Des is grasping every time she has the mic these days. Everything she does aims to get a rise—a candy bar at the presser, didn’t know my (sponsor) GPS watch wouldn’t be accurate in Chicago, 2:20 is the new 2:whatever.
You have to go WAY out of your way to get something negative out what she said.
This wasn’t a dig; this was an observation of the level of competition as it is today. She includes herself in that statement.
Des is indeed throwing "shade". She is implying that the current US women marathoners are all second rate athletes.
Yea I don't see that. See here's the issue, do you want to hear from elite runners or not? If they say anything, we pick it to pieces and throw shade their way. I guess they should just all bypass all interviews.
Whether his ‘legal personal best’ is 2:16 or 2:18, I’m 99.99% sure it’s still much faster than your personal best (‘legal’ or otherwise).
Hence your saltiness.
I will add that most of you are stupid, and this has NOTHING to do with whether you can run fast or not. Sage doesn’t appear to be stupid but he is clinging to a personal best on the roads which was set on a non legal course. I don’t make the rules and I do believe Safe was capable of 2:16 on a legal course, but he did not do it.
This is silly. Once we agree to race each other outside of a track on varying courses in city streets and varying weather, all bets are off. A PR is a PR. Short course...no, but reasonable elevation gains and losses and tailwinds come with running outdoors. What if a marathon is run in nice cool weather? Does that not count too? Pros target marathons with ideal conditions. Its the nature of a long race through the streets.
Did Des win Boston in super shoes when they weren’t readily available to all the Africans yet?
I believe she won because all of the top people dropped out. A lot of the WMM races have time bonus incentives, some of those people drop out when it becomes obvious they aren't going to make much money. And bad weather makes it more likely an individual person will drop out anyway. Des ran a more controlled race and finished.
Oh for god's sake, all you can do is win. If you run a race and it gets too hard for some and you win, well that's how that's how they judge who won! In my best Jon Lovitz voice...."jealous much".
I don't get why people would say she is throwing shade. Simply put, the bar is much higher nowadays. Supershoes IMO are mixed bag. In general, they will bring the average times down, but there is individual variability and some may benefit more than others - some may get a 1 minute boost, other 3 minutes, others none.
I have a STEM PhD. When I was applying (20 years ago) I would have been considered a mediocre applicant by today's standards. I got into a few top-10 programs, including a top-5 school. Nowadays, someone with the exact same application would be lucky to get into a single top-35 program. I would not say that today's STEM students are worse. In fact, they are generally better especially with the wealth of new tools and resources like Kahn Academy, YouTube, Stack Overflow etc. and they generally put in more hours.
But I sure am glad I went through when times were easier.
Is she throwing shade? Yes. She is telling competitive runners that they are not good enough for today's level of competition.
Does anyone need her to remind them of this? Probably not, but it is an interesting item for her to point out that although she has been tremendously successful in this sport, the competition has stepped it up so much that she acknowledges that she would be insignificant today (even with the best shoe tech).
Des made a couple Olympic Teams....she's obviously great.
As a teammate of her at Hansons when that first happened (and when she got 2nd at Boston),
I would say it is fair to say if we had "super shoes" back in 2011-2012 we probably all would have been 1-3 minutes faster for a marathon. Maybe not 100% as some respond differently, but some super shoes are for sure making people (Even elites!) a few minutes faster. The science is clear on that.
As far as "legal courses" go....well, people like to discredit anyone's PR nowadays if it doesn't show up on their World Athletics Profile. I believe times/performances need to be taken into context:
Following only World Athletics, that basically means none of you can count your PR from a course like CIM, Boston, Grandmas (or in my case Rock n' Rock San Diego) either then.
But the issue with Des is that her fastest time was not so much the net downhill nature of the course (Boston)...it was more the fact that on a point-to point course you have a potential for a massive tailwind. And that's exactly what happened when she ran 2:22 there for 2nd in 2011 (remember Ryan Hall ran 2:04 in that race too?!).
Then of course when she won Boston it was a super headwind day (tough conditions!). So there's that performance also....despite the relatively slow time. It could be argued that she does really well on extreme weather days at Boston.
But I would agree there is nothing from her 5km, 10k, and half marathon PRs to suggest that she actually was a "sub 2:20" kind of runner on a flat course in normal weather conditions....even if she had super shoes back then. However, if she had super shoes on that day at Boston her time very well could have been 2:19:xx....just everyone would have also been faster and she might not have gotten 2nd then!
Our cohort is a tough one to be in though...because I look back at my prime marathon years (circa 2011-2015) and think "if only those super shoes were out back then!"... Runners drop 2:18 like it's nothing now. These are runners that used to run 2:21 before!
"I would say it is fair to say if we had "super shoes" back in 2011-2012 we probably all would have been 1-3 minutes faster for a marathon. Maybe not 100% as some respond differently, but some super shoes are for sure making people (Even elites!) a few minutes faster. The science is clear on that."
Have you been living under a rock? The science is most definitely not clear on super shoes. That is literally the problem with all of these recent jumps in time etc. It's almost impossible to tease out whether the shoe or some other combination of factors is the root cause of faster times. All of these small group studies and labratory analyses on energy return have yet to provide definitive proof. Want some competing evidence? Look here:
Events studied for the years 2001-2021 were the 10,000 Meters, 10km Road race, Half Marathon, and Marathon. For each event, the average time of the top 100 runners was calculated for each year and …
Des needs to work on her grammar first. Plus, why do I suspect she’s going to be hanging out for another decade? She can be put out to pasture as far as I’m concerned.
You sounds like a miserable person. Try to spend time doing things that bring you happiness.
Also, being very knowledge in linguistics I can tell you that it is idiotic to be prescriptive about grammar in speech like this. When the spoken message is clear, people who react as you have here end up looking as if you know very little about language. Ironic!
Des made a couple Olympic Teams....she's obviously great.
As a teammate of her at Hansons when that first happened (and when she got 2nd at Boston),
I would say it is fair to say if we had "super shoes" back in 2011-2012 we probably all would have been 1-3 minutes faster for a marathon. Maybe not 100% as some respond differently, but some super shoes are for sure making people (Even elites!) a few minutes faster. The science is clear on that.
As far as "legal courses" go....well, people like to discredit anyone's PR nowadays if it doesn't show up on their World Athletics Profile. I believe times/performances need to be taken into context:
Following only World Athletics, that basically means none of you can count your PR from a course like CIM, Boston, Grandmas (or in my case Rock n' Rock San Diego) either then.
But the issue with Des is that her fastest time was not so much the net downhill nature of the course (Boston)...it was more the fact that on a point-to point course you have a potential for a massive tailwind. And that's exactly what happened when she ran 2:22 there for 2nd in 2011 (remember Ryan Hall ran 2:04 in that race too?!).
Then of course when she won Boston it was a super headwind day (tough conditions!). So there's that performance also....despite the relatively slow time. It could be argued that she does really well on extreme weather days at Boston.
But I would agree there is nothing from her 5km, 10k, and half marathon PRs to suggest that she actually was a "sub 2:20" kind of runner on a flat course in normal weather conditions....even if she had super shoes back then. However, if she had super shoes on that day at Boston her time very well could have been 2:19:xx....just everyone would have also been faster and she might not have gotten 2nd then!
Our cohort is a tough one to be in though...because I look back at my prime marathon years (circa 2011-2015) and think "if only those super shoes were out back then!"... Runners drop 2:18 like it's nothing now. These are runners that used to run 2:21 before!
"I would say it is fair to say if we had "super shoes" back in 2011-2012 we probably all would have been 1-3 minutes faster for a marathon. Maybe not 100% as some respond differently, but some super shoes are for sure making people (Even elites!) a few minutes faster. The science is clear on that."
Have you been living under a rock? The science is most definitely not clear on super shoes. That is literally the problem with all of these recent jumps in time etc. It's almost impossible to tease out whether the shoe or some other combination of factors is the root cause of faster times. All of these small group studies and labratory analyses on energy return have yet to provide definitive proof. Want some competing evidence? Look here:
stupid article writer leads stupid article. "So because a 2% increase in speed is not as close as the potential 3.6%, we will assume this is a placebo effect"
Have you been living under a rock? The science is most definitely not clear on super shoes.
lol what a massive effort to troll, imagine making a webpage like that and trying to seriously argue it in 2023 vs 2016
all any 15-minute-man has to do is try on a pair of vaporflys for one tempo run and you'll "get it"
there are a dozen studies now showing DRAMATIC lower heartrate and lower vo2 use in super-shoes
what tricks people who want to argue is that different runners respond differently to the same super-shoe, some people even run worse in the alphafly using more vo2
Des made a couple Olympic Teams....she's obviously great.
As a teammate of her at Hansons when that first happened (and when she got 2nd at Boston),
I would say it is fair to say if we had "super shoes" back in 2011-2012 we probably all would have been 1-3 minutes faster for a marathon. Maybe not 100% as some respond differently, but some super shoes are for sure making people (Even elites!) a few minutes faster. The science is clear on that.
As far as "legal courses" go....well, people like to discredit anyone's PR nowadays if it doesn't show up on their World Athletics Profile. I believe times/performances need to be taken into context:
Following only World Athletics, that basically means none of you can count your PR from a course like CIM, Boston, Grandmas (or in my case Rock n' Rock San Diego) either then.
But the issue with Des is that her fastest time was not so much the net downhill nature of the course (Boston)...it was more the fact that on a point-to point course you have a potential for a massive tailwind. And that's exactly what happened when she ran 2:22 there for 2nd in 2011 (remember Ryan Hall ran 2:04 in that race too?!).
Then of course when she won Boston it was a super headwind day (tough conditions!). So there's that performance also....despite the relatively slow time. It could be argued that she does really well on extreme weather days at Boston.
But I would agree there is nothing from her 5km, 10k, and half marathon PRs to suggest that she actually was a "sub 2:20" kind of runner on a flat course in normal weather conditions....even if she had super shoes back then. However, if she had super shoes on that day at Boston her time very well could have been 2:19:xx....just everyone would have also been faster and she might not have gotten 2nd then!
Our cohort is a tough one to be in though...because I look back at my prime marathon years (circa 2011-2015) and think "if only those super shoes were out back then!"... Runners drop 2:18 like it's nothing now. These are runners that used to run 2:21 before!
"I would say it is fair to say if we had "super shoes" back in 2011-2012 we probably all would have been 1-3 minutes faster for a marathon. Maybe not 100% as some respond differently, but some super shoes are for sure making people (Even elites!) a few minutes faster. The science is clear on that."
Have you been living under a rock? The science is most definitely not clear on super shoes. That is literally the problem with all of these recent jumps in time etc. It's almost impossible to tease out whether the shoe or some other combination of factors is the root cause of faster times. All of these small group studies and labratory analyses on energy return have yet to provide definitive proof. Want some competing evidence? Look here:
Seriously this is a good example of very extrapolated and twisted data.
They even cited studies that directly show how super shoes (on average) make people faster. Of course they do!
This isn't even a "debate".....it's a clear cut scientific fact....and it's certainly not rocket science.
Now, I would say I believe there is always a potential new PED benefit to perhaps certainly improved times at the elite level as well. But to accuse me of "living under a rock" when I've lived and breathed this sport for the last 25 years (and last 12 years at a national class level with half a dozen sub 2:20 marathons under my belt) is just ridiculous.
I will add that most of you are stupid, and this has NOTHING to do with whether you can run fast or not. Sage doesn’t appear to be stupid but he is clinging to a personal best on the roads which was set on a non legal course. I don’t make the rules and I do believe Safe was capable of 2:16 on a legal course, but he did not do it.
This is silly. Once we agree to race each other outside of a track on varying courses in city streets and varying weather, all bets are off. A PR is a PR. Short course...no, but reasonable elevation gains and losses and tailwinds come with running outdoors. What if a marathon is run in nice cool weather? Does that not count too? Pros target marathons with ideal conditions. It’s the nature of a long race through the streets.
So because you are not very bright you have decided that “all bets are off,” and “a PR is a PR.”
This is silly. Once we agree to race each other outside of a track on varying courses in city streets and varying weather, all bets are off. A PR is a PR. Short course...no, but reasonable elevation gains and losses and tailwinds come with running outdoors. What if a marathon is run in nice cool weather? Does that not count too? Pros target marathons with ideal conditions. It’s the nature of a long race through the streets.
So because you are not very bright you have decided that “all bets are off,” and “a PR is a PR.”
I think what bigmig19 is trying to say is that there are certain variables to different road and marathon courses that make it different from an indoor track race. Obviously when Des ran 2:22 at Boston there was a massive tailwind that day...no doubt that influenced everyone's time.
A few people like to say "Sage ran his 2:16 on a 'non-legal' course" when in reality (much like Des's Boston Marathon time) it is only a "non-record eligible course."
Both those courses (San Diego Rock n' Roll, Boston) as well as CIM, Grandma's marathon etc courses all fall under this same category. These courses are all "legal" and they count as US Olympic Trials Qualifiers for official times/performances. So yes, I will "count that as my PR".
But in Des's or Sarah Hall's case (going after an official USATF Master's record) one can't ratify this kind of official record on a course without a World Athletics cert. It's really as simple as that.
So because you are not very bright you have decided that “all bets are off,” and “a PR is a PR.”
I think what bigmig19 is trying to say is that there are certain variables to different road and marathon courses that make it different from an indoor track race. Obviously when Des ran 2:22 at Boston there was a massive tailwind that day...no doubt that influenced everyone's time.
A few people like to say "Sage ran his 2:16 on a 'non-legal' course" when in reality (much like Des's Boston Marathon time) it is only a "non-record eligible course."
Both those courses (San Diego Rock n' Roll, Boston) as well as CIM, Grandma's marathon etc courses all fall under this same category. These courses are all "legal" and they count as US Olympic Trials Qualifiers for official times/performances. So yes, I will "count that as my PR".
But in Des's or Sarah Hall's case (going after an official USATF Master's record) one can't ratify this kind of official record on a course without a World Athletics cert. It's really as simple as that.
I know what he is trying to say. It was obvious and not necessary. You are becoming almost pathetic now with your obsession with your PR, and by that I mean you are the typical runner who comes off poorly this way.
I know what he is trying to say. It was obvious and not necessary. You are becoming almost pathetic now with your obsession with your PR, and by that I mean you are the typical runner who comes off poorly this way.
What is actually already very pathetic is this crusade that you and several others seem to be on to prove a point that literally no one else in the running community agrees with.
I know what he is trying to say. It was obvious and not necessary. You are becoming almost pathetic now with your obsession with your PR, and by that I mean you are the typical runner who comes off poorly this way.
What is actually already very pathetic is this crusade that you and several others seem to be on to prove a point that literally no one else in the running community agrees with.
Please explain to me what my point is. Then we can proceed from there.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
