Americans need to stop aiming for 2:09 marathons and start shooting for at least 2:05

Fussing with me is not going to make U.S. a great Marathon nation. U.S. used to be a decent Marathon nation when 4:15 to 4:25 one mile guys were Marathon champs. Frank Shorter never broke 10 minutes for 2 miles in high school. That era has passed. Japan is unique. I do not know why world class Japanese Track & Field athletes are good to better than good 60m & 100m men and good to better than good 10000m to ultra runners. Worrying about Japan and China is not going to make U.S. a great Marathoner nation. U.S. has already set up high school & college XC in favor of 5000m to Marathon athletes. U.S. bell curve of top performances would be closer to normal distribution if U.S. h.s. XC were 3K and college XC were 5K, making XC more friendly to 800m athletes. U.S. has always been a melting pot. We can continue bringing in top distance running talent. We are not fooling anyone though by bringing in talented distance runners to run for the Army. U.S. is still a nation of 60m to 800m athletes, hurdlers, jumpers and throwers.

Get Metric wrote:

Gotta be kidding me wrote:

Again, this is so stupid. 3:00 per kilometer is about 4:50 pace. Why not just run 4:50 pace until you can't and then stop? You picking some arbitrary number is idiotic. The only way switching to kilometers could be better is that it's a shorter distance and you get more immediate feedback on your split. But at the same time, you could just split your watch at every half mile and it's even better than kilometers. The 5:00 per mile vs 3 minute per kilometer argument is so stupid. Just run 4:50 mile pace.

Just running the pace is only part of it. Are Americans willing to drop out of a without or marathon once they can’t run 4:50 mile pace? Or are they ok to finish and slow down. That mindset is not arbitrary.

Also to be in the cards to compete in a major marathon you need to be able to sustain 4:50 pace. Because over a 26.2 mile marathon even just a few seconds per mile adds up to minutes that your behind the leaders. But Americans say I still sub 5 mile! I must be ok! Golly shucks geez!

Eat fish

Get Metric wrote:

East Africans and Japanese dominate Marathoning

Similarities…

Both have large developmental programs for distance running

Both emphasize aerobic development

Both use the metric system and run Marathon type workouts at 3:00 kilometer pace

You had me until your last point. Why are Ethiopian women so good, they're not running at 3:00 kilometers. It doesn't matter if you're running kilometers or miles. No one is saying "oh I'm at a nice round number of 5:00 per mile, I guess I don't have to go any faster than this". Obviously someone running that fast would make a goal of running 4:55 pace next instead of 5:00 pace.

But I agree that Americans do too many hard interval workouts, not enough mileage at younger ages (middle school and high school). We are way behind in the mileage by the time we're adults.

time and time again wrote:

In b4 some idiot suggests it’s because 5 minute miles instead of 3 minute kilometers, because they don’t understand how elites train and how they set race goals.

Lol, you always knew some dullards were going to trot out that cringey reasoning. "tHeY nEeD tO fOcUs On KiLoMeTeRs!!!"

I don’t agree that college is set up for marathon development. It’s set to score points at championship meets. A NCAA national championship in a 30k would be a good start.

Fax wrote:

U. Raynuss wrote:

Yes, of course.

If only we could "acculturate" ourselves to the idea that it's better to run a 2:05 instead of a 2:10, no doubt

an unstoppable horde of American marathon runners will emerge to obliterate that elusive 2:05 barrier.

Do you think the fact most of our "best" marathoners have PBs just under 2:10 is because that's the physical limit of what our athletes are capable of? No, it's because they feel content pushing themselves under that barrier, but no further.

Yes, I do believe that.

Do I believe that it's possible that someday somebody pops a 2:04? Yes, of course.

But I don't buy at all the idea that other sports are "siphoning off" potential distance runners, that's nonsense.

And it's not plausible to me that in all the time from let's say '72 till now, there hasn't been even one guy who was able to figure out or adopt the proper "mindset" to go get that 2:05. It's simply ridiculous.

Distance runners are nuts. If there was a way to have done that, it would have been done by now.

And one would have to assume that there were some who tried "pharmacological enhancement" to achieve those kinds of times, and obviously they even failed because those times never emerged.

This should be pinned at the top of the thread.

Build our base, build our culture.

I think the culture is such that even going back to the HS and even MS level, most kids don't want to run long distances, and it leads into what you are saying...even if they have the talent to do so they might not be interested. A lot of other activities and sports (soccer, field hockey, golf, dancing ballet, skating, etc.) to take away our good XC pipelines even for little ones at 2-mile/3k races, and 5k for HS races.

Fax wrote:

The times our men shoot for are considered beyond disastrous for African runners. We need to normalize better times instead of being satisfied eeking under 2:10.

That's a really good point. I say, let's start shooting for 1:55. That'll show 'em!

No decent collegiate rumner is going to choose running a road 30K over track. Ugh.

Fax wrote:

U. Raynuss wrote:

Yes, of course.

If only we could "acculturate" ourselves to the idea that it's better to run a 2:05 instead of a 2:10, no doubt

an unstoppable horde of American marathon runners will emerge to obliterate that elusive 2:05 barrier.

Do you think the fact most of our "best" marathoners have PBs just under 2:10 is because that's the physical limit of what our athletes are capable of? No, it's because they feel content pushing themselves under that barrier, but no further.

It's a shame that our elite runners don't have the mental toughness and killer instinct possessed by a typical LR fun runner.

I might have asked this before but if someone is equally good on the track and in the marathon, which option is more lucrative? All things being equal, I would take track all day long.

jecht wrote:

One marathon that looks interesting and fast is, surprisingly, the Disney Marathon, and I've heard it's a good PR course. In 2019, Male winner (Fredison Costa) came through 10 at 52, 13.1 at 68 low and finished in 2:18. Second place was 2:21 (Nick Hilton). Female winner (Giovanna Martins) came through in 2:45, just near OT "B" standard, and second place was Antonia Lins da Silva (2:47).

Courses like that would be good for aspiring Americans to get fast at (no hills, blacktop, no weird conditions), and build momentum.

I'm just not sure that encouraging more fast Americans to run the Walt Disney World Marathon would have much of an impact on the US marathon scene.

Yes, MF, do it. A suicide pace is the only pace, today’s a good day to die

Go out fast and tell yourself that you’re ok and to relax. don’t look around or grimace, reeeelaaaaaxx

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Get Metric wrote:

I don’t agree that college is set up for marathon development. It’s set to score points at championship meets. A NCAA national championship in a 30k would be a good start.

No decent collegiate rumner is going to choose running a road 30K over track. Ugh.

Thus why Americans gets their butts handed to them.

In other words, you are calling for the next Galen Rupp. That is who paved the way for this, though I don't remember if he quite got to 2:05 or just missed it.

What a horribly cold take!

You wrote your whole essay and nothing is close to true.

The best marathoners ever, Kipchoge, Bekele, Tergat, Geb... They were all great at shorter distances in their youth. Even the best US marathoners were great runners in high school.

If we want success in the marathon we need great runners with shorter and smaller builds. Someone built like Centro could possibly be great... Small, lightweight, with the speed to run 4x 28 min 10k pace.

Fax wrote:

as read on Letsrun wrote:

That should be the solution for every runner, right? I'm currently in 18 minute 5K shape and I need to raise the bar, so my next race I will shoot for sub 13.

Except this isn't about individuals, but rather a culture.

I think you truly believe you said something insightful and I respect that. However, I don't think it's as simple as that.

I completely reject the premise. The recent top American marathoners (Hall, Meb, Rupp) were all aiming to win World Major Marathons, and they knew it took faster than a 2:10 to win (ok 2:10 might win New York, but that's equivalent to a faster time on a flatter course like London and Berlin so the winner is in ~2:08 shape). Our next tier wanted to beat Hall, Meb and Rupp. Taking the title of best American marathoner would earn them serious financial gains. You can argue about the talent level of U.S. marathoners and also if their training program is optimal, but the top guys are clearly aiming for better than 2:10 during training.

I can barely run a mile in 7:00. You expect me to aim for a 2:05 marathon ??