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

it only takes an example or 2 like this to keep the flame of hope burning for the post collegiate distance runner to keep at it for another 2-5 years after graduation, in hopes of this type of breakthrough. Most of us didn't succeed like this, of course, but the journey and other rewards involved along the way, would lead me to do it all over again.

What about Dick Beardsley? What were his college track times?

The example Bob Hodge gave was me ... or the challenge I guess. Note that it had nothing to do with college runners, or the 14:00/29:00 runner. It was in response to a 29-yr-old who has run in college so it is likely over 10 years, and has track PRs of 14:04/30:27 and 29:44r saying he has been in 2:10 shape five times in the last 2 years.

I was saying that history and data would show that nobody had ever pulled that off. "That" being having PRs at or-slower-than 14:04 AND 29:44r and then running faster than 2:11:00 so you can legitimately be a "2:10" marathoner.

So it doesn't have to do with 14:00/29:00 runners or college runners or Brett Gotcher.

The only reasonable example was Ian Thompson, who had a 3:51m/14:05 track 5k before popping his all-time fastest 2:09:12 in the CG in 1974 - only 39 secs off the WR.

He eventually ran 29:33 on the track (1979) and I think that the 2:09:12 may have been aided by wind or short he ran many 2:12-2:13-2:14 marathons over many years after that, but never close to his (then-second) marathon of 2:09:12.

Also, Jack Foster ran his never-beaten 2:11:19 as a 40+ in that race. Some other unknown ran 2:12.

Also, even if Thompson is a legit example, he is only one example (albeit one who went on to run 29:33 on the track) among ALL the 2:10 runners out there who had faster short distance times before running a 2:10.

Probably making myself less-and-less popular by this, but it is only because of the stats.

It appears Brett Gotcher has run 3:44/13:56/28:27 previously. Now he has a legit 2:10. Not that surprising.

check out his bio:

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

what jumps right out to me is that he was a 4-time NCAA 10k qualifier;

2003 US Junior Nationals 10000m - 1st Place

2003 Pan American 10000m - 1st Place

... and he finished college with a 28:51 PR.

I remember many 2:10 marathoners with PRs like this, namely one Bob Hodge who ran 28:58 before popping a fasntastic 2:10:59. Eventually he went on to run 13:54/28:24.

Congratulations to Gotcher, a 2:10 is awesome, hope it keeps going well for him. I hope Nate Jenkins can overcome what has been hampering him physically and run up to his potential - whether that is 2:08 or 2:10 or 2:12 - he is putting the work in and deserves to run his best.

Sagarin wrote:

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.

Who can ever say they have trained to maximum potential in college years ?

NATE JENKINS can do it!

I would like to know why it implicitly assumed on here that your 10k track time perfectly predicts what you are capable of at the marathon? Isn't it possible that some people are just more fit for the marathon then the 10k? There is a huge difference in the physiological mechanisms and systems engaged by these two events. Sure to a large degree they are related but that doesn't mean that two runners who have both run 29:00 in the 10k will run marathon times with 1 or 2 minutes of each other.

Antonio Vega, 2010 USA Half Marathon Champion, has personal bests of 14:10 / 29:00 for 5000m/10,000m on the track and just blazed 1:01:54. We could see a 2:10 from him in the future.

The reason most of the readers/posters come to this website is that we believe we can defy the odds and be Brett Gotcher.

Your writing doesn't make a lot of sense.

Dr philosopher wrote:

I would like to know why it implicitly assumed on here that your 10k track time perfectly predicts what you are capable of at the marathon? Isn't it possible that some people are just more fit for the marathon then the 10k? There is a huge difference in the physiological mechanisms and systems engaged by these two events. Sure to a large degree they are related but that doesn't mean that two runners who have both run 29:00 in the 10k will run marathon times with 1 or 2 minutes of each other.

Scroll down to "TIME AT THE TOP"

Dr philosopher wrote:

I would like to know why it implicitly assumed on here that your 10k track time perfectly predicts what you are capable of at the marathon? Isn't it possible that some people are just more fit for the marathon then the 10k? There is a huge difference in the physiological mechanisms and systems engaged by these two events. Sure to a large degree they are related but that doesn't mean that two runners who have both run 29:00 in the 10k will run marathon times with 1 or 2 minutes of each other.

It doesn't perfectly predict it, but without getting into a long discussion about what is usually done before the marathon, look at 10k/marathon PRs in pairs ....

You don't necessarily see perfect correlation but you generally see

28:XX / 2:10-2:12

29:XX / 2:13-2:18

30:XX / 2:19-2:24

I don't think there is a "huge" difference in the traits it takes to be good at each event.

See ...

Lopes

Treacy

Quax

Rodgers

Shorter

Seko

Virgin

DeCastella

Plasencia

Steve Jones

Bjorklund

Mendoza

Salazar

Geoff Smith

Viren

Sandoval

Mamo Wolde

I could go all day. The point is that for any person you find who ran both events and who was relatively POOR at one event and they gave that event a fair shot ... I can find HUNDREDS of examples of people who match up pretty well at 10k/marathon.

Ess Gee Ess wrote:

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.

craigmac4h is simply trying to take a shot at me, but he and others misconstrue what I have said. I never said that a runner shouldn't take a shot AFTER college. In fact, I have encouraged runners who have DEMONSTRATED potential in college to continue for a FEW years, maybe in hopes of an Olympic berth, realizing one's potential, or the very rare shot at a livable contract. In fact, I said as much on the 14:00/29:00 thread that was going around at the very same time as the Nate Jenkins thread.

However, it is true that I think others who have decidely not shown potential by the end of college but continue to chase the dream in their late 20s and early 30s could do better, far more contructive things with their lives. I've seen way too many examples of it. A guy, with very few and rare exceptions, knows by the time he is 24 or 25 whether or not he has the potential for God's sake. 14:00/29:00 is potential. A 29:10 guy who is 32 years old and working for FedEx despite years of 110+ mile weeks is not. And there are many examples of it. I knew one personally.

Regardless, Brett Gotcher is not a 29:00 guy. He's a 28:27 guy who's probably capable of much faster with the proper amount of sharpening.

As someone asked before, what did Dick Beardsley do on the track? And what did he do in college? He turned out fine in the marathon too....

[quote]Sagarin wrote:

A 29:10 guy who is 32 years old and working for FedEx despite years of 110+ mile weeks is not. And there are many examples of it. I knew one personally.

Well, that was me, too. So what. Who are you to decide how I live my life and spend my time? No, I will never get sponsored (besides free shoes and gear) or make money at the sport, but...so what? I have won paid trips to: NYC, San Francisco, Los Angeles and lots of merchandise and give bonds through the years. I can win most local road races (unless some traveling Kenyans show up) in the 29:30 to 30:30 range for a 10k. I enjoy my life and am having fun with it and NO, I am not kidding myself that 'that big breakthrough' is not a race away. I am now 31 and will most likely switch over to a 'fun/fitness runner' by the time I am 35.

Sagarin is an ahole...pass it on...

dicky man wrote:

As someone asked before, what did Dick Beardsley do on the track? And what did he do in college? He turned out fine in the marathon too....

I think you could have found this yourself, but maybe this was a rhetorical question?

Dick looks like one of those guys whose long-distance talent didn't show through much at all in HS or college. Seems like he would have run at least State-level times in the 2M in HS and something decent in the 3M or 6M in college. But he didn't apparently.

What is amazing to me is he has one of the fastest collections of times for an American marathoner, but by his fourth marathon he had only gone 2:31:50?!?

He did run a 29:12 road 10k just before his 2:08 at Boston '82. Raced a fair amount more than we are used to seeing in the lead-up to that race too.

yeah..so what. am I hurting u? wrote:

Well, that was me, too. So what. Who are you to decide how I live my life and spend my time? No, I will never get sponsored (besides free shoes and gear) or make money at the sport, but...so what? I have won paid trips to: NYC, San Francisco, Los Angeles and lots of merchandise and give bonds through the years. I can win most local road races (unless some traveling Kenyans show up) in the 29:30 to 30:30 range for a 10k. I enjoy my life and am having fun with it and NO, I am not kidding myself that 'that big breakthrough' is not a race away. I am now 31 and will most likely switch over to a 'fun/fitness runner' by the time I am 35.

Sorry, yeah..so what. See, if you had done that for 3 years, that would be ok. But after 3 years, 9 months, 14 days, and 2 hours, when you realized you were never going to be Bekele, you should have quit serious running. That's the cut off. If you don't rush your way into a "normal" middle-class job and all the trappings, then you're clearly the one whose priorities are wrong.

See, Bret Gotcher is a 28:27 guy. He's clearly not deluding himself that he can be good. Except when he was "only" a 28:50 guy- then he was a bum. Now, he's obviously much more talented. Don't you see?

yeah..so what. am I hurting u? wrote:

Well, that was me, too. So what. Who are you to decide how I live my life and spend my time? No, I will never get sponsored (besides free shoes and gear) or make money at the sport, but...so what? I have won paid trips to: NYC, San Francisco, Los Angeles and lots of merchandise and give bonds through the years. I can win most local road races (unless some traveling Kenyans show up) in the 29:30 to 30:30 range for a 10k. I enjoy my life and am having fun with it and NO, I am not kidding myself that 'that big breakthrough' is not a race away. I am now 31 and will most likely switch over to a 'fun/fitness runner' by the time I am 35.

Yeah, but the difference is, clearly you are NOT deluding yourself, as many are and have.

Hopefully you're getting a graduate degree or some tangible work experience along the way, but you're right... to each his own. Just don't be that guy who wishes he would've/could've made different choices in hindsight.

not everyone cares about putting in hard work to meet society's expectations of becoming "middle class." Some people are happy just with what may seem to some Americans like not very much. let people set their own priorities., if u love to run and dont care consequences such as being labeled a bum in our society, stick with it,who cares

besides, in my experience, competitive running and career prospects can go together. the discipline carries over into career stuff. it's only when you try to do too much with wife and kids and hobbies that something like sleep has to give.

craigmac4h wrote:

Except when he was "only" a 28:50 guy- then he was a bum. Now, he's obviously much more talented. Don't you see?

Wrong again. A guy who HAS run 14:00/29:00 in college who decides to "go for it" after college is NOT a bum. He HAS potential.