Malcolm Gladwell’s Running Knowlege

In the 2008 Olympics, Bekele's final 1600m was about 4:02.

He was back a few steps when they passed 8400m at about 22:58, and he finished the10000m in 27:01.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1AlBfXQy9U

Gladwell's really not far off. Bekele basically ran a 27 flat 10k with a last mile in 4:04.

former fan wrote:

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.

Pretty sure he hates Nike certainly "Uncle Phil"

cxvcxvccvx wrote:

In the 2008 Olympics, Bekele's final 1600m was about 4:02.

He was back a few steps when they passed 8400m at about 22:58, and he finished the10000m in 27:01.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1AlBfXQy9U

Gladwell's really not far off. Bekele basically ran a 27 flat 10k with a last mile in 4:04.

Of course Gladwell is far off. Gladwell referred to “decent” elite runners. Bekele was the best ever, and he never did it.

Solinsky closed in 1:56 at the end of his 26:59 race. Hell, he closed the 5000 in sub 4 at USAs and lost (to Lagat). Does anybody seriously doubt that most of the top 100 or so 10k guys could close a 27:30 race in sub 4? Come on.

Another relevant anecdote might be Donavan Brazier’s reaction after breaking 4 for his first time this past season: he basically shrugged, said it wasn’t a big deal, and stated that anybody who can run a world class 800 can also break 4 easily.

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 believe this is TRUE. Also the case in soccer. Age groups are set by year of birth, do those kids born earlier in the year are often bigger/ faster / stronger than those born later. They are more likely to be selected for elite teams in their development, get better coaching, more playing time..... Check it out

Marksch wrote:

I believe this is TRUE. Also the case in soccer. Age groups are set by year of birth, do those kids born earlier in the year are often bigger/ faster / stronger than those born later. They are more likely to be selected for elite teams in their development, get better coaching, more playing time..... Check it out

Early in the year birth date data may show a correlation to NHL success. It may also simply be statistical noise. You can go over numbers and find data that most Hall of Fame athletes tend to be born on a particular day of the week. You have to learn to block out statistical noise. The best predictor of athletic success is a combination of athletic talent possessed by parents, grandparents and great grandparents and one's willingness to work hard, even through bad times. I am certain, this January birth date nonsense is statistical noise.

smd wrote:

I can't recall its name, but there's a phenomenon about this: You see media coverage of a topic you're very knowledgeable in and you know they're getting basic things wrong. (For example, that sub-4s happen within 10Ks.) But in areas where you don't have expert knowledge, you assume other parts of the same publication are more or less getting it right. For all we know, there are economists shaking their heads at the New Yorker's business and finance coverage, and then telling their friends, "Says here they now run sub-4 miles in 10Ks!"

Actually, this phenomenon sounds like the sort of thing Gladwell would write a book about!

The Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect

Gladwell may know quite a bit about running, I dunno, but he sure doesn't show it in this article. High School runners routinely break 4 minutes for the mile? Yea, right. Running a sub 4 mile at the end of a 10,000k race? It's never been done, even by the best. But the most egregious comment was that Bannister was the most ordinary of athletes. What's this guy smoking? Bannister was a most extraordinary athlete. If he had continue running, and had trained as hard as Elliott or Ryun he would have run comparable times. Here is what someone who really knows something about running had to say about Bannister: “He was running on 28 training miles a week,. He did it on limited scientific knowledge, with leather shoes in which the spikes alone probably weighed more than the tissue-thin shoes today, on tracks at which speedway riders would turn up their noses. So as far as I’m concerned, that was one of the great runs of all time.” Sebastian Coe

There is an obit on SI:

Malcolm Gladwell’s tweet

@Gladwell

I did too. But David’s is better...The Ordinary Greatness of Roger Bannister

Ziplocker wrote:

OK so if you went out on a date once per year for the last 5 years, you would say that you routinely date, apparently. High school runners who break 4 are rare.

If no one in human history had ever gone on a date, despite numerous attempts, until 1954, and now I’m going on them annually, yes, I could call it routine.

In that context, like that of the 4 minute mile, it is routine in comparison to something that was once considered a monumental event for humankind.

Ok. ACTUAL Malcolm Gladwell here. I must say I find these posts hilarious. Several things.

1. Most of the people who objected to the idea that high schoolers now "routinely" run 4 minute miles seem to think that the world is composed entirely of Americans. This is not true! Believe it not there are other countries in the world. If you put together every high-schooler, from every country, who has run under 4 minutes or its 1500 meter equivalent, I suspect that the list would be rather long. (I mean, how many Kenyan 18 year olds have run under 3:44? I call that routine. Maybe your definition of routine is different. But that's an argument over the definition of "routine" not an argument about my running knowledge.

2. The observation about 10,000 meter runners was quite clearly hypothetical. Let me put it this way: if you went to the top 20 10k runners of the last ten years and said--could you run a sub-28 10k, in which the final mile was under 4 minutes, I suspect quite a few could easily oblige: Bekele, Rupp, Farah, Kipchoge, Kamowar. That's all I'm saying! Obviously that hasn't happened in the real world, because its a pretty stupid way to run a 10k. But could it? Absolutely!

Not "are breaking" 4 minutes in a 10k. CAN break. Big difference

I really think BrosJo should totally hook up Gladwell with a LetsRun singlet for his next race.

I like reading Gladwell, he makes some interesting points at times, and he makes the NYC running community more interesting if that is possible.

Since Gladwell, and experienced runner who actually still pushes himself in the street mile, certainly knows the scarcity of HS sub 4 miles, it is an odd assertion. What is also odd is that the New Yorker, which prides itself on teams of meticulous fact-checkers, publishes stuff that a fairly observant sports fan, not even a runner, would question. The second assertion is nuts.

During the last winter Olympics Gladwell was pitching his book about underdogs (David and Goliath), and I attended an event, where Gladwell appeared with several Olympians who according to Gladwell fit his theory about underdogs being successful not despite their handicaps (too small, not as naturally gifted, etc) but because of it: they worked harder than everyone else to overcome their handicaps. I did not read the book, but this was certainly the theme of the panel. Mike Eruzione of the "Miracle on Ice" 1980 Gold Medal Hockey Team was on the panel that evening. We are both from the Boston area , so before the panel we had a couple beers and traded stories about growing up, MA pond hockey, why he never went pro after the Olympics, etc., he seemed like a genuinely terrific guy.

When the panel began Gladwell laid down his theory about why underdogs win, so compelling to underdogs like me, but so obviously untrue statistically. Eruzione listens quietly to Gladwell explaining how outmatched the US Team was by the Soviets due to their famous Red Army system, years of training together, international experience, and NHL skill level vs. a bunch of rag tag college kids thrown together at the last minute. Eruzione starts with "that could not be more untrue"..."we we won because we were a great team." He carefully unpacked each one of Gladwell's arguments; the team had actually been carefully chosen by a top coach, most were from U. Minn or Boston U. and trained together for 6 months, played like 60 international exhibition games prior Lake Placid, with the specific goal of ending the string of embarrassing losses to the Soviets. Gladwell did not seem to care or know that Mike was doing a live fact-check, the geek vs. jock, I was sort of embarrassed for Gladwell and the other Olympians on the panel who had sucked up to his theory about being these loser underdogs who made it to the Olympics. Eruzione was convincing, I did not bother fact checking him, but I give him the gold.

1. I hope that you are not Gladwell. This is laughable, especially when you start tossing in Kenyans, when you know damn well that many of them lie about their age, and furthermore, it is still not a routine event for high school kids. Why do you think people still celebrate it? Breaking 4:20 is what high school runners do routinely.

2. This is doubly laughable and pointless. The top milers in the world could drop a sub 4 in a marathon. It never happens, much like it never happens in a 10000m, so although it is true, even Bannister could arguably have run sub 4 within a 10000m race on today’s tracks, using today’s shoes, if that was his only goal, thus rendering the hypothetical virtually meaningless. I do not think you are an idiot at all, whoever you are, but recognize that the article was sloppy.

Ziplocker wrote:

running commenter wrote:

Hasn't a high schooler broken 4 minutes like the last 5 years? Seems pretty routine at this point to me.

OK so if you went out on a date once per year for the last 5 years, you would say that you routinely date, apparently. High school runners who break 4 are rare.

But you might say the Patriots routinely make the Super Bowl.

This is obviously not Gladwell. Unless he's assumed the persona of a low-level troll. Even with his writing talent, I'm not sure he could stoop that low.

While they may be somewhat exaggerated, I don't think either of Gladwell's statements are harmful. They give the average nonrunner reader a perspective on how a sub 4 mile is nothing out of the ordinary today. This makes Bannister's accomplishment seem much more meaningful, as in his time a 4 minute mile was literally unheard of until his race. Gladwell is just making his point and showing how Bannister started a new wave of running.

Reptilians wrote:

While they may be somewhat exaggerated, I don't think either of Gladwell's statements are harmful. They give the average nonrunner reader a perspective on how a sub 4 mile is nothing out of the ordinary today. This makes Bannister's accomplishment seem much more meaningful, as in his time a 4 minute mile was literally unheard of until his race. Gladwell is just making his point and showing how Bannister started a new wave of running.

I will concur that the statements are not harmful, but they are rather misleading. Gladwell is just plain off base and was lazy in constructing the article. In calling Bannister ordinary, he completely misses the point, and then tries to support it by misleading his readers with the assertions about the high school runners and the 10000m runners.

It is interesting to note that only perhaps a handful of runners in history have had the ability to run two sub 4s back to back, and in fact only one runner has ever done it.