How pathetic is it that the top US marathoner can't even crack 2:10? Should we just give up?

The runners 30-plus years ago could still be among the best in the world. The East African dominance was only in its infancy and anything sub-2:12 was world class. That no longer is the case. Sub-2:06 is necessary to be a major player on the world scene. 2:08s and 2:09s are often also-rans today. Ryan Hall was maybe an anomaly for the US men as he could hang (almost) with the top Africans. Ritz was a step back. Perhaps many American men recognize that they will never be at the top of the running heap.

That's what I mean by low self esteem and lack of vision. The stupid obsessions with drugs and genetics as reasons for failure.

Where is the vision for the future? I've been visiting this site for 13 years and the lack of interest in moving forward and actually learning how the human body work is depressing.

Look at Webb, RItz and Hall, our most talented cohort of three ever: from mile to marathon, they are pretty much the fastest non-Africans ever, running at late '80's WR-level. Quite simply, it's whatever happened in the early '90's in Africa that has pushed the U.S. out of contention more or less permanently, except for the women, on occasion.

I don't want to get involved in a discussion about the soci-economic reasons for an increase in East African elite level participation versus other nations, I think that subject is a bit of a red herring just like the drugs issue.

The real fact of the matter is that East African distance runners are more effcient runners and the real question is why?

And why does everyone avoid this issue? All the letsrun regulars avoid this issue and always have done. Why?

Plate tectonics.

fred wrote:

This is what he meant.

Sub 2:10:31 - early 80's and 72,79

6. Alberto Salazar—2:08:52, Boston Marathon, 1982

7. Dick Beardsley—2:08:54, Boston Marathon, 1982

9. Greg Meyer—2:09:00, Boston Marathon, 1983

10. Bill Rodgers—2:09:27, Boston Marathon, 1979

11. Ron Tabb—2:09:31, Boston Marathon, 1983

16. Benji Durden—2:09:57, Boston Marathon, 1983

18. Phil Coppess—2:10:05, Twin Cities Marathon, 1985

19. Ed Mendoza—2:10:07, Boston Marathon, 1983

20. Jeff Wells—2:10:16, Boston Marathon, 1983

21. Tony Sandoval—2:10:19, U.S. Olympic Trials (Buffalo), 1980

22. Garry Bjorklund—2:10:20, Grandma’s Marathon, 1980

23. Craig Virgin—2:10:27, Boston Marathon, 1981

24. Kirk Pfeffer—2:10:29, Fukuoka Marathon, 1980

25. Frank Shorter—2:10:30, Fukuoka Marathon, 1972

Notice where most of these times were run, at the point-to-point, downhill, Boston Marathon w/often favorable conditions in any given year.

In recent years, we've had Hall run 2:06, Ritz 2:07, Culpepper, Morris, and Lawson all run 2:09 on legitimate courses. A lot of 2:10's as well. The depth from the 70s and 80s may be lacking, but there are guys in any given year knocking on the door (2:11-2:12).

sospiri wrote:

The Geomathematician wrote:

"We" probably means clean US-born runners.

The problem is inferior running (oxygen) economy compared to the East Africans.

Name one drug which improves running economy?

You can't, there is no such drug.

It's not about drugs.

You can't think of any drugs that improve the efficiency and abundance of oxygen transport in the body during exercise? none? and the Easy Africans just simply have that innate ability at an insurmountably superior level?

Dick Beardsley debuted with a 2:47 in 1977. Fall 1980 ran 2:13:55 in New York

1981:

January 10 - Houston - 2:12:50

February 1 - Beppu, Japan - 2:12:41

March 29 - London - 2:11:48

June 20 - Grandma's - 2:09:37

1982

April -- Boston -- 2:08:53 in the heat

Do people still run like this in the US? Doubtful. Most people who want to be great probably quit after their debut if they run in 2:47, and those who actually are able to stick with it and run the 2:12 in Houston would then decide to save themselves for the Marathon olympic or world championship or something trials a year later, which they probably run terribly because they aren't that experienced in the marathon and they are nervous. They run a disappointing 2:14-2:15 there... and it's pretty much done.

Marathon peaks tend to be incredibly short -- in the 1970's/1980's people might not have necessarily been faster, but I think they took more shots at it. I think if Beardsley were a modern marathoner, he probably wouldn't have raced 4 times in the first half of 1981, and would have been fine with that 2:12 time.

If that's the case, maybe he doesn't have the courage/balls/experience to go with Salazar in Boston, and he ends up as just another 2:12 American marathoner.

It takes some degree of fortune to be a 2:0x:xx marathoner -- the racers of the late '70's and early '80's may or may not have been faster than guys now, but they definitely bought a lot more lottery tickets for going sub 2:10

$$$$$? wrote:

OK...here's a question. If a $20 Million Prize was offered for the first American born marathoner to break 2:03 within the next 3 years...could there be anyone in the USA capable of doing it? I don't think so.

I don't believe it's possible to run a marathon that fast without drugs and I think that while US runners do use drugs I think there's too much testing and scrutiny here to use enough of them to run that fast. So I'd agree with you.

lol what? wrote:

sospiri wrote:

The problem is inferior running (oxygen) economy compared to the East Africans.

Name one drug which improves running economy?

You can't, there is no such drug.

It's not about drugs.

You can't think of any drugs that improve the efficiency and abundance of oxygen transport in the body during exercise? none? and the Easy Africans just simply have that innate ability at an insurmountably superior level?

"East Africans simply have that innate ability at an insurmountably superior level." Hummm..... Rita Jeptoo is east African, right? Do you think she ran her best times winning the Majors with that innate ability at an insurmountably superior level or with the drug that she was busted for later?

sospiri wrote:

learning how the human body works .

How well it can perform is based on genetics. You will stumble across that in your "studies"

sospiri wrote:

I don't want to get involved in a discussion about the soci-economic reasons for an increase in East African elite level participation versus other nations, I think that subject is a bit of a red herring just like the drugs issue.

The real fact of the matter is that East African distance runners are more effcient runners and the real question is why?

And why does everyone avoid this issue? All the letsrun regulars avoid this issue and always have done. Why?

Genetics. People talk about this all the time. Plus Morocco is not in East Africa.

The est are taking fewer shots at the marathon. Ryan Hall was the best who ran the marathon at his peak. Dathan was close to Halll bu took a while to run a great time. He was like Meb in that regard.

The good thing about Luke P is that he is not the most talented guy we have, he is a great runner but others have more talent and still have good years left.

I do t know if they will run 2:04 but I could see some sub 2:08s soon.

There is another recent thread like this one.

It's about Germans only being able to achieve 2:10 to 2:12

Replace Germans with Americans and you basically have the same thread...

same said for Canadians so basically all white people are having trouble busting 2:10

Yuki Kawauchi - multiple 208s - multiple sub 209s - no sponsorship, no NOP gimmicks, works full time.

errhhh... wrote:

lol what? wrote:

You can't think of any drugs that improve the efficiency and abundance of oxygen transport in the body during exercise? none? and the Easy Africans just simply have that innate ability at an insurmountably superior level?

"East Africans simply have that innate ability at an insurmountably superior level." Hummm..... Rita Jeptoo is east African, right? Do you think she ran her best times winning the Majors with that innate ability at an insurmountably superior level or with the drug that she was busted for later?

I asked the question (notice the "?" symbol there, that is the punctuation mark that indicates a question in the English language) to point out that absurdity of the post that I was replying to. This completed supports the Jeptoo example you brought. Please read more carefully.

Yearning for old days wrote:

35 years ago the US producing 2:10 guys and faster like diahhrea. Now, the very best guy can't even break 2:10. Maybe a handful can break 2:20. The 1980 Oly trials had like 83 guys break 2:20. What a sorry lot we have become. It is comparable to our top 400-=meter guy having a 46:35 PR.

It was much better YES, and the US was much closer to the WR-level than they are now, but in 1980 the US had only 2 performances faster than 2:10 (both Bill Rodgers) and they were both on aided courses (the same one in 1975 and 1979).

As far as 2:10:xx performers there were (as of NYCM in 1980 - off the top of my head):

Rodgers 2:10:55 at Fukuoka

Shorter 2:10:30 at Fukuoka

2:10:20 - Jeff Wells - 1979 (I assume this is a loop course, but don't know - lots of fast times were run here over the years)

2:10:20 - Tony Sandoval - 1979

2:10:29 - Kirk Pfeffer - (a few weeks later) Fukuoka 1980

2:10:59 - Bob Hodge - Nike OTC in 1980

There may have been 1-2 more that did it on a legit course by 1980, all-time athletics cuts off at 2:10:29.

2:10:20 - Garry Bjorklund - on point-to-point course in 1980

Dick Beardsley had not yet run 2:09:37 in Duluth in 1981 (point to point anyway)

5 years later and we had many other sub-2:11s but most of them were on a wind-aided day in Boston, and NONE of the above studs had improved even 1-second.

So YES, by 1986 (when the USA had started its decline) we had racked up dozens of guys between 2:11 and 2:15. For the 1984 Oly Trials Mara there were 201 qualifiers under 2:19:04, but there were very, very few Americans in 2:08-2:11, even by that time.

I think Alberto Salazar is the only one to have broken 2:10 ever by 1985 and he did it twice in 2:09:21 at Fukuoka and 2:09:29 at NYC in 1982.

So, by 1980: none in 2:08; none in 2:09; 6 in 2:10.

I would say that we have a deeper group than that now, but half of the top-10 were not produced by the US. The WR has advanced 5:40 in that time (if you consider Clayton's 2:08:37 to be the WR - which I don't) so we really have not advanced by the same amount that the rest of the juiced-up world have. Either we are not juicing (which I doubt since the track times are progressing as expected), or we are not juicing as effectively (which seems hard to swallow), or the 1980 group had it easier with regards to avoiding testing and this group has it much tougher and they otherwise would be very comparable.

Rodgers and Wells ran 2:10:13 and 2:10:15 at Boston in '78.