2:20 Marathon: How Much Talent Required?

14:30 wouldn't hurt but there was a Finn in the 70s, Pentti Rummakko maybe, who did 2:14 with a best 5,000 of 14:36 so I don't think 14:30 is necessary for sub 2:20. I actually knew a few sub 2:20 guys who never got close to 14:30.

there are multiple kinds of talent. i dont have much natural speed (took me about 6 months of running to break 6:00 in the mile in 8th grade). i was mediocre in high school, and wasnt fast enough to make my college team. but i did 2:22 this year as a senior in college and expect to qualify for the trials within the next year.

my talent isnt in an ability to run a fast 5k. keep in mind that my current marathon pace is my 5k pace from a few years ago. the talent i think i have is an ability to train hard and recover quickly. over about 6 years ive moved steadily from 50 to 140 mpw and chunks of time have fallen off my marathon pr.

hes my marathon progression from 15 years old to 21 years old. 3:05 (15), 2:59 (16), 2:44 (18), 2:35 (19), 2:28 (20), 2:22 (21). when i ran the 3:05 i was a sophomore in hs with a 5:04 mile pr and max mpw of 50.

its a long anecdotal story but i think its important to see that it can be done, is being done, and has been done (and by more people than just me). theres only one way to find out and thats to give it a try. you'll have to learn what kind of training works for you and if its something you truly want to pursue. there will be doubts and detractors the whole time. patience and consistency is key. you dont necessarily need a coach or a team (i have neither) but you need to be smart about it. progress slowly but steadily and try to have fun. unless you love it, its pointless

A really quick look at the McMillan calc says a 2:20 marathon equivalent with a 14:22 5k. That doesn't make breaking 14:30 a pre-requisite exactly, but it should have a guy with a 4:50 mile PR realizing how far he has to go.

2:20 is insanely good.

HRE wrote:

14:30 wouldn't hurt but there was a Finn in the 70s, Pentti Rummakko maybe, who did 2:14 with a best 5,000 of 14:36 so I don't think 14:30 is necessary for sub 2:20. I actually knew a few sub 2:20 guys who never got close to 14:30.

They could have just underperformed in the 5000, like Seb Coe and his 14:06. Or just be a lot better at the marathon.

notkenyan wrote:

Assuming they did not get injured, how realistic would it be for an 18 year-old to start training and building mileage, with no other focus in life, to run under 2:20 within 10 years time? Give them no running experience outside of HS varsity basketball, from which they ran a 4:50 mile without any additional, focused training.

Talent doesn't exist. You just need a good diet and good training. Kenyans aren't any more talented than Americans. Nor are Western Africans. There are people that point out that only one white guy has ever broken 10 in the 100 meters but it is because the Africans believe more; they have faith. There is nothing physiologically different between people.

no talent needed brah wrote:

Talent doesn't exist. You just need a good diet and good training. Kenyans aren't any more talented than Americans. Nor are Western Africans. There are people that point out that only one white guy has ever broken 10 in the 100 meters but it is because the Africans believe more; they have faith. There is nothing physiologically different between people.

True. So true. There is only one race, the human race!!!

In several of the cases I mentioned I expect that these guys could have run much faster for 5km had they really ever run one. In those days NO ONE raced 5,000 meters anywhere but on the track and if you were a road racer, which is what marathoners were, you probably hadn't raced 3 mile/5,000 since you graduated. So you're probably right about the under performing.

But Rummako was among the better Finns on the track though far from Viren or Vataanien. The 14:36 was probably pretty close to his max. And you had a guy like Ian Thompson who raced seriously at 5,000 meters for several years with a best of 14:05. He never improved that 5,000 time despite being a 2:09 marathon runner.

Within fairly broad limits, I don't think a 5,000 meter time is a good predictor of one's marathon potential. Obviously, a 17:00 guy isn't going to run under 2:20 and a 13:30 guy is more likely to than a 15:00 guy is. But when you get to, say a 14:20 guy vs. a 14:45 guy I think you have to look at stuff other than the 5km time.

The poster that said that only 40-50 Americans do it in an average year is onto something. Let's think about what that means for a moment. That is an average of about 1 person per state. One.

Think about that for a moment. That means for an average state, you would (probably) have to be the best marathoner, and assume that your competition for that title consists of people from approximately a 10 year spectrum (for marathons, early/mid-20's to early/mid-30's).

Sure, some talented runners never give the marathon a shot, and others quit the sport altogether, but there are lots and lots of dedicated runners throughout the country, and a very small percentage run 2:20 or faster.

Lastly, because it is a marathon, add in the variable of needing lots of things to go right to actually run 2:20 or faster on the day even if you have the fitness. I thought I had the fitness in 2008 at Twin Cities, but pouring rain and a nasty headwind for a chunk of the race slowed everyone down and I ran 2:22.

Long story short, you need to have a good amount of talent, but a lot of other things have to happen, too.

notkenyan wrote:

...Give them no running experience outside of HS varsity basketball, from which they ran a 4:50 mile without any additional, focused training.

This is simply not enough data for anyone to predict whether the guy could run sub-2:20. Have the guy train for 8 months and run a couple of 5k or 10ks and we could actually have a chance at telling you the odds.

Yeah, I agree with most of what you say. I think 5000 times are probably useful as sort of an estimate, but not much more (which I think is pretty much what you were saying).

nik nik nik wrote:

To get to 2:20 an athlete would need to get to sub 15 (probably 14:40s or better) 5K and 30:30 for 10K. And as others have said, there are plenty of runners who have gone much faster than those times that never made it.

Not necessarily. A guy I know has run 2:21 (downhill at altitude) and 2:22 (flat sea level) with a 5k PR of 15:52. Granted, his 10k PR is almost the exact same pace as his 5k PR, not to mention that he was probably worth ~15:40 when he ran those times and just hasn't run a 5k at peak fitness, but there is absolutely no chance that he would be anywhere near 14s and he will admit it. Now, most people can't run that close to 2:20 without a significantly faster 5k, but it can be done.

God and the love he spits wrote:

no talent needed brah wrote:

Talent doesn't exist. You just need a good diet and good training. Kenyans aren't any more talented than Americans. Nor are Western Africans. There are people that point out that only one white guy has ever broken 10 in the 100 meters but it is because the Africans believe more; they have faith. There is nothing physiologically different between people.

True. So true. There is only one race, the human race!!!

You do know that I was joking. Of course talent is involved in running. Ugh.

50 plus did it last year with an Olympic year that you get a bigger group trying to get a trials/games standard. Falls to 30 plus off Oly years.

Your right , all the hard work is needed plus great conditions , good marathon course and a little bit of luck. You have to put yourself in position to break 2:20 for most runners , be smart.

Right on. Xfit is so much cooler. Me and my Xfit buddies get to go to the gym together and pump each other. F those marathoners. Big deal - Olympics, Olympic Trials are for pansies. Me and my Xfit bros get ripped hang out together in my one bedroom apartment on Friday nights drinking and watching porn together and oil each other up. That's what Xfit gets you and that is so much better than running and being skinny.

Raptured wrote:

nik nik nik wrote:

To get to 2:20 an athlete would need to get to sub 15 (probably 14:40s or better) 5K and 30:30 for 10K. And as others have said, there are plenty of runners who have gone much faster than those times that never made it.

Not necessarily. A guy I know has run 2:21 (downhill at altitude) and 2:22 (flat sea level) with a 5k PR of 15:52. Granted, his 10k PR is almost the exact same pace as his 5k PR, not to mention that he was probably worth ~15:40 when he ran those times and just hasn't run a 5k at peak fitness, but there is absolutely no chance that he would be anywhere near 14s and he will admit it. Now, most people can't run that close to 2:20 without a significantly faster 5k, but it can be done.

Let me get this straight, you're saying a guy with 5K PR at 5:06 pace, 10K PR at the same did 2:22? That would be very very rare. Others here are saying you'd need to go 14:30 or faster.

SlimPickens wrote:

A really quick look at the McMillan calc says a 2:20 marathon equivalent with a 14:22 5k. That doesn't make breaking 14:30 a pre-requisite exactly, but it should have a guy with a 4:50 mile PR realizing how far he has to go.

2:20 is insanely good.

For most people, sub-14:30/30:00 would suggest the potential to run 2:20. A few outliers with slower times at the shorter distances can do it and a few others with faster times at the shorter distances can't. I was one of the latter: Close to 28:00 in the 10k, just over 2:20 in the marathon in four serious attempts. Problem was I just flat out ran out of gas at 22 - 23 miles. I finally concluded the marathon was beyond my range.

Mo Kneebags wrote:

Problem was I just flat out ran out of gas at 22 - 23 miles. I finally concluded the marathon was beyond my range.

Man, if you already struggle during a "regular" marathon, you'd have a really hard time during tough mudder or the crossfit triathlon....like running in sand uphill etc.

Wow, Letsrun.com never ceases to amaze me on what some call "mediocre."

For the 2008 Olympic trials, the B standard was 2:22.

I'm aware that the Marathon OT is easier to qualify for than the Track OT because the field size can be so much larger, but lets have some perspective here.

I ran 2:23 with these prs in HS 2:07 - 800m 4:38 - 1600m 10:01 - 3200 meters. I ran in college, never breaking 25 for 8k but in the low 25. After college I moved to flagstaff, and trained very very hard with lots of guys faster then me. At 24- 25 years old I ran 1:06 twice for the half marathons, 46 for 15K and 2:23 for the marathon (trying to make the 2004 trials). I had coaches and alsow was self coached for a while. I used concepts from Canova. Looking back, with a better approach to training (more modulation and faster and longer long runs) I think I could have gotten into the 2:15 or better range. The hardest part is believing you can do it in your head. That is what fast running is all about - make something very hard or seemingly impossible into something easy. Best of luck and If I can you can. My pr in the 400 is 57.

Matt