Is a >3 hour marathon something to be proud of? I say if you are a woman, yes.. If you're a guy..

Your PRs have to be measured against other track runners in their teens, not against my running. Because I started when I was 20 and I ran my first Marathon 8 month later.

You have to make it to the finish line first before you start bragging about Marathon times.

4523 wrote:

Greg wrote:

They are soundly better. The calculators suggest a 2:33 marathon for me. I admit that was not in the cards.

2:45 would have been realistic to shoot for. 2:50 would have been a reasonable expectation for me had I done a marathon. If you wanna argue that I was running at a higher level than you, that's your business. Also consider than you were running over 7 minute pace for your marathon. Almost all of my training runs were at or near. that pace. Did you run all of your training runs at marathon pace? No you didn't, you would have gotten injured.

What matters here is that your times are well ahead of a 3:07 marathoner

End of discussion.

The 3:07 guy wrote:

Your PRs have to be measured against other track runners in their teens, not against my running. Because I started when I was 20 and I ran my first Marathon 8 month later.

You have to make it to the finish line first before you start bragging about Marathon times.

I ran 16:21 for 5km when I was 20. I didn't even train half the year. What did you run for 5km at that age?

Greg wrote:

Let's put things in perspective. A 3:07 marathon is the equivalent of a 5:25 mile or 31+ minutes for 5 miles.

I would routinely run 6 minute pace for 5 miles in training as a tempo run. I had a best of 26:21 for 8km, or 5:16/mile.

There is no way a 5:25 mile is comparable to a 3hr marathon. Almost any JV kid who runs track can run a 5:25 mile but there is no way half of those kids could run a 3hr marathon, even with some training. A 3:07 marathon is about a 7:08 mile pace. No way someone with a PR of 5:25 could run 26 miles at 7:08.

A 5:25 mile PR is more comparable to a 3:30.

Greg wrote:

The 3:07 guy wrote:

Your PRs have to be measured against other track runners in their teens, not against my running. Because I started when I was 20 and I ran my first Marathon 8 month later.

You have to make it to the finish line first before you start bragging about Marathon times.

I ran 16:21 for 5km when I was 20. I didn't even train half the year. What did you run for 5km at that age?

I never ran 5k's competitively but calculators suggest 16:19. LOL

yeah greg, you win, you are among the best at bragging about what you could have done.

now back to that pressing question- what is a time you did this month for 800, 1600, 2 mile or 5k?

and should you be forced to take a break from posting until you can currently break 18;00 in the 5k?

not even glory days, could a would a days

Greg wrote:

This is a competitive running site!

Greg, that's a bold statement from someone who has not finished a marathon under 3:00, let alone any marathon whatsoever, and is relying on distant past high school "glory" to imply that maybe they could have run a competitive marathon time...

I bet that Swedish online magic coach would be willing to coach you pro bono. Sign up for a marathon. Retain magic coach's services, and show this form what you're made of!!!

Mercier tables suggests my 8km was equivalent to 74:00 half marathon.

https://jmureika.lmu.build/track/Mercier/window7.html

Given that I ran 57:58 for 10 miles, I think at least 76-77:00 would have been a reasonable expectation for a 1/2.

When I ran the 10 miler, it was a hilly course and I was 28:10 at 5 miles. First mile 5:17. Not the best pacing.

And this was at a bit of altitude, not exactly sea level. Surely I could have gone faster, but it is what it is.

Lets say I ran a 78:00 half, which I think was a realistic, conservative estimate.

That points to a 2:44 marathon.

Looking at my weekly milage around the time I ran my 8km/10 mile PRs (which were within 2 weeks of one another)

it's 52, 36, 72, 83, 70, 48, 68, 36, 44, 70, 65, 58. That's 58 miles/week average in a 12 week span.

So I was running my times on less than 60 miles/week.

Lets say I had a terrible ability to handle the full 26.2 distance.

I think I would comfortably come through 1/2 in 1:25-28 and be able to do that again.

I'm not going to fret with someone who's run 3:07 and their top end pace for the marathon was my casual go out the door for a steady run pace. That same person's 5 mile flat out race pace was my stead fast paced 'tempo fish' run.

Not really in the same ball park, 2 different runners with different abilities.

Greg wrote:

4523 wrote:

What matters here is that you are too scared to run a marathon.

End of discussion.

I repeat;

YOU ARE TOO SCARED TO RUN A MARATHON because you haven't achieved anything in years and you are scared to fail.

Greg wrote:

Not really in the same ball park, 2 different runners with different abilities.

Correct. He had the ability to commit to training for a race as an adult. You have not.

You are just scared.

Greg wrote:

Lets say I ran a 78:00 half, which I think was a realistic, conservative estimate.

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

4523 wrote:

How about a challenge for Greg?

Sub 3:00 Marathon by the end of 2021 and the brojos give you 30 minutes on the Letsrun podcast?

greg posts his training logs in a thread. and if he makes it they give him air time..... awesome idea. though of course he just posts links to his youtube here for nothing and talks for 3 hours about all the great stuff he could have done based on knowing he could.

did you post a video of 40 hops yet? how about hopping 10 times around the piano singing karioke?

If you add erG to Greg it is a palindrome.

None of the running equivalent performance calculators are worth anything when comparing shorter distances to marathon+ distances. They tend to vastly overestimate aerobic development, and are worthless in general for younger runners who haven’t logged years of solid mileage.

I would happily bet against any 4:40/16:00 miler/5k runner with no marathon specific training breaking 3. Calculators say they should run 2:36.

Damn, Greg doesn't know the marathon always wins.

Greg wrote:

I have no doubt I would have run a marathon under 3 hours in my competitive running days. 0 doubt whatsoever.

The fact I've never run a marathon is basically irrelevant.

If you were intelligent then you would have some doubt.

Greg wrote:

said if you live in a glass house dont throw stone wrote:

come on now greg. get out and try it and see what you decide then. if someone sets a goal they will know once they meet it if its worth being proud. i'd bet you cant break 3;00 in the next 6 months. is talking trash from the livingroom better than at 3;00.01 marathon?

There is nothing for me to prove in running. I am satisfied with the results I have. This started from someone with a 3:07 PR claiming I couldn't run under 3 hours... Most LRers know my track/road times line up to a marathon performance 10-20 minutes faster than a 3:07, so why would I have to go prove it to the slower guy?

Shouldn't the 3:07 guy be proving he can run a mile under 4:50? Break 27 for 5 miles? Why would I have to prove it?

This is bizarre, nobody cares what your times project to. If that was the case there wouldn't be an olympic marathon - they would just project Jakob's time and give him the gold. This is dumb.

big city fan wrote:

None of the running equivalent performance calculators are worth anything when comparing shorter distances to marathon+ distances. They tend to vastly overestimate aerobic development, and are worthless in general for younger runners who haven’t logged years of solid mileage.

I would happily bet against any 4:40/16:00 miler/5k runner with no marathon specific training breaking 3. Calculators say they should run 2:36.

Exactly. He is bragging about it with no evidence he could achieve that result. Natural talent can carry younger runners pretty far with minimal effort. Once you get to the marathon though you can't phone it in and expect to break 3 hours. There was a guy on my cross country team who smoked all year but quit during cross country. He didn't run in the off season and didn't bother with track. He ran in the mid 17's. I promise you that guy never could have done a sub 3, he wasn't dedicated.

Greg never dedicated himself to that kind of distance and can't prove he had it in him to do the training. So his calculators are worthless.

I ran a 5:09 in JV for the mile. Based on that I should have been able to do a 17:07 5K.

My best time was 18:34 as a sophomore before I quite cross country.

Why so slow? Because I was lazy and didn't run or train except at practice during the season.