commentary boxer wrote:
Barker is a joke, would we have Gary Linekar on athletics coverage? She serves no purpose than ask banal questions which a 5 year old would answer. She must have kitted herself out at a C&A closing down sale ten years ago. The sport has to be dynamic, not some old hat middle class crap like Wimbledon, our sport can be truly exciting.
Wow, how nice
wannabekila wrote:
Why? Because the marathon only became a world event in 1983.
Could that possibly be because the first Worlds Championships was held in 1983?
3rd in the team race too!
good work brit ladies
Did Debbie Robinson get a medal even though she dropped out? Did any other teams (other than the first 3) finish teams?
Team results are on the WC website in detail.
Summary:
1. Kenya
2. Japan
3. GB&NI
4. Ethiopia
5. DPR Korea
6. USA
7. New Zealand
The results are done on cumulative time, not positions. Great performance from the British women.
3 to score.
If you drop out you don't get a medal
Time-to-Run wrote:
Here is a point scoring system to derive who will become the World's best Marathon runner, note that this was established before Radcliffe became a marathon runner.
It may not be a foolproof system but it provides an interesting guideline in determining
http://www.time-to-run.com/marathon/athletes/scoring.htm
When I add up Radcliffe's career record here, I get 225 points -- which leaves her second to Waitz
I didn't add up N'Dereba's record but I imagine it would be somewhere near 200
steepler wrote:
Ingrid was paced in her WR in London i think by Mick McGeogh. Unfortunatley he couldn't keep up!
She wasn't. Mick did pace her in London, but I think it was the year before she set the WR (it definitely wasn't the same year).
If we also look at Paula's only defeat, it is worth noting that it occurred in a race where she was always going to race even if she wasn't totally fit. I doubt very much PR would line up for a big city marathon if she found herself in the condition she was in Athens...
In short, the Olympics is probably the easiest race for an athlete to loose given that the prestige they carry means that athletes will turn up for them even if they are not ready.
Put it down to bad preparation or bad luck; she lost. But the fact remains that PR is pretty much unbeatable when she is on top form.
blaine wrote:
I personally think she is, in fact, the greatest female marathoner of all time, but unless she goes without a loss in the remainder of her marathons and continues to post incredible times, she won't be considered the greatest very long. Someone faster will come along, win consistently, AND win an olympic gold. The olympic gold is what would have given her an enduring legacy.
Jackhole Productions wrote:
Using your logic, it doesn't matter whether she wins 10 Olympic Golds and retires at 75 with a 2:11 PR, she'll only be the best until someone better comes along.
I think the idea in these "all-time best" arguments is to limit the scope of performances to those that have already been posted.
Jackhole, your peception of my logic is exactly opposite from what I said. My logic is that ONE gold medal would probably have ensured that hers would be a name mentioned as "all time greatest" for decades and decades to come, when taken into consideration ALONG with the performances she already posted. As it is, without a gold medal, her legacy may not be AS enduring because her times will be bettered sooner or later.
I did say that I think she is presently the greatest female marathoner.
On a cool English day yes, Otherwise no way Limey!
yawn