Molly Huddle and Paula Radcliffe

agip wrote:

ekw wrote:

Well Korir won in 61:07 yesterday on the same course in the same conditions at less than ONE SECOND faster per mile than the men's marathon WR... So with Molly and her 68:31 time, it's just under FOUR SECONDS slower per mile than the woman's marathon WR. You're crying over 5 seconds of difference per mile?!?!

To avoid the extremes of the records of the marathon, lets look at the 5th fastest marathon of both the men and the woman:

Men- Wilson Kipsang Kiprotich 2:03:23 (9/29/13)

PACE: 4:42 mile

Woman- Mary Keitany 2:18.37 (4/22/12)

PACE: 5:16

Molly huddles nyc half pace was 5:14 which is two seconds faster.

Korir's nyc half pace was 4:41 which is only one second faster!

What say you now?

well the whole point is NOT to avoid the extremes of radcliffe's record.

but I see what you are saying

This is such a pointless argument. Huddle beat good competition and isn't even training specifically to run a fast Half. She's finishing out her base cycle, with a World TnF on the docket. Just as Kipyego is. She dusted Kipyego...who is a silver medalist in the 10000m. I think that bodes really well for Huddle's chances in the track and might hint towards a focus at 10000m for Rio.

CoachJD wrote:

This is such a pointless argument. Huddle beat good competition and isn't even training specifically to run a fast Half. She's finishing out her base cycle, with a World TnF on the docket. Just as Kipyego is. She dusted Kipyego...who is a silver medalist in the 10000m. I think that bodes really well for Huddle's chances in the track and might hint towards a focus at 10000m for Rio.

I agree, but anyone who says so will likely just be ignored by agip as shown so far in this thread. Although, wouldn't a base cycle leave her most prepared for a half marathon?

CoachJD wrote:

This is such a pointless argument.

What was the pointless argument? You quoted like 3 different people's posts...

Radcliffe's record is the FloJo 10.49 "0.0 m/s" of distance.

ekw wrote:

CoachJD wrote:

This is such a pointless argument.

What was the pointless argument? You quoted like 3 different people's posts...

That Huddle on her best day wasn't even running Radcliff's record marathon pace for a half marathon. That's the pointless argument.

agip wrote:

How in the world does Molly Huddle:

Win a major race on a nice day for running

set a course record

beat some fast people

...

yet run a slower pace than Paula Radcliffe ran for twice the distance - a marathon? It doesn't make any sense.

Of course it makes sense. All WR set during the EPO era make perfect sense.

Such is the nature of LRC. I would think that Molly is the most respected American female distance runner right now, even among the frequenters of these message boards. Yet the reaction here to the first American winner of the NYC half ranges from lukewarm to critical.

She Beat wrote:

Molly beat Joyce Chepkirui and Sally Kipyego. She's "major" now.

I couldn't agree more...

Radcliffe's performances were during the EPO-era.

The point is about Radcliffe's seemingly impossible time and the likelihood she was doped...nothing about detracting from Huddle's accomplishment.

alanson wrote:

I would think that Molly is the most respected American female distance runner right now.

Shalane?

agips's brain called wrote:

agip wrote:

I think you would be hard pressed to find a 1st tier race with $20k in prize money in which the winner where the winner doesn't run at the pace of a distance twice as long. Men or women.

Have you never seen a race with Mo Farah in it? I agree with the other posters. Agip is just trolling.

Good point.

The World Championship has way more than $20k in prize money. Here are Farah's winnignng 5000 times:

1. 2011 - 13:23.36 - slower than 10k WR pace.

2. 2012 - 13:41.66 - - slower than 10k WR pace. (almost 13.1 WR pace as the 13.1 WR is 13:50 pace).

3. 2013 - 13:26.98 - slower than 10k WR pace.

That being said, I understand what the OP is saying. You wouldn't expect a men's race to be won slower than 61:30. It deals with a) women's running isn't nearly as deep as men's running and b) the WR holders in women's running are bigger outliers than in men's running (Maybe in part because of point a))

OP, you do realize that in all of 2015, only 5 women ran faster than 67:42 for 13.1 the entire year. 116 men ran faster than 61:28 last year.

well that is point - that divergence makes little sense - why is it that only 5 women can keep up with Marathon WR pace for half race distance, while 116 men can do it?

I'm actually surprised only 116 men did it - weren't there 80 japanese collegians running that fast, or some such number?

Kidding.

Is women's distance running that weak? I don't think it is - that WR is just a ridiculous outlier, like they all are.

As someone who has run several marathons, I can tell you, a marathon is a crap shoot. Feel bad on race day? Too bad. Bad weather on race day after 6 months of training ? Too bad.

For a 10k, you can rebound and run another in ten days. A marathon typically takes 2-3 months of recovery. For some who really push it, and if it's hot, the coach might tell them not to run for 10 or 15 days.

I think her MH next race may be the Boston 5k in about a month. Is breaking 15 possible (with a tailwind!).