If you had reached your potential in running, what times do you think you were capable of?

"I coulda been a contenda"

stan the corgi wrote:

"I coulda been a contenda"

Thank you. Superbly played.

COACH WIZARD 1 wrote:

If I had known then( back in the- 70s) what I know today of the very best way of training I`M SURE I had run times like :

1500m : 3:40

3000m : 7: 45

5000m : 13:20

10000m : 27: 40

half : sub 61

marathon : sub 2:08

The time I did;

1500m: 3:58

3000m: 8:20

5000m : 14:20

10000m : 29:51

half : 1:06:48

marathon : 2:22:09

So you would have been better than Frank Shorter across the board? Instead of being a fairly average American collegiate runner? That's a big jump! Have you coached any elites with this newfound knowledge of training?

no... wrote:

COACH WIZARD 1 wrote:

If I had known then( back in the- 70s) what I know today of the very best way of training I`M SURE I had run times like :

1500m : 3:40

3000m : 7: 45

5000m : 13:20

10000m : 27: 40

half : sub 61

marathon : sub 2:08

The time I did;

1500m: 3:58

3000m: 8:20

5000m : 14:20

10000m : 29:51

half : 1:06:48

marathon : 2:22:09

So you would have been better than Frank Shorter across the board? Instead of being a fairly average American collegiate runner? That's a big jump! Have you coached any elites with this newfound knowledge of training?

I was taking the post by COACH WIZARD 1 to be an attempt at humor - mocking those who think they could have been so much better. Maybe not?

Actual marathon runner wrote:

Greg wrote:

wrong, I had the talent to run those times

easily

First of all you don't understand how these calculation tables work. You can't put in a 5k time and extrapolate to a Marathon time. It works maybe two distances up at most. And still you have to do the endurance work to get there. And even than there are no guarantees.

That's why we run races, to actually see what we are made of at a specific point in time.

Those tables are actually incredibly accurate. My PRs:

1500 - 3:58

3k - 8:32

5k - 14:47

10k - 30:48

10 mile - 50:28

Half - 1:08:04

Marathon - 2:22

These are all 70-71 on the charts. I did run all of these before super shoes/spikes in my first year out of college. Definitely would have run faster for the 10 mile, half and marathon in super shoes. I only really trained at a high level for the marathon for a year. I’m guessing I would have run under 2:19 if I had dedicated 3 or 4 years to it.

Real Obvi wrote:

no... wrote:

So you would have been better than Frank Shorter across the board? Instead of being a fairly average American collegiate runner? That's a big jump! Have you coached any elites with this newfound knowledge of training?

I was taking the post by COACH WIZARD 1 to be an attempt at humor - mocking those who think they could have been so much better. Maybe not?

Doesn't seem like an attempt at humor. I've followed some of the other JS threads. There's one where he said he planned to go after some age-graded world bests (but then later it came out that he's a fatass who doesn't run anymore). And another one where he said Kiprop asked him to be his coach. The guy might have a few loose screws.

Had I ran in college I think I could have run:

800m: 1:51

1500m : 3:48

5000m : 14:00

The time I did;

800m: 1:55

1500m: 3:57

5000m : 15:15

no... wrote:

COACH WIZARD 1 wrote:

If I had known then( back in the- 70s) what I know today of the very best way of training I`M SURE I had run times like :

1500m : 3:40

3000m : 7: 45

5000m : 13:20

10000m : 27: 40

half : sub 61

marathon : sub 2:08

The time I did;

1500m: 3:58

3000m: 8:20

5000m : 14:20

10000m : 29:51

half : 1:06:48

marathon : 2:22:09

So you would have been better than Frank Shorter across the board? Instead of being a fairly average American collegiate runner? That's a big jump! Have you coached any elites with this newfound knowledge of training?

Well.......I see you are not aware of The Magic Wizard coach? 4 guys between 2:07-2; 10 at the marathon , 2 guys between 60-61 min at half , and so on........ :)

COACH WIZARD 1 wrote:

no... wrote:

So you would have been better than Frank Shorter across the board? Instead of being a fairly average American collegiate runner? That's a big jump! Have you coached any elites with this newfound knowledge of training?

Well.......I see you are not aware of The Magic Wizard coach? 4 guys between 2:07-2; 10 at the marathon , 2 guys between 60-61 min at half , and so on........ :)

I've seen some of your posts on other threads. Seems like you've gotten roasted pretty good for lying. Do you really think you would have been better than Frank Shorter? Do you think you would have won any Olympic medal.

no... wrote:

Real Obvi wrote:

I was taking the post by COACH WIZARD 1 to be an attempt at humor - mocking those who think they could have been so much better. Maybe not?

Doesn't seem like an attempt at humor. I've followed some of the other JS threads. There's one where he said he planned to go after some age-graded world bests (but then later it came out that he's a fatass who doesn't run anymore). And another one where he said Kiprop asked him to be his coach. The guy might have a few loose screws.

I just have to disappoint you. ;) I have no loose screws, hehe! I still run 3-4 times per week now and shape is coming on......

It`s the truth I was asked both by Kiprop and Kamworor to coach them but unfortunately Kam got sick in pneumonia , but Kiprop I really coached even if it was for a short time in his comeback.

It's an interesting mind-game, that I think everyone plays.

Back in the day I ran a 2:25 marathon. Taking all factors into consideration, I estimate that I could potentially have run 2:21 or at a stretch 2:20 (big miles/dedication/right race etc. etc.)Even back then that was enough to prevent me trying harder. To me 2:20 and 2:25 we're the same. If there was a clue I could have run 2:15 - THAT would be worth the sacrifice. Am I lazy? I don't think so. I am happy with my running pr's. But I'll also have my private better 'virtual' pr's that I bet are pretty accurate as to my potential.

This is all meaningless. However some of you clowns could have run faster on super shoes. But who really cares?

Hghhh wrote:

It's an interesting mind-game, that I think everyone plays.

Back in the day I ran a 2:25 marathon. Taking all factors into consideration, I estimate that I could potentially have run 2:21 or at a stretch 2:20 (big miles/dedication/right race etc. etc.)Even back then that was enough to prevent me trying harder. To me 2:20 and 2:25 we're the same. If there was a clue I could have run 2:15 - THAT would be worth the sacrifice. Am I lazy? I don't think so. I am happy with my running pr's. But I'll also have my private better 'virtual' pr's that I bet are pretty accurate as to my potential.

I play it too. I wasn't at your level (or JS's level). 2:45 best for me. Once on an easy course, once on a hard course. I have no excuse for not doing better. Yeah I tried, but there was more I could have done. These were both in my late 30s, so time was running out, not much time to try again after mistakes.

But no way am I going to come out and say something ridiculous like improving from 2:22 to 2:07. That's just delusional and arrogant.