|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 28, 2010 10:45:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Mar 28, 2010 11:31:58 GMT -5
Awesome performance with more great ones to come I'm sure!
|
|
|
|
Post by eight-hundred on Mar 28, 2010 11:47:32 GMT -5
It really shouldn't come as surprise that he placed so high. Many of the guys behind him have better track credentials and personal bests than him, but Simon is an incredible xc runner.
only 9 seconds off last years winner!
|
|
|
|
Post by jbrecher on Mar 28, 2010 12:59:12 GMT -5
He was also a mere 17 seconds behind the 5th place finisher. Way to go, Simon!
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 28, 2010 13:28:46 GMT -5
I would rate this performance as superior to Paul's 8th place back in '86. Paul faced Africans, and much better non-Africans, on the whole; but, I think Simon's run is slightly better. He was, for example, closer to the winner than Paul was back then. Hyperbole alert. |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Mar 28, 2010 15:18:04 GMT -5
Hyperbole definition: "Hyperbole, the opposite of understatement, is a type of figurative language that uses deliberate exaggeration for the sake of emphasis or comic effect (eg, "hungry enough to eat 20 chocolate éclairs")."
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 28, 2010 15:46:01 GMT -5
I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. An exaggerated comment made in the (understandable) excitement of the moment. All other explanations are less flattering when the performances are compared with cold hard facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 29, 2010 13:27:51 GMT -5
SI, what exactly are the "cold hard facts" that make comparing a 13th place finish in 2010 to an 8th place finish in 1986, when there are now not one but three outrageously good African teams in the mix? Granted, there are fewer good non-Africans out there, but there are more than enough very good Africans from countries that did not have representation back in '86 to make the comparison far less than hyperbolic.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 29, 2010 13:30:24 GMT -5
You really still want me to explain it to you after thinking about dispassionately for 24 hours?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 29, 2010 13:31:29 GMT -5
Yes. Absolutely.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 29, 2010 13:52:42 GMT -5
First of all, the year was 1987, not 1986 but the place is correct. As we all know, XC is a foot race which is more about placings than times, so an eighth place finish trumps a 13th place. Period. No way you can argue the field yesterday was relatively stronger. If anything it was weaker which leads me to my next point.
I will humour you and talk times. Even if it is relevant, there has to be a small adjustment because they ran for fewer minutes(33 vs 36). Had Bairu been in a race with Bekele & Tadese(the equivalent today of Ngugi and Kipkoech(who were basically at their peak that year and running a full out tape leaner)), he'd have been further behind them than McCloy was with Ngugi & Kipkoech. The one minute makes the argument. Ebuya? He won because Tadese and Bekele weren't there. I don't care about any other finishers(even though McCloy trumps Bairu there too). You are simply using the number of seconds behind the winner to make your call and to compare McCloy vs Ngugi AND Kipkoach and Bairu vs Ebuya is not a valid comparison. To compare races, you probably would have to take Ngugi and Kipkoech out of the picture which now puts McCloy 6th and only 17 seconds behind the "adjusted" winner which is way better than 17 seconds behind 5th place.
But the bottom line is that 8th trumps 13th and if you want to start comparing fields, you better do some Bekele and Tadese handicapping.
Still, a great performance and certainly doesn't disavow me of my call that he remains one of the three guys who could take down Drayton's record.
|
|
|
|
Post by moorezy on Mar 29, 2010 14:13:04 GMT -5
i don't think you can compare 86' and now.. today's runners are on another level and depth is phenomenal.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 29, 2010 14:22:30 GMT -5
SI, I was not basing this comparison only on distance behind the leaders. How can you focus only on one or two top guys when were 3 other full teams of top guys in this race that would not have been there in 87? Paul basically only had to race 9 Kenyans. Simon had to race the Kenyans, plus the Eritreans, the Ethiopians (who, even minus Bekele, have 7 outrageously fast guys), and the Ugandans. That's basically 20-odd very fast guys who would not have been running in 87 (Paul was 17th in 86, my mistake). Now, admittedly, there are far fewer really good Europeans running today; but, the African teams that are now present more than makes up for this loss of the Europeans and Americans. It is therefore more than valid to compare Simon's run to Paul's, and I maintain that the latter is marginally superior. In any case, your hyperbole charge is the only thing hyperbolic in this discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 29, 2010 14:22:48 GMT -5
i don't think you can compare 86' and now.. today's runners are on another level and depth is phenomenal. NINETY EIGHTY SEVEN Generally speaking, maybe, but Ngugi is one of the best cross country runners of all time(in the middle of arguably his best year) and the metric was number of seconds behind so depth is basically is not relevant and even then you would need to use THAT metric to overcome a 5 place deficiency even though Tadese and Bekele were missing-that puts him 15th-almost twice as far back as McCloy. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 29, 2010 14:26:33 GMT -5
I don't see why the precise year is all that important.
And note that in my first post I prefaced my comment about the distance behind with "for example" suggesting that it was never the only metric I had in mind.
And, in 87, I'm sure there were quite a few top guys absent for one reason or another, as there are every year. This sort of things tend to even out form year to year.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 29, 2010 14:26:56 GMT -5
SI, I was not basing this comparison only on distance behind the leaders. You are using it to firm up your argument I think Simon's run is slightly better. He was, for example, closer to the winner than Paul was back then. Completely not relevant given who was at the front of the field. Actually, check that, 61 seconds behind two guys at the top of their game in 1987 when one of them is one of the best of all time just does not hold a candle to 44 seconds behind some guy named Ebuya when Tadese and Bekele are missing. Just plain no comparison. The rest of the field is not relevant(using your own metric). I'm sorry but you won't convince me otherwise and it is unfortunate people have forgotten just how great a performance that was by McCloy. |
|
|
|
Post by eight-hundred on Mar 29, 2010 15:48:27 GMT -5
SI, I was not basing this comparison only on distance behind the leaders. You are using it to firm up your argument I think Simon's run is slightly better. He was, for example, closer to the winner than Paul was back then. Completely not relevant given who was at the front of the field. Actually, check that, 61 seconds behind two guys at the top of their game in 1987 when one of them is one of the best of all time just does not hold a candle to 44 seconds behind some guy named Ebuya when Tadese and Bekele are missing. Just plain no comparison. The rest of the field is not relevant(using your own metric). I'm sorry but you won't convince me otherwise and it is unfortunate people have forgotten just how great a performance that was by McCloy. "some guy named Ebuya " you keep referring to this guy as if he is some bum who can't run. The man just beat Bekele by 36 seconds ( Bekele's only lost ever in cross country!) He has one heck of a success story as well. Many of the guys simon beat have 5k pbs of under 13 and under 27 mins for the 10k. I doubt that was the case in 1987. |
|
cda
Full Member
Posts: 267
|
Post by cda on Mar 29, 2010 15:48:28 GMT -5
I think he goes by 12:51 as well. |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Mar 29, 2010 15:59:50 GMT -5
As we all know, XC is a foot race which is more about placings than times, so an eighth place finish trumps a 13th place. Period. Yes, that's why I've always maintained that my second place at the 1991 TSSAA midget boys XC championships was intrinsically superior to both McCloy's and Bairu's WXC finishes. Anyone who was there that day would agree. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 29, 2010 16:07:15 GMT -5
Many of the guys simon beat have 5k pbs of under 13 and under 27 mins for the 10k. I doubt that was the case in 1987. Using that argument, oldster is a better runner than Zatopek. I am sure he would disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by kitest on Mar 29, 2010 16:09:26 GMT -5
aghhhhhhh
SI your absolutism is astounding. your input-often valuable to the debate- but (as in this case) all too often demoralizingly detailed for its own good!
much like many of oldster's posts, he couched his opinions of bairu's performance with enough consideration of circumstances to warrant you at least validating that opinion. especially with oldster's pedigree (and age) he, of course respects-and more important for you- contextualizes the mccloy performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 29, 2010 16:10:02 GMT -5
As we all know, XC is a foot race which is more about placings than times, so an eighth place finish trumps a 13th place. Period. Yes, that's why I've always maintained that my second place at the 1991 TSSAA midget boys XC championships was intrinsically superior to both McCloy's and Bairu's WXC finishes. Anyone who was there that day would agree. Your OFSAA championship, maybe, but let's not get carried away. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 29, 2010 16:10:59 GMT -5
SI, you can go on referring the the distance behind the leader as if it were the only thing I had in mind. Or, you can address the fact that, instead of one team of Africans running in 2010, there were three, and all of them stacked. I grant that the absence of good Europeans makes African dominance look more total; but, the presence of 20-odd very good Africans goes a very long way to making up for the lack of good Europeans in terms of the difficulty of finishing high in this race.
I have no problem with a difference of opinion on this. (In fact, I had this argument with Simon B and Dylan the night after Nats last fall and I was the one arguing that top 10s in the late 80s and now are at least comparable, against their belief that today is much harder). What I take issue with is the idea that there is no comparison whatsoever between Paul's and Simon's runs. Like I said, the only hyperbole here belong to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 29, 2010 16:11:45 GMT -5
aghhhhhhh SI your absolutism is astounding. your input-often valuable to the debate- but (as in this case) all too often demoralizingly detailed for its own good! much like many of oldster's posts, he couched his opinions of bairu's performance with enough consideration of circumstances to warrant you at least validating that opinion. especially with oldster's pedigree (and age) he, of course respects the mccloy performance. Actually, oldster should be flattered given how well he usually performed against him. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 29, 2010 16:14:40 GMT -5
Sorry, kitest, I just have to throw one more fact out there. 8th vs 13th also has to be analyzed from the standpoint that there were 274 finishers and 33 full teams in 1987 (compared to 127 and 21 this year).
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 29, 2010 16:15:58 GMT -5
(In fact, I had this argument with Simon B and Dylan the night after Nats last fall and I was the one arguing that top 10s in the late 80s and now are at least comparable, against their belief that today is much harder). Now, THAT is a non starter. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 29, 2010 16:22:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by spaff on Mar 29, 2010 16:31:33 GMT -5
Anyone ever heard of Alison Wiley??
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 29, 2010 17:05:37 GMT -5
In everybody's defence, we were just comparing the relative performances of McCloy and Bairu. You could bring up Earl for that matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 29, 2010 20:11:26 GMT -5
(In fact, I had this argument with Simon B and Dylan the night after Nats last fall and I was the one arguing that top 10s in the late 80s and now are at least comparable, against their belief that today is much harder). Now, THAT is a non starter. That they are comparable, or that today it's much harder to make top 10? And interesting stat on the number of competitors and teams. This just underlines the extent to which the rest of the world has raised the white flag to the Africans when it comes to X-C. But, I don't think it really changes much in terms of the difficulty of making say, top 30-- which, to accomplish, one needs to be more or less good enough to make one of the top 4 (African) teams; and there really aren't a ton of non-Africans these days good enough to make even the "lowly" Moroccan team. For all its recent renaissance, the US would still need all of it's best guys, with guns blazing, to crack the top 4 in this event. |
|
