Run-Down Forums

[Micah Ward]

Conway, I don't know about being published, but anyone with the nads to wear bells on his spikes deserves to be listened to!!! I value your opinion on the sprints because you have actually been on the track and done it.

You are right about race being a cop out. Kevin Littles, Jenny Adams, Pintusevitch-Block, Olga Shishigina, Jonathan Edwards and those Greeks whose names I can neither spell nor pronounce are proof that race is not a barrier to performing on the elite level. I think it boils down to having a strong enough case of the "want to's" to go with the talent. You have to "want to" do the work to maximize the physical gifts and have to "want to" seek out the coaching that will help you maximize those gifts.

You may be on to something when you say the best come from the richest countries, but with the domination of the Kenyans in distance running I would have to think about that one for a day or so. But let me ask this question. Would groups such as HSI and Santa Monica TC be considered to be the best sprint training groups in the world? And if so, would there be signinficant improvement for Pintusivich, Shishigina, the Greeks, etc. if they trained at HSI or SMTC on a full time basis? Or have they reached a level where the coaches and facilities have less of an impact? Ok that is more than one question but I got carried away and now it is time to go to work.

[Dan]

I first heard the low body fat = better floatation = better swimmer explanation many years ago, and it always sort of made sense to me. However, a few aspects of that "theory" bother me:

1) Someone I know who has been involved in swimming as both a competitor and coach explained the huge improvements in the sport over the past 20 years to strength training, i.e. more muscle, which would tend to reduce the floating potential.

2) For lack of a less pun-like term, the biggest waves have been made by the East German and Chinese (coached by former East German coaches) female swimmers who were notorious for steroid use. That would increase muscle mass and decrease body fat, which flies in the face of the above theory.

The best I can figure is that that theory is a pile of rubbish...

Being able to float obviously has some advantage, but I'm guessing the tradeoff balances out in the favor of power and technique.

Conway, I'm surprised by your statements about Carl Lewis. I thought you viewed him as the greatest natural talent out there?

Micah, not to nitpick, but any time a list is put together of dominant white athletes in t&f, it tends to be rather biased toward the women. You can look at it either way, but it can easily be argued it plays out that way because there still is a lack of true global representation in women's athletics.

As far as wealth and distance vs. sprint development, think of it in terms of technical events need more affluence to be supported, while distance running is generally benefitted by a less technologicaly advanced culture (less distractions, such as cars and TV).

Dan

[Micah Ward]

Dan, I think you make a good point about the women. We are just now starting to see the Kenyan women start to establish domination in the distances and I think they will probably reach a level akin to the men.

The point you make on the distance training being less technical goes along with Conway's comments on the 1995 thread. The key to good distance running is just to get out there and do it.

[Conway]

Oh I do consider Carl to be one of the greatest natural talents out there .. Doesn't mean that he was the best sprinter out there, however .. Ron Brown for example ran Carl even and was actually a stronger finisher .. Ron became much better after he got to college than he was in high school (prepped in California) .. As luck would have it for Carl, Ron was also a hell of a football player and ended up playing professional football .. Stanley Floyd was another who under the tuteledge of Auburn's coaching blossomed .. But he too chose to try football for it's financial gains ..

THe following is what I wrote regarding Carl's assendance to the top ----

Many more reasons than simply the physical ... Choice of coach .. Follow through with coach .. Single mindedness .. Resources .. Being surrounded with talent to work out with .. Injuries to key opponents at key times .. Affiliations during his career .. And on and on

----

I didn't state anything against his natural ability, but rather all of the externals that were ALSO involved ... For example if I wre writing a history of track and field one of the biggest factors affecting track and field in the US from 1980 forward was the boycott of the 80 Olympics ... At that time track and field was still "amateur" and athletes were still leaving the sport "early" to try to make a living .. Boycotting in 80 took away the dreams of hundreds of high quality athletes who had given up so much to be ready when the time came only ot have the time delayed another 4 years .. Look at Nehemiah who chased the money of pro football .. Ron Brown, Stanley Floyd, and then Mel Lattany (after his 84 injuries) all went for the money of pro football ... I could name many others (100 thru 400 sprinters) who went to football, basketball or simply just got "normal jobs" rather than try to "hang in there" for another 4 years .. Super shot putter Mike Carter won silver in 84 because he had been a student at SMU for 4 years .. Right after he went to the 49ers ..

I just point to this issue as one of the "many factors" that affected not only Carl Lewis' rise during the 80's, but really affected all of track and field .. And yeah I know I just really took the discussion beyond where we started .. Sorry

And Micah - you knew exactly where I was going ... :smile:

[ This Message was edited by: Conway on 2002-02-26 15:15 ]

[Dan]

I think I follow what you're saying about Carl, it's just that when I think of a great natural talent, I think of someone who is at that level in spite of external factors. Your description of Carl being great (greater than his early peers) because of the choices he made sounds to me more like someone who was not the purest natural talent but developed to that level through hard work.

Dan

[Conway]

Well .. Being the greatest natural talent (or even most talented) does not necessarily translate into becoming the best in an event OR even the champion in any particular set of championships .. Look at ElGuerroug .. Best miler in history time wise yet after two attempts he does not have an Olympic gold .. OR how about Greg Foster who won several World golds but not Olympic gold .. OR Roger Kingdom with two Olympic golds and no World golds .. OR how about the ultimate - Renaldo Nehemiah who essentially won nothing ...

Carl became number one primarily due to attrition .. Not becasue he got so much better .. Because if you look at his career he really didn't - in any of his events .. He had the one race in Tokyo - after which he never broke 10.00 again .. And his two races in championships against Ben Johnson where he was arguably "pulled" to minor PRs .. Aside from that he had already "peaked" by 83 - as aside from what I just mentioned he never did any better than in 83 (I purposely left off his Tokyo long jump marks as he had "barely acountable fouls" over 30' in 83) ...

[Conway]

While many say Carl is the best ever in the sprints .. Few recall that he only won ONE championship race (non US championships) on the track after 1984 (91 Tokyo 100) .. Ben dominated him after that (he was awarded Seoul gold after Ben was "dq'd") .. And was beaten by Deloach in the 200 .. He won the 100 in 91 in what could be argued was a transition year in the sprints but chose not to face a young MJ at 200 .. And then he made no sprint teams through the rest of his career (and he kept trying) ..

A lot of Carl's career was "retutation" .. The fact that he was able to get the cushiest job in sprinting time and time again (anchoring WR setting 4x1 squads) .. And the fact that he was the best ever long jumper ..

So I stand by my comments about greatest natural talent as it took little work on the part of Tellez to get him to his prime .. And Carl simply kept running at a time when everyone else felt they had to do somethign else in order to get paid ..

Now the one area where Carl was clearly head and shoulders above the rest was in the area of marketing .. But that goes hand in hand with my statement about who he was affiliated with as Joe Douglas (and Carl) helped create what is modern day professionalism in track and field .. Their negotiations allowed Carl to stay in the sport while others dropped out ..

His natural ability started his career ... There were so many other things that made it ..

NOTE: had ot break this in half again in order to get it to take

[Dan]

I think I see what you're saying, but a few points still don't sit right with me:

[Conway]

I might buy "greatest natural talent" and "most talented" argument .. But you are going to have ot explain the difference to me .. ..

However talent and excelling (in my eyes) are not irrevocably linked .. For example, Larry Myricks may have been the second best long jumper of all time .. HE had the misfortune to compete during the reign of the best long jumper of all time !!! Circumstance, not talent, kept him from a bounty of gold medals ..

Based on your definition of "success in spite of whatever they do wrong", I'm not sure such an individual has ever existed .. Has he/she ???

[Micah Ward]

How about Mickey Mantle? As great as he was, how much better would he have been if he had stayed away from the booze and the night life and really taken care of his body? Is that the type of example we are talking about? I don't know of anyone in the running world that would fit that category.

[Dan]

That is indeed the sort of thing, but I don't know enough about Mantle's career to know if that's a strong example or not.

[Conway]

Hmm .. Don't know anything about Mantle, but Babe Ruth seeems to be a good bet to fit the category .. Of course in those days it was easier as even pro sports did not have the sophistication that sports do today ...

Not sure I can think of a modern day athlete that would fit the description .. Dan mentions Carl Lewis but the part that doesn't fit is the "in spite of whatever they do wrong" as Carl did everything right .. Any little change in what he did during his career could easily have sent his career in the other direction ..

I don't think a natural athlete can be successful today .. JJ Johnson is most certainly one of the fastest natural athletes I've seen .. His sprinting over the past few years being as raw as one can get .. Yet he ran 19.88 last year .. We will see what he does now that he has good coaching .. He definitely improved indoors .. But you never know .. If any of you ever saw Lee Evans run he definitely looked as raw as they come .. Yet I am willing to believe that any changes in his form may have hindered him .. Which now that I think about it I have the best natural talent ever - Bob Hayes .. Raw, physical natural talent ... 10.05 legal .. 9.91 slightly windy ... Both on dirt .. Chopped up dirt at that .. To my knowledge no refined coaching .. Just went out and ran .. And in spite of putting football first was the best of his day and arguably any day ...

[Micah Ward]

I guess you guys aren't big baseball fans. Mantle was arguably the most gifted baseball player of his day. A switch hitter who hit monster homeruns and had the blazing speed to steal bases and cover every inch of center field. He was a two time MVP and is in the Hall of Fame. He was also a non stop drinker and party goer. By his own admission he started many games either hung over or still "under the influence" from the night before. Injuries and the drinking adversly affected his career and if it had not he could have possibly challenged Ruth's accomplishments.

Now is there anyone from the running world that has a similar history? I'm not familiar enough with the personalities of the sport to say. Can you guys think of anyone?

[Conway]

Hmmm ... Not awre of anyone in THAT category ... .. From what I understand, Patrick Sjoberg, WR holder in HJ before Sotomayor, was a heavy smoker and liked to party a lot ..

Just too hard ot do in track and field .. Track is just too competitive at the elite level .. Now I can think of lots of young kids in high school or even at the JC or small college level that were "men among boys" and could dominate in spite of themselves .. But at the pro level of track and field the difference between winning and losing is just too tight to allow for not being at one's best ...

Now as I think another who comes "close" was John Carlos .. John liked to party and such .. Even came out of the stands once on a challenge to run and win a race he wasn't entered in .. But I wouldn't say that he was dominating his competition .. He could have perhaps .. But I think the negative things prohibited him from doing so .. which goes back to my original statement ..

[Dan]

JJ and Hayes seem to be solid choices. Justin, care to chime in on Hayes?