Why we're all not running 2:22?

I PR'ed for 10mi but not the halfmarathon that day -- tho my half PR is also a halfway split but on a different day (slower start that day kept me froma 10mi PR)

Anyway, yeah, I was in good condition and maybe could have run PRs in other races but I was trainign for a marathon, so didn't care abt anything else.

Brian Fullem knows mroe but off the top of my head other Bucknell alums besides Reifsnyder with sub-2:22 marathon marks include Brian Harshman, Rich Stark, Jeff Morganti, Bob Murdock, and Jim Knight. Pr5obably many more but I'm still on my 1st coffee of the day.

oldlion,

thank you for your words. i do not mean that sarcastically. i'm very glad to see that you've taken time to read the thread and respond. also, thanks fullem for calling me whiner : )

as for "crapping a 2:22," yes this is very much a would've, could've, should've statement that is wide open for criticism - which i openly accept. and given the chosen circumstances of my life right now i'm doing all i can to become a "marathoner." i'll never claim that i may be one of the rare guys who hasn't broken 31 (31:09 for me) and may run 2:16. who knows, i may someday, but i'll worry about lowering my 2:38 into the 2:20's before thinking 2:16.

the next step will be vegas on february 2nd. i'd like to run in the 2:25 neigborhood, but may lay it on the line and try to run a qualifier. still time to figure out how to progress, but i ran a solo 13.1 (5 mile mark of course to 18.1 mile) in 70:13 on the vegas course this weekend. that went much better than expected.

after vegas will be 5-6 months of very high mileage. my legs will either break in that process or be ready to run chicago.

sehon, the section from 5 to 18 is the easiest part of the Vegas Course, almost all downhill! Hopefully you were running easy! Otherwise sub 2:30 will be a struggle, trust me!!

i won't trust you that sub 2:30 will be struggle, but yes, i did get the benefit of the 8 mile dowhnill. however, 5 to 9 is uphill. there was 25/30 second per mile differential in my pace from 5-9, as compared to 9-17. the portion i chose to run couldv'e been easier though 9 to 22 would've elimintaed 4 mile gradual climb that i had. i was running hard on saturday, but not killing myself. solo, with no adrenaline, and tractor trailers going by at 80mpw is a bit different than race day will be (i hope!). thank you for the note though......sehon40

The workout is clearly a good indication of things to come. Unless it was all downhill (which you've said is not the case), I would be VERY confident in going well under 2:30.

Conto wrote:

If I were to put everything in my running, I think I could run sub 2:20 in the marathon. I think the majority of people on this board if they put everything into their running could run sub 2:20. Its not all that hard.

Dude, are ya going for it? Puttin' the money with the mouth? We'll be watching! Conto, Conto, Conto - bravo!

Conto, stop posting and starting working!

If any one you guys are under the age of 24 & want to run well quit your job suck it up, work at a pizza shop, eat mac&cheese, more to a small hick town....& train you f***ing guts out till Feb 2004. What are you going to do muddle around till 2008, ya right. If your going to do it, do it now, don't wait. Also I have to correct whoever said that a 2:18 is = to a 15:00 5K; more like 14 Flat, OK?

First of all, I have nothing to hide. My PRs are pretty much crap (you can check them out on another thread if you're all that interested). SH if you know me, you probably know some of my friends, and we were all around talking one day about how good we thought we could get if we wanted to put everything into running. We each agreed that 2:18-2:25 was a realistic range for each of us. What you think is irrelevent, as is what we all thing... because its never going to happen. SH, think of it this way, me saying I THINK I could run 2:20 is like someone who puts everything into their running, working at a job paying 20grand a year saying he or she thinks he coul get a job paying 80,000. I would not start swearing at that guy telling him how he's a f***ing pussy and he should go do it instead of talking about it. I have made a choice. I'm no longer as siongle minded as I used to be. I don't want to put in the work to even TRY and run 2;20. I would rather focus on my career and my girlfriend. 8-10 years of going for it was enough for me... one has to learn when enough is enough, and that is when the returns are not as sweet as the effort is bitter. I don't know if I could run 2:20. SO many things would have to come into place, most importantly, my head. But I don't want to find out. I don't want to devote my life to it. I want to help out in other ways. Why is this such a bad thing to say?

By the way, Old guy just said the same thing I did... that 2:20 only takes modest talent... that he did it while working a ton at a stredssful job. Art, you gonna jump down his throat too? I mean clearyly the only people who can run 2:18 or those who can run 4:01, right? Get over yourself... you're not a hot commodity buddy.

M

conto, you are the one who needs to get over yourself. great, a 2:20 takes modest talent (which you may not have) (...and hard work and other unknown variables)...no one was jumping on you for saying that. what incensed the masses was that you said you could do it if you only wanted to. why is this so hard for you to understand? also, "dropping everything" is no guarantee of massive improvement.

First off, you're a dick. Art Siemers was right on when he said "you insulted me and every other runner with the guts to train hard." As I'm on a quest for sub 2:22 myself, I certainly take it personally, whether it's on a message board or not.

Secondly, you don't even know what the f*** you're trying to say. In your reply to Art you say "Art, you are an unbelievable runner. As is anyone who runs 2:20 or faster." But then you say "And how can you say 2:20 is so unbelievable?" WHAT?! Then in a reply to your own post (classy) only 12 minutes later, you tell Art to "Get over yourself...you're not a hot commodity buddy."

Third, you mention that "Back in the day the guys who were considered decent LOCAL runners ran that fast." What f***ing "day" were you living in? And I'd hate to have to run against a pretty good LOCAL runner from that "day" who must have been world class. And the good LOCAL guys must have been world record holders, and the great LOCAL guys must have been...well, even better, I guess.

Do you tell the runners that you are "guiding" that qualifying for the Trials is not an accomplishment? Man, if I had a coach/adviser/Yoda figure like you in my life I would be absolutely f***ing miserable. Qualifying for the Trials IS a big deal and an accomplishment of a lifetime. What have you accomplished in running that would equal or surpass that?

You tell Art that "my e-mail is attached if you feel like saying such things to my face." I see that trash talk and raise you: If everything goes well, I'll be in Chicago on October 12, 2003 with my own dream of qualifying for the Trials. I invite you to come to Chicago that day. I'll be the tall, shaved head mother f***er going after it with all the other Americans trying to dip under 2:22 and qualify for their dream - the Trials. Just introduce yourself and tell us all how sub 2:22 is no big deal.

Did I mention you're a dick?

Tim Geldean

First off your the FUCKING dick. Conto said he was sorry, get over yourself. For what ever reason your feeling your oats well big deal. Read some history about US running & get a clue.

To answer your question f***ing dick look at these numbers which I am sure your not aware off because your a f***ing dick, you asked, "What f***ing "day" were you living in?". In the 1984 U.S Olympic Trials held in Buffalo NY, 201 M-Fing guys qualified running not 2:22 but 2:19:04 was the STANDARD, dick. If I could I would come to your home & kick your pos ass & break all of your F-ing teeth right the F out of your dickhead.. That was back in the F-ing day, dick. Ok dick try this F-ing Day 1980 Trials 225 qualifiers running faster then 2:21:54, not 2:22. How about that dick.

Those were the FUCKING DAY that conto was speaking of, DICK. It's been going downhill since those F-ing days so LEARN about the history of the sport before you get on here & talk shit DICK. The JoZaSt.

So, your basic argument is that the ONLY thing preventing us from having 200 sub-2:20 guys is basic mentality? Just how the f*** would you know how "hard" a 2:20 really is? Since you don't know by experience, did you go interview all the guys out of the 200 sub-2:20s who managed a whopping 1:56/4:01/4:20 in college? And just how is pushing your own mentality of 'be a money/career robot over taking a real stab' really helpful to this end? The more of those who have even merely "modest talent" who are giving it a try, just as M&M has, the more there will be breaking through that "barrier" or will at least be pushing those who do it in training and racing.

Also, M&M long distance PR's are superior to yours. If his own talent level is indeed "modest" then what does that say about yours and your own ability to hit 2:20? What makes you such a legend in your own mind?

And DUH - yes, I'm a fool. It's right there in the name slot, Mr. MENSA.

Apology accepted. I think it's fine for things to get heated sometimes on the board. And as I mentioned before, I had a few reasons to be more pissed by Conto's words:

I know Art Siemers.

I'm trying to run as fast as I can and hopefully qualify for the trials in the process.

So, I called somebody I don't know a dick, a f***ing dick, etc. I could have gotten my point across more tastefully, but I got carried away. For that, I apologize as well. Of course, that doesn't change my basic point of view, but we should be able to disagree civilly.

I would love to see another period of widespread "fast" marathoning in this country. The main thing that I can do is to run as fast as I can - that's what I control. And I can encourage others to pursue their dreams wherever they may take them.

Good luck & happy holidays as well!

Live the Life,

Tim Geldean

Yo, whatever happened to this guy (sehon40) ?

Here are some things that are obvious to me.

FPW comments are irrelevant. He wouldn't run 2:22 no matter what he did.

Miles & Miles; you are a nice guy, but let the ego go. You sound needy when you toot your same horn once every three months on these boards for 5 years straight. :-] You ran 2:22 once (5 years ago?). None of your performances before or since have been anywhere even close to this performance level. Seriously. Other than maybe Humboldt 1/2 and Clarksburg in the weeks right before the 2:22, not even close. You ran a 140 mile week once in that build up. Your statements imply that these are regular and repeatable feats, but over time this has not been repeatable for you. So bring out your PR, your workload at home, and your training log, like "hey, don't complaint. Look how tough I was. You just don't want it bad enough." But the truth is, this has not been repeatable for you, so some will call it lucky. Also, from what I've heard from you on other threads, I don't think your 'work' is comparable to the corporate gigs that the OP is referring to. You are the annomaly of a person who worked hard, got lucky with your health, race day weather conditions and had almost everything possible go right, and ran 2:22 once. This is not a relevant case study for most post collegiate runners. On the other hand, I think your 2:22 gives hope to lots of runners out there that if everything lined up perfectly they might run 2:22 once and get to go to the trials. That is very inspiring. All that said, I do think you are a nice guy, I apologize for bashing you, and I wish you luck with your injuries and your goal to return to that form.

I'd offer another reason why we are not all running 2:22. Not everyone wants to be a marathoner. A generation grew up with Bill and Frank as their heroes. The current generation grew up with Todd & Bob, and Haile & Paul as their heroes. I haven't checked the stats so maybe I'm dead wrong, but it feels like there are lots of guys running under 29 and 14. Are these are our missing 2:22 guys?

Damn. I replied to a five year old thread. CaptainObvious has missed the obvious. Doh!

CaptainObvious wrote:

Damn. I replied to a five year old thread. CaptainObvious has missed the obvious. Doh!

I know and you put so much time and effort into it. But yeah what happened to that guy?

FP Willy ran a 14:58 5K at his best so like him or not for all of his bloviating he probably had the talent to run a 2:22. It may have cut into his marital bliss and he is now five years older so this timeframe should be considered.

Bashing on Miles and Miles is lame. At least he went for it and came damn close. Lucky or not he ran the time and it is in black and white.

I agree with your point that today's youth realizes marathons will shorten their running careers. There are scads of 29:30/14:10 types out there now who are not running marathons. They could pull a 2:18-2:22 pretty easily.

...adding my .02...

Conto would need to move to Alamosa and train 2-3x a day and live like a monk to break 2:27 for the marathon, let alone 2:22. He has a modicum of talent (1:56, 8:43 or 15:12) but doesn't have the heart or spirit, and living in New York City is too distracting for him.

I didn't know that Tim Geldean and Art Siemers were such angry Boulder guys back in the day. I rooted for Art but all I can say is wow, I thought you were nicer guys and the over-defensiveness surprises me a little bit.

Too bad about magpie. He offered up some intriguing content in his posts, but lying is lying so BUH-bye magpie.

Who the hell is Jozast? He made five marathon U.S. Olynpic trials?? Doug Padilla? Steve Plascencia? Keith Brantley? Don't have time to Google.

Also I'd put my money on Geldean if they ever scrapped. Google him and

www.concept2.com

. That guy is about 6-2, 6-3, 175 and set a world record in crew (one hour rowing on the Concept2 indoor rowing machine 17,000+ meters in an HOUR, age 30-34). That is SICK stuff, way better than any 2:22. He would get Jozast in a headlock and put him to sleep.

Who is 'lioness,' Caroline B.?