Explains Gladwell's often pseudo-intellectual quite well.
Explains Gladwell's often pseudo-intellectual quite well.
Sprinter4 wrote:
Malcolm Gladwell tends to think in fallacies far too often.
If you define someone's prime as the time in their career that they are most successful without regard to any other factors, then you're engaging in completely circular logic. It gets the equation exactly backwards.
Absolutely true, on both accounts.
Star wrote:
Your prime is not determined by your age but the time when you are at your best.
Farrah's prime was at a later age than most.
Yes...but of course to go from barely being in contention in your mid 20s to ALWAYS being in contention and almost never losing from your late 20s to mid 30s is a huge red flag regarding doping.
Gladwell was engaging in a conversation? So for some of you to take out the knives toward either he or Rojo seems ridiculous. IF Gladwell simply said that Mo was a contender in every race in his prime it is a fairly noncontroversial and accurate remark, no? The marathon maybe not included. Mo was amazingly consistent...that was one of the more impressive traits he possessed after the doping began, a bit like Lance winning 7 Tours in a row.
Sprinter4 wrote:
Malcolm Gladwell tends to think in fallacies far too often.
If you define someone's prime as the time in their career that they are most successful without regard to any other factors, then you're engaging in completely circular logic. It gets the equation exactly backwards.
No...you need to educate yourself. If what Gladwell said was that Mo was a contender in every race in his prime, there is no circular logic. You are misinterpreting what he is saying and then disparaging him based on YOUR misinterpretation. It would only be circular logic if EVERY runner was a contender in every race in their prime.
Ned Vlaanderen wrote:
I think it's quite obvious what he means. He is praising Mo's consistency. Since he's been a contender he's always been up there. He doesn't have bad races.
It's nothing to do with age. You are just being pedantic.
Farah doesn't have bad races because he only races when he feels good. It is circular logic.
Gjjhkhtgjy wrote:
Ned Vlaanderen wrote:I think it's quite obvious what he means. He is praising Mo's consistency. Since he's been a contender he's always been up there. He doesn't have bad races.
It's nothing to do with age. You are just being pedantic.
Farah doesn't have bad races because he only races when he feels good. It is circular logic.
Again...you need to educate yourself. Did Mo magically feel good every day he competed in global championships? Perhaps....but you do not know that. Mo undoubtedly is a doper and Gladwell appears to be naive about that, but his point was unfairly criticized by relative idiots.
Look at Paul Tergat. He got much better in late 20s but had to deal with Haile G. Yifter was pretty old when he was at his best. Zatopek seems to have run his best in his 30s.I could find more. It doesn't prove if Mo is clean or dirty - if that is what you are getting at.
rojo wrote:
When I read that I thought one could argue the opposite.
Couldn't it be argued that Farah lost virtually ever single race he ever entered when she should have been in his prime (before the age of 28)? What's amazing with him is he's been so good later in his career.
World championship/Olympic medals won after age 27.
Gebrseslassie: 0
Bekele: 0
Kiprop: 0 (to be fair he just turned 28)
El G: 3
Farah: 10
ggfsgasdfs wrote:
Yeah it's like they think his career began at age 28. According to Wikipedia he ran the world championships in 2007 (finished 6th), the olympics in 2008 (didn't make the final), the world champs in 2009 (finished 7th), and lost in all of them. It wouldn't be a knock against him except he was already 26 years old in 2009, which means his development was highly unusual.
He was also knocking out some pretty good track times long before he switched to Salazar in 2011. He ran 3.33/7.34i in 2009 (age 26) for example.
For reference that year only Lagat in the US was faster (by 1s) at 3000m.
Limited data set. wrote:
Look at Paul Tergat. He got much better in late 20s but had to deal with Haile G. Yifter was pretty old when he was at his best. Zatopek seems to have run his best in his 30s.
I could find more. It doesn't prove if Mo is clean or dirty - if that is what you are getting at.
rojo wrote:When I read that I thought one could argue the opposite.
Couldn't it be argued that Farah lost virtually ever single race he ever entered when she should have been in his prime (before the age of 28)? What's amazing with him is he's been so good later in his career.
World championship/Olympic medals won after age 27.
Gebrseslassie: 0
Bekele: 0
Kiprop: 0 (to be fair he just turned 28)
El G: 3
Farah: 10
But Terget just started running in his 20s.
True. Plus MO's best years happened when the competition dropped off. He would not have matched up well with Bekele, Komen or Haile in their primes or maybe even Sihine, Tergat, Kipchoge or Tadesse in their track primes.No one has been very fast at the 5000 or 10000 since 2008 except for one 5000 in Paris. But Mo has been consistent,
The Scot wrote:
ggfsgasdfs wrote:Yeah it's like they think his career began at age 28. According to Wikipedia he ran the world championships in 2007 (finished 6th), the olympics in 2008 (didn't make the final), the world champs in 2009 (finished 7th), and lost in all of them. It wouldn't be a knock against him except he was already 26 years old in 2009, which means his development was highly unusual.
He was also knocking out some pretty good track times long before he switched to Salazar in 2011. He ran 3.33/7.34i in 2009 (age 26) for example.
For reference that year only Lagat in the US was faster (by 1s) at 3000m.
Mo was fast before his breakthrough
His competition is weak as outlined above
His 3-28 is over hyped round here, he got towed to that time on a fast track
Do I think he's doping- yes absolutely
When was Mo's first win in a senior international competition of any kind?
False. He was a non-factor in competitive terms in the World Half Champs last year, despite finishing 3rd.
TAGAWIA wrote:
Star wrote:Your prime is not determined by your age but the time when you are at your best.
Farrah's prime was at a later age than most.
Yes...but of course to go from barely being in contention in your mid 20s to ALWAYS being in contention and almost never losing from your late 20s to mid 30s is a huge red flag regarding doping.
I won't deny that he may have started doping later in his career.
But you can't deny that if someone with talent doesn't train very hard in their early 20s, they can be much better in their late 20s/ear;y 30s if they do begin a stringent training program.
You are making an assumption that his commitment has always been the same and drugs are the only difference.
I know a lot of pretty good road runners who visit this site have set their 5K PRs in their 30s because they may not have run track in college or simply didn't run before.
That's their personal prime for running.
Whatever your prime is I din't think you can hold it for more than 10 years.- -usually.
But then there's Gebrselassie who had a World Title in 1993 and world record in 2008 and Lagat who got an Olympic medal in 2000 and almost got one in 2016.
Joseph McVeigh wrote:
False. He was a non-factor in competitive terms in the World Half Champs last year, despite finishing 3rd.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/26/mo-farah-bronze-geoffrey-kamworor-world-half-marathon-cardiff
Farah was also completely demolished in XC this year. 13th after the first lap and I think finished outside the top ten. They took it to him.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-3ZJerXUEHoKellog's crappy cereal wrote:
Star wrote:Your prime is not determined by your age but the time when you are at your best.
Farrah's prime was at a later age than most.
rojo just can't believe people can peak later and hold it after JKs training failed to keep wejo at a higher level for more than a couple of years.
In trying to be a jack***, you actually make a great point.
The whole point of this debate - which I've been emailing Gladwell about - is simple. Farah's prime has come later than when most would assume one's physical peak is. The most surprising, some might say suspicious, aspect of Farah is the fact that he was largely an also ran before he developed into the most amazing distance runner of the last 10 years. In my years following the sport, before Farah, the dominant distance stars - Bekele, Geb, etc. - were stars from the get go.
But let one thing be clear. John Kellogg is a GENIUS. And his training is focused on one thing more than any other - LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT.
When John and I were coaching at Cornell, about midway through my tenure, I acutally said to him, "YOu know what, maybe the long term develoment isn't what we should focus on. Maybe we should focus on the now as 90% of the guys will never run a serious competitive step after graduation."
But the poster above is actually a brilliant moron. I never thought about it but Weldon PRd at almsot the age 30!!
By trying to disparage my brother and myself, the poster actually made me think Farah is much more likely to be clean than I might have thought. I never thought about what age Weldon was when he got good.
Weldon Johnson 10k pr by age:
20 - 30:39 or 30:36??
23 - 30:14 (Everything above was in college when JK wasn't the the main coach)
24 - 29:49
26 - 28:27
28 - 28:10
29 - 28:06
Weldon had a great 4 year run later in life. Now it also coincided when he was one of the few people in the World doing high/low training. The 28:27 came right after he quit his job, started training full time and moved to altitude.
Typo police. Thanks for pointing them out. It drives my nuts crazy on the few occasions when she comes on here and sees them. I've corrected a few.
At Princeton, it's beneath them to teach us the difference between there and their and he / she.
What?
rojo wrote:
It drives my nuts crazy on the few occasions when she comes on here and sees them.
TAGAWIA wrote: Yes...but of course to go from barely being in contention in your mid 20s to ALWAYS being in contention and almost never losing from your late 20s to mid 30s is a huge red flag regarding doping.
At age 22, after winning a series of British xcountry championships, Farah ran 13:09 for the 5000m and 7:34 for 3000m. He was clearly an awesome talent. What needs to be explained is his lackluster years in between these exemplary times at 22 and his breakthroughs after 27. Perhaps, Salazar is a great coach.