People think that if you've hugged a koala you've arrived in Australia.
People think that if you've hugged a koala you've arrived in Australia.
221 wrote:
bro science wrote:what is the incentive to run hard, consistently, for years upon years for the chance to MAYBE be good? there is no incentive. americans simply have incentive to do things other than running.
MAYBE make the Olympics is enough incentive for me
If I took half the time effort a bronze metalist spent on training for running, and instead focused it on bettering my career, I would beat out the runner in total earnings over my lifetime. I can almost guarantee it.
That assumes they also won a bronze. What about the scores of other DNF's and competitors that spent the same amount of time and effort to amount to NOTHING?
bro science wrote:
221 wrote:MAYBE make the Olympics is enough incentive for me
If I took half the time effort a bronze metalist spent on training for running, and instead focused it on bettering my career, I would beat out the runner in total earnings over my lifetime. I can almost guarantee it.
That assumes they also won a bronze. What about the scores of other DNF's and competitors that spent the same amount of time and effort to amount to NOTHING?
Cool! Sounds like you shouldn't pursue a professional career in athletics. Not sure why you care that other people do.
Ho Hum wrote:
Cool! Sounds like you shouldn't pursue a professional career in athletics. Not sure why you care that other people do.
wasn't this thread intended to debate the merits of cultural issues vs the america desire to run?
Your argument seems to be that there are more lucrative pursuits than running, which is obviously true, but besides the point. Eggleston is making the point that Americans who DO pursue running professionally have low standards when it comes to the marathon. He's asking why anyone would feel like they'd "made it" when they ran 2:10, when you really need to be able to go 2:08 or better to be a threat at the elite level. I don't think this has a lot to do with a lack of incentive, as a 2:08 American would make a hell of a lot more money than a 2:10 guy.
vhjvhjvhj wrote:
Americans are quite happy being the fastest American. Plus, Americans think 5 min/miles is fast. East Africans think 3 min/km is fast.
is that you paulo? no
jason?
I see some merit on the economics but I think there are too many people who assume that there are a bunch of low 12:40 and 26:30 guys running the marathon. I guess people are thinking of runners like Mutai, the Kipsangs, Abshero, desisa. But I don't know that they would be faster than Alimerew, Gebremeskel, etc. At that level you are basically talking Komen, Haile, KB and Tergat ability. It could be that there just are no runners of that caliber at the moment. It happens.
800 dude wrote:
What's in the marathon for most Americans?
It used to be that the marathon was where the less talented runners could try busting their a$$es to see if they could have success that they'd never be able to sniff on the track. But now the marathon is dominated by A-list track talent from Africa.
The flip side is that the track is now less competitive than it's been in a long time. The best American track athletes are taking advantage of this lack of depth, and they're now among the best in the world.
Fast American track athletes can make a living without big marathon prize money and appearance fees, because shoe companies are willing to sponsor them. But only the best Africans make much money from the shoe companies, so prize money is the name of the game.
Moreover, though it's slightly controversial, I'd say that Americans are more motivated by glory and Africans by money, simply because there are a lot of other ways in America to have a comfortable, middle class life. If that's the case, then it makes sense for Americans to stick to the track where they can be among the best in the world, rather than to hit the roads and face 100s of faster Africans.
pr100 wrote:
before anyone says Paula was doping - then so what? *If* she was then she's surely not the only one
Maybe she was the only one though; otherwise there'd be plenty of women running 2:15 marathons.
THERE IS NOT A SINGLE AMERICAN RUNNER CURRENTLY IN 2:10 SHAPE SO FORGET ABOUT 2:07!
Answer wrote:
I see some merit on the economics but I think there are too many people who assume that there are a bunch of low 12:40 and 26:30 guys running the marathon. I guess people are thinking of runners like Mutai, the Kipsangs, Abshero, desisa. But I don't know that they would be faster than Alimerew, Gebremeskel, etc. At that level you are basically talking Komen, Haile, KB and Tergat ability. It could be that there just are no runners of that caliber at the moment. It happens.
I take your point, but I was thinking more of the 13:0X guys. We've got quite a few of them who aren't looking to move up anytime soon, and I suspect that lots of 2:07 Africans would be 13:0X guys if they were track runners.
Answer wrote:
I see some merit on the economics but I think there are too many people who assume that there are a bunch of low 12:40 and 26:30 guys running the marathon. I guess people are thinking of runners like Mutai, the Kipsangs, Abshero, desisa. But I don't know that they would be faster than Alimerew, Gebremeskel, etc. At that level you are basically talking Komen, Haile, KB and Tergat ability. It could be that there just are no runners of that caliber at the moment. It happens.
800 dude wrote:What's in the marathon for most Americans?
It used to be that the marathon was where the less talented runners could try busting their a$$es to see if they could have success that they'd never be able to sniff on the track. But now the marathon is dominated by A-list track talent from Africa.
The flip side is that the track is now less competitive than it's been in a long time. The best American track athletes are taking advantage of this lack of depth, and they're now among the best in the world.
Fast American track athletes can make a living without big marathon prize money and appearance fees, because shoe companies are willing to sponsor them. But only the best Africans make much money from the shoe companies, so prize money is the name of the game.
Moreover, though it's slightly controversial, I'd say that Americans are more motivated by glory and Africans by money, simply because there are a lot of other ways in America to have a comfortable, middle class life. If that's the case, then it makes sense for Americans to stick to the track where they can be among the best in the world, rather than to hit the roads and face 100s of faster Africans.
Geoffrey Mutai won a 10k in Boston in 2011 1 or 2 months after his 2:03 marathon. His time was 27:19. It was a slow hilly course. On the track it is probably worth 2640 plus or minus a few seconds. If Mutai focused on track, he probably would have got bronze or silver in London(I don't see him having the finishing speed of Mo Farah).
It's not a "cultural issue".
People are driven by their needs. Talent flows where the money is. Kenyans can improve their lives and those of their families with the marathon. Few Americans can, at least when compared to other distances and other sports.
This guy ran 2:07????
No, he barely broke 2:11.
"THERE IS NOT A SINGLE AMERICAN RUNNER CURRENTLY IN 2:10 SHAPE SO FORGET ABOUT 2:07!"
Um, ever heard of Ryan Vail?
J.R. wrote:
pr100 wrote:before anyone says Paula was doping - then so what? *If* she was then she's surely not the only one
Maybe she was the only one though; otherwise there'd be plenty of women running 2:15 marathons.
We know for sure that some people have tested positive.
And in any case we know from other sports that there are plenty of people prepared to take PEDs.
From afar- disagree with Eggleston.
Just recently, Nick A. stated his intention to break through his 2:10-11 marathoning, to sub-2:10 territory. It didn't work out- but not because he's accepting 2:10.
Then, Ritz was practically going bezerk a couple years ago, desperately wanting to break his 2:10 plateau.
You're actually agreeing with Eggleston. These are examples of guys using 2:10 as the standard to break rather than 2:08 as the standard to break.
fdsfdsafsd wrote:
THERE IS NOT A SINGLE AMERICAN RUNNER CURRENTLY IN 2:10 SHAPE SO FORGET ABOUT 2:07!
Ummmmm, ever heard of Meb Keflezighi?
he'd have to break 2:10 to approach 2:07
I don't understand how someone thinks people are shooting for 2:10 and that aiming for 2:07 would make a difference. I'm a miler, and I was shooting for setting the world record. Of course my goal made no difference - I never got under 4:10!