50 Year Old run 4:19 mile at Music City Distance Carnival

pointlessly pinheaded wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If others want to debate the issue - as they have - what was I supposed to do? Fold my tent, and say - "of course you're right"? That isn't how debate or discussion works, when there are differing views being expressed. But some here have a real problem with a view that doesn't accord with theirs.

Thing is you are basing your entire argument based on your biased and unfounded opinion--that it's impossible for an 8:31 steepler (with a 4:00 altitude converted PB, and steeple equivalent to a 3:58 mile) to run 4:19 at 53. You are ignoring some other salient facts and putting up a straw man argument that no former low 3:50 milers are running sub 4:20s and setting world records therefore it is impossible for this individual, or anyone who hasn't run low 3:50s, to do this. Obtuse and recalcitrant.

Obtuse and recalcitrant? Don't be so hard on yourself.

Armstronglivs wrote:

pointlessly pinheaded wrote:

Thing is you are basing your entire argument based on your biased and unfounded opinion--that it's impossible for an 8:31 steepler (with a 4:00 altitude converted PB, and steeple equivalent to a 3:58 mile) to run 4:19 at 53. You are ignoring some other salient facts and putting up a straw man argument that no former low 3:50 milers are running sub 4:20s and setting world records therefore it is impossible for this individual, or anyone who hasn't run low 3:50s, to do this. Obtuse and recalcitrant.

Obtuse and recalcitrant? Don't be so hard on yourself.

No that's you, and you area moran to boot.

Plus I also happen to be a better masters runner than you.

I'm saying that his background as an elite runner and more recently as a masters record setter in the past 6-8 years are certainly plausible. Do I know for certain that he's not taking supplements? No. However, I'm not blanketly saying one way or the other without some evidence. You are not using reason. Just an old mule sitting down and not moving.

buh bye!

Some of you folks have difficulty discerning what is being maintained here. I didn't say the performance in question was "impossible"; I said I found it difficult to believe. That isn't the same thing. One of the reasons I said I found it difficult to believe was that far faster milers - up to 10 seconds faster - hadn't done it. That's a fact, not opinion. What is opinion is the speculative estimate that the athlete in question was capable of a sub-4 mile based on his 4.05 effort at altitude. I don't accept the validity of that calculation - possibly 2 seconds at the most - and in any case I am sure a runner capable of 3.58 would have run that time or thereabouts on some other occasion. But he didn't. That is also fact. He ran an 8.31 steeplechase, which in no way necessarily suggests sub-4 mile potential. That, too, is fact. If all I'm being confronted with is a contrary opinion then you will pardon my scepticism. Aging in life and in sport is a fact. Medical experts say we start to lose strength from the age of 27. Fact. What is opinion is how that rate of aging will be reflected in performance. There, I have an opinion - and there we can legitimately differ, because it is necessarily an estimation. I hope that helps.

pointlessly pinheaded wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Obtuse and recalcitrant? Don't be so hard on yourself.

No that's you, and you area moran to boot.

Plus I also happen to be a better masters runner than you.

I'm saying that his background as an elite runner and more recently as a masters record setter in the past 6-8 years are certainly plausible. Do I know for certain that he's not taking supplements? No. However, I'm not blanketly saying one way or the other without some evidence. You are not using reason. Just an old mule sitting down and not moving.

buh bye!

Yes, you are a better masters runner than me. Everyone is. I don't run. But your mind is pedestrian, and, sadly, no amount of training or supplements will improve that.

I would vote for "fold up my tent and go home." You made your point pages ago. It's unlikely anyone is going to change your opinion nor will you change theirs. As I share your skepticism generally, I thought that expressing some skepticism in the early going was somewhat justifiable and I respected you for doing it even if I didn't agree and if it was beyond what I'd have said. As you've persisted it's made you look more and more like a crank with a possible axe to grind and not much more. It is not always necessary or even useful to have the last word in an argument. And with that I will fold up my tent and go home.

Armstronglivs wrote:

you think there is nothing remarkable in a runner without Shaheed's pedigree taking a huge chunk off his age 50's record.

I see your point but please clarify.

Do you feel that Shaheed comes more from a line of French Poodles, or Dalmatians?

You're wasting your time. Armstronglvs is an obvious masters doper and pretends he "doesn't even run" because it's incomprehensible that Barton would hand him his ass at any point in his life while he doped out of his gourd.

Cougar Nation wrote:

Is it true that this guy not only has the over 50 record but also has 2 years of eligibility left at BYU?

That would not surprise me at all.

pointlessly pinheaded wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If others want to debate the issue - as they have - what was I supposed to do? Fold my tent, and say - "of course you're right"? That isn't how debate or discussion works, when there are differing views being expressed. But some here have a real problem with a view that doesn't accord with theirs.

Thing is you are basing your entire argument based on your biased and unfounded opinion--that it's impossible for an 8:31 steepler (with a 4:00 altitude converted PB, and steeple equivalent to a 3:58 mile) to run 4:19 at 53. You are ignoring some other salient facts and putting up a straw man argument that no former low 3:50 milers are running sub 4:20s and setting world records therefore it is impossible for this individual, or anyone who hasn't run low 3:50s, to do this. Obtuse and recalcitrant.

Armstronglivs is a 2 dimensional thinker, a simpleton. I think the reason this tiny troll has elicited such a response is because his obnoxious assertion is an affront to all who possess athletic talent.

What Armstronglivs fails to comprehend is not all people age and “degrade” the same way. Geneticists have already identified longevity genes, which among other things increase skeletal muscle mass, insulin sensitivity, and a whole bunch of other good things. But all Armstronglivs can rant about is the simple strait line he draws from a person’s early performances, to where he mistakenly believes they should be when older. Previous posters have already mentioned his fallacy of not taking into account factors such as under performing when young (which can happen for various reasons.)

The fact that Armstronglivs is compelled to continually respond to logical posts with his rant, often within minutes, is a sign of a severely disturbed individual.

I love the way you guys so quickly turn to ad hominem attacks. It shows you have run out of arguments. Now you can go home devastated.

Pedigree Watcher wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

you think there is nothing remarkable in a runner without Shaheed's pedigree taking a huge chunk off his age 50's record.

I see your point but please clarify.

Do you feel that Shaheed comes more from a line of French Poodles, or Dalmatians?

So we have a dumb literalist here. Your own line is probably dugong.

Your rationale is basically a polite way of saying that if others disagree one should desist, and that it is ok to shout others down. You have left out half of the picture. Everything I have said has been in response to someone else debating my views. To be consistent, shouldn't they have also said their piece and shut up - or better still, not said it all, which is what most wish they I had done? Such a wonderfully distorted view of what a debate is. Normally, it is an exchange of differing views. But most here are incapable of debate because they expect to silence opinions they don't like. And if they can't do that then turning to irrelevant personal attacks becomes their last - or often first - resort.

Thread taken over by a single troll. It’s amazing how they can do that.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Such a wonderfully distorted view of what a debate is. Normally, it is an exchange of differing views. But most here are incapable of debate because they expect to silence opinions they don't like. And if they can't do that then turning to irrelevant personal attacks becomes their last - or often first - resort.

Brad Barton ran one mile in 4:19.59 at age 53. It is an age group world record.

There is no debate, no argument, and no asterisk. Brad is being congratulated by all of his peers and contemporaries, because they acknowledge the greatness and legitimacy of his run.

If you've been to the top of the mountain, you'd know what's possible and what it takes to get there, without speculation.

Baffling wrote:

It's "very weak as a record?" This is one of the most 'moranic' things I've read on here. This record won't be broken for a long, long time unless Barton drops it himself. And I agree with the poster who things Armstronglvs is a doper. He's just frustrated he can't approach these times.

[quote]zzzz wrote:

As a 50 year old, I think 4:19 is a great performance for the individual, but is very weak as a record. ... I'd argue that masters track is 10x to 100x less competitive that ultras.

[quote][b}

Yes, it's very soft. Didn't the article say it was something like Barton's first race in 3 years or something? Rust buster - he could probably go 4:15.

Someone tell us how many 50+ masters runners are seriously trying to be competitive in the mile. I know not one in my state, admittedly a small population state. It could be only a dozen guys in the US for all I know. Even if it's a few dozen guys in that pool, that is a tiny, tiny pool. Anyone want to dispute that there might be 10 to 100 times the number of 50+ guys racing ultras vs the mile?

Do you really think that 50-55 guys should be slower than open women? Based on what I've seen, they should be a bit better than open women at all levels. 50+ local level man vs. local level woman, 50+ elite vs. elite women.

Btw, this happened recently.

Davide Raineri runs 4:13.96 mile, claims M45 world record.

Shaved women collaborators wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Such a wonderfully distorted view of what a debate is. Normally, it is an exchange of differing views. But most here are incapable of debate because they expect to silence opinions they don't like. And if they can't do that then turning to irrelevant personal attacks becomes their last - or often first - resort.

Brad Barton ran one mile in 4:19.59 at age 53. It is an age group world record.

There is no debate, no argument, and no asterisk. Brad is being congratulated by all of his peers and contemporaries, because they acknowledge the greatness and legitimacy of his run.

If you've been to the top of the mountain, you'd know what's possible and what it takes to get there, without speculation.

That's what Lance used to say.

Troll thread wrote:

Thread taken over by a single troll. It’s amazing how they can do that.

Correction: Taken over by those who want to argue with said "troll". And the mob should always prevail.

+1

And these are supposed to be older, more mature runners here? They act like a bunch of college kids with nothing better to do than troll on a discussion forum. Lol.