According to the IAAF Scoring Tables, Kipchoge's WR is worth 1316 points. Radcliffe's WR is worth 1281 points. The equivalent women's marathon performance for 1316 points is 2:12:07.
According to the IAAF Scoring Tables, Kipchoge's WR is worth 1316 points. Radcliffe's WR is worth 1281 points. The equivalent women's marathon performance for 1316 points is 2:12:07.
Women are still being paced by men
I think Paula's record will be broken by Almaz Ayana when she moves up(sorry rekrunner). I also think Bekele will get the wr eventually.
78 second gap for Kipchoge, 96 seconds for Paula. Both are untouchable at the moment.
Ayana is the only threat. Not convinced by the current fast HM ladies - they hurl themselves behind a pacer for those races and end up dropping off towards the end, in the same way that Keitany does in the full marathon. Kipchoge and Radcliffe have both demonstrated the way for an other worldly performance - a negative split.
better wrote:
I say 2:15 that is still the better time.
How on Earth is 2:15 better than 2:00 for a marathon? It's more than 3 miles slower or like being lapped on the track more than 12 times.
Kipchoge's time is better, but Radcliffe's WR was way ahead at that time, and still proved to be one of the best athletics WR till today.
I actually think Kipchoge's WR will be broken first.
Why are you sorry? I was rooting for Dibaba in Berlin, and I think Keitany could have done much better in London, and there are 8 or 9 candidates in the last few years pushing the half-marathon down.
Banana Bread wrote:
I think Paula's record will be broken by Almaz Ayana when she moves up(sorry rekrunner). I also think Bekele will get the wr eventually.
Talking out of your @$$ wrote:
Querfeldein wrote:
Radcliffe's record is already over 15 years old. I would give both an equal chance (about 50%) for surviving the next 5 years, but not an equal chance for reaching 20 years - that's about the same 50% for Radcliffe, and less than 10% for Kipchoge. Of course, Kipchoge also still has a chance of bettering his own record, while Radcliffe does not.
Radcliffe's performance was greater, coming 15 years earlier, but measured by today's standards, both are approximately equally good.
77.3% of statistical percentages are made up.
Only 56% of the time.
Bro fist vein ru bf wrote:
Talking out of your @$$ wrote:
77.3% of statistical percentages are made up.
Only 56% of the time.
60% of the time it works every time.
SN1048 wrote:
Shot Put...
Thank you for that!