Why most Sub Elite male Runners cant beat the Women Marathon World record?

Internetsherlock wrote:

I am not elite by any means but guys that gets stuck around 2:16- 2:20 . How is it that a guy who has a talent in running considering they are able to run 2:20 finds it difficult to beat 2:15:25 set by Paula Radcliffe .

What is going on here?

They just aren't woman enough.

Armstronglivs wrote:

it's like this wrote:

Even if Radcliffe doped Magee still had shittay marathon training.

He was one of Lydiard's protégés, when NZrs were dominating middle and long-distance racing. Lydiard wrote the book for methods still used today. Yeah - "sh*tty training". But no EPO's.

They weren't dominating the longer stuff. His methods were good but needed improvement.

That's why people ran faster shortly after.

Internetsherlock wrote:

If that what OP means wrote:

If that's what OP is asking, marathon requires mileage. Running a 4:12 mile or something, a lot of talented runners can do that off of talent and little training.

It can't be just mileage . I think most people are scared to run fast for high mileage

No offense to Jamin, but he's a excellent example of what I'm talking about. Off of little training he can run what? 4:20 for the mile and 14:40 for 5k? But after 5k, he just falls apart in a 8k or 10k XC race. I highly doubt Jamin could run sub 2:30 or even 2:40 for the marathon.

Barry Magoober wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

He was one of Lydiard's protégés, when NZrs were dominating middle and long-distance racing. Lydiard wrote the book for methods still used today. Yeah - "sh*tty training". But no EPO's.

They weren't dominating the longer stuff. His methods were good but needed improvement.

That's why people ran faster shortly after.

You mean runners who couldn't really run the marathon like McKenzie, who won Boston in '67, Ryan, who took the bronze at Mexico City in '68, not to mention the legendary Jack Foster and the incomparable Rod Dixon? So 100 miles per week for an Olympic medallist like Magee wasn't the right training to be as fast as a woman? The naivety of this place never ceases to amaze.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Barry Magoober wrote:

They weren't dominating the longer stuff. His methods were good but needed improvement.

That's why people ran faster shortly after.

You mean runners who couldn't really run the marathon like McKenzie, who won Boston in '67, Ryan, who took the bronze at Mexico City in '68, not to mention the legendary Jack Foster and the incomparable Rod Dixon? So 100 miles per week for an Olympic medallist like Magee wasn't the right training to be as fast as a woman? The naivety of this place never ceases to amaze.

Paul Ballinger was another good kiwi marathoner from back in the day.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yup. Barry Magee, a top distance man from NZ in the early '60's, finished third in the marathon at the Rome Olympics in 1960 (behind Bikila) in 2.17. He was also a 13.39 5k runner (4 secs off Kuts' then wr) and a 28.50 runner over 10k. He was part of "Lydiard's stable", with Snell, Halberg and Baillie, employing Lydiard's conditioning principles in his training. But still not as fast as Radcliffe. If you'll buy that.

Time trials and Olympic championship races in the summer are 2 different things. Radcliffe's best Olympic marathon finish is 2h 32 mins in Beijing 2008 to compare with Magee's 2h 17 run over the Rome Olympic course lit by torches in the night. And Magee was probably wearing horribly crappy shoes in comparison - Bikila won the race with nothing on his feet !

If that what OP means wrote:

Internetsherlock wrote:

It can't be just mileage . I think most people are scared to run fast for high mileage

No offense to Jamin, but he's a excellent example of what I'm talking about. Off of little training he can run what? 4:20 for the mile and 14:40 for 5k? But after 5k, he just falls apart in a 8k or 10k XC race. I highly doubt Jamin could run sub 2:30 or even 2:40 for the marathon.

Of course he could, if he trained properly for 2 years, he could run sub 2.30, but he doesn't have the patience right now to accept that it takes thousands of miles of the right type of training to develop his endurance.

Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

Internetsherlock wrote:

I am not elite by any means but guys that gets stuck around 2:16- 2:20 . How is it that a guy who has a talent in running considering they are able to run 2:20 finds it difficult to beat 2:15:25 set by Paula Radcliffe .

What is going on here?

2:15!?! 2:15!?!

https://youtu.be/LmfUIWnMjGY

Durianrider has no idea what he's talking about. He's not even an elite cyclist, despite his very high 'blood values'. Look at his strava times for the hills around Adelaide (where he reckons he's sh!t hot) he's so far down on the leader board he's not even sub elite.

comparing like with like wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yup. Barry Magee, a top distance man from NZ in the early '60's, finished third in the marathon at the Rome Olympics in 1960 (behind Bikila) in 2.17. He was also a 13.39 5k runner (4 secs off Kuts' then wr) and a 28.50 runner over 10k. He was part of "Lydiard's stable", with Snell, Halberg and Baillie, employing Lydiard's conditioning principles in his training. But still not as fast as Radcliffe. If you'll buy that.

Time trials and Olympic championship races in the summer are 2 different things. Radcliffe's best Olympic marathon finish is 2h 32 mins in Beijing 2008 to compare with Magee's 2h 17 run over the Rome Olympic course lit by torches in the night. And Magee was probably wearing horribly crappy shoes in comparison - Bikila won the race with nothing on his feet !

Of course - it's the shoes. Magee ran in gumboots. Still his fastest ever time at Rome. Funny thing about Olympic courses though - both in '60 (in bare feet( and in '64 Bikila ran world best times. In 1960 he was only as fast as Radcliffe. But keep the rationalisations coming.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Barry Magoober wrote:

They weren't dominating the longer stuff. His methods were good but needed improvement.

That's why people ran faster shortly after.

You mean runners who couldn't really run the marathon like McKenzie, who won Boston in '67, Ryan, who took the bronze at Mexico City in '68, not to mention the legendary Jack Foster and the incomparable Rod Dixon? So 100 miles per week for an Olympic medallist like Magee wasn't the right training to be as fast as a woman? The naivety of this place never ceases to amaze.

Correct. That was the era when people weren't as good. Besides Foster didn't run Lydiard mileage.

It's how you run the miles that counts. Lydiard didn't fully master that for the Marathon.

Why do you suck so bad at writing?

Armstronglivs wrote:

"Not really" - kiprop wrote:

Probably due to "abnormal blood values".

Yup. Barry Magee, a top distance man from NZ in the early '60's, finished third in the marathon at the Rome Olympics in 1960 (behind Bikila) in 2.17. He was also a 13.39 5k runner (4 secs off Kuts' then wr) and a 28.50 runner over 10k. He was part of "Lydiard's stable", with Snell, Halberg and Baillie, employing Lydiard's conditioning principles in his training. But still not as fast as Radcliffe. If you'll buy that.

Just shows how bad Lydiards training is compared to modern stuff. These days a 13:40 guy runs 28:20/2:14 easily.

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yup. Barry Magee, a top distance man from NZ in the early '60's, finished third in the marathon at the Rome Olympics in 1960 (behind Bikila) in 2.17. He was also a 13.39 5k runner (4 secs off Kuts' then wr) and a 28.50 runner over 10k. He was part of "Lydiard's stable", with Snell, Halberg and Baillie, employing Lydiard's conditioning principles in his training. But still not as fast as Radcliffe. If you'll buy that.

Just shows how bad Lydiards training is compared to modern stuff. These days a 13:40 guy runs 28:20/2:14 easily.

Even back in the day Rodgers did better with a 13:40 5k.

Bottom line is that no Lydiard coached athlete actually has a fast Marathon time.

Later on athletes using some Lydiard principles did but at that point it's really not the same training.

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yup. Barry Magee, a top distance man from NZ in the early '60's, finished third in the marathon at the Rome Olympics in 1960 (behind Bikila) in 2.17. He was also a 13.39 5k runner (4 secs off Kuts' then wr) and a 28.50 runner over 10k. He was part of "Lydiard's stable", with Snell, Halberg and Baillie, employing Lydiard's conditioning principles in his training. But still not as fast as Radcliffe. If you'll buy that.

Just shows how bad Lydiards training is compared to modern stuff. These days a 13:40 guy runs 28:20/2:14 easily.

Clueless. Lydiard's training produced Olympic champions and world record holders over a range of distances in a country of then only 3 million. He also helped produce Olympic champions and world record holders later in his time in Finland. The principles of his training, which were the emphasis on a conditioning base and periodisation to peak for championships, is a foundation for modern training methods.

Magee was only a few seconds off the then world record in his best performance over 5k, and his marathon time in 1960 behind Bikila was still one of the best in his era. Lydiard produced athletes with range, and not just specialists.

The biggest improvements today are not through training methods - these were largely established by the late '60's - but pharmaceuticals. Professional sport wouldn't be what it is today without it.

You almost got it wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You mean runners who couldn't really run the marathon like McKenzie, who won Boston in '67, Ryan, who took the bronze at Mexico City in '68, not to mention the legendary Jack Foster and the incomparable Rod Dixon? So 100 miles per week for an Olympic medallist like Magee wasn't the right training to be as fast as a woman? The naivety of this place never ceases to amaze.

Correct. That was the era when people weren't as good. Besides Foster didn't run Lydiard mileage.

It's how you run the miles that counts. Lydiard didn't fully master that for the Marathon.

You're missing the point. The top male marathon runners of the '60's trained hard, often including regimes from 100mpw to near 200mpw at times (Jeff Julian). These weren't slow miles either. Yet many of these runners were hardly faster than Radcliffe's record time. It isn't her "superior" training that makes her and women today as fast as the best men of that earlier era. The same goes for the best male times today. The improvements aren't solely due to training.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The biggest improvements today are not through training methods - these were largely established by the late '60's - but pharmaceuticals. Professional sport wouldn't be what it is today without it.

No that's your delusion.

yawn wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The biggest improvements today are not through training methods - these were largely established by the late '60's - but pharmaceuticals. Professional sport wouldn't be what it is today without it.

No that's your delusion.

+1

Armstronglivs wrote:

The biggest improvements today are not through training methods - these were largely established by the late '60's - but pharmaceuticals. Professional sport wouldn't be what it is today without it.

+1

2:15 to 2:25 women (elite women) are all in as far as time, training, nutrition, coaching, support, etc. It’s their job full time with the odd exception. These women make a good to fair income from running/sponsorship/etc.

2:15 to 2:25 men (sub-elite) cannot afford to be into running full time. They are not able to financially sustain themselves or families, while getting optimum training, nutrition, support, etc. Even that American Olympian dude has to work as a college prof in Utah somewhere rather than marathon full time. Many of these guys can probably beat the women’s WR if that is all they had to focus on.

So much for equal pay