I am not elite by any means but guys that gets stuck around 2:16- 2:20 . How is it that a guy who has a talent in running considering they are able to run 2:20 finds it difficult to beat 2:15:25 set by Paula Radcliffe .
What is going on here?
I am not elite by any means but guys that gets stuck around 2:16- 2:20 . How is it that a guy who has a talent in running considering they are able to run 2:20 finds it difficult to beat 2:15:25 set by Paula Radcliffe .
What is going on here?
Probably due to "abnormal blood values".
"Not really" - kiprop wrote:
Probably due to "abnormal blood values".
Yup. Barry Magee, a top distance man from NZ in the early '60's, finished third in the marathon at the Rome Olympics in 1960 (behind Bikila) in 2.17. He was also a 13.39 5k runner (4 secs off Kuts' then wr) and a 28.50 runner over 10k. He was part of "Lydiard's stable", with Snell, Halberg and Baillie, employing Lydiard's conditioning principles in his training. But still not as fast as Radcliffe. If you'll buy that.
Why don't 2:08 guys run 2:03?
I mean they've obviously got running talent so what's holding them back?
4.5 mins is a lot to take off your time. Think about going from 4:10 to 4 in the mile. This could take years of training.
I know right wrote:
Why don't 2:08 guys run 2:03?
I mean they've obviously got running talent so what's holding them back?
No lady has gone 2:03
Armstronglivs wrote:
"Not really" - kiprop wrote:
Probably due to "abnormal blood values".
Yup. Barry Magee, a top distance man from NZ in the early '60's, finished third in the marathon at the Rome Olympics in 1960 (behind Bikila) in 2.17. He was also a 13.39 5k runner (4 secs off Kuts' then wr) and a 28.50 runner over 10k. He was part of "Lydiard's stable", with Snell, Halberg and Baillie, employing Lydiard's conditioning principles in his training. But still not as fast as Radcliffe. If you'll buy that.
Perhaps if they raced in perfect racing conditions elsewhere they would have gone sub 2:15?
The Tokyo Olympic trials 2020 clearly shows how a 2:05 runner Suguru ended up doing 2:11
Because they need to grow a pair.
This is just a guess: because they are too slow.
vvxcvx wrote:
This is just a guess: because they are too slow.
This important news is probably challenging to the OP, so it's worth some more explanation: 2:15 is faster than 2:20, by something like 5 minutes. Many marathoners who have worked hard to run as fast as they are capable find out that they can't run 5 minutes faster. And the fact that some other person ran 2:15 seems to have no effect on their ability to run several minutes faster. That's sort of how human physiology works.
We can continue trying to help you understand this, but as human intelligence also has its limits perhaps there is no point in trying.
Sergeant Obvious wrote:
vvxcvx wrote:
This is just a guess: because they are too slow.
This important news is probably challenging to the OP, so it's worth some more explanation: 2:15 is faster than 2:20, by something like 5 minutes. Many marathoners who have worked hard to run as fast as they are capable find out that they can't run 5 minutes faster. And the fact that some other person ran 2:15 seems to have no effect on their ability to run several minutes faster. That's sort of how human physiology works.
We can continue trying to help you understand this, but as human intelligence also has its limits perhaps there is no point in trying.
I'm not buying it.
Internetsherlock wrote:
I am not elite by any means but guys that gets stuck around 2:16- 2:20 . How is it that a guy who has a talent in running considering they are able to run 2:20 finds it difficult to beat 2:15:25 set by Paula Radcliffe .
What is going on here?
2:15!?! 2:15!?!
https://youtu.be/LmfUIWnMjGYSergeant Obvious wrote:
vvxcvx wrote:
This is just a guess: because they are too slow.
This important news is probably challenging to the OP, so it's worth some more explanation: 2:15 is faster than 2:20, by something like 5 minutes. Many marathoners who have worked hard to run as fast as they are capable find out that they can't run 5 minutes faster. And the fact that some other person ran 2:15 seems to have no effect on their ability to run several minutes faster. That's sort of how human physiology works.
We can continue trying to help you understand this, but as human intelligence also has its limits perhaps there is no point in trying.
You are right . And i also want to add that a mentality such as yours is the reason why human intelligence cease to grow , in other words fail to run faster .
vvxcvx wrote:
This is just a guess: because they are too slow.
Yeah, and it's a matter of definition. Elites and sub elites are at the far end of the bell-shaped curve. Based on that shape way more guys can run 2:16 to 2:20 than the number who are able to run 2:11 to 2:15.
Armstronglivs wrote:
"Not really" - kiprop wrote:
Probably due to "abnormal blood values".
Yup. Barry Magee, a top distance man from NZ in the early '60's, finished third in the marathon at the Rome Olympics in 1960 (behind Bikila) in 2.17. He was also a 13.39 5k runner (4 secs off Kuts' then wr) and a 28.50 runner over 10k. He was part of "Lydiard's stable", with Snell, Halberg and Baillie, employing Lydiard's conditioning principles in his training. But still not as fast as Radcliffe. If you'll buy that.
Even if Radcliffe doped Magee still had shittay marathon training.
it's like this wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Yup. Barry Magee, a top distance man from NZ in the early '60's, finished third in the marathon at the Rome Olympics in 1960 (behind Bikila) in 2.17. He was also a 13.39 5k runner (4 secs off Kuts' then wr) and a 28.50 runner over 10k. He was part of "Lydiard's stable", with Snell, Halberg and Baillie, employing Lydiard's conditioning principles in his training. But still not as fast as Radcliffe. If you'll buy that.
Even if Radcliffe doped Magee still had shittay marathon training.
He was one of Lydiard's protégés, when NZrs were dominating middle and long-distance racing. Lydiard wrote the book for methods still used today. Yeah - "sh*tty training". But no EPO's.
I'll just say that when 40 year old Regina Jacobs ran my college outdoor PR, indoors, I said "There's no f'ing way that a 40 year old woman ran that clean" then "busted".
Even if Paula doped plenty of other women have still run fast times. Women weren't allowed to run for a long time while men were competing. Now they're catching up at the longer distances. Women are fast. The weak defense of a sub elite male is that they are likely working full time jobs. If they could get appearance fees and prize money I imagine that would be a big motivator but we don't have to tear down a woman's accomplishments or a 2:20ish male for that matter. I'm impressed with anyone who puts work into the marathon and runs 2:10/2:20/2:30/2:40/2:50 etc.
I think he means why can sub elite guys beat track times but not the marathon time.
A guy that runs 4:12 mile is a turd unless he is in high school. A guy that runs 2:15 can go to the Olympics if he's from the right country.
Dur wrote:
I think he means why can sub elite guys beat track times but not the marathon time.
A guy that runs 4:12 mile is a turd unless he is in high school. A guy that runs 2:15 can go to the Olympics if he's from the right country.
If that's what OP is asking, marathon requires mileage. Running a 4:12 mile or something, a lot of talented runners can do that off of talent and little training.