Did Mary Keitany and Edna Kiplagat hold down full time jobs in addition to running with kids because if not I don't really think they're that relevant.
Did Mary Keitany and Edna Kiplagat hold down full time jobs in addition to running with kids because if not I don't really think they're that relevant.
216 wannabe wrote:
Did Mary Keitany and Edna Kiplagat hold down full time jobs in addition to running with kids because if not I don't really think they're that relevant.
this.
once a female runner wrote:
216 wannabe wrote:Did Mary Keitany and Edna Kiplagat hold down full time jobs in addition to running with kids because if not I don't really think they're that relevant.
this.
Do you?
I tried but failed in 1984.
Was a mediocre runner in high school, graduating in 1969. Did not run the following seven years while in college and law school. Started running off and on summer 1976 while studying for the bar exam. Ran first marathon summer 1977 in 3:17. By fall 1978 was running 2:41.
From 1978 to 1983 ran 80 mpw. Summer 1983 ran 2:31. Fall 1983 ran prs at 5K, 10K and HM - 1:10. December 1983 ran 2:27. January 1984 did 10 miles in 51:38. Then got sick. Decided to take a shot at the 2:19 standard at Boston 1984 (the last day to qualify). Weather was terrible. At five miles I knew I would not make it but stayed on pace through 10 miles. Finished in 2:33.
Never tried again. By 1988 I was 37 and running ultras and never matched the prs from 1983-1984.
NERunner053 wrote:
Would love to see the men's standard back at 2:22.
I agree wholeheartedly. Right now the two marathon standards for guys in their 20s are 3:05 to qualify for Boston and 2:19 to race in the trials. That's an absolutely absurd gap, and it destroys motivation for a lot of guys in between. Also, the women's standards are far more lenient (149 female qualifiers vs 109 males in 2016).
I think the United States should shift to a system similar to the East Africans where Olympians are chosen by a panel based on the totality of their race results. Having to run two marathons within six months doesn't exactly help the United States' top runners' chances at the actual Olympics. The "trials" would then be a celebration of American distance running where athletes compete for alternate spots. The first place finisher is the first Olympic alternate, the second place finisher is the second alternate, etc. You'd get so many more guys between 2:24-2:40 actually taking the sport seriously if that were the case.
once a female runner wrote:
216 wannabe wrote:Did Mary Keitany and Edna Kiplagat hold down full time jobs in addition to running with kids because if not I don't really think they're that relevant.
this.
I am not the original person who inquired about running with kids; I am merely agreeing with 216, so I am also not relevant in making this determination. But comparing pros who make their income running with women who work and have kids is apples and oranges in terms of difficulty.
I don't really get the calls to lower the standard. I wouldn't mind seeing them up the standard to the 2:15 range, so only legit contenders could compete, like we have to in the rest of running events for the Olympic Trials. Its already significantly easier to qualify for than any Track and Field event.
There is a USA Marathon championship every year, and the number of elite and even sub-elite American runners who compete in it is absolutely laughable every year it doesn't double as the Olympic Trials. If we attached a time standard like 2:25 to the Marathon championship does anyone really think attendance or people training specifically for the standard would improve? Why isn't that event year in and year out the celebration of American Distance running?
As best I can tell, people want to make Trials so they can say they qualified for the event, and experience being an 'elite' runner, without being elite, or having any hope of actually doing something at the event itself, despite the true purpose of the race. Its especially ironic that most people who qualify and race do it for the experience, yet it seems like most years USATF puts on a horrendous event.
To another point: Who do you think gets more 'local hero' attention, the person who hits the Trials standard at some random marathon halfway across the country (particularly some of those 'last chance' marathons), or the winner/runner up at the regional 'mid-major' marathons like Marine Corp, Houston, LA, Hartford, Philly, etc, etc? Now with a weaker standard and people can hit the "Olympic Trials Standard" without being top-5 at one of these events, how much 'local hero' attention do they get?
None of this is to take anything away from some of the amazing stories people have shared in the thread. I just think the stories are just as compelling if they're told as a person setting a time goal for themselves as chasing a time goal set by someone else. To the people who have made the standard in this thread, would you not have trained seriously without it? Once you hit it, did you no longer have any drive to set a new PR, or were you just content with meeting the standard again on your next race?
I tried but it was too far
As someone who missed the 2016 trials by 12 seconds (but got 16th at Boston in that miss) I like this idea!When I qualified in 2012 and 2007 for the trials (2:19:00 standard and 2:22 standard respecitvely) I had some near misses as well:In 2010 I was 17th at Chicago in 2:19:18. My buddy Tim Young was right ahead of me at 2:19:01! We both later ran 1:04:20 and 1:04:32 in the half that winter to qualify for the '12 Trials.In 2007 I ran my debut marathon in 2:22:22 and missed by 22 seconds...I later got it that summer with a 2:21:43 on a hot day at the Grandma's Marathon....17 seconds to spare. I'm sure there are many talented guys out there who could hit an OTQ off "low mileage", but I personally have never met or trained with a guy that hit that sub 2:19 marathon standard that didn't hit some 100 + mile weeks in training. For sure the half standard opened up a lot of doors...esp with runners in their early and mid-20s coming out of college. Since the 2012 Trials were in good weather conditions on a fairly fast course (Houston) we had over 22 guys go sub 2:15...and 4 go sub 2:10.... or so (I was waaay back in the mid-pack with a 2:18:30-something). I'm thinking for an American only marathon that had to have been some sort of record? In any case it was always my #1 goal in running growing up....to OTQ (and this was formulated when I was in high school!). I'd still like to go for another shot at the 2020 Trials! It is quite an experience to take part in that race even if you know you have a 0% chance of making the Olympic dream.
Derderian wrote:
What if we had OT qualifying by place rather than time? Marathon courses are not standard like tracks. So to get to the OT you have to place, say, in the top 30 at Boston, NYC, Chicago, or top 25 at some other races, or top 10 at still others. That would make racing the key to getting to the trials rather than even pace and easy courses. The race is the thing. Then we would know exactly how many will qualify. Set it at 100 slots. Make for drama.
Tom
Yea tried to make Olympic Marathon Trials for '96. Had run ok at college but really performed much better afterward with PR's of sub 30 10k, 45:32 for 15k 49:04 for 10 miles, and 1:05:43 for 1/2 marathon. Had a terrible run at the Columbus Marathon and had to pull out with injury at the 1/2 way mark which was really disappointing in 1992. The issue was I only 25 and had rushed into it without building a strong foundation.
The next year had gotten into even better shape. Had built up the mileage to average 80-90 miles and unfortunately a week before the Parkersburg 1/2 developed a neuroma (pinched nerve in foot). I tried to race on it as I wanted a good test before another marathon attempt in October in Duluth. Parkersburg ended early with nerve problem leaving me walking back to the start. 2 weeks later surgery!
In 95 was back training foot not 100% but still ran 1:07 1/2 although had to jog last 5k as foot was sore. Decided to have surgery again and this time the foot is butchered.
Could never again train properly after this and slid into retirement without reaching the goals that I set.
Fast forward right before I turned 40 started jogging and although the foot was sore was able to run 6-10k a day and still ran sub 16 minute 5k after 10 years off in about 6 months of running.
Used everything that I learned about running and training way to hard to fast to now coach over 60 athletes including numerous national medalist in a variety of sports in a land far away from the USA. Miss not fulfilling my goals but it is better helping athletes achieve theirs!
So my words of advice are to take it slow, progression, progression, progression and find yourself a good coach. I coached myself which was easily the biggest mistake I made with my running.
Good luck and all the best.
ran in the 80 Trials.
mediocre HS runner (graduated in 1973). Modestly successful D2 collegiate and local road racer. Made it my goal to qualify, trained harder than i ever had before and ran a PR by several minutes to finish runner-up at Marine Corps in 1979 and get my qualifier by about a minute ("A" standard was 2:21:54 if I recall correctly).
No hopes of making the top 3 but I wanted to run the best I could and at least PR. Upped my mileage consistently over 100 MPW and ran a slew of PRs all thru the spring, 49:12 at Cherry Blossom, 29:29 at Penn Relays (finished not too far behind Kyle Hefner who made the team). At the Trials I blew up in the last 8K but came home in 2:17:50 which was a big thrill for me. I remember passing both Shorter and Rodgers who clearly didn't have their hearts in it.
Thought I could keep improving, started training even harder but chronic sciatica put an end to my serious running and I started my lifelong shoe career in 1982. Definitely glad I tried and had my modest success though i always wondered if I could have run faster. Now at age 61 i've started back running after many years of not doing much of anything other than eating, drinking, heart disease. Actually thinking i might have a shot at a Boston qualifier which would be my old man Trials qualifier.
Former Sub 14:00 wrote:
Stephan is a good guy (I think that's the lone wolf you are talking about). Glad to see the standard get bumped up. He isn't totally lone wolf and travels in his van to work out with people. I did half/marathon specific work outs with him during his build up when he hit the time. He knows how to race. If you aren't talking about him, then well this is embarrassing.
Different guy but I'm not surprised to see a similar story. Guys on the cusp like this seem to be make or break with sponsors and life in general but put it all on the line. Mad respect for them.
I've really enjoyed reading through this thread. The determination from most of you is very moving, especially from many of the women who have contributed. My wife and I are in our early 30's, will be starting a family soon, and are each other's sole running motivators (as we slowly inch towards mid 2:50's and mid 2:20's, respectively). It's easy to relate to many of these stories and they certainly make for inspiring reads... we don't have delusions of grandeur that an OTQ is within reach, but these contributions have shown that our self-described "lofty goals" may still be within reach. Thanks all!
14:30/30:30 guy in college. Summer after graduation ran 100-120 miles and ran first marathon that fall when I was 23. I ran the first half in 1:09, on pace at 20 but fading, finish in 2:23. I was probably in shape to break 2:20, 2:22 for sure, but went a little too hard too early. I thought that was just the beginning and 2:15's were in my future but 7 years later that is still my best race. I have ran 6 marathons at this point. Two years after the 2:23 I ran a 2:25 when my goal for the race was just to break 2:30. I also ran 100 mile weeks for that race. The last 4 races i have ran 2:35-2:36 off 45 miles a week, which was actually very fun and rewarding without the extreme time and energy commitment.I even won $1100 in total prize money off those.
Right out of college I 100% believed I would be a life long competitive runner. Qualifying for multiple Olympic trials, winning decent prize money and living the lifestyle I loved. Unfortunately my motivation for the grind started to decrease when I saw the lifestyles of the guys I ran with that sacrificed careers and family for 10-15 years to chase fast marathon times. I didn't want to be the 40 year old guy with no money and no family and a 2:19 marathon pr that nobody really cares about.
Now i'm 30, I have a wife and kids that I love dearly. I have a great house in a great neighborhood that is the perfect place to raise a family, I have a good job and don't really have to worry about money. I have everything I was scared of missing out on if I kept dedicating my life to running.
I work 50-60 hrs a week, and my days off are dedicated to child care and family commitments. I see my old running buddies a couple times a year. My only race this yr was an 18:00 5k and I think about my running days constantly. I don't really know what the moral of the story is. I desperately miss my old fitness, but I also know I would be horribly depressed if I was 30 yrs old, single, living in a shitty apartment, making $12/ hr at a running store and qualified for the Olympic trails. I have struggled with contentment my entire life. Never being satisfied with anything has motivated me to accomplish most things in life, but also makes consistent happiness difficult. Make sure to enjoy your fitness to the fullest, because it can leave you quickly.
Once a runner
I'd be curious to know for anyone out there that made the standard but didn't run in college, do you think getting college-type 5k/10k speed is a pre-req or that it's doable to train specifically for the marathon at this level without that speed base?
The Overexplainer wrote:
Doubtful Pre Doubtful wrote:Yes I also beat Joan Benoit Samuelson in the 1984 Boston Marathon.
Shure shure
Your reading comprehension is weak for getting such a short piece so wrong. He said, "1979 Boston Marathon" and her first Marathon AR was 2:35:15.
Why do you find that so hard to believe? While I never beat Joan Benoit, I ran a 2:35 marathon and I was in 11th grade.
Exactly right. I hit 16 in about 1:26. My last 10 was 69 minutes. I finished in 2:35:09.
latebloomer wrote:
I'd be curious to know for anyone out there that made the standard but didn't run in college, do you think getting college-type 5k/10k speed is a pre-req or that it's doable to train specifically for the marathon at this level without that speed base?
I absolutely do not think college-type 5K/10K speed is a prerequisite to running a Trials qualifier in the marathon. The marathon is a very, very different kind of event. I'm a woman but I don't see why these conclusions shouldn't be equally true for men, although the times involved are different.
I never made it to a competition in college (got injured immediately and quit) and did not start running seriously until I was nearly 30. I was never able to break 18 minutes in a 5K despite many attempts, but I ran three marathons under 2:48 and OTQ'd with 2:42:50. You don't need 5K speed to have marathon speed.
old thrill wrote:
Now i'm 30, I have a wife and kids that I love dearly. I have a great house in a great neighborhood that is the perfect place to raise a family, I have a good job and don't really have to worry about money. I have everything I was scared of missing out on if I kept dedicating my life to running.
So what's to stop you now? Is the competitive flame gone? Talent doesn't go away and now that you've reached a "secure" place in your life, maybe you should see if it's possible to fit in an hour of running into your days. With your background, I'm sure it wouldn't take more than a few months before you're fit and regionally competitive again. You still have more than a few more years before things begin to decline physically... go for it!
The problem I see with Tom's idea is that you're going to have a fair amount of infighting in terms of which races are the ones where you need to come top 30, which ones you need top 25, etc. And you're going to have a lot of aspirants trying to figure out what the fields are like at various races. It's an intriguing idea though.
Hey old thrill,
Sounds like we've walked similar paths. I hung up my flats in my late 20's to focus on career and start a family. All I can say is that the running will be there when life eventually cooperates. You never hit the times you once did, but the enjoyment is the same.
I'm 37 and have finally reached a point in my career where I can earn what I need to support my family without having to put in the 60+ hour weeks anymore. My kids are also getting older and no longer need to be watched diligently 24/7. The combination of the these two developments freed up enough time for me to start training again late last year. While it was a struggle at first (I could barely break 20 min for 5K), after 6 months my fitness has improved dramatically. I've run right around 17 minutes for 5K and 35 minutes for 10K and am still improving quickly. Hope to be in the 16 min / 33 min range by the end of the summer. More importantly, I've lost ~15 lbs and just all around feel much healthier, happier, and more energetic.
I don't regret anything. I have 3 wonderful kids, a loving wife, own a home in a nice neighborhood with good schools, and am financially secure for the most part. Certainly wouldn't trade that all for a 2:19 PR. Who knows, maybe in a couple of years I can give it another shot. If not, as long as I and my family are happy and healthy I'll be satisfied.