Masters - How good is my training partner and what is his best event?

Based on the 16:02, the 1:11, and the 2:32 times that listed, I would still say the marathon is his best time. But given the scenario of high mileage with the 5k time and the workout, I would agree with you and say that his highest potential, given his age, is probably in the 5k. My dad was a pretty solid masters runner for a number of years, and he never ran nearly that fast.

I'm curious if I would know who you're training with…

KG

If you look up some of the local half-marathons that I have run (5 in 2014 alone), you will see who it is. We do them as training runs and finish together. The 1:11/2:32 have not happened yet, but are gimmes for this fall (barring injury). He ran 16:02 completely solo. 2nd was in the 16:30s. I did not run that day.

They haven't happened yet? No long race is a gimme.

Stop "ventilating". Things are a gimme AFTER they have happened.

162430 wrote:

If you look up some of the local half-marathons that I have run (5 in 2014 alone), you will see who it is. We do them as training runs and finish together. The 1:11/2:32 have not happened yet, but are gimmes for this fall (barring injury). He ran 16:02 completely solo. 2nd was in the 16:30s. I did not run that day.

I looked up Naive Troll's results and found out your imaginary bud didn't exist.

Given that you made up 2/3 of the times you are asking us to compare, this thread is worthless. I don't think you're trolling, but I do think you are an idiot.

1:11 > 2:32 > 16:00, the 5K is by far the worst performance, other 2 are pretty close. However, if he can in fact run 15:30, it could be his most competitive event, especially since I would expect masters to be more competitive at longer distances.

i'd agree with the above post that the half and marathon times are way better.

it also sounds like your partner has a better sense of his own abilities than you do. 108 mpw shows impressive durability, but the track workouts you're posting aren't particularly fast. sub 15:30 puts you in rare company as a master, so outside of few larger metropolitan areas, even a 16 flat is going to "dominate" masters divisions. for example, in so cal he may not break top 10 in some races (carlsbad in many years), and on any other day he may get his ass kicked by some 50+ year olds.

depth at the longer events is actually more impressive i think for masters, but he may have the right idea to stick with longer races. besides, the training for a sub 15 5k may do funny things to those who aren't used to it, and as pointed out earlier, there are no gimmies, and injuries are part of the game as a master. any master who says he can run however fast if he stays healthy doesn't quite understand competition and training in general, let alone masters competition and training...

162430 wrote:

His most recent race was a 16:02 5k

I bet he is near 15:30 shape right now.

Please respond to tell me that I am correct.

I'm speechless. No words can describe your stupidity.

the letter why wrote:

Given that you made up 2/3 of the times you are asking us to compare, this thread is worthless. I don't think you're trolling, but I do think you are an idiot.

1:11 > 2:32 > 16:00, the 5K is by far the worst performance, other 2 are pretty close. However, if he can in fact run 15:30, it could be his most competitive event, especially since I would expect masters to be more competitive at longer distances.

Yes, this is a fair response (as are the others on this thread). Allow me to rephrase. My training partner has a 16:02 5k PR set in a race that he ran completely solo. He said that he was not going all-out. His half-marathon PR is 1:13:02. This was also a solo effort and was run almost a year ago. I train with him every single day and know that he is in better shape now than one year ago. However, he runs 100+ mpw and does little to no speed work. The only time we have tried to do anything in the last two years was yesterday and he ran a very controlled 4:43 on the track. Does he have more potential to be competitive in the shorter races or longer races?

162430 wrote:

His half-marathon PR is 1:13:02.

Actually, it is 1:13:04. I just looked it up and thought that I better make the correction.

162430 wrote:

Does he have more potential to be competitive in the shorter races or longer races?

Sounds like given his training - high mileage and very little speed - he is best suited for the longer distances. But who knows, if he can still burn (55 or better 400), he could also have similar success on the track/roads @ the shorter stuff. If he can run 1:13, I would expect he could crack 16:00 without too much trouble. But as Cush and others point out, predicting it and actually doing it 2 totally different animals. Also agree that 15:30 or better puts him in rarified air amongst masters. Other distances IMO - Low 4:20s mile, 9:2x 2 mile and 2:00 or better 800 times would bring him into the discussion nationally.

Barring any injury, the stars aligning, fairy dust applied correctly, ... my fall sub 2 hr marathon is a gimme, so for now I'm saying my marathon PR is sub 2 hrs. Where do I go to get my world record certificate? Figuring maybe the good witch has it.

Unicorns and Pegasus wrote:

Barring any injury, the stars aligning, fairy dust applied correctly, ... my fall sub 2 hr marathon is a gimme, so for now I'm saying my marathon PR is sub 2 hrs. Where do I go to get my world record certificate? Figuring maybe the good witch has it.

Oh, come on! His PR is 2:36 and he is now in much better shape. I have already acknowledged that it was fair to call me "stupid" and what have you, but I really wasn't being that ridiculous.

Ca$hclay wrote:

162430 wrote:

Does he have more potential to be competitive in the shorter races or longer races?

Sounds like given his training - high mileage and very little speed - he is best suited for the longer distances. But who knows, if he can still burn (55 or better 400), he could also have similar success on the track/roads @ the shorter stuff. If he can run 1:13, I would expect he could crack 16:00 without too much trouble. But as Cush and others point out, predicting it and actually doing it 2 totally different animals. Also agree that 15:30 or better puts him in rarified air amongst masters. Other distances IMO - Low 4:20s mile, 9:2x 2 mile and 2:00 or better 800 times would bring him into the discussion nationally.

Thank you for the insight. I do think that he could potentially threaten 9:2x, but I am not sure about 2:00/4:20s. I have more speed than him (although not much) and probably couldn't go much faster than 54.HI in a 400m race.

No worries. By comparison, I train/race with a 44 y/o 4:20/2:00 guy who has gone low 15s for 5K on the roads. He can go sub 55, but not much faster. His ENTIRE focus is on the shorter stuff. He tolerates CC and anything over 5K. You're not gonna find him entered in any 1/2s. Obviously a freak of nature in terms of talent, but he works very, very hard @ being a mid-D masters' runner and deals with injuries quite a bit like all of us old dudes who lay it all out there.

I'm often puzzled by what people have a desire for. Why is someone who runs 100+ mpw not racing enough to have have an actual 5k or 1/2M pr in an actual race? How long has he been running mileage that high?

When was his Iast serious road race?

john Campbell of NZL ran 2:11 in Boston in the 1990's.

A guy name Chris Chisolm in CT. ran 15:55 when he turned 50.

Your friend is talented locally. Put him in with nationally ranked masters, and he will be really shocked.

Look up masters USATF races. It's amazing!

subfive wrote:

I'm often puzzled by what people have a desire for. Why is someone who runs 100+ mpw not racing enough to have have an actual 5k or 1/2M pr in an actual race? How long has he been running mileage that high?

When was his Iast serious road race?

We race half-marathons every month. We both race 2 marathons per year. I run my hometown 5k every year and he does the big 25k a few miles down the road every year. We both do our local running club's 5ks 3-4 times per year. To be honest, I would say that we race a lot. We just never have any competition. I am not saying this to sound "cool" or "fast", it is just the truth. 17:00 or 1:20:00 win races around here. We are from a town of 25,000 and the running community is not exactly "booming". We do have a D1 team in town, but their guys never race locally.

The half-marathon is what we primarily focus on. All of the ones that we race are in the town that we live in (or very nearby). We are both previous series champs and you win free lifetime entry into the series races if you are a series champ. In addition to this, you win a free pair of shoes every time that you win your age group. These races are too good to pass up. Unfortunately, there is not really any competition and we easily finish 1-2 all of the time. This results in only a couple of cracks at PRing each year. I guess we could travel somewhere to pay money, face competition, and not get free shoes. That sounds silly though.

Why is he running 100 mpw? What is his objective? What is your mileage?

So you guys are running in little club fun runs in a town out west somewhere?

So you don't want to pay money to run in big road race? But you probably pay the cost of a road race when you go out to a restaurant just to eat? I guess there's no accounting for taste.

100 mpw is a lot of running for someone who cares little about running as fast as possible in completion.

subfive wrote:

Why is he running 100 mpw? What is his objective? What is your mileage?

So you guys are running in little club fun runs in a town out west somewhere?

So you don't want to pay money to run in big road race? But you probably pay the cost of a road race when you go out to a restaurant just to eat? I guess there's no accounting for taste.

100 mpw is a lot of running for someone who cares little about running as fast as possible in completion.

I guess I don't understand your confusion. We enter a lot of races. We just only have 3-4 big races per year. I think that it is very normal to have 2 peaks per year (I guess I could be wrong here…). I try to peak in the Spring for a big marathon. I then peak in the Fall for another one. I run as fast as I can in these "peak races" and I also try to run one fast half marathon during the buildup. In the meantime, I show up at free local events, win, and go home. He missed the Spring "rotation" (call it a season if that helps it make more sense for you…) this year due to a minor setback. Does that really sound unreasonable? What type of crazy racing schedule are you on?