Why we're all not running 2:22?

Art Siemers is not at my level. He would kick my ass in any footrace. 2:18 is a whole world better than 2:26.

I just need to clear that up.

dunes runner, in case you didn't know it, the Fed is unconstitutional. That's why it took a very long time (until most of the founding fathers were dead) until the men who ruled the country were able to pass it. Now, how did people make money before then? Didn't they have money in ancient Greece? How was that possible?

You see, you are under the myth that money is cash. Cash is just one of many types of "money." If I use all of my money to build a luxurious 80 story hotel, then I have absolutely no cash, but I am extremely rich.

The difference between "old guy" saying that he could run a 220 and that it takes modest talent and you saying the same thing is that he has ACTUALLY DONE IT! You have not.

"I don't want to put in the work to even TRY and run 2;20."

That mean's you can't do it then. Stop saying you can do it if you CAN'T. Part of running 2:20 is making the commitment to it, you can't do that, so you can't do it. Don't compare yourself to Vin or Gags, that's a joke. I don't think they would go around saying people that run 2:20 are nothing. I see you saying a lot of IFs, if you shut up and trained you MIGHT be better, but that's a big IF.

trainer - the 'conditional' bunker sand-baged with 'if's is a false hideout for bulsh*tters! No you couldn't!

Miles and Miles.......

a quick question about your 2:22:03. if (sorry for using an "if") you do not run faster before the oly trials, can you get in? i think in 2000 jeff morganti got into the trials with a 2:22:02 or something very similar b/c he appealed to usatf. i think his race was in a monsoon or something. i'm just curious. and i sincerely hope that you beat the hell out of 2:22 your next time out. great run......sehon

actually who cares about economics. Everyone knows economists are morons. And from my experience, they are pretty slow running-wise too.

4:20 --> Mile

15:12 --> 5K

CONTO, I ain't gonna hate those are not crappy PR's bro. You have descent ability and you COULD break 2:20 if you decided to focus even if you worked 40-50 hours a week. Now from what you're saying, I believe you don't have the DESIRE to be DISCIPLINE and actually do the work and without that.....you know the rest!

Hi, name is Mike Contopoulos. I like to affiliate myself with runners who are better than me because it boosts my ego. I love talking about how easy it would be for me to run 2:20 when I've never broken 4:00 or 15:00. I also like to talk about how I could pull out a 4:30 right now, when I had a tough time doing that in college when I told everyone I was running 90 miles/week. I'm really confident in my abilities...there was this one time when I ran slower than 16:30 on the track...that sets me up really well to run that pace for 26.2 miles. I'm also "advising" several Olympic development athletes. This means that I talk to my friends about how their running is going once in a while. Oh, I forgot to mention that those friends are at the same level of the people who I ridicule in my posts on the Internet. I really love my job and am dedicated to it. This is why I spend all of my time during the day on message boards. I will tell you more about myself and my SAT scores if you'd like, just let me know.

M

sehon,

Don't get me started on that again. IF I don't run under 2:22 before about 3 months before the trials I may appeal at that time. I plan on at least 2 more tries before then. I have heard of people getting in that were 6 seconds away. There is some question about our times at CIM, Rod Dehaven and Bruce Deacon are trying to get 5 seconds taken off their time, I am riding their coattails and trying to get the same, ha. So I may not need the appeal or another qualifier, who knows.

running is immoral. all that extra running causes you to burn lots more calories which causes you to eat more which cause some poor guy in africa to have that much less on his plate tonight. you are all a bunch of selfish, greedy bastards!!!

alan greenspan wrote:

running is immoral. all that extra running causes you to burn lots more calories which causes you to eat more which cause some poor guy in africa to have that much less on his plate tonight. you are all a bunch of selfish, greedy bastards!!!

You don't know very much about Alan Greenspan. He apprecaited selfishness and greediness as the things that make all of the wonderful things we have in the world today. He was an Objectivist and was once named by Ayn Rand as her disciple.

Congrats on your 2:22. Given that this was quite a bit faster than your PR, how did you determine what pace to run? Did you go for even splits, and if so, what gave you the confidence that you would not blow up?

The reason I ask is that at age 42 I am, for the first time in my life, putting in a long string of 90-100 mile weeks, and am trying to do a few as high as 120-140 to really go after it once or twice next year. Not trying to go anywhere near 2:22, that's a fantasy for me, but think it's possible to go from a 2:48 a year ago (didn't run one this year -- missed 5 months with an injury) to somewhere in the 2:30's. Would like to think 2:29:59 is possible at Chicago next year if I stay healthy, although the idea of that pace scares me.

Any thoughts (From anyone?)

One of the funniest posts I've read on this board. And such a dead-on impression of the "legend in his own mind." Tonto, you're a parodist of the highest order.

dmm13,

Sounds like you and I are near carbon copies - running wise. I ran 2:45 this fall but raced a poor race. I set out way too fast, cruised through half at 1:17, started to die at about 19 or 20 miles, then mailed in the last couple of miles at about 8 minute pace. I felt I was ready to run 2:37ish, and still think I can when I get back into a full training routine. A running buddy here in town (he's about 50, but ran 2:25 and cracked 30 for 10k in his prime) is bound and determined I can break 2:30 based on my training pace (I tend not to run any slow runs, which may be my biggest problem). I think he's nuts, but I'm going to train with him through the winter and see what his sage advice does for my progress.

I'm nearly a Master's runner like yourself, creeping up on four-oh. Not sure if I have the guts (or the time) to crank my mileage up to where you're at, let alone where you're headed.

As far as lopping 18 minutes off your PB, that sounds like a challenge, but my four marathons (over ten years) have been 3:35, 3:15, 3:01 then 2:45. Mind you, going from 2:48 to 2:30 is probably like the jump from 3:35 all the way to 2:45. Having said that, only you know what you've got in you. If you work at it and stay healthy, you've got complete control (except over those factors you don't control, of course, like weather, etc etc).

Good luck with it!

I determined my pace to run by determining what pace 2:22 was and went for it. 2:22 = 5:25 pace and yes I went for even splits. My confidence that I wouldn't blow up came from believing in myself and my training. I have been thinking about 2:22 for several years. My first attempt was to be at CIM 2001, which was more like a monsoon than a marathon. Bruce Deacon only ran 2:22 there, so it didn't really happen for anyone that day. My second attempt was to be at Boston, I went too fast, blew up the last 10K and ran 2:29. This was the 3rd attempt and I ALMOST got it right. Confidence is a big part of the marathon for me, you got to go out there and be able to really want it for the whole 26.2 miles and be ready for a struggle.

sehon40 wrote:

well, if anyone wants to drop everything and just run, a friend and i are going for a 3,200 mile run starting in late february on the east coast. we're gonna start on one beach and run until we hit another (florence, or). we should be finished sometime in august. you're all welcome to join us.......sehon and bronfenbrenner

Sehon 40 - A group of friends and I ran a relay last summer from Tillamook, Oregon, to Boston, Massachusetts. It was 3,350 miles and was one of the best experiences of my life. We did it for charity and raised $200,000 for muscular dystrophy research. Our website is a little outdated at this point, but if you want to check it out, you can find it at runamerica.org.

Let me know if I can be of any help. As you will see on our website, we set out a pretty detailed couse that may be of some help to you.

Actually I did know this and said in an earlier message that the government could (theoretically) easily get rid of the fed, and therefore federal income tax (because the only reason for the tax is to transfer our assets to them), but they won't. And the reason they won't is because the government is controled by the fed, not the other way around.

Then you probably know, as I said earlier, that the fed is (still) owned by the bank of england, and some wealthy individuals.

At the beginning of this country they bartered a lot. Now if/when you barter, the fed will try to get you to pay tax on it.

You are mistaken again. I have not mentioned the word "cash" here.

That would depend on your definition of "rich".

The Fed? LOL. You're hilarious. The Fed doesn't run the government, it's an independent agency. It's NOT owned by the Bank of England. Oh, also it doesn't LEVY TAXES.