Shannon Rowbury Sub 4 in Paris?

looking ahead, will this be broadcast/shown anywhere? doesn't look like wcsn will have it. (or the italy meet)

I don't know whether Rowbury will run sub 4 in Paris, although running an 800 before that can only help. I did think, however, that her Trials race was superb, and that she has not received enough credit for it. On a very windy day she ran 4:05.58, with a 2:05.58 last 800 and 1:01.28 (30.11, 31.17) 400, by herself.

Ruth Wysocki wrote:

I'd love to see it, but the reality is that the first European race, being this close to the trials, may not be her best effort for the summer. It's tough to come down emotionally from the trials, regroup, travel to Europe, adjust to the time change, etc., and rip off a good one the first time out.

Ruth is correct, that's generally how it works, but based Shannon's last 800 in the OT, I would say she is in sub-4 shape right now.

doug burke wrote:

ruth wysocki's time of 4:00.18 is the 92nd fastest womens time in history the 92nd fastest 1500 by a man is 3:32.84 that in my view is what the time is worth

Based on your figures, the 92nd-fastest woman is 9.72 secs behind the world record of 3:50.46.

The 92nd-fastest man is 6.84 secs behind the world record of 3:26.00.

It's obvious that the men's field is deeper than the women's, so your simple extrapolation needs a bit of tweaking.

Mathematically challenged wrote:

Based on your figures, the 92nd-fastest woman is 9.72 secs behind the world record of 3:50.46.

The 92nd-fastest man is 6.84 secs behind the world record of 3:26.00.

It's obvious that the men's field is deeper than the women's, so your simple extrapolation needs a bit of tweaking.

Just do it off of percentages. The women's 92 fastest is 4.22% slower than the WR. The men's 92nd fastest is 3.32% slower. If you use the women's percent for the men's record you get a comparable performance of 3:34.69.

haha, YO wrote:

Just do it off of percentages. The women's 92 fastest is 4.22% slower than the WR. The men's 92nd fastest is 3.32% slower. If you use the women's percent for the men's record you get a comparable performance of 3:34.69.

Gosh, I never would have thought of that. Thanks!!!

Ruth Wysocki wrote:

I have no need to self promote. My running career has been over for 10 years. I am definitely a fan of Shannon Rowbury, and have waited years for an American female to step up to the plate again. I was simply stating my opinion. I think she needs a sub-2:00 for the confidence to run with the top runners, and a little more experience head-to-head with them. If it doesn't happen now, so what. She's young, has a great coach, and a bright future. As for jokes, the all capitals sort of indicated that it was not a joke at all. Besides, 4:00 as a guy doesn't mean a whole lot.

Ruth,

As the old saying goes, "It ain't braggin' if you can do it." It's great to get some insights from someone who has been there and got the tee-shirt, nay, medals to prove it.

Their is a slight problem in comparing 3:26 to 3:50. 3:50 is one of the notorious Chinese records which only one "woman*" has run, whereas 3:26 or equivalent has been run by several men (probably at least one clean).

* I use the term in quotes as they were biochemically androgenous at best

If anyone listened to the John Cook podcast a while back, he indicated he pretty much trained both Shalane and Shannon right through the trials. He felt both were pretty sure shots to make the team without being in peak form. He said Donohue, on the other hand, had to peak perfectly to make the team (because she was on the bubble)and he indicated she was definitely peaking for the trials and it appeared to pay off for her. If what he said is true about Shannon, then she still may have some of her best races ahead of her this season. Let's hope so.

I wonder why send her to Europe at all. I understand that she is still young and her recent US races haven't been the most challenging, but I'm not sure that living out of a suitcase and racing for a month will improve her chances at the show more than staying at home would...

Mathematically challenged wrote:

Gosh, I never would have thought of that. Thanks!!!

No prob, bro. I figured your handle would be accurate.

haha, YO wrote:

No prob, bro. I figured your handle would be accurate.

You're good at math AND witty!

4runner wrote:

I wonder why send her to Europe at all. I understand that she is still young and her recent US races haven't been the most challenging, but I'm not sure that living out of a suitcase and racing for a month will improve her chances at the show more than staying at home would...

To get sharp, a fast race, racing in a pack and 5 weeks is long time to go w/o a race at this point in the season.

4runner wrote:

I wonder why send her to Europe at all. I understand that she is still young and her recent US races haven't been the most challenging, but I'm not sure that living out of a suitcase and racing for a month will improve her chances at the show more than staying at home would...

They wouldn't stay home if they weren't in Europe. They (Cook's athletes) would be in Mexico for altitude training. Altitude training.

I think Shannon could go sub-4 right now, but might be sandbagging a little so she keeps the target off her back.

john cook interview wrote:

If anyone listened to the John Cook podcast a while back, he indicated he pretty much trained both Shalane and Shannon right through the trials. He felt both were pretty sure shots to make the team without being in peak form. He said Donohue, on the other hand, had to peak perfectly to make the team (because she was on the bubble)and he indicated she was definitely peaking for the trials and it appeared to pay off for her. If what he said is true about Shannon, then she still may have some of her best races ahead of her this season. Let's hope so.

To add to this, if I understand all the bullshit and interviews correctly, Rowbury and Donohue had been on a track approximately ONCE in the several months leadin into USATF Indoors this year. Rowbury closed in about 60-61 anyway to win the 3,000. Her finishes at Pre, in Palo Alto, at at the Trials have been just as sinister and decisive. She has negative-split every race she's been in this year over 800 meters by a strikin amount. She has high-thrust jets that just haven't been tested yet.

She would probably run 3:59 in a race where people in front of her ran 64/2:09/3:14 and set her up for it, but so far she doesn't know what it's like to be hurting by 1000-1100 meters so who knows.

Ruth:

It is rare that someone of your caliber will come on here and legitimately identify themself and we appreciate that. Tremendous fan of yours. Would you be willing to give your take on Suzy's career, her talent level, do you think she could have gone any faster possibly than she did etc. etc.?

Note only any the claim to self-promotion wrong, or any attempt at humor a failing one, it is significant to note that Ruth is one of the most impressive people who has ever given to the sport. And her assertion as to not to force things is a valuable piece of advice to runners of both genders - a lack of patience has frustrated all too many in this sport.

Shannon Rowbury has patience and her level head keeps things in perspective.

Whether or not she breaks four this year is yet to be seen, but she has proven to everyone that she is a force to be reckoned with.