Wesley Paul- 2:56 marathon as a NINE YEAR OLD

I think the 2:58 by the 10 year old girl is way, way more impressive.

every time I hear the idea that some African runner has an advantage all his life running to school every day I think of Wesley Paul. I doubt that is how he trained but the effect would be better since his miles were thought out training focused on running.

Thank you for that link. I notice that USA runners hold EVERY marathon record from age 5 to 15. hmmmm.

but now I just noticed that the records are all like 30 years old. That's crazy.

The 3:39 at age 80 seems pretty good to me. Not to mention all of Ed Whitlock's records. I'm 36 and can't do 2:54 right now.

Oh Please wrote:

The 3:39 at age 80 seems pretty good to me. Not to mention all of Ed Whitlock's records. I'm 36 and can't do 2:54 right now.

Ed Whitlock is not American.

Who said Whitlock was American?

Those were the days when people didn't try to butt into everybody else's lives. I started working at my dads gas station when I was 7 years old. At 8, I started pumping gas. LEADED GAS!! I even remember the first car was a ford falcon. At 10 I got to change tires and do grease/oil/filters. Remember when cars needed to be greased and every fall you had to put the snow tires on?

When I started distance running after running the 880 in jr high my first race was a 10k. I got beat by a bunch of other kids my age so I just started running more. By the end of the summer I had to be doing about 55 miles a week. Didn't even know people kept track. Ran to the next town and back one day and my mom yelled at me for being gone so long. She couldn't believe I was running the whole time.

Couldn't wait to read Running Times and the section that had the best roadrace times for my age. I always tried to run fast enough to get in there but I was always a minute too slow or a year too old.

There were tons of these young kids running fantastic times and I was jealous I didn't start this great sport sooner. I am still going at it at 45 and hope to be doing it for many more years.

You may be onto something there as to why the records are so old. If a 9 yr old ran a 2:56 marathon today, Child Protective Services would probably want to have a talk with the parents.

It is actually a pet peeve of mine--with each generation kids have less freedom. My dad grew up in a rural area and told me that around age 9-10 he would often go off to the woods hiking & hunting by himself for days at a time.

Wrong, Canadiens are Americans...specifically, North Americans.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Oh Please wrote:

The 3:39 at age 80 seems pretty good to me. Not to mention all of Ed Whitlock's records. I'm 36 and can't do 2:54 right now.

Ed Whitlock is not American.

There's a kid's book about Wesley. I remember reading it years ago while waiting for my daughter to find books in the library.

http://www.amazon.com/Wesley-Marathon-Runner-Julianna-Fogel/dp/0397318456

My first marathon was at age 18. Off of 50 miles/week I ran 2:49 and finished barely in the top 100, with several kids my age or younger ahead of me. Running that today I would be in the top 10-15 and the fastest junior by a wide margin. Still running strong 35 years later (track, not marathons, though).

Different times, different expectations.

the real running boom wrote:

Those were the days .....

I love these threads. All the old guys come out of the shadows and start talking

Why is the 2:58 by the 10 year old girl MORE impressive? She finished later than him. Is it because she's a girl? And girls are "weaker" than boys? Because she finished later than him, and she's older than him, so really you shouldn't be impressed...unless of course you're a chauvinist.So don't go saying she is more impressive, because you're implicating that it was "more impressive...for a girl." or "more impressive, because she's a girl".

Don't be so surprised, we can do many things.

jessie081239 wrote:

Why is the 2:58 by the 10 year old girl MORE impressive? She finished later than him. Is it because she's a girl? And girls are "weaker" than boys? Because she finished later than him, and she's older than him, so really you shouldn't be impressed...unless of course you're a chauvinist.So don't go saying she is more impressive, because you're implicating that it was "more impressive...for a girl." or "more impressive, because she's a girl".

Don't be so surprised, we can do many things.

You're wrong, that's in no way chauvinist. It's just that a female has to train more for a sub-3h than a male, and any other time for that matter. When a woman runs a sub-2:30h, she is elite. A man running that time is at best sub elite.

jessie081239 wrote:

Why is the 2:58 by the 10 year old girl MORE impressive? She finished later than him. Is it because she's a girl? And girls are "weaker" than boys? Because she finished later than him, and she's older than him, so really you shouldn't be impressed...unless of course you're a chauvinist.So don't go saying she is more impressive, because you're implicating that it was "more impressive...for a girl." or "more impressive, because she's a girl".

Don't be so surprised, we can do many things.

Really? Go outside

factsonly wrote:

Wrong, Canadiens are Americans...specifically, North Americans.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Ed Whitlock is not American.

Surely Ed Whitlock was born in London? (England)

Especially under about 10. Girls and boys often run similar times.