Not in the same league as Clayton Young talent wise?? He just ran a faster marathon than Young has ever ran on a much harder course. Also he’s only 25.
Much harder course? Maybe wait until the guy makes the Olympic team and finishes top 10 before putting him in the same echelon.
I recall the Olympic course was a difficult one, and most of the runners in the field had PBs of 2:06 or better. Clayton ran 2:08 and finished inside the top 10.
Meb, Simbassa, Ritz, Rupp, Mantz. I think every single sub 2:08 American marathoner has run around 27:40 or faster for 10,000m. Richtman is by far the slowest with a 28:20ish. And a lot of people stop running track and EVENTUALLY become great at the marathon, where they might actually run a lot faster than their old track PR. But Richtman's track PR is from less than a year ago.
You never heard of Khalid Khannouchi or Ryan Hall? I am NOT saying they couldn’t have run 27:40, but I do not believe either of them did.
Ryan Hall ran 13:16 for 5,000 meters. He just never really gave a 10,000m a shot, his only competitive 10,000m was the year he was already focusing on half marathon/marathon. So ya I think Hall's 5k/10k chops were pretty good at one point if he would have run 10,000m instead of a 5,000m when he ran 13:16. Same for Khannouchi, was very capable but never focused on it.
This is wild. Richtman was at Montana State last year and ran 28:21 for 10k. He was 14th at the NCAA west regional and didn’t qualify for NCAA outdoors.
Debuted with a 2:10:47 at Twin Cities in October. Now he’s a 2:07 guy!
Doesn't have all those mental hang ups the rest of the joggers have
Some of his few workouts on strava were pushing a baby in a baby stroller to see if they could do sub 5 min miles. Does that sound like someone who is doping. Seems like a dude who just loves running, who happens to be as good as Mantz and Young...which is sort of hilarious.
Americans on LetsRun will tear down Jess Hull or any Kenyan who improves by 2-3% in a year, but then this 25 year-old man improves by 4% in less than a year and all of the clowns with their "statistical analysis" are nowhere to be found. Embarassing.
The downvotes attest that we think you're a moron. You didn't even get his time right in your original post (it's 2:07:56, not 2:07:15).
And now you're comparing an otherworldly performance by a well established, peak-age pro, from a country absolutely rife with doping, with that of a recent college grad in his first season of serious road racing-- a performance that's still many hundreds deep on the all-time world list.
Could this athlete be doping? Yes. Anyone could. Is the performance prima facie evidence that he is doping? Don't be ridiculous.
He's not wrong overall on his point. Thread after thread on Hoey, Hull, you name it. And this guy who NO ONE on this site heard of before money just put himself on the list of America's all time greatest distance runners? PLEAAAASE. Also, you're deflecting by mentioning he got a time wrong by a few seconds, try again. '
It's not that he COULD be doping, it's that it's quite clear he is LIKELY doping.
Well follow the money 80s guy. The money is in the marathon, is it not? The East Africans could have probably 20 guys running 26:30ish but they chase the money in the marathon, and who can blame them?
My initial reaction to your post was something like, "Well, of course East Africa is deeper than the U.S., but....."
But looking at the all-time U.S. 10K list (and with 5K in mind, too), I was reminded that there are VERY few Americans who have run very fast at 10K. And some of that small number never give the marathon a real crack, some of them haven't, yet (Fisher), and some perhaps underachieve a bit (Rupp, Ritzenheim?).
Combine that with the fact that the relatively low-depth aspect of Olympic and WC track races MIGHT give one a false sense of the actual number of Americans who are truly top-level world class, and....
Maybe we have as many very fast marathoners as we "should," after all !
So, does Fisher eventually finally become the first low-2 American ?
The downvotes attest that we think you're a moron. You didn't even get his time right in your original post (it's 2:07:56, not 2:07:15).
And now you're comparing an otherworldly performance by a well established, peak-age pro, from a country absolutely rife with doping, with that of a recent college grad in his first season of serious road racing-- a performance that's still many hundreds deep on the all-time world list.
Could this athlete be doping? Yes. Anyone could. Is the performance prima facie evidence that he is doping? Don't be ridiculous.
He's not wrong overall on his point. Thread after thread on Hoey, Hull, you name it. And this guy who NO ONE on this site heard of before money just put himself on the list of America's all time greatest distance runners? PLEAAAASE. Also, you're deflecting by mentioning he got a time wrong by a few seconds, try again. '
It's not that he COULD be doping, it's that it's quite clear he is LIKELY doping.
He got the time wrong by 40 seconds, not a few, which indicates how little he was actually paying attention. Hence at least a few of the downvotes.
The irony here is that you claim "no one" is suspecting this guy of doping when in fact you and at least one other person in this thread are doing just that-- probably the same percentage of people calling into question Hull and Hoey's performances.
But here's why this guy's situation is-- for now-- different from either of those two athletes, and certainly from that of someone like Chepngetich: He was not already a pro athlete when he ran his 2:10, and now his 2:07. All of his results apart from the last 3 were from college races-- i.e. from when he was a college student-- and none of them was a marathon.
Few people had heard of this guy before his attempts at the marathon because he was one of literally hundreds of pretty good college distance runners, none of whom had tried a marathon. What makes him unique is that he decided to train for the marathon, instead of something shorter, right out of college. This alone makes is almost impossible to determine how far-- if at all-- ahead of the curve his first two results have been for someone with solid college credentials. That said, and as others have pointed out, there are historical precedents within the US for an athlete specializing in the marathon from an early age and showing world class ability from the get-go (Bill Rodgers is probably the closest comparison, and Bill Rodgers is about the last person to ever have been suspected of doping).
And we have at least two comparable very recent data points, courtesy of Japanese athletes around his age and experience level (and Japan is the one place in the world about which there is a consensus re: the absence of widespread doping): Two college-age athletes just ran right around 2:07 in their first or second attempts at the distance.
Leave this guy alone.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
He's not wrong overall on his point. Thread after thread on Hoey, Hull, you name it. And this guy who NO ONE on this site heard of before money just put himself on the list of America's all time greatest distance runners? PLEAAAASE. Also, you're deflecting by mentioning he got a time wrong by a few seconds, try again. '
It's not that he COULD be doping, it's that it's quite clear he is LIKELY doping.
He got the time wrong by 40 seconds, not a few, which indicates how little he was actually paying attention. Hence at least a few of the downvotes.
The irony here is that you claim "no one" is suspecting this guy of doping when in fact you and at least one other person in this thread are doing just that-- probably the same percentage of people calling into question Hull and Hoey's performances.
But here's why this guy's situation is-- for now-- different from either of those two athletes, and certainly from that of someone like Chepngetich: He was not already a pro athlete when he ran his 2:10, and now his 2:07. All of his results apart from the last 3 were from college races-- i.e. from when he was a college student-- and none of them was a marathon.
Few people had heard of this guy before his attempts at the marathon because he was one of literally hundreds of pretty good college distance runners, none of whom had tried a marathon. What makes him unique is that he decided to train for the marathon, instead of something shorter, right out of college. This alone makes is almost impossible to determine how far-- if at all-- ahead of the curve his first two results have been for someone with solid college credentials. That said, and as others have pointed out, there are historical precedents within the US for an athlete specializing in the marathon from an early age and showing world class ability from the get-go (Bill Rodgers is probably the closest comparison, and Bill Rodgers is about the last person to ever have been suspected of doping).
And we have at least two comparable very recent data points, courtesy of Japanese athletes around his age and experience level (and Japan is the one place in the world about which there is a consensus re: the absence of widespread doping): Two college-age athletes just ran right around 2:07 in their first or second attempts at the distance.
Leave this guy alone.
Yeah I generally concur with this, but just to add that Billy Rodgers was not even really running during much of his early to mid 20s, if I recall correctly, and he broke through in 1975 at age 27, although he turned 28 at the end of that year.
He got the time wrong by 40 seconds, not a few, which indicates how little he was actually paying attention. Hence at least a few of the downvotes.
The irony here is that you claim "no one" is suspecting this guy of doping when in fact you and at least one other person in this thread are doing just that-- probably the same percentage of people calling into question Hull and Hoey's performances.
But here's why this guy's situation is-- for now-- different from either of those two athletes, and certainly from that of someone like Chepngetich: He was not already a pro athlete when he ran his 2:10, and now his 2:07. All of his results apart from the last 3 were from college races-- i.e. from when he was a college student-- and none of them was a marathon.
Few people had heard of this guy before his attempts at the marathon because he was one of literally hundreds of pretty good college distance runners, none of whom had tried a marathon. What makes him unique is that he decided to train for the marathon, instead of something shorter, right out of college. This alone makes is almost impossible to determine how far-- if at all-- ahead of the curve his first two results have been for someone with solid college credentials. That said, and as others have pointed out, there are historical precedents within the US for an athlete specializing in the marathon from an early age and showing world class ability from the get-go (Bill Rodgers is probably the closest comparison, and Bill Rodgers is about the last person to ever have been suspected of doping).
And we have at least two comparable very recent data points, courtesy of Japanese athletes around his age and experience level (and Japan is the one place in the world about which there is a consensus re: the absence of widespread doping): Two college-age athletes just ran right around 2:07 in their first or second attempts at the distance.
Leave this guy alone.
Yeah I generally concur with this, but just to add that Billy Rodgers was not even really running during much of his early to mid 20s, if I recall correctly, and he broke through in 1975 at age 27, although he turned 28 at the end of that year.
Rodgers starting training for the marathon in early 73 (age 25-26), three years after graduation and 2 years before his breakthrough in 75. If we assume Richtman started training for the marathon 3-4 months before Twin Cities, that would make his starting point age 24 and his big breakthrough a year later. Richtman did much better than Rodgers in his first attempt, but their starting ages were obviously very similar, and Rodgers was actually MUCH better than Richtman globally after his breakthrough in '75. And, of course, no one thought Rodgers' success was due to doping.
The similarities are far greater than the differences between these two: both relatively young athletes taking up the marathon as the first thing after college, with only modest college results to go on in assessing basic ability, with both enjoying pretty rapid and seemingly outsized success at the distance. There is no obvious reason to think Richtman would had to have doped to do what he's done. He was a better college runner than Rodgers, and Rodgers was the far better runner by world standards than Richtman after his second attempt. Rodgers running 2:09:55 in his second attempt would be like Richtman having gone 2:02-03 or equivalent in LA (2:04-05?). And again, no one thought Rodgers had to have doped to hit the sub-2:10.
Yeah I generally concur with this, but just to add that Billy Rodgers was not even really running during much of his early to mid 20s, if I recall correctly, and he broke through in 1975 at age 27, although he turned 28 at the end of that year.
Rodgers starting training for the marathon in early 73 (age 25-26), three years after graduation and 2 years before his breakthrough in 75. If we assume Richtman started training for the marathon 3-4 months before Twin Cities, that would make his starting point age 24 and his big breakthrough a year later. Richtman did much better than Rodgers in his first attempt, but their starting ages were obviously very similar, and Rodgers was actually MUCH better than Richtman globally after his breakthrough in '75. And, of course, no one thought Rodgers' success was due to doping.
The similarities are far greater than the differences between these two: both relatively young athletes taking up the marathon as the first thing after college, with only modest college results to go on in assessing basic ability, with both enjoying pretty rapid and seemingly outsized success at the distance. There is no obvious reason to think Richtman would had to have doped to do what he's done. He was a better college runner than Rodgers, and Rodgers was the far better runner by world standards than Richtman after his second attempt. Rodgers running 2:09:55 in his second attempt would be like Richtman having gone 2:02-03 or equivalent in LA (2:04-05?). And again, no one thought Rodgers had to have doped to hit the sub-2:10.
I am not even discussing doping, and while I agree there are no red flags with Richtman, Rodgers is not even relevant here, except insofar as he was great at the marathon and only very good on the track, but not great in the sense of being a medal contender, whereas he was a medal contender, potentially, in the marathon. But yeah Richtman is just a mediocre 5/10 guy (for an elite) who happens to excel in the marathon. This type has always existed.
And we have at least two comparable very recent data points, courtesy of Japanese athletes around his age and experience level (and Japan is the one place in the world about which there is a consensus re: the absence of widespread doping): Two college-age athletes just ran right around 2:07 in their first or second attempts at the distance.
Leave this guy alone.
Watching the Ran to Japan YouTube channel puts it into perspective. Essentially all Japanese college runners are half marathon specialists and many (I think Jake Barraclough said thousands”) join pro/“corporate” teams after college for a couple years.)
I other words, if we had a Japanese-type system, we would discover dozens of Matt Richtmans. Give Matt some credit.
Matthew Richtman - Richtman's??Performance History & Personal Bests 2023-24??Season Cross Country (Senior): Finished his career as just the second Bobcat in program
Richtmann has a degree in mechanical engineering. That in itself is a rigorous degree, demanding discipline, and presumably, a high innate IQ.
That's the same degree I believe as Connor Mantz. If Richtmann ends his career early he will have no problem getting a job obviously. There is no over supply of mechanical engineers and he would have his pick of the jobs including overseas.
What's Richtmann's ceiling? Slight revision on my previous prediction.
13:30/27:59/1:00:30/2:05:30. Caveat, he would have to run Valencia, Berlin, Sevilla, etc ...
I would say he is as talented as French former cyclist Nicholas Navarro who is a sub 2:06 marathon runner and 12th place in the 2021 Olympic Games in Sapporo.
Discover the magic of the internet at Imgur, a community powered entertainment destination. Lift your spirits with funny jokes, trending memes, entertaining gifs, inspiring stories, viral videos, and so much more from users.
I think his time is legit and it is great to see an American NCAA product doing so well.
Lot of young-ish runners running well (the OSU duo that won USA half).
In reality I think we could have a lot more fast runners but most don’t get the opportunity to pursue it post college. Money, health care, student loans, careers, kids all come at you fast.
If he is doping either he will get caught or won’t put up any more fast times by getting off the sauce.
The shoes help a ton, training has progressed in the last 50 years too.
Lastly I think a lot of his strava runs are trolling which is very funny
