Really? Meb's coach:"Anyone who runs a fast 10K can run a fast marathon.”- List of fast 10kers but failed marathoners

Who says Mo is a fast 10 runner? How many times has he broken 27?

I can't see him breaking 206 in his lifetime.

---

rojo wrote:

---

Nur Stel wrote:

On the American side, maybe Todd Williams, Lynn Jennings and Mark Nenow although their marathon PRs are very respectable.

---

Williams is 27:31-2:11:17 pb. That's certainly not equivalent, but it's not awful either. 27:31 is worth like a 2:09 (McMillan says 2:09 low, JK would say 2:09:20ish) so it would be like Farah running 2:07 instead of 2:05.

Nenow is a better example 27:20-2:14:21 .

As for Jennings, she ran 31:19.89 and 2:38:37 which is way, way off. 10 minutes so.

But how many marathons did those guys/gals run? I only see one marathon result of Jennings. I guess one could argue they weren't running them as maybe they knew they wouldn't be good at them but also it was a different era when the money was on the track/roads for shorter stuff.

---

---

alltime 10k fan wrote:

The #4 and #5 fastest ever at 10,000 aren't exactly marathon stars.

Nicholas Kemboi 26:30 10,000 at age 19. 4th fastest man ever. Marathon pb is just 2:08:30 and he's still 29.

Not exactly failed but what happened to that guy?? Anyone?

#5 Abebe Dinkesa Negera also a 26:30 10k guy at age 21. Now he's also 29 and his marathon pb is 2:14:33.

-alltime 10k fan

PS. I wouldn't be stunned if Meb's not a marathon star. Everyone seems to think he's a doped guy now thanks to the 3:28 but is it possible he's just more of a 1500/5000 guy who wins the 10k because it's a jog fest each time?

Regardless, Larsson's comments were off.

---

---

rojo wrote:

---

Nur Stel wrote:

On the American side, maybe Todd Williams, Lynn Jennings and Mark Nenow although their marathon PRs are very respectable.

---

I only see one marathon result of Jennings. I guess one could argue they weren't running them as maybe they knew they wouldn't be good at them but also it was a different era when the money was on the track/roads for shorter stuff.

---

I'm fine with you starting a healthy discussion over what he said, but has some f*cking respect for the legend and refer to him properly as Bob Larsen, not "Meb's coach". He's done more than enough to establish his identity.

Not sure you call it "failed", but the first name that came to mind was Pat Porter. Mid 27 10k, and we all know what a stud he was on the XC course. Didn't run a marathon until late in his career, mid 30's or so I believe, and although I'm not able to find an exact result I believe his finish time was in the 2:16-2:19 range.

Since I'm the one who spoke with Coach Larsen and began the discussion, let me pipe in here. Bob's intention in saying "anyone who can run a fast 10K can run a fast marathon," was not to say he/she WILL run a fast marathon, only that they would have the ability to run a fast one.

It's more a matter of taking the talent and training it for the longer distance. Not every great 10K runner has been able to manage that, obviously. Coach Larsen's own Meb K. has yet to fully nail a marathon from a time standpoint based on his 27:13 10K PR. But he still has the "ability" to do so.

Remember, it took Tergat six attemtps to win his first marathon. And Haile's coach, Dr. Woldemeskel Kostre told me in 2000 that Haile would be able to run a fast marathon, but first he had to re-train his 'sports car' body into a 'rally car' stride, because 10K racing consumes fuel too quickly to last through 42.2K.

That's why I suggested that Mo Farah's 3:28 1500m speed, if properly trained...

Australian great Ron Clarke never ran a good marathon. He tried at the '64 Olympics. Not sure if he ever tried again.

Clarke of course set piles of WRs: 2 miles, 3 miles, 5000 and 10000 meters numerous times, as well as records at 20K and the One Hour Run (the half marathon was not a thing back then).

He's often seen as a failed runner, lacking gold medals, but he did take an Oly bronze and many Commonwealth silvers. He was once quoted as saying he didn't know if he could finish many of his races while he was running them! I recall hearing that Al Salazar admired Ron when Al was in him prime.

I know I'm a geezer for putting this up, but Clarke was an admirable runner, a real maverick, and one of the great Kip Keino's main rivals.

But he was no marathoner!

I don't think listing 10000m runners with relatively poor marathon performances discredits Larson's statement. Besides, it's just his opinion - and he certainly is free to express his opinion. No one says we have to agree, he doesn't say, "it is a fact..." Further, he doesn't say what constitutes, "fast." Is 29:00 fast for 10K? Is 2:16 fast for marathon?

On a physiological level, I agree with Larson. There is no reason why a "fast" 10K runner can't train for and run a "fast" marathon.

Compiling a list of successful 10K runners who do not have corresponding times at the marathon cannot take into account the training and preparedness of the athletes, or the multitude of factors that can go wrong on race day over the course of 2 hours.

I think there's also a problem in comparing personal bests at 10K to personal bests in the marathon because some of these athletes have run so many 10Ks and relatively few marathons. To use Zersenay Tadese as an example - he has many results from 10000m and has many opportunities to run a great 10K. But, I think he only 2 results in the marathon. Who is to say he has run to his potential in the marathon? Who is to say he cannot run

---

rojo wrote:


But 2:10 isn't fast for a 58:20 guy.

I think the OP is talking relative to each other.

Wejo: His 10k best 28:06. Marathon pb 2:18. That's not close to equivalent.

---

I think Larson said as a general comment more than calculating and comparing times down to seconds. Most non-runners wouldn't know that if run 10K in 27 minutes, it is almost not likely that you cannot go under 2:10. And it is a fact that you can't run a fast 10K, you won't run a fast marathon. Unlike the old days, there are 2:10/11 elites and super elites who can go 5 to 6 minutes faster. And the super elites all have very fast 10K times.

Larsen had guys on his college teams at UCLA run 2:13 and 2:14 while in school competing in XC and track. They were both mid to high 28 guys. By US standards they would be very competitive even today. Not to mention he has done a pretty good job with Meb. You can always find exceptions but I think he is right for the most part.

I agree that listing all the 10k guys who have tried but not succeeded at running a good marathon doesn't disprove Larsen's point. You would need to focus instead on someone who seriously tried, trained the right way, and didn't succeed.

I think Tadese fits the bill. It's not that 2:10 isn't a "good" marathon, but in addition to the 2:10 he also has a DNF. I think it's pretty clear that he sees where the money is, and wants to be a marathoner, but isn't hitting it right.

Someone earlier posted something about his training not being optimal because of low mileage. Source? It's hard to believe.

He's far from the end of his career, and he may yet get it right. But it's also possible that some people are just optimized for some things, and Tadese was born to run the HM, like Daniel Komen was born to run the 3k.

---

ScottEvil wrote:

I agree that listing all the 10k guys who have tried but not succeeded at running a good marathon doesn't disprove Larsen's point. You would need to focus instead on someone who seriously tried, trained the right way, and didn't succeed.

I think Tadese fits the bill. It's not that 2:10 isn't a "good" marathon, but in addition to the 2:10 he also has a DNF. I think it's pretty clear that he sees where the money is, and wants to be a marathoner, but isn't hitting it right.

Someone earlier posted something about his training not being optimal because of low mileage. Source? It's hard to believe.

He's far from the end of his career, and he may yet get it right. But it's also possible that some people are just optimized for some things, and Tadese was born to run the HM, like Daniel Komen was born to run the 3k.

---

I think this quote was taken out of context and over scrutinized. Yes, anyone who can run a fast 10k can run a pretty fast marathon so deal with it.

Probably NCAA college kids who run a fast 10k under decent coaching, but then they hit the real world and train alone for a marathon. It's the same reason most former college kids suck post collegiate

---

NTHXC wrote:

I don't think listing 10000m runners with relatively poor marathon performances discredits Larson's statement. Besides, it's just his opinion - and he certainly is free to express his opinion. No one says we have to agree, he doesn't say, "it is a fact..." Further, he doesn't say what constitutes, "fast." Is 29:00 fast for 10K? Is 2:16 fast for marathon?

On a physiological level, I agree with Larson. There is no reason why a "fast" 10K runner can't train for and run a "fast" marathon.

Compiling a list of successful 10K runners who do not have corresponding times at the marathon cannot take into account the training and preparedness of the athletes, or the multitude of factors that can go wrong on race day over the course of 2 hours.

I think there's also a problem in comparing personal bests at 10K to personal bests in the marathon because some of these athletes have run so many 10Ks and relatively few marathons. To use Zersenay Tadese as an example - he has many results from 10000m and has many opportunities to run a great 10K. But, I think he only 2 results in the marathon. Who is to say he has run to his potential in the marathon? Who is to say he cannot run

---

---

Toni Reavis wrote:

Bob's intention in saying "anyone who can run a fast 10K can run a fast marathon," was not to say he/she WILL run a fast marathon, only that they would have the ability to run a fast one.

---

---

let the legs talk wrote:

Meb has been marathoning for 11 years now, so when is he going to prove his coach's point and run 2:05-06 like his 10K potential predicts?

---