Americans need to stop aiming for 2:09 marathons and start shooting for at least 2:05

If you really want to be competitive the US should be shooting for the 150+ positive tests that Kenya has or do a better job of rigging the system like Ethiopia. If you could get epo at Walmart in the US it would be a different ball game.

Calabasa wrote:

I can barely run a mile in 7:00. You expect me to aim for a 2:05 marathon ??

That’s the thing we’re not talking about hobby jogger mentality. For hobby joggers it’s ok to have the goal just to finish a race. We’re talking about top American talent. Footlocker qualifiers in high school and all Americans in D1. They have the potential to run closer to 2:06. It’s just the approach is wrong. America is one of the largest country’s in the world. We have the talent to do better than what we are at the thon.

the East African myth was just epo. wrote:

If you really want to be competitive the US should be shooting for the 150+ positive tests that Kenya has or do a better job of rigging the system like Ethiopia. If you could get epo at Walmart in the US it would be a different ball game.

Sorry but this is just another excuse. It’s not like America doesn’t have its burrito eaters.

Get Metric wrote:

the East African myth was just epo. wrote:

If you really want to be competitive the US should be shooting for the 150+ positive tests that Kenya has or do a better job of rigging the system like Ethiopia. If you could get epo at Walmart in the US it would be a different ball game.

Sorry but this is just another excuse. It’s not like America doesn’t have its burrito eaters.

Yes, so many that when there is one we have endless threads on it for months on end.

American marathoners don't need to do anything, let alone anything some random calling himself Fax tells them they need to do.

Breakfast In Bed wrote:

American marathoners don't need to do anything, let alone anything some random calling himself Fax tells them they need to do.

I guess some program where anyone who breaks 1345/2840 and who is under 24 at the start, get 3 years of support(call it a 75k/year job, health, coaching and access to PT and the like) would do wonders for our 210-215 depth. Maybe one or two of the guys who weren't fast enough for a decent contract would make the step up to be sub 2:08 guys.

fkkfkfkfkf wrote:

Breakfast In Bed wrote:

American marathoners don't need to do anything, let alone anything some random calling himself Fax tells them they need to do.

I guess some program where anyone who breaks 1345/2840 and who is under 24 at the start, get 3 years of support(call it a 75k/year job, health, coaching and access to PT and the like) would do wonders for our 210-215 depth. Maybe one or two of the guys who weren't fast enough for a decent contract would make the step up to be sub 2:08 guys.

I don't understand what the point in doing that would be. A guy with 28:40 talent wont ever break 2:10. It would take someone closer to 27:00 to run 2:05 and it seems most posters want a new AR.

There's nothing wrong with the mental toughness of America's top marathoners. We would all agree that Bill Rodgers was as tough as it gets, but with 28:00 ability, he was never going to run 2:05.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

fkkfkfkfkf wrote:

I guess some program where anyone who breaks 1345/2840 and who is under 24 at the start, get 3 years of support(call it a 75k/year job, health, coaching and access to PT and the like) would do wonders for our 210-215 depth. Maybe one or two of the guys who weren't fast enough for a decent contract would make the step up to be sub 2:08 guys.

I don't understand what the point in doing that would be. A guy with 28:40 talent wont ever break 2:10. It would take someone closer to 27:00 to run 2:05 and it seems most posters want a new AR.

There's nothing wrong with the mental toughness of America's top marathoners. We would all agree that Bill Rodgers was as tough as it gets, but with 28:00 ability, he was never going to run 2:05.

A 2840 guy at 22 can drop the 20-30s over 10k they need to be a 208 guy these days if the marathon is their event. See all the Japanese depth guys. But yes the odds against them running 205 is super high. We need 2720 type guys and faster to to that. We don't have many of them.

Agreed that if US runners are going to keep up with the rest of the world, they need to run faster.

But the individual and cultural advantages in the US for a US runner to try to run 205 are not significant enough to get individual marathoners, and large numbers of runners/non-runners in the general population to try for this.

Advantages in terms of relative monetary, social, etc. rewards are not there for US runners when the risks and effort required to run 205 are considered.

There may be, and likely have been, US marathoners that want to run 202, but they have not been able to do it.

The bar for relative running success for a US marathoner is rather low at perhaps 211 right now. This gets you some type of shoe deal, invitations and appearance fees at US races, a good shot at making the olympic team, some name recognition among the US running population, a chance to win US only prize money in races, perhaps some minor endorsement deals etc.

The incentives for the 211 marathoner to run 209 or 205 are not worth that much more.

Contrast this with a Kenyan 209 marathoner, who is a relative nobody. Their bar for any level of success is is so much higher, 205 or below, to achieve anything similar to the relative level of success of a 211 US marathoner.

It does not help that the culture of US marathoning, the US perception of marathoners, and our biggest marathon race courses (NY and Boston) reward finishing place more so than legal fast times. A 209 marathon on the right day will likely get a US male top 3 in The Olympic trials, a good chance at an olympic medal, and a top finish at NY or Boston. All of these get more attention than a sub 205.

Get Metric wrote:

Liberals are morons wrote:

Why must we pretend that race has nothing to do with it? Does anyone honestly believe east Africans just try harder?

And so do the Japanese

But really it’s not about how hard you train but how smart you train.

Running harder doesn’t necessarily make you faster but may make even slower. It’s about correct volume and intensity within the larger realm of the overall picture. Coaches like Renata Canova gets that and has had massive success. I would like to see more American talent go and work with coaches like him.

If you don't have the genetics no amount of training will help no matter how "smart" it is...

Definitely. Guys with low 13 pr’s should aim for at least 2:06-2:08. I mean guys in the 80’s-90’s were running faster in crappy shoes and not even drinking water during the the entire race well at times someone would give him a sip of water if they were lucky.

No excuses to run 2:10-2:12 with shoe technology.

2:12 and lower ? They should be ashamed. Women’s WR is now 2:14 and this mediocre dudes feel proud of a fkn 2:12-2:13. Embarrassing!!!

How uncompetitive do you think runners are?? So people just don’t run 2:05 because there aren’t incentives.. as if getting your a** kicked isn’t an incentive? I get that there can be additional incentives that do play somewhat of a role, but I’d say the majority of runners want to be the best, period, not just the best Americans.

Also, just throwing this out there, if you run 2:05 as an American you’re going to make serious, serious money and almost every American runner will know your name. You’d make way more than the average East African 2:05 guy would make and many 2:05 guys are still unknown. So I could easily argue there’s even more incentive if you’re in it for the money and fame.

Rupp: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmSbXsFE3l8&ab_channel=AnnaKendrickVEVO

abcrunning wrote:

I mean guys in the 80’s-90’s were running faster in crappy shoes and not even drinking water during the the entire race well at times someone would give him a sip of water if they were lucky.

All this "they don´t try hard enough" or "they don´t have the right attitude" is absolute BS. Since the 1990s thousaands of American and European runners have gone to Kenya to train with the Kenyans and that didn´t make them 2,05 runners (or faster). It´s amusing to hear the LRC hobbyjoggers accusing American runner for being lazy or stupid.

Simple question of the talent pool training.

I'll be glad to watch Americans aim for 2:05 and DNF.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

The best 5/10K runners are also very likely to be the best marathoners and there are hundreds of examples.

Maybe! That sounds quite reasonable.

Except that's not really how we approach any other distance. If we trained pro milers by picking only the very best 800 runners, we'd end up with a good set of milers, but we'd also miss out on some talent. Maybe a lot of talent, because at every level, the message we'd send them would be: You're second-rate. You can stick around if you want and see if you can move up to the mile as a pro. But isn't it about time for you to get a real job? And if we were consistent world-beaters in the 800 but eternal also-rans in the mile, it seems like one place we'd want to take a closer look at.

I keep coming back to this not because I have a lot of confidence in my take, but because there are only a few basic variables here. We're either training the wrong people for the marathon, or training them the wrong way. And there aren't any secrets about training anymore. If we can get top 5 finishes in the Olympic 5K and 10K, why isn't that successful talent identification translating anywhere as well to the marathon? For shorter distances, "immigration from East Africa" has been about half the answer to the U.S. being competitive at the international level, while the NCAA system is continuing to do a great job for its part. Except for the marathon.

Again, hundreds of examples of 5K/10K runners being good at the marathon is not really conclusive because in the U.S., it's the only game in town (and 5K/10K success is definitely not a guarantee of marathon success, as Mo Farah can tell you). African runners seem to have a model that's less dependent on early 5K/10K success, and their approach seems to be generating the kinds of fast times we can only dream of. If we reject the cynics who say it's all doping, the Darwinists who say it's all genes, and the crackpots who say it's their super training plans, what else are we left with?