(If you’re not following the whole cranktastic-running-blather episode I dunked my arse in over the weekend, this won’t interest you. It won’t interest me either, but it’s a holiday, so I get to be even more irrelevant than usual.)
This is really more like “breakthroughs in schadenfreude” at this stage, something I expected once Gibbens himself entered the rhetorical slam-dance.
In looking for other comments about Gibbens’ recent “article,” I did this Google search and wound up on this blog. The chap who runs it seems fair-minded enough, and wants no part of flaming and such; I think he’d do wel to pay closer attention to what I’ve written, but we’ve all got out minds wrapped around some bone or another, I guess.
The point of offering this link is that even if you aren’t into running, if you suffer through the minutiae about FIRST and prediction charts and so on you can still see how Gibbens operates; it’s clear that running geeks perform their own not-so-unique version of the “Gish gallop,” which may or may not be an event best suited to a predominance of slow-twitch muscle fibers, and certainly favors slow-firing neurons. Simply put, he rambles about things I never claimed he said, calls me ignorant a few times, leaves unaddressed everything in his article that I did critiize, and, after all that smely smoke, says I’m not worth debating.
In terms of substance:
It doesn’t matter how tirelessly you point out to some people that Gibbens doesn’t produce any backup for what he says. It doesn’t matter when you do the math for them: A 2:04:56 (record) marathon is “equivalent” to only an 11.83 100 meters by Gibbensian calculations, while a 9.77 (record) 100 “equals” a 1:52 marathon. So either Gibbens has shat on his keyboard again, or no top distance runners are training right (11.83 is quick but perfectly ordinary, so all the quacking about “extreme outliers” is balarkey).
It’s intuitively obvious which is which, and on top of that it is clear that Gibbens has been doing this for years and not only hasn’t gotten any footholds in the running community, he doesn’t even coach anyone privately. But I’m the bully, of course, because history is full of cranks who turned out to be…Internet cranks!
Oh well, let him patter away in his bubble of bumblebrained friggistry. I’ll throw in those epithets because I’m generously giving him yet another excuse to avoid answering the tough (or basic) questions. His ilk is the price we all pay — or the treat we get, I suppose — for an Internet with an unmitigated, unregulated flow of ideas: more than a few mammoth stinking turds rocketing past us in the pipes. LORD knows I’ve dropped a few kids in that pool myself.
The beauty of this is that we all get what we needed. No one is silly enough to pay attention to Gibbens but me, so he gets a token shout-out (or -at), while I found a way to mentally masturbate for quite a long time rather than copy edit a very lengthy manuscript about crime, criminy or whatever it’s about.