I am picking him to make the 10k team. He is a sub 4 miler. His 28 minute 10k was almost 4 years ago. Now this great marathon.
I am picking him to make the 10k team. He is a sub 4 miler. His 28 minute 10k was almost 4 years ago. Now this great marathon.
Interestingly, Jeff Schibler was one of the few white runners who decided to go to corporate running route in Japan and he was actually faster over 5K and 10K compared with all his teammates. After he returned to Canada he became a fireman in British Columbia
Faster than you wrote:
I am picking him to make the 10k team. He is a sub 4 miler. His 28 minute 10k was almost 4 years ago. Now this great marathon.
Hehir has 27:30-27:45 potential over 10,000 but many others in the U.S. also. Ironically, training for the marathon may be a more pragmatic choice than training for the track which requires possibly more time in specialist training.
NERunner53 wrote:
No need to be an LRC apologist, friend. This place is toxic and always has been. They perpetuate the narrative for years that American men aren't good. American men run fast. Then they find new angles to try to tear them down. I think you need a dose of reality that most people are excited by the performances from this past weekend. This place has some pull/reach with middle aged white dudes. They can either get people hyped about the sport or keep working these pessimistic angles. If they think that's the right business model, fine. I'm getting tons of great coverage of the races from plenty of other sources that are going to continue to cut into their bottom line. They are on an island the way they are looking at these performances.
I think it's poor taste as a running authority to start with this kind of stuff so soon after all of these great times. It doesn't seem genuine. It doesn't give me the impression they care about the sport. They care about clicks. But they really just can't ever be happy. If Hehir ran 2:07, they'd be writing about how Hall ran 2:06.
You’re either a 10/10 troll with a long term commitment to the bit, in which case congrats, or you’re the softest poster on here. Literally all you ever do is post about how mean LRC is, because your definition of ‘toxic’ seems to be anything that isn’t blatant head in the sand positivity.
Where are the positive posts? Houlihan, Hall, Hutchins, Hehir, Hunter. These are some of the stars of the year that have received the most scrutiny. Why do Letsrun posters have a hang-up with names beginning with "H"? Really, why can't people be excited about great performances? I get it if comments were 10 to 1 positive but they run almost just the opposite.
He is better at the marathon than the 5k. That's why he's running 2:08:59 in the marathon and not trying to run 13:09 for the 5k. Just like guys like Tegenkamp were better at the 5k/10k than the marathon. Tegenkamp ran 12:58 5k, but only 27:28 for 10k, a less impressive performance when increasing the distance, and then bump all the way up to marathon and he could only run 2:12 or something. Meanwhile Galen Rupp had a slightly slower 5k than 10k, 12:58, but crushed him in the 10k at 26:44, and then completely demolished him with 2:06:07 marathon.
Different people are better at different events, so why are you validating martin's performance in the marathon based on a 5k time? Bill Rodgers was a 2:09 guy and only ran 13:42 for the 5k. So I guess Bill Rodgers wasn't ACTUALLY that good, because he could only run 13:42 and that wasn't competitive at the time in the 5k either?
Ya'll are always trying to hate on people running fast times these days, saying how somehow it's not actually a good performance. Give it up already. People are getting faster. It is accurate that 2:08 isn't going to be winning a global medal, but neither is 13:10. But if you were a 13:10 guy 40 years ago, you were probably considered a contender. Just like if you were a 2:08 guy 40 years ago, you'd also be a contender. People are getting faster! They always have been!
rojo wrote:
Faster than you wrote:
I am more inclined to compare the performance to Americans than Africans. Americans on average are larger than East Africans which magnifies the difference in time at longer distances. I didn't check the 5k American times but his all time place in the marathon probably puts him about 13 flat in the 5k.
From an American only perspective , one could argue if it wasn’t for the shoes, 13 flat would be about right as nine Americans have broken 1300 and 11 have broken 209. But the shoes are worth at least 5 seconds per mile. And I’m comparingg it internationally where we do seem to suck relatively more at the marathon as you point out.
This is complete B.S..... I'll bet you a boat load of money Martin would still be a 2:09 guy with any top end racing flat from 15 years ago. I know for a fact if these guys are running 5k repeats in 10oz trainers they are running only about 8 seconds per slower per mile than with some of these new shoes, and if they were wearing any other 6oz flat from 15 years ago they'd be pretty much the same.
I was in the race and ran pretty well, I'd bet my life's savings I could run within 130 seconds, which you say is what I'd be running with some 'regular' shoe from 15 years ago.
Must be nice to sit on your butt in your older age saying how the fast people from today are only faster than you because of some shoes.
iDiott wrote:
YMMV wrote:
IAAF says: 2:08:58 = 13:08, 27:36
So....NO.
The IAAF scoring tables are not in any way omniscient.
But someone willing to adopt (and not even register) the username "iDiott" IS. Got it.
When Henry Rono set the WR of 13:08, the marathon WR on a sanctioned course was 2:09. But let's pay no attention to FACTS.
rojo wrote:
iDiott wrote:
I think Martin has run 13:29.94 in 2017 so there is no doubt that he is a 13:30 guy. .
When I posted it, I had no idea what his track time was or had even thought about looking it up.
Oh you mean you didn’t do your research?
malmo wrote:
Whats the point?
You think he has a point?
He is better at the marathon than the 5k wrote:
rojo wrote:
From an American only perspective , one could argue if it wasn’t for the shoes, 13 flat would be about right as nine Americans have broken 1300 and 11 have broken 209. But the shoes are worth at least 5 seconds per mile. And I’m comparingg it internationally where we do seem to suck relatively more at the marathon as you point out.
This is complete B.S..... I'll bet you a boat load of money Martin would still be a 2:09 guy with any top end racing flat from 15 years ago. I know for a fact if these guys are running 5k repeats in 10oz trainers they are running only about 8 seconds per slower per mile than with some of these new shoes, and if they were wearing any other 6oz flat from 15 years ago they'd be pretty much the same.
I was in the race and ran pretty well, I'd bet my life's savings I could run within 130 seconds, which you say is what I'd be running with some 'regular' shoe from 15 years ago.
Must be nice to sit on your butt in your older age saying how the fast people from today are only faster than you because of some shoes.
Post of the decade. Thank you
He is better at the marathon than the 5k wrote:
He is better at the marathon than the 5k. That's why he's running 2:08:59 in the marathon and not trying to run 13:09 for the 5k. Just like guys like Tegenkamp were better at the 5k/10k than the marathon. Tegenkamp ran 12:58 5k, but only 27:28 for 10k, a less impressive performance when increasing the distance, and then bump all the way up to marathon and he could only run 2:12 or something. Meanwhile Galen Rupp had a slightly slower 5k than 10k, 12:58, but crushed him in the 10k at 26:44, and then completely demolished him with 2:06:07 marathon.
!
Tegenkemp wasn't a 12:58 guy in 2011/2012. He was a 13:14 one. That is right in line with his 10k performance. He got injured in 2010 and was never the same guy afterwards. In 2013 when he ran the marathon he was a 60:00 20k guy. The 5000m might have been his best event but most of the time differences are a result of not being as good in general more than not being as good at the distance.
Saying 2:09 is the same as like a 13:20-13:30 is pretty accurate. Both are really good performances. In the US the marathon is a bit weaker so you are slightly more likely to make a national team but on the world stage you are about the same. The US should have a ton of 2:09-2:12 guys (i.e. all those sub 13:45 guys in college) but we struggle with getting them to run the marathon. The opportunity costs is high (i.e. spending 8 years chasing a dream and even if you run 2:08, the riches aren't great) and the system isn't set up (i.e. how are you paying the bills for those 8 years?) to make it easy. Not everyone has the time management skills to work a full time job, have a family, and still get in the training. It is easy to write it down on paper but actually doing it for 8 years is hard.
Americans who can't break 2:10 wrote:
Dr Yuengling wrote:
Per iaaf his 5k Pr is 13:29.9. So I’d say it’s a fair comparison.
I think the takeaway should be less “wow it’s incredible that really good but not great college guys (hehir, Fauble, etc) can run 2:09” and more that we should have higher expectations for more talented guys (and that we need our more talented guys to actually run the marathon. If guys in the Ben true mold moved up instead of spending their entire career trying to squeeze out every last drop of 5k potential, 209 wouldn’t seem like a big deal for Americans)
This. Droddy should have been this fast a couple years ago if he didn't underrace.
+2. Hopefully, college kids in the 13:30 range, will look at these performances and feel they can run the same. And more importantly, give the 'thon a shot!
YMMV wrote:
iDiott wrote:
The IAAF scoring tables are not in any way omniscient.
But someone willing to adopt (and not even register) the username "iDiott" IS. Got it.
When Henry Rono set the WR of 13:08, the marathon WR on a sanctioned course was 2:09. But let's pay no attention to FACTS.
Osako's PB are 13:08 for 5K (NR) and 27:36 for 10K, yet he ran sub 2.06 twice.
Yuki Kawauchi is barely a Sub14/Sub 30 runner and he ran sub 2.09 multiple times.
I guess I was looking at the road race PB for Kawauchi's 10K time.
Either way it is 29:02, so not that close to 27:36.
Gentleman Savage wrote:
rojo wrote:
When I posted it, I had no idea what his track time was or had even thought about looking it up.
Wow. Just wow.
lol seriously RoJoke, You freaking dope.
iDiott wrote:
Mr Abernathy wrote:
I agree. What’s the point? It appears that people enjoyed what they saw. Can’t we jus leave it at that? If I go to the movie theatre and really enjoy a movie, I don’t immediately say how does that compare to movies of the past? Let’s just enjoy without searching for a negative angle.
The point is that this is a message board where distance running is discussed, among other subjects. Surely you two understand that this is fodder for discussion among distance running participants and fans?
Except there is nothing to discuss because Hehir is a 13:30 5k guy. So no hypothetical to ponder.
Dr Yuengling wrote:
NERunner53 wrote:
No need to be an LRC apologist, friend. This place is toxic and always has been. They perpetuate the narrative for years that American men aren't good. American men run fast. Then they find new angles to try to tear them down. I think you need a dose of reality that most people are excited by the performances from this past weekend. This place has some pull/reach with middle aged white dudes. They can either get people hyped about the sport or keep working these pessimistic angles. If they think that's the right business model, fine. I'm getting tons of great coverage of the races from plenty of other sources that are going to continue to cut into their bottom line. They are on an island the way they are looking at these performances.
I think it's poor taste as a running authority to start with this kind of stuff so soon after all of these great times. It doesn't seem genuine. It doesn't give me the impression they care about the sport. They care about clicks. But they really just can't ever be happy. If Hehir ran 2:07, they'd be writing about how Hall ran 2:06.
You’re either a 10/10 troll with a long term commitment to the bit, in which case congrats, or you’re the softest poster on here. Literally all you ever do is post about how mean LRC is, because your definition of ‘toxic’ seems to be anything that isn’t blatant head in the sand positivity.
I mean, you're proving exactly why I think this place is toxic. The fact that it hasn't even been more than a couple of days and they're already pushing this kind of an angle should tell you a little something about what they stand for here. If you don't care, that's fine, but enough with calling people trolls or names who don't agree with you. No, I don't think this kind of coverage this soon after some incredible performances is good for the sport. & it's become a pattern on here, which is why it needs to be called out over and over again until something changes.
Running craze wrote:
Where are the positive posts? Houlihan, Hall, Hutchins, Hehir, Hunter. These are some of the stars of the year that have received the most scrutiny. Why do Letsrun posters have a hang-up with names beginning with "H"? Really, why can't people be excited about great performances? I get it if comments were 10 to 1 positive but they run almost just the opposite.
This.
& it's because of the culture that the brojos foster on here. Time to own up to it.
We get good performances all the time & people feel compelled to trash on our best runners behind a keyboard. I wonder what would tell people it's ok to keep doing that? Oh, idk, a post a couple days after several runners drop good performances complaining about said performances.
Runner10287 wrote:
Gentleman Savage wrote:
Wow. Just wow.
lol seriously RoJoke, You freaking dope.
lol, you’re bad!