Keeping Paula Radcliffe's 2:15 off the chart as a statistical anomoly...If 2:18-2:21 is the women's equivalent to Geb's 2:03:59 and the handful of 2:04's that have been run, why are major marathons still being won by women in 2:25-2:28? I really thought after Paula's run of fast ones and Ndereba's sub-2:20 that 2:20 would no longer be such a barrier. What's the problem?
WADA
I agree. It's the same reason we saw a lot less sub-13:00's/12:50's for men, and less sub 14:45's for women than two years ago as well. Certain coaches lost athletes last year, and the athletes took the high road and refused to "out" these coaches. The only way to "dope" effectively now without getting caught is to use legal technology (ie. Nike OP).
Sub 2:20 marathons by women have never been common. Only a handful of athletes have managed them and since the first one there has pretty much only ever been one a year (not including Paula).
The event isn't terribly strong at the moment. I actually thought it would be stronger currently, I thought Lornah Kiplagat, Wami and Adere would be doing sub 2:20, but none of them seem to have managed the transition as well as I might have hoped. The Japanese machine doesn't seem productive as it was a few years back.
I expect sub-2:20 marathons will be back however. I'm not convinced that the ones that we've seen have been caused by drugs, except probably Sun's. I think Kastor, Radcliffe, Ndereba, Mikitenko and the Japanese are probably clean.
They go out too slow. They are not willing to lay it all on the line and race.
True. Those sub 2.20 runs were done by women at their peak, on good days, really going for it with no opposition to fear.
Racing is different to time trialling.
But a long way in the future, women will run a lot faster than 2.15 and this can be done without drugs, I have no doubt about that.
I an article recently on the progression of world records relative to the theoretical maximum, I don't remember where. I think Paula's record was the closest that they looked at. But if 2:15 is something like 95% of the theoretical maximum, 2:20 is only 3 1/2% off of that. It's still at a pretty high performance level, so you'd expect it to be fairly rare. When you combine that with the lower number of female participants worldwide, you're less likely to hit the number of people with the ability to perform at that high a level.
I don't see how anyone can predict a theorectical maximum.
The fastest I can imagine is 1.53 for a man and 2.03 for a woman.
Most punters will say this is ridiculous, but people have been saying for about 100 years, what they think the limit of human performance is, and those imaginary limits have all been exceeded.
50 years ago, the men's record was slower than Paula's 2.15.25 and if anyone had predicted such a fast time by a woman, they would have been laughed at etc. Not humanaly possible for a woman to run under 2.45 or whatever imagainary limit they had in their heads.
I might get a lot of flack for saying this, but I don't believe the African women are willing to work as hard as the African men (or Caucasian and Asian women). They do well at the shorter events, which require more natural talent/less work, but with the marathon you have to work hard, put in the miles, and stick your nose out there to race up to your potential. Additionally, from watching marathons it looks like many of the African women are running "just good enough" to place well and come away with the money (looking as if they're holding back a bit most of the race and kicking at the end). So being said, going sub 2:20 will require not just talent, but lots and lots of work and boldness, comparable to the elite men.
weIInow wrote:
50 years ago, the men's record was slower than Paula's 2.15.25 and if anyone had predicted such a fast time by a woman, they would have been laughed at etc. Not humanaly possible for a woman to run under 2.45 or whatever imagainary limit they had in their heads.
They have a lot more data to work with now compared to 50 years ago. Esp. the women's side.
Not true about the African women not working hard enough for the marathon. I was in Iten and Eldoret (Kenya) last year, and also visited Addis Abeba and Assela (Ethiopia), and believe me, the women are putting in the miles.
There are not that many races where women have the chance to run that fast. In a women's only race, the kind you have in Japan, it is unlikely for women to 'race' at sub. 2.20 speed, because it is simply not necessary.
Back in the early 80's when Benoit ran 2.23, and then 2.21, she was racing men, and going out at around 5.05-5.10 mile speed....then blowing up slightly.
These days, there are few women capable or willing to race close to their native speed, in the Benoit way, and remember that Benoit was fundamentally not very fast, with bests of 'only' 15.30/32.00 for the 5/10k.
There are Kenyan and Ethiopian women who are probably capable of running 2.20 but it is difficult for them to get into that kind of race.
Further, the girls in Kenya and Ethiopia who have talent, tend to opt for the track distances of 1500-10,000.
It is frightening to think what a Meseret Defar or Tirunesh Dibaba could do in the marathon, based on their track times (sub. 14.20/30.00). Based on their track speed, they should, in theory, be good enough to run close to 5 minutes per mile for the classic marathon distance - giving them times in the 2:11-2:13 range, but it is unlikely we will see them race the marathon soon, when they can reap so many rewards on the track circuit, where they are at the top and hope to remain so.
In Africa, there is far less depth among female athletes compared with the men. Out of hundreds of people training in those places, women are in the minority, by far. It is still considered socially risky for females in East Africa to engage in sport on a full time basis.
Ghost in Saudi,
the african womans marathon depth is growing rapidly, from the years 1997-2009 (present) # of sub 2:30.00 ethiopian women by year.
1997-1 woman under 2:30.00
1998-1
19999-3
2000-4
2001-4
2002-6
2003-4
2004-6
2005-7
2006-7
2007-7
2008-13
2009-25 (so far this year)
notice the huge progress the last 2 years.
and if you look at their ages the african woman are on average A LOT YOUNGER than most of their competition. (the usa has 1 young female marathoner ilsa paulson) but the kenyan/ethiopian woman have many young girls in the marathon, last week a 17 year old ethiopian girl ran a 2:33,
no ethiopian woman and only 1 kenyan woman has ever run sub 2:20.00 i have a strong feeling sub 2:20 for woman will be very routine 10-15 years from now.
ghost wrote:
It is frightening to think what a Meseret Defar or Tirunesh Dibaba could do in the marathon, based on their track times (sub. 14.20/30.00). Based on their track speed, they should, in theory, be good enough to run close to 5 minutes per mile for the classic marathon distance - giving them times in the 2:11-2:13 range, but it is unlikely we will see them race the marathon soon, when they can reap so many rewards on the track circuit, where they are at the top and hope to remain so.
2:11-2:13?? That seems awfully fast. McMillan equates a 30 minute 10K with a 2:20 marathon. Taking a different approach, in the late 1940s the mens 10K WR was where the women's 10K WR is now (pause for thought: wow!). At that time the marathon WR was 2:25, shortly knocked down to 2:20 by Jim Peters.
Obviously men and women are different, training standards, money, courses were short, blah, blah, blah, but that's two different methods that say that come up with times near 2:20, so I'd say the women are doing about as well as you could expect in the marathon.
You gotta strike Paulas 2:15. Don't think she was clean then...
ghost wrote:
It is frightening to think what a Meseret Defar or Tirunesh Dibaba could do in the marathon, based on their track times (sub. 14.20/30.00). Based on their track speed, they should, in theory, be good enough to run close to 5 minutes per mile for the classic marathon distance - giving them times in the 2:11-2:13 range, but it is unlikely we will see them race the marathon soon, when they can reap so many rewards on the track circuit, where they are at the top and hope to remain so.
Ghost in Saudi,
http://www.kfupm.edu.sa
Has there ever been a man in the 14:20/30:00 range who ran close to 2:11-2:13? If there was, I'm fairly confident that he had a lot less speed than Defar and Dibaba.
I’m pretty sure that Ian Thompson, an Englishman, would have been beaten out of sight at 5000 and 10,000 on the track by the likes of Dibaba, Defar and Melkanu - but he ran a winning 2.9.12 marathon in 74.
Wrong. Ian Thompson's 5k and 10k personal bests are better than those of Dibaba, Defar and Melkamu. In fact on the 10k none of them get within 20 seconds of his best so he wouldn't exactly have been beaten out of sight.
I think Thompson's bests were around 14:10 and 29:20, and Dibaba and Defar are not that far from those times, especially in the 5000. Dibaba has quite a bit more leg speed than Thompson ever had, and that is not to detract from the accomplishments of the Luton man.
If Dibaba and Defar ran a super half marathon at their track shape best, I think they would approach 63 minutes. Going from that, they should have the capacity to run the marathon in double that time, + 8 minutes, which would give them a 2:14 time. With more specific marathon training, they might be able to go faster, and again, I am looking at 5 minutes per mile as being a possibility for those top girls.
The Japanese girls are great marathoners, but they will always be handicapped by their lack of leg speed. They do not have the power to weight dynamism that the Ethiopian girls have. Essentially, the Japanese runners are products of a tremendous training and work ethic, which focuses on time trials, repeated - until they can run prescribed pace with their eyes closed. They do more exact simulation of what they will face in races than any other nations.
I recall visiting Barry Watson, the South London school teacher, who won the British marathon trial in 1976 (ahead of Jeff Norman and Keith Angus - two northerners). He was in top shape (at around 2:15) but he could not run much faster than 29:30 for 10k track at the time, and did in fact do a time trial at Crystal Palace before the Olympic race, in which he recorded a mid 29 minutes time for 10,000 and he was all out running that. This was in conjunction with a AAA all comers meeting.
Women, compared with men, run better over longer distances relative to their native track speed. This may have a physiological reason, as women tend to have a better way of utilizing diminishing reserves over a long distance.
That is why the record for super distance Channel swimming is often little different between the top women and men.
Recently in the French 100km distance race in Millau, a woman finished 3rd overall, and went through the marathon distance not much slower than her best time....and kept going!
The point is, one should not just look at track speed when discussing predictions for the marathon. There are other variables which should be taken into account.
Ghost in Saudi,
, apply today.
You don't have to guess about Thompson's best times. They're easily available on Wikipedia.
And I do wonder how you can have "quite a bit more leg speed" and still get slower times? Are they not capable of running in a straight line?
Also, the fact that Diaba's 5k PB is quite close to Thompson's while her 10k is nowhere near his would seem to indicate that she loses speed at a higher rate than he did when the distance is increased. I'd say she's got no chance of getting anywhere near his marathon time. Not even close.