Parker Stinson admits he's "GOING HOME DEVASTATED" from Chicago

[quote]Sdfsdfsdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

I dont think the criticism is just that his first HM was too fast. That is probably debateable, maybe he really is in 2:11 shape, in which case 65 mid is appropriate.

The criticism is that the first half of that HM was way too fast. There was a nice chase pack that was perfect for him if he wanted to shoot for 2:11ish. The pacer splits were announced ahead of time, there was really no excuse to go out with the lead pack when it was clearly too fast.

^correct

A too fast first 10k will kill you on the back end. When he was visible behind the lead pack you could see he was working much harder than the leaders, who looked like they were out for a nice steady training run. he looked like he was racing a half, which he was for the first 10k.

Sheesh, legit shot at 2:10-2:11? Start with a bunch of 5:00s. Letsrun emphasized it after Kipchoge's record: Negative Split

If he went through the half in 65, after running the first four at 2:05 pace, he wasn't "right on pace". He was probably already running 5:10-15s.

He ran essentially like that 15-year old girl at TCM who eat out in 17:35 and faded to a 2:40. Both showed "toughness", but you are not a true professional runner if you don't understand the splits in a marathon. He did the same thing at CIM. He is as bad as Walmsley, but without the occasional really good race results.

"went out in 17:35" sheesh, autocorrect is inserting smut into my typos

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

It's always something wrote:

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Oops...meant the opposite of what I actually wrote.

Coacher wrote:

If he went through the half in 65, after running the first four at 2:05 pace, he wasn't "right on pace". He was probably already running 5:10-15s.

He ran essentially like that 15-year old girl at TCM who eat out in 17:35 and faded to a 2:40. Both showed "toughness", but you are not a true professional runner if you don't understand the splits in a marathon. He did the same thing at CIM. He is as bad as Walmsley, but without the occasional really good race results.

You're a true professional runner if you get paid to run.

sillyman wrote:

Justdon'tgetit wrote:

I don't get why guys like him always blow their wad in the 1st half of a race and never learn..

How hard is it to run a 68 min half and then bury yourself in the last 5 miles?

No discipline whatsoever

His problem wasn't the first half. It was the second half. The second half was too slow.

If a guy has a mission, he needs to keep to it. None of this creeping around and trying to eke out seconds when you can only run a couple of these a year.

Maybe his expectations are higher than yours?

Wow, you're clueless dude! Did you watch the race? His opening 5k was at 4:49 pace!!!!!!! Can you say 2:07?

Parker's next 5k was 15:31. He didn't belong at 30:28 pace (he was only 17 seconds behind MO). He then slowed down another 1:19 for the next 10k.

He slowed down later in the race due to those ridiculously early fast miles that he never fully recovered from.

You can't slow down almost 10 seconds per mile for the second half and think you'll have success. Yeah, he was at 2:10:24 pace at halfway, but he had already begun slowing down. From 18 on, he was toast and fighting it, but had no chance to maintain 5:05's.

Nice guy for sure and I wish he'd have popped a good one, but after seeing him in the pack so close to Mo and the others early on, he had already cooked his own goose. Sadly, I believe he's capable of running in the 2:10 range, but not with the strategy that he used on Sunday.

5 minute miles = 2:11:05

He confirmed what many believe on why American men are behind the rest of the world- going by time/mile splits instead of kilometers. Ditch the watch and learn to compete, Parker. Watch Steve MF Jones on Youtube.

truth be told. wrote:

5 minute miles = 2:11:05

He confirmed what many believe on why American men are behind the rest of the world- going by time/mile splits instead of kilometers. Ditch the watch and learn to compete, Parker. Watch Steve MF Jones on Youtube.

No, he doesn't have the times that Steve Jones did to back it up. Terrible comparison, just awful.

Regardless, he did compete and went out hard, look what happened. Do you think if he tried to keep up 4:49 pace longer he would have had a faster time? Hint: he would have been a lot slower and probably done some walking.

Please go back to RunnersWorld.com and leave this site for the big boys.

truth be told. wrote:

5 minute miles = 2:11:05

He confirmed what many believe on why American men are behind the rest of the world- going by time/mile splits instead of kilometers. Ditch the watch and learn to compete, Parker. Watch Steve MF Jones on Youtube.

+1

Switch your GPS to metric and track your volume in kilometers.

Sand Dunes wrote:

truth be told. wrote:

5 minute miles = 2:11:05

He confirmed what many believe on why American men are behind the rest of the world- going by time/mile splits instead of kilometers. Ditch the watch and learn to compete, Parker. Watch Steve MF Jones on Youtube.

+1

Switch your GPS to metric and track your volume in kilometers.

-3

Moron.

I am one of the big boys buddy. Not making the comparison to Steve performance wise, but he's a prime example of a blue collar guy who worked hard and dug extra deep to compete-- as did all the marathoners at that time. Plenty of athletes overperform in the marathon too. It seems the American guys are so far behind the top guys now that they try to "run as a pack" and click off 5 min miles (while the rest of the world practices 3 min k's). Any sort of wild pacing or falling off pace, and they let it go to their head. Ditch the watch and splits altogether and focus internally and on competing.

Parker ran 27:54, right?

Steve Jones 27:55, right? (Not sure that's his PR, but I think it is.)

Jones also dropped out of his first marathon (Chicago) before not dropping out and setting a world record the next year (Chicago).

I'm not saying they're equal, because they're not. But since Parker's 10K PR is 1 second faster than Jones', I guess you, Mr. Runners World Genius, are not quite right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlinW5ZwzGc

Nikkleabacker wrote:

He slowed down later in the race due to those ridiculously early fast miles that he never fully recovered from.

You can't slow down almost 10 seconds per mile for the second half and think you'll have success. Yeah, he was at 2:10:24 pace at halfway, but he had already begun slowing down. From 18 on, he was toast and fighting it, but had no chance to maintain 5:05's.

Nice guy for sure and I wish he'd have popped a good one, but after seeing him in the pack so close to Mo and the others early on, he had already cooked his own goose. Sadly, I believe he's capable of running in the 2:10 range, but not with the strategy that he used on Sunday.

+1

But he would not have appeared on TV running 2:10 pace from the start. For his next he should employ a couple of personal pacers to take him to 18 miles at 2:10 pace, negative split and run 2:09:xx.

Pacers …

Just freeking run, kid. You know, like a few thousand or more guys did to run faster than you, without pacers.

Parker Stinson has always been damn good at getting way more coverage on letsrun than his performances seem to merit. I personally love him just for managing to piss off both the 70s/80s wannabe tough guy road racing crowd and the perma-angry C-level college runner crowd. Whatever he chooses to do next, he will have my full attention.

Coacher wrote:

He is as bad as Walmsley, but without the occasional really good race results.

I like Parker and he reminds me of Walmsley a lot, I had the pleasure of meeting and knowing Walmsley before he broke it big. The major difference between the two is attitude, Walmsley is cocky and knows he is racing himself into the ground, is ok with crashing and burning while shortening his career. I don't think Parker has that mentality but is trying to race the same exact way. I think Hudson needs to sit Parker down and figure out a better strategy if he expects to stay in the game any length of time.

Coacher wrote:

If he went through the half in 65, after running the first four at 2:05 pace, he wasn't "right on pace". He was probably already running 5:10-15s.

He ran essentially like that 15-year old girl at TCM who eat out in 17:35 and faded to a 2:40. Both showed "toughness", but you are not a true professional runner if you don't understand the splits in a marathon. He did the same thing at CIM. He is as bad as Walmsley, but without the occasional really good race results.

Exactly..

It's so stupid to go out a pace that is unsustainable and beyond your fitness level..

He blew up at CIM in epic fashion doing this & made the same mistake at Chicago. The guy just doesn't learn.

I like the Walmsley comparison - both talented runners, but seemingly have very low intelligence / discipline and can't control themselves.. which leads to sub-par performances time and time again.

Its egun wrote:

Yes.

You nailed it.

‘Is a man with a vision blessed or cursed?’

- Bardos from the Mountains of Gold.

He posted this quote on his IG today.