Are Ed Whitlock's AG records realistically in reach for anyone you can think of?

definitely rooting for Dave Walters, seems like a class act and very talented

not sure I want my pilot to be flying me after running a sub-3 marathon the previous day but otherwise, very impressive

celebrate masters wrote:

here is outdoor mile too

thanks much, celebrate masters. it seems usatf is due for some reforms and streamlining.

outliers like these guys by definition don't fit the normal curve. Anyone who trains seriously is not going to lose two minutes a year consistently from age 35. Plenty of people stabilize in their 40s and others start up in their 50s and actually improve for a decade before slowing down.

The EAs could, if they wanted to.

RvaRunner wrote:

I would have to go with Dean Karnazes.

He couldn't run 2:54 TODAY!

jungleroy59 wrote:

STEVE SPENCE

Now here we have a legitimate contender.

Derek Turnbull ran 2.38 at 60 and 2.41at 65 but couldn't run sub 3.00 by 70.

if you look at the age-group statistical curve, things start falling apart at 45 and then at 50 the decline is inevitable

http://www.runscore.com/Alan/AgeGrade_files/image004.jpg

http://bmcsportsscimedrehabil.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2052-1847-6-31#Sec6

Ed definitely beat the curve (by the very definition his 70yo effort translates to a 2 hour marathon on those tables)

many big/famous races post lists of their historical best times for every single age, male and female over the same course - the men do a little bit better with age but after 50 you can clearly see the fall

This whole thread has me thinking about how amazing Joan is to be still doing what she is at her age

mo'pak wrote:

Derek Turnbull ran 2.38 at 60 and 2.41at 65 but couldn't run sub 3.00 by 70.

Good point. What about Moneghetti?

Just wow... wrote:

The only person I'd give an outside shot to would be Michael Wardian, given his amazing durability and prolific amount of racing he does. He seems fanatical and committed enough to try to tackle such a project. Maybe also Pete Magill??? Not sure if he's got an interest in going those longer distances, though. I know there may be a few more guys out there who may be in the running, so to speak.

I won't get them. I've already had a terrible time with injuries, and I'm only 55--you're only as good as your training, and most masters guys and gals can't train enough (without getting injured) to continue putting up good times. Honestly, I'm more of a middle-distance runner masquerading as a distance runner, anyway, but I appreciate the optimism about my long-term outlook, LOL!

Something that seems to be missing from a lot of these posts is an acknowledgment that the genetics that make some people top open runners is not the same genetics that allows some people to experience phenomenal longevity. Anyone who's been to their 20th or 30th or 40th high school reunion knows that people simply don't experience the effects of aging at the exact same rate. So while elite open runners have farther to fall (and better basic tools when it comes to things like body type, stride efficiency, etc.), they don't necessarily possess the genetic (or lifestyle-associated) qualities to arrest that fall enough to continue to dominate. Instead, runners with lesser ability but greater longevity sometimes claim better masters performances. Of course, a top open runner with great longevity wins the masters prize, but I suspect that's a minority of top runners.

But back on point, someone will beat Ed's age group records. That's what happens with records. But I doubt any of us will know who that person is going to be until he comes along. Good grief, we masters guys can't predict what we'll be running next year, let alone a decade or two from now.

In the meantime, beating his records won't mean displacing Ed Whitlock from his place in masters running. He truly was a one-of-a-kind athlete. And he's the guy that made whomever comes along next actually believe he could, you know, come along next. There's a special place for those guys who bust through mental and psychological barriers. Ed was definitely that guy for older-older runners.

He ran 3 hours/day, slowly.

Maybe that's part of the secret. Many slow, tedious miles. It's clearly not everything; genetics clearly is a huge factor.

But I'd argue there are many that potentially have the genetics, but almost all lack the discipline and luxury of free time to patiently run the long tedious slow miles, day after day, all the while waiting for race day to perform.

Is John Campbell still running? He is around 67 years old and operates a resort hotel.

http://www.hicksbaymotel.co.nz/

celebrate masters wrote:

if you look at the age-group statistical curve, things start falling apart at 45 and then at 50 the decline is inevitable

http://www.runscore.com/Alan/AgeGrade_files/image004.jpg

There is a 4-year old with a marathon time of just over 6 hours? Impressive.

MD.. wrote:

Martin Rees

Ed believed Rees will be the one:

It was actually 65km in seven hours and two minutes.

Just took another look at the graph.There's one 9-year-old who ran sub-3...what?

George_213 wrote:

Just took another look at the graph.There's one 9-year-old who ran sub-3...what?

Here are the listed single-age marathon records.

A 10-year-old female is the youngest to break 3 hours.

Age 10y180d, Time 2:58:01

Julie Mullin (USA), born 30 Aug 1966

Run Date 26 Feb 1977, Run Location Seaside OR USA

A 11-year-old was the first to break 3 hours for males.

Age 11y065d, Time 2:50:02

Wesley Paul (USA), Born 25 Jan 1969

Race Date 30 Mar 1980, Race Date Sedalia MO USA

OK so Ed could run well under 18 minutes for 5k at 69 - 70. That's stunning.

It's clear he was focused on being the best, or he could not have done that.

I turn 60 tomorrow, I'm in darn good shape, but I'd have to dig pretty deep to break 20 minutes for 5k just now. Not impossible, but a real challenge.

Ed you were awesome.

For us geezers, he set the bar high. But damn if it ain't fun to go for it still. I don't expect the insolent pups out there to understand this, but if they are lucky to a) live long enough b) stay healthy, they will understand in due course.