Why most Sub Elite male Runners cant beat the Women Marathon World record?

We’re talking about the marathon here. Physiology is quite different. Do try and keep up.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You're missing the point. The top male marathon runners of the '60's trained hard, often including regimes from 100mpw to near 200mpw at times (Jeff Julian). These weren't slow miles either. Yet many of these runners were hardly faster than Radcliffe's record time.

Derek Clayton ran 2h 09 min in 1967, then 2h 08 min in 1969, Ron Hill ran 2h 11 in 1969, Jerome Drayton ran 2h 11 in 1969, Bill Addocks ran 2h 10 in 1968, Akio Usami ran 2h 11 in 1969, etc etc etc -these are all much faster times than Radcliffe's.

60s amateur glory wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You're missing the point. The top male marathon runners of the '60's trained hard, often including regimes from 100mpw to near 200mpw at times (Jeff Julian). These weren't slow miles either. Yet many of these runners were hardly faster than Radcliffe's record time.

Derek Clayton ran 2h 09 min in 1967, then 2h 08 min in 1969, Ron Hill ran 2h 11 in 1969, Jerome Drayton ran 2h 11 in 1969, Bill Addocks ran 2h 10 in 1968, Akio Usami ran 2h 11 in 1969, etc etc etc -these are all much faster times than Radcliffe's.

They also raced much more often, including non marathon distances, and ran for wins and not for times.

It's because they don't post on LR. If you post on LR you PRS are automatically 1:41/3:40 (mile)/12:45/26:59/58:30/2:03

It’s the money wrote:

Nice try fella wrote:

Nice try. Do high school and college male 1:49 to 1:54 800m runners use lack of training time as an excuse? Many college 800m runners, D-2 & D-3 can beat every woman 800m runners.

We’re talking about the marathon here. Physiology is quite different. Do try and keep up.

I brought up 800m because that is the longest distance U.S. men are elite athletes. U.S. men are sorry Marathon runners. If U.S. men need a chef, a coach and a salary to run as fast as elite women, U.S. men simply are not good Marathoners.

Ask RoeJoe

Nice try fella wrote:

It’s the money wrote:

We’re talking about the marathon here. Physiology is quite different. Do try and keep up.

I brought up 800m because that is the longest distance U.S. men are elite athletes. U.S. men are sorry Marathon runners. If U.S. men need a chef, a coach and a salary to run as fast as elite women, U.S. men simply are not good Marathoners.

Another factor, Americans are just plain lazy. Not many have the work ethic to put in 30+ km a day, day after day. Week after week. Than you see pansies on here justifying their laziness. sad.

60s amateur glory wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You're missing the point. The top male marathon runners of the '60's trained hard, often including regimes from 100mpw to near 200mpw at times (Jeff Julian). These weren't slow miles either. Yet many of these runners were hardly faster than Radcliffe's record time.

Derek Clayton ran 2h 09 min in 1967, then 2h 08 min in 1969, Ron Hill ran 2h 11 in 1969, Jerome Drayton ran 2h 11 in 1969, Bill Addocks ran 2h 10 in 1968, Akio Usami ran 2h 11 in 1969, etc etc etc -these are all much faster times than Radcliffe's.

You have chosen performances at the very end of the decade, the best times in the early to mid 60's for men were nowhere near that - 2.15 for Bikila in 1960 and 2.12 in 1964. Most top marathoners through to the mid '60's were running closer to Radcliffe's time or slower.

yawn wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The biggest improvements today are not through training methods - these were largely established by the late '60's - but pharmaceuticals. Professional sport wouldn't be what it is today without it.

No that's your delusion.

So doping is every where in sport today, with an estimated prevalence of up to more than 50% in elite competition, and yet it has had no effect on marathon performances. That is delusion.

Internetsherlock wrote:

I am not elite by any means but guys that gets stuck around 2:16- 2:20 . How is it that a guy who has a talent in running considering they are able to run 2:20 finds it difficult to beat 2:15:25 set by Paula Radcliffe .

What is going on here?

Because "sub elite" is a meaningless term.

So doping is every where in sport today, with an estimated prevalence of up to 100% in elite competition, and yet it has had no effect on marathon performances.

And slow marathon times. Seriously if you are a 13:40 runner and you train for the Marathon and run a 2:17, do you think your training was remotely good? Maybe it was a better match for the middle distances (or those were just Magees better distance) but if you can run 29:00 for 10k and you can't break, 2:17, you are doing something wrong.

I suppose if you wanted to be generous you can point out how poor those guys race day nutrition was and how rarely they raced fast course (well other than aided Boston).

Too much focus on time, back than they focused more on competing. I guarantee it that Magees in modern shoes, better race day nutrition on a Berlin type course with pacers could've went 2:10 range.

Armstronglivs wrote:

yawn wrote:

No that's your delusion.

So doping is every where in sport today, with an estimated prevalence of up to more than 50% in elite competition, and yet it has had no effect on marathon performances. That is delusion.

Of course. Only your heroes of the past were squeaky clean. Snell = clean, Kamworor = doper, Halberg = clean, Kipchoge = doper.

You are a tool.

2:17 back than was solid wrote:

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

And slow marathon times. Seriously if you are a 13:40 runner and you train for the Marathon and run a 2:17, do you think your training was remotely good? Maybe it was a better match for the middle distances (or those were just Magees better distance) but if you can run 29:00 for 10k and you can't break, 2:17, you are doing something wrong.

I suppose if you wanted to be generous you can point out how poor those guys race day nutrition was and how rarely they raced fast course (well other than aided Boston).

Too much focus on time, back than they focused more on competing. I guarantee it that Magees in modern shoes, better race day nutrition on a Berlin type course with pacers could've went 2:10 range.

He had pacers in Rome.

He did have one of three wrote:

2:17 back than was solid wrote:

Too much focus on time, back than they focused more on competing. I guarantee it that Magees in modern shoes, better race day nutrition on a Berlin type course with pacers could've went 2:10 range.

He had pacers in Rome.

In Rome they were running for top three, not time.

I know what steroidal use looks like. And when I think of elite runners who have used (male or female) Paula Radcliffe is usually the first name that comes to mind for me, the second being bolt. I'm not trying to be funny. You just know what it looks like.

Nice try fella wrote:

It’s the money wrote:

We’re talking about the marathon here. Physiology is quite different. Do try and keep up.

I brought up 800m because that is the longest distance U.S. men are elite athletes. U.S. men are sorry Marathon runners. If U.S. men need a chef, a coach and a salary to run as fast as elite women, U.S. men simply are not good Marathoners.

Except the conversation is about sub-elite US men, not elite. And it’s not about elite women. It’s about the most elite of all women all time.

Keep it Extra Real wrote:

I know what steroidal use looks like. And when I think of elite runners who have used (male or female) Paula Radcliffe is usually the first name that comes to mind for me, the second being bolt. I'm not trying to be funny. You just know what it looks like.

If those are your examples, then no, no you don't know what "steroidal" use looks like...