How Many NCAA Men Can Break 2:12 for MARATHON?

Any four min or better miler should have the potential to run a 5 min pace Marathon. Of course, executing it is a bit different.

It wasn't too common but in the older days some younger runners did run fast marathon times while in college or just out. Kirk Pfeffer was an NCAA All-American, maybe redshirting but ran sub 2:12 back in 1979, and then was 2nd at NYC six months later. And Jeff Wells was maybe 23 when he got 2nd at Boston in 1978. These were good college runners, or just out of college but not superstars, that ran fast fairly young. However, that paradigm did not last long as Salazar flamed out by the time he was 25.

I can't say I agree with that statement. A four minute mile is so far from a 2:12 marathon, they barely have any connections at all. Marathons are much more aerobic.

If my math is correct you are saying that a marathon could be run at 80% of an athlete's mile pace assuming 4 minute pace and 5 minute pace but for 26.2 miles. That is absolutely ridiculous. By that same logic, if you take Usain Bolt's 100m world record and have him run 26.2 times the distance at 80% of the pace, he would be running 2.62 kilometers in 5:01. That is 2:58 per mile pace, which is far and away faster than the mile world record.

Anyone who wants a shot to break 2:12 in the marathon needs to be at a minimum capable of a 29:00 or a 65:00. Realistically for most men, 28:00 and 64:00

Joey Noakes is one guy that comes to mind with an OUTSIDE shot, very small odds but he's got the best i could think off. He's always been incredibly high mileage and is in great shape.

I honestly don't know about the proposed question. I'd imagine a few could but would be wrecked afterwards for lack of the specific training. What if the marathon was added as an event in college athletics? Would we cook 'em young or be building champions of the future?

What’s ridiculous is comparing sprinting an anaerobic event to distance running.

The mile is an aerobic event. All milers do mileage. No sprinters do mileage.

The progression is as follows:

4Min Mile

4:20 5K

4:30 10k

4:45 Half

5:00 min full.

If you go in reverse, all 5 min pace marathoners can run a four min mile with proper training.

with 4 months of marathon training, 50+ collegiate guys could break 2:12. It's just not worth it because they know 2:12 is a garbage time and they won't make any money from it.

There's always going to be 110 pound african guys that switch citizenship and qualify for the USA team over them, and even if they qualify for the olympics there's no money and still minimal sponsorships. They won't make any prize money on the circuit either.

Outside of the few top runners, everyone else is better off just trying to be All American then getting a real job instead of destroying their bodies for no money.

Yes that’s what I’m saying. You either do it or don’t. Don’t give me this crap about so and so runs 28 minutes for 10k so he can run under 2:12. Think Marc Nenow.

If a runner can run under 58 minutes for the half marathon certainly he can break 2:11 for the marathon. Tell that to Kibiwott Kandie.

Until they do it they haven’t done it. You’re entitled to your opinion but you’re not entitled to make up facts.

It wouldn't take much time to get Jackson Sharp sub 2.12, he's easily fast enough, as light as a feather, and grew up doing long runs on mountain trails. Could he do it today? Doubtful, conditioning the legs, and fueling requires practice.

Just make the marathon a D1 championship event and you will get many sub-2:12s every year. Very few of them would do it without specific training. I'm talking about training for the marathon. That would be a great way of improving our national level marathoning. We have plenty of sub-30 10k (going down to a mid-26 guy) runners that could run very good marathons.

👍👍

Agreed! I think that you would find a lot of very motivated athletes doing it, especially as seniors, because it might be their single best shot at securing a pro contract.

This thread has gotten out of hand. Track times are pretty bad indicators of a marathon, they are completely different. Personally I've seen that when I'm in better marathon shape I run slower 3k/5k times. And when I'm running my fastest 3k/5k times it doesn't translate to half marathon/marathon. It's because the training necessary to run your best 3k/5k or your best marathon are completely different.

At the elite professional level, one example, Galen Rupp in 2021 ran 28:00 and 27:59 at Portland Track Fest and US Olympic Trials. That same year he was 8th in the Olympic Marathon and in the fall ran 2:06:35 at the Chicago marathon on a warm/windy day. So does that mean that people training in the NCAA who run 28:00 will run 2:06 in the marathon? Absolutely not. Frank Lara ran 27:40's for 10,000m in 2021 and then switched to marathon in 2022 and ran 2:11 and 2:15 marathons. Again, track times are terrible indicators of what you can run in the marathon. They are completely different. One is running 13-28 minutes really fast, the other is running over 2 hours. They are sooooo far from the same at the elite level.

I don't want to minimize the 2:12, especially for a first marathon effort. But, it's 7-10 minutes off the world leaders' pace, at the best woman's pace, and guys from the US have been doing this for decades. My inclination is to consider that maybe our pro's are not cutting it.

Just using myself as an anecdotal data point, back in the day I was a middling collegiate runner... kind of a normal #4-7 on an average program kind of guy. I felt like I worked hard, though. On a whim, I ran a marathon while in school. I completely fell apart on the last 5 miles and finished in 2:36. After school, I ran with a good group that had a handful of OT qualifiers. I was taking it seriously compared to some (as most stopped running completely after school), but I had a new job, was newly married, just had a child, etc etc. Compared to collegiate running, I was a serious hobby jogger and ran in the mid-2:20s. You could never convince me that a lot of the good collegiate guys couldn't run way faster (and under 2:12).

If you just took a bunch of the good collegiates and said, "Ok, I know you thought we were racing 8K this weekend, but surprise, we're running a marathon instead!" Then, no, there would not be many sub 2:12s. On the other hand, if you took all the upper-tier distance teams (say, top 20), and at the end of track season it was determined that the XC national meet would be a marathon rather than the 10K at Panarama Farms, and if they "buy in" was the same as it is for Nationals. Then, assuming they could all have a first marathon experience in June (to sh*t the bed and learn the event a little), I think A LOT would be break 2:12 in November.

I am not saying this to be mean, but our pros are currently more valued as marketing agents rather than fast runners. The two are related, but not exactly the same, especially when it comes to roads and trails as opposed to the track. If a relative unknown 13:30 guy comes out of school, doesn't do social media, doesn't really do interviews, but puts his down and trains and runs 2:09 at Boston (lets say, a US #5-#7 guy), he will probably not fare well (financially speaking) compared to the DeanK, AllieO, SethDeMore types. Ideally, one could do both, which is what I think Mantz is trying to do, but it's two different skillsets, and frankly, the people drawn to either camp may not really appreciate a person who cold do both. So, the marketers are winning.

ALL this said, and I know I am being longwinded here, but there does seem to be a resurgence in running well in XC and track in high school and college, and to me, that's a very good thing. The extent of the marathon's popularity over 5Ks, 10Ks, and just general fitness is messed up. Lets mostly leave the marathon to the overweight 50 year olds (all the best to them!), and lets have more athletes do the 5K, 10K, summer track meets, etc.

Chill, champ. You don't have what it takes, sport. Unless you have already accomplished it, you haven't done it. You are out of your depth, kid.

Sorry, but with all due respect, I am having a hard team getting beyond this sentence.

Track times for distance events are ABSOLUTELY excellent indicators for marathon potential.

Yeah sure, 3 mile and 6 miles races are GREAT indicators for a 26 mile race! They are practically the same thing!

Really?! No one has been accused of being a mouth breathing troglodyte, an effeminate liberal, a Trump loving incel, a spineless communist, or a closet Bud Light drinker. It’s actually been rather respectful.

Do we need to spice it up with derogatory comments and taunts for you and Sally Vix?

If we're going to minimize a 2:12 for men, then let's minimize a 2:25 for women. The top woman is 2:11, and then others running 2:14/2:15, and many more running 2:17/2:18. Our top woman in 2023 is a 2:21, 10 minutes off the world record set this year. I guess American marathoning for men and women need to step up. We have multiple men running 2:09, only 8 minutes off the world record. But obviously the men's competition is way deeper so the 2:11 men are finishing 30th place in races while a 2:23 is equally far off the win but finishing top 10 so it seems impressive.