The mystery of the 2007 season has been explained.
-
"If you to know where the extra magic sprinkle came [from] or some of the giddy up in my step came from that season, I think that explains a lot." - Alan Webb speaking about Julia during their 2007 courtship.
The mystery of the 2007 season has been explained. -
moose wrote:
"If you to know where the extra magic sprinkle came [from] or some of the giddy up in my step came from that season, I think that explains a lot." - Alan Webb speaking about Julia during their 2007 courtship.
The mystery of the 2007 season has been explained.
What it explains is his abrupt departure from the scene soon after that. -
The extra giddy up came from him finding the love of his life, not from sex. Grow up.
-
Mods,
Thanks for deleting. We had a couple of inappropriate posts that have now been deleted. I do think if people can keep away from personal comments the thread should stay.
When my brother read the Webb feature after we finished it (Jon wrote it, all I did was edit it), he called me up and said, "Wow Webb got good because he wanted to get laid."
He was joking - sort of.
But when I was coaching at Cornell, we had also joked about the following. The theory between the men's and women's staff was that a man ran really well when he was 'on the hunt' and pursuing a woman and maybe in the first days of a relationship. Once the relationship took hold, he was toast.
For a woman, the theory was the opposite. She might not run well when being pursued but she'd blossom when in a relationship.
Plenty of coaches joke about this and then this article comes out. What do people think? -
I'll keep it to myself from now on -- you have my word. Truthfully I thought I was only stating what everyone else knew.
-
horn dog wrote:
What it explains is his abrupt departure from the scene soon after that.
Post nuptial shutoff -
rojo wrote:
The theory between the men's and women's staff was that a man ran really well when he was 'on the hunt' and pursuing a woman and maybe in the first days of a relationship.
What if a male athlete was pursuing a man?
Same theory hold true, or nah?
Pretty narrow perspective, Rojo. As usual. -
rojo wrote:
Plenty of coaches joke about this and then this article comes out. What do people think?
Some of my best races ever are from high school when my crush came to watch me at my dual meet. The times that she came, I ran some of my best races ever. Something would kick in and I was no longer the awkward guy that I normally was. I turned into a confident guy and I tried to impress her with every race. In one particular dual meet against our city rivals, I ran a 4:20 and a 1:55. I intended to and succeeded in lapping a couple runners in the mile. Unfortunately I had a personality about as interesting as a rock and she started dating a baseball player instead. My season culminated in me getting last place at my regional meet despite being one of the top seeds and going to prom without a date! -
rojo wrote:
Mods,
Thanks for deleting. We had a couple of inappropriate posts that have now been deleted. I do think if people can keep away from personal comments the thread should stay.
When my brother read the Webb feature after we finished it (Jon wrote it, all I did was edit it), he called me up and said, "Wow Webb got good because he wanted to get laid."
He was joking - sort of.
But when I was coaching at Cornell, we had also joked about the following. The theory between the men's and women's staff was that a man ran really well when he was 'on the hunt' and pursuing a woman and maybe in the first days of a relationship. Once the relationship took hold, he was toast.
For a woman, the theory was the opposite. She might not run well when being pursued but she'd blossom when in a relationship.
Plenty of coaches joke about this and then this article comes out. What do people think?
Hey RoJo, until recently in tennis the guys avoided getting married and having children thinking it was cursed. But Federer, Murray, Djokovic and Wawrinka have disproved this in recent years. -
95-5 or 99-1 is not a narrow perspective.
-
This is basic stuff if you understand how the brain works. First 6 months is super exciting and you're likely to PR when falling in love with someone that isn't a total mess from a drama standpoint. Up to 2.5 years can be strong, but by then the PRs are unlikely to come again unless a new relationship gets underway.
Being in love releases powerful hormones that make most of us look on the bright side, which in turn reduces the sensation of pain.
So you can fall in love or just do some tramadol. -
Still not over her :( wrote:
The times that she came, I ran some of my best races ever.
It was that rare, huh? -
rojo wrote:
Thanks for restoring the thread. Intentional or not, Gault implied getting laid had something to do with Webb's breakthrough. -
LetsBonk.com wrote:
rojo wrote:
The theory between the men's and women's staff was that a man ran really well when he was 'on the hunt' and pursuing a woman and maybe in the first days of a relationship.
What if a male athlete was pursuing a man?
Same theory hold true, or nah?
Pretty narrow perspective, Rojo. As usual.
It might. I didn't coach long enough to have enough case studies on the same sex relationships. -
zxcvzxcv wrote:
95-5 or 99-1 is not a narrow perspective.
Exactly.
Despite what the SJW spews, it appears that actual % is in line with 95-5 and probably really 99 - 1. ---Some places may have bigger closets.
(Rojo & coaches hypothesis holds water.) -
Interesting discussion. I think Top 25 Leaks is absolutely right about the effects of hormones. And I've observed several examples of some of what's been discussed here.
But at the same time, there's also no question that in many cases the negative effects (in terms of distraction, loss of focus and/or intensity, etc.) outweigh the positives (in terms of outlook on life, desire to impress, etc.). I've seen plenty of examples of that too. -
I've also seen more than one person completely smash their old PRs after getting dumped.
-
rojo wrote:
Mods,
Thanks for deleting. We had a couple of inappropriate posts that have now been deleted. I do think if people can keep away from personal comments the thread should stay.
When my brother read the Webb feature after we finished it (Jon wrote it, all I did was edit it), he called me up and said, "Wow Webb got good because he wanted to get laid."
He was joking - sort of.
But when I was coaching at Cornell, we had also joked about the following. The theory between the men's and women's staff was that a man ran really well when he was 'on the hunt' and pursuing a woman and maybe in the first days of a relationship. Once the relationship took hold, he was toast.
For a woman, the theory was the opposite. She might not run well when being pursued but she'd blossom when in a relationship.
Plenty of coaches joke about this and then this article comes out. What do people think?
http://www.reactiongifs.com/but-why/ -
moose wrote:
"If you to know where the extra magic sprinkle came [from] or some of the giddy up in my step came from that season, I think that explains a lot." - Alan Webb speaking about Julia during their 2007 courtship.
The mystery of the 2007 season has been explained.
Nick Willis approves this post. -
LetsBonk.com wrote:
rojo wrote:
The theory between the men's and women's staff was that a man ran really well when he was 'on the hunt' and pursuing a woman and maybe in the first days of a relationship.
What if a male athlete was pursuing a man?
Same theory hold true, or nah?
Pretty narrow perspective, Rojo. As usual.
Why would it be any different?
