The Monday Big Discussion: After 31:55 10k Win in Stanford, how do you assess Gwen Jorgensen's Olympic chances?

If 27:55 = 31:55 what men’s performance is equal to a woman running 29:17? You sure it’s not 28:55 that equals 31:55?

Ummmm wrote:

Is it a big deal wrote:

This performance is not as good in relative terms as Brownlee's track 10k so not quite sure what all the raving is about. It's respectable but no more than that.

Did he run better than 27:55?, because that is the IAAF equivalent for men.

This is no joke wrote:

Anyway, tell me what I’m missing here: some giant woman just ran a time that is behind the Olympic gold, silver and bronze times by 2:38, 2:22, and 2:13. I understand it was an Olympic record performance by Ayana, but if a male triathlete came out and ran a 29:30, about 2:25 behind the Olympic record, would you guys really think he was a legit contender?

That's not a fair comparison at all. Ayana ran a world record to do that. You don't compare a random win to the time from a world record and then call that athlete bad. Bekele ran what, 26:17 for a world record, but Rupp won all his USA 10k championships from 27:25-28:59. The latter is 2:42 over Bekele's record! Yet there is Rupp with an Olympic medal in the marathon who was in it at the break.

Now clearly we know Rupp has much a much better 10k PR and we haven't seen that out of Gwen Jorgensen. But she hasn't run a race to clearly indicate what her top ability is. We have more examples of people winning slow races like she's doing and then showing up big at championship races than we do of slightly better non-winning time trailers ever showing up and making a splash.

The IAAF tables do now show equivalent performances, they show equivalent depth and clearly that is lacking for the women v the men. This is logical due to past societal norms.

If 26:22 = 29:17 for performance, clearly 27:52 is way better than 31:55. The difference from men to women goes from less than 3:00 to over 4:00 in a hurry.

I reckon they ought to be called the IAAF Depth Tables.

rojo wrote: Big picture, I still think her odds of Olympic gold in the marathon - which is her self-professed goal - are zero and think the goal should be to make an Olympic team as a runner.

Here is the difference between the mentality of a gold medalist and the mentality of an armchair QB

running commenter wrote:

rojo wrote: Big picture, I still think her odds of Olympic gold in the marathon - which is her self-professed goal - are zero and think the goal should be to make an Olympic team as a runner.

Here is the difference between the mentality of a gold medalist and the mentality of an armchair QB

I apologize, I should mention that I agree with you, Rojo, but these athletes don't think like we do. She doesn't go into training every day knowing she has 0 chance.

I used to be a runner, switched 100% to cycling for several years, then switched back to running (a few days a week at first, cycling the other days, then eventually 95% to running).

The first year after switching back, the cycling training was apparently pretty helpful. I weighed 20-30 pounds more than in peak running fitness, ran very close to my mile PR (in trainers!), but I couldn't run a great half marathon.

So when I first started running, I built some running-specific fitness and had all of this residual cycling fitness to back it up. But as I backed off the cycling, it became harder and harder to build my running back up to where it was before and my overall aerobic workload dropped off a ton. The first year after resuming running I improved rapidly at first, but my second year my times got worse as I lost that residual fitness from cycling and struggled to build running mileage. Now I'm in my third or fourth year after cycling, my mileage has increased and my workout consistency has improved, and my running level has finally risen again to the highest level it's been since switching back from cycling.

Regarding Gwen Jorgensen, I'm wondering if she's going to struggle to maintain her fitness from running alone. She's got this huge aerobic engine and a lot of muscle, developed by working out several times a day for many hours a day, and it might be tough to find ways to maintain that as a runner. In fact she might not want to maintain all of it (the upper body for sure), but some of it is functional. So I wouldn't be surprised if she did really well in her first season or year of running, and then we saw a dip in her performance before it ultimately improved.

Yes totally in the same ballpark depending on where you are in a season and your trajectory as a runner.

I just looked this up in May of 2003 I ran 28:54 to win my first track race of the year. My thinking at the time was "I can run a minute faster at nationals."

I then proceeded to drop out of the only race between then and nationals and have a few not great training sessions. Yet 48 days later I ran 28:06 at nationals. And going from 28:54 to 28:06 is much harder than going from 31:55 to 31:06 so I'd put them in the same ballpark. Now at some point that same ballpark things breaks down for the runner. Never in my wildest dreams did I think I could just chop 28:06 to 27:30.

But Gwen Jorgensen is a) coming off having a baby b) come off of altitude c) coming off having not run a lot the last few years. Plus not to mention she is an Olympic champion in another sport. So at least mentally I hope she's not limiting what she can do and physically I think she's got the potential for a lot of upside.

Good point. I think Steve and many others would have said 0% chance this happens. Whereas the real odds were who knows what (definitely under 1%).

IAAF be craycray wrote:

If 27:55 = 31:55 what men’s performance is equal to a woman running 29:17?

You sure it’s not 28:55 that equals 31:55?

Ummmm wrote:

Did he run better than 27:55?, because that is the IAAF equivalent for men.

26:17 = 29:09, which seems about right. Also, 31:55 would put her #6 on the all-time NCAA list, whereas #6 for men is 27:33 by Rupp. In any case, a championship-final-level performance by Gwen. Brownie's 28:36 might win a conference-level meet.

Her aerobic ability is unmatched. She's got fewer miles than anyone else. She did this in road flats (albeit cheater 4% blah-tee-blahs).

And 5-10 isn't tall if you're a guy. She's not, but don't give me this short crap. Stride is stride.

Gwen: Race roads like crazy THIS year. Run 10K, run 8 milers, run 10 milers, run 20K stuff, run a half, run a 30K. Grow it.

Coffee Monster wrote:

buzzfed wrote:

I try not to judge athletes for their diet too much, but in terms of her health, she probably would have been better off downing a six-pack of Guinness.

Good riddance people!!! Are you serious? She has a "cheat day" after a hard, long race with her family and you are drawing conclusions from this one fact? You are ignorant.

YOU will NEVER win an oly gold with THAT MENTALITY

THE GRIND NEVER STOPS

The original poster's question was, "After 31:55 10k Win in Stanford, how do you assess Gwen Jorgensen's OLYMPIC CHANCES?" My assessment was that she is over 20 seconds per mile behind the most recent Olympic bronze medalist, so her chances are slim. Granted, this is coming from someone who reads "Olympic chances" and thinks about the podium, not about whether or not they can make the team. If we are only talking about her chances to make the US team, I'd say she's got a legitimate shot in the 5,000 or 10,000, but not the marathon. She'd be a very poor choice to send to an Olympic marathon. If anything, she's a January marathoner. At this point, I'm not sure her chances are all that much better than Katelyn Tuohy's. Who has more speed between the two?

This is no joke wrote:

If anything, she's a January marathoner.

What's that mean?

I like her odds.

Well I can’t run 15:15 or 32 flat:). I can i can run 2:25 for the marathon so if I could run that fast I think I could run low 2:20. She will run low 2:20 at least.

Her aerobic ability is unmatched? Yeah right buddy. 31:55 and her ability is unmatched. Little news flash for you, Gwen is not a man. 5'10" is absolutely tall for a female distance runner. Paula is 5'8" and looked like a giant out there. It's not the stride that is a concern, it's the surface area to mass ratio, which is one of the main limiters of a marathon run in the summer months. 2016 Rio Women's marathon height. 1st - 5'3" 2nd - 5'1" 3rd - 4'11" 4th - 5'4" 5th - 5'5" 6th - 5'5" 7th - 5'1" 8th - 4'11" 9th - 5'4" 10th - 5'0" 11th - 5'0" 12th - 5'6" 13th - 5'6" (97lbs) 14th - 5'3" 15th - 5'4"

Smartere than all of you wrote:

Her aerobic ability is unmatched. She's got fewer miles than anyone else. She did this in road flats (albeit cheater 4% blah-tee-blahs).

And 5-10 isn't tall if you're a guy. She's not, but don't give me this short crap. Stride is stride.

Gwen: Race roads like crazy THIS year. Run 10K, run 8 milers, run 10 milers, run 20K stuff, run a half, run a 30K. Grow it.

It means she needs cold weather to have a shot at competing with the best.

tuckerspoint wrote:

This is no joke wrote:

If anything, she's a January marathoner.

What's that mean?

This is no joke wrote:

I don’t know about Desi’s chances, but baby-doping is legit. Ask any top female cyclist.....

I really like your term "baby doping."

Not my term. Google it.

better at marrying than running wrote:

This is no joke wrote:

I don’t know about Desi’s chances, but baby-doping is legit. Ask any top female cyclist.....

I really like your term "baby doping."

Interpretationary wrote:

It means she needs cold weather to have a shot at competing with the best.

tuckerspoint wrote:

What's that mean?

Rump is 3-6" taller than most of his competition and runs great in the heat. It's a matter of training for it and being super-skinny.

I agree with many of the previous posters. I think that Gwen is too big for the marathon but could make the team at 10k. I see her running the thon trials, missing the team, and doubling back in the 10k trials.

Within the next year Emily Sisson will be making her marathon debut. She will take to the event similarly to Hasay. The 2020 team will be:

Hasay

Huddle

Sisson