It was good enough for the BIG check...that's all that counts today.
It was good enough for the BIG check...that's all that counts today.
Hearing Impaired wrote:
Like Eyestone, who is not screeching?
Because Ed is a man.
Exactly. Now we're in agreement.
This is the email address for NBC 4 in LA:
We need to flood them with thank you notes if we want to see more of this in the future.
Just sent NBC 4 a thank you note and got an immediate reply. Let them know you appreciated the coverage so they will do this again next year.
It was great! I sent an email! :D
Though I have Windows Media Player, I haven't been able to view the LA Marathon. Anyway I would like to at least see the results since I coach a runner who is in the race. Any ideas? Thank you.
whhaaaat? wrote:
A 2:25 for a woman is not near as good as a 2:08 for a man.
Actually, a 2:25 for a woman IS a better performance than a 2:08 for a man, according to 3 of the 4 conversion calculators.
According to marathonguide:
2:25 for a woman= 2:07:54 for a man.
http://www.marathonguide.com/FitnessCalcs/ageequivalent.cfmAccording to the Mercier Scoring Table:
2:25 for a woman= 2:06:37 for a man.
http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/Mercier/index.htmlAccording to this calculator:
2:25 for a woman= 2:06:27 for a man (Mercier 2005)
2:25 for a woman= 2:09:28 for a man (IAAF 2005)
http://www.slsathletisme.com/calculateur/calcEN.phpWell in 2005 12 men ran inside 2:08 and 16 women ran inside 2:25.
Most of those calculators don't take into account how much womens marathon running has advanced.
Of course 2:08 is a better time for a man than 2:25 for a woman.
so 2:15 for a woman is worth better than 1:59 for a man?
I think those calculators are dumb. That's what I think.
that calculator is cracked; Paula's 2:15 is supposedly a 1:59 full for a guy!
jaguar1 wrote:
whhaaaat? wrote:A 2:25 for a woman is not near as good as a 2:08 for a man.
Actually, a 2:25 for a woman IS a better performance than a 2:08 for a man, according to 3 of the 4 conversion calculators.
According to marathonguide:
2:25 for a woman= 2:07:54 for a man.
http://www.marathonguide.com/FitnessCalcs/ageequivalent.cfmAccording to the Mercier Scoring Table:
2:25 for a woman= 2:06:37 for a man.
http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/Mercier/index.htmlAccording to this calculator:
2:25 for a woman= 2:06:27 for a man (Mercier 2005)
2:25 for a woman= 2:09:28 for a man (IAAF 2005)
http://www.slsathletisme.com/calculateur/calcEN.php
Nope, Jaguar, 2:08 is better than 2:25. One is 4 minutes off the WR, the other is 10min off. Simple math. Conversion tables are dumb. Just because there is only few women out there that train REALLY hard (just like men do, so for them sub 2:20 should be as regular as sub 2:10 for men), doesn't mean than in few year there won't be plentiful of them.
Bottom line, conversion tables are still taking account that there are only few women competing out there. Not true for at least 15 years. My comparisons start from the WR and how far they are from it.
Seems fair to link the big bonus to the specific course being run. This year none of the athletes had a problem with the differential, and such a close finish validated it. As long as the field quality is equal in strength, it works. Don't know what they'd do if Paula Radcliffe ever decided to enter, though.
ronin wrote:
Nope, Jaguar, 2:08 is better than 2:25. One is 4 minutes off the WR, the other is 10min off. Simple math. Conversion tables are dumb. Just because there is only few women out there that train REALLY hard (just like men do, so for them sub 2:20 should be as regular as sub 2:10 for men), doesn't mean than in few year there won't be plentiful of them.
Bottom line, conversion tables are still taking account that there are only few women competing out there. Not true for at least 15 years. My comparisons start from the WR and how far they are from it.
No, you can't use the World Records to make judgement. Some women defy the 'norm' for a woman. Smaller hips, less body fat. The closest person to Paula Radcliffe's World Record is over 3 min. back (2:18:47, Ndereba). There are approximately 42 'performances' by women equivalent to or better than the world record for men, according to the Mercier calculator. These women not only train hard, but having the right genetics probably factors, moreso, than it does for men.