What you said made sense from a purely statistical perspective, but I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. We have to take into consideration the nature of the event. Of all the Olympic events, marathon is the only one you can only race sparingly when it comes to top performances. And even if you peak properly for the race, a lot can just go wrong in the distance on that particular day you race. That may explain the difference between her WR and the third best performance. As the #3 person may not really max out on her potential due to the nature of the event.
Btw, IIRC, the #3 performer is Hassan right? She did that 2:13 just coming off a 1500/5k/10k triple in WC less than 6 weeks apart. That further proved my point - it's less about Ruth's 2:09 being an outlier than Hassan just not maxing out (not even close in fact)on her potential in the marathon. She surely can run a min or two faster if the marathon is her sole focus.
then the 4th -1000th fastest women ever didn't "max out" either?
Dumb argument, when someone doped with the next gen super drug runs 207, your argument will be this performance wasn't maxed out...
lol, OP literally tried to argue a sub-2:10 women's marathon is not much of an outlier hahahaha. Until 5 years ago nobody could run under 2:17 except Paula Radcliffe from 2003, now 2:09 is not much of an outlier hahaha
For comparison, in the past 25 years the men's record has dropped just over 5 minutes. In the past 13 months the women's record has dropped just over 4 minutes.
The 2:14 in 2019 was a shock - someone finally not only breaking Radcliffe's record but crushing it by over a minute. The 2:11 last year was unthinkable, making Radcliffe's old record suddenly actually seem slow. The 2:09 yesterday, well, there's just no words. A few years ago I don't think anyone would have said the women's record would EVER be sub-2:10, let alone it would suddenly happen 5 years after the first sub-2:15 occurred. The 2:11 and 2:09 would be like if men suddenly ran 1:58 and then the next year 1:56. It's just completely absurd.
So, yes, 2:09:56 is absolutely as much of an outlier as we all think. It's the craziest WR in all of running, not even Bolt running 9.58 is as crazy as this.
"To the gill!" "Ruth has ruined the sport!" "Filthy doper!" as always, Letsrunner's first reaction to a jaw-dropping performance is to cry foul. That's understandable, as it's human nature. I'm not gonna say whether she's dirty or not, as that's not the intention of my thread. The only thing I want to point out is that her performance today was not out of the realm of possiblity.
At first glance, her performance didn't make a lot of sense, it's 92.8% of the men's WR (7235 secs/7756). Even Chebet 's WR was only 90.6% of the WR. However, let's not forget she enjoyed a horde of male pacers, with one doing a fantastic job pacing her from start to finish. That's not the benefit Kiptum had in the race of his life. And I think we all agree that Kiptum on that particular day, with or without pacers, could've broken 2 from the way he closed the second half (and he got even faster in the last 2k). Had he also had a pacer that ran alongside him for 42k, it's not unfathomable he could've run a 1:58. Now that would put Ruth's WR at around 91% of the WR. Still incredibly strong, but nothing too crazy, compared to other women's WRs. It's kinda like Radcliffe's 2:15 back in the day. (which stood at 92.7% of the WR, 2:05:38/2:15:25).
Again, I'm not saying she's clean. It's just that her performance was not an anomaly compared to other WRs upon closer inspection.
Edit: that said, the limitation of my post was that it only showed how Ruth's WR stacked up against other top-tier performances. It failed to explain how she could make it to the top10 OVERALL(male or female). Even Radcliffe was outside top 15 on the day she ran her WR. That's a truly unusual performance, even though statistically it isn't as strong as many people might think. It's ridiculous, if not preposterous, to see her overtake that Japanese guy at the end of the race. She also beat another guy with a 2:03 PB(!!) on her run. That's something my post failed to address.
also...you dont consider her 1/2 marathon time being a WR only a few years ago a little sus?
Men's World Record Sept 28, 2003 - Paul Tergat - Berlin - 2:04:55 Oct 8, 2023 - Kelvin Kiptum - Chicago - 2:00:35 (dropped 4:20 in 20 years) Oct 12, 2019 - Eliud Kipchoge - Ineos 1:59 Challenge - 1:59:40 (dropped 5:15 in 16 years) ** Unofficial**
Women's World Record April 13, 2003 - Paula Radcliffe - London - 2:15:25 Oct 13, 2024 - Ruth Chepngetich - Chicago - 2:09:56 (dropped 5:29 in 21 years)
The more relevant differences are after super shoes. The mens wr has improved by 2:20. The women's has improved by 5:30! The women's WR was still 215 just a few years ago and is still top 5 AT. The men's had been assaulted by many individuals and that 204:55 is way down the list.
In all of the Olympic running events from the 200m-10000m, the world record men are running 10-12% faster than the women. (Interestingly, the biggest male-female gap is in the 800 at 12.26%, and I think the vast majority of us think Kratochvilova was doping. And if you throw out the possibly-doped, certainly wind-illegal Flojo 100m, the gap in that event is also just over 10%.)
When you get to the half-marathon, the gap narrows to 9.24%. And Assefa's marathon record was 9.32% off Kiptum. The new time is 7.75% off Kiptum. Now, some of the difference can clearly be explained by having male pacers. I'd be interested to see what the women's only world record could be if some of the really fast women took a crack at it in good conditions (clearly some of them could run well under 2:16). And it's not crazy to think that the male-female gap should narrow slightly in longer distance events.
But it's clear that Ruth Chepngetich's time is way more of an outlier than anything else in the record books for running events up to marathon distance.
More so she is a super talent who is the GOAT of the 400m hurdles, but most women as fast as her in the open 400m would run that event instead or the 200m. I'm not sure she could beat Marileidy Paulino for example in a flat 400m.
I think Carson WR in the 400m hurdle provides the hurdles don't slow athletes down as much as we think 1.5 seconds or so. I don't think Karsten Warholm could break 43.5 even in his peak. I think Sydney could run a 48 low but I'm not sure about a 47 high.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
marathon distances and up minimize the crucial male athletic advantage of muscle mass and general aggressiveness.
A long distance runner is inherently a small twiglike creature. Body mass is proportional to volume, which increases on an order of 3 compared to surface area, which increases on an order of 2. For example, a cube 1 meter to a side has volume of 1 cubic meter, and surface area of 6 square meters. But a cube 2 meters to a side has volume of 8 cubic meters, and surface area of only 24 square meters. The ratio of volume to surface area has doubled.
A distance runner isn't making a maximum effort. The game is mainly to go as fast as possible without overheating, so the runner with lowest volume to surface area has a huge advantage. That is generally the smallest runner.
Men's World Record Sept 28, 2003 - Paul Tergat - Berlin - 2:04:55 Oct 8, 2023 - Kelvin Kiptum - Chicago - 2:00:35 (dropped 4:20 in 20 years) Oct 12, 2019 - Eliud Kipchoge - Ineos 1:59 Challenge - 1:59:40 (dropped 5:15 in 16 years) ** Unofficial**
Women's World Record April 13, 2003 - Paula Radcliffe - London - 2:15:25 Oct 13, 2024 - Ruth Chepngetich - Chicago - 2:09:56 (dropped 5:29 in 21 years)
The more relevant differences are after super shoes. The mens wr has improved by 2:20. The women's has improved by 5:30! The women's WR was still 215 just a few years ago and is still top 5 AT. The men's had been assaulted by many individuals and that 204:55 is way down the list.
Don't forget Tigst Assefa's 2:11 in Berlin last year. What has she done lately?
What you said made sense from a purely statistical perspective, but I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. We have to take into consideration the nature of the event. Of all the Olympic events, marathon is the only one you can only race sparingly when it comes to top performances. And even if you peak properly for the race, a lot can just go wrong in the distance on that particular day you race. That may explain the difference between her WR and the third best performance. As the #3 person may not really max out on her potential due to the nature of the event.
Btw, IIRC, the #3 performer is Hassan right? She did that 2:13 just coming off a 1500/5k/10k triple in WC less than 6 weeks apart. That further proved my point - it's less about Ruth's 2:09 being an outlier than Hassan just not maxing out (not even close in fact)on her potential in the marathon. She surely can run a min or two faster if the marathon is her sole focus.
then the 4th -1000th fastest women ever didn't "max out" either?
Dumb argument, when someone doped with the next gen super drug runs 207, your argument will be this performance wasn't maxed out...
....
Hassan definitely could run at least ,2:10 with proper 10000m/,marathon training, on CHICAGO'S fast course, with good weather, and pacing like Ruth.
All the others except Sydney are 1.1% better or less. Ruth's record is 2.8% better than #3!! That's insane.
Even if we expand the scope of analysis beyond Olympic events to include Gidey's half-marathon record, it's no contest when we factor in the #3 performer. Gidey's record is 1.5% better than #2, which is the same difference between Ruth and #2. But Gidey's record is "only" 1.8% better than #3; not even close to Ruth's staggering 2.8% difference. Ruth's record is the biggest outlier of outliers.
Super insightful post, thanks for taking the time for this.
The question I wonder is: is she doping on another level than everyone else or will the other women soon catch up to this?
What was the % for Paula’s WR at the time she ran it? I believe she took off about 3 minutes from Catherine Ndereba’s 2:18?
I've never doped and I've also never been a good runner.
But do you really think that taking an infinite amount of PEDs will make you infinitely better? I don't.
There has to be a point where the athlete is maxed out. So just because she smashed the WR doesn't necessarily imply she is taking way more PEDs than everyone else (if she's taking anything at all that is?).
All the others except Sydney are 1.1% better or less. Ruth's record is 2.8% better than #3!! That's insane.
Even if we expand the scope of analysis beyond Olympic events to include Gidey's half-marathon record, it's no contest when we factor in the #3 performer. Gidey's record is 1.5% better than #2, which is the same difference between Ruth and #2. But Gidey's record is "only" 1.8% better than #3; not even close to Ruth's staggering 2.8% difference. Ruth's record is the biggest outlier of outliers.
Super insightful post, thanks for taking the time for this.
The question I wonder is: is she doping on another level than everyone else or will the other women soon catch up to this?
What was the % for Paula’s WR at the time she ran it? I believe she took off about 3 minutes from Catherine Ndereba’s 2:18?
Yes, really good, but the sample sizes are too anecdotal. Try comparing with the average of the top 50 performances of all time.
the 209 high beats shorter and rogers most of the time, beats bekila by 3 minutes. viren by 4 minutes.
so we either have the greatest distance runner ever, that struggled to break 220 in prime time,
or is on the list of what? 200 kenyans busted recently.
when you see decent track americans stuck around 208 to 210, with supershoes, you know they have no secret sauce.
Bikila wore crappy shoes, had no pacers and competition, and there's wasn't even gels back then. And after his famous 2:15 barefoot run, he stated he could've gone on for another 15k, as it felt very comfortable. He could've run much, much faster than 2:12 in today's environment.