USA USA USA USA wrote:
Alan, are you an alien?? Only in YOUR world is 2:30 some super-great time. So the USA is horrible at marathoning, and you still don't even show up as a dot on that map......what does THAT have to do with Lance Armstrong, one of the greatest, most driven, most talented ENDURANCE ATHLETES ever? I will tell you: NOTHING.
......
I wrote "distance runners", because of the topic, by accident. I mean ENDURANCE ATHLETES. My point though still stands.
Actually, Lance Armstrong has such an extrodinary phyical capacity and fitness level that running a 2:15 is well within his capabilities. He is certainly fit enough and talented enough that once he's put in the kind of sports specific training required, it's doable. Even better.
However, it would still be a pretty incredible feat and after all he's done in the biking world, I have to question whether the kind of intense, absolute committment that would be required for Lance to be a world class marathoner is there. I mean, he even said that the obsession to be the very best is not there anymore and he'd basically do it because he'd simply like to try. Doesn't sound like the intensity of purpose that would be required is there anymore to run THAT fast. 2:30 is more likely. Huggs Becky
You people STILL DONT GET IT! Lance is a 33 year old man retiring for a sport with SOME cross-over to running. He plans to take up some running to stay fit. I am not "threatened" by anything, just amazed at this. The cult of Lance on this board just freaks me out. I believe I already stated he could do 2:30, maybe even 2:25. But again, Abdi ran 2:13 and he is a STUD(if you want to point out how much better Bekele is, blow yourself. You havent run 13:13). I think to concede a man, OLD and RETIRED off LITTLE TO NO specific training could possibly run 2:25 shows I'm not threatened. But again, he is RETIRING and NOT TAKING UP SERIOUS RUNNING! To say that he could possibly run 2:15 is stupid. Maybe had he taken up competitive running even 3-4 years ago I may think it possible(once again you can see, I'm not threatened: I know I ain't that great but I'm probably faster than you), but as an OLD and RETIRED CYCLIST he isnt going to come out and basically match the debut of Abdi. I dont know how to put it any clearer for you. If Lance does in fact run 2:15 I will send you 100 US dollars Reality Czech. If you agree that If he runs above 2:25 you will send me a dozen Krispy Kremes, I will up it to 1000.
running 100 mile weeks and getting to stay in austin instead of traveling around the world would seem like retirement for the dude. 100 mile weeks dont take alot of time and do you really see lance turning into a lazy dude who loses all motivation to compete directly after winning 7 straight tours? i really have no clue how fast he would run but i'm willing to bet that 100 mile weeks would feel like retirement after what he's put his body through for the last 20 years.
That is to say, stating Lance could run 2:15 if he is truly retiring and taking up some jogging is a foolish statement. Perhaps if he were to invest 3-5 years in training 2:15 is doable(but doubtful). The whole point of this thread hasnt been "Had Lance Armstrong stuck with running..." its been "what will Lance Armstrong, retired and possibly taking up light jogging do?"
A runner wrote:
Stupidest post yet, and thats saying something. Just because he did something people thought he couldnt in another sport doesnt mean squat frankly. Whats next? Lance Armstrong scores 70 points in an NBA game? Lance Armstrong takes bronze in 1500 freestyle in 2008 Olympics? Lance Armstrong wins Daytona 500? Lance Armstrong runs 3:30 mile? In short you are an absolute moron for thinking because people counted him out in one thing and are counting him out in another that he will therefore prove them wrong.
NO NO NO...... YOUR POST is the dumbest yet. Why??? Because.....believe it or not, MANY, MANY people smarter than you believe that success at long distance cycling can translate fairly reasonably towards success at long distance running. Yes, they are two different activities, BUT.......they have many similarities, and there have been many cyclists who have switched to running from cycling and have done quite well. So.........(are you still with me, Einstein?) translating Lance Armstrong's unprecedented biking success (the greatest endurance cyclist EVER) in to a decent amount of distance running success, is, as the poster said, NOT IMPOSSIBLE (ie, not that farfetched). Get it? And Lance Armstrong is someone who has already shown some ability at running and who seems to enjoy it. And he is the most driven athlete ever, to boot.
YOUR counter-comparisons of
A) "scor(ing) 70 points in an NBA" (an accomplishment that has VIRTUALLY nothing in common with cycling success, and has only been accomplished by 1 or 2 people ever), and..
B) "running a 3:30 mile" (an accomplishment that not EVER BEEN APPROACHED, and is more of speed/mid-distance event, not long distance, event to boot)
...are just PLAIN ABSURD AND STUPID.
So you, my friend, are the moron, not the other guy who said that 2:15 for Lance would be in the real of realistic possibility.
I've contributed my share of stupidity to this thread and feel that it is getting stale.
Out
It's all about BMI. If Lance can get to 20-21 he might run well. Right now he is 5' 10'' and 160lbs (maybe 155lbs). That's a BMI of about 22. He needs to loose at least 10 more lbs to run under 2:35. I say that more than likely his weight is going to go up, not down, from now on. Running is all about strength to weight (just like cycling) and yet, you don't get to sit on a machine. You have to carry that weight and Lance is too big right now.
A runner wrote:
That is to say, stating Lance could run 2:15 if he is truly retiring and taking up some jogging is a foolish statement. Perhaps if he were to invest 3-5 years in training 2:15 is doable(but doubtful). The whole point of this thread hasnt been "Had Lance Armstrong stuck with running..." its been "what will Lance Armstrong, retired and possibly taking up light jogging do?"
1) What is your deal about 33 being OLD??? You repeated that "OLD" thing a hundred times! Jack Foster ran 2:11 at 41. Carlos Lopes ran 2:07 at what....38? Lance would likely be 35 when he might take a serious shot at the marathon. That is not old at all. If he is so OLD right now, how did he just win the Tour de France????
2) Whoever said anything about "LIGHT JOGGING." He said is going to relax, do some mountain bike races and maybe some marathons, and not race bicycles and live full-time at training camps. Aftrer relaxing for awhile, if he starts running an hour twice a day it will be like a vacation for a guy who is used to bike riding 7 or 8 hours a day. No one said anything about light jogging only. Someone with the fire of Lance Armstrong will need some goals, and some intense phyiscal activity to stay sane. He is not gonna sit on his butt for crissakes.
Amen.
flagga wrote:
It's all about BMI. If Lance can get to 20-21 he might run well. Right now he is 5' 10'' and 160lbs (maybe 155lbs). That's a BMI of about 22. He needs to loose at least 10 more lbs to run under 2:35. I say that more than likely his weight is going to go up, not down, from now on. Running is all about strength to weight (just like cycling) and yet, you don't get to sit on a machine. You have to carry that weight and Lance is too big right now.
*Firstly, Lance IS already closer to 5'10" 155.
*Secondly, he doesn't have to "carry" any extra weight around, because his upper body is already very emacatied. He has very musclular legs (but not hugely big, like Vinokourov), and if he started running and stopped cycling so much, he'd lose a little leg size/weight.
* Is Craig Mottram "tool tall" ? Is Ryan Shay "too muscular" ? Was Peter Snell "too big" ? Is Christian Hesch "too big" ? Was Paul McMullen "too big" ? Were DeCastella's legs "too big" ? All of those guys had size attributes of some sort that are "not typical" for distance running (and there are MANY, MANY more like them), but they all have had amazing success.
Lance is not too big by a long-shot. He has a great build for distance running, and the simple act of substituting running for cycling would take some inches of his thighs, which would make that little bit more built for running.
33 is like Social Security old! I have a teacher at my junior high who is 35 and he is real old and fat like my parents! Lance just looks skinny on TV cuz its all makeup and special effects and drugs and stuff. I'm going to the Olympics in 2012 cause I'll be in my prime then as a 19 year old! I like Hilary Duff - she's hot. I read a book once about running and heart rate stuff and it was cool but real confusing and scientific. Do you guys like "Smallville"? It would be cool to be Clark Kent. He'd win the state XC champs every year until he was 22 or so and then would get flabby and lazy 'cause he's old. He could probably beat Lance on a bike too!
Cycling is not the same as running... I've spent my many years training as a cyclist and as a marathon runner. Lance is a demon rider, but to break 2:15 is almost insurmountable at this point. His first marathon will be under 6, second closer to 2:30. Remember, he wants to run his first marathon this year! Moving from an 8 min pace to 7 min pace is easy, but when improving from a 5:45 to 5:15, there is a world of difference.
i would agree with wrong.
my weight is between 155 and 160 and height is about 5'9.5" and i have run 2:34 for the marathon. i am 100% convinced Armstrong is a far better athlete than me and will easily run under 2:30 if he really does train for it.
Go back to summer school.
Well, I certainly think he could run 2:15 next year, easy. The guy is a beast, and he would have no trouble running sub 2:15.
What do you mean BMI? Dood, 10 pounds is so easy to drop, and it isn't like it is fat. The guy has a super low BF%. So he trains his legs for running, he would use up that uneeded muscle within a month of solid training. I lost 10 pounds of pure fat after a long break by running 80 mpw for a month. I am sure Lance will have no problem.
The guy is a genetic freak, he can do it. He knows how to suffer, and believe me, running 2:15 is no different than 2:20, except the 2:15 hurts a hell of a lot more.
Lance would be fine, but it won't be easy, he would have to train, just as hard as his biking.
Very funny. Posting under anothers name is just great.
A runner wrote:
Very funny. Posting under anothers name is just great.
Yeah, but you deserved it and he parodied your PERFECTLY!!!! HA HA HA
GC I'm willing to bet you posted under my name then mocked it 4 minutes later as if though it were me. Real Classy move. I did get a little fired up and may have been offensive if so, I apoligize. Either way, I'll stick by my prediction that Lance doesnt do a 2:15 and a 2:25 would be a great time for him. I think all that can be said on this topic has been, and its just become name-calling now(of which I'm willing to admit I had some hand in). I'm done now(and no gc, saying "good riddance" will not be witty, neither was pretending to be me). Bump this thread up when and if Lance runs his marathon. I'll admit it if I was wrong.
Lance you suck at life