2:14 wasn’t a shock. Scientists already predicted that women were more suited for long distance running than men decades before that. It was shocking that women only started running sub 2:17 after the super shoes.
Scientists may have said that, but I've never seen any real world proof of it. In flat running races, the gap between men and women is fairly consistent.
2:14 wasn’t a shock. Scientists already predicted that women were more suited for long distance running than men decades before that. It was shocking that women only started running sub 2:17 after the super shoes.
Scientists may have said that, but I've never seen any real world proof of it. In flat running races, the gap between men and women is fairly consistent.
Actually you have to segment races based on physiology and consider what the differences are between sexes and how that plays into the limiting factors of that event. In distance running, we do see a real decline in % differences between men and women's record as the distance increases.
5k: 11.3% slower
10k: 10.8% slower
Half Marathon: 9.3% slower
Marathon: 7.8% slower
100k: 7.5% slower
This ignores PED's of course and assumes that if one record is dirty then all are dirty and to the same degree (debatable of course).
Also interesting to consider the effects of new shoe technology and if there are certain body types, sizes, weights and mechanics that the shoes give a bigger advantage to then others. I believe there is something to this and we might not fully understand it yet, and may play into the shoe choice of the WR this past weekend.
Assefa aside, what you see with a lot of the top women is surprisingly inefficient form. We've already seen studies showing super shoes better help 'average joes' than your super efficient elite and with this thought process carried out, you would assume this group might benefit more from the super shoes than their male counterparts.
"To the gill!" "Ruth has ruined the sport!" "Filthy doper!" as always, Letsrunner's first reaction to a jaw-dropping performance is to cry foul. That's understandable, as it's human nature. I'm not gonna say whether she's dirty or not, as that's not the intention of my thread. The only thing I want to point out is that her performance today was not out of the realm of possiblity.
I'll agree with the sentiment but from a different perspective. From a sheer performance results point of view, it's hard to argue that 2:09:56 is not an outlier -- it plainly is -- but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have expected faster marathon times by now.
One of the biggest challenges with assessing women is their comparative lack of depth, and the relative immaturity of the women's events, making some side by side proportional comparisons with the men problematic over these longer distances.
When Paula ran 2:15:25, there was no reason to think that other top women wouldn't have the potential to run comparable times. Yet what happened is that no woman even ran sub-2:18 for 14 more years, until Mary Keitany and Tirunesh Dibaba (who stopped twice) did it in London in 2017.
An important factor is the lack of depth, and lack of pace-making, turning most all marathons into a tactical race that started out too slow. Part of the reason for lack of depth is cultural, as it took longer for East African women to get support and opportunities to compete in larger numbers.
If East African women follow the same perfomance distribution as men, being several minutes faster than their non-African competitors, we could even be so bold as to predict that East African women had the potential to run 2:12-2:13s, before the era of supershoes, but simply never set off at that pace from the start.
When you consider the effect of supershoes bringing an addtional 2-3 minutes, then all of a sudden, a 2:10-ish performance doesn't seem so out of reach. It is only a matter of time when non-African women work up the courage, and get the pacemakers, and start surpassing Paula's records with the new shoes.
"To the gill!" "Ruth has ruined the sport!" "Filthy doper!" as always, Letsrunner's first reaction to a jaw-dropping performance is to cry foul. That's understandable, as it's human nature. I'm not gonna say whether she's dirty or not, as that's not the intention of my thread. The only thing I want to point out is that her performance today was not out of the realm of possiblity.
I'll agree with the sentiment but from a different perspective. From a sheer performance results point of view, it's hard to argue that 2:09:56 is not an outlier -- it plainly is -- but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have expected faster marathon times by now.
One of the biggest challenges with assessing women is their comparative lack of depth, and the relative immaturity of the women's events, making some side by side proportional comparisons with the men problematic over these longer distances.
When Paula ran 2:15:25, there was no reason to think that other top women wouldn't have the potential to run comparable times. Yet what happened is that no woman even ran sub-2:18 for 14 more years, until Mary Keitany and Tirunesh Dibaba (who stopped twice) did it in London in 2017.
An important factor is the lack of depth, and lack of pace-making, turning most all marathons into a tactical race that started out too slow. Part of the reason for lack of depth is cultural, as it took longer for East African women to get support and opportunities to compete in larger numbers.
If East African women follow the same perfomance distribution as men, being several minutes faster than their non-African competitors, we could even be so bold as to predict that East African women had the potential to run 2:12-2:13s, before the era of supershoes, but simply never set off at that pace from the start.
When you consider the effect of supershoes bringing an addtional 2-3 minutes, then all of a sudden, a 2:10-ish performance doesn't seem so out of reach. It is only a matter of time when non-African women work up the courage, and get the pacemakers, and start surpassing Paula's records with the new shoes.
It is never doping with you. That must be because doping never produces performance gains for altitude-trained Kenyan athletes. They show they dope like crazy, but to no effect.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
I'll agree with the sentiment but from a different perspective. From a sheer performance results point of view, it's hard to argue that 2:09:56 is not an outlier -- it plainly is -- but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have expected faster marathon times by now.
One of the biggest challenges with assessing women is their comparative lack of depth, and the relative immaturity of the women's events, making some side by side proportional comparisons with the men problematic over these longer distances.
When Paula ran 2:15:25, there was no reason to think that other top women wouldn't have the potential to run comparable times. Yet what happened is that no woman even ran sub-2:18 for 14 more years, until Mary Keitany and Tirunesh Dibaba (who stopped twice) did it in London in 2017.
An important factor is the lack of depth, and lack of pace-making, turning most all marathons into a tactical race that started out too slow. Part of the reason for lack of depth is cultural, as it took longer for East African women to get support and opportunities to compete in larger numbers.
If East African women follow the same perfomance distribution as men, being several minutes faster than their non-African competitors, we could even be so bold as to predict that East African women had the potential to run 2:12-2:13s, before the era of supershoes, but simply never set off at that pace from the start.
When you consider the effect of supershoes bringing an addtional 2-3 minutes, then all of a sudden, a 2:10-ish performance doesn't seem so out of reach. It is only a matter of time when non-African women work up the courage, and get the pacemakers, and start surpassing Paula's records with the new shoes.
It is never doping with you. That must be because doping never produces performance gains for altitude-trained Kenyan athletes. They show they dope like crazy, but to no effect.
It is never doping with you. That must be because doping never produces performance gains for altitude-trained Kenyan athletes. They show they dope like crazy, but to no effect.
Doped or not, these arguments still stand.
No, they don't. They are merely your assertions that ignore anything that runs counter to them, much the same as your insistence that Houlihan is not a doper because they never found the "source" of the nandrolone. They didn't have to. It was in her body. Chepngetich most likely has something similar in hers, to finish in the top ten males in the race.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
No, they don't. They are merely your assertions that ignore anything that runs counter to them, much the same as your insistence that Houlihan is not a doper because they never found the "source" of the nandrolone. They didn't have to. It was in her body. Chepngetich most likely has something similar in hers, to finish in the top ten males in the race.
Sure they do, especially when they are unrebutted. The arguments apply even if all the times are doped.
No, they don't. They are merely your assertions that ignore anything that runs counter to them, much the same as your insistence that Houlihan is not a doper because they never found the "source" of the nandrolone. They didn't have to. It was in her body. Chepngetich most likely has something similar in hers, to finish in the top ten males in the race.
What's the point of writing something that's so demonstrably false?
The men's WR in 2003 was still Kannouchi's mark of 2:05:38 from London in 2002.
Paula Radcliffe ran 2:15:25 in London in 2003.
That's 9:47 slower than the men's WR.
Chepngetich's mark is 9:21 slower than the men's WR today.
Comparing apples to apples, I consider Kipchoge's 1:59:40 the world record when comparing to the man-paced women's WR.
Kipchoge had a phalanx of pacers, who subbed in and out and ran on pace lights. This is not at all comparable with having two pacers (one beyond 30k) who are left to their own devices for pacing.
And that's without mentioning all of the other assistance Kipchoge had.
Comparing apples to apples, I consider Kipchoge's 1:59:40 the world record when comparing to the man-paced women's WR.
Kipchoge had a phalanx of pacers, who subbed in and out and ran on pace lights. This is not at all comparable with having two pacers (one beyond 30k) who are left to their own devices for pacing.
And that's without mentioning all of the other assistance Kipchoge had.
But Kipchoge didn't look tired at all, and he did kick later on that run. Many suspect he could run 1:58 that day. Same goes to Kiptum with that ridiculous negative split, except he didn't even have a pacer that could run alongside him.
Its a massive outlier when compared to her own performances. That's what makes it seem especially unbelievable
She had form. Had several times run too quick in the first half then faded late. She had the speed and endurance. Just had to get pacing and hydration right. And of course the shoes keep getting more advantageous, especially about recovery.
She had form. Had several times run too quick in the first half then faded late. She had the speed and endurance. Just had to get pacing and hydration right. And of course the shoes keep getting more advantageous, especially about recovery.
Here's an article that talks more about non-doping reasons like pacing and shoes and peak age:
No, they don't. They are merely your assertions that ignore anything that runs counter to them, much the same as your insistence that Houlihan is not a doper because they never found the "source" of the nandrolone. They didn't have to. It was in her body. Chepngetich most likely has something similar in hers, to finish in the top ten males in the race.
She had form. Had several times run too quick in the first half then faded late. She had the speed and endurance. Just had to get pacing and hydration right. And of course the shoes keep getting more advantageous, especially about recovery.
Here's an article that talks more about non-doping reasons like pacing and shoes and peak age:
You've already posted that excuse for doping on another thread.
You obviously didn't read it if you think it's an excuse for doping. But you are like the people you despise, you only look for confirmation bias. That's why you will never evolve.
You've already posted that excuse for doping on another thread.
Who was talking about doping? Did you read the subject line?
This thread is about her performance. According to the OP, this thread is not about whether she doped: "I'm not gonna say whether she's dirty or not, as that's not the intention of my thread. The only thing I want to point out is that her performance today was not out of the realm of possiblity."
It makes complete sense to link the article here as a follow on reply to Aussiestatman, who also talked about pacing and shoes.
