Can a 14:00 29:00 10k guy out of college run 2:10 if he sticks with it?

i think using gotcher for those times in college to equal a 2:10 would be misleading. It obvious that he must of under performed in college .

Meb debuted at 2:12:35 in '02 NYC. His winning 2:09:15 PR he just ran in 2009.

Also, did Dave Morris debut in 2:09:xx at Chicago?

OK I now see I didn't read it correctly.

julio wrote:

i think using gotcher for those times in college to equal a 2:10 would be misleading. It obvious that he must of under performed in college .

Where did I say those times were equal to a 2:10?

MarathonMind wrote:

Also, did Dave Morris debut in 2:09:xx at Chicago?

No. His best before Chicago was 2:15:25.

julio wrote:

i think using gotcher for those times in college to equal a 2:10 would be misleading. It obvious that he must of under performed in college .

Are you saying it is impossible for someone to drop their avg time per mile by 10 seconds over 3.5 years after they get out of college? Would that mean you think runners peak at the age of 22?

you have me confused then> , the title says if a 1400 and 2900 guy in college keeps running can he run 210 if he sticks with it. I would say no, but in this case it looks true. I think he under performed other wise think of how many runners havethose time in college , yet how many 210 americans do we have?

julio wrote:

you have me confused then> , the title says if a 1400 and 2900 guy in college keeps running can he run 210 if he sticks with it. I would say no, but in this case it looks true. I think he under performed other wise think of how many runners havethose time in college , yet how many 210 americans do we have?

You think wrong.

Congratulations, Brett! Recover well and good luck with the next one (2:08?).

Perhaps this is the thread and specific post?

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3357243&page=2

Challenge:

Find me someone (just ONE person) who has PRs as slow as 14:04 AND 30:27 (or whatever Jenkins' PRs are) who has run an unaided, certified marathon in under 2:10:59. The fist person who finds a legit one I will send $10.

I saw Pfitz had a PR of 14:04 or so, but he has a 28:41 track 10k. His PR is also 2:11:43.

My point is that if you have run long enough to expect that 2:10:XX is possible for you, you have definitely run long enough to show your stuff at 5k/10k. If all you have got is 14+ and 29+ ... my feeling is that you are not 2:10+ material.

History and data would agree with me.

sidenote:

I have a friend who never ran under 30:20 for 10k (track or road) and he ran several marathons in the 2:20-23 area, but his best was a 2:17 where he ran right within :10 of Kjell Erik-Stahl. We all thought that marathon was about right. Not sure what it is about a "2:10" for Jenkins that makes it special. sub-5:00 pace? A nice round number?

It is illogical to think that you could run 2:10 when you have run 2:15 and you are 29 and have never run comparable times at 10k or half-marathon.

Gotcher is a 28:27, 1:02:09 guy. He was, however, at one point a 14:00/29:00 guy who could've packed it in but chose to continue to run. Where's the argument? Both are making valid points. If 14:00/29:00 is the best you can run after many years of training, then you're likely not going to run 2:10, ever. However, if you have not trained to your maximum potential, then you still have upside.

http://www.mcmillanelite.com/athletes.htm#Brett

Bill Rodgers, who did not have great times before his '74(?) Boston.

Depends on a lot of factors though. This site is good for checking these type of stats. Does US have anything similar?

I think I'm beginning to understand:

When a 14:00/29:00 type guy decides to work part time, live in a hovel, and try to live the dream out, he's wasting his time and he's a bum who should realize that if it wasn't going to happen in college.

He is wasting is time up until the very moment he runs a high-level race, like Gotcher's 2:10:35. At that point, it's obvious that our hypothetical athlete was undertrained/underdeveloped in high school and college, and that we should all reflect on how talented he must have been to run 14:00 and 29:00 off little training.

However, for every less-than-stellar race result, we are reminded that he is, in fact, a lucky bum who should never expect to improve and that his one good performance was a fluke.

I think I owe it to letsrun and the "realists" here for helping me to realize that training doesn't build on itself, hard work won't yield results, and that if you're single and a fresh college graduate, the worst thing you can do is put your entry into the rat race on hold for a few years to pursue your dreams.

It's obvious that you must've underperformed in the classroom.

julio wrote:

i think using gotcher for those times in college to equal a 2:10 would be misleading. It obvious that he must of under performed in college .

Sorry Malmo faulty logic 14 and 29 are pretty common times 210 much more rare. Gotcher probably didn't train to his potential in college.

What is so odd about a guy who's run 29:00 in college, continue to run and improve his best about 40 secs in the 10,000m after a few years and turn that into a 2:10ish race. Is it not concievable that Gotcher might be able to run closer to 28:00 right now given the opportunity?

Chances are what he ran at Stanford was what he was capable at the time....not 'underperforming' as some have labeled his efforts and now he's simply improved. If he didn't improve, the same posters would be complaining that the Stanford program burned him out or whatever nonsense this mostly shit site comes up with.

You underrepresent the differences between Gotcher and Jenkins. Jenkins works hard while Gotcher works hard and smart. Why Jenkins doesn't want to also work smart is anyone's guess.