Keith Stone wrote:
It's patently unfair to say someone's a wuss because it didn't pay off for them.
Good thing I never said that, Einstein. See my note on genetics. As Surprise! pointed it, it really is about the opportunity cost of running your best. Take it or leave it, it is entirely your own choice.
recovery wrote:
Surprise! wrote:Goal: You want to do your best at running.
1. Take a regular 40 hour a week job.
2. Wake up in the morning before work and run for an hour.
3. Go to work.
4. After work, go for a run - maybe 75 minutes or whatever.
The Africans, even the B and C level Africans in America running mid-level marathons, are sleeping and propping the legs up while you're at work. Running IS their job.
I'm not sure what your point is?
word.
Keith Stone wrote:
A few weeks ago Sergio Reyes won the US marathon champs. The prevailing attitude on the board was it didn't count because Ritz and Hall weren't there. That's a fine howdy-do. We treat a guy that works as hard (and improves as much) as Sergio like has been or never was and then call him a wuss for not training hard enough to run 2:06. Then we bitch because there's not more guys like him.
I'm 20 run 50-60 in xc sub 25 8k with summers 70-80 mpw (singles). 15:15 5k, 32:02 10k.
How do I schedule the mileage to transition to marathon training with goals for 2016 trials.
Surprise! obviously you have not tried waking up before the sun comes up so you can run/eat/shower and still get in to work by 8, work 40 hours a week (minimum, often ends up being closer to 45), commute to and from work, not be so exhausted by the time you get home that you run again, not have time to stretch or do core work because you have just enough time to shovel some food down your face before you get to bed early enough to do it all again tomorrow. If you do a two hour long run on the weekend that is still only around 100-110 miles per week. God forbid you have a family to spend any time with. Now try doing this every day for the next 2-3+ years.
This is why the depth in American distance running is disapearing. When the runners in the 70's and 80's were sleeping/running/eating, they maybe worked part time jobs for a few hours. They did not have $30k in student loans that were accruing interest. What is the incentive for the sub-elite college guy to keep up the spartan lifestyle for several more years, run 2:15-2:20, get no prize money, and the whole time be getting further and further in debt?
Surprise! wrote:
Goal: You want to do your best at running.
1. Take a regular 40 hour a week job.
2. Wake up in the morning before work and run for an hour.
3. Go to work.
4. After work, go for a run - maybe 75 minutes or whatever.
recovery wrote:
The Africans, even the B and C level Africans in America running mid-level marathons, are sleeping and propping the legs up while you're at work. Running IS their job.
Surprise! wrote:
I'm not sure what your point is?
You said, "You want to do your best at running". I say you will never do your best at running while working a full-time job because you'll always be shorting yourself on recovery.
recovery wrote:
You said, "You want to do your best at running". I say you will never do your best at running while working a full-time job because you'll always be shorting yourself on recovery.
jerome drayton worked a full time job 40-60 hours a week and he still has the canadian record (35 years ago he set the record of 2:10:09), and the top canadian runners are full time runners now adays, one of their runners ran 2:11 in toronto, but other than that they have not come close to breaking the canadian marathon record.
Fred Savage wrote:
Surprise! obviously you have not tried waking up before the sun comes up so you can run/eat/shower and still get in to work by 8, work 40 hours a week (minimum, often ends up being closer to 45), commute to and from work, not be so exhausted by the time you get home that you run again, not have time to stretch or do core work because you have just enough time to shovel some food down your face before you get to bed early enough to do it all again tomorrow. If you do a two hour long run on the weekend that is still only around 100-110 miles per week. God forbid you have a family to spend any time with. Now try doing this every day for the next 2-3+ years.
This is why the depth in American distance running is disapearing. When the runners in the 70's and 80's were sleeping/running/eating, they maybe worked part time jobs for a few hours. They did not have $30k in student loans that were accruing interest. What is the incentive for the sub-elite college guy to keep up the spartan lifestyle for several more years, run 2:15-2:20, get no prize money, and the whole time be getting further and further in debt?
I don't know whether surprise! has done this, but I certainly have - I've averaged over 110 miles per week for the last 14 weeks, with a high of 130. I have a fiancee, a house, a mortgage, a dog, and a 30 minute commute. I don't feel sorry for myself in the least, and don't think anyone else should either. I have a great time, and enjoy my running, my work, and the fully sufficient amount of time I have left over to relax.
Oh and if you can really run 2:15-2:20 and don't win prize money, you're either going to the wrong races or aren't giving race directors the right address. That's just crazy. I guarantee you I could find you races to win at LEAST a couple grand a year if you're really that fast. I win a few hundred here and there and I'll probably never run under 2:20.
Surprise! and Edumacator have got it right.
Basically what it comes down to is that Americans are not willing to make the sacrifice it takes to become good at something, because yes, it DOES take sacrifice.
You can either choose to be mediocre at a large number of things, or be GREAT at one or very few things. All it takes is DELIBERATE PRACTICE, which means:
1)Hard work
2)Focus
3)Time
That's it.
The formula to success is pretty simple. Are you willing to put yourself out there to become great, or will you become yet another of the 99% who make excuses?
people nowadays hold off on marriage and kids so long that they should have plenty of time to train in their twenties. So, they don't have the desire to do it. And culture has something to do with that. What kind of statement is it to train hard core when the only comments you get are "run, forrest, run," and people who have run a marathon get all embarrassed if you tell them your time (and it is something well under 3)? It is something else entirely, say, in New York right around the marathon, because you get tons of support from people on the street. It was probably much more like that in the height of the running boom. But as I said on the other thread, we would have at least 100 to 200 running sub 2:20 every year if a higher fraction of the large number of sub 14:40/25:00 collegians went for it either during college (if div 1 instituted a marathon championship race) or in the five years afterwards. I know 15:00 guys running 2:23 to 2:28.
It Takes Effort wrote:
Basically what it comes down to is that Americans are not willing to make the sacrifice it takes to become good at something, because yes, it DOES take sacrifice.
Load of crap. Americans still dominate in swimming and gymnastics. Both are no money secondary sports that require as much or more time and commitment than running. Quite frankly it down to distance running because America still dominates the sprint events for the most part.
So there's no truth to the "American's are all slackers" and will never work for anything myth. Just in the Piedmont Triad there's a youth club swimming system with close to 1000 kids, a chunk of which leave the club system in the winter to swim for high schools. Over double that number in gymnastics clubs.
So you compare that to running in the same geography. There's maybe 300-400 kids in organized running activities before high school. Most of the kids haven't run anything more than sprints before high school, so they are starting from scratch and for the most part distance running is getting the kids that can't do anything else. Sprinters can still play football, distance guys are in cross country. Oooh ya.
Lowering the trials standard isn't going to help (or hurt) distance running. While it may be true having more 2:20 guys would push some of the 2:18 guys to be 2:15 guys. Fine. Who pushes they 2:20 guys? It's not like there's a s**tload of 2:25-2:30 guys sitting around picking their nose just waiting for incentive.
If you want more 2:20 (or 2:15) guys they have to start before high school (like the Africans do), they have to have some organization and support systems, and quite frankly we could do without all the "you're all a bunch of wusses anyway and you'll never work as hard as I did" BS.
I'm sorry, this isn't the place for facts. This is the place to complain about kids today.
Why can't they be like we were, perfect in every way:
Assumming you train for it, a 29x 10k guy can run a sub-2:20 marathon. Chances are, if you place high in your NCAA conference XC meet, you could probably run a 2:20 marathon...again, assumming you trained for it. Btw an ex teammate, who was a 1:48 half miler and 4:03 miler and never ran anything longer than a mile in college and he ran 2:21 in his first and only marathon. He did absolutely no running for several years after college, started running road races in his late 20s and a weekly 10 miler was his version of a long run. He did do one 15 mile run two weeks before the marathon. It is not like we don't have athletes capable of running sub-2:20, but they are not interested.
When running clubs dominated, you had lots of guys running marathons in the 2:15 - 2:20 range and getting support (not necessarily money) from their club. But, when the shoe companies took over starting in the mid-80s, they were primarily interested in track. When it came to the marathon and road races, unless you could make the podium in a major event, they were not interested...the rest is history. Hansons, Zapp, and Mc Millan Elite will give you shot, but you still need to come to them with sub-2:20 capability. We could have 50 more athletes running sub-2:20 next year if they could find a home with their 14x 5k or 29x 10K.
Making the trials (2016) is definitely my biggest long-term running goal.
You Americans are a bunch of whiners. You should be glad you don't live in Canada
"Athletics Canada has set a standard of 2:11.29. If they run the time, they would still have to prove fitness in 2012 and be in the top-three in Canada to make the team."
Only 1 Canadian has run that time so far
douglas burke wrote:
jerome drayton worked a full time job 40-60 hours a week and he still has the canadian record (35 years ago he set the record of 2:10:09), and the top canadian runners are full time runners now adays, one of their runners ran 2:11 in toronto, but other than that they have not come close to breaking the canadian marathon record.
Doug, you know full well the Africans are much, much faster. Running is their full-time job, and it shows.
hardset nipples wrote:
Right, like at Boston and Chicago, hobbyjogger nation has effectively shut out NYCM to the majority of 2:19-2:45 men by requiring them to pay entry months and months in advance.
Er...hobbyjogger nation is attracting 100,000s of kids to the sport.
Team for Kids alone serves 400 schools and reaches 100,000 kids.
That's where the future of USA running is.
Keith Stone wrote:
Load of crap. Americans still dominate in swimming and gymnastics. Both are no money secondary sports that require as much or more time and commitment than running. Quite frankly it down to distance running because America still dominates the sprint events for the most part.
So there's no truth to the "American's are all slackers" and will never work for anything myth. Just in the Piedmont Triad there's a youth club swimming system with close to 1000 kids, a chunk of which leave the club system in the winter to swim for high schools. Over double that number in gymnastics clubs.
So you compare that to running in the same geography. There's maybe 300-400 kids in organized running activities before high school. Most of the kids haven't run anything more than sprints before high school, so they are starting from scratch and for the most part distance running is getting the kids that can't do anything else. Sprinters can still play football, distance guys are in cross country. Oooh ya.
Lowering the trials standard isn't going to help (or hurt) distance running. While it may be true having more 2:20 guys would push some of the 2:18 guys to be 2:15 guys. Fine. Who pushes they 2:20 guys? It's not like there's a s**tload of 2:25-2:30 guys sitting around picking their nose just waiting for incentive.
If you want more 2:20 (or 2:15) guys they have to start before high school (like the Africans do), they have to have some organization and support systems, and quite frankly we could do without all the "you're all a bunch of wusses anyway and you'll never work as hard as I did" BS.
So says Letsrun's ultimate outsider to the world of elite running.
Chubbly wrote:
You Americans are a bunch of whiners. You should be glad you don't live in Canada
"Athletics Canada has set a standard of 2:11.29. If they run the time, they would still have to prove fitness in 2012 and be in the top-three in Canada to make the team."
Only 1 Canadian has run that time so far
And its worse for the women where I do not believe any CAN women has ever run the curently qualifying standard (I think its under the national record or at least it has been since 2004)- Athletics Canada will be the death of distance running in Canada.
Go back to RW wrote:
So says Letsrun's ultimate outsider to the world of elite running.
Sorry dude, but 2:15 to 2:20 isn't elite nowadays. It's damn good no doubt, and it takes a heck of a commitment to get there.
Getting more people to make that commitment means more support systems. Telling someone OK, you're out of school now so run by yourself, self-coach, or find your own coach, and do your own sponsor research, plan you own schedule, etc. Not everyone is cut out for that, and I wouldn't call them a wuss because they're not. If you have a competitive club nearby, great, but there's some significant swaths of the country without them and not all that are there are really ready to develop people on the cusp. We need more ways to lower the barriers to post collegiate runners, and more ways to encourage youngsters to become runners and not turn into soccer players when they hit high school.
In some cases lowering the standard may actually hurt some of those efforts because a club/group that's got some sponsorship needs to show something to the sponsor to make it worthwhile. That "show" often means shots in the press of their athletes with the sponsors logo, good showings at races, etc. If the sponsors expect guys in the trials race with their logo if the club more likely to take a 2:22 guy if the standard is 2:20, or 2:16? We both know 2:20 or 2:16 guy isn't likely to be on the podium anyway.
So what's going to get more people running sub 2:20? Is constantly ragging on the guys at the top (Hall's done, tell Ritz he's not a marathoner, etc) going to help that? If telling people to hang it up because they're not beating the African's anyway helping that? Scan the first page, and there's ONE positive thread about someone's performance. If I'm the outsider it's certainly not the "insiders" that are doing a damn thing to solve the problem.
This isn't about this BS about "everyone's a winner", this is about not spending 100% of your time tearing every distance runner down. Do some work to support a competitive club. Work a race to make it better for the competitors. How about cough up some money to help a guy pay his way to the trails? I do that, what the hell are the "insiders" doing except piss and moan? HMMM?