rojo wrote:
Kellog's crappy cereal wrote: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.
Hey Rojo why are you censoring yourself? It's your website.
Yet another Worlds is in the books that means there is a now yet another great back and forth between Nicholas Thompson and Malcolm Gladwell about Worlds. This time, their debate appears on Wired.com as Thompson has moved there from the New Yorker. Read it as they talk about a lot of interesting points.https://www.wired.com/story/breaking-down-track-and-field-world-championships/One interesting point that really struck me was this from Gladwell.
Gladwell wrote:
This championship merely confirms what is extraordinary about Farah’s career: that he has been a contender in virtually every race he has EVER entered in his prime.
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 he 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
Update by Rojo. Later on in this thread, I remembered that my own brother set his PR just a few months short of 30.
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.
He never became a 12:40 / 26:25 runner. For example, he tried to improve his 10k PR and could not do it.He ran 3:28 in the perfect setting for fast times. Superb run.
TAGAWIA wrote:
logicalobserver wrote:It's an interesting argument that Farah was always decently fast, but just couldn't do anything against the really fast guys until they all retired.
It is an absurd argument. Mo became a 3:28, 12:40, 26:25 runner who ran to win. The 3:28 stands out because it he ran to his limit. Picture Geb but just running to win and having no Komen or Tergat to make him run real fast. Mo became Geb due to doping. This is obvious.
Also, it's not obvious he could go that fast. Geb, Bekele and Komen raced each other but they all ran incredibly fast solo efforts or paced efforts without competition. If Mo was a 12:40 guy he could have set up an attempt.Mo could be doping but,frankly, so could the others mentioned.
Limited data set. wrote:
He never became a 12:40 / 26:25 runner. For example, he tried to improve his 10k PR and could not do it.
He ran 3:28 in the perfect setting for fast times. Superb run.
TAGAWIA wrote:It is an absurd argument. Mo became a 3:28, 12:40, 26:25 runner who ran to win. The 3:28 stands out because it he ran to his limit. Picture Geb but just running to win and having no Komen or Tergat to make him run real fast. Mo became Geb due to doping. This is obvious.
When did Mo Farah try to improve his 10000m time? Did he have a pacemaker designated to take him through at least 13:20?
No. To illustrate the meaning and insight of MG's post, compare the remarkable consistency of performance of Mo Farah in his prime to, say, Asbel Kiprop in his prime, or Alan Webb in his prime, or (arguably down a notch) Leo Manzano in his prime. When those guys brought their A game it was something special. But they tended to bring their A game at best maybe half the time. Mo brought it virtually (not literally, but virtually) every single time, for nearly a decade. That is his point.
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.
I know it's been written, but I want to point to the obvious: the 2008 London games saw Brit pressure on their athletes reach an all time high. For years, the Brit media put their hopes on Mo and he let them down - remember that piece written after Mo repeatedly won Euro XC but finished horribly at WXC?
It's not just Mo, look at Bradley Wiggins - he also was almost a has been like Mo and then Boom! he was a gold medalist, a TdF champion and untouchable.
Did the world learn nothing from Armsong's TdD podium speech at aimed to those who can't believe in miracles? Gladwell, are you listening? Lance loved training, too! Go back and watch those OLN Lance Chronicles, as Lance climbs a HC climb repeatedly in a blizzard, in a blizzard! I sure don't bike in blizzards, or like the new recipe for frenchfries, or believe in Horace Algiers fables... (that was my best Gladwell impression)
If that is his only point, it is a pretty facile and stupid one. I haven't heard anybody argue that Alan Webb or Leo Manzano are better runners than Mo Farah. I'm sure some people might try to argue that Asbel Kiprop is, but honestly he is not even close.
HaileUnlikely wrote:
No. To illustrate the meaning and insight of MG's post, compare the remarkable consistency of performance of Mo Farah in his prime to, say, Asbel Kiprop in his prime, or Alan Webb in his prime, or (arguably down a notch) Leo Manzano in his prime. When those guys brought their A game it was something special. But they tended to bring their A game at best maybe half the time. Mo brought it virtually (not literally, but virtually) every single time, for nearly a decade. That is his point.
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.
This is not Gladwell's point at all, though.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
If that is his only point, it is a pretty facile and stupid one. I haven't heard anybody argue that Alan Webb or Leo Manzano are better runners than Mo Farah. I'm sure some people might try to argue that Asbel Kiprop is, but honestly he is not even close.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:Yifter won 2 and a World Cup.
This also assumes that the names above are telling the truth about their age.
Nailed it.