You are reporting the following post to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum

RE: How Brad Barton beat years of injuries to be oldest sub-4:20 miler at 53

Go start your own thread about masters doping wrote:

Armstronglivs clings to the notion that Barton was just a 4:04 miler back in the day who had maxed out his potential. Without this his entire argument is invalid. He also doesn’t understand the fine line between performance and injury.

Beta Lance questions Barton’s performances but doesn’t understand basic conversions, equivalencies, and race specific training. He discounts the altitude, top 10 US ranking, and his 8:31 steeple. In other threads he wasn’t impressed by Barton’s steeple time. When the world record for steeple was 8:31, the mile record was 3:54! His limited track knowledge can’t compute it. But if you ask any decent college coach or track stat person they would say an 8:31 steeplechaser probably runs in the 3:54 to 3:57 range if they focused on it.

Track people get injured all the time. Barton may be more open and honest about his.

I will address one particular point you make, because you base a key part of your argument on it and yet it is quite quite fallacious.

You say that when the wr for the steeple was around the 8.30 mark the wr for the mile was 3.54. True - but the holders of those records respectively were different runners. Of course - because they are very different events. At the time the mile record was 3.54 (Elliott and Snell) no steeplechaser - including the world record holder - was remotely near them over the shorter distance. If you look at the careers of Kryszkowiack and Roelants (the 1960 and 1964 Olympic champions, respectively) you cannot find that they even competed over the shorter distance. They were not fast enough. Their alternative events were the 5k-10k, and marathon.

It may be possible to suggest that an 8.30 steeple is worth a 3.57 mile, but that does not mean an 8.30 steepler could naturally run a 3.57 mile - just as a high jumper isn't likely also to be a long-jumper. For a runner whose best event was the steeple, and not a miler who later turned to the steeple, it is unlikely they would have been equally capable over the shorter distance. I have seen a few steeplechase specialists in the region of 8.30 and none of them were sub-4 milers. Again, not fast enough. A miler is typically a faster athlete than a steeplechaser - which is why specialists of each rarely run both events. So, in summary, an 8.30 steeple does not imply a 3.57 or even sub-4 mile. 4.05 will do it - as we know.

Hit the submit button below if you want us to review the post.

If you feel this is urgent or want a reply, email us at [email protected] about the post and please include a link to the thread the post is on and what page number/post on that page it is.