What is wrong with American male marathoners? Or, how long will 2:12 be impressive?

Yes. Totally correct. Human morphology is the key. To be a world class marathover requires the right body type. If you are too tall or more importantly too heavy your chances are much lower. You cannot make a race horse out of a Clydesdale! Too heavy and you simply overheat. Then there is diet. Americans generally don't eat and drink right. Todd Williams used to drink diet coke like it was going out of style. How many kenyans drink that crap? They will never be able to compete with East Africa. Just give up. Focus on the shorter distances. Everything up to 1500 is doable.

Rocket2 wrote:

Yes. Totally correct. Human morphology is the key. To be a world class marathover requires the right body type. If you are too tall or more importantly too heavy your chances are much lower. You cannot make a race horse out of a Clydesdale! Too heavy and you simply overheat. Then there is diet. Americans generally don't eat and drink right. Todd Williams used to drink diet coke like it was going out of style. How many kenyans drink that crap? They will never be able to compete with East Africa. Just give up. Focus on the shorter distances. Everything up to 1500 is doable.

It astonishes me that so many Americans want to ignore the "body type" issue. Body type is important in all sports. There is one for each position in football and football coaches talk about this all of the time. College football players are told to gain weight and add muscle starting freshman year so that they transform into the correct body type, depending on their position.

Remember Doug Flutie? Not a great pro, only great in college. Too short.

Also, too many washed up track runners in the USA move to the marathon as a last resort top salvage their pro careers.

Put in 2:09:30.

https://runsmartproject.com/calculator/

I have no idea how many sub 28 min and sub 1:01:40 guys there are, but there have to be a few out there that are willing to get on the 20 mile a day, every once in a while 170 mpw, edge. Alamosa is dirt cheap, so you can't use the "Boulder/Flagg/ABQ/SLC is too expensive" excuse. Lots of cold, clear days to train in the winter.

Another way to look at it is a 63 flat guy should be a 2:12 flat guy. In that light, 2:12 isn't that impressive for American Distance Running. Point was already made that we're decent/good/excellent at the other distances.

Curious - Americans in the late '70s and early '80s that ran 2:12-2:13, what were their HM PRs?

Is the calculator accurate? wrote:

Another way to look at it is a 63 flat guy should be a 2:12 flat guy. In that light, 2:12 isn't that impressive for American Distance Running. Point was already made that we're decent/good/excellent at the other distances.

Curious - Americans in the late '70s and early '80s that ran 2:12-2:13, what were their HM PRs?

The half marathon wasn't raced as much in the 70's and 80's so I'm guessing the times were not good. Nowadays it seems top Americans blast a quick half marathon while in good 10K shape, years before trying the marathon. The Japanese don't do this, if they run a half it is just a tuneup for a marathon. That's why their half marathon times aren't as impressive. Also, I would not pay any attention to what a calculator says, there are just based on past data and prone to sampling bias or other hidden variables.

"Curious - Americans in the late '70s and early '80s that ran 2:12-2:13, what were their HM PRs?"

Kirk Pfeffer ran 2:10:29. His 1/2 marathon PB was 1:02 low something. He actually had the WR for a while. Most (good) 1/2 marathons back then were 1:03 something.

I'm guessing most 2:12 guys were 1:04.

Runners were not so chicken-sh*t of the marathon 30-40 years ago. They went for it and were not afraid to hit the wall. In fact, it was expected.

Is the calculator accurate? wrote:

Put in 2:09:30.

https://runsmartproject.com/calculator/

I have no idea how many sub 28 min and sub 1:01:40 guys there are, but there have to be a few out there that are willing to get on the 20 mile a day, every once in a while 170 mpw, edge. Alamosa is dirt cheap, so you can't use the "Boulder/Flagg/ABQ/SLC is too expensive" excuse. Lots of cold, clear days to train in the winter.

Another way to look at it is a 63 flat guy should be a 2:12 flat guy. In that light, 2:12 isn't that impressive for American Distance Running. Point was already made that we're decent/good/excellent at the other distances.

Curious - Americans in the late '70s and early '80s that ran 2:12-2:13, what were their HM PRs?

In many if not most cases the half marathon PR probably happened en route to their marathon best. It wasn't a common distance then. I actually think it would improve US marathon running if most of our half marathons became 25 or 30 km races. The half is actually a little too short to get a feel for what you can do in a marathon.

ZidaneValor wrote:

FightFor15 wrote:

Shalane said she is at peace with her PR but wants a major marathon win which is why she chose NY this year and why she will go back to Boston in the spring.

I don't think the easiest way to win a major marathon is to compete against Mary Keitany.

For sure, her words not mine. I think she does have a better shot winning NYC or Boston than a time trial race like Berline, Chicago, or London.

yaaas wrote:

why doesn't Ritz's 2:07:4x show up in that list? i see other chicago marathon times in there... did the course change and become non-eligible?

This list is dated as of 4/12/2011- maybe someone has something some current...I agree it might not be a ton of new times but there will be some who make it onto this list from the past 6+ years.

Bamn wrote:

Whats wrong with Kenyan swimmers?

Wrong argument. We have plenty of skinny guys here.

Haven't you heard of the opioid epidemic?

The fact is you are all too lazy.

Growing up in Australia we had plenty of sub 2:20s. We had junior 3 k steeplers who ran 2:20 as a lark with their mates, who all ran under 2:22.

We had an average athlete who ran 2:09. This was all in the 70s.

Like with any event, if you think its too hard, it'll be too hard. You guys would rather post than run.

"In many if not most cases the half marathon PR probably happened en route to their marathon best. It wasn't a common distance then"

I don't know where you were from, but in my neck of the wood there were three 1/2 marathons a year, and some of the marathons ran a concurrent 1/2 marathon.

It's true, on the national scene, there were not a lot of big time 1/2 marathons.

I agree, though, more 25 and 30k races might help.

All bs. Have a look at Rob DeCastella.

A nugget who had no trouble running fast.

You aren't fast, cos you'd rather analyze fast, talk about fast, then have a low cal beer on the couch.

HRE wrote:

I actually think it would improve US marathon running if most of our half marathons became 25 or 30 km races. The half is actually a little too short to get a feel for what you can do in a marathon.

25km or even 30km does not tell much about a runner's potential in marathon, because fuel management is never an issue. A well trained runner has enough glycogen to last 30km. Hence any good half marathoner can run a fast 30km. The real difference happens at a slightly longer distance where a runner has to rely more on fat as a fuel source.

blort wrote:

"In many if not most cases the half marathon PR probably happened en route to their marathon best. It wasn't a common distance then"

I don't know where you were from, but in my neck of the wood there were three 1/2 marathons a year, and some of the marathons ran a concurrent 1/2 marathon.

It's true, on the national scene, there were not a lot of big time 1/2 marathons.

I agree, though, more 25 and 30k races might help.

Pre 1985, the only half marathon of note (that I can think of) was the "Philadelphia Distance Run" now part of the Rock and Roll series (not even noted as a "Half. " Did Rodgers, Shorter and Salazar ever run a half at their peaks?

Ackley wrote:

blort wrote:

"In many if not most cases the half marathon PR probably happened en route to their marathon best. It wasn't a common distance then"

I don't know where you were from, but in my neck of the wood there were three 1/2 marathons a year, and some of the marathons ran a concurrent 1/2 marathon.

It's true, on the national scene, there were not a lot of big time 1/2 marathons.

I agree, though, more 25 and 30k races might help.

Pre 1985, the only half marathon of note (that I can think of) was the "Philadelphia Distance Run" now part of the Rock and Roll series (not even noted as a "Half. " Did Rodgers, Shorter and Salazar ever run a half at their peaks?

Rodgers and Virgin both ran San Blas.

Is there any other profession where mediocre or even sub-par performers receive a "pat on the back?" These guys are running 2:12 when the winners are running 2:04 and 2:05 and relaxing back at their hotel when these 2:12-ers come to the finish line. It is like congratulating a .170 hitter in baseball. They are in the Majors but they are light years behind those batting .300 and higher. Would you praise a teacher whose students performed in the lowest percentiles? These guys ran good times for a local runner but pedestrian times for a professional.

Exercise Physiology 101 wrote:

HRE wrote:

I actually think it would improve US marathon running if most of our half marathons became 25 or 30 km races. The half is actually a little too short to get a feel for what you can do in a marathon.

25km or even 30km does not tell much about a runner's potential in marathon, because fuel management is never an issue. A well trained runner has enough glycogen to last 30km. Hence any good half marathoner can run a fast 30km. The real difference happens at a slightly longer distance where a runner has to rely more on fat as a fuel source.

Yeah, those Kenyans are real fatties.

Exercise Physiology 101 wrote:

HRE wrote:

I actually think it would improve US marathon running if most of our half marathons became 25 or 30 km races. The half is actually a little too short to get a feel for what you can do in a marathon.

25km or even 30km does not tell much about a runner's potential in marathon, because fuel management is never an issue. A well trained runner has enough glycogen to last 30km. Hence any good half marathoner can run a fast 30km. The real difference happens at a slightly longer distance where a runner has to rely more on fat as a fuel source.

I always found that I could run marathons at only slighty slower paces than I could for marathons. I saw the same with most of the guys I knew.

blort wrote:

"In many if not most cases the half marathon PR probably happened en route to their marathon best. It wasn't a common distance then"

I don't know where you were from, but in my neck of the wood there were three 1/2 marathons a year, and some of the marathons ran a concurrent 1/2 marathon.

It's true, on the national scene, there were not a lot of big time 1/2 marathons.

I agree, though, more 25 and 30k races might help.

We might have had one half marathon in the DC area. I know there were a few here and there but I didn't know or know of anyone who took them seriously.