cda
Full Member
Posts: 267
|
Post by cda on Nov 5, 2009 12:09:03 GMT -5
|
|
tree
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by tree on Nov 5, 2009 13:14:14 GMT -5
Hahahaha ..
The onion covering running news? AWESOME. Letsrun.com also had links to videos where The Colbert Report, Conan O'Brien, and David Letterman covered Mebrahton. I don't have the links anymore, but it's nice to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cummings on Nov 5, 2009 13:14:43 GMT -5
That's awesome.
|
|
|
|
Post by slamer on Nov 5, 2009 22:07:11 GMT -5
"In light of the discovery, marathon officials are taking a closer look at many of the entrants in this year's race, including British runner Paula Radcliffe, a former winner who placed a tearful fourth in the women's event after fracturing her cannon bone and had to be put down mere minutes after finishing."
That's the best bit!
|
|
syphon
Junior Member
Posts: 113
|
Post by syphon on Nov 6, 2009 22:52:29 GMT -5
The best part is, riding a horse in the NYC marathon would pretty much guarantee you wouldn't win. Humans are better at distance running than horses.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaff on Nov 6, 2009 23:07:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lauzon on Nov 7, 2009 0:26:44 GMT -5
That's easily the best part of "Born to run". Made me want to do a persistence hunt so badly. What would be more rewarding than standing over your defeated (and dead) deer?
|
|
|
|
Post by lauzon on Nov 7, 2009 0:27:36 GMT -5
|
|
syphon
Junior Member
Posts: 113
|
Post by syphon on Nov 7, 2009 3:09:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by I-Ballz on Nov 7, 2009 14:19:09 GMT -5
Precisely? This link shows that horses win almost every time. "In 2004, the 25th race was won by Huw Lobb in 2 hours, 5 minutes and 19 seconds. It was the first time that a man racing on foot has won the race..." |
|
syphon
Junior Member
Posts: 113
|
Post by syphon on Nov 7, 2009 15:37:15 GMT -5
Precisely? This link shows that horses win almost every time. "In 2004, the 25th race was won by Huw Lobb in 2 hours, 5 minutes and 19 seconds. It was the first time that a man racing on foot has won the race..." It's shorter than a marathon by 4 miles, and the calibur of human athletes is much lower than that in the NYCM. Yet the horse has still been defeated. Haile Gebrselassie could beat that horse every time. |
|
|
|
Post by slamer on Nov 8, 2009 1:05:15 GMT -5
Precisely? This link shows that horses win almost every time. "In 2004, the 25th race was won by Huw Lobb in 2 hours, 5 minutes and 19 seconds. It was the first time that a man racing on foot has won the race..." If 2:05 for 22 miles wins by a few minutes, imagine an "average" elite runner running that can run close to that time would win by... 20+ minutes. Anyway, our true advantage is over a much longer time period. From the wikipedia page that you obviously didn't read. " The persistence hunt may well have been the first form of hunting practiced by hominids. It is likely that this method of hunting evolved before humans invented projectile weapons, such as darts, spears, or slings. Since they could not kill their prey from a distance and were not fast enough to catch the animal, the only reliable way to kill it would have been to run it down over a long distance.
In this regard one has to bear in mind that, as hominids adapted to bipedalism they would have lost some speed, becoming less able to catch prey with short, fast charges. They would, however, have gained endurance and become better adapted to persistence hunting[1]. The evolution of the distinctively human sweating apparatus and relative hairlessness would have given hunters an additional advantage by keeping their bodies cool in the midday heat." I know that the Bushmen run down their prey (Kudus/Gazelles) over as many as 8 hours of constant running. |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Nov 8, 2009 1:46:20 GMT -5
If 2:05 for 22 miles wins by a few minutes, imagine an "average" elite runner running that can run close to that time would win by... 20+ minutes. Two things: First, Huw Lobb isn't an "average Joe." He ran a 2:15 marathon at London the year he won the horse race, and a 2:14 marathon the next year. Moreover, he was a true cross-country specialist, wayyyy better over broken terrain than on the roads. No human on this planet was beating him by anywhere close to 10 minutes, let alone 20, on that day on that course. Second, if you're going to demand "elite" runners to make a fair test, you should also demand "elite" horses. Given that the prize money is only given out when the humans win, I'd imagine the typical quality of the runners is far superior (relatively speaking) to the quality of the horses. If you're interested in the details of these hunts, you should read this paper by Louis Liebenberg: www.mattmetzgar.com/matt_metzgar/files/persistence_hunting.pdf. He's pretty much the only outsider to accurately document a live persistence hunt in the past few decades. The eight he has witnessed covered an average of 27.8 km, at typical paces of 10-14 minutes per kilometre (with one outlier at 6 minutes per km). Pretty cool stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by slamer on Nov 8, 2009 2:46:34 GMT -5
If 2:05 for 22 miles wins by a few minutes, imagine an "average" elite runner running that can run close to that time would win by... 20+ minutes. Two things: First, Huw Lobb isn't an "average Joe." He ran a 2:15 marathon at London the year he won the horse race, and a 2:14 marathon the next year. Moreover, he was a true cross-country specialist, wayyyy better over broken terrain than on the roads. No human on this planet was beating him by anywhere close to 10 minutes, let alone 20, on that day on that course. Second, if you're going to demand "elite" runners to make a fair test, you should also demand "elite" horses. Given that the prize money is only given out when the humans win, I'd imagine the typical quality of the runners is far superior (relatively speaking) to the quality of the horses. If you're interested in the details of these hunts, you should read this paper by Louis Liebenberg: www.mattmetzgar.com/matt_metzgar/files/persistence_hunting.pdf. He's pretty much the only outsider to accurately document a live persistence hunt in the past few decades. The eight he has witnessed covered an average of 27.8 km, at typical paces of 10-14 minutes per kilometre (with one outlier at 6 minutes per km). Pretty cool stuff. must have been a slow ass course. 2:15 is roughly 1:51ish for 22 miles. That's a 14 minute difference. But you misunderstood me. I ment he would beat the horse by 20+ minutes. Since running 2:05 he beat the horse by 2 minutes. I had assume it was a comparable course to road. But clearly a bad assumption. But of course, once I looked the the horse records, even Haile gebreselassie would lose by at least 10 minutes (likely a whole lot more) on his best day. And yea, I'd hear of this persistent hunt before. It's the overheating that makes the biggest difference apparently. |
|
syphon
Junior Member
Posts: 113
|
Post by syphon on Nov 8, 2009 3:27:07 GMT -5
Two things: First, Huw Lobb isn't an "average Joe." He ran a 2:15 marathon at London the year he won the horse race, and a 2:14 marathon the next year. Moreover, he was a true cross-country specialist, wayyyy better over broken terrain than on the roads. No human on this planet was beating him by anywhere close to 10 minutes, let alone 20, on that day on that course. Second, if you're going to demand "elite" runners to make a fair test, you should also demand "elite" horses. Given that the prize money is only given out when the humans win, I'd imagine the typical quality of the runners is far superior (relatively speaking) to the quality of the horses. If you're interested in the details of these hunts, you should read this paper by Louis Liebenberg: www.mattmetzgar.com/matt_metzgar/files/persistence_hunting.pdf. He's pretty much the only outsider to accurately document a live persistence hunt in the past few decades. The eight he has witnessed covered an average of 27.8 km, at typical paces of 10-14 minutes per kilometre (with one outlier at 6 minutes per km). Pretty cool stuff. must have been a slow ass course. 2:15 is roughly 1:51ish for 22 miles. That's a 14 minute difference. But you misunderstood me. I ment he would beat the horse by 20+ minutes. Since running 2:05 he beat the horse by 2 minutes. I had assume it was a comparable course to road. But clearly a bad assumption. But of course, once I looked the the horse records, even Haile gebreselassie would lose by at least 10 minutes (likely a whole lot more) on his best day. And yea, I'd hear of this persistent hunt before. It's the overheating that makes the biggest difference apparently. It's proportional. Maybe that race is slightly too short, but I'd imagine the world's best ultra marathoner would slay the worlds fastest horse over 100km. |
|
|
|
Post by I-Ballz on Nov 10, 2009 0:47:46 GMT -5
I DID read the other article which you have so nicely quoted for me here. I wasn't referring to that one now was I? The original claim was that humans would defeat horses over the marathon distance. The other quoted article (the one I quoted earlier) doesn't help support the claim that men out duel horses over that marathon distance. I was just pointing out that that reference in particular wasn't helping the argument any. I didn't say I agreed with it one way or another. Precisely? This link shows that horses win almost every time. "In 2004, the 25th race was won by Huw Lobb in 2 hours, 5 minutes and 19 seconds. It was the first time that a man racing on foot has won the race..." If 2:05 for 22 miles wins by a few minutes, imagine an "average" elite runner running that can run close to that time would win by... 20+ minutes. Anyway, our true advantage is over a much longer time period. From the wikipedia page that you obviously didn't read. " The persistence hunt may well have been the first form of hunting practiced by hominids. It is likely that this method of hunting evolved before humans invented projectile weapons, such as darts, spears, or slings. Since they could not kill their prey from a distance and were not fast enough to catch the animal, the only reliable way to kill it would have been to run it down over a long distance.
In this regard one has to bear in mind that, as hominids adapted to bipedalism they would have lost some speed, becoming less able to catch prey with short, fast charges. They would, however, have gained endurance and become better adapted to persistence hunting[1]. The evolution of the distinctively human sweating apparatus and relative hairlessness would have given hunters an additional advantage by keeping their bodies cool in the midday heat." I know that the Bushmen run down their prey (Kudus/Gazelles) over as many as 8 hours of constant running. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Nov 10, 2009 12:15:47 GMT -5
The way to solve this qukestion is to enter a horse in the Ironman. Silly horse trying to ride a bike...
|
|
