Vladimir Kuts 1.72m and 72KG IN Melbourne 1956 he was a 13.35 5k runner and also 28.30 10k 50years ago Also Zatopek 1.74 and 69 kg
megan metcalfe (ncaa 5k champ, 15:48 5k in 2005, top 9 at XC nationals) is 5'2" and 120, not exactly heavy but way more solid than most female distance runners.
also, erin donohue, is not exactly a waif...props to anyone who has the strength for the javelin and can continually excel in middle/distance races. she is also extremely consistent and never seems to be injured.
renee metevier, petite like metcalfe and not exactly a waif either, but an extremely strong distance runner (two 2nd place finishes at NCAA XC nationals, prenats victory, etc).
i think all three of these runners are talented and will be around for awhile.
shalane flanagan used to look healthy, too, not sure what happened with her...maybe overtraining.
Why exaggerate when his sub 14 at 190 lbs addresses the question of the thread?
You aren't the brightest bulb to point flaws in another poster's grammer.
*grammer used on purpose.
6 ft 207lbs
i remember they had a guy by the name of Matthew Hartman who was huge, he ended up winning the NEC conference 800 many times and the 1500m
Flanagan looks like shit
Strevs wrote:
I heard Rexing peaked out at 322 lbs, after recovering from a severe attack from a Yeti. The Yeti ended up much worse off than Rexing, you can be sure. It was later proven true that Rexing adopted the Yeti's family, and even extended the Yeti's line with his own blood.
His first race back he was down only 15 lbs, and managed 13:58. However, he was slowed significantly, as he carried 4 half-Rexing, half-Yeti offspring on his back.
I thought I would have been tired of all these Rexing jokes by now but damn... U made me laugh like no other today.
Agreed; just the thing to see after a long day in hel, uh,
work.
the LEGEND live on
Metcalfe is an example of the old saying:
The stopwatch does not care what you look like.
Dude rob decastella had fairly big legs but he was still pretty slender at 5 ft 10 and 143 pounds i dont consider that heavy at all for a runner.
holmes. wrote:
yes sherlock, to most of us it was an obvious exagGeration. spell check never hurts. having seen that race in which hesch "claimed" to run sub 14 (it was 13:58, i beleive wisco stud matt tegenkamp won the race), he is/was a monster. haven't seen much of him lately, perhaps he's been eating too much.
how about rob decastella, now there was a man's man, that guy was solid as they come, in a marathoner no less.