Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Moraghan Training - Stevie G
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
The whole essence of athletics is about finding your own physical limits, not winning gold medals. That's why we all run, isn't it? That's why I would put Paula above Mo in my personal list of British all time greats.
PMJ probably has that 10-20 graph, not saying there won't be a trend, merely pointing out that that particular graph isn't evidence of anything.
The two are very different. As SG says, a gold is a gold and you are champion for 4 years so they don't come up that often. To some degree doping is a non-issue for me as surely they are all doing pretty much the same. It isn't as if one guy is minutes ahead of the others. If those graphs show anything, then they show a general trend so all get faster, then all get slower. If that is so, then world records are really way less valuable than golds: golds show you are the best of a potentially crooked field but a world record just records the extreme of a noisy signal.
Warning: I am bored and therefore enjoying playing devils advocate, slightly! I need a job.
Medals can be forgotten just as easily as broken records. So if you got a medal for breaking the world record would that make a difference to it's value?
I think the Olympics is overrated in terms of being the pinnacle. It has the most hype and is the best to win, sure. In terms of athletic performance it is no difference to the Worlds.
On the graph the point is that it is based on one performance by one individual. I am advocating that it is replace by a chart that shows the average season's best for 20 individuals
.
Paula's record stands out outrageously now. It's been 13 years, and noone has even got within 3mins! I'm sure they scrubbed out the next fastest non Paula time, as that runner (Russian?) was found to have doped.
I'm certain if she was a different nationality, the doubters would have been all over it.
I wonder what percentage difference hers versus Keitany's best time (Paula has first 3 fastest, and Keitany 4th fastest), has versus some of those dubious Chinese records versus the next fastest as a comparison...
Phil?
Look at Steve Cram (my hero) he broke 3 world records in 19 days yet he is remembered for not winning a gold.
Look at how they remember ovett and Coe, focused heavily on the 80 and 84 olympics golds rarely mention the world records they swapped.
In an ideal world you'd have both, of course. If you're outrageously talented like Bekele or El-Guerrouj, you have that luxury. But if you're not in that position, then you have to make a choice. And I'd agree with Dean, that medals are remembered more than fast times. After all, this is why we set up athletics as races rather than one man running against the clock, like in cycling time trials.
I doubt there's anyone who seriously believes that Farah is capable of breaking Bekele's 5,000 and 10,000 records. So there isn't even a choice for him to make here. You could argue until you're blue in the face that a world record is more or less valuable than an Olympic Gold, but it isn't relevant in this case, as Mo is not capable of a world record. It is very hard to argue that a fast time that is something like 7th on the all-time list is worth more than an Olympic gold, and that's the actual reality of his position.
Cycling time trials exist because unlike running drafting is a massive issue. It is the only way to ensure a fair race. It is called the 'race of truth', so ironically it's the only way to have a proper race in cycling.
Just because something is remembered, doesn't make it better. Mo does have a choice, he already has two Olympic medals. Therefore I would argue that a really fast time would validate his greatness more than another trinket.
I think focusing on pot hunting as opposed to trying to run as fast as possible is slightly disingenuous. It's almost like saying that it is better to maintain the allusion of greatness rather than exposing oneself to find ones potential. Better to say, well I could have run faster, but I wanted more medals.
What level of really fast time would validate his greatness though? A world record? - certainly, but that's out of his reach. But a top-10 all time? One which would probably be nudged out of the top 10 all time within a decade? I can't see how that would make much difference.
I appreciate that cycling is different to running. But the point stands, which is that races are set up to pit people against one another, not the clock, and for that reason medals are generally considered to be worth more than fast times.
I'd like to see him chase a time too, as a fan, just to see what he can do. And I appreciate you rating Paula higher than Mo due to the strength of that world record. But most don't see it like that, and, completely unfairly, she came in for a hell of a lot of criticism as a 'choker' when she couldn't translate that into medals. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Mo has 2015 to focus on running a PB and then the Olympics after then retire or go to the the road. If he wins another World gold in Beijing it doesn't really make any difference, except to his sponsors.
His PB is from 2011 and is slower than Galen Rupp's. We know therefore he can run much quicker. How can he settle for a PB that is not that close to his potential. Doesn't matter whether he ends up 3rd 5th or 7th, but he has to try and run as fast as possible.
Maybe he is that good and can run a WR. I doubt it like you but have a go at least rather than turning up for some 3000m European record attempt in Birmingham so the BBC can wax lyrical and bore us with the story about him being a refugee from Somalia again.
Never get involved with an internet argument with an unemployed person during work hours
So all we need is running TT's in the Olympics; would make interesting viewing
Mo probably can't be bothered busting a gut for a PB well short of the WR. Its not too dissimilar from runners at our humdrum level; some pot hunt, others like to test themselves at the best level they can. What does it matter what Mo does so long as he ups the standing of athletics which few would dispute.
Pete, I would dispute it, I have nothing better to do
.
I think you're undermining your argument here. I'm sure a lot of people "do" sport for all sorts of reasons, including being fit and healthy, and getting faster. But ultimately the goal of competitive sport at the top level is to win. In cycling, the "greats" are the multiple winners of tour races and classics, not time-trial specialists or world hour record holders.
Also,
So you're saying he has achieved greatness already, but this just needs validating?
Exactly Phil - who stands out more, Graeme Obree or Wiggo? (personally I am a big fan of Obree)
Interesting debate. Andrew - get out on your bike and stop poking
. Anyway it's entirely up to Mo and bugger all to do with what we think!
Somewhat epic run this morning -8.3M of wind-lashed torrential rain, deep mud and steep hills with just the one moment of being lost and starting to feel hypothermic, before turning for home for a fully clothed hot shower and a massive all day breakfast! Ahh, now for a sleep, a splash in the pool and then beer - just what holidays are for!
My argument was about the purity of time vs races; a world record has more value in assessing sporting achievement than a gold medal.
I won parkrun on New Years day, but if Dachs had turned up I would have come second. You see it depends who's there. With a world record, everyone is there.
In the specific case of Mo, if he were to post a time at least comparable, say within 5-10 seconds of HG & Bekele, he could be considered an all time great.
To be clear It's not about belittling his achievements, it's about him ticking that final box so that there's no debate and I can go and do some DIY or something.
In cycling the TT race is the 'race of truth', I also have a lot of respect for the KOM. The sprinters however is a sideshow for the cameras. You'll find most of the GC riders are also very strong on time trials, they're the greats. Cavendish is a great sprinter but not a great cyclist.
I think what Andrew means is that he 'first-finished'.
No you didn't. You were first finisher.
AG beat me to it; you can only race those that turn up on the day.
The Olympics tends to dominate as it is not just a 4yearly competition but also the cycle of preparing, racing at particular meets to gain qualifying points or times and then staying healthy and uninjured until the big day. Hence some people try for 3 maybe 4 Olympic cycles to make the Oly team or the races and waste many great opportunities along the way. Funding is also another concern; Olympic cycles are typically funded whereas if someone were to go solo and do their own thing to chase times, WRs, whatever they're often out on their own or have minimal support from the National Governing Body (UKA/BTF/BC/etc).
Cavendish is a noise maker. Riders like Cancellara and Tony Martin are good at what they do with minimum fuss.
Cancellara's Olympic TT bike was in Zurich airport for some time:
Edit: Lit beat me to it too.
Olympic gold. Absolute pinnacle achievement for any athlete who even gets close.
Paula's marathon world record was a combination of factors that all came together on one day. A sub 5:10 average from the first mile. However, it was a peak performance set in amongst a peak period of her career. And that peak only lasted two or three years.
Having watched her win races at XC (1990) she was good, and remained good enough to be better than most. Then there was that peak, and then the decline that took a decade for the message to sink home that it was all over.
It was the typical career of the athlete who gambles high stakes against injury and illness and gets an eye catching result. They are stars. They live and burn out like magnesium.
The biggest shame is that their training techniques are held up as the definitive example of how to get it right, when most of the time they are completely destructive.
Its one reason why so many ambitious runners spend so much time waylaid with injuries. eg Dave Bedford and the era of mega mileage. Broke a world record, finished at 22 years of age.
🙂
not everyone wants to have a long career that spans into their 80's. Paula trained herself to the max and got an outstanding time as a result. She also had a long career It just it burnt out into her mid 30s. I think Paulas training could be held up as an example of squeezing every ounce of talent out.
Easy Dean, Ric's not 80s just yet
It is quite hard to criticise a runner who not only set a world record, but set one so ridiculous, that 13 years on, not even drug cheats have got anywhere near close to matching it...
Howdy Bus...how's holiday #15 for the year gone?
Yes. One outstanding time. But no Olympic medal. She lost that in training for an outstanding time that wasn't needed.
Paula has spent the vast majority of her career fighting injuries and under constant physio. It's blast a training run, go home, get fixed, do it again. She's over trained herself to a stand still. And is still doing it. I understand she can just about run a 36 minute 10k, off 100 miles /wk.
You're saying that's the way to do it.
I haven't met many runners who didn't want to run pain free forever. Its the injuries that stop them in the end.
Just the experience of the best part of thirty years being involved in the sport.
🙂
Oi, first one of 2015 thanks! (and none of that Judith Chalmers stuff Mr G!).
And as for Paula, in the words of Neil Young, "it's better to burn out, than to fade away". Possibly. Either way, her marathon time will be being talked about long after we're all dead...
Ok Ric's not a fan, but just to balancethe argument on Radcliffe for any lurkers.
Make "just about" hitting 36mins for 10k, actually a 34.16 10k 3 weeks ago
http://www.runbritainrankings.com/results/results.aspx?meetingid=128985&event=10K&venue=Las+Palmas+de+Gran+Canaria%2c+ESP&date=25-Jan-15
No idea on mileage, I'd be surprised if it was 100 a week.
Make "one outstanding time", holding the 3 fastest women's marathon times on record.
Add to that winning a stack of major city marathons at London, New York and Boston.
Add to that a medal laden career between 92 and 2005.
Medal record Women's athletics RepresentingGreat Britain World Championships Gold 2005 Helsinki Marathon Silver 1999 Seville 10000 m World Cross Country Championships Gold 1992 Boston Junior race Gold 2001 Ostend Long race Gold 2002 Dublin Long race Silver 1997 Turin Long race Silver 1998 Marrakech Long race Silver 2001 Ostend Short race Bronze 1999 Belfast Long race World Half Marathon Championships Gold 2000 Veracruz Individual Gold 2001 Bristol Individual Gold 2003 Vilamoura Individual <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Championships_in
ok, that didn't paste as lovely as the table I had it in but never mind.
And of course no Olympics, but as Andrew G says, it's not all about Olympic golds. Or something...
Sorry Bus. You must have gone stir crazy waiting a whole 6 weeks into the year for that hol!!
14:18:xx
Paula could have done with an Olympic gold on her record but the world gold in 2005 is a decent bookend to go with her WR. But Paula was a racer not a fun runner.
Lets say the decision was
for me the decision is simple.
in other news for the second yr running I haven't won veteran of the yr at my club. in the past 2 yrs I have represented england, took gold at the British masters, broke 2 mins for 800, ranked 2nd in the uk over 1500, 1st over a mile (5th all time), county masters Xc champion and midlands champ in the cup final over 400m and 3000 and still nothing! Not that I'm bitter or anything
What's the other guy doing?
Tell them you're a regular on the Stevie G thread on runners world. That will guarantee you winning it next year.