Melody Fairchild going for it again

26mi235 wrote:

My first road race (this was MANY years ago) I got beaten by a woman in the Culver City Marathon (she broke the WR, as it turned out).

You got smoked by Shalane Flanagan's mother!

Cheryl Bridges, 2:49:40. The first woman under 2:50 (discounting the short course 2:46 by the Aussie).

Happen to agree with Flagpole (amazingly). It was a silly "throw away" line that added nothing to the article. She looks fit, though not necessarily young (as HRE says looks can be deceiving).

As a runner, 37 isn't necessarily that old (didn't Carlos Lopes win the OG at that age, and Dita recently as well). But she has been effectively out of the sport for 10 years, so it will be interesting to see if she can stay healthy while trying to ramp up her training to the level of trying to accomplish her goals. She hasn't beaten her body up over the last 10 years (as have Radcliffe and Kastor, for example), but she also lacks recent race experience, and physiological development, from having stayed away from the sport as well. If she was was trying to return to the track (i.e. middle-distance) I would say it's a bad bet, but the Marathon? Who knows. Good luck to her.

She's been away from competition for years but that does not mean she has not maintained physiological condition which I believe she has. As far as her age, I always think of Priscilla Welch who didn't even begin running until her mid 30's and look how much she accomplished!

Priscilla Welch and that Lopes dude. He had a nice day in LA as I recall.

Stats McGhee wrote:

Wow, I didn't even know Morgan Fairchild was a runner!

You're confused about Morgan FREEMAN, not Fairchild.

Mz Dazee wrote:

You're confused about Morgan FREEMAN, not Fairchild.

Ummm.... ever heard of Morgan Fairchild?

famous actress wrote:

Ummm.... ever heard of Morgan Fairchild?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Fairchild

Wow, the joke went COMPLETELY over your head. Sad.

hope she does well, somehow these kinds of stories are good for the sport in my opinion. hope someone out there keeps us (that are interested) updated here on letsrun!

duuderson wrote:

At least she knows it's a loooooong shot.

http://www.denverpost.com/extremes/ci_16067808

still interesting. A lot you "kids" probably have no idea who she is, but was pretty big back in the day. i race against her once.

Her arms and upper body are too heavy.

Ladies...please...

And the data says...

I just asked 4 co-workers how old Fairchild looks in those photos. Their guesses were 41, 32, 31, and 36.

So that's an average of 35. Younger than 37 but nowhere near 22!

Flagpole wrote:

As a former journalist, I like to see accuracy in reporting

well then you are not flagpole

Mz Dazee wrote:

Stats McGhee wrote:

Wow, I didn't even know Morgan Fairchild was a runner!

You're confused about Morgan FREEMAN, not Fairchild.

Wow I thought he was a lot OLDER than 37.

It's going to be difficult, but I wish him the best.

Ummm, Morgan Freeman happens to be 73 years old. 73 is 37 in reverse.

Even worse is the fact that he has been locked up in Shawshank for so long after robbing that pizza parlour. I really doubt he will make the olympic trails in the 1500.

hooba dooba wrote:

Even worse is the fact that he has been locked up in Shawshank for so long after robbing that pizza parlour. I really doubt he will make the olympic trails in the 1500.

Wow that's really sad, but I thought he was trying the marathon?

Just answer the question, what do you get out of demanding an anal-retentively accurate portrayal of a woman's appearance, especially when it has little to do with the subject of the article? It's not like the author wildly misstated Fairchild's PR or something pertinent like that. Those who are eager to jump in and make unflattering remarks about women's appearances are probably misogynists at heart.

chocolate. wrote:

Just answer the question, what do you get out of demanding an anal-retentively accurate portrayal of a woman's appearance, especially when it has little to do with the subject of the article?

He wasn't "demanding" anything, you idiot. He stated the the author was wrong when he said she looked 22. He was right. He was merely pointing out a fairly ridiculous exaggeration. That's all. It would have ended right there but you and the rest of the idiots had to jump all over him like he'd started a new thread to call Melody fairchild old.

I'm the first person to acknowledge that Flagpole can be a raging buffoon most of the time but you people need to take a f***ing chill pill.

chocolate. wrote:

Just answer the question, what do you get out of demanding an anal-retentively accurate portrayal of a woman's appearance, especially when it has little to do with the subject of the article? It's not like the author wildly misstated Fairchild's PR or something pertinent like that. Those who are eager to jump in and make unflattering remarks about women's appearances are probably misogynists at heart.

1) The story is about a 37-year-old woman who is attempting to make an Olympic team after being away from the sport for about 10 years. Her youthfulness (looks or otherwise) is pertinent to the story, especially when the author makes it a point.

2) I have not said anything unflattering about Melody Fairchild. In fact, quite the opposite. I've said several times now that she is attractive and looks fit. She just doen't look like a 22 year old. How is that unflattering? She doesn't look like a 10 year old either. There are probably a handful of women in the United States who are 37 and yet look 22 without photo touch up.

3) What do I get out of it? I comment to debate the wrong, and the writer's statement was just flat out wrong. He could have said she had a blue horn growing out of her forehead and he would have been as right about that as he was that she looks 22. It was a ridiculous comment and should be called out. I call out ridiculous comments.