Gerry Lindgren opened up 10 mile training run with 4:08 mile

Gerry is known to tell tall tales about his running. Still a phenomenal athlete neverthless. A 13:40 5k in the 1960s as a high schooler? Absolutely incredible.

The story of the 4:08 beginning mile is the most plausible of the stories I heard throughout. If he finished his 10-miler in 50 minutes, then it is just 5:05 average for the last 9 miles. He had the talent to perform the workout, but again the question comes to reality. If one of the running magazines, back in the day, published what Gerry stated he was training, we would really be running long distance! How many people could handle that type of training? I listened to Frank speak this summer about his marathon training. Almost all schedules nowadays and even back then, state to do 20-milers. Frank stated it was very difficult for him to get his quality training runs/intervals in when he built up to 20-milers. He stated it took him about 4 days to recover enough to do an interval workout. He felt running harder 16-milers or so would be just as beneficial and it was easier for him to recover. Needless to say, Gerry was one of the most talented runners in US history, we can't take that away from him.

My 4th grade teacher was roommates with Lindgren at WSU. Said Lindgren would routinely go out for runs and turn up 30-50 miles away, asking his roommate to come pick him up.

The guy was a space cadet. I don't think he even knew how much he was running. But based on these stories, 300 mpw is possible. But I bet it was more like 200 mpw + Gerry's infamous exaggerations.

What I believe or don't believe isn't the point. Yes, some of his claims seem unlikely but cannot be disproven and don't mean that all of his claims are untrue.

The marathon he talks about was covered in Runner's World. He was well ahead of WR pace until late in the race and he fell apart. It's possible that for some part of that time he was on pace for two hours and it's possible that he wasn't. It's likely that the Mt.SAC course was a tenth or two short. His time seems improbable over four miles but if I run a race that I'm told is Distance X and I run time Y, I probably will believe that I did that. It would be great if we could find results from that race to see if anyone behind him was getting massive PRs.

The only point I was making is that you said that someone who could do the things he's claimed would have been a WR holder. Obviously, you didn't know as much about him as you thought. If being a WR holder is your criteria for believing him then you really should believe him.

Some of his claims "seem unlikely"? If you listen to the Lindgren multi-part interview on YouTube or read the entire article linked by the OP - most of his claims are ludicrous, not "unlikely." Even the small details, like being "shot at" by the police when he was out running at night in HS - really? Or being held prisoner by the Russians in 1965, when there for an AAU meet (but he escaped his prison cell by shimming down a drain pipe and then running toward the airport).

I was at the Trails End marathon where Lindgren claims he was "under 2-hour" pace (4:34 per mile) for 20+ miles. He may have been under that pace for 3-5 miles (maybe), but other-wise it is not even remotely true. And, by the way, they did give splits and water in those "olden days" races - unlike Lindgren's claims.

Gerry Lindgren was a phenomenal athlete, and his true accomplishments are outstanding enough; but the man is suffering some type of mental illness.

I do worry that young runners (like those referred to in the article by Ruth Seabrook in the link by the OP) will listen to his ravings and believe them to be true.

HRE wrote:

The only point I was making is that you said that someone who could do the things he's claimed would have been a WR holder. Obviously, you didn't know as much about him as you thought. If being a WR holder is your criteria for believing him then you really should believe him.

I believe that LtR was implying that if Lindgren had done the things he said he did, he would not have "merely" held some world records, he would have wound up with times far faster than he ever did. WAY faster. Even if he had been a choker, which seems very unlikely given his established ability to run himself practically blind.

Given the number of races Gerry ran, had even one of the many, many extremely questionable workout claims he made been close to true, Gerry Lindgren would probably still hold at least one WR between 5K and the marathon inclusive.

No one is disputing that Lindgren was a fantastic runner, and count me among those who are willing to acknowledge that Gerry quite likely never told tall tales *on purpose*. But as far as his basic trustworthiness when it comes to describing his own running history? Come on. This isn't a place where you argue the minutiae, you simply shake your head and see the world for what it is and move on to happier things. I wish Gerry the best because he's a very friendly fellow, but he's also been full of it for a very long time.

End of thread

wife and kids wrote:

He only ran that fast because someone told him that his family was chasing him. He always ran fastest when he was running from responsibility.

What's the rate of divorce in the US now!

Don't come out with that crap about the way he did it. Millions of people divorce the details are irrelevant

Lindgren was a notorious joker so I wouldn't put too much stock in the line about escaping from the Russians. I was shot at on a run, I've had cars deliberately try to run me over so I don't have a hard time believing that he was shot at. In those days it was not uncommon for cops to think someone running along a street had done something illegal.

Things like 80 mile runs and 350 mile weeks seem extreme to me but not impossible and the topic of this thread, opening a ten mile run with a 4:08 mile doesn't seem impossible although again. I wouldn't bet that he knew exactly where the mile mark on his course was, though he may have made a point of measuring it accurately. He was certainly capable of running miles in 4:08 and he did mention that managed that only once.

HRE wrote:

Lorenzo the Magnificent wrote:

If Gerry did the things in training that he says, then he is one of the all time underachievers and chokers in competition. Guys who shatter world records in training ought to be world record holders when someone is actually timing the thing. you know, in track meets and such.

He WAS a world record holder.

His world record came in a race where he finished 2nd. Billy Mills beat him in a very close race over 6 miles and both were timed in 27:11.x For some reason they both got credit for the world record, which seems a little questionable to me, but OK.

Still, 4:32 pace for 6 miles is barely under 2 hour marathon pace. Amazing that in his fastest track race for that distance he averaged 4:32s, but according to him he ran 2 marathons where his pace was barely slower than that for 20+ miles - once even getting to the 26-mile mark at sub-2 pace, but not finishing. How agonizing that must have been! But he shouldn't have been too disappointed; 26 miles at sub-2 marathon pace would still be far and away the best running performance of all time at any distance.

Really, there is no question of he MIGHT have done the more outlandish of these things he claimed, and "you can't prove he didn't". He didn't. He didn't come close to a sub-2 marathon. He didn't run a 16:08 4 mile XC either, or anywhere close. The course would be off by a good bit more than "a tenth of a mile or two" to hit that time.

HRE wrote:

Lindgren was a notorious joker so I wouldn't put too much stock in the line about escaping from the Russians. I was shot at on a run, I've had cars deliberately try to run me over so I don't have a hard time believing that he was shot at. In those days it was not uncommon for cops to think someone running along a street had done something illegal.

Things like 80 mile runs and 350 mile weeks seem extreme to me but not impossible and the topic of this thread, opening a ten mile run with a 4:08 mile doesn't seem impossible although again. I wouldn't bet that he knew exactly where the mile mark on his course was, though he may have made a point of measuring it accurately. He was certainly capable of running miles in 4:08 and he did mention that managed that only once.

All you've done here is underscore the few things in Lindgren's stories that have a hint of plausibility and explain why they might have happened. You didn't answer direct questions about whether Lindgren might have really run 12:30 for 5K on an XC course and then maintained that pace for almost a mile, or twice threatened the two-hour barrier in the marathon at a time the WR was around 2:10, etc. I mean come the hell on -- how does admitting that this crap smells more than fishy besmirch what this great runner DID do? It doesn't have to be a package deal (e.g., Pete Rose was an awesome baseball player AND he had a gambling problem; Kobe Byrant may well be both the best player in NBA history and a sex offender).

You idiots have been trolled by Gerry for years and still don't realize it. You're too stupid to realize what he is doing when he is telling these stories and how they have one consistent theme.

That theme is if you BELIEVE you can't do something because it has never been done, you will FAIL. If you believe you CAN do something or you are open to the possibility, then you CAN achieve it.

my observation... wrote:

You idiots have been trolled by Gerry for years and still don't realize it. You're too stupid to realize what he is doing when he is telling these stories and how they have one consistent theme.

That theme is if you BELIEVE you can't do something because it has never been done, you will FAIL. If you believe you CAN do something or you are open to the possibility, then you CAN achieve it.

That doesn't make sense. Gerry says he did a bunch of things he didn't do and couldn't do, but somehow if we believe he did do those things, we'll be better able to achieve our goals. What?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure it wasn't all just an orchestrated attempt by Gerry to inspire people to achieve more. He seems to believe those things, and even if he doesn't, I don't think he's making things up just to inspire others.

No, I didn't answer those direct questions because as I said, what anyone believes or doesn't believe have no bearing on what actually happened so I don't really bother believing or not believing things like this.

The Mt. SAC time seems very unlikely. I don't know what "threatened" the two hour marathon barrier means. He may have been on that sort of pace for a time. I don't know how long a time someone needs to maintain a pace in order to threaten a particular time. But I don't believe it's possible to run much under 2:05 without drugs but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Similarly, just because Lindgren may be incorrect or exaggerating about those races doesn't mean he did not start some ten mile runs with miles somewhat close to four minutes.

The 6th Beatle wrote:

Anyway, I'm pretty sure it wasn't all just an orchestrated attempt by Gerry to inspire people to achieve more. He seems to believe those things, and even if he doesn't, I don't think he's making things up just to inspire others.

Dude, that's all he talked about for the last 30 years was inspiring others. He did the same thing when he posted on here.

Here's a direct quote from this thread in 07

"WHO sold you all that FEAR? There ain't no such think as a runner "breaking down" because he runs long miles. YOU break down because you FEAR running those long miles, not cos you run them. You break down because you only know how to time your workouts and keep track of speed.

Why not try running towards a destination instead of running workouts? Run to the mountain. Run to the beach. Run to Claudia's house on the other side of the valley; But stop running for 50 minutes or keeping track of each mile you run. You gotta LET yourself run rather than MAKING yourself run. And loose the fear, o.k.???"

You don't seem to get what I'm saying. How does making up fantastic stories for interviewers get to be passed off as trying to inspire people? Are you saying, for example, that he actually thought to himself, "I'll tell people I ran 2-hour marathon pace for 26 miles. That'll inspire them!" Usually when somebody tells lies about themselves that make them out to be better than they really are, we don't think of that as a good thing.

Why can't it just be that he is a guy who tends to lie? Do people like to build up their athletic heroes so that they are perfect in every way? Not only was he a good runner, but I refuse to believe he would also be a liar. If he did lie, it was for the common good!

No. He was a good runner, but he is also a liar. That is a much more reasonable explanation of his tall tales. He's not perfect in all areas. Good runner, bad at the truth. Sort of like Michael Vick. He's a good quarterback, but he's not a good dog owner. Just because he's somebody's favorite football player wouldn't mean they have to start making stuff up to defend his dog antics, like, "man those dogs had probably bitten people and he was just giving them what they had coming", or "he was just doing it to raise awareness of dogfighting". He's still a good quarterback, but he just is not in any way a nice dog owner.

runasfastasucanforaslongasucan wrote:

I listened to Frank speak this summer about his marathon training. Almost all schedules nowadays and even back then, state to do 20-milers. Frank stated it was very difficult for him to get his quality training runs/intervals in when he built up to 20-milers. He stated it took him about 4 days to recover enough to do an interval workout. He felt running harder 16-milers or so would be just as beneficial and it was easier for him to recover.

I hear this a lot from the old guys who worked harder than anyone. Their hard work is what led to the great depth in American distance running in the 60's, 70's & 80's. But the belief of less is more was wrong and as they coached according to their belief rather than what actually worked we got the 90's.

HRE, I should have known you were as batsh*t crazy as Lindgren by your comments on the Lydiard thread.

Thanks for the confirmation!

The 6th Beatle wrote:

Why can't it just be that he is a guy who tends to lie? .

I didn't say he didn't lie, I just said WHY he does it. I also didn't say I believe it works.