Richmond Marathon or NYC Marathon?

Maybe last try...

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/04/21/us/20140422-MARATHON-slide-PCQG/20140422-MARATHON-slide-PCQG-master1050.jpg

Smoove wrote:

Your messages were apparently diverted to my junk folder. I was able to retrieve and reply to the most recent one.

God often removes a person from your life for your protection. Think about that before you go running after them.

ole man wrote:

David S. Pumpkins wrote:

Four different Americans have run as fast or faster than the fastest guy from 1979-1983...since 2012.

Maybe you had an arguement in the 90s, but those days are over.

1980 US Trials had 56 sub 2:20s. Let that sink in for a minute.

Not only that. 93 ran under 2:25. That's almost as many who RAN in 2016. We had an incredible group during the height of US men's marathons. 93 sub 2:25 on that thick humid day too. Meb, Hall, and Abi (to an extent Ritz) have had great careers for the US, but I'd put the early 80s group against them any day. Depth and quality. I hope we can one day get the US back on top of the world marathon stage. Perhaps Meb has led the way.

outsiderunner wrote:

I see your points about American runners, David S.P., but in regard to my racing, it is not as if I have had no improvement, as you say, in my last two years. That is false. In the last two years, I have PRed in the 5k on more than one occasion, running 18:57, 18:57, and 18:40 (last July). I have also PRed in the 10k (in August of 2015). Likewise, I have had numerous solid training runs. You forget that everything must go well in order for someone to do something outstanding in a race--everything...whether it is a guy like me, a sub-elite like Smoove, or an elite like the guys you mention above.

Ran eight miles today, and my IT band is improving. That put a smile on my face. Thank heaven.

Your rested training runs don't demonstrate improvement. Races do. I guess I rounded up when I say you haven't improved since 2015 and it's 2017. Glad you're happy tho.

I have had PRs in 2015 and 2016. My 5k PR was seven months ago. I have not had a shot at a half PR, as it has been over two years since my last half marathon.

My training runs, especially during peak periods, are not always rested.

JBL wrote:

ole man wrote:

1980 US Trials had 56 sub 2:20s. Let that sink in for a minute.

Not only that. 93 ran under 2:25. That's almost as many who RAN in 2016.

Nice try. How many QUALIFIERS were there in 2016?

Answer: 211 (86 had run under 1:19 for the full and another 125 ran under 1:05 for the half (equivalent to 2:16 full)).

Here's a link:

Still waiting for details on the "right" training method from the 80s...

Angryjohnny wrote:

JBL wrote:

[quote]ole man wrote:

1980 US Trials had 56 sub 2:20s. Let that sink in for a minute.

Not only that. 93 ran under 2:25. That's almost as many who RAN in 2016.

Nice try. How many QUALIFIERS were there in 2016?

Answer: 211 (86 had run under 1:19 for the full and another 125 ran under 1:05 for the half (equivalent to 2:16 full)).

Here's a link:

I believe you just made his point for him.

Didn't the '79 OTC Marathon have like 50 OTQ in one race?

Let me put a finer point on it. For the 1980 trials there were slightly more qualifiers -- 225 -- but the standard was 3 minutes slower (2:21:54).

Here is a link:

http://buffalorunners.com/results/1980/1980_otm.htm

So we went from 225 men sub 2:22 in 1980 to 211 sub 2:19 in 2016. This evidence does not support the nostalgic theory that our training methods are broken and if anything disproves it. It would be interesting to know how many qualifiers there would have been in 2016 if the standard was still 2:22. I am sure it would have been a lot more than 225.

So the top end guys of this era are faster and the depth is greater, yet we are to believe the training methods of the past were superior?

To be fair, comparing across eras is a bit silly. The population has exploded, yet the popularity of running has probably decreased, diets are better, cross training is better, medical treatment is better, the competition is better, etc. most of those things cut in favor of those of yesteryear, but the end result of top guys being faster and their being more guys running similar times is arguably the trump card.

This is all just pissing in the wind. Nobody wins.

Angryjohnny wrote:

Let me put a finer point on it. For the 1980 trials there were slightly more qualifiers -- 225 -- but the standard was 3 minutes slower (2:21:54).

Here is a link:

http://buffalorunners.com/results/1980/1980_otm.htm

So we went from 225 men sub 2:22 in 1980 to 211 sub 2:19 in 2016. This evidence does not support the nostalgic theory that our training methods are broken and if anything disproves it. It would be interesting to know how many qualifiers there would have been in 2016 if the standard was still 2:22. I am sure it would have been a lot more than 225.

There were 211 sub 2:19 qualifiers for 2016? Are you sure about that?

.

Smoove wrote:

So the top end guys of this era are faster and the depth is greater, yet we are to believe the training methods of the past were superior?

To be fair, comparing across eras is a bit silly. The population has exploded, yet the popularity of running has probably decreased, diets are better, cross training is better, medical treatment is better, the competition is better, etc. most of those things cut in favor of those of yesteryear, but the end result of top guys being faster and their being more guys running similar times is arguably the trump card.

This is all just pissing in the wind. Nobody wins.

I'm just tired of the nostalgics calling the younger generation a bunch of pussies. I'm also stuck at an all-day dance competition for my 11-year old so I have nothing better to do.

If the old guys would share their superior methods with us then we would all win.

I'm at a gumnastics meet. I'll tell ya, the gymnasts and dancers of the 80s were much better than the paintywaists of today.

There are quite a few of the old guys running logs published online in addition to elite guys of today. Perhaps since you are bored you could peruse through those and come to your own conclusions.

corrector, the wrote:

Angryjohnny wrote:

Let me put a finer point on it. For the 1980 trials there were slightly more qualifiers -- 225 -- but the standard was 3 minutes slower (2:21:54).

Here is a link:

http://buffalorunners.com/results/1980/1980_otm.htm

So we went from 225 men sub 2:22 in 1980 to 211 sub 2:19 in 2016. This evidence does not support the nostalgic theory that our training methods are broken and if anything disproves it. It would be interesting to know how many qualifiers there would have been in 2016 if the standard was still 2:22. I am sure it would have been a lot more than 225.

There were 211 sub 2:19 qualifiers for 2016? Are you sure about that?

No. Not even close. I think it may have been in the 90 range though.

It doesn't help that these days they all get trophies.

Better Get Google wrote:

corrector, the wrote:

There were 211 sub 2:19 qualifiers for 2016? Are you sure about that?

No. Not even close. I think it may have been in the 90 range though.

211 is the total number that includes full (86) and half qualifiers (125), as I explained earlier. I think it's fair to include both since the half qualifier (1:05) is equivalent to 2:16.

Angryjohnny wrote:

Better Get Google wrote:

No. Not even close. I think it may have been in the 90 range though.

211 is the total number that includes full (86) and half qualifiers (125), as I explained earlier. I think it's fair to include both since the half qualifier (1:05) is equivalent to 2:16.

You lost me there, hoss. lol

Daniels VDOT calculator agrees with him. Sound like a job for trackbot!