Malcolm Gladwell’s Running Knowlege

One of the greatest "Hiding in plain sight" mysteries in American running history is the drought from 1969-2001 of High School sub-4:00 miles. In the late '60s there was regularity, as there is today, but for over three decades...crickets.

Good points - I agree. People on these message boards are so jaded it annoys the crap out of me. Malcom Gladwell is a well known, respected, successful journalist/author who clearly has a deep love for the sport, same as us. If you watched "Transcend", he makes an appearance there as well. Here he quickly writes an article honoring the passing of a legend, and yeah, maybe he has a few points wrong or slightly exaggerated (hell Steve Prefontaine boasted he was gonna run sub-4 at the end of a 5k and that was when? early 70's?), and the response on this message board quickly turns to "everything this guy writes is a piece of trash". Sheesh!!

Anyway, the 10k world record is 26:17. That equates to 4:13.8 mpm. I would bet that off of a slow pace a sub-4 might be possible, and if not at least very close to just over 4 is possible and may have already been done.

You've got to be trolling - or had a moment of terrible reading comprehension or absorption - geez.https://www.arcticicehockey.com/2008/12/malcolm-gladwells-outliers-and-making.html

Brian Gates wrote:

He once published a theory of his that NHL hockey players became professionals because they were born earlier in they year and therefore received more coaching as kids (he thinks being a few months older = bigger and stronger than younger peers). Based on this, I’m certain that Gladwell is a grade-A idiot and would never read another word he wrote.

In order of performance:

3:53.43 Alan Webb (2001)

3:55.3h Jim Ryun (1965)

3:57.81 Drew Hunter (2016)

3:59.30 Reed Brown (2017)

3:59.38 Matthew Maton (2015)

3:59.38 Grant Fisher (2015)

3:59.4h Tim Danielson (1966)

3:59.53 Michael Slagowski (2016)

3:59.71 Lukas Verzbicas (2011)

3:59.8h Marty Liquori (1967)

In chronological order:

3:55.3h Jim Ryun (1965)

3:59.4h Tim Danielson (1966)

3:59.8h Marty Liquori (1967)

3:53.43 Alan Webb (2001)

3:59.71 Lukas Verzbicas (2011)

3:59.38 Matthew Maton (2015)

3:59.38 Grant Fisher (2015)

3:57.81 Drew Hunter (2016)

3:59.53 Michael Slagowski (2016)

3:59.30 Reed Brown (2017)

I used to respect Gladwell, until all of the chumming around with dirtbags Lance Armstrong and Al Salazar. I wonder what Nike has given him over the years.

And yet somehow this idiot charlatan is far more accomplished, respected and well-spoken than his detractors will ever be.

WHAT?

The quote is from the MG ‘s article. I am not misquoting him. I think it’s probable if it’s the goal of the race to run briskly for 5 miles and then run 4 mins on the last mile per MG. If you don’t think it’s possible than that’s your opinion but I’m suggest thinking a little outside the box. Also, I don’t think anything I’ve stated is wrong but let me know what you have issues with...

Here’s a quote of the entire paragraph article:

There have been thousands of four-minute miles recorded since Bannister’s run. Today, high-school kids routinely run them. Over the weekend, on the popular runners’ Web site Let’s Run, someone posed this question: Would you rather run a four-minute mile or a twenty-seven minute ten thousand metres? (The latter is roughly how fast Olympic medallists in that distance run.) Almost instantly, others pointed out the foolishness of the question. Running has advanced so far that anyone who can run a twenty-seven-minute ten thousand metres can almost certainly run a four-minute mile as well. In fact, a decent élite long-distance runner can probably run a four-minute mile within a world-class ten-thousand-metre race: do a brisk five miles, and then bring it home in four minutes.

I agree with him that it is possible and probable.

I don’t know why you are making a big deal about it.

Relative to the significance of Bannister's mile of 3:59.4, it has become routine. In addition, you want to consider the possibility that there are also high schools in other countries, and I know this because I went to one (did not break four minutes until later though).

Any truly world class 10,000m runner can break four minutes for a mile, and some can do it in a 10,000 if the early pace is slow enough.

FWIW, Mo went 4:01 and change for his final 1600 in Rio. Bekele ran 3:57 for the last 1600 in 2008. There are a handful of guys running close to 7:30 every year in the 3k, and it seems like a new barrier that should be given greater attention would be the sub-8 two mile. It just doesn't seem to have the same raw power to attract people as 1 mile though, which is a bummer. 2 miles is a great race to watch.

It's not unusual for one or two high school runners to break 4 in a year now (two in 2015 (Maton, Fisher), two in 2016 (Hunter, Slagowski), one in 2017 (Brown, with three others very close)), whereas it was highly unusual for decades from Ryun, Danielson, and Liquori to 2015, a period of about 48 years with only one sub 4 runner in Alan Webb as a senior in 2001.

We've almost had one already, Brodey Hasty, 4:00.05i, this year and that 1:47.7i runner, Josh Hoey, should do it easily outdoors. So, it routinely happens for the entire group of high schoolers in a given year.

His case would have been better to point to the 500 Americans who have done it, and honestly this was not the most important point about Roger Bannister to make. Bannister was a superior human being and a tremendous athlete who broke through what was considered the most difficult barrier of the time and therefore became one of the most famous athletes of the 20th century. He was considerably better than Landy, among the most lightly trained of all sub 4 milers and might well have dropped the record under 3:55 in the next couple of years on dirt tracks. We are very lucky to have the race footage with his inspiring, understated commentary. He spoke at my college convocation long ago and I was honored to speak to him and get his autograph that day.

forgot about verzbicas in 2011, though he wasn't in the t and fn list because he wasn't American.

Does Malcom Gladwell know running?

Are the "high schoolers routinely break five" and "breaking four in a 5k is nbd" comments grossly exaggerated?

The answer to both questions is yes.

Malcom Gladwell knows running well, he's written many articles in the New Yorker about it, appears on running podcasts and admits to checking the LRC boards daily.

Malcom Gladwell is also notorious for writing over simplified and exaggerated conclusions. If you read any of his books what seems genius at first past often becomes obvious and exaggerated upon closer examination.

Gladwells mostly a bullsh$t artist. More a publicist of his musings than serious journalist. I'll take Jon Lee Anderson or Joan Acocella over him any day of the week. They think and write deeply in substantive issues. As opposed to Gladwell's bloviations on the superfluous.

Do we have a list of international high schoolers that have broken 4? This doesn't seem like a discussion that should be limited to just american high school runners.

You wrote: “It doesn’t matter that you think it’s impractical, what he stated is that it is probable in the last mile. In 10k championship races, they run relatively slow for the first five miles and the last mile is the fastest.”

This is where you demonstrate your lack of ability to comprehend. Gladwell never stated it is probable in the last mile to run sub 4. He stated it could probably be done. Every idiot knows it could probably be done. Any 3:50 miler, for example, could probably run a sub 4 mile as part of any race between 2 miles and a half marathon if the sub 4 is the only goal. Thank you Captain Obvious. Gladwell misled his readers by stating that it is probable that any decent elite runner could run sub 4 in a 10000m race, when no decent elite runner has ever done it. If anyone has ever done it, they were essentially the best in the world, not a decent elite runner. However, you wrote that Gladwell stated that it is probable in the last mile when it has NEVER been done by a decent elite runner. Gladwell misled his readers with sloppy journalism and you exacerbated his sloppiness by making his error even more egregious.

Twig Mzungu wrote:

Brian Gates wrote:

He once published a theory of his that NHL hockey players became professionals because they were born earlier in they year and therefore received more coaching as kids (he thinks being a few months older = bigger and stronger than younger peers). Based on this, I’m certain that Gladwell is a grade-A idiot and would never read another word he wrote.

To be fair, he wasn't pulling a theory out of thin air. He was reporting a peer-reviewed paper that found a statically significant relationship between birth month and likelihood of reaching the NHL. If it wasn't a surprising result, he wouldn't have bothered reporting it. Writing someone off as a "grade-A idiot" for finding an interesting result is the academic version of assuming that whoever wins a race must be doping.

Here is a link to a short review. The paper is available for free at PLOS One.

That said Gladwell does like to take one anecdote and extrapolate it too far. He was way off base on the 10,000 hour thing as David Epstein and others have noted.

digapony wrote:

Brian Gates wrote:

He once published a theory of his that NHL hockey players became professionals because they were born earlier in they year and therefore received more coaching as kids (he thinks being a few months older = bigger and stronger than younger peers). Based on this, I’m certain that Gladwell is a grade-A idiot and would never read another word he wrote.

I thought this was CW. I have read several pieces over the years (the last was about hi-school footballers in Texas) about parents deliberately timing conception to make sure their son was born so as to be 'older' for their year. Happens all the time, I understand. Makes a big difference.

An easier thing to do is to hold a kid back a year in grade school. Another common practice.

Brian Gates wrote:

Twig Mzungu wrote:

To be fair, he wasn't pulling a theory out of thin air. He was reporting a peer-reviewed paper that found a statically significant relationship between birth month and likelihood of reaching the NHL. If it wasn't a surprising result, he wouldn't have bothered reporting it. Writing someone off as a "grade-A idiot" for finding an interesting result is the academic version of assuming that whoever wins a race must be doping.

The correlation is a coincidence. Gladwell’s theory is utterly stupid.

The only person proffering idiotic theories is you. Let's see some evidence.

Sorry, I can’t follow your logic and I don’t agree with much of what you have written. Clearly, we disagree with the article. My opinion remains the same in regards to what was written by MG and what I think he meant.

MG doesn’t need me to defend him, he can defend himself if you have any issues with the article. And he can probably do it without calling you an idiot.