The Marathon Project was a HUGE success, but is Marty Hehir the equivalent of a 13:30 5000 runner?

Was there even one Nike runner in the men's/women's races? I get that it was a Brooks-sponsored event and little prize money but there were Adidas, Asics, Hoka athletes competing. Are Nike athletes contractually prohibited from competing at races sponsored by competitors?

I think Martin has run 13:29.94 in 2017 so there is no doubt that he is a 13:30 guy. Having said that, it is difficult to say whether he has improved much, or how much. My guess is he has improved some as a runner and then the shoes have helped him also. Maybe he moves up well also, although again, how much of that is his response to the shoes? Of course Billy Rodgers was probably a 13:30 guy, despite never quite running their fast, and he did OK in the marathon. But times were different in that era. Maybe with these shoes Billy runs 2:06. Who knows. I think it is really at a point where, and your post implicitly alludes to this, where relativity of place is paramount. The times matter a little less. Martin won the race and he ran well for sure. I would not compare him to 2:08 marathoners from a generation ago, however.

If you compare times to their respective world records, Hehir's time is closer to 13:20. Another more fitting comparison you can make is based off of the World Athletics lists. World Athletics cuts off their 5000m rankings at 14:50. According to their own scoring tables, a 14:50 is equal to a 2:25 marathon. In 2020, 2638 people ran sub 14:50. Meanwhile, 941 people ran sub 2:25. As a percent of the whole, Hehir is equal to the 311th best 5000m runner this year. That person ran 13:51. I don't really have a message I'm trying to push here, I'm just trying to display other ways to look at this.

What would be cool would be if someone managed to speed rate marathons similarly to how Bill Meylan speed rates HS XC.

Per iaaf his 5k Pr is 13:29.9. So I’d say it’s a fair comparison.

I think the takeaway should be less “wow it’s incredible that really good but not great college guys (hehir, Fauble, etc) can run 2:09” and more that we should have higher expectations for more talented guys (and that we need our more talented guys to actually run the marathon. If guys in the Ben true mold moved up instead of spending their entire career trying to squeeze out every last drop of 5k potential, 209 wouldn’t seem like a big deal for Americans)

It’s definitely a testament to how weak american marathoning really is. Compared to other events there just aren’t any super high talent runners. Rupp is definitely the only international caliber Marathoner at this time. Everyone else is like B or C class international talent. 2:08:59, while great for an American just isn’t a very good time in this day and age.

Not sure how long you guys are following running in the US but it can't be that long.

The US will never be a running superpower like Kenya or Ethiopia. Why, not enough talent who is hungry enough to give it all to running. In developing countries this is the only chance for many to make it big.

In the US on the other hand there are many other sports and other distractions and you don't have to run to make a living.

Sports in the US is Football, Baseball and Basketball. That's it.

Track & Field is absolutely unimportant for most.

Just because we like running does not mean anything in a bigger context.

iDiott wrote:

I think Martin has run 13:29.94 in 2017 so there is no doubt that he is a 13:30 guy. .

When I posted it, I had no idea what his track time was or had even thought about looking it up. I think it's better than 13:30, but not by a ton. Don't misunderstand me, Hehir is still pretty darn good, but the top of the world is just absurd now.

When I asked John Kellogg for his thoughts today in the office, John said something along the lines of, "It's really hard to compare anything from this era to past eras because of doping - either pharmaceutical or mechanical." But then we started appreciating Hehir.

For some reason, I asked John who would win Hehir or Frank Shorter. John instinctively started to say SHorter and then he said, "Wait a minute. Hehir is a sub-4 miler. Shorter was only like 4:02." So he had to pause to think about it for a minute. He eventually thought about it and said Shorter as I think it's fair to say the shoes and course are worth more than 90 seconds. Shorter was a 13:26/2:10:30 guy and a champion. If they raced, John said he'd go with Shorter.

In the end, John quipped, "They are similar - except for that Olympic gold medal thing."

Whats the point?

What's the point of this? Why you gotta trash him/American men so quickly? We can't be excited for a few days before you start up with this clickbait nonsense. No, it's not the same at all. How many sub-13:30 US men are there in a given season versus sub-2:09 runners? If you're a 13:30 guy, you have no shot at the Olympics. Ward wasn't a sub-2:09 guy when he took 6th at the OG. I'll give you that there's more depth in the marathon globally but sub-2:09 makes you much better at your event than 13:30.

And, FWIW, there's nothing wrong with being a 13:30 guy. That's fast, albeit not quite national class.

Thanks and no thanks to Gault for bringing US running fans back down to earth,,,

Maybe just a few more days of being all pumped up by the great runs on Sunday would have been nice.

But it was a fast course with amazing weather, great pacing and a new breed of shoes. Plus most marathoners from the US always place better/ 'look' better in predominantly US runner races (and that includes Boston, NY and Chicago where they can only bring in, or want to bring in, so many foreign pros)

The 16 seconds per mile slower than the world record stat is telling. If it was run on a track that means a 2:09 runner would lose sight of the leader running world record pace after about a mile, and might be lapped 6+ times.

I am going to give every man who broke 2:10 on Sunday the equivalent of a sub 13:25 5K. There were far more chances to run a fast 5k in 2020 than to run a fast marathon. But even if a few ran equivalent of sub 13:20 on Sunday, that just is not that great on the world stage anymore.

malmo wrote:

Whats the point?

I agree. What’s the point? It appears that people enjoyed what they saw. Can’t we jus leave it at that? If I go to the movie theatre and really enjoy a movie, I don’t immediately say how does that compare to movies of the past? Let’s just enjoy without searching for a negative angle.

Also your takeaways are trash. You write all of that to trash our best runners and conclude that we trail what, maybe 3 countries at the distance? That seems fine. Get over yourselves. Complaining like this and only focusing on shoes does nothing for the sport. There were so many great things that came out of the marathon project. Luckily other outlets are providing us with that kind of uplifting and encouraging content.

Mr Abernathy wrote:

malmo wrote:

Whats the point?

I agree. What’s the point? It appears that people enjoyed what they saw. Can’t we jus leave it at that? If I go to the movie theatre and really enjoy a movie, I don’t immediately say how does that compare to movies of the past? Let’s just enjoy without searching for a negative angle.

The point is that this is a message board where distance running is discussed, among other subjects. Surely you two understand that this is fodder for discussion among distance running participants and fans?

I am more inclined to compare the performance to Americans than Africans. Americans on average are larger than East Africans which magnifies the difference in time at longer distances. I didn't check the 5k American times but his all time place in the marathon probably puts him about 13 flat in the 5k.

The US will not be a running superpower without engaging in the same level of blatant doping. The end.

Dr Yuengling wrote:

Per iaaf his 5k Pr is 13:29.9. So I’d say it’s a fair comparison.

I think the takeaway should be less “wow it’s incredible that really good but not great college guys (hehir, Fauble, etc) can run 2:09” and more that we should have higher expectations for more talented guys (and that we need our more talented guys to actually run the marathon. If guys in the Ben true mold moved up instead of spending their entire career trying to squeeze out every last drop of 5k potential, 209 wouldn’t seem like a big deal for Americans)

This. Droddy should have been this fast a couple years ago if he didn't underrace.

Mr Abernathy wrote:

malmo wrote:

Whats the point?

I agree. What’s the point? It appears that people enjoyed what they saw. Can’t we jus leave it at that? If I go to the movie theatre and really enjoy a movie, I don’t immediately say how does that compare to movies of the past? Let’s just enjoy without searching for a negative angle.

Then how do they deal with all those jealous feelings??

It's hard to tell what the takeaway is from this race, and I suspect it won't be talked about much after a couple weeks, because we know that 2:09 is not as great as it used to be.

It was an impressive run from Hehir and Droddy and others, but I don't think they're faster than than our 2:11 try-hards of yesteryear, guys like Brian Sell, Nick Arciniaga, Brett Gotcher, etc. Even 10 years ago, we all would have been legit excited about a random American running 2:08:59, and now the feeling is just kind of like "eh, everyone's faster now because of the shoes. So what."

NERunner53 wrote:

What's the point of this? Why you gotta trash him/American men so quickly? We can't be excited for a few days before you start up with this clickbait nonsense. No, it's not the same at all. How many sub-13:30 US men are there in a given season versus sub-2:09 runners? If you're a 13:30 guy, you have no shot at the Olympics. Ward wasn't a sub-2:09 guy when he took 6th at the OG. I'll give you that there's more depth in the marathon globally but sub-2:09 makes you much better at your event than 13:30.

And, FWIW, there's nothing wrong with being a 13:30 guy. That's fast, albeit not quite national class.

You gotta chill, dog. Why do you take everything as some sort of personal affront? Nobody is trashing anyone. No one said there was anything wrong with running 13:30. Everyone is happy for Hehir and thinks he ran a great race. We can enjoy his performance and also have a discussion about where it stands on the world stage.