The Marathon Project was a HUGE success, but is Marty Hehir the equivalent of a 13:30 5000 runner?

Same

astro wrote:

The US will not be a running superpower without engaging in the same level of blatant doping. The end.

LOL loser. Not the end with your crap accusations.

today's standard wrote:

YMMV wrote:

But someone willing to adopt (and not even register) the username "iDiott" IS. Got it.

When Henry Rono set the WR of 13:08, the marathon WR on a sanctioned course was 2:09. But let's pay no attention to FACTS.

Osako's PB are 13:08 for 5K (NR) and 27:36 for 10K, yet he ran sub 2.06 twice.

Yuki Kawauchi is barely a Sub14/Sub 30 runner and he ran sub 2.09 multiple times.

How do you like them FACTS now, YMMVegan?

rojo wrote:

When I posted it, I had no idea what his track time was or had even thought about looking it up. I think it's better than 13:30, but not by a ton. Don't misunderstand me, Hehir is still pretty darn good, but the top of the world is just absurd now.

Here we go again rojo.

At least look up 'some' facts before starting a (major) thread.

Even Gault's comparisons are based off the wrong metrics

Mr Abernathy wrote:

malmo wrote:

Whats the point?

I agree. What’s the point? It appears that people enjoyed what they saw. Can’t we jus leave it at that? If I go to the movie theatre and really enjoy a movie, I don’t immediately say how does that compare to movies of the past? Let’s just enjoy without searching for a negative angle.

The point is that it is disappointing, as fans - most of whom are also American - that a country of 330 million people can't have a few world class marathoners. Is that too "greedy"? Is that too "insensitive" to 2:09 guys (and their moms)? No.

It's silly to self-righteously criticize fans who are somewhat disappointed that their country appears to signficantly under-achieve in something. Just because we're a niche sport doesn't mean that fans have an obligation to spout nothing but "Rah, rah, good for YOU !!" stuff.

Should any of them be jerks to the 2:09 guys? No. And by the same token, as a highly-envious holder of a mile PR slower than their marathon pace, I find it entirely easy not to feel bad that one or two of them MIGHT be made a bit sad by a fan's disappointment in "only" 2:09 in 2020.

Put another way, no one would EVER criticize a mainstream sports journalist for criticizing a, say, 12-for-32, 128 YDS, 0 TDs, 3 INT game by Tom Brady. Complaining to the journalist that, "Tommy's a LOT better quarterback than you!" And, "Tommy was trying his BEST!"

But we get that all the time from overly-sensitive running fans. Please stop.

Oh, and for the record, I looked forward to the race, I watched the whole thing, I taped it, and I thought that the number of 2:09s was cool (FYI, I started as a fan when Rodgers was running 2:09 in the late 70s). But it's not rude that I, or anyone else, might hope for more.

Shorter ran 27:45/12:53(3mi; 13:22 equiv) ... you do the math homework and get back to me. Shorter would cut these guys apart like a surgeon will cut into your thoracic cavity in a few years... 2:09 today is equivalent to 2:16/2:17 from the mid 1970s. Don’t kid yourself this race was a catered event ... I don’t remember Rodgers being tended to over a manicured course built for speed or paced out when he ran 2:09:55 and 2:09:27 back in 1975/1979.

The reality is that a 2:09 marathon just isn't impressive. 4:55 per mile is pedestrian.

America just didn't have good marathon coaches for a long time. And we didn't have runners with enough guts to put in big mileage. 2:09 sounds good because Americans have sucked for many years.

13:20 is around 4:20 pace. If you can run 4:20 pace for a 5k, you should be able to run 4:50 for a marathon within 5 years with well-coached marathon specific prep. Especially with today's shoe technology.

Not sure if some people don’t realize that 2:09 is 7.5 minutes behind the current world record?

If there is effort to improve the AR then it’s a different story, but reality is we are trailing back. At this pace we’ll be struggling to get athletes run under 2:07 when the standard PR for elite becomes sub2.

If negligably effective, why is it so necessary to use them or ardently defend them? And for the sake of comparison (since you proposed it), perhaps you should, indeed, run you next marathons in said 'regular' shoes and post the results. It might temper the critique that had you so upset, and double your life savings.

I don't understand this website's obsession with super shoes.

A bunch of results from 208:59-2:11? On a loop course with no elevation change, perfect pacing and perfect weather? The shoes!!!!

It's like they've forgotten about Almaz Ayana. Or even Geb running 58:55 in 2006.

Was Brigid Kosgei's 214 amazing? Yes. Any more so than Bobble Head Paula running 215? No.

The times we're seeing should be expected.

Are the shoes fast? Yes. Do they propel you forward doing the work for you? No

Bdubs wrote:

I don't understand this website's obsession with super shoes.

A bunch of results from 208:59-2:11? On a loop course with no elevation change, perfect pacing and perfect weather? The shoes!!!!

It's like they've forgotten about Almaz Ayana. Or even Geb running 58:55 in 2006.

Was Brigid Kosgei's 214 amazing? Yes. Any more so than Bobble Head Paula running 215? No.

The times we're seeing should be expected.

Are the shoes fast? Yes. Do they propel you forward doing the work for you? No

This. Just smacks of jealousy

The shoes an able to 2:12 type marathon runners to become 209 or 2:10 Marathon runners which is a significant improvement. Not just happenstance when you see the majority of runners improving their best times by significant margins and I’m talking minutes over the marathon distance and even over the half marathon distance significant improvements. The boingy shoes prevent significant muscle deterioration and fatigue in the quadriceps and calves in the later stages of distance races and that has a very beneficial effect in maintaining stride length and bounds and counteracting the fatigue issue which leads to much better times.

Some typos in the previous message and here are the corrections:

The shoes enable 2:12 type marathon runners to become 209 or 2:10 Marathon runners which is a significant improvement. Not just happenstance when you see the majority of runners improving their best times by significant margins and I’m talking minutes over the marathon distance and even over the half marathon distance significant improvements. The boingy shoes prevent significant muscle deterioration and fatigue in the quadriceps and calves in the later stages of distance races and that has a very beneficial effect in maintaining stride length and bounce and counteracting the fatigue issue which leads to preserving speed and lessening breakdown in pace = better results

Ghost,

By that logic, any cushioning would be considered "mechanical doping."

We should be celebrating technology that allows us to train more effectively. Should we ban treadmills too?

There's probably nothing too outlandish about the brojos claims about the shoes....it's the manner in which they do it. The recap of the marathon project is a perfect example. Literally nothing needed to be said about the shoes.

Bdubs wrote:

Ghost,

By that logic, any cushioning would be considered "mechanical doping."

We should be celebrating technology that allows us to train more effectively. Should we ban treadmills too?

There's probably nothing too outlandish about the brojos claims about the shoes....it's the manner in which they do it. The recap of the marathon project is a perfect example. Literally nothing needed to be said about the shoes.

Improve technology is a logical development in life in all areas including sports and I feel we should embrace it rather than condemn the results that go with improved technology. Back when I used to run road races in the UK in the 70s and 80s people used to wear tiger marathon ASICS shoes which were basically Plimsolls and had absolutely no cushioning at all it was almost like running barefoot and still people were running 48 minutes for 10 miles 142 for 20 miles and 212 to 216 For the Marathon in those Plimsolls. I myself ran 1:50.49 for 20 miles in the Finchley 20 miles road race, in April 1978 and if I were to translate that today it would maybe be around 145 to 146 with improved shoes and that is something we have to go with it’s a natural progression in improvement across the board not only an athletic footwear but in all areas of life so I really don’t see what the big issue is.

Sarah Williamson wrote:

Runner10287 wrote:

lol seriously RoJoke, You freaking dope.

lol, you’re bad!

I already know Rojo’s response:

“Unbelievable. I just shared my factual opinion and everyone seems to have a problem with this. This is the problem with The Radical Left today. Everyone here needs to read a great book called The Coddling of the American Mind.”

But when you compare Ron Clarke’s 1965; 27:39.89 WR on dirt ...How much larger are the hearts and the oxygen extraction of today’s athlete ..?! There are limits to a human .. only through doping and mechanical advances are we seeing better results. Take Eddy Merckx on today’s bikes ... you really think Armstrong or Froome are better ..?! Come on man .. lol

Sarah Williamson wrote:

Sarah Williamson wrote:

lol, you’re bad!

I already know Rojo’s response:

“Unbelievable. I just shared my factual opinion and everyone seems to have a problem with this. This is the problem with The Radical Left today. Everyone here needs to read a great book called The Coddling of the American Mind.”

lol