John MF Trautmann!! 4:12.33 at age 46!! Sick.

Trautfish wrote:

I agree with Socal cush that 4:00 is probably a stretch - John really is not a miler at heart, PR only 3:58 in his prime, getting older/losing leg speed, bad toe, etc. I could see him getting down to around 4:06-4:08 range. What really shocks me, however, is that his goal for his 1st 5K is only to break 15. That was his better distance historically, and based on where he is now, he should be able to absolutely crush the 5K with perhaps a little training modification, if that's even necessary. I believe he could break 14 now, and probably could get it down to 13:40 pretty soon. Regardless, this is all very exciting to me (I'm 49) - just as exciting as watching the top open pros - and I can't wait to see what he does next.

sub-4 is a stretch, but not because of what you said.

Not a miler? He ran 4:11 as a sophomore. I believe he ran 4:05 as a senior, but can't find that. I think he got mono after settign National HSR of 8:05 for 3k at Penn Relays. Placed 2nd at Footlocker as a junior. He ran the lead-off 1200m leg on the WR distance medley relay at the 1987 Penn Relays. He anchored the Georgetown DMR in 1991 with one of the fastest splits, 3:55.3, ever at Penn.

So, while he was not an all-time great at the mile (like say the greatest talent ever like Jim Ryun or Alan Webb), he was in that level just below that, where if things had gone a little better for him he would have done 3:51-54 for sure.

Most people believe that if he had run until yr 2000 he would have been the second or first American to break 13:00.

There were many others in the 80s before him that ran that fast with less ability.

In short, he was not a 3:58 miler, he just never ran faster than that officially.

RE: the 5k. The HSR for 5k is 13:37. I think 3 people have run 13:44 or faster, but how many people have run sub 4:05? Hundreds at this point? 13:40 is not equivalent to 4:12y. 14:00 is not equivalent to 4:12y.

I agree that shooting for sub-15 is a low bar, and I agree that it would be great if he would target some time barriers. But I think sub-9:00 for 2 miles is the most realistic one right now, besides sub-4:10 for mile.

Even if his endurance IS better right now (which is what you seem to be implying) 14:00 is really fast. I still think Plas holds the M40 5000m AR at 14:02 or so? (interesting that those two ran against each other as pros, but Plas is 12 yrs older).

Plas was training seriously at the time and had not taken any time off in 25 yrs, AND he was just 40.

John is 46, I just don't see him getting to 13:59 unless he devoted his whole life to that.

You just re-stated my point that he is a stronger 5K guy, as, per your projections, he had the potential to be a 13:00 guy, but only a 3:51-54 guy.

13:00 = 3:47. This suggests that his 4:12 should be good for about a 14:10 (for him).

I was not a Hoya but a HS teammate of his. Off the track he was just one of the guys. Despite his success he was humble and he was nice to everybody. To our coaches chagrin he liked playing pickup basketball. Also didn't mind throwing a few back once in a while. I know John loves Gags, but hopefully a Hoya will see this and elaborate further.

No, I said that he would have run 3:51-54 for sure ...

(like Pre, or Gregorek, or Ritchie Harris, or Chuck Aragon, or Craig Masback, or Joe Falcon, or Todd Harbour, or Tom Byers, or Russell Brown, or Will Leer, or David Torrence, or Jordan McNamara, ...)

... like many people with apparently less talent than he did.

I said that many people believe he "would have been" the first or second American to run sub-13.

You see the difference?

But that is fine, you aren't going to be convinced with reason. I will watch for that 13:59 any time now.

14-flat, your sarcasm suggests that you're taking it personally that 13:59 would be a great goal for JT.

The article clearly states that he is taking a leave as his position was (possibly temporarily) reduced/eliminated so he stated something about possibly going back to work after the spring

WaitWhat? wrote:

Jelly dounuts wrote:

....at some point he will go back to work......

Who says he is not working?

uh he's not jealous, he's just putting the guy's performance in context, which makes it even more amazing.

Considering that... wrote:

sp2 wrote:

Considering Traut spent 15 years doing nothing but trading bonds, eating donuts, and putting on 60 or 70 pounds of fat,... has a permanently fused big-toe joint that has altered his stride,... didn't start to train seriously till the last few years,... and didn't start to train *really* seriously till the last few months, when he lost his job,...

Jealous much?

Trautfish wrote:

14-flat, your sarcasm suggests that you're taking it personally that 13:59 would be a great goal for JT.

No, this has nothing to do with me. I was really glad for him to run 4:24 or whatever last year, and think it is great that he ran 4:18 and 4:12y this year.

Apparently he has been running 80-90 mpw shooting for this, so I am even more impressed. What he has done or could do in the future has nothing to do with me.

Logic, facts and knowledge suggest that 13:59 is a bridge too far for this great runner. Add in that the man himself is hoping to break 15:00 and I think that says the most about the likelihood. I know a LOT about running, but he knows more.

I was not criticizing YOU personally, just taking issue with your idea that he might run 14:00 or 13:40. That is way too fast. It has nothing to do with Trautmann either, it is just a fact for someone running 4:12y under top conditions.

not an old nyacker wrote:

The article clearly states that he is taking a leave as his position was (possibly temporarily) reduced/eliminated so he stated something about possibly going back to work after the spring

WaitWhat? wrote:

Who says he is not working?

Fair enough, but what article? I don't see one on the homepage or in this thread? If he is out of work, that is too bad, I think he got married recently!!

Anybody care to tell the story where his nickname "Fish" comes from/refers to?

Fresh Fish! wrote:

Anybody care to tell the story where his nickname "Fish" comes from/refers to?

Probably totally unrelated to the fact that his name is pronounced "Trout man"?

Sorry, I didn't get what you were trying to say before, but yeah, it is very realistic that he was a 3:52 guy when he ran 13:20. Regardless, I think cracking 14 is not impossible to imagine for him to target, considering the improvement curve he is currently riding. I'm just saying that it would be a great challenge for him to work towards - whether he can get it or not is another question. By the way, I completely agree that 13:40 appears beyond his reach, as I noted in my very next post after I mistakenly suggested it.

Uh ever heard of Kyle Merber