Old Runners Exaggerating Their Times

had a guy in hs tell me he ran 4:30 for a mile time trial that his military recruiter timed. this guys maybe 5'9" and 240 so there was no way but he insisted that he ran that time. and he insisted it was a full mile. im willing to bet the recruiter forgot to start the timer

OK, I admit I bend the truth a bit regarding my high school mile time. We had a sh!tty gravel track, and the best I ever ran on it was 4:53.

Around graduation time -- maybe a week before, maybe a week after -- I ran 4:45.x at a track club meet. Nice all-weather 440y college track.

Especially since I was still 17, I've always considered -- and claimed -- 4:45 as my best high school time. Still ... kinda not accurate ...

back in hs wrote:

had a guy in hs tell me he ran 4:30 for a mile time trial that his military recruiter timed. this guys maybe 5'9" and 240 so there was no way but he insisted that he ran that time. and he insisted it was a full mile. im willing to bet the recruiter forgot to start the timer

Don't believe any unofficial time that is associated with the military.

My brother in law insists his entire platoon ran two miles in under 10 minutes in full combat gear. He's not lying, he honestly believes it. I let it slide because he's seen combat and I haven't.

When I was in the Marines the only course we ever ran that felt as along as advertised to me was the one we ran our PFT's on. That was legit, everything else was short to give everybody a feel good number.

Not what you think wrote:

Do old runners exaggerate their best times from when they were younger because they simply do not remember them? Or they lie once about them, and nobody is informed enough to call them out, so it becomes easier and easier to say faster and faster times until it becomes such an unrealistic situation. The lie is now true for them, because they start to believe their own B.S.

It is hard to find Track and road racing results online from the distant (i.e. pre-late '90s) days, but every once in awhile you luck out. Example: Browning Ross's Long Distance Log compiled road racing results, in depth, from all over the country in the 1950s until the early'70s. I have found some of mine there, online - and have my own hard copies in a drawer as well.

Anyone who says they ran 1:46-1:47 in high school is pretty easy to check out since only two kids ever rsn sub-1:47 and tenth all time is 1:47.79.

Some guys may claim improbably fast times because road courses were often measured by car odometers (i.e. notoriously short) until Ken Young and others came along and pressured race directors into accurately measuring courses. Of course runners almost certainly knew their extra-fast times were bogus. I recall running the Gold Coast AAU Cross Country 6 mile Championships in the late '60s in Miami (actually all roads with a finish on the the UM track). Ran my ass off to get away from a 1:51 half miler who was pretty good on the roads. With one lap to go on the track I heard 27:40! I was PISSED. All I needed was to break 80 for a sub 29:00. I trotted the last lap (had a nice lead) and finished in 29:06. I knew I had a fast time (for me) but I also knew the course had to be at least 300-400 yards short. It would have been embarrasing to see my name with a 28:50+ in the paper. And it would be ridiculous to claim that as a P.R.

I've ran so many road 5k's in my peak shape that I'm not quite sure what my PR actually is due to course discrepancies. I ran 15:43 on a legit course, 15:22 and 15:29 on a course that was official but .05 short according to garmin. One of my best races ever was 17:00 on a re-routed course that was 3.45 mi. So if I go by my official times my PR is 15:22, if I go by en-route time it's 15:20, if I go by a well-known USATF course it's 15:43, and if I convert the 17:00 it's probably 15:0x.

Same with mile times. Indoor, outdoor, road? Does downhill count? Don't forget the "treadmill" PRs.

Smoove wrote:

I can tell you every one of my PRs, and most of them came 25 years ago. The ones that are more recent are actually a bit tougher to remember with as much precision as the earlier ones because they come at longer distances and the exact number of seconds matters less than the first few number (2:30:4x is close enough for me for a marathon time).

Same here, Smoove--I can tell you with fair precision what they all are. But I wonder if that's a product of what we do for a living, rather than what we remember? We should go for a run some time and figure it out.

Proust wrote:

Time has it's way with all of us.

Time may have ITS way with all of us, but a poor secondary school education is limited to only a few poor souls.

The new thing is the ‘Garmin PR’ - when satellites don’t sync and you run faster than ever. “Yea, I really did cross that 4-lane highway and run diagonally thru 3 buildings!”

I've kept clippings or photocopies of many of my PRs so I have proof. Never broke 15 for 5K, so that sucks. Who cares? Who would care? But in these days some hack/whack job like Murph and a pack of letsrun jackals would probably go in an second guess it and try dig up photo proofs from decades ago.

And if I run a good time today as a masters, then Armstronglivs or the anti-body shamers would say, this guy is running too fast for the aging curve and he's too lean to be legit.

I'll say it again, to be legit at letsrun you have to have an income average of>$200,000 over 20 years and be retired with $2-$3M by 50, run sub 14 in college but quit by 24 because you knew you weren't good enough. Fat, stupid, bitter and trolling at 55 is better than someone who has kept in shape and continues to work. That's your basic letsrun philosophy in a nutshell.

Oldern Old Guy wrote:

The older I get, the better I used to be.

The older I get, the faster I was

I have never heard an old runner exaggerating their best times but I can imagine it happens.

BUT runners where a lot fast in the 80ies or 90ies than compared to today.

People ran 18-20 miles in 2.5 hours without water and gel and nobody died.

Half Marathons had a cut off at 2:10 and Marathons at 5 hours.

Ahh the good old times :-)

Old people always exaggerate stories. They are often just innocent white lies like track times, but sometimes for more treacherous reasons.

Look at this outrageous eye witness account of history that is taken as factual.

''In the camp there was a cage with a bear and an eagle,'' he said. ''Every day they would throw a prisoner in there. The bear would tear him apart and the eagle would pick at his bones.'' said Mr.Hubert, ''but it happened.''

When I was in the Army (early 90's), part of the fitness test was a 2 mile run. I had just gotten to a Reserve unit after a 3 year enlistment. The first weekend drill is a fitness test. The run is around a lake at a local park. Unit commander says that the course is verified, blah, blah. I start with a group of about 20 people. I had no watch and after 100 meters I am alone. I am going hard and I hit the "1" mile mark and heard, "4:40". I was a bit shocked, as that was close to my mile PR, but it motivated me. I put my head down a little and try to race myself. I cross the line and the time on the official watch was 9:00.

All the soldiers at the finish are stunned. I was stunned. There are parts of that race I will never forget. It was one of those days that I was really feeling it, but I know damn well that was a short course. I will sometimes claim a 9 flat 2 mile PR, but not very often. If I do so with a runner, I explain the backstory. In my heart, I think I ran a 3km race.

My 5km PR is a similar story.

Ask Paul Ryan. He said he ran a sub 3. But turned out he couldn't even run a sub 4.

https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a20849496/paul-ryan-has-not-run-sub-3-00-marathon/

Not what you think wrote:

Do old runners exaggerate their best times from when they were younger because they simply do not remember them? Or they lie once about them, and nobody is informed enough to call them out, so it becomes easier and easier to say faster and faster times until it becomes such an unrealistic situation. The lie is now true for them, because they start to believe their own B.S.

I actually see more posers among the younger runners.

I ran imperial units in HS. Since the conversion to metric I've subtracted 5 seconds from my PR because of the shorter distance, 2miles 10:05/3200m 10:00. Is this a big deal?

Not what you think wrote:

Do old runners exaggerate their best times from when they were younger because they simply do not remember them? Or they lie once about them, and nobody is informed enough to call them out, so it becomes easier and easier to say faster and faster times until it becomes such an unrealistic situation. The lie is now true for them, because they start to believe their own B.S.

I did this. I thought my cross country 5k pr was 18:20, it was 18:45. I think I remembered my goal time for my senior year.

And yes, I realize I was (and am still) slow as tar.

Bobby sss wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

The father of one of daughter's friends told me he ran "1:46 or 47" for the 880 in HS. I googled his name and checked state meet results and could not find him anywhere. It was kind of stupid as I would have been impressed if he had claimed he ran something like 1:56, which would have been impossible to disprove.

Maybe he ran club while he was in HS and not in HS results. A lot of athletes ran club instead of HS back in the day.

He would have been the U.S. HS record holder at the time. I asked him where he went to college and he said he went into the military instead. If an 18-year old ran that fast he would have been nationally known regardless of whether he ran in a club,

Or maybe we chose our profession because of our mindset.

If you’re ever in Orlando, we can work through it.