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

Maybe another way to put it:

Any male that qualifies for US nationals in an event shorter than the marathon can crush the women’s world record in that event.

You need sub four equivalents.

But it takes a time slower than the women’s marathon record to qualify for the men’s marathon trials.

It’s the money wrote:

Nice try fella wrote:

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.

I started off nicely letting you know that 1:49 to 1:54 high school, D-2 and D-3 800m males are better than all women 800m athletes. You are too thick in the head to catch on. I then had to state to you that U.S. men are not good Marathoners. You 2:12:30 to 2:27:30 U.S. male Marathoners are really sensative aren't you? Do you think Ethiopian male 10.50 to 11.00 100 metres sprinters are complaining as are you? U.S. men in aggregate stink at Marathon. Nothing you can post further will change my mind or convince LRC that U.S. men are other than awful Marathoners.

****** wrote:

He did have one of three wrote:

He had pacers in Rome.

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

If he could have he would have tried to place first.

@keep it wrote:

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...

The realistic thing is that I actually do (know what it looks like). I'm also okay to admit it today that for a long time I was a substance abuser but I have been sober now several years.

in any case, if you go back and read, you will see that I had written that for me, to me, it is those two persons that stand out in both male and female category.

The longer the distance the less musclestrength and male hormones will be deciding factors. Johan Kaggestad (coach of Waitz and Kristiansen) knew this in the -70ties. You guys over the pond can't work out the simplest stuff 50 years late and then blame all progress (for men or women) on PEDs?

Radcliffe had people to pace her almost all the way to that WR. She was almost certainly doping as well and had much better shoes than top athletes had back in the 60s. Again it was an amateur sport those guys had jobs to go to and families to support. As for sub elite men today it's the drugs and lack of pacemaking/competition. It takes a lot to be dedicated enough to go work full time just to run a 2:15 marathon that will bring you nearly no financial income. No one is making a living busting their ass to run 2:15. It's not a good way to use your time.

SprintTriathlon wrote:

The longer the distance the less musclestrength and male hormones will be deciding factors. Johan Kaggestad (coach of Waitz and Kristiansen) knew this in the -70ties. You guys over the pond can't work out the simplest stuff 50 years late and then blame all progress (for men or women) on PEDs?

Armstronglivs isn't really across the pond you're thinking of.