Can a 14:00 29:00 10k guy out of college run 2:10 if he sticks with it?

altoroad wrote:

newname wrote:

The example Bob Hodge gave was me ... or the challenge I guess. Note that it had nothing to do with college runners, or the 14:00/29:00 runner. It was in response to a 29-yr-old who has run in college so it is likely over 10 years, and has track PRs of 14:04/30:27 and 29:44r saying he has been in 2:10 shape five times in the last 2 years.

I was saying that history and data would show that nobody had ever pulled that off. "That" being having PRs at or-slower-than 14:04 AND 29:44r and then running faster than 2:11:00 so you can legitimately be a "2:10" marathoner.

Benji Durden ran 4:15 for the mile in college, and had post-college PRs of 14:10 for 5000, 28:36 10k road, and 2:09:57 for the marathon.

Right, so he was MUCH faster than 29:44r when he ran 2:09:57. Also much faster when he ran his first legit 2:10:xx.

This is a counter-example.

I am not Keith or Shawn ... not afraid to give my name but just don't want to uncover my name since I have a listed phone number and don't want to have someone rain crap all over my facebook page or whatever.

FWIW, I think it is extremely difficult to "see" what someone is saying/trying to convey on a Forum. I am going to give you the benefit and assume you are an OK guy in person. Sometimes I am in a bad mood and tear what people say apart. Sometimes you are that person.

In the rowing world, 22-25 year-olds are criticized for pursuing the world-class level at the expense of pursuing a career or family or whatever. It is different though as getting on the Oly Team is the confirmation that you "are there". To get on the team (or the World Champs team) you really need to be training with the National Team and therefore in the town that they train in (currently Princeton, NJ). It needs a nearly year-round commitment for a racing-season that is about 4 months long (before long-course season). You also don't make ANY money. My old GF was in two Olympics and a nine-time National team member and the most she ever won was a pair of $500 oars. They do get $10,000 a year if they make the Nat. Team.

Anyway, I get what you are saying. I just don't see how somebody who is in full-time training (from 22-32 or whatever) and working part-time HAS TO be leeching off the taxpayer anymore than someone who makes $20,000 a year HAS TO. I rent one of my properties to law students and some of them have qualified for food stamps (I know this because they ask me to sign a form that states how much their rent is) and so I guess low-income runners could qualify for this, but IO never really even thought of this "issue" in terms of its cost to taxpayers.

craigmac4h wrote:

I just think you project your own decision to stop competing on others in an effort to justify it to yourself.

=====

This.

Sagarin, why someone like you gives a shit what anyone else does with their time is beyond me. Further, your opinion as stated in numerous responses in this thread hardly constitute 'advice', especially given the self-righteous tone with which the 'advice' was delivered.

You don't feed a hungry man by shoving a steak up his ass.

You get it?

i'm going to skip reading all of the posts..

to the OP, in my opinion a 14:00/29:00 guy is FAST. I mean I wasn't too far off so it's not like super human in my mind...but it's still pretty rare in the big scheme of thing. Does it necessarily translate in to 2:10? No. But is it possible? Absolutely. 14:00/29:00 guys are not a dime a dozen. Those guys have the potential to be the best runners in the country depending on what they did to get there.

now that i've read all of the posts I have to say that I agree with Sagarin 100%. Sorry fellas. It's as if he read my mind.

Unfortunately it's proven in numerous threads that it is the unpopular opinion. i suppose that's because this is a running board rather than a "the other cool aspects of life" themed board.

faragin wrote:

if the US had more Brett Gotchers and less over worked, over stressed, over eating, obesse, heart diseased, self important people..... it would be a far better place.

Amen.

1998 wrote:

now that i've read all of the posts I have to say that I agree with Sagarin 100%. Sorry fellas. It's as if he read my mind.

Unfortunately it's proven in numerous threads that it is the unpopular opinion. i suppose that's because this is a running board rather than a "the other cool aspects of life" themed board.

Gee, you think? Maybe it's not the whole rest of this site with the problem, maybe it's you (and Sagarin).

biggest news of the years so far...props to Bret....

ps...not sure he will ever do it again but I hope so.

West End wrote:

1998 wrote:

now that i've read all of the posts I have to say that I agree with Sagarin 100%. Sorry fellas. It's as if he read my mind.

Unfortunately it's proven in numerous threads that it is the unpopular opinion. i suppose that's because this is a running board rather than a "the other cool aspects of life" themed board.

Gee, you think? Maybe it's not the whole rest of this site with the problem, maybe it's you (and Sagarin).

Three's company. Count me in with Sagarin and 1998. What was so offensive about his posts?

Gotcher's PBs in college can almost be disregarded as he was clearly a LD guy stuck with Peter Tegen. Talk about untapped potential.

My friend Anders Szalkai has run the following PB:s

1500m 3:59:31 (1998)

3000m 8:24:74 (1998)

5000m 14:29:30 (1998)

10000m 29:59:64 (1998)

½-mar 1:05:07 (1997)

42195m 2:12:43 (2001)

Note Anders is born 1970.

He himself says that at his peak, he could have run a 14.15 5k and a 29.30ish 10k

2.10 and 2.12 is different territory, but my point is that the marathon is a whole different animal than running 5k and 10k on the track. It is more about energy preservation and running efficiency than a high aerobic capacity.

So I think it is definitely possible to run 2.10 or even better if you are 14.00 5k and 29.00 10k guy out of college.

I remember a Welsh guy called Steve Brace from the 80s who ran 2.10:35 but I am sure didnt run sub 14 or sub 29... I may be selling him short... and apologies if so.

newname wrote:

Also, even if Thompson is a legit example, he is only one example (albeit one who went on to run 29:33 on the track) among ALL the 2:10 runners out there who had faster short distance times before running a 2:10.

I think you forgot my mention of Kjell-Erik Stahl, whose 10k, half-marathon, and marathon race paces seemed to remain in a remarkably compressed range throughout his extraordinary career.

But as I recall, I agreed with your basic point in that thread, which was about a runner whose level of talent does not appear to be close to that of a 29-flat collegiate 10k runner, and whose belief that he has been in 2:10 marathon shape on a number of occasions appears unrealistic.

As for the original topic of this thread, I don't know why anyone would seriously argue that a 29:00 10k in college precludes the possibility of a 2:10:++ marathon.

Avocados Number wrote:

But as I recall, I agreed with your basic point in that thread, which was about a runner whose level of talent does not appear to be close to that of a 29-flat collegiate 10k runner, and whose belief that he has been in 2:10 marathon shape on a number of occasions appears unrealistic.

As for the original topic of this thread, I don't know why anyone would seriously argue that a 29:00 10k in college precludes the possibility of a 2:10:++ marathon.

Right. The thread and posts have evolved into 2 different points. 1)good runners who 'chase the dream after college are silly fools' and 2) there is a possible 2:10 marathon waiting for some of those guys if they stick with it.

on 1)nothing wrong with that. Your buddy from Dallas, Stan V. is a good example of that. Screw anybody who thinks that he wasted his time between 22 and 30. on 2) you are right. it is the rare talent that will get to a 210 marathon off of 14 min 5ks and 29 min 10ks; but there are those who did; esp. back in the running boom days. Remember Ron Tabb? He didn't run close to those times in college.

UK Athletics gives Steve Brace pbs of5000m: 14:33.1710000m: 29:55.73Mar: 2:10:35

DrT wrote:

I remember a Welsh guy called Steve Brace from the 80s who ran 2.10:35 but I am sure didnt run sub 14 or sub 29... I may be selling him short... and apologies if so.

Dick Beardsley - Boston 1982 - (2:08:53)

The tenth fastest times at SDSU are 14:31.97 and 30:29.0 and no mention of Dick Beardsley.

Phil Coppess, 1985. Favorite to win the 1988 Olympic Trials in the marathon and three days before was moving a swing set and dropped it on his foot. 2:10:05 London Marathon, 1985? Big props to Phil as that guy was simply just a hard worker.

trainfast wrote:

Phil Coppess, 1985. Favorite to win the 1988 Olympic Trials in the marathon and three days before was moving a swing set and dropped it on his foot. 2:10:05 London Marathon, 1985? Big props to Phil as that guy was simply just a hard worker.

2:10:05a Phil Coppess Clinton, IA 31 Twin Cities MN 10/6/1985