dissed cleric wrote:
Great stats. Thanks for the legwork. Slight correction, Lopes dnf'ed in NYC '82, but your points still stand.
I was aware of that, that is why I said "first or second marathon". Also, I don't consider you to have had a debut marathon until you finish one. He DNF'ed because he stepped in a hole, or was hit by a bicyclist, while in the lead group.
Actually, I just looked it up, he crashed into a spectator. In any case he did not fall apart and had just run the 2nd-fastest 10k of all-time when he dropped out of NYC and also when he ran his 2:08:39. Which I believe was the 4th-fastest marathon all-time at that moment once Salazar's 2:08:13 was disallowed, after DeCastella's 2:08:18 and Clayton's 2:08:33 and Deek's 2:08:37 that beat him.
He went one second faster just after his 2:08:39 in Rotterdam in '83 in 27:23 for the ER and second-fastest all-time AGAIN. Then he ran 27:17 (again for 2nd-fastest all-time) just weeks before the '84 Games and his 2:09:21 OR. He ran a handful of road races that fall (winning most) and ran 2:09:06 at Chicago despite being really tired.
The next Spring (again having run 27:24, 27:23, 27:17 in '82, '83, '84 respectively - and being 2nd-fastest all-time for three straight years) he took that 10k ability and won the WCCC in Lisbon, Portugal for the THIRD time, and then set the WR with 2:07:12 again in Rotterdam.
Another example is that Virgin ran 2:14:40 in 1979 (and planned that effort that way) and then ran Fukuoka in 1980 in about 2:17 (and did not plan that - he had bad blisters) and then his third and last marathon at Boston in '81 just after
My whole point is that when you have demonstrated 27:30-28:00 ability consistently, you will likely run good marathons. There are some examples of people who could not (like Ritz in his first few marathons - until OT and the Olympics in 2012, or Bobby Curtis so far in two marathons I think), but for every example of guys who could not ever get it right or it took several races to sort out, there are 10 examples (like the ones I gave) of guys who nailed it in the first or second try.
Also, if you look over the list of examples I gave (and any examples you can dream up) the guys with good XC ability/ history usually make good marathoners right away. Chris Derrick definitely fits that mold.
Add to those examples:
Frank Shorter -
(running 28:22 in 1970 and then winning the Pan-American Games 10k and Marathon in 1971 - this was his first marathon or second),
(Then winning Fukuoka in '71 just after winning the US National XC title for the second time - this was his second or third),
(running 28:12, 27:58 AR, 27:51 AR in the days and weeks leading up to the '72 Oly Marathon win and then winning '72 Fukuoka for the second time)
Steve Jones -
years of success at XC at the International and National level as well as good results in the Steeple and 10k (topped by a 27:39 in Oslo in '83) - his first marathon in '83 he dropped out of (Chicago), second marathon he sets the WR in 2:08:05.
In his next outing he won the '85 London Marathon in 2:08:16 (3rd-fastest all-time) despite stopping to go to the bathroom.
In his third marathon, he ran 2:07:13 (2nd all-time by 1-second) in Chicago '85.
So, after four attempts, and after his first three finishes he owned the second, third, and fifth fastest marathons of all-time (2:07:12 WR - Lopes, 2:07:13 Jones, 2:08:05 prev-WR Jones, 2:08:18 prev-WR DeCastella, 2:08:16 Jones).
Not so steep a learning curve for some.
I think it is more difficult today for the African runners that Montesquieu cited (and for all elite runners today) because they need to pay attention to the testing window for EPO, take into account when to withdraw their blood and re-infuse it, and cease the steroids at the appropriate time. That is more of an issue about why some fail at the marathon.
Certainly drugs were used 30-40 years ago for those guys to reach 2:07-2:12. I can't tell who used them, but they were in use. But they didn't have to worry about the EPO detection window (there was no EPO), blood-doping testing (it was either not illegal BUT also not tested for), testing was much less strict and less sensitive, and pretty much the only thing they could not get away with was amphetamine use the day of the event.