casual obsever wrote:
Well, the 2:14 is just an improvement of 81 seconds in 16 years, which may well be what the shoes gave her. So I am not surprised that people here aren't that impressed. At the same time, the men have improved by over twice that margin.
Shalane's win was great for us, but the race itself was nothing special from the international/neutral point of view: slow start, the leaders together until what, 37, 38k, and then one pulled away for the win in a high 2:26. There have been more exciting ones for sure.
(And Des was second in Chicago, not first, but first and second in Boston.)
Yep, got it mixed up talking about the 2:14 in Chicago. Of course it was Boston.
Anyway, what you're saying is misleading. Here are the top 5 men's marathons:
Eliud Kipchoge (Kenya) 2:01:39
Kenenisa Bekele (Ethiopia) 2:01:41
Birhanu Legese (Ethiopia) 2:02:48
Mosinet Geremew (Ethiopia) 2:02:55
Dennis Kimetto (Kenya) 2:02:57
Women:
Brigid Kosgei (Kenya) 2:14:04
Paula Radcliffe (Great Britain) 2:15:25
Mary Keitany (Kenya) 2:17:01
Ruth Chepngetich (Kenya) 2:17:08
Worknesh Degefa (Ethiopia) 2:17:41
So yes, 81 second improvement but if you take out Paula there is a massive gap to the next. For the men, it would be more like if the third best time was a 2:04:30.
Also, Bekele is 2 seconds behind the record. Where's the other 2:14 female? Yes, the shoes were around for both.
This race should have at least made the top 4. I didn't say it should have won, but it's light-years ahead of even our domestic achievements by women. How did it not make it?