Can Reid Coolsaet Break the 40-Year-Old Canadian Marathon Record (2:10:09) in Rotterdam?

I'm going to bet no. Maybe it is just because I've seen several hyped attempts in the last few years fall short. I like that Reid went to Kenya for a bit, and that he's going for it at Rotterdam this time instead of like Toronto. Rooting for him at least.

I hope so. It's been so long since Drayton set it. Then again, I thought that Peter Maher had a shot at it in the early 90's. I was in high school and did some of my workouts with Peter and man was he ever in shape.

I think he can and his recent week of missed training is probably a blessing at his age. See Lopes and his car collision before LA.

Unless the forecasted wind is a tailwind he's boned.

No

Coolsaet was at 7000 until the last moment, so he didn't do the sea level speed workouts. His peroneus flared up and his taper was drastic.

So he might not know where his body is at exactly, which might be positive or negative.

It is a loop course. How would you have a tailwind?

Looks like it`s going to be a headwind from 15-20km and then again for a short portion after 35km.

Now that the record is 40 years old it surely will start to slow down. Unless it's another Bernard Lagat.

Rotterdamnit wrote:

It is a loop course. How would you have a tailwind?

Slow moving tornado.

The record is not 40 years old. It's 39 years old. It was set on december 6, 1975. I'm canadian born december 5, 1974 and i'm 40.

I was 1 year and 1 day old when this record was set. If reid doesnt break it. I'm going to break the record myself at the toronto waterfront marathon in October. Canadian runners are lazy.

Guilty as charged, however, everything has to go just right not only in the race itself, but leading up.

I think you can be in X shape for quite a few marathons and miss by a little (or more of course) each time simply because of the effect of the distance combined with pace/effort. There is no race quite like it.

A 50K is often an easier distance, simply because the pace is slower by just enough to take the edge off, a 30K is short enough that you don't get that 32K-plus effect, of course....the dreaded wall.

This is one reason why I wonder if 2:00:00 could come sooner than people think, other than being a red flag for drug use, which I suppose might prevent someone from making it happen, but really, look at the 2:02:57 to 2:06 finishers, they typically don't look like they went to the well in a marathon - not like a 2:30-ish runner....could the Kimettos and Kipsangs and Keitanys have gone faster? Radcliffe look like she went to the well....

Anyway it is very hard to master exactly right. Ask all the elites. A small percentage will say they did as well as their potential allowed when looking back on their careers. They will almost always suggest they could have gone just a little faster.

Coolsaet has shown the signs of being able to run 2:08-high to 2:09-something, but to get it exactly right is probably more rare than we realize...maybe a little luck is involved too?

I'd like to see him do it and really nail it. Like a 2:07-high...just get the exact right day....

I doubt it. How many open runners from Canada and the US run 2:10? If he runs that time he would be about the #2 seed in the US Olympic Trials. (Yes, I know he is Canadian, just pointing out how few Americans run 2:10).

Re: 2:08-high to 2:09-something

According to the IAAF Scoring tables his 10,000m pb suggests about a 2:10-high, but he ran that 10k race when training and focusing on 5,000m...so I doubt his true potential was shown there.....

62:42 half best and a 13:21 5,000m....

No

'

Athletics Illustrated wrote:

Re: 2:08-high to 2:09-something

According to the IAAF Scoring tables his 10,000m pb suggests about a 2:10-high, but he ran that 10k race when training and focusing on 5,000m...so I doubt his true potential was shown there.....

62:42 half best and a 13:21 5,000m....

I'm 40 and i'm canadian and i am going to run 2:08 in toronto in october. It's my destiny

fred wrote:

Coolsaet was at 7000 until the last moment, so he didn't do the sea level speed workouts. His peroneus flared up and his taper was drastic.

So he might not know where his body is at exactly, which might be positive or negative.

I hate to say it but I'm leaning towards the negative here. The moment he hits the wall its going to flare up badly, either DNF'ing him on the spot or throwing him way off pace in the final few km.

I'm convinced he's got the fitness in him but as others are saying you need everything to go right. He has been fighting a nagging recent injury and that is something that is not right for racing well.

That would be...Cool (saet)

Athletics Illustrated wrote:

A 50K is often an easier distance, simply because the pace is slower by just enough to take the edge off, a 30K is short enough that you don't get that 32K-plus effect, of course....the dreaded wall.

What a bunch of crock.

If 30 k or 50 k were easier than 42 k then running a marathon would be easier for slower runners. Easily available glycogen will be running out sometimes after an hour depending on the runner's fitness.