trainedbyjesus wrote:
Marython Christmas wrote:
Sara’s run 15:20 5000. That’s 2:20:00 full Mary potential. Running 5:20 pace on a flat course, no pressure race, positive mental outlook, supportive family, magic shoes, 2:05 marathoner coach.
So how fast could Houlihan run a marathon with her 14:23 PR!
She doesn't know it yet but the marathon may be her best distance. Give her a few more years - till she's at least 37. 2.12 is in the pipeline.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I wonder how many top runners plug away for twenty odd years before they discover their best distance in their mid-thirties?
I can imagine a male sub-14min 5k runner suddenly wakes up at 35 to realizing he's been wasting his time and should be running marathons - and so knocks out 2.05 in his late thirties. We are in the realm of believing anything now.
Not many but it still happens
J Foster wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I wonder how many top runners plug away for twenty odd years before they discover their best distance in their mid-thirties?
I can imagine a male sub-14min 5k runner suddenly wakes up at 35 to realizing he's been wasting his time and should be running marathons - and so knocks out 2.05 in his late thirties. We are in the realm of believing anything now.
Not many but it still happens
More like a 13:30 runner plugging away for a decade thinking they are 1 break through away from taking the next step. Good enough to run nationals and make finals but just not quit good enough to make the team. Then at like 32 they swtich coaches and start running marathons. Takes them 2-3 years to get things right and then they start doing really well.
And Sarah didn't run a 2:05 type performance. She was 6 mins off the WR. At best we are talking like 2:08. Is her performance that different than say Berga Bekele who ran a 2:06:41 at 38 after being a 2:10 guy for a decade? Or SylvesterTeimet who went from a 2:10 guy to a sub 2:07 guy at 36 (and this was preShoe issuess)? I am willing to bet if you go through the list of sub 2:10 male marathoners, you will find a bunch who were setting 2+ min PRs even before shoes. Maybe they all were dopers. Maybe it just took time for everything to line up.
Here is a question. How many people here think running high mileage is the way to go for distance runners performance? If someone goes from 80mpw to 110mpw, would you expect to see some performance increase and how much?
Personally I wouldn't be shocked to see a person with 4:08 speed turn into like a 14:50 runner with that change. I also expect that very few runners can up the mileage that much without sacrificing quality too much. Or drugs:)
Did you mean 13:50. Every 4:08 guy can run 14:50 on 50 MPW.
bowly wrote:
Did you mean 13:50. Every 4:08 guy can run 14:50 on 50 MPW.
Of course not. A 4:08 runner going 13:50 is just stupid.4:08 is like 66s pace. 13:50 is like 66.5. Nobody has endurance like that. The 71s or so of a 14:50 is a fast but some what realistic time.
What would the reaction be if Shadrack Biwott, Scott Fauble, Jared Ward, or another one of the good, but not world class male American runners started improving in huge ways late in their career and reached 2:03 - 2:05 in their mid-late 30s?
2:20 is not that caliber of performance.
bfnbehajsjs wrote:
What would the reaction be if Shadrack Biwott, Scott Fauble, Jared Ward, or another one of the good, but not world class male American runners started improving in huge ways late in their career and reached 2:03 - 2:05 in their mid-late 30s?
blue collar heros of course:) Go read the Ian Butler threads and count how many doping accusations there are of 65:30 guy running a 2:10. That 14:47 5000m college PR also isn't screaming sub 2:10:)
And of course lets not miss out on the biggest doper out there:Wejo. Guy goes from not breaking 30 in college to run 28:08 and claims it is because of "Training". Probably training to use a needle:)
4:08 is 62 second pace. What are you smokin? Check TFRRS. 4:08 and 14 flat usually line up.
armstrongmorans wrote:
2:20 is not that caliber of performance.
In the women's event 2.20 has been good enough to win championships races.
J Foster wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I wonder how many top runners plug away for twenty odd years before they discover their best distance in their mid-thirties?
I can imagine a male sub-14min 5k runner suddenly wakes up at 35 to realizing he's been wasting his time and should be running marathons - and so knocks out 2.05 in his late thirties. We are in the realm of believing anything now.
Not many but it still happens
I dont know how anyone isn't dubious about any runner being a given level of competitor for a lengthy period of their career and then suddenly becoming a whole lot better as they age and over the most demanding of distances. The simplest explanation is probably the best.
Its called SR 9009 she is taking. It has only short life and can be out of ur system fast and gives u that great endurance.
Faster than ever wrote:
4:08 is 62 second pace. What are you smokin? Check TFRRS. 4:08 and 14 flat usually line up.
Where the heck did you learn math? 62 is about a 3:52. I don't know how the TFRRS calculates stuff but JD has 4:08 being the same as a 15:22 and a 2:27:27. Those are close in my experience.
Armstronglivs wrote:
armstrongmorans wrote:
2:20 is not that caliber of performance.
In the women's event 2.20 has been good enough to win championships races.
Not relevant to the point.
Armstronglivs wrote:
armstrongmorans wrote:
2:20 is not that caliber of performance.
In the women's event 2.20 has been good enough to win championships races.
2:10:30 has been good enough win men's championships. A guy with a 2:10:30 PR is unlikely to win those championship races though given how bad the conditions tend to be.
2:20 isn't what it used to be with 12 people breaking it in 2019 and 9 in 2020 despite there only being a handful of races.
Armstronglivs wrote:
J Foster wrote:
Not many but it still happens
I dont know how anyone isn't dubious about any runner being a given level of competitor for a lengthy period of their career and then suddenly becoming a whole lot better as they age and over the most demanding of distances. The simplest explanation is probably the best.
You.be said this about 40 times. There are other simple explanations.
armstrongmorans wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I dont know how anyone isn't dubious about any runner being a given level of competitor for a lengthy period of their career and then suddenly becoming a whole lot better as they age and over the most demanding of distances. The simplest explanation is probably the best.
You.be said this about 40 times. There are other simple explanations.
Sure there are other simple explanations, but are they credible? An example of a "simple explanation" would be that she wasn't trying hard before, but now at age 37 she is putting a lot of effort into her racing. Just because it's simple, doesn't make it believable. Sorry, but this crap like "she upped her training mileage" or "she found her event" don't pass the smell test. There would have been hints somewhere along the way that she was a 2:20 marathoner, faster than every other US female ever except Deena Kastor (and please don't bring up "but she won Foot Locker").
I'm not even trying to say she's a cheat. I'm willing to say maybe it's just the shoes, and leave it at that. But please don't act like it's not surprising at all for someone who must have been running for 22 years or more to suddenly vault from B-class national runner to close to borderline world class.
adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:
Faster than ever wrote:
4:08 is 62 second pace. What are you smokin? Check TFRRS. 4:08 and 14 flat usually line up.
Where the heck did you learn math? 62 is about a 3:52. I don't know how the TFRRS calculates stuff but JD has 4:08 being the same as a 15:22 and a 2:27:27. Those are close in my experience.
btw, one of you guys is talking about a 4:08 for 1500, and one is talking about 4:08 for a mile. You probably know that and are just being difficult, but still...
Armstronglivs wrote:
The voter fraud was real, apparently the videos are all lies. You are just a lame liberal who probably believed in the Russian hoax because it was aimed at Trump, not your girl Hillary. Yes, you'll see a lawsuit sooner than later.
Even Attorney General Barr doesn't agree with you about voter fraud. If that's what you believe I know I have nothing to fear.[/quote]
Alright, I have to say it; watch the legislative hearings from the swing state that must still be online and then tell us with a straight face that the elections were not stolen. There is a universe of proof from people who have literally risked their lives.
Otherwise, just admit you like the result that we little turds do not have control but are born to obey. Just f-in admit that you do not want a nation run by the little guy.