Wrong, it is likely I would have run in the 2:40s. I had good times at 8k/10 miles, as I said in this thread I had done a 2.5 hour run. I knew what I was capable of. Just because it rubs you the wrong way doesn't mean I wasn't capable.
Many other posters here agreed with me that based on my times I would have run at least 2:45. So for you to say it was not likely at all is BS.
Sorry Greg, but you are still wrong here. There is of course a whole world of high quality running outside the marathon. But the marathon is different in how it punishes those who don't respect the distance.
You obviously do not respect the distance, which is why you would never have been able to produce a marathon time predicted by some table. My guess is that you would have been able to run somewhere between 3:00 and 3:30, with a big positive split for the second half.
There are very few readers of this forum who believe you could have ever run in the 2:40s. Almost no one, I'd wager, besides people pulling your chain.
But you are still young enough to see the light, put in the work, and post a good time. Your choice.
No, you are wrong. There were many posters with 230-240s marathon PRs who agreed with me that I would have run 2:45-48. They are found on another thread if you look for it.
Obviously completing the distance would have been no issue for me, I was running 60 + miles/week and had run over 2 hours many times.
Many of my steady pace runs were at 7 minute pace or faster.
You ran an ok time but to think a guy like me who at 19 ran times that pointed to a 2:45 marathon wouldn't have been capable is just you getting but hurt that something you worked hard for could have been achieved by someone like me with probably a bit more talent.
Look, I've never run a marathon and may never. I asked site founder Wejo (who has run a marathon) whether he thought my 26:21 8k was better than a 3:07 marathon in an email.
His response was that the 8k was WAY better.
No, I didn't need to ask him what I already knew myself but there is some insight for you.
I'll post the email too if Wejo says it's ok but at this point I don't think it matters.
Just get over the fact I ran times that point to a marathon comparable to yours.
Wrong, it is likely I would have run in the 2:40s. I had good times at 8k/10 miles, as I said in this thread I had done a 2.5 hour run. I knew what I was capable of. Just because it rubs you the wrong way doesn't mean I wasn't capable.
Many other posters here agreed with me that based on my times I would have run at least 2:45. So for you to say it was not likely at all is BS.
There are very few readers of this forum who believe you could have ever run in the 2:40s. Almost no one, I'd wager, besides people pulling your chain.
a flat out lie, there are several who believe I had 2:40s ability based on my PRs. Find them on other threads I've created, I'm not going to bother posting them. if it bothers you so much you are on a site with people who have more experience in the sport than you and have different opinions, just don't visit lets run.
also my comment on the marathon in the past had nothing to do with not respecting the distance, that is a silly perspective that you use to justify the fact I said I felt I had certain marathon ability than made your ego buthurt
quit allowing my posts to hurt your ego and you'll stop bickering with me about something foolish to begin with.
The only evidence we have to work with is that Greg was able to run 18-20 miles in 2.5 hours. If he ran 20 miles he averaged 7:30 mile pace and if it was only 18 miles he averaged 8:20 mile pace.
It was already calculated that 7:30 pace is a 3:16.30 marathon and 8:20 pace is a 3:38.20 marathon. Considering most people hit the wall around mile 18-20 it isn't surprising that Greg would slow down at this point since he usually gives up when things get tough.
I'm not an expert, but I think Greg was realistically a 3:45 marathoner at his peak.
The only evidence we have to work with is that Greg was able to run 18-20 miles in 2.5 hours. If he ran 20 miles he averaged 7:30 mile pace and if it was only 18 miles he averaged 8:20 mile pace.
It was already calculated that 7:30 pace is a 3:16.30 marathon and 8:20 pace is a 3:38.20 marathon. Considering most people hit the wall around mile 18-20 it isn't surprising that Greg would slow down at this point since he usually gives up when things get tough.
I'm not an expert, but I think Greg was realistically a 3:45 marathoner at his peak.
Sounds about right. Greg was a fast runner in his youth. But young runners don't have the stamina or the mental toughness to grind out a Thon. He might have also just DNFed at mile 21. But we will never know, since Greg's running career ended in the early 2000s.
The only evidence we have to work with is that Greg was able to run 18-20 miles in 2.5 hours. If he ran 20 miles he averaged 7:30 mile pace and if it was only 18 miles he averaged 8:20 mile pace.
It was already calculated that 7:30 pace is a 3:16.30 marathon and 8:20 pace is a 3:38.20 marathon. Considering most people hit the wall around mile 18-20 it isn't surprising that Greg would slow down at this point since he usually gives up when things get tough.
I'm not an expert, but I think Greg was realistically a 3:45 marathoner at his peak.
I ran 2.5 hours in -20 Celsius on snow packed trails while wearing 3 layers.
I don't care what you losers speculate I could have run.
The fact is my times are good enough, they took work and I have gotten a lot out of the sport.