If Rowbury were to get the trifecta by breaking Slaney's 8:25.83, these critics would go silent. That looks achievable for her based on conversions, but not a slam dunk. She would need a fast race.
If Rowbury were to get the trifecta by breaking Slaney's 8:25.83, these critics would go silent. That looks achievable for her based on conversions, but not a slam dunk. She would need a fast race.
Is the thread about the fat chick that runs the 5 k?
Yeah If wrote:
The sport is lucky to have both Simpson and Rowbury, two very talented, very intelligent, quite nice people. Of course they would have their detractors here. Of course.
POD thank you, totally agree.
My apologies. I either didn't remember or didn't know all the facts, and I genuinely appreciate the thorough feedback...
...although it did come with the obligatory LRC self-righteous, condescending insult: unprovoked, inaccurate, and unnecessary. Ironically, that comment says much more about you than it does about me.
wejo wrote:
Of course Simpson isn't going to change places with her but it's still pretty cool to be the 1500 and 5000 record holder at the same time.
I think Mary Slaney had both records at once. Anyone else?
Shannon ran a smart race and was helped by Ayana not going out crazy fast the first mile.
Yeah but its women's racing. When Mary Decker was running it was still in its infancy
[quote]wejo wrote:
Of course Simpson isn't going to change places with her but it's still pretty cool to be the 1500 and 5000 record holder at the same time.
I think Mary Slaney had both records at once. Anyone else?
Mary held every AR from 800m through 10k (no steeple back then).
"Ah yes, 14:38 for 5k, now if she could run that for another 5k back to back without rest, she'd would have a silver medal from Rio."
That really puts this in perspective, still our distance runners are making some good progress.