Ah the good old "why isn't everyone running the world record" conundrum.
-
191
-
NERunner03533 wrote:
I'm guessing sub-2:18 is more like 99.9 percentile.
I actually feel like OP's premise is backwards. Too many people hate on sub-2:18s around here. I think it's because people can't separate out how no US male is running sub-2:06 with how impressive a 2:17 still is. The 2:17 marathoners are not why the US isn't more competitive in the marathon. That time, on its own, is hugely impressive. It's something not many people can do. Some people have to basically devote their whole lives to hitting it. It's a completely appropriate Trials standard. It helps generate local buzz. It's not holding back the pointy end of the field.
Maybe shoes have something to do with it too. People have convinced themselves that they're worth 5 minutes when they're worth more like 60-90s on a perfect weather day with perfect pacing/fueling. A lot has to go right to run 2:17 & you have to be pretty talented to even think about it. Would rather be happy for someone running an OTQ than instantly comparing them to Kipchoge.
This!
It's always funny to see how far into a bubble runners are.We just had this discussion in our running group last night where a lady could not imagine that anyone couldn't run one mile. Most people can run a half mile.
Don't judge just from looking around you, were almost everybody is a runner, the rest of the world.
Even a 5 hour marathon runner is elite in the bigger picture. 99% of the overall population can't do that.132 -
HRE wrote:
runn wrote:
The main reason is because it is. It still puts you at the very top of all the people who run marathons.
It takes dedication and a lot of training.
Exactly. I'm not interested enough in this to dig up actual numbers here but I'd bet 2:18 puts a guy at least at the 95th percentile of all marathon times and quite possibly higher. I'd really like it if there was a way we could see what sort of marathon times, if any, people who post here about how weak times like 2:20 or so are. In real life I've never known anyone who's run faster than that would agree with the sort of nonsense the OP put here.
Runners World used to publish every marathon time reported. I ran a 2:49 and was very near the top % of the American list. And this was before the mega marathons were as mega as they are now.
Think about how many different people run marathons all over the world- big city, small town ...
82 -
calculating paces wrote:
NERunner03533 wrote:
I'm guessing sub-2:18 is more like 99.9 percentile.
I actually feel like OP's premise is backwards. Too many people hate on sub-2:18s around here. I think it's because people can't separate out how no US male is running sub-2:06 with how impressive a 2:17 still is. The 2:17 marathoners are not why the US isn't more competitive in the marathon. That time, on its own, is hugely impressive. It's something not many people can do. Some people have to basically devote their whole lives to hitting it. It's a completely appropriate Trials standard. It helps generate local buzz. It's not holding back the pointy end of the field.
Maybe shoes have something to do with it too. People have convinced themselves that they're worth 5 minutes when they're worth more like 60-90s on a perfect weather day with perfect pacing/fueling. A lot has to go right to run 2:17 & you have to be pretty talented to even think about it. Would rather be happy for someone running an OTQ than instantly comparing them to Kipchoge.
This!
It's always funny to see how far into a bubble runners are.
We just had this discussion in our running group last night where a lady could not imagine that anyone couldn't run one mile. Most people can run a half mile.
Don't judge just from looking around you, were almost everybody is a runner, the rest of the world.Even a 5 hour marathon runner is elite in the bigger picture. 99% of the overall population can't do that.
Yes, I realized how "not slow" slow runners are after I had a hamstring injury at 56 that I thought ended any running I would ever do.
I'm back and I'm increasing mileage again, but I used to routinely do 20 mile training runs at 6:00 per mile, now I can't run a 6:00 mile but I feel like I'm running just as fast.
I'm 64 and getting slower despite being so healthy that my doctor called me a medical anomaly.
61 -
2:18 is hugely impressive.
//thread.
115 -
HRE wrote:
Exactly. I'm not interested enough in this to dig up actual numbers here but I'd bet 2:18 puts a guy at least at the 95th percentile of all marathon times and quite possibly higher.
The internet says that the top 1% is below 2:42:56.
70 -
The time is impressive but 2:30 and under Marathoners are a physically unimpressive group.
We have solid evidence that a smaller overall body size (height, weight, BMI) is conducive to faster marathons. This table shows that male Olympic Marathon winners cluster around a height of about 5’6”, a weight of about 125 pounds, and a BMI of about 19.
34 -
R&R wrote:
sub 14 5000i wrote:
See title. It's 17 minutes off the WR. the OTQ time is a complete joke
Because it takes a hell of a lot of dedication to get there, and most don't have the talent to ever do it. And yet, they still are sub-elite.
But but but, I was only a mile behind the leaders in 1988 with my sub-elite 2:16.
40 -
calculating paces wrote:
DevonDixonFan wrote:
I don't anyone thinks 2:18 is all that impressive. Most 14:30 (and many 15:00) runners could run faster if they trained for it. Most people don't train for the marathon because it's boring and they're doing other better things with their life.
Also whoever said it's equivalent to sub 14:00 is delusional.
Nope, they could not.
As you mentioned they would find the training too boring.
Most 14:30 runners seem to not understand that you actually have to race a distance in order to get a PR. Just plucking it into a race calculator does not count.
You actually must love running if you are willing to race a marathon. Remember kids if you suck at running just keep adding miles to bore your competition to death, then you can pretend you deserve recognition.
Marathon running is anti competitive and unhealthy. Congrats on DNFing or your 2:50 at the trials though, you really showed the world by walking in the last 12k.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted. Reason provided: Ing514 -
I agree with you about a 2:18 being more likely above the 99th percentile but without actual data didn't want to oversell the time. Even if the time is only "worth" 2:22-2:25 in traditional shoes it's still probably well above the 95th percentile.
14 -
willbillonthehill wrote:
HRE wrote:
Exactly. I'm not interested enough in this to dig up actual numbers here but I'd bet 2:18 puts a guy at least at the 95th percentile of all marathon times and quite possibly higher.
The internet says that the top 1% is below 2:42:56.
Thanks.
22 -
By time standards, sure, it’s slow by today’s top end standards. but 2 things must be considered:
1) The Olympic marathon is never about time, it’s about racing tactics and savvy, therefore you don’t necessarily need to be the fastest to be competitive, you need to be a great racer.
2) The Olympics mission is much broader than just focusing on the absolute fastest. It’s a global event that celebrates nations coming together all over the world. If time was the only factor, than this mission would not be achieved, for the marathon would be represented by less than a handful of countries.
62 -
The website called "Running Level" allows you to compare results depending on age and distances. According to them a runner in their 20s or early 30s running 2:18 for a marathon is better than 99.97% of runners that age. I guess whether that is impressive or not depends on your standards.
80 -
HRE wrote:
I agree with you about a 2:18 being more likely above the 99th percentile but without actual data didn't want to oversell the time. Even if the time is only "worth" 2:22-2:25 in traditional shoes it's still probably well above the 95th percentile.
This leans into the people who don't think that it's impressive. A 2:18 is more like a 2:19-2:20. Top elite times have moved 1:30-2:00 max. & you need to run well on a good weather day for it to matter. 2:19-2:20 is impressive. 2:18 is impressive.
24 -
sub 14 5000i wrote:
See title. It's 17 minutes off the WR. the OTQ time is a complete joke
Right, so let's make the OTQ standard something respectable like 2:10... there will be like 5 dudes in the race.
40 -
2:18 is FIFTEEN (15) Percent (%) slower than WR, that is outside the realm of elite running IMO. That is SUB-elite (hobbyist) running level although still difficult for many.
37 -
Because Wejo is a 2:18 marathoner. He'd probably have been more like a 2:16 marathoner in supershoes, so still slower than PR. Rojo is a 2:23 marathoner but probably wouldn't have been a 2:18 marathoner even with the $500 adidas trust funder model supershoe.
41 -
Avocado's Number wrote:
fully agreed wrote:
I agree the OTQ standard is way too soft.
It's like chess where Grand Master is the highest title. There are a ton of people at IM, CM, FM, etc but they are actually EXTREMELY far from reaching the GM title.
The OTQ time should be 2:12.00
... Back then, there had only been about one hundred GMs in the entire history of the title, including the inaugural group in 1950, and most were from the Soviet Union, ...
The first Grandmaster titles were awarded by Czar Nicholas II of Russia after the 1914 St Petersburg tournament. The inaugural 5 were reigning world champion Emanuel Lasker, future world champions Jose Raul Capablanca and Alexander Alekhine, and also Siegbert Tarrasch and Frank Marshall.
00 -
According to the 2016 list,
In a nation with 165 million males only 168 qualified for the 2016 trials.
(and some of those got in on the half standard)
So a 2:18 guy is one in a million.
60 -
Wejo should have been able to go faster. I know I sound like a certain 'runner' here by interpreting a marathon time from a shorter distance, but 28:06 should be 2:09-2:10.
02
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.