If time is time how come as a masters I can't break 38 at Bolder Boulder but within a few weeks or months of that can travel to sea level and run sub 36?
simple fact, which seems to escape those who don't or never have run at altitude, there is less less oxygen availability the higher you go in elevation and you race or pace times will slow accordingly.
Armstronglivs wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Doing the math for you, open mile to 50+ slowdown comparison between Shaheed and Barton:
Shaheed:
Open mile: 3:53.4 1500m open = 4:12.07 mile
50+ mile: 4:26.75
Slowdown from open to 50+: 5.82%
Barton:
Open mile: 4:04.97
50+ mile: 4:19.59
Slowdown from open to 50+: 5.97%
The slowdown from open to 50+ is virtually identical between the two. In fact, in that comparison, Shaheed faded less with age. So your statement that Barton's improvement of Shaheed's former 50+ record being "such a huge improvement it's like they were in completely different age categories" is not only the wrong interpretation, you got it backwards in terms of slowdown with age between the two.
Your stats are misleading. Shaheed was not a serious runner in his youth. He didn't take up running until his late 20's and only got serious as a competitor as masters runner in his 40's. His early times are not a valid comparison. That aside, as the previous best in the world in his 50's he was 8 seconds slower than Barton at the same age. And he was the world's best. How many world mile records get chewed up by that margin? The difference in time between them is like a difference in age groups of at least 5 or 10 years. And yet, as I have pointed out, no 3.50-3.55 guy at 50 has recorded Barton's time.
LOL. Now you've got Shaheed being capable of faster as a youth but arguing that Barton was maxed out.
Coyote Montane wrote:
If time is time how come as a masters I can't break 38 at Bolder Boulder but within a few weeks or months of that can travel to sea level and run sub 36?
simple fact, which seems to escape those who don't or never have run at altitude, there is less less oxygen availability the higher you go in elevation and you race or pace times will slow accordingly.
I was just mocking Armstronglivs saying that time is time for Barton, but not for Shaheed.
zzzz wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Doing the math for you, open mile to 50+ slowdown comparison between Shaheed and Barton:
Shaheed:
Open mile: 3:53.4 1500m open = 4:12.07 mile
50+ mile: 4:26.75
Slowdown from open to 50+: 5.82%
Barton:
Open mile: 4:04.97
50+ mile: 4:19.59
Slowdown from open to 50+: 5.97%
The slowdown from open to 50+ is virtually identical between the two. In fact, in that comparison, Shaheed faded less with age. So your statement that Barton's improvement of Shaheed's former 50+ record being "such a huge improvement it's like they were in completely different age categories" is not only the wrong interpretation, you got it backwards in terms of slowdown with age between the two.
I and others before me in this thread had the wrong time for Shaheed's 50+ mile. It's actually 4:25.04. So Shaheed's slowdown from open to 50+ is actually only 5.14%.
Barton only improved that by 5.45 seconds.
Shaheed's 50-54 wr mile is listed as 4.27.9. That is in fact well over 8 secs slower than Barton's record time. What would you make of that kind of carving up of a record mile time if it occurred at an elite open level - bearing in mind that no elite miler (sub3.55) has run 4.20 at age 50? The differences between the best are usually only margins.
COAB wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Your stats are misleading. Shaheed was not a serious runner in his youth. He didn't take up running until his late 20's and only got serious as a competitor as masters runner in his 40's. His early times are not a valid comparison. That aside, as the previous best in the world in his 50's he was 8 seconds slower than Barton at the same age. And he was the world's best. How many world mile records get chewed up by that margin? The difference in time between them is like a difference in age groups of at least 5 or 10 years. And yet, as I have pointed out, no 3.50-3.55 guy at 50 has recorded Barton's time.
LOL. Now you've got Shaheed being capable of faster as a youth but arguing that Barton was maxed out.
Barton was competing in his youth. Shaheed wasn't even running.
zzzz wrote:
Coyote Montane wrote:
If time is time how come as a masters I can't break 38 at Bolder Boulder but within a few weeks or months of that can travel to sea level and run sub 36?
simple fact, which seems to escape those who don't or never have run at altitude, there is less less oxygen availability the higher you go in elevation and you race or pace times will slow accordingly.
I was just mocking Armstronglivs saying that time is time for Barton, but not for Shaheed.
As I have pointed out, Shaheed came to running late and didn't compete till his 30's. That wasn't so for Barton, and that is why their earlier times are not a comparison indicative of their respective talents. Their 50's times are - and Barton is a planet better at that age.
Armstronglivs wrote:
zzzz wrote:
I and others before me in this thread had the wrong time for Shaheed's 50+ mile. It's actually 4:25.04. So Shaheed's slowdown from open to 50+ is actually only 5.14%.
Barton only improved that by 5.45 seconds.
Shaheed's 50-54 wr mile is listed as 4.27.9. That is in fact well over 8 secs slower than Barton's record time. What would you make of that kind of carving up of a record mile time if it occurred at an elite open level - bearing in mind that no elite miler (sub3.55) has run 4.20 at age 50? The differences between the best are usually only margins.
References to 4:25.04:
Race was in Eugene on June 23, 2001, when Shaheed was 51:
https://www.usatf.org/statistics/records/byEvent.asp?division=american&location=outdoor%20track%20%26%20field&age=masters&distance=1&distanceUnits=mi&distanceType=runMentioned here:
https://masterstrack.blog/2019/06/how-brad-barton-battled-back-from-years-of-injuries-to-take-down-nolan-shaheed-mile-wr/Also mentioned here:
https://www.runnersworld.com/advanced/a20853800/can-a-50-year-old-run-a-4-20-mile/Still no one comes up with any explanation as to why milers who were far better than Barton in their respective primes - and I mean 10-15 secs better - have none of them recorded a time near his at 53. There were plenty of them. But I guess they all aged.
zzzz wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
And your aren't? If "the time is the time" argument is what matters then why is the argument also being made that Barton was likely faster in his prime? Can't have it both ways.
By that isn't the point. It is how does a runner who clearly wasn't elite in his youth decline so little, despite years of battling injury we are told, that he becomes the world's best over the the distance by a huge 7+ seconds over the previous record, and so running a time that no former elite of 10-15secs faster in their prime has gotten near to at that later age. That is not just about numbers but physiology, aging, and relative talent.
How was Barton not elite? He made the semis of the OTs steeple (11th in heat) in 1992. At the same OTs, socalcush was 11th in his heat of the semis of the 1500.
A steeple is simply not a measure of a mile. Coe, Ovett, Cram, El G - what did they run in the steeple? It might as well be the long jump.
zzzz wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Shaheed's 50-54 wr mile is listed as 4.27.9. That is in fact well over 8 secs slower than Barton's record time. What would you make of that kind of carving up of a record mile time if it occurred at an elite open level - bearing in mind that no elite miler (sub3.55) has run 4.20 at age 50? The differences between the best are usually only margins.
References to 4:25.04:
Race was in Eugene on June 23, 2001, when Shaheed was 51:
https://www.usatf.org/statistics/records/byEvent.asp?division=american&location=outdoor%20track%20%26%20field&age=masters&distance=1&distanceUnits=mi&distanceType=runMentioned here:
https://masterstrack.blog/2019/06/how-brad-barton-battled-back-from-years-of-injuries-to-take-down-nolan-shaheed-mile-wr/Also mentioned here:
https://www.runnersworld.com/advanced/a20853800/can-a-50-year-old-run-a-4-20-mile/
Shaheed has been a masters age prodigy - and still is - whether running 4.25 or the 4.27 I saw listed for his 50's wr. Yet you think there is nothing remarkable in a runner without Shaheed's pedigree taking a huge chunk off his age 50's record. It would have been like El G carving 6 or so secs off the open wr.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Still no one comes up with any explanation as to why milers who were far better than Barton in their respective primes - and I mean 10-15 secs better - have none of them recorded a time near his at 53. There were plenty of them. But I guess they all aged.
You know that Healy ran 4:22 in the same race? I am sure he would have been faster than Barton but he flew over a few days before the meet and he didn’t acclimatise fully. Healy said after the race: “I didn’t sleep for 2 nights because of 6 hour time difference and jet lag. I was also thinking about race and conditions I’d be facing. It all had an impact come the race itself, as I was tired, very tired in race, but hey life goes on."
PBs: 800 (1:47), mile (3.59).
Armstronglivs wrote:
zzzz wrote:
I was just mocking Armstronglivs saying that time is time for Barton, but not for Shaheed.
As I have pointed out, Shaheed came to running late and didn't compete till his 30's. That wasn't so for Barton, and that is why their earlier times are not a comparison indicative of their respective talents. Their 50's times are - and Barton is a planet better at that age.
According to that RW article, Shaheed ran in high school and returned to running at 27, still young enough to be in his prime.
Barton was 3rd in the 1991 NCAA Championships in the steeplechase was was ranked 10th in the US that year by Track and Field News - elite qualifications for sure. Then it looks like he ran another year because it was the Olympic Trials year because I found those results. Looks like he probably quit "elite" running after that (someone else can confirm) because I don't see any other rankings/results for him after 1992. That's not exactly an extended pro running career, just a college career.
Meet Shane Healy wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Still no one comes up with any explanation as to why milers who were far better than Barton in their respective primes - and I mean 10-15 secs better - have none of them recorded a time near his at 53. There were plenty of them. But I guess they all aged.
You know that Healy ran 4:22 in the same race? I am sure he would have been faster than Barton but he flew over a few days before the meet and he didn’t acclimatise fully. Healy said after the race: “I didn’t sleep for 2 nights because of 6 hour time difference and jet lag. I was also thinking about race and conditions I’d be facing. It all had an impact come the race itself, as I was tired, very tired in race, but hey life goes on."
PBs: 800 (1:47), mile (3.59).
Healey's pb's are closer to what I might expect - certainly over the 800. It still doesn't really explain for me why so many milers a level faster - low 3.50's - haven't got close to those age 50's times.
factual analysis wrote:
Just a comment.
Brad Barton has the same coach now that he did in college, Chick Hislop of Weber State. That guy is a great, underrated coach. Secondly, a 4:04.9 mile at 4500' ALTITUDE is a 4:00-flat mile no ifs, ands or buts. So "Armstrong Lives" start your argument with that. However I am a little suspicious. No intervals longer than 600 at race pace, no set-up races, and only dropping off to 4:19 at age 53 (not 50 - a difference there too). Sure it's a little questionable to me, but I don't have any real proof so congratulations to Brad Barton is in order unless someone can prove otherwise.
The age factor (over 50) is big.
I was in the high 4:40's as a 48 year old. I couldn't wait to turn 50 because not too many 50+ guys break 5.
I turned 50, life got in the way, then I got injured. 53 I was back to full strength and couldn't break 5:00 for the life of me.
I noticed a big change at 53/54.
We're all different and I was not an 8:30 steepler in my youth. I'm trusting the guy with no other proof.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Healey's pb's are closer to what I might expect - certainly over the 800. It still doesn't really explain for me why so many milers a level faster - low 3.50's - haven't got close to those age 50's times.
People have already said here that really fast guys, low 3:50s guys, don't give a fvck about master records, they retire. Why would they want to see slower and slower times? It's the runners that feel they underachieved when younger that tend to keep going after it, a category that includes both Barton and Shaheed.
zzzz wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Healey's pb's are closer to what I might expect - certainly over the 800. It still doesn't really explain for me why so many milers a level faster - low 3.50's - haven't got close to those age 50's times.
People have already said here that really fast guys, low 3:50s guys, don't give a fvck about master records, they retire. Why would they want to see slower and slower times? It's the runners that feel they underachieved when younger that tend to keep going after it, a category that includes both Barton and Shaheed.
That isn't true. Most top athletes wear out before they "couldn't give a f*ck", as you say. But in that case, you are saying these amazing times are therefore not being set by the best athletes. That's also my view. Which makes such records even harder to believe.
zzzz wrote:
Coyote Montane wrote:
If time is time how come as a masters I can't break 38 at Bolder Boulder but within a few weeks or months of that can travel to sea level and run sub 36?
simple fact, which seems to escape those who don't or never have run at altitude, there is less less oxygen availability the higher you go in elevation and you race or pace times will slow accordingly.
I was just mocking Armstronglivs saying that time is time for Barton, but not for Shaheed.
gotcha!
zzzz wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Healey's pb's are closer to what I might expect - certainly over the 800. It still doesn't really explain for me why so many milers a level faster - low 3.50's - haven't got close to those age 50's times.
People have already said here that really fast guys, low 3:50s guys, don't give a fvck about master records, they retire. Why would they want to see slower and slower times? It's the runners that feel they underachieved when younger that tend to keep going after it, a category that includes both Barton and Shaheed.
Perfectly true. Healy's training is as hard as it was in his prime (70-80 miles per week) or even harder because he is old now. Some inspiring interviews about him and what motivates him to run through the pain of middle distance running at age 50+. So he is very focussed. Others are not. I know a real fast former elite level runner who could attack some masters records but it makes him mentally finished that he is not so fast anymore and therefore he will never start again.
Of course they aren't being set by the best athletes and are soft records. You think Daniel Komen, El Guerrouj, Morceli, etc. are going to give the 50+ records a go eventually? They don't give a fvck. Morceli is 50 next year. If he actually cared, he'd probably be capable of around 4:00-4:05. None of past all-time greats tried 50+ records, and a lot of them retired healthy.
Coyote Montane wrote:
zzzz wrote:
I was just mocking Armstronglivs saying that time is time for Barton, but not for Shaheed.
gotcha!
Figured that might be the case. You're missing out on the awesome Alaska summer. Your homie Norris is tearing up the mountain races.