Did anyone see this article on the 15:36 collegian who ran 2:16 to qualify for the Trials?
How is that possible?
In the article, it says he went to some joke of a D3 school that only started a track team his junior year, but does anyone know how little he was training in college? How does one improve that much? He was in college in 2020.
His best finish at NCAA D3 xc was only 88th.
Have you considered crying about it?
if you spent less time online and more time running maybe you could do it too
super shoes have ruined the 'thon wrote:
Did anyone see this article on the 15:36 collegian who ran 2:16 to qualify for the Trials?
How is that possible?
In the article, it says he went to some joke of a D3 school that only started a track team his junior year, but does anyone know how little he was training in college? How does one improve that much? He was in college in 2020.
His best finish at NCAA D3 xc was only 88th.
It's not so much him, as You.
You, and a lot of people here are underachievers.
Peach Pit wrote:
if you spent less time online and more time running maybe you could do it too
Correct.
Well likely he was not trying very hard and no obviously he is or was not training properly. I don’t know why you people think that running subelite times requires an immense amount of talent. It takes time a dedication that’s it, but yes to run elite times takes both dedication and talent.
No. It takes immense talent to run 2:16.
super shoes have ruined the 'thon wrote:
Did anyone see this article on the 15:36 collegian who ran 2:16 to qualify for the Trials?
How is that possible?
In the article, it says he went to some joke of a D3 school that only started a track team his junior year, but does anyone know how little he was training in college? How does one improve that much? He was in college in 2020.
His best finish at NCAA D3 xc was only 88th.
Ever heard of Bill Rodgers?
If he ran an 8:39 3k off like 40-50 miles a week, 2:16 off of 100-110 miles per week isn’t that unrealistic
I know plenty of guys who would be 17 min high school 5k guys and run 1:10-1:15 in the half marathon as adults after some good mileage. This guy is just the more talented version of that
I know of a female who just qualified for the trials by a few minutes who never was top 100 at D3 XC Nationals. Barely broke 18 in the 5k in college. I think it’s easier (in a way) for some to qualify for the marathon trials who aren’t necessarily the most talented because having the ability to run a ton of miles while staying healthy usually leads to a decent marathon performance.
She ran 30-40 mpw in college and then took a few years after graduation to ramp it up to 80-100. Consistency+hard work can do wonders in the marathon. That being said, 2:16 requires quite a bit of talent. And not doing too much in college and burning out probably didn’t hurt him either.
That just really doesn't seem like a shocking improvement to me. If he had maxed out in college, yeah then a 2:16 'thon would be surprising, but he clearly didn't max out. Similar in HS->college transitions. People try out track, show some initial talent and then take it seriously in college and improve immensely.
In short, not surprising to see his improvement.
It's happened before and it'll happen again. This is the guy he did a lot of his training with in his build for this marathon from what I heard:
14:56 5k in college to 2:16 marathon. Some guys just figure things out after college, or are built for longer races.
Frank Shorter couldn't break 10 minutes for 2 miles in high school. Dick Beardsley couldn't break 10 minutes for 2 miles in high school. How fast were women 2:14 & 2:15 Marathoners at age 18 or 19 at 5000m?
sub man wrote:
No. It takes immense talent to run 2:16.
The more he ran the more talented he became.
8:39 is a lot more impressive than 15:3x. But it's clear the shoes make a massive difference. It's potentially between 15-20 minutes for some people if you consider they would never be able to stay healthy enough to run their 100+ mile weeks with this shoe technology. So the benefit isn't just when you race in them, you can get 20% more volume in workouts with less injury risk.
He was running times that were nearly world class for women 2+ years ago. Now he is running world class women’s times.
If you can run 15:00 or faster for 5k, you should be able to train to run 2:16 or faster for the marathon.
This type of improvement occurs wrote:
Frank Shorter couldn't break 10 minutes for 2 miles in high school. Dick Beardsley couldn't break 10 minutes for 2 miles in high school. How fast were women 2:14 & 2:15 Marathoners at age 18 or 19 at 5000m?
There is a huge difference between a 17 HS kid who might be getting really bad coaching , and a 22 year old who probably had at least average coaching. 8:40/15:30 screams a guy with speed not doing enough mileage. If he was running 80mpw, he would be running 15:00. If you read the article, the kid started late and had a pretty unsupportive college environment in terms of number of competive seasons. Most people quit running after that. If more people kept going, we would see more of these stories (and the OT time would be 2:15 to keep the field size down).
Think about how many 4:30/10:00 HS guys we have that run 30mpw and take the summer off. If they all went to college and took the sport seriously, we would have a lot more Brian Sell/Pat porter stories .
That seems too slow for me. In my experience, the first time I broke 15 (track) I was in 9:05 shape (3200).
Has he been drug tested? Just sayin...
1 post was removed from this page.
