Where are all the runners of time who could run under 2:20 . I know the conditions were warm but this shows how there isn't any depth to this sport at all. Very sad state of the sport.
Where are all the runners of time who could run under 2:20 . I know the conditions were warm but this shows how there isn't any depth to this sport at all. Very sad state of the sport.
More and more parts of the world are suffering from lack of oxygen and good air, due to man made global warming and climate change, which has gone beyond the point of no return.
15th place at Tokyo was 2:10:00
Now you know how overrated London is.
Hey you are forgetting a big reason as to why London was weak and a guy running 2:21 places 15th. The commonwealth games were just the week before and many of those top guys would have run London. Also keep in mind it's a world champs track year so some athletes aren't doing marathons early year
Do you get money for 15th place at London? If I was a Brit and I could pick up $2000 in Bath for 2:19, I might pick that over London. Secondly, its the event organizers fault for not paying appearance money to more elite athletes. They aren't going to come race London for free if Paris is willing to cut them a check!
timtam wrote:
Where are all the runners of time who could run under 2:20 . I know the conditions were warm but this shows how there isn't any depth to this sport at all. Very sad state of the sport.
I’ve noted your continual British bashing. The conditions were very hostile, hottest thon in London on record. That’s a factor, as is the Commonwealth games. You sir, are a horrid little moran. Oh, and so YOU ARE CLEAR a British runner came 3rd and Paula still has the WR. I await your racism and PED accusations. Pathetic loser.
timtam wrote:
a British runner came 3rd
i have bad news for you...
Out of interest does that 15th place include the two guys who were pacemaking in the women's race? They were jogging in just ahead of Cheruiyot.
BTW while the 15th elite man was 2:21:17 but there were also two elite women and three male club runners who bettered that tiem plus maybe the women's pacemakers.
its because Fernando placed 13th in 2:17:39 and is making a HUGE deal out of it like he ran 2:10 or something what a JOKE.
timtam wrote:
Where are all the runners of time who could run under 2:20 . I know the conditions were warm but this shows how there isn't any depth to this sport at all. Very sad state of the sport.
1) Where are they? The guy who can run 2:10 in his sleep is at another marathon picking up $25k for first. Why in God's name would he want to run London for free?
2) Sad state of the sport? I disagree. Few people want to devote the time and energy needed to run 2:16.
rojo wrote:
timtam wrote:
Where are all the runners of time who could run under 2:20 . I know the conditions were warm but this shows how there isn't any depth to this sport at all. Very sad state of the sport.
1) Where are they? The guy who can run 2:10 in his sleep is at another marathon picking up $25k for first. Why in God's name would he want to run London for free?
2) Sad state of the sport? I disagree. Few people want to devote the time and energy needed to run 2:16.
These big Marathons like London are two races in one. The invited elite runners, in the elite race, maybe 25-50 runners and then the jog fest behind them. I am by no means knocking someone running a 4 or 5 hour marathon. But the reality is that these marathons have become a social event.
Really talented athletes that are capable of running sub 2:20, are longer willing to put in the effort because they will not benefit by doing so. I am not sure but they may get help with travel expenses (maybe), but no appearance money and little chance to win prize money.
Back in the 70s and 80s there were many "average" runners who trained as hard as the top runners but did not have the talent and ran in the 2:20 to 2:40 range. For the love of running, nothing else, no money, just to see how fast they could run.
Look at the results for that era and the depth was amazing in the US.
There is very little money to be made by a runner in the 2:15-2:20 neighborhood. So why guarantee he won't be in the race by running a WMM unless he is sure a massive 10min breakthrough is imminent?
rojo wrote:
timtam wrote:
Where are all the runners of time who could run under 2:20 . I know the conditions were warm but this shows how there isn't any depth to this sport at all. Very sad state of the sport.
1) Where are they? The guy who can run 2:10 in his sleep is at another marathon picking up $25k for first. Why in God's name would he want to run London for free?
2) Sad state of the sport? I disagree. Few people want to devote the time and energy needed to run 2:16.
Kvothe wrote:
Do you get money for 15th place at London? If I was a Brit and I could pick up $2000 in Bath for 2:19, I might pick that over London. Secondly, its the event organizers fault for not paying appearance money to more elite athletes. They aren't going to come race London for free if Paris is willing to cut them a check!
No, I think it goes up to 12th place - $1000.
I think you're thinking of Brighton where you would get £2000 for the win (2:22 this year)
timtam wrote:
Where are all the runners of time who could run under 2:20 . I know the conditions were warm but this shows how there isn't any depth to this sport at all. Very sad state of the sport.
How may big marathons have there been in the last few weeks? It's obvious that the depth of class in all those races must have suffered.
Before the race began, posters were saying it was one of the greatest line ups ever.
What changed in 26 miles?
I assume this is a troll post.
15th place was Sam Chelanga of USA.
13:04, 27:08, 60:30
Not your average 2:20 marathoner.
It was hot.
15th was actually New Zealander, Daniel Wallis in 2:19:40. He was first in the non-elite field.
It was very hot and quite windy. Hence the slow times for many locals who were running in snow about 2 weeks ago in Great Britain.
rojo wrote:
timtam wrote:
Where are all the runners of time who could run under 2:20 . I know the conditions were warm but this shows how there isn't any depth to this sport at all. Very sad state of the sport.
1) Where are they? The guy who can run 2:10 in his sleep is at another marathon picking up $25k for first. Why in God's name would he want to run London for free?
2) Sad state of the sport? I disagree. Few people want to devote the time and energy needed to run 2:16.
I agree Rojo- and the fact that there are so many opportunities for fast guys to make money shows it's a good time for the sport.
I remember when Boston was basically IT in the spring, then Rotterdam and London, then the floodgates opened.
People: "Oh, Boston is such a joke, the times are slow, always terrible weather, terrible course, not a REAL marathon"
Also People: "London is where the real boys show up, it's comparable to the Olympic Marathon, the top of the crop"
*15th place at London Marathon was 2:21:17 so WTF*
Needalifeballz wrote:
its because Fernando placed 13th in 2:17:39 and is making a HUGE deal out of it like he ran 2:10 or something what a JOKE.
Well to be fair he’s like 36 now, plus he didn’t run well in his last half and this is a much better performance from him. However I was surprised 13th was only 2:17.