I am going 2:09:45
He is consistent and a good performer. I say he targets 2:10 and gets it.
I am going 2:09:45
He is consistent and a good performer. I say he targets 2:10 and gets it.
2:13.07
2:13:34
2:13:08
2:12.34
2:14:27
2:08:12
2:15:52
Jerry hasn't produced any quality male marathoners yet. And he didn't really run well in the 10k. His sweet spot seemed between 3k-5k. He didn't run amazingly well in the ncaa xc championships either if I recall. No real challenges for the win at least. Not sure how well he will run here. Maybe he surprises like culpepper did.
2:08:53, plays it smart, goes out just over 1:04, manages a top 4-6 finish as as guys going for 2:03-:06 crater after 30k
Either 2:06 or 2:13 (wheels off).
He won't break 2:10 on his first try. That would have qualified him for the London Olympic team. Come on now.....I say 2:12
someplace between Nelson and Bairu
Cicirunner wrote:
He won't break 2:10 on his first try. That would have qualified him for the London Olympic team. Come on now.....I say 2:12
I mean...he's run 12:58 and finished 4th at the World Championships...
But now he's basically a 13:25 dude sliding backwards
2:23
Somewhere in the realm of 2:12
Goes out in 1:04:30 and bonks. Runs 2:15.
"Someone had to do it" your posts isn't very good. Let me take it apart.
someone had to do it wrote:
Jerry hasn't produced any quality male marathoners yet.
Jerry was a long-time college coach. Has he coached any marathoners? I don't see how that's a knock on him. Coaches don't 'produce' runners. Runners in many ways produce coaches. It's like a horse and a jockey.
Moving on:
someone had to do it wrote:
And he didn't really run well in the 10k. His sweet spot seemed between 3k-5k. He didn't run amazingly well in the ncaa xc championships either if I recall.
Not sure what you are saying here? Are you trying to say he's better at 3k-5k and not good the longer he goes. That's a fair and valid point. What the hell does NCAA xc have to do with it?
If he was running New YOrk, I'd say xc might matter as it's a hilly course. He's running chicago - it's a 26 point mile track race on pavement.
someone had to do it wrote:
No real challenges for the win at least. Not sure how well he will run here. Maybe he surprises like culpepper did.
What are you saying? That's a wide range as challenging for the win is 204-5 and culppepr ra 209.41.
Did anyone expect him to challenge for the win? I certainly don't.
JK's conversion chart has 27:26 at 2:09:04. So I'd put the over/under for a very successful debut at squarely 2:10. If he runs under that, it's highly successful and impressive (even though it's a long way from the win).
One thing I just realized. According to
http://www.tilastopaja.org/Teg and Culpepper are both the same height. 185 cm (6'.83inch). Teg's weight is lissted at 66kg versus (145.5) just 59 for culppper (130.1).
That's a lot of extra weight to be carrying around. no wonder Culpepper was good at the marathon.
I'm not buying though that he was nearly 6'1 and 130. Is that really true. Stoneham, are you on here, call him and confirm/deny.
You guys are in over your head if you're predicting a sub 2:15. Respect for his ability 1500-5000 and 10000 last year but the marathon is a different ball game for him. I am thinking 2:17-2:19. Still a way above average debut but nothing overly special.