Most of our collegiates could be sub 2:10. They stop running after college.
This is exactly it.
A 21-22 year old graduating college is still so raw and undeveloped. They need 5-10 more years of uninterrupted development to be anywhere close to marathon potential.
Sure a few guys get contracts after graduating but most of those dry up after 3-4 years and are given to the fresh crop of graduates.
There are maybe only 5-10 guys today in the US at the prime age for marathoning (~30 yo) who have had uninterrupted support since graduating.
Look at Scott Fauble and Jared Ward. They weren't special in college. But look where they are 10 years of consistent training later....
A 21-22 year old graduating college is still so raw and undeveloped. They need 5-10 more years of uninterrupted development to be anywhere close to marathon potential.
Sure a few guys get contracts after graduating but most of those dry up after 3-4 years and are given to the fresh crop of graduates.
There are maybe only 5-10 guys today in the US at the prime age for marathoning (~30 yo) who have had uninterrupted support since graduating.
Look at Scott Fauble and Jared Ward. They weren't special in college. But look where they are 10 years of consistent training later....
They both are multi-time all-Americans, but sure… nothing special.
As a mid-pack runner in d1 within the last decade I can confidently say I wouldn’t make it to the half at 2:10 pace, even on my best day. Saying MOST d1 runners could is delusional and discredits what a 2:10 marathon really is.
A 21-22 year old graduating college is still so raw and undeveloped. They need 5-10 more years of uninterrupted development to be anywhere close to marathon potential.
Sure a few guys get contracts after graduating but most of those dry up after 3-4 years and are given to the fresh crop of graduates.
There are maybe only 5-10 guys today in the US at the prime age for marathoning (~30 yo) who have had uninterrupted support since graduating.
Look at Scott Fauble and Jared Ward. They weren't special in college. But look where they are 10 years of consistent training later....
They both are multi-time all-Americans, but sure… nothing special.
As a mid-pack runner in d1 within the last decade I can confidently say I wouldn’t make it to the half at 2:10 pace, even on my best day. Saying MOST d1 runners could is delusional and discredits what a 2:10 marathon really is.
Did you continue to train 100+ mpw since you graduated? If not, who knows what you would have done.
Matt McDonald ran 2:10:17 and has college PRs of 14:18 and 29:38. That isn't very special.
Top 8 in track and Top 40 in cross is all American, there isn't really much special about that. 100s of people. And how many of those 100s continue to train since college? 5%
Yea 2:09 and 2:10 aren't rediculous times for pro marathoners but how Conner faught it out at the front for so long and how smart Scott ran from the gun I can't respect their races more. Conner has a lot to learn and with time he can figure out how to hang a bit longer. With Scott he runs consistantly and smart which put him in a place to go top ten in a stellar field.
placing top-10 in a race like that just means not blowing up. Way more respect to guys like Mantz who put themselves out there in position to try to win than guys who run soft conservative races to get top 10.
They both are multi-time all-Americans, but sure… nothing special.
As a mid-pack runner in d1 within the last decade I can confidently say I wouldn’t make it to the half at 2:10 pace, even on my best day. Saying MOST d1 runners could is delusional and discredits what a 2:10 marathon really is.
Did you continue to train 100+ mpw since you graduated? If not, who knows what you would have done.
Matt McDonald ran 2:10:17 and has college PRs of 14:18 and 29:38. That isn't very special.
Top 8 in track and Top 40 in cross is all American, there isn't really much special about that. 100s of people. And how many of those 100s continue to train since college? 5%
Had you said “any all-American” can break 2:10, I’d agree with you. But you said “most collegiates” and that’s very different. Because MOST to me would mean anyone who legitimately deserves a spot on a d1 roster and could score in a meet.
And no, I didn’t maintain 100mi/wk for years post college, but I also know where I sit in the tiers of talent and it’s not up there with Fauble/Mantz/Ward.
A lot of attention is traditionally given to how difficult Heartbreak Hill is but the legs, especially the thighs, would be more fatigued from the 20 miles of downhill running before getting there than if the course was flat. Runners, especially Americans, should include long downhill runs in their preparations.
Scott Fauble ran a damn great race. It was highly impressive and dont discount Conner Mantz's performance either. Great second marathon for him. L take
You don't need to be good at running to comment on the sport bozo
We want this sport to be mainstream, but you can only let runners know they're not good at what they do if they beat them. How backasswards. Anyway, these guys haven't made a dent on the world scene in ages. The rest of the world running 202 203 every weekend. the 2:12 stuff is getting old and the 2:10 stuff isn't cutting it.
If you saw Bill Rodger's first five marathons you would've called him a loser, then BOOM
1973 Boston Marathon (Did not Finish)(DNF) 1973 Bay State Marathon (2:28:12) 1st Course Record (CR) 1974 Boston (2:19:34) 14th 1974 New York City Marathon (NYC) (2:36:00) 5th 1974 Philadelphia Marathon (2:21:57) 1st CR 1975 Boston (2:09:55) 1st American Record (AR)
Boston was the second marathon for Mantz, he's going to learn and come back better
Yep, 50 years later with all we've learned about training, better nutrition, super shoes, and guys still can't beat Bill Rodgers times. Didn't Boston Billy stop a few times to tie his shoes and smoke cigarettes along the way?
placing top-10 in a race like that just means not blowing up. Way more respect to guys like Mantz who put themselves out there in position to try to win than guys who run soft conservative races to get top 10.
Too many down votes on the comment supra. Of course you can run a tactical race and get paid but Mantz was going for it. You cannot expect to win if you're 40s off the leaders by 10K and 1:39 by the half.
Simply not enough US 27 minute 10k guys running the marathon. That's what it takes to run 2:06 or so, and that is if an athlete has the goods for the 26.2 distance. It is a numbers game.
Most East Africans and Japanese under 2:06 do not have 10k PRs under 28 so this is wrong
You don't need to be good at running to comment on the sport bozo
Exactly. This is the only sport where the massess believe you're only allowed to criticize if you're better than whomever you're talking smack about. ESPN and Fox Sports don't play by this rule. Whenever Stephen A. points out that (insert name of QB who was off-the-charts great on high school, very good in NCAA, but mediocre in NFL here) sucks, his co-host has never said, 'How many touchdowns have you thrown this season?!"
Never. Not once. He went on Hannity's radio show and the dyed-in-the-wool Republican didn't say, "You got a lot of nerve commenting on these pro athletes when you couldn't run the length of a football field withput stopping,"
Everyone knows commentators would be terrible at the sports they cover. So what? That old codger who calls Le Tour wouldn't be able to finish a single stage. Nobody ever points this out. Nor should they. I am allowed to say "Kipchoge sucks!" whether or not I run at all. Every other sport is already like this.
