No WaY JOse' wrote:
Wrong, it is a very good barometer.
You are over analyzing it, as usual. Do you actually think that when they are racing for a marathon and run a half marathon 6 weeks or whatever before, that they aren't in shape to run both?
When Ritz ran his 10,000 pr of 27:22, 11 days later he ran his pr of 12:56 for 5000. Less than 2 months later, he ran 60:00 for a half marathon.
Please tell us how he trained for and pr'd in all 3 events? How did he pr in the 5000 after running twice the distance and setting a pr 11 days earlier? Aren't the 5000 and 10,000 two different events?
You made the idiotic comparison to the 1500m, which by the way made me feel quite embarrassed for you.
Do you actually believe that they are going to run 60 flat at halfway and do it again. Do you understand what the world record is for the half and how old it is? It's 58:23 and it's over 7 years old.
Do you believe if he had slowed down his pace about 8 seconds per mile, bringing him thru at 60, that he could have done it again???
No one is breaking 2 hours for a marathon for a LONG, LONG TIME! Any betters out there? Contact me, please.
Star---you really don't understand running, do you?
Star wrote:Using the half marathon progression is not a good barometer.
The top athletes do not train to race a full effort half marathon.
They almost always use a half marathon as a tuneup or a paycheck.
They focus their peak efforts on the marathon.
It's almost like saying it would have been impossible for El G to run 1500m in 3:26 since his 1000m best is pace for 3:25.