|
|
Post by ahutch on Mar 29, 2010 23:10:40 GMT -5
Other than word choice, I don't think there's much actual disagreement here. Nonetheless, I'll point out an important distinction that needs to be made in these sorts of debates. There are two very different questions:
(a) Which performance is more praiseworthy, notable, impressive, etc.?
(b) Who would win in a head-to-head match-up using a time machine (but without changing training, nutrition, etc.)?
For Boyd vs. Zatopek, it's clear that Zatopek takes column (a) and Boyd at his peak takes column (b). That's an easy one.
Generally, the time-machine question is easy (you just look at track times, though you have to give credit to, say, Peter Snell on a grass track), whereas the praiseworthiness question is highly subjective. Geb vs. Zatopek, for instance, comes down to a question of which types of accomplishments you value most.
Bairu '10 vs. McCloy '87 is (like Boyd said in his original post) a pretty close call. Interesting that both races were in Poland! For praiseworthiness, I think McCloy takes it -- he placed higher, and the race was held in higher esteem at that time. But in the time machine comparison, I can't make a convincing argument either way. McCloy and Bairu have similar track credentials, but both have shown unreal XC ability that makes their track credentials almost irrelevant. I honestly think it would be a very, very close race between the two of them.
Some interesting stats: of the guys who beat Bairu, five have run sub-13 and three have run sub-27. There's also an 8:00 steepler. McCloy never in his career faced anyone with those credentials.
Also, though WXC was undoubtedly a bigger deal back in the day, the greater depth doesn't necessarily mean all the big guns were there. Of the 15 Olympic medal-winners between 1500 and marathon at the 1988 Games, only Ngugi and Gelindo Bordin raced at the 1987 WXC champs.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 30, 2010 6:48:20 GMT -5
Now, THAT is a non starter. That they are comparable, or that today it's much harder to make top 10? I agree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 30, 2010 6:59:53 GMT -5
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. Some more stats to give this some context-sorry kitest. Even with the ridiculous outliers in 1987, 30th place was still only 1:35 behind the winner(51 seconds behind 3rd). This year(with less time on the course which magnifies the difference), 30th was 1:37 behind the winner. The field was also a lot tighter in 1987. 60 seconds back of McCloy would get you 61st and two minutes would be 138th (compared to 35th and 74th for 1 and 2 minutes behind Bairu). Here is where you can get a lot of this information: tinyurl.com/y9gyoc8 |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 30, 2010 10:12:12 GMT -5
Other than word choice, I don't think there's much actual disagreement here. Nonetheless, I'll point out an important distinction that needs to be made in these sorts of debates. There are two very different questions: (a) Which performance is more praiseworthy, notable, impressive, etc.? (b) Who would win in a head-to-head match-up using a time machine (but without changing training, nutrition, etc.)? For Boyd vs. Zatopek, it's clear that Zatopek takes column (a) and Boyd at his peak takes column (b). That's an easy one. Generally, the time-machine question is easy (you just look at track times, though you have to give credit to, say, Peter Snell on a grass track), whereas the praiseworthiness question is highly subjective. Geb vs. Zatopek, for instance, comes down to a question of which types of accomplishments you value most. Bairu '10 vs. McCloy '87 is (like Boyd said in his original post) a pretty close call. Interesting that both races were in Poland! For praiseworthiness, I think McCloy takes it -- he placed higher, and the race was held in higher esteem at that time. But in the time machine comparison, I can't make a convincing argument either way. McCloy and Bairu have similar track credentials, but both have shown unreal XC ability that makes their track credentials almost irrelevant. I honestly think it would be a very, very close race between the two of them. Some interesting stats: of the guys who beat Bairu, five have run sub-13 and three have run sub-27. There's also an 8:00 steepler. McCloy never in his career faced anyone with those credentials. Also, though WXC was undoubtedly a bigger deal back in the day, the greater depth doesn't necessarily mean all the big guns were there. Of the 15 Olympic medal-winners between 1500 and marathon at the 1988 Games, only Ngugi and Gelindo Bordin raced at the 1987 WXC champs. Actually, hutch, I don't think my 1993 self could ever have beaten Zatopek head-to-head. The guy was soloing sub-29s on sloppy clay tracks, and ran sub-60mins for 20k when only 3 or 4 other guys had run sub-30 for 10k. And, had I even tried to beat him, I would only have been calling down his thunder more furiously. My dream time-machine scenario would be McCloy versus Zatopek on a wet clay track over 10k. Imagine the cyclone of limbs, dirt, and spray! And I've had a few Bairu vs. McCloy conversations over the past few years. I think they're very comparable in terms of basic ability, including X-C skills. But, I think Paul would out-kick Simon in a head-to-head match-up. Paul ran 3:40.8 on basically a whim (the day after a 90min run at his customary 3:30-40kms, while ostensibly pacing Dave Campbell to a sub-3:40 attempt). Simon has not to my knowledge ever shown this kind of mid-distance speed, and there is no way he could ever have dropped Paul before the last km. All this may change in a couple of years; but, to date, the nod would go to Paul, I think. I don't have to point out that this supports SI's argument (and mine, against Simon and Dylan) that a top 10 today and in 87 is not all that different (although sufficiently different that I think Simon's run is arguably comparable to Paul's in 87). And Simon needn't feel bad that there was a young Canadian 23 years ago who could well have beaten him head-to-head, any more than our marathoners should feel bad about having a hard time beating Drayton's record. These tho guys (McCloy and Drayton) were, after all, super world-class in their respective specialties in their day. There haven't been many Canadians, before or since, in their class. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 30, 2010 12:20:03 GMT -5
More McCloy stuff from some TC posts:
Craig Virgin(paraphrased) when he first ran against him in 1984:
"For the first couple of laps I wondered how this guy got into the meet.
For the next eight laps or so, I felt sorry for him whilst admiring someone who
was obviously somewhat disabled hanging on for so long.
Eight laps later I began to wonder what was the matter with me. Surely the lap
times were screwy - this guy couldn't be going that fast.
A few laps more and I began to really worry about him - but not because there
was anything wrong with him!.
With two laps to go, there was no more worrying - I was hanging on - and when
he kicked I just watched from behind in amazement."
From his coach, Ray Will:
"The date of the Virgin defeat was 4 May, 1984 at Eugene, OR. Paul was only 20
years old! His winning time was 28:11.72.
Not bad for a young fellah. This is what caused so much controversy over
Olympic selection. COA standard was around 28:09, I believe.
His best prior to that was, I believe, not even close to 29. In fact, I'm not
sure he ran faster than 30:20.46 between Sept 1981 and May 84. He ran 13:46
for 5000 in '83 and may not actually have competed at 10000 in '82 and '83."
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Mar 31, 2010 12:05:01 GMT -5
These tho guys (McCloy and Drayton) were, after all, super world-class in their respective specialties in their day. Super world-class? That's hyperbole. Super world class would be Geb, Bekele, Radcliffe, Ngugi. A handful of record-holders and world champs. McCloy and Drayton are world class, but super? No. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 31, 2010 12:19:21 GMT -5
If you can compete at the world level (say, making the minimum standards) you can call yourself "world class" (the competitive class you compete in being that of the "the world"). If you are in the top 10 in the world (or, in Drayton's case, the best in the world at times), you are world class +1, or "super" world class. There has to be another category beyond simply "world class" for people who are, say, top 10 or better at what they do, is all I was suggesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by firstorlast on Mar 31, 2010 13:51:01 GMT -5
Bairu had an awesome run, McCloy is a legend. Why are we arguing over this??? Time Machines?
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 31, 2010 14:01:05 GMT -5
That's what message boards are for.
|
|
eeen
Full Member
Posts: 128
|
Post by eeen on Mar 31, 2010 15:37:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Mar 31, 2010 19:52:50 GMT -5
If you can compete at the world level (say, making the minimum standards) you can call yourself "world class" (the competitive class you compete in being that of the "the world"). If you are in the top 10 in the world (or, in Drayton's case, the best in the world at times), you are world class +1, or "super" world class. There has to be another category beyond simply "world class" for people who are, say, top 10 or better at what they do, is all I was suggesting. Ok, maybe super, but not super-duper! |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 31, 2010 21:00:35 GMT -5
O.K., something is f*cked-up when 7 other Newfoundland athletes are considered to have accomplished more in the sporting arena than P. McCloy. Without casting aspersions on these other fine and probably dedicated athletes, which of them has reached anywhere near Paul's level globally, or won as many national championships? Otherwise, this is a very nice little piece on Paul. He really is one of the most unique and delightful people in all of Canadian sports, and his story is barely believable. To have done what he did by the age of 23, training alone and all but coach-less in St. John's Newfoundland, of all places, is a testament: 1. To what a simple sport this really is; and 2. What a remarkable specimen he was/is. If you EVER get a chance to meet him and talk running, DO NOT pass it up. Contrary to this article, he will talk about his exploits-- but in the most self-effacing and often hilarious way-- and he has an amazing memory for detail. It may take a little while to get him going, but it's more than worth the effort (and the money on beers), particularly if you know what questions to ask. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Mar 31, 2010 22:04:51 GMT -5
"Will recalls after a 15-year-old McCloy won the Canadian youth cross-country championship, a CBC reporter was heard to ask another CBC worker who had won the race."
CBC showed youth cross country nationals?
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Mar 31, 2010 22:07:30 GMT -5
O.K., something is f*cked-up when 7 other Newfoundland athletes are considered to have accomplished more in the sporting arena than P. McCloy. Seriously. I can see the hockey players (the older ones anyway, not Michael Ryder) for being pioneers, but Brad Gushue? I've curled, it's a passtime, not a sport. I managed to hit the button on my second draw. It takes skill and all, but come on, curling at #2? |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Apr 1, 2010 7:39:50 GMT -5
Glorified shuffleboard.
|
|
|
|
Post by maser on Apr 3, 2010 19:21:56 GMT -5
Otherwise, this is a very nice little piece on Paul. He really is one of the most unique and delightful people in all of Canadian sports, and his story is barely believable. To have done what he did by the age of 23, training alone and all but coach-less in St. John's Newfoundland, of all places, is a testament: 1. To what a simple sport this really is; and 2. What a remarkable specimen he was/is. If you EVER get a chance to meet him and talk running, DO NOT pass it up. Contrary to this article, he will talk about his exploits-- but in the most self-effacing and often hilarious way-- and he has an amazing memory for detail. It may take a little while to get him going, but it's more than worth the effort (and the money on beers), particularly if you know what questions to ask.
SB- That really defines Paul McCloy. I was so lucky to have been in races back in the 1980's when McCloy was running. He was a great runner. Simon is a great runner and a wonderful talent. I look forward to seeing some great races from him . He'd be the guy I'd pick to beat Jerome Drayton's record. The talent in the 1980's and the talent now is pretty comparable looks like distance running is coming back. The recent results from the kids out there shows some potential. The big thing is to make sure they have the support.
Cheers
KM
|
|
