American marathoners should hang their heads low in shame. Second best is 2:12? Seriously?

CIM is stupid wrote:

Ward, Biwott, Derrick, and Fauble all received more appearance money to run on a slow NY course than they would have to run on 3 plus minute faster course at CIM and win.

If all 4 of those guys ran at CIM we would have had 5 Americans under 2:10 and this board would of called it a resurgence.

This is a good point. Making a living at the top includes considerations of appearance and prize money above absolute times. If time chasing on fast courses led to more money for American marathoners, I think we see some faster times.

I'm pretty sure that Squires is retired now. I'm not completely certain but close to it.

For a runner to earn even close to what an average bub with a degree (or no degree) can make in a filthy entry level office job or other jobs, then you have to be pretty legit on the roads and receive income from a sponsor in addition. So, I think that if we want to get more guys under 2:10, then we need more men coming out of college pursuing running full time. But, in order to get people doing this, there needs to be training groups that actually pay athletes as much as what you can earn in your standard american entry level job. Do other non endurance pro athletes work to support their ability to train? No, they train and perform to make money because it's their job.

Groups like NAZ Elite support athletes pretty well from what ive seen, but there arent many groups like this out there. So to me, the big thing is money. Like someone already said, a thousand bucks is a lot of money in East Africa, but that might pay a couple months of rent here...

Also, I understand it can be done to train seriously while working full time (I try and pull it off myself, but you're never gonna get as far in running that way I think.

I know. Everyone knows that. The issue I was getting at is that there might not be enough post collegiate runners out there in part because it's difficult to train at a high level while in charge of many other responsibilities like a full time job.

tropicalrunner wrote:

runnerguy315 wrote:

really? then what would you brag about?

2:01:39 would be a good start

So if an athlete doesn't run the world record then they can't be proud of themselves? or we can't be proud of their accomplishments as fellow Americans?

2:06 is VERY impressive. Rupp is a factor in every race he enters.

the other guys running 2:12s... yea, not the best but also why is it their fault? if they are doing everything in their ability to run 26.2 miles as fast as possible, then why are we bashing them?

Best advice here

Many factors for sure but I think we set the bar too low. A US guy ran 2:14 in 1963 and he worked a full time job. Sub 2:20 is still considered good, sub 2:15 elite. Not many Us guys want to live in poverty after college and it's hard to blame them. The training is also a problem but that Tinman dude seems to be on to something and I hope more runners train in the manner he suggests.

Imma say it again: 39 runners have currently run 2:15:00 or better versus 27 in 2016 versus 15 in 2012 versus 13 in 2008. That gap will only grow from now until the Trials. If we see some good times this spring/fall we could approach almost double the number from 2016. It's not unreasonable to think that could happen; it's optimistic. Please try to look at the whole picture before just saying we should panic and that men's marathoning is down right now. An argument can be made that it's better than it ever has been before. An argument could be made that you could get us pumped up about the Trials and be a good steward of the sport because 38 runners have a somewhat realistic shot at the 2 & 3 spots on the team assuming Rupp is healthy.

Sure, the top times aren't quite there but I think a lot of that is due to top US talent running US majors, not having good weather days on those somewhat difficult courses (2 out of the 3 at least, plus Chicago hasn't been producing good weather days). We certainly have greater depth in US distance running as we head into 2019, which is leading to strong finishes at the US majors and at the Olympics. We went 3 & 6 & 33 (Meb had an off day) in 2016. I would expect all three team members in 2020 to be top-10 threats. Is that what we call hanging our heads in shame?[/quote]

In Japan vs. USA is Japan better also because of the number of distance runners they have that go into the marathon at a young age? We have a lot of sub 14:00 5,000 m talent that never sees the marathon here. Or monstrous talent like Evan Jager who does Steeplechase instead of the marathon or Edward Che’s. The USA has solid talent all around in every distance event from 800 m to the marathon. Japan can’t claim that. Our marathon team is not world class yet as far as times are concerned, but there are some young guys like Stinson and Derrick that are waiting to 2:09 and newbies like Brogan. Also, oldies likes Jared Ward have elite competition experience too.

Do you realize that other countries have done basically the same thing to the 2:05 mark? 14 Ethiopians under 2:06 in 2018, compared with just 1 in 2008? Similar numbers for Kenya.

So you are saying that the US so impressively battles a standard roughly FIVE PERCENT slower than what leading countries are chasing? And you call that good news? Should we be proud if we get a few dozen men under a joke 10.50 in the 100 while the rest of the world sets the elite bar at 10.00? NO. You are talking about a level so far from world class that they basically shouldn't be in the Olympics.

PATHETIC.

Now you're blaming the weather?? Stop with the PATHETIC excuses. No Americans but Rupp ran well in Chicago because no Americans but Rupp are any good. PERIOD.

And WTF are you even talking about? Chicago had a PERFECT weather day in 2016, and a perfectly good day in 2017. In 2018 the temperature was also perfect (low 50s) and the wind barely touched 10mph with spots of rain during the race.

WHAT?? Who are you with this logic, Scott Fauble???

You are arguing that we should be "pumped" that 2:15 38 hacks have a realistic shot at our OLYMPIC TEAM? REALLY??? Would you be "pumped" if a bunch of 10.5 guys had a legitimate shot in the 100? NO. For you to say that only furthers the point of how WEAK men's American marathoning is right now.

Far Out West wrote: Imma say it again: 39 runners have currently run 2:15:00 or better versus 27 in 2016 versus 15 in 2012 versus 13 in 2008.

I don't think comparing yourself with 2016 is very helpful, informative or honest, to be frank with you (it's called recentism). in 1980, there were 8 US men under 2:12. they can be added to the 11 US men who had already gone sub-2:12 (listed below). how is having only one man doing that considered progress? how is having only one man under 2:12 considered good when almost forty years ago you had over a dozen?

2:11:12 Eamon O'Reilly Boston, MA (USA) 20 Apr 1970

2:11:36 Kenny Moore Fukuoka (JPN) 06 Dec 1970

2:10:30 Frank Shorter Fukuoka (JPN) 03 Dec 1972

2:11:16 Don Kardong Montreal (CAN) 31 Jul 1976

2:11:17 Jack Fultz Boston, MA (USA) 17 Apr 1978

2:10:15 Jeff Wells Boston, MA (USA) 17 Apr 1978

2:11:25 Randy Thomas Boston, MA (USA) 17 Apr 1978

2:11:53 John Dimick Metairie, LA (USA) 18 Feb 1979

2:09:27 Bill Rodgers Boston, MA (USA) 16 Apr 1979

2:11:52 Herman Atkins Eugene, OR (USA) 09 Sep 1979

2:10:54 John Lodwick Eugene, OR (USA) 09 Sep 1979

2:11:22 Richard Callison Metairie, LA (USA) 10 Feb 1980

2:10:41 Benji Durden Niagara Falls, NY (USA) 24 May 1980

2:10:55 Kyle Heffner Niagara Falls, NY (USA) 24 May 1980

2:10:19 Tony Sandoval Niagara Falls, NY (USA) 24 May 1980

2:10:20 Garry Bjorklund Duluth, MN (USA) 21 Jun 1980

2:11:09 Dave Smith Eugene, OR (USA) 07 Sep 1980

2:10:59 Robert Hodge Eugene, OR (USA) 07 Sep 1980

2:10:29 Kirk Pfeffer Fukuoka (JPN) 07 Dec 1980

cheers

If we were able to fully tap into the Native American and Hispanic talent pool like we do with rich white kids from the suburbs, we would be up there with the Japanese, at the very least. But that doesn't happen.

I think of talents like Leo Manzano, German Fernandez, and Isai Rodriguez as only the tip of the iceberg. There also have been threads about the talent on reservations and why it doesn't work out there.

When winning a marathon can literally change your life, and make you a national hero, as is the case for most east Africans, the difference in motivation, and therefore results, should be obvious to anyone who follows the sport. Most potential marathoners in the US are already upper middle class (especially by world standards). Winning a marathon doesn't change their lives materially, so therefore there is much less motivation.

Right. There's just not that much of a "pay off" for running somewhat fast marathons in the US today so mot that many people do it as seriously as they need to do it in order to get well under 2:12 or so. The event draws massive numbers of recreational runners and a reasonable number of serious, sub elite, amateur runners. If you're a pro there are generally better avenues to pursue. If there was an automatic payout of, say, $150,000 for a sub 2:12 and maybe $250,000 for sub 2:10 (and I'm not saying there should be), you'd see loads more times in that range. We also totally suck at racewalking for similar reasons, i.e., no one cares about the events and there is little in the line of compensation for being good at it so it draws a small number of enthusiasts and has a small talent pool.

I mean this is all fine or whatever but I think there's some balance to be found in this conversation. We can't just make a blanket statement and say that US marathoning is down when it is deeper than ever before. I think sub-2:15 IS a strong mark and that a 2:14 runner absolutely has a chance to make the team. They are likely going to need to pop off a 2:11 or better to do so. It's not out of the question that someone sets a pb by 2-3 minutes and makes the team after improving in the year leading up to the race. My point is that the US has more of those guys compared to the last three cycles. And about those last three cycles, it was the same five runners who went into those Trials with sub-2:10s. It's not like the US has always had a ton of sub-2:10 guys. I think when we line up the 39 sub-2:15s at the 2020 Trials, we will see some 2:10s, 11s, 12s.

NewtotheSouthSide said: I think there's some balance to be found in this conversation. We can't just make a blanket statement and say that US marathoning is down when it is deeper than ever before.

apart from the fact that you completely ignored the evidence presented in this thread that American marathon running is not, "deeper than ever before," did you even read what you said?

you said that you went into three Olympic cycles with five guys who had run sub 2:10, and you came home with how many medals? (hint: it was one, a bronze at Rio) but this time you think going in with 15 guys who have run sub 2:15, one or two of whom are going to have to "set a pb by 2-3 minutes" and this is somehow magically better?

how, exactly, is one sub-2:10 guy "deeper" than 5, or 8, or the 12 you had in 1980?

deluded.

utterly deluded.

the problem with American marathon running is that Americans have not yet admitted they have a problem. it's like being an alcoholic. the first step to recovery is admitting that you have a problem. "Hi, I'm John, and I'm an alcoholic."

when Americans start fessing up and admitting that there is a problem to be solved, then, and only then, will they have a chance at solving it.

cheers.

I agree with you guys, this was my post.

Many factors for sure but I think we set the bar too low. A US guy ran 2:14 in 1963 and he worked a full time job. Sub 2:20 is still considered good, sub 2:15 elite. Not many US guys want to live in poverty after college and it's hard to blame them. The training is also a problem but that Tinman dude seems to be on to something and I hope more runners train in the manner he suggests.

The other stuff was from someone else's post that I was trying to quote.

Agreed. If Brogan Austin can go from relatively unknown to suddenly one of the best marathon times in the US (course was easier I know), then there's no reason why we're not seeing more of this. It's all about showing up to the line fresh so you can push your physical and mental limits. I've found this myself last fall as well, often going into longer races with just a short race week tune up and nothing difficult the past couple weeks. Even with the current system that doesn't reward fast marathon times here, we should still produce more guys that can run around 2:10. The tinman is wise.

If you look at Tilastopaja All Time top 1000 Marathoners

The 1000th fasstest time is 2:10.08

1. Kenya 464

2. Ethiopia 184

3. Japan 100

4. USA has 20

5. Morroco 19

6 Great Britain and Spain 16 each

8. South Arfica and Eritrea 14 each

10. Tanzania 13

11. Italy 12

12. Mexico 11

Two words- Luke puskedra