US Absolute List page that is dated current as of 11/07/2016. A spot check of American men finishers the 2016 Chicago Marathon and New York City Marathon results proves the list to be inaccurate. Please accept my apology for trusting 'the bible of the sport' as the truth.

Thanks,

-Norm

Angryjohnny's point about qualifiers for the US OT marathon made no sense either since it did not really encompass 2016 which was your point. To answer your point there have been 34 athletes run under 2:20 this season.

Date R.S.

2:10:05 1. 1. Galen RUPP 86 USA F 3. Rio de Janeiro (BRA) 21.08 1160

2:11:20 2. 3. Bobby CURTIS 84 USA F 4. Frankfurt (GER) 30.10 1138

2:11:30 3. 4. Jared WARD 88 USA F 6. Rio de Janeiro (BRA) 21.08 1135

2:12:20 4. 5. Mebrahtom KEFLEZIGHI 75 USA F 2. Los Angeles (USA) 13.02 1120

2:13:56 5. 7. Diego ESTRADA 89 USA F 8. Chicago (USA) 09.10 1092

2:14:12 6. 8. Luke PUSKEDRA 90 USA F 4. Los Angeles (USA) 13.02 1088

2:14:52 7. 9. Fernando CABADA 82 USA F 17. Amsterdam (NED) 16.10 1076

2:14:57 8. 10. Tyler PENNEL 87 USA F 5. Los Angeles (USA) 13.02 1075

2:15:10 9. 11. Malcolm RICHARDS 82 USA F 17. Berlin (GER) 25.09 1071

2:15:16 10. 12. Matt LLANO 88 USA F 6. Los Angeles (USA) 13.02 1069

2:15:23 11. 13. Shadrack KIPTOO BIWOTT 85 USA F 7. Los Angeles (USA) 13.02 1067

2:15:26 12. 14. Patrick SMYTH 86 USA F 8. Los Angeles (USA) 13.02 1066

2:15:52 13. 15. Sean QUIGLEY 85 USA F 9. Los Angeles (USA) 13.02 1059

2:16:25 14. 16. Nicholas ARCINIAGA 83 USA F 10. Los Angeles (USA) 13.02 1050

2:16:37 15. 17. Elkanah KIBET 86 USA F 10. Chicago (USA) 09.10 1046

2:16:43 16. 18. Tim YOUNG 87 USA F 11. Chicago (USA) 09.10 1045

2:16:54 17. 20. Andrew EPPERSON USA F 12. Chicago (USA) 09.10 1041

2:17:14 18. 22. Max KING 80 USA F 12. Los Angeles (USA) 13.02 1036

2:17:20 19. 23. Jeff EGGLESTON 84 USA F 13. Los Angeles (USA) 13.02 1034

2:17:33 20. 24. Scott SMITH 86 USA F 14. Los Angeles (USA) 13.02 1030

2:17:56 21. 25. Brian HARVEY 87 USA F 1. Hartford (USA) 08.10 1024

2:18:14 22. 26. Brandon MULL 86 USA F 10. Osaka (JPN) 30.10 1019

2:18:18 23. 28. Chris ZABLOCKI 88 USA F 17. Valencia (ESP) 20.11 1018

2:18:30 24. 31. Jacob RILEY 88 USA F 15. Los Angeles (USA) 13.02 1015

2:18:33 25. 32. Augustus MAIYO 83 USA F 16. Los Angeles (USA) 13.02 1014

2:18:35 26. 33. Tyler JERMANN USA F 9. Houston (USA) 17.01 1013

2:18:37 27. 34. Ben PAYNE 81 USA F 17. Los Angeles (USA) 13.02 1013

2:18:40 28. 35. Mohamed HREZI 91 USA F 7. Ottawa (CAN) 29.05 1012

2:18:54 29. 38. Carlos TRUJILLO 85 USA F 1. Eugene (USA) 01.05 1008

2:19:16 30. 39. Nick WANINGER USA F 2. Indianapolis (USA) 05.11 1002

2:19:20 31. 40. Alan PETERSON USA F 1. Detroit (USA) 16.10 1001

2:19:29 32. 41. Adam BOHACH USA F 5. St. Paul (USA) 09.10 998

2:19:36 33. 42. Matt PELLETIER 79 USA F 2. Hartford (USA) 08.10 996

2:19:39 34. 43. Tony MIGLIOZZI 93 USA F 15. Chicago (USA) 09.10 995

rojo , if you're going to criticize Shorter et al (that doesn't mean and alberto) for not being scientific why do you carry such a torch for JK?

rojo wrote:

Can people please stop talking about Frank Shorter and thinking what he did applies at all today. He was a great marathoner in the 1970s when it was largely an amateur sport and there was hardly any African competition.

The 77 fastest runners in the world this year at 26.2 were all born in Africa.

So yes, his training was great when 2:10 could win the Olympics and hardly any one from Africa was any good.

2:10 wins the Olympics now dum bass. The biggest difference is not what you are saying but that his era had blood doping and steroids and this era has HGH, EPO, designer steroids, and a whole lot more.

If he ever ran a paced marathon with the cars blocking the wind like they have now, everything else staying the same, he would have run 2:08:XX for sure. Everyone said that back then even.

If he was able to have all the current blood drugs and others that allow 3:26-27, 7:53-55, 12:37-46, 26:17-44, 2:03-2:06 then he would also run 2:05. Easy.

The 5k standard has advanced 40 SECONDS since his era. Clarke ran 13:16 for the WR in 1965, Viren shaded it by a little. 40 SECONDS. Part of that gain is from the ever-present pacemakers, and part of it is more people able to run near the top (because of the drugs). The bulk of that gain (35 seconds of it) is due to different drugs available now.

So many times you have admitted that your grasp of the sport's history is weak. So don't comment on things you don't know anything about. You don't even have a strong grasp of 1990's track history. Also, you never tested your potential in the marathon, and have never coached the marathon. So keep quiet on it.

Look into how many times Shorter (and others from that era) ran a top track 10k and 5k and 2M. There are sites that chronicle the legends and all their races.

Shorter would not likely win the Olympics today, it was long odds even in 1972. But he at least tried to win both the 10k and marathon. That was why he did not double in '76, not because he was worse, he knew he could not win the 10k.

Check into how many National titles FS won in his day, when he was running 25-35 races a year. He ran XC Nationals just days before or after Fukuoka. He ran more races in one year than Rupp runs in five years.

Nice post but Rupp > Frank.

this is the way you win an argument.

Most of what you say here is true. Galen and Alberto are implicitly confessing that Galen is no longer competitive on the world stage.

Bekele and Kipchoge (and Kipsang) won't be a problem in every marathon. They might run London and in the sub-2 project, while Rupp competes in Boston. Or Berlin, while Rupp runs in Chicago. Bekele is also quite prone to injuries these days.

rjm33 wrote:

Galen Rupp is going to be great at the marathon. His 5K and 10K PRs make him one of the fastest marathoners ever. He can run a 2:04 marathon.

I see only 2 possible problems for Galen and Alberto:

1) Eliud Kipchoge: bronze and silver Olympic medalist at 5K with 12:46 PR, 26:49 10K PR, Olympic gold medalist in marathon and 2:03:05 PR, greatest marathoner of all-time.

2) Kenenisa Bekele: 5K Olympic gold and silver medalist with 12:37.35 WR PR, 10K 2 time Olympic gold medalist with 26:17.53 WR PR, 2:03:03 marathon PR, greatest distance runner of all-time…and destroyer of worlds.

In conclusion:

1) I expect some nice things from Galen and Alberto.

2) I expect really good things from Eliud Kipchoge.

3) I expect really, really, really, really, really, really GREAT THINGS FROM KENENISA BEKELE.

This is not a big surprise.

The Ghost of Pat Davey wrote:

The biggest difference is not what you are saying but that his era had blood doping and steroids and this era has HGH, EPO, designer steroids, and a whole lot more.

Correct (plus amphetamines since decades). But today's athletes are, at least officially, better controlled, so that they have to keep their testosterone to epitestosterone ratio below 4 : 1 and their Hct increases below 15%.

Here's my (slightly different) reading of what GR/AS are saying here: Galen is still competitive on the world stage, but has for all intents and purposes reached his peak in the 5k/10k. He can train really hard the next few years and consistently be in the hunt for a medal, but will likely not improve on what he has done from a time or place perspective, and will more likely finish in spots 5-7 in most major races. HOWEVER, without even 100% training for it, he was able to win a medal in the marathon, and they believe there is still a lot of untapped potential there.

Given that he only has so many years left in his career, it makes complete sense to me that he would fully shift towards the marathon now.

Steve on a cell in Brooklyn wrote:

Norman K. wrote:

Angryjohnny,

The information was obtained from the Track & Field News website 2016 US Absolute List page that is dated current as of 11/07/2016. A spot check of American men finishers the 2016 Chicago Marathon and New York City Marathon results proves the list to be inaccurate. Please accept my apology for trusting 'the bible of the sport' as the truth.

Thanks,

-Norm

Angryjohnny's point about qualifiers for the US OT marathon made no sense either since it did not really encompass 2016 which was your point. To answer your point there have been 34 athletes run under 2:20 this season.

1

Norm's point was that current American training methods aren't as good as they used to be because there were more sub 2:20s run in 1982 than in 2016. My point was that 2016 isn't a fair comparison because of the OT conditions and given the number of OT qualifiers surely there are more than 22 (or 34) sub 2:20 guys out there. It may indeed be true that we "just don't make'em like we used to," I just don't think you can make that conclusion looking solely at 2016. Given our success in Rio you would think perhaps our methods are not broken. In any event, it would be interesting to look at 2015 and other years. It would also be interesting to hear about these simpler training methods from yesteryear that were so effective. I suspect they would involve a lot of running uphill both ways in the snow.

rojo wrote:

Alternate Reality wrote:

Big mistake. Just like the mistake most American distance runners make when they say they are moving to the marathon (Ryan Hall, Ritz).

The most successful, accomplished U.S marathoner ever, Frank Shorter, continued to race in 10K and 5k distances throughout his career.

Can people please stop talking about Frank Shorter and thinking what he did applies at all today. He was a great marathoner in the 1970s when it was largely an amateur sport and there was hardly any African competition.

The 77 fastest runners in the world this year at 26.2 were all born in Africa.

So yes, his training was great when 2:10 could win the Olympics and hardly any one from Africa was any good.

Lots of old men still living the Shorter/Ryan/Pre fantasy.

The sport and level of completion has changed dramatically.

Your assessment is correct in that American's wait until career end to move up maybe isn't the best strategy to fast marathons. Americans seem to do ok in slower championship marathon racing, but on a world basis of marathons around the world they barely race.( why is this)?

American times as you say are terrible in comparison.

If we could get coaches/athletes to say its ok to start young and specialize. We might see some breakthrough times and a global competitiveness.Being happy with finishing as the first American is like all finishers get a medal nonsense.

Use your brain wrote:

Lots of old men still living the Shorter/Ryan/Pre fantasy.

The sport and level of completion has changed dramatically.

Your assessment is correct in that American's wait until career end to move up maybe isn't the best strategy to fast marathons. Americans seem to do ok in slower championship marathon racing, but on a world basis of marathons around the world they barely race.( why is this)?

American times as you say are terrible in comparison.

If we could get coaches/athletes to say its ok to start young and specialize. We might see some breakthrough times and a global competitiveness.Being happy with finishing as the first American is like all finishers get a medal nonsense.

Rojo had a legitimate point, even if you don't agree. There's no reason to insinuate that he or anyone else is dumb for having a different viewpoint; it doesn't strengthen your argument, but it does weaken your credibility that you thought you had to result to an IQ pi**ing match through childish implications in order to write anything worth reading.

Except for Kenenisa Bekele or Eliud Kipchoge, there is always someone better. Why shouldn't you be happy to be the best out of 300 million people?

Furthermore, if the world's population is about 7.4 billion, Ethiopia's is about 100 million, Kenya's is about 50 million, and Japan's is about 130 million, then you could roughly say that the top American is likely better than 7.1 billion people. How is that not an achievement?

fan of orpjt wrote:

Here's my (slightly different) reading of what GR/AS are saying here: Galen is still competitive on the world stage, but has for all intents and purposes reached his peak in the 5k/10k. He can train really hard the next few years and consistently be in the hunt for a medal, but will likely not improve on what he has done from a time or place perspective, and will more likely finish in spots 5-7 in most major races. HOWEVER, without even 100% training for it, he was able to win a medal in the marathon, and they believe there is still a lot of untapped potential there.

Given that he only has so many years left in his career, it makes complete sense to me that he would fully shift towards the marathon now.

+1

Agree 100%.

Angryjohnny wrote:

Norm's point was that current American training methods aren't as good as they used to be because there were more sub 2:20s run in 1982 than in 2016. My point was that 2016 isn't a fair comparison because of the OT conditions and given the number of OT qualifiers surely there are more than 22 (or 34) sub 2:20 guys out there. It may indeed be true that we "just don't make'em like we used to," I just don't think you can make that conclusion looking solely at 2016. Given our success in Rio you would think perhaps our methods are not broken. In any event, it would be interesting to look at 2015 and other years. It would also be interesting to hear about these simpler training methods from yesteryear that were so effective. I suspect they would involve a lot of running uphill both ways in the snow.

Good point.

I think it's funny the way LRC posters talk about the performances of today or yester-year like they can be explained away with just one thing. "It's drugs / different drugs!" or "No, moron, it's lazy people today!" or "No, moron, it's the money / lack of money!" or "No, moron, it's simplicity of training / scientific training!"

It's ALL of those things, PLUS A WHOLE LOT MORE. The problem is far more complex than just what's written above. Bad Wigins started getting into this with his discussion of calorie consumption, even if the rest of his post was weak.

Look at any TV show from the 1970's (C.H.I.P.s and Sanford & Son are a two examples). People were, in general far thinner. Even the thin people were thinner. Total daily average caloric consumption is one way to explain this.

Another thing to look at is consumption of high-glycemic foods. Significantly lesser for anyone who reached age 18 by 1979 or before. How did this affect their metabolisms in general compared today?

Another thing to look at is fat-metabolism. They ate more saturated fat, and more fat in general. Did this lead to better or worse fat metabolism? This is significant, because fat metabolism is a crucial factor in the marathon, but not really in 10,000m and under.

Another thing to look at is testosterone levels. What did the women dope with to get better? Testosterone. What did the men dope with to get better? More testosterone. It's very significant, then, that testosterone levels in men across the whole population have been decreasing over the last 40 years. This has been documented, but it can be seen if you look at the faces of guys from back then (even the average joe) compared to now. Guys back then had sharper, more angular faces. It's also documented that saturated fat consumption, which has been demonized since the 1980's, helps to increase testosterone naturally. How much do you want to bet that Galen Rupp does not eat eggs and bacon at every other breakfast?

Another thing to look at is resting metabolic rate. Today's runners are not doing much between workouts (sitting mostly while playing or posting on their phones or computers, playing video games, or even sitting down at an office job). People who reached age 18 in the 1970's or before were moving far more during the day, and more jobs involved being on your feet than today's jobs. So not only was the average joe getting tiny bits of exercise more each day from childhood through their adult lives, but so too were runners. What cumulative effect would this have had?

Those are just some examples of how the post-1970's gains in training refinements, science, and some aspects of nutrition could have been overshadowed by 'losses' in other areas.