I like it that we have two kinds of top American marathoners. We have the Fauble types who run smart and roll people up at that end. I like the Mantz type for the fact that they try to go with it.
The race is better with a few guys trying each option. Would you really prefer if the whole contingent of Americans just "ran their own race" and maximized their finish placing? Why would Mantz beating Fauble be a better result for us (as a nation)?
Yes, Mantz could personally have done better by running "smarter" but I don't think that would have made the race more enjoyable for me as a fan.
So yes, I am happy to give him a pass for trying something!
Mantz balling out gets people talking and interested in the sport. Same with Molly's bronze. I personally know 6 runners who took up the sport after '21 after watching her "drink a beer for me!" finish in Tokyo.
I'd argue that to be as competitive as you can be, you must try and run your fastest time possible. No point in hanging with leaders if you can't hold the pace. The way Fauble ran is how everyone should treat racing. Run your own race and hope its enough to podium or win.
This.
There's some selection bias here. It's true that the winner almost always comes from the front pack. But that's because the fittest runners self-select into the front pack.
On the rare occasions you see a runner who is "not supposed to be there" stay with the leaders and actually do well, it's because of their increase in fitness rather than some brilliant strategy. In fact, the increased fitness level is probably precisely the reason the runner felt good enough to start running with the leaders. Just because to us the 2:08 guy running over his head and the 2:08-but-about-to-be-2:05 guy look similar doesn't mean that they are.
I also want to point out that in the extremely rare chance that someone like Fauble wins the Boston Marathon, it would almost certainly be a race where he DOESN'T go with the leaders. Does anyone think Fauble is as good as Chebet? No? Then how is he supposed to beat him using the same strategy? But Fauble might have the tiniest chance for a win or at least a very high placing by laying off the pace and hoping that the top pack blows up. It's not completely impossible. Say Kipchoge had really gone for the course record, and the field went with him. Then everyone blows up. Meanwhile, Fauble has a really good day, runs 2:07-8 and wins. Or a weather surprise like we've seen in previous Bostons. It's unlikely, but certainly less unlikely than somehow just grinding Kipchoge/Chebet/Geay/etc. into the ground like some sort of comic book character.
(Note also that in 2018 both Yuki Kawauchi and Des Linden came from behind to win--although in Yuki's case it was a bit more complicated than that. So did Korir in 2012.)
I don't blame Mantz for running aggressively in only his second marathon; he and Fauble are in very different points in their career, and the experience was probably good for him. But make no mistake, Mantz' best chance for a high place AND his best chance for the win would both come by running closer to the way Fauble did. If you're not the best, you're not the best, and if you are, your legs have a way of getting you to the front.
Definitely gonna read Faubs's book again and see what he did in NYC '19 and if it mirrored his tactics here (laying off, being smart, etc.)
And now I'm glad I didn't know The way it all would end The way it all would go Our lives are better left to chance I could have missed the pain But I'd have had to miss the dance
I like what Mantz tried to do (and Bates). The Kenyan mindset used to be hang on to the lead pack until you can't - dropping out isn't the sin it is in "Puritan America". The next time you go longer until you can't be dropped. Fauble's tactic might be appropriate in a championship race in poor weather (see Kastor in Athens 2004), but not here. I don't have a problem with CM falling apart here, he will learn (as long as he doesn't visit this site) and get better. He may never get to the highest level, but I hope he keeps trying - Fauble has NO chance to get there. Heck Levins tried to drop the field in his last race at 40km, but couldn't do it - still he stayed at the front the whole way to try and win. Don't see many Americans running 2h05 these days and trying to do that.
Okay, you convinced me. Conner was OK to do what he did at Boston. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take, and Conner had to shoot his shot with the big dogs. He fell up short, but at least he tried. This year's Boston wasn't going to be a PR course, so no sense in trying to PR.
BUT... At the trials, I really want to see him run tactically. If he makes it to Paris, we'll have to see what the race shapes up to be. If there's a conceivable shot for him to do well running for a PR, then do that. If at best it looks like he might scrape into top 10, then I say just go balls to the wall and try going with the big dogs.
In short, gamble only when you have little to lose.
I was at the finish yesterday right next to his wife when he crossed, he was extremely wobbly and basically fell into the arms of a medic. Looked like he didn’t fuel properly or missed some bottles, he looked to be hypoglycaemic.
MANTZ has to be one of the most uncoordinated runners I seen run. He is not fluid, his knees are running in wards his little arms flaring all over the place and just looks terrible. He was clearly running above his pace and his little legs just couldn't keep up.
I'd be curious to see if Americans had more success by running more than two marathons a year. The last time the US was still competitive (times relative to world record) was the Rodgers and Salazar era of the late 1970s and early 80s and both of them tended to do many more marathons per year.
Rodgers was a pretty extreme example but I don't see the harm in adding a 3rd or even 4th race in a year. Everyone is different but in the past it was not uncommon for the best in the world to do this.
Not quite. Salazar ran one marathon in 1980, one in 1982, two in 1983, two in 1984. But he did race a fair amount at shorter distances. And this is the real difference between runners of that era and today's runners -- races vs. long instagrammable tempos.
I have a hard time seeing how anyone could say 2:04:xx is out of the cards for him after that run. If he goes out in an evenly paced 62:30 on a Berlin-type course, he’s probably pretty comfortable at that point…. He also has many many years of development ahead of him.
Definitely a pass. He was brave to join the first group. Why not try it - he has huge potential and I would be proud to have a runner in my country which is that strong.
The entire concept of going out with the lead pack and hoping it somehow "sticks" is just blatantly ignoring physiology and will continue to not work until the end of time. You don't magically find something on race day, either your body can do what you've asked it to do or it can't, which is a concept Scott Fauble seems to have mastered and Connor Mantz and even more so CJ Albertson refuse to comprehend.
Scott Fauble was the top American in Boston but Conner Mantz ran up front for longer. Who impressed you most?Full London Coverage here: https://www.letsrun.c...
The entire concept of going out with the lead pack and hoping it somehow "sticks" is just blatantly ignoring physiology and will continue to not work until the end of time. You don't magically find something on race day, either your body can do what you've asked it to do or it can't, which is a concept Scott Fauble seems to have mastered and Connor Mantz and even more so CJ Albertson refuse to comprehend.
You're acting like a runner would know with complete certainty exactly what their body could handle. Talbi and Mantz probably had pretty similar data/background coming in. Talbi held on better, but I don't think either race plan was perfectly optimal for their bodies.
The entire concept of going out with the lead pack and hoping it somehow "sticks" is just blatantly ignoring physiology and will continue to not work until the end of time. You don't magically find something on race day, either your body can do what you've asked it to do or it can't, which is a concept Scott Fauble seems to have mastered and Connor Mantz and even more so CJ Albertson refuse to comprehend.
You're acting like a runner would know with complete certainty exactly what their body could handle. Talbi and Mantz probably had pretty similar data/background coming in. Talbi held on better, but I don't think either race plan was perfectly optimal for their bodies.
The physiology point is an apt one, but it doesn’t allow for the fact that runners can and do have breakthrough races. Was there a group that went out around 1:03:30? I feel like that would’ve been perfect for Mantz. He might’ve closed that in sub-2:08. Maybe that was the compromise. Go out hard in a time that would’ve won in years past but also realistic for his fitness and still close to a top three finish. He was never going to win anyway; however, now he knows what it feels like to race upfront and bonk. It seems like some of this is fueling issues too.
So, ultimately, he’s better for the experience. He admitted he never allowed an adequate recovery after Chicago last year and was fatigued in the wake of it, despite running some good times on the road and track. I really hope he learns from that. I feel like the kid shouldn’t be doing any working out of any kind for at least a week, if not two. Then prep for a late track season to get some 5,000 and 10,000 PRs, which he is certainly capable of, and, perhaps, a half marathon PR.
I feel like this is his last best opportunity to chase low 13s and low 27s. Because 2024 will likely be all about the marathon. Don’t run another marathon until the trials. Be fresh for the trials. That’s my $0.02.
I still say Mantz and Fauble are more likely to make the olympic team next year than Fauble. In the recent 'bad' results of Mantz and Rupp they were trying to land on the podium of world marathon major races. When the goal is to be top 3 at olympic trials instead of top 3 against 2:03/2:04 guys they will run more controlled in the early part of the race and not blow up. If Mantz was trying to run 2:09:30 and be top American, he could have run 2:09:30 and be top American. But he was trying to do way better than that, but it was too much and be blew up. Make Mantz go out in 63:45 and he runs a sub 2:09 on Monday, but he wouldn't be very excited about that result. His targets are set higher. If Fauble runs like he did on Monday then he'll come in around 5th place and not make the team.
I still say Mantz and Fauble are more likely to make the olympic team next year than Fauble. In the recent 'bad' results of Mantz and Rupp they were trying to land on the podium of world marathon major races. When the goal is to be top 3 at olympic trials instead of top 3 against 2:03/2:04 guys they will run more controlled in the early part of the race and not blow up. If Mantz was trying to run 2:09:30 and be top American, he could have run 2:09:30 and be top American. But he was trying to do way better than that, but it was too much and be blew up. Make Mantz go out in 63:45 and he runs a sub 2:09 on Monday, but he wouldn't be very excited about that result. His targets are set higher. If Fauble runs like he did on Monday then he'll come in around 5th place and not make the team.
We agree. Dare I say Mantz is capable of 1:03:29 and 1:03:29 splits on a flat, fast, evenly paced course right now. He has to prove it, but I think that’s fair speculation. However, I’m not sure Rupp isn’t done.
That’s kind of the point. Mantz has us excited and talking. Was his Boston tactic dumb and unrealistic and in violation of what his coach was recommending, being somewhat restrained in the first 16 miles? Yes. But, he’s s racer, and there will likely be a year where he can go out that fast and hang on. Maybe not for the win, but not a total bonk either.
But it’s exciting to talk about. Hopefully it will motivate another generation of kids to to go to the marathon early. Mantz is not yet a 2:05 runner, but he could be. No other American is there right now.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.
Fill out a review to be entered into a drawing to win a free pair of shoes.
