Jon wrote:Incorrect (Remember, that comment of mine was tongue-in-cheek and wasn't meant to be taken literally).slowcoach wrote:So if improving within a couple of months is a bannable offence...
Fair enough. Didn't seem like that at the time.
|
|
Sun Yingjie fails doping test
Fair enough. Didn't seem like that at the time.
After a 2:15, certainly she would be beat up. But assuming she was in 2:15 shape and only ran a 2:20 to conserve energy for the next day, wouldn't you say it would be a different story?
After a 2:15, certainly she would be beat up. But assuming she was in 2:15 shape and only ran a 2:20 to conserve energy for the next day, wouldn't you say it would be a different story?
as a long distance runner for over 40 years i think 26 x 1 mile in 5:25 with no rest in between would take most of the starch out of even the great paula's legs. paula would normally go out for an easy 5 mile jog-run before a championship 10,000 and the 26 x 5:25 would be quite a differant story.
Whether you run a 2:15 or a 2:20, your body is still going to be beaten up! The body would have gone through 26.2 miles of quick-paced miles either way.
Jon, I have to agree with slowcoach, you really must think about what you post, now you're the office junior for AW. You represent that magazine, so any tabloid comments like those on Sun should be carefully considered before being posted. I also think you have a conflict of interest here: you did, afterall, design Radcliffe's site, so you're probably not the most objective when it comes to 'our Paula'.
If one woman can run 29:3 for 10k and another woman 2:15 for the marathon, is it so unreal that another woman can run 31:0 & 2:21 within just over 1 day? Doped or not, Sun did actually run those times, so it shows the human body can do it, regardless of what assistance it may have had. I doubt we'd be even debating 2:21/31:0 if it were Paula that had done it, especially you Jon. It wasnt so long ago that we'd have scoffed at a woman running 2:15 for the marathon...
Translation: "I have to disagree with Jon, because that's what I do" Very funny, snide comment. It's 'staff writer', thank you. Perhaps. Or then again, it could also mean that I'm better informed when it comes to Paula. For example: have you, Slowcoach or Powell read both of her books? Cover to cover? Do you ever let your admiration for HD come in the way of being objective? I don't know, is it? It's difficult to tell because such a feat has never been done before that I know of. Oh, I can guarantee that people would be talking about it, whoever had done it. From what many world class marathoners (and Paula herself) have said in the past is that running a marathon completely beats up your body and the most you can do in the days after is very gentle work. Just like many 400m runners have said, whether you run 48 seconds or 51, it's still going to hurt. Likewise, whether someone runs a 2:15 or 2:21, their body would still have taken a hammering. Taking into account what Paula herself has said about feeling battered the day after a marathon, do you really think she'd be able to put together a 2:21/31 performance, one day after the other?
Oh, jesus, he's read Paula's bio cover to cover
 Do you realise how silly that comment makes you look? Impress me with some snippets of info from secret interviews, not a biography that we've all read! ( Quite an interesting read it was too, but it's hardly a definitive account on long distance training)
You dont get it. Being a fan of a particular athlete is not a bad thing and can often mean you're more informed that others. The issue here is that you have a professional relationship with Paula, you designed her website, therefore that goes beyond just being a fan. You are far less likely to be objective than someone with no commercial relationship with her. I also was agreeing with Slowcoach because, guess what, I agree with him. Dont flatter yourself that I go out of my way to attack you! You are employed by the UK's biggest athletics magazine, therefore you should demonstrate a level of professionalism and thought when writing in public forums.
You've missed the point completely. I didn't mean that just because I've read the book I've become a Paula expert. I meant that I (and anyone else who has read the book) am more likely to know about the things that Paula has said about her training than someone who hasn't read her book. Quite a simple concept, really. And what subjective things exactly have I posted on this thread about Paula? I've merely repeated what she has said herself about how she feels after a marathon. So why all the fake aliases on the IAAF forum and this one, Steve?
I don't get that either.  I think it just means he's read her book.
Quite a common phrase on these shores: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22book+ ... o+cover%22 107,000 results 
Oops - the misunderstandings grow - I DO know what 'cover-to-cover' means, I did NOT understand Andrea's criticism. Why does reading a book c-to-c make someone look silly? It would look sillier if he (Jon) had NOT read it and purported to know about her.
No, I haven't. If I did, would I believe everything therein? No. Jon, Do you ever let your admiration for PR come in the way of being objective?
Sometimes, perhaps I might. But I can't see where I'm being objective on this thread. All I've said about Paula on here is that, according to what she has said about her state the day after a marathon, I don't think she'd be able to pull off a 2:21/31 2-day double. Now, does anyone disagree with that? If not, let's move on. If anything, that quote shows that you yourself are being subjective. Without even picking up her book, you'd approach it with the mindset of "I'm not going to believe everything she says" – you're letting your dislike of her get in the way of being objective.
How could I declare anything else about a book I haven't read? I always approach a book with an open mind. But the probability of everything one says about themselves being true is virtually 0.
You dont get it tafnut? 
Jon is effectively employed by Paula, therefore he simply cannot be objective because of his relationship with her. His defence that reading her biography means infact he may just be better informed and actually objective I found silly and almost absurd. You cannot quote the reading of your employers biography as just being better informed and not subjective, it's ridiculous.
Jon was enamored with PR's running LONG before he became her 'employee'. As a big fan of hers, of course he would have read the book. He is also under no obligation, even as a professional journalist, to be 'objective' about her talent. NO ONE can be 'objective' in that sense - it's ALL opinion - and he has had, has now, and will continue to have great admiration of her (can anyone blame him?). I still don't understand what the issue is here, and why Jon's mentioning of the book makes him look stupid. This is NOT an attack on you - I simply don't see that he was out of line.
No issue, other than you not seeing why I found the book thing silly and me not seeing why you cant see it!
(I would add though, that obligation or not, a journalist with any sense would not criticise their employer in public, but rather stick up for them! )
Maybe we should move on from this now. BTW, I greatly admire Paula too.
Jon, that's what they've been saying all along!
Re: the liklihood/probability of Sun's double: not very far at all behind her in both races was Zhou Chunxiu, who after a 2:21:11 marathon bounced back for a 31:09.03 in the 10,000m. As the runner-up in both, presumably she was tested as well. Judging from the quick announcement on Sun, we can also presume that Zhou's tests didn't come back positive. All things being equal, I suppose one can make the argument that Zhou showed that such a double is certainly possible.
Good point. i dont know the anwser. its truely amazing if "real" 
if someone can run a 2:21 and be fresh enough the next day to run a little over 31:00 it suggest a p.r. in each event on its own, allout, much, much faster. does it not? i would argue 2:17 at least. ZHOU came in secound. suggesting should could not go any faster. so if we agree she ran a allout marathon, no. 1 why wasnt she faster than 2:21? and no.2 she should easily be able to run 29:30 if she's running 31:00 after a allout marathon. somethings fishy here, dont ya think?
Lol, obviously, I meant to say 'subjective' there! But Steve – can you tell me where, on this thread, have I been subjective re: Paula? As I keep reiterating, all I've said is that, based on the things she has stated, I strongly doubt she would be capable of a 31min 10km the day after a fast marathon. Now show me – where is the subjectivity there? And seeing as no-one is disagreeing about that fact, then yes, let's move on. Re: the book, as I explained a couple posts ago, it's a simple concept – someone who has read Paula's book would be more informed than someone who hasn't. Where's the stupidity there?
Jon, we've moved on from that now, but it was you quoting reading her bio in answer to me saying you couldnt be subjective that was stupid. Geddit? No? So let's move on then!
My mention of her bio was not in response to the subjectivity debate – it was in relation to knowing what she has said in the past. It was YOU who picked me up wrong, and have dug yourself a big whole, making yourself look stupid. But of course you don't go out of your way to attack me...
Er, excuse me? The conversation went as follows: Andrea_T wrote: you did, afterall, design Radcliffe's site, so you're probably not the most objective when it comes to 'our Paula'. Jon wrote: Perhaps. Or then again, it could also mean that I'm better informed when it comes to Paula. For example: have you, Slowcoach or Powell read both of her books? Cover to cover? You specifically brought up reading her book in answer to me saying you were not subjective. Read the posts and get it right son. I suggest you move on from this.
Not that we need more people to weigh in here, but Jon's intepretation is not invalid. He is saying that an alternative to the issue of whether he is objective or not is that if they read the bio they would be more informed and then they would be in a better position to ascertain a number of things about Paula. The only flaw I can see in this is if you thing that the bio is purely propaganda and has nothing to do with whether it accurately portrays her history (propaganda being a much higher bar tahn subjective, as in every "fact" is questionable because it is all a fairy tale).
EXACTLY – see the "also" in my post. Makes all the difference, as it adds another separate point. I'm glad that others can see what I mean.
Wow what a mountain out of a molehill!
All Jon is really saying is that Paula says her body is beat up after running a marathon. We can imply from that that she would have difficulty running a world class3K the next day. Whether Jon is objective or subjective about Paula is irrelevant- though I see no subjectivity on his part. If we can't take the athlete's word about how they feel whose are we suppose to believe?
The rest of the nitpicking is just ridiculous.
arm movement
i'm late to the earlier discussion but i have found that in competition-intensity runs beyond 800m, i perform much better with minimal arm movement, straight trunk, hips tucked under, and a kind of relaxed mechanical leg turnover with minimal 'up and down' motion. in fact, when first beginning to run mile-and-up distances, my times went down considerably due to these changes after having rather stalled previously -- i do believe there is something to the saving of energy from unnecessary arm movements. Especially for someone like myself who is rather large of build in the arms/upper torso (at 6' 190) , where the weight is significant (unlike say, your average Kenyan).
In the sprints, I found arm strength and 'pumping' of the arms to assist in the racing, to the point of being a necessity to attain maximum speeds. i am not surprised that a completely relaxed arm style may work for the mechanics of some runners, however awkward it may look..
Re: arm movement
There is something I like about that turn of phrase. As for your discussion about arm movement, I have always been under the assumption that, for distance runners, pretty much whatever feels relaxed and natural is best. Assuming that the dead-arms-hanging-down look feels natural and relaxed, all the power to you (and her). But it looks baaaaad . . .
Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest |
|