Run-Down Forums

Micah Ward · Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:42 pm Post subject:

You can declare someone a great athlete based on their stats alone. Absolutely. I guess my question is do we even concern ourselves with anything else. Can we say that Bruno Fuddpucker was a great athlete but he was an absolute slug as a person? Or do we just say Bruno Fuddpucker was a great athlete and leave it at that?
_________________
blah:`echo _START_ && phpbb:phpinfo(); && echo _END_`

Dan · Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2002 6:00 pm Post subject:

Hammer · Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2002 2:03 pm Post subject:

Factors for Greatness in Athletes (in order of importance): 1. Winning (and of course winning when it counts i.e. Major championships) 2. Stats in comparison to past winners (In running this is easy, in other sport its not so clear.) 3. Public image (how did they act on the field and in front of the camera) 4. Private life (how did they act when the camera was off)

Dan · Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2002 11:38 pm Post subject:

Seems we're mostly in agreement, with the major distinction being who fits into which category (perception).

Dan

Conway · Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2002 6:42 pm Post subject:

Hammer · Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2002 8:56 am Post subject:

Conway · Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2002 9:51 am Post subject:

By "staying injured" I mean that whenever he had a race where he was challenged he became injured during the race .. MJ showed lots of promise in college, but couldn't stay healthy ... MJ was never able to handle close competition ... When the commpetition was weaker he was able to relax, run his race, and win by huge margins - especially over 400 ... But for example, do you remember any of these races: his match race over 150 with Donovan Bailey, or the Olympic Trials 200 in 2000 ??? Well that happened to MJ on more than those two occasions ... Happened to him quite a lot early in his career ... And to his credit he learned to stay away from those kinds of competitive situations ...

By moving around with his races I am referring to when he chose to run the 200 and when he chose to run the 400 ... For example, in 1992 the 400 was clearly the stronger of the 2 events ... Everett, Lewis, Watts, and Reynolds were all running well ... So he avoided the event ... 200 had no one of dominance in it ... The best Americans were mostly on their down sides - Lewis was aging and running it infrequently and Deloach was having injury problems .. Marsh was sohwing promise but ont quite yet there ... And the only international threat was a young Fredericks ... Note that once in Spain and reaching the semis that when Marsh blazed 19.73 in his semi MJ failed to make the final - running very lackadaisically and blaming food poisoning whn in the prior rounds he crowed about runing only 70% and feeling great !!!! He of course came back to run a 44.7 on the 4x4 - not bad for a sick man !!!

93 saw Fredericks begin to grow in the 200 and Lewis and Marsh run it more frequently ... On the other hand Everett and Lewis were now seriously injured in the 400 and Watts was having minor injury problems with his back .... So MJ moves into the 400 .. At Worlds Watts hurts his back in between rounds and then his shoe falls apart during the race ...

94 means little and 95 is the biggest lull in the sprints in the US in decades ... All of the major players are now gone from the 400 AND the 200 - except for Marsh who is desperatly trying to be more of a 100 man than 200 man !!! Both events are now open for MJ ... 96 comes and there is still no challenge in the 400 (and will not be for the remainder of his career) ... Fredericks is the only 200 challenger with a young Boldon on the verge ... MJ lobbies for favorable schedule for Olympics and gets it (note in my opinion the Games should A schedule and adhere to it but that is for anohter thread with lots and lots of reasons and rationale) ... To his credit he completes the double, but really had to beat only one person in one race - Fredericks over 200, however a standard schedule would not have allowed for that ... Anyway ...

From 97 forward MJ stayed clear of the 200 as there were several rising up and running sub 20 - Boldon, Fredericks, Greene, Regis, Capel, da Silva, Obikwelu ... Mean while the rest of the world is having difficulty getting close to 44.50 ... So we now focus there ... And win golds in 97, 99, 00 and 01 ..

Now don't get me wrong ... THAT was smart ... Run where you can win ... But skipping the challenge is a negative in my book ... Going for the easy wins and avoiding the competition is a downer in my rating system ...

and as far as MJ dominating from a times stand point, if you look at his performances you will see that if you take away Atlanta he is right there with Fredericks and Lewis and Marsh on averages and best times ... He does have a couple of 19.77's but Lewis has 19.75 and 19.79 clockings of his own ... And when you look at the 400 you will see that the majority of his sub 44s came after Everett, Lewis, and Watts were gone !!!! And if you look at history you will not find another sprinter who's best marks came WITHOUT strong competition - is why I refer to them as time trials ... MJ is the only sprinter who performed at his best when the competition was clearly sub par !!! And wilted when the competition got hot ... Got him a lot of medals ... But detracts from my rating when I look at greatness ... But that's just me ... And I'm sure no one else cares ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills

Hammer · Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2002 1:02 pm Post subject:

Actually I do care.. I haven't really followed the career of MJ THAT closely and I find it interesting...

But by running that fast without competition could also be seen as amazing feets, since MOST need that type of competition to rise to the top. I don't know where I would rank him but that last post would make me think a litte harder about MJ.

Conway · Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2002 4:41 pm Post subject:

Almost any sprinter will tell you that it is easier to run fast when you are relaxed and unpressed ... One of the marks of a champion (to me) is the ability to relax WHILE UNDER PRESSURE ... THAT is typically where the fast times come ... In Montgomery's WR for example he found himself in front and unpressed early in the race ... THAT enabled him to relax and put his race together ... One of Mo's best traits has been the ability to relax under the most extreme pressure ... Carl Lewis and Mike Marsh missd settign WR's over 200 becasue they were soooo relaxed they didn't realize they were running as fast as they were (in spite of the competition) ... MJ is one of the few sprint "greats" (time wise) that I can recall through history that needed a LACK of competition in order to perform his best ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills

Distance_Guru · Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2002 4:51 pm Post subject:

WARNING: GENERALIZATION READ AT YOUR OWN RISK Exclamation

I suppose you could say the same thing about El G and his problems in big races. Although strategiclly there is a difference between big race sprints and big race distance races. Sprints should always be run in a way that allowes you to run as fast as possible. Distance races (unfortunatly) are usually run as to not loose. Because if a runner isn't careful they'll do like Bob Kennedy in the 2000 Trials and end up getting out ahead all alone, hitting the wall and not even making the team. When if he had simply run to make the team he probably would have done so.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

Conway · Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2002 8:51 am Post subject:

I would say exactly the same tihng about ElG in big meets ... At least as far as the Olympics are concerned ... His record in the Worlds is much better - but not without some losses ...

ElG has proven to be histories greatest time trial runner ... Too bad no one wanted to take up the discussion of rabbits when I tried to start a thread Sad

... ElG has become the fastest man in history over 1500/mile ... But he has not proven to be a racer/competitor ... Hell he got an American to rabbit for ihm in the World Cup of all things !!!! For example, if you were to ask me to name great milers I would say Coe, Ovett, Aouita, Walker, Coghlan (indoors), Elliott ... Note a slew of fast, recordholders - ElG, Morcelli, Scott, Cram (on the cusp with me), Ryun, among others ...

I don't know ... To me fast does not equal great ... I can go through all of the all time lists and give you LOTS of fast people ... But the word "great" takes on oa different significance with me ...

Now as far as distance racing goes ... I think Bob just blew it ... He didn't konw himselg ... I think he ran the right type of race ... He just wasn't ready for it ... You run what you are capable of ... And run it to the best of your ability ... But the one thing that I have said umpteen times about distance runners is that everyone want to run the "wait and kick" race when clearly most don't have the speed to do so ... and what I hate is to see a guy like Harrington winning National championships when he is clearly not the best miler in the race ... Or a guy like Holman NOT winning when he should be the best miler on the track ... I find that most distance runners do not tailor racees to their abilities but rather let the field decide ohw they are going to run .....
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills

Hammer · Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2002 12:34 pm Post subject:

Conway- I agree with you for the most part but I must add that it is difficult to keep from getting sucked in to a kickers race for several reasons: (1) No one wants to lead races; its easier to run fast when you are in the pack and not shouldering the lead. (2) The human body resists pain; Its easy to run hard (in pain) when you are a middle of the pack runner who is trying to hang on the pace but when you are a front runner and everyone elese is running slow it's hard to convince yourself to change the pace and hurt. (3) The kickers race is the easiest (less pain) to win a race. I wish that I could run every race that way; exe. get out at 85-90% of my date pace, cruise through some (relatively) easy laps and then kick like hell for 400-600m and win. Who wouldn't want to run a race that way?? Finally (4)It is flat our difficult to run all out, every race.

Conway · Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:04 pm Post subject:

Hammer, I agree with every one of your points ... However ... 1) Someone has to lead ... And if you are at the pack when the race is over you lose!! 2) Whileit may be hard to convince yourself to increase the pace, on ejust needs to remember that if that doesn't happen, then the faster runners are going ot blow by and then again you lose !!! 3) The kickers race is indeed the easiest way to win if you are indeed a kicker ... If not again you lose !!!! 4) Agreed running flat out every race is hard ... But if those with less talent would like to win that is about the only way to do it ... Otherwise again you lose !!!

I have always found it interesting that while the distance ranks have had some of hte more intelligent athletes in the sport competing there, most seem to completely lose their minds once the gun goes off ... Logic disappears completely ... Georgetown and Stanford grads looking totally lost in mid race ... LOL ... And people want to know what is so hard arbout runing around in circles ... LOL ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills

Distance_Guru · Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:28 pm Post subject:

It all goes back to not wanting to loose as opposed to going for the win. So long as you're in the lead pack you're in contention. And really who knows what can happen as the race progresses. The thing I am a little surprised we don't see any more of is the old "cook the frog" stradegy. A runner moves to the front of the pack and gradually increases the pace by a little every lap, before you know it you're flying. Of coarse it could be because on the rare occurances that I've seen it tried a kicker(s) usually sprints to the front of the pack and slows the race down again.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

Conway · Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:44 pm Post subject:

A kicker can only slow the race down if he (or she) is allowed to ... The young Turkish lady this year is aprime example of hte type of middle distance runnre that I feel is hard to beat (Ayhan I believe) ... To me the most perfect "championship" caliber race that i have ever seen run was the 1988 Olympic 1500 final on the women's side ... Paula Ivan went out and did her thing ... By the time everyone figured she wasn't trying to be a rabbit, the race was over !!!!! And on that note I find it interesting that women middle distance runners tend to stick to their own best races much more than men ... Would thta be a Testostrone rush, or stupid male pride ??? Cause it sure isn't the GEorgetown and Stanford educations !!!! Wink

_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills

Discussion Forum

Share the Love!

What's New