Sage Canaday - 8:46/3000, but 2:21 marathon

He ran 4:09 (4:30c) and 8:46 (9:20ish) in HIGH SCHOOL. 2:21 from those HS times is not that special. Good times but I'm not surprised at all.

Waiting for 2:20 marathoner to comment on this thread.

Those times about right for a 2:21 marathoner.

Deena is a good comparison:

1500 - 4:07

3000 - 8:42

Marathon - 2:19:36

2:21 is an over-rated time relative to other distances. My opinion is that most American men train better for the shorter distances, relative to the marathon.

I disagree I think those times would predict something quite a bit slower than 2:21, meaning that this guys has some serious strength. I would like to know what sort of speed work he currently does?

According to this Mercier score calculator (http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/Mercier/window7.html),

a 2:21 marathon is worth:

- 3:52 for 1500m

- 4:11 for 1 mile

- 8:18 for 3000m

- 14:21 for 5000m

Take it for what you will.

Ummm just so everyone knows, he has run a 14:35 5k. Not that far off a 2:21 equivalent.

He also individually qualified for NCAA XC nationals this year.

He finished around 80th at NCAAA Division 1 cross country, covering the course in 31:00.

Canaday will do well in the marathon, and he can learn a lot from the Johnson twins.

He will need to get his 5000/10,000 times down to around 14:00 and 29:00 in order to make the next big leap to around 2:11-13 for the marathon. The question is, does Canaday have the ability to run that fast for the shorter distances? Difficult, but not impossibe. Only time will tell.

Ghost in Korea

www.gifle.go.kr

(apply now, positions in April)

He has a personal Web site he has posted here before that has some of his training info - http://www.geocities.com/sagecanaday/

geronimo wrote:

According to this Mercier score calculator (http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/Mercier/window7.html),

a 2:21 marathon is worth:

- 3:52 for 1500m

- 4:11 for 1 mile

- 8:18 for 3000m

- 14:21 for 5000m

Take it for what you will.

That can't be right, the women's world record is slower than that for the mile, but the marathon world record is 5 minutes faster (and several women have gone under 2:21).

Finally, I know that life at Cornell was initially a struggle for Sage, and I'm truly inspired by him for having become so successful.

ghost wrote:

He will need to get his 5000/10,000 times down to around 14:00 and 29:00 in order to make the next big leap to around 2:11-13 for the marathon.

Why not just skip the 5000/10,000 and run the 2:11-13?

I confess that I don't quite get the point of this thread. This guy ran a 8:46 for 3000 in high school. That's pretty darn good. Apparently, he's improved a lot since then. I don't see how his time for 3000 meters in high school is somehow limiting his marathoning ability.

I agree, I had tried to say something like this but I wasn't sure how to word it.

Why not just skip the 5000/10,000 and run the 2:11-13?

I confess that I don't quite get the point of this thread. This guy ran a 8:46 for 3000 in high school. That's pretty darn good. Apparently, he's improved a lot since then. I don't see how his time for 3000 meters in high school is somehow limiting his marathoning ability.

It's not, 8:46 in high school is clearly good. Ghost didn't realize that the 8:46 was a HS time. There may be some merit to running a faster 5k/10k to improve running economy for the marathon, but 1) it's a little presumptuous to assume that he's not already targeting faster track times, and 2) 14:35 5k speed isn't exactly going to limit his development beyond 2:20.

I don't get the point of this thread either. I think it was mostly a mistake.

PP

Sage is a born marathoner.

kdjfsp wrote:

geronimo wrote:

According to this Mercier score calculator (http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/Mercier/window7.html),

a 2:21 marathon is worth:

- 3:52 for 1500m

- 4:11 for 1 mile

- 8:18 for 3000m

- 14:21 for 5000m

Take it for what you will.

That can't be right, the women's world record is slower than that for the mile, but the marathon world record is 5 minutes faster (and several women have gone under 2:21).

Whose charts give a rough idea of what the same runner given roughly equal talent across the spectrum of distance events would be able to do in each. A true distance runner with a little, but not much, speed who runs a 4:10 mile might be expected to hit 2:15-2:16 with full aerobic development.

However, the woman who ran the 4:12 mile isn't a marathoner, and Radcliffe and the other sub-2:20 women aren't milers. SO in that respect the charts are sort of about comparing the relative value of performances from different athletes, i.e., "Which is better, a 4:15 mile or a 2:20 marathon?" That question looks like a no-brainer until you focus on women, whose lack of testosterone (I would guess) shifts the curve in favor of being able to hang on to relatively quaikcer paces as the distance increases.

Sage the Rage will do just fine in the marathon. He's got the right kind of "grind it out" attitude to put in the consistently difficult training to be a pretty successful marathoner. In terms of his track p.r.'s he has recently run 8:24 and 4:19 (in a bush-league Barton Hall meet) so he's not really that slow. I think he'd do fine in a Terrence Mahon type of system but would die a thousand horrible deaths in a Gags type of system (I don't think Gags works with many marathoners though).

I don't know why everyone seems to think that HS mile and 5k times translate to marathon times.

Either you are training for the marathon or you aren't.

I had a 10:38 PR for the 2 mile in HS and have never run faster than 15:20 in a 5K race, yet I ran 2:18 for the marathon because I was training specifically for that distance and not wasting my training time seeing how fast I could run the local 5K road races.

Ghost,

I have some questions about GIFLE, what's your email? Thanks.

That's the best comment yet... "You're either training for the marathon or you aren't".

I ran 49 seconds for the 400m in high scool, yet I ran 2:18 when I was training specifically for the Marathon. Marathoning is a different sport altogether and whether you run fast or slow on the track there's no correlation with other distances.

The point of my original post is that MOST Americans do not train properly / specifically for the marathon.