Didn’t Thompson run in together with Simmons at the Walton 10 mile road race in under 47 minutes when he was at his best?
No women would get anywhere near that time on a 10 miler.
Didn’t Thompson run in together with Simmons at the Walton 10 mile road race in under 47 minutes when he was at his best?
No women would get anywhere near that time on a 10 miler.
ghost wrote:
Not true about the African women not working hard enough for the marathon. I was in Iten and Eldoret (Kenya) last year, and also visited Addis Abeba and Assela (Ethiopia), and believe me, the women are putting in the miles.
There are not that many races where women have the chance to run that fast. In a women's only race, the kind you have in Japan, it is unlikely for women to 'race' at sub. 2.20 speed, because it is simply not necessary.
Back in the early 80's when Benoit ran 2.23, and then 2.21, she was racing men, and going out at around 5.05-5.10 mile speed....then blowing up slightly.
These days, there are few women capable or willing to race close to their native speed, in the Benoit way, and remember that Benoit was fundamentally not very fast, with bests of 'only' 15.30/32.00 for the 5/10k.
There are Kenyan and Ethiopian women who are probably capable of running 2.20 but it is difficult for them to get into that kind of race.
Further, the girls in Kenya and Ethiopia who have talent, tend to opt for the track distances of 1500-10,000.
It is frightening to think what a Meseret Defar or Tirunesh Dibaba could do in the marathon, based on their track times (sub. 14.20/30.00). Based on their track speed, they should, in theory, be good enough to run close to 5 minutes per mile for the classic marathon distance - giving them times in the 2:11-2:13 range, but it is unlikely we will see them race the marathon soon
I'm still not convinced the African women, with their greater or equal leg speed, train as hard and methodically as Paula (14:29/30:01/2:15)/Deena (14:51/30:50/2:19)/Mikitenko (14:42/31:29/2:19)/Noguchi (15:30/31:21/2:19)/and the list goes on. Catherine Ndereba is the exception for the Africans, proven she's put in the work (15:27/31:02 roads/2:18:47). Everyone speaks of "wait until Defar/Dibaba run a marathon", but Adere (14:29/30:04) is still 5 min. off of Paula (who has equivalent leg speed). I won't believe they can surpass Paula until they actually run the marathon. Even Lornah Kiplagat (30:12/2:22) falls behind Joan B. on the All-time list (!), and Lornah has been a prolific marathoner for a long time. So to say the women are not getting the same opportunities as the men is a cop-out. I stand my ground. The marathon requires work, not just talent.
http://www.arrs.net/AllTime/AL_Mara.htmNutella1 wrote:
You gotta strike Paulas 2:15. Don't think she was clean then...
She was clean, get used to it. Some runners just have more dedication than you can ever dream about.
a single perspective wrote:
weIInow wrote:50 years ago, the men's record was slower than Paula's 2.15.25 and if anyone had predicted such a fast time by a woman, they would have been laughed at etc. Not humanaly possible for a woman to run under 2.45 or whatever imagainary limit they had in their heads.
They have a lot more data to work with now compared to 50 years ago. Esp. the women's side.
*********************************************
Many people are cynical. That negatively affects their judgement. They were then, they are now.
I also recall Thompson running some 1500 league races for his club in the Southern British League. His times in those races were ususally in the 3:55-4:05 range, and of course, he did not rest up for those events, logging mileage in the morning.
People generally agree that Paula is a phenomenally hard worker in athletics, and she got the most out of her ability.
The point I was making was that some of the Ethiopian and Kenyan girls have the potential to run close to Paula's time, or better. If you do not agree with this - then Paula must have an extraordinary physical advantage which other women do not posssess - but I don't see why that would be true.
About 10-15 years ago, the Kenyan men were not nearly as dominant (depth wise) as they are now, and they were non contenders in the big championship races. Then a change came in the mid 90's and from then on, the depth increased and hundreds and hundreds of Kenyan men started turning out world class times, in Europe and other countries. This opened the floodgates and inspired others to emulate their brothers.
This phenomenon has still not come about with the Kenyan and Ethiopian women, and the depth in East Africa is not nearly as deep. It is only a matter of time, however, when the women start increasing their participation and the times will fall.
Ghost in Saudi,
ghost wrote:
The point I was making was that some of the Ethiopian and Kenyan girls have the potential to run close to Paula's time, or better... This phenomenon has still not come about with the Kenyan and Ethiopian women, and the depth in East Africa is not nearly as deep. It is only a matter of time, however, when the women start increasing their participation and the times will fall.
Ghost in Saudi,
http://www.kfupm.edu.sa
They HAVE the potential, but the Africans with the greatest potential haven't matched it when they've ventured to the marathon. Those who have matched or exceeded their potential obviously put in the work to do so. I disagree that it's a depth issue, as many of the all-time best 5K/10K women (already mentioned) HAVE gone to the marathon and still lag behind (esp. the African women). It will be interesting to see how Liliya Shobukhova develops in the marathon.
The Kenyan girls tend to have rather bouncy strides, which may cause tiredness in the marathon, but that does not stop Geb. from being the best. Also many men run that way. The Kenyan guy who seriously challenged Sihine in that 15km in Holland had phenomenally
The Ethiopian girls generally have lower back leg lift, and may be more suited to the marathon.
It looks like Paula was way ahead of her time, and it will be years before we see tons of girls approaching 2:15. This might never happen in our lifetime.
When 2:30 was the mark to beat, eventually many girls did it.
The psychological side is very important in running.
Ghost in Saudi,
I found a link to the article I read earlier:
http://footloose.runnersworld.com/2009/02/mark-denny-a-ge.html
This guy did a mathematical extrapolation from year's best times to come up with his maximum values, and Paula's time is 0.36% off his max.
He is talking nonsense to say that Paula's 2.15.25 is just 0.36% off the limit of what a woman can do.
The current best times will be obliterated as men and women learn to cope with a longer stride.
I can see men running 4.20 per mile in the marathon eventually, 1.53 for a man, and 2.03 for a woman.
One area where obvious improvements could be made is in shoe design, instead of running in shoes designed to absorb shock, which just slows us down, we should have shoes which transfer shock into propulsion. A simple design would suffice, not like those over designed ridiculously over priced shoes named after a certain genius physicist.
boobies man, boobies are the reason.
This has been tried a lot of times by shoe companies. Adidas pro plates, Brooks propulsion plates, and Spira spring shoes. For some reason Adidas and Brooks did continue their designs suggestign that maybe the propulsion idea did not work very well with current technology. The less said about Spira shoes the better.
weIInow wrote:
One area where obvious improvements could be made is in shoe design, instead of running in shoes designed to absorb shock, which just slows us down, we should have shoes which transfer shock into propulsion. A simple design would suffice, not like those over designed ridiculously over priced shoes named after a certain genius physicist.
YES, I started a thread about this a few weeks ago, but no one cared to respond. The propulson doesn't need to be generated from a shoe, but rather by utilizing the muscles and tendons in our feet/ankles. I would start by cutting out the heel lift in shoes (0 lift in flats) to get a greater stretch on the Achilles (greater propulsion at the ankle = longer stride length). Road flats should be track spikes with a road sole and 0 heel lift. The midsole is unimportant to a shoe because you adapt your stride to cushion the impact (learn to land lighter). It's a mistake to think the body can't adapt and NEEDS the cushioning, even on man-made surfaces. The body can cushion itself if you let it.
generic runner wrote:
This has been tried a lot of times by shoe companies. Adidas pro plates, Brooks propulsion plates, and Spira spring shoes. For some reason Adidas and Brooks did continue their designs suggestign that maybe the propulsion idea did not work very well with current technology. The less said about Spira shoes the better.
The reason why these designs don't work is because they are too gimmicky, and try to incorporate over comlicated designs. If they used natural rubber in more inventive ways, they could produce a more springy shoe that feels like a cushioned shoe.
I have something similar in the Asics tai chi, and these are very fast on grass and track but not really on roads, where they feel too different from racing flats.
http://www.zappos.com/n/p/p/7165605.htmlYES wrote:
YES, I started a thread about this a few weeks ago, but no one cared to respond. The propulson doesn't need to be generated from a shoe, but rather by utilizing the muscles and tendons in our feet/ankles. I would start by cutting out the heel lift in shoes (0 lift in flats) to get a greater stretch on the Achilles (greater propulsion at the ankle = longer stride length). Road flats should be track spikes with a road sole and 0 heel lift. The midsole is unimportant to a shoe because you adapt your stride to cushion the impact (learn to land lighter). It's a mistake to think the body can't adapt and NEEDS the cushioning, even on man-made surfaces. The body can cushion itself if you let it.
So are you a fan of the tai chi's also? They are much lighter if you replace the insole with eva, but then they lose the rebound that you get from the natural rubber insole and so they are not as fast.
So whilst I agree with most of what you wrote, you can get even more propulsion from these shoes.
If a shoe company adapted this for a running shoe, then the results could be very impressive I'm sure.
The answer to this question is fairly obvious- it's because 2:20 is fast. You may as well ask why we see so few sub 2:06 from men?
MarathonMind wrote:
The answer to this question is fairly obvious- it's because 2:20 is fast. You may as well ask why we see so few sub 2:06 from men?
This is a fairly obvious point. But I really do think that boobies also enter into the equation. It has been scientifically shown that men do not have boobies and women do. Coincidence?
I haven't tried the Tai Chis. Are you talking about putting like a flat Spenco insole in them? I've been experimenting with the Vibrams. They take some getting used to, but have no midsole (just the Vibram sole). You feel a remarkable difference when you're running fast in them (vs. a traditional road flat). You really can feel everything in the feet/ankles stretching, as you'd feel running barefoot on grass. I haven't given them a whirl yet in an actual workout. This is my idea for the future (along with the Tai Chis). Create a shoe that works with the feet and maximizes their potential.
MarathonMind wrote:
The answer to this question is fairly obvious- it's because 2:20 is fast. You may as well ask why we see so few sub 2:06 from men?
The Paris marathon is a second-tier race that was won in 2:05.
It takes world-class competition and more to get women to go sub-2:20.
The Paris Marathon this year ended with a sprint between an Ethiopian and a Kenyan- one of them coming in just under 2:06.
They were motivated to win a 50,000 Euro 1st prize. I guess that's second tier.
sub 2:06 has been attained 24 times by men, 12 of those times the past 2 years. So as of 2007 there were 12 sub 2:06 and 11 sub 2:20 for the women. Considering a greater depth in the men's field, 2:20 for the women is probably not as demanding a standard as sub 2:06, but they are close.
thinking on a rainy day... wrote:
The Paris marathon is a second-tier race that was won in 2:05.
It takes world-class competition and more to get women to go sub-2:20.
Except that Chunxiu Zhou went sub-2:20 in Korea.
"Except that she's dirty like the other Chinese woman."
Except that she has a Japanese coach.