A 2:10 debut is great, nothing more needs to be said. Especially on a course that isn't a pancake like Chicago/Berlin/Tokyo/London. Twin Cities has just shy of 700 foot elevation, and is slightly net uphill. It's a solid minute slower than those other courses I mentioned. Kibiwott Kandie, while holding the half marathon world record, only debuted at New York (a similar course of difficulty to Twin Cities) in 2:13. It wouldn't be shocking at all if a year from now with continued good marathon training Richtman shows up to Chicago on a nice day and runs a 2:08.
OK but my understanding is that conditions were quite favorable, with temperature in the low 50s and mostly a tailwind, and it was windy. Richtman may never have better conditions in a marathon.
A lot of marathons are run in 50 degree weather. They typically take place in the fall, and spring, when average temperatures are around 50 degrees during the race. The race was 26 miles, the finish was about 7 miles away. So ya 7 or 8 miles net tailwind, but what about the other 18 miles? No tailwind on those. And New York marathon is also like 6 or 7 miles away from Staten Island to Central Park. Do people really make excuses with the wind helping when they get a southwest wind there? I don't really hear it, they had a nice wind either last year or the year before but it didn't really seem to make the times any faster. Because it's not like a point to point course where the entire thing is in the same direction
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
3rd place at this year’s 2024 Trials was 2:09:57. So a random 24 yr old guy running within 48s of that in his debut marathon seems reasonably noteworthy. This is a site of running fans so it doesn’t seem necessary to have to explain this.
Are you stupid? What did you say they contradicted anything I said? Nobody said it wasn’t worthy of a thread, but let us be real here. Matthew Richtman ran 66 seconds faster than the women’s marathon world record. I remember when doing this wasn’t considered a big deal for a man.
“BUT the world has improved so much in the marathon, to the point that 2:10 is just not competitive anymore.”
Since this thread started by saying he could be a factor at the 2028 Trials and you followed up your above statement by discussing Americans, then I can conclude “being competitive” includes being competitive on the American scene, not the actual “world”. Since 2:10:45 would’ve been good enough for 6th at the Trials and 48s off making the Olympics, I can reasonably conclude 2:10 is ‘competitive’ and therefore contradicts the first sentence of your post.
At best, your post was off-topic. Again, the OP said he could be a factor at the 2028 Trials. You, in no way, offered any information that added to that discussion. You simply said it wasn’t that competitive anymore-and that many have ran 2:10 before, but, in the context of America, as much as we wish it wasn’t, 2:10 is still competitive. That’s just how it is.
If you offer substantial, insightful information that adds to discussion, I’ll upvote you.
OK but my understanding is that conditions were quite favorable, with temperature in the low 50s and mostly a tailwind, and it was windy. Richtman may never have better conditions in a marathon.
A lot of marathons are run in 50 degree weather. They typically take place in the fall, and spring, when average temperatures are around 50 degrees during the race. The race was 26 miles, the finish was about 7 miles away. So ya 7 or 8 miles net tailwind, but what about the other 18 miles? No tailwind on those. And New York marathon is also like 6 or 7 miles away from Staten Island to Central Park. Do people really make excuses with the wind helping when they get a southwest wind there? I don't really hear it, they had a nice wind either last year or the year before but it didn't really seem to make the times any faster. Because it's not like a point to point course where the entire thing is in the same direction
I'll add that Twin Cities runs "long" as well, since it is so curvy and it's impossible to run perfect tangents on. So that adds some seconds (20? 30?) compared to straighter courses with similar hills.
This is why the obsession with world class times is so frustrating.
This guys story is awesome, small school division state xc champ in high school, ends up as the #1 runner on a good d1 team, and then after graduating starts grinding on the roads and runs a 2:10 his first time out.
The U.S. isn't East Africa with 500 guys who can run 2:10, we have our own system here and we should celebrate those that are successful in it.
Well the conditions would matter. Conditions were better to run fast at Twin Cities than at the Trials this year.
Ehh, the Trials were a very flat course with the vast majority of the race in the 60s. It just hit 70 at the end for the Men. Dew point around 50-52. It’s not ideal, but people had like a year to train for slightly warm conditions so should’ve been relatively unaffected. Again, dew point was 50-52, not 75-78 like Florida summers. It was actually one of the fastest Olympic Trials ever… so 2:10 is competitive for an American.
I would say the Twin Cities Marathon conditions were a little better but it’s not like it was a Revel race. But it doesn’t matter, my only point is that 2:10 is competitive for Americans. I’m not saying it should be, and that could change quickly, but currently it is. It’s not a matter of opinion; you were simply wrong when you said it wasn’t competitive anymore.
And also, why even say it? What’s the point? This is just a cool story about a guy running relatively fast. It’s not taking away from anyone. We’re not stripping Mantz of his sponsorship because we believe this guy is the next great thing. Matthew isn’t claiming to be God’s gift to running fans. It just serves no purpose to be like “well, it’s really not THAT fast”.
Well the conditions would matter. Conditions were better to run fast at Twin Cities than at the Trials this year.
Ehh, the Trials were a very flat course with the vast majority of the race in the 60s. It just hit 70 at the end for the Men. Dew point around 50-52. It’s not ideal, but people had like a year to train for slightly warm conditions so should’ve been relatively unaffected. Again, dew point was 50-52, not 75-78 like Florida summers. It was actually one of the fastest Olympic Trials ever… so 2:10 is competitive for an American.
I would say the Twin Cities Marathon conditions were a little better but it’s not like it was a Revel race. But it doesn’t matter, my only point is that 2:10 is competitive for Americans. I’m not saying it should be, and that could change quickly, but currently it is. It’s not a matter of opinion; you were simply wrong when you said it wasn’t competitive anymore.
And also, why even say it? What’s the point? This is just a cool story about a guy running relatively fast. It’s not taking away from anyone. We’re not stripping Mantz of his sponsorship because we believe this guy is the next great thing. Matthew isn’t claiming to be God’s gift to running fans. It just serves no purpose to be like “well, it’s really not THAT fast”.
You seem to be an extremely controlling person. Do you want to chill contrary opinions? I think one can celebrate Matthew and also note that Phil Coppess, who worked full time in a factory, ran 2:10:05 with the shoes available in 1985. So likely Phil would have run 2:08 in today’s shoes. But yes Matthew is a good story for sure. That doesn’t mean we cannot add to the story by essentially saying Matthew has had a promising start as a marathoner, and if he continues to improve, he could be a factor. Right now he likely is not. But he did very well yesterday. He is probably a smart guy. He turns 25 in January so the window is likely open for the next 5-6 years or so. Or he may move on from competitive running. I am sure he has options.
Ehh, the Trials were a very flat course with the vast majority of the race in the 60s. It just hit 70 at the end for the Men. Dew point around 50-52. It’s not ideal, but people had like a year to train for slightly warm conditions so should’ve been relatively unaffected. Again, dew point was 50-52, not 75-78 like Florida summers. It was actually one of the fastest Olympic Trials ever… so 2:10 is competitive for an American.
I would say the Twin Cities Marathon conditions were a little better but it’s not like it was a Revel race. But it doesn’t matter, my only point is that 2:10 is competitive for Americans. I’m not saying it should be, and that could change quickly, but currently it is. It’s not a matter of opinion; you were simply wrong when you said it wasn’t competitive anymore.
And also, why even say it? What’s the point? This is just a cool story about a guy running relatively fast. It’s not taking away from anyone. We’re not stripping Mantz of his sponsorship because we believe this guy is the next great thing. Matthew isn’t claiming to be God’s gift to running fans. It just serves no purpose to be like “well, it’s really not THAT fast”.
You seem to be an extremely controlling person. Do you want to chill contrary opinions? I think one can celebrate Matthew and also note that Phil Coppess, who worked full time in a factory, ran 2:10:05 with the shoes available in 1985. So likely Phil would have run 2:08 in today’s shoes. But yes Matthew is a good story for sure. That doesn’t mean we cannot add to the story by essentially saying Matthew has had a promising start as a marathoner, and if he continues to improve, he could be a factor. Right now he likely is not. But he did very well yesterday. He is probably a smart guy. He turns 25 in January so the window is likely open for the next 5-6 years or so. Or he may move on from competitive running. I am sure he has options.
You specifically said for people to explain their downvotes (and that they were too stupid too lol). Then when someone (me) replied with an explanation you called me stupid and an idiot.
YOU said “2:10 isn’t competitive”. I replied with evidence that it was in fact still competitive for Americans. So I don’t think it’s a good comment to say “eh, 2:10 isn’t that good, when in fact, it is actually right now”. You can choose to say whatever you want. I’m just pointing out specifically why I didn’t think your comments were good ONLY because you literally asked lol.
But on your last response I pretty much agree with you.
Look at this Will Norris guy. He ran 2:12:33 and from what I can see his best times are 1:05:21 and 30:28. So I don’t know what to make of it, but my guess is he can run faster at the half and 10000m, that he is made for the marathon, and that conditions were ideal to run fast yesterday.
A 2:10 debut is great, nothing more needs to be said. Especially on a course that isn't a pancake like Chicago/Berlin/Tokyo/London. Twin Cities has just shy of 700 foot elevation, and is slightly net uphill. It's a solid minute slower than those other courses I mentioned. Kibiwott Kandie, while holding the half marathon world record, only debuted at New York (a similar course of difficulty to Twin Cities) in 2:13. It wouldn't be shocking at all if a year from now with continued good marathon training Richtman shows up to Chicago on a nice day and runs a 2:08.
OK but my understanding is that conditions were quite favorable, with temperature in the low 50s and mostly a tailwind, and it was windy. Richtman may never have better conditions in a marathon.
I live in the twin cities and watched the race. I can confirm if he races on a faster course that will easily make up for perfect conditions here. All the best times are on super flat courses and TC is not that.
I think this is a great story BUT the world has improved so much in the marathon, to the point that 2:10 is just not competitive anymore. We had many Americans running 2:10 or faster every year decades ago. Now with the supershoes and who knows what else, 2:10 has become like whatever. But if he can continue to improve, then maybe he can become a real factor.
This is where downvoting has made this site worse. People downvote but they are too stupid to explain why. They just don’t like a post because it doesn’t make them feel good, and so they downvote.
You're 100% correct. You said well, simply analyzing his performance. You wished him well ending "maybe he can become a real factor." What does downvoting mean in this case? 1. I don't agree, he's real factor already (not true) 2. I don't agree, he has no chance to be real factor 3. I don't understand what you're saying but I need to do something, up or down.
Look at this Will Norris guy. He ran 2:12:33 and from what I can see his best times are 1:05:21 and 30:28. So I don’t know what to make of it, but my guess is he can run faster at the half and 10000m, that he is made for the marathon, and that conditions were ideal to run fast yesterday.
Winner was a 59 Half Marathon guy and 3rd place has run sub 2:10 five times with a couple 2:08’s, so that’s good company to be running near, and they didn’t run faster than you’d expect those guys to run.
but I just looked through Richtman’s training. I was hoping to see some big work, but he maxed out at 100 miles per week a few weeks, and most of his running is 7:25-7:40 pace. And his workouts aren’t especially fast either. So not particularly impressive in any aspect, yet he debuts as a top 20 American marathon runner of the past few years and near top 50 all-time Americans. Makes me feel like I understand even less about how to run fast. Maybe he’s in the weight room a lot or something that’s not running
I think this is a great story BUT the world has improved so much in the marathon, to the point that 2:10 is just not competitive anymore. We had many Americans running 2:10 or faster every year decades ago. Now with the supershoes and who knows what else, 2:10 has become like whatever. But if he can continue to improve, then maybe he can become a real factor.
This is where downvoting has made this site worse. People downvote but they are too stupid to explain why. They just don’t like a post because it doesn’t make them feel good, and so they downvote.
I down voted because there is no sense to downplay a good achievement.
2:10 isn't "competitive" but it's still fast and he could be among the best Americans.
There's just no need to be negative. OK, I'm sure the clown who posted that runs 2:04 and does long runs at 2:10 pace. But we're all not superstars like he is.
I think this is a great story BUT the world has improved so much in the marathon, to the point that 2:10 is just not competitive anymore. We had many Americans running 2:10 or faster every year decades ago. Now with the supershoes and who knows what else, 2:10 has become like whatever. But if he can continue to improve, then maybe he can become a real factor.
I agree with you. I add 2 minutes to every marathon to compare to times run before super shoes. So 2:10 today is like 2:12 ten years ago. That’s solid, especially for a debut, but it’s a stretch to say someone running that time is a “star.”
Everyone is wearing super shoe so you don't have to add any time.
The shoes that Bill Rogers wore in 1980 were much faster than the shoes that the guys wore in 1956.
And the shoes that Rogers wore weren't as fast as the shoes they were wearing in 2000.
I've run through the evolution of shoes from 1971 to the present. I just see them all as technological advances. Yes, we've taken an exponential jump with super shoes but so is technology in general.
And, as a 65 year old the nylon and carbon plated shoes are making running much more enjoyable for me (and others).
but I just looked through Richtman’s training. I was hoping to see some big work, but he maxed out at 100 miles per week a few weeks, and most of his running is 7:25-7:40 pace. And his workouts aren’t especially fast either. So not particularly impressive in any aspect, yet he debuts as a top 20 American marathon runner of the past few years and near top 50 all-time Americans. Makes me feel like I understand even less about how to run fast. Maybe he’s in the weight room a lot or something that’s not running
And that's why I was asking if his Strava was a complete log of his training. Probably because I was hoping he left out about 1000 miles of running this year to have it make more sense. :)
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.