Why we're all not running 2:22?

i posted this before and want to again, because i have a big ego too. conto...i'll be in the big apple this weekend and will have some beers. drop em an e-mail if you want to meet up.

mcveigh...thanks for the vote of confidence. i'm going one day at a time. just like the rest of us.

it (2:22) may be like a 4:05 mile, but for many of us who will never have the leg speed to run a 4:00 or a 13:50 to get to the oly trials, 2:22 is what we shoot for. my buddy and i say every weekend that the oly trials marathon is "our olympics." if we could make it there, then we will have accomplished our goal. no one may care if you could shoot 75 in golf, and no one may care if i ever toe the line at the oly trials marathon...but i'm not trying to run under 2:22 to make other people care - the only person in matters to is me!

the person who said earlier that nobody knows the guys who ran 2:19 in 1982. that may be true. but i hope that they wake up every morning and think about it, and allow it to put a smile on their face. they know they did it!

I ran a 30K 4 weeks before the marathon. So the drop in mileage was a recovery from that in preparation for the marathon. I knew that I wasn't going to be able to do too much between the two. I don't question anything I did this time around (7:40 PR), so it must have been right for me. I like to race a lot, which is good for me. I ran a Half Marathon 7 weeks out, then the 30K 4 weeks out, 6M XC race at GGP in SF (tough course) 2 weeks out, and a 5K 10 days out. I think if I had to do it all over again the only race I wouldn't redo would be the 6M XC race (so I could win the 5K, ha). So with that schedule I couldn't put in 140 mpw (my max) or anywhere close.

It amazes me how many people on here are knocking 2:20's and the people who run them as if they were not worth anything at all. If 5000 more people did run 2:20's this year, it would be a tremendous benefit to the sport. There is more to running than just setting world records or most of us do not deserve to be out there competing at all. To say that more, shall we say, averagely good runners are not of benefit to us is like saying that we should only find the best 11 soccer players for our national team & no one else should play. For many people, the 2:05 (or faster) only comes after first attempting the 2:20 (or slower). i hope you run if you're a 2:20 or a 2:50 or a 4:10. you'll never reach the amazing if you're not even willing to attempt the mudane.

I guess my point was that your peak mileage was 11 or 12 weeks from the race, and your were under 100 for the last 6. I'm not bagging you, just curious as to what people's opinions are on this type of mileage "configuration". Is it considered more beneficial to have peak mileage right before you taper (i.e. 4 weeks), or to come down a bit in total volume and focus more on long quality MP efforts earlier (6-8 weeks out).

Thanks for the support. Conto is obviously frustrating and confused, and Jozast is a bit too clouded with violent thoughts to spell correctly.

Yeah, a number of things Conto said pissed me off, and ripping on Siemers definitely set me off. It didn't help that I happen to know him personally. Siemers runs a debut 2:18:51 with a miler's background and Conto has to tell him to get over himself 'cause he's not a "hot commodity?"

But it's also tiring to hear over and over about "back in the day" and how good people used to be. U.S. marathoners as a whole have gotten slower - I have no problem admitting that. I would like to see U.S. marathoners get faster. But the actual marathoners currently trying to run sub 2:20/2:22 have NOT gotten slower - they're running PRs, trying to qualify for the trials, and chasing their dreams. As individuals, they're just concerned with THEIR improvement.

In 1984 I was a high school freshman - I didn't have a marathon PR. So, as an individual, why would I be concerned with what people were running then? I'm improving and I'm pursuing what I see as a dream of a lifetime - for me! Sure, when I was in high school I had dreams of running in the Olympics, breaking 4:00 and accomplishing big things. But eventually reality takes over for most of us.

Why would my thinking about trying to improve from 2:30:49 to 2:22 or 2:20 hurt the sport? Should I really be trying to run 2:12? That's realistic. But that might not even be enough for Olympic guru, Conto. I should probably be shooting for 2:05 because otherwise I'm not helping the sport. I totally agree with you that if the "Conto Outlook"(TM) was actually followed, the sport in this country would certainly suffer, and you would have even less people running 2:20/2:22.

Could more people run sub 2:22 than currently do? Sure. But that wouldn't diminish the accomplishment. I honestly think that Conto may want to see U.S. marathoners improve. But then again, if it does improve he wouldn't be able to talk about all the "decent LOCAL" runners "back in the day."

Again, thanks for the backup and rational thought.

Live the Life

Tim Geldean

It's all in the presentation. Personally, I think running 2:22 or better for a marathon is a terrific effort that requires a ton of hard work and dedication. I admire those who have done it, and I disgaree with a previous post that said "just about anyone could run 2:20" if they wanted to put in the time. That shows a lack of respect. The argument revolves around personalities and arrogance. The guys who give 2:20 marathoners a bad name are those who run 2:21:50 and then act like they're some kind of god. That's what causes people to slam the 2:20 guys and tell them their PR's suck. Guys like Wejo run in that range and are good for the sport becuase they're out their busting their ass to run their best and yet they posess an understanding of different levels of accomplishment (2:20 versus 2:14 versus 2:08) and are modest about where they stand in the whole spectrum. I know someone who has run 2:16 and is a good guy and I know someone who has run 2:18-2:22 and acts like everyone should kiss his racing shoes.

If I had a debut of 29:3x.? for 10k would you be jumping up and down like you are for a 2:18:51? Well, those times are equal. Compare the 29:31 & 30:01 bests that were turned by WOMEN, one of which ran 2:17:18 in her second race at the distance. That's what your getting so giddy about?

There is a marathon in upstate NY in Oct that will pay $1500 for a time like that. I'll turn you on to it if you want.

For you to forget or disregard the history of better runners that came before you is disrespectful. The Trials of 1980 & 1984 are the epitome years for this country, no doubt! Running in this country has gone right down the shitter since about 1986, shortly after the 1984 Games.

Great points there. There are about no American high school boys who could run those times, either, so why are we getting all excited about these slow, lame high schoolers? Ditto for more than 1/2 of the xc runners in college. So, unless we, as males, are able to better world record/world class times for women, we're just wasting our time and should just throw in the towel? Where does that get us? If you want to think that such performances from males warrant zero praise, then fine, just don't praise them. But why harsh on those who want to praise a promising debut from someone who could very easily make excuses like some others on this board do and never make an attempt or just quit the game altogether? There are little to no external rewards for guys in the 2:20-2:40 (or even 2:15+, really) range, they're only in it for the intrinsic rewards - which is not to say that the sub-2:20 guys don't also find benefit in these intrinsic rewards, but they can start to see some financial promise in it, too.

And yet, to point to all the sub-2:20 guys of the 80s and insist that since so many of them did it then it must be "not really all that hard" is a brash bit of hyperbole, too. Guys who run 2:18 now still bust ass just like guys who ran it in the 80s busted ass, too. Difference is that now the guys in that range, because they are far less common, are in the spotlight now - and this is because so many their peers quit before ever getting there. The fact that sub-2:20 performances from American men are so rare is not the fault of those who are doing it, nor is it at all the fault of those who support and praise them. We all know distance running in this country has, of course, gone down the shitter since the 80s; pointing that out for the umpmillionth time neither reveals nor solves a damn thing. Going around declaring "it's not so hard, I could do it but I really don't feel like it" isn't any help, either.

Yes, a lot of people ran below 2:20. Hordes of them by current standards. Does that mean that 2:20 isn't a decent time, isn't hard to run or that anyone can do it? Not at all.

By the 80s there were maybe 7,000-10,000 people who qualified for Boston. Anyone who qualifies for Boston is at least somewhat serious about the sport. So let's say that those 7-10k who qualified for Boston represented about half of the overall qualifiers, i.e., the other half qualified but decided not to go. So maybe we had 20,000 serious marathoners in the US and about 200 of them broke 2:22. That's 1%. Being in the 99th percentile is pretty elite.

A couple of things:

Yes, I do think that a debut 29:3x? is a great time. I'll take your word for it that 29:3x? is an "equivalent" time to 2:18:51. I'm "giddy" because:

a) 2:18:51 IS a great debut marathon for someone without outstanding LONG distance credentials (sorry Art). He's obviously talented, but most of us didn't know of him as a marathoner.

b) I know Art. I respect what he's done and what he's trying to accomplish. He's respectful of the sport and stubborn in his quest for a sub 4 mile.

As far as your statement that I "forget or disregard the history of better runners that came before you is disrespectful" - I haven't! Nowhere in my posts have I made any negative reference regarding the marathoners of the 1980/1984 era. In fact, I tried to point out that those runners were not merely "decent LOCAL" runners (Conto's words). Any runner who was running sub 2:20 back then was a national class marathoner and worthy of praise. I don't care whether it was 1980, 1990 or 2002 - running sub 2:20/2:22 is an impressive performance that puts these athletes in an elite group. And I agree that this group is much smaller today - that's obvious. What I disagree with is the tendency with certain people to continually rip on today's athletes, because as a whole they're not as good as those who came before them "back in the day." Today's runners, as individuals, should be concerned with being the best THEY can be - to the limit of their potential. In other words, a runner today shouldn't "settle" for a sub 2:20/2:22 - they should try to maximize their possible performance. That might mean 2:17, or 2:12, or maybe their potential IS "only" 2:23. Whatever it might be, as competitive runners, we should try to eek out every last bit of potential.

So no, unlike Conto & others, I'm not being disrespectful of any runners who've run sub 2:22 - past or present. I stand by my statements that whenever it was run, that this kind of time is a special accomplishment. Obviously, faster times are even more special.

Thanks for the heads up about the race in New York. I'll stick with Chicago next fall. While I would have no issue with making a little cash, I'll take the Chicago racetrack for now.

Flatiron Fool & BDG I would to ask for your apology. I have had a bit time to time about what I wrote & re-read what came before it & I apologize for what I wrote. I was an asshole & a jerk. I would like you to know that I believe that dreams can come true & people can make mistakes. Good luck to both of you guys & happy holidays!

Is there a picture from your race? I will at the O-Trials & I would like to give you a yell. What club or singlet do you run under. Funny this shit, but good luck to you!

jozast

Jozast -

I'll assume you're not planning on breaking my teeth in, so you can find my photo @ marathonfoto.com. Just look up Tim Geldean, bib #226 and you should find a handful of pictures. I run for Fleet Feet Sports in Boulder.

So you've run or watched the US Marathon Oly Trials since 1984? Either way, cool! I've been to (as a spectator) the last 4 US Oly Track & Field Trials, but I haven't been to the Marathon Trials in any capacity. There's a lot of IFs involved in me qualifying for the Trials. IF I can stay healthy, IF the weather is good @ Chicago, IF I run a well executed race, IF my calves don't cramp up (again), IF outside life factors don't negatively affect my training (too much), basically IF I'm good enough on October 12th. Period.

So for now, the plan is to get as strong as I possibly can, work on my anaerobic threshold, work on improving @ 10K (my spring intermediate goal), and not get too carried away and break down.

Thanks,

Tim Geldean

Tim,

No teeth breaking! Sorry again for that, I lost my mind in that message. Yes, I have been to 84, 88, 96 & 2000, I missed 92 on a brain fart I guess? Is there anything you want to know about the trials race? The guys who hunt from behind usually do better then any of the front runners. jozast

Sehon,

You need a tall beer since you are obviously feeling pretty darn sorry for yourself.

1) Whining about the life you chose is lame. You wanted to go to college, you choose to work 60 hours/week, etc.

2) "I could crapa 2:22" First off it is classic "woulda, coulda, shoulda" Secondly, smart money would not bet on you - even if Nike sponsored you as a full-time runner. I checked your bests on All-Wejo: 2:06 for 800m, 31+ for 10K, etc. Those times do not indicate the talent/ability to run 2:22. Most 2:22 guys don't - whether they work 60 hours/wk. or not.

3) EVERYONE thinks they can run a kick-ass marathon relative to their achievements. This includes 2:14 guys, 3 hour types, 4 hour types, etc. I have never understood why everyone thinks that all they need to do is run 140 MPW, get some massages, and "BOOM" collect their 2:22. I have run 2:22 working 50+ hours/week AND 2:22 working 15 hours/week (graduate school). That's what my TALENT level is.

4) It's good to be ambitious BUT realism is ok too. Whineyness is not. Many runners better than you have worked hard to achieve a 2:22, to say you could 'crap' one is demeaning to their accomplishments (and your lack thereof.)

Oldlion

Go check the PR's for Joe McVeigh, he posted earlier in this thread. They are very similar to Sehon's at the shorter distances and Joe has a 2:16 to his credit.

I also know of a 2:18 guy that has not broken 31 for 10K (Jeff Morganti).

Just looking at shorter distance PR's and saying you don't have the talent to run 2:22 is a bit shortsighted.

BF

Joe McVeigh is a bit of a freak. In a very good way. There will always be a very few 'outliers' that are 31+ 10K that can run 2:16 or 2:18 for the marathon. But they are the exception. I'd estimate less than 5% who never break 31:00 go on to beat 2:22 in the marathon ( of those who try (which is the majority)). I'm not saying Sehon is NOT one of them, but I am saying that he's probably not. He is still part of the 95% where it counts: it the real world.

I ran some with one outlier; he messed up everyone's mind. Faster 10K guys would say "Oh, if Bob runs 2:17 with 31:30, then I should run 2:15 with my 31:00." 29:30 guys would think 2:14 would be a walk in the park. It never happened. I was one of them despite training with the guy.

That's no reason for him not to try. But I maintain that it is lame to NOT try and say he could 'crap' it if he wanted to. I sincerely would like to wish him well in his attempt - IF he attempts. If he isn't going to attempt, he shouldn't imply that he could do it easily.

That's what I think.

bfullem wrote:

Oldlion

Go check the PR's for Joe McVeigh, he posted earlier in this thread. They are very similar to Sehon's at the shorter distances and Joe has a 2:16 to his credit.

BF

I'll bet if Joey had run some serious 5000/10000s when he was in 2:16 shape his PRs would be a bit more studly. I'm sure he'll correct me if he feels I'm wrong, but I don't think Joe ran that many flat/fast 5K/10K races when he was in his best marathon shape.

Probably true Doug since he Joey PR'ed at 10 miles and 1/2 marathon during his 2:16.

Oldlion, not sure I would agree with your 95%/5% ratio. It certainly has a bearing on it. I don't think Sehon meant any disrespect when he said he could crap a 2:22. He is a bit of a whiner though ;)

BF