This should not be overlooked among the performances in London. Ran pretty even splits too: 1:12:36-1:13:02.
This should not be overlooked among the performances in London. Ran pretty even splits too: 1:12:36-1:13:02.
I think it would be just fine if that is overlooked.
She ran 2:25. Almost nine minutes slower than the winner.
I will very happily overlook any mean running 2:14 today, thanks.
V nice! Really good conditions, surely a P.R. day if you were feeling it.
DQ for bad communication wrote:
I think it would be just fine if that is overlooked.
She ran 2:25. Almost nine minutes slower than the winner.
I will very happily overlook any mean running 2:14 today, thanks.
A 2:14 !?! That would be more than mean running bro.
kmaclam wrote:
DQ for bad communication wrote:I think it would be just fine if that is overlooked.
She ran 2:25. Almost nine minutes slower than the winner.
I will very happily overlook any mean running 2:14 today, thanks.
A 2:14 !?! That would be more than mean running bro.
Poster gets a "DQ for bad communication" just like his nic.
She's a weal Thweatt to the Amewican Wecod!!!
DQ for bad communication wrote:
I think it would be just fine if that is overlooked.
She ran 2:25. Almost nine minutes slower than the winner.
I will very happily overlook any mean running 2:14 today, thanks.
2:07:04 equivalent, which puts her on par with Khalid Khannouchi and Dathan Ritzenhein and tied for 15th best American performance ever (on par with Dick Beardsley).
Jonathan Gault wrote:
This should not be overlooked among the performances in London. Ran pretty even splits too: 1:12:36-1:13:02.
Thanks for noticing, a very good time indeed!
reality check. wrote:
DQ for bad communication wrote:I think it would be just fine if that is overlooked.
She ran 2:25. Almost nine minutes slower than the winner.
I will very happily overlook any mean running 2:14 today, thanks.
2:07:04 equivalent, which puts her on par with Khalid Khannouchi and Dathan Ritzenhein and tied for 5th best American performance ever (on par with Dick Beardsley).
She was almost 9 minutes off the winner. No man running 2:14 today is getting looked at. Not positively, anyway.
2:07:04 equivalent? No. That is almost exactly 4 minutes from the WR. She did not run a 2:19, did she?
Finally, where the hel are you getting KK at 2:07 from? KK ran 2:05, genius. Ritz was never "on par" with him and neither is Thweat. You must be a complete idiot to compare her to a world record runner.
reality check. wrote:
2:07:04 equivalent, which puts her on par with Khalid Khannouchi
"Reality check" this, you uninformed cretin:
http://fingerfood.typepad.com/.a/6a012875949499970c01287594ddb6970c-piDQ for bad communications wrote:
[quote]reality check. wrote:
2:07:04 equivalent, which puts her on par with Khalid Khannouchi
"Reality check" this, you uninformed cretin:
http://imgur.com/a/GkhK8According to IAAF tables Thweatt's time was 1176.5 points, equivalent to a 2:09:11 men's marathon time.
So you're at 2/10. Nice try.
reality check. wrote:
2:07:04 equivalent, which puts her on par with Khalid Khannouchi and Dathan Ritzenhein and tied for 15th best American performance ever (on par with Dick Beardsley).
This clown is comparing a woman running 2:25 to a world record men's performer.
Sorry, but that time wouldn't even make last year's top 20 . Pretty sure Khannouchi might have been #1 in the world when he ran a 2:05 world record.
All of you cucks just want to say this is a great time when it is just mediocre.
Probably equivalent to Jordan's performance.
This is a terrific performance from someone who was never expected to be an elite runner. Look at the names around her. Of course, there were great conditions and a much faster course than most Americans usually run, but give her the props. At altitude in high school, at states, she ran 2:18, 4:54 (1600), 11:03 (3200). Even in college, her pr's were only 4:21/15:57.
This is akin to maybe a 10-10:10 hs boy going on to run 2:09. Sell ran 2:10.
Elk in the Ponderosa wrote:
According to IAAF tables Thweatt's time was 1176.5 points, equivalent to a 2:09:11 men's marathon time.
So you're at 2/10. Nice try.
But, but, but wait, didn't someone just say that it was equivalent to a 2:07:04, and this "on par with Kahlid Khannouchi"?
So far the "equivalent" people are going on about two totally different subjective times, 2:07 and 2:09 (neither of which are even that impressive but never mind that).
I am going on objective FACTS, aka "real numbers": she was more than EIGHT MINUTES from the win and more than NINE MINUTES for the WR.
Sorry, geniuses, but eight minutes off the win STINKS. Nine minutes off the world record STINKS. Those would be like a 2:14 in London today (are we talking about that guy?) or a 2:12 PR (are we talking about those hundreds of guys?).
By the way, I don't get the sense that you are exactly mathematically inclined, but most tables give optimistic projections from elite women's marathon times to men's, because the women's fields are so soft historically. This is also why various tables give wildly different "equivalent" times, like your "2:07!" and "2:09!" from a 2:25. The top women's times are so sparse that until this morning the spread in just the top-4 all time was four minutes!
A realistic conversion from 2:25 would in fact be around 2:10.
sundown wrote:
in high school, at states, she ran 2:18, 4:54 (1600), 11:03 (3200). Even in college, her pr's were only 4:21/15:57.
This is akin to maybe a 10-10:10 hs boy going on to run 2:09. Sell ran 2:10.
And this is not SUSPICIOUS to you?
Cucks just want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong!
Cool point. We all know that women's athletics lacks depth. We know that the top Americans are miles behind the world's elite in the women's distance events. This is LRC not Runner's World. We follow the sport. You don't get a cookie and you don't have any special insight. We get it.
This doesn't mean that we can't get excited about US #7 All-Time from some "blue collar, B-lister". We can get excited because it's exciting for hardcore fans. Just like an an unexpected 2:12 from and American man would be exciting. Take a hike.
Men's 100m WR = 9.58
Women's 100m WR = 10.49
(0.91 per 100m)
Men's 200m WR = 19.19
Women's 200m WR = 21.34
(2.15 total. 1.125 per 100m)
Men's 400m WR = 43.03
Women's 800m WR = 47.60
(4.57 total, 1.12 per 100m)
Men's 800m WR = 1:40.91
Women's 800m WR = 1:53.28
(12.37 total. 1.546 per 100m)
Men's 1500m WR = 3:26.00
Women's 1500m WR = 3:50.07
(24.07 total. 1.60 per 100m)
Men's 5000m WR = 12:37.35
Women's 5000m WR = 14:11.15
(93.8 total. 1.87 per 100m)
Men's 10000m WR = 26:17.53
Women's 10000m WR = 29:17.45
(179.92 total. 1.799 per 100m)
Men's Marathon WR = 2:02:57
Women's Marathon WR = 2:15:25
(748 total. 1.77 per 100m)
This is a long drawn out way to point out that the 5k, 10k, and marathon WR for men and women are between 1.77 and 1.87 per 100m. So, the poster that says the performance is closer to a 2:14 equivalent for men is correct. The fact that it may not appear that way on the depth chart doesn't make it the same quality of performance.
And depending on how you digest information.
You could use this as either for or against Paula.
On one hand, she is able to maintain the same quality of performance when compared to men and no other women are. On the other hand, it could indicate that her performance isn't a statistical outlier when both sexes are considered.
The difference between Paula and the next person could be indicative of lower participation levels on the women's side.