This thread was started before the race. We changed the title and merged it with a 2nd thread that was started with the title of "Ethan MF Shuley 2:07:13 Marathon at 2026 Osaka Marathon". We have an article up oon the race here: https://www.letsrun.com/news/2...
Hanging onto Ethan Shuley who’s in some outrageous shape - keep an eye on the Osaka Marathon next week, there’s gonna be a surprise American right at the front! 🔥
Jake Barraclought aka Ran To Japan ran his last workout with him, saw he was in great shape and put this comment on Ethan Shuley's Strava.
Yes, before Jake, anything Japan was a complete blunder spot. Most Japanese runners don’t speak English and basically no American, Australian or European runners speak Japanese. Japan had 57 guys run sub 2:10 last year, including 14 sub 2:07
Say, didn’t something like this happen about a year ago? I barely remember anything about it, but some no name American that nobody ever heard of ran 2:07 in one of the California marathons right? Everybody in the running world talked him for two weeks and then forgot about him. Anyone remember who it was?
Say, didn’t something like this happen about a year ago? I barely remember anything about it, but some no name American that nobody ever heard of ran 2:07 in one of the California marathons right? Everybody in the running world talked him for two weeks and then forgot about him. Anyone remember who it was?
Okay, I think it was Matthew Richtman with ASICS who ran 2:07.57 at LA. Anyone know what happened to him?
Say, didn’t something like this happen about a year ago? I barely remember anything about it, but some no name American that nobody ever heard of ran 2:07 in one of the California marathons right? Everybody in the running world talked him for two weeks and then forgot about him. Anyone remember who it was?
Okay, I think it was Matthew Richtman with ASICS. He ran 2:07.57 in LA last year. Anyone know what happened to him?
Say, didn’t something like this happen about a year ago? I barely remember anything about it, but some no name American that nobody ever heard of ran 2:07 in one of the California marathons right? Everybody in the running world talked him for two weeks and then forgot about him. Anyone remember who it was?
Okay, I think it was Matthew Richtman with ASICS who ran 2:07.57 at LA. Anyone know what happened to him?
That's right. He had an injury cycle last year and appears to be back on track based on Strava, but hard to tell sometimes. He does a lot of random sh!t.
With Ethan I'm more fascinated with all his past injury issues and how he finally resolved them. I'll have to dive into his past videos and podcasts, and now there will certainly be more podcasts to come.
Great to see him translate his fintess to the marathon?
In what world is 61:01 equal to 2:07? The WA scoring table has it at 2:09:09. John Kellogg's chart has it at like 2:09:45. This was MUCH MUCH better. WA says it's a 60:07 half.
It's the 14th fastest marathon ever run by an American in any race.
ROJO I am just the messenger here:
Agree the WA tables don't reflect the effort, but...
Go to Runnerspace.com, then "Tools", then Performance predictor and enter his 61:01 half time. Two of the four predictions are very close and the other two now far off. And even the average of the four is 2:08
Pete Riegel's is the closest at 2:07:12 Here is a quote from the explanation/credits page from this calculator:
"Pete Riegel's Model: t2 = t1 * (d2 / d1)^1.06 where t1 equals the initial time, d1 equals the initial distance, d2 equals the new distance being calculated for, and t2 equals the predicted time for the new distance. The formula was developed by Pete Riegel and published first in a slightly different form in Runner's World, August 1977, in an article in that issue entitled "Time Predicting." The formula was refined for other sports (swimming, bicycling, walking) in an article "Athletic Records and Human Endurance," also written by Pete Riegel, which appeared in American Scientist, May-June 1981."
IMHO this is an excellent prediction calculator. I have used it for several year. It is often so accurate, that there have been times after racing hard after a 10 milers (Flint Crim) or Half Marathons (USATF Masters championships), that boggles my mind; < 00:00:10 off.
Great site and very useful tool - kudos to them to making this calculator public and free!
Riegel’s is good, but most of those calculators don’t work for “slow twitch beasts,” who are tailor made for the marathon. Honestly, more Americans should do what Shuley did but don’t wait ten years to do it. Go Japan-style either in Japan or over here right after high school. Tons and tons of volume, most of it very easy. That’s what they do in Japan, which is why there are so many fast 18 and 19 year olds.
Having said all of this, the super shoes definitely shave time. I don’t think they’re worth five minutes as some knuckleheads assert, but I definitely think they’re worth two minutes and one minute in the half. So, an equivalent 1:02 and 2:09, even in the good ole days was still happening. No huge shock here.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Agree the WA tables don't reflect the effort, but...
Go to Runnerspace.com, then "Tools", then Performance predictor and enter his 61:01 half time. Two of the four predictions are very close and the other two now far off. And even the average of the four is 2:08
Pete Riegel's is the closest at 2:07:12 Here is a quote from the explanation/credits page from this calculator:
"Pete Riegel's Model: t2 = t1 * (d2 / d1)^1.06 where t1 equals the initial time, d1 equals the initial distance, d2 equals the new distance being calculated for, and t2 equals the predicted time for the new distance. The formula was developed by Pete Riegel and published first in a slightly different form in Runner's World, August 1977, in an article in that issue entitled "Time Predicting." The formula was refined for other sports (swimming, bicycling, walking) in an article "Athletic Records and Human Endurance," also written by Pete Riegel, which appeared in American Scientist, May-June 1981."
IMHO this is an excellent prediction calculator. I have used it for several year. It is often so accurate, that there have been times after racing hard after a 10 milers (Flint Crim) or Half Marathons (USATF Masters championships), that boggles my mind; < 00:00:10 off.
Great site and very useful tool - kudos to them to making this calculator public and free!
Riegel’s is good, but most of those calculators don’t work for “slow twitch beasts,” who are tailor made for the marathon. Honestly, more Americans should do what Shuley did but don’t wait ten years to do it. Go Japan-style either in Japan or over here right after high school. Tons and tons of volume, most of it very easy. That’s what they do in Japan, which is why there are so many fast 18 and 19 year olds.
Having said all of this, the super shoes definitely shave time. I don’t think they’re worth five minutes as some knuckleheads assert, but I definitely think they’re worth two minutes and one minute in the half. So, an equivalent 1:02 and 2:09, even in the good ole days was still happening. No huge shock here.
There is no way that most of that volume is slow. Don’t believe everything you read. Nobody can run that fast without at least 65% or more of their training being quality. Long slow distance does not work, and it certainly won’t get someone to 2:07 or faster.
Riegel’s is good, but most of those calculators don’t work for “slow twitch beasts,” who are tailor made for the marathon. Honestly, more Americans should do what Shuley did but don’t wait ten years to do it. Go Japan-style either in Japan or over here right after high school. Tons and tons of volume, most of it very easy. That’s what they do in Japan, which is why there are so many fast 18 and 19 year olds.
Having said all of this, the super shoes definitely shave time. I don’t think they’re worth five minutes as some knuckleheads assert, but I definitely think they’re worth two minutes and one minute in the half. So, an equivalent 1:02 and 2:09, even in the good ole days was still happening. No huge shock here.
There is no way that most of that volume is slow. Don’t believe everything you read. Nobody can run that fast without at least 65% or more of their training being quality. Long slow distance does not work, and it certainly won’t get someone to 2:07 or faster.
Definitely a lot of their running is easy, recovery pace. But of course they do hard training, time trials and such too. Nobody is going to survive 180-200 mile weeks without doing much of it super easy.
I actually knew a couple of Japanese runners for a time up in CO, and they leg some easy-as-crap running. No American elite or even college runner would dare to run that slow. No patience for it.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Gault says he ran 2:11 in November... how did we miss that? That alone is pretty amazing for a nobody. Just looked it up... the 2:11 was in the Kobe marathon for 2nd place behind Elisha Rotich, a Kenyan.
It's crazy that a perma-injured runner decides to move up to the marathon and run 5100 miles in a year. Shuley could become the new superhero for injury-prone letsrunners.
Shuley's story is certainly worth full articles on any quality running sites. I look forward to hearing more about how he transformed himself from Injury-plagued mess to world class.
Gault says he ran 2:11 in November... how did we miss that? That alone is pretty amazing for a nobody. Just looked it up... the 2:11 was in the Kobe marathon for 2nd place behind Elisha Rotich, a Kenyan.
It's crazy that a perma-injured runner decides to move up to the marathon and run 5100 miles in a year. Shuley could become the new superhero for injury-prone letsrunners.
Shuley's story is certainly worth full articles on any quality running sites. I look forward to hearing more about how he transformed himself from Injury-plagued mess to world class.
Nah, it is only so in the context of underachievers.
Great video. Lots of guys have the false idea that if they're a blue-eyed American in Japan, dating would be easy. I would say this guy is slightly above average in looks and apparently he can't get a single date.
------
That is one depressing video. Social media is no way to get dates for a guy. One thing he could do is show a little affect, but then tough to do that when you're announcing that you got one unsuccessful date over a month on eight different dating apps at once. Good for him that he could turn his energy elsewhere. Maybe that was his key, running on pure frustration. When George had no sex, he got smart; Ethan got fast.
Bronze Age Mindset wrote: Video: Great video. Lots of guys have the false idea that if they're a blue-eyed American in Japan, dating would be easy. I would say this guy is slightly above average in looks and apparently he can't get a single date.
That is one depressing video. Social media is no way to get dates for a guy. One thing he could do is show a little affect, but then tough to do that when you're announcing that you got one unsuccessful date over a month on eight different dating apps at once. Good for him that he could turn his energy elsewhere. Maybe that was his key, running on pure frustration. When George had no sex, he got smart; Ethan got fast.
Guy who can’t talk to women easily in-person is disappointed that staying behind a screen on an app isn’t a workaround to that liability in any country, anywhere.
Gault says he ran 2:11 in November... how did we miss that? That alone is pretty amazing for a nobody. Just looked it up... the 2:11 was in the Kobe marathon for 2nd place behind Elisha Rotich, a Kenyan.
It's crazy that a perma-injured runner decides to move up to the marathon and run 5100 miles in a year. Shuley could become the new superhero for injury-prone letsrunners.
Shuley's story is certainly worth full articles on any quality running sites. I look forward to hearing more about how he transformed himself from Injury-plagued mess to world class.
Nah, it is only so in the context of underachievers.
Well certainly when a woman has run faster, it is not necessarily “amazing” for a young man to run 2:11.
