Is this the vibram five fingers marathon WR?
Is this the vibram five fingers marathon WR?
I would have respected his result more if he had rocked the compression socks as well.
Nice job winning the race. But that outfit just cries out tool city. I'm sure he has lots of pictures of himself at home.
yes, i think this is the fastest marathon race time recorded to date. Good for him!
If he were a masters or female or both, then yeah. 2:37 is weak otherwise. I know RW types jizz in their pants over times like this, but in 2010 it's only going to win piddly podunk marathons.
ASDFWER wrote:
2:37 is still a solid time. I know it's not elite, but so what, dont be hatin'
ASDFWER wrote:
2:37 is still a solid time. I know it's not elite, but so what, dont be hatin'
Big Koch wrote:
If he were a masters or female or both, then yeah. 2:37 is weak otherwise. I know RW types jizz in their pants over times like this, but in 2010 it's only going to win piddly podunk marathons.
What part of "I know it's not elite" didn't you understand?
Hey, he also won by 11 minutes and wasn't running on the fastest course. 2:37 solo is respectable
ASDFWER wrote:
2:37 is still a solid time. I know it's not elite, but so what, dont be hatin'
Big Koch wrote:
If he were a masters or female or both, then yeah. 2:37 is weak otherwise. I know RW types jizz in their pants over times like this, but in 2010 it's only going to win piddly podunk marathons.
sigh... wrote:
What part of "I know it's not elite" didn't you understand?
Would it be worth mentioning here if he weren't wearing radical extremist freak footwear? Nope.
2:37 is solid no matter who you are. 6:00 mile for 26.2... not a lot of people can roll that fast.
Don't be a hater of the time. The man, I could care less about. The time? Well, 2:37 is pretty good. Even an elite male would tell you that its a solid time.
In 1977 there were at least a dozen runners under 2:36, it was extremely hilly with switchbacks coming down and it was 95 degrees at the finish.
Chuck Smead had the course record at 2:23, broken by Ed Chaidez with 2:22. There were a number of sub 2:30 marathoners from that time period who had a hard time breaking 2:40.
I think the course is not as difficult now, but 2:37 is still a good time on that course.
I'm sorry, but this whole 2:20 or under or you suck attitude is so tiring. I am actually of the opinion that we as a nation should/could be running much faster on average then we do. But that still doesn't make a 2:37, on ANY course, legit.
To run 6:00 miles for 26.2 is solid. End of story. You don't have to qualify it as a hard course. 2:37 probably shouldn't win you a marathon, but it makes the time by itself no less impressive. It more just makes a comment as to the depth of marathon in this country.
deriously wrote:
The man, I could care less about.
Could NOT care less.
"I used this race as an excuse to not train as hard for a week," he said, laughing. "I could change it up a bit, try running fast. So it was nice to go out there and just sprint for a couple hours. I'm very happy.
SPRINT for a couple of hours. This is a very general use of the word sprint.
Not a sprinter. wrote:
"I used this race as an excuse to not train as hard for a week," he said, laughing. "I could change it up a bit, try running fast. So it was nice to go out there and just sprint for a couple hours. I'm very happy.
SPRINT for a couple of hours. This is a very general use of the word sprint.
Well, the guy usually runs ultras. I guess a 26.2 mile race would seem like a sprint compared to 100 miles. He says he'll run the San Diego 100 in a pair of FiveFinger Treks.
The time was good, the outfit atrocious.
Mrs. M wrote:
not cool at all wrote:Arm warmers and no shirt. Wow.
He is wearing a hair shirt, as WTF said above.
Yeah, but all that hair should have kept his arms warm also, right. I'm sorry but the arm warmers and no shirt may just be the most toolish look in running history.
Right, because he wouldn't want to hurt your feelings.
deriously wrote:
2:37 is solid no matter who you are. 6:00 mile for 26.2... not a lot of people can roll that fast.
Don't be a hater of the time. The man, I could care less about. The time? Well, 2:37 is pretty good. Even an elite male would tell you that its a solid time.
deriously wrote:
I'm sorry, but this whole 2:20 or under or you suck attitude is so tiring. I am actually of the opinion that we as a nation should/could be running much faster on average then we do. But that still doesn't make a 2:37, on ANY course, legit.
To run 6:00 miles for 26.2 is solid. End of story. You don't have to qualify it as a hard course. 2:37 probably shouldn't win you a marathon, but it makes the time by itself no less impressive. It more just makes a comment as to the depth of marathon in this country.
This is true. The fact of the matter is that most of the dipshits on this board would have a tough time running 2:37 regardless of the course. To be honest I wonder why I bother to come to this cesspool of a message board as there really isn't a lot of information worth looking at anymore. It has devolved into a board full of elite wannabes that have nothing better to do than knock people who run solid times, and it gets old.
Is 2:37 National Class? Obviously not. But it is still a good time regardless of what the juveniles here would like to have you believe.
Not to mention most of them will never sniff that kind of time.
He still wasn't "sprinting" for even half of the time he was out on that course.
caller wrote:
Not a sprinter. wrote:"I used this race as an excuse to not train as hard for a week," he said, laughing. "I could change it up a bit, try running fast. So it was nice to go out there and just sprint for a couple hours. I'm very happy.
SPRINT for a couple of hours. This is a very general use of the word sprint.
Well, the guy usually runs ultras. I guess a 26.2 mile race would seem like a sprint compared to 100 miles. He says he'll run the San Diego 100 in a pair of FiveFinger Treks.
Sub-3 Thonner wrote:
Right, because he wouldn't want to hurt your feelings.
deriously wrote:2:37 is solid no matter who you are. 6:00 mile for 26.2... not a lot of people can roll that fast.
Don't be a hater of the time. The man, I could care less about. The time? Well, 2:37 is pretty good. Even an elite male would tell you that its a solid time.
Ahh yes... Yet another jerk who feels the need to stoke his pathetic ego by dismissing someone else's time.
Most elites would say that's a solid time considering that it is likely the man has a full time job and limited training time.
Whether you're sub 3 or not I don't see you standing on the Olympic Trials starting line either, so what makes you qualified to make such a statement?