According to usatf, lowering the marathon standard develops elites. Good to see this "developing" working out well for these boneheads.
This and splitting club xc national and winter trials essentially killed the sport.
According to usatf, lowering the marathon standard develops elites. Good to see this "developing" working out well for these boneheads.
This and splitting club xc national and winter trials essentially killed the sport.
Might sound stupid, but I believe it is because we don't have the go for broke mentality. Look at the US runners that put themselves in the race, even if they will likely blow up. Hall, Meb, can anyone really name any others?
I think its the Pace>Race mentality that holds US marathoners back. I would love to see some of the unheard-ofs go with a pack of Ethiopians/Kenyans for 20 miles then see the guts they have the last 6. On the flip it seems to happen all the time. Unheralded East Africans running sub 2:08 for major upsets.
That might be true but just because Canova says so doesn't mean that's the case. At any rate, he's really talking about sub 2:05 types and that's not the topic of the thread. If you look at excerpts from Rodgers's diaries or at samples of things Ron Hill, DeCastella, and Moneghetti used to do, the long run paces are not that fast. On the other hand, Clayton and Jones pushed the pace pretty well and got comparable, though not vastly superior results to what guys who generally did their long runs easier did. Takaoka did most of his long stuff at around 8:00 pace and got under 2:07.
HRE, do you think Steve Jones really ran to his potential in the marathon? He was known to hammer his training runs and did the same in the marathon but he often went out incredibly fast and still held on in a very impressive way but he did still slow down considerably. His 61 min first half in Chicago comes to mind where he still ran 2:07 I believe. If he'd have run more sensible splits, say 63:00 first half then who would have known what he could he ran on that day, perhaps he would have still slowed but maybe not and he'd have run 2:06?
His training also seems to correlate to Canova's recommendations with incredibly fast long runs, often at 5 minute miling or faster for 20 miles!
StevieJones wrote:
HRE, do you think Steve Jones really ran to his potential in the marathon? He was known to hammer his training runs and did the same in the marathon but he often went out incredibly fast and still held on in a very impressive way but he did still slow down considerably. His 61 min first half in Chicago comes to mind where he still ran 2:07 I believe. If he'd have run more sensible splits, say 63:00 first half then who would have known what he could he ran on that day, perhaps he would have still slowed but maybe not and he'd have run 2:06?
His training also seems to correlate to Canova's recommendations with incredibly fast long runs, often at 5 minute miling or faster for 20 miles!
On the one hand he could probably have run faster if he'd gone out slower. On the other hand if he was the kind of guy to go out slower, then maybe he would not have trained hard enough to get into that kind of shape.
james naismith li wrote:
If you're excluding Meb then you have to exclude Farah. Look where Somalia is on a map.
Boston is not an eligible course for IAAF top lists purposes. In what other Marathon did Meb run another sub 2:10 this year?
I think the usatf needs to update their all-time American list: http://www.usatf.org/statistics/All-Time-Lists/MarathonMen.aspx
I found out I need to correct what I first wrote . I did so with the added underline portion below.
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
In history, only 2 US born runners have run under 2:09:30[u/] on a record eligible course.
A combined 50 Ken/Eth runners have run under 2:06. (with a couple Moroccans also running under 2:06. No other country has a sub-2:06)
.
(Though I know this is a bit misleading, because so many top US runners would run their best in Boston, which if the wind is not at your back the whole way is not an easy course, what I wrote is still a fact )
ok, I screwed up the underline.
The point is: I wrote 2:09, and in reality, it's even worse, it's only 2 US born IN OUR HISTORY under 2:09:30!
So to answer the question: why no american men under 2:10?.....maybe we're just not good enough??
Darrinruns wrote:
I would love to see some of the unheard-ofs go with a pack of Ethiopians/Kenyans for 20 miles then see the guts they have the last 6. On the flip it seems to happen all the time. Unheralded East Africans running sub 2:08 for major upsets.
So which American runner can go with the leaders for 20 miles? If your half PB is 1:01:xx, how much do you have left after running the first half in 1:02?
Most of the Americans cannot even keep their pace after hitting the halfway mark at 1:05. What makes it easier to sustain the pace if they went out the first half three minutes faster?
HRE wrote:
it's obviously not a "speed" issue as you point out. In the past there were a reasonable number of "slow" 5,000/10,000 guys who ran under 2:10. Ron Hill's best was 28:30 something, Clayton's 28:40 something, same for Dick Beardsley. Ian Thompson's 5,000/10,000 times were 14:05/30:10 when he ran under 2:10 though I believe he later got into the mid 29:00s. Neither Henrik Jorgensen nor Gerard Nijboer were ever under 28:00 for the 10,000. The Japanese crank out loads of guys who go under 2:10 without getting near 28:00 for the 10,000.
There is some correlation, obviously, between fast marathoning and fastish 10,000s. You're going to have a hard time running 2:10 if your best 10,000 is 31:00. But once you have enough 5/10 speed to go under 2:10, or whatever time you want, the advantages of getting faster at those distances diminish. It doesn't hurt, consider Steve Jones. But it only helps so much.
So what needs to change? All of the old time guys I mentioned had the marathon as their best event, but they were really distance runners who mixed the marathon in with serious racing at other distances. It seems to me that our guys now often wait until they've maxed out at track distances and then move to the marathon rather than mix the marathon into their racing in peak years. Lynn Jennings did that. Mark Nenow did it. Ryan Hall did it and only Hall really ran the marathon as fast as his potential indicated and then faded out. Shorter was serious about track, cross country and marathons all at the same time as was the case for Hill, etc.
The other thing I see with many of our current marathoners is that they don't stay with the event if they aren't successful pretty quickly. Sometimes you have a great performance in your first race or two but sometimes you're like Hill and need several years to go from 2:24 to 2:09. I think we'd get more sub 2:10s if our guys ran 2-3 marathons a year for several years even if they aren't all spectacular ones.
My make a few good points except the speed one. Most of the great marathoners were indeed good at other distances. You kind of cherry picked those examples, but Greta Waite, Ingrid Kristiansen, Paula, Kaster, Gete Wami, Liliya Shobukhova, Edna, Irina Mikitenko, Tegla Loroupe, Florence & Edna Kiplagat and on the men's side Geb, Tegat, Wanjuri, Eliud Kipchoge and Moses Mosop, etc. Even athletes like AlSal and Shorter had good track credentials. Athlete like Mary Keitany whose track 10K is only 32:18, but she has run 30:45 on the roads or Dennis Kipruto Kimetto whose track 10K PR is 28:30, but he come through a half marathon faster than that. Keitany and Kimetto went straight to the marathon and didn't put up creditable track marks, but with a doubt, they could been world class on the track. A few of the great marathoners were world class all the way down to the 800. Wanjuiri ran a 3:50 mile at age 19 and in his prime he possibly could have beaten Bekele in a track 10K. No amount of great endurance will get you to a 2:02x marathon. An interesting face, after winning the 1960 Rome Olympics, Abika Bikila ran a leg on Ethiopia's 4x4.
I always though that 2:05-06 was about as fast as anyone can run a marathon so at 2;07 I'd think he was pretty close. But sure, maybe better pacing could have gotten him 2:06. But we do know that Takaoka did get under 2:07 going a lot slower on his long runs than Jones did.
Track coach, yes, I did cherry pick slower guys to make the point that you can go under 2:10 without being a sub 28:00 10,000 guy.