xeroxx wrote:
Anarcho-Bidenist wrote:
What's the problem?
He ran 2:10 after running a 62 half.
I couldn't find a record of a 17:20 parkrun. Are you sure that's legitimate? If it is, don't you think he just used it for mileage, maybe running round with a friend or clubmate.
The 1:02 and 2:20 were 5 years apart. I guess the issue was he was doing 40 miles per week of running and then ran 2:10 as the super shoes felt wonderful. That is all. An odd story.
What's 2:20 got to do with it?
Anarcho-Bidenist wrote:
xeroxx wrote:
The 1:02 and 2:20 were 5 years apart. I guess the issue was he was doing 40 miles per week of running and then ran 2:10 as the super shoes felt wonderful. That is all. An odd story.
What's 2:20 got to do with it?
Read my next post. It was a typo.
Serious question: wrote:
Anarcho-Bidenist wrote:
What's the problem?
He ran 2:10 after running a 62 half.
I couldn't find a record of a 17:20 parkrun. Are you sure that's legitimate? If it is, don't you think he just used it for mileage, maybe running round with a friend or clubmate.
Did you not even click on the article?
Quoting a 17:20 5k made it appear there was nothing of interest the story. It's so ridiculous to imply that a 17 minute 5k could be an indicator of ftiness for someone who regularly runs 14/15 minute parkruns and mid 60s half marathons and has run 2:15-17 marathons once or twice a year. If there is an interesting story to tell, you don't have to add in stupid details like that.
I've just had a quick look at the article at it looks like maybe he was overtired from looking after his baby.
Don't believe everything you read about someone's training (a runner doesn't necessarily reveal everything and neither do journalists).
xeroxx wrote:
Anarcho-Bidenist wrote:
What's 2:20 got to do with it?
Read my next post. It was a typo.
How many weeks was he doing 40mpw for? What other training was he doing? (Without this sort of detail it doesn't tell you much)
He's had a lot of injuries. He probably would have run 2:10 several years ago if he hadn't been injured.
Generally accepted that he’s a bit of a talker. I wouldn’t believe a word. His group are known for 200 km plus a week and most of it inside 3.40 per km.
62 indicates 2:10 with the super shoes. The fact that he broke the N.I. record in the marathon says that he is among the most talented, does it not? But 28:32 also indicates the possibility of this, but then most guys who run that 10k do not run this fast. Maybe he was wildly over-trained for many of his previous races and this was the only one where he was both fit and fast and fresh, plus he gained 3-4 minutes from the shoes. Maybe the 40+ mpw (and runners often lie and understate this number for bragging rights) and hard cycling meant that he was trained aerobically more like a 60-70 mpw guy. As for the park run, who is to say that he was all out or that the course distance was accurate?
Now that I see his actual performances, this was fake news. He ran 2:10 in December 2019 after running 64-66 in half marathons in the spring of that year, along with 28:59/low 29 10k, and various park runs from 14:51 to 16:33. But the marathon was still surprising, as the previous year, he ran 2:23 after having run similar half marathons (64-66) and park runs.
The Parkrun is not recorded, but 4 others in 2019 are including a 14:51 at Bushy (reckoned to be about 30 seconds slower than a track 5k), and some others just outside 15:00. And a 28:59 10k. So maybe he had a crap Saturday somewhere and decided not to go through the funnel, but that 17 minutes is just journos distracting you...
zxcvzcxv wrote:
62 indicates 2:10 with the super shoes. The fact that he broke the N.I. record in the marathon says that he is among the most talented, does it not? But 28:32 also indicates the possibility of this, but then most guys who run that 10k do not run this fast.
Did you mean to write "62 indicates 2:10 without the super shoes?"
Isn't 2:10 closer to the expected time than 2:15 for a 62 half?
His times indicate he is a marathon specialist and not a particularly speed orientated one. So it's not surprising that his is better at the marathon than shorter distances.
Holy hyperbole, Batman!
Interesting article, thanks.
Serious question: wrote:
Anarcho-Bidenist wrote:
What's the problem?
He ran 2:10 after running a 62 half.
I couldn't find a record of a 17:20 parkrun. Are you sure that's legitimate? If it is, don't you think he just used it for mileage, maybe running round with a friend or clubmate.
Did you not even click on the article?
Did you not even check his race history on power of 10?
Anarcho-Bidenist wrote:
Serious question: wrote:
Did you not even click on the article?
Did you not even check his race history on power of 10?
Yes.
I'll take that as a no from you.
Anarcho-Bidenist wrote:
Serious question: wrote:
Did you not even click on the article?
Quoting a 17:20 5k made it appear there was nothing of interest the story. It's so ridiculous to imply that a 17 minute 5k could be an indicator of ftiness for someone who regularly runs 14/15 minute parkruns and mid 60s half marathons and has run 2:15-17 marathons once or twice a year. If there is an interesting story to tell, you don't have to add in stupid details like that.
I've just had a quick look at the article at it looks like maybe he was overtired from looking after his baby.
Don't believe everything you read about someone's training (a runner doesn't necessarily reveal everything and neither do journalists).
Serious question: Did you not even read my reply?
...another rojo click bait classic
Does this guy ever do any thinking before posting?
What is the relevance of the 17:20 park run?
rojo wrote:
This might be the most amazing story I've ever read. Let Cathal Dennehy introduce you to Paul Pollock. Prior to the 2019 Valencia marathon, the Irishman was having a tough go of it. He was over 30. He's put his medical career on hold and had never broken 2:15:30 in the marathon. He'd had 11 or 12 stress fractures.
In his buildup to Valencia, he'd only averaged 41 miles per week. 4 weeks beore the race, he ran a Park Run in 17:20.
The training had been so bad he and his coach said there was no point in doing the full marathon as there was no way he could break 2:15. They decided to just run with 2:11:30 group for a half marathon to get experience at the Olympic standard pace before dropping out.
He did do one thing however that he hadn't done before. He tried on a pair of Next% two days before the race and decided to wear them. What happened next is crazy.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/othersport/arid-40245614.htmlDennehy wrote:
What unfolded on that Sunday morning, he still doesn’t fully understand. Pollock got to halfway on target pace but felt so easy that he didn’t step off the road. When he hit 20, 21 miles and expected a large cement wall to be erected in front of him, the way it usually is, he only saw open road. In fact, he started to speed up.
“That very rarely happens in a marathon,” he says.
He ripped through the final miles and crossed the line in disbelief at his time: 2:10:25, a Northern Irish record, automatic Olympic standard, which at the time made him the second fastest Irishman in history
Rojo's thread title would have been more honest if it focused on the 41 mile average week.
Also, the old 2:14-2:16 Pollock was arguably one of the best Irish Marathoners since he was in the top 15 before the super shoe improvements.
http://tilastopaja.org/db/toplist.php?list=topirlallt&Ind=0prediction time wrote:
So you’re saying next percents make all 17 min 5k guys 2:10 marathoners? Sounds legit.
You are really engrossed in this shoe thing which is not the cause of fast times.
Weldon, tells me to not call people names on here and I generally agree as it doesnt' accomplish anything. But in this case I have to. How dumb are you guys who take that as the conclusion from what I wrote.
The point of my post was not to say that a 17:20 guy can run 2;10 in the marathon. The point was to say that a guy who has been running for a LONG time and never broken 2:15 in the marathon recently ran a marathon after a terrible buildup during which he was injured and only averaged 41 mpw. The buildup was so bad that both he and his coach realized there was no way he could PR so he should just run the half.
Instead, thanks to the new shoes, he ran 2:10.
I put the 17:20 in there so people woud know how bad his buildup had been.
oldschoollrc wrote:
He jogged a park run...he was capable of a quicker 5K.
Trollbait Rojo FTW!
This is the correct answer.
Holey shooooz Batman wrote:
rojo wrote:
This might be the most amazing story I've ever read.
This might be the most hyperbolific sentence you've ever written.
Rojo is correct Some of you aren't that bright. You need to view what he write symbolically, not literally.
When Trump says "I'm going to build a wall and mexico is going to pay for it" he really just meant, "We need a wall."
Daniels VDOT tables indicate that a 62:10 half is equivalent to a 2:10:05 full marathon and 28:12 10k. What’s the big deal?
BREAKING: Leonard Korir not going to Paris! 11 Universality athletes get in ahead of him!
What is the threshold that separates a "hobbyjogger" from a "sub-elite" runner?
Hicham El Guerrouj is back baby! Runs Community Mile in Oxford
What is the most stupid running advice you've ever heard?🤣(It can be funny)
Are Asics, Saucony, and New Balance envious of Brooks, Hoka ,and On?