Umm... Beardsley? Are you forgetting his debut? 2:47 is slower than 2:15 as I recall. He ran 2:08.
Umm... Beardsley? Are you forgetting his debut? 2:47 is slower than 2:15 as I recall. He ran 2:08.
oh please wrote: According to the graphic, no one slower than 2:15 on a debut ever went on to run under 2:11, much less 2:09.
That's because it's a list of the fastest debuts by American marathoners. By definition, the people who had slower debuts aren't on there, no matter how fast they eventually ran.
stupidpacing wrote: Why even bother with the marathon unless they can run 2:05 on a flat course or 2:07-08 on Boston or New York... runners like Dathan Ritz, Tim Nelson, Ryan Hall, Jorge Torres, and even Meb need to move down to the 10000m...
Why is it better to be good-but-not-great in the 10,000m than in the marathon? It's not like the guys you mention are 26:40 guys who could be winning international medals in the 10k but are wasting their time as also-rans in the marathon.
Meb has never been capable of 2:05 on a flat course, but I guarantee he doesn't regret his decision run marathons rather than 10,000 for his career.
thank you. was gonna say same thing
oh please wrote:
According to the graphic, no one slower than 2:15 on a debut ever went on to run under 2:11, much less 2:09. Of course the list isn't complete, but I would say it's not quite the debut he was looking for.
No it's not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Rodgers_(athlete)
you left out someone wrote:
oh please wrote:According to the graphic, no one slower than 2:15 on a debut ever went on to run under 2:11, much less 2:09. Of course the list isn't complete, but I would say it's not quite the debut he was looking for.
No it's not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Rodgers_(athlete)
THANK YOU. I was just about to mention Rodgers.
2:24 debut. 2:09:28 PB.
Look at coaching. Talk to the old GBTC guy if you want big improvements. I believe that only the Hansons runners show continued improvement nowadays amongst the Americans. Most runners is what you see is what you get. Meb debut in NY in 2002 in 2:12 and 9 years later he is a minute faster. Culpepper debut was a 2:08 in Chicago in that same year. He reired with the same PR.
Not a heat runner wrote:
Look at coaching. Talk to the old GBTC guy if you want big improvements. I believe that only the Hansons runners show continued improvement nowadays amongst the Americans. Most runners is what you see is what you get. Meb debut in NY in 2002 in 2:12 and 9 years later he is a minute faster. Culpepper debut was a 2:08 in Chicago in that same year. He reired with the same PR.
Granted Meb ran 1min faster this year, but he 2:09:15 in 2009...3min faster than his 2:12 debut...
stupidpacing wrote:
Why even bother with the marathon unless they can run 2:05 on a flat course or 2:07-08 on Boston or New York.
Marathoners in 2010 have shown that on any particular day and any course it will be opened with a 1:03 first half or much slower but still closed in 1:03. The Americans can't do that right now and runners like Dathan Ritz, Tim Nelson, Ryan Hall, Jorge Torres, and even Meb need to move down to the 10000m til they can commit to being much more aggressive in the marathon!
None of those U.S runners have maxed out their potential in the 10000m which should now be an option since the marathon in 2010 has take on a new age of marathoning- in which the Americans aren't mentally ready!
Gosh, I don't agree. When Bekele, followed closely by Shihine and Geb, ran the second half of the 2003 world championship 10,000 in 12:57, it was pretty clear what the future held for 10,000-meter runners who couldn't even break 13 minutes for an all-out 5,000. Culpepper rightly saw that any chance for international success was in the marathon. Meb continued to run the 10,000 for a while, but his chances for international success were ultimately in the marathon, where course, weather, and pacing factors help to level the field considerably.
Ritz, obviously, has some real talent at 10,000 (and, perhaps, some difficulties in the marathon), but what good would it do for some of these other guys to move back down to 10,000? If their goal is simply to make the U.S. Olympic team (not necessarily a bad or unworthy goal), then maybe it makes sense, but if they're seeking international success or an occasional big pay day, the marathon looks like a better bet.
Forget Tim Nelson - Chicago and New York have made it much clearer what a fantastic talent and prospect Brett Gotcher is - shouldn't there be more excitement about him than even Ritz at this point?
oh please wrote:
According to the graphic, no one slower than 2:15 on a debut ever went on to run under 2:11, much less 2:09. Of course the list isn't complete, but I would say it's not quite the debut he was looking for.
Bill Rogers, maybe Shorter. Besides, if you think that running 2:15 today, where you gave up some early time and then it exploded and some of the best out there were over 2:10 then you do not know the sport very well. What do those 2:04 guys do when they get to New York - they run 2:10.
You should know better wrote:
Mike,
I respect you but that is foolish. We heard similar comments about Torres running 2 minutes faster a year ago. How has that worked out? Americans tend to look for anything to cheer for, but today was a disaster.
That includes Shalane. This New York field is always hyped but never as good as the hype. The best female marathoner in the World right now is Shobukova. She has taken over the title from Mititenko. Both of these athletes were in Chicago along with 2 different 2:22 Ethiopians and a sub 2:22 Japenese women. That field went through the halfway 4 minutes faster than todays field on a hotter day. Shalane showed us nothing today and Nelson was worse.
Did they have pacemakers in Chicago}?
Also I remember Ed Eyestone and Bruce Bickford runing 2:19 at Boston in their debuts. They blew up pretty bad. I don't think Bickford ran another serious one but Eyestone eventually ran 2:10 and made two Olympic teams for the marathon. Both guys were fast 10k runners like Nelson.
I'm sure he was looking to go faster, just as Ritz surely was, and for that matter even the Africans. I'm sure Kwambai wasn't thrilled with a 2:11 given his credentials. But even when the pros need to step to the start line, and run the race just like all the rest of us, with no pacemakers, it is a challenge to meet a time goal. That first mile is a real bear -- a long uphill on a windy bridge with no spectators. I was there today, not the easiest way to start a race!
The pay-out as an also-ran marathoner is better than that of top track guys at times.
malmo wrote:
Jesse James wrote:That first mile for both the men and women was WEIRD, like a minute or more slower than overall race pace. Something was going on today in the early stages.
Like a big freaking bridge or something?
I ran NYC today. In addition to the all uphill first mile, it was really blustery on that bridge. I was getting buffeted around by that wind.
Snakedoctor09 wrote:
The pay-out as an also-ran marathoner is better than that of top track guys at times.
Ritzenhein has gotten more money from a 2:14:01 and 2:12:33 marathons than any runner in history. I don't think he'll ever see another payday like that again.
PT Barnum was right. A sucker (Mary Wittenberg) is born every minute.
Not an American.
But Arata Fujiwara, 2:38 odd debut, 2:08 second race.
Amen brother wrote:
Snakedoctor09 wrote:The pay-out as an also-ran marathoner is better than that of top track guys at times.
Ritzenhein has gotten more money from a 2:14:01 and 2:12:33 marathons than any runner in history. I don't think he'll ever see another payday like that again.
PT Barnum was right. A sucker (Mary Wittenberg) is born every minute.
Not true. Ritz was brought in for the same reason as Jared and the Chilean Miner. He was brought in to produce hype ( a buzz about the race). It was successful. NY Times even ran a stupid article about his change in running form. There is thread after thread about him.
If he ran well that is a bonus but certainly not necessary.