Dance/gymnastics competitions bring out the worst in people. Dude was asking for it anyway.
Dance/gymnastics competitions bring out the worst in people. Dude was asking for it anyway.
Ahh. Back at it early this morning I see.
I love this notion that all these 1:05 guys are also 2:16 guys because of the VDOT.
By my count there were 38 guys at the trials who had a QT under 2:16 for the marathon. And what was it? Like 125 guys ran sub 1:05s, which as we all know is the same as running a 2:16 marathon, right. :)
That obviously means that the 1/2 qualifiers should have dominated the leader board and had a lot run sub 2:16.
Of the 38 who had marathon OTQs under 216, 7 ran under 216 at the trials. (~18%). Of the 125 sub 1:05 guys (you know, the guys who could easily run 2:16) only 2 ran under 2:16 at the trails - ~1.6%.
18% to 1.6%. What's amiss here? Did someone spike the half qualifiers' bottles or something?
Let's rein this in a little. All I'm getting at is that they are roughly equivalent performances.
I think the difference in performance at the Trials is at least partially explained by the fact that those who ran the full marathon to qualify felt more invested in the process because of the higher degree of sacrifice associated with their afford relative to those who used the half to qualify. In short, it was emotionally easier for those guys to bag it than the full marathoners.
I did not mean to say that running a sub1:05 means you ran a 2:16. I was simply trying to emphasize that I think that you have to include the qualifiers who used a half time when considering the depth of quality at the Olympic trials marathon level because they qualified in accordance with the standards that were established by th he committee. I think it's reasonable to assume had the half standard not been available, a fair number of those guys would've taken a run at the full standard, and that a fair number of those who tried to qualify would've been able to do it based on their sub 1:05.
As to the rest, let's just agree to respectfully disagree.
Better Get Google wrote:
Ahh. Back at it early this morning I see.
I love this notion that all these 1:05 guys are also 2:16 guys because of the VDOT.
By my count there were 38 guys at the trials who had a QT under 2:16 for the marathon. And what was it? Like 125 guys ran sub 1:05s, which as we all know is the same as running a 2:16 marathon, right. :)
That obviously means that the 1/2 qualifiers should have dominated the leader board and had a lot run sub 2:16.
Of the 38 who had marathon OTQs under 216, 7 ran under 216 at the trials. (~18%). Of the 125 sub 1:05 guys (you know, the guys who could easily run 2:16) only 2 ran under 2:16 at the trails - ~1.6%.
18% to 1.6%. What's amiss here? Did someone spike the half qualifiers' bottles or something?
Hey, that is great! With all of this new math and VDOT stuff, I have just now become a sub-3:00 marathoner! The Daniels calculator puts my 1:26:10 half at a 2:59:51 equivalent for the marathon. It also put me at a sub-39:00 10k, which I have never done, either. But, wow, I did it! :-) :-) In both the marathon and the 10k! :-) :-)
It is amazing how we can go right ahead and apply these "equivalents" to the elites...meanwhile, nothing but jokes, scorn, and mockery if they are even mentioned in regard to someone else's running.
What ever happened to running the race? Going the distance? Right here in this thread, we have someone saying that race performances--and only race performances--are the only things that count.
I do not think David S.P. would say that a 1:05 in the half is a 2:16 in the full. Where are you, my friend, David?
Better Get Google wrote:
Ahh. Back at it early this morning I see.
I love this notion that all these 1:05 guys are also 2:16 guys because of the VDOT.
By my count there were 38 guys at the trials who had a QT under 2:16 for the marathon. And what was it? Like 125 guys ran sub 1:05s, which as we all know is the same as running a 2:16 marathon, right. :)
That obviously means that the 1/2 qualifiers should have dominated the leader board and had a lot run sub 2:16.
Of the 38 who had marathon OTQs under 216, 7 ran under 216 at the trials. (~18%). Of the 125 sub 1:05 guys (you know, the guys who could easily run 2:16) only 2 ran under 2:16 at the trails - ~1.6%.
18% to 1.6%. What's amiss here? Did someone spike the half qualifiers' bottles or something?
Actually, I said "now" in my last message, but I was wrong. I became a sub-3:00 marathoner over two years ago, because that is when I put up the 1:26:10. Wow, I was wasting my time running in running those three marathons afterward. I should have just rested....
I get you, bro. You measure the depth of the marathoners by looking at the guys who haven't run a marathon and are not invested enough in the process to train hard enough to run a quality marathon.
Makes perfect sense to me.
JBL wrote:
ole man wrote:1980 US Trials had 56 sub 2:20s. Let that sink in for a minute.
Not only that. 93 ran under 2:25. That's almost as many who RAN in 2016. We had an incredible group during the height of US men's marathons. 93 sub 2:25 on that thick humid day too. Meb, Hall, and Abi (to an extent Ritz) have had great careers for the US, but I'd put the early 80s group against them any day. Depth and quality. I hope we can one day get the US back on top of the world marathon stage. Perhaps Meb has led the way.
We're going to reign this back in here a little bit. A lot happened over the weekend.
First, the fact that JBL here isn't willing to give Ritz full credit ("to an extent"), but HE'S RUN A FULL MINUTE FASTER THAN ANY AMERICAN IN THE 70s OR 80s is a good indication of what I mean by nostalgia tainting the argument. His PR is 2:07:47 in Chicago. Hell, he ran 24s faster in the 2012 Olympic trials than the guy (Sandoval) that won the 1980 trials...and he didn't make the US team (4th). Put the 2012 race head to head with the 1980 race for the first 30 places (because that's all I can find for 1980)...2012 wins at every spot. First faster than first all the way down to 30th faster than 30th.
The old guys keep bringing up 1980 as the proof. There has been some discussion about course mattering. I've tried to bookend 1980 and 2016, but obvioulsy that's not possible for 2016 exactly. This is guys under 2:20:
13-1976
56-1980
15(?) - 1984
---
18-2016
50-2012
You can't start looking at people >20 places off the lead at an olympics trial and >10-15 minutes back and use that as proof things were better in the 80s. There is a lot more money to be made at smaller races and from appearance fees now than in the 80s, so if I was a the olympic trials and I knew I wasn't going to be winning that day I would probably drop out and race another day for the money too. Back in the 80s there weren't as many alteranate options so guys might have been more willing to gut through an "also ran" finish at the trials than they do now. That doesn't mean today's training is worse or wimpier. It means guys have more options now.
Here is the summary: Before the 70s runners were slower. American running got really good around 1980. It was not so good in the 90's where all these old timers are getting the argument "people are wimps that's why running is so bad now." But guess what! It's good again now! At least as good as the 80s, and probably better. 4 guys in the last 4 years have been as good or better than anyone in the 80s. Americans are medaling at Olympics again!
Outsiderunner - Thank you for proving several of my points. You're best race ever is your half marathon by VDOT comparison, and it's just the barliest under 3:00 it can be. This proves that
1.) Your 1:26 probably isn't soft just because it's "old."
3.) If one of your best VDOT performance is "old" you're not really improving, just like I said
2.) You've spent a lot of time saying you were in "2:50" or "2:55" shape, sounds like you're agreeing that that's never been the case. You were in 3:0x:xx shape because you keep running 3:0x:xx
Smoove- the race times argument? you're better than that. must have been some pretty frustrating gymnastics...
Sorry to the guy that wanted this off the front page.
Damn Smoove. You're usually one of the best poster on LRC. How drunk did you get this weekend to post that stuff?
Yeah, not my best work. We all have our moments. I bought into what I thought was a direct assertion that I didn't have any real experience racing and was simply an armchair quarterback (see you on the roads . . . or in your case, the computer), so I felt that my citing my accomplishments was justified. Not a great look, I admit.
Give me a mulligan on this thread.
Interesting points, David S.P.
Just for clarification, I did not spend a lot of time saying I was in "2:50" or "2:55" shape. Others did this, especially my training partner. I did think I could break 3:00 at NYC, as I had done things in training over the summer and fall that I had never even come close to doing before--not even close.
In regard to the calculators, I actually think they are too aggressive (or too optimistic), especially the Daniels calculator. I brought up my 1:26:10/2:59:51 "equivalent" merely to point out that, yes, the proof is ultimately in the race (not in a "2:16 equivalent"), and so I agree with you. But I gather that you already knew this. However, one cannot simply shrug off multiple 5k PRs, a 10k PR, and some superb training runs. These things are certainly "indicators." After NYC, the first thing my coach told me to do was to "not forget" what I had accomplished in training. It was an excellent build-up, and a sign of better things to come.
Perhaps your best point ever was in regard to my taper. Perhaps I messed it up. I have thought about this a lot, and will be much more careful about my taper the next time around.
Peace to you, David S.P.
Do not worry, Smoove. Yes, we all have our moments.
We still love you. :-)
I have run both. Richmond has support throughout but fans the first 6 then no one for about 5 then some at the hill, then some from 22 in. So, a lot of quiet spots.
NYC is a madhouse all the way. It's a long wait at the start, and if it's cold or windy (it's always windy on that bridge), it takes a lot out of you.
Running NYC and it's so-called allure mean nothing to me. I loved Boston. I ran it 5 times and it was the best!
Cities like Dallas, Pittsburgh, Rochester, Minneapolis, etc.. have just as good of marathons, with a great feeling all the way along.
Faster4you wrote:
I have run both. Richmond has support throughout but fans the first 6 then no one for about 5 then some at the hill, then some from 22 in. So, a lot of quiet spots.
NYC is a madhouse all the way. It's a long wait at the start, and if it's cold or windy (it's always windy on that bridge), it takes a lot out of you.
Running NYC and it's so-called allure mean nothing to me. I loved Boston. I ran it 5 times and it was the best!
Cities like Dallas, Pittsburgh, Rochester, Minneapolis, etc.. have just as good of marathons, with a great feeling all the way along.
Pittsburgh is hilly, though, right? Not exactly a PR course?
Thanks...
Faster4you wrote:
I have run both. Richmond has support throughout but fans the first 6 then no one for about 5 then some at the hill, then some from 22 in. So, a lot of quiet spots.
NYC is a madhouse all the way. It's a long wait at the start, and if it's cold or windy (it's always windy on that bridge), it takes a lot out of you.
Running NYC and it's so-called allure mean nothing to me. I loved Boston. I ran it 5 times and it was the best!
Cities like Dallas, Pittsburgh, Rochester, Minneapolis, etc.. have just as good of marathons, with a great feeling all the way along.
Outsiderunner has run both too. That's not the point. What is the point? Not really sure anymore...
You obviously didn't get the memo. Your side ceded over the weekend. Nice try though. Better luck next time.
I had to dig to find this on page 6--I was wondering how the posts ended up playing out.
Geez Smoove, you sure did some major D measuring here. I laughed out loud and particularly loved the "(a world major)" part!! The only thing missing from your post was calling Google "Champ".
outsiderunner, the VDOT isn't lying, you could be sub 3, but you need to work on improving to guarantee it. From your recent times, you seem to have plateaued. Keep grinding, listen to the wise words of some of the posters, and, most importantly, don't anger Smoove!!!
NYC Marathon all the way
Had to dig to find wrote:
I had to dig to find this on page 6--I was wondering how the posts ended up playing out.
Geez Smoove, you sure did some major D measuring here. I laughed out loud and particularly loved the "(a world major)" part!! The only thing missing from your post was calling Google "Champ".
outsiderunner, the VDOT isn't lying, you could be sub 3, but you need to work on improving to guarantee it. From your recent times, you seem to have plateaued. Keep grinding, listen to the wise words of some of the posters, and, most importantly, don't anger Smoove!!!
Thanks...I am working on it. As much as I wanted another shot at NYC (though I hated the logistics of it), I decided to go elsewhere in the fall of 2017, perhaps Richmond. I am looking for a faster course with some cool weather. Richmond is not the fastest, but the logistics are good for me (pretty close to home). I also have Harrisburg in mind.
A friend suggested I skip NYC in 2017 and get a better shot at sub-3:00 elsewhere...and try to qualify for NYC 2018 at this Sunday's NYC Half. That is the plan. A 1:28 or better on Sunday gets me back to the NYCM in 2018. As of late, my IT band is finally feeling better, but my average weekly mileage has been low.
How you livin', outsiderunner?
Does not wanting my kids to watch a bisexual threesome at the Olympics make me a bigot?
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
No scholarship limits anymore! (NCAA Track and Field inequality is going to get way worse, right?)
Gudaf Tsegay will not race the 10000m? Just to spite the federation?