Teg Debut time

Harrowing Stupidity wrote:

the small of tanakas back wrote:

It is well known that gingers age especially horribly

Even without this, your post is dismally ignorant. With it, you more or less appear to have a neurological disorder. You may want to stop following running and become a fan of NASCAR or curling or something.

Cut a little too close to home there, red? The truth hurts.

Also, the rest of my post is spot on, as usual.

Yeah, I'm echoing a lot of folks here, when I say 2:13 to 2:14 range.

From the 30000 to the 10K, He and Ritz's times are remarkably similiar, within 5 seconds of each other in every instance.

Ritz subsequently debuted with a 2:14, and given that 1) Teg is older and 2) A bit more resilient, I say the two cancel each other out, and he'll debut with a very similar time.

Mid-2:09 is possible given his 20k, but 2:13 seems more realistic given the coaching environment he is in.

Except NY is about two minutes slower than Chicago and Ritz blew up completely. Still I'm looking for Teg to run 11-12.

[quote]rojo wrote:

"Someone had to do it" your posts isn't very good. Let me take it apart.

[quote]someone had to do it wrote:

Rojo, I realize that the mental midget w bush is one of your heroes, somebody to whom you worship, but "fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son." Please go back to elementary school and learn some English grammar.

2:18:40 -- let the fade continue.....

Student wrote:

2:18:40 -- let the fade continue.....

I don't want to sound to negative, but after reading his recent interviews it sounds like his heart is not in it like it used to be. Combine that with the series of injuries he has experiences, his age, declining performance, and the fact that his best peak range is 3-5K, a fast marathon time would be surprising. On the other hand, if his build-up goes well, he finds inspiration, and the race conditions are good, he could pull a sub-2:10. The odds of that are very low. It is more likely that he either DNF or DNS.

the small of tanakas back wrote:

Cut a little too close to home there, red? The truth hurts.

Also, the rest of my post is spot on, as usual.

Even if I had red hair -- and it's not even close -- your first post is moronic and your response to be nothing more than a childish ad hominem.

Please provide evidence for the statement that "gingers" age more poorly than other runners. I won't hold my breath -- you're clearly part of the 45.8% of Letsrun posters who qualifies as functionally retarded (and additional 36.6% are merely dumb, while 11.2% provide passably useful information and the remaining 6.4% -- that's only one in sixteen! -- are intelligent).

Given his large size and his confidence he has at shorter distances and that he is an American, he will have an over-inflated sense of his own ability for this distance and will be too aggressive in the first 20 miles resulting in a blow-up.

If he is running where it will be hot, he'll have that to contend with as well; which will very much work against him given his larger body size.

If he took the first half more relaxed, has his nutrition right and is generally feeling awesome that day, I'd say maybe a 2:13:30.

Harrowing Stupidity wrote:

the small of tanakas back wrote:

It is well known that gingers age especially horribly

Even without this, your post is dismally ignorant. With it, you more or less appear to have a neurological disorder. You may want to stop following running and become a fan of NASCAR or curling or something.

Don't hate on curling.

Jesus Christ, fellas, 6' 1" and 145 is not "big." Just because he doesn't have a BMI of 11.4 like the freakish-looking Culpepper -- even Alan's HEAD is skinny as hell -- doesn't mean he's too hefty for the marathon.

You people are dim. Try harder, please.