It's numble pie, not humble pie.
It's numble pie, not humble pie.
The Outsider wrote:
DRUGS
She's still has to win the mother of all road marathons Boston and the Olympics.
wjw0006 wrote:
good for england....now how many medals have y'all gotten now? I've lost count it's been so many.
None, England don't enter the world championships.
Now the Paula basher are bringing irrelavant variables to the table. I mean is she now responsible for the rest of the GB team??
Pathetic argument..
is she the best female marathon runner ever. Yes without a question. she was that even before this one..
Oh who will win??/ ndereba? never no chance.
tell me, what else does she need to do?????? well she is quite crap she has lost one of the marathons she entered?
oh... humble pie has never tasted sooooooo goood??????????????
You have to give it up to her. What the rest of the her team did, or did not do, is not not her problem.
Can you imagine what would be said about her if she DIDNT win. She wins and its still not good enough. My god just because she had a bad Olympics does not mean she still isnt considered to be one of the most talented female marathoners ever. Her times attest to that.
She will run Boston eventually and she will win that too and most likely any fall marahton she decides to run this year. She is has talent that no other female runner can touch. No one can even argue that considering there is not a female out there who has come close to her 2:15. You can't argue the time!
SO MANY people on this board make the gold medal in the marathon the holy grail and yes its a great accomplishment but its not everything.
I hear the arguement that the field at Worlds isnt that strong well its not her fault the best dont want to represent their country. She runs against the field that is presented to her. Not her problem some other runner decides not to run or their country is too stupid to allow their athletes represent them at the international level at the World Championships.
Here is a point scoring system to derive who will become the World's best Marathon runner, note that this was established before Radcliffe became a marathon runner.
It may not be a foolproof system but it provides an interesting guideline in determining
Paula would be a long way ahead I believe if she was scored using that system.
Water Rat wrote:
What more perspective do you need after a World Champs victory, wining all the major big city marathons and running two minutes faster than any other female marathoner ever?
How about the perspective boo hooing on the side of a road in Athens.
krissy wrote:
She's still has to win the mother of all road marathons Boston and the Olympics.
Get a clue chick.she won 7 out of 8 marathons against deep fields everytime.Please know what your talking about instead of talking what you dont know.Boston Who cares she already Won Chicago,Newyork and London she doesnt ever even have to run boston to legitimize her career so quit being jealous.
legally blond wrote:
I'm sure she has someone to fold her underwear.
Would that person happen to be named "Gary"?
On the question of whether Radcliffe is the greatest female marathoner ever, despite not having won olympic gold, I think it's interesting that so many are saying yes. Is Khalid Khannouchi then the best male marathoner ever? Probably most of the people saying Radcliffe is the greatest would NOT say Khannouchi is the greatest.
I personally think she is, in fact, the greatest female marathoner of all time, but unless she goes without a loss in the remainder of her marathons and continues to post incredible times, she won't be considered the greatest very long. Someone faster will come along, win consistently, AND win an olympic gold. The olympic gold is what would have given her an enduring legacy.
Happy Brit wrote:
Paula Radcliffe. The best female marathoner. EVER.
Nope. SO FAR.
blaine wrote:
I personally think she is, in fact, the greatest female marathoner of all time, but unless she goes without a loss in the remainder of her marathons and continues to post incredible times, she won't be considered the greatest very long. Someone faster will come along, win consistently, AND win an olympic gold. The olympic gold is what would have given her an enduring legacy.
Using your logic, it doesn't matter whether she wins 10 Olympic Golds and retires at 75 with a 2:11 PR, she'll only be the best until someone better comes along.
I think the idea in these "all-time best" arguments is to limit the scope of performances to those that have already been posted.
Not the greatest ever. Will never win Boston. Or anything that isn't cold and basically flat. Will NEVER win an Olympic gold. Ever.
Boston and the Olympics is what determines you as a runner regardless of times.
BIG BOX wrote:
Not the greatest ever. Will never win Boston. Or anything that isn't cold and basically flat. Will NEVER win an Olympic gold. Ever.
Uhh newyorks course is harder then boston and she won that fool
Krissy wrote:
Boston and the Olympics is what determines you as a runner regardless of times.
By the way id say she redeemed herself by beating the one who beat her in the olympics by beating her in the world championships so i guess that counts for nothing huh??What you people dont realize is the marathon is very unpredictable and she lost 1 marathon which just happened to be the olympics.Id like to know the last woman runner who won 7 out of 8 its never happened and you people are foolish if you think shes not the most dominating womans marathoner that ever lived.
Wouldnt matter if she won olympic marathon and boston she would still get bashed.Also to say time doesnt mean anything would be a joke considering that marathoners like joan benoit and Ingrid Kristiansen and rosa mota never even came within 5 minutes of her time.So do you really think joan benoit could have run 5 minutes faster if they raced and beat her??nope
If boston is and olympics is what determines us as runners then we might as all quit right now.
Good to see Paula win at last. I'd hate to be her shrink had she bombed.
Just to add fuel to the fire. Apart from Ndereba it was hard to see where the threat would come from. And Ndereba was unfit (as fatty foster kept telling us) so had her excuses just like PR had last year. Notice however that these excuses were not forthcoming and that Ndereba was very gracious in defeat.
BUT its not a personality contest and Paula won fair and square. The athlete that impressed me most y'day was not PR however. Her 'from the tape' tactics might well backfired y'day against a fitter Ndereba or Noguichi or even a more sensible Tita (she really messed it up didnt she with her surges?).
No, Ndereba ran the best race y'day. She is so controlled in her running, so experienced, so economical, so aware of her opponents. The discipline she showed y'day in holding that 15m gap to PR was pure genious. Any closer and she'd have spurred PR on, any further and the gap might have grown. The 1min gap at the end was flattering to paula, the race was closer than that.
Ndereba did not have the legs against Paula y'day but she very nearly outsmarted her.
As an aside: Can we petition to get Foster off the telly (and Gunnel and Jackson too)? All we need is Cram, MJ and Dickenson.
Interesting ... and I couldn't agree more on the petition.
Clearly, the penance one has to pay to the BBC for "gun to tape" coverage of the marathon is the prospect of listening to Foster babble incoherently for 2 and a half hours. Honestly, what does this guy bring to the table? His grammar is atrocious, his commentary innane, his objectivity a joke and his self-restraint non-existant.
Cram seems to have far too much residual loyalty to Foster and won't shut him up when he needs to ... the BBC's sports producers really, really need to reassess Foster's role in the commentary box.
As for PR -- it was a great run: controlled, patient, poised. Not blazing, but still bloody fast. Oddly enough, though, she didn't look that happy at the finish, although I'm not sure if anyone else got the same impression.
Martin