We've got an article on Nick and his NYC marathon chances (he's shooting for a PR (2:11:30) and top 5 finish.
Article here with 10 minute video:
Nick also said at the Olympic Marathon Trials he thought there are 20+ guys (20-23 is what I think he said) with the potential to go sub 2:10.
That didn't sound to crazy to me, but others thought it was. What do you think?
"Potential" covers an awful lot of ground. I'm sure Nick thinks he has the potential to do it.
Nick needs to lay off the weed. How many years back would we have to go to get a total of 20 American men under 2:10, much less in one race with no pacers and no foreigners (except for our foreigners)? How many qualified under 2:10?
I'll bite. I say 8-10 have/can
1. Meb
2. Dathan
3. Luke P
4. Eggleson
5. Vail
6. Curtis
7. Hall - He has gone sub 130 min but I don't see him doing it again (sorry Ry)
8. Cabada
9. Arciniaga
10. Abdi - again don't see him going sub 130 again
maybe an argument could be made for
Teg,Llano,Boit,Braun,Biwott,Ward - which would make the total 16
1. Meb
2. Dathan
3. Luke P
4. Eggleston
5. Vail
6. Curtis
7. Estrada (Hall has shown no sign of being ready to race)
8. Chelanga (Cabada has not been running well)
9. Arciniaga
10. Jared Ward (2:12 debut seemed slow for him--Abdi is past prime)
11. Tyler Pennel (just too good on the road, debut was slow)
12. Christo Landry (another good road racer with big potential)
13. Aaron Braun
14. Bumbi
15. Mecheso (fast 1/2)
16. Rono (fast 1/2)
That is as far as I can get.
I read the title of this thread and clicked on it intending to call Nick a moron, but with the last two lists acquired, you get close to 20, and he was probably being gracious to many. I can see his POV, even if I disagree.
Also, "potential to run" does not mean will run, or even will show up in shape for that on race day. Arguments could be made that I have potential to run a 14:30 5k but I haven't broken 16 in a year.
How would you say 'p-o-t-e-n-t-i-a-l'?
I agree with the above posters about how including 'potential' in that comment is similar to saying 'definitely maybe.' It is like a qualifier that negates the comment.
Obviously Ryan Hall has the potential to run under 2:10 (he has), but I am pretty sure those days are over.
Also, not to be a total hater, but Arciniaga has run 17 marathons- at what point do we say that he has reached his potential? While the accumulation of mileage and training is a big help, at some point the lack of a new stimulus is a limiting factor.
It seems from a very outside perspective that these guys are doing the same stuff over and over and expecting different results.
wejo wrote:
We've got an article on Nick and his NYC marathon chances (he's shooting for a PR (2:11:30) and top 5 finish.
Article here with 10 minute video:
http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/10/americas-nick-arciniaga-ready-for-a-top-five-finish-and-pr-in-new-york/Nick also said at the Olympic Marathon Trials he thought there are 20+ guys (20-23 is what I think he said) with the potential to go sub 2:10.
That didn't sound to crazy to me, but others thought it was. What do you think?
I agree with Nick somewhat; however, I not sure I would say over 20, perhaps about 20 'have the potential'. There are several guys who are new to marathon whose track and road results at shorter distance put them below 2:10.
I think Nick just meant to highlight that this is a pretty strong Olympic trials field. I'm not sure about the 20+ guys that can run under 2:10, but it does seem to be the strongest (or at least the most 'up in the air' after the 2nd spot) that we have seen in a while.
Add Jon Grey to the mix. 27:59 on the track before moving to Boulder in August and training with Lee Troop.
Make a list of everyone who has
a) Run sub 28:20 (maybe 13:40 for all the guys that never get to run a 10k)
b) broke 63
Those peopl all have the potential to run sub 2:10. You could make it a bit harder (say 13:30/27:50/62) if you want.
Granted only 10% of those guys will have the race where they come close to that level of potential in their career.
Precious Roy wrote:
1. Meb
2. Dathan
3. Luke P
4. Eggleston
5. Vail
6. Curtis
7. Estrada (Hall has shown no sign of being ready to race)
8. Chelanga (Cabada has not been running well)
9. Arciniaga
10. Jared Ward (2:12 debut seemed slow for him--Abdi is past prime)
11. Tyler Pennel (just too good on the road, debut was slow)
12. Christo Landry (another good road racer with big potential)
13. Aaron Braun
14. Bumbi
15. Mecheso (fast 1/2)
16. Rono (fast 1/2)
That is as far as I can get.
Ward ran 2:12 in hot weather and hung with the American pack before making his move. He's been tearing up the roads and anyone who still talks about the Trials winner and doesn't mention him needs to follow the sport more closely.
2:10 seems to be a barrier with American men. It wasn't too long ago that Brett Gotcher ran 2:10 and was expected to be our "next" guy but never improved upon the time. And then you had some guys come out of nowhere to debut in 2:12-2:13 but not get much faster.
But obviously Ritz, Abdi and Meb can be called sub 2:10 guys because they've run it (and Hall, technically, I guess). Eggleston and Gotcher ran 2:10 and change and then you have Cabada, Kibet, Vail, Curtis, Arciniaga and Puskedra at 2:11.
Chelanga and Estrada haven't run a marathon yet but their half times point to sub 2:10 with a proper marathon gas tank (even though I think Estrada is a 10k/half guy, opposed to a half/marathon guy).
Then you have to consider Ward and Pennel as having 2:10 potential.
That's quite a list right there, while still leaving out guys like Boit, Biwott, Llano, Landy, Braun, Riley, etc.
And Rupp and Derrick, potentially.
Tyler Pennel will do good.
Look at the all-time American list. Won't quibble and will count Ritz's 2:10 flat in the convo. Of all the Americans (16) who've gone 2:10 or faster, four ( Meb, Hall, Abdi and Ritz) are still running. The closest active runner to sub 2:10 without going under is Gotcher and that was 2010. After that would be Hartmann in 2010 and he wasn't even sub 2:11. This sounds like the conversation that pops up every year: how many Americans are going sub 13 this year? And everyone throws out crazy optimistic numbers and nothing of the sort transpires. Best of luck to all these guys, maybe they will hit sub 2:10, but lets be realistic.
I agree that there won't be loads of guys pushing sub 2:10 at the Trials because the course isn't fast and with 15+ guys hoping to snag a top three spot, I feel the pace will go somewhat slow until someone makes a move.
The US 20k Champs had several Trials contenders with Puskedra, Chelanga, Pennel, Ritz and Ward running together until the end. No one tried front-running or making any big moves. I see the Trials going the same way for quite some time.
Maybe if Hall had a recent sub 2:10 in him, he would get the pace rolling and the pack would have no choice to follow. But I see this one being rather pedestrian for 15-20 miles.
By the way, you might want to use statistics from after 2011, which is when the link is from. Ritz has run 2:07:47.
Ta-tas for NOW wrote:
http://www.usatf.org/statistics/All-Time-Lists/MarathonMen.aspxLook at the all-time American list. Won't quibble and will count Ritz's 2:10 flat in the convo. Of all the Americans (16) who've gone 2:10 or faster, four ( Meb, Hall, Abdi and Ritz) are still running. The closest active runner to sub 2:10 without going under is Gotcher and that was 2010. After that would be Hartmann in 2010 and he wasn't even sub 2:11. This sounds like the conversation that pops up every year: how many Americans are going sub 13 this year? And everyone throws out crazy optimistic numbers and nothing of the sort transpires. Best of luck to all these guys, maybe they will hit sub 2:10, but lets be realistic.
When Hall goes out at 2:05 pace, does the pack follow or do they sit back and laugh?
Montesquieu wrote:
By the way, you might want to use statistics from after 2011, which is when the link is from. Ritz has run 2:07:47.
Ta-tas for NOW wrote:http://www.usatf.org/statistics/All-Time-Lists/MarathonMen.aspxLook at the all-time American list. Won't quibble and will count Ritz's 2:10 flat in the convo. Of all the Americans (16) who've gone 2:10 or faster, four ( Meb, Hall, Abdi and Ritz) are still running. The closest active runner to sub 2:10 without going under is Gotcher and that was 2010. After that would be Hartmann in 2010 and he wasn't even sub 2:11. This sounds like the conversation that pops up every year: how many Americans are going sub 13 this year? And everyone throws out crazy optimistic numbers and nothing of the sort transpires. Best of luck to all these guys, maybe they will hit sub 2:10, but lets be realistic.
Yes that would be nice, but would it change the numbers much, if at all?