Look at this Will Norris guy. He ran 2:12:33 and from what I can see his best times are 1:05:21 and 30:28. So I don’t know what to make of it, but my guess is he can run faster at the half and 10000m, that he is made for the marathon, and that conditions were ideal to run fast yesterday.
Winner was a 59 Half Marathon guy and 3rd place has run sub 2:10 five times with a couple 2:08’s, so that’s good company to be running near, and they didn’t run faster than you’d expect those guys to run.
but I just looked through Richtman’s training. I was hoping to see some big work, but he maxed out at 100 miles per week a few weeks, and most of his running is 7:25-7:40 pace. And his workouts aren’t especially fast either. So not particularly impressive in any aspect, yet he debuts as a top 20 American marathon runner of the past few years and near top 50 all-time Americans. Makes me feel like I understand even less about how to run fast. Maybe he’s in the weight room a lot or something that’s not running
All the college kids reading this who run their easy days at 6:30 pace but can’t break 14:30 for 5k go home devastated.
Matt Richtman marathon debut 2:10.45 at twin cities today for 4th. Guy is 24 year old Montana state grad. He could be a real threat come LA trials of things keep progressing. Surely someone will pick this guy up
He's a smart kid too with a degree in mechanical engineering from Montana State, the same degree obtained by Mantz.
I agree with you. I add 2 minutes to every marathon to compare to times run before super shoes. So 2:10 today is like 2:12 ten years ago. That’s solid, especially for a debut, but it’s a stretch to say someone running that time is a “star.”
Everyone is wearing super shoe so you don't have to add any time.
The shoes that Bill Rogers wore in 1980 were much faster than the shoes that the guys wore in 1956.
And the shoes that Rogers wore weren't as fast as the shoes they were wearing in 2000.
I've run through the evolution of shoes from 1971 to the present. I just see them all as technological advances. Yes, we've taken an exponential jump with super shoes but so is technology in general.
And, as a 65 year old the nylon and carbon plated shoes are making running much more enjoyable for me (and others).
Yes, you have to have a time conversion to compare today’s results to times run in the past. A 2:10 today is not the same as it was when Bill Rodgers ran.
richtman’s result really is impressive. especially after running a full track season earlier this year. Kudos to Lyle Weese, who i assume is still his coach, he’s really proving that he can develop local talent
I down voted because there is no sense to downplay a good achievement.
2:10 isn't "competitive" but it's still fast and he could be among the best Americans.
There's just no need to be negative. OK, I'm sure the clown who posted that runs 2:04 and does long runs at 2:10 pace. But we're all not superstars like he is.
And there is no need to overhype a good achievement. If the OP used a title like “former Montana State runner with a 4:17 1600 high school PR runs 2:10 marathon in his debut,” then the response would have probably been more positive because a 2:10 marathon debut is AMAZING for someone with such a modest background.
The problem is the OP called him a “New American Marathon Star.” That thread title raised hopes and expectations. When I saw that title, I thought someone must have run 2:07 or better. Then I saw 2:10 and was disappointed.
Running 2:10 made Frank Shorter a star in 1972. It does not make a man a star in 2024.
richtman’s result really is impressive. especially after running a full track season earlier this year. Kudos to Lyle Weese, who i assume is still his coach, he’s really proving that he can develop local talent
It looked like he took a break after the track season and didn't start ramping up the training until August for the marathon. Relatively short build, and relatively low mileage when comparing to other marathoners running around 2:10
This is why the obsession with world class times is so frustrating.
This guys story is awesome, small school division state xc champ in high school, ends up as the #1 runner on a good d1 team, and then after graduating starts grinding on the roads and runs a 2:10 his first time out.
The U.S. isn't East Africa with 500 guys who can run 2:10, we have our own system here and we should celebrate those that are successful in it.
Winner was a 59 Half Marathon guy and 3rd place has run sub 2:10 five times with a couple 2:08’s, so that’s good company to be running near, and they didn’t run faster than you’d expect those guys to run.
but I just looked through Richtman’s training. I was hoping to see some big work, but he maxed out at 100 miles per week a few weeks, and most of his running is 7:25-7:40 pace. And his workouts aren’t especially fast either. So not particularly impressive in any aspect, yet he debuts as a top 20 American marathon runner of the past few years and near top 50 all-time Americans. Makes me feel like I understand even less about how to run fast. Maybe he’s in the weight room a lot or something that’s not running
All the college kids reading this who run their easy days at 6:30 pace but can’t break 14:30 for 5k go home devastated.
Its recovery from training, not training itself that produces faster times. You need the results before you run 630 "easy" pace. In the 140+ mile a week thread some guy who improved a ton said his easy pace would seem mind bogglingly slow to some.
You don't benefit much at all going from an easy aerobic effort (like 55-65% mhr) to tempo pace (like 1 hr race effort pace). There are some scenarios (marathon training) where you benefit from long sustained efforts (8 miles at mp might not be enough) in this range but not really for 5k/10k racing.
The guy questioning if there is more to the training should read why I sucked in college by wejo. Improvement is not about easy pace, killer workouts, etc., but consistently recovering from workouts.
You want to use a periodization system ala Lydiard to do bang for your buck workouts at the right time. Its only going to be super responders who run debuts like this though.
I down voted because there is no sense to downplay a good achievement.
2:10 isn't "competitive" but it's still fast and he could be among the best Americans.
There's just no need to be negative. OK, I'm sure the clown who posted that runs 2:04 and does long runs at 2:10 pace. But we're all not superstars like he is.
And there is no need to overhype a good achievement. If the OP used a title like “former Montana State runner with a 4:17 1600 high school PR runs 2:10 marathon in his debut,” then the response would have probably been more positive because a 2:10 marathon debut is AMAZING for someone with such a modest background.
The problem is the OP called him a “New American Marathon Star.” That thread title raised hopes and expectations. When I saw that title, I thought someone must have run 2:07 or better. Then I saw 2:10 and was disappointed.
Running 2:10 made Frank Shorter a star in 1972. It does not make a man a star in 2024.
It's perfectly legitimate for a 24 year old with limited collegiate accomplishments to "raise hopes and expectations" of becoming a "new American marathon star" following his 2:10:45 debut on a very average mid-city marathon course, running competitively against established performers.
It would not be unusual at all for someone like this, properly coached, to be running 2:05-06 in 4 years time, making him, indeed, "a new American marathon star". Is it possible that someone else may emerge to do the same thing, or maybe even faster, in this same time period? Of course. But this guy has actually taken the first step. His potential is now far more than theoretical.
I don't know why people actually prefer to be so obtuse on this site.
Look at this Will Norris guy. He ran 2:12:33 and from what I can see his best times are 1:05:21 and 30:28. So I don’t know what to make of it, but my guess is he can run faster at the half and 10000m, that he is made for the marathon, and that conditions were ideal to run fast yesterday.
Can confirm. He is both capable of faster over 10k and HM and he is made for the marathon. He would have done something like this at OTs in Feb but caught Covid the week before (still finished that one in 2:20-- he can grind!).
And, yes, conditions were obviously very good on Sunday-- breezy, but perfect temps.
And there is no need to overhype a good achievement. If the OP used a title like “former Montana State runner with a 4:17 1600 high school PR runs 2:10 marathon in his debut,” then the response would have probably been more positive because a 2:10 marathon debut is AMAZING for someone with such a modest background.
The problem is the OP called him a “New American Marathon Star.” That thread title raised hopes and expectations. When I saw that title, I thought someone must have run 2:07 or better. Then I saw 2:10 and was disappointed.
Running 2:10 made Frank Shorter a star in 1972. It does not make a man a star in 2024.
It's perfectly legitimate for a 24 year old with limited collegiate accomplishments to "raise hopes and expectations" of becoming a "new American marathon star" following his 2:10:45 debut on a very average mid-city marathon course, running competitively against established performers.
It would not be unusual at all for someone like this, properly coached, to be running 2:05-06 in 4 years time, making him, indeed, "a new American marathon star". Is it possible that someone else may emerge to do the same thing, or maybe even faster, in this same time period? Of course. But this guy has actually taken the first step. His potential is now far more than theoretical.
I don't know why people actually prefer to be so obtuse on this site.
He may someday become a star, but running 2:10 doesn’t make a man a star. A woman just ran 2:09.
I think this is a great story BUT the world has improved so much in the marathon, to the point that 2:10 is just not competitive anymore. We had many Americans running 2:10 or faster every year decades ago. Now with the supershoes and who knows what else, 2:10 has become like whatever. But if he can continue to improve, then maybe he can become a real factor.
A 2:10 debut is great, nothing more needs to be said. Especially on a course that isn't a pancake like Chicago/Berlin/Tokyo/London. Twin Cities has just shy of 700 foot elevation, and is slightly net uphill. It's a solid minute slower than those other courses I mentioned. Kibiwott Kandie, while holding the half marathon world record, only debuted at New York (a similar course of difficulty to Twin Cities) in 2:13. It wouldn't be shocking at all if a year from now with continued good marathon training Richtman shows up to Chicago on a nice day and runs a 2:08.
How about he shows up to LA 5 months from now and runs a 2:07
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.