sara hall's twitter account wrote:
Sara Hall @SaraHall3 · Mar 15
One of the most painful and challenging experiences of my life today battling through cramps at @lamarathon.Not what I hoped for but made it
I always like Sara. She's a tough women. I can't remember the indoor race, but she threw up on herself and still competed and fought it out.
Finishing the marathon shows her character. I really hope 2016 is a big year for her. I am sending her blessings.
chick power wrote:
BandOnTheRun wrote:I admire Sara for finishing her first marathon despite the hot weather!
Yes!!! Congrats to Sara for getting that elusive finisher's medal!!! Can't wait to read her fb-report!!!
Sara is no Alistair Cragg......that's for sure.
Kudos to Sara for showing the TRUE GRIT that most pro 'thonners (DNF) lack.
I have never bought into this "Save yourself for the next one". You will DNF that one as well.
BandOnTheRun wrote:
I admire Sara for finishing her first marathon despite the hot weather!
This was her 2nd Marathon. She did not finish her first marathon
meh... wrote:
2:34 is slow compared to a 2:10. A comparable time for the winner of the women's race at any big marathon or championship would be more like 2:26-2:30. Just look at the results from previous years in LA or any other major marathon. The average difference between the men's winning time and the women's winning time is more like 16-18 minutes, not 24 minutes. Obviously, if you look at average times or olympic qualifying times, the difference is going to be greater because there are a lot more men competing at the elite level than women, so the average times will be slower and qualifying standards will be made softer. 2:34 is still an elite time for a woman, but not by much.
I'd rather compare the American men and women- just under 2:13 is slightly better than sub 2:35, but the top 10 American women and men at LA are comparable. The women raced more conservative than the men. Maybe they didn't draw the same international-level talent at the top as compared to years past, but American depth was equivalent.
Furthermore, there isn't a standard time difference between men's and women's times, even with women having better depth nowadays than men in the 19-35 open age groups. At the top, the time difference is 16-18 minutes, but as you go down performance lists the time difference approaches 20-22 minutes (when comparing American performances) and 24-26 minutes (when comparing performances on the IAAF lists). If you keep going further down, the time difference approaches +1 min/mile difference. Again, this isn't a depth issue- women's times are more skewed to the right (almost exponentially skewed), with few women at the top "defying" the norm for women. Basically, men are a more homogenous population than women.
Lastly, the IAAF set standards that are equivalent at the international level- 2:15/2:18 is equal to 2:37/2:43 (+22-26 min gap). You're welcome to do the stats yourself with the IAAF performance lists (and deep American lists from the ARRS database). At the American level, the gap (+20-22 min) is closer right now because there's more American women pursuing the easier marathon B standard, while American men are pursuing the easier HM B standard. They should really ditch the HM standards and force men to step up to the marathon.
