Mary Decker's 3:57.12 - will it go this year?

Joyce James wrote:

As stated earlier, huge difference between low 3:57 and 3:59. That's a huge drop in a race that lasts less than 4 minutes.

No, it's not, don't be so ridiculous. The American record should be much closer to 3.50

If Zola Budd could run 3.59 as a Junior (19 year old) asnd couldn't break 2.00 for 800m, then more women should be under 3.55 - in this I agree with wellnow. That there aren't enough talented women pushing to run this is why it doesn't happen, not that the talent doesn't exist.

Twell ran barely under 2.03 recently, yet ran 4.03 for 1500m last year, so a similarly fit women (as wellnow says) who can run 1.58.0 might be capable of 3.53, and that likley only requires a 400m capability of 55-56 seconds.

The US, given the numbers of girls running at HS/College levels, should have dozens knocking on the door of 4.00 - the system doesn't promote this however. If some as talented as Phoebe Price doesn't get to that level, then one has to wonder at the coaching development. Too many leave it in College with poorly planned out seasons that don't allow for individuals to develop to their potential.

Budd-light wrote:who can run 1.58.0 might be capable of 3.53, and that likley only requires a 400m capability of 55-56 seconds

no chance

you are talkin wangesque

try

55 - 56 / 1'58

here ( with concomitant potential 3k ability )

Joyce James wrote:

As stated earlier, huge difference between low 3:57 and 3:59. That's a huge drop in a race that lasts less than 4 minutes.

it's not that it is a huge drop. it is not. Runners often hit what will be there lifetime bests with drops as big as that or more. Look at Solinsky and Ritz in the five (incidentally, I just saw that Teg result in the NYC meet and at three three six, he is going to be ready by pre). It is a difference of basically half a second per lap. The reason that it is going to be very, very hard to get is that several of them, if not all of them, were likely maxed out for their life at three fifty nine. It is not as if they got there early in their career and have had a string of performances there. If one of them can get to one fifty eight, and there is someone out there strong enough to lead a race to three fifty six, then it's a possibility.

Yes it could. Drugs -- I doubt it? The fact that (most) runners are incapable of being ambassadors of a sport has a lot to do with it. When was the last time there was a Prefontaine and a Shorter? I think there are a few out there now, they just have to embrass it.

I think Decker-Slaney first dropped under 4:00 in 1980, around the age of 22, so she was fairly young. During her career, when she ran the 1500 (and was healthy and not coming off injury), if she wasn't under 4:00 she was in the 4:00-4:03 range fairly consistently, and in many of those races she was running alone. The lady who starts running 4:00 flat (or near it) almost every time out will be the one who breaks Decker-Slaney's record. Just my opinion....

It doesn't seem so this year looking at the times run so far this year.

Maybe, if they run it in europe.

I've been waiting for years for Mary's '84 2000 record to go. It's 5:32.??. Any of the sub-4 women last year could have taken down the softer 2000m. And it would be a credit to the athlete when in shoe contract negotiations.

As stated there is no way in hell these women get there. How many of these women have even run under 4 twice? Not going to happen. As the esteemed gentleman mentioned earlier. 3:59 is the max that most of them will ever run. That is hell of a big difference from running as many sub 4's as Mary and Suzy ran.

Absolutely not. 3:57.12 is a world away from a 3:59 and change. At the highest levels of the sport, as times creep down, every tenth of a second becomes a major hurdle. This record has stood the test of time because it is, in fact, one of Slaney's best performances, along with her 4:17 indoor record on an oversized track.

Absolutely not. 3:57.12 is a world away from a 3:59 and change. At the highest levels of the sport, as times creep down, every tenth of a second becomes a major hurdle. This record has stood the test of time because it is, in fact, one of Slaney's best performances, along with her 4:17 indoor record on an oversized track.

Who cares it is all drugs!

Pierce says she has the capacity to run 50-flat for 400 (http://racingnews.runnersworld.com/2010/06/a-brief-chat-with-anna-pierce.html). She hasn't had as much success in important meets as Rowbury, but I think she's the best candidate to run below 3:58. I think she'll do it this year or next. Wouldn't surprise me if she breaks the record.

I read her interview too.

50 flat

Sub 1:57

Sub 3:57

Until she achieves these times, they are simply words coming out of her mouth.

I also read information about her coach (Terence Mahon) as it pertains to the work he does with Ryan Hall. His philosophy is that times and performances will never happen unless you convince yourself that you are capable and envision yourself running those times. I'm sure he applies that philosophy to all of his athletes.

As a result, a lot of Mahon's athletes talk about the amazing things that they are going to accomplish. Unfortunately, when they don't happen the athletes are perceived as and/or perceive themselves as failures.

Some athletes have very high goals, but they prefer to keep them to themselves and let their performances do the talking.

No way will it be broken, decker was a tough mother f***er but she did cry when she got knocked over by budd that was kind of like acting like a retard..........

50.0 is a joke

if she had 50.0 & the following 1500 ability simultaneously, this is what it -> for 800

50.00 with

4'00 ->1'54.7

3'59 ->1'54.4

3'58 ->1'54.2

3'57 ->1'53.9

no chance

I agree that some of the Mammoth folks sometimes run their mouths a little too much before performances. Maybe she can run 50, maybe she can't. But I think she will run faster than Mary Decker's time this year or next. If she doesn't, someone else will. As for the difference between 3:59 and 3:57, that doesn't seem insurmountable at all given the right conditions and the fact that these women have great training resources.

To say that a 2-3 second PR at this level is unachiveable is ludacris. That happens quite often in American records in the 1500 and mile. I personally beleive it is very psossible since we have the fastest group of american female milers ever. I am not saying that any of these girls will for sure break the record but am arguing that 2-3 seconds is not that far off from one season to another.

Several exaples follow:

As already mentioned Suzy went from 4:03 to 3:58

Slaney was the first women ever to run under 4:20 when she ran a 4:17.5 in the mile.

When Webb and Steve Scott ran their mile American records running 2 seconds faster than either had any other season.

When EL G ran his world record in the 1500 he nearly ran 3 seconds faster than he ran any season before that.

Steve Cram nearly had a 3 second PR in 1985 in the 1500 and the and the mile when he ran to world records.

Sub-3:57 doesn't necessarily take sub-2:00 speed, but almost all of those who have done it had it and then some. Look at the all-time world and U.S. 1500 lists, then look at the runner's 800 PRs. I couldn't find a couple (**).

With the exception of Ayhan, almost all under 3:57 have run 1:58.xx or faster. Of the current crop of U.S. runners, only Pierce is close to that. She's also the only recent addition to the all-time U.S. performance list, as Slaney and Favor-Hamilton have nine of the top-10 marks.

All-time top-10

1. Tatyana Kazankina 3:52.47 (1:54.94)

2. Paula Ivan 3:53.96 (1:56.42)

3.Olga Dvirna 3:54.23 (1:56.90)

4. Haaisba Boulmerka 3:55.30 (1:58.72)

5. Sureyya Ayhan 3:55.60 (2:00.64)

6. Yulia Fomenko 3:55.68 (1:57.07)

7. Zamira Zaytseva 3:56.14 (**)

8. Marym Jamal 3:56.18 (1:57.89)

9. Yelena Soboleva 3.56.18 (1:57.28)

10,Tatyana Pozdnyakova 3:56.50 (**)

U.S. top-10

1. Mary Slaney 3:57.12 (1:56.90)

2. Suzy Favor-Hamilton 3:57.40 (1:58.10)

3. Anna Pierce 3:59.38 (1:58.80)

4. Jenny Barringer 3:59.90 (2:02.12)

5. Cristin Wurth-Thomas 3:59.98 (1:59.35)

6. Ruth Wysocki 4:00.18 (2:06.15)

7. Shannon Robury 4:00.33 (2:00.94)

8. Regina Jacobs 4:00.35 (1:58.08)

9. Diana Richburg 4:01.79 (**)

10. Jan Merrill 4:02.61 (**)

ExCoastRanger wrote:

U.S. top-10

6. Ruth Wysocki 4:00.18 (2:06.15)

That 800M time for Wysocki is not correct. I'm 99% certain she ran in the 1:58 range.