Nick Symmonds runs 1:24 half

This June at age 57 I won the L'Anse, Michigan Lake Trout Festival Half Marathon in 1:27:12.

BryanCMU wrote:

I respect Symmonds for this. Everyone commenting about how this is so slow and he should be much faster based on his 800 time haven't been following him. He's training to run a marathon in Honululu. Not race a marathon to his potential, not try to become world class in the marathon, to run a marathon. His primary goals these days involve being the CEO of RunGum. Running is a hobby for him at this point.

I think it has more to do with getting every last dime he can out of brooks as opposed to it being an actual hobby. Also, if you watch his videos, he makes it sound like he called up the honolulu race director and asked if he could run. The reality is, I bet he is getting a pretty good sized appearance fee. I am actually surprised new york or chicago didn't try to get him. If I were a race director I would pay symmonds way more than anyone else showing up at those races other than Meb.

All that said, I can't blame symmonds for trying to squeeze every last dime out of the sport that he can.

Get off hobbyjogger wrote:

He ran XC in HS and college where he ran sub 5:00 for 8k.

He was never into, as you say, "sprints."

This was not an impressive result in any way, except that it's impressive how much worse he's gotten. He clearly used to work pretty hard but not anymore.

Nick Broke 25:00 once in college (at Sundodger, which is thought by many to be a short/fast course). The rest of his results varied from 25:00-27:00

Nicks' best DIII XC finish was 84th, compared to multiple national championships in the 800/1500

And of douse he's not working that hard, he's retired. Of course he's gotten worse (esp. doing a race that he didn't specifically train for for over a decade).

ImissSpicey wrote:

Get off hobbyjogger wrote:

He ran XC in HS and college where he ran sub 5:00 for 8k.

He was never into, as you say, "sprints."

This was not an impressive result in any way, except that it's impressive how much worse he's gotten. He clearly used to work pretty hard but not anymore.

Nick Broke 25:00 once in college (at Sundodger, which is thought by many to be a short/fast course). The rest of his results varied from 25:00-27:00

Nicks' best DIII XC finish was 84th, compared to multiple national championships in the 800/1500

https://www.athletic.net/CrossCountry/Athlete.aspx?AID=1235828#/L0

And of douse he's not working that hard, he's retired. Of course he's gotten worse (esp. doing a race that he didn't specifically train for for over a decade).

Either he isn't fully training and is just putting on a show, or he is trying to reach another demographic of fans that are on the slower end of the spectrum.

My basis for saying that he is sandbagging his times is due solely to his performance at the 2015 USATF Club Cross Country Championships. I recall him begrudgingly running the championships, and having only decided to do it only a few weeks out, as he stated in interviews beforehand (can't find them right now). That means he went into the race with just normal base mileage and simple workouts that one would do building up to the spring season.

At the 2015 USATF Club Cross Country Championships, he ran 33:21 for the 10k. Or, 5:22 pace. And if anyone can find the video, he was joking and waving during a good portion of it. He sort of just did a hard tempo effort, it seems.

So, if he could have that kind of performance just off base training geared towards the 800m, one would have to assume that he could at least do 6:00 pace for a half marathon that he was actually training for. It just doesn't make sense.

What we can conclude here is that he didn't race this half marathon. He just did a good long run effort.

Stoppit Smith wrote:

I am a 43 year old male.

And you say it is nothing. Great!

So, I would assume that you are breaking 1:15-1:20 in your half finishes??

Let us break this down to simpler chunks:

If they must train for 1:41, then at that point, they are not non-runners.

It weakens your argument when you bring gender into play among non-elites.

Symmonds was not originally long distance.

You speak for others here, but what is your best time?

You also are making it clear that you do not respect runners of different times.

Are you that good?

I'm a former middle distance runner, at a level far below Symmonds and I have no problem running those times. And I've never trained for half marathons. This is not bragging, I was and am mediocre.

They are non-runners in the way that running isn't the sport they train for. Theres a huge difference in doing running as your primary training and running 1:41 and doing swimming and lifting as your main training and running 1:41 after two months of running.

Gender and age is important when we talk about how good of a time 1:41 is. I know a few 50+ women who train four times a week running at time. They are certainly above the average female runners at that ages level, but thats all.

I respect runners of all times. But the fact that you run 1:41 and think Symmonds time was a good effort for him tells me you know little about running. This was easy for Nick.

I know enough to know Nick's 1:24 was a good effort.It won.You have never trained for half marathons??How can you know what is good enough for any race at that distance then???Do you simply not like Nick??

Stoppit Smith wrote:

I know enough to know Nick's 1:24 was a good effort.

It won.

You have never trained for half marathons??

How can you know what is good enough for any race at that distance then???

Do you simply not like Nick??

You seem more and more like a troll, but i'll bite.

Good effort? How do you know? For someone like Nick it was not hard unless hes just doing the bare minimum of hobby jogger training.

It won? So what. That means he didn't have to run faster, meaning he could have if he wanted to.

No, I dont train for half marathons. That doesn't change the fact that I know what is a good time at the distance. How do you know 1.42 is a good time at the 800m? /Sarcasme

I like Nick. I have not criticised him here.

Barakus Obama wrote:

Stoppit Smith wrote:

I know enough to know Nick's 1:24 was a good effort.

It won.

You have never trained for half marathons??

How can you know what is good enough for any race at that distance then???

Do you simply not like Nick??

You seem more and more like a troll, but i'll bite.

Good effort? How do you know? For someone like Nick it was not hard unless hes just doing the bare minimum of hobby jogger training.

It won? So what. That means he didn't have to run faster, meaning he could have if he wanted to.

No, I dont train for half marathons. That doesn't change the fact that I know what is a good time at the distance. How do you know 1.42 is a good time at the 800m? /Sarcasme

I like Nick. I have not criticised him here.

If you follow his youtube posts, you can see he is barely training yet is trying to make it seem like he is, obviously to appeal to the hobby jogger crowd. Some of this earlier training videos of him are running 4 miles at like 8 minute pace in an attempt to start building his base. The dude is not a good 800 meter runner anymore, but he did run sub 150 this summer. If you are in that kind of shape, you don't need to build your base with 4 milers at 8 minute pace.