Do I have a shot of qualifying for the 2012 Olympic Marathon Trials?

No

....oh and 0/10.

While 0/10 is pretty bad, this post was definitly moving toward the negative side. Not even slightly entertaining.

You have above-average talent, but no data that's really relevant to the question of 2:19. Odds are you can't run that fast, but I wouldn't say that your experience counterindicates the potential. The problem is that, from where you are, it could take 5-7 years to approach your potential. This puts you past 2012. It also potentially puts you into the beginning of your physical decline.

No question in my mind that you could be quite good, though. You could probably be a very strong masters runner. (Sorry for bringing that up. I know 40 seems a long ways away, but it's probably the point at which you'll be reaching full development if you start training seriously now. Many top masters runners didn't run when they were younger, meaning that they have less cumulative wear and tear on their bodies.)

I am being serious. I was doing my 27 miles per week just to keep in shape. And then my "serious" runner friend asked me to run with him in the marathon for as long as I could. He was trying to qualify for Boston. He bonked, and I ended up beating him.

No, you do not have a chance. If you had run 2:40 I would reconsider. 3:08 is a oowerwalk.

I ran 2:56 off less mileage, having never run more than 13 miles, and at age 19 and I know that 2:19 is way out of my league. I hope you are trolling.

800 dude wrote:

You have above-average talent, but no data that's really relevant to the question of 2:19. Odds are you can't run that fast, but I wouldn't say that your experience counterindicates the potential. The problem is that, from where you are, it could take 5-7 years to approach your potential. This puts you past 2012. It also potentially puts you into the beginning of your physical decline.

No question in my mind that you could be quite good, though. You could probably be a very strong masters runner. (Sorry for bringing that up. I know 40 seems a long ways away, but it's probably the point at which you'll be reaching full development if you start training seriously now. Many top masters runners didn't run when they were younger, meaning that they have less cumulative wear and tear on their bodies.)

Guess what? You are the only person who didn't get that this was an obvious troll.

shortshorts wrote:

No, you do not have a chance. If you had run 2:40 I would reconsider. 3:08 is a oowerwalk.

I ran 2:56 off less mileage, having never run more than 13 miles, and at age 19 and I know that 2:19 is way out of my league. I hope you are trolling.

Hey, thanks for that serious response. I am not trolling. I actually am thinking now about gunning for a sub 2 hour marathon. Is that reasonable? I am training 18.3 miles a week.

1. Possibly a troll, possibly not. The story is realistic. I know people with similar stories. Knowledge of trials qualifying timetables suggests more familiarity with running than one might expect of a novice, I'll grant, but it's not hard to do that research. Not conclusive.

2. Who really cares. It's become this big dick measuring contest to see if you can either troll people or call out the trolls. With a handful of exceptions, we'll never know for certain if any of the postings on this board are real. Why not proceed as if people are genuine. If we're not terrified of being trolled, then we remove the incentive a lot of the incentive for trolling in the first place. Furthermore, a lot of probable troll threads can provoke worthwhile discussion nevertheless.

Testing.

The last two "wishful thinking?" posts were not me. Somebody stole my handle. I am really not a troll. I just looked up the 2:19 time.

Yeah. The last one was me, just confirming that you hadn't registered the handle, because I didn't think it was you.

No. The U.S. is littered with pretenders like you. Go to any medium sized city and you will find at least one guy who says that he is training for the olympics. I guess that you are at least showing some assemblance of respect to hold back and ask the question of whether or not you can qualify for the trials.

Listen. Qualifying in any event for the national championship meet is a very difficult task. You have to have devoted your life to it. Respect those who have lived on Ramen and lived meager and sacrificed careers to chase the dream. By running for a year and then asking the question, you are spitting in our faces.

Understand the difference between 7 minute pace and 5:17 pace. Understand the immense work load and the fatigue that go with this. Understand that you have to run just over 30 minutes in a 10k to have a remote shot. Respect that race experience counts for something.

I just don't think your stats provide enough information. You'll need to put in a few thousand more miles before you even start to get a clue about whether you have enough talent to get anywhere close to 2:19. You may discover that you respond very well to increased mileage, and you may discover that you plateau long before you get into the 2:20s. But if you're trying to get under 2:19 within the next two years, you better get moving.

No question.

A GREAT GOAL.

But you are gonna need a coach with a track record.A guy who can bring you along without getting injured.A seasoned veteran who knows what it takes to hit 2:19.

Without the right coach you have no chance.

I am that coach but I am not cheap. I would take you on a trial basis only.At least for the first year. If at any point in time I determine you are not going to make it or refuse to follow the program I will drop you.

Send me a check for 1000 dollars to show your commitment.

Coach Q

Was the 3:08 a piece of cake? If so, I dunno ... Maybe ... Lessee I have a buddy who runs less than you do but is extremely fit (He does all endurance sports well with little training) ... He ran a 3-flat on a mostly trail course with 2,500 feet of steep hills. So he could certainly do a Lance ... But I doubt he could get himself into 32-min. 10K RUNNING shape or 2:19 shape for that matter ... Other friends who are ex-D1 sub-32 min. runners who trained lightly and "faked" marathons in the 2:40s and might have remote shots at 2:20 ... Get yourself into mid-15 minute 5K shape by next year, then come back and ask again.

Is everybody on this thread as high as a kite? He is obviously making fun of somebody specific but I can't figure out who. He has to be somebody wealthy. My top guesses are:

=a professional athlete

-Lance Armstrong (had to rule him out because hes run 2:40s

-Pro Baseball player?

-Tennis player- Andre Agassi?

-Golfer- Tiger Woods?

-some athlete that regularly makes stupid statements- Shaq?

=that poker player that makes bets on himself

=some celebrity from Holly Jollywood

please enlighten...

Thanks guys for giving me your opinions. I really wasn't trying to offend anyone. I understand that reaching 2:19, if possible for me at all, would require extreme dedication.

I enjoyed watching the WCs, and got inspired I guess, and started dreaming about my chances.

I understand that I didn't give you guys enough information to make an accurate judgement. I think I'll start heading over to the track on a regular basis and see how fast I can get.

This guy is trolling. Think about it:

He never ran in HS or college. He's new to running. Yet he found letsrun.com (instead of runnersworld).

He's not upset when people don't take him seriously at first (which indicates he expects it).

He knows what trolling is (and isn't offended that people accuse him of trolling).

He knows that someone stole his handle (which indicates he's very familiar with letsrun.com even though he acts like he's brand new to LRC and wants to qualify for the OT.)

0/10

- Like I said, it's inconclusive. It's pretty freaking easy to find letsrun. If you do any google searches for running-specific questions, lots of threads turn up.

- Trolling happens all over the internet, believe it or not. He wouldn't have to have learned about it here.

- Maybe he's just grown-up enough that he's not offended by the skepticism of anonymous kids.

- He would also have to be brain-dead not to know that somebody stole his handle.

I'm not saying he's not a troll, I'm just saying that it's certainly not clear that he is. So why not give him the benefit of the doubt? Is there any cost to you? Will you feel humiliated if you give legitimate advice and find out that it doesn't apply to the person in question? I certainly won't. Perhaps someone else can use the advice.