Putting Shalane's Marathon Debut in Perspective

[quote]Pay attention wrote:

I am not sure she has ever broken 1:15 for half the distance or 33:30 for 10k.

Yes, she has broken 1:15 for the half, you were wrong, he was right. Google can be your friend, if you let it.

10,000 - 34:37

10 Mile - 58:45

20k - 1:11:01

Half Marathon - 1:14:24

25k - 1:30:49

Marathon - 2:33:06

Which one of those times predict a 2:30 marathon? She is much closer to 1:15 than the 1:13 that he said was necessary. According to those PR's, she has already been tapped out in the marathon.

She needs to drop her 10,000 by a minute, her half by about 2 minutes and her marathon by about 4 minutes. She currently would have to run a pr enroute.

First of all, you are the same poster, so man up.

So she, Paige Higgins, can run 35:30 2 times in a row for 20k yet her 10,000 best is only 34:37. Did I lose ya? Can you figure out the obvious? Triple OUCH.........right back at ya!

So Shalane can go 30:22, right? So by the above times, her pr for 20k should be about 31:19 times 2 in a row which is 1:02:38, or we can round it up to 1:03 to make you feel better. No way can Shalane do that and no way is 34:37 anywhere near being close to Paige Higgins best effort, injury-free in a 10,000 race. By the way, nor is that 20k time of hers. Are you figuring this out yet? To be perfectly honest, I don't think so.

Checkmate dude, game over!

She states in this interview here, that she is looking for the 5000m American record this spring and what shape she was preparing to be in for NY: http://www.flotrack.org/articles/view/3566-shalane-flanagan

think again......... wrote:

Checkmate dude, game over!

That will not come until the trials. It certainly will be telling.

Well put. It proves the point that we'll never know and that pr's over this distance or that distance don't mean Jack. You're right, her 20k times versus her 10k times don't make sense. Look at Ritz and his 60:00 then compare that to his marathon best.

For the record, I don't think she'll get third, but I will admit that it's "more" possible for it to happen than impossible. Stranger things have happened for sure.

That is an excellent point. Paige Higgins is my new favorite to win the trials in about 2:22. I never realized how gifted she is. I am sure that Kara and Shalane and Desiree and Magdalena are all fearing the stomping that will be taking place when Ms. Higgins toes the line. Ms. Higgins will probably take it out in about 5:30 pace. This will enable her to pb at every point from 5k on. GO PAIGE.

I think 2009 Marathon Champ Ilsa Paulson is one to watch, if she can get healthy. 2:31:49 in her second marathon over rolling hills (last 10K in 35+ min., CLIMBING!) is no joke. These ladies running low 2:30's or quicker on flat courses have nothing on Ilsa.

Another pointless brain dead LR poster who doesn't understand poop from crap.

Bravo to you sARCASTIC!

No one said she'd even make the team, only that someone in the low 2:30's has an outside chance to make the team.

hINT, it's happened before.

Do you have a clue what Lewy-Boulet's marathon pr was going into the 2008 trials in Boston? Didn't think so.

Obviously too much for you to understand with your limited cells.

Good luck with that Potzie.

gimmeabreak wrote:

yeah, that's right gimmeabreak....she has great genes, runs simply awesome since who knows when....American record holder...and she can only manage 228.....yeah, yeah yeah, her first (big deal) ...all the hype....she's following the money (not a good idea for the task at hand)....she is NOT a marathon runner...yet!

Why...do...you...write...like...this?

Paige's little sister wrote:

Do you have a clue what Lewy-Boulet's marathon pr was going into the 2008 trials in Boston?

I believe that she was 5th in the Trials in 2004 and with Dereuck and Rhines not running, she was 3rd returner in 2008. Not exactly a long shot for those that follow the sport.

Not exactly a favorite in 2008 with her current pr at that time. Then we have to consider those who ran in 2008 that weren't there in 2004...not to mention their pr's. Easy to understand, for those who follow the sport.

Triple Ouch got schooled, bigtime. Go back to junior high gym class, you know nothing about running.

Prove Yourself wrote:

The words you are disagreeing with are those of Roger Robinson. This man is pretty accomplished.

http://roger-robinson.com/about/index.shtml

yes, but not as accomplished as Ms. Flanagan.

Flanagan made her bones by taking risks, entering races at the highest level and earning the right to climb up on podiums.

I can't know what is in his mind, but the shot by Mr. Robinson was elementary if not cheap.

Challenging for the win in Central Park does not need to have a time attached to it. They did not engrave her 10K time in that little medal thing she won just a few months ago.

This goes back to the occasional Letsrun thread "would you give up your a long successful racing career just for one elusive Gold Medal?"

The answer should be, from a 250pound 40 something fat ass: I like this medal thing!

Actually Mr. Robinson has been involved in the sport at an elite level much longer than Shalane has been alive. His own accomplishments are phenomenal and he is married to Kathrine Switzer.

He never said anything negative toward Shalane. At this point her performance was not as strong as Desiree or Magdalena. I am sure that someday she will probably run 2:18. Today she is not as good.

To judge her off of her first marathon is just not very bright. To say today she is not as good is just plain dumb. Sorry, no other way to respond. How did Desiree and Magdalena do in their first marathons? Thank you.

It doesn't matter who he is, no disrespect intended. Don't look at "WHO" is saying this or that, look and listen to "WHAT" they are saying and then decide for yourself. Shalane will end up with a much better career than Goucher or anyone running today. LK may turn out to be pretty good, but I'd still put my money on Shalane. Why? Look at her range and pr's. The answer is in the numbers.