And I'll be the first to say that I thought he'd do really well, and he didn't. Do we have some idea why? Not really. It was apparent in workouts that Aidan Troutner was mastering the strength stuff better than Casey and Creed but I did not think they would fade like they did, if anything I figured I might be underestimating Aidan.
Was it the long season? Wear and tear from so many races? Is he injured? Just needs more time for strength work? I don't know. I'm not sure he knows. I was wondering a couple days ago why Ed had them on a 64 through half, and then try to negative split race plan, and I now think Ed did secretly know that they still didn't yet have the strength component, and having them go out in 64 was his way of trying to protect them.
But to return to Clayton Young's favorite analogy. "The man in the arena." And Clayton Young would know, because he ran a 2:29 debut marathon at 26 yo. And then ran a 2:16:07 in his second marathon. It is so easy and so comfortable to look at an athlete who didn't master the 26.2 on his first try and to laugh and point. And to write him off and say "oh he's not going to be any good."
I still think he's a top marathoning prospect. I still think he has elite talent. Elite speed. Incredible rider. Maybe the strength component will take more time than I anticipated. He has still only ever raced over 10k twice. He's never raced a half marathon, or even a road 10k. The dream is delayed. Not denied.
Let's peel the "facts" of the onion back a little deeper.
Salazar ran 2:09:41 his first time out, also not having run a 1/2 marathon and on a tougher course in windy conditions, NYC 1980.
Casey ran a 27:11 10,000 this year on the track. He ran a 20k road race this year in 58:05, close enough to a half and it translates to a sub 1:01:25 half.
No, he hasn't run a 10k road race....but with his pr's that I listed above, would it make a difference?
Salazar ran 27:25 in 1982, almost 2 years after that first marathon in 1980. Casey ran 14 seconds faster in his best 10,000 and that was before he ran his first marathon.
You said, "Maybe the strength component will take more time than I anticipated" What?
Respectfully, over-analysis can lead to paralysis, sir. He may have had a bad race. He may have had many things going on, but....it wasn't due to anything even remotely close to what you posted. Whatever happened it had NOTHING to do with the strength component.
Alberto was 22 , Casey is 27.
Respectfully, what is this analysis supposed to be? Why are we cherrypicking a comparison with Alberto Salazar, of all people? Like, this is completely bizarre to me, and a completely pointless comparison. You offer no logical explanation for why you cherrypick this comparison either. Nowhere in my post did I mention Salazar, or allude to him, I've never tried to compare the two. You are an enigma.
Let's peel the "facts" of the onion back a little deeper.
Salazar ran 2:09:41 his first time out, also not having run a 1/2 marathon and on a tougher course in windy conditions, NYC 1980.
Casey ran a 27:11 10,000 this year on the track. He ran a 20k road race this year in 58:05, close enough to a half and it translates to a sub 1:01:25 half.
No, he hasn't run a 10k road race....but with his pr's that I listed above, would it make a difference?
Salazar ran 27:25 in 1982, almost 2 years after that first marathon in 1980. Casey ran 14 seconds faster in his best 10,000 and that was before he ran his first marathon.
You said, "Maybe the strength component will take more time than I anticipated" What?
Respectfully, over-analysis can lead to paralysis, sir. He may have had a bad race. He may have had many things going on, but....it wasn't due to anything even remotely close to what you posted. Whatever happened it had NOTHING to do with the strength component.
Alberto was 22 , Casey is 27.
1982 was a short course and it was not windy at all.
No, that is the wrong angle. Why are you accepting his ludicrous comparison. No one ever said Casey Clinger was the next coming of Alberto Salazar. I can say that if we rank the top 10 US marathoners currently, not by PBs but by accomplishments, 9 of them have slower first marathons than Alberto Salazar. So this is a truly inane comparison and serves absolutely no purpose.
Like, I'm literally sitting here scratching my head trying to think of how he selected such a stupid comparison. There are actually really good comparisons you can reach for. Clayton was Casey's teammate, debuted in 2:29. Rory Linkletter was Casey's teammate, debuted in 2:16:42, he took 11 marathons to get under 2:08.
Comparing Casey Clinger to Alberto Salazar makes equal sense to comparing Casey Clinger to Harry Styles. It would only make sense in the mind of someone who can't do comparative analysis.
1982 was a short course and it was not windy at all.
No, that is the wrong angle. Why are you accepting his ludicrous comparison.
As I posted before 1982 was a typo I meant 1980. Also I was mistaken about it not being windy, it was, but it was from the ESE, making it a mostly tailwind. 1982 was windy. 1981 was not.
Let's peel the "facts" of the onion back a little deeper.
Salazar ran 2:09:41 his first time out, also not having run a 1/2 marathon and on a tougher course in windy conditions, NYC 1980.
Casey ran a 27:11 10,000 this year on the track. He ran a 20k road race this year in 58:05, close enough to a half and it translates to a sub 1:01:25 half.
No, he hasn't run a 10k road race....but with his pr's that I listed above, would it make a difference?
Salazar ran 27:25 in 1982, almost 2 years after that first marathon in 1980. Casey ran 14 seconds faster in his best 10,000 and that was before he ran his first marathon.
You said, "Maybe the strength component will take more time than I anticipated" What?
Respectfully, over-analysis can lead to paralysis, sir. He may have had a bad race. He may have had many things going on, but....it wasn't due to anything even remotely close to what you posted. Whatever happened it had NOTHING to do with the strength component.
Alberto was 22 , Casey is 27.
Respectfully, what is this analysis supposed to be? Why are we cherrypicking a comparison with Alberto Salazar, of all people? Like, this is completely bizarre to me, and a completely pointless comparison. You offer no logical explanation for why you cherrypick this comparison either. Nowhere in my post did I mention Salazar, or allude to him, I've never tried to compare the two. You are an enigma.
Based on your post, if you cannot understand my analysis and comparison, then I would re-read it or re-think what "you" posted.
Comparing to Alberto Salazar had nothing and everything to do with it. If the name of the person had been Bill Rodgers or Edward Sissorhands, it wouldn't matter. Look at the times, ages and race comparisons that I laid out for you as easily as anyone could have.
You talk about strength component? Do you know what Salazar's best 1/2 and best 20k race was? Casey's 20k is faster than what Salazar did in Chicago for 20k on the roads. Casey's was a lot faster.
Are you implying Salazar had to work on more strength, or that he didn't have enough strength? That is complete nonsense and over analysis, period. You quote Clayton Young and it's gospel and applies to Casey????
Casey had a 27:11 10,000 to his credit BEFORE he ran the marathon, yet you claimed "maybe the strength component will take more time than I anticipated", almost implying that you are his coach and don't have him quite there yet. Sorry, that is utter nonsense.
Are you telling me that Mickow, Colley, Albertson, Ford and Troutner who all finished in front of Casey had the "strength component" down in their training and Casey who is trained by Eyestone didn't?
Give me a break. Casey had a bad race, period. Casey has plenty of strength and speed.
Respectfully, what is this analysis supposed to be? Why are we cherrypicking a comparison with Alberto Salazar, of all people? Like, this is completely bizarre to me, and a completely pointless comparison. You offer no logical explanation for why you cherrypick this comparison either. Nowhere in my post did I mention Salazar, or allude to him, I've never tried to compare the two. You are an enigma.
Based on your post, if you cannot understand my analysis and comparison, then I would re-read it or re-think what "you" posted.
Comparing to Alberto Salazar had nothing and everything to do with it. If the name of the person had been Bill Rodgers or Edward Sissorhands, it wouldn't matter. Look at the times, ages and race comparisons that I laid out for you as easily as anyone could have.
You talk about strength component? Do you know what Salazar's best 1/2 and best 20k race was? Casey's 20k is faster than what Salazar did in Chicago for 20k on the roads. Casey's was a lot faster.
Are you implying Salazar had to work on more strength, or that he didn't have enough strength? That is complete nonsense and over analysis, period. You quote Clayton Young and it's gospel and applies to Casey????
Casey had a 27:11 10,000 to his credit BEFORE he ran the marathon, yet you claimed "maybe the strength component will take more time than I anticipated", almost implying that you are his coach and don't have him quite there yet. Sorry, that is utter nonsense.
Are you telling me that Mickow, Colley, Albertson, Ford and Troutner who all finished in front of Casey had the "strength component" down in their training and Casey who is trained by Eyestone didn't?
Give me a break. Casey had a bad race, period. Casey has plenty of strength and speed.
p.s. Can't do comparative analysis? Are you okay? My original post was just that, you just don't like it because I proved you wrong and whatever in God's name you were talking about. Strength component not there yet? You surely have never coached anyone of decent talent as that is a load of dog Pooh if I ever read one.
Respectfully, what is this analysis supposed to be? Why are we cherrypicking a comparison with Alberto Salazar, of all people? Like, this is completely bizarre to me, and a completely pointless comparison. You offer no logical explanation for why you cherrypick this comparison either. Nowhere in my post did I mention Salazar, or allude to him, I've never tried to compare the two. You are an enigma.
Based on your post, if you cannot understand my analysis and comparison, then I would re-read it or re-think what "you" posted.
Comparing to Alberto Salazar had nothing and everything to do with it. If the name of the person had been Bill Rodgers or Edward Sissorhands, it wouldn't matter. Look at the times, ages and race comparisons that I laid out for you as easily as anyone could have.
You talk about strength component? Do you know what Salazar's best 1/2 and best 20k race was? Casey's 20k is faster than what Salazar did in Chicago for 20k on the roads. Casey's was a lot faster.
Are you implying Salazar had to work on more strength, or that he didn't have enough strength? That is complete nonsense and over analysis, period. You quote Clayton Young and it's gospel and applies to Casey????
Casey had a 27:11 10,000 to his credit BEFORE he ran the marathon, yet you claimed "maybe the strength component will take more time than I anticipated", almost implying that you are his coach and don't have him quite there yet. Sorry, that is utter nonsense.
Are you telling me that Mickow, Colley, Albertson, Ford and Troutner who all finished in front of Casey had the "strength component" down in their training and Casey who is trained by Eyestone didn't?
Give me a break. Casey had a bad race, period. Casey has plenty of strength and speed.
This is true & points out one of letsrun's flaws. Posters who have never been there try to claim that they know the reason for an elite athlete's poor race results. Klinger needs more strength added to his training? That is one of the worst takes on an after the race performance of an elite athlete that I've ever read on these boards.
Love this. I think there’s so much more to the marathon than half and under. You’re dealing with fueling for the first time, that much impact for such a long time. People are more critical of a bad marathon than a bad 10k because the time difference seems larger. Nobody is saying Jakob should hang up his spikes after a bad 1500 at worlds. If you bonk in a marathon, they demand instant retirement.
So he went out at 2:09 pace and ran 2:16? So he might reasonably be in 2:12 shape if he even paced, maybe even a high 2:11. The final time isn't a true measure of fitness when you blow up. But either way, you'd think a guy like him would be better than 2:12 fitness.
Based on your post, if you cannot understand my analysis and comparison, then I would re-read it or re-think what "you" posted.
Comparing to Alberto Salazar had nothing and everything to do with it. If the name of the person had been Bill Rodgers or Edward Sissorhands, it wouldn't matter. Look at the times, ages and race comparisons that I laid out for you as easily as anyone could have.
You talk about strength component? Do you know what Salazar's best 1/2 and best 20k race was? Casey's 20k is faster than what Salazar did in Chicago for 20k on the roads. Casey's was a lot faster.
Are you implying Salazar had to work on more strength, or that he didn't have enough strength? That is complete nonsense and over analysis, period. You quote Clayton Young and it's gospel and applies to Casey????
Casey had a 27:11 10,000 to his credit BEFORE he ran the marathon, yet you claimed "maybe the strength component will take more time than I anticipated", almost implying that you are his coach and don't have him quite there yet. Sorry, that is utter nonsense.
Are you telling me that Mickow, Colley, Albertson, Ford and Troutner who all finished in front of Casey had the "strength component" down in their training and Casey who is trained by Eyestone didn't?
Give me a break. Casey had a bad race, period. Casey has plenty of strength and speed.
This is true & points out one of letsrun's flaws. Posters who have never been there try to claim that they know the reason for an elite athlete's poor race results. Klinger needs more strength added to his training? That is one of the worst takes on an after the race performance of an elite athlete that I've ever read on these boards.
I don't think its "letsrun's" flaw. It's an entire generation that is bombarded with information that they are unable to process. Their entire goal in life is to point out failure and proclaim that it's due to a character flaw. GOES HOME DEVASTATED. Only losers say that. That's an idiotic way of living. But they do it in every aspect of life. Except their own. Sports is supposed to teach character. It's supposed to teach winning and losing are complementary sides of the same thing -- the goal of achievement and excellence. The losers of the world don't see it. Anyone who says GOES HOME DEVASTATED I can guarantee 100% of them have never achieved anything. They're sore losers who want to project their bitterness on others. I've never seen a single world-class athlete act that way. They have empathy for their competitors. Losers don't.
So he went out at 2:09 pace and ran 2:16? So he might reasonably be in 2:12 shape if he even paced, maybe even a high 2:11. The final time isn't a true measure of fitness when you blow up. But either way, you'd think a guy like him would be better than 2:12 fitness.
He probably is better than 2:12 fitness. The thing is, you run the race five times you;re going to have five difference results. Especially in a marathon.
Respectfully, what is this analysis supposed to be? Why are we cherrypicking a comparison with Alberto Salazar, of all people? Like, this is completely bizarre to me, and a completely pointless comparison. You offer no logical explanation for why you cherrypick this comparison either. Nowhere in my post did I mention Salazar, or allude to him, I've never tried to compare the two. You are an enigma.
Based on your post, if you cannot understand my analysis and comparison, then I would re-read it or re-think what "you" posted.
Comparing to Alberto Salazar had nothing and everything to do with it. If the name of the person had been Bill Rodgers or Edward Sissorhands, it wouldn't matter. Look at the times, ages and race comparisons that I laid out for you as easily as anyone could have.
You talk about strength component? Do you know what Salazar's best 1/2 and best 20k race was? Casey's 20k is faster than what Salazar did in Chicago for 20k on the roads. Casey's was a lot faster.
Are you implying Salazar had to work on more strength, or that he didn't have enough strength? That is complete nonsense and over analysis, period. You quote Clayton Young and it's gospel and applies to Casey????
Casey had a 27:11 10,000 to his credit BEFORE he ran the marathon, yet you claimed "maybe the strength component will take more time than I anticipated", almost implying that you are his coach and don't have him quite there yet. Sorry, that is utter nonsense.
Are you telling me that Mickow, Colley, Albertson, Ford and Troutner who all finished in front of Casey had the "strength component" down in their training and Casey who is trained by Eyestone didn't?
Give me a break. Casey had a bad race, period. Casey has plenty of strength and speed.
"Strength" in running is the ability to hold a pace, even a relatively slow pace, for a long period of time. A fast 10k not only doesn't prove strength. That someone can run very fast for 10k but not for 42.2k is arguably an indicator that their strength is still being built up. Some runners are naturally very strong, like CJ Albertson is the 50k WR holder, but are not very fast, so they can hold a pace for a long time but they can't match moves made in the race. And I think any marathoner would tell you that strength stacks through successive marathon builds. Each build you get more mileage, longer long runs, to build more strength, and do more gut training, etc.
And I'll add to this tangent a bit. That's what makes Clinger specifically such a good marathon prospect, is that he is fast. Because within a marathon there are really fast portions. Take Boston for example. They came out in a torrid 28.53 first 10k that dropped every American Marathoner except Conner and Clayton. Then at 30k, Korir makes his move. Conner Mantz ran the 10k split between 30 and 40k in 29:44, that's what helped him secure top 4. There are a lot of American marathoners including all the guys you just mentioned, who have built up a lot of strength through successive marathon builds, who are very good at holding ~4:56-4:58 minute pace. The reason Casey is going to become an elite marathoner, whenever he figures out whatever it is, is because he can drop these fast splits. Like he did in 25k champs where he dropped a fast last 5k and left Klecker, Bor and Talbi behind.
Nothing I said "almost implies" that I am his coach. I'm obviously not his coach. I understand that many running fans are not fans of any other sport, so they don't know how people talk about sports, and take things weirdly. If I were to say I thought Justin Fields' pocket presence would be more developed by now, or I anticipated more improvement in the passing game of Amen Thompson, or I thought Dylan Crews would pick up hitting in the majors faster. Absolutely no one would think I was claiming to coach Justin Fields, Amen Thompson or Dylan Crews.
Furthermore, I also did not claim to know. In fact, I very specifically claimed I didn't know. To quote myself:
Was it the long season? Wear and tear from so many races? Is he injured? Just needs more time for strength work? I don't know. I'm not sure he knows.
To add to those possible reasons. It could have been gastro issues. It could have been bottle issues. I obviously predicted he'd run in the high 2:08s, so I clearly do not know, because if I did know then he would have run 2:08. My post is very clear that I'm trying to sort out what it could be in my head. And I'm honestly not sure he knows either, because he seemed really confident at media days, and everyone else from his camp seemed to feel he was doing really well in the training leading up to Chicago.
Your reasoning is very non-sequitur, partially because you seem to be strawmanning the things I'm actually saying and partially because the evidence provided and the arguments just don't seem to align. You're right that it could not be a strength issue. It could be, for example, a gastro issue. His gut isn't used to all the gels. I also never claimed I knew what it was. The english words "maybe" and "I don't know" are usually pretty strong linguistic indicators that the writer is conceding that he doesn't know.
I don't think its "letsrun's" flaw. It's an entire generation that is bombarded with information that they are unable to process. Their entire goal in life is to point out failure and proclaim that it's due to a character flaw. GOES HOME DEVASTATED. Only losers say that. That's an idiotic way of living. But they do it in every aspect of life. Except their own. Sports is supposed to teach character. It's supposed to teach winning and losing are complementary sides of the same thing -- the goal of achievement and excellence. The losers of the world don't see it. Anyone who says GOES HOME DEVASTATED I can guarantee 100% of them have never achieved anything. They're sore losers who want to project their bitterness on others. I've never seen a single world-class athlete act that way. They have empathy for their competitors. Losers don't.