Please many of you need to stop talking as you got a point in your head and no longer try to access new information. Mary Keitany is trainining for the marathon. Her speed decay is VERY SIMILIAR to Paula Radcliffe and she isn't trying to break the WR this year just sub 2:20! The WR is within her grasp in a couple years as her coach, Renato, and Mary thinks- which is most important!
Pld_Steepler wrote:
"some consider the 2:17.42 the world record, because it was in a all womens race"
What is the Men's WR in an all "All Men's Race" Marathon?! I can't stand the logic of a "All Women's Race" records. Who cares if it done in a "Mixed" race. I think that they should add cheetahs or horses to men's track and road races to provide better competition and lower the current "slow" Men's WRs....
I agree it sucks to have two different categories, but there's no way around it. Paula's 2:15 is one of the greatest distance running performances all time by a man or woman, and I'm not going to strike it from the record books because she had male pacers.
At the same time, it's a HUGE advantage to have a battery of faster and bigger racers who can comfortably tow you through most of the race. So it's the only respectable thing to do to recognize the all-women's record, too. As men don't have this luxury, it means a lot more things have to go right, and more money on pacers for them to produce top times.
What would be ridiculous would be separate records down through all the classes, like fastest all-women's junior race on American soil, etc.
nightline wrote:
Pld_Steepler wrote:"some consider the 2:17.42 the world record, because it was in a all womens race"
What is the Men's WR in an all "All Men's Race" Marathon?! I can't stand the logic of a "All Women's Race" records. Who cares if it done in a "Mixed" race. I think that they should add cheetahs or horses to men's track and road races to provide better competition and lower the current "slow" Men's WRs....
I agree it sucks to have two different categories, but there's no way around it. Paula's 2:15 is one of the greatest distance running performances all time by a man or woman, and I'm not going to strike it from the record books because she had male pacers.
At the same time, it's a HUGE advantage to have a battery of faster and bigger racers who can comfortably tow you through most of the race. So it's the only respectable thing to do to recognize the all-women's record, too. As men don't have this luxury, it means a lot more things have to go right, and more money on pacers for them to produce top times.
What would be ridiculous would be separate records down through all the classes, like fastest all-women's junior race on American soil, etc.
..............
What do you mean don't have this luxury? There are male pacers in just about every major marathon and most of the time MULTI-pacers to ensure at least one pacer can go as far as 25-30kms.
Men have that luxury all the time in most major marathon; however, there are ONLY A HANDFUL of women who can pace a sub 2:20 marathon. Those women who could pace a sub 2:20 marathon rather go to another marathon and race and post 2:22-2:26 for a bigger payday; therefore, in all fairness different start times should be eliminated.
VIPAM wrote:
What do you mean don't have this luxury? There are male pacers in just about every major marathon and most of the time MULTI-pacers to ensure at least one pacer can go as far as 25-30kms.
Men have that luxury all the time in most major marathon; however, there are ONLY A HANDFUL of women who can pace a sub 2:20 marathon. Those women who could pace a sub 2:20 marathon rather go to another marathon and race and post 2:22-2:26 for a bigger payday; therefore, in all fairness different start times should be eliminated.
I don't think you are understanding the point here. Men have pacers, but the world record setter is going to have to pass those pacers at some point if he's going to set the record. The pacers are just guys who are running WR pace but for only 25k or 30k or whatever and then getting passed up by the runner attempting the record or win.
I don't think anyone is saying the women shouldn't be able to do the same thing. What is crazy though is to allow the women to use a male pace who can run women's WR pace (or much faster) all the way to the finish line. If you made the rabbit stop at 25k or 30k, then fine. But to allow him to pace the women all the way in is silly.
But like I said, at the end of the day what we are talking about here is a 2:15 marathon. A time accomplished by thousands of humans on this planet. If the women want to consider it a great record, then I never want to hear any of them object to the phrase "pretty fast for a girl," ever again. Because by celebrating any women's record, this is exactly what they themselves are saying.
Have the women start 10 minutes before the men and that would ensure that no pacer would be pacing the women. If a woman targets a 2:20 pace no 2:10 marathoner would think about trying to catch her just to pace that woman.
On the plus side the women would have the luxury of latching onto some of the men who do catch them and maybe slowing late in the race.
VIPAM wrote:
..............
What do you mean don't have this luxury? There are male pacers in just about every major marathon and most of the time MULTI-pacers to ensure at least one pacer can go as far as 25-30kms.
Men have that luxury all the time in most major marathon; however, there are ONLY A HANDFUL of women who can pace a sub 2:20 marathon. Those women who could pace a sub 2:20 marathon rather go to another marathon and race and post 2:22-2:26 for a bigger payday; therefore, in all fairness different start times should be eliminated.
I think you know what I meant, Vipam. If the race promoter wanted to, and if the women were capable of it, they could hire an entire team of men guaranteed capable of running 2:14 all the way to the line for the women.
There are no men guaranteed capable of running to the line in 2:03.
According to the article all over the web. Mary Keitany, Renato C, and her coach all think in the future Mary is capable of trying for Paula's 2:15:25 WR. The marathon in the fall is to get her feet wet and target 2:20 or slightly faster for now. I think they know a heck of alot more than the posters saying she don't have any chance LOL.
In autumn Keitany plans to make her debut at the distance. But she is already putting in the mileage that suits a marather.
“Of course it can vary a lot, but she has run between 180 and 200 kilometres in her recent training already”, said Nicola, who intends to add more kilometres to her weekly total during her preparation phase.
“So far my longest training runs were 30 kilometres”, Keitany said. Asked about her biggest goals, she first mentions the Olympics in London in 2012. “It would be huge to win the Olympic gold medal in the marathon.” But there is also another major dream in the future: “Maybe one day I am able to attack the world marathon record,” but she knows full well how tough that will be.
“Right now we cannot speak about the marathon world record," Nicola said. "But Mary has the potential to go for it in the future. That does not mean that she will break it. But there are not many runners who can even think of attacking this record."
“Mary has great potential, we are lucky to have her. We will only get a Mary Keitany every 20 years.”
there is no question about it!
she has all it takes, unless she messes up somewhere!
The potential is there!
This year in debut Mary Keitany will run 2:19:xx. In 1-3 years she will run 2:14:xx.
'It's what you ran lately that counts'! Tell that to Roger Bannister you foul-mouthed angry idiot. Paula may never get back to 2:15 but the record remains. Good luck to Mary.
The marathon training Mary is doing should help her improve her personal best in all the distance from 10000m, road, and up to the marathon. By the end of 2010 I wouldn't be surprised if her pb were 10000m was 30:32.5, 10km road 30:21, 15km 46:42, 1/2 marathon 1:05:54 WR, and marathon 2:17:52
Renato Canova wrote:Speaking now about what she can do, using some mathematic calculation, is like to speak about fried air.
Every type of calculation is useless...
drivel
it is becoming clear you are either
1) showing signs of alzheimers
2) have no clue of mathematics
3) are a moron
certainly 2 of above have been obvious from your long ago get go
it was asked if "she coud take down record ?"
off a 1"19'50+ & current mid-66, the answer is clearly NO if you had even the numbskull to look at any charts/formulas on the web, but you are obviously too 2) & 3) to have done so
the "correct" response wouda been to state
she has run the times in her career off no M mileage training & therefore, as yet, it cannot be speculated as to how fast she will go for the M
we have to wait until she adopts M training & then view her new 1/2M & 25k performances as potential extrapolators
try again...
Vent3
Thats abit harsh to be speaking to Renato who currently coaches/oversees or have in the past MANY top elite runners. Just because he doesn't agree with you is no need to start slanging mud.
Mary Keitany just destroyed the 25km world best by over 2 minutes which surely indicates she is in better shape than when she ran her 1/2 marathon pb of 1:06:2?. Maybe Renato is making his assestment off her current workouts which is superior to anything she's done previously!
May be that my language is not perfect, so I try to better explain what I want to say, without using bad words (that is a peculiarity of Ventolin, may be he knows that way to expression only...).
For calculating what an athlete can run in a LONGER event, basing the calculation on the performance in a SHORTER event, we must know 2 things :
a) The REAL type of training used at the moment
b) The ability in ADAPTATION to the new requirements for the new distance.
For example, if an athlete is able to improve his PB in HM during a REAL preparation for the Marathon, it means that can run a marathon very fast ; but, IF WE LOOK AT THE PB IN HM AS MARK FOR HIS FULL MARATHON WITHOUT KNOWING HIS REAL TRAINING, the HM is completely useless. We have the example of Zersenay Tadesse : if he CAN (we don't know) and WANT to become a Marathon runner, probably he needs to change completely his training, BECAUSE IT'S NOT POSSIBLE RUNNING THE WR IN HM WITH THE LAST 10 KM IN 27:20 IF YOU DON'T PREPARE HM IN SPECIFIC WAY, and if you use a lot of specific speed you are not able to modify your metabolism in order to reduce the consumption of glycogen, that is the reason because an athlete can last at high speed for 42 km.
And, because every athlete is a different ANIMAL, we cant be sure that everybody can have the attitude for lasting at fast speed longer than 2 hours. So, to use mathematics in athletics is an exercise that cannot give correct informations.
I remember that, some year ago, a group of scientists (specialists in mathematics) made a study talking about the fact that, in 30 years, WOMEN had to overtake the MEN in Marathon. This ABSURD was based on the speed of the improvement in the WR, men and women. But, if we don't know that Marathon is something older than 110 years for men, and only 35 years for women, we cant have any information from the evolution of the WR. In fact, today (2010), nobody is able running like Ingrid Kristiansen and Joan Benoit in 1985...
Other scientists, at the beginning of 1970, made a calculation of the age average for all the Olympic finalists (from 1948 to 1968) in 100m, that was about 22 years, concluding that, after that age, the specific attitudes of a sprinter (reaction, explosivity, elasticity, flexibility, rapidity, etc...) went to decrease. So, they confused a situation depending on SOCIAL FACTORS (at that time, athletics was an activity not professional, no money, the best sprinters were students in US Universities and, finishing their education at the age of 22, had to quit their activity looking for a job) with a PHYSIOLOGICAL phenomen. If they knew T&F, they could know that, for example, one of the US runners in the relay 4x100 winning OG '72 was Mel Pender, 37 years old ; that Mike Larrabee won 400m in Tokyo '64 when was 32 ; that in the past Lord Burghley and in Italy Carlo Facelli were able running 400 HS at top level when were 35 (Facelli still good at 40 !).
NEVER a women can beat a WR of a men in any events. This for a very simple reason : there are big differences in morphology, physiology, muscular strenght, BECAUSE MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT ANIMALS in the human race.
There are 2 types of science :
a) The science that can study the PHENOMEN (in this case the goal is TO EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENS, but the phenomen is at the center of everything)
b) The science that can BUILD THE PHENOMEN (in this case what happens depends on the previous scientific preparation, that is the BASE for the development of the action)
In Italian (I don't have here an English dictionary, so I cant be correct in this for me difficult explanation), the first type of Science is called "Sperimentale" (because can study what already exists), the second type is called "Induttiva" (because can create something new based on the knowledge of the theory). For example, the MEDICINE is a science "Sperimentale" : can only study what already exists (REAL ACTION like base for THEORY). Mathematics is a science "Induttiva" : scientists send around the Moon a shuttle basing its route on a calculation (THEORY base of REAL ACTION).
In this situation, Athletics is a science "sperimentale", nothing to do with mathematics.
Sorry if can be difficult to understand my thought. I hope that somebody can explain in good English what I try to explain, and in any case I think that my concept is clear.
About Mary Keitany, never I speak about WR in Marathon. I cant exclude this after 4-5 years, but frankly it seems to me very far from the possibility of every athlete of today. Paula Radcliffe had a PB of 8'22" in 3000m, very far from the possibility of Mary, that, in my opinion, is more talented for long distances than Paula. Paula was a product of an incredible period of continuity, with an unbelievable concentration and a life totally dedicated to athletics. Under this point of view, there are no African athletes able to have the same level of application.
Speaking about the WR, also we must remember that, when Paula ran 2:15:25, she competed in a race for women only, using male pacers (and now it's not possible to repeat the same escamotage). I had personally 4 pacers in that race. The pacers had to finish the race, and that year the London Marathon had an official classification like 2 different competitions (as on track when we have race 1 and race 2). Of course, from that situation there was some advantage, also if Paula always showed great ability in running in front, against time.
In any case, speaking about 2:15 is, at the moment, something useless. Mary has a big talent : we will try to educate this talent in the best way, and at the end results will speak about what she and our technical management are able to do.
See Vent3
Renato just said what I told you
...........
Mary Keitany just destroyed the 25km world best by over 2 minutes which surely indicates she is in better shape than when she ran her 1/2 marathon pb of 1:06:2?. Maybe Renato is making his assestment off her current workouts which is superior to anything she's done previously!
I have to agree with VIPAM and Renato that Mary Keitany's past personal best doesn't really illustrate what she is capable of in the full marathon. In looking at her personal best 10000m track 32:16 in which she has gone faster in 1/2 marathons, 51:00 open 15km in which again she's better by 2 minutes in 1/2 marathons, and finally her 1:06:36 1/2 marathon in which she was very close to in her 25km WR.
In her last ten 1/2 marathons Mary has won 8 of the 10 with an average of 1:08:06. Her 25km shows if she was pushed or rabbit that SHE COULD RUN 1:05:58 WORLD RECORD for the 1/2 marathon this month.
I think she will have a very good debut- but have a few problems- and post 2:18:52 but get that down to 2:16:49 by her third marathon.
Whichever moderator did The Week That Was is a joke him/herself. Letsrun could be so much more but it has gleefully stepped itself as ONE of the most opinated informative/results/discussion webistes ever.
Letsrun used to be the equivalent of CSPAN or Newsweek of track and field but now has belitted itself to something more on the line of The Inquiry (gossip, lies, and deluded opinions).
Saying that a thread that was created simply to discuss if Mary Keitany has a chance at Paula's WR as ridiculous- show little class. Whats the deal Wejo are you the culprit behind the degrading of Letsrun, if not maybe you should get rid of the moderator who seeks to shock instead of just reporting athletics!
Renato and Mary coach seems to think she has a shot at Paula's 2:15:25 in the future and I think they know more about her abilites and current training to make such a statement!!! So keep you ridiculous opinions to yourself since your supposed to be a subjective and informative athletic website.
kevincylo2 wrote:
Paula Radcliffe ran only 2:29:27. That's her f***ing record not 2:15:25. It's what you ran lately that counts. She doesn't deserve her f***ing record. If Keitany beats 2:18:47 then that's the real record.
Once a record is set, doesn't it simply stand regardless of the condition of the person who set it? It's a time people are setting their sights on, not the person who ran that time. When Cal Ripken broke Lou Gehrig's streak, Gehrig had long passed on, but the streak was still his until Ripken broke it. Why then shouldn't Radcliffe's record still be hers until/unless someone breaks it?
debut 2:19:01
career personal best 2:14:52 WR
Mary doesn't race enough. I want to see her in action after Berlin also cause I care about her and want her to succeed. I wish she'll bupa manchester 10k. She could run 30:44 there.