I agree that his comments about the "ordinary" nature of sub-4:00s are either misguided or wrong, regardless of his semantic parsing, but to portray Bannister as anything other than an extraordinary talent is complete folly and ignorant of the history of the sport. People complained about Krakauer writing with an agenda in the Everest thread, but Gladwell is far far worse.
YMMV wrote:
I agree that his comments about the "ordinary" nature of sub-4:00s are either misguided or wrong, regardless of his semantic parsing, but to portray Bannister as anything other than an extraordinary talent is complete folly and ignorant of the history of the sport. People complained about Krakauer writing with an agenda in the Everest thread, but Gladwell is far far worse.
Gladwell recognized the greatness of Bannister “making the unattainable attainable”.
A sub 4 is not as extraordinary as it once was. Bannister in his time was extraordinary but would not be now. I recall a runner’s world article on the greatest distance runner of all time a few years ago. Zátopek was their choice due to his record 3 gold Olympic medals at the 1952 Olympic games. Similarly, Zátopek was an extraordinary runner in his time but ordinary these days. I don’t think people examining his times in those races would be too impressed-he won the marathon in 2:23. The competition and standards are much greater now.
Why are we still posting regarding Gladwell and sub-4 mile? It hasn't been since 1960s when a 3:59.99 miler or 3:42.19 1500m runner could make an Olympic 1500m final. I don't know if a sub-4 mile got Marti Liquori of Jim Ryun an invite on Tonight Show with either Jack Parr or Johnny Carson; a 3:59.99 mile today will not get one an invite on Tonight Show. Six pages discussing Gladwell may have exaggerated the current frequency of sub-4 milers. Wow!
Better tracks made the 1950s runners look worse than what they were. The 1950s was 'thee golden era of running.'
Sigh. Are people really this dumb? My article NEVER said that Bannister was an ordinary talent. That would be ridiculous. It simply made a distinction between achievements that appear impossible (Bob Beamon's long jump, Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game) and achievements that made what used to be impossible now seem possible: Bannister's mile record. The former I called extraordinary achievements; the latter ordinary achievements. A fifth grader could figure that out.
Yes, Malcolm. Here most people really are that dumb. But you already know that if you're still checking the boards first thing every morning.
skinnycanadian wrote:
Sigh. Are people really this dumb? My article NEVER said that Bannister was an ordinary talent. That would be ridiculous. It simply made a distinction between achievements that appear impossible (Bob Beamon's long jump, Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game) and achievements that made what used to be impossible now seem possible: Bannister's mile record. The former I called extraordinary achievements; the latter ordinary achievements. A fifth grader could figure that out.
From the article: “But Bannister was the most ordinary of athletes.”
This is so obviously untrue. Anybody who “trained on their lunch hour” while in medical school and then broke 4 minutes for the mile on a cinder track in crappy shoes is not an ordinary athlete. In a way you are comparing apples and oranges. Bannister was running against the clock as opposed to scoring so many points ina game. I suppose by your standards Jesse Owens “was the most ordinary of athletes” as by your definition high school kids routinely run faster than he did. Much as you would likely say that Jim Bottomley’s achievement is “extraordinary” as opposed to Bannister’s. I know, almost nobody knows who Jim Bottomley is, but you will see he has an extraordinary record which might appear impossible like WILT’s 100pt. game. Anyway, if you are Gladwell, it is wonderful that you have a passion for the sport and anybody who writes as much as you will occasionally receive criticism whether you think it is justified or not.
Mark Whiten did match Jim Bottomley’s record 69 years later. Most people probably do not know who either one of them is, but for a record to be matched 69 years later would perhaps place it in the extraordinary category.
skinnycanadian wrote:
Sigh. Are people really this dumb? My article NEVER said that Bannister was an ordinary talent. That would be ridiculous. It simply made a distinction between achievements that appear impossible (Bob Beamon's long jump, Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game) and achievements that made what used to be impossible now seem possible: Bannister's mile record. The former I called extraordinary achievements; the latter ordinary achievements. A fifth grader could figure that out.
Are you and Bad Wigins also one in the same?
True Dat, Brah 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)
So 5 high schoolers have broken 4 minutes in the past three years in this country alone. Almost seems routine...
nah butt wrote:
Yes, butt wrote:
There are also 13 grades in Canadia so it's not uncommon for 19 (& some 20 year olds) to be considered a high schooler.
Canada hasn't had "grade 13" anywhere for decades lol. Also, each province decides how to structure their education system, including the number of school years, so blanket statements about how school is in Canada are irrelevant.
In case you really care: Ontario most recently had grade 13 in 1988, and replaced it with an intermediate year (OAC) for students going on to university (not a mandatory part of your high school diploma). Quebec has a shorter high school (ends in grade 11), but has CEGEP (1-2y junior college) for students going to university. As far as I am aware, no other province has had anything more than grade 12.
Thanks for correcting this guy. It is amazing to see how Americans spout off with no idea what they are talking about.
As for age at graduation, when I was a student, you started grade one in the same CALENDAR year that you turned 6, meaning that a January kid would be the oldest in the cohort, and a December kid would be the youngest.
Now I hear about a September 1 cutoff in some places in the US (and Canada), such that everybody is six BY THE FIRST DAY of grade one? Is that so?
It's funny to me, because with a June birthday I was right in the middle of my year, but under this new Sept 1 "millennial cut-off" I would among the youngest 25%.
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.
What you call "theory" is a known fact and is researched for soccer/football. The effect is probably even greater the more important physicality is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Month_of_birth_distribution_UEFA_youth_tournaments_2010.pdfThink about it:
Two kids born in 2010 play a sport, kid A was born on January 1, and kid B on December 31, 2010. Kid A is basically one year older than kid B (which, at their current age is 14 % older).
Let's assume they are exactly equally talented, more precisely equally good at a specific age. Kid A then is 14 % ahead of kid B in his development and thus seems like the better player/athlete, because the coach and everybody else regards them the same age because they are born the same year.
Now, the important part: Kid A seems more talented, therefore joins a bigger club and gets more support from age 10. From there on, it only spirals. More support means better development.
Difference between relevant data & statistical noise wrote:
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.
so, four million data points in a dozen different sports in twenty countries collected by a dozen different research teams over fifteen years is "statistical noise" but your hunch based on a milk stain you saw on the back of a cornflakes box is something we should all take seriously. got it.
enjoy your cornflakes, I'm with the data points.
cheers.
Cornflakes? You are being theatrical. Are you Malcolm Gladwell? If not, why are you so upset? Your study is of youth sports. I stated earlier in this thread, look up Hall of Fame athletes in MLB, NFL, NHL and NBA. In the past few minutes, I have been looking at birth dates of Hall of Fame athletes. So far, just Carl Eller and Wayne Gretzky with January birthdays. I am sure if I pull up thousands of athletes, by the time athletes get well into their pro careers, January birthday data will prove to be nothing but statistical noise. So far, Emmitt Smith, Henry Aaron, Mickey Mantle, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Michael Jordan, Jim Brown, Joe Montana and Deon Sanders, NO JANUARY BIRTHDAYS.
skinnycanadian wrote:
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!
Hello Malcolm!
You don't know age group hockey in Canada. The idiots are the ones running hockey in Canada who are leaving behind hundreds of potential stars for two reasons.
1. The don't read books like the one MG wrote and their reading comprehension if they did read the book is at a 1st grade level lol. MG was right.
2. The age group set up favors the kids born early in the year. They play with kids who can be close to a ear younger and so get selected for competitive teams where the get huge amounts of ice time and greater competitive opportunities
Female coach having affair with male runner. Should I report it?
If Daniel's and Pfitz are outdated..then where do I look for modern training plans?
Colin Sahlman runs 1:45 and Nico Young runs 1:47 in the 800m tonight at the Desert Heat Classic
Post about women banditing Brooklyn half marathon going viral on X