Rupp and trials marathon: a diff't perspective

It matters little, but Ritz is vastly more accomplished in X-C than Rupp: NCAA title; 3 times USA title; bronze medal World Junior; 2 times Footlocker title.

UturnMaster wrote:

Montesquieu wrote:

Here's part of what I wrote the day Rupp announced:

1. The course does not suit Rupp well. He's a rhythm runner, and all those turns won't help him.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=6998901&thread=6998748#6998901

You really should have seen rupp run xc regionals in palo alto. He beat Derrick, Biwott, Heath, Puskedra and everyone by a minute and more. It almost seemed like the turns helped him. Everytime he'd do a u turn and ran past the group he put more distance on them. This might be his perfect course.

It's not like all those years of soccer/futbol, y'know, had any turns in it, or bred some athleticism and coordination into his body...

You made yourself look like a fool. The poster said that Ritz was a question mark. The poster responding said that's he's not. He never called Rupp a question mark. Take an hour and maybe you'll figure out 1/4 of it. Good luck Portland Potty.

geographic anomaly wrote:

Ok Mrs. Cleaver wrote:

No, Dathan and Meb are NOT question marks, but thanks for playing. Meb is older but also quite experienced going the distance. Dathan is ready. I live in Grand Rapids very near to Dathan's home (not actually in the city limits of Grand Rapids). If you think Dathan is a question mark, you are clueless as is Citizen Runner. Drawing him out of his comfort zone? Where did you come up with that? This board has all types!

Yeah, well, I live in Portland, so I know that Rupp is going to make the team.

Yeah, you're surely right (add sarcasm, tons of it). Galen will have trouble with many guys who have 1/2 pr's of 1:03 to 1:04. I hope he's reading this as you really had a prolific comment there...Galen needs to know this.

J.R. wrote:

Jamestown Hero wrote:

He can absolutely run with great rhythm, which he has done on the roads, in cross country, on the outdoor track and on the indoor track. He has also responded perfectly in races where rhythm was interrupted repeatedly.

That's the point.

Rupp has great potential, but he hasn't developed his capacity.

He's never run world cross country, and rarely runs a road race, whereas those who have transitioned to the marathon well have excelled at either or both of these.

Rodgers also fell down and lost quite a bit of real estate, I have the photo showing the distance. Bill made no excuses, but it surely had an effect on things. He had won 4 in a row.In terms of his time, Alberto nailed it. Was there any luck involved in how things worked out on his first marathon, absolutely (see Virgin and Rodgers comments from after that race).Alberto was brash, extremely so. He beat tough fields, but was also beaten badly in Rotterdam (83') and Japan (83') by 8 different runners. Agreed, he should tackle the marathon now and should have a good 5 plus years, who really knows for sure? Injuries, inquiries, etc... If he had tackled it sooner, he may not have had the 10,000 success that he has experienced. A silver is pretty damn good. Who's on drugs and who isn't? Who knows for sure? I think positively until it's proven.

I am aware that Rodgers fell. The point was NOT that he beat Rodgers. You can see how much esteem I have for Rodgers by reading. The point was that you have this guy (Salazar) who has been proven great at 2M and 5k/10k and XC in high school and 3k/5k/10k and XC in college and under less than ideal conditions he won one of the biggest marathons in the world in his first try. In a CR and the fastest debut-time ever.

Also, that he wasn't scared that it was his first one and that the last four were won in 2:10, 2:11, 2:12, 2:11.

Salazar ran 28:06 and 27:49 in the 17 months before the NYM and Rupp has run 26:44 and 27:08 in the same time frame before the OTM. The other major difference I see is that Rupp has 7 more years of training than Salazar did and he hasn't been injured this year.

And what do you think the outcome will be?

I understand that Salazar got beaten like a drum in 1983, in most every event and distance. Not sure how that affects people's likely success in their first marathon?

Regarding this sentence: "In terms of his time, Alberto nailed it. Was there any luck involved in how things worked out on his first marathon, absolutely (see Virgin and Rodgers comments from after that race)."

I am not sure what you mean? Can you elaborate? Of course he nailed it, Only one man had ever run below 2:09 and that race was disputed. So it was pretty amazing on the NY course. As far as the luck goes, can you elaborate? Also, can you tell me what Rodgers/ Virgin said after the race?

Thanks in advance!!

Overexplainer,

Nothing is wrong in your post on purpose?

Okay, where is your proof about when Rupp "takes the blood out and puts the blood back in."

What a jealous old dooshbag you are.

Other than Rodgers and Rodolfo Gomez, who i think is underrated, did Salazar ever beat any top marathoners?

Firstly, I am simply adding my own comments, NOT directly responding to every point that you made, although we are in agreement on many.

The luck part? I thought we were talking about his 2:09:41? That's the race that Bill ran. Bill was at Tom Fleming's house in New Jersey watching the 1981 race on tv that year. Craig Virgin said that if Alberto ran 2:10 on Sunday, he'd eat crow on Monday (that's from a Runner's World article).

Bill said after the race that Alberto did have a great race, but that he wasn't taking anything away from him but that everything went right for him that day, and Bill was right. It was something that is not typical in a marathon, especially someone's first. I don't know you or your credentials, but I've ran enough to know that there is some luck involved regardless of how well your training goes.

When I said Alberto nailed it, again I am talking about his first one, as I thought you were. You asked, how does it affect people's likely success in their first marathon when I brought up 1983. My point, things didn't work out in both of the marathons that I listed and he ran slower than NY 1980 (Rotterdam is NOT a slow course and neither is Fukuoka). Why did he bomb 3 years later with more knowledge of the distance and how to run it and train for it (please don't say Boston 1982)?

For his first marathon, Alberto had some luck and was feeling his Cheerios on that day, period. We can disagree and that's fine, but the weather, although not ideal, was certainly not awful...I was there and ran it as well. I'll take the 40's over 20's or 60's any day.

Agreed, I was talking about the first race ... the 2:09:41. I just thought that it was obvious that he nailed it. I didn't need Virgin or Rodgers to tell me that.

Agreed that it all went well for him. My whole point of that long-winded post was that his first marathon went well, and there is not a reason to assume that you will bomb. Many people do bomb, even in their 7th marathon. If you look at guys at that level ... the Soh brothers, Seko, Rodgers, Wells, Lopes, Steve Jones, Gomez, Sandoval, De Castella, and every guy the last 30 years ... they have more "good days" than they do "bad ones". Probably 80-90% go just as well as someone can expect.

This whole thread is about how Rupp will not steamroll everyone just because it is his first marathon or his training isn't right or he doesn't know how to pace, or that he doesn't have the physiology to do well in the marathon. I would say that he has more reason to expect success than everyone. Except that he was beaten by two Americans last year in the 5k, his level has been high since 2010. Doesn't mean he will win or run a specific time, just that we should not expect that he will bomb.

4th paragraph: It was well chronicled that Salazar had gone to doctors in the spring of 1983 after feeling poorly that spring. He ran Rotterdam anyway and that race was considered a big showdown race. I think he got fifth in 2:10:08. He ran 2nd in two track 10ks and qualifies for the first WC in Helsinki by winning the Trials in 28:11. He suffered through (what he said was) a terrible track season and got lapped in a 5k and got bronchitis. He placed last I think in the Helsinki WC 10k in 28:48.

It was just 10 weeks later that that he ran Fukuoka. He placed 5th again in 2:09:25. He lost to 8 different people in races that were clearly at the beginning of his decline in health.

I didn't say the weather was bad or even challenging and I wasn't implying it. I think my writing style lends itself to being misunderstood, that is my sincere feeling. We probably have the same POV on most of this and it is just my writing that makes it seem otherwise. My apologies for that.

My whole point is here we had Salazar that was a top international 10k runner. He had gone 28:49, 28:06, 27:49 in the three years leading up to his marathon debut. He ends up running 2:09:41, 2:08:18, 2:08:51a, 2:09:29, 2:10:08, 2:09:21 in his first six marathons, winning the first 4.

Even in the 2 you say he "bombed" he ran 2:10:08 and 2:09:21. I believe that these were the number 1 and 2 marathons in US history at the time, and were either his fastest legal marathon or 63 seconds behind his best, depending on how you view it (only Boston '82 and his 2:08:13 (short) were faster).

If Rupp runs :63 behind his best I think he would make the team. That is all I was saying.

I see now why you think I said the weather was bad. Because I said "less than ideal conditions". I meant the only 8 weeks training leading up to the race, the hamstring injury he had most of 1980, and that he had almost DNS'ed out of the Brussels 10k (in 27:49 PR) and the Dublin 5k on 8/27 (near PR 13:23) before he even started because of the hamstring problem.

Didn't mean the weather. I should probably just keep quiet.

UturnMaster wrote:

Montesquieu wrote:

Here's part of what I wrote the day Rupp announced:

1. The course does not suit Rupp well. He's a rhythm runner, and all those turns won't help him.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=6998901&thread=6998748#6998901

You really should have seen rupp run xc regionals in palo alto. He beat Derrick, Biwott, Heath, Puskedra and everyone by a minute and more. It almost seemed like the turns helped him. Everytime he'd do a u turn and ran past the group he put more distance on them. This might be his perfect course.

The "U-turns" on the Stanford course are very gradual bends. No one would claim that it's anything but a very easy layout.

And are you referring to the Regional in '08 when Rupp was a 5th year senior and Puskedra and Derrick were true freshmen? And Rupp was ripping one because he had run in Beijing and this was only his 2nd (after Pac-12) XC race of the season, while the others were treating it as a qualifying round?

tl;dr

I think Rupp dopes and so he can't lose.

Here's a link for overhead view of the marathon course:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qtUijrxFRw

Exactly! A marathon is more than 400% longer than a 10K. Why should success at the shorter distance be any indicator of success at the marathon. Or should every top 400 runner be able to bang out a world class mile?

More seriously, how many 1500 runners struggle to match their level of performance when they move up to 5K? The training for these events is very similar, too!

Rupp's 26:44 converts to 2:05 Marathon (McMillan calculator). In US history, only Ryan MF Hall ran faster than that during his AR record in Boston.

Surely Rupp can "jog through it and easily bring home the victory in 2:08-2:09. He should be able to resume training normally within a couple of days afterwards.

J.R. wrote:

Rupp has great potential, but he hasn't developed his capacity.

He's never run world cross country, and rarely runs a road race, whereas those who have transitioned to the marathon well have excelled at either or both of these.[/quote][/quote]

[quote]Peter Rabbit wrote:

Yeah, you're surely right (add sarcasm, tons of it). Galen will have trouble with many guys who have 1/2 pr's of 1:03 to 1:04. I hope he's reading this as you really had a prolific comment there...Galen needs to know this. [quote]

My point is not that Rupp will have trouble, but that he's not built up to the marathon like those with great success, he's unproven, and we don't know if he's directed his training to the marathon, or stuck with 100 yards sprints like before. As long as he's directed his training to the marathon then he should do quite well, but they've been secretive about his training and so this is unknown.

As far as the comparisons, Rodgers, Salazar & Shorter all had extensive experience with racing on the roads AND cross country, before running their marathons. All of them were in their early 20's when they began running marathons. All of them took the marathon seriously and trained for it, including Salazar. All of them ran many miles at 6:20 to 7:00 minute pace in their base training in preparation, and as far as we know Rupp runs all of his miles at 5:30 or faster and doesn't compare to them in any of those categories.

Even the top African marathoners run volumes of slow miles in training, but Rupp doesn't, ever, plus Salazar got Levins to STOP doing that, which is what makes me think that Rupp's still not ready.

But maybe he is. We shall see. I'm interested to see what happens, but not as interested as I would have been had he taken the training seriously and shared it with the rest of us, and also if he was more of a genuine person.

I agree with the OP, because the OP is correct.

To everyone making points about Rupp a singular talent: his singular talent, is to be slightly but significantly faster than other guys. There's nothing about his talent that makes him immune from having an off marathon. His talent just means his off marathon, would be slightly but significantly faster, than other guys' off marathons.

mark b wrote:

Exactly! A marathon is more than 400% longer than a 10K. Why should success at the shorter distance be any indicator of success at the marathon. Or should every top 400 runner be able to bang out a world class mile?

More seriously, how many 1500 runners struggle to match their level of performance when they move up to 5K? The training for these events is very similar, too!

How many 3k runners can run a good 5k? How many 5k guys can run a good 10k? How many 10k guys can run a good HM? How many good HM can run a good marathon?

There are always guys that run worse as the distance goes up (How is Zersenay Tadese is only a 2:11 marathoner) and some that run better. But it isn't like guys like Al Sal, Todd Williams, Ryan Hall and bunches of other guys haven't moved form the 10k and ran very good marathon their first time out.