Kelly Jaske story

I said 10% rule because I meant 10% rule.

What you people are not realizing is that the "conversion" between men and women doesn't follow a linear conversion.. it is exponential (meaning you can't just add a certain amount to any old time, it varies based on the times).

Kelly Jaske didn't come out of nowhere...noone does.

She has been racing marathons since 2000....that's 8 years ago.

This 1:12 half marathon should be no huge surprise...she has been laying a foundation for 8 years.

Well, up until 2007, she wasn't breaking 3:40 in the marathon, so yeah....this is a huge surprise.

silly old fossil wrote:

Kelly Jaske didn't come out of nowhere...noone does.

Hey, I didn't exactly come out of nowhere.

silly old fossil wrote:

Kelly Jaske didn't come out of nowhere...noone does.

She has been racing marathons since 2000....that's 8 years ago.

This 1:12 half marathon should be no huge surprise...she has been laying a foundation for 8 years.

Exactly! How long has been been doing 120 mile weeks? That just didn't come out of nowhere, either.

I like this story. Just think of all the 3:40-marathon-off-of-40-mpw people out there that have no idea what they could be doing on 120 mile weeks. I'm inspired!

Miss Ogynist wrote:

Great story about Kelly Jaske on the home page.

The underlying message however is that there is no depth in women's running in this country. You can start in this sport in your 30s and after just a short time serious training you can make the national team.

I have no doubt that Kelly Jaske is a great talent and deserves her success, but still. Its a little embarassing for the sport that such a novice is wearging a USA singlet.

Embarassing is when your woman's distance team comes home with World and Olympic medals and your men's team comes home empty-handed yet again.

Miss Ogynist wrote:

Great story about Kelly Jaske on the home page.

The underlying message however is that there is no depth in women's running in this country. You can start in this sport in your 30s and after just a short time serious training you can make the national team.

I have no doubt that Kelly Jaske is a great talent and deserves her success, but still. Its a little embarassing for the sport that such a novice is wearging a USA singlet.

Or how about this. Emrbarassing is when you're a man and disguise yourself as a woman to post on Letsrun.

if there was really no depth, than why don't we see more women running these times. Clearly, it's not that easy. These women are working their butts off to get to where they're at.

and yes, you can't compare men's times with women's. that's absurd; so of course there is depth.

here is a list of top half marathon times for women in 2008:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2857666&page=1

if she runs under 70 minutes that will be a big deal because only 5 american women have done that (6 if you count colleen de reuck at 70 flat). that includes 3 pretty big names in joan, deena, and kara.

the women's field at houston was weak, there is no arguing that especially compared to the men's race.

not so far buddy wrote:

"The Mercier 2005 scoring tables were determined using the Mercier-Beauregard method (see here) and the world rankings for 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. The IAAF 2005 scores were taken from the scoring tables used for the IAAF World Rankings (see here). We should note that the Mercier 2005 scoring tables are the only tables developed for comparing performances between men and women."

Even after it was updated in 2005, the Mercier calculator was just a crude little device that was nowhere close to accurate in comparing male and female performances. As the Mercier calculator itself shows, the 2005 IAAF scoring tables showed a woman's 1:12:06 at the level of a man's 1:03:31. The current IAAF scoring tables score a woman's 1:12:06 at the level of a man's 1:03:37 or 1:03:38. I probably would have guessed it to be closer to the level of a man's 1:05, as another poster suggested, but I'm not going to quarrel with the assessment of the IAAF, which goes to great lengths to fine-tune its tables each year.

Kelly Jaske was running recreationally during college, and I believe she was doing some racing during law school, from which she graduated in 2002. I'm not sure where the original poster got the idea that she didn't start running until she was in her thirties. The article probably overstated the whole "novice coming out of nowhere" theme, as such articles tend to do. Often, these are simply cases of people who have been training hard for some time but are not (yet) fixtures on the "racing circuit." Ms. Jaske was an associate at Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C., for a while, so I doubt that she was in a position to go flying off to races very often. Life in Oregon should be much more conducive to consistent training and racing, if that's what she wants.

Who cares about the tables and converting the time into a men's equivalent. That is all completely meaningless. When you look at the major international half marathons, you will see that Jaske is well within the competitive mix. If she could improve a bit and run a 70-71, she would have a good chance to beat all but a small handful of women distance runners in the world. And you cannot compare the depth of the men's and women's field in distance running in the US or internationally. Women weren't even allowed to run the marathon at the olympics until 1984. Also, a lot of women give up on distance running to have children. And in countries like Ethiopia, women, expecially in rural areas, are culturally expected to stay in the home and raise children.

My Dear Miss Ogynist,

Unfortunately, you seem to be viewing Kelly through green goggles.

Perhaps she did come out of "nowhere" for the rest of the country, but those who know her and her work ethic know better.

And to be an embarassment for the USA to have her wear the USA singlet, I don't think so.

This is AMERICA, the land of where dreams can and do come true. Dreams reached do not have a timeable.

Dreams built upon hard work, the desire to achieve fueled by self-discipline and goals brings out ones greatness, whether or not it earns the USA singlet.

Kelly, way to go! CONGRATULATIONS!

I'd enjoy going for a run with you on the Charles...my old stomping grounds.

Avocados Number wrote:

Even after it was updated in 2005, the Mercier calculator was just a crude little device that was nowhere close to accurate in comparing male and female performances. As the Mercier calculator itself shows, the 2005 IAAF scoring tables showed a woman's 1:12:06 at the level of a man's 1:03:31. The current IAAF scoring tables score a woman's 1:12:06 at the level of a man's 1:03:37 or 1:03:38. I probably would have guessed it to be closer to the level of a man's 1:05, as another poster suggested, but I'm not going to quarrel with the assessment of the IAAF, which goes to great lengths to fine-tune its tables each year.

From the IAAF scoring tables:

"Due to obvious biological differences, we do not propose to fully compare men’s and women’s performances. Thus, the system contains scoring tables for men’s and women’s events."

Again, Mercier is the only valid tool to compare men and women times.

Only on this website could you have people hating on an individual who worked their butt off to run an outstanding time.

If I remember correctly, The Wejo Brothers and J.K. are huge supporters of the high mileage/slow pace development of a runner. It seems to me as if Kelly Jaske is the epitome of this idea with her 120 mile weeks and now that she dropped a massive time, the haters are out and trying to discredit her.

I would venture to say 95% of the MEN posting on the boards can't break 1:15 (I certainly can't). Also, people are saying the field in Houston was weak. I dont think that necessarily matters because in the end, the actual performance is what counts, not who was/was not racing that day.

While people certainly have their rights on whether or not to admire Ms. Jaske, I think we should refrain from trying to take away from an awesome accomplishment.

- Philip Passen

NYC

Central High 1988 wrote:

an individual who worked their butt off

"her butt off"

Central High 1988 wrote:

Only on this website could you have people hating on an individual who worked their butt off to run an outstanding time.

Hating? I'm not sure what thread you're reading, but I've not seen anyone "hating on" her. Quit being so dramatic.

closet case wrote:

Central High 1988 wrote:

Only on this website could you have people hating on an individual who worked their butt off to run an outstanding time.

Hating? I'm not sure what thread you're reading, but I've not seen anyone "hating on" her. Quit being so dramatic.

Agreed, No one (and noone) is hating on Kelly. I believe everyone is quite impressed with her half and her as a person.

As someone else already mentioned, regardless of what table or conversion you use, her time would put her in the front pack of some BIG races world wide.

I've used the WMA age graded tables to convert times from male to female and found them to be pretty accurate. That table gives KJ a 1:04:40

Of course no conversion method is foolproof.

The larger question is how good is Kelly now and how good will she get?

Right now she is one of top American women distance runners.

I suspect that she will get better and we could well see her represent the USA in London in 2012.